Grace
Journal 8.2 (Spring, 1967) 3-13.
Copyright © 1967 by Grace
Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
DOCTRINE OF THE KENOSIS IN PHILIPPIANS 2:5-8
ALVA J. McCLAIN
President Emeritus
Grace
Theological Seminary
This passage in the Philippian Epistle has been so closely connected with
certain
problems of Christology that any discussion of it
will be the more complete if prefaced
by a brief historical survey in this particular
field of Christian doctrine. Such a survey
will serve to show the theological importance of the
passage, why the attention of
Christologists from the first was
drawn to it inevitably, and how speculations regarding
the Person of Christ have finally culminated in
several theories, related in principle,
which receive their name from a Greek word in the
passage, and are based to a greater or
less extent upon it.
The dreariest, most barren pages of
church history deal with that period of
Christological controversy which followed the
Nicene Council.
Having successfully
repelled the Arian assault, the attention of the
church had logically shifted to another
problem --how to reconcile proper Deity and true
humanity in the Person of the historic
Saviour,
Jesus Christ.
Over this question discussion ran the gamut of conceivable
opinion. Men, according to their bias, became Apollinarians, Nestorians, Eutychians,
Monophysites, Monothelites,
Adoptionists, and Niobites,
until at last they all but
lost themselves in subtle distinctions and,
bewildered by the dust of battle, actually
"fought against their own side." In the heat of conflict
men not only lost their way,
but also lost their tempers, and applied to one
another certain offensive and unmusical
epithets such as "Phthartolatrae,"
"Aktistetes," "Aphthartodocetics,"
and "Ktistolators."
It was an unhappy age, of which Dr. Bruce appropriately
speaks as "the era of
anatomical Christology."
And yet through all this strife,
much of which seems so petty to the modern
mind, there runs a sincerity of purpose that cannot
be ridiculed. Men were bent upon
a laudable under
The
above article first appeared in The Biblical Review Quarterly, October, 1928.
Its
editor, Robert M.
Kurtz commented as follows: "It is therefore with considerable
satisfaction that we present
Professor McClain's paper, "The Doctrine of the Kenosis
in Philippians 2:5-8. Its acumen and force have
moved a competent theologian to pronounce
this discussion
unsurpassed by anything extant upon the subject. After noticing briefly
the early shifting of emphasis as between our
Lord's Deity and His humanity, and the later
development of various kenotic theories, the paper
takes up the theme proper. Professor
McClain's
reasoning is so sound and his style so lucid that no analysis here could add to
his able treatment. Readers who have found the
general arguments about the kenosis
inconclusive, if not confusing, may
well feel indebted to the writer of this able piece
of doctrinal exposition.
3
4
GRACE
JOURNAL
taking--the rationalization of their faith. Primarily,
therefore, the responsibility for these
centuries of theological conflict may be laid upon
the activity of the human mind in its
passion for explanation. The pity was that men
in their zeal for rationalization often lost
sight of the historic facts of faith because they
were willing to surrender what. they could
not immediately rationalize. Furthermore, yielding
overmuch to the philosophic tendency
of the age, they sought a metaphysical rather than
a moral rationale for the Incarnation.
As
a result, the humanity of Christ was sadly neglected, and by some was reduced
to a
bare metaphysical shell
in order to fit certain a priori
notions of what Deity could or
could riot do.
It was left for the Reformation, and
particularly for tlle leaders of the Reformed
Church, to recall the minds
of men once again to the real humanity of our Lord. To these
men the Christ of faith was the Saviour
of the Gospels; one who had lived, suffered, and
died; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,
tempted in all points like as we are; a
true Saviour, who can be
touched with the feeling of our infirmity. Yet, with all this insistence
upon the real humanity of Jesus, the Reformers yield
nothing to the Socinian tendencies of
their day. If to them He is the man Christ Jesus,
" He is also nothing less than "God overall
blessed
forever." The veil of inadequate and mystifying Christological solutions
is stripped
away, and men are
called back to the more simple faith of the early church. But this
return to the primitive faith is also, a return to the
old problem which had exercised the
Fathers,
but was never solved by them: How can we reconcile true Deity and real
humanity in the historic Jesus?
