Program / Course 9: Christology and Pneumatology / Lesson 4.3
What you will learn
- Explain the Greek word behind kenosis and the main readings of Philippians 2:7.
- Describe the nineteenth-century kenotic theories and the objections to them.
- Summarize the main answers to the question of what Jesus knew, including Mark 13:32.
- Compare how Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed and modern writers treat the question.
The big idea
Philippians 2:7 says that Christ emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. The word is kenosis. For most of Christian history it was read as the Son taking human nature and a humble place without losing his divinity. In the nineteenth century some theologians proposed that the Son gave up certain divine attributes, such as knowing all things, during his earthly life. Most traditions rejected that proposal as a threat to the Son’s divinity. The question of what Jesus knew remains open, and each tradition answers with its own balance.
Key terms
- Kenosis
- From the Greek verb ekenosen in Philippians 2:7, usually translated emptied himself or made himself of no reputation. The word names both the verse’s theme and theories about what it means.
- Kenotic theory
- A modern view that in the incarnation the Son gave up, or set aside, some divine attributes such as omniscience or omnipotence.
- Omniscience
- Knowing all things. A traditional attribute of God.
- Attribute
- A quality of a nature. Divine attributes include being eternal, all-knowing and all-powerful.
- Beatific vision
- The direct knowledge of God in glory. Some medieval theologians, including Aquinas, taught that Christ’s human soul had it during his life.
- Infused knowledge
- Knowledge given directly by God to the mind and not learned by experience. A term in medieval accounts of Christ’s human knowledge.
- Krypsis
- A Greek word for hiding. Some Lutheran theologians of the seventeenth century said the Son hid his divine majesty during his earthly life without giving it up.
Background
Two texts set the problem. Philippians 2 says the Son emptied himself. Mark 13:32 reports Jesus saying that of the day and hour of the end no one knows, “neither the Son, but the Father.” Luke 2:52 says he increased in wisdom. Yet other passages show unusual insight into hearts and events. A theory is needed to explain how one person can be omniscient and also grow in wisdom.
The Chalcedonian pattern gives the answer in outline: divine attributes belong to the divine nature, and human limits belong to the human nature. But the question presses harder when put in terms of one mind or two. If the Son has a human mind and a divine mind, they know differently. If he has a single mind, does he know everything or not?
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: What the word says
The Greek verb in Philippians 2:7 literally means to empty. Few interpreters think it refers to literally pouring something out, since the next phrase says how he emptied himself: by taking the form of a servant and being born in human likeness. The Fathers, such as Cyril, read the verse as adding human nature, not subtracting divinity. Others stress the sense of giving up status.
Modern commentators differ. Some see the verb as figurative, meaning he poured himself out in service. Others hear an allusion to Isaiah 53:12, where the servant pours out his life to death, though this is debated. The Greek does not settle whether anything was given up and what that was.
Step 2: The nineteenth-century kenotic theories
In the 1800s German Lutheran theologians such as Gottfried Thomasius proposed that the Son gave up the relative attributes of God, such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, which relate God to the world, while keeping the essential ones, such as holiness and love. This was meant to make a real human life possible, with real growth and ignorance. The idea spread to Britain, where Charles Gore and others adapted it.
Critics said the theory risked making the Son less than God. If he gave up omnipotence, who held the universe together? If divine attributes can be set aside, they asked, were they truly divine? The idea also seemed to conflict with the unchanging nature of God. Most Catholic, Orthodox and Reformed theologians rejected it, as did many Lutherans.
Step 3: Traditional answers on knowledge
Aquinas held that Christ’s human soul had three kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of God in glory, a knowledge infused from God, and knowledge acquired by experience. This allowed him to say that Christ knew all that is needed, while also growing in experience. On Mark 13:32, Gregory the Great and others said the Son did not know the day in the sense that he did not know it to tell others, since he was not sent to reveal it.
Many Fathers and later writers gave a different answer: as man he did not know, as God he did. Some writers treat such statements as belonging to the economy, or plan, of the incarnation. The Catholic Catechism affirms a real human knowledge in Christ, which expresses his divine knowledge, and notes that he did not claim to know what he was not sent to reveal.
Step 4: Protestant and modern answers
Reformed theology has taught that the human nature of Christ is finite and that his human knowledge was limited, though inspired and strengthened by the Spirit. The Son, as God, remained omniscient, a view tied to the extra Calvinisticum. Lutheran theologians of the seventeenth century debated whether the Son gave up the use of divine majesty (kenosis) or hid it (krypsis).
Many modern evangelical, Anglican and other writers prefer a form of limited knowledge in the human mind. They say Jesus lived by faith and dependence on the Father and the Spirit, as Luke’s Gospel shows. Others, within Catholic and Orthodox circles, hold that this goes too far. This is an active area of discussion.
Step 5: What is at stake
If the human knowledge of Christ is too large, his humanity seems incomplete, as in Apollinarianism. If it is too small, or if the Son gives up divine attributes, his divinity seems compromised. Tradition seeks a middle: a real human mind with real limits, in union with the Son who knows all things as God.
The question also bears on prayer and example. Hebrews says he learned obedience through what he suffered. If he knew everything in advance, in what sense did he learn? Students are encouraged to see that careful answers always involve both natures and avoid claiming more than Scripture says.
- What are the three main ways of reading emptied himself in Philippians 2:7?
