He Emptied Himself

Have this attitude in yourselves, which was also in Christ Jesus, 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, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. – Php. 2:5-8

By means of a fourfold incentive Paul has urged the Philippians to be obedient to the threefold directive, namely, that they should manifest to one another the spirit of oneness, lowliness, and helpfulness (Php_2:1-4). In order to underscore this exhortation and to indicate the source of the strength needed to live up to it, he now points to the example of Christ, who with a view to saving others renounced himself, and thus attained to glory.

John Calvin has given an excellent summary of the present paragraph and has indicated its proper divisions into two parts or “members,” (a. verses Php_2:5-8; b. verses Php_2:9-11) and the reason for both and for each. Says he: “The humility to which he had exhorted them in words, he now commends to them by the example of Christ. There are, however, two members, in the first of which he invites us to imitate Christ because this is the rule of life; in the second he allures us to it because this is the road by which we attain true glory.”

The Example of Christ

Who with a View to Saving Others Renounced Himself

Php 2:5-8 

Invitation to Imitate Christ because this is the rule of life

Php_2:5. Says Paul, In your inner being continue to set your mind on this, which (is) also in Christ Jesus. The apostle desires that the Philippians keep on cherishing the disposition described in verses Php_2:1-4, a disposition that also characterizes Christ Jesus. This admonition is in line with many similar rules that urge us to follow the example of him who is the Anointed Savior. To be sure, there is an area in which Christ cannot be our example. We cannot copy his redemptive acts. We cannot suffer and die vicariously. It was he, he alone, who was able to satisfy the divine justice and bring his people to glory. But with the help of God we can and should copy the spirit that was basic to these acts. The attitude of self-renunciation with a view to helping others should be present and should grow in the life of each disciple. And that obviously is the point here (see verses Php_2:1-4). Oneness, lowliness, and helpfulness were manifested by our Savior (Joh_10:30; Mat_11:29; Mat_20:28). These should characterize his disciples also. In that sense there is truth in those simple lines:

“Oh, dearly, dearly has he loved,
And we must love him too;
And trust in his redeeming blood,
And try his works to do.”

Other passages which bring out the idea that Jesus is our Example are such as the following: Mat_11:29; Joh_13:12-17; Joh_13:34; Joh_21:19; 1Co_11:1; 1Th_1:6, 1Pe_2:21-23; 1Jn_2:6. It is exactly because Jesus is our Lord that he can be our Example. If he is not our Example, faith is barren, orthodoxy dead.

Php_2:6-7. Accordingly, the apostle continues: who, though existing in the form of God. … But what is meant by existing in God’s form? In the paragraph under study two words — morphe (μορφή), that is, form, and schema (σχῆμα), that is, fashion — occur in close connection: “existing in the form of God … recognized in fashion as a human being. Now this very transition from form to fashion would seem to point to a difference in meaning. Besides, from several New Testament passages in which one or the other or both of these words occur, generally as component elements in verbs, it is evident that in these given contexts morphe or form refers to the inner, essential, and abiding nature of a person or thing, while schema or fashion points to his or its external, accidental, and fleeting bearing or appearance.

What Paul is saying then, here in Php_2:6, is that Christ Jesus had always been (and always continues to be) God by nature, the express image of the Deity. The specific character of the Godhead as this is expressed in all the divine attributes was and is his eternally. Cf. Col_1:15, Col_1:17 (also Joh_1:1; Joh_8:58; Joh_17:24).

This thought is in harmony with what the apostle teaches elsewhere: 2Co_4:4; Col_1:15; Col_2:9 (and cf. Heb_1:3).

A closely related question, namely, “Is Paul speaking here in Php_2:5-8 about the pre-incarnate or about the incarnate Christ?” is not difficult to answer. The two must not be separated. The One who in his pre-incarnate state exists in a manner equal to God is the same divine Person who in his incarnate state becomes obedient even to the extent of death, yes, death by a cross. Naturally, in order to show the greatness of our Lord’s sacrifice, the apostle’s starting-point is the Christ in his pre-incarnate state. Then follows of necessity Christ in his incarnate state. This strongly reminds one of 2Co_8:9, “Though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor.” One might compare this transition to what is found in the Gospel of John, Chapter 1:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God. He himself was in the beginning face to face with God … And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us as in a tent, and we beheld his glory.”

