Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Philippians 2:6

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Philippians 2:6” utilice nuestra app.

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

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 morph. 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 ( schma) 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 , 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 [ morph ] is not the same as [ ousia, essence ], yet the possession of the [ morph ] involves participation in the [ ousia ] also, for [ morph ] 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.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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 – morphe – 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 idea eidos. The word occurs often in the Septuagint:

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

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

(3)As the translation of t^emuwnah, 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 phusis, nature, or 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 apostles 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 – 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 – to einai isa Theo. 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 – 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:

Ton nun isa Theo Ithakesioi eisoroosi

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.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

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 , 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 , shape, or form. And, Mt 17:2, , 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 , is confirmed by the meaning of , 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 , 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 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.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

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 Fathers 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 Christs 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 Christs appearance in exerting of Gods 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 Christs 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 evangelists 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 Fathers, 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.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

6. Translate, “Whosubsisting (or existing, namely, originally: the Greekis not the simple substantive verb, ‘to be‘) in the form ofGod (the divine essence is not meant: but the externalself-manifesting characteristics of God, the form shiningforth from His glorious essence). The divine nature had infiniteBEAUTY in itself, evenwithout any creature contemplating that beauty: that beauty was ‘theform of God’; as ‘the form of a servant’ (Php2:7), which is in contrasted opposition to it, takes for grantedthe existence of His human nature, so ‘the form of God’ takesfor granted His divine nature [BENGEL],Compare Joh 5:37; Joh 17:5;Col 1:15, ‘Who is the IMAGEof the invisible God’ at a time before ‘every creature,’ 2Co4:4, esteemed (the same Greek verb as in Php2:3) His being on an equality with God no (act of)robbery” or self-arrogation; claiming to one’s self whatdoes not belong to him. ELLICOTT,WAHL, and others havetranslated, “A thing to be grasped at,” which wouldrequire the Greek to be harpagma, whereas harpagmosmeans the act of seizing. So harpagmos means in theonly other passage where it occurs, PLUTARCH[On the Education of Children, 120]. The same insuperableobjection lies against ALFORD’Stranslation, “He regarded not as self-enrichment (thatis, an opportunity for self-exaltation) His equality withGod.” His argument is that the antithesis (Php2:7) requires it, “He used His equality with God as anopportunity, not for self-exaltation, but for self-abasement, oremptying Himself.” But the antithesis is not between Hisbeing 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 Hisbeing “in the FORM (that is, the outward gloriousself-manifestation) of God,” and His “taking on Him theform of a servant,” whereby He in a great measure emptiedHimself of His precedent “form,” or outwardself-manifesting glory as God. Not “looking on His own things”(Php 2:4), He, though existingin the form of God, He esteemed it no robbery to be on an equalitywith God, yet made Himself of no reputation. “Being on anequality with God, is not identical with subsisting in the form ofGod”; 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, “HISBEING,” or NATURE,His already existing STATE OFEQUALITY with God, both the Father and the Son having the sameESSENCE. A glimpse of Him”in the form of God,” previous to His incarnation, wasgiven to Moses (Exo 24:10;Exo 24:11), Aaron, &c.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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, Mr 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.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Being (). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of . In the form of God ( ). means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.

A prize (). Predicate accusative with . Originally words in – signified the act, not the result (–). The few examples of (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to , like and . That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”).

To be on an equality with God ( ). Accusative articular infinitive object of , “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case after ). is adverbial use of neuter plural with as in Re 21:16.

Emptied himself ( ). First aorist active indicative of , old verb from , empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. “He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty” (Lightfoot).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Being in the form of God [ ] . 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 [] . 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 [ ] . 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.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Who, being in the form of God” (hos en morphe theou huparchon)’ “Who subsisting in metamorphic (form) of the trinitarian God.” That Jesus Christ had always existed and in His birth and life on earth revealed God to man was the heart and essence of Paul’s faith and message expressed, Gal 4:4-5; 1Ti 3:16.

2) “Thought it not robbery” (ouch harpagmon egesato to) Deemed (it) not robbery,” Joh 1:1; Joh 1:14; Col 1:15; Himself in birth and life reflecting the image of God, bringing grace and truth to light, clear comprehension, Tit 2:11.

3) “To be equal with God” (einai isa theo) “To be equal (in matters) with God,” and in essence of nature with God, in pre-existence and while yet in the flesh, claiming that He and His Father were one, Heb 1:1-3. Our Lord specifically claimed, declared that He and the Father (His Father) were one, in external being, Joh 10:30. Their unity of being and existence, their harmony in actions and service have never ceased. It is this condescension, lowliness of mind and service that church saints are to pursue in unity. See also Eph 4:3; Rom 12:9-16.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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. (103) 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, (104) his attendants, (105) 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 Joh 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 Rom 9:3, ηὐχόμην, for I would have wished; and in 1Co 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. (106) 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. (107) 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. (Isa 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, (Rom 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.

(103) “ Car tout ainsi qu’vn homme est cognu quand on contemple la forme de son visage et sa personne, aussi la maieste, qui reluit en Dieu, est la forme ou figure d’iceluy;” — “For just as a man is known, when we mark the form of his appearance and his person, so the majesty, which shines forth in God, is his form or figure.”

(104) “ Le manteau royal;” — “His royal mantle.”

(105) “ La garde a l’entour;” — “The guard in attendance.”

(106) “ Comme s’ils ne faisoyent rien a ce propos-la;” — “As if they had no bearing on that point.”

(107) “ C’est à dire d’vne mesme substance auec le Pere;” — “That is to say, of the same substance as the Father.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

6. who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7. but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; 8. and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.

Translation and Paraphrase

6. (Though Christ) was existing (before he came to earth) in the (very) form (the intrinsic nature) of God, he did not consider (this) being equal with God a thing to be grasped (and clutched onto),
7. but (rather) he emptied himself (of much of his divine glory), taking (upon himself) the (very) form (the intrinsic nature) of a slave (or servant), being (temporarily) made in the (outward) likeness of men.
8. And being found (by those who lived with him on earth) in the (outward) fashion as a man, he humbled himself, (even to the point of) becoming obedient unto death, (yea) death upon a cross.

Notes

To understand this section, the exact meaning of the words used must be understood.

Existing (KJV, being; Gr. uparcho). This term means being, but it has the deeper implication of pointing to that existence which is our basic essence, the innermost nature. Thus the fact that Christ was existing in the form of God suggests that the form of God was his basic essence, his innermost nature.

Form (Gr. morphe). Form is that which is intrinsic and essential about anything. It is the opposite to the outward and changeable fashion. See the notes that follow concerning FORM and FASHION.

Counted (it) not . . . a thing to be grasped. The Gr. word arpagmos used here means both the act of seizing (or robbery, as in KJV), or the thing seized (as in ASV and RSV). We prefer the latter meaning, because equality with God was not something Christ might have obtained by seizure, but it was already his. He might have clutched onto it because it was already his, but he did not do so.

Such readings as that in the New English Bible, He did not think to snatch at equality with God, suggest that Christ was not equal with God. This is contrary to the whole paragraph, which has its point that Christ gave up his equality with God.

