Chapter XIV: The distinction between the states of emptying and of exaltation 298 arises from the use of the properties
CHAPTER XIV: ON THE STATES OF EMPTYING AND EXALTATION
On the state of emptying.
§ 293. Thesis I: According to the definition of the apostle (Phil. 2:7–8), the emptying is the humble obedience or subjection of Jesus Christ, the God-man, in the form of a servant all the way to the death of the cross.
We said earlier [§ 270] that the communication should be distinguished from the use of what has been communicated. The communication of the divine properties occurred at the first moment of the incarnation, but Christ put off the full use of them until His ascension into heaven and His placement at the right hand of God. From that flows the distinction between the state of emptying [ status exinanitionis] and the state of exaltation [ exaltationis].
The emptying of Christ is taken (1) in the ecclesiastical sense and (2) in the biblical sense. Ecclesiastically, that is, according to the pen of the teachers of the Church, it is taken for the merciful inclining by which the Word bent down to have mercy on us and to help us and that He deigned to come down from heaven and assume the human nature. This “emptying,” so-called improperly [or broadly] and in the ecclesiastical sense, is called “the humiliation of the incarnation.” It is also taken relatively, in such a way that the Son of God is said to have humbled Himself with the inclining of pity (John 1:14; 3:13; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:16).
This must be explained in a manner fitting for God, regarding a giving from the noncorporeal majesty to the baseness of a body. Justin, Εκθ. 
., p. 299: “It was not a descent of a body but the willing of divine working.” Athanasius, Contra gregal. Sabell., vol. 1, p. 516: “When the majesty and magnificence in God Most High is given a name, that which is contrary to it is called with an earthly, humble name and is said to be on earth. You will very easily discover that the descent of the Word is an inclining (
) from noncorporeal majesty to the baseness of a body.” Leo, De nativ., sermon 7: “The Word of God, God the Son of God, bent down to receive our humility without diminishing His majesty in such a way that He remained what He was, assumed what He was not, united the true form of a servant with that form in which He was equal to God the Father, and fit the two natures together by such a covenant that glorification would not consume the inferior and assumption not diminish the superior.” Damascenus, Orth. fid., bk. 3, ch. 1, toward the end: “By the goodwill of God the Father, the only-begotten Son and Word of God and God, etc., existing in the form of God, bent the heavens and came down, that is, He humbled the nonhumbled loftiness without humiliation, with an ineffable and incomprehensible condescension” (for this is what “descent” signifies), “and being perfect God, He became perfect man.” Here, however, we are not speaking about this “emptying” in the improper and ecclesiastical sense.
§ 294. In the biblical sense, or according to the apostle’s pen in Philippians 2[:7], “emptying” is taken properly [or narrowly] for the actual 
of Jesus Christ or of the Word Incarnate. This emptying is described in Philippians 2 as in its proper seat [ sedes]; therefore we shall set forth an analysis of that passage.
The apostle’s aim is to exhort the Philippians and all the faithful to humility (v. 3), after the example of Christ (v. 5), who, “though being in the form of God” (v. [6]), “humbled Himself” (v. 8), “because of which God has highly exalted Him” (v. 9). The apostle requires this disposition and sentiment in all believers who should walk in the footsteps of Christ, their master, so that they themselves may be exalted in their own time after they have humbled themselves under the mighty hand of God (1 Pet. 5:6).
The subject of the apostle’s proposition is Christ Jesus ([Phil. 2:]5), by which name many of the Calvinists and Papists understand the nonincarnate Word, so that in this way they understand that the incarnation of the Son is being described here and that this is being indicated by “took the form of a servant,” as is clear from Beza (Resp. ad acta colloq., part 1, p. 138) and from Bellarmine (De Christi anim., bk. 1, ch. 6).
Against this opinion we set forth: (1) The apostle’s aim. It is his aim to exhort the Philippians to humility as they look at Christ’s example. Therefore he is giving them an example of the present, not the future time. He sets before them for imitation Christ’s example as a rule of life. Therefore he is considering the deeds of Christ that they have seen, among which the incarnation is not included. The apostle orders the Philippians to imitate Christ in a way in which they were not yet like Him but could and should become like Him. Yet they were already true human beings previously, though puffed up and arrogant. Therefore he commands them to imitate Christ and be eager for humility, but regarding the incarnation, no one can become like the Son of God.
(2) A circumlocution of the subject. The apostle calls Him who emptied Himself “Jesus Christ.” Both words befit Him after His incarnation, for Jesus is our Savior according to both natures (Matt. 1:21), and His anointing, by reason of which He is called “Christ,” happened to Him according to His human nature (Dan. 9:24). The Son of God, or the Word, is said to become incarnate in the proper sense; however, Jesus Christ, the God-man, is not said to become incarnate in the proper sense because He is already man.
(3) A consideration of the predicate. It is said about Christ Jesus that “He was in the form of God” ([Phil 2:]6). It is evident, however, that the nonincarnate Word was not so much in the form of God as He was that very form of God (Heb. 1:3). To Christ is ascribed here an “emptying” (v. 7). But “emptying,” properly speaking, cannot be applied to the nonincarnate Word and simple deity, because He is unchangeable and invariable. To Christ is ascribed here “humiliation” (v. 8). But “humiliation,” properly speaking, cannot be ascribed to the simple deity, for it introduces a changeability of the humbled nature. To Christ is attributed here that “He was found in fashion [
] as a man and became obedient to the Father even unto death” (v. 8). But neither form nor death belong to the nonincarnate Word. To Christ is attributed here the sort of emptying and humiliation that was later removed through His exaltation (v. 9). But incarnation—that is, the human nature—was not removed through the exaltation. According to whichever nature exaltation befits Christ, according to that nature emptying also befits Him, as the apostle’s contrast shows (vv. 8–9). But now, exaltation does not belong to the simple deity of the Word. Therefore neither does emptying. Consequently, the apostle is not speaking here about the nonincarnate Word and His incarnation.
(4) The interpretation of the fathers, about which we shall say more later.
(5) The support of our adversaries. Piscator (schol.) is correct in claiming: “This passage, speaking properly and precisely, must be explained as a reference not to the incarnation of the Son of God but to the humiliation of the Incarnate One.”
Up to now we have been discussing the subject.
§ 295. In the predicate three things are explained about Christ: (1) Of what quality He was able to be. (2) Of what quality He wished to be. (3) Of what quality the heavenly Father made Him. To the first part pertains this predicate: he says that Christ “was in the form of God (
).” The Jesuits and Calvinists both explain this phrase thus: “He is by nature God.” However, one must note that though the “form of God” is not plural in its subject and in actuality but is one, still it is considered in two ways. For it can be considered either in itself as in ownership and with regard to its essence, according as it is possessed, or with respect to creatures as in use and with regard to authority, according as it advances outward by its workings and presents itself to be seen by the human senses. In this place we deny that this expression primarily and properly signifies the divine essence and nature considered in itself and absolutely according to its being [
], but we say that it means “divine status” or the divine condition, namely, divine glory and majesty. We confirm this with the following arguments.
