Chapter VII – The Character of Christ: His Humiliation

For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also, Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God, nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself…

kai (AND) schEmati (to-FIGURE) heuretheis (BEING-FOUND) hOs (AS) anthrOpos (HUMAN) etapeinOsen (HE-causeS-LOW) heauton (Himself)

Fashion

As we enter into verse eight, we can now appreciate the full breadth of Christ’s emptying. As noted in the previous article, Christ’s emptying comprised of three successive participles – taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and now being found in fashion as a human.

What does it mean to be “found, in fashion, as a man?”

The word “fashion,” used in Phil. 2:8, is schema, or, with the Greek elements, “FIGURE.” He is the figure of a man – the five senses take precedent in “fashion” of a man. The only other time ‘fashion’ is used is in relation to the world itself, in 1 Cor. 7:31, which gives this a word a transient nature, a passing context. The present “fashion” of man is passing, and will change.

Recognizing this further reveals for us the truth: that Christ held a former place among the celestials, and yet took a different outward appearance, came to be like us, being found in this transient figure. The three dimensions to this are thus clearly noted – the first aspect refers to His appearance (His slavish form,) the second refers to His condition (His likeness to Man, establishing His connection to the entire race,) and the third refers to His experience (the fashion, and thus the senses and body in which He functioned.)

Not-So-Brief Interlude: Not the “Nature”

This further dispels any Trinitarian idea as to the dual “nature” of Christ – “fully God and fully Man.” It is often claimed that there is something from the form of God that is retained in the form of a slave. Such an assumption can only be made on the basis of two forced falsehoods:

1)    That “form” represents some internal quality, or “nature,” and does not mean outward appearance in this specific use of the term

2)    That “empties” does not truly “make void,” as every other use of the term would indicate

It is interesting to note that these misunderstandings are exacerbated by the Socinian crew, who claim that “form of God” refers to a rank/position of Christ, which, by merit of Christ’s position, must also be retained in the form of a slave. Both positions argue as polar opposites of each other, and yet operate on the grounds of the same faulty argument. To admit one, then, would be to admit the other. The only proper solution is to take the passage literally, thus exposing the lie for representing two sides of the same coin.

Christ’s change in form, His emptying from His place at the Head of the universe, does not demand either idea. Such is vain reasoning, plain and simple. The spirit of Christ, simply, is eonian, remaining the same across eons (cf. Heb. 9:14.) This spirit is, regardless of the form in which it embodies.

Still, we have been rebutted: “Foul! Matthew 1 and Luke 1 both proclaim that Christ is generated in Miriam’s womb. Thus His origin is fully Man, and to deny this is a disqualifying belief!” And, on the other end of this piety: “Foul! John 1:1 proclaims that Jesus is God! Thus He has no origin, and is fully God! Becoming fully Man was His prerogative, and He held both at the same time. To deny that is the disqualifying belief!”

On both of these fronts, Seth and myself have repeatedly pointed at the third verse God gives the modern reader in Paul’s letters. Romans 1:3-4 fully convey the solution to an otherwise insoluble riddle:

([God’s Son] comes of the seed of David according to the flesh, [and] is designated Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead)…

The passage clarifies all discrepancy, and this at the outset. This parenthetical is undoubtedly the “Christ” aspect of Paul’s message concerning “Christ and Him crucified.” Christ is explicitly conveyed as God’s Son, giving Him a distinct origin. His flesh and spirit are treated as distinct. His flesh comes from David – the lineage in which He was grafted into. It is this that is “generated” in Miriam’s womb. This is entirely in accord with the fleshly scope of Matthew, which is concerned primarily with the narrative of Christ as King, in flesh, and Luke, which too is concerned with the narrative of Christ as a Human.

Let’s take a brief excursion into the Old Testament, and read from one of those prophets who promised Jesus’ arrival beforehand. Observe Isaiah 11:1-2–

Then a Twig will come forth from the set slip of Jesse, And a Scion, it shall be fruitful from his roots.

This is one of those ‘hard statements’ that our modern ears have trouble grasping. The “Twig” is capitalized for a reason – it represents Christ. Christ “comes forth” from the set slip of Jesse – the father of King David. So the lineage of Jesse leads to David, which inevitably leads to Jesus (Matt. 1:6-16.) Easy enough, right?

Now for the second half of this phrase. “Scion” is also capitalized, representing Christ. A ‘scion’ is a shoot or twig of a plant used for grafting. “Grafting” is the process of inserting this ‘scion’ into the slit of a trunk of a living plant. From there, the scion receives the sap and nutrients of the living plant, causing it to grow and flourish, having adapted to the living plant.

Are you beginning to get the picture? The “Scion” that shall be fruitful from Jesse’s roots? Yes, that’s Christ. Christ is not sourced in Israel’s lineage, but was grafted in to Israel’s lineage by God.

This is how Christ is “God’s Son,” but also “comes of the seed of David.” In coming of the seed of David, Christ is a Son of Man (Matt. 8:30, 9:6, 10:23, etc.) When we read of Christ as Israel’s Messiah in the Old Testament, this is what is being referred to. We only need consider Christ coming of the seed of David when we consider Him “according to the flesh.”

Paul, thankfully, is not merely telling us about Jesus according to the flesh, but according to a spirit of holiness as well, in verse 4. The phrase “according to the flesh” stands in direct contrast to “according to a spirit of holiness.” These two aspects of Christ are distinct – Paul purposefully separates these two qualities of Christ. Perfect as they are, they stand in opposition to each other, just as a believer’s flesh and spirit are in opposition today (Gal. 5:17.) The flesh shows His relationship to Israel – yet the spirit shows His relationship to God.

Christ is designated Son of God. The word “designate” also does not carry the same meaning as it does today. For us, to “designate” something is to “appoint” someone. This is, unfortunately, the modern meaning that many cling to today. In the Greek, the word used here is horizo, and its Greek elements are “SEE-IZE.” The Concordant Version translates the term as both “designate” and “specify.” When reading it transliterally, the Greek reads, “ONE-BEING-DEFINED SON OF-GOD.” This is a clarification as to Jesus’ already-established role according to a spirit of holiness, just as “comes of the seed of David” is a clarification as to Jesus’ already-established position according to the flesh. Christ did not “become” the Son of God – but is powerfully designated.

Thus the solution is known. Christ’s flesh is simple. Christ’s spirit is simple. It is His soul (the combination of body and spirit – Gen. 2:7) that is complex. His body was not “divine” – the likeness of sin’s flesh could not be stated thus without conceding idolatry. Yet His spirit is not like ours. His is a spirit of holiness, that we believers have had to be baptized into in order to be walking in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-11.) The union is simply found in His soul.

And just look at how little time Paul truly spends talking about the former aspect of Christ! The “seed of David” is given very little time from the apostle who has deemed such an aspect “forfeit” to him (Phil. 3:1-8.) Practically all of Paul’s letters deal with the spirit of holiness which is introduced in verse 4. The distinction is designed to highlight these two aspects, and firmly repudiate the argument, “Is Christ ‘fully God’ or ‘fully man?’” He is explicitly referred to as the Son of God in regards to His spirit, and son of David (man) in regards to His flesh.

Such a concept is clarified as harmonious, and not discordant, in 1 Cor. 15:45-47–

If there is a soulish body, there is a spiritual also. Thus it is written also, The first man, Adam, ‘became a living soul;’ the last Adam a vivifying Spirit. But not first the spiritual, but the soulish, thereupon the spiritual. The first man was out of the earth, soilish; the second Man is the Lord out of heaven.

Both aspects of Christ are aptly considered above – His flesh and spirit in conjunction. Adam had both a body and a spirit – yet he was soulish, for he was dominated by his senses. Christ also had both a body and a spirit – yet He is spiritual, for He is dominated by His spirit. He is not “literally” a spirit – this is a figure of association.

