The Christological hymn of Philippians 2:5–11 presents a high Christology, emphasizing both the preexistent divine status of Christ and his self-humbling incarnation leading to exaltation. The pericope functions as an ethical exhortation within Paul’s broader argument in Philippians, calling believers to embody the mindset of Christ in humility and obedience. This paper will engage in an exegetical analysis of the Greek text, incorporating insights from Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Herman Bavinck, and other theologians, while also critiquing contemporary kenotic Christologies that misunderstand the passage.

The imperative Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ establishes the ethical and theological framework for the subsequent Christological hymn. The verb φρονεῖτε carries a deeper meaning than mere intellectual assent; it connotes a disposition, a habitual way of thinking and living shaped by a fundamental orientation toward Christ. This aligns with Paul’s broader theological anthropology, wherein the believer’s transformation is not simply moral but participatory (cf. Rom 12:2; Col 3:1–4). The phrase ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ has been interpreted in two primary ways: (1) as an exhortation to imitate the example of Christ and (2) as an acknowledgment of the believer’s mystical participation in Christ’s life. The Pauline corpus supports both readings, as believers are both called to follow Christ’s pattern (1 Cor 11:1) and to recognize their incorporation into his body (Gal 2:20; Rom 6:3–5).

Aquinas, in Summa Theologica (ST III, q. 16, a. 9), underscores that Christ’s human will was in perfect conformity with the divine will, rendering his self-emptying not a diminution of divinity but its fullest expression in human nature. Christ’s humility, therefore, is not to be understood as a subtraction of divine attributes but as the manifestation of divine love in a way that accommodates human weakness. This insight resists later kenotic Christologies, which err by suggesting that Christ laid aside divine attributes in the incarnation. Instead, as Aquinas maintains, Christ’s self-emptying is the assumption of a servile form, not the abandonment of divinity.

Calvin, in his Commentary on Philippians, clarifies that Paul is not presenting Christ’s humility as a mere external model but as an active, transformative principle within believers. The humility of Christ is not simply a pattern to be admired but a force that, through the Spirit, reshapes the believer’s life. Calvin’s emphasis on union with Christ (unio cum Christo) reinforces that Paul’s imperative is not a call to mere ethical exertion but to a life animated by the presence of Christ himself.

Herman Bavinck, in Reformed Dogmatics (vol. 3, 295–97), aligns with this view, arguing that Christ’s humiliation must be understood within the framework of his mediatorial work. His obedience, suffering, and death are not incidental to his person but integral to the divine economy of redemption. Bavinck critiques modern kenotic theories that posit a divestment of divine attributes, insisting instead that the incarnation entails an addition (the assumption of human nature) rather than a subtraction (the loss of divine perfections). This view aligns with the classical doctrine of communicatio idiomatum, wherein the divine and human natures of Christ remain fully intact and operative within the unity of his person.

Paul’s exhortation in Philippians 2:5 invites believers into a transformation wherein the humility of Christ is not merely an ethical model but the defining characteristic of their new existence in him. This humility does not suggest weakness or loss but rather the paradoxical manifestation of divine majesty in servitude. Any reading of the passage that undermines Christ’s full divinity or suggests that he relinquished divine attributes in the incarnation deviates from the biblical and historic Christian understanding of kenosis.

Christ: The Form of God

The clause ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων asserts Christ’s preexistent divine status and is foundational for the Christology of Philippians 2:6–11. The term μορφή is particularly significant, as it does not merely denote outward appearance (σχῆμα), but the essential attributes and nature of deity. The use of ὑπάρχων, a present active participle, emphasizes the continuous and ongoing nature of Christ’s divine existence prior to the incarnation. This linguistic structure underscores that Christ did not attain divinity at some point in time but eternally exists in the full divine state. The contrast later in the passage with μορφὴν δούλου λαβών (2:7) further solidifies that the μορφή of God refers to his essential being rather than a temporary or external condition.

The phrase οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ is central to the passage’s theological meaning. The noun ἁρπαγμός has been the subject of extensive scholarly debate, with two primary interpretations: (1) an active sense—something to be seized or grasped, and (2) a passive sense—something to be held onto or exploited. The latter interpretation aligns more closely with the context, as Christ’s self-emptying (κένωσις) in verse 7 suggests that his divine status was not used for personal advantage but was willingly expressed in self-giving humility. The meaning, therefore, is not that Christ refrained from grasping at divinity (which he already possessed), but that he did not regard his divine status as something to be exploited for selfish gain. This understanding resists the erroneous claim that Christ renounced his divinity; rather, it affirms that he exercised his divine majesty in a manner consistent with his mission of redemption.

Herman Bavinck, in Reformed Dogmatics (vol. 3, 297–302), argues that Christ’s divine nature remains unchanged in the incarnation. He does not relinquish or diminish his divinity, but rather expresses it through humility and obedience. Bavinck critiques modern kenotic theories that suggest Christ divested himself of divine attributes, stating instead that the incarnation involves addition (the assumption of human nature) rather than subtraction (the loss of divine perfections). His position is rooted in the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum, which maintains that the divine and human natures of Christ remain fully intact within the unity of his person.

Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica (ST III, q. 16, a. 9), likewise affirms that the divine nature is immutable and cannot be diminished. For Aquinas, Christ’s refusal to grasp at equality with God does not imply any loss of divine status but rather reveals the perfection of divine love. The incarnation, he argues, is the fullest expression of divine self-giving, not a limitation of divine power.

John Calvin, in his Commentary on Philippians, reinforces this point by emphasizing that Christ’s humiliation does not mean he abandoned his divine prerogatives but that he voluntarily refrained from displaying his glory in its full splendor. Calvin notes that Christ’s refusal to use his divine status for personal advantage stands in direct contrast to Adam, who sought to grasp equality with God (Gen 3:5). Christ, the true image of God, does not seize what is already his but manifests divine majesty through humility and obedience.

Contemporary kenotic Christologies, in contrast, misread κένωσις as an ontological change in Christ’s divine nature, suggesting that he relinquished certain divine attributes to become human. However, such views run counter to the biblical witness and classical Christology. As Bavinck, Aquinas, and Calvin affirm, Christ’s self-emptying is not a reduction of deity but a veiling of divine majesty in the form of a servant. The incarnation does not diminish Christ’s divine status but reveals its true nature—divine power exercised in self-giving love.

. The precise meaning of κένωσις in Philippians 2:7 has been widely debated in modern theology, particularly regarding whether it entails a relinquishment of divine attributes or a reconfiguration of divine activity in the incarnation. The immediate context, however, clarifies that this self-emptying does not indicate any loss of divine perfections but rather the reception of Christ’s human nature. The participial phrases μορφὴν δούλου λαβών (“taking the form of a servant”) and ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (“being born in the likeness of men”) explicate the manner in which Christ “emptied himself”—not by subtraction of deity, but by reception of human nature.

The parallel between μορφὴ θεοῦ in verse 6 and μορφὴν δούλου in verse 7 is significant. Just as μορφή in verse 6 refers to Christ’s essential divine nature, so too μορφὴν δούλου must be understood as the real and full assumption of servanthood, rather than a mere outward guise. Christ’s incarnation is thus a true incarnation, wherein he takes on human existence with all its frailties (apart from sin) while remaining fully divine. The phrase ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος further clarifies that Christ’s human nature is genuine and not a mere semblance (δόκησις), thus countering any docetic interpretations.

Theological Implications and Classical Christology

Contemporary kenotic Christologies often misconstrue ἐκένωσεν as implying that Christ divested himself of divine attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence. This reading, however, is theologically problematic, as it disrupts the immutability of God and fractures the hypostatic union by introducing a mutable, self-limiting deity. Such a view is inconsistent with classical Christology  which maintains that Christ’s divine nature remains intact throughout the incarnation.

Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica (ST III, q. 1, a. 2), argues that Christ’s κένωσις should not be understood as a diminution of divinity but as the assumption of a new mode of existence—the eternal Son of God operating through a human nature. Aquinas asserts that the divine nature, being immutable, cannot be altered or reduced. Rather, the self-emptying of Christ consists in his taking upon himself the limitations of human existence while still possessing the fullness of divine attributes. Christ does not abandon his omnipotence but expresses it in weakness; he does not forsake omniscience but veils his divine knowledge according to the economy of redemption.

Herman Bavinck, in Reformed Dogmatics (vol. 3, 298–301), similarly critiques kenotic theories, emphasizing that the incarnation is not an act of divine self-reduction but an act of divine condescension. He writes, “The Son of God did not empty himself of his divine nature or attributes but of the glory and majesty that he had with the Father” (Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:302). This is a crucial distinction: Christ’s humiliation is not ontological but functional—he voluntarily refrains from the full display of his divine majesty while still retaining all divine perfections.

John Calvin, in his Institutes (2.13.4), makes a similar point, arguing that κένωσις must be understood in light of the communicatio idiomatum, whereby the divine and human natures remain fully intact yet operate within the unity of the person of Christ. He states, “Christ, indeed, could not divest himself of divinity, but he kept it concealed for a time, that it might not be seen under the weakness of the flesh” (Institutes 2.13.4). Calvin’s reading aligns with the scriptural portrayal of Christ as one who veils his divine prerogatives rather than relinquishing them.

The Deepening of Humility and the Obedience of Christ

Paul intensifies the theme of Christ’s humility in the subsequent phrases καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος (“and being found in appearance as a man”) and ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν (“he humbled himself”). The term σχήματι (form, outward appearance) does not suggest that Christ’s humanity was merely external, but rather that in his visible, historical manifestation, he was recognized as truly human. The progression of humility reaches its climax in the phrase μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ (“to the point of death, even death on a cross”). The repetition of θανάτου (death) with the emphatic δὲ σταυροῦ (even death on a cross) highlights the extremity of Christ’s suffering and the unparalleled humiliation of crucifixion.

