form of servant? and (2) ?being made in the likeness of men.? Here we have the humiliation of the Kenosis, that by which Christ became man. 2d stage indicated in vs. 8. Its central act is: ?he humbled himself.? Its two modalities are (1) ?being found in fashion as a man? and (2) ? becoming obedient unto death yea, the death of the cross. Here we have the humiliation of his obedience and death, that by which, in humanity, he became a sacrifice for our sins.?

Meyer refers <490531>Ephesians 5:31 exclusively to Christ and the church, making the completed union future, however, i. e, at the time of the Parousia. ?For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother? = ?in the incarnation, Christ leaves father and mother (his seat at the right hand of God), and cleaves to his wife (the church). The two (the descended Christ and the church) then become one flesh (one ethical person, as the married pair become one by physical union). The Fathers, however, (Jerome, Theodoret, Chrysostom), referred it to the incarnation.? On the interpretation of <501706>Philippians 2:6-11, see Comm. of Neander, Meyer, Lange, Ellicott.

On the question whether Christ would have become man had there been no sin, theologians are divided. Dorner, Martensen, and Westcott answer in the affirmative and Robinson, Watts and Denney in the negative. See Dorner, Hist. Doct. Person of Christ, 5:236; Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 327-329; Westcott, Com. on Hebrews, page 8 ? ?The incarnation is in its essence independent of the Fall, though conditioned by it as to its circumstances.? Per contra, see Robinson, Christ. Theol., 219, note ? ?It would be difficult to show that a like method of argument from a priori premises will not equally avail to prove sin to have been a necessary part of the scheme of creation.? Denney, Studies in Theology, 101, objects to the doctrine of necessary incarnation irrespective of sin, that it tends to obliterate the distinction between nature and grace, to blur the definite outlines of the redemption wrought by Christ, as the supreme revelation of God and his love. See also Watts, New Apologetic, 198-202; Julius Muller, Dogmat. Ablhandlungen, 66-126; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 512-526, 543-548; Forrest, The Authority of Christ, 340-345. On the general subject of the Kenosis of the Logos, see Bruce, Humiliation of Christ; Robins, in Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1874:615; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:138-150, 386-475; Pope, Person of Christ, 23; Bodemeyer, Lehre von der Kenosis; Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:610625.

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment