Philippians 2:6

Who, being in the form of God - There is scarcely any passage in the New Testament which has given rise to more discussion than this. The importance of the passage on the question of the divinity of the Saviour will be perceived at once, and no small part of the point of the appeal by the apostle depends, as will be seen, in the fact that Paul regarded the Redeemer as equal with God. If he was truly divine, then his consenting to become a man was the most remarkable of all possible acts of humiliation. The word rendered “form” - μορφή morphē - occurs only in three places in the New Testament, and in each place is rendered “form.” Mar 16:12; Phi 2:6-7. In Mark it is applied to the form which Jesus assumed after his resurrection, and in which he appeared to two of his disciples on his way to Emmaus. “After that he appeared in another form unto two of them.” This “form” was so unlike his usual appearance, that they did not know him. The word properly means, form, shape, bodily shape, especially a beautiful form, a beautiful bodily appearance - Passow. In Phi 2:7, it is applied to the appearance of a servant - and took upon him the form of a servant;” that is, he was in the condition of a servant - or of the lowest condition. The word “form” is often applied to the gods by the classic writers, denoting their aspect or appearance when they became visible to people; see Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 2; Ovid, Meta. i. 37; Silius, xiii. 643; Xeno. Memora. iv; Aeneid, iv. 556, and other places cited by Wetstein, in loc. Hesychius explains it by ἰδέα εῖδος idea eidos. The word occurs often in the Septuagint:

(1)As the translation of the word ציי - Ziv - “splendour,” Dan 4:33; Dan 5:6, Dan 5:9-10; Dan 7:28;

(2)As the translation of the word תּבנית tabniyth, structure, model, pattern - as in building, Isa 44:13;

(3)As the translation of תּמונה temuwnah, appearance, form, shape, image, likeness, Job 4:16; see also Wisdom Job 18:1.

The word can have here only one or two meanings, either:

(1)Splendor, majesty, glory - referring to the honor which the Redeemer had, his power to work miracles, etc. - or.

(2)Nature, or essence - meaning the same as φύσις phusis, “nature,” or ουσία ousia, “being.”

The first is the opinion adopted by Crellius, Grotius, and others, and substantially by Calvin. Calvin says, “The form of God here denotes majesty. For as a man is known from the appearance of his form, so the majesty which shines in God, is his figure. Or to use a more appropriate similitude, the form of a king consists of the external marks which indicate a king - as his scepter, diadem, coat of mail, attendants, throne, and other insignia of royalty; the form of a counsul is the toga, ivory chair, attending lictors, etc. Therefore Christ before the foundation of the world was in the form of God, because he had glory with the Father before the world was; Joh 17:5. For in the wisdom of God, before he put on our nature, there was nothing humble or abject, but there was magnificence worthy of God.” Commentary in loc. The second opinion is, that the word is equivalent to nature, or being; that is, that he was in the nature of God, or his mode of existence was that of God, or was divine. This is the opinion adopted by Schleusner (Lexicon); Prof. Stuart (Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 40); Doddridge, and by orthodox expositors in general, and seems to me to be the correct interpretation. In support of this interpretation, and in opposition to that which refers it to his power of working miracles, or his divine appearance when on earth, we may adduce the following considerations:

(1) The “form” here referred to must have been something before he became a man, or before he took upon him the form of a servant. It was something from which he humbled himself by making “himself of no reputation;” by taking upon himself “the form of a servant;” and by being made “in the likeness of men.” Of course, it must have been something which existed when he had not the likeness of people; that is, before he became incarnate. He must therefore have had an existence before he appeared on earth as a man, and in that previous state of existence there must have been something which rendered it proper to say that he was “in the form of God.”

(2) That it does not refer to any moral qualities, or to his power of working miracles on earth, is apparent from the fact that these were not laid aside. When did he divest himself of these in order that he might humble himself? There was something which he possessed which made it proper to say of him that he was “in the form of God,” which he laid aside when he appeared in the form of a servant and in the likeness of human beings. But assuredly that could not have been his moral qualities, nor is there any conceivable sense in which it can be said that he divested himself of the power of working miracles in order that he might take upon himself the “form of a servant.” All the miracles which he ever did were performed when he sustained the form of a servant, in his lowly and humble condition. These considerations make it certain that the apostle refers to a period before the incarnation. It may be added:

(3) That the phrase “form of God” is one that naturally conveys the idea that he was God. When it is said that he was “in the form of a servant,” the idea is, that he was actually in a humble and depressed condition, and not merely that he appeared to be. Still it may be asked, what was the “form” which he had before his incarnation? What is meant by his having been then “in the form of God?” To these questions perhaps no satisfactory answer can be given. He himself speaks Joh 17:5 of “the glory which he had with the Father before the world was;” and the language naturally conveys the idea that there was then a manifestation of the divine nature through him, which in some measure ceased when he became incarnate; that there was some visible splendor and majesty which was then laid aside. What manifestation of his glory God may make in the heavenly world, of course, we cannot now fully understand. Nothing forbids us, however, to suppose that there is some such visible manifestation; some splendor and magnificence of God in the view of the angelic beings such as becomes the Great Sovereign of the universe - for he “dwells in light which no man can approach unto;” 1Ti 6:16. That glory, visible manifestation, or splendor, indicating the nature of God, it is here said that the Lord Jesus possessed before his incarnation.

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God - This passage, also, has given occasion to much discussion. Prof. Stuart renders it: “did not regard his equality with God as an object of solicitous desire;” that is, that though he was of a divine nature or condition, be did not eagerly seek to retain his equality with God, but took on him an humble condition - even that of a servant. Letters to Channing, pp. 88-92. That this is the correct rendering of the passage is apparent from the following considerations:

(1) It accords with the scope and design of the apostle’s reasoning. His object is not to show, as our common translation would seem to imply, that he aspired to be equal with God, or that he did not regard it as an improper invasion of the prerogatives of God to be equal with him, but that he did not regard it, in the circumstances of the case, as an object to greatly desired or eagerly sought to retain his equality with God. Instead of retaining this by an earnest effort, or by a grasp which he was unwilling to relinquish, he chose to forego the dignity, and to assume the humble condition of a man.

(2) It accords better with the Greek than the common version. The word rendered “robbery” - ἁρπαγμος harpagmos - is found nowhere else in the New Testament, though the verb from which it is derived frequently occurs; Mat 11:12; Mat 13:19; Joh 6:15; Joh 10:12, Joh 10:28-29; Act 8:29; Act 23:10; 2Co 12:2, 2Co 12:4; 1Th 4:17; Jud 1:23; Rev 12:5. The notion of violence, or seizing, or carrying away, enters into the meaning of the word in all these places. The word used here does not properly mean an act of robbery, but the thing robbed - the plunder - das Rauben (Passow), and hence something to be eagerly seized and appropriated. Schleusner; compare Storr, Opuscul. Acade. i. 322, 323. According to this, the meaning of the word here is, something to be seized and eagerly sought, and the sense is, that his being equal with God was not a thing to be anxiously retained. The phrase “thought it not,” means “did not consider;” it was not judged to be a matter of such importance that it could not be dispensed with. The sense is, “he did not eagerly seize and tenaciously hold” as one does who seizes prey or spoil. So Rosenmuller, Schleusner, Bloomfield, Stuart, and others understand it.

To be equal with God - τὸ εἶναι ἶσα Θεῷ to einai isa Theō. That is, the being equal with God he did not consider a thing to be tenaciously retained. The plural neuter form of the word “equal” in Greek - ἶσα isa - is used in accordance with a known rule of the language, thus stated by Buttman: “When an adjective as predicate is separated from its substantive, it often stands in the neuter where the substantive is a masculine or feminine, and in the singular where the substantive is in the plural. That which the predicate expresses is, in this case, considered in general as a thing.” Greek Grammar, section 129, 6. The phrase “equal with God,” or “equal with the gods,” is of frequent occurrence in the Greek Classics; see Wetstein in loc. The very phrase here used occurs in the Odyssey:

Τον νῦν ἴσα Θεῷ Ἰθακήσιοι εἰσορόωσι Ton nun isa Theō Ithakēsioi eisoroōsi

Compare Joh 5:18. “Made himself equal with God.” The phrase means one who sustains the same rank, dignity, nature. Now it could not be said of an angel that he was in any sense equal with God; much less could this be said of a mere man. The natural and obvious meaning of the language is, that there was an equality of nature and of rank with God, from which he humbled himself when he became a man. The meaning of the whole verse, according to the interpretation suggested above, is, that Christ, before he became a man, was invested with honor, majesty, and glory, such as was appropriate to God himself; that there was some manifestation or splendor in his existence and mode of being then, which showed that he was equal with God; that he did not consider that that honor, indicating equality with God, was to be retained at all events, and so as to do violence, as it were, to other interests, and to rob the universe of the glory of redemption; and that he was willing, therefore, to forget that, or lay it by for a time, in order that he might redeem the world. There were a glory and majesty which were appropriate to God, and which indicated equality with God - such as none but God could assume. For how could an angel have such glory, or such external splendor in heaven, as to make it proper to say that he was “equal with God?” With what glory could he be invested which would be such as became God only? The “fair” interpretation of this passage, therefore, is, that Christ before his incarnation was equal with God.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Php_2:6-10

Who being in the form of God.

The three estates

The apostle evidently points out the three different conditions of Christ. His state of--

1. Dignity.

2. Humility.

3. Glory.

These three are essential to the argument, for take away any of them and the example he proposes is lost.

I. If you remove the state of Christs natural dignity the second state will no longer be that of humiliation, nor Christ any longer an example of humility.

II. It is implied that He was in possession of whatever belonged to his state of dignity before He underwent anything that belonged to His state of humiliation. He was in the form of God, before He was made in the likeness of men.

III. It is implied that He underwent whatever belonged to His state of humiliation before He enjoyed anything that belonged to His state of exaltation; because His exaltation was the effect and reward of His humility, and being purchased and obtained by His humility could not be antecedent to it. From whence it follows, that the term of God, being the dignity He possessed before His humiliation, does not belong to Him in virtue of anything He did or suffered, nor is any part of that glory to which He was exalted after or on account of His sufferings. To maintain otherwise is to confound the distinct states of glory which belong to Christ: the glory He had with the Father before the world was, and the glory which He received from the Father at the redemption: one the glory of nature, the other the glory of office; one the glory of the eternal Loges, the other the glory of the Son of Man. These are carefully distinguished elsewhere.

1. We find the original glory founded upon creation (Col_1:15-17), and in the next verse the apostle mentions a honour belonging to Christs exaltation founded on His resurrection. As Lord of all, He is styled the firstborn of every creature; as Head of the Church, the firstborn from the dead.

2. To raise the dead is a power equivalent to creation, and therefore St. John tells us, The hour is coming, etc. (Joh_5:25). In verse 27, however, speaking of His being Judge of the world which belongs to Him in virtue of Redemption, lies one of the glories of His exaltation. He says, The Father, etc.

3. In Heb_1:1-2 the apostle describes the dignity of the Person sent for our redemption, and evidently describes Christs original glory. Then follows, When He had purged our sins, etc., which speaks of His state of exaltation which He received after His sufferings. And in chap. 2:9, it is said that Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, but here, better. If He was made lower in order to redeem us, it seems to imply that He was really, and by nature, higher. We may expound Hebrews by Philippians. For when He, who was in the form of God, made Himself of no reputation, He was made lower than the angels; but when, after His suffering death, He was exalted by God then He was made so much better than the angels, as He had by inheritance a more excellent name than they (Cf. verse 9-10)

. (T. Sherlock, D. D.)

The form of God

To be in the form of God signifies not only to be King, to possess majesty and power, but also to have the insignia of royalty, its courtly train and equipage. Thus formerly among the Romans we might call the form of a consul, the equipage and pomp with which the laws and customs of that people invested those who exercised the office; the purple, the ivory chair, the twelve lictors with their fasces and rods, and such like. When, then, the apostle here says that the Lord, before taking our nature upon Him, was in the form of God, he does not merely intend that He was God in Himself, and that He had the true nature of the divinity; but, further still, that He possessed the glory and enjoyed all the dignity, majesty, and grandeur due to so high a name. This is precisely what our Lord means in St. John by the glory which He says He had with the Father before the world was. (J. Daille.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2:6-11 This early Christian hymn is about Christ’s preexistence and divine nature, incarnation and death, exaltation and lordship.