In Roman society, crucifixion was the most disgraceful form of execution, reserved for slaves and the most despised criminals. By voluntarily submitting to this form of death, Christ not only exemplifies ultimate obedience but also fully identifies with the depths of human suffering and shame. His willingness to endure such a death further reinforces the nature of his κένωσις—not as an abandonment of divinity but as a radical expression of divine love. As Cyril of Alexandria argues, “He humbled himself, allowing the flesh to suffer what was proper to it, though he remained impassible in his divine nature” (Commentary on John 1.5).

Thus, the κένωσις of Christ in Philippians 2:7–8 should not be understood as a theological argument for the relinquishment of divine attributes but as the supreme demonstration of divine self-giving. The Son of God, remaining fully divine, took on the condition of a servant and endured the depths of humiliation for the sake of human redemption. Classical Christology, from Aquinas to Calvin to Bavinck, rightly preserves the integrity of Christ’s divine and human natures, rejecting any notion that κένωσις entails the subtraction of divine perfections. Instead, it is a manifestation of divine humility—God’s power revealed in weakness, and his majesty made known through servanthood.

The Exaltation of Christ (Phil 2:9–11)

The transition with διὸ καὶ (“therefore also”) introduces divine exaltation as the consequence of Christ’s humiliation. The verb ὑπερύψωσεν (“highly exalted”) signifies not merely resurrection but supreme enthronement. God ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα (“granted him the name above every name”), identifying Jesus with κύριος (“Lord”), the divine title from Isaiah 45:23.

Calvin interprets Christ’s exaltation not as a change in his divine nature but as the public revelation of his divine majesty in his glorified humanity. Bavinck also affirms that Christ’s exaltation is not a movement from weakness to power but the vindication of his divine-human obedience. Herman Ridderbos expands this point by emphasizing that Christ’s lordship is not a mere honorific title but the active reign of the ascended Christ over creation, the church, and history (Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 1997).

The universal submission expressed in πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ (“every knee should bow”) and πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται (“every tongue confess”) echoes Old Testament descriptions of Yahweh’s sovereignty. The climactic confession, κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς (“Jesus Christ is Lord”), affirms his divine authority εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός (“to the glory of God the Father”), underscoring both Christ’s exaltation and the monotheistic framework of Paul’s theology. This passage not only confirms the deity of Christ but also establishes the Christological foundation for the Christian confession that salvation is found in no other name (Acts 4:12).

Conclusion

Philippians 2:5–11 presents a profound Christological and ethical paradigm, intertwining the mystery of Christ’s divine nature with the ethical imperative for believers to adopt his mindset. The passage unfolds a theologically rich depiction of Christ’s preexistence, his full participation in the divine nature, his voluntary self-humiliation through the incarnation, and his ultimate exaltation by the Father. Theologically, it affirms both the immutability of Christ’s divine essence and the reality of his human obedience, thereby preserving the Chalcedonian framework of the hypostatic union. Ethically, it provides a model of humility and servanthood, grounded not in a loss of status but in a redefinition of divine greatness as self-giving love.

Exegetically, the passage exhibits a deliberate literary structure, with its hymn-like composition reflecting both Hebrew poetic parallelism and Greco-Roman patterns of encomium. Paul’s intertextual engagement with Isaiah 45:23 underscores Christ’s full participation in the divine identity, as the homage given to Yahweh is now ascribed to Jesus. The careful choice of terminology, particularly μορφή (form), ἁρπαγμός (something to be grasped), and ἐκένωσεν (emptied), resists reductionist interpretations that would suggest a surrender of divine attributes.

Christ’s kenosis is not a divestment of divinity but a demonstration of divine humility through the assumption of true humanity. Aquinas clarifies that the self-emptying is a matter of assuming a new mode of existence rather than losing divine perfections. Calvin underscores that Paul is not merely presenting an external example but calling believers to partake in the transformative power of Christ’s humility. Bavinck defends the integrity of Christ’s divine nature, emphasizing that the incarnation is an expression, rather than a limitation, of divine power and condescension.

Contemporary kenotic Christologies, which propose that Christ relinquished omniscience, omnipotence, or other divine attributes, misinterpret ἐκένωσεν as a subtraction rather than an addition—failing to grasp that true divinity is not diminished by self-giving but revealed through it. These theories, in seeking to explain the mystery of the incarnation, often end up undermining the orthodox doctrine of Christ’s two natures, contradicting the clear witness of Scripture and classical theological reflection.

Philippians 2 remains central to Christian worship, doctrinal reflection, and ethical exhortation. It not only provides one of the New Testament’s most exalted affirmations of Christ’s divine identity but also shapes Christian life by presenting his self-giving love as the pattern for believers. The passage calls the church to a paradoxical vision of glory—one in which true exaltation is found in humility, and true power is displayed in sacrificial service. In confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord, the church affirms that his path of humiliation and exaltation is not only the foundation of redemption but also the guiding principle of Christian discipleship.