It
would seem to the human intellect that the incarnation is impossible because
many attributes of God seem inconsistent with the attributes of man. It is this
concern that led to the kenosis theory of the incarnation, which in its
strongest form [1],
states that Christ “emptied himself” of His divine attributes to become man,
meaning that the incarnate Christ did not possess omniscience, omnipotence, and
omnipresence, etc.
Today, we will examine the modest aim of
explaining that while this model of the incarnation may fit with views of open
theism, it cannot reconcile itself to the views of orthodox Christianity. We
will see this by examining first the flawed exegesis that presented kenosis,
then three distinct heretical entailments of the kenotic model.
Usage of Kenoō in Philippians 2
Proponents of the kenosis model of
the incarnation point to Philippians 2:7-11 for support. Within this verse,
Paul utilizes the Greek word, kenoō, which can be translated as “to empty.” Proponents
of the kenotic model believe that this is the correct translation and thus
believe that this passage indicates that Christ had to empty Himself of divine
attributes in order to become man.
However, a closer examination of this verse indicates
that this interpretation is flawed. As Wayne Grudem supports in his book, Systematic
Theology[2],
the
context of Philippians is referring to Christ “taking on the form of a
servant.”[3]
Additionally,
Grudem points out that Paul is urging the Philippians to follow Christ’s
example;[4] however, we humans cannot
lay aside divine attributes in the way that Christ would have. Thus, Paul could
not be telling us that we should follow Christ’s example in emptying ourselves
from divine attributes.
Instead, “kenoō,” would fit more with the idea of
Christ’s actions, rather than His abilities themselves. This further matches
with the way in which the apostle Paul uses this word in the rest of His
epistles. In all of these, the meaning of the word goes by the definition,
“made nothing.”[5]
The
case becomes clearer when you take into consideration the context of the Bible
as a whole, which time and time again confirms, for instance, the omniscience
of Jesus Christ.[6] As
you can see, enosis theology really lacks a solid biblical foundation.
Immutability of Christ
Also, kenosis does not account for
the scriptural account of Jesus’ immutable nature. Hebrews 13:8 confirms that
Jesus Christ is “the same: yesterday, today, and forever.” Just like God the
Father, Jesus does not experience change.
However, theologian R.C. Sproul clearly
lays out,
“If God laid aside one of his attributes, the immutable undergoes a mutation, the infinite suddenly stops being infinite.”[7]
Simply, the divine omni-traits
are part of who Christ is, and if He gave them up to be human, He would have
been changing His unchangeable nature.
In a paper supporting kenosis, Robin Poidevin
admitted that kenosis cannot actually account for those who believe Christ
should be immutable.[8] But how
would we respond to Poidevin’s implicit denial of the immutability of Christ? As
we have already seen, the Scriptures clearly teach us that Christ is always the
same and unchanging, which is why orthodox Christianity has always accepted the
immutability of Christ.
The Deity of Christ
Further, when you strip Jesus of divine
capabilities, it becomes difficult to claim that He is fully God and fully man,
rather than just being an elevated man. Indeed, if Jesus has no divine
attributes, what makes Him any different from a redeemed man in the Resurrection? After all, Jesus would then solely be a sinless man working to redeem men, so
that in Heaven, they can be sinless men.
But this presents one of two
problematic heresies. Either we as redeemed men are going to be deified in
heaven, or Jesus in human form is no longer God. If the former, then kenosis
has opened the door for blatant polytheism.
If the latter (as seems more
likely), kenosis has made the incarnation of none effect, as a mere sinless
human is incapable of actually cleansing us of our sin. Wayne Grudem explains
that only an infinite God could bear the punishment of sin for the whole world;
further, the entire message of scripture is dedicated to the fact that mankind
is incapable of saving itself.
Proponents of kenosis would respond to this
argument by saying that they are leaving Jesus with his necessary properties,
and are simply taking non-essential properties away. However, as A.W. Pink
says,
“There is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God, and no God at all. A ‘god’ whose will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated, possesses no title to Deity, and so far from being an object of worship, merits naught but contempt.”[9]
At the point where they strip
Jesus of His absolute power and knowledge, they subject His plans to the
possibility of frustration. In a word, proponents of kenosis have stripped Him
entirely of His deity.
How about Now? Kenosis and the Ascension
Not only does kenosis raise the
question of Jesus’ divinity during the incarnation, but also His divinity at
this very moment and for all eternity. Oliver Crisp goes to great lengths to
demonstrate that kenosis fails to account for the orthodox position that Jesus
remains human forever.
Indeed, if in order to become human, Jesus had to
relinquish His divine attributes, then He would have to continue to relinquish
them as He continues as human throughout the rest of eternity.[10]
Crisp is not alone in his
thinking. Theodore Zachariades contends that after Christ ascended into heaven,
it would seem that He gets His divine attributes back. But since Jesus had to
give up His attributes to be human, the fact that He has them back must mean
that He is no longer fully man. [11]
This understanding of the kenosis
highlight the ultimate eternal implication to the nature of Jesus – either
Jesus never regains His divine attributes, or Jesus loses His humanity.
If the
former, then it would seem that Jesus lacks the power to fulfill His mission as
our “High Priest.”[12] Without omniscience,
Jesus could lack the ability to know what we as Christians need in our lives,
and without omnipotence, Jesus could lack the power to provide that which we
needed.
Thus, it seems that Jesus would need to regain His divine attributes,
so that means that Jesus must no longer be man. The problem with this view is
that it is directly contradicted by the words of the angels after Jesus
ascended up into Heaven[13] as well as the words of
John in the book of Revelation.[14] Further, Wayne Grudem
points out that all of Jesus’ eternal positions (prophet, priest, and king)
require Him to be fully God and fully man forever.[15]
An Empty Theory
Kenosis, as a theory of explaining
the human knowledge of Christ, just naturally fails and leads to some rather
heretical entailments. It would seem best to assume that Christ did not somehow
lay aside (or lose access to) His divine attributes during this incarnation. We
may never fully understand how Christ is able to be both divine and human, but
understanding is not a requisite for belief. Regardless, kenosis is a huge step
in the wrong direction.
[1] A weaker form of kenosis, called
functional kenosis, has also emerged. This view holds that Christ possessed His
divine attributes (like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence), but that
He simply couldn’t use them. However, as Theodore Zachariades points out, the
divine attributes are defined in such a way that necessarily involves their
ability to be exercised or used. In a word, functional kenosis is not
functional. Theodore Zachariades, “"Δʟπƛην ϵπαγγλʟαν,an IN ATHANASIUS'
CHRISTOLOGY: A METHODOLOGY TO COUNTER KENOTIC NOTIONS OF THE INCARNATION,"
American Theological Inquiry 5, no. 1 (2012), 75-77.
[2] Wayne Grudem, Systematic
Theology (Leicester: IVP) 550
[3] Philippians 2:6-8 in full reads
(all scripture quotations will be from the KJV), “Who, being in the form of
God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no
reputation (This is kenoō in Greek), and took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he
humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
[4] Philippians 2:5 “Let this mind be
in you, which is also in Christ Jesus.”
[5] Rodney Decker, “Philippians
2:5-11: The Kenosis,” New Testament Resources (blog), January1, 2015. He
points out the uses are, Romans 4:14 “faith is made void,” I Corinthians 1:17
“lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect,” I Corinthians 9:15
“that any man should make my glorying void,” 2 Corinthians 9:3, “Lest our
boasting of you should be in vain.” These are not just the only uses of kenoō
by Paul, but the only uses in the Greek New Testament.
[6] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 547.
John 16:30 “Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest
not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth
from God,” John 21:17, “He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest
thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou
me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest
that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.”
[7] R.C. Sproul, “How Could Jesus Be
Both Divine and Human?" Northwestern Theological Seminary Online Library,
February 5, 2008. In full, “If God laid aside
one of his attributes, the immutable undergoes a mutation, the infinite
suddenly stops being infinite; it would be the end of the universe. God cannot
stop being God and still be God. So we can't talk properly of God laying aside
his deity to take humanity upon himself.”
[8] Robin Poidevin, “Kenosis,
Necessity, and Incarnation,” Heythrop Journal 54, no. 2 (2013), 225. “Of
course, kenoticism may be objectionable on other grounds. It will not, for
example, be
acceptable
to those who think of God as timeless and so immutable.” This quotation
demonstrates that kenosis can be an open option for non-orthodox views, like
open theism. It is outside the scope of this blog post to support orthodox
Christianity against these views. Thus, as aforementioned, I am simply showing
that kenosis does not fit with orthodox Christianity.
[9] Pink, Attributes of God (Pensacola:
Chapel Library) 11.
[10] Crisp, Divinity and Humanity:
Incarnation Reconsidered (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 133-137
[11] Zachariades, “IN ATHANASIUS'
CHRISTOLOGY,” 61-62.
[12] Hebrews
4:14-15, “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the
heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not
an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but
was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Also see the rest
of the book of Hebrews.
[13] Acts 1:11, “Which
also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same
Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as
ye have seen him go into heaven.”
[14] Revelation 1:13, “And in the midst of the seven candlesticks
one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt
about the paps with a golden girdle.”
No comments:
Post a Comment