The “kenosis” hymn in Philippians 2:5-11 raises the interesting question of “how much Godhood did Jesus give up?”
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death–
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father– Philippians 2:5-11 (NIV)
Jesus’ “kenosis”– His “making Himself nothing”– was a choice that meant giving up His personal prerogatives in preference for God’s purposes. In the Incarnation, Jesus set aside His divine powers, choosing to rely upon the Spirit as His guide instead of falling back on His own divinity, deferring to the Father rather than acting on His own.
Although Jesus frequently demonstrated awareness of people’s thoughts in line with popular expectations of a mind-reading Messiah, He more commonly displayed a very human lack of knowledge about many things. (Some have even argued Jesus’ “kenosis” was such that He had to be told He was the Son of God.)
Our point here though is that Jesus was not a “superman” disguised as a human being. His humanity was thoroughly genuine and thoroughly relevant to everyday Christian life, truly subject to temptation yet overcoming, truly Son of God yet exposed to withering temptations in the wilderness and in the Garden.
Although Jesus might possibly have been convinced of His secure sinlessness on theoretical grounds, experientially His anguish truly must have been like drops of blood. But He didn’t escape pain and wrenching emotion by retreating from humanness into divinity. Instead, He persevered and became a true exemplar for every believer, not through His own divine power, but by relying upon the Spirit for vital fellowship with the Father — something every Christian can do.
When Jesus criticized His disciples for their weakness,
He spoke with the authority of experience.
Appreciating the “kenosis” of Phil 2:5-11 makes Jesus immediately relevant to all Christians who likewise struggle with temptations, especially the special temptations that come with emptying themselves in the pursuit of God’s purposes.
–Bill Brewer
Tags: kenosis, philippian hymn
this is a correct interpretation and more comprehensive for ordinary people as christian in global world
I don’t think He gave up any Godhood- but He certainly met life on our level – which was a kenosis. This by Thomas Meron. “It is a glorious destiny to be a member of the human race, though it is a race dedicated to many absurdities and one which makes many terrible mistakes: yet, with all that, God Himself gloried in becoming a member of the human race. A member of the human race! To think that such a commonplace realization should suddenly seem like news that one holds the winning ticket in a cosmic sweepstake. I have the immense joy of being a member of a race in which God became Incarnate. As if the sorrows and stupidities of the human condition could overwhelm me, now I realize what we all are. And if only everybody could realize this! But it cannot be explained. There is no way of telling people that they are all walking around shining like the sun. It was as if I suddenly saw the secret beauty of their hearts, the depths of their hearts where neither sin nor desire nor self-knowledge can reach, the core of their reality, the person that each one is in God’s eyes. If only they could all see themselves as they really are. If only we could see each other that way all the time. There would be no more war, no more hatred, no more cruelty, no more greed. I suppose the big problem would be that we would fall down and worship each other. But this cannot be seen, only believed and “understood” by a peculiar gift.” Jesus of course made no mistakes or sins yet He was tempted on our level. As the Lamb of God He came as God’s Love/Grace in action.
With all due respect Jesus did not ‘give up’ one iota of His divinity during the Incarnation. This lengthy two-part article explains it:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress......on-part-i/
http://notunlikelee.wordpress......n-part-ii/
The Gospel of John illustrates unequivocally that Jesus retained and utilized His full deity/divinity most obviously in John 5:21 [giving life to whom He's pleased] in the then present [5:24-25] among other passages.
Hi Craig,
You’ve done some impressive work on the subject of kenosis. It’s a complicated subject. Thanks for the links.
One angle I did not see (but may have overlooked) is the way the doctrine of the Trinity answers the problem of universals vs. particulars.
See my post at . . .
http://historeo.com/web/?p=1723.
Also, one quick question on “did not give up one iota of His divinity” . . . Is the quality of infinity an aspect of divinity, and if so, how does infinity become embodied? Is Jesus presently embodied?
