Kenotic Christology, positing the voluntary self-limitation of the Logos (λόγος) in the act of Incarnation, presents a significant theological divergence from the traditional orthodox understanding. This perspective, which emphasizes the "emptying" of Christ's divine attributes to assume human nature as described in Philippians 2 (NKJV), is frequently viewed as a radical departure from established doctrinal orthodoxy. Such a stance can challenge the immutable divinity of Christ upheld by classical Christological formulations, thereby engendering substantial doctrinal tension within the broader Christian theological landscape.

The primary purpose of this study is to engage in a theological synthesis, aiming to integrate the progressive believers of Kenotic Christology with the traditional Chalcedonian framework through the lens of apophatic (negative) theology. This approach acknowledges the existing doctrinal challenges posed by Kenotic theories but proposes that, for those within the Christian community who find resonance with these views—predominantly within more progressive denominations—a deeper theological harmony might be achieved. It is not an easy task, and not even necessarily entirely plausible, as S.M. Smith says: “All forms of classical orthodoxy either explicitly or in principle reject kenotic theology, since they understand God to be changeless; any concept of the incarnation that would imply change in the divine essence would have God ceasing to be God.”. This synthesis does not attempt to resolve all tensions but suggests that a dialogical engagement between these perspectives can yield a richer, more nuanced understanding of the Incarnation and draw those who misunderstand the true character of Jesus, revealed to us as wholly God and wholly man, closer to orthodoxy and a reconciliation of lost and straying sheep. Watkin states a problem that many Christological interpretations have: “There is a constant temptation, sometimes a very great one, either to unbalance the incarnation in the direction of affirming Jesus’s humanity at the expense of his deity, or to stress his deity such that we lose His Humanity.” Preserving the integrated fullness of Christ's divine and human natures lies at the heart of all orthodox Christological formulations.

The methodology employed in this research is predominantly biblical-theological. This study mostly considers Philippians 2 and John 1, alongside other pertinent passages that collectively contribute to the doctrine of the Incarnation. This scriptural engagement is supplemented by an analysis of historical and contemporary discussions, aiming to contextualize and evaluate the various interpretive frameworks that have influenced the understanding of Christ's nature. Although Kenotic Christology is often perceived as a departure from traditional orthodoxy, this research paper contends that an apophatic interpretation allows for a reconciliatory synthesis of seemingly divergent doctrinal positions. Such a synthesis unveils a scripturally grounded understanding that not only affirms the biblical depiction of Christ’s 'self-emptying' but also enriches and aligns with the orthodox view of the Incarnation as articulated by the Council of Chalcedon and helps us reconcile with Christians who hold to lower Christology.

The Incarnation

The Incarnation is deeply rooted in scripture, which variously depict the pre-existence, divinity, and humanity of Jesus Christ. Athanasius says, “[Jesus] became visible through His works and revealed Himself as the Word of the Father, the Ruler and King of the whole creation.” Key passages in understanding this position include John 1:1-14, where John articulates the Logos's pre-existence and incarnation. Similarly, Philippians 2:6-7 offers a Christological hymn, illustrating Christ's pre-existence and voluntary self-limitation. These passages, along with others like Colossians 1:15-20 and 1 Timothy 3:16, provide a scriptural tapestry that portrays Christ's divine nature and his redemptive incarnation. Early Christian thought on the Incarnation is reflected through apostolic teachings and subsequent patristic writings, which emphasize Christ’s divine and human natures. Paul's letters, particularly to the Philippians, articulate a high Christology, presenting Jesus as pre-existing in divine form before his earthly life. Early hymns, like those found in Colossians and 1 Timothy, celebrate Christ’s cosmic role and redemptive work. Beyond the apostolic writings, early Church Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyons articulated and defended the Incarnation against contemporary philosophical and theological challenges, consistently affirming the divinity and humanity of Christ.

Several controversies shaped the early church's Christological doctrines. In the 300s, Arianism challenged the full divinity of Christ, suggesting he was a created being, while Apollinarianism proposed that Jesus had a divine mind but a human body, denying the complete human nature of Christ. Nestorianism argued for a disunion between Christ's two natures, and Eutychianism (Monophysitism) asserted a confusion or mixing of God and human into one nature. These debates were pivotal in prompting the Church to define more precisely the doctrine of Christ's nature. The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) marked a defining moment in the history of Christian theology. The council's definition asserted that Christ has two natures, "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." The two alternatives rejected by the Council of Chalcedon were monophysitism and Nestorianism. "The bishops at Chalcedon inserted the Nicene Creed before their own faith which established the formula of ‘two natures after the union’, which itself is an innovation." This formula aimed to balance the theological scales by affirming that the two natures of Christ coexist without merging into one another and without being separated into two persons. Grudem states “Jesus was our representative and obeyed for us where Adam had failed and disobeyed” but “if Jesus had not been a man, he could not have died in our place and paid the penalty that was due to us.” The Council of Chalcedon comprehended that denying or altering the coexistence of the divine and human natures in Christ would undermine the very purpose of the atonement. Their affirmation of Christ's dual nature—being fully God and fully man—was essential to preserving the doctrine of humanity's reconciliation with God through Christ's sacrificial death and resurrection.

