RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Christology
butes were admitted to have been concealed during the state of humihation. Chemnitz and the Saxon divines called this view a monstrosity, and taught only a relative ubiquity, depending on Christ's will (hence called voliprcesentia, or multivoliprcesentia), who may be present with his whole person wherever he pleases to be or has promised to be. (4) A fourth kind would be the genus kenoticum (from kenosis), or tapeinoticum (from tapeinosis), Phil. ii. 7, 8; i.e., a communication of the properties of the human nature to the divine nature. But this is decidedly rejected by the old Lutherans as inconsistent with the unchangeableness of the divine nature, and as a " horrible and blasphemous " doctrine (Formula of Concord, p. 612), but is asserted by the modem Kenoticists (see below, IX.).
The Reformed divines never committed themselves to the communicatio idiomatum as a whole (although they might approve the first two kinds, at least by way of what ZwingU termed allaiosis, or a rhetorical exchange of one part for another); and they decidedly rejected the third kind, because omnipresence, whether absolute or relative, is inconsistent with the necessary limitation of a human body, as well as with the Scripture facts of Christ's 'ascension to heaven, and promised return. The third genus can never be fully carried out, unless the humanity of Christ is also eternalized. The attributes, moreover, are not an outside appendix, but inherent qualities of the substance to which they belong, and inseparable from it. Hence a communication of attributes would imply a communication or mixture of natures. The divine and human natures can indeed hold free and intimate intercourse with each other; but the divine nature can never be transformed into the human, nor the human nature into the divine. Christ possessed all the attributes of both natures; but the natures, nevertheless, remain separate and distinct. See Communicatio Idiomatum.
2. The Doctrine of the Twofold State of Christ:
This is the state of humihation and the state of exaltation. This doctrine is based upon Phil. ii. 5-9, and is substantially true. The state of humiliation embraces the supernatural conception, birth, circumcision, education, earthly life, passion, death, and burial of Christ ; the state of exaltation includes the resurrection, ascension, and the sitting at the right hand of God.
But here, again, the two confessions differ very considerably. First as to the descent into Hades. The Lutherans regarded it as a triumph over hell, and made it the first stage of exaltation; while the Reformed divines viewed it as the last stage of the state of humiliation. It is properly the turning-point from the one state to the other, and thus belongs to both (see Descent of Christ into Hell). Secondly, the Lutheran Creed refers the two states only to the human nature of Christ, regarding the divine as not susceptible of any humiliation or exaltation. The Reformed divines refer them to both natures; so that Christ's human nature was in a state of humiliation as compared with its future exaltation, and his divine nature was in the state of humihation as to its ex-
ternal manifestation (i-atione occultationis). With them the incarnation itself is the beginning of the state of humiliation, while the Lutheran symbols exclude the incarnation from the humiliation. Finally, the Lutherans regard the humiliation only as a partial concealment of the actual use (Gk. krypsis chreseos) of the divine attributes by the incarnate Logos.
The proper exegesis of the classical passage, Phil. ii. 7 sqq., decides here in favor of the Reformed, and against the Lutheran theory. The kenosis, or self-humiliation, can not refer to the incarnate Logos, who never was " in Hhe form of God," but must refer to the preexistent Logos (the Logos asarkos). This is admitted by the Greek Fathers, and by the best modern commentators, Lutheran as well as Reformed. (Cf. quotations in Schaff, Creeds, i. 328-329, and see Jesus Christ, Twofold State of.)
3. The Threefold Office of Christ : (a) The prophetical office {munus, or ofpcium propheticum) includes teaching and the miracles of Christ, (b) The priestly office (munus sacerdotale) consists of the satisfaction made for the sins of the world by the death on the cross, and in the continued intercession of the exalted Savior for his people (redemptio et intercessio sacerdotal is), (c) The kingly office (munus regium), whereby Christ founded his kingdom, defends his Church against all enemies, and rules all things in heaven and on earth. The old divines distinguish between the reign of nature (regnum naturae sive potentice), which embraces all things; the reign of grace (regnum gratia), which relates to the Church militant on earth; and the reign of glory (regnum glorice), which belongs to the Church triumphant in heaven. The threefold office or function of Christ was first presented by Eusebius of Csesarea. The theologians who followed Luther and Melanchthon down to the middle of the seventeenth century treat Christ's saving work under the two heads of king and priest. Calvin, in the first edition of his " Institutes " (1536), did the same, and it was not till the third edition (1559) and the Genevan Catechism that he fully presented the three offices. This convenient threefold division of the office of Christ was used by the theologians of both confessions during the seventeenth century. Ernesti opposed it, but Schleiermacher restored it. See Jesus Christ, Threefold Office of.
IX. The Kenosis Controversy Between Giessen and Tiibingen: This is the last chapter in the development of the orthodox Lutheran christology on the basis of the Formula of Concord. It arose in the early part of the seventeenth century, between the Lutheran divines of the universities of Giessen and Tubingen over the Kenosis and Krypsis ; that is, over the question whether Christ, in the state of humiliation, entirely abstained from the use of his divine attributes (kenosis, abstinentia ab usu, Phil. ii. 7), or whether he used them secretly (krypsis). The divines of Giessen (Balthasar Mentzer, his son-in-law Feuerborn, and Winkelmann) defended the Kenot'ic; those of Tubingen (Thumm, Hafenreffer, Osiander, Nicolai), the cryptic view. Both schools were agreed as to the possession of the
ChristoloKy