Larger Catechism Question #46

A sermon by Dr William Young delivered to the Presbyterian Reformed Church of RI on October 13, 1991. 

Q. 46.  What was the estate of Christ’s humiliation?

A.  The estate of Christ’s humiliation was that low condition, wherein he for our sakes, emptying himself of his glory, took upon him the form of a servant, in his conception and birth, life, death, and after his death, until his resurrection.

As it may please the Lord to grant his indispensable aid, I would endeavor to call your attention to the words found in the Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 2, verses 6 and 7: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men… 

Christ executed the office of a Mediator in two states, in one of humiliation and in one of exaltation.  Now we sometimes distinguish a state from a condition, and apply this to our speaking of the two states of humiliation and of exaltation.  It can also be applied to our speaking of the fourfold states of man, the state of primitive Integrity, the state of entire depravity, the state of begun recovery, and the state of consummate happiness or misery.  But state has something that is determinate about it, while we speak of a condition as being something which is much more temporary and not of a lasting character.  Now the state of humiliation lasted from the time of the incarnation until the resurrection of Christ, and ceased at his resurrection.  It continued through his burial and the state of exaltation begins with the resurrection of Christ and continues unto all eternity.  Now, our Larger Catechism in Question 46 does not appear make this distinction so sharply, but rather takes the word condition either as a synonym of state, or else as a more general conception unto which state would be a particular instance.  The answer to Question 46 of our Larger Catechism with regard to Christ’s humiliation runs:  The estate of Christ’s humiliation was that low condition, wherein he for our sakes, emptying himself of his glory, took upon him the form of a servant, in his conception and birth, life, death, and after his death, until his resurrection. 

Now our scripture text is the classical passage of Holy Scripture that deals so completely with the topic of the Savior’s humiliation.  In the connection with this subject, let us consider first of all the state of Christ prior to the incarnation, prior to his humiliation; secondly, his emptying himself; and thirdly, the stages of the humiliation.  Now the Apostle Paul appeals in our text to the humiliation of Christ in order to provide an example for Christian conduct.  He has given instruction in verse 3:  Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory;  but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.  That’s not easy to do!  That’s not possible to do so far as our human nature is concerned, but the grace of God operates within the children of God, and brings it to pass that in some measure there is such an attitude on the part of God’s servants.  So also the command,  Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

The example of Christ is given as an incentive and Philippians 2:5 therefore states, Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.  And then the details of the humiliation of the Savior are set forth, and it does appear as though while the Apostle is giving an example, he is very definitely setting forth something that is more than that.  Our text we may say, is one in which there is an unfolding of a full exposition of the Savior’s humiliation followed by a likewise full exposition of the Savior’s exaltation.  In the first place, we find that the Apostle uses the strongest verbs to set forth the proper and full deity of the Son of God as being what characterized his state prior to his humiliation. We have in verse 6:  Who, [that is Christ Jesus] being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.  There are two things that are pointed out with regard to the pre-incarnate state of the Redeemer.  That he was in the form of God first of all; and secondly, that he was equal with God.  And both of these very clearly either state or at the very least necessarily imply, the full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Being in the form of God, might be naturally taken as the equivalent of possessing the nature of God.  But I am inclined to think that there is an emphasis that is placed here that is slightly different.  Even though his full possession, his perfect possession of the nature of God is certainly implied in the words, Being in the form of God, it is not simply the fact that he was truly God, but that as God, he exhibited that majesty, that glory, that splendor that belonged to the divine nature.  I think the force of the statement with regard to his humiliation becomes more clearly defined when we look upon these words, the form of God, in this fashion.  The form that is spoken of here might be taken then to be equivalent to the glory of God as that glory displays and manifests itself. 

So also, the statement that he counted it not robbery to be equal with God, certainly implies the absolute equality of the Son with the Father.  He possesses the same nature as the Father, he has all the attributes that the Father has.  He has declared this himself to be the case in the fifth chapter of John’s gospel when he declared, My Father worketh hitherto and I work, which words of his gave occasion to the unbelieving Jews to charge him with blasphemy because they regarded him as making himself equal with God.  So in John 5:18, their charge was not only that he had broken the Sabbath, but in saying also that God was his Father he made himself equal with God.  Then the Lord Jesus Christ gave the explanation we have in John 5:19:  Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.  And the whole following discourse sets forth the equality of the Son with the Father.  And we know that on another occasion also the life of our Savior was attempted by his enemies on the same grounds that he made a claim to be God.  It is significant that our Savior is never found making that claim in the words, I am God, but as this may be understood to be an aspect of his humiliation.  But, that he claimed full deity is certainly implicit in the many words that he spoke from time to time with respect to his relationship to the Father.

The height of Christ’s eternal state must be recognized if we are to have any kind of notion as to the depth of his humiliation.  It is because he was God over all that his taking to himself the nature of man shows great condescension.  In the 113th Psalm we read of the condescension of God in looking upon the things in heaven and upon the things in earth.  This is great condescension on God’s part to create that which was other than himself and to take notice of it, to have knowledge of it, the preservation of it and the governing of it.  There is infinite condescension to be found that the infinite God should have such regard for the finite.  But what condescension it is that God who is exalted so high above all creatures, should himself take the nature of the creature into union with himself.  The incarnation itself has to seen as a step into his humiliation.  It must be seen as great condescension on the part of the Almighty.

Now our text gives expression to the humiliation of Christ particularly in the words that we have translated in the Authorized Version, [He] made himself of no reputation.  We have also in verse 8 the language, he humbled himself – being found in fashion as a man – he  humbled himself.  Some have supposed that the making of himself of no reputation was exclusively related to his incarnation, whereas the humiliation spoken of in verse 8 relates to his activity in this life subsequent to the time of his incarnation.  I do not think there is really much of a difference to made between the two.  You may indeed say that Christ humbled himself in his incarnation;  and you may also say that was his making of himself of no reputation.  Rendered literally these words must be translated, He emptied himself, and that emptying of himself comprised not only his incarnation, not only to his taking on him the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man, but also includes these further stages of his humiliation spoken of in Philippians 2:8, He became obedient unto death, even unto the death of the cross. 

Now with regard to the words, He made himself of no reputation, or, he emptied himself, we may ask some questions.  In what sense is the Mediator said to have emptied himself and to have made himself of no reputation? And of what did he empty himself?  We have a parallel statement with regard to Christ’s humiliation in 2 Corinthians, Chapter 8 and verse 9, where we are told:  For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, (or for our sakes) that ye through his poverty might be rich.  It’s the same thought that one finds expressed in this figure of richness and poverty that is expressed in the language of our text, that Christ emptied himself and took upon himself the form of a servant.  The form of a servant here is undoubtedly contrasted with the form of God that is spoken of in verse 6.  Before his incarnation, he was in the form of God; after his incarnation, he was in the form of a servant.  Does this mean that he gave up the form of God when he took upon himself the form of a servant?  Some people think that is the case, but I am not inclined to agree with that, especially if in the form of God one has a view the nature of God, the active use of the prerogatives of God.  You may say, the essential glory of God.  None of this could possibly have been absent from him or laid aside by him.  He did not empty himself of his divine nature, his divine attributes, and prerogatives, or his essential divine glory.  He could not have laid these aside in taking upon himself the form of a servant.  God is immutable, God cannot change.  The strange theories that have been popular since the 19th century with regard to this set aside what is fundamentally and unshakably true.  That is, that the Lord is One who changes not, and our Lord Jesus Christ is One who is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  No, we certainly may not think of the humiliation of Christ as being an emptying himself of divine attributes and prerogatives.

