Summarising chapter 6 – Of Lions, Lambs and Donkeys.

1. Kenosis – Cruciform Power

God reveals himself, not as an eagle or a lion, but as a lamb.  We must think of God, not in terms of power, but in terms of humility.

According to Phil 2:7, Christ emptied himself (the word is ‘kenosis’).  This does not mean that Christ gives up his divine attributes, but rather that he assumes our human nature.  Moreover, in doing so, he reveals the true nature of God: loving and self-giving to the point of death.

Typically, Phil 2 is understood to mean that the Christ who, from eternity, shared in God’s all-powerful rule of the universe, temporarily became a humble and weak servant, but now has resumed his universal and eternal power and control.

But what if Christ’s humility, meekness and servant heart do not represent a departure from God’s nature, but actually define it?  What if God does reign, but not through power but through love?  What if ‘poor in spirit’ (Mt 5:3) is ‘a vision of the glory of God lived through Christ’?

Christ’s kenosis is none other than divine love (1 Jn 3:16; 4:8).  And love is not simply an attribute of God: love is what God is.

The doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son means that ‘there was never a time when God the Son did not exist, and yet he’s a Son who has a Father!  That Father has forever been pouring his life into his Son in self-giving – kenotic – love.’

God has always been what he reveals himself to be in the incarnation and the Cross.  To look at the Cross is to see God in his Trinitarian glory.

2. The lion and the lamb

Many Christians think of Christ’s incarnation as his coming as a ‘lamb’, but he will return as a ‘lion’.  First, the suffering servant,  to save; then, the victorious king, to judge.  No more Mr Nice Guy!

But to think like this is to regard God’s plan of redemption as a failure.

Our picture of the lion/lamb dichotomy comes, of course, from Rev 5.  But while John hears about the overcoming Lion, what he sees is a Lamb.  As a Lion, he has conquered; but as a Lamb, he has conquered, through violence, but through self-giving love.  His victory is not to be won in the future, but the sword, but has already been won, by his cross.  See also Rev 12:10f (and note the word ‘now’, indicating that God’s kingdom has already arrived, that Satan has already been hurled down, that the martyrs have already triumphed.

Psa 118 and Zech 9 indicate the triumph of the Messiah.  But, in the latter passage, he is seated on a donkey, not on a war horse.  We know, even if the prophet did not know, that the blood that is shed is that of the Messiah himself.

The Triumphal Entry (cf. Jn 12:13) riffs on this theme.  Immediately afterwards, speaks of the Son of Man being glorified, and of his  bringing glory to the Father. This comes through his death and resurrection, and results in the overthrow of Satan’s kingdom (Jn 12:23-33).  See also our Lord’s prayer in Jn 17.

Indeed, John’s Gospel treats the crucifixion as (a) the judgment of the world and of Satan, and, (b) as a ‘lifting up’ that draws all people to himself, the means by which Jesus is given authority over all people.

In the Fourth Gospel:

‘Jesus virtually treats the Cross as the Final Judgment! The world is judged, Satan is defeated and Jesus is glorified. He is given all authority and reigns in a kingdom that advances in the same way it came: through the kenotic power of love.’

Comment

Once again, I appreciate Brad Jersak’s determination to stick close to the text of Scripture.

I also appreciate his insistence that ‘kenosis’ does not imply a repudiation of Christ’s divine attributes, but a voluntary setting aside of them.

However, there appears to be a major flaw in the argument.  When Jersak asserts that God-in-Trinity has always been kenotic, Phil 2 (along with other passages) teach that Christ’s self-emptying took place, not in eternity, but in space and time, at his Incarnation.

This miss-step leads to an over-realised eschatology, and to a neglect of those Scriptures (and there are many) that deal with the future dimensions of judgment and re-creation.

We shall have to wait and see how the argument develops from this point, and whether any correctives are put in place.