ferent, ‘hold fast”. Are we not obliged, then, to think of the ἁρπαγμός (= ἅρπαγμα) as something still future, a ves vapienda? Cf. Catena on Mark x. 41 ff. (quoted by Zahn), Jesus’ answer to the sons of Zebedee, οὐκ ἐστὶν ἁρπαγμὸς ἡ τιμή, “the honour is not one to be snatched”’, Observe how aptly this view fits the context. In ver. 10, which is the climax of the whole passage, we read that God gave Jesus Christ as a gift (ἐχαρί- σατο) the name above every name, ᾖ.6., the name (including position, dignity and authority) of Κύριος, Lord, the name which represents the O.T. Jehovah. But this is the highest place Christ has reached. He hasalways (in Paul’s view) shared in the Divine nature (μ. Θεοῦ). But it is only as the result of His Incar- nation, Atonement, Resurrection and Exaltation that He appears to men as on an equality with God, that He is worshipped by them in the way in which Jehovah is worshipped. This position of Κύριος is the reward and crowning-point of the whole process of His voluntary Humiliation. It is the equivalent of that τελείωσις Of which the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks. This perfection “He acquired as He successively seized the occasions which His vocation as author of salvation presented to Him, a process moving on the lines of His relations to mortal, sinful men” (Davidson, Hebrews, p. 208). Along the same lines He was raised to the dignity of Κύριος, which is arelation to mankind. (See on the rela- tion of Christ as Κύριος to God, Somer- ville, of. cit., pp. 140-142.) This equality with God, therefore, consists in the κυριό- της, the Lordship to which He has been exalted. ‘‘He did not regard the being on an equality with God as a thing to be seized, violently snatched.” Cf. Heliodor., Ethiop., vii., 20, οὐχ ἅρπαγμα οὐδὲ ἕρμαιον ἡγεῖται τὸ πρᾶγμα. He might have used the miraculous powers inherent in His Divine nature in such a way as to compel men, without further ado, to wor- ship Him as God. Instead of that He was willing to attain this high dignity by the path of humiliation, suffering and death. Is not this interpretation strongly corroborated by the narrative of the Temptation? In that mysterious experi- ence our Lord was tempted to reach τὸ εἶναι toa Θεῷ in the way of ἁρπάζειν, forcing men out of sheer amazement to accept His claim and exalt Him as Lord. {Perhaps the curious negative expression οὐχ ἅρπαγμ. κ.τ.λ. has been suggested by a comparison with the first Adam who
437
sought to reach ‘equality with God” by means of ἁρπάζειν.) It is to be noted that the increased glory which Paul and all the N.T. writers regard as pertaining to Christ after His Resurrection has only to do with His dignity, His “ theocratic position,” not with His essential person- ality. (Cf. Ménégoz, Le Péché et la Rédemption, p. 164.) He has simply become ἐν δυνάμει, that which He already was substantially. Cf. Rom. i. 4, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκ- ρῶν, ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. Also Luke xxiv. 26.--- ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε. Instead of appearing among men in the Divine μορφή and thus compelling them to render Him the homage which was His due, He “emptied Himself” of that Divine μορφή and took the µ. of a bond- servant. The Apostle does not specify that of which He emptied Himself, as the stress is laid upon the ‘‘emptying,” but with pop. δούλου λαβών added to explain what ἐκένωσε means, we are bound to conclude that he has in view its anti- thesis, µ. Θεοῦ. (So also Myr., Hfm., Alf., Weiffenb., Hpt., Bruce, Gore, etc. Fairbairn, Christ in Mod. Theol., pp. 475-477, tries to show that Christ emptied Himself of the ‘physical attributes” of Deity while retaining the ‘ ethical”, But does this lead us any nearer a solu- tion of the mystery in the depths of the Son’s personality Ὁ) . Ver. 7. A question arises as to punc- tuation. W.H. punctuate as in the text. Calvin, Weiffenb. and Hpt. would place a comma after γενόμ. and a colon after ἄνθρωπος of ver. 8. This would co- ordinate these three clauses and make a new sentence begin with ἐταπείνωσεν. The division does not seem natural or necessary.—p. δούλου A. The clause defines ἐκένωσε. Christ’s assumption of the ‘‘form” of a δοῦλος does not imply that the innermost basis of His person- ality, His ‘‘ ego,” was changed, although, indeed, ‘‘ there was more in this emptying of Himself than we can think or say” (Rainy, op. cit., Ῥ. 119). 8. simply describes the humility to which He con- descended. It is needless to ask whose δοῦλος He became. The question is not before the Apostle.—év ὁμοιώ. ἀνθ. : γεν. γεν. as opposed to ὑπάρχων, ‘ be-