Philippians 2

Philippians 2:1

Ambrosiaster: These things that he enumerates will, as he shows, be proved realities if the injunctions that he has given below are obeyed: They are of one mind and humble in spirit, not provoking one another but rejoicing in love. If so, the apostle’s joy in them may be complete. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.4.2

Clement of Alexandria: But the apostle, writing to us with reference to the endurance of afflictions, says, “And this is of God, that it is given to you on behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake; having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear to be in me. If there is therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any communion of spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that ye may be of the same mind, having the same love, unanimous, thinking one thing. And if he is offered on the sacrifice and service of faith, joying and rejoicing” with the Philippians, to whom the apostle speaks, calling them “fellow-partakers of joy,” how does he say that they are of one soul, and having a soul? — The Stromata Book 4

Gaius Marius Victorinus: When we are in the midst of ills and labor under the ills of the world, if we have mutual love for one another, God will be our “consolation in love.” “If, therefore,” he says, “there is this consolation in love, so that, because I love you, you console me in the midst of my ills, make my joy complete.” … He has done well to put [the Spirit] third. For the first is to be called in Christ, the next to have love. But when both are true and they have already been called in Christ and enjoy the consolation of loving and being loved, without doubt the fellowship of the Spirit is there.… The church becomes one body when those who have been called are bound to one another in the love of Christ, when they are bound also in the Spirit and have the same “affection and sympathy.” The affection corresponds to the calling in Christ and the fellowship of the Spirit, the sympathy to the consolation of love. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.1-4

John Chrysostom: There is nothing better, there is nothing more affectionate, than a spiritual teacher; such an one surpasses the kindness of any natural father. Do but consider, how this blessed one entreats the Philippians concerning the things which were to their own advantage. What says he, in exhorting them concerning concord, that cause of all good things? See how earnestly, how vehemently, with how much sympathy he speaks, “If there be therefore any comfort in Christ,” that is, if ye have any comfort in Christ, as if he had said, If thou makest any account of me, if thou hast any care of me, if thou hast ever received good at my hands, do this. This mode of earnestness we use when we claim a matter which we prefer to everything else. For if we did not prefer it to everything, we should not wish to receive in it our recompense for all things, nor say that through it all is represented. We indeed remind men of our carnal claims; for example, if a father were to say, If thou hast any reverence for thy father, if any remembrance of my care in nourishing thee, if any affection towards me, if any memory of the honor thou hast received of me, if any of my kindness, be not at enmity with thy brother; that is, for all those things, this is what I ask in return.

But Paul does not so; he calls to our remembrance no carnal, but all of them spiritual benefits. That is, if ye wish to give me any comfort in my temptations, and encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if ye wish to show any communion in the Spirit, if ye have any tender mercies and compassions, fulfil ye my joy. “If any tender mercies and compassions.” Paul speaks of the concord of his disciples as compassion towards himself, thus showing that the danger was extreme, if they were not of one mind. If I can obtain comfort from you, if I can obtain any consolation from our love, if I can communicate with you in the Spirit, if I can have fellowship with you in the Lord, if I can find mercy and compassion at your hands, show by your love the return of all this. All this have I gained, if ye love one another. — Homily on Philippians 5

Philippians 2:2

Gaius Marius Victorinus: Remember that God is one, his Son is one and his Holy Spirit is one, and all three are one. If so, then we too ought to be one in our thoughts, so as to “be of the same mind” with the one God. Then it follows that we are to “have the same love.” To be of the same mind pertains to knowledge, while to have the same love pertains to discipline, to the conduct of life. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.2-5

Gaius Marius Victorinus: What does he mean by “the same love”? That you should have the same love for another that the other has for you, not a divided love but a love embedded in life in Christ. Then he adds “in full accord and of one mind.” He seems to me to be underscoring what he has said above but in a reversed order. “In full accord” corresponds to “the same love. Of one mind” refers to the previous phrase: “being of the same mind.” Yet there is something more nuanced in this pair than in the previous one. For “being of the same mind” and “of one mind” differ only slightly. Both pertain to knowledge. “Being of the same mind” suggests a knowledge that is not yet established, yet its capacity of knowing may be seen to be the same.… “Being of the same mind” seems to be still a continuing process. It is the way to life. But “having the same love” is the way of life to which that knowing leads. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.2-5

Ignatius of Antioch: Being mindful of your love and of your zeal in Christ, which ye have manifested towards us, we thought it fitting to write to you, who display such a godly and spiritual love to the brethren, to put you in remembrance of your Christian course, “that ye all speak the same thing, being of one mind, thinking the same thing, and walking by the same rule of faith,” [Philippians 2:2] as Paul admonished you. For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, “of whom are all things; " and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], “by whom are all things; " and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles; and also one baptism, which is administered that we should have fellowship with the death of the Lord; and also one elect Church; there ought likewise to be but one faith in respect to Christ. For “there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is through all, and in all.” — Epistle of Pseudo-Ignatius to the Philippians

Ignatius of Antioch: But be ye all joined together with an undivided heart and a willing mind, “being of one accord and of one judgment,” [Philippians 2:2] being always of the same opinion about the same things, both when you are at ease and in danger, both in sorrow and in joy. — Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians

John Chrysostom: “Fulfil ye my joy.”

That the exhortation might not seem to be made to people who were still deficient, see how he says not, “do me joy,” but “fulfil my joy”; that is, Ye have begun to plant it in me, ye have already given me some portion of peacefulness, but I desire to arrive at its fulness. Say, what wouldest thou? that we deliver thee from dangers? that we supply somewhat to thy need? Not so, but “that ye be of the same mind, having the same love,” in which ye have begun, “being of one accord, of one mind.” Just see, how often he repeats the same thing by reason of his great affection! “That ye be of the same mind,” or rather, “that ye be of one mind.” For this is more than “the same.”

“Having the same love.” That is, let it not be simply about faith alone, but also in all other things; for there is such a thing as to be of the same mind, and yet not to have love. “Having the same love,” that is, love and be loved alike; do not thou enjoy much love, and show less love, so as to be covetous even in this matter; but do not suffer it in thyself. “Of one accord,” he adds, that is, appropriating with one soul, the bodies of all, not in substance, for that is impossible, but in purpose and intention. Let all things proceed as from one soul. What means “of one accord”? He shows when he says “of one mind.” Let your mind be one, as if from one soul. — Homily on Philippians 5

Shepherd of Hermas: And they have always agreed with each other, and been at peace among themselves, and listened to each other. On account of this, they joyfully dwell together. — Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3

Philippians 2:3

Desert Fathers: There once came from the city of Rome a monk who had held a high place in the palace. He lived near the church in Scetis, and had with him a servant to take care of him. The priest of the church saw that he was weak and knew that he was used to comfort: and so he passed on to him whatever the Lord gave to him or to the church. After he had lived in Scetis for twenty-five years, he became well known as a man of prayer who had the spirit of prophecy. One of the great Egyptian monks heard of his reputation and came to see him in the hope that he would find there a more austere way of life. He came into his cell and greeted him; after they had prayed they sat down. But the Egyptian saw he had soft clothing, and a bed of reeds, and a blanket under him, and a little pillow under his head, and clean feet with sandals, and he was inwardly contemptuous. In Scetis they never used to live like this, but practised sterner austerity. But the old Roman, with his gift of prayer and insight, saw that the Egyptian monk was shocked to the core. So he said to his servant: ‘Make us a good meal today, for this abba who has come.’ He cooked the few vegetables that he had, and they ate at the proper hour: he had a little wine because of his weakness, and they drank that. In the evening they said twelve psalms, and went to sleep afterwards; they did the same in the night. In the morning the Egyptian got up and left, and saying, ‘Pray for me,’ he went away, not at all impressed. When he had gone a little way the old Roman wanted to heal his mind, and sent after him and called him back. He said: ‘What is your province?’ He answered, ‘I am an Egyptian.’ He said, ‘Of what city?’ He answered, ‘Of no city, I never lived in a city.’ He said, ‘Before you were a monk, how did you earn your living?’ He answered, ‘I was a herdsman.’ He said to him, ‘Where did you sleep?’ He answered, ‘In the fields.’ He said, ‘Had you a mattress?’ He answered, ‘Why should I have a mattress for sleeping in a field?’ He said, ‘So how did you sleep?’ He replied, ‘On the ground.’ He said, ‘What did you eat when you were in the fields? What wine did you drink?’ He answered, ‘What kind of food and drink do you find in a field?’ He said, ‘How then did you live?’ He answered, ‘I ate dry bread, and salt fish if there was any, and I drank water.’ Then the Roman said, ‘A hard life,’ and he added, ‘Was there a bath on the farm where you worked?’ The Egyptian said, ‘No: I washed in the river, when I wanted to.’ When the hermit had extracted these answers, and knew how the Egyptian lived and worked before he became a monk, he wanted to help him: and so he described his own past life in the world. ‘This wretch in front of you came from the great city of Rome, where I had an important post at the palace in the Emperor’s service.’ When the Egyptian heard this first sentence, he was moved, and began to listen attentively. He went on, ‘So I left Rome, and came into this desert. I, whom you see, had great houses and wealth and I scorned them, and came to this little cell. I, whom you see, had beds decked with gold, with costly coverings: and instead of them God gave me this bed of reeds and this blanket. My clothes were rich and expensive: and instead of them I wear these tatters.’ He went on, ‘I used to spend much money on my dinner table and instead of it He has given me these few vegetables and this little cup of wine. Many servants used to wait upon me, and instead the Lord has given one man alone to look after me. Instead of a bath I dip my feet in a little bowl of water, and I use sandals because of my infirmity. For the pipe and the lyre and all the varieties of music which used to delight me at dinner I say twelve psalms in the day, and twelve psalms in the night. For the sins which once I committed, I now offer this poor and useless service to God in quietness. See then, abba, do not be scornful of my weakness.’ When the Egyptian had listened to him, he came to his senses and said, ‘I am a fool. I came from a hard life of labour to be at rest in the monk’s way of life and now I have what I didn’t have before. But you have come of your own accord to this hard life, and have left the comforts of the world; you came from honour and wealth to loneliness and poverty.’ So he went away with much profit; and he became his friend, and used to go to the old man for his soul’s good, for Arsenius (this was his name) was a man of discernment, and full of the fragrance of the Holy Spirit. — The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

Desert Fathers: A hermit was asked, ‘What is humility?’ He answered, ‘Humility is a great work, and a work of God. The way of humility is to undertake bodily labour, and believe yourself a sinner, and make yourself the servant of all.’ A brother said, ‘What does it mean, to be the servant of all?’ He answered, ‘To be the servant of all is not to look at the sins of others, always to look at your own sins, and to pray to God without ceasing.’ — The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

Desert Fathers: Joseph asked Poemen, ‘Tell me how to become a monk.’ He said, ‘If you want to find rest in this life and the next, say at every moment, “Who am I?” and judge no one.’ — The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

Gaius Marius Victorinus: “Do nothing,” he says, “through ambition.” For many are either prone toward ambitiousness of their own accord or moved toward ambitiousness through others. All these kinds of ambition are to be banished. There is to be no inordinate ambition, whether voluntary or constrained, since both are vicious. Some rush into this ambition through speculation; others are naturally of such temper as to be ambitious. So he advises: “do nothing through ambition.” — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.2.5

Ignatius of Antioch: I trust to the grace of Jesus Christ, that He will free you from every bond of wickedness. I therefore exhort you that ye do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. For I have heard some saying, If I do not find the Gospel in the archives, I will not believe it. To such persons I say that my archives are Jesus Christ, to disobey whom is manifest destruction. My authentic archives are His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which bears on these things, by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified. He who disbelieves the Gospel disbelieves everything along with it. For the archives ought not to be preferred to the Spirit. “It is hard to kick against the pricks; " it is hard to disbelieve Christ; it is hard to reject the preaching of the apostles. — Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians

John Chrysostom: “Doing nothing through faction.”

He finally demands this of them, and tells them the way how this may be. “Doing nothing through faction or vainglory.” This, as I always say, is the cause of all evil. Hence come fightings and contentions. Hence come envyings and strifes. Hence it is that love waxes cold, when we love the praise of men, when we are slaves to the honor which is paid by the many, for it is not possible for a man to be the slave of praise, and also a true servant of God. How then shall we flee vainglory? for thou hast not yet told us the way. Listen then to what follows. “But in lowliness of mind, each counting other better than himself.” Oh how full of true wisdom, how universal a gathering-word of our salvation is the lesson he has put forth! If thou deemest, he means, that another is greater than thyself, and persuadest thyself so, yea more, if thou not only sayest it, but art fully assured of it, then thou assignest him the honor, and if thou assignest him the honor, thou wilt not be displeased at seeing him honored by another. Do not then think him simply greater than thyself, but “better,” which is a very great superiority, and thou dost not think it strange nor be pained thereby, if thou seest him honored. Yea, though he treat thee with scorn, thou dost bear it nobly, for thou hast esteemed him greater than thyself. Though he revile thee, thou dost submit. Though he treat thee ill, thou bearest it in silence. For when once the soul is fully assured that he is greater, it falls not into anger when it is ill-treated by him, nor yet into envy, for no one would envy those who are very far above himself, for all things belong to his superiority.

Here then he instructs the one party to be thus minded. But when he too, who enjoys such honor from thee, is thus affected toward thee, consider what a double wall there is erected of gentle forbearance; for when thou esteemest him thus worthy of honor, and he thee likewise, no painful thing can possibly arise; for if this conduct when shown by one is sufficient to destroy all strife, who shall break down the safeguard, when it is shown by both? Not even the Devil himself. The defense is threefold, and fourfold, yea manifold, for humanity is the cause of all good; and that you may learn this, listen to the prophet, saying, “Hadst thou desired sacrifice, I would have given it: Thou wilt not delight in burnt offerings. The sacrifice for God is a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart God will not despise.” (Ps. li. 16, Ps. li. 17.) Not simply humility, but intense humility. As in the case of bodily substances, that which is “broken” will not rise against that which is “solid,” but, how many ills soever it may suffer, will perish itself rather than attack the other, so too the soul, even if constantly suffering ill, will choose rather to die, than to avenge itself by attack.

How long shall we be puffed up thus ridiculously? For as we laugh, when we see children drawing themselves up, and looking haughty, or when we see them picking up stones and throwing them, thus too the haughtiness of men belongs to a puerile intellect, and an unformed mind. “Why are earth and ashes proud?” (Ecclus. x. 9.) Art thou highminded, O man? and why? tell me what is the gain? Whence art thou highminded against those of thine own kind? Dost not thou share the same nature? the same life? Hast not thou received like honor from God? But thou art wise? Thou oughtest to be thankful, not to be puffed up. Haughtiness is the first act of ingratitude, for it denies the gift of grace. He that is puffed up, is puffed up as if he had excelled by his own strength, and he who thinks he has thus excelled is ungrateful toward Him who bestowed that honor. Hast thou any good? Be thankful to Him who gave it. — Homily on Philippians 5

Tertullian: There is, too, another chief spur of impatience, the lust of revenge, dealing with the business either of glory or else of malice. But “glory,” on the one hand, is everywhere “vain; " and malice, on the other, is always odious to the Lord; in this case indeed most of all, when, being provoked by a neighbour’s malice, it constitutes itself superior in following out revenge, and by paying wickedness doubles that which has once been done. — Of Patience

Philippians 2:4

Gaius Marius Victorinus: If we think only of ourselves, we may act for our own benefit and bother only with our own affairs, our hope, our own deliverance. But this is not enough. We are truly acting for ourselves if we also have a concern for others and strive to be of benefit to them. For since we are all one body, we look out for ourselves when we look out for others. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.2-5

Philippians 2:5

Gaius Marius Victorinus: Above he has given two injunctions, first that they should delight in humility, then that they should think not only of their own affairs but of those of others. Then he says, “Have this mind among yourselves that was in Christ Jesus.” Which of these two then do we take to have been manifested in Christ Jesus? One or the other or both? For the first, his humility, is manifest, since Christ humbled himself and assumed the character of a slave. But the second injunction could be here as well, since he bore this for others and thought of others rather than of himself. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.6-8

John Chrysostom: They say that the words, “He counted it not a prize,” are of wrongfully seizing. We have proved, that this is altogether vapid and impertinent, for no man would exhort another to humility on such grounds, nor in this sort does he praise God, or even man. What is it then, beloved? Give heed to what I now say. Since many men think, that, when they are lowly, they are deprived of their proper right, and debased, Paul, to take away this fear, and to show that we must not be affected thus, says that God, the only begotten, who was in the form of God, who was no whit inferior to the Father, who was equal to Him, “counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God.”

Now learn what this meaneth. Whatsoever a man robs, and takes contrary to his right, he dares not lay aside, from fear lest it perish, and fall from his possession, but he keeps hold of it continually. He who possesses some dignity which is natural to him, fears not to descend from that dignity, being assured that nothing of this sort will happen to him. As for example, Absalom usurped the government, and dared not afterwards to lay it aside. We will go to another example, but if example cannot present the whole matter to you, take it not amiss, for this is the nature of examples, they leave the greater part for the imagination to reason out. A man rebels against his sovereign, and usurps the kingdom: he dares not lay aside and hide the matter, for if he once hide it, straightway it is gone. Let us also take another example; if a man takes anything violently, he keeps firm hold of it continually, for if he lay it down, he straightway loses it. And generally speaking, they who have aught by rapine are afraid to lay it by, or hide it, or not to keep constantly in that state which they have assumed. Not so they, who have possessions not procured by rapine, as Man, who possesses the dignity of being a reasonable being. But here examples fail me, for there is no natural preeminence amongst us, for no good thing is naturally our own; but they are inherent in the nature of God. What does one say then? That the Son of God feared not to descend from His right, for He thought not Deity a prize seized. He was not afraid that any would strip Him of that nature or that right, Wherefore He laid it aside, being confident that He should take it up again. He hid it, knowing that He was not made inferior by so doing. For this cause, Paul says not, “He seized not,” but, “He counted it not a prize”; He possessed not that estate by seizure, but it was natural, not conferred, it was enduring and safe. Wherefore he refused not to take the form of an inferior. The tyrant fears to lay aside the purple robe in war, while the king does it with much safety. Why so? because he holds his power not as a matter of seizure. He did not refuse to lay it aside, as one who had usurped it, but since He had it as His own by nature, since it could never be parted from Him, He hid it.

This equality with God He had not by seizure, but as his own by nature. — Homily on Philippians 7

John Chrysostom: Our Lord Jesus Christ, when exhorting His disciples to great actions, places before them Himself, and the Father, and the Prophets, as examples; as when He says, “For thus they did unto the Prophets which were before you”; and again, “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you”; and, “Learn of Me, for I am meek”; and again, “Be ye merciful, as your Father which is in heaven is merciful.” This too the blessed Paul did; in exhorting them to humility, he brought forward Christ. And he does so not here only, but also when he discourses of love towards the poor, he speaks in this wise. “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor.” Nothing rouses a great and philosophic soul to the performance of good works, so much as learning that in this it is likened to God. What encouragement is equal to this? None. This Paul well knowing, when he would exhort them to humility, first beseeches and supplicates them, then to awe them he says, “That ye stand fast in one Spirit”; he says also, that it “is for them an evident token of perdition, but of your salvation.” And last of all he says this, “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant.” — Homily on Philippians 6

Methodius of Olympus: For martyrdom is so admirable and desirable, that the Lord, the Son of God Himself, honouring it, testified, “He thought it not robbery to be equal with God” — Methodius Fragments

Philippians 2:6

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

Ambrosiaster: Knowing that he is “in the form of God,” he committed no theft.… Rightly, then, he equaled himself with God. For the one who “thinks robbery” is the one who makes himself equal to another whose inferior he is. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.6

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

Augustine of Hippo: God who is eternally wise has with him his eternal Wisdom [the Son]. He is not in any way unequal to the Father. He is not in any respect inferior. For the apostle too says “who, when he was in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God.” — On Faith and the Creed 5

Augustine of Hippo: Wherein lies the Son’s equality? If you say in greatness, there is no equality of greatness in one who is less eternal. And so with other things. Is he perhaps equal in might but not equal in wisdom? Yet how can there be equality of might in one who is inferior in wisdom? Or is he equal in wisdom but not equal in might? But how can there be equality of virtue in one who is inferior in power? Instead Scripture declares more simply “he thought it not robbery to be equal.” Therefore every adversary of truth who is at all subject to apostolic authority must admit that the Son is in some one respect at least the equal of God. Let him choose whichever quality he might wish, but from that it will appear that he is equal in all that is attributed to divinity. — ON THE TRINITY 6.5

Augustine of Hippo: These things are said partly on account of the economy by which the Son assumed humanity … partly because the Son owes to the Father his existence and also owes to the Father indeed his equality or parity with the Father. The Father, however, owes to no one his being, whatever he is. — On Faith and the Creed 18

Augustine of Hippo: They that have done well will go to live with the angels of God; they that have done evil, to be tormented with the devil and his angels. And the form of a servant will pass away. For to this end He had manifested Himself, that He might execute judgment. After the judgment, He shall go hence, will lead with Him the body of which He is the head, and deliver up the kingdom of God. Then will openly be seen that form of God which could not be seen by the wicked, to whose vision the form of a servant must be shown. He says also in another place on this wise: “These shall go away into everlasting burning” (speaking of certain on the left), “but the just into life eternal;” of which life He says in another place: “And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.” Then will He be there manifested, “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Then He will manifest Himself, as He has promised to manifest Himself to them that love Him. — Tractates on John 19

Cyprian: That Christ was to come in low estate in His first advent. In Isaiah: “Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the Arm of the Lord revealed? We have declared in His presence as children, as a root in a thirsty ground. There is no form nor glory in Him; and we saw Him, and He had no form nor beauty; but His form was without honour, and lacking beyond other men. He was a man set in a plague, and knowing how to bear weakness; because His face was turned away, He was dishonoured, and was not accounted of. He bears our sins, and grieves for us; and we thought that He was in grief, and in wounding, and in affliction; but He was wounded for our transgressions, and He was weakened for our sins. The discipline of our peace was upon Him, and with His bruise we are healed. We all like sheep have gone astray; than has gone out of his way. And God has delivered Him for our sins; and He, because He was afflicted, opened not His mouth.” Also in the same: “I am not rebellious, nor do I contradict. I gave my back to the stripes, and my cheeks to the palms of the hands. Moreover, I did not turn away my Gee from the foulness of spitting, and God was my helper.” Also in the same: “He shall not cry, nor will any one hear His voice in the streets. He shall not break a bruised reed, and a smoking flax He shall not extinguish; but He shall bring forth judgment in truth. He shall shine forth, and shall not be shaken, until He set judgment in the earth, and in His name shall the nations trust.” Also in the twenty-first Psalm: “But I am a worm, and no man; the accursed of man, and the casting away of the people. All they who saw me despised me, and spoke within their lips, and moved their head. He hoped in the Lord, let Him deliver him; let Him save him, since he will have Him.” Also in that place: “My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue is glued to my jaws.” Also in Zechariah: “And the Lord showed me Jesus, that great priest, standing before the face of the Angel of the Lord, and the devil was standing at his right hand to oppose him. And Jesus was clothed in filthy garments, and he stood before the face of the Angel Himself; and He answered and said to them who were standing before His face, saying, Take away his filthy garments from him. And he said to him, Behold, I have taken away thine iniquities. And put upon him a priestly garment, and set a fair mitre upon his head.” Also Paul to the Philippians: “Who, being established in the form of God, thought it not robbery that He was equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore also God exalted Him, and gave Him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, of things in earth, and of infernal things, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord in the glory of God the Father.” — Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

Cyprian: That there is given to us an example of living in Christ. In the Epistle of Peter to them of Pontus: “For Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that ye may follow His steps; who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, threatened not, but gave Himself up to him that judgeth unrighteously.” Also Paul to the Philippians: “Who, being appointed in the figure of God, thought it not robbery that He was equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, He was made in the likeness of man, and was found in fashion as a man. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, and the death of the cross. For which cause also God hath exalted Him, and hath given Him a name, that it may be above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowed, of things heavenly, and earthly, and infernal; and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in glory of God the Father.” Of this same thing in the Gospel according to John: “If I have washed your feet, being your Master and Lord, ye also ought to wash the feet of others. For I have given you an example, that as I have done, ye also should do to others.” — Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

Epiphanius of Salamis: You see that he reveals Christ to be a man but not merely so, since he is the mediator of God and humanity.… He is trueborn God by nature with respect to his Father, but with respect to humanity he is Mary’s trueborn son by nature, begotten without the seed of a man. — ANCORATUS 44

Epiphanius of Salamis: Suppose that when he became a slave he ceased being truly Lord. How then could it be said that in his coming the one who was “in the form of God took the form of a slave”? — ANCORATUS 28

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

Eusebius of Vercelli: You must choose one of two paths. Either there is a single inequality in the two [divine Father and divine Son] or there is a single equality in the glory of divinity itself. For no one is either greater or less than his own form.… This singular equality is seen not only in the concord of their willing together. It is rather in their very deity, since the form of equality is in no way divided into parts. Where there is one equality, there is no discord. Where there is one equality, neither is prior to the other. Neither is posterior nor subordinate, since there is no distinction in the united equality, which is the fullness of divinity. — ON THE TRINITY 3.4, 7

Fulgentius of Ruspe: While the whole Word came to us when “the Word was made flesh,” the whole remained with the Father in Spirit, equal to the Father, from whom he is eternally begotten yet made less by the gracious assumption of flesh so that he could be visible to us. And by this the Lord from the Lord remained Lord “in the form of God.” In order that he might come to slaves he received “the form of a slave” from his handmaid. — ON THE INCARNATION 21

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

Gaius Marius Victorinus: What does this mean—“being equal to God”? It means that he [the Son] is of the very same power and substance [as the Father]. … It is in this sense therefore that Christ was equal to God. Note that Paul did not say Christ was “similar to God,” for that would imply that Christ possessed some accidental likeness to the substance of God but not that he was substantially equal. … Thus Christ is the form of God. The form of God is the substance of God. The form and image of God is the Word. The Word is forever with God. The Word is of one substance with the Father, with whom from the beginning it remains forever the Word. — AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.21-22

Gaius Marius Victorinus: It would be a kind of robbery if two things were not equal by nature but were forced to be made equal or made equal through some accident. It therefore shows great confidence and bespeaks the very nature of divinity when Paul says of Christ that he did not think it robbery to be equal with God yet did not consider this equality something he had to fortify. — AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.23

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

Gregory of Nyssa: The form of God is absolutely the same as the essence. Yet when he came to be in “the form of a slave,” he took form in the essence of the slave, not assuming a naked form for himself. Yet he is not thereby divorced from his essence as God. Undoubtedly when Paul said that he was “in the form of God,” he was indicating the essence along with the form. — AGAINST EUNOMIUS 3.2.147

Gregory the Dialogist: Therefore that person truly touches Jesus who believes the Son to be coeternal with the Father. For in the heart of Paul, Jesus had already ascended to the Father when the same Paul was saying: “Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God.” Hence John also touched our Redeemer with the hand of faith, who says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him.” Therefore that person touches the Lord who believes him equal to the Father in eternity of substance. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 25

Hippolytus of Rome: And the Sethians say that from the water was produced a first-begotten principle, namely a vehement and boisterous wind, and that it is a cause of all generation, which creates a sort of heat and motion in the world from the motion of the waters. And they maintain that this wind is fashioned like the hissing of a serpent into a perfect image. And on this the world gazes and hurries into generation, being inflamed as a womb; and from thence they are disposed to think that the generation of the universe has arisen. And they say that this wind constitutes a spirit, and that a perfect God has arisen from the fragrance of the waters, and that of the spirit, and from the brilliant light. And they affirm that mind exists after the mode of generation from a female-(meaning by mind) the supernal spark-and that, having been mingled beneath with the compounds of body, it earnestly desires to flee away, that escaping it may depart and not find dissolution on account of the deficiency in the waters. Wherefore it is in the habit of crying aloud from the mixture of the waters, according to the Psalmist, as they say, “For the entire anxiety of the light above is, that it may deliver the spark which is below from the Father beneath,” that is, from wind. And the Father creates heat and disturbance, and produces for Himself a Son, namely mind, which, as they allege, is not the peculiar offspring of Himself. And these heretics affirm that the Son, on beholding the perfect Logos of the supernal light, underwent a transformation, and in the shape of a serpent entered into a womb, in order that he might be able to recover that Mind which is the scintillation from the light. And that this is what has been declared, “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 the wretched and baneful Sethians are disposed to think that this constitutes the servile form alluded to by the Apostle. These, then, are the assertions which likewise these Sethians advance. — Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book X

Jerome: [Daniel 7:13-14] “And behold, there came One with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man.” He who was described in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar as a rock cut without hands, which also grew to be a large mountain, and which smashed the earthenware, the iron, the bronze, the silver, and the gold is now introduced as the very person of the Son of man, so as to indicate in the case of the Son of God how He took upon Himself human flesh; according to the statement which we read in the Acts of the Apostles: “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up towards heaven? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

“…And He arrived unto the Ancient of days, and they brought Him before His presence, and He gave unto Him authority and honor and royal power.” All that is said here concerning His being brought before Almighty God and receiving authority and honor and royal power is to be understood in the light of the Apostle’s statement: “Who, although He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and was found in His condition to be as a man: He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:6-8). And if the sect of the Arians were willing to give heed to all this Scripture with a reverent mind, they would never direct against the Son of God the calumny that He is not on an equality with God.

“…And He is the one whom all the peoples, tribes, and language-groups shall serve. His authority is an eternal authority which shall not be removed, and His kingdom shall be one that shall never be destroyed…” Let Porphyry answer the query of whom out of all mankind this language might apply to, or who this person might be who was so powerful as to break and smash to pieces the little horn, whom he interprets to be Antiochus? If he replies that the princes of Antiochus were defeated by Judas Maccabaeus, then he must explain how Judas could be said to come with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man, and to be brought unto the Ancient of days, and how it could be said that authority and royal power was bestowed upon him, and that all peoples and tribes and language-groups served him, and that his power is eternal and not terminated by any conclusion. — St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, CHAPTER SEVEN

John Chrysostom: “Being in the form of God.” If “in the form” how sayest thou, O wicked one, that He took His origin from Mary, and was not before? and how dost thou say that He was an energy? For it is written, “The form of God took the form of a servant.” “The form of a servant,” is it the energy of a servant, or the nature of a servant? By all means, I fancy, the nature of a servant. Thus too the form of God, is the nature of God, and therefore not an energy.