It maybe said with assurance that the Reformed
theologians did not solve this
problem. Their chief contribution to a Biblical
Christology was a determined insistence
upon both the humanity and Deity of our Lord, and
also a refusal to entertain as valid
any view of His Person which failed to pay due
regard to all the facts as set forth In the
New
Testament sources and confirmed by their own personal
experience. This position
was of inestimable value to the Christian church,
not in forbidding further attempts to
formulate a rational
Christology, but in providing a sure foundation upon which men
might work.
If prior to the Reformation the general tendency
was to sacrifice the humanity of
Jesus
in the interest of certain conceptions of Deity, we may say that since the
Reformation
there has been a tendency in an opposite direction.
Especially has this been true during the
last seventy-five years, a period characterized by
great critical activity.. Like the blind man
of the Fourth Gospel, this historical criticism
began with "the man that is called Jesus,"
next advanced to the point of recognizing Him as
"a prophet, " and finally, in the case
of some critics at least, fell down and worshiped
Him.
Those who recognized Him as divine solved the
inevitable Christological problem by
having recourse to some form of kenosis theory. In
becoming man the Logos "emptied
himself" in some respect. Thus, the divinity
was made to yield, or rather was adjusted,
to the humanity in adopting this principle of a
kenosis as a point of departure in attempted
explanation of Christ's Person, men were on safe and
Biblical ground, for the New Testament
writings undoutededly
teach a kenosis of some kind in their doctrine of the Incarnation.
Unfortunately,
in the application of this valid principle, men failed to keep their eyes
steadfastly upon the historic Person; the kenosis
idea became a tool of theological bias,
and was used for the construction of strange kenotic
Christs bearing but a poor and partial
resemblance to the
Christ of the Gospel records.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE KENOSIS IN PHILIPPIANS 2:5
-8 5
This was the era of the modern kenotic theories,
during which, as might be
expected, searching and critical
examination was given to every New Testament
passage that could possibly be
utilized in their support. The Philippian passage
naturally received most
attention, being in fact the exegetical cornerstone of the
whole kenosis idea. Certain
extremists it is true, simply ignored it in the
construction of their Christological
schemes; but all those who felt bound in
any real sense to the New
Testament records rightly understood that no
formula could be regarded as
valid which failed to gain the support of this
important text. One having but a superficial
acquaintence with the many different
kenotic theories is not surprised, therefore, to find some
diversity of opinion
among interpreters. He will
be scarcely prepared, however, for the actual situation.
Nothing beyond a cursory review of the
astonishingly numerous interpretations of
this Philippian passage is
enough, as someone has suggested, to aff1ict the student with
"intellectual paralysis. This is especially the case m regard
to that section (v. 7) which
speaks of the self emptying", or kenosis, of
Christ. Some make of this a mere skenosis;
Deity
was veiled, but was limited in no important or essential respect. Others think
the
self-limitation was
real, though very inconsiderable. A third view holds that the Logos,
in becoming man,
retained full possession of His divine attributes, and that the kenosis
consisted in His
acting as if He did not possess them. Another school supposes that
He
actually gave up certain of his attributes, ones designated by theologians as
relative,
such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.
Still others go farther in asserting
that He gave up all the divine attributes, so that
Deity was stripped to a bare essence.
Finally,
there are those who, excluding from the passage all reference to a pre-existent
state, regard the kenosis as having taken place
wholly within the earthly life of the
man Christ Jesus.
Such a variety of interpretations might tend to
discourage any further attempt
were it not for one thing,
namely, a hopeful conviction that much of this variety may
have been caused by different theological viewpoints
which interpreters brought with
them to the passage. This is not to say, that we
must begin with no assumptions. I
feel quite sure that certain regulative presuppositions
are essential to any worthwhile
exposition of our Lord's kenosis as set forth in this
Philippian text. Some of these
presuppositions I shall now attempt to
state.
1. No interpretation can be accepted as valid
which departs in any respect
from the historic Person of the Gospel records. 2.
Due consideration should be given
to the whole stream
of Biblical testimony which bears on the Person of Christ.