Numerous other Scriptures teach that Christ had the full nature of deity before He came to earth, before He was conceived in Mary. (See Joh. 1:1-2; Joh. 3:13; Joh. 17:5; Joh. 17:24; Col. 1:15-16).

Emptied himself. The Gr. verb kenoo used here means to empty out or drain. When Christ came to earth, He submitted Himself to limitations which He had not had in glory before then. On earth Christ could become weary (Joh. 4:6), but God is never weary (Isa. 40:28; Isa. 45:11-12). Christ became hungry (Luk. 4:2), but God is not hungry (Psa. 50:12-13). Some things Christ did not know (Mat. 24:35), but God knows all things (Heb. 4:13). Before Christ came to earth he dwelt in a realm described as ivory palaces. (Psa. 45:7-8). But Christ emptied himself to a great degree of such glory when He came to earth.

The doctrine of Christs emptying Himself is sometimes called the kenosis. This is a great mystery, and it has caused much disagreement in the church throughout the centuries. Exactly what was the nature of Christ while He was here on earth? To what degree did He empty Himself? Was He fully divine, or fully human, or both, or a mixture? Did He have one nature or two? Such questions can never be perfectly answered. We cannot understand human nature. How can we comprehend the divine nature?

It is enough for us to know that when Christ was on earth He was both the son of God and son of man (Mat. 16:13-17). As son of man he lay exhausted in a boat. As son of God he could rise and command the stormy waters of the Sea of Galilee to become calm. (Luk. 8:23-24).

Likeness (Gr. omoioma; Php. 2:8). That which is made, a likeness, image. This term refers to Christs outward appearance while on earth. It is somewhat synonymous to the term fashion.

Fashion (schema). This refers to outward appearance of anything. As such it may be changed from time to time. Thus, the fashion of the world passes away. (1Co. 7:31).

FORM and FASHION

Christ existed in the form (Gr. morphe) of God. Php. 2:6. He took the form of a servant. Php. 2:7. He was found in fashion (Gr. schema) as a man. Php. 2:8.

Form is that which is intrinsic, essential, and unchangeable about anything. Fashion is that which is outward, incidental, and transitory about anything.

Christ had the form, or true nature of God. Also he took the actual nature or form of a servant. However, his fashion, or appearance, on earth was not necessarily his fashion in glory after leaving the earth. Thus the appearance of Christ as described in Revelation chapter one is considerably different from that of the lowly son of man on earth.

The meanings of form and fashion can be illustrated and confirmed by the uses of these words and their related words in the New Testament. Note the ways the words are translated in King James version.

FORM3 times translated as form; Mar. 16:12; Php. 2:6-7.

Metamorphoo (a related word)Translated be changed (2Co. 3:18), be transformed (Mat. 17:2; Mar. 9:2; Rom. 12:2). Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind. Let your mind actually be made into something intrinsically new.

Summorphoo (related word)being made conformable unto; (Php. 3:10).

Summorphos (related word; an adjective)conformed to (Rom. 8:29); fashioned like unto (Php. 3:21).

FASHION2 times translated fashion. (Php. 2:8; 1Co. 7:31). The fashion of this world passeth away.

Metaschematizo (a related word)Be transformed (2Co. 11:13-14). Satan transforms himself. He can change his outward appearance, but not his true nature and form. Change (Php. 3:21); Christ shall change our vile body. Transfer in a figure (1Co. 4:6). Transform ones self (2Co. 11:15); Satans ministers transform themselves, but they only change their outward appearance, not the real form.

Suschematizo (a related word)Be not conformed (Rom. 12:2); Christians should not adopt the fashion of this world for this is contradictory to their true nature. Fashion ones self according to (1Pe. 1:14).

The King James rendering of Php. 2:6, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, is satisfactory if it is understood to mean, Since Christ was already equal with God, he considered it not robbery to claim equality with God.

If you or I should claim equality with God and demand to be worshipped, that would be robbery. We would be claiming honors that belong only to God. But Christ did not look upon being equal with God as robbery by him. How can one steal that which is already his?

The fact that Christ existed in the form of God shows that he had true godhood. The fact that he took upon himself the form of a servant shows that he had true servanthood. Both as God and as a servant in the likeness of men, Christs form was genuine.

The fact that Christ took upon himself the form of a servant shows that He was truly God before then, and that He was not a created being. All created beings are servants of God by the very fact of their being created by God, All things are thy servants. Psa. 119:91. Christ was not a servant as a result of his being created, but rather because he took upon himself the form of a servant.

Christ was made in all respects like as we are, except that he never sinned. Heb. 4:15. He partook of flesh and blood, since we, the children of God, are sharers in flesh and blood. Heb. 2:14. He came to earth with the command to die as men die. Joh. 10:18. Christ was fully obedient to this command. Heb. 10:7. He was always obedient to the will of His father. He learned obedience, as we have to learn it, by the things which He suffered. Heb. 5:8. His obedience and sufferings extended to the ultimate degree of submission and agony, to the very death upon a cross.

As we consider this example of Christ, how could we be high-minded toward other people, or be factious, or proud, or seek our own advantages to the hurt of other people?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(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 Lords 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. Pauls 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 Lords 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 Lords 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.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

‘Who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men,’

Thus they were to follow the pattern of, and set their minds to walk with, the One Who, although by nature God, set aside His status, refusing to hold on to it, and, setting aside all His rights, took the form and status of a slave, being made truly man. For ‘emptied Himself’ compare Php 2:3, ‘Doing nothing through faction or through vainglory (keno-doksia = empty glory, vanity, excessive ambition), but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself.’ The point was that they were to enter into His self-humiliation by themselves taking the same path. Note the play on keno-doksia, empty glory which men cling on to, and ekenowsen describing how He emptied Himself of His real glory for a time by taking the form of a slave and becoming man. And also the play of words in that Jesus ‘humbled’ Himself (etapeinosen) as an example which they should follow in ‘lowliness’ of mind (tapeino-phrosune in Php 2:3). Furthermore by doing this, instead of keno-doksia (empty glory), they would share in the glory (doksan) of the Father (Php 2:11).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Php 2:6. Who, being in the form of God, &c. “Who, being possessed of the divine nature, and of all its essential perfections, as the Son of God, and as the brightness of the Father’s glory, and express image of his person (Heb 1:3.); and so really, and in the strictest sense, God, in the true and proper form of Deity, did not count it an usurpation, injury, or wrong, or any act of rapine in him, to claim an equality of nature with God the Father; he and the Father being essentially One, though personally distinct (Joh 10:30.).” In order to set forth the great humility of Christ in becoming man, the Apostle first tells us from how great and glorious a state he in some sense descended; he was in the form of God. The following words go on to describe the excellency of his glory, which was so real and transcendent a glory, that he thought it no robbery to be, that is to say, he thought himself entitled to be equal with God. But if he thought it no robbery to assume this equality to God, undoubtedly he was equal: or if it was the effect of his humility, according to the translation of some, that he did not insist upon his equality with God, then certainly he had such an equality; for where is the humility of not insisting on an equality which does not belong to us? The Arians, translating these words, make use of expressions purposely chosen to exclude Christ from the dignity here mentioned; for thus they make the Apostle speak: “Who being in the form of God, did not arrogate, assume, or lay claim to any equality or likeness to God;” but this language bears no analogy to the words in the original, nor can be made to agreewith the aim and design of the Apostle. St. Paul therefore evidently supposes, in his argument, that this equality to God and form of God did belong to Christ before his humiliation. Besides, the form of the argument affords us still farther evidence that St. Paul esteemed these characters to be proper and peculiar to Christ, his natural and inherent, not his borrowed glories. Should God communicate his glories to a creature, yet the glories of God so communicated, could in no sense be said to be the creature’s own glories. Our own glories are those only which are proper and peculiar to our nature.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Phi 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.

