Filipenses 2:1-11

(2) Christ’s Example on the Way through Humiliation to Exaltation (Philippians 2:1-11)

After earnestly and eloquently entreating them to stand together in harmony (Philippians 2:1-4), he holds up to view the person of the Redeemer (Philippians 2:5-6), His state of Humiliation (Philippians 2:7-8), and His state of exaltation (Philippians 2:9-11)

1If there be therefore any consolation [exhortation] in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any1 bowels and mercies [compassion], 2fulfil ye [make full] my joy, that ye be like-minded [mind the same thing], having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind [with one soul minding the one thing]. 3Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other [others] better than [superior to] themselves. 4Look not every man2 on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5Let this mind3 be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; 6who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7but made himself of no reputation [emptied or divested himself], and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a [the4] name which Isaiah 10:0 above every name; that at [in] the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things [beings] in heaven, and things [beings] in earth, and things [beings] under the earth, 11and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Philippians 2:1. If there be therefore any exhortation in Christ (εἴ τις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ). Οὖν goes back to the preceding thought (Philippians 1:27-30). He now exhorts them to be united in the present conflict, in which they as well as himself are engaged, that the joy which he has felt on account of their harmony may receive no check. Εἰ presents what is actual as hypothetical for the sake of the conclusion, as in Ephesians 3:2; Ephesians 3:4; Ephesians 3:21; Colossians 1:23; Colossians 2:20; Colossians 3:1. We are to supply ἐστί, but not also ἐν ὑμῖν (Meyer). It is to be taken for granted that such exhortation (παράκλησις), which by ἐν Χριστῷ (Philippians 1:26) is defined as based upon Christ, as having its sphere or element in Him, is found richly in the Apostle; but he adopts this mode of expression in his humility. Comp. Romans 15:30. [The A. V. renders παράκλησις consolation, but that sense destroys the difference between this clause and the next. The meaning here is: If those who are in Christ may address to each other exhortations and entreaties with a right to expect that they will not be unavailing, then fulfil, etc. We may carry forward the idea of ἐν Χριστῷ to the other clause.—H.]—If any comfort of love (εἴτι παραμύθιον ). According to 1 Thessalonians 2:11 : ὡς πατὴρ τέκνα ἑαυτοῦ παρακαλοῦντες ὑμᾶς καὶ παραμυθούμενοι; and 1 Corinthians 15:3 :παράκλησιν καὶ παραμυθίαν, this ἅπαξ λεγόμενον must denote consolation of love, friendly address, or encouragement which springs from love, as described by the genitive. We are to refer the above without doubt to the Apostle. [The Apostle would say: If it be a characteristic of true love that it is ever ready to comfort or encourage those for whom it is cherished, then comply with my request and thus manifest your love to me.—H.]—If any fellowship of spirit [or the Spirit] (εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος). The article being omitted, we cannot compare this expression with 2 Corinthians 13:13 : κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, and explain it as fellowship with the Holy Spirit (Bengel, Meyer); but the κοινωνία, which was described in Philippians 1:5 with reference to its object or outward action, is described here in its inward sphere: fellowship of spirit among themselves, and with the Apostle, by virtue of which exhortation and entreaty readily find response and acceptance as addressed to each other. That this fellowship of spirit is a gift of the Holy Spirit, is only pre-supposed, not stated. [The absence of the article does not decide against the other view; for πνεῦμα as being of the nature of a proper name may have the article or omit it. See Winer’s Gramm., p. 122. Most interpreters understand the Holy Spirit to be meant.—H.]—If any bowels and compassion (εἴ τινα σπλάγχνα καί οἰκτιρμοί). The first substantive (Philippians 1:8) denotes the seat, the source, of the second; the second being in the plural represents the individual proofs, the acts as repeated, manifold. See Winer’s Gramm., p. 176; Colossians 3:12; σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ, lect. var. (οἰκτιρμῶν). Thus the fellowship or participation (κοινωνία) in the third clause appears in its action and effects. [The two nouns give intensity to the idea. The Apostle intimates in terms of the greatest delicacy that any reluctance to grant him the favor for which he so earnestly pleads, would have all the effect upon his feelings of unkindness and cruelty.—H.] The first two clauses we are to refer to Paul, the other two to the Philippians; the implied affirmation of the several conditions (εἴ τις. … οἰκτιρμοι), as respects both Paul and those addressed, enforces the exhortation (πληρώσατε) which they severally introduce. It is incorrect to regard the first and third as objective, and the second and fourth as subjective motives (Meyer), or to refer all four to the Philippians only (Meyer, Schenkel). That we are to supply χαρά, from Philippians 2:2, in each of the conditional clauses (‘si quod (gaudium) consolatio amoris,’ etc.), according to Bengel, is inadmissible.

Philippians 2:2. Make full my joy (πληρώσατέ μου τὴν χαράν). The Apostle has joy already, and it only remains that this should be full and complete (comp. Php 1:9; 1 John 1:4; 2 John 1:12). The Philippians are to make it so by allowing his appeal to prevail with them (first two clauses), and by maintaining and exhibiting the virtues to which he exhorts them (last two).—He sums up the whole as it were in one word: That ye mind the same thing. Ἵνα represents the harmony of the Philippians (τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε), as sought by them in order [as one of its attendant aims] to fill up the measure of Paul’s joy. According to Philippians 3:15; Philippians 4:2; Romans 12:16; Romans 15:5, minding and striving after the same object are meant.—This is more closely defined, first on its ethical side: Having the same love (τὴν αὐτὴν ). As possessors and dispensers of that love which in its object, purity and strength, is essentially the same, they should be of one mind.—Secondly, the trait or conduct appearing on its intellectual side is: Being of one accord (A. V.), or like-minded, pondering the one thing (σύμψυχοι τὸ ἓν φρονοῦντες). With reference to the object had in view, the τὸ αὐτό represents it as a single thing, and the question they consider is, what one thing is necessary; and further, the personal unity which corresponds to this unity of aim, becomes prominent, as in Philippians 1:27 : μιᾷ ψυχῇ,. Tittmann (Syn. I. p. 67) correctly observes: ἰσόψυχος est qui eodem modo est animatus (like-minded); σύμψυχος autem, qui idem sentit, unanimis (harmonious); σύμψυχοι esse possunt, qui non sunt ἰσόψυχοι; sunt igitur σύμψυχοι οἱ αὐτὸ φρονοῦντες. Sed τὸ ἓν φρονεῖν est unum velle, in uno expetendo consentire. In this earnest exhortation the accumulation of terms and phrases cannot surprise us. It is incorrect to regard σύμψυχοι as independent, the subject of a separate predication (Oecumenius, et al.). To these two positive qualifications correspond the negative ones in Philippians 2:3.

