Trinitarianism, Part 6

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s Note: This the sixth article on Trinitarianism presents both the humanity of Christ and a consideration of the kenosis. This has been preceded by a discussion of Christ’s Pre-existence, His Names, His Deity, and His Incarnation; and will be followed by an article on the Hypostatic Union.]

VII. His Humanity

Introduction.

A specific treatment of the humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ is indicated in any Christological thesis. Unavoidably, this aspect of truth concerning Christ has been anticipated to some extent in previous sections of this discussion, and the theme must reappear in that which is to follow. A new reality is constituted in the Person of Christ by the adding of His Humanity to that which from all eternity has been His undiminished Deity. Apart from this union of two natures there is no Theanthropic Person, no Mediator, no Redeemer, and no Savior. The whole truth relative to the Christ has not been reached when perchance His essential Deity has been demonstrated; nor has it been reached when a similar demonstration of His essential humanity has been made. The Christ of God is the incomparable—and to no small degree, the unknowable—combination of these two natures. The weighing of that which is divine, or that which is human in the God-man—apart from natural limitations on the part of the student—is comparatively an uncomplicated matter. Endless complexity arises when these two natures combine in one person, as they do in Christ. This complexity will be considered in the division of this thesis which follows. The objective in the present investigation is the discovery and recognition of Christ’s humanity.

The Christian era has seen a reversal of emphasis in its Christology. The early centuries were characterized by discussions calculated to establish the humanity of Christ; while the present requirement seems to be the recognition of, and emphasis upon, His Deity. In his Gospel, the Apostle John has presented the Deity of Christ, and in his Epistles he has as faithfully asserted His humanity. It was indicative of the time in which he wrote when he said: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Chris is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:2, 3).

A strong incentive arises at this point to go into the historical aspects of this phase of Christology. Dr. Richard Watson has compiled an admirable condensation of the early controversy over the humanity of Christ the quotation of which will suffice: “The source of this ancient error appears to have been a philosophical one. Both in the oriental and Greek schools, it was a favourite notion, that whatever was joined to matter was necessarily contaminated by it, and that the highest perfection of this life was abstraction from material things, and, in another, a total and final separation from the body. This opinion was, also, the probable cause of leading some persons, in St. Paul’s time, to deny the reality of a resurrection, and to explain it figuratively. But, however that may be, it was one of the chief grounds of the rejection of the proper humanity of Christ among the different branches of the Gnostics, who, indeed, erred as to both natures. The things which the Scriptures attribute to the human nature of our Lord they did not deny; but affirmed that they took place in appearance only, and they were, therefore, called Docetae and Phantasiastae. At a later period, Eutyches fell into a similar error, by teaching that the human nature of Christ was absorbed into the Divine, and that his body had no real existence. These errors have passed away, and danger now lies only on one side; not, indeed, because men are become less liable or less disposed to err, but because philosophy,—from vain pretenses to which, or a proud reliance upon it, almost all great religious errors spring,—has, in later ages, taken a different character. While these errors denied the real existence of the body of Christ, the Apollinarian heresy rejected the existence of a human soul in our Lord, and taught that the Godhead supplied its place. Thus both these views denied to Christ a proper humanity, and both were, accordingly condemned by the general Church. Among those who held the union of two natures in Christ, the Divine and human, which, in theological language is called the hypostatical, or personal union, several distinctions were also made which led to a diversity of opinion. The Nestorians acknowledged two persons in our Lord, mystically and more closely united than any human analogy can explain. The Monophysites contended for one person and one nature, the two being supposed to be, in some mysterious manner, confounded. The Monothelites acknowledged two natures and one will. Various other refinements were, at different times, propagated; but the true sense of Scripture appears to have been very accurately expressed by the council of Chalcedon, in the fifth century,—that in Christ there is one person; in the unity of person, two natures, the Divine and the human; and that there is no change, or mixture, or confusion of these two natures, but that each retains its own distinguishing properties. With this agrees the Athanasian Creed, whatever be its date.”[1]

The Scriptures declare that Christ possessed a human body, soul, and spirit, and that He experienced those emotions which belong to human existence. There is much difficulty arising when the thought is entertained of two volition ne divine and one human—in the one Person. Though this problem is difficult, it is clearly taught in the New Testament that Christ, on the human side, possessed a will which was wholly surrendered to the will of His Father. The surrender of the will, while it obviates any possible conflict between the will of the Father and the will of the Son, does not at all serve to remove the human will from His unique Person. The human will was ever present regardless of the use He may have made of it.

