Php 2:7. Ἀλλʼ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε] The emphatically prefixed ἑαυτόν is correlative to the likewise emphatic ἁρπαγμόν in Php 2:6. Instead of the ἁρπάζειν, by which he would have entered upon a foreign domain, He has, on the contrary, emptied Himself, and that, as the context places beyond doubt, of the divine μορφή, which He possessed but now exchanged for a μορφὴ δούλου; He renounced the divine glorious form which, prior to His incarnation, was the form of appearance of His God-equal existence, took instead of it the form of a servant, and became as a man. Those who have already taken Php 2:6 as referring to the incarnate Christ (see on ὅς, Php 2:6) are at once placed in a difficulty by ἐκένωσε, and explain away its simple and distinct literal meaning; as, for instance, Calvin: “supprimendo … deposuit;” Calovius (comp. Form. Conc. pp. 608, 767): “veluti (?) deposuit, quatenus eam (gloriam div.) non perpetuo manifestavit atque exseruit;” Clericus: “non magis ea usus est, quam si ea destitutus fuisset;” comp. Quenstedt, Bos, Wolf, Bengel, Rheinwald, and many others. Beyschlag also finds expressed here merely the idea of the self-denial exercised on principle by Christ in His earthly life, consequently substituting the N. T. idea of ἀπαρνεῖσθαι ἑαυτόν. De Wette, in accordance with his distinction between μορφὴ Θεοῦ and εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ (comp. Schneckenburger, p. 336), referring it only to the latter (so also Corn. Müller, Philippi, Beyschlag, and others), would have this εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ meant merely in so far as it would have stood in Jesus’ power, not in so far as He actually possessed it, so that the ἑαυτ. ἐκέν. amounts only to a renunciation of the εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, which He might have appropriated to Himself; while others, like Grotius, alter the signification of κενοῦν itself, some making it mean: He led a life of poverty (Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), and others: depressit (van Hengel, Corn. Müller, following Tittmann, Opusc. p. 642 f., Keil, comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others). Augustine: “Non amittens quod erat, sed accipiens quod non erat; forma servi accessit, non forma Dei discessit.” But ἐκένωσε means nothing but exinanivit (Vulgate) (see Romans 4:14; 1 Corinthians 1:17; 1 Corinthians 9:15; 2 Corinthians 9:3; and the passages in the LXX. cited by Schleusner; Plat. Conv. p. 197 C, Rep. p. 560 D, Phil. p. 35 E; Soph. O. R. 29; Eur. Rhes. 914; Thuc. viii. 57. 1; Xen. Oec. 8. 7),[111] and is here purposely selected, because it corresponds with the idea of the ἁρπαγμός (Php 2:6) all the more, that the latter also falls under the conception of ΚΕΝΟῦΝ (as emptying of that which is affected by the ἁρπαγμός; comp. LXX. Jeremiah 15:9; Plat. Rep. p. 560 D; Sir 13:5; Sir 13:7). The specific reference of the meaning to making poor (Grotius) must have been suggested by the context (comp. 2 Corinthians 8:9; Ecclus. l.c.), as if some such expression as ἐν πλούτῳ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχ. had been previously used. Figuratively, the renunciation of the divine μορφή might have been described as a putting it off (ἐκδύεσθαι).

The more precise, positive definition of the mode in which He emptied Himself, is supplied by μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, and the latter then receives through ἘΝ ὉΜ. ἈΝΘΡ. ΓΕΝΌΜΕΝΟς ΚΑῚ ΣΧΉΜ. ΕὙΡ. Ὡς ἌΝΘΡ. its specification of mode, correlative to ΕἾΝΑΙ ἼΣΑ ΘΕῷ. This specification is not co-ordinate (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weiss, Schenkel), but subordinate to ΜΟΡΦῊΝ ΔΟΎΛ. ΛΑΒΏΝ, hence no connecting particle is placed before ἘΝ ὉΜ., and no punctuation is to be placed before ΚΑῚ ΣΧΉΜΑΤΙ, but a new topic is to be entered upon with ἘΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΕΝ in Php 2:8 (comp. Luther). The division, by which a stop is placed before ΚΑῚ ΣΧΉΜΑΤΙ … ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟς, and these words are joined to ἘΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΕΝ Κ.Τ.Λ. (Castalio, Beza, Bengel, and others; including Hoelemann, Rilliet, van Hengel, Lachmann, Wiesinger, Ewald, Rich. Schmidt, J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm), is at variance with the purposely-chosen expressions ΣΧΉΜΑΤΙ and ΕὙΡΕΘΕΊς, both of which correspond to the idea of ΜΟΡΦΉ, and thereby show that Κ. ΣΧ. ΕὙΡ. Ὡς ἌΝΘΡ. is still a portion of the modal definition of ΜΟΡΦῊΝ ΔΟΎΛΟΥ ΛΑΒΏΝ. Nor is the ΣΧΉΜ. ΕὙΡ. Ὡς ἌΝΘΡ. something following the ΚΈΝΩΣΙς (Grimm), but the empirical appearance, which was an integral part of the manner in which the act of self-emptying was completed. Besides, ἘΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΕΝ ἙΑΥΤΌΝ has its own more precise definition following; hence by the proposed connection the symmetry of structure in the two statements, governed respectively by ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε and ἘΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΕΝ ἙΑΥΤΌΝ, would be unnecessarily disturbed. This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, who (comp. Grotius) even connects ἘΝ ὉΜΟΙΏΜΑΤΙ ἌΝΘΡ. ΓΕΝΌΜ. with ἘΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΕΝ ἙΑΥΤΌΝ, whereby no less than three participial definitions are heaped upon the latter. And when Hofmann discovers in ἘΝ ὉΜΟΙΏΜΑΤΙ Κ.Τ.Λ. a second half of the relative sentence attached to ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ἸΗΣΟῦ, it is at variance with the fact, that Paul does not by the intervention of a particle (or by Ὃς ΚΑΊ, or even by the bare Ὅς) supply any warrant for such a division, which is made, therefore, abruptly and arbitrarily, simply to support the scheme of thought which Hofmann groundlessly assumes: (1) that Jesus, when He was in the divine μορφή, emptied Himself; and (2) when He had become man, humbled Himself. Comp. in opposition to this, Grimm, p. 46, and Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1873, p. 314.

μορφὴν δούλου λαβών] so that He took slave-form, now making this lowly form of existence and condition His own, instead of the divine form, which He had hitherto possessed. How this was done, is stated in the sequel. The aorist participle denotes, not what was previous to the ἑαυτ. ἐκέν., but what was contemporaneous with it. See on Ephesians 1:9. So also do the two following participles, which are, however, subordinated to the μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, as definitions of manner. That Paul, in the word ΔΟΎΛΟΥ, thought not of the relation of one serving in general (with reference to God and men, Matthies, Rheinwald, Rilliet, de Wette, comp. Calvin and others), or that of a servant of others, as in Matthew 20:28 (Schneckenburger, Beyschlag, Christol. p. 236, following Luther and others), or, indefinitely, that of one subject to the will of another (Hofmann), but of a slave of God (comp. Acts 3:13; Isaiah 52), as is self-evident from the relation to God described in Php 2:6, is plain, partly from the fact that subsequently the assumption of the slave-form is more precisely defined by ἐν ὁμοιώμ. ἀνθρ. γενόμ. (which, regarded in itself, puts Jesus only on the same line with men, but in the relation of service towards God), and partly from ὑπήκοος in Php 2:8. To generalize the definite expression, and one which corresponds so well to the connection, into “miseram sortem, qualis esse servorum solet” (Heinrichs, comp. Hoelemann; and already, Beza, Piscator, Calovius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others), is pure caprice, which Erasmus, following Ambrosiaster (comp. Beyschlag, 1860, p. 471), carries further by the arbitrary paraphrase: “servi nocentis, cum ipsa esset innocentia,” comp. Romans 8:3.

