He did not consider theft equal to God. Have the feelings of Christ! Dependence on God

"For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: He, being in the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; but he made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man; He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to the point of death, even death on the cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him and given Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:5-11).

1. We have set forth the opinions of heretics; now is the time to expound our teaching. They say the expression: " Didn't consider it theft" means - delighted. And we showed that this is completely absurd and inappropriate, that in this way no one proves humility, and not to praise not only God, but also man. So, what does it mean, beloved? Listen to these words. Since Many people believe that, having become humble, they would lose their own dignity, would be humbled and humiliated, then (the apostle), eliminating this fear, and showing that one should not think so, says about God, that God, the only begotten Son of the Father, " being the image of God"having nothing less than the Father, equal to Him," ". And what does this mean, listen: if someone seizes something and appropriates it for himself unlawfully, he does not dare to leave it, fearing that it will be lost or destroyed, but keeps it constantly. On the contrary, whoever has something natural or dignity, he is not afraid to become lower than this dignity, knowing that he will not tolerate anything like this. I will give an example: Absalom captured power, and then did not dare to lay it down. Let us give another example. And if examples are not strong enough to explain everything. Don’t be annoyed with me: such is the nature of examples that most of them are left to the mind for reflection. He rebelled against the king and captured the kingdom; he no longer dares to leave and hide this matter, and if he had even once hidden it, he would have immediately destroyed it. Let us turn to another example: suppose someone has stolen something; he already holds it constantly, and as soon as he lets it go, he immediately loses it.

they are afraid to hide this, and they are afraid to part with what they have taken possession of for a minute. But this is not the case with those who do not own anything through theft. For example, a person has the virtue of being intelligent. (However, I can’t find an example, because we have no natural power, none of the goods depends on our nature, and they all belong to the nature of God. So what shall we say? The fact that the Son of God was not afraid to become lower than His dignity. He did not consider the Divine to be robbery, and was not afraid that anyone would take away His nature or dignity. That’s why I put it aside, being firmly convinced that I would accept it again; hid it, not thinking of diminishing himself in the least through it. That is why (the apostle) did not say: he did not delight, but: “ Didn't consider it theft", - that is, he had power that was not stolen, but natural, not given, but constantly and inalienably belonging to Him. Therefore, he does not refuse to take on the appearance of even a bodyguard. The tyrant is afraid to lay down his purple in wars, but the king does this without any fear. Why? Because He has not stolen power. So, He did not lay it down, because He did not steal it; but He hid it, because He had it as natural and forever inalienable. " but he humbled himself"Where are those who say that He submitted, that He submitted to necessity? (The Apostle) says: " but he humbled himself, humbled himself, becoming obedient even to death"How did you belittle?" Taking on the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man". Here are the words: " But he humbled himself"said (by the apostle) in accordance with the words: " Honor each other as superior to yourselves"(Phil. 2:3) - because if He had been subordinate, if not out of His own motive, and not of His own accord, He had decided to humble Himself, then this would not have been a matter of humility. If He did not know what it was had to happen, then He is imperfect; if, not knowing, He waited for the time of the command, then He did not know the time; if He knew both that it was going to happen and when it was going to happen, then why did He become subordinate? In order, they will say, to show the superiority of the Father. But this does not mean to show the superiority of the Father, but one’s own insignificance. And does not the name of the Father alone sufficiently demonstrate the primacy of the Father? Otherwise, everything (that the Father has) is the same. speaking, this honor alone cannot pass from the Father to the Son; and besides it, everything is common between the Father and the Son.

2. Here the Marcionites, attaching themselves to words, say: He was not a man, but " ". How

Is it possible to be in human likeness? Cloaked in shadow? But this is a ghost, not the likeness of a person. The likeness of a person can be another person. What do you say to John’s words: “ And the Word became flesh"(John 1:14)? Yes, and this same blessed one says in another place: " In the likeness of sinful flesh"(Rom. 8:3)" And in appearance I became like a man". So, they say: and " by appearance", And: " As a person"; and to be like a man, and in the image of a man, does not yet mean to be truly a man, because to be a man in the image does not mean to be a man by nature. Do you see with what conscientiousness I convey the words of my enemies? After all, a brilliant and perfect victory it happens when we do not hide their seemingly strong opinions; to hide means to deceive rather than to win. So, what do they say again? As a person", And " like people"does not mean being human. Consequently, to accept the form of a slave does not mean to accept the nature of a slave. There is an objection against you, and why don’t you be the first to resolve it? Just as you consider it a contradiction with us, so we call it a contradiction with you (The Apostle) did not say: as the image of a servant, neither - in the likeness of the image of a slave, nor - in the image of the image of a slave, but - “having taken the image of a slave.” And this contradiction, they will say, is not any. - this is empty and ridiculous speculation on their part. They say: He took on the image of a slave because, having girded himself with a towel, he washed the feet of the disciples. Is this not the image of a slave, but the work of a slave? slave. Otherwise, why is it not said that He did the work of a slave, which would be clearer? And nowhere in Scripture is (the word) used? image“instead of deeds, because there is a big difference between them: one is a property of nature, and the other of activity. And in ordinary conversation we never use an image instead of deeds. In other words, He, in their opinion, did not do the deeds, and did not girdle. If it was a dream, then it was not the truth; if He did not have hands, then how did He wash Himself? If He did not have thighs, then how did He girdle Himself with a towel? clothes"Took it? But it is said: " He put on his clothes"(John 13:12). Admitting that what is represented here is not what actually happened, but only a ghost, we must admit that He did not even wash the feet of the disciples. If the incorporeal nature did not become visible, then it did not exist and in the body. So, who washed the disciples? What else can we say against Paul of Samos? And what, you ask, does he say the same thing: to wash a man who has human nature?

slaves like themselves is not a derogation. The same thing that we said against the Arians must be said against them. The whole difference between them consists only in a short period of time: both call the Son of God a creation. So what shall we say against them? If a man washed people, then He did not belittle or humiliate Himself; if, as a man, He did not admire equality with God, then there is still no praise in this. For God to become a man is a great, ineffable and inexplicable humility; and for a man to do human deeds - what kind of humility? And where is the image of God called the work of God? If He was a simple man and is called the image of God for His works, then why don’t we say the same about Peter, who did more than Him? Why don’t you say about Paul that He had the image of God? Why didn’t Paul present himself as an example, although he performed many slave tasks and did not give up anything, as he himself says: “ For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and we are your servants for Jesus"(2 Cor. 4:5)? This is ridiculous and absurd." humiliated himself"Tell me how He is." humiliated", and what kind of belittlement is this, and what kind of humility? Was he diminished by the fact that he performed miracles? But both Paul and Peter did this, so this is not a characteristic of the Son. What do the words mean: " becoming like men"? That He had a lot of ours, but did not have much - for example: He was not born from intercourse, He did not create sin. But this is what He had, which no one else has. He was not only what appeared, but also God. He was a man, but in many ways he was not like (us), although in the flesh he was similar. Therefore, He was not a simple man. becoming like men"We are soul and body; He is God, soul and body. Therefore it is said: " having become like this". And so that you, having heard that He " humiliated himself", did not represent change, transformation and any destruction, for this (Scripture) says that He, being what He was, took on what He was not, and having become flesh, remained God the Word.

3. Since in this respect He is like a man, then (the apostle) says: “ and by appearance", - which expresses not that nature has changed, or some kind of confusion has occurred, but that He is " mind"steel (by man). Having said: " taking the form of a slave", he then boldly said these words: " and in appearance becoming", because they stop everyone's mouths. Equally with words: " In the likeness of sinful flesh"(Rom. 8:3) not only expresses that He did not have flesh, but that this flesh did not sin, but was

like sinful flesh. Why similarity? By nature, and not by sinfulness, that is why it is similar to the soul of a sinner. As it says there - " having become like this"because not everything is equal, that's what it says here -" having become like this", because there is not equality in everything, for example: He was not born from intercourse, was without sin, not an ordinary person. And (the apostle) said well: " people", because He was not one of many, but as if one of many - because God the Word did not turn into a man, and His being did not change, but He appeared as a man, but presenting us with a ghost, but teaching us humility. Here which the apostle expresses with the words “to men,” although in another place he calls Him (directly) a man, saying: “ For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"(1 Tim. 2:5). So we have spoken against these (heretics); now we must also say against those who do not recognize that (Christ) received a soul. If the image of God is the perfect God, then the image of the servant is a perfect slave. Again speech against the Arians." He being the image of God", - says (the apostle), - " did not consider it robbery to be equal with God". Here, speaking about the Divine, he does not use the words: became (εγένετο), and: accepted." emptied Himself, taking on the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men". Here, speaking about humanity, he uses the words: accepted, and: became. In the latter case - " having become, having accepted", In the first - " being"So, let us neither confuse nor separate (these concepts). There is one God, one Christ, the Son of God. And when I say - one, I express union, not confusion, since one nature did not turn into another, but only connected with him." He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to the point of death, even death on the cross.". Now, they say, he was obedient, which means he is not equal to the One to whom he is obedient. Oh, foolish and unreasonable! This does not make Him any less. And we often obey our friends, but this does not make us any less. He is like a Son , submitting to the Father voluntarily, did not fall into the state of a slave, but by this very thing - great respect for the Father - He especially preserved a wondrous affinity with Him, not so that you would dishonor Him, but so that you would be more amazed, and from this, from that. namely, that he honored the Father more than all others, and knew that He was the true Son. No one honored God in this way. He humbled Himself to the same extent. surpassed everyone, not through compulsion and not through captivity. And this is a matter of His valor, or I don’t know how to say it. Oh, and to become a slave is a great and very indescribable thing, but to be subjected to death is even more so.

much more! But there is something else, something greater and more amazing. What is it? That not every death was like (His death), since His death was considered the most reproachful of all, the most shameful and cursed: " Cursed", - it is said, - " before God [everyone] hanged [on a tree]"(Deut. 21:23). For this reason, the Jews tried to kill Him with such a death, and thereby make Him despicable, so that the very kind of death would turn everyone away from Him, if (simply) death had not turned anyone away. For this reason and the two thieves were crucified with Him, so that He might share with them their dishonor, and so that what had been said would be fulfilled: " And he was numbered among the villains"(Isa. 53:12). But the truth shines out the more, the more brilliant it becomes. When there were so many evil intentions against His glory from the enemies, it nevertheless Shines, and its brilliance is even much more manifested. Not by simple mortification, but by mortification precisely of this kind, they thought to make Him disgusting, to present Him as more disgusting than all; execution, nor the fact that they themselves were suffering the yage, did not restrain their fury. One of them even expressed this to the other, blocking his lips with the words: “ Or are you not afraid of God, when you yourself are condemned to the same thing?"(Luke 23:40). Such was their wickedness! However, this did not in the least harm His glory, which is why he says (the apostle): " Therefore God has highly exalted Him and given Him the name that is above every name".

4. When Blessed Paul touched the flesh, he said everything derogatory without fear. And until he said that He took on the form of a slave, but spoke only about the Divine, look how sublimely (he spoke)! Sublimely, I mean - in strength: it does not express His dignity, because it cannot: " He being the image of God", - speaks, - " did not consider it robbery to be equal with God"When he said that He became human, he fearlessly speaks of humiliation, knowing correctly that derogatory expressions do not humiliate the Divinity in the least, since they refer to His flesh." Therefore God has highly exalted Him and given Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.". Let us speak against heretics. If this is not said about the incarnate, if about God the Word, then how " exalted Him"? Had He really given anything more? In that case, He would have been imperfect, and through us would have become perfect, and if He had not been beneficent

us, then we would have received honor. " And he gave", - speaks, - " His name is". Now, in your opinion, He did not even have a name. If He accepted His due, then how can we recognize Him as having received it by grace and gift even" a name above every name"? What name, let's see." So that before the name"Jesus Christ," he says, " every knee bowed"By name they themselves mean glory. Consequently, this glory is above all glory; glory consists in worshiping Him. You are far from the greatness of God, who think to know God as He knows Himself. And from this it is already clear how far you are from (right) is understood about God, it is also clear from the following: If His glory consists (in worship), then tell me: before that people, angels, archangels came into being, He was not in glory? If this glory is above all glory - but This is the meaning of the words: " above every name", - if He (before the creation of the world) although He was in glory, was less than now, then He created everything that exists in order to be in glory, (created) not out of goodness, but having a need for glory from us. Do you see foolishness? Do you see wickedness? And when (the apostle) said this about the incarnate, he had a reason for this to speak about the flesh, because all this does not concern the nature (of God), but has to do with the economy. (incarnation). After that, there is no forgiveness for those who are malicious, as if these words refer to the deity. Therefore, when we say: God created man immortal, although I am speaking about the whole, I know what I mean: “ Heavenly, earthly and underworld"? That is, the whole world, and angels, and people, and demons, and righteous people, and sinners." And every tongue confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father", that is, for everyone to say this; and this is the glory of the Father. Do you see that the Father is glorified everywhere when the Son is glorified? Likewise, when the Son is unhonored, the Father is also dishonored. If this happens with us, where There is a lot of difference between fathers and sons, then even more so with God, where there is no difference, honor and dishonor pass (from the Son to the Father). when we say that (the Son) is perfect, lacking in nothing, that He is no less than the Father, this serves as an important testimony of both the power of (the Father), and His goodness and wisdom, that He gave birth to such a Son, Who is in no way less than. by goodness, not by wisdom. When I say that (the Son) is wise, like the Father, and in no way less than Him, then this is evidence of the great wisdom of the Father. When I say that He is omnipotent, like the Father, then in this His

teaching about the power of the Father. When I say that He is good as the Father, this is the greatest proof of the Father’s goodness, that He begat such a Son, who is in no way less than Him, and lacks nothing. When I say that (he gave birth to a Son) not of lesser essence, but equal, and not of another essence, then by this I also praise God and His power, and goodness, and wisdom, that He showed us from Himself another of the same kind, except that that He is not the Father. Thus, everything that I say great about the Son is transferred to the Father. And if this is small and insignificant (and it is truly small for the glory of God that the universe worships Him) to serve for the glory of God, then isn’t everything else much more?

5. Let us therefore believe for His glory and live for His glory. One without the other is useless, so if we glorify well, but live poorly, then we greatly insult Him, because, recognizing Him as Lord and Teacher, we despise Him and are not afraid of His terrible judgment. The unclean life of the Hellenes (pagans) is not the least surprising, and does not deserve greater condemnation; but such unclean life of Christians participating in such sacraments, enjoying such glory, is worse and more intolerable than anything else. Tell me: (Christ) was obedient to the extreme degree of obedience, and for this he received high honor; He became a slave, and for this He is the Master of everything, both angels and all others. Therefore, we should not think that we become lower than our dignity when we ourselves humble ourselves. Then, in all fairness, we are superior; Then they are especially worthy of respect. And that the high is low, and the humble is high - (as proof of this) the words of Christ expressing this are sufficient. However, let's examine the matter itself. What does it mean to be humble? Isn't it like enduring humiliation, reproach and slander? What does it mean to be tall? Isn't it like being in honor, in praise, in glory? Fine. Let's see how this happens. Satan was an angel and became exalted. Well, isn’t he more humiliated than everyone else? Doesn't he have the earth as his home? Doesn't everyone blame and blaspheme him? Paul, being a man, humbled himself. Well, isn't he revered? Isn't he being praised? Aren't they glorifying him? Isn't he a friend of Christ? Did he not do more works than those that Christ did? Did he not often command the devil as if he were a slave? Was he not announced as an executioner? Didn't you laugh at him? Did you not trample his heads with your feet? Didn’t you pray about this with great boldness for others? What does this say? Absalom exalted and humbled himself

David: which of them became high, which was glorious? What, in fact, could be more humble than the words that this blessed prophet uttered regarding Shimei: " leave him, let him curse, for the Lord commanded him"(2 Kings 16:11)? If you wish, let us also examine the deeds themselves. The tax collector humbled himself; although this act was not humility, the words he spoke were somehow meek. The Pharisee was exalted. But, perhaps, let’s leave the faces and examine Let some two appear, both rich, and having great honor, and proud of wisdom, power and other worldly advantages. And let one of them seek all honors, and, not receiving them, become angry, demand more than what is due. Let the other one despise this and not be annoyed with anyone for it, even rejecting the honor given. Which of them is the one who does not receive and seeks, or the one who despises what is given? It is clear that the latter is right. There is no other way to get glory than by avoiding glory: as long as we chase it, it runs away from us; but when we run from it, it pursues us. There is another reason why everyone reveres the one who shuns honor, and despises the one who seeks it - namely, that the human race by nature somehow loves to argue and resist. So, let us despise glory: in this way we can become humble, or better yet, high. To be lifted up by another, do not lift yourself up. He who exalts himself is not exalted by others; and whoever humiliates himself is not humiliated by others. Pride is a great evil. It's better to be stupid than proud; in the former only stupidity is revealed as a lack of intelligence, and in the latter it is worse - stupidity along with fury. A fool is evil to himself; but the proud is a plague to others. Pride is born from stupidity; one cannot be highly intelligent without being stupid; He who is too stupid is proud. Listen to what a wise man says: " Have you seen a man who is wise in his eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him"(Proverbs 26:12). You see, it was not in vain that I said that this evil is worse than stupidity? " To the stupid", - it is said, - " more hope than for him". That's why Paul says: " Don't dream about yourself"(Rom. 12:16). In bodies, tell me, which (parts) do we call healthy? Are they those that are too swollen and very full of air and water, or are they smooth and of moderate size? Obviously, the latter. So also an arrogant soul has a disease worse than dropsy, but a humble soul is free from every disease. And how much good.

gives birth to humility in us? What you want? Do you have patience in adversity? Is it kindness? Is it philanthropy? Sobriety? Is it attentiveness? All these virtues (come) from humility; but pride is the opposite. A proud person is necessarily an offender, and a fighter, and angry, and cruel, and gloomy, and more of a beast than a man. Are you strong and highly intelligent? But therefore you should be more humble. Why do you think so much about an insignificant thing? After all, the lion is braver than you, and the boar is stronger; and in comparison with them you are more insignificant than even a mosquito. And robbers, and grave diggers, and martial artists, and your own slaves, including, perhaps, the most stupid ones, are stronger than you. So, is it worth boasting about this, and are you not humiliating yourself by being proud of it? Are you handsome and handsome? This boasting is characteristic of crows. You are no more beautiful than a peacock, neither in color nor in feathers; in this the bird has an advantage; she is much superior to you in feathers and color. And the swan is very beautiful, and many other birds, with which if you compare yourself, you will seem insignificant to yourself. Moreover, often children of low status, and unmarried girls, and prodigal wives, and effeminate men boast about this. So, is this something to be proud of?

6. But are you rich? How? What did you buy? Gold, silver, precious stones? Robbers, murderers, and workers in mines can boast of this. This means that the work of the condemned is praise for you. But do you decorate and dress up? And the horses can be seen in elegant harness; among the Persians you can also see beautifully decorated camels; and between people - and everyone appearing on stage. So, aren’t you ashamed to think a lot about what you have in common with dumb animals, and slaves, and murderers, and effeminate people, and robbers, and grave diggers? But are you building magnificent chambers? What is it? many jackdaws live in even more magnificent ones, even in sacred (places). Don't you see that the houses of extravagant rich people, built on fields and empty places, serve as a haven for jackdaws? Are you proud of your voice? however, you can never be more pleasant than the swan and the nightingale. Are you proud of your versatility in the arts? But who is wiser than a bee in this regard? What artist, what painter, what geometer can imitate her work? Are you proud of the fineness of your clothes? But spiders are superior to you in this. Are you proud of your quick feet? And in this the advantage belongs to the dumb, the hare and the chamois, and many of the livestock will not yield to you in speed

legs Are you travelling? But no more birds; they travel much more conveniently, have no need for travel supplies or pack animals, and are content with wings for everything; they have wings and a ship, and beasts of burden, and a cart, and the wind, and in general everything you want. Do you have sharp eyesight? But not like a chamois, and not like an eagle. Do you have a keen ear? But the donkey is even thinner. Do you have a sense of smell? But the dog will not let you surpass yourself in this. Are you able to prepare supplies? But you are inferior to the ant in this. Are you wearing gold clothes? But not like Indian ants. You are healthy? But the dumb ones are much superior to us both in health and resources; they are not afraid of poverty. " Take a look", - it is said, - " on the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap, nor gather into barns "(Matthew 6:26). So, they will say, God created the dumb better than us. Do you see what recklessness? Do you see what rashness? Do you see how many subjects research reveals to us? He who considers himself above all people turned out to be lower and But we will spare him, we will not imitate him, and having reduced him to the level of the dumb because he dreamed of himself above our nature, we will not leave him, but we will raise him from here, not for his sake - he deserved such a state - but in order for God’s love for mankind to be manifested and the honor with which we are awarded. We truly have something to which the dumb are not at all involved. What is this? Piety and a virtuous life. about effeminate people, nor about murderers: we are far from them. What is this? We know God, we recognize His providence, we philosophize about immortality: in this respect, the dumb ones are inferior to this, without doubting: in this respect, the dumb ones do not have. nothing to do with us. We, being weaker than all animals, possess them. This is the superiority of power, that we, despite all our shortcomings in comparison with animals, reign over them; and this is so that you understand that it is not you who is to blame for this, but God, who created you and gave you reason. We set nets and snares for them, drive them in, and take possession of them. We have chastity, modesty, meekness, contempt for money. But since you, who belong to the ranks of the proud, do not have any of these virtues, then of course you place yourself either above people, or below and dumb. Such is pride and insolence: it either exalts itself too much, or it humiliates itself too much, without observing the limits in anything. We (in our virtues) are equal to the angels; we are promised a kingdom and triumph with Christ. A person suffers blows and does not fall, he despises death, does not tremble, is not afraid of it and does not desire more. Therefore, everyone who is not like this is worse than the dumb. Indeed, if you have many physical advantages but no spiritual ones, then how are you no worse than dumb people? Imagine someone the most vicious, living in bliss and abundance: a horse is more capable of war than him, a boar is stronger, a hare is faster, a peacock is more beautiful, a swan is more euphonious, an elephant is larger, an eagle is sharper, all birds are richer. Why are you worthy of the honor of possessing the dumb? By reason? But no. If you do not use it properly, then again you are worse than them, because when you, having reason, are more stupid than dumb people, then it would be better if you were not reasonable in the first place. It is not the same thing - having accepted power, losing it, and not accepting it at the very beginning. For a king who is worse than his squires, it would be better if he did not wear purple. The same is true here. So, knowing that without virtue we are worse than the dumb, let us strive in it in order to be people, or better yet, angels, and enjoy the promised benefits, according to the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor , now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

The page was generated in 0.09 seconds!

(Phil.2:6)

(Compiled by Beregovoi Roman)

Not in any of the 5500 known today. day of NT manuscripts no verb " arpazw " Worth everywhere NOUN " arpagmon " = "robbery" = "theft". And then this phrase has a completely different meaning, namely:Paul teaches people humility through the example of Christ, saying that Christ is God by nature (and this is precisely the meaning of the word. morfh), didn't consider it theft, but on the contrary, he humbled himself, taking on the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man; humbled himself(being God), being obedient even to death, even death on the cross.

Various translations, cat. given in "Should we believe..." are not world-wide (generally accepted). Here are other translations for you as an example:

Synodal:He, being the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God;

Ep. Kassiana Bezobrazova: Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery for Himself to be equal with God;

Modern translation: Although He was God by nature, He did not cling to this equality with God;

Word of Life: He was in the form of God, but did not design to become held by the power of his equality with God;

Vulgate: qui cum in forma Dei esset non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo;

Textus Receptus:os en morfh qeou uparcwn ouc arpagmon hghsato to einai isa qew ;

Westcott-Hort Ed.: os en morfh qeou uparcwn ouc arpagmon hghsato to einai isa qew;

Ogienko:Vіn, being in God's likeness, not taking into account the capture of God's being jealous;

Church Slavonic: who, in the image of God, is not equal to God by admiration;

NIV: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped - Who, being in the true nature of God, did not consider equality with God to be theft.

KJV: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God - Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it theft to be equal to God.

GNB: He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become (remain) equal with God - He always had the nature of God, but He did not think of trying to become [This translation offers two versions of the translation.] (remain) equal to God.

CV:Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain (become) equal with God - Christ was the true God. But he did not try to remain (become) equal to God.

Recovery translation : Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider that being equal with God was a treasure to be grasped.

Kuznetsova: He, by nature God, did not hold on to equality with God.

K.P. Pobedonostsev: He, who exists in the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God

Modern Russian translation : He, by His very nature being God, did not hold on to this equality with God.

This is how he writes mit. Macarius(Bulgakov) about this verse:

“...expressions: being the image of God(εν μορφή θεοΰ ύπάρχων) and be equal to God(τό εΐναι ΐσα θεώ) are clearly opposed to the expressions: taking the form of a slave (μορφήν δούλου λαβών), becoming like men(έν όμοιώματι άνθρώπων γενόμενος). But as the latter expressions obviously mean in the person of Jesus Christ precisely human nature; so, therefore, the first ones mean the Divine nature in Him. And besides, the Apostle expresses:

aa) that Christ, being the image of God, didn't consider it theft (ούχ" άρπαγμόν ήγήσατο) be equal to God: this means that this equality belonged to Him by right, i.e. by nature;

bb) that He diminished or exhausted Himself when He took on the form of a commoner; This means that by nature He is not a servant of God, not a creation of God, but is God himself. Otherwise, what would be His humiliation?..."(Orthodox-dogmatic theology)

“I affirm,” he says. c Saint Basil the Great that expression: being the image of God(Phil. 2:6) is equivalent to the expression: to be in the essence of God. Because like the words: taking the form of a slave(v. 7), mean that our Lord was born in the essence of human nature; so, of course, are the words: being the image of God, show the property of God’s essence” (“Creations of the Holy Fathers” VII, p. 45).

In appearance I became like a man

He, being the image of God,

He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God;

but he made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant,

becoming like men...

Philippians 2:6–7

These days, believers around the world are preparing to celebrate the Nativity of Christ. Birth

Jesus is one of the greatest miracles in the world because Almighty God Himself left the glory

heaven and came to earth in the form of a man. What is truly amazing and amazing is that God

He left His Divinity for a while and came to us on earth as a man. This is exactly what

occurred at the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

Paul writes: “He, being in the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; But

He emptied himself, taking on the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men...”

(Philippians 2:6–7).

Paul begins by defining who Jesus was before he came to earth by saying, “He,

being the image of God." The word huparcho - “to be”, consists of the words hupo - from and arche -

beginning, foundation, originally. The word huparcho means to always exist. That is

Jesus has always existed. He Himself said: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John

8:58). Our verse can be translated as follows: “He who eternally existed in the form of God...”.

In other words, the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem was not the beginning of His existence, but only

His incarnation into man, a short appearance on earth in His eternal existence.

The word morphe - “image”, describes the external image, and this means that before incarnation He

was God. He was not an integral part of God, he was not a symbol of God, He Himself is God.

And as the eternal God He was surrounded by the radiance of glory, majesty, and in His presence could not

not a single person will survive. He was in a glory so magnificent that human

the mind cannot imagine it, and such a one has a power before which no man can

can resist. However, He desired to come to earth and redeem humanity. And He doesn't have

there was no other choice but to take on the form that a person could bear.

Therefore, He “made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, becoming like

to people.." This is the real story of Christmas.

Kenos - “humiliated”, also means empty, annulled, deprived, rejected,

devastated. Since God could not appear before people as God, He had to

change your appearance. And the only way He could appear before

people - this is of our own free will and for a short time to put aside everything that we usually

imagine when we think about God. For thirty-three years God separated Himself from heavenly

glory and “took on the form of a servant.” The word "accepted" well describes that amazing moment,

when the Lord took on human flesh in order to appear on earth as a man.

The Greek word lambano - “to take”, is translated as taking, grabbing, catching,

grasp. This word lets us know that God literally came out of His eternal

existence, entered the material world, which He

These verses list the seven great steps downward Jesus took from heavenly glory to his death on the cross:

· He humbled Himself ( or lost his reputation). Literally, He devastated Yourself. As Charles Wesley said in one of his hymns, “Christ emptied Himself of all but love.”

· He took on the form of a slave. He was Lord of glory, but He took a step down and became a servant.

· He became like men. He became a member of the Adamic race, becoming little less than the angels.

· He looked like a man. He looked like an ordinary man of His time. There was nothing that outwardly distinguished Him from the people among whom He lived.

· He humbled Himself. He was a modest man. He was not a priest or a ruler, he was the son of a carpenter.

· He became obedient to death. His absolute obedience led Him to an atoning death for sinful humanity.

· He became obedient to the death of the criminal on the cross. Crucifixion was the reward of torture for the worst people who committed the most heinous crimes.

These are the seven great steps down that the Lord Jesus took. But these great downward steps led to seven great upward steps, which are described in verses 9-11:

Therefore God has highly exalted Him and given Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Here we have seven ascending stages of Jesus' exaltation:

· God has highly exalted Him.

· God gave Him a name that is above every name.

· At the name of Jesus every knee will bow…

· "Heavenly"- all created spirits who serve God in heaven.

· "Earthly"- this means that absolutely every creature on earth will submit to the authority of Christ.

· "Hells"- this refers to the satanic realms in hell. This includes death, hell, the grave, and the unrighteous death of those who have previously rejected God's mercy.

· Every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ– Lord. The Lordship of Jesus will be proclaimed in every part of the universe.

In all this we are given the perfect example of Jesus. Paul encourages us followers of Jesus to humble ourselves:

Do nothing out of selfish ambition (literally, out of personal ambition) or out of vanity, but out of humility, consider each other better than yourselves. Not only does everyone care about himself, but everyone also cares about others. For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 2:3-5.)

Paul excludes two motivating factors: personal ambition and vanity. There is only one path to exaltation: humility of oneself. In Luke 14:11, Jesus states this principle very clearly: “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

This is an absolutely unchanged principle. There are no exceptions here! The way up leads down. This is the greatest secret! As Proverbs 18:12 states, “Before honor comes humility.”

Turning again to Philippians, we see a wonderful truth brought to light: “ Therefore and God highly exalted Him (Jesus)” (2:9).

Word therefore leads me to believe that Jesus was exalted not because He was the beloved Son, but because He fulfilled the necessary requirements. He had to deserve Your rise. We might assume that it was a matter of course that at the end of His suffering on the cross, He could return to His position of equality with God. But, as I believe, He earned this right by humbling Himself. He deserved it not only for Himself, but for all who follow Him.

In response to this, you may feel led to pray, “Lord, I need humility. Please make me humble." However, surprisingly, God's answer is, “I can't do it. Only you can humble yourself."

Humbling yourself is a matter of will, not emotion. This is a decision each of us makes for himself: “Lord, I choose the path of humility before You. I reject pride, arrogance and personal ambition before You and before the believers around me.”

Giving a practical example of how to humble yourself, Jesus spoke about the guests invited to the wedding feast:

“When you are invited by someone to a marriage, do not sit in the first place, lest one of those invited by him be more honorable than you, and the one who invited you and him would come up and say to you: give him your place; and then with shame you will have to take the last place. But when you are called, when you arrive, sit in the last place, so that the one who called you will come up and say: friend! sit higher; Then you will be honored before those who sit with you, for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 14:8-11.)

At this moment, each of us is faced with a choice - to make our own decision. I can't make a decision for you, and you can't make it for me. But let me tell you, my decision has already been made.

And what about you?

Chapter 5

Adam's race.

Our origin.

God was faced with a rebellion among the angelic creations - beings of amazing beauty, strength and intelligence.

How did God react? Did He produce even more wondrous celestial beings—creatures even more beautiful, powerful, and intelligent? Of course He could do it if He only wanted to. But in fact, He did the exact opposite. He went down, not up.

He created a new race from the lowest possible material - from the dust of the earth. The name of the creature that He created was Adam. This name came directly from the Hebrew word adamah, which means Earth. Adam's race is earthly race. However, the revelation revealed in Scripture clearly states that God had a higher purpose for the Adamic race than for the angels.

It is important to realize that the creation of Adam and Adam's race was part of God's response to Satan's rebellion. In a certain sense, this new race was destined to fulfill the purpose from which Satan had fallen, and to go even further than that. This is one main reason why Satan opposes our race with such intense hatred. He sees in us those who will replace him and enter into the destiny that he could not achieve. What kind of predestination is this?

To understand our predestination which we will explore in the next chapter, we must first understand our origins – how and why humanity was created. Both our origin and our destiny are revealed in the first chapters of the book of Genesis.

The first verse of Genesis says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Next, Genesis 1:26-27 describes the creation of man: “And God said, Let us make man in our image [and] after our likeness...And God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” We need to compare this creation of man with a historical background that extends over a vast period of time.

At the end of the ages

God operates in accordance with the chronological system that He Himself produced. It is important to find where we are in God's timeline. Regarding the coming of Jesus to earth, we find in Hebrews 9:26: “But one day (now) by the end of centuries, appeared to destroy sin by His sacrifice.” This indicates that the coming of Jesus to earth is the culmination of a program that God followed over a period of time described as “the ages.” In 1 Corinthians 10:11, Paul says that “all these things happened to them as examples; but it is described for instruction to us who have reached last (end) centuries. The New Testament Church apparently understood this to mean that it was the culmination of Divine purposes that began in the early centuries.

These Scriptures indicate that the coming of Jesus and the formation of the Church are some of the ultimate goals that close the period described as "the ages." How do we interpret this concept: centuries? In Psalm 89:5, the psalmist turns to God and says, “For in Your sight a thousand years are like yesterday when it is past; How guard in the night." In Biblical culture, the 12 hours were divided into three “watches” of 4 hours each. In other words, a thousand years corresponds to four hours. A day (24 hours) will correspond to 6 thousand years.

We see then that the events recorded in Genesis 1:2ff are the culmination of Divine activity stretching back over such a long period of time that our limited minds cannot comprehend it.

Keeping this in mind, let us turn to the first verses of the book of Genesis. As we have seen, the first verse describes the initial act of creation, and the first part of the second verse describes the subsequent state of the earth: “And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”

In the third chapter of this book, I explained why I believe that "emptiness" was not the condition of the earth immediately after its creation, but was most likely the result of the destructive judgment of God that was carried out on the pre-Adamic earth, perhaps as a result of rebellion Satan. This was the judgment of the wickedness of the pre-Adamic race (or races) on earth, which had been led by Satan into rebellion and various forms of wickedness.

It becomes clear that the main instrument of judgment in this case was water. The earth became a desolate, shapeless, watery desert, and darkness was over the surface of the waters. Then, the second part of verse 2 says, “and the Spirit of God hovered (hovered, almost like a bird) over the waters.”

Particularly highlighted: water and darkness. From Genesis 1:3 (“Let there be light”) through Genesis 2:7 (“And God created man”), the discussion is not primarily about the original creation, but essentially about restoration. In most cases, the material is already present. All that is needed is reconstruction and restoration. I'm not saying that there was no creativity this time, but the original creation was not the main event.

Apart from this process of re-creation that filled the earth with sea creatures and other living beings, we must not miss that creative process in us as Christians. In 2 Corinthians 5:17 Paul says, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he new creature (creation); the ancient has passed away, now everything is new.”

In a sense, this new creation in Christ is an action recovery. When I come to Christ as a sinner, my entire identity is not erased. God is not bringing something completely new into the world, but He is putting into action those forces that will restore me, renew me, and ultimately bring me into something completely new. Therefore, the act of re-creation described in Genesis 1 and 2 is exactly the same and applies to the new creation in Christ. This is one of the reasons why Scripture describes this in some detail.

Some aspects of creation in Genesis 1:2 are repeated in the restoration of the sinner when he comes to Christ. The "world" (or "earth" as described in Genesis 1:2) was a formless mass. In the same way, when we come to Jesus Christ as sinners, we may or may not realize it, but we too are in a formless state. Not only are we formless, but like the earth in Genesis 1:2, we are also in darkness. As long as we are in darkness, we cannot see things as they really are. This was the condition of the earth, but it is also the condition of each individual sinner.

There are two great channels of restoration in the new creation. In Genesis 1:2, Spirit God's "floated". In Genesis 1:3 God spoke, and His Word it came out. When the Word and Spirit of God come together, creation and re-creation occur. What happens when a sinner comes to repentance? The Spirit of God begins to move in the heart of this sinner, and he accepts the preached Word of God. By the Spirit and the Word the process of restoration (or creation again) in Christ is set in motion.

The first thing the combined operations of the Spirit and the Word produced was light. From that moment on, God worked in the light. The first thing that happens when a sinner comes to Christ is that he begins to see things—and himself—as they are. From that moment on, God begins to work in his life in the light.

Then follows the process of separation and purification, separation (calling) and reproduction. Many different areas operate in a progressive manner. Sometimes we reach a stage where we think, “Now I'm really done. God has already dealt with everything.” And right at this moment, by the Spirit of God, a new area of ​​our life is revealed and brought to light, and then He patiently begins to understand this area.

The way God worked in restoration is described in Genesis 1. He worked in stages. First - water, then - earth, then - vegetation, fish, birds, then - animals, and so on. Finally He came to the culmination of the creative process: the creation of man.

First, let me say that this creation of man gives us the following amazing revelation about God: In God there is plurality: “And God said: let's create man in the image Our[and] in the likeness Our"(Genesis 1:26).

I have already noted that the word God (Elohim) plural. This is consistent with the figures of speech that God uses here to speak of Himself: “ Let's create man in the image Our" Some people say that this is only a form of royal address when crowned heads refer to themselves in the plural, but this is refuted by what follows when God speaks of the fall of man: “And the Lord God said, Behold, Adam has become like one of us knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:22).

God is in the plural, but at the same time He one. Hebrew word one, used here and applied to God is Echad. It means unity between components. Same word in Genesis 2:24 Echad used again: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife; and there will be [two] one ( Echad) flesh".

The word used here is Echad, - this is not a word meaning absolute indivisible integrity, there is another word for this - Yahid. The Hebrew word used in this verse is Echad, applied to marriage. It describes the uniqueness that results from the combination of two different people. In the Biblical revelation of God, however, there are not two, but three united Persons that produce uniqueness. Not absolute uniqueness, but uniqueness in which there is also plurality.

Some people object to the concept of the Trinity of God, but I see it clearly revealed in Scripture. I believe in God the Father, I believe in God the Son and I believe in God the Holy Spirit. And more importantly, I not only believe in Them, but I know Each One of Them through direct, personal experience. I know what it means to have a relationship with the Father; I know what a relationship with the Son is; and I know what it is to have a relationship with the Holy Spirit.

Art. 6-7 He, being in the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; but he made himself of no reputation, taking on the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man.

We have set forth the opinions of heretics; now is the time to expound our teaching. They say that the expression: “I didn’t consider it theft” that means I admired it. But we have shown that this is completely absurd and inappropriate, that in this way no one proves humility, and does not praise not only God, but also man. So what does it mean, beloved? Listen to the real words. Since many people believe that, having become humble, they would lose their own dignity, would diminish and humiliate themselves, then (the apostle), eliminating this fear, and showing that one should not think so, says about God that God, the only begotten Son of the Father , "being in the image of God", having no less than the Father, equal to Him, . And what does this mean, listen: if someone takes something and appropriates it for himself without right, then he does not dare to leave it, fearing that it will be lost and destroyed, but he constantly holds on to it. On the contrary, whoever has any natural dignity is not afraid to become lower than this dignity, knowing that he will not tolerate anything like that. Let me give you an example: Absalom seized power, and then did not dare to relinquish it. Let's give another example. And if examples are not powerful enough to explain everything, don’t be annoyed with me: such is the nature of examples that most of them are left to the mind for reflection. He rebelled against the king and captured the kingdom; he no longer dares to abandon and hide this matter, and if he had even once hidden it, he would have immediately ruined it. Let's look at another example. Suppose someone stole something; he already holds it constantly, and as soon as he let it out of his hands, he immediately lost it. And in general, those who have taken possession of something through theft are afraid to leave it and hide it, they are afraid to part with what they have taken possession of for a moment. But this is not the case with those who do not own anything through theft. For example, a person has the virtue of being intelligent. (However, I can’t find an example, because we have no natural power, none of the goods depends on our nature, and they all belong to the nature of God. So what shall we say? The fact that the Son of God was not afraid to become lower than His dignity. He did not consider the Divine to be robbery, and was not afraid that anyone would take away His nature or dignity. That’s why he put Him aside, being firmly convinced that he would receive Him again; hid it, not thinking of diminishing himself in the least through it. That is why (the apostle) did not say: he did not delight, but: “I didn’t consider it theft”, - that is, he had power that was not stolen, but natural, not given, but constantly and inalienably belonging to Him. That’s why he doesn’t refuse to take on the appearance of even a bodyguard. The tyrant is afraid to lay down the purple in war, but the king does it without any fear. Why? Because he has power that has not been stolen. So He did not fold it, because He did not steal it; but he hid it because he had it as natural and forever inalienable. (The dignity) of being equal with God was not stolen from Him, but natural; and therefore “But he made Himself of no reputation”. Where are those who say that He submitted, that He submitted to necessity? (Apostle) says: “But he humbled himself and humbled himself, becoming obedient even to death.”. How did you belittle? “Taking on the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man.”. Here are the words: “But He humbled Himself” spoken (by the apostle) in accordance with the words: “Recognize each other as superior to yourselves”(Phil. 2:3) - because if He had been subordinate, if not out of His own motive, and not of His own accord, He had decided to diminish Himself, then this would not have been a matter of humility. If He did not know that this was going to happen, then He is imperfect; if, without knowing, he waited for the time of the command, then He did not know the time; if He knew both that this was to happen and when it was to happen, then why did He become subject? In order, they will say, to show the superiority of the Father. But this means not showing the superiority of the Father, but one’s own insignificance. And does not the name of the Father alone sufficiently demonstrate the primacy of the Father? And besides this, everything (that the Father has) is the same with the Son. In other words, this honor alone cannot pass from the Father to the Son; and besides this, the Father and the Son have everything in common.

Here the Marcionites, attaching themselves to words, say: He was not a man, but... How can one be in human likeness? Cloaked in shadow? But this is a ghost, not the likeness of a person. The likeness of a person can be another person. What can you say to John’s words: "And the Word became flesh"(John 1:14) ? And this same blessed one says in another place: "In the likeness of sinful flesh"(Rom. 8:3) “And in appearance I became like a man”. So they say: and "by appearance", And: "As a person"; and to be like a man, and in the image of a man, does not yet mean to be truly a man, because to be a man in the image does not mean to be a man by nature. Do you see with what conscientiousness I convey the words of my enemies? After all, a brilliant and complete victory occurs when we do not hide their seemingly strong opinions; to hide is to deceive rather than to win. So what are they saying? Let us repeat the same thing again: according to the image does not mean according to nature, and to be "As a person", And "like people" doesn't mean being human. Consequently, accepting the form of a slave does not mean accepting the nature of a slave. There is an objection here against you, and why don’t you be the first to resolve it? Just as you consider it a contradiction with us, so we call it a contradiction with you. (The Apostle) did not say: like the image of a slave, neither - in the likeness of the image of a slave, nor - in the image of the image of a slave, but - "taking the form of a slave". What does this mean? And this is a contradiction, they will say. There is no contradiction, but some empty and ridiculous speculation on their part. They say: He took the form of a slave because, girding himself with a towel, he washed the feet of the disciples. Is this the image of a slave? This is not the image of a slave, but the work of a slave. One thing is to engage in the work of a slave, and another thing is to take on the image of a slave. Otherwise, why is it not said that He did the work of a servant, which would be clearer? And nowhere in Scripture is (the word) used "image" instead of deeds, because there is a big difference between them: one is a property of nature, and the other of activity. And in ordinary conversation we never use an image instead of a deed. In other words, He, in their opinion, neither did the work nor girded Himself. If it was a dream, it was not the truth; if He had no hands, how did He wash His hands? If he had no hips, then how did he girdle himself with a towel? And what kind "clothes" did you take it? But it is said: "I put on my clothes"(John 13:12) . Admitting that what is being represented here is not what actually happened, but only a ghost, we must admit that He did not even wash the disciples’ feet. If the incorporeal nature did not become visible, then it was not in the body. So, who washed the disciples? What else can we say against Paul of Samosata? What, you ask, is he saying? He says the same thing: for someone who has human nature and a real person to wash slaves like themselves is not derogation. The same thing that we said against the Arians must be said against them. The whole difference between them consists only in a short period of time: both call the Son of God a creation. So what shall we say against them? If a man washed people, then He did not belittle or humiliate Himself; if, as a man, He did not admire equality with God, then there is still no praise in this. For God to become a man is a great, ineffable and inexplicable humility; But for a man to do human deeds - what kind of humility? And where is the image of God called the work of God? If He was a simple man and is called the image of God for His deeds, then why does He not say the same about Peter, who did more than Him? Why don’t you say about Paul that He had the image of God? Why did Paul not present himself as an example, although he performed many slave tasks and did not give up anything, as he himself says: “For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and we are your servants for Jesus."(2 Cor. 4:5) ? It's funny and absurd. "He made Himself of no reputation". Tell me how He is "humiliated", and what kind of belittlement is this, and what kind of humility? Was he diminished by the fact that he performed miracles? But both Paul and Peter did this, so this is not a characteristic of the Son. What do the words mean: "becoming in the likeness of men"? The fact that He had a lot of ours, but did not have much - for example: He was not born from intercourse, He did not create sin. But this is what He had that no one else has. He was not only what he was, but also God. He was a man, but in many ways he was not like (us), although in the flesh he was similar. Therefore, He was not a simple man. That's why it is said: "becoming in the likeness of men". We are soul and body; He is God, soul and body. Therefore it is said: "having become like". And so that when you hear that He "He made Himself of no reputation", did not present change, transformation and any destruction, for this (Scripture) says that He, remaining what he was, took on what he was not, and having become flesh, remained God the Word.

Since in this respect He is like a man, then (the apostle) says: "and by appearance", - which expresses not that nature has changed, or some kind of confusion has occurred, but that He "in sight" became (a man). Having said: "taking the form of a slave", he then boldly said these words: "and in appearance became", because they stop everyone's mouth. Equally in words: "In the likeness of sinful flesh"(Rom. 8:3) not only expresses that He did not have flesh, but that this flesh did not sin, but was similar to sinful flesh. Why similarity? By nature, and not by sinfulness, that is why it is similar to the soul of a sinner. As it says there - "having become like", because not everything is equal, so it is said here - "having become like", because there is not equality in everything, for example: He was not born from intercourse, was without sin, not an ordinary person. And the apostle said well: "to people", because He was not one of many, but as if one of many - because God the Word did not turn into a man, and His being did not change, but He appeared as a man, not presenting us with a ghost, but teaching us humility. This is what the apostle expresses in words: "to people", although in another place he calls Him (directly) a man, saying: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”(1 Tim. 2:5) . So we said against these (heretics); Now it must also be said against those who do not admit that (Christ) accepted a soul. If the image of God is a perfect God, then the image of a servant is a perfect slave. Again speech against Arians. "He being the image of God", - says (the apostle), - “I did not consider it robbery to be equal with God”. Here, speaking about the Divine, he does not use the words: became (εγένετο), and: accepted. “He made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men.”. Here, speaking about humanity, he uses the words: accepted, and: became. In the latter case - "having become, having accepted", In the first - "being". So, let us neither confuse nor separate (these concepts). There is one God, one Christ, the Son of God. And when I say “one,” I express connection, not confusion, since one nature did not turn into another, but only united with it.

Discourses on the Epistle to the Philippians.

St. Gregory of Nyssa

He, being the image of God

Paul did not say, “having the likeness of God,” as is said of [man] created in the likeness of God, but: being ourselves image of God. For all that belongs to the Father is in the Son.

Refutation of Appolinarius.

Being in the image of God means nothing more than an image hypostases of the Father(Heb. 1:3) ; image or God's absolutely identical to essence. Like One Who Came In the image of a slave(Phil. 2:7) was imagined into the essence of a servant, taking upon himself not only an image not connected with the essence, but also an essence implied by the image, so did Paul, who said that He was in the image of God, pointed to the essence through an image.

Against Eunomius.

St. Athanasius the Great

Art. 6-9 He, being in the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; but he made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man; He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to the point of death, even death on the cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him and given Him the name that is above every name

What could be clearer and more convincing than this? Not having started from a lower degree, he became more perfect, but on the contrary, being God, he accepted "slave's vision", and by this acceptance was not perfected, but "humbled Himself". Therefore, where is the reward for virtue in this? Or what prosperity and perfection can there be in humiliation? If He, this God, became man, and about Him who Descended from on high it is said that He ascends, then where should God ascend? Since God is the Most High, it is clear again that the Word of this God must also be the Most High. Therefore, how much more can He who is in the Father and in everything like the Father be exalted? Consequently, He does not need any increase and is not what the Arians suppose Him to be. For if the Word descended to exalt Himself, and this is the meaning of Scripture, then what was the need to humble Himself in order to strive to accept what the Word already had? And what kind of grace did the Giver of grace receive? Or how he received the venerable name, who was always worshiped in His name. And before it is done by man, the saints call: “God, in Your name save me”(Psalm 53:3), and more “These on chariots, and these on horses: but in the name of the Lord our God we will be magnified.”(Psalm 19, 6, 8). This is how the patriarchs worshiped Him, and it is written about the angels: "And let all the angels of God worship Him"(Heb. 1:6).

If, as David sings in the seventy-first psalm, His name remains before the sun and before the moon throughout all generations (Psalm 71:5), then how did he receive what he always had, even before he received it now? Or how is He exalted when He is the Most High before He was exalted? Or how did He accept venerability even before He accepts it now, always being venerable?

This is not a hidden word, but God's secret. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word”(John 1, 1) . But for our sake later "The word became flesh"(John 1:14). And now that's said "exalt"- does not mean that the essence of the Word is exalted, because it has always been and is equal to God. On the contrary, this is the ascension of humanity. This was not said before, but when already "The word became flesh" so that it is clear that the words "humbled" And "exalt" affect human nature. For whatever is characterized by humility can also be exalted. And if, as a result of taking on the flesh, it is written "humbled", then it is clear that the word refers to the flesh "exalt". Man also had a need for this due to the humility of the flesh and death. Since the Word, being the image of the Father and immortal, took on the form of a servant and for our sake, as a man in His flesh, endured death, in order to thus bring Himself to the Father for us through death, then it is said about Him that for our sake and for us He was exalted as a man, so that just as by His death we all died in Christ, so in Christ Himself we may be exalted again, being raised from the dead and entering into heaven, “where Jesus is the forerunner of us”(Heb. 6:20) “not in contrast to the true ones, but in heaven itself, now let the face of God appear about us”(Heb. 9:24) If now Christ has entered into heaven itself for us, although before this He is forever the Lord and Creator of heaven, then it is written that for us He is now ascended. And how is he, "holy" all, again says to the Father that He sanctifies Himself for us (John 17:19), not in order for the Word to become holy, but in order for Him to sanctify us all in Himself, so understand what is being said now "exalt Him": You have not exalted Him so that He may be exalted (for He is the Most High), but so that He may become righteous for us, and we may be exalted in Him and enter into the heavenly gates, which He again opened for us during the proclamation of the previous ones: “Lift up your gates, O princes, and lift up the everlasting gates, and the King of glory will come in.”(Psalm 23:9). For here too the gates were not closed to Him - the Lord and Creator of all things, but this was written for our sake, by whom the door of heaven is closed. Therefore, as according to humanity, because of the flesh that He bore on Himself, it is said about Him "take the gates", and how about the person entering "will come in", so again according to Divinity, because the Word is God, it is said about Him: “He is the Lord and King of glory”. The Spirit foretold the same ascension taking place in us, saying in the eighty-eighth psalm: “And in Thy righteousness they shall be exalted: for thou art the praise of their strength.”(Psalm 88, 17, 18). If the Son is truth, then it is not He who needs to be ascended, but we are ascended by righteousness, that is, by Him.

And this: "given to Him" It was not written for the sake of the Word Itself, because again, before It was made by man, as it is said, both the angels and all creation worshiped Him because of the unity of properties with the Father, but this again was written for our sake and for us. Just as Christ died and was exalted as a man, so it is said of Him as a man that He accepts what He always had as God, so that such bestowed grace would be extended to us. For the Word, having received a body, did not diminish to the point of needing to receive grace, but rather deified that which it clothed itself with, and bestowed this upon the human race to a greater extent. Just as the Son, being the Word and in the form of God, is always worthy of worship, so He became man and was named Jesus, but, nevertheless, all creation is under His feet and in this name bows its knees before Him and confesses that the Word became flesh and suffered death in the flesh, but this happened not to the dishonor of the Divine, but in "the glory of God the Father"(Phil. 2:11). And the glory of the Father is that man who was created and lost was found, and man who was killed was given life and became God’s temple. Since the heavenly powers, the angels and archangels, both always worship Him and now worship the Lord in the name of Jesus, then this grace and our exaltation belong to us, that the Son of God, having become man, is worthy of worship, and the heavenly Powers will not be surprised when they see like all of us "His stealthy men"(Eph. 3:6), we are introduced into their area. But this would not have happened otherwise if "in the image of God" accepted "slave's vision", and not "humbled Himself", allowing the body to accept even death.

The Savior Himself "humbled Himself" acceptance of our humble body. He perceived "slave's vision", having put on flesh enslaved by sin. And although He Himself did not accept from us anything that would serve for perfection (because God’s Word has no need for anything), nevertheless, through Him we have been made all the more perfect, because He is “light... enlightening every person coming into the world”(John 1:9). And in vain the Arians rely on this word "same" when Paul says: “In the same way God has exalted Him”. For the apostle did not say this as a sign of reward for virtue and perfection in His success, but shows the reason for the perfect ascension in us. What does this mean? Is it not that in the form of God this Son of the High Father humbled Himself and became a slave in our place and for us? For if the Lord had not become man, then we would not have been delivered from sins and would not have risen from the dead, but would have remained dead under the earth, would not have been ascended to heaven, but would have remained lying in hell. Therefore, for our sake and for us it is said: "exalt" And "darova".

Therefore, I believe that this meaning of the saying is the most ecclesiastical. However, another may look for another meaning in this saying, explaining it in the opposite way to the previous one, namely: this does not mean that the Word Itself is exalted, since It is the Word, because It, as was said a little earlier, is the Highest and like the Father, but this saying, because of His humanity, points to the Resurrection from the dead. Therefore the apostle said: “he humbled himself even unto death”, immediately added: “Highly exalt”, wanting to show that if as a person He is said to be dead, then as life He is exalted by the Resurrection. For "Descended, He is" and resurrected (Eph. 4:10), He descended bodily, but rose again because God was in the body. And therefore, he himself again added the word in the same sense "same" to designate not a reward for virtue or success, but the reason why the Resurrection took place and why, when all people from Adam to this day died and remained dead, He alone rose unharmed from the dead. The reason for this, as He Himself said before, is that He is God and became man. All other people, descending only from Adam, died, and death reigned over them (Rom. 5:14). And this second man is from heaven, because "The word became flesh". And about such a Man it is said that He is from Heaven and is Heavenly, because the Word descended from Heaven, which is why He does not possess death. For although He humbled Himself, allowing His own body to accept even death, because it was accessible to death, He was nevertheless exalted from the earth, because the Son of God Himself was in the body. Therefore what is said here: “In the same way God has exalted Him”, equal to what Peter said in Acts: “God resurrected Him, resolving mortal illnesses, as if I had not powerfully kept Him from being.”(Acts 2:24) For as it is written by Paul "in the image of God" became a man and “He humbled Himself even to death... in the same way God also exalted Him”, so Peter also says: because He was God and became man, but signs and wonders showed everyone who saw that He was God, then for this very reason “I do not powerfully hold Him to be”(Acts 2:24) in death. But it was impossible for man to reach such perfection, because death is characteristic of man. Therefore the Word, being God, became flesh, so that, having died in the flesh, He might by His power give life to all.

Since it is said that He ascends and that "God bestowed upon Him", and heretics consider this a deficiency or a suffering state for the essence of the Word, then it is necessary to say why this is said. He speaks to those who ascend "from the deepest countries of the earth"(Eph. 4:9), because death is also affected by His death. Both are said about Him, because it was He, and not another, who owned the body that was lifted up from the dead and taken into heaven. And again, since the body belongs to Him, and not outside the body is the Word Himself, it is rightly said that with the ascended body He Himself as a man is ascended because of the body. Therefore, if He did not become a man, then let this not be said about Him. And if "The word became flesh", then it is necessary that both the Resurrection and Ascension be predicable about Him as a person, so that just as the death predicated about Him was the atonement for human sins and the destruction of death, so the Resurrection and Ascension predicated about Him through Him remain reliable for us. In both respects the apostle said: "God has exalted Him", And "God bestowed upon Him", in order to further show that it is not the Father who became flesh, but that His Word became man, and It is human, as it is said, and receives from the Father, and is ascended by Him. It is clear that no one can doubt that if the Father gives anything, he gives it through the Son. It is surprising and can truly lead to amazement that the Son Himself is said to receive the grace that He gives from the Father, and by the ascension that the Son accomplishes through the Father, it is as if the Son Himself is ascended. For the same one who is the Son of God became also the son of man. And as the Word He gives that which is from the Father, because everything that the Father creates and gives, He creates and communicates through Him, and as the Son of man He is manifested in a human way to those who receive that which is from Him, because the body does not belong to another , and it is characteristic of Him and the body, as it is said, to receive grace. For he received man at his ascension, and his ascension was his deification. The Word itself always had this according to His Father’s Divinity and perfection.

The first word in Aryan.

St. Kirill of Alexandria

Blessed Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians says about the Son: “Whoever is in the form of God is not equal to God by admiration”(Phil. 2:6). Who, therefore, is the One who did not want to consider it robbery to be equal with God? Is it not necessary to assert that there is One One Who "in the image of God", and the other again is the One of Whom was the image? This is obvious to everyone and is recognized by everyone. So, the Father and the Son are not one thing and identical in number, but they coexist separately and are contemplated in each other, according to the identity of essence, although One is from One, that is, from the Father, the Son.

Interpretation of the Gospel of John. Book I

St. Epiphanius of Cyprus

He, being the image of God

If He became slave and was not truly Lord, how could the apostle say that [Jesus Christ] being the image of God, took the form of a slave?

Ankorat.

St. Feofan the Recluse

Who is in the image of God,

Who is our Lord Jesus Christ? By nature, God diminished Himself to the point of accepting human nature, so that in appearance He was like any other person. The present text speaks of His Divinity, the next one speaks of His incarnation.

Those who are in the image of God. The image of God here is not in the sense that man has the image of God - traits of similarity to God; but that His very nature is Divine. Every kind of creature has its own norm of existence, by which we immediately determine: a! this is who. Everyone knows the norm of a person, the norm of an animal, the norm of a tree; so that, just by looking, we immediately say: this is a man, this is a tree, this is an animal. In relation to this, speaking humanly, God has its own norm of existence. Whoever has this norm of Divine existence is God, just as whoever has the norm of human existence is that person. The Apostle says here about the Lord the Savior that He, according to the norm of existence, is God; His existence, being and nature is Divine.

Saint Chrysostom explains this by comparing the expression: in the image of God- with expression - I'll accept the slave's face. Here the image of God is μορφη, there the image of a slave is also μορφη. But the image of a servant there means human nature, therefore, the image of God here means the Divine nature. - He directs his speech against Arius like this: “Arius says that the Son has a different essence. - But tell me what the words mean. I'll accept the slave's face? That is, he says that He became a man. Hence: and in the image of God- that means there was God. For both there and here there is the same word image. If the first is true, then so is the last. To be in the form of a slave means to be human by nature, and to be in the image of God- means to be God by nature.” Quite below he returns to the same thing again and says: “I said that the image of the servant is true, and nothing less: so the image of God is perfect, and nothing less. Therefore the Apostle did not say: in the image of God former, but: syy. This expression is equivalent to the words - I am(cf. Exodus 3:14). The image, as an image (norm), shows perfect similarity. And it cannot be that someone has the essence of one being and the image (norm) of another. For example, not a single person has the image (norm) of an Angel; no wordless has the image (norm) of a person. - So is the Son. - Only since we are complex, the image (norm) in us refers to the body (mostly), but in the simple and completely uncomplicated it refers to the essence (smart, spiritual).”

Not by admiration nepscheva to be equal to God- He did not consider it robbery to be equal to God, - it was not because of alien appropriation that He had Himself equal to God, ισα θεω, - exactly, on the same line with God: but because His own nature and being was Divine. Saint Chrysostom says: “His dignity to be equal to God was not stolen, but natural. Why didn’t the Apostle say: he didn’t delight, but: not with admiration for Nepshchev; that is, he had power that was not stolen, but natural, not given, but constantly and inalienably belonging to Him.” Heretics, Saint Chrysostom notes, have distorted this passage and conveyed its meaning incorrectly. They see here the idea that, according to the Apostle, the Lord, being less than God, did not dare to put Himself on an equal footing with God. “They say: being a lesser God, He did not want to be equal to the great, highest God. - So you are introducing pagan teaching into church dogmas? The pagans have a great and a small God. Whether we have it, I don’t know. But you won’t find this anywhere in Scripture. You will find the great everywhere, but the small nowhere. For if He is small, what kind of God is He? He who is small is not God. In Scripture, the true God is everywhere and is called the Great: Great is the Lord and greatly praised(cf. Ps. 47:2) and the like. - But they say: this is said about the Father, and the Son is small (God). You say so, but Scripture is the opposite: it speaks of the Son in the same way as of the Father. Listen to what Paul says: waiting for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of the Great God(cf. Titus 2:13). Is this said about the Father? No way. This is not allowed by the words immediately added by the Apostle: Our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ. So the Son is great. - Why are you talking about small and great? Know that the Prophet also calls Him Angel of the great council. Is the angel of the great council not great? Mighty God (cf. Jer. 32:18) is it really not great, but small? How then can the shameless and impudent say after this that He is a little God? I often repeat their words; so that you may avoid them the more.”

The Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Philippians, interpreted by St. Theophan.

Sschmch. Methodius of Patarsky

He, being the image of God

Man created by image of God, also needed to be likeness[God's]. To fulfill this, the Word sent into the world first of all took on our image, stained by many sins, so that we, for whose sake He accepted it, could again receive the divine image. For it is possible to be exactly in the likeness of God when we, having imprinted the features of human life [the Son of God] in ourselves, as if on boards, like skilled painters, preserve them, studying the path that He Himself opened. For this reason, He, being God, deigned to put on human flesh, so that we, looking at His divine image of life, as if imprinted in a relief image, could imitate the One who drew it.

Feast of the Ten Virgins.

St. Ephraim Sirin

St. Isidore Pelusiot

He, being the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God

Not by admiration nepscheva to be equal to God, writes the Divine Apostle to the Philippians, superstitious people, champions and guardians of pagan teachings, and due to their attachment to them, reluctantly accept the gospel preaching. In paganism they were taught that their god, who had become supreme, cut off his father’s generative members for fear that he would have other sons, accomplices in the royal power, who would begin to appropriate the deity for themselves, and would cause many strife and battles for it. Therefore, they did not believe that the Son of God, leaving heaven and not fearing any change in dominion, came here and became incarnate.

Therefore, correcting this ignorance of theirs, or, better to say, foolishness, the divine man and teacher of ineffable mysteries says: Let this be understood in you: even in Christ Jesus, Who is in the image of God, He was not equal to God by admiration, but He made Himself lesser and took on the form of a servant., that is, he did not appropriate to himself the Divinity and the kingdom, but before the ages he had this unbornly, and did not imagine that he could lose this, but, as the Lord of the heavenly, and earthly, and underworld, he did not abandon the things above, and came to us, even descending to hell, in order to be everywhere, everywhere to save everyone, on earth renewing both those who live and those who will live, and under the earth freeing those who possess it from the dominion of death.

Letters. Book I

St. Maxim the Confessor

He, being the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God

Notice that the incorporeal is formless. So when you hear about the Superessential " existing in the image of God", understand that He is no different from the Father Himself. This is also shown by the expressions “ image of the invisible God"(Col. 1:15) and " He who has seen Me has seen the Father"(John 14:9) . This is how Saint Basil explains in his word to his brother about the difference between essence and hypostasis.