Instead of maintaining His former manner of existence our Lord "emptied Himself" (NASB), "made himself nothing" (NIV), or "laid aside His privileges" (NASB margin, Gr. ekenosen). From this Greek word we get the term "kenosis," which refers to the doctrine of Christ limiting Himself when He became a man. The kenosis theory in theology deals with this subject. [source][source][source]
What did He lay aside? It was not His deity. Jesus did not cease to be God when He became a man. This is clear from the context as well as from other Scriptures (e.g, John 10:30; Colossians 1:15-20; et al.). He did not lay aside His dependence on the Father either. As the terms "Son" and "Father" reflect, the Son was always dependent on His Father within the administrative order of the Godhead. [source][source][source]
Taking humanity imposed certain restrictions on Jesus Christ, including those involved in possessing a physical body and a human, though not a sinful, nature. He laid aside the glory and freedom that His former manner of existence afforded Him when He became a man. He became dependent on the Father in a different sense than had been true formerly. However, Paul did not say that Jesus emptied Himself of something. He simply said that He emptied Himself, that Isaiah , He poured Himself out. [1] Compare Isaiah 53:12, where the prophet wrote that the Servant of the Lord poured out Himself to death. [source][source][source]
"It is not "Of what did he empty himself?" but "Into what did he empty himself?"" [2][source]
Paul described Jesus" self-emptying as taking the form of a bond-servant. "Taking" (Gr. labon) does not imply an exchange but adding something. The Lord did not lay aside the form of God; He did not cease to be God. He added the "form" of man. The same Greek word, morphe, occurs in Philippians 2:6 where it describes outward appearance that accurately reveals inward nature. Earlier Paul described himself and Timothy as bond-servants ( Philippians 1:1). Bond-servants are not just men. They are servants. The Messianic title "Servant of the Lord" reflects this humility and condescension of our Savior. [source][source][source]
Furthermore Jesus Christ became in the likeness of men (cf. Romans 8:3). "Likeness" (Gr. homoiomati) does not mean exactness (Gr. eikon). Even though Jesus had a fully human nature, that nature was not sinful. Every other human being has a sinful human nature. Moreover Jesus had a divine nature as well as a human nature. [source][source][source]
As an example to the readers, this verse is an advance on the previous one. It shows that Jesus Christ was not just willing to change His behavior for others, but He really did so by becoming a man who was a servant. [source][source][source]
Context Summary
Philippians 2:1-11 - Following His Example Of Self-Surrender
In all Scripture-indeed, in all literature-there is no passage which combines such extraordinary extremes as this. The Apostle opens the golden compasses of his faith, placing one jeweled point on the throne of divine glory and the other at the edge of the pit, where the Cross stood; and then he asks us to measure the vast descent of the Son of God as He came down to help us. Mark the seven steps: He was in the form of God, that is, as much God as He was afterward a servant; being in the form of God"¦ took the form of a servant. He was certainly the latter and equally so the former. He did not grasp at equality with God, for it was already His. He emptied Himself, that is, refused to avail Himself of the use of His divine attributes, that He might teach the meaning of absolute dependence on the Father. He obeyed as a servant the laws which had their source in Himself. He became man-a humble man, a dying man, a crucified man. He lay in the grave. But the meaning of His descent was that of His ascent, and to all His illustrious names is now added that of Jesus-Savior. This must be our model. This mind must be in us. In proportion as we become humbled and crucified, we, in our small measure, shall attain the power of blessing and saving men. [source]
Chapter Summary: Philippians 2
1Paul exhorts them to unity, and to all humbleness of mind, by the example of Christ's humility; 12to a careful proceeding in the way of salvation, that they be as lights to a wicked world, 16and comforts to him their apostle, who is now ready to be offered up to God 19He hopes to send Timothy to them, and Epaphroditus also
Greek Commentary for Philippians 2:7
The form of a servant [μορπην δουλου] He took the characteristic attributes (μορπην morphēn as in Phlippians 2:6) of a slave. His humanity was as real as his deity. [source]
In the likeness of men [εν ομοιωματι αντρωπων] It was a likeness, but a real likeness (Kennedy), no mere phantom humanity as the Docetic Gnostics held. Note the difference in tense between υπαρχων huparchōn (eternal existence in the μορπη morphē of God) and γενομενος genomenos (second aorist middle participle of γινομαι ginomai becoming, definite entrance in time upon his humanity). [source]
Made Himself of no reputation [ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν] Lit., emptied Himself. The general sense is that He divested Himself of that peculiar mode of existence which was proper and peculiar to Him as one with God. He laid aside the form of God. In so doing, He did not divest Himself of His divine nature. The change was a change of state: the form of a servant for the form of God. His personality continued the same. His self-emptying was not self-extinction, nor was the divine Being changed into a mere man. In His humanity He retained the consciousness of deity, and in His incarnate state carried out the mind which animated Him before His incarnation. He was not unable to assert equality with God. He was able not to assert it. [source]
Form of a servant [μορφὴν δούλου] The same word for form as in the phrase form of God, and with the same sense. The mode of expression of a slave's being is indeed apprehensible, and is associated with human shape, but it is not this side of the fact which Paul is developing. It is that Christ assumed that mode of being which answered to, and was the complete and characteristic expression of, the slave's being. The mode itself is not defined. This is appropriately inserted here as bringing out the contrast with counted not equality with God, etc. What Christ grasped at in His incarnation was not divine sovereignty, but service. [source]
Was made in the likeness of men [ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος] Lit., becoming in, etc. Notice the choice of the verb, not was, but became: entered into a new state. Likeness. The word does not imply the reality of our Lord's humanity, μορφή formimplied the reality of His deity. That fact is stated in the form of a servant. Neither is εἰκών imageemployed, which, for our purposes, implies substantially the same as μορφή . See on Colossians 1:15. As form of a servant exhibits the inmost reality of Christ's condition as a servant - that He became really and essentially the servant of men (Luke 22:27) - so likeness of men expresses the fact that His mode of manifestation resembled what men are. This leaves room for the assumption of another side of His nature - the divine - in the likeness of which He did not appear. As He appealed to men, He was like themselves, with a real likeness; but this likeness to men did not express His whole self. The totality of His being could not appear to men, for that involved the form of God. Hence the apostle views Him solely as He could appear to men. All that was possible was a real and complete likeness to humanity. What He was essentially and eternally could not enter into His human mode of existence. Humanly He was like men, but regarded with reference to His whole self, He was not identical with man, because there was an element of His personality which did not dwell in them - equality with God. Hence the statement of His human manifestation is necessarily limited by this fact, and is confined to likeness and does not extend to identity. “To affirm likeness is at once to assert similarity and to deny sameness ” (Dickson). See on Romans 8:3. [source]
What do the individual words in Philippians 2:7 mean?
butHimselfemptied[the] formof a servanthaving takenin[the] likenessof menhaving been made
Greek Commentary for Philippians 2:7
He took the characteristic attributes (μορπην morphēn as in Phlippians 2:6) of a slave. His humanity was as real as his deity. [source]
It was a likeness, but a real likeness (Kennedy), no mere phantom humanity as the Docetic Gnostics held. Note the difference in tense between υπαρχων huparchōn (eternal existence in the μορπη morphē of God) and γενομενος genomenos (second aorist middle participle of γινομαι ginomai becoming, definite entrance in time upon his humanity). [source]
Lit., emptied Himself. The general sense is that He divested Himself of that peculiar mode of existence which was proper and peculiar to Him as one with God. He laid aside the form of God. In so doing, He did not divest Himself of His divine nature. The change was a change of state: the form of a servant for the form of God. His personality continued the same. His self-emptying was not self-extinction, nor was the divine Being changed into a mere man. In His humanity He retained the consciousness of deity, and in His incarnate state carried out the mind which animated Him before His incarnation. He was not unable to assert equality with God. He was able not to assert it. [source]
The same word for form as in the phrase form of God, and with the same sense. The mode of expression of a slave's being is indeed apprehensible, and is associated with human shape, but it is not this side of the fact which Paul is developing. It is that Christ assumed that mode of being which answered to, and was the complete and characteristic expression of, the slave's being. The mode itself is not defined. This is appropriately inserted here as bringing out the contrast with counted not equality with God, etc. What Christ grasped at in His incarnation was not divine sovereignty, but service. [source]
Lit., becoming in, etc. Notice the choice of the verb, not was, but became: entered into a new state. Likeness. The word does not imply the reality of our Lord's humanity, μορφή formimplied the reality of His deity. That fact is stated in the form of a servant. Neither is εἰκών imageemployed, which, for our purposes, implies substantially the same as μορφή . See on Colossians 1:15. As form of a servant exhibits the inmost reality of Christ's condition as a servant - that He became really and essentially the servant of men (Luke 22:27) - so likeness of men expresses the fact that His mode of manifestation resembled what men are. This leaves room for the assumption of another side of His nature - the divine - in the likeness of which He did not appear. As He appealed to men, He was like themselves, with a real likeness; but this likeness to men did not express His whole self. The totality of His being could not appear to men, for that involved the form of God. Hence the apostle views Him solely as He could appear to men. All that was possible was a real and complete likeness to humanity. What He was essentially and eternally could not enter into His human mode of existence. Humanly He was like men, but regarded with reference to His whole self, He was not identical with man, because there was an element of His personality which did not dwell in them - equality with God. Hence the statement of His human manifestation is necessarily limited by this fact, and is confined to likeness and does not extend to identity. “To affirm likeness is at once to assert similarity and to deny sameness ” (Dickson). See on Romans 8:3. [source]