Philippians 2:3. Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory.—Μηδὲν κατ’ ἐριθείαν for bids whatever is without or against τὴν αὐτὴν , while μηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν forbids whatever violates τὸ ἓν φμονεῖν, μιᾷ ψυχῇ. On the first substantive see in Philippians 1:17; on the second, Suidas: ματαία τις περὶ ἑαυτοῦ οἴησις (Galatians 5:26, κενόδοξοι); κατά denotes rule, motive (Winer’s Gram., p. 401). Without question it is more simple to continue φρονοῦντες from the preceding verse (Winer, Gram., p. 587) than to supply ποιοῦντες (Erasmus, Luther, et al.), or even to construe it with the following ἡγούμενοι (Hölemann).—The positive (Philippians 2:2 b) is opposed here to the negative (Philippians 2:3 a).—But in lowliness of mind (or in humility) let each esteem others superior to themselves.—Ἀλλά marks strongly the opposition. The instrumental dative (τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ) corresponds to κατά with the accusative. See Winer’s Gram. p. 402, note 2. On the substantive see Ephesians 4:4; Colossians 2:18; Colossians 2:23; Colossians 3:12. Ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν teaches that humility fixes its eye on another’s excellences, and judges him from this point of view. Bengel: Jure et dotibus fieri id potest, non extreme tantum, sed per veram ταπεινοφροσύνην, cum quis per abnegationem oculos avertit a suis prærogativis et alterius dotes, quibus prior est, studiose contemplatur.

Philippians 2:4. Look not every one on his own things, but every one also on the things of others (μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστοι σκοποῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἑτέρων έκαστοι).—The sentence presents a general principle. The unusual plural ἕκαστοι, which is emphatic in each number, but especially in the second, where it stands at the end, indicates that this should be true of every member of the church. Τὰ ἑαυτῶν, τὰ ἑτέρων, signify in general res, causa, as in Philippians 2:21; 1 Corinthians 13:5 (τὰ ἑαυτῶν); 1 Corinthians 10:24 (τὸ ἑαυτοῦ, τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου), 33 (τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ, τὸ τῶν πολλῶν), τὰ being used, and not τὸ, in order to mark the multiplicity. It is also to be noticed that ἄλλος denotat alium, nulla diversitatis nisi numeri ratione, ἕτερος non tantum alium, sed etiam diversum indicat (Tittmann, Syn. I. p. 155 sq.). While in the above passages ζητεῖν is employed, we have here σκοποῦντες (Philippians 3:17). Hence, according to the context, we are to think of the gifts and excellencies of others before our own, and of their advantage, interest, as well as our own. This distinction, however, comes out more clearly in view of what follows. Ἀλλὰ καί after μή limits or softens the antithesis. We are to think also of the things of others, hence not merely and exclusively of them. It is selfishness only that is forbidden. [“We are to look,” says Lightfoot, “beyond our own interest to that of others.”—H.] See Winer’s Gram. p. 498. It is incorrect to deny this distinction between ζητεῖν and σκοπεῖν so as either to find no reference to gifts and excellencies (Meyer), or to think exclusively of these (Calvin).

Philippians 2:5. Let this mind be in you, or, according to the better text, have this mind in you (τιῦτο γὰρ φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν).—Paul confirms his exhortation to unity by showing what self-denying love and humility are, as illustrated in the example of Christ. Τοῦτο has as its correlative ὅ in the following clause, while ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ answers to ἐν ὑμῖν. Hence the meaning must be in animis vestris, but not intra vestrum cœtum (Hölemann). [For the force of γάρ see notes on the text.—H.]—Which was also in Christ Jesus (ὁ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ιησοῦ sc. ἐφρονήθη). Καί also, i.e., as well as ἐν ὑμῖν.

Philippians 2:6. Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.—Ὅς has for its antecedent Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, and points to His antemundane state, as Philippians 2:7-8, refer to His earthly existence, and Philippians 2:9-11 refer to His subsequent glorified condition. The subject is the ego of the Lord, which is active in all the three modes of existence. It is the entire summary of the history of Jesus, including His ante-human state (Meyer). Hence neither the λόγος ἄσαρκος alone, nor the λόγος ἔνσαρκος, is to be taken as the subject. The emphatic participial clause (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων) connects itself with the principal clause (οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ), and the participle must be taken as imperfect, not as present (Umbreit, Studien und Kritiken, 1828, p. 594). The finite verb ἡγήσατο, from its import, requires us to think of a resolution or decision to which what is stated in the participle stands related as concessive in accordance with the sense of the whole passage. (Comp. 2 Corinthians 8:9, ἐπτώχευσε πλούσιος ὤν); hence neither causal (Rheinwald et al.) nor merely temporal (Meyer). If now we regard strictly the connection and drift of the context, which is to bring before us Christ’s example, as a testimony in behalf of that humble self-denial which promotes harmony, and against the ἐριθείαν and κενοδοξίαν which destroy it, the meaning of this difficult passage cannot be mistaken. The words in themselves are plain, Ὑπάρχων, stronger than ὤν, denotes Christ’s pre-existence, ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ. According to Mark 16:12 (ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ), and in accordance with its use elsewhere, μορφή must be understood of the outward form, “species externa,” and this as defined by θεοῦ, which must be understood as not of the person of God, the Father, but only of the Godhead,—is a divine morphe or form, that of a God. Comp. Philippians 3:21; Romans 8:29 : σύμμορφον. The μορφῇ θεοῦ corresponds to μορφὴν δούλου, Philippians 2:7, as ὑπάρχων has its parallel in λαβών there. Bengel well observes: ipsa natura divina decorem habebat infinitum in se, etiam sine ulla creatura illum decorem intuente. Comp. John 5:37 : εἶδος αὐτοῦ (of God); John 17:5 : τῇ δόξῃ ᾖ εἶχον παρά σοι; Colossians 1:15 : εἰκὼν τοῡ θεοῦ; Hebrews 1:3 : ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. It is incorrect to regard it as equivalent to φύσις, οὐσία (the Greeks, Augustine et al.), status (Calov, et al), and to hold that Jesus, when He was on earth, caused His δόξα to be recognized through the medium of His words and works (Luther, et al), of His miracles (Grotius, et al), and in the transfiguration (Wetstein). [“Though μορφή,” says Lightfoot, “is not the same as φύσις or οὐσία, yet the possession of the μορφή involves participation in the οὐσία also; for μορφή implies not the external accidents, but the essential attributes. Similar to this, though not so decisive, are the expressions used elsewhere of the Divinity of the Son: εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ, 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; and χαρακτήρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως—τοῦ θεοῦ, Hebrews 1:3. Similar also is the term which St. John has adopted to express this truth—ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ.” It may be added that the word is fitly chosen for the expression of the Apostle’s idea. For though μορφή denotes properly the outline or shape of an object, and not directly the substance or nature of the object, it yet presupposes the existence of that nature or reality, of which it is the manifestation, just as the figure or shadow implies a body or substance which determines the figure or outline. Besides, to deny that Christ’s μορφή or form as God, agreed with the reality, would oblige us to deny also in the next verse that His form or condition as a servant agreed with the reality, and this would destroy the force of the Apostle’s reasoning. The condition in both cases presupposes the corresponding nature or reality, and is called μορφή precisely on account of that condition. The Apostle seems to have chosen this peculiar word because he would provide in his mode of speaking for the fact, that though the state or manifestation was changed, the nature or essence of the personality remained unchanged.—H.]—The expression οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο is more difficult. It denies a precedence of self, as is the case with those τὰ ἑαυτῶν σκοποῦντες (Philippians 2:4). In its connection with ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, and its position before ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτόν, it points to a decision in a negative form before the incarnation. Hence it is not the same as οὐχ ἥρπασε, which did not for a moment enter into the thoughts of Christ. Ἁρπαγμός may, like πειρασμός, βαπτισμός, signify the act of robbery; and it would properly denote this according to the rules of derivation (Winer’s Gram. p. 93); but usage allows it to be taken as res rapta or rapienda (Brueckner against Meyer); just as χρησμός may be non vaticinatio sed vaticinium, χρησματισμός et negotiatio et id quod hac perpetratur, so here also ἁρπαγμός ἅρπαγμα (Tholuck: Pfingstprogramm, 1847, pp. 17–19). Whether the meaning is res rapta or rapienda, the context must decide. Here now ἀρπαγμόν is predicate in its relation to τὸ εἰ̄ναι ἴσα θεῷ as the object (Winer’s Gram. p. 323). On this construction καὶ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν βιάζεται βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν in Matthew 11:12 is very instructive. Ἁρπάζειν is not a heroic exspoliare, but a violent appropriating to one’s self, of which the object is τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ. This is therefore not “spolium, præda,” but “res rapienda.” The emphasis falls here on εἶναι; ἴσα (not ἴσα—see Winer’s Gram. p. 177) is an adverbializing accusative (Bengel), but different from ἴσος, since it denotes several relations of likeness, and from ἴσος, since it does not point to a likeness of person, as John 5:18 (ἴσον ε̇αυτον ποιῶν τῷθεῷ), but to the equality of Christ’s condition with that of God’s. What is meant by this expression appears from Philippians 2:10-11 : it is the κυριότης of the Lord, His worship in the church, in heaven, and upon earth. Hence the difference between ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων and τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ is that the former denotes the Lord’s mode of existence, as a divine existence for Himself apart from the world and before it, the dignity of the Son, founded upon His eternal origin or generation from the Father, but the latter His existence as the King of His people in the realm of the Father, at His right hand. It is entirely like Ephesians 1:20-23; John 5:22-23; John 20:28; Matthew 28:18-20. Accordingly it must signify “rapiendum non duxit.” For the former (μορφὴ θεοῦ) was His from eternity, while the latter (τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ) He had not as yet obtained. He was already enjoying the former before He had received the latter. It is not correct to regard the object of ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο as identical with what is stated concessively in the participial clause (Luther, Meyer, et al), or ἁρπαγμόν as equivalent to “præda, res rapta” (Ambrosius, et al.), “spolia” (Erasmus, Rheinwald, et al.), “holding tenaciously” (Hölemann), “concealing” (Matthies), “a triumphant display” (Luther, et al.), nor are we to understand by εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ “plenitudinem et altitudinem dei” (Bengel), “vitam vitæ dei æqualem” (Van Hengel), or “identity with the Father” (Rilliet). It is entirely fanciful to scent Gnostic allusions in ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ, ἴσα θεῷ εἶναι, ἁρπαγμός as also in ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε and ἐν ομοιώματι, σχήματι εὑρεθεις (Philippians 2:7), and in ἐπουρανίων ἐπιγείων κατὰ χθονίων (Philippians 2:10), (Baur) as Brueckner shows (Ep. ad Phil. Paulo auctori vindicata, p. 15 ff.) in his exposé of the difference between the doctrine of the Gnostics and the present passage, and of the contradiction between Baur’s earlier and his later representation of this doctrine, and also Ernesti (Studien und Kritiken, 1848, pp. 858–924; 1851, pp. 595–630), with admirable acuteness and learning. Yet the view advanced as a conjecture by Umbreit (Studien und Kritiken, 1828, p. 595) and earnestly maintained by Ernesti, that this passage is to be explained out of Genesis 2:3, is unnecessary and untenable.

