Norge 2.—Ph 25-11, This passage has been pressed into the service of speculative theology, and many attempts have been made to extract from 1¢ an aposolic doctrine of the relations of the Divine and human natures of our Lord. It is very doubtful, however, if the apostle had any intention of formulating, or even of hinting at the meaning which his words are sup to bear. In v.4 he had utte: a warning against factiousness and vain glory, and a counsel follows to cultivate lowliness of mind. Of this voluntary choice of lowliness, Christ was their
at example, for He exchanged His heavenly glory for
e life of humanity,—for a life which ended in a death of
According to some commentators the words i¢ ir uepen διοῦ ὑπάρχων oby ἁρταγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ ves ἴσα ὕιω refer to the Jowl(ness of spirit exhibited by the Son during His pre-existent Ife. Although in the form of God, He did not ambitiously If this be the meaning, it is a thought strangely foreign to the ordinary thought of St. Paul to hint even at a possible rivalry between the
o@ce of
PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 843
Father and the Son. Nor do the words force us to
this interpretation. The word μωρφή as distinguished “toe arene denotes that which is essential to the subject, that which properly belongs to its nature; and the words #é εἶναι iva “iw need not express a different, but the same idea. Christ being in the form of God, therefore possessed equality with God. The only word which creates difficulty is apraysde, which, according to its termination, signifies ‘a snatching,’ not ‘the thing snatched.’ But substantives in -er are frequently used to describe the concrete thing (e.g. σωρασμός, Tepe ua, δισμό!). “Aprayucs occurs only once in classical writers in ὦ passage in Plutarch (Mor, p. 12 A). So we cannot say with certainty whether or not it was ever employed in the passive sense, It was certainly so used by the Greek Fathers, who were writing in their native tongue. Ina number of passages the Fathers employ the expression &prayuér ts ποιεῖσθαι a8 SYHONYM- ous with the more ordinary expression ἄρσαγμά τι wucela. If Wwe may 80 translate aprayuer here, the meaning is that Christ did not regard the equality with God which He po ed, as a prize to be erly grasped and retained, but of His own will surrendered it for the condition of lowliness. The verb κενοῦν (Ro 414,1 00 117 915) refers to this surrender by Christ of His heavenly glory and dignity, and the manner of surrender is explained in the expression that follows—epghr δούλου λαβών, To answer the questions of speculative theology as to the exact relation which continued to exist between the ‘two natures’ of Christ, was entirely foreign to the pu of St. Paul's exhortation. ‘It contains,’ writes Zahn (Kinl. in d. NT), ‘hardly more d atical teaching than the sentence in 2 Co 8%.’
Nore 3.—Ph 81>20, This passage does not harmonize either ἴῃ substance or in tone, with the rest of the Epistle. It almost looks es if it had been torn out of its connexion in the Ep. to the Galatians, or in the 2nd Ep. to the Corinthians. tk has peaked more kinship with those Epistles than with the Epistle in which it stands. It consists of a passionate invective against the Judaizers, reminding us of Galatians, followed by a vindication of St. Paul's own position as the possessor of all the privileges of which the Judaizers were fond of boasting.
It is extremely difficult to discover a fitting connexion be- tween it and the preceding paragraph, which concludes with the words, ‘ Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord.’ Some commentators (¢.g. Bengel, B. Weiss, Kl6pper) have seen a link of connexion in the circumstance that Christian joy was obscured by the practice of Judaic rites which diverted the gaze from Christ : ‘ Gaudium spirituale optimam affert certivudinem contra errores, Judaicos presertim’ (Bengel). But a connexion so delicately hinted, when the Judaizers were in question, is unlike St. Paul. Lightfoot gives up the uttempt to establish an inner connexion of the passage with what goes before. He conjectures that the apostle was interrupted when writing the letter. In the inter- val something occurred in Rome which reminded him of the restless propagandism of the Judaizing missionaries. ‘ What if aay should interfere at age as they were doing at Rome, and tamper with the faith and loyalty of his converts? With this thought weighing upon his spirit he resumes his letter.’ But a device of this character rather suggests the interpreter in despair. We prefer the explanation of E. Haupt, who remarks that the fragmentary character of Paul's closing exhortations makes it unnecessary to look for a connexion with the foregoing passage, if a possible danger to the Philippians from the Juda- izers was present to his mind. That he is speaking of the Judaizers sufficiently explains the sudden change of tone to severity and solemn warning ; for the mention of those plotters against the peace of his Churches always excited the indigna- tion of the apostle. It also accounts for the introduction of the vindication of his own ancestral privileges as a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and as one who had always been found blameless as touching the righteousness which is of the law; for the apostle was aware that it was the invariable practice of the Judaizers to indulge in detraction of himself, whom they re- garded as the ἘΣ obetacis to their designs upon the freedom of the Church.