Philippians 2:5

4. Illustration in the self-denial of Christ, Philippians 2:5-11.

a. His voluntary self-humiliation, Philippians 2:5-8 .

5. This mind Identity in disposition between them and Christ, especially in his self-denying sacrifice for others. This is the point for the illustration and enforcement of which the example of Christ is adduced. We may observe,

(1) That the incarnate Christ alone is here spoken of ought to be beyond all question. He existed in the form of God before he took the form of a servant. His becoming man was preceded by a self-divestiture, and this again by thinking a certain thing no robbery. It is, then, the pre-existent Christ whose action in self-humiliation is here described; and we have before us, in succession, his ante-mundane glory, his voluntary abasement, and his subsequent exaltation.

(2) The form of God cannot mean his divine nature or essence, although its possession is implied, because in taking humanity he did not put off his Godhead; nor his extraordinarily miraculous powers, for he retained them in his incarnate state; nor yet again his attributes of omnipotence and omniscience, for he did not divest himself of them. It is rather the majesty and glory in which God dwells and appears to the eyes of the angels, manifesting his infinite perfections, the splendour and visible “light which no man can approach;” (1 Timothy 6:16;) the glory which Christ had with the Father “before the world was,” (John 17:5,) with the myriads of attending angels, the worship and honour paid him, and his whole state of heavenly royalty.

(3) That Christ is equal with God is here an asserted fact. He who has the form of God must be on an equality with him in every respect, and especially in the possession of this form, which is the particular thing in contrast with the form of a servant which he chose instead.

(4) Thought it not robbery, etc. This clause is better translated, he deemed not his being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped at, that is, grasped and exclusively retained for himself. Christ had a clear right both to his Godhead, and the glorious mode of manifesting himself in which the inhabitants of heaven were wont to see him. Equally clear was his right to retain that glory and to appear the God forever. Had he been moved by selfishness instead of love had he looked only on his own things and not also on the things of others he would have held fast his glorious state, and appeared on earth in all his majesty. This is just what he did not do. Conceive him as deciding whether he will retain his glory or become man, and we see him thinking the glory a thing not to be seized and firmly held, if by laying it aside he can better save men. His self-denying motive is thus apparent.

(5) Instead of an eager clinging to his right of his majestic glory in an appearance among men, he, on the contrary, made himself of no reputation, or, better translated, he emptied himself. But of what did he empty himself? Not his divine nature not his essential equality with God not his attributes not his absolute right to his glory: of these he could not divest himself. He did not cease to be God, but he laid aside, phenomenally, the form of God, vailing his ineffable glory, hiding his awful majesty, and foregoing the exhibition of himself to men as God.

(6) The mode and extent of this self-divestiture appear in the contrast of his assumed with his previous condition. He had the form of God, he took the form of a servant of God instead. His appearance before men was as a servant who obeys, and not the Infinite King who commands. Still further, he was made in the likeness of men. Jesus of Nazareth was true man, but the eternal Logos took that humanity upon him.

(7) The description thus far is of the condescension of our Lord from his pre-mundane glory to his self-emptying in his incarnation. It is now of his self-humiliation after having taken humanity and vailed his glory, that is, as the incarnate Logos. In this state, with all the outward semblance of a man, he humbled himself yet further, by becoming obedient to the will of God unto the suffering of death; and, as if this were not going sufficiently low, even to the death of the cross, the severest in pain and the most revolting in its shame. Higher than he was he could not be; to a lower depth of humiliation he could not go. A more powerful argument against “ strife,” “ vainglory,” and all self-seeking could not be framed.