2:6 Though he was God: See John 1:1-3; 17:5; Col 1:15.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Php 2:6. Ὃς) inasmuch as being one who.—ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, subsisting in the form of God) The name God, in this and the following clause, does not denote God the Father, but is put indefinitely. The form of God does not imply the Deity, or Divine nature itself, but something emanating from it; and yet again it does not denote the being on an equality with God, but something prior, viz. the appearance [outward manifestation] of God, i.e. the form shining forth from the very glory of the Invisible Deity, Joh 1:14. The Divine nature had infinite beauty in itself, even without any creature contemplating that beauty. That beauty was the μορφὴ Θεοῦ, form of God, as in man beauty shines forth from the sound constitution and elegant symmetry of his body, whether it has or has not any one to look at it. Man himself is seen by his form; so God and His glorious Majesty. This passage furnishes an excellent proof of the Divinity of Christ from this very fact; for as the form of a servant does not signify the human nature itself—for the form of a servant was not perpetual, but the human nature is to continue for ever—yet nevertheless it takes for granted the existence of the human nature: so the form of God is not the Divine nature, nor is the being on an equality with God the Divine nature; but yet He, who was subsisting in the form of God, and who might have been on an equality with God, is God. Moreover the form of God is used rather than the form of the Lord, as presently after on an equality with God: because God is more an absolute word, Lord involves a relation to inferiors. The Son of God subsisted in that form of God from eternity: and when He came in the flesh He did not cease to be in that form, but rather, so far as the human nature is concerned, He began to subsist in it: and when He was in that form, by His own peculiar pre-eminence itself as Lord, it was entirely in His power, even according to His human nature, so soon as He assumed it, to be on an equality with God, to adopt a mode of life and outward distinctions, which would correspond to His dignity, that He might be received and treated by all creatures as their Lord; but He acted differently.—οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, He did not regard it a thing to be eagerly caught at as a prey) as a spoil. Those, to whom any opportunity of sudden advantage is presented, are usually eager in other cases to fly upon it and quickly to lay hold of it, without having any respect to others, and determinately to use and enjoy it. Hence ἁρπαλέα, with Eustathius, means, τὰ πάνυ περισπούδαστα, the things which a man may with all eagerness snatch for his own use, and may claim as his own: and the phrases occur, ἅρπαγμα, ἁρπαγμὸν, ἕρμαιον, εὕρημα, νομίζειν, ποεῖσθαι, ἡγεῖσθαι, ἁρπάζειν. E. Schmidius and G. Raphelius have collected examples from Heliodorus and Polybius. But Christ, though He might have been on an equality with God, did not snatch at it, did not regard it as spoil.[17] He did not suddenly use that power; compare Psa 69:5; Gen 3:5, etc. This feeling on His part is at the same time indicated by the verb ἡγεῖσθαι, to regard, to treat it as. It would not have been robbery (rapina), if He had used His own right; but He abstained from doing so, just as if it had been robbery. A similar phrase at 2Co 11:8, where see the note, may be compared with it.—τὸ εἶναι ἶσα Θεῷ) ἶσα, the accusative used adverbially, as happens often in Job, on an equality with and in a manner suitable to God. To be on an equality with God, implies His fulness and exaltation, as is evident from the double antithesis, Php 2:7-8, He emptied and humbled Himself. The article, without which μορφὴν is put, makes now an emphatic addition [Epitasis]. It is not therefore wonderful, that He never called Himself God, rather rarely the Son of God, generally the Son of man.

[17] Many think rightly, from a passage of Plutarch, quoted by Wetstein, that ἁρπαγμὸς signifies the act by which anything is greedily seized, and the desire which leads to it; but that ἀρπάγμα, having a neuter ending, indicates the object desired, the thing seized, the prey. Drusius, in Crit. S.S., Lond., tries to show that ἁρπαγμὸς, as well as ἁρπάγμα, though both strictly signifying an act, may signify the thing which is the object of the act. Wahl renders ἁρπαγμὸς, “res cupidè arripienda et necessario usurpanda.” So Neander, “Conscious of Divinity, He did not eagerly retain equality with God for the mere exhibition of it, but emptied Himself of the outward attributes and glory of it.” The antithesis favours this view. However, there seems no very valid argument against ἁρπαγμὸς being taken in the strict sense, as Engl. V., ‘thought’ the being on an equality with God no act of ‘robbery,’ or arrogation of what did not belong to Him. It is true the antithesis, as Olshausen argues, ἀλλʼ ἐκένωσεν, may seem to suit better Wahl’s rendering. But ἁρπαγμὸς, in the only passage where it occurs, Plut. de puer. educ., 120, means raptus or actio rapiendi, not res rapta. It is only by metonymy it can be made even res rapienda. As to the antithesis, ἀλλʼ plainly means, And yet: Though having been in the form of God, etc., yet, etc.—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Php_2:6. The classical passage which now follows is like an Epos in calm majestic objectivity; nor does it lack an epic minuteness of detail.

ὅς] epexegetical; subject of what follows; consequently Christ Jesus, but in the pre-human state, in which He, the Son of God, and therefore according to the Johannine expression as the λόγος ἄσαρκος, was with God.[92] The human state is first introduced by the words ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε in Php_2:7. So Chrysostom and his successors, Beza, Zanchius, Vatablus, Castalio, Estius, Clarius, Calixtus, Semler, Storr, Keil, Usteri, Kraussold, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Corn. Müller, and most expositors, including Lünemann, Tholuck, Liebner, Wiesinger, Ernesti, Thomasius, Raebiger, Ewald, Weiss, Kahnis, Beyschlag (1860), Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II. p. 306, Messner, Lehre d. Ap. 233 f., Lechler, Gess, Person Chr. p. 80 f., Rich. Schmidt, l.c., J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm; comp. also Hofmann and Düsterdieck, Apolog. Beitr. III. p. 65 ff. It has been objected (see especially de Wette and Philippi, also Beyschlag, 1866, and Dorner in Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1856, p. 394 f.), that the name Christ Jesus is opposed to this view; also, that in Php_2:8-11 it is the exaltation of the earthly Christ that is spoken of (and not the return of the Logos to the divine δόξα); and that the earthly Christ only could be held up as a pattern. But Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, as subject, is all the more justly used (comp. 2Co_8:9; 1Co_8:6; Col_1:14 ff.; 1Co_10:4), since the subject not of the pre-human glory alone, but at the same time also of the human abasement[93] and of the subsequent exaltation, was to be named. Paul joins on to ὅς the whole summary of the history of our Lord, including His pre-human state (comp. 2Co_8:9 : ἐπτώχευσε πλούσιος ὤν); therefore Php_2:8-11 cannot by themselves regulate our view as regards the definition of the subject; and the force of the example, which certainly comes first to light in the historical Christ, has at once historically and ethically its deepest root in, and derives its highest, because divine (comp. Mat_5:48; Eph_5:1), obligation from, just what is said in Php_2:6 of His state before His human appearance. Moreover, as the context introduces the incarnation only at Php_2:7, and introduces it as that by which the subject divested Himself of His divine appearance, and as the earthly Jesus never was in the form of God (comp. Gess, p. 295), it is incorrect, because at variance with the text and illogical, though in harmony with Lutheran orthodoxy and its antagonism to the Kenosis of the Logos,[94] to regard the incarnate historical Christ, the λόγος ἔνσαρκος, as the subject meant by ὅς (Novatian, de Trin. 17, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Cameron, Piscator, Hunnius, Grotius, Calovius, Clericus, Bengel, Zachariae, Kesler, and others, including Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, de Wette, Schneckenburger, Philippi, Beyschlag (1866), Dorner, and others; see the historical details in Tholuck, p. 2 ff., and J. B. Lightfoot). Liebner aptly observes that our passage is the Pauline ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο; comp. on Col_1:15.

ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων] not to be resolved, as usually, into although, etc., which could only be done in accordance with the context, if the ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι κ.τ.λ. could be presupposed as something proper or natural to the being in the form of God; nor does it indicate the possibility of His divesting Himself of His divine appearance (Hofmann), which was self-evident; but it simply narrates the former divinely glorious position which He afterwards gave up: when He found Himself in the form of God, by which is characterized Christs pre-human form of existence. Then He was forsooth, and that objectively, not merely in Gods self-consciousnessas the not yet incarnate Son (Rom_1:3-4; Rom_8:3; Gal_4:4), according to John as λόγοςwith God, in the fellowship of the glory of God (comp. Joh_17:5). It is this divine glory, in which He found Himself as ἴσα Θεῷ ὤν and also εἰκὼν Θεοῦas such also the instrument and aim of the creation of the world, Col_1:15 f.and into which, by means of His exaltation, He again returned; so that this divine δόξα, as the possessor of which before the incarnation He had, without a body and invisible to the eye of man (comp. Philo, de Somn. I. p. 655), the form of God, is now by means of His glorified body and His divine-human perfection visibly possessed by Him, that He may appear at the παρουσία, not again without it, but in and with it (Php_3:20 f.). Comp. 2Co_4:4; Col_1:15; Col_3:4. Μορφή, therefore, which is an appropriate concrete expression for the divine δόξα (comp. Justin, Apol. I. 9), as the glory visible at the throne of God, and not a fanciful expression (Ernesti), is neither equivalent to φύσις or οὐσία (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Chemnitz, and many others; comp. also Rheinwald and Corn. Müller); nor to status (Calovius, Storr, and others); nor is it the godlike capacity for possible equality with God (Beyschlag), an interpretation which ought to have been precluded both by the literal notion of the word μορφή, and by the contrast of μορφὴ δούλου in Php_2:7. But the μορφὴ Θεοῦ presupposes[95] the divine φύσις as ὁμόστολος μορφῆς (Aesch. Suppl. 496), and more precisely defines the divine status, namely, as form of being, corresponding to the essence, consequently to the homoousia, and exhibiting the condition, so that μορφὴ Θεοῦ finds its exhaustive explanation in Heb_1:3 : ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, this, however, being here conceived as predicated of the pre-existent Christ. In Plat. Rep. ii. p. 381 C, μορφή is also to be taken strictly in its literal signification, and not less so in Eur. Bacch. 54; Ael. H. A. iii. 24; Jos. c. Ap. ii. 16, 22. Comp. also Eur. Bacch. 4 : μορφὴν ἀμείψας ἐκ θεοῦ βροτησίαν, Xen. Cyr. i. 2. 2 : φύσιν μὲν δὴ τῆς ψυχῆς κ. τῆς μορφῆς. What is here called μορφὴ Θεοῦ is εἶδος Θεοῦ in Joh_5:37 (comp. Plat. Rep. p. 380 D; Plut. Mor. p. 1013 C), which the Son also essentially possessed in His pre-human δόξα (Joh_17:5). The explanation of φύσις was promoted among the Fathers by the opposition to Arius and a number of other heretics, as Chrysostom adduces them in triumph; hence, also, there is much polemical matter in them. For the later controversy with the Socinians, see Calovius.

ὑπάρχων] designating more expressly than ὤν the relation of the subsisting state (Php_3:20; Luk_7:25; Luk_16:23; 2Pe_3:11); and hence not at all merely in the decree of God, or in the divine self-consciousness (Schenkel). The time is that of the pre-human existence. See above on ὅς. Those who understand it as referring to His human existence (comp. Joh_1:14) think of the divine majesty, which Jesus manifested both by word and deed (Ambrosiaster, Luther, Erasmus, Heinrichs, Krause, Opusc. p. 33, and others), especially by His miracles (Grotius, Clericus); while Wetstein and Michaelis even suggest that the transfiguration on the mount is intended. It would be more in harmony with the context to understand the possession of the complete divine image (without arbitrarily limiting this, by preference possibly, to the moral attributes alone, as de Wette and Schneckenburger do)a possession which Jesus (as the God-pervaded man, Philippi) had (potentialiter) from the very beginning of His earthly life, but in a latent manner, without manifesting it. This view, however, would land them in difficulty with regard to the following ἑαυτ. ἐκένωσε κ.τ.λ., and expose them to the risk of inserting limiting clauses at variance with the literal import of the passage; see below.

οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ] In order to the right explanation, it is to be observed: (1) that the emphasis is placed on ἁρπαγμόν, and therefore (2) that τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ cannot be something essentially different from ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, but must in substance denote the same thing, namely, the divine habitus of Christ, which is expressed, as to its form of appearance, by ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχ., and, as to its internal nature, by τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ;[96] (3) lastly, that ἁρπαγμός does not mean praeda, or that which is seized on (which would be ἁρπάγιμον, Callim. Cer. 9; Pallad, ep. 87; Philop. 79; or ἅρπαγμα or ἅρπασμα, and might also be ἁρπαγή), or that which one forcibly snatches to himself (Hofmann and older expositors); but actively: robbing, making booty. In this sense, which is ὰ priori probable from the termination of the word which usually serves to indicate an action, it is used, beyond doubt, in the only profane passage in which it is extant, Plut. de pueror. educ. 15 (Mor. p. 12 A): καὶ τοὺς μὲν Θήβῃσι καὶ τοὺς Ἠλίδι φευκτέον ἔρωτας καὶ τὸν ἐκ Κρήτης καλούμενον ἁρπαγμόν, where it denotes the Cretan kidnapping of children. It is accordingly to be explained: Not as a robbing did He consider[97] the being equal with God, i.e. He did not place it under the point of view of making booty, as if it was, with respect to its exertion of activity, to consist in His seizing what did not belong to Him. In opposition to Hofmanns earlier logical objection (Schriftbew. I. p. 149) that one cannot consider the being as a doing, comp. 1Ti_6:5; and see Hofmann himself, who has now recognised the linguistically correct explanation of ἁρπαγμός, but leaves the object of the ἉΡΠΆΖΕΙΝ indefinite, though the latter must necessarily be something that belongs to others, consequently a foreign possession. Not otherwise than in the active sense, namely raptus, can we explain Cyril, de adorat. I. p. 25 (in Wetstein): οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν[98] τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς ἔξ ἀδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο φρενός; further, Eus. in Luc. vi. in Mais Nov. Bibl. patr. iv. p. 165, and the passage in Possini Cat. in Marc. x. 42, p. 233, from the Anonym. Tolos.: ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἁρπαγμὸς ἡ τιμή;[99] as also the entirely synonymous form ἁρπασμός in Plut. Mor. p. 644 A, and ληϊσμος in Byzantine writers; also ΣΚΥΛΕΥΜΌς in Eustathius; comp. Phryn. App. 36, where ἁρπαγμός is quoted as equivalent to ἍΡΠΑΣΙς. The passages which are adduced for ἍΡΠΑΓΜΑ ἩΓΕῖΣΘΑΙ or ΠΟΙΕῖΣΘΑΊ ΤΙ (Heliod. vii. 11. 20, viii. 7; Eus. H. E. viii. 12; Vit. C. 2:31)comp. the Latin praedam ducere (Cic. Verr. v. 15; Justin, ii. 5. 9, xiii. 1. 8)do not fall under the same mode of conception, as they represent the relation in question as something made a booty of, and not as the act of making booty. We have still to notice (1) that this οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο corresponds exactly to ΜῊ ΤᾺ ἙΑΥΤῶΝ ΣΚΟΠΟῦΝΤΕς (Php_2:4), as well as to its contrast ἙΑΥΤῸΝ ἘΚΈΝΩΣΕ in Php_2:7 (see on Php_2:7); and (2) that the aorist ἡγήσατο, indicating a definite point of time, undoubtedly, according to the connection (see the contrast, ἈΛΛʼ ἙΑΥΤῸΝ ἘΚΈΝΩΣΕ Κ.Τ.Λ.), transports the reader to that moment, when the pre-existing Christ was on the point of coming into the world with the being equal to God. Had He then thought: When I shall have come into the world, I will seize to myself, by means of my equality with God, power and dominion, riches, pleasure, worldly glory, then He would have acted the part of ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ; to which, however, He did not consent, but consented, on the contrary, to self-renunciation, etc. It is accordingly self-evident that the supposed case of the ἉΡΠΑΓΜΌς is not conceived as an action of the pre-existing Christ (as Richard Schmidt objects), but is put as connecting itself with His appearance on earth. The reflection, of which the pre-existent Christ is, according to our passage, represented as capable, even in presence of the will of God (see below, γενόμ. ὑπήκοος), although the apostle has only conceived it as an abstract possibility and expressed it in an anthropopathic mode of presentation, is decisive in favour of the personal pre-existence; but in this pre-existence the Son appears as subordinate to the Father, as He does throughout the entire New Testament, although this is not (as Beyschlag objects) at variance with the Trinitarian equality of essence in the Biblical sense. By the ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι κ.τ.λ., if it had taken place, He would have wished to relieve Himself from this subordination.