If
the Philippian text is worthy of attention, then
other texts may not be excluded.
3. The interpreter will logically expect to receive
his surest guidance from the writer
of the passage, the Apostle Paul himself. 4. It is
supremely important that the
purpose and spirit of
the passage with its context be kept constantly in mind. The
writer of this passage is not composing a theological
treatise; he is pleading with his
Philippian converts for a life of love and
self-forgetfulness--"not looking each of you
to his own things,
but each of you also to the things of others." And as a powerful
incentive to this
holy end he holds up before their eyes the sublime Self-forgetfulness
of the Son of Man,
who on their behalf had "emptied himself, taking the form of a
servant." 5. If metaphysical difficulties arise,
they must yield to the moral requirements
of the Incarnation. We ought to be, I think, well past
that stage of human thought
when such difficulties compelled men to choose
between an "Absolute" who could
not empty Himself, and a mere creature who had
little or nothing of
6
GRACE
JOURNAL
which he might empty himself. Better a thousand times
give up our conception of an
absolute God than admit He is incapable of any
real "moral heroism. " For that matter,
what God can or cannot do is a question to be
settled by what we have good reason to
believe that He has
done. Therefore, no supposed metaphysical problems should be
permitted to reduce the doctrine of our Lord's
kenosis to the point where it becomes a
mere shadowy, docetic
semblance.
The passage appears in the American Standard Version
as follows: "Have this
mind in you, which
was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted
not the being on an equality with God a thing to be
grasped, but emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant, being made in the
likeness of men; and being found in
fashion as a man, he humbled himsself,
becoming obedient even unto death, yea,
the death of the cross."
The first question concerns the phrase,
"existing in the form of God." Does
it refer to a
pre-existent state of Christ? To the casual reader such a reference seems
perfectly natural, but some have denied it, affirming
that the reference is limited to
the earthly state of Christ. This was the position
taken by certain interpreters,
although for vastly different reasons; by some of
them to vindicate their doctrine
of an omnipresent body; by others to avoid a possible
testimony for the Saviour's
Deity. Various arguments were advanced in support of
this interpretation.
It was said that the subject of the entire
passage is named "Christ Jesus,"
and that, even granting a pre-existent state, such
a title would be inappropriate to
designate the Logos
prior to His Incarnation. To me this objection has little weight.
Even common usage is against it no one thinks
it inaccurate, for instance, to speak
of the "childhood of President Coolidge,” though,
strictly speaking, President
Coolidge
had no childhood. And the objection fails utterly when we find the Apostle
Pail
applying the historical Name to the Son of God in other passages where
the reference to His pre-existent state is
unmistakable. (Cf. Heb.
I Cor. 10:4 "the
rock was Christ.”)
Again, it has been argued that a disquisition
upon the pre -existence of Christ
is not within the scope of the Apostle's purpose,
that he is interested only in setting
before his converts an example of unselfishness and true humility.
To this we can
heartily agree, insisting at the same time,
however, that this very purpose of the
writer is a strong argument for the reference to a
pre-existent state. What an example
to set before
self-seeking Christians--the eternal Son stooping from Heaven to
earth on behalf of men! Certainly, assuming that Paul
believed in a pre -existent
state, it would be hard to explain his failure to
employ the idea in a passage like
this one. As to the rather shallow objection that
such an example would be beyond
the power of men to imitate, we may answer that
this is to miss the spirit of the
passage altogether. The Apostle is not asking
for any mechanical imitation of the
precise act in which our Lord “emptied himself,"
whatever that act may have involved.
He
is pleading that men shall have in them "the mind" which was in
Christ Jesus,
and which impelled Him so to act as the passage
describes, in the interest of others.
Moreover,
to exclude the idea of pre -existence from the passage is to
render obscure its meaning.
