Early Church Fathers on Philippians 2:5

Interpretations from the 1st-5th centuries

Overview

The Early Church Fathers approached Philippians 2:5-11 in three main categories: Christological, Soteriological, and Exemplary interpretations. This passage was one of the most commented on in all of Scripture during the Patristic period, serving as a crucial text in defending orthodox Christology against various heresies.

Christological Interpretations

Early Church Fathers used this passage extensively in debates against Arianism to defend Christ's full divinity. The Arian controversy, which dominated much of the 4th century, centered on whether Christ was truly God or merely the highest created being. Philippians 2:6-7 became a key battleground text.

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395)

Gregory of Nyssa, one of the Cappadocian Fathers, provided a sophisticated philosophical defense of Christ's divinity:

"He did not say 'having a nature like that of God,' as would be said of [a man] who was made in the image of God. Rather Paul says being in the very form of God. All that is the Father's is in the Son."

"The form of God is absolutely the same as the essence. Yet when he came to be in the form of a slave, he took form in the essence of a slave, not assuming a naked form for himself. Yet he is not thereby divorced from his essence as God. Undoubtedly when Paul said that he was in the form of God, he was indicating the essence along with the form."

Gregory's Argument:

Gregory uses the parallel drawn between Christ's being in the form of God and then taking on the form of a slave to argue that Christ must have been truly God. His reasoning follows this logic:

1. When we speak of the nature of a thing, we mean its essential qualities or characteristics
2. Christ was truly a slave in the sense that he fulfilled all the requirements for having a "slave nature"
3. Therefore, he must also fulfill the necessary requirements for having a "God nature"
4. The "form" (μορφή, morphē) refers to the essential nature, not merely external appearance

This argument was particularly effective against Arian claims that Christ only resembled God without sharing the divine essence.

Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393-457)

Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus in Syria, combined Christological and exemplary interpretations:

"But if [the Arians] think the form of God is not the being of God, let them be asked what they think is the form of a slave....if the form of a slave is the being of a slave, then the form of God is God....Furthermore, let us recognize also that the apostle uses the example of Christ as a lesson in humility....If the Son was not equal to the Father but inferior, he did not obey in humility—he merely fulfilled his station."

Theodoret's Dual Argument:

Theodoret adds a dimension that touches on the exemplary uses of the passage, showing how the categories overlap:

1. Ontological Argument: If "form of a slave" means having the essence/being of a slave, then "form of God" must mean having the essence/being of God
2. Ethical Argument: Christ cannot truly be an example of humility if he was merely doing what he was designed to do—if he was not God, his actions were no more humble than those of any other human being

This second point is particularly powerful: true humility requires voluntarily descending from a higher position. If Christ was never truly equal with God, his incarnation wasn't an act of humility but simply fulfilling his created purpose.

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373)

Athanasius, the great defender of Nicene orthodoxy, addressed the question of Christ's exaltation:

"What clearer and more decisive proof could there be than this? He did not become better from assuming a lower state but rather, being God, he took the form of a slave…If [as the Arians think] it was for the sake of this exultation that the Word came down and that this is written, what need would there be for him to humble himself completely in order to seek what he already had?"

Athanasius's Logic:

Athanasius points out that the exaltation mentioned at the end of the passage (Philippians 2:9-11) cannot be the motivation for Christ's humbling himself, because:

1. He already possessed equality with God beforehand
2. What higher exaltation could there possibly be than equality with God?
3. Therefore, the exaltation must refer to something else—perhaps the glorification of his human nature or the public vindication of his person

This argument effectively counters the Arian interpretation that Christ's incarnation was a path to achieving divine status he didn't previously possess.

Marius Victorinus (c. 280-365)

Marius Victorinus, a Roman rhetorician who converted to Christianity, emphasized the precise language Paul uses:

"Note that Paul did not say Christ was 'similar to God,' for that would imply that Christ possessed some accidental likeness to the substance of God but not that he was substantially equal....Thus Christ is the form of God. The form of God is the substance of God."

