Customer Reviews

Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: Understanding Jesus the Christ as Human and Divine, C. Stephen Evans
2. The New Testament and Kenosis Christology, Gordon D. Fee
3. The Odyssey of Christ: A Novel Context for Philippians 2:6-11, Bruce N. Fisk
4. Nineteenth-Century Kenotic Christology: The Waxing, Waning, and Weighing of a Quest for a Coherent Orthodoxy, Thomas R. Thompson
5. Is Kenosis Orthodox?, Stephen T. Davis
6. A Kenotic Christological Method for Understanding the Divine Attributes, Ronald J. Feenstra
7. Trinity and Kenosis, Thomas R. Thompson and Cornelius Plantinga, Jr
8. Kenotic Christology and the Nature of God, C. Stephen Evans
9. 'He descended into hell': The Depths of God's Self-Emptying Love on Holy Saturday in the Thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar, Edward T. Oakes, SJ
10. Does Kenosis Rest on a Mistake? Three Kenotic Models in Patristic Exegesis, Sarah Coakley
11. The Logic of Assumption, Edwin Chr. van Driel
12. Kenosis and Feminist Theory, Ruth Groenhout
13. Conclusion: The Promise of Kenosis, Stephen T. Davis and C. Stephen Evans

Full disclosure: This book was provided by Regent College Publising for review.


"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

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

Have you ever wondered what this poem/hymn means? What does it mean that God made himself nothing? What is this emptying, this demotion? Is it merely poetic language, or does it reflect something much more important? And how, within all of this, do you understand the incarnation? How can God, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, become man who is, seemingly by definition, none of these things? Did God give something up to become man? If so, how? And is God still God if he gives up some of His attributes, or do we find ourselves face-to-face with that oh so nasty of theological positions: a paradox?

These questions, and many more, are at the heart of Kenotic Christology and, thus, at the heart of this book. Exploring Kenotic Christology is a theological volume which does exactly what it declares in the title. Through a collection of thirteen essays by various authors this book takes on almost the full raft of issues surrounding Kenotic Christology.

Kenotic Christology is the idea, or theory, that in becoming human Christ, the second person of the Trinity, suspended some of His attributes as God. The motivating factor behind this is texts such as Phil. 2, but also the witness of the gospels to Jesus as a person who suffered, grew in maturity, wept, etc. One of the many problems that arises is that this seems to challenge the classical idea of God as immutable and impassable. The twelve authors of this book seek, in various ways, to grapple with these things.

However, in being by twelve different authors this book is also very difficult to summarize. While Kenotic Christology may be a broadly recognizable theological category it seems inevitable that each individual kenoticist is unique in their theology. Instead of trying to summarize let me merely offer some comments on what you will find: The essays range from focused biblical considerations of how the scriptures witness to Kenotic Christology to in depth explorations of the philosophical quandaries offered by the same, from defenses of Kenotic Christology as orthodox to essays questioning whether or not this whole enterprise is founded on a mistake. Yes, you will even find criticisms of Kenotic Christology within these pages. If that doesn't communicate to you the quality of this collection, then I don't know what will.

If you haven't picked up on this fact yet, let me make it crystal clear: This is a great book. Incarnation theology is an incredibly important part of Christian belief, one which we often spend too little time on. Here is a serious, well written, well edited, volume of impressive essays remedying that situation. It is, as you might expect, a more difficult read at times; such is the nature of the topic. It is also, as you may not have expected, more than worth it.

Conclusion: 5 Stars. Conditionally Recommended. I have to say conditional simply because of the difficulty of this book. Yes, it will be a hard read. Yes, you may want to work you way up to this book by starting out with shorter, simpler, books on the incarnation. However, you will not be disappointed if you can get to reading this book.

C. Stephen Evans' compilation of modern essays on kenotic Christology brings together a number of current proponents of the kenosis theory with a few adherents of the historically orthodox view. The essays are written by philosophers, theologians and Biblical scholars all professing Christian faith. Certainly, some strides have been made in attempting to articulate a more coherent (and varied) kenosis doctrine since Gottfried Thomasius first proposed his theory in the mid-nineteenth century. Yet, there are still problems inherent in any literal `self-emptying' and/or `self-limiting' doctrine with respect to the Word (Logos) when compared to Chalcedon and, by extension, Scripture.

Confusingly, some use the term kenosis as a way to define the Word's (Logos') necessary limitations qua human while neither divesting divine attributes nor limiting the usage thereof during the Incarnation which is in actuality merely defining Chalcedonian orthodoxy. For example, to claim that Jesus is limited in power yet God the Son is omnipotent is consistent with historical, orthodox Christianity. Yet others in modern times use the term in ways far removed from the starting point of orthodoxy even going so far as denying pre-existence. Thankfully, the essayists in this volume all affirm the Logos' pre-existence though some depart from orthodoxy in other areas. On the more orthodox end, we have scholar Gordon Fee in his working definition as "some form of self-limitation of divine prerogatives on the part of the earthly Jesus" [p 29]. However, others use the term in the sense of either ontological kenosis (the Word no longer retains certain, or perhaps any, divine attributes) or functionalist kenosis (the Word retains all divine attributes yet restricts the usage of some or all). For the benefit of the reader, the type of kenosis will be listed with the explanation of the essayist(s)'s stance in this review - ontological or functionalist (which will also be collectively identified as "unorthodox") as opposed to orthodox (fully Chalcedonian/Biblical).

Not surprisingly, Fee, a renowned exegete, offers the most Scriptural examination of Jesus Christ's earthly life. He cautions against overly humanizing the divine or improperly divinizing the humanity of the Incarnate Christ for to do the latter is a sort of "naïve docetism." Fee does an excellent job of debunking James D.G. Dunn's exposition of Philippians 2:6-11 as an `Adam Christology' [30-32]. While not technically kenotic (excepting perhaps a modern understanding of the term), Dunn asserts that the Apostle Paul understood Christ as a man (Adam) rather than the pre-existent Logos who was subsequently made flesh [Dunn, Christology in the Making 1980, Westminster; pp 113-128]. Fee provides a fairly thorough exegesis of the Philippians passage illustrating that the best way to understand the `self-emptying' is metaphorically rather than literally. At times he seems to be propounding a functionalist kenosis [34], yet it appears Fee is merely explaining the Biblical grounds with which to approach the study of the humiliation of Jesus Christ [the Incarnation from conception to Cross and subsequent burial] to stay within the bounds of Chalcedonian orthodoxy [29]. Fee neither attempts to explicitly debunk any of the historically unorthodox kenosis theories (save Dunn's) nor fully define his own stance.

Bruce Fisk agrees with the logic of kenosis, yet his essay focuses primarily on comparing the Philippians hymn (2:6-11) with contemporaneous Graeco-Roman fiction and how the Christ-hymn might have been understood by first century readers. While interesting in its own right, it sheds only a small to moderate amount of light on the discussion of kenosis in this volume as Fisk, frustratingly, neglects to specifically state his own position. To be fair, he does explain portions of the text by providing some commentary of orthodox scholars of whom he agrees (or seems to agree) with opposing viewpoints as well. Furthermore, to his credit, Fisk touches on the problems in defining the Greek (transliterated) harpagmos [in verse 2:6b] given its limited usage both in Scripture (only one time) and extra-Biblical material noting that he himself leans toward the view of Moule, Hoover and Wright that Christ "did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited" [63-4].

Ruth Groenhout compares kenosis (self-emptying) in general to feminist thought arguing that self-sacrifice is not antithetical to feminism as long as it's purposed toward the service of Christ and His Kingdom rather than "purposeless self-abnegation" [311]. She makes a somewhat useful analogy of Christ's state of humiliation in comparing fairy tale kings who temporarily dress as peasants setting aside the prerogatives of royalty who subsequently return to the throne receiving again their full due [297]. Noting that some feminists dismiss Christ's sacrifice out of hand merely because He was male, Groenhout points out that His earthly ministry was "not intrinsically tied to his masculinity, but to this humanity" [312]. While this is a very profitable essay in its own right, it does little to advance the discussion of the kenosis theory.

Thomas R. Thompson provides a useful history of nineteenth century kenosis discussing various models and their resultant criticisms from the right and the left. In summation, Thompson asserts that any non-kenotic theory devolves into paradox with contradiction (in distinction from merely paradox) which makes `classical' (19th century) or modern kenosis theories more palatable in comparison. Better, according to Thompson, to accept some paradox "pushing beyond contradiction, if possible" [110] in explicating a kenosis theory. With this in mind, he notes that the W. F. Gess model (the Logos truly BECAME flesh as a human soul and gradually regained deity throughout the Incarnation - a true metamorphosis of the divine Logos) is "the most consistent and coherent" [111] while conceding it failed in the claim of deity. Yet incredibly (especially in light of the fact that he's at least cognizant that the Word was to sustain the cosmos [94], cf. Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17), Thompson believes this kenotic motif provides the most promise asserting that a Gessian model can somehow "make the deity claim" with no further argument to back up that claim leaving it for a future work [111]. This most extreme of the ontologically kenotic theories has been described by La Touche as "incarnation by divine suicide" ["The Person of Christ in Modern Thought" in L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Eerdmans; p 327].

Edward T. Oakes expounds on an essay by Hans Urs van Balthasar putting forth a view that Jesus "descended into hell", i.e. Gehenna rather than merely the grave, between the Cross and the Resurrection (which, perhaps to some, could well be a logical conclusion to ontological kenosis given that Christ took on the sins of the world [2 Cor. 5:21]). To support the view, Oakes/Balthasar use the Apostles' Creed and much-disputed Biblical texts primarily 1 Peter 3:18-20 the disparate views of which are aptly described by R.C. Sproul who admits his own view is in the minority: "I would hasten to add that most views of this passage are in the minority, since there is no majority view on the meaning of this text..." [St. Andrew's Expositional Commentary: 1-2 Peter, Crossway; p 125]. Wayne Grudem explains the various theories related to this passage in the appendix of the TNTC of 1 Peter taking 37 pages to do so. Neither Sproul nor Grudem construe this passage as remotely kenotic, and Grudem contends the phrase in the Apostles' Creed is not in the earliest versions of the Creed [Systematic Theology, Zondervan; pp 583-588 cited from Schaff, Creeds of Christendom] and on that basis he omits it from his systematic [p 1169]. Orthodoxy vehemently denies Jesus literally went to hell.

Not wishing to "abolish the paradox", Oakes asserts that Jesus Christ was literally the Word `become' flesh [218, 236] (a la Gess as Thompson proposes above); subsequently, the second person of the Triune Godhead actually becomes wholly separated from the rest of the Trinity post-Cross [similar to the `Jesus Died Spiritually' heresy of some Word of Faith teachers] at which point the kenosis is "subsumed" into the Trinity and the Trinity is "transformed" [241]. Oakes ends his essay with his admonition to "leave the paradox as stark as possible" [245].

In the Thompson/Cornelius Plantinga Jr. chapter the authors assert that kenosis theories are dependent upon the adoption of a `social' view of the Trinity but one that does not go so far as implicit or explicit tritheism [as Oakes' essay does so implicitly]. While I'm not so sure that the authors make their case, there are other problematic issues put forth. Again, the Gessian kenotic theory is the preferred model [170, 176]. In speaking of Gess' view, Chafer aptly describes it thus, "This theory is so untrue...that it needs no minute refutation" [Systematic Theology, Kregel; I.380].

In asking the question "Is kenosis orthodox?", Stephen T. Davis, sets out to `prove' that a modern kenosis theory can be congruent with the Chalcedonian view that the Incarnate Christ was fully human and fully divine [115]. Davis does not propose a fully formed theory; he merely attempts to show that kenosis (vaguely defined) is orthodox. To counter the charge that a kenosis entailing a `laying aside' or restricting of the `omni' attributes denies divine immutability Davis claims "soft immutability" such that the Word retains all the other attributes normally associated with the Godhead without change [135-36]. But how does that square with Psalm 102:27 and Hebrews 13:8 as well as Colossians 1:15-17 and Hebrews 1:3 (and others noted below)?

In the introductory chapter it is stated that the Evans/Davis jointly authored closing essay is offering a challenge to "traditional theories" [24] with the concluding essay itself asserting that only a "full-fledged" kenosis provides the best means to portray the Incarnational Christ in an orthodox manner [321]. While no specific theory is proffered in the final essay, the authors do claim that Jesus Christ had "continuous dependence on the Holy Spirit" which, while one could potentially argue that this view is not out of the bounds of Chalcedon, runs contrary to the Biblical witness [cf. John 5:21-25 (Christ acting divinely of and by Himself while incarnate by giving eternal life to whom He chose); John 2:19/10:17-18]. This view of Christ's dependence on the Holy Spirit infers at minimum a functionalist kenosis, but an ontological kenosis can be derived from this as well.

In his own essay, Evans promotes an ontological kenosis such that the claim is that if God is omnipotent then to be so necessarily means He should be able to forego His omnipotence. Thinking this through, Evans rightly claims, "If he has given up omnipotence, he cannot use omnipotence to get it back" [213]. Excellent point. Evans, however, explains that this is why it is by the Father's power (omnipotence) that the Son's glorification is accomplished [213]. While I don't believe this can be backed up Biblically, there are other problems with this view. Both John 2:19 and 10:17-18 indicate that Jesus was in fact omnipotent as He raised Himself on the Third Day. [In fact, the entire Trinity was involved in the Resurrection as other Scripture attests.]

