All right, Paul is writing. We're
breaking in the middle of his thought. He is giving exhortations
under the Philippian Christians, a church, and then he comes to
this, and look at it. You won't find a greater passage
concerning Christ in all the New Testament than this one that
we're about to read from. Philippians 2, 5 through 8 for
our morning. Well, let's just read all the
way down under verse 11, but we won't cover except verse 8. So 5 through 11. Let this mind
be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. who being in the
form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made
himself of no reputation, took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion
as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly
exalted him, given him a name which is above every name, that
at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven
and in earth and under the earth, and that every tongue should
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the
Father. As I said, we'll only make half
of that this morning. Let's begin, if we might, this
way of introduction by saying a few things about Paul's connection
and relationship under the Philippian church and the Philippian saint. In Acts chapter 16, you have
a record, a rather lengthy record there, of Paul's first visit
into the city of Philippi. This is what we might call a
part of the second missionary journey of the apostle as he
left from Antioch and made a round on the second missionary journey. And he did that beginning in
Acts chapter 15 and verse 36. And his purpose was that he might
revisit some of the churches that he had done before, Acts
15, 41, And as they went from church to church, they delivered
unto them the decrees that had been written in Jerusalem in
Acts chapter 15. And as he went about, he delivered
those or read those unto the particular churches regarding
the Gentiles and their relationship under the ceremonial law. Now,
on this journey early on, Paul took up Timothy to be an associate
and to travel with him. You have that in Acts 16 verses
1 through 3. And then as Paul moved on his
way, he intended to go one way, and the providence and the Spirit
of God directed him in another direction. We read in Acts chapter
16 that Paul was forbidden by the Spirit to preach the gospel
in Asia. Evidently, he had intended to
go that way, Acts 16 and verse 6. Then he tried to go into Bithynia
and preach the gospel there, but the Spirit of God did not
allow it. You'll find that in verse 7. And a vision from God in the
night ultimately led them toward Europe and the introduction of
the gospel there finally to the city of Philippi. It's very interesting
in the 16th chapter of the book of Acts There are three notable
conversions that are mentioned specifically in that chapter
of the scripture, and they all happened in the city of Philippi. I'll look at them very quickly.
In verse 14 and 15, the woman by the name of Lydia of Thyatira,
a seller of purple, who evidently was upon her business and was
in the city, found a place where prayer was wont to be made by
the riverside, and turned in with them. And Paul came by and
began to speak unto them the things of God, And the Lord opened
Lydia's heart, the Bible said, and she attended unto the things
that were spoken by Paul and became a great helper unto them. And I kind of favor the idea
that the church at Philippi may have met in the house of this
woman, Lydia, from later on in chapter 16. But then secondly,
we see another great incident by the Apostle Paul and that
in the city of Philippi, and that's found in verse 16 through
verse 24 of Acts chapter 16. Every day Paul met a woman possessed
of a spirit of divination, and she'd cry out at him and mocked
him, and Paul turned about cast the evil spirit out of her, the
margin calls it Python, and when the owners of the woman saw that
the hope of their gain was gone, they raised a great ruckus and
Paul and Silas were thrown in jail. And the third one is the
conversion of the Philippian jailer. You have that in verse
25 through verse 34 of Acts chapter 16. What must I do to be saved? And he washed their stripes,
brought them into his house, and was baptized that very night. And these may have been a part
of the church at Philippi when Paul made this trip and came
back again. Now why did Paul write this Philippian
epistle? It's always interesting to know
what lay behind and the motivation for writing any portion of the
scripture. He writes it to the church at
Philippi, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi
with the bishops and the deacons. You see that in chapter 1 and
verse 1. Why did he write Well, what motivated
him to compose this great epistle? Of course, the Spirit of God
inspired it and directed him in all that he wrote. But as
to why Paul wrote, I'd like to quote from John Eady, a Scotsman
theologian of the days gone by, quote, its object is neither
to combat error nor establish truth, or expose inconsistency,
nor vindicate his apostolical authority," unquote. He did that
in so many other of the epistles. What then? Why did Paul principally
write this letter under the Philippian church and assembly? Well, when
we look back, we find, we look ahead here, chapter four, we
find that they had sent Paul a monetary love offering. Though they were poor, they had
taken up a collection, a love offering, and they had sent it
by Ephroditus on to Paul in Rome. And so he writes this letter,
and in chapter 4, verse 10 through verse 18, he likens that gift
unto him, quote, to an odor of sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable
and well-pleasing unto God, unquote. Oh, how it helped the apostle
in his poverty at that particular time. But we come to our text
this morning, chapter 2, verse 5 and following. It is one of
the greatest Christological passages found anywhere in the New Testament. It sets forth the humiliation
of our blessed Lord and then the exaltation and glorification
of our blessed Lord that after he had assumed the likeness of
men and been in the form of a man, after he had obeyed Even unto
the death of the cross, God raised him up, God brought him again
into heaven, and exalted, glorified him, and seated him at the right
hand of God at the highest sovereign glory and authority, the Lord
Jesus Christ. Then the question, how come Paul
to include in this epistle the verses that we have read this
morning? Had they erred on the person
of Christ? Was there heresy about the person
of Christ that was creeping in or had already crept in? Were
they in any way or any degree in denial on these things concerning
the person of Christ? And we answer, nay. This great
passage that we've read this morning is held up as both the
model and the motivation under the Philippian saints to fulfill
the exhortation that Paul had just written under them, and
that is to avoid strife and vain glory. to abstain from strife
between themselves and lifting themselves up in any manner of
vainglory. And Paul exhorts them to one
of the hardest things there is to do in the Christian life,
and that is this, to esteem others higher than themselves, and not
to look only on their own matters, but also on the matters or the
things or the interests of others. And if you'll admit it, and I'll
admit it, this is one of the hardest tasks for us to do in
our Christian life and duty. So to motivate them under that
hard exhortation, Paul as one author puts it, and I quote,
holds up Christ as the great model of self-denying condescension,
unquote. He holds before them not himself,
how much he had given up, how much he denied himself, what
he'd suffered for Christ, no, but he holds up Christ before
them. And look at verse 5 again. Let
this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. He's saying to them, have the
attitude of the Lord with regard to others. Imitate Christ. Think like him. Now, Robertson
and Linsky, on their study of the Greek, say that the tense
is actually this. Keep on thinking this, keep on
minding the mind that was in Christ Jesus. Now of course Paul
is not saying here, nor should we understand him as saying that
we're capable of having the full complement of the thought and
the mind of the Lord Jesus Christ. His thoughts are far above our
thoughts, and his ways are above our way. But Paul is speaking
of this one instance that he goes on to describe, and that
is of Christ humbling himself, taking on the form of a man,
and being found in the likeness of a man, and then obeying under
the death of the cross. The example is Christ. He looked
upon the things of others, even to his death or dying upon the
cross. He died not for himself or his
good, but he died for others. Then look at verse 6 and the
word who that opens up that verse. Who, meaning Jesus Christ back
in verse 5. The one. Him who. And in other
words, the who in verse 6 is a reference to Christ in the
end of verse 5. And it refers, first of all,
to his pre-incarnate state, what our Lord was in and from eternity. And that's this, being in the
form of God before Christ ever assumed flesh. while he was yet
with the Father in heaven. Being in the form of God. Literally, who being in the form
of God. We could go on and say the one
being in the form of God. the one being in the form of
God and the divine essence. Now the word being here is worthy
of our notice and of a short word study, for it is a great
word, and it has the meaning of to exist or subsist. existing or subsisting in the
form of God, so that the Lord before his incarnation, before
he was born of Mary, or appeared as one among the Jew, known as
Jesus of Nazareth, had being. He existed before he came of
a woman, and lived among them, being or having existence. It was not that of a created
being. The Lord is not a created being,
as some teach even today. He was not even a high angel
in the archive of God, no. He was in the form God in his
pre-incarnate state he had possession of full absolute deity he was
in no sense lower or inferior under God now this form this
form that we read about here of God as Gil says and we know
is does not refer to any manner of shape or to outward figure
or outline. Not any physical shape is meant
by the word form. The word form, if I can say it
right, I think is the word morphe, and means that this one, that
we often call the second person in the Godhead, or the divinity,
or the trinity, partakers of that eternal essence, equally
with the Father, whatever God the Father is, Christ also was
and is. And morphe means the actual existence
or the essence of the divinity or of the Godhead, being in the
form of God. Now we're not to overlook the
fact that the very same word, morphe, or form, is used again
in verse 7. He took on him the form, the
parfait of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. We'll say more about this later,
but look at the last part, if you will, of the sixth verse. He thought it not robbery to
be equal with God. Now that'll make us rub our chin
and scratch our head as we try to understand these things. This
of course connects the first half of verse 6. Existing in
the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God. And let's say it one more time.
