What do you think?
Rate this book
The Form of a Servant: A Historical Analysis of the Kenotic Motif
This is both a historical and a systematic exploration of the basic Christian belief in God's self-emptying in creation and redemption. In Christ, God has "emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." Not only does the author review the thinking on the kenotic motif from earliest Christian times (even antedating the Pauline Epistles) to the present, but he views it as a source of fresh insight for Christology today. Kierkegaard introduced the kenotic motif to contemporary theology, which views it as the ultimate paradox. In Barth's doctrine of the freedom of God, kenosis means God is free to become a man. Thus, says Dr. Dawe, kenosis is to be interpreted in dynamic, personalistic modes of thought and is the key to a fresh understanding of creation, history, and redemption. Seminary students will welcome this book for its wealth of biblical and historical theology. But because of its nontechnical vocabulary, adult study groups will find much material for interesting and rewarding discussion
218 pages, Paperback
First published June 17, 2011
1 person is currently reading
6 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 3, 2021
Quarantine-Book #21:
I just finished "The Form of a Servant: A Historical Analysis of the Kenotic Motif," by Donald G. Dawe.
Dawe is exploring the Kenotic motif in scripture, not just in Christology. He does so in discussion with others who paved the Kenotic way like Forsyth and Mackintosh.
He offers a heavenly man (modern) exegesis of Ph 2 via last Adam Christology, though presupposing preexistance thus somewhat eliminating the Adamic aspect, which is tough to read after Dunn. But Kenosis works overall if you see the emptying as the Son coming to earth, as I lean, or as Jesus going to the cross per Dunn.
HIs historical analysis of Kenosis basically rolls like this: as soon as the Jerusalme church got upended by Hellenistic Christianity Greek metaphysics came into play. As such the apologists in appealing to a Greek audience spoke about immutability so hard that Kenosis had to die because Kenosis is change. As the patristics approached Chalcedon they had to draw even harder lines in the sand because of the Christological heresies: greater immutability farther from Kenosis.
He works through the middle ages and the reformation. I thought Calvin's christology interesting and it answered some questions (and pointed out his paradox).
At the enlightenment we see the person of Christ vs modernity. Unitarians and deists looked only for morality in Jesus. Science etc made "person of Christ" a multi disciplinary study, though by a now less than Christian group. This began the search for the historical Jesus. During this search the Orthodox picture began to disappear and to combat this the Kenotic motif had an opening to "make sense of the person of Christ" to an even greater audience of doubters (agreed).
Dawe spends time covering the next generation of Kenotic christologians ending up at and spending more time on the thought of P.T. Forsyth (whose The Person and Place of Jesus Christ is a great book on Kenotic Christology). Forsyth wanted to be rid of the traditional hypostatic union for a kenosis/plerosis or God emptying to become man/Man gaining to regain fullness in Deity.
As an interesting note, it seems the Orthodox church (Bulgakov) has quite a history working with the Kenotic motif, though further than Protestantism.
In dealing with modern theology Dawe begins with Kirkegaard (I had no idea) and moves up through Brunner and Barth. Brunner brings to the table that Kenosis is not an obscuring of the Divine but a revelation of the nature of God. For Barth it was not to say that Kenosis was a scaled down form of divinity but that God is God even in the form of a servant.
"To say God is beyond all change is finally to say God is dead," p 168, summing up Barths thoughts per CD.
Final chapter is a once over again. He finishes it by suggesting how we should reformulate our doctrine of God: removal of immutability was a major part. He draws heavily on Barth's "God is freely loving," to paraphrase, and He has been Kenotic since creation.
I wish it were less historical theology and more technical to the topic.
#Kenosis #Kenotic #TheFormOfAServant #DonaldGDawe
I just finished "The Form of a Servant: A Historical Analysis of the Kenotic Motif," by Donald G. Dawe.
Dawe is exploring the Kenotic motif in scripture, not just in Christology. He does so in discussion with others who paved the Kenotic way like Forsyth and Mackintosh.
He offers a heavenly man (modern) exegesis of Ph 2 via last Adam Christology, though presupposing preexistance thus somewhat eliminating the Adamic aspect, which is tough to read after Dunn. But Kenosis works overall if you see the emptying as the Son coming to earth, as I lean, or as Jesus going to the cross per Dunn.
HIs historical analysis of Kenosis basically rolls like this: as soon as the Jerusalme church got upended by Hellenistic Christianity Greek metaphysics came into play. As such the apologists in appealing to a Greek audience spoke about immutability so hard that Kenosis had to die because Kenosis is change. As the patristics approached Chalcedon they had to draw even harder lines in the sand because of the Christological heresies: greater immutability farther from Kenosis.
He works through the middle ages and the reformation. I thought Calvin's christology interesting and it answered some questions (and pointed out his paradox).
At the enlightenment we see the person of Christ vs modernity. Unitarians and deists looked only for morality in Jesus. Science etc made "person of Christ" a multi disciplinary study, though by a now less than Christian group. This began the search for the historical Jesus. During this search the Orthodox picture began to disappear and to combat this the Kenotic motif had an opening to "make sense of the person of Christ" to an even greater audience of doubters (agreed).
Dawe spends time covering the next generation of Kenotic christologians ending up at and spending more time on the thought of P.T. Forsyth (whose The Person and Place of Jesus Christ is a great book on Kenotic Christology). Forsyth wanted to be rid of the traditional hypostatic union for a kenosis/plerosis or God emptying to become man/Man gaining to regain fullness in Deity.
As an interesting note, it seems the Orthodox church (Bulgakov) has quite a history working with the Kenotic motif, though further than Protestantism.
In dealing with modern theology Dawe begins with Kirkegaard (I had no idea) and moves up through Brunner and Barth. Brunner brings to the table that Kenosis is not an obscuring of the Divine but a revelation of the nature of God. For Barth it was not to say that Kenosis was a scaled down form of divinity but that God is God even in the form of a servant.
"To say God is beyond all change is finally to say God is dead," p 168, summing up Barths thoughts per CD.
Final chapter is a once over again. He finishes it by suggesting how we should reformulate our doctrine of God: removal of immutability was a major part. He draws heavily on Barth's "God is freely loving," to paraphrase, and He has been Kenotic since creation.
I wish it were less historical theology and more technical to the topic.
#Kenosis #Kenotic #TheFormOfAServant #DonaldGDawe
October 19, 2025
Donald G. Dawe's “The Form of a Servant” (1963) traces the historical development of kenotic doctrine from Paul to Kierkegaard and Barth. The concept of divine self-emptying (kenosis) represents a fundamental theme in Christian theology, proposing that God voluntarily limited divine powers to participate in human existence and thereby achieve world redemption.
Traditional anti-Arian patristic interpretation viewed kenosis as a temporary concealment (occultatio Dei) of divine glory during Jesus’s earthly ministry (p. 30). Modern theology rejected this view, arguing instead that the divine nature was actually relinquished, not merely hidden. This modern interpretation, however, struggles to reconcile trinitarian Christology with Pauline texts suggesting Jesus gained elevated status post-resurrection (Hebrews 1:4; 2:9) (pp. 42-43).
Kierkegaard interpreted kenosis as “the absolute paradox over which all attempts to rationalize Christianity stumble and fall” (p. 157). While this view holds historical significance, dismissing intellectual understanding through paradox risks reducing the concept to meaninglessness.
Following Barth, Dawe argues that God’s self-revelation in Christ “is not something foreign to his inner life as God. It is of the very being of God to reveal himself” (pp. 167-68). This perspective rejects static concepts of divine being, asserting no distinction between God’s nature and actions. While this view positions kenosis as fundamental to divine nature, it raises significant theological challenges.
Dawe ultimately proposes a form of open theism, suggesting God’s being remains partially incomplete. He argues that divine relationships with creation and created freedom necessitate “an element of openness or incompleteness in the divine being” (p. 189). Though this solution presents its own theological difficulties, Dawe’s analysis offers valuable insights into divine kenosis.
The book provides a thoughtful introduction to kenotic theology, effectively engaging with its historical development and philosophical implications.
Traditional anti-Arian patristic interpretation viewed kenosis as a temporary concealment (occultatio Dei) of divine glory during Jesus’s earthly ministry (p. 30). Modern theology rejected this view, arguing instead that the divine nature was actually relinquished, not merely hidden. This modern interpretation, however, struggles to reconcile trinitarian Christology with Pauline texts suggesting Jesus gained elevated status post-resurrection (Hebrews 1:4; 2:9) (pp. 42-43).
Kierkegaard interpreted kenosis as “the absolute paradox over which all attempts to rationalize Christianity stumble and fall” (p. 157). While this view holds historical significance, dismissing intellectual understanding through paradox risks reducing the concept to meaninglessness.
Following Barth, Dawe argues that God’s self-revelation in Christ “is not something foreign to his inner life as God. It is of the very being of God to reveal himself” (pp. 167-68). This perspective rejects static concepts of divine being, asserting no distinction between God’s nature and actions. While this view positions kenosis as fundamental to divine nature, it raises significant theological challenges.
Dawe ultimately proposes a form of open theism, suggesting God’s being remains partially incomplete. He argues that divine relationships with creation and created freedom necessitate “an element of openness or incompleteness in the divine being” (p. 189). Though this solution presents its own theological difficulties, Dawe’s analysis offers valuable insights into divine kenosis.
The book provides a thoughtful introduction to kenotic theology, effectively engaging with its historical development and philosophical implications.
June 23, 2015
Interestingly contemporary despite being written in 1963. Good survey of historical theology and contemporary evaluations of both the kenotic motif but also traditional or credal affirmations on the humanity and deity of Christ. He veers away from traditional orthodoxy and sound like an open theist. He understands the kenosis to such a degree that God's freedom and genuine interaction demands limitations. The ontological language of the creeds is an impediment in an age asking different questions. He does not outright reject the creeds but points out what he deems as inadequate. He devotes a chapter to Phil 2:6-11 but I think his understanding is exegetically suspect on a few points, points that adversely affect his entire treatment. Still a worthwhile and engaging read.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews