misunderstanding kenosis

I cannot enter here in detail into why the Eastern Orthodox (Palamite, but see # NOTE) notion of "Uncreated Energies of God" has produced a completely abusive understanding of the fully Scriptural notion of kenosis.

Ultimately the "foundation" is a hyped, abusive metaphysical interpretation of this verse ...

“... but [Jesus Christ] emptied [ekenôsen] himself by taking on the form [morphê] of a slave, by looking like other men, [Grk: 'by coming in the likeness [homoiôma] of people'] and by sharing in human nature [Grk: 'and by being found in form [schêma] as a man'].” (Phil 2:7)

... whereas it is entirely evident, to any exegete/hermeneute that is  not swept off balance by unwarranted metaphysical spin, that the above  verse applies to the real Jesus Christ who lived in Palestine, 1st century AD, NOT to some mythical and "preexistent" "God-the-son", as made fully clear by the context of the immediately preceding and following verses ...

₅ You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had, ₆ who though he existed in the form [morphê] of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, [Grk: harpagmos, 'robbery'] ₇ but emptied himself by taking on the form [morphê] of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature. ₈ He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross! (Phil 2:5-8)

In the 4^th century, when the "trinitarian" solution of Christology was being concocted, the notion of kenosis had NOT (yet) the meaning of something like "temporary metaphysical emptying of divine prerogatives".  Both the Arians and their (orthodox) opponents affirmed that God is entirely free from passion and change. The orthodox position held this view in regard to the divine nature of Christ, which is homoousios with God, but allowed the human nature to suffer.

Athanasius, in particular, said of the Logos that ...

The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of  otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being  immortal and the Father's Son, was such as could not die. For this  reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death,  in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might  become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining  incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to  corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection.  [Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation, 2. The Divine Dilemma and Its Solution in the Incarnation, (9)- emphasis by MdS]

So the unchanging, incorruptible and impassible Logos, impassibly ("by His own impassibility") endures suffering in the body...

He manifested Himself by means of a body in order that we  might perceive the Mind of the unseen Father. He endured shame from men  that we might inherit immortality. He Himself was unhurt by this, for He is impass[i]ble and incorruptible; but by His own impass[i]bility [en tê eautou apatheia] He kept and healed the suffering men on whose account He thus endured. [Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation, 8. Refutation of the Gentiles (continued), (54) - emphasis by MdS]

... which clearly means, in short, that, according to Athanasius, in this body that "He" adopted, the Logos ("God-the-son") did not really suffer, but only feigned anguish and ignorance for our sake.

Comments?

# NOTE

This is my (quick, largely incomplete and not perfectly chronological) summary profile of the EO "plotionian chain":

Origen (who was a pupil of Ammonius Saccas just as Plotinus was ...) => John Chrysostom => Cappadocian rascals (Basil the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzus)  Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (a neoplatonist through and through, who received undue and misplace importance by bein mistaken for Paul's companion mentioned at Acts 17:34) => St John of Sinai => Maximus the Confessor => Symeon the New Theologian => Gregory Palamas (challenged by Barlaam of Calabria).

The EO "plotionian chain" has carried on to this day: one name is sufficient, that of Vladimir Lossky, in spite of his finicky distinctions "between Christian thinkers such as Saint Dionysius the Areopagite and such thinkers as Plotinus and the Neoplatonists".