Before anyone can discuss Christ’s work, it is first necessary to examine the kenosis, or humiliation, of the Son of God in time. Indeed, the whole course of Old Testament history from the protoevangelium to the Virgin Birth is a kind of kenosis on the part of God. God pledges his very self in the form of the speech-act of promise and, therefore, places himself at the disposal of humanity. Later, he more specifically placed himself at the disposal of Israel in particular.
Having chained (berit, covenanted) himself to Israel through the gift of the divine Name and promise, God finally stood in such profound kenotic solidarity with his people that he actually became one of them. Lutheran philosopher Johann Georg Hamann correctly asserts that the whole history of salvation is a story of divine self-gift and humbling:
Consider how God the Father has humbled Himself by not only forming a lump of earth but also giving it a soul with His breath. Consider how God the Son has humbled Himself- he became a man, became the least of all people and took on the form of a servant; He became the most hapless of them; He was made sin for us; in God’s eyes He was the sinner of the whole people. Consider how low God the Holy Spirit has condescended by becoming a historian of the smallest, most contemptible, most insignificant events on earth, so as to reveal the mysteries and ways of God to mankind in its own speech, in its own history, in its own ways.1
God’s totalizing self-gift communicates the fullness of divine glory to the man Jesus. The Son of God’s mission to save humanity necessitated his death and suffering. Thus, to achieve his goal, Jesus would have to suspend the use of the powers his divine nature communicated to his human nature. The manner of this kenosis has been much debated in the history of Lutheran thought….
Modern Theories of Kenosis
Modern theologians have offered some helpful ways of conceptualizing Christ’s unified consciousness in his state of humiliation. There are a number of proposed solutions to this problem. The Anglican theologian Frank Weston pointed out that Christ can possess a dual consciousness as God and as man because humans themselves often possess a dual consciousness while remaining a unified subject.
As an example, Weston uses the somewhat unusual analogy of a defeated African king imprisoned by his enemies.2 Even when imprisoned, the king does not cease to be king. Hence he remains conscious of his rightful status and sovereignty. At the same time, the defeated king is also conscious of his new limitations under the physical restraints placed upon him by his enemies.
Similarly, Richard Swinburne has helpfully observed that humans have differing degrees of consciousness regarding various aspects of their personality and environment. Yet they remain unified subjects. The development of modern post-Freudian psychology and the conceptualization of the unconscious (even without accepting the Freudian version of the unconscious) gives further weight to this position.3
Ultimately, as Franz Pieper notes, Christ’s subjectivity remains a great mystery.4 Yet, there are still ways of explaining the unity of Christ’s personal subjectivity without abandoning a traditional conception of the Incarnation in favor of a Kenoiticsm that denies the Son’s full divinity while in the state of humiliation.
The Lutheran “Crypto-Kenotic Controversy”
For confessional Lutherans, the so-called “Crypto-Kenotic Controversy” highlights another important theological question regarding the state of humiliation and exaltation. During the seventeenth century, theologians at the universities of Tübingen and Geissen debated the nature of kenosis in Christ’s state of humiliation.5 In many ways, this conflict was a continuation of the debate between Swabian Lutherans who roughly followed the trajectory of Brenz, and Saxon theologians who followed the trajectory of Chemnitz. Although the Formula of Concord (produced by Chemnitz and Jakob Andreae, a Swabian) reconciled many of these differences, disagreement regarding the implications of the communicatio idiomatum remained.
The Swabian Position on the State of Humiliation
Jakob Andreae was the co-author of the Formula of Concord with Chemnitz, In his early theology, he primarily conceptualized the genus majestaticum as the exercise of divine glory through the human nature.6 From this premise, the later Cryptocist faction centered in Tübingen argued that in order to fully possess divine attributes in his humanity, Christ would have to always exercise them. It logically followed then that if Christ did not exercise his divine attributes in the state of humiliation, his humanity did not possess the divine glory.
However, the idea that in order to possess them, Christ needed to exercise his divine attributes in his humanity was problematic. It raised the question of how one could account for the way the New Testament portrayed the state of humiliation. The Evangelists described Christ as weak and as a servant. The Swabian theologians replied that although Christ appeared weak, he actually still exercised his divine attributes in a secret (krypsis) manner.7
The Saxon Position on the State of Humiliation
By contrast, the Saxon theologians centered at the University of Giessen followed Chemnitz’s theology in the second edition of The Two Natures in Christ.8 They emphasized that Christ possessed the divine glory simply by virtue of his hypostatic participation in the Logos. Thus, he possessed the fullness of glory by hypostatic union rather than by exercising divine attributes. The human nature could possess divine attributes without exercising.