It is written, “He counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God.” Now equality is not predicated, where there is but one person, for that which is equal hath somewhat to which it is equal. Seest thou not the substance of two Persons, and not empty names without things? Hearest thou not the eternal pre-existence of the Only-begotten?

And he not only bears record of this, but of His equality too, as John also doth, that he is no way inferior to the Father, for he saith, “He thought it not a thing to seize, to be equal with God.” Now what is their wise reasoning? Nay, say they, he proves the very contrary; for he says, that, “being in the form of God, He seized not equality with God.” How if He were God, how was He able “to seize upon it”? and is not this without meaning? Who would say that one, being a man, seized not on being a man? for how would any one seize on that which he is? No, say they, but he means that being a little God, He seized not upon being equal to the great God, Who was greater than He. Is there a great and a little God? And do ye bring in the doctrines of the Greeks upon those of the Church? With them there is a great and a little God. If it be so with you, I know not. For you will find it nowhere in the Scriptures: there you will find a great God throughout, a little one nowhere. If He were little, how would he also be God? If man is not little and great, but one nature, and if that which is not of this one nature is not man, how can there be a little God and a great one? He who is not of that nature is not God. For He is everywhere called great in Scripture; “Great is the Lord, and highly to be praised.” This is said of the Son also, for it always calls Him Lord. “Thou art great, and doest wondrous things. Thou art God alone.” And again, “Great is our Lord, and great is His power, and of His greatness there is no end.”

But the Son, he says, is little. But it is thou that sayest this, for the Scripture says the contrary: as of the Father, so it speaks of the Son; for listen to Paul, saying, “Looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of our great God.” But can he have said “appearing” of the Father? Nay, that he may the more convince you, he has added with reference to the appearing “of the great God.” Is it then not said of the Father? By no means. For the sequel suffers it not which says, “The appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” See, the Son is great also. How then speakest thou of small and great?

Listen to the Prophet too, calling him “The Messenger of great counsel.” “The Messenger of great counsel,” is He not great Himself? “The mighty God,” is He small and not great? What mean then these shameless and reckless men when they say, that being little He is a God? I repeat ofttimes what they say, that ye may the more avoid them. He being a lesser God seized not for Himself to be like the greater God! Tell me now (but think not that these words are mine), if he were little, as they say, and far inferior to the Father in power, how could He possibly have seized to Himself equality with God? For an inferior nature could not seize for himself admission into that which is great; for example, a man could not seize on becoming equal to an angel in nature; a horse could not, though he wished it, seize on being equal to a man in nature.

“Form” implies unchangeableness, so far as it is form. It is not possible that things of one substance should have the form of another, as no man has the form of an angel, neither has a beast the form of a man. How then should the Son?

Now in our own case, since we men are of a compound nature, form pertains to the body, but in the case of a simple and altogether uncompounded nature it is of the substance. But if thou contendest that he speaks not of the Father, because the word is used without the article, in many places this is meant, though the word be used without the article. Why say I, in many places? for in this very place he says, “He counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,” using the word without the article, though speaking of God the Father. — Homily on Philippians 6

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

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

Novatian: If Christ were only a man, he would have been said to have been “in the image of God,” not “in the form of God.” We know that humanity was made in the image, not the form, of God. — ON THE TRINITY 22.2

Novatian: He never either compared or opposed himself to God the Father. He remembered [throughout his earthly ministry] that he was from the Father. — ON THE TRINITY 22.5

Origen of Alexandria: First one may contemplate him existing in his primary form, that of God, before he emptied himself. One will then see the Son of God not yet having come forth from him, the [incarnate] Lord not yet having proceeded from his place. But then compare the preexistent state of the Son with that which resulted from his assuming “the form of a slave” when he “emptied himself.” You will then understand how the Son of God came forth and came to us and as it were became distinguishable from the One who sent him. Yet in another way the Father did not simply let him go but is with him and is in the Son as the Son is in the Father. — COMMENTARY ON John 10.18

Phileas of Thmuis: “For He thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, taking upon Him the form of a servant: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself unto death, even the death of the cross.”

Pseudo-Augustine: If therefore he thought it no robbery to assert his equality with God, he demonstrated that he was the true Son of God. No one could be God’s equal without being truly God. — QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS 97.2

Quodvultdeus: He did not rob, because who he was, he was by nature. Thus the omnipotence of the Father was in the Son and the omnipotence of the Son in the Father. The Father is never without the Son nor the Son without the Father. — ON THE CREED 1.3.14-15

Tertullian: For he says of Christ, that, “being in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant,” not the reality, “and was made in the likeness of man,” not a man, “and was found in fashion as a man,” not in his substance, that is to say, his flesh; just as if to a substance there did not accrue both form and likeness and fashion. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: And God made man, that is to say, the creature which He moulded and fashioned; after the image of God (in other words, of Christ) did He make him And the Word was God also, who being in the image of God, “thought it not robbery to be equal to God.” Thus, that clay which was even then putting on the image of Christ, who was to come in the flesh, was not only the work, but also the pledge and surety, of God. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Tertullian: This for certain is He “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none. — Against Praxeas

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

Theodoret of Cyrus: Being God, and God by nature, and having equality with God, he thought this no great thing, as is the way of those who have received some honor beyond their merits, but, hiding his merit, he elected the utmost humility and took the shape of a human being. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.6-7

Philippians 2:7

Ambrosiaster: Christ, therefore, knowing himself to be “in the form of God,” showed himself equal to God. But in order to teach the law of humility when the Jews were binding him, he not only refrained from resistance but “emptied himself,” that is, withheld his power from taking effect, so that in his humiliation he seemed to be weakened as his power lay idle. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.8.1

Ambrosiaster: He is said not to have taken the form of God but to have been in the form of God. What he is said to have taken is the form of a slave when he was humbled like a sinner. People become slaves through sin, like Ham the son of Noah, who first received the title of slave through his own actions. His “taking the form of a slave” was not simply his becoming human but his profound identification with sinners, voluntarily “taking the form of a slave.” — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.8.2

Ambrosiaster: “Taking the form of a slave.” He indeed was taken captive, bound and driven with blows. His obedience to the Father took him even as far as the cross. Yet throughout he knew himself to be the Father’s Son, equal in divine dignity. Yet he did not make a display of this equality. Rather he willingly subjected himself. This patience and humility he teaches us to imitate. We are to refrain from making a display of our claims to equal dignity, but even more so we are called to lower ourselves into service as we follow the example of our Maker. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.8.1-2

Augustine of Hippo: He is said to have “emptied himself” in no other way than by taking the form of a servant, not by losing the form of God. For that nature by which he is equal to the Father in the form of God remained immutable while he took our mutable nature, through which he was born of the Virgin. — CONTRA FAUSTUM 3.6

Augustine of Hippo: He “emptied himself,” not because as eternal Wisdom he underwent change. For as eternal Wisdom he is absolutely changeless. Rather without changing he chose to become known to humanity in such a humble form. — On Faith and the Creed 18

Augustine of Hippo: The Son humbled himself, taking the form of a slave. But meanwhile he remained above any slavery because he had no stain of sin. — ON THE GRACE OF CHRIST 33

Augustine of Hippo: The Lord Jesus Christ came in flesh and, having “accepted the form of a slave, became obedient even to death on the cross.” He has no other purpose than that by this dispensation of his most merciful grace he might give life to those who have become, as it were, members of his body. He is their head in order to obtain for them the kingdom of heaven. This he did to save and set free. He redeemed and enlightened those who had formerly been consigned to the death of sin. They had been languishing in slavery, captivity and darkness under the power of the devil, the prince of sinners. — ON WHAT IS DUE TO SINNERS 1.39

Augustine of Hippo: 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

Clement of Alexandria: And the flesh being a slave, as Paul testifies, how can one with any reason adorn the handmaid like a pimp? For that which is of flesh has the form of a servant. Paul says, speaking of the Lord, “Because He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant” — The Instructor Book 3

Clement of Alexandria ((quoting the teachings of Theodotus the Gnostic from AD 170)): God did all things through him. Therefore he is also said to have “taken the form of a slave.” It is not only the flesh of the slave that he assumed but the very nature of a slave that he assumed. He became a slave so that he could share human suffering in the flesh. — EXCERPTS FROM THEODOTUS 1.19.4-5

Cyril of Alexandria: He let himself be “emptied.” It was not through any compulsion by the Father. He complied of his own accord with the Father’s good pleasure. — DIALOGUES ON THE TRINITY 1

Cyril of Alexandria: What sort of emptying is this? To assume the flesh, even in the form of a slave, a likeness to ourselves while not being like us in his own nature but superior to the whole creation. Thus he humbled himself, descending by his economy into mortal bounds. — ON THE UNITY OF CHRIST

Cyril of Alexandria: By this alone let the difference between the divinity and humanity in him be perceived. For Godhead and humanity are not the same in natural quality. Otherwise how has the Word, being God, been “emptied,” having let himself fall among lesser beings such as ourselves? But when we speculate on the mode of incarnation the human mind inevitably sees two things commingled by an inexpressible and unconfused union yet in no way divides the united elements but believes and firmly accepts that there is one from both, who is God, Son, Christ and Lord. — LETTER TO ACACIUS 14

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

Eusebius of Caesarea: Read the record of his compassion. It pleased him, being the Word of God, to “take the form of a slave.” So he willed to be joined to our common human condition. He took to himself the toils of the members who suffer. He made our human maladies his own. He suffered and toiled on our behalf. This is in accord with his great love of humankind. — DEMONSTRATION OF THE GOSPEL 10.1.22

Eusebius of Vercelli: How then did he “empty himself”? When the “form of God accepted the form of a slave,” when he who is preeminently the Lord deigned to take on himself what belongs to a slave. The Word was made flesh by bearing and doing what was beneath him in his indulgence and compassion toward us. All that he possessed by nature is emptied into this his person. Having been made obedient as a man in the true “fashion of humanity,” he has restored to our nature by his own humility and obedience what had perished through disobedience in Adam. — ON THE TRINITY 10 (9).57

Faustinus of Lyon: If he “therefore emptied himself, assuming the form of a slave,” he was not coerced but was of his own accord made the Son of Man, existing as God’s equal in the form of God. Therefore you have the Son expressing in himself the faith proper to humans. — ON THE TRINITY 17

Gaius Marius Victorinus: We must understand this “emptying himself” to consist not in any loss or privation of his power but in the fact that he lowered himself to the basest level and condescended to the meanest tasks. By fulfilling these he momentarily emptied himself of his power. Assuming flesh and human form and likeness, he suffered, died and fulfilled all the things that belong to humanity. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.6-8

Gaius Marius Victorinus: How could he possibly have taken only human form and not human substance? For he put on the flesh and was in the flesh and suffered in the flesh. This is the mystery and the means of our salvation.… What therefore does it mean, “he emptied himself?” That the universal Logos was not universal in his actual being as the logos of the flesh and becoming flesh. Therefore he did not merely pretend to become a man but became a man. — AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.22

Gaius Marius Victorinus: The Son was sent by the Father and fulfills the Father’s will. The mystery stated here is that it was by his own will that he came and assumed the form and image of a slave.… The Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father.… So what the Father willed the Son also willed, and what the Son willed the Father willed. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.6-8

Gaius 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

Gregory of Elvira: We do not believe that he was so emptied that he himself as Spirit became something else. Rather he, having put aside for this time the honor of his majesty, put on a human body. Only by assuming human form could he become the Savior of humanity. Note that when the sun is covered by a cloud its brilliance is suppressed but not darkened. The sun’s light, which is suffused throughout the whole earth, penetrating all with its brilliant splendor, is presently obscured by a small obstruction of cloud but not taken away. So too that man, whom our Lord Jesus Christ put on, being our Savior, which means God and the Son of God, does not lessen but momentarily hides the divinity in him. — ON THE FAITH 88-89

Gregory of Nazianzus: Since he is emptied on our account when he came down (and by emptying I mean as it were the reduction and lessening of his glory), he is for this reason able to be received. — ORATION 37.2

Gregory of Nyssa: The Godhead is emptied so that the human nature may accommodate it. What is human, on the other hand, is made new, becoming divine through mingling with the divine. — AGAINST EUNOMIUS 3.3.67

Gregory of Nyssa: He “emptied himself,” as the Scripture says, so that as much as nature could hold it might receive. — AD THEOPHILUM ADVERSUS APOLLINARISTAS 3

Gregory of Nyssa: The one who says that he “took the form of a slave”—and this form is flesh—is saying that, being himself something else according to his divine form, something else in his nature, he assumed the servile form. — ANTIRRHETICUS AGAINST APOLLINARIUS

Gregory of Nyssa: The Word who appeared in the flesh was the same as the Word that was with God. But the earthly flesh he assumed was not the same as the Godhead until this too was changed into Godhead, so that necessarily some attributes belonged to God the Word, others to the form of a slave. — AGAINST EUNOMIUS 3.3.62

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

Hilary of Poitiers: To assume “the form of a slave,” he “emptied himself” through obedience. He emptied himself, that is, from the “form of God,” which means “equality with God.” — ON THE TRINITY 8.45

Hilary of Poitiers: Remaining “in the form of God,” he “took the form of a slave,” not being changed but “emptying himself” and hiding within himself and being made empty within his own power. He tempered himself to the form of the human state as far as was necessary to ensure that the weakness of the assumed humility would not fail to bear his immeasurable power. He went even so far as to tolerate conjunction with a human body. Just this far did his goodness moderate itself with an appropriate degree of obedience. But in making himself empty and restraining himself within himself, he did nothing detrimental to his own power, since even within this lowliness of his self-emptying he nonetheless used the resources of the evacuated power within him. — ON THE TRINITY 12.48

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

Hippolytus of Rome: Nor is this the only thing that proves the dignity of the water. But there is also that which is more honourable than all-the fact that Christ, the Maker of all, came down as the rain, and was known as a spring, and diffused Himself as a river, and was baptized in the Jordan. For you have just heard how Jesus came to John, and was baptized by him in the Jordan. Oh things strange beyond compare! How should the boundless River that makes glad the city of God have been dipped in a little water! The illimitable Spring that bears life to all men, and has no end, was covered by poor and temporary waters! He who is present everywhere, and absent nowhere-who is incomprehensible to angels and invisible to men-comes to the baptism according to His own good pleasure. When you hear these things, beloved, take them not as if spoken literally, but accept them as presented in a figure. Whence also the Lord was not unnoticed by the watery element in what He did in secret, in the kindness of His condescension to man. “For the waters saw Him, and were afraid.” They wellnigh broke from their place, and burst away from their boundary. Hence the prophet, having this in his view many generations ago, puts the question, “What aileth thee, O sea, that thou reddest; and thou, Jordan, that thou wast driven back? " And they in reply said, We have seen the Creator of all things in the “form of a servant,” and being ignorant of the mystery of the economy, we were lashed with fear. — Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments

Hippolytus of Rome: Now Christ prayed all this economically as man; being, however, true God. But, as I have already said, it was the “form of the servant” that spake and suffered these things. Wherefore He added, “My soul looked for reproach and trouble,” that is, I suffered of my own will, (and) not by any compulsion. Yet “I waited for one to mourn with me, and there was none,” for all my disciples forsook me and fled; and for a “comforter, and I found none.” — Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments

Hippolytus of Rome: The word of prophecy passes again to Immanuel Himself. For, in my opinion, what is intended by it is just what has been already stated in the words, “giving increase of beauty in the case of the shoot.” For he means that He increased and grew up into that which He had been from the beginning, and indicates the return to the glory which He had by nature. This, if we apprehend it correctly, is (we should say) just “restored” to Him. For as the only begotten Word of God, being God of God, emptied Himself, according to the Scriptures, humbling Himself of His own will to that which He was not before, and took unto Himself this vile flesh, and appeared in the “form of a servant,” and “became obedient to God the Father, even unto death,” so hereafter He is said to be “highly exalted; “and as if well-nigh He had it not by reason of His humanity, and as if it were in the way of grace, He “receives the name which is above every name,” according to the word of the blessed Paul. But the matter, in truth, was not a “giving,” as for the first time, of what He had not by nature; far otherwise. But rather we must understand a return and restoration to that which existed in Him at the beginning, essentially and inseparably. And it is for this reason that, when He had assumed, by divine arrangement, the lowly estate of humanity, He said, “Father, glorify me with the glory which I had,” etc. For He who was co-existent with His Father before all time. and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Godhead. “He” too may very well be understood as the “youngest (son).” For He appeared in the last times, after the glorious and honourable company of the holy prophets, and simply once, after all those who, previous to the time of His sojourn, were reckoned in the number of sons by reason of excellence. That Immanuel, however, was an” object of envy,” is a somewhat doubtful phrase. Yet He is an “object of envy” or “emulation” to the saints, who aspire to follow His footsteps, and conform themselves to His divine beauty, and make Him the pattern of their conduct, and win thereby their highest glory. And again, He is an “object of envy” in another sense,-an “object of ill-will,” namely, to those who are declared not to love Him. I refer to the leading parties among the Jews,-the scribes, in sooth, and the Pharisees,-who travailed with bitter envy against Him, and made the glory of which He could not be spoiled the ground of their slander, and assailed Him in many ways. For Christ indeed raised the dead to life again, when they already stank and were corrupt; and He displayed other signs of divinity. And these should have filled them with wonder, and have made them ready to believe, and to doubt no longer. Yet this was not the case with them; but they were consumed with ill-will, and nursed its bitter pangs in their mind. — Fragments from Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture

John Chrysostom: If it were through a natural inferiority that he undertook to bear “the form of a slave,” this would not be an instance of humility. Yet Paul makes excellent use of this example as an exhortation precisely to humility. — ON THE EQUALITY OF THE FATHER AND THE SON, HOMILY 10

John Chrysostom: What shall we say against Arius, who asserts the Son is of a different substance? Tell me now, what means, “He took the form of a servant”? It means, He became man. Wherefore “being in the form of God,” He was God. For one “form” and another “form” is named; if the one be true, the other is also. “The form of a servant” means, Man by nature, wherefore “the form of God” means, God by nature.

I said that the “form of a servant” was a true form, and nothing less. Therefore “the form of God” also is perfect, and no less. Why says he not, “being made in the form of God,” but “being in the form of God”? This is the same as the saying, “I am that I am.” “Form” implies unchangeableness, so far as it is form. It is not possible that things of one substance should have the form of another, as no man has the form of an angel, neither has a beast the form of a man. How then should the Son? — Homily on Philippians 6

John Chrysostom: Wherefore “He emptied Himself.” Where be they who affirm, that He underwent constraint, that He was subjected? Scripture says, “He emptied Himself, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death.” How did He empty Himself? By taking “the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man.” It is written, “He emptied Himself” in reference to the text, “each counting other better than himself.” Since had He been subjected, had He not chosen it of His own accord, and of His own free will, it would not have been an act of humility. For if He knew not that so it must be, He would have been imperfect. If, not knowing it, He had waited for the time of action, then would He not have known the season. But if He both knew that so it must be, and when it must be, wherefore should He submit to be subjected? To show, they say, the superiority of the Father. But this shows not the superiority of the Father, but His own inferiority. For is not the name of the Father sufficient to show the priority of the Father? For apart from Him, the son has all the same things. For this honor is not capable of passing from the Father to the Son.

What then say the heretics? See, say they, He did not become man. The Marcionites, I mean. But why? He was “made in the likeness of man.” But how can one be “made in the likeness of men”? by putting on a shadow? But this is a phantom, and no longer the likeness of a man, for the likeness of a man is another man. And what wilt thou answer to John, when he says, “The Word became flesh”? (John i. 14.) But this same blessed one himself also says in another place, “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” (Rom. viii. 3.)

“And being found in fashion as a man.” See, they say, both “in fashion,” and “as a man.” To be as a man, and to be a man in fashion, is not to be a man indeed. To be a man in fashion is not to be a man by nature. See with what ingenuousness I lay down what our enemies say, for that is a brilliant victory, and amply gained, when we do not conceal what seem to be their strong points. For this is deceit rather than victory. What then do they say? let me repeat their argument. To be a man in fashion is not to be a man by nature; and to be as a man, and in the fashion of a man, this is not to be a man. So then to take the form of a servant, is not to take the form of a servant. Here then is an inconsistency; and wherefore do you not first of all solve this difficulty? For as you think that this contradicts us, so do we say that the other contradicts you. He says not, “as the form of a servant,” nor “in the likeness of the form of a servant,” nor “in the fashion of the form of a servant,” but “He took the form of a servant.” What then is this? for there is a contradiction. There is no contradiction. God forbid! it is a cold and ridiculous argument of theirs. He took, say they, the form of a servant, when He girded Himself with a towel, and washed the feet of His disciples. Is this the form of a servant? Nay, this is not the form, but the work of a servant. It is one thing that there should be the work of a servant, and another to take the form of a servant. Why did he not say, He did the work of a servant, which were clearer? But nowhere in Scripture is “form” put for “work,” for the difference is great: the one is the result of nature, the other of action. In common speaking, too, we never use “form” for “work.” Besides, according to them, He did not even take the work of a servant, nor even gird Himself. For if all was a mere shadow, there was no reality. If He had not real hands, how did He wash their feet? If He had not real loins, how did He gird Himself with a towel? and what kind of garments did he take? for Scripture says, “He took His garments.” (John xiii. 12.) So then not even the work is found to have really taken place, but it was all a deception, nor did He even wash the disciples. For if that incorporeal nature did not appear, it was not in a body. Who then washed the disciples’ feet?

Again, what in opposition to Paul of Samosata? for what did he affirm? The very same. But it is no emptying of Himself, that one who is of human nature, and a mere man, should wash his fellow-servants. For what we said against the Arians, we must repeat against these too, for they differ not from one another, save by a little space of time; both the one and the other affirm the Son of God to be a creature. What then shall we say to them? If He being a man washed man, He emptied not, He humbled not Himself. If He being a man seized not on being equal with God, He is not deserving of praise. That God should become man, is great, unspeakable, inexpressible humility; but what humility is there in that one, who was a man should do the works of men? And where is the work of God ever called “the form of God”? for if he were a mere man, and was called the form of God by reason of His works, why do we not do the same of Peter, for he wrought greater deeds than Christ Himself? Why say you not of Paul, that he had the form of God? Why did not Paul give an example of himself, for he wrought a thousand servile works, and did not even refuse to say, “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.” (2 Cor. iv. 5.)

These are absurdities and trifles! Scripture says, He “emptied Himself.” How did He empty Himself? tell me. What was His emptying? what His humiliation? was it because He wrought wonders? This both Paul and Peter did, so that this was not peculiar to the Son. What then means, “Being made in the likeness of men”? He had many things belonging to us, and many He had not; for instance, He was not born of wedlock. He did no sin. These things had He which no man has. He was not what he seemed only, but He was God also; He seemed to be a man, but He was not like the mass of men. For He was like them in flesh. He means then, that He was not a mere man. Wherefore he says, “in the likeness of men.” For we indeed are soul and body, but He was God, and soul and body, wherefore he says, “in the likeness.” For lest when you hear that He emptied Himself, you should think that some change, and degeneracy, and loss is here; he says, whilst He remained what He was, He took that which He was not, and being made flesh He remained God, in that He was the Word. (John i. 14.)

In this then He was like man, and for this cause Paul says, “and in fashion.” Not that His nature degenerated, nor that any confusion arose, but He became man in fashion. For when He had said that “He took the form of a servant,” he made bold to say this also, seeing that the first would silence all objectors; since when he says, “In the likeness of sinful flesh,” he says not that He had not flesh, but that that flesh sinned not, but was like to sinful flesh. Like in what? in nature, not in sin, therefore was His like a sinful soul. As then in the former case the term similarity was used, because He was not equal in everything, so here also there is similarity, because He is not equal in everything, as His not being born of wedlock, His being without sin, His being not a mere man. And he well said “as a man,” for He was not one of the many, but “as” one of the many. The Word who was God did not degenerate into man, nor was His substance changed, but he appeared as a man; not to delude us with a phantom, but to instruct us in humility. When therefore he says, “as a man,” this is what He means; since he calls Him a man elsewhere also, when he says, “there is one God, one Mediator also between God and men, Himself man, Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim. ii. 5.)

Thus much against these heretics. I must now speak against such as deny that He took a soul. If “the form of God” is “perfect God,” then the “form of a servant” is “a perfect servant.” Again, against the Arians. Here concerning His divinity, we no longer find “He became,” “He took,” but “He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men”; here concerning his humanity we find “He took, He became.” He became the latter, He took the latter; He was the former. Let us not then confound nor divide the natures. There is one God, there is one Christ, the Son of God; when I say “One,” I mean a union, not a confusion; the one Nature did not degenerate into the other, but was united with it. — Homily on Philippians 7

Leo the Great: He “assumed the form of a slave” without the stain of sin, enhancing the human without diminishing the divine. That emptying by which the invisible One offered himself to be seen and the Creator and Lord of all things elected to be one among mortals was a sovereign act of stooping in majestic pity, not a defect of power. — EPISTLE 28 TO FLAVIAN 3

Methodius of Olympus: Now the numbers into which it is divided, when put together, make seven, and one is wanting to its completion, not being in all points harmonious with itself, like six, which has reference to the Son of God, who came from tile fulness of the Godhead into a human life. For having emptied Himself, — Methodius Discourse VIII. Thekla

Novatian: The sovereignty of the divine Word temporarily submitted to assume a man and for a season “humbled himself” and abased himself, not exercising his nature through his powers, while he bore the man that he had assumed. He “emptied himself” when he bowed to injuries and slanders, when he heard unspeakable insults and suffered indignities. — ON THE TRINITY 22.8-9

Origen of Alexandria: The Son, “emptying himself,” of his equality with the Father and showing us a way of knowing him, was made an express image of his substance, so that we who were unable to see the glory of pure light that inhered in the greatness of his divinity might, through that which was made splendor for us, find a way of contemplating the divine light through the sight of that splendor. — ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 1.2.8

Origen of Alexandria: In “emptying himself,” he became a man and was incarnate while remaining truly God. Having become a man, he remained the God that he was. He assumed a body like our own, differing only in that it was born from the Virgin by the Holy Spirit. — ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 1, Preface 4

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite: Even in this he has what is supernatural and superessential, not only because he underwent no change or confusion in his communion with us, suffering no detriment to his exceeding fullness from his ineffable emptying but because also—the newest of all new things—he was supernatural even while in our natural condition. He was above the realm of essences while being in the realm of essences. He possessed our properties from us in a manner superior to ourselves. — On the Divine Names 2.10

Shepherd of Hermas: “Hear,” he answered: “the Son of God is not in the form of a slave, but in great power and might.” “How so, sir?” I said; “I do not understand.” “Because,” he answered, “God planted the vineyard, that is to say, He created the people, and gave them to His Son; and the Son appointed His angels over them to keep them; and He Himself purged away their sins, having suffered many trials and undergone many labours, for no one is able to dig without labour and toil.” — Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 5

Theodore of Mopsuestia: By “emptying” the holy Scripture signifies becoming of no account, just as in Corinthians Paul speaks of faith as if it had been made of no account, or emptied of significance, if Christ be not raised. So “our preaching has been made empty” means that it is of no account and futile.… Thus the phrase “he emptied himself” means that he did not yet reveal himself. Assuming the form of a slave, he concealed that dignity which was his. So he was deemed by onlookers to be what he seemed. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.2

Theodoret of Cyrus: See how the varied attestors agree. The Evangelist says “the Word became flesh.” The apostle says that he, being in the form of God, “came to be in the form of a man” The Evangelist says “he pitched his tent among us.” The apostle says “he took the form of a slave.” The Evangelist says “we saw his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father.” The apostle speaks of One “who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal with God.” In a word, both teach the same: that, being God and the Son of God, and clothed in the Father’s glory and having the same nature and power as his Begetter, the One who “in the beginning was with God and was was God” and wrought the creation “took the form of slave.” — ERANISTES 1

Theodoret of Cyrus: 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

Philippians 2:8

Ambrosiaster: Why is he “found in human form,” if not because he was also God? Before he allowed himself to descend he was always seen in the power of God. But having subsequently been made weak he was “found in human form?” … And the reason for saying like is to indicate that he was also God. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.8.5-6

Augustine of Hippo: He humbled himself, being made obedient even unto death, even death on a cross, so that none of us, though being able to face death without fear, might shrink from any kind of death that human beings regard as a great disgrace. — On Faith and the Creed 11

Basil of Caesarea: It is apparent that the Lord accepted natural feelings to confirm that his humanity was real and not illusory, but the feelings that come from wickedness, all those that besmirch the purity of our lives, he repudiated as being unworthy of his unsullied Godhead. — LETTER 261

Cyril of Alexandria: He “humbled himself,” according to the Scriptures, “taking on himself the form of a slave.” He became like us that we might become like him. The work of the Spirit seeks to transform us by grace into a perfect copy of his humbling. — FESTAL LETTER 10.4

Epiphanius of Salamis: The Word tasted death once on our behalf, the death of the cross. He went to his death so that by death he might put death to death. The Word, becoming human flesh, did not suffer in his divinity but suffered with humanity. — ANCORATUS 92

Gaudentius of Brescia: He added “being found in human form” because the form of God, which is properly God himself, has never been seen by anyone. — TREATISE 19, ON THE PRIORITY OF THE FATHER 28

Gaudentius of Rimini: He added “being found in human form” because the form of God, which is properly God himself, has never been seen by anyone. Treatise , On the Priority of the Father

Hilary of Poitiers: Humility is hard, since the one who humbles himself has something magnificent in his nature that works against his lowering. The one who becomes obedient, however, undertakes the act of obedience voluntarily. It is precisely through the act of humbling that he becomes obedient. — ON THE TRINITY 11.30

Irenaeus: This is the mystery which he says was made known to him by revelation, that He who suffered under Pontius Pilate, the same is Lord of all, and King, and God, and Judge, receiving power from Him who is the God of all, because He became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”. and that His Word, invisible by nature, was made palpable and visible among men, and did descend “to death, even the death of the cross; “. For doing away with — Against Heresies Book III

John Chrysostom: Learn ye what humility is, ye who have a devilish pride! What then is humility? To be lowly minded. And he is lowly minded who humbles himself, not he who is lowly by necessity. To explain what I say; and do ye attend; he who is lowly minded, when he has it in his power to be high minded, is humble, but he who is so because he is not able to be high minded, is no longer humble. For instance, If a King subjects himself to his own officer, he is humble, for he descends from his high estate; but if an officer does so, he will not be lowly minded; for how? he has not humbled himself from any high estate. It is not possible to show humble-mindedness except it be in our power to do otherwise. For if it is necessary for us to be humble even against our will, that excellency comes not from the spirit or the will, but from necessity. This virtue is called humble-mindedness, because it is the humbling of the mind.

If he who has it not in his power to snatch at another’s goods, continues in the possession of his own; should we praise him, think you, for his justice? I trow not, and why? The praise of free choice is taken away by the necessity. If he, who has it not in his power to usurp and be a king, remains a private citizen, should we praise him for his quietness? I trow not. The same rule applies here. For praise, O ye most senseless ones, is not given for abstaining from these things, but for the performance of good deeds; for the former is free indeed from blame, but partakes not yet of praise, while eulogy of the other is meet.

When exhorting to lowliness of mind, Paul would never have brought forward a lesser one, as obedient to a greater. If he were exhorting servants to obey their masters, he might have done so with propriety, but when exhorting the free to obey the free, to what purpose could he bring forward the subjection of a servant to a master? of a lesser to a greater? He says not, “Let the lesser be subject to the greater,” but ye who are of equal honor with each other be ye subject, “each counting other better than themselves.” Why then did he not bring forward even the obedience of the wife, and say, As the wife obeys her husband, so do ye also obey. Now if he did not bring forward that state in which there is equality and liberty, since in that the subjection is but slight, how much less would he have brought forward the subjection of a slave? I said above, that no one so praises a man for abstaining from evil, nor even mentions him at all; no one who desires to praise a man for continence would say, he has not committed adultery, but, he has abstained from his own wife; for we do not consider abstinence from evil as a matter of praise at all, it would be ridiculous.

If the Son were inferior, this were not a sufficient example to lead us to humility. And why? because it is not humility, for the lesser not to rise against the greater, not to snatch at rule, and to be “obedient unto death.” — Homily on Philippians 6

John Chrysostom: “He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, the death of the cross.” See, says one, He voluntarily became obedient; he was not equal to Him whom He obeyed. O ye obstinate ones and unwise! This cloth not at all lower Him. For we too become obedient to our friends, yet this has no effect. He became obedient as a Son to His Father; He fell not thus into a servile state, but by this very act above all others guarded his wondrous Sonship, by thus greatly honoring the Father. He honored the Father, not that thou shouldest dishonor Him, but that thou shouldest the rather admire Him, and learn from this act, that He is a true Son, in honoring His Father more than all besides. No one hath thus honored God. As was His height, such was the correspondent humiliation which He underwent. As He is greater than all, and no one is equal to Him, so in honoring His Father, He surpassed all, not by necessity, nor unwillingly, but this too is part of His excellence; yea, words fail me. Truly it is a great and unspeakable thing, that He became a servant; that He underwent death, is far greater; but there is something still greater, and more strange; why? All deaths are not alike; His death seemed to be the most ignominious of all, to be full of shame, to be accursed; for it is written, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” (Deut. xxi. 23; Gal. iii. 13.) For this cause the Jews also eagerly desired to slay Him in this manner, to make Him a reproach, that if no one fell away from Him by reason of His death, yet they might from the manner of His death. For this cause two robbers were crucified with Him, and He in the midst, that He might share their ill repute, and that the Scripture might be fulfilled, “And he was numbered with the transgressors.” (Isa. liii. 12.) Yet so much the more doth truth shine forth, so much the more doth it become bright; for when His enemies plot such things against His glory, and it yet shines forth, so much the greater does the matter seem. Not by slaying Him, but by slaying Him in such sort did they think to make Him abominable, to prove Him more abominable than all men, but they availed nothing. And both the robbers also were such impious ones, (for it was afterward that the one repented,) that, even when on the cross, they reviled Him; neither the consciousness of their own sins, nor their present punishment, nor their suffering the same things themselves, restrained their madness. Wherefore the one spake to the other, and silenced him by saying, “Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?” (Luke xxiii. 40.) So great was their wickedness. Wherefore it is written, “God also highly exalted Him, and gave Him the Name which is above every name.” When the blessed Paul hath made mention of the flesh, he fearlessly speaks of all His humiliation. For until he had mentioned that He took the form of a servant, and while he was speaking of His Divinity, behold how loftily he doth it, (loftily, I say, according to his power; for he speaks not according to His own worthiness, seeing that he is not able). “Being in the form of God, He counted it not a prize to be equal with God.” But when he had said, that He became Man, henceforth he fearlessly discourseth of His low estate, being confident that the mention of His low estate would not harm His Divinity, since His flesh admitted this. — Homily on Philippians 7

Origen of Alexandria: He “was made obedient even to death.” His obedience teaches us that we too cannot obtain salvation except through obedience. By this means he has reconstituted the laws of ruling and being ruled, so much so that he “has put all his enemies under his feet.” — ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 3.5.6

Tertullian: Suppose the terms figure (or image or fashion), likeness and form referred merely to a phantom. There would then have been no substance to Christ’s humanity. But in this case figure, likeness and form all point to the reality of his humanity. He is truly God, as Son of the Father, in his figure and image. He is truly man, as the Son of Man, found in the figure and image of man. It is noteworthy that elsewhere Paul calls Christ the “image of the invisible God.” And indeed he had a reason for saying found, meaning that Christ was most certainly a man; for what is found surely must exist. Just as he was found to be God in power, so too he was a man in flesh. The apostle would not have declared him to become obedient to death if he had not been constituted of a mortal substance. Still more plainly does this appear when he adds the heavily laden words “even unto the death of the cross.” For he would not exaggerate the atrocity in extolling his power in a conflict which he knew to have been imaginary or a mere fantasy. In that case Christ would rather have eluded the cross than experienced it. There would then have been no virtue in his suffering but only an illusion. — AGAINST MARCION 5.20.4-5

Tertullian: Therefore, as He was found to be God by His mighty power, so was He found to be man by reason of His flesh, because the apostle could not have pronounced Him to have “become obedient unto death,” if He had not been constituted of a mortal substance. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: Still more plainly does this appear from the apostle’s additional words, “even the death of the cross.” For he could hardly mean this to be a climax to the human suffering, to extol the virtue of His obedience, if he had known it all to be the imaginary process of a phantom, which rather eluded the cross than experienced it, and which displayed no virtue in the suffering, but only illusion. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: For his sake He came down (from heaven), for his sake He preached, for his sake “He humbled Himself even unto death-the death of the cross.” He loved, of course, the being whom He redeemed at so great a cost. — On the Flesh of Christ

Theodoret of Cyrus: His humbling was not undertaken as a slave in relation to a master’s command. Rather he willingly undertook the saving work on our behalf. He obeyed as a son, not as a slave. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.8

Philippians 2:9

Ambrosiaster: He shows what and how much his humility deserved, so that we, trampling down our boastfulness, might find ourselves all the more humble. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.11.1

Ambrosiaster: Scripture says that the gift was given to him who “emptied himself,” who “took the form of a slave,” who was “made to appear as a man,” who was “obedient to the Father.” But if it was a mere man and nothing else who was obedient to God the Father, what is remarkable about that?… His name is not above every name unless he is so by his very nature. A titular name rests solely on usage, not on the nobility of one’s nature. The creation does not bend its knees for a titular God but for the real God. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.11.6-8

Ambrosiaster: Some argue “the name which is above every name” was given only to his humanity. In no way could this be so. For it is not possible that God should lack those things that he once had. For God, even while assuming humanity, remained God. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.11.4

Ambrosiaster: It is not assumed here that the Son of God was lacking or imperfect before “the name that is above every name” was given to Christ.… Even before his passion he showed himself equal to God, as I have stated. Hence it is clear that he was born perfect, for he is seen to have possessed all things from the beginning. He was born in the fullness of divinity for the very purpose of doing all that he was destined to perform. So he had already received the gift before he performed the things that he was born to do. It therefore seems that the gift of God, which consists in his being Son, was that his name should be “above every name,” which consists in his being God. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.11.2

Athanasius of Alexandria: That “God has highly exalted him” does not imply that the essential nature of the Word at long last became exalted. For God the Son is and always was equal to God the Father. The exaltation is of the humanity.… The text says “he humbled himself” with reference to the assumption of the flesh. So too it says “he exalted him” with reference to the flesh. It was the human race that needed this, because of the humiliation of its flesh and because of its consequent death. Thus the Word who is immortal and the image of the Father “has taken the form of a slave” and suffered death on the cross as a man for our sake. He did this in order that he might thus present himself as an offering to the Father. It is thus as a man that he is said to have been exalted for our sake. Hence all of us die in Christ and through his death may again be exalted in Christ himself. — Discourses Against the Arians 1.41

Cyprian: Let us wait for Him, beloved brethren, our Judge and Avenger, who shall equally avenge with Himself the congregation of His Church, and the number of all the righteous from the beginning of the world. Let him who hurries, and is too impatient for his revenge, consider that even He Himself is not yet avenged who is the Avenger. God the Father ordained His Son to be adored; and the Apostle Paul, mindful of the divine command, lays it down, and says: “God hath exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things heavenly, and things earthly, and things beneath.” And in the Apocalypse the angel withstands John, who wishes to worship him, and says: “See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren. Worship Jesus the Lord.” How great is the Lord Jesus, and how great is His patience, that He who is adored in heaven is not yet avenged on earth! Let us, beloved brethren, consider His patience in our persecutions and sufferings; let us give an obedience full of expectation to His advent; and let us not hasten, servants as we are, to be defended before our Lord with irreligious and immodest eagerness. Let us rather press onward and labour, and, watching with our whole heart, and stedfast to all endurance, let us keep the Lord’s precepts; so that when that day of anger and vengeance shall come, we may not be punished with the impious and sinners, but may be honoured with the righteous and those that fear God. — Treatise IX On the Advantage of Patience

Eusebius of Caesarea: That [saving sacrifice] which no human or angelic or divine power had yet endured he accepted for the sake of our salvation. Therefore upon him alone the Father has bestowed the name that is above every name, committing to him the judgment of all. — COMMENTARY ON Isaiah 2.(53).63.5-6

Fulgentius of Ruspe: Through the Son human nature was redeemed. It was human nature that he undoubtedly came to redeem. It was this human nature that the Son took up into the unity of his person. And because his humanity is never sundered from the Son of God, it therefore rules in heaven and earth over all angels and all humanity. — ON THE INCARNATION 12

Gaius Marius Victorinus: He received “the name that is above every name.” He received this name because of his saving word, because of the mystery of his passion, where death was vanquished by the very death of Christ. Through this grace he received the name. It was at that point that the name rightly accrued to him. But the reality to which the name pointed was already given before. The Word, the very power of God, did not become real for the first time only when it entered flesh. Rather it possessed its reality as the power, wisdom, action and work of God from the outset, when it was called the Word and when it indeed was the Word. It is that same Word that has now put on flesh … that has received the title of Son, which title is above every name. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.9-11

Gaudentius of Brescia: “Therefore,” he says, “God exalted him.” But who was it that was exalted? Evidently the one who underwent the torture of the cross and death. It was not God himself, who is always on high throughout. — TREATISE 19, ON THE PRIORITY OF THE FATHER 29

Gaudentius of Brescia: The “name that is above every name” is God. It is not given to God in order that he should become God. For God the Son was the Word in the beginning with the Father. But the man assumed by the Son takes on his mission. In this way the Son of God, who had always existed, remains still equally God when joined to the humanity that he received from the Virgin. — TREATISE 19, ON THE PRIORITY OF THE FATHER 29

Gaudentius of Rimini: The “name that is above every name” is God. It is not given to God in order that he should become God. For God the Son was the Word in the beginning with the Father. But the man assumed by the Son takes on his mission. In this way the Son of God, who had always existed, remains still equally God when joined to the humanity that he received from the Virgin. Treatise , On the Priority of the Father

Gaudentius of Rimini: “Therefore,” he says, “God exalted him.” But who was it that was exalted? Evidently the one who underwent the torture of the cross and death. It was not God himself, who is always on high throughout. Treatise , On the Priority of the Father

Gregory of Nyssa: It is obvious that the highest is in need of no exaltation. Only what is lowly can be lifted to the exalted state, becoming now what it was not before. Being united to the Lord the human nature is lifted up to share in his divinity. What is exalted is that which has been lifted up from lowliness. — ANTIRRHETICUS AGAINST APOLLINARIUS

Gregory of Nyssa: God is “above every name.” The only proper way to name God is as above every name. God exceeds every operation of the intellect. God cannot be contained in any nominal definition. This is a sign to us of God’s incommunicable greatness. — AGAINST EUNOMIUS 2.587

John Chrysostom: “Wherefore also God highly exalted Him, and gave Him the Name which is above every name: that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Let us say against the heretics, If this is spoken of one who was not incarnate, if of God the Word, how did He highly exalt Him? Was it as if He gave Him something more than He had before? He would then have been imperfect in this point, and would have been made perfect for our sakes. For if He had not done good deeds to us, He would not have obtained that honor! “And gave Him the Name.” See, He had not even a name, as you say! But how, if He received it as His due, is He found here to have received it by grace, and as a gift? And that “the Name which is above every name”: and of what kind, let us see, is the Name? “That at the Name of Jesus,” saith He, “every knee should bow.” They (the heretics) explain name by glory. This glory then is above all glory, and this glory is in short that all worship Him! But ye hold yourselves far off from the greatness of God, who think that ye know God, as He knoweth Himself, and from this it is plain, how far off ye are from right thoughts of God. And this is plain from hence. Is this, tell me, glory? Therefore before men were created, before the angels or the archangels, He was not in glory. If this be the glory which is above every glory, for this is the name that is “above every name,” though He were in glory before, yet was He in glory inferior to this. It was for this then that He made the things that are, that He might be raised to glory, not from His own goodness, but because He required glory from us! See ye not their folly? see ye not their impiety?

Now if they had said this of Him that was incarnate, there had been reason, for God the Word allows that this be said of His flesh. It touches not His divine nature, but has to do altogether with the dispensation. What means “of things in heaven, and things in the earth, and things under the earth”? It means the whole world, and angels, and men, and demons; or that both the just and the living and sinners.

