FAQ 5: Kenosis Texts

Did Jesus “give up” his divine powers,  when he was sent from heaven to earth?

Kenosis (ke/nwsi$)—the Orthodox explanation.

A Greek term signifying the act of emptying or self-divestiture, employed by modern German divines [German Theologians] to express the voluntary humiliation of Christ in his incarnate state. It is borrowed from, the expression of Paul, “But made himself of no reputation (e(auto\n e)ke/nwse, emptied himself),” etc. (Phil 2:7). The same self-abasement is indicated in other passages of Scripture; e. g. the Son laid aside the glory which he had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5), and became poor (2 Cor 8:9). This term touches the essential difficulty in the doctrine of the incarnation. That difficulty seems to consist in the supposition [guess] that the Logos in his absolute infinitude of being and attributes united himself in one personality with an individual created man. On the other hand, it has been alleged as an objection to the kenosis theory that “to assume any self-limitation on the part of God is inconsistent with the unchangeableness of the divine Being.” But God’s immutability[1] is that perfection by virtue of which his will and nature remain in constant harmony. Every change must, as a matter of course, be rejected that would bring God’s will or nature in conflict with each other. But any act on the part of God, affecting his existence internally or externally, that is in harmony with the divine will and being, is consistent with the divine immutability. To deny such acts on the part of God is to deny the living God Himself. A God without a motion internally or externally would be, according to the Scriptures, a nullity, a dead God, an idol. “The very idea,” says Ebrard, “of God as the living one implies the possibility of a self-limitation or change of self, of course of such a change by which God continues as God, and out of which he has at all times the power of asserting his infinitude. In the divine Being this is possible through the Trinity. As the triune God, there is in his being the possibility for him to distinguish himself from himself also in time, i. e. to receive within himself the difference between existence within time and out of time.” That the Son of God can become a man without thereby destroying his true divinity even the fathers of the Church taught. Tertullian says: “God can change himself into everything and yet remain (in substance) what he is.” Hilary says: “The form of God and the form of a servant can indeed not unqualifiedly become a unity; they rather exclude one another as such. But how does their union become a possibility? Answer: Only by giving up the one, the other can be assumed. But he that has emptied himself, and taken upon himself the form of a servant, is therefore not a different person. To give up a form does not imply the destruction of its substance. Exactly in order to prevent this destruction the act of self-emptying goes only far enough to constitute the form of a servant.”’ Ebrard makes the fitting comparison: “ If a crown prince, in order to set others free, should go for the time being into voluntary servitude, he would be, to all intents and purposes, a servant, and, as he has not forfeited his claims to the crown, also a prince, so that he could with propriety be called both servant and a prince: in the same manner Jesus was the true and eternal God, and at the same time a true and real man; and it can be said with propriety of him, the Son of God is man, and the man Jesus Christ is God.”

This leads us, then, to the main question, What have we to understand by the divine glory which the Son laid aside during his sojourn on earth? To this question the Christologians who adopt the kenosis return different answers. We are met here again by the old difficulty to unite the divine and the human in one self-consciousness. The question is this, Whether the self-consciousness of the Godman is the divine self-consciousness of the eternal Son, or the self-consciousness of the assumed human nature? Gess (Gesch. d. Dogmatik) takes the latter view, and says that, in order to do justice to the true humanity of Jesus Christ, it is necessary to consistently carry out the self-emptying act of the Logos, so that the Son of God in the act of the incarnation laid aside the divine attributes of omnipotence and omniscience, together with his divine self-consciousness, and regained the latter gradually in the way of a really human development, in such a manner as not to affect the true and real divinity of Christ. Whether a temporary laying aside of the divine self-consciousness is consistent with the immutability of the divine Being we need not discuss here. The argumentation of Gess is very acute, and may appear to the metaphysician the most consistent and satisfactory analysis of the personal union of the divine and the human in the person of Christ; but exegetically it seems to us untenable, nor is it fit for the practical edification of the Christian people, and a theology that cannot be preached intelligibly from the pulpit is justly to be suspected. [2]

Comment, the unorthodox explanation:

Tertullian’s analogy when he stated, “God can change himself into everything and yet remain (in substance) what he is,” would be appropriate if he had launched it from a biblical foundation instead of a fictional foundation. From a Biblical foundation, this is a fact about God. The error becomes evident when they apply this fact about God to a fictional character of an eternal son that is non-existent. Mt 1:23 states clearly that the child born will be called Immanuel, “God with us,” not the eternal son with us. God means God, not God the Father, or God the son. God is all deity. Jesus asked Philip in Jn 14: 9-10 after all this time that you’ve been with me have you not seen the Father? How can you ask me to “Show you the Father?” I don’t speak or act on my own, it is the Father living in me doing his work. Ebrard’s comparison starts out totally on the wrong foot by referring to Jesus, the Trinitarian eternal son, as a crown prince. The eternal son of God according to Trinitarian teaching is co-equal with the other members of the godhead. There is no regal court that I’ve ever heard of where a crown prince is equal to the King. It is not biblical, it is not consistent, it is not logical.

The excerpt above refers to three primary verses related to Jesus emptying himself:

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

2 Co 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.

Phil 2:5-11Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

John 17:5 is interpreted by Trinitarians to mean that Jesus was glorified with the Father in heaven before he was born. I believe it would be incorrect to say Jesus was not glorified before the creation of the world, but it would be a grievous error to declare Jesus was physically on the scene when it took place. I must risk being repetitious to assert that Jesus did not exist actually until he was born in Bethlehem. For Jesus to be with God before the creation of the world destroys God’s monotheism. It contradicts the repeated declarations of the Old Testament that God was alone in creation (Isa 44:24); that there was no one before him or after him (Isa 43:10); there is no God beside him or other than him (Dt 4:35, 39); no savior but Yehovah’ (Isa 43:11). But, to understand Jn 17:5 to say God and his angels rejoiced in the heavenlies over the intended glorious redemption of man through God’s incarnation and sacrifice according to God’s timing, not only maintains the primary tenet of the Bible but it brings glory and praise to God the father.

I compare the celebration in heaven to a celebration that friends of an expectant mother organize called a “baby shower.” This party, or celebration, is in anticipation of, and preparation for an impending birth where the participants “shower” the mother-to-be with gifts necessary to care for the infant. The baby is not born but the birth is imminent.

Jesus was not yet born when he received glory in heaven before the world began but God’s blueprint was complete, his plan was ready to be brought into realization. The New Testament has numerous references to events that occurred before our time e.g. Mt 25:34-36, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.” Did we receive an actual inheritance before the foundation of the world, or was it a vivid and precise plan?  John 17:24, “I want those to…see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.” We must realize, this is the man, the fleshly human being named Jesus claiming he was loved before God formed the heavens. Eph 1:4, “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.” 2 Tim 1:9-10, “God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life — not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace…given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.” Titus 1:2, “…a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time.” Heb 4:3, … “his work has been finished since the creation of the world.” 1 Pet 1:20, “He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.” Rev 13:8, … “the Lamb that was slain from the creation (KJV: foundation) of the world. 

The Holy Spirit, the spirit of the Father, the one and only Spirit of God, the spirit of the glorified Jesus, not three, not separate, but God alone, solitary, is able to consider them as though they already existed just as Romans 4:17 tells us: he is “the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.”

2 Corinthians 8:9is the second supporting text for the emptying (kenosis) of Jesus when he allegedly left his heavenly realm to become the lamb of the world. “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.” Trinitarians imagine Jesus as a crown prince, with riches, glory, eminence, and power. However, please notice who Paul is referring to: our Lord Jesus Christ (kuríou I¢soú Christoú). As discussed earlier in “The Great Deception,” kurios can be the New Testament word for Yehovah’, the personal name of God. Iesous is Jesus and Christos is anointed, messiah. 2 Cor 8:9 is describing Jesus the Messiah,  the man born in Bethlehem, not a crown prince of heaven.

How was the man, who was the Christ, rich? And how did the man, who was the Christ become poor? Robert Sabin taught: Jesus was rich in moral purity. He was sinless. He became poor by taking on the sin of the world. It should be easy to understand by following this train of thought how through his poverty, we became rich. When Jesus took on our sin and guilt, he lost his moral purity and washed us white as snow, making us morally as rich as he had been.

2 Corinthians 8:9 has nothing to do with the eternal son of God, the crown prince leaving the opulence of his position to become a servant. It would be a wonderful story if it was true but the real story is more wonderful. “God did not send someone else to save the world…he came himself.” [3]

Philippians 2:5-11 should be understood in a similar context as 2 Corinthians in that we are considering Christ Jesus, the Messiah, the man. The significant difference is Paul elevates Jesus to his true position, not that of crown prince or eternal son, he declares Jesus to be the “form of God” in the KJV and “being in very nature God” in the NIV. Spiros Zodhiates writes: Morphe (mor-fay’) NT:3444 No one could be in the form (morph¢¡) of God who was not God.[4] Jesus was God, there was no discussion, no argument, no contest, he had nothing to prove. He was God. Remember God means GOD. If there is a Trinity, God means all three. We are not talking god the son, or god the father. Jesus was all deity but he made himself of no reputation, took on the form (morphe) of a servant in the likeness of men. He humbled himself and became obedient. Who did Jesus, the man, humble himself to and who did he obey? Jesus told us repeatedly that he was doing the Father’s work. The Father was living in him doing his work. Jesus went on to say, “the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (Jn 14:10 KJV). The humanity humbled himself to the spirit of God (Not the Spirit, 3^rd person of the Trinity. Remember, God is Spirit, Jn 4:24.) his father, that took up permanent residence in Jesus. He humbled himself to death on the cross. As a result of Jesus’ obedience, the deity living inside Jesus exalted the humanity above all other humanity and gave him a name above every name so everything in heaven, earth, and below the earth will bow to Jesus the man. And every tongue will declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

While the words “every tongue will declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” may pass through your eyes without shocking your brain, this statement is huge. Philippians 10:11 is quoted from Isa 45:23 but I am going to quote Isa 45:22-25:

Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. 23 By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. 24 They will say of me, ‘In the lord alone are righteousness and strength.'” All who have raged against  him will come to him and be put to shame. 25 But in the lord all the descendants of Israel will be found righteous and will exult. NIV

Yehovah’ God declared in Isaiah that every knee will bow and every tongue will swear allegiance to him. Paul tells us that this prophecy was fulfilled through Jesus’ obedience of going to the cross resulting in Jesus being every tongue confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord.

I previously attempted to establish that when a New Testament verse containing kurios (Adonai) to quote an Old Testament verse that contains the Hebrew tetragrammaton (yhwh, lord, Yehovah’) OT 3068, then the NT kurios is referring to the tetragrammaton and should be written lord. Applied to Philippians 2:11, “Jesus Christ is Lord,” is declaring Jesus Christ is lord, yhwh, Yehovah’, Almighty God. This verse does not refer to the eternal son emptying himself. It tells of the obedient Son of God, Almighty God, Yehovah’ in the flesh, going to the cross to purchase our redemption.

There is another group of verses that could be quite convincing of this fallacy if not understood in the proper context.

Jn 3:13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven — the Son of Man. NIV

Jn 3:13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. KJV

Jn 6:33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” NIV

Jn 6:51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. NIV

Jn 6:62-63What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! NIV

An inaccurate understanding of these texts would lead one to believe that Jesus, the eternal son of God, physically left heaven and bodily descended to heaven. Our Principles of Bible Interpretation tell us to use verses more easily understood to understand difficult verses. We must go back to basics: There is only one God (Isa 45:5); Jesus is Emmanuel, God with us (Isa 7:14, Mt 1:23); the son born will be called Mighty God, Everlasting Father (Isa 9:6); God is manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16); God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Co 5:19); it was the father living in Jesus that did the works and said the words (Jn 14:9-11). I believe it would be safe to say that Jesus did not wrap himself in divinity, but God wrapped himself in humanity. Jesus never went anywhere without God inhabiting him and being everywhere around him. Jesus was able to come down from heaven because he had all the fullness of the Godhead bodily in him (Col 2:9). Please notice the KJV of Jn 3:13, “no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” This text positions the Son of man in heaven while he was on earth talking to Nicodemus. Why? How? Because he was God in flesh, he was always everywhere at once.

In conclusion, to answer the question did Jesus vacate his position and power when he left heaven to become the Savior of the world? It never happened. Before the conception of Jesus, he was not in heaven except in the mind and plan of God. He did not exist physically outside of Mary’s womb until he was born in the manger. Once he was conceived, as God in flesh, he was omnipresent.

[1] Definition: Immutable: the opposite of the root word, mutable, which means to be capable and prone to alteration. Application: God is incapable of change. Synonyms: fixed, inflexible, unalterable. Reference: Merriam Webster Dictionary.

[2] McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.

[3] Robert A. Sabin

[4] The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament © 1992 by AMG International, Inc. Revised Edition, 1993)