05 The Mind of Christ: Learning True Greatness (Philippians 2:5–11)

Speaker: Welcome to the Wednesday in the Word podcast. I'm Krisan Marotta. Today we'll be looking at Philippians chapter two, verses five through eleven. This is the fifth talk in our series on the book of Philippians. You can find links and lecture notes for today's talk on our website. Just go to wednesdayintheword.com slash Philippians 5. Thanks so much for listening. As I outlined the book of Philippians, we have finished the introductory section, and we are in the first major section of the body, the letter. So let's review what we've covered so far. Paul wrote this letter from prison. Most likely this is his first Roman imprisonment, which would date the letter to somewhere around 60 to 62 AD. The Philippian church, which he founded, had sent him a gift of financial support, and he wrote this letter to respond to that gift. Paul had three purposes in writing this letter. First, he wants to thank them for their generosity in sending the gift. Second, he wants to update them on his current situation as a prisoner, and third, he wants to encourage them to persevere in the faith. We saw all three of these purposes in the first eleven verses of chapter one. He prayed that they would have a genuine faith that manifests itself in wisdom, which leads them to love one another, and that they would persevere in this faith until the end. And in spite of his circumstances, he rejoiced that the gospel was going forward, even though he was not able to go out and proclaim it himself. Then in chapter 127, he began what I think of as the first major section of the book. It's an exhortation section that continues through the end of chapter 2. In our last session, we looked at the opening section of this exhortation and his main point, which he states in 127, only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ. So last time we talked about how his point was living a life worthy of the gospel, and that that does not mean that you will live a perfect life. Rather, if you actually believe the gospel is true, you will begin to look at the world differently and the context within which you make your decisions changes. So the kinds of things we want as believers, the things we value, the goals we strive for are different after coming to embrace the gospel. The things we count on are different, the things we want, and so we live a life consistent with those teachings. Paul reminded them that whether he is physically present or not, they must personally take the gospel to heart. They must believe and live it out whether Paul is with them or not, and regardless of what happens at the end of his current imprisonment. He doesn't want their faith to be dependent on him. Well, there are many ways Paul could apply this. As we saw last week, he exhorted the Philippians to be united in one mind. And he probably picked unity because that was a thing they were particularly struggling with. His concern was that each person embrace and personally believe the gospel, and as they embrace the gospel, they would draw near to each other in a shared fellowship of faith and unity of mind because they're committed to the same worldview or the same fundamental truths. And he encouraged them to see each other in that light as brothers and sisters in a shared faith, and that that would lead them to abandon self-centeredness and to be concerned for each other's welfare. So this exhortation began in chapter 1, verse 27, and it continues through the end of chapter 2. I've broken it in three sections because I want to look at this middle section in depth. This is where he uses Jesus Christ as an example. This passage is sometimes referred to as the Christ hymn because it has a kind of poetic structure, and it's very famous, but I think sometimes we lose how it functions in the context of this letter. So let me read it. We're looking at Philippians chapter two verses five through eleven. Have this mind among yourselves which is yours in Christ Jesus, who though he was in the form of God, did not count a quality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on 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 confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. This passage is traditionally associated with the doctrine of the Trinity, and Paul is talking about Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, the Son or Lord and Savior, and it is true that as the Son he existed in the form of God, he emptied himself by becoming the man we know as Jesus. While many commentators will say this is one of the clearest passages that speaks to the doctrine of the Trinity, very few defend the idea that this is Paul's main point in context. In other words, they seem to assume that his point in context is to teach something about the Trinity, and they don't defend that as an interpretive choice. While I do think we can learn many things about the Trinity from this passage, I think the context suggests that Paul's main point was something else. I don't think his primary objective in the context was to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, he intended to teach something about unity and our attitudes. Now, I do think we can deduce something about the Trinity from this passage, but I would say that falls more properly in the area of deriving doctrine or application rather than interpretation. From a strictly interpretive standpoint, I believe the context suggests that Paul intends to say something about unity and our attitudes toward other believers. He uses Christ as an example to make that point, and if we also learn something about the Trinity, that's icing on the cake. Let me be clear, I don't intune to imply anything that contradicts the traditional understanding of the Trinity. All I'm saying is that from a Bible study standpoint, Paul's point in this section was not to teach Trinitarian doctrine, rather I think he intended to teach something else, and we learn something about the Trinity in the process. So I'm going to argue that he intended to teach believers something about unity and attitudes and a way of living, and he uses Christ as an example, and from that example and what he says about Christ, we can learn something about the Trinity. Well, this may seem like a minor point, and you may be wondering why I'm even raising the issue. As I've said, part of my goal in this particular series is to be as transparent as possible about my Bible study methods. I've intentionally included as many of the interpretive decisions and choices in these lectures as I thought I could get away with. This is one of those teachable decision points, and that's why I'm including it. One of my goals in this series is to teach something about how to study the Bible and the kinds of decisions and distinctions you make when looking at a passage in its contents. Now I have to warn you, this passage has some interpretive challenges. It is filled with words that don't occur very often in the New Testament, and that means we're not as clear on what they mean, and that gives rise to lots of debate. For example, there's lots of debate about the word form, the word for emptied, the word appearance. All of them can be taken a variety of ways, and then of course you crisscross all those ways with each other, and there's lots of ways to put it together. So I'm going to try to find a middle ground where I give you a basic understanding of the interpretive choices without going into so much detail that you get overwhelmed. Fortunately, while there's a lot of debate about the details, there is widespread agreement that Paul's main point is that we should have the same humble attitude that we see in Jesus. And this is the point he makes in 25. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus. So whichever way you want to land on all the details and the interpretive choices, what it means to be in the form of God or the likeness of men and so forth, most everyone agrees that the main point is we should have the same attitude that Christ had. So however we land on the details, we ought to leave with a clear picture of how Paul is encouraging us to be like Jesus, and hopefully we'll also leave with a clearer picture of some of the methods and choices of Bible study. You may be asking, what's all the debate about? What exactly is the hard stuff? The problem words are form of God, equality with God, emptied himself, form of a servant, likeness of men, being in human form. There are a lot of different nuances and ways of understanding them, and that's what the debate is all about. What exactly does it mean that Jesus was in the form of God? What did he empty himself of? What exactly does it mean to be born in the likeness of men, and so on? Well, instead of going phrase by phrase, I'm going to try to summarize the issues because I think it gets way too complicated to try to cover all the various ways you can answer these questions. So I'm going to start with a point on which there is widespread agreement, and it is this. The New Testament clearly teaches that the man Jesus Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. We looked at this in our Colossians study, where Paul says in Colossians 1.15, he's the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. So the eternal, transcendent God is invisible to us, we can't see him, but God has made himself known to us in the person of Jesus. Jesus is God as a man. So when Jesus speaks and acts, he is expressing and revealing the character of God to us in a way we can see and understand. God has made himself visible and able to be known and understood by us humans in the person of Jesus. So if you look at what Jesus is doing, that's the sort of thing the Father would do. Listen to what Jesus is saying, that's what the Father would say. Jesus Himself makes this point in John 14 9. Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. I think he's saying, if you want to know who God is, you can know him by knowing me. You've seen the Father because you've seen me, because I, Jesus, am the perfect expression of the Father. So Jesus has made known to us that which we could not otherwise know about the Father. How do we learn who God is? We look at Jesus. Jesus makes the Father known to us. The man Jesus is the visible image, expression, and explanation of the invisible God. This idea is not dependent on the interpretive choices of this passage. Those statements are true of him as a man. That's the whole point. The man Jesus has the character and purposes of God, and God made himself known through Jesus as a man. So therefore, when we come to these interpretive choices like form of God, equality with God, emptying himself, and so on, we ought to keep in mind that as a biblical principle clearly taught elsewhere, Jesus as a man is the visible representation of the invisible God. And as a general rule of Bible study, we use clear passages to help us understand the unclear passages. In other words, we use the things that we can learn from the more clear, more straightforward passages to inform and enlighten our understanding of the less clear, more complicated passages. So let's go back and look at five through eight. Have this mind among yourselves which is yours in Christ Jesus, who though he was in the form of God did not count a quality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, and being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. So verses six and seven are some of the more problematic verses of this section. What does it mean that Jesus was in the form of God? In what sense was he equal with God? How did he empty himself or make himself nothing? In what sense is he in the likeness of men? For each of these problematic phrases in this section, much of the debate can be simplified down into two main options. So the first option is that Paul is talking about Jesus Christ's existence as part of the Godhead before the incarnation or before he became a man. The second option is Paul is talking about Jesus' existence as a man who is the visible representation of the invisible God. And for each of these options, we want to ask the question: in the context of the letter to the Philippians, which of these options is Paul most likely to be talking about? So which makes the most sense in the context in the flow of thought? Is it more likely that Paul would be discussing the experience of Jesus as a man or the experience of Jesus in his pre-existence before he became a man? He could be talking about either, which does the context suggest? So let's look, let's try to answer that and look how this plays out. So in 2.6, when Paul says Jesus was in the form of God, is he talking about one, the existence of Jesus as part of the Godhead before the incarnation? Or option two, the existence of Jesus as a man who is the visible representation of the invisible God. Does he mean to say the pre-existent Christ before he became a man existed in the form of God? Or is he saying the man Jesus, while he was a man, was the image and expression of the visible God? Okay, that those are the options. We have the same kind of choice with the phrase equal with God. Paul could mean the pre-existent Christ before he was a man was equal with God in his being and essence. Or he could be saying, the man Jesus was equal with God. As a man, Jesus was the perfect, complete representation of God, which means he was equal with God in the sense that he had God's authority and character and values and so forth. Now realize by picking one option or the other, we are not denying the truth of the other option. So the question before us is not which one of these is true theologically. That's not the choice. I would argue both of those statements are true. The choice is at this point in Paul's letter, what does he mean to say to his original audience? He may very well believe both statements are theologically true, but he has a point in this passage, and that's what we're trying to find out. What is the point in this passage? Well, at this point in my study, and I reserve the right to change my mind, because this is a rather complicated section, but at this point I lean toward what I've called the second option in all these cases. And let me explain what I mean by that in more detail and see if I can show you why the context tips me in the direction of option two. Remember, Paul has been exhorting his audience, the Philippians, to unity and encouraging them to flee self-centeredness. Then he says in 2, 4, and 5, let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interest of others. Have this mind among yourselves which is yours in Christ Jesus. So he says, look for out, look out for the interest of others, not just your own, and have the attitude Jesus had when he did this certain thing. So he juxtaposes these two statements in verses four and five for a reason. Look out for the interest of others and have the same attitude Jesus had. So because of that I would expect these two ideas to be related such that one should follow the other. So what was this thing that Jesus did that we are to use as an example? As a man, he was the visible representation of the invisible God. Did that make him puffed up or arrogant? No. If any man could claim superiority, could claim excellence and the right to put himself first, it was the man Jesus, because he was the visible representation of the invisible God. He had the right to claim authority, he had the right to claim power and the right to ask to be worshipped. He had the right to speak for God and the right to be Lord and Master, and he could reasonably expect us to serve him. Yet, quite the contrary, he served us. He didn't consider himself the equal of God, though, in a sense as the visible representation of God he was. He didn't use that equality for his own personal gain, rather he humbled himself to the point of death on a cross. It just makes more sense to me to see Paul as talking about the experience of Jesus as a man. What attitude are we to emulate? The humble attitude of the man Jesus, who had every right to claim the position of Lord and Master and King, but instead he chose to serve. Now we have that same kind of choice with the phrase equality with God. Paul could mean the preexistent Christ before he was a man was equal with God in being and essence, that's true. Or he could mean the man Jesus was equal with God, and as a man, being the complete perfect representation of God, he was equal in the sense that he spoke for God, revealed God's character, and had the right to be worshipped, and so on. If he means the first option, Paul would be saying the pre-existent Christ submitted himself to a two-part humbling. So the first humbling was while he was still in the essential form of God, he willingly gave that up, emptied himself, and became a man. And then second, though he still had the authority of God, he humbled himself while as a man to become even lower he became a servant. Paul would be saying the second person of the Trinity lowered himself from God to man and then lowered himself again from man to servant. Again, all of that's theologically true. The question is what point is Paul making here? If he means the second option, he would be saying the man Jesus submitted to a single humbling. Although he had the authority of God, as a man he did not insist on those rights, but he chose to become a servant instead. So as a man he lowered himself to take the role of the servant. Now notice that both those options agree about Jesus' experience as a man. And that's important because most everyone agrees, as do I, that that is the central point to Paul's passage. This when he says, Have this mind among you which Jesus had, everyone agrees it's that attitude of humbling himself and becoming a servant. As a man, even though he had the rights and authority of God, he humbled himself and became a servant, and it is that attitude that we are exhorted to follow. And both options, both perspectives would agree that the man Jesus humbled himself, became our servant to the point of dying on the cross, and that that is central to what Paul is saying. I would also note that this idea of the man Jesus humbling himself and dying on our behalf is a theme we find throughout the New Testament. It is one of those clear themes that we can use to inform our understanding of less clear passages. This idea that the man Jesus, although he had the rights and authority of God, sacrificed himself as a servant to die in our place. We see this idea from Jesus himself in the upper room discourse. Remember, in that culture at that time, the job of washing the feet of the guests fell to the servants of the house. So the guests would come in from walking the dusty roads and the servants would wash their feet. But in the upper room, Jesus took the role of the servant and washed the feet of his disciples, and then he said, and this is John thirteen, verses twelve through fifteen. When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me teacher and lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet, for I have given you an example that you also should do just as I have done to you. I think Paul is making that exact same point in our passage in Philippians as Jesus was making in John thirteen. Jesus says you are right, I am the Lord and master. I have that right to be the Lord, the teacher, the master, the one calling all the shots, and yet I am lowering myself to serve you like a slave. And you should do as I am doing. Your attitude should be that you are willing to serve each other rather than trying to wield power over each other. Well, that sounds very much to me like what Paul's saying in Philippians. The man Jesus, who, although he had the rights and authority of God, did not insist on those rights, he became our servant instead, and we should do the same for each other. Let's move on to the next phrase in 2 7. But he made himself nothing, or as the NASB puts it, he emptied himself. There's lots of debate on this one word emptied. Everyone agrees that Jesus made the choice to voluntarily give up his right as God to serve us and die in our place. The question is how? How did he empty himself? Again we have the two basic options. So option one, the preexistent Christ, existing in the form of God before he was a man, did not insist on his equality with God, but emptied himself of those divine rights and became a man who then became our servant. Or the man Jesus, although he had the rights and authority of God, did not insist on exercising those rights, but humbled himself by becoming our servant. Now both agree that the man Jesus made himself a servant and died on our behalf, and that I agree is Paul's essential point. They just differ on how we reach that place. And again, because of the context of encouraging us to humility, I would lean toward the second option. Okay, now you're gonna have to bear with me because I'm gonna talk about grammar for a minute. And you can all groan, but then please listen with an open mind. Because I think this will help clear up what's going on in this passage. Consider this sentence. Walking to the store, I found a dollar on the sidewalk. There are two clauses in that sentence. That is, there are two phrases that have verbs in them. One has the verb to walk and the other has the verb to find. One of those clauses is the main clause, that is, I found a dollar on the sidewalk. How do I know it's the main clause? Because if I take the other clause away, I am left with a complete sentence. I found a dollar on the sidewalk stands as a complete sentence. But if I remove the phrase I found a dollar on the sidewalk, and I'm left with walking to the store, that's not a complete sentence. So I know that one is not the main clause. Walking is a participle that helps us explain the main clause. What were the circumstances in which I found a dollar? It was while I was walking to the store. If I say walking to the store, I've left you hanging waiting for what I'm about to say. But if I say I found a dollar on the sidewalk, you have a complete thought. Now because I put these two ideas together, you assume that they're related. Why am I telling you that I was walking to the store? Why is that important? Because that's what I was doing when I found the dollar on the sidewalk. There's a connection between these two ideas, and you have to interpret that connection, which you easily do. Now let me give you two more sentences. Funny thing is, being a Democrat, I voted for Donald Trump. That's sentence number one. Or sentence number two, naturally, being a Democrat, I voted for Hillary Clinton. In both cases I have this phrase being a Democrat, and in both sentences that phrase modifies my vote, but the connection between them is different. In my first example, it means in spite of the fact that I'm a Democrat, I voted a certain way. And in the second example, it means because of the fact that I'm a Democrat, I voted a certain way. Those are very different connections, but you quickly and easily noticed them and got them due to the context. I gave you clues, like funny thing is, and naturally. But sometimes those clues are not there and it's harder to deduce the connection. Alright, what does this have to do with our passage? Well I bring that up because verses two, six through eight are filled with main clauses and participle phrases, and those are some of the verses that are most difficult to understand, or at least they're the most debated. Let me read them again. Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, and being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. In this section we have three main clauses, which are difficult to see in most English translations, because to clarify the meaning the translators smooth them out. They take out those phrases and turn them into main clauses, which makes it easier to read but makes it a little more difficult to see what Paul was doing. Here are the three main clauses, and these are the clauses like my example, I found a dollar on the sidewalk. These are the main thoughts. So in two six, Jesus did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. To seven, rather Jesus made himself nothing, and two eight, Jesus humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death. Let me read those again. 26, Jesus did not count a quality with God a thing to be grasped. To seven, but rather Jesus made himself nothing, and to eight, Jesus humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death. Now, happily, I think those three phrases give us a very clear picture of Paul's main thought. Jesus did not count a quality with God a thing to be grasped, instead he made himself nothing and humbled himself and died in our place. That makes his main point fairly obvious, and it's the point I've been attempting to repeat throughout this talk. Jesus did not insist on being worshipped, instead, he served, even though he was an equal with God and therefore had the authority to be our Lord and Master, he lowered himself and humbled himself to the point of being a servant and dying in our place. The other phrases modify those main clauses. And these are the phrases like my example while walking to the store. They are in 2-6 being in the form of God, 2-7, being in the likeness of men, and 2-8 being found in human form. So 2-6 being in the form of God, 2-7 being in the likeness of men, 2-8 being found in human form. It's interesting to me that Paul emphasizes the humanity of Jesus twice and the divinity of Jesus once. And again, that's one of things of the things that influences me toward what I've been calling option two. But we still have to ask the question, how should we understand the connection between this part of simple phrase and the main clause? Is this in spite of the fact that he was in the likeness of men, like my funny thing is? Or is this because of the fact he was in the likeness of men, like my naturally, or could it be something else entirely, like during the time in which he was in the likeness of men? How do I put those together? And the choices start to multiply because there are three phrases and three clauses. Well, at the risk of oversimplifying the issue, let me generalize. No matter which option you choose, there's an essential relationship between Jesus being a servant and Jesus being a man. You can't be the kind of servant Jesus was without being a man. Jesus had the rights and authority of God, but as a man he could be the kind of servant that the eternal transcendent God could not. There are lots of ways in which God the Father can be our servant, can guide us, can teach us, care for us, and so forth, but he cannot die for us. It takes a human being to die in our place. It takes a human being to be the kind of servant that Jesus chose to be. God the Father can do almost anything, but he can't die. Hebrews makes this same point. It says Hebrews chapter two verses nine and ten. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste the death for everyone. For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist and bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. Then he says some other stuff, and down in fourteen through sixteen he says Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery, for surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. And then note these verses in seventeen and eighteen. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. I think this section of Hebrews reinforces the idea that Jesus had to become a human being because only a human being could become the kind of servant that we need. We need a Savior. We need someone to pay the penalty for our sins because we cannot pay it for himself. Jesus had to become flesh and blood like us to taste death and conquer death for us. And he took on flesh and blood so that through death he could pay the price for our sins. Now, as I've been saying, no matter which option you choose, Jesus had to become a man. Either he had to become a man to lower himself to be the servant who dies, or Paul could be emphasizing he transitioned from God to man and then from man to servant to serve us through death. So again, the options are the pre-existent Christ existing in the form of God before he was a man chose to become a man to serve us by dying, or the man Jesus, although he had the rights and authority of God, chose to become a man and serve us by dying. Now both agree. The main idea, the central idea is that Jesus chose to die in our place. Both statements are theologically true. The question is which one is being taught here. Let's go on and look at 2, 9 through 11, because this is another piece of the puzzle, and it's a piece of the puzzle that tilts me toward option two. Because we're going to see God goes on to exalt Jesus not merely for who he is, the incarnation of God, but especially for what he has done. 2.8 and being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. And then nine, therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father. So Jesus receives the name that is above all names because he died for our sins. He is given the name Lord because he humbled himself to die for his people. Is there a connection between the fact that Jesus is the image of God in man's form and the fact that he died for his people? Absolutely. Part of the way God has manifested himself in Jesus is through the sinless, sacrificial love of Christ. The man who has got incarnate demonstrated his love for us by dying in our place, thereby demonstrating the amazing love that God has for us. But he didn't just get the title Lord because he was equal with God. He got the title Lord because he humbled himself and was obedient even to death on the cross. So let me try to put all this together. What's Paul's main point in this passage? Remember the three main clauses in this section. 2.6. Jesus did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. 2 7, rather Jesus made himself nothing, 2.8, Jesus humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, therefore, 2.9, God exalted him. Whether you think Paul intends to teach something about the doctrine of the Trinity or not, the main point is clear. How Jesus behaved while he was a man is incredibly significant. He sacrificed his life out of obedience to the Father and his love for us. And he did all that, he made that sacrifice despite the fact that he had the rights and the authority of God. Rather than claim that authority, he humbled himself and took the role of servant for us. By rights, we should obey him, we should serve him, we should sacrifice ourselves for him, and yet he turned the tables and took on the role of servant rather than the role of master and sacrificed himself for us. If anyone had the right to expect others to serve him, it was the man Jesus, because he was equal to God, and yet he sacrificed himself for us. That's the model, that's the attitude that Paul is holding out to the Philippians. Remember what he said right before this. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interest of others. That's exactly what Jesus did. He was not selfish. He did not look out for his own interest. He looked out for the interest of others to the point of suffering the agony of the cross, so that we might gain salvation. Our sacrificial love should look like that. So what should we take away from this passage? I think Paul's left us with a clear main point and a call to action. Again, the options are basically option one, the preexistent Christ, existing in the form of God before he was a man, did not insist on his equality with God, but emptied himself of those divine rights and became a man who then became our servant. Or option two, the man Jesus who had the rights and authority of God did not insist on exercising those rights, but humbled himself by becoming our servant. Now, no matter which option is correct, it does not diminish in any way who Christ is or what he did for us. It does not undermine the traditional understanding of the Trinity in any way. It seems to me that scholars are very interested in the hows and whys and ins and outs of theology and how Jesus could be fully man and fully God, and they're looking for clues and explanations in all the text, and of course, that makes sense, that's what we should do. But the more I've studied the New Testament, the more I've reached the conclusion that the New Testament authors are far more interested in the humanity of Jesus and what he did for us while he was a man. They don't really seem interested in explaining the theological ins and outs of the Trinity so much as explain to us what Jesus as a man did for us, because what he did as a man changed everything for us. Jesus is the visible manifestation of the invisible God. He answers the question what would God do if he were a man? Because Jesus is God as a man. God makes himself known to us through the way Jesus lived and spoke and taught. Do you want to know what God thinks is important and valuable? Do you want to know what God thinks is right, the right way to act, the right way to speak and live your life? You see it all in Jesus. He shows us what God would do if he were human, because Jesus is fully human and fully God. Seen in that light, the choice he made to serve us through his death is even more profound and amazing. When they came to arrest Jesus in the garden, Peter drew his sword and attempted to defend Jesus. Jesus said, Put away your sword, and then he said in Matthew twenty six fifty three, Do you think that I cannot appeal to my father and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? He's not exaggerating. Jesus had that kind of authority. Nobody could do anything to him that he didn't allow, and yet he let them arrest him, he let them abuse him, Jesus let them crucify him. His voluntary death as a man is one of the greatest manifestations of who God is. That humble, self sacrificing love is what we should be like because that is what God the Father is like. If Jesus, the Lord and Master and King of kings, sacrificed himself for us, then that's the attitude we should strive to have toward each other. I think Paul is saying something more profound than Jesus did it so you should too. I think he wants us to be captured and amazed by the vision of Jesus' sacrificial love and the kind of character he had and displayed for us. Think about what that means for us personally. We were utterly lost, trapped, and hopeless. We were slaves to our corrupt and sinful nature, and we had no hope, no way to pay the enormous debt we owed to justice. We were condemned prisoners with no possibility of release, and we faced certain destructions. But now Jesus, the image of God, the Lord and Master, the King of Kings, the creator of the universe, is in the garden facing the choice to obey or not. He wanted to avoid the agony as a human being, yet he knew the cross was the way to obtain salvation for us. We were in great need, and our master and lord sacrificed himself to meet that need. Therefore, how should I think about the needs of my brothers and sisters? Well, if I've been changed by faith and I now hunger and thirst for righteousness, there should be growing in me a desire to be more like Jesus and less like the world. There should be a desire to show love and grace and mercy and forgiveness and compassion the way He did. He was generous to me, and so I should want to be generous to my brothers and sisters, and that's what Paul is calling us to do. Are we there yet? No. But that is our hope, and that's part of what we pray for. That God will make us the kind of people who can live and have Jesus.