] 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 , was with God. [92] The human state is first introduced by the words in Phi 2:7 . So Chrysostom and his successors, Beza, Zanchius, Vatablus, Castalio, Estius, Clarius, Calixtus, Semler, Storr, Keil, Usteri, Kraussold, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Corn. Mller, and most expositors, including Lnemann, 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 Dsterdieck, 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 Phi 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 ); and that the earthly Christ only could be held up as a pattern . But , 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 the whole summary of the history of our Lord, including His pre-human state (comp. 2Co 8:9 : ); therefore Phi 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 Phi 2:6 of His state before His human appearance. Moreover, as the context introduces the incarnation only at Phi 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 , as the subject meant by (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 ;” comp. on Col 1:15 .

] not to be resolved, as usually, into “ although , etc.,” which could only be done in accordance with the context, if the . . . 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 Christ’s pre-human form of existence. Then He was forsooth, and that objectively, not merely in God’s self-consciousness as the not yet incarnate Son (Rom 1:3-4 ; Rom 8:3 ; Gal 4:4 ), according to John as with God, in the fellowship of the glory of God (comp. Joh 17:5 ). It is this divine glory, in which He found Himself as and also as 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 , 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 , not again without it, but in and with it (Phi 3:20 f.). Comp. 2Co 4:4 ; Col 1:15 ; Col 3:4 . , therefore, which is an appropriate concrete expression for the divine (comp. Justin, Apol . I. 9), as the glory visible at the throne of God, and not a “fanciful expression” (Ernesti), is neither equivalent to or (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Chemnitz, and many others; comp. also Rheinwald and Corn. Mller); 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 , and by the contrast of in Phi 2:7 . But the presupposes [95] the divine as (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 finds its exhaustive explanation in Heb 1:3 : . , this, however, being here conceived as predicated of the pre-existent Christ. In Plat. Rep . ii. p. 381 C, 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 : , Xen. Cyr . i. 2. 2 : . . What is here called is 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 (Joh 17:5 ). The explanation of 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.

] designating more expressly than the relation of the subsisting state (Phi 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 . 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 . . . ., and expose them to the risk of inserting limiting clauses at variance with the literal import of the passage; see below.

] In order to the right explanation, it is to be observed: (1) that the emphasis is placed on , and therefore (2) that cannot be something essentially different from , but must in substance denote the same thing, namely, the divine habitus of Christ, which is expressed, as to its form of appearance , by ., and, as to its internal nature , by ; [96] (3) lastly, that does not mean praeda , or that which is seized on (which would be , Callim. Cer . 9; Pallad, ep . 87; Philop. 79; or or , and might also be ), or that which one forcibly snatches to himself (Hofmann and older expositors); but actively: robbing, making booty . In this sense, which is 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): , 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 Hofmann’s 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 , but leaves the object of the 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): [98] ; further, Eus. in Luc . vi. in Mai’s Nov. Bibl. patr . iv. p. 165, and the passage in Possini Cat. in Marc . x. 42, p. 233, from the Anonym. Tolos.: ; [99] as also the entirely synonymous form in Plut. Mor . p. 644 A, and in Byzantine writers; also in Eustathius; comp. Phryn. App . 36, where is quoted as equivalent to . The passages which are adduced for or (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 corresponds exactly to (Phi 2:4 ), as well as to its contrast in Phi 2:7 (see on Phi 2:7 ); and (2) that the aorist , indicating a definite point of time, undoubtedly, according to the connection (see the contrast, . . . ), 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 ; 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 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, . ), 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 . . ., 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 , either in itself or by metonymy (in which van Hengel again appeals quite inappropriately to the analogy of Jas 1:2 , 2Pe 3:15 ), means praeda or res rapienda . With this interpretation of , the idea of has either been rightly taken as practically identical with , 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, Rosenmller, 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 . ., which is not at all suggested by the text. (B) In the second case, in which a distinction is made between and , 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 , did not desire to seize to Himself the , to grasp eagerly the possession of it. [104] In this view expositors have understood the 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 (Lnemann); 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 in Phi 2:9 (Rich. Schmidt); the nova jura divina , consisting in the (Brckner); the divine 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 the relation of a plus , or something separable , or only to be obtained at some future time by humiliation and suffering [105] (Phi 2:9 ). So, also, Sabatier, l’ aptre Paul , 1870, p. 223 ff. [106] In order to meet the . . (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 . already involves the divine essence, [107] and as has no distinctive more special definition in any manner climactic (comp. Pfleiderer), Chrysostom has estimated this whole mode of explanation very justly: , ; ; , ; , . Moreover, in harmony with the thought and the state of the case, Paul must have expressed himself conversely: . . , so as to add to the idea of the equality of nature ( ), by way of climax, that of the same form of appearance ( ), of the divine also.

With respect to , it is to be observed, (1) that is adverbial: in like manner , as we find it, although less frequently, in Attic writers (Thuc. iii. 14; Eur. Or . 880 al.; comp. , 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 as the case of the object or predicate (see Ellendt, Lex. Soph . I. p. 847; Krger, II. xlvi. 6. 8). But as , as the abstract substantive verb, does not suit the adverbial , pari ratione , therefore (2) must be taken in the sense of existere; so that does not mean the being equal to God (which would be ), but the God-equal existence , existence in the way of parity with God. [108] Paul might have written (as mascul.) (Joh 5:18 ), or ; 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 , denoting the God-equal existence manifesting itself in that ; for the is the appearance , the adequate subsisting form , of the God-equal existence . (4) Ernesti (in controversy with Baur), who is followed by Khler, Kahnis, Beyschlag, and Hilgenfeld, entertains the groundless opinion that our passage alludes to Genesis 2 f., the 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 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; , 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 Philippi’s objection, that is elsewhere applied to man only, and not to God , is devoid of significance. Unfounded is also Beyschlag’s objection (1866) drawn from the word ; 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 Lord’s 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 is pompously expressed by Clement, Cor . I. 16: . 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 Lnemann) against the view which takes as not essentially different from , viz. that Paul would, instead of , have written merely , 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 is the general element, which presents itself in the divine 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 , in this sense of the mode of regarding , which places the object under the point of view of a qualitative category, comp. Krger 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] Rbiger 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 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 ( , , , , , , ), but never by , or any other form of word ending with . It is true that various substantives ending in 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 . Its rejection, therefore, in our passage, is not pedantic , but is simply linguistically demanded . Weiss, bibl. Theol . p. 426, Exo 2 , erroneously objects to our view of , 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 Christ’s own possession is the result. As if there were not given in the very notion of 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 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 ; but that He, , chose humiliation. To this comes also the view of Theodore of Mopsuestia: , , . 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 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 Lnemann, 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 (that is, ‘the inner form of God’); He might have but stretched out His hand towards the ; 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 , , declared: . . See Chrysostom.

