P. Fidelis Wotan, SMM
Introduction
The name Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort is not well known and has not been mentioned much in the history of theology. Of the many mystics, it must be admitted that Montfort did not have the reputation of Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross. However, since being canonized by Pope Pius XII (1947), Montfort's name has begun to be taken into account in the Church, especially his contributions to Mariology. In this regard, Pope John Paul II called Montfort a witness and teacher of Mary's spirituality.
Montfort is indeed called a teacher of the Spirituality of Mary, but his thoughts are not only limited to the field of Mariology but also include other fields, for example, Christology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, etc. Efforts to explore and introduce his thoughts in some of these fields are constantly being made, especially by montfortians and laypeople who are interested in Montfort Spirituality. However, it must be admitted that the study of his writings is still limited, especially in the West. It is undeniable that Montfort's writings have not been widely explored and studied, for example in the East, in particular, Indonesia. It must also be admitted that the name Montfort (including his writings) is not very familiar in Indonesia and has not been widely introduced.
The author realizes that the article entitled: KENOSIS: THE PATH OF SELF TRANSFORMATION ( Study of Spiritual Theology According to St. Montfort and Its Actuality for Christians Today ) is not perfect and satisfying. Therefore, all kinds of criticisms and suggestions from readers to further improve this paper will be gladly accepted.
Finally, I hope this simple article can be useful for readers, especially Christians today who want to experience union with Christ in and through self-emptying ( kenosis ).
KENOSIS IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
The event of the incarnation is often described as kenosis. This word is usually translated as “emptying,” a theological term that appears in Phil. 2:6-11. This chapter deals specifically with the kenosis of God in Christian Theology.
According to MJ Gorman, the text of Phil. 2:6-11 was for many years seen as one of the most important texts in all of Paul's letters. This text is often known as the Hymn of Christ, the Hymn of Christology. For him, this text also states an important meaning of Paul's theology, namely his teaching about God[1] To further explore kenosis of God in the hymn, the author will explain it in the description below. The understanding of kenosis will be explained starting from the Holy Scriptures, Christian Tradition, to the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Meaning of Kenosis
Kenosis is an early Christian theological term related to the incarnation of Christ. From an etymological point of view, the word kenosis comes from the Greek kenós[2] which means empty.[3] According to Xavier Leon-Dufour, kenosis berarti ”tindakan berupa mengosongkan, meniadakan” (kata Yunaninya adalah kenóō).[4] The term kenosis khas dalam bahasa teologis untuk mengungkapkan ide peniadaan yang muncul dalam surat Paulus kepada jemaat Filipi 2:7 : ”melainkan telah mengosongkan diri-Nya….”[5]
According to J. Daane, several Christian doctrines have discussed the term, but people have difficulty understanding it. The main reason for the difficulty in understanding the term lies in the mystery of the incarnation and death of the Son of God, who became man without ceasing to be God[6] The author will not discuss this in detail, but only focuses on the "meaning" of kenosis it selfe
1. In the Bible
Kenoticians see Phil 2:6-11 as the most important text on the self-emptying of Christ[7] It is generally seen as the Hymn of Christ written by Paul. This text reads:
“… Christ Jesus 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, and became in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in the flesh, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason God has highly exalted him and bestowed upon him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess: Jesus Christ is Lord, "to the glory of God the Father!"
Madah tersebut terdiri atas dua bagian utama, yakni bagian pertama (ayat 6-8) menggambarkan perendahan diri Kristus dan bagian kedua (ayat 9-11) melukiskan peninggian Kristus. Brendan Byrne mengatakan bahwa sesungguhnya ada bermacam-macam perbedaan penafsiran yang begitu besar mengenai madah ini. [8] In this regard, the author does not intend to explain the differences in interpretation in detail. The text of Phil 2:6-11 shows the self-emptying attitude of Jesus, the One who took the form of a servant. How is the word kenosis understood in Phil 2:7?
Some exegetes see that Paul's Christological Hymn above is a combination of the suffering song of the Servant of Yahweh (Isa 53) and the painting of a man like a human child in Dan. 7:13. Such an idea can be seen in the interpretation of E. Lohmeyer[9] and J. Jeremias. In this hymn, Christ is seen as the antitipos of Adam or the disobedient first man. Between Adam and Jesus, there seems to be a very basic difference in attitude, where one person wants to be God (cf. Gen 3:5-6), while the other shows an attitude of "self-emptying" by becoming a servant (Phil 2: 7).[10] As a noun, the word kenosis is used in a technical sense of a Christological theory that shows how the Second Person of the Trinity can enter human life, thereby enabling the true human experience described by the evangelists.
Here the author tries to explore the text of Phil 2:6-11. To support this effort, the author refers to several thoughts or interpretations, from exegetes and theologians, both Protestant and Catholic.
1.1. Jesus Christ, God Who Emptied Himself
In the history of mankind's salvation, it can be seen that no one has completely emptied Himself except Jesus Christ. He is a God who emptied Himself into an ordinary man without ever ceasing to be God. This means that God wants to enter into the human condition.[11] To understand why and how Jesus deigned to empty himself, the following theological reflections are found in Phil. 2:6-11 are presented.
F. Bruce saw that Jesus displayed an attitude of humility. Through this attitude, Jesus took on the nature of a servant and wanted to be obedient to the point of death on the cross.[12]
It is interesting to note that although Jesus was in the form of God (cf. Verse 6a), He did not consider this condition to be something to be grasped.[13] The phrase “though in the form of God….” want to say that Christ is not only equal to God, but in fact He is God. This position of being in the form of God is seen by Bruce as "participation in the essence" (( participation in the essence). Bruce meant participation was participation in terms of having the same essence or nature as God. [14] Thus, it is appropriate that Jesus also has the same essence as God. So, Jesus was in the form of God. According to Leon Morris, the phrase “in the likeness of God”, “does not regard equality with God as something to behold” (verse 6) indicates the divinity of Christ.[15]
Jesus did not consider equality with God something that he had to defend. Instead, He emptied Himself and took the form of a servant and became in the likeness of men (verse 7). What did Jesus mean by emptying Himself? From what did He emptied Himself? Was it by this action that He lost His divinity? Was this something imposed from outside Him? Was this a fate that He had to bear, or was it not?
