← Back to sermon library
Well, you can turn with me and
your Bibles to the book of Philippians as we work our way through Paul's
epistle to the church in Philippi, one of the prison epistles. He's
in prison according to Acts chapter 28 for about two years, AD 60
to AD 62. There he writes what we call
the prison epistles, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and
Philemon. So he's writing to the people
of God. and he wants to encourage them on a particular path, and
we see that in verses 1 to 4, and then he sets forth Christ
as a supreme example of that mindset in verses 5 to 11. But he also illustrates it with
Timothy in verses 19 to 24, and then Epaphroditus in verses 25
to 30. So there are examples for the
people of God to imitate or emulate when it comes to the virtues
that Paul commends in chapter 2 verses 1 to 4. So I'll read
verses 1 to 11, we'll pray, and then we're going to just focus
on verse 7. And I'll explain more in a moment. So let us read beginning in chapter
2 at verse 1. Therefore, if there is any consolation
in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the
Spirit, if any affection and mercy, fulfill my joy by being
like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of
one mind. Let nothing be done through selfish
ambition or conceit, but, in lowliness of mind, let each esteem
others better than himself. Let each of you look out not
only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who,
being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be
equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, taking the
form of a bondservant and coming in the likeness of men. and being
found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became
obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Therefore, God also has highly exalted him and given him the
name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every
knee should bow, of those in heaven and of those on earth
and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the
Father. Well, let us pray. Our Father
in Heaven, we thank You for the divine scripture, the Word of
God that gives us that knowledge of the Lord Most High. And we
pray now that Your Spirit would guide us as we consider our Lord
Jesus Christ, that blessed Savior for sinners, that Word who became
flesh. that one who took on the form
of a bondservant. May we stand in awe at what Christ
did on behalf of guilty, helpless, and vile sinners. Forgive us
again for all sin and unrighteousness and anything that would darken
our minds and understanding. Guide us again by your spirit,
we pray, and we ask in Jesus' name, amen. Well, in our Sunday
night services, I always try to be somewhat practical in terms
of our Christian living. So Sunday morning, we focus on
the gospel narrative and the reality of Christ as the gospel
authors present him. Wednesday night, we study the
Old Testament. Tonight, it's going to be more doctrinal, and
it's going to be a slow march through verse 7, because as I
said, this section is incredibly simple. Paul wants specific conduct
according to verses 1 to 4. He wants us to kill our selfish
ambition. He wants us to kill our conceit. He wants us to consider others
as better than ourselves. And then he says in verse 5,
let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. So
in other words, he sets forth Christ in verses 5 to 11 as an
example But as he sets forth Christ as an example, he gives
us some wonderful Christology along the way. So I want to walk
slowly through verse 7. There's four statements that
speak concerning our Lord Jesus with reference to His incarnation.
So verse five, there is the exhortation to have the mind of Christ, to
be like Christ when it comes to others' mindedness. Verse
six focuses upon the divinity of our Lord Jesus, who, being
in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. So two statements there, form
of God, nature of God, essence of God, and then this equal with
God. And then he moves on to the humility
of Christ, and he illustrates that in two ways. First, by the
incarnation in verse 7, and then by the passion in verse 8. And
so again, in the context, when Paul is telling us to do nothing
with selfish ambition or conceit, but to consider others as better
than ourselves, Christ is a beautiful example of that very thing. In
fact, as John Gill says, put these two together, the form
of God and the form of a servant, and admire the amazing stoop. The condescension of our blessed
Savior in the incarnation and in the passion are the examples
for us in the way that we conduct ourselves one to another. So
as I said, there are four statements in verse seven. The first, he
made himself of no reputation. Secondly, he took the form of
a bondservant. Third, he came in the likeness
of men. And fourth, he was found in the appearance as a man, or
found in appearance as a man. So four statements with reference
to the incarnation of our Lord that hold forth great Christology. We've seen some of this, much
of this in our studies in John's Gospel, so I did want to focus
in on these things and hopefully sort of round out our understanding
of the person of Christ, the one person, two natures, the
hypostatic union of our blessed Lord. So look first with me at
this statement. He made himself of no reputation. So after stressing, highlighting,
underscoring and demonstrating the divinity of the Savior in
verse 6, he now points to the humanity of the Savior. specifically
in the Incarnation. So it says, but made himself
of no reputation. That's the way that the King
James translates it, the New King James as well. The ESV and
the NASB translate it, but emptied himself. But emptied himself. Not a bad translation, in fact
a very literal translation because the word used simply means to
make empty or to empty. But when we come to this particular
passage, there is a cautionary reminder that we need to have. The translations, both are correct. I think the King James and the
New King James give us an interpretation, but I would suggest it's a very
good interpretation. The ESV and the NASV, again,
it's literal. And with reference to this concept
of emptying himself, it doesn't necessarily involve heresy. The idea of emptying himself
does not necessitate heresy. Zanke, in his commentary, which
I commended probably 10 times yesterday in our Saturday morning
theology study, he uses that language. And as long as you
understand what you're dealing with with emptying himself, then
it's okay. But there is a potential for
abuse, and this is called canonic Christology. Canonic comes from
the Greek word that Paul uses here, which means to empty himself. And so canonics, or those who
hold to a canonic view of Christology, have the idea that he emptied
himself of divinity. He divested himself of the divine
attributes. that his emptying of himself
was such that he was no longer God in the flesh. And so when
we come to this particular passage, we need to understand that's
not what Paul means. We need to remember that the
divine attributes are essential in God. All that is in God is
God. If Christ were to divest Himself
of divine attributes, He would divest Himself of being God.
It's an impossibility. He cannot do it. As well, the
divine attributes in the earthly ministry of our Lord. John 1.14,
the Word became flesh, a passage we'll refer to again later, and
dwelt among us. And we beheld His glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace
and truth. They beheld His glory on the Mount of Transfiguration.
They beheld His glory when He forgave sins. They beheld His
glory when He exercised divine functions in their midst. In
fact, Matthew chapter 9, when Jesus heals that paralytic, it
is to demonstrate that the Son of Man has power on earth to
forgive sins. So emptying Himself in this passage
does not mean that what was true of Him in verse 6 was laid aside
completely. In fact, go back to 2 Corinthians
8, two other incarnation texts that I think help us as we navigate
through verse 7. 2 Corinthians 8, specifically
at verse 9. The point is not that the humility
of Christ is seen in the divestment or putting aside of His divinity,
but rather it is seen in the incarnation. The one who never
stopped being God, the one who never stopped being in the form
of God, equal with God, took on what He was not. He assumed
our humanity. 2 Corinthians 8-9, For you know
the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet
for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty
might become rich. A canonic reading here would
say he became poor by divesting himself of divinity. But as Dolezal
points out, and I think he's absolutely spot on, we don't
want Christ to give up his riches. We don't want Him to divest Himself
of His riches. We don't want Him to lay aside
His divinity. We need the unique Savior of
sinners. That mediator who is the God-man,
that divine Word who takes to Himself a human nature, that
one is the one that is equipped to do the work of redemption.
So He never ceased being rich when He took on our poverty.
And if you go back to John's Gospel again, another passage,
an incarnational-themed passage, John 1.14. The Word became flesh and dwelt
among us. Who's the Word? It's the Word
of verse 1. In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And then in
verse 14, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld
His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth. It is not the case that when
Christ comes in the Incarnation that He gives up divinity to
take on humanity. The glory of the Incarnation
is that the Divine Son takes on our humanity without ever
ceasing to be what He's always been. As Aquinas says, 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. The glory of this particular
phrase is seen in this reality. The one who was in the form of
God made himself of no reputation. The one who was equal with God
made himself of no reputation. This is the perfect argument
in Paul's appeal here to the Philippians to get rid of their
own selfish ambition and their own conceit. Look at the Savior,
who being in the form of God, who did not consider it robbery
to be equal with God. The one who was equal with God,
nevertheless, made himself of no reputation. He emptied himself. And again, not of divinity, but
that language is perfectly appropriate if it's explained and understood
well. The one in the form of God and equal with God as well,
notice, voluntarily humbled himself, or voluntarily made himself of
no reputation. So the argument in the context?
We're gonna continue to insist on our superiority over our fellows?
