11<\/strong>. every tongue should confess<\/em> ] Again an implicit quotation of Isa 45:23<\/span>.<\/p>\n The verb rendered “ confess<\/em>,” as Lightfoot points out, has in Scriptural Greek almost resigned its literal meaning of open avowal, to take that of praise and thanksgiving. Our Lord Himself uses it, Mat 11:25<\/span>; Luk 10:21<\/span>; (“I thank<\/em> Thee, O Father, &c.”) Every tongue shall “give thanks to Him for His great glory.” It may be asked, how shall this be fulfilled in the case of the lost? We reply, either there is no explicit reference here to any but the subjects of final redemption, as in Eph 1:10<\/span>, where see note in this Series; or the mysterious state of the lost may admit, for all we know, such a recognition that even their hopeless woe is the ordinance of “supremest Wisdom and primeval Love [19] ,” manifested in Jesus Christ, as shall be tantamount to the adoration indicated here.<\/p>\n [19] “Justice the Founder of my fabric moved,To rear me was the task of power divine,Supremest wisdom and primeval love.All hope abandon, ye who enter here.”Dante, Inferno<\/em>, canto iii (Cary).<\/p>\n Jesus Christ<\/em> is Lord<\/em> ] Cp. 1Co 12:3<\/span>; a passage which teaches us that the Lordship in question is such as to be known only by Divine revelation. It is supreme Lordship, a session on the eternal throne. (Cp. Rev 3:21<\/span>, and see Rev 22:3<\/span>.) He “who being in the form of God took the form of a bondservant” of God, and “obeyed even unto the cross,” is now owned and adored as “God, whose throne is for ever and ever” (Heb 1:8<\/span>), and as exercising His dominion as the Son of Man<\/em>. The Person is eternally the same; but a new and wonderful condition of His action has come in, the result of His Exinanition and Passion.<\/p>\n It is observable that the Valentinian heretics (cent. 2), according to Irenus (Bk. I. ch. 1<\/span> 3) ascribed to Jesus the title Saviour, but refused Him that of Lord.<\/p>\n For proof that in apostolic doctrine the supreme Name, Jehovah, was recognized as appropriate to the Person of the Christ, cp. Joh 12:4<\/span> with Isa 6:5<\/span>. In that passage, as here, we have presented to us the personal identity of the Preexistent and the Humiliated Christ.<\/p>\n to the glory of God the Father<\/em> ] the ultimate Object of all adoration, inasmuch as He is the eternal Origin of the eternal Deity of the Son.<\/p>\n Cp. Joh 5:23<\/span>; Joh 13:31-32<\/span>; Joh 17:1<\/span>; 1Pe 1:21<\/span>; for this profound relation between the glory of the Son and the glory of the Father. But no isolated references can properly represent a subject which is so deeply woven into the texture of the Gospel.<\/p>\n In the light of the Scriptural truth of His Nature, a truth summarized with luminous fulness in the “Nicene” Creed [20] , we see the Christ of God as at once properly, divinely, adorable, and the true Medium for our adoration of the Father.<\/p>\n [20] And more elaborately in the “Definition” of the Council of Chalcedon, a.d. 451.<\/p>\n St Chrysostom here in a noble passage shews how the attribution of full and eternal Godhead to the Christ enhances, not diminishes, the Father’s glory. “A mighty proof it is of the Father’s power, and goodness, and wisdom, that He hath begotten such a Son, a Son nowise inferior in goodness and in wisdom When I say that the Son is not inferior in Essence to the Father, but equal, and of the same Essence, in this also I adore the Lord God, and His power, and goodness, and wisdom, that He has revealed to us Another, begotten of Himself, like to Him in all things, Fatherhood alone excepted” ( Hom. vii. in Ep. ad Philipp<\/em>. c. 4).<\/p>\n Thus closes a passage in which, in the course of practical exhortation, the cardinal truth of the true Godhead and true Manhood of Christ, and that of His example, are presented all the more forcibly because incidentally. The duty of unselfish mutual love and self-sacrifice is enforced by considerations on the condescension of Christ which are quite meaningless if He is not preexistent and Divine, and if the reality of His Manhood is not in itself a sublime example of unforced self-abasement for the good of others. All merely humanitarian views of His Person and Work, however refined and subtilized, are totally at variance with this apostolic passage, written within fresh living memory of His life and death.<\/p>\n And that every tongue should confess – <\/B>Everyone should acknowledge him. On the duty and importance of confessing Christ, see the notes at Rom 10:9-10<\/span>.<\/P> That Jesus Christ is Lord – <\/B>The word Lord, here, is used in its primitive and proper sense, as denoting owner, ruler, sovereign; compare the notes at Rom 14:9<\/span>. The meaning is, that all should acknowledge him as the universal sovereign.<\/P> To the glory of God the Father – <\/B>Such a universal confession would honor God; see the notes at Joh 5:23<\/span>, where this sentiment is explained.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 11. And<\/B><\/I> that <\/B>every tongue should confess<\/B><\/I>] That all those before mentioned should acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, or absolute governor<\/I>, and thus glorify God the Father, who has exalted this human nature to this state of ineffable glory, in virtue of its passion, death, resurrection, and the atonement which it has made, by which so many attributes of the Divine nature have become illustrated, the Divine law magnified and made honourable, and an eternal glory provided for man.<\/P> <\/P> Others by things in heaven<\/I> understand the holy angels<\/I>; by things<\/I> on earth, human beings<\/I> generally; and by things under the earth,<\/I> fallen spirits<\/I> of every description. Perhaps the three<\/I> expressions are designed to comprehend all beings of all kinds, all creatures; as it is usual with the Hebrews, and indeed with all ancient nations, to express, by things in heaven, things on earth, and things under the earth, all beings of all kinds; universal nature. See similar forms of speech, Ex 20:4<\/span>; De 4:17<\/span>; De 4:18<\/span>; Ps 96:11<\/span>; and Eze 38:20<\/span>. But intelligent beings<\/I> seem to be those which are chiefly intended by the words of the apostle; for it appears that nothing less than absolute rule over angels, men<\/I>, and devils<\/I>, can be designed in these extraordinary words, and by confessing him to be Lord<\/I> we may understand that worship which all intelligent creatures are called to pay to God manifested in the flesh; for all should honour the<\/I> Son even as they honour the Father<\/I>. And the worship thus offered is to the glory of God; so that far from being idolatrous, as some have rashly asserted, it is to the honour of the Divine Being. We may add, that the tongue which does not confess<\/I> thus, is a tongue that dishonours the Almighty.<\/P><\/p>\n By tongue, <\/B>not only every language, people, and nation is meant; because it is to be understood, as before particularized, of angels as well as men, for though angels properly, and by nature, want tongues, (as well as knees, which are both here joined, and must not be severed, in the worship given to Christ), yet in their manner of speaking to men, under an extraordinary dispensation, they may use them, (or that which is equivalent), 1Co 13:1<\/span>; and, in a way proper to them, can <\/P> confess, <\/B>or express, their adoration of Christ, Rev 7:9-12<\/span>, either with delight, or by a forced subjection, Rev 6:16<\/span>, and acknowledge that he is Lord, i.e. of glory, Rom 11:36<\/span>; 1Co 2:8<\/span>; 8:6<\/span>, the Son of God, 2Co 4:5<\/span>; Heb 1:2<\/span>,4<\/span>, having only power to command the soul and conscience, Jam 4:12<\/span>, and to save, Heb 7:27<\/span>, being Lord both of the dead and of the living, <\/I>Rom 14:9<\/I><\/span>. <\/P> To the glory of God the Father; <\/B>some render, in the glory of the Father. Either in that the honour of Christ redoundeth to the honour of the Father, Pro 10:1<\/span>, with Joh 5:23<\/span>; Eph 1:6<\/span>; or the Father doth most glorify the Son in his exaltation, who had most glorified him in his humiliation, Joh 12:28<\/span>, with Joh 17:5<\/span>,6<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 11. every tongue<\/B>Compare”every knee” (Php 2:10<\/span>).In every way<\/I> He shall be acknowledged as Lord (no longer as”servant,” Php 2:7<\/span>).As none can fully do so “but by the Holy Ghost” (1Co12:3<\/span>), the spirits of good men who are dead, must be the classdirectly<\/I> meant, Php 2:10<\/span>,”under the earth.” <\/P> to the glory of God theFather<\/B>the grand end of Christ’s mediatorial office andkingdom, which shall cease when this end shall have been fullyrealized (Joh 5:19-23<\/span>;Joh 5:30<\/span>; Joh 17:1<\/span>;Joh 17:4-7<\/span>; 1Co 15:24-28<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n And [that] every tongue should