03.08. Christ Emptied Himself (Part I)
Chapter 8 - CHRIST EMPTIED HIMSELF (Part I) The entrance of the eternal Son of God into the world in the form of a servant cannot be compared with man’s entrance. Man’s entrance is not as difficult to describe. Man has a beginning and an entrance. In the case of Adam, man came into existence by an act of creation; but in the case of each man since Adam, he has come into existence by procreation and creation. His body came by procreation and his soul by creation. Christ’s entrance into the stream of mankind is more difficult to explain. With the Son of God, there was no coming into existence. He is eternal. Therefore, His entrance took the choicest of words to reveal the incarnation of Him who is without beginning: “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Php 2:7).
Paul’s words “But made himself of no reputation” shall occupy our attention in this lesson. This phrase comes from three Greek words, alla heauton ekenosen, which mean “But emptied himself.” Alla means “but” and is a stronger word than de. Heauton is the accusative singular masculine of heautou, a reflexive pronoun meaning “himself.” Ekenosen, is the aorist form of kenoo, which means to empty, to deprive of power, or make of no effect. The Kenotic theory of the incarnation is based on the Greek word ekenosen, emptied. This word has been the occasion for various interpretations, many of which are heretical. The following list is a summary of some of the interpretations of the phrase “But made himself of no reputation”:
1. It means to give up one’s rights or privileges.
2. Christ laid aside equality with the form of God.
3. This is the emptying of Deity in order to take up humanity.
4. The Divine form was shed to avoid having mankind give Him His rightful honor. Instead He took on the form of a servant.
5. Christ gave up His proper and peculiar position. However, His Divine nature was not given up. He exchanged the form of God for the form of a servant. The change He experienced did not rob Him of the consciousness of Deity. Although He retained equality with God, He did not assert this equality.
6. Christ did not give up His Divine nature. The thing most probably relinquished was the surroundings of glory.
7. He removed His supreme authority.
8. Christ concealed His Divinity for a time. Only in His humanity was there emptying. Christ’s humbling Himself was a covering for his Divine majesty.
9. Christ took a servant’s form and limited His glory. He laid His glory aside in order to be born in the likeness of men.
10. This emptying can never be understood fully outside eternity. He emptied Himself not of Deity but the glory of Deity in order to accomplish redemption for mankind.
11. His form of being was traded for another form.
12. He voluntarily relinquished His rights.
13. Outward manifestations of His Deity were given up.
14. The emptying was related to His being God, and the humbling was related to His being man.
15. He laid aside His glory and became a sinner by imputation and by reputation. This listing will give one some idea of the controversy that has originated over one Greek word, ekenosen. In thinking of the Kenosis, one must never permit himself to think of Jesus Christ as anyone other than God who changes not. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Christ is God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). The immutability of God disproves any idea of Jesus Christ becoming something different from what He eternally is with the Father. It would not only be subversive to the immutability of Jesus Christ, but it would destroy the Divine Trinity, humanize the eternal Son, and make Jesus Christ neither God nor man. The only way to arrive at the truth of the statement “But emptied Himself” is to study the Greek verb kenoo and see how it is used in the New Testament. It was by this method that we were able to have a better understanding of harpagmon in verse 6. The Greek verb kenoo is used five times:
(1) “For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void [perfect passive form of kenoo], and the promise made of none effect” (Romans 4:14). If legalists are heirs of God’s promise, faith is emptied of all meaning or rendered useless. (2) “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect [the aorist passive subjunctive form of kenoo]” (1 Corinthians 1:17). Paul did not fall into the trap of magnifying a church ordinance at the expense of the message of the cross. Had he done this, the cross would have been emptied of its meaning or rendered powerless and inoperative.
(3) “But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void” [aorist active subjunctive form of keno] (1 Corinthians 9:15). Paul did not want to be deprived of his ground for boasting. His self-denial gave him confidence in the presence of his enemies.
(4) “Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain [aorist passive subjunctive form of kenoo] in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready” (2 Corinthians 9:3). The apostle did not want anything to hinder the collection of the money they had promised to give. He did not want his boasting of them to be empty.
(5) This brings us to the final place where kenoo is used, and that is Php 2:7. The adjective kenos is used eighteen times and is translated by two words - “vain” and “empty.”
Christ “emptied Himself” must be understood in one of two ways:
(1) If it is connected with Christ’s Divine nature (essential equality or form of God), of what did He empty Himself?
(2) If it is connected with Christ’s human nature, of what did He empty Himself? The verb for “emptied” has been explained in the sense of removing something from a container until it is empty. Was the eternal Son of God emptied of Deity until He was empty? Did Jesus Christ exchange the Divine form of existence for a human form of existence? There is no Biblical evidence of Jesus Christ renouncing His Divine nature. It is blasphemy to even suggest such a thing. There are those who think they have toned down such strong language by suggesting the Son of God divested Himself of all Divine functions, attributes, and consciousness, and restricted Himself to the limitations of man. They mean by this that the Son passed from one mode of being to another. The fact is, if Jesus Christ did not act in both natures during His condescension, how could He have been the Mediator? Furthermore, if the Son of God either emptied Himself of Deity or divested Himself of His attributes, what happened to providence during this time? The further we go with this view the worse it gets. However, I must not stop until I mention that the heretical doctrine of peccability (the teaching that Christ could sin) is one of the fruits of this heresy.
There is a modified form of the Kenotic theory that does not deny Christ’s Deity, but it falls short of giving any sensible interpretation of the passage in the light of its context. Those who hold this modified view say there is no reference to abandoning Deity or attributes, but Christ merely took something, namely, “the form of a servant.” During His humiliation, the Son of God laid aside certain rights as the eternal One; but Deity or attributes, He could never lay aside. He did not insist upon being served but became a servant. Christ emptied Himself of all the outward glory of the form of God and revealed Himself to the world in the form of a slave. He surrendered the independent exercise of His Divine attributes. This theory may be summarized by the use of four statements:
(1) “Form of God” refers to Christ’s preexistence.
(2) “Equal with God” denotes Christ’s Person.
(3) “Thought it not robbery to be equal with God” refers to the posture of His mind.
(4) “Emptied Himself” points to the fact of His assuming “the form of a servant.” Since, equality with God" was not something to retain, this modified view will not fit the context.
Christ “emptied Himself” is used in association with His human nature. It is something connected with Christ’s humiliation. Paul does not specifically state of what the self-emptying consists, but a study of the immediate context in the light of the overall context of Scripture will give us the answer.