Philippians 2:5-11

A Description Of The Pathway Of Humility And Selflessness Followed By Jesus Christ, And Its Final Glorious Consequence (Philippians 2:5).

Paul has previously emphasised ‘the Gospel' (Philippians 1:5; Philippians 1:27 (twice)), but now he portrays it in all its fullness. It is that we can and should follow Jesus Christ in denying ourselves, taking up the cross and following Him (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34), entering personally into His humiliation and death, and subsequently into His resurrection (Philippians 3:10). For we must not see in these words simply a call to see Christ as a glorious example. Rather they are a call to have the same mind-set of Christ in following Him fully into the full-time, unstinting service of God and men, through our own humiliation, death and resurrection in Christ. They are a commitment to total self-sacrifice in the name of Christ, through entering into His humiliation and death, which will result in new resurrection life and final glorification. They are a commitment to having ‘the mind of the Spirit' (Romans 8:2). And that is that ‘If Christ dwells in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness', something which will lead on to final resurrection (Romans 8:10).

This is stressed here in Philippians by the words, ‘Let this mind be in you ---' or ‘Be minded in this way'. This is not just a call to consecration, it is a call to constant, unwavering consecration based on the cross. It is a call to enter into the experience of Jesus Christ Himself. It is a call to walk as He walked as we enter spiritually into His death and resurrection (Philippians 3:10; Romans 6:3; Galatians 2:20). And it begins with an emptying of ourselves in an act of total self-surrender to the will of God, so that we receive the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16), the mind of the Spirit (Romans 8:4; Romans 8:9).

Compare how ‘having the mind of the Spirit' in Romans 8:4; Romans 8:9 involves having the Holy Spirit at work within us producing His mind within us. In the same way here having ‘the mind of Christ' involves having Christ within us producing His mind within us as he walks the way of humility and the cross.

The background to this portrayal is found in those verses which speak of our personally and experientially entering into Christ's death and resurrection. Consider, for example, Philippians 3:10; Romans 6:3; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 2:1; 1 Peter 4:1. To enter into the mind of Christ is to ‘reckon ourselves as dead to sin and alive to God in Jesus Christ our Lord' (Romans 6:11). Thereby we are both justified (reckoned as righteous) before God, and sanctified (set apart as holy that we might be made holy) by Him.

It is indeed significant that the greatest portrayal of the true Godhood and manhood of Christ to be found in Scripture (as found here in Philippians) is at the heart of such a call to surrender. It is a reminder that true Christian doctrine, while meanwhile being true in itself, is intended to affect the whole of our lives and to become a part of our living experience. Thus while we can see this as a great Christological statement, it would be a distortion of Paul's purpose in stating it if we saw it only as that. It is rather also a call for all of us to ‘follow in His steps by full participation in the cross and resurrection'. We are to enter into Christ because He has entered into us. In approaching these verses many simply race on to consider what they tell us about our Lord Jesus Christ, ignoring the context. But it is very important to consider that the verses are equally intended to tell us what we ought to be. Thus every line should hammer its way into our hearts and our experience. It is not only describing the path taken by Christ, it is describing also the path that we must be determined to take from this moment on.

However, if we are to so apply it to ourselves, we must first have a thorough understanding of what it involved for Him, and we intend therefore first to examine what it tells us about Jesus Christ, before we then stress its application to ourselves. But in doing so we must urge that the reader does not overlook the main object of the passage.

Philippians 2:6 have been seen as an ancient creed which Paul either himself wrote for the churches, or which he took up from an already well-known creed and fashioned for his purpose. Further than that we cannot say. But there can be no doubt about its credal form and we may paraphrase it as follows;

“Who, essentially existing continually (huparchown) in the unchanging revealed nature (morphe) of God,

Did not count the being on an equality with God a snatching (or ‘a thing to be grasped at'),

But emptied himself, taking the unchanging revealed nature (morphe) of a servant,

Being made in the very likeness of men,

And being found as having a more temporary but real form (schema) as a man,

He humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross.

For which reason also God highly exalted him,

And gave to him the name which is above every name,

That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

Of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is LORD,

To the glory of God the Father.

Our first question then must be, what does this tell us about the essential nature of Jesus Christ? As can be seen the creed divides into two parts, the first describes His deliberate taking of ‘the way down' until He reaches the very lowest point of all at the cross. The second describes the resultant way up until He attains the pinnacle as LORD.