Who being in the form of God did not think it robbery to be
equal with God. Now this is a tough one. When
we look at it, begin to study it in depth. But note it. This
describes what Christ was before his incarnation, before he was
born of a woman, before he became incarnate and not after. Gil said, to be in the form of
God and to be equal with God are actually signifying the same
thing. And this Christ was from all
eternity. And he did not consider it robbery. Now let's see if we can work
that out. By doing that, let's read verse
7 again. But made himself of no reputation,
and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men. Now obviously, verse 7, verse
8, and verse 9 are connected together in their flow of thought,
but There are two words here that deserve and will profit
us if we take a closer look. If we might get the words over
in English and then we might be able to understand them. Number
one is the word robbery in verse six. He thought it not, he deemed
it not robbery to be equal with God. And that which he thought
or deemed or considered not robbery is equality with God. not robbery, to be equal with
God. Now the word, that is, the exact
word seems to be used only this one time in this one place in
all of the New Testament. And I found that expositors and
that Greek translators are all over the place as to the meaning
of the word. And some think that it's capable
of having a double meaning. Number one, they say it can mean
to seize or to plunder or to usurp. I noticed that the NASB
translators rendered it, he did not regard equality with God
a thing to be grasped. Think about that. He did not
regard equality with God as a thing to be grasped, that is, a thing
to be seized. He did not consider it an act
of usurpation to be equal with God. Now the second meaning that
the word can have and has is a prize. It means a prize, a
thing held as a prize. And in A.T. Robertson's pictures
of words studied in the New Testament, understands Paul to be saying,
a prize to be held on to, rather than a prize to be gained or
won. Now, I want to repeat that. A
prize to be held on to rather than one to be gained or won. But whether it speaks of a prize
or whether it speaks of a seizure, either, in the context flows
then into verse 7. But took the form of a servant
and such like. That is, he looked upon the things
of others. He acted for the good of others. Thus, concerning the dual meaning
of the word robbery, which view is more in harmony with the context? Which view that we just mentioned
and that I'm mentioning now is more in harmony with the context? Number one, he being in the form
of God, did not in any way consider equality with God a usurpation. For he had every right to that
equality. He had every right to it. Yet still, he became incarnate,
and he gave himself to the death of the cross. So, being, having
an equality with God, yet, He gave himself into the form of
a man, a servant. Or secondly, could it be, he
being in the form of God, did not regard it as a prize to be,
and I want to quote John Eady here, regarded with a selfish
and exclusive attachment, unquote. He did not regard being equal
with God in that sin. His heart, in other words, was
not so fixed upon the glory that he had with the Father before
the world, like he said in John chapter 17, that he would not
for a while veil it in a body or in the nature of flesh and
look upon the things of others and act with regard unto the
things of others." Now, either way, the contrast or result was
this. He made himself of no reputation. He was made in the form of a
servant. Now, that brings us to the second
word that we want to consider and look at here, not only the
word robbery, but also the word reputation. He made himself of
no reputation. It says in the King James and
in some of the English. Made himself of no reputation. Now obviously, the word reputation
here cannot have the exact same meaning that it has in our society
today when we speak of somebody having a reputation. That is
to be well known. or to be well thought of, whether
good or bad behavior, and to have a reputation. And for others
to have an opinion about that person, whether they're famous
and such like, that's kind of how we see the word used today. Because it cannot be this because
in this sense the whole Jewish world Heard about the Lord his
reputation spread far and wide they heard of him in every place
and you see an example of it in Acts 5 34 and in Galatians
2 and verse 2 now the word And let's look at it here a reputation
translated here in our King James, the word is canoe-o-o, brother
Baker I'll have to ask you about that later, from a primary word
meaning to empty. Now this word comes from means
to empty and in theology It is known, if you've heard of it,
as the kenosis doctrine, the doctrine of the kenosis. What eras have there been brought
into Christendom on this doctrine in this matter of the kenosis? And an interpretation of this
passage of the scripture has led some aside on the person
of Christ, because some of them say that the Son of God, in becoming
man, or becoming incarnate, actually divested himself of his deity. There are those who hold that
view, that he actually put off his deity. Others say, no, he
lay aside his divine attribute. Some even say that he did not
know all things while he were upon the earth and charged the
Lord with being ignorant upon something. And a line from a
Charles Wesley hymn speaks as an awesome thing that God's son