According to Bruce, the use of the word “empty” (kenóō), is interpreted by experts in various ways. He quoted the views of one expert, for example, BF Westcott who said that Jesus emptied Himself of the insignia (insignia) of supreme majesty or power.[16] Bruce himself interprets the phrase in verse 7 thus: ….Ia menanggalkan diri-Nya; bukan kodrat ilahi-Nya, oleh karena hal ini tidak mungkin, melainkan kemuliaan, hak prerogatif dari yang Ilahi. What can be said about this interpretation? This interpretation emphasizes that Jesus did not completely empty His divine nature, but His glory. Thus, His nature as God still exists.
Jesus “emptied Himself” specifically by taking on the nature of a servant (literally, “the form of a servant”). This does not mean that he replaced the nature of God with the nature or likeness of a servant. Regarding this interpretation, Bruce presents an illustration from the Gospel of John 13:3-5, namely at the Last Supper, where Jesus humbly washed the feet of His disciples. What is meant to be shown here is that His divine nature is not shown at all. Jesus simply demonstrated an act of service as a servant.[17] In other words, Jesus' own washing of the disciples' feet served as an example of kenosis before His disciples. This is one concrete example of how the Almighty God gave himself, showing his greatness in service as a servant to his fellowmen.
Christ could not empty himself of his divine nature. Why can't he do that? Jac. J. Müller asserts that if Jesus really did this, then what happened was that He ceased to be God.[18] He said that verse 7 provides absolutely no answer to the question “from what did Jesus emptied himself”. According to him, most people mean that Jesus emptied himself from the form of God or from his “existence in the likeness of God”. However, according to Müller, the verse does not justify such an interpretation. Jesus did not emptied himself of the image of God. So, the verse doesn't say that: But He emptied Himself of it (( but He emptied Himself of … ).[19] Thus, according to Müller, through His emptying, God was pleased to take the form of a servant (cf. verse 7b).
There is an interesting word to note in verse 6a, namely morphe (rupa). According to Graham Ward, morphe morphe is a word used to express an essential attribute and not something merely external. [20] In this sense, the phrase found in the verse, “…being in the form of God”, actually states that Jesus is of one essence with God. It has attributes as God therefore, divinity is its essence. Hence, the expression “…was in the form of God” implies that before Christ became man, He existed, He already had a pre-existence.[21] By declaring that Christ had “the likeness of God,” Paul is in no way referring to or referring to a physical form. According to Mal Couch, appearance (morphe) actually states something intrinsic and essential. And this directly reveals what are the attributes of God.[22] In this sense, Jesus is of one substance with God. Thus, it becomes clear now that Christ is not only equal to God but that He is truly God.
Tindakan Yesus yang mengosongkan diri-Nya merupakan dorongan dari diri-Nya sendiri. Yesus melakukan semuanya ini dengan kebebasan, tanpa paksaan dari luar. Penginjil Yohanes pun melihat hal yang sama bahwa dalam kebebasan yang penuh Ia menanggalkan rupa ilahi-Nya (bdk. Yoh 17:5). Itu tidak berarti bahwa dengan jalan pengosongan-Nya, Ia bukan lagi Allah. Ia tetap Allah.[23] So, it needs to be affirmed with certainty that this act of emptying does not reduce His divinity let alone eliminate His divinity.
Christian theology believes that the God who emptied himself and took the form of a servant is the real God.[24] According to Bruce's interpretation, Christ's position as fully God was in no way diminished by his self-emptying. Bruce said:
“Christ's possession of the fulness of the Godhead was not impaired by His self-emptying. Nor, when He emptied Himself by taking the very nature (morphe agian) of a servant, did He exist any the less 'in the form of God', although the divine glory was veiled except to those who had eyes to discern it (Jn 1:14).”[25]
From the explanation above, several things can be said. First, He did not abandon His divine nature, but stripped Him of His glory as God, especially the prerogatif (privileges as a God) of His deity. Second, He did not replace the nature of a God with the nature of a servant. On the contrary, His divine nature did not disappear even though He became a servant. So, He has two natures.
1.2. The Mystery of the Cross: The Peak of Kenosis
God's choice to take the way of the cross can be reflected as a tangible manifestation, even the culmination of His self-emptying. On the cross, God's incarnation attains its true meaning and purpose. According to Walter Kasper, the whole event of Christ must be understood in terms of the cross. The cross for him is a dimension that allows God to humble Himself.[26] In this sense, God wanted to take and experience the lowest point in His life as a human being, namely death on the cross. St. Augustine reflects that through His suffering and death, Christ demonstrated the full meaning of the kenosis kenosis found in Phil. 2:6-7. For him, Christ's death was the fulfillment of the kenosis that was manifested first in the incarnation of the Word.[27]
Salib dan kematian Kristus dapat dilihat sebagai suatu bentuk konkret pengosongan diri Allah, tepatnya puncak dari seluruh penghampaan diri-Nya. Sehubungan dengan itu, dalam paparan berikut ini, penulis berusaha mendalami lebih lanjut bagaimana Allah mau merendahkan diri-Nya melalui salib-Nya.
1.2.1. Jesus Christ Humbled Himself as a Servant
Seluruh hidup Yesus adalah sebuah peragaan indah dari pengabdian-Nya sebagai Allah yang merendahkan diri-Nya. Ia telah menunjukkan diri-Nya sebagai seorang hamba, seorang pelayan, yang siap memberikan diri-Nya kepada orang lain. Ini dihayati-Nya sejak kelahiran hingga kematian-Nya. Sebagai salah satu bukti nyata Ia menghampakan diri-Nya dapat dilihat ketika Ia “membasuh kaki para murid-Nya” (Yoh 13:3-5).
The Apostle Paul reflected that Jesus was a servant who humbled himself (Phil 2:8). This is shown totally in His condition as a human being. The whole life of Jesus, including His attitudes and actions, was not at all different from other humans. He did everything as a man and as a man, He humbled Himself.[28] This humility, of course, did not only occur shortly after He emptied Himself, but was lived throughout the course of His life. Müller wrote: From the manger to cross, He trod a path of humiliation, which culminated in the misery and suffering and reproach of shameful death on the tree. [29] From this idea, it can be said that Jesus' entire life on earth was a period of humility that then culminated in the cross. It can be seen that Jesus really showed a very deep and meaningful attitude to life.
Menurut penulis, sikap Yesus tersebut dapat menjadi parameter bagi orang Kristen untuk melihat lebih jauh betapa Yesus adalah Allah yang penuh cinta. Inilah sikap “lepas-bebas” seorang Allah yang sama sekali tidak mempertahankan kebesaran diri-Nya, tetapi mau menghayati sebuah nilai hidup yang tinggi, yakni merendahkan diri.