Our selfishness, our conceit becomes the overarching factor
in the way that we treat one another? No, brethren, if you
look at verses three and four, when you've got this prohibition,
and then you've got this positive exhortation, and then he points
to the Lord Jesus Christ, if you continue on in a path of
selfishness, or conceit, or you're not others-minded, you're not
like the Savior. It's simple. If you're not the
way Christ is, then you need to repent. If I am not the way
Christ is, then I need to repent. Let nothing be done with selfish
ambition or conceit. Look at Jesus, form of God, equal
with God, and yet he makes himself of no reputation. How many arguments
would be just completely blown away, not blown away in a bad
way, but not having to take place if we all kind of just made ourselves
of no reputation? If we all actually humbled ourselves? How many times in a husband-wife
relationship, if we actually imbibed what Paul was saying
here, could we diffuse the arguments Could we defuse the problems? Could we defuse the sorts of
situations that we find ourselves in because we're driven by selfish
ambition or conceit? Brethren, let this mind be in
you, which was also in Christ Jesus our Lord, who, being in
the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
and he made himself of no reputation. He humbled himself. Voluntarily,
he took this upon himself. Now notice, secondly, he took
the form of a bondservant. He took the form of a bondservant.
Again, the translation here is good. It's a good translation
that we need to make sure that we get our minds wrapped around.
Notice in verse 7, he made himself of no reputation, taking the
form of a bondservant. Now, when we talk about the incarnation
of our Lord, we need to make sure that we understand that
he doesn't assume a person. It's not like there's a person
out there somewhere, a babe in the womb, and Jesus says, I'm
gonna take that one. No, he assumes a nature to the
divine person. Now, when it comes to this, taking
on and assumption is the biblical language. Turn to Hebrews chapter
two. Hebrews chapter two. same language used in verse 16. And pride of place here for English
translations goes to the King James Version. Notice in Hebrews
2 at verse 16. Hebrews 2.16, the new King James,
and the margin has what the King James has. I need to move it
out of the margin and into the text. Verse 16, for indeed He
does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed
of Abraham. Or He does not give help to the
angels, but He gives help to the seed of Abraham. That's not
the point of the passage. He doesn't take on an angelic
nature. He takes on the nature of the
seed of Abraham. King James version says, for
verily, he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took
on him the seed of Abraham. And again, that's in the New
King James margin, take on the nature of and take on. Same idea
as in John 1 14, the word became flesh. and dwelt among us. 2 Corinthians
chapter 8, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became
poor. He took to himself a human nature. He took to himself into that
union with the divine, in the person, that humanity. Now there has been a tendency
in theology to overcorrect canonicism. I hope everybody's still with
me, because this is great stuff. I probably am not explaining
it as greatly as Zanke or anywhere near that, but this is great
stuff. And just by way of a practical
observation, if you've ever talked to a Jehovah's Witness and you
brought up the Trinity, what's kind of their default position?
Well, you know, that was because of Constantine in the fourth
century. The Council of Nicaea, there
were political ramifications. There's politics in everything.
You can't walk in and out of a church building without some
degree of politics. Politics is everywhere. It's just there.
I don't doubt that there were politics at Nicaea, but you know
what the Nicaean Christians did? They carefully articulated what
the Bible clearly lays out. And what Paul is clearly laying
out here is codified in the Nicene Creed, in the Chalcedonian Creed.
Those are good theological articulations, good theological summaries of
biblical truth, just like the second London in chapter two
with reference to of God and the Holy Trinity, and chapter
eight of Christ the Mediator. As I mentioned this morning in
our confession study, in fact, in chapter two of our confession,
they reach back into Nicaea and bring that stuff into their discussion
of God and the Holy Trinity. When they're dealing with Christ
the mediator, specifically the hypostatic union in paragraph
2 of chapter 8, guess where they go? They go back to Chalcedon
in 451 and bring that information to bear in their confession.
