I find this article rather odd:
1. Burk fails to directly interact with Hoover's classic seminal essay. Hoover argued that harpogmos doesn't have an isolated sense in this context. Rather, the overall meaning is generated by an idiomatic phrase: verb+noun. As one commentator summarizes the argument:
Hoover has demonstrated the mistake of focusing on the word harpagmos itself rather than on the combination of that word with hegomai…Hoover states that in all instances examined, the "idiomatic expression refers to something already present and at one's disposal," M. Silva, Philippians (Baker 2005), 103-04. Cf. G. Fee, Philippians (Eerdmans 1995), 205-08; P.T. O'Brien, Philippians (Eerdmans 1991), 214-16. Burke's interpretation seems to be a throwback to Lightfoot's defective analysis.
2. The Son's coequality with the Father is already implicit in the "plot"–which reflects the V-shape curve of Classical comedy. Beginning high, followed by downward motion, followed by resumption or restoration of original exalted status.
3. There may well be a subtext to Burk's interpretation. It reflects the strategy of grounding male headship in the ontological Trinity. But hasn't Burk recanted eternal functional subordination? If so, doesn't he need to revise his argument?
No comments:
Post a Comment