From: David L. Moore (dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Fri Jul 05 1996 - 00:32:33 EDT
Al Kidd wrote:
>
> David Moore has suggested that I have taken R.P. Martin out of
> context as respects Martin's statement "[it is an assumption
> that MORFH QEOU (in verse 6) and TO EINAI ISA QEWi (in the same
> verse) are to be equated."
>
> Of course, I did not make any comment on Martin's
> Christology, but I simply stated what he said about the syntax
> of the phrases under consideration. Does Martin himself make
> the assumption? Or does he reject the assumption while still
> managing, at least in his estimation of the matter, to present
> an "orthodox" Christology--this despite the grand _non sequitur_
> that he would appear to make of his Christology vis-a-vis his
> rejection of the aforementioned assumption? Either alternative
> is not to the point of why I made reference to it. He simply
> says that there is an assumption made--and we construe that to
> mean that there are no grammatical rules that can arbitrate the
> issue here.
>
> But now that David Moore wishes to make an issue of this,
> I will quote Roy Hoover on Martin's misunderstanding of the
> kind of Christology he (Martin) thought he was supporting.
> And the reader can gather from Hoover that Martin did indeed
> reject the aforementioned "assumption," so that he makes
> different equations among the critical phrases. Roy Hoover,
> "The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philogical Solution," HTR 64 (1971)
> 101, ftn. 12:
>
> Since it is actually the MORFH phrase on
> which he [(Martin)] bases his _res rapta_
> conclusions, and since he believes that the
> hARPAGMOS remark refers to what Christ in
> prehuman existence did not yet possess
> (TO EINAI ISA QEWi = the rank of KURIOS),
> MARTIN [sic} actually achieves not an
> "intermediate" position but a restatement
> of the _res rapienda_ ['thing requiring to
> be seized'] view, adorned by what he takes
> to be that import of the idiomatic
> hARPAGMOS expression which is most
> accordant with the context. [end of quote]
>
> But as to the issue of whether David Moore reads Martin
> correctly in contradistinction to Hoover's reading of Martin
> is, vis-a-vis my reason for quoting Martin, a moot issue. I
> did not suggest in any way that Martin has a Christology with
> which I can agree. What he does with his grammatical insights
> can be a _non sequitur_ to his Christological conclusions. This
> sort of thing happens all too often. Hoover believes that
> Martin has not _semologically_ achieved the Christology he
> apparently wanted to establish. Still, I can quote him for an
> illustration of where an accomplished scholar disagrees with
> the equation that David Moore has suggested.
It does appear that I did not read R. P. Martin carefully in my comparison of
his views and Al Kidd's. Hoover's analysis of Martin's position, as quoted above, seems
accurate. Nevertheless, the quote below, by Kennedy, speaks more directly to my
difference of opinion with Al on this passage.
> Also, another scholar puts in his appearance here. H.A.A.
> Kennedy, _The Epistle to the Philippians_ 4 (_The Expositor's
> Greek Testament_ series, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans)
> 436:
>
> Is TO E.[INAI] I.[SA] Q.[EWi] equivalent
> to EN M.[ORFH] Q.[EOU]? In spite of some
> Comm.[entators] there is absolutely
> nothing in the text to justify the
> supposition.
It is not surprising to be able to find scholars who support one position or
another on this particular passage since it has been so often commented and since it is
full of so many, and such diverse difficulties for the interpreter.
With the array of interpretations on this verse among scholars in mind, I will
state that there are sound reasons to understand EN MORFH QEOU as the referent of TO
EINAI ISA QEWi. If this is what Kennedy is negating, then his statement might be
criticized for holding a very constricted concept of "text" and for not taking into
account a number of grammatical and philological reasons that apear to negate his
position It is probably good to point out, however, that some of these reasons have
come into the discussion on this verse subsequent to Kennedy's work (published in 1912).
Hoover, for instance, basing his arguments on non-biblical instances of the
idiom in question, says that, within the idiom hARPAGMON[-MA] hHGEISQAI [TI], the object
under consideration is always something already posessed. And it refers to the attitude
one will take towards something which is in one's possession and grasp already, and will
remain there (hARPAGMOS and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5-11," by N. T. Wright,
_Journal of Theological Studies_ 37[October 1986]: 321-52, in _The Best in Theology_
series, Vol. 2 [Carol Stream, Ill.: CTI, n.d.], p.98).
I have already pointed out the characteristic double accusatives with hHGEOMAI
in the sense of "consider." This IMO rules out making TO EINAI ISA QEWi a restatement
of hARPAGMON, as Al Kidd has suggested, but rather indicates that the most logical
referent for TO EINAI ISA QEWi, which should be taken as anaphoric, is EN MORFHi QEOU
hUPARXWN. Other passages show the articuar infinitive referring back to previously
mentioned material. Consider for instance Rom. 7:18 TO GAR QELEIN PARAKEITAI MOI, TO
KATERGAZESQAI TO KALON OU, where these infinitives refer back to what Paul has said in
vv. 15-17. Or take 2 Cor. 7:11, IDOU GAR AUTO TOUTO TO KATA QEON LUPHQHNAI, where the
infinitive has for referent the godly grief spoken of in v. 10.
Kennedy's statement that there is nothing in the text to justify the supposition
that EN MORFHi QEOU hUPARXWN corresponds to TO EINAI ISA QEWi shows that he is talking
about the *text* in the narrowest sense of the word. It is precisely the Apostle Paul's
Christology, in terms of the larger context, which indicates that EN MORFHi QEOU
hUPARXWN should not be understood as something equal to the KAT' EIKONA QEOU reference
to Adam (Gen. 1:27 [LXX]) and which indicates that, rather, Christ's heavenly state is
being described. Elsewere, Paul indicates that it is through Christ that all things
were created (Col. 1:16, 17). We have this same thought about Christ's prior, heavenly
state in figurative terms in 2Cor. 8:9 "that, being rich, He made himself poor, that
you, by His poverty might be made rich."
If there is, as some who have written more recently than Kennedy have said, an
allusion to Adam in Phil. 2:6 and similar passages, it would need to fall into the
Apostle Paul's concept of Christ as the second Adam, as the Apostle says in 1Cor. 15:47
"The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven."
Regards,
-- David L. Moore Director Miami, Florida, USA Department of Education dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com Southeastern Spanish District http://www.netcom.com/~dvdmoore of the Assemblies of God
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT