Ver. 6. The discussions as to whether this refers to the pre-existing or historical Christ seem scarcely relevant to Paul's thought. For him his Lord's career was one and undivided. To suggest that he did not conceive a preexistence in heaven is to ignore the very foundations of his thinking. Probably he never speculated minutely on the nature of Christ's pre-existent state, just as he refrains from doing so on the nature of the future life. He contents himself with general lines. The interpretation of the passage depends on the meaning assigned to (2) denotes the form, appearance, look or likeness of soifie-one, that by which those beno ding him would indulge him. See job iv. 16, Dan. v. 6 an three other places, Wisd. xviii. 1, 4 Macc. xv. 4. Plainly, from the context of these passages, the word had come, in later Greek, to receive a vague, general meaning, far removed from the accurate, metaphysical content which belotiged to it in writers like Plato and Aristotle. It seems, therefore, to us of little value, %vith Lft. and Gifford (ot. cit.), to discuss the relation of to terms such as Otg-(&, +40'Ls and ti8os in their philosophical refinements. It is far more Probable that Paul uses ilop+. here in a loose, popular sense, as we use I nature ' " (Guardian, Jan. 1, 1896). He means, of course, in the strictest sense that the pre-existing Christ was Divine. For IL. always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it. But in trying to reach a conception of the pre-existing nature of his Lord, he is content to think of Him as the ELK4)V -rofo e'00 (COI- i- 15), as sharing in that 86tcL (on the close relation of tL. and 86tcL see Nestle, SK., 1893, PP- 173, j74) which is the manifestation of the Divine nature (cf. John xvii- 5, Heb. i- 3), as possessing, that is to say, the same kind of existence as God possesses, without indulging in speculations on the metaphysical relationship of the Son to the father. So in 2 Cor. viii. 9 (the closest parallel in thought to this) he describes the same condition by the words wkov'o-tos wv. And this reminds us of the point of emphasis, the unspeakable contrast between the heavenly and earthly states the p. E)eoi and the it. 8o4,\ov. The Apostle's mind is overpowered by the profound ethical meaning and value of the Humiliation. -,&w4pXwv. Probably = " being constitutionally " (Evans on i Cor. xi. 7), ,being by nature ". Cf. Liturgy of S. _7ames (Hariimond, Litt., P. 45, quoted by Giff.), irCLLBLOV YKYOVIEV 6 7rPactt,;vwv,~wC'Lpxwvecasilk&v. At the same time, in later Greek, it is often a mere copula. Cf. Gildersleeve on Justin M-,:APOI.,i.,2. This participle represents the imperfect as well as the present tense. So probably here. ApircLyIL6v. In the absence of relevant evidence for this word, its precise significance must largely be determined by the context. Accordingly it must be discussed in close connection with T'o eiv. ~tua e. It Did not consider ra c. L. e. as an &p7rcLyIL6s.11 What is the relation of ra c. t. e. to fLop(H ? The words mean "the being on an equality with God " (R.V.). It is surely needless to make any fine distinctions here, as giff. does (Op. Cit., P. 242), between elvat twos as = equality of nature and elvclt torel as pointing to 11 the state and circumstances which are separable from the essence and therefore variable or accidental," or, with Lft., to say that twos would refer to the person. while lacl has in view the attributes. As a matter of fact the adverb l~we (neuter plural) is use.& in the most general sense, without any metaphysical subtleties, e.g., job. xi. 12, IvOpwiras 81 ilkxws viXtrCLL \6yoLS Ppo,r6s 8a ytvv-qr6s YVVCLLR~S 'Laft SV(p apliFL(TV; xxx. 19, iy-qwclk 86' FLe torcl Vn ~, IV Yi K&I WWO4 FLOV i ILEP(S. Cf. Thuc., iii., 14, two KCLI LKITCLL l(r iv; S h., Oed. R., 1188, 16AaS TWCL K,.r r6 709a t4ocLs 4vcLp OlLre, and elsewhere.

Thus no theological speculations can be based upon the word. Is r6 c. L. e. equivalent to lv IL. in spite of some Comm. there is absolutely nothing in the text to justify, the supposition. Plainly &Lop4~i has reference to nature . r6 4EIvcLL twcl Ge~ to a relation. In fact it is only a particular rendering of ApwcLyIL69 which suggested their equivalence. A more important question is Whether r6 c. L. e. was possessed by Christ in virtue of His being ly FLop. Gio~D. This will depend on the sense of &p*cL-yIL69. It is generally admitted now that &p7rcLyIL6s may be regarded as = ip7rcLylLcL. (See esp. Zahn, Luthardt's Zeitschr., 1885, pp. 244-249-) Cf. OemiLds, lit. = "the laying down," 46 ordaining " of a thing, which comes to mean "the thing laid down," the ordinance or statute; LXCLWFLds, lit. =a propitiating, appeasing, but usuallythe propitiatory offering, that by which propitiation is made (see Hatz., Einl., p. 18o). Myr., Hfm., Beet and others wish to keep the active meaning, and translate, " Did not consider the being on an equality with God as a means of robbing". But it seems impossible to acc-e-pt this sense when we have no hint of what is to be robbed. Lft., Hpt., Vinc. and others, regarding &ptrayix6s as = ip-irclylta, translate, "Did not look upon His equality with God as a prize to be clutched". That is to say, r'o c. E. 0. is something which He already possessed and resolved not to cling to. But will ApwaylA6s admit of this meaning? We cannot find any passage where Aprr4itw or any of its derivatives has the sense of "holding in possession," "retaining ". It seems invariably to mean "seize," "snatch violently ". Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense "grasp at " into one which is totally different, "hold fast ". Are we not obliged, then, to think of the &p7rQyl46s QpireLylLcL) as something still future, a res rafiienda? Cf. Catena on Mark X. 41 ff(quoted by Zahn), Jesus' answer to the sons of Zebedee, obic lo-rlv &pwayIL6s i 'rLILi, ,the honour is not one to be snatched ". Observe how aptly this view fits the context. In ver. iio, which is the climax of the whole passage, we read that God gave Jesus Christ as a gift (lXcLpi. o-cL,ro) the name above every name, i.e., the name (including position, dignity and authority) of Kv'pLos, Lord, the name which represents the O.T. Jehovah. But this is the highest place Christ has reached. He has always (in Paul's view) shared in the Divine nature (A. ecoz). But it is only as the result of His Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection and Exaltation that He appears to men as on an equality with God, that He is worshipped by them in the way in which Jehovah is worshipped. This position of K16PLOS is the reward and crowning-point of the whole process of His voluntary Humiliation. It is the equivalent of that ,rckeiwwts of which the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks. This perfection " He acquired as He successively seized the occasions which His vocation as author of salvation presented to Him, a process moving on the lines of His relations to mortal, sinful men " (Davidson, Hebrews, P. 208). Along the same lines He was raised to the dignity of Kv'PLOS, which is a relation to mankind. (See on the rela. tion of Christ as KV'PLOS to God, Somerville, op. cit., pp. 140-142.) This equality with God, therefore, consists in the KUPL6"s, the Lordship to which He has been exalted. " He did not regard the being on an equality with God as a thing to be seized, violently snatched." Cf. Hetiodor., Ethiofi., vii., 2of o'vX u'piraylLcL ob8i gpilatov iyclrCLL r6 wpayllct. He might have used the miraculous powers inherent in His Divine nature in such a way as to compel men, without further ado, to worship Him as God. Instead of that He was willing to attain this high' dignity by the path of humiliation, suffering and death. Is not this interpretation strongly corroborated by the narrative of the Temptation ? In that mysterious experience our Lord was tempted to reach Tb CIVQL torcl ea~ in the way of &pire'LCLV, forcing men out of sheer amazement to accept His claim and exalt Him as Lord. [Perhaps the curious negative expression OOX &pWCLYI~. K.,r.k. has been suggested by a comparison with the first Adam who sought to reach 11 equality with God 11 by means of &pwc'LEELY.] It is to be noted that the increased glory which Paul and all the N.T. writers regard as pertaining to Christ after His Resurrection has only to do with His dignity, His " theocratic position," not with His essential personality. (Cf. M6n6goz, Le Picki et la Redemption, p. 164.) He has simply become IV 8VV4fL4EL, that which He already was substantially. Cf. Rom. i- 4, ro-~P(ZV, 'I'QWOZ XpLo-roZ -ro; Kvp(ov ip,7)v. Also Luke XXIV. 26.-&U* C'CLVT6V t'ICIVW7e. Instead of appearing among men in the Divine iLop+4 and thus compelling them to render Him the homage which was His due, He 11 emptied Himself " of that Divine ILop+i and took the FL. of a bondservant. The Apostle does not specify that of which He emptied Himself, as the stress is laid upon the emptying," but with ILop. 8o4kov XcLpw'v added to explain what licivwte means, we are bound to conclude that he has in view its antithesis, IA. O*oZ. (So also Myr., Hfm., Alf., Weiffenb., Hpt., Bruce, Gore, etc. Fairbairn, Christ in Mod. Theol., pp. 476-477, tries to show that Christ emptied Himself of the "physical attributes" of Deity while retaining the "ethical ". But does this lead us any nearer a solution of the mystery in the depths of the Son's personality ?)

Ver- 7. A question arises as to punctuation. W.H. punctuate as in the text. Calvin, Weiffenb. and Hpt. would place a comma after yev6lL. and a colon after ivopwwos of ver. 8. This would coordinate these three clauses and makes new sentence begin with IrcLwctvwotv. The division does not seem natural or necessary.-p. Sov'kov X. The clause defines iKiVWO-G. Christ's assumption of the " form " of a BoZkos does not imply that the innermost basis of His personality, Hir. 11 ego," was changed, although, indeed, " there was more in this emptying of Himself than we can think or say" (Rainy, ofi. cit., p. 1119). S. simply describes the humility to which He condescended. It is needless to ask whose SoZ).os He became. The question is not before the Apostle.-4v 6fLOL('O. LVO. yov. yev. as opposed to 6wiipXwv, " becoming" as opposed to " being by nature". This clause, in turn, defines IL. S. X. "Being made in the likeness of men." 61LOL. expresses with great accuracy the Apostle's idea. Christ walked this earth in the real likeness of men. This was no mere phantom no mere incomplete copy of humanity. And yet Paul feels that it did not express the whole of Christ's nature. It was not at an hereditary likeness of being " (Hltzm. See N.T. Th., ii.,XP. 70-72). It was, in a sense, borrowed. &vOp. Almost "mankind," "humanity".

Ver. 8. KQC seems to introduce a break. The Apostle goes on to describe the depth of the self-renunciation. No doubt there is here especially before Paul's mind the contrast between what Christ, is in Himself and what He appeared in the eyes of men " (Lft.).-a-XAIL. = Lat. habitus, the external bearing or fashion, 11 the transitory quality of our materiality " (Gore). - "peocis. Each word in the description emphasises the outward semblance. 11 Being found, discovered to be." The verdict of his fellow- Creatures upon Him. They classed Him as an gvopwwos. His outward guise was altogether human. -ITcL7r. Even as man He endured great humiliation, for He suffered the shameful death of the Cross. For surely lrclir. is more than a vivid, lively way of expressing lKiV. (as Weiffenb., op. cit., P. 42). The rest of the verse depicts His humiliation. That consists in His obedience and the terrible issue to which it led. As obedient, He gave Himself wholly up to His Father's will. And the course of following that will led as far as (~LiXPL) death itself, no ordinary death (81 bringing into prominence the special nature of it, cf. Rom. iii. 22, ix. 3o), but a death of shame and suffering. Cf. Cic., Pro Rabir., v., io (.quoted by M oule): Mors st propo?tihir, in lsbertate moriatititr . . . itome?i itsit"i crucis absit non modo a corpore civtrim Rontanorum sed etiam a cogitatione,ociilis,aitribus. This would come home with force to the minds of the Philippians who enjoyed the jits Italicitm.

Go To Alphabetical Index Of Deceptive Quotes

Written By Steve Rudd, Used by permission at: www.bible.ca