1.2.2. Jesus Christ, Obedient Servant Until Death on the Cross
For Hans Urs Von Balthasar, the cross is the true manifestation of the kenosis of Christ. It was through the cross that Christ manifested his humility as a God. It was through this humility that Balthasar saw that God had shown His love.[30]
The love that Jesus showed through the cross that He had to carry showed an attitude of perfect obedience to His Father. He wants to express this obedience in his disposition as a “servant”, to be precise, an obedient servant. The question now is how does He show His obedience and on what basis does He want to obey?
The emptying and humility of Jesus is an expression of obedience to His Father. He can’t become a human who humbled Himself without being based on complete obedience. The text of Phil. 2:8 shows this attitude. In general, exegetes compare the old Adam's disobedience with the new Adam's obedience. Robert J. Karris says that through verse 8, Paul is actually contrasting Jesus Christ, the new Adam, with the old Adam.[31] [31] In line with this idea, Raymond E. Brown saw that Adam tried to be like God, whereas Jesus humbled Himself. Like most other scholars, Brown also saw that Jesus did not want to maintain His equality with God -unlike Adam who tried to achieve it - He emptied himself to accept the form of a servant by becoming a man.[32]
This obedient attitude is actually directed only to the will of His Father. His obedience is even expressed in His inner disposition to be willing to suffer and die on the cross. Jesus Christ wants to carry out the will of the Father by obeying Him. This is even confirmed by His suffering and death. Regarding this obedience, Bruce wrote: : …It was to the will of God that his obedience was given, and even when that will be pointed to suffering and death, he accepted it: 'not my will, he said to his heavenly Father, but yours be done (Luk 22:42).[33]
Jesus demonstrated the totality of His surrender to His Father's will. It is this totality that makes His obedience possible. He died on the cross in the same obedience. Bruce sees the phrase “even dying on the cross” as a culmination of Jesus' humility.
Jesus' obedience to His Father's will is a tangible manifestation of the perfect attitude of a servant. His obedience as a servant is not only aimed at God but also wants to serve mankind. In other words, this obedience to God is also expressed by serving mankind. This was accomplished by Jesus himself, who himself came into the world to do God's will (cf. Heb 10:7). He also came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many (Mk 10:45.[34] His death was the highest culmination of His obedience to God.
1.2.3. Jesus Christ, the Exalted Servant
The emptying and humility of Jesus above is evidence of His obedience to His Father. It was this attitude of Jesus that became the reason for God to exalt Him and bestow upon Him the name that is above every name (cf. verse 9). According to Bruce, the phrase that says God greatly "exalted" Jesus actually echoes several examples from the Old Testament text. The text he meant, for example from Isa 52:13 or Dan 7:13,14. Thus, Jesus, who was humiliated and humiliated as a human, was restored to his name as a divine-human.[35]
In several texts of the New Testament, the authors express the fact that Jesus was restored to His name and exalted. This can be seen in Acts 2:33; Heb 1:3, etc. For Bruce, the phrase is taken from Psalm 110:1, where King David is invited by an oracle to speak of the throne of Yahweh, who sits at His right hand. Furthermore, in Mark 14:62 and the parallel texts,. Bruce shows what is the power or majesty of Jesus. He confirmed that Jesus Himself revealed Himself to be the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Almighty and coming in the midst of the clouds in the sky. For Bruce, this statement actually wants to show that Jesus has the highest and most honorable place in the universe. Bruce wrote: :… Jesus at his trial before the Jewish high priest and his colleagues told them that they would yet, 'see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One', occupying, that is to say, the position of highest honor in and over the universe."[36]
God is pleased with Jesus. This can be seen in the phrase … and bestowed upon him the name that is above every name (verse 9). According to Bruce, this may very well signify the meaning of "God" in his deepest sense. What does the name above all names mean? Does it mean a name above all names? According to Bruce, in Greek, the word "Kyrios" (Lord or God) is the highest, most exalted name. This name would represent the personal name of the God of Israel. This personal name is usually used to refer to Yahweh. Bruce sees another meaning of the phrase "name above every name" as if it was also thought of as a name on a plaque on a cross, which is now exalted in Heaven. According to him, the name referred to here is a name that Jesus received because of his humility and death. And His name has now become “Lord”, which has become the name that is above every name.
Jesus was exalted and given to Him the name which is above every name. By doing this, God wills that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (verse 10). That is the purpose of all such exaltation and bestowa Before Him, all acknowledgment of His power, greatness, and glory must be directed to Him.
Dalam iman Kristiani, Yesus Kristus selalu disebut sebagai Tuhan. Hanya kepada-Nya, nama itu diberikan (bdk. 1 Kor 8:6). Pengakuan iman Kristiani tentang Yesus adalah Tuhan (ayat 11), mau menunjukkan bahwa sesungguhnya di situ orang sedang mengakui nama-Nya yang dikaruniakan kepada-Nya. Dialah yang memerintah dan memegang kekuasaan atas segala sesuatu (bdk. Kis 2:36; Yes 55:4).[37]
2. In Christian Tradition
2.1. Church Fathers
In this section, the author will not chart the thoughts of all the Church Fathers. The author only takes a few characters, such as St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, St. Hilarius of Poitiers, St. Augustine, and St. John Chrysostom. The Fathers of this Church had a distinctive view of the kenosis of Christ.[38] They saw that there was no change in Christ's divine nature when He became human. This means that the nature of Jesus as God did not change when he became human. His divinity is still there.
Kenosis is a keyword in the theology of Cyril of Alexandria. He understands the emptiness of God's self in the mystery of the incarnation. He saw that self-emptying is an expression of God's infinite love for humans. His voiding was done voluntarily. He reflects that God wants to be part of human beings precisely through the way of His self-emptying. He wrote -as quoted by Thomas Gerard W., - thus:
“that the only-begotten Word of God who brought himself down to the level of self-emptying, should not repudiate the low estate arising from that self-emptying, but should accept what is fully by nature on account of the humanity, not for his sake but for ours, who lacks every good thing.”[39]
Sirilus from Alexandria argued -as quoted by TF Torrence- that the word "emptying" should not be interpreted literally, namely emptying out of one receptacle into another Torrence understands Cyril's interpretation above thus: the word should be interpreted as a useful expression of humility.[40] This interpretation very clearly shows that Christ put off His glory and took the form of a servant. This action is not to say that Christ emptied His divine essence, but instead accepted humanity to be His by taking the form of a servant under the yoke of the Law.