confess<\/strong>,…. Whether of angels or men, or of men of whatsoever nation. Confession is either true and hearty, as when the mouth and heart agree in confessing, and which is made only by true believers; or verbal only, or in mere outward form, and by force, as in hypocrites, wicked men, and devils themselves; who all either have confessed, or will confess,<\/p>\n that Jesus Christ [is] Lord<\/strong>: the holy angels confess him to be Lord, and their Lord truly, and are unfeignedly subject to him; and true believers heartily own him as their Lord, and cheerfully submit to his commands and ordinances; and the foolish virgins, and the goats on Christ’s left hand, will, at the last day, call him Lord, Lord; and the worst of men, yea, even devils, will be obliged to own his lordship and dominion; which will be<\/p>\n to the glory of God the Father<\/strong>. The Syriac reads, “his Father”, who has chose and constituted him as the Mediator, invested him with his office, ordained him to be Judge of quick and dead, and given him all power and authority, and exalted him at his own right hand; so he that honoureth the Son, honoureth the Father also. The Vulgate Latin version renders the words, “because the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father”: being in the form of God, of the same nature and essence with him, and equal to him; as he will appear to be at his second coming, for then he will come in the glory of his Father.<\/p>\n Should confess <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist middle subjunctive of <\/SPAN><\/span> with <\/SPAN><\/span> for purpose.<\/P> Lord <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Peter (Ac 2:36<\/span>) claimed that God made Christ “Lord.” See also 1Cor 8:6<\/span>; 1Cor 12:3<\/span>; Rom 10:9<\/span>. Kennedy laments that the term Lord has become one of the most lifeless in the Christian vocabulary, whereas it really declares the true character and dignity of Jesus Christ and “is the basis and the object of worship.” <\/P> <\/p>\n Confess [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. See on Mt 3:6<\/span>; thank, Mt 11:25<\/span>; Rom 14:11<\/span>. The verb may also be rendered thank, as Mt 11:25<\/span>; Luk 10:21<\/span>, that meaning growing out of the sense of open, joyful acknowledgment. The sense here is that of frank, open confession. 180 To the glory, etc. Connect with confess.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And that every tongue should confess”<\/strong> (kai pasa glossa eksomologesetai) “And (that) every tongue (above, upon, and beneath the earth) should acknowledge,” as our Lord desires all men believe or trust in Him for salvation, He also desires their tongue in testimony to confess Him, bear his name to the world, Rom 10:9-10<\/span>; Mat 10:32<\/span>; 1Jn 4:15<\/span>; 1Ti 5:13<\/span>; Act 2:36<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “That Jesus Christ is Lord”<\/strong> (hoti kurias isous christos) That Jesus Christ (exists as) Lord or master,” Joh 13:13<\/span>; Rom 14:9<\/span>. To proclaim with thanksgiving that Jesus Christ is Lord, 1Co 8:6<\/span>. No man can call Jesus “Lord” but by the Holy Spirit, 1Co 12:3<\/span>. This simply affirms that one must become a child of God before he can become a servant of the Lord.<\/p>\n 3) “To the glory of God the Father”<\/strong> (eis doksan theou patros) “Unto (the) glory of God (the) Father,” 1Co 10:31<\/span>; Eph 1:17<\/span>.<\/p>\n 11 Is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. It might also be read, In the glory, because the particle εἰς (to) is often used in place of ἐν ( in.) I prefer, however, to retain its proper signification, as meaning, that as the majesty of God has been manifested to men through Christ, so it shines forth in Christ, and the Father is glorified in the Son. See Joh 5:17<\/span>, and you will find an exposition of this passage. <\/p>\n (11) That Jesus Christ is Lord.<\/strong>The word Lord is the word constantly used in the LXX. to translate, though inadequately, the name Jehovah. The context would suggest that meaning here, for the worship paid is obviously the worship done to God. But, though less perfectly, the acknowledgment of universal lordship and majesty (such as He claimed in Mat. 28:18-20<\/span>) would satisfy the necessities of the passage. For, after all, to what created being can it be due? (On this confession of Jesus as Lord, see Act. 2:36<\/span>; Rom. 10:9<\/span>.)<\/p>\n To the glory of God the Father.<\/strong>The acknowledgment of the glory of Christ is the acknowledgment of the glory of the Father, as the Source of Deity, manifested perfectly in Him. (See Joh. 1:18<\/span>; Joh. 14:9<\/span>). Note in Joh. 5:19-30<\/span>, our Lords repeated profession that His work on earth was to manifest the Father; in Joh. 17:4<\/span>, His declaration that He had so done; and in Joh. 17:24<\/span>, the truth that His glory is the glory given of the Father.<\/p>\n 11<\/strong>. <\/strong> Confess<\/strong> The thing to be confessed is the universal Lordship of Jesus Christ<\/strong>. Men hated, persecuted, and killed him; and in every age they reject him: Satan tempted and would have destroyed him, and, with his legions of devils, still contests the question of the sovereignty of the earth. But all haters and opposers of him will finally, in love or in fear, confess that the Jesus <\/strong> of the cross is Lord <\/strong> of the universe, and to him the unwilling knee will, in the day of coming judgment, be compelled to bow. Such honour done to Jesus<\/strong>, and such acknowledgment of his Lordship, will redound to the glory of God the Father<\/strong>, whose Son he is, and who has thus exalted him.<\/p>\n Phi 2:11<\/span> appends the express confession<\/em> combined with the adoration in Phi 2:10<\/span> , in doing which the concrete form<\/em> of representation is continued, comp. Rom 14:11<\/span> ; Isa 45:23<\/span> ; hence is tongue<\/em> , correlative to the previous , not language<\/em> (Theodoret, Beza, and others).<\/p>\n .] a strengthening compound. Comp. on Mat 3:6<\/span> . Respecting the future<\/em> (see the critical remarks) depending on , see on Gal 2:4<\/span> ; Eph 6:3<\/span> ; 1Co 9:18<\/span> .<\/p>\n ] predicate, placed first with strong emphasis: that Lord<\/em> is Jesus Christ. This is the specific confession<\/em> of the apostolic church (Rom 10:9<\/span> ; 2Co 4:5<\/span> ; Act 2:36<\/span> ), whose antithesis is: 1Co 12:3<\/span> . The refers to the fellowship of the divine<\/em> dominion (comp. on Eph 1:22<\/span> f., Php 4:10 ; 1Co 15:27<\/span> f.); hence it is not to be limited<\/em> to the rational creatures<\/em> (Hoelemann, following Flatt and others), or to the church<\/em> (Rheinwald, Schenkel).<\/p>\n . .] may be attached to the entire<\/em> bipartite clause of purpose (Hofmann). Since, however, in the second<\/em> part a modification of the expression is introduced by the future<\/em> , it is more probably to be joined to this<\/em> portion, of which the telic<\/em> destination, i.e<\/em> . the final cause<\/em> , is specified. It is not to be connected merely with . ., as Bengel wished: “J. Ch. esse dominum, quippe qui sit in gloria Dei patris,<\/em> ” making stand for , for which the Vulgate, Pelagius, Estius, and others also took it. Schneckenburger also, p. 341 (comp. Calvin, Rheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann), joins it with , but takes rightly: to the honour<\/em> . But, in accordance with Phi 2:9<\/span> , it was self-evident that the of the Son tends to the honour of the Father; and the point of importance for the full conclusion was not this, but to bring into prominence that the universal confessing recognition<\/em> of the of Jesus Christ glorifies the Father (whose will and work Christ’s entire work of salvation is; see especially Eph 1<\/span> ; Rom 15:7-9<\/span> ; 2Co 1:20<\/span> ), whereby alone the exaltation, which Christ has received as a recompense from the Father, appears in its fullest splendour. Comp. Joh 12:28<\/span> ; Joh 17:1<\/span> . The whole contents of Phi 2:9<\/span> f. is parallel to the , namely, as the recompensing re-elevation to this original estate, now accorded to the divine-human<\/em> person after the completion of the work of humiliation. Complicated and at variance with the words is the view of van Hengel, that . is equivalent to . , to praise God<\/em> (Gen 29:34<\/span> , al.;<\/em> Rom 15:9<\/span> ; Mat 11:25<\/span> ; Luk 10:21<\/span> ), and that is quod;<\/em> hence: “laudibus celebrarent, quod hunc filium suum principem fecerit regni divini.”<\/p>\n REMARK.<\/p>\n From Phi 2:6-11<\/span> , Baur, whom Schwegler follows, derives his arguments for the assertion that our epistle moves in the circle of Gnostic<\/em> ideas and expressions, [121] and must therefore belong to the post-apostolic period of Gnostic speculation. But with the true explanation of the various points these arguments [122] fall to pieces of themselves. For (1) if be related to as the essence to its adequate manifestation, and if our explanation of be the linguistically correct one, then must the Gnostic conception of the Aeon Sophia<\/em> which vehemently desired to penetrate into the essence of the original Father (Iren. Haer<\/em> . i. 2. 