On the Gospel of John reference, I think the theology of kenosis is a matter of Pauline Christology vs. Johannine. While it would be good to systematize them, I think their different intents are sufficient to let the tension remain.
Thanks again!
Peace,
billb
billb,
I’ve never heard of the “problem of universals vs. particulars”. This seems to be more of a philosophical construct rather than a theological one. I may have to give it more thought. But, on first blush, I’d disagree as I see the entire Trinity involved in creation rather than merely the Son as agent. But, again, I’ll give it more study.
I’ve seen a reference to creation itself as “kenosis” – something God is, according to this ideology, doing all the time with respect to creation; but, it’s not something I’ve studied at lenght (or actually at all).
The attribute of ‘eternality’, a term I prefer over ‘infinity’, is part of the Trinitarian Godhead, yes. The Logos never relinquished his eternality while incarnate as he was still sustaining the cosmos [Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:17]. So, while the fullness of deity was in the person of Jesus Christ [Col 1:19], the fullness was not constrained by the parameters of the physical body of the Christ. This is akin to the Holy Spirit who indwells each and every believer who is yet not constrained by the body of the believer.
The problem I see is more one of Lukan as compared to Johannine with respect to Christology. I think the two can be harmonized/systematized, but it’s something I’m still working out. Something I can state with certainty: the Johannine corpus refutes the theory that Jesus relied solely on the Holy Spirit to perform the miraculous.
I’ll take more time to read some of your site. I went “home” and saw the article on docetism which piqued my interest.
Hi again Craig,
I’ve found universals vs. particulars to be an issue that cuts across numerous areas. Take for example the nature of language — i.e., realism vs. nominalism, along with the middle ground of conceptualism.
In practical terms, do our words “participate” in the ultimate realities to which we refer or are they merely conventional; and if participatory, how? Lots of good connections with both testaments . . . Babel was the watershed between real and conceptual/nominal for example.
The bible as philosophy offers a powerful apologetic — better than the bible as science I would think.
Isn’t “eternality” just the reduction of infinity to the one dimension of time?
I would take the indwelling Spirit as a figure in both the apostolic (charismatic) church and the church today.
“Docetic Bible” still needs lots of polish — not pleased with it yet.
Thanks so much for your thoughts!!
Regards,
billb
I’m still working on the Bible as a theological apologetic!
I see ‘eternality’ as much more than merely ‘time’. However, apparently, there are different views regarding the eternal realm. The best thoughts I’ve seen yet (I’ve not looked into this very much as I see it more of a philosophical thing and something that goes beyond the bounds of Scripture and quite possibly our ability to comprehend) are from Chafer:
“…Whatever time may be and whatever its relation to eternity, it must be maintained that no cessation of eternity has occurred or will. God’s mode of existence remains unchanged. Time might be thought of as something superimposed upon eternity were it not that there is ground for question whether eternity consists of a succession of events, as is true of time. The consciousness of God is best conceived as being an all-inclusive comprehension at once, covering all that has been or will be. The attempt to bring time with its successions into a parallel with eternity is to misconceive the most essential characteristic of eternal things.”
This quote was used in the 2nd part of the article referenced above.
I see eternality as well as all the ‘omni’ attributes as infinite (subsets of infinity, perhaps?) so that the term ‘infinity’ is a blanket term for all, hence each one should be defined separately.
You’re deeper than I on this.
In my mind, time is the only way a finite creature/creation can experience infinity.
In other words, if a finite creature is dropped into infinity, what would it feel like? My answer is “time.”
I don’t think I made my point very well with respect to the indwelling Spirit compared to the Logos in Jesus during the Incarnation. My point is that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent and analogous to the Logos retaining the divine attribute of omnipresence in sustaining the cosmos while Incarnate.
The Holy Spirit is complex, moreso in historical than NT theology though. I think of the Spirit in the NT as the bond between the Son and the Father. The Father sends; the Son goes; and the Spirit operates to bind Them together.
