Bibelkommentare

CHAPTER 2

Php 2:1. Instead of εἴ τι παραμ., D* L, min. have: εἴ τις παραμ. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Matth. It is nothing but a mechanical repetition of the preceding εἴ τις. The same judgment must be passed on the reading: εἴ τις σπλάγχνα, although this τις (instead of which the Recepta τινα is to be restored) has the greatly preponderant attestation of A B C D E F G K L P א, min. Bas. Chrys. (?) Damasc. Oec. Theoph., and is adopted by Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. Τινα (as early as Clem. Al. Strom. iv. p. 604, Pott.; also Theodoret) is, notwithstanding its small amount of cursive attestation, we do not say absolutely necessary,[84] but requisite for such an understanding of the entire verse as naturally offers itself to the reader; see the exegetical remarks.

Php 2:3. ἤ] Lachm. and Tisch. read, and Griesb. also recommended: ΜΗΔῈ ΚΑΤΆ, following A B C א, min. vss. and Fathers. An attempt at interpretation, as are also the readings Ἢ ΚΑΤΆ, ΚΑῚ ΚΑΤΆ, ΜΗΔῈΝ ΚΑΤΆ.

Php 2:4. Elz. Scholz, have ἝΚΑΣΤΟς in both places, which is defended also by Reiche. But ἝΚΑΣΤΟΙ, which is confirmed by preponderating testimony even before ΣΚΟΠΟῦΝΤΕς (in opposition to Hofmann), was supplanted by the singular, as only the latter occurs elsewhere in the N. T.

Elz. has ΣΚΟΠΕῖΤΕ instead of ΣΚΟΠΟῦΝΤΕς, against decisive testimony.

Php 2:5. ΤΟῦΤΟ ΓΆΡ] A B C* א*, min. vss. Fathers, Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have ΤΟῦΤΟ only. But what led to the omission of ΓΆΡ was, that, ΦΡΟΝΕῖΤΕ being subsequently read, the preceding ἝΚΑΣΤΟΙ was looked upon as the beginning of the new sentence (A C א). Moreover, the commencement of a lesson at ΤΟῦΤΟ favoured the omission.

ΦΡΟΝΕΊΣΘΩ] The reading ΦΡΟΝΕῖΤΕ appears to have decisive attestation from the uncials, of which only C*** K L P favour the Recepta φρονείσθω. But it is incredible, if the well-known and very common imperative form φρονεῖτε was the original reading, that it should have been exchanged for the otherwise unusual passive form φρονείσθω, merely for the reason that it was sought to gain a passive form to be supplied with the following words ὁ καὶ ἐν Χ. Ἰ. (where the supplying of ἦν would have been sufficient). And as the very ancient testimony of most Greek authorities since Origen, also of the Goth. Copt. Arm. and nearly all min, is in favour of φρονείσθω, we must retain it as the original, which has been made to give way to the more current φρονεῖτε. The latter, however, is adopted by Tisch. 8, following Lachmann.

Php 2:9. Elz. Scholz, Tisch. 7 have ὄνομα alone instead of τὸ ὄνομα, in opposition to A B C א, 17, and several Fathers. The article has been suppressed by the preceding syllable.

Instead of ἐξομολογήσηται the future ἐξομολογήσεται is decisively attested.

Php 2:13. The article before Θεός (Elz. Scholz) is condemned by preponderating testimony.

Php 2:15. γένησθε] A D* E* F G, Vulg. It. Cypr. have ἤτε. So also Lachm. But the testimony is not decisive, and there is the more reason for defending the Recepta, because ΓΈΝΗΣΘΕ might be more readily glossed by ἬΤΕ than the converse, both in itself, and also here on account of the following ἘΝ ΟἾς ΦΑΊΝΕΣΘΕ Κ.Τ.Λ.

ἈΜΏΜΗΤΑ] Lachm. Tisch. 8 have ἌΜΩΜΑ, following A B C א, min. Clem. Cyr. But the latter is the prevailing form in the N. T., and readily crept in (comp. var. 2 Peter 3:14).

ἘΝ ΜΈΣῼ] A B C D* F G א, min. Clem. have ΜΈΣΟΝ. Approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the Recepta is explanatory.

Php 2:19. κυρίῳ] Lachmann reads Χριστῷ, upon too weak authority.

Php 2:21. Elz.: τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. But τὰ Ἰησοῦ Χ. (Tisch.: τὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) has the preponderance of evidence in its favour.

Php 2:26. After ὑμᾶς, A C D E א*, min. vss. and some later Fathers have ἰδεῖν, which Lachm. places in brackets. To be adopted; because, after Php 1:8, its omission would be very probable, and there is no reason why it should have got in as a gloss here and not at Php 1:8.

Php 2:27. Elz.: ἐπὶ λύπῃ, against decisive testimony in favour of ἐπὶ λύπην.

Php 2:30. τὸ ἔργον του Χριστοῖ] Tisch. 7 reads τὸ ἔργον merely; following, indeed, only C, but correctly, for the bare τὸ ἔργον appeared to need some defining addition, which was given to it by τοῦ Χριστοῦ or Χριστοῦ (Tisch. 8), or even by κυρίου (A א).

παραβουλ.] The form παραβολ. has preponderant attestation, and is to be preferred. See the exegetical remarks.

[84] Reiche, Comment, crit. p. 213, would read τι instead of τινα; but the former is found only in min., and is scarcely susceptible of a forced explanation (“si qua est vobis,” or “si quid valet”).—The old Latin versions, with their si qua or si quid, leave us uncertain as to their reading. But the Vulg. Lachm. has; si quis.

Php 2:1. Οὖν] infers from Php 1:30 what is, under these circumstances, the most urgent duty of the readers. If they are engaged in the same conflict as Paul, it is all the more imperatively required of them by the relation of cordial affection, which must bind them to the apostle in this fellowship that they should fulfil his joy, etc. Consequently, although, connecting what he is about to say with what goes immediately before (in opposition to Hofmann), he certainly, after the digression contained from ἥτις in Php 2:28 onwards, leads them back to the exhortation to unanimity already given in Php 2:27, to which is then subjoined in Php 2:3 f. the summons to mutual humility.

εἴ τις κ.τ.λ.] four stimulative elements, the existence of which, assumed by εἰ (comp on Colossians 3:1), could not but forcibly bring home to the readers the fulfilment of the apostle’s joy, Php 2:2.[85] With each ἐστί simply is to be supplied (comp. Php 4:8): If there be any encouragement in Christ, if any comfort of love, etc. It must be noticed that these elements fall into two parallel sections, in each of which the first element refers to the objective principle of the Christian life (ἐν Χριστῷ and πνεύματος), and the second to the subjective principle, to the specific disposition of the Christian (ἀγάπης and σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί). Thus the inducements to action, involved in these four elements, are, in equal measure, at once objectively binding and inwardly affecting (πῶς σφοδρῶς, πῶς μετὰ συμπαθείας πολλῆς! Chrysostom).

παρακλ. ἐν Χ.] ἐν Χ. defines the παρακλ. as specifically Christian, having its essence and activity in Christ; so that it issues from living fellowship with Him, being rooted in it, and sustained and determined by it. Thus it is in Christ, that brother exhorteth brother. παράκλησις means exhortation (1 Corinthians 14:3; Romans 12:8; Acts 4:36; Acts 9:31; Acts 13:15; Acts 15:31), i.e. persuasive and edifying address; the more special interpretation consolatio, admissible in itself, anticipates the correct rendering of the παραμύθιον which follows (in opposition to Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Heinrichs, and many others; and recently Hoelemann and Ewald).

εἴ τι παραμ. ἀγάπ.] παραμύθιον (see generally Schaefer ad Bos. p. 492; Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 517; Jacobs ad Ach. Tat. p. 708) corresponds to the fourth clause (σπλάγχνα κ. οἰκτ.), and for this reason, as well as because it must be different from the preceding element,[86] cannot be taken generally with Calovius, Flatt, Matthies, de Wette, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, and Hofmann as address, exhortation (Plat. Legg. vi. p. 773 E, xi. p. 880 A), but definitely as comfort (Thuc. v. 103; Theocr. xxiii. 7; Anth. Pal. vii. 195, 1; Wis 3:18; Esther 8:15; comp. παραμυθία, Plat. Axioch. p. 375 A; Luc. Nigr. 7; Psalm 65:12; Wis 19:12; 1 Corinthians 14:3). Ἀγάπης is the genitive of the subject: a consolation, which love gives, which flows from the brotherly love of Christians. In order to make out an allusion to the Trinity in the three first points, dogmatic expositors like Calovius, and also Wolf, have understood ἀγάπης of the love of God (to us).