The linguistic correctness and exact apposite correlation of the whole of this explanation, which harmonizes with 2Co_8:9,[100] completely exclude the interpretation, which is traditional but in a linguistic point of view is quite incapable of proof, that ἉΡΠΑΓΜΌς, either in itself or by metonymy (in which van Hengel again appeals quite inappropriately to the analogy of Jam_1:2, 2Pe_3:15), means praeda or res rapienda. With this interpretation of ἁρπαγμός, the idea of ΕἾΝΑΙ ἼΣΑ ΘΕῷ has either been rightly taken as practically identical with ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, or not. (A) In the former case, the point of comparison of the figurative praeda has been very differently defined: either, that Christ regarded the existence equal with God, not as a something usurped and illegitimate, but as something natural to Him, and that, therefore, He did not fear to lose it through His humiliation (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, and other Fathers; see Wetstein and J. B. Lightfoot); comp. Beza, Calvin, Estius, and others, who, however, give to the conception a different turn;[101] or, that He did not desire pertinaciously to retain for Himself this equality with God, as a robber his booty, or as an unexpected gain (Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Vatablus, Kesler, and others; and recently, Hoelemann, Tholuck, Reuss, Liebner, Schmid, Wiesinger, Gess, Messner, Grimm; comp. also Usteri, p. 314);[102] or, that He did not conceal it, as a prey (Matthies); or, that He did not desire to display it triumphantly, as a conqueror his spoils (Luther, Erasmus, Cameron, Vatablus, Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, Quenstedt, Wolf, and many others, including Michaelis, Zachariae, Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Flatt, Rheinwald);[103] whilst others (Wetstein the most strangely, but also Usteri and several) mix up very various points of comparison. The very circumstance, however, that there exists so much divergence in these attempts at explanation, shows how arbitrarily men have endeavoured to supply a modal definition for ἁρπ. ἡγήσ., which is not at all suggested by the text.(B) In the second case, in which a distinction is made between τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ and ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, it is explained: non rapinam duxit, i.e. non rapiendum sibi duxit, or directly, non rapuit (Musculus, Er. Schmidt, Elsner, Clericus, Bengel, and many others, including am Ende, Martini, Krause, Opusc. p. 31, Schrader, Stein, Rilliet, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ernesti, Raebiger, Schneckenburger, Ewald, Weiss, Schenkel, Philippi, Thomasius, Beyschlag, Kahnis, Rich. Schmidt, and others); that Christ, namely, though being ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, did not desire to seize to Himself the εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, to grasp eagerly the possession of it.[104] In this view expositors have understood the ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ as the divine plenitudinem et altitudinem (Bengel); the sessionem ad dextram (L. Bos); the divine honour (Cocceius, Stein, de Wette, Grau); the vitam vitae Dei aequalem (van Hengel); the existendi modum cum Deo aequalem (Lünemann); the coli et beate vivere ut Deus (Krause); the dominion on earth as a visible God (Ewald); the divine autonomy (Ernesti); the heavenly dignity and glory entered on after the ascension (Raebiger, comp. Thomasius, Philippi, Beyschlag, Weiss), corresponding to the ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα in Php_2:9 (Rich. Schmidt); the nova jura divina, consisting in the κυριότης πάντων (Brückner); the divine δόξα of universal adoration (Schneckenburger, Lechler, comp. Messner); the original blessedness of the Father (Kahnis); indeed, even the identity with the Father consisting in invisibility (Rilliet), and the like, which is to sustain to the μορφὴ Θεοῦ the relation of a plus, or something separable, or only to be obtained at some future time by humiliation and suffering[105] (Php_2:9). So, also, Sabatier, l apôtre Paul, 1870, p. 223 ff.[106] In order to meet the ΟὐΧ ἉΡΠ. ἩΓ. (comparing Mat_4:8 ff.), de Wette (comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. p. 151) makes the thought be supplied, that it was not in the aim of the work of redemption befitting that Christ should at the very outset receive divine honour, and that, if He had taken it to Himself, it would have been a seizure, an usurpation. But as ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπ. already involves the divine essence,[107] and as ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ has no distinctive more special definition in any manner climactic (comp. Pfleiderer), Chrysostom has estimated this whole mode of explanation very justly: εἰ ἦν Θεός, πῶς εἶχεν ἁρπάσαι; καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἀπερινόητον τοῦτο; τίς γὰρ ἂν εἴποι, ὅτι ὁ δεῖνα ἄνθρωπος ὤν οὐχ ἥρπασε τὸ εἶναι ἄνθρωπος; πῶς γὰρ ἄν τις ὅπερ ἐστὶν, ἁρπάσειεν. Moreover, in harmony with the thought and the state of the case, Paul must have expressed himself conversely: ὃς ἴσα Θεῷ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπ. ἠγ. τὸ εἶναι ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, so as to add to the idea of the equality of nature (ἴσα), by way of climax, that of the same form of appearance (μορφή), of the divine δόξα also.

With respect to τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, it is to be observed, (1) that ἴσα is adverbial: in like manner, as we find it, although less frequently, in Attic writers (Thuc. iii. 14; Eur. Or. 880 al.; comp. ὁμοῖα, Lennep. ad Phalar. 108), and often in the later Greek, and in the LXX. (Job_5:14; Job_10:10; Job_11:12; Job_13:12; Wis_7:3, according to the usual reading). This adverbial use has arisen from the frequent employment, even so early as Homer (Il. v. 71, xv. 439; Od. xi. 304, xv. 519 al.), of ἴσα as the case of the object or predicate (see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 847; Krüger, II. § xlvi. 6. 8). But as εἶναι, as the abstract substantive verb, does not suit the adverbial ἴσα, pari ratione, therefore (2) τὸ εἶναι must be taken in the sense of existere; so that τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ does not mean the being equal to God (which would be τὸ εἶναι ἴσον Θεῷ), but the God-equal existence, existence in the way of parity with God.[108] Paul might have written ἴσον (as mascul.) Θεῷ (Joh_5:18), or ἰσόθεον; but, as it stands, he has more distinctly expressed the metaphysical relation, the divine mode of existence,[109] of the pre-human Christ. (3) The article points back to ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, denoting the God-equal existence manifesting itself in that μορφή; for the μορφὴ Θεοῦ is the appearance, the adequate subsisting form, of the God-equal existence. (4) Ernesti (in controversy with Baur), who is followed by Kähler, Kahnis, Beyschlag, and Hilgenfeld, entertains the groundless opinion that our passage alludes to Genesis 2 f., the ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ pointing in particular to Gen_3:5. In the text there is no trace[110] of any comparison of Christ with the first human beings, not even an echo of like expression; how different from the equality with God in our passage is the ἔσεσθε ὡς θεοί in Gen_3:5! Certainly, any such comparison lay very remote from the sublime idea of the divine glory of the pre-existent Christ, which was something quite different from the image of God in the first human beings. Comp. also Rich. Schmidt, p. 172; Grimm, p. 42 f.

[92] That Christ in His Trinitarian pre-existence was already the eternal Principle and Prototype of humanity (as is urged by Beyschlag), is self-evident; for otherwise He would have been one essentially different from Him who in the fulness of time appeared in the flesh. But this does not entitle us to refer the pre-existence to His whole divine-human person, and to speak of an eternal humanity,paradoxes which cannot exegetically be justified by our passage and other expressions such as 1Co_15:47; Rom_5:12 ff; Rom_8:29; Col_1:15. The Logos pre-existed as the divine principle and divine prototype of humanity; Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, and this, apart from the form of expression, is also the teaching of Paul. Only in time could He enter upon the human existence; the notion of eternal humanity would refute itself.

[93] Hence Philippis objection, that φρονεῖν is elsewhere applied to man only, and not to God, is devoid of significance. Unfounded is also Beyschlags objection (1866) drawn from the word σχήματι; see below.

[94] According to which Christ had the full divine majesty statim in sua conceptione, etiam in utero matris (Form. Conc. p. 767). But He had it in His state of humiliation secreto, and only manifested it occasionally, quoties ipsi visum fuerit. In opposition to this, Liebner rightly observes, p. 334: This is altogether inadequate to express the powerful N. T. feeling of the depth and greatness of our Lords humiliation. This feeling unmistakeably extends to the unique personal essence of the God-man, and in conformity with this, to the very heart of the act of incarnation itself.

[95] Bengel well says: Ipsa natura divina decorem habebat infinitum, in se, etiam sine ulla creatura illum decorem intuente.What Paul here designates simply by ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is pompously expressed by Clement, Cor. I. 16: τὸ σκῆπτρον τῆς μεγαλωσύνης τοῦ Θεοῦ. The forma mentis aeterna, however, in Tacitus, Agric. 46, is a conception utterly foreign to our passage (although adduced here by Hitzig), and of similar import with Propertius, iii. 1, 64: ingenio stat sine morte decus.

[96] An entirely groundless objection has been made (even by Lünemann) against the view which takes τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ as not essentially different from ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ εἶναι, viz. that Paul would, instead of τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, have written merely τοῦτο, or even nothing at all. He might have done so, but there was no necessity for his taking that course, least of all for Paul! He, on the contrary, distinguishes very precisely and suitably between the two ideas representing the same state, by saying that Christ, in His divine pre-human form of life, did not venture to use this His God-equal being for making booty. Both, therefore, express the very same divine habitus; but the εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ is the general element, which presents itself in the divine μορφή as its substratum and lies at its basis, so that the two designations exhaust the idea of divinity. Comp. also Liebner, p. 328.

[97] On ἡγεῖσθαι, in this sense of the mode of regarding, which places the object under the point of view of a qualitative category, comp. Krüger on Thuc. ii. 44. 3.

[98] Lot did not let the refusal of the angels be a making of profit to himself.

[99] Where, according to the connection, the sense is: Not a seizing to oneself is the position of honour, as among the heathen, but a renouncing and serving after the example of Christ.

[100] Räbiger and Wetzel, and also Pfleiderer, l.c., have lately adopted this view; likewise Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1873, p. 311 f. Hofmann also now explains the passage in a way not substantially different. But Grimm, l.c. p. 38, very unjustly describes the retention of ἁρπαγμός in the sense which it has in Plutarch, as petty grammatical pedantry. The ideas, spoil, booty, occur in countless instances in all Greek authors, and in the LXX., and are very variously expressed (ἁρπαγή, ἅρπαγμα, ἀρπασμα, ληΐς, σκύλευμα, σῦλον, λεία), but never by ἁρπαγμός, or any other form of word ending with μος. It is true that various substantives ending in μος may denote the result of the action; not, however, as we may be pleased to assume, but solely in accordance with evidence of empirical usage, and this is just what is wanting for this sense in the case of ἁρπαγμός. Its rejection, therefore, in our passage, is not pedantic, but is simply linguistically demanded. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 426, ed. 2, erroneously objects to our view of ἁρπαγμός, that, in that case, it would be impossible to conceive of any object, and that thus an utterly empty antithesis to the giving up of Christs own possession is the result. As if there were not given in the very notion of ἁρπαγμός its object, viz. that which does not belong to the subject of the action, and this, indeed, in its unrestricted and full compass, just because nothing special is added as an object.

[101] Beza: Non ignoravit, se in ea re (i.e. quod Deo Patri coaequalis esset) nullam injuriam cuiquam facere, sed suo jure uti; nihilominus tamen quasi jure suo cessit. So also Calvin, substantially, only that he erroneously interprets ἡγήσατο as arbitratus esset, Non fuisset injuria, si aequalis Deo apparuisset. Estius: that He had not recognised the equality with God as an usurped possession, and therefore possibly desired to lay it aside, but had renounced Himseif, etc.

[102] In this class we must reckon the interpretation of Theodoret (comp. Origen, ad Rom. v. 2, x. 7, Eusebius, and others): that Christ, being God by nature, did not hold His equality with God as something specially great, as those do who attain to honours παρʼ ἀξίαν; but that He, τὴν ἀξίαν κατακρύψας, chose humiliation. To this comes also the view of Theodore of Mopsuestia: μορφὴν γὰρ δούλου λαβὼν τὴν ἀξίαν ἐκείνην ἀπέκρυψεν, τοῦτο τοῖς ὁρῶσιν εἶναι νομιζόμενος, ὅπερ ἐφαίνετο.Tholuck compares the German expression: als ein gefundenes Essen (einen guten Fund) ansehen. According to him, the idea of the whole passage is, Tantum aberat, ut Christus, quatenus λόγος est, in gloria atque beatitate sua acquiescere sibique soli placere vellet, ut amore erga mortales ductus servi formam induere ac vel infimam sortem subire sine ulla haesitatione sustineret.

[103] To this belongs also Pelagius, Quod erat, humilitate celavit, dans nobis exemplum, ne in his gloriemur, quae forsitan non habemus.

