12. On the humiliation and exaltation of Jesus Christ
ON THE HUMILIATION AND EXALTATION OF JESUS CHRIST.
“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 was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name, which is above every name; that at 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,”
Php 2:6 - Php 2:11Php 2:6 - Php 2:11. Much ingenuity and learning have been bestowed upon this quotation of scripture to deprive it of its natural meaning, and to prove the Son’s essential inferiority to the Father. The phrase, “being in the form of God,” has been thought to import no more than that similarity of nature, which may subsist between a creature and its Creator; as God made man in his own image. If Christ had been in the form of God in this low sense only, he would have thought it robbery to represent himself to be equal with God. He would have considered it an infringement upon the divine prerogative. There would be no pertinency in the assertion of the apostle, that he was made in the likeness of men, and was found in fashion as a man. It would not be true that he humbled himself by appearing in this manner.
Christ’s humiliation and exaltation. 161 The time, in which ihe apostle says Christ was in the form of God, was prior to his incarnation. The wordybrm(/xo§Cf)vi)inthis passage does not signify nature or essential attributes. It signifies the external appearance, or similitude. It signifies that visible light, in which the Deity dwells, which no man can approach unto; and by which he appeared to the world before the incarnation. When Christ was transfigured, his form (according to the original) was changed; i. e. his outward appearance became different from what it was before. Whatever the form, of God was, in which Christ was before he appeared in human nature, he laid it aside while he tarried upon earth, previous to his crucifixion. He made himself of no reputation. In the original it is, he divested himself; he laid aside those glorious appearances which he exhibited in heaven; and relinquished those divine honors which he there received. But during his humiliation, he did not lay aside his divinity; he did not lay aside his authority, nor his right to divine honors. He only concealed the glories of his divine nature, under the veil of humanity. On particular occasions he displayed divine power in the performance of miracles. At a time when he was with his disciples on a mountain, his appearance was changed. “His face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. Jesus charged them, saying, tell the vision to no man until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.” Christ used great precaution against displaying the glories of his nature. When he did display them, he did it on special occasions, for the special purpose of giving evidence that he was the Messiah.
“Christ, being.in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The latter part of this passage in the original, has been variously understood, and variously translated. Some have thought it imports that Christ did not think of the robbery of 21 162 Christ’s humiliation and exaltation. making himself equal with God; that he was conscious he had no claim to such high pretensions; and therefore, he did not make them. Others have thus translated the text, he thought it not robbery to be like God. This translation reduces the sense of the original. The other wholly perverts it. The original word, (/<3-«,) which is rendered like, literally signifies equal, as the translators of the Bible have rendered it.
If like were a correct translation of the original word, the apostle made no advance in sense, as he progressed in his observations. It would be worse than tautology to say, “who being in the form” (or likeness) of God, thought it not robbery to be like God. The phrase, “form of God,” imports divine likeness. Having said that he was in the likeness of God, it amounts to nothing, to say, it was not robbery to be in the likeness of God; or to be what he was. The apostle Paul was too well versed in language to be guilty of such gross incorrectness. Likeness does not necessarily imply equality. Let the apostle say, who being in the form or likeness of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, and he rises in his ideas, as he progresses in his observations. Judicious critics in the Greek language admit that the translation of this passage, as it stands in the Bible, is correct. If any creature should claim equality with God, it would be a daring robbery of divine honors. If Christ be not eternal, self-existent and independent, he cannot justly claim equality with God. A learned and distinguished divine,* of the beginning of the last century, speaking of the correctness of the translation of the text under consideration, as it stands in the Bible, observes, “The ancientest versions of the New Testament favor this rendering; the Greek and Latin fathers, from the fourth century downwards, do as plainly countenance it. Nay, Tertullian of the second or third century, seems to have understood it in the same sense. The • Waterland.
Christ’s humiliation and exaltation. 163 words will, in strict propriety, bear it; and not only so, but more naturally and properly than any other.”
Although Christ claimed equality with God; yet “he made himself” of no reputation;” he divested himself of the form of God, and relinquished those honors, which he had received; “and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made” (or born) “in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” His taking the form of a servant, does not mean that he was actually a servant; that he was under those restraints, which are peculiar to a state of servitude. But he had the appearance of a servant. He performed the duties of a servant. He said to his disciples, “I am among you as he who serveth.” Like a servant, he had no property; he lived in poverty, and was used with contempt. “At length he died the death of a condemned slave; being publicly scourged and crucified.”