Other Church Fathers believed that the incarnation of Jesus Christ was the moment when God truly wanted to empty Himself and become like humans. This can also be seen in the thoughts of St. Athanasius. He sees that in Phil. 2:6, Paul shows absolutely no reason why Jesus would take the form of a servant. Nevertheless, Athanasius was convinced that “Jesus who humbled himself to death even to death on the cross” was the reason why He became human and assumed the form of a servant.[41] So Athanasius saw that His death on the cross was the basic reason why Jesus wanted to become a man and take the form of a servant.
The above idea of kenosis di atas dapat ditemukan pula dalam Teologi St. Hilarius dari Poitiers. Teologi kenosis Hilarius mesti ditafsir dalam hubungan dengan kedua kodrat Yesus, bahwa kodrat manusia Kristus tidak dapat mengganggu (mengacaukan) kodrat ilahi Kristus. Kristus tidak kehilangan keilahian-Nya ketika menerima kemanusiaan-Nya. Ia tetap memiliki kodrat ilahi. Hilarius melihat bahwa sebagai Putra Allah yang menjelma, Kristus merendahkan diri-Nya dan hal ini tampak nyata dalam rupa seorang hamba. Ia menulis:
can also be found in the Theology of St. Hilarius of Poitiers. Hilarius' theology of kenosis must be interpreted in terms of the two natures of Jesus, that the human nature of Christ cannot interfere with (disrupt) the divine nature of Christ. Christ did not lose His divinity when she accepted His humanity. He still has a divine nature. Hilarius saw that as the incarnate Son of God, Christ humbled Himself and this was manifest in the form of a servant. He wrote:[42]
In short, Christ is truly God, even though He emptied Himself and took on the form of a servant. Hilarius saw the attitude of Jesus above as obedience.[43]
St. Augustine also saw the same thing. He said that the kenosis of Christ was important in interpreting His humility. According to him, Christ came into the world in the form of a servant without losing His divinity. Agustinus wrote: He was exalted, you see, from the beginning, because in the beginning was the Word. This exaltation is without beginning, without time, because through him all things were made (John 1:1-3) [44] Then what to say with that statement. Augustine explains thus:
“Since he was in the form of God, he says, he did not think it robbery to be equal to God (Phil. 2:6); …You have heard about his enexpressible exaltation; now hear about his humility. He emptied himself…Not by losing what he was, but by taking on what he was not.”[45]
Augustine's view above is very clear. According to him, Christ did not lose his divinity. Thus, His divine power is experienced (used) in a paradoxical new way, namely in the act of "emptying." Instead, he saw this as an "addition" rather than a "subtraction".[46] He saw that Christ's act of humility was extraordinary. In Phil 2:6-11, the emptiness and humility of Christ is very clear. In His emptiness and humiliation, two acts of God's humiliation are depicted, namely, God taking the form of a servant and humbling Himself to death on the cross.
FirstGod became fully human by accepting the conditions of human life. He did not regard His divinity as something to be grasped. In this regard, Augustine emphasizes that this act -God became man- (cf. Jn 1:14) is deep humiliation.[47] The Word forms a new bond between God and man by His incarnation as maa n. By becoming a man, taking on the form of a servant, His divinity was not lost at all. Agustinus wrote: Christ himself, therefore, the Son of God equal with the Father because in the form of God, inasmuch as He Emptied Himself without losing the form of God, but assuming that of servant….[48]
Second, Augustine saw God's self-emptiness reach its climax on the cross. The incident of the cross and the suffering of Christ was for him a second humiliation, the moment in which Christ revealed the fullness of His humility: and being found in the flesh, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death even death on the cross cross (Phil 2:8). He saw that through suffering and His cross, Christ wanted to empty Himself. It was here that Augustine saw the fullness of Christ's self-emptying. He explained that through His suffering and death, Christ revealed the full meaning of Phil. 2:6-7. For him, Christ's death was the fulfillment of the kenosis that was revealed in the first place in the Word made flesh.[49]
Kenosis of Christ, above, can also be seen in the homily of St. John Chrysostom. In line with the views of the Church Fathers above, he also affirmed that Christ's self-emptying occurred when He took the form of a servant. This in no way diminishes His deity. For him, the phrase “taking the form of a servant” meant that Christ really became human even though he was in the form of God. In this likeness to God, John Chrysostom saw that Christ did not defend him, but wanted to be in the likeness of men. In this sense, he reaffirmed the Christian faith in the divinity and humanity of Jesus. He confirmed that there is only one God and one Christ. For him, there is an only union between the two natures and not fusion (confusion). He wrote:
“… he emptied himself, taking the form of servant, being made in likeness of men; here concerning his humanity we find ‘He took, He become’. He become the latter, He took the latter, He was the former. Let us not then confound nor divide the natures. There is one God, there is one Christ, the Son of God; when I say ‘one’, I mean a union, not a confusion; the one nature not degenerate into the other, but was united with it.” [50]
From the explanation of the Church Fathers above, it can be concluded that they consistently interpret the kenosis of Christ in a series with the pre-existence of the Logos, earthly humiliation, and heavenly exaltation. It is in this sense that Christ's kenosis for them in no way affects (messed up) the pre-existence of the LogosThus, it becomes clear that the divinity of Christ was not at all reduced by emptying Himself into an obedient man. Thus, kenosis is understood as the moment when God wants to shed His glory and accept the form of a servant. Church Fathers understand Kenosis Christ is not a subtraction but an addition. Christ did not lose His divine nature at all even though He became a man.
2.2. Middle Ages
St. Thomas Aquinas is one of the greatest theologians and philosophers of our time. This section is shown a glimpse of his thoughts on the kenosis of Christ. This understanding cannot be separated from his idea of the nature of God. He affirmed the beliefs of the Catholic faith about the taking of the human nature of Jesus Christ. For him, in His emptying, Jesus actually received a human body,[51] without diminishing His divinity.
