The self-emptying (kenosis)
Excerpt from
Jesus’ Example: Prototype of the Dependent, Spirit-Filled Life
by Klaus Issler
Chapter Summary
Our Lord Jesus Christ, in his common life with us, gave believers of all time a genuine model for how to live the
Christian life beyond the limitations of an average human life. I argue specifically that Jesus Christ’s supernaturally
oriented life on this earth resulted from his predominant dependence on the divine resources of the Father and of the
Holy Spirit, while employing his own divine powers infrequently, if at all. Without an appreciation of the
dependence Jesus exercised in the Father and in the Holy Spirit, it is not possible to understand how Jesus can be our
genuine example—this is a critical missing ingredient for a robust imitatio Christi.
Axioms for Christological Study
1. Jesus is an example for all Christians.
2. What is unexemplified in Jesus’ life cannot be an example for Christians.
3. Much of Jesus’ mission on Earth was unique to him as the Messiah-King, yet what Christians can share in
common with Jesus is the manner in which he lived and in which he carried out his mission.
We esteem Olympic athletes who reach their goal after struggling against severe obstacles. Is Jesus such a hero
to Christians? Did Jesus genuinely struggle against the challenges of life just like us? Or, while he lived on Earth
and engaged in ministry to others, did Jesus have access to something extra that is unique to him and unavailable to
believers?
In this chapter, I examine the biblical teaching of Jesus’ authentic human experience in relation to the scriptural
theme that Jesus is our example for living the Christian life. I argue specifically that Jesus Christ’s supernaturally
oriented life on this earth resulted from his predominant dependence on the divine resources of the Father and the
Holy Spirit, while living fully in his humanity, employing his own divine powers infrequently, if at all. This claim is
not a novel one. Thomas Oden, a theologian who specializes in advocating the consensus views of the Christian
theological tradition, argues that “as a man, Jesus walked day by day in radical dependence upon God the Spirit,
prayed, and spoke by the power of the Spirit. In portraying Jesus as constantly dependent upon the Spirit, the
Gospels were not challenging or questioning his deity or divine Sonship. Rather, as eternal Son the theandric person
already was truly God, while as a man, Jesus was truly human, bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, seed of
Abraham, whose humanity was continually replenished by the Spirit (Luke 4:14; Heb 2:14–17).”2
R. A. Torrey (1856–1928), likewise attempting to articulate only What the Bible Teaches, taught that Jesus “lived,
thought, worked, taught, conquered sin and won victories for God in the power of that same Spirit whom we all may
have.”3 In this chapter I articulate a more nuanced statement of this claim, bringing together the various lines of
scriptural evidence.
First, this chapter will introduce the imitatio Christi theme and present the dependency thesis. Support for the
proposal comes from two lines of evidence: (1) that Jesus depended on the Father (e.g., John 14:10–11) as a human
who himself expressed faith in God (e.g., Heb 12:2), and (2) that Jesus depended on the Holy Spirit (e.g., Acts
10:38). Later, we will address some potential problems. Finally, after discussing Jesus’ childhood, we will explore a
few implications for his childhood, using the proposal as a working hypothesis.
If a convergence of this evidence supports a pervasive theme of dependency in Jesus’ life and ministry, then we may
infer that Jesus depended to a greater degree on the Father and the Spirit and much less upon his own divine power.
The degree to which Jesus depended on the Father and the Spirit, instead of his own divine power, is the degree to
which Jesus can be our genuine example.
The thrust of the project is to draw out implications of an orthodox Christology for practical Christian living. Our
purpose is not to diminish the doctrine of Christ’s deity but rather to enrich our doctrine of sanctification and
Christian living. By refining our understanding of Jesus Christ we can benefit from the Bible’s teaching that Jesus is
our genuine example. Yet as we delve into this mystery—to honor our Lord’s full humanity—we must do so
cautiously so as not to diminish his full deity.4
At a general level it is difficult to deny Jesus’ humanity at the obvious points: he was embodied5 (e.g., he was
thirsty, Matt 25:35; hungry, Matt 4:2; weary, John 4:6; and he died, John 19:30–34). He experienced a full range of
emotions (e.g., weeping, Luke 19:41; compassion, Mark 6:34; righteous anger, Mark 3:5; frustration, Matt 17:17;
and being troubled in spirit, Matt 26:37). Many who encountered him, especially the religious leaders, regarded
Jesus as nothing more than human, not as some kind of alien or superhero from outer space. To paraphrase the
Nazareth folk with whom he grew up, “It’s just Jesus, no one special” (Mark 6:3). Furthermore, Jesus was tempted
(Matt 4:1–11)—a characteristic which Scripture denies of God (Jas 1:13)—yet without sinning (Heb 4:15).
Orthodoxy affirms that Jesus’ humanity was a critical factor for our salvation. Erickson notes: “If . . . Jesus was not
really one of us, humanity has not been united with deity, and we cannot be saved. For the validity of the work
accomplished in Christ’s death, or at least its applicability to us as human beings, depends upon the reality of his
humanity, just as the efficacy of it depends upon the genuineness of his deity.”6 Regarding God’s design of human
nature, Bernard Ramm notes, “In the very act of the creation the possibility of a future incarnation was made
possible. If humankind is produced in the image of God then there is some of that image in God. Hence God can
become incarnate.”7
Furthermore, Paul’s comparison between Adam and Christ bears testimony to the humanity of Jesus (Rom 5:12–21;
1 Cor 15:20–22 and 45–49).8 Through his experiences and suffering as a human, Jesus became our sympathetic high
priest (Heb 2:10–17; 4:15–16; 5:8–10), one who now intercedes for us (Rom 8:34). Thus, Jesus is like us.
