Philippians 2:5 - Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible

Let this mind be in you,— For the same temper of mind ought to be in you which was in Christ Jesus. Heylin. To support his doctrine, and to enforce obedience to it, the Apostle sets before the Philippians the example of Christ, and in livelycolours represents his great humility: he shews them how much he descended below himself for their sakes; how infinitely great he was, and how truly low he made himself; bynature, how much higher than the highest; by choice, how much lower than the lowest. It should be observed, that, in the succeeding verses, the Apostle points out to us three different states and conditions of Christ: the first is his state of infinite dignity, from which, in some sense, he descended, expressed in the words, Who being in the form of God, Philippians 2:6. The second is, the state of humility to which he descended, in these words, He made himself of no reputation, Philippians 2:7. The third is, the glory and exaltation of his human nature, intimated in those words, Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, Philippians 2:9. These three states and conditions of Christ are essential to the Apostle's argument; for take away any one of them, and the example which the Apostle would propose is lost. For instance, if you remove the first state, that of his natural and infinite dignity and excellence, the second state will be no longer a state of humiliation; nor Christ any longer an example of humility: for if he was not better than a servant before he was a servant, his being a servant was his lot and condition, not his choice; it would have been owing to the order of nature and providence, and not to his humility; and he would have been no more humble in being born to be a servant, than others who are born to the same state. It is implied in the argument, that he was in possession of whatever belonged to his state of dignity and excellence, before he underwent any thing that belonged to his state of humiliation. For his voluntarily descending, in some sense,from his dignity to a lower and meaner condition, is the very act and real ground and foundation of his humility. It is likewise necessarilyimplied in the argument, that he underwent whatever belonged to his state of humiliation, before he enjoyed any thing that belonged to the state of exaltation of his glorified humanity; because hisexaltation was the effect and reward of his humility; and being purchased and obtained by his humility, it could not be antecedent to it. Consequently, it necessarily follows, that his natural state of infinite dignity, and his acquired state of exaltation, are two perfectly different states; since one was evidently antecedent to, the other as evidently consequent to, his humiliation: whence it follows, that his being in the form of God, being the dignity he was possessed of before his humiliation, does not belong to him in virtue of any thing that he did or suffered, nor is any part of that glory to which he was exalted, or which he received after, or upon account of his sufferings.