Asserting that a kenotic theory should adhere to Chalcedon, Ronald J. Feenstra begins his essay with a brief Christological history starting with the events leading up to and the making of the Chalcedonian Creed. He then proceeds to propound an ontological kenosis by distinguishing between `essential' and `accidental' attributes of divinity similar to Thomasius' "immanent" and "relative" attributes. However, in Davis' view God is, for example, "omnipotent-unless-freely-and-temporarily-choosing-to-be-otherwise" borrowing this idea from Thomas V. Morris [152].

In favor of the orthodox view and specifically critical of the unorthodox theories, Edwin Chr. van Driel's essay notes the "polemic twist" of the unorthodox kenosis proponents. While classical theologians see the Incarnation as an addition (of a human nature/body), the ontological or functionalist kenotic sees it as a divestment or necessary self-limitation of certain divine attributes instead. Adopting a metaphor borrowed from Marilyn McCord Adams, van Driel calls the divine nature of the Word a "power pack" with the human nature acquired at the Incarnation an additional "power pack". Thus, the incarnate Christ had two complete "power packs" in one person. Van Driel believes a satisfying kenotically orthodox account can be found in Chalcedon keeping in mind Constantinople III (AD681) which further specifies a two-willed (and, van Driel construes, a two-minded) Incarnation.

Similarly, Sarah Coakley asks if modern kenosis "rests on a mistake" and looks at patristic exegesis (Cyril, Nestorius, Gregory of Nyssa) of the Philippians hymn/poem as a way to show possibilities existing in the communicatio idiomatum to arrive at a coherent Chalcedonian, Biblically orthodox Incarnation as opposed to an ontological or functionalist interpretation. Disappointingly, Coakley stops short of fully codifying a theory concluding her essay with an admonition to look to and perhaps reinterpret the communicatio tradition all the while keeping a very strict differentiation between the divine and human natures [264]. (Oliver Crisp, in his book Divinity and Humanity [Cambridge, 2007; {see my review}], uses a similar methodology promoting a fully formed theory which he terms "divine krypsis". He defines it as not being kenotic (though one could argue, `quasi-kenotic') in the manner of Evans, Davis, et al since the Logos is not limited in any way. This works in virtue of the perichoretic relationship of the divine nature to the human in hypostatic union while restricting any transference of essences or properties to either nature.)

While I will agree with the following statement in the Davis/Evans jointly-authored final essay, "Christology is THE Christian doctrine" [313], I do not agree with their kenotic conclusions on this all-important subject. In fairness, however, the authors note just before their concluding remarks that challenges brought forth by modern kenosis theory proponents can be helpful to those who discount a fully kenotic theory as in exploring these theories the opponents may gain a fuller appreciation for Jesus' humanity [321]. I don't disagree as there are those who lean more towards divinizing Jesus' humanity. One must keep both the human and the divine natures in proper balance/tension.

This book mostly fails to fulfill its billing as from the back cover: "It is an attempt to make sense of the traditional [i.e., Chalcedonian; pp 1-2] Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth was both human and divine by developing the idea that to become human God the Son temporarily emptied himself of some of his divine attributes." The reason it falls short is two-fold: 1) the essayists promoting a literal self-emptying fail to take into account the whole of Scripture [primarily Colossians 1:17/ Hebrews 1:3, John 2:19/10:17-18 & John 5:21-25] from which Chalcedon is drawn; and, 2) those who promote (or seem to promote) an historically orthodox view (that Jesus did not literally empty Himself of some of His divine attributes) are in opposition to the back cover's claim. And, frustratingly, neither camp fully explicates a viable theory though some (Coakley, van Driel) come closer than others. But this in no way renders the work fatally flawed; rather, this illustrates that whoever wrote the back cover commentary was either ill-informed of its contents or did not think through a proper synopsis.

A minor criticism: the book does not segregate those preferring (or seeming to prefer) a historically orthodox position from those who favor modern kenosis which can be confusing as one reads along.

All in all, the book is thought provoking both for those of orthodox persuasion and those favoring the more unorthodox kenotic views and is therefore well worth the read for either camp in investigating opposing views. Be forewarned, unless one is well-versed in Christological issues and somewhat aware of the various kenotic theories, this book will be a challenging read (as it was for me) and likely a difficult read in spots. Yet, it is this reader/reviewer's contention that this volume deserves a close study as a way toward a (re)consideration of one's own position on "THE Christian doctrine". Proper Christology is indeed central to the Christian faith. Distortions can lead to heresy and faulty Christology has negative implications on the Trinity and the Atonement. Full adherence to Chalcedon is imperative keeping in mind the full counsel of Scripture from which the Creed was codified.

Three (maybe 3.5) out of five stars overall for inducing further reflection on this subject.