Philippians 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; Daniel 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 (Colossians 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. John 17:5; Hebrews 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 2 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 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 Mark 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 Philippians 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. Romans 1:4, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. Also Luke 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?)