This paragraph is the most important one in the epistle and the most difficult to interpret.
"By anyone's reckoning, 2:6-11 constitutes the single most significant block of material in Philippians."58
2:5 Paul introduced an illustration of what he meant, namely the example of Jesus Christ. He wanted his readers to remember that the very qualities he had been advocating were observable in the Lord Jesus. This verse introduces one of the great Christological passages in the New Testament (vv. 5-11).
". . . the secret of Christian joy is found in the way the believer thinks--his attitudes."59
2:6 This verse begins a section of exalted prose that continues through verse 11.60The parallels in thought and action between these verses, which describe Jesus' humility, and John 13:3-17, which records Jesus washing His disciples feet, are striking.
The Son of God's preincarnate state is quite clearly in view here (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9). He existed in the form of God. The word translated "form"(NASB) or "nature"(NIV, Gr. morphe) refers to outward appearance that accurately reveals the inward nature. It does not mean outward appearance that changes as a result of time and circumstances (Gr. schema, v. 7).
"To say that he was existing in the essential metaphysical form of God is tantamount to saying that he possessed the nature of God."61
The verb translated "existed"(NASB) or "being"(NIV) is in the present tense in the Greek text and points to the Lord's continuing existence with the full nature of God. His full deity is not something Jesus Christ gave up or laid aside when He became a man at the Incarnation.
"This, then, is what it means for Christ to be in the "form"of God'; it means to be equal with God,' not in the sense that the two phrases are identical, but that both point to the same reality. Together, therefore, they are among the strongest expressions of Christ's deity in the NT. This means further that equality with God' is not that which he desired which was not his, but precisely that which was alwayshis."62
The Lord Jesus' equality with God did change in some sense, however. The manner in which He existed as God changed when He became a man. He willingly adopted a manner of existence that was different from His father's, namely that of the God-man.
"Our doctrine of Christ's humiliation will be better understood if we put it midway between two pairs of erroneous views, making it the third of five. The list would be as follows: (1) Gess: The Logos gave up all divine attributes; (2) Thomasius: The Logos gave up relative attributes only [i.e., omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence]; (3) True View: The Logos gave up the independent exercise of divine attributes; (4) Old Orthodoxy: Christ gave up the use of divine attributes; (5) Anselm: Christ acted as if he did not possess divine attributes."63
". . . while it is not true that Christ in the incarnation surrendered the relative attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience, He did embark upon a program where it was necessary to submit to a voluntary nonuse of these attributes in order to obtain His objectives. Christ does not seem to have ever exercised His divine attributes on His own behalf though they had abundant display in His miracles. This is qualified to some extent by the fact that His omniscience is revealed in His prophetic ministry, but He did not use His divine knowledge to make His own path easier. He suffered all the inconveniences of His day even though in His divine omniscience He had full knowledge of every human device ever conceived for human comfort. In His human nature there was growth in knowledge, but this must not be construed as a contradiction of His divine omniscience. Limitations in knowledge as well as limitations in power are related to the human nature and not to the divine. His omnipotence was manifested in many ways and specifically in the many miracles which He did, in some cases by the power of the Holy Spirit and in others on the basis of His own word of authority. Here again He did not use His omnipotence to make His way easy and He knew the fatigue of labor and travelling by walking. Though in His divine nature He was omnipresent, He did not use this attribute to avoid the long journeys on foot nor was He ever seen in His ministry in more than one place at a time. In a word, He restricted the benefits of His attributes as they pertained to His walk on earth and voluntarily chose not to use His powers to lift Himself above ordinary human limitations.