ἐν ὁμοιώμ. ἀνθρ. γενόμ. κ.τ.λ.] the manner of this ΜΟΡΦ. ΔΟΎΛΟΥ ΛΑΒΕῖΝ: so that He came in the likeness of man, that is, so that He entered into a form of existence, which was not different from that which men have. In opposition to Hofmann, who connects ἐν ὁμοιώματι κ.τ.λ. with ἘΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΕΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., see above. On ΓΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ ἘΝ, in the sense, to come into a position, into a state, comp. 2 Corinthians 3:7; 1 Timothy 2:14; Luke 22:44; Acts 22:17; 1Ma 1:27; 2Ma 7:9; Sir 44:20; and frequently in Greek authors after Homer (Xen. Anab. i. 9. 1; Herodian, iii. 7. 19, ii. 13. 21); see Nägelsbach, zur Ilias, p. 295 f. ed. 3. This entrance into an existence like that of men was certainly brought about by human birth; still it would not be appropriate to explain γενόμ. by natus (Galatians 4:4; Rilliet; comp. Gess, p. 295; Lechler, p. 66), or as an expression for the “beginning of existence” (Hofmann), since this fact, in connection with which the miraculous conception is, notwithstanding Romans 1:3, also thought to be included, was really human, as it is also described in Galatians 4:4. Paul justly says: ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρ., because, in fact, Christ, although certainly perfect man (Romans 5:15; 1 Corinthians 15:21; 1 Timothy 2:5), was, by reason of the divine nature (the ἼΣΑ ΕἾΝΑΙ ΘΕῷ) present in Him, not simply and merely man, not a purus putus homo, but the incarnate Son of God (comp. Romans 1:3; Galatians 4:4; and the Johannine ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο), ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί (1 Timothy 3:16), so that the power of the higher divine nature was united in Him with the human appearance, which was not the case in other men. The nature of Him who had become man was, so far, not fully identical with, but substantially conform (ἐν ὁμοιώμ.) to, that which belongs to man.[112] Comp. on Romans 8:3; Romans 1:3 f., and respecting the idea of ὁμοίωμα, which does not convey merely the conception of analogy, see on Romans 1:23; Romans 5:14; Romans 6:5; Romans 8:3. The expression is based, not upon the conception of a quasi-man, but upon the fact that in the man Jesus Christ (Romans 5:15) there was the superhuman life-basis of divine ἰσότης, the ΕἾΝΑΙ ἼΣΑ ΘΕῷ not indwelling in other men. Justice, however, is not done to the intentionally used ὉΜΟΙΏΜΑΤΙ (comp. afterwards ΣΧΉΜΑΤΙ), if, with de Wette, we find merely the sense that He (not appearing as divine Ruler) was found in a human condition,—a consequence of the fact that even Php 2:6 was referred to the time after the incarnation. This drove also the ancient dogmatic expositors to adopt the gloss, which is here out of place, that Christ assumed the accidentales infirmitates corporis (yet without sin), not ex naturae necessitate, but ex οἰκονομίας libertate (Calovius).[113] By others, the characteristic of debile et abjectum (Hoelemann, following older expositors) is obtruded upon the word ἀνθρώπων, which is here to be taken in a purely generic sense; while Grotius understood ἀνθρ. as referring to the first human beings, and believed that the sinlessness of Jesus was meant. It is not at all specially this (in opposition also to Castalio, Lünemann, Schenkel, and others), but the whole divine nature of Jesus, the μορφή of which He laid aside at His incarnation, which constitutes the point of difference that lies at the bottom of the expression ἐν ὁμοιώματι (ΔΙᾺ ΤῸ ΜῊ ΨΙΛῸΝ ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟΝ ΕἾΝΑΙ, Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom), and gives to it the definite reference of its meaning. The explanation of the expression by the unique position of Christ as the second Adam (Weiss) is alien from the context, which presents to us the relation, not of the second man to the first man, but of the God-man to ordinary humanity.

