Have the feelings of Christ! Rick Renner - Precious Truths from the Greek Language Who is in the Image of God

. He, being the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God;

"He, being the image of God". There was much debate about what kind of Christ the Apostle is referring to here - the one who pre-existed before His incarnation, the Son of God, who had not yet taken on human flesh, or the Son of God already incarnated. The first interpretation belongs to almost all Christian antiquity and most of the new interpreters, the second - to Novatian, Ambrose and Pelagius, and then to Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and from the new ones to Derner, Philip and Richlu - prof. Glubokovsky (cf. the Gospel of St. Apostle Paul, vol. 2, p. 287). The image of God (μορφή Θεοΰ ) according to the latest interpretation will denote the divine majesty, strength and power that Christ owned and while on earth, although he usually did not reveal it. But it is difficult to agree with such an interpretation. For an image (μορφή) is in any case something that can be seen by everyone and under any circumstances. And according to the interpretation under consideration, Christ usually did not allow to see His Divine authority. Even more decisively against such an understanding, the following further () the word "despised" - έκένωσεν, which cannot mean: "did not use, did not apply to the case, hid", but speaks of real devastation and deprivation. Therefore, it is more correct to understand this expression: “being in the image or in the image of God” as speaking about the state of Christ before His incarnation, and the subject “He” (ός), however, will denote not only the pre-existing Christ, but also together with Christ in the state of incarnation - a person, which remained essentially the same both in the state of pre-existence and in the state of incarnation. - As for the very term "image" μορφή, unlike σχήμα (v. 7), it often means always something inherent in the subject by its nature, arising from the very nature of the subject (cf.; ; ). So here, too, μορφή can designate a form of existence in which the divine being finds an adequate expression for itself, so that from this form one can also draw a conclusion about the nature of the subject. - Finally, the expression "being" υπάρχων is stronger than the simple ών (from είναι - to be), indicates the reality of being, although at the same time it gives a hint that this being in greatness was temporary and could stop. - “I did not consider it robbery to be equal to God" – ούχ άρπαγμόν ήγήσατο τό εΐναι . For some reason, the Russian translation understands the verb ήγήσατο as past. nesov. time, but meanwhile an aorist is placed here, meaning an action that has passed, quickly ended, a single act. Therefore, it is better to translate this verb by the expression: "did not consider." - "Theft" - άρπαγμός. Russian translators give this word an active meaning: "theft" is an act or action. But in this case, the Russian translation is completely incomprehensible. What does it mean: to venerate or consider as theft a being equal to God? After all, the word "theft" denotes an action, and "being equal to God" - condition. Can an action be considered a state? It is likely that the translators used the word "theft" instead of the word "stolen". In such a case, when by άρπαγμός we mean "stolen" or, more correctly, what must be stolen, the meaning of the whole expression will become completely clear to us. The apostle wants to say that the Son of God, who from eternity had the image of God or the glory and majesty of God, before His incarnation did not consider it necessary to forcibly, contrary to the predestination of the Divine Council on the salvation of people, to leave behind Himself a being equal to God or, in fact, a form of existence, which He had from eternity as true. Under "to be equal to God"of course, it is the state in which it is, and not the nature of God, because no one, even God, can be freed from his nature.

. but he humbled himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man;

"But he humbled himself”- more precisely: devastated (έκένωσεν), deprived Himself voluntarily of that divine glory and power to which he had the full right and in the state of incarnation. - "Taking the form of a slave". Itself is an indefinite concept. "humbled himself» receives sufficient certainty through this addition. The Lord considers His divine form of existence not as a treasure that He has just found and for which He needs to hold on tight, but frees Himself from it, taking on a new form of existence instead of the former form - the existence of a slave. Whose servant Christ became is not said. It is only important that He became a slave, that from a state of complete freedom and independence He entered into a position of subordination (cf.). - Here the expression "image of a slave" denotes precisely only the slave form of existence, because the nature of the slave does not exist: there is only a slave state or position. It is clear that the Apostle meant here to speak not about the incarnation of the Son of God (then he would simply have said “took the form of a man”), but about His self-abasement, but about real self-abasement, not apparent. It was only after His resurrection that He appeared in a “different form” that corresponded to His glorification, but before the resurrection he lived as a servant, and not as the Lord (cf. Mk 10i). The apostle thus points out to the readers that the path to the glorification they expected lies through self-abasement and that they not only must not appropriate to themselves the greatness that does not belong to them, but also refuse, in order to complete their salvation, from what belongs to them. . This is exactly what Christ did, who refused to manifest on earth the glory that belonged to Him as God. He thus corrected the transgression of Adam, who wanted to be a god (). - "Having become like men". The apostle said of Christ that He became a slave. But the angels of God () are also presented as “servants of me” in Holy Scripture (). Therefore, the apostle wants to say definitely what kind of slavery Christ took, and says that He took on the nature not of an angel, but of a man. Using the expression “ in the likeness of a man ka" ( έν όμοιώματι άνθρ .), the Apostle thereby makes it clear that Christ was only "like" people, but in reality not identical with them, since He did not have hereditary sin, and at the same time He remained the Son of God in the flesh (cf. ; ). And in appearance becoming like a man". Here the Apostle means the external appearance (σχήμα) of Christ – His habits, gestures, speech, actions and even clothing. In the eyes of everyone who met Him, He was an ordinary person – a humble rabbi…

. He humbled Himself, being obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross.

Christ, incarnated, could live in peace, as the rabbis lived. But He humbled Himself, endured various hardships and insults. These sufferings ended for Him in a terrible and shameful way on the cross, on which He was hanged as a criminal.

. Therefore I highly exalted Him and gave Him the name above every name,

Now the Apostle points to the exaltation of Christ after death, as a special motivation for readers to follow the same path of deprivation that Christ also walked. By the "exaltation" of Christ, one must understand not only the spatial exaltation of Christ from the earthly region to heaven, but also, so to speak, His qualitative exaltation. According to St. Athanasius Alex., Here one can see an indication of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (Athan. , word 1) - “And he gave Him the name“ ..., that is, the name of “the Lord a” (cf.). This name, of course, shows the supreme position of Christ in relation to all that exists: He is the lord or ruler of the universe.

. that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven, on earth, and in the underworld,

. and every tongue confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

So that before the name of Jesus. Wed . Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and people, and in His name or because of Him, man bows or bows his knees, seeing in Him the true God. But not only people, but also beings who are “in heaven”, i.e. angels, and living in “hell”, i.e. demons, must recognize the power of Christ. glorified believers, and among the "underworld" - dead sinners. - “And every language”, i.e. all rational beings of different spheres - earthly, heavenly and underworld. - "To the glory of God the Father". The apostle also in other epistles (eg ; ) presents the glorification of God as the ultimate goal of everything. - Thus, the Apostle inspired the readers that if, as Christians, they dream of achieving glorification, which the Lord Jesus Christ spoke about, for example, to the apostles before His death (), then they should, following the example of their Lord, go to this by self-abasement and think no more about your own glory, but about the glory of God the Father.

. Therefore, my beloved, as you have always been obedient, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling,

The apostle from the brief history of Christ the Savior, who, precisely through self-denial and suffering, reached the goal that He set for Himself, concludes that the Philippians should relate to the work of their own salvation - which must be understood here in the sense of an act taking place in the human soul - with fear and trembling before God, using for its part all the power of self-sacrifice. This on their part, that is, fear and trembling before God, is especially necessary at the present time, when the Apostle Paul is not with them, who earlier, by his mere presence among the Philippians, inspired them with courage.

. because God works in you both willing and acting according to His good pleasure.

