Kenosis

Here are some good notes from Dr. David McWilliams on the Kenosis Theory. Kenosis is the greek word in Philippians 2:6, where some translations show "but he emptied himself." Is Christ laying aside his divine attributes such as omnipresence, omniscience, etc when we became incarnate?


Where we were last time is making basic observations, then moving on. We reviewed that the kenosis theory:

1. Threatens the immutability of God. For a period of time Christ must cease to be God, cease to rule the world (not every kenoticist would claim to hold to aspects of this view), this is the logical implication as well as the overt position of some kenoticists.

2. It rules out the incarnation in any meaningful way. "The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us." In the Kenosis theory there can be no coming of God into the world. If there is no possibility for the unity of the divine and human, then God must of ceased to be God to become man. He resumed deity at the end of the process, but the exaltation of Christ must be seen as deification. So ultimately in the kenosis theory, man is divinized.

IN ORTHODOX INCARNATION THEOLOGY, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN SUBRACTION, ONLY ADDITION.

The Son did not cease to be what he has always been, but he became who he had not been. This is a profound mystery, but whatever conclusions we come to, it is only sound and orthodox, appropriate in light of the biblical data, to insist that the incarnation involves no subtraction, only addition. The ancient formula is continuing to be what he was, he took what he was not.

3. DM Baillie, whose work God was in Christ, is very peculiar work in some ways, because its influence in modern theological thinking in ways that are harmful, and yet at the same time he is not altogether with us but not altogether against us. It contains some very rich incarnational thought. He gives a very brief readable critique of the kenosis theory.

He quotes the telling question of William Temple "what was happening to the rest of the universe during the period of our Lord’s earthly life? To say that Jesus from his infant cradle was exercising providential care over it all is certainly monstrous but to deny this and to say that the creative Word was so self-emptied as to have no being except in the infant Jesus is to assert that for a certain period the world was let loose from the control of the creative Word." That is taken from Christos Veritos from William Temple.

There was no vacancy in the Trinity during our Lord’s earthly ministry.

The kenosis theory gives us a theophany in which he who was formerly God changed himself temporarily into man or exchanged his divinity for his humanity. If Jesus was God successively there is no room for the permanence of the manhood of Christ who being the eternal Son of God became man.

John 1:14 – The Logos is co-ordinate with God and is pre-existent and yet is still the divine logos who tabernacled among us.


Philipians 2:1-11
1So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, 2complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,[b] being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The textual evidence for Philippians 2 is limited to its context.
"But emptied himself" is the traditional translation of the passage. But the text is clear that he continues to be in the form of God. where uJpavrcwn is a participle used in the NT for continuation. Acts 2:30, Lk 16:14, Acts 3:2, 1 Cor 11:7, 2 Cor 12:6, Gal 1:14.

Referencing the use of the participle. Christ is and continues to be in the form of God. Therefore, he did not cease to be God when he became man.

The question then becomes the meaning of , "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Read the article by RW Hoover Harvard Theological Review and he argues that Christ did not "regard equality with God as something to be used for his own advantage." Romans 15:3. He already possessed equality but he did not exploit that equality. The article focuses on the word "a thing to be ceased or apprised." He did not count equality with God "as something to take advantage of." Or more idiomatically "as something to be used for his own advantage." This article has been influential on modern translations.

And the context favors this translation. This is what the Philippians are to do themselves. They are to avoid self-conceit in the service of others. He took upon himself in the form of a servant. Reference the suffering servant of Jehovah in Isaiah 53. This tells us how he emptied himself. Not by ceasing to be what he always was, but by becoming what he previously was not.
CFD Moule makes an interesting suggestion. The Manhood of Jesus in the New Testament. It is an argument where there is no grammatical support but is based on ideas in the NT common to what we read in Philippians 2. I am eager for you to hear this for your own growth in grace as Moule’s suggestion. He suggests "we should read precisely because he was in the form of God, he recognized equality with God as a matter not of getting but of giving."

John’s gospel the preface to the washing of the disciples feet, we read that Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power and that he had come from God and was returning to God. So he disrobed and humbly washed his disciples feet. Then consider the link between the two. And Paul was certainly familiar with John. Foot washing was a task of slaves and Jesus took a form of a servant in John 13. "The conclusion to which this leaves us is that the very impulse to serve lies at the heart of deity." Moule’s comments are astounding and provocative and they should lead us to worshipful meditation.

Moule claims that "Philippians 2 is not a passage to prove kenoticism. But rather it has come to be interpreted as a statement or assertion in pictorial language about the supreme humility of one whose preexistent divine dignity enhances the greatness of his condescension."

"I am inclined to join the minority of interpreters who go still further and identify rather than contrast, the condescension with the dignity, thus underlining a divine paradox which stands every human scale of values on its head. Whereas ordinary human valuation reckons that Godlikeness means having our own way getting what we want, Jesus saw Godlikeness as giving and spending oneself out. Precisely because he was in the form of God, he considered equality with God as a matter not of getting but of giving."

In other words, the human limitations of Jesus are seen as a positive expression of his deity rather than a curtailment of his deity. I hope you are applying this to your own heart and life and see its value in ministering, preaching, teaching, counseling, etc.

