24.12.2012 Views

Philippians and Philemon - MR Vincent - 1906.pdf

Philippians and Philemon - MR Vincent - 1906.pdf

Philippians and Philemon - MR Vincent - 1906.pdf

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

88 PHILIPPIANS [ll. 6-11<br />

together. In both the preincarnate Son's conditions of being are<br />

set forth. To these Heb. adds a statement of the preincarnate<br />

activity of the Son. is " bearing onward," not simply<br />

"upholding" or "sustaining"; for, as Westcott remarks, "the<br />

Son is not an Atlas sustaining the dead weight of the world."<br />

(See Comm. on Heb. ad loc. <strong>and</strong> the striking parallels cited.)<br />

The Son was persistently carrying on from eternal ages the universe<br />

of God towards its consummation. Incarnation <strong>and</strong> atonement<br />

were not a break in the history of humanity, nor in the<br />

eternal activity of God in Christ. They were in the hne of the<br />

eternal purpose of God. The Lamb was " slain from the foundation<br />

of the world." In pursuance of this purpose the Divine Son<br />

assumed our humanity, purged our sins, <strong>and</strong> then " sat down on<br />

the right h<strong>and</strong> of the majesty on high."<br />

In Phil, the parallel to this is found in the statement <strong>and</strong> detail<br />

of Christ's humiliation. In his human nature, in the form of a<br />

servant, in the likeness of men, in humbling himself <strong>and</strong> enduring<br />

the death of the cross, he is still bearing on all things, restoring<br />

humanity to the divine archetype by making purification of sins<br />

<strong>and</strong> inaugurating the High-Priestly function developed in Heb.<br />

In Phil, the mediatorial aspect is not treated, but both passages<br />

depict the exaltation which followed the humiliation.<br />

Whether is active or passive is treated in the note.<br />

If taken actively, — "an act of robbery," "a seizing," — it expresses<br />

Christ's assertion of equality with God ; that is to say, he<br />

did not think being equal with God an act of robbery, but claimed<br />

it as his right in his incarnate state. The awkwardness of regard-<br />

ing a state of being as an act of robbery needs no comment. If<br />

taken passively,— "a prize, a thing to be snatched or clutched,"<br />

— it expresses the surrender of the preincarnate state of majesty.<br />

He did not think equality with God a prize to be eagerly grasped<br />

(<strong>and</strong> held fast), but surrendered it, though it was his right.<br />

Lightfoot's citations from the Greek Fathers show that they<br />

conceived the passage as carrying the idea of a surrender of<br />

preincarnate glory, <strong>and</strong> a condescension from a higher estate.<br />

(Note on "Different Interpretations of ,"<br />

Comm. p. 133.)<br />

I am not convinced that Lightfoot's interpretation is wrong by the<br />

strictures of Mr. Beet in his Commentary, ad loc, <strong>and</strong> in the Expositor,<br />

3d ser. vol. 5, p. 115, especially when I find him adopting Meyer's explanation.<br />

See below.<br />

It may be observed that Lightfoot does not bring out the full<br />

force of his first quotation, from the Letter of the Galilean church<br />

(Euseb. H. E. v. 2), which lies in the exhibition of the martyrs'<br />

humility as shown in their refusal to accept the title of " wit-<br />

nesses," which they had earned by their sufferings. Thus, in

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!