The Philippians should not be exalted in their thoughts, because, and not they, it is actually the one who acts in the work of their salvation: He Himself produces in them a disposition for a good deed, and gives them strength to carry out good aspirations. In everything, in a word, He acts according to His own good pleasure, and not according to the merits of man. “On the one hand, this passage speaks against Pelagianism, and on the other hand, through its connection with verse 12, it clearly shows how far the Apostle is from the teaching about the forced action of the grace of God on the human will. The apostle here says that the grace of God accomplishes the salvation of a person not without his participation ”(Nazarevsky, p. 93).

. Do everything without grumbling and doubt,

The Philippians, in the work of their salvation, must avoid murmuring and doubting what they are led to do. The doubter, moreover, obviously looks too low and at himself, and this should not be in a person redeemed by Christ.

. so that you may be blameless and pure, children of God without blemish in the midst of an obstinate and perverted generation, in which you shine like lights in the world,

. containing the word of life, to my praise in the day of Christ, that I have not labored in vain and have not labored in vain.

. But even if I become a sacrifice for the sacrifice and service of your faith, then I rejoice and rejoice with you all.

. About this very thing you rejoice and rejoice at me.

The goal that Christians should have in mind when following the path of self-denial is that they become innocent before the judgment of God and free from the stains of sin (ιάκέραιοι - in Russian translation: "pure"), to become true children of God, over which will no longer fall that terrible sentence, which will be subjected to obstinate and perverted children, in comparison with which the Philippians, who keep the word of life or the Gospel, are just like real lamps of the world. in Philippi were not in vain.To show how delightful it is for him to see the firmness of the Philippians in the faith, the Apostle says that even if he were now destined to be poured out as a libation (consisting of wine), on that sacrifice, which he himself offers to God in the form The Church, which was made up of pagans, even here the Apostle would not lose his joyful mood.He inspires the same joy to the Philippians themselves: they should rejoice for him too, that he is able to go on with to die for them, and for themselves, that they - so at least the Apostle supposes of them - are also capable of all self-denial because of faith in the Gospel.

. I hope, in the Lord Jesus, to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too, learning about your circumstances, may be comforted in spirit.

The thought that he might soon die prompts the Apostle to make sure that someone helps the Philippians in his place in the difficult circumstances of their lives. The choice of the Apostle in this case rests on his friend and disciple - Timothy. No one is more devoted to Christ and to him, Paul, than Timothy. However, the Apostle intends to send Timothy to the Philippians only when he receives certain information about the state of his case. At the same time, the confidence in the favorable outcome of his process does not leave him, which is why he promises himself, after being released from bonds, to arrive in Philippi. Now the Apostle consoles the Philippians by sending them a commissioner, Epaphroditus, their fellow citizen. May the Philippians greet him with joy, for he did not spare his life in the service of the cause of Christ.

"Timothy" - see.

. For I have no one equally diligent, who would so sincerely care for you,

"Equanimous”, i.e., similar in spirit and character to the Apostle Paul (ϊσόψυχον).

. because everyone is looking for their own, and not what is pleasing to Jesus Christ.

The apostle does not mean here his coworkers, who at that time were away from him, but ordinary people, perhaps only recently converted to Christ.

. And you know his faithfulness, because he, like a son to his father, served me in the gospel.

"Loyalty" - more precisely: art or experience (δοκιμήν). - "Served me" - more precisely: served with me ( σύν έμοί έδούλευσεν ) Christ's Gospel. - “ Like a son to a father" - more precisely: like a son with his father, that is, imitating his father in everything (cf.).

. So I hope to send it as soon as I know what will happen to me.

. I am confident in the Lord that I myself will soon come to you.

Concerning Timothy, the Apostle nevertheless says that he hopes to send him to the Philippians when his position is finally cleared up. He speaks about himself with confidence ("I am sure" - πέποιθα), that he will certainly visit Philippi. He has in mind, probably, a special revelation from the Lord Christ (“in the Lord”) that was to him.

. However, I thought it necessary to send Epaphroditus to you, my brother and collaborator and companion, and your messenger and minister in my need,

While the Apostle considers it more necessary (an explanation of the need for) to send to the Philippians a certain Epaphroditus, a resident of the city of Philip. This is a man outstanding as a companion of Paul in the struggle for the cause of Christ. The Philippians themselves know him well, because he is their authorized ambassador under Paul (actually, an apostle - άπόστολον) and a minister who brought to Paul from the Philippians what he needed for his own maintenance.

. because he longed to see you all and grieved grievously that you had heard the news of his illness.

. For he was sick at death; but God had mercy on him, and not only on him, but also on me, so that sorrow would not be added to sorrow for me.

Epaphroditus, while in Rome, fell seriously ill. Probably traveling to Rome and staying in Rome during the summer months, as now, was at that time a danger to health. A person who falls ill in a foreign land always strives with his soul to return to his homeland, to his loved ones, and Epaphroditus also really wanted to see his relatives as soon as possible and console them with his return to them in full health. The Apostle adds with joy that God had mercy on Epaphroditus, because otherwise, if his illness ended in death, the Apostle would begin to blame himself for such an outcome: after all, it was because of him that Epaphroditus was ill. The apostle already has to grieve that he is in prison. And the death of Epaphroditus would have caused him new grief ...

. Therefore, I sent him quickly, so that when you see him again, you will rejoice, and I will be less sad.

The apostle sent Epaphroditus sooner than he himself could have expected. Obviously, his illness did not last very long. By sending Epaphroditus to the Philippians, the Apostle, of course, rejoiced them and at the same time himself, because it gave him joy to see and know that his spiritual children were in a joyful state. In relation to Paul, however, this was not complete joy: he only became “less sad” because of this, but his sorrows still continued, and he could never get rid of them (1 Corinthians 29).

. Receive him in the Lord with all joy, and have such in respect,

. for he was close to death for the cause of Christ, endangering his life in order to make up for the lack of your services to me.

The apostle asks to receive Epaphroditus "with all", i.e., with complete joy, and generally asks such figures to be respected. the good of believers did not spare his life. It was he who wanted to fill with his ministry what the Philippians had not yet done for the Apostle Paul. If he only served the Apostle, then, nevertheless, in fact, he worked for the benefit of the cause of Christ: the work of Christ is that the work that Christ does on earth through His disciples.

It is understandable, however, that we should not take this expression as a designation of an externally observable form of existence: God is invisible, and the Son of God before the incarnation is also invisible. “The image“ therefore, it is more correct to translate: “the kind of existence”, and “not the form of the phenomenon.” To appear, - before the incarnation, in the state of the Divine, the Logos had no one and no reason ...

However, this expression undoubtedly contains the idea that Christ incarnate remained God. After all, the Apostle here speaks all about the same One Who from eternity existed in the image of God, Who, therefore, had the divine nature. He, this eternal Logos, did not change His nature, but only took on human nature. Rev. Theophanes says: “I have accepted the ghost of a slave - having taken on a dual nature, which, no matter what degree it is, is always working for God. What followed from this? – That which begins without beginning, that which is omnipresent is determined by place, that which is eternal lives for days, months and years, that which is all-perfect grows with age and intelligence. And all this He passes through, by His nature God is taken upon Himself by the nature of creation.

St. John Chrysostom sees in these words an encouragement for a Christian person in his striving to please God, because when a person wants, then God will act, raising human desire to the level of the most firm determination. However, according to the interpretation of Chrysostom, this does not deprive a person of his own desire: this latter is only strengthened by divine assistance.