It's not that this is extra-biblical addition, formulation, they made
up the doctrine of the Trinity. No, these creeds and confessions
protected what the Apostle Paul reveals to us so absolutely,
positively, clearly in this passage and elsewhere. So when it comes
to this, we use the language of taking on or assumption. So remember, canonicism is an
emptying of the Lord and his divinity. Some have come along
and say, well, he added that human nature. The language of
addition. Now, I don't think that's necessarily
damnable heresy. It's not. Addition is not damnable
heresy. But assumption and taking on
is much better. Because addition can suggest,
not necessarily, but it can suggest a change to the divine nature. And we want to protect against
that because the divine nature is immutable, it is impassable,
so therefore it cannot be changed, cannot be added to. So addition,
while not heretical strictly, it's not the best. Use taking
on because that's biblical and assumption. It's interesting,
biblicists use addition and the Bible uses taking on. It's kind
of an interesting juxtaposition there. A little joke for the
theologians among us. But the use of addition lends
itself to the possibility of change in His divinity. Zanke
says, this assumption was not affected by any change, either
in the person who assumed or in the nature assumed, or any
blending, mixing, or confusion. It was instead affected by a
true personal union, namely, whereby the thing assumed was
united in such an intimate bond with the assuming person that
the person, just as he previously subsisted in the form of God,
now also subsists in the form of a servant. A bit shorter and
a little bit easier is Augustine. He emptied himself, not by changing
his own divinity, but by assuming our changeableness and taking
upon him the form of a servant. So if you go back to the text
and you look at what's going on here, The one who is in the
form of God, who did not consider robbery to be equal with God,
took the form of a bondservant. And form there is very intriguing. He doesn't say took. the bondservant,
as if there was a bondservant already existing, a baby in the
womb that was destined to be a bondservant, so Christ assumed
that person. He took the form of a bondservant.
He assumed a human nature. He didn't assume a human person.
There was a heretic named Nestorius that taught a two-person Christology,
and that is heretical. And so Paul's language here is
beautiful, but the highlight is, again, Zanke. Just as form
of God indicates the divine nature and essence, not nakedly but
dressed in all its essential properties, so form of a servant
indicates the human essence and nature, not nakedly but joined
together with all its properties as well as all of its weaknesses
except for sin. Like our confession speaks of,
all the essential properties and the common infirmities thereof,
and yet without sin. He assumes a human nature, so
that when we look at the person of Christ, we've got the verse
6 reality and the verse 7 reality in the one person. The taking
of the form of a bondservant, again in the context, will hopefully
deal a death blow to our pride, to our selfish ambition, and
to our conceit. When the Lord Jesus Christ at
the Last Supper, in that context, washes the feet of the disciples,
Brethren, there is no place for us to be lords and kings over
others. There is no place for us to insist
upon our priority, to insist upon others serving me in His
earthly ministry. The Son of Man did not come to
be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom for many.
This is what Paul is saying. The one in the form of God, the
one equal with God, humbled himself, made himself of no reputation,
emptied himself, not of divinity, but with reference to this, taking
the form of a bondservant. It is glorious. Now notice thirdly,
he came in the likeness of men, and coming in the likeness of
men. The meaning here is not likeness
of men, kind of similar, kind of a bit, Kind of, almost. Likeness of man means man. Again, accepting sin. Consider
Genesis 5, 1 to 3. This is the book of the genealogy
of Adam. In the day that God created man,
He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and
female and blessed them and called them mankind in the day they
were created. And Adam lived 130 years and begot a son in
his own likeness. He begot a son in his own likeness.
So is his son kind of like a man? No! This is the language that
demonstrates or exemplifies the reality of manhood. Christ in
the likeness of man does not mean that he's kind of somewhat. It means He assumed our humanity. It means He is a man. As well,
consider the parallel with the image of God. Colossians 1.15,
Jesus is called the image of God. Are we not to conclude that
He's actually God? Paul's point is that he's actually
God. Same with this particular phrase.
Paul's point is that he's actually man. The one who was in the form
of God, who did not consider robbery to be equal with God,
made himself of no reputation. He takes the form of a bondservant
and he appears, or rather is in the likeness of man. What's
Paul's emphasis? He's actually true man. That's
what he's saying. Go back to Hebrews chapter 2.
Hebrews chapter 2 where we see that taking on or assumption
language in verse 16. There's other good stuff there
in verse 14 and verse 17 in terms of true humanity of our Savior.
