Philippians 2:5–11

Philippians 2: Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form, etc.: but to empty oneself is nothing other than to abase oneself: if therefore we ought to imitate Christ in this, self-emptying and self-abasement belong to evangelical perfection.

The story of the Incarnation is the story of a descent and resurrection. When I say "resurrection" here, I am not referring simply to the first few hours, or the first few weeks of the Resurrection. I am talking of this whole, huge pattern of descent, down, down, and then up again. What we ordinarily call the Resurrection being just, so to speak, the point at which it turns. Think what that descent is. The coming down, not only into humanity, but into those nine months which precede human birth, in which they tell us we all recapitulate strange prehuman, subhuman forms of life, and going lower still into being a corpse, a thing which, if this ascending movement had not begun, would presently have passed out of the organic altogether, and have gone back into the inorganic, as all corpses do. One has a picture of someone going right down and dredging the sea bottom. One has a picture of a strong man trying to lift a very big, complicated burden. He stoops down and gets himself right under it so that he himself disappears; and then he straightens his back and moves off with the whole thing swaying on his shoulders. Or else one has the picture of a diver, stripping off garment after garment, making himself naked, then flashing for a moment in the air, and then down through the green, and warm, and sunlit water into the pitch-black, cold, freezing water, down into the mud and slime, then up again, his lungs almost bursting, back again to the green and warm and sunlit water, and then at last out into the sunshine, holding in his hand the dripping thing he went down to get. This thing is human nature; but, associated with it, all Nature, the new universe.

Above he has given two injunctions, first that they should delight in humility, then that they should think not only of their own affairs but of those of others. Then he says, "Have this mind among yourselves that was in Christ Jesus." Which of these two then do we take to have been manifested in Christ Jesus? One or the other or both? For the first, his humility, is manifest, since Christ humbled himself and assumed the character of a slave. But the second injunction could be here as well, since he bore this for others and thought of others rather than of himself.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, when exhorting His disciples to great actions, places before them Himself, and the Father, and the Prophets, as examples; as when He says, "For thus they did unto the Prophets which were before you"; and again, "If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you"; and, "Learn of me, for I am meek"; and again, "Be ye merciful, as your Father which is in heaven is merciful." This too the blessed Paul did; in exhorting them to humility, he brought forward Christ. And he does so not here only, but also when he discourses of love towards the poor, he speaks in this wise. "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor." Nothing rouses a great and philosophic soul to the performance of good works, so much as learning that in this it is likened to God. What encouragement is equal to this? None. This Paul well knowing, when he would exhort them to humility, first beseeches and supplicates them, then to awe them he says, "That ye stand fast in one Spirit"; he says also, that it "is for them an evident token of perdition, but of your salvation." And last of all he says this, "Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant."

They say that the words, "He counted it not a prize," are of wrongfully seizing. We have proved, that this is altogether vapid and impertinent, for no man would exhort another to humility on such grounds, nor in this sort does he praise God, or even man. What is it then, beloved? Give heed to what I now say. Since many men think, that, when they are lowly, they are deprived of their proper right, and debased, Paul, to take away this fear, and to show that we must not be affected thus, says that God, the only begotten, who was in the form of God, who was no whit inferior to the Father, who was equal to Him, "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God."

Now learn what this meaneth. Whatsoever a man robs, and takes contrary to his right, he dares not lay aside, from fear lest it perish, and fall from his possession, but he keeps hold of it continually. He who possesses some dignity which is natural to him, fears not to descend from that dignity, being assured that nothing of this sort will happen to him. As for example, Absalom usurped the government, and dared not afterwards to lay it aside. We will go to another example, but if example cannot present the whole matter to you, take it not amiss, for this is the nature of examples, they leave the greater part for the imagination to reason out. A man rebels against his sovereign, and usurps the kingdom: he dares not lay aside and hide the matter, for if he once hide it, straightway it is gone. Let us also take another example; if a man takes anything violently, he keeps firm hold of it continually, for if he lay it down, he straightway loses it. And generally speaking, they who have aught by rapine are afraid to lay it by, or hide it, or not to keep constantly in that state which they have assumed. Not so they, who have possessions not procured by rapine, as Man, who possesses the dignity of being a reasonable being. But here examples fail me, for there is no natural preeminence amongst us, for no good thing is naturally our own; but they are inherent in the nature of God. What does one say then? That the Son of God feared not to descend from His right, for He thought not Deity a prize seized. He was not afraid that any would strip Him of that nature or that right, Wherefore He laid it aside, being confident that He should take it up again. He hid it, knowing that He was not made inferior by so doing. For this cause, Paul says not, "He seized not," but, "He counted it not a prize"; He possessed not that estate by seizure, but it was natural, not conferred, it was enduring and safe. Wherefore he refused not to take the form of an inferior. The tyrant fears to lay aside the purple robe in war, while the king does it with much safety. Why so? because he holds his power not as a matter of seizure. He did not refuse to lay it aside, as one who had usurped it, but since He had it as His own by nature, since it could never be parted from Him, He hid it.

This equality with God He had not by seizure, but as his own by nature.

For martyrdom is so admirable and desirable, that the Lord, the Son of God Himself, honouring it, testified, "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God," that might honour man to whom He descended with this gift.

As Christ says: "Be merciful, just as your heavenly Father is merciful" (Lk. 6:36), and then: "Learn from Me, for I am gentle" (Mt. 11:29); so also Paul, teaching humility, in order to shame us all the more, brings forth Christ as an example, as he also says in another place: "Though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor" (2 Cor. 8:9). When he points to the Son of God, who is higher than every height and yet humbled Himself so greatly, which of those who think highly of themselves would he not put to shame by this?

After giving his exhortation, the Apostle urges them to the virtue of humility according to Christ's example. First, he exhorts them to follow the example of Christ; secondly, he gives the example (2:6).

He says, therefore: Be humble, as I have said; hence have this mind among yourselves, i.e., acquire by experience the mind which you have in Christ Jesus. It should be noted that we should have this mind in five ways according to the five senses: first, to see His glory, so that being enlightened, we may be conformed to Him: "Your eyes will see the king in his beauty" (Is. 33:17); "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another" (2 Cor. 3:18); secondly, to hear His wisdom, in order to become happy: "Happy are these your servants, who continually stand before you and hear your wisdom" (1 Kgs. 10:8); "As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me" (Ps. 18:44). Thirdly, to smell the grace of His meekness, that we may run to Him: "Your anointing oils are fragrant... draw me after you" (Cant. 1:3); fourthly, to taste the sweetness of His mercy, that we may always be in God: "Taste and see that the Lord is good" (Ps. 34:8); fifthly, to touch His power, that we may be saved: "If I only touch his garment, I shall be made well" (Mt. 9:21).

When he dwelt among humans, he appeared as God by his acts and works. "For the form of God" differs in nothing from God. Indeed, the reason for his being called the form and image of God is to make it apparent that he himself, though distinguishable from God the Father, is everything that God is.… His works revealed his form. Since his works were not those of a human, he whose work or form was that of God was perceived to be God. For what is "the form of God?" Is it not shown by the evidences given of his divinity—by his raising of the dead, his restoration of hearing to the deaf, his cleansing of lepers?

Knowing that he is "in the form of God," he committed no theft.… Rightly, then, he equaled himself with God. For the one who "thinks robbery" is the one who makes himself equal to another whose inferior he is.

What clearer and more decisive proof could there be than this? He did not become better from assuming a lower state but rather, "being God, he took the form of a slave." … If [as the Arians think] it was for the sake of this exaltation that the Word came down and that this is written, what need would there be for him to humble himself completely in order to seek what he already had?

God who is eternally wise has with him his eternal Wisdom [the Son]. He is not in any way unequal to the Father. He is not in any respect inferior. For the apostle too says "who, when he was in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God."

Wherein lies the Son's equality? If you say in greatness, there is no equality of greatness in one who is less eternal. And so with other things. Is he perhaps equal in might but not equal in wisdom? Yet how can there be equality of might in one who is inferior in wisdom? Or is he equal in wisdom but not equal in might? But how can there be equality of virtue in one who is inferior in power? Instead Scripture declares more simply "he thought it not robbery to be equal." Therefore every adversary of truth who is at all subject to apostolic authority must admit that the Son is in some one respect at least the equal of God. Let him choose whichever quality he might wish, but from that it will appear that he is equal in all that is attributed to divinity.

These things are said partly on account of the economy by which the Son assumed humanity … partly because the Son owes to the Father his existence and also owes to the Father indeed his equality or parity with the Father. The Father, however, owes to no one his being, whatever he is.

They that have done well will go to live with the angels of God; they that have done evil, to be tormented with the devil and his angels. And the form of a servant will pass away. For to this end He had manifested Himself, that He might execute judgment. After the judgment, He shall go hence, will lead with Him the body of which He is the head, and deliver up the kingdom of God. Then will openly be seen that form of God which could not be seen by the wicked, to whose vision the form of a servant must be shown. He says also in another place on this wise: "These shall go away into everlasting burning" (speaking of certain on the left), "but the just into life eternal;" of which life He says in another place: "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." Then will He be there manifested, "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Then He will manifest Himself, as He has promised to manifest Himself to them that love Him.

"Lord, who is like you?" Who, if not the brightness and figure of your substance? Who, if not your image? He alone in your form, he alone did not consider it robbery to be equal to you, the Most High Son of the Most High. How is he not equal? Indeed you and he are one. His seat is at your right hand, not beneath your feet. How does anyone dare to invade the place of your Only-begotten? Let him be cast down. He sets his seat on high; let the seat of pestilence be overturned.

You have indeed concerning him who is the image, that "being in the form of God, he did not consider it robbery to be equal with God." Where certainly both his rectitude in the form of God, and his majesty in the equality, are indicated to you: so that when rectitude is compared to rectitude, and greatness to greatness, that which is to the image and the image may appear to correspond to each other harmoniously on both sides; just as the image also no less corresponds in both respects to him whose image it is. For he is the one of whom you have heard holy David singing in the psalms, now indeed: "Great is our Lord, and great is his power"; and now: "The Lord our God is upright, and there is no iniquity in him." From this upright and great God, his image has it that it too is upright and great: the soul has it, which is to the image.

Since therefore Christ Jesus, insofar as he was God, was equal to the Father in the form of God; insofar as he was an innocent man, he was in no way a debtor of death: when he emptied himself and became obedient unto death, he paid back to God what he had not stolen through the homage of perfect satisfaction, and offered a sacrifice of supreme sweetness for the perfect placation of God.

The New Testament in the original Greek is not a work of literary art: it is not written in a solemn, ecclesiastical language, it is written in the sort of Greek which was spoken over the Eastern Mediterranean after Greek had become an international language and therefore lost its real beauty and subtlety. In it we see Greek used by people who have no real feeling for Greek words because Greek words are not the words they spoke when they were children. It is a sort of "basic" Greek; a language without roots in the soil, a utilitarian, commercial, and administrative language. Does this shock us? It ought not to, except as the Incarnation itself ought to shock us. The same divine humility which decreed that God should become a baby at a peasant-woman's breast, and later an arrested field preacher in the hands of the Roman police, decreed also that He should be preached in a vulgar, prosaic, and unliterary language. If you can stomach the one, you can stomach the other. The Incarnation is in that sense an irreverent doctrine: Christianity, in that sense, an incurably irreverent religion. When we expect that it should have come before the world in all the beauty that we now feel in the Authorized Version we are as wide of the mark as the Jews were in expecting that the Messiah would come as a great earthly king. The real sanctity, the real beauty and sublimity of the New Testament (as of Christ's life) are of a different sort: miles deeper or further in.

One must be careful not to put this in a way which would blur the distinction between the creation of a man and the Incarnation of God. Could one, as a mere model, put it thus? In creation God makes—invents—a person and "utters"—injects—him into the realm of Nature. In the Incarnation, God the Son takes the body and human soul of Jesus, and, through that, the whole environment of Nature, all the creaturely predicament, into His own being. So that "He came down from Heaven" can almost be transposed into "Heaven drew earth up into it," and locality, limitation, sleep, sweat, footsore weariness, frustration, pain, doubt and death, are, from before all worlds, known by God from within. The pure light walks the earth; the darkness, received into the heart of Deity, is there swallowed up. Where, except in uncreated light, can the darkness be drowned?