Note that: · The particle "not" here refers to the verb. This is a feature of the ancient Greek language: it is precisely verbs that are denied in it, as well as infinitive verb forms (in this way it is similar to English). Usually the particle “not” is placed directly before the verb, but sometimes other words can stand between it and the verb, in which case the verb and the whole phrase subordinate to it is negated. On this point, including Philippians 2:6, there is no disagreement between the translators. The word "ηγησατο" (more precisely, its main form - ηγεομαι), according to the Great Ancient Greek Dictionary of Dvoretsky, has 11 translation options, of which two can be used here: "to believe, recognize, count" (option 8 in the dictionary); “to consider it necessary, to find it right” (option 10 in the dictionary). Barclay Newman's dictionary also allows the meaning "to think". The word is in the indicative mood (it speaks of a fact, more precisely, the absence of the fact of an action), aorist (an instantaneous action committed and completed in the past), in the middle voice (focused on Christ, and not on “robbery”). Therefore, the original word can be translated as “did not consider”, “did not recognize”, “did not consider it necessary”, “did not find it right”, “(never) thought”. · The word αρπαγμον - "robbery" - in the original is in the accusative case (you can easily verify this using the same interlinear Vinokurov by clicking on the word in it). However, in ancient Greek there are no instrumental and prepositional cases, but only nominative, genitive, dative and accusative. According to the textbook "Classical Languages", "the meanings of words used in Russian in the instrumental and prepositional cases are transmitted in Greek using one of the above cases." This usage occurs in the Bible as well, for example, "considered faithful" in 1 Timothy 1:12 and Hebrews 11:11 (the word "faithful" in the Greek text is accusative) or "considered brethren" in Genesis 49:26 in Septuaginte ("brothers" - in the genitive case). Therefore, “robbery” in this text can be translated both in the accusative, and in the creative, and, possibly, in the prepositional case. Vinokurov's interlinear translation, like most others, in the main text gives only one variant of the case - instrumental, without mentioning that there are others (unfortunately, this is a common feature of interlinear translations, which distinguishes them for the worse from translation with a dictionary). Let's compare the possible Russian cases of the word "robbery" with the appropriate meaning of the word "ηγησατο" for them: 1. Accusative case: did not find it right (did not consider it necessary) robbery - to be equal to God 2. Instrumental case: did not consider it a robbery to be equal to God Both versions of the translation are grammatically acceptable, but, apparently, they give the text a completely different, opposite meaning. As in all other such cases, the meaning given to the translation of such a verse is determined by the translator, guided by the context of the verse and his understanding of the Holy Scriptures as a whole. Which version of the translation corresponds to the meaning of the Holy Scriptures? Did Jesus take “being equal with God” as normal, taken for granted? No, throughout Scripture, Jesus, although presented as having great power, always recognizes his subordination to God - both in heaven, where he lived before coming to earth (Daniel 7:9, 10, 13, 14), and in his earthly life (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 14:28; 20:17; Mark 10:18). Which translation option best fits the context? Philippians 2:1-18 is about humility. Verses 3–4 call for “do nothing out of selfishness and conceit,” “take care of . Verses 9-11 show that God approved of this humble thinking and behavior of Christ. Verse 12 concludes, "Therefore [following the example of Christ above] ... as you have always obeyed, ... so go on, with fear and trembling, seeking your salvation." From this it becomes clear which of the two translations of verses 5 and 6 would be more appropriate and which version really corresponds to the thinking of Christ: 1. “Think in the same way as Christ Jesus thought, who, being the image of God, did not even allow the thought of theft - be equal to God"; 2. "Think in the same way as Christ Jesus thought, who, being the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God." The mention of what Christ considered the norm to be equal to God would simply be out of place here, since we are called to avoid vanity and show humility. Moreover, the second option could be understood in such a way that we are called upon not to consider being equal to God as robbery (read the phrase). Obviously, the spirit of the context, as well as Scripture in general, corresponds to the first version of the translation. The New World Translation (NWT) simply follows this more appropriate variant. In English, the PNM verse reads: "Christ Jesus... gave no consideration to a seizure [in the footnote "think to be seized, snatching"], namely, that he should be equal to God." Here "give consideration to" - "consider"; “seizure” (“snatching”) - “capture, taking by force”, “snatching [from hands, etc.] P.]". Thus, taking into account the form (aorist) of the original verb, the PNM interprets the original source as “(never) considered robbery”, “did not allow the thought of robbery”, i.e. indicates that the action “ηγεομαι” (“to think”) in regard to the seizure, the theft of such a position by Jesus was not committed. In the Russian PNM (both editions of 2001 and 2007) a similar thought is conveyed: "Christ Jesus ... did not think about encroachment - about being equal to God." The use of the instrumental case here is due not to a Greek construction, but to linguistic adaptation - the use of the word “think about ...” in the meaning of “did not think, did not intend, did not consider it necessary, did not allow thought”. Thus, both English and Russian PNM convey the same idea in different words, strictly corresponding to the first version of the translation with the accusative case. The New World Translation is by no means the only one that translates Philippians 2:6 in this way. Here are other examples of similar translations: “Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it necessary to encroach on being equal with God” (Noyes, “The New Testament”, 1869) “He is of a truly divine nature! – never presumptuously made himself equal with God” (F. Pfeflin, “Das Neue Testament”, revised edition, 1965) “Who, although he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God to be eagerly pursued” ( "La Bibbia Concordata", 1968) "He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that he should force himself to try to become equal to God" ("Today's English Version", 1976) "Who, being in the form of God, did not consider that one must encroach on equality with God” (“The New Jerusalem Bible”, 1985) “Although he was the image of God, he did not believe that equality with God can be acquired by force” (D. Stern, “Jewish New Testament”, 1989) It is worth noting that the authors of many of these translations believed in the Trinity, but they also considered this translation to be more correct. Thus, Philippians 2:6 cannot be used to accuse the authors of the NWT of "adjusting" their work to the creeds of Jehovah's Witnesses. In this text, without exception, all translators convey the text, superimposing their own understanding of the Bible on it. As noted above, Jehovah's Witnesses used a version of the translation that is more appropriate in meaning to the context and the Bible as a whole. It is also impossible to use this text to prove the deity of Christ, since such "divinity" in this text appears solely from the representation of the translators themselves. Comment. Some translations render Philippians 2:6 differently: that Christ "did not hold" for equality with God. However, this translation is incorrect. The Expositor's Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan (1967), vol. 3, pp. 436-437) states: "In no verse is the word ... [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [ including harpagmon (αρπαγμον - author's note)] do not mean "possess", "preserve". It almost always means "capture", "appropriate". Thus, it is unacceptable to deviate from the true meaning of "grab" and replace it with a completely different meaning of "hold on."