The truth concerning Christ’s humanity may, by the inerrant Scriptures, be proven in a manner wholly scientific. The reality of His human nature is determined by the presence of facts which are distinctly human. This principle is all that science requires in the pursuance of any investigation. The facts concerning Christ’s humanity may be summarized in part as follows:

1. Christ’s Humanity was Anticipated Before the Foundation of the World.

This is stated in Revelation 13:8, where Christ is declared to be the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” All references to Christ as the “Lamb” are of His humanity. They concern His human body, the perfect sacrifice for sin. The humanity of Christ, like the whole plan of redemption, was purposed by God before the foundation of the world. The cross, with its human sacrifice, is timeless in its purpose and effect.

2. The Old Testament Expectation was of a Human Messiah.

This expectation was twofold: (a) as outlined in the types, and (b) as foretold in prophecy:

a. The types.

Of upwards of fifty types of Christ found in the Old Testament, the majority either directly or indirectly represent, among other features, the humanity of Christ. It is obvious that where blood is shed, a body sacrificed, or a typical person appears, the human element is indicated.

b. Prophecy.

A very few selections from the body of prophetic Scriptures must suffice: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15); “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa 7:14). A virgin conceiving and bearing a son is human; yet this is to be Immanuel, which being interpreted is “God with us.” “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this” (Isa 9:6, 7). The patriarch Job was conscious of an insuperable distance between himself and God. His desire was for a “daysman” who could lay his hand both upon God and upon man. This is his cry for a mediator: “For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment. Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both” (Job 9:32, 33).

3. A Specific New Testament Prophecy.

Added to the Old Testament expectation concerning Christ’s humanity is the message of the angel to Mary: “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.... The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:31–35).

4. The Life of Christ on Earth.

It is written: “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren” (Heb 2:17). He is declared to be human by

a. His names.

Jesus is His human name. It is related to his human life, His body, His death and the acquired glory bestowed because of His redeeming grace (Phil 2:5–9). Several times He is called “The man Christ Jesus,” and about eighty times He is called “The Son of man.” This latter title was the name He most often gave Himself. It was as though, from the divine standpoint, the human aspect of His person needed most to be disclosed.

b. His human parentage.

Several unmistakable phrases are used of Christ concerning His parentage: “fruit of the loins,” “her firstborn,” “of this man’s seed,” “seed of David’” “His father David,” “the seed of Abraham,” “made of a woman,” “sprang out of Judah.” His humanity is stated by each of these phrases.

c. The fact that He possessed a human body, soul, and spirit.

Note these Scriptures: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come” (1 John 4:2, 3); “Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death” (Matt 26:38); “When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit” (John 13:21).

d. His human limitations.