Apophatic Theology

Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology, forms a distinctive approach within Christian theological tradition by emphasizing what God is not, rather than asserting positive descriptions of divine attributes. This tradition seeks to express the ineffability and transcendence of God, demonstrating the limitations of human language and concepts in fully encapsulating the divine essence. The roots of apophatic theology stretch back to the early Christian mystics and theologians who emphasized the unknowability of God’s essence. One of the earliest proponents was Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, whose works in the late 5th to early 6th century AD profoundly influenced Eastern and Western Christian thought. His writings, particularly "The Mystical Theology," articulate the necessity of transcending language and intellect to approach the divine. Apophatic theology was further developed by eastern church father like Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom, as well as in the works of Western mystics like Meister Eckhart. These theologians argued that God’s transcendence makes Him ultimately unknowable, thus requiring negation as a means of theological expression. At its core, apophatic theology revolves around the principle that God transcends all human understanding and linguistic categorization. This theology employs a method of negation, systematically denying all attributes that might limit the concept of God to human comprehension. For instance, if one states that God is not darkness nor light, not silence nor sound, the aim is not to define what God is, but to clear the space of concepts that are inadequate for describing the divine. Apophatic theology complements the cataphatic (positive) theology by providing a balance between knowing God through His actions and revelations, and recognizing the mystery beyond all human conception. Apophatic theology helps theologians grapple with the paradox of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man without resorting to simplistic explanations. This approach becomes especially pertinent in discussions about Kenotic Christology, as it allows for a deeper exploration of Christ's self-emptying in Philippians 2. Apophatic theology does not simply dismiss the paradoxes of kenosis as unfathomable mystery, but offers a framework for synthesizing it with traditional Christology. By negating positive attributes about God, the apophatic approach affirms that divine nature transcends human categories like "limitation" or "unbounded." His "limitation" does not negate immutability, but reveals God's freedom to condescend without diminishment. Kenosis upholds orthodoxy by exemplifying divine humility and love enfleshed. Simultaneously, it resonates with progressive thought by presenting an immanent, relatable Christ. Apophatic negations clear space for affirming a form of kenosis as reality beyond our concepts of divinity.

Kenotic Christology

Kenotic Christology explores the nature of Christ's incarnation in terms of "self-emptying," and engages with the paradoxes inherent in the Christian understanding of Jesus as fully divine and fully human. Kenosis, as defined by Stackpole is “[the] self-giving love for others expressed through an act(or acts) of self-limitation, even, if need be, to the point of total self-sacrifice.” The term "kenosis" derives from the Greek verb kenoō, meaning "to empty." Theologically, it refers to the idea expressed in Philippians 2:7 where Paul states that Jesus Christ "emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." Nimmo writes, “Virtually whenever the doctrine of kenosis is invoked today by pastors, Christian educators, or theologians, it is used to answer the conundrum of how an almighty and

omniscient God can become the subject of a finite human life without overwhelming and either partially or fully annihilating it”. Kenotic Christology posits that in the incarnation, the Son of God voluntarily relinquished certain divine attributes in order to fully assume human nature. This self-limitation does not imply that Christ ceased to be divine; rather, it suggests a temporary suspension or concealment of His divine form to accommodate His human experience. “For Luther, divinity had to come as close as possible to the human condition in order to answer its dilemmas, but the only way he saw this as possible, was for all the attributes to divinity to be given to one particular human nature.” Larry Hurtado suggests that the most helpful way of understanding kenosis is to interpret is as “limitation”. Traditional Christology holds that Jesus is fully God and fully man, with both natures coexisting without confusion, change, division, or separation. The key challenge that Kenotic theology presents to this is the implication that if Jesus divested Himself of certain divine attributes, it suggests a change or alteration in His nature itself. Orthodox theology insists on the immutability of God; any theory suggesting that God could change is met (rightly) with substantial resistance. Nimmo says that critics of current kenotic Christology wonder how one can reconcile a Christ emptied of divine prerogatives with the self-same God we worship as Christians.

