planation which is not co-ordinate with, but subordinate to the pre-
ceding clause. The form of a servant takes the place of the form
of God, inasmuch as he has entered on the condition of likeness to
men. This is the unmistakable sense of the words, as fixed both by
PHILIPPIANS II. 7. 401
the signification of the particular terms, and by the antithesis to ver.
6. But how now comports this obvious sense of the passage with the
interpretation which already at ver. 6 makes the subject to be Christ
in his incarnate state ? We have before observed, that already the
expression, being in the form of God, cannot be explained in accord-
ance with this view, without doing violence to the language, in that
it is said to express the same thing, as the 66%a of which John
speaks, ch. i. 14 (not however that of which he speaks, ch. xvii. 5,
which alone is agreeable to the signification of the word pop^rj).
But how, besides, does the antithesis at ver. 7 agree with this view?
'E/cevwae, as the aorist, expresses of course an act that must be referred
to the life of the incarnate Christ. But the doga of which John
speaks, ch. i. 14, as De Wette himself has remarked, irradiated the
whole course of his life. What then becomes of, he emptied him-
self, taking upon him the form of a servant ? What of, becoming
in the likeness of men ? Has he not then appeared from the begin-
ning in the likeness of men ? De Wette, who considers Christ in
his human state as the subject also at ver. 6, has justly acknowl-
edged this, and in reply to it remarked : that the being in the form
of God, on account of the antithesis, cannot be understood of the
appearance of the Divine majesty throughout the whole life of
Christ, but must have preceded, though not his life upon earth, yet
his historical career. And he himself refers to the period of Christ's
public appearance after his baptism, as the time when this emptying
himself, and taking upon him the form of a servant, etc., took place.
" Christ had," he adds byway of explanation, " when he entered on
his Messianic career, the Divine giory potentially in himself, and
might have devoted himself to the manifestation of this in his life ;
but as it did not enter into the object of his redemption work that
he should from the very beginning receive Divine honour, so," etc.
And is this what we are to understand by the words, he emptied
himself, taking upon him the form of a servant, being made in the
likeness of men ? Where is any emptying here ? Had he not this
Divine glory potentially in himself, afterwards as well as before ?
Where also is the antithesis between, being in the form of God, and
taking upon him the form of a servant, if all that is meant by the
first is " the grace and truth, John i. 14, and all the moral attri-
butes of God, Col. ii. 9," etc. ? And, in short, are we to regard the
taking upon him the form of a servant, and the being made in the
likeness of men, and also what De Wette connects with these, the
being found in fashion as a man, as having taken place at the
baptism of Christ, as the consequence of his not wishing to as
Bume to himself Divine honour, and as a more specific statement of
what is contained in the words, he emptied himself of this (of
which indeed potentially he did not empty himself) ? What then
VOL. V. 26
402 PHILIPPIANS II. 7.
are we to make of the preceding period of Christ's life, from his
birth onwards to his baptism ? Had he no form of a servant, no
likeness of men, during that period ?
It will thus be seen in what difficulties the interpretation is in-
volved, which already at ver. 6 makes the incarnate Christ to be the
subject, instead of understanding ver. 7 antithetically to ver. 6, of
the act of the incarnation itself. These difficulties do not belong to
the peculiar view of this or that interpreter, but to the general prin-
ciple itself, on which they all proceed. On this very account, how-
ever, there is reason to hope that gradually it will come to be
regarded as a fixed result of interpretation that this classical pas-
sage treats of Christ's becoming man, and not of what was done by
him as man. Olshausen, so far as can be gathered from his brief
hints on this passage, seems to be inclined to the latter view.