At this point we are confronted with the strongest contrasts between the Deity and the humanity of Christ. He was weary; yet He called the weary to Himself for rest. He was hungry; yet He was “the bread of life.” He was thirsty; yet He was “the water of life.” He was in an agony; yet He healed all manner of sicknesses and soothed every pain. He “grew, and waxed strong in spirit”; yet He was from all eternity. He was tempted; yet He, as God, could not be tempted. He was self-limited in knowledge; yet He was the wisdom of God. He said, “My Father is greater than I” (with reference to His humiliation, being made for a little season lower than the angels); yet He also said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” “I and my Father are one.” He prayed, which is always human; yet He Himself answered prayer. He said, “This is your hour, and the power of darkness”; yet all power is given unto Him in heaven and in earth. He slept on a pillow in the boat; yet He arose and rebuked the storm. He was baptized, which was only a human act; yet at that time God declared Him to be His Son. He walked two long days’ journey to Bethany; yet He knew the moment that Lazarus died. He wept at the tomb; yet He called the dead to arise. He confessed that He would be put to death; yet He had but a moment before received Peter’s inspired declaration that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God. He said, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”; yet John tells us, “He needed not that any should testify of man: for He knew what was in man.” He was hungry; yet He could turn stones into bread. This He did not do; for had He done so, He would not have suffered as men suffer. He said, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?”; yet it was that very God to Whom He cried Who was “in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” He dies; yet He is eternal life. He freely functioned His earth-life within that which was perfectly human, and He as freely functioned His earth-life within that which was perfectly divine. His earth-life, therefore, testifies as much to His humanity as to His Deity, and both of these revelations are equally true.

The all-characterizing offices of Christ—Prophet, Priest, and King—, seen in the Old Testament as well as the New, are each in their turn dependent to a large degree upon the humanity He possessed.

5. The Death and Resurrection of Christ.

Apart from His humanity no blood could be shed; yet that blood is rendered exceedingly “precious” by the fact that it was the blood of one of the Godhead Three. God did not merely use the human Jesus as a sacrifice; God was in Christ as a reconciling agent. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not....neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God....By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb 10:4–10).

6. The Humanity of Christ Is Seen in His Ascension and Session.

While they steadfastly looked they saw Him go into heaven with His resurrection human body. He sat down “at the right hand of the throne of God.” He is also spoken of as “The Son of man which is in heaven.” Stephen, when he saw Him long after His ascension, said “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Through His humanity, Christ has been made “a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God.” He is now in heaven as our High Priest. His humanity is declared by His ascension and present ministry in heaven.

7. The Humanity of Christ is Evident in His Second Advent and Kingdom Reign.

The angel messengers said, “This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” He said of Himself, “They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven.” He will then “sit upon the throne of his glory,” “He shall sit on the throne of his Father David.” The humanity of Christ is seen, then, in His return to the earth and in His kingdom reign.

Conclusion.

So apparent and everywhere present are the facts which connote Christ’s humanity that to dwell upon them is similar to an effort to prove His existence. The danger is, and ever has been, that, in the light of these patent realities, the mind may tend to release its proper apprehension of His Deity. It is not, on the other hand, an impossibility so to magnify His Deity as to exclude a right conception of His humanity. The controversies of the church which have crystallized into creeds have wrought much in stabilizing thought regarding the Theanthropic Person. Nevertheless, even though by these creeds a highway has been paved on which to tread, each mind must be instructed personally and by its own contemplation arrive at right conclusions.

