the kenosis theory

Dave_L

I'm looking at the kenosis theory as a possible means to reconcile those who do not see Christ's deity in scripture with those who do.

KENOSIS - View asserting that the eternal Son of God by virtue of the incarnation gave up some or all of the divine attributes which were incommensurate with a fully human existence. This view is primarily based on Phil. 2:5–11, especially verse 7, which states that Christ “emptied Himself.” The idea of self-emptying is taken from the Greek verb kenoo which means “make empty.”

Zachariades, D. (2003). Kenosis. In C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen, & T. C. Butler (Eds.), Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (p. 979). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

My position is that Jesus did not stop being God, but made himself of no reputation as God, while making himself of great reputation as man. And so people naturally see the manhood of Jesus in scripture before they see his divinity. The manhood needs no special revelation, but his Messiahship does. As in the case of Peter to whom God revealed Christ's divinity (Messiahship).

Any thoughts about the kenosis theory appreciated.

C Mc

Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word.

As Packer sees it, the "profoundest" and "most unfathomable" depths of the Christian revelation lie in the incarnation, the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was truly and fully divine as well as human. The prologue of John (John 1:1-18) has convinced Packer of Christ's eternity, personality, deity, creative ability, animating (life-giving) ability, revealing ability (i. e., how every man "receives intimations of God from the very fact of his being alive in God's world") and how Christ revealed God in His incarnation.

Describing the unfathomable mystery of the incarnation, Packer writes:

The Word had become flesh: a real human baby. He had not ceased to be God; He was no less God then than before, but He had begun to be a man. He was not now God minus some elements of His deity, but God plus all that He had made His own by taking manhood to Himself.

This statement also has implications for the Christological analogy. Packer's emphasis in the above statement is foundational to his doctrine of God. For if, at His incarnation, He had emptied Himself of His "metaphysical" attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience), retaining only the "moral" ones (justice, holiness, truthfulness, love), as claimed by some advocates of the kenotic theory, Christ Jesus could not have been fully God, and could not, therefore, have fully revealed Him.

Packer takes issue with the kenotic theory which attempted to explain why Jesus was ignorant of what the nineteenth-century higher critics considered to be errors in the Old Testament. Packer states Gore's position this way:

• "Gore's thesis was that in becoming a man the son had given up His divine knowledge of matters of fact, though retaining full divine infallibility on moral issues. In the realm of historical facts, however, He was limited to current Jewish ideas, which He accepted without question, not knowing that they were not all correct. Hence His treatment of the Old Testament as verbally inspired and wholly true, and His ascription of the Pentateuch to Moses and Psalm 110 to David--views which Gore thought untenable."

Packer objects to the above position not only because it lacks biblical support, but also because it raises insoluble problems about how Jesus could fully reveal God if He lacked divine attributes. Moreover, a theory that ascribes error to part of Jesus' teaching contradicts the explicit claims by Jesus Himself that all His teachings came from His Father, a God who cannot lie (John 7:16; 8:28, 40; 12:49 ff.).

Moreover, if the human Jesus, at His incarnation, was God minus some attributes of deity, that is to say, if "true manhood on earth was incompatible with unreduced deity," it would follow that even the resurrected human Jesus, and possibly, the human Jesus who intercedes for us in heaven has lost certain divine attributes, "never to be recovered"--a fact contradicted by Scriptures.

Packer refers to biblical passages such as Matt 28:18, 20; John 21:17; Eph 4:10 to underline the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of the risen Christ. While acknowledging that in some instances Jesus' knowledge of things both human and divine was limited (see for example, Mark 5:30; 6:38; 13:32), Packer also calls attention to other times when Christ displayed supernatural knowledge (e.g., John 4:17; Matt 17:27; John 11:11-13).

