The Kenotic theories concern themselves speci- ally with the three metaphysical attributes of God, manifest in His transcendent, yet im- manent, relation to the world — omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience. The Gospels show that Jesus possessed none of these. He was localized in a body (Jn 1" ' tabernacled among us'), and moved from place to place as His mission required. The cure of the nobleman's son (Jn 4°°) does not prove omnipresence, but is explicable as an act of faith in God. In the absence of their Master the disciples become faith- less (Mk 9'"), and He has to return to them to restore their confidence. In His farewell discourse He promises His constant presence as a future gift ( Jn 14'8- 19), and fulfils His promise after the | Kesurrection (Mt 28™). His miracle.s do not prove | omnipotence, as they were wrought in dependence on, with prayer to, God (Mk 9^; Jn 11«- ■■-), were restrained by unbelief (Mt 13**), seemingly involved physical strain (Mk 5™), and sometimes were ac- companied bv means of cure (Mk T^"** ; see The Expositor, 6tn series, vol. vi., '"The Function of the Miracles'). Jesus never claimed omnwciencf. He claimed to know the Father as no other knew Him (Mt 11"), but, on the other hand, He confessed that His knowledge as Son was limited in so important a matter as the time of His Return (Mt 24^ RV, Mk 1332). The express distinction between the knowledge of the Son and of the Father made in this utterance disproves the view sometimes ad- vanced, that the Son's perfect knowledge of the Father must include a knowledge of aU the Father knows. It is the character, purpose, and activity of God as Father that the Son knows and reveals. When Jesus Himself thus confesses ignorance in a matter affecting Himself so closely, it is not rever- ence to claim for Him universal knowledge regard- ing such matters as the date and authorship of Old Testament writings, the causes of disease, the course of events in the remote future ; nor is it any lack of homage and devotion to acknowledge the other evidences of limitation of knowledge the Gospels offer. He made a mistake regarding the barren fig-tree (Mk 11"); He was sometimes sur- prised and disappointed [see art. SURPRISE] (Mt 8W26*, Mk 1« 2^- = e" 7"- ^- ^ 8'-, Lk 2«) ; informa- tion came to Him by the ordinary channels of hearing and seeing (Mt 4'2- " W- is, Mk I''- »* 2", Jn 41-'), and He sought it in this way (Jn l^* 9^', Mk S^-'^^, Lk 4"). He asked questions not rlietori- caUy, but because He desired an answer (Mt 161^- ■*, Lk 8*>, Jn 11"). He developed mentally (Lk 2^-), and during His ministry learned b;^ experience (Jn 2-'; the verb used is yiviiaKiiv, see Westcott in loco). He sought guidance from God in prayer (Lk 51"* 6i= 918. 28 1021 )_ xhe necessity of the cup offered by His Father's will was not at first evident to Him (Mt 26'9)_ and, when convinced that His Father's will required it. He was not sure that His strength to drink it would endure (v.-"- ; cf. He 5'- *). His cry of desolation (Mt 27'"") on the cross was not only the culmination of His Passion, but in being this it was also the temporary obscuration of His knowledge of the Father, who in that moment had not for- .saken Him. Instances of supernatural knowledge are found in the Gospels. Some of these : the getting of the ass (Mt 21"), and of the upper room (26'"""), the finding of the money in tlie fish's mouth (17"), are only apparent, and allow an- other explanation. The statement to the woman of Samaria about the number of her husbands (.In 417. 18) ig ygry perplexing ; and possibly, as the con- versation was probably reported by the woman, may have been made more definite by her guilty con- science than it actually was. even as she ex- aggerates in her account of what Christ had told her (v.^). The command to the disciples about
casting their net (Lk 5') was probably an act of faith in God, even as the command to the storm (Mk 4'9)_ The other cases fall into two classes: prophetic anticipations (His own death and resur- rection, the doom of Jerusalem), or exercises of an exceptional moral insight and spiritual discern- ment. We may admit occasionally, for the fulfil- ment of His vocation, miraculous knowledge as well as power, without the constant possession of
moral life ; and the development of the latter involves necessarily some limitations in the former. Omniscience cannot be ' tempted in all points even as we are,' nor can it exercise a cliildlike faith in God such as Jesus calls us to exercise along with Hira. Moral and religious reality is excluded from the historj' of Jesus by the denial of the limitation of His knowledge. He was tempted (see articles on Temptation and Struggles of Soul). In the Wilderness the temptation was possible, because He had to learn by experience the uses to which His miraculous powers might legitimately be put, and the proper means for the fulfilment of His vocation. AVithout taint or flaw in His own nature, the expectations of the people regarding the Messiah, and the desires they pressed upon Him, afforded the occasions of temptation to Hiiu. The necessity of His own sacrifice was not so certain to Him as to exclude the possibility of the temptation to escape it. That Jesus was Himself conscious of being still the subject of a moral discipline is suggested by His refusal of the epithet 'good' (Mk 10'*). Although morally tempted and developing, Jesus betrays no sign of penitence for sin or failure, and we are warranted in atfirming that He was tempted without sin, and in His development knew no sin. But that perfection would have been only a moral semblance had there been no liability to temptation and no limitation of knowledt'e. As Son of God, He lived in depend- ence on God (Mt 11"") and submission to Him (v.", Mt 26"'). It is the Fourth Gospel that throws into special prominence this feature (Jn 3** 5i'' ™ 8^ 15i' 17'- "). The Son delivers the words and performs the deeds given by the Father. There are a few utterances given in this Gospel which express a sense of loss for Himself and His disciples in the separation from the Father that His earthly life involves (Jn U^), a desire for the recovery of the former conditions of communion (17^), and an ex- pectation of gain in His return to the Father Jj4i9.20) Jesus was subject to human emotion : He groaned (Jn U^"- ^), sighed (Mk 7" 8'-=), wept at the grave of Lazarus (Jn 11^) and over Jerusalem (Lk IS*" 19*1, Mt23''). He endured poverty (Mt 8=», Lk 9^), labour (Mk 6^), weariness (Jn 4«, Mt 21'), weakness (Mt 27'-), hunger (Mt 4= 21'"), thirst (Jn 4'' 19=«), pain (Mt 21^^), and death (Mt 27», Jn 19*'). Some have conjectured from the evi- dence of Jn 19** that He died literally of a broken heart (see Farrar's Life of Christ, note at the end of chap. Ixi.). This Kenosis did not obscure His moral insight and spiritual discernment ; did not involve any moral defect or failure, any religious distrust ; did not weaken or narrow His love, mercy, or grace ; did not lower His authority, or lessen His efficiency as Revealer of God and Redeemer of men ; but, on the contrary, it was necessary, for only under such human conditions and limitations could He fulfil His mission, deliver His message, present His sacrifice, and effect His salvation. That He might receive the name of Saviour and Lord, which is above every other name. He must empty Himself.