considerations sull'inno of Philippians 2.5 to 11. The hymn
culminates in the profession of faith of 2.11, which contains an updating of Is 45.23, not as in the Hebrew text (and thus in the Vulgate), but as it appears in ancient Greek translation of that the LXX. Phil 2.11 echoes the text of the Greek translation of Isaiah, some changes that they live it. Is
45.23 LXX says ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ καὶ ἐξομολογήσεται πᾶσα γλῶσσα τῷ θεῷ.
In Isaiah, God speaks and every knee bows before God Saint Paul adds that "in the name of Jesus."
Isaiah says, "every tongue confess to God." San Paolo complete "every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."
St. Paul makes it the identity of Jesus Christ and the Lord. The "Lord" is the name of God who reveals himself in history: for Paul, therefore, God reveals himself in Jesus Christ, and yet Jesus did not take the place of the God of the Old Testament. The confession of the name of Jesus is "the glory of God the Father." For St. Paul's affirmation of the divinity of Christ is not to the db of the divinity of the Father.
He wonders if the hymn is divided into two or three moments. Until recently it was thought that is divided into three stages, which would: 1) Jesus pre-exists with the Father in divine form, 2) Jesus emptied himself (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν) becoming man; 3) Jesus is exalted by the Father.
observe immediately that this scan is a literary improbable as the three parties could have an extension so unequal? The first included a verse, the second two, the third three. Rather than structure of the hymn, then we should talk about lack of structure, since there is not no regular verbal expression of thought. But then, rather than saying that St. Paul draws a disproportionate anthem, it would be better to say that we have not yet realized that the structure had the anthem?
Whilst it may be that you accept the division into three stages, it becomes very difficult to understand in what sense Jesus is "empty" places perhaps the gods?
There are interpretations that read the hymn the heterodox idea that Jesus was God and became a mere man. You can do this in several ways: a) stating that Jesus was God only in appearance (very forced interpretation of ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων) b) stating that Jesus was God, but then gave up to be equal with God, and a certain henceforth no longer is (the death of God theologies).
Interpretation a) is weak because μορφή in greek means the form so visible, but apparently not as opposed to the substance, interpretation b) instead is metaphysically untenable: if Jesus is God, and has forever, if at a given moment it is not, then it never was. You can not stop being God
There are orthodox interpretations, trying to save the divinity of Jesus But if they want to maintain the tripartite division of the hymn, you are faced with insoluble problems, which arise from connecting to 'embodiment of ceasing to be equal with God if the lowering of Jesus consisted in the incarnation, in that way would be exceeded by his exaltation? Perhaps with the exaltation of Jesus stops the incarnation? No way out.
The best solution is to take the exam again the hymn, to recognize that there is in three parts, but in two.
From the point of view, the division into two parts of three verses each seems more harmonious. The first part would be the humiliation of Jesus, the second in his exaltation. The raising of Jesus above every name follows the resurrection. With the resurrection, Jesus does not cease to be a man. In contrast, returns to being a living man. His humanity passes from death to life. It follows that the humiliation of mankind is not at all in recruiting. In that sense, Jesus "emptied himself"?
In 1974, the CEI 2.6 bc translated as follows: "did not count cling to his equality with God." The translation, now changed in the third year, was not entirely clear. What is equality with God? Maybe it means "to be equal with God"?
should look to the greek text, which says: τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ (2.6 c). We observe that
ἴσα is neutral plural. If you want to say in greek "to be equal, it seems ἴσον, using the masculine singular accusative in a construct with the infinite (or ἴσος construct a name with the infinite). The use is already in Sappho: φαίνεταί μοι κῆνος ἴσος θέοισιν ἔμμεν 'ὤνηρ, ὄττις ... = I think that is equal to the gods that man, who ... Here we use the masculine singular ἴσος (the name).
What's different is the accusative plural ἴσα neutral, that does not agree with a singular subject. This is an adverbial form, which means "equal," "equally." The use is already in Homer ( Od. 11.484-485). Odysseus encounters the shade of Achilles dead and says πρὶν μὲν γάρ σε ζωὸν ἐτίομεν ἶσα θεοῖσιν Ἀργεῖοι (= before, when you were alive, we Argives honored you also to the gods). The expression ἶσα θεοῖσιν means "equally to the gods." Concerns that the Argives bestow honors to Achilles alive.
ἴσα θεῷ St. Paul writes, replacing Homer with the plural the singular, consistent with its monotheism. Saying "equally" does not refer to the divine nature so of Jesus, but to divine honors, that is being treated as befits God to Jesus to this waiver, rather than taking the form of a servant. Is not honored as God, but ignored and even condemned to death by crucifixion.
So humiliation is not the incarnation, which in fact is not told by Paul, but in the way that historically there is the life of Jesus became a man (2.7 c: ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος), so that in ' Anthem is narrated briefly. The humiliation is not the assumption of human nature, but historical condition in which there is the human life of Jesus, servant and master, and punishable by death and glorious and immortal.
It is thus also explain what constitutes exaltation. The humanity of Jesus after the resurrection, is glorified. Throughout the hymn Jesus is God and man, after the resurrection becomes a glorified man.
From a theological viewpoint, the union of two natures does not involve the alteration of either.
0 comments:
Post a Comment