The evidence is unevenly distributed. In the four ' chief ' Epistles we have a number of allu- sions ; in each of two of the 'captivity' Epistles, Philippians and Colossians, we find an explicit statement. The allusions in the earlier Epistles are, if anything, more important than the state- ments in the later ones ; for they suggest that St. Paul was dealing with a conception regarding Christ which was already familiar, which, so far from requiring to be proved, was widely accepted as a necessary inference from other facts. Further, the references are ' so incidental as to suggest the VOL. I. — 13
inference that, while intimately related to his own deepest convictions about Christ, this doctrine formed no part of his formal teaching, until, at least, the necessity for it arose in the special cir- cumstances of the Church at Colosse' (SomervUle, op. cit. p. 185 ; cf. Beyschlag, NT Theol., Eng. tr., 1895, iL 78). The language of Gal 4^ ('God sent forth his Son ') and Eo 8^ ('God, sending his Son in the likeness of sin's flesh ') implies this previous existence for the Son, an existence under diflerent conditions, with which subjection to the Law and participation of flesh are contrasted. Consistently with this suggestion the Apostle in 2 Co 8* alludes to the fact that ' he who was rich, for our sakes became poor,' a phrase which links up with the statement in Philippians, inasmuch as it traces the impoverishment to the action of Christ Him- self. In 1 Co 8" there is a suggestion of the idea which is developed in Colossians, where St. Paul speaks of 'one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him ' ; and in 1 Co 15*^- ■*®, though it is in His Exaltation that He is recog- nized as the 'Second Adam,' yet as contrasted with the first Adam, who belongs to earth. He is represented as belonging to heaven, and being ' the heavenly one.' Indirectly, the language of 1 Co 10* involves the same idea (' They drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ ') ; but the immediate significance of the saying is that the Apostle puts ' Christ ' where Jewish legend had put ' Jahweh.'
We come now to the two passages in which St. Paul appears to make detailed allusion to the pre- existent Christ. The first is in Ph 2''-". The first point to notice is the context. Not only is the example of Christ appealed to as a ground and norm for Christian humility, and the duty of each one 'looking not on his own things but on the things of others,' but the conclusion also of the whole passage is relevant, inasmuch as it displays the Exaltation of Christ as a supreme illustration of God's recognition of this spirit of self-effacement : 5t6 Kal 6 debs avrbv \nrepv\pu}(Tev. To illustrate the true character of Christian humility St. Paul re- fers to the action of Christ, which took place be- fore His appearance upon earth. And again the description is calculated to remind rather than to inform ; it is penned for them who already know (Dibelius, ad loc). Christ had been originally [vifdpx'^v) iv fi.op<py 6eov. What sense are we to attach to this phrase? Lightfoot (Philippians*, 1878, p. 127 ti. ), after an exhaustive examination of the use of the words fioptp-q and axhiJ-^ in philo- sophic literature, comes to the conclusion that fj-opcpT) ' must apply to the attributes of the God- head,' that it implies not the external accidents but the essential attributes, so that the possession of /j-op<pri involves participation in the ovaia also.
' Thus in the passage under consideration the iMp4>ri is con- trasted with the aT(rjiJ.a, as that which is intrinsic and essential with that which is accidental and outward. And the three clauses imply respectively the true divine nature of our Lord (fiopii)T) 6eov), the true human nature {ixop<t>T) SovKov), and the externals of human nature (crx^^tart ws a^6pa>7ro?).'
With the interpre<^ation of fiop^-q goes the expla- nation of eTvai Lcra de(^, ' equality with God,' as some- thing which was already Christ's possession but which He refused to regard as a prize to be ten- aciously held (ol'x dpTrayubv riyqaaTo) ; but so far from this, He divested Himself (iKevwaev eavrov) not of His Divine nature, for this was impossible, but of the glories, the prerogatives of Deity. This He did by taking upon Him the form of a servant.
This interpretation is open to several objections. — (i.) In etlect it reads into St. Paul's language the conclusions of a later Christology, inasmuch as the meaning which it gives to tiop(p-q (as involv- ing essential participation in the ovaia or substance)
194 CHRIST, CHRISTOLOGY
CHRIST, CHRISTOLOGY
must be carried through in Lotli clauses, and we get consequently a personality which has taken the substance of humanity without laying aside that of Deity, (ii.) It gives a forced meaning to dov\oi>, and at the same time an inadequate one ; for if the Avord means no more than ' man,' we have an inexplicable tautology — three, or at least two, clauses in succession which make no advance in the thouglit. (iii.) It gives an unsatisfactory rendering to apway/xds, which is rather ' a thing to be clutched at' than 'a thing to be held.'