To come to particulars in ver. 7 ; poptptjv dovXov Aa/3wv, as de-
noting the manner of the lict-vuoe, tells us that this Kevwaig, in its
positive side, consisted in Christ's having taken upon him the out-
ward appearance of a servant. By dovAov, however, nothing more
ia meant than (as the further explanation in the following clause kv
duoiufj-art shews) that his appearance was that of a man. Why the
term dovXov has been used to express this, is explained by the anti-
thesis to poptyrj deov. The form of a servant takes the place of the
form of God, when he takes upon him the human form. Nothing
is here said of his relation to other men, it is only his relation to
God that is expressed. The idea of a mean, despised man is not
implied in the expression ; the word dovkov is used only to convey a
just idea of tho degree of the nevovv. It has been already observed
that tv 5/u. dvOp. yev. is an accessory explanation of the particple
that precedes. In this way does he take upon him the form of a
servant, namely, by entering into the condition of the likeness of
men. There is a reference in the words -to the loa TW OK&. As the
form of a servant takes the place of the form of God, so the con-
dition of the likeness of men, comes in place of that of equality with
God. On yev6fi,evos, comp. Winer, 52, a., p. 463. By KV <5/z. the
condition into which he enters is specified ; yevd/uer'Of, however, ia
not nasci ; fyioiw^o means, as usual, likeness. Comp. Rom. i. 23, v.
14, vi. 5, but especially the passage viii. 3, iv 6/j-oMfJtaTi oapnbc; d/zop-
riag. 'Av0poj7ru>v is here used by the apostle to express that Christ
shared in general with men in their likeness, that he entered with
them into their condition. On the expressions dftoi^a and ^ avdpij-
7705-, Docetic opinions have by some been founded. Comp. in the
Introd. against Baur. The reason of the expression is not to be
sought in a reference to the sinlessness of Christ ; for against such a
view, as Bauer has shewn, might be adduced the passage Rom. viii.
3, inasmuch as, being a man and being a sinner do not, in idea, co-
PHILIPPIANS II. 8. 403
incide ; therefore Christ is, without limitation, called dv6punogj Bom.
v. 15 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21 ; 1 Tim. ii. 5. The true reason is explained by
the context itself ; in so far as it is the different forms of appearance
and conditions, of one and the same person, that are here spoken of.
It is not the laying aside of the Divine nature, nor even the assump-
tion of the human, that is here spoken of, but that Christ's forma
and conditio was, first of a Divine kind and then of a human Both
the one and the other, are forms of appearance and condition in
him, who does not give up the identity of his Divine nature, whilst
he becomes a man, and is on that very account such a man as no other
is ; Sid TO pf) i/)tA6v dvOpuTrov elvai. Theophyl. quoted by Meyer on
Ver. 8. Kal oxr/pari, etc. On the connexion of this participial
sentence with Kra-ndvuoev , see the beginning of note on ver. 7. The
difference in sense, between this and the preceding verse has been
justly expressed by Van Hengel in the words duo enim, ut puto,
diversa hie tradit Paulus, et quamnam vivendi rationem (properly,
only a form of appearance) Christus inierit . . . . et quo modo
hanc vivendi rationem ad mortem usque persecutus sit. By tevwae,
with its explanatory clause, is denoted the form of existence opposed
to the pop^r) 6eov into which he passed ; by KTaneivuoe and its ex-
planatory clause ygvojuevof, etc., is described his conduct as man.
Both, however, are placed over against ver. 5, as the corresponding
positive side of what is there said. 'EranEivuae, then, far from being
the same as cuewae, denotes the humiliation which eKEvuae already
presupposes, and it is just this presupposition which in the words
teal a^ijiian evpeOeig wf dvOpunog immediately precedes the KTa-ndvuaev.
These words, however, are not to be considered as simply the sum of
what is said at ver. 7 ; rather, with the evpedeig a new idea is intro-
duced, namely, that what the senses of others perceived in him, tes-
tified to the reality of his human form of being. (Comp. 1 John i.
1, seq.) 2%7/jua is the habitus, according to Bengel, cultus, vestitus,
victus, gestus, sermones et actiones. Comp. Van Hengel, p. 151,
who quotes from Euripides the words ,op0f/$- oxrjpa dypiag and ravra
pop(j>7)g a^T/juara, which throw so much light on our passage. On o>Cj
see note on ^ou^a-a above. The dative o^ftcm implies " with re-
spect to." See Winer's Gr., 31, 3, p. 244.