Art. 6-7 He, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; but he made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and becoming in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man

We have set forth the opinions of the heretics; now is the time to present our doctrine. They say that the expression: “I didn’t consider it theft” means admired. And we have shown that this is completely absurd and inappropriate, that in this way no one proves humility of mind, and does not praise not only God, but also man. So what does it mean, beloved? Pay attention to real words. Since many people believe that, having become humble, they would have lost their own dignity, diminished and humbled themselves, then (the apostle), removing this fear, and showing that one should not think so, says about God that God, the only begotten Son of the Father , "being in the image of God", having nothing less than the Father, equal to Him, . And what does this mean, listen: if someone captures something and appropriates it unjustly, then he does not dare to leave it, fearing that it will not be lost and not perish, but keeps it constantly. On the contrary, whoever has some natural dignity is not afraid to fall below this dignity, knowing that he will not tolerate anything like that. I will give an example: Absalom captured the power, and then he did not dare to lay down it from himself. Let's take another example. And if examples are not strong enough to explain everything, don't get mad at me: such is the nature of examples that the greater part is left to the mind for reflection. He rose up against the king and took the kingdom; he no longer dares to leave and hide this matter, and if he had hidden it even once, he would have immediately ruined it. Let's turn to another example. Suppose someone stole something; he already keeps it constantly, and as soon as he let it out of his hands, he immediately lost it. And in general, those who have taken possession of something through theft are afraid to leave it and hide it, they are afraid to part with what they have taken possession of for a minute. But that is not the case with those who do not possess anything through theft. For example, man has the dignity of being intelligent. (However, and) I do not find an example, because we have no natural power, none of the blessings depends on our nature, and they all belong to the nature of God. So what shall we say? The fact that the Son of God was not afraid to fall below His dignity. He did not revere the Deity as a robbery, and was not afraid that someone would take away from Him His nature or dignity. Therefore, he put it aside, being firmly convinced that he would receive it again; hid it, not thinking in the least to diminish through it. For this reason (the apostle) did not say: He did not take away, but: “I didn’t consider it theft”, - that is, he had power not stolen, but natural, not given, but constantly and inalienably belonging to Him. Therefore, he does not refuse to take on the appearance of even a bodyguard. The tyrant is afraid to lay down purple in war, but the king does it without any fear. Why? Because it has the power not stolen. So He did not lay it down because He did not steal it; but hid it, because he had it as natural and forever inalienable. (Dignity) to be equal to God He had not stolen, but natural; and therefore "but humbled himself". Where are those who say that He submitted, that He submitted to necessity? (Apostle) says: “but he humbled himself, humbled himself, being obedient even unto death”. How did you diminish? “Having taken the form of a servant, having become in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man”. Here are the words: "But He made Himself of no use" said (by the apostle) in accordance with the words: "Consider one another superior to yourself"(Phil. 2:3), - because if He had been subject, if not by His own impulse, and not by Himself, had decided to belittle Himself, then this would not have been a matter of humility. If He did not know that it was to be done, then He is not perfect; if, not knowing, he waited for the time of the command, then He did not know the time; but if He knew both that it was to be done and when it was to be done, then why did He become subject? In order, they will say, to show the superiority of the Father. But this means showing not the superiority of the Father, but one's own insignificance. And does not the name of the Father alone show enough the primacy of the Father? And besides this, everything (that is with the Father) is the same with the Son. In other words, this honor alone cannot pass from the Father to the Son; and besides it, everything in common with the Father and the Son.

Here the Marcionites, attaching themselves to words, say: He was not a man, but. How can you be in human likeness? Cloaked in shadow? But this is a ghost, not the likeness of a person. The likeness of a person can be another person. What do you say to John's words: "And the Word Became Flesh"(John 1:14) ? Yes, and this most blessed one in another place says: "In the likeness of sinful flesh"(Rom. 8:3) . "And in appearance becoming like a man". Here they say: "by sight", And: "as a man"; and to be like a man, and in the form of a man, does not yet mean to be really a man, because to be a man in the image does not mean to be a man by nature. Do you see with what conscientiousness I convey the words of the enemies? After all, a brilliant and perfect victory is that when we do not hide their opinions that seem strong; to conceal is more to deceive than to conquer. So what do they say? Let us repeat the same thing again: according to the image does not mean according to nature, and to be "as a man", And "like people" does not mean to be human. Therefore, to accept the spirit of a slave does not mean to accept the nature of a slave. Here is an objection against you - and why don't you be the first to resolve it? As you consider it a contradiction with us, so we call it a contradiction with you. (The Apostle) did not say: like the image of a servant, nor in the likeness of the image of a servant, nor in the form of the image of a servant, but - "taking the form of a slave". What does this mean? And this is a contradiction, they will say. There is no contradiction, but some empty and ridiculous reasoning on their part. They say: He took the form of a slave, because, girded with a towel, he washed the feet of the disciples. Is this the image of a slave? This is not the image of a slave, but the work of a slave. It is one thing to do the work of a slave, and another to take on the image of a slave. Otherwise, why is it not said that He did the work of a servant, which would be clearer? Yes, and nowhere in Scripture is used (word) "image" instead of deeds, because there is a great difference between them: one belongs to nature, and the other to activity. And in ordinary conversation we never use an image instead of a deed. In other words, He, in their opinion, did not do the work, and did not gird himself. If the matter was a dream, it was not the truth; if He had no hands, how did He wash? If he had no hips, how did he gird himself with a towel? Yes, and what "clothes" took? But it is said: "I put on my clothes"(John 13:12) . Assuming that what is presented here is not what actually happened, but only a ghost, we must admit that He did not even wash the feet of the disciples. If the incorporeal nature did not become visible, then it was not in the body either. So, who washed the disciples? What else shall we say against Paul of Samosata? What, you ask, does he say? He says the same thing: for a person who has human nature and a real person, to wash slaves like himself is not a belittling. The same thing that we said against the Arians must be said against them. The whole difference between them consists only in a small period of time: both of them call the Son of God a creation. So what shall we say against them? If a man washed people, then He did not belittle and did not humiliate Himself; if, being a man, He did not delight in equality with God, then there is still no praise in this. God to become a man is a great, inexpressible and inexplicable humility; but for a man to do human deeds - what kind of humility? And where is the image of God called the work of God? If He was a simple man and is called the image of God for His works, then why does He not say the same about Peter, who did more than He? Why don't you say about Paul that he had the image of God? Why did Paul not present himself as an example, although he performed many servile deeds, and did not refuse anything, as he himself says: “For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; but we are your servants to Jesus"(2 Cor. 4:5) ? It's funny and ridiculous. "humbled himself". Tell me how he "humiliated", and what is this belittling, and what is humility? Did he (belittle) that he worked miracles? But so did Paul and Peter, so it is not a feature of the Son. What do the words mean: "become like men"? The fact that He had a lot of ours, but did not have much - for example: He was not born from coitus, He did not commit sin. And this is what He had, which no man has. He was not only what he was, but also God. He was a man, but in many ways he was not like (us), although he was like in the flesh. Therefore, He was not a simple man. That is why it is said: "become like men". We are soul and body; He is God, soul and body. Therefore it is said: "having become like". And that you, having heard that He "humbled himself", did not present change, transformation and any destruction, for this (Scripture) says that He, remaining what he was, accepted what he was not, and having become flesh, remained God the Word.

Since in this respect He is like a man, he (the apostle) says: "and in appearance", - which expresses not that nature has changed, or that there has been any confusion, but that He "mind" became (human). Having said: "taking the form of a slave", he boldly then said these words: "and having become in appearance" because they stop everyone's mouth. Likewise with the words: "In the likeness of sinful flesh"(Rom. 8:3) does not mean that He did not have flesh, but that this flesh did not sin, yet it was like sinful flesh. Why likeness? By nature, and not by sinfulness, that is why it is like the soul of a sinner. As it says - "having become like", because not everything is equal, and here it is said - "having become like", because not everything is equal, somehow: He was not born from intercourse, was without sin, not an ordinary person. And well said (the apostle): "people" because He was not one of many, but, as it were, one of many - because God the Word did not turn into a man, and His essence did not change, but He appeared as a man, not presenting a ghost to us, but teaching humility. This is what the apostle says: "people", although in another place he calls Him (directly) a man, saying: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"(1 Tim. 2:5) . So we said against these (heretics); now it must also be said against those who do not acknowledge that (Christ) received a soul. If the image of God is the perfect God, then the image of the slave is the perfect slave. Again speech against the Arians. "He, being the image of God", - says (the apostle), - “I did not consider it robbery to be equal to God”. Here, speaking of the Divine, he does not use the words: became (εγένετο), and: accepted. "Humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men". Here, speaking of humanity, he uses the words: accepted, and: became. In the latter case - "having become, having accepted", In the first - "being". So let's not confuse or separate (these concepts). One God, one Christ the Son of God. And when I say - one, then I express a combination, not a mixture, since one nature did not turn into another, but only united with it.

Conversations on the Epistle to the Philippians.

St. Gregory of Nyssa

He, being the image of God

Paul did not say "having an image like God", as it is said about [a man] created in the likeness of God - but: being by ourselves image of God. For all that belongs to the Father is in the Son.

Refutation of Appolinarius.

Being the image of God means nothing more than an image hypostases of the Father(Heb. 1:3) ; image same God's absolutely identical to essence. Like Coming in as a slave(Phil. 2:7) imagined himself in the essence of a servant, taking on himself not only an image that was not connected with the essence, but also an essence implied by the image, so also Paul, who said that He was in the image of God, pointed to the essence by means of an image.

Against Eunomius.

St. Athanasius the Great

Art. 6-9 He, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; but he humbled himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man; He humbled Himself, being obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God highly exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name

What could be clearer and more convincing than this? He did not begin from a lower degree, but became more perfect, but on the contrary, being God, he accepted "ghost of a slave" and was not perfected by this acceptance, but "Humbled Himself". So where is the reward for virtue in this? Or what progress and perfection in humiliation? If He, this God, became a man, and it is said of Him who descended from on high that He ascends, then where does God ascend? Since God is the Most High, it is clear again that the Word of this God must also be the Most High. Wherefore, how much more can He ascend who is like the Father in the Father and in everything? Therefore, He does not need any addition and is not such as the Arians suppose Him to be. For if the Word descended for His own exaltation, and such is the meaning of Scripture, then what was the need to humble Himself in order to seek acceptance of what the Word already had? And what kind of grace did the Giver of grace receive? Or how he received the venerable name, who was always worshiped in His name. And before becoming a man, the saints call: "God, save me in your name"(Psalm 53, 3), and more “These are in chariots, and these are on horses: but we will be exalted in the name of the Lord our God”(Psalm 19, 6, 8). This is how the patriarchs worshiped Him, and it is written about angels: "and let all the angels of God worship him"(Heb. 1:6).

If, however, as David sings in the seventy-first psalm, His name remains before the sun and before the moon throughout the generations of generations (Psalm 72:5), then how did he receive what he always had, even before he received it now? Or how is He lifted up, when He is the Most High, before He was lifted up? Or how did He accept veneration even before He accepts it now, always venerable?

This is not a hidden word, but God's mystery. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word”(John 1:1). But for us later "The Word was flesh"(John 1, 14). And now what's been said "exalted"- does not mean that the essence of the Word is exalted, because it has always been and is equal to God. On the contrary, it is the ascension of humanity. Not before it was said, but when already "The Word was flesh" to make it clear that the words "humbled" And "exalted" affect human nature. For what is characteristic of humility can also be exalted. And if, as a result of taking on the flesh, it is written "humbled", it is clear that the word refers to the flesh "exalted". In this, man also had a need for the humility of the flesh and death. Inasmuch as the Word, being in the image of the Father and immortal, took on the form of a servant, and for our sake, as a man in His flesh, suffered death, so that in this way for us through death to bring Himself to the Father, then it is said of Him that for us and for us He was exalted as a man, so that as by his death we all die in Christ, so in Christ Himself we may again be exalted, being raised up from the dead and entering into heaven, "Where the forerunner of us is Jesus"(Heb. 6:20) “not in the opposite of the true, but in heaven itself, now let it appear to the face of God for us”(Heb. 9:24). But if now Christ has entered into heaven itself for us, even though before that He is forever the Lord and Builder of heaven, then it is written that today He was lifted up for us. And how is he, "holy" of all, he again says to the Father that he sanctifies himself for us (John 17:19), not in order that the Word might become holy, but that he might sanctify us all in himself, so understand what is said now "exalt him": You exalted not in order that He might be exalted (for He is the Most High), but that He might become righteousness for us, and that we might be exalted in Him and enter into the heavenly gates, which He again opened for us at the pronouncement of the previous ones: “Lift up your gates, your princes, and lift up your eternal gates, and the King of glory will enter”(Psalm 23:9). For even here the gates were closed not to Him, the Lord and Creator of all things, but it was written for our sake, by which the heavenly door was closed. Wherefore, as according to humanity, because of the flesh which He bore upon Himself, it is said of Him "take the gate", and how about the incoming person "will enter", so again according to the Divinity, because the Word is God, it is said about Him: "He is the Lord and King of glory". About the same ascension taking place in us, the Spirit foreshadowed, in the eighty-eighth psalm, saying: "and in thy righteousness they shall be lifted up: thou art the praise of their strength"(Psalm 88, 17, 18). If the Son is righteousness, then He does not need to be lifted up, but we are lifted up in righteousness, that is, by Him.

And this: "Gift to Him" It was not written for the sake of the Word Himself, because again, before It was made by man, both the angels and the whole creation worshiped Him, as it is said, according to the unity of properties with the Father, but this again was written for us and for us. Just as Christ died and was exalted as a man, so it is said of Him as of a man that He accepts what He always had as God, so that such bestowed grace may also be extended to us. For the Word, having taken on a body, did not stoop to the point of needing to receive grace, but rather deified even that in which it was clothed, and bestowed this upon the human race to a greater extent. As being the Word and in the image of God, the Son is always worshiped, so He also became a man and was called Jesus, but, nevertheless, all creation is under His feet and in this name kneels before Him and confesses that the Word became flesh and suffered death in the flesh, but this did not happen to the dishonor of the Godhead, but in "glory to God the Father"(Phil. 2, 11). And the glory of the Father is that man, who was created and perished, was found, the dead man was given life and became God's temple. Inasmuch as the heavenly powers, angels and archangels, as always worship Him, so now they worship the Lord in the name of Jesus, then this grace belongs to us and this exaltation is ours, that the Son of God, and having become a man, we adore, and the heavenly Powers will not be surprised, seeing, like all of us "His stewards"(Eph. 3, 6), we enter into their area. But this would not have happened otherwise, if "the image of God Sy" accepted "ghost of a slave", and not "Humbled Himself" allowing the body to accept even death.

The Savior Himself "Humbled Himself" by accepting our humble body. He perceived "ghost of a slave" put on the flesh, enslaved by sin. And although He Himself did not receive anything from us that serves to perfection (because the Word of God has no need for anything), nevertheless, through Him we have been made all the more perfect, because He is "a light ... that enlightens every man who comes into the world"(John 1:9). And in vain do the Arians rely on this word "same" when Paul says: “the same God highly exalted him”. For the apostle did not say this to indicate the reward for virtue and perfection in His progress, but shows the reason for our perfect ascension. What does this mean? Is it not that in the image of God this Son of the high Father humbled himself, and instead of us and for us became a slave? For if the Lord had not become a man, we would not have been delivered from sins and would not have risen from the dead, but would have remained dead under the earth, would not have been taken up to heaven, but would have remained lying in hell. Therefore, for us and for us it is said: "exalted" And "gift".

