KENOSIS

Kenosis: Making Himself Nothing

In the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Philippians, he writes that Christ “made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men”. (Phil 2:7).
Much attention has been put on the Greek word κένωσις, which is theologically translated “kenosis” since the mid-eighteen hundreds. Around this time a new form of Christology made it’s appearance in the Kenotic theories. This paper will explain what has become coined ‘Kenotic theory’, cover refutations regarding the theory and conclude by explaining what the church would regard as the apostle’s real intent for the passage, what the church calls “true kenosis”.
The Kenotic Theory
Unfortunately, reflection on the theological significance of this passage (Phil 2:6-9) has been overshadowed since the mid-nineteenth century by the Kenotic theory of the incarnation, according to which Christ’s assumption of humanity involved the ‘emptying’ himself, in some way or other, of deity.
This theory holds that although the logos held the divine attributes of love, holiness and truth, he emptied and surrendered himself of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. This enabled him to take on a complete human nature, therefore dismissing deity for a time. According to this view, there are indeed two natures in Christ but either of these natures is infinite.
The advocates of this new view desired to do full justice to the reality and integrity of the manhood of Christ, and to stress the magnitude of his self-denial and self-sacrifice.
The kenotic theory has enjoyed popularity throughout Germany and England, especially amongst Anglican theologians Gottfried Thomasius and Charles Gore. However, Gore believes unreservedly in the Christology of Nicea and Chalcedon. His theory’s however seem to be inconsistent and incoherent because he speaks of Christ refraining from being divine at times, as do the theories of Thomasius.
Gore speaks of Christ ceasing to exercise such divine functions as omniscience, and even abandoning divinity at times. Thus, he writes, “remaining in unchanged
personality, he abandoned certain prerogatives of the divine mode of existence in order to assume humanity”.
The stooping of Christ, consisted in laying aside the glory, prerogatives and privileges of deity, and it resulted in a ‘life wholly restrained within the bounds of manhood. Outside the conditions imposed by the choice of life as man the son has no activity or knowledge.
Mackintosh believes that in practice there was a sharp distinction between his ‘love’ and other attributes of deity. He does not believe that Christ was omnipresent, omnipotent or omniscient at the time of this ‘kenosis’.
There dwelt in him ‘no power which a perfect manhood could not mediate’
Kenotic theory is dealing with attributes of God that seem rather incompatible with becoming fully human. Theologians have attributed full ‘servant hood’ to Christ, even to the point of completely giving up or forsaking any forms of divine nature. Kenotic Christology focuses on certain passages in the Gospels where Jesus was believed not to be omniscient concerning the date of the Second Advent (Mark 13:32, Matthew 24:36), and draws attention to the fact that He was believed not to be omnipresent during the incarnation.
Advocates of the kenotic theory include German Lutheran theologian Gottfried Thomasius (founder). There have been others after him who have perpetuated, with variations on the theme, by A.M Fairbairne, F.Godet, C.Gore and H.R Mackintosh, some of whom are mentioned above.
The Kenotics seek scriptural support for their doctrine, especially Philippians 2:6-8, but also in 2 Corinthians 8:9 and John 17:5. The term ‘kenosis’ was thought to be derived from the main verb ‘emptied himself’.
The entire Kenotic theory has been rejected by the church and has not been considered orthodoxy. The idea that Christ divested himself of certain divine attributes such as omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience in assuming human flesh is considered blasphemous and false, and has been deemed not coherent with the scriptures.
The problem with the Kenotic theory
Dr. Warfield believes that Kenotic theorist’s mistranslate the word κένωσις, since the verb is found in only four of the New Testament passages, namely, Romans 4:14, 1 Corinthians 1:17, 9:15 and 2 Corinthians 9:3. In all of these it is used figuratively and means ‘to make void’ of ‘no effect’ of ‘no account’ or of ‘no reputation’. If we understand the word here, it simply means that Christ made himself of no account, of no reputation, did not assert a divine prerogative, but took the form of a servant.
Very simply put, just because Christ took on the form of a servant, by no means implies that he let go of the form of God.
Richard Bauckham would agree with Warfield that to say Jesus ‘emptied himself’ would be not only a misrepresentation of the word, but a misrepresentation of the passage. In his book, God crucified, he argues that Paul was the author of the Hymn found in Phil 2 and that it is a mirror of the passage found in Isaiah 53:12 where it reads (‘because he poured out himself to death’).
Paul understands this clause to summarize the whole movement of the servant’s self-renunciation and self-humiliation, ending in death, and so he expands it by inserting further explanation between ‘he poured himself out’ (which in Paul’s Greek is a literal translation of Isaiah’s Hebrew) and ‘to death’. The pouring out or emptying is self-renunciation in service and obedience, which begins with the incarnation and will eventually lead to death.
Warfield critiques the Kenotic theorist’s use of the word κένωσις. Bauckham not only agrees with Warfield, but he also argues that the entire passage has been mistranslated by the Kenotics. There seems to be no shortage of critiques on the Kenotic theory. There are many other questions regarding the text that must be answered if Christ had emptied himself of divine attributes.
What was happening to the rest of the world during the period of our Lord’s earthly life?
To say that the creative Word was so self-emptied as to have n being except in the infant Jesus, is to assert that for a certain period of history in the world was let loose from the control of the creative word, and ‘apart from him’ very nearly everything happened that happened at all during the thirty odd years, both on this planet and throughout the immensity of space.
This theory cannot find harmony with the scriptures based on certain verses that explain that ‘all things are held together in Christ’.
It can be demonstrated that kenotic Christology was never a part of Christological orthodoxy. For example, Cyril of Alexandria, who led the orthodox opposition against Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus, wrote in a letter to Nestorius:
[The eternal Word] subjected himself to birth for us, and came forth man from a woman, without casting off that which he was, but although he assumed human flesh and blood, he remained what he was, God in essence and in truth. Neither do we say that his flesh was changed into the nature of divinity, nor that the ineffable nature of his flesh was changed into the nature of divinity, nor that the ineffable nature of the Word of God was laid aside for the nature of the flesh; for he is unchanged and absolutely unchangeable, being the same always, according to the scriptures. For although visible and a child in swaddling clothes, and even in the bosom of his virgin mother, he filled all creation as God, and was a fellow ruler with him who begat him, for the Godhead is without quantity and dimension, and cannot have limits.
The uniform representation of the New Testament and Chalcedonian Christology is that the incarnation was an act of addition rather than that of subtraction.
The question remains, If the Kenotic theory is incorrect, when Paul was writing to the church in Philippi, what was his intention when he used the word κένωσις?
True Kenosis (A look at the scriptures)
According to the church, word κένωσις, is referring to Christ’s self-renunciation, not an emptying himself of deity nor an exchange of deity for a more full humanity. Jesus set aside privileges which would include heavenly glory (John 17:5), independent authority, during the incarnation Jesus was in full submission to the will of the Father (Matt 26:39, Hebrews 5:8) and above all felt the wrath of his Father on the cross (2 Cor. 5:21).
Christ gave up his riches to become poor (2 Cor. 8:9) and he gave up so much more in the midst of the incarnation. As Donald Mackinnon puts it, ‘it is the notion of kenosis, which more than any single notion points to the deepest sense of the mystery of the incarnation. One thing remains however, despite the fullness of incarnation, Christ did not ever give up or empty or divest himself of Godhead.
The idea of kenosis strongly emphasizes the humanity of Jesus. We know that he ate with his disciples, grew tired and was recorded as weeping and sleeping. However, the question remains, what exactly did Jesus empty himself of? If we know he did not empty himself of all divine attributes or even divine consciousness, nor did he choose to use these attributes and find himself not able. Even in his body, although limited as a human being, Jesus was omnipresent in divinity, as well as omniscient and omnipotent.
In dealing with this research, it has become clear that most all reformed theologians needed to be extremely careful when explaining this term kenosis.
The Reformed Confession explains that: (1) From eternity past, Christ had taken up the responsibility of administrating salvation fro us by making himself the servant of the Lord. (2) In the fullness of time, he took on human nature exactly like ours with the exception of sin. (3) He laid aside majesty and glory, concealing it behind that of a servant when he walked about on earth. (4) During his humiliation he never used his divine powers for self- exaltation and fought with no other weapon than the cross.
It becomes clear that the work Christ was prepared to do on our behalf, in regards to his ‘emptying himself’ during his humiliation, was utterly self sacrificial and was necessary in order for his exaltation to occur. The lowest part of this ‘kenosis’ would have been the cross, where the eternal word would have been reduced to silence, or so it seemed.
By his birth Christ became the human offspring of David (Rom 9:5), assumed ‘the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Rom 8:3), became weak (2 Cor 13:4); but by the resurrection he was openly divine, designated at the right hand of God himself. This ‘pouring out’ of himself allowed Christ to reach full humility in order to reach full exaltation.
Herman Bavinck makes it clear in his book Reformed Dogmatics that by the time of his resurrection Christ had in fact entered into a new state. As the mediator, he had been exalted to God’s right hand above all the creatures, Just as not only the human nature of Christ but also the person of Christ was subject to humiliation, so that same person is the subject of the exaltation in both of his natures. For he had put aside the form of God that was his and concealed his divine nature behind the garment of a weak human nature; no one saw him or could see in him the only begotten of the father, except with the eye of faith (John 1:14).
