(2) Christ’s Example on the Way through Humiliation to Exaltation (Php_2:1-11)
After earnestly and eloquently entreating them to stand together in harmony (Php_2:1-4), he holds up to view the person of the Redeemer (Php_2:5-6), His state of Humiliation (Php_2:7-8), and His state of exaltation (Php_2:9-11)
1If there be therefore any consolation [exhortation] in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies [compassion], 2fulfil ye [make full] my joy, that ye be like-minded [mind the same thing], having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind [with one soul minding the one thing]. 3Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other [others] better than [superior to] themselves. 4Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; 6who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7but made himself of no reputation [emptied or divested himself], and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a [the] name which Isaiah 10 above every name; that at [in] the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things [beings] in heaven, and things [beings] in earth, and things [beings] under the earth, 11and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Php_2:1. If there be therefore any exhortation in Christ (
åἴ ôéò ïὖí ðáñÜêëçóéò ἐí ×ñéóôῷ
).
Ïὖí
goes back to the preceding thought (Php_1:27-30). He now exhorts them to be united in the present conflict, in which they as well as himself are engaged, that the joy which he has felt on account of their harmony may receive no check.
Åἰ
presents what is actual as hypothetical for the sake of the conclusion, as in Eph_3:2; Eph_3:4; Eph_3:21; Col_1:23; Col_2:20; Col_3:1. We are to supply
ἐóôß
, but not also
ἐí ὑìῖí
(Meyer). It is to be taken for granted that such exhortation (
ðáñÜêëçóéò
), which by
ἐí ×ñéóôῷ
(Php_1:26) is defined as based upon Christ, as having its sphere or element in Him, is found richly in the Apostle; but he adopts this mode of expression in his humility. Comp. Rom_15:30. [The A. V. renders
ðáñÜêëçóéò
consolation, but that sense destroys the difference between this clause and the next. The meaning here is: If those who are in Christ may address to each other exhortations and entreaties with a right to expect that they will not be unavailing, then fulfil, etc. We may carry forward the idea of
ἐí ×ñéóôῷ
to the other clause.—H.]—If any comfort of love (
åἴôé ðáñáìýèéïí ἀãÜðçò
). According to 1Th_2:11 :
ὡò ðáôὴñ ôÝêíá ἑáõôïῦ ðáñáêáëïῦíôåò ὑìᾶò êáὶ ðáñáìõèïýìåíïé
; and 1Co_15:3 :
ðáñÜêëçóéí êáὶ ðáñáìõèßáí
, this
ἅðáî ëåãüìåíïí
must denote consolation of love, friendly address, or encouragement which springs from love, as described by the genitive. We are to refer the above without doubt to the Apostle. [The Apostle would say: If it be a characteristic of true love that it is ever ready to comfort or encourage those for whom it is cherished, then comply with my request and thus manifest your love to me.—H.]—If any fellowship of spirit [or the Spirit] (
åἴ ôéò êïéíùíßá ðíåýìáôïò
). The article being omitted, we cannot compare this expression with 2Co_13:13 :
êïéíùíßá ôïῦ ἁãßïõ ðíåýìáôïò
, and explain it as fellowship with the Holy Spirit (Bengel, Meyer); but the
êïéíùíßá
, which was described in Php_1:5 with reference to its object or outward action, is described here in its inward sphere: fellowship of spirit among themselves, and with the Apostle, by virtue of which exhortation and entreaty readily find response and acceptance as addressed to each other. That this fellowship of spirit is a gift of the Holy Spirit, is only pre-supposed, not stated. [The absence of the article does not decide against the other view; for
ðíåῦìá
as being of the nature of a proper name may have the article or omit it. See Winer’s Gramm., p. 122. Most interpreters understand the Holy Spirit to be meant.—H.]—If any bowels and compassion (
åἴ ôéíá óðëÜã÷íá êáß ïἰêôéñìïß
). The first substantive (Php_1:8) denotes the seat, the source, of the second; the second being in the plural represents the individual proofs, the acts as repeated, manifold. See Winer’s Gramm., p. 176; Col_3:12;
óðëÜã÷íá ïἰêôéñìïῦ
, lect. var. (
ïἰêôéñìῶí
). Thus the fellowship or participation (
êïéíùíßá
) in the third clause appears in its action and effects. [The two nouns give intensity to the idea. The Apostle intimates in terms of the greatest delicacy that any reluctance to grant him the favor for which he so earnestly pleads, would have all the effect upon his feelings of unkindness and cruelty.—H.] The first two clauses we are to refer to Paul, the other two to the Philippians; the implied affirmation of the several conditions (
åἴ ôéò
. …
ïἰêôéñìïé
), as respects both Paul and those addressed, enforces the exhortation (
ðëçñþóáôå
) which they severally introduce. It is incorrect to regard the first and third as objective, and the second and fourth as subjective motives (Meyer), or to refer all four to the Philippians only (Meyer, Schenkel). That we are to supply
÷áñÜ
, from Php_2:2, in each of the conditional clauses (‘si quod (gaudium) consolatio amoris,’ etc.), according to Bengel, is inadmissible.
Php_2:2. Make full my joy (
ðëçñþóáôÝ ìïõ ôὴí ÷áñÜí
). The Apostle has joy already, and it only remains that this should be full and complete (comp. Php_1:9; 1Jn_1:4; 2Jn_1:12). The Philippians are to make it so by allowing his appeal to prevail with them (first two clauses), and by maintaining and exhibiting the virtues to which he exhorts them (last two).—He sums up the whole as it were in one word: That ye mind the same thing.
Ἵíá
represents the harmony of the Philippians (
ôὸ áὐôὸ öñïíῆôå
), as sought by them in order [as one of its attendant aims] to fill up the measure of Paul’s joy. According to Php_3:15; Php_4:2; Rom_12:16; Rom_15:5, minding and striving after the same object are meant.—This is more closely defined, first on its ethical side: Having the same love (
ôὴí áὐôὴí ἀãÜðçí ἔ÷ïíôåò
). As possessors and dispensers of that love which in its object, purity and strength, is essentially the same, they should be of one mind.—Secondly, the trait or conduct appearing on its intellectual side is: Being of one accord (A. V.), orlike-minded, pondering the one thing (
óýìøõ÷ïé ôὸ ἓí öñïíïῦíôåò
). With reference to the object had in view, the
ôὸ áὐôü
represents it as a single thing, and the question they consider is, what one thing is necessary; and further, the personal unity which corresponds to this unity of aim, becomes prominent, as in Php_1:27 :
ìéᾷ øõ÷ῇ
,. Tittmann (Syn. I. p. 67) correctly observes:
ἰóüøõ÷ïò
est qui eodem modo est animatus (like-minded);
óýìøõ÷ïò
autem, qui idem sentit, unanimis (harmonious);
óýìøõ÷ïé
esse possunt, qui non sunt
ἰóüøõ÷ïé
; sunt igitur
óýìøõ÷ïé ïἱ áὐôὸ öñïíïῦíôåò
. Sed
ôὸ ἓí öñïíåῖí
est unum velle, in uno expetendo consentire. In this earnest exhortation the accumulation of terms and phrases cannot surprise us. It is incorrect to regard
óýìøõ÷ïé
as independent, the subject of a separate predication (Oecumenius, et al.). To these two positive qualifications correspond the negative ones in Php_2:3.
Php_2:3. Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory.—
Ìçäὲí êáô
’
ἐñéèåßáí
for bids whatever is without or against
ôὴí áὐôὴí ἀãÜðçí
, while
ìçäὲ êáôὰ êåíïäïîßáí
forbids whatever violates
ôὸ ἓí öìïíåῖí
,
ìéᾷ øõ÷ῇ
. On the first substantive see in Php_1:17; on the second, Suidas:
ìáôáßá ôéò ðåñὶ ἑáõôïῦ ïἴçóéò
(Gal_5:26,
êåíüäïîïé
);
êáôÜ
denotes rule, motive (Winer’s Gram., p. 401). Without question it is more simple to continue
öñïíïῦíôåò
from the preceding verse (Winer, Gram., p. 587) than to supply
ðïéïῦíôåò
(Erasmus, Luther, et al.), or even to construe it with the following
ἡãïýìåíïé
(Hölemann).—The positive (Php_2:2b) is opposed here to the negative (Php_2:3a).—But in lowliness of mind (or in humility) let each esteem others superior to themselves.—
ἈëëÜ
marks strongly the opposition. The instrumental dative (
ôῇ ôáðåéíïöñïóýíῃ
) corresponds to
êáôÜ
with the accusative. See Winer’s Gram. p. 402, note 2. On the substantive see Eph_4:4; Col_2:18; Col_2:23; Col_3:12.
ἈëëÞëïõò ἡãïýìåíïé ὑðåñÝ÷ïíôáò ἑáõôῶí
teaches that humility fixes its eye on another’s excellences, and judges him from this point of view. Bengel: Jure et dotibus fieri id potest, non extreme tantum, sed per veram ôáðåéíïöñïóýíçí, cum quis per abnegationem oculos avertit a suis prærogativis et alterius dotes, quibus prior est, studiose contemplatur.
Php_2:4. Look not every one on his own things, but every one also on the things of others (
ìὴ ôὰ ἑáõôῶí ἕêáóôïé óêïðïῦíôåò
,
ἀëëὰ êáὶ ôὰ ἑôÝñùí Ýêáóôïé
).—The sentence presents a general principle. The unusual plural
ἕêáóôïé
, which is emphatic in each number, but especially in the second, where it stands at the end, indicates that this should be true of every member of the church.
Ôὰ ἑáõôῶí
,
ôὰ ἑôÝñùí
, signify in general res, causa, as in Php_2:21; 1Co_13:5 (
ôὰ ἑáõôῶí
); 1Co_10:24 (
ôὸ ἑáõôïῦ
,
ôὸ ôïῦ ἑôÝñïõ
), 33 (
ôὸ ἐìáõôïῦ
,
ôὸ ôῶí ðïëëῶí
),
ôὰ
being used, and not
ôὸ
, in order to mark the multiplicity. It is also to be noticed that
ἄëëïò
denotat alium, nulla diversitatis nisi numeri ratione, ἕôåñïò non tantum alium, sed etiam diversum indicat (Tittmann, Syn. I. p. 155 sq.). While in the above passages
æçôåῖí
is employed, we have here
óêïðïῦíôåò
(Php_3:17). Hence, according to the context, we are to think of the gifts and excellencies of others before our own, and of their advantage, interest, as well as our own. This distinction, however, comes out more clearly in view of what follows.
Ἀëëὰ êáß
after
ìÞ
limits or softens the antithesis. We are to think also of the things of others, hence not merely and exclusively of them. It is selfishness only that is forbidden. [“We are to look,” says Lightfoot, “beyond our own interest to that of others.”—H.] See Winer’s Gram. p. 498. It is incorrect to deny this distinction between
æçôåῖí
and
óêïðåῖí
so as either to find no reference to gifts and excellencies (Meyer), or to think exclusively of these (Calvin).
Php_2:5. Let this mind be in you, or, according to the better text, have this mind in you (
ôéῦôï ãὰñ öñïíåῖôå ἐí ὑìῖí
).—Paul confirms his exhortation to unity by showing what self-denying love and humility are, as illustrated in the example of Christ.
Ôïῦôï
has as its correlative
ὅ
in the following clause, while
ἐí ×ñéóôῷ Ἰçóïῦ
answers to
ἐí ὑìῖí
. Hence the meaning must be in animis vestris, but not intra vestrum cœtum (Hölemann). [For the force of
ãÜñ
see notes on the text.—H.]—Which was also in Christ Jesus (
ὁ êáὶ ἐí ×ñéóôῷ Éçóïῦ
sc.
ἐöñïíÞèç
).
Êáß
also, i.e., as well as
ἐí ὑìῖí
.
Php_2:6. Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.—
Ὅò
has for its antecedent
×ñéóôῷ Ἰçóïῦ
, and points to His antemundane state, as Php_2:7-8, refer to His earthly existence, and Php_2:9-11 refer to His subsequent glorified condition. The subject is the ego of the Lord, which is active in all the three modes of existence. It is the entire summary of the history of Jesus, including His ante-human state (Meyer). Hence neither the
ëüãïò ἄóáñêïò
alone, nor the
ëüãïò ἔíóáñêïò
, is to be taken as the subject. The emphatic participial clause (
ἐí ìïñöῇ èåïῦ ὑðÜñ÷ùí
) connects itself with the principal clause (
ïὐ÷ ἁñðáãìὸí ἡãÞóáôï ôὸ åἶíáé ἴóá èåῷ
), and the participle must be taken as imperfect, not as present (Umbreit, Studien und Kritiken, 1828, p. 594). The finite verb
ἡãÞóáôï
, from its import, requires us to think of a resolution or decision to which what is stated in the participle stands related as concessive in accordance with the sense of the whole passage. (Comp. 2Co_8:9,
ἐðôþ÷åõóå ðëïýóéïò ὤí
); hence neither causal (Rheinwald et al.) nor merely temporal (Meyer). If now we regard strictly the connection and drift of the context, which is to bring before us Christ’s example, as a testimony in behalf of that humble self-denial which promotes harmony, and against the
ἐñéèåßáí
and
êåíïäïîßáí
which destroy it, the meaning of this difficult passage cannot be mistaken. The words in themselves are plain,
ὙðÜñ÷ùí
, stronger than
ὤí
, denotes Christ’s pre-existence,
ἐí ìïñöῇ èåïῦ
. According to Mar_16:12 (
ἐöáíåñþèç ἐí ἑôÝñᾳ ìïñöῇ
), and in accordance with its use elsewhere,
ìïñöÞ
must be understood of the outward form, “species externa,” and this as defined by
èåïῦ
, which must be understood as not of the person of God, the Father, but only of the Godhead,—is a divine morphe or form, that of a God. Comp. Php_3:21; Rom_8:29 :
óýììïñöïí
. The
ìïñöῇ èåïῦ
corresponds to
ìïñöὴí äïýëïõ
, Php_2:7, as
ὑðÜñ÷ùí
has its parallel in
ëáâþí
there. Bengel well observes: ipsa natura divina decorem habebat infinitum in se, etiam sine ulla creatura illum decorem intuente. Comp. Joh_5:37 :
åἶäïò áὐôïῦ
(of God); Joh_17:5 :
ôῇ äüîῃ ᾖ åἶ÷ïí ðáñÜ óïé
; Col_1:15 :
åἰêὼí ôïῡ èåïῦ
; Heb_1:3 :
ἀðáýãáóìá ôῆò äüîçò êáὶ ÷áñáêôὴñ ôῆò ὑðïóôÜóåùò áὐôïῦ
. It is incorrect to regard it as equivalent to
öýóéò
,
ïὐóßá
(the Greeks, Augustine et al.), status (Calov, et al), and to hold that Jesus, when He was on earth, caused His
äüîá
to be recognized through the medium of His words and works (Luther, et al), of His miracles (Grotius, et al), and in the transfiguration (Wetstein). [“Though
ìïñöÞ
,” says Lightfoot, “is not the same as
öýóéò
or
ïὐóßá
, yet the possession of the
ìïñöÞ
involves participation in the
ïὐóßá
also; for
ìïñöÞ
implies not the external accidents, but the essential attributes. Similar to this, though not so decisive, are the expressions used elsewhere of the Divinity of the Son:
åἰêὼí ôïῦ èåïῦ
, 2Co_4:4; Col_1:15; and
÷áñáêôÞñ ôῆò ὑðïóôÜóåùò
—
ôïῦ èåïῦ
, Heb_1:3. Similar also is the term which St. John has adopted to express this truth—
ὁ ëüãïò ôïῦ èåïῦ
.” It may be added that the word is fitly chosen for the expression of the Apostle’s idea. For though
ìïñöÞ
denotes properly the outline or shape of an object, and not directly the substance or nature of the object, it yet presupposes the existence of that nature or reality, of which it is the manifestation, just as the figure or shadow implies a body or substance which determines the figure or outline. Besides, to deny that Christ’s
ìïñöÞ
or form as God, agreed with the reality, would oblige us to deny also in the next verse that His form or condition as a servant agreed with the reality, and this would destroy the force of the Apostle’s reasoning. The condition in both cases presupposes the corresponding nature or reality, and is called
ìïñöÞ
precisely on account of that condition. The Apostle seems to have chosen this peculiar word because he would provide in his mode of speaking for the fact, that though the state or manifestation was changed, the nature or essence of the personality remained unchanged.—H.]—The expression
ïὐ÷ ἁñðáãìὸí ἡãÞóáôï
is more difficult. It denies a precedence of self, as is the case with those
ôὰ ἑáõôῶí óêïðïῦíôåò
(Php_2:4). In its connection with
ἐí ìïñöῇ èåïῦ ὑðÜñ÷ùí
, and its position before
ἐêÝíùóåí ἑáõôüí
, it points to a decision in a negative form before the incarnation. Hence it is not the same as
ïὐ÷ ἥñðáóå
, which did not for a moment enter into the thoughts of Christ.
Ἁñðáãìüò
may, like
ðåéñáóìüò
,
âáðôéóìüò
, signify the act of robbery; and it would properly denote this according to the rules of derivation (Winer’s Gram. p. 93); but usage allows it to be taken as res rapta or rapienda (Brueckner against Meyer); just as
÷ñçóìüò
may be non vaticinatio sed vaticinium,
÷ñçóìáôéóìüò
et negotiatio et id quod hac perpetratur, so here also
ἁñðáãìüò
=
ἅñðáãìá
(Tholuck: Pfingstprogramm, 1847, pp. 17–19). Whether the meaning is res rapta or rapienda, the context must decide. Here now
ἀñðáãìüí
is predicate in its relation to
ôὸ åἰ
̄
íáé ἴóá èåῷ
as the object (Winer’s Gram. p. 323). On this construction
êáὶ ἡ âáóéëåßá ôῶí ïὐñáíῶí âéÜæåôáé âéáóôáὶ ἁñðÜæïõóéí áὐôÞí
in Mat_11:12 is very instructive.
ἉñðÜæåéí
is not a heroic exspoliare, but a violent appropriating to one’s self, of which the object is
ôὸ åἶíáé ἴóá èåῷ
. This is therefore not “spolium, præda,” but “res rapienda.” The emphasis falls here on
åἶíáé
;
ἴóá
(not
ἴóá
—see Winer’s Gram. p. 177) is an adverbializing accusative (Bengel), but different from
ἴóïò
, since it denotes several relations of likeness, and from
ἴóïò
, since it does not point to a likeness of person, as Joh_5:18 (
ἴóïí å
̇
áõôïí ðïéῶí ôῷèåῷ
), but to the equality of Christ’s condition with that of God’s. What is meant by this expression appears from Php_2:10-11 : it is the
êõñéüôçò
of the Lord, His worship in the church, in heaven, and upon earth. Hence the difference between
ἐí ìïñöῇ èåïῦ ὑðÜñ÷ùí
and
ôὸ åἶíáé ἴóá èåῷ
is that the former denotes the Lord’s mode of existence, as a divine existence for Himself apart from the world and before it, the dignity of the Son, founded upon His eternal origin or generation from the Father, but the latter His existence as the King of His people in the realm of the Father, at His right hand. It is entirely like Eph_1:20-23; Joh_5:22-23; Joh_20:28; Mat_28:18-20. Accordingly it must signify “rapiendum non duxit.” For the former (
ìïñöὴ èåïῦ
) was His from eternity, while the latter (
ôὸ åἶíáé ἴóá èåῷ
) He had not as yet obtained. He was already enjoying the former before He had received the latter. It is not correct to regard the object of
ἁñðáãìὸí ἡãÞóáôï
as identical with what is stated concessively in the participial clause (Luther, Meyer, et al), or
ἁñðáãìüí
as equivalent to “præda, res rapta” (Ambrosius, et al.), “spolia” (Erasmus, Rheinwald, et al.), “holding tenaciously” (Hölemann), “concealing” (Matthies), “a triumphant display” (Luther, et al.), nor are we to understand by
åἶíáé ἴóá èåῷ
“plenitudinem et altitudinem dei” (Bengel), “vitam vitæ dei æqualem” (Van Hengel), or “identity with the Father” (Rilliet). It is entirely fanciful to scent Gnostic allusions in
ἐí ìïñöῇ èåïῦ
,
ἴóá èåῷ åἶíáé
,
ἁñðáãìüò
as also in
ἑáõôὸí ἐêÝíùóå
and
ἐí ïìïéþìáôé
,
ó÷Þìáôé åὑñåèåéò
(Php_2:7), and in
ἐðïõñáíßùí
,
ἐðéãåßùí
,
êáôὰ ÷èïíßùí
(Php_2:10), (Baur) as Brueckner shows (Ep. ad Phil. Paulo auctori vindicata, p. 15 ff.) in his exposé of the difference between the doctrine of the Gnostics and the present passage, and of the contradiction between Baur’s earlier and his later representation of this doctrine, and also Ernesti (Studien und Kritiken, 1848, pp. 858–924; 1851, pp. 595–630), with admirable acuteness and learning. Yet the view advanced as a conjecture by Umbreit (Studien und Kritiken, 1828, p. 595) and earnestly maintained by Ernesti, that this passage is to be explained out of Gen_2:3, is unnecessary and untenable.
[The view of
ôὸ åἶíáé ἴóá èåῷ
(adopted above by Dr. Braune) as= the
êõñéüôçò
, or worship of Christ in the church, in heaven, and on earth” (Php_2:10-11) which He did not claim for Himself in His pre-existent state, makes the self-denial of Christ negative merely, not positive, as the Apostle’s use of the example would seem to require Moreover, if this equality with God Which Christ forbore to arrogate to Himself before the incarnation be the same as the sovereignty which God conferred on Him after His humiliation and sufferings and death, as a reward for such self-devotement (see Php_2:9 and Heb_12:2), we cannot regard such an equality as, properly speaking, subject to acceptance or rejection till the antecedent historical condition has been fulfilled.—We subjoin a summary of the views of some of the later writers in our own language on this important passage. The meaning which Bishop Ellicott prefers is: “He did not deem His equality to God a prize to be seized, but emptied Himself, etc.; in other words, He did not insist on His own eternal prerogatives, but, on the contrary, humbled Himself to the condition and sufferings of mortal man.” See his Commentary on Phlippians (in loc.) for the grounds of this interpretation.—Prof. Lightfoot presents the philological details at some length. Instead of
ἁñðáãìüò
, “the more usual form of the word is
ἅñðáãìá
, which properly signifies simply ‘a piece of plunder,’ but especially with such verbs as
ἡãåῖóèáé
,
ðïéåῖóèáé
,
íïìßæåéíí
, etc., is employed like
ἕñìáéïí
,
åὕñçìá
, to denote a highly-prized possession, an unexpected gain.” He adduces examples of this usage from some of the later Greek writers. “It appears then from these writers that
ἅñðáãìá ἡãåῖèáé
frequently signifies nothing more than ‘to clutch greedily,’ ‘prize highly,’ ‘to set store by,’ the idea of plunder or robbery having passed out of sight. The form
ἁñðáãìüò
, however, presents a greater difficulty; for neither analogy nor usage is decisive as to its meaning: (1) The termination -
ìïò
indeed denotes primarily the process, so that
ἁñðáãìüò
would be ‘an act of plundering.’ But as a matter of fact substantives in -
ìüò
are frequently used to describe a concrete thing, e.g.
èåóìïò
,
÷ñçóìïò
,
öñáãìüò
, etc. (2) And again the particular word
ἁñðáãìüò
occurs so rarely that usage cannot be considered decisive. Under these circumstances we may, in choosing between the two senses of
ἁñðáãìüò
, fairly assign to it here the one which best suits the context. The meaning adopted above satisfies this condition: ‘Though He preexisted in the form of God, yet He did not look upon equality with God as a prize which must not slip from His grasp; but He emptied Himself, divested Himself, taking upon Him the form of a slave.’ The idea is the same as in 2Co_8:9,
äé
’
ὑìᾶò ἐðôþ÷åíóåí ðëïýóéïò ὤí
. The other rendering (adopted by the A. V.), ‘thought it not robbery to be equal with God,’ disconnects this clause from its context.—Alford translates: ‘who being’ (originally) ‘in the form of God regarded not as self-enrichment His equality with God.’ He observes (1) that
ἁñðáãìüò
holds the emphatic place in the sentence; (2) that this fact casts
ôὸ åἴíáé ἴóá èåῷ
into the shade as secondary and as referring to the state indicated by
ἐí ìïñöῇ èåïῦ ὑðÜñ÷ùí
above; and (3) that
áñðáãìüò
strictly means, as here given, the act of seizing or snatching—not from another, but for one’s self. Dr. Wordsworth paraphrases the thought thus: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who subsisting from eternity in the form of God, did not think His own equality with God (
ôü åἴíáé ἴóá èåῷ
) was a spoil which He had usurped wrongfully, and of which He might justly be divested by another, or which on principles of justice He was Himself obliged to give up to another,” etc. The following is Professor Eadie’s paraphrase of the meaning: “The Apostle affirms that Jesus, in His pre-incarnate state, was ‘in the form of God;’ and adds, that He thought it not a seizure, or a thing to be snatched at, to be on a parity with God, but emptied Himself. Now, it seems to us very plain that the parity referred to is not parity in the abstract, or in anything not found in the paragraph, but parity in possession of this form of God. He was in the form of God, and did not think it a thing to be eagerly laid hold of to be equal with God, having or exhibiting this form. The apostle adds,
ἀëë
’
ἐáõôὸí ἐêÝíùóåí
, but emptied Himself, and the clause is in broad and decided contrast with
ἁñðáãìὸí ïý÷ ἡãÞóáôï ôὸ åἶíáé ἴóá ôῷ èåῷ
. That is to say, the one clause describes the result of the other. It was because He did not think it a seizure to be equal with God, that He emptied Himself. He did not look simply to His own things—the glories of the Godhead; but He looked to the things of others, and therefore descended to humanity and death. His heart was not so set upon this glory, that he would not appear at any time without it. There was something which he coveted more—something which He felt to be truly a
ἁñðáãìüò
, and that was tie redemption of a fallen world by His self-abasement and death. From His possession of this “mind,” and in indescribable generosity He looked at the things of others, and descended with His splendor eclipsed—appeared not as a God in glory, but clothed in flesh; not in royal robes, but in the dress of a village youth; not as Deity in fire, but a man in tears; not in a palace, but in a manger. … And in this way He gave the church an example of that self-abnegation and kindness which the apostle has been inculcating, and which the Lord’s career is adduced to illustrate and confirm” (Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle to the Phlippians, pp. 108, 9).—For a list of monographs on this difficult text the reader may see Meyer’s “Briefe an die Philipper,” etc., p. 63 (1859), and Wiesinger’s Commentary on Philippians (Eng. trans.), p. 61.—H.]
Php_2:7. But emptied or stripped himself, and took upon him the form of a servant (
ἀëë
’
ἑáõôὸí ἐêÝíùóå ìïñöὴí äïýëïõ ëáâþí
). The
ἀëëÜ
introduces the antithesis (not tamen, nihilominus, quin potius). The first member corresponds to the second in Php_2:6, and the second here to the first there; and at the same time unfolds further the antithesis to
ïὐ÷ ἁñðáãìὸí ἡãÞóáôï
. In opposition to the not thinking of an act stands something done: in opposition to the unwillingness to rob another stands a giving up on His part; and in opposition to the thing which He does not even wish to arrogate to Himself stands His own person which He surrenders. This last contrast appears in
ἑáõôüí
, which precedes with emphasis, in opposition to
ἑáõôῷ ôé
, and hence not Himself in opposition to another (Meyer, et al.), as the relations in the case and the context show; since the equality with God (
ôὸ åἶíáé ἴóá èåῷ
) was not to be seized from men or angels, nor could God be deprived of it, but He, the Son, by His own might and will could seize upon it, although it would not be withheld from Him by the Father.—
ἘêÝíùóå
=
êåí
̀
ïí ἐðïßçóåí
, exinanivit, divested Himself, i.e., of that which He had,
ἐí ìïñöῇ èåïῦ ὑðÜñ÷ùí
, hence of the form of God, of the divine mode of existence. Since He has emptied Himself of this, as the word properly means, the
ìïñöÞ
is not something merely external, and since He has given up only the
ἐí ìïñöῇ èåïῦ ὑðÜñ÷ùí
, it cannot be an evacuare of the person, as if that now had in it no longer anything divine—no
äüîá
which remained to Him (Joh_1:14; Col_2:9); hence the nearer limitation by
ìïñöὴí äïýëïí ëáâþí
, which is itself more closely defined. The antithesis is Still
ìïñöὴ èåïῦ
, and
äïýëïõ
is chosen, because according to the context (
ἴóá èåῷ
Php_2:6, comp. Php_2:10-11) the
êõñéüôçò
belongs to the
èåüôçò
. It is the becoming man, or the incarnation that is meant, as the sequel declares, and since
ëáâþí
(which is contemporaneous with
ἐêÝíùóå
as in Eph_1:9; Eph_1:13) must be taken as a modal limitation of the verb (
ἐêÝíùóå
), this emptying of Himself (
êἑíùóéò
) is the Lord’s incarnation. It is incorrect to deny here the becoming man, the act of incarnation, and to find only His position as a servant indicated (Schenkel), for in this case
ìïñöὴí äïýëïõ ëáâþí
must follow
ἐí ÷Þìáôé åὑñåèåὶò ὡò ἄíèñùðïò
, and could not stand at the beginning; Observe too, that the
äïýëïõ
is without the article, and hence it does not mean the servant of God, in the sense of the Messiah. The following also are incorrect interpretations: libenter duxit vitam inopem (Grotius), miseram sortem, qualis esse servorum solet (Hölemann), semet ipse depressit (Van Hengel), veluti deposuit (Calov), non magis ea usus est (Clericus), since the subject of discourse here is not anything within the human life of Christ, the laying aside of the
äüîá
, or abstaining from the full use of it.—And was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man (
ἐí ὁìïéþìáôé ἀíèñþðùí ãåíïìåíïò êáὶ ó÷Þìáôé åὑñåèåὶò ὡò ἄíèñùðïò
). These two clauses plainly belong together. They serve more closely to define
ìïñöὴí äïýëïõ ëáâþí
Bengel: forma dicit aliquid absolutum, similitudo relationem ad alia ejusdem conditionis, habitus refertur ad aspectum et sensum.
Äïῦëïò
is more exactly defined by
ἀíèñþðùí
,
ἄíèñùðïò
;
ἐí ὁìïéþìáôé
,
ὡò
, correspond to
ìïñöÞí
and indicate the difference between the Lord in the form of a servant, as the son of man, and men. He is not indeed purus putus homo, but the incarnate Son of God.
Ôåíïìåíïò
denotes a becoming, the human individual development, and preserves the
ëáâþí
from being mistaken as a merely outward assumption. Hence
ὁìïßùìá
is to be understood of the inner and outer, the spiritual and bodily life, and
ἐí
points this out as the sphere of His development, and the dative
ó÷Þìáôé
as the respect in which, or rule according to which, He is found as man. Winer’s Gram., p. 215. By
ó÷ῆìá
(vultus, vestitus, victus, gestus, sermones et actiones. Bengel), is denoted the outward manifestation which is indicated by
åὑñåèåßò
(not equivalent to
ὤí
), was recognized by all who came into contact with Him. Comp. 1Jn_1:1-3.
ὡò ἄíèñùðïò
Theodoret observes:
ἡ ãὰñ ἀíáëçöèåῖóá öýóéò ἀëçèῶò ôïῦôï ἦí
,
áõ
̇
ôὸò äὲ ôïῦôï ïὐê ἦí
,
ôïῦôï äὲ ðåñéÝêåéôï
. Bengel: Vulgaris, ac si nil esset præterea, nec inter homines quidem excelleret; nil sibi sumsit eximium. It is incorrect to regard
ὁìïßùìá
and
ó÷ῆìá
as indistinguishable synonyms (Heinrichs, et al.), or the latter as dignitas (Grotius), dress (Elsner),
ãåíüìåíïò
as natus (Rilliet),
ἀíèñþðùí
as a designation of the debile et abjectum (Hölemann), of the infimæ et contemtæ sortis (Wolf), or of the first human pair, because He like them was peccati expers (Grotius).
Php_2:8. He humbled himself (
ἐôáðåßíùóåíἑáõôüí
). The humiliation described by
ἐêÝíùóå
, which took place in His incarnation, because He thereby passed over from the divine into the human mode of existence, is now particularly noted. Here observe the asyndeton, the verb being also connected with
ἀëëÜ
, while the position of the verb before the pronoun renders it emphatic. The general description (
ἐêÝíùóå
) gives place to the particular one (
ἐôáðåßíùóåí
). Hence there is no climax here (Meyer), nor does the latter exceed the former (Schenkel), nor does it refer to any humiliation below the dignity of man (Hölemann).—It is more closely defined by the following: And became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Hence it is inadmissible to find in the p