Therefore, I believe that such a meaning of the saying is the most ecclesiastical. However, another may look for another meaning in this saying, explaining it in the reverse way, namely: it is not indicated by this that the Word Itself ascends, since It is the Word, because, as was said a little earlier, It is the Highest and like the Father, but this saying, because of His humanity, points to the Resurrection from the dead. Wherefore the apostle said: humbled himself even unto death, immediately added: "the same highly exalted", desiring to show that if, as a man, He is said to be dead, then as life, He is exalted by the Resurrection. For "descended, that is" and resurrected (Eph. 4:10), He came down bodily, and rose again, because God was in the body. And therefore, he himself again added in the same sense the word "same" not a reward for virtue or success, but the reason for which the Resurrection took place and for which, when all people from Adam until now died and remained dead, He alone rose unharmed from the dead. The reason for this, as He Himself said before, is that He is God and became man. All other people, descending only from Adam, died, and death reigned over them (Rom. 5, 14). And this second man is from heaven, because "The Word was flesh". And it is said of such a Man that He is from Heaven and is Heavenly, because the Word descended from Heaven, and therefore does not possess death. For although He humbled Himself, allowing His own body to accept even death, because it was accessible to death, nevertheless, He was exalted from the earth, because the Son of God Himself was in the body. Therefore, what is said here: “the same God highly exalted him” equal to what Peter said in Acts: “God resurrect him, resolving mortal illnesses, as if I didn’t powerfully keep Him from her”(Acts 2:24). For as it is written by Paul "in the image of God Sy" become human and “He humbled Himself even unto death… even so God exalted Him” so Peter says: because he is God and became man, but signs and wonders showed everyone who sees that he is God, then for this very reason “I do not powerfully hold Him to be”(Acts 2:24) in death. But it was impossible for a person to reach such perfection, because death is characteristic of a person. Wherefore the Word, being God, became flesh, that, having died the flesh, by His power to give life to all.

Since it is said that He ascends, and that "God is a gift to Him", and heretics consider it a defect or a suffering condition for the essence of the Word, it is necessary to say why this is also said. He speaks to those who ascend "from the lowest countries of the earth"(Ephesians 4:9), because even death is manifested by His death. Both are said of Him, because to Him, and not to another, belonged the body that was raised from the dead and taken to heaven. And again, since the body belongs to Him, and the Word Itself is not outside the body, it is rightly said that with the body that is lifted up, He Himself as a man is lifted up because of the body. Therefore, if He did not become a man, then let it not be said about Him. And if "The Word was flesh", then it is necessary that both the Resurrection and the ascension be said about Him as a man, so that just as the death said about Him was the atonement of human sins and the destruction of death, so the Resurrection and the ascension that are said about Him through Him would also be reliable for us. In both respects the apostle said: "God exalt him", And "God is a gift to Him" in order to show by this also that it is not the Father who became flesh, but that His Word became man, and He is human, as it is said, and receives from the Father, and is exalted by Him. Obviously, no one can doubt that if the Father gives something, then he gives it through the Son. Surprisingly and truly, it can lead to astonishment that the Son Himself is said to those who receive the grace that He gives from the Father, and by the same ascension that the Son accomplishes through the Father, the Son Himself, as it were, ascends. For the same one who is the Son of God has also become a son of man. And as the Word He gives what is from the Father, because everything that the Father creates and gives, creates and communicates through Him, but as the son of man, He speaks according to - humanly accepting what is from Him, because the body does not belong to another , but He, and the body, as said, tends to receive grace. For he received a man at his ascension, and his ascension was his deification. The Word itself has always had this according to its Father's divinity and perfection.

In Arians, the first word.

St. Cyril of Alexandria

The blessed Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians says of the Son: “who in the image of God is not equal to God by the admiration of the undead”(Phil. 2:6). Who, then, is the One who did not want to consider it theft - to be equal to God? Is it not necessary to say that there is One Certain One Who "in the image of God", and the other again the One of whom was the image? This is obvious to everyone and recognized by everyone. Thus, the Father and the Son are not one and identical in number, but they co-exist separately and are contemplated in each other, according to the identity of essence, although One of One, that is, of the Father, the Son.

Commentary on the Gospel of John. Book I

St. Epiphanius of Cyprus

He, being the image of God

If he became a slave and was not truly Lord, how could the apostle say that [Jesus Christ], being the image of God, took the form of a slave?

Ankorat.

St. Theophan the Recluse

Who is in the image of God,

Who is our Lord Jesus Christ? By nature, God, who reduced Himself to the point of assuming human nature, so that in appearance He was like any other person. The present text speaks of His Divinity, the next - of incarnation.

Who is in the image of God. The image of God is not here in the sense that in man there is the image of God - features similar to God; but in the fact that His very nature is Divine. Every kind of being has its own norm of being, according to which we immediately determine: a! this is who. Everyone knows the norm of a person, the norm of an animal, the norm of a tree; so that, just by looking, we immediately say: this is a man, this is a tree, this is an animal. In relation to this, there is, speaking humanly, its own norm of being in God. Whoever has this norm of Divine being, that God, just as whoever has the norm of human existence, that man, the Apostle says here about the Lord Savior that He is God according to the norm of being, — His being, being and nature is Divine.

Saint Chrysostom explains this by comparing the expression: in the image of God- with expression - ghost of a slave. Here the image of God is μορφη, there the image of a servant is also μορφη. But the image of a servant there signifies human nature, and therefore the image of God here signifies the divine nature. - Against Arius, he directs his speech like this: “Arius says that the Son has a different essence. But tell me what the words mean. ghost of a slave? That says that He became a man. Consequently: and in the image of God It means there was a God. For both here and there is the same word image. If the former is true, then so is the latter. To be in the form of a slave means to be a man by nature, and to be in the image of God means to be God by nature. Rather later, he again returns to the same thing and says: “I said that the image of a servant is true, and nothing less; so the image of God is perfect, and nothing less. Therefore the Apostle did not say: in the image of God former, but syy. This expression is equivalent to the words - Az am syi(cf. Ex. 3:14). The image, as an image (norm), shows a perfect resemblance. And it cannot be that someone has the essence of one being, and the image (norm) of another. For example, not a single person has the image (norm) of an Angel; no wordless has an image (norm) of a person. - So is the Son. - Only inasmuch as we are complex, then the image (norm) in us refers to the body (most), in the simple and completely uncomplicated it refers to the essence (intelligent, spiritual).

Not by the admiration of non-pishchev to be equal to God- did not consider it robbery to be equal to God - it was not by alien appropriation that He had Himself equal to God, ισα θεω - exactly, on the same line with God: but because His own nature and essence was Divine. Saint Chrysostom says: “His dignity to be equal to God was not stolen, but natural. Why did not the Apostle say: He did not take away, but: not with admiration; that is, he had power not stolen, but natural, not given, but permanently and inalienably belonging to Him. The heretics, as St. Chrysostom remarks, have distorted this place and convey its meaning in a wrong way. They see here the idea that, according to the Apostle, the Lord, being less than God, did not dare to put Himself on an equal footing with God. “They say: being a lesser God, He did not want to be equal to the great God, the highest. - So you introduce pagan teachings into church dogmas? The pagans have a great and a small God. Whether we have, I don't know. But you won't find it anywhere in Scripture. You will find the great everywhere, and the small nowhere. For if He is small, what kind of God is He? Who is small is not God. In Scripture, the true God is everywhere and is called the Great: Great is the Lord and highly praised(cf.: Ps. 47:2) and the like. - But they say: this is said about the Father, and the small Son (God). You say so, but Scripture is the opposite: it speaks of the Son as well as of the Father. Listen to what Paul says: waiting for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of the Great God(cf. Tit. 2:13). Is this about the Father? No way. This is not allowed by the words immediately added by the Apostle: Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. Here is the great Son. - Why do you talk about small and great? Know that the Prophet also calls Him angel of the great council. Is the angel of the great council not great? Is the mighty God (cf. Jer. 32:18) not great, but small? How then, after this, do the shameless and arrogant say that He is a little God? I often repeat their words; so that you may be more distant from them."

The Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Philippians, interpreted by St. Theophan.

