THE HUMBLE SERVANT AND EXALTED LORD

THE HUMBLE SERVANT AND EXALTED LORD:

An Exegesis Philippians 2:6-11

By: Daniel McMillin

In the field of theology, there are the five great mysteries. Ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), the doctrine of the trinity (one essence; three persons), the inspiration of the Bible (Scripture is the product of the will of God and man), free will (God’s sovereignty; man’s responsibility), and finally the hypostatic union or the incarnation (one person; two natures). The incarnation[1] is one of the most challenging on this list, in my opinion. Though the incarnation is shrouded with mystery to the Bible student, Paul helps to shed some light in a most informative manner when he says:

Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.[2]

This pericope is one of the most notably debated passages in the book of Philippians due to the nature of Paul’s wording and the content of his Christology.[3] While this passage may be challenging in some areas, the overall message is clear: Jesus is Lord. He did not regard His divine nature as an advantage, but rather, He humbled Himself by taking the form of a man and was willing to make Himself a lowly servant through obedience to the extent of dying upon a cross. While He was humiliated in His incarnate state, He was exalted when He was in His glorified state. Within this passage, we will notice Christ in His exalted manner before the incarnation, His humiliation while incarnate, and His exaltation following His incarnation.  

Among scholars, this text has been referred to as the Carmen Christi (“Christ hymn”). There is much debate as to whether or not this text originated with Paul or if it was a hymn that Paul used as a quotation.[4] From my studies, I would hold to the latter. If this is the case, these verses may be some of the earliest pieces of Christology in the New Testament. Frank Thielman noted that it “provides a glimpse of the earliest Christians at worship and tells us what they thought about Jesus.”[5] If it were a hymn formed during the 1st century, then those early Christians would have been very familiar with these words and their meaning.

“Paul takes up the Christology of the traditional piece and embeds it in a parenetic line of argument.”[6] In the first century, hymns were used as a system of Christian beliefs. “The text falls into two stanzas that describe the condescension (vv. 6-8) and exaltation (vv. 9-11) of Jesus. Each of these, in turn, subdivides into three strophes of three lines each, each line containing three stressed syllables. This symmetry shows that Paul most likely borrowed the tradition from its liturgical context with its emphasis on creed/doctrine, especially since the passage goes beyond the parenetic purpose of the immediate context; to exhort the Christians to humility for the sake of unity by giving the example of Christ.”[7]

As we study this text, we will be using the “hermeneutical triad” that Andreas J. Köstenberger uses in his book Invitation to Biblical Interpretation. The triad contains three inescapable realities that every interpreter faces. (1) The reality of history, (2) the reality of literature, and (3) the reality of theology.[8] These three pieces of the triad will be implemented throughout the course of my exegesis of Philippians 2:6-11.[9]

Paul is exhorting the Philippians to be like Christ, who humbled Himself and served others. In order to do this, he references the incarnation. “Who,” that is, “Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5), “although,” that is to say, even though, “He existed in the form of God” (Phil. 2:6), “have this attitude” of humility like Christ (Phil. 2:5). The word we want to begin with, as we start our exegesis, is the word μορφῇ (“form”), which is used three times in the New Testament, two of which are found in the letter to the Philippians. “Form” is one of the three most highly discussed words in this hymn among scholars; the others are ἁρπαγμὸν (“grasped”) and ἐκένωσεν (“emptied”). There are many diverse interpretations for μορφῇ among scholars.[10] Silva approaches this term with humility in noting that the word’s precise meaning is elusive and difficult to determine without the immediate context.[11] What we do know for a fact at this time is that it is revealing to us that Christ is equal to God. Since He is in the “form of God,” we understand that He is in the same state of existence or being as God. J.B. Lightfoot observes that this word “must apply to the attributes of the Godhead.”[12] Silva says that this is a bit of a stretch to say that this is a reference to Jesus’ essence, attributes, attitude, or appearance being equal with God. However, I believe that we can confidently say that this is speaking of those things. If Jesus was in the “form of God” and He is equal with God, then what that means is that everything found within the divine is found in Christ since He is God. This phrase is explicitly declaring that Jesus was truly God!