Victorinus's Precision:

Victorinus draws attention to what Paul didn't say. The apostle could have used language suggesting similarity or likeness (ὅμοιος, homoios), which the Arians preferred. Instead, Paul uses μορφή (morphē, "form"), which Victorinus interprets as referring to the very substance or essence of God.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253)

Origen, one of the earliest and most influential Christian theologians, addressed the mystery of the Incarnation:

"In emptying himself he became a man and was incarnate while remaining truly God. Having become a man, he remained the God that he was. He assumed a body like our own, differing only in that it was born from the Virgin by the Holy Spirit."

Origen's Contribution:

Origen emphasizes the paradox at the heart of the Incarnation:

• Christ emptied himself (ἐκένωσεν, ekenōsen)
• Yet he remained truly God
• He became a man without ceasing to be God
• The assumption of humanity didn't diminish his divinity

Soteriological Interpretations

Beyond defending Christ's divinity, the Early Church Fathers also explored what Philippians 2:5-11 teaches about why Christ became incarnate and how the incarnation affects our salvation.

Key soteriological themes included:

1. Exchange Principle: Christ took on our humanity so that we might partake of his divinity (the doctrine of theosis or deification)
2. Redemptive Obedience: Christ's obedience unto death reversed Adam's disobedience
3. Victory Over Death: The incarnation was necessary for Christ to truly experience and conquer death
4. Mediation: Only one who was both God and man could mediate between God and humanity

Exemplary Interpretations

The Early Church Fathers also used Christ's example in Philippians 2:5-11 as a model for Christian humility and service. This was particularly important for practical Christian living and community life.

The verse begins with the imperative: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 2:5). This clearly indicates that Paul intends Christ's self-emptying to serve as a pattern for believers.

Key applications included:

1. Voluntary Humility: Just as Christ voluntarily descended, Christians should voluntarily humble themselves
2. Service to Others: Christ's taking the form of a servant models Christian service
3. Obedience: Christ's obedience unto death exemplifies radical obedience to God
4. Renunciation of Status: Christ's refusal to grasp equality with God models renunciation of privilege

The Concept of Kenosis

The passage contains the Greek word ἐκένωσε (ekénōse), from κενός (kenós), meaning "empty." This concept became the center of Christological debate and gave rise to what later theologians would call "kenotic Christology."

Central Questions

The Early Church Fathers wrestled with profound questions:

1. How did Christ empty himself?

   • Was it a literal emptying of divine attributes?
   • Was it a veiling or concealment of divine glory?
   • Was it the addition of human limitations rather than subtraction of divine qualities?

2. What did he empty himself of?

   • Divine prerogatives and privileges?
   • The independent exercise of divine power?
   • The outward manifestation of divine glory?

3. If he was truly God before his incarnation, did he totally empty himself of all divinity?

   • If so, how could he still be God?
   • If not, what does "emptying" mean?

4. How would such an emptying be possible, and what would it mean for divine immutability?

   • Can God change without ceasing to be God?
   • Does the incarnation require a change in God's nature?
   • How do we reconcile divine immutability with the incarnation?

Patristic Consensus

While the Fathers debated the precise mechanism, a general consensus emerged:

• Christ did not cease to be God
• The "emptying" involved taking on human nature, not giving up divine nature
• Christ voluntarily limited the independent exercise of divine prerogatives
• The divine nature remained fully present but was veiled in human flesh
• This was a true humiliation because it involved accepting real human limitations

Historical Significance

These questions were central to the development of orthodox Christology over several centuries, culminating in the great ecumenical councils:

• Council of Nicaea (325): Affirmed Christ's full divinity ("of one substance with the Father")
• Council of Constantinople (381): Reaffirmed Nicene Christology against continuing Arianism
• Council of Ephesus (431): Affirmed the unity of Christ's person against Nestorianism
• Council of Chalcedon (451): Defined the relationship between Christ's divine and human natures

Philippians 2:5-11 was a key text in all these debates, demonstrating its central importance to early Christian theology.

The Early Church Fathers' interpretation of Philippians 2:5 laid the foundation for all subsequent Christian theology about the person and work of Christ.