In becoming incarnate, our Lord Jesus Christ as one person is both fully divine and fully human. Although this study
emphasizes what is commonly shared between Jesus Christ and all believers, there is no denial that Jesus is also
unique and different from us; he is not merely human. For purposes of analysis in studying Jesus, three layers of
focus are possible: studying Jesus as divine, as divine-human, and as human (see Table 6.1). The first two layers of
analysis focus on aspects unique to Jesus. The final layer focuses exclusively on Jesus’ humanity, what he shares in
common with us, the primary emphasis of this chapter.
As the unique “mediator between God and humankind” (1 Tim 2:5), Jesus can “show us the Father” (John 14:8–10)
and also show us how to live as humans by setting us “an example, that you also should do as I have done to you”
(John 13:15). In his atoning work for us Jesus became our Savior, the unique mediator between God and humankind
(1 Tim 2:5). Luke Johnson notes, “Jesus is not the mediator on the basis of his teachings or deeds, or even as an
object of belief, but on the basis of his very humanity: Jesus is the representative human before the one God.”9
The Imitation of Jesus Christ (imitatio Christi)
The example of Jesus Christ has been an important and continuing theme throughout Church history, as evident in
the popularity of two classic devotional books: The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis (1380–1471) and In His
Steps by Charles Sheldon (1857–1946).10 This theme is currently evident in the abbreviation WWJD: “What would
Jesus do?” Standard orthodox systematic texts frequently employ the term “Christlikeness” or “likeness to Christ”
for the expectation that believers acquire the virtues displayed by Jesus.11 In Christian ethics Jesus is presented as
the ethical standard. For example, Richard Hays notes, “If God really did raise Jesus from the dead, everything that
Jesus taught and exemplified is vindicated by a God more powerful than death. He must therefore be seen as the
bearer of the truth and the definitive paradigm for obedience to God . . . For the church, it is perhaps important to
know that the obedience of faith was lived out in history by the flesh-and-blood man Jesus, for his example teaches
us that to trust in the power of God over history is not to trust in vain.”12
Within spiritual formation, Dallas Willard claims that Jesus Christ demonstrates how believers can live the Christian
life. “Jesus came among us to show and teach the life for which we were made . . . Indeed, by taking the title Son of
man, he staked his claim to be all that the human being was originally supposed to be—and surely much more.
Colloquially we might describe him as humanity’s ‘fair-haired boy,’ the one who expresses its deepest nature and on
whom its hopes rest.”13
Biblical Basis for Imitating Jesus
The biblical evidence that believers should imitate the example of Jesus is culled from various approaches.14 First,
the main New Testament passages explicitly teaching the imitation of Jesus Christ are these:
1. from Jesus’ own lips in John 13:15,15
2. from Paul in Philippians 2:4–11 (see further comments below),
3. from Peter in 1 Peter 2:21–23, and
4. from the author of Hebrews 12:1–6.
Second, various commands to believers identify Jesus’ life and specific character traits as the standard to follow,
using the connectives “just as/as” (e.g., hoµsper, kathoµs) or “also/too” (Matt 20:28;16 John 13:14,15,34; 15:12;
Rom 6:11; 15:3,7; 2 Cor 1:5; Eph 5:2,25,29; Heb 4:15; 1 Pet 4:1; 1 John 2:6; 3:3,16; see also Eph 4:32; Col 3:13;
1 Tim 1:16). Additionally, a few passages indicate a mutuality of shared experience—suffering is mentioned most
often—between Jesus Christ and believers (John 17:14,16; 20:21; Rom 8:17,29; 2 Cor 8:9; 10:1; Phil 3:10–11; Col
1:24; 1 John 1:7; 3:3).
Third, Paul urged believers to imitate his own example (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:6; 2 Thess 3:7–9; and
1 Tim 1:16) just as he imitated the example of Jesus (1 Cor 11:1; cp. 1 Thess 1:6). Peter exhorted elders to serve as
examples (1 Pet 5:3), alluding implicitly to Jesus’ teaching that he was an example of servanthood (e.g., Matt 20:25–
28; Luke 22:27; John 13:15).
Concerns about Imitating Jesus
Some scholars are not convinced that the New Testament writers actually present Jesus’ life on Earth as an example
for believers and argue that instead of imitation the New Testament always stresses allegiance and obedience to the
risen Lord. For example, Wilhelm Michaelis claimed of the verb “to imitate”: “There is thus no thought of an
imitation, whether outward or inward, of the earthly life of Jesus in either individual features or total impress. The
call for an imitatio Christi finds no support in the statements of Paul.”17 Others claim that Jesus’ command to follow
him (e.g., John 8:12; 10:27) cannot be a call to imitation, but rather a call to be a loyal disciple of the Lord Jesus. An
alleged distinction must be made between the word “to follow” (akoloutheo), which occurs only in the Gospels and
Acts, and “to imitate” (mimeomai), occurring only in the Epistles. Yet Kevin Giles notes, “The contrast between the
Gospels and the Epistles in relation to imitating Christ is therefore, in essence, not one of emphasis or theme but
only one of terminology.”18
Some reluctance regarding the imitation of Christ among Protestants may stem from Martin Luther’s own suspicion
of the concept, particularly that it may imply works and moral endeavor rather than God’s grace. Rather than
imitatio, Luther preferred to speak of conformitas to Christ, a process of conformation to Christ through the work of
the Spirit. Yet, Tinsley notes, imitation must remain as a legitimate theological concept: “In a fully developed
theology of the Christian life as imitation of Christ both the terms conformitas and imitatio would need to be used.