It is interesting that Paul talks about Jesus’ preexistence by saying that He existed before He was human. G. Walter Hansen suggests that “this word does not in itself denote preexistence. It simply points to a state or circumstance of being.”[13] I agree that emphasis is laid upon the fact that Jesus existed in the form or state of being as God. However, I believe that this can also be a reference to His preexistence as well, prior to His incarnation.[14] Paul used the word ὑπάρχων (“existed”) in the past tense. When this word is used in this way, it is referring to the fact that Christ previously existed, this is speaking of Christ before the incarnation, but it would also be true in reference to His existence before the foundation of creation since He eternally exists (John 1:1-3).

As Jesus existed in the form of God, He “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Phil. 2:6). Jesus, as will be noted momentarily, became like nothing (a servant) so He could provide us something (salvation). “He did not consider his divine form, his equality with God, an advantage to exploit.” [15] But rather, He allowed Himself to take on flesh and experience life the way that we, as humans, experience life. His divine nature was not employed for His own self-interests or to His own advantage. In fact, it was quite the opposite, as we can see in the gospels. God, namely Jesus, took the outward appearance of a servant while incarnate. He was still God, and yet, He humbled Himself. Thielman wrote that “His equality with God led him to view his status not as a matter of privilege but as a matter of unselfish giving. This is the character of the biblical God, and this was the character of Christ Jesus as well.”[16] While Jesus was divine, He did not allow Himself to use this to have the upper hand over anyone for His own self-interests; He did not make any selfish choices in respect to His divinity, but rather, every time we see the divinity of Christ displayed within the gospels, it was always seen in service to humanity.[17]

Now we approach the most difficult phrase in this text, “but” Christ “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7). This phrase is idiomatic in nature. That is to say, the word μορφὴν denotes a nature that was very familiar to native Greeks. If we were to take this word from its original context, it would have a particular meaning that is different from what the context would suggest. It is vital that we study this word within its context rather than separating it and assuming its meaning from our own context.

As we begin, we read the phrase ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν, which literally translates, “but emptied Himself,” as the NASB reads. However, it more precisely conveys, in our context, that Jesus “made himself nothing” (NIV). Of course, this does not mean that Jesus literally became nothing, as it does not mean that He literally emptied Himself. But for our American context, this translation is easier for us to comprehend the idiom Paul means to convey in this hymn. Jesus did not “empty” Himself of something. If He emptied Himself of His divine nature, He would cease to be God, which is an impossibility. God cannot stop being God. He did not become “nothing” because then He would cease to exist. For God to not exist would be an impossibility. The idea that Paul is conveying to the Philippians is that Jesus, when He dwelt among us like a tabernacle, abandoned His rights as God, He did not have an advantage over anyone else while incarnate, and so, when He was in our likeness, He was, in essence, nothing special. He was a nobody from nowhere. He was the son of a carpenter, born in Bethlehem, lived in Nazareth, and died on a rugged tree. And so, instead of Jesus holding His heavenly position with all of its privileges, Jesus humbled and emptied Himself to be a servant.[18]

The way in which Jesus made Himself like nothing was by “taking the form of a bond-servant” (Phil. 2:7). He took on this new mode of existence that He did not have prior to the incarnation. The God-man contained this dual nature where He had equality with God, since He shared in His essence, and had equality with humanity, since He shared in their likeness. When taking on human form and assuming the role of a servant, He would, of course, be making Himself a nobody. He would dedicate His life to servitude, placing others (those He serves) above Himself. Servants, by nature, have no rights. “By contrast, the eternal Son has always had all of the rights of deity. He was one with God. Yet precisely because of this, he did not perceive his equality with God as something to be exploited, but became a nobody.”[19] 

With this use of the term δούλου (“slave” or “servant”), the reference may be alluding to a number of different Old Testament descriptions of the “servant.” It could be that this is referring to Isaiah’s prophecy of the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Is. 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12) or Christ’s role as a servant or slave while incarnate (Mark 10:44; John 13:1-20). On the one hand, the reference is to Christ fulfilling His purpose in providing salvation for all through His death. On the other hand, the reference is to Christ's life and example as a humble servant. Both of these may be in mind.

In a Greco-Roman context, the slave or servant was a common practice. In fact, Paul would write about a situation while he was imprisoned[20] between a master (Philemon) and a servant (Onesimus). This idea of a servant would not be foreign to first-century Christians. However, in reference to Christ, it may be challenging to think of Him in those terms, as it is for us today. It should be noted that Christ becoming a servant was not a responsibility thrust upon Him. He chose to serve rather than to be served. He was not born a servant, but He assumed the role of a servant. He was obedient to the will of God and served the needs of others. “Paul is not merely making a claim about ontology, about mere essence or being. Jesus lives and acts and functions as a servant.”[21] Jesus would say to His disciples that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28).

If Christ were to take the role of a servant and to be truly human, He must be “made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7). At this point, Paul is making a parallel between Jesus “taking the form of a bond-servant” with Him “being made in the likeness of men.” Paul is saying, in essence, that Jesus was truly human. Jesus' birth, while miraculous, was like ours.[22] He had a body, mind, emotions, and soul like us.[23] Witnesses testify that Jesus appeared to look like us. Paul is not using a simile, where he is saying Jesus is “like” a human, like “men” (Phil. 2:8). But Paul is using this to say that Jesus’ essence is similar to or equal to human beings. What Paul is saying is that everything found within a human is found in Christ. This, as Thielman clarifies, “does not indicate a difference between Christ and humanity, but an essential identity.”[24] Paul was concerned with Jesus’ similarity with humans rather than their dissimilarities. While incarnate, Jesus was both human and divine. “Christ Jesus became human in the exact sense, in every sense that makes one truly human.”[25] 

This is not meant to convey that Jesus was like or almost like a human. In other words, Paul is not using this term as a simile. Rather, Paul is saying that He was fashioned in our likeness, He is just like us. Everything found within human beings is what was found in Jesus Christ when He was incarnate. It is also not meant to convey that He merely appeared on the outside to be human but, in reality, was not. Jesus truly was human! Everything we read in the gospels testifies to the authenticity of His human experience. As Thomas R. Schreiner notes, “the text does not mean that he appeared to be a servant but in reality was not. Jesus truly because a servant, which was manifested in the taking on of humanity.”[26] 

Jesus had both equality and substantial unity with God, and He did not express His divine nature in order to get ahead and thereby exploit His status; but rather, He humbled Himself by taking the form of a man and assuming the role of a servant.[27] Herman Bavinck notes that the incarnation, by nature, was a humiliation of Himself. “The incarnation itself was already a self-emptying (κενωσις) that consisted in Christ–who existed in the form of God, that is, in the same way as God existed, and did not consider this as something stolen or wrongfully assumed–relinquishing this divine mode of existence and assuming the form of a servant, so that he was truly born in human likeness and found in human form.”[28]

Since Paul has established that Jesus was truly human, it would follow that when others saw Him, He would be “found in appearance as a man” (Phil. 2:8). Jesus has always been and always will be. He has eternally existed with His divine essence, even while incarnate. He was always found to be in the appearance of the divine, though no man has ever or could ever see Him in all His glory. But now, Jesus becomes and appears to be something He was not before, human. As has already been established, this does not mean that Jesus merely appeared as a human, but rather, Paul is saying that He appeared, in every way recognizable, that He was truly human.

Since Jesus took on our form, it follows that “He humbled Himself” (Phil. 2:8). The humility Christ endured is the humility the Church is called to experience (Phil. 2:3). This is why Paul has begun to explore the humility of Christ so that those Christians may imitate His example. “The obedience of the humiliated Christ appears as the foil to the self-interest and quarreling that the church must overcome.”[29] 

We now see the extent of Christ’s humility: self-sacrifice and humiliation. “By becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8). From Christ’s example, the Church may understand on a most intimate level, namely, that humility involves a voluntary action. Just as Christ chose to give His life for them, they are to give themselves in a self-sacrificial way. “Jesus Christ not only renounces his equality with God and his life but dies in the most extreme shame conceivable.”[30] There is no greater form of humility than to give one’s own life for another. But Jesus’ humility and obedience was evident prior to His death on the cross. In fact, as Herman Bavinck rightly points out, “Christ accomplished this obedience throughout the entire state of his humiliation.”[31]

The Bible teaches that Jesus was sent to the cross to save humanity from their sins because of God’s love for the world (John 3:16). However, in this text, Paul teaches that Christ died due to His submission to God. This is similar to what Jesus said, “I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38). Jesus' submission to the will of God came at a price. Jesus took on flesh and lived a life where He was hated. He died a cruel death and gave His life for all. This was not the picture many Jews had when they imagined the Messiah. To see Him as a servant that would suffer death on a cross was incredibly difficult to reconcile.

