Kenosis theory, and what did Jesus lay aside?

Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by Rexlion, May 28, 2022.

  1. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
    Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
    Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
    Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

    This scripture is the basis for an idea (which I heard and accepted about 25 years ago) that Jesus emptied Himself of some of His divine attributes when He incarnated. I no longer think this is an accurate assessment, and I intend to explain why.

    The reasoning for kenotic theory is as follows. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Yet we see from Scripture that Jesus (God the Son) did not seem to display these properties. The N.T. never records a time when Jesus was physically in two places at once. And scripture does record that Jesus did not seem to always know everything. As He grew up He learned things (Luke 2:52), and He admitted to not knowing the exact time of the end (Mark 13:32). As for omnipotence, Mark 6:5 suggests otherwise as well as perhaps John 5:19, John 8:28, John 14:10 (The Father does the works), and Acts 10:38. If these facts are not characteristic of the "emptying" (kenoo in Greek), how does one explain them?

    Recently I have read some reasoning in opposition to kenotic theory. One source was Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem (a Baptist); this huge tome was a Christmas gift and it's pretty good IMO. Grudem lays out five arguments:

    1. "Kenotic theology" is unknown to us until about 1860 and later; it was first suggested by German theologians and later advanced by some in England. By itself this fact is not entirely probative, since one could hypothesize that early church writers whose works were lost over time may have written about it and believed it. However, Grudem expands on this by pointing out on pp. 687-8 the impetus for this theological concept: "...the major force persuading people to accept kenotic theory was...the increasing discomfort people were feeling with the formulations of the doctrine of Christ in historic, classical orthodoxy. It just seemed too incredible for modern rational and "scientific" people to believe that Jesus Christ could be truly human and fully, absolutely God at the same time. The kenosis theory began to sound more and more like an acceptable way to say that (in some sense) Jesus was God, but a kind of God who had for a time given up some of his Godlike qualities, those that were most difficult for people to accept in the modern world."

    2. The passage in Philippians does not state that Christ emptied Himself "of some powers" or "of certain divine attributes" or anything similar.

    3. The passage does actually state a description of of what Jesus did in this "emptying": He took the form of a servant and a human, and He humbled Himself in obedience to the Father unto death on the cross.

    4. The overall context of this letter does not indicate an intention to teach kenotic theory. When we examine the letter in total, we see that Paul intended to persuade the Philippians to "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (v. 3). To persuade them to be humble and put others' interests first, Paul holds up Jesus as their (and our) example and reminds them how extremely Jesus did those very things. In saying these things, there is no way we can think that Paul wanted the believers at Philippi to lay aside any of their essential attributes, so it makes no sense to think he was suggesting that Christ did so.

    5. If God the Son "emptied Himself" of key divine attributes during the incarnation, how can we affirm that He remained fully God while on earth?

    This all sounded well and good to me, except the problem remained in my mind: how should we explain the facts that Jesus did not appear to display those divine properties of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience while on earth?

    The answer, for me, came in J. I. Packer's book, The Heritage of Anglican Theology. In the process of relating the interesting (and sometimes convoluted) historical heritage of Anglicanism, Packer tells about a "rising young Anglo-Catholic" named Charles Gore who, in 1889, put together a set of essays under the title Lex Mundi; in one of the essays Gore embraced kenosis. What was Gore's motivation for this? This was the time in history that gave rise to 'Biblical criticism.' Gore knew that his Anglican predecessors had affirmed the trustworthiness of the Bible. He knew that one key argument used to affirm Bible trustworthiness against the critical views of the mid-19th Century was that Jesus clearly believed in the trustworthiness of the O.T. scriptures. Packer writes, "But Gore, in an essay on the incarnation, sought to turn the flank of that position by arguing, for the first time ever in England... the idea that the incarnation...involved the Son's laying aside not just the exercise of powers but also the possession of powers he had before." Gore argued that Jesus was naive in His belief about scripture's trustworthiness because He simply picked up the idea from the culture (the Jews of His day). The Jews believed that the O.T. came to them from God Himself through prophetic writers (people who received and relayed Gods' message). Gore basically said, now we know better. But Gore wanted to show a reason why it was not disrespectful toward Christ to say that He was wrong in His 'assumption' that everything in the scriptures came from God; if one postulated that Jesus had divested Himself of divine attributes, He could not be blamed for saying and believing untrue things.