The early Christian church was familiar with
this idea, and a reference to
it in connection with
the act of Incarnation would need no explanation. It was
part of the common faith. But
THE DOCTRINE OF THE KENCBIS IN PHILIPPIANS 2:5-8
7
eliminate this idea, and make the
"self-emptying" something that took place entirely
within the earthly life of Christ, at once the plea of
the Apostle becomes vague and
unintelligible. To what particular act in His earthly life
could the language of verses
6-7
be applied with any measure of certainty beyond mere
guess -work? And why
is there no hint or clue to guide the reader in
fixing upon it? True, His whole life
was characterized by a constant and gracious self-forgetfulness,"
but the aorist
tense here (ekenosen) seems
to favor a definite act, once for all, and not simply
a habit of living. The conclusion, to me, is
compelling: The Apostle speaks of
the one act which needed no explanation to the Philippian Christians, that
sublime and voluntary act of Incarnation wherein
the "Word became flesh and
tabernacled
among us" in servant-form. The high background of this act is set
forth in the phrase,
"existing in the form of God," a phrase which not only
refers to a pre-existent state, but also has somewhat
to say regarding its character.
This pre-existent state is characterized as
"in the form of God". (en morphe
theou). The general meaning
of morphe
is external appearance, that form by which
a person or thing strikes the vision. Our Engish word "form" scarcely expresses
its full
significance. Quite often we use this term to indicate the very opposite
of reality, saying of something, that it is only a
form, by which we mean that
the external appearance of the thing is misleading
and does not truly represent
the inner substance or character. Thus, some have
argued, Christ was a form
of God; He was God-like, but not God. The word morphe seems to strike
deeper than this. Lightfoot, Trench, Bengel, and others argue convincingly,
against a number who
think other that the morphe-form
is something
intrinsic and essential as opposed to the
schema-form Which is merely
outward and more or less accidental. Following
this idea S. G. Green, in
his defines morphe as the
form which is “indicative of the interior nature."
It is indeed external form, that which strikes
the eye, but as such it
accurately represents the underlying nature from
which it springs.
If this be the significance of the term, then to
say that Christ Jesus
was "existing in the form of God" is to
affirm that He was very God
manifesting Himself in some external form through which
He could be known,
probably to the inhabitants of Heaven, for what
He truly was. This
meaning of morphe in verse 6 is further confirmed by its usage rn verse. 7
where we are told that Christ took the "form of
a servant." Are we to
understand from this assertion that He became a
servant only in external
appearance, and not in fact? Very few would be willing
to accept such a
representation; certainly none of
those who wish to limit the word in
verse 6 to mere external form. They have insisted
more than once upon
what we gladly accept, that the Saviour
was true man and in all respects
a true servant of God
on behalf of men. But if the phrase, "form of a
servant," can be taken to indicate a true servanthood, surely no one
may consistently forbid us to find true Deity in
the phrase, "form of God. "
Returning now to the general meaning of the word
morphe, an
external form which strikes the vision, let us
ask this question, Does the
invisible God possess
such a form? Are we to take the meaning
literally, or is the reference only to those
divine attributes in the exercise
of which intelligent beings may know that God is
God? The latter idea
is undoubtedly present, and is the important one,
as I shall try to show
below under a discussion of verse 7, but I do not
believe that the more
literal meaning should be excluded. "No man
hath seen God at any time."
True,
yet we read that "Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and
seventy of the elders of
8
GRACE
JOURNAL
"went up into the mountain, and "they saw the God of
Israel." And we have the cry of the
prophet Isaiah, "Woe is me. ..for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts."
Whom
and what did these men see? I am inclined to believe they saw the Son
"existing
in the form of God," that form which strikes the vision
and is at the same time no mere
eidos, or superficial resemblance,
but which is rather truly indicative of God's inner
nature and invisible substance.
The Apostle now proceeds to set before his Philippian converts the mind of Him
who was originally existing in the form of God.