I have found it impossible, in thinking of what I call Transposition, not to ask myself whether it may help us to conceive the Incarnation. Of course if Transposition were merely a mode of symbolism it could give us no help at all in this matter: on the contrary, it would lead us wholly astray, back into a new kind of Docetism (or would it be only the old kind?) and away from the utterly historical and concrete reality which is the centre of all our hope, faith and love. But then, as I have pointed out, Transposition is not always symbolism. In varying degrees the lower reality can actually be drawn into the higher and become part of it. The sensation which accompanies joy becomes itself joy: we can hardly choose but say "incarnates joy". If this is so, then I venture to suggest, though with great doubt and in the most provisional way, that the concept of Transposition may have some contribution to make to the theology—or at least to the philosophy—of the Incarnation. For we are told in one of the creeds that the Incarnation worked "not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God". And it seems to me that there is a real analogy between this and what I have called Transposition: that humanity, still remaining itself, is not merely counted as, but veritably drawn into, Deity, seems to me like what happens when a sensation (not in itself a pleasure) is drawn into the joy it accompanies. But I walk _in mirabilibus supra me_ and submit all to the verdict of real theologians.

The Second Person in God, the Son, became human Himself: was born into the world as an actual man—a real man of a particular height, with hair of a particular colour, speaking a particular language, weighing so many stone. The Eternal Being, who knows everything and who created the whole universe, became not only a man but (before that) a baby, and before that a foetus inside a Woman's body. If you want to get the hang of it, think how you would like to become a slug or a crab... And because the whole difficulty for us is that the natural life has to be, in a sense, 'killed', He chose an earthly career which involved the killing of His human desires at every turn—poverty, misunderstanding from His own family, betrayal by one of His intimate friends, being jeered at and manhandled by the Police, and execution by torture.

at the same time obscurely hinting that he did not take by robbery the things which belonged to God, since he was God; as the Apostle also declares: He counted it no robbery to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.

That Christ was to come in low estate in His first advent. In Isaiah: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the Arm of the Lord revealed? We have declared in His presence as children, as a root in a thirsty ground. There is no form nor glory in Him; and we saw Him, and He had no form nor beauty; but His form was without honour, and lacking beyond other men. He was a man set in a plague, and knowing how to bear weakness; because His face was turned away, He was dishonoured, and was not accounted of. He bears our sins, and grieves for us; and we thought that He was in grief, and in wounding, and in affliction; but He was wounded for our transgressions, and He was weakened for our sins. The discipline of our peace was upon Him, and with His bruise we are healed. We all like sheep have gone astray; than has gone out of his way. And God has delivered Him for our sins; and He, because He was afflicted, opened not His mouth." Also in the same: "I am not rebellious, nor do I contradict. I gave my back to the stripes, and my cheeks to the palms of the hands. Moreover, I did not turn away my Gee from the foulness of spitting, and God was my helper." Also in the same: "He shall not cry, nor will any one hear His voice in the streets. He shall not break a bruised reed, and a smoking flax He shall not extinguish; but He shall bring forth judgment in truth. He shall shine forth, and shall not be shaken, until He set judgment in the earth, and in His name shall the nations trust." Also in the twenty-first Psalm: "But I am a worm, and no man; the accursed of man, and the casting away of the people. All they who saw me despised me, and spoke within their lips, and moved their head. He hoped in the Lord, let Him deliver him; let Him save him, since he will have Him." Also in that place: "My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue is glued to my jaws." Also in Zechariah: "And the Lord showed me Jesus, that great priest, standing before the face of the Angel of the Lord, and the devil was standing at his right hand to oppose him. And Jesus was clothed in filthy garments, and he stood before the face of the Angel Himself; and He answered and said to them who were standing before His face, saying, Take away his filthy garments from him. And he said to him, Behold, I have taken away thine iniquities. And put upon him a priestly garment, and set a fair mitre upon his head." Also Paul to the Philippians: "Who, being established in the form of God, thought it not robbery that He was equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore also God exalted Him, and gave Him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, of things in earth, and of infernal things, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord in the glory of God the Father."

That there is given to us an example of living in Christ. In the Epistle of Peter to them of Pontus: "For Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that ye may follow His steps; who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, threatened not, but gave Himself up to him that judgeth unrighteously." Also Paul to the Philippians: "Who, being appointed in the figure of God, thought it not robbery that He was equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, He was made in the likeness of man, and was found in fashion as a man. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, and the death of the cross. For which cause also God hath exalted Him, and hath given Him a name, that it may be above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowed, of things heavenly, and earthly, and infernal; and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in glory of God the Father." Of this same thing in the Gospel according to John: "If I have washed your feet, being your Master and Lord, ye also ought to wash the feet of others. For I have given you an example, that as I have done, ye also should do to others."

Suppose that when he became a slave he ceased being truly Lord. How then could it be said that in his coming the one who was "in the form of God took the form of a slave"?

You see that he reveals Christ to be a man but not merely so, since he is the mediator of God and humanity.… He is trueborn God by nature with respect to his Father, but with respect to humanity he is Mary's trueborn son by nature, begotten without the seed of a man.

[Paul] acknowledged Christ and no other to be the Son of God. The flesh that Christ assumed was called "the form of a slave" and "son of man." But as to that birth which, unknown to all, was from the Father and before all ages, he was Son of God.

You must choose one of two paths. Either there is a single inequality in the two [divine Father and divine Son] or there is a single equality in the glory of divinity itself. For no one is either greater or less than his own form.… This singular equality is seen not only in the concord of their willing together. It is rather in their very deity, since the form of equality is in no way divided into parts. Where there is one equality, there is no discord. Where there is one equality, neither is prior to the other. Neither is posterior nor subordinate, since there is no distinction in the united equality, which is the fullness of divinity.

While the whole Word came to us when "the Word was made flesh," the whole remained with the Father in Spirit, equal to the Father, from whom he is eternally begotten yet made less by the gracious assumption of flesh so that he could be visible to us. And by this the Lord from the Lord remained Lord "in the form of God." In order that he might come to slaves he received "the form of a slave" from his handmaid.

The saints, the most exalted of human figures, were also the most local. It was exactly the men whom we most easily connected with heaven whom we also most easily connected with earth.

But above all, it is true of the most tremendous issue; of that tragedy which has created the divine comedy of our creed. Nothing short of the extreme and strong and startling doctrine of the divinity of Christ will give that particular effect that can truly stir the popular sense like a trumpet; the idea of the king himself serving in the ranks like a common soldier. By making that figure merely human we make that story much less human. We take away the point of the story which actually pierces humanity; the point of the story which was quite literally the point of a spear. It does not especially humanise the universe to say that good and wise men can die for their opinions; any more than it would be any sort of uproariously popular news in an army that good soldiers may easily get killed. It is no news that King Leonidas is dead any more than that Queen Anne is dead; and men did not wait for Christianity to be men, in the full sense of being heroes. But if we are describing, for the moment, the atmosphere of what is generous and popular and even picturesque, any knowledge of human nature will tell us that no sufferings of the sons of men, or even of the servants of God, strike the same note as the notion of the master suffering instead of his servants. And this is given by the theological and emphatically not by the scientific deity. No mysterious monarch, hidden in his starry pavilion at the base of the cosmic campaign, is in the least like that celestial chivalry of the Captain who carries his five wounds in the front of battle.

God is the very principle of life. God is being itself. God contains life as a principle of life and so also understanding. But life and understanding are in a sense the form and image of what exists. What most truly exists is God. God is being itself, as many agree, and more so that which is above existence. The form of existence is motion, understanding and life.… Christ is said to be "the form of God" because Christ is life, consciousness and understanding.

What does this mean—"being equal to God"? It means that he [the Son] is of the very same power and substance [as the Father]. … It is in this sense therefore that Christ was equal to God. Note that Paul did not say Christ was "similar to God," for that would imply that Christ possessed some accidental likeness to the substance of God but not that he was substantially equal. … Thus Christ is the form of God. The form of God is the substance of God. The form and image of God is the Word. The Word is forever with God. The Word is of one substance with the Father, with whom from the beginning it remains forever the Word.

It would be a kind of robbery if two things were not equal by nature but were forced to be made equal or made equal through some accident. It therefore shows great confidence and bespeaks the very nature of divinity when Paul says of Christ that he did not think it robbery to be equal with God yet did not consider this equality something he had to fortify.

He did not say "having a nature like that of God," as would be said of [a man] who was made in the image of God. Rather Paul says "being in the very form of God." All that is the Father's is in the Son.

The form of God is absolutely the same as the essence. Yet when he came to be in "the form of a slave," he took form in the essence of the slave, not assuming a naked form for himself. Yet he is not thereby divorced from his essence as God. Undoubtedly when Paul said that he was "in the form of God," he was indicating the essence along with the form.

Therefore that person truly touches Jesus who believes the Son to be coeternal with the Father. For in the heart of Paul, Jesus had already ascended to the Father when the same Paul was saying: "Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God." Hence John also touched our Redeemer with the hand of faith, who says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him." Therefore that person touches the Lord who believes him equal to the Father in eternity of substance.

And the Sethians say that from the water was produced a first-begotten principle, namely a vehement and boisterous wind, and that it is a cause of all generation, which creates a sort of heat and motion in the world from the motion of the waters. And they maintain that this wind is fashioned like the hissing of a serpent into a perfect image. And on this the world gazes and hurries into generation, being inflamed as a womb; and from thence they are disposed to think that the generation of the universe has arisen. And they say that this wind constitutes a spirit, and that a perfect God has arisen from the fragrance of the waters, and that of the spirit, and from the brilliant light. And they affirm that mind exists after the mode of generation from a female-(meaning by mind) the supernal spark-and that, having been mingled beneath with the compounds of body, it earnestly desires to flee away, that escaping it may depart and not find dissolution on account of the deficiency in the waters. Wherefore it is in the habit of crying aloud from the mixture of the waters, according to the Psalmist, as they say, "For the entire anxiety of the light above is, that it may deliver the spark which is below from the Father beneath," that is, from wind. And the Father creates heat and disturbance, and produces for Himself a Son, namely mind, which, as they allege, is not the peculiar offspring of Himself. And these heretics affirm that the Son, on beholding the perfect Logos of the supernal light, underwent a transformation, and in the shape of a serpent entered into a womb, in order that he might be able to recover that Mind which is the scintillation from the light. And that this is what has been declared, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant." And the wretched and baneful Sethians are disposed to think that this constitutes the servile form alluded to by the Apostle. These, then, are the assertions which likewise these Sethians advance.

[Daniel 7:13] "...And He arrived unto the Ancient of days, and they brought Him before His presence, and He gave unto Him authority and honor and royal power." All that is said here concerning His being brought before Almighty God and receiving authority and honor and royal power is to be understood in the light of the Apostle's statement: "Who, although He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and was found in His condition to be as a man: He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:6-8). And if the sect of the Arians were willing to give heed to all this Scripture with a reverent mind, they would never direct against the Son of God the calumny that He is not on an equality with God.

"Being in the form of God." If "in the form" how sayest thou, O wicked one, that He took His origin from Mary, and was not before? and how dost thou say that He was an energy? For it is written, "The form of God took the form of a servant." "The form of a servant," is it the energy of a servant, or the nature of a servant? By all means, I fancy, the nature of a servant. Thus too the form of God, is the nature of God, and therefore not an energy.

It is written, "He counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." Now equality is not predicated, where there is but one person, for that which is equal hath somewhat to which it is equal. Seest thou not the substance of two Persons, and not empty names without things? Hearest thou not the eternal pre-existence of the Only-begotten?

And he not only bears record of this, but of His equality too, as John also doth, that he is no way inferior to the Father, for he saith, "He thought it not a thing to seize, to be equal with God." Now what is their wise reasoning? Nay, say they, he proves the very contrary; for he says, that, "being in the form of God, He seized not equality with God." How if He were God, how was He able "to seize upon it"? and is not this without meaning? Who would say that one, being a man, seized not on being a man? for how would any one seize on that which he is? No, say they, but he means that being a little God, He seized not upon being equal to the great God, Who was greater than He. Is there a great and a little God? And do ye bring in the doctrines of the Greeks upon those of the Church? With them there is a great and a little God. If it be so with you, I know not. For you will find it nowhere in the Scriptures: there you will find a great God throughout, a little one nowhere. If He were little, how would he also be God? If man is not little and great, but one nature, and if that which is not of this one nature is not man, how can there be a little God and a great one? He who is not of that nature is not God. For He is everywhere called great in Scripture; "Great is the Lord, and highly to be praised." This is said of the Son also, for it always calls Him Lord. "Thou art great, and doest wondrous things. Thou art God alone." And again, "Great is our Lord, and great is His power, and of His greatness there is no end."