Being found as a man in the presence of men, he humbled him-
self, in that he became obedieiafc unto death, even to the death of
the cross. 'EraTraVwaev t-cwrdv, as the act of his self-denying love.
The antithesis is vipou, 2 Cor. xi. 7 ; Matth. xviii. 4 ; xxiii. 12. In
what this erarreiv^oev consisted, we learn from the explanatory
clause -yevofievog vm')Koog pexpi Oavdrov, etc. For, ^XP L ^avdrov is
with reason to be connected with yevopevog virrJKoog. Tevo^evoq vrn/-
icoog by itself would not be sufficiently specific, whilst, by connecting
404 PHILIPPIANS II. 9-11.
the fj^xP 1 Oa-vdrov with iTcnreivuoev, we disturb the orderly arrange-
ment of the several members of the sentence. His self-humiliation
then consisted in this, that he became obedient unto death ; not
merely in a humble disposition of heart. He did not, however, be-
come obedient to the law, Gal. iv. 4, as Olshausen also assumes.
Obedience to the law neither laid him under obligation to die, nor
did that obedience bring death to him ; rather, he was above the
law. The obedience, the highest proof of which was his death, was
obedience to God ; to which already the expression dovkov in the
preceding verse points, as also what follows, &6 KOI 6 6e6$ } etc. In
this obedience did he submit to be baptized ; by it he overcame
temptation ; by it was he guided in all the intimations of his pub-
lic life ; in it he sustained the agony of the garden, and he was obe-
dient even unto death. Coinp. Heb. v. 8 (tyaOev a0' av t/raflev VTTO-
KO//V) ; Rom. v. 19. Me^pt denotes not the duration, but the degree
of his obedience, as Heb. xii. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. 9, etc. On the increas-
ing force of cJe, see Winer's Gr., 57, 4, 6, p. 521, and Meyer on this
passage. On Oavdrov fie oravpov as a curse-expiating death, sec Deut.
xxi. 23 ; Gal. iii. 13 ; Heb. xii. 2.
Vers. 9-11. The exaltation of Christ as the result of his self-
denial. The Philippians are further to learn from the example of
Christ, how only that disposition of mind which his example sets
before them, vers. 6-8 (and not the selfish striving to assert their
own importance), will lead to joy and honour. Comp. Matth. xviii.
4 ; xxiii. 12. Ato K<M, etc. By dio (not quo facto) the exaltation
on which he enters, is described as a recompense for his humiliation
in obedience to God. The idea of recompense is already confirmed
by the expression virr/Koo^, comp. Heb. ii. 9. This exaltation is de-
noted by vTrepinl>uae } as the opposite of tTa-rretvwaev, ver. 8. The
apostle says V7repvi/>wae (though the antithesis to KTaneivwae is simply
VT/>OV), because he is exalted above every other. Comp. Eph. i. 21,
seq., and the subsequent words TO vrrt-p -ndv ovopa, which are illus-
trative of the vTTepvipuoe. Quam antea is not to be understood.
Neither is there in the vrrep any local reference, as for example to
the heavens, as is evident from what follows ; although in such pas-
sages as Eph. i. 20 ; Heb. xii. 2, etc., such a reference must be un-
derstood. Comp. also John xvii. 5 ; Heb. ii. 9. On the nui accom-
panying <5t6 } which is not, as Van Hengel takes it, to be connected
with 6 0e6f, comp. Meyer. It demotes the near connexion of the
cause with the consequence, as at Rom. i. 24, iv. 22, etc. The
forepn/jwae is more fully explained by the words that follow, nal t%apt-
aaro, etc. 'E^apicraTo, the same as at i. 29, corresponding to the re-
lation, according to which Christ prays, John xvii. 5, glorify me,
etc. It is here, however, to be remembered, that he has attained
to such glory, not merely in so far as he was already a person ere he
PHILIPPIANS IL 10. 405
became man, for in this case the exapiaaro would be unintelligible ;
but that he, as this Jesus, has been exalted to the fellowship of the
Divine glory, and therefore this name, the name Jesus, has been
made a name above every name.
