Christ's Self-Abasement. Phil. 25-11

CHRIST'S SELF-ABASEMENT. PHIL.
2:5-11: THE EPISTLE FOR PALM SUNDAY

Author(s): A. A. Stephenson
Source: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 4 (October, 1939), pp. 296-313
Published by: Catholic Biblical Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43715823
Accessed: 20-04-2019 00:28 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Catholic Biblical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
This content downloaded from 112.205.186.98 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 00:28:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CHRIST'S SELF-ABASEMENT. PHIL. 2:5-11
THE EPISTLE FOR PALM SUNDAY
For several reasons it is worth while considering at some

length the correct exegesis of Phil. 2:5-11. First, this passage is
"the great Pauline Christological text" ; according to the inter-
pretation one takes, these verses either roundly assert the divinity
of Christ, or directly imply it. Secondly, verse 6 is still spoken
of by Moulton and Milligan as crux interpretům.1 Thirdly, this
passage is one of singular beauty and instruction; for in it St.
Paul is not content to urge "Let this mind be in you, which was
also in Christ Jesus," but he immediately proceeds to express in
an unexampled way the unique quality of the mind and heart of
Christ, the peculiar delicacy of the attitude in which His "meek-
ness" consisted. This is how it struck G. M. Hopkins, the Jesuit
poet whose fiftieth anniversary we celebrate this year:2
Christ's life and character are such as appeal to all the world's ad-
miration, but there is one insight St. Paul gives us of it which is very
secret and seems to me more touching and constraining than every-
thing else is: This mind, he says, was in Christ Jesus - he means as
man : being in the form of God - that is, finding, as in the first instant
of his incarnation he did, his human nature informed by the godhead -
he thought it nevertheless no snatching-matter for him to be equal with
God, but annihilated himself, taking the form of servant; that is, he
could not but see what he was, God, but he would see it as if he did
not see it, and be it as if he were not and instead of snatching at once
at what all the time was his, or was himself, he emptied or exhausted
himself so far as that was possible, of godhead and behaved only as
God's slave, as his creature, as man, which also he was, and then being
in the guise of man humbled himself to death, the death of the cross.
It is this holding of himself back, and not snatching at the truest and
highest good, the good that was his right, nay his possession from a
past eternity in his other nature, his own being and self, which seems
to me the root of all his holiness and the imitation of this the root of
all moral good in other men.
Hopkins's remarks, apart from their intrinsic interest (he goes
on to relate St. Paul's description of the mind of Christ to what
we mean, or should mean, by "gentlemanliness"), raise most of
the questions of exegesis around which controversy has raged. It
1 The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London, 1914-1929), s. v.

apirayfuk
2 The Letters of G. M. Hopkins to R. Bridges (Oxford), p. 175.
Christ's Self-abasement 297
will have been noticed, for instance, that

ovx âpirayfwv r¡y-ijaaTo he departed from the
liar to most Catholics, that of the Douay Vers
robbery (to be equal with God)," and is in
Revised Version's "counted it not a prize" a
Version's "did not set great store on," as al
the Revised Version, "Gr. a thing to be grasped." Clearly
the two renderings are directly opposed; the Douay Version
takes àptray/wv and rapinam in an active sense, and this rendering
expresses the mental declaration of rights (though not the inten-
tion of "standing upon" them) ; the other takes àpiraytióv in a
passive sense, as res rapienda, and directly expresses the cession
of rights, or the refusal to assert them. On the active interpreta-
tion the words would express a continuation and expansion of the
thought contained in the preceding clause ("being in the form of
God"), and should be followed by a semi-colon; on the passive,
gerundive, interpretation they are closely connected with the im-
mediately following words, expressing the negative aspect of the
same fact. The active sense, "robbery," was most commonly
accepted by the Latin Fathers ; the passive sense, "a thing to be
seized, or kept, at all costs," "a prize, or windfall, to be jealously
guarded," a festzuhaltendes Gut,3 is the sense in which the
passage was understood by many of the Greek Fathers.4
Before coming to grips with the passage it must be pointed out
that the dogmatic bearing of this verse is unaffected by the issue
of the exegetical question. While the Douay Version's "thought
it not robbery to be equal with God" is tantamount to a direct
assertion of the Divinity of Christ, the Revised Version's render-
ing, "Counted it not a prize," has the same unequivocal implica-
tion in the context. Indeed the whole context is, in any case, well
worth noticing. The letter to the Philippians (for it is a letter
rather than an "epistle") appears to have originated in the close
personal relations that subsisted between Paul and the Philip-
pians (1:3-4,7-8). St. Paul was touched by their loyalty and
affection ; and their sufferings for the Faith was a further bond
between them (1 : 29-30) ; and from them alone in the early days
8 Cf. Fr. Lattey's paper, St. Paul, in The Incarnation, (ed. Lattey, Cam-
bridge, 1926), p. 89.
* E.g. Origen, Methodius, Theodoret, Isidore of Pelusium, Cyril of Alexan-
dria; similarly the very early Epistle of the Churches of Gaul (Euseb. H. E.
v. 2) : quoted in Lightfoot's masterly commentary, Philippians, p. 135
(eighth ed., 1885).
298 Christ's Self-abasement
he accepted alms (4:15). This letter, then, was provoked, not

by the need to counteract doctrinal errors or to correct irregulari-
ties of practice (unless the Judaizers are not at Rome, but at
Philippi), but by the love Paul bore the Philippians in the Heart
of Christ; and it was concerned less with dogma than with
spiritual exhortation and the doctrine of Christian perfection.
The only fault Paul has to find with his converts is their tendency
to minor disputes and rivalries (1 :27 ; 2 :2-4 ; 4 :2) . St. Paul re-
bukes this spirit, pointing out how far are vanity and contentious-
ness, self -exaltation and self-seeking, from the self-humiliation of
the incarnate Son of God, from the meek mind of Christ, "who,
though he was by nature God
Thus the great Christological passag

as a challenging dogmatic assertion, but, the divinity of Christ
being assumed to be well known to Paul's converts, the fact is
recalled for the purposes of exhortation, as a motive of prac-
tical conduct. But the precise point here is that in such context,
when St. Paul is referring to the example of Christ to enforce a
lesson of humility, it would be nonsense to hold up the example
of Christ in not prizing divine prerogatives, unless he was actual-
ly God. The rejection of divine prerogatives by one who was not
divine would mean, at the best, only that he had refrained from
blasphemy.
The answer to a minor question, "Is irrrdpx^v (v. 6) causal or
concessive?" depends on the meaning assigned to apiraytwv. For
it makes sense to say either (a) Though Christ was in the form
of God, he did not think equality with God a prize, a snatching-
matter; or (b) Since Christ was in the form of God he thought
(the claim of) equality with God no robbery. But (a) beginning
with "since" does not give satisfactory sense, nor (b) beginning
with "although." Yet the late Father Prat, in his valuable book
La Théologie de St. Paul, keeps (a) with "since," on the ground,
apparently, that virdpx<ov is regularly causal ("The causative par-
ticiple v7rdpxcûv . . ." "Joined to an adjective or to an adjectival ex-
pression, vi Tapx<ov gives the reason of the quality announced" ; so
the French: "donne la raison de la qualité annoncée").5 Yet
the (a) rendering prefaced by "since" or "because" seems
illogical ; for actually being in the form of God is the only con-
5 Vol. I p. 378, note 1 (tenth ed., 1924) ; Stoddard's English Translation
(from the eleventh French ed.), Vol. I p. 316, note 1. All further references
to Prat will be to Vol. I of this Eng. Tr.
ceivable justification for regarding divine

pienda.
This seems so clear that even if Father Pr
thinking that there was a strong gramma
favor of w dpxtor being causal, this would
in the case, and an exception admitted, if o
the (a) sense. In fact, however, there se
grammatical presumption in favour of a regu
vTrápymv. Father Prat seems to base ins v
Testament usage. He quotes nine instances
theory. But a more general view yields a ve
sion. Apart from this passage, this partici
than 21 times altogether in the New Testam
and four times in a concessive sense (Lk. 11:13; Acts 16:37;
Gal. 2:14, 2 Pet. 2:19). Since wrdpxw can, therefore, be con-
cessive in New Testament usage, one would be justified in class-
ing this instance as concessive if apvayvuiv here means "a thing to
be prized," "to be seized, held fast at all costs" ; and I hope to
show beyond all reasonable doubt that this is the meaning. In
that case the causal use in the New Testament would be about
four times as frequent as the concessive.
Now, without having compiled statistics, I venture to suggest
that this proportion would hold for any present participle. For
it is more natural in composing hypotactically, i.e., in grouping
various ideas into the unity of a sentence, to juxtapose those ideas
which explain each other rather than those which have a prima
facie incompatibility, i.e., whose collocation has to be explained.
This tendency is explained by the more fundamental and obvious
truth that in fact - and one writes about facts - people more com-
monly act, and things turn out, according to, and not in spite of,
their natures and circumstances.
Consequently, if there were a participle which very rarely or
never was in a merely temporal relation to the verb on which it
gramatically depended, a decided majority of all its instances
would be causal (This is assuming that the conditional use is
very rare; actually ínrápxmv is only once, 2 Pet. 1:8, conditional
in the New Testament). And this might lead the unwary to
infer that the participle was "regularly" causal. But obviously
this inference would be illegitimate; one would know a priori
only that the causal use was commoner, but would judge in each
case from the context.
In fact, Father Prat seems to have been m

For it is true of virdpx^v i row that it ne
occurs in a merely temporal, but always lo
main verb, since it belongs to that rare cl
express not an action but the possession o
state. I repeat, therefore, that my two or
interdependent, and that in rdpx^v will b
according to the sense of ov% apiray/jiov r¡yr¡aa
But first let us finish with xmdpx^v, a rem
various shades of meaning, several of them m
well repay examination.
First, virdpx<*>v connotes a solid, stable, p
It is remote from the idea of change, and
there already ." So Herodotus has (VII, 144
Greek Lexicon s. v.) : abrai ai vfjes... inrr
those they were about to build. St. Luke us
siderable skill, and it is perhaps not fancif
its use in 7 :25 he suggests how those who
"lapt" in luxury, and that in 23 :50 he sim
of the solid respectability of the Councillor,
The word, therefore, very aptly expresses
Word, who just "subsists," in a peculiarly
substantial way is, and "was already."
'Tirapxav also connotes "to be originally," "to be by birth or
nature" (Cf. Acts 3:2; 16:3,20; 17:29). Again the aptness of
this sense in the context here needs no stressing.
Thirdly, in rdpx<*v does more than simply attribute the quality
expressed by the predicate. It makes this attribution in a de-
liberate and pointed manner, drawing attention to the possession
of the quality by the subject, and thus preparing the reader for a
definite and striking logical connection between the possession of
this quality and what follows.
There seems to be a similar use of this participle with the
definite article in Lk. 7:25 (cf. supra) and 9:48, where the
phrases must be taken reduplicative: the luxury-lapt will natural-
ly be found "in the houses of kings," and the lesser will be seen
to be the greater just because of his self-effacement. fT7 rdpx^v in
this aspect is like &v ye or o ywp; ye, it will be recalled, fre-
quently emphasizes or underlines, and may be equivalent to a
smile, or a sneer, or a wink, or the forefinger of expository in-
ference. Probably it was this characteristic of imapx^v which
led Father Prat to formulate his theory; b

ceive the facts with sufficient generality.
To turn now to the crux interpretům: is ov%
kt' to be translated :
(A) He counted it not a prize (alternatively: He did not set
great store on) equality with God, or
(B) He did not think it robbery to be equal with God?
My excuse for dwelling, as I shall, at some length on a certain
grammatico-logical argument is that this argument seems to set-
tle the question definitively. And although the key-principle has
been briefly stated by various commentators, it has never received
such development and clarification as to compel assent, with the
result that the correct interpretation of the passage is still re-
garded as matter of dispute. Moreover, none of the other argu-
ments sometimes advanced for the true interpretation is cogent.
It is impossible to decide the meaning of âptray/uk here simply
from the word itself.6 It occurs only in this passage in the New
Testament, and only three times in profane Greek. The following
facts favor an active meaning, "seizure, snatching, robbery." In
two of the three instances of its occurrence in profane literature
(Plut. 2 12 A, and in Phrynichus cited by Bekker, Anecd. gr.,
i, 36) it has this meaning. The parallel Attic form ápiraan¿<¡ also
occurs once in profane Greek literature (Plut. Symposiaca II, 10 ) ,
and there similarly is active in sense. Words ending in -/toç tend
to be active in sense. Of such nouns in the New Testament an
overwhelming majority denote the action of the verb. Finally, as
a writer in the Journal of Theological Studies for 1909 pointed
out, in the Septuagint, with which St. Paul was familiar, the
natural passive form, apmaytm, is always used when the passive
sense is required.
The following facts favor the passive sense, res rapienda.
A catena, on Mk. 10 :41 ff. has ò Ylér pos âpirayfwv top Sià aravpov
6ávi iTov èiroieÌTo. The not uncommon phrase apvayfia (or eppaiov
or evpiffia) iroieîcrdai (^yeîadai, vo/iíÇeiv) means "esteem as a wind-
fall." There is a less exact parallel in Pindar (Pyth. viii, 65),
where ápiráXeav Sóaiv means "a gift to be eagerly seized," "the
keen-sought prize." The Greek Fathers normally used the word
passively, and they almost universally understood this passage in
6 This paragraph and the next summarize the more important data collect-
ed by Lightfoot, op. cit., p. Ill, pp. 133-137; Zorell, Lexicon Graecum , s. v.;
Moulton and Milligan, op. cit., 8. v.; Prat pp. 317-318, note 2.
the same sense. There are nouns of the -/w termination which
have a concrete, equivalently passive, sense; and in the New
Testament there are six such nouns which are, or may be, passive.
Finally, in the MS. of Vettius Valens, p. 122, ¿piray/ió*} seems to
mean "a great catch."
There seems, then, from an examination of the word itself, to
be a slight balance of evidence in favor of "robbery"; but the
meaning of res rapienda remains quite possible.
Two different considerations favor the passive sense, but are
not conclusive. First, on the active interpretation, an act, rob-
bery, has to be treated as equivalent to a state, equality with
God.7 However, " (to claim) equality" can easily be understood.
Secondly, the context favors the passive sense. For in w.
2-4 St. Paul urges the Philippians to charity and humility; and
in v. 5 our Lord is introduced as the great example of humility.
We expect, therefore, the next sentence to state, not Christ's
assertion, but rather his renunciation of diginity; yet the
â/nray/MÍs clause, if taken actively, expresses the dignity of Christ,
while it is on the "prize" interpretation that this clause expresses
his attitude (of renunciation) to this dignity. This consideration,
however, is not conclusive. For on either interpretation the
whole sentence of which the ápiray/juk clause is a part expresses
renunciation, though in (B) 8 the statement of the "renunciation"
is slightly postponed ; it might, however, be argued that then it
is all the more effective when it comes, after the amplification of
the idea of Christ's majesty in the apvaj/uh clause. Still, the
train of thought seems undoubtedly smoother if the statement
of voluntary humiliation occurs in the next "principal" verb ; so
that we should expect St. Paul, if he had meant to express the
(B) sense, to have written the sentence in the form, "Although
Christ Jesus was in the form of God, and although he did not
think equality with God robbery, yet etc." Moreover the (A)
interpretation preserves an exact parallel with the phrase of v. 4,
"not considering the things that are his own" ; for it contrasts
the state of mind condemned, not merely with Christ's action,
but with His attitude and "interests." It is this which makes the
interpretation more attractive. Both interpretations express
Christ's humility; but (A) communicates incomparably the
7 Cf. Ellicotťs Philippians etc . (ed. 1857), p. 42.

8 For convenience' sake I refer to the gerundive and active interpretations
as (A) and (B) (cf. supra) respectively.
unique quality, the subtle and individual po

acteristically consists. "We," says St. Paul, "tend to stand on
our dignity, to take complacence, perhaps not in our wealth, but
in our knowledge and grace. These, at least, we tell ourselves,
are possessions of real value, and not lightly to be esteemed. But
our Lord, who had all riches, and is the source of all values" - we
are irresistibly reminded of 2 Cor. 8:8 "being rich, he became
poor for your sakes" - "whose dignity was infinitely exalted
above all, whose rank pre-eminent, did not, as it were, set great
store on being God, 'sat lightly' to the unique distinction, the un-
matched excellence that was within his reach, nay, that was his
own; he even stripped himself, so far as he could, of his pre-
rogatives." As Hopkins puts it, "He could not but see what he
was, God, but he would see it as if he did not see it, and be it
as if he were not."
The grammatical argument for (A) is very simple. It has
been stated in essence by all the commentators who remark that
(B) would require, instead of àxxd, a "strong adversative con-
junction."9 Lightfoot writes more explicitly:10 "the particles
oì>x and àwá obviously correspond .... so that i/cevaxrev èaxnóv
must contain the idea which directly contrasts with àpiray/jàv
frtfaaTo" It is, perhaps, worth while to analyze and draw out in
full the implication of this principle, which, when certain qualifi-
cations are introduced, appears to be decisive.
Probably the cause of the continued hesitation of commentators
is the not unnatural feeling that à''d, "but," is a "strong adver-
sative particle" (as it is when both members of the sentence are
affirmative), or that at any rate the distinction between àXXd
and àxx' S/M&}, between "but" and "yet" or "but nevertheless,"
seems too fine to decide a notorious crux of interpretation. The
point, however, is that ovx *tX., àXXà ktX. are two co-ordinate
sentences, connected by àXXd, and of which the first is negative.
When two affirmative statements are joined by simple "but" or
àxxd, their logical relation is normally adversative. "He was tired
but happy": the statement of two facts whose conjunction is
surprising. But two statements which, logically, are prima facie
opposed (and whose conjunction is therefore surprising), and of
which the first is negative, are normally connected not by simple
"but," but by "yet" : "He was not successful ; yet he was happy."
9 E.g. Prat in locum.
10 Op. cit. p. 134.
S04 Christ's Self-abasement
This is precisely the relation of the statem

and therefore would require the "strong adv
theless" (or "yet").
On the other hand, when two co-ordinate statements, of which
the first is negative, are joined by "but" or àwd, they are normal-
ly so related that, so far from being prima facie incompatible, the
first expresses the negative, the second the positive, aspect of the
same fact ; or else - really a similar relation - the first statement
denies the false, the second asserts the truth, of the matter.
In this case, therefore, "but," as a conjunction between sen-
tences, is not adversative at all.
The matter can best be made plain symbolically. Normally
when you say "He was not A, but B," A and B are opposed ; but
the whole statement, since the first is negative (denying A), are
complementary, parallel, rather like the two parts of the verse
in the Psalms. The opposition between A and B may be, and is
typically, one of sharp contrast, and is expressible in the form
"So far from being A, he was B." But it may be simply the oppo-
sition of difference, and is then expressible in the form "Instead
of being A he was B," or "He was B rather than A." This case
occurs typically in corrections, and in this case B may differ only
very slightly from A, with which it may have much in common,
being proposed as a more precise account, a more accurate
analysis, of the situation. - "He was not insanely confident, but he
was optimistic." It is important to notice this ; for the fact that
A and B may differ only slightly either invalidates or obscures
Lightfoot's principle that "i/cévaurev èavróv must contain the idea
which directly contrasts with àpiray/iàv rjyýaaro." In this particu-
lar case the ideas are in sharp contrast; and the form "So far
from being A he was B" could have been used. But, so far as
the grammatical indications go, the ideas need only have been
different. What seems, however, to be universally true of the
form "not A but B" is (a) that the denial, so far from being
prima facie incompatible with the assertion, paves the way for
it, what is false, or less accurate, being denied before the pre-
cise truth is stated; and (b) that only one fact is referred to.
In the form "Not A yet (but nevertheless) B," on the other
hand, two facts are referred to, and, moreover, they are prima
facie incompatible.
All the sentences properly expressed in the form "Not A but
B" can be expressed in the form "B instead of A" (or "B rather
than A") ; and some of them can also be e

"So far from being A he was B." And all t
expressed in the form "Not A but never
pressed in the form "Although not A, yet B
spite of not being A he was B." But no sente
can be expressed in the alternative forms of
no sentence of the second type can be exp
alternative forms of the first type. This
dication, of the fact that the first type of
one fact and the second two facts.
Yet it must be admitted that we do sometimes hear (I think we

rarely read) double sentences of the grammatical form "Not A
but B" in which the two statements are not complementary, but
prima facie incompatible. E. g. "The Athenians were not so
numerous, but they won." It appears however, on reflection that
these apparent exceptions are really "exceptions" which prove
the rule. For in these cases grammar has failed in its function
of bringing out the logical relation. The relation between the two
assertions is left unexplained, unexpressed. And in fact both
speaker and hearer are more or less explicitly aware that "all the
same" (i. e., S/mk) has been omitted. And it usually appears in
practice that something has been left unexplained, unexpressed,
from the fact that in such sentences we tend to speak with special
distinctness and emphasis. Moreover, the speaker's motive
(though he need not advert to it) is usually, if he is really think-
ing, to stress the paradoxical nature of what he is asserting by
an unexpected use of language. In these cases both the facts are
asserted in all the starkness of their apparent incompatibility,
without the grammatical particles giving any clue to the logical
relation of the statements. The effect is to emphasize just how
deplorable, or admirable, or simply paradoxical, is the twofold
fact asserted. But because the grammar leaves the logical re-
lation unexpressed, some explanatory context is necessary. This
may be supplied by the tone of voice, or by a previous agreement
or understanding. The typical case is when one has asserted
something and it has been questioned, a fact apparently incom-
patible with the first assertion being alleged to justify the ques-
tioner's doubt. Then if one cannot explain how the two facta
are compatible, and if one is certain of one's first statement and
yet cannot deny the second, one simply re-states both. E. g.,
"Peter made a century against the M.C.C, yesterday." "But he
was not a remarkable cricketer at school." "He was not a re-

markable cricketer at school, but etc."
The important point to notice is that in such cases the "not. . .
but" form of sentence seems in itself not to give satisfactory
sense, to leave a surd. But exegesis becomes hopeless, and agree-
ment impossible, unless it is assumed that the grammar is ade-
quate, that the writer is "communicating" properly.
Lightfoot, then, reaches the correct conclusion by imperfect or
incomplete reasoning, when he asks : "With which of the alter-
native renderings of ápiray/jàv rnfaaTo does the idea contained in
eairròv è/cévcotrev directly contrast?" The answer clearly is: "He
did not clearly assert (set great store on) equality with God."
But the ideas need not have been contrasts; and therefore Light-
foot was not justified in rejecting the other rendering simply be-
cause it is not a contrast. The same conclusion, however, is
reached more securely by the more general and more precise prin-
ciple : "To which of the alternative renderings of ov% àpiray/MP
Tjyr/aaTo is 'he emptied himself' not adversative, but complemen-
tary, expressing the positive aspect of the same attitude?" (A)
satisfies these conditions, and (B) can be safely rejected because
it does not.
Father Prat has a misleading note which might seem to repro-

bate the interpretation we have adopted.. "As for those," he
writes,11 "who, like Arius, take áf/n-ay/juh for res rapienda, it is
better not to mention them, since àpvayfws surely cannot have
that signification." Yet res rapienda summarily expresses not
only the interpretation adopted here, but also that favored by
Father Lattey,12 "a thing to be seized and kept at all costs," Light-
foot's " (a thing) to be clutched greedily, prized highly," and even
the interpretation which Father Prat rightly attributes to "the
majority of the Greek (Fathers)" and himself adopts, "a prey
on which one seizes with avidity" ; for the general or abstract
statement that "one seizes" is hardly distinguishable from the
statement that it is natural, or necessary, or wise, or right so to
seize - which is precisely the significance of the gerundive. In-
deed, in Father Prat's alternative statement of the same inter-
pretation on the opposite page the transition to the gerundive
sense is explicitly made in the words "which he had to guard
jealously."13
11 P. 318, note. 12 Op. cit., loc. dt. 13 P. 319 ; my italics.
Perhaps, therefore, Father Prat's preocc

exclude res rapienda in the sense it would
fined in the words of St. Ambrose:14 "Quod
rapere conatur." If rapio be taken strictl
interpretation res rapienda is certainly inadmissible. In any
case, where the phrase has occurred in this paper it has been used
primarily to indicate that the Vulgate's translation of àp-n-ay/juk by
rapina here is, in so far as it truly represents the Greek, gerun-
dive in sense. And concretely, since the main justification, on
linguistic grounds, of the passive sense is the analogy of the
phrase apiray/M ffteiadat, (where ãpvayfia = ep/xaiov, evptj/ia) , the
gerundive sense here prescinds from the question of ownership
and expresses an attitude of mind and will, mental adhesion to
the object.
There is an attractive line of argument, which no one seems
to have proposed, for the rejected active interpretation. In the
immediately preceding verses (3 and 4) St. Paul has been exhort-
ing the Philipp j ans to humility and bidding them shun vainglory
(KtvohoÇía) . Then he proposes the contrast of the example of
Christ, who "being in the form
glory consists precisely in this, that it

the spiritual writers are constantly poi
guez15 begins the chapter entitled "In
glory consists" as follows : "The malic
this; that the vainglorious man walks o
honour that belongs to God alone." And
Augustine : "Lord, he who would be pr
seeks not Thy glory but his own in the g
When in such a context we find the wor
meaning, ceteris paribus, is "robbery;"
expect that St. Paul is developing the e
ment: "You, when you seek esteem for
good works, are robbers. Think of Chr
without robbery.
In fact, however, St. Paul does not a

admittedly promising line. For, besid
vanced for accepting the passive (geru
if ap-rrayfuk were taken actively here,
14 De Fid. ii, 8 : quoted by Lightfoot, p. 134
15 Practice of Perfection and Christian Vir
S.J., trans, by J. Rickaby S.J., Vol. I pp. 117
explicitly developed this argument, since

that the vainglorious are robbers. But the argument St. Paul
did develop is very similar, though the precise idea of robbery
does not explicitly occur in it. We are told that Christ did not
set his eyes or his heart on divine prerogatives, and that there-
fore we must refrain from vainglory and from seeking the
things that are our own (v. 4) . This already implies that Christ
was entitled to the position he renounced. It seems further pos-
sible that the idea of robbery, though not present either in the
explicit or primary sense, is present not only by implication but
also, through the natural suggestion of apvayfuiv, i. e., by verbal
association. If so, there is also a reference back to rà éavTÛ v of
v. 4, delicately hinting that they are not really our own in any
case. This tentative suggestion is perhaps open to the objection
that it treats the language of St. Paul too much as if it were the
language of Shakespeare or Marvell. It is, however, recommend-
ed by the fact that it would provide some explanation why St.
Paul preferred apiray/ios when, especially in view of his acquaint-
ance with the Septuagint, he might have been expected to use the
form äpir ay/ia.
The points raised by the following verses may be more briefly
dealt with. Tò elvai cara Oeœ: the use of the adverb as a predicate
gives the sense of "equality of position," "being on an equal foot-
ing" ; the phrase is happily rendered by the Revised Version's
"on an equality with God." St. Paul's use of the adverb neatly
avoids the verbal suggestion of distinctness of deity that might
be present in ïaov. This equality of "footing" presupposes, of
course as Father Prat points out, equality of nature, consubstan-
tiality.
What is the precise meaning of eV fAop<ļ>y öeoO? Lightfoot says16
that p>op<ļ>rļ must be distinguished from </>iW or ovala , but that
"possession of the p> op<1>r¡ involves participation in the ovala also ;
for nop$r) implies not the external accidents but the essential at-
tributes" ; and he distinguishes tiop<f>rj from <rxfji¿a i*1 that
suggests an external appearance that is changeable and fleeting,
while popfyr) is essential, and therefore single and permanent.
Zorell (.s. v . p>op<'>rļi 3) commits himself to the same view: "fere
idem est quod natura." This interpretation is also favored by
the following antithetic phrase txopfâv SovXov , which certainly
16 Op. cit . p. 110, pp. 127-133.
refers to the Incarnation, and which pr

man nature."
Certain considerations, however, advise caution and suggest a
possible alternative. Father Lattey,17 after a study of the evi-
dence collected by Schumacher,18 and intended to prove the oppo-
site, concludes that the word in itself has generally "some impli-
cation of visible appearance." It certainly has this implication
in the only other passage in which it occurs in the New Testa-
ment (Mk. 16:12). And this interpretation is really favoured
by the passage from Plato's Republic (381 C) cited by Father
Prat to prove the contrary. This appears from the whole context
and especially from the use of n>op<1>r¡ as a sensible form in con-
trast to eZSoç, the true form, in 380 D.19 It may be therefore, that
the meaning here is, analogously, the "brightness," beauty,
"glory," of the Godhead; compare Heb. 1:3. The (native) pos-
session of the "form" in this sense would, of course, entail the
possession of the nature.20 Then èv fiop^jj deov v . would be vir-
tually identical with tò ehai ïaa 0eĢ, and Christ would be con-
ceived as stripping himself in respect of the divine "form," which
he exchanged for the form of a servant ; this interpretation suits
the run of the sentence very well.21 If this meaning of fôp^rj be
accepted, eavrov itcevcûo-ev would refer to the surrender, in the In-
carnation, of the "form" itself, i.e., the "radiance" of Godhead
which compels adoration (Cf. the Transfiguration, which Mt.,
17 :2, and Mk., 9 :2, describe by the word fiereôpîód^ and Luke,
9 :32, says the three apostles el Bav rrjv Sdgav avTov).
If the first interpretation of ôp^rj be taken the words e. eVeWc rev
cannot be taken literally - God cannot empty himself of, sur-
render, his nature - but must be understood in the transferred,
general sense of "renounced the external honour due to his posi-
tion," "made himself of no account." There may, however, in
that case be present at least the connotation of the exinanition
17 Op. cit., loc. cit., p. 87.
1S In his Christus in seiner Präexistenz und Ken0se.
10 Liddell and Scott, in their Greek-English Lexicón (eighth ed.), note this
distinction s. v. fxop<1>r¡. .
20 The "form" would, indeed, be the divinity itself, but c
a7r'(M9, in itself, but 7 r/oòç erepov , as the object of "visio
similar, is the view of Alford in his Greek Testament Vol.
1857).
21 Since it gives an adequate sense to the very forcible word i/cevcoaev .
which would refer literally to fiopfyr).
(by human standards) of the divine Wisdom. For êavròv