(1) A form and that which is in a form are distinct, because the same thing cannot be said to be within itself. But now, the Son of God according to His deity is the very form of God, the image and mark of the deity (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). According to His deity, then, it cannot be said that He is in the form of God. Therefore to be in the form of God absolutely and simply is not to be God by nature but to behave as God, to declare Himself as God, to exercise His divine majesty by doing divine works.
** In his commentary on this passage, Calvin favors our explanation. Danaeus (Contra Chemnic., q. 1355) distinguishes “form” from “essence,” and Zanchi approves of this. **
(2) If the phrase “to be in the form of God” were to mean exactly the same thing as “to be God by nature,” the consequence will be that the Father and the Holy Spirit could also be said to be in the form of God, but up to this time this has not been done in the Church.
(3) In whatever way “form of a servant” is taken in the apostle’s text, in that way “form of God” must also be taken, as the contrast shows. But now, “form of a servant” cannot be taken as a reference to the human nature and essence, both because Christ is not by nature a servant and because in His exaltation Christ put aside the form of a servant but did not put aside His human nature. Luther urges this argument strongly in his Post. eccles.
(4) Here the form of God is understood to be such that people could see it, and John writes about it: “We have seen His glory” (1:14). This is clear from the aim [of Philippians 2], because Paul urges us to humility with Christ’s example, from whom an example of imitation cannot be taken in things we neither know nor see. But now, the divine nature and essence in itself cannot be seen with human eyes (John 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16). Rather, we see it only in the works in which it exerts itself through its power and majesty.
(5) The apostle is speaking about the form of God according as it befits Christ in the manner of being inherent [ 
], not essentially, for he says “being in [
] the form of God.” Yet in this sense it can only be referred to Christ’s human nature, which He assumed into the existence [
] or hypostasis of the Word.
(6) From the connection of the text it is apparent that the apostle uses these three words—“form” [
], “likeness” [
], and “fashion” [
]—to signify one and the same thing. But now, “likeness” and “fashion” pertain not to the essence but to the external1 status of the human nature. Therefore the word “form” also does not denote the divine nature and essence but the divine status and condition.
(7) That meaning of “form,” when it is taken as the substantial form or nature and essence of a thing, is known to and used by philosophers alone.
** Piscator, Anal.: “I do not think that the apostle takes ‘form of God’ to mean the divine nature, as Aristotle in his philosophy takes the word ‘form’ to mean the nature and essence of a thing. It is not probable that the apostle is using this word in that sense that was known by philosophers alone but was unknown to the people. Next, it is apparent from the connection of the statement that the apostle means one and the same thing with the three words ‘form,’ ‘likeness,’ and ‘fashion.’ “ **
(8) The fathers and the more recent theologians explain it in the same way. In his commentary on Philippians, p. 367, Ambrose explains “form” as “the might, power, divine operation that proved that Christ is God.” He says:
He was in the form of God because, though He appeared to be a man, He was doing the works of God so that, in the things He accomplished, it would be apparent that He is God, who was only being considered as a man. His works were indicating His form so that, because His works are not the works of a man, He who was in the work or form of God might be understood to be God. After all, what is “the form of God” except the example by which God appears: when He raises the dead, makes the deaf hear, and cleanses the lepers?
Luther, vol. 1, Latin edition of Wittenberg, p. 69, Conc. de dupl. just.: “The ‘form of God’ here is not called ‘the substance of God,’ because Christ never emptied Himself of this, just as the ‘form of a servant’ cannot be called the human substance. Rather, the ‘form of God’ is wisdom, power, righteousness, goodness, and then freedom.” Similar statements occur in vol. 1, Latin edition of Jena, f. 179,2 Post. major.; Epistol., vol. 1, Letter 94; etc. Erasmus, Annot. on Philippians 2, also takes the expression “in the form of God” as a reference to Christ’s human nature enriched by the Word with divine gifts and workings. In De noviss. verb. David., Selnecker claims that this has to do with 1 Chron. 17:17: “You who are God on high have seen me in the form of a man.” Chemnitz, De duabus nat., p. 352: “It is called ‘form’ when a nature or essence is considered in such a way as being endowed with attributes and conditions of a property, either divine or human, and when it is so clothed and adorned.” Therefore the meaning is that Christ, already from the first moment of His incarnation, exerted the divine glory, majesty, and might communicated to Him according to His human nature with the full use thereof, so that He could deport Himself as God, etc. To this we can also relate what blessed Luther points out: “There are three ways of ‘being in a form’ or taking a form and external disposition. For sometimes essence is considered as essence or nature without form, gesture, and external working; sometimes as essence and form or external3 gesture at the same time; sometimes as external form and working of a thing without the reality of the nature and essence that produces such a form.” The third way is alien to Christ but is suitable to the devil and his servants. The first befits Christ in His state of emptying; the second, in His state of exaltation.
§ 296. The following points pertain to the second part: (I) It is said about Christ as denying, or rather as indefinite,4 that “He considered it not robbery to be equal to God” [Phil. 2:6]. Some people claim that “to think it robbery” [
] was posited simply for “to rob [
], plunder, seize like plunder, abuse rashly and according to one’s pleasure,” just as in Heb. 10:29, where “considering common” is posited for “making common” or “profaning.” Thus, according to them, the meaning is that He did not use or abuse this thing according to His own judgment, He did not seize it for Himself, but that He rather abstained from its use by emptying Himself. Isidore of Pelusium (bk. 1, Letter 139,) explains the word “robbery” in a very trifling and inappropriate way:
Because they (the Philippians) were Gentiles, they had learned that the supreme God had cut off from His Father those parts that were intended for fathering children, namely, because He [the supreme God] feared that other sons would become associates and sharers of the kingdom, and that seizings of divinity and quarrels over it and wars would arise. They wondered how it could be that the Son of God, having left His dwellings in heaven and not having feared any change of kingdom and empire, had come to us and taken on flesh. Therefore, bringing medicine to their ignorance (or, rather, madness), the godly man and teacher of secrets uses these words: “not robbery,” etc. That is, He did not snatch deity and the kingdom by force but had it innate before the ages. Nor was He afraid that it would be taken from Him; but because He was Lord of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth, He left the heavens, came down to us, and in fact even went to hell, that having advanced through all things, He might set all things everywhere free for salvation.
Some people explain it in this way: “He did not take plunder to be equal to God, that is, He did not show off His divine glory as victors generally show off the spoils they have taken away from their foes in triumphs. Rather, He hid that glory.”
The simplest explanation is gathered from a careful examination of the individual words. For the apostle, 
is “to claim with certainty and without doubt” (Phil. 2:3, 25; 3:7–8).
is the same as 
, “plunder” or “robbery,” the opposite of which is “one’s own” [
]. In this sense, 
is what someone grabs or claims for himself unjustly when that which he is said to have taken truly and properly does not belong to him. Likewise, conversely, no one is said to steal or plunder what belongs to himself.
