Kenosis - Exploring Philippians 2:7

I mentioned in my sermon from September 22 that Philippians 2:6-8 has historically been a contentious passage. The reason for the contention is because the deity of Christ is at stake. Central to the conversation has been the meaning of the word "emptied" (v. 7, ESV translation). What does it mean for God to empty (gk. kenow) Himself? Did Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, concede any portion of His divinity for the sake of humanity? For those who say that Jesus did empty a portion of His divinity are attempting to maintain the importance of humanity. As a result, the humanity of Jesus is central to understanding the historicity of the Gospel narratives. The problem with this logic is that the miracles of Jesus, and his death and resurrection, are difficult to explain. How could a divinity-less Jesus accomplish the miraculous things told about in the Gospels?

Another logical alternative is that Jesus cannot be all of one thing and all of the other. Therefore, a mixture of divinity and humanity must exist in Jesus. Like two different colors of paint getting mixed together to form a third color. The problem with logic is that the divinity and humanity of Jesus are corrupted by the third form.

The concession of Jesus being all human and all divine should not be assumed just because other logical solutions fail to provide a remedy. The answer, I think, is two-fold. First, from a historical perspective the divinity of Jesus is essential to His nature, because without divinity the resurrection is not possible. In the early church one of the main apologetical reasons why Jesus was considered Lord and God (hence divine) is because of the historical reality of the resurrection. Second, a biblical argument against the divinity of Christ is lacking. If Jesus really walked on water; feed four and five thousand people; and rose from the dead, then there must be something in the very nature of Jesus in order to accomplish such tasks.

So back to Philippians 2:7. What did Jesus "empty" Himself of? It can be suggested that what Jesus emptied Himself of was some of His rights. The assumption is made that for God to come into the form of men means that Jesus relenquished some of the rights that accompanied being the second member of the Trinity. His divinity is maintained but by humbling Himself, Jesus assumed some of the consequences needed to redeem mankind from their sin. "What has not been fully assumed cannot be fully redeemed."

F.F. Bruce takes a different angle that I find helpful. "He 'emptied himself' . . . does not mean that he exchanged the nature (or form) of God for the nature (or form) of a servant: it means that he displayed the nature (or form) of God in the nature (or form) of a servant."

I think Bruce hits the mark with this statement.