¿Kevaaev is said here of the Word ; and it is remarkable that *«*>©
means "make meaningless," "stultify," in all other instances in
the New Testament (Rom. 4 :14 ; 1 Cor. 1 :17, 9 :15 ; 2 Cor. 9 :3, :
of faith, the Cross, St. Paul's boast) . If so, the clue to the mean-
ing of the word here is to be found in the famous paradoxes of 1
Cor. 1 : 17-25. For here the climax of the kenosis is the death of
the Cross (v. 8) ; there (in 1 Cor.) what saves is the "folly of
the Gospel," which centers in the Cross. There, to the gentiles and
to "them that perish" the Cross is folly, but to the called and the
saved it is the power and wisdom of God, so that reliance on
human eloquence and wisdom would stultify (1 Cor. 1 :17 : icevmd jj)
the Cross. We have come full circle here : divine standards have
overcome appearances; the Word, stooping to the folly of the
Cross, has stultified not himself but "the wisdom of this world"
(1 Cor. 1:20).
A aßmv (v. 7) is a modal participle, a true timeless aorist, and
the phrase /iop<f>riv SovXov Xaßmv thus explains e. ètcévmatv ; it is it-
self in turn similarly explained by the following participial
phrase eV 0ļxouoļi<ni àvdpámcov yev¿/x€vo'¡1 which leaves no doubt that
the SovXoi is the SoCXoç 0eovt i.e. man. Two reasons make it
preferable to break the sentence here, putting a period after
yevo/Mvos : (l) Else iraireivmaev without a particle would begin a
sentence, almost impossibly in Greek; (2) the word evpedefc, as Al-
ford notes, "seems to denote the taking up afresh of the subject" ;
it introduces the second stage of the humiliation of the Word, the
humiliation as man. So Ellicott: "The slight break, combined
with the somewhat peculiar eúpeůek, harmonizes admirably with
the change of subject, and indicates the transition from the pre-
incarnate glory. . There is, however, no change of grammatical
subject, just as there is no change of logical subject. There is, in a
sense, a change of state through the assumption of a new nature ;
and this is expressed by the attachment of new predicates. We
are reminded that supposita or persons are the proper subjects of
sentences as well as of actions and passions. - The Word was born
of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Word died on the Cross. We
are reminded also of the formulas of the Fathers, of which St.
John Chrysostom's p,éva>v 8 r¡v lx .aßeu S ovk 7¡v is representative.
The use of tenses, also, is eminently suited to mark the assump-
tion of the new upon the old, especially when the new has being
in time, the old in eternity. For the three aorist participles, all
referring to the Incarnation, are synchrono

the main verb ( è/cévaxrev ), which denotes
cident with a point (as we must conceive
duration suggested by imápxnv.
This suggestion of a "change" supervening
Immutable is further marked by fiopýýv, ¿(wuo
which stress the contrast between the eternal and invisible Per-
son of the Word and what He appeared in the eyes of men. This
emphasis on sensible appearances has, of course, no suggestion of
Docetism, but implies that Christ, though perfect man, was not
mere man. What met the eye was not illusory, but there was
more in Christ than what met the eye, more even than the human
soul which a human body and gestures ordinarily lead us to infer :
rjfjieiļ yàp KaĻ o^ü/ia' etceīvoļ debļ Kai /cai am/xa (St. John
Chrysostom).
Thus the A070Ç ãaapicoç is the subject of vv. 6 and 7, 22 and the
AÓ70Ç 'évcrapKos subject of v. 8, so that èraireivaxTev expresses the
action of the human will of Christ Humility is scarcely pre-
dicable of God; yet the whole point of the passage is to show
(in w. 6 & 7) that there is in God something analogous with
humility, so that the death on the Cross out of love was strictly
continuous with a quality in God which made morally possible his
kenosis in the Incarnation.
The reversal of values alluded to above is consequent not sim-
ply on the Cross but also on the glorification of the Humanity of
Jesus, which is complementary, even integral, to the exinanition,
the folly, of Bethlehem and Calvary: "If Christ be not risen
again, then is our preaching vain (*ei»V), and your faith is also
vain" (1 Cor. 15:14). Therefore here also St. Paul hastens to
explain that the humiliation of Christ was not final, was only
one act in the drama, and issued inevitably ( Sto Kal, v. 9) in his
exaltation, according to the divine law, or the internal necessity,
our Lord himself announced (Mt. 23:12). Christ for his obe-
dience is given the Name that is above every name, the only name
whereby we may be saved (Acts 4 :12) , a name equal in majesty
to the name no Jew might speak, Yahweh.
It is distasteful even to appear to attack so distinguished a
Catholic scholar as the late Father Prat, and all the more so in
22 Those who, like Hopkins (cited above), make the incarnate Christ the
subject of the whole passage run counter to the practically universal
patristic tradition; nor is the view plausible on other grounds.
view of his comparatively recent death.

of the authority Father Prat's work deservedly enjoys it seems
desirable to define one's position in his regard. And it must be
said that in the view of the writer Father Praťs discussion of
this phrase throws little light on the point at issue. Father Prat's
exegesis appears on examination to combine, indeed to confuse,
several conceivable explanations; and it appears further that
this attempt to steer a middle course only illustrates Lightfoot's
judgment (p. 137), provoked by various interpretations based on
St. John Chrysostom's (which Father Prat also seems to be fol-
lowing) : "All (such) attempts to mediate between two opposing
explanations fail in the same way (by 'understanding too
much') and tend only to confuse the interpretation of the
passage."23
'"Apirayôs," Father Prat writes, "can be active or passive";
but he does not raise the question whether, if it is passive, it is
simple passive, or concrete in sense, or gerundive. He continues :
"in other terms, it can signify larceny or booty." But the con-
crete passive corresponding to the active "larceny" is not "booty"
(which can be legitimate), but "a thing unjustly seized." And
further, if ãp7ray/ió<; be taken as passive here, this is possible
primarily because of the analogy of the phrase âpiray/ia fjyeîo-Oai ;
and in this phrase, as Lightfoot saw, apirayâ is equivalent to
epfiaiov , the idea either of plunder or of robbery having dis-
appeared. Therefore, if the passive sense is taken, the whole
phrase must mean "to set store by." This conclusion is confirmed
by the difficulty of finding any satisfactory sense from any other
passive rendering.
The explanation which Father Prat attributes to the Greek Fa-
thers and which he favours himself is as follows: "Because he
was in the form of God, the Word did not consider divine equality
as a prey or booty on which one seizes with avidity, through fear
of being deprived of it if it is abandoned for a moment, but etc."
This, however, is altogether too compendious : the phrase
"prey
between the simple passive and the geru

"through
forgetfulness of the distinction drawn

316, between "reasoning as theologians" and "analysis as exe-
getes"; and moreover, taken in conjunction with the initial
23 C/. pp. 317-319, pp. 456-465.
"Because (he was in the form of God)," t

the Word's "detachment" from his rights
edge that they were inalienable ; but in th
ly have here an example of humility ; and
nizes on the following page that the apiray
humility.
The ambiguity is still further complicated by Father Prat's
second analysis of the passage (p. 319) : "Christ.... did not
consider the divine honours to which he was entitled as a posses-
sion which he had to guard jealously." Here the phrase "to
which he was entitled" and the word "possession" belong to the
active interpretation, which Father Prat has just rejected; for
clearly these ideas come from the rendering "he did not think it
robbery" ; else they are introduced as the results of the "reason-
ing of the theologian." And it is equally clear that the essential
trend of the analysis (for notice "which he had to guard jealous-
ly") is to adopt the gerundive sense which has not been men-
tioned in the text and which has been scathingly repudiated in the
note.
Alford's rendering24 of ápirayfuh as "(a means to) self «enrich-
ment" is not excluded on the ground of not giving the right
logical relations ; for the general sense is very similar to that of
the "prize" interpretation. But Alforďs translation can hardly
be got from the active sense of "snatching."
A. A. Stephenson, S.J.
24 Op. cit. pp. 159-160.

Christ's Self-Abasement. Phil. 25-11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christ's Self-Abasement. Phil. 25-11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHRIST'S SELF-ABASEMENT. PHIL.

2:5-11: THE EPISTLE FOR PALM SUNDAY

THE EPISTLE FOR PALM SUNDAY

For several reasons it is worth while considering at some

1 The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London, 1914-1929), s. v.

will have been noticed, for instance, that

he accepted alms (4:15). This letter, then, was provoked, not

Thus the great Christological passag

ceivable justification for regarding divine

In fact, Father Prat seems to have been m

led Father Prat to formulate his theory; b

7 Cf. Ellicotťs Philippians etc . (ed. 1857), p. 42.

unique quality, the subtle and individual po

This is precisely the relation of the statem

than A") ; and some of them can also be e

Yet it must be admitted that we do sometimes hear (I think we

was not a remarkable cricketer at school." "He was not a re-

Father Prat has a misleading note which might seem to repro-

11 P. 318, note. 12 Op. cit., loc. dt. 13 P. 319 ; my italics.

Perhaps, therefore, Father Prat's preocc

glory consists precisely in this, that it

In fact, however, St. Paul does not a

explicitly developed this argument, since

16 Op. cit . p. 110, pp. 127-133.

refers to the Incarnation, and which pr

(by human standards) of the divine Wisdom. For êavròv

referring to the Incarnation, are synchrono

view of his comparatively recent death.

between the simple passive and the geru

forgetfulness of the distinction drawn

"Because (he was in the form of God)," t

24 Op. cit. pp. 159-160.

You might also like