The stages in that long descent are marked out with a precision and
definiteness which would be intolerable presumption, if Paul were
speaking only his own thoughts, or telling what he had seen with his own
eyes. They begin with what was in the mind of the eternal Word before He
began His descent, and whilst yet He is 'in the form of God.' He stands
on the lofty level before the descent begins, and in spirit makes the
surrender, which, stage by stage, is afterwards to be wrought out in
act. Before any of these acts there must have been the disposition of
mind and will which Paul describes as 'counting it not a thing to be
grasped to be on an equality with God.' He did not regard the being
equal to God as a prey or treasure to be clutched and retained at all
hazards. That sweeps our thoughts into the dim regions far beyond
Calvary or Bethlehem, and is a more overwhelming manifestation of love
than are the acts of lowly gentleness and patient endurance which
followed in time. It included and transcended them all.
It was the supreme example of not 'looking on one's own things.' And
what made Him so count? What but infinite love. To rescue men, and win
them to Himself and goodness, and finally to lift them to the place from
which He came down for them, seemed to Him to be worth the temporary
surrender of that glory and majesty. We can but bow and adore the
perfect love. We look more deeply into the depths of Deity than unaided
eyes could ever penetrate, and what we see is the movement in that abyss
of Godhead of purest surrender which, by beholding, we are to
assimilate.
Then comes the wonder of wonders, 'He emptied Himself.' We cannot enter
here on the questions which gather round that phrase, and which give it
a factitious importance in regard to present controversies. All that we
would point out now is that while the Apostle distinctly treats the
Incarnation as being a laying aside of what made the Word to be equal
with God, he says nothing, on which an exact determination can be based,
of the degree or particulars in which the divine nature of our Lord was
limited by His humanity. The fact he asserts, and that is all. The scene
in the Upper Chamber was but a feeble picture of what had already been
done behind the veil. Unless He had laid aside His garments of divine
glory and majesty, He would have had no human flesh from which to strip
the robes. Unless He had willed to take the 'form of a servant,' He
would not have had a body to gird with the slave's towel. The
Incarnation, which made all His acts of lowly love possible, was a
greater act of lowly love than those which flowed from it. Looking at it
from earth, men say, 'Jesus was born.' Looking at it from heaven, Angels
say, 'He emptied Himself.'
But how did He empty Himself? By taking the form of a slave, that is to
God. And how did He take the form of a slave? By 'becoming in the
likeness of men.' Here we are specially to note the remarkable language
implying that what is true of none other in all the generations of men
is true of Him. That just as 'emptying Himself' was His own act, also
the taking the form of a slave by His being born was His own act, and
was more truly described as a 'becoming.' We note, too, the strong
contrast between that most remarkable word and the 'being originally'
which is used to express the mystery of divine pre-existence.
Whilst His becoming in the likeness of men stands in strong contrast
with 'being originally' and energetically expresses the voluntariness of
our Lord's birth, the 'likeness of men' does not cast any doubt on the
reality of His manhood, but points to the fact that 'though certainly
perfect man, He was by reason of the divine nature present in Him not
simply and merely man.'
Here then the beginning of Christ's manhood is spoken of in terms which
are only explicable, if it was a second form of being, preceded by a
pre-existent form, and was assumed by His own act. The language, too,
demands that that humanity should have been true essential manhood. It
was in 'the form' of man and possessed of all essential attributes. It
was in 'the likeness' of man possessed of all external characteristics,
and yet was something more. It summed up human nature, and was its
representative.