"The act of kenosis as stated in Philippians 2 may therefore be properly understood to mean that Christ surrendered no attribute of Deity, but that He did voluntarily restrict their independent use in keeping with His purpose of living among men and their limitations."64
"Voluntarily he chose not to use some of his divine attributes during his earthly pilgrimage (Matt. 24:36)."65
"It seems to me that even evangelicals blunt the point of the passage by missing its principal emphasis as suggested above and focusing on trying to delineate what limitations Christ experienced in His earthly state. To be sure, the God-Manexperienced limitations; but equally sure the God-Man evidenced the prerogatives of Deity. Therefore, conservatives suggest that the kenosismeans the veiling of Christ's preincarnate glory, which is true only in a relative sense (see Matt. 17:1-8; John 1:14; 17:5). Or they suggest it means the voluntary nonuse of some of His attributes of Deity. This was true on occasion but certainly not always throughout His life (see [John] 1:48; 2:24; 16:30). Neither did He only do His miracles always in the power of the Spirit, but sometimes in His own power (Luke 22:51; John 18:6). So if our understanding of kenosiscomes from Philippians 2, we should get our definition of the concept there. And that passage does not discuss at all the question of how or how much Christ's glory was veiled. Nor does it say anything about the use or restriction of divine attributes. It does say that the emptying concerned becoming a man to be able to die. Thus the kenosismeans leaving His preincarnate position and taking on a servant-humanity."66
Jesus Christ did not regard His former manner of existence something that He wanted to hold onto. In view of the context this seems to be the correct interpretation. Another possibility is that He did not need to grasp after equality with God since He already possessed it. A third alternative is that He did not grasp equality with God prematurely as Adam did but waited for the Father to bestow it on Him after His passion.
Jesus was willing to alter His behavior for the welfare of others, and in this He is an example of submissiveness for us.
". . . his true nature is characterized not by selfish grabbing, but by an open-handed giving . . ."67
2:7 Instead of maintaining His former manner of existence our Lord "emptied Himself"(NASB), "made himself nothing"(NIV), or "laid aside His privileges"(NASB margin, Gr. ekenosen).68What did He lay aside? It was not His deity. Jesus did not cease to be God when He became a man. This is clear from the context as well as from other Scriptures (e.g., John 10:30; Col. 1:15-20; et al.). He did not lay aside His dependence on the Father either. As the terms "Son"and "Father"reflect, the Son was always dependent on His Father within the administrative order of the Godhead.
Taking humanity imposed certain restrictions on Jesus Christ including those involved in possessing a physical body and a human, though not a sinful, nature. He laid aside the freedom that His former manner of existence afforded Him when He became a man. He became dependent on the Father in a different sense than had been true formerly. However, Paul did not say that Jesus emptied Himself of something. He simply said that He emptied Himself, He poured Himself out.69
Paul described Jesus' self-emptying as taking the form of a bond-servant. "Taking"(Gr. labon) does not imply an exchange but adding something. The Lord did not lay aside the form of God. He did not cease to be God. He added the "form"of man. The same Greek word, morphe, occurs in verse 6 where it describes outward appearance that accurately reveals inward nature. Earlier Paul described himself and Timothy as bond-servants (1:1). Bond-servants are not just men. They are servants. The Messianic title "Servant of the Lord"reflects this humility and condescension of our Savior.
Furthermore Jesus Christ became in the likeness of men. "Likeness"(Gr. homoiomati) does not mean exactness (Gr. eikon). Even though Jesus had a fully human nature, that nature was not sinful. Every other human being has a sinful human nature. Moreover Jesus had a divine nature as well as a human nature.
As an example to the readers, this verse is an advance on the previous one. It shows that Jesus Christ was not just willing to change His behavior for others, but He really did so by becoming a man who was a servant.
2:8 Jesus Christ appeared to other people just as any other man. This was another mark of His humility. There were no visual clues in His appearance that He was sinless or divine.
". . . having said that Christ came in the likeness' of human beings (v. 7b), Paul now moves the narrative on to its next point, by saying he appeared' in a way that was clearly recognizable as human. Together the two phrases accent the reality of his humanity, just as the first two phrases in the preceding sentence accent his deity."70
He further humbled Himself by becoming obedient to His Father's will to the point of laying down His life in death (cf. Heb. 5:8).
Beyond that He was willing to undergo death by crucifixion, a form of execution that was without equal in its pain and humiliation.
"It is difficult after sixteen centuries and more during which the cross has been a sacred symbol, to realize the unspeakable horror and loathing which the very mention or thought of the cross provoked in Paul's day. The word cruxwas unmentionable in polite Roman society . . .; even when one was being condemned to death by crucifixion the sentence used an archaic formula which served as a sort of euphemism: arbori infelici suspendito, hang him on the unlucky tree' (Cicero, ibid. 13)."71
The Phoenicians and Persians practiced crucifixion before the Greeks and Romans adopted it. It was a form of execution from which Roman citizens were exempt. Only the worst criminals among the slaves and foreigners underwent crucifixion.72Hanging on a tree was a sign to the Jews that the person so disgraced was under the curse of God (Deut. 21:23; cf. Gal. 3:13).
The advance on Christ's example in this verse is the extent to which He was willing to go in humble submissiveness in obedience to His Father's will. All believers should be willing to do the same.
"Several years ago, while I was engaged in a study of the Philippian Epistle, a letter come to me bearing news of the death of a friend and former classmate who had laid down his life for Christ in foreign missionary service. He had been a brilliant student, was wealthy in his own right, and at the completion of the seminary course he was married to a beautiful and talented young woman. In this country he might have had everything ordinarily desirable to men--business success, comfort, ease, and luxury. But there was in him the mind of Christ; if I may dare to use the word reverently, he freely emptied himself' of all these prospects, becoming a servant of the cross in Egypt. There, having given what he could in service, he was obedient unto death.'"73
"The test of the submissive mind is not just how much we are willing to take in terms of suffering, but how much we are willing to give in terms of sacrifice."74
2:9 In view of the Son's submission to the depths of humiliation, God the Father raised Him to the height of exaltation. He literally super-exalted (Gr. hyperypsosen) Him. This process included Jesus' resurrection, ascension, and glorification in heaven.
The name that the Father has given to Jesus that is above every name is evidently "Lord Jesus,"as the following two verses make clear.75
2:10 The purpose of the Father's having given the Son great exaltation and a name suitable to such a position is that every person will bow in submission to His authority (cf. Isa. 45:23 where all bow before Yahweh). The beings in heaven that Paul referred to evidently are believers who have died and whose spirits have gone into the Lord's presence. Those on earth are people still alive on the earth. Those under the earth are unbelievers awaiting resurrection. Hades (the same as Sheol,the Old Testament term) is the place where the spirits of the unbelieving dead go until God resurrects them and judges them. The ancients thought of Sheol or Hades as being under the surface of the earth. All angelic beings will acknowledge Jesus' lordship too (1 Cor. 15:27).
Various groups will acknowledge that Jesus is Lord at different times. Christians do so at conversion, and we will do so when we see the Lord following the Rapture (Rev. 4-5). Those living on the earth and Old Testament saints resurrected at the Second Coming will do so then (Rev. 19:11-21). Most of those living on the earth during the millennial reign of Christ will submit to Him then (Ps. 2). At the end of the Millennium everyone on the earth and all resurrected unbelievers will bow the knee to Jesus Christ (Rev. 20:7-15).
2:11 Verbal confession of Jesus' lordship will accompany symbolic physical submission. Every being that has a tongue and can do so will acknowledge Jesus as Lord. The affirmation, "Jesus Christ is Lord,"was the earliest confessional formula of the church (cf. Acts 2:36; Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 11:23; 12:3; 16:22).76God will by this universal confession receive glory. Jesus Christ's purpose is, always has been, and always will be to glorify the Father (1 Cor. 15:27).77
"Verse 11 means, then, that the hope of God is that every intelligent being in his universe might proclaim openly and gladly (Lightfoot) that Jesus Christ alone has the right to reign."78
The exaltation of Jesus Christ is as much a motivation for the Christian to live a life of submissive humility as is His incarnation. God will reward a life of self-denial now in the future. That is the obvious implication of Paul's illustration.
Is it not selfish to serve the Lord for a reward? Was it selfish for Jesus to endure what He did because He knew He would receive a reward? Motivation is the key. If we submit to God and to one another for the glory of God rather than for selfish glory, as Jesus did, our motivation is correct.
The power of a positive example is very strong. Paul had previously used himself as an example of steadfastness (1:30) and he would do so again. Here he pointed to Jesus Christ, the greatest example of submissiveness (2:2-11). He would use Timothy and Epaphroditus as examples for his readers later (2:19-23, 25-30).