This mind is revealed in two sublime
self-renunciatory acts, the one described
as a kenosis, the other as a tapeinosis. In the
former He "emptied himself, "stooping from
God to humanity; in the latter He "humbled
himself,"
stooping from humanity to death. The kenosis is further exhibited from two
distinct viewpoints: First, from the pre-existent
state of Christ--"He counted not the being
on an equality with God a thing to be grasped";
and second, from His earthly state –
"taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of
men. "
The phrase, "being on an equality
with God," is exegetical and explanatory of
the phrase, "existing in the form of
God." The only question is, whether these two
phrases are exactly equivalent, or whether the
former adds to the latter the important
idea of actual historical manifestation. This second
interpretation is very suggestive
and is not lacking in considerations which support
it, but I prefer the first as more in
harmony with the
entire viewpoint of this article. In the mind of the writer, then, to
exist "in the form of God" is to be
"equal with God,” whatever else may be in the latter
phrase. Absolute equality with God was the possession
of Jesus in His pre-incarnate
state. But, when the need arose in the world for a Saviour, He not regard His being
equal
with God "a thing to be grasped" as a robber
might grasp an object not his own. This
"equality" with God was so surely and incontestably
Christ's own possession that He
could with
"royal un-anxiety," lay it aside for a season for our sakes, being
fully assured
that it would return
to Him once He had accomplished our redemption. In all this there
is a blessed contrast between the mind of the Son
and the mind of the great adversary
of our souls. The latter once counted the being on
an equality with God a thing to be
grasped as a robber grasps at that which is not
his own. Being in the form of a servant,
this "son of the morning" said in his
heart, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my
throne above the stars of God. . . , I will make
myself like the Most High." But the
only begotten Son, "existing" in the form
of God" and possessing full "equality with
God,"
counted all this not a thing to be grasped, "but emptied himself, taking
the form
of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.”
Here we have the positive side of the kenosis.
There are not three steps, as the
Authorized
Version seems to indicate, but only one step, in which the Logos "emptied
himself. This self-emptying act is further
qualified by two participial phrases. The
first exhibits the great ethical end of the kenosis:
Christ emptied Himself to become a
servant, the Servant of Jehovah. He therefore
takes servant-form. But there are various
servant-forms; angels are douloi theou. So the
second clause specifies the nature of His
servant-form: He took not on Him the
nature of angels, but was made lower than the
angels,
"becoming in the likeness of men" (en homoiomati anthropon
genomenos).
Such in general was the kenosis of our Lord, and
we may now enquire whether
it be possible to
define more specifically its content. Of what primarily did the
Son
of God empty Himself
THE
DOCTRINE OF THE KENOSIS IN PHILIPPIANS 2:5-8 9
when He entered upon His earthly history? The
passage before us does not
supply the details needed for a satisfactory answer.
All it affirms is that
Christ
Jesus was originally existing in “the form of God, ff
and that at a certain
point in time He emptied Himself, taking "the
form of a servant.” Of His
existence in servant-form we know somewhat, having
the Gospel records to
guide us. Regarding His existence in God-form our
knowledge is more limited.
If
we could fix upon the exact significance of this phrase, "in the form of
God,
the problem would be
solved, because in the kenosis this "form" was exchanged
to be in the form of a servant. If we knew all
that it meant to be in the form of God,
we would then know what our Lord gave up in order
to take the form of a servant.
Everything
in fact depends upon how we define the "form of God." I have already
discussed to a limited extent the possible meaning
of this phrase, and shall attempt
now to investigate it more exhaustively.
In the first place, the form of God must not be
identified with the essential
nature of God. Many of the Fathers did so identify
them, probably out of a desire to
gain this Philippian
passage as a witness to the Deity of Christ. The motive was
praiseworthy, but in permitting it
to sway their exegetical judgment they got into a
Christological
dilemma from which they were unable to extricate themselves without
either admitting that God could cease to be God, or on
the other explaining away the
reality of the
kenosis. In the main, as we might expect, they chose the latter way out.
The
form of God in this passage is not the nature of God. God-form certainly
presupposes
a God-nature, but is not essential to it. Verse 7
draws a similar distinction on the
human side of the kenosis; there is here a
servant-form and also a human -nature. The
nature is a necessary condition of the form, but the
form is not essential to the nature.
A
man may cease to be a servant, but he cannot cease to be a man. Likewise, Deity
may
change form, but not nature.