As an important discrimination in the general doctrine of Christ’s Humanity, Dr. Dick writes: “A distinction has been made between the condescension and the humiliation of Christ; the former consisting in the assumption of our nature, and the latter in his subsequent abasement and sufferings. The reason why the assumption of our nature is not accounted a part of his humiliation, is, that he retains it in his state of exaltation. The distinction seems to be favoured by Paul, who represents him as first ‘being made in the likeness of men,’ and then ‘when he was found in fashion as a man, humbling himself, and becoming obedient to the death of the cross’ (Phil 2:7, 8). Perhaps this is a more accurate view of the subject; but it has not been always attended to by Theological writers, some of whom have considered the incarnation as a part of his humiliation.”[2] According to the Hebrews Epistle, He who was the effulgence of the divine glory and the express image of the divine Being condescended to the level whereon He took part in flesh and blood with men. However, this same exalted One entered the sphere of humiliation by His death and the manner of it. The humiliation was in view when He came into the world, since He was born to die. He said, “For this cause came I unto this hour” (John 12:27). On this major purpose of Christ in assuming the human form, Dr. B. B. Warfield writes: “The proximate end of our Lord’s assumption of humanity is declared to be that He might die; He was ‘made a little lower than the angels...because of the suffering of death’ (Heb. ii.9); He took part in blood and flesh in order ‘that through death...’ (ii.14). The Son of God as such could not die; to Him belongs by nature an ‘indissoluble life’ (vii.16 m.). If He was to die therefore, He must take to Himself another nature to which the experience of death were not impossible (ii.17). Of course it is not meant that death was desired by Him for its own sake. The purpose of our passage is to save its Jewish readers from the offence of the death of Christ. What they are bidden to observe is, therefore, Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels because of the suffering of death, ‘crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God the bitterness of death which he tasted might redound to the benefit of every man’ (ii.9), and the argument is immediately pressed home that it was eminently suitable for God Almighty, in bringing many sons into glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect (as a Saviour) by means of suffering. The meaning is that it was only through suffering that these men, being sinners, could be brought into glory. And therefore in the plainer statement of verse 14 we read that Our Lord took part in flesh and blood in order ‘that through death he might bring to nought him that has the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage’; and in the still plainer statement of verse 17 that the ultimate object of His assimilation to men was that He might ‘make propitiation for the sins of the people.’ It is for the salvation of sinners that Our Lord has come into the world; but, as that salvation can be wrought only by suffering and death, the proximate end of His assumption of humanity remains that He might die; whatever is more than this gathers around this.”[3]

VIII: The Kenosis

Introduction.

In this division of this treatment of Christology, consideration must be given to one passage of Scripture which, due to the fact that unbelief has misinterpreted and magnified it out of all proportion, is more fully treated exegetically by scholars of past generations than almost any other in the Word of God. Reference is made to Philippians 2:5–8, which reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

The problem centers upon the verb ἐκένωσεν which, with reference to Christ, declares that He emptied Himself. The immediate context is clear as to what it was that He released. This specific truth will be attended more fully. From this verb the word kenosis has entered theological terminology, being the corresponding noun. The Kenosis Theory is usually an extreme view of Christ’s self-emptying, which self-emptying took place at the incarnation when He exchanged what may be termed His eternal mode of existence for that related to time, from the form of God to the form of a servant or bondslave. Certain penalties or forfeitures were involved in this exchange which by the unbelieving have been enlarged beyond the warrant of the Scriptures. The theological discussion which has been engendered is far removed from the simplicity of the faith of the early church, which faith this passage reflects; and equally as far removed from the intent of the great Apostle who wrote these words. Naturally, the phrase emptied Himself may suggest to those whose minds so demand, the notion that He divested Himself of all divine attributes. Devout scholars cannot accept this conception and they evidently have not only the support of the context but that of all Scripture. The one group have made much of the human limitations of Christ, while, on the other hand, the other group—quite mindful of these limitations—see also the emphasis which the Word of God assigns to the manifestations of His Deity. The controversy is between those who with natural limitations of their own see little of the realities of the Theanthropic Person, and those opposed who, being illuminated by the Spirit, recognize the uncomplicated and undiminished presence in Christ of both the divine and human natures. A portion of the great volume of literature which this discussion has produced should be read by every theological student.

Both the condescension of Christ—from His native heavenly sphere to the position of man—, and the humiliation of Christ—from His position as a man to the death of the cross—, are indicated in this passage. The kenosis question is not so much concerned with the humiliation of Christ as it is with the condescension. The question inquires, How much did He release? The answer, naturally, is to be found in the discovery of that which enters into His Theanthropic Person. If in His incarnation God the Son abrogated the estate of Deity, the surrender is beyond all computation. If, on the other hand, He retained His Deity, suffering certain manifestations of that Deity to be veiled for a moment of time, the surrender may more easily be comprehended. The fundamental truth that the eternal God cannot cease to be what He is has been demonstrated earlier in this work, and any theory which supposes that God the Son could cease to be what He ever has been and ever will be is error of the first magnitude. But, it is inquired again, Do not the avowed human limitations (cf. Matt 8:10; Mark 13:32; Luke 2:52; Heb 4:15; 5:8) imply the absence of divine perfections? Is it not this double reality of the functioning of two natures in one Person which constitutes His uniqueness? He is the God-man, mysterious, indeed, to finite minds, but none the less actual according to the testimony of the Scriptures. If He is to serve as the Mediator between God and man, it is to be expected that He will be complex beyond all human comprehension.