[104] So also Lünemann, who, in the sense of the divine pre-existence of Christ, paraphrases thus: Christus, etsi ab aeterno inde dignitate creatoris et domini rerum omnium frueretur, ideoque divina indutus magnificentia coram patre consideret, nihilo tamen minus haud arripiendum sibi esse autumabat existendi modum cum Deo aequalem, sed ultro se exinanivit. In a sense opposed to the divine pre-existence, however, Beyschlag says, Christol. p. 236 f.: Christ possessed the μορφὴ Θεοῦ (that is, the inner form of God); He might have but stretched out His hand towards the ἴσα Θεῷ εἶναι; He disdained, however, to seize it for Himself, and chose quite the opposite; therefore it was given Him as the reward of His obedience, etc. Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschrift, 1871, p. 197 f., says: the Pauline Christ is indeed the heavenly man, but no divine being; the equality with God was attained by Him only through the renunciation, etc.

[105] The lead in this mode of considering the passage was taken by Arius, whose party, on the ground of the proposition ἐκεῖνο ἁρπάζει τις, ὃ οὐκ ἔχει, declared: ὅτι Θεὸς ὢν ἐλάττων οὐχ ἥρπασε τὸ εἶναι ἴσα τῷ Θεῷ τῷ μεγάλῳ κ. μείζονι. See Chrysostom.

[106] He thinks that the divine μορφή of Christ stands to the ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ in the relation of potentia to actus. Christ était des lorigine en puissance ce qu à la fin il devint en réalité; the μορφὴ Θεοῦ denotes the general form of being of Christ, but une forme vide, qui doit êtré remplie, cest-à-dire spirituellement réalisée. This higher position He had not wished to usurp, but had attained to it réellement par le libre développement de sa vie morale.

[107] Not merely the similarity, from which is there distinguished the equality by εἶναι ἴσα (in opposition to Martini and others).

[108] [The German is: nicht das Gotte gleich sein, sondern das gottgleiche Sein, das Sein auf gottgleiche Weise, die gottgleiche Existenz.]

[109] Which, therefore, was not essentially different from that of the Father. The ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ is the Pauline Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Hofmann erroneously, although approved by Thomasius, makes the objection (Schriftbew. p. 150) that an existence equal to divine existence can only be predicated of Him, who is not God. It may be predicated also of Him who is not the very same person, but of equal divine nature. Thus it might also be asserted of the Holy Spirit. The appeal by Hofmann to Thuc. iii. 14 is here without any bearing whatever.

[110] Ritschl indeed also, Altkath. Kirche, p. 80, requires, for the understanding of our passage, a recognition that Christ, as ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, is put in comparison with the earthly Adam. But why should Paul, if this comparison was before his mind, not have written, in accordance with Gen_1:26, κατʼ εἰκόνα Θ., or καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν Θ ἐν μορφῇ Θ.,? instead of ἐν μορφῇ Θ. This would have been most natural for himself, and would also have been a hint to guide the readers.The passages quoted by Hilgenfeld from the Clementine Homilies affirm the μορφὴ Θεοῦ of the body of man, and are therefore irrelevant.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Phi 2:6-11 . In the discussion of this crux interpretum it is impossible, within our limits, to do more than give a brief outline of the chief legitimate interpretations, laying special emphasis on that which we prefer and giving our reasons. As regards literature, a good account of the older exegesis is given by Tholuck, Disputatio Christologica , pp. 2 10. Franke (in Meyer 5 ) gives a very full list of modern discussions. In addition to commentaries and the various works on Biblical Theology, the following discussions are specially important: Räbiger, De Christologia Paulina , pp. 76 85; R. Schmidt, Paulinische Christologie , p. 163 ff.; W. Grimm, Zw. Th [97] , xvi., 1, p. 33 ff.; Hilgenfeld, ibid. , xxvii., 4, p. 498 ff.; W. Weiffenbach, Zur Auslegung d. Stelle Phil. , ii. 5 11 (Karlsruhe, 1884); E. H. Gifford, Expositor , v., vol. 4, p. 161 ff., 241 ff. [since published separately]; Somerville, St. Paul’s Conception of Christ , p. 188 ff. It may be useful to note certain cautions which must be observed if the Apostle’s thought is to be truly grasped. ( a ) This is not a discussion in technical theology. Paul does not speculate on the great problems of the nature of Christ. The elaborate theories reared on this passage and designated “kenotic” would probably have surprised the Apostle. Paul is dealing with a question of practical ethics, the marvellous condescension and unselfishness of Christ, and he brings into view the several stages in this process as facts of history either presented to men’s experience or else inferred from it. [At the same time, as J. Weiss notes ( Th. LZ [98] , 1899, col. 263), the careful rhetorical structure of the passage (two strophes of four lines) shows that the thought has been patiently elaborated.] ( b ) It is beside the mark to apply the canons of philosophic terminology to the Apostle’s language. Much trouble would be saved if interpreters instead of minutely investigating the refinements of Greek metaphysics, on the assumption that they are present here, were to ask themselves, “What other terms could the Apostle have used to express his conceptions?” ( c ) It is futile to attempt to make Paul’s thought in this passage fit in with any definite and systematic scheme of Christology such as the “Heavenly Man,” etc. This only hampers interpretation.

[97] Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theologie .

[98] Theologische Literaturzeitung .

Phi 2:6 . ὅς . The discussions as to whether this refers to the pre-existing or historical Christ seem scarcely relevant to Paul’s thought. For him his Lord’s career was one and undivided. To suggest that he did not conceive a pre-existence in heaven is to ignore the very foundations of his thinking. Probably he never speculated minutely on the nature of Christ’s pre-existent state, just as he refrains from doing so on the nature of the future life. He contents himself with general lines. The interpretation of the passage depends on the meaning assigned to (1) μορφή , (2) ἁρπαγμός , (3) τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ . In LXX μορφή denotes the form, appearance, look or likeness of some one, that by which those beholding him would judge him. See Job 4:16 , Dan 5:6 and three other places, Wis 18:1 , 4Ma 15:4 . Plainly, from the context of these passages, the word had come, in later Greek, to receive a vague, general meaning, far removed from the accurate, metaphysical content which belonged to it in writers like Plato and Aristotle. It seems, therefore, to us of little value, with Lightfoot and Gifford ( op. cit. ), to discuss the relation of μορφή to terms such as οὐσία , φύσις and εἶδος in their philosophical refinements. It is far more probable that Paul uses μορφ . here “in a loose, popular sense, as we use ‘nature’ ” ( Guardian , Jan. 1 1896). He means, of course, in the strictest sense that the pre-existing Christ was Divine. For μ . always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it. But in trying to reach a conception of the pre-existing nature of his Lord, he is content to think of Him as the εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ (Col 1:15 ), as sharing in that δόξα (on the close relation of μ . and δόξα see Nestle, SK (Studien und Kritiken ), 1893, pp. 173, 174) which is the manifestation of the Divine nature ( cf. Joh 17:5 , Heb 1:3 ), as possessing, that is to say, the same kind of existence as God possesses, without indulging in speculations on the metaphysical relationship of the Son to the Father. So in 2Co 8:9 (the closest parallel in thought to this) he describes the same condition by the words πλούσιος ὤν . And this reminds us of the point of emphasis, the unspeakable contrast between the heavenly and earthly states, the μ . Θεοῦ and the μ . δούλου . The Apostle’s mind is overpowered by the profound ethical meaning and value of the Humiliation. ὑπάρχων . Probably = “being constitutionally” (Evans on 1Co 11:7 ), “being by nature”. Cf. Liturgy of S. James (Hammond, Litt. , p. 45, quoted by Giff.), παιδίον γέγονεν ὁ πρὸ αἰώνων ὑπάρχων Θεὸς ἡμῶν . At the same time, in later Greek, it is often a mere copula. Cf. Gildersleeve on Justin M., Apol. , i., 2. This participle represents the imperfect as well as the present tense. So probably here. ἁρπαγμόν . In the absence of relevant evidence for this word, its precise significance must largely be determined by the context. Accordingly it must be discussed in close connection with τὸ εἶν . ἴσα Θ . “Did not consider τὸ ε . ἰ . Θ . as an ἁρπαγμός .” What is the relation of τὸ ε . ἰ . Θ . to μορφή ? The words mean “the being on an equality with God” (R.V.). It is surely needless to make any fine distinctions here, as Giff. does ( op. cit. , p. 242), between εἶναι ἴσος as = equality of nature and εἶναι ἴσα as pointing to “the state and circumstances which are separable from the essence and therefore variable or accidental,” or, with Lightfoot, to say that ἴσος would refer to the person, while ἴσα has in view the attributes. As a matter of fact the adverb ἴσα (neuter plural) is used in the most general sense, without any metaphysical subtleties, e.g. , Job 11:12 , ἄνθρωπος δὲ ἄλλως νήχεται λόγοις · βροτὸς δὲ γεννητὸς γυναικὸς ἴσα ὄνῳ ἐρημίτῃ ; Job 30:19 , ἥγησαι δέ με ἴσα πηλῷ , ἐν γῇ καὶ σποδῷ μου ἡ μερίς . cf. Thuc., iii., 14, ἴσα καὶ ἱκέται ἐσμέν ; Soph., Oed. R. , 1188, ὑμᾶς ἴσα καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ζώσας ἐναριθμῶ , and elsewhere. Thus no theological speculations can be based upon the word. Is τὸ ε . ἰ . Θ . equivalent to ἐν μ . Θ .? In spite of some Commemtators there is absolutely nothing in the text to justify the supposition. Plainly μορφή has reference to nature ; τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ to a relation. In fact it is only a particular rendering of ἁρπαγμός which suggested their equivalence. A more important question is whether τὸ ε . ἰ . Θ . was possessed by Christ in virtue of His being ἐν μορ . Θεοῦ . This will depend on the sense of ἁρπαγμός . It is generally admitted now that ἁρπαγμός may be regarded as = ἅρπαγμα . (See especially Zahn, Luthardt’s Zeitschr. , 1885, pp. 244 249.) Cf. θεσμός , lit. = “the laying down,” “ordaining” of a thing, which comes to mean “the thing laid down,” the ordinance or statute; ἱλασμός , lit. = a propitiating, appeasing, but usually the propitiatory offering, that by which propitiation is made (see Hatz., Einl . , p. 180). Myr . , Hfm . , Beet and others wish to keep the active meaning, and translate, “Did not consider the being on an equality with God as a means of robbing”. But it seems impossible to accept this sense when we have no hint of what is to be robbed. Lft . , Hpt . , Vinc. and others, regarding ἁρπαγμός as = ἅρπαγμα , translate, “Did not look upon His equality with God as a prize to be clutched”. That is to say, τὸ ε . ἰ . Θ . is something which He already possessed and resolved not to cling to. But will ἁρπαγμός admit of this meaning? We cannot find any passage where ἁρπάζω or any of its derivatives has the sense of “holding in possession,” “retaining”. It seems invariably to mean “seize,” “snatch violently” . Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense “grasp at” into one which is totally different, “hold fast”. Are we not obliged, then, to think of the ἁρπαγμός (= ἅρπαγμα ) as something still future, a res rapienda? Cf. Catena on Mar 10:41 ff. (quoted by Zahn), Jesus’ answer to the sons of Zebedee, οὐκ ἐστὶν ἁρπαγμὸς ἡ τιμή , “the honour is not one to be snatched”. Observe how aptly this view fits the context. In Phi 2:10 , which is the climax of the whole passage, we read that God gave Jesus Christ as a gift ( ἐχαρίσατο ) the name above every name, i.e. , the name (including position, dignity and authority) of Κύριος , Lord, the name which represents the O.T. Jehovah. But this is the highest place Christ has reached. He has always (in Paul’s view) shared in the Divine nature ( μ . Θεοῦ ). But it is only as the result of His Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection and Exaltation that He appears to men as on an equality with God, that He is worshipped by them in the way in which Jehovah is worshipped. This position of Κύριος is the reward and crowning-point of the whole process of His voluntary Humiliation. It is the equivalent of that τελείωσις of which the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks. This perfection “He acquired as He successively seized the occasions which His vocation as author of salvation presented to Him, a process moving on the lines of His relations to mortal, sinful men” (Davidson, Hebrews , p. 208). Along the same lines He was raised to the dignity of Κύριος , which is a relation to mankind. (See on the relation of Christ as Κύριος to God, Somerville, op. cit. , pp. 140 142.) This equality with God, therefore, consists in the κυριότης , the Lordship to which He has been exalted. “He did not regard the being on an equality with God as a thing to be seized, violently snatched.” Cf. Heliodor., Ethiop. , vii., 20, οὐχ ἅρπαγμα οὐδὲ ἕρμαιον ἡγεῖται τὸ πρᾶγμα . He might have used the miraculous powers inherent in His Divine nature in such a way as to compel men, without further ado, to worship Him as God. Instead of that He was willing to attain this high dignity by the path of humiliation, suffering and death. Is not this interpretation strongly corroborated by the narrative of the Temptation? In that mysterious experience our Lord was tempted to reach τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ in the way of ἁρπάζειν , forcing men out of sheer amazement to accept His claim and exalt Him as Lord. [Perhaps the curious negative expression οὐχ ἁρπαγμ . κ . τ . λ . has been suggested by a comparison with the first Adam who sought to reach “equality with God” by means of ἁρπάζειν .] It is to be noted that the increased glory which Paul and all the N.T. writers regard as pertaining to Christ after His Resurrection has only to do with His dignity, His “theocratic position,” not with His essential personality. ( Cf. Ménégoz, Le Péché et la Rédemption , p. 164.) He has simply become ἐν δυνάμει , that which He already was substantially. Cf. Rom 1:4 , τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει , κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης , ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν , Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν . Also Luk 24:26 . ἀλλʼ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε . Instead of appearing among men in the Divine μορφή and thus compelling them to render Him the homage which was His due, He “emptied Himself” of that Divine μορφή and took the μ . of a bondservant. The Apostle does not specify that of which He emptied Himself, as the stress is laid upon the “emptying,” but with μορ . δούλου λαβών added to explain what ἐκένωσε means, we are bound to conclude that he has in view its antithesis, μ . Θεοῦ . (So also Meyer, Hofman, Alford's Greek Testament, Haput, Bruce, Gore, etc. Fairbairn, Christ in Mod. Theol. , pp. 476 477, tries to show that Christ emptied Himself of the “physical attributes” of Deity while retaining the “ethical”. But does this lead us any nearer a solution of the mystery in the depths of the Son’s personality?)

