TRUE HUMILITY DEMONSTRATED

Proverbs 15:33  (NKJV)

³³ The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom,
And before honor is humility.

Philippians 2:5-8

⁵ Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, ⁶ who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, ⁷ but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. ⁸ 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.

Certain eternal verities are revealed in scripture and become a part of the history of culture.  The value of humility is not one of these verities.  Scripture recommends, applauds, and promotes humility.  Some philosophers recognize the value of humility but mainly in contrast to the vagaries of pride.  But in most ancient cultures humility was scorned.

Phil. 2:5-8 are the application of a context that begin with chapter 1:27 and extending to 2:4.  This context is primarily an admonition to unity.  Humility on the part of those addressed is a necessary means of accomplishing this unity.  With Phil. 2:5 Paul, in vivid terms, illustrates what true humility is; how it is demonstrated; the cost attached; and the rewards guaranteed.  For Paul, Jesus is the model of all the Christian is to do and be.  Therefore he is the perfect model of humility.  The perfection of His humility is displayed in the exchange: He that was in the “form of God,” gave that up to become a servant who humbled Himself to accept the most painful and demeaning death, “the death of the cross.”

It is only in our understanding of “the form of God,” that the true limits of the exchange are realized.  There are three explanations of these words remaining in the bounds of conservative theology.  They are:

1.      Robert Reymond links these words to Jesus relation to Adam in his original righteousness.  cf Ephesians 4:24.  This explanation is quite unique and is so complicated an ordinary student will struggle to understand it.  It does have this credit-it is also the explanation of Martin Luther.

2.      B.B. Warfield, in the volume The Person and Work of Christ, has an appendix: Sermon, Imitating The Incarnation (Phil. 2:5-8), in which he exegetes the passage.  Anything Warfield does is seriously well done and the serious student’s attention is not wasted giving attention to what he has written.

Warfield’s thesis is based on the etymology of the word “form” and Paul’s use of it in this passage.  He understands the word to have the meaning given to it by Plato.  This understanding is that this word means the reality of that to which it is attached.  Therefore his second point, “being in the form of God” means He is that to which the form is directed or He is God.  It is as if Paul had said, “being God,” this is not less absolute.

That to which “He did not cling” is explained by the exchange, “He truly became a servant.”  And as he was never less than God, He was no less a true servant.  The humility of this exchange is both a wonder and the consuming model.  But this fails to answer two questions.  The first is the usage of the word “form.”  It does appear that in the usage of the word “form” there is always an indication of something visual.  And secondly, what was given up is not answered in a satisfying way.  This then leads to the third explanation.

3.      John Eadie, in his Greek Text Commentaries on Philippians, has a clear and understandable explanation of this text.  Very simply stated, Eadie understands “form” to be first a visual rather than any part of God or man that is not visible.  Therefore, he says the Old Testament appearances of the Mediator in visible form always with some amount, either more or less  of glory, is that which was not grasped.  The most vivid example of this is the form Isaiah saw in the temple which is called “the Lord of Host,” and whose glory fills the whole earth.  We are not left to wonder who the glorious person was.  John tells us in John 12:41.  “He” being referenced clearly is Jesus in His mediatorial glory.

Eadie writes, “He laid aside the form of God, the splendor of divinity, and not the nature of it—the glory of the Godhead, and not an essence of it.” Pg. 101.

Please excuse the long quote.  I would be selfish to keep it to myself.

…to speak after the manner of men, two things were present to His mind—either continuance in the form of God, and always equal with God, but allowing humanity to perish in its guilt; or vailing this form and foregoing this equality for a season, and delivering, by His condescension and agony, the fallen progeny of Adam.  He chose the latter, or gave it the preference, and therefore “humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death.”  From His possession of this “mind,” and in indescribable generosity He looked at the things of others, and descended with His splendor eclipsed—appeared not as a God in glory, but clothed in flesh; not in royal robes, but in the dress of a village youth; not as Deity in fire, but a man in tears; not in a palace, but in a manger; not with the thunderbolt in his hand, but with the hatchet and hammer of a Galilean mechanic.  And in this way He gave the church an example of that self-abnegation and kindness which the apostle has been inculcating, and which the Lord’s career is adduced to illustrate and confirm.

That he should leave his place on high and come for sinful man to die—

You count it strange, so once did I, before I knew my savior.

I Am Not Skilled To Understand, Dora Greenwall