The negative particle 
(“not”) removes 
(“robbery”), and, on the other hand, 
(“his own”) is posited, because it is not “robbery.” This denying word is related not to the verb 
(“considered”) but must be connected with “robbery” so that the proposition is affirmative and not simply negative. You see, if we wanted to claim that it was purely negative, the apostle’s statement would not be complete because he would be affirming nothing certain, namely, where and at what time of His emptying Christ would have possessed “being equal to God,” and the meaning would be quite doubtful: Did Christ snatch divine honors for Himself or not? Thus it would be necessary for us to claim that this is an affirmative declaration, yet an indefinite one, one that denies by transposition, so that the meaning is: although Christ in the state of emptying was the very lowest man, He had no doubt and was convinced with certainty that it was not at all alien to Himself nor robbery but that from nature it was His property to be equal to God, equal in privilege and consubstantial. Thus, consequently, with regard to His person, it belonged to Him by fair and equal right to have one and the same nature of divinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. So, then, as Selnecker (De novis. verb. David.) notes from Luther, these words express three things. (1) His nature. According to His divine nature, Christ stole nothing but has all things by essence and nature. (2) A comparison with His enemy or antagonist. Through robbery the devil wanted to assume equality [
] with God. Our first parents did the same thing, but Christ acted in the opposite way. (3) His power. Already from the very first moment of His incarnation, Christ could have exerted the majesty communicated to Him according to the flesh, etc.
They think that the plural adjective 
[“equal”], generally in the neuter gender, is used synthetically5 either for the adverb 
[“equally”] or for the nominative masculine 
or 
. However, it is more emphatic if one claims that 
is simply used instead of the noun 
[“equality”], because the article of the neuter gender transforms the entire infinitive expression into a noun. 
means to be equal in privilege, the same in honor. But 
means to be equal to God in every way and in all things. Therefore the meaning is that Christ, already from the first moment of His incarnation, even amid His state of emptying, had been personally endowed with divine gifts and glories not only according to His human nature, so that He was able to exert His divine glory and majesty (to which these words also pertain: He “was in the form of God”), but also that according to His divine nature He was naturally and essentially true God (to which these pertain: “He did not consider it robbery to be equal to God”). Augustine, Letter 66: “For Christ to be equal with God and in the form of God was not robbery but nature, because He assumed it by being born. He did not presume it by being arrogant.”
It should not disturb anyone that the first predicate is attributed with respect to His human nature and the second with respect to His divine nature, nor that we claim that He who emptied Himself according to the human nature is said to be equal to God according to His divine nature. This is because both are predicated about one and the same person on account of the unity of hypostasis and because the things that happen to the flesh or to the human nature happen not to the flesh separately but to Him who is equal to God through His nature and who appropriated this flesh personally to Himself, namely, to the Word, who by nature and in essence is true God, equal to the Father in all things—from this is born the apostolic proposition that He who is equal to God (namely, the very Son of God) emptied Himself, that is, according to the assumed nature.
§ 297. (II) It is said thetically: 
[“He emptied Himself,” Phil. 2:7]. In the Vulgate it says, semet ipsum exinanivit [“He emptied Himself out”] or rather inanivit [“emptied”], for in the Greek it does not say 
[“emptied out”] from 
but 
[“emptied”] from 
, though both the simple and compound verb mean the same thing among the Greeks and the Latins. 
means “empty,” “vacant.” Therefore 
means “He emptied.” The explanation of this word is to be taken from those examples that speak not about a physical outpouring or any loss of something (in the way a cup is emptied when wine is poured from it) but about the withdrawal of His might and efficacy, which is said to be “empty” when it is not exerted (Isa. 55:11; 1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 6:1; 1 Thess. 2:1). So, then, Christ’s emptying is not a natural lack or pouring out or evacuating of the gifts communicated to Him through the personal union but a voluntary and willing humiliation (just as the apostle himself explains later) of Him who does not always exert and use, in and through the assumed flesh, the majesty of His divinity, which otherwise dwelt in it “bodily” [Col. 2:9] or personally. Hence He is said to have “rid Himself,” so to speak, of His divine glory, and He seemed to have taken it off somehow, to the extent that He did not always show it and exert it in full light. Nor is the apostle speaking about pretense but about a true and real emptying. For this reason, he adds as an explanation that Christ emptied Himself in this respect: according as “He took on the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, having become obedient to the Father unto death, even the death of the cross.” These things were not feigned or pretended, but were all done in reality. And several facts testify to this clearly: the prophet’s adverb of strong assertion, 
[“surely”] (Isa. 53:4), the Gospel account, the reality of our redemption, and the public condemnation of Marcionism.
§ 298. (III) He is said to have “taken on the form of a servant” (
) [Phil. 2:7]. Some take this simply as a reference to His incarnation, which is described in Heb. 2:16 with almost the same expression: that “He took on the seed of Abraham” [
]. Here, however, we prove that “taking on the form of a servant” does not mean primarily and principally the human nature but the servile conditions and infirmities of that nature and consequently that “the form of a servant” is being considered not in the category of substance but of quality. This we do with the following arguments: (1) From contrast. The form of God and the form of a servant here are being contrasted to each other. Yet “to be in the form of God” here signifies chiefly exerting the glory and majesty that befit God. Therefore “to take on the form of a servant” signifies voluntarily assuming the weaknesses befitting a servant.
(2) From putting aside. The Word never put aside the human nature that He once assumed. But He did put aside the form of a servant in His state of exaltation, namely, when “the name was given to Him which is above every name” (Phil. 2:[9]), when “He was made the Lord” (Acts 2:[36]). After all, who would say that in the state of exaltation He still has the form of a servant and is our fellow servant, “when He has been raised to the right hand of God, above all rule and authority and power and dominion and above everything that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come” (Eph. 1:[20–]21)? If the emptying is precisely and immediately the assumption of the human nature, by force of contrast His exaltation will be the setting aside of the same.
(3) From distinction. “The form of a servant” must be explained in such a way that the distinction between the states of emptying and exaltation can be taken from it. But now, that distinction cannot be taken primarily and directly either from the divine or the human nature, for as Christ in His state of emptying was truly not only man but also God, so also in His state of exaltation He is not only God but also man.
(4) From a consideration of the subject. The subject of the apostle’s proposition is Jesus Christ the God-man. However, one cannot say that Christ the God-man became incarnate; rather, the Word is said to have become flesh, and the Son of God is said to assume the seed of Abraham.
(5) From the context. In whatever way emptying is attributed to Christ, in the same way the assumption of the form of a servant is also attributed to Him. But now, emptying is not attributed to Christ with respect to His deity. Therefore also the taking of the form of a servant cannot be explained in the same sense as the deity of the Word assumed the human nature. Christ is said to have “emptied Himself” before He assumed the form of a servant. Therefore if the human nature itself came through the form of a servant, then the Word emptied Himself in Himself or in His deity; but this is absurd [
].
(6) From the added explanation. The apostle himself explains what the “assumption of a servant’s form” means properly when he adds that Christ “was found in the likeness of men,” that “He humbled Himself,” that “He became obedient to the Father even unto death.” However, these cannot be taken as referring to His incarnation absolutely and simply.
