Basic HTML Version
312
consequently He could and did take the place of the human soul in Christ. Thus the true
manhood of Christ, even to the extent of His peccability, was secured.
c. The theory of Ebrard. Ebrard agrees with Gess in making the incarnate Logos take the place
of the human soul.
The eternal Son gave up the form of eternity, and in full self-limitation
assumed the existence-form of a human life-center. But with him this self-reduction does not
amount to a complete depotentiation of the Logos. The divine properties were retained, but
were possessed by the God-man in the time-form appropriate to a human mode of existence.
d. The theory of Martensen and Gore.
Martensen postulated the existence of a double life in
the incarnate Logos from two non-communicating life-centers. As being in the bosom of God,
He continued to function in the trinitarian life and also in His cosmic relations to the world as
Creator and Sustainer. But at the same time He, as the depotentiated Logos, united with a
human nature, knew nothing of His trinitarian and cosmic functions, and only knew Himself to
be God in such a sense as that knowledge is possible to the faculties of manhood.
2. SUPPOSED SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR THE DOCTRINE.
The Kenotics seek Scriptural support for
their doctrine, especially in Phil. 2:6-8, but also in II Cor. 8:9 and John 17:5. The term “kenosis”
is derived from the main verb in Phil. 2:7, ekenosen. This is rendered in the American Revised
Version, “emptied Himself.” Dr. Warfield calls this a mistranslation.[Christology and Criticism, p.
375.] The verb is found in only four other New Testament passages, namely, Rom. 4:14; I Cor.
1:17; 9:15; II Cor. 9:3. In all of these it is used figuratively and means “to make void,” “of no
effect,” “of no account,” “of no reputation.”[Cf. Auth. Ver. in Phil. 2:7.] If we so understand the
word here, it simply means that Christ made Himself of no account, of no reputation, did not
assert His divine prerogative, but took the form of a servant. But even if we take the word in its
literal sense, it does not support the Kenosis theory. It would, if we understood that which He
laid aside to be the morphe theou (form of God), and then conceived of morphe strictly as the
essential or specific character of the Godhead. In all probability morphe must be so understood,
but the verb ekenosen does not refer to morphe theou, but to einai isa theoi (dat.) that is, His
being on an equality with God. The fact that Christ took the form of a servant does not involve a
laying aside of the form of God. There was no exchange of the one for the other. Though He
pre-existed in the form of God, Christ did not count the being on an equality with God as a prize
which He must not let slip, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant. Now what does
His becoming a servant involve? A state of subjection in which one is called upon to render
obedience. And the opposite of this is a state of sovereignty in which one has the right to
command. The being on an equality with God does not denote a mode of being, but a state
which Christ exchanged for another state.[Cf. Kennedy, in Exp. Gk. Test.; Ewald, in Zahn’s