εἴ τις κοινων. πν.] if any fellowship of the Spirit (i.e. participation in the Spirit) exists; comp. on 2 Corinthians 13:13. This is to be explained of the Holy Spirit, not of the animorum conjunctio (Michaelis, Rosenmüller, am Ende, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hoelemann, Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others; Usteri and Rilliet mix up the two), which is inconsistent with the relation of this third clause to the first (ἐν Χριστῷ), and also with the sequel, in which (Php 2:2) Paul encourages them to fellowship of mind, and cannot therefore place it in Php 2:1 as a motive.

εἴ τινα σπλ. κ. οἰκτ.] if there be any heart and compassion. The former used, as in Php 1:8, as the seat of cordial loving affections generally; the latter, specially as misericordia (see on Romans 9:15), which has its seat and life in the heart. See also on Colossians 3:12; comp. Luke 1:28; Tittmann, Synon. p. 68 f.

It must further be remarked, with regard to all four points, that the context, by virtue of the exhortation based upon them πληρώσατέ μον τὴν χαράν in Php 2:2, certainly presupposes their existence in the Philippians, but that the general expression (if there is) forms a more moving appeal, and is not to be limited by the addition of in you (Luther, Calvin, and others). Hence the idea is: “If there is exhortation in Christ, wherewith one brother animates and incites another to a right tone and attitude; if there is comfort of love, whereby one refresheth the other; if there is fellowship in the Spirit, which inspires right feelings, and confers the consecration of power; if there is a heart and compassion, issuing in sympathy with, and compassion for, the afflicted,—manifest all these towards me, in that ye make full my joy (μου τὴν χαράν).” Then, namely, I experience practically from you that Christian-brotherly exhortation,[87] and share in your comfort of love, and so ye put to proof, in my case, the fellowship in the Spirit and the cordial sympathy, which makes me not distressed, but glad in my painful position.

There is much that is mistaken in the views of those who defend the reading τις before σπλ. (see van Hengel and Reiche), which cannot be got rid of by the assumption of a constructio ad synesin (in opposition to Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 71. [E. T. 81]). Hofmann is driven by this reading, which he maintains, to the strange misinterpretation of the whole verse as if it contained only protases and apodoses, to be thus divided: εἴ τις οὖν παράκλησις, ἐν Χριστῷ· εἴ τι παραμύθιον, ἀγάπης· εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, εἴ τις, σπλάγχνα κ. οἰκτιρμοί; this last εἴ τις being a repetition of the previous one with an emphasizing of the εἰ. Accordingly the verse is supposed to mean: “If exhortation, let it be exhortation in Christ; if consolation, let it be a consolation of love; if fellowship of the Spirit, if any, let it be cordiality and compassion.” A new sentence would then begin with πληρώσατε.[88] Artifices such as this can only serve to recommend the reading ΕἼ ΤΙΝΑ.

[85] Hitzig, z. Krit. Paul. Briefe, p. 18, very erroneously opines that there is here a made excitement, an emphasis in which not so much is felt as is put into the words; and the four times repeated if is to cover the defect,—in connection with which an utterly alien parallel is adduced from Tacit. Agric. 46.

[86] Hofmann erroneously makes the quite arbitrary distinction that παρακλ. refers to the will, and παραμ. to the feelings. The will, feelings, and intellect are called into exercise by both. Comp., especially on παραμύθ., Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 476 E; Phaed. p. 70 B; Euthyd. p. 272 B; Thuc. viii. 86, 1.

[87] In the application of the general εἴ τις παράκλησις ἐν Χ., the subjects of this παράκλησις must, following the rule of the other elements, be the Philippians; Paul (Wiesinger, comp. Ewald) cannot he conceived as the παρακαλῶν.

[88] From this interpretation of the whole passage he should have been deterred by the forlorn position which is assigned to the εἴ τις before σπλάγχνα as the stone of stumbling, as well as by the purposelessness and even inappropriateness of an oddly emphasized problematical sense of this εἴ τις.—If it be thought that the reading εἴ τις σπλ. must be admitted. I would simply suggest the following by way of necessary explanation of the passage:—1st, Let the verse be regarded as consisting of a series of four protases, on which the apodosis then follows in ver. 2; 2d, Let ἐν Χριστῷ, ἀγάπης, πνεύματος and σπλάγχνα κ. οἰκτιρμοί be taken uniformly as predicative specifications; 3d, Let κοινωνία be again understood with the last εἴ τις. Paul would accordingly say: “If any exhortation is exhortation in Christ, if any comfort is comfort of love, if any fellowship is fellowship of the Spirit, if any (fellowship) is cordiality and compassion (that is, full of cordiality and compassion) fulfil ye,” etc. The apostle would thus give to the element of the κοινωνία, besides the objective definition of its nature (πνεύματος, referring to the Holy Spirit), also a subjective one (σπλ. κ. σἰκτιρμ.), and mark the latter specially by the repetition of εἴ τις, sc κοινωνία., as well as designate it the more forcibly by the nominative expression (σπλάγχνα κ. οἰκτ., not another genitive), inasmuch as the latter would set forth the ethical nature of such a κοινωνία (comp. such passages as Romans 7:7; Romans 8:10; Romans 14:17) in the form of a direct predicate. The εἰ, moreover, would remain uniformly the syllogistic εἰ in all the four clauses, and not, as in Hofmann’s view, suddenly change into the problematic sense in the fourth clause.

Php 2:2. The joy which Paul already feels in respect to the Philippians (Php 1:4), they are to make full to him, like a measure (comp. John 3:29; John 15:11; John 17:13; 1 John 1:4; 2 John 1:12; 2 Corinthians 10:6). For the circumstances of the case, comp. Php 1:9. The μου represents, as it very often does in the N. T. (e.g. Php 4:14; Colossians 4:18; Philemon 1:20), and in Greek authors, the dative of interest.

ἵνα] The mode in which they are to make his joy full is conceived in telic form, as that which is to be striven for in the action of making full; and in this aim of the πληροῦν the regulative standard for this activity was to consist. Paul might quite as fitly have put the τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν in the imperative, and the πληροῦν τὴν χαράν in the telic form; but the immediate relation to himself, in which he had conceived the whole exhortation, induced him to place the πληροῦν τ. χ. in the foreground.

τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε] denotes generally harmony, and that, indeed, more closely defined by the sequel here as identity of sentiment. See Tittmann, Synon. p. 67; Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 87 f.; comp. Herod. i. 60, ix. 54, and the passages in Wetstein. The opposite: ἀμφὶς φρ., Hom. Il. xiii. 345; ἄλλῃ φρ., hymn. Ap. 469; διχοφρονεῖν, Plut. Mor. p. 763 E; διχόμητις, Nonn. ev. John 20:29; and similar forms. Hoelemann interprets τὸ αὐτό as illud ipsum, that, namely, which was said in Php 2:1, the παράκλησις ἐν Χ. down to οἰκτιρμοί. This is at variance with the context (see the following τ. αὐτ. ἀγάπ. and ἕν φρον.), and contrary to the wonted use of the expression elsewhere (Romans 12:16; Romans 15:5; 2 Corinthians 13:11; Php 4:2).

τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγ. ἔχ., σύμψ. τὸ ἓν φρον.] Two more precise definitions of that like-mindedness, so far as it is identity of (mutual) love, and agreement of feeling and active impulse, sympathy (σύμψυχοι, only found here in the N. T.; but see Polemo, ii. 54, and comp. on Php 1:27, also on ἰσόψυχον, Php 2:20). This accumulation of definitions indicates earnestness; Paul cannot sever himself from the thought, of which his heart is so full. Comp. Chrysostom: βαβαὶ, ποσάκις τὸ αὐτὸ λέγει ἀπὸ διαθέσεως πολλῆς! He also well remarks on τ. αὐτ. ἀγάπ. ἔχ.: τουτέστι ὁμοίως φιλεῖν καὶ φιλεῖσθαι. The following τὸ ἓν φρονοῦντες is to be closely connected with σύμψ., so that σύμψυχοι has the emphasis and adds the more precise definition of the previously mentioned unity of mind: with harmony of soul cherishing the one sentiment. There are therefore only two, and not three, special explanations of the τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε; and ἕν with the article points back to the previous τὸ αὐτό, which is now represented by τὸ ἕν without any essential difference in sense. Expositors, not attending to this close connection of σύμψ. with τὸ ἓν φρον. (which Wiesinger, Weiss, Ellicott, and Schenkel have acknowledged), have either made the apostle say the very same thing twice over (Oecumenius: διπλασιάζει τὸ ὁμοφρονεῖν), or have drawn entirely arbitrary distinctions between τὸ αὐτό and τὸ ἓν φρον.—e.g. Bengel, who makes the former refer to the same objects of the sentiment, and the latter to the same sentiment itself; Tittmann, l.c., that the former is idem sentire, velle et quaerere, and the latter in uno expetendo consentire; Beza and others, that the former means the agreement of will, the latter the agreement in doctrine; while others put it inversely; Hofmann thinks that ἕν with the article means the one thing, on which a Christian must inwardly be bent (comp. Luke 10:42). It means, on the contrary, the one thing which has just been designated by τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε (as in Php 4:2; Romans 12:16; and other passages); the context affords no other reference for the article.