“And every tongue,” should “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That is, that all should say so; and this is glory to the Father. Seest thou how wherever the Son is glorified, the Father is also glorified? Thus too when the Son is dishonored, the Father is dishonored also. If this be so with us, where the difference is great between fathers and sons, much more in respect of God, where there is no difference, doth honor and insult pass on to Him. If the world be subjected to the Son, this is glory to the Father. And so when we say that He is perfect, wanting nothing, and not inferior to the Father, this is glory to the Father, that he begat such a one. This is a great proof of His power also, and goodness, and wisdom, that He begat one no whit inferior, neither in wisdom nor in goodness. When I say that He is wise as the Father, and no whit inferior, this is a proof of the great wisdom of the Father; when I say that He is powerful as the Father, this is a proof of the Father’s power. When I say that He is good as the Father, this is the greatest evidence of His goodness, that He begat such (a Son), in no whit less or inferior to Himself. When I say that He begat Him not inferior in substance but equal, and not of another substance, in this I again wonder at God, His power, and goodness, and wisdom, that He hath manifested to us another, of Himself, such as Himself, except in His not being the Father. Thus whatsoever great things I say of the Son, pass on to the Father. Now if this small and light matter (for it is but a light thing to God’s glory that the world should worship Him) is to the glory of God, how much more so are all those other things? — Homily on Philippians 7

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius: For that Jesus represented Christ: for when he was at first called Auses, Moses, foreseeing the future, ordered that he should be called Jesus; that since he had been chosen as the leader of the warfare against Amalek, who was the enemy of the children of Israel, he might both subdue the adversary by the emblem of the name, and lead the people into the land of promise. And for this reason he was also successor to Moses, to show that the new law given by Christ Jesus was about to succeed to the old law which was given by Moses. — The Divine Institutes Book 4 (Chapter XVII)

Novatian: He received “the name that is above every name,” which we must certainly understand as nothing other than the name of God. For it belongs to God to be above all. So it follows that the name that is above all belongs to him who is above all, namely, God. — ON THE TRINITY 22.10

Origen of Alexandria: It was not the Word of God who needed or received exaltation. For the Word was in the beginning exalted with the Father. It was the Son of Man who was exalted from lowliness. This exaltation occurred when he had glorified God in his death. — COMMENTARY ON John 32.25

Pseudo-Augustine: None of the faithful doubt that the Son of God was begotten in perfect reception of all that belongs to the character of God. The Son received all the attributes of divinity in being born from God the Father. It was then that he received “the name that is above all names,” that is, that he should be called what the Father is called. Nothing different is predicated of him with regard to the future, since he has all things before him. So he was born for the re-creation and restoration of all these. Seeing that order and reason demand that every knee should bow to the name of the Father, the Father bestowed this name upon the Son because of the salvation he was to perform. This name was bestowed when he begot the Son. The Father begot him that he might enjoy the same honor as the Father himself. — QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, APPENDIX 39

Theodoret of Cyrus: Even to the most inattentive it is obvious that the divine nature needs nothing. He did not become human by being raised up from lowliness. Rather he abased himself from the utmost height. He did not receive what he did not have before but received as a man what he possessed as God. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.9

Philippians 2:10

Clement of Alexandria: For the Father has delivered and subjected all to Christ our King “that at the name of Jesus every knee may bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. — The Stromata Book 1

Clement of Alexandria: “And not only for our sins,"— that is for those of the faithful, — is the Lord the propitiator, does he say, “but also for the whole world.” He, indeed, saves all; but some [He saves], converting them by punishments; others, however, who follow voluntarily [He saves] with dignity of honour; so “that every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth;” [Philippians 2:10] that is, angels, men, and souls that before His advent have departed from this temporal life. — From the Latin Translation of Cassiodorus

Cyril of Alexandria: He worships as one who has assumed the worshiping nature of humanity. It is this same One who is now worshiped as transcending the worshiping nature of humanity. He is now known to be God. — SCHOLIUM 34 ON THE INCARNATION OF THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN

Cyril of Alexandria: God the Word inhabited as his own temple the body taken from the woman. In this body lived a rational soul. God remade it into his own glory. On this account the holy Scripture declares that worship is proper only to the one who is God by nature. This is what Paul means when he writes that “at the name of Christ Jesus every knee shall bow. — FESTAL LETTER 8.6

Gaudentius of Brescia: This means that after the mystery of the passion and the triumph of the ascension he who was wholly the Son of God with that which he had consented to be for our sakes, while remaining in the glory of God the Father (which means of course in the divinity of his own nature), should be adored by all the powers in heaven, on earth and below. — TREATISE 19, ON THE PRIORITY OF THE FATHER 30

Gaudentius of Rimini: This means that after the mystery of the passion and the triumph of the ascension he who was wholly the Son of God with that which he had consented to be for our sakes, while remaining in the glory of God the Father (which means of course in the divinity of his own nature), should be adored by all the powers in heaven, on earth and below. Treatise , On the Priority of the Father

Gregory of Nyssa: This name has become superior to every name. His divinity is such that it cannot be adequately manifested merely through verbal signs, no matter how exalted they are. As the exalted One comes to be in the lowly, so the lowly One may receive in return the properties of the exalted. — ANTIRRHETICUS AGAINST APOLLINARIUS

Gregory of Nyssa: The One who once came into the world has now become the Firstborn from the dead, both of brothers in faith and of all creation. He will return to the world as judge of all the world in righteousness, as the prophet declares, when it will become clear. The name of Firstborn, which he assumed first on our behalf, will not be cast away in in those last days. Every knee will bow at the name of Jesus. He is above every name. The whole company of angels worships this One who has been called the Firstborn. They all rejoice in the restoration of humanity, whom he has restored to their original grace by becoming the Firstborn among us. — AGAINST EUNOMIUS 3.2.48

Hippolytus of Rome: After a little space the stone will come from heaven which smites the image and breaks it in pieces, and subverts all the kingdoms, and gives the kingdom to the saints of the Most High. This is the stone which becomes a great mountain, and fills the whole earth, of which Daniel says: “I saw in the night visions, and behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and was brought near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom; and all peoples, tribes, and languages shall serve Him: and His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be destroyed.” He showed all power given by the Father to the Son, who is ordained Lord of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and Judge of all: of things in heaven, because He was born, the Word of God, before all (ages); and of things on earth, because He became man in the midst of men, to re-create our Adam through Himself; and of things under the earth, because He was also reckoned among the dead, preaching the Gospel to the souls of the saints, (and) by death overcoming death. — Fragments - Dogmatical and Historical

Irenaeus: The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: She believes in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His future manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him. — Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 1

Liturgy of Saint Mark: The Deacon: Bow your heads to Jesus. — Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, Section XIX

Methodius of Olympus: Might escape from the darts of the destroyer; and that Christ having thus suffered in the flesh, and having risen again the third day, might, with equal honour and glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be by all created things equally adored; for to Him every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,

Origen of Alexandria: From a single beginning come many differences and varieties in creation. All these are now being recalled once again, synoptically in this text. They are now being viewed in relation to God’s goodness made known through the obedience of Christ. They are being drawn into a unity by the Holy Spirit. Everything is moving toward a common end, which corresponds to the goodness of the beginning. This means all those “in heaven and earth and the lower regions,” who, “bowing the knee at the name of Jesus,” have declared through this very act the tokens of their subjection. In these three appellations the whole universe is indicated. All things issue from one origin. They have been driven by their own motions in diverse ways. They are to be allotted different levels of blessedness in accord with their own willing. — ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 1.6.2

Origen of Alexandria: We should not understand this carnally, so as to suppose that even the heavenly bodies, which he says bend their knees, do this with fleshly limbs.… What spirit has knees? But the bending of the knees indicates that all is in subjection and observes the worship of God. — COMMENTARY ON Romans 9.41

Philippians 2:11

Athanasius of Alexandria: The glory of the Father is that the human race not only was created but was re-created when lost. It was given life once again when dead, so as to become a renewed temple of God. For the powers in heaven also, the angels and the archangels, worship him and now worship the Lord “in the name of Jesus.” This joy and exaltation belongs to human beings, because the Son of God, having himself become a human being, is now worshiped. The heavenly powers are not offended when they behold all of us being led into our heavenly abode as we share in his body. This could not have happened in any other way. It happened only because, “being in the form of God and taking the form of a slave, he humbled himself,” — agreeing to assume our bodily condition “even to death.”AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.42

Hippolytus of Rome: And why should we add many words concerning those who are sisted before the bar? Then the righteous shall shine forth like the sun, while the wicked shall be shown to be mute and gloomy. For both the righteous and the wicked shall be raised incorruptible: the righteous, to be honoured eternally, and to taste immortal joys; and the wicked, to be punished in judgment eternally. Each ponders the question as to what answer he shall give to the righteous Judge for his deeds, whether good or bad. With all men each one’s actions shall environ him, whether he be good or evil. For the powers of the heavens shall be shaken, and fear and trembling shall consume all things, both heaven and earth and things under the earth. And every tongue shall confess Him openly, and shall confess Him who comes to judge righteous judgment, the mighty God and Maker of all things. Then with fear and astonishment shall come angels, thrones, powers, principalities, dominions, and the cherubim and seraphim with their many eyes and six wings, all crying aloud with a mighty voice, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, omnipotent; the heaven and the earth are full of Thy glory.” And the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Judge who accepts no man’s person, and the Jurist who distributes justice to every man, shall be revealed upon His dread and lofty throne; and all the flesh of mortals shall see His face with great fear and trembling, both the righteous and the sinner. — Dubious Hippolytus Fragments

Theodoret of Cyrus: Every tongue stands for every people. But if the confession of Christ as Lord is a glorification of the Father, it is clear that those who call him a creature and a slave deface the glory of the Father also. In these few words, however, the divine apostle has subdued every heresy, among those who blaspheme the divinity of the Only Begotten, and those who deny his humanity and those who misconstrue the hypostatic union of the two natures. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.11

Philippians 2:12

CS Lewis: The controversy about faith and works is one that has gone on for a very long time, and it is a highly technical matter. I personally rely on the paradoxical text: “Work out your own salvation… for it is God that worketh in you.” [Philippians 2:12] It looks as if in one sense we do nothing, and in another case we do a damned lot. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” but you must have it in you before you can work it out. — ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON CHRISTIANITY, from God in the Dock

Desert Fathers: Daniel used to say that Arsenius told him a story, as if he were speaking of some other man, and it went like this: Whilst a certain hermit was sitting in his cell, a voice came to him which said, ‘Come here, and I will show you the works of the children of men,’ so he got up and went out. The voice led him out and showed him a black man cutting wood; he made up a large bundle and wanted to take it away, but he could not do so. Then instead of making the bundle smaller, he went and cut down some more wood, and added it to the first, and this he did many times. When he had gone on a little further, the voice showed him a man who was standing by a pit drawing up water; he poured it out into a certain hollowed-out place, and when he had poured the water into it, it ran down back into the pit. Again the voice said to him, ‘Come, and I will show you other things.’ Then he looked, and, behold, there was a temple, and two men on horseback were carrying a piece of wood as wide as the temple between them. They wanted to go in through the door, but the width of the wood did not let them do so, and they would not humble themselves to go in one after his companion to bring it in end-wise, and so they remained outside the door. Now these are the men who bear the yoke of righteousness with boasting, and they will not be humble enough to correct themselves and go in by the humble way of Christ, and therefore they remain outside the kingdom of God. The man who was cutting wood is the man who labours at many sins, and who, instead of repenting and diminishing his sins, adds other wickednesses to them. Now he who was drawing water is the man who does good works, but because other things are mingled in his good works they are lost. It is right for us to be watchful in all we do, lest we toil in vain. — The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

Desert Fathers: Evagrius said, ‘If your attention falters, pray. As it is written, pray in fear and trembling (cf. Phil. 2:12), earnestly and watchfully. We ought to pray like that, especially because our unseen and wicked enemies are trying to hinder us forcefully.’ — The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

Gaius Marius Victorinus: The fear is to be referred to the soul, the trembling to the body. But it is a great mystery, which we should lay to heart when we hear it, that by taking thought and showing concern for others we work out our own salvation all the more and furthermore that it is in our power to work out salvation for ourselves. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.12-13

Theodoret of Cyrus: “Looking at this example,” he says, “you have conceived a greater zeal for your own salvation, notwithstanding my absence. For this reveals the excellence of your goal, that it is not to please your teacher but out of eagerness for good things that you undertake this admirable labor.” — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.12

Philippians 2:13

Augustine of Hippo: We should not suppose, because he said, “For it is God that works in you both the willing and the doing,” that he has taken away free will. For if that were so he would not have said above “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” For when he bids them work, it is agreed that they have free will. But they are to work with fear and trembling so that they will not, by attributing the good working to themselves, be elated by the good works as though they were their own. — ON GRACE AND FREE WILL 21

Augustine of Hippo: It is not that the will or the deed is not ours, but without his aid we neither will nor do anything good. — ON THE GRACE OF CHRIST 26

Augustine of Hippo: It is certain that when we do a deed the deed is ours; but he is the one who makes us do the deed by giving us strength fully sufficient to carry out our will. — ON GRACE AND FREE WILL 32

Augustine of Hippo: It is not in God’s power that anyone should be forced against his will to do evil or good but that he should go to the bad, according to his own deserts, when God abandons him. For a person is not good if he does not will it, but the grace of God assists him even in willing. It is not without cause that it is written, “God is the one who works in you to will and do, of his own good will.” — ON TWO LETTERS OF PELAGIUS 1.36

Origen of Alexandria: Some say, “If willing is from God and working is from God, then whether we will evil or do evil, that is from God, and in that case we have not free will.” … To this one must reply that the apostle’s words do not mean that willing evil is from God or that willing good is from God, and likewise with our working well or ill. Rather it is willing in general and performance in general. For just as our being animals and our being human are things we have from God, so is willing in general as, so to speak, is motion in general. — ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 3.1.19

Philippians 2:14

John Chrysostom: “Do all things without murmurings and disputings.” The devil, when he finds that he has no power to withdraw us from doing right, wishes to spoil our reward by other means. For he has taken occasion to insinuate pride or vainglory, or if none of these things, then murmuring, or, if not this, misgivings. Now then see how Paul sweeps away all these. He said on the subject of humility all that he did say, to overthrow pride; he spoke of vainglory, that is, “not as in my presence only”; he here speaks of “murmuring and disputing.” But why, I want to know, when in the case of the Corinthians he was engaged in uprooting this evil tendency, did he remind them of the Israelites, but here has said nothing of the sort, but simply charged them? Because in that case the mischief was already done, for which reason there was need of a more severe stroke and a sharper rebuke; but here he is giving admonitions to prevent its being done. Severe measures then were not called for in order to secure those that had not yet been guilty; as in leading them to humility he did not subjoin the instance in the Gospel, wherein the proud were punished, but laid the charge as from God’s lips; and he addresses them as free, as children of pure birth, not as servants; for in the practice of virtue a rightminded and generous person is influenced by those who do well, but one of bad principles by those who do not do well; the one by the consideration of honor, the other of punishment.

Taking these things to heart, let us do everything “without murmuring and disputing.” Is it some good work that thou hast before thee, and dost thou murmur? wherefore? art thou then forced? for that there are many about you who force you to murmur, I know well, says he. This he intimated by saying, “in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation”; but it is this that deserves admiration, that we admit no such feeling when under galling provocation. For the stars too give light in the night, they shine in the dark, and receive no blemish to their own beauty, yea they even shine the brighter; but when light returns, they no longer shine so. Thus thou too dost appear with the greater lustre, whilst thou holdest straight in the midst of the crooked.

