form of God
"Form," etc. (Greek - μορφή , the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision, the external appearance)."--Thayer. CF John 17:15 . "The glory which I had with Thee before the world was." Nothing in this passage teaches that the Eternal Word John 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 " John 20:28 "
robbery a thing to be grasped after. See, Genesis 3:5-6 .
Word Gr. "Logos" (arm. "Memra," used in the Targums, or Heb. paraphrases, for God). The Greek term means,
(1) a thought or concept;
(2) the expression or utterance of that thought. As a designation of Christ, therefore, Logos is peculiarly felicitous because,
(1) in Him are embodied all the treasures of the divine wisdom, the collective "thought" of God 1 Corinthians 1:24 ; Ephesians 3:11 ; Colossians 2:2 ; Colossians 2:3 and,
(2) He is from eternity, but especially in His incarnation, the utterance or expression of the Person, and "thought" of Deity John 1:3-5 ; John 1:9 ; John 1:14-18 ; John 14:9-11 ; Colossians 2:9 .
In the Being, Person, and work of Christ, Deity is told out.
Verse Meaning
This verse begins a section of exalted prose that continues through Philippians 2:11. Many commentators, however, took this section as an early Christian hymn, but Fee"s rebuttal of this view is convincing. [1] The parallels in thought and action between these verses, which describe Jesus" humility, and John 13:3-17, which records Jesus washing His disciples feet, are striking. [source][source][source]
The Son of God"s preincarnate state is quite clearly in view here (cf. 2 Corinthians 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, Philippians 2:7). [source][source][source]
"To say that he was existing in the essential metaphysical form of God is tantamount to saying that he possessed the nature of God." [2][source]
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. [3][source]
"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." [4][source]
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. [source][source][source]
"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 [5]; (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." [6][source]
". . . 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. [source][source][source]
"The act of kenosis as stated in Philippians 2may 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." [7][source]
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. [source][source][source]
Jesus was willing to alter His behavior for the welfare of others, and in this He is an example of submissiveness for us. [source][source][source]
". . . his true nature is characterized not by selfish grabbing, but by an open-handed giving ..." [8][source]
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. [9][source]
Context Summary
Philippians 2:1-11 - Following His Example Of Self-Surrender
In all Scripture-indeed, in all literature-there is no passage which combines such extraordinary extremes as this. The Apostle opens the golden compasses of his faith, placing one jeweled point on the throne of divine glory and the other at the edge of the pit, where the Cross stood; and then he asks us to measure the vast descent of the Son of God as He came down to help us. Mark the seven steps: He was in the form of God, that is, as much God as He was afterward a servant; being in the form of God"¦ took the form of a servant. He was certainly the latter and equally so the former. He did not grasp at equality with God, for it was already His. He emptied Himself, that is, refused to avail Himself of the use of His divine attributes, that He might teach the meaning of absolute dependence on the Father. He obeyed as a servant the laws which had their source in Himself. He became man-a humble man, a dying man, a crucified man. He lay in the grave. But the meaning of His descent was that of His ascent, and to all His illustrious names is now added that of Jesus-Savior. This must be our model. This mind must be in us. In proportion as we become humbled and crucified, we, in our small measure, shall attain the power of blessing and saving men. [source]
Chapter Summary: Philippians 2
1Paul exhorts them to unity, and to all humbleness of mind, by the example of Christ's humility; 12to a careful proceeding in the way of salvation, that they be as lights to a wicked world, 16and comforts to him their apostle, who is now ready to be offered up to God 19He hopes to send Timothy to them, and Epaphroditus also
Greek Commentary for Philippians 2:6
Being [υπαρχων] Rather, “existing,” present active participle of υπαρχω huparchō In the form of God Μορπη Morphē 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. [source]
A prize [αρπαγμον] Predicate accusative with ηγησατο hēgēsato Originally words in μος ̇mos signified the act, not the result The few examples of αρπαγμος harpagmos (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to αρπαγμα harpagma like βαπτισμος baptismos and βαπτισμα baptisma 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 (το ειναι ισα τεοι to einai isa theoi). Accusative articular infinitive object of ηγησατο hēgēsato “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case τεωι theōi after ισα isa). Ισα Isa is adverbial use of neuter plural with ειναι einai as in Revelation 21:16. Emptied himself First aorist active indicative of κενοω kenoō old verb from κενος kenos 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 Κενοσις Kenosis 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). [source]
To be on an equality with God [το ειναι ισα τεοι] Accusative articular infinitive object of ηγησατο hēgēsato “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case τεωι theōi after ισα isa). Ισα Isa is adverbial use of neuter plural with ειναι einai as in Revelation 21:16. [source]
Emptied himself [εαυτον εκενωσε] First aorist active indicative of κενοω kenoō old verb from κενος kenos 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 Κενοσις Kenosis 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). [source]
Being in the form of God [ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων] Being. Not the simple είναι tobe, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on James 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 ( μορφή ). 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 σχῆμα fashioncomprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή formis identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashionis an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Matthew 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. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
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 (Phlippians 2:7) 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. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
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. [source]
Thought it not robbery to be equal with God [οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ] Robbery is explained in three ways. 1. A robbing, the Acts 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. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
Taking the word ἁρπαγμὸν (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. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
[source]
What do the individual words in Philippians 2:6 mean?
Whoin[the] formof Godexistingnotsomething to be graspedconsidered-to beequalwith God
Greek Commentary for Philippians 2:6
Rather, “existing,” present active participle of υπαρχω huparchō In the form of God Μορπη Morphē 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. [source]
Predicate accusative with ηγησατο hēgēsato Originally words in μος ̇mos signified the act, not the result The few examples of αρπαγμος harpagmos (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to αρπαγμα harpagma like βαπτισμος baptismos and βαπτισμα baptisma 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 (το ειναι ισα τεοι to einai isa theoi). Accusative articular infinitive object of ηγησατο hēgēsato “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case τεωι theōi after ισα isa). Ισα Isa is adverbial use of neuter plural with ειναι einai as in Revelation 21:16. Emptied himself First aorist active indicative of κενοω kenoō old verb from κενος kenos 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 Κενοσις Kenosis 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). [source]
Accusative articular infinitive object of ηγησατο hēgēsato “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case τεωι theōi after ισα isa). Ισα Isa is adverbial use of neuter plural with ειναι einai as in Revelation 21:16. [source]
First aorist active indicative of κενοω kenoō old verb from κενος kenos 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 Κενοσις Kenosis 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). [source]
Being. Not the simple είναι tobe, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on James 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 ( μορφή ). 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 σχῆμα fashioncomprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή formis identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashionis an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Matthew 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. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- 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 (Phlippians 2:7) 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. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- 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. [source]
Robbery is explained in three ways. 1. A robbing, the Acts 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. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Taking the word ἁρπαγμὸν (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. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- [source]