It is usual, even in classical authors, for the participle of a verb to stand by the side of the verb itself, in such a way that one of the two conveys a more precise specification. See Stallb. ad Plat. Hipp. m. p. 292 A; Bornemann, ad Cyrop. viii. 4. 9; Lobeck, Paral. p. 532 f.

Php 2:3 f. Μηδὲν κατὰ ἐριθ. ἤ κενοδοξ.] sc. φρονοῦντες (not ποιοῦντες, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Camerarius, Storr, am Ende, Rheinwald, Flatt, van Hengel, and others); so that, accordingly, what was excluded by the previous requirement τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε … φρονοῦντες, is here described. To take, as in Galatians 5:13, μηδεὶν … κενοδοξίαν as a prohibition by itself, without dependence on φρονοῦντες (see on Gal. l.c.), as J. B. Lightfoot does, is inappropriate, because the following participial antithesis discloses the dependence of the μηδὲν κ.τ.λ. on the previous participle; hence also Hofmann’s view, that there is an intentional leaving the verb open, cannot be admitted. Hoelemann combines it with ἡγούμ., and takes μηδὲν as neutiquam; but incorrectly, for ἡγούμ. κ.τ.λ. affirms the esteeming others better than oneself, which, therefore, cannot take place in a factious (κατὰ ἐρίθειαν, see on Php 1:17) or in a vainglorious (ἢ κενοδοξίαν) way. The κατὰ denotes that which is regulative of the state of mind, and consequently its character, and is exchanged in the antithetic parallel for the dative of the instrument: by means of humility, the latter being by the article set down as a generic idea (by means of the virtue of humility). The mutual brotherly humility (Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:12; Acts 20:19) is the determining principle, by which, for example, Caius is moved to regard Lucius as standing higher, in a moral point of view, than himself, and, on the other hand, Lucius to pronounce Caius to be of a higher moral rank than himself (i.e. ἀλλήλους … ἑαυτῶν). Hoelemann erroneously refers τῇ ταπεινοφρ. to ὑπερέχ., so that it “excellentiae designet praesidium,”—a view which the very position of the words should have warned him not to adopt.

κενοδοξία] ostentation, only here in the N. T. Comp. Wis 14:14; Polyb. iii. 81. 9; Lucian, D. Mort. x. 8, xx. 4; and see on Galatians 5:26.

Php 2:4. μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστοι σκοπ.] The humble mind just indicated cannot exist together with selfishness, which has its own interests in view. See instances of σκοπεῖν τὰ τινος, to be mindful of any one’s interests, in Herod. i. 8; Plat. Phaedr. p. 232 D; Thuc. vi. 12. 2; Eur. Supp. 302. Comp. Lucian, Prom. 14: τἀμαυτοῦ μόνα σκοπῶ. The opposite of τὰ ἑαυτῶν σκ. may be seen in 2Ma 4:5 : τὸ δὲ συμφέρον κοινῇ … σκοπῶν. Comp. ζητεῖν τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, 1 Corinthians 10:24; 1 Corinthians 10:33; 1 Corinthians 13:5; Php 2:21, where ζητεῖν presents no essential difference in sense. Others consider that the having regard to gifts and merits is intended (Calvin, Hammond, Raphel, Keil, Commentat. 1803, in his Opusc. p. 172 ff., Hoelemann, Corn. Müller), which, after the comprehensive τῇ ταπεινοφρ. κ.τ.λ., would yield a very insipid limitation, and one not justified by the context.

ἕκαστοι] It is usually, and in other passages of the N. T. invariably, the singular that is used in this distributive apposition; the plural, however, is not unfrequently found in classical authors. Hom. Od. ix. 164; Thuc. i. 7. 1; Xen. Hell. ii. 4, 38; Herodian, iii. 13, 14.

ἀλλὰ καὶ κ.τ.λ.] a weaker contrast than we should have expected from the absolute negation in the first clause;[89] a softening modification of the idea. In strict consistency the καί must have been omitted (1 Corinthians 10:24). Comp. Soph. Aj. 1292 (1313): ὅρα μὴ τοὐμὸν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ σόν; and see Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 788; Winer, p. 463 f. [E. T. 624]. The second ἕκαστοι might have been dispensed with; it is, however, an earnest repetition.

The influences disturbing unity in Philippi, disclosed in Php 2:2-4, are not, according to these exhortations, of a doctrinal kind, nor do they refer to the strength and weakness of the knowledge and conviction of individuals, as was the case in Rome (Romans 14) and Corinth (1 Corinthians 8, 10)—in opposition to Rheinwald and Schinz;—but they were based upon the jealousy of moral self-estimation, in which Christian perfection was respectively ascribed and denied to one another (comp. Php 2:12; Php 3:12 ff.). Although this necessarily implies a certain difference of opinion as to the ethical theory, the epistle shows no trace either of any actual division into factions, or of ascetic jealousy (which de Wette assumes as co-operating). But the exhortations to unity are too frequent (Php 1:27, Php 2:2 f., Php 3:15, Php 4:2 f.) and too urgent to justify us in questioning generally the existence (Weiss) of those disturbances of harmony, or in regarding them as mere ill humour and isolation disturbing the cordial fellowship of life (Hofmann). Comp. Huther, in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1862, p. 640 ff.

[89] In which, in fact, it is not merely the limitation (Hofmann) to one’s own that is forbidden, as if μόνον stood along with it. What Hofmann at the same time deduces from the reading ἕκαστος (before σκοποῦντες), which he follows, as distinguished from the subsequent ἕκαστοι (with a here wholly irrelevant comparison of Plat. Apol. p. 39 A), is sophistical, and falls, moreover, with the reading itself.

Php 2:5. Enforcement of the precept contained in Php 2:3 f. by the example of Jesus (comp. Romans 15:3; 1 Peter 2:21; Clem. Cor. I. 16), who, full of humility, kept not His own interest in view, but in self-renunciation and self-humiliation sacrificed it, even to the endurance of the death of the cross, and was therefore exalted by God to the highest glory;[90] this extends to Php 2:12. See on this passage Kesler in Thes. nov. ex mus. Has. et Iken. II. p. 947 f.; Schultens, Dissertatt. philol. I. p. 443 ff.; Keil, two Commentat. 1803 (Opusc. p. 172 ff.); Martini, in Gabler’s Journ. f. auserl. theol. Lit. IV. p. 34 ff.; von Ammon, Magaz. f. Pred. II. 1, p. 7 ff.; Kraussold in the Annal. d. gesammt. Theol. 1835, II. p. 273 ff.; Stein in the Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 165 ff.; Philippi, d. thätige Gehors. Chr. Berl. 1841, p. 1 ff.; Tholuck, Disp. Christol. de l. Php 2:6-9, Halle 1848; Ernesti in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 858 ff., and 1851, p. 595 ff.; Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 502 ff., and 1852, p. 133 ff., and in his Paulus, II. p. 51 ff. ed. 2; Liebner, Christol. p. 325 ff.; Raebiger, Christol. Paulin. p. 76 ff.; Lechler, Apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 58 ff.; Schneckenburger in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1855, p. 333 ff; Wetzel in the Monatschr. f. d. Luth. Kirche Preuss. 1857; Kähler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 99 ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 431 ff., and his Christol. d. N. T. 1866, p. 233 ff.; Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. 1870, p. 163 ff.; J. B. Lightfoot’s Excursus, p. 125 ff.; Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 519 ff.; Grimm in the same Zeitschr. 1873, p. 33 ff. Among the more recent dogmatic writers, Thomasius, II. p. 148 ff.; Philippi, IV. 1, p. 469 ff.; Kahnis, I. p. 458 ff.