Thomas melihat bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Allah yang sungguh-sungguh manusia. Proposisi Yesus sebagai Allah yang sungguh-sungguh manusia, memang diakui oleh sebagian orang, tetapi Thomas melihat bahwa ada juga yang tidak menerimanya, misalnya kaum Manikheis.[52]
Thomas' belief above shows clearly that Jesus Christ was a human being. Thus, it can be seen that Thomas -just like the basic teachings of the Council of Chalcedon (451)-[53] strongly emphasizes the unity of the natures of God and man in Jesus Christ. This is very evident in the event of the incarnation; God became man. The two natures exist together in a hypothesis (hypostatic union). Thomas wrote:
“Now the divine and human natures although most widely a part, nevertheless come together by the mystery of the incarnation one supposition is neither in roote nor in contingent, but in natural matter; and man isn’t predicated God accidentally but essentially, as being predicated of it’s hypsotasis not, indeed by reason of the form signified by this word “God”, but by reason of suppositum, which is a hypostasis of human nature.”[54]
Thomas saw that God truly emptied himself and took the form of a man. For him, the word "man" is a predicate of God because there is unity in the person and this unity expresses a relationship.[55] Thomas later saw that although Jesus was in the form of God, He was pleased to take the form of a servant. [56]
Thomas also saw that in emptying himself, God did not abandon his divine nature. He wrote -as quoted by Thomas Marberry - thus: because he was full of divinity, did he therefore empty himself of divinity, No because what he was remained …he emptied himself, not by lay down the divine nature.[57] Thus -as quoted by Romanus Cesario- Thomas believed that Christ enabled himself. For him, God's humility is understood as an act of courage. He views that although Christ realized His identity as God, He (God) did not maintain it, but instead took on a human form.[58]
From the descriptions above, it can be seen that Thomas, still believes in God's kenosis as a moment where God truly accepts the human form without removing (removing) His divine nature.
2.3. Modern era
In Christian Theology, the understanding of kenosis is quite varied, there are various theories about it. According to Daane, this discourse on kenosis arose “in particular” among Lutheran theologians. This discourse appears closely related to the issues raised in relation to the communicatio idiomatum, namely the question of transferring divine attributes to the human nature of Christ. The idea of kenosis kenosis is used to support various explanations about the quality of Christ's life on earth.[59] Menurut C. Stephen Evans, teori-teori kristologi kenotik untuk pertama kalinya diperlihatkan di awal abad ke-19. Meskipun demikian, ia melihat bahwa ide-ide kenotik banyak dijumpai di awal Tradisi Kristiani dan di dalam Kitab Suci. Berkaitan dengan teori kenotik tersebut, penulis hanya membahas selayang pandang gagasan utama ketiga teolog protestan (teolog kenotick Jerman) untuk melihat bagaiman para teolog ini memahaminya kenosis.
Several German kenotic theologians were the first to systematize the concept of kenosis. These theologians included: Gottfried Thomasius (+1875), FHR Von Frank (+1894), and WF Gess (+,1891).[60] All three argue that God chose a path of self-limitation (self-limitation) at the time of His incarnation. According to Gottfried Thomasius-as quoted by Alister E. McGrath-at the time of his incarnation, Jesus emptied His divine attributes such as as omniscient, ipotent, and omnipresent, , while retaining moral attributes moral such as divine love, righteousness, and holiness..[61] From this idea, it can be seen that Thomasius distinguished two kinds of divine powers that existed within himself, namely the most essential divine powers (mercy, justice or truth, and love) and relational divine powers (relational divine powersuch as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent..[62] For Thomasius, God's relational nature is not an essential element, because it is only an expression that God shows in His relationship with the world. God can freely vacate the relational nature to carry out His plan of incarnation.[63]
H. R. von Frank, the limitation of Christ's self above is actually an acknowledgment of divine consciousness in the form of a developing and limited human consciousness. However, it was in this way that Christ still recognized Himself as the Son of God.[64] Thus, Christ's self-emptying did not eliminate his self-consciousness as the Son of God.
In contrast to the ideas of Thomasius and Frank, WF Gess understands differently about the kenosis of Christ. He asserted that Christ removed all attributes of His divinity at the time of the Incarnation.[65] Dengan demikian, pada waktu inkarnasi, Ia menyingkirkan kesadaran-Nya akan relasi di dalam Trinitas. Dengan demikian, Gess berpendapat bahwa dengan mengosongkan diri-Nya, Putra Allah mematikan kesadaran ilahi-Nya dengan maksud supaya Ia dapat menjadi manusia biasa.[66] Gess's pattern of understanding seems to be a little further than Thomasius'. Gess views that at the time of the incarnation, the Son of God not only emptied the relational attributes (omniscient, , etc.) but also emptied the immanent attributes (love, etc.,).[67] Thus, at the time of the incarnation, Christ emptied all the attributes that were in Himself. From this idea, it can be seen that Gess places great emphasis on the human side of Jesus, while his deity is underemphasized.[68] This was certainly different with Frank. According to Frank, in the incarnation, Jesus was still the Son of God. His deity was not removed because of His incarnation.[69]
Stephen Evans in exploring early kenotic theories noted that the above theories were conceived by German theologians as an attempt to replace the interpretations of the Council of Chalcedon. Therefore, to balance the various interpretations that try to replace the interpretation of the Council of Chalcedon (about the divinity and humanity of Christ), he advocates a kenotic theory as a way of interpreting Chalcedon.[70] For Stephen Evans, the name and essence of the theory are drawn from the Christological Hymn found in Phil 2:6-11, where Paul speaks of ChristChrist who though in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped. , but has emptied[71] self….
Kenosis God's does not speak of a transformation of nature, a dedivinization dedivinization of God. In this sense, Walter Kasper said that when one interprets the text of Phil 2:6-11, one needs to be careful in understanding that the text is not talking about a transformation of nature. For him, the text contains within it the meaning: taking the form of a servant and not lowering oneself from the image of God..[72] Thus, the kenosis of Christ is an event of taking the form of a servant and not a relic of God's image.
From the descriptions of various concepts of the kenotic theory, it can be said that God's kenosis is understood as an act of releasing God's glory and accepting humans into a form. In essence, in that emptying, God did not give up His divine nature but gave up His glory as God. Kenotic theologians generally affirm this idea. However, it cannot be denied that each theologian (eg Protestant theologians represented by the early kenoticians: Thomasius, Gess, etc.) has their way of understanding God's kenosis
Some say that at the time of incarnation, God gave up attributes such as omniscient, etc., while retaining the immanent attributes (love, etc.). Some see it differently. At the time of incarnation, God released both kinds of attributes. However, this kind of understanding focuses too much on the dimensions of His humanity, so that His divinity is not shown. This idea is certainly different from the view of the Catholic Church. According to the Catholic faith, at the time of the incarnation, Christ remained a God who wanted to experience humanly human earth even to the point of death on the cross.[73]
2.4. Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), reflects the mystery of the incarnation of Jesus as a mystery in which the Son of God took on human nature. In this case, the Church uses the term “incarnation” (being human) to reflect it. This reflection is drawn using the expression of Saint John (Verbum caro factum est, the Word has become flesh). With regard to this mystery, the Church cites a hymn quoted by Saint Paul in which she (the Church) truly praises the mystery of the mystery of the incarnation (Phil 2:5-8).[74] CCC No. 462 sees that sees mystery is also written in the Letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 10:5-7). This text reads:
“So when He entered the world, He said: 'You did not want sacrifices and offerings, but you prepared a body for me, and you are displeased with burnt offerings and sin offerings. Then I said: Truly, I have come … to do thy will, O my God' ”
The mystery of the incarnation, the mystery in which God took human nature, is the most distinctive identifying mark of the Christian faith: This is how we know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God (1 John 4:2). From the very beginning, the Church was delighted with the existence of this mystery. The Church sings of this secret majesty, in which God Himself has revealed Himself in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16).[75]
Katekismus melihat bahwa Gereja terus-menerus berusaha sepanjang sejarah supaya mengakui kenyataan penuh dari jiwa Kristus yang manusiawi. Ini berarti Gereja sendiri tetap mengakui jiwa Kristus yang manusiawi dengan kegiatan akal budi dan kehendak-Nya, demikian pula ia mengakui tubuh manusiawi Kristus yang hadir di dunia.[76]
As God incarnate, Christ is equipped with the ability to know humanly. It is bound in time and space. Through His incarnation as a human, Christ himself increased in wisdom, age, and grace (Luke 2:52). Christ wanted to learn from His human experience, namely that He willingly took “the form of a servant” (Phil 2:7).[77]
The whole life of Christ is an offering to the Father. This means that Jesus came into the world to do the will of the Father and certainly not His own will. This is revealed very clearly in the events of His incarnation. From this mystery, it appears that Jesus has lived the divine plan of salvation regarding His mission as Redeemer. This longing to live out the Father's plan of redemptive love animates the entire life of Jesus, for His atoning suffering was the reason for His incarnation.[78] This appreciation of love then culminates in His misery and death. Jesus truly lived the Father's love completely (John 13:1).
The suffering and death that Jesus himself endured is the proof of His deepest obedience. He did not reject it at all but approved of His Father's will, which was to accept His death in order to "bare our sins in His body on the cross" (1 Peter 2:24). With His death, He took away the sins of the world (John 1:29) and carried out the definitive redemption of mankind.[79] This redemption is evidence of His obedience to the Father in exchange for human disobedience (cf. Rom 5:19). From this point on, Jesus was truly the suffering Servant of God, willing to bear the iniquity of many and “justify many” by “bearing their sins” (Isa 53:1-12).[80] He endured all this through the sacrifice of the cross. It was on the cross that He redeemed, atone for, and atone for the sins of mankind.[81] From the above idea, it can be said that Christ's self-emptying continued throughout His life until it finally culminated in the cross.
Conclusion
After being described at length about the kenosis of Christ, several things can be concluded. First, when we talk about kenosis theology in Christian theology, what is being discussed is a theology that explores the person of Jesus Christ, specifically about His way of being, namely pre-existence as God who took the form of a human being. In this way, the two dimensions of the divinity and humanity of Christ are emphasized, as synthesized in the Catholic faith (cf. Credo of the Council of Chalcedon 451).
Second, the self-emptying of Jesus Christ does not mean the moment in which He abandons His divine nature, because this is something that is impossible but rather takes away His glory as God, especially the prerogatives (privileges) of His divinity. In this sense, He did not replace the nature of God with the nature of a servant. His divine nature was not completely removed or eliminated, in fact, in His incarnation into the world, He still maintained His divine nature. In the event of His incarnation or emptying, He still realizes Himself as God who has become human, who lives and lives with humans.
Third, Jesus' self-emptying continued throughout His life and then culminated in the cross. It was on the cross that He revealed a deep emptiness, an incomparable gift of self.
Footnote
[1] Mickhael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009, p. 9.
[2] According to Xavier Leon-Dufour, kenós is an adjective that denotes an empty reality (faith, cross, pride, glory, teaching) (Acts 4:25; I Cor 15:58; 2 Cor 6:1; Gal 2:2; Phil 2:16, 1 Thess 2:1; 3:5; James 4:5). This word can also mean barren (1 Cor 15:10), meaningless (1 Cor 15:14, Eph 5:6; Col 2:8) and dry (1 Tim 6:20, James 2:20). Xavier Leon-Dufour, Encyclopedia of the New Testament, trans. Stefan Leks and AS Hadiwiyata, Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 1990, p. 333.
[3] cf, Dictionary of Dogmatik TheologyCet. IV, trans. Emmanuel Doronzo, Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1964, p. 161.
[4] According to Dufour, the word kenóō denotes an action that produces such an effect. Thus, the meaning of the phrase void in the text of Phil 2:7 is Christ who, rather than retaining the attributes of divine glory, preferred to leave it by taking on the characteristics of a servant (slave). For him, the text doesn't talk about the "annihilation" of divinity at all, but about the stages of annihilation of Jesus Christ until he died on the cross. cf. Xavier Leon-Dufour, Loc. Cit.
[5] cf, Ibid.
[6] cf. J. Daane, “Kenosis” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990, p. 7.
[7] According to Jaroslav J. Pelicans, the idea of kenosis in a position to affirm thehypostasis union of the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ as a permanent distinction between the two natures. Jaroslav J. Pelicans, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition: (100-600), Vol. I of Christian Tradition: A History of Development of Doctrin, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971, p. 256.
[8] Brendan Byrne, “The Letter to the Philippians”, dalam R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmayer dan Roland E. Murphy (eds.), the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall, 1990, p. 794.
[9] Menurut Lohmeyer, seperti yang dikutip oleh Robert Hamerton bahwa ayat 6, 7 dan 8 merupakan skema tingkatan atau tahapan perendahan diri Kristus dari status ilahi (ayat 6) kemudian berinkarnasi sebagai seorang hamba (ayat 7) dan taat sampai mati (ayat 8). Menurut Lohmeyer, ayat 7 mengacu pada ide hamba Yahwe (Yes 53:7). Sedangkan ayat 8 mengacu pada Dan 7:13.
Robert Hamerton, Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and The Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-Existence in the New Testament, London: Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 159.
[10] cf. Gerald O’ Collins, Incarnation, New Century Theology, London: Continuum, 2002, p. 58.
