Medieval Commentaries on Philippians 2:5

Interpretations from the 6th-15th centuries

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

From his "Commentary on Saint Paul's Letter to the Philippians," Thomas Aquinas provides a detailed, systematic interpretation of Philippians 2:5-8. As the greatest theologian of the Medieval period and a Doctor of the Church, Aquinas's commentary represents the mature development of scholastic theology applied to this profound passage.

His commentary focuses on several key aspects, demonstrating the characteristic medieval approach of combining scriptural exegesis with philosophical precision.

Christ's Example of Humility

"After giving his exhortation, the Apostle urges them to the virtue of humility according to Christ's example. First, he exhorts them to follow the example of Christ; secondly, he gives the example."

Aquinas emphasizes that Paul is urging believers to acquire by experience the mind "which you have in Christ Jesus." This is not merely intellectual knowledge but experiential participation in Christ's mindset.

Five Ways to Have the Mind of Christ

Aquinas outlines five ways we should have the mind of Christ, corresponding to the five senses, showing his characteristic attention to systematic completeness:

1. To see His glory

   "Your eyes will see the king in his beauty" (Isaiah 33:17)

2. To hear His wisdom

   "Happy are these your servants, who continually stand before you and hear your wisdom" (1 Kings 10:8)

3. To sense the grace of His meekness

   "Your anointing oils are fragrant... draw me after you" (Song of Solomon 1:3-4)

4. To taste the sweetness of His mercy

   "Taste and see that the Lord is good" (Psalm 34:8)

5. To touch His power

   "If I only touch his garment, I shall be made well" (Matthew 9:21)

This fivefold schema demonstrates Aquinas's method of finding systematic order in Scripture, connecting the spiritual life to the full human experience through all the senses.

Christ's Divine Nature

"He mentions Christ's majesty first, in order that His humility might be more easily recommended. In regard to His majesty he proposes two things, namely, the truth of His divine nature, and His equality."

Aquinas follows a pedagogical principle: Christ's humility is more remarkable when we first understand His divine majesty. The greater the height from which one descends, the more profound the humiliation.

The Meaning of "Form of God"

On the phrase "in the form of God" (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, en morphē Theou), Aquinas provides a detailed theological and philosophical explanation:

"For it is through its form that a thing is said to be in a specific or generic nature; hence the form is called the nature of a thing. Consequently, to be in the form of God is to be in the nature of God. By this is understood that He is true God: 'That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ' (1 John 5:20)."

Aquinas's Philosophical Framework:

Drawing on Aristotelian metaphysics, Aquinas explains that:

• A thing's form is what makes it what it is (its essence)
• The form determines a thing's specific or generic nature
• Therefore, "form" and "nature" are essentially equivalent
• To be "in the form of God" means to possess the divine nature itself
• This is not mere similarity but substantial identity with God

Why "Form" Rather Than "Nature"?

Aquinas notes that Paul uses "form" (μορφή, morphē) rather than "nature" (φύσις, physis) for specific theological reasons related to the Son's unique identity:

1. It belongs to the proper names of the Son in three ways:

   • He is called the Son (generation aims at producing form)
   • He is called the Word (words express the form/nature of things)
   • He is called the Image (images reproduce the form of their original)

2. The Son is the one begotten, and the end of begetting is the form

   • In generation, the form of the generator is communicated to the generated
   • The Father begets the Son by communicating His divine form/nature

3. A word is not perfect unless it leads to knowledge of a thing's nature

   • The Son as Word perfectly expresses the Father's nature
   • He is the perfect "form" or expression of God

4. An image is not perfect unless it has the form of that which it is the image

   • The Son as Image possesses the exact form of the Father
   • He is not merely similar but consubstantial

This demonstrates Aquinas's characteristic method of finding deep theological significance in Paul's precise choice of words.

Christ's Self-Emptying (Kenosis)

"Did Not Count Equality with God a Thing to Be Grasped"

On the phrase "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, ouch harpagmon hēgēsato), Aquinas considers two possible interpretations:

1. Regarding Christ's humanity (which he rejects as heretical)

   • This would suggest Christ's humanity grasped at divine equality
   • Aquinas rejects this as contrary to orthodox Christology

2. Regarding Christ's divinity (which he affirms)

"Therefore, it must be explained in another way, namely, of His divinity, according to which equality with God is said of Christ. It is contrary to reason to say otherwise: because the nature of God cannot be received in matter; but the fact that something existing in a certain nature participates in that nature to a greater or lesser degree is due to the matter; which is not the case here."