[106] He thinks that the divine of Christ stands to the in the relation of potentia to actus. “Christ tait des l’origine en puissance ce qu’ la fin il devint en ralit; ” the denotes the general form of being of Christ, but “une forme vide, qui doit tr remplie, c’est–dire spirituellement ralise.” This higher position He had not wished to usurp, but had attained to it “rellement par le libre dveloppement de sa vie morale.”

[107] Not merely the similarity , from which is there distinguished the equality by (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 is the Pauline . 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 , 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 , ., or .,? instead of . 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 of the body of man, and are therefore irrelevant.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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 16:18Mat 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.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

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: Rbiger, 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 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Phi 2:6 . . 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) , (2) , (3) . In LXX 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 to terms such as , and in their philosophical refinements. It is far more probable that Paul uses . 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 . 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 (Col 1:15 ), as sharing in that (on the close relation of . and 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 . And this reminds us of the point of emphasis, the unspeakable contrast between the heavenly and earthly states, the . and the . . The Apostle’s mind is overpowered by the profound ethical meaning and value of the Humiliation. . Probably = “being constitutionally” (Evans on 1Co 11:7 ), “being by nature”. Cf. Liturgy of S. James (Hammond, Litt. , p. 45, quoted by Giff.), . 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. . 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 . . “Did not consider . . . as an .” What is the relation of . . . to ? 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 as = equality of nature and as pointing to “the state and circumstances which are separable from the essence and therefore variable or accidental,” or, with Lightfoot, to say that would refer to the person, while has in view the attributes. As a matter of fact the adverb (neuter plural) is used in the most general sense, without any metaphysical subtleties, e.g. , Job 11:12 , ; Job 30:19 , , . cf. Thuc., iii., 14, ; Soph., Oed. R. , 1188, , and elsewhere. Thus no theological speculations can be based upon the word. Is . . . equivalent to . .? In spite of some Commemtators there is absolutely nothing in the text to justify the supposition. Plainly has reference to nature ; to a relation. In fact it is only a particular rendering of which suggested their equivalence. A more important question is whether . . . was possessed by Christ in virtue of His being . . This will depend on the sense of . It is generally admitted now that may be regarded as = . (See especially Zahn, Luthardt’s Zeitschr. , 1885, pp. 244 249.) Cf. , lit. = “the laying down,” “ordaining” of a thing, which comes to mean “the thing laid down,” the ordinance or statute; , 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 as = , translate, “Did not look upon His equality with God as a prize to be clutched”. That is to say, . . . is something which He already possessed and resolved not to cling to. But will admit of this meaning? We cannot find any passage where 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 (= ) as something still future, a res rapienda? Cf. Catena on Mar 10:41 ff. (quoted by Zahn), Jesus’ answer to the sons of Zebedee, , “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 ( ) the name above every name, i.e. , the name (including position, dignity and authority) of , 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 ( . ). 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 is the reward and crowning-point of the whole process of His voluntary Humiliation. It is the equivalent of that 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 , which is a relation to mankind. (See on the relation of Christ as to God, Somerville, op. cit. , pp. 140 142.) This equality with God, therefore, consists in the , 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, . 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 in the way of , forcing men out of sheer amazement to accept His claim and exalt Him as Lord. [Perhaps the curious negative expression . . . . has been suggested by a comparison with the first Adam who sought to reach “equality with God” by means of .] 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. Mngoz, Le Pch et la Rdemption , p. 164.) He has simply become , that which He already was substantially. Cf. Rom 1:4 , , , , . Also Luk 24:26 . . Instead of appearing among men in the Divine and thus compelling them to render Him the homage which was His due, He “emptied Himself” of that Divine and took the . of a bondservant. The Apostle does not specify that of which He emptied Himself, as the stress is laid upon the “emptying,” but with . added to explain what means, we are bound to conclude that he has in view its antithesis, . . (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?)

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

being = subsisting, or being essentially. Greek. huparcho. See Luk 9:48

form = the essential form, including all the qualities which can be made visible to the eye. Greek. morphe. Only here, Php 2:7, and Mar 16:12.

God. App-98.

thought = reckoned. Some word as “esteem”, Php 2:3.

not. App-105.

robbery = an act of robbery, or usurpation.

to be equal = the being on an equality.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Php 2:6. ) inasmuch as being one who.- , 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 , 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.- , 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 , with Eustathius, means, , the things which a man may with all eagerness snatch for his own use, and may claim as his own: and the phrases occur, , , , , , , , . 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 , 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.- ) , 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 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 signifies the act by which anything is greedily seized, and the desire which leads to it; but that , having a neuter ending, indicates the object desired, the thing seized, the prey. Drusius, in Crit. S.S., Lond., tries to show that , as well as , though both strictly signifying an act, may signify the thing which is the object of the act. Wahl renders , res cupid 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 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, , may seem to suit better Wahls rendering. But , 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, plainly means, And yet: Though having been in the form of God, etc., yet, etc.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Php 2:6

who, existing-This relates to the existence of Christ before his manifestation in the flesh as he appeared to those in heaven who saw him. [The word existing calls attention to the essential being of Christ, corresponding to the idea embodied in the name of Jehovah, and thus implying what is more fully expressed in the following words: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. (Joh 1:1).]

in the form of God,-Christ was the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance. (Heb 1:3).

[The word form is to be carefully distinguished from fashion (which denotes the mere outward appearance which we frequently designate as form); in this there is no notion of a body or form for God, but simply the character of God in his real essence. Christ is described as the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Col 1:15). Joh 1:1 applies Word as the expression of God. Christ had the essential attributes of Gods nature, actual deity.]

counted not the being on an equality with God-This refers only to relations which describe our Lords essential and therefore eternal being in the true nature of God. Jesus could not give up his essential character of Sonship. He was the Son of God in the preincarnate state. He was the Son of God after he became the Son of man. Of him it is said: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. (Joh 1:14).

a thing to be grasped,-[He did not consider this state of equality with God, his glory at the right hand of his Father, a thing to be held on to at any cost when, by giving up the glory and holding on to the nature of God, he could enter upon his redemptive work for mankind.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

form of God

“Form,” etc. (Greek – , 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.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

in: Isa 7:14, Isa 8:8, Isa 9:6, Jer 23:6, Mic 5:2, Mat 1:23, Joh 1:1, Joh 1:2, Joh 1:18, Joh 17:5, Rom 9:5, 2Co 4:4, Col 1:15, Col 1:16, 1Ti 1:17, 1Ti 3:16, Tit 2:13, Heb 1:3, Heb 1:6, Heb 1:8, Heb 13:8

thought: Gen 32:24-30, Gen 48:15, Gen 48:16, Eze 8:2-6, Jos 5:13-15, Hos 12:3-5, Zec 13:7, Joh 5:18, Joh 5:23, Joh 8:58, Joh 8:59, Joh 10:30, Joh 10:33, Joh 10:38, Joh 14:9, Joh 20:28, Rev 1:17, Rev 1:18, Rev 21:6