Christ’s being born in the likeness of men does not mean that he had the appearance of a man without the reality. The original word (d/xoiw/xa) signifies not only likeness, but sometimes sameness of nature. (See Macknight on the text.) Christ had a human body; he had human passions. He felt those joys and afflictions, which are common to humanity. “Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
He not only took upon himself human nature and appeared in fashion as a man, exposed to all the natural evils common to human life. He not only humbled himself to do the obliging offices of a servant; but he became obedient unto death, even to the most ignominious death. He, who had shared divine honors in heaven with the Father, condescended to assume human nature; to appear in the lowest condition of human life; to receive all the ignominy and reproach which the world could cast upon him; and to suffer 164 Christ’s humiliation and exaltation. his body, with which he had been in the most intimate union, to expire under the tortures of the cross.
If Christ was only a man, there is nothing very peculiar in his state of humuliation. There is nothing surprising that a man should have been born in the likeness of men and be found in fashion as a man.
There is nothing surprising that a man should be in the form of a servant and do the duties of a servant.
It is not a singular case that a man has suffered the tortures of the cross. Nor is it a singular case that a man has died in defense of his religion, whether it was true or false. But that he, who claimed equality with God, should descend to this low condition is a degree of humiliation to which created intelligence cannot descend. On account of Christ’s exceedingly great condescension and humiliation, God hath exalted him exceedingly; “and given him a name, which is above every name.” As a consequence or reward of Christ’s sufferings, God hath exalted him. He hath raised him from that low condition, in which he was upon earth, and exalted him to that glory, which he had with the Father before the world was. Christ humbled himself in union with human nature, and he will be exalted in union with the same nature. Some have supposed that Christ’s exaltation has made real additions to his dignity and glory. They argue that divinity is incapable of advancement, and of course they infer that he is not divine. It is readily granted that no real accession can be made to divinity. It is as perfect and glorious at one point in duration as at another.
Before creation, before redemption, Christ was as perfect in his nature as he is now. He had power to create, and he had power to redeem. As he had not then exercised those powers, the honor of those works could not be actually ascribed to him. If he had not descended from heaven to earth, and stooped to the lowest conditions of human nature, he could not be glorified for his condescension. If he had not suffered Christ’s humiliation and exaltation. 1615 and died, the glory of redemption would not have been ascribed to him. The attributes, which he has displayed in the work of redemption, appear more distinguishing than those he displayed in creation. He appears more exalted than he would have done, if he had not performed this work. God has given him the name Jesus, signifying Savior, which is above every name; and he requires all, who are in heaven, in earth, and under the earth, to worship him, not only as Creator and Lord, but as Savior of the world.
Before his incarnation he was not honored as actual Savior. But since he has wrought out a complete redemption, and returned to heaven, a new glory appears, and higher honors are attributed to him than those he received before his incarnation. After he had completed the work of redemption by rising from the dead, he declared to his disciples that all authority was given to him in heaven and in earth; and when he ascended to heaven he was seated on the right hand of the Father. Because he was the Son of man; because he did great and benevolent deeds in his union with human nature all judgment was committed to him. This high exaltation of the Son will be to the glory of God the Father. Is it possible that any creature is raised to such an amazing degree of elevation above every other creature, and be the object of their most respectful homage.’* Is it possible that God has admitted a creature to his right hand, and suffers him to possess all authority.’* Would this be for the glory of God the Father? Such is the union of nature, design and operation, between the Son and the Father, that they, who honor the Son, honor the Father; and what exalts and glorifies one, exalts and glorifies the other. If this inseparable union of nature do not subsist between the Father and the Son, two distinct and separate objects are holden forth, each of which commands supreme love and veneration, and we are l66 Christ’s humiliation and exaltation. left in the unavoidable dilemma of paying religious homage to two divinities, or to none.
Christ in his state of exaltation makes intercession for believers. In that body which was offered in sacrifice, he appears before the Father in their behalf.
He pleads the merits of his own sufferings, and the Father, who remembers his covenant and loves his Son, hears his requests, and his intercession is effectual.