When Christ emptied and humbled Himself by becoming a servant, He was then led to the cross, where He would endure a painful and shameful death. “Crucifixion was the cruelest form of official execution in the Roman empire, and although a Roman citizen might experience it if convicted of high treason, it was commonly reserved for the lower classes, especially slaves.”[32]  Of course, for a Gentile audience, this would present some difficulty to the gospel message since the Savior of all humanity died in such a shameful way. As Paul would say to the Corinthians, this message was “to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23). It is almost unimaginable to think that our God would leave the highest position in heaven and humble Himself to the point of taking our form in the lowest way possible, “death on a cross.”

“For this reason also” is meant to reflect what was previously stated about the Son’s humility in the incarnation and His obedience to the extent of sacrificing Himself through means of crucifixion (Phil. 2:9). This is the purpose of Christ’s exaltation. When Jesus humbled Himself, God exalted His Son and gave Him a name exalted above every name because of His obedience. This does not mean that Christ was exalted with an even greater authority than He had before. There is no greater honor or character than what Christ possessed, having equality with God and possessing the very nature of the divine (Phil. 2:6).

When Christ was lifted up on the cross, like the brazen serpent, He was humiliated.[33] But now, it is not Roman soldiers that are lifting Christ up; it is the Father who has “highly exalted Him” (Phil. 2:9). God did not do this to humiliate Him; He did it to honor Him. To exalt Him above all creation. God took the initiative to exalt Christ above and beyond to this state of glory that He enjoyed prior to His incarnation. As David Roper notes, “His humiliation came in stages, but He was exalted in one grand act.”[34] His death on the cross was the greatest act of humiliation, as Paul has previously mentioned, but the acts of His exaltation are found in His resurrection from the dead, ascension to heaven, and His glorification to the Father’s right hand. This was to “make his superiority more fully evident to the creation over which he rules.”[35]

It was God Who “bestowed on Him the name which is above every name” (Phil. 2:9). At this point, we are not told what the name is, laying emphasis upon the status of the name rather than the name itself. “This can only mean that at Christ’s exaltation the process began by which the equality with God that Jesus always possessed would be acknowledged by all creation.”[36]

The ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα (“name which is above every name”) that Jesus has been honored or bestowed with (Phil. 2:9) is the title “Lord,” which Paul does not state until verse 10, when he speaks of every tongue confessing the Lordship of Jesus. One of the most significant elements of Paul’s Christology is his use of the title κύριος where he describes Him as Lord. “The fact that ‘Lord’ is so regularly appended to ‘Jesus Christ,’ particularly in the formal language of letter openings and closings, is a reminder that the kyrious title is what denotes the Lord Jesus Christ’s special status and dignity.”[37] It is a name that reflects His essence. It acknowledges His achievements and responsibilities. It is a name that was given vindication proceeding His death.[38] “There will not be universal salvation; there will be universal confession as to who he is. That means that either we repent and confess him by faith as Lord now, or we will confess him in shame and terror on the last day. But confess him we will.”[39]

As a result of God exalting His Son, every creature, in heaven or on earth, will be on their knees and bowing before the Lord who rules over all realms of existence (Phil. 2:10). This worship that Paul is declaring belongs to the Son of God is only something that belongs to the Lord (Is. 45:23-24). Since He has already identified Jesus as a being that is equal to God, since He is God, then this worship is acceptable. This dignifies Jesus as deity. God, and God alone, is to be worshipped. “The worship of Jesus Christ does not compromise Israel’s monotheistic faith. On the contrary, Jesus Christ the righteous Savior bears the name of the one Lord, Yahweh.”[40] 

Notice how when Christ is worshipped, the Father will be glorified; those things will be done “to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:11). We also notice the doctrine of the trinity from the distinction that is made between two persons of the Godhead. Jesus, as the Second Person of the Godhead (Son), is distinguished between the Father, and the First Person of the Godhead (Phil. 2:11). Though there is a distinction that is made between the two persons, they are equal in essence. “It will be to God’s glory because God is glorified when Christ is glorified. Further, God is glorified because, by His divine example, Jesus showed that God’s true nature is one of giving rather than getting.”[41] 

Though Jesus humbled Himself to the extent of assuming our nature and becoming a servant, it was God who was glorified in the end! We began this hymn with Jesus in His previous exalted state, then began to read of how He did not use His divine nature for Himself but used it for the glory of God and the service of others. He truly did take on our form; He was just like us. He was a nobody who served everybody. But then we sorrowfully noticed the extent of His obedience to God’s will, His death upon the cross. However, even in death, God was still glorified as the Father exalted Him, and all creation worshipped Him. May we love and worship the Lord who humbled Himself and has been exalted, “so that at the name of Jesus” we may willfully “bow” on our knees and “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10-11).

The Kenosis Theory

The most difficult section of this study, in reference to how it has been interpreted more recently, is surrounded by the word ἐκένωσεν (“emptied”). The question that every interpreter faces is, what does it mean that Jesus, who existed in the form of God and is equal with God, “emptied” Himself? Did Jesus, as kenosis theorist suggest, give up some of His divine attributes while on earth? The reasoning behind this theory is concerned with one question, what did Jesus empty Himself of? Those that hold the kenosis theory suggest that Christ emptied Himself by divesting Himself of divinity. He gave up His divine attributes, glory, and power when He took on flesh.[42]

This theory is a more recent development in comparison to the centuries of Christology in church history. The first time this theory appears is in Germany around 1860-1880, and it would then be found years later in England between 1890-1910. It is important to know the history of where ideas first begin to be advocated. This does not necessarily mean that it is incorrect; what it does reveal is that it has not been a popular thought for some time, and it is a more recent view that has appeared. In light of this, it is also unorthodox. As the Westminster Confession states, Jesus, “two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ… His human nature thus united to the divine.”[43] Since the kenosis theory argues that Jesus gave up His divine nature and the orthodox teaching on the incarnation is that the human and divine nature were united, the kenosis theory is therefore unorthodox.

The reason for this being advocated is very difficult to determine at this time.[44] But the only way in which one could enter into such thought is if one has a low view of Christ. When our Christology does not prioritize the divinity and humanity of Christ, and if we remain ignorant or uninformed about the hypostatic union, we will surely come up with a wide variety of theories. It is difficult to think, yet not impossible more so improbable, to hold the belief that for over 1,800 years of Church history, everyone has been incorrect about the incarnation, and their interpretation of this pericope was wrong, especially when the earliest interpreters of this text were native Greek speakers who would thoroughly understand the idiom ἐκένωσεν (“emptied”). They would never dare to say that Jesus emptied Himself of all or any of His divine attributes. They knew that this word would not mean that Christ emptied Himself of something but that it was the assumption of His nature as a humble servant. “The context itself interprets this ‘emptying’ as equivalent to ‘humbling himself’ and taking on a lowly status and position… the emptying includes change of role and status, not essential attributes or nature.”[45] 

Paul exhorted the Philippians to be like Christ, to have “the same mind” (Phil. 2:2) and “attitude” (Phil. 2:5) as Him. This is Paul’s purpose for speaking of the incarnate Son, to illustrate to the Philippians how they can humble themselves by imitating the example of Christ when He assumed our nature and was a servant. He instructed them to “not merely look out for” their “own personal interests” but rather to look out “for the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4). To be a humble servant, one must put others’ interests first, just like Jesus. When saying this, Paul is not telling the Philippians to “give up” something. Since Paul is exhorting them to humble themselves and imitate Christ, we are meant to interpret this text as Christ humbling Himself by putting the interests of others first. When He humbled Himself, it should be understood that Jesus “was willing to give up some of the privilege and status that was his as God.”[46] 

Jesus did not exchange anything when He emptied Himself. When we study this word, we find that all of its occurrences are from the writings of Paul, and every time he uses this term, it is not used literally to “refer to emptying something of qualities it possesses, but figuratively of nullifying something, making it of no account. It is unlikely, then, that the term is used in a literal sense here.”[47] It is meant to convey the self-humbling of God’s servant, Jesus Christ our Lord. I believe that the great theologian, John Calvin said it best, “Christ, indeed, could divest himself of Godhead; but he kept it concealed for a time, that it might not be seen, under the weakness of the flesh. Hence he laid aside his gory in the view of men, not by lessening it, but by concealing it.”[48]

Ultimately, the kenosis theory denies the divinity of Christ while incarnate. This is unacceptable. It is unscriptural and unorthodox. It makes Jesus “something less than fully God”[49] when He was on earth. In fact, if we were to grant this to be true for a moment, what if Jesus gave up His divine nature when He assumed our nature? D.A. Carson notes where this will lead us; he says, “if the Son is stripped of the attributes of deity, it is difficult to see how he can in any meaningful sense still claim to be deity.”[50] If He literally emptied Himself of His divine nature, when did He pick it back up? There is no indication that He would have ever been given His nature back. Jesus may have been exalted by the Father, but that does not mean that He was given His divinity back. Furthermore, as John M. Frame writes, “if Jesus, in his incarnation, divested himself of any essential divine attributes (morphe), as on this view, then during his incarnation (which continues without end!) he was and is not God at all. For God is not God without his essential attributes. But the idea that Jesus was not God when he was in the flesh contradicts a vast amount of biblical data.”[51] Jesus did not empty Himself of His divinity; rather, He took on the nature of humanity in the form of a servant.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Vol. 3. ed. John Bolt. trans. John Vriend. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 2006.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. Calvin’s Commentaries. Vol. 21. trans. John Pringle. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Book House, 1979

Carson, D.A. Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 1996.

Dunn, James D.G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI. W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2006.

Frame, James M. Systematic theology: an introduction to Christian belief. Phillipsburg, NJ. P & R Publishing, 2013.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, IL. IVP Academic, 1990.

Hansen, G. Walter. The Letter to the Philippians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009.

Hawthorne. Gerald F. Philippians. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville, TN. Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. Invitation to Biblical Interpretation. Invitation to Theological Studies Series. Grand Rapids, MI. Kregel Academic, 2021.

Lightfoot. J.B. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. Peabody, MA. Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.

Roper, David L. Philippians. Truth for Today Commentary. ed. Eddie Cloer. Searcy, AR. Resource Publication, 2009.

Schnelle, Udo. Theology of New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 2009.

Schreiner, Thomas R. New Testament theology: magnifying God in Christ. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 2008.

Silva, Moisés. “Philippians.” Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. ed. G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 2007.

Philippians. The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. ed. Kenneth Barker. Chicago, IL. Moody Press, 1988.

Thielman, Frank. Philippians. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1995.

ENDNOTES

[1] In accordance with the Council of Chalcedon and the Athanasian Creed, I affirm that Jesus was true God and true man.

[2] Philippians 2:6-11. All quotations are from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwise noted.

[3] Frank Thielman. “Philippians.” (The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1995), 109

[4] For more information on this debate: Donald Guthrie. “New Testament Introduction.” (Downers Grove, IL. IVP Academic, 1990), 559-561.

[5] Thielman 115.

[6] Udo Schnelle. “Theology of New Testament.” (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 2009), 223

[7] Andreas J. Köstenberger. “Invitation to Biblical Interpretation.” (Invitation to Theological Studies Series. Grand Rapids, MI. Kregel Academic, 2021), 393

[8] Andreas J. Köstenberger. “Invitation to Biblical Interpretation.” (Invitation to Theological Studies Series. Grand Rapids, MI. Kregel Academic, 2021), 57

[9] From this study, we will (1) recognize the historical-cultural background, (2) approach with a sensitivity of the genre, (3) investigate the literary and linguistic composition, and (4) leave with a solid grasp of biblical theology.

[10] For more discussion on this debate: Gerald F. Hawthorne. “Philippians.” (Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville, TN. Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), 81-84. Moisés Silva. “Philippians.”  (The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. ed. Kenneth Barker. Chicago, IL. Moody Press, 1988), 113-116

[11] Moisés Silva. “Philippians.”  (The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. ed. Kenneth Barker. Chicago, IL. Moody Press, 1988), 115

[12] J.B. Lightfoot. “St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians.” (Peabody, MA. Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), 132

[13] G. Walter Hansen. “The Letter to the Philippians.” (Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 134

[14] It must be, because if he was in the form of God, it would be impossible to stop being in the form of God if God is immutable.

[15] Ibid, 133

[16] Frank Thielman. “Philippians.” (The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1995), 116

[17] When Jesus would perform miracles, it was meant to be a testimate to His identity and to bring glory and honor to God. They revealed Christ’s power over nature, affliction, supernatural, and death. After reading these testimonies of Christ’s miracles, we are meant to believe that He is Who He says He is, the Son of God, and that through Him we may have eternal life (John 20:30-31).

[18] There will be more discussion on this towards the end of the paper in the section entitled “The Kenosis Theory.”

[19] D.A. Carson. “Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians.” (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 1996), 45

[20] Paul would write four letters while he was imprisoned in Rome: Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon.

[21] D.A. Carson. “Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians.” (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 1996), 44

[22] The birth of Christ is within the context of the Holy Spirit conceived Christ within in the virgin Mary (Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:35). His conception was supernatural; however, his birth was natural. It was promised in the Old Testament that from a woman (Gen. 3:15), more notably a virgin (Is. 7:14), that the serpent would be defeated, the remedy for sin would be provided, and God would be among us.

[23] If Jesus was truly human, then it would follow that He would possess our nature. Since we, as humans, possess bodies, minds, emotions, and souls, then Jesus, as a result, must have these characteristics since these are essential to the essence of humanity.

[24] Frank c. “Philippians.” (The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1995), 118

[25] Ibid

[26] Thomas R. Schreiner. “New Testament theology: magnifying God in Christ.” (Grand Rapids, MI Baker Academic), 324

[27] Frank Thielman. “Philippians.” (The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1995), 118

[28] Herman. Bavinck. “Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ.” Vol. 3. ed. John Bolt. trans. John Vriend. (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 2006), 407

[29] Udo Schnelle. “Theology of New Testament.” (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 2009), 223

[30] Ibid

[31] Herman. Bavinck. “Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ.” Vol. 3. ed. John Bolt. trans. John Vriend. (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 2006), 406

[32] Frank Thielman. “Philippians.” (The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1995), 119

[33] His entire incarnate life could be referred to His humiliation.

[34] David L. Roper. “Philippians.” (Truth for Today Commentary. ed. Eddie Cloer. Searcy, AR. Resource Publication, 2009), 448

[35] Frank Thielman. “Philippians.” (The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1995), 120

[36] Ibid

[37] James D.G. Dunn “The Theology of Paul the Apostle.” (Grand Rapids, MI. W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2006), 245

[38] Ibid, 246

[39] D.A. Carson. “Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians.” (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 1996), 48

[40] Moisés Silva. “Philippians.” (Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. ed. G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 2007), 838

[41] David L. Roper. “Philippians.” (Truth for Today Commentary. ed. Eddie Cloer. Searcy, AR. Resource Publication, 2009), 449

[42] This “emptying” of Himself was a voluntary self-limitation on His part. Christ did this in order to fulfill His mission of redemption.

[43] Westminster Assembly. “The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition” (Philadelphia. William S. Young, 1851), 53.

[44] Grudem says that it is not because people are persuaded to accept this theory because it is a better understanding of the subject. Instead it is because people are discomfortable with the formulation of Christology. It became difficult for people in this modern era to accept the classical interpretation of the hypostatic union. But the kenosis theory became more widely accepted for some due to the fact that it seemed to help them understand the things that Jesus did incarnate that were like humans. The only way for them to reconcile this was to say that Jesus gave up some, if not all, of His divine attributes.

[45] Ibid, 550

[46] Ibid, 551

[47] Frank Thielman. “Philippians.” (The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1995), 117

[48] John Calvin. “Commentaries on The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians.” (Calvin’s Commentaries. Vol. 21. trans. John Pringle. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Book House, 1979), 56-57

[49] Wayne Grudem. “Systematic Theology.” (Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 550

[50]  D.A. Carson. “Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians.” (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 1996), 45

[51] James M. Frame. “Systematic theology: an introduction to Christian belief.” (Phillipsburg, NJ. P & R Publishing, 2013), 881-882