[11] JA Fitzmayer saw that God is pleased to express His love for the salvation of mankind by humbling Himself to become a human, accepting human status, and finally wanting to be crucified. His action is truly a model of life that is not only directed to the Philippians but also all Christians throughout the ages. cf. JA Fitzmayer, According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle, T.t: Paulist Press, 1993, p. 105.
[12] cf. F. F. Bruce, N.T. Philippians Commentaries, Massachusetts: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1989, p. 68.
[13] St. Yohanes Krisostomus dalam homilinya mengatakan bahwa Yesus Kristus tidak merasa takut merendahkan atau mengosongkan diri-Nya. Ia tidak takut bahwa apa saja akan melucuti hak-Nya. Ia tahu bahwa dengan bertindak demikian, Ia tidak menjadi seorang yang inferior. Itulah alasan dasar yang dilihatnya ketika Paulus mengatakan: : … do not regard equality with God as something to behold behold (v. 6b). cf. St. John Chrysostom “Homilies on Philippians ii 5-11”, in Philip Schaff (ed.), Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol. XIII, Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988, p. 213.
[14] F. F. Bruce, Op. Cit., p. 69.
[15] Regarding the phrase “in the form of God”, Leon Morris writes, , it is not easy to see the state of being 'in the form of God'. not as meaning equal to God. Can this be said of another human being or an angel? Regarding this statement, he cites the view of Ralph P. Martin who argues that the phrase refers to the eternal existence (before all ages) of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity. Leon Morris sees Martin's idea as somewhat different from FW Beare's opinion. he wrote, Beare doubts the meaning of the phrase to mean 'to be God, but he argues that the phrase should not be interpreted as a mere outward appearance but as a form of existence which in a certain sense indicates the true nature of Christ. Leon Morris, , New Testament Theology, trans. Prof. Dr. Henricus Pidyarto, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Corporation, 1996, p. 55.
[16] F. F. Bruce (ed), The International Bible Commentary with the New International Version, Michigan: Zondern Publishing House Academic and Professional Books, 1979, p.1444-1445.
[17] F. F. Bruce, N.T. Philippians Comentaries, Massachusetts: Zondervan Bible Publishers, Op. Cit., p. 70.
[18] Jac., J. Müller, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, The English Text With Introduction, Exposition And Notes, Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991, hlm. 80.
[19] Müller observes that if God emptied Himself of His glory and stripped away His divine qualities, it would mean that this does not justify the conclusion drawn from the phrase in the question above Ibid, p. 81.
[20] cf. Graham Ward, Christ and Culture, Challenges in Contemporary Theology, T.t: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005, p. 185.
[21] The divine status that Jesus had existed for eternity. This means that before He became a man and took on the form of a servant He was a God. So the phrase “the likeness of God” clearly states that Jesus is the same as God. C. Stephen Evans, Exploring Kenotic Christology: the Self Emptying of God, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 60.
[22] cf. Mal Couch, The Fundamentals for the Twenty-First Century: Examining the Crucial Issues of the Christian Faith,T.t: Kregel Academic, 2000, p. 220.
[23] Jesus emptied Himself to become a servant, becoming in the likeness of men. In all respects, he is like other human beings, except in respect of sin (cf. Heb. 2:17; 4:15).
[24] Ideas or opinions like this, according to the author, have been thoroughly reflected in the times of the Church Fathers and especially in the teachings of the Catholic Church as outlined in the Council of Chalcedon (451) which synthesized the basic assumptions of the Theology of the Alexandrian and Antiochian Schools of the unio-hypostatica Jesus Christ
[25] F. F. Bruce, (ed), The International Bible Commentary with the New International Version, Op. Cit., p. 1445.
[26] Bdk. Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ, trans. Matthew J. O’Connel, New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2005, p. 194.
[27] cf. St. Agustinus, “On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises and Moral Treatises pt. XIV 18 ”, On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises and Moral Treatises pt. XVII 2” in Philip Schaff (ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 1886, Vol III, Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988, p 179.
[28] Leon Morris berkata bahwa pernyataan tentang “kerendahan hati-Nya” janganlah disalahartikan. Kerendahan hati Allah sesungguhnya menunjukkan keilahian-Nya. Leon Morris, Op. Cit., p. 56.
[29] See. Jac. J. Muller, Op. cit., p. 86. Bdk. F. F. Bruce, The International Bible Commentary with the New International Version, Op. Cit., p. 71.
[30] cf. Hans Urs Von Balthasar, The Glory of The Lord, A Theological Aesthetics Vol. II, Theology: The New Covenant, trans. Brian McNeil C.R.V., Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989, p. 214.
[31] Robert sees that in Paul's theology the word "disobedience" (disobedience) describes the old Adam, while "obedience" (obedience) is the hallmark of the new Adam (Jesus). This contrast can also be seen in 1 Cor 15:45-49. Robert J. Karis, A Symphony of New Testament Hymns: Commentary on Philippians 2:5-11, T.t.: Liturgical Press, 1996, p. 55.
[32] Raymond E. Brown, Introduction to the New Testament Christology, T.t.: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1994, p. 135.
[33] F. F. Bruce, N.T. Philippians Commentaries, Op. Cit., p. 71.
[34] Gerarld F. Hawthorne, World Biblical Commentary Philippians, Vol. 43, Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1983, p. 89.
[35] F. F. Bruce, The International Bible Commentary with the New International Version, Op. Cit., p. 72.
[36] cf. F. F. Bruce, N.T. Philippians Comentaries, Loc. Cit.
[37] Why is it said so? It is said so because no one can be bestowed with such high honor but His own Son. Cf. Ibid.
[38] The term kenosis kenosis is drawn from the phrase “emptied Himself” in Phil. 2:7. And by the Church Fathers, this term was seen in relation to the hypostasis (hypostatic unionas spoken of in the Western and Eastern Churches. According to Jaroslav J. Pelicans, this idea was strongly discussed by St. Hilarius who is good at interpreting the thoughts of St. Augustine, who then so strongly defended St. Leo who later obtained an authoritative formulation at the Council of Chalcedon. cf. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Loc. Cit.
[39] See. Thomas Gerard W., The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria: a Critical Appreciation, T.t:, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003, p. 66.
[40] See. T. F. Torrence, Theology in Reconciliation, Essays Towards Evangelical and Catholic Unity in East and West, Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publisher, 1996, p. 161.
