The doctrine of Kenosis

This doctrine has to do with the ministry of the Holy Spirit sustaining the humanity of Christ during His earthly ministry. It means that during the period before the cross Christ voluntarily restricted the independent use of some of His divine attributes. His miracles were performed in the power of the Holy Spirit; He taught doctrine in the power of the Spirit; He did not use His own divine attributes independently of God. His reliance upon the power of the Holy Spirit rather than the independent use of His attributes is illustrated in Matthew chapter four where it is one of the great issues. His divine attributes were functional as was seen in the fact that His omniscience knew what the Pharisees were thinking, that He had the power to do things Himself but He did not use His omniscience independently of the Father’s plan. His humanity depended upon the Holy Spirit.

The term kenosis is taken from the Greek word kenoõ in Philippians 2:7 which is a part of the well-known passage concerning the “self-emptying” or the kenosis of Christ. In his treatment of the subject, Dr L. S. Chafer (Systematic Theology, vol. I, pp. 373ff) says that “due to the fact that unbelief has misinterpreted and magnified it (the passage in Phil. 2:5-8) out of all proportion, [it] is more fully treated exegetically by scholars of past generations than almost any other in the Word of God. He says: “The problem centers upon the verb ekenosen which, with reference to Christ, declares that He emptied Himself.”

Dr J. F. Walvoord, in his book Jesus Christ Our Lord, pp. 138-40, comments concerning the Philippians passage:

Christ is described first of all as “existing in the form of God” (v.6, ASV). The word for “existing” is not the usual Greek verb Õn (to be), but hyparchõn which is found in a form used for both the present and the imperfect participle and carries the meaning of continued existence. The thought is that Christ always has been in the form of God with the implication that He still is. If the Greek form is taken as the present tense instead of the imperfect, the word would mean that Christ existed as God in the past, before the incarnation, and is still existing in the form of God. This would be asserting that the deity of Christ continues unchanged by the act of the incarnation. If taken as a simple perfect, it would refer to His state before the incarnation, without explicitly affirming continuity in the form of God though the implication of continuity would remain.

As stated by the apostle, Christ “existing” in the form of God, counted not on being in 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 himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross (vv. 6-8, ASV). The attitude of Christ which believers are exhorted to emulate is that He did not grasp at being on equality with God as if it had to be attained by effort.

The act of the incarnation is described by the strong word ekenõsen (English, kenosis), from kenoõ, meaning “to empty” (cf. four other instances where used in the New Testament: Rom. 4:14; 1 Cor. 1:17; 9:15; 2 Cor. 9:3). Warfield considers the translation “emptied himself” (v. 7, ASV) as an error, apparently preferring the Authorised Version rendering “made himself of no reputation,” that is, emptied Himself of the manifestations of Deity. The crux of the exposition of this important passage hangs on the definition of the act of kenosis. Orthodox theologians have pointed out that the meaning of this word must be interpreted by the context itself. The passage does not state that Christ ceased to exist in the form of God, but rather that He added the form of a servant. The word morphëi, translated “form,” speaks of the outer appearance or manifestation. As it relates to the eternal deity of Christ, it refers to the fact that Christ in eternity past in outer appearance manifested His divine attributes. It was not mere form or appearance, but that which corresponded to what He was eternally. In becoming man He took upon Himself the form of a Servant, that is, the outward appearance of a Servant and the human nature which corresponds to it. This is further defined as manifesting the likeness (Greek, homoiõmati) of man in that He looked and acted like a man. The passage declares in addition that He was “found in fashion as a man” (v. 8), the word “fashion” (Greek, schëmati) indicating the more transient manifestations of humanity such as weariness, thirst and other human limitations. Taking the whole passage together, there is no declaration here that there was any loss of deity, but rather a limitation of its manifestation. It is certainly clear from other declarations of Paul that he recognized Jesus Christ in the flesh was all that God is even though He appeared to be a Man.

There is a false doctrine of kenosis which asserts that the self-emptying of Christ was the giving up of certain attributes of His deity. But as Chafer comments:

“The fundamental truth that the eternal God cannot cease to be what He is … and any theory which supposes that God the Son should cease to be what He ever has been and ever will be, is error of the first magnitude” (Systematic Theology, vol. I, p. 374).

The essence of God is immutable, i.e. it cannot be changed.