The context tells that Christ did not focus attention on his equality with God so that he refrained from self humiliation. It was his inalienable possession. It was so his, that he did not need to be preoccupied with it so he considered the needs of others. Which as sons and daughters of the living God they are to do with one and another. Remember this Christological section is given for pastoral purposes.

Abandonment of the attributes is not the issue or the question. It has been misread and applied. Freedom of absorption of what is already his and thoughtfulness to others is the context of what it means to empty himself, not of attributes. That was never the case. But because he is God. Because equality with God was inalienable his there was no need for self preoccupation, he can give freely.

If this is correct, this self-giving is of God’s essence, this is who he is. When you read volume 2 of John Owen in Communion with God. And it is grounded in the Trinity, and the love they have for one another, this comes to expression in the church Jesus Christ. Through the incarnation of the Lord and his atonement. This can be in the pattern that we are to follow.

Incarnation was a historical reality, then the self-giving of the Son and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the pattern of our living. It is very remarkable.

Illustration. Two men occupy high positions. They are both mayors in a community. Adjoining communities. There is some natural disaster. The one mayor thinks because he holds his high position, for him to condescend to take off his coat and tie, roll up his sleeves and get out there to take away debris, would be beneath the dignity of his office. The other mayor thinks that because I hold the position of mayor, I take off my coat, tie, and roll up my sleeves and clear away debris. Which of them represents the true dignity of his position? The first or the second? Why?

This illustration is not original with me. You can find the BT65.L428 pg 54. These are copies of his student’s notes of John Murray. Murray says, "take two men who occupy positions of dignity of honor in society and they occupy them equally. One is so preoccupied with his position with his dignified station that he will not deign to any humble meaningful service for the service of others. He thinks his position would be prejudice and degraded by some humble service such as helping the poor and indigent, not just with money but in a practical way. Then the other with high station is merciful pitiable humble so he stoops to the position of the humblest service in behalf of others. In performing this service, did he abandon the position of dignity the station of honor, not in the least degree. The more secure was his dignified position, the more freely he might perform this service. This is the thought in Philippians 2:6. Christ did not regard his position of Glory with such absorbing jealousy and anxiety that he refrained from humiliation. He went down to the lowest depths of humiliation. The lowest depths conceivable. It is just the contrast of the dignity of his divine station and this that sets for the incomparable character of his humiliation."

It seems best to regard the word kenovw as a figure. The RSV, KJV, renders it "he made himself of no reputation" or "of no account". It is often used in this way Ro 4:14, 1 Cor 1:17, 9:15, 2 Cor 9:3. The preponderant use is figurative and not literal, therefore no one can insist that term in Philippians 2 cannot be figurative. The figurative use fits the context. The modal clauses that follow "he emptied himself, but taking the form of servant, being in the likeness of men." The modal clauses that follow define for us the meaning of the term. Kenosis is not divestiture but assumption. It is not subtraction but addition. It is not divestiture but assumption of the form of a servant being in the likeness of men. Warfield says "you cannot empty by taking." ??
He is urging them to care, to become a body, and unselfish themselves. He points to Christ as an example. Mark 10:45 "son of man came not to be served but to serve…."

Luther spoke of Godhood hidden. This profound incognito. The impossibility. The impenetrable impossibility of recognition. "For the contrast between God and isolated human being is the greatest possible contrast. It is infinitely qualitative. This is his will, his free will so it is incognito maintained by his omnipotence.

Calvin in his commentary of Philippians 2 "Christ indeed could not divest himself of the Godhead, but he kept it concealed for a time that it would not be seen under the weakness of the flesh, hence he laid aside his glory in the view of men, not by lessening it but by concealing it. So the deity was concealed while actually there. Concealed but veiled." I hope you relate this to your NT classes when you talk about the messianic secret. There is a close connection.
How does the omniscience of Christ as truly God relate to his ignorance as truly man and mediator? We must do justice to the truly God and truly man distinction. One theologian has distinguished between ignorance and nescience. Christ was nescient but not ignorant. And this is just an attempt to get at this. By nescience he meant the limitations of a human as a finite creature by ignorance he meant moral culpability of not knowing what one should know.
Donald McLeod stated that Christ had to serve in the limits of finitude. So in the end it is mystery. Bring about appropriate harmony how these apparent contradictions relate in your preaching, teaching and ministering. You embrace the apparent antimonies because God is God and you are not and we do this when we deal with the data of revelation.

Krupsis – hiddenness, veiledness. Illustration. How is it that he is omniscient yet there is this hiddenness that he does not know the day or the hour of his own return. It is that kind of mystery that has led kenoticists to assume that he gave up omniscience. Here is the best I can do…Illustration. All Illustrations will fail at some point. Christian Liberty. A Christian is free to do this or that. But he is also free to not exercise his liberty. The liberty that is his right by grace, not naturally. If we liken it to Christian liberty that he is free to do this or that but he may or may not exercise is liberty, so Christ the Son has freedom to contain that knowledge, his omniscience, but he chooses in a manner much like the Christian, who does not use his freedom not to make use of it.