John Calvin Commentary Philippians 2

He now recommends, from Christ's example, the practice of humility, to which he had exhorted them in words. There are, however, two parts: in the first, he invites us to imitate Christ, because this is the rule of life; in the second, he allures us to it, because this is the road by which we attain true glory. Therefore, he exhorts everyone to have the same disposition that was in Christ. He afterwards shows what a pattern of humility has been presented before us in Christ.

I have retained the passive form of the verb, though I do not disapprove of the rendering given by others, because there is no difference in meaning. I merely wished that the reader should have the very form of expression that Paul has employed.

Since he was in the form of God. This is not a comparison between similar things, but one of greater and lesser. Christ’s humility consisted in his humbling himself from the highest pinnacle of glory to the lowest disgrace; our humility consists in refraining from exalting ourselves by a false estimation. He gave up his right; all that is required of us is that we do not assume for ourselves more than we ought. Therefore, he begins with this: that, since he was in the form of God, he did not consider it an unlawful thing for him to show himself in that form; yet he emptied himself. Since, then, the Son of God descended from so great a height, how unreasonable it is that we, who are nothing, should be lifted up with pride!

The form of God here means his majesty. For as a man is known by the appearance of his form, so the majesty, which shines forth in God, is his figure. Or, if you would prefer a more suitable analogy, the form of a king is his equipment and magnificence, showing him to be a king—his scepter, his crown, his mantle, his attendants, his judgment-throne, and other emblems of royalty; the form of a consul was his long robe, bordered with purple, his ivory seat, his lictors with rods and hatchets. Christ, then, before the creation of the world, was in the form of God, because from the beginning he had his glory with the Father, as he says in John 17:5. For in the wisdom of God, before he took on our flesh, there was nothing lowly or contemptible, but on the contrary, a magnificence worthy of God. Being as he was, he could, without doing wrong to anyone, show himself equal with God; but he did not manifest himself to be what he really was, nor did he openly assume in the sight of men what belonged to him by right.

Thought it not robbery. No wrong would have been done even if he had shown himself to be equal with God. For when he says, he would not have thought, it is as if he had said, “He knew, indeed, that this was lawful and right for him,” so that we might know that his humbling was voluntary, not out of necessity. Until now it has been rendered in the indicative—he thought—but the connection requires the subjunctive. It is also quite customary for Paul to use the past indicative in place of the subjunctive, by leaving the potential particle ἄν (as it is called) to be supplied—as, for example, in Romans 9:3, ηὐχόμην, for I would have wished; and in 1 Corinthians 2:8, εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, if they had known. Everyone, however, must perceive that Paul, up to this point, discusses Christ’s glory, which serves to enhance his humbling. Accordingly, he mentions not what Christ did, but what he was permitted to do.

Furthermore, anyone is utterly blind who does not perceive that His eternal divinity is clearly declared in these words. Nor does Erasmus act with sufficient modesty in attempting, with his objections, to explain away this passage, as well as other similar passages. He indeed acknowledges everywhere that Christ is God; but what good is his orthodox confession to me if my faith is not supported by any scriptural authority?

I certainly acknowledge that Paul does not mention Christ’s divine essence here; but it does not follow from this that the passage is not sufficient to repel the impiety of the Arians, who pretended that Christ was a created God, inferior to the Father, and denied that He was consubstantial.

For where can there be equality with God without robbery, except where the essence of God is? For God always remains the same, who cries through Isaiah, I live; I will not give my glory to another. (Isaiah 48:11). Form means figure or appearance, as is commonly said. This, too, I readily admit; but will such a form be found apart from God—one that is neither false nor counterfeit?

Therefore, since God is known by His excellences, and His works are evidences of His eternal Godhead (Romans 1:20), Christ’s divine essence is rightly proven by the majesty He possessed equally with the Father before He humbled Himself. As for me, at least, not even all devils could wrench this passage from me, since there is in God a most solid argument from His glory to His essence—two things that are inseparable.