[The view of τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ (adopted above by Dr. Braune) as= the κυριότης, or worship of Christ in the church, in heaven, and on earth” (Philippians 2:10-11) which He did not claim for Himself in His pre-existent state, makes the self-denial of Christ negative merely, not positive, as the Apostle’s use of the example would seem to require Moreover, if this equality with God Which Christ forbore to arrogate to Himself before the incarnation be the same as the sovereignty which God conferred on Him after His humiliation and sufferings and death, as a reward for such self-devotement (see Philippians 2:9 and Hebrews 12:2), we cannot regard such an equality as, properly speaking, subject to acceptance or rejection till the antecedent historical condition has been fulfilled.—We subjoin a summary of the views of some of the later writers in our own language on this important passage. The meaning which Bishop Ellicott prefers is: “He did not deem His equality to God a prize to be seized, but emptied Himself, etc.; in other words, He did not insist on His own eternal prerogatives, but, on the contrary, humbled Himself to the condition and sufferings of mortal man.” See his Commentary on Phlippians (in loc.) for the grounds of this interpretation.—Prof. Lightfoot presents the philological details at some length. Instead of ἁρπαγμός, “the more usual form of the word is ἅρπαγμα, which properly signifies simply ‘a piece of plunder,’ but especially with such verbs as ἡγεῖσθαι, ποιεῖσθαι, νομίζεινν, etc., is employed like ἕρμαιον, εὕρημα, to denote a highly-prized possession, an unexpected gain.” He adduces examples of this usage from some of the later Greek writers. “It appears then from these writers that ἅρπαγμα ἡγεῖθαι frequently signifies nothing more than ‘to clutch greedily,’ ‘prize highly,’ ‘to set store by,’ the idea of plunder or robbery having passed out of sight. The form ἁρπαγμός, however, presents a greater difficulty; for neither analogy nor usage is decisive as to its meaning: (1) The termination -μος indeed denotes primarily the process, so that ἁρπαγμός would be ‘an act of plundering.’ But as a matter of fact substantives in -μός are frequently used to describe a concrete thing, e.g. θεσμος, χρησμος, φραγμός, etc. (2) And again the particular word ἁρπαγμός occurs so rarely that usage cannot be considered decisive. Under these circumstances we may, in choosing between the two senses of ἁρπαγμός, fairly assign to it here the one which best suits the context. The meaning adopted above satisfies this condition: ‘Though He preexisted in the form of God, yet He did not look upon equality with God as a prize which must not slip from His grasp; but He emptied Himself, divested Himself, taking upon Him the form of a slave.’ The idea is the same as in 2 Corinthians 8:9, δι’ ὑμᾶς ἐπτώχενσεν πλούσιος ὤν. The other rendering (adopted by the A. V.), ‘thought it not robbery to be equal with God,’ disconnects this clause from its context.5—Alford translates: ‘who being’ (originally) ‘in the form of God regarded not as self-enrichment His equality with God.’ He observes (1) that ἁρπαγμός holds the emphatic place in the sentence; (2) that this fact casts τὸ εἴναι ἴσα θεῷ into the shade as secondary and as referring to the state indicated by ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων above; and (3) that αρπαγμός strictly means, as here given, the act of seizing or snatching—not from another, but for one’s self. Dr. Wordsworth paraphrases the thought thus: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who subsisting from eternity in the form of God, did not think His own equality with God (τό εἴναι ἴσα θεῷ) was a spoil which He had usurped wrongfully, and of which He might justly be divested by another, or which on principles of justice He was Himself obliged to give up to another,” etc. The following is Professor Eadie’s paraphrase of the meaning: “The Apostle affirms that Jesus, in His pre-incarnate state, was ‘in the form of God;’ and adds, that He thought it not a seizure, or a thing to be snatched at, to be on a parity with God, but emptied Himself. Now, it seems to us very plain that the parity referred to is not parity in the abstract, or in anything not found in the paragraph, but parity in possession of this form of God. He was in the form of God, and did not think it a thing to be eagerly laid hold of to be equal with God, having or exhibiting this form. The apostle adds, ἀλλ’ ἐαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν, but emptied Himself, and the clause is in broad and decided contrast with ἁρπαγμὸν ούχ ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα τῷ θεῷ. That is to say, the one clause describes the result of the other. It was because He did not think it a seizure to be equal with God, that He emptied Himself. He did not look simply to His own things—the glories of the Godhead; but He looked to the things of others, and therefore descended to humanity and death. His heart was not so set upon this glory, that he would not appear at any time without it. There was something which he coveted more—something which He felt to be truly a ἁρπαγμός, and that was tie redemption of a fallen world by His self-abasement and death. From His possession of this “mind,” and in indescribable generosity He looked at the things of others, and descended with His splendor eclipsed—appeared not as a God in glory, but clothed in flesh; not in royal robes, but in the dress of a village youth; not as Deity in fire, but a man in tears; not in a palace, but in a manger. … And in this way He gave the church an example of that self-abnegation and kindness which the apostle has been inculcating, and which the Lord’s career is adduced to illustrate and confirm” (Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle to the Phlippians, pp. 108, 9).—For a list of monographs on this difficult text the reader may see Meyer’s “Briefe an die Philipper,” etc., p. 63 (1859), and Wiesinger’s Commentary on Philippians (Eng. trans.), p. 61.—H.]

Philippians 2:7. But emptied or stripped himself, and took upon him the form of a servant (ἀλλ’ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε μορφὴν δούλου λαβών). The ἀλλά introduces the antithesis (not tamen, nihilominus, quin potius). The first member corresponds to the second in Philippians 2:6, and the second here to the first there; and at the same time unfolds further the antithesis to οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο. In opposition to the not thinking of an act stands something done: in opposition to the unwillingness to rob another stands a giving up on His part; and in opposition to the thing which He does not even wish to arrogate to Himself stands His own person which He surrenders. This last contrast appears in ἑαυτόν, which precedes with emphasis, in opposition to ἑαυτῷ τι, and hence not Himself in opposition to another (Meyer, et al.), as the relations in the case and the context show; since the equality with God (τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ) was not to be seized from men or angels, nor could God be deprived of it, but He, the Son, by His own might and will could seize upon it, although it would not be withheld from Him by the Father.—Ἐκένωσε κεν̀ον ἐποίησεν, exinanivit, divested Himself, i.e., of that which He had, ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, hence of the form of God, of the divine mode of existence. Since He has emptied Himself of this, as the word properly means, the μορφή is not something merely external, and since He has given up only the ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, it cannot be an evacuare of the person, as if that now had in it no longer anything divine—no δόξα which remained to Him (John 1:14; Colossians 2:9); hence the nearer limitation by μορφὴν δούλον λαβών, which is itself more closely defined. The antithesis is Still μορφὴ θεοῦ, and δούλου is chosen, because according to the context (ἴσα θεῷ Philippians 2:6, comp. Philippians 2:10-11) the κυριότης belongs to the θεότης. It is the becoming man, or the incarnation that is meant, as the sequel declares, and since λαβών (which is contemporaneous with ἐκένωσε as in Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 1:13) must be taken as a modal limitation of the verb (ἐκένωσε), this emptying of Himself (κἑνωσις) is the Lord’s incarnation. It is incorrect to deny here the becoming man, the act of incarnation, and to find only His position as a servant indicated (Schenkel), for in this case μορφὴν δούλου λαβών must follow ἐν χήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, and could not stand at the beginning; Observe too, that the δούλου is without the article, and hence it does not mean the servant of God, in the sense of the Messiah. The following also are incorrect interpretations: libenter duxit vitam inopem (Grotius), miseram sortem, qualis esse servorum solet (Hölemann), semet ipse depressit (Van Hengel), veluti deposuit (Calov), non magis ea usus est (Clericus), since the subject of discourse here is not anything within the human life of Christ, the laying aside of the δόξα, or abstaining from the full use of it.—And was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man (ἐν ὁμοιώματι ). These two clauses plainly belong together. They serve more closely to define μορφὴν δούλου λαβών Bengel: forma dicit aliquid absolutum, similitudo relationem ad alia ejusdem conditionis, habitus refertur ad aspectum et sensum. Δοῦλος is more exactly defined by ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος; ἐν ὁμοιώματι ὡς, correspond to μορφήν and indicate the difference between the Lord in the form of a servant, as the son of man, and men. He is not indeed purus putus homo, but the incarnate Son of God. Τενομενος denotes a becoming, the human individual development, and preserves the λαβών from being mistaken as a merely outward assumption. Hence ὁμοίωμα is to be understood of the inner and outer, the spiritual and bodily life, and ἐν points this out as the sphere of His development, and the dative σχήματι as the respect in which, or rule according to which, He is found as man. Winer’s Gram., p. 215. By σχῆμα (vultus, vestitus, victus, gestus, sermones et actiones. Bengel), is denoted the outward manifestation which is indicated by εὑρεθείς (not equivalent to ὤν), was recognized by all who came into contact with Him. Comp. 1 John 1:1-3. ὡς ἄνθρωπος Theodoret observes: ἡ γὰρ , αυ̇τὸς δὲ τοῦτο οὐκ ἦν τοῦτο δὲ περιέκειτο. Bengel: Vulgaris, ac si nil esset præterea, nec inter homines quidem excelleret; nil sibi sumsit eximium. It is incorrect to regard ὁμοίωμα and σχῆμα as indistinguishable synonyms (Heinrichs, et al.), or the latter as dignitas (Grotius), dress (Elsner), γενόμενος as natus (Rilliet), ἀνθρώπων as a designation of the debile et abjectum (Hölemann), of the infimæ et contemtæ sortis (Wolf), or of the first human pair, because He like them was peccati expers (Grotius).