In approaching this notable passage, the purpose in the Apostle’s mind should be in view. This is stated in verse 4: “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.” To do this is to have the mind of Christ, since that is precisely what He did when He, without grasping selfishly the estate which was His own by right, released it in behalf of others, or in similar words which express the same truth concerning Christ: “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich” (2 Cor 8:9). Evidently there is no occasion to convince the Philippian Christians that the One who appeared in the form of a servant had already existed in the form of God, and that He, before He became in fashion as a man, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. All this is accepted truth with them. The Apostle’s message is practical rather than theological in its purpose: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (vs. 5). This incidental and more or less familiar manner of referring to the preexistence of Christ argues strongly that the doctrine was received by the Philippian believers.

This context, so far as it is claimed by kenoticists, may be given a threefold divisional treatment, namely (a) “The form of God,” (b) The condescension, and (c) “The form of a servant...the likeness of men.”

1. “The Form of God.”

The first revelation concerning this great movement on the part of Christ from that eternal glory which pertains alone to Deity to a felon’s death on a cross is that He subsisted (being, or existing, as variously rendered) in the form of God. The verb does not convey the thought of an estate which once was, but no longer is. “It contains no intimation, however, of the cessation of these circumstances or disposition, or mode of subsistence; and that, the less in a case like the present, where it is cast in a tense (the imperfect) which in no way suggests that the mode of subsistence intimated came to an end in the action described by the succeeding verb (cf. the parallels, Lk. xvi.14, 23; xxiii.50; Acts ii.30; iii.2; II Cor. viii.17; xii.16; Gal. i.14). Paul is not telling us here, then, what Our Lord was once, but rather what He already was, or, better, what in His intrinsic nature He is! He is not describing a past mode of existence of Our Lord, before the action he is adducing as an example took place—although the mode of existence he describes was Our Lord’s mode of existence before this action—so much as painting in the background upon which the action adduced may be thrown up into prominence. He is telling us who and what He is who did these things for us, that we may appreciate how great the things He did for us are.”[4]

The phrase, “the form—μορφῇ—of God,” has not the meaning of a mere outward appearance; it avers that Christ was essentially and naturally God. Though He was this, He looked not greedily upon that estate. If μορφῇ means here only outward appearance, then Christ left but little to come into this sphere. Similarly, the word μορφῇ is used in this context as a contrast to describe His servanthood and this, too, was not a mere outward appearance, else His condescension is diminished to naught. The measure of the “grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” is being exhibited by two extremes. To minimize either one, or both, is to falsify that which God solemnly declares to be true. Fortunately, this passage does not stand alone. All Scriptures which present the truth of the preincarnate existence of Christ as Deity seal the force of this declaration that He subsisted on an equality with God, and was God. Thus, also, all passages which affirm His Deity after the incarnation—and there are many—establish the fact that Deity was not surrendered or any attribute thereof when He became flesh.

A change of position or relationship is implied, but no surrender of essential Being is indicated, nor is such a surrender possible (cf. Rom 1:3, 4; 8:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 4:4). All fulness dwells in Him (Col 1:19), and even more emphatically, “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9). It was none other than God Himself who was “manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim 3:16). The same God is manifest by the appearing of the Savior Jesus Christ (2 Tim 1:10), and He who is to come, the glorified Theanthropic Person is declared to be “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). Even if Philippians 2:6 were obscure, it would in no way be subject to a “private interpretation,” but would require to be conformed to this overwhelming testimony of the Scriptures that the Deity of the Son of God in no way ceased because of the incarnation.