The words that follow tell us what God hath given him, TO ovofia
TO, etc. This reading is, with Lachmann, according to A.B.C., to
be preferred to that which omits the article. Comp. besides, Wi-
ner's Gr., 19, 4, p. 160. With regard to the expression ovo^a,
there can be no longer any doubt (after Van Hengel's investigation
of it in connexion with this passage, compared with Harless on Eph.
i. 21), that in itself it signifies not dignity, honour, and the like, but
simply name. Comp. here especially Heb. i. 4. So also De Wette
and Meyer. What name is meant does not need to be learned from
Rom. i. 4 ; Acts ii. 36 (itvpiov avrbv /cat Xpiarbv sTToirjoe TOVTOV rbv
'Irjaovv). Ver. 10 tells us expressly that it is the name of Jesus, and
ver. 11 what we are to associate with this name, viz., that he is KV-
ptog. The high dignity to which he has attained, is henceforth to
be connected with his name ; the name Jesus has become the desig-
nation of him who was exalted from the deepest abasement to the
highest glory. God then hath given to him this name, not from
respect to what is stated at Matth. i. 21, but, in that he hath exalted
him. Comp. Heb. i. 4. On TO imep ndv ovo^a compare Eph. i. 21 ;
Heb. i. 4.
Ver. 10. His exaltation above all (VTTEO ndv ovo/m) has for its
object, that all should bow the knee before him. The words itrovpa-
viuv imyduv KaraxOoviuv are not to be directly connected with
Trdv yow, but are to be understood as an explanation of the totality
expressed by nav yow, which totality is thus described in its local
relations. To understand this universal expression as including
only man, explaining enovp. of the -rrav^yvpig -npuroTonuv, Heb. xii.
22, 23, Imy. of the living, and naraxft- of the dead, were at variance
with the universality of the expression TO virep -nav ovopa at verse 9,
especially as compared with Eph. i. 21. By the enovpaviot must be
meant primarily the angels, who are elsewhere described as inhabit-
ants of heaven ; the eniyeioi are (in contradistinction to the class
just mentioned), men ; whilst by those mentioned in the third term
we may presume that a new class are meant, viz., demons, in con-
nexion with which the passages 2 Pet. ii. 4 ; Jude 6, are to be re-
ferred to. In what manner those last mentioned are to be conceived
of as bowing the knee is explained in such passages as James ii. 19.
The most recent commentators, as also Olshausen, understand ini-
yetoi of the living, and Kara^dovtoi of the dead, somewhat as at Rom.
xiv. 9, where, however, the sentiment is different, in so far as it ia
not the universality of the homage paid to Jesus that is there spoken
of. The expression Kara^Ooviog occurs only here. On yow Kap.^ as
406 PHILIPPIANS II. 11-18.
a mark of Divine honour, comp. Rom. xiv. 11, xi. 4 ; Eph. iii. 14.
The passage at Rom. xiv. 11 informs us at the same time of what is
wont to be too little considered, namely, that what is here said of the
end contemplated in the exaltation of Christ, that every knee should
bow, etc., is not to be conceived of as immediately taking place, but
only as the final result of the Kvpionjs. Compare 1 Cor. bcv. 25, 26.
Those knees which till then were not willingly bowed to him, shall
then be forced to bow. In this passage, as well as in that from Ro-
mans, there is an evident reference to Is. xiv. 23. The word of the
Old Testament has obtained its more special meaning and applica-
tion in the New.