The imitative life of the Christian involves both God’s activity, through the Spirit, in conforming man to his image
in Christ (conformitas), and man’s focusing of his moral and spiritual attention on the exemplary, Christ
(imitatio).”19
Marguerite Shuster raises legitimate concerns about studying Jesus as our example: “My fundamental point is that
what we need, and what the New Testament offers us, is first and foremost, not an example, but a Savior. My major
caveat with respect to imitation themes is that they tend to obscure that fundamental point.”20 Any exclusive focus
on the example of Jesus effectively truncates the genuine gospel. Sanctification must never be reduced to our own
moral effort. It is a process in which God the Spirit works, and in which we cooperate, attending to what is in our
power to do, sustained by God’s power (e.g., Eph 4:17–24; Phil 2:12–13). Yet once Jesus is affirmed as our Savior
and our high priest, can Jesus also serve as our example to imitate?
We must approach this exemplar teaching with humility, even though it seems audacious that we can follow Jesus’
example. As Shuster notes, “Even the thought that we could actually do as Jesus would do is a rather heady idea . . .
we shall surely fail utterly at our best efforts to follow in Jesus’ footsteps except insofar as the Spirit enables us.”21
Despite various concerns, Shuster affirms that the New Testament presents Jesus as our example. “It would seem
evident that, even if some qualifications may sometimes be required, the thought of Jesus as model is not lacking in
the New Testament, and insofar as it is present, surely it commends itself to us . . . the exemplary strain does exist
and should not just be ignored.”22
Special Case of Philippians 2
One final qualification is based on the interpretation of the classic passage of Philippians 2:5–11, centered on the
exhortation, “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus.” Is this a text about imitating Christ? In his
often-cited study, Ralph Martin claims that the focus of Paul’s exhortation appears in the last three verses
emphasizing the exaltation of Christ. Thus Jesus’ earthly life is not the central feature of this passage: “The
Apostolic summons is not: Follow Jesus by doing as He did—an impossible feat in any case, for who can be a
‘second Christ’ who quits His heavenly glory and dies in shame and is taken up into the throne of the universe? The
appeal and injunction to the Philippians in their pride and selfishness are rather: Become in your conduct and church
relationships the type of persons who, by that kenosis, death and exaltation of the Lord of glory, have a place in His
body, the Church.”23 Martin seems to confuse the tasks of Jesus’ vocation, which are unique, with the manner in
which he lived to carry out his vocation. We do not emulate his mission, and callings will vary among us, but we can
emulate Jesus’ manner of living.
Yet other New Testament scholars affirm the traditional view that Paul uses the example of the earthly Jesus as an
encouragement to follow in his footsteps.24 Moreover, Joseph Hellerman has argued that Paul intentionally turns
upside down the normal Roman honor motif in Philippi, which highlighted an upward movement toward success.
I maintain that Paul, in his portrayal of Jesus in [Philippians 2] verses 6–8, has taken Rome’s cursus ideology and
turned it on its head, so to speak, as he presents Christ descending a cursus pudorum (“a succession or race of
ignominies”) from equality with God, to the status of a slave, to the physical and social death of public crucifixion
. . . The presentation, I suggest, was intended by Paul . . . to encourage persons in the church who possessed some
degree of honor or status in the broader social world of the colony to utilize their status, after the analogy of Jesus, in
the service of others.25
Thus, Philippians 2:5–11 offers a strong case for Jesus as our example.Jesus’ human life accomplished much more
than being our example, yet his example for believers cannot be ignored.
Jesus’ Divine Dependency
Having affirmed the biblical support for Jesus as our example, let us explore how that is possible since Jesus has two
natures. In this section I present the problem, identify some options, and then defend my proposal that Jesus
predominantly lived a dependent, Spirit-filled life on this earth as our example.
