522
November 1929
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
Dr. Gifford begins his exegetical study by calling attention to the fact that, while all agree in acknowledging the impor tance of the passage under consideration, there is no such agreement as to its inter pretation. “Even among those,” he says, “who profess to base their interpretation upon a strict examination of the apostle’s language, there seems to be as yet no gen eral agreement, either as to the meaning of the most important words, or the grammatical construction and logical con nection of the passage. There is, in fact, little improvement in these respects since the author of an elaborate and important treatise on the subject (Bruce’s “Humilia tion of Christ”) declared that ‘the diver sity of opinion prevailing among inter preters in regard to the meaning of the principal passage bearing on the subject of Christ’s humiliation—that, namely, in the. second chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians—is enough to fill the student with intellectual paralysis.’ ” T h e C ontext The weak point; evidently, in the Chris tian life of the Philippian believers was a tendency to dissension; and the apostle’s keen discernment, detecting that this arose from a spirit of strife and vain glory, calls on the Christians at Philippi to exercise humility and to esteem each other better than themselves '.— ‘Look not every man on his own things, but every man on the things of others." In exhort ing them to the practice of this great duty the apostle directs their attention to the unique example of humility and renun ciation of things that rightly belonged to Him, willingly given up for the sake of others by our Lord:— “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” To bring the exhortation home to them, the apostle, in one of his most masterly intellectual flights, Carrie? the thoughts of the Philippians to the, peerless eminence occupied by their Lord and then to the depths of that humiliation He willingly -underwent for them. As we think on this great Christological deliverance, we are ready to say of. Paul what he said of Isaiah:—“He is very bold." He has taken ■ an eagle flight to the glories of heaven, and then, before there is time to realize what he has said, we are brought face to face with the One who was in “the form of Cod" hanging on the accursed tree. There are depths in this renunciation that are immeasurable to created intelligences. This is the most captivating example of humility ever given to the children of men—it had no equal in the ages past; it shall have no equal in the ages to come. T h e S ubject We are now in a position to proceed with the interpretation of the words in
Phil. 2:5-8, and the first point that re quires consideration is, To whom does the relative “who” refer?— “Who being in the form o f God." Is the subject, Christ, regarded only in His life on earth, or also as the eternal Word that was with God and was God? Some take the relative to refer to Christ in his preincarnate state. They argue that the incarnate state is in troduced by the words, “he emptied him se lf’ (verse 7). In adopting this view there is an assumption, by anticipation, of a meaning which is much disputed. It is safer and more strictly correct to say that “who" refers to Jesus Christ who, according to the apostle, did something in a state of existence described as “being in the form of God.” “B eing in th e F orm of G od ” This phrase is of great importance for the correct interpretation of the passage under consideration. There are two points which call for attention: (1) The mean ing of “ being [vndpxav]” and (2) the mean ing of “form \jcopffj] of God.” (1) “Being." (a) Preexistence. The Revised Version, in translating the Greek word in the margin “being originally,” correctly brings out its meaning. That this is so is evident from other passages in the Pauline epistles. For instance: “For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is [vnapxov] the image and glory o f God” (1 Cor. 11: 7). The reference here is clearly to what man was in his original creation. In Galatians we 'have another illustration of this use of the term: “I f thou, being [imapxoiv] a Jew, livest as do the Gen tiles” (2:14). B i s h o p .Lightfoot says: “’I ovSaloc virdpxav (being a Jew) is very emphatic and implies being ‘born and bred a Jew.’” Howson, commenting on this in “The Speaker’s Commentary,” says: “ ‘Being a Jew’ here means ‘a Jew by birth,’ a Jew to begin with.” This well-recognized meaning of the word translated “being" in the Authorized Version gets rid of the attempt made to limit the description “being in the form of God” to the time of Christ’s sojourn in the world. 'Tir dpxuv, then, with the context following, “clearly implies,” says Dr. Gifford, “a state existing prior to the point of time at which our Lord took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (The Incar nation, p. 8). (b) Continued Existence. The Greek participle not only signifies preexistence, but also continued existence ; and though Dr. Gifford was not the first to point out its meaning in this passage, he deserves the credit for emphasizing the bearing of this meaning on the. correct interpre
tation of the passage. In quoting Dean Gwynn’s comment in “The Speaker’s Commentary” he says: “Its tense (im perfect), contrasted with the following aorists, points to indefinite continuance of being.” Dr. Gifford appeals to class ical and New Testament Greek and has no difficulty in giving illustrations to prove that the imperfect expresses “a state in course of continuance not yet ended.” The early Christian Fathers in terpreted the participle in question in this sense, as is proved from their belief that the passage under consideration indi cated that Christ was at once both God and man. Bengel brings out the sense of virapxov, being, very well in the follow ing comment: “In that form of God the Son of God was e x i s t i n g from eternity; nor did He cease to exist therein when He came in the flesh, but rather, so far as it concerns His human nature, began to exist therein. And since He was in that form, which is His own excellence as Lord, it was free to Him, even according to His human nature, as soon as He as sumed it, to be on an equality with God,* to adopt such a manner of life and ap pearance as would correspond to His dig nity, so that He might be received and treated by all creatures as the Lord; but He did otherwise.” The bearing of the foregoing on the meaning of the passage may now be sum med up. The imperfect participle (vndpxav, being ) implies that the state described as “in the form of God” existed prior to the point of time at which our Lord took upon Him the form of a servant. It im plies, also, a continuance in that state when He became man. In other words, whatever meaning is to be attached to “form of. God," our Lord existed in that “form" prior to His incarnation and con tinued to exist in it after His incarna tion, that is, in His state of humiliation. The next step is to inquire what is the meaning of the term “form of God.” (2) “In the form of God [ e v [¿op(f>y Oeoi)].” This is a very important expression and merits our serious consideration. What, then, is the meaning of this significant word pop
Made with FlippingBook HTML5