The incarnation is difficult to conceptualise. The what of the incarnation is relatively straightforward, the Bible is clear that he is both man and God. The how of the incarnation is much harder and the Bible isn’t particularly interested in spelling it out for us. So in that sense it is more speculative, we’re not pointing to any verses. But we do have certain boundary markers that help us see where the limits are and what elements we must keep. These boundary markers are summarised in the Chalcedonian Creed, and we spoke about them here.
One view of the how of the incarnation is known as kenosis, and we looked at it here and it’s assumptions here. This view is gaining popularity in a number of forms but in the end must be rejected because it denies some of the key boundary markers.
An alternative view to kenosis put forward by theologians like Oliver Crisp, among others, is a view called divine krypsis, or divine self-concealment. This is a view that takes a traditional, Chalcedonian starting point and can deal with the problems kenoticists are trying to overcome while also avoiding the difficulties that both ontological and functional kenoticists run up against is possible. I think the view has some warrant.