But the Son, he says, is little. But it is thou that sayest this, for the Scripture says the contrary: as of the Father, so it speaks of the Son; for listen to Paul, saying, "Looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of our great God." But can he have said "appearing" of the Father? Nay, that he may the more convince you, he has added with reference to the appearing "of the great God." Is it then not said of the Father? By no means. For the sequel suffers it not which says, "The appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." See, the Son is great also. How then speakest thou of small and great?

Listen to the Prophet too, calling him "The Messenger of great counsel." "The Messenger of great counsel," is He not great Himself? "The mighty God," is He small and not great? What mean then these shameless and reckless men when they say, that being little He is a God? I repeat ofttimes what they say, that ye may the more avoid them. He being a lesser God seized not for Himself to be like the greater God! Tell me now (but think not that these words are mine), if he were little, as they say, and far inferior to the Father in power, how could He possibly have seized to Himself equality with God? For an inferior nature could not seize for himself admission into that which is great; for example, a man could not seize on becoming equal to an angel in nature; a horse could not, though he wished it, seize on being equal to a man in nature.

"Form" implies unchangeableness, so far as it is form. It is not possible that things of one substance should have the form of another, as no man has the form of an angel, neither has a beast the form of a man. How then should the Son?

Now in our own case, since we men are of a compound nature, form pertains to the body, but in the case of a simple and altogether uncompounded nature it is of the substance. But if thou contendest that he speaks not of the Father, because the word is used without the article, in many places this is meant, though the word be used without the article. Why say I, in many places? for in this very place he says, "He counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God," using the word without the article, though speaking of God the Father.

It was he who was and is and always shall be in the form of the Father, the true Son, immutable and unchangeable because he is God and the all-powerful Son of the Almighty, who nonetheless deigned to lower himself for our salvation, so that he might cause us to rise even as we lay prostrate.

Being in the image of God, [humanity] still needed to receive the likeness. The Word, having been sent into the world to perfect this, first of all took on our own form, even though in history it has been stained by many sins, so that we for our part, on whose account he bore it, should be once again capable of partaking in his divine nature. Hence it is now possible for us to receive God's likeness. Think of a skilled painter painting a likeness of himself on a surface. So we may now imitate the same characteristics that God himself has displayed in his becoming a human being. We hold these characteristics before us as we go in discipleship along the path he set out. His purpose in consenting to put on human flesh when he was God was this: that we, upon seeing the divine image in this tablet, so to speak, might imitate this incomparable artist.

If Christ were only a man, he would have been said to have been "in the image of God," not "in the form of God." We know that humanity was made in the image, not the form, of God.

He never either compared or opposed himself to God the Father. He remembered [throughout his earthly ministry] that he was from the Father.

First one may contemplate him existing in his primary form, that of God, before he emptied himself. One will then see the Son of God not yet having come forth from him, the [incarnate] Lord not yet having proceeded from his place. But then compare the preexistent state of the Son with that which resulted from his assuming "the form of a slave" when he "emptied himself." You will then understand how the Son of God came forth and came to us and as it were became distinguishable from the One who sent him. Yet in another way the Father did not simply let him go but is with him and is in the Son as the Son is in the Father.

"For He thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, taking upon Him the form of a servant: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself unto death, even the death of the cross."

If therefore he thought it no robbery to assert his equality with God, he demonstrated that he was the true Son of God. No one could be God's equal without being truly God.

He did not rob, because who he was, he was by nature. Thus the omnipotence of the Father was in the Son and the omnipotence of the Son in the Father. The Father is never without the Son nor the Son without the Father.

For he says of Christ, that, "being in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant," not the reality, "and was made in the likeness of man," not a man, "and was found in fashion as a man," not in his substance, that is to say, his flesh; just as if to a substance there did not accrue both form and likeness and fashion.

And God made man, that is to say, the creature which He moulded and fashioned; after the image of God (in other words, of Christ) did He make him And the Word was God also, who being in the image of God, "thought it not robbery to be equal to God." Thus, that clay which was even then putting on the image of Christ, who was to come in the flesh, was not only the work, but also the pledge and surety, of God.

This for certain is He "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none.

But if [the Arians] think the "form of God" is not the being of God, let them be asked what they think is the "form of a slave." … If the form of a slave is the being of a slave, then the form of God is God.… Furthermore, let us recognize also that the apostle uses the example of Christ as a lesson in humility.… If the Son was not equal to the Father but inferior, he did not obey in humility—he merely fulfilled his station.

Being God, and God by nature, and having equality with God, he thought this no great thing, as is the way of those who have received some honor beyond their merits, but, hiding his merit, he elected the utmost humility and took the shape of a human being.

Count how many heretics are overthrown here. Marcion of Pontus said that the world and the flesh are evil, and that therefore God did not assume flesh. Marcellus of Galatia, Photinus, and Sophronius said that the Word of God is a power and not a hypostatic being, and that this power dwelt in Him Who came from the seed of David. And Paul of Samosata said that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mere names ascribed to one person. Arius said that the Son is a creature. Apollinarius of Laodicea said that He did not assume a rational soul. So then, see how all these heretics fall by almost a single blow: "being in the form of God." How then do you, Marcellians, say that the Word is a power and not a substance? The form of God means the substance of God, just as the form of a servant means the nature of a servant. And how do you, Samosatan, say that He began His existence from Mary? For He pre-existed in the form and substance of divinity. But see how Sabellius also falls. "He did not consider it robbery," says the apostle, "to be equal with God." "Equal" is not said of one person; if He is equal, He is equal to someone. Thus it is clear that two persons are spoken of. And Arius is refuted in many ways: "in the form of God," that is, in substance. And he did not say "having become" — γεγονώς, but "being" — ὑπάρχων, which is similar to the saying: "I am He Who Is" (Ex. 3:14). And: "He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God." Do you see the equality? After this, how do you say that the Father is greater and the Son is lesser? But look at the senseless obstinacy of the heretics. The Son, they say, being a lesser God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with the great God. But first of all, what Scripture teaches us that there is a lesser and a greater God? Thus teach the pagans. And that the Son is also a great God, hear what Paul says: "looking for," he says, "the appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" (Tit. 2:13). Then, if He is small, how did He not consider it robbery for Himself to be great? Furthermore, Paul, intending to teach humility, would have appeared absurd if he were suggesting the following: since the lesser God did not revolt against the greater God, you also must humble yourselves before one another. For what kind of humility is it when the lesser does not revolt against the greater? That is mere powerlessness. Humility is that He, being equal and co-equal in power with God, voluntarily became man. So then, enough about this. Next, see what Paul says: "He did not consider it robbery." When someone has stolen something, he is afraid to set it aside, lest he lose what does not belong to him. But when he has something by nature, he easily disregards it, knowing that he cannot be deprived of it, and if he should seem to renounce it, he will take it up again. Thus the apostle says that the Son of God was not afraid to lower His own dignity, because He possessed it — that is, equality with God the Father — not through robbery, but recognized this dignity as belonging to His own nature. Therefore He also chose self-emptying, since even in self-emptying He preserves His greatness.

Then when he says, who, though he was in the form of God, etc., he proposes the example of Christ. First, he mentions Christ's majesty; secondly, His humility (2:7); thirdly, His exaltation (2:9).

He mentions Christ's majesty first, in order that His humility might be more easily recommended. In regard to His majesty he proposes two things, namely, the truth of His divine nature, and His equality. He says, therefore: who, namely, Christ, though he was in the form of God. For it is through its form that a thing is said to be in a specific or generic nature; hence the form is called the nature of a thing. Consequently, to be in the form of God is to be in the nature of God. By this is understood that He is true God: "That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ" (1 Jn. 5:20). However, it should not be supposed that the form of God is one thing and God himself another, because in simple and immaterial things, and especially in God, the form is the same as that whose form it is.

But why does he say, in the form, rather than "in the nature"? Because this belongs to the proper names of the Son in three ways: for He is called the Son, the Word and the Image. Now the Son is the one begotten, and the end of begetting is the form. Therefore, to show the perfect Son of God he says, in the form, as though having the form of the Father perfectly. Similarly, a word is not perfect unless it leads to a knowledge of a thing's nature; and so the Word of God is said to be in the form of God, because He has the entire nature of the Father. Finally, an image is not perfect, unless it has the form of that of which it is the image: "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature" (Heb. 1:3).

But does He have it perfectly? Yes, because He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. This can be taken two ways: in one way, of His humanity. But this is not the way Paul understood it, because it would be heretical; for it would be a grasping [robbery] if it referred to his humanity. Therefore, it must be explained in another way, namely, of His divinity, according to which equality with God is said of Christ. It is contrary to reason to say otherwise: because the nature of God cannot be received in matter; but the fact that someone existing in a certain nature participates in that nature to a greater or lesser degree is due to the matter; which is not the case here. Therefore, we must say that He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, because He is in the form of God and knows His own nature well. And because He knows this, it is stated in John (5:18): "He called God his Father, making himself equal with God." But this is not a grasping, as it was when the devil and man wished to be equal to Him: "I will make myself like the Most High" (Is. 14:14); "You will be like God" (Gen. 3:5), for which Christ came to make satisfaction: "What I did not steal must I now restore?" (Ps. 69:4).

Christ, therefore, knowing himself to be "in the form of God," showed himself equal to God. But in order to teach the law of humility when the Jews were binding him, he not only refrained from resistance but "emptied himself," that is, withheld his power from taking effect, so that in his humiliation he seemed to be weakened as his power lay idle.

He is said not to have taken the form of God but to have been in the form of God. What he is said to have taken is the form of a slave when he was humbled like a sinner. People become slaves through sin, like Ham the son of Noah, who first received the title of slave through his own actions. His "taking the form of a slave" was not simply his becoming human but his profound identification with sinners, voluntarily "taking the form of a slave."

"Taking the form of a slave." He indeed was taken captive, bound and driven with blows. His obedience to the Father took him even as far as the cross. Yet throughout he knew himself to be the Father's Son, equal in divine dignity. Yet he did not make a display of this equality. Rather he willingly subjected himself. This patience and humility he teaches us to imitate. We are to refrain from making a display of our claims to equal dignity, but even more so we are called to lower ourselves into service as we follow the example of our Maker.

He is said to have "emptied himself" in no other way than by taking the form of a servant, not by losing the form of God. For that nature by which he is equal to the Father in the form of God remained immutable while he took our mutable nature, through which he was born of the Virgin.

He "emptied himself," not because as eternal Wisdom he underwent change. For as eternal Wisdom he is absolutely changeless. Rather without changing he chose to become known to humanity in such a humble form.

The Son humbled himself, taking the form of a slave. But meanwhile he remained above any slavery because he had no stain of sin.

The Lord Jesus Christ came in flesh and, having "accepted the form of a slave, became obedient even to death on the cross." He has no other purpose than that by this dispensation of his most merciful grace he might give life to those who have become, as it were, members of his body. He is their head in order to obtain for them the kingdom of heaven. This he did to save and set free. He redeemed and enlightened those who had formerly been consigned to the death of sin. They had been languishing in slavery, captivity and darkness under the power of the devil, the prince of sinners.

He did not take on his humanity in the simple way that a person puts on clothes, as something exterior to him. Rather he took on human form in a manner inexpressibly more excellent and more intimate than that. The apostle has made it sufficiently clear what he meant "He was made to appear in human likeness." He was not exhaustively reduced to being a man. He rather assumed the true human estate when he put on the man.

What is more benevolent than that the Lord should take on the form of a servant for the salvation of the servant? Indeed, this is of such great kindness that nothing more merciful, nothing more kind, nothing more loving can be conceived. This mode was therefore most suitable for God the restorer, for the commending of the divine power, wisdom, and benevolence.

Since therefore Christ Jesus, insofar as he was God, was equal to the Father in the form of God; insofar as he was an innocent man, he was in no way a debtor of death: when he emptied himself and became obedient unto death, he paid back to God what he had not stolen through the homage of perfect satisfaction, and offered a sacrifice of supreme sweetness for the perfect placation of God.

On that passage Bernard says in a sermon on the Nativity of the Lord: "What necessity was there for the God of majesty to so empty himself, so humble himself, so diminish himself, unless that you should do likewise? Already he cries out by example what he will preach by word." And shortly after: "It is intolerable impudence that, where majesty emptied itself, a little worm should puff itself up and swell with pride." If therefore we ought to imitate Christ in such self-emptying, it remains that to be abased belongs to the perfection of virtue.

And the Mediator executes the Father's will; for the Mediator is the Word, who is common to both-the Son of God, the Saviour of men; His Servant, our Teacher. And the flesh being a slave, as Paul testifies, how can one with any reason adorn the handmaid like a pimp? For that which is of flesh has the form of a servant. Paul says, speaking of the Lord, "Because He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant," calling the outward man servant, previous to the Lord becoming a servant and wearing flesh. But the compassionate God Himself set the flesh free, and releasing it from destruction, and from bitter and deadly bondage, endowed it with incorruptibility, arraying the flesh in this, the holy embellishment of eternity-immortality.

God did all things through him. Therefore he is also said to have "taken the form of a slave." It is not only the flesh of the slave that he assumed but the very nature of a slave that he assumed. He became a slave so that he could share human suffering in the flesh.

He let himself be "emptied." It was not through any compulsion by the Father. He complied of his own accord with the Father's good pleasure.

What sort of emptying is this? To assume the flesh, even in the form of a slave, a likeness to ourselves while not being like us in his own nature but superior to the whole creation. Thus he humbled himself, descending by his economy into mortal bounds.

By this alone let the difference between the divinity and humanity in him be perceived. For Godhead and humanity are not the same in natural quality. Otherwise how has the Word, being God, been "emptied," having let himself fall among lesser beings such as ourselves? But when we speculate on the mode of incarnation the human mind inevitably sees two things commingled by an inexpressible and unconfused union yet in no way divides the united elements but believes and firmly accepts that there is one from both, who is God, Son, Christ and Lord.

If we take him simply and solely to be a man made from a woman, how could he be said to be in the form equal to the Father? If only a man, how could he have the fullness that would make sense of his being emptied? What height could he have occupied before that he might be said to have "humbled himself?" How did he "come to be in the likeness of men" if he was already so by nature?

Read the record of his compassion. It pleased him, being the Word of God, to "take the form of a slave." So he willed to be joined to our common human condition. He took to himself the toils of the members who suffer. He made our human maladies his own. He suffered and toiled on our behalf. This is in accord with his great love of humankind.

How then did he "empty himself"? When the "form of God accepted the form of a slave," when he who is preeminently the Lord deigned to take on himself what belongs to a slave. The Word was made flesh by bearing and doing what was beneath him in his indulgence and compassion toward us. All that he possessed by nature is emptied into this his person. Having been made obedient as a man in the true "fashion of humanity," he has restored to our nature by his own humility and obedience what had perished through disobedience in Adam.

If he "therefore emptied himself, assuming the form of a slave," he was not coerced but was of his own accord made the Son of Man, existing as God's equal in the form of God. Therefore you have the Son expressing in himself the faith proper to humans.

We must understand this "emptying himself" to consist not in any loss or privation of his power but in the fact that he lowered himself to the basest level and condescended to the meanest tasks. By fulfilling these he momentarily emptied himself of his power. Assuming flesh and human form and likeness, he suffered, died and fulfilled all the things that belong to humanity.

How could he possibly have taken only human form and not human substance? For he put on the flesh and was in the flesh and suffered in the flesh. This is the mystery and the means of our salvation.… What therefore does it mean, "he emptied himself?" That the universal Logos was not universal in his actual being as the logos of the flesh and becoming flesh. Therefore he did not merely pretend to become a man but became a man.

The Son was sent by the Father and fulfills the Father's will. The mystery stated here is that it was by his own will that he came and assumed the form and image of a slave.… The Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father.… So what the Father willed the Son also willed, and what the Son willed the Father willed.

It is not as though Paul was in the slightest uncertain about Christ's identity that he said Christ was "found in human likeness." He did not say "in human likeness" as though our Lord maybe was not truly a man but a phantom. Rather he was found in human likeness while still being God yet at the same time being truly a man in the flesh, with a physical human body that he had assumed.

We do not believe that he was so emptied that he himself as Spirit became something else. Rather he, having put aside for this time the honor of his majesty, put on a human body. Only by assuming human form could he become the Savior of humanity. Note that when the sun is covered by a cloud its brilliance is suppressed but not darkened. The sun's light, which is suffused throughout the whole earth, penetrating all with its brilliant splendor, is presently obscured by a small obstruction of cloud but not taken away. So too that man, whom our Lord Jesus Christ put on, being our Savior, which means God and the Son of God, does not lessen but momentarily hides the divinity in him.

Since he is emptied on our account when he came down (and by emptying I mean as it were the reduction and lessening of his glory), he is for this reason able to be received.

The Godhead is emptied so that the human nature may accommodate it. What is human, on the other hand, is made new, becoming divine through mingling with the divine.

He "emptied himself," as the Scripture says, so that as much as nature could hold it might receive.

The one who says that he "took the form of a slave"—and this form is flesh—is saying that, being himself something else according to his divine form, something else in his nature, he assumed the servile form.

The Word who appeared in the flesh was the same as the Word that was with God. But the earthly flesh he assumed was not the same as the Godhead until this too was changed into Godhead, so that necessarily some attributes belonged to God the Word, others to the form of a slave.

He says of the Son that he has "come to be in the likeness and form of men." If he "came to be" in this likeness, this obviously implies that he was not invested with it from the beginning. Before coming to be in that likeness he was not fashioned according to some corporeal pattern. For no embodied form could become the pattern for what is previously not embodied.

To assume "the form of a slave," he "emptied himself" through obedience. He emptied himself, that is, from the "form of God," which means "equality with God."

Remaining "in the form of God," he "took the form of a slave," not being changed but "emptying himself" and hiding within himself and being made empty within his own power. He tempered himself to the form of the human state as far as was necessary to ensure that the weakness of the assumed humility would not fail to bear his immeasurable power. He went even so far as to tolerate conjunction with a human body. Just this far did his goodness moderate itself with an appropriate degree of obedience. But in making himself empty and restraining himself within himself, he did nothing detrimental to his own power, since even within this lowliness of his self-emptying he nonetheless used the resources of the evacuated power within him.

Note well the breathtaking economy by which the Son assumed flesh: Through the obedience of the one who was in the form of God [and] was emptying himself of the form of God, [he] was born as a man. In doing so, he took a new nature upon himself! This occurred not by a loss of his power and nature but by an assumption of a new condition.… Though he retained the power of his nature as God, he was in much of his earthly ministry temporarily relinquishing his exercise of the power of his nature as God as he walked as a man. The effect of this economy of order was this: The Son in his entirety, namely, as both man and God, was now, through the indulgence of the Father's will, in union with the nature of the Father. This is what occurred to God the Son: that he became a man.

Nor is this the only thing that proves the dignity of the water. But there is also that which is more honourable than all-the fact that Christ, the Maker of all, came down as the rain, and was known as a spring, and diffused Himself as a river, and was baptized in the Jordan. For you have just heard how Jesus came to John, and was baptized by him in the Jordan. Oh things strange beyond compare! How should the boundless River that makes glad the city of God have been dipped in a little water! The illimitable Spring that bears life to all men, and has no end, was covered by poor and temporary waters! He who is present everywhere, and absent nowhere-who is incomprehensible to angels and invisible to men-comes to the baptism according to His own good pleasure. When you hear these things, beloved, take them not as if spoken literally, but accept them as presented in a figure. Whence also the Lord was not unnoticed by the watery element in what He did in secret, in the kindness of His condescension to man. "For the waters saw Him, and were afraid." They wellnigh broke from their place, and burst away from their boundary. Hence the prophet, having this in his view many generations ago, puts the question, "What aileth thee, O sea, that thou reddest; and thou, Jordan, that thou wast driven back? " And they in reply said, We have seen the Creator of all things in the "form of a servant," and being ignorant of the mystery of the economy, we were lashed with fear.

Now Christ prayed all this economically as man; being, however, true God. But, as I have already said, it was the "form of the servant" that spake and suffered these things. Wherefore He added, "My soul looked for reproach and trouble," that is, I suffered of my own will, (and) not by any compulsion. Yet "I waited for one to mourn with me, and there was none," for all my disciples forsook me and fled; and for a "comforter, and I found none."

The word of prophecy passes again to Immanuel Himself. For, in my opinion, what is intended by it is just what has been already stated in the words, "giving increase of beauty in the case of the shoot." For he means that He increased and grew up into that which He had been from the beginning, and indicates the return to the glory which He had by nature. This, if we apprehend it correctly, is (we should say) just "restored" to Him. For as the only begotten Word of God, being God of God, emptied Himself, according to the Scriptures, humbling Himself of His own will to that which He was not before, and took unto Himself this vile flesh, and appeared in the "form of a servant," and "became obedient to God the Father, even unto death," so hereafter He is said to be "highly exalted; "and as if well-nigh He had it not by reason of His humanity, and as if it were in the way of grace, He "receives the name which is above every name," according to the word of the blessed Paul. But the matter, in truth, was not a "giving," as for the first time, of what He had not by nature; far otherwise. But rather we must understand a return and restoration to that which existed in Him at the beginning, essentially and inseparably. And it is for this reason that, when He had assumed, by divine arrangement, the lowly estate of humanity, He said, "Father, glorify me with the glory which I had," etc. For He who was co-existent with His Father before all time. and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Godhead. "He" too may very well be understood as the "youngest (son)." For He appeared in the last times, after the glorious and honourable company of the holy prophets, and simply once, after all those who, previous to the time of His sojourn, were reckoned in the number of sons by reason of excellence. That Immanuel, however, was an" object of envy," is a somewhat doubtful phrase. Yet He is an "object of envy" or "emulation" to the saints, who aspire to follow His footsteps, and conform themselves to His divine beauty, and make Him the pattern of their conduct, and win thereby their highest glory. And again, He is an "object of envy" in another sense,-an "object of ill-will," namely, to those who are declared not to love Him. I refer to the leading parties among the Jews,-the scribes, in sooth, and the Pharisees,-who travailed with bitter envy against Him, and made the glory of which He could not be spoiled the ground of their slander, and assailed Him in many ways. For Christ indeed raised the dead to life again, when they already stank and were corrupt; and He displayed other signs of divinity. And these should have filled them with wonder, and have made them ready to believe, and to doubt no longer. Yet this was not the case with them; but they were consumed with ill-will, and nursed its bitter pangs in their mind.

If it were through a natural inferiority that he undertook to bear "the form of a slave," this would not be an instance of humility. Yet Paul makes excellent use of this example as an exhortation precisely to humility.

What shall we say against Arius, who asserts the Son is of a different substance? Tell me now, what means, "He took the form of a servant"? It means, He became man. Wherefore "being in the form of God," He was God. For one "form" and another "form" is named; if the one be true, the other is also. "The form of a servant" means, Man by nature, wherefore "the form of God" means, God by nature.

I said that the "form of a servant" was a true form, and nothing less. Therefore "the form of God" also is perfect, and no less. Why says he not, "being made in the form of God," but "being in the form of God"? This is the same as the saying, "I am that I am." "Form" implies unchangeableness, so far as it is form. It is not possible that things of one substance should have the form of another, as no man has the form of an angel, neither has a beast the form of a man. How then should the Son?

Wherefore "He emptied Himself." Where be they who affirm, that He underwent constraint, that He was subjected? Scripture says, "He emptied Himself, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death." How did He empty Himself? By taking "the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man." It is written, "He emptied Himself" in reference to the text, "each counting other better than himself." Since had He been subjected, had He not chosen it of His own accord, and of His own free will, it would not have been an act of humility. For if He knew not that so it must be, He would have been imperfect. If, not knowing it, He had waited for the time of action, then would He not have known the season. But if He both knew that so it must be, and when it must be, wherefore should He submit to be subjected? To show, they say, the superiority of the Father. But this shows not the superiority of the Father, but His own inferiority. For is not the name of the Father sufficient to show the priority of the Father? For apart from Him, the son has all the same things. For this honor is not capable of passing from the Father to the Son.

What then say the heretics? See, say they, He did not become man. The Marcionites, I mean. But why? He was "made in the likeness of man." But how can one be "made in the likeness of men"? by putting on a shadow? But this is a phantom, and no longer the likeness of a man, for the likeness of a man is another man. And what wilt thou answer to John, when he says, "The Word became flesh"? (John i. 14.) But this same blessed one himself also says in another place, "in the likeness of sinful flesh." (Rom. viii. 3.)

"And being found in fashion as a man." See, they say, both "in fashion," and "as a man." To be as a man, and to be a man in fashion, is not to be a man indeed. To be a man in fashion is not to be a man by nature. See with what ingenuousness I lay down what our enemies say, for that is a brilliant victory, and amply gained, when we do not conceal what seem to be their strong points. For this is deceit rather than victory. What then do they say? let me repeat their argument. To be a man in fashion is not to be a man by nature; and to be as a man, and in the fashion of a man, this is not to be a man. So then to take the form of a servant, is not to take the form of a servant. Here then is an inconsistency; and wherefore do you not first of all solve this difficulty? For as you think that this contradicts us, so do we say that the other contradicts you. He says not, "as the form of a servant," nor "in the likeness of the form of a servant," nor "in the fashion of the form of a servant," but "He took the form of a servant." What then is this? for there is a contradiction. There is no contradiction. God forbid! it is a cold and ridiculous argument of theirs. He took, say they, the form of a servant, when He girded Himself with a towel, and washed the feet of His disciples. Is this the form of a servant? Nay, this is not the form, but the work of a servant. It is one thing that there should be the work of a servant, and another to take the form of a servant. Why did he not say, He did the work of a servant, which were clearer? But nowhere in Scripture is "form" put for "work," for the difference is great: the one is the result of nature, the other of action. In common speaking, too, we never use "form" for "work." Besides, according to them, He did not even take the work of a servant, nor even gird Himself. For if all was a mere shadow, there was no reality. If He had not real hands, how did He wash their feet? If He had not real loins, how did He gird Himself with a towel? and what kind of garments did he take? for Scripture says, "He took His garments." (John xiii. 12.) So then not even the work is found to have really taken place, but it was all a deception, nor did He even wash the disciples. For if that incorporeal nature did not appear, it was not in a body. Who then washed the disciples' feet?

Again, what in opposition to Paul of Samosata? for what did he affirm? The very same. But it is no emptying of Himself, that one who is of human nature, and a mere man, should wash his fellow-servants. For what we said against the Arians, we must repeat against these too, for they differ not from one another, save by a little space of time; both the one and the other affirm the Son of God to be a creature. What then shall we say to them? If He being a man washed man, He emptied not, He humbled not Himself. If He being a man seized not on being equal with God, He is not deserving of praise. That God should become man, is great, unspeakable, inexpressible humility; but what humility is there in that one, who was a man should do the works of men? And where is the work of God ever called "the form of God"? for if he were a mere man, and was called the form of God by reason of His works, why do we not do the same of Peter, for he wrought greater deeds than Christ Himself? Why say you not of Paul, that he had the form of God? Why did not Paul give an example of himself, for he wrought a thousand servile works, and did not even refuse to say, "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake." (2 Cor. iv. 5.)

These are absurdities and trifles! Scripture says, He "emptied Himself." How did He empty Himself? tell me. What was His emptying? what His humiliation? was it because He wrought wonders? This both Paul and Peter did, so that this was not peculiar to the Son. What then means, "Being made in the likeness of men"? He had many things belonging to us, and many He had not; for instance, He was not born of wedlock. He did no sin. These things had He which no man has. He was not what he seemed only, but He was God also; He seemed to be a man, but He was not like the mass of men. For He was like them in flesh. He means then, that He was not a mere man. Wherefore he says, "in the likeness of men." For we indeed are soul and body, but He was God, and soul and body, wherefore he says, "in the likeness." For lest when you hear that He emptied Himself, you should think that some change, and degeneracy, and loss is here; he says, whilst He remained what He was, He took that which He was not, and being made flesh He remained God, in that He was the Word. (John i. 14.)

In this then He was like man, and for this cause Paul says, "and in fashion." Not that His nature degenerated, nor that any confusion arose, but He became man in fashion. For when He had said that "He took the form of a servant," he made bold to say this also, seeing that the first would silence all objectors; since when he says, "In the likeness of sinful flesh," he says not that He had not flesh, but that that flesh sinned not, but was like to sinful flesh. Like in what? in nature, not in sin, therefore was His like a sinful soul. As then in the former case the term similarity was used, because He was not equal in everything, so here also there is similarity, because He is not equal in everything, as His not being born of wedlock, His being without sin, His being not a mere man. And he well said "as a man," for He was not one of the many, but "as" one of the many. The Word who was God did not degenerate into man, nor was His substance changed, but he appeared as a man; not to delude us with a phantom, but to instruct us in humility. When therefore he says, "as a man," this is what He means; since he calls Him a man elsewhere also, when he says, "there is one God, one Mediator also between God and men, Himself man, Christ Jesus." (1 Tim. ii. 5.)

Thus much against these heretics. I must now speak against such as deny that He took a soul. If "the form of God" is "perfect God," then the "form of a servant" is "a perfect servant." Again, against the Arians. Here concerning His divinity, we no longer find "He became," "He took," but "He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men"; here concerning his humanity we find "He took, He became." He became the latter, He took the latter; He was the former. Let us not then confound nor divide the natures. There is one God, there is one Christ, the Son of God; when I say "One," I mean a union, not a confusion; the one Nature did not degenerate into the other, but was united with it.

He "assumed the form of a slave" without the stain of sin, enhancing the human without diminishing the divine. That emptying by which the invisible One offered himself to be seen and the Creator and Lord of all things elected to be one among mortals was a sovereign act of stooping in majestic pity, not a defect of power.

Now the numbers into which it is divided, when put together, make seven, and one is wanting to its completion, not being in all points harmonious with itself, like six, which has reference to the Son of God, who came from tile fulness of the Godhead into a human life. For having emptied Himself, and taken upon Him the form of a slave, He was restored again to His former perfection and dignity. For He being humbled, and apparently degraded, was restored again from His humiliation and degradation to His former completeness and greatness, having never been diminished from His essential perfection.

The sovereignty of the divine Word temporarily submitted to assume a man and for a season "humbled himself" and abased himself, not exercising his nature through his powers, while he bore the man that he had assumed. He "emptied himself" when he bowed to injuries and slanders, when he heard unspeakable insults and suffered indignities.

The Son, "emptying himself," of his equality with the Father and showing us a way of knowing him, was made an express image of his substance, so that we who were unable to see the glory of pure light that inhered in the greatness of his divinity might, through that which was made splendor for us, find a way of contemplating the divine light through the sight of that splendor.

In "emptying himself," he became a man and was incarnate while remaining truly God. Having become a man, he remained the God that he was. He assumed a body like our own, differing only in that it was born from the Virgin by the Holy Spirit.

The Apostle Paul considered Him as one "of no reputation", and the crucifiers considered Him to lack understanding, and His enemies accounted Him to be without knowledge and intelligence, and concerning Jesus Paul spake against them, "The foolishness of God is wiser than the children of men." For in order that it may not weigh heavily upon thee to be thought contemptible in thy simplicity by the children of men, God Himself hath shewn Himself to be of "no reputation", in that He stood before His questioners without answering a word; and He was thought by them to be an ignorant man because He returned them not an answer. Wherefore do thou also persist in the power of thy soul, and transgress not the law of simplicity, even though thou be considered to be a fool by every man, and art esteemed to be without knowledge and instruction.

It is written that Jesus "took the form of a servant, and He became the likeness of the children of men, and He was found to be in form like unto a man," and He was truly as we are. But in one thing, which is outside of us, He did not participate, that is to say, He did not possess on this earth riches, and possessions, or mammon, or wealth, or buildings, or estates, or vineyards, for Jesus possessed none of these things in order that He might teach His own disciples that they should not possess them; and that Being Who was free took no care for them, that He might free us also from care for them. And He was not bowed beneath the yoke of bondage to the world, that He might also take from off us the heavy yoke of the bondage of the world; and He was not fettered by human affairs that He might loose from off us the fetters thereof; and carking care did not chain Him, that He might raise His disciples above the care and anxiety concerning all the things which are visible. The free Man dwelt in creation in freedom in order that He might teach us in very deed also to live therein in freedom. Whosoever then wisheth to become a disciple to that Master let him regard the sojourn of His Master in the world, and as He was, even so let him himself be in creation. The Lord of the world was a stranger and an alien in the world, and as was the Lord, even so it is meet that the servants should be.

Even in this he has what is supernatural and superessential, not only because he underwent no change or confusion in his communion with us, suffering no detriment to his exceeding fullness from his ineffable emptying but because also—the newest of all new things—he was supernatural even while in our natural condition. He was above the realm of essences while being in the realm of essences. He possessed our properties from us in a manner superior to ourselves.

"Why, sir," I asked, "is the Son of God in the parable in the form of a slave?"

"Hear," he answered: "the Son of God is not in the form of a slave, but in great power and might." "How so, sir?" I said; "I do not understand." "Because," he answered, "God planted the vineyard, that is to say, He created the people, and gave them to His Son; and the Son appointed His angels over them to keep them; and He Himself purged away their sins, having suffered many trials and undergone many labours, for no one is able to dig without labour and toil. He Himself, then, having purged away the sins of the people, showed them the paths of life by giving them the law which He received from His Father. [You see," he said, "that He is the Lord of the people, having received all authority from His Father.]"

By "emptying" the holy Scripture signifies becoming of no account, just as in Corinthians Paul speaks of faith as if it had been made of no account, or emptied of significance, if Christ be not raised. So "our preaching has been made empty" means that it is of no account and futile.… Thus the phrase "he emptied himself" means that he did not yet reveal himself. Assuming the form of a slave, he concealed that dignity which was his. So he was deemed by onlookers to be what he seemed.

See how the varied attestors agree. The Evangelist says "the Word became flesh." The apostle says that he, being in the form of God, "came to be in the form of a man" The Evangelist says "he pitched his tent among us." The apostle says "he took the form of a slave." The Evangelist says "we saw his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father." The apostle speaks of One "who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal with God." In a word, both teach the same: that, being God and the Son of God, and clothed in the Father's glory and having the same nature and power as his Begetter, the One who "in the beginning was with God and was was God" and wrought the creation "took the form of slave."

He says of the divine Word that, being God, he was not seen to be God but wore a human appearance. Yet the words "in the likeness of men" are appropriate to him, for the nature that he assumed was truly human, and yet he was not [merely] a man, though he at first glance appeared to be only a man.

Where are those who say that He descended not voluntarily, but fulfilling a command? Let them know that He emptied Himself as Lord, as One having authority over Himself. By saying "the form of a servant," the apostle thereby puts Apollinarius to shame; because He who takes the form, or, in other words, the nature of a servant, also has a fully rational soul.

"Having become like men." Based on this, the Marcionites say that the Son of God became incarnate only in appearance; for, they say, do you see how Paul says that He took the likeness of a man and clothed Himself in human form, and did not essentially become a man? But what does this mean? It means that the Lord did not have everything of ours, but lacked something, namely: He was not born in the natural order and He did not sin. But He was not only what He appeared to be, but also God: He was not an ordinary man. Therefore the apostle says "in the likeness of men," because we are soul and body, but He was soul and body and God. On this basis, when the apostle says "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3), he does not mean that He did not have flesh, but that this flesh did not sin, and was like sinful flesh in nature, but not in evil. Thus, just as there the likeness is not in the sense of complete equality, so here too he speaks of likeness in the sense that He was not born in the natural order, was sinless, and was not a mere man.

"And in appearance having become as a man." Since the apostle said that "He emptied Himself," lest you consider this an act of change and transformation, he says: remaining what He was. He took on what He was not; His nature did not change, but He appeared in outward form, that is, in the flesh, because it is proper to flesh to have a form. For when he said, "taking the form of a servant," after that he dared to say this as well, as if thereby stopping the mouths of some. He said well, "as a man," since He was not one of many, but as one of many. For God the Word did not turn into a man, but appeared as a man, and being invisible, appeared having a "form." Some, however, interpreted this passage thus: "and in form," as already truly a man, just as John says in the Gospel: "glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father" (Jn. 1:14), instead of saying: the glory which is fitting for the only-begotten to have; because "as" signifies both hesitation and affirmation.

Then when he says, but emptied himself, he commends Christ's humility: first, as to the mystery of the incarnation; secondly, as to the mystery of the passion (2:8). In regard to the first: first, he mentions His humility; secondly, its manner and form (2:7).

He says, therefore, He emptied himself. But since He was filled with the divinity, did He empty Himself of that? No, because He remained what He was; and what He was not, He assumed. But this must be understood in regard to the assumption of what He had not, and not according to the assumption of what He had. For just as He descended from heaven, not that He ceased to exist in heaven, but because He began to exist in a new way on earth, so He also emptied Himself, not by putting off His divine nature, but by assuming a human nature.

How beautiful to say that He emptied himself, for the empty is opposed to the full! For the divine nature is sufficiently full, because every perfection of goodness is there. But human nature and the soul are not full, but capable of fulness, because it was made as a slate not written upon. Therefore, human nature is empty. Hence he says, He emptied himself, because He assumed a human nature.

First, he touches on the assumption of human nature when he says, taking the form of a servant. For by reason of his creation man is a servant, and human nature is the form of a servant: "Know that the Lord is God! It is he that made us, and we are his" (Ps. 100:3); "Behold my servant, whom I uphold" (Is. 42:1). But why is it more fitting to say the form of a servant, rather than "Servant"? Because servant is the name of a hypostasis, which was not assumed, but the nature was; for that which is assumed is distinct from the one assuming it. Therefore, the Son of God did not assume a man, because that would mean that he was other than the Son of God; nevertheless, the Son of God became man. Therefore, He took the nature to His own person, so that the Son of God and the Son of man would be the same in person.

Secondly, he touches on the conformity of His nature to ours when he says, being born in the likeness of men, namely, according to species: "Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect" (Heb. 2:17). If you say that it is not fitting to speak of a species in the Lord Jesus Christ: it is true in the sense that a new species does not arise from His divinity and humanity, as though His divinity and humanity agreed in having one common species of nature, for it would follow that His divine nature, so to say, would have changed.

Thirdly, he mentions the conditions of His human nature when he says, and being found in human form. For He assumed all the defects and properties associated with the human species, except sin; therefore, he says, and being found in human form, namely, in His external life, because He became hungry as a man and tired and so on: "One who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning" (Heb. 4:15); "Afterward He appeared upon earth and lived among men" (Bar. 3:37). Thus, we can refer form to outward activities. Or in human form, because He put humanity on as a habit. For there are four kinds of habit or ways in which something is "had": one "had" thing changes a person without itself being changed, as a fool by wisdom; another is changed and also changes the possessor, as food; a third neither changes the possessor nor is changed, as a ring worn on the finger; another is changed and does not change the possessor, as a dress. And by this likeness the human nature in Christ is called a habit or "something had"; because it comes to the divine person without changing it, but the nature itself was changed for the better, because it was filled with grace and truth: "We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (Jn. 1:14). He says, therefore, being born in the likeness of men, but in such a way that He is not changed, because in habit He was found as a man.

It should be noted that some have fallen into error on account of this phrase, being found in human form. Hence he touches on several opinions: the first is that Christ's humanity accrues to Him as an accident. This is false, because the person existing in the divine nature became a person existing in the human nature; therefore, it is present not as an accident, but substantially: not that the humanity is united to the Word in His nature, but in His person. By this is excluded the error of Photinus, who said that Christ was true man but not of the Virgin: however, Paul says, he was in the form of God; therefore, He was in the form of God before receiving the form of a servant, as a result of which He is less than the Father, because He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. Arius' error is also excluded, for he said Christ was less than the Father; but Paul says, He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. And Nestorius' error, who said that the union should be taken as an indwelling, so that God dwells in the Son of man as in a temple, and that the Son of man is a person distinct from the Son of God. And Rabanus says that the incarnation was an emptying. Now it is evident that the Father and the Holy Spirit are involved in every indwelling; therefore, they too are emptied. But this is false. Furthermore, Paul says, He emptied himself; therefore the person emptied and the one emptying are the same. But this is the Son, because He emptied Himself. Therefore, the union is in the person. Also the error of Eutyches, who said that one nature results from the two. Therefore, He did not receive the form of a servant, but a different one, which is contrary to what the Apostle says. Also the error of Valentinus, who said that He took His body from heaven; and the error of Apollinaris, who said that He had no soul. If this were so, He would not have been born in the likeness of man.

Why is he "found in human form," if not because he was also God? Before he allowed himself to descend he was always seen in the power of God. But having subsequently been made weak he was "found in human form?" … And the reason for saying like is to indicate that he was also God.

He humbled himself, being made obedient even unto death, even death on a cross, so that none of us, though being able to face death without fear, might shrink from any kind of death that human beings regard as a great disgrace.

It is apparent that the Lord accepted natural feelings to confirm that his humanity was real and not illusory, but the feelings that come from wickedness, all those that besmirch the purity of our lives, he repudiated as being unworthy of his unsullied Godhead.

Since therefore Christ Jesus, insofar as he was God, was equal to the Father in the form of God; insofar as he was an innocent man, he was in no way a debtor of death: when he emptied himself and became obedient unto death, he paid back to God what he had not stolen through the homage of perfect satisfaction, and offered a sacrifice of supreme sweetness for the perfect placation of God.

For in self-giving, if anywhere, we touch a rhythm not only of all creation but of all being. For the Eternal Word also gives Himself in sacrifice; and that not only on Calvary. For when He was crucified He "did that in the wild weather of His outlying provinces which He had done at home in glory and gladness". From before the foundation of the world He surrenders begotten Deity back to begetting Deity in obedience. And as the Son glorifies the Father, so also the Father glorifies the Son.

I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man, then His sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, 'because it must have been so easy for Him'. Others may (very rightly) rebuke the ingratitude and ungraciousness of this objection; what staggers me is the misunderstanding it betrays. In one sense, of course, those who make it are right. They have even understated their own case. The perfect submission, the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus because He was God, but were possible only because He was God.

He "humbled himself," according to the Scriptures, "taking on himself the form of a slave." He became like us that we might become like him. The work of the Spirit seeks to transform us by grace into a perfect copy of his humbling.

The Word tasted death once on our behalf, the death of the cross. He went to his death so that by death he might put death to death. The Word, becoming human flesh, did not suffer in his divinity but suffered with humanity.

He added "being found in human form" because the form of God, which is properly God himself, has never been seen by anyone.

He added "being found in human form" because the form of God, which is properly God himself, has never been seen by anyone. Treatise , On the Priority of the Father

Humility is hard, since the one who humbles himself has something magnificent in his nature that works against his lowering. The one who becomes obedient, however, undertakes the act of obedience voluntarily. It is precisely through the act of humbling that he becomes obedient.

Paul himself also-after that the Lord spoke to him out of heaven, and showed him that, in persecuting His disciples, he persecuted his own Lord, and sent Ananias to him that he might recover his sight, and be baptized-"preached," it is said, "Jesus in the synagogues at Damascus, with all freedom of speech, that this is the Son of God, the Christ." This is the mystery which he says was made known to him by revelation, that He who suffered under Pontius Pilate, the same is Lord of all, and King, and God, and Judge, receiving power from Him who is the God of all, because He became "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

Wherefore he who had received the apostolate to the Gentiles, did labour more than those who preached the Son of God among them of the circumcision. For they were assisted by the Scriptures, which the Lord confirmed and fulfilled, in coming such as He had been announced; but here, [in the case of the Gentiles,] there was a certain foreign erudition, and a new doctrine [to be received, namely], that the gods of the nations not only were no gods at all, but even the idols of demons; and that there is one God, who is "above all principality, and dominion, and power, and every name which is named;" and that His Word, invisible by nature, was made palpable and visible among men, and did descend "to death, even the death of the cross;" also, that they who believe in Him shall be incorruptible and not subject to suffering, and shall receive the kingdom of heaven. These things, too, were preached to the Gentiles by word, without [the aid of] the Scriptures: wherefore, also, they who preached among the Gentiles underwent greater labour. But, on the other hand, the faith of the Gentiles is proved to be of a more noble description, since they followed the word of God without the instruction [derived] from the [sacred] writings.

And not by the aforesaid things alone has the Lord manifested Himself, but [He has done this] also by means of His passion. For doing away with [the effects of] that disobedience of man which had taken place at the beginning by the occasion of a tree, "He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross;" rectifying that disobedience which had occurred by reason of a tree, through that obedience which was [wrought out] upon the tree [of the cross]. Now He would not have come to do away, by means of that same [image], the disobedience which had been incurred towards our Maker if He proclaimed another Father. But inasmuch as it was by these things that we disobeyed God, and did not give credit to His word, so was it also by these same that He brought in obedience and consent as respects His Word; by which things He clearly shows forth God Himself, whom indeed we had offended in the first Adam, when he did not perform His commandment. In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed at the beginning.

Learn ye what humility is, ye who have a devilish pride! What then is humility? To be lowly minded. And he is lowly minded who humbles himself, not he who is lowly by necessity. To explain what I say; and do ye attend; he who is lowly minded, when he has it in his power to be high minded, is humble, but he who is so because he is not able to be high minded, is no longer humble. For instance, If a King subjects himself to his own officer, he is humble, for he descends from his high estate; but if an officer does so, he will not be lowly minded; for how? he has not humbled himself from any high estate. It is not possible to show humble-mindedness except it be in our power to do otherwise. For if it is necessary for us to be humble even against our will, that excellency comes not from the spirit or the will, but from necessity. This virtue is called humble-mindedness, because it is the humbling of the mind.

If he who has it not in his power to snatch at another's goods, continues in the possession of his own; should we praise him, think you, for his justice? I trow not, and why? The praise of free choice is taken away by the necessity. If he, who has it not in his power to usurp and be a king, remains a private citizen, should we praise him for his quietness? I trow not. The same rule applies here. For praise, O ye most senseless ones, is not given for abstaining from these things, but for the performance of good deeds; for the former is free indeed from blame, but partakes not yet of praise, while eulogy of the other is meet.

When exhorting to lowliness of mind, Paul would never have brought forward a lesser one, as obedient to a greater. If he were exhorting servants to obey their masters, he might have done so with propriety, but when exhorting the free to obey the free, to what purpose could he bring forward the subjection of a servant to a master? of a lesser to a greater? He says not, "Let the lesser be subject to the greater," but ye who are of equal honor with each other be ye subject, "each counting other better than themselves." Why then did he not bring forward even the obedience of the wife, and say, As the wife obeys her husband, so do ye also obey. Now if he did not bring forward that state in which there is equality and liberty, since in that the subjection is but slight, how much less would he have brought forward the subjection of a slave? I said above, that no one so praises a man for abstaining from evil, nor even mentions him at all; no one who desires to praise a man for continence would say, he has not committed adultery, but, he has abstained from his own wife; for we do not consider abstinence from evil as a matter of praise at all, it would be ridiculous.

If the Son were inferior, this were not a sufficient example to lead us to humility. And why? because it is not humility, for the lesser not to rise against the greater, not to snatch at rule, and to be "obedient unto death."

"He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, the death of the cross." See, says one, He voluntarily became obedient; he was not equal to Him whom He obeyed. O ye obstinate ones and unwise! This cloth not at all lower Him. For we too become obedient to our friends, yet this has no effect. He became obedient as a Son to His Father; He fell not thus into a servile state, but by this very act above all others guarded his wondrous Sonship, by thus greatly honoring the Father. He honored the Father, not that thou shouldest dishonor Him, but that thou shouldest the rather admire Him, and learn from this act, that He is a true Son, in honoring His Father more than all besides. No one hath thus honored God. As was His height, such was the correspondent humiliation which He underwent. As He is greater than all, and no one is equal to Him, so in honoring His Father, He surpassed all, not by necessity, nor unwillingly, but this too is part of His excellence; yea, words fail me. Truly it is a great and unspeakable thing, that He became a servant; that He underwent death, is far greater; but there is something still greater, and more strange; why? All deaths are not alike; His death seemed to be the most ignominious of all, to be full of shame, to be accursed; for it is written, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." (Deut. xxi. 23; Gal. iii. 13.) For this cause the Jews also eagerly desired to slay Him in this manner, to make Him a reproach, that if no one fell away from Him by reason of His death, yet they might from the manner of His death. For this cause two robbers were crucified with Him, and He in the midst, that He might share their ill repute, and that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "And he was numbered with the transgressors." (Isa. liii. 12.) Yet so much the more doth truth shine forth, so much the more doth it become bright; for when His enemies plot such things against His glory, and it yet shines forth, so much the greater does the matter seem. Not by slaying Him, but by slaying Him in such sort did they think to make Him abominable, to prove Him more abominable than all men, but they availed nothing. And both the robbers also were such impious ones, (for it was afterward that the one repented,) that, even when on the cross, they reviled Him; neither the consciousness of their own sins, nor their present punishment, nor their suffering the same things themselves, restrained their madness. Wherefore the one spake to the other, and silenced him by saying, "Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?" (Luke xxiii. 40.) So great was their wickedness. Wherefore it is written, "God also highly exalted Him, and gave Him the Name which is above every name." When the blessed Paul hath made mention of the flesh, he fearlessly speaks of all His humiliation. For until he had mentioned that He took the form of a servant, and while he was speaking of His Divinity, behold how loftily he doth it, (loftily, I say, according to his power; for he speaks not according to His own worthiness, seeing that he is not able). "Being in the form of God, He counted it not a prize to be equal with God." But when he had said, that He became Man, henceforth he fearlessly discourseth of His low estate, being confident that the mention of His low estate would not harm His Divinity, since His flesh admitted this.

He "was made obedient even to death." His obedience teaches us that we too cannot obtain salvation except through obedience. By this means he has reconstituted the laws of ruling and being ruled, so much so that he "has put all his enemies under his feet."

Suppose the terms figure (or image or fashion), likeness and form referred merely to a phantom. There would then have been no substance to Christ's humanity. But in this case figure, likeness and form all point to the reality of his humanity. He is truly God, as Son of the Father, in his figure and image. He is truly man, as the Son of Man, found in the figure and image of man. It is noteworthy that elsewhere Paul calls Christ the "image of the invisible God." And indeed he had a reason for saying found, meaning that Christ was most certainly a man; for what is found surely must exist. Just as he was found to be God in power, so too he was a man in flesh. The apostle would not have declared him to become obedient to death if he had not been constituted of a mortal substance. Still more plainly does this appear when he adds the heavily laden words "even unto the death of the cross." For he would not exaggerate the atrocity in extolling his power in a conflict which he knew to have been imaginary or a mere fantasy. In that case Christ would rather have eluded the cross than experienced it. There would then have been no virtue in his suffering but only an illusion.

Therefore, as He was found to be God by His mighty power, so was He found to be man by reason of His flesh, because the apostle could not have pronounced Him to have "become obedient unto death," if He had not been constituted of a mortal substance.

Still more plainly does this appear from the apostle's additional words, "even the death of the cross." For he could hardly mean this to be a climax to the human suffering, to extol the virtue of His obedience, if he had known it all to be the imaginary process of a phantom, which rather eluded the cross than experienced it, and which displayed no virtue in the suffering, but only illusion.

For his sake He came down (from heaven), for his sake He preached, for his sake "He humbled Himself even unto death-the death of the cross." He loved, of course, the being whom He redeemed at so great a cost.

His humbling was not undertaken as a slave in relation to a master's command. Rather he willingly undertook the saving work on our behalf. He obeyed as a son, not as a slave.

Again he says: "humbled Himself," lest anyone think that He condescended not voluntarily. But the Arians say: behold, it is said of Him: "obedient." So what of it, you senseless ones? We too obey our friends, and this in no way diminishes our dignity. As the Son, He voluntarily obeyed the Father, showing by this also His kinship with Him; because it is the duty of a true Son to honor the Father. Pay attention to the intensification of the expression: not only did He become a servant, but He accepted death, and even more than that — a shameful death, that is, death on the cross, accursed, appointed for the lawless.

Then when he says, He humbled himself, he commends Christ's humility as indicated in His passion: first, he shows Christ's humility; secondly, its manner (2:8). Therefore He was man, but very great, because the same one is God and man; yet He humbled himself: "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" (Si. 3:18); "Learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart" (Matt. 11:29).

The manner and the sign of His humility is obedience, whereas it is characteristic of the proud to follow their own will, for a proud person seeks greatness. But it pertains to a great thing that it not be ruled by something else, but that it rule other things; therefore, obedience is contrary to pride.

Hence, in order to show the greatness of Christ's humility and passion, he says that He became obedient; because if He had not suffered out of obedience, His passion would not be so commendable, for obedience gives merit to our sufferings. But how was He made obedient? Not by His divine will, because it is a rule; but by His human will, which is ruled in all things according to the Father's will: "Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt" (Mt. 26:39). And it is fitting that He bring obedience into His passion, because the first sin was accomplished by disobedience: "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19); "The obedient man shall speak of victory" (Prov. 21:28). That this obedience is great and commendable is evident from the fact that obedience is great when it follows the will of another against one's own. Now the movement of the human will tends toward two things, namely, to life and to honor. But Christ did not refuse death: "Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous" (1 Pet. 3:18). Furthermore, He did not flee ignominy; hence he says, even death on a cross, which is the most shameful: "Let us condemn him to a shameful death" (Wis. 2:20). Thus, He neither refused death nor an ignominious form of death.

He shows what and how much his humility deserved, so that we, trampling down our boastfulness, might find ourselves all the more humble.

Scripture says that the gift was given to him who "emptied himself," who "took the form of a slave," who was "made to appear as a man," who was "obedient to the Father." But if it was a mere man and nothing else who was obedient to God the Father, what is remarkable about that?… His name is not above every name unless he is so by his very nature. A titular name rests solely on usage, not on the nobility of one's nature. The creation does not bend its knees for a titular God but for the real God.

Some argue "the name which is above every name" was given only to his humanity. In no way could this be so. For it is not possible that God should lack those things that he once had. For God, even while assuming humanity, remained God.

It is not assumed here that the Son of God was lacking or imperfect before "the name that is above every name" was given to Christ.… Even before his passion he showed himself equal to God, as I have stated. Hence it is clear that he was born perfect, for he is seen to have possessed all things from the beginning. He was born in the fullness of divinity for the very purpose of doing all that he was destined to perform. So he had already received the gift before he performed the things that he was born to do. It therefore seems that the gift of God, which consists in his being Son, was that his name should be "above every name," which consists in his being God.

That "God has highly exalted him" does not imply that the essential nature of the Word at long last became exalted. For God the Son is and always was equal to God the Father. The exaltation is of the humanity.… The text says "he humbled himself" with reference to the assumption of the flesh. So too it says "he exalted him" with reference to the flesh. It was the human race that needed this, because of the humiliation of its flesh and because of its consequent death. Thus the Word who is immortal and the image of the Father "has taken the form of a slave" and suffered death on the cross as a man for our sake. He did this in order that he might thus present himself as an offering to the Father. It is thus as a man that he is said to have been exalted for our sake. Hence all of us die in Christ and through his death may again be exalted in Christ himself.

I do not think we are entitled to assume that all who use this Name without reverential prefixes are making a 'careless' use of it; otherwise, we should have to say that the Evangelists were often careless. Should we not rather recognize that the presence or absence of such prefixes constitutes a difference, not in faith or morals, but simply in style?

Let us wait for Him, beloved brethren, our Judge and Avenger, who shall equally avenge with Himself the congregation of His Church, and the number of all the righteous from the beginning of the world. Let him who hurries, and is too impatient for his revenge, consider that even He Himself is not yet avenged who is the Avenger. God the Father ordained His Son to be adored; and the Apostle Paul, mindful of the divine command, lays it down, and says: "God hath exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things heavenly, and things earthly, and things beneath." And in the Apocalypse the angel withstands John, who wishes to worship him, and says: "See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren. Worship Jesus the Lord." How great is the Lord Jesus, and how great is His patience, that He who is adored in heaven is not yet avenged on earth! Let us, beloved brethren, consider His patience in our persecutions and sufferings; let us give an obedience full of expectation to His advent; and let us not hasten, servants as we are, to be defended before our Lord with irreligious and immodest eagerness. Let us rather press onward and labour, and, watching with our whole heart, and stedfast to all endurance, let us keep the Lord's precepts; so that when that day of anger and vengeance shall come, we may not be punished with the impious and sinners, but may be honoured with the righteous and those that fear God.

That [saving sacrifice] which no human or angelic or divine power had yet endured he accepted for the sake of our salvation. Therefore upon him alone the Father has bestowed the name that is above every name, committing to him the judgment of all.

Through the Son human nature was redeemed. It was human nature that he undoubtedly came to redeem. It was this human nature that the Son took up into the unity of his person. And because his humanity is never sundered from the Son of God, it therefore rules in heaven and earth over all angels and all humanity.

He received "the name that is above every name." He received this name because of his saving word, because of the mystery of his passion, where death was vanquished by the very death of Christ. Through this grace he received the name. It was at that point that the name rightly accrued to him. But the reality to which the name pointed was already given before. The Word, the very power of God, did not become real for the first time only when it entered flesh. Rather it possessed its reality as the power, wisdom, action and work of God from the outset, when it was called the Word and when it indeed was the Word. It is that same Word that has now put on flesh … that has received the title of Son, which title is above every name.

"Therefore," he says, "God exalted him." But who was it that was exalted? Evidently the one who underwent the torture of the cross and death. It was not God himself, who is always on high throughout.

The "name that is above every name" is God. It is not given to God in order that he should become God. For God the Son was the Word in the beginning with the Father. But the man assumed by the Son takes on his mission. In this way the Son of God, who had always existed, remains still equally God when joined to the humanity that he received from the Virgin.

The "name that is above every name" is God. It is not given to God in order that he should become God. For God the Son was the Word in the beginning with the Father. But the man assumed by the Son takes on his mission. In this way the Son of God, who had always existed, remains still equally God when joined to the humanity that he received from the Virgin. Treatise , On the Priority of the Father

"Therefore," he says, "God exalted him." But who was it that was exalted? Evidently the one who underwent the torture of the cross and death. It was not God himself, who is always on high throughout. Treatise , On the Priority of the Father

It is obvious that the highest is in need of no exaltation. Only what is lowly can be lifted to the exalted state, becoming now what it was not before. Being united to the Lord the human nature is lifted up to share in his divinity. What is exalted is that which has been lifted up from lowliness.

God is "above every name." The only proper way to name God is as above every name. God exceeds every operation of the intellect. God cannot be contained in any nominal definition. This is a sign to us of God's incommunicable greatness.

"Wherefore also God highly exalted Him, and gave Him the Name which is above every name: that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Let us say against the heretics, If this is spoken of one who was not incarnate, if of God the Word, how did He highly exalt Him? Was it as if He gave Him something more than He had before? He would then have been imperfect in this point, and would have been made perfect for our sakes. For if He had not done good deeds to us, He would not have obtained that honor! "And gave Him the Name." See, He had not even a name, as you say! But how, if He received it as His due, is He found here to have received it by grace, and as a gift? And that "the Name which is above every name": and of what kind, let us see, is the Name? "That at the Name of Jesus," saith He, "every knee should bow." They (the heretics) explain name by glory. This glory then is above all glory, and this glory is in short that all worship Him! But ye hold yourselves far off from the greatness of God, who think that ye know God, as He knoweth Himself, and from this it is plain, how far off ye are from right thoughts of God. And this is plain from hence. Is this, tell me, glory? Therefore before men were created, before the angels or the archangels, He was not in glory. If this be the glory which is above every glory, for this is the name that is "above every name," though He were in glory before, yet was He in glory inferior to this. It was for this then that He made the things that are, that He might be raised to glory, not from His own goodness, but because He required glory from us! See ye not their folly? see ye not their impiety?

For that Jesus represented Christ: for when he was at first called Auses, Moses, foreseeing the future, ordered that he should be called Jesus; that since he had been chosen as the leader of the warfare against Amalek, who was the enemy of the children of Israel, he might both subdue the adversary by the emblem of the name, and lead the people into the land of promise. And for this reason he was also successor to Moses, to show that the new law given by Christ Jesus was about to succeed to the old law which was given by Moses.

He received "the name that is above every name," which we must certainly understand as nothing other than the name of God. For it belongs to God to be above all. So it follows that the name that is above all belongs to him who is above all, namely, God.

It was not the Word of God who needed or received exaltation. For the Word was in the beginning exalted with the Father. It was the Son of Man who was exalted from lowliness. This exaltation occurred when he had glorified God in his death.

None of the faithful doubt that the Son of God was begotten in perfect reception of all that belongs to the character of God. The Son received all the attributes of divinity in being born from God the Father. It was then that he received "the name that is above all names," that is, that he should be called what the Father is called. Nothing different is predicated of him with regard to the future, since he has all things before him. So he was born for the re-creation and restoration of all these. Seeing that order and reason demand that every knee should bow to the name of the Father, the Father bestowed this name upon the Son because of the salvation he was to perform. This name was bestowed when he begot the Son. The Father begot him that he might enjoy the same honor as the Father himself.

Even to the most inattentive it is obvious that the divine nature needs nothing. He did not become human by being raised up from lowliness. Rather he abased himself from the utmost height. He did not receive what he did not have before but received as a man what he possessed as God.

When Paul mentioned the flesh, he boldly speaks of all His humiliation, since this is proper to the flesh. Thus, understand these words also as referring to the flesh, without dividing the one Christ. What then is the name bestowed upon the human nature of the one Christ? This name is Son, this name is God; because this Man is the Son of God, as the archangel also said: "and the holy thing which shall be born shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

Above he praised Christ's humility, here he cites its reward, which is exaltation and glory: "Every one who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Lk. 14:11); "God saves the lowly" (Job 22:29). Note the threefold exaltation of Christ. First, as to the glory of the resurrection (2:9a); secondly, as to the manifestation of His divinity (2:9b); thirdly, as to the reverence shown by every creature (2:10).

He says, therefore God has highly exalted him, namely, that He should rise from the dead and pass from mortality to immortality: "Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him" (Rom. 6:9); "The right hand of the Lord does valiantly! I shall not die, but I shall live" (Ps. 118:16). He also exalted Him by setting Him on His right hand: "He raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come" (Eph. 1:20). But while it is true that others are raised to glory and immortality, He is more so, because God bestowed on him the name which is above every name. Now a name is imposed to signify some thing, and the loftier the thing signified by a name, the loftier is the name: hence the name of the divinity is highest: "O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth!" (Ps. 8:1). Therefore, this name, that He should be called and should be God, the Father gave Him, i.e., to Christ, as to the true God.

But Photinus says that this is mentioned here as a reward for Christ's humility and that it does not mean He is true God, but merely that He received a certain pre-eminence over the creature and a likeness of the godhead. This however, is not true, because it was stated that he was in the form of God. Therefore, one must answer that there are two natures and one hypostasis in Christ: for this person is God and man. Therefore, this can be explained in two ways: in one way, that the Father gave Him this name inasmuch as He is the Son of God; and this from all eternity by an eternal engendering, so that this giving is no more than His eternal generation: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself" (Jn. 5:26). In another way it can refer to Christ as man; and then the Father gave that man the name of being God not by nature, because God's nature is distinct from the nature of man, but to be God by the grace, not of adoption, but of union, by which He is at once God and man: "Designated Son of God in power," He, namely, "who was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:4). This second way is Augustine's explanation in keeping with the Apostle's intention. Similarly, it is stated in Acts (2:36) "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." The first is Ambrose's.

But you might object to both explanations and ask why he says, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death and follows with, therefore God has highly exalted him, since the reward does not precede the merit. Therefore, neither the eternal engendering nor the incarnation is the reward of Christ's passion, because they precede it. The answer is that in Sacred Scripture a thing is said to occur when it is known. Therefore, God bestowed, i.e., made manifest to the world, that He has this name. This was manifested in the resurrection, because prior to it the divinity of Christ was not that well known.

I have heard that there was a certain conjurer of demons. One day, when he was invoking a demon in the midst of certain persons who wished to obtain something from the demon, a certain priest passed by carrying the Body of Christ, and immediately the demon bowed down before him, and likewise on his return. And the conjurer said: whence is this? You have forbidden me to adore Christ, and yet you adore him? The demon replied: I did so unwillingly. Is it not written: "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth?"

He, then, is the Strong One. That is why "at the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven, on earth and under the earth." And so all the wars of Scripture refer to the victory of Christ.

For the Father has delivered and subjected all to Christ our King "that at the name of Jesus every knee may bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

"And not only for our sins,"— that is for those of the faithful, — is the Lord the propitiator, does he say, "but also for the whole world." He, indeed, saves all; but some [He saves], converting them by punishments; others, however, who follow voluntarily [He saves] with dignity of honour; so "that every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth;" [Philippians 2:10] that is, angels, men, and souls that before His advent have departed from this temporal life.

That in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of beings celestial and terrestrial and subterranean; where by beings celestial are meant the angels, by the terrestrial men, and by the subterranean those that are buried in the earth. For the Apostle says that this is to take place at the resurrection, when all, alike angels that are in heaven, men that are upon the earth, and the dead that are buried in the earth, shall all rise and bow the knee in the name of Jesus the Son of God

He worships as one who has assumed the worshiping nature of humanity. It is this same One who is now worshiped as transcending the worshiping nature of humanity. He is now known to be God.

God the Word inhabited as his own temple the body taken from the woman. In this body lived a rational soul. God remade it into his own glory. On this account the holy Scripture declares that worship is proper only to the one who is God by nature. This is what Paul means when he writes that "at the name of Christ Jesus every knee shall bow.

This means that after the mystery of the passion and the triumph of the ascension he who was wholly the Son of God with that which he had consented to be for our sakes, while remaining in the glory of God the Father (which means of course in the divinity of his own nature), should be adored by all the powers in heaven, on earth and below.

This means that after the mystery of the passion and the triumph of the ascension he who was wholly the Son of God with that which he had consented to be for our sakes, while remaining in the glory of God the Father (which means of course in the divinity of his own nature), should be adored by all the powers in heaven, on earth and below. Treatise , On the Priority of the Father

This name has become superior to every name. His divinity is such that it cannot be adequately manifested merely through verbal signs, no matter how exalted they are. As the exalted One comes to be in the lowly, so the lowly One may receive in return the properties of the exalted.

The One who once came into the world has now become the Firstborn from the dead, both of brothers in faith and of all creation. He will return to the world as judge of all the world in righteousness, as the prophet declares, when it will become clear. The name of Firstborn, which he assumed first on our behalf, will not be cast away in in those last days. Every knee will bow at the name of Jesus. He is above every name. The whole company of angels worships this One who has been called the Firstborn. They all rejoice in the restoration of humanity, whom he has restored to their original grace by becoming the Firstborn among us.

After a little space the stone will come from heaven which smites the image and breaks it in pieces, and subverts all the kingdoms, and gives the kingdom to the saints of the Most High. This is the stone which becomes a great mountain, and fills the whole earth, of which Daniel says: "I saw in the night visions, and behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and was brought near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom; and all peoples, tribes, and languages shall serve Him: and His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be destroyed." He showed all power given by the Father to the Son, who is ordained Lord of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and Judge of all: of things in heaven, because He was born, the Word of God, before all (ages); and of things on earth, because He became man in the midst of men, to re-create our Adam through Himself; and of things under the earth, because He was also reckoned among the dead, preaching the Gospel to the souls of the saints, (and) by death overcoming death.

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess" to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses," and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

Now if they had said this of Him that was incarnate, there had been reason, for God the Word allows that this be said of His flesh. It touches not His divine nature, but has to do altogether with the dispensation. What means "of things in heaven, and things in the earth, and things under the earth"? It means the whole world, and angels, and men, and demons; or that both the just and the living and sinners.

The Deacon: Bow your heads to Jesus.

For all this was done that the Lamb and Son of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, might, of His own will, and for us, come to His saving Passion, and might be recognised, as it were, in the market and place of selling; and that those who bought Him might for thirty pieces of silver covenant for Him who, with His life-giving blood, was to redeem the world; and that Christ, our passover, might be sacrificed for us, in order that those who were sprinkled with His precious blood, and sealed on their lips, as the posts of the door, might escape from the darts of the destroyer; and that Christ having thus suffered in the flesh, and having risen again the third day, might, with equal honour and glory with the Father and the Holy Ghost, be by all created things equally adored; for to Him every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, sending up glory to Him, for ever and ever. Amen.

From a single beginning come many differences and varieties in creation. All these are now being recalled once again, synoptically in this text. They are now being viewed in relation to God's goodness made known through the obedience of Christ. They are being drawn into a unity by the Holy Spirit. Everything is moving toward a common end, which corresponds to the goodness of the beginning. This means all those "in heaven and earth and the lower regions," who, "bowing the knee at the name of Jesus," have declared through this very act the tokens of their subjection. In these three appellations the whole universe is indicated. All things issue from one origin. They have been driven by their own motions in diverse ways. They are to be allotted different levels of blessedness in accord with their own willing.

We should not understand this carnally, so as to suppose that even the heavenly bodies, which he says bend their knees, do this with fleshly limbs.… What spirit has knees? But the bending of the knees indicates that all is in subjection and observes the worship of God.

That is, the whole world: angels, men, and demons; or: both the righteous and sinners. Because even the demons will acknowledge, and the disobedient will submit, no longer opposing the truth, just as even before that time they said: "I know You, who You are" (Luke 4:34).

This is supported by the text which follows: it implies that He did not give Him a name He did not already have, but that all should venerate it. And he mentions two types of veneration, namely, subjecting the body and confessing with the mouth: and every tongue confess. He says therefore: He has given Him a name which is above all names, even as man; hence he adds, that at the name of Jesus, which is the name of the man, every knee should bow; "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear" (Is. 45:23).

But here is where Origen erred, because when he heard that every knee should bow, which is a sign of subjection, he believed that at some future time every rational creature, whether angels or men or devils, would be subjected to Christ by the allegiance of charity. But this is contrary to Matthew (25:41): "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." It should be noted that there are two kinds of subjection: one is voluntary and the other involuntary.

In the future it will come about that all the holy angels will be subject to Christ voluntarily; hence he says, every knee should bow, where he mentions the sign for the thing signified: "Adore him all his angels" (Ps. 97:7). Likewise, holy and just and beatified men will be subject in this way: "All the nations thou hast made shall come and bow down before thee, O Lord, and shall glorify thy name" (Ps. 86:9); but not the devils and the damned, for they will be subject involuntarily: "Even the demons believe—and shudder" (Jas. 2:19).

The glory of the Father is that the human race not only was created but was re-created when lost. It was given life once again when dead, so as to become a renewed temple of God. For the powers in heaven also, the angels and the archangels, worship him and now worship the Lord "in the name of Jesus." This joy and exaltation belongs to human beings, because the Son of God, having himself become a human being, is now worshiped. The heavenly powers are not offended when they behold all of us being led into our heavenly abode as we share in his body. This could not have happened in any other way. It happened only because, "being in the form of God and taking the form of a slave, he humbled himself,"

And why should we add many words concerning those who are sisted before the bar? Then the righteous shall shine forth like the sun, while the wicked shall be shown to be mute and gloomy. For both the righteous and the wicked shall be raised incorruptible: the righteous, to be honoured eternally, and to taste immortal joys; and the wicked, to be punished in judgment eternally. Each ponders the question as to what answer he shall give to the righteous Judge for his deeds, whether good or bad. With all men each one's actions shall environ him, whether he be good or evil. For the powers of the heavens shall be shaken, and fear and trembling shall consume all things, both heaven and earth and things under the earth. And every tongue shall confess Him openly, and shall confess Him who comes to judge righteous judgment, the mighty God and Maker of all things. Then with fear and astonishment shall come angels, thrones, powers, principalities, dominions, and the cherubim and seraphim with their many eyes and six wings, all crying aloud with a mighty voice, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, omnipotent; the heaven and the earth are full of Thy glory." And the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Judge who accepts no man's person, and the Jurist who distributes justice to every man, shall be revealed upon His dread and lofty throne; and all the flesh of mortals shall see His face with great fear and trembling, both the righteous and the sinner.

"And every tongue," should "confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." That is, that all should say so; and this is glory to the Father. Seest thou how wherever the Son is glorified, the Father is also glorified? Thus too when the Son is dishonored, the Father is dishonored also. If this be so with us, where the difference is great between fathers and sons, much more in respect of God, where there is no difference, doth honor and insult pass on to Him. If the world be subjected to the Son, this is glory to the Father. And so when we say that He is perfect, wanting nothing, and not inferior to the Father, this is glory to the Father, that he begat such a one. This is a great proof of His power also, and goodness, and wisdom, that He begat one no whit inferior, neither in wisdom nor in goodness. When I say that He is wise as the Father, and no whit inferior, this is a proof of the great wisdom of the Father; when I say that He is powerful as the Father, this is a proof of the Father's power. When I say that He is good as the Father, this is the greatest evidence of His goodness, that He begat such (a Son), in no whit less or inferior to Himself. When I say that He begat Him not inferior in substance but equal, and not of another substance, in this I again wonder at God, His power, and goodness, and wisdom, that He hath manifested to us another, of Himself, such as Himself, except in His not being the Father. Thus whatsoever great things I say of the Son, pass on to the Father. Now if this small and light matter (for it is but a light thing to God's glory that the world should worship Him) is to the glory of God, how much more so are all those other things?

Every tongue stands for every people. But if the confession of Christ as Lord is a glorification of the Father, it is clear that those who call him a creature and a slave deface the glory of the Father also. In these few words, however, the divine apostle has subdued every heresy, among those who blaspheme the divinity of the Only Begotten, and those who deny his humanity and those who misconstrue the hypostatic union of the two natures.

That is, so that all would say that the Lord Jesus Christ is Lord and God. The glory of the Father consists in this: that He has such a Son, to Whom everything submits. Do you see that in the glorification of the Only-Begotten lies the glory of the Father? So that, on the contrary, His diminishment constitutes the dishonor of the Father.

Then when he says, and every tongue confess, he touches on the reverence shown by confessing with the mouth: Every tongue, namely, in heaven and on earth and under the earth. This does not refer to a confession of praise from those under the earth, but to a forced confession, which is made by recognizing God: "And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together" (Is. 40:5); "Let them praise thy great and terrible name! Holy is he!" (Ps. 99:3). And this confession will recognize that Jesus Christ is Lord in the glory of God the Father. He does not say in a similar glory, because it is the same glory: "That all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (Jn. 5:23). It should be noted that earlier he had said that, he was in the form of God, but here he says in the glory, because it would come to pass that what He had from all eternity would be known by all: "Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made" (Jn. 17:5).