I do think, however, that the language of our Larger Catechism is correct when it states that the estate of Christ’s humiliation was that low condition, wherein he for our sakes, emptying himself of his glory, took upon himself the form of a servant…   He emptied himself of his glory.  This emptying himself of his glory surely has to do with the manifestation of the glory of Christ. That glory was not manifested when it was concealed by the veil of the form of a servant.  Yet, while the form of God was not given up in the Savior’s humiliation, I do believe that the form of a servant was given up in his exaltation; for in his exaltation he is no longer under the bondage that he was brought under in his state of humiliation.  But he does maintain, he does retain, that human nature which he has assumed.  So that the humiliation of Christ in taking on himself the form of a servant consists not merely in the incarnation as such, not merely in the fact that he took our nature to himself.  There is indeed a mysterious condescension of God in these particulars.   And it is also true, undoubtedly, that there is a marvelous elevation of the nature of man, that it should be united in a personal union to the Second Person of the Trinity.  But we still see how great the humiliation of the Son of God was in taking upon him the form of a servant. 

This humiliation is stated in many Scriptures.  It is prophesied in the Old Testament, and in the 8th Psalm and the 5th verse, we are told that he was made a little lower than the angels.  And we have been singing of what applies not only to the low state of the church of Christ in time of distress, but what may also be applied also to the Savior’s own humiliation in the 89th Psalm.  In the 118th Psalm, in the 22nd verse, we read of the stone that the builders’ rejected has been made the head of the corner.  This was the rejection of the chief cornerstone by those who were the builders.  The spiritual temple represents the humiliation of the Savior.  We have the words of prophecy in Isaiah 52:14, that many would be astonished at him, that his visage would be marred more than the sons of men.  And then if we were to go on to Isaiah 53, in the 2nd verse, we have a description given of our Redeemer in the state of his humiliation.  For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see shall him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

When we say he emptied himself of his glory, we do not understand then a divestiture of the prerogatives that he had in God.  And we are spared, as Psalm singers, from Christmas hymns like the one which speaks of, Thou didst leave thy throne and thy kingly crown, Thou camest to earth for me…  This kind of canonic language, as it might be called, is certainly well to be avoided.

The glory that was concealed appears to be that of which our Savior spoke in his great high priestly prayer in John the 17th chapter at the 5th verse.  And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.  It is true there is a problem here, that the essential glory, which he had with the Father before the world was, was not something that he lost during the time of his humiliation and that had to be restored to him when he was glorified.  There were no creatures before the world was before whom that glory was to be manifested.   But notwithstanding the mysteriousness that there is in this, I think that we can understand that the manifestation of the glory of Christ was indeed very largely concealed during the time of his humiliation.  You may say it was as if the was sun shining behind a cloud or during an eclipse.  The sun continues to shine, but it doesn’t appear to our vision to be shining.  But sometimes it comes out for a moment from under the clouds, you might say, and that even during the time of his humiliation the glory and the majesty of our Savior’s divinity did appear from time to time to a few persons whose eyes were open to see it.  So the Apostle John states when he speaks of the Word becoming flesh and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.  But for the most part, that glory was not evident to the eyes of those who looked upon our Savior who had taken on himself the form of a servant and who appeared in the likeness of men. 

In the words likeness of men, we are reminded of the words in Romans 8:3, that he appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh.  Not that he appeared in sinful flesh, but in the likeness of sinful flesh.  He took upon himself our human nature, not with the corruption that we inherit in natural generation, but he took on himself our human nature with the sinless infirmities, with subjection to hunger and to thirst and to other such infirmities, and eventually his being made subject unto death itself.  So our Savior was said to be made in the likeness of men, not that it was a temporary, or that it was an illusory appearance.  He did truly take on the nature of man, just as he was truly in the form of God and also truly in the form of a servant.  That he was truly in the form of a servant means that he was really a servant, and that he was truly in the form of God, means that he really was God.  And that in the natural sense of the words, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God.  I know that it’s possible to understand his thinking it not robbery in a somewhat different sense than that which is ordinary.  But I think the ordinary sense is quite adequate that our Savior did not find it to be in any way an arrogating to himself that which didn’t belong to him, that he should be equal to God.  That arrogating, of course, was the great sin of Satan, as it was the sin of our first parents, that they desired to be like unto God in a way in which they were not supposed to be like unto God.  They desired a certain independence that does not belong to the creature who is by reason of creation absolutely dependent upon the Creator.

