Philippians 2 gives us some basic understandings of kenosis that we shall hold as essential to a foundational understanding of kenosis. The first assertion is that kenosis is voluntary. Verse 6 states that Jesus �did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.� This leads the reader to assume that equality with God is something that Jesus could have grasped and exercised, but chose not to in this instance. J. Hugh Michael points to the importance of Jesus having �concessive force,� the ability and authority to limit divinity. Jesus could not limit divinity if it was not possessed already. This also provides an important precedent for understanding God�s kenosis in creation as being voluntary. In asserting that God creates in a manner consistent with kenosis, God chooses to limit Himself. It is not being asserted that this limitation is an ontological limit imposed on God by His very nature, or one that has existed from all eternity, but that God�s kenosis in creation is a voluntary self-limitation.
A second important assertion in Philippians 2 is that Jesus is both God and man. Jesus is simultaneously divine and human, and this is emphasized by Paul�s parallel use of the word �form� (Gk., morph?) in verses 6 and 7 to describe Jesus� divinity and humanity. Jesus was in the �form� (NRSV) or �very nature� (NIV) God, and took on the form or very nature of a servant. Kenosis is not a loss of anything, but is instead the willing limitation of the exercise and glory of divinity in taking on humanity. Thus, this passage points out that relating to the world in a manner of kenosis, Jesus is both divine and human, one person with two natures. It is the relationship of these two natures that becomes important. Philippians 2:6 asserts that Jesus did not consider divinity as something to be �grasped� but it doesn�t describe the loss of this divinity in any way. Thus, there is a tension between the presence of divinity and its being grasped. To look at what this means, we refer back to Jesus� life, as recorded in the gospels. Jesus was demonstrated to be human, in that he walked around, ate, slept, grew tired, and died. Yet, Jesus� divinity is also shown, in his ability to do signs and miracles, in his extra-human knowledge, and in his ability to forgive sins. Jesus Himself asserted, �I and the Father are one� (John 10:30). Paul also testifies to the divinity of Jesus when he claims elsewhere (Col 1:19, 2:9) that Jesus possessed the fullness of divinity. Thus, the question remains, what does this kenosis mean?
I would assert that kenosis means that in Christ, God chose to limit Himself, giving up the glory and privilege of divinity. God chose to come to earth in a limited form, while remaining truly God. Jesus was not God in all His glory while on earth, for though he spoke as one with authority he was not readily recognizable as God. As Kierkegaard asserts,
If the glory had been directly perceptible so that everyone could see it as a matter of course, then it is surely an untruth that Christ abased himself and took the form of a servant; �And how in all the world can one then explain what happened to Christ, that all did not rush in admiration to see what was directly to be seen!
For Kierkegaard, Christ possessed an �impenetrable unrecognizability,� for there was nothing to be �directly� seen except Jesus� lowly humanity. Yet as we assert the humility and abasement of Christ, Jesus was still God, one with the Father, performing signs and forgiving sins. In fact, for Kierkegaard, it is precisely in omnipotence that Christ is able to maintain the incognito of the incarnation, and truly become human.
Within this description of Jesus Christ as the self-emptied God, there emerges tension between our understanding of divinity and humanity, and the understanding of the two present together completely in one person. Soren Kierkegaard talked about this tension in the incarnation as a paradox. This idea enables us to hold together the divine and human, acknowledging that we do not fully comprehend how it could be. Kierkegaard uses the parable of the king and the maiden to illustrate the idea of kenosis as an expression of love, but at the same time he does not explain how divinity could be limited in humanity, except to assert that just as the king had to be truly a king, the king also had to truly become a servant, so as not to be a deceiver; so too Jesus was truly God, and truly became a human being.
Welker points out that the biblical traditions themselves contain tension, and we should not seek to dissolve the tension, and in so doing dull the �great orienting power� that the concepts possess. In our understanding of kenosis in Christ, such a tension exists, between divinity and humanity. So too in the kenosis of God in creation, tension exists between divinity and its limitation. We shall not seek to completely resolve this tension, but instead integrate it into our understanding of kenosis.
In looking to the divinity and humanity of Christ in the incarnation, we are posed with a question of existence which goes beyond human comprehension, in seeking to understand how divinity and humanity can coexist. Yet, it is also important to assert that the incarnation is not God in Christ undertaking something against His nature. God is not hiding in humanity, but instead is revealing Himself in Christ. Kierkegaard talks about the form of a servant as Jesus� �true form,� for �this is the boundlessness of love, that in earnestness and truth and not in jest it wills to be the equal of the beloved, and it is the omnipotence of resolving love to be capable of that of which neither the king nor Socrates was capable, which is why their assumed characters were still a kind of deceit.� Jurgen Moltmann similarly asserts that the incarnation is not a denying or concealing of the divine form, but a revelation of it. He asserts, �Kenotic self-surrender is God�s Trinitarian nature, and is therefore the mark of all his works �outwards� (the creation, reconciliation, and redemption of all things).� Thus, as we approach the paradox of kenosis, we are not asserting that God in any way ceases to be God in becoming human, and thus in undertaking a relationship of kenosis, but that God is true to Himself and His character in interacting with the world in this way.
A final insight to be gained from Philippians 2:6-11 is that in Jesus, God chose to limit Himself, becoming human, and then God �exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name� (Phil. 2:9). Jesus was God self-emptied, but also became God �re-filled.� The kenosis ended in a glorification and exaltation. This is not simply a return to a past state, but instead is the glorification of Christ to a new, refilled state. This completes the kenotic understanding of Christ, and shall provide a foundation for our discussion of kenosis in creation, and also for the broad understanding of kenosis which follows it.
From Christology, and specifically from Philippians 2, we develop an understanding of kenosis as divine self-limitation. Kenosis moves toward an understanding of Jesus as both divine and human through understanding that in kenosis God voluntarily chose to limit Himself in becoming Human, but kenosis does not alleviate the paradox of divine and human natures in one person. Thus, we shall understand kenosis to be voluntary, a self-limitation, fully preserving the divinity while choosing to take on limitation in becoming human, and culminating in a refilling. It is this understanding of kenosis we shall now seek to apply to God in creation.