So that murmuring is left for unprincipled and graceless slaves. For tell me, what manner of son is that, who murmurs at the very time that he is employed in the affairs of his father, and is working for his own benefit? Consider, he says, that you are laboring for yourself, that it is for yourself that you are laying up; it is for those to murmur, when others profit by their labors, others reap the fruit, while they bear the burden; but he that is gathering for himself, why should he murmur? Because his wealth does not increase? But it is not so. Why does he murmur who acts of free-will, and not by constraint? It is better to do nothing than to do it with murmuring, for even the very thing itself is spoilt. And do you not remark that in our own families we are continually saying this; “it were better for these things never to be done, than to have them done with murmuring”? and we had often rather be deprived of the services some one owes us, than submit to the inconvenience of his murmuring. For murmuring is intolerable, most intolerable; it borders upon blasphemy. Otherwise why had those men to pay a penalty so severe? It is a proof of ingratitude; the murmurer is ungrateful to God, but whoso is ungrateful to God does thereby become a blasphemer. Now there were at that time, if ever, uninterrupted troubles, and dangers without cessation: there was no pause, no remission: innumerable were the horrors, which pressed upon them from all quarters; but now we have profound peace, a perfect calm.

Wherefore then murmur? Because thou art poor? Yet think of Job. Or because sickness is thy lot? What then if, with the consciousness of as many excellencies and as high attainments as that holy man, thou hadst been so afflicted? Again reflect on him, how that for a long time he never ceased to breed worms, sitting upon a dunghill and scraping his sores; for the account says that “(after a long time had passed,) then said his wife unto him, How long wilt thou persist, saying, Yet a little while I bide in expectation? Speak some word against the Lord, and die.” But your child is dead? What then if thou hadst lost all thy children, and that by an evil fate, as he did? For ye know, ye know well, that it is no slight alleviation to take our place beside the sick man, to close the mouth, to shut the eyes, to stroke the beard, to hear the last accents; but that just man was vouchsafed none of these consolations, they all being overwhelmed at once. — Homily on Philippians 8

Philippians 2:15

Chromatius of Aquileia: With the very light of truth we are to illumine those who are caught in the shadows of error, dispelling the night of ignorance.… If we do not do this, it will be apparent that our infidelity has, as it were, concealed and overshadowed the benefits of this needful light, to our own perdition as well as that of others. — TRACTATE 19.3.2-3

Clement of Alexandria: “For it is not he who brings a stealthy vocal word to men,” as Bacchylidis says, “who shall be the Word of Wisdom;” but “the blameless, the pure, and faultless sons of God,” according to Paul, “in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, to shine as lights in the world.” — The Instructor Book 3

Cyprian: We must persevere in the straight and narrow road of praise and glory; and since peacefulness and humility and the tranquillity of a good life is fitting for all Christians, according to the word of the Lord, who looks to none other man than “to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at” His word, it the more behoves you confessors, who have been made an example to the rest of the brethren, to observe and fulfil this, as being those whose characters should provoke to imitation the life and conduct of all. For as the Jews were alienated from God, as those on whose account “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles,” so on the other hand those are dear to God through whose conformity to discipline the name of God is declared with a testimony of praise, as it is written, the Lord Himself forewarning and saying, “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” And Paul the apostle says, “Shine as lights in the world.” And similarly Peter exhorts: “As strangers,” says he, “and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul, having your conversation honest among the Gentiles; that whereas they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify the Lord.” This, indeed, the greatest part of you, I rejoice to say, are careful for; and, made better by the honour of your confession itself, guard and preserve its glory by tranquil and virtuous lives. — Epistle VI

Cyprian: That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works. In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: “Know ye not, that they which run in a race run indeed all, although one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And those indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible.” In the Gospel according to Matthew: “Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.” Also in the same place: “Many shall say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name have cast out devils, and in Thy name have done great works? And then shall I say to them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye who work iniquity.” Also in the same place: “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Also Paul to the Philippians: “Shine as lights in the world.” — Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.

Jerome: He says not “you are” but “so that you may be,” deferring it to the future and not asserting it as a present fact, to show that here there is toil and struggle and there the rewards of toil and virtue. — Against the Pelagians 3.13

John Chrysostom: “That ye may be blameless,” says he, “and harmless”; i.e. irreproachable, unsullied; for murmuring occasions no slight stain. And what means “without disputing”? Is it good, or not good? Do not dispute, he says, though it be trouble, or labor, or any thing else whatever. He did not say, “that ye be not punished,” for punishment is reserved for the thing; and this he made evident in the Epistle to the Corinthians; but here he said nothing of the sort; but he says, “That ye may be blameless and harmless, children of God without blemish, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye are seen as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life, that I may have whereof to glory in the day of Christ.” Observest thou that he is instructing these not to murmur? So that murmuring is left for unprincipled and graceless slaves.

This it is which deserves our admiration, the being “blameless”; for that they might not urge this plea, he himself set it down by anticipation. For the stars too give light in the night, they shine in the dark, and receive no blemish to their own beauty, yea they even shine the brighter; but when light returns, they no longer shine so. Thus thou too dost appear with the greater lustre, whilst thou holdest straight in the midst of the crooked. — Homily on Philippians 8

Pseudo-Clement: For in “the man who is of God,” [1 Timothy 6:11] with him I say there is nothing of the mind of the flesh; and especially in virgins of either sex; but the fruits of all of them are “the fruits of the Spirit” [Galatians 5:22] and of life, and they are truly the city of God, and the houses and temples in which God abides and dwells, and among which He walks, as in the holy city of heaven. For in this “do ye appear to the world as lights, in that you give heed to the Word of life,” [Philippians 2:15-16] and thus you are in truth the praise, and the boast, and the crown of rejoicing, and the delight of good servants in our Lord Jesus Christ. — Two Epistles on Virginity

Tertullian: You are a light of the world, and a tree ever green. — On Idolatry

Philippians 2:16

Gaius Marius Victorinus: “I have glory through you because you possess the word of life”—that is, because you know Christ, who is the Word of life, “because what was made in Christ was life.” Therefore Christ is the Word of life. From this we perceive how great is the profit and glory of those who correct the souls of others. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.16

John Chrysostom: What means “holding fast the word of life”? i.e. “being destined to live, being of those that are gaining salvation.” Observe how immediately he subjoins the rewards, which are in reserve. Lights [i.e. luminaries], he says, retain the principle of light; so do ye the principle of life. What means “the word of life”? Having the seed of life, i.e. having pledges of life, holding life itself, i.e. “having in yourselves the seed of life,” this is what he calls “the word of life.” Consequently the rest are all dead, for by these words he signified as much; for otherwise those others likewise would have held “the word of life.” “That I may have whereof to glory,” he says; what is this? I too participate in your good deeds, he says. So great is your virtue, as not only to save yourselves, but to render me illustrious. Strange kind of “boasting,” thou blessed Paul! Thou art scourged, driven about, reviled for our sakes: therefore he adds, “in the day of Christ, that I did not run,” he says, “in vain, nor labored in vain,” but I always have a right to glory, he means, that I did not run in vain. — Homily on Philippians 8

Philippians 2:17

John Chrysostom: “Yea, and if I am offered.” He said not, “and if I die even,” nor did he when writing to Timothy, for there, too, he has made use of the same expression, “For I am already being offered.” He is both consoling them about his own death, and instructing them to bear gladly the death that is for Christ’s sake. I am become, he says, as it were a libation and a sacrifice. O blessed soul! His bringing them to God he calls a sacrifice. It is much better to present a soul than to present oxen. “If, then, over and above this offering,” he says, “I add myself, my death as a libation, I rejoice.” For this he implies, when he says, “Yea, and if I am offered upon the sacrifice and service, I joy and rejoice with you all; and in the same manner do ye also joy and rejoice with me.” Why dost thou rejoice with them? Seest thou that he shows that it is their duty to rejoice? On the one hand then, I rejoice in being made a libation; on the other, I rejoice with you, in having presented a sacrifice; “and in the same manner do ye also joy and rejoice with me,” that I am offered up; “rejoice with me,” “who rejoice in myself.” So that the death of the just is no subject for tears, but for joy. If they rejoice, we should rejoice with them. For it is misplaced for us to weep, while they rejoice. “But,” it is urged, “we long for our wonted intercourse.” This is a mere pretext and excuse; and that it is so, mark what he enjoins: “Rejoice with me, and joy.” Dost thou miss thy wonted intercourse? If thou wert thyself destined to remain here, there would be reason in what thou sayest; but if after a brief space thou wilt overtake him who has departed, what is that intercourse which thou dost seek? for it is only when he is forever severed from him that a man misses the society of another, but if he will go the same way that thou wilt go, what is the intercourse which thou longest for? Why do we not bewail all that are upon foreign travel? Do we not just a little, and cease after the first or the second day? If thou longest for thy wonted intercourse with him, weep so far only. “It is no evil that I suffer,” says he, “but I even rejoice in going to Christ, and do ye not rejoice.” “Rejoice with me.” Let us too rejoice when we see a righteous man dying, and yet more even when any of the desperately wicked; for the first is going to receive the reward of his labors, but the other has abated somewhat from the score of his sins. — Homily on Philippians 8

Tertullian: But writing in bonds to the Thessalonians, he certainly affirmed that they were blessed, since to them it had been given not only to believe on Christ, but also to suffer for His sake. “Having,” says he, “the same conflier which ye both saw in me, and now hear to be in me.” “For though I are offered upon the sacrifice, I joy and rejoice with you all; in like manner do ye also joy and rejoice with me. — Scorpiace

Theodoret of Cyrus: When he says you, he means all the faithful.… And he says this to work on their souls and to teach them that his martyrdom is so great that it has the character of a libation and a sacrifice. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.17

Philippians 2:18

Gaius Marius Victorinus: He means, “Being prepared to die for you, so long as I can serve you and strengthen your faith, I rejoice and am glad for all of you. So therefore you rejoice and be glad with me, so that we may show equal concern for one another and rejoice in each other in turn.” — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.17-18

John Chrysostom: “And in the same manner do ye also joy and rejoice with me.” Why dost thou rejoice with them? Seest thou that he shows that it is their duty to rejoice? On the one hand then, I rejoice in being made a libation; on the other, I rejoice with you, in having presented a sacrifice; “and in the same manner do ye also joy and rejoice with me,” that I am offered up; “rejoice with me,” “who rejoice in myself.” So that the death of the just is no subject for tears, but for joy. If they rejoice, we should rejoice with them. For it is misplaced for us to weep, while they rejoice. “But,” it is urged, “we long for our wonted intercourse.” This is a mere pretext and excuse; and that it is so, mark what he enjoins: “Rejoice with me, and joy.” Dost thou miss thy wonted intercourse? If thou wert thyself destined to remain here, there would be reason in what thou sayest; but if after a brief space thou wilt overtake him who has departed, what is that intercourse which thou dost seek? for it is only when he is forever severed from him that a man misses the society of another, but if he will go the same way that thou wilt go, what is the intercourse which thou longest for? Why do we not bewail all that are upon foreign travel? Do we not just a little, and cease after the first or the second day? If thou longest for thy wonted intercourse with him, weep so far only. — Homily on Philippians 8

Philippians 2:19

Gaius Marius Victorinus: Because every act of ours must be referred to God so that it may be completed by God, he says, “I hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.” — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.19

John Chrysostom: He had said, “have fallen out unto the progress of the Gospel; so that my bonds became manifest in Christ throughout the whole praetorian guard.” Again, “Yea, and if I am offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith.” By these words he strengthened them. Perchance they might suspect that his former words were spoken just to comfort them. What then? “I send Timothy unto you,” says he; for they desired to hear all things that concerned him. And wherefore said he not, “that ye may know my state,” but, “that I may know yours”? Because Epaphroditus would have reported his state before the arrival of Timothy. Wherefore further on he says, “But I counted it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother; but I wish to learn of your affairs. For it is likely that he had remained long time with Paul through his bodily weakness. So that he says, I wish to “know your state.” See then how he refers everything to Christ, even the mission of Timothy, saying, “I hope in the Lord Jesus,” that is, I am confident that God will facilitate this for me, that I too may be of good courage, when I know your state. As I refreshed you when ye heard the very things of me which ye had prayed for, that the Gospel had advanced, that its enemies were put to shame, that the means by which they thought to injure, rather made me rejoice; thus too do I wish to learn of your affairs, that I too may be of good courage when I know your state. Here he shows that they ought to rejoice for his bonds, and to be conformed to them, for they begat in him great pleasure; for the words, “that I too may be of good comfort,” imply, just as you are.

Oh, what longing had he toward Macedonia! He testifies the same to the Thessalonians, as when he says, “But we, brethren, being bereaved of you for a short season,” etc. And here he says, “I hope to send Timothy” that I may “know your state,” which is a proof of excessive care: for when he could not himself be with them, he sent his disciples, as he could not endure to remain, even for a little time, in ignorance of their state. For he did not learn all things by revelation of the Spirit, and for this we can see some reason; for if the disciples had believed that it were so, they would have lost all sense of shame, but now from expectation of concealment, they were more easily corrected. In a high degree did he call their attention by saying, “that I too may be of good comfort,” and rendered them more zealous, so that, when Timothy came he might not find any other state of things, and report it to him. He seems to have acted in like sort in his own person, when he delayed his coming to the Corinthians, that they might repent; wherefore he wrote, “to spare you I forbare to come to Corinth.” For his love was manifested not simply in reporting his own state, but in his desire to learn of theirs; for this is the part of a soul which has a care of others, which takes thought for them, which is always wrestling for them.

At the same time too, he honors them by sending Timothy. “What sayest thou? dost thou send Timothy? and wherefore?” Because “I have no one likeminded”; that is, none of those whose care is like mine, none who “will care truly for you.” Had he then no one of those who were with him? No one likeminded, that is, who has yearnings and takes thought for you as I do. No one would lightly choose, he means, to make so long a journey for this purpose. Timothy is the one with me who loves you. For I might have sent others, but there was none like him. This then is that likemindedness, to love the disciples as the master loves them. “Who,” says he, “will truly care for you,” that is, as a father. “For they all seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ,” their own comfort, their own safety. This too he writes to Timothy. But why doth he lament such things as these? To teach us his hearers not to fall in like sort, to teach his hearers not to seek for remission from toil; for he who seeks remission from toil, seeks not the things that are Christ’s, but his own. We ought to be prepared against every toil, against every distress. — Homily on Philippians 9

Philippians 2:20

Theodoret of Cyrus: The praises of the blessed Timothy are true, but the divine apostle has pronounced them at this point both as a sign of his own affection for them (since he has sent to their assistance the only comforter of his soul) and as an exhortation to receive him with all hospitality as a mouthpiece of the truth. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.19-22

Philippians 2:21

Cyprian: That he who has attained to trust, having put off the former man, ought to regard only celestial and spiritual things, and to give no heed to the world which he has already renounced. In Isaiah: “Seek ye the Lord; and when ye have found Him, call upon Him. But when He hath come near unto you, let the wicked forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him be turned unto the Lord, and he shall obtain mercy, because He will plentifully pardon your sins.” Of this same thing in Solomon: “I have seen all the works which are done under the sun; and, lo, all are vanity.” Of this same thing in Exodus: “But thus shall ye eat it; your loins girt, and your shoes on your feet, and your staves in your hands: and ye shall eat it in haste, for it is the Lord’s passover.” Of this same thing in the Gospel according to Matthew: “Take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewith shall we be clothed? for these things the nations seek after. But your Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. Seek first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” Likewise in the same place: “Think not for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for itself. Sufficient unto the day is its own evil.” Likewise in the same place: “No one looking back, and putting his hands to the plough, is fit for the kingdom of God.” Also in the same place: “Behold the fowls of the heaven: for they sow not, nor reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of more value than they? " Concerning this same thing, according to Luke: “Let your loins be girded, and your lamps burning; and ye like unto men that wait for their lord, when he cometh from the wedding; that, when he cometh and knocketh, they may open to him. Blessed are those servants, whom their lord, when he cometh, shall find watching.” Of this same thing in Matthew: “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests; but the Son of man hath not where He may lay His head.” Also in the same place: “Whoso forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple.” Of this same thing in the first to the Corinthians: “Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body.” Also in the same place: “The time is limited. It remaineth, therefore, that both they who have wives be as though they have them not, and they who lament as they that lament not, and they that rejoice as they that rejoice not, and they who buy as they that buy not, and they who possess as they who possess not, and they who use this world as they that use it not; for the fashion of this world passeth away.” Also in the same place: “The first man is of the clay of the earth, the second man from heaven. As he is of the clay, such also are they who are of the clay; and as is the heavenly, such also are the heavenly. Even as we have borne the image of him who is of the clay, let us bear His image also who is from heaven.” Of this same matter to the Philippians: “All seek their own, and not those things which are Christ’s; whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and their glory is to their confusion, who mind earthly things. For our conversation is in heaven, whence also we expect the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall transform the body of our humiliation conformed to the body of His glory.” Of this very matter to Galatians: “But be it far from me to boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” Concerning this same thing to Timothy: “No man that warreth for God bindeth himself with worldly annoyances, that he may please Him to whom he hath approved himself. But and if a man should contend, he will not be crowned unless he fight lawfully.” Of this same thing to the Colossians: “If ye be dead with Christ froth I the elements of the world, why still, as if living in the world, do ye follow vain things? " Also concerning this same thing: “If ye have risen together with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is sitting on the right hand of God. Give heed to the things that are above, not to those things which are on the earth; for ye are dead, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. But when Christ your life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.” Of this same thing to the Ephesians: Put off the old man of the former conversation, who is corrupted, according to the lusts of deceit. But be ye renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, him who according to God is ordained in righteousness, and holiness, and truth.” Of this same thing in the Epistle of Peter: “As strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; but having a good conversation among the Gentiles, that while they detract from you as if from evildoers, yet, beholding your good works, they may magnify God.” Of this same thing in the Epistle of John: “He who saith he abideth in Christ, ought himself also to walk even as He walked.” Also in the same place: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loveth the world, the love of the Father is not in him. Because everything which is in the world is lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the ambition of this world, which is not of the Father, but of the lust of this world. And the world shall pass away with its lust. But he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever, even as God abideth for ever.” Also in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: “Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new dough, as ye are unleavened. For also Christ our passover is sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not in the old leaven, nor in the leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” — Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

Gaius Marius Victorinus: To the charge being given to Timothy as one “who is faithfully anxious on your behalf” he adds this explanation: The others “seek after their own interests”; that is, they are anxious to protect and keep what is theirs and in this are not Christians. For what is it to be a Christian? To seek rather in every companion and brother that which is Christ’s. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.21

Philippians 2:22

Gaius Marius Victorinus: He says “he served with me,” not “he served me.” — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.22-24

John Chrysostom: “Ye know the proof of him, that as a child serveth a father, so he served with me in furtherance of the Gospel.”

And that I speak not at random, “ye yourselves,” he says, “know, that as a child serveth a father, so he served with me in furtherance of the Gospel.” He presents then Timothy to them, and with reason, that he might enjoy much honor from them. This too he does when he writes to the Corinthians, and he says, “Let no man therefore despise him, for he worketh the work of the Lord as I also do.” This he said not as caring for him, but for those who receive him, that they might receive a great reward. — Homily on Philippians 9

Philippians 2:23

John Chrysostom: “Him therefore,” he says, “I hope to send forthwith, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me,” that is, when I see where I stand, and what end my affairs will have. — Homily on Philippians 9

Theodoret of Cyrus: Even here he does not expressly announce that he will come but makes this depend on the providence of God. And clearly he has not yet wholly escaped his former peril. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.23-24

Philippians 2:24

John Chrysostom: “But I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come to you shortly.”

I am not therefore sending him, as though I myself would not come, but that I may be of good courage when I know your state, that even in the mean time I may not be ignorant of it. “But I trust in the Lord,” says he. See how he makes all things depend on God, and speaks nothing of his own mind. That is, God willing. — Homily on Philippians 9

Philippians 2:25

Gaius Marius Victorinus: Although he has promised to send Timothy rapidly, nevertheless, because he still speaks of a certain delay, he now sends Epaphroditus. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.25

Gaius Marius Victorinus: He commends the character of Epaphroditus by calling him “my brother and fellow soldier.” He is a brother in the law and a fellow soldier in the camp and in the work of the gospel. And he is called “your apostle.” Note that he calls Epaphroditus an apostle. Everyone who is sent on account of the gospel can rightly be called an apostle. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.25

John Chrysostom: “But I counted it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and fellow-worker, and fellow-soldier.”

And him too he sends with the same praises as Timothy, for he commended him on these two points; first, in that he loved them, when he says, “who will care truly for you”; and secondly, in that he had approved himself in the Gospel. And for the same reason, and in the same terms, he praises this man also: and how? By calling him a brother, and a fellow-worker, and not stopping at this point, but also “fellow-soldier,” he showed how he shared in his dangers, and testifies of him the same things which he testifies of himself. For “fellow-soldier” is more than “fellow-worker”; for perchance he gave aid in quiet matters, yet not so in wars and dangers; but in saying “fellow-soldier,” he showed this too.

“To send to you your messenger, and minister to my needs”; that is, I give you your own, since I send to you him that is your own, or, perhaps, that is your Teacher. Again he adds many things concerning his love. — Homily on Philippians 9

Theodoret of Cyrus: Paul attributes many accomplishments to Epaphroditus. He calls him not merely a brother but a fellow worker and a fellow soldier. And Paul has even called him their apostle, because he has been entrusted with their care. Thus it is apparent that those who were called bishops in the earlier part of the letter held their charge under Epaphroditus, being obviously presbyters. And he calls him a “minister to his need,” because he had brought the necessities that they had sent, as was their duty, analogous to contributions for civic officers. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.25

Philippians 2:26

Ambrosiaster: Both the congregation and Epaphroditus were sad because of his sickness. They hoped that they might, on seeing him, be reassured in his recovery of health and that he might be relieved of his present anxiety to see them. For he was their apostle, appointed by Paul when he sent him to them for their exhortation. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.27.1

John Chrysostom: “Since he longed after you all, and was sore troubled, because ye had heard that he was sick. For indeed he was sick nigh unto death: but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, that I might not have sorrow upon sorrow.”

Here he aims at a farther point, making it manifest, that Epaphroditus too was well aware, how he was beloved of them. And this is no light thing toward loving. You know how he was sick, he says; and he grieved that on his recovery he did not see you, and free you from the grief ye had by reason of his sickness. Here too he gives another reason for sending so late to them, not from any remissness, but he kept Timothy because he had no one else, (for, as he had written, he had “no one likeminded,”) and Epaphroditus because of his sickness. He then shows that this was a long sickness, and had consumed much time, by adding, “for he was sick nigh unto death.” You see how anxious Paul is to cut off from his disciples all occasion of slighting or contempt, and every suspicion that his not coming was because he despised them. For nothing will have such power to draw a disciple toward one, as the persuasion that his superior cares for him, and that he is full of heaviness on his account, for this is the part of exceeding love. Because “ye have heard,” he says, “that he was sick; for he was sick nigh unto death.” And that I am not making an excuse, hear what follows. “But God had mercy on him.” What sayest thou, O heretic? Here it is written, that God’s mercy retained and brought back again him who was on the point of departure. And yet if the world is evil, it is no mercy to leave a man in the evil. Our answer to the heretic is easy, but what shall we say to the Christian? for he perchance will question, and say, “if to depart and to be with Christ is far better,” how saith he that he hath obtained mercy? I would ask why the same Apostle says, that “it is more needful to abide with you”? For as it was needful for him, so too for this man, who would hereafter depart to God with more exceeding riches, and greater boldness. Hereafter that would take place, even if it did not now, but the winning souls is at an end for those who have once departed thither. In many places too, Paul speaks according to the common habits of his hearers, and not every where in accordance with his own heavenly wisdom: for he had to speak to men of the world who still feared death. Then he shows how he esteemed Epaphroditus, and thence he gets for him respect, by saying, that his preservation was so useful to himself, that the mercy which had been shown to Epaphroditus reached him also. Moreover, without this the present life is a good; were it not so, why does Paul rank with punishment untimely deaths? as when he says, “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and not a few sleep”; for the future life is not (merely) better than an evil state, since (then) it were not good, but better than a good state.

“Lest I should have,” he says, “sorrow upon sorrow”; sorrow from his death in addition to that which sprung from his sickness. By this he shows how much he prized Epaphroditus. — Homily on Philippians 9

Philippians 2:27

Ambrosiaster: Is it possible that the apostle prayed for him and the prayer was not answered by his immediate recovery? Remember that signs are for unbelievers. This man’s illness was designed not for his hurt but for his growth. Many indeed are the trials of the faithful … and therefore the petition of the apostle was not spurned, but a better provision was made for him on whose behalf Paul prayed. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.27.2-3

Gaius Marius Victorinus: Note what benefits we experience from the Lord even in this life. Hence we ought not hurry to death. For even if this world is a hotbed of sin and therefore to be shunned, yet the desire to live in the world comes from your nature and is not sin. Life ought to be desired. So it is right to say “God had mercy on him.” — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.27

Gaius Marius Victorinus: Many are preserved and pitied by God because something is done through them which belongs to the ministry of salvation. At the same time we also should pray for those who are ill, lest we be saddened by the loss of those whose help we need in the performance, imparting and proclamation of divine grace. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.27

Theodoret of Cyrus: The words “God had mercy on him” also reveal Epaphroditus’s zeal for the contest. He did not wish to be rid of his wretched life, even knowing the gain that was to spring from it. “And God also pitied me,” says Paul, “by not depriving me of my fellow worker.” — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.26-7

Philippians 2:28

Gaius Marius Victorinus: Why does Paul add the phrase “and I may be less anxious?” Because he has already said that Epaphroditus had ministered to his needs. He did not want it to appear as though he was sad to be sending him. Since Epaphroditus desired to be with them and since they are going to be glad if they see him, Paul could then be “less anxious.” — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.28

John Chrysostom: “I have sent him therefore the more diligently.” What means “more diligently”? It is, without procrastination, without delay, with much speed, having bidden him lay all aside, and to go to you, that he might be freed from heaviness; for we rejoice not on hearing of the health of those we love, so much as when we see them, and chiefly so when this happens contrary to hope, as it was in the case of Epaphroditus.

“I have sent him therefore the more diligently, that when ye see him again, ye may rejoice, and that I may be the less sorrowful.” How “less sorrowful”? Because if ye rejoice, I too rejoice, and he too joys at a pleasure of such sort, and I shall be “less sorrowful.” He said not sorrowless, but “less sorrowful,” to show that his soul never was free from sorrow: for he who said, “Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is made to stumble, and I burn not?”, when could such an one be free from sorrow? That is, this despondency I now cast off. — Homily on Philippians 9

Philippians 2:29

Ambrosiaster: It is apparent that the people and Epaphroditus loved one another inseparably. He is commended by the apostle also, so as to make him all the more dear.… This is the reason for explicitly recalling the struggle of Epaphroditus: his unhesitating willingness to die for the sake of the gospel. — EPISTLE TO THE Philippians 2.30

John Chrysostom: “Receive him therefore in the Lord with all joy.”

“In the Lord” either means spiritually and with much zeal, or rather “in the Lord” means God willing. Receive him in a manner worthy of saints, as saints should be received with all joy.

All this he does for their sakes, not for that of his messengers, for greater gain has the doer than the receiver of a good deed. “And such hold in honor,” that is, receive him in a manner worthy of saints. — Homily on Philippians 9

Philippians 2:30

Clement of Rome: To bring forward some examples from among the heathen: Many kings and princes, in times of pestilence, when they had been instructed by an oracle, have given themselves up to death, in order that by their own blood they might deliver their fellow citizens [from destruction]. Many have gone forth from their own cities, that so sedition might be brought to an end within them. We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to bonds, in order that they might ransom others. Many, too, have surrendered themselves to slavery, that with the price which they received for themselves, they might provide food for others. — Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

John Chrysostom: “Because for the work of Christ he came nigh unto death, hazarding his life, to supply that which was lacking in your service towards me.”

This man had been publicly sent by the city of the Philippians, who had come as minister to Paul, and perchance bringing him some contribution, for toward the end of the Epistle he shows that he also brought him money, when he says, “Having received of Epaphroditus the things that came from you.”

It is probable then, that on his arrival at the city of Rome, he found Paul in great and urgent peril, so that those who were accustomed to resort to him were unable safely to do so, but were themselves in peril by their very attendance; which is wont to happen chiefly in very great dangers, and the exceeding wrath of kings, (for when any one has offended the king, and is cast into prison, and is strictly guarded, then even his servants are debarred from access, which probably then befell Paul,) and that Epaphroditus, being of a noble nature, despised all danger, that he might go in unto him, and minister unto him, and do everything which need required. He therefore sets forth two facts, by which he gains for him their respect; the one, that he was in jeopardy well nigh unto death, he says, for my sake; the other, that in so suffering he was representing their city, so that the recompense for that his peril would be accounted to those who sent him, as if the city had sent him as their ambassador, so that a kind reception of him and approval of what he had done may rather be called a participation in the things that he had dared. And he said not, “for my sake,” but obtains the more credit for his words, by saying, “because for the work of God,” since he acted not for my sake, but for God’s sake “he was nigh unto death.” What then? though by the providence of God he died not, yet he himself regarded not his life, and gave himself up to any suffering that might befall him, so as not to remit his attendance on me. And if he gave himself up to death to attend on Paul, much more would he have endured this for the Gospel’s sake. Or rather, this also had been for the Gospel’s sake, even to have died for Paul. For we may bind about our brows the crown of martyrdom, not only by refusing to sacrifice, but such causes as these also make death martyrdom, and if I may say something startling, these latter do so far more than the former. For he who dares to face death for the lesser cause, will much more for the greater. Let us therefore, when we see the Saints in danger, regard not our life, for it is impossible without daring ever to perform any noble act, but need is that he who takes thought beforehand for his safety here, should fall from that which is to come.

“To supply,” he says, “your lack of service toward me.” What is this? the city was not present, but by sending him, it fulfilled through him all service toward me. He therefore supplied your lack of service, so that for this reason too he deserves to enjoy much honor, since, what ye all should have done, this hath he performed on your behalf. Here he shows that there is also a foregoing service rendered by those in safety to those in danger, for so he speaks of the lack, and the lack of service. Seest thou the spirit of the Apostle? These words spring not from arrogance, but from his great care towards them; for he calls the matter a “service” and a “lack,” that they may not be puffed up, but be moderate, nor think that they have rendered some great thing, but rather be humble-minded.

For we owe the saints a debt, and are not doing them a favor. For as supplies are due by those who are in peace and not engaged in war to such as stand in the army and fight (for these stand on their behoof), thus too is it here. For if Paul had not taught, who would have cast him into prison? Wherefore we ought to minister to the Saints. — Homily on Philippians 9