As the church fathers would say, whatever is not assumed is not
healed. Whatever is not assumed is not
redeemed. If he does not become true man,
there is no salvation for you and I." It's the glory of the
creed. For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven. Praise God Almighty for the blessed
realities of Philippians 2, 6 and 7 and 8 through 11. That section
is goodness with reference to Christ. Notice in verse 17. Notice, he had to be made like
his brethren. Westminster Larger Catechism,
questions 38 and 39. We're probably not going to have
time to read that tonight, but why was it requisite that our
mediator was God? Why was it requisite that our
mediator was man? And it gives a great summary
statement as to why it was essential that the mediator be the word
who became flesh for us men and for our salvation. So verse 17
again, therefore in all things he had to be made like his brethren
that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things
pertaining to God to make propitiation for the sins of the people. I
alluded to our confession earlier. 2nd London 8.2, the Son of God
did, when the fullness of time was complete, take upon him man's
nature with all the essential properties and common infirmities
of it, yet without sin. So when Paul says what Paul says
here in Philippians chapter two, when he says, coming in the likeness
of men, I wanna remind us the glory of the incarnation is not
that the Son kinda became like man, not that the Son kind of
assumed our flesh, There's an older heresy called docetism,
which means it just seemed like. He just appeared to be a man.
Kind of had that appearance. That's wrong, brethren. Doesn't
John condemn that kind of mindset? If it wasn't a full-blown docetism
that John was speaking to, there were seed forms of it The idea
that the Gnostics, that the flesh, the external was bad? What does
John say? Whoever denies that Jesus came
in the flesh is Antichrist. You can't make that denial. You
can't just say he was seemingly a man. He appeared as a man. You can't do that. That's bad
Christology. That's heresy. And that's exactly
what Paul is saying didn't happen. He was true man. The glory of
the incarnation is not that the son renounced his divinity, but
that he assumed our humanity. And the glory of the incarnation
is the union of the divine and human natures in the one person,
hypostatic union, one person of Christ, not two persons like
Nestorius, one person, two natures. And those two natures are not
confused. The divine doesn't divinize the
human. The human doesn't humanize the
divine. It's a union of natures in the
one person without confusion, without mixture, without producing
a third thing. And then the final statement,
this is in verse 7 in the Greek text, he was found in appearance
as a man. And again, this appearance as
a man, I think, speaks to the witness and the testimony that
persons had in the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ. The
emphasis again is on his true humanity, not his apparent or
seemingly humanity, but on his true humanity. The appearance
of true humanity was evident to those who saw and interacted
with him. He wasn't a phantom. You couldn't
put your hand through him like he was just some ethereal being.
That's not it. Consider the statements of Holy
Scripture. The reality of his flesh and blood. 1 John 1.1,
that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we
have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our
hands have handled concerning the word of life. This is why
John goes on to condemn, as Antichrist, those who deny that Jesus came
in the flesh. John understood this great incarnation
theology that Paul is putting forth in Philippians 2, 6-8,
because John puts it forth in the prologue. John puts it forth
from 119 all the way to the confession of Thomas, my Lord and my God. John, the theologian, understood
this all too well, and so he condemns those who deny that
Christ came in the flesh, and here he speaks positively in
terms of their witness. Consider Luke 24, 39. Behold
my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see,
for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have. It's not an apparition, it's
not an ethereal spirit, it's not a floating body, it's not
something you can pass your hand through, it's Jesus. Consider
the ordinariness of his appearance. He didn't walk through the streets
of Jerusalem with a halo on, with flowing white robes, 18-inch
guns, glistening abs. He didn't do that. It's very
ordinary, very common. In fact, the prophet tells us,
he has no form or comeliness, and when we see him, there is
no beauty that we should desire him. Isaiah 53 too. In other words, he looked like
everybody else. He looked like everybody else.
In fact, he may have even looked a little bit more haggard than
everybody else. And I say that with all due respect,
but that scene in John 8, 57, the Jews said to him, you are
not yet 50 years old and have you seen Abraham? He was 32,
33. You ever had that where somebody
guesses your age and they add almost 20 years? Ladies, would
you like that? No, listen to Gil. He was not
much more than 30, not above two or three and 30 years old. The reason of their fixing on
this age of 50 might be because Christ might look like such an
one, being a man of sorrows and acquainted with griefs as well
as of great gravity. So there was nothing about his
appearance that signaled that he was not a normal man. Consider the normal childhood
of Jesus, the normal childhood of Jesus. Luke chapter 2, you
remember the scene, Jesus stays behind to talk with the doctors
of theology and his parents find out and they come back, why aren't
you with us? And we've got this. Then he went
down with them and came to Nazareth and was subject to them. He was
in the form of a bondservant willing submission in the economy,
not in theology, but in the economy, he willingly submits to his father,
he willingly submits to his earthly parents, he willingly submits
to the civil government, he willingly submits. that marked the Savior
according to his humanity. So then he went down with them
and came to Nazareth and was subject to them. But his mother
kept all these things in her heart. And Jesus increased in
wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men. Normal childhood,
true humanity. There was an increase there.
Notice as well the regular functions of true humanity. He ate. Matthew
4, when he goes out to the wilderness, he fasted for 40 days. What does
fasting imply? Non-fasting. In order for him
to fast, he would have had to give up food. He eats even post-resurrection. Fish and honeycomb, if you're
in the King James tradition. If you're not, just fish. As
well, he drank. He drank water. He drank fluids
necessary to sustain true humanity. He slept. Remember that scene
in Mark's gospel, especially in Mark 4, Jesus took a nap in
the boat with a pillow. Pillow, Mark 4, 38. He had a
pillow. That's true humanity, brethren.
Doesn't true man like to put his head on a pillow? It's a
bench, that's okay. I'm not a true man. No, everything
in scripture displays to us true humanity. The appearance as a
man to those around. The one in the form of God, who
did not consider robbery to be equal with God, that one made
himself of no reputation. That one took the form of a bondservant. That one was in the likeness
of man. That one appeared as man. And it culminates in his
suffering, pain, and death, which is indicative of true humanity. Again, Zanke says, the true and
complete human nature, not a part or merely the appearance thereof,
along with all the properties of body and soul were assumed
into the unity of the person by the Son of God. And that without
alteration, without confusion, without division, without separation. Those statements go back into
the tradition, go back into the history of the church, and are
necessary in a discussion of the hypostatic union, without
alteration, without confusion, without division, without separation. For in the likeness of men, he
became like us other men in all ways except for sin. That's Paul's point. in Philippians 2 verse 7. The one in the form of God did
not consider Robert to be equal with God, made himself of no
reputation, took the form of a bond servant, came in the likeness
of man, and was found in appearance as a man. And then when we get
to the next statement in verse 8, God willing, in a couple of
weeks, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point
of death. So the apostle's argument, as I said, is very simple. Don't
do this, verse 3. Do this, verse 4. Verse 5, consider
Jesus, who didn't do that and who did do that. And how does
he display that? from the heights of divinity
to the humiliation of our Savior, the state of humiliation. And
that state of humiliation is seen in the incarnation and in
the passion. So verse 7 deals with the incarnation
and sets us up for verse 8, which is the passion. He humbled himself
to the point of death. And it wasn't just death, it
was the death of the cross. So back to the prohibition of
verse three, do nothing with selfish ambition or conceit.
To the positive exhortation in verse four, treat others as better
than yourselves. Because this is what Jesus did
for us men and for our salvation. He couldn't have given a stronger
argument for the church to pursue love and unity. He couldn't give
a stronger argument for the church to kill selfish ambition and
to kill conceit. He couldn't possibly give a more
powerful argument. Timothy's gonna function that
way to some degree, so is Epaphroditus, but not like Jesus. Divinity,
humanity. the cross itself. Well, in conclusion,
let us not forget the nature of Paul's argument. He wants
us to kill the things he mentions in verse three, and he wants
us to put on the things, well, verse 3a, and then the things
of verses 3b and 4 in terms of the way that we live toward one
another. I would suggest the clarity of
Paul's words here. You cannot come away from verse
6 and conclude that Jesus isn't divine unless you're a heretic
or you've got a prejudice against this or a predilection. You just
can't escape the form of God equal with God. You just can't
escape John 1.1 and John 1.14. You just can't escape the entirety
of John's Gospel. You can't escape Thomas' confession,
my Lord and my God. Isn't that intriguing? In the
beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. The end, formally, of the Gospel of John, there's an epilogue
in chapter 21, but chapter 20 is kind of the crescendo. I mean,
John at the end gives his purpose for writing these things, many
other signs Jesus did, but these are given so that you might believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing
in His name, you may have life. But right before that, we've
got that confession from Thomas. And isn't it intriguing that
Thomas was the most dead set against this? He takes the chief
doubter, and I've preached that passage before. Thomas wasn't
just doubting. Well, I'm not really sure. No,
unless I see, unless I touch, he says, I will certainly not
believe. And that brother sees Jesus and
says, my Lord and my God. You think John has a purpose
in the gospel? Yes, the divinity of Jesus is
not made up. The divinity of Jesus isn't based
on some Eastern religion and some similarity, no. The divine
word became flesh and dwelt among us. That's the glory of Christianity. That's the glory of our religion. That is the beauty, the sum and
substance. Other religions boast virtue.