φρονείσθω ἐν ὑμ.] sentiatur in animis vestris. The parallelism with the ἐν which follows prohibits our interpreting it intra vestrum caetum (Hoelemann, comp. Matthies). The passive mode of expression is unusual elsewhere, though logically unassailable. Hofmann, rejecting the passive reading, as also the passive supplement afterwards, has sadly misunderstood the entire passage.[91]

ὃ καὶ ἐν Χ. Ἰ.] sc. ἐφρονήθη. On ἘΝ, comp. the Homeric ἘΝῚ ΦΡΕΣΊ, ἘΝῚ ΘΥΜῶ, which often occurs with ΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ, Od. xiv. 82, vi. 313; Il. xxiv. 173. καί is not cum maxime, but the simple also of the comparison (in opposition to van Hengel), namely, of the pattern of Christ.

[90] Christ’s example, therefore, in this passage is one of self-denial, and not of obedience to God (Ernesti), in which, in truth, the self-denial only manifested itself along with other things. It is, however, shown by the very addition of καί, that Paul really intended to adduce the example of Christ (in opposition to Hofmann’s view); comp. Romans 15:3. Christ’s example is the moral, ideal, historically realized. Comp. Wuttke, Sittenl. II. § 224; Schmid, Sittenl. p. 355 ff.; and as early as Chrysostom.

[91] Reading φρονεῖτε, and subsequently explaining the ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ as a frequent expression with Paul for the ethical Christian quality (like ἐν κυρίῳ in Php 4:2), Hofmann makes the apostle say that the readers are to have their mind so directed within them, that it shall not be lacking in this definite quality which makes it Christian. Thus there would be evolved, when expressed in simple words, merely the thought: “Have in you the mind which is also the Christian one.” As if the grand outburst, which immediately follows, would be in harmony with such a general idea! This outburst has its very ground in the lofty example of the Lord. And what, according to Hofmann’s view, is the purpose of the significant καί? It would be entirely without correlation in the text; for in ἐν ὑμίν the ἐν would have to be taken as local, and in the ἐν Χριστῷ, according to that misinterpretation, it would have to be taken in the sense of ethical fellowship, and thus relations not at all analogous would be marked.

Php 2:6. The classical passage which now follows is like an Epos in calm majestic objectivity; nor does it lack an epic minuteness of detail.

ὅς] epexegetical; subject of what follows; consequently Christ Jesus, but in the pre-human state, in which He, the Son of God, and therefore according to the Johannine expression as the λόγος ἄσαρκος, was with God.[92] The human state is first introduced by the words ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε in Php 2:7. So Chrysostom and his successors, Beza, Zanchius, Vatablus, Castalio, Estius, Clarius, Calixtus, Semler, Storr, Keil, Usteri, Kraussold, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Corn. Müller, and most expositors, including Lünemann, Tholuck, Liebner, Wiesinger, Ernesti, Thomasius, Raebiger, Ewald, Weiss, Kahnis, Beyschlag (1860), Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II. p. 306, Messner, Lehre d. Ap. 233 f., Lechler, Gess, Person Chr. p. 80 f., Rich. Schmidt, l.c., J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm; comp. also Hofmann and Düsterdieck, Apolog. Beitr. III. p. 65 ff. It has been objected (see especially de Wette and Philippi, also Beyschlag, 1866, and Dorner in Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1856, p. 394 f.), that the name Christ Jesus is opposed to this view; also, that in Php 2:8-11 it is the exaltation of the earthly Christ that is spoken of (and not the return of the Logos to the divine δόξα); and that the earthly Christ only could be held up as a pattern. But Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, as subject, is all the more justly used (comp. 2 Corinthians 8:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:14 ff.; 1 Corinthians 10:4), since the subject not of the pre-human glory alone, but at the same time also of the human abasement[93] and of the subsequent exaltation, was to be named. Paul joins on to ὅς the whole summary of the history of our Lord, including His pre-human state (comp. 2 Corinthians 8:9 : ἐπτώχευσε πλούσιος ὤν); therefore Php 2:8-11 cannot by themselves regulate our view as regards the definition of the subject; and the force of the example, which certainly comes first to light in the historical Christ, has at once historically and ethically its deepest root in, and derives its highest, because divine (comp. Matthew 5:48; Ephesians 5:1), obligation from, just what is said in Php 2:6 of His state before His human appearance. Moreover, as the context introduces the incarnation only at Php 2:7, and introduces it as that by which the subject divested Himself of His divine appearance, and as the earthly Jesus never was in the form of God (comp. Gess, p. 295), it is incorrect, because at variance with the text and illogical, though in harmony with Lutheran orthodoxy and its antagonism to the Kenosis of the Logos,[94] to regard the incarnate historical Christ, the λόγος ἔνσαρκος, as the subject meant by ὅς (Novatian, de Trin. 17, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Cameron, Piscator, Hunnius, Grotius, Calovius, Clericus, Bengel, Zachariae, Kesler, and others, including Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, de Wette, Schneckenburger, Philippi, Beyschlag (1866), Dorner, and others; see the historical details in Tholuck, p. 2 ff., and J. B. Lightfoot). Liebner aptly observes that our passage is “the Pauline ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο;” comp. on Colossians 1:15.

ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων] not to be resolved, as usually, into “although, etc.,” which could only be done in accordance with the context, if the ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι κ.τ.λ. could be presupposed as something proper or natural to the being in the form of God; nor does it indicate the possibility of His divesting Himself of His divine appearance (Hofmann), which was self-evident; but it simply narrates the former divinely glorious position which He afterwards gave up: when He found Himself in the form of God, by which is characterized Christ’s pre-human form of existence. Then He was forsooth, and that objectively, not merely in God’s self-consciousness—as the not yet incarnate Son (Romans 1:3-4; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4), according to John as λόγος—with God, in the fellowship of the glory of God (comp. John 17:5). It is this divine glory, in which He found Himself as ἴσα Θεῷ ὤν and also εἰκὼν Θεοῦ—as such also the instrument and aim of the creation of the world, Colossians 1:15 f.—and into which, by means of His exaltation, He again returned; so that this divine δόξα, as the possessor of which before the incarnation He had, without a body and invisible to the eye of man (comp. Philo, de Somn. I. p. 655), the form of God, is now by means of His glorified body and His divine-human perfection visibly possessed by Him, that He may appear at the παρουσία, not again without it, but in and with it (Php 3:20 f.). Comp. 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Colossians 3:4. Μορφή, therefore, which is an appropriate concrete expression for the divine δόξα (comp. Justin, Apol. I. 9), as the glory visible at the throne of God, and not a “fanciful expression” (Ernesti), is neither equivalent to φύσις or οὐσία (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Chemnitz, and many others; comp. also Rheinwald and Corn. Müller); nor to status (Calovius, Storr, and others); nor is it the godlike capacity for possible equality with God (Beyschlag), an interpretation which ought to have been precluded both by the literal notion of the word μορφή, and by the contrast of μορφὴ δούλου in Php 2:7. But the μορφὴ Θεοῦ presupposes[95] the divine φύσις as ὁμόστολος μορφῆς (Aesch. Suppl. 496), and more precisely defines the divine status, namely, as form of being, corresponding to the essence, consequently to the homoousia, and exhibiting the condition, so that μορφὴ Θεοῦ finds its exhaustive explanation in Hebrews 1:3 : ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, this, however, being here conceived as predicated of the pre-existent Christ. In Plat. Rep. ii. p. 381 C, μορφή is also to be taken strictly in its literal signification, and not less so in Eur. Bacch. 54; Ael. H. A. iii. 24; Jos. c. Ap. ii. 16, 22. Comp. also Eur. Bacch. 4 : μορφὴν ἀμείψας ἐκ θεοῦ βροτησίαν, Xen. Cyr. i. 2. 2 : φύσιν μὲν δὴ τῆς ψυχῆς κ. τῆς μορφῆς. What is here called μορφὴ Θεοῦ is εἶδος Θεοῦ in John 5:37 (comp. Plat. Rep. p. 380 D; Plut. Mor. p. 1013 C), which the Son also essentially possessed in His pre-human δόξα (John 17:5). The explanation of φύσις was promoted among the Fathers by the opposition to Arius and a number of other heretics, as Chrysostom adduces them in triumph; hence, also, there is much polemical matter in them. For the later controversy with the Socinians, see Calovius.

ὑπάρχων] designating more expressly than ὤν the relation of the subsisting state (Php 3:20; Luke 7:25; Luke 16:23; 2 Peter 3:11); and hence not at all merely in the decree of God, or in the divine self-consciousness (Schenkel). The time is that of the pre-human existence. See above on ὅς. Those who understand it as referring to His human existence (comp. John 1:14) think of the divine majesty, which Jesus manifested both by word and deed (Ambrosiaster, Luther, Erasmus, Heinrichs, Krause, Opusc. p. 33, and others), especially by His miracles (Grotius, Clericus); while Wetstein and Michaelis even suggest that the transfiguration on the mount is intended. It would be more in harmony with the context to understand the possession of the complete divine image (without arbitrarily limiting this, by preference possibly, to the moral attributes alone, as de Wette and Schneckenburger do)—a possession which Jesus (“as the God-pervaded man,” Philippi) had (potentialiter) from the very beginning of His earthly life, but in a latent manner, without manifesting it. This view, however, would land them in difficulty with regard to the following ἑαυτ. ἐκένωσε κ.τ.λ., and expose them to the risk of inserting limiting clauses at variance with the literal import of the passage; see below.

οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ] In order to the right explanation, it is to be observed: (1) that the emphasis is placed on ἁρπαγμόν, and therefore (2) that τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ cannot be something essentially different from ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, but must in substance denote the same thing, namely, the divine habitus of Christ, which is expressed, as to its form of appearance, by ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχ., and, as to its internal nature, by τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ;[96] (3) lastly, that ἁρπαγμός does not mean praeda, or that which is seized on (which would be ἁρπάγιμον, Callim. Cer. 9; Pallad, ep. 87; Philop. 79; or ἅρπαγμα or ἅρπασμα, and might also be ἁρπαγή), or that which one forcibly snatches to himself (Hofmann and older expositors); but actively: robbing, making booty. In this sense, which is ὰ priori probable from the termination of the word which usually serves to indicate an action, it is used, beyond doubt, in the only profane passage in which it is extant, Plut. de pueror. educ. 15 (Mor. p. 12 A): καὶ τοὺς μὲν Θήβῃσι καὶ τοὺς Ἠλίδι φευκτέον ἔρωτας καὶ τὸν ἐκ Κρήτης καλούμενον ἁρπαγμόν, where it denotes the Cretan kidnapping of children. It is accordingly to be explained: Not as a robbing did He consider[97] the being equal with God, i.e. He did not place it under the point of view of making booty, as if it was, with respect to its exertion of activity, to consist in His seizing what did not belong to Him. In opposition to Hofmann’s earlier logical objection (Schriftbew. I. p. 149) that one cannot consider the being as a doing, comp. 1 Timothy 6:5; and see Hofmann himself, who has now recognised the linguistically correct explanation of ἁρπαγμός, but leaves the object of the ἉΡΠΆΖΕΙΝ indefinite, though the latter must necessarily be something that belongs to others, consequently a foreign possession. Not otherwise than in the active sense, namely raptus, can we explain Cyril, de adorat. I. p. 25 (in Wetstein): οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν[98] τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς ἔξ ἀδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο φρενός; further, Eus. in Luc. vi. in Mai’s Nov. Bibl. patr. iv. p. 165, and the passage in Possini Cat. in Marc. x. 42, p. 233, from the Anonym. Tolos.: ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἁρπαγμὸς ἡ τιμή;[99] as also the entirely synonymous form ἁρπασμός in Plut. Mor. p. 644 A, and ληϊσμος in Byzantine writers; also ΣΚΥΛΕΥΜΌς in Eustathius; comp. Phryn. App. 36, where ἁρπαγμός is quoted as equivalent to ἍΡΠΑΣΙς. The passages which are adduced for ἍΡΠΑΓΜΑ ἩΓΕῖΣΘΑΙ or ΠΟΙΕῖΣΘΑΊ ΤΙ (Heliod. vii. 11. 20, viii. 7; Eus. H. E. viii. 12; Vit. C. 2:31)—comp. the Latin praedam ducere (Cic. Verr. v. 15; Justin, ii. 5. 9, xiii. 1. 8)—do not fall under the same mode of conception, as they represent the relation in question as something made a booty of, and not as the Acts of making booty. We have still to notice (1) that this οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο corresponds exactly to ΜῊ ΤᾺ ἙΑΥΤῶΝ ΣΚΟΠΟῦΝΤΕς (Php 2:4), as well as to its contrast ἙΑΥΤῸΝ ἘΚΈΝΩΣΕ in Php 2:7 (see on Php 2:7); and (2) that the aorist ἡγήσατο, indicating a definite point of time, undoubtedly, according to the connection (see the contrast, ἈΛΛʼ ἙΑΥΤῸΝ ἘΚΈΝΩΣΕ Κ.Τ.Λ.), transports the reader to that moment, when the pre-existing Christ was on the point of coming into the world with the being equal to God. Had He then thought: “When I shall have come into the world, I will seize to myself, by means of my equality with God, power and dominion, riches, pleasure, worldly glory,” then He would have acted the part of ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ; to which, however, He did not consent, but consented, on the contrary, to self-renunciation, etc. It is accordingly self-evident that the supposed case of the ἉΡΠΑΓΜΌς is not conceived as an action of the pre-existing Christ (as Richard Schmidt objects), but is put as connecting itself with His appearance on earth. The reflection, of which the pre-existent Christ is, according to our passage, represented as capable, even in presence of the will of God (see below, γενόμ. ὑπήκοος), although the apostle has only conceived it as an abstract possibility and expressed it in an anthropopathic mode of presentation, is decisive in favour of the personal pre-existence; but in this pre-existence the Son appears as subordinate to the Father, as He does throughout the entire New Testament, although this is not (as Beyschlag objects) at variance with the Trinitarian equality of essence in the Biblical sense. By the ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι κ.τ.λ., if it had taken place, He would have wished to relieve Himself from this subordination.

The linguistic correctness and exact apposite correlation of the whole of this explanation, which harmonizes with 2 Corinthians 8:9,[100] completely exclude the interpretation, which is traditional but in a linguistic point of view is quite incapable of proof, that ἉΡΠΑΓΜΌς, either in itself or by metonymy (in which van Hengel again appeals quite inappropriately to the analogy of Jam 1:2, 2 Peter 3:15), means praeda or res rapienda. With this interpretation of ἁρπαγμός, the idea of ΕἾΝΑΙ ἼΣΑ ΘΕῷ has either been rightly taken as practically identical with ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, or not. (A) In the former case, the point of comparison of the figurative praeda has been very differently defined: either, that Christ regarded the existence equal with God, not as a something usurped and illegitimate, but as something natural to Him, and that, therefore, He did not fear to lose it through His humiliation (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, and other Fathers; see Wetstein and J. B. Lightfoot); comp. Beza, Calvin, Estius, and others, who, however, give to the conception a different turn;[101] or, that He did not desire pertinaciously to retain for Himself this equality with God, as a robber his booty, or as an unexpected gain (Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Vatablus, Kesler, and others; and recently, Hoelemann, Tholuck, Reuss, Liebner, Schmid, Wiesinger, Gess, Messner, Grimm; comp. also Usteri, p. 314);[102] or, that He did not conceal it, as a prey (Matthies); or, that He did not desire to display it triumphantly, as a conqueror his spoils (Luther, Erasmus, Cameron, Vatablus, Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, Quenstedt, Wolf, and many others, including Michaelis, Zachariae, Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Flatt, Rheinwald);[103] whilst others (Wetstein the most strangely, but also Usteri and several) mix up very various points of comparison. The very circumstance, however, that there exists so much divergence in these attempts at explanation, shows how arbitrarily men have endeavoured to supply a modal definition for ἁρπ. ἡγήσ., which is not at all suggested by the text.—(B) In the second case, in which a distinction is made between τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ and ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, it is explained: non rapinam duxit, i.e. non rapiendum sibi duxit, or directly, non rapuit (Musculus, Er. Schmidt, Elsner, Clericus, Bengel, and many others, including am Ende, Martini, Krause, Opusc. p. 31, Schrader, Stein, Rilliet, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ernesti, Raebiger, Schneckenburger, Ewald, Weiss, Schenkel, Philippi, Thomasius, Beyschlag, Kahnis, Rich. Schmidt, and others); that Christ, namely, though being ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, did not desire to seize to Himself the εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, to grasp eagerly the possession of it.[104] In this view expositors have understood the ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ as the divine plenitudinem et altitudinem (Bengel); the sessionem ad dextram (L. Bos); the divine honour (Cocceius, Stein, de Wette, Grau); the vitam vitae Dei aequalem (van Hengel); the existendi modum cum Deo aequalem (Lünemann); the coli et beate vivere ut Deus (Krause); the dominion on earth as a visible God (Ewald); the divine autonomy (Ernesti); the heavenly dignity and glory entered on after the ascension (Raebiger, comp. Thomasius, Philippi, Beyschlag, Weiss), corresponding to the ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα in Php 2:9 (Rich. Schmidt); the nova jura divina, consisting in the κυριότης πάντων (Brückner); the divine δόξα of universal adoration (Schneckenburger, Lechler, comp. Messner); the original blessedness of the Father (Kahnis); indeed, even the identity with the Father consisting in invisibility (Rilliet), and the like, which is to sustain to the μορφὴ Θεοῦ the relation of a plus, or something separable, or only to be obtained at some future time by humiliation and suffering[105] (Php 2:9). So, also, Sabatier, l’ apôtre Paul, 1870, p. 223 ff.[106] In order to meet the ΟὐΧ ἉΡΠ. ἩΓ. (comparing Matthew 4:8 ff.), de Wette (comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. p. 151) makes the thought be supplied, that it was not in the aim of the work of redemption befitting that Christ should at the very outset receive divine honour, and that, if He had taken it to Himself, it would have been a seizure, an usurpation. But as ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπ. already involves the divine essence,[107] and as ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ has no distinctive more special definition in any manner climactic (comp. Pfleiderer), Chrysostom has estimated this whole mode of explanation very justly: εἰ ἦν Θεός, πῶς εἶχεν ἁρπάσαι; καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἀπερινόητον τοῦτο; τίς γὰρ ἂν εἴποι, ὅτι ὁ δεῖνα ἄνθρωπος ὤν οὐχ ἥρπασε τὸ εἶναι ἄνθρωπος; πῶς γὰρ ἄν τις ὅπερ ἐστὶν, ἁρπάσειεν. Moreover, in harmony with the thought and the state of the case, Paul must have expressed himself conversely: ὃς ἴσα Θεῷ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπ. ἠγ. τὸ εἶναι ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, so as to add to the idea of the equality of nature (ἴσα), by way of climax, that of the same form of appearance (μορφή), of the divine δόξα also.

With respect to τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, it is to be observed, (1) that ἴσα is adverbial: in like manner, as we find it, although less frequently, in Attic writers (Thuc. iii. 14; Eur. Or. 880 al.; comp. ὁμοῖα, Lennep. ad Phalar. 108), and often in the later Greek, and in the LXX. (Job 5:14; Job 10:10; Job 11:12; Job 13:12; Wis 7:3, according to the usual reading). This adverbial use has arisen from the frequent employment, even so early as Homer (Il. v. 71, xv. 439; Od. xi. 304, xv. 519 al.), of ἴσα as the case of the object or predicate (see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 847; Krüger, II. § xlvi. 6. 8). But as εἶναι, as the abstract substantive verb, does not suit the adverbial ἴσα, pari ratione, therefore (2) τὸ εἶναι must be taken in the sense of existere; so that τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ does not mean the being equal to God (which would be τὸ εἶναι ἴσον Θεῷ), but the God-equal existence, existence in the way of parity with God.[108] Paul might have written ἴσον (as mascul.) Θεῷ (John 5:18), or ἰσόθεον; but, as it stands, he has more distinctly expressed the metaphysical relation, the divine mode of existence,[109] of the pre-human Christ. (3) The article points back to ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, denoting the God-equal existence manifesting itself in that μορφή; for the μορφὴ Θεοῦ is the appearance, the adequate subsisting form, of the God-equal existence. (4) Ernesti (in controversy with Baur), who is followed by Kähler, Kahnis, Beyschlag, and Hilgenfeld, entertains the groundless opinion that our passage alludes to Genesis 2 f., the ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ pointing in particular to Genesis 3:5. In the text there is no trace[110] of any comparison of Christ with the first human beings, not even an echo of like expression; how different from the equality with God in our passage is the ἔσεσθε ὡς θεοί in Genesis 3:5! Certainly, any such comparison lay very remote from the sublime idea of the divine glory of the pre-existent Christ, which was something quite different from the image of God in the first human beings. Comp. also Rich. Schmidt, p. 172; Grimm, p. 42 f.

[92] That Christ in His Trinitarian pre-existence was already the eternal Principle and Prototype of humanity (as is urged by Beyschlag), is self-evident; for otherwise He would have been one essentially different from Him who in the fulness of time appeared in the flesh. But this does not entitle us to refer the pre-existence to His whole divine-human person, and to speak of an eternal humanity,—paradoxes which cannot exegetically be justified by our passage and other expressions such as 1 Corinthians 15:47; Romans 5:12 ff; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15. The Logos pre-existed as the divine principle and divine prototype of humanity; Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, and this, apart from the form of expression, is also the teaching of Paul. Only in time could He enter upon the human existence; the notion of eternal humanity would refute itself.

[93] Hence Philippi’s objection, that φρονεῖν is elsewhere applied to man only, and not to God, is devoid of significance. Unfounded is also Beyschlag’s objection (1866) drawn from the word σχήματι; see below.

[94] According to which Christ had the full divine majesty “statim in sua conceptione, etiam in utero matris” (Form. Conc. p. 767). But He had it in His state of humiliation secreto, and only manifested it occasionally, quoties ipsi visum fuerit. In opposition to this, Liebner rightly observes, p. 334: “This is altogether inadequate to express the powerful N. T. feeling of the depth and greatness of our Lord’s humiliation. This feeling unmistakeably extends to the unique personal essence of the God-man, and in conformity with this, to the very heart of the act of incarnation itself.”

[95] Bengel well says: “Ipsa natura divina decorem habebat infinitum, in se, etiam sine ulla creatura illum decorem intuente.”—What Paul here designates simply by ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is pompously expressed by Clement, Cor. I. 16: τὸ σκῆπτρον τῆς μεγαλωσύνης τοῦ Θεοῦ. The forma mentis aeterna, however, in Tacitus, Agric. 46, is a conception utterly foreign to our passage (although adduced here by Hitzig), and of similar import with Propertius, iii. 1, 64: “ingenio stat sine morte decus.”

[96] An entirely groundless objection has been made (even by Lünemann) against the view which takes τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ as not essentially different from ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ εἶναι, viz. that Paul would, instead of τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, have written merely τοῦτο, or even nothing at all. He might have done so, but there was no necessity for his taking that course, least of all for Paul! He, on the contrary, distinguishes very precisely and suitably between the two ideas representing the same state, by saying that Christ, in His divine pre-human form of life, did not venture to use this His God-equal being for making booty. Both, therefore, express the very same divine habitus; but the εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ is the general element, which presents itself in the divine μορφή as its substratum and lies at its basis, so that the two designations exhaust the idea of divinity. Comp. also Liebner, p. 328.

[97] On ἡγεῖσθαι, in this sense of the mode of regarding, which places the object under the point of view of a qualitative category, comp. Krüger on Thuc. ii. 44. 3.

[98] Lot did not let the refusal of the angels be a making of profit to himself.

[99] Where, according to the connection, the sense is: Not a seizing to oneself is the position of honour, as among the heathen, but a renouncing and serving after the example of Christ.

[100] Räbiger and Wetzel, and also Pfleiderer, l.c., have lately adopted this view; likewise Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1873, p. 311 f. Hofmann also now explains the passage in a way not substantially different. But Grimm, l.c. p. 38, very unjustly describes the retention of ἁρπαγμός in the sense which it has in Plutarch, as petty grammatical pedantry. The ideas, spoil, booty, occur in countless instances in all Greek authors, and in the LXX., and are very variously expressed (ἁρπαγή, ἅρπαγμα, ἀρπασμα, ληΐς, σκύλευμα, σῦλον, λεία), but never by ἁρπαγμός, or any other form of word ending with μος. It is true that various substantives ending in μος may denote the result of the action; not, however, as we may be pleased to assume, but solely in accordance with evidence of empirical usage, and this is just what is wanting for this sense in the case of ἁρπαγμός. Its rejection, therefore, in our passage, is not pedantic, but is simply linguistically demanded. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 426, ed. 2, erroneously objects to our view of ἁρπαγμός, that, in that case, it would be impossible to conceive of any object, and that thus an utterly empty antithesis to the giving up of Christ’s own possession is the result. As if there were not given in the very notion of ἁρπαγμός its object, viz. that which does not belong to the subject of the action, and this, indeed, in its unrestricted and full compass, just because nothing special is added as an object.