It is too often assumed that the coming of Christ into the world was an unprepared and abrupt visitation. This simulation has rendered the whole divine revelation more difficult of apprehension for many. Looking backward through the medium of the Word of God, it may be seen that there has been one continuous progress of revelation of God to men and that the first advent of Christ, though related to the problem of sin, is now being unfolded by the Holy Spirit and is a preparatory step toward the finality of disclosure when the presence and power of God will be seen at the second advent. The extent of Christ’s estate which was His before He came into the world is well described by Dr. Samuel Harris: “Thus in the knowledge of Christ we are lifted above the ‘provincialism of this planet’ and brought into fellowship with angels and archangels, with finite spirits of all orders and all worlds. God, in that eternal mode of his being called the Logos, the Word, the Son, existed and was working out the great ends of eternal wisdom and love before his advent in Christ on earth. In the mystery of his eternal being, he was uttering himself, bringing himself forth in action as the eternal personal Spirit, the eternal archetype and original of all finite rational persons. In ways unknown to us, he may have revealed himself to the rational inhabitants of other worlds in his likeness of them as personal Spirit. He may have been trusted and adored by innumerable myriads of finite persons from other worlds before he revealed himself on earth in the son of Mary. So he himself says in prayer to his Father in heaven, ‘The glory which I had with thee before the world was.’ And he describes himself as the Son of man who came down from heaven, and who, even while on earth, was in heaven.”[5] Another has suggested that this earth might be “the Bethlehem of the universe,” and the thought is reasonable in the light of revealed truth concerning all that exists. There are those, Dr. Dorner in particular, who hold, and with much reason and some Scripture, that the first advent was not alone a mission related to the cure of sin, but that it was required in the progress of divine self-revelation. He maintains that to see God revealed in Christ Jesus is an essential experience for any and all who will reach the realms of glory, whether they have sinned or not. What deep and hidden meaning is contained in the words that Christ while here on earth was “seen of angels”? At any rate, the narrowing of that eternal mode of existence and the veiling of the effulgence of His glory to the end that God might be manifest to men and redemption for the lost might be secured is the story of the incarnation.

2. The Condescension.

The extent of the transition from heaven’s highest glory to the sphere of men could not be estimated. “When he cometh into the world, he saith...Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God” (Heb 10:5–7). This text records a word spoken by Christ before He reached the age of maturity-perhaps it was spoken before He was born of the virgin; for it is written in Psalm 22:10 that, while on the cross, He said to His Father, “I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly.” In unknown past ages He was appointed to be the Lamb slain (Rev 13:8). Added to all this the Spirit of God has caused many predictions to be written which anticipate Christ’s coming-one, indeed, in the Garden of Eden. Thus the condescension is previewed and recorded. It represents a divine arrangement, being designed and wrought by God. Christ was the Father’s gift to the world; yet He chose to come and to be subject to the will of Another. He delighted to do His Father’s will, both out of joyous obedience and because of His infinite understanding and vital participation in all that was proposed in the eternal counsels of God. What other meaning can be placed on the phrase, “When the fulness of the time was come”? Is it not that the moment in time had been reached when “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law” (Gal 4:4)? Of all marvels of the universe none is greater than this that He who was in the beginning with God, and was God, has become flesh. John testifies that He was seen and handled by men (John 1:1; 1 John 1:1). The fire in the bush—typifying His Deity—did not consume the bush which typified His humanity. Though lowly in its origin, that which the bush represents abides unconsumed forever.

3. “The Form of a Servant...The Likeness of Men.”