According to Packer, these apparently contradictory statements from the Bible may be harmonized when the limitations of Christ's knowledge and power are seen as His "restraint" of His divine capacities, an act of His entire submission to the Father's will. Thus, at the incarnation, Jesus chose to act and think only and wholly as the Father directed (John 5:19, 30; 6:38; 8:28 ff.). Just as Jesus did not do all that He could have done, because of His voluntary submission to His Father's will (see e.g., Matt 26:53 ff.), so did He not consciously know all that He might have known, but only what the Father willed Him to know. Packer concludes: "just as there are some facts in the gospels which contradict the kenosis theory, so there are no facts in the gospel which are not best explained without it".

In Packer's view, "the real kenosis" (Phil 2:7; 2 Cor 8:9) must be understood not as a reduction of Christ's deity at His incarnation but rather as a laying aside of the glory which He had before the world was created (John 17:5), a voluntary restraint of His power in submission to the Father's will.

Since, He was fully God, by looking at the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ we can come to a dependable knowledge of God. The incarnate Christ is "divine revelation in paradigmatic form, the form to which all other divine revelations correspond."

Apart from special, saving revelation--the revelation that centers upon the Lord Jesus Christ--it is impossible to know God. He also writes: "Christless men, then, all the world over, are ignorant of God with an ignorance that is to some extent wilful and therefore guilty."

This is why only those who know Christ truly know God, and they alone can do theology aright. CM

SOURCES:

-- James I. Packer, Knowing God, Pp 46-50; 54-55

-- Millard J. Erickson, The Word Became Flesh (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991), Pp 78-86, 551-555. [For a summary review and analysis of some contemporary versions of the kenotic theory].

-- James I. Packer, "Is Systematic Theology a Mirage?" p 35.

-- James I. Packer, God Has Spoken (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1979), Pp 60-61.

Dave_L

@C_M_ said:

Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word.

As Packer sees it, the "profoundest" and "most unfathomable" depths of the Christian revelation lie in the incarnation, the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was truly and fully divine as well as human. The prologue of John (John 1:1-18) has convinced Packer of Christ's eternity, personality, deity, creative ability, animating (life-giving) ability, revealing ability (i. e., how every man "receives intimations of God from the very fact of his being alive in God's world") and how Christ revealed God in His incarnation.

Describing the unfathomable mystery of the incarnation, Packer writes:

The Word had become flesh: a real human baby. He had not ceased to be God; He was no less God then than before, but He had begun to be a man. He was not now God minus some elements of His deity, but God plus all that He had made His own by taking manhood to Himself.

This statement also has implications for the Christological analogy. Packer's emphasis in the above statement is foundational to his doctrine of God. For if, at His incarnation, He had emptied Himself of His "metaphysical" attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience), retaining only the "moral" ones (justice, holiness, truthfulness, love), as claimed by some advocates of the kenotic theory, Christ Jesus could not have been fully God, and could not, therefore, have fully revealed Him.

Packer takes issue with the kenotic theory which attempted to explain why Jesus was ignorant of what the nineteenth-century higher critics considered to be errors in the Old Testament. Packer states Gore's position this way:

• "Gore's thesis was that in becoming a man the son had given up His divine knowledge of matters of fact, though retaining full divine infallibility on moral issues. In the realm of historical facts, however, He was limited to current Jewish ideas, which He accepted without question, not knowing that they were not all correct. Hence His treatment of the Old Testament as verbally inspired and wholly true, and His ascription of the Pentateuch to Moses and Psalm 110 to David--views which Gore thought untenable."

Packer objects to the above position not only because it lacks biblical support, but also because it raises insoluble problems about how Jesus could fully reveal God if He lacked divine attributes. Moreover, a theory that ascribes error to part of Jesus' teaching contradicts the explicit claims by Jesus Himself that all His teachings came from His Father, a God who cannot lie (John 7:16; 8:28, 40; 12:49 ff.).

Moreover, if the human Jesus, at His incarnation, was God minus some attributes of deity, that is to say, if "true manhood on earth was incompatible with unreduced deity," it would follow that even the resurrected human Jesus, and possibly, the human Jesus who intercedes for us in heaven has lost certain divine attributes, "never to be recovered"--a fact contradicted by Scriptures.