He is called “the last Adam” because His flesh (the body is in view in the passage) came after Adam’s. Similarly, He is called the second Man (that is, the second Man to impact all mankind,) in the same sense that His flesh came after Adam’s. Yet in regards to His spirit, He is more than man was or ever could be: the Lord, out of heaven. The point for Paul, in comparing the two, is not to equate them, but to demonstrate the fallibility in equating them. It is laughable to consider Jesus Christ as comparative to the man out of the earth. Their relation does not compute! He is superior to Adam in every way, from their rank, to their life, to their bodies, to their abilities. They are such polar opposites, that the passage above cannot help but make the distinction: Christ can properly give life to those whom Adam could only mortally incriminate.

Truly, this is necessary for His crucifixion. In regards to His flesh, He must be like man. He must take our form, He must conform to our condition, and He must breathe our air. The whole point, as previously stated, for His emptying Himself, is that His crucifixion is a valid sacrifice with Him at the Head of the race, thus enabling the salvation of all mankind.

Yet, just as critically, if Christ’s spirit were the same as our spirit – the one which has become subordinate to our soulishness – then His sacrifice would have the same impact as that of the thief next to Him (that is, it would have no effect.) He would not have saved anyone by giving up His spirit at Golgotha, since there would be no plot point prior to this which would connect Him to the celestial realm, and no plot point which would guarantee some ability for the best of us to dictate the fate of human history. He would have died, leading to tragedy, and resulting in the decimation of all civilization.

It is because His spirit existed in a different body prior to His birth in Bethlehem that such an outcome is impossible. In regards to His spirit, He is designated a Son of God, which makes Him equal to God (John 5:18, Phil. 2:6.) In regards to His flesh, He is of the seed of David – thus a son of Man, which makes Him equal to man. There is no promise that a righteous man’s death would lead to the benefits Christ presently enjoys.

Both aspects of the Christ must exist – each in their respective aspects. Christ is explicitly said to be the Mediator of God and of man (1 Tim. 2:5.) He must, then, accurately represent both parties in view – to represent only one would make for a one-sided reconciliation, and would not stand. Neither side can lack representation. He is, then, neither man in an absolute sense, nor God in an absolute sense, but can represent either, relatively, in any given context, as the Channel. His body is produced through His mother’s womb, while His vivifying spirit is directly from God.

This fusion is, as well, directly related in Philippians 2:5-8. He is directly said to be equal with God (2:6,) and yet comes to be in the likeness of humanity. It is so valid that, for all intents and purposes, the only charge the Jews could level against Jesus was that He didn’t look like a “Son of God.” It is the spirit in Him which enabled the miracles and supernatural abilities which He enacted.

It may be objected, especially by the Socinian camp, that this conclusion “disqualifies” one from a place in the body of Christ. It is argued by this sect that “Binitarian” ideology is being interwoven into Paul’s message – the notion that there are “two gods,” both co-equal in strength and ability. The accusation is that we are considering Christ as “not fully Man,” and thus God created an imperfect sacrifice. We will briefly deal with this objection here.

First, I remind you that, if Jesus were actually “equal” with God, then such a statement as Paul gives in Phil. 2:6 – that it is not pillaging for Christ, in the form of God, to be equal with God – would not even need to exist. The underlying supposition of such a statement must concede that, for all intents and purposes, it must be “deemed” that Christ and God are practically considered equals, though, in truth, One must be subordinate to the Other. One represents the Other in form – not in actual authority or ability.

Thus we cannot concede that Christ is, in any capacity, “co-equal” or “co-eternal,” as the premise of the Trinity would indicate to us. If He has a beginning, He is created, plain and simple. More than this, He is called the Beginning, in various passages which we will consider later.

Second, I stress emphatically that Paul himself makes this distinction even prior to unfolding the evangel itself, in defining the Son, in Romans 1:3-4. If Paul himself can give this distinction without perjuring himself, then it is more than fair to draw the same distinction, and allow our understanding to be contextualized thus. Scripture is consistent – therefore, there is no passage of scripture apart from Paul’s revelation here that would contradict or cancel out the plain expression made, here.

And third, in relation to the first man, Adam, the soil was formed first. Adam did not become a living, breathing individual – yet he was considered a man because of his form alone. This is clear especially in Adam’s death, for when one dies, their body returns to the soil, and the spirit returns to the One, Elohim, Who gave it (Ecc. 12:7.) When Adam died, his spirit was just as separate from his body as it was when he was first formed. The absence of his spirit did not erase his place as a man.