Reciprocal: Exo 39:27 – coats Lev 16:23 – General Num 19:2 – upon which Psa 89:19 – exalted Isa 46:5 – General Isa 49:3 – General Isa 53:2 – he shall grow Dan 7:13 – one like Zec 3:8 – my Mat 12:18 – my servant Mat 12:42 – behold Mat 17:2 – transfigured Mat 22:45 – how Mar 9:2 – transfigured Joh 1:14 – the Word Joh 1:15 – he was Joh 8:49 – but Joh 10:18 – but Joh 13:4 – laid aside Joh 14:28 – Father Joh 17:21 – as 2Co 4:6 – in the 2Co 8:9 – though Gal 4:4 – made Phi 2:7 – in the 1Ti 2:5 – the man

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

(Php 2:6.) -Who being (or existing) in the form of God. The meaning assigned to is of primary importance. It denotes shape or figure; and we believe with Pott, that it has no connection by metathesis with the Latin forma. Hesychius defines it by , ; Suidas adds to these ; and the Syriac renders by in likeness. If this be its meaning, it is not to be confounded with or . It may imply the possession of nature or essence, but it does not mean either of them. The Greek Fathers, and after them Calvin, Beza, Mller, Robinson, and others, have fallen into this blunder. Thus Chrysostom says- . Gregory of Nyssa maintains the same definition- . Orat. contra Eunomium, ii. p. 566; ed. Paris, 1638. Cyril of Alexandria has the same notion of the identity of form and essence. Athanasius explains by , and Augustine by naturalis plenitudo. Suicer, sub voce. Petavius, too, says (De Incarnatione, 3.6)-formam hic pro natura sumi perspicuum est. Phavorinus, professing exactness of definition, gives- , . The Greek commentators, as may be seen in Chrysostom, were polemically necessitated to give the term such a meaning, and the pressure of the same feeling has shown itself in almost every century.

Wherever the word occurs in the New Testament, it refers to visible form, as in the next verse, and in Mar 16:12. And so, too, with , 2Ti 3:5. The verb , as applied to the transfiguration in Mat 17:2, Mar 9:2, has the same signification, referring simply to change of external aspect, and neither of essence nor person. In the Septuagint, represents the Chaldee , denoting external appearance, and is applied to Nebuchadnezzar, in reference to his lunacy; to Belshazzar, when he saw the handwriting, and was appalled, and his form was changed; and to Daniel himself (Dan 7:28), my form returned to me. In the reference to Belshazzar and the prophet, the verb is employed, and the change is principally one of countenance. It represents , H9322 in Isa 44:13 – , an idol in shape of a man; and also , H9454, Job 4:16 – . The instances sometimes adduced to show that may mean nature, will not sustain the assertion. Robinson, after Schleusner, quotes Euripides, Bacch. 54- . Besides that this is the somewhat loose language of poetry, it may be remarked that the quotation rather shows that may signify form, and not signify nature. Bacchus means not to say that he had abandoned Divinity, but only that he had concealed its form in an assumed humanity. He declares, in the previous clause, that he had changed his form into a mortal one; but he does not aver that he had ceased to be immortal in essence. Toward the commencement of the drama, similar language is employed- -And having taken a mortal form in exchange for that of a God, I am here. Another passage is adduced from Plato, where he says of God the Best- . It is hard to say how much Plato’s idea of the Divinity was anthropomorphic; but the sense is, not simply that He remaineth always simply in the same essence, but that He unchangeably manifests the same characteristics. Other and similar passages have been adduced, in which is supposed to signify not form, but that which form represents. But even granting an occasional metonymy, we find the word used with precise discrimination. Thus Josephus (Contra Apion, 2.22) speaks of God as being beginning, middle, and end of all things, and adds, that by His works and blessings He is manifest, and more glorious, too, than any being; while, as to His form and magnitude, He is to us most obscure- . The meaning, as the context shows, is, that while so much may be learned from His works and ways, there is no visible shape of Him-nothing to warrant any idolatrous image. In the 34th chapter of the same treatise, the author, in reprobating the lewdness and follies of the mythology of the Greeks, says that they had deified madness and fraud, and others of the vilest passions; or, as he expresses it, . The two nouns are here distinguished; those vile passions are supposed, first, to receive the nature of God, and then to get His form. They are conceived of as divine, and then their divinity is represented by a visible shape or idol. The examples selected by Wetstein from the classics are scarcely to our point-since every god had his special form, though and forma are always used of shape or likeness, and not of mere essence, and have very much the meaning of person. We hold, therefore, that is form, and neither nature nor condition, though it may represent them. Now form is that by which we know or distinguish anything-that by means of which objects are recognized. One person is known from another by his form. True, God has no form, being pure spirit-Ye saw no manner of similitude in the day that the Lord spake to you in Horeb. The form of God must therefore signify- the mode of divine manifestation-that by which His appearance is understood and characterized. It was the bright cloud for a long period in the history of ancient Israel. The insignia of Godhead were oft revealed in the olden time; and we have what we take to be several descriptions of the form of God, in Deu 33:2; Psa 18:6-15; Dan 7:9-10; Hab 3:3-11. Such passages, describing the sublime tokens of a Theophany, afford a glimpse into the meaning of the phrase-form of God. It is not the divine nature, but the visible display of it-that which enables men to apprehend it, and prompts them to adore it.

Now Jesus was in this form of God-. The participle has a fuller meaning than . It represents something on which stress is laid, something which is to be borne in mind as essential to the argument. Gal 2:14; Act 17:27-29; Act 21:20. Suidas makes it equivalent to . Pye Smith speaks of it as, in many cases, denoting a mode already established, conspicuous, and dating from a prior point of time. Still it would not be warrantable to render it pre-existing in the form of God. There is no use in resolving the participial reference by dum, or by the concessive although, with Ellicott. The simple statement is the most emphatic.

This meaning, which we give to , is in harmony with the spirit of the whole passage, and it is not materially different from , Joh 5:37. See under Col 1:15. It stands here in contrast with the phrase . He exchanged the form of God for that of a servant-came from the highest point of dignity to the lowest in the social scale. And we are the more confirmed in our view, because of the following verb , as this self-divestment plainly refers to the previous . It cannot mean divinity itself, for surely Jesus never cast it off. But He laid aside the form of God, the splendour of divinity, and not the nature of it-the glory of the Godhead, and not the essence of it. Those who hold that the passage refers to Christ in His incarnate state, regard the form of God in various ways-some, like De Wette, referring it to the glory of the Godhead potentially (potenti) in Himself; others, like Grotius, finding it in His miracles; or, like Wetstein, in His transfiguration; or as many others, generally in His sayings and doings. At the same time, while we think that the apostle selects with special care the term , as signifying something different from nature, we must hold that no one can be in the form of God without being of the nature of God, the exhibition of the form implying the possession of the essence. Of Him who was in the form of God, it is now predicated-

. The phrase is peculiar, and as indicates, it expresses a united idea. Instead of the adverb , the neuter singular and plural are frequently used. Passow, sub voce. Winer, 27, 3. Many instances occur in the Septuagint. The case is common with other words, as , . Matthiae, 443, e. It is therefore too rigid in Matthies to take as denoting equal in the manifoldness of essence. It needs not to be supplied, as some grammatical pedants contended, for adverbs of measure and degree have, with the verb of existence, the sense of predicates-Bernhardy, p. 337; Joh 5:18; Homer, Odyssey, 10.303- . The idea expressed by the adverb is not resemblance, but sameness of quantity or measure; and so Pye Smith renders the clause- the being on a parity with God. Tertullian employs the phrase pariari Deo.What this parity is, and what its relation is to the , we shall afterwards consider. The phrase is the object to the verb , while , as predicate, is emphatic from its position.

