.
REMARK.
From
Php 2:6-11, Baur, whom Schwegler follows, derives his arguments for the assertion that our epistle moves in the circle of
Gnostic ideas and expressions, [121] and must therefore belong to
the post-apostolic period of Gnostic
[ism
] speculation. But with the true explanation of the various points these arguments [122] fall to pieces of themselves.
For (1) if
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ be related to
ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ εἶναι as the essence to its adequate manifestation, and if our explanation of
ἁρπαγμός be the linguistically correct one, then must the Gnostic conception of the Aeon
Sophia—which vehemently desired to penetrate into the essence of the original Father (Iren.
Haer. i. 2. 2), and thus before the close of the world’s course (
Theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 507 ff.) wished to usurp forcibly something not
de jure belonging to it (
Paulus, II. p. 51 ff.)—be one entirely
alien, and
dissimilar to the idea of our passage. But this conception is just as inconsistent with the orthodox explanation of our passage, as with the one which takes the
εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ as something future and greater than the
μορφὴ Θεοῦ; since in the case of the μορφή, as well as in that of the ἴσα, the full fellowship in the divine nature is already the relation assumed
as existing.
Consequently (2) the
ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε cannot be explained by the idea, according to which the Gnostics made that Aeon, which desired to place itself in unwarranted union with the Absolute, fall from the
Pleroma to the
κένωμα—as to which Baur, in this alleged basis for the representation of our passage, lays down merely the distinction, that Paul gives a moral turn to what, with the Gnostics, had a purely speculative signification (“Whilst, therefore, in the Gnostic view, that
ἁρπαγμός indeed actually takes place, but as an unnatural enterprise neutralizes itself, and has, as its result, merely something negative, in this case, in virtue of a moral self-determination, matters cannot come to any such
ἁρπαγμός; and the negative, which even
in this case occurs, not in consequence of an act that has failed, but of one which has not taken place at all, is the voluntary self-renunciation and self-denial by an act of the will, an
ἑαυτὸν χενοῦν instead of the
γενέσθαι ἐν χενώματι”).
(3) That even the notion of the
μορφὴ Θεοῦ arose from the language used by the Gnostics, among whom the expressions
μορφή,
μορφοῦν,
μόρφωσις, were very customary, is all the more arbitrarily assumed by Baur, since these expressions were very prevalent
generally, and are not specifically Gnostic designations; indeed,
μορφὴ Θεοῦ is not once used by the Gnostics, although it is current among other authors, including philosophers (
e.g. Plat.
Rep. p. 381 C:
μένει ἀεὶ ἁπλῶς ἐν τῇ αὑτοῦ μορφῇ, comp. p. 381 B:
ἥχιστʼ ἂν πολλὰς μορφὰς ἴσχοι ὁ Θεός).
Further, (4) the erroneousness of the view, which in the phrases
ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων and
σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρ. discovers a
Gnostic Docetism, is self-evident from the explanation of these expressions in accordance with the context (see on the passage); and Chrysostom and his successors have rightly brought out the essential difference between what the apostle says in
Php 2:7 and the Docetic conceptions (Theophylact:
οὐχ ἦν δὲ τὸ φαινόμενον μόνον, namely, man,
ἀλλὰ καὶ Θεός,
οὐχ ἦν ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος.
Διὰ τοῦτο φήσιν··
ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων·
ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα,
ἐκεῖνος δὲ ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα καὶ Θεός κ.
τ.
λ. Theodoret:
περὶ τοῦ λόγου ταῦτα φήσιν,
ὅτι Θεὸς ὢν οὐχ ἑωρᾶτο Θεὸς τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν περικείμενος φύσιν κ.
τ.
λ.). Comp. on
Romans 8:3.
Lastly, (5) even the three categories
ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγ.
καὶ καταχθ., and also the notion of the
descensus ad inferos which the latter recalls, are alleged by Baur to be genuinely Gnostic. But the idea of the descent to Hades is not distinctively Gnostic; it belongs to the N. T., and is a necessary presupposition lying at the root of many passages (see on
Luke 23:43;
Matthew 12:40;
Acts 2:27 ff.;
Romans 10:6 ff.;
Ephesians 4:8 ff.); it is, in fact, the premiss of the entire belief in Christ’s resurrection
ἐκ νεκρῶν. That threefold division of all angels and men (see also
Revelation 5:13) was, moreover, so appropriate and natural in the connection of the passage (comp. the twofold division,
καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων,
Romans 14:9,
Acts 10:42,
1 Peter 4:5 f., where
only men are in question), that its derivation from Gnosticism could only be justified in the event of the Gnostic character of our passage being demonstrated on other grounds.
The whole hypothesis is engrafted on isolated expressions, which only become violently perverted into conceptions of this kind by the
presupposition of a Gnostic atmosphere. According to the Gnostic view, it would perhaps have been said of the Aeon Sophia:
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐ προάλλεσθαι ἡγήσατο εἰς τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ κ.
τ.
λ. The
apostle’s expressions agree entirely with the Christology of his other epistles; it is from these and from his own genuine Gnosis laid down in them, that his words are to be understood fully and rightly, and not from the theosophic phantasmagoria of any subsequent Gnosis whatever.
[121] Its idea is, that Christ “divests Himself of that which He already is, in order to receive back that of which He has divested Himself, with the full reality of the idea filled with its absolute contents,” Baur,
Neutest. Theol. p. 265.
[122] Hinsch, l.c. p. 76, does not adopt them, but yet thinks it un-Pauline that the incarnation of Christ is represented
detached from its reference to humanity. This, however, is not the case, as may be gathered from the connection of the passage in its practical bearing with ver. 4 (
τὰ ἑτέρων).
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/philippians/2-11.htm
.