ART. IX. THE KENOSIS.

"Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men."-St. Paul.

"That emptying is by no means the annihilating of the heavenly nature."-Hilarius.

I.

THE purpose of this article is not overambitious. For no attempt is here made to fathom the unfathomable, or to divest completely of its mystery a subject which must beyond a certain point forever remain mysterious. The subject to be here considered, however, is but one of many brought before us by divine revelation which sooner or later shade off into impenetrable mystery, but which, nevertheless, are presented for meditation, and in such a way that meditation of the right sort may yield precions fruitage. Much depends upon the spirit and method of the investigation.

The kenosis belongs to the doctrine of the person of Christ. It relates to the condition of existence of the Son of God while in this world, "manifest in the flesh." And this surely is a matter of greatest moment to all who would rightly apprehend the Scripture revelation. If to-day students of the Scriptures. are concentrating their attention upon Christ-and sometimes to the exclusion or rejection of much else—then the inquiry is all the more urgent as to what manner of person Christ was, with what wisdom and power and authority he was clothed, and under what limitations his divine nature manifested itself during his humiliation. Moreover, this particular feature of the subject is one to which Christian thinkers are now turning with renewed eagerness, sometimes reaching results that are rich and beneficent, but sometimes leaping to conclusions which if generally accepted would be most disastrous.

If further reason for study of the kenosis need be mentioned it is found in the fact that the subject is set before us in the Scriptures as profoundly ethical. It is not, as we shall see, wholly an abstruse theological problem for us only to glance at and lay aside as beyond all possibility of illumination. We

are called to look upon a voluntary and gracious act of the Son of God, and to find therein guidance and inspiration for our own actions. It is set before us as an illustration of the spirit and method of life to be sought and won by all of Christ's followers. Here we may find again how vain is the attempt to separate the ethical from the theological. But here, also, we may again be reminded that the end of revelation is always in some way practical. And here we may obtain our chief if not only warrant for seeking to penetrate as far as Scripture light can lead us into the sacred mystery of the kenosis.

II.

The use of this term in theology calls attention, of course, first of all, to its Scripture basis in Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. The word kenosis, it is safe to say, would never have found its way into theological nomenclature if Paul had not written the famous passage in Phil. ii, 5–11. We refer the reader to the Revised Version, where the meaning is more clearly expressed. In the seventh verse the apostle uses the phrase έavròv ¿kévwoɛ-rendered in the Authorized Version, "made himself of no reputation," but translated literally and properly in the Revised Version, "emptied himself," thus bringing before us the fact of the self-abnegation or self-emptying of the Son of God in connection with his entrance upon his incarnate state. This is the kenosis. It would be a grave mistake, however, to suppose that the idea has no other Scripture basis than the passage just mentioned. The same general idea appears in the words of our Lord in his intercessory prayer, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me . . . .. with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." He thinks and speaks of a glory which had been his-a glory with "the Father" and from eternity, a glory which he had laid aside, or of which he had "emptied himself," but which he is again to receive. Paul also speaks of Christ in 2 Cor. viii, 9, as one "who though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." But just as Christ in his prayer speaks only in general terms, so at this point the utterance of the apostle is also general. But we come, nevertheless, upon the same fact of self-deprivation or self-emptying.

And the general but strong impression that is produced by the New Testament Scriptures as a whole is that the Son of God was in this world in a state or condition greatly reduced from that of his preexistent and heavenly glory. This finds expression in the hymn of Charles Wesley:

He left his Father's throne above

So free, so infinite his grace

Emptied himself of all but love,

And bled for Adam's helpless race;

'Tis mercy all, immense and free,

For, O my God, it found out me!

The fact of the kenosis is thus grasped in a general way by the common, popular faith of the Christian Church.