As for God, no one hath ever seen Him; God’s only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father (ever abiding), He hath declared Him (John 1:18). This is the Messenger of all messengers, the Servant more effective than all servants. To this end He became all that He was required to be that He might thus serve as the Revelation and the Redeemer. He thus served both God and man as the Revelation, and He thus served both God and man as the Redeemer. He said, “I am among you as one who serves,” and, in actual experience of humble service, He washed the disciples’ feet. The phrase, “the form of a servant” is identical as to actuality with the phrase “the form of God.” By the latter it is declared that originally He was all and everything that makes God God; by the former it is declared that He is all and everything that makes a servant a servant. His servant—title, ”Faithful and True” (Rev 19:11) is revealing. It implies both perfect obedience and perfect achievement. This was pursued by Him to the point of death—even the death of the cross. With prophetic vision He said, even before His death, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4), and when He reached the moment of death He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30). How great is the Revelation! How perfect the Redemption!

He who subsisted immutably as the precise form or reality which God is, assumed that which is human, not in place of the divine, but in conjunction with it. He added to Himself the precise form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. He was man, but that term was not sufficient to define Him. Because of His Theanthropic Person, His manhood, though fully present, was better styled, “the likeness of men.”

Since it is recorded that He “emptied himself,” the kenosis inquiry is, Of what did He empty Himself? That His Deity was diminished, or that He surrendered any divine attribute, is equally impossible because of the immutability of Deity, nor are such notions sustained by any word of Scripture. It may be observed again that all the doctrinal revelation which the kenosis passage presents was drawn out as an illustration of the human virtue, then being enjoined, of not looking on the things of self, but rather on the things of others. The subordination of self in behalf of others does not require the discarding of self. Christ emptied Himself of self-interest, not clutching His exalted estate, however rightfully His own, as a prize too dear to release in behalf of others. To do this, He condescended to a lowly position, His glory was veiled, and He was despised and rejected of men. They saw no beauty in Him that they should desire Him. He was a root out of dry ground without form or comeliness (Isa 53:2, 3). On the cross He said of Himself, “I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn” (Ps 22:6, 7). The very essential glory of this condescension is not that Deity had forsaken Him, but that God thus wrought. It was God that was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Cor 5:19).

With reference to the kenosis passage and the general forms of interpretation of it, no better statement has been found than that of Dr. Charles Lee Feinberg in Bibliotheca Sacra,[6] which is here quoted: “Any scriptural explanation of the doctrine of the Person of Christ must give this passage a prominent, if not a central, place. But in the expounding of it men’s minds have been wont to ask: Of what did Christ empty Himself? In what did the kenosis consist? This whole question was pushed prominently to the fore in the early decade of the last century when the Reformed and Lutheran branches of the German Protestant Church attempted to effect a feasible basis of union. Such passages as John 14:28 and Mark 13:32 where it is written: ‘My Father is greater than I’ and ‘But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father,’ formed the starting point, apart from Philippians 2:5–11, for much of the thinking and discussion on the subject. On the very face of it, consideration of this subject is inevitable: if Christ was God in His preëxistent state and then became man, what did He give up in the transaction? There have been four general kenotic theories, all aiming at the same end. According to Bruce, ‘The dominant idea of the kenotic Christology is, that in becoming incarnate, and in order to make the Incarnation in its actual historical form possible, the eternal preëxistent Logos reduced Himself to the rank and measures of humanity’ (The Humiliation of Christ, p. 136). The four types of kenotic speculation are: (1) the absolute dualistic type; (2) the absolute metamorphic type; (3) the absolute semi-metamorphic type; (4) the real but relative.

“The first view, which is set forth by Thomasius and others, maintains that the attributes of God can be divided into two sharply distinct groups: the ethical or immanent and the relative or physical. The former are really those that are essential to Godhead. The attributes of the immanent trinity cannot be parted with; those of the economical trinity can. The divine attributes of omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence are merely expressive of God’s free relation to the world and need not be considered indispensable. The essential attributes of deity are supposed to be absolute power, absolute love, absolute truth, and absolute holiness. This theory cannot stand, because it sets up too sharp a distinction between the attributes of God and deduces therefrom conclusions that are untenable. Could Christ be truly God, though He maintained absolute holiness, if He lost omniscience or omnipresence? This theory depotentiates the Logos to an unwarrantable degree. Besides, the denial of the omnipresence of the incarnate Logos appears quite weak in the face of a statement like that made in John 3:13 where the Lord Jesus said: ‘And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.’