Philippians 2:8. He humbled himself (ἐταπείνωσενἑαυτόν). The humiliation described by ἐκένωσε, which took place in His incarnation, because He thereby passed over from the divine into the human mode of existence, is now particularly noted. Here observe the asyndeton, the verb being also connected with ἀλλά, while the position of the verb before the pronoun renders it emphatic. The general description (ἐκένωσε) gives place to the particular one (ἐταπείνωσεν). Hence there is no climax here (Meyer), nor does the latter exceed the former (Schenkel), nor does it refer to any humiliation below the dignity of man (Hölemann).—It is more closely defined by the following: And became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Hence it is inadmissible to find in the preceding participial clause (Philippians 2:7) the nearer limitation of ἐταπείνωσεν (Wiesinger), since this cannot be separated from the participial clauses belonging to a ἐκένωσε, while ἐταπείνωσεν receives now its limitation. It is not without reference to μαθεῖν ὑπακοήν, His learning obedience or subjection (Hebrews 5:8), that γενόμενος precedes. It is not stated to whom He became ὑπήκοος, since the design was to mark the μορφὴ δούλου, form of a servant, according to its nature. If it were more exactly defined the object would be God (Philippians 2:9; Romans 5:19), not men (Grotius). The extent to which this obedience was carried appears in μέχρι θανάτου, unto death (Acts 22:4; Hebrews 12:4; Matthew 26:38). Hence it is not a temporal limitation (Van Hengel), nor is it to be joined with ἐταπείνωσεν (Bengel, et al.), Θανάτου δὲ σταύρου, a construction like σοφίαν—σοφίαν δὲ οὐ τοῦ αἰω̄νος τούτου in 1 Corinthians 2:6 (Winer’s Gram., p. 443). Δέ often brings forward something new, a more precise statement as opposed to something to be denied or rejected. It is opposed here to the idea of a natural or common death. Death by crucifixion was a punishment for slaves, criminals, outcasts, and hence increased the degradation. Τουτέστι τοῦ ἐπικαταράτου τοῦ τοῖς (Theophylact). See Galatians 3:13.

Philippians 2:9. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him (διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσε). This was a consequence and result (διό) of the self-renunciation and the self-abasement of the Son. To this act is joined (καί) that of the Father. On the expression see Hebrews 13:12; Romans 1:24; Acts 10:29; on the thought Hebrews 2:9-10; Hebrews 12:2. The language here involves an idea of merit on the part of Christ and of recompense on the part of God. The verb marks the antithesis to ἐταπείνωσε μέχρι θανάτου σταύρου, and the preposition in the verb (ὑπερύψωσε) indicates that it is an exaltation corresponding to the ὑπεράνω πάντων in Ephesians 4:10. The reference is to the resurrection and ascension, the end of which was His sitting down at the right hand of God (Matthew 28:18; Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55-56; Ephesians 1:20-21; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 8:1). The view of Grotius is incorrect: eum multo sublimiorem fecit, quam antea fuit, for the Saviour was not sublimis on earth (Philippians 2:7-8), and did not become sublimior than He was before the creation of the world (Philippians 2:6), and besides ὑπέρ will not bear that signification. Bengel: Exinanitionis priæmium justissimum est exaltatio (Luke 24:26; John 10:17); neque ea non potuit illam consequi (John 10:15); quæcunque Patris sunt, filii sunt; ea non potuere ita Patris esse, ut non essent filii (John 17:5); Christum Christus exinanivit Christum deus exaltavit (1 Peter 5:6) eumque facit pariter deo.—And given him the name which is above every name. Καί introduces the explanation of the ὐπερύψωσε, by which was obtained the εἶναι ἴσα τω θεῷ (Philippians 2:6) which Christ would not seize for Himself. Ἐχαρίσατο αὔτῷ, denotat, quam accepta deo fuerit exinanitio (Bengel). Τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα (Winer’s Gram., p. 140) designates the well-known name which transcends every name, which according to the context is received and borne in heaven and on earth, since it is the nomen cum re (Bengel), which is everywhere manifest and recognized, and includes the adoration of the person of Christ in its divine dignity. It is thus not mere dignitas (Grotius), or the particular name of Jesus (Michaelis), or κύριος (Van Hengel).

Philippians 2:10. That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow.—Ἵνα points out the purpose of this exaltation, which reaches its fulfilment, not by a single step, but gradually. See 1 Corinthians 15:25-26; Romans 14:11; Isaiah 45:23. Ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι stands emphatically at the beginning, and marks the ground and occasion of the πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ. The bending of the knee presents “plastically” (Meyer) the act of adoration. Ephesians 3:14; Romans 11:4; and comp. ἐπικαλεἰσθαι τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου (Acts 7:59; Acts 9:14; Acts 9:21; Act 22:16; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Romans 10:12-13; 2 Timothy 2:22). It is therefore not merely adhibito nomine Jesu (Van Hengel), since indeed Psalms 63:5 : ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου , is said of prayer to God, nor is it merely a circumlocution for ἐν Ἰησοῦ (Estius), or equivalent to εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, the glorification of His dignity (Heinrichs), or quoties auditur nomen (Erasmus).—Of beings in heaven, and beings in earth, and beings under the earth—comprises the entire realm of worshipping creatures. Τῶν ἐπουρανίων are the angels (Ephesians 1:20-21; Hebrews 1:4; Hebrews 1:6), τῶν ἐπιγείων, men upon the earth, τῶν καταχθονίων, the dead in Hades. The following are incorrect classifications: οἱ δίκαιοι, οἱ ζῶντες, οἱ ἁμαρτωλοί (Chrysostom); the dead, the living, the embryos (Stolz); homines sortis nobilioris, mediocris et infimæ (Teller). The words must not be taken as neuter (Beza), nor is there in καταχθονίων a reference either to the demons (the Greeks, Erasmus), which Ephesians 6:12 forbids, or to the souls in purgatory (Catholics).