To given an analogy, a person may possess the ability to do algebra, but temporarily suspend the ability while sleeping. As a result, in the state of humiliation, Jesus could suffer, die, and even admit that he did not know the time of the Last Judgment. This was possible because he had temporarily suspended the use of the divine glory communicated to him as vere homo by virtue of the hypostatic union.9
The Suspension of Divine Glory and God’s Solidarity with Humanity
Eventually, the 1624 Deciso Saxonica largely settled the question in favor of the Saxons in.10 The Saxon-Kenotic view (with some modifications) subsequently became the favored Lutheran theological position.11 Following the mainstream of the historic Lutheran tradition, mithe Saxon-Kenotic position is probably the best interpretation of Scripture on the issue of kenosis.
Philippians 2 and other texts such as Hebrews 5:8 and John 6:38 speak of the Son humbled through assuming a human nature and subordinating his divine powers. He used the divine glory communicated to him to follow the will of the Trinity and the plan of salvation. The Gospel narratives very clearly show that this entailed suspending divine powers use and not merely hiding their use.
Without suspending divine glory to some degree, Christ could not have entered into total solidarity with the human condition after the Fall. This radical solidarity enabled him to serve as a substitute for human sin. The fact that Christ speaks of not knowing certain things, such as the time of the last day (Matt. 24:36), also demonstrates that he must have temporarily suspended certain divine attributes. Otherwise, Jesus would be lying about his ignorance. This is, of course, impossible.
Finally, Scripture speaks of Christ’s exaltation and full use of his divine attributes after the resurrection (“all power in heaven and on earth have been given unto me” Matt. 28:18). It would make little sense to speak of an exaltation defined by the exercise of divine power if a temporary suspension of that power had not already occurred.
God’s Self-Donation and Kenosis
On the other hand, it could be argued that there is a kind of paradoxical truth in the Swabian-Cryptocist position. In Freedom of a Christian, Luther interprets Philippians 2 to make Christ the prototype of Christian freedom. Being in the “form of God” (Phil. 2:6), Christ has freedom based on his possession of the fullness of divine glory. Precisely because he has all, he can give all to his people by making himself of no account and taking the “form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7) in the state of humiliation.12
In other words, Christ’s suspension of his divine glory (as least as true man) was possible because he knew that he possessed all things with the Father and therefore did not need to “exploit” or grasp after divinity as Adam did (Phil. 2:6). We see this reality throughout the Gospel narratives when repeated heavenly revelations of Christ’s divine status and sonship frame his life of obedience and service. This narrative framing begins at his birth, but also manifests at his baptism and the Transfiguration.
Hence, Christ was able to be obedient to the Father and enter full solidarity with sinners precisely because he possessed the fullness of the divine attributes. In this case, suspension paradoxically becomes use and, hence, we could call it a kind of “secret” use in the manner of the Swabians.13
- Johann Georg Hamann, London Writings: The Spiritual and Theological Journal of Johann Georg Hamann, trans. John Kleinig (Bremerton, WA: Ballast Books, 2021), 93. Many thanks to Kyle Bliss for directing me to this quote. ↩︎
- Frank Weston, The One Christ: An Enquiry into the Manner of the Incarnation (London: Longmans, Green, 1907), 154. ↩︎
- Richard Swinburne, The Christian God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 201. ↩︎
- Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 2:294-295. ↩︎
- I. A. Dorner, History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, 5 vols., trans. William Alexander, D. W. Simon, and Patrick Fairbairn (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1872-1882), 4:281-306; Otto Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus, 4 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1908-1927),4:180-192; Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1881), 1:294-296; Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 390-392. ↩︎
- Cross, Communicatio Idiomatum, 161. ↩︎
- See: Ulrich Wiedenroth, Krypsis und Kenosis: Studien zu Thema und Genese der Tübinger Christologie im 17. Jahrhundert (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). ↩︎
- Cross, Communicatio Idiomatum, 215-223. ↩︎
- Richard Cross, Christology and Metaphysics in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022), 292. ↩︎
- Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 393. ↩︎
- Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 393. ↩︎
- Freedom of a Christian (1520); LW 31:365-366. ↩︎
- See my argument in: Jack Kilcrease, “Kenosis and Vocation: Christ as the Author and Exemplar of Christian Freedom,” Logia: A Journal of Lutheran Theology 19, no. 4 (2010), 21-34. ↩︎
From the draft manuscript for Lutheran Dogmatics: The Evangelical-Catholic Faith for an Age of Contested Truth (Lexham Press).
Cover image Kelly Latimore, Tent City Nativity, Kelly Latimore Icons, 2022, used with permission. Other images from redbarn, “The Mind-Boggling Complexity of the Humanity of Jesus,” Christ Community Church, January 22, 2020, accessed December 23, 2024, https://redbarnchurch.com/tag/kenosis/; CrypticRock, “LACEY STURM – KENOTIC METANOIA (ALBUM REVIEW”, 2023, accessed December 30, 2024, https://crypticrock.com/lacey-sturm-kenotic-metanoia-album-review/; Albert Chmielowski, Ecce Homo, 1879; Source: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Old-100; and Rev. James E. Laurence, “Kenosis,” Pastoral Ponderings, March 28, 2021, accessed December 23, 2024; https://mypastoralponderings.com/2021/03/28/kenosis-a-poem-for-palm-sunday/.