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ. What is μορφή? Lightfoot, in a “detached note” to this chapter, traces the use of the word in Greek philosophy, in Philo (the link between the language of Scripture and of Plato), and in the N. T. The conclusion is that it denotes the “form” of a thing in the most ideal sense of form; its specific character, its correspondence with its true notion. Visible shew may or may not enter into it; for invisibles have their μορφή, to pure thought. The μορφὴ θεοῦ is thus in fact His Nature “seen” in its attributes; and to be “in” it is to be invested with them. See Lightfoot as quoted, and Trench Syn. of N.T., under μορφή.

ὑπάρχων. R.V. text, “being,” margin, “originally being”; but the American Revisers expressly omit the margin (and give “existing” in the text). Ὑπάρχειν in the classics, meaning first “to begin” (doing or being), then comes to mean “to be there,” “to be ready”; e.g. when the Athenians equipped a fleet against the Persians, they had to build some ships, but some ὕπηρχον αὐτοῖσι (Hdt. vii. 144). Thence apparently the word came to mean simply “to be,” though the use was not common. In Biblical Greek the use fluctuates between a mere equivalence to εἶναι and the distinct suggestion of a being already; as Act 7:55, ὑπάρχων πλήρης πνεύματος: Act 8:16, βεβαπτισμένοι ὑπῆρχον. In this passage the context decidedly favours this latter meaning. For though some expositors have referred the whole statement to our Lord’s incarnate state, as if it viewed Him as e.g. resolving when on earth to decline a majesty and dominion which He might have exerted, while yet He shewed Himself at least God-like in His deeds, this is impossible when the context is fairly remembered. For it is plainly implied (Php 2:7) that His voluntary humiliation included His becoming δοῦλος and taking ὁμοίωμα ἀνθρώπων. So the will to humble Himself was antecedent to that condition, and so to Incarnation. Thus the tendency of ὑπάρχειν to indicate being already, or beforehand, has legitimate scope here, and an impressive fitness.

Here then our Redeeming Lord is revealed as so “antecedently being in the form of God” that He was, before He stooped to our life, nothing less than Bearer of Divine Attributes, that is to say, GOD. “Though μορφὴ is not the same as οὐσία, yet the possession of the μορφὴ involves participation in the οὐσία also; for μορφὴ implies not the external accidents but the essential attributes” (Lightfoot).

ἁρπαγμὸν. The word occurs only here in Biblical Greek, and only once (Lightfoot) in secular Greek (Plutarch, Mor. p. 12 A). Words ending in -μος properly suggest an act or process; in this case, therefore, a “seizing,” or “robbery.” But in usage they readily get the meaning of the matter or aim of the act; e.g. θεσμός, properly “a setting,” is by usage “a thing set,” “a statute.” Ἁρπαγμός may therefore be an equivalent here to ἅρπαγμα, a thing seized, or grasped, as plunder or as prize. And the phrase ἅρπαγμα ἡγεῖσθαί τι is not uncommon in later Greek, in the sense of “highly prizing,” “welcoming as an unexpected gain” (ἕρμαιον). So explained, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο here gives a sense perfectly fitting the context: “Possessed of the Divine Attributes, He did not treat His co-equality as a prize, to be held only for Himself, but rather made it occasion for an infinite act of self-sacrifice for others.” Such on the whole is the explanation given by the Greek fathers and by some of the ablest Latins (see Lightfoot’s “detached note” on ἁρπαγμός). On the other hand some Latins, and St Augustine in particular, give a different turn to the thought, which appears in our A.V. Taking the Latin rendering, non rapinam arbitratus est, they made the meaning to be that the Lord Christ claimed co-equality, as not a usurpation but a right, and yet humbled Himself. To this the objection is that (a) it lays a needless stress on the derivation of ἁρπαγμός, for by usage it (or its equivalent ἅρπαγμα) need not mean more than a prize or treasure; (b) it makes ἀλλὰ equal to ἀλλὰ ὅμως, which is forced Greek; (c) most of all, it dislocates text and context. St Paul is emphasizing not mainly our Lord’s majesty but His self-sacrificing mercy. His majesty is sufficiently (for the purpose) given in the words ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων: the point now is that He made an infinitely generous use of His majesty. This is exactly given, and at the right point, by οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν κτλ., explained as, “He treated it not as a treasure for Himself but as something to lay aside (in a sense) for us.”

An intermediate explanation, by St Chrysostom, gives the thought somewhat thus: “He knew that Deity was so truly His by right that He laid it (in a sense) aside, with the generous grace of the rightful owner (who knows he is owner all along), instead of clasping it with the tenacity of the usurper.” To this Lightfoot objects, with apparent reason, that “it understands too much, requiring links to be supplied which the connexion does not suggest.”

R.V. renders ἁρπαγμὸν “a prize,” and (margin) “Gr., a thing to be grasped”; Ellicott, “a thing to be seized on, or grasped at”; Liddell and Scott, “a matter of robbery.”

τὸ εἷναι ἴσα θεῷ. Not ἴσος. The neuter plural perhaps suggests a reference rather to equality of attributes than of Person (Lightfoot). R.V. “to be on an equality with God.”

Let us remember that these words occur not in a polytheistic reverie but in the Holy Scriptures, which are everywhere jealous for the prerogative of the Lord GOD; and they come from the pen of a man whose Pharisaic monotheism sympathized with that jealousy to the utmost. May it not then be asked how, in any way other than direct assertion, as in Joh 1:1, the true and proper Deity of Christ could be more plainly stated?

On the use of the word θεός here, distinctively of the Father, see note above on Php 1:2. And cp. Joh 1:1; 2Co 13:14; Heb 1:9; Rev 20:6; Rev 22:1.

F. ROBERT HALL ON Php 2:5-8. BAUR’S THEORY. (CH. Php 2:6)

THE Rev. Robert Hall (1764–1831), one of the greatest of Christian preachers, was in early life much influenced by the Socinian theology. His later testimony to a true Christology is the more remarkable. The following extract is from a sermon “preached at the (Baptist) Chapel in Dean Street, Southwark, June 27, 1813” (Works, ed. 1833; vol. vi., p. 112):

“He was found in fashion as a man: it was a wonderful discovery, an astonishing spectacle in the view of angels, that He who was in the form of God, and adored from eternity, should be made in fashion as a man. But why is it not said that He WAS a man? For the same reason that the Apostle wishes to dwell upon the appearance of our Saviour, not as excluding the reality, but as exemplifying His condescension. His being in the form of God did not prove that He was not God, but rather that He was God, and entitled to supreme honour. So, His assuming the form of a servant and being in the likeness of man, does not prove that He was not man, but, on the contrary, includes it; at the same time including a manifestation of Himself, agreeably to His design of purchasing the salvation of His people, and dying for the sins of the world, by sacrificing Himself upon the Cross.”

BAUR (Paulus, pp. 458–464) goes at length into the Christological passage of our Epistle, and actually contends for the view that it is written by one who had before him the developed Gnosticism of cent. ii., and was not uninfluenced by it. In the words of Php 2:6, he finds a consciousness of the Gnostic teaching about the Æon Sophia, striving for an absolute union with the absolute being of the Unknowable Supreme; and again about the Æons in general, striving similarly to “grasp” the πλήρωμα of Absolute Being and discovering only the more deeply in their effort this κένωμα of their own relativity and dependence.

The best refutation of such expositions is the repeated perusal of the Epistle itself, with its noon-day practicality of precept and purity of affections, and not least its high language (ch. 3) about the sanctity of the body—an idea wholly foreign to the Gnostic sphere of thought. As regards this last point, it is true that Schrader, a critic earlier than Baur (see Alford, N.T. III. p. 27), supposed the passage Php 3:1 to Php 4:9 to be an interpolation. But, not to speak of the total absence of any historical or documentary support for such a theory, the careful reader will find in that section just those minute touches of harmony with the rest of the Epistle, e.g. in the indicated need of internal union at Philippi, which are the surest signs of homogeneity.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If the Son be equal to the Father, then is there of necessity an equality, which Arrius, that Heretic, denieth: and if the Son be compared with the Father, then is there a distinction of persons, which Sabellius, that heretic, denieth.

Such as God himself is, and therefore God, for there is none in all parts like to God, but God himself.

Christ, that glorious and everlasting God, knew that he might rightfully and lawfully not appear in the base flesh of man, but remain with majesty meet for God: yet he chose rather to debase himself.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Translate, "Who subsisting (or existing, namely, originally: the Greek is not the simple substantive verb, 'to be') in the form of God (the divine essence is not meant: but the external self-manifesting characteristics of God, the form shining forth from His glorious essence). The divine nature had infinite BEAUTY in itself, even without any creature contemplating that beauty: that beauty was 'the form of God'; as 'the form of a servant' (Phi 2:7), which is in contrasted opposition to it, takes for granted the existence of His human nature, so 'the form of God' takes for granted His divine nature [BENGEL], Compare Joh 5:37; Joh 17:5; Col 1:15, 'Who is the IMAGE of the invisible God' at a time before 'every creature,' Co2 4:4, esteemed (the same Greek verb as in Phi 2:3) His being on an equality with God no (act of) robbery" or self-arrogation; claiming to one's self what does not belong to him. ELLICOTT, WAHL, and others have translated, "A thing to be grasped at," which would require the Greek to be harpagma, whereas harpagmos means the act of seizing. So harpagmos means in the only other passage where it occurs, PLUTARCH [On the Education of Children, 120]. The same insuperable objection lies against ALFORD'S translation, "He regarded not as self-enrichment (that is, an opportunity for self-exaltation) His equality with God." His argument is that the antithesis (Phi 2:7) requires it, "He used His equality with God as an opportunity, not for self-exaltation, but for self-abasement, or emptying Himself." But the antithesis is not between His being on an equality with God, and His emptying Himself; for He never emptied Himself of the fulness of His Godhead, or His "BEING on an equality with God"; but between His being "in the FORM (that is, the outward glorious self-manifestation) of God," and His "taking on Him the form of a servant," whereby He in a great measure emptied Himself of His precedent "form," or outward self-manifesting glory as God. Not "looking on His own things" (Phi 2:4), He, though existing in the form of God, He esteemed it no robbery to be on an equality with God, yet made Himself of no reputation. "Being on an equality with God, is not identical with subsisting in the form of God"; the latter expresses the external characteristics, majesty, and beauty of the Deity, which "He emptied Himself of," to assume "the form of a servant"; the former, "HIS BEING," or NATURE, His already existing STATE OF EQUALITY with God, both the Father and the Son having the same ESSENCE. A glimpse of Him "in the form of God," previous to His incarnation, was given to Moses (Exo 24:10-11), Aaron, &c.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 6. Who, being in the form of God] This verse has been the subject of much criticism, and some controversy. Dr. Whitby has, perhaps, on the whole, spoken best on this point; but his arguments are too diffuse to be admitted here. Dr. Macknight has abridged the words of Dr. Whitby, and properly observes that, "As the apostle is speaking of what Christ was before he took the form of a servant, the form of God, of which he divested himself when he became man, cannot be any thing which he possessed during his incarnation or in his divested state; consequently neither the opinion of Erasmus, that the form of God consisted in those sparks of divinity by which Christ, during his incarnation, manifested his Godhead, nor the opinion of the Socinians, that it consisted in the power of working miracles, is well founded; for Christ did not divest himself either of one or the other, but possessed both all the time of his public ministry. In like manner, the opinion of those who, by the form of God understand the Divine nature and the government of the world, cannot be admitted; since Christ, when he became man, could not divest himself of the nature of God; and with respect to the government of the world, we are led, by what the apostle tells, Heb 1:3, to believe that he did not part with even that; but, in his divested state, still continued to uphold all things by the word of his power. By the form of God we are rather to understand that visible, glorious light in which the Deity is said to dwell, 1Ti 6:16, and by which he manifested himself to the patriarchs of old, De 5:22; De 5:24; which was commonly accompanied with a numerous retinue of angels, Ps 68:17, and which in Scripture is called The Similitude, Nu 12:8; The Face, Ps 31:16: The Presence, Ex 33:15; and The Shape of God, Joh 5:37. This interpretation is supported by the term μορφη, form, here used, which signifies a person's external shape or appearance, and not his nature or essence. Thus we are told, Mr 16:12, that Jesus appeared to his disciples in another μορφη, shape, or form. And, Mt 17:2, μετεμορφωθη, he was transfigured before them-his outward appearance or form was changed. Farther this interpretation agrees with the fact: the form of God, that is, his visible glory, and the attendance of angels, as above described, the Son of God enjoyed with his Father before the world was, Joh 17:5; and on that as on other accounts he is the brightness of the Father's glory, Heb 1:3. Of this he divested himself when he became flesh; but, having resumed it after his ascension, he will come with it in the human nature to judge the world; so he told his disciples, Mt 16:27: The Son of man will come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, c,. Lastly, this sense of μορφη θεου, is confirmed by the meaning of μορθη δουλου, Php 2:7 which evidently denotes the appearance and behaviour of a servant or bondman, and not the essence of such a person." See Whitby and Macknight.

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God] If we take these words as they stand here, their meaning is, that, as he was from the beginning in the same infinite glory with the Father, to appear in time-during his humiliation, as God and equal with the Father, was no encroachment on the Divine prerogative; for, as he had an equality of nature, he had an equality of rights.