καὶ σχήμ. εὑρ. ὡς ἄνθρωπ.] to be closely connected with the preceding participial affirmation, the thought of which is emphatically exhausted: “and in fashion was found as a man,” so that the divine nature (the Logos-nature) was not perceived in Him. σχῆμα, habitus, which receives its more precise reference from the context (Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 619), denotes here the entire outwardly perceptible mode and form, the whole shape of the phenomenon apparent to the senses, 1 Corinthians 7:31Php 2:7. A question arises as to punctuation. W.H. punctuate as in the text. Calvin, Weiffenb. and Haupt would place a comma after γενόμ. and a colon after ἄνθρωπος of Php 2:8. This would coordinate these three clauses and make a new sentence begin with ἐταπείνωσεν. The division does not seem natural or necessary.—μ. δούλου λ. The clause defines ἐκένωσε. Christ’s assumption of the “form” of a δοῦλος does not imply that the innermost basis of His personality, His “ego,” was changed, although, indeed, “there was more in this emptying of Himself than we can think or say” (Rainy, op. cit., p. 119). [1]δ. simply describes the humility to which He condescended. It is needless to ask whose δοῦλος He became. The question is not before the Apostle.—ἐν ὁμοιώ. ἀνθ. γεν. γεν. as opposed to ὑπάρχων, “becoming” as opposed to “being by nature”. This clause, in turn, defines μ. δ. λ. “Being made in the likeness of men.” ὁμοι. expresses with great accuracy the Apostle’s idea. Christ walked this earth in the real likeness of men. This was no mere phantom, no mere incomplete copy of humanity. And yet Paul feels that it did not express the whole of Christ’s nature. It was not “an hereditary likeness of being” (Hltzm[2] See N.T. Th., ii., pp. 70–72). It was, in a sense, borrowed.—ἀνθρ. Almost = “mankind,” “humanity”.

[1] Codex Sangallensis

[2]ltzm. Holtzmann.

7. But made himself of no reputation] “But” here introduces the infinitely gracious action of the Saviour as the contrary to what it would have been had He “thought His Equality with God a prize.” We may paraphrase, “That He did not so think of it, He shewed by making Himself,” &c. See Bp Ellicott’s careful note here, in which this explanation is advocated against that which would paraphrase, “Although He thought it no usurpation to be equal with God, yet He made, &c.”

“Himself” is slightly emphatic by position, laying a stress on the sacred free will of the Lord in His Humiliation.

“Made himself of no reputation:”—lit., as R.V., emptied Himself. The (Romanist) Rhemish Version, 1582, verbally following the Vulgate (semetipsum exinanivit), has, “exinanited Himself.” From the Greek the word kenôsis (κένωσις) has passed into theological language, appearing here and there in the Fathers, frequently in modern treatises. Of recent years much has been said upon this great mystery in the direction of proving or suggesting that during “the days of His Flesh” (Hebrews 5:7) the Lord (practically) parted with His Deity; becoming the (Incarnate) Son of God only in His glorification after death. Such a view seems to contravene many plain testimonies of the Gospels, and most of all the pervading tone of the Gospels, as they present to us in the Lord Jesus on earth a Figure “meek and lowly” indeed, but always infinitely and mysteriously majestic; significantly dependent indeed on the Father, and on the Spirit, but always speaking to man in the manner of One able to deal sovereignly with all man’s needs.

It is enough for us to know that His Humiliation, or to use the word here, Exinanition, Kenôsis, was profoundly real; that He was pleased, as to His holy Manhood, to live in dependence on the Spirit; while yet we are sure that the inalienable basis of His Personality was always, eternally, presently, Divine. The ultimate and reasoned analysis of the unique Phenomenon, God and Man, One Christ, is, as to its actual consciousness, if we may use the word, a matter more for His knowledge than our enquiry. Bp Lightfoot’s brief note here says nearly all that can be said with reverent certainty: “ ‘He divested Himself’ not of His Divine nature, for this was impossible, but of the glories, the prerogatives, of Deity. This He did by taking upon Him the form of a servant.”

and took upon him] Lit. and better, with R.V., taking. The thought is that the Exinanition was the “taking”; not a process previous to it. In the word “taking” the Lord’s free choice and action is again in view.

the form of a servant] Lit. and better, of a bondservant, a slave. The word rendered “form” is the same as that in Php 2:6, on which see note. Here, as there, the thing implied is not semblance but manifestation. He became in reality, and in consequent appearance, a bondservant.

With what special reference is the word “bondservant” here used? Does it point to His stooping to serve men in great humiliation? Or to His undertaking, in the act of becoming Man, that essential condition of man’s true life—bondservice to God? The order of words and thought is in favour of the latter. The Apostle goes on to say, in effect, that His taking the slave’s “form” was coincident with His coming “in the likeness of men” generally, not of specially humiliated or oppressed men. As Man He was “bondservant”. And this points to a bondservice related directly to God, as Lord of man. In this as in other things He was the archetype of all His true followers.