Aquinas's Reasoning:

• The divine nature cannot be received "in matter" (i.e., partially or by degrees)
• Material beings participate in their nature more or less perfectly depending on their matter
• But God is pure form without matter
• Therefore, Christ either possesses the divine nature fully or not at all
• Since He possesses it, He possesses it completely
• Thus, "not grasping" refers not to lacking equality but to not clinging to its privileges

The Mechanism of Self-Emptying

On Christ's self-emptying, Aquinas provides his most profound explanation:

"He emptied himself. 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. But this must be understood in regard to the assumption of what He had not, and not according to the laying aside of what He had. For just as He descended from heaven, not that He ceased to exist in heaven, but because He began to exist in a new way on earth, so He also emptied Himself, not by putting off His divine nature, but by assuming a human nature."

Key Principles:

1. Christ remained what He was - No loss of divine nature
2. He assumed what He was not - Addition of human nature
3. The "emptying" was an assumption, not a subtraction
4. Analogy: Just as Christ's descent from heaven didn't mean leaving heaven, His self-emptying didn't mean abandoning divinity

The Beautiful Paradox

Aquinas beautifully notes the paradox inherent in the language:

"How beautiful to say that He emptied himself, for the empty is opposed to the full! For the divine nature is sufficiently full, because every perfection of goodness is there. But human nature and the soul are not full, but capable of fullness, because it was made as a slate not written upon. Therefore, human nature is empty. Hence he says, He emptied himself, because He assumed a human nature."

Aquinas's Insight:

• Divine nature = perfectly full (possessing all perfections)
• Human nature = empty (capable of fullness but not inherently full)
• The "emptying" = the Full One taking on empty human nature
• This is "beautiful" because it reveals God's condescension and love

The metaphor of the soul as "a slate not written upon" (tabula rasa) is classic Aquinas, showing how the incarnation involves God writing Himself onto the blank slate of human nature.

The Form of a Servant

Aquinas explains that Christ took "the form of a servant" (μορφὴν δούλου, morphēn doulou) because human nature itself is inherently servile:

"For by reason of his creation man is a servant, and human nature is the form of a servant: 'Know that the LORD is God! It is he that made us, and we are his' (Psalm 100:3); 'Behold my servant, whom I uphold' (Isaiah 42:1)."

Theological Implications:

1. Creaturehood = Servanthood

   • All created beings are by definition servants of their Creator
   • Human nature is essentially "the form of a servant"

2. Christ's True Humanity

   • By taking human nature, Christ truly became a servant
   • This was not role-playing but ontological reality

3. The Parallel with "Form of God"

   • Just as "form of God" means possessing divine nature
   • So "form of servant" means possessing human/created nature

4. The Humiliation

   • The One who is Lord of all became a servant
   • The Creator took on the nature of the creature

Aquinas's Systematic Achievement

Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Philippians 2:5 represents the height of medieval scholastic theology. His interpretation demonstrates:

1. Philosophical Precision - Using Aristotelian categories to explain biblical concepts
2. Scriptural Integration - Connecting multiple biblical texts in a coherent system
3. Theological Orthodoxy - Maintaining Chalcedonian Christology with precision
4. Pastoral Application - Never losing sight of the practical call to humility
5. Systematic Completeness - Addressing every aspect of the text methodically

His work became the standard Catholic interpretation for centuries and continues to influence Christian theology today.

The Medieval Contribution

The medieval period, exemplified by Aquinas, contributed to our understanding of Philippians 2:5 by:

• Philosophical Sophistication - Applying rigorous philosophical categories to biblical exegesis
• Systematic Integration - Showing how this passage fits into the whole system of Christian doctrine
• Precision of Language - Carefully distinguishing between nature, person, form, and essence
• Defense of Orthodoxy - Maintaining the Chalcedonian definition against various heresies

While the Early Church Fathers fought to establish orthodox Christology, the Medieval theologians systematized and defended it with philosophical precision.

Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Philippians 2:5 represents the culmination of centuries of theological reflection, providing a systematic framework that would influence all subsequent interpretation.