OK, now I see where my argumentation faltered on ‘infinity’. I guess I was thinking I’d already convered at least omnipotence and omniscience in using the John verses so I assumed you were speaking of eternal in distinction from the ‘omni’ attributes (thereby reading too much into your question). Of course ‘infinity’ includes the ‘omni’ attributes and eternality by definition; so, now I see why you asked the question. I suppose that’s what happens when my attention is divided.
So, then, to restate and (hopefully) clarify my response, the infinite (the Logos) did not become finite. The Logos added a human nature and, consequently, the person of Jesus Christ accepted the limitations of humanity yet the divine aspect (Logos) continued as infinite and remained the sustainer of the cosmos.
Consider this . . .
When Jesus’ disciples say to Him, “now we know that you know all things and no man needs to ask you anything,” they are reflecting the Socratic method of instruction in which the teacher teaches by asking the student questions. (From a dynamic equivalency standpoint, the passage should be translated, “now we know that you know all things and no man needs to TEACH you anything.”)
My point here is to ask the question, does the original passage reflect a divine endorsement of the Socratic method or is the reference to the method simply cultural context without any particular weight? My feeling is that I wouldn’t want to use the passage as an authority in a dogmatic theology covering education to give the Socratic message divine weight.
I think a similar thing is somewhat true of Logos theology in the NT. When the NT speaks of Jesus as the Logos, it is playing off the Logos theology of contemporary Stoicism. And I’m not real sure where the biblical points end and the cultural context begins. So I anchor on the obvious points and avoid putting all my weight on the rest.
Regards,
billb
If I am correct on this (I’ve not specifically looked at all the NT), it’s only John who refers to the 2nd person of the Trinity as the Logos. Without checking, I seem to recall Paul using rhema instead in Colossians, for example. I’m actually studying this (tangentially) and my current hypothesis is that John used the term Logos, as well as a few other things in his Gospel, as an apologetic against proto-gnosticism.
But, I do understand it’s very difficult to ascertain where the cultural context begins and ends in the Gospels. But, as one other example, Paul uses the word ‘mystery’ [Greek transliterated mysterion] as an apologetic against the mystery religions re-appropriating the term to mean instead “a mystery now revealed in Christ”.
Yes, I don’t recall anyone other than John using Logos that way.
And you are correct about the proto-Gnostic background of John. I call John pseudo-Gnostic because it appears to be Gnostic but isn’t. Instead, it uses Gnostic-like language as a way of sidestepping Gnostic defenses. Its pseudo-Gnosticism though was enough to delay John’s inclusion in the canon.
See my posts on the Greek word “kai” for a bit of anti-Gnostic Gnosticism in John, specifically “ichor” the watery blood of the gods.
I don’t think Colossians uses rhema at all — could be mistaken.
I think you are correct on musterion.
I should also say that I’ve tried to leave out Trinitarian issues in the article to the extent possible (it was long enough!); however, of course, Christology informs the Trinity and vice versa.
Are you from South Texas? I noticed the link to “Christian News of South Texas”. I recognize someone on staff. I’m from San Antonio myself.
Yes, I live in San Antonio as well. Got my MS is biblical and related studies from Abilene Christian and MDiv from Lipscomb.
On the Trinity, check out the following if you have time.
“Ancient Christological Controversies,” http://historeo.com/web/?p=977
“Eternal Subordination and Gender Egalitarianism,” http://historeo.com/web/?p=895
Well, you’ve got two legs up on me as I’m just a laymen who learns as he goes.
I’ll try to check out the links a bit later.
A faux pas on my part to mention the academics . . .
As a rule, I don’t do that, except in your case, you do so well, I just naturally assumed you had a lot of formal training.
Thought we might have go to the same schools . . .
My compliments.
No need to apologize re: academics (and I didn’t see it as a faux pas) as it is of interest to me as I was curious of your background.
I’m just very anal-retentive so when I research a subject I like to be thorough. I’d like to attend some sort of school of theology but, at present, it’s just not feasible.
If you ever get a chance, try Austin Graduate School of Theology in Austin (of course).