The two states of the Mediator were absolutely necessary for the salvation of sinners.  By his humiliation salvation was procured.  In his exaltation it is applied.   Nowhere do the Scriptures suggest that the Word would have become flesh even if Adam had not sinned.  There has been this speculation sometimes on the part of good men, but there is certainly no Scripture support for such a thought.  Wherever Scripture speaks of the incarnation of the Savior, it speaks of it as the divinely ordained means for the redemption of sinners.  So he himself declares that the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many.  And so the statement of 2nd Corinthians, that he that was rich became poor in order that we through his poverty might be made rich.  The signification of that is made very explicit in the words that he who knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 

Now while there was a necessity for this humiliation of Christ in order that we might be saved, it was a voluntary act upon his part.  When the text says that he made himself of no reputation and took on himself the form of a servant, it was not something that was done passively to him, but it was his own act, his own acting in himself.  It was his own act in taking upon himself the form of a servant.  And the fact that he did so voluntarily is what made his activity and his subsequent obedience to be meritorious in the sight of God. 

It is not necessary at this time to say very much at all about the third point because we find the stages of Christ’s humiliation summarily intimated in verse 8, Being found in fashion of a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.  Our catechism answer speaks of the conception and birth of Christ, of his life of obedience and suffering, and of his death and burial, and the following questions of the Larger Catechism set forth in detail each one of these phases of the Savior’s humiliation, and the Lord willing, we may give closer attention to these matters on future occasions.  But one general remark is sufficient at this time and that is, that our Savior’s taking of our human nature unto himself in the incarnation was the first step of his humiliation.  The humiliation, as it is set forth in the words of verse 8, indicate that having come down so low in his condescension, he went lower, lower, and lower still to the very depths in his death and in the grave.

By way of application let us observe in his humiliation Christ is both our Redeemer and our example.  He became poor in order that we might be made rich.  He was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.  This intimates the fact that his redemptive work which he came to perform in his humiliation was something which only he could possibly perform, no less than a divine Person.  And as we have previously pointed out, the merit of his obedience is due to the fact that his divine nature was inseparably united to the human nature in which he obeyed and suffered. 

But not only is this the case, our text in its context intimates that the humiliation of Christ may serve to us for an example. Let the same mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.  And one point of example that we have here is that of contending with the world.  People might speak about holding onto the world loosely, and then go ahead and live in such a way as to show that their hearts are really rooted in this present evil world.  But our Savior did not merely teach by word that this world is to be regarded as being of no value in comparison with the infinite value of that blessedness which is found in the knowledge of God alone.  He not only taught in word, but he enforced by his example the fact that he was not at all attached to this present world.  But that he had meat to eat that this world knew not of… that though foxes had their holes in the earth, the Savior had not where to lay his head.  Yet, he knew the blessedness of communion with the Eternal God, the blessedness which to be sure was broken in that fearful hour of his humiliation in which he cried out,  My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?  We see in all of this the example that is given to us, and the pattern he has left behind is to be emulated.  May he be pleased to grant his blessing and enable us to call upon his name in prayer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eternal, Most High and Holy God,

We would bless thy name, that though with pride of heart we have set ourselves against thee, yet thou wast pleased to send the Savior who has humbled himself, and who, taking on the form of a Servant has rendered obedience unto the commandments of thy law, and has suffered that penalty that our sins deserve.  Do thou, O Lord, grant that we might know him then as our Savior and Lord.  Do thou grant that we might be found walking as he has walked. 

Go before us, undertake for us, O Lord, this day.  Grant thy blessing upon the children of thy children that they may have the knowledge of thee, that they might serve thee, even in days of youth.  Do thou, Lord, remember our guilty nation, those that rule over us we would pray that there might be a national repentance, a humiliation for all that in which we have and in which we do continue to offend thee.  Do thou, O Lord, forgive our sin and iniquity in all things.  Receive us graciously in Christ,  We ask all in his name and for his sake alone,  Amen.

~~~