Philippians 2:7Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

If He did not know that this had to take place, He is imperfect. If, not knowing, He awaited the time of command, He did not know the time. But if He knew both that this had to take place and when it had to take place, why did He become subject?

They will say, "In order to show the superiority of the Father." But this would show not the superiority of the Father, but His own nothingness. Is not the very name Father sufficient to show the Father's primacy? Apart from this, everything that belongs to the Father belongs also to the Son.

In other words, this honor alone cannot pass from the Father to the Son. Apart from it, everything is common to the Father with the Son.

Here the Marcionites cling to the words and say, "He was not man, but was made in the likeness of men." How, then, can one be in human likeness? By clothing Himself with a shadow? But that is a phantom, not the likeness of a man. Another man can be the likeness of a man.

And what will you say to the words of John, "And the Word became flesh" (Jn 1:14)? This same blessed one also says elsewhere, "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3).

"And being found in appearance as a man." Behold, they say, both "in appearance" and "as a man." To be as a man, and in the form of a man, does not yet mean truly to be man. To be man in form, they say, is not to be man by nature.

Do you see how honestly I present the words of our enemies? A brilliant and complete victory occurs when we do not conceal the opinions that seem strong. To conceal them is to deceive rather than to conquer.

What, then, do they say? Let us repeat the same point. To be according to form is not to be according to nature. To be "as a man" and "like men" is not to be man. Therefore, to take the form of a servant is not to take the nature of a servant.

Here is an objection against you. Why should you not be the first to solve it? As you consider that a contradiction against us, so we call this a contradiction against you.

The Apostle did not say, "as the form of a servant," nor "in the likeness of the form of a servant," nor "in the appearance of the form of a servant." He said, "taking the form of a servant." What, then, does this mean?

They will say, "This too is a contradiction." There is no contradiction at all, but a certain empty and ridiculous sophistry on their part. They say that He took the form of a servant because, girding Himself with a towel, He washed the disciples' feet.

Is this the form of a servant? It is not the form of a servant, but the work of a servant. It is one thing to perform a servant's work, and another to take the form of a servant.

Otherwise, why was it not said that He performed the work of a servant? That would have been clearer. Nowhere in Scripture is the word "form" used in place of work. There is a great difference between them. One belongs to nature, the other to activity.

Even in ordinary speech we never use form in place of work. In other words, according to them, He did not even perform the work, nor did He gird Himself. If the act was an illusion, it was not truth. If He had no hands, how did He wash?

If He had no loins, how did He gird Himself with a towel? And what "garment" did He take? For it is said, "He put on His garments" (Jn 13:12).

If we grant that what is represented here was not what truly happened, but only a phantom, then we must also grant that He did not wash the disciples' feet. If the bodiless nature did not become visible, then it was not in a body either.

Who, then, washed the disciples? What shall we say next against Paul of Samosata? What, you ask, does he say? He says the same thing. For one who has human nature and is truly man to wash servants like himself is no abasement.

The same thing that we said against the Arians must also be said against them. The whole difference between them consists only in a small interval of time. Both call the Son of God a creature.

What, then, shall we say against them? If a man washed men, then He did not empty or humble Himself. If, being a man, He did not seize equality with God, there is still no praise in this.

For God to become man is a great, ineffable, and inexplicable humility. But for a man to do human things, what humility is that? And where is the form of God called the work of God?

If He was a mere man and is called the form of God because of His works, why do we not say the same of Peter, who did greater works than He? Why do you not also say of Paul that he had the form of God?

Why did Paul not present himself as the example, although he performed many servile works and refused nothing? He himself says, "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake" (2 Cor 4:5). This is ridiculous and absurd.

"He emptied Himself." Tell me, how did He "empty" Himself? What abasement is this? What humility is this? Was it by working miracles? But Paul and Peter also did this, so it is not the special property of the Son.

What, then, do the words "being made in the likeness of men" mean? They mean that He had much that is ours, yet much that He did not have. For example, He was not born from intercourse, and He committed no sin.

And here is what He had that no man has. He was not only what He appeared to be, but also God. He appeared as man, yet in many respects He was not like us, although in the flesh He was like us.

Therefore He was not a mere man. For this reason it is said, "being made in the likeness of men." We are soul and body. He is God, soul, and body. Therefore it is said, "being made in the likeness."

And lest, hearing that He "emptied Himself," you imagine a change, transformation, or some annihilation, Scripture says this. Remaining what He was, He took what He was not. Having become flesh, He remained God the Word.

Since in this respect He is like man, the Apostle also says "in appearance." By this he does not mean that the nature was changed, or that some confusion occurred. He means that He became man "in appearance."

After saying, "taking the form of a servant," he then boldly said these words too, "and being found in appearance," because they stop every mouth.

Likewise, by the words "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3), he does not mean that He did not have flesh. He means that this flesh did not sin, while it was like sinful flesh.

Why likeness? According to nature, not according to sinfulness. Therefore it is like the soul of a sinner. As there it is said "being made like," because there is not equality in every respect, so here too it is said "being made like."

There is not equality in every respect, such as this: He was not born from intercourse, He was without sin, and He was not a mere man.