The meaning of this clause has excited no little inquiry, and principally with regard to . The term is of rare occurrence, and therefore its meaning cannot be determined beyond dispute. To theorize upon its formation does not fully satisfy; for the meanings, abstract and concrete, respectively attached to nouns ending in and , pass into one another-(Buttmann, 119, 2, 11)-the first, according to Khner, 370, embodying the intransitive notion of the verb-the act of seizure; and the second expressing the result of its transitive notion-the thing seized. Such variations are seen in , ; , ; , ; , ; , , while , , , and other terms, have the meaning of a word ending in . So that from the mere form of the uncommon substantive little definite can be gleaned. Nor can we gather much from its use. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and, so far as known, only in two other places among Greek authors, wher it is not professedly a quotation from this verse. The first is an ugly quotation from a tract ascribed to Plutarch, where the word might be rendered rape. The other is from Cyril of Alexandria, in a passage where he says, The angels declined Lot’s invitation; and had the patriarch been a churl, he would not have pressed them further, but would have thought it fortunate that they declined. But the good and generous host urged them the more, and did not out of a listless and imbecile soul make their declinature a catch, or thing to be caught at -. The word has not the same meaning in these two places. In the first quotation it signifies an action, which Strabo explains by ; and, like the English translation we have already given of it, and which is in fact derived from it, it denotes a crime named from the force or violence employed in connection with it. In the second instance it points out ideally something which an inhospitable and niggardly soul would lay hold of; viz., that if one declines an invitation, you reckon his denial something you gladly seize on as a pretext for dropping the subject. Therefore the train of thought, connection, and logical dependence, must chiefly guide us to the meaning of the term. The sense hinges very much, as Pye Smith technically puts it, on the solution of the question, where the protasis is supposed to end, and the apodosis to begin.

I. Many join the two clauses closely, as if the one explained or strengthened the other, or were a species of deduction from it. The noun is then taken in an active sense-and did not think it robbery or a seizure to be equal with God. But those who hold this general view, hold it with many subordinate differences.

1. Some take the word in the plain and easy sense-of a thing not one’s own-He did not regard equality with God as a possession not His by right, did not look upon it in any sense as a usurpation. This has been a common exegesis, as may be seen in Chrysostom, Theophylact, OEcumenius, Augustine, Pelagius, Beza, Calvin, Mynster, Estius, and many others. There are shades of distinction, again, among such as hold this view, but the general meaning with them all is, that Jesus, in personating God, in assuming His name or receiving His worship, deemed Himself guilty of no usurpation, or did not in any sense take what was not His own, for He was really and properly God. Some forms of this exposition are tinged more or less with inferential admixtures. Thus-

2. If one obtain booty, he glories in it, boasts of it, or makes a show of it. So some present this idea-He did not make a show of His equality with God.

Such generally is the notion of Luther, Grotius, Meric, Casaubon, Osiander, Piscator, Wolf, Cameron, Calovius, Krebs, Rosenmller, Heinrichs, Flatt, and Rheinwald. Their main idea is-that Jesus on earth did not revel in His divinity, but vailed it, did not make an ostentatious display of His Godhead, but concealed it. But in the opinion of many, not all who hold it, this exegesis is often bound up with a meaning given to which we have already considered, and assigned reasons for rejecting-to wit that the phrase, form of God, describes the incarnate Jesus, and it is so far consistent with itself in giving the sense we have alluded to.

3. Again, if a person have usurped a thing, he grasps it very closely, the secret consciousness of his want of right not allowing him to abandon it for a moment. This signification therefore is assigned-He would not retain equality with God, as a robber does his prey. Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Vatablus, Matthies, Kesler, Hoelemann, and Usteri hold this notion. The views of these critics differ, indeed, in colouring, though we need not for our present purpose distinguish them.

But none of these opinions commend themselves, for though they give the usual meaning of nouns ending in , still the philology is no firm ground of explanation. It is vain to refer to the uses of , as in the words ascribed by Chrysostom to Arius- , and to the instances of in later writers. Heliodorus often uses it in the sense of a thing to be caught at, and once connects it with the verb . Lib. vii. 20. Besides, these interpretations not only make the two clauses virtually the same in meaning, but they destroy the parallel between the precept given, and this example adduced in commendation of it. The primary object of the apostle is not to tell how great Christ was by nature, and how low He became, though in his illustration he has done so; but to show how He looked to the things of others, or in what state of mind He descended to the earth. That purpose is so far missed in the previous exegesis. We therefore regard the apodosis as commencing with the clause under review. It begins the tale of His humiliation by referring to the state of mind which led to it; and we look on the clause as having the prime emphasis laid upon it, as virtually asserting that He did not regard His own things, and as saying, in connection with the preceding phrase, what His own things were, and what was His feeling towards them. Though the form of God was His, He did not regard it with a selfish and exclusive attachment, but He laid it aside and became man. So that we agree with those who give the word that signification in which it is used by Cyril in the sentence already quoted in reference to Lot. Therefore-