Shmch. Methodius of Patara

He, being the image of God

Man created by image of God, also needed to be likeness[of God]. To fulfill this, the Word sent into the world first of all took on our image, stained with many sins, so that we, for the sake of which It accepted it, could again receive the divine image. For it is possible to be exactly in the likeness of God when, having imprinted the features of the human life [of the Son of God] in ourselves, as if on boards, like skillful painters, we preserve them, studying the path that He Himself opened. For this He, being God, deigned to put on human flesh, so that we, looking at His divine way of life, as if imprinted in a relief image, could imitate the One who drew it.

Feast of ten virgins.

Rev. Ephraim Sirin

Rev. Isidore Peluciot

He, being the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God

Not by the admiration of non-pishchev to be equal to God, writes the Divine Apostle to the Philippians, superstitious people, champions and keepers of pagan teachings, and, due to attachment to them, reluctantly accepting the gospel sermon. They were taught in paganism that their god, having become supreme, cut off the generative members of his father for fear that he would have other sons, accomplices in the royal power, who would appropriate the deity for themselves, and would cause many strife and battles for it. Therefore, they did not believe that the Son of God, leaving heaven and not fearing any change in dominion, came here and became incarnate.

Therefore, correcting this ignorance of theirs, or, rather, their unreason, the divine man and teacher of the inexpressible mysteries says: let this be wise in you: hedgehog and in Christ Jesus, who is in the image of God, not by the admiration of the undead to be equal to God, but he belittled Himself, I took the form of a servant, that is, he did not appropriate the Divinity and the kingdom for himself, but before the ages he had this unborn, and did not imagine that he could be deprived of this, but, as the Lord of the heavenly, and earthly, and underworld, and heavenly things, he did not leave, and came to us, descending even to hell, in order to be everywhere, everywhere to save everyone, on earth renewing both those who live and those who will live, and under the earth freeing those possessed by death from the dominion of death.

Letters. Book I

Rev. Maxim the Confessor

He, being the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God

Note that the incorporeal is formless. So when you hear about the Super-Essential " existing in the image of God understand that He is not different from the Father Himself. This is also shown by the expressions the image of the invisible god" (Col. 1:15) and " He who has seen me has seen the Father» (John 14:9) . So also St. Basil interprets in a word to his brother about the difference between essence and hypostasis.

These verses list the seven great downward steps that Jesus took from heavenly glory to his death on the cross:

· He humbled himself or lost his reputation). Literally, he devastated Himself. As Charles Wesley said in one of his hymns, "Christ emptied Himself of everything but love."

· He took the form of a slave. He was Lord of glory but He took a step down and became a servant.

· He became like a man. He became a member of the Adamic race, becoming a little less than the angels.

· He looked like a man. He looked like an ordinary man of His time. There was nothing that outwardly distinguished Him from the people among whom He lived.

· He humbled Himself. He was a humble person. He was not a priest or ruler, he was the son of a carpenter.

· He became obedient to death. His absolute obedience led Him to an atoning death for sinful humanity.

· He became obedient to the death of the criminal on the cross. The crucifixion was the retribution of torment for the worst people who committed the most heinous crimes.

These are the seven great steps down that the Lord Jesus made. But these great downward steps led to the seven great upward steps which are described in verses 9-11:

Therefore, God highly exalted Him and gave Him a name above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven, on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Here we have the seven ascending degrees of Jesus' exaltation:

· God highly exalted Him.

· God gave Him a name above every name.

· Every knee will bow before the name of Jesus…

· "Heavenly"- all created spirits that serve God in heaven.

· "Earthly"- this means that absolutely every creature on earth will submit to the authority of Christ.

· "Hells" is to refer to the satanic realms in hell. This includes death, hell, the grave, as well as the unrighteous death of those who previously rejected God's mercy.

· Every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ– Lord. The Lordship of Jesus will be proclaimed in every part of the universe.

In all this we are given the perfect example of Jesus. Paul encourages us followers of Jesus to humble ourselves:

Do nothing out of arrogance (literally, out of personal ambition) or out of vanity, but out of humility of mind consider one another superior to yourself. Not only take care of each one, but each one of others as well. For you must have the same feelings that were in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 2:3-5.)

Paul excludes two motivators: personal ambition and vanity. There is only one path to exaltation: self-humility. In Luke 14:11, Jesus states this principle very clearly: "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

This is an absolutely immutable principle. There are no exceptions here! The way up leads down. This is the greatest secret! As Proverbs 18:12 states, “Before honor comes humility.”

Turning again to the Epistle to the Philippians, we see a wonderful truth brought to light: Therefore and God highly exalted him (Jesus)” (2:9).

Word therefore leads me to believe that Jesus was exalted not because He was the beloved Son, but because He fulfilled the necessary requirements. He had to deserve Your elevation. We might assume that it was a matter of course that after the end of His suffering on the cross, He could return to His position of equality with God. But I believe He earned this right by humbling Himself. He deserved it not only for Himself, but for all who follow Him.

In response to this, you may feel prompted to pray, “Lord, I need humility. Please make me humble." However, surprisingly, God's answer is: “I can't do it. Only you can humble yourself."

Humility of oneself is a matter of will, not of emotions. It is a decision each of us made for ourselves: “Lord, I choose the path of humility before You. I reject pride, arrogance, and personal ambition before You and before the believers around me.”

Giving a practical example of how to humble yourself, Jesus spoke of the guests invited to the wedding feast:

“When you are called by someone for marriage, do not sit in the first place, so that one of those called by him is more honorable than you, and the one who called you and him, coming up, would not say to you: give him a place; and then in shame you will have to take the last place. But when you are called, when you come, sit down in the last place, so that the one who called you, coming up, would say: friend! sit up higher; then you will be honored before those who sit with you, for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 14:8-11.)

At this moment, each of us is faced with a choice - to make our own decision. I cannot make the decision for you, and you cannot make it for me. But, let me tell you, my decision has already been made.

And what about you?

Chapter 5

Adam's race.

Our origin.

God is facing a rebellion among angelic creations—beings of admirable beauty, strength, and intelligence.

How did God react? Did He produce even more wondrous celestial beings—creations even more beautiful, stronger, and more intelligent? Of course, He could do it if He only wanted to. But, in fact, He did something completely opposite. He went down, not up.

He created a new race from the lowest possible thing - from the dust of the earth. The name of the creature that He created was Adam. This name comes directly from the Hebrew word adamah, which means Earth. Adam's race is earthly race. However, scriptural revelation clearly states that God had a higher purpose for the Adamic race than for the angels.

It is important to realize that the creation of Adam and the Adamic race was part of God's response to the satanic rebellion. In a sense, this new race was meant to fulfill the purpose from which Satan had fallen, and to go even further than that. This is one main reason why Satan confronts our race with such intense hatred. He sees us as those who will replace him and enter into predestination that he could not achieve. What is this predestination?

To understand our predestination which we will explore in the next chapter, we must first understand our origin - how and why humanity was created. Both our origin and our destiny are revealed in the early chapters of the book of Genesis.

The first verse of Genesis says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Further, Genesis 1:26-27 describes the creation of man: “And God said, Let us make man in our image [and] in our likeness… And God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; He created them male and female." We need to compare this creation of man with a historical background that stretches over a vast period of time.

At the end of the century

God operates in accordance with the chronological system that He Himself produced. It is important to find the place where we are in accordance with God's chronology. Concerning the coming of Jesus to earth, we find in Hebrews 9:26: by the end of the century appeared to put away sin by His sacrifice." This indicates that the coming of Jesus to earth is the culmination of a program that God followed through the time period described as "the ages." In 1 Corinthians 10:11, Paul says that “all these things happened to them like images; but it is described as an instruction to us who have reached last (end) centuries. The New Testament Church apparently understood this to mean that it was the culmination of Divine intentions that had been initiated in the early ages.