(7) From the witness of interpreters. Ambrose, commentary on this passage: “It does not seem to me, as it does to some, that He took on the form of a servant when He was born as man.” And a little later: “He is said to have taken on the form of a servant when He was humbled as if He were a sinner. People become servants from sin, just as Noah’s son Ham, who first rightly received the name of ‘servant.’ “ Cyprian or Rufinus, Sermon de resurrect: “The angelic spirits sing these Easter joys in heaven and marvel at the glory of the resurrected Lord. They rejoice and delight in the fact that the form of a servant was turned back into the form of God and the emptying of humility came back to the majesty of the loftiness that He had put away.” The Glossa Genevensium on Isa. 52:14 explains “the form of a servant” in the same way.
** Piscator, Anal., p. 173: “We must note that the apostle takes the words ‘form,’ ‘likeness,’ and ‘fashion’ in the same sense.” Page 171: “ ‘Form of a servant’ means a servile, humble, and abject condition.” Furthermore, Beza (Annot. major., f. 391) and Martinius (Spic., p. 164): “What is said about the form of a servant I do not take to mean simply the human nature, but His lowly condition that was temporary.” Compare also Zanchi on this passage and De natura Dei, bk. 2, ch. 6, p. 175. **
Now, though the fathers sometimes appear to understand “the form of a servant” as the humanity itself, this should be taken secondarily and as a consequence, because the form of a servant cannot exist without the humanity, which it indeed requires before itself. For this reason they were correct in proving Christ’s humanity from this passage because it cannot happen that He who took on the form of a servant is not true man. Also, we can progress firmly from the positing of the passion [
], or of a proper affection, to the positing of the subject itself to which that affection belongs. Surely, as we correctly gather His true deity from the fact that Christ is said to have been “in the form of God,” because Christ could not have exerted His divine majesty in and through the flesh if He had not had that personally communicated to Himself, and He could not have had that communicated personally if He were not true God by nature, so also from the fact that Christ is said to have “put on the form of a servant” we correctly deduce His true humanity, because human infirmities presuppose the reality of a human essence.
§ 299. (IV) “He was made in the likeness of men” [Phil. 2:7]. It is clear from this explanation that the “assumption of the form of a servant” does not principally and directly mean the assumption of the human nature, because through His incarnation the Son of God not only was made in the likeness of men, or merely equal to men (the assertion of which would be Marcionitic), but consubstantial with them. It is clear that this “likeness” refers not to the substance of our nature but to the infirmities and humility of behavior by which Christ was like the rest of humanity. This is clear: (1) From the proper meaning of this word, by which it is always taken as an agreement of qualities but not immediately as “nature” and “essence.” In Rom. 1:23 the heathen are said to have “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of corruptible man,” and this cannot mean human substance. In Rom. 6:5 we are said to have been “united with the likeness of Christ’s death.” “He sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Here “likeness” pertains not simply to the flesh but to a limitation added by the apostle: “subject to sin.” Ambrose ponders this meaning beautifully in De poenit., bk. 1, ch. 3, part 1, p. 153, whose words we cited in ch. 6 [§ 86].
(2) From a comparison of equivalent words. The apostle connects the words “form,” “likeness,” and “fashion” as being equivalent. However, it is clear that “form” [
] never means the actual essence or substantial form [ forma] but only an outward appearance or accidental form. This is clear from the intent of all the passages. Therefore “likeness” is understood as the conformity of His life to other human beings in its natural operations and infirmities. This was the “likeness of men,” used in almost the same sense as we are said to bear “the image of the man of dust” (1 Cor. 15:[49]). You see, the apostle is not contrasting that “likeness” to the reality of the human nature in Christ, nor is it his intent to say of what sort Christ’s human nature was with regard to its essence. Rather, he intended to say how Christ conducted Himself at the time of emptying among men and in the pattern of His life, namely, that He felt the way other human beings do, that He suffered the same sort of affections in His body and soul as other human beings have. As we read in Heb. 2:17, that “He had to be made like His brothers in every respect” and that “He was tempted in every respect according to [our] likenesses without sin” (4:15), so also in this passage “to be made in the likeness of men” is to become like men. Camerarius, Not. on this passage: “This expression in the Hebrew language is redundant, meaning ‘He was made like other men.’ ”
§ 300. (V) “He was found in fashion as a man” [Phil. 2:8]. “Fashion” [
] signifies activities in society and interaction with people, the relationship, appearance, and condition by which a man comports and conforms himself to others, with whom he lives. For 
[“to conform”] in 1 Pet. 1:[14] is explained as 
[“conduct”] in Rom. 12:2 and 1 Pet. 1:15. Thus in 1 Cor. [7]:31 we read that the “fashion” of this world passes away, that is, the “conduct” of this age, life in this world, the activities of this life, and the whole world will all pass away together at some time. Therefore the sense is this: Christ was found in the manner of His conduct (Luther: an Geberden [“in behavior”]) like any other man; He did not separate Himself from the common society of men; He “did not come like John, neither drinking wine nor eating common foods” (Matt. 11:[18]; Luke 7:33) “but rather eating and drinking,” that is, He took food with others in common society, He was present at feasts, and, in fact, He even ate with sinners.
** Jacobus ad Portum writes (ch. 22, p. 207): “That human condition in which Christ is said to have been found does not, primarily and of itself, mean the human nature and essence, the perfection of which consists in inner form, but the enduring of life and the fashion of Christ’s death. Secondarily and consequently, however, it designates His human nature.” **
§ 301. (VI) “He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” [Phil. 2:8]. That is, He rendered humble obedience to His heavenly Father for the entire time of His life, from the very first moment of His conception to His glorious resurrection and ascension. For the word “unto” [
] indicates not so much a quantity of time as an intensification of obedience. Out of His true and sincere obedience toward God and for the salvation of the human race, He did not refuse to endure various sufferings and, finally, the most ignominious and bitter kind of death, crucifixion.
§ 302. To the third part pertain these assertions: (1) “God 
Christ,” that is, He exalted Him to the highest heights. (2) He “gave Him a name that is above every name” [Phil. 2:9], which we shall discuss more fully hereafter in thesis III [§§ 306ff.].
On the basis of these things, which have been said about the emptying of Christ, we gather two corollaries. The first is that emptying is to be attributed to Christ not according to the divine nature nor according to both natures but according to the human nature. We prove this: (1) From the definition. The apostle defines the emptying in this way: It is the humble obedience of Jesus Christ in the form of a servant, or His subjection even to the death of the cross, from which we draw this conclusion: According to whichever nature Christ was emptied, according to that same nature He was changeable, a servant, and dead on the cross. But now, He was changeable, a servant, and dead on the cross not according to the divine nature but according to the human. Therefore He was emptied according to the same nature. (2) From opposition. According to whichever nature Christ was emptied, according to the same nature He was also exalted, as the words 
[“therefore also”] (v. 9) show. But now, Christ was exalted according to His human nature, as we shall show below in the definition of exaltation. (3) From the condition of the divine nature. The divine nature is unchangeable and invariable, and according to it He always works along with the Father and the Holy Spirit (John 5:17). Therefore according to it an emptying cannot be attributed to Christ.
