What is kenoticism / kenotic theology?

We start from the supreme heights in verse 6. He was in the form of God. Our first parents were tempted to grasp at something far above them — at becoming as gods, as Genesis 3:5, bears witness. That place was not for them, and their grasping at it was sheer robbery. But there was nothing of that with our Lord. In His case equality with God was not something to be grasped at. It was His to start with, for He was God. He could not be higher than He was. Before Him there lay but the alternative of staying as and where He was, or of coming down in humiliation.

Blessed be God, He chose the latter. Verse 7 is the beginning of this wonderful story. Though originally in the form of God, He took upon Him another form, the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. This involved the making of Himself "of no reputation," or "emptying" Himself.

Years ago when the unbelieving critics of the Bible found themselves running into conflict with the words of our Lord, they invented the "kenosis theory" so as to be able to maintain their own denials of His words, while at the same time paying Him a certain measure of respect and homage instead of utterly rejecting Him as a fraud. Kenosis is a word coined from the Greek word used in this passage, with the literal meaning of "emptied," but translated, "made … of no reputation." The theory represents Christ as emptying Himself so fully of all that was divine that He became a Jew, just as ignorant as the majority of Jews living in His age. Hence the critic of the nineteenth or twentieth century, propounding this theory and fortified with modern learning, feels himself quite able to contradict or correct the Son of God.

Like most of the devil's lies, it has the show of appealing to Scripture. The word Kenosis is taken from the Greek word used in Philippians 2:7, translated "made Himself of no reputation" in A.V., and "emptied Himself" in R.V., the latter being the more literal rendering. The passage tells us how our Lord Jesus — in the form of God and equal with God. without any "robbery" or "unlawful grasping" (as was the case when Adam aspired to be as God) — emptied Himself in becoming Man. That is, He divested Himself of all that made Him externally glorious till He was only known as the carpenter's son. Thereby He took a place in which He could receive from God all that which otherwise He might have had or done in His own right and power, rather than by the Spirit of God.

A "kenosis" on the part of Christ in becoming man is, so far as the mere term goes, certainly a scriptural expression (Phil. 2:6-7). The word is derived from the Greek equivalent of what appears in the Authorised Version as "He made himself of no reputation," rendered in the Revised Version "emptied himself." It is very questionable if any extraordinary or subtle meaning was in the writer's mind when he used it. However, by diligent distillation a significance was extracted from it on which has been built up a complete theory of the human nature of Christ. As mere theology this may best be left to stand or fall on its merits. But when it comes to be a question of claiming the ekenose of Phil. 2:7, as scriptural basis of the theory, and when, reflexively, the passage is sought to be interpreted in the light of all that now attaches to the technical theological term "Kenosis," it is surely open to us to protest that this is not only an overstraining of the passage, but an illegitimate use of it.

1910 141 "Have this mind in you," said the writer, "which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being (subsisting) in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." As subsisting in very form of God, eternally so we may say, we first see Him as we proceed to trace the course detailed here of Him. Equality with God then was for Him no prize to be grasped at, or possession to be tenaciously clutched, whichever of the two we understand to be here so emphatically negatived. Certain it is at all events He sought not to retain this place and estate of Godhead glory; but exchanged in wonderful grace the form of God for the form of a servant, coming in the likeness of men. And this surely in itself for Him is descent of no mean degree. When one considers all that it involves, without at all following out the metaphysics, but on quite another plane, a veritable kenosis it indeed is, a very real emptying of Himself. To be found in fashion as a man, beset with all that of sorrow and suffering accrues to the estate fallen man is in, sin itself excepted, He who in heavenly glory subsisted in the very form of God, does this imply no emptying of Himself? Lord of all, and equality with God no object of aspiration to Him, His assuming in love to us the bond-servant's form, though He was Son learning obedience by the things He suffered, yea, humbling Himself and becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, is all this not "kenosis" enough? Does it need that we amplify consideration of exactly in what respect limitations or altered conditions mentally and intellectually attached to the humanity He assumed? Is not all that, even if answerable at all, of but secondary importance, and foreign really as a matter of precise exegesis to the passage in its original setting? Pity it would indeed he if the wonderful power and pathos of its beautiful appeal were found to evaporate, the remarkable force and poignancy of its moving example to lose its potency, or the morally glorious exhibition of the grace and love of our blessed Saviour's course it contains, to melt away by such "botanising on a mother's grave."

From this revelation by the Spirit of God concerning the incarnation of the Son of God we learn that its outstanding feature lay in His making Himself of no reputation, or emptying Himself, the latter being a preferable rendering of the Greek text.* The apostle teaches that Christ Jesus Who was in "the form of God" voluntarily took upon Himself "the form of a servant (or bond-slave)," whereby He "emptied Himself." Being "in the likeness of men," He abstained from using the prerogatives of His deity apart from the will of Him that sent Him. This act of self-abnegation expressed "the mind which was in Christ Jesus," which "mind" the apostle desired should be in His saints also.

