Please add versification to the 18 Exegetical Commantaries that are contained in the Collected Writing of W.E. Vine. These commentaries cover Isaiah, John, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John Please also add this request to the Wiki page here: http://wiki.logos.com/Books_Missing_Pagination_and_Other_Indexes
Here is an example of Vine's Commentary on Philippians 2:6-7
2:6 who,—the pronoun points to Him as the One who, known to the readers under this Name, is thus contemplated, not merely as having accomplished something in the days of His flesh, but as having done something in a condition of existence spoken of as “being in the form of God.”
being—the verb huparchō conveys much more than the simple verb to be. Used, as here, in the present participle (huparchōn), it points to the existence of a person previous to what is stated of him. Thus David, being already a prophet, foretold the resurrection of Christ, Acts 2:30. Abraham, “being about a hundred years old [i.e., having already reached that time of life and so existing as having attained to that advanced age], waxed strong through faith,” Romans 4:19. Forasmuch as man “is [huparchōn, being, by his original creation] the image and glory of God,” he ought not to have his head veiled, 1 Corinthians 11:7. Titus, “being [huparchon, characteristically, by his nature] himself very earnest, went forth … of his own accord,” 2 Corinthians 8:17. “If thou, being a Jew [huparchon, being a Jew by birth, a Jew to begin with] livest as do the Gentiles,” Galatians 2:14. Christ, “being [existing previously] in the form of God … emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant”; that is, His was a state preexistent to the time when He emptied Himself.
But the grammatical construction likewise implies a continued existence in respect of what is stated. Joseph of Arimathaea, being (huparchōn) a councilor, continued in that capacity after what is recorded of him in Luke 23:50ff. So with the continuation of the circumstances mentioned above regarding Abraham and Titus. Accordingly, that which is described as “the form of God” was not only a preexistent state, but continued after Christ “emptied Himself.” Bengel’s comment is, “In that form of God the Son of God was existing from eternity: nor did He cease to exist therein when He came in the flesh.”
in the form of God,—the morphē denotes the special or the characteristic form of a person. What Gifford, in his book on “The Incarnation,” remarks is worth quoting: morphē is “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists … morphē Theou [the form of God] is the divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ … it includes the whole nature and essence of deity, and is inseparable from them … it does not include in itself anything accidental or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the ‘form,’ at another separated from it.”
Thus far, therefore, the phraseology establishes the fact of the preexistent and unoriginated deity of Christ previous to His birth, and its continuity subsequently.
counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,—harpagmos may have two meanings, (1) the act of seizing (a.v., “robbery”), (2) a thing grasped or held as a treasure (r.v., “prize”; margin, “a thing to be grasped”). As to (1) the meaning would be “Who, because He was subsisting in the essential form of God, did not regard it as any usurpation that He was on an equality of glory and majesty with God, but yet emptied Himself of that coequal glory.” As to (2) the meaning is, “Who though He was subsisting in the essential form of God, yet did not regard His being on an equality of glory and majesty with God as a prize and a treasure to be held fast, but emptied Himself thereof.” After thus clearly presenting the two interpretations, Gifford rightly decides on the latter. It is in agreement with the object of the passage in presenting Christ “as the supreme example of humility and Self-renunciation.”
The word isos, equal (as in John 5:18), is here used in the neuter plural, lit., “equalities,” and the r.v. accurately translates it “on an equality [with God],” as expressing more than being “equal”: it signifies the various ways or conditions in which He who was possessed of the nature and attributes of deity could, and did, exist and manifest Himself as such. Thus there is more in this doctrinal plural than the ignorant complaint of the Pharisees that He made Himself equal with God.
but—not “yet”; the “but” (alla) introduces the act of infinite grace as being contrary to what Christ would have done had He regarded His equality of majesty and glory a treasure to be grasped.
emptied Himself,—there is a distinct emphasis on “Himself” in the original, indicating that the self-emptying was Christ’s own voluntary act. Kenoō means to empty. The a.v. “made Himself of no reputation” partakes of the nature of a comment instead of a translation. In what respect Christ emptied Himself is to be determined by the context. Here both that which precedes and that which follows help us. As to what precedes, the statement is set in direct contradistinction to His being “on equalities with God,” and here stress is to be laid on the fact that this is not the same thing as “being in the form of God”; the latter, as we have seen, speaks of His Godhood, and this He did not relinquish. The equalities were those of majesty and glory, not the essential, Divine attributes. As to what follows, the succeeding clauses to the end of verse 8 show positively how He did empty Himself, and explain the great fact that He abandoned the glory and majesty which He had with God the Father.
taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men,—the grammatical construction, the aorist participles of the verbs, marks the act as definitely coincidental with that of His emptying Himself. Christ laid aside His glory in the act of taking the form of a servant, being made (or becoming) in the likeness of men. The idea of a period of His life between His self-emptying, condescending stoop and His becoming in the likeness of men is ruled out. The mode in which He emptied Himself was by thereupon both taking the form of a servant and assuming the likeness of man.
The word for form is again morphē, and all that is set forth above in regard to it, in the phrase “form of God,” holds good here in the phrase “form of a servant.” All that is essentially the characteristic and nature of a servant, all that is real in, and inseparable from, the condition of a servant, is what Christ took. The latter provides illustration and confirmation of the meaning of “form of God.”
For doulos, “servant,” see note on 1:1; slave is not the proper term in regard to Christ. No man was ever Christ’s master. He surrendered Himself entirely in submission to the will of His Father.
The clause “being made in the likeness of men” immediately defines how Christ took the form of a servant. The interpolation of the repeated “and” in the a.v. mars the true connection and relationship of the facts one to another as expressed in the original. Those added conjunctions make three distinct and independent statements, whereas the two clauses which follow the declaration “He emptied Himself” show how He did it. He emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant. He took the form of a servant by being made (becoming) in the likeness of men.
The phrase “likeness [homoiōma] of men” does not indicate any diminution of the reality of the human nature as assumed by Christ (that has already been declared in the fact that He took the form of a servant). He became perfect man, possessed of complete manhood (Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5), but He was not merely man, He was, as the Incarnate Son of God, possessed, at the same time, of Godhood, retaining the nature and attributes of God. It is accordingly for that reason that the apostle states that He was made “in the likeness” of men. While predicating His humanity it safeguards the fact of His continued Deity.
The plural “men” is used because Christ’s humanity was not simply that which belongs to an individual man, but was what is common to all men, sin apart.[1]
[1] W.E. Vine, Collected Writings of W.E. Vine (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997).
