Warfield on Paul’s Doctrine of the Person and Work of Christ in Philippians 2:5-9

Warfield in his study at Princeton Theological Seminary

This is taken from a 1915 article, the "Person of Christ" which was first published in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edited by James Orr. It is found in volume 4, pp. 2338-2348, and well-worth reading in its entirety. This essay has been reprinted in The Person and Work of Christ, ed John J. Hughes, published by P & R (2025), 37-74.

Warfield is describing the two natures of Christ as forth by Paul in Philippians 2:5-9. He calls attention to the fact that,

It should be carefully observed also that in making this great affirmation concerning Our Lord, Paul does not throw it distinctively into the past, as if he were describing a mode of being formerly Our Lord's, indeed, but no longer His because of the action by which He became our example of unselfishness. Our Lord, he says, "being," "'existing," "subsisting" "in the form of God" - as it is variously rendered. . . . Paul is not telling us here, then, what Our Lord was once, but rather what He already was, or, better, what in His intrinsic nature He is; he is not describing a past mode of existence of Our Lord, before the action he is adducing as an example took place - although the mode of existence he describes was Our Lord's mode of existence before this action . . . . He is telling us who and what He is who did these things for us, that we may appreciate how great the things He did for us are.

Warfield regards our Lord’s role as messianic servant as key to Paul’s point of application being made to the Philippians. According to the Princetonian, Christ’s divine nature is not “was” or “will be,” but “is.”

So far is Paul from intimating, therefore, that Our Lord laid aside His Deity in entering upon His life on earth, that he rather asserts that He retained His Deity throughout His life on earth, and in the whole course of His humiliation, up to death itself, was consciously ever exercising self-abnegation, living a life which did not by nature belong to Him, which stood in fact in direct contradiction to the life which was naturally His. It is this underlying implication which determines the whole choice of the language in which Our Lord's earthly life is described. It is because it is kept in mind that He still was "in the form of God," that is, that He still had in possession all that body of characterizing qualities by which God is made God, for example, that He is said to have been made, not man, but "in the likeness of man," to have been found, not man, but "in fashion as a man"; and that the wonder of His servanthood and obedience, the mark of servanthood, is thought of as so great. Though He was truly man, He was much more than man; and Paul would not have his readers imagine that He had become merely man. In other words, Paul does not teach that Our Lord was once God but had become instead man; he teaches that though He was God, He had become also man.

Warfield’s final point in this section of his article is that the Lord and creator of all, became a servant by assuming a true human nature in his incarnation.

Our Lord assumed, then, according to Paul, not the mere state or condition or outward appearance of a servant, but the reality; He became an actual "servant" in the world. . . . The Lord of the world became a servant in the world; He whose right it was to rule took obedience as His life-characteristic. . . . [Paul] is speaking of one who, though really man, possessing all that makes a man a man, is yet, at the same time, infinitely more than a man, no less than God Himself, in possession of all that makes God God. Christ Jesus is in his view, therefore (as in the view of his readers, for he is not instructing his readers here as to the nature of Christ's person, but reminding them of certain elements in it for the purposes of his exhortation), both God and man, God who has "assumed" man into personal union with Himself, and has in this His assumed manhood lived out a human life on earth.