    Packer goes on to say that "Gore was replying to the long-standing argument that we dishonor Christ if we do not believe about the Bible what he believed. Gore countered that if we acknowledge that Christ's omniscience was no longer with him...while on earth--then it is no dishonor to Christ to say, 'Biblical criticism has shown us that what Jesus says about his Bible is based actually on ignorance, and it is not something we should feel bound to follow.'" And thus, says Packer, Charles Gore was "the man who let the rats loose in the pantry" and gave birth to liberal catholicism.

    The difference between abandoning divine powers and not exercising divine powers is a massively important distinction to make. This is especially so when the former could lead people to doubt other key theological truths such as the hypostatic union of Christ's human and divine natures and the divinity of Christ. When we read the N.T. accounts of Jesus' life and ministry, the "right thing to say," writes Packer, is that "the Son, as the Son, obeying the Father, only actualizes his divine powers when he is prompted by the Father to do so." This included cognition, such that Jesus did not consciously 'know' anything that was not the Father's will for Him to know.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2022
  2. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    676
    Likes Received:
    302
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    So how did Gore (and maybe you) explain that Jesus had the power to forgive sin, a prerogative power of God? Orrrr maybe just maybe Gore was right and Jesus didn't have this power having given up his "powers" and he was mistaken in his ability to forgive sin.
     
  3. Ananias

    Ananias Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    842
    Likes Received:
    706
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    ACNA
    I'm not a fan of the idea of kenosis as postulated by Zinzendorf and others since. Christ seems to show the weaknesses of a human man (hunger, thirst, weakness, even anger) but also does miracles and prophesies about the future (omniscience). I prefer Beeke's notion of krypsis (hidden-ness) during Christ's earthly life. There was never a time when Jesus Christ divested himself of his Divine powers upon the Incarnation, but did conceal his power for the sake of his human experience. He had to experience a human life as a human man as much as possible. Satan even taunts him with this during his temptation in the desert.

    Matthew 4:1-11:

    Jesus knows exactly what Satan is up to, and is having none of it.

    There is an echo of this same situation in the Garden of Gethsemane, when one of Jesus' disciples cuts off the ear of one of his tormentors to prevent them from taking Jesus. Matt. 26:52-56:

    Jesus knew full well he had the power to save himself. He chose not to, so that the Father's will would be done.
     
    Rexlion likes this.
  4. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I can't say what Gore thought about that particular divine attribute, since Packer doesn't address it in his book. But I can say that Jesus definitely exercised (Packer uses the word "actualized") powers as the Father directed Him. We may presume, since we're told that Jesus went aside to pray alone on many occasions, that He knew what He should do and say in those situations when He told people their sins were forgiven.
     
  5. CRfromQld

    CRfromQld Moderator Staff Member

    Posts:
    429
    Likes Received:
    198
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    This is interesting and I might have to think about it some more.
    My initial thought is that even if Jesus did set aside some of his divine abilities, e.g. to know when the end would come, that would not necessarily mean he set aside his knowledge of the truth of the OT scriptures. I would suggest his confidence in the truth of the scriptures would be necessary for his mission so that would not have been set aside.
     
  6. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    No one suggested that Jesus set aside knowledge of the scriptures' truthfulness; very clearly He viewed the scriptures as authoritative. The modern idea of the Bible critics was that Jesus' view was an erroneous product of the culture in which He grew up.

    The point is, kenosis theory was a product of modernist 'Biblical criticism' which discounts the dependability of Scripture's contents.