523
November 1929
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
New Testament exegesis. He has brought forward convincing evidence to show that loa, though connected with elvai, is still . an adverb and not a noun. Two special examples from the Epistle of the Synod of Ancyra (358) are given, which need not be quoted here, fully justifying the assertion that elvai must be taken as the substantive verb in its usual sense, with tig as its subject and loa Bey as an ad verbial predicate. The conclusion reached, from the foregoing, is that laa points to the mode of existence rather than to equality of nature as elvai loog would do. In other words, rb elvai loa Bey denotes something which Christ already possessed as “being in the form of God.” “It is the condition of glory and majesty,” says Dr. Gifford, “which was the adequate mani festation of His divine nature, and which He resigned for a time by taking the form of a servant.” (2) “T h o u g h t it not r o b b e r y ” [dpiraypov IpyrjoaTo\ . The w o r d apvaypav translated “robbery.” in the Authorized Version next demands our attention. Has it an active or passive sense? In other words, is it to be translated “robbery,” as in the Authorized Version, or the ob ject of an action, “prize,” as in the Re vised Version. If in the former sense, the meaning would be: “Who, because he was subsisting in the essential form of God, did not regard it as any usurpation that he was on an equality of glory and majesty with God, but yet emptied him self of that coequal glory by taking the form of a servant.” If in the latter sense, then the meaning would be: “Who, though he was subsisting in the essential form of God, yet did not regard his being on an equality of glory and majesty with God as a prize and treasure to be held fast, but emptied himself thereof.” Neither of these paraphrases of the pas sage interfere with the true doctrine of the Person of Christ. Those who prefer the active sense maintain that if it were passive it would more probably be apiraypa. Dr. Gifford, however, adopts the other view, adding: “We believe the right meaning of the clause to be that the Son of God did not regard His being on equal conditions of glory and majesty with God as a prize and treasure to be held fast, but emptied Himself thereof, becoming thus the supreme example of that willing self-sacrifice for the good of others, which is the aim of the apostle’s exhorta tion.” ( To be concluded)
“the figure, shape, fashion of a thing,” suggesting “the idea of s o m e t h i n g changeable, fleeting, unsubstantial.” But pop Upon The Way What will it matter in a little while • That for a day We met and gave a word, a touch, a smile, Upon the way? What will it matter whether hearts were brave And lives were true, That you gave me the sympathy I crave, As I gave you? These trifles! Can it be they make or mar A human life ? Are souls as lightly waved as rushes are? By love or strife? Yea! Yea! A look the fainting heart may break, Or make it whole; And just one word, if said for His dear sake, May save a soul. — Unknown. of the Greek better than the Authorized Version translation. The 1611 translators have evidently followed the Latin Version (esse se aequalem Deo), a translation which passed at an early period into the writings of the Western Church. The Latins were handicapped in their transla tion of the phrase as they had no exact form to express the Greek to elvai loa Bey 1 It is to be carefully observed at the out set that the apostle uses the neuter plural loa and not loog, “Between the two ex pressions loog elvai a n d loa elvai,” says Bishop Lightfoot, “no other distinction can be drawn, except that the former re fers rather to the person, the latter to the attributes.” Dr. Gifford would be willing to accept this as a well-drawn distinc tion, were it not for the use of the word “attributes,” which he holds are “neither really nor formally distinct from the di vine essence.” He recognizes, however, that the term “attributes” is used in a relative sense, for instance, the various manifestations of divine power and glory to angels and men; and that Bishop Lightfoot was really thinking of attri butes in this sense is evident from his notes on verse 7: “‘He divested himself not of his divine nature, for this was im possible, but ‘of the glories, the preroga tives of deity’; ‘emptied, stripped him self’ of the insignia of majesty.” The force of the neuter plural, loa, has not been carefully observed, qnd its -true meaning in this place is one of the signal services Dr, Gifford has rendered to exact Have You Seen the Bible through a Telescope ? See Advertisement on Inside Front Cover.
Made with FlippingBook HTML5