Untitled Sermon
Chapter 44
THE SELF-EMPTYING OF CHRIST
I. THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT
The question of Christ’s self-emptying or kenosis (from the verb in Phil. 2:7) has been discussed throughout church history. The Synod of Antioch in 341 said that Christ emptied Himself of “the being equal with God” while clearly defending the full deity of Christ. During the Reformation the discussion centered on the possibility of Christ emptying Himself of the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence without affecting essential Deity. In the seventeenth century some boldly asserted that Christ was actually less than divine. But the nineteenth century brought an almost new form of Christology with the appearance and spread of many false ideas of the kenosis. This was due to the fact that that century saw the rise of many new scientific theories like evolution and radical criticism. It also brought an emphasis on the rediscovery of the “real” humanity of Jesus and with it the magnitude of His self-denial and self-emptying.
Of course, there is a true statement of kenosis since it is taught in Philippians 2:7, and that statement does not contradict other truths that the Scriptures reveal about the Lord. Actually the Bible does not elaborate a doctrine of kenosis, though basic elements usable in forming a true statement are revealed. To put this all together and to avoid heresy is the task of this chapter.
II. THE TRUE MEANING OF THE CONCEPT
A. The Central Passage
The central passage on the kenosis, Philippians 2:5–11, begins with an exhortation to humility of mind, following the example of Christ who left glory to suffer on the cross. Then follows this concise statement about the preincarnate and incarnate Christ.
1. The eternal existence of Christ (v. 6). This is clearly stated by the form hyparchon, which in this present participle (especially as contrasted with the following aorists) declares Christ’s indefinite continuance of being. There is in the choice of this word (in contrast to eimi) a suggestion of being already (as in Acts 7:55), thus underscoring the eternality of His existence. That indefinite existence was in the morphe of God, the essential form including the whole nature and essence of Deity. If “form of God” implies anything less than fully God, then “form of a bond-servant” in Philippians 2:7 would have to mean that on earth Christ was something less than a servant. But the full reality of His being a Servant is the point of the passage. Likewise, the full reality of His deity is the point of “form of God” in verse 6.
J. B. Lightfoot, after a detailed study of morphē in Greek philosophy, in Philo, and in the New Testament, concluded that it connotes that which is intrinsic and essential to the thing. Thus here it means that our Lord in His preincarnate state possessed essential Deity.1
Paul then reinforced Christ’s deity by asserting that coequality with God was not something to be grasped, simply because He always had it. He did not covet it; He had no need to, for it was His eternally. Nor did He exploit it; rather, He willingly emptied Himself.
2. The self-emptying (vv. 7–8). Notice that whatever the emptying involved, it was self-imposed. No one forced Christ to come into this world and eventually die on a cross as our Sin-bearer. Other uses of the verb empty are found in Romans 4:14 (void); 1 Corinthians 1:17 (void); 9:15; 2 Corinthians 9:3: but they do not really contribute to the understanding of this passage.
Of what did this consist? Of all that was involved in His eventual death on the cross. This included taking the form (morphē) of a slave. Yet in this form He was no less at the same time in the form of God though His glory was veiled to most (but see John 1:14). To take the form of a slave He had to be human, something the next two phrases in Philippians 2:7–8 describe. He was made “in the likeness of men.” “Likeness” indicates two things: first that He was really like men, and second that He was different from men. His humanity subjected Him to trials and limitations; yet the word “likeness” guards against concluding that He was identical with men. He was different because He was sinless (see Rom. 8:3). Further, He was found in the appearance (schema) of a man. This word refers to that which is outward; i.e., in actions, dress, manners, and all appearances He was a man. Thus He humbled Himself and became obedient to death on a cross, the epitome of shame.
The movement of the passage starts with Christ’s preincarnate glory and proceeds to His shameful death on the cross. Obviously, in order to die, He had to become man. In order to do that He had to empty Himself of His preincarnate position, yet without diminishing the Person. There was no way He could become a man and remain in the position He had in His preincarnate state. But He could and did become a man while retaining the complete attributes of His preincarnate Person, that is, of full Deity.
The self-emptying permitted the addition of humanity and did not involve in any way the subtraction of Deity or canceling the use of the attributes of Deity. There was a change of form but not of content of the Divine Being. He did not give up Deity or the use of those attributes; He added humanity. And this in order to be able to die. Isaiah put it this way: “He poured out Himself to death” (53:12).
It seems to me that even evangelicals blunt the point of the passage by missing its principal emphasis as suggested above and focusing on trying to delineate what limitations Christ experienced in His earthly state. To be sure, the God-man experienced limitations; but equally sure the God-man evidenced the prerogatives of Deity. Therefore, conservatives suggest that the kenosis means the veiling of Christ’s preincarnate glory, which is true only in a relative sense (see Matt. 17:1–8; John 1:14; 17:5). Or they suggest it means the voluntary nonuse of some of His attributes of Deity. This was true on occasion but certainly not always throughout His life (see John 1:48; 2:24; 16:30). Neither did He only do His miracles always in the power of the Spirit, but sometimes in His own power (Luke 22:51; John 18:6). So if our understanding of kenosis comes from Philippians 2, we should get our definition of the concept there. And that passage does not discuss at all the question of how or how much Christ’s glory was veiled. Nor does it say anything about the use or restriction of divine attributes. It does say that the emptying concerned becoming a man to be able to die. Thus the kenosis means leaving His preincarnate position and taking on a servant-humanity.
B. A Definition
In the kenosis Christ emptied Himself of retaining and exploiting His status in the Godhead and took on humanity in order to die.
III. THE FALSE MEANINGS OF THE CONCEPT
A. Christ Surrendered Some or All of His Attributes
This misconception states that kenosis means our Lord actually gave up His attributes of deity or at least the relative attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. Biblically this is false, and theologically it is impossible. If He surrendered any attribute then He ceased to be God during His earthly life. There would then be no way He could have said what He did in John 10:30 that He and the Father were One in essence. Christ did not denude Himself of any aspect of His deity.
B. Christ Appeared as a Man by Disguising His Deity
This is less blatantly heretical, but essentially also denies the full deity of Christ, because the disguise involved a change in the mode of Christ’s existence. It denies that Christ was God at the same time He was man. And if this is true then how could He say that whoever saw Him saw the Father (John 14:9)?
This entire discussion is clarified if we remember that the relation and activity of the two natures in our Lord concern the doctrine of the hypostatic union. The doctrine of kenosis focuses more on the fact of His Incarnation as necessary to His death.