True, our blessed Lord made Himself the servant of all, and on one occasion (John 13) took literally the place and work of a menial attendant; a fact to which much allusion is made by St Chrysostom here. But all the while He was far more Lord than servant, certainly than bondservant, in His relations with men, even in His most tender and gracious relations. Literal “slavery” to man He certainly did not enter upon; royally descended as He was, and toiling as a free artificer, and commanding and teaching always with authority.

and was made] Lit., coming to be, becoming. The fact is stated as coincident with the last statement. See previous note.

in the likeness of men] A double suggestion lies in the words; (a) that He was really like man, as He truly was man; accepting the conditions involved in a truly human exterior, with its liabilities to trial and suffering; and (b) that He was also more than man, other than man, without which fact there would be not resemblance but mere identity. Cp. a somewhat similar case, Romans 8:3, where lit. “in the likeness of the flesh of sin.”

“Of men,” not “of man:”—as if to make the statement as concrete as possible. He appeared not in the likeness of some transcendent and glorified Manhood, but like men as they are.

Php 2:7. Ἀλλʼ, but) To this word the two clauses refer: He emptied Himself, to which the form of a servant belongs; and He humbled Himself, on which His obedience depends. The former is opposed privatively, the latter also in direct contrariety to being equal with God; wherefore these two words are used in the way of gradation, and He humbled is put before Himself.[18] (Comp. Jam 2:18, note). For, to take an example, when Philip V. ceased to be King of Spain, whose doings were agitating the public mind while we were engaged in these meditations, he so far emptied himself, yet he did not equally humble himself: he laid down the government of a kingdom, but he did not become a subject.—ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε, He emptied Himself) החסיר, LXX., ΚΕΝῸΝ ΠΟΙῆΣΑΙ, Isaiah 32:6, where the matter discussed is indeed quite different, but yet Paul, when he uses ἘΚΈΝΩΣΕΝ, translates by it the verb חסר, Psalm 8:5, with which comp. Hebrews 2:7. Wherever there is emptying, there is a thing containing and a thing contained. The thing containing, in the emptying of Christ, is Himself; the thing contained was that fulness, which He received in His exaltation. He remained full, John 1:14 : and yet He bore Himself in the same way as if He were empty; for He avoided the observation, so far as it was expedient, of men and angels, nay, even of His own self: Romans 15:3 : and therefore not only avoided observation, but also denied Himself, and abstained from His rights.—ΜΟΡΦῊΝ, form) These three words, μορφὴ, ὁμοίωμα, σχῆμα,[19] form, likeness, fashion, are not synonymous, nor even can they be interchanged the one for the other; but yet they are closely related: form signifies something absolute; likeness denotes a relation to other things of the same condition; fashion is to be referred to the sight and sense.—λαβὼν, having taken) The act of emptying carries with it [contains in it] His taking the form of a servant. Moreover He was able to take it, because He was in the likeness of men.—ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων, in the likeness of men) He was made like men, a true man.

[18] ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν (the ἑαυτὸν coming first, because HIMSELF, viewed in respect to what He had heretofore been, is the emphatic word and thought); but ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν (the ἑαντὸν coming second, and ἐταπείνωσεν first, because the emphatic word is ἐταπείνωσεν, which forms a climax to the previous ἐκένωσεν, He not only emptied Himself of what He was and had, but submitted to positive humiliation).—ED.

[19] The word σχῆμα, habitus (Th. σχῶ habeo., ‘condition,’ ‘appearance,’ ‘bearing,’ has a wider application than μορφή, forma. Ὁμοιότης is the similarity itself: Ὁμοίωσις the image or likeness according to which anything is conformed: Ὁμοίωμα the thing itself so conformed or made like.—ED.

