Philippians 2:6

Who existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped.

THE SO-CALLED HYMN

Many scholars insist that "Paul here quotes a previously composed hymn";[12] but outside the attractiveness of plausible imagination, there is no hard evidence of any kind to commend such a view. It is true, of course, that the passage is composed of balanced phrases having a kind of rhythm and that they could have been sung; but what does that prove? Matthew's entire narrative of the crucifixion has been sung and continues to be one of the most popular oratorios. Again, it is true that this passage shows evidence of having been carefully thought out; but the reader is referred to my Commentary on Romans, Romans 1:6, for review of another Pauline passage showing the most careful and deliberate construction even exceeding the passage here in that quality. The rejection of the "hymn theory" has the utility of refuting those who wish to deny the Pauline authorship of this passage; and, since there is no proof whatever of its ever having been an ancient hymn, this writer rejects the hymn theory as having no merit whatever.

"Being in the form of God ..." As Knight said:

The Greeks had two words for "form," one of them referring to mere external appearance, as when a mirage takes the appearance of water ... the other suggests that the appearance is the true revelation of the object itself, the form participating in the reality. It is the second word (@morfe]) which Paul here employs.[13]

This is of course a dogmatic statement of the deity of Jesus Christ. As Hewlett said, "It includes the whole nature and essence of deity, and is inseparable from them."[14] There are at least nine other New Testament passages affirming the deity of Christ; for a list of these, see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 1:8.

Counted not being on an equality with God ... These words refer to "being in the form of God," and are a statement (in different words) of the status of our Lord in his pre-existent state before the incarnation. It is a gross misinterpretation to construe these words as reference to anything else.

A thing to be grasped ... Modern exegesis has, to a large extent, attempted to pervert this clause, making it mean that Jesus (in his pre-existent state) "could have grasped at equality with God by self-assertion, but declined to do so."[15] Such a misinterpretation, however, makes "equality with God" something that Christ did not have in his pre-incarnate state (flatly contradicting "existing in the form of God"), but something which presented itself to him as a temptation. The true meaning of this place is that, although Christ had existed from the beginning as God (John 1:1), he did not count the prerogatives of deity "something to be grasped" or "tenaciously retained,"[16] because one would not need to grasp what is already his. As Martin expressed this viewpoint (while denying it), "He had no need to grasp at equality with God because he already possessed it."[17]

This student has carefully read the arguments from the meaning of [@harpagmos], and while convinced that Paul might have used a Greek word here with a double meaning (hence the two diverse interpretations), it is only another of countless instances in Scripture where the Holy Spirit left room for people to make a moral judgment. After all, as Kennedy said:

Much trouble would be saved if interpreters instead of merely investigating the refinements of Greek metaphysics ... were to ask themselves, "What other terms could the apostle have used to express his conceptions?"[18]

The truth of this passage shines like the sun at perihelion, and it is nearly incredible that anyone could miss it. Note the following:

(1) The mistaken position of some scholars is concisely stated by both Bruce and Martin:

The basic idea of the word ([@harpagmos] in Philippians 2:6) is that of seizing what one does not possess ...[19] Equality with God is not a position which the pre-existent Christ had and gave up[20]

A corrupt translation of this place in the manner of such interpretations voids and contradicts Paul's entire argument in this passage. As Macknight said:

The apostle is not cautioning the Philippians against coveting what they were not in possession of, but exhorting them, after the example of Christ, to give up for the benefit of others what they were in possession of, or had a right to.[21]

Furthermore, if Christ did not have equality with God, such an equality being only something that he might have "snatched at" (New English Bible), then our Lord's not grasping at equality with God could not have been an instance of humility, "but merely the absence of a mad impiety."[22]

(2) After all of the tiresome arguments of scholars pontificating about the meaning of an obscure Greek word, the truth still stands, as expressed by Barclay who affirmed that: "It can mean that Jesus did not need to snatch at equality with God, because he had it as a right."[23] This of course is exactly what it does mean.

(3) Furthermore, there are parallels to the thought of this passage in other Pauline passages, as follows:

(a) "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9). Here, as well as in the passage before us, the great parabola appears:

These verses have been called the great parabola of scripture, for they picture the descent of our Lord Jesus Christ from the highest position in the universe down down ... down to his death on the cross, and then carry the mind of the reader up again to see Christ seated once more upon the throne of his glory![24]

(b) "When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth?" Ephesians 4:8,9). See notes on this passage, above. Paul's argument here is that Christ could not have ascended without first descending, the same being exactly the same affirmation of the pre-incarnation glory and Godhead of Jesus which appears in the related passages here cited, especially in Philippians 2:6-11.

[12] Frances Foulkes, New Bible Commentary, Revised (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1132.

[13] John A. Knight, op. cit., p. 381.

[14] H. C. Hewlett, A New Testament Commentary, Philippians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 474.

[15] R. P. Martin, op. cit., p. 97.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] H. A. A. Kennedy, The Expositor's Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), Vol. 435.

[19] F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 109.

[20] R. P. Martin, op. cit., p. 97.

[21] James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles with Commentary, Volume III (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1969), p. 23.

[22] B. C. Caffin, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 20, Philippians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 60.

[23] William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), p. 36.

[24] James Montgomery Boice, Philippians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971), p. 125.