Filipenses 2
Marvin Vincent · Citado em PreceptAustin
Filipenses 2:6
Vincent says: “In the sense of being the verb is stronger than the simple einai ‘to be’; denoting being which is from the beginning, and therefore attaching to a person as a proper characteristic, something belonging to him, and so running into the idea of rightful possession as above.” Thus, the possession of the Christian virtues by the believer is a natural, expected thing by reason of the fact that he has become a partaker of the divine nature. And they are not a spasmodic possession either, present one day and absent the next. Indeed, if they were not present in the life, one could well discount the person’s claim of being a child of God." (Wuest's Word Studies) Guzik on existed (huparcho) - This is from the ancient Greek verb huparchein, which “describes that which a man is in his very essence and which cannot be changed. It describes that part of a man which, in any circumstances, remains the same.” (Barclay) Wuest on huparcho in the phrase in 2 Peter 3:11 - "what sort of people ought you to be (in present tense) in holy conduct and godliness." - “Ought” is dei (δει), “it is a necessity in the nature of the case.” “To be” is huparchō (in present tense), “to be” in the sense that an antecedent condition is protracted into the present. That is, saints are obligated to maintain the holy life of separation in which they started in the Christian life. “Holy conduct” is “holy manner of life.” The Greek word “holy” (hagios), means basically, “set apart for the service of God.” Thus, a holy life is a separated life, separated from the world and to God. “Godliness” is eusebeia, “piety toward God.” Vine on huparcho - primarily, "to make a beginning" (hupo, "under," arche, "a beginning"), denotes "to be, to be in existence," involving an "existence" or condition both previous to the circumstances mentioned and continuing after it. This is important in Philippians 2:6 , concerning the deity of Christ. The phrase "being (existing) in the form (morphe, the essential and specific form and character) of God," carries with it the two facts of the antecedent Godhood of Christ, previous to His incarnation, and the continuance of His Godhood at and after the event of His Birth (see Gifford, on the Incarnation, pp. 11, sqq.). It is translated "exist" in 1 Corinthians 11:18 , RV, for AV, "there be." Cp. Luke 16:14 ; 23:50 ; Acts 2:30 ; 3:2 ; 17:24 ; 22:3 etc. In Phil 2:6 the present participle of huparcho, "to exist," which always involves a preexistent state, prior to the fact referred to, and a continuance of the state after the fact. Thus in Philippians 2:6 , the phrase "who being (huparchon) in the form of God," implies His preexistent Deity, previous to His birth, and His continued Deity afterwards. (Expository Dictionary) Zodhiates - Morphḗ in Phil. 2:6–8 presumes an objective reality. No one could be in the form (morphḗ) of God who was not God. However, morphḗ is not the shaping of pure thought. It is the utterance of the inner life, a life that bespeaks the existence of God. He who had been in morphḗ Theoú, in the form of God, from eternity (John 17:5) took at His incarnation the morphḗn doúlou (doúlos [1401], servant), a form of a servant. The fact that Jesus continued to be God during His state of humiliation is demonstrated by the pres. part. hupárchōn, “being” in the form of God. Hupárchō (5225) involves continuing to be that which one was before. Nothing appeared that was not an objective reality from the beginning. In His incarnation, Jesus took upon Himself the form (morphḗ) of a servant by taking upon Himself the shape (schḗma) of man. The schḗma, shape or fashion, is the outward form having to do not only with His essential being, but also with His appearance. The eternal, infinite form of God took upon Himself flesh (John 1:1a, 14a).....(Commenting in another place on) the verb hupárchō (5225), to be, which we must consider here. When used in the pres. part. as in Phil. 2:6 in regard to the person of Jesus Christ, “who, being [hupárchōn]” it asserts that Christ’s present existence was (and still is) simply a continuation of His preexistence. What He came to be in His incarnation did not involve the giving up of what He was previously, i.e., God. It confirms that the Lord Jesus continued to be, in addition to His assumed manhood, what He always was, namely, Deity. Vine on huparcho in Phil 2:6- who,—the pronoun points to Him as the One who, known to the readers under this Name, is thus contemplated, not merely as having accomplished something in the days of His flesh, but as having done something in a condition of existence spoken of as “being in the form of God.” being—the verb huparchō conveys much more than the simple verb to be. Used, as here, in the present participle (huparchōn), it points to the existence of a person previous to what is stated of him. Thus David, being already a prophet, foretold the resurrection of Christ, Acts 2:30. Abraham, “being about a hundred years old [i.e., having already reached that time of life and so existing as having attained to that advanced age], waxed strong through faith,” Romans 4:19. Forasmuch as man “is [huparchōn, being, by his original creation] the image and glory of God,” he ought not to have his head veiled, 1 Corinthians 11:7. Titus, “being [huparchon, characteristically, by his nature] himself very earnest, went forth … of his own accord,” 2 Corinthians 8:17. “If thou, being a Jew [huparchon, being a Jew by birth, a Jew to begin with] livest as do the Gentiles,” Galatians 2:14. Christ, “being [existing previously] in the form of God … emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant”; that is, His was a state preexistent to the time when He emptied Himself. But the grammatical construction likewise implies a continued existence in respect of what is stated. Joseph of Arimathaea, being (huparchōn) a councilor, continued in that capacity after what is recorded of him in Luke 23:50ff. So with the continuation of the circumstances mentioned above regarding Abraham and Titus. Accordingly, that which is described as “the form of God” was not only a preexistent state, but continued after Christ “emptied Himself.” Bengel’s comment is, “In that form of God the Son of God was existing from eternity: nor did He cease to exist therein when He came in the flesh.” in the form of God,—the morphē denotes the special or the characteristic form of a person. What Gifford, in his book on “The Incarnation,” remarks is worth quoting: morphē is “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists … morphē Theou [the form of God] is the divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ … it includes the whole nature and essence of deity, and is inseparable from them … it does not include in itself anything accidental or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the ‘form,’ at another separated from it.” Thus far, therefore, the phraseology establishes the fact of the preexistent and unoriginated deity of Christ previous to His birth, and its continuity subsequently. (Another Note by Vine on Phil 2:6, “existed” in present tense) - the word huparchō carries with it a twofold idea, firstly, that what is predicated of this person characterized Him in a special manner both before and at the time referred to, and, secondly, that He continued so to be characterized after the particular event stated of Him. To take an illustration, “Joseph who was (huparchōn, being) a councilor … went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus” (Luke 23:50, 52). He did not cease to be a councilor after his request from Pilate. So Christ did not cease to be “in the form of God” after becoming man. (Collected Writings of W E Vine) Vine on huparcho in Ro 4:19 (he being - The word “being” is, in the original, not eimi, the verb “to be,” but huparchō, which always suggests more than the mere fact of being; the suggestion here is that he was confessedly that age; that is to say, the fact was recognized by himself; and has received general recognition. This is a fundamental fact in the circumstances. The reference is to Genesis 17, an event thirteen years later than the birth of Ishmael. MacArthur on huparcho in Acts 7:55 ("being [in present tense] full of the Holy Spirit,") - Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit. Amid the storm of fury that howled around him, Stephen remained calm, totally yielded to the Spirit’s control. Huparchō (being) “properly [expresses] continuance of an antecedent state or condition” (G. Abbott- Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1977], 457), a meaning reinforced by its use here in the present tense. Being filled with the Spirit was a way of life for Stephen (cf. 6:3, 5; Eph. 5:18). Consequently, he didn’t have to make any adjustments in his life when his time came to face death. Vine on huparcho in Gal 1:14 - being—huparchō, lit., “to be from the beginning,” i.e., naturally, and hence “confessedly”; the fact was acknowledged by all who knew him. Thayer - 1. properly, to begin below, to make a beginning; universally, to begin; (Homer, Aeschylus, Herodotus, and following). 2. to come forth, hence, to be there, be ready, be at hand Friberg - (1) exist, be present, be at hand, be (found) (Acts 19.40; 1Cor 11.18); (2) as equivalent to eimi followed by a predicate noun = be (Lk 8.41) or to the participle on followed by a predicate noun = who is, because he is (Acts 2.30; Gal 1.14); (3) neuter plural ta huparchonta as a substantive = what one has at one's disposal, property, possessions (Mt 19.21; Lk 8.3) BDAG - 1. to really be there = exist, be present, be at one’s disposal 2.to be in a state or circumstance (substitute for the present infinitive of eimi - see <1510>) Huparcho in the present tense (continuous) clearly signifies that Jesus continually existed in the form of God. Nothing appeared that was not an objective reality from the beginning. This is a clear statement of the deity of Christ. In His pre-incarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw Him. He was and had always existed as God before He became man for "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever." (Heb 13:8-note) Huparcho - 60x in 60v - NAS Usage: been(2), being(9), belonging(1), exist(1), existed(1), gone(1), live(1), owned(1), possess(1), possessions(11), private means(1), property(1). Matt. 19:21; Matt. 24:47; Matt. 25:14; Lk. 7:25; Lk. 8:3; Lk. 8:41; Lk. 9:48; Lk. 11:13; Lk. 11:21; Lk. 12:15; Lk. 12:33; Lk. 12:44; Lk. 14:33; Lk. 16:1; Lk. 16:14; Lk. 16:23; Lk. 19:8; Lk. 23:50; Acts 2:30; Acts 3:2; Acts 3:6; Acts 4:32; Acts 4:34; Acts 4:37; Acts 5:4; Acts 7:55; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:12; Acts 16:3; Acts 16:20; Acts 16:37; Acts 17:24; Acts 17:27; Acts 17:29; Acts 19:36; Acts 19:40; Acts 21:20; Acts 22:3; Acts 27:12; Acts 27:21; Acts 27:34; Acts 28:7; Acts 28:18; Rom. 4:19; 1 Co. 7:26; 1 Co. 11:7; 1 Co. 11:18; 1 Co. 12:22; 1 Co. 13:3; 2 Co. 8:17; 2 Co. 12:16; Gal. 1:14; Gal. 2:14; Phil. 2:6; Phil. 3:20; Heb. 10:34; Jas. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:8; 2 Pet. 2:19; 2 Pet. 3:11 If you study huparcho the results can be a bit confusing because the King James Versions gives a distinct Strong's Number 5224 to the derivative word "ta huparchonta" (derived from huparcho - 5225). Ta huparchonta means 1) possessions, goods, wealth, property and orignates from the neuter plural of present participle active of huparcho - 5225 and is used as if it were a noun (even though technically in Greek it is a verb participle). In the KJV ta huparchonta occurs 14x and is translted as "goods 7, that (one) has 4, things which (one) possesses 2, substance 1." Matt. 19:21; Matt. 24:47; Matt. 25:14KJV; Lk. 8:3KJV; Lk. 11:21KJV; Lk. 12:15KJV; Lk. 12:33KJV; Lk. 12:44KJV; Lk. 14:33KJV; Lk. 16:1KJV; Lk. 19:8KJV; Acts 4:32KJV; 1 Co. 13:3KJV; Heb 10:34KJV. Zodhiates on huparcho - (I) Generally and in an absolute sense, to exist (Acts 19:40; 27:21; 28:18; 1 Cor. 11:18). Followed by the dat. of person, to be present with someone, implying possession, property (Acts 3:6, "Silver and gold have I none"; 4:37; 28:7; 2 Pet. 1:8; Sept.: Job 2:4). The pl. pres. part. tá hupárchonta <5224> has the same meaning, used as a subst., things present, in hand, possessions. (II) To be, the same as eimí <1510>, to be, logically connecting the subj. and predicate. (A) With a subst. as predicate (Luke 8:41; 23:50; Acts 2:30; 4:34; 16:3, 20, 37; 17:24, 29; 21:20; 22:3; 1 Cor. 11:7; 12:22; Gal. 1:14; 2:14; 2 Pet. 2:19). (B) With an adj. as predicate (Luke 9:48; 11:13; 16:14; Acts 3:2; 7:55; 14:8; 27:12; Rom. 4:19; 1 Cor. 7:26; 2 Cor. 8:17; 12:16; James 2:15; 2 Pet. 3:11). (C) As forming a periphrasis for a finite tense of the same verb (Acts 8:16, "only they were baptized"). (D) With an adv. as predicate (Acts 17:27, God, being not far). (E) With a prep. and its case as predicate. En <1722>, in, with the dat. where hupárchei then implies a being, remaining, living in any state or place. En with a dat. of condition (Luke 7:25; 16:23; Acts 5:4; Phil. 2:6). En with the dat. of place (Acts 10:12; Phil. 3:20). Prós <4314>, toward, with the gen. (Acts 27:34). (Complete Word Study Dictionary) Huparcho - 100x in the Septuagint - Gen. 12:5; 13:6; 14:16; 24:59; 25:5; 31:18; 34:23; 36:6-7; 39:5; 42:13,32; 45:11,18; 46:6; 47:18; Exod. 14:11; 22:3; 32:24; Num. 32:4; Deut. 20:14; 21:16; Jos. 4:6; 5:12; 7:24; Ruth 2:21; 4:9; 1 Sam. 9:7; 1 Chr. 27:31; 28:1; 2 Chr. 15:17; 20:33; 26:10; 31:3; Ezr. 6:8; Est. 3:8,13; 8:1,7; Job 2:3-4; 15:29; 17:3; 18:7,17; 20:20,29; 21:19; 38:26; 42:17; Ps. 37:10; 39:13; 55:19; 59:13; 69:20; 72:12; 73:25; 103:16; 104:33,35; 109:11-12; 146:2; Prov. 5:17; 6:7,31; 8:18; 11:14; 17:16-17; 19:4; 29:7,18; Eccl. 5:19; 6:2; Isa. 59:10; Jer. 4:14; 5:13; 7:32; 46:19; 50:20; Lam. 1:2; 5:3,7; Ezek. 16:49; 26:12,21; 28:19; 38:11; Dan. 2:5; Joel 1:18; Amos 5:5; 6:10; Obad. 1:16; Mic. 5:4; 7:1-2; Hab. 3:17; Zeph. 3:6; Hag. 2:3; Zech. 8:10; Mal. 1:14; Gilbrant on huparcho in Classical Greek and Septuagint uses - Huparchō occurs as early as Homer (Eighth Century B.C.) with the meaning “begin, initiate.” In classical Greek it developed other specialized shades of meaning, e.g., “an existing property, current price, proper nature, subsistence of a quality (in philosophy)” (Liddell-Scott). The Koine papyri exhibit the following meanings; “be, exist; have, possess,” or, as a participle, “possessions” (Moulton-Milligan). Septuagint Usage The word occurs over 150 times in the Septuagint. It has the same variety of meanings as in the classical literature. Frequently huparchō appears as a plural participle with the sense “possessions.” Thus, Genesis 12:5 notes that Abram took all his possessions from Haran. As a finite verb huparchō can mean “possess”: “Whom have I in heaven” (Psalm 73:25). It can also be used to denote existence. In Genesis 42:13KJV the sons of Jacob state that Joseph “is not,” i.e., he no longer exists; he is dead. (Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary)
Filipenses 2:6
Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical 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 … As applied 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 unfolds, as light from fire.” Thus the Greek word for “form” refers to that outward expression which a person gives of his inmost nature. This expression is not assumed from the outside, but proceeds directly from within. To illustrate: “I went to a tennis match yesterday. The winning player’s form was excellent.” We mean by that, that the outward expression he gave of his inward ability to play tennis, was excellent The expression in this case took the form of the rhythmic, graceful, swift, and coordinated movements of his body and its members. Our Lord was in the form of God. The word “God” is without the definite article in the Greek text, and therefore refers to the divine essence. Thus, our Lord’s outward expression of His inmost being was as to its nature the expression of the divine essence of Deity. Since that outward expression which this word “form” speaks of, comes from and is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to His nature is the possessor of the divine essence of Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in that divine essence which constitutes God, God. The time at which the apostle says our Lord gave expression to His essential nature, that of Deity, was previous to His coming to earth to become incarnate as the Man Christ Jesus. But Paul, by the use of the Greek word translated “being,” informs his Greek readers that our Lord’s possession of the divine essence did not cease to be a fact when He came to earth to assume human form. The Greek word is not the simple verb of being, but a word that speaks of an antecedent condition protracted into the present. That is, our Lord gave expression to the essence of Deity which He possesses, not only before He became Man, but also after becoming Man, for He was doing so at the time this Philippian epistle was being written. To give expression to the essence of Deity implies the possession of Deity, for this expression, according to the definition of our word “form,” comes from one’s inmost nature. This word alone is enough to refute the claim of Modernism that our Lord emptied Himself of His Deity when He became Man. This expression of the essence of His Deity which our Lord gave in His pre-incarnate state, was given through a spiritual medium to spiritual intelligences, the angels. Human beings in their present state of being cannot receive such impressions, since they are not equipped with the spiritual sense of perception which the angels have. What Peter, James, and John saw on the Mount of Transfiguration was an outward expression of the essence of Deity, but given through a medium by which the physical senses of the disciples could receive the expression given. But when believers receive their bodies of glory, they will be equipped to receive the expression of Deity which the angels received, and through a like spiritual medium. Now, at this time, in the eternity before the universe was created, Paul says that our Lord “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The word translated “thought” refers to a judgment based upon facts. The word “God” is used again without the article. Had the article preceded it, the meaning would be “equal with God the Father.” The word “God” here refers to Deity, not seen in the three Persons of the Godhead, but to Deity seen in its essence. Equality with God does not refer here to the equality of the Lord Jesus with the other Persons of the Trinity. Nor does it refer to His equality with them in the possession of the divine essence. Possession of the divine essence is not spoken of here, but the expression of the divine essence is referred to, although possession is implied by the expression. Equality with God here refers to our Lord’s co-participation with the other members of the Trinity in the expression of the divine essence. This is a very important point, for when we come to consider the fact that our Lord laid aside something, we will see that it was not the possession but the expression of the divine essence. (Philippians Commentary - Verse by Verse) Marvin Vincent has a lengthy more technical theological discussion on morphe explaining that "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 schema = fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Morphe or form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: Schema = fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form...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 (Phil 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. 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. (Philippians 2: Greek Word Studies) The word "God" does not have the article "the" in Greek (anarthrous), which stresses the quality or essence. John Walvoord... The expression “being in the form of God” (Note: The Greek being is not the usual verb on (to be), but huparchon in the form of an imperfect participle, meaning continued existence, emphasizing the fact that Christ had always been and still is in the form of God. The imperfect tense is in contrast to the aorist verbs used in reference to the incarnation which describe acts in time.) means not only that Christ is God, but that He always was God and that He existed as God, not simply because He possessed all the attributes of God, but because these were manifested outwardly and He had the appearance and glory of God. Being thus from eternity past all that God is both in substance and in manifestation, He did not consider His being on equality with God something that needed to be retained by self-effort, but rather “made himself of no reputation,” literally, “emptied Himself,” taking on the form of a servant. Three Greek words are used to describe the outer appearance of Christ: (1) Morphe (form), referring to divine nature and attributes in their manifestation. The form of God is in contrast to the form of a servant (v. 7) or the manifestation of Christ in the substance and attributes of a servant. (2) Homoiomati (likeness), meaning that Christ was made like other men in His essential attributes and manifestation as a genuine man (v. 7). (3) Schemati (fashion), referring to outer manifestation and more transient characteristics of humanity (v. 8). The use of the three words together affirm that Christ was from eternity past all that God is in substance, attributes, and manifestation. Becoming incarnate He was all that was necessary to genuine humanity apart from sin. In appearance he looked like a man and acted like a man. In His incarnate state Christ continued to be all that God is though appearing in the form of man. After His ascension and glorification He continued to be all that man is apart from sin, limitation, and human characteristics that pertain only to this life. (Philippians 2 At the Name of Jesus Every Knee Should Bow) DID NOT REGARD EQUALITY WITH GOD A THING TO BE GRASPED: ouch harpagmon hegesato (3SAMI) to einai (PAN) isa theo: Ge 32:24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30; 48:15, 48:16; Ezek 8:2, 3, 4, 5, 6; Jos 5:13, 14, 15; Hos 12:3, 4, 5; Zec 13:7; Jn 5:18; 5:23, Jn 8:56, 57, 58, 59; 10:30; 10:33, 10:38, 14:9; 20:28; Rev 1:17, 18; 21:6 Who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped (ASV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God (Young's Literal) Let Earth and Heaven Combine He laid His glory by, He wrapped Him in our clay; Unmarked by human eye, The latent Godhead lay; Infant of days He here became, And bore the mild Immanuel’s Name. Remember that what Paul is doing in the deeply theological passages is exhorting the saints at Philippi to manifest a humble attitude motivated by the perfect example of our blessed Lord. Paul knows that if they manifest a "mind of Christ" attitude, this will ensure unity in their local body. Christ thought of others, not Himself. Unlike the first Adam, who made a frantic attempt to seize equality with God (Gen 3:5), Jesus, the last Adam (1Cor 15:47), humbled himself and obediently accepted the role of the Suffering Servant for the sake of Adam's spiritually dead progeny. This is the example Paul sets before the saints at Philippi. Regard (2233) (hegeomai = the middle deponent of the verb ágo = to lead) primarily means to lead and thus to "lead the mind" through a reasoning process to a conclusion. The idea is to think about something and come to a conclusion. Hegeomai is consideration which involves careful thought and not quick decision. It involves a conscious judgment resting on deliberate weighing of the facts. It is translated "esteem" in Phil 2:3 (note) Spurgeon on equal with God - You and I can have no idea of how high an honor it is to be equal with God. How can we, therefore, measure the descent of Christ, when our highest thoughts cannot comprehend the height from which He came? The depth to which He descended is immeasurably below any point we have ever reached, and the height from which He came is inconceivably above our loftiest thought. Do not, however, forget the glory that Jesus laid aside for a while. Remember that He is very God of very God, and that He dwelt in the highest heaven with His Father. Yet, though He was thus infinitely rich, for our sakes He became poor, that we, through His poverty, might be rich. Equality (2470) (isos) defines things exactly same in size, quantity, quality, character or number. Thing of your geometry class when you learned about an "isosceles" triangle, one having two sides of equal length. That is the picture of the Greek word "isos". In becoming a man, Jesus did not in any way forfeit or diminish His absolute equality with God. Equality of God - It wasn’t that Jesus was trying to achieve equality with the Father. He had it, and chose not to cling to it. Jesus’ divine nature was not something He had to seek for or acquire, but it was His already. (Guzik) Pritchard - He was truly “equal” with God, which makes the next statement all the more remarkable. He did not regard his position as God as something “to be grasped.” He didn’t try to hold on to his glory but willingly laid it aside. He did not assert his rights although he had the right to claim his rights. This forms the foundation for everything else Paul will say about him. It also tells us what Jesus was thinking before he was born in Bethlehem. There was no compulsion, no argument, no claiming his prerogatives, no pleading with the Father to “send someone else.” He voluntarily traveled the distance between heaven and the bloody cross. He did it willingly, gladly, without hesitation. (Sermon) Grasped (725) (harpagmos from harpazo = to seize upon with force) originally meant “a thing seized by robbery” and eventually came to mean anything snatched, clutched, embraced, or prized, thus is sometimes translated “grasped” or “held onto” as a treasure is clutched and retained. Given this definition we can paraphrase this verse “Christ did not regard His equality with God as a treasure to be clutched and retained at all costs.” Jesus refused to selfishly cling to His favored position as the divine Son of God nor view it as a prized possession to be used for Himself. The KJV Bible Commentary explains that "This word (harpagmos) has two distinct meanings. One, a thing unlawfully seized, and two, a treasure to be clutched and retained. Christ did not cling to His prerogatives of His divine majesty, did not ambitiously display His equality with God. Christ waived His rights to: (1) express His deity; (2) display His divine attributes; and (3) demonstrate His equality with God. He did not regard His position as equal with God as something to be held onto, but as something to be relinquished for the redemption of man. He gave up His throne in glory for a cross of shame and suffering. (Ibid)
