Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 2:7 - 2:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_2:7. Ἀλλʼ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε ] The emphatically prefixed ἑαυτόν is correlative to the likewise emphatic ἁρπαγμόν in Php_2:6. Instead of the ἁρπάζειν , by which he would have entered upon a foreign domain, He has, on the contrary, emptied Himself, and that, as the context places beyond doubt, of the divine μορφή , which He possessed but now exchanged for a μορφὴ δούλου ; He renounced the divine glorious form which, prior to His incarnation, was the form of appearance of His God-equal existence, took instead of it the form of a servant, and became as a man. Those who have already taken Php_2:6 as referring to the incarnate Christ (see on ὅς , Php_2:6) are at once placed in a difficulty by ἐκένωσε , and explain away its simple and distinct literal meaning; as, for instance, Calvin: “supprimendo … deposuit;” Calovius (comp. Form. Conc. pp. 608, 767): “veluti (?) deposuit, quatenus eam (gloriam div.) non perpetuo manifestavit atque exseruit;” Clericus: “non magis ea usus est, quam si ea destitutus fuisset;” comp. Quenstedt, Bos, Wolf, Bengel, Rheinwald, and many others. Beyschlag also finds expressed here merely the idea of the self-denial exercised on principle by Christ in His earthly life, consequently substituting the N. T. idea of ἀπαρνεῖσθαι ἑαυτόν . De Wette, in accordance with his distinction between μορφὴ Θεοῦ and εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ (comp. Schneckenburger, p. 336), referring it only to the latter (so also Corn. Müller, Philippi, Beyschlag, and others), would have this εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ meant merely in so far as it would have stood in Jesus’ power, not in so far as He actually possessed it, so that the ἑαυτ . ἐκέν . amounts only to a renunciation of the εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ , which He might have appropriated to Himself; while others, like Grotius, alter the signification of κενοῦν itself, some making it mean: He led a life of poverty (Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), and others: depressit (van Hengel, Corn. Müller, following Tittmann, Opusc. p. 642 f., Keil, comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others). Augustine: “Non amittens quod erat, sed accipiens quod non erat; forma servi accessit, non forma Dei discessit.” But ἐκένωσε means nothing but exinanivit (Vulgate) (see Rom_4:14; 1Co_1:17; 1Co_9:15; 2Co_9:3; and the passages in the LXX. cited by Schleusner; Plat. Conv. p. 197 C, Rep. p. 560 D, Phil. p. 35 E; Soph. O. R. 29; Eur. Rhes. 914; Thuc. viii. 57. 1; Xen. Oec. 8. 7),[111] and is here purposely selected, because it corresponds with the idea of the ἁρπαγμός (Php_2:6) all the more, that the latter also falls under the conception of ΚΕΝΟῦΝ (as emptying of that which is affected by the ἁρπαγμός ; comp. LXX. Jer_15:9; Plat. Rep. p. 560 D; Sir_13:5; Sir_13:7). The specific reference of the meaning to making poor (Grotius) must have been suggested by the context (comp. 2Co_8:9; Ecclus. l.c.), as if some such expression as ἐν πλούτῳ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχ . had been previously used. Figuratively, the renunciation of the divine μορφή might have been described as a putting it off ( ἐκδύεσθαι ).
The more precise, positive definition of the mode in which He emptied Himself, is supplied by μορφὴν δούλου λαβών , and the latter then receives through ἘΝ ὉΜ . ἈΝΘΡ . ΓΕΝΌΜΕΝΟς ΚΑῚ ΣΧΉΜ . ΕὙΡ . Ὡς ἌΝΘΡ . its specification of mode, correlative to ΕἾΝΑΙ ἼΣΑ ΘΕῷ . This specification is not co-ordinate (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weiss, Schenkel), but subordinate to ΜΟΡΦῊΝ ΔΟΎΛ . ΛΑΒΏΝ , hence no connecting particle is placed before ἘΝ ὉΜ ., and no punctuation is to be placed before ΚΑῚ ΣΧΉΜΑΤΙ , but a new topic is to be entered upon with ἘΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΕΝ in Php_2:8 (comp. Luther). The division, by which a stop is placed before ΚΑῚ ΣΧΉΜΑΤΙ … ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟς , and these words are joined to ἘΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΕΝ Κ . Τ . Λ . (Castalio, Beza, Bengel, and others; including Hoelemann, Rilliet, van Hengel, Lachmann, Wiesinger, Ewald, Rich. Schmidt, J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm), is at variance with the purposely-chosen expressions ΣΧΉΜΑΤΙ and ΕὙΡΕΘΕΊς , both of which correspond to the idea of ΜΟΡΦΉ , and thereby show that Κ . ΣΧ . ΕὙΡ . Ὡς ἌΝΘΡ . is still a portion of the modal definition of ΜΟΡΦῊΝ ΔΟΎΛΟΥ ΛΑΒΏΝ . Nor is the ΣΧΉΜ . ΕὙΡ . Ὡς ἌΝΘΡ . something following the ΚΈΝΩΣΙς (Grimm), but the empirical appearance, which was an integral part of the manner in which the act of self-emptying was completed. Besides, ἘΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΕΝ ἙΑΥΤΌΝ has its own more precise definition following; hence by the proposed connection the symmetry of structure in the two statements, governed respectively by ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε and ἘΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΕΝ ἙΑΥΤΌΝ , would be unnecessarily disturbed. This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, who (comp. Grotius) even connects ἘΝ ὉΜΟΙΏΜΑΤΙ ἌΝΘΡ . ΓΕΝΌΜ . with ἘΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΕΝ ἙΑΥΤΌΝ , whereby no less than three participial definitions are heaped upon the latter. And when Hofmann discovers in ἘΝ ὉΜΟΙΏΜΑΤΙ Κ . Τ . Λ . a second half of the relative sentence attached to ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ἸΗΣΟῦ , it is at variance with the fact, that Paul does not by the intervention of a particle (or by Ὃς ΚΑΊ , or even by the bare Ὅς ) supply any warrant for such a division, which is made, therefore, abruptly and arbitrarily, simply to support the scheme of thought which Hofmann groundlessly assumes: (1) that Jesus, when He was in the divine μορφή , emptied Himself; and (2) when He had become man, humbled Himself. Comp. in opposition to this, Grimm, p. 46, and Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1873, p. 314.
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ] so that He took slave-form, now making this lowly form of existence and condition His own, instead of the divine form, which He had hitherto possessed. How this was done, is stated in the sequel. The aorist participle denotes, not what was previous to the ἑαυτ . ἐκέν ., but what was contemporaneous with it. See on Eph_1:9. So also do the two following participles, which are, however, subordinated to the μορφὴν δούλου λαβών , as definitions of manner. That Paul, in the word ΔΟΎΛΟΥ , thought not of the relation of one serving in general (with reference to God and men, Matthies, Rheinwald, Rilliet, de Wette, comp. Calvin and others), or that of a servant of others, as in Mat_20:28 (Schneckenburger, Beyschlag, Christol. p. 236, following Luther and others), or, indefinitely, that of one subject to the will of another (Hofmann), but of a slave of God (comp. Act_3:13; Isaiah 52), as is self-evident from the relation to God described in Php_2:6, is plain, partly from the fact that subsequently the assumption of the slave-form is more precisely defined by ἐν ὁμοιώμ . ἀνθρ . γενόμ . (which, regarded in itself, puts Jesus only on the same line with men, but in the relation of service towards God), and partly from ὑπήκοος in Php_2:8. To generalize the definite expression, and one which corresponds so well to the connection, into “miseram sortem, qualis esse servorum solet” (Heinrichs, comp. Hoelemann; and already, Beza, Piscator, Calovius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others), is pure caprice, which Erasmus, following Ambrosiaster (comp. Beyschlag, 1860, p. 471), carries further by the arbitrary paraphrase: “servi nocentis, cum ipsa esset innocentia,” comp. Rom_8:3.
ἐν ὁμοιώμ . ἀνθρ . γενόμ . κ . τ . λ .] the manner of this ΜΟΡΦ . ΔΟΎΛΟΥ ΛΑΒΕῖΝ : so that He came in the likeness of man, that is, so that He entered into a form of existence, which was not different from that which men have. In opposition to Hofmann, who connects ἐν ὁμοιώματι κ . τ . λ . with ἘΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΕΝ Κ . Τ . Λ ., see above. On ΓΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ ἘΝ , in the sense, to come into a position, into a state, comp. 2Co_3:7; 1Ti_2:14; Luk_22:44; Act_22:17; 1Ma_1:27; 2Ma_7:9; Sir_44:20; and frequently in Greek authors after Homer (Xen. Anab. i. 9. 1; Herodian, iii. 7. 19, ii. 13. 21); see Nägelsbach, zur Ilias, p. 295 f. ed. 3. This entrance into an existence like that of men was certainly brought about by human birth; still it would not be appropriate to explain γενόμ . by natus (Gal_4:4; Rilliet; comp. Gess, p. 295; Lechler, p. 66), or as an expression for the “beginning of existence” (Hofmann), since this fact, in connection with which the miraculous conception is, notwithstanding Rom_1:3, also thought to be included, was really human, as it is also described in Gal_4:4. Paul justly says: ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρ ., because, in fact, Christ, although certainly perfect man (Rom_5:15; 1Co_15:21; 1Ti_2:5), was, by reason of the divine nature (the ἼΣΑ ΕἾΝΑΙ ΘΕῷ ) present in Him, not simply and merely man, not a purus putus homo, but the incarnate Son of God (comp. Rom_1:3; Gal_4:4; and the Johannine ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο ), ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί (1Ti_3:16), so that the power of the higher divine nature was united in Him with the human appearance, which was not the case in other men. The nature of Him who had become man was, so far, not fully identical with, but substantially conform ( ἐν ὁμοιώμ .) to, that which belongs to man.[112] Comp. on Rom_8:3; Rom_1:3 f., and respecting the idea of ὁμοίωμα , which does not convey merely the conception of analogy, see on Rom_1:23; Rom_5:14; Rom_6:5; Rom_8:3. The expression is based, not upon the conception of a quasi-man, but upon the fact that in the man Jesus Christ (Rom_5:15) there was the superhuman life-basis of divine ἰσότης , the ΕἾΝΑΙ ἼΣΑ ΘΕῷ not indwelling in other men. Justice, however, is not done to the intentionally used ὉΜΟΙΏΜΑΤΙ (comp. afterwards ΣΧΉΜΑΤΙ ), if, with de Wette, we find merely the sense that He (not appearing as divine Ruler) was found in a human condition,—a consequence of the fact that even Php_2:6 was referred to the time after the incarnation. This drove also the ancient dogmatic expositors to adopt the gloss, which is here out of place, that Christ assumed the accidentales infirmitates corporis (yet without sin), not ex naturae necessitate, but ex οἰκονομίας libertate (Calovius).[113] By others, the characteristic of debile et abjectum (Hoelemann, following older expositors) is obtruded upon the word ἀνθρώπων , which is here to be taken in a purely generic sense; while Grotius understood ἀνθρ . as referring to the first human beings, and believed that the sinlessness of Jesus was meant. It is not at all specially this (in opposition also to Castalio, Lünemann, Schenkel, and others), but the whole divine nature of Jesus, the μορφή of which He laid aside at His incarnation, which constitutes the point of difference that lies at the bottom of the expression ἐν ὁμοιώματι ( ΔΙᾺ ΤῸ ΜῊ ΨΙΛῸΝ ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟΝ ΕἾΝΑΙ , Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom), and gives to it the definite reference of its meaning. The explanation of the expression by the unique position of Christ as the second Adam (Weiss) is alien from the context, which presents to us the relation, not of the second man to the first man, but of the God-man to ordinary humanity.
καὶ σχήμ . εὑρ . ὡς ἄνθρωπ .] to be closely connected with the preceding participial affirmation, the thought of which is emphatically exhausted: “and in fashion was found as a man,” so that the divine nature (the Logos-nature) was not perceived in Him. σχῆμα , habitus, which receives its more precise reference from the context (Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 619), denotes here the entire outwardly perceptible mode and form, the whole shape of the phenomenon apparent to the senses, 1Co_7:31; comp. τὸ τῆς θεοῦ σχῆμα κ . ἄγαλμα , Plat. Crit. p. 110 B; τύραννον σχῆμα , Soph. Ant. 1154; Eur. Med. 1039; Plat. Polit. p. 267 C: σχῆμα βασιλικόν , p. 290 D: ΤῶΝ ἹΕΡΈΩΝ ΣΧῆΜΑ ; Dem. 690. 21: ὑπηρέτου σχῆμα ; Lucian, Cyn. 17: τὸ ἐμὸν σχῆμα τὸ δʼ ὑμέτερον ; also, in the plural, Xen. Mem. iii. 10. 7; Lucian, D. M. xx. 5. Men saw in Christ a human form, bearing, language, action, mode of life, wants and their satisfaction, etc., in general the state and relations of a human being, so that in the entire mode of His appearance He made Himself known and was recognised ( εὑρεθ .) as a man. In His external character, after He had laid aside the divine form which He had previously had,[114] there was observed no difference between His appearance and that of a man, although the subject of His appearance was at the same time essentially divine. The ὡς with ἌΝΘΡ . does not simply indicate what He was recognised to be (Weiss); this would have been expressed by ἄνθρ . alone; but He was found as a man, not invested with other qualities. The Vulgate well renders it, “inventus ut homo.” This included, in particular, that He presented and manifested in Himself the human σάρξ , human weakness and susceptibility of death (2Co_13:4; Rom_6:9; Act_26:23).
[111] Comp. Hasse in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 394 f. (in opposition to Dorner’s reference of the idea to that of ἐξουθενεῖν ). Dorner, in the same Jahrb. 1856, p. 395, is likewise driven to reduce the idea of the κένωσις merely to that of the renunciation of the appearance of majesty, which would have been befitting the divine form and parity, this inner greatness and dignity of Jesus Christ.
[112] Our passage contains no trace of Docetism, even if Paul had, instead of ἀνθρώπων , used the singular, which he might just as well have written here as ὡς ἄνθρωπος in the sequel, in place of which he might also have used ὡς ἄνθρωποι . This applies in opposition to Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 131, and Lechler, p. 66. Even Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 472, is of opinion that the above-named interpretation amounts to Docetism. But Christ was in fact, although perfect man, nevertheless something so much more exalted, that the phrase ἐν ὁμοιώμ . ἀνθρ . must have vindicated itself to the believing consciousness of the readers without any misconception, and especially without that of Docetism, which Baur introduces into it (neutest. Theol. p. 269), particularly when we consider the thoroughly ethical occasion and basis of the passage as an exhibition of the loftiest example of humility (comp. Rich. Schmidt, p. 178). Nevertheless, Beyschlag has repeated that objection.
[113] To this also amounts the not so precisely and methodically expressed explanation of Philippi: Since Christ remained in the divine form, His assumption of the slave-form consisted “in the withdrawal of the rays of the divine glory which continued to dwell in His flesh, and which He only veiled and subdued with the curtain of the flesh.” Thus also does Calvin depict it: the carnis humilitas was instar veli, quo divina majestas tegebatur.
[114] Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 644 f.: ὄψεσθε Θεὸν ἐν σχήματι ἀνθρώπου . Comp. p. 744: τὸν βασιλέα τῶν οὐρανῶν , τὸν ἐπὶ γῆς φανέντα ἐν μορφῇ ἀνθρώπου ταπεινώσεως . How these passages agree with the Nazaraic character of the book, is not a point for discussion here.