The first statement, “Essentially existing continually (huparchown) in the unchanging revealed nature (morphe) of God”, makes clear His absolute total divinity. The present tense of the verb huparchown makes clear that His existence was a continual one, and was therefore seen as unrestricted by time, while in such a context huparchow can only refer to essential being. Compare its use in 1 Corinthians 11:7 where man ‘is essentially' (huparchown) the image and glory of God, being that from the very beginning, whereas the woman ‘is derivably' (estin) from the image of the man. Morphe thus indicates permanent essential form in contrast with temporary changing form (schema - Philippians 2:8). As men look at the morphe, they see the one who has that ‘morphe of God' as being fully and permanently revealed by it. Morphe reveals the essence. No Greek words could have made Jesus' divine nature more certain. It is a reminder of His words in John 17:5, ‘And now, O Father, glorify Me, with the glory which I had with you before the world was'. Of Him we can say on the basis of these words in Philippians, ‘From everlasting to everlasting, You are God'.

Elsewhere Paul describes this movement from His pre-incarnate state in terms of ‘being rich' and ‘becoming poor', when he declares, ‘You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet He became poor, so that we through His poverty might be made rich' (2 Corinthians 8:9). In this verse ‘was rich' can only signify His pre-incarnate state. So these words in Corinthians can be seen as a summary of the application of Philippians 2:6 to God's people. He did this so that we could become ‘rich'.

Note how this phrase and the one that follows (He was essentially God and yet was not holding on to Godhead) is paralleled in the passage with the fact that He is declared by all creation to be ‘LORD', to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:11). His willing submission is seen as bringing Him final honour, and as bringing glory to His Father.

The second statement, ‘Did not count the being on an equality with God a snatching' (harpagmos), thus an act of robbery, or a thing to be ‘grasped at' or ‘taken advantage of'. Thus it could equally be translated as ‘did not think it robbery to be equal with God'. It is literally ‘did not thing equality with God harpagmos', with harpagmos (a snatching, something which could be snatched for personal advantage, a committing of robbery) indicating something that if grasped would be seen by others as a snatching, or something available to be snatched or taken advantage of, or as an act of robbery. With regard to Him it could not be seen in that way.

Whichever way we take it, it is not saying that Jesus considered equality as a prize which He had not yet obtained. Rather it indicated that it could be seen as something which was His by right so that, if He did decide to bask in it, it would not have been seen as in any way incongruous or unacceptable. Nevertheless it was something that He chose not to do. So the idea is not that He was being commended because, having no right to it, He did not determine to seize it or cling on to it at all costs. It is rather saying that He did have the right, had He wished, to maintain the position and status of equality with God, but in the light of His destiny chose for a time not to do so. He did not snatch at it for personal advantage. To give a lesser illustration, the choice facing every king on his throne is whether to cling on to his exclusiveness, or whether alternatively to descend among his people and be one with them. Jesus chose the latter course to the uttermost.

The third statement, ‘But emptied himself, taking the unchanging revealed nature (morphe) of a servant (doulos)', demonstrates that the king relinquished His exclusiveness, and, descending among His people, even became a slave among them. Notice what the emptying involved. The One Who had the morphe (essential nature) of God took on Him the morphe (essential nature) of a servant. The One Who was by right the Master became the slave. The Creator became the servant of creation. Thereby He ‘emptied Himself' of all that distinguished Him from man, and took on Himself the permanent nature and status of a servant, a status which He still enjoys (Luke 12:37). For He had come to serve (Mark 10:45), and to be the Servant King.

We must, however, beware here of too much speculation. It is so easy theoretically to speak of Him ‘divesting Himself of His Godhood' as though that was something that He could easily do, in the same way as a man divests himself of his clothes at night. But it must be recognised that just as no man does or can divest himself of his essential being, neither could God divest Himself of His essential and eternal Being. In God's case that would indeed be a contradiction in terms, for the essence of God is that He is and always must be eternal. He cannot cease to be what He is. Thus God could not divest Himself of Godhood. This is both a fact of His nature and is also true by definition.

So Jesus did not cease to be God, nor lose His eternal attributes. Rather He ‘emptied Himself' by setting aside the use of His eternal attributes, and the outward status that was His, so that He could live as a man among men, and as a slave of all. He turned His back on His exclusivity, and became like the lowest of the low. How far He subsequently used His own divine powers while on earth, as opposed to being the channel of the powers of the Father and the Spirit, must always be indeterminable, although He did make clear that He had those powers (John 5:21). It is not for man to know or discern the full intricacies of the working of the Godhead, for they are one in threeness. What we do know is that He was ‘made in all points like as we are, and yet without sin' (Hebrews 4:15), walking continually and uniquely in cooperation with His Father (e.g. John 5:17; John 5:19) and with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 10:28). In a very real sense ‘God was there in Christ and was reconciling the world to Himself' in a unique way (2 Corinthians 5:19). This is the very heart of the Gospel.

The fourth statement, ‘Being made in the very likeness of men', indicates that He took on Himself true manhood. It is a contrast with Adam's having been made ‘in the likeness of God' (Genesis 1:26), that is, as having a spiritual nature. It is confirming that just as Adam's spiritual nature was genuine, so is Jesus' human nature genuine, the difference being that Jesus Christ moved ‘downwards' from Godhood to manhood, while Adam moved ‘upwards' from being a living creature to having a spirit. Notice the contrast between His being a servant and His being man. He could have come as a servant without becoming man, and He could have come as man without becoming a servant. What He chose to do was to become both. Compare Mark 10:45, where He ‘came not to be served but to serve', and to perform the greatest of all service in giving His life ‘as a ransom instead of many'. The latter was, of course, only possible because He was God. No finite man would have been sufficient to cover the cost of the whole of redeemed mankind.

The fifth statement, ‘And being found as having a real but temporary form (schema) as a man', again indicates His essential and genuine manhood. We translate ‘having a temporary form' because it is in contrast to His permanent form as God. Nevertheless it is still saying that He was revealed as man precisely because He was man. We may translate as, ‘having the appearance of man' as long as it is recognised that the appearance was seen as demonstrating the underlying reality. He ‘appeared as a man', NOT ‘He appeared to be a man'. ‘Schema' does not just mean outward appearance. It indicates a real form which reveals the reality beneath, even though of a temporary nature as compared with morphe which is more permanent. Morphe is the ‘form' that reveals the essential being, schema is the form that the morphe takes at a particular period in time. Compare how a man is always essentially ‘man', but may take up different ‘forms' (schema) throughout life such as infant, child, teenager, adult, and so on. Thus Jesus is God throughout all His existence, but He becomes man at one stage in His existence, remaining so permanently from then on until the final end, although moving from pre-resurrection to post-resurrection manhood meanwhile. As God He sits on His Father's throne. As man He sits on His own throne at God's right hand (Revelation 3:21). Note how Paul avoids using the word morphe of His manhood. That might have been to suggest that having become man He was somehow no longer God. But that was not true. In His morphe He was God, but he had taken the form (schema) of man. He was both God and man.

The sixth statement, ‘He humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross', makes absolutely clear His real manhood. He could only die because He had truly become man, for His Godhood could not die. In this regard we can compare how in a man his body may die, but in one way or another his spirit lives on. In the same way the body of Jesus died, but His Godhood lived on. The stress here, however, is on the fact that in dying as a man He also fulfilled His position as a servant (doulos), and followed in the way of obedience. This emphasis on obedience must not be overlooked. Full submission and obedience as a human being was central to what He had come to do (Romans 5:19; Hebrews 5:8; Hebrews 10:5. Being obedient He humbly took the lowest way and died the death of a slave (doulos). Crucifixion was looked on as the way of executing the lowest of the low (slaves and insurrectionists). Thus He became the ultimate servant. We can compare here the description of the Servant in Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12 who also gave His life as a ransom and as a guilt offering for many (Isaiah 53:10). And while LXX uses pais for servant, doulos is used in parallel to it in other Greek versions and in sources used by the New Testament writers (pais and doulos have been shown to be largely, although not completely, interchangeable). Here Jesus was fulfilling the prophecy of the Coming Servant to the utmost. Here we have reached the nadir of His descent into manhood, as He demonstrated through suffering and death that it was true manhood. Notice how these final phrases summarise the depths to which He was willing to go in three emphatic stages. ‘He humbled Himself (compare Isaiah 53:7 a) -- and became obedient to death (Isaiah 53:7 b) -- even death on a cross'. He humbled Himself as the servant of all, He obediently accepted the path of death (only One Who was God could choose to die, compare John 10:11; John 10:15; John 10:17, while only One Who was man could die), and He finally and most excruciatingly actually suffered death on a cross. In other words in this God was revealed as both true servant who will face up to the fullest demands of servitude, and willing sacrifice Who will offer up Himself, and in this we get to the very centre of the heart of God.

We cannot, however, leave this statement without drawing attention to one more thing which to Paul was central to the Gospel, and that is that to a Jew ‘death on a cross' was the utmost in shame because it indicated being under the curse of God. To the Jew it was abhorrent. No greater humiliation could be conceived. And in Galatians 3:10 Paul takes up the idea in order to illustrate how by His death on the cross Jesus Christ took on Himself the curse that was on all men for breaking the Law. ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, for it is written, cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree' (Galatians 3:13).

The seventh statement begins the second stanza which expresses what would result from His obedience and humiliation. ‘For which reason also God highly exalted him'. ‘For which reason' stresses the connection with what has gone before. It was because of what Jesus chose to do, and because of the pathway of obedience that He was willing to take (‘Father, not My will but yours be done' - Luke 22:42), going down even to the lowest possible level, that ‘God highly exalted Him'. What was involved in that is described in what follows. He was to be lifted to the highest possible position. Compare Isaiah 52:13, where this was intended to be the destiny of the Coming Servant of God, and Isaiah 57:15 where it is God Who is ‘the high and lofty One'. Servanthood and Godhood combine for the One who had the form of both God and servant. Nor must we overlook the fact that this exaltation by the Father was necessary as a full vindication of Jesus. By this it was being made clear that far from Jesus' humiliation reflecting the Father's displeasure, it was necessarily (‘for this reason') followed by vindication, indicating that what He had suffered had all been part of a necessary purpose within the will of God.

The eighth statement, ‘And gave to him the name which is above every name,' raises the question as to what is ‘the Name above every Name'. To a Jew there could be only one answer to that question, it was YHWH (‘the One Who is'), which translates into Greek as ‘LORD', the Name emphasised by God to Moses in the form ‘I am' (Exodus 3:13), the Name of God from earliest times (Genesis 4:26), the Name that Jesus applied to Himself in John 8:58 as the I AM, for YHWH was what was constantly indicated in the Old Testament when ‘the Name' was spoken of. And this Name was to be ‘given' to Jesus. Not because He had not enjoyed it before, but because He had relinquished it on becoming man. He had deliberately chosen to be reduced in status. The giving of a name indicated the approval of the giver. Thus God the Father was by this indicating His approval of the return of the Son to ‘the glory which I had with You before the world was' (John 17:5) on equal terms with Himself.

A less careful consideration of the passage might suggest to some that the Name above every Name was ‘Jesus', but a moment's thought will demonstrate that this could not be so. It is true that in our modern day the name Jesus is in many parts of the world seen as distinctively applying only to Jesus Christ, and such people might thus be prepared to give it this honour. But that is not true, for example, in South America where many males are given the name Jesus, and certainly in 1st century AD the name Jesus (Hebrew - Joshua) was very popular among Jews. It could not have been described therefore as a unique ‘Name above every Name'. It was rather a name borne by tens of thousands of people. In another context ‘the name of Jesus' could have been seen as signifying ‘what Jesus essentially is', but in this context a specific Name is required (the Name above every Name). Another possibility might have been the Name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14). But there is no reason specifically why that should be called ‘the Name above every Name, and Paul clearly expected it to be understood. Everything points to that Name being YHWH.

But what other grounds have we for thinking that ‘the Name above every Name' is the Name of YHWH? A further reason is that the creed goes on to say that it was the Name at which ‘every knee would bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD to the glory of God the Father'. This is partly a citation from Isaiah 45:22 where the words were specifically spoken of YHWH. It was YHWH to Whom every knee would bow, and every tongue would swear. Thus Jesus Christ is here seen as receiving the honour due to YHWH in the very way described in the prophets.

The third reason is because it is specifically stated in Philippians 2:11 that Jesus Christ is to be confessed as ‘LORD'. Now ‘LORD' was the Greek word which was used to translate the Hebrew name YHWH in the Greek Old Testament, and was thus the Name of God. Thus, combined with the fact that YHWH was to the Jews unquestionably ‘the Name above every Name', the Name which must never be pronounced (which was why LXX used ‘Lord'), there can really be no doubt that this was the Name to be given to Jesus. This is confirmed by verses such as 1 Corinthians 8:6, where we read ‘for us there is One GOD, the Father --- and One LORD, Jesus Christ --'. Here Paul basically equates the God, the Father and our Lord, Jesus Christ, for to the Greeks ‘one LORD' would undoubtedly have indicated divinity just as ‘one GOD' did (1 Corinthians 8:5), while, as we have seen, to the Jew ‘LORD' in a divine context indicated the Name of YHWH. It is a reminder that when Jesus is called LORD in a context with the divine in mind it signifies that He is YHWH just as the Father is God and YHWH.

This fact is further confirmed by the fact that in Isaiah 45:21 we read, ‘Was it not I, YHWH? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Saviour, there is none besides me.' There YHWH is described as the only Saviour. It is thus all the more significant that Jesus is regularly spoken of as the Saviour, and even as ‘God and Saviour' (Titus 2:14; 2 Peter 1:1), and we should further note how in Titus 2:10 to Titus 3:7 ‘God our Saviour' and ‘Jesus Christ our Saviour' are spoken of intermittently in parallel terms. Note also how in 1 Timothy 1:1 ‘God our saviour' is paralleled with ‘Jesus Christ our hope', both conveying the same basic idea, that they are our Saviour and our Hope for the future.

The ninth statement is ‘That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow.' As we have seen the citation is from the Old Testament where every knee was to bow to YHWH the Saviour. So the clear thought is that Jesus will receive the honour due to YHWH, and that YHWH is ‘the name of Jesus' given to Him by God. The picture is of a suzerain lord before whom his people come to pay fealty and yield their submission (compare Revelation 5:8; Revelation 5:12). It would have a particularly encouraging significance for the Philippians if they had already had to face challenges to bow the knee to Caesar and to own him as ‘Lord', that is, as their god. Here then was the antithesis of that, that one day their persecutors themselves would have to bow the knee to Jesus Christ and admit that it is He Who is Lord. It must have given the Philippian Christians a great sense of security.

The tenth statement is, ‘Of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth.' The description is all inclusive. All heavenly beings, all created things on earth, and all the dead will bow the knee to Jesus, owning Him as LORD. None are excluded. It is absolute victory. ‘Things under the earth' indicates the bodies of men which have been buried and have not yet risen.

The eleventh statement is, ‘And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is LORD'. Here was the ultimate accolade, the confessing of Him as ‘LORD', in other words as YHWH, the Creator and Lord of Heaven and earth. Note the description ‘Jesus Christ' which differentiates Him from any other Jesus. This confirms that the Name above every Name was not simply the name ‘Jesus', because that name is seen as having to be qualified. Confessing as ‘lord' was the way in which men swore fealty to their rulers. Here that fealty is being sworn to Jesus Christ as Lord by all in Heaven above, in the earth beneath, and in the underworld below this earth where the bodies of the dead await the resurrection. He is seen as Lord of all.

The twelfth and final statement is ‘to the glory of God the Father'. This is an indication of the absolute unity of the Triune God. Jesus being given the highest honour and acclaimed as YHWH is not seen as detracting from the Father but as giving added glory to the Father as the Son is restored to the glory which He had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5). Indeed this was all a part of the eternal plan which was now in process of fulfilment, bringing increased glory to the whole Godhead. All things were being gathered together in Christ so that ultimately God might be all in all (Ephesians 1:10; 1 Corinthians 15:24; 1 Corinthians 15:28).

It also answered the question of anyone who asked, ‘if Jesus Christ was declared to be YHWH would that not detract from the glory of the Father?' ‘Never!' Paul replies. ‘Rather it adds to His glory.'

The Application.

Having first examined what the passage tells us about the status and significance of our LORD Jesus Christ we must now consider the ideas in their wider context, for to Paul this was not just a theological statement, important though it was as that, but something into which each Christian must enter as a part of the whole church. It was reinforcing the call to all of them to humility and oneness in Philippians 2:1.