Filipenses 2:6
Vincent adds this note on harpagmos taking it 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. But rather He counted humanity His prize, and so laid aside the conditions of His preexistent state, and became man. (Greek Word Studies) One question that you may have pondered is if Christ did not grasp His deity, then how was He able to perform the miracles during His three year ministry? The short answer is by totally relying on the power of the Holy Spirit! Click here for more on Jesus' power to heal, etc. As John Bunyan has Mr. Greatheart say, in Part II of Pilgrim’s Progress: “He of whom I am now to speak is One that has not his fellow. He has two natures in one Person, plain to be distinguished, impossible to be divided.” Pastor Steven Cole (Flagstaff Christian Fellowship!) has an excellent sermon on Philippians 2:5-8 Supreme Humility We live in a day when Bible doctrine is commonly despised, even among God’s people. I’ve heard people say, “We want life, not doctrine,” as if the two were in opposition to each other. A young woman once told me that the wonderful thing about her experience-oriented church was that they didn’t have any doctrines; they just had Jesus! The term “air-head” was not yet in existence, or it might have popped into my mind on that occasion. Christian people proclaim that doctrine is divisive and that what we need is unity. Often that unity is built on a common experience that people have had, supposedly through the Holy Spirit, even though these people often hold to seriously erroneous doctrine. We tend to think of theology as impractical, academic stuff that seminary students and professors like to debate. But it doesn’t have anything to do with how we live. But when we buy into this anti-intellectual approach to the Christian life, we are forgetting that the Apostle Paul did not write his profound doctrinal sections of Scripture to theologians. He wrote Romans, Galatians, and the other great theological portions of his letters, including our text, which is one of the most profound Christological portions of Scripture, to common people--business people, working people, soldiers, housewives, and even slaves--to help them live their daily lives in a manner pleasing to God. It is significant that Paul is not using our text to combat some heresy or theological error. He is writing about a most practical subject--how Christians can get along with one another. It applies to how we relate to one another in the church, but also in our homes. As we saw last week, at the heart of our relational problems is self. To live in harmony, we must learn to die to self and humbly live for others for Jesus’ sake. To illustrate this point, Paul sets before us the person of our Lord Jesus Christ as the example of supreme humility. Solid theological understanding about Jesus Christ is the foundation for how we can get along with one another. Paul is saying that ... To promote harmonious relationships, we must grow in the humility Jesus modeled in His incarnation and death. Since the early 1970’s there have been dozens of books and hundreds of articles written from a supposedly Christian perspective that tell us how to build our self-esteem, our mate’s self-esteem, and our children’s self-esteem. We have been assured by the supposed “experts” on human behavior that low self-esteem is at the root of all our emotional and relational problems. I’m sad to confess that for many years I was influenced by this teaching and even taught it myself. But I came to realize that there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that tells us that we need to build our self-esteem. There are many verses that tell us we need to lower our view of ourselves and grow in humility (the biblical word for humility means “lowliness of mind”). How many recent books or articles have you read on how to lower your self-esteem and grow in humility? Yet that is what Paul is clearly teaching here. His teaching is built on the great doctrinal truths of the incarnation and death of Jesus Christ. 1. To grow in humility, we must understand the incarnation and death of Jesus Christ. Although many volumes have been written on these verses, the basic thought is quite simple and clear: That Jesus Christ voluntarily left the highest position in the universe and went to the very lowest position on earth in order to rescue from God’s judgment people who did not in any way deserve it. There can be no greater example of lowering oneself than what Jesus did on our behalf. If your heart is cold toward the things of God, think on who Jesus is and on what He did in leaving the splendor and purity of heaven and coming to this wicked world to be made sin on your behalf. It should fill our hearts with love and devotion and make us realize that no personal sacrifice we make, no humiliation we go through, can ever match what our glorious Savior did for us! A. To grow in humility, we must understand Christ’s incarnation, that the eternal Son of God left His glory to take on human flesh. When Paul states that Jesus existed in the form of God (Phil 1:6), he is referring to His preexistence before He was born of the virgin Mary. Jesus is not a created being, but rather is the second person of the triune God. As John opens his gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (John 1:1-3). A few verses later John explains further, “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” (John 1:14). Or, as Jesus said to the Jews who challenged His claims, “Before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58). When Paul states that Jesus existed in “the form of God,” “form” refers to that which is intrinsic and essential to the being of God, that is, to God’s attributes (J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians [Zondervan], pp. 132-133). Thus Paul is saying that Jesus in His preexistence shared the essential attributes of deity. He is God! Before He came to this earth, Jesus dwelled in the indescribable glory and perfection of heaven, one with the Father and the Spirit, in the blessedness of the divine being. But He willingly left that glory to come to earth! The next phrase has been variously translated and interpreted. The King James Version reads that He “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The NASB translates, He “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.” John
Filipenses 2:7
Vincent explains that emptied is " Not used or intended here in a metaphysical sense to define the limitations of Christ’s incarnate state, but as a strong and graphic expression of the completeness of his self-renunciation. It includes all the details of humiliation which follow, and is defined by these. Further definition belongs to speculative theology. not intended in a metaphysical sense (i.e., that he gave up divine attributes), but is a “graphic expression of the completeness of his self-renunciation” (Philippians 2 Commentary page 59). Kenoo was used of removing things from a container, until the container is empty; of pouring something out, until there is nothing left. So of what did He empty Himself? To reemphasize, He did not empty Himself of His divine nature for that would be impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There is controversy concerning the precise meaning of the "kenosis", some theologians of liberal persuasion suggest that Jesus became human in the sense that He was fallible, possibly even sinful. Conservative theologians interpret this passage to mean that Jesus took on the limitations of humanity. This involved a veiling of His preincarnate glory (Jn 17:5) and the voluntary nonuse of some of His divine prerogatives during the time He was on earth (Mt 24:36). One question that you may have pondered is if Christ did not grasp His deity and in fact emptied Himself, then how was He able to perform the miracles during His three year ministry? The short answer is by totally relying on the power of the Holy Spirit! Click here for more on Jesus' power to heal, etc. John Walvoord - The Greek expression ekenosen, meaning to empty, is a strong word speaking of the dramatic act of incarnation. It must be interpreted, however, by its context. Christ did not empty Himself of deity, but of its outward manifestation. He emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant (Greek labon, meaning taking, an aorist participle indicating simultaneous action). The incarnation did not change the person and attributes of Christ in His divine nature, but added to it a complete human nature. To achieve the divine purpose of becoming the Savior, the divine glory needed to be veiled. Christ voluntarily, moment by moment, submitted to human limitations apart from sin. The humiliation was temporary. The incarnation was everlasting. (Philippians 2 At the Name of Jesus Every Knee Should Bow) For an excellent discussion of Philippians 2:6-11 from a thoroughly conservative and Scripturally based perspective John MacArthur's Philippians 2:6-11 Incarnation of Triune God is highly recommended. Clearly Jesus did not cease being God for He Himself made the clear declaration to Philip in the form of a question... "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (Jn 14:9) Aside He threw His most divine array, And hid His Godhead in a veil of clay, And in that garb did wondrous love display, Restoring what He never took away. TAKING THE FORM OF A BONDSERVANT: morphe doulou labon (AAPMSN) : Isa 42:1; 49:3,6; 52:13; 53:11; Ezek 34:23,24; Zec 3:8; Mt 12:18; Mt 20:28; Mk 10:44,45; Lk 22:27; Jn 13:3-14; Ro 15:8) The passage denotes the special or characteristic form or feature of a person or thing. Morphe is the essential form which never alters; schema is the outward form which changes from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance. Keith Krell - "Taking the form of a bond-servant.” In other words, Jesus became a particular kind of man, a slave, the lowest position a person could become in the Roman world. The King of the Universe, the Lord of glory, voluntarily became a pauper for our sake. He had to borrow a place to be born, a boat to preach from, a place to sleep, a donkey to ride upon, an upper room to use for the last supper, and a tomb in which to be buried. He created the world but the world did not know Him. He was insulted, humiliated, and rejected by the people He made.30 The more you think about it, the more staggering it gets. Nothing in fiction is so fantastic as this truth of the Incarnation. Jesus went as low as He could possibly go. This means no matter what you go through, no matter how low you may get, you can never sink so far that Jesus cannot get under you and lift you up. He can identify with you in any situation, no matter how hard: poverty, loneliness, homelessness, rejection, you name it. (Work Your Way Down the Ladder) Steven
Filipenses 2:7
Vincent says in this connection: “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.” Both expressions came from our Lord’s nature, His act of glorifying Himself and His act of humbling Himself. Both are constituent elements of the essence possessed by the Triune God. But in exchanging one form of expression for the other, He emptied Himself. The question arises, “Of what did He empty Himself?” He did not empty Himself of His deity, since Paul says that the expression of His deity was a fact after His incarnation, that expression implying the possession of the essence of Deity. He set aside the outward expression of His deity when expressing Himself as a bondslave. It was the outward expression of the essence of His deity which our Lord emptied Himself of during the time when He was giving outward expression of Himself as a bondslave. But the emptying Himself of the expression of Deity is more implied by the context than stated specifically by the verb “emptied.” When our Lord set aside the expression of Deity in order that He might express Himself as a bondslave, He was setting aside His legitimate and natural desires and prerogatives as Deity. The basic, natural desire and prerogative of Deity is that of being glorified. But when Deity sets these aside, it sets its desires aside, and setting its desires aside, it sets Self aside. The pronoun “Himself” is in the accusative case. The action of the verb terminates in the thing expressed by that case. The act of emptying terminated in the self life of the Son of God. Our Lord emptied Himself of self. This agrees perfectly with the context which is an example of humility and self-abnegation for the benefit of others. This setting aside of self by the Son of God was the example that Paul held before the saints at Philippi. If each one would set self aside, then unity would prevail. An illustration of this self-emptying of the Son of God is found in John 13:1–17. Our Lord seated at the table, the Master and Lord of the disciples, is illustrative of Him in His preincarnate glory, giving outward expression of the glory of His deity to the angels. Our Lord, girded with a towel, and washing the feet of the disciples, is illustrative of His taking the outward expression of a servant in His incarnation. His outer garments laid aside for the time being, point to His setting aside the outward expression of His pre-incarnate glory while He expressed Himself as a bondslave. The fact that He was still their Master and Lord while kneeling on the floor doing the work of an oriental slave, speaks of the fact that our Lord’s assumption of humanity did not mean that He relinquished His deity. He was just as much God while on earth in His humiliation, as He was before He came and as He is now. His act of taking His outer garments again, tells of the resumption of the expression of His glory after the resurrection. The words “took upon him the form of a servant,” do not refer to His assumption of human nature without its sin, but to His expression of Himself as a bondslave. His humanity was only the necessary medium through which He would express Himself as a servant of mankind. The fact of His becoming man is expressed in the words, “and was made in the likeness of men.” The words “was made” are the translation of a word meaning “to become.” The tense of this verb is ingressive aorist, which signifies entrance into a new state. Our Lord entered into a new state of being when He became Man. But His becoming Man did not exclude His possession of Deity. He was and is today a Person with two natures, that of absolute Deity and that of Humanity. The text says, “He became in the likeness of men.” The word “likeness” in the Greek text refers to “that which is made like something else.” Our Lord’s humanity was a real likeness, not a phantom, nor an incomplete copy of humanity. But this likeness did not express the whole of Christ’s being. His mode of manifestation resembled what men are. But His humanity was not all that there was of Him. He was also Deity. He was not a man, but the Son of God manifest in the flesh and nature of man. (Philippians Commentary - Verse by Verse) Arthur
Filipenses 2:8
Vincent says that when we consider morphe "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 schema = fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Morphe or form is identified with the essence of a person or thing...As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself." Alexander