But is it possible for us to advance to any extent beyond this point? Can we find any details whatsoever by which to make more vivid and definite our conception of this great reality? The case is not met by laying stress upon the external features of our Lord's earthly life. The humble circumstances of his birth and all those other items of his outward life upon which our imagination and our faith are wont to fasten surely have their significance. But, after all, they are only incidental to and preceded by a greater humiliation. The fact of the kenosis is suggested, symbolized, emphasized before us by these circumstances. But it is deeper than all these. If the Son of God came into a state reduced from that of his heavenly glory, in what way was his state reduced? What was the "glory' left behind, the "riches" laid aside? What is meant by the "self-emptying" of Him who became incarnate? Everyone who is intellectually awake, to say nothing of being modest and reverent, must realize what a question this is. It is inwoven with the mystery of the incarnation. And if we attempt to push our inquiry too far we soon find ourselves in things too deep for us. Yet, does not the obligation we are under to study the Scripture revelation bid us seek to penetrate the mystery as far as possible, even though the result must fall far short of the full solution? It is often profitable to ask questions even when we can get only partial answers, and sometimes when we can get no answer at all. In the latter case especially it may lead to a human kenosis-often most salutary. In the matter with

which we are now dealing something worthy of effort, we venture to believe, is nevertheless attainable.

III.

The history of doctrine upon this topic is fruitful, first of all, in impressing the warning not to let speculation upon such themes carry us away beyond the bounds of all Scripture teaching. Both the divine revelation and the divine reticence must be respected. And further comes the warning, often needed, not to take a single word or phrase of Scripture out of its Scripture setting, and then read into it such meaning as may only seem to be appropriate, or such meaning as one may choose to find there. The attempt cannot be made here to present, even in barest outline, the fluctuations of doctrine and opinion and conjecture that have appeared in the history of this subject. But among the phases which the question has assumed are these: Was the Son of God during his earthly sojourn in the flesh deprived wholly or in any measure of his divine attributes? If he still retained them fully in his possession was their exercise or use for the time surrendered, and if so to what extent and under what regulating principle? Was the consciousness of our Lord simply human-the consciousness of his divine nature for the time nonexistent, or awakening within him only gradually-or was his consciousness throughout that of the God-man? How far-reaching these questions are, and how much depends upon turning thought in the right direction at these points, will be suggested later.

The best outcome of the thought of the early centuries of the Church was the conclusion generally held that "the Son did not retain the divine glory for himself or for his own advantage," while yet he did not cease to be, even in the flesh, what he eternally was. Such has been the prevailing faith of the Church in all the centuries. The words of Hilarius quoted at the head of this article rightly express it, "That emptying is by no means the annihilating of the heavenly nature." Even the controversy between the theologians of Giessen and Tubingen in the early part of the seventeenth century concerned itself chiefly with the use of the divine attributes by our Lord, and left the question of his possession of them undisputed.

But in later times speculation has become more daring, and theories of the kenosis have been set afloat of the most startling character. For example, Thomasius held to a selfabdication of the real attributes of the divine nature on the part of the Son of God, and assumed accordingly that the Son was self-excluded from the Trinity during the earthly life of Christ. The Trinity was reduced to a duality; the divine life of the Son was for the time in a state of sleeplike unconsciousness. Others, as Gess and Hahn, held substantially the same position. And views approaching these more or less clearly have by no means been confined to Germany, but have permeated and leavened the thought and teaching of some so-called evangelical preachers and theologians in England and America. Such cases may remind us of the perilous paths men attempt to tread when they allow their speculative tendencies to bear them beyond the indications of the Scriptures, or when they force upon a single Scripture term its most rigid implications, regardless of what the Scriptures teach in other places.

IV.

The persistent attempts to reduce the divine life of Christ during his humiliation are for the most part rationalistic. Men stumble over the impossibility of comprehending the union in one person of two natures, one finite, the other infinite. This surely is beyond our thought, and there we must leave it. But it must be borne in mind that the same insoluble problem is set before us in contemplating Christ in his exalted state, that of his present heavenly glory. He is still the God-man, and will remain so forever. The gulf between the finite and the infinite still exists for our thought of Christ, even the Christ who lives and reigns forever and ever. Is anyone, therefore, prepared to say that the divine nature of the Son of God is still reduced because he is still the Son of man? The rationalistic impulse that has often taken the place of reverent reflection would lead to that conclusion.

Another reflection is pertinent at this point. The kenosis is not set before us in the Scriptures as a necessary preliminary to incarnation, but as an act of the Son of God wrought for the sake of redemption. It exhibits "the grace of the Lord