Thomas Aquinas

Since the Apostle has set forth his exhortation, here he exhorts to the virtue of humility, by the example of Christ. And first he leads them to imitate Christ's example; second he sets forth his example, at "who, when he was in the form," etc. He says therefore: be humble, as I have said; therefore feel this, that is, hold by experience what was in Christ Jesus. It should be noted that we ought to feel this in five ways, namely by the five senses.

First, to see his brightness, that being enlightened we may be conformed to him. Isaiah 33:17: they shall see the king in his beauty, etc. 2 Corinthians 3:18: but we all, beholding the glory of God with open face, etc. Second, to hear his wisdom, that we may be made blessed. 3 Kings 10:8: blessed are your men, and blessed are your servants, who stand before you and hear your wisdom. Psalm 17:45: at the hearing of the ear he obeyed me. Third, to smell the graces of his gentleness, that we may run to him. Song of Songs 1:3: draw me after you, we will run in the odor of your ointments. Fourth, to taste the sweetness of his loving-kindness, that we may always be beloved in God. Psalm 33:9: taste and see that the Lord is sweet. Fifth, to touch his power, that we may be saved. Matthew 9:21: if I shall but touch the hem of his garment, I shall be safe. And thus feel, as it were by touching, through the imitation of his work.

Then, when he says "who, when he was in the form of God," etc., he sets forth the example of Christ. And first he premises Christ's majesty; second he sets forth his humility, at "himself," etc.; third his exaltation, at "wherefore," etc. And first he premises the majesty of Christ, that his humility may be the more commended. And he sets forth two things pertaining to Christ's dignity: namely the truth of the divine nature; second, equality, at "not robbery." He says therefore "who," namely Christ, "when he was in the form," etc. For each thing is said to be in the nature of a genus or species through its form, whence form is called the nature of a thing. And thus to be in the form of God is to be in the nature of God, by which it is understood that he is true God. 1 John, last chapter: that we may be in his true Son Jesus Christ. But it is not to be understood that the form of God is one thing and God himself another: because in simple and material things the form and that whose form it is are the same, most of all in God.

But why does he say rather "in form" than "in nature"? Because this befits the proper names of the Son in three ways. For he is called both Son, and Word, and Image. For the Son is he who is begotten, and the end of generation is form. And therefore, that he may be shown to be the perfect Son of God, he says "in form," as one having perfectly the form of the Father. Likewise a word is not perfect unless it leads to knowledge of the nature of the thing; and thus the Word of God is said to be in the form of God, because he has the whole nature of the Father. Likewise an image is not said to be perfect, unless it has the form of that whose image it is. Hebrews 1:3: since he is the brightness of glory, and the figure of his substance, etc.

But does he have it perfectly? Yes, because "not robbery," etc. This could be understood in two ways. In one way, of his humanity, and Paul did not understand it thus, because this would be heretical; for it would be robbery, if it were referred to his humanity. Therefore it must be expounded in another way, namely of his divinity, according to which it is said of Christ. It is also repugnant to reason to say otherwise, because the nature of God is not receivable in matter; but that someone existing in some nature should participate in it more or less comes from matter, but there it is not so; therefore it must be said that he judged it not to be robbery, namely that he himself is equal to God, because he is in the form of God, and knows well his own nature. And because he knows this, therefore it is said in John 5:18: he makes himself equal to God; but this was not robbery — unlike when the Devil and man wished to be made equal to him. Isaiah 14:14: I will be like the most high, etc.; and Genesis 3:5: you shall be as gods. But this was robbery; therefore for this Christ came to make satisfaction. Psalm 68:5: the things I did not steal, then I paid back.

Then, when he says "but himself," etc., he commends the humility of Christ. First as to the mystery of the incarnation; second as to the mystery of the passion, at "he humbled himself," etc. Concerning the first he sets forth the humility; second its manner and form. He says therefore "but himself," etc. But since he was full of divinity, did he then empty himself of divinity? No, because what he was, he remained, and what he was not, he took up. But this is to be understood according to the assumption of that which he did not have, but not according to the assumption of that which he had. For just as he descended from heaven, not that he ceased to be in heaven, but because he began to be in a new way on earth, so also he emptied himself, not by laying aside the divine nature, but by assuming human nature.

Beautifully, however, he says "emptied." For "empty" is opposed to "full." But the divine nature is quite full, because there is the perfection of all goodness. Exodus 33:19: I will show you all good. But human nature, and the soul, is not full, but in potency to fullness; because it is made as it were a blank tablet. Human nature therefore is empty. He says therefore "he emptied," because he assumed human nature.

He touches, therefore, first, on the assumption of human nature, saying "taking the form of a servant." For man from his creation is a servant of God, and human nature is the form of a servant. Psalm 99:3: know that the Lord himself is God, etc. Isaiah 42:1: behold my servant, etc. Psalm 3:4: but you, Lord, are my protector, etc. Why is it more fittingly said "the form of a servant," than "a servant"? Because "servant" is the name of a hypostasis or suppositum, which is not what was assumed, but the nature was; for what is taken up is distinguished from that which takes it up. Therefore the Son of God did not assume a man; for it would be given to be understood that man was something other than the Son of God, whereas the Son of God was made man. He therefore received a nature into his own person, so that the Son of God and the Son of man might be the same in person.

Second, he touches on the conformity of nature, saying "made in the likeness of men," namely according to species. Hebrews 2:17: he ought in all things to be made like unto his brethren. And if you should say that it is not fitting for the Lord Jesus Christ to take on a species, it is true, one that would result from divinity and humanity, as if divinity and humanity had come together into one common nature. Whence it would follow that the divine nature (if I may speak so) would be changed.

Third, he sets forth the conditions of human nature, saying "and being found in habit as a man," because he took on all the defects and properties comprised in the species, except sin. And therefore "found in habit as a man," namely in outward manner of life, because he hungered as a man, was wearied, and the like. Hebrews 4:15: tempted in all things after our likeness, without sin. Baruch 3:38: after this he was seen upon the earth, and conversed with men. And thus we can refer "habit" to outward conditions. Or "habit," because he took on humanity itself as a habit.

Now habit is fourfold. One changes the one who has it, and it itself is not changed, as the fool through wisdom. Another is changed and changes, as food. Another, which neither changes nor is changed, as a ring coming onto a finger. Another, which is changed, and does not change, as a garment. And by this likeness human nature in Christ is called a habit, which so came to the divine person, that it did not change it; but it was changed for the better, because it was filled with grace and truth. John 1:14: we saw his glory, glory as it were of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. He says therefore "made in the likeness of men," yet in such a way that he is not changed, because he was "found in habit as a man."

But it must be noted that from this word "habit," etc., some have erred. Whence a threefold opinion is touched upon in distinction VI of Book III of the Sentences. The first is that the humanity of Christ came to him accidentally, which is false: because the suppositum of the divine nature was made the suppositum of the human nature; and therefore it did not come to him accidentally, but substantially — not that divinity did not come to him naturally, but that it is predicated of him substantially. And by this also is excluded the error of Photinus, who said that Christ was a mere man, not born of a virgin, since it is said "when he was in the form of God." Therefore he was in the form of God before he took the form of a servant, from which he is less than the Father, because "not robbery," etc. It is established therefore that it was through the form of a servant that he merited. Likewise the error of Arius is excluded, who said that he was less than the Father, because "not robbery," etc. Likewise that of Nestorius, who said that the union was to be understood according to indwelling, namely insofar as God dwelt in a man, and that the Son of man is one and the Son of God another. But Rabanus says that the Apostle names the incarnation "emptying." But it is clear that the Father and the Holy Spirit also indwell: therefore these also would be emptied, which is false. Again he says: "he emptied himself"; therefore he who was emptied and he who empties are the same. But such is the Son of God, because he himself emptied himself; therefore the union is in person. Likewise that of Eutyches, who said that from the two natures one nature also results. Therefore he did not take the form of a servant, but some other, which is against this. Likewise that of Valentinus, who said that he brought a body from heaven. Likewise that of Apollinaris, who said that he did not have a soul. For thus he would not have been made in the likeness of men.

Then, when he says "he humbled himself," etc., he commends the humility of Christ as to the mystery of his passion. And first he shows the humility of Christ; second the manner, at "become obedient," etc. He is therefore man, but very great, because he is the same one who is God and man, and yet he humbled himself. Ecclesiasticus 3:20: the greater you are, humble yourself in all things. Matthew 11:29: learn from me, because I am meek and humble of heart.

The manner of humiliation and the sign of humility is obedience, because it is proper to the proud to follow their own will: for the proud man seeks height; but it pertains to a high thing that it not be ruled by another, but that it itself rule others, and therefore obedience is contrary to pride. Whence, wishing to show the perfection of the humility and passion of Christ, he says that he was made obedient, because if he had suffered not out of obedience, it would not have been so commendable: for obedience gives merit to our sufferings. But how was he made obedient? Not by the divine will, because that is itself the rule; but by the human will, which was regulated in all things according to the will of the Father. Matthew 26:39: nevertheless not as I will, but as you. And fittingly he brings in obedience in the passion, because the first transgression was committed through disobedience. Romans 5:19: for as through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many are made righteous. Proverbs 21:28: an obedient man shall speak of victories.

But that this obedience is great and commendable is clear: because obedience is then great, when it follows the command of another against one's own inclination; but the inclination of the human will tends to two things: to life and to honor; but Christ did not refuse death. 1 Peter 3:18: Christ died once for our sins, etc. Likewise he did not flee disgrace. Whence he says "even the death of the cross," which is the most disgraceful. Wisdom 2:20: let us condemn him to a most shameful death. Thus therefore he shunned neither death, nor the kind of disgraceful death.