The Problem and Possible Options
In studying Jesus’ state of humiliation on this earth (i.e., his unglorified human nature), we must account for the
apparent incompatibility between his human nature (e.g., human “weaknesses” of temptability, weariness, death),
and his divine nature (especially the three “omni” attributes).26 For example, Leon Morris notes that in his humanity
Jesus was to some extent ignorant. “Ignorance is an inevitable accompaniment of the only human life that we know
. . . Sometimes one meets people who overlook this aspect of Jesus’ life. They picture him going on a serene way,
knowing the thoughts of everyone about him, knowing the outcome of every course of action in which he or they
were engaging. If this was the manner of it, then the life Jesus lived was not a human life, even human life at its
highest level.”27
How, then, was it possible for Jesus to express human powers in light of his divine powers, since the use of certain
divine attributes would seem to override the use of corresponding human attributes? The orthodox explanation is
that, during Jesus’ state of humiliation, the incarnation involved not only the addition of human nature but also some
form of veiling or concealment of his divine glory (e.g., John 17:5). John Calvin notes that Jesus “took the image of
a servant, and content with such lowness, allowed his divinity to be hidden by a ‘veil of flesh.’”28
The concept of veiling is developed in several key passages (e.g., John 17:5; 2 Cor 8:9; Eph 4:10; Phil 2:7; Heb 5:7–
9). According to Ben Witherington, the verb “emptied himself” [ekenoµsen29] in Philippians 2:7 “must have some
content to it, and it is not adequate to say Christ did not subtract anything since in fact he added a human nature. The
latter is true enough, but the text says that he did empty himself or strip himself. What it does not tell us explicitly is
of what he emptied himself. The contrast between verses 6b and 7a is very suggestive; that is, Christ set aside his
rightful divine prerogatives or status. This does not mean he set aside his divine nature, but it does indicate some
sort of self-limitation, some sort of setting aside of divine rights or privileges.”30 Although Jesus was God, he veiled
his deity, permitting himself to experience a normal human life with its attendant weaknesses (Heb 2:17).
Some prefer to leave the mystery of the incarnation as is, not explaining but simply reasserting the two natures. For
example, some rely on a reduplicative strategy as the sole means of explaining the apparent incompatibility of the
two natures.31 They argue, for example, that Jesus as God is omniscient, but that Jesus as man is not; that Jesus as
God is upholding the universe with his omnipotence, but Jesus as man can get weary.32 Yet others think it
worthwhile to explain the matter further, although at some point we must all bow to this divine mystery.
What is at issue is the overpowering nature of the three “omni” attributes—omnipotence, omnipresence, and
omniscience—in relation to the corresponding and finite human attributes. To clarify differences among
incarnational views, A. H. Strong outlined five general categories (with his own view, identified as the True View,
“midway between two pairs of erroneous views”):
(1) Gess: The Logos gave up all divine attributes;
(2) Thomasius: The Logos gave up relative attributes only;
(3) True View: The Logos gave up the independent exercise of
divine attributes;
(4) Old Orthodoxy: Christ gave up the use of divine attributes;
(5) Anselm: Christ acted as if he did not possess divine attributes.33
Contemporary orthodox views would fit within the third and fourth categories, yet these particular groupings are too
broad.
Perhaps a focus on one divine attribute, omnipotence, offers a way to explore further both the apparent
incompatibility of Jesus’ divine and human attributes and the role of the Father and of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ life
and ministry. By what supernatural or divine power did Jesus live his life on Earth? Jesus had access to two possible
sources of divine power: either (1) his own divine power, or (2) the divine resources of the Father and the Holy
Spirit.
Three logical positions are possible along this spectrum:
1. Occasionally Dependent. At times, Jesus used his own divine power, while at other times he relied on the divine
resources of the Father and the Holy Spirit. John Walvoord seems to hold this view:
On two specific occasions Christ is revealed to have performed His miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit (Matt
12:28; Luke 4:14–18). In these instances Christ chose voluntarily to be dependent upon the power of the Father and
the Holy Spirit to perform His miracles. In view of the fact that this is mentioned only twice and hundreds of
miracles were performed, it would seem clear that Christ exercised His own [divine] power when He chose to do so
as, for instance, when He commanded the waves to be still and caused Lazarus to come forth from the tomb at His
command. The anointing of the Holy Spirit (cp. Lk 4:18) would support the conclusion that many of Christ’s
miracles were performed in the power of the Holy Spirit, but his deity still included omnipotence which was not
surrendered in the kenosis.34
2. Predominantly Dependent. Jesus lived normally within his own human power, relying predominantly on the
divine resources of the Father and the Holy Spirit, while using his own divine power infrequently, if at all. Paul
Feinberg notes, “The kenosis required that Jesus depend on the Holy Spirit. This is simply the other side of his
voluntary setting aside of his position. As true man, he walked in dependence on the Spirit (e.g., Matt 12:28, Luke
4:14–18).”35
3. Exclusively Dependent. Jesus lived exclusively within his own human power without any recourse to his own
divine power, but relied exclusively on the divine resources of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Gerald Hawthorne,
who seems to hold this view, explains that “without denying the reality of the incarnation, or that God became a
man, it is the purpose of this book, nevertheless, to argue for the reality of Jesus’ humanness and that as such he was
not aided to rise above and conquer temptations as God, but rather as a man whose will was set to do the will of
God. His sinlessness was nothing other than the continued obedience to the Father and to the Father’s will.”36
Some might wonder, Why worry about the source of Jesus’ supernatural power? Does it really matter? If we hold to
supernatural theism, then Jesus’ supernatural life and his ministry of miracles actually occurred and touched the
lives of many in his day, whether he used his own divine power or relied on the supernatural power of the Father and
the Holy Spirit. Yet the critical issue raised in this chapter is whether Jesus can be our example in his supernaturally
oriented lifestyle. Christians cannot emulate his example if he relied on his own divine power to live and minister to
others. As William Barry argues, “If Jesus is superhuman, then I can admire him, but I do not have to take seriously
his call to emulate him. I can never be a superhuman being.”37 To the extent Jesus lived within his humanity and
relied on the divine power of the Father and the Son, to that extent, Jesus can genuinely be an example we can
emulate.38
This study will argue for option 2, against option 1, that rather than occasional dependence, Jesus predominantly
depended on the Father and the Holy Spirit for his life and ministry on earth.39 Defending the thesis that Jesus was
predominantly dependent on the Father and Spirit requires some sort of accounting for the occasions on which Jesus
apparently did make use of his own divine power. These occasions are infrequent but are part of the evidence pool
and cannot be simply disregarded. Advocates of exclusive dependence on the Father and Spirit (option 3) would
have to explain these divine manifestations as the Father’s or the Spirit’s action through the humanity of Jesus. But
my claim is that Jesus was predominantly, though not exclusively, dependent on the Father and Spirit. Therefore, the
following special cases can be acknowledged:
1. Jesus forgave sins. Exclusivists argue that he was declaring God’s forgiveness as God’s agent and
representative.