“The second view, upheld by such men as Gess, Godet, and Newton Clarke, really holds to an absolute metamorphism by ‘divine suicide.’ According to this position the preincarnate Logos so humbled Himself and emptied Himself of all divine attributes, that He became purely a human soul. In order to relieve themselves of the stigma of Apollinarianism they make it clear that they assert, not that the Logos took the place of the human soul in Christ, but that He became the human soul. His eternal consciousness ceased, to be regained gradually until He attained once more in the plerosis to the completeness of divine life. This theory is so untrue to the scriptural representation of the hypostatic union in history, which must ever be the measuring rod for any and all views of Christ’s Person, that it needs no minute refutation.

“The third theory, advanced by Ebrard, contends that the Eternal Son in becoming man underwent not a loss but a disguise of His deity, in such a sense that ‘the divine properties, while retained, were possessed by the Theanthropos only in the time—form appropriate to a human mode of existence. The Logos, in assuming flesh, exchanged the form of God, that is, the eternal manner of being, for the form of a man, that is, the temporal manner of being’ (The Humiliation of Christ, by A. B. Bruce, p. 153). This exchange is both perpetual and absolute. This view fares no better than the first two when judged on the basis of the Word; if this theory is true then Christ was not fully God and fully man at one time as the Scriptures portray Him to be.

“There remains now to note the fourth theory of the kenosis Christology which declares that the incarnate Logos still possesses His Godhead in a real and true sense, but He does so within the restricted confines of human consciousness. True deity is never in existence outside of the true humanity. The properties of the divine nature are not present in their infinitude, but are changed into properties of human nature. The objection to this theory is that the attributes of God are not as elastic as this view would have us believe,—to be enlarged or contracted at will. Omniscience is just that always; omnipresence is always such; omnipotence connotes the same thing always. There is not a limited omnipresence, because although the Logos was in the body of Christ, He was also in heaven (John 3:13).

“What, then, is a true theory of the kenosis or self-emptying of Christ? First of all, the principle must be laid down that ‘the Logos...ceases not for a single moment (in spite of His voluntary humiliation) to be that which He was in His eternal nature and essence’ (Christian Dogmatics, J. J. Van Oosterzee, Vol. II, p. 515). When the preëxistent and eternal Logos took on humanity, He gave up the visibility of His glory. Men could not have looked upon unveiled Deity. The kenosis, furthermore, implies that Christ gave up, as Strong aptly suggests, the ‘independent exercise of the divine attributes’ (Systematic Theology, p. 382). Christ was possessed of all the essential attributes and properties of Deity, but He did not use them except at the pleasure of the Father. We believe just this is meant when Christ declares: ‘The Son can do nothing of himself’ (John 5:19). A proper explanation and understanding of Philippians 2:5–11, then, as well as the issues involved in a scriptural view of the kenosis, are indispensable bases for any Christological discussion.”

Conclusion.

A simple illustration—that of Christ’s self-denial—employed by the Apostle to enforce the Christian grace of self-denial, has, largely because of the immeasurable truth involved in that which Christ accomplished and somewhat because of the misunderstanding of terminology, developed into a major controversy among theologians; yet the declaration is clearly that of the truth of the incarnation and all that is involved in it. The supreme act of God would hardly be altogether within the range of finite understanding, though finite beings, who are amenable to the Word of God, need not be misled in regard even to the most exalted of realities.

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. Theological Institutes, Vol. I, pp. 616, 617.
2. Dick’s Lectures on Theology, p. 323.
3. Biblical Doctrines, pp. 186, 187.
4. Biblical Doctrines, B. B. Warfield, p. 178.
5. God The Creator and Lord of All, Vol. I, p. 413.
6. Vol. 92, pp. 415-418.