What does it mean that Christ humbled himself?

Explanation:

There is a parallel between Philippians 2:6 and Philippians 2:8. Specifically, in Philippians 2:6 we learn that although Christ was in the form of God, he emptied himself. What Paul is saying is that although Christ was in the highest possible position of status and authority, he did not take advantage of his position for his own benefit, but instead emptied himself by becoming incarnate. Similarly, when Christ was found in human form, although he remains God and could have taken advantage of his divinity to become superior from a human perspective, he did not take advantage of his divinity but humbled himself. That is to say, he chose to lower his status in order to serve others.³ Thus, that Christ humbled himself means that he chose to lower his status.

Counterargument:

Of course, this argument rests on the notion that when Paul says Christ was in the form of God and emptied himself, he means that Christ held the highest possible status but did not take advantage of it. For this argument holds that Philippians 2:8 is parallel to Philippians 2:6 so that the point that Christ does not take advantage of his superior position is essentially repeated in Philippians 2:8. The problem is that it is not clear that when Paul says Christ was in the form of God, he means that Christ held the highest possible position. For we know that the Greek philosophers used the term form to mean something like essence. Thus, Paul could likely be saying that although Christ had the essence of God, he emptied himself. Of course, if Paul is saying in Philippians 2:6 that Christ had the essence of God and emptied himself, it is no longer clear how Philippians 2:6 relates to Philippians 2:8.

Response to counterargument:

Even if we grant that Paul in Philippians 2:6 has something like essence instead of status or position in mind, there is still a parallel between these verses. That is, if Paul is saying that even though Christ has the essence of God, he emptied himself, we can take it that Paul means even though Christ is in essence God, he took on a lower status. In other words, the fact that Christ is in essence God implies that he has the highest possible position and status. Now we know that when Christ emptied himself, he did not empty himself of his essence, because that would not make sense. So what did he empty himself of? Most likely his status and position. And since there is a parallel between Philippians 2:6 and Philippians 2:8, when Paul says that Christ humbled himself, he likely means that Christ chose to lower his status and position.

Explanation:

We can understand what Paul means when he says that Christ humbled himself by considering the meaning of the verb to humble in light of Roman culture. In that culture, holding a high position in society was prized.⁴ Now, the verb for to humble can mean to lower in the sense that a hill is lower than a mountain, or to become humble in attitude, but it can also mean something like to lose prestige.⁵ Given that Paul writes to a Roman society that would have valued high social status, most likely he uses to humble in the sense of losing prestige. Thus, that Christ humbled himself means that he chose the lowest possible social status for himself.

Counterargument:

We have good reason to think that Jesus humbled himself in the sense that he took on a humble attitude. We can deduce this because the immediate context has to do with Paul’s instruction to the Philippians on how to treat each other. In particular, he says in Philippians 2:3 that in humility they ought to consider others better than themselves.⁶ Notice that Paul uses a noun variation of the verb to humble. He then goes on to explain that Christ is the chief example for the Philippians to follow, so that as Christ humbled himself, the Philippians ought to do the same. In other words, as Christ humbled his attitude toward others, so the Philippians ought to have a humble attitude toward each other.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this is that Philippians 2:3 is not about the Philippians’ attitudes toward each other, but about their status. That is, there is a connection between Philippians 2:8 and Philippians 2:3 in that Paul uses Christ as the chief example of one who humbled himself in order to encourage the Philippians to treat each other in humility. Still, the sense of humility Paul has in mind in Philippians 2:3 is likely not a low attitude, but a low status. How do we know this? We can detect that Paul has status in mind in Philippians 2:3 because he calls the Philippians, in humility to count others higher than themselves. The verb to be higher does not mean to humble one’s attitude toward others. Rather, it means to consider others as having a higher position.⁷ Thus, the Philippians ought to consider others as having a higher status, just as Christ lowered his status.

Response to response to counterargument:

In fact, while the verb to be higher can mean status and position, it can also mean value or quality.⁸ Thus, we can easily render Philippians 2:3 as Paul saying that in humility, the Philippians ought to consider others as more valuable than themselves. In this case, Paul does have attitude in mind.

Response:

It is hard to see why the Philippians should consider others as more valuable than themselves, given that all humans are intrinsically valuable for being created after the image if God.

It could be that when Paul says Christ humbled himself, he has in mind status. Still, the notion of humbling oneself can be multi-faceted, and thus include humbling oneself in the holistic sense of lowering one’s position, taking on a humble attitude, and so forth. Thus, we should be careful not to limit Paul’s meaning to Christ’s lowering his status, for he also took on a humble attitude.

Explanation:

We can detect what Paul means when he says that Christ humbled himself, because Paul clarifies what he means. Specifically, Paul says that Christ humbled himself by becoming obedient unto death. What is important to notice is that the simple past participle becoming should be taken as simultaneous with the verbal phrase he humbled himself, so that the participle explains how Christ humbled himself.¹¹ That is, he humbled himself by becoming obedient unto death. Of course, death is not a thing to which one becomes obedient, so the obedience is pledged to someone else, in this case, the Father.

Counterargument:

In fact, one could characterize Christ’s obedience in the sense that he became obedient to death. That is, Paul could be explaining the extend of Christ’s humility. Christ humbled himself, but not just to a certain degree and then no more. Rather, he humbled himself to the lowest degree possible, which is to humble himself to death.¹² Thus, Paul’s point is not that Christ humbled himself to the will of the Father, but that he humbled himself to the lowest possible status and position 

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that Christ humbled himself to the lowest possible position, Philippians 2:8 says that Christ became obedient to death. It is unlikely that Paul would express the notion that Christ humbled himself to the lowest possible degree by saying he became obedient to death. Death is not something to obey, but an event that marks the low status of humans due to sin and rebellion. God is obeyed, but death is not the kind of thing that can be obeyed.

Explanation:

Paul says that Christ humbled himself by becoming obedient unto death. Of course, we know from Luke 22:4 that while Christ was in the garden he verbally committed obedience to the Father’s will. And we know from Hebrews 10:7 that Christ came to do the Father’s will.¹³ Thus, that Christ humbled himself by becoming obedient unto death, means that Christ humbled himself by submitting to the will of the Father.

Counterargument:

The only problem with this argument is that we ought to understand Paul in the immediate context of Philippians 2:8. He is motivating the Philippians to serve one another. Thus, passages from Luke and Hebrews about Christ’s obeying the Father do not seem relevant to the context.

Response to counterargument:

The passages from Luke and Hebrews are directly relevant to the immediate context. As stated, Paul is encouraging the Philippians to serve one another by considering others as more important than oneself. That is, he calls on them to be humble toward each other. He then uses Christ as the ultimate example of one who humbled himself for the sake of others. That is, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the Father’s will, even to the point of death. By doing so he served the Father and humanity. Likewise, the Philippians ought to humble themselves unto obedience to God and serve one another.

This view seems to focus more on what it means that Christ was obedient unto death than it does on what it means that he humbled himself. We could just as well take it that Christ humbled himself by taking a low status, and he became obedient to the Father’s will unto death.