* The phrase, form of God, [fAOgipn ©ssi/,) may be explained b)’ the subsequent phrase, form of a servant, ijucp<piiv j’oukov.) The word form, in the latter phrase, does not signify reality, or nature. For Christ was not literally a servant, or bondman, to any one. But he assumed the appearance of one in this low condition; and occasionally officiated in this servile capacity. Christ said to his disciples, “I am among you as he that serveth,” Luke 22:27. If the form of a servant does not literally signify a servant, the form of God does not literally signify God. But the word form, in connection with God, expresses the resemblance of appearance, on the same ground as it does when it is used in connection •with servant. If it was in human nature, Christ appeared in the form of a servant, it appears to be a fair conclusion, it appears to be giving equal meaning to the word form in both cases, that it was in divine nature he appeared in the form of God.
It is evident from the language of the apostle, that Christ was in the form of God, before he was in the form of a servant. This proves his pre-existence The primitive form of God, which he possessed, was undoubtedly that glory which he had with the Father before the world was; and to be restored to which he prayed. This construction appears evident, both from fact and from the language of the apostle. It is fact that when Christ was upon earth, he had ndt that glory, that form of God, which he had before. This is proved by his prayer, “O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory I had with thee before the â- world -was,” iohn 17:5. The apostle’s language is consonant with this. But made himself of no reputation, (iuurov (Kiviein,) These words literally signifj’, he divested, or emptied himsef. But of what did he divest himself? Not of his original nature, nor of his miraculous powers For he retained both while he was upon earth. He undoubtedly divested himself of that, which he formerly had; but of which he was then destitute. This was the glory, or the form of God, which he had with the Father before the world was.
We do not maintain that this, simply considered, proves the divinity of Christ. But let us proceed with the apostle, in his consequence, as he rises on the subject.
Thought it not robbery to he equal -with God. It is not necessary to quote all the translations of this contested text. Some of the best critics of the Greek language, have decided that our cominon translation is correct. The principal difference of opinion respecting this text, at the present day, arises from the different translations of the word ia-a. Some translate it equal; others translate it as, or like. It is agreed on both sides that /s-oc, from which itol is derived, signifies equal. But we are not informed by what authority, or by what misfortune, the derivative has lost more than half its meaning in its descent from its primitive. The original word in the New Testament, standing for like and as, is not, as far as I have examined, /era. That it should occur in this place, for the first time in this sense, appears not a little extraordinary. A remark of the learned Poole, on this word, is pertinent and forcible. JK’am verba substantiva cum adverbio scepi adverbii significationem faciunt nomenclem. This signification of an adverb, in connection with a substantive verb, he proves by quotations from Homer. The connection of the apostle’s discourse renders it necessary that kj-o. should signify more than likeness. The expression, form of God signifies, at least, as much as divine likeness. Admitting the position, in the first place, that Christ was like God, the apostle said nothing to the purpose, if he only said that Christ Christ’s humiliation and exaltation. 167 thought it not robbery to be like God; i. e. he thought it not robbery to be like what he was like. The learned apostle did not waste his words in such repetition, such impertinence. The design of the apostle was to inculcate a spirit of humility from the example of Christ But if Christ was only like God, in consequence of extraordinary communications made to him, his humiliation was no greater, to appearance, than the humiliation of the prophets and apostles; at least, it was not of a different kind. For they were endued with extraordinary gifts, and they officiated as Servants of the people. But they are not exalted as Christ was. The reason is plain Being creatures, they were not capable of so low humiliation as the Son of God was; neither were they capable of such exceeding exaltation.
Christ not only divested himself of divine glory while he was upon earth; but he humbled himself in his human nature. He not only lived like a servant, but he died like a malefactor He was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; a death the most painful, and the most ignominious. This he suffered, not by compulsion, but voluntarily. In consequence of this low state of humiliation, God highly exalted him. He restored him to that glory, which he origimally had; and made all intelligent beings bow the knee in religious veneration at his name; and every tongue confess that he is Lord of all. This exaltation, which was the consequence, or reward of his humiliation, added nothing to his real dignity, nor to the attributes of his nature. But it displayed perfections of his nature, which would not otherwise have been manifested; and it called forth honors from his creatures, which would not otherwise have been rendered.