ACC ~ Philippians 2 v7d

NOT FROM THE BEGINNING INVESTED WITH THAT LIKENESS. GREGORY OF NYSSA: He says of the Son that he has “come to be in the likeness and form of men.” If he “came to be” in this likeness, this obviously implies that he was not invested with it from the beginning. Before coming to be in that likeness he was not fashioned according to some corporeal pattern. For no embodied form could become the pattern for what is previously not embodied. ANTIRRHETICUS AGAINST APOLLINARIUS.

IN HUMAN LIKENESS. CHRYSOSTOM: What does it mean to be “in a human likeness”? Does it mean that his appearance was merely a fantasy? This would be something merely similar to a human and not made in the “likeness of a man.” For to be made in “the likeness of a man” is to be a man. … So what does it mean, “in a human likeness”? With few exceptions he had all our common human properties. The exceptions: He was not born from sexual intercourse. He committed no sin. These properties he had which no human being has. He was not only human, which is what he appeared to be, but also God. … We are soul and body, but he is God, soul and body. For this reason Paul says “in the form”—and so that when you hear of his emptying you may not suppose that he underwent change, degradation and some sort of annihilation of his divinity. Rather remaining what he was he assumed what he was not. Becoming flesh, he remained the Word of God. So it is in this respect that he is “in the likeness of men,” and for this reason he says “and in form.” His nature was not degraded, nor was there any confusion [of the two natures], but he entered a form. OMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 8.2.5-11.

NOT A PHANTOM. MARIUS VICTORINUS: It is not as though Paul was in the slightest uncertain about Christ’s identity that he said Christ was “found in human likeness.” He did not say “in human likeness” as though our Lord maybe was not truly a man but a phantom. Rather he was found in human likeness while still being God yet at the same time being truly a man in the flesh, with a physical human body that he had assumed. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6-8.

NOT A MAN ONLY, THOUGH HE APPEARED TO BE. THEODORET: He says of the divine Word that, being God, he was not seen to be God but wore a human appearance. Yet the words “in the likeness of men” are appropriate to him, for the nature that he assumed was truly human, and yet he was not [merely] a man, though he at first glance appeared to be only a man. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 2.6-7.

THE METAPHOR OF CLOTHING INADEQUATE. AUGUSTINE: He did not take on his humanity in the simple way that a person puts on clothes, as something exterior to him. Rather he took on human form in a manner inexpressibly more excellent and more intimate than that. The apostle has made it sufficiently clear what he meant “He was made to appear in human likeness.” He was not exhaustively reduced to being a man. He rather assumed the true human estate when he put on the man. ON DIVERSE QUESTIONS 73.

NOT ONE OF MANY. CHRYSOSTOM: He carefully uses the phrase “in human likeness.” For Christ was not one of the many but as one of the many. God the Word did not degenerate into a man. His essence as God did not change. Rather he appeared like a man, not deluding us with a phantom but instructing us in humility. HOMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 8.2.5-11.

Phil