The study of Christology includes various interesting topics, one of which is kenotic theology. The term “kenotic” comes from the Greek word “kenoo,” meaning “to empty.” According to Richard Muller, kenotic Christology refers to Christ’s act of self-emptying, where he gave up his divine form to become a servant while fulfilling his mediatorial role as stated in Philippians 2:5-11. This passage serves as the main text for exploring kenotic theology. Scholars have debated the interpretation of Kenosis over the years.
According to S. M. Smith, kenotic theology is a recent development that focuses on the limitation of the pre-existing Son when he becomes man, resulting in a fresh understanding of Jesus Christ. Manuel G Doncel, S. J, explains that the Christian concept of kenosis, meaning “self-emptying”, is rooted in the Philippians 2:7 hymn verse in the New Testament. This idea of kenosis is now also incorporated in Christian theology to refer to the Creator, under the influence of the Jewish mystical concept known as “zimzum”.
The history of Kenotic theology begins in Germany with Gottfried Thomasius, a Lutheran theologian and scholar. He developed this theology as a result of his deep contemplation on Christology. Later, it was further propagated in England by Peter Taylor Forsyth during the period of 1890-1910.
The main focus of Kenotic theology is threefold. Firstly, it aims to comprehend the nature of Christ, which allowed his complete humanity to be fully expressed.
The text explores three main points. Firstly, it aims to comprehend the nature of Christ as both truly God and truly man, as indicated by the correctness of the creeds. It seeks to understand how the finite and infinite can coexist in one person logically. Secondly, it delves into understanding Jesus’ genuine humanity and limited consciousness, alongside the affirmation of his divinity. Thirdly, it examines the strengths and weaknesses of Kenotic theory in relation to Christology. Various scholars hold different views on this matter, which will be discussed in this paper. Proponents of Kenotic Christology highlight several positive aspects as outlined below.
The initial action of kenosis, or self-restriction, by the maker represents a loving and respectful gesture towards the beings that will be formed. By limiting His divine essence, the purpose is to allow for metaphysical participation and the independent existence and actions of these creatures. Additionally, God’s decision to create a physical and temporal universe shows His self-restraint as an eternal and omnipresent being. This allows creation to have its own existence within time and a habitat, while still maintaining a genuine connection with it. God willingly becomes temporal and becomes part of the co-created time. Ultimately, God’s self-revelation encompasses both kenosis and a divine assumption.
The Hebrew understanding of divine communication with man emphasizes the necessity of divine self-humiliation. This is because direct communication from God to man is believed to be impossible, as encountering the face of God would result in death. Instead, God communicates through natural occurrences like whirlwinds and burning bushes. These beliefs are rooted in a concept called kenosis, which must be taken seriously when considering them. There are valid arguments supporting kenotic Christology that are both rational and credible. However, there are also scholars who strongly oppose and question the idea of kenotic Christology, highlighting its inherent weaknesses.
According to kenotic theology, Christ relinquished his divine qualities, including omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, during the incarnation. Nevertheless, some scholars contest this perspective as not aligning with biblical teachings. Grudem contends that scriptural evidence does not necessarily indicate a total abandonment of divine attributes. One debated aspect is whether Christ knew the time of the end (Mark 13:32). Orthodoxy asserts that as the embodiment of the all-knowing God, Christ must have been aware but deliberately chose not to disclose this knowledge.
A second criticism centers around the question of whether the concept of a divine self-limitation is credible. Throughout theology, there has been an acceptance of the idea that God, in Christ, chose to suppress his divine radiance for the purpose of education. He made himself tangible to meet us in our fallen world, on our own terms. Smith takes this idea further and argues that in the incarnation, we witness a pre-incarnate act of limitation, where God the Son voluntarily limits himself in obedient relation to the Father.
The third criticism focuses on the interpretation of a particular passage. Grudem suggests that in his address to the church at Philippi, Paul urges believers to refrain from acting out of selfish interest (Philippians 2:3) and instead prioritize the interests of others (verse 4). Paul presents Christ as an example, who emptied himself and took on the form of a servant (verses 5-7). The intention is not for believers to give up their abilities or intelligence but rather to prioritize others’ interests, following the example of Christ. This can be inferred from Jesus giving up his stature and privileges in heaven (John 17:5) and becoming poor for the sake of others (2 Corinthians 8:9).
According to Grudem, Jesus willingly gave up his privileges and honor, albeit temporarily. Grudem cautions against drawing theological conclusions solely from one passage with a dubious interpretation and lacking solid evidence. Moreover, Grudem posits that if there had been a significant historical event where the Son of God temporarily lost his divine attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, it would have been mentioned repeatedly in the New Testament. If this hypothesis were correct, then Jesus could not have been fully God during his earthly existence. Ultimately, Jesus made the choice to set aside his divine privileges and honor while maintaining his complete deity.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that Christ was a perfect spirit being who took on human flesh during the incarnation. He did not completely forsake his divinity but humbled himself and relinquished his privileges, which is the essence of the Kenosis. We do a disservice to Christ’s humility when we speculate on certain matters. I believe that the Kenosis of Christ is the greatest demonstration of humility. If Christ was willing to sacrifice so much, then we should be even more willing to give up things for His cause. In other words, Christ serves as our ultimate example of extreme humility and inspires us to strive for a similar level of humility consistent with the Kenosis of Christ!
Bibliography
Wayne Grudem’s book, “Systematic Theology: An introduction to the Biblical Doctrine” was published in 1994 by IVP, Leicester: Zondervan. This book consists of 550 pages. Additionally, Ernst Kasemann’s article titled “Kritische Analyse von Phil 2,5-11” was published in the “Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche” in 1950 and spans pages 313-360.
The text references the following sources:
– Mac Gregor, Geddes. “The kenosis.” Anglican Theological Review 45, no. 1 (January 1, 1963): 73-83. ATLA Religion Database with ATLA Serials, EBSCO host (accessed February 8, 2011).
– Millard J Erickson. The Word Became Flesh (Grand Rapid Mich. : Baker, 1991), page 79.
– Muller, Richard. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: drawn Principles From Protestant Scholastic Theology, Grand Rapid, Mich. : Baker, 1985.
– Smith, S M. “kenosis,” EDT in Walter A Elwell (eds), EDT. 2nd edn. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2001.