Philippians 2:5-11 suggests a model of Incarnation centered on humility and servanthood. Paul describes Jesus as existing in the form of God yet not regarding equality with God as something to be exploited but emptying Himself by assuming a servant's form. The development of Kenotic theology can be traced back to the 19th century when theologians like Thomasius began to explore the implications of Christ's self-emptying in more existential and psychological terms. Early formulations often emphasized the ontological implications of Kenosis, while later interpretations have focused more on its ethical and existential dimensions. Swinburne defines Kenotic Christology as understanding that, Omnipotence and omniscience are not of the essence of God; a divine individual is normally omnipotent and omniscient, but he can at any rate temporarily abandon these properties while remaining divine. The Incarnation involved the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity abandoning some of the properties traditionally supposed to be essential to him and adopting human properties instead. Such a theory brings out the generosity of God in abandoning such properties as omnipotence… Kenotic Christology is considered an attempt to reconcile the mystery of the Incarnation with a modern understanding of personhood and consciousness. It explores how Jesus could possess divine attributes and yet limit their use to experience human life authentically.

Apophatic Theology and Kenotic Christology

Apophatic theology frames Christ's kenosis not as a divestment of divine attributes, but as a manifestation of God's transcendence. The "emptying" described in Philippians 2:7 does not denote a loss of divinity. Rather, it represents divine action that defies human comprehension - where omnipotence and impassibility are expressed through willing limitation and vulnerability. Kenosis unveils God's utter alterity, inverting human conceptions of power through an enactment of boundless love and humility in the Incarnation. In the apophatic tradition, such an inversion is not a contradiction but a deeper affirmation of God's transcendence. God’s choice to limit Himself within human nature is seen as an ultimate affirmation of His freedom and transcendence. This act of self-limitation, then, becomes a theophanic disclosure, revealing God through what He is not—He is not merely powerful, not unaffected, not distant, but intimately involved and vulnerable within the created order. Orthodox Christology insists on the complete divinity and humanity of Christ, "recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." The challenge presented by Kenotic Christology is to articulate how these natures coexist without the divine being overshadowed or diminished by human limitations.

Reconciliation to the Lost or Straying Christian

The primary points of agreement between traditional Christology and Kenotic Christology hinge on the acknowledgment of Christ’s true humanity and true divinity. Both perspectives affirm the scriptural basis for Christ’s dual nature as depicted in the Gospels and seek to understand it more fully. Ware writes, Given that the divine nature in Jesus was eternal and infinite, while the human nature in Jesus was created and finite, one of the questions we ponder just how these two natures could coexist in the one person. Jesus is fully both fully divine and fully human be, for example, simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent – qualities of his eternal, divine nature – Also possessing a limited and finite human power, limited growing knowledge and wisdom, and a restricted ability to be only in one place at one time – qualities of finite, human nature? The exploration of Kenotic Christology holds implications for Christian life and practice, particularly in engaging with progressive believers drawn to this theological perspective. Many contemporary Christians are attracted to the idea of Kenosis because it presents a Christ who is deeply empathetic, sharing in the human experience to the fullest extent—including vulnerability, suffering, and limitation. Reconciling Kenotic Christology with traditional orthodox views using apophatic theology is valuable as it creates a bridge. By emphasizing the apophatic understanding of God’s mystery, one can highlight that the limitations Christ assumed in the Incarnation are a revelation of love and power, manifesting not in overwhelming force but in humble solidarity. The integration of Kenotic with apophatic theology provides a model for understanding and experiencing Jesus that resonates with contemporary seekers of a more tangible and relatable faith.

Critique and Synthesis

The dialectic engagement with Kenotic Christology necessitates a hermeneutic evaluation, particularly in its juxtaposition against the metaphysical constancies posited by orthodoxy. One observes that Kenotic propositions often pivot on a Christological schema that accentuates a functional diminution of the Logos in the Incarnational schema, a perspective that ostensibly contravenes the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creedal affirmations regarding the fullness of divinity ('consubstantial with the Father'). This evaluative discourse must consider whether the Kenotic 'self-emptying' implies an ontological metamorphosis or a mere economic modality of divine operation. The crux of the debate centers on whether the immanent functionality of the Logos in the kenotic state can be coherently upheld without transgressing the essential divine apatheia and immutability as traditionally articulated.