But the word αρπαγμον, which we translate robbery, has been supposed to imply a thing eagerly to be seized, coveted, or desired; and on this interpretation the passage has been translated: Who, being in the form of God, did not think it a matter to be earnestly desired to appear equal to God; but made himself of no reputation, c. However the word be translated, it does not affect the eternal Deity of our Lord. Though he was from eternity in the form of God-possessed of the same glory, yet he thought it right to veil this glory, and not to appear with it among the children of men and therefore he was made in the likeness of men, and took upon him the form or appearance of a servant: and, had he retained the appearance of this ineffable glory, it would, in many respects, have prevented him from accomplishing the work which God gave him to do; and his humiliation, as necessary to the salvation of men, could not have been complete. On this account I prefer this sense of the word αρπαγμον before that given in our text, which does not agree so well with the other expressions in the context. In this sense the word is used by Heliodorus, in his AEthiopics, lib. vii. cap. 19, &c., which passage Whitby has produced, and on which he has given a considerable paraphrase. The reader who wishes to examine this subject more particularly, may have recourse to Heliodorus as above, or to the notes of Dr. Whitby on the passage.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6 Inasmuch as he was in the form of God. This is not a comparison between things similar, but in the way of greater and less. Christ’s humility consisted in his abasing himself from the highest pinnacle of glory to the lowest ignominy: our humility consists in refraining from exalting ourselves by a false estimation. He gave up his right: all that is required of us is, that we do not assume to ourselves more than we ought. Hence he sets out with this — that, inasmuch as he was in the form of God, he reckoned it not an unlawful thing for him to shew himself in that form; yet he emptied himself. Since, then, the Son of God descended from so great a height, how unreasonable that we, who are nothing, should be lifted up with pride!

The form of God means here his majesty. For as a man is known by the appearance of his form, so the majesty, which shines forth in God, is his figure. Or if you would prefer a more apt similitude, the form of a king is his equipage and magnificence, shewing him to be a king — his scepter, his crown, his mantle, his attendants, his judgment-throne, and other emblems of royalty; the form of a consul was — his long robe, bordered with purple, his ivory seat, his lictors with rods and hatchets. Christ, then, before the creation of the world, was in the form of God, because from the beginning he had his glory with the Father, as he says in John 17:5. For in the wisdom of God, prior to his assuming our flesh, there was nothing mean or contemptible, but on the contrary a magnificence worth of God. Being such as he was, he could, without doing wrong to any one, shew himself equal with God; but he did not manifest himself to be what he really was, nor did he openly assume in the view of men what belonged to him by right.

Thought it not robbery. There would have been no wrong done though he had shewn himself to be equal with God. For when he says, he would not have thought, it is as though he had said, “He knew, indeed, that this was lawful and right for him,” that we might know that his abasement was voluntary, not of necessity. Hitherto it has been rendered in the indicative — he thought, but the connection requires the subjunctive. It is also quite a customary thing for Paul to employ the past indicative in the place of the subjunctive, by leaving the potential particle ἄν, as it is called, to be supplied — as, for example, in Romans 9:3, ηὐχόμην, for I would have wished; and in 1 Corinthians 2:8; εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, if they had known. Every one, however, must perceive that Paul treats hitherto of Christ’s glory, which tends to enhance his abasement. Accordingly he mentions, not what Christ did, but what it was allowable for him to do.

Farther, that man is utterly blind who does not perceive that his eternal divinity is clearly set forth in these words. Nor does Erasmus act with sufficient modesty in attempting, by his cavils, to explain away this passage, as well as other similar passages. He acknowledges, indeed, everywhere that Christ is God; but what am I the better for his orthodox confession, if my faith is not supported by any Scripture authority? I acknowledge, certainly, that Paul does not make mention here of Christ’s divine essence; but it does not follow from this, that the passage is not sufficient for repelling the impiety of the Arians, who pretended that Christ was a created God, and inferior to the Father, and denied that he was consubstantial. For where can there be equality with God without robbery, excepting only where there is the essence of God; for God always remains the same, who cries by Isaiah, I live; I will not give my glory to another. (Isaiah 48:11.) Form means figure or appearance, as they commonly speak. This, too, I readily grant; but will there be found, apart from God, such a form, so as to be neither false nor forged? As, then, God is known by means of his excellences, and his works are evidences of his eternal Godhead, (Romans 1:20,) so Christ’s divine essence is rightly proved from Christ’s majesty, which he possessed equally with the Father before he humbled himself. As to myself, at least, not even all devils would wrest this passage from me — inasmuch as there is in God a most solid argument, from his glory to his essence, which are two things that are inseparable.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(6) Being in the form of God.—(1) The word “being” is here the more emphatic of the two words so translated, which lays stress on the reality of existence (as in Act_16:20; Act_17:28; 1Co_11:7; Gal_2:14). Hence it calls attention to the essential being of Christ, corresponding to the idea embodied in the name Jehovah, and thus implying what is more fully expressed in Joh_1:1. (2) The word “form” (which, except for a casual use in Mar_16:12, is found only in this passage of the New Testament) is to be carefully distinguished from “fashion.” There can be no doubt that in classical Greek it describes the actual specific character, which (like the structure of a material substance) makes each being what it is; and this same idea is always conveyed in the New Testament by the compound words in which the root “form” is found (Rom_8:29; Rom_12:2; 2Co_3:18; Gal_4:19). (3) On the other hand, the word “fashion,” as in 1Co_7:31 (“the fashion of this world passeth away”), denotes the mere outward appearance (which we frequently designate as “form”), as will be seen also in its compounds (2Co_11:13-14; 1Pe_1:14). The two words are seen in juxtaposition in Rom_12:2; Php_3:21 (where see Notes). Hence, in this passage the “being in the form of God,” describes our Lord’s essential, and therefore eternal, being in the true nature of God; while the “taking on Him the form of a servant” similarly refers to His voluntary assumption of the true nature of man.

It should be noticed that, whereas in St. Paul’s earlier Epistles, in which he cared not “to know anything save Jesus Christ,” and “Him as crucified,” the main idea is always of our Lord as the mediator between man and God, yet in the later Epistles (as here, and in Eph_1:10; Eph_1:20-23; Col_1:15-19; Col_2:9-11; to which we may add Heb_1:2-4) stress is laid, sometimes (as in Eph_1:10), on His gathering all things in heaven and earth unto Himself; sometimes, even more explicitly, on His partaking of the divine nature, and (as in Col_1:17) of His possessing the divine attribute of creation. All this naturally leads up to the great declaration of His true and perfect Godhead in Joh_1:1-13.

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God.—There are two main interpretations of this passage; first, the interpretation given in our version, which makes it simply an explanation and enforcement of the words “being in the form of God”; secondly, the translation thought it not a prize to be grasped at to be equal with God, which begins in it the statement of our Lord’s voluntary self-humiliation, to be completed in the words, “but emptied Himself of glory.” The former preserves the literal translation of the original word “robbery;” the latter, in accordance with a not uncommon usage, makes it equivalent to “the thing snatched at,” and if this be allowed, has abundant examples in other writings to support the meaning thus given to the whole phrase. Either interpretation yields good sense and sound doctrine; neither does violence to the general context. But the latter is to be preferred; first (1) because it suits better the idea of the passage, which is to emphasise the reality of our Lord’s humility, and preserves the opposition implied in the “but” following; (2) because it has the great preponderance of the ancient Greek interpreters in its favour; (3) because it can, on the whole, appeal more confidently to ordinary usage of the phrase. The sense is that, being in the form of God, and therefore having equality with God, He set no store on that equality, as a glory to Himself, compared with the power of giving salvation to all men, which He is pleased to consider a new joy and glory.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. Who] in His pre-existent glory. We have in this passage a N.T. counterpart to the O.T. revelation of Messiah’s “coming to do the will of His God” (Psa_40:6-8, interpreted Heb_10:5).

being] The Greek word slightly indicates that He not only “was,” but “already was,” in a state antecedent to and independent of the action to be described. R.V. margin has “Gr. originally being”; but the American Revisers dissent.

in the form of God] The word rendered “form” is morphê. This word, unlike our “form” in its popular meaning, connotes reality along with appearance, or in other words denotes an appearance which is manifestation. It thus differs from the word (schêma) rendered “fashion” in Php_2:8 below; where see note. See notes on Rom_12:2 in this Series for further remarks on the difference between the two words; and cp. for full discussions, Abp Trench’s Synonyms, under μορφή, and Bp Lightfoot’s Philippians, detached note to ch. 2.

Here then our Redeeming Lord is revealed as so subsisting “in the form of God” that He was what He seemed, and seemed what He was—God. (See further, the next note below, and on Php_2:7.) “Though [morphê] is not the same as [ousia, essence], yet the possession of the [morphê] involves participation in the [ousia] also, for [morphê] implies not the external accidents [only?] but the essential attributes” (Lightfoot).

thought] The glorious Person is viewed as (speaking in the forms of human conception) engaged in an act of reflection and resolve.

robbery] The Greek word occurs only here in the Greek Scriptures, and only once (in Plutarch, cent. 2) in secular Greek writers. Its form suggests the meaning of a process or act of grasp or seizure. But similar forms in actual usage are found to take readily the meaning of the result, or material, of an act or process. “An invader’s or plunderer’s prize” would thus fairly represent the word here. This interpretation is adopted and justified by Bp Lightfoot here. R.V. reads “a prize,” and in the margin “Gr. a thing to be grasped.” Liddell and Scott render, “a matter of robbery,” which is substantially the same; Bp Ellicott, “a thing to be seized on, or grasped at.”—The context is the best interpreter of the practical bearing of the word. In that context it appears that the Lord’s view of His Equality (see below) was not such as to withstand His gracious and mysterious Humiliation for our sakes, while yet the conditions of His Equality were such as to enhance the wonder and merit of that Humiliation to the utmost. Accordingly the phrase before us, to suit the context, (a) must not imply that He deemed Equality an unlawful possession, a thing which it would be robbery to claim, as some expositors, ancient and modern, have in error explained the words (see Alford’s note here, and St Chrysostom on this passage at large); (b) must imply that His thought about the Equality was one of supremely exemplary kindness towards us. These conditions are satisfied by the paraphrase—“He dealt with His true and rightful Equality not as a thing held anxiously, and only for Himself, as the gains of force or fraud are held, but as a thing in regard of which a most gracious sacrifice and surrender was possible, for us and our salvation.”

The A.V., along with many interpreters, appears to understand the Greek word as nearly equal to “usurpation”; as if to say, “He knew it was His just and rightful possession to be equal with God, and yet” &c. But the context and the Greek phraseology are unfavourable to this.

to be equal with God] R.V., to be on an equality with God, a phrase which perhaps better conveys what the original words suggest, that the reference is to equality of attributes rather than person (Lightfoot). The glorious Personage in view is not another and independent God, of rival power and glory, but the Christ of God, as truly and fully Divine as the Father.

Let us remember that these words occur not in a polytheistic reverie, but in the Holy Scriptures, which everywhere are jealous for the prerogative of the Lord God, and that they come from the pen of a man whose Pharisaic monotheism sympathized with this jealousy to the utmost. May it not then be asked, how—in any, way other than direct assertion, as in Joh_1:1–the true and proper Deity of Christ could be more plainly stated?

The word “God” on the other hand is here used manifestly with a certain distinctiveness of the Father. Christian orthodoxy, collecting the whole Scripture evidence, sees in this a testimony not to the view (e.g. of Arius, cent. 4) that the Son is God only in a secondary and inferior sense, but that the Father is the eternal, true, and necessary Fountain of the eternal, true, and necessary Godhead of the Son.—For this use of the word God, see e.g. Joh_1:1; 2Co_13:14; Heb_1:9; Rev_20:6; Rev_22:1.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who being in the form of God,.... The Father; being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. This form is to be understood, not of any shape or figure of him; for as such is not to be seen, it is not to be supposed of him; or any accidental form, for there are no accidents in God, whatever is in God, is God; he is nothing but nature and essence, he is the , the Jehovah, I am what I am; and so is his Son, which is, and was, and is to come, the fountain of all created beings nor does it intend any outward representation and resemblance of him, such as in kings; who, because of the honour and dignity they are raised unto, the authority and power they have, and because of the glory and majesty they are arrayed with, are called gods: nor does it design the state and condition Christ appeared in here on earth, having a power to work miracles, heal diseases, and dispossess devils, for the manifestation of his glory; and so might be said to be in the form of God, as Moses for doing less miracles is said to be a God unto Pharaoh; since this account does not regard Christ; as he was on earth in human nature, but what he was antecedent to the assumption of it; or otherwise his humility and condescension in becoming man, and so mean, will not appear: but this phrase, "the form of God", is to be understood of the nature and essence of God, and describes Christ as he was from all eternity; just as the form of a servant signifies that he was really a servant, and the fashion of a man in which he was found means that he was truly and really man; so his being in the form of God intends that he was really and truly God; that he partook of the same nature with the Father, and was possessed of the same glory: from whence it appears, that he was in being before his incarnation; that he existed as a distinct person from God his Father, in whose form he was, and that as a divine person, or as truly God, being in the glorious form, nature, and essence of God; and that there is but one form of God, or divine nature and essence, common to the Father and the Son, and also to the Spirit; so that they are not three Gods, but one God: what the form of God is, the Heathens themselves (g) say cannot be comprehended nor seen, and so not to be inquired after; and they use the same word the apostle does here (h): and now Christ being in this glorious form, or having the same divine nature with the Father, with all the infinite and unspeakable glories of it,

thought it no robbery to be equal with God; the Father; for if he was in the same form, nature, and essence, he must be equal to him, as he is; for he has the same perfections, as eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immutability, and self-existence: hence he has the same glorious names, as God, the mighty God, the true God, the living God, God over all, Jehovah, the Lord of glory, &c. the same works of creation and providence are ascribed to him, and the same worship, homage, and honour given him: to be "in the form of God", and to be "equal with God", signify the same thing, the one is explanative of the other: and this divine form and equality, or true and proper deity, he did not obtain by force and rapine, by robbery and usurpation, as Satan attempted to do, and as Adam by his instigation also affected; and so the mind of a wicked man, as Philo the Jew says (i), being a lover of itself and impious, , "thinks itself to be equal with God", a like phrase with this here used; but Christ enjoyed this equality by nature; he thought, he accounted, he knew he had it this way; and he held it hereby, and of right, and not by any unlawful means; and he reckoned that by declaring and showing forth his proper deity, and perfect equality with the Father, he robbed him of no perfection; the same being in him as in the Father, and the same in the Father as in him; that he did him no injury, nor deprived him of any glory, or assumed that to himself which did not belong to him: as for the sense which some put upon the words, that he did not "affect", or "greedily catch" at deity; as the phrase will not admit of it, so it is not true in fact; he did affect deity, and asserted it strongly, and took every proper opportunity of declaring it, and in express terms affirmed he was the Son of God; and in terms easy to be understood declared his proper deity, and his unity and equality with the Father; required the same faith in himself as in the Father, and signified that he that saw the one, saw the other, Mar 14:61 Joh 5:17. Others give this as the sense of them, that he did not in an ostentatious way show forth the glory of his divine nature, but rather hid it; it is true, indeed, that Christ did not seek, but carefully shunned vain glory and popular applause; and therefore often after having wrought a miracle, would charge the persons on whom it was wrought, or the company, or his disciples, not to speak of it; this he did at certain times, and for certain reasons; yet at other times we find, that he wrought miracles to manifest forth his glory, and frequently appeals to them as proofs of his deity and Messiahship: and besides, the apostle is speaking not of what he was, or did in his incarnate state, but of what he was and thought himself to be, before he became man; wherefore the above sense is to be preferred as the genuine one,

