This is a note to myself about the GCLI materials. In the GCLI Book 2, p. 194, the author listed "Kenosis" as a key doctrine in understanding the Incarnation. The author, Herschel Martindale, even listed the doctrine before Hypostatic Union. Kenotic Theology is a relatively new doctrine (19th and 20th centuries) and is rejected by most prominent evangelicals. I ran my objections by Brooks Simpson and Dan Bovenmeyer and they agreed. I'm outlining my objections here so if anyone asks me what I think about the GCLI materials, I can give my concerns; however, no one really cares about this stuff anymore.
Martindale listed the 5 characteristics of Kenotic Theology as follows:
"The Kenosis" (self limitation or emptying), Dr. Dennis J. Mock, (Bible Doctrine Survey): Through the incarnation, Jesus as God became real man. But how could God take on humanity and still be God? Philippians. 2:5-11 is the key text. Verse 6: "Being in very nature; God" (Deity). Verse 7: "Being made in human likeness" ;(humanity). Verse 7: "Made Himself nothing" ("emptied Himself"). Verse 8: "He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." Christ then
- Voluntarily gave up the right to use some divine prerogatives, and divine position for a time;
- Condescended to add unglorified humanity to His Deity.
- Limited the use some of His divine attributes while a man;
- Voluntarily depended on the Holy Spirit during His early ministry;
- Sacrificially became God's Servant.
My biggest objection is that it is just plain bad exegesis on Philippians 2:5-11. Grudem comments on the passage in his Systematic Theology:
But does Philippians 2:7
teach that Christ emptied himself of some of his divine attributes, and does
the rest of the New Testament confirm this? The evidence of Scripture points to
a negative answer to both questions. We must first realize that no recognized
teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were
native speakers of Greek, thought that “emptied himself” in Philippians 2:7
meant that the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes. Second, we
must recognize that the text does not say that Christ “emptied himself of some
powers” or “emptied himself of divine attributes” or anything like that. Third,
the text does describe what Jesus did in this “emptying”: he did not do it by
giving up any of his attributes but rather by “taking the form of a servant,”
that is, by coming to live as a man, and “being found in human form he humbled
himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8).
Thus, the context itself interprets this “emptying” as equivalent to “humbling
himself” and taking on a lowly status and position. Thus, the NIV, instead of
translating the phrase, “He emptied himself,” translates it, “but made himself
nothing” (Phil. 2:7 NIV). The emptying includes change of role and status, not
essential attributes or nature.
A fourth reason for this interpretation is seen in Paul’s purpose in this context. His purpose has been to persuade the Philippians that they should “do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3), and he continues by telling them, “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4). To persuade them to be humble and to put the interests of others first, he then holds up the example of Christ: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant . . .” (Phil. 2:5–7).
Now in holding up Christ as an example, he wants the Philippians to imitate Christ. But certainly he is not asking the Philippian Christians to “give up” or “lay aside” any of their essential attributes or abilities! He is not asking them to “give up” their intelligence or strength or skill and become a diminished version of what they were. Rather, he is asking them to put the interests of others first: “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4). And because that is his goal, it fits the context to understand that he is using Christ as the supreme example of one who did just that: he put the interests of others first and was willing to give up some of the privilege and status that was his as God. (pp. 550-552).
Charles Ryrie comments on Mock's use of the term, "
Kenosis":
So if our understanding of kenosis comes from Philippians 2, we should get our definition of the concept there. And that passage does not discuss at all the question of how or how much Christ's glory was veiled. Nor does it say anything about the use or restriction of divine attributes. It does say that the emptying concerned becoming a man to be able to die. Thus the kenosis means leaving His preincarnate position and taking on a servant-humanity. (p. 301, Basic Theology)
F. F. Bruce has a comment on Philippians 2:7, which summarizes this blog rather nicely.
The implication is not that Christ, by becoming incarnate, exchanged the form of God for the form of a slave, but that he manifested the form of God in the form of slave
( p. 218, F.F. Bruce as quoted by Peter in O'Brien, The Epistle to Ephesians)
Jesus did have limited knowledge sometimes, but he had supernatural knowledge at other times. Jesus limited his power at times on earth, but he demonstrated his power over nature in his miracles. The point of the passage is not why Christ did not display more of his power on earth, but rather to exemplify Christ's humility. I do not understand how the two natures of Christ communicated between each other, but this doctrine of Kenosis confuses rather than clarifies the mystery.