2. Jesus was transfigured. Exclusivists argue that this was the display of his messianic, not divine, glory.
3. Jesus displayed his glory at his first miracle at Cana (John 2:11). Exclusivists claim this too as a display
of messianic glory.
4. Jesus responded to the soldiers’ question with “I am” and they fell down (John 18:6; Beasley-Murray
argues that this reflects their shock at Jesus’ direct self-disclosure and claim to be God40).
5. Jesus yearned for his preexistent glory with the Father (John 17:5). Exclusivists could view this as a
prayer based on inference, not necessarily his current experience.
If these are genuine cases of Jesus’ using his own divine powers, the proposal I am defending in this chapter (option
2) permits this. In my view, Jesus’ normal course of action was to depend on the Father and Spirit working through
his humanity, but this does not exclude exceptional manifestations of the divine nature which, after all, orthodox
Christology affirms him to possess.
The argument is developed along two broad themes, presenting evidence for Jesus’ dependence on the Father and on
the Holy Spirit. Further, his dependence on the Father can be subdivided into his explicit dependence and his
implicit dependence (especially seen in his personal faith).
Jesus’ Dependence on the Father’s Resources
Jesus depended explicity on the Father. There are multiple occurrences of Jesus’ own declaration of his complete
dependence on the Father in the Gospel of John. “Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only
what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise” (John 5:19). Similar
declarations appear also in John 5:30; 7:28–29; 8:28–29,42; 12:49–50; 14:10,26,31; 15:9–10,15; 16:32; and 17:8,18.
Later in John’s Gospel, Jesus develops a parallel between his dependency on the Father as the analogy for how his
disciples will depend on him. For example we can compare John 5:19, quoted above with John 15:5: “I am the vine,
you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do
nothing.” Jesus offers himself as an example of dependency for believers.41
Jesus depended implicitly on the Father. Evidence of his faith in God the Father is found in (1) a study of Hebrews
12:2, (2) his claims about having faith, and (3) the phrase “pistis Christou.” That Jesus himself expressed faith
during his earthly sojourn did not cross the minds of some translators of Hebrews 12:2, so they inserted an “our” in
the text, making it read “looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith” (NRSV; so also, KJV, NIV, and
NET Bible). We can trace that view at least as far back as Aquinas, who believed Jesus had the full beatific vision of
God in the cradle as a new infant, eliminating any need for faith in God. Gerald O’Collins notes: “Aquinas and the
subsequent Catholic theological tradition held that in his human mind Jesus enjoyed the beatific vision and hence
lived by sight, not by faith. Aquinas expressed classically this thesis: ‘When the divine reality is not hidden from
sight, there is no point in faith. From the first moment of his conception Christ had the full vision of God in his
essence . . . Therefore he could not have had faith’ (Summa theologiae, 3a. 7. 3 resp.).”42
The New American Standard Bible translates Hebrews 12:2 “Fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of
faith.” Many recent commentators take this approach. Lane explains: “The poignant description as a whole points to
Jesus as the perfect embodiment of faith, who exercised faith heroically. By bringing faith to complete expression,
he enabled others to follow his example. The phrase reiterates and makes explicit what was affirmed with a
quotation from Scripture in [Hebrews] 2:13, that Jesus in his earthly life was the perfect exemplar of trust in God.”43
Donald Hagner adds, “[Jesus] is not only the basis, means, and fulfillment of faith, but in his life he also exemplifies
the same principle of faith that we saw in the paragons of [Hebrews] chapter 11.”44
The writer to the Hebrews twice uses the distinctive term archeµgos for Jesus (Heb 2:8; 12:2, [cf. Acts 3:15],
translated by NRSV and NIV as “pioneer” and by NASB as “author;” or could also be translated as “initiator” or
“forerunner”). In light of the athletic imagery, Lane suggests the use of “champion” as appropriate, with some
connection to the Greek tradition of Hercules: Jesus is “the champion in the exercise of faith and the one who
brought faith to complete expression.”45 Harold Attridge notes: “Of equal importance is the fact that [Jesus] provides
a perfectly adequate model of what life under that covenant involves. Thus the ‘faith’ (pisteoµs) that Christ
inaugurates and brings to perfect expression is not the content of Christian belief, but the fidelity and trust that he
himself exhibited in a fully adequate way and that his followers are called upon to share . . . It is precisely as the one
who perfectly embodies faith that he serves as the ground of its possibility in others (archeµgos-aitios [“source”])
and the model they are to follow (archeµgos-prodromos [“forerunner,” Heb 6:20]).”46
Furthermore, in the Gospel account of the healing of the demonized son, some commentators suggest that Jesus’
reply to the father’s request in Mark 9:23 is both a challenge to the father, and also a testimony of his own life of
faith, “And Jesus said to him, ‘“If You can!” All things are possible to him who believes’” (NASB). Sharyn Dowd
explains, “Jesus is not merely an example to be imitated, but a leader to be followed. It is likely, then, that ‘the one
who believes’ in 9:23 is deliberately ambiguous. Jesus has faith and he calls the father to have faith.”47 Ian Wallis
notes, “The disciples may have been ineffectual . . . owing to their oligopistia [‘little faith’], but Jesus was
successful because he demonstrated that faith . . . a faith which all who intend to fulfill Christ’s commission must
demonstrate.”48 O’Collins agrees, “[Jesus] speaks about faith as an insider, one who knows personally what the life
of faith is and wants to share it with others (see 2 Cor 4:13).”49 If Jesus was such an insider as a man of faith
himself, then when he criticizes the disciples for their lack of faith (e.g., Matt 6:30; 8:26; 16:8 oligopistoi, “little
faiths”), he speaks as one who experientially knows what he is talking about.
Finally, support for Jesus’ faith also comes from reconsidering the Greek phrase pistis Christou, which appears in
seven verses of Paul (Rom 3:22,26; Gal 2:16 [twice]; 2:20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) as well as in Acts 3:16 and
Revelation 14:12. The traditional translation has been as an objective genitive (“faith in Christ”). There is general
agreement that believers must place their faith in Jesus, as taught in other New Testament passages (e.g., John 3:16;
Acts 20:21; Col 1:4; 1 John 3:23). The debate concerns whether the genitive noun (Jesus, or Son of God) is either
objective or subjective. More commentators are recognizing the phrase as a subjective genitive, that is, “faith [or
faithfulness] of Jesus,” that Jesus himself experienced faith in God.50 Thus, that Jesus depended on the Father is both
explicitly and implicitly evident in Scripture.
Jesus’ Dependence on the Divine Resources of the Holy Spirit
Is the role of the Spirit superfluous or necessary in Jesus’ life and ministry? As the Anointed One, Jesus was the
unique bearer of the Spirit (Luke 4:16–21) given without measure (John 3:34). Old Testament prophecies51 and the
Gospels portray the Holy Spirit as being associated with the Messiah. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matt
1:20; Luke 1:35); was full of the Spirit and led by the Holy Spirit (e.g., Luke 4:1); was empowered by the Spirit
(e.g., Luke 4:16); cast out demons by the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:28 = Luke 11:20); and gave instructions by the Holy
Spirit (Acts 1:2).
Although the quantity of Gospel passages mentioning the Spirit is less than what might be expected,52 the Gospels
do give important emphasis to the role of the Spirit in the life of Jesus. G. R. Beasley-Murray explains, “Prominence
is given to narratives associated with the Spirit’s action in the life of Jesus through occurring at a prominent point in
the Gospels, namely at their beginning.”53 In Mark 1:8–13 the Spirit is mentioned three times in relation to Jesus’
baptism and temptation.54 Matthew indicates the Spirit’s involvement six times, the first three in the announcement
related to Jesus’ conception (1:18,20 twice), and the other three in relating his baptism and temptation (3:1,16; 4:1).
The Spirit is mentioned twelve times in Luke chapters 1–4; three times in John 1, and three more times in John 3.
Thus, regarding prominence at the beginning of their narratives, all four gospels emphasize the role of the Holy
Spirit in Jesus’ life.
Regarding Jesus’ teaching on the Spirit, Beasley-Murray explains, “Inasmuch as he rarely made his vocation [as
bearer of the Spirit] a subject of his instruction, there is as much instruction on the Spirit in the recorded teaching of
Jesus as the situation warranted.”55 Furthermore, the disciples as convinced Jewish monotheists (Deut 6:4) perhaps
were not ready to receive instruction on the third person of the Trinity. For in his teaching, Jesus—in the progress of
revelation—offers the clearest presentation to date that God is a trinitarian Being. Must not Jesus then teach the
concept to his disciples in a careful and progressive manner, first distinguishing the Father from the Son, and then at
some later point teaching about the third person, the Holy Spirit? Gregory of Nazianzus clarifies: “For the matter
stands thus: the Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the
Son, and suggested the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer
demonstration of himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to
proclaim the Son: nor when that of the Son was not yet received, to burden us further (if I may use so bold an
expression) with the Holy Spirit.”56
During the upper room discourse, Jesus presented more systematic teaching about the Spirit, yet the disciples, who
did not comprehend that Jesus would be leaving them shortly to return to the Father, did not seem to pay much
attention. No follow-up questions about the Spirit are recorded (as sometimes occurred with other teachings that
puzzled them, e.g., Matt 13:36; 17:19).
Matthew 12:28 attributes Jesus’ exorcisms to the divine resources of the Holy Spirit: “But if it is by the Spirit of
God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Matt 12:28; “finger of God” Luke 11:2057).
Beasley-Murray notes that this saying “gives Jesus’ own explanation of his exorcisms: they are performed not by his
own power but by the power of God, i.e., by the Spirit of God, and since the defeat of the evil power is a feature of
the end time, they show that the kingdom of God has appeared in his activity.”58 Furthermore Jesus’ follow-up
reference to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:32) also indicates how important Jesus viewed the ministry
of the Holy Spirit as being.
Donald Hagner explains:
Given Matthew’s Christological interests and the unique and central position held by Jesus throughout the Gospel,
one may understandably be surprised that Matthew has not said the reverse of what stands in the text, i.e., that
blasphemy against the Spirit is forgivable but not that against the Son of Man. The gravity of the blasphemy against
the Spirit, however, depends upon the Holy Spirit as the fundamental dynamic that stands behind and makes
possible the entire messianic ministry of Jesus itself. . . . The failure to understand Jesus is yet forgivable but not the
outright rejection of the saving power of God through the Spirit exhibited in the direct overthrow of the kingdom of
Satan.59
Luke 5:17b and Mark 5:30, two implicit references, indicate Jesus as an agent of the Father’s power. According to
Luke 5:17b, “the power of the Lord was with him to heal.” Nolland explains, “The reference to ‘power’ (dynamis)
links back to [Luke] 4:14 and prepares the way for the coming references to tangible power proceeding from Jesus
(6:19, 8:44): the power that flows out of Jesus and brings healing is the power of God himself . . . It is more likely
that Luke is continuing to clarify what it means for Jesus to have become through the descent of the Spirit the
repository of the power of God (3:22; 4:1,14,18–19; 6:19; 8:44).”60
According to Mark 5:30, “Immediately aware that power had gone forth from him, Jesus turned about in the crowd
and said, ‘Who touched my clothes?’” Lane notes: “Jesus possesses the power of God as the representative of the
Father. Nevertheless, the Father remains in control of his own power. The healing of the woman occurred through
God’s free and gracious decision to bestow upon her the power which was active in Jesus. By an act of sovereign
will God determined to honor the woman’s faith in spite of the fact that it was tinged with ideas which bordered on
magic.”61
Hebrews 9:14 offers a distinctive comment regarding Jesus’ experience of the passion and his death: “How much
more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our
conscience.” Lane explains, “The fact that his offering was made dia pneumatos aioµniou, ‘through the eternal
Spirit,’ implies that he had been divinely empowered and sustained in his office. The formulation does not occur
elsewhere in the New Testament or early Christian literature, but it may be understood as a designation for the Holy
Spirit. A reference to the Spirit is appropriate in a section under the influence of Isaiah, where the Servant of the
Lord is qualified for his task by the Spirit of God (Isa 42:1; 61:1).”62
Finally, Jesus taught that “the Spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt 26:41; Mark 14:38). The common
view of Jesus’ statement to the three sleeping disciples in Gethsemane is that it refers to the continuing internal
struggle within human nature between the human spirit against the weak physical body. If this were so, Jesus’
preceding words (“Stay awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial”) would then be a challenge to
muster more human effort to override their bodily weakness so they could pray. Another interpretation considers the
contrast as one between relying on divine power of the Holy “Spirit,” rather than solely relying on human resources
(“flesh”), which can never stand alone against the assaults of Satan. Jesus made similar contrasts between the divine
sphere and human sphere elsewhere (John 3:6; 6:63), which have Old Testament precedent in Isaiah 31:1,
contrasting an Egyptian alliance (“flesh”) against relying on the Lord God (“spirit”; see also Ps 51:11–12). Is not
Jesus giving the three disciples the secret to his own victory in the garden? William Lane comments on Mark 14:38,
“Spiritual wakefulness and prayer in full dependence upon divine help provide the only adequate preparation for
crisis . . . Jesus prepared for his own intense trial through vigilance and prayer, and thus gave to the disciples and to
the Church the model for the proper resistance of eschatological temptation.”63 Jesus’ comment then furnishes the
most explicit reference to his own dependence on the Holy Spirit and its implications as a teaching for all believers
for all times.
Any understanding of Jesus’ earthly pilgrimage must account for the numerous references to the Holy Spirit
regarding Jesus’ life and ministry.64 If he planned to live as a human just like us then, once the Son voluntarily
decided to add on human nature, he would need to veil his divine glory and predominantly rely on divine resources
outside of his own divine power. Scripture gives sufficient evidence to affirm that, without the filling and
empowering ministry of the Spirit in Jesus’ life, Jesus would not have lived an exemplary human life nor
accomplished his messianic mission.
In sum, the pervasiveness of the scriptural evidence presented above—of dependence on the Father, of expressing
his own faith in God, and of dependence on the Holy Spirit—supports a lifestyle for Jesus as predominantly
dependent on the divine resources of the Father and the Spirit (option 2) rather than only occasional dependence
(option 1).65
Differences Between Jesus and Us and Potential Objections
Jesus shares a common humanity since believers, having been regenerated, now share the same human nature as
Jesus does and as Adam and Eve did at creation. Also, believers have access to the same divine resources that Jesus
did. Let us consider differences.
Uniqueness of Jesus and the Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit’s ministry unique to Jesus as the Anointed One/Messiah, or
does the Holy Spirit empower Jesus to live his earthly life in a manner similar to how the Spirit works with
believers? One consequence of Jesus’ departure to the Father is that it would permit the Spirit to come (John 7:39;
16:7). Believers have been designed to be indwelt by the Spirit forever (John 14:16). That is, God has so fashioned
humankind that both a human person and a divine person can occupy together the cockpit of one’s life in which the
believer can be formed, informed, empowered by the Spirit, in a fashion similar to Jesus. Jesus showcases the
possibilities of a human life completely filled by the Spirit. One significant implication for Christian living today
becomes very clear: Jesus walked by the Spirit, and so it is possible for us to do so as we yield in dependence on
God.
Although the same Spirit that indwelt Jesus indwells all believers, John 3:34 indicates that Jesus had a greater
measure of the Spirit. This may have been due to Jesus’ unique role as the divine-human messiah (level 2 in Table
6.1) which required the full measure of the Spirit’s ministry (John 3:36). Or this greater measure may also have been
the consequence of Jesus’ complete dependence on the Father and his life of holiness, which permitted a full
measure of the Spirit in Jesus’ life and ministry. Sadly, our faith and life in holiness are limited, being hindered by
doubt and unbelief as we are still in the process of being conformed to the image of the Son. Our honest prayer can
be that of the man in Mark 9: “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24). Jesus teaches that it is
possible to grow in greater dependence on God so we can emulate more and more of his life and ministry (e.g.,
Mark 11:22–25; John 13:12–17; 14:12–14).
Supernatural Elements in Jesus’ Life. If Jesus did not predominantly use his own divine powers, then how can one
give an account for the various supernaturally oriented aspects of Jesus’ life that go beyond the limits of human
powers? Note that most of the supernaturally oriented activities of Jesus were not unique to him alone but are also
performed by “mere” humans, which supplies additional evidence for the dependency proposal.
1. Miracles. Both the Old Testament and New Testament record miracles done by mere humans—not in their own
human power, but sourced in the power of God—that were similar to those Jesus performed; for example: (1) raising
the dead (2 Kings 4:8–37; Acts 9:36–42); (2) curing a leper (2 Kings 5:1–15); (3) healing the lame (Acts 3:1–10);
(4) making an ax head float on water (2 Kings 6:4–7); (5) multiplying food (2 Kings 4:42–44); (6) walking on water
for a brief time (Matt 14:28–30); and (7) healing the sick and casting out demons by means of Paul’s handkerchief
and clothes (cp. Acts 19:11–12).66
2. Jesus’ knowledge. This includes his knowledge of God’s authoritative message and Jesus’ knowledge of the
thoughts of others (e.g., Matt 12:25; Luke 11:17). Daniel reported and interpreted the dream of King
Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:1–49), and Peter knew the secret sin of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11).
3. Jesus’ temptability and impeccability. Jesus is human, but also uniquely divine. Scripture explicitly teaches that
Jesus was tempted (didactic material, e.g., Heb 2:18; 4:15; life examples narrated in the Gospels, e.g., Matt 4:1–11;
16:23; 26:38–46). Yet James teaches that God cannot be tempted by evil (Jas 1:13). The teaching about Jesus’
impeccability claims that either he could not sin or that he would not sin (Scripture only explicitly teaches that Jesus
did not sin).
No matter which incarnational model one holds, all must address this seeming paradox. That Jesus fought against
temptation is obvious, particularly in Gethsemane (even sweating blood, Luke 22:44; Heb 12:4). We infer that Jesus
thought it was possible for him to sin, and thus he struggled to resist; otherwise we must interpret Jesus’ dramatic
performance as an actor to be worthy of an Academy Award. Resolving the temptability issue requires more space
than can be allotted here, but suffice it to suggest one possible resolution, as O’Collins notes: “Jesus could be truly
tempted and tested, provided that he did not know that he could not sin. If he had known that he could not sin, it
would be difficult, if not impossible, to make sense of genuine temptations; they would be reduced to make-believe,
a performance put on for the edification of others. It was quite a different situation to be incapable of sin but not to
know that.”67
We can affirm that Jesus could not actually sin—that it was not a metaphysical possibility—if we also can affirm
that it was an epistemic possibility.68 That is, within Jesus’ own understanding and perception of reality during his
state of humiliation, he thought it was possible that he could still sin. Furthermore, due to his formed heart of
holiness, Jesus was much more painfully aware of the evil attacking him than we are. And he resisted every
temptation, requiring greater intentionality in effort and reliance on divine help; believers are usually more clueless
and less intentional (e.g., Heb 12:3–4).
4. Jesus’ sinless life. Was this solely the result of his deity, or is it possible for a human person to live without
sinning? First, human nature is not essentially corrupt or sinful (e.g., Gen 1:31). Sinful propensities are a feature
added on since the fall. For a brief period of time Adam and Eve lived without sinning. Also, the Bible promises that
all believers in the future eternal state, although still being human, will live continuously without sin (Rom 8:17,28–
30; 1 Cor 15:50–57; Rev 21:4,27), sustained by the Spirit who indwells us forever (John 14:16). Being regenerated,
believers now have a new heart (Ezek 36:25–27) and have been freed from the power of sin (Rom 6:6–7,11–12,18).
Yet believers take with them into their new life in God’s family all of their sinful habits and propensities, and sadly
we may continue to maintain and learn new sin patterns even as Christians. But we are commanded to walk in
Christlike ways through the power of God’s grace working in us—ought implies can in God’s grace. Jesus
demonstrated the possibility for regenerated humans to live sinlessly, becoming another “Adam” of a new Godoriented human race (1 Cor 15:45–49). Jesus’ life makes the point that living sinlessly is theoretically possible for
humans through God’s power (e.g., Gal 5:16; 1 Cor 10:13)