- What is the strongest reason for the nineteenth-century kenotic theory, and the strongest objection?
- How does the distinction between two kinds of knowledge help with Mark 13:32?
- Why might Gregory the Great’s reading seem convincing to some and strained to others?
- What does Hebrews 5:8 suggest about learning in Christ?
- Which answer best protects both natures, in your view, and what does it cost?
Examples
Mark 13:32
Several readings are common. One: the Son as man did not know. Two: the Son did not know in the sense of not being sent to reveal it. Three: the Son gave up knowledge in the incarnation. Four: the verse is textually or exegetically unclear. The first two are most common historically.
Gore and Forsyth
Anglican and Congregationalist writers around 1900, such as Charles Gore and P. T. Forsyth, used kenotic ideas to speak of a self-limiting God whose love is shown in humility. Critics replied that they risked weakening the divinity. The debate shaped English theology for decades.
A constructed classroom case
A student asks whether Jesus knew calculus. A teacher replies that the question presses on what knowledge his human mind had, and what he needed to know for his mission. The class finds it helpful to separate the questions of what he could know as God and what he did know as man. (A constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic teaching holds that Christ has a true human knowledge, which is a created reality, and that his human soul enjoyed immediate knowledge of God. The Catechism says Christ could not have been ignorant in the sense of lacking what he needed to reveal. Many modern Catholic exegetes take a more limited view of his human knowledge.
Orthodox
Orthodox writers read kenosis as the loving condescension of the Son in taking human nature, without loss of divinity. They are generally wary of kenotic theories. Some twentieth-century Russian theologians, notably Sergei Bulgakov, spoke of kenosis in the Trinity itself, which others criticized.
Lutheran
Lutheran confessional theology holds that the Son did not give up divine attributes but did not always use them in his earthly state, the humiliation. The exact account was debated between Tübingen and Giessen in the seventeenth century, and some Lutherans later adopted stronger kenotic theories.
Reformed
Reformed theologians hold that the divine attributes were not given up and that the human nature has human limits, supported by the Spirit. They often cite Luke 2:52 and Mark 13:32 to show that his human knowledge was real and finite.
Modern evangelical and ecumenical writers
Many seek to describe Jesus as living in full dependence on the Father by the Spirit, with real human limitations. Some adopt a mild kenotic language, and others criticize it as inconsistent with classical theism.
Why it matters
The question of what Jesus knew is one that many believers ask early. It tests how well the Chalcedonian pattern works in a concrete case, and it shows the difference between a doctrine that guards a boundary and a theory that tries to explain.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Kenosis means Jesus stopped being God for a time.
Correction: Almost no tradition teaches that. The classical reading is that the Son took a humble form without losing divinity. Even kenotic theorists who say he gave up some attributes deny that he ceased to be God.
Misunderstanding: Saying Jesus did not know something is heresy.
Correction: Mark 13:32 says it. What matters is how it is explained. Most traditions say he lacked the knowledge in his human mind or in his mission to reveal, not that his divinity was less.
Misunderstanding: The question can be settled by one verse.
Correction: The Gospels give evidence of both limits and insight, and no single verse explains both. Careful readers keep the whole picture.
Knowledge check
What does Philippians 2:7 say, and how has it been read?
It says that Christ emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. Many Fathers read this as adding human nature and a humble role without losing divinity. Some modern writers read it figuratively, as self-giving. Nineteenth-century kenotic theorists read it as giving up certain divine attributes. The Greek allows several readings.
What were the nineteenth-century kenotic theories and why were they criticized?
Theologians such as Thomasius taught that the Son set aside relative attributes like omniscience and omnipotence to live a human life. Critics said this made the Son less than God, left the universe unattended and conflicted with divine immutability. Most traditions rejected the theories, though modified forms remain.
How did Aquinas understand the knowledge of Christ?
He taught that Christ’s human soul had knowledge of God in glory, infused knowledge, and knowledge gained by experience. This allowed both the fullness of insight and real growth in experience. On Mark 13:32, he and earlier writers said the Son did not know the day as something to be revealed.
What is at stake in the debate over Christ’s knowledge?
If his human knowledge is too great, his humanity seems incomplete. If the Son gives up divine attributes, his divinity seems compromised. Tradition looks for a real human mind with real limits joined to the Son who knows all as God. The debate tests how well the Chalcedonian pattern works in practice.
Think it through
- Which of the four readings of Mark 13:32 seems most natural to you?
- Is a self-limiting God easier or harder to worship?
- How would you explain the difference between hiding and giving up divine attributes?
- What do you make of the fact that Christians have never agreed on a single account?
Independent assignment
Weighing four answers
In your own notebook, write 500 to 700 words. Set out four answers to the question of what Jesus knew: Aquinas, the Reformed, the nineteenth-century kenotic theorists and a modern dependence-on-the-Spirit view. For each, give the strongest reason in its favor and the strongest objection. End with your own provisional judgment and what would change your mind. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Read selectively in the third part on the knowledge of Christ.
- Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church Read the paragraphs on the human soul and knowledge of Christ.
- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Read the section on the person of the Mediator.
- Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology A Protestant discussion of the person of Christ. Read selectively.
- Philippians 2:7 He emptied himself and took the form of a servant.
- Mark 13:32 Of that day and hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father.
- Luke 2:52 Jesus increased in wisdom and stature.
- Hebrews 5:8 He learned obedience by the things which he suffered.