[101] Beza: “Non ignoravit, se in ea re (i.e. quod Deo Patri coaequalis esset) nullam injuriam cuiquam facere, sed suo jure uti; nihilominus tamen quasi jure suo cessit.” So also Calvin, substantially, only that he erroneously interprets ἡγήσατο as arbitratus esset, “Non fuisset injuria, si aequalis Deo apparuisset.” Estius: “that He had not recognised the equality with God as an usurped possession, and therefore possibly desired to lay it aside, but had renounced Himseif,” etc.

[102] In this class we must reckon the interpretation of Theodoret (comp. Origen, ad Rom. v. 2, x. 7, Eusebius, and others): that Christ, being God by nature, did not hold His equality with God as something specially great, as those do who attain to honours παρʼ ἀξίαν; but that He, τὴν ἀξίαν κατακρύψας, chose humiliation. To this comes also the view of Theodore of Mopsuestia: μορφὴν γὰρ δούλου λαβὼν τὴν ἀξίαν ἐκείνην ἀπέκρυψεν, τοῦτο τοῖς ὁρῶσιν εἶναι νομιζόμενος, ὅπερ ἐφαίνετο.—Tholuck compares the German expression: als ein gefundenes Essen (einen guten Fund) ansehen. According to him, the idea of the whole passage is, “Tantum aberat, ut Christus, quatenus λόγος est, in gloria atque beatitate sua acquiescere sibique soli placere vellet, ut amore erga mortales ductus servi formam induere ac vel infimam sortem subire sine ulla haesitatione sustineret.”

[103] To this belongs also Pelagius, “Quod erat, humilitate celavit, dans nobis exemplum, ne in his gloriemur, quae forsitan non habemus.”

[104] So also Lünemann, who, in the sense of the divine pre-existence of Christ, paraphrases thus: “Christus, etsi ab aeterno inde dignitate creatoris et domini rerum omnium frueretur, ideoque divina indutus magnificentia coram patre consideret, nihilo tamen minus haud arripiendum sibi esse autumabat existendi modum cum Deo aequalem, sed ultro se exinanivit.” In a sense opposed to the divine pre-existence, however, Beyschlag says, Christol. p. 236 f.: “Christ possessed the μορφὴ Θεοῦ (that is, ‘the inner form of God’); He might have but stretched out His hand towards the ἴσα Θεῷ εἶναι; He disdained, however, to seize it for Himself, and chose quite the opposite; therefore it was given Him as the reward of His obedience, etc.” Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschrift, 1871, p. 197 f., says: the Pauline Christ is indeed the heavenly man, but no divine being; the equality with God was attained by Him only through the renunciation, etc.

[105] The lead in this mode of considering the passage was taken by Arius, whose party, on the ground of the proposition ἐκεῖνο ἁρπάζει τις, ὃ οὐκ ἔχει, declared: ὅτι Θεὸς ὢν ἐλάττων οὐχ ἥρπασε τὸ εἶναι ἴσα τῷ Θεῷ τῷ μεγάλῳ κ. μείζονι. See Chrysostom.

[106] He thinks that the divine μορφή of Christ stands to the ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ in the relation of potentia to actus. “Christ était des l’origine en puissance ce qu’ à la fin il devint en réalité;” the μορφὴ Θεοῦ denotes the general form of being of Christ, but “une forme vide, qui doit êtré remplie, c’est-à-dire spirituellement réalisée.” This higher position He had not wished to usurp, but had attained to it “réellement par le libre développement de sa vie morale.”

[107] Not merely the similarity, from which is there distinguished the equality by εἶναι ἴσα (in opposition to Martini and others).

[108] [The German is: nicht das Gotte gleich sein, sondern das gottgleiche Sein, das Sein auf gottgleiche Weise, die gottgleiche Existenz.]

[109] Which, therefore, was not essentially different from that of the Father. The ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ is the Pauline Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Hofmann erroneously, although approved by Thomasius, makes the objection (Schriftbew. p. 150) that an existence equal to divine existence can only be predicated of Him, who is not God. It may be predicated also of Him who is not the very same person, but of equal divine nature. Thus it might also be asserted of the Holy Spirit. The appeal by Hofmann to Thuc. iii. 14 is here without any bearing whatever.

[110] Ritschl indeed also, Altkath. Kirche, p. 80, requires, for the understanding of our passage, a recognition that Christ, as ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, is put in comparison with the earthly Adam. But why should Paul, if this comparison was before his mind, not have written, in accordance with Genesis 1:26, κατʼ εἰκόνα Θ., or καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν Θ ἐν μορφῇ Θ.,? instead of ἐν μορφῇ Θ. This would have been most natural for himself, and would also have been a hint to guide the readers.—The passages quoted by Hilgenfeld from the Clementine Homilies affirm the μορφὴ Θεοῦ of the body of man, and are therefore irrelevant.

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 Romans 4:14; 1 Corinthians 1:17; 1 Corinthians 9:15; 2 Corinthians 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. Jeremiah 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. 2 Corinthians 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 Ephesians 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 Matthew 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. Acts 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. Romans 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. 2 Corinthians 3:7; 1 Timothy 2:14; Luke 22:44; Acts 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 (Galatians 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 Romans 1:3, also thought to be included, was really human, as it is also described in Galatians 4:4. Paul justly says: ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρ., because, in fact, Christ, although certainly perfect man (Romans 5:15; 1 Corinthians 15:21; 1 Timothy 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. Romans 1:3; Galatians 4:4; and the Johannine ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο), ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί (1 Timothy 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 Romans 8:3; Romans 1:3 f., and respecting the idea of ὁμοίωμα, which does not convey merely the conception of analogy, see on Romans 1:23; Romans 5:14; Romans 6:5; Romans 8:3. The expression is based, not upon the conception of a quasi-man, but upon the fact that in the man Jesus Christ (Romans 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, 1 Corinthians 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 (2 Corinthians 13:4; Romans 6:9; Acts 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.

Php 2:8. Ἐταπείνωσεν] is placed with great emphasis at the head of a new sentence (see on Php 2:7), and without any connecting particle: He has humbled Himself. Ἑαυτόν is not prefixed as in Php 2:7; for in Php 2:7 the stress, according to the object in view, was laid on the reflexive reference of the action, but here on the reflexive action itself. The relation to ἐκένωσε is climactic, not, however, as if Paul did not regard the self-renunciation (Php 2:7) as being also self-humiliation, but in so far as the former manifested in the most extreme way the character of ταπείνωσις in the shameful death of Jesus. It is a climactic parallelism (comp. on Php 4:9) in which the two predicates, although the former in the nature of the case already includes the latter (in opposition to Hofmann), are kept apart as respects the essential points of their appearance in historical development. Bengel well remarks: “Status exinanitionis gradatim profundior.” Hoelemann, mistaking this, says: “He humbled Himself even below His dignity as man.”

γενόμ. ὑπήκοος] The aorist participle is quite, like the participles in Php 2:7, simultaneous with the governing verb: so that He became obedient. This ὑπήκοος is, however, not to be defined by “capientibus se, damnantibus et interficientibus” (Grotius); nor is it to be referred to the law, Galatians 4:4 (Olshausen), but to God (Romans 5:19; Hebrews 5:8 f.), whose will and counsel (comp. e.g. Matthew 26:42) formed the ground determining the obedience. Comp. Php 2:9 : διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεός κ.τ.λ. The expression itself glances back to μορφ. δούλου; “obedientia servum decet,” Bengel.

μέχρι θανάτου] belongs to ὑπήκ. γενόμ., not to ἐταπ. ἑαυτ. (Bengel, Hoelemann)—which latter connection is arbitrarily assumed, dismembers the discourse, and would leave a too vague and feeble definition for ἐταπ. ἑαυτ. in the mere ὑπήκ. γενόμ. By μέχρι death is pointed out as the culminating point, as the highest degree, up to which He obeyed, not merely as the temporal goal (van Hengel). Comp. 2 Timothy 2:9; Hebrews 12:4; Acts 22:4; Matthew 26:38. This extreme height reached by His obedience was, however, just the extreme depth of the humiliation, and thereby at the same time its end; comp. Acts 8:33; Isaiah 53:8. Hofmann groundlessly takes ὑπήκ. γίνεσθαι in the sense of showing obedience (comp. on Galatians 4:12). The obedience of Christ was an ethical becoming (Hebrews 5:8).

θανάτου δὲ σταυρ.] τουτέστι τοῦ ἐπικαταράτου (comp. Galatians 3:13; Hebrews 12:2), τοῦ τοῖς ἁνόμοις ἀφωρισμένου, Theophylact. The δέ, with the repetition of the same word (comp. Romans 3:22; Romans 9:30), presents, just like the German aber, the more precisely defined idea in contradistinction to the idea which is previously left without this special definition: unto death, but what kind of death? unto the most shameful and most painful, unto the death of the cross; see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 361, and Baeumlein, Partik. p. 97; and the examples in Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 168 f.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 388.

REMARK 1.

According to our explanation, Php 2:6-8 may be thus paraphrased: Jesus Christ, when He found Himself in the heavenly mode of existence of divine glory, did not permit Himself the thought of using His equality with God for the purpose of seizing possessions and honour for Himself on earth: No, He emptied Himself of the divine glory, inasmuch as, notwithstanding His God-equal nature, He took upon Him the mode of existence of a slave of God, so that He entered into the likeness of men, and in His outward bearing and appearance manifested Himself not otherwise than as a man. He humbled Himself, so that He became obedient unto God, etc. According to the explanation of our dogmatic writers, who refer Php 2:6-8 to the earthly life of Christ, the sense comes to this: “Christum jam inde a primo conceptionis momento divinam gloriam et majestatem sibi secundum humanam naturam communicatam plena usurpatione exserere et tanquam Deum se gerere potuisse, sed abdicasse se plenario ejus usu et humilem se exhibuisse, patrique suo coelesti obedientem factum esse usque ad mortem crucis” (Quenstedt). The most thorough exposition of the passage and demonstration in this sense, though mixed with much polemical matter against the Reformed and the Socinians, are given by Calovius. The point of the orthodox view, in the interest of the full Deity of the God-man, lies in the fact that Paul is discoursing, not de humiliatione INCARNATIONIS, but de humiliatione INCARNATI. Among the Reformed theologians, Calvin and Piscator substantially agreed with our [Lutheran] orthodox expositors.

REMARK 2.

On a difference in the dogmatic understanding of Php 2:6-8, when men sought to explain more precisely the doctrine of the Church (Form. Conc. 8), was based the well-known controversy carried on since 1616 between the theologians of Tübingen and those of Giessen. The latter (Feuerborn and Menzer) assigned to Jesus Christ in His state of humiliation the κτῆσις of the divine attributes, but denied to Him their χρῆσις, thus making the κένωσις a renunciation of the χρῆσις. The Tübingen school, on the other hand (Thummius, Luc. Osiander, and Nicolai), not separating the κτῆσις and χρῆσις, arrived at the conclusion of a hidden and imperceptible use of the divine attributes, and consequently made the κένωσις a κρύψις τῆς χρήσεως. See the account of all the points of controversy in Dorner, II. 2, p. 661 ff., and especially Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk, II. p. 429 ff. The Saxon Decisio, 1624, taking part with the Giessen divines, rejected the κρύψις, without thoroughly refuting it, and even without avoiding unnecessary concessions to it according to the Formula Concordiae (pp. 608, 767), so that the disputed questions remained open and the controversy itself only came to a close through final weariness. Among the dogmatic writers of the present day, Philippi is decidedly on the side of the Giessen school. See his Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 279 ff. ed. 2. It is certain that, according to our passage, the idea of the κένωσις is clearly and decidedly to be maintained, and the reducing of it to a κρύψις rejected. But, since Paul expressly refers the ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε to the μορφὴ Θεοῦ, and consequently to the divine mode of appearance, while he makes the εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ to subsist with the assumption of the μορφὴ δουλοῦ, just as subsequently the Incarnate One appears only as ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρ. and as σχήματι ὡς ἀνθρ.; and since, further, in the case of the κτήσις of the divine attributes thus laid down, the non-use of them—because as divine they necessarily cannot remain dormant (John 5:17; John 9:4)—is in itself inconceivable and incompatible with the Gospel history; the κτῆσις and the χρῆσις must therefore be inseparably kept together. But, setting aside the conception of the κρύψις as foreign to the N. T., this possession and use of the divine attributes are to be conceived as having, by the renunciation of the μορφὴ Θεοῦ in virtue of the incarnation, entered upon a human development, consequently as conditioned, not as absolute, but as theanthropic. At the same time, the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ necessarily remained the self-consciousness of the Son of God developing Himself humanly, or (according to the Johannine phrase) of the Logos that had become flesh, who was the μονογενὴς παρὰ πατρός; see the numerous testimonies in John’s Gospel, as John 3:13, John 8:58, John 17:5, John 5:26. “Considered from a purely exegetical point of view, there is no clearer and more certain result of the interpretation of Scripture than the proposition, that the Ego of Jesus on earth was identical with the Ego which was previously in glory with the Father; any division of the Son speaking on earth into two Egos, one of whom was the eternally glorious Logos, the other the humanly humble Jesus, is rejected by clear testimonies of Scripture, however intimate we may seek to conceive the marriage of the two during the earthly life of Jesus;” Liebner in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 362. That which the divine Logos laid aside in the incarnation was, according to our passage, the μορφὴ Θεοῦ, that is, the divine δόξα as a form of existence, and not the εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ essentially and necessarily constituting His nature, which He retained,[115] and to which belonged, just as essentially and necessarily, the divine—and consequently in Him who had become man the divine-human—self-consciousness.[116] But as this cannot find its adequate explanation either in the absolute consciousness of God, or in the archetypal character which Schleiermacher assigned to Christ, or in the idea of the religious genius (Al. Schweizer), or in that of the second Adam created free from original sin, whose personal development proceeds as a gradual incarnation of God and deification of man (Rothe), so we must by no means say, with Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 304 f., that in becoming incarnate the Logos had laid aside His self-consciousness, in order to get it back again only in the gradual course of development of a human soul, and that merely in the form of a human self-consciousness. See, in opposition to this, Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk, II. p. 198 f.; Schoeberlein in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1871, p. 471 ff., comp. the latter’s Geheimnisse des Glaubens, 1872, 3. The various views which have been adopted on the part of the more recent Lutheran Christologists,[117] diverging from the doctrine of the Formula Concordiae in setting forth Christ’s humiliation (Dorner: a gradual ethical blending into one another of the divine and human life in immanent development; Thomasius: self-limitation, i.e. partial self-renunciation of the divine Logos; Liebner: the entrance of the Logos into a process of becoming, that is, into a divine-human development), do not fall to be examined here in detail; they belong to the province of Dogmatics. See the discussions on the subject by Dorner, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, 2, 1857, 2, 1858, 3; Broemel, in the Kirchl. Zeitschr. of Kliefoth and Mejer, 1857, p. 144 ff.; Liebner, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 349 ff.; Hasse, ibid. p. 336 ff.; Schoeberlein, l.c. p. 459 ff.; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, II. pp. 192 ff., 542 ff.; Philippi, Dogmat. IV. 1, p. 364 ff.

According to Schoeberlein, the Son of God, when He became man, did not give up His operation in governing the world in conjunction with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but continued to exercise it with divine consciousness in heaven. Thus the dilemma cannot be avoided, either of supposing a dual personality of Christ, or of assuming, with Schoeberlein, that heaven is not local. Not only the former, however, but the latter view also, would be opposed to the entire N. T.

[115] Comp. Düsterdieck, Apolog. Abh. III. p. 67 ff.

[116] Paul agrees in substance with the Logos doctrine of John, but has not adopted the form of Alexandrine speculation. That the latter was known to him in its application to the Christology, may at least be regarded as probable from his frequent and long intercourse with Asia, and also from his relation to Apollos. His conception, however, is just as little Apollinarian as that of John; comp. on Romans 1:3 f.; Colossians 1:15.

[117] Schenkel’s ideal transference of Christ’s pre-existence simply into the self-consciousness of God, which in the person of Christ found a perfect self-manifestation like to humanity, boldly renounces all the results of historical exegesis during a whole generation, and goes back to the standpoint of Löffler and others, and also further, to that of the Socinians. Comp. on John 17:5. Yet even Beyschlag’s Christology leads no further than to an ideal pre-existence of Christ as archetype of humanity, and that not as a person, but merely as the principle of a person;—while Keerl (d. Gottmensch. das Ebenbild Gottes, 1866), in unperceived direct opposition to our passage and to the entire N. T., puts the Son of God already as Son of man in absolute (not earthly) corporeality as pre-existent into the glory of heaven. From 1 Corinthians 15:47 the conception of the pre-existence of Christ as a heavenly, pneumatic man and archetype of humanity (Holsten, Biedermann, and others) can only be obtained through misapprehension of the meaning. See on 1 Cor. l.c., and Grimm, p. 51 ff.