On tv TO dvo^an 'ITJOOV there are some excellent observations by
Van Hengel on this passage, also by Harless on Eph. v. 20. " In
itself," observes Harless, " the meaning of this form of expression is
everywhere the same ; it changes only according to the difference of
the idea contamed in the verb with which it is connected ; from it
must be inferred in what relation the name of Jesus occurs as con-
nected with any event or action." According, then, to the interpre-
tation given above, not only will the voluntary confession of his name
be the reason and occasion of bowing the knee, but every confession
of his name (ver. 11) whether made in fear or in love. Comp. Acts
iv. 12 ; 1 Cor. vi. 11 ; 1 Pet. iv. 14 ; Col. iii. 17, etc.
Ver. 11. And every tongue ; as universal as every knee. The
confession of the tongue that Jesus is Lord, corresponds to the bow-
ing of the knee. The tongue expresses that at which the knee bows
(iv dvopan J l7]<jov). 'E^ofioXoyeladai is stronger and more earnest than
duoXoyeladai. Their confession is Kvpiog 'I. X. Every one will notice
the emphasis implied in the placing of Kvpux; before 'I. X. Comp.
besides, at ver. 9. To the glory of God the Father, is not to be con-
sidered as the subject-matter of the confession, but to be connected
with shall confess, as expressing that such a confession redounds to
the glory of the Father, who has exalted the Son to this KvpioTitf. In
opposition to Van Hengel and De Wette, who think that the Son ia
not here represented as an object of worship, but only that in his
name, as Mediator, every prayer is to be addressed to God, Corn.
Miiller and Meyer have justly observed that the context, in gen-
eral, which treats of the honour done to Jesus, is against such a
view, and also that tirovpaviuv (of the angels) does not agree with
it. To this it may be added that Jesus is not here acknowledged
as Mediator, but as Lord, and that the true interpretation of this
passage, as also Rom. xiv. 11, and Is. xiv. 23, shew, that it is not a
willing acknowledgment of Jesus that is here spoken of, but a uni-
versal acknowledgment, which can only be the final result of the
nvpioTrjs of Jesus Christ.
Vers. 12-18. The apostle now engrafts on the example of Christ
PHILIPPIANS II. 12. 407
a comprehensive and pointed exhortation, having a retrospective ref-
erence to vers. 2-4.
Ver. 12. "2<7Te, as a definitive inference from the foregoing
(comp. Winer's Gr., 41, 5, p. 269, and the examples there adduced),
not, however, as De Wette thinks, from all the exhortations from i.
27, seq., nor even from ii. 2-4, but from what immediately precedes,
namely, the example of Christ. Here, again, however, it is not as an
inference from the obedience of Christ, as Meyer supposes, for then
this obedience, vers. 8 and 12, would no longer be a merely subor-
dinate idea, but rather as an inference from the principal idea in
what goes before, namely, that Christ has attained to his glory only
by the way of self-denial. Therefore ought they to lay aside that
proud, vain, and self-secure disposition (the epiOeia and tcevodo^ia
opposed to TaTTsivo^poavv-rj), and seek to work out their salvation
with fear and trembling, the opposite of that false security. Thus
explained, the retrospective reference to the exhortation at vers. 2-4,
as also the inference from what immediately precedes, appears to me
unmistakeable. But the apostle, before expressing this exhortation,
inserts the words, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence
only, but now much more in my absence. In order to open the way
for his exhortation, the apostle reminds the Philippians of their
conduct hitherto, their obedience toward him ; they are still to
continue true to the character they have hitherto sustained. In the
subsequent member of the sentence, however, beginning with p) a>$-
where OVTUS is left out, the apostle, at the same time, does away
with the mistaken notion (w?) that his exhortation is to apply only
to the case of his presence with them ; rather should they, during
his absence, do what he desires of them even in a much higher de-
gree. It will be seen that the two antitheses of -ndvrore and vvv,
and of rrapovaia and drrovaia are blended into one. By the napovaia
can only be meant a future presence in opposition to the foregoing
Travrore. The idea is similar to that at ver. 27 : dre iXduv . . .
elre dn^v. But why does he say much more in my absence ? Be-
cause, as I apprehend, in the absence of the apostle, the care of
their salvation would rest with themselves alone, comp. ver. 25.
