The Self-Emptying of the Son of God (2:5-11)

The second chapter of this small letter by Paul contains a key Christological doctrine, and much "ink" has been used attempting to explain Paul’s words in Philippians 2:5-11. The key point of dispute is found in the understanding of the Greek word “κενόω, kenoo,” empty, which literally means to remove the content of something. The fundamental issue is what occurred to the second person of the Trinity when He took human form. The range of possible interpretations is broad with some believing that He lost His deity in the "emptying" to the view that the Son of God had inability to exercise His divine attributes in the incarnation. These views are called kenotic theories and fail to satisfy a proper understanding of the nature of God or the nature of the incarnation. There is no room for an in-depth discussion of all the possible interpretations in this article, which are covered by me elsewhere.¹

So then, more extreme kenoticism avers that the Son ceased to be God, while a more mild form says He only lost some of His attributes, like omnipresence or omniscience. The first view is easy to reject, because God cannot cease to be God. However, the latter view suffers from the fact that for God the Son to lose even one of His attributes is to lose His deity altogether. His attributes are interconnected since God is perfect and infinite (unlimited in every way). Some, attempting to mitigate this view,  have explained that Christ simply “gave up” the use of His divine attributes. This  position also suffers from the theological  difficulty that not being able to use an attribute is akin to losing the attribute itself, and suffers from the understanding of the two natures in one person argued at the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431. Another perspective says that God the Son “gave up” only the “free and independent use of His divine attributes in the incarnation.” This view argues that Christ only made use of things like omniscience and omnipotence when it was the Father’s will for Him to do so. Once again, though, the divine person's lack of use is the same as not having the attribute. 

All of the above views suffer from tending to forget the two natures (divine and human) existing in the Person of Christ, as well as attempting to use Philippians 2:7 to explain how Jesus, at times, appeared to be less than the Father.  The above views are clearly heretical. Most likely Paul is saying that the Son emptied Himself (not lost a divine attribute) upon taking on human nature and becoming a servant; this involved the putting aside of His privilege, rank and position in regard to His human activity. Paul doesn’t speak of Christ’s attributes at all. Moreover, unlike the other views, it doesn’t ignore or downplay the hypostatic union – that the divine Son’s nature and the human nature were joined into one Person in Christ, but without “mixture or confusion.” He was fully God (all that it means to be divine) and fully human (all that it means to be human) at the same time and in one person, the Son. The incarnation did not cause any loss of the deity of the Son. Rather,  humanity was added to the Son, an addition and not a subtraction.² While a weak infant in Mary's arms, this person was everywhere as God. While unable to know the time of His coming as a man, He did know as God. While unable to heal as a man, He healed countless sick persons as God. While dying on the cross under Roman cruelty, this person was an all-powerful God. When Paul says, then, that the one who is God thought it not something to "take advantage of" (Greek harpagmos) His equality with God, but emptied Himself—His divine person—into the form of a man, and as a servant; He was then subsequently raised by God and given a name above every name—that Jesus is the Lord (Yahweh in Hebrew)—He affirmed the simultaneous deity and humanity of the Son of God (see Rom 10:9).