581
December 1929
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
The True Kenosis of Our Lord Jesus Christ An Exegetical Study of Phil. 2:5-8
(Concluded) B y T he R ev . D. B eaton (Wick, Scotland') Bishop Pearson’s c o mm e n t is also w o r t h y of q u o t a t i o n : “He made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. Where we have two copulative conjunctions, neither of which is in the original text, and three distinct propositions, without any de pendence of one upon the other; whereas all the words together are but an expres sion of Christ’s exinanition, with an ex plication showing in what it consisteth: which will clearly appear by this literal translation, ‘But emptied himself taking the form o f a servant, being made in the likeness of men.’ Where if any man doubt how Christ emptied Himself, the text will satisfy him, By taking the form of a servant; if any still question how He took the form of a servant, he hath the apostle’s resolution, By being made in the likeness of men. Indeed, after the expression of this exinanition, he goes on with a conjunction, to add another act of Christ’s humiliation: ‘And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled him self" (On the Creed, p. 122). Mopipy has the same significance here as in the preceding verse. “The full and proper meaning of uou assumed and no more; but Wisdom, to the end she might save many, built her house of that nature which is common to all; she made not this or that man her habitation, but d w e l t in us” (Eccles. Polity, v. cap. 52, sec. 3). “B eing F ound in F ashion as a M an ” The former verse, as Bishop Lightfoot points out, dwells on the contrast between what He was from the beginning and what He afterwards became. In the pres ent verse the contrast is between what He is in Himself and what He appeared in the eyes of men. The word axvpa denotes “the entire outwardly perceptible mode and shape of His existence.” Meyer gives an excellent definition of the word and brings out the meaning of the clause very clearly in his comment on the passage in his commentary on the Epistle, though he is not to be followed in other things which he says on Phil. 2:5-8. "^xvpa, habitus, which receives its more precise reference from the context,” he says, “de notes here the entire outwardly percep tible mode and form, the whole shape of the phenomenon apparent to the senses (1 Cor. 7:31)............Men saw in Christ a human form, bearing, language, action, mode of life, wants and their satisfaction, etc., in general the state and relations of a human being, so that in the entire mode of His appearance He made Himself known and was recognized [sipeBeig] as a man.” The clause under discussion gives no countenance to the Docetic view of Christ’s humanity. “In the whole mode and fashion of His life,” says Dr. Gif ford, “in every sensible proof whereby a man is recognized and known as man, Christ was so recognized and known and found as man” (The Incarnation, p. 45). The clause prepares the way for the next step in the Redeemer’s humiliation. He had not yet. reached the lowest step, for though it was a great step in His humilia tion to become man, yet He was to de scend lower still—He was to be treated as the meanest of men and finally to die the death of a criminal, an outcast, dying on the accursed tree without the gates of Jerusalem. “H e H umbled H imself ” These words mark the next step in the humiliation that began when He emptied Himself of the majesty and glory in their manifestation. 'E avrbv here, as in the pre- “B ut E mptied H imself ” It is from the verb in this clause, as has already been seen, that the new theory of the Incarnation has derived its name. The clause, we hope to show, gives no coun tenance to this view, though it certainly speaks of a kenosis, or “emptying,” such a kenosis as is consistent with the doc trine of the supreme deity of the Son of God in His incarnate state. The prom inent position of iavrov before the verb e/dvuoev (emptied ) has been generally in terpreted by exegetes as setting forth the voluntariness of the act. The verb icevio, to empty, is sometimes followed by a genitive denoting the contents. Where, as in this clause, there is no genitive ex pressed, the idea of the contents must be gathered from the context. The antithesis of rb eivai loa Off.) a n d iavrov eieivaaev, together with the direct contradiction o t m a k e s it quite plain that what He emptied Himself of was being on an equality with God, that condition of glory and majesty which was the adequate manifestation of His divine nature, which He possessed prior to His incarnation and then for a time resigned. “T aking the F orm of a S ervant ” The state of “being on an equality with God” was laid aside in our Lord “taking the form o f a servant." Bishop Light- foot says: “For ,avBpuwog. the stronger word Soiling is substituted: He who is Master of all became the slave of all.” We must, however, carefully guard against the thought of associating our Lord’s state as a Sovlog with such a state as slavery among men. Bishop Bull, in his “Primitive Tradition” (vi. 21) has some remarks on this passage worthy of quota tion : “Christ took the form of a ser vant at the time when He was made man. T h i s is c l e a r f r o m those words of the apostle, iavrov eicivaoev, popfrjv Soh/.ov laSSnp iv ouououarc avOf)G)~uv yevopevog , in which there is a continuous ifbyvaig, whereby the latter clause is subjoined to the former immediately, without the in terposition of any copulative conjunction. If you ask how Christ emptied Himself, the apostle answers, By taking the form of a servant. If you ask again how Christ took the form of a servant, the answer follows immediately, Being made in the likeness of men; that is> being made man, like unto us men, sin only excepted.”
Made with FlippingBook HTML5