Philippians 2:11. And that every tongue should confess (καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσεται).—To the outward, inarticulate expression καί adds still another, the eloquent homage breaking forth from the heart and confessing itself to Him. What the bending of the knee indicates, the tongue expresses (Wiesinger). In πᾶσα the three categories (Philippians 2:10) are included as in πᾶν γόνυ. To refer it therefore to πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Theodoret) is erroneous, as also to take it proomni idiomate (Beza).—That Jesus Christ is Lord.—Ὅτι introduces the contents of the confession. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός is the subject, and κύριος the predicate, and precedes in accordance with the scope of the context: the kingship is to be pointed out of which the realm is unlimited (Ephesians 1:23; Eph 4:10; 1 Corinthians 15:25; 1 Corinthians 15:28). It is not to be limited to rational creatures (Hölemann), or to the Church (Rheinwald, Schenkel).—To the glory of God the Father (εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός) belongs properly to the verb, not to the predicate κύριος (Bengel), from which it is separated by the subject. It presents the end, purpose, of this adoring confession. It is therefore not the same as in gloria (Vulg.) or even, θεῷ (Van Hengel, who takes ὅτι as causal), as if ἐξομολογεῖν meant laudibus celebrare. [In θεοῦ πατρός the first term denotes a relation which God sustains to all His creatures; the second denotes one, which is peculiar to those who believe on His Son (comp. Galatians 1:1). On the universality of this confession see the last paragraph under Doctrinal and Ethical.—H.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The motives urged in teaching and exhortation are first objective, based upon Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit; and secondly, subjective, as dependent on the character of individuals. Both of these concur in the case of him who teaches and exhorts, and of those dependent on the instructions and exhortations. The objective motives occupy the first place, and to these we should always appeal first of all. Among them stands in the foremost rank the example of Christ, which Philippians 2:5-11 bring into view especially. Among the subjective motives are love and compassion, important beyond comparison with others, for they answer to the objective which come from God, who is love, and to the character of sin, which is an evil, an injury, against which we must be preserved. All other motives are, as it were, crutches, which, as adapted to a sickly self-love, must be finally thrown away, e.g., regard for the judgment of others, fear of punishment, hope of reward. For with human nature as it is, one would not willingly do right, if, without doing so, he could be happy; and he would rather do wrong, if no harm should come to him from it.

2. The Apostle appeals to various motives for the maintenance of unanimity in the Church. But the unanimity which he seeks is moral rather than intellectual. It is not uniformity, but only the possession of a common centre, around which each one moves in a common love, which, however, may exhibit different degrees of strength and purity in different individuals, just as the centripetal force is capable of manifold gradations.

3. Among the bonds of this concord is humility, which in its two-fold intellectual and moral sphere, recognizes clearly both its own gifts and those which others possess, and does not allow one to esteem others less than himself, but prompts him with a sense of his own unworthiness to regard them more highly, because their unworthiness does not concern him. It is characteristic of humility that it has its centre outside of itself, and includes the great whole of which it is a member within itself; while pride makes the individual himself the centre, and not only breaks loose from the whole, but stands opposed to it, and so becomes the source of all discord and enmity.

4. Parry spirit and vain glory are excluded. The former misuses its neighbor, the latter its own possessions and those of the world; the former presses others down in order to raise itself; the latter draws others to itself in order to please them. The one exalts itself at the expense of others; and the other at the expense of its own real worth; patty spirit often brings into action great talents and energy; self contents itself with the mere appearance. However sharply the former may spy out the weaknesses of others and the advantages of particular relations, it is yet sure to destroy itself; or it may be happy in the present moment, while blinded to the evils which follow in its train.

5. The example of Christ is here presented to the Church with a fullness and completeness such as is found nowhere else. The whole life, not merely the sufferings of Christ (1 Peter 2:21-25), enforces the doctrine, that we ought to deny self in humble love towards our neighbor, and only in such a way desire to share in his glory. If Christ existing in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, Philippians 2:6),not seeking the things of Himself (τὰ ἑαυτοῦ σκοπῶν), but also those of others (τὰ ἑτέρων, Philippians 2:4), resolved not to seize for Himself the sovereignty of a God over His creatures (Philippians 2:6), but in love (ἐν , Philippians 2:2) and lowliness of mind (ταπεινοφροσύνῃ), ennobled and exalted those of mankind, made through Him in His image, and emptied Himself (ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτόν) by becoming a man (Philippians 2:7), obedient in all things, even unto the death of the cross; and God has now exalted Him as the object of worship (Philippians 2:9-11); then we also have no other way open to us to the glory with Him, except through humble self-denying love in fellowship and unity with the brethren.

6. [Neander:—That we rightly understand the use made of the example of Christ, as the model after which the Christian life is formed, we must first endeavor to bring the model itself clearly and distinctly before our minds. Before the eye of the Apostle stands the image of the whole Christ, the Son of God, appearing in the flesh, manifesting Himself in human nature. From the human manifestation he rises to the Eternal Word (as John expresses it), that Word which was, before the appearance of the Son of God in time—yea, before the worlds were made; in whom before all time God beheld and imaged Himself; as Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians calls Him, in this view, the image of the invisible, i.e., the incomprehensible God. Then, after this upward glance of his spiritual eye, he descends again into the depths of the human life, in which the Eternal Word appears as man. He expresses this in the language of immediate perception, beholding the divine and the human as one; not in the form of abstract truth, attained by a mental analysis of the direct object of thought. Thus he contemplates the entrance of the Son of God into the form of humanity as a self-abasement, a self-renunciation, for the salvation of those whose low estate He stooped to share. He whose state of being was divine, who was exalted above all the wants and limitations of the finite and earthly existence, did not eagerly claim this equality with God which He possessed; but, on the contrary, He concealed and disowned it in human abasement, and in the form of human dependence. And as the whole human life of Christ proceeded from such an act of self-renunciation and self-abasement, so did His whole earthly life correspond to this one act even to His death; the consciousness on the one hand of divine dignity which it was in His power to claim, and on the other the concealment, the renunciation of this, in every form of humiliation and dependence belonging to the earthly life of man. The crowning point appears in His death—the ignominious and agonizing death of the cross. Paul then proceeds to show what Christ attained by such self-renunciation, thus carried to the utmost limit, by such submissive obedience in the form of a servant; the reward which He received in return, the dignity which was conferred upon Him. Here, too, is presented the universal law, laid down by Christ Himself, that whoso humbles himself, and in proportion as he humbles himself, shall be exalted.—H.]

7. Concerning the person of Christ, the passage before us states the following truths: (a) His ego, His essential entity, is an antemundane person, who had a divine mode of existence (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). He is thus to be conceived of as existing within the being of God, as πρὸς τον θεόν (John 1:1), yet not merely as a thought, a principle, but as a person, λόγος ἄσαρκος. (b). Before the world was, before any creature existed, there was still wanting to Him who is ἴσος θεῷ, the τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, a kingdom, and a people over which He might rule as the Anointed One at the right hand of the majesty of the Father, (c) He gave up His μορφὴν θεοῦ, the form of God, not His ego, not the possession of the glory, the κτῆσις of the δόξα. He assumed a servant’s form (μορφὴν δούλου), not sin, in becoming man. With the incarnation His humiliation began, in which He exhibited obedience even to the death of the cross, the shameful death of a slave. Within the human life also, which began with the incarnation, there were degrees of exinanition or self-divestment from Bethlehem to Golgotha. (d) He humbled not His nature, but only His personal existence, Himself, by the assumption of human nature and by His entrance into the life of men, so as to subject Himself to ignominy and death. He thus humbled Himself not through the obedience, but in the obedience which He rendered to the Father’s will, without sin, even in the most extreme trials that befell Him. (e) Such merit was followed by exaltation, which consisted in this, that He now became as κύριος, the object of worship for the whole realm of created spirits unto the praise of God the Father. (f) Into this position of exaltation the Father has placed the loved and loving Son. (g) In the worship of Jesus Christ the glory of the Father is constantly to be kept in view, as is the case in the public prayers and collects of the Evangelical Churches of the Reformation.

8. Our passage teaches nothing concerning the relation of the divine and the human nature, and of their attributes, to each other, of the relation of the two natures to the personal unity, or of the κτῆσις, or possession of the divine δόξα, or glory, to the χρῆσις, or use, of the same. Here we have opened to the efforts of Christological inquiry a wide and important domain which was measured and is measured or limited only by the fundamental conditions or outposts of Christianity, such as the hypostatic union, and based upon this the real communion of natures, which includes both the divine δόξα, as opposed to Ebionitism, Pelagianism, Socinianism, Rationalism, and the human development against Docetism and Romanism, and so the immutability as well as the self-limitation of the absolute God.

9. History of the interpretation of the text and of its doctrinal application. (a) The ancient Church almost throughout, before and after the Council of Nicæa, taught that the λόγος ἄσαρκος did not retain the divine δόξα for Himself, for His own advantage, while yet He did not cease, as λόγος ἔνσαρκος, to be what He was. His incarnation was not a yielding up of His divinity, but an assumption of humanity, which was taken up into His divinity. Only Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Novatian, maintained opposite views. (b) The middle ages honored the divine nature at the expense of the human. Thomas Aquinas admitted only an outward development, in age and wisdom, with reference to men to whom He daily gave new proofs of it. (c) The Reformation harmonizes in general in the true confession of faith, yet the Lutherans, upon the fundamental principle, finitum capax esse infiniti, which the Reformed (Calvinists) denied, extended further the doctrine of the two natures and conditions of Christ. Thus Luther, led by his doctrine on the Lord’s Supper, concludes from the form which Christ possesses, exalted at the right hand of God (which is conceived of, not as a place of abode, but as a mode of existence), that the humanity was taken up into the divine glory, and that from the incarnation onwards the condition of humiliation appears more as a veiling, self-limitation, that of exaltation as a complete, visible revelation of the divine life. So in the Formula Concordiæ, VIII., which, by “its very indefiniteness allows room for further examination,” concerning which see Frank, Theologie der F. C., III., pp. 165 ff. The controversy of the theologians of Giessen and Tübingen, since 1607, did not concern itself about the κτῆσις, the possession of the divine glory, which was undisputed, but only about the χρῆσις, the use of it. The former, Menzer and Feuerborn, with the F.C., maintained a κένωσινχ ρήσεως, the latter, Haffenreffer, Thummius, Nicolai, only a κρύψιν χρήσεως, in respect to which the Decisio Saxonica, 1624, places itself on the side of the Giessen theologians, without reaching any very important result. (d) The modern development of Christology began with regarding the Son of God, the pre-existent God-man, as being in the perfect man (Goschel), then attempted to conceive of the same as becoming the God-man (Rothe, Dorner). Thomasius (Christi Person and Werk, II., § § 40, 43), following Hofmann (Schriftbeweis II.), went farther, since he supposed a self-abdication of the real attributes of the divine nature, amounting to a συγκοπή of the divine life of the Logos, or a sleep-like unconsciousness, and thus both impaired the unio personalis and assumed an exclusion of the Son from the Trinity during the earthly life of Christ. Gess (Die Lehre von der Person Christi), and Georg Ludw. Hahn (Theologie des N. T. 1.) suppose a self-abnegation also of the immanent, attributes, while Schenkel (Die Christ. Dogmatik, II.) does not proceed beyond the mere human nature, and falls into Socinianism. Others again revive Apollinarism. Comp. Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, II., pp. 1203 ff.

9. The correct standpoint even for our time which, in the effort to conceive of the human development of the Redeemer, is in danger of lowering His divine personality, is shown by Chemnitz: Reliqua vero, quæ vel quæri vel disputari possunt, et in verbo non habent expressam patefactionem, cum magni hujus profunditatem in hac vita exhaurire et pervidere non possimus, ita me differre et rejicere ad magnam illam cœleslem, æeternam et illustrem scholam, ubi gloriam Christi salvatoris et fratris nostri ad faciem sicut est videbimus. Nec propter ea, quæ explicare non possum, ab illis, quæ expresso verbo patefacta sunt, discedere me debere. Hæc responsio, si videbitur rudior, simplicior et puerilior, non pugnabo, sed scio veram, certam, firmam et omnium tutissimam esse. It is important to hold fast the ethical and practical sense of the passage, and to deny neither the constant unchangeableness of the divinity of the Son in itself (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 3:13), nor His real, loving, self-denying, and self-abasing entrance into fellowship with sinful humanity in life and in death (John 1:14; John 17:5).

10. [The final and universal acknowledgment of Christ’s sovereignty (Philippians 2:10) is affirmed also in Romans 14:11. All the hosts of heaven and the myriads of the human race who still live, or have lived, or shall live, are to “bend the knee” before Him who bears the “name which is above every name,” who, as the Apostle John has said, wears “the title written on His vesture and His thigh, ‘King of kings and Lord of lords’ ” (Revelation 19:16). But this language is to be understood in harmony with the teachings of other passages. “Even the enemies of Christ,” says Dr. Tholuck, “who reject the gospel, acknowledge the reality of His power, if they are unable to resist the decisions of His justice, i.e., if at the end of the world they are excluded from all part in the blessings of His Kingdom; while those who have repented and submitted to His claims are received to the joys and the rewards of heaven. Both classes in this case yield to Him the homage of their submission. But according to a just distinction which some of the older writers have made, that of the one is obedientia ex animo, i.e., a voluntary, hearty obedience; that of the other, obedientia cum tremore, a subjection reluctant, extorted by fear.” Viewed in this light, the passage in our Epistle is parallel entirely to that in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10. (Disputatio Christologica de loc. Paul Phil. II. 2 ff.—H.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Motives (Philippians 2:1), aim (Philippians 2:2-4), and method (Philippians 2:5-11) of a Christian teacher, a spiritual father.—We must ever start from what we have in order to get forward and upward. First, fulfil thine own duty, which should be to thee a pleasure, not a burden, and then lay hold of the good that is in others, be it ever so little, or merely supposed to be there; yet assume it, use it without complaint or mistrust.—Truth is one, simple, and yet so infinitely rich that there can be unanimity and yet no monotony, like the harmony in a choir of many voices. Most controversies in the church have moved and still move around the germ of the truth, around the fundamental doctrine, but do not touch exactly the thing itself. They have reference only to the human confirmation of the truth, its mediation through conceptions, or mode of apprehension, and affect not the Christian character of the individual, provided only he abides in love.—Not, how art thou esteemed by thy neighbor, but, how dost thou serve him, is the main point.—He is great who humbles himself in obedience, but disobedience dishonors and degrades; the former recognises the higher will, and looks forward to the glorious end; the latter is concerned only with itself, and does not get beyond self.—Self-seeking is a deadly plague to the soul.—The example of Jesus Christ instructs, directs, leads, makes the way of the cross a path of light; He went no other way, and the Christian also, His disciple, may not go a different one.