Emptied himself. This emptying is the same as the abasement, which we will discuss later. The expression, however, is used ευμφατικωτέρως (more emphatically) to mean being brought to nothing. Christ, indeed, could not divest himself of Godhead; but he kept it concealed for a time, so that it might not be seen under the weakness of the flesh. Therefore, he laid aside his glory in the view of men, not by lessening it, but by concealing it.

It is asked whether he did this as man. Erasmus answers in the affirmative. But where was the form of God before he became man?

Therefore, we must reply that Paul speaks of Christ as a whole, as he was God manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Nevertheless, this emptying is applicable exclusively to his humanity. It is as if I were to say of man, “Man, being mortal, is very foolish if he thinks of nothing but the world.” In this case, I refer indeed to man as a whole, yet I ascribe mortality only to a part of him, namely, to the body.

Since, then, Christ has one person, consisting of two natures, Paul rightly says that he who was the Son of God—in reality equal to God—nevertheless laid aside his glory when he, in the flesh, manifested himself in the appearance of a servant.

It is also asked, secondly, how he can be said to be emptied, while he, nevertheless, invariably proved himself by miracles and excellences to be the Son of God, and in whom, as John testifies, there was always to be seen a glory worthy of the Son of God (John 1:14)? I answer that the abasement of the flesh was, nevertheless, like a veil by which his divine majesty was concealed.

On this account, he did not wish that his transfiguration should be made public until after his resurrection. And when he perceived that the hour of his death was approaching, he then said, Father, glorify your Son (John 17:1).

So too, Paul teaches elsewhere that he was declared to be the Son of God by means of his resurrection (Romans 1:4). He also declares in another place that he suffered through the weakness of the flesh (2 Corinthians 13:4).

In short, the image of God shone forth in Christ in such a manner that he was, at the same time, abased in his outward appearance and brought down to nothing in the estimation of men. For he carried about with him the form of a servant and had assumed our nature expressly for the purpose of being a servant of the Father, and indeed, even of men.

Paul, too, calls him the Minister of the Circumcision (Romans 15:8), and Christ himself testifies of himself that he came to minister (Matthew 20:28). That same thing had long before been foretold by Isaiah: Behold my servant, etc.

In the likeness of men. Γενόμενος is equivalent here to constitutus (having been appointed). For Paul means that he had been brought down to the level of mankind, so that in appearance there was nothing that differed from the common condition of mankind. The Marcionites perverted this declaration for the purpose of establishing the phantasm of which they dreamed.

They can, however, be refuted without great difficulty, since Paul is simply discussing here the manner in which Christ manifested himself and the condition in which he lived when in the world.

Suppose a man is truly man; he will nevertheless be considered unlike others if he conducts himself as if exempt from the condition of others. Paul declares that this was not the case with Christ. Instead, Christ lived in such a manner that he seemed to be on a level with mankind, and yet he was very different from a mere man, although he was truly man. The Marcionites therefore showed excessive childishness in drawing an argument from similarity of condition to deny the reality of his nature.

Found here means known or seen. For he is discussing, as has been observed, estimation. In other words, just as he had affirmed previously that Christ was truly God, the equal of the Father, so he here states that Christ was considered, as it were, abject and in the common condition of mankind. We must always keep in mind what I mentioned earlier: that such abasement was voluntary.

He became obedient. Even this was great humility—that from being Lord he became a servant. But he says that he went further than this. For while he was not only immortal but the Lord of life and death, he nevertheless became obedient to his Father, even so far as to endure death.

This was extreme abasement, especially when we consider the kind of death, which he immediately adds to emphasize this. For by dying in this manner, he was not only covered with ignominy in the sight of God but was also accursed in the sight of God. It is certainly such a pattern of humility as ought to absorb the attention of all humankind, so far is it from being possible to express it in words in a manner suitable to its dignity.

Therefore God has highly exalted. By adding consolation, he shows that abasement, to which the human mind is averse, is in the highest degree desirable. There is no one, it is true, who will not acknowledge that it is a reasonable thing that is required from us when we are exhorted to imitate Christ. This consideration, however, stirs us up to imitate him more cheerfully when we learn that nothing is more advantageous for us than to be conformed to his image.