*The comment of a great scholar on Phil. 2:7. is "emptied, stripped Himself of the insignia of majesty"; and again, "He divested Himself, not of His divine nature, for this was impossible, but of the glories, the prerogatives, of Deity. This He did by taking upon Him the form of a servant" (Commentary on Philippians, 12th ed., 1908, by Bp. Lightfoot.).

Let us return to the verses read in chapter 2. "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation". How do you think He made Himself of no reputation? By taking the form that He never had before: in J.N.D.'s translation, "Taking a bondman's form". He gave up nothing. If there was anything external to the presence of God, He left that for a moment. As for what was properly Deity, He gave up nothing. He gave up nothing attaching to Himself in Deity, but He emptied Himself by taking a form that He never had before. He took the servant's form, and He "was made [became] in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself". How did He humble Himself? By becoming "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross". Seven steps down have been seen in these verses; I can only see three — two steps down and one up. The first step was taking the bondman's form, and the second was humbling Himself in this way, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. That does not mean that He obeyed death. Death had no claim on Him. It means He obeyed all the way — all the way to the cross. It is not the story of our redemption that is being given to us here. It is that self-humbling, that demonstration livingly in our blessed Lord Whose right it was ever to command — a demonstration of self-abasement. If it were known more by us, even in feeble measure, it would give us the power morally, livingly, spritually, in every way. It would give us more fellowship practically, because dike answers to like, and there is nothing so good for drawing saints together as likeness to Christ. It is the unlikeness and the fleshly characteristics in each one of us that put us out-at-elbows with each other. In like-mindedness to Christ we will be drawn together.

In Becoming Man He Did Not Give Up His Eternal Deity nor His Eternal Relationship In the Godhead

We will look at some scriptures confirming this vital truth that He was Son in Deity before incarnation. But before doing so, it is well to look a moment at Phil. 2: 6, 7, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." J. N. Darby's translation reads, "Who, subsisting in the form of God... but emptied Himself, taking a bondman's form, taking His place in the likeness of men." W. Kelly translates it, "Emptied Himself, taking a bondman's form, being come in men's likeness." The emptying of Himself has to do only with the form He had. Emptying Himself of the outward majesty and glory of the Creator, having authority and never under command, He takes a servant's form and takes His place in the likeness of men to serve God and man in His obedience unto death. In doing this He in nowise gave up His essential deity or any quality or attribute of it nor did He divest Himself of His eternal and unchanging relationship in the Godhead. This He could not do. He could not empty Himself of what He was essentially in His being, but only of — the outward form. So we read, "Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." (Rom. 9: 5).

(2) Now he puts before them this mind that was to be in them; a marvelous thing indeed, that, for such as we are, this mind can be enjoined and expected to be found in us, — the mind of One who, from a height of glory beyond possible apprehension, could come down, moved by His love alone, into the lowest possible depth where again the eye cannot follow Him, every step the giving up afresh of something that might be held! This is the course which manifests the mind of Christ, a course of continued self-denial and self-sacrifice, yet with an object which makes this not to be realized indeed as such. Here, we have then before us this wonderful path, — One subsisting in the form of God, that is to say, God Himself manifestly, so that there could be no question with regard to Him at all, yet this form of God He gave up; not the divine reality, which was, of necessity, His at all times, but the manifestation of it, the outward aspect. This he did not esteem "an object to be grasped," this equality with God. This, no doubt, is the proper translation here. It is much more than His not esteeming it robbery to be equal with Him. The point is, as the next words show us, that He was not seeking to retain that which was His without any question, but emptying Himself."

But He who was infinitely higher than Lucifer, - "being in the form of God," - being "equal with God", -has "made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a Servant." Every angel, every created intelligence, is by the very fact of creation in "the form of a servant; "but His rightful state of being was "in the form of God," so that His becoming in the form of a servant involved a thoroughly voluntary and Divinely purposed self-humiliation. Yet in no sense did this mean His giving up the nature of God: such a thought is banished utterly by many Scriptures, as "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col.2:9). He is the same blessed Person, but come in a different form, a thing which no-one could have title to do save Him who is "God over all."

*We can appreciate the hesitation that our English translators may have felt in rendering literally, in such a connection, the most wonderful word they had before them, ekenose (Ver. 7.) From Tyndale down (Wycliffe had "lowered himself") they adopted the paraphrase "made himself of no reputation;" and there is this to be said for it, that if "emptied" necessarily involved the thought of something of which He emptied Himself, the paraphrase would be truer to the sense: for the word refers, as the participial clauses following show, to the place He assumed rather than to that from which He came.