KENO'SIS (Gk. Klywoas, emptying). A term derived from the word itavcare, in Phil. ii. 7, used in recent theology to designate a sup posed self-limitation of Himself by the Logos (q.v.) to the capacities of humanity for the pur pose of incarnation. The suggestion of a kenosis was made by Liebner about the year 1840, and has been taken up most thoroughly by three the ologians in particular. Gess, Thomasius, and Frank. In spite of many verbal differences, these theologians manifest a remarkable agreement in the substance of their teachings upon this subject. 'The problem they are attempting to solve by the theory of kenosis is the old problem of the minion of two natures, human and divine, in the one consciousness of the God-man. The personality of Christ is conceived by them all to reside in the divine element, the Logos. But the one and undivided person of Jesus is ignorant of certain things, as of the day and hour of the destruction of Jerusalem, is limited in a variety of ways. feels His dependence upon God and prays to the Father, and is not only temptible, but truly tempted, yet without sin. It follows at once that the Logos, that is. God, is thus ignorant, dependent, tempted, etc. How is this possible? The answer given by these theologians is that the Logos, by a volun tary divine act, limited Himself to the capacity of humanity when He assumed it, so that His experiences are truly human experiences. They do not transcend the possibilities of humanity, however they may differ from ordinary human experiences. By the self-limitation there was no loss of the essential attributes of deity. such as
knowledge, but there was a surrender of the exer cise of these attributes in particular ways, as in the form of omniscience, which is the knowledge of all actual timings in their concrete totality. Thus the Logos did not actually know all the future while in the earthly state. The evidences pre sented that there was an actual kenosis are the facts of Christ's life. as have been hinted at above, and the express statements of the Seriptnres of a change in entering upon the human condition. and especially the positive statement of an 'emptying' in the Philippian passage. The great objection to the kenosis lies in the unchangeability of God, Can deity change itself ? Would it not thereby abandon the essential characteristic of divinity, that it exists by necessity in itself? Can we con ceive of deity passing into unconsciousness? The reply of the Kenotics to this objection is that we must not determine what facts are by our a priori conception of unchangeability, but must determine our idea of unchangeability by the facts. The whole question then turns on the two points, Was the personality of the God-man resident in the Logos? and. Was this one person, the Logos. ignorant ? Consult : Gess, Die Lchre von der Per son Ch•isti (Basel. 18561 ; Thomasius, Christi Person nod (Erlangen, 1802-61) ; Frank, ,S'ystem der ehristliehen Geirissheit (Erlangen, 1870-73) ; Simon, Reconciliation by Incarnation (Edinburgh, 1S98). See CIIRISTOLOGY.