a. The humiliation must not be regarded as identical with the incarnation, for in that case the humiliation would pertain to the divine nature inasmuch as it assumed the human nature ((imdootg), and the glorification would consist in the putting aside of the human nature. It is true, Christ’s incarnation did imply a most wonderful condescension, and sometimes this truth has been expressed even in orthodox circles by the term “humiliation” (exinanitio sensu ecclesiastica accepta). However, when Scripture speaks of the humiliation of Christ in its proper sense (exinanitio sensu biblico accepta), in which it stands in contrast to the exaltation, it means that Christ became man in poverty and wretchedness, or that He assumed the form of a servant (μορφή δούλου), though He possessed the form of God ((μορφή ΰεον)), as Phil. 2, 6. 7 attests. Strong rightly says: “We may dismiss as unworthy of serious notice that view, that it the humiliation consisted essentially in the union of the λόγος with human nature; for this union with human nature continues in the state of exaltation.” (Syst. Theol., p. 701.)
b. The humiliation of Christ did not consist in this, that the Son of God, for the purpose of becoming incarnate, divested Himself for a time of His operative, or relative, attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, so that the divine nature was reduced, or diminished, by the incarnation. This is the doctrine of the modern kenoticists (Thomasius, Delitzsch, Luthardt, etc.). Extreme kenoticists (Gess, Hofmann, Frank) even claim that the Son of God in His incarnation emptied Himself of all divine attributes, or that His divine personality was replaced by a human personality.
Kenoticism therefore undeifies Christ to account for the “true human development” of His human nature. But thereby it contradicts all Scripture-passages which declare, on the one hand, that Christ in His state of humiliation was one with the Father essentially, John 10, 30. 38; 14,10, so that His divine mode of subsistence was not changed by the incarnation, Col. 2, 3. 9; and, on the other hand, that He performed the divine works together with the Father, so that also His divine mode of operation was not altered when He became incarnate, John 5, 17—19. The doctrine of kenoticism is therefore rationalistic and anti-Scriptural.
The true human development of Christ, Luke 2, 52, as well as His answered prayers, Luke 22, 43; John 17, 5, are adequately explained by Scripture when it informs us that our Savior did not always use the divine attributes communicated to the human nature; for since the Son of Man did not always employ His divine majesty, He could ask and receive of the Father just as any other man, Phil. 2, 7.
Modern kenoticism, however, in addition to denying clear Scriptural facts regarding the incarnation, also commits the serious mistake of transforming the incorruptible God (Ps. 102, 26. 27; 1 Tim. 6, 16; Mai. 3, 6) into a being subject to change and thus destroys the very concept of God. Yet even so it does not accomplish its object; for as long as kenoticists affirm a union of God and man, the mystery of the incarnation remains, even if God is conceived as minus some attributes. The mystery of the incarnation can be removed only by rejecting the incarnation in its entirety or by regarding Christ as a mere man, who is without any divine attributes (Modernists).
This fact has been recognized by rationalistic theologians of another type (Dorner, etc.), who, in order to explain the mystery of the incarnation, ascribed to the human nature of Christ independent personal existence. But this rationalistic substitute is as unsatisfactory as is kenoticism; for it destroys the very concept of the incarnation, or of the assumption of human nature into the person of the Son of God. In that case there would be no personal union, but at best only a union by adoption (adoptionism).
c. The humiliation does not consist in the mere concealment of the use of the divine majesty imparted to the human nature ((κρνψις τής χρήσεως), but in the real renunciation of the full use of the imparted majesty according to the human nature (κένωσις τής χρήαεως). In the Cryptist-Kenotist Controversy, 1619—1627, between the Tuebingen theologians (Osiander, Nicolai, and Thum- mius) and the Giessen theologians (Mentzer and Feuerborn) this question became controverted. The Tuebingen theologians ascribed to the human nature of Christ the sitting at the right hand of the Father even in the state of humiliation, which meant that our Lord made full use even then of the divine majesty, though in a hidden way (κρνψις), whence they were called Cryptists. This position is untenable in the light of the Scripture-passages which ascribe the sitting at the right hand of God to the human nature of Christ in the state of exaltation. The Tuebingen theologians admitted, however, that Christ, in performing His sacerdotal office, or in His suffering and dying, renounced the full use of the divine majesty communicated to the human nature. The Qiessen theologians, on the other hand, asserted that the human nature of Christ in the state of humiliation was not present with all creatures, and they were inclined to exclude it from the preservation and government of the universe, Christ having thus emptied Himself (Phil. 2, 7) according to His human nature of that much of the divine majesty. For this reason they were called kenotists. But they did not hold with the modern kenoticists that Christ according to His divine nature divested Himself of His divine attributes. They did not teach an absolute renunciation of the use of the divine majesty, but freely admitted this use in the case of miracles. Their position is untenable in the face of John 5, 17.
a. The Formula of Concord employs the expressions concealment (χρνψις) and non-use of the divine majesty of Christ communicated to the human nature as synonyms. (Thor. Decl., VIII, 26. 65: “This was concealed and withheld for the greater part at the time of the humiliation.”) This usage of the two terms is Scriptural; for the humiliation of Christ involved a real concealment of Christ’s divine majesty, inasmuch as He was true and very God, Col. 2, 9, and yet appeared as a mere man, John 19, 5. On the other hand, the humiliation of Christ involved also a real renunciation, not indeed of the attributes according to His divine nature, but of the appearance in the form of God (μορφή ΰεον), or of the full use of His imparted divine attributes; for He positively appeared in the form of a servant (μορφή δούλου).
b. The expressions “to be in heaven,” John 3, 13, and “to sit at the right hand of God,” Mark 16, 19, are not synonymous; for the first is predicated of Christ in His humiliation, while the second is the triumphant act of His exaltation.
c. When describing Christ’s omnipresence according to His human nature, our theologians have used the expressions omnipraesentia intima and omnipraesentia extima. The expression omnipraesentia extima is used correctly when it is employed as synonymous with sessio ad dextram Dei. But when it is understood in the sense that Christ was not present with the creatures during His state of humiliation, it denies the personal union. The terms are used rightly when the one denotes the presence of the Son of Man before the exaltation and the other His glorious presence after the exaltation.
d. It has been said that Christ before His exaltation, in the state of humiliation, worked in and with the human nature (in et cum came), but not always through the human nature (non per carnem). The expression non per carnem in this statement is Scriptural if it denotes Christ’s perpetual and triumphant use of the divine majesty imparted to the human nature (usus plenarius), or the enthronement of His human nature at the right hand of God. It is incorrect if it is used to deny the Scripture truth that Christ also in His state of humiliation performed His miracles. His prophetic ministry, and His work of preservation and government, John 5, 17; 1, 18, within or through the flesh, John 1, 14; Col. 2, 3. 9; for whatever Christ does after the incarnation He does not outside the flesh (exira carnem), but as the God-man, or as the incarnate Christ, 1 John 1, 7; Heb. 9,14; 2, 8. 9; John 5, 26. 27; j uke 22, 69; Phil. 2, 9; etc., in other words, within and thus tnrough the flesh.