§ 303. The second corollary is: The emptying that the apostle attributes to Christ according to the human nature is not totally devoid and lac3king of divine power, nor is it an absolute privation, taking away, plundering, divesting, rejecting, putting aside, removal, lack, nudity, or emptiness of the fullness, deity, and majesty communicated to the flesh. Rather, it is a retraction and interruption of use by which Christ, established in the form of a servant and hidden in weakness, did not always exert the divine power, glory, and majesty truly and really communicated to Him but withheld and kept them back until the time of His exaltation.
We prove this: (1) From the definition of the union. In Col. 2:9, the apostle defines the union as the indwelling of the whole fullness of the deity in the assumed body or human nature. As the union is not absent in His state of emptying, so also that indwelling of the whole fullness of the deity in the assumed flesh is not absent.
(2) From the apostle’s explanation. The apostle describes that emptying as the assumption of the form of a servant, humiliation, and obedience even to the death of the cross. Yet these do not imply the complete absence and casting off of the communicated divine majesty.
(3) From the working of miracles. Amid His state of emptying, Christ worked divine miracles in and through the flesh, and in these “He revealed His glory” (John 2:11). He was transfigured before His disciples (Matt. 17:3). He instituted the holy Eucharist in which He distributed to His disciples His own body by means of the blessed bread and His blood by means of the blessed wine, etc. These were, so to speak, some particular rays of the divine majesty, power, and glory communicated to Him according to the flesh, the plenary use of which finally ensued in His exaltation. Meanwhile, from these we draw the unshakable conclusion that even in the midst of His state of emptying, Christ did not lack that power and glory but willingly and freely abstained from the full use thereof.
(4) From the witness of the devout ancients. Hilary, De Trin., bk. 12, p. 253: “He was not lacking of Himself who emptied Himself in Himself, because the power of His might remained in the power to empty Himself, and to have passed into servant’s form is not to have lost the nature of God.” Nazianzen, Tract. de fide, p. 84 (in al. exempl., vol. 2, f. 134.): “As the sun’s brightness, when covered with a cloud, is withheld but is not completely darkened, and as that light that spreads over the whole world and imbues all things with bright splendor is closed off by a small obstacle of cloud but is not destroyed, so also that man did not cut off God, Jesus Christ our Savior—that is, God and the Son of God—but hid Him in Himself.” Ambrose repeats this statement in almost the same words in De fid. contra Arianos, ch. 8, p. 175. The same Ambrose, commentary on Philippians 2: “He emptied Himself, that is, He withdrew His power from His work in order that, humbled, He might appear to be weak while His power was idle.” Ibid.: “He was in the form of God because, when He appeared as man, He was doing the works of God, so that He who seemed to be a (common) man might appear to be God in the things He did. But He held back His power, lest it appear in Him while He was seen as a man.” Augustine, De fide ad Petrum, ch. 2: “Christ did not lose that fullness in His emptying; otherwise He surely would not have anything thereof to give us.” Bede, on Philippians 2, from Augustine: “He emptied Himself, not losing the form of God, but taking on the form of a servant.” Theodoret, Dial. 3, from Chrysostom: “At the time of the emptying, the divinity of the Word sometimes left the assumed human nature bare and destitute, so to speak, of divine working, to prove the nature of His humanity with a show of weakness. And sometimes with a show of divinity He hid the weakness because He was not a mere man.” Leo the Great defined the emptying as “the putting on of a servant’s form by the shading of the immensity of the divine majesty.” Fulgentius, De incarnat. et grat., ch. 2: “The emptying of the only-begotten of God was the taking of a servant’s form, not the loss or diminution of deity.” Some people explain this with the figure [typus] of King David, driven into exile by Absalom, at which time he still was king (2 Samuel 15), and with the apostle’s words in Gal. 4:1. (Cf. Apol. Form. Concord., ch. 4.)
§ 304. Thesis II: The following pertain to the state of emptying: His conception in the womb, birth, growth in age and wisdom, and obedience in the form of a servant unto the death of the cross, which was followed by His burial.
The state of emptying begins at the first moment of the incarnation and lasts until the time of His burial inclusively. The apostle calls the entire course of Christ’s life in this world “the days of His flesh” (Heb. 5:7). Through a Hebraism, that expression signifies the time when Christ dwelt among people capable of suffering (2 Cor. 5:16), during which He was subject to the infirmities of the flesh but was free of all sin. Augustine, Contra Faustum, bk. 11, ch. 7: “Here he wants us to understand not the substance of our body, which the Lord calls His flesh even after the resurrection (Luke 24), but the corruption and mortality of the flesh, which we shall not have after the resurrection, just as Christ now does not have it.” Thaddeus, one of the seventy disciples sent by the apostle Thomas to Edessa, described these “days of the flesh” (that is, the actions having to do with the state of emptying) in a sermon he delivered about Christ before King Agbarus in these words, among others (in Eusebius, Histor. eccles., bk. 1, ch. 14): “I shall teach about the coming of Jesus and about His apostleship, etc. How diminished and insignificant and how humble He was in His external appearance as a man, how He humbled Himself and died, how He diminished His divinity” (
, which cannot be understood as a reference to a diminution of His divinity in itself, because that is immutable, but to a withholding and diminution of it, so to speak, in its external manifestation), “and how much He suffered from the Jews.”
It should not seem strange or doubtful to anyone that we refer to the state of emptying not only Christ’s suffering, crucifixion, death, and burial but also His conception and birth, because one must distinguish between the incarnation and the mode of incarnation. The Son of God could have shaped a human nature by immediate creation and could have become man by assuming the same into the unity of His person even if He had not been conceived in His mother’s womb, which was, so to speak, an internal birth (gestated in that womb for nine months), and born from the womb, which was the external birth. For it is evident that Adam was a true man who nevertheless was born neither in nor of the womb. But for us and for our salvation Christ wanted not only to become man but also to assume a human nature from our flesh and to subject Himself willingly to the infirmities that generally happen to infants in their conception and birth, to sanctify our unclean conception and birth and to gain salvation for those infants still shut up in the womb.
§ 305. The most ancient writers of the Church discuss this subject very beautifully. Justin, Dial. cum Tryph., p. 204: “Having become incarnate, He endured being born.” Page 222: “He suffered being born as a man from the Virgin.” (He uses this very word [
, “endured"] in his description of the Passion, Apol. 2. pro Christ., p. 75: “Christ endured being despised and suffering for the salvation of those who believe in Him.”)
Irenaeus, bk. 2, ch. 39, p. 137:
Christ sanctified every age through that which was after His likeness, for He came to save all people through Himself; all, I say, who through Him are reborn to God as infants, as well as children and youth and the elderly. Therefore He came through every age, having become an infant among infants, sanctifying infants; as a child among children, sanctifying those having this very age; and at the same time, being made an example of piety and righteousness and subjection for them. Being a youth to the youths, as an example to the young and sanctifying them for the Lord, He was also an elder among the elderly in order to be a perfect master among all people, not only according to the explanation of the truth but also according to His age, sanctifying also the elderly.
