What is Kenoticism?

Kenoticism is a theological concept derived from the Greek word kenosis, which means “emptying.” The term comes from Philippians 2:7, where it is said that Jesus “emptied himself” by taking on human form. Kenoticism refers to the idea that, in the Incarnation, Jesus Christ voluntarily relinquished or limited certain divine attributes to become fully human. This concept has been the subject of much debate, particularly regarding how it aligns with orthodox Christian understandings of the Incarnation and the nature of Christ.

Biblical Foundations

Scriptural Basis for Kenoticism

The primary biblical text associated with Kenoticism is found in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, where the apostle describes the humility of Christ in His incarnation.

• Philippians 2:5-8 (NIV):
  

  “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!”

  This passage speaks of Christ “emptying” Himself, which is the basis for the concept of kenosis. Theologians have interpreted this “emptying” in various ways, leading to the development of Kenoticism.

Theological Interpretations

Kenoticism suggests that in becoming human, Jesus may have set aside or limited the exercise of some divine attributes, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, to fully experience human life. However, this interpretation raises significant theological questions about the nature of Christ and how His divinity and humanity are understood to coexist.

• The Humility of Christ: The concept of kenosis is closely tied to the humility of Christ, who, despite being God, chose to live a fully human life, experiencing the limitations and sufferings of human existence.
  • 2 Corinthians 8:9 (NIV):
    

    “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.”

    This verse emphasizes the self-emptying love of Christ, which is central to the idea of kenosis.

Christological Concerns

Kenoticism has led to significant debates about the nature of Christ, particularly concerning how His divinity and humanity coexist. Traditional Christian doctrine, as articulated in the Chalcedonian Definition, affirms that Christ is one person with two natures—fully divine and fully human—without confusion, change, division, or separation. Kenoticism, depending on how it is interpreted, can sometimes be seen as challenging this understanding by suggesting that Christ’s divinity was in some way altered or limited during the Incarnation.

• Chalcedonian Definition (451 AD): The Council of Chalcedon declared that Christ is to be recognized in two natures, “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” This definition safeguards the full divinity and full humanity of Christ, which is a key concern in discussions of Kenoticism.
  • Colossians 2:9 (NIV):
    

    “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”

    This verse affirms that Christ remained fully divine even while in human form, which some see as conflicting with stronger forms of Kenoticism.

Historical Development and Key Figures

Early Church and Medieval Theology

While the specific term “Kenoticism” and the associated theological debates arose later, early Church Fathers and medieval theologians did engage with the concept of Christ’s humility and self-emptying in the Incarnation.

• Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373 AD): Athanasius, in his work On the Incarnation, emphasized that the Word of God became man to redeem humanity. He stressed that the Word did not lose His divine nature but took on human nature to unite humanity with God.
  • Athanasius, On the Incarnation: “He became what we are that He might make us what He is.”
• Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD): Aquinas addressed the nature of the Incarnation in his Summa Theologica, arguing that Christ possessed both divine and human knowledge, but in a manner appropriate to His incarnate state. Aquinas rejected any notion that Christ ceased to be fully divine in the Incarnation.
  • Summa Theologica: Aquinas maintained that Christ’s divine nature was not altered by the Incarnation; rather, He assumed human nature in addition to His divine nature.

Development of Kenotic Theology in the 19th Century

Kenoticism, as a distinct theological concept, gained prominence in the 19th century, particularly in German and British theology. Several theologians explored the implications of Philippians 2:7 and proposed varying interpretations of what it meant for Christ to “empty” Himself.

• Gottfried Thomasius (1802-1875 AD): A German Lutheran theologian, Thomasius is often credited with developing Kenotic theology. He argued that Christ, in the Incarnation, voluntarily set aside certain divine attributes to live a fully human life. Thomasius saw this self-limitation as essential for Christ to be truly human and to experience the human condition fully.
  • Kenotic Christology: Thomasius proposed that Christ’s divine attributes, such as omniscience and omnipotence, were not lost but were voluntarily “veiled” or not exercised during His earthly life.
• Charles Gore (1853-1932 AD): An Anglican theologian, Gore popularized Kenoticism in England. He suggested that Christ’s kenosis involved a real self-limitation, where Jesus temporarily relinquished the independent exercise of some divine attributes.
  • Gore’s The Incarnation of the Son of God: Gore’s work sought to reconcile the traditional understanding of Christ’s two natures with the idea that He genuinely experienced human limitations.

