Did Christ Empty Himself of any Divine Properties during the Incarnation? A Theological Response to Kenotic Christology

Introduction:

The Chalcedonian Declaration and the Challenge of Kenotic Christology

“Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, is both perfect God and perfect man. He is one person with two natures, divine and human. Those natures exist without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.”

This orthodox statement is known as The Chalcedon Declaration. With it the church laid out its official position on the person and nature of Christ. However, since Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God, then he possesses the substance, essence or nature of Godness. Therefore, how is the Son also human? This affirmation of two natures was clear and nonnegotiable in the early church, but how is one to understand that the Son possesses both a human and divine nature and is yet one person?

It seems that the church was quick to reject the thought that the Incarnation involved the Logos stripping away certain divine properties in order to take on flesh; however, in recent years several scholars have sought to explain the logic of the incarnation in such a manner. Their theory focuses on the person of Christ in terms of some form of divine self-limitation as a result of becoming man. This theory is known as kenotic Christology, and is characterized as not simply wishing to drop the dual natures of Christ, but rather as a removal of certain divine attributes that seem incompatible with Christ being fully human. This theory has two versions defended amongst kenotic theorists. One involves an actual relinquishing of certain divine properties during the time of Christ’s incarnation (i.e. ontological kenosis), and the other focuses on Christ’s voluntary abandonment of certain divine properties (i.e. functional kenosis).

Therefore, is something within the second person of the Trinity altered when flesh is assumed? Did Christ actually empty part of his divine nature or voluntarily give up (or simply not exercise) the usage of certain divine attributes? Given this modern development in Christology, this blog post will provide a theological response to kenoticism, proving that orthodox Christology involves an understanding of the incarnation that is both fully God and truly man (as seen in The Chalcedon Definition) contra kenotic Christology.

A Theological Objection to Kenotic Christology:

The Necessary Properties (or Attributes) of Deity

            If any version of kenoticism is correct, then there seems to be a significant theological implication. To help illustrate this implication, suppose this theological argument (TA):

1. If Jesus, during his Incarnation, emptied himself of some divine attributes, then Jesus, during his incarnation, was not truly God.
2. If Jesus, during his incarnation, was not truly God, then he could not save us.
3. Jesus, during his Incarnation, emptied himself of some divine attributes. 
4. Therefore, Jesus, during his Incarnation, was not truly God.
5. Therefore, Jesus could not save us.

The argument appears valid, in that the logic follows from each premise; however, what about its soundness? It seems that the most crucial premise is 3, for the kenotic could easily question what it means to remain truly God and empty oneself of some divine attributes. It is at this point that the kenoticist makes a distinction between internal or essential attributes (love, joy, etc.) and external or contingent attributes (omnipotence, etc.). To illustrate this distinction consider this kenotic argument for a distinction of divine properties (DDP):

1. God has essential and contingent properties.
2. One essential divine property is love.
3. One contingent divine property is omniscience.
4. At the incarnation, Jesus takes on a human nature.
5. During the incarnation, Jesus abdicates certain contingent divine properties.
6. During the incarnation, Jesus does not abdicate any essential divine properties.  

With such a theological distinction set forth, the kenoticist could easily claim that since no essential divine properties were emptied during the incarnation, then Jesus is still fully God.

In aiding a response to the implication of DDP, suppose this theological statement (TS):

TS: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God.

Orthodoxy affirms TS, but again what does TS mean by “is God”? This brings one back to premise 3 of TA. As noted above, kenoticism and DDP both affirm that Jesus emptied himself of some divine attributes; however, they do so by determining the manner in which Jesus, during his incarnation, would do such a thing and yet be truly God. In other words, it seems that they are claiming that Jesus can be truly God without being fully God. In other words, these forsaken divine attributes (i.e. the omni properties) are contingent and not essential for deity. However, there appears to be a problem with this thinking. That is, such a kenotic distinction makes an unnecessary distinction between Jesus being truly God and not fully God. That is, Jesus cannot be truly God without being fully God. Theologically speaking, how does Jesus’ claim “The person who has seen me has seen the Father” make any sense according to the kenotic claim that Jesus did not possess every divine property that the Father possessed? Therefore, the logical soundness of TA holds true and the Christ of kenoticism can therefore not save believers. Also, such a definition of the incarnation, as it relates to the essential nature of deity, entails a concept of God that might strike one as far too thin to be acceptable.

Conclusion: Salvation and The Incarnation

            Any type of kenotic Christological abandonment during the incarnation is theologically absurd. How is Christ going to save humanity if he does not possess all the properties of deity? Yes his human nature allows him to identify with the plight of human sinfulness, but if he is not fully God then he cannot offer salvation to the ones he came to save. In other words, if the incarnation is misunderstood, then believers do not have salvation. For it is by the incarnation that God restores humanity to himself.