I have suggested above that this “form of
God" may include a reference to some
literal external
appearance, but doubtless the more important reference is to the divine
attributes. For it is through the exercise or
function of these that, from an external
viewpoint, God appears most truly as God. In this
functioning we find, in the deepest
sense, the morphe of God. The Logos, then, in putting off this form,
must have
experienced to some degree a limitation as to His
exercise of the divine attributes. The
question is, What was the nature and extent of
this limitation? He could not, as some
suggest, have actually surrendered the divine
attributes, they are functions potential In
the very nature of God. Granted that the active functioning might cease for a
time, still
the potentiality
remains. To suggest that this might also be given up is to say that God
may cease to be God.
But such an idea is repugnant to reason, and
surely cannot be discovered in the
Scriptures. On the contrary, our Lord during the
days of His flesh very definitely asserts
His
possession of divine power when, referring to the laying down of His life, He
declares,
"I
have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." It will not
do, either, to
say, as some others have said, that the Logos gave
up the use of the divine attributes
during the period of His earthly life, though if
interpreted rightly this statement might be
accepted as a true
account. It is better to say with Dr. Strong that Christ gave up the
independent use of
His divine attributes. This leaves room for all those exhibitions of
divine power and knowledge which appear during His
earthly ministry, and at the same
time modifies in no essential respect the doctrine
of a real kenosis.
10
GRACE
JOURNAL
We may say; then, that the eternal Son, existing
in the form of God—robed
with the glory of Deity in its external
manifestation, possessing and exercising all
the incommunicable functions of the true God
--counted not this being on an equality
with God a thing to
be grasped but with loving condescension emptied Himself,
taking servant-form; and as a result of this one act His
whole earthly life became
the life of a bond-servant, in which he does
nothing, speaks nothing, knows nothing
by Himself; but all
is under the power and direction of the Father through the Holy
Spirit. In this sense, during His earthly
sojourn, the "external glory" was utterly laid
aside. "He was in the world, and the world was
made by him, and the world knew him
not.” But there was another, an ~E-glory; and this
glory, of which the external glory
had been indicative, was still present, though
veiled by the servant-form. He did not- -
it is not too much to say that He could not--empty
Himself of this. And to those who
came to know Him because
their eyes were enlightened by the Spirit, His blessed
inner glory became apparent in spite of the veil of
flesh, so that they could witness
that, "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among
us (and we behold his glory, glory
as of the only begotten from the Father) full of
grace and truth.”
The two phrases, "in the likeness of
men" and "in fashion as a man," might
seem to suggest an unreal, docetic
view of Christ's humanity ifwe were dependent
upon these alone for our doctrine of the Incarnation.
Fortunately we have the whole
testimony of the Gospel records to guide us in the
interpretation of these expressions,
and this testimony affirms that the humanity of our
Lord was real. The Apostle's
reason for speaking as he does in this text is not to
insinuate that Christ was not true
man, but probably to remind his readers that there
is after all a difference between
the man Jesus and man who is a sinner. Sinfulness
is not a necessary characteristic
of humanity, though it happens to be a universal
characteristic of the humanity that
we know. Because this
last is so, men are in the habit of regarding sinfulness and
humanity as correlative terms. Who has not heard
that hoary-headed excuse for
the sinner,
"Well, he is, only human"? We have here, I think, a sufficient
explanation of Paul's use of such terms as "likeness"
and "fashion" in
his reference to Christ's humanity; it is the
guarded language of inspiration
upon a theme where a misstep may invite confusion.
(Compare the careful
phrase in Rom. 8:3).
To the New Testament writers Christ is a real
man made "in all things like unto
brethren," yet we are not to forget there is
a difference; we are sinners, but He is "holy
guileless, undefiled, separated from
sinners." Aside from this there is no limit in His
kenosis. He becomes partaker of "flesh and
blood"; is born of a woman under the law;
grows in wisdom and in stature; is often hungry and
weary; meets temptation, not as
God,
but as man, "being tempted in all points like as we are, yet without
sin"; learns
"obedience by the things which he suffered"; knows not
the day of His second coming.
Yet
these limitations, self-imposed as they were, do not open the way for any
dishonoring views regardingHis trustworthiness as a teacher; they do not make
of
Him the fallible Jewish rabbi of Modernism. Such inferences from kenosis
are hasty
and superficial.
When He took upon Him servant-form, the Son of
God came to be the perfect
servant, to reveal
the ideal servanthood. But the perfect servant must
render a perfect
service. Not many will care to affirm that our
Lord failed at this point. He Himself
could say: "I do nothing of myself, but as the
Father taught me, I speak these things.
And
he that hath sent me is with me; he hath not left me alone; for I do always the
things that are pleasing to him." (John
THE DOCTRINE OF THE KENa;IS IN PHILIPPIANS 2:5-8 11
8.:28-29..) And again: "For I speak not from
myself, but the Father that sent me, he hath
given
me commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak" John
"Which
of you convicteth me of sin?" John 8:46). There
is no room for fallibility
here, whatever view we may take of Christ's
humiliation. On the contrary, as Bishop
Moule has pointed out, the kenosis
itself becomes the guarantee of His infallibility.
Whatever
He was before entrance into human existence, by His "self-emptying"
He
becomes the perfect
bond-servant of Jehovah, who does nothing and speaks nothing
from Himself, but speaks only what the Father
"commands," and does
"always the
things that are pleasing to him." Therefore, in
the days of His flesh, the Son of Man
may be trusted without reserve in every statement
He has been pleased to make, for
His
words are in every instance the very words of God.
The great ethical end of the kenosis was servanthood. This conception arose in the
Messianic
prophecy of Isaiah; it was announced from the lips of our Lord Himself,
"The
Son
of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a
ransom
for many"; it was exemplified throughout His
whole earthly ministry, which might have
been appropriately summed up in His own words,
"I am among you as one who serveth."
This
is a prominent idea in both steps of His humiliation as set forth in the Philippian
text. In the first step, as God, He had emptied
Himself, taking the form of a servant.
Then,
as man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death.
An impressive thought in both of these steps is
the perfect freedom and
voluntariness of the Son of God. No
theory of the kenosis can be true which brings
Him into an earthly state where it is impossible
for Him to assert "equality with God."
Room must be left for a "voluntary perseverance
not to assert that equality, on the part
of One Who could do otherwise.” He assumed servant-form and died upon the
cross
for us, not because of any compulsion external to
Himself, but according to the free
and loving choice of His own will. "He was no
Victim of a secret and irresistible destiny
such as that which,
in the Stoic's theology, swept the gods of
change and extinction
as surely as it swept men to their ultimate annihilation." When
He
stooped to servanthood and death He did so with all
the sovereign free will of One
whose choices are limited only by His own holy and
loving will. "He emptied himself."
"He
humbled himself.
"
This voluntary perseverance in that mind which
led Him first to the kenosis
and finally to the cross has an important bearing
on the problem of His self-consciousness.
It implies a certain continuity of
self-consciousness throughout all the changes
incident to His earthly state. He knew, while on
earth, of His pre -existent state;
He
was aware of the mind which had actuated Him in exchanging the God-form
for the servant-form; and He purposed to have
"that mind in him" down to the last
act in the great
drama of redemption. "I know whence
I came, and whither I go,"
He
says to the Pharisees. And drawing near to the hour of death, He repels all
suggestions of any possible change in His own
eternal purpose by declaring steadily,
"But
for this cause came I unto this hour" John 8: 14; 12:27).
But the writer of the Philippian
letter will not permit us to forget that,
even while our blessed Lord was acting in the manner
of a sovereign (for such He was),
He
was also acting in filial obedience to the Father's will. In humbling Himself,
He
became obedient unto death. Not that He was
obeying death when He died --death
had no claim upon Him --but in dying He
12
GRACE
JOURNAL
was obeying the Father whose bond-servant He had
come to be. The thought is that
He
obeyed God so utterly as to die. Does not all this take up back in memory to that
moment of the age when
the Son, entering into the world, announces, "Lo, I am
come; in the roll of the book it was written of me:
I delight to do thy will, 0 God"?
Does
it not take us back to
triumphant cry, "Father, not my will, but thine be done"?
In the death of Christ there was a marvelous
blending of sovereign choice
and utter obedience. He humbled Himself unto death;
yes, but He was also obedient
unto death. Speaking of His approaching death, our
Lord Himself blends these two
things in a striking passage from chapter 10 of John's
Gospel. 'I lay down my life,
" He says, "that I may take it again. No
one taketh it away from me, but I lay it
down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I
have power to take it again"
("power" in
each case in Greek is exousian.
R. V. marg., "-right”). Certainly this
is sovereign choice. But let us read on: "This
commandment received I from my
Father."
Several years ago, while I was engaged in a
study of the Philippian Epistle,
a letter came to me bearing news of the death of
a friend and former classmate who
had laid down his life for Christ in foreign
missionary service. He had been a brilliant
student, was wealthy
in his own right, and at the completion of the seminary
course he was married to a beautiful and talented young
woman. In this country he
might have had everything ordinarily desirable to men
–business success, comfort,
ease, and luxury. But
there was in him the mind of Christ; if I may dare to use the
words reverently, he
freely "emptied himself" of all these prospects, becoming a
servant of the cross
in
was obedient “unto death.”
But the free obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ
rises above all human
comparison. He was indeed obedient unto death, but
more than that, even unto
the death of the cross. After all the death of my
friend was only a joyful "loosing
away upward" to be with the Christ whose he was
and whom he served. There
were no pangs, no sting, in death for him. How
different was the death of the cross!
That
was a "death of unimaginable pain and utmost shame, a death which to the
Jew
was a symbol of the curse of God, and to the Roman
was a horror of degradation.”
Nor was this all. It was a death in which
all the pent up wrath of the law against
human sin would fall upon the blessed head of
Jehovah's Servant, a death in which
He
must plumb the depths of “a soul that's lost." None of this was hid from
His
eyes. Having counted
the cost, for our sakes "He humbled himself, becoming
obedient unto death, even the death of the
cross.”
NOTE
One determining factor in various
interpretations of the Philippian passage has
been the central problem of the incarnation, namely,
What is the relation of the divine
to the human historic
Christ? The Apostle Paul certainly must have known that his
statement would raise
problem but, like other New Testament writers, makes no attempt
to solve it. In the main, writers of Scripture are
content to assert the reality of the two
natures in Christ, without attempting a
rationalization of their doctrine. Perhaps it is
wisdom to leave the matter as they it. One hesitates
to enter a field of controversy
where so many well-intentioned men have
THE DOCTRINE OF THE KENOSIS IN PHILIPPIANS 2:5-8
13
slipped into errors ranging from an Apollinarian denial of any human soul in the
Saviour to the Nominalistic
doctrine of two wills and two minds --in fact,
two persons. But the church has been compelled to
enter this field by reason
of the deviations of those who oftentimes were numbered
among her own sons.
At
one divine and the other human. These two natures
are perfectly and organically
united in one Person, yet they remain distinct, each
retaining its complete integrity.
We
must neither "confound the natures, nor divide the Person. "The seat of
personality in this Person is the Logos, the eternal
Son.
The main criticism of this formula, from the
standpoint of the older
psychology, was how
Christ could have but one personality, if in Him there
were two distinct natures, namely, the human soul
and the Logos-spirit. Did not
the soul of a man constitute a personality in
itself? The ancient church never
wholly succeeded in answering this rather formidable
objection, but nevertheless
wisely refused to alter the formula. Her position is
now being vindicated, I believe,
by the latest
pronouncements of modem psychology. The personality--also the
mind--we are told, is not metaphysical, but is built
up by the interaction constantly
taking place between the living organism and its
environment. I cannot, of course,
accept this statement in toto.
There is certainly a metaphysical basis for both mind
and personality. But with this reservation, the account
seems to be true, and may be
of service in aiding us toward an understanding of
the Person of Christ. The Logos,
in becoming flesh,
was united with a true human soul in the body born of the Virgin
Mary.
This soul on the human side provided a basis for the possible building
up of "a human mind and personality, and the
building up process was perfectly
normal in all respects, except that it took place
around and in vital union with the
Logos-spirit
now emptied of His divine form. (Dr. Strong seems to suggest the
above view of personality when he says, “Nature has
consciousness and will only
as it is manifested in person." Systematic
Theology," p. 695.)
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu