adduced by Meyer, viz, Kraussold in den Annalen der ges. Theologio. 1835, ii., p. 273,
8eq. Stein in den Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 165, seq. Philippi der thiitige Gehoream Christi.
Berl. 1841. As belonging to an earlier period may be named, II. Morus opp. theol.. p.
67, seq. Kesler observ. in ep. P. ad Phil. u. Thesauro novo, ex Mua. Hasaei et Ikenii
PHILIPPIANS II. 5. 393
The apostle has particularized humility and self-denying love as the
condition of true unity. He is now briefly to illustrate what he has
said on these by an example, the example of Jesus Christ. In him
they are to learn of what mind they must be, in order to attain to
the TO avrb Qpovelv, for he is the highest example of self-denial,
without which there is no humility and no love. It is not however
one of these only, but both, that are set before them in the example
of Christ, in their union and all pervading influence. From his ex-
ample, too, they are at the same time to learn how this state of
mind alone (the opposite of their strife and vain glory) confers
worth in the eye of God how the way to exaltation and glory 18
that of self-humiliation in lowly sacrificing love. Comp. Matth.
xviii. 1, seq.
Ver. 5. TOVTO jap typovEiadb) iv vfuv 6 KOI iv X. 'I. Tap is not
found in the manuscripts of best authority, A. B.C. in 17. 37, in sev-
eral versions, nor in the Fathers, and has therefore been cancelled
by Lachmann and Tischendorf. Still, Meyer may be right in retain-
ing it. (See his crit. obs.) It is then explicative. There is also
some doubt as to the reading (ppoveiaOu, for which most manuscripts
have (/>povetTe (A.B.C.*D.E.F.Gr. and others). The internal evidence
is in favour of (frpovdodu, as o KOL iv X. 'I. is not suitable to <f>povelre.
'Ev vplv can, on account of the following iv X. 'I. signify only " in
you," not " among you." Kai, before iv X. 'I., is not, as Van Hengel ex-
plains, " cum maxime,"but indicates the identity of disposition that is
to be between the Philippians and Christ. At iv X. 'I., typovrjQr] is to
be supplied. We must here look more particularly at the subject of
the verses that follow (6-8), and the object of ver. 9, seq. 'Ev X. 'I.,
says the apostle, og, etc. It cannot be denied in opposition to De
Wette that " the historical Christ" is the subject, and it is also true
that vers. 8-11 plainly speak of the Christ who was on the earth,
and was exalted to heaven. But we should proceed too hastily were
we to build upon this the assumption, that these verses can only
represent an action of the " historical Christ," or more exactly of the
Aoyof KvaapKog } and must be interpreted in accordance with this
assumption. Here it will suffice to refer to such passages as Col.
i. 13, where neither vlb$ rfjg dyaTrrjg avrov } according to the true in-
terpretation of vl6$, nor koyog doapicog is the subject, and yet it is
said, ver. 15, o? ioriv elK&v rov deov rov dopdrov, 7rpTOTO/cof rrdorjc; KTI-
aeus ; on iv avrcj itcriadrj rd -rrdvra ; and then again, ver. 18, icdi avroc;
eariv rj Ke^akfj rov awjuarof. Similarly, Heb. i. 1, seq. ; 2 Cor. viii. 9.
We see there that things are said concerning the " historical Christ"
torn, ii., p. 947, seq. Schultens, sylloge. diss. Philol. Exeg. torn, i., p. 443, seq. Mar-
tini in Gabler's Journal fur auserl. theol. Lit. iv., p. 34, seq. Von Ammon, Magazin
fur Christliche prediger ii. 1, p. 7, seq. Tittmann op. theol., p. 642, seq. : principally,
however, the commentation by Keil first adduced.
394 PHILIPPIANS II. 6.
without any change of the subject which relate partly to his pre-
human, partly to his human state, and that which was consequent
upon it. So that the specifying of the subject does not determine
beforehand the sense of what follows, but leaves us at liberty to
find, in what follows, elements belonging not merely to the human
but also to the pre-human state of the person here designated by the
words Xpt<7Tof 'Iijoovg. Coinp. also Meyer, p. 46. '' The name
Xptff-of 'If/ffouf is all the more proper, as the person designated was
to be represented not merely with reference to his pre-human glory,
but at the same time also with reference to his human abasement
and consequent exaltation." But these observations are not in-
tended to anticipate the interpretation of the passage which alone
must decide the matter.
Ver. 6. "Of KV popffi Oeov vTrdpxuv, etc. On the signification of
the word juop^// we find the more recent commentators pretty much
at one ; on the application of its meaning, however, there is great
diversity of opinion. How could there be any reasonable doubt as
to the signification of the word ? Its derivation (from /ua'pTrrw) its
identity with the Latin forma (by transposition of the letters, Pas-
sow's Lex.), its use in profane literature (corup. on this Van Hengel,
p. 141, seq.), as in all the passages of the New Testament in which
/*op0;/ itself, or any word derived from it occurs, shew, that pop^rj is
equivalent to neither ovaia or Qvaic, nor to status or conditio, but to
form, figure,^ outline; in general it denotes the external appearance
and representation, consequently, just the very opposite of ovaia, in
so far as this denotes what lies beneath the form, and comes to be
represented in it. The signification ovaia is besides rejected by the
context ; as, at ver. 7 with reference to the /^op0/) OEOV it is said ia-
evuaev eavroVj which certainly cannot be the case in respect of his
Divine nature. We can have little difficulty, at the same time, in
determining the more exact sense of f^op^fj Oeov. At Col. i. 15, Christ
(as the Son of God's love) is called the ekwv rov OEOV rov dopdrov at
2 Cor. iv. 4, elicuv rov Oeov ; at Heb. i. 3, the vibe, d-rravyaana rift dofyg
nal xapanrtiQ r/yf vnoardoe^ avrov. What in our passage is denoted by
fjiop^rj rov Oeov } is there denoted by eiKuv rov OEOV, only that the latter
expression places the person spoken of in a more strictly defined rela-
tion to 6 Oeog as his image ; whilst that in our passage is not intended
primarily to indicate anything regarding his relation to 6 Oe6$, but to
describe the glory of that state of existence out of which he passed to
enter into that of the poptyfj dovkov. We need only keep in view the
contrast in the words [topQrjv dovkov "kaftuv in order to understand
why the apostle does not here designate Christ et'/cwv rov Oeov for,
could he say, 05- duuv rov Oeov &v . . zavrbv iKEwaev dnova 6ov-
Aov Aa/k5v ? The latter idea, already unsuitable in itself, would be
* With Hesychiua eldoc ; with Suidaa
PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 395
perfectly unintelligible in reference to dnuv TOV Oeov. The most of
commentators are thus far agreed, that pop^rf properly signifies
"form/' "figure," and that consequently it implies a form of exist-
ence on the part of the subject named ; and that the expression
ekwv TOV Oeov contains a similar idea. So Keil, Matthies, Van Hen-
gel, De Wette, Meyer. But their views take different directions
regarding the question when this being in the form of God took
place. Van Hengel, up till this point, at one with us, answers,
Christus in hac terra, quanquam poterat, gloriosus esse noluit.
Similarly De Wette " Christ, when he entered on his Messianic
career had the Divine glory (potentially) in himself, and might have
made manifestation of it in his life." Others, on the contrary, as
for example Meyer, think that Christ's pre-human state of existence
is here represented. Quite as various are also of necessity the views
held on the question, what is specially signified by the ^op^>r\ Osov ?
Those who regard the Aoyof daapnog as the subject, have a sufficient
explanation in the elit&v TOV Oeov and similar passages ; those, oh the
other hand, who regard the incarnate Christ as the subject, can ex-
plain it only by the 66ga, of which John speaks, ch. i. 11, ii. 14, or
by the passage in John xiv. 9, he who seeth me seeth the Father,
and others to the same effect ; and they will associate with this the
proofs of his divinity in his words and works, especially his miracles,
or his beatitas and gloria divina. For in what else but this could
his |uop0?7 Oeov consist during his life upon earth ? The course pur-
sued by De Wette most evidently shews that there is no escape
from this signification of ^op^rj if it is referred to the Aoyo^ evoapicoc;.
After having rightly explained pop^rf as equivalent to ekwv, and
maintained (in opposition to the interpretation that would refer the
expression to all manifestations of Divine majesty in the life of
Christ), that kv pop^y Oeov, etc., must precede his historical career,
on account of ver. 7, he can yet understand nothing else by the pop^i)
Oeov than the grace and truth (John i. 14), and all moral qualities
of God, the power of working miracles, the beatitas which belonged
to Christ. And does it better the case when he tells us that this
juop0?7 has not preceded the earthly, but the historical career of our
Lord ? Or rather does not this explanation give up the result ar-
rived at, with reference to the signification of the word pofxfyr], and
lose sight of the affinity betwixt the expressions pop^rf and ekwv ?
Compare those passages in which Christ is called ekwv TOV Oeov, and
see whether a similar signification can be applied to them, or rather
whether the expression is not in every instance used either of his
state of existence before he was upon the earth (as 2 Cor. iv. 4), or
after he left it.* And is " the kindred idea" contained in fjtofxffi TOV
* Even at 1 Cor. xi. 7, where it is said of the man in distinction from the woman, that
he is eiKuv KOI <56fa OEOV, the reference to the outward appearance is clear
396 PHILIPPIANS II. 6.
Qeov (form of God), to be explained by a reference to " grace and
truth," by a reference to " revelations of Divine majesty" in words
and works, or to the beatitas ? We have already seen in what di-
rection the signification of the word fiopQrj, as also the analogy of the
expression dituv would lead us. Only the unwarrantable assump-
tion that, because of the designation of the subject Xpiarbg 'iT/ffoi^it
must be the " historical Christ" that is spoken of in ver. 6, and the
false comparison with the expression 66%a in John i. 14, ii. 11 (dif-
ferently, yet connected with these, John xvii. 5), can have led the
commentators to forget their own signification of the word Aop0r/, in
its application to pop^r) 8eov t and to give up its connexion with ekwv.
We have further to shew that the explanation we have given is jus-
tified by what follows. I have only to observe here that virdpx^v is
to be construed as an imperfect, and the participle to be resolved by
" although." What Meyer says against this, seems to me unfound-
ed, as it was, so to speak, natural to suppose that he who was in the
Divine form should be equal with God. Comp. Matth. xxi. 46 ; 1
Cor. ix. 21, etc. Winer, 45, 1, p. 301.
Who, although he was in the form of God, av% dpnay^bv ^yrioaro
TO elvat taa 0e<p. Let us inquire first what is meant by too. 0eo> elvai,
and then what we are to understand by dp-nay^ov. To the former
of these questions the later interpreters give a unanimous reply,
which we take as so much gained. It signifies ffiqualiter Deo esse,
so that laa as an adverb joined with dv<u } specifies the condition of
the person spoken of. (Comp. Van Hengel, p. 144 ; Winer, 27,
3, p. 160, and others.) The expression is certainly not quite synony-
mous with iv poptffi 0eoii ' f r then, as Van Hengel and De Wette
have already remarked, simply rovro would have been used, and
Meyer, too, although he thinks that both expressions have the same
real signification, finds this difference betwixt them, that the first
marks the state of Christ in its form of manifestation, the second in
his nature. And certainly when we look at the connexion with what
follows (viz., oAA' iavrbv IKCVWOK, which is the opposite of ovx dfmay-
fibv ffyrjaaro rb elvcu laa TU> 0eo>, whilst, at the same time, that of
which he emptied himself can only be the ^0^77, as the subsequent
clause /uop</>7/v SovXov 3,a/3&h> proves), it is evident that the v (i.op<f>q
6eov virdpxMv and the loa 6e& dvai cannot be separated from one an-
other. Brtickner and Ltinemann (comp. the Introd. 4), have found
in the latter expression something entirely different from the former.
Ltinemann understands the sense of the passage thus : Christ, al-
though he was in the form of God, did not wish to grasp at a icvpio-
T7/f, such as belongs to God, and which he could only have seized
by not willing to subordinate himself to the Father. Similarly,
Brtickner. But apart from the sentiment itself, which must be ex-
plained and defined by its opposite (for, taken by itself, it expresses
PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 397
what is superfluous, nay, inconceivable) how is this view to agree
with the a/lA' kavrbv KKSVUOS, of which they themselves say that it
must refer to the pop^r) 6eov } because no one can empty himself of
that which does not belong to him (the KvpioTijg) ? If the two ex-
pressions are so entirely different, as they feel under the necessity of
maintaining, in opposition to Baur, how can the sentiment he
would not appropriate to himself the KvpioTys, suit that which stands
opposed to it, and which refers to the entirely different pop^rf. To
interpose an ultro were quite arbitrary. We shall therefore be able
to make no other difference than that between the " form of God/'
and the " Divine condition," forma Dei and conditio Divina ; neither
of which, however, can be conceived of separately from the other.
We shall also again find in vers. 7 and 8 the antitheses to both, in the
expressions " form of a man" and " human condition," and the laa
TGJ 0e<5 dvai becomes intelligible, from having as its antithesis not
merely the KKKVUOS, but also what follows (era-rreiv^oev). The sense
of the words then is quum in forma Dei esset non arripiendum
fiibit dixit conditione divina uti. We have still further to enquire
what is meant by ov% dpnay^bv ^yrjaaro. This must be ascertained
from the signification of the word dpnayfia by itself, and also from
its opposition to what follows, viz., d/U' iavrbv enswoev, etc. With
regard to the former point, we are glad to be able to regard it as an
established result, that dprray^ does not properly signify prceda or
res rapta, but raptus, i. e., actio rapiendi. (Comp. the excellent
investigation into this word by Van Hengel, p. 145.) This appears
both from the nature of the termination in po$ (not ja), and from
the single passage in profane literature, where the word occurs be-
sides. (Plut. de puerorum educatione, p. 120.) Another question,
however, is, whether, as Van Hengel supposes, dpnay^ may not by
metonomy signify the res quae actionis causa est, according to which
the term would then of course take the signification, not of res
rapta, but of res arripienda, and the sense would be, as Van Hen-
gel has already expressed it, rem non duxit, quam suam faceret,
cum sua non esset. In this view he is supported by Mtiller, De
Wette, Ltlnemann, Bruckner, the last of whom adduces several ex-
amples, a. a. Q., p. 19, in which substantives ending in \M (for ex-
ample diVyjua) take the usual signification of those ending in po<;,
and, vice versa, substantives in \io<; (for example XP 1 ! ^} specify
not the action, but the object of it. The expression under consid-
eration, will thus coincide with the more common dp-ray^a riyeiadai
or -noielodai (Hel. JSthiop. vii. 11, 20 ; viii. 7), and the Latin prce-
dam ducere, if only we do not associate with this the idea of some-
thing already taken as prey, which, as Bruckner has observed, ubi
supra, it is not necessary we should. Meyer, however, has not as-
sented to the supposition of a metonomy here, but explains thus :
398 PHILIPPIANS II. 6.
he held the being equal with God as no robbery, that is, he did
not consider the equality with God which he had, to be such a rela-
tion as is implied in the seizing of a prey, or to consist in the seizure
of a possession that belonged to others. And when we ask what is
to be understood by this possession belonging to others, Meyer re-
plies he would have emptied others by the dpTrayn6$. Who, then,
are these others ? and what possession have they of which Christ,
by his being equal with God, would not rob them, and whilst it did
not belong to him, make it his own property ? Would he, had he not
become man, have taken anything from men that was their posses-
sion, or have emptied them ? And does this interpretation of ov%
dpTraypov ffyrjaaro correspond exactly, as Meyer maintains, to the
looking, not every man on his own things, but also on the tUnys
of others ? Are these two things not totally different not to take
his possession from another, and not to look upon one's own, but
also on the things of others ? The idea in itself is already strange,
and quite as strange is it that the apostle should urge the Philip-
pians to self-denying love, by telling them that Christ did not con-
sider his being equal with God as the seizure of a possession belong-
ing to another. Neither also does it suit the antithesis in ver. 7, as
we shall afterwards see. This attempt of Meyer's then to adhere
to the original signification of actio in aprayjudf, as we must agree
with him in everything else, can only confirm us in our interpreta-
tion of the ot% dp-rrayfibv ff}'i](jaro he did not consider the Icing
equal with God to be a thing that he must seize for himself. With
this, all those renderings of the words fall to the ground, which
make dp-nay uoq to signify res rapta, for example Christ did not re-
gard the being equal with God as a thing usurped ; or, he willed
not obstinately to retain it as a robber his prey ; or, he willed not
to bear it in triumphal show, as a victor his spoils, etc. (Compare
Meyer, p. 51.)
We have still to consider the antithetical expression aAA,' kavrov
KKevuae. There can be no doubt as to the primary meaning of these
words. Kevovv is " to empty, strip, rob," so De Wette, expoliare ;
and that of which he divested himself can, from the context, only
be the ^op^rj mentioned before (as the subsequent clause pop^v
SovXov kaffuv also shews), not at least formally the loa elvat, this
being represented as the thing that was not to be forcibly taken by
him. If, however, aAA 1 is antithetical to ov^; r/y?/aaro, it will appear,
as has already been observed, how little substantial difference there is
between loa elvai and KV nopcfry imdpxeiv. The antithesis then to \vhut
goes before is, but he emptied, or as we might even translate it, he
spoiled himself. How then, according to this, must we render the
words, av% dprrayfibv riyrjaaro ? Will it suffice to render them thus :
Christ did not consider the being equal with God as a usurpation ?
PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 399
or; he would not make a demonstration of it of it as a spoil ? Or,
will Briickner and Llinemann's explanation suffice : he did not
strive after the honour of the Kvpior^ ? Must they not insert an
ultro in order to suit the antithesis ? (Comp. supra.) And is the
case otherwise with Meyer's interpretation when he explains thus :
instead of the dp-nay^ by which he would have emptied others, he
has emptied (or rohbed) himself of the i-iop^rj whilst he had before
shewn that the object which it was possible for Christ to have seized
was a possession belonging to others. Thus is introduced an oppo-
sition betwixt others and his own person, which is not to be found
in the context. Bather, we shall have to say that, if the <U/l' iav-
rbv ticevuoe is to be regarded as purely antithetical, the only idea
that can correspond to it will be, he has wished to seize nothing; and
if it be acknowledged, that it is the juop0?y of which he divests him-
self, then must there be something similar to this in that which cor-
responds to it viz., that which he wishes not to seize possession of.
Our interpretation fully agrees with this purely antithetical relation.
He would not rob (seize possession of), corresponds to the positive,
he robbed himself ; and to the popart of which he robs himself, cor-
responds our interpretation of too, elvai, which is really included in
the |uop0?7, and which is rendered all the more intelligible by leaving
its antithetical counterpart not merely in the eavrbv tKevuae, but
also in what follows, Kraneivuaev } etc.
So far as I can see, the only objections that could be brought
against the interpretation of ver. 6 here given, are the two follow-
ing ; first, how, in general, is the idea implied in dprraynog admissi-
ble here, which Van Hengel has rightly determined, as actio, qua
quis aperte quod suum non est suum facit, and, as connected with
this, secondly, how can it be said of that which Christ already had
(in so far as laa TGJ 6e& is included in the juop07/), that he wished not
to seize possession of it. Both of these objections appear to me to be
removed by one consideration. If we look particularly at the anti-
thesis expressed in <zAA' iavrbv tieevuaev, which represents his be-
coming man, it will appear that the av% dpiraynbv riyrfoaro merely
denies the corresponding negative, the not becoming man, which,
expressed in a positive form, was for him taa TO> 0e<5 elvai. He, how-
ever, in his self-denying love, willed not the one (fir) ra kavr&v OKO-
rrovvreg, ver. 4), but he willed the other, zavrbv KKivuce iTaneivuosv
kavrbv yevopevog vniJKoog, etc. It is natural then that the apostle
who conceives of Christ as in the act of decision should say ov%
dp-rraynbv ^yr/aaro, just as if the question at issue related to the
giving up of a possession. When I decide for anything, 1 by that
decision take possession of the thing anew, although it may not really
have been given up by me. And in the other case, when I decide
for the giving up of a possession, it may be said with equal pro-
400 PHILIPPIANS II. 7.
priety I did not think myself under the necessity of seizing it.
The expression dpnayno^ in itself, however, is explained partly by
the consideration that the being equal with God would have ap-
peared at least relatively, in connexion with what goes before, as a
looking to his own things, and partly, in that it would have been
opposed to the eternal decree of Gtfd's love, and to this extent a
taking possession of what in consequence of that decree did not be-
long to him. (Comp. pop^v dovXov, ver. 7, iTr^/coof, ver. 8.)
Ver. 7. 'AA.A' kavrbv licevuae, etc. The proper division of the
members of the sentence is that which regards //y^aro as rendered
more definite by vrrop^wv, ^KtVowye by Aa/36)v, and yevo/uevof, and ra-
neivwje by the two participles evpe6ei$ and yevofievo?. It is evident
how fully the several members of the sentence correspond to one
another, even in the particular attributive ideas. So Keil, Van
Hengel, and others. On the other hand, De Wette and Meyer
more recently, have joined ical o^T^um evpeQelg &$ dvOpw-rro^ with
inevuoE as its third attributive explanation, because it expresses
something similar to the two which precede it. There is certainly
room for difference of opinion on this point, but it appears to me
that eKKvuae is already sufficiently defined by the two participles
Aa/&}v and yevo/zevof. Then what De Wette says is true that
traTtEivuae refers to the manner of action and conduct of Christ as
man, foevwae, with its defining and explaining clauses, being pre-
supposed; but the propriety of this expression depends on what is
thus presupposed being previously stated in the nal ox^a-i evpedelg
<i>$- dvdpomos ; finally era-rreivuoe, which, according to De Wette and
Meyer's view, would stand without any connexion, has a harsh char-
acter, and all the more so on account of what it presupposes being
in the preceding clause.
On the sense of kavrav KKCVUGE, all that is necessary has already
been said in connexion with ver. 6. Could there, however, be still
any doubt as to the meaning of KKKVUOE in its opposition to ov%
fiyjjaaro, it would be removed by the explanatory clause
ijv dovhov Aa/3wv, which sets forth the manner of this KKKV^OK.
This additional clause tells us that he has emptied or robbed him-
self, in that he has taken upon him the form of a servant. The
form of God which he has, is laid aside, and the form of a servant
is assumed. How can this be explained by humilem ac tenuem se
gessit, or by a KaTaKpvTr-eiv ? What we are to understand, however,
by taking the form of a servant is more definitely explained by the
clause that follows, namely, was made in the likeness of men, an ex-