ACC ~ Philippians 2 v6a

PROOF OF HIS FULL DIVINITY AS THE FORM OF GOD. NOVATIAN: If Christ were only a man, he would have been said to have been “in the image of God,” not “in the form of God.” We know that humanity was made in the image, not the form, of God. ON THE TRINITY 22.2.

COUNTERING THE NEO-ARIANS. GREGORY OF NYSSA: He did not say “having a nature like that of God,” as would be said of [a man] who was made in the image of God. Rather Paul says “being in the very form of God.” All that is the Father’s is in the Son. ANTIRRHETICUS AGAINST APOLLINARIUS.

CHRIST IS THE FORM OF GOD. MARIUS VICTORINUS: God is the very principle of life. God is being itself. God contains life as a principle of life and so also understanding. But life and understanding are in a sense the form and image of what exists. What most truly exists is God. God is being itself, as many agree, and more so that which is above existence. The form of existence is motion, understanding and life. … Christ is said to be “the form of God” because Christ is life, consciousness and understanding. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6-8.

THE FORM OF GOD IS HIS ESSENCE. GREGORY OF NYSSA: The form of God is absolutely the same as the essence. Yet when he came to be in “the form of a slave,” he took form in the essence of the slave, not assuming a naked form for himself. Yet he is not thereby divorced from his essence as God. Undoubtedly when Paul said that he was “in the form of God,” he was indicating the essence along with the form. AGAINST EUNOMIUS 3.2.147.

BEFORE HE EMPTIED HIMSELF. ORIGEN: First one may contemplate him existing in his primary form, that of God, before he emptied himself. One will then see the Son of God not yet having come forth from him, the [incarnate] Lord not yet having proceeded from his place. But then compare the preexistent state of the Son with that which resulted from his assuming “the form of a slave” when he “emptied himself.” You will then understand how the Son of God came forth and came to us and as it were became distinguishable from the One who sent him. Yet in another way the Father did not simply let him go but is with him and is in the Son as the Son is in the Father. COMMENTARY ON JOHN 20.18.

BEING GOD HE TOOK THE FORM OF A SLAVE. ATHANASIUS: What clearer and more decisive proof could there be than this? He did not become better from assuming a lower state but rather, “being God, he took the form of a slave.” … If [as the Arians think] it was for the sake of this exaltation that the Word came down and that this is written, what need would there be for him to humble himself completely in order to seek what he already had? AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.40.

HE WAS NOT SLAVE BEFORE HE WAS LORD. EPIPHANIUS: Suppose that when he became a slave he ceased being truly Lord. How then could it be said that in his coming the one who was “in the form of God took the form of a slave”? ANCORATUS 28.

SUPPOSE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE OPPOSITE, THAT THE FORM OF GOD IS NOT THE BEING OF GOD. THEODORET: But if [the Arians] think the “form of God” is not the being of God, let them be asked what they think is the “form of a slave.” … If the form of a slave is the being of a slave, then the form of God is God. … Furthermore, let us recognize also that the apostle uses the example of Christ as a lesson in humility. … If the Son was not equal to the Father but inferior, he did not obey in humility—he merely fulfilled his station. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6.

WHETHER HE EXISTED BEFORE MARY. CHRYSOSTOM: How can the wretched [Sabellius] say that Christ’s existence began from Mary? This implies that before this he did not exist. But Paul says that “being the form of God he took the form of a slave.” … The form of a slave is truly a slave and nothing less. So too the form of God is truly God and nothing less. Paul did not write that he was in process of coming to be in the form of God; rather “being in the form of God,” hence truly divine. This is as much as to say “I am that I am.” HOMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 7.2.5-8.

THE FORM OF GOD IS NOTHING LESS THAN GOD. AMBROSIASTER: When he dwelt among humans, he appeared as God by his acts and works. “For the form of God” differs in nothing from God. Indeed, the reason for his being called the form and image of God is to make it apparent that he himself, though distinguishable from God the Father, is everything that God is. … His works revealed his form. Since his works were not those of a human, he whose work or form was that of God was perceived to be God. For what is “the form of God?” Is it not shown by the evidences given of his divinity—by his raising of the dead, his restoration of hearing to the deaf, his cleansing of lepers? PISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6-2.8.5.

DISTINGUISHING SON OF MAN AND SON OF GOD. EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA: [Paul] acknowledged Christ and no other to be the Son of God. The flesh that Christ assumed was called “the form of a slave” and “son of man.” But as to that birth which, unknown to all, was from the Father and before all ages, he was Son of God. ON THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH 1.2.

THE TRUE GREATNESS OF CHRIST. LUCIFER OF CAGLIARI: It was he who was and is and always shall be in the form of the Father, the true Son, immutable and unchangeable because he is God and the all-powerful Son of the Almighty, who nonetheless deigned to lower himself for our salvation, so that he might cause us to rise even as we lay prostrate. ON DYING FOR THE SON OF GOD 12.

THE NEED TO RECEIVE THE LIKENESS. METHODIUS: Being in the image of God, [humanity] still needed to receive the likeness.The Word, having been sent into the world to perfect this, first of all took on our own form, even though in history it has been stained by many sins, so that we for our part, on whose account he bore it, should be once again capable of partaking in his divine nature. Hence it is now possible for us to receive God’s likeness. Think of a skilled painter painting a likeness of himself on a surface. So we may now imitate the same characteristics that God himself has displayed in his becoming a human being. We hold these characteristics before us as we go in discipleship along the path he set out. His purpose in consenting to put on human flesh when he was God was this: that we, upon seeing the divine image in this tablet, so to speak, might imitate this incomparable artist. SYMPOSIUM 1.4.24.

Phil