Thus, though existing in the form of God, he did not count his existence-in-a-manner-equal-to-God something to cling to but emptied himself.

He did not regard it as something that must not slip from his grasp. On the contrary, he … and here follow the two words that have given rise to much discussion and dispute: emptied himself.

The question is: of what did Christ Jesus empty himself? Surely not of his existence “in the form of God.” He never ceased to be the Possessor of the divine nature. “He could not do without his deity in his state of humiliation… Even in the midst of his death he had to be the mighty God, in order by his death to conquer death” (R. C. H. Lenski).

The text reads as follows:

“Christ Jesus … though existing in the form of God, did not count his existence-in-a-manner-equal-to-God something to cling to, but emptied himself.”

The natural inference is that Christ emptied himself of his existence-in-a-manner-equal-to-God.

On the basis of Scripture we can particularize as follows:

He gave up his favorable relation to the divine law

While he was still in heaven no burden of guilt rested upon him. But at his incarnation he took this burden upon himself and began to carry it away (Joh_1:29). And so he, the spotlessly righteous One, who never committed any sin at all, “was made to be sin in our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2Co_5:21). This is basic to all the rest.

He gave up his riches

“… because for your sake he became poor, though being rich, in order that you through his poverty might become rich” (2Co_8:9).

He gave up everything, even himself, his very life (Mat_20:28; Mar_10:45; Joh_10:11). So poor was he that he was constantly borrowing: a place for his birth (and what a place!), a house to sleep in, a boat to preach from, an animal to ride on, a room in which to institute the Lord’s Supper, and finally a tomb to be buried in. Moreover, he took upon himself a debt, a very heavy debt. His debt, voluntarily assumed, was the heaviest that was ever incurred by anyone (Isa_53:6). One so deeply in debt is surely poor!

He gave up his heavenly glory

Very keenly did he feel this. That is why, in the night before his crucifixion, out of the very depths of his great heart he uttered the prayer: “And now Father, glorify thou me in thine own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world existed” (Joh_17:4).

From the infinite sweep of eternal delight in the very presence of his Father he willingly descended into this realm of misery, in order to pitch his tent for a while among sinful men. He, before whom the seraphim covered their faces (Isa_6:1-3; Joh_12:41), the Object of most solemn adoration, voluntarily descended to the realm where he was “despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” (Isa_53:3).

He gave up his independent exercise of authority

In fact, he became a servant, the servant, and “even though he was a Son, learned obedience by what he suffered” (Heb_5:8). He said: “I do not seek my own will, but the will of him who sent me” (Joh_5:30; cf. Joh_5:19; Joh_14:24).
Impatiently we voice an objection, namely, “But if Christ Jesus actually gave up his favorable relation to the divine law, riches, glory, and independent exercise of authority, how could he still be God?”

The answer must be that he, who was and is and ever remains the Son of God, laid aside all these things not with reference to his divine nature but with reference to his human nature, which he voluntarily took upon himself and in which he suffered all these indignities.

In his Commentary on this passage Calvin reasons as follows: It was the Son of God himself who emptied himself, though he did it only with reference to his human nature. This great Reformer uses the illustration: “Man is mortal.” Here the word “Man” refers to man himself, man in his entirety, yet man’s mortality is ascribed to the body only, not to the soul.

Further than this we cannot go. We stand before an adorable mystery, a mystery of power, wisdom, and love!

Php_2:7. It has become clear by this time that the clause, “He emptied himself” derives its meaning not only from the words which immediately precede it (namely, “he did not count his existence-in-a-manner-equal-to-God something to cling to”) but also from those that follow, namely, as he took on the form of a servant. In fact, this clause, “he emptied himself,” “includes all the details of humiliation which follow, and is defined by these” (Vincent). In the likeness of a human being taking on the form of a servant, so that he was recognized in looks and manners as a human being, humbling himself and thus becoming obedient to the extent of death; yes, death by a cross — all this is included in “he emptied himself.” When he laid aside his existence-in-a-manner-equal-to-God, he in that very act took upon himself its very opposite (that is, as to his human nature).

The type of reasoning which we have here in verses Php_2:6-8 is not at all similar to that which goes on in the mind of a child who is building with blocks, each block being a unit in itself, separate from all the rest. On the contrary, it is telescopic reasoning: the various sections of the telescope, present from the start, are gradually drawn out or extended so that we see them.

Hence, he emptied himself by taking the form of a servant. “He emptied himself by taking something to himself” (Müller). Moreover, when he became a servant, he was not play-acting. On the contrary, in his inner nature (the human nature, of course) he became a servant, for we read, “He took on the form of a servant.” (Read what was said previously with respect to the meaning of the word form in distinction from fashion.) This is great news. It is, in fact, astounding. He, the sovereign Master of all, becomes servant of all. And yet, he remains Master. The text cannot mean that “he exchanged the form of God for the form of a servant,” as is so often asserted. He took the form of servant while he retained the form of God! It is exactly that which makes our salvation possible and achieves it.

It was, moreover, the form of a servant — and not that of a slave — which he took upon himself. From the very beginning of his incarnation he was the thoroughly consecrated, wise and willing servant pictured by Isaiah (Isa_42:1-9; Isa_49:1-9; Isa_50:4-11; and Isa. 52:13-53:12), the spontaneously acting servant who resolutely fulfills his mission, so that with reference to him Jehovah said: “Behold, my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delights.”

The passage under study has as its starting-point the very beginning of this servant-career, the point where Christ took the form of a servant. But it implies, of course, that he remained servant to the very end of that career. Of his earthly mission it has been truly said, “The only person in the world who had the right to assert his rights waived them” (Wuest). It was Christ Jesus who said, “I am in the midst of you as one that serves” (Luk_22:27). In the very act of being servant to men (Mat_20:28; Mar_10:45), he was accomplishing his mission as servant of Jehovah. We see him, Jesus, the Lord of glory … with a towel around his waist, pouring water into a basin, washing the feet of his disciples, and then saying to them:

“Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say (this) correctly, for (that is what) I am. If therefore, I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash each other’s feet, for I have given you an example, in order that just as I did to you, so also you should do” (Joh_13:12-15).

And that is exactly Paul’s point. He is saying to the Philippians and to us, “Follow the example of your Lord” (see verse Php_2:5).

Never did any servant serve with more unswerving loyalty, unwavering devotion, and unquestioning obedience than did this one.

Paul continues, and became like human beings (or more literally, “in the likeness of human beings having become”). When Christ took the form of a servant, he, who from all eternity had the divine nature and who continues to have it unto all eternity, took upon himself the human nature. Accordingly, the divine Person of the Christ now has two natures, the divine and the human (Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14; Gal_4:4; 1Ti_3:16). But he assumed that human nature not in the condition in which Adam had it before the fall, nor in the condition in which Christ himself now has it in heaven, nor in the condition in which he will reveal it on the day of his glorious return, but in its fallen and therefore weakened condition, burdened with “the results” of sin (Isa_53:2).

Surely, that human nature was real, and in so far just like that of other human beings (Heb_2:17). But though it was real, it differed in two respects from that of other men:

(1) His, and only his, human nature from its very conception was joined in personal union with the divine nature (Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14); and

(2) Though it was burdened with the results of sin (hence, subject to death), it was not sinful in itself. Therefore this passage “in the likeness of human beings having become,” and the similar one, “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom_8:3) must be read in the light of Heb_4:15, “One who was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” There was likeness, similarity. There was no absolute, unqualified identity.

Php_2:8 Paul continues, So, recognized in fashion as a human being.

When Jesus had come into the flesh, how did men regard him? What did they find him to be? The answer is: in their estimation he was a human being, just like themselves in ever so many respects:

Had they come into this world through the natural process of birth? So had he (Luk_2:7). (The mystery of the virgin-birth they did not fathom.)

Had they been wrapped in swaddling clothes (cf. Eze_16:4)? So had he (Luk_2:7).

Had they grown up? So had he (Luk_1:80).

Did they have brothers and sisters? So did he (Mat_13:56).

Had they learned a trade? So had he (Mar_6:3).

Were they at times hungry, thirsty, weary, asleep? So was he (Mat_4:2; Joh_4:6-7; Mar_4:38).

Were they ever grieved or angry? So was he (Mar_3:5).

Did they weep at times? So did he (Joh_11:35).