(g) Socraticus, Xenophon, & Aristo Chius, apud Minuc. Felic. Octav. p. 20. & Hostanes apud Caecil. Cyprian. de Idol. van. p. 46. (h) Laertii proem. ad Vit. Philosoph. p. 7. (i) Leg. Alleg. l. 1. p. 48, 49.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Ver. 6. To be equal with God] Gr. Equals, that is, every way equal; not a secondary inferior God, as the Arians would have him. {See Trapp on "Joh 1:1"} {See Trapp on "Joh 1:2"} {See Trapp on "Joh 1:3"} {See Trapp on "Joh 1:4"} Hold fast this truth; it is of the foundation, it is the rock whereon the Church is built, Mat 16:18; and all the devils in hell shall not wrest this place from me, for a clear proof of the Divinity of Christ, saith learned Calvin.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who being in the form [1] of God, (that is truly, properly, and essentially God from eternity, as the ancient Fathers here observed against the Arians) taking the form of a servant, (i.e. taking upon him our human nature) became truly a man, and as man the servant of God, but remaining always God as before, thought it not robbery, no injury to his eternal Father, to be equal, to be esteemed, and to declare himself equal to God, to be one thing with him: as on divers occasions he taught the people, as we have observed in the notes on St. John’s gospel, &c. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

In forma Dei, Greek: en morphe Theou. See St. John Chrysostom (tom. iv. p. 31. 32. Greek: log. 5.) where he shews how many heresies are confuted by these words: and says, Greek: e morphe tou doulou, e phusis doulou....kai e morphe tou Theou, Theou phusis. See St. Gregory of Nyssa...3. cont. Eunom.; St. Augustine, lib. 1. de Trin. chap. 1. &c.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Who, i.e. relative to Christ Jesus, the eternal Son of God by nature, very God extant with his Father before the beginning, Joh 1:1; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; 6:14-16; Tit 2:13; the express image and character of his Father’s person, which implies a peculiar subsistence distinct from the subsistence of his Father, Joh 8:42; 2Co 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3; concerning whom, every word that follows, by reason of the Socinians, and some Lutherans, is to be well weighed.

Being; i.e. subsisting, in opposition to taking or assuming, Phi 2:7; and therefore doth firmly prove Christ pro-existing in another nature to his so doing, namely, his actual existing of himself in the same essence and glory he had from eternity with the Father, Joh 1:1,2; 17:5; 2Co 8:9; Rev 1:4,8,11.

In the form of God; to understand which clearly:

1. The word

form, though it may sometimes note somewhat outward, and so infer the glory of Christ’s miracles, yet we do not find it any where so used in Scripture: it is true it is once used there for the outward visage, Mar 16:12, which had excelling splendour and beauty, giving occasion to conceive majesty in the person, Mat 27:2; 2Pe 1:16, (however, his resplendent garments could not be accounted the form of God, ) yet being, Luke saith, Luk 24:16, the eyes of the persons which saw were holden, that for a time they could not acknowledge him, it argues that the appearance Mark speaks of noted only an accidental form.

2. Whereas the

being or subsisting Paul here speaks of, respects (what the best philosophers in their most usual way of speaking do) the essential form, with the glory of it, since the verbs, in other scriptures of the same origin, signify somewhat inward and not conspicuous, Rom 12:2; 2Co 3:18; Gal 4:19; especially when there is a cogent reason for it here, considering the form of God, in opposition to the form of a servant afterward, and in conjunction with equality to God, which implies the same essence and nature, Isa 40:25; 46:5, it being impossible there should be any proportion or equality between infinite and finite, eternal and temporal, uncreate and create, by nature God and by nature not God, Gal 4:4,8, unto which the only living and true God will not suffer his glory to be given. Neither indeed can he deny himself who is one, and besides whom there is no other true God, or God by nature, Deu 4:35; 6:4; 2Ti 2:13; who only doeth wondrous things, Psa 72:18; for to all Divine operations a Divine power is requisite, which is inseparable from the most simple essence and its properties.

Being, or subsisting,

in the form of God, imports not Christ’s appearance in exerting of God’s power, but his real and actual existence in the Divine essence, not in accidents, wherein nothing doth subsist: neither the vulgar nor learned do use to say any one doth subsist, but appear, in an outward habit; why then should any conceit the apostle means so? The Gentiles might speak of their gods appearing; but then, even they thought the Deity was one thing, and the habit or figure under which, or in which, it appeared was another Act 14:11; so that subsisting in the form intimates in the nature and essence of God, not barely, but as it were clothed with properties and glory. For the apostle here treats of Christ’s condescension, proceeding from his actual existence, as the term wherein he is co-eternal and co-equal to God the Father, before he abated himself with respect unto us. For he says not the form of God was in Christ, (however that might be truly said), that the adversaries might not have occasion to say only there was somewhat in Christ like unto God; but he speaks of that wherein Christ was, viz. in the form of God, and so that form is predicated of God, as his essence and nature, and can be no other thing. None can rationally imagine that God was an external figure, wherein Christ was subsisting. For subsistence implies some peculiarity relating to the substance of a certain thing, whence we may conclude the Son to be of the same (not only of like) substance with the Father, considering what significantly follows. He

thought it not, esteemed, counted, held (so the word is used, Phi 2:3; 3:7,8; 1Th 5:13; 2Th 3:15; 1Ti 1:12; 1Ti 6:1; Heb 10:29; 11:26), it not

robbery, it being his right by eternal generation; i.e. he did not judge it any wrong or usurpation, on that account of his being in the form of God, to be equal to his Father, being a subsistent in the same nature and essence with him. From openly showing equal majesty with whom he did not for a time abstain, in that he could reckon this robbery, as if such majesty were that which did not agree to his nature, ever presupposing this inherent right, to his great condescension, or abasing himself, which follows as the term to which: or, he resolved for a time not to show himself in that glory which was his own right, but freely condescended to the veiling of it. He did not really forego (neither was it possible he should) any thing of his Divine glory, being the Son of God still, without any robbery or rapine, equal to his Father in power and glory, Joh 10:33; 1Jo 5:7,20.

Thought it not robbery; Paul doth not say, (as the Arians of old would pervert his sense), he robbed not, or snatched not, held not fast equality with God; or, (as the Socinians since), Christ thought not to do this robbery to God, or commit this rape upon God, so as that he should be equal to him, but acknowledged he had it of the free gift of God, chopping in the adversative particle, but, where it really is not: whereas we read not in the sacred text, he thought not to do this robbery, but, he thought it not robbery to be equal to God; which two are vastly different, even as much as to have the Godhead by usurpation, and to have it by nature. In the former it is, q.d. Christ did not rob or snatch away the equality; in the latter, the equality which Christ had with God, he thought it no robbery; he reputed not the empire he might have always continued in the exercise of, equal with the Father, as a thing usurped, or taken by force (as one doth hold that he hath taken by spoil, making show of it). For when he had said he had subsisted in the form of God, he could (before he condescended) say also, he was equal to God, i.e. the Father, without any robbery, rapine, or usurpation. And if Socinus urge that it is absurd and false in any sense to say, God thought he had robbed, or taken by robbery, the Divine essence; then this contradictory, God thought not he took by robbery the Divine essence, is rational and true; as when it is said, God cannot lie, or God changeth not, as 1Sa 15:29; Isa 55:8; Mal 3:6. What things are denied of God, do not imply the opposites are affirmed of him. The particle but, which follows in its proper place before made himself of no reputation, may be fairly joined with this sense. For if Christ should know that by rapine and unjust usurpation he was equal to God, (as likely the attempt to be so was the sin of our first parents, which robbery of theirs Christ came to expiate), he had not emptied himself, nor vouchsafed to abase himself.

To be equal with God; neither is Christ said to be equal to God only in respect of his works, (which yet argue the same cause and principle, Joh 5:19,21,23,26,27; 10:37), but absolutely, he thought it not robbery to be altogether equal with God, as subsisting in the same nature and essence, the original phrase connoting an exact parity. All the things of Christ (though he chose to have some of them veiled for a time) are equal to God; so some expound the neuter plural emphatically, (as usual amongst the Greeks), to answer the masculine singular foregoing, to express the ineffable sameness of the nature and essence of the Divine subsistents. It may be read: He counted it no robbery that those things which are his own should be equal to God, i.e. the Father; or rather, that he himself should in all things be equal or peer to God. For had Christ been only equal by a delegated power from God, why should the Jews have consulted to kill him, for making himself equal with God? Which with them was all one as to make himself God, Joh 5:18; 10:33. But that he spake of his eternal generation, as owning him for his own Father, with whom he did work miracles, even as the Father did in his own name, by his own power, of himself, for his own glory: neither will the evangelist’s saying: The Son can do nothing of himself, Joh 5:19, infer an inequality with the Father, when what he doth is equally perfect in power and glory with the Father’s, whence, as son, he hath it by nature. For (looking lower) though every son receives from his father human nature, yet he is not less a man than his father, or his father more a man than he; the son having a being of the same perfection which is naturally in both. However the Father, to whom Christ is in subordination as the Son, and in office a servant, undertaking the work of mediation, may be said to be greater than the Son, that can only be understood with respect to the order of their working, if we compare texts, Joh 14:28; 16:13-15. Neither, when Christ accounted it not robbery to be equal with God, is he said (as the adversaries urge) to be equal to himself, but to another person, viz. God the Father. Things may be equal which are so diverse, that yet they may be one in some common respect wherein they agree: wherefore when Christ is said to be equal with the Father, he is distinguished from him in person and subsistence, yet not in essence, wherein it is his due to be his equal, and therefore one.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Who, being in the form of God. The word rendered "being" (uparcwn) means, as R.V in margin, being originally. It looks back to the time before the Incarnation, when the Word, the Logov asarkov , was with God. (comp. Joh_8:58 Joh_17:5, Joh_17:24) What does the word morfh form, mean here? It occurs twice in this passage Ver. 6, "form of God;" and Ver. 7, "form of a servant;" it is contrasted with schma fashion, in Ver. 8. In the Aristotelian philosophy (vide "De Anima," 2:1, 2) morfh . is used almost in the sense of eidov , or to ti hn einai as that which makes a thing to be what it is, the sum of its essential attributes: it is the form, as the expression of those essential attributes, the permanent, constant form; not the fleeting, outward schma , or fashion. St. Paul seems to make a somewhat similar distinction between the two words. Thus in Gal_4:19 2Co_2:1-8 Php_2:10, morfh (or its derivatives) is used of the deep inner change of heart, the change which is described in Holy Scripture as a new creation; while schma is used of the changeful fashion of the world and agreement with it. (1Co_7:31 Rom_12:2) Then, when St. Paul tells us that Christ Jesus, being first in the form of God, took the form of a servant, the meaning must be that he possessed originally the essential attributes of Deity, and assumed in addition the essential attributes of humanity. He was perfect God; he became perfect. (comp. Col_1:15 2Co_4:4) For a fuller discussion of the meanings of morfh and schma , see Bishop Lightfoot"s detached note ("Philippians," p. 127), and Archbishop Trench, "Synonyms of the New Testament," sect. 70. Thought it not robbery to be equal with God; R.V "counted it not a prize margin, "a thing to be grasped to be on an equality with God." These two renderings represent two conflicting interpretations of this difficult passage. Do the words mean that Christ asserted his cssential Godhead ("thought it not robbery to be equal with God," as A.V), or that he did not cling to the glory of the Divine majesty ("counted it not a prize," as R.V)? Both statements are true in fact. The grammatical form of the word arpagmov , which properly implies an action or process, favors the first view, which seems to be adopted by most of the ancient versions and by most of the Latin Fathers. On the other hand, the form of the word does not exclude the passive interpretation; many words of the same termination have a passive meaning, and arpagmov itself is used in the sense of arpagma by Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, and a writer in the "Catena Possini" on Mar_10:42 (the three passages are quoted by Bishop Lightfoot, in loco). The Greek Fathers (as Chrysostom O tou Yeou uioyh katabhnai apo tou axiwmatov , etc.) generally adopt this interpretation. And the context seems to require it. The aorist hghsato points to an act, the act of abnegation; not to a state, the continued assertion. The conjunction "but" (alla) implies that the two sentences are opposed to one another. He did not grasp, but, on the contrary, he emptied him-sell The first interpretation involves the tacit insertion of "nevertheless;" he asserted his equality, but nevertheless, etc. And the whole stress is laid on the Lord"s humility and unselfishness. It is true that this second interpretation does not so distinctly assert the divinity of our Lord, already sufficiently asserted in the first clause, "being in the form of God." But it implies it. Not to grasp at equality with God would not be an instance of humility, but merely the absence of mad impiety, in one who was not himself Divine. On the whole, then, we prefer the second interpretation. Though he was kern the beginning in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God as a thing to be grasped, a prize to be tenaciously retained. Not so good is the view of Meyer and others: "Jesus Christ, when he found himself in the heavenly mode of existence of Divine glory, did not permit himself the thought of using his equality with God for the purpose of seizing possessions and honor for himself on earth." The R.V rendering of the last words of the clause," to be on an equality," isnearer to the Greek and better than the A.V, "to be equal with God." Christ was equal with God. (Joh_5:18 Joh_10:30) He did not cling to the outward manifestation of that equality. The adverbial form isa implies the state or mode of equality rather than the equality itself.

Vers. 6-8. The humiliation of Christ.

I THE HEIGHT FROM WHICH HE. CAME IS THE MEASURE OF THE DEPTH TO WHICH HE DESCENDED. He was for ever "in the form of God;" i.e. with the essential nature of God. (cf. Joh_13:3, Joh_13:4)

II HIS HUMILIATION WAS NO LOSS OF GLORY OR ESSENTIAL WORTH. He is for ever in the form of God; this he could not renounce. He laid aside for a time his external equality with God. This he considered not to be a possession of any great importance. How contrary to ordinary human ideas, which "catch at" anything which confers external honor But to catch at an external resemblance argues that we do not possess the essential likeness. Only the truly great can afford to humble themselves.

III HIS HUMILIATION A REALITY. He takes the" form of a servant;" i.e. he actually becomes such, as he was actually in the "form of God." He assumes also the "likeness of a man," becoming in appearance, as in reality, one of ourselves.

IV HE ACCEPTS THE TRUE POSITION OF MAN, WHICH IS THAT OF OBEDIENCE, This is man"s truest and essential glory. The true man cannot live any other life than that of obedience and service. His obedience is to death, even to a death of shame, if such is required of him. Our glory is to accept whatever may be the will of God for us. VW.H.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who being in the essential form - The incommunicable nature. Of God - From eternity, as he was afterward in the form of man; real God, as real man. Counted it no act of robbery - That is the precise meaning of the words, - no invasion of another's prerogative, but his own strict and unquestionable right. To be equal with God - the word here translated equal, occurs in the adjective form five or six times in the New Testament, Matt. xx, 12; Luke vi, 34; John v, 18; Acts xi, 17; Rev. xxi, 16. In all which places it expresses not a bare resemblance, but a real and proper equalitg. It here implies both the fulness and the supreme height of the Godhead; to which are opposed, he emptied and he humbled himself.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

form of God

"Form," etc. (Greek - μορφή, the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision, the external appearance)."--Thayer. CF Joh 17:15. "The glory which I had with Thee before the world was." Nothing in this passage teaches that the Eternal Word Joh 1:1 emptied Himself of either His divine nature, or His attributes, but only of the outward and visible manifestation of the Godhead. "He emptied, stripped Himself of the insignia of Majesty."--Lightfoot. "When occasion demanded He exercised His divine attributes."-- Moorehead. CF (See Scofield "Joh 1:1"). See Scofield "Joh 20:28"

robbery a thing to be grasped after. See, Gen 3:5-6.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Behold here the greatest example of humility, of lowliness and abasement, that ever the world was acquainted with: the mighty God became less than man!

To make a due estimate hereof we must first observe, What Christ was before his incarnation and humiliation, namely, the great and mighty God: for, says the apostle, he was in the form of God, and equal with God; that is, being the substantial form, and essential image of the Father, enjoying the divine nature, with all its glory, and all the ensigns of majesty which God himself had eternally and invariably. As to be in the form of a servant, signifies that he was a servant; so to be in the form of God, signifies that he was God.

And observe, 2. He was in the form of God, before he was in the form of a servant: And, being in the form of God, he thought it no robbery to be equal with God. Now if he thought it no robbery, it could be no robbery; and if no robbery, he must be equal; and if equal, he must be God by nature, as the Father is.

Learn hence, That our Saviour possessed that glory which is truly divine, before he assumed our nature as man: he had a peerage or equality with his Father in glory; the angels adored him im heaven before his incarnation on earth, Isa 6:1-2.

Observe, 3. What mighty abasement the holy Jesus, God blessed for evermore, underwent, when he humbled himself: He was found in fashion as a man; he took upon him the form of a servant, and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross.

Behold here the Son of righteousness under an (almost total) eclipse; he that was eternally beautiful and glorious, being the brightness of his Father’s glory, was so veiled, clouded, and debased, in the day of his humiliation, that he appears not like a God, scarce like a man.

Note, 1. He took upon him the form of a servant: now this was a lower degree of condescension than the assuming the naked human nature; for a servant is not simply a man, but a mean man, a man in a low estate.

Lord! what abasement was here, that Christ, who was in the form of God, should degrade himself into the form of a servant, and take the human nature without honour, after it had lost its primitive innocency, after sin had blotted the original glory of it, and withered the beauty and excellency thereof! O inconceivable condescension!

Note, 2. He emptied himself, or made himself of no reputation, that is, in the day of his incarnaton he laid aside the robes of his glory, he emptied himself of that divine splendour and majesty which before he had; not by ceasing to be what he was, but by assuming something to himself which before he was not: the Son of God descended from his throne, and put on our vile mortality; he parted with his glory, that he might part with his life for our salvation.

Note, 3. He was made in the likeness of man, and found in fashion as a man; that is, he was truly and really man, made in the likeness of other men, without any visible outward difference: He was in all things like unto us, sin only excepted, Rom 8:3. He is said to appear in the likeness of sinful flesh, that is, in flesh that had the marks and miserable effects of sin upon it: not that Christ assumed sinful flesh, or flesh really defiled, by sin, but he assumed the human nature, attended with a whole troop of human imfirmities, which sin first let into that nature, as hunger and thirst, weariness and pain, mortality and death. By reason of which, though he was not a sinner, yet he looked like one, and they that conversed with him took him for one, seeing all these effects of sin upon him.

Lord, what a stoop was this! To be made in the likeness of innocent flesh had been much; but to be made in the likeness of sinful flesh, rebellious flesh, flesh, though not defiled, yet miseraably defaced by sin! O, what is this! and who can declare his humiliation!

Note, 4. The nature of this humiliation: he humbled himself; the word imports both a real and a voluntary abasement. Real: Christ did not personsate an humble man, nor act the part of one in a debased state, but was really and in very deed humbled, both in the sight of God and man: and, as it was real, so also was his humiliation voluntary. It is not said he was humbled, but that he humbled himself; he was willing to stoop to this low and abject state for us; and it was the voluntariness of his humiliation that made it so acceptable to God, and so beneficial and servicable unto us.

Note, 5. The degrees of our holy Lord’s humiliation: he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Here we have the depth of Christ’s humiliation specified; it was unto death, and also aggravated, even unto the death of the cross; he humbled himself, not only to become a mortal man, but a dead corpse; and that too hanging on a tree, dying the death of a malefactor. There was pain, shame, and a curse, in the death of the cross: Christ underwent the pain patiently, the shame meekly, the curse obediently, all of them willingly and cheerfully, that the justice of God might be satisfied, his wrath pacified, his majesty reconciled, death and hell vanquished and destroyed. Behold the trancendency of Christ’s love to the children of men! Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend; but greater love had the Son of God than this, that he laid down his life for his inveterate enemies: he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. Who, being in the form of God. He refers to the state of our Savior before he took human form. His form was divine. “He had a glory with the father before the world was.” See John 1:1; 2 Cor. 4:4; Heb. 1:3, etc. Thought it not robbery to be equal with God. The Revision says, “Counted it not a prize.” The meaning is not entirely clear, but probably is that “Having a form of glory like God, he did not count it a prize which must be clung to tenaciously, especially when he appeared upon the earth, that he should be equal with God, that is, appear in a divine form, but was willing to lay aside his glory and make himself a servant.”

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

6. ὃς: Refers to Christ as the subject. It is the subject of both classes of statements which follow,—those predicated of Christ’s preincarnate state and of his human condition. The immediate context defines the specific reference in each case.

ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ: ‘in the form of God.’ ‘Form’ is an inadequate rendering of μορφὴ, but our language affords no better word. By ‘form’ is commonly understood ‘shape,’ ‘sensible appearance.’ So of Christ’s human form (Mar 16:12). But the word in this sense cannot be applied to God. Μορφὴ here means that expression of being which is identified with the essential nature and character of God, and which reveals it. This expression of God cannot be conceived by us, though it may be conceived and apprehended by pure spiritual intelligences.

ὑπάρχων: ‘subsisting’ or ‘though he subsisted.’ Originally ‘to begin,’ ‘make a beginning’; thence ‘to come forth’; ‘be at hand’; ‘be in existence.’ It is sometimes claimed that ὑπάρχειν, as distinguished from εἶναι, implies a reference to an antecedent condition. Thus R.V. marg. ‘being originally.’ Suidas, = προεῖναι. That it does so in some cases is true. (See Thuc. iv. 18, vi. 86; Hdt. ii. 15; Dem. iii. 15, v. 13.) Comp. the meaning ‘to be taken for granted’ (Plat. Symp. 198 D; Tim. 30 C). On the other hand, it sometimes denotes a present as related to a future condition. (See Hdt. vii. 144; Thuc. ii. 64; and the meaning ‘to be in store’ [Æs. Ag. 961].) The most that can be said is that the word is very often used with a relative meaning; while, at the same time, it often occurs simply as ‘to be.’ (See Schmidt, Synon. 81, 7.)

οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ: ‘counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God.’

Ἁρπαγμὸν is here equivalent to ἅρπαγμα, the more regular form for the object of the action,—the thing seized,—while substantives in μος have usually an active sense. There are, however, exceptions to this. Thus θεσμός and χρησμός are neither of them used actively. Φραγμός, ‘a fencing in,’ is also used like φράγμα, ‘a fence.’ Ἁγιασμός is both ‘the act of consecration’ and ‘sanctification.’ (Comp. ὀνειδισμός, σωφρονισμός, and ἱλασμός.) There is only one example of ἁρπαγμός in any class. author (Plut. Moral. p. 12A) where the meaning is apparently active. It occurs in two passages of Cyr. Alex., De Adorat. i. 25, and Cont. Jul. 6., both in a passive sense, and in Euseb. Comm. in Luc. 6., also passive. Max. Conf. Schol. in Lib. de divin. nom. 57 D, explains οὐχ ἁρπ. ἡγ. by οὐκ ἀπηξίωσεν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὑπακοῦσαι. It should also be observed that rapina, by which ἁρπαγμὸν is rendered in the Lat. trans. of Origen and Theo. Mops., is used both actively and passively, the latter in poetry and late Latin. In this condition of the evidence it is certainly straining a point, to say the least, to insist on making the rendering of the passage turn on the active meaning of ἁρπαγμὸν, as Mey. Ἅρπαγμα is often used with ἡγεῖσθαι, as ἁρπαγμὸν here, in the sense of ‘to clutch greedily.’

ἡγήσατο: See on vs. 3. Weiss suggests that the phrase ἁρπ. ἡγ. may have been chosen with reference to ἡγούμενοι of vs. 3, in order to emphasise the disposition from which Christ’s self-humiliation proceeded.

τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ: Εἶναι, ‘to exist’; not as the abstract substantive verb ‘to be.’ Ἴσα is adverbial, ‘in a manner of equality.’ (Comp. Thuc. iii. 14; Eurip. Orest. 882; and other examples in Win. xxvii.) (See LXX; Job 5:14; Sap. 7:3.) The phrase therefore does not mean ‘to be equal with God,’ but ‘existence in the way of equality with God’ (Mey., Ellic., Weiss, De W., Kl.).

Others, as Lightf., take ἴσα predicatively, and εἶναι as ‘to be.’

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Being in the form of God [εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων] . Being. Not the simple einai to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form [μορφη] . We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from schma fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Morfh form 178 is identified with the essence of a person or thing : schma fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Mt 17:2.

As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.

This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire.

To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (ver. 7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God 's being. Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God. This form, not being identical with the divine essence, but dependent upon it, and necessarily implying it, can be parted with or laid aside. Since Christ is one with God, and therefore pure being, absolute existence, He can exist without the form. This form of God Christ laid aside in His incarnation.

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God [ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω] . Robbery is explained in three ways. 1. A robbing, the act. 2. The thing robbed, a piece of plunder. 3. A prize, a thing to be grasped. Here in the last sense.

Paul does not then say, as A. V., that Christ did not think it robbery to be equal with God : for, 1, that fact goes without. saying in the previous expression, being in the form of God. 2. On this explanation the statement is very awkward. Christ, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God; but, after which we should naturally expect, on the other hand, claimed and asserted equality : whereas the statement is : Christ was in the form of God and did not think it robbery to be equal with God, but (instead) emptied Himself. Christ held fast His assertion of divine dignity, but relinquished it. The antithesis is thus entirely destroyed. Taking the word aJrpagmon (A. V., robbery) to mean a highly prized possession, we understand Paul to say that Christ, being, before His incarnation, in the form of God, did not regard His divine equality as a prize which was to be grasped at and retained at all hazards, but, on the contrary, laid aside the form of God, and took upon Himself the nature of man. The emphasis in the passage is upon Christ 's humiliation. The fact of His equality with God is stated as a background, in order to throw the circumstances of His incarnation into stronger relief. Hence the peculiar form of Paul 's statement Christ 's great object was to identify Himself with humanity; not to appear to men as divine but as human. Had He come into the world emphasizing His equality with God, the world would have been amazed, but not saved He did not grasp at this. The rather He counted humanity His prize, and so laid aside the conditions of His preexistent state, and became man.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.