II. Not a few give this meaning-a seizure, or thing to be snatched at; or, as Mller renders it-non rem sibi arripiendam et usurpandam indicavit. This view is held by Musculus, Elsner, Bengel, Am Ende, Storr, Keil, Stein, Schrader, Rilliet, De Wette, Beelen, Bisping, Wiesinger, Lnemann, Philippi, Mller, Brckner, and others. Though these writers agree in so understanding the noun, they differ greatly among themselves as to what is to be understood by , for the views of many of them are modified by referring the passage simply to Christ as incarnate and on earth. Some regard it as a possession He had, but did not use; others, as something He had not, yet did not aspire to. We have already said, the phrase means-the being on a parity with God, a parity possessed in His pre-incarnate state. Those who apply the term form of God to Jesus incarnate, consistently regard this phrase as referring to His abode on earth. While He was among men, lowly and despised, yet He did not aspire to an equality with God, but continued still in the form of a servant. Bengel understands the reference thus-Esse pariter Deo dicit plenitudinem et altitudinem. Van Hengel thus takes it-Hoc vero, vehementer dubito an aliter explicari possit quam aequali modo vivere, quo vivit Deus, and the meaning is thus given further and fully by him-Christus hc in terra, quanquam poterat, gloriosus esse noluit. Rilliet’s notion is somewhat peculiar. He supposes that the element of equality to God is His invisibility, which the apostle signalizes as the distinctive characteristic of the Father-cette invisibilit Christ y a renonc au lieu de la vie -immanente, il a accept l’existence – manifeste. His interpretation proceeds upon a wrong idea of , and does not harmonize with the context. For form implies of itself visibility or splendour, and this was parted with. Nay more, the Second Person of the Trinity had, as the Angel of the Covenant, been often patent to the senses prior to the incarnation. Stein and De Wette understand the phrase of the divine honour, a meaning which we reject as limited and insufficient. We do not regard the two phrases, form of God, and equal with God, as identical in meaning, for then there needed no such repetition; though we cannot venture to say, with van Hengel, that in such a case a simple would have been sufficient. Meyer pleads for the sameness of the two statements-at least with this distinction, that the first refers to Christ as to His appearance- Erscheinungs-Form, and the second as to His essence-Wesen. Wiesinger’s view is not very different-forma Dei, conditio divina, quum in forma Dei esset, non arripiendum sibi duxit conditione divina uti. Our view is somewhat different from any of these, and still, as we think, more in accordance with the spirit of the context. The apostle affirms that Jesus, in His pre-incarnate state, was in the form of God; and adds, that He thought it not a seizure, or a thing to be snatched at, to be on a parity with God, but emptied Himself. Now, it seems to us very plain that the parity referred to is not parity in the abstract, or in anything not found in the paragraph, but parity in possession of this form of God. He was in the form of God, and did not think it a thing to be eagerly laid hold of to be equal with God in having or exhibiting this form. The apostle adds, -but emptied himself, and the clause is in broad and decided contrast with . That is to say, the one clause describes the result of the other. It was because He did not think it a seizure to be equal with God, that He emptied Himself. And of what did He empty Himself, but of this Form? He was not anxious to be ever on a parity with God in possessing it, and therefore He divested Himself of it. He did not look simply to His own things-the glories of the Godhead; but He looked to the things of others, and therefore descended to humanity and death. His heart was not so set upon His glory, that He would not appear at any time without it. There was something which He coveted more-somewhat which He felt to be truly a , and that was the redemption of a fallen world by His self-abasement and death. Or, to speak after the manner of men, two things were present to His mind-either continuance in the form of God, and being always equal with God, but allowing humanity to perish in its guilt; or vailing this form and foregoing this equality for a season, and delivering, by His condescension and agony, the fallen progeny of Adam. He chose the latter, or gave it the preference, and therefore humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death. From His possession of this mind, and in indescribable generosity He looked at the things of others, and descended with His splendour eclipsed -appeared not as a God in glory, but clothed in flesh; not in royal robes, but in the dress of a village youth; not as Deity in fire, but a man in tears; not in a palace, but in a manger; not with the thunderbolt in His hand, but with the hatchet and hammer of a Galilean mechanic. And in this way He gave the church an example of that self-abnegation and kindness which the apostle has been inculcating, and which the Lord’s career is adduced to illustrate and confirm.

The view of Meyer, followed so far by Alford, and which strives to keep that meaning of which its formation indicates, cannot be borne out. He explains it as-ein Verhltniss des Beutemachens-He did not regard equality with God to be such a relation as is implied in the seizure of a prey, or of a possession which belonged to others. Meyer might object to some things in Wiesinger’s inferential expansion of his view, but he says, himself, that this clause, corresponding to the previous one-looking not each at his own things-describes what Christ’s own things were-His equality with God. But whom would Christ have robbed, if, instead of emptying Himself, He had retained equality with God? Without unduly pressing Wiesinger’s question as to the parties whom such a would have emptied or robbed, could it have taken place, it may be replied that the idea is out of unison with the course of thought, and that the exegesis based upon it omits the turning-point of the illustration-the mind that was in Christ Jesus-and places the idea of others in a totally different relationship from that expressed in Php 2:5 th.

The exposition of Lnemann and Brckner is also incorrect. They understand in this clause a reference to that which God possesses, and which, though Christ was in God’s form, He did not wish to possess, save in the way of obedience and death, while He might have chosen otherwise. This notion is founded upon a supposition as inadmissible as that which Turnbull introduces-did not meditate a usurpation to be equal with God; that is, did not avail Himself of His original character, and attempt a sole theocracy for His own exaltation. Really such a supposition borders on profanity -to say of Jesus, that He did not pervert His divinity to accomplish selfish ends in a spirit of rivalry with God. Bretschneider, too, sub voce, gives this explanation-Christ did not deem equality with God a thing to be seized on vi et astuti, but desired rather to merit the honour by His obedience unto the death. But the objections to these views is, that parity with God is not something to which Christ has been raised as the reward of His obedience, but something which He originally possessed as one of His own things, which He did not so cherish as to exclude all regard to the things of others. The error of Arius, so sharply rebuked by Chrysostom, led him to explain the clause of Christ as -a lesser God, who did not aspire to equality with God -with God the Great, who was greater than He. The Greek father asks, in triumph, is there then a great and a less God? And do ye introduce the doctrines of the heathens into the church? . . . If He were little, how could He be God? If man is not greater or less, but his nature is one, and if that which is not of this one nature is not man, how can there be a less or a greater God, who is not of that same nature? Socinian views are lower still. Thus, in the notes to the Improved Version, we are told that-being in the form of God, means being invested with extraordinary divine powers; and of the second clause it is said-the meaning is, He did not make an ostentatious display of His miraculous powers. Or if it should be translated with the public version, He thought it not robbery to be as God, the sense would be, He did not regard it as an act of injustice to exert upon proper occasions His miraculous powers. One knows not how to characterize the weakness and perversity of such misinterpretation. Slichting says-Propterea nec ob tantam divinitatem ac dignitatem suam superbiit, nec eam longius ac diutius retinuit quam auctor et dator illius vellet, sed ad ejus nutum ac voluntatem protinus e se abdicavit. But every good man is expected to resign a gift, when God pleases; and in this clause, it is Christ’s own generosity, not His submission to any divine mandate, which the apostle is commending, and holding up to the imitation of the Philippian church. The contrast is now brought out-

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians

Php 2:6. Form is from MORPHE which occurs only three times in the Greek New Testament. Robbery is from HARPAGMOS. I shall give Thayer’s definition and explanations of this word first. “A thing seized or to be seized, booty,” and he explains it to mean, “to deem anything a prize–a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained.” In his definition and explanations of MORPHE, Thayer includes some statements pertaining to verse 7. I shall quote his definition of the Greek word, also his explanations (the parts in parentheses). “The form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance . . . (this whole passage is to be explained as follows): who, although (formerly) he bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God, yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained, but emptied himself of it so as to assume the form of a servant, in that he became like unto men, and was found in fashion as a man.” My comments on the verse, based on the connection and the lexicon definitions of the words, is that Christ was willing to underestimate the great honor of being equal in form with the Father, and condescend to becoming even lower than the angels, so that He could suffer and die as a man.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Php 2:6. who being originally in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God. In this exceedingly difficult and important passage, it is necessary to say something of the separate words of the verse, but it should be borne in mind that the words each form part of a context without reference to which they cannot be rightly understood. The apostle is enforcing the lesson of humility, and the avoidance of all factious or self-seeking conduct, and Christs example is pointed to for this end. Christ being in the form of God: here the word being is not the usual simple substantive verb, but a stronger word which is employed when the nature of a thing, in contradistinction to its mere existence, is to be predicated. Here it relates to the existence of Christ before His manifestation in the flesh, and its fuller force is fairly represented by the addition of the word originally. Form is here all that makes a thing to be recognised for what it is. Hence, when the form of God is spoken of, we must understand all those attributes which make the Divinity known as such. All these the apostle says Christ had originally, and in this way was in the form of God, though He had not been manifested unto men. It is of this clause that the next words have been taken by the Authorised Version to be an expansion. He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Nor would it be so. For, since he from the first had all the essential attributes of the Godhead in Himself, to make Himself equal with God would be but to have and hold what was His own. But this is not in harmony with St. Pauls argument, who does not wish to dwell on what Christ might rightly hold as His own, but on what He laid aside. It is therefore better, and more in accord with the original construction, to make this clause connected closely with what follows. The structure of the sentence is: He did not do one thing, but He did another. What Christ did not do was this. He did not count His equality with God as a prize to be held fast. He possessed this equality, but consented to forego it for a time, that He might work out the salvation of men. Thus he became an instance (how mighty!) of one who looked not at His own things, but also at the things of others. This rendering is in entire accord with the reasoning of the apostle; and for proof that the original may be so taken, the reader is referred to the notes of Dr. Light-foot on this Epistle, where the subject is fully discussed.

In the words to be on an equality with God, the Greek shows the equality contemplated is in all the attributes and qualities of the Godhead. To express this the neuter plural is used, and so Christ is not mentioned as a person equal to God, but the equality is predicated of Him in all things.

In a somewhat different sense from either of the above, the words have been taken by some in the sense that Christ did not think of His equality with God as something which He, having seized, must carefully guard, and so could not venture on laying it down at all. But this rendering does not do justice to what St. Paul is dwelling on, that Christ for the sake of mankind laid down of His own will that which He had from eternity, and His right whereto none could question.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

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.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Verse 6

In the form of God; in respect to his divine nature and character. There has been much discussion in respect to the import of the phrase translated “thought it not robbery to be equal with God;” the meaning, however, of the whole passage is clear. The example of Christ is appealed to as an example of condescension, and of a willingness to humble one’s self for the good of others. The meaning, therefore, is, that he voluntarily gave up the glory which he had with the Father, (John 17:5; John 1:1,) to become a man, and pass a life of ignominy and suffering upon the earth for the good of mankind. The passage seems to involve, in the most unequivocal manner, the idea that, in the case of Christ, birth was not the commencement of existence to the subject of it,–but that it was the mysterious assuming of human nature by a being who voluntarily descended to it from a previous condition of the highest glory.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

2:6 Who, being in the {d} form of God, {e} thought it not robbery to be {f} equal with God:

(d) Such as God himself is, and therefore God, for there is no one in all parts equal to God but God himself.

(e) 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 fit for God: yet he chose rather to debase himself.

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

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

This verse begins a section of exalted prose that continues through Php 2:11. Many commentators, however, took this section as an early Christian hymn, but Fee’s rebuttal of this view is convincing. [Note: See Gordon D. Fee, "Philippians 2:5-11: Hymn or Exalted Pauline Prose?" Bulletin for Biblical Research 2 (1992):29-46; and idem, Paul’s Letter . . ., pp. 40-43. See Carson and Moo, pp. 499-503, for discussion of the controversy.] The parallels in thought and action between these verses, which describe Jesus’ humility, and Joh 13:3-17, which records Jesus washing His disciples feet, are striking.

The Son of God’s preincarnate state is quite clearly in view here (cf. 2Co 8:9). He existed in the form of God. The word translated "form" (NASB) or "nature" (NIV, Gr. morphe) refers to outward appearance that accurately reveals the inward nature. It does not mean outward appearance that changes as a result of time and circumstances (Gr. schema, Php 2:7).

"To say that he was existing in the essential metaphysical form of God is tantamount to saying that he possessed the nature of God." [Note: Kent, p. 123.]

The verb translated "existed" (NASB) or "being" (NIV) is in the present tense in the Greek text and points to the Lord’s continuing existence with the full nature of God. His full deity is not something Jesus Christ gave up or laid aside when He became a man at the Incarnation. [Note: See Dennis W. Jowers, "The Meaning of Morphe in Philippians 2:6-7," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49:4 (December 2006):739-66.]

"This, then, is what it means for Christ to be ’in the "form" of God’; it means ’to be equal with God,’ not in the sense that the two phrases are identical, but that both point to the same reality. Together, therefore, they are among the strongest expressions of Christ’s deity in the NT. This means further that ’equality with God’ is not that which he desired which was not his, but precisely that which was always his." [Note: Fee, Paul’s Letter . . ., pp. 207-8.]

The Lord Jesus’ equality with God did change in some sense, however. The manner in which He existed as God changed when He became a man. He willingly adopted a manner of existence that was different from His father’s, namely, that of the God-man.

"Our doctrine of Christ’s humiliation will be better understood if we put it midway between two pairs of erroneous views, making it the third of five. The list would be as follows: (1) Gess: The Logos gave up all divine attributes; (2) Thomasius: The Logos gave up relative attributes only [i.e., omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence]; (3) True View: The Logos gave up the independent exercise of divine attributes; (4) Old Orthodoxy: Christ gave up the use of divine attributes; (5) Anselm: Christ acted as if he did not possess divine attributes." [Note: A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 704.]

". . . while it is not true that Christ in the incarnation surrendered the relative attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience, He did embark upon a program where it was necessary to submit to a voluntary nonuse of these attributes in order to obtain His objectives. Christ does not seem to have ever exercised His divine attributes on His own behalf though they had abundant display in His miracles. This is qualified to some extent by the fact that His omniscience is revealed in His prophetic ministry, but He did not use His divine knowledge to make His own path easier. He suffered all the inconveniences of His day even though in His divine omniscience He had full knowledge of every human device ever conceived for human comfort. In His human nature there was growth in knowledge, but this must not be construed as a contradiction of His divine omniscience. Limitations in knowledge as well as limitations in power are related to the human nature and not to the divine. His omnipotence was manifested in many ways and specifically in the many miracles which He did, in some cases by the power of the Holy Spirit and in others on the basis of His own word of authority. Here again He did not use His omnipotence to make His way easy and He knew the fatigue of labor and travelling by walking. Though in His divine nature He was omnipresent, He did not use this attribute to avoid the long journeys on foot nor was He ever seen in His ministry in more than one place at a time. In a word, He restricted the benefits of His attributes as they pertained to His walk on earth and voluntarily chose not to use His powers to lift Himself above ordinary human limitations.

"The act of kenosis as stated in Philippians 2 may therefore be properly understood to mean that Christ surrendered no attribute of Deity, but that He did voluntarily restrict their independent use in keeping with His purpose of living among men and their limitations." [Note: John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, pp. 143-44. Cf Robert P. Lightner, Evangelical Theology, p. 84; and Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 262.]

Jesus Christ did not regard His former manner of existence something that He wanted to hold onto. In view of the context this seems to be the correct interpretation. Another less likely possibility is that He did not need to grasp after equality with God since He already possessed it. A third undesirable alternative is that He did not grasp equality with God prematurely, as Adam did, but waited for the Father to bestow it on Him after His passion.

Jesus was willing to alter His behavior for the welfare of others, and in this He is an example of submissiveness for us.

". . . his true nature is characterized not by selfish grabbing, but by an open-handed giving . . ." [Note: Hawthorne, p. 85.]

Contrast Adam, who considered equality with God something to be seized. Adam tried to become like God by grasping, but Christ, who was God, became man by releasing. This analogy is only conceptual, however, since there are no linguistic parallels to the Genesis narrative here. [Note: Fee, Paul’s Letter . . ., p. 209.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles