4--7.
435
"Kal ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 6. ὃς ἐν “μορφῇ Θεοῦ "ὑπάρχων, οὐχ “ ἁρπαγμὸν " C/ 2 Tim.
i. 5 ad fin,
ς , Ν 9 το a > ε a 82 ‘ ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι "toa! Θεῷ, ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν " ἐκένωσε, 7. μορφὴν 5 See note
infy. p 1 Cor. xi.
7: Gal. ii. 14 (appar. same force). Extraord. common in Acts, often in seemingly colourless sense.
q See note infy. r Job xi, 12, xxx. 10.
1So Trg. ἴσα Ti., ΑΙ, W.H., Ws.
68-69.
For Lft. and Vince. practically ignore the difficulty, the former taking ἐφρονεῖτο = ὃ καὶ Χ. Ἰ. ἐφρόνει ἐν ἑαυτῷ. But that begs the question. KI. thinks it impos- sible to separate the two spheres. (See Dsm., Das N.T. Formel, etc., p. 113 ff. ; also Zahn, Luthardt’s Zeitschr., 1885, p. 243, who quotes with approbation Vic- torinus ad loc., Hoc sentite in vobis quod sentitis in Christo.) [Ο. Hain, SK., 1893, pp. 169-171, following the same lines, takes the second φρονεῖτε = imperat. ‘As indeed ye must have in Christ Jesus.” This is difficult to arrive αἲ.]--- ἐν ὑμῖν. Correct N.T. writers would usually employ ἑαυτοῖς. Classicalauthors use ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς.
Vv. 6-11. In the discussion of this crux interpretum it is impossible, within our limits, to do more than give a brief outline of the chief legitimate interpreta- tions, laying special emphasis on that which we prefer and giving our reasons. As regards literature, a good account of the older exegesis is given by Tholuck, Disputatio Christologica,pp. 2-10. Franke (in Meyer’) gives a very full list of modern discussions. In addition to commentaries and the various works on Biblical The- ology, the following discussions are specially important: Rabiger, De Christo- logia Paulina, pp. 76-85; R. Schmidt, Paulinische Christologie, p. 163 ff.; W. Grimm, Zw. Th., xvi., 1, p. 33 ff.; Hilgen- feld, ibid., xxvii., 4, p. 498 ff.; W. Weiffen- bach, Zur Auslegung d. Stelle Phil., ii. 5-11 (Karlsruhe, 1884); E. H. Gifford, Expositor, v., vol. 4, p. 161 ff., 241 ff. {since published separately]; Somerville, St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, p. 188 ff. It may be useful to note certain cautions which must be observed if the Apostle’s thought is to be truly grasped. (a) This is not a discussion in technical theology. Paul does not speculate on the great problems of the nature of Christ. The elaborate theories reared on this passage and designated ‘‘kenotic” would pro- bably have surprised the Apostle. Paul is dealing with a question of practical ethics, the marvellous condescension and
Prob. the latter is more correct. cumflex is, in all likelihood, an assimilation to the Epic language.
s Rom. iv. 14; 1 Cor. i, 17, ix. 15; 2 Cor. ix. 3 (= make of no effect). Jer. xiv. 2, xv. 9 (transl. Heb. word =
languish),
The cir- See W-Sch.,, i.,
unselfishness of Christ, and he brings into view the several stages in this process as facts of history either presented to men’s experience or else inferred from it. [At the same time, as J. Weiss notes (Th. LZ., 1899, col. 263), the careful rhetorical structure of the passage (two strophes of four lines) shows that the thought has been patiently elaborated.] (ὁ) It is beside the mark to apply the canons of philosophic terminology to the Apostle’s language. Much trouble would be saved if interpreters instead of minutely investi- gating the refinements of Greek meta- physics, on the assumption that they are present here, were to ask themselves, “What other terms could the Apostle have used to express his conceptions?” (c) It is futile to attempt to make Paul’s thought in this passage fit in with any definite and systematic scheme of Christ- ology such as the ‘‘ Heavenly Man,” etc. This only hampers interpretation. Ver. 6. ὅς. The discussions as to whether this refers to the pre-existing or historical Christ seem scarcely relevant to Paul’s thought. For him his Lord’s career was one and undivided. To suggest that he did not conceive a pre- existence in heaven is to ignore the very foundations of his thinking. Probably he never speculated minutely on the nature of Christ’s pre-existent state, just as he refrains from doing so on the nature of the future life. He contents himself with general lines. The interpretation of the passage depends on the meaning assigned to (1) μορφή, (2) ἁρπαγμός, (3) τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ. --- In μορφή denotes the form, appearance, look or likeness of some one, that by which those beholding him would judge him. See Job iv. 16, Dan. v. 6 and three other places, Wisd. xviii. 1, 4 Macc. xv. 4. Plainly, from the context of these passages, the word had come, in later Greek, to receive a vague, general meaning, far removed from the accurate, metaphysical content which belonged to it in writers like Plato and Aristotle. It seems, therefore, to us of little value, with Lft. and Gifford (op.