According to the explanation here given, not 0ew but t-^ot is to be
supplied at v-nrjicovaaTe. The connexion of p) wf with v-nriKovoare no
longer requires refutation. Comp. Van Hengel, p. 168. '&$ is not
here a particle of comparison (to this the position of the povov after
iv ry -rrapovoia pov is not agreeable), but indicates a supposition which
the apostle seeks to remove ; comp. Eom. ix. 32 ; GUI. iii. 16 ; Eph.
vi. 5, etc. On juerd 06|3ou nal rp6fj,ov, comp. 1 Cor. ii. 3 ; 2 Cor. vii.
15 ; Eph. vi. 5. It is, as Meyer well explains, the fear of not doing
the thing sufficiently, therefore, an anxious conscientiousness pro-
ceeding from humility, the opposite of that arrogant security referred
408 PHILIPPIANS II. 13, 14.
to in vers. 3, 4. Work out your own salvation. This is to be their
aim the salvation of their souls. Thus will that vain striving after
a false greatness disappear of itself, when salvation becomes their
only aim. On f-avrtiv, for the pronoun of the second person, comp.
Winer's Gr., 22, 5, p. 136. It is wrong to take eav-v for aAA^-
Awv, comp. Van Hengel, p. 171. Karepyd^eadai is more than pyd-
QoOai, viz., to complete, perficere.
Ver. 13. If we have rightly understood ver. 12, then is ver. 13,
in its relation to ver. 12, not to be viewed as an encouragement or
consolation ; but the exhortation addressed to the Philippians to
work out their salvation with fear and trembling, is further enforced
by the consideration here presented to them, that it is not they, but
God, who gives them to will and to do, whereby all self-glorying is
removed, all ground for seeking to display their own importance is
taken away. For ver. 13, regarded as an encouragement or consola-
tion, would imply that those to whom it was addressed were inclined
to despond. Such, however, does not appear to have been the case
with the Philippians ; rather did their strivings after self- import-
ance betray their conviction that there was no danger of their salva-
tion that their safety was a thing evident of itself. How little also
does this view, which supposes the persons here addressed to have
been anxious, desponding spirits, agree with the verse immediately
following, especially if the mur , wrings there mentioned are, ac-
cording to most commentators, to be understood as inurrnurings
against God. For it is God, etc. The opposite of this is, not
you. Comp. Luke xxii. 28 ; John vi. 63, etc. The apostle says
that God works both to will and to do. By the tVepyeZv which God
works, is, of course, not meant the same as Karepyd&odai, which the
Philippians are desired to do, ver. 12 ; but evepyelv is the power of
action given along with the 0eAv, and without which the latter
cannot be carried into effect. It is evident, however, from ver. 12,
that this tvepyelv and dtteiv which God works, is not all that is ne-
cessary in order to the completion of the work there spoken of. Ols-
hausen justly observes that this passage on the one side is most
conclusive against Pelagianism, whilst on the other side, from its
connexion with ver. 12, it plainly shews how far removed the apos-
tle is from the doctrine of compelling grace. Man, it is true, has
positively power to do nothing ; he has power, however, to oppose
God. The additional clause, of his good pleasure, shews again how
little room there is for self-exaltation ; for it is God's own gracious
will alone on which his working in the heart depends. Evdoida as at
i. 15. Comp. also Harless on Eph. i. 5. 'Trap is "on account of"
= in virtue of. Comp. Winer's Gr., 47, 1, 342.
Ver. 14. Do all things without murmurings and disputings ;
all that you have to do without any restriction. Yet it is evident
PHILIPPIANS II. 15. 409
from the foregoing (work out your own salvation, ver. 12) what it
is that the apostle especially alludes to. Without murmurings,
comp. 1 Pet. iv. 9. Neither this passage nor that in Peter, requires