Concerning Kenosis
Scripture Study
In 451 AD the Council of Chalcedon, as part of their definition regarding the nature of Jesus, confirmed;
“…our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably…”
The wording of this dyophysite (dual-natured) definition followed (and opposed) several preceding heretical attestations; that Jesus only appeared as a man (Docetism), that Jesus was a created being (Arianism) that God dwelled in Jesus but that this was separate to Jesus himself (Nestorianism), that the one person of Jesus had a human body but not a human mind or spirit (Apollinarianism) and that the combination of a divine nature and a human nature created a third nature (Eutychianism).12
The Chalcedonian Definition confirmed the church’s orthodox doctrine on the hypostatic union. In light of this orthodox position, what is understood then when Paul writes that Jesus ‘emptied himself’ in his letter to the Philippians (chapter 2:5-7, LEB)?;
“Think this in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking the form of a slave, by becoming in the likeness of people. And being found in appearance like a man.”
The word translated here as ‘emptied’ is Kenos (κενός), from where the Greek word Kenosis is derived, meaning to humble, empty or make void. The immediate biblical context for the use of this word is that Jesus in taking on the form of a man did so with or through Kenosis.
In light of what Paul wrote, we also have to contest with contrasting accounts when it comes to Jesus’ divine attributes. For example;
In Matthew 8 there is an account of Jesus calming the storm immediately after being asleep - the juxtaposition of somebody who needed physical rest but who could, moments later, execute all the power of the embodied Logos over the chaotic sea and storm.
Concerning omnipresence, Jesus says “where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20, LEB). Yet he was clearly bodily present in the flesh and had said “‘Lazarus has died, and I am glad for your sake that I was not there, so that you may believe’” (John 11:14-15, LEB).
Concerning omnipotence, Jesus walked on water, raised Lazarus from the dead and performed other great miracles. Yet he said “‘the Son can do nothing from himself, except what he sees the Father doing’” (John 5:19, LEB).
And concerning omniscience, although he knew the hidden thoughts of men he claimed there were things that only the Father knew (Mark 13:32).
We also find this contrast later in scripture as “we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but [one] who has been tempted in all things in the same way, without sin” (Hebrews 4:15, LEB). Yet we also know that “God cannot be tempted by evil” (James 1:13, LEB).
In the Victorian era there arose a theory based upon the use of the word Kenosis in Philippians, called the ‘Kenosis Theory’, attesting that Jesus gave up his divine attributes whilst on the earth; his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, as a voluntary self-limitation, operating through the Spirit from the moment of baptism3. This theory was put forward to explain why there appeared to be limitations upon Jesus within scripture.
We, therefore, have biblical Kenosis and the (related) Kenosis Theory. The latter sometimes labelled as heretical and contrary to orthodox doctrine - specifically the Chalcedonian Definition4. Instead, other orthodox explanations for the hypostatic union have been offered that align with the Chalcedonian Definition. Namely that within the one person of Jesus two natures are present; one divine and one human.5
Fundamentally, the Kenosis Theory asserts a voluntary preincarnate laying aside of attributes or a willful submission to the natural boundaries of the flesh. And conversely, orthodoxy observes a willful veiling and unveiling of Jesus’ divinity at certain times within scripture, the mechanics of which escapes the boundaries of our own perception.6
What lies at the core of the opposition to Kenosis Theory is the belief that to suggest that Jesus gave up divine attributes would step outside the “pale of orthodoxy”, as by removing these divine aspects from himself, Jesus would stop being God7. The Kenosis theory, by contrast, seems to suggest that divinity is more than the sum of attributes but is a question of identity.
Grudem, W.A., 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Zondervan Academic: Michigan.
The Thomistic Institute, 2020. Jesus Christ: True God and True Man (Aquinas 101). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xphsJLRF9v8&list=LL&index=18
The Remnant Radio's Podcast, 2021. Kenosis: What Did Christ Empty? Available at https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/kenosis-what-did-christ-empty/id1392545186?i=1000540055133
Smith, S.M., 1984. Kenosis: A Kenotic Theology, The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker: Grand Rapids, MI.
Grudem, W.A., 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Zondervan Academic: Michigan.
The Remnant Radio's Podcast, 2021. Kenosis: What Did Christ Empty? Available at https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/kenosis-what-did-christ-empty/id1392545186?i=1000540055133
Willmington, H., 2017. How Does the Hypostatic Union Fit into the Incarnation?. The Second Person File. 46.