Book 3, ch. 4, p. 172: “Christ the Son of God endured that generation which was from the Virgin, while He Himself united man to God through Himself.” Book 3, ch. 20, p. 211: “He came through every age, restoring to all that fellowship which is with God.” Book 3, ch. 31, p. 220: “Why did God not again take up clay” (and from it form Christ’s human nature, as had happened in the case of Adam) “but worked to be formed from Mary? So that another formation would not be made, and so that it would not be another formation that was saved, but so that the very same thing might be recapitulated, the likeness being preserved.”
Hilary, De trin., bk. 2, p. 20: “The invisible image of God did not refuse the shame of a human beginning; He went through conception and birth, the crying, and the cradles, all the indignities of our nature. His humility is our nobility; His indignity, our honor.”
On the state of exaltation.
§ 306. Thesis III: The exaltation is the elevation of Jesus Christ to the highest heights after the obedience rendered even unto the death of the cross, and the granting of a name that is above every name, at which the knees of all must bend (Phil. 2:9–10). Or, as this is described in other passages of Scripture, it is the solemn enthronement and inauguration of Christ, after being raised from the dead, to the full and complete use of His heavenly power and to the governance of heaven and earth, especially of the Church.
As we said about His emptying, that it is taken in both an ecclesiastical and biblical sense, so also, by virtue of opposition, one must make exactly the same claim about His exaltation. Exaltation in the ecclesiastical sense is the elevation of the human nature into the hypostasis of the Word, which can be called the exaltation of the incarnation. Just as it was a sort of humiliation when the Son of God came forth from the secret throne of His majesty and sent Himself down into our flesh, so also the exaltation can be called the elevation of the assumed human nature into the hypostasis of the Word through the personal union and the fact that in and through the union of the divine properties He became truly and really a partaker of divine majesty and glory. For this reason, in the midst of His state of emptying, before He received the full use of His dominion over heaven and earth, He is called “King” and “Lord” (Luke 2:11; Matt. 21:5; John 18:37).
Exaltation in the biblical sense has to do with the emptying, properly speaking, described in Phil. 2:5[–11], and it can be called the exaltation of glorification, the exaltation to God’s right hand. The apostle describes it in these words: “Because of this, God also has highly exalted Him and of grace has given Him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (vv. 9–11).
§ 307. As in the emptying, so also in the exaltation the subject is Jesus Christ, as the pronoun 
[“Him”] shows. Therefore the full apostolic proposition is like this: Christ Jesus, who emptied Himself and took on a servant’s form, who humbled Himself and became obedient even to the death of the cross, was exalted by God the Father. Hence it is correct for us to say that the composite person of the God-man, the whole person of Christ, was, as emptied, so also exalted, for His actions and sufferings are of the whole composite. If, however, one asks according to which nature exaltation is attributed to Christ—because there are two natures in Christ, divine and human—then one must respond that it is according to the human nature, as we shall confirm a bit later. In this exaltation, taken in the biblical and proper sense, there is a distinction from exaltation taken in the ecclesiastical sense. Exaltation in the biblical sense is attributed to the composite person, but according to the human nature, just as emptying in the proper sense is also attributed to the composite person, or to Christ the God-man, according to His humanity. However, exaltation in the ecclesiastical sense is attributed to the human nature, just as emptying taken improperly in the ecclesiastical sense is attributed to the divine nature and the simple Word.
§ 308. To the predicate pertains: (I) High exaltation (
) [Phil. 2:9], that is, elevation to the highest height, exaltation above measure; the adverb “highly” [ 
], added to the simple verb, expresses this emphasis. Chemnitz (Harm., ch. 28, p. 151) points out that in Scripture Christ’s exaltation is understood in three ways: (1) As His suffering and crucifixion. “When you have exalted the Son of Man from the earth, then you will know that I am” (John 8:28). “When I have been exalted from the earth, I shall draw all things to Myself” (John 12:32). (2) As His exaltation to God’s right hand as victor over sin and death (Acts 2:33; Heb. 9:24). (3) As the merit of Christ being set before all like an uplifted banner through the ministry of the Gospel (Isa. 11:10). Here it is taken in the second sense, as is clear from the context, because emptying and exaltation are being contrasted with each other.
This exaltation is described in very emphatic words in Isa. 52:13: “Behold, My Servant will act prudently; He will be exalted, elevated, and be very high,” which the apostle seems to want to express finally with the adverb “highly.” The apostle describes this “high exaltation” in such a way that: (1) He adds the words “therefore also” [ 
], which does not describe the meritorious cause of exaltation but merely the order and consequent reward for the emptying, as we shall prove below. (2) He attributes this “high exaltation” to God, where the name “God” is either to be taken essentially (just as he expresses the entire Trinity and all three persons of the Godhead), or hypostatically (so that it refers to the First Person, namely, the Father). You see, both explanations fit the analogy of faith, as is evident from other passages of Scripture: “I have established Your King” (Ps. 2:6). “You, ? Lord, make Me to be raised up” (Ps. [41:10]). “He will lift up the head” (Ps. 110:7). “Glorify Me, Father, in Your presence” (John 17:5). “God made Him Christ and Lord” (Acts 2:36). “God exalted this Prince and Savior with His right hand” (Acts 5:31), etc. (Compare what we cited in the second genus of communication, specific thesis I [§ 207].)
§ 309. (II) “The Father having given Him a name above every name,” [Phil. 2:9,] etc. The devout ancients interpret this name as follows: (1) That this man, or the Son of Mary, is called God and the Son of the Most High. Epiphanius, Haeres. 69, p. 341: “… so that the man with God the Word might be called the Son of God.” (2) That divine majesty, glory, and power have been communicated to the human nature because among the Hebrews the name signifies the actual thing, and to them to be called is to be. (Cf. Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:4.) (3) That even according to His human nature, Christ is our Mediator, Redeemer, Priest, and King; ruling us with His Spirit; defending us with His power; freeing and saving us with His grace. For this reason, “at the name of Jesus” (which includes both natures) “every knee should bow of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” Here we take the “bending of the knee” to mean subjection, because knees are attributed to things in heaven and beneath the earth. Origen, commentary on Romans, bk. 9, ch. 14:
We should not take “bending the knee” and “every tongue confessing to God” carnally, so as to think that even heavenly things, which he says bend the knee, do this with fleshly limbs—for example, that one would think that the sun, moon, stars, or even angels (or whatever they are that are called “heavenly”) worship with physical knees bent, or also that they would be thought of as confessing to God with a fleshly tongue or the kind of body part with which we speak. About these it is said that they are spirit and fire, and what knees do we believe spirits have? Or what tongues are sought in the appearance of fire? Rather, “bending the knee” declares that all things are subject to God and are obedient to worship Him.
