521
November 1929
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
The True Kenosis of Our Lord Jesus Christ
An Exegetical Study of Phil. 2:5-8. B y T h e R ev . D. B eaton (Wick, Scotland) speculative theory of the preexistence of our Lord’s human nature, departed, also, from, the church doctrine in maintaining that at the Incarnation some such empty ing took place in regard to his ht^man soul. The Lutherans, also, in connection with their doctrine of consubtantiation had to fall back on a theory of the human nature in union with the divine which, to use Dr. Warfield’s word, divinitised the humanity. Perhaps it would be more correct, however, to say of the Lutheran doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum that, while it was denied that the human nature shared in all the attributes of the divine nature, it shared with the divine in its omniscience, omnipresence, and power of giving life. It was in connection with such a human nature that the “emp tying” took place. But this was very dif ferent from the modern Kenotic theory which has transferred the “emptying” from the human to the divine nature. The Kenotic theory was first set forth with clearness by Joh. L. Konig in 1844. It was rapidly developed by such writers as Thomasius, Liebner, Ebrard, Gess, von Hofmann, Delitzsch, Schoberlein, Kubel, Godet, Pressense, Martensen, Oosterzee, Gore, and others. In America it found advocates in Henry Ward Beecher (“The Life of Jesus the Christ,” 1871) and also Howard Crosby (“The True Humanity of Christ,” 1881). Bibliographies of books dealing with Kenoticism and discussions of the theory will be found in Interna tional Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. Ill (article, “Kenosis”) and vol. IV (ar ticle, “Person of Christ”) ; Hastings’ “En cyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics,” vol. VII (article, “Kenosis”) ; Hastings’ “Dic tionary of Christ and the Gospels,” vol. I. .(article, “Kenosis”) ; Bruce’s “Humilia tion of Christ” (1875) ; and “The Presby terian and Reformed Review,” vol. X (Philadelphia, 1899). Dr. Gifford, in his “I n c a r n a t i o n ” (London, 1911), gives a short history of the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the passage in Philippians. T h i s is one of the finest products of modern New Testament Greek scholarship which has appeared, and if Dr. Gifford had produced nothing but this in New Testament exegesis he would deservedly earn, the gratitude qf all those who value the fruits of ,fige
scholarship when these confirm the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Dr, Sanday, in referring to it, says: “These discussions have produced one little work of classical value, Dr. E. H. Gifford’s study of Philippians 2:5-11, entitled ‘The Incarnation,’ a model of careful and sci entific exegesis, which appears to leave hardly anything more to be said on that head.” The late Dr. Warfield, Princeton* is no less enthusiastic in its praise. “Dr. Gifford,” he says, “has certainly, by i his careful exposition of the passage as a whole, removed the possibility of a Kenotic interpretation of it. He has made it perfectly plain that it proclaims an incarnation in which the Logos re tained ‘the form of God’ belonging to Him by nature.” In the interpretation about to be given of the passage in Philip pians Dr. Gifford will act as our guide. In entering on the discussion of Philipr pians 2:5-8-it must be candidly admitted that there are not a few difficulties alike in translation and exegesis to be over come. And in order that the points to be discussed may be clearly before the read er’s mind it may be advisable to give the Authorized Version and Dr. Gifford’s translations in parallel columns. A uthorized V er - D r . G ifford ’ s sion T ranslation T ranslation “Let this mind
HE question as to whether the Lord Jesus Christ in His incarnate state was in truth very God of very God in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, is one
of the profoundest interest to every Christian who believes in Jesus as the great God and his Saviour Jesus Christ. The question is pressing itself more and more on the attention of believers, not only because of the attitude of Modern ists to the doctrine of the Person of Christ but because of the theory of the Kenosis set forth by Kenoticists. This theory asserts that in some sense and to some extent the Son of God, in becoming incarnate, held in abeyance' during His earthly life His divine powers and prerogatives. There are different views among Kenoticists as to the ex tent in which our Lord “emptied him self” when He became man; some go the length of saying that not only was His divine knowledge limited but that it actually was in error on such questions as the authorship of the Old Testament books and the progress and prospects of the kingdom He came to establish. The theory derives its name from the Greek verb, kev 6 u , to empty, used by the apostle in his epistle to the Philippians, 2:7, and translated in the Authorized Version, to make of no reputation. This is one of the profoundest and most sublime of the great Pauline Christological deliverances. That there was an “emptying of himself” by our Lord, is plainly asserted by the apostle in this classical passage; but whether it was such an “emptying” as the Kenoticists assert is another question. It is the purpose of these papers to show that the “emptying” referred to by the apostle in Phil. 2 :7 is consistent with the most thoroughgoing doctrine of the true deity of Jesus Christ in His incarnate state. It was reserved to the nineteenth cen tury to give form and substance to this brand new theory of the Incarnation. Faint echoes of this view are found in certain fragments by Beron of the sixth or seventh century. Something like it was suggested by Count Zinzendorf, the great Moravian- leader, in the middle qf the eighteenth century.', Origen, in his
“Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus ; who s u b s i s t i n g [imàpxuv] in the form of God, c o u n t e d it n o t a p r i z e [ov% àpiraypòv 7jy?joaro\ that he was on an equality with God Irò elvat loa b u t emptied h i m s e I f \<ÌA?uì èavròv hnivuGt:v\ by taking the foriti of a servànt, being made in the likeness of men;’ and being found in fashion' a‘s a man, he1humbled! Himself; becoming obedient, even unto' death, yea, the death, of. the, -cposs.;”' , . .
be in you which was also in Christ Jesus : who, being in the f o r m 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 ser vant, and w a s made in the like ness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled him self, and became o h e d i è n t unto death, e v e n , the d e g j h , of t h e £ro§s,” ,
Made with FlippingBook HTML5