Starke:—If we would make people religious we must not use the wheel and the sword in the church, or fight them with the iron Bible, or preach fables; but build our exhortation upon Christ, the fellowship of the Spirit, the fellowship of God, for such arguments pierce through bone and marrow.—Love of honor in a preacher is a baneful poison, a prolific source of dissension in the church of God.—Self-seeking destroys country and people, churches and schools, cities and houses.—Who has knees to bend, let him bend them! Christ is the One most worthy of glory, the One whom we can never fully honor.

[Robert Hall:—Christianity was never intended to destroy the different stations and gradations of life; but it is intended to destroy that arrogance and superciliousness with which rank and splendor are too often borne. As it teaches the poor humility and submission, so it teaches the rich humanity, gentleness, and compassion. In this respect it merges all distinctions (Philippians 2:3).—H.].

Rieger:—He who exalts himself above others, thinks that others also must accommodate themselves to him, acts as if they must regard his rights and their maintenance as of the first importance. With respect to the self-abasement of Christ, the language always was: He humbled Himself in order to show His obedient, willing spirit; but with reference to His exaltation, the language is: God has raised Him up, placed Him at His right hand, etc., in order to distinguish Him as the Author and Finisher of our faith, the pioneer in the way of faith by which we must now come to God.

Schleiermacher:—Unity of mind among all Christians can be nothing else than unity in the knowledge that Christ is the Redeemer of the world, and in the disposition to recognize Him as such, and to accept Him as Leader in the way of salvation. 1) In what respects especially the Redeemer is our example. 2) How can we imitate this example?

Heubner:—It is characteristic of the Christian that he does not think highly of himself, but is disposed to regard others as more important, more deserving. He acknowledges gladly their excellencies and gives way to them. Such humility towards men, unaffected, and yielding the pre-eminence which pride arrogates to itself, flows from humility towards God.

[Neander:—One’s judgment of another (see Philippians 2:3) is not within the control of his own will. How can he esteem his brother higher than himself, if this is not in accordance with the truth, if he cannot but perceive in himself excellencies which are wanting in the other, and defects in the other from which he himself is free. Is humility to be grounded upon falsehood? Most certainly not. But there is here presupposed, as resulting from the development of the Christian life, a pervading temper of heart, of which such a judgment of one’s self in comparison with others is but the necessary and natural expression. The Christian’s love will lead him first of all to discern what is good in another; to discover even in his blemishes his peculiar gifts, that in which he is really superior to himself; while on the other hand, through a self-scrutiny, sharpened by the Spirit which quickens him, he detects with rigorous exactness his own faults. And this self-rigor, united with love, will give leniency to his judgment of whatever may obscure the divine life in others.—H.].

Passavant:—Strife and vain glory are pests in hearts, houses, families, congregations, cities, the state, the church.

As the Epistle for Palm Sunday (Philippians 2:5-11).

Rautenberg:—The Mediator crowned with praise and honor on account of His sufferings and death. 1) By the world before God; 2) by God before the world.

Zeiss:—Royal image of the Christian who consecrates his life to the Lord; 1) Humility of heart is his costly’ adornment; 2) the blessing of love his joyful delight; 3) pleasing God his exalted aim; and 4) harvesting of the seed his heavenly reward.

Law and Testimony:—What a Christian shares with his Lord Jesus: 1) the cross; 2) the glory. Conditions of the church of Christ; 1) its servitude; 2) its glory. The palms which we strew in the path of the Lord Jesus: 1) That we believe in the Crucified One; 2) that we trust in the Exalted One. The five-fold hosanna with which we prepare the way of the Lord Jesus: hosanna (1) of humility, (2) of patience, (3) of faith, (4) of prayer, and (5) of hope.

Prohle:—The Epistle on Palm Sunday an earnest reminder of the entrance into the passion week. It reminds us, 1) of the cross and death of Christ; 2) of His innocence and holiness; 3) of His divine dignity; 4) of His complete subjection to God’s will; 5) of the triumphant end of His sufferings.—The traits of a true imitation of Christ: 1) Humility; 2) Self-denial; 3) Obedience unto death.

Footnotes:

Philippians 2:1; Philippians 2:1.—ἔι τις σπλάγχνα is found in א A B C D E F K L. It is either a solecism (Tischendorf N. T. ed. VII: maj.) or a mistake (Winer, el at.) of Paul or of the transcribers for τινα. [Wordsworth makes here the just remark (in opposition to a possible extreme): “But this text, among others, affords evidence that it is not a sound principle of criticism, to limit the data for determining the readings of the N. T. to the most ancient extant MSS., and that it is necessary to extend the range of inquiry to the cursive MSS. and other collateral aids.”—H.]

Philippians 2:4; Philippians 2:4—ἕκαστοι has stronger support in A B F G, et al., than ἓκαστος in א C D E, et al.

[3]—τοῦτο γὰρ φρονεῖτε is found in D E F G; γάρ is wanting in א A B C, probably because ἕκαστοι was added from Philippians 2:4. [“As Philippians 2:5 begins an ecclesiastical lecture, and as the explanative force of γάρ (= ‘verily,’ ‘as the case stands’) might not have been fully understood and have led to the omission of the particle, the reading γάρ seems slightly more probable” (Ellicott).—H.] א ABC* read φρονεῖτε, others read φρονείσθω. [The former is also grammatically the more difficult, and therefore more likely to be original.—H.]

Philippians 2:9; Philippians 2:9.—τὸ ὄνομα in א A B C; the article is omitted in D E F G, et al.

[5][Professor Lightfoot states his objections to the rendering of the A. V. in an extended note in his Commentary at the end of chap. 2.—H.]