Thomas Aquinas Commentary Philippians 2:5-8

"Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient [even] unto death, yea, the death of the cross." — Philippians 2:5-8 (ASV)

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; second, he gives the example (Philippians 2:6).

He says, therefore: Be humble, as I have said; have this mind among yourselves—that is, acquire by experience the mind that you have in Christ Jesus. It should be noted that we should have this mind in five ways, corresponding to the five senses:

1. To see His glory, so that by being enlightened, we may be conformed to Him: Your eyes will see the king in his beauty (Isaiah 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 Corinthians 3:18).
2. To hear His wisdom, in order to become happy: Happy are these your servants, who continually stand before you and hear your wisdom (1 Kings 10:8); As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me (Psalms 18:44).
3. To smell the grace of His meekness, that we may run to Him: Your anointing oils are fragrant... draw me after you (Song of Solomon 1:3).
4. To taste the sweetness of His mercy, that we may always be in God: Taste and see that the Lord is good (Psalms 34:9).
5. To touch His power, that we may be saved: If I only touch his garment, I shall be made well (Matthew 9:21).

Then, when he says, who, though he was in the form of God, etc., he presents the example of Christ. First, he mentions Christ’s majesty; second, His humility (Philippians 2:7); and third, His exaltation (Philippians 2:9).

He mentions Christ’s majesty first so that His humility might be more readily commended. Regarding His majesty, he presents two things: the truth of His divine nature and His equality. He says, therefore: who—that is, Christ—though he was in the form of God. For it is through its form that a thing is said to belong to a specific or generic nature; therefore, 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, it is understood that He is true God: That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ (1 John 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 of which it is the form.

But why does he say, in the form, rather than “in the nature”? 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 goal of begetting is the form. Therefore, to show that He is the perfect Son of God, he says, in the form, as if to say He possesses 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 possesses 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 (Hebrews 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 understood in two ways. One way is to apply it to His humanity. But this is not how Paul understood it, because that would be heretical; for it would be a 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. The fact that someone existing in a certain nature participates in it to a greater or lesser degree is due to 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 robbery, as it was when the devil and man wished to be equal to Him: I will make myself like the Most High (Isaiah 14:14); You will be like God (Genesis 3:5). For this, Christ came to make satisfaction: What I did not steal must I now restore? (Psalms 69:4).

Then, when he says, but emptied himself, he commends Christ’s humility: first, regarding the mystery of the incarnation; second, regarding the mystery of the passion (Philippians 2:8). Regarding the first, he mentions His humility and then its manner and form (Philippians 2:7).

He says, therefore, He emptied himself. But since He was filled with divinity, did He empty Himself of that? No, because He remained what He was, and He assumed what He was not. This “emptying” must be understood in relation to His assumption of what He was not, rather than a loss of what He was. For just as He descended from heaven—not by ceasing to exist in heaven, but by beginning to exist in a new way on earth—so also He emptied Himself, not by putting off His divine nature, but by assuming a human nature.

How beautiful it is to say that He emptied himself, for “empty” is the opposite of “full”! The divine nature is completely full, because every perfection of goodness is there. But human nature and the soul are not full but are capable of fullness, for the soul was made like a slate not yet written upon. Therefore, human nature is empty. This is why 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 (Psalms 100:3); Behold my servant, whom I uphold (Isaiah 42:1); But you, O Lord, are a shield about me (Psalms 3:4). But why is it more fitting to say the form of a servant rather than “servant”? Because “servant” is the name of a hypostasis (an individual person), which was not assumed; rather, the nature was assumed. For that which is assumed is distinct from the one who assumes it. Therefore, the Son of God did not assume a man—because that would mean the man was a person other than the Son of God—yet the Son of God became man. Therefore, He took the human nature into His own person, so that the Son of God and the Son of man would be the same person.

Second, he touches on the conformity of His nature to ours when he says, being born in the likeness of men—that is, according to the species. Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect (Hebrews 2:17). If you object that it is not fitting to speak of a “species” in the Lord Jesus Christ, it is true in this sense: a new species does not arise from His divinity and humanity, as though they combined to form one common species of nature. If that were so, it would follow that His divine nature, so to speak, would have changed.

Third, 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 for sin. Therefore, he says, and being found in human form—that is, 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 (Hebrews 4:15); Afterward He appeared on earth and lived among men .

Alternatively, in human form (in habit), because He put on humanity as a habit. For there are four kinds of “habit” (habitus), or ways in which something is “had”: one “thing had” changes a person without itself being changed, as a fool is changed by wisdom; another is changed and also changes its possessor, like food; a third neither changes the possessor nor is changed, like a ring worn on the finger; a fourth is changed but does not change the possessor, like a garment. By this analogy, the human nature in Christ is called a “habit” or “something had.” It comes to the divine person without changing Him, but the nature itself was changed for the better, for it was filled with grace and truth: We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father (John 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 because of this phrase, being found in human form. Thus, he addresses several opinions. The first is that Christ’s humanity is present in Him as an accident. This is false. The person existing in the divine nature became a person existing in the human nature; therefore, humanity is present not as an accident, but substantially. This is not to say that the humanity is united to the Word in His nature, but in His person.

By this, the error of Photinus is excluded, who said that Christ was a true man but not born of the Virgin. Paul, however, says, he was in the form of God; therefore, He was in the form of God before receiving the form of a servant. Arius’s 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.

Also excluded is the error of Nestorius, who said that the union should be understood as an indwelling, as if God dwelt in the Son of Man as in a temple, making the Son of Man a person distinct from the Son of God. Rabanus notes that if the incarnation were merely an indwelling, then since the Father and the Holy Spirit are involved in every indwelling, they too would be emptied. But this is false. Furthermore, Paul says, He emptied himself. Therefore, the person who was emptied and the one who did the emptying are the same. This person is the Son, because He emptied Himself. Therefore, the union is in the person.

Also excluded is the error of Eutyches, who said that one nature resulted from the two. If this were true, He would not have received the form of a servant, but a different, new form, which is contrary to what the Apostle says. Also excluded is the error of Valentinus, who said that Christ took His body from heaven, and the error of Apollinaris, who said that He had no soul. If these were true, He would not have been born in the likeness of men.

Then, when he says, He humbled himself, he commends Christ’s humility as shown in His passion. Therefore, He was a man, but a very great one, because the same person is both God and man; yet He humbled Himself: The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself ; Learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart (Matthew 11:29).

The manner and sign of His humility is obedience. It is characteristic of the proud to follow their own will, for a proud person seeks greatness. But it belongs to a great being not to be ruled by another, but to rule others; therefore, obedience is contrary to pride.

Therefore, to show the greatness of Christ’s humility and passion, he says that He became obedient. If He had not suffered out of obedience, His passion would not be so commendable, for obedience is what gives merit to suffering. But how was He made obedient? Not by His divine will, for it is the rule itself, but by His human will, which was ruled in all things according to the Father’s will: Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt (Matthew 26:39). And it is fitting that He brought obedience into His passion, because the first sin was accomplished through disobedience: For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous (Romans 5:19); The obedient man shall speak of victory (Proverbs 21:28).

That this obedience is great and commendable is evident from the fact that obedience is greatest when it follows the will of another against one’s own. The human will naturally tends toward two things: life and honor. But Christ did not refuse death: Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous (1 Peter 3:18). Furthermore, He did not flee from shame; therefore, he says, even death on a cross, which is the most shameful death: Let us condemn him to a shameful death . Thus, He refused neither death nor a shameful form of death.