Looking forward to the resurrection, Christ impoverished himself. According to Augustine, “Christ emptied himself not by changing his divinity but by assuming our own changeableness”.
Once more, looking forward to the resurrection Christ assumed a public image, which was entirely and exclusively human. He took the likeness (homoioma) and the appearance of man. Interestingly enough, it is the nature of man to want to be noticed and accepted by people of great position, but in the case of Christ, who really was somebody, made himself nothing for the benefit of those he came to redeem. In kenosis, it is humbling to see that Christ never used his divinity for self-benefits but always for the benefits of his people.
And lastly, looking forward to the resurrection, Christ laid down his life in ultimate humility, lower than becoming flesh; he tasted death, for the benefit of his people.
The agony of kenosis
Calvin writes that God would have not divested himself of Godhead but would have concealed it under human flesh with all of its weaknesses.
Luther writes, “ this is the most profound incognito and the most impenetrable incognito there can be; for the contrast between God and an isolated individual human being is the greatest possible contrast; it is infinitely qualitative. This, however, is his will, his free will, and therefore an incognito maintained by his omnipotence.
These quotes mirror that of Bavinck in that Christ hides his glory to become real human flesh. Christ lifted his eyes to Calvary where his destiny awaited him on a wooden cross. And as he hung there as a beaten criminal, cursed by God on a cross (Duet 21:23, Gal 3:13), he was obviously not recognized as God. The kenosis brings Christ to the lowest point possible, from the highest glory, into the depths of hell and death. This is Paul’s point in Philippians 2:8 ‘And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross’.
Christ was also willing to submit wholly to the will of his father in heaven. Christ is the ultimate example of submission, faith, trust and obedience, even willing to die the death of the accused, accursed and condemned.
The exhalation of Christ
‘Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father.’ (Phil 2:9-11).
Considering the depths that Jesus went to in the process of kenosis, the exhalation becomes higher and greater. For this reasons the apostles exhort the Christians to endure suffering with endurance and patience modeling that of their savior Jesus. The resurrection is the beginning of his exaltation for he is the ‘firstborn among the dead’ providing a way for believers to resurrect as well.
Christ is eventually ascended to a seat ‘at the right hand of God’. Christ is now perfected, the conqueror of sin and the lord of death, he is the object of worship and hearer of prayer. Christ has provided the atonement and is in the process of offering redemption to all nations, nations that will worship him in spirit and in truth throughout eternity. Christ endured humiliation, experienced exhalation and is now the one high priest, the mediator between God and men, out intercession because of what he has done.
Volumes upon volumes have been written regarding the word κένωσις. Aside from defining what this term can mean, it is enough to cause the Christian to worship at a deeper level. In all these things nothing was put forth in Christ’s own interest but in the interest of his father for the benefit of his elect. Christ was assaulted by Satan yet gave him the pure word alone, never using his omnipotence to cast legions into battle. Christ was mocked at the cross, in the presence of his own mother, yet he did not retaliate but offered up a prayer of forgiveness. In the face of ‘kenosis’ he never backed down, but offered his life as a ransom for many, ‘not looking to his own interest, but the interest of others. (Phil 2:4).
‘Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing (ekenosis), taking on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.’(Phil 2:6-7).

Bibliography
1. Macleod, Donald, The Person of Christ. (Illinois, Downers Grove Publishing) pg 2052.
2. Augustus Strong. Systematic Theology. ( Michigan: Twentieth Century Publishing) pg. 701
3. Gore, Charles, Lux Mindi: The incarnation of the son of God. (London: John Murray 2nd edi. 1898) pg 266
4. Mackintosh, H.R, The Doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Publishing) pg 267
5. Berkhof Louis, Systematic Theology. (Michigan: W.E.B Publishing). Pg. 328
6. Warfield, B.B, Christology and Criticism. (Michigan: W.E.B Publishing). Pg. 375
7. Bauckham, Richard, God crucified (Michigan: W.E.B Publishing) pg. 60
8. W.Temple, Christus Veritas (London: Longman’s Green and co.) pg. 141-145
9. From “The epistle of Cyril to Nestorius with the XII Anathematisms,” in A select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers of the Christian Church. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing). 14:202, emphasis supplied.
10. Mackinnon, Dale, in an essay, “Substance” in Chrsitology” (Cambridge: Cambridge) pg.297
11. Chamier, Donald, Panstratiae catholicae (Geneva: Rouer Publishing) pg. 66
12. Bavinck, Herman, Reformed Dogmatics (Michigan: Baker Academics) pg. 435
13. Augustine, On the Trinity. Pg. VII.5
14. Calvin, John, Commentary on the epistles on the Philippians (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation society, 1851).
15. Luther, Martin, The Mediator (London: Lutterworth Publishing) 1934.