would, and I'm quoting, empty himself of all but love Wesley,
one of his songs. This is the main attribute emphasized
by Arminian. They emphasize love over and
above all and sometimes to the exclusion of all. I just hope
and pray that no child of God would espouse the notion that
deity could be laid aside like taking off a garment. How could
that be? It is an impossibility. John Owen wrote on our passage,
God can no more cease to be God than one who is not God can become
God, unquote. But the Sassanians and others
see Jesus as only a man. and they're angry and reject
when his deity and his lordship and his eternality and his sovereignty
are emphasized, they do not take it well. Now the Lord became
in the incarnation true man. true man, and as Paul writes,
took upon him the form, the parfait of a servant, and was made in
the likeness of men and being found in fashion. as a man. Look at those three words there
flowing out of Paul's pen. Catch the three words form, likeness,
fashion. All three of them describing
our Lord's humanity in his incarnation. That it was real humanity. It
was not a phantom humanity as the Docetists have claimed. He
need be true man in order that he might have a proper kinship
with his brethren, with his children, with his sons, all mentioned
in the second chapter of Hebrew. He had a body that God had prepared
for him. as we read in Hebrews chapter
10 and verse 5. Yes, he was made of a woman in
Galatians chapter 4 and verse 4, not as it to his divinity,
but as to his humanity or manhood, made of a woman. His humanity
was conceived in her by the Holy Spirit. She carried him to term. He was born of a woman. And as
to his nationality, he came from Israel, and as to his lineage,
out of the house of David. He was, or he assumed, true humanity. Yet without depravity, no depravity,
no sin, none whatsoever. He was even made in the likeness
of sinful flesh in Romans 8 and 3, but not sinful flesh. He knew
no sin, 2 Corinthians 5 and 21. He was, Hebrews 7 and verse 26,
holy, harmless, undefiled, separate
from sinners. And by the way, the word likeness
here in Philippians 2 and verse 7, in the likeness of men, and
that one in Romans 8 and 3, in the likeness of sinful flesh
are one and the same word. Likeness, therefore, denotes
a resemblance. And against the Docetis, let's
remember, none took the Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth to be
a phantom. None that we read about in the
scripture ever looked upon him as but a phantom. He was not
only recognized as a man, but as a Jewish man. Some even called
him a sinner and an evil man, calling him a blasphemer, an
enemy of Moses, things like that. We ought to be careful when we
read Paul's words that we do not become of the mind of those
evil Arians of old, that in the incarnation the word was turned
into flesh. Now this is an era that some
fall into and it might be easy if you're not sharp and on your
toe. Some might take John 1, the word
was made flesh and dwelt among us. If their doctrine be truthfully
reported, They hold that the word was in the fullness of time
turned into flesh. And as an example, they give
the turning of the water into wine, that it ceased being water
and it became wine, that it was not a mixture of one and the
other, of course, attacking the two natures in our Lord Jesus
Christ. The Puritan John Owen wrote,
the condescension of Christ did not consist in the conversion
of the divine nature into that of a human, unquote. In other
words, he did not cease being a divine being and become a human
being only. He did not cease when he took
humanity what he had been from all eternity. There was not in
this condensation, said Owen, the least change or alteration
in the divine nature, unquote. On the other hand, the two natures
of Christ were not amalgamated are compounded into one, but
remained distinct natures in our one Lord Jesus Christ. It is true the Son of the Messiah
did not appear among men as a shining, eye-blinding brightness and glowing
appearance as he came and moved about among them. He might have
appeared in all of his glory, had it pleased God the Father
to do so, in all the appalling majesty of Sinai, the Lord might
have appeared among men. And I think this is evident by
the transfiguration that we read about in the scripture. When
before a few privileged eyes and people, our Lord on the mount
let loose a blast of his glory, that almost took their breath
away. But he appeared as Isaiah predicted. Not in a glorious form, not with
great beauty, but Isaiah predicted a shoot of the house of David,
a root out of a dry ground, no beauty that we should desire
him when we see him. And he said that he is despised
and rejected of men. He is a man of sorrows and acquainted
with grief. Isaiah describes the person of
Christ. His own nation received him not. He came to his own, and they
received him not. And when they looked upon him,
they accounted him to be a victim of God's judgment, and they numbered
him with the transgressors. We read in Isaiah chapter 53. Now, coming to verse 8 of our
text this morning in Philippians 2, we have the supreme example
of the mind that was in Christ Jesus back in verse 5. Let this mind be in you that
was also in Christ Jesus, and how because of that mind he looked
upon the welfare of others. Now here we have a second thing
about the condescension or the humiliation of the one who is
the substance of our passage of scripture here. First, we
have seen that though he existed in the form of God and thought
it not robbery to be equal with God, yet he emptied himself. He veiled his glory. He took
on human nature and veiled his glory for a time. Now we read
something else. that after he took on him the
form of a servant, being found in fashion as a man, he humbled
himself. First he emptied himself, then
he took on the form of a man, and he humbled himself, and that
to the lowest degree possible. He humbled himself. by submitting
to the death of the cross. We'll say more about that later,
after we note why these acts of Christ are given the two names
often heard. Number one, condescension are
his humiliation and then his exaltation. And now in verse
8, humbling himself, giving himself over to the death of the cross. And there is a phrase here that
jumps out at us and that grabs us. He humbled himself, and look
at this, and became obedient. Catch the word obedient. He became obedient to the death
of the cross. He humbled himself and became
obedient unto death. He obeyed. It was not that he
obeyed death, that's not what Paul is saying, or that he rendered
obedience to the grim reaper, but as his death was an act of
humility, so was it an act of obedience. He obeyed in dying
upon the cross. Dying upon the cross, he was
obeying. Obedient. Obedient is a word
that Robertson calls an old, old adjective to give ear to,
to listen to, to hear attentively, and to heed, and to submit. And the Lord was obedient. Now to whom was this obedience
rendered? To whom was our Lord obedient
unto death? Not death, not Satan, not the
Jew, not Pilate, and not the Romans. John's gospel settles
the question. Chapter 10, verse 17, and verse
18, speaking of his death for the sheep, to lay down his life
and to take it up again, he says in verse 18 of John chapter 10,
this commandment have I received of my father. having authority
to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This commandment
have I received of my father. We won't read them, but here's
some more. John 6, 38, 14, 31, Matthew 26, 39, and 42. in the garden. I drink this cup
except I drink this cup. There was a command laid upon
him by the father. The father laid upon the son
a commandment to both lay down his life and to take it up again. And as incarnate mediator, the
Father loves him for such and for doing that. This commandment
have I received of my Father. We're not to conclude either
that it was forced upon him by the Father, that it was an act
of absolute force against His will, or that it was an unjust
command on the part of the Father. He voluntarily went to the cross
because it was the will of the Father, and because it pleased
the Father, and because it was His kind intent. Again in John
chapter 10, I lay it down. I lay my life down. He went like a lamb to the slaughter. We read in Isaiah 53, 7 and Acts
8 and verse 32. Like a sheep before her shearers,
he is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. We are familiar, are
we not? He might have called legions
upon legions of angels to fight and to slaughter his executioners
and to deliver him. He might have slain them with
a word of his mouth, like a sword, and they might have died standing
in their tracks. He had delivered Himself on other
occasions out of their midst, He might have done so again.
Or the ground might have opened up and swallowed every one of
those rebels, had it been His will. No, the Lord obeyed the
Father in all things. John 8 verse 29, I do always
the things that please Him. And that obedience extended even
unto death, that he drank the bitter cup that the Father had
set before him, that while Christ's death was necessary and was ordained
by God, yet Christ freely and willingly went to his death. His death was completely voluntary
as to his part giving himself to death. He went to his death
in that manner. And though he escaped and avoided
death several times before, it was only because his hour had
not yet come. And though many had a hand in
the death of our blessed Savior and Lord, the Sanhedrin, Judas,
Pilate, the Jews, the soldiers, yet as Peter said, they were
but the evil instruments to execute the counsel of God. The father
ordained it, the son submitted, and that's typified in Abraham
binding Isaac to the altar and lifting the knife about to kill
him. That's typified in that. God
delivered up his son. Romans 8 32 he delivered him
up Ephesians 5 2 and the son gave himself as a Sacrifice and
a sweet savor unto God and his glory was not Snatched away now
was he forced into servitude, but he emptied himself to become
or to look upon the things of others and I want to save part
of the death to go with next week's study, but I close with
two very quick observations. Number one, this ought to increase
our love unto Christ, that all that he did was out of a desire
to glorify the Father and for his love towards his elect people. This ought to increase our love
and appreciation. And number two, It ought to be
a strong motivation to heed the exhortation of Paul to look upon
the things of others. and be imitators of Christ in
that sense of the word. A hard thing to do. But as we
think about it, let us make us love Christ the more that he
entered himself, then he humbled himself to the cross, and that
we might imitate him to look upon the things of our brother
and of our sisters. May God bless these things, and
we'll finish next Sunday if God be willing.