Other religions boast good works. Other religions might have some
things that, yeah, it's okay. But no one, no other religion
has the Son of God who assumed our humanity and lived for us
and died for us and was raised again for us. Verse 6, divinity. I don't even like saying true
divinity. You know, modified divinity. There's not gradations
of divinity. He's kind of like, no, he's divinity,
divine, God. True humanity. And I do modify
that humanity so that we're not docetist, so that we don't think
that he's kind of like a man, but he's not really. No, true
humanity, verse 7. And then the passion in verse
8 underscores that. As our confession says at 8.2,
Perfect and distinct natures were inseparably joined together
in one person. Remember I said that Zanke reached
back in the tradition and picked out these words? Listen, that
our confession does the same. Without conversion, composition,
or confusion, which person is very God and very man, yet one
Christ, the only mediator between God and man. Based on what Paul
says in verse six, based on what Paul says in verse seven, when
we come to verse eight, we ought to stand in awe. at the reality
that he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death,
even the death of the cross. And then I want to just end by
reading, I think, a wonderful statement concerning the doctrine
of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is from Chalcedon. We then
following the Holy Fathers all with one consent. This is just
a good compendium of Christology. And again, they didn't make it
up. They didn't, you know, go off to a room with, you know,
robes and, you know, secret society type thing. Let's really confuse
the world. No, they did exegesis. They interpreted
John 1, 1 to 18. They interpreted the rest of
John's gospel. They interpreted Philippians chapter 2. They went
to those Christological passages and they understood what the
apostles, what our Lord was teaching. Our Lord taught this also before
Abraham was, I am, That's why they picked up stones
to throw at Him. So we then, following the Holy
Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and
the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead
and also perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, of a
reasonable soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to
the Godhead and consubstantial with us according to the manhood,
in all things like unto us without sin. begotten before all ages
of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter
days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the
mother of God." Brethren, I know that's offensive to some Protestants. Oh, it sounds Popish. It is not
a statement about the dignity of Mary. It's a statement about
the dignity of Jesus. The one born by Mary is God. That's the emphasis here. Not, oh, we should worship Mary.
No, that's not it at all. According to the manhood, one
in the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged
in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. The distinction of natures being
by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property
of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person
and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons,
but one in the same son, and only begotten, God the word,
the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have
declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself
has taught us, and the creed of the holy fathers has handed
down to us. That's good theology. That's good exegesis. That's good reflection upon passages
like Philippians chapter 2, verses 6 to 8. Like passages like John
1, 1 to 18. Again, the rest of John's gospel.
It's good reflection upon the promises concerning Jesus in
the Old Testament. The Lord said to my Lord, sit
at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool,
Psalm 110.1. Micah chapter 5, the one whose goings forth are
from of old, from everlasting. He's called everlasting father
in Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6. Not that he is the father in
terms of the Trinity, but he's the father to the church in terms
of his connection to us. The Old Covenant prophesied a
divine Messiah, and lo and behold, the Word became flesh and dwelt
among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten
of the Father, full of grace and truth. That one has begraced
us. If we are saved tonight, it's
because of His life, His death, His resurrection, and we owe
praise, worship, adoration, and glory to Him. And if you are
not a believer, look to Him in faith. He took the form of a
bondservant. He does all that verse 7 does,
not to not save people from sin, but to save His people from their
sins. Well, let us pray. Our Father
in heaven, we thank you for your word. We thank you for the clarity
of Paul's words here concerning our blessed Savior. And we thank
you that you have blessed us with every spiritual blessing
in the heavenly places in Christ. We rejoice in your loving kindness
and in your mercy. We rejoice in the mission of
the Savior on behalf of guilty sinners. And we rejoice that
one day we will be in His presence, we will be in heaven, in Emmanuel's
land, to stand in awe of our great God, world without end.
And we pray in His most blessed name. Amen.