[41] Athanasius wrote:..Word was made flesh, then it adds the reason why, saying, ‘And dwelt among us.’ And again the Apostle saying, ‘Who being in the form of God,’ has not introduced the reason till, ‘He took on Him the form of servant; for then he continues, ‘He humbles Himself unto death even the death of the cross;’ for it was for this that He both became flesh and took the form of a servant. St. Athanasius, “Against the Arians pt. X 41”, in Philip Schaff and H. Wace (ed.), Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol IV, Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987, p. 377.
[42] St. Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity pt. VIII”, dalam Philip Schaff dan H. Wace (eds.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Select Works, Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989, p. 150-151.
[43] cf, Ibid., p. 173-174.
[44] St. Agustinus, “Sermon 187 pt. III 4” in Daniel Edward Doyle (ed.), Essential Sermons, T.t.: New City Press, 2007, p. 247.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Ibid.
[47] cf, Ibid.
[48] St. Agustinus, “On Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John and Soliloquies, Tractat LXXVIII, pt. XIV 1”, dalam Philip Schaff (ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 1888, Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988, p. 341.
[49] cf. St. Agustinus, “On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises and Moral Treatises, pt. XIV 18”, Op. Cit., p. 177.
[50] Ibid., Ibid., p. 215. St. Leo the Great had clearly seen the same. He said: “every nature reveals its true existence through the act of distinguishing it, as well as separating it from relation to one another. He saw that unity (nature) was not mixed. cf. St. Leo the Great, “Sermon LIV On the Passion, pt. III 1” in Philip Schaff (ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Second Series, Grand Rapids Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989, p. 165.
[51] Thomas saw that the Son of God did receive a human body. This idea departs from a question: whether the Son of God ought to have assumed a true body? The objection raised here is that it seems that the Son of God did not receive a real body. The reason is as stated in Phil 2:7 “…. and become like men." It is said that in fact what is the truth in “becoming in the likeness of men” is not said. Thus the son of God did not receive a body. Thomas replied that Christ was not born from a mere form, as if He had an imaginary body, but His body was real. He proves this argument, for example, one of them is through incarnation. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Vol. 8 of 10, London: Forgotten Books, t.th., p. 62-63.
[52] According to Thomas, the Manichaeans said that the Word of God was but an imaginary man. The basis of this saying appears in the Manichaean idea which affirms that the Son of God received an imaginary body. Thus, according to him, if people understand that the body and soul of Christ are not in a union, then they are not recognizing God as a real human being. Ibid., p. 172.
[53] The Council of Chalcedon taught about the divinity and humanity of Jesus thus: so following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and Truly man, of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as regard his divinity, and the same consubtansial with us as regard his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin…. Lih. Norman P. Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. I, Nicea I to Lateran V, T.t: Georgetown University Press, 1990, p. 86.
[54] St. Thomas Aquinas, Op. Cit.,p. 172-173.
[55] Ibid.
[56] cf, Ibid., p. 576.
[57] cf. Thomas Marberry, Galatians through Collosians, T.t: Randall House Publications, 1988, p. 305.
[58] cf. Romanus Cessario, The Godly Image:Christ and Salvation in Catholic Thought from St. Anselm to Aquinas Vol. 6 of, Studies in Historical Theologies, T.t: St Bede’s Publications, 1990, p. 36.
[59] J. Daane, Loc. Cit.
[60] C. Stephen Evans, Op. Cit., p 114.
[61] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology An Introduction, Second Edition, Massachusetss: Blackwell Publisher Inc., 1997, p. 260.
[62] For Thomasius -as quoted by Warren- these immanent attributes (( mercy, justice, love) refer to the relationship between the three persons of the Triune God. Meanwhile, relational or relative attributes (omnipotence, etc.,) refer to the relationship between God and the world. Thomasius said that in kenosisChrist emptied the relational attributes while retaining the immanent attributes. cf. Warren McWilliams, The Passion of God: Divine Suffering in Contemporary Protestant Theology, T.t: Mercer University Press, 1985, p. 79.
[63] cf. David A. Fergusson, The Blackwell Companion to Nineteenth-Century Theology, Vol. IV. T.t: John Wiley and Sons, 2010, p. 258.
[64] Hans Küng, The Incarnation of God: an Introduction to Hegel’s Theological Thought as Prolegomena to a Future Christology, T.t: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1987, p. 538.
[65] cf. Alister E. McGrath, Loc. Cit.
[66] Ray S. Anderson, Theological Foundations for Ministry: Selected Readings for a Theology of the Church in Ministry, T.t: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999, p. 231.
[67] cf. James Drummond, Studies in Christian Doctrine, T.t: Kessinger Publishing, 2003, p. 283.
[68] According to David A. Fergusson, Gess's idea of kenosis is in stark contrast to the formulation of faith in the Council of Chalcedon which emphasized the Immutability of Logos. . Gess views the idea of Immutability of Logos not as a canon of Christ, but only as a theological regulation created by the Council of Chalcedon (a theological regulation, not a canon of Christi). cf. David A. Fergusson, Op. Cit., p. 262.
[69] cf. Hans Küng, Loc. Cit.
[70] Stephen Evans outlines a possible kenotic theory of incarnation. The basic idea that he presented was "Christ is both truly divine and human". In the incarnation, Jesus Christ was not as if he was a mere man, but was truly human. For him, Jesus was not a simplistic God, but truly divine. C. Stephen Evans, Op. Cit., p. 115-118.
[71] According to Stephen Evans, the word “empty” that Paul uses in his Greek is ekénōsen. This word is an invention (derivative) of the word kenosis, which takes the form of a servant and becomes like a human. Ibid., p. 114-115.
[72] Walter Kasper saw that this too was confirmed by Augustine himself. He quotes Augustine's words thus: … He emptied himself: taking the form of a servant, not by forsaking the form of God; the appearance of a servant is added, the image of God is not lost. Walter Kasper, Op. Cit., p. 189.
[73] See the Teachings of the Council of Chalcedon on His hypostatic union, in which God's natures are unmixed and inseparable. cf. St. Leo the Great, Loc.Cit. See also J. Dupuis, Loc. Cit.
[74] cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, trans. Herman Embuiru, Ende: Arnoldus Printing, 1995, No. 461, p. 148. Hereinafter abbreviated as CCC.
[75] cf, CCC 463.
[76] CCC 470.
[77] CCC 472.
[78] cf, CCC 602-603.
[79] cf, CCC 613.
[80] cf, CCC 615.
[81] cf, CCC 616.