This explanation is confirmed from Eph. 1:20. Thomas, lect. 3 on Philippians 2: “All rational creatures, whether angels or men or demons, are subject to Christ. Subjection is double: one voluntary; the other, involuntary. The holy angels and the blessed are subject to Christ voluntarily; but demons and the damned are not so, but involuntarily.”
[III] Finally, “to the glory of God the Father” [Phil. 2:11] is added. To this belongs: (1) That “he who honors the Son also honors the Father” (John 5:23). (2) That we see in Christ’s exaltation God’s highest grace toward us. (3) That God’s glory is the ultimate end of both Christ’s exaltation and our glorification, which we offer to the exalted Christ. In other passages of Scripture, this “high exaltation” of Christ is described in this way: that the Father raised Him from the dead and “placed Him at His right hand in heaven” (Ps. 110:1; Acts 2:33). Eph. 1:[21]–22: “Above every rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He has put all things under His feet and has made Him the head over all things to the Church.” Dan. 7:14: “And to Him was given dominion and glory and kingdom that all peoples, nations, and languages may serve Him.” Acts 2:36: “[God] made Him Lord.” Heb. 8:1: “He placed Him on the throne of His majesty.”
§ 310. We draw two corollaries from what we have said about Christ’s exaltation. The first is that the exaltation in the narrow sense as defined in Phil. 2:9 does not befit Christ according to the divine nor both but according to the human nature. We prove this with the same arguments with which we proved that emptying befits Christ according to the human nature: (1) From the definition. The apostle defines exaltation as the elevation of Jesus Christ to the highest heights after His humble obedience rendered to the Father, even to the death of the cross, and the giving of a name that is above every name. Yet this definition cannot be attributed to Christ according to His divinity because according to His divinity He received nothing in time.
(2) From opposition. According to whichever nature emptying befits Christ, according to that same nature also exaltation befits Him, as the opposition shows. But now, as we have seen, emptying is attributed to Christ according to the human nature. Here we especially press the point of the conjunction 
[“therefore also,” Phil. 2:9]. Because Christ humbled Himself, therefore God exalted Him. But what sort of a connection would this be, that Christ humbled Himself according to His humanity, therefore God exalted Him according to His divinity?
(3) From the condition of the divine nature. According to the divine nature, Christ is the Most High; He receives nothing from grace in time but through His eternal begetting of the Father has all things by nature. But now, this exaltation happened to Christ in time by the grace of the union, as the verb 
[“gave from grace,” Phil. 2:9] shows. Therefore this cannot be attributed to Christ according to His divinity.
Jerome, on Philippians 2: “Because after assuming man He deigned to humble Himself, the divinity that cannot be humbled exalted Him who had been humbled, and on Him was bestowed the name, because He had not had it before.” Didymus of Alexandria, De Spiritu sancto, bk. 3: “Every creature has been subjected to God the Word, being the Son of God, as to the omnipotent King. Because this God, the Word, assumed man, raised Him after death, and set Him up over all powers and dominions and mights and authorities, to Him (the assumed man) all angels are subject by God’s order, knowing that He is united with the Word of God because He is at the right hand of the divinity. At His name not only things on earth and things below the earth but even heavenly things bend the knee, and every tongue confesses that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” Here we can place all the arguments with which, in the second genus of communication, specific thesis II [§§ 205–6], we proved that Christ the man or according to His human nature was given truly divine and infinite gifts. (Cf. Append. libr. Concord., p. 831; the Apolog. Form. Concord., p. 36; and Chemnitz, De duabus naturis, ch. 25.)
§ 311. The second is: The exaltation that the apostle describes does not presuppose a complete lack and absence of divine majesty, power, and glory, which indeed had already been communicated to Christ through the personal union. Instead, it brings in only the plenary use of that majesty and dominion and, as we have said, the solemn enthronement of Christ to the full and perfect use of the lordship given Him according to the human nature. The confirmation of this corollary is to be sought from those things that we have said about Christ’s emptying and exaltation up to now, and which we shall say a bit later in the questions.
§ 312. Thesis IV: To the state of exaltation belong the descent into hell, the resurrection from the dead, the ascent into heaven, and sitting at God’s right hand. We have discussed in very great detail these acts that belong to the state of exaltation in our Disputatio de resurrectione Christi and in the Harmonia evangelica.
Antithesis.
§ 313. (I) The Jesuits pervert the doctrine of the emptying and exaltation of Christ in many ways: (1) They explain His emptying and assumption of the form of a servant [Phil. 2:7] absolutely and immediately as referring to the incarnation. (See Cornelius à Lapide, commentary on Philippians 2, and Salmeron, ibid.) (2) “The sitting at God’s right hand,” in which Christ’s exaltation consists principally, “was given to His humanity not in itself but in the subject [ suppositum], for it did not happen that the humanity in itself sits at God’s right hand but that it is the humanity of that person who sits at God’s right hand.” (Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 3, ch. 15.) (3) They explain the exaltation and sitting at God’s right hand as “lacking a definite power and dominion,” just as the king of Spain rules in the new islands through his vicars. Also, lest anything be lacking in wickedness, Bellarmine argues (loc. cit.) that “among the ancients, sitting at the right hand was less honorific than sitting at the left hand.” (4) They foster many errors about the actions belonging to the states of emptying and exaltation, as is shown in its own place.
§ 314. (II) The Calvinists: (1) Claim that Christ was emptied and exalted according to both natures. (See Beza, Resp. ad coll., part 1, p. 1; Sohnius, Exeg., p. 246; Anhalt theologians, Apol. Germ. contra Elector., p. 417; and Jacobus ad Portum, Defens. fid., p. 209.) Against this erroneous hypothesis, the arguments brought out earlier from the apostolic text of Philippians 2 are to be set forth. Polanus, Syntagm., bk. 6, ch. 22, p. 2861, uses this argument: “As Christ emptied Himself as regards His deity, not by divesting Himself of it but by hiding it in the assumed form of a servant, so again, as regards the same, He was exalted powerfully and fully by revealing it in His glorified flesh.”
We respond. (a) Neither the emptying nor the exaltation are defined in this way in the apostolic text. (b) If emptying is to be defined as the hiding of His deity and of divine power and the exaltation as the revelation thereof, then the state of emptying was often, in some way, the state of exaltation and vice versa. For in His state of emptying, Christ at times “manifested His glory” (John 2:[11]). (c) “We do not yet see all things subjected to Christ” (Heb. 2:8). Therefore Christ would not yet have been exalted. (d) According to this definition, emptying and exaltation could have been attributed to the Father, too, namely, when at first He defers His help but later exerts power against His foes. (Cf. Dr. Mentzer, Disp. contra Martinium.)
§ 315. (2) They define exaltation as being the communication of merely finite gifts. Sohnius, Opera, vol. 1, disp. 7, thesis 55: “Christ’s exaltation or glorification according to the human nature is nothing other than the effecting or creating, so to speak, of finite qualities or gifts in the human nature as in a subject through the deity personally indwelling. It does not differ in species or genus from the glorification of the blessed angels and humans, but in quantity, that is, in multitude and magnitude.” The contrary can be proved from Eph. 1:20; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:13.