Very economical and staffed by the most faithful and encouraging professors I have ever met, most with doctorates from Yale, Harvard, Vanderbilt, etc.
A quick check of the BDAG (my Christmas present to me this past year) shows I was wrong as, in checking my Greek interlinear, it is Hebrews 1:3 (the other passage which ‘speaks’ [pun intended] to the Word as sustainer of the cosmos) which uses rhema rather than logos. Interestingly, (to me) Paul uses Logos in Colossians 1:25 and Philippians 2:15 (and just after the hymn of 2:5-11). Well, more study is necessary.
But, then again, with John’s phraseology “the Logos became flesh [sarx]” I believe he’s refuting docetism which he would, of course, do much more specifically in his first epistle. This appears to go a bit beyond Paul; however, I believe docetism did not arise until after Paul wrote his corpus.
I don’t have the time to devote to this as I’d like. And, I’d love to learn Biblical Greek as well.
One thing I have found helpful is to resist the tendency to treat generic words in terms of their later-day technical/theological meanings. Over the centuries the connection of “logos” with the Stoic Logos has been so prominent it’s easy to forget it is most often used without that connection.
The connection between Docetism and Gnosticism is confusing. In my mind, Docetism is limited to the Christological heresy of Gnosticism.
It’s important to keep in mind that “good/evil” was a matter of “being” rather than morality in Greek thought. Matter was “evil” because it was an inferior level of being.
The point here is that Greek culture was primed to take a Docetic view of Jesus as pure spirit.
billb
Actually, I believe the Spirit moved the writers of the NT to use certain words by design and logos is, IMO, one of the those. I’m assuming you are aware of this – Gnostic thought undergirds New Age ideology and, more importantly (and I’m assuming you are not aware of this part), has infiltrated the “Church”. In my mind, while Docetism and asceticism are subsets of proto-Gnosticism, a dualistic mindset pervaded Hellenistic thought to the point of informing the worldview of many individuals at the time (apparently Jewish Kabbalah came from this, if not adherents borrowed from each other). Full blown Gnosticism in the 2nd century pitted the NT Father against the OT demiurge as I’m sure you well know.
You can see this dualism in a few different forms such as the many false dichotomies posed today (IMO, there’s a delusion of Republican vs. Democrats as false dichotomy). My blog was set up as an apologetic against heresies running rampant through the “Church”. One guy I’ve researched at length is Bill Johnson and he ‘tweets’ and Facebooks many false dichotomies including pitting orthodox theologians as ‘evil’ against current “fathers”, those propounding esoterica, as ‘good’. He even goes to the exteme of redefining the term antichrist as essentially “anti-anointing” (and anointing is redefined) such that anyone against the anointing (as he defines it) is antichrist!
My view (which I admit is in the minority as many have difficulty seeing this) is that Johnson is propounding the same ol’ Jesus became Christ at baptism by virtue of the “Christ anointing” – a Cerinthian (of Cerinthus) and New Age view that the Christ Spirit descended upon the human Jesus but leaving Him before Crucifixion. [Jesus is the person/human, "Christ" is the Spirit.] A careful reading of this chapter with the view as I just set forth bears this out I do believe although it’s very confusing and at times seems to sound orthodox. My opinion is it’s conflation and confusing by design.
Further, read through “The Original Commission” [p 25] making note of the Scripture references by footnote he takes out of context and view this as if he’s speaking of the demiurge instead. The last paragraph (third paragraph) is the key as, of course, in Genesis 1, the world was “good”. Yes, he’s “Christianized” this teaching to a point, of course, to make it more palatable to undiscerning Christians and those who have no background in Gnosticism.
Sorry, it seems we’ve strayed from the subject of your post. But, I am passionate about exposing this stuff.
Yes, I’m fairly familiar with the subject and modern-day manifestations, although I was not familiar with Johnson.
I would recommend “Against the Protestant Gnostics” by Philip J. Lee as a good reference.
Also, please see my presentation on Gnosticism in the context of a study of the Gospel of Thomas at the following link.
Gospel of Thomas Presentation