Synthesizing the disparate theological perspectives necessitates a reconfiguration of the Kenotic narrative through an apophatic lens, whereby the negation of divine attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence in the incarnate Logos) is perceived not as a literal divestiture but as an antinomic expression of divine condescension. This allows for a Christological construct where the economic kenosis of Christ remains enveloped within the hyperousios essence of the Godhead, thus maintaining the divine immutability while accommodating the soteriological exigencies of the Incarnation. Here, the kenotic ‘emptying’ is reframed as a divine tactic of solidarity and salvific involvement, an immanent strategy that transcends human analogues of power and being; omnipotence not as coercive domination but as cruciform vulnerability.

Addressing the criticisms directed towards Kenotic Christology from a metaphysical foundation involves a rearticulation of the nature of kenosis. The challenge lies in coherently maintaining the doctrinal integrity of Christ’s divinity against the backdrop of his experiential human limitations. Critics assert that any real change in the divine nature, as implied by some interpretations of kenosis, would necessitate a revision of the classical theistic attributes of God, potentially leading to a theological voluntarism where God’s nature becomes contingent upon divine will. One must conclude, to navigate these criticisms, that the kenotic 'limitation' is a freely chosen divine modus operandi within the salvific economy, rather than an intrinsic alteration of the divine nature. In this synthesis, the kenotic pathway does not diminish Jesus but reveals God’s omnipotence in a new paradigm—through the paradox of the cross.

Conclusion

This study has delineated how Kenotic Christology, often perceived as a departure from orthodox doctrine, can be harmonized with traditional definitions through an apophatic lens, which embraces the divine mystery rather than diminishing it. Theologically, this synthesis provides a robust framework for understanding the paradoxes of Christ's nature—fully divine, yet fully human. It upholds the traditional attributes of divinity, such as immutability and impassibility, while presenting a dynamic view of divine action that is intimately involved in the realm of human suffering and limitation. Practically, this approach to Kenotic Christology and apophatic theology offers a resource for spiritual formation and pastoral care. It allows believers to encounter a God who is not remote but is deeply involved in the intricacies of human life, even to the point of experiencing vulnerability and suffering. This can foster a more compassionate and action-oriented faith, where the imitatio Christi—imitation of Christ—involves a kenotic outpouring of oneself in service and love to others.

In concluding, it is evident that the mystery of the Incarnation remains just that—a mystery, one that defies explanations and resists complete resolution. The exploration through the apophatic and kenotic lenses does not seek to exhaustively define this mystery but to provide a pathway to connect with those who hold to Kenotic Christology. The study of Kenotic Christology through apophatic perspectives not only enriches our discussion but also deepens our engagement with the living God, whose greatest act of revelation is found in the humility and mystery of the Incarnation. This invites us to continue seeking—a perpetual quest—which reflects the dynamic and living nature of Christianity.

Bibliography

- Athanasius, & Lawson, P. On the Incarnation: The Treatise De Incarnatione Verbi Dei. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2004.

- Brown, David. Divine Humanity: Kenosis Explored and Defended. London: SCM Press, 2011.

- Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Westminster Press, 1960.

- Grudem, W. A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Second edition. Zondervan Academic, 2020.

- Hewitt, Simon. Negative Theology and Philosophical Analysis: Only the Splendour of Light. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49602-9](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49602-9).

- Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2003.

- Ignatius. Letter to the Romans. Public Domain, 2000.

- Irenaeus, Unger, D. J., Dillon, J. J., Steenberg, I. M. C., & Slusser, M. Against the Heresies. Paulist Press, 1992.

- Isḥāq, S. M. Christology and the Council of Chalcedon. Outskirts Press, 2013.

- Justin. The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy or The Rule of God (T. B. Falls, Trans.). The Fathers of the Church, Volume 6. Catholic University of America Press, 2013.

- Nimmo, P. T., & Johnson, K. L. Kenosis: The Self-Emptying of Christ in Scripture and Theology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2022.

- Pseudo-Dionysius, et al. The Divine Names and Mystical Theology. Marquette University Press, 1980.

- Stackpole, Robert. The Incarnation: Rediscovering Kenotic Christology. Williamston, MA: Chartwell Press, 2021.

- Swinburne, Richard. The Christian God. Clarendon Press, 1994.

- Treier, Daniel J., and Walter A. Elwell, eds. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Third edition. Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017.

- Ware, Bruce A. The Man Christ Jesus: Theological Reflections on the Humanity of Christ. Crossway, 2013.

- Watkin, Christopher. Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture. Zondervan Academic, 2022.

- Greek Lexicon (NKJV). Blue Letter Bible. Web. May 6, 2024. [https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/](https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/)

- Greek Lexicon (NIV). Blue Letter Bible. Web. May 6, 2024. [https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/](https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/)