The Apostle rightly said "men," because He was not one of the many, but as it were one of the many. God the Word was not changed into a man, nor was His essence altered.

He appeared as man, not presenting us with a phantom, but teaching humility. This is what the Apostle expresses by the words "like men," although elsewhere he also calls Him directly a man, saying, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5).

We have now spoken against these heretics. It remains to speak against those who do not acknowledge that Christ took a soul. If the form of God is perfect God, then the form of a servant is a perfect servant.

Again the discourse is against the Arians. "He, being in the form of God," says the Apostle, "did not consider it robbery to be equal with God." Here, speaking of the Godhead, he does not use the words "became" and "took."

"He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men." But here, speaking of the humanity, he uses the words "took" and "became." In the latter case, "being made" and "taking." In the former, "being."

Therefore let us neither confuse nor divide these things. There is one God, one Christ, the Son of God. When I say "one," I express union, not confusion. One nature was not changed into the other, but was united with it.

But what does this mean? It means that the Lord did not possess everything that is ours, but lacked something. Namely, He was not born according to the natural order, and He did not sin.

Yet He was not only what He appeared to be. He was also God. Nor was He an ordinary man.

Therefore the Apostle says “in the likeness of men,” because we are soul and body, while He is soul and body and God.

For this reason, when the Apostle says “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3), he does not mean that He did not have flesh.

Rather, he means that this flesh did not sin. It was like sinful flesh according to nature, but not according to evil.

Thus, just as there “likeness” does not mean complete equality in every respect, so here he speaks of likeness in this sense: He was not born according to the natural order.

He was without sin, and He was not a mere man.

“And being found in appearance as a man.” Since the Apostle said that He emptied Himself, lest you think this action was a change or transformation, he says that He remained what He was.

He assumed what He was not. His nature was not changed, but He appeared in outward form, that is, in flesh, because flesh properly has an appearance.

For after saying “taking the form of a servant,” he dared then to say this also, as though by it stopping someone’s mouth.

He said well, “as a man,” because He was not one of the many, but as one of the many.

For God the Word was not transformed into a man. Rather, He appeared as a man, and being invisible, He appeared possessing visible form.

Some have interpreted this place thus: “and in appearance,” as now truly man, just as John says in the Gospel, “glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father” (Jn 1:14).

This is instead of saying: the glory proper for the Only-begotten to have. For “as,” ὡς, signifies both qualification and affirmation.

He who is free by nature becomes, for our sake, in our nature. He who is above every creature comes even to death, though He gives life to all.

He is the bread of life, who will give His life for the life of the world (Jn 6:51). He who is above the law, and as God is the Lawgiver, came under the law together with us.

He who is above birth, in His birth and in His beginning, accepts an allotted portion. He who is before all ages and time is, moreover, the maker and creator of the ages.

If the Son, “being in the form of God” and in equality, as Paul says (Phil 2:6), has God and the Father as His God by nature, then the divine nature may fall under such definitions.

The Father too will have a God, if this has not already happened. For what can happen, even if it has not yet been accomplished, exists potentially as that whose possibility is admitted.

But if this is blasphemous, then the Father is not called the God of the Son by nature, but because the Son became man according to the divine economy.

If the Son, “being in the form of God” and in equality, as it is written, “humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant, and was found in appearance as a man” (Phil 2:7), then the humble words fitting a servant do not refer to His essence.

Rather, they clothe the person of His becoming man. As from the height of the Godhead we know His humility in the humanity He assumed, so also the reverse is true.

From His humility in humanity we shall know the majesty rooted in the Godhead and the height of the Son’s essence.

In the form of a servant, which He assumed, the Son is less than the Father. In the form of God, in which He also remained before assuming the form of a servant, the Son is equal to the Father.

What poverty is greater than for God to be in the form of a servant? What humility is greater than for the King of beings to enter into communion with our poor nature?

The King of kings and Lord of lords willingly clothes Himself in the form of a servant. The Judge of the universe becomes subject to tribute under those who rule. The Lord of creation dwells in a cave.

He who contains all things finds no place in the inn, but is laid in a manger of irrational beasts. The Pure and Whole One takes upon Himself the defilement of human nature.

Having borne all our poverty, He even comes to the trial of death. Do you see the measure of voluntary poverty?

Life tastes death. The Judge is led to the tribunal. The Lord of the life of all that exists is subjected to the judgment of a judge. The King of all the power above the world does not turn away the hands of the executioners.

In this example, says the Apostle, let the measure of humble-mindedness be seen by you.

“For,” he says, “let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant” (Phil 2:5-6).

What is more lowly for God than the form of a servant? What is more lowly for the King of the universe than willingly to descend to participation in our poor nature?

The King of kings and Lord of lords clothes Himself in the form of a servant. The Judge of all is subjected to authorities. The Lord of creation finds shelter in a cave.

He who holds all things in His hand finds no place in the inn, but is laid in the manger of irrational creatures. The Pure and Uncorrupted One does not reject the impurity of human nature.

Having passed through all our poverty, He comes to the tasting of death itself. Consider the measure of voluntary poverty.

Life tastes death. The Judge is led to the tribunal. The Lord of all the living is subjected to the sentence of a judge. The King of all power above the world does not withdraw from the hands of servants.

In this, he says, let the measure of your humility behold its example.

“Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God; and this is the spirit of antichrist” (1 Jn 4:2-3).

By the words “taking the form of a servant,” he indicates that God the Word was united with human being, not with a hypostasis or person.

For he did not say that He took the form in the definite form of an existing servant. Otherwise he would have shown that the Word was united to a man who had previously existed hypostatically.

This is what Theodore and Nestorius impiously blasphemed, calling the union relational.

Rather, it consisted precisely in the humbled state of the humanity itself. After the accomplishment of salvation, this servile state was replaced by exaltation.

The Apostle explains the abasement of Jesus Christ by saying that, having become man and being made like us in all things, He humbled Himself despite His high dignities and the perfection of His human nature.

He appeared so obedient that He allowed Himself to be executed by the most shameful kind of death, as the greatest criminal.

“Being made in the likeness” (ἐν ὁμοιώματι) “of men, and being found in appearance as a man” (σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος), “He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even death on a cross.”

Here we should note that the “form of a servant” assumed by Jesus Christ signifies slavery just as real as “the form of God” signifies real dignity.

In both cases the Apostle uses μορφή. From this it follows directly that the human likeness (ὁμοίωμα) and the appearance of a man (σχήμα) signify the same real humanity of Jesus Christ as ours.

For neither the form of a servant nor likeness to a creature is proper to God.

It is true that in this passage the Apostle does not prove that the Son of God was truly incarnate and became man, just as he does not prove His divinity. Yet he touches on both.

The following words explain how He emptied Himself: “taking the form of a servant,” that is, taking upon Himself created nature. Which nature in particular? Human nature: “being made in the likeness of men.”

Did human nature receive any distinction from this? No. As all men are, so He too was: “being found in appearance as a man.”

He took the form of a servant. Who did this? He who is “being in the form of God,” God by nature.

If He, as God, took it, then after taking it He remained God, the One who took the form of a servant.

“The form of a servant” is not a sign, but the norm of a servant. The word “servant” is used in contrast to the Godhead in the words “being in the form of God.”

There the form of God means the norm of the divine nature, the creative Godhead. Here the form of a servant means the norm of a servant, the nature subject to God, the created nature.

“Taking the form of a servant” means taking created nature, which, whatever rank it occupies, is always subject to God.

What followed from this? The beginningless One begins. The omnipresent One is circumscribed by place. The eternal One lives through days, months, and years.

The all-perfect One grows in age and wisdom. The One who holds and gives life to all is fed and supported by others. The all-knowing One does not know.

The almighty One is bound. The One who pours forth life dies. He passes through all this while being God by nature, by means of the created nature which He took upon Himself.

What created nature did God assume? Human nature. “He does not take hold of Angels, but of the seed of Abraham.”

He came in the form of a servant, “being made in the likeness of men.”

Chrysostom says: “The Marcionites, clinging to the words, say: He was not man, but only in the likeness of man. How can one be in the likeness of man? By putting on a shadow? But that is a phantom, not the likeness of man. A similar expression occurs again in Saint Paul. He says, ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Rom 8:3), meaning that His flesh was the same as everyone’s, except that flesh is sinful while His is sinless. It is like sinful flesh in all things except sin. What then do the words ‘being made in the likeness of men’ mean? They mean that He had much that was ours, while some things He did not have. For example, He was not born by the natural mode of birth, and He committed no sin. This is what He had which none among men has. He was not only what He appeared to be, but also God. He appeared as man, yet in many things He was not like us, though according to the flesh He was like us. Therefore He was not a mere man. For this reason it is said: ‘in the likeness of men.’ We are soul and body. He is God, soul, and body. Therefore it is said: ‘in likeness.’ And so that, on hearing that He emptied Himself, you should not imagine change, transformation, or any destruction, Scripture says that, remaining what He was, He took what He was not. Having become flesh, He remained the true God the Word.”

The words “being made in the likeness of men” define that He took human nature. The words “and being found in appearance as a man” mean that He also submitted to the whole manner of human life.

He appeared as one living like all men, so that by this appearance, σχημα, He was in all things as man.

Chrysostom says: “Since in this respect He is like man, the Apostle says, ‘and in appearance.’ By this he does not express that the nature changed or that some mixture occurred, but that He became man in appearance. The Apostle rightly said, ‘as a man.’ For He was not one of the many, but as one of the many. Since God the Word was not transformed into man, and His essence did not change, He appeared as man. He did not present us with a phantom, but taught humility. Observe: when speaking of the Godhead, the Apostle says, ‘being in the form of God,’ and, ‘He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.’ He does not use the words ‘became’ or ‘took.’ But when speaking of the humanity. He uses the words ‘took’ and ‘became’: ‘taking the form of a servant,’ and ‘being found in appearance.’ He became this; He took this. He was that. Therefore let us neither confuse nor divide the Godhead and the humanity. There is one God, one Christ, the Son of God. When I say ‘one,’ I express union, not confusion. One nature was not transformed into the other, but was only united with it.”