I am aware that Jesus the man is the human expression of the second person of the trinity. I said "not the second person of the trinity in an unfamiliar form" to clarify that the passage did not mean the pre-human Jesus. However, I do not understand what you mean by "uniting our human nature to Himself." In what way does this occur? The Son surely did not unite the human nature to the divine nature, as that would be a fundamental change to both natures. Even more problematic would be that a change to the divine nature would contradict its essential immutability.
The Person of the Son united human nature to Himself, so that He was (and is still) both God and man in perfect union.
To quote the Definition of Chalcedon (the formula of faith put forward at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD),
"
...we all with one voice teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: completely Divine and completely human, truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as regards His divinity, and the same consubstantial with us regards His humanity; like us in all ways except for sin. Begotten in eternity from the Father as regards His divinity, and in these last days who for us and our salvation was born from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation; at no point is the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together in a single Person and Hypostasis. He is not divided or parted into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ,"
Jesus is a Person who is the Son of God (and thus God) who became man, that is, took upon Himself our own human nature, becoming a member of the human race--like us in all ways but without sin. Thus He is truly God and truly human, without change, without separation, without confusion. He never ceased to be what He always was (God), the two natures are not separated (they are united as one Person), and without confusion (Deity remains Deity and humanity remains humanity, distinct).
I am not committed to saying that this is not possible, but would you say that Mary gave birth to both the divine and human natures? And if so, in what sense was the divine nature of the Son birthed?
Because Mary didn't give birth to a nature, she gave birth to a Person: Jesus. And Jesus is both God and man. The Person Mary conceived and bore is Himself God, which is what makes her the mother and bearer of God. She is not the mother of a nature, but a Person. That Person is both God and man.
I should have said the following: The man Jesus was at one point only in the form of God (presumably "form" means "nature"?).
The language Paul uses is not precise theological language like one finds later on in Christian history; as Paul wasn't having to deal with the numerous theological controversies that propped up only much later after he was long and gone. Paul uses the phrase: ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ (en morphe theou), in the form ("shape") of God; meaning He is God. Christ never ceased to be "en morphe theou", but in addition to being "en morphe theou" μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (morphen doulou labon en homoiomati anthropon genomenos) "took on the form of a slave, became in human similitude."
Paul's meaning is that Jesus, though God, did not cling to His Divine nature and dignity as something to be exploited, but humbled Himself, becoming a slave, a human slave.
I have a suspicion that this section of your post answers my previous question, but I still want to make absolute certainty of it. What exactly can we know from the fact that the divine nature of the Son was birthed by Mary? Do we gain any insight about the divine nature from the event? As well, would you say that both the human nature and the divine nature of the Son died on the cross?
I would, like earlier, state that a nature did not die on the cross, a Person did. Jesus died on the cross, and Jesus is both God and man, thus both God and man died on the cross; not as "natures" but in/as the Person of Jesus.
The Incarnation teaches us that God is love, that God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that Christ came to save sinners, that God demonstrates His love in that while we were yet still sinners Christ died for us (etc). That God does not hold Himself back, but gives Himself freely in love--even in the humiliating shame of death on a cross.
No disagreements.
So you believe that the phrase "form of god" as it is used in Philippians 2 really means "glory of god"? And presumably "form of a slave" means "glory of a slave"?
No, I believe it is Paul's way to say that Jesus is God. Paul does not say that Christ stopped being "in the form of God", but says that though being in the form of God (that is, even though Jesus is God) He did not exploit this in some way, but willingly and humbly became man for our sakes.
I am not sure if you are familiar with William Lane Craig (I am barely familiar with his work myself) but what do you think of Neo-Apollinarianism as described by Craig? Here is an excerpt from one of his books:
"We suggest what William James called the 'subliminal self,' is the primary locus of the superhuman elements in the consciousness of the incarnate Logos. Thus Jesus possessed a normal human consciousness, but it was underlain, as it were, by a divine consciousness. This understanding of Christ's personal experience draws on the insight of depth psychology that there is vastly more to a person than waking conscious. The project of psychoanalysis is based on the conviction that some of our behaviors have deep springs of action of which are only dimly aware, if at all.... Similarly, the incarnation, at least during his state of humiliation, the Logos allowed only those facets of his person to be part of his waking consciousness which were compatible with the typical human experience, while the bulk his knowledge and other cognitive perfections, like an iceberg beneath the water's surface, lay submerged in his subconscious. On the model we propose, Christ is thus one person, but in that person, conscious and subconscious elements are differentiated in a theologically significant way"
(Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview; pp. 610-11).
We suggest what William James called the 'subliminal self,' is the primary locus of the superhuman elements in the consciousness of the incarnate Logos. Thus Jesus possessed a normal human consciousness, but it was underlain, as it were, by a divine consciousness. This understanding of Christ's personal experience draws on the insight of depth psychology that there is vastly more to a person than waking conscious. The project of psychoanalysis is based on the conviction that some of our behaviors have deep springs of action of which are only dimly aware, if at all.... Similarly, the incarnation, at least during his state of humiliation, the Logos allowed only those facets of his person to be part of his waking consciousness which were compatible with the typical human experience, while the bulk his knowledge and other cognitive perfections, like an iceberg beneath the water's surface, lay submerged in his subconscious. On the model we propose, Christ is thus one person, but in that person, conscious and subconscious elements are differentiated in a theologically significant way"
(Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview; pp. 610-11).
Well, on the one hand, calling it Neo-Apollinarianism is a red flag, seeing as Apollinarianism is heretical in teaching that Jesus lacked a human soul but was instead a human being inhabited by the Divine Logos. And on the other hand what I'm reading above sounds like an attempt to understand what is, at its heart, a deep and unfathomable mystery and seems to go against orthodox doctrine.
Would this fit within orthodoxy? And would this better account for "emptying"?
I don't think the Mystery of the Incarnation can be understood through psychoanalysis, even by analogy. In truth the Incarnation involves turning our reason on its head: Jesus, though God, grew in wisdom before God and men, did not know the timing of His own return; and yet also knew the hearts of men and knew their thoughts, forgave sin, healed the blind, raised the dead, and commanded even wind and waves to cease by His own voice.
There are aspects of the Incarnation that are inherently paradoxical. God, who cannot die,
died. God, who cannot suffer,
suffered.
What orthodoxy does teach is that Jesus is a single, united, indivisible Person who is at once both God and human, as a human being He has a "rational soul and body" by which is meant that He has a human soul and a human body (though, now, glorified by His resurrection). Jesus also has two wills, divine and human, but which are nevertheless in perfect unison and harmony. That Jesus has a human will is made plain when He prays in the garden, "If it be at all possible, remove this cup from Me, but nevertheless not My will but Your will be done" We also see here that it is in perfect harmony and unison with His divine will, which as Paul said in Phillippians 2 was not to exploit His being God, but in being an obedient servant even to the point of death.
-CryptoLutheran