(3) They understand the emptying and the assumption of a servant’s form [Phil. 2:7] simply as a reference to the incarnation.
(4) They foster many errors about the actions belonging to the states of emptying and exaltation, as shall be proved in its own place. (Cf. our De gloria Dei, disp. 8, §§ 14ff.)
Questions about the states of emptying and exaltation.
§ 316. (I) The question arises: Is it correct to describe the emptying as concealment [
] and the exaltation as revelation [
]? We respond. (1) If by “concealment” one means “simulation,” we deny that the emptying should be described with this word, because it was a true and real emptying that included both negation [
] (that is, the removal of use: not of any use but of the full use of the communicated divine majesty and power, which the apostle calls 
[Phil. 2:7]) and affirmation [
] (that is, the assumption of the form of a servant and extreme humiliation, which the apostle connects with 
). On the other hand, exaltation likewise includes both negation (namely, the putting off of the form of a servant and of human weaknesses, which Christ had assumed voluntarily) and affirmation (namely, the full use and administration of dominion over the whole universe). All of these things are attributed to Christ not by simulation or as an apparition, but truly.
(2) That “concealment” can be referred both to the communication of majesty and to the use of the communicated majesty. With respect to the former, it can rightly be called “concealment” because the divine majesty was hidden in the assumed flesh but was not completely separated from it, and all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are said to have been “hidden” in Him (Col. 2:3). With respect to the latter, however, it was not merely a “concealment” but a true and real 
, as the assumption of the form of a servant shows, which form Christ later put off in His exaltation.
§ 317. (II) The question arises: In what sense should it be understood when Christ in His state of emptying is said to be omnipotent, the Lord of heaven and earth, etc., “in primary actuality"? We respond. Sometimes primary actuality means bare potential, which is contrasted with “actuality,” as when I say, “The boy is a grammarian in primary actuality, because as time passes he can become a grammarian.” But at times it means a disposition [ habitus] that does not exert itself by an external work, and this is contrasted with secondary actuality or operation, as when I say, “Priscian, even in his sleep, is a grammarian in primary actuality, though he is not exerting this grammatical knowledge in secondary actuality.” When we say that in His state of emptying Christ was omnipotent and Lord of heaven and earth in primary actuality, then the use of this term comes closer to the latter meaning than it does to the former. You see, though omnipotence does not belong to the assumed flesh habitually and subjectively, it still does belong to it truly and really through the personal union. Thus when Christ the man is said to be omnipotent in His state of emptying in primary actuality, this should not be understood in the sense that Christ would not be given omnipotence until time had passed, but that the whole fullness of the deity and hence also omnipotence dwelt personally in the assumed flesh, though the Word did not always exert in full light the omnipotence communicated to the flesh but only sent out some rays at times in His miracles.
§ 318. (III) The question arises: Was Christ in His state of emptying truly ignorant of some things? Luther affirms this in his Post. eccles. on the Epistle for the Feast of the Nativity. He says: “Although the humanity of Christ is the dwelling place and instrument of the divinity and though it dwells with all its fullness personally in the flesh as in its own temple, nevertheless in His state of emptying He did not at all times think, understand, and know all things because His divinity did not always exert its working [
] through it.” (We confirmed this opinion of Luther earlier, ch. 12, q. 9 [§§ 279–80], from Mark 6:6; 13:32; Luke 2:40; Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:17.)
Practical use.
§ 319. The practical use is: (1) Consoling, for pondering Christ’s love for mankind and His kindness. The apostle shows this use in 2 Cor. 8:9: “You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that by His poverty you might become rich.” Christ was rich because of the true and real communication of the divine properties to the flesh, because “the whole fullness of the deity dwells in Him bodily” (Col. 2:9). He was rich because He was given a name that is above every name (Heb. 1:4). He was rich because of the communicated power to govern heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). He was rich because He shared infinite and divine knowledge, because “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge were hidden in Him” (Col. 2:3). He was rich because of the subjection of all things (Matt. 11:[27]; John 3:35).
Christ had been enriched with these treasures from the very first moment of His incarnation, as we see from the personal union, from His working of miracles, and from a special demonstration of this power and majesty. But He became poor with His emptying, humiliation, and assumption of the form of a servant. For that reason, He was born poor in a stable, He rested in the lap of a poor mother, He lay down in a poor hut. The Wise Men gave Him a gift of gold. He was presented to the Lord with a pair of turtledoves, which was the gift of poor people. As a poor boy, He was reared in the home of His parents. He was considered the son of a poor carpenter. He felt poverty in His fasting. He did not have His own dwelling place. He was stripped of His clothing on the cross and finally was laid in a grave that belonged to someone else. All of these have to do with Christ’s poverty and emptying. But with this poverty He made us rich. Just as He earned life for us with His death, so He restored heavenly riches to us with His poverty. For this reason His poverty is set before us as material for our happiness (Zech. 9:9). Christ’s poverty is our patrimony, our savings in life, our traveling allowance [ viaticum] in death, because with His poverty He acquired for us heavenly riches.
(2) Instructing us to imitate Christ. The apostle shows this use in Phil. 2:5: “Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus.” He sets before us: (a) The example of Christ, worthy of imitation. “Let human weakness be ashamed to show pride, because divine majesty humbled itself so.” Augustine, Sermon 39 de verb. Dom.: “Deign to be humble for God’s sake, because God deigned to be humble for your sake.” Christ emptied Himself so that He, without whom nothing was made, appeared to be almost nothing, but you boast immensely and think that you are something when you are nothing. How absurd and preposterous is it for the highest heights to be humbled and for the lowest lowliness to wish to extol itself? (b) The consequent reward for humility. Christ humbled Himself; therefore God exalted Him. In the same way, you will not reach the heights except through a life of humility. Bernard, Sermon 2 adscens.: “The best road to exaltation is humility.” Because Christ through the nature of His divinity did not have anything by means of which He could increase, He found how to increase through descending. In the same way, there is no way for you to come to the heights except through the depths.
1 Read externum instead of aeternum.
2 This is a reference to Luther’s Sermo de duplici iustitia (1519), WA 2; AE 31.
3 Read externus with Cotta instead of aeternus.
4 According to Micraelius (s.v. “Negatio”) and Scherzer (“Definitiones,” s.v. “Negatio”), a denying negation is a predication where the word “not” modifies the verb (e.g., “is not”), and thus denies the predicate with regard to the subject. It is a categorical negation. For example, “no man is a rock,” or “an accident is not a quality.” An indefinite negation, on the other hand, is the word “not” or “non-” when it modifies a noun. In a predication, this “indefinite negation” does not deny the entire sentence but only the meaning of the word that it modifies. For example, “a nonhuman” is an indefinite negation. In the passage from Phil. 2:6, Gerhard is saying that the word “not” modifies “robbery” rather than “considered.”
5 That is, “syntactically” or “adverbially” or “in a subordinate clause,” as opposed to being used as a normal adjective.