Now, that all are happy who, along with Christ, voluntarily humble themselves, he shows by his example; for from the most abject condition, he was exalted to the highest elevation. Therefore, everyone who humbles himself will in like manner be exalted. Who would now be reluctant to exercise humility, by means of which the glory of the heavenly kingdom is attained?

This passage has given sophists an opportunity, or rather they have seized upon it, to allege that Christ merited first for himself, and afterwards for others. Now, in the first place, even if what they alleged were not false, it would still be proper to avoid such profane speculations as obscure the grace of Christ—imagining that he came for any other reason than for our salvation.

Who does not see that this is a suggestion of Satan—that Christ suffered upon the cross so that he might acquire for himself, by the merit of his work, what he did not already possess? For it is the design of the Holy Spirit that we should, in the death of Christ, see, taste, ponder, feel, and recognize nothing but God’s unmixed goodness, and the love of Christ towards us, which was so great and inestimable that, disregarding himself, he devoted himself and his life for our sakes.

In every instance in which the Scriptures speak of the death of Christ, they assign to us its benefits and its significance—that through it we are redeemed, reconciled to God, restored to righteousness, cleansed from our pollutions, life is obtained for us, and the gate of life opened.

Who, then, would deny that it is at the instigation of Satan that these individuals maintain, on the other hand, that the chief part of the benefit is in Christ himself—that regard for himself took precedence over his regard for us—that he merited glory for himself before he merited salvation for us?

Furthermore, I deny the truth of what they allege, and I maintain that Paul’s words are impiously perverted to establish their falsehood. For it is clear that the expression 'for this cause' here denotes a consequence rather than a reason, because otherwise it would follow that a man could merit divine honors and acquire the very throne of God—which is not merely absurd, but even dreadful to mention.

For what exaltation of Christ does the Apostle speak of here? It is that everything God, through the prophet Isaiah, exclusively claims for himself may be accomplished in him. Hence, the glory of God and the majesty—so uniquely his that it cannot be transferred to any other—would be the reward of a man’s work!

Again, if they should insist on the wording, disregarding the resulting absurdity, the reply is simple: he has been given to us by the Father in such a manner that his whole life is like a mirror set before us.

Just as a mirror, though it has splendor, does not have it for itself but so that it may be advantageous and useful to others, so Christ did not seek or receive anything for himself, but everything for us. For what need, I ask, did he, who was the equal of the Father, have of a new exaltation? Let pious readers, then, learn to detest the Sorbonnic sophists with their perverted speculations.

Has given him a name. Name here is used to mean dignity—a manner of expression that is very common in all languages: “Jacet sine nomine truncus; He lies a headless nameless carcass.” This mode of expression, however, is especially common in Scripture.

Therefore, the meaning is that supreme power was given to Christ, and he was placed in the highest rank of honor, so that no dignity found either in heaven or on earth is equal to his. From this it follows that it is a divine name. This, too, he explains by quoting the words of Isaiah, where the Prophet, when discussing the propagation of the worship of God throughout the whole world, introduces God speaking as follows:

I live: every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will swear to me, and so on (Isaiah 45:23).

Now, it is certain that adoration is meant here, which belongs uniquely to God alone. I am aware that some philosophize subtly about the name Jesus, as if it were derived from the ineffable name Jehovah. However, I find no solidity in the reason they advance.

As for me, I take no pleasure in empty subtleties, and it is dangerous to trifle in a matter of such importance. Besides, who does not see that it is a forced and anything but genuine exposition, when Paul speaks of Christ’s whole dignity, to restrict his meaning to two syllables—as if anyone were to examine attentively the letters of the word Alexander to find in them the greatness of the name that Alexander acquired for himself? Therefore, their subtlety lacks substance, and the contrivance is foreign to Paul’s intention.

But worse than ridiculous is the conduct of the Sorbonnic sophists, who infer from the passage before us that we should bow the knee whenever the name of Jesus is pronounced, as if it were a magic word with all virtue contained in its sound. Paul, on the other hand, speaks of the honor that is to be given to the Son of God—not to mere syllables.