At this point, I will turn to a fairly controversial topic in modern theology: Kenosis. Unfortunately, it is not within the scope of this essay to provide a full exploration of the exegetical discourse on the passages involved—mainly Philippians 2:6-11. Nor can I provide an in-depth analysis of all of theological debate found in the wake of such passages. There is a vast amount of scholarship on this subject and it is impossible to explicate fully the following ideas. However, it should be noted that the forthcoming argument rests upon no one interpretation of Kenosis. All I hope to be able to show, is that Christ’s “emptying” of himself—whether that be metaphysically significant or not—is indicative of a posture of vulnerability.
The concept of Kenosis originates in a pre-Pauline hymn which Paul himself reinterprets in his letter to the Philippians. The hymn, found in …show more content…
Stephen Evans clearly expresses, there is a great fear concerning the ostensible compromise of Christ’s divinity from Kenotic opponents. Evans notes that Kenotic theories have been seen at times as explicating “the view that, in becoming incarnate, the Son of God gave up divinity or ceased to be God.” This caution is well founded, as one does not wish to accidentally end up on the heretical side of the Arian controversy. However, the flip side of this objection is just as important: one must be cautious against ending up an ally to Apollinarius as well. The full divinity and full humanity, as expressed in the ecumenical councils, such as the Council of Chalcedon in 451, is of the utmost importance in this discussion. As a result of this fear and the implications involved, there are two main camps in Kenotic theology: there are those who, instead of negating his metaphysical attributes, see Jesus as “covering up” his divinity; and there are those who see, insofar as he identified as fully human, a self-limiting Christ, to the extent that his divine attributes were unavailable to