2), and thus before the close of the world’s course ( Theol. Jahrb<\/em> . 1849, p. 507 ff.) wished to usurp forcibly something not de jure<\/em> belonging to it ( Paulus<\/em> , II. p. 51 ff.) be one entirely alien<\/em> , and dissimilar<\/em> to the idea of our passage. But this conception is just as inconsistent with the orthodox explanation of our passage, as with the one which takes the as something future and greater than the ; since in the case of the , as well as in that of the , the full fellowship in the divine nature is already the relation assumed as existing<\/em> . Consequently (2) the cannot be explained by the idea, according to which the Gnostics made that Aeon, which desired to place itself in unwarranted union with the Absolute, fall from the Pleroma<\/em> to the as to which Baur, in this alleged basis for the representation of our passage, lays down merely the distinction, that Paul gives a moral turn to what, with the Gnostics, had a purely speculative signification (“Whilst, therefore, in the Gnostic view, that indeed actually takes place, but as an unnatural enterprise neutralizes itself, and has, as its result, merely something negative, in this case, in virtue of a moral self-determination, matters cannot come to any such ; and the negative, which even in this case<\/em> occurs, not in consequence of an act that has failed, but of one which has not taken place at all, is the voluntary self-renunciation and self-denial by an act of the will, an instead of the ”). (3) That even the notion of the arose from the language used by the Gnostics, among whom the expressions , , , were very customary, is all the more arbitrarily assumed by Baur, since these expressions were very prevalent generally<\/em> , and are not specifically Gnostic designations; indeed, is not once used by the Gnostics, although it is current among other authors, including philosophers ( e.g<\/em> . Plat. Rep<\/em> . p. 381 C: , comp. p. 381 B: ). Further, (4) the erroneousness of the view, which in the phrases and . discovers a Gnostic Docetism<\/em> , is self-evident from the explanation of these expressions in accordance with the context (see on the passage); and Chrysostom and his successors have rightly brought out the essential difference between what the apostle says in Phi 2:7<\/span> and the Docetic conceptions (Theophylact: , namely, man, , . , . . . Theodoret: , . . .). Comp. on Rom 8:3<\/span> . Lastly, (5) even the three categories . ., and also the notion of the descensus ad inferos<\/em> which the latter recalls, are alleged by Baur to be genuinely Gnostic. But the idea of the descent to Hades is not distinctively Gnostic; it belongs to the N. T., and is a necessary presupposition lying at the root of many passages (see on Luk 23:43<\/span> ; Mat 12:40<\/span> ; Act 2:27<\/span> ff.; Rom 10:6<\/span> ff.; Eph 4:8<\/span> ff.); it is, in fact, the premiss of the entire belief in Christ’s resurrection . That threefold division of all angels and men (see also Rev 5:13<\/span> ) was, moreover, so appropriate and natural in the connection of the passage (comp. the twofold division, , Rom 14:9<\/span> , Act 10:42 , 1Pe 4:5<\/span> f., where only men<\/em> are in question), that its derivation from Gnosticism could only be justified in the event of the Gnostic character of our passage being demonstrated on other grounds. The whole hypothesis is engrafted on isolated expressions, which only become violently perverted into conceptions of this kind by the presupposition<\/em> of a Gnostic atmosphere. According to the Gnostic view, it would perhaps have been said of the Aeon Sophia: . . . The apostle’s<\/em> expressions agree entirely with the Christology of his other epistles; it is from these and from his own genuine Gnosis laid down in them, that his words are to be understood fully and rightly, and not from the theosophic phantasmagoria of any subsequent Gnosis whatever.<\/p>\n [121] Its idea is, that Christ “divests Himself of that which He already is, in order to receive back that of which He has divested Himself, with the full reality of the idea filled with its absolute contents,” Baur, Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n