Verse 7. - But made himself of no reputation; rather, as R.V., but emptied himself; not, he indeed, of the Godhead, which could not be, but of its manifestation, its glory. This he did once for all, as the aorist implies, at the Incarnation. The word "emptied' involves a previous fullness, "a precedent plenitude" (Pearson on the Creed, 2:25). The Divine majesty of which he emptied himself was his own, his own rightful prerogative; and his humiliation was his own voluntary act - he emptied himself. "He used his equality with God as an opportunity, not for self-exaltation, but for self-abasement" (Alford). "Manebat plenus, John 1:14, et tureen perinde se gessit ac si esset" (Bengel). And took upon him the form of a servant; rather, as R.V., taking the form. The two clauses refer to the same act of self-humiliation regarded from its two sides. He emptied himself of his glory, taking at the same time the form (μορφήν as in Ver. 6, the essential attributes) of a servant, literally, of a slave. Observe, he was originally (ὑπάρχων) in the form of God; he took (λαβών) the form of a slave. The Godhead was his by right, the manhood by his own voluntary act: both are equally real; he is perfect God and perfect Man. Isaiah prophesied of Christ (Isaiah 49 and Isaiah 52; comp. Acts 2:33, in the Greek or R.V.) as the Servant of Jehovah; he came to do the Father's will, submitting his own will in all things: "Not as I will, but as thou wilt" (comp. Matthew 20:27, 28; Mark 10:44, 45). And was made in the likeness of men; translate, becoming, or, as R.V., being made (aorist participle). This clause is another description of the one act of the Incarnation he was God, he became man. Form (μορφή) asserts the reality of our Lord's human nature. Likeness (ὁμοίωμα) refers only to external appearance: this word, of course, does not imply that our Lord was not truly man, but, as Chrysostom says ('Hom.,' 8:247), he was more. than man; "We are soul and body, but he is God and soul and body." The likeness of men; because Christ is the Representative of humanity: he took upon him, not a human person, but human nature. He is one person in two natures. As Bishop Lightfoot says, "Christ, as the second Adam, represents, not the individual man, but the human race." Philippians 2:7Made Himself of no reputation (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν).

Lit., emptied Himself. The general sense is that He divested Himself of that peculiar mode of existence which was proper and peculiar to Him as one with God. He laid aside the form of God. In so doing, He did not divest Himself of His divine nature. The change was a change of state: the form of a servant for the form of God. His personality continued the same. His self-emptying was not self-extinction, nor was the divine Being changed into a mere man. In His humanity He retained the consciousness of deity, and in His incarnate state carried out the mind which animated Him before His incarnation. He was not unable to assert equality with God. He was able not to assert it.

Form of a servant (μορφὴν δούλου)

The same word for form as in the phrase form of God, and with the same sense. The mode of expression of a slave's being is indeed apprehensible, and is associated with human shape, but it is not this side of the fact which Paul is developing. It is that Christ assumed that mode of being which answered to, and was the complete and characteristic expression of, the slave's being. The mode itself is not defined. This is appropriately inserted here as bringing out the contrast with counted not equality with God, etc. What Christ grasped at in His incarnation was not divine sovereignty, but service.

Was made in the likeness of men (ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος)

Lit., becoming in, etc. Notice the choice of the verb, not was, but became: entered into a new state. Likeness. The word does not imply the reality of our Lord's humanity, μορφή form implied the reality of His deity. That fact is stated in the form of a servant. Neither is εἰκών image employed, which, for our purposes, implies substantially the same as μορφή. See on Colossians 1:15. As form of a servant exhibits the inmost reality of Christ's condition as a servant - that He became really and essentially the servant of men (Luke 22:27) - so likeness of men expresses the fact that His mode of manifestation resembled what men are. This leaves room for the assumption of another side of His nature - the divine - in the likeness of which He did not appear. As He appealed to men, He was like themselves, with a real likeness; but this likeness to men did not express His whole self. The totality of His being could not appear to men, for that involved the form of God. Hence the apostle views Him solely as He could appear to men. All that was possible was a real and complete likeness to humanity. What He was essentially and eternally could not enter into His human mode of existence. Humanly He was like men, but regarded with reference to His whole self, He was not identical with man, because there was an element of His personality which did not dwell in them - equality with God. Hence the statement of His human manifestation is necessarily limited by this fact, and is confined to likeness and does not extend to identity. "To affirm likeness is at once to assert similarity and to deny sameness" (Dickson). See on Romans 8:3.

Philippians 2:7 Interlinear
Philippians 2:7 Parallel Texts


Philippians 2:7 NIV
Philippians 2:7 NLT
Philippians 2:7 ESV
Philippians 2:7 NASB
Philippians 2:7 KJV

Philippians 2:7 Bible Apps
Philippians 2:7 Parallel
Philippians 2:7 Biblia Paralela
Philippians 2:7 Chinese Bible
Philippians 2:7 French Bible
Philippians 2:7 German Bible

Bible Hub