Reactions and Criticisms

Kenoticism has been met with both support and criticism within the broader Christian theological community. Critics argue that Kenoticism, particularly in its more radical forms, risks undermining the full divinity of Christ and the orthodox understanding of the Incarnation.

• Criticism by Traditional Theologians: Many theologians, particularly those holding to classical Christology, argue that Kenoticism can lead to a diminished view of Christ’s divinity. They assert that any form of Kenoticism that suggests Christ lost or relinquished divine attributes during the Incarnation is inconsistent with the Chalcedonian Definition.
  • Concerns about Diminishing Christ’s Divinity: Critics worry that Kenoticism, if taken too far, might imply that Christ was not fully God during His earthly ministry, which would contradict orthodox Christian teaching.
• Support from Modern Theologians: Some modern theologians, however, have found value in Kenoticism as a way to understand the mystery of the Incarnation and Christ’s solidarity with humanity. They argue that Kenoticism emphasizes the depth of God’s love and the extent of Christ’s humility in becoming human.
  • Emphasis on Christ’s Solidarity with Humanity: Proponents of Kenoticism argue that the doctrine highlights the extent to which Christ entered into the human experience, fully embracing its limitations and suffering.

Broader Theological Implications

The Incarnation and the Nature of God

Kenoticism raises important questions about the nature of God and how divine attributes are understood in relation to the Incarnation.

• Divine Omnipotence and Omniscience: Traditional Christian theology holds that God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing). Kenoticism challenges theologians to consider how these attributes were manifested or limited in the person of Jesus during His earthly life.
  • Mark 13:32 (NIV):
    

    “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

    This verse, where Jesus speaks of His own lack of knowledge about the timing of the end, is often cited in discussions of Kenoticism.

• The Humility and Love of God: Kenoticism emphasizes the humility and love of God in the Incarnation. By becoming human and experiencing the limitations of human life, God in Christ demonstrates a profound act of love and solidarity with humanity.
  • John 1:14 (NIV):
    

    “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

    This verse reflects the mystery and majesty of the Incarnation, central to the concept of Kenoticism.

Christology and Soteriology

Kenoticism has implications for Christology (the study of Christ’s nature) and soteriology (the study of salvation). It raises questions about how Christ’s divine and human natures relate and how His work of salvation is understood.

• Atonement and Mediation: The traditional Christian understanding of the atonement requires that Christ be both fully God and fully man. Kenoticism must be carefully articulated to avoid undermining this understanding, particularly the belief that only a fully divine and fully human Savior can effectively mediate between God and humanity.
  • 1 Timothy 2:5 (NIV):
    

    “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.”

    This passage underscores the importance of Christ’s dual nature for His role as mediator.

• The Mystery of the Incarnation: Kenoticism invites theologians to explore the mystery of the Incarnation in new ways, considering how Christ’s humanity and divinity coexist without diminishing either nature.
  • Colossians 1:19-20 (NIV):
    

    “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”

    This verse emphasizes the fullness of God dwelling in Christ, a key concern in any discussion of Kenoticism.

Legacy and Influence in Christian Doctrine

Kenoticism has had a lasting impact on Christian theology, particularly in discussions about the Incarnation and the nature of Christ. While it remains a controversial and debated concept, it has influenced various theological traditions and continues to provoke reflection on the mystery of the Incarnation.

Conservative Reflection on Kenoticism

From a conservative theological perspective, Kenoticism is often approached with caution. While it is acknowledged that Christ emptied Himself in some way during the Incarnation, conservative theologians typically emphasize that this self-emptying did not involve the loss of divine attributes but rather the voluntary limitation of their exercise. The orthodox understanding of the Incarnation, as articulated in the Chalcedonian Definition, remains the framework within which any discussion of Kenoticism must be carefully situated.

Final Thoughts on God’s Love and Jesus

Kenoticism, when understood within the bounds of orthodox Christian theology, highlights the depth of God’s love and the humility of Jesus Christ. The Incarnation is the ultimate expression of God’s willingness to enter into the human experience, to suffer alongside humanity, and to provide a way of salvation.

• Philippians 2:5-8 (NIV):
  

  “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!”

This passage encapsulates the heart of Kenoticism: the self-emptying love of Christ, who, though fully God, humbled Himself to become fully human and to offer Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. The doctrine of Kenoticism invites believers to marvel at the mystery of the Incarnation and to respond with gratitude for the depth of God’s love revealed in Jesus Christ.