When Adam’s spirit was added, his size, shape, was not altered. The spirit gave him life – a permanent life. The spirit did not “make” him a man. He was a man regardless of whether spirit operated in him or not. The spirit’s operation made “Adam” (lit. human) a living soul. It was the introduction of sin that handicapped the spirit’s operation, bringing the eventual death Adam suffered.

Hence the critical distinction which we can firmly draw from Rom. 1:3-4, 1 Cor. 15:45-47, and Phil. 2:8. He is found in fashion as a man – and this is the vital problem that needs solved, manward: sin in the flesh. By taking the likeness of this flesh, Christ indeed became a Man – yet if this had handicapped His spirit, then again, we persist that the same conclusion would be reached: His death, while tragic, would be unfit to save the entirety of creation, as it would be forced into death – not obedient unto death, as Paul carefully expresses.

Thus, Christ is Man – but He is above Man. The Head of Man. He is in the likeness of humanity, as scripture directly states. He was not merely sinless – though this is true. While our vitality is limited, His vitality was not. He could go forty days without eating in the wilderness, and live (Matt. 4:2.) Was it painful for His flesh? We could safely infer that it was. But without His divine spirit, which is life because of righteousness, He could not have survived. He did not have to fight to “defeat” an internal battle with Sin.

In other words, man’s sinful nature is rooted in his heart and his disposition (Rom. 1:21, 24, 2:5, 8:6-7.) Christ’s heart, in contrast, is pure – and His disposition unimpeachable. It is because His spirit was planted by God, apart from human generation, that something more is going on with this One, specifically. He did not inherit death as we did – He is more than us, and to throw this out would, in truth, be the dismissal of the mediatorial aspect of Christ’s sacrifice (more on this in Col. 1:15-20.)

*   *   *

With all of this considered, let us return to the original problem. “Fashion” does not speak of an “external form,” as the Trinitarian crew postulates – and as some poor translations permit (CSB, ESV, NAS, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRS, BSB, RSV, and many more book-shaped toilets.) If this were the case, then Paul, and the holy Spirit, are guilty of redundancy, as well as lying about keeping a pattern of sound words – thus we would have an imperfect text. The solution is not to abrogate facts whenever they don’t appeal to us, but to be changed by the presentation of truth.

The “nature” of Christ is not in view in this passage – nature, that is, in the sense that Paul uses it in Rom. 1:26, 2:14, and 1 Cor. 11:14, as instinctual and in accord with our conscience. The term “nature,” phusis, does not appear in Philippians at all, and should not be considered (the term “tribe,” in Phil. 3:5, is the closest equivalent, and it is thematically unrelated to the present passage.) To impose the term, then, as if it has a scriptural bearing on this discussion, is wrong. It is even wrong to suppose that Christ’s nature is incongruent with our nature, given that He too is a Man. Since mankind’s “sin” is not displayed in his nature, but, again, his heart and disposition, the whole “nature” argument is a giant red herring. The nature of “man” and the nature of “God” are alike (Gen. 1:26,) not dissimilar.

His Humbling

Now that we have firmly established the three levels to this “emptying,” we may speak on the effect of it – the humility.

The “emptying” and the “humbling” are two mutually exclusive, yet fundamental, acts during Christ’s journey. The first, as we’ve carefully read, surveying all of the facts, describes Christ’s journey from the form of God to the form of a slave. The second – the humbling – speaks of Christ’s terrestrial journey in obedience unto death, and the death of the cross.

We will specially meditate on the two uses of “death” in the next chapter, but for now, let’s appreciate the cause and effect of the emptying. Christ only emptied Himself with a view to His humbling. Without the emptying, there is no humbling. In this, we can begin to appreciate the full scope of Paul’s entreaty, to let a humble disposition be in you. The divesting oneself of self-importance is the very method which enables one to humble themselves.