Did they rejoice, for example, at weddings? He too attended a wedding (Joh_2:1-2).

Were they destined to die? So was he, though in his case that death was physical, eternal, voluntary, and vicarious (Joh_10:11), and this they did not understand.

In his entire fashion, therefore, he was recognized as a human being. He had the looks and outward bearing of men. His way of dress, customs and manners resembled those of his contemporaries.

To a considerable extent they were right in so regarding him. Accordingly, it, is open to doubt whether the following very familiar lines really tell the truth:

“The cattle are lowing, the Baby awakes,
But little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes.”

Should it not he assumed that a normal baby cries at times, but that in the case of Jesus this crying, too, like everything else, was “without sin”?

Better are the words composed by Susanne C. Umlauf, of which I shall quote only two stanzas:

“Hast thou been hungry, child of mine?
I, too, have needed bread;
For forty days I tasted naught
Till by thy angels fed.
Hast thou been thirsty? On the cross
I suffered thirst for thee;
I’ve promised to supply thy need,
My child, come unto me.

“When thou art sad and tears fall fast
My heart goes out to thee,
For I wept o’er Jerusalem —
The place so dear to me:
And when I came to Lazarus’ tomb
I wept — my heart was sore;
I’ll comfort thee when thou dost weep,
Till sorrows all are o’er.”

But though they were right in recognizing his humanity, they were wrong in two respects: they rejected a. his sinless humanity and b. his deity. And so, though his entire life, particularly also his mighty words and acts, implied the command, “Veiled in flesh the godhead see!” yet, by and large, they disavowed his claims and hated him all the more because of them (Joh_1:11, Joh_5:18, Joh_12:37). They heaped scorn upon him, so that “he was despised and rejected of men” (Isa_53:3).

The amazing fact is, however, that “when he was reviled, he reviled not again” (1Pe_2:23), but he humbled himself. (For the meaning of the concept humblemindedness see on verse Php_2:3.) From the very beginning of his incarnation he bowed himself under the yoke. Implied in this act of humbling himself is: and became obedient, namely, to God the Father, as verse Php_2:9 clearly indicates (note, “Therefore God,” etc.). Moreover, his obedience knew no bounds: even to the extent of death. In that death he, functioning both as Priest and Guilt-offering, gave himself as an expiatory sacrifice for sin (Isa_53:10). Hence, this death was not just an ordinary death. Says Paul, yes death by a cross.

Such a death was very painful.

It has been well said that the person who was crucified “died a thousand deaths.”

It was also very shameful.

Compelling the condemned person to carry his own cross, expelling him from the city to a place “outside the gate,” and there executing him by means of a death which, as we learn from Cicero, was considered the death of a slave (Actio in Verrem. i. 5, 66; Oratio pro P. Quinto viii. 4), was surely shameful. See Joh_19:31; 1Co_1:23. “Let the very name of the cross be far removed not only from the body of a Roman citizen, but even from his thoughts, his eyes, his ears” (Cicero, Pro Rabirio 5). Hence, being a Roman, Paul, even should he after all he sentenced to die, would in all probability not have to die such a shameful death! Did he think of that when, with reference to his Master’s death, he wrote, “yes, death by a cross”?

It was accursed.

“He that is hanged is accursed of God” (Deu_21:23). And if this was true even with respect to a dead body, how much more with reference to a living person! Christ Jesus humbled himself, becoming obedient to a death whereby he vicariously bore the curse of God (Gal_3:13). See also NTC on John, Vol. II, pp. 425-427.

Thus, while he was hanging on that cross, from below Satan and all his hosts assailed him; from round about men heaped scorn upon him; from above God dropped upon him the pallor of darkness, symbol of the curse; and from within there arose the bitter cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Into this hell, the hell of Calvary, Christ descended.

The underlying thought of verses Php_2:5-8 is this: Surely, if Christ Jesus humbled himself so very deeply, you Philippians should be constantly willing to humble yourselves in your own small way. Surely, if he became obedient to the extent of death, yes death by a cross, you should become increasingly obedient to the divine directions, and should accordingly strive more and more to achieve in your lives the spirit of your Master, that is, the spirit of oneness, lowliness, and helpfulness, which is pleasing to God.

- William Henriksen