Packer refers to biblical passages such as Matt 28:18, 20; John 21:17; Eph 4:10 to underline the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of the risen Christ. While acknowledging that in some instances Jesus' knowledge of things both human and divine was limited (see for example, Mark 5:30; 6:38; 13:32), Packer also calls attention to other times when Christ displayed supernatural knowledge (e.g., John 4:17; Matt 17:27; John 11:11-13).

According to Packer, these apparently contradictory statements from the Bible may be harmonized when the limitations of Christ's knowledge and power are seen as His "restraint" of His divine capacities, an act of His entire submission to the Father's will. Thus, at the incarnation, Jesus chose to act and think only and wholly as the Father directed (John 5:19, 30; 6:38; 8:28 ff.). Just as Jesus did not do all that He could have done, because of His voluntary submission to His Father's will (see e.g., Matt 26:53 ff.), so did He not consciously know all that He might have known, but only what the Father willed Him to know. Packer concludes: "just as there are some facts in the gospels which contradict the kenosis theory, so there are no facts in the gospel which are not best explained without it".

In Packer's view, "the real kenosis" (Phil 2:7; 2 Cor 8:9) must be understood not as a reduction of Christ's deity at His incarnation but rather as a laying aside of the glory which He had before the world was created (John 17:5), a voluntary restraint of His power in submission to the Father's will.

Since, He was fully God, by looking at the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ we can come to a dependable knowledge of God. The incarnate Christ is "divine revelation in paradigmatic form, the form to which all other divine revelations correspond."

Apart from special, saving revelation--the revelation that centers upon the Lord Jesus Christ--it is impossible to know God. He also writes: "Christless men, then, all the world over, are ignorant of God with an ignorance that is to some extent wilful and therefore guilty."

This is why only those who know Christ truly know God, and they alone can do theology aright. CM

SOURCES:

-- James I. Packer, Knowing God, Pp 46-50; 54-55

-- Millard J. Erickson, The Word Became Flesh (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991), Pp 78-86, 551-555. [For a summary review and analysis of some contemporary versions of the kenotic theory].

-- James I. Packer, "Is Systematic Theology a Mirage?" p 35.

-- James I. Packer, God Has Spoken (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1979), Pp 60-61.

Thanks, I think this is spot on.

GaoLu

Amen.

[Deleted User]

Anyone have any idea who and/or how many among the early Christians in Philippi who received Paul's epistle and heard it read in their assembly knew something about the theological points used by Packer and others in order to understand what Paul had written in Phi 2:5-11??

My simple take is that NO ONE among the original recipients and audience at the assembly in Philippi thought off those artificial theological constructs ... and they most likely understood the passage as what it really is => an example and encouragement to all believers of what they can and how they should THINK.

Now, you folks tell me, how believers can take "emptying oneself of Godhead glory" by becoming a man is something believers should think and do regarding themselves ?? The whole passage is about THE MAN Jesus, and what he AS A MAN thought and did and thereby giving an example of esteeming others higher than himself, of submitting his will to God's will and thereby making himself a slave rather than thinking of himself as the future king reigning, etc ...

But then, this amateur's Biblical knowledge and understanding of the passage in light of the context and expressed in simple words surely is not to be trusted in like manner as what the many professionals declare in their complicated explanations loaded with Greek words, artificial links to other passages which have nothing to do with the context, etc ...

Thus, folks, be careful and don't fall for this amateur's view ... it most likely can NOT be true because there are far more theology pros and authors who have a different opinion.

Dave_L

The early church didn't have the Kenosis Theory. "kenoticism is usually associated with a group of German theologians in the mid-19th century: G. Thomassius (1802–75), F. H. R. von Frank (1827–94) and W. F. Gess (1819–91) and a group of British theologians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: Charles Gore, H. R. Mackintosh, Frank Weston (1871–1924), P. T. Forsyth and O. C. Quick (1885–1944)."

https://heidelblog.net/2016/08/a-brief-history-of-the-kenosis-theory/

So it takes someone of the likes of Packer to meet it at the same skill level underwich it came into being.