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.
Introduction
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.
Four Statements on the Incarnation
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.
Made Himself of No Reputation
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.
Kenotic Christology Defined and Refuted
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.
Taking the Form of a Bondservant
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.
Assumption, Not Addition
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.
Coming in the Likeness of Men
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,
Docetism Rejected
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.
Found in Appearance as a Man
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.
Evidence of True Humanity
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.
Application
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.
Reading of the Chalcedonian Definition
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.
Closing Prayer
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.