The verb “humble” here is not “humility,” in Greek, though the two are very closely aligned. “Humble,” as a verb, is tapeinoo, elements to “MAKE-LOW.” Paul referred to “humility” in Phil. 2:3 because, in Greek, it carried the suffix “sun,” referring to together. Here, Christ’s actions are in view – while no believer should argue, in an absolute sense, that God caused His humbling, there is no doubt that Christ did not rely on any other creature in creation to humble Himself. Hence “together” is not in view, nor is the term a noun. It is a literal act.

We already summarized, in Part III, what humility is. To review, we will repeat the truth here. “The practical meaning [of humility,] to make low, is best demonstrated in relation to an inanimate object, making its use in Luke 3:5 very instructive. Here it is said that every hill will be ‘made low,’ or ‘humbled,’ metaphorically. In relation to the human spirit, it is consoling and comforting in Christ to make yourself low. It becomes communal, compassionate, and mutual when enacted together. This is a willful act, one which must consciously be effected by an individual. It is an action which man is entreated to effect numerous times across both evangels (Matt. 23:12, Luke 14:11, 18:14.) It does not always carry a moral connotation, but can refer to a physical or sociological lowly disposition (Ph. 2:3, 4:12.) It is, of course, most often correlated with a selfless, other-oriented mindset (Luke 1:46-48, 1 Pet. 3:8.)”

Living as a human is not, in and of itself, humiliating. Speaking terrestrially, we are the greatest subjectors across the earth. Adam, in the garden, was not humiliated in innocence, but loved. There was no practical reason for him to make himself low, since he was, factually, “top dog” in Eden. And, furthermore, it is apparent, with our eventual glorification (being roused, vivified, and seated together with Christ among the celestials – Eph. 2:7,) that more than Christ will partake of the highest exaltation. Christ Himself, now, is in the truest sense, our Head – of the new humanity.

It was after Adam sinned that these human bodies were tarnished. Throughout the rest of eon 2 and 3, humanity’s sinning flesh has been the cause for the highest humiliation and disgust. We have every reason to abhor our present fashion, in which our bodies seek to defy our spirits, believer and unbeliever alike. Our fashion presently opposes our instincts (Rom. 1:26, 2:14, 1 Cor. 11:14.) Thus it is this detestable fashion which leads the Lord of the universe to humble Himself.

In the form of God, Jesus, too, had no reason to humble Himself. Under law, God’s agenda was not “sink low to speak with sinful humanity,” but “demand righteousness from sinful humanity.” In other words, God did not lower Himself, but demanded that man raise itself up. Man, of course, failed to do this – hence the descent of His Form. Christ, in descending, divested Himself of such celestial magnitude. It is only when His spirit came into conflict with His new form did the necessity to humble Himself become apparent.

With this in mind, the entire passage’s charge becomes clear – let this disposition be in you. You are entreated, not to “empty yourself as Christ did,” for such a prerequisite is symbolic, not literal. It is the lesson meant to be drawn from these three steps which we are meant to apply to ourselves in our own lives.

The easiest application of these steps is found in Paul’s personal journey, discussed in Phil. 3:4-11. The parallels are fascinating: Christ was in the form of God (truly, no higher allotment among the celestials could be given,) while Paul was a Jew (truly, no higher allotment upon the earth could be given.) Christ was considered equal to God, and Paul, on earth, was becoming blameless in relation to the righteousness which is in law. Christ nevertheless emptied Himself, and Paul further deemed His prior titles a forfeit. Christ took the form of a slave (2:7,) while Paul recognized His Lord (3:8.) Christ came to be in the likeness of humanity, while Paul came to be in the likeness of Christ, and His righteousness. Christ was found in fashion as a man (2:8,) while Paul is found in Christ (3:8.)

For both camps – Christ and His body – the place they are in is discordant with their “inherent” state. Christ is inherently in the form of God, and for us, the body, our realm is inherent in the heavens (Phil. 3:18-21.) We can appreciate this point of contact: both Christ and His ecclesia recognize that they belong in a much higher place than that which they currently inhabit. Yet the God both Christ and His ecclesia worship is not purposeless. The point with both is to highlight humility. If the Greatest of creation can humble themselves, then the lowest of creation can do the same.

- GerudoKing