These Scriptures indicate that the coming of Jesus and the formation of the Church are some of the ends that close the period described as "the ages." How do we interpret this concept? century? In Psalm 89:5, the psalmist turns to God and says, “For before your eyes a thousand years are like yesterday, when it has passed, and how guard in the night. In Biblical culture, the 12 hours were divided into three "watches" of 4 hours each. In other words, a thousand years corresponds to four hours. A day (24 hours) will correspond to 6 thousand years.

We then see that the events described in Genesis 1:2 et seq. are the culmination of God's activity extending back so long that our limited minds cannot comprehend it.

With this in mind, let's turn to the first verses of the book of Genesis. As we have seen, the first verse describes the initial act of creation, and the first part of the second verse describes the subsequent state of the earth: "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep."

In the third chapter of this book, I explained why I believe that "emptiness" was not the state of the earth immediately after its creation, but rather was the result of God's destructive judgment that was carried out on the pre-Adamian earth, possibly as a result of a rebellion. satan. This was the judgment upon the wickedness of the pre-Adamic race (or races) on earth, which had been led by Satan into rebellion and various forms of wickedness.

It becomes clear that the main instrument of judgment in this case was water. The earth became a devastated, formless, watery wasteland, and darkness was over the surface of the waters. Then, the second part of verse 2 says, "and the Spirit of God hovered (soared, almost like a bird) over the waters."

Highlighted: water and darkness. From Genesis 1:3 (“Let there be light”) onwards to Genesis 2:7 (“And God created man”), the focus is not on the original creation, but essentially on the restoration. In most cases, the material is already present. All that is needed is rebuilding and restoration. I'm not saying that there was no creativity this time, but the original creation was not the main event.

Apart from this process of re-creation that filled the earth with sea creatures and other living beings, we must not miss that creative process in us as Christians. In 2 Corinthians 5:17 Paul says, “Therefore, whoever is in Christ new creature (creation); the old has passed away, now everything is new.”

In a sense, this new creation in Christ is an act recovery. When I come to Christ as a sinner, my whole personality is not erased. God does not bring something completely new into the world, but He puts into action those forces that will restore me, renew me, and eventually produce something completely new from me. Therefore, the act of re-creation described in Genesis 1 and 2 is exactly the same as and applicable to the new creation in Christ. That's one reason why Scripture describes it in some detail.

Some aspects of creation in Genesis 1:2 are repeated in the restoration of the sinner when he comes to Christ. The "world" (or "earth" as described in Genesis 1:2) was a formless mass. Similarly, when we come to Jesus Christ as sinners, we may or may not be aware of it, but we too are in a formless state. Not only are we formless, but like the earth in Genesis 1:2, we are also in darkness. As long as we are in darkness, we cannot see things as they really are. Such was the state of the earth, but it is also the state of each individual sinner.

There are two great channels of restoration in the new creation. In Genesis 1:2, Spirit God "floated". In Genesis 1:3 God spoke, and His Word out. When the Word and the Spirit of God come together, creation and re-creation takes place. What happens when a sinner comes to repentance? The Spirit of God begins to move in the heart of this sinner, and he receives the preached Word of God. By the Spirit and the Word, the process of restoration (or creation again) in Christ is set in motion.

The first thing produced by the combined action of the Spirit and the Word was light. From that moment on, God worked already in the light. The first thing that happens when a sinner comes to Christ is that he begins to see things—and himself—as they are. From that moment God begins to work in his life in the light.

Then follows the process of separation and purification, separation (calling) and reproduction. Many different areas operate progressively. Sometimes we reach a point where we think, “Now I'm really done. God has already dealt with everything.” And right at this moment, by the Spirit of God, a new area of ​​our life is manifested and brought to light, and then He patiently begins to understand this area.

The way God worked in restoration is described in Genesis 1. He worked in stages. The first is water, then earth, then vegetation, fish, birds, then animals, and so on. In the end, He came to the culmination of the creative process: the creation of man.

First, let me say that this creation of man gives us the following marvelous revelation about God: There is a plurality in God: “And God said: let's create man in the image Our[and] in likeness Our” (Genesis 1:26).

I have already noted that the word God (Elohim) plural. This is consistent with the figures of speech that God uses here when speaking of Himself: Let's create man in the image Our". Some people say that this is only a form of royal address when crowned heads refer to themselves in the plural, but this is refuted by what follows next, when God speaks of the fall of man: “And the Lord God said: Behold, Adam became as one of us knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:22).

God is in the plural, at the same time He one. Hebrew word one used here and applied to God is echad. It means unity between components. In Genesis 2:24 the same word echad used again: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and there will be [two] one ( echad) flesh.

The word used here echad, is not a word meaning absolute indivisible integrity, there is another word for this - yahid. The Hebrew word used in this verse is echad applied to marriage. It describes the uniqueness that results from the combination of two different people. In the Biblical revelation of God, however, there are not two, but three united Persons producing oneness. Not an absolute uniqueness, but a uniqueness in which there is also a plurality.

Some people object to the concept of the Trinity of God, but I see it explicitly revealed in Scripture. I believe in God the Father, I believe in God the Son and I believe in God the Holy Spirit. And more importantly, I not only believe in Them, but I know Each of Them through direct, personal experience. I know what it means to have a relationship with the Father; I know what a relationship with the Son is; and I know what it's like to have a relationship with the Holy Spirit.

Looking like a human

He, being the image of God,

did not consider it robbery to be equal to God;

but humbled himself, taking the form of a servant,

becoming like a person….

Philippians 2:6–7

These days, believers around the world are preparing to celebrate the Nativity of Christ. Birth

Jesus is one of the greatest miracles in the world because Almighty God Himself left the glory

heaven and came to earth in the form of a man. It is truly amazing and amazing that God

for a time left His divinity and came to us on earth as a man. This is what

happened at the time of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

Paul writes: “He, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; but

humbled himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men…”

(Philippians 2:6-7).

Paul begins by defining who Jesus was before coming to earth, saying, “He,

being in the image of God." The word huparcho - "to be", consists of the words hupo - from and arche -

beginning, beginning, beginning. The word huparcho means to always exist. I.e

Jesus has always existed. He Himself said, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John

8:58). Our verse can be translated like this: "He who has ever existed in the image of God...".

In other words, the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem was not the beginning of His existence, but only

His incarnation in man, a short appearance on earth in His eternal existence.

The word morphe - "image", describes the external image, and this means that before the incarnation He

was God. He was not an integral part of God, was not a symbol of God, He Himself is God.

And as the eternal God He was surrounded by the radiance of glory, majesty, and in His presence could not

not a single person survive. He dwelt in a glory so magnificent that the human

reason cannot imagine it, and such one has a power before which no man

can resist. However, He desired to come to earth and redeem mankind. And he has no

there was no other choice but to take the form that a person could endure.

Therefore, He “made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of

people.." Here is the real story of Christmas.

Kenos - "humiliated", also means empty, annulled, deprived, rejected,

devastated. Since God could not appear before people as God, He had to

change your appearance. And the only way He could appear before

people, is of good will and for a short time to put aside everything that we usually

imagine when we think of God. For thirty-three years God separated Himself from heaven

glory and "took the form of a slave." The word "accepted" well describes that amazing moment,

when the Lord took on human flesh to appear on earth as a man.

The Greek word lambano - "to take", is translated as taking, grabbing, catching,

embrace. This word lets us know that God has literally come out of His eternal

existence, entered the material world, which He