ACC ~ Philippians 2 v7c

REJECTED INTERPRETATIONS. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: If we take him simply and solely to be a man made from a woman, how could he be said to be in the form equal to the Father? If only a man, how could he have the fullness that would make sense of his being emptied? What height could he have occupied before that he might be said to have “humbled himself?” How did he “come to be in the likeness of men” if he was already so by nature? CHOLIUM 12 ON THE INCARNATION OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN.

THE MANHOOD EXPRESSES NOT A CHANGE IN GOD HIMSELF BUT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DIVINE ECONOMY OF HIS REVELATION. HILARY OF POITIERS: Note well the breathtaking economy by which the Son assumed flesh: Through the obedience of the one who was in the form of God [and] was emptying himself of the form of God, [he] was born as a man. In doing so, he took a new nature upon himself! This occurred not by a loss of his power and nature but by an assumption of a new condition. … Though he retained the power of his nature as God, he was in much of his earthly ministry temporarily relinquishing his exercise of the power of his nature as God as he walked as a man. The effect of this economy of order was this: The Son in his entirety, namely, as both man and God, was now, through the indulgence of the Father’s will, in union with the nature of the Father. This is what occurred to God the Son: that he became a man. ON THE TRINITY 9.38.

Phil