JESUS' EQUALITY WITH GOD

JESUS WAS EQUAL WITH GOD
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Philippians2:6 6
Who, being in very nature God, did
not considerequalitywith God something to be used
to his own advantage;
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
Pulpit Commentary Homiletics
The Humiliation Of Christ
Philippians 2:6-8
V. Hutton
I. THE HEIGHT FROM WHICH HE. CAME IS THE MEASURE OF THE
DEPTHTO WHICH HE DESCENDED.He was for ever "in the form of
God;" i.e. with the essentialnature of God (cf. John 13:3, 4).
II. HIS HUMILIATION WAS NO LOSS OF GLORY OR ESSENTIAL
WORTH. He is for ever in the form of God; this he could not renounce. He
laid aside for a time his external equality with God. This he considerednot to
be a possessionofany greatimportance. How contrary to ordinary human
ideas, which "catchat" anything which confers external honor!! But to catch
at an external resemblance argues thatwe do not possessthe essential
likeness. Only the truly great canafford to humble themselves.
III. HIS HUMILIATION A REALITY. He takes the" form of a servant;" i.e.
he actually becomes such, as he was actuallyin the "form of God." He
assumes also the "likeness ofa man," becoming in appearance, as in reality,
one of ourselves.
IV. HE ACCEPTS THE TRUE POSITION OF MAN, WHICH IS THAT OF
OBEDIENCE, This is man's truest and essentialglory. The true man cannot
live any other life than that of obedience and service. His obedience is to
death, even to a death of shame, if such is required of him. Our glory is to
acceptwhatevermay be the will of Godfor us. - V.W.H.

Biblical Illustrator
Who being in the form of God.
Philippians 2:6-10
The three estates
T. Sherlock, D. D.The apostle evidently points out the three different
conditions of Christ. His state of —
1. Dignity.
2. Humility.
3. Glory.These three are essentialto the argument, for take awayany of them
and the example he proposes is lost.
I. IF YOU REMOVE THE STATE OF CHRIST'S NATURAL DIGNITY
THE SECOND STATE WILL NO LONGER BE THAT OF HUMILIATION,
nor Christ any longeran example of humility.
II. It is implied that HE WAS IN POSSESSIONOF WHATEVER
BELONGED TO HIS STATE OF DIGNITYBEFORE HE UNDERWENT
ANYTHING THAT BELONGED TO HIS STATE OF HUMILIATION. He
was in the form of God, before He was made in the likeness ofmen.
III. It is implied that HE UNDERWENTWHATEVER BELONGEDTO HIS
STATE OF HUMILIATION BEFORE HE ENJOYED ANYTHING THAT
BELONGED TO HIS STATE OF EXALTATION; because His exaltationwas
the effectand rewardof His humility, and being purchased and obtained by
His humility could not be antecedentto it. From whence it follows, that the
term of God, being the dignity He possessedbefore 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 accountof His sufferings. To
maintain otherwise is to confound the distinct states ofglory which belong to
Christ: the glory He had with the Father before the world was, and the glory
which He receivedfrom the Fatherat 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(Colossians1:15-17), and
in the next verse the apostle mentions a honour belonging to Christ's
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 powerequivalent to creation, and therefore St. John
tells us, "The hour is coming," etc. (John 5:25). In ver. 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 Hebrews 1:1-2 the apostle describes the dignity of the Personsentfor our
redemption, and evidently describes Christ's original glory. Then follows,
"When He had purged our sins," etc., which speaks ofHis state of exaltation
which He receivedafter His sufferings. And in chap. Philippians 2:9, it is said
that Jesus was made a little lowerthan the angels, but here, "better." If He
was made lowerin order to redeem us, it seems to imply that He was really,
and by nature, higher. We may expound Hebrews by Philippians. Forwhen
He, who was in the form of God, made Himself of no reputation, He was made
lowerthan 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 excellentname than they (Cf. ver. 9-10).
(T. Sherlock, D. D.)
The form of God
J. Daille.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 exercisedthe office; the purple, the ivory chair, the
twelve lictors with their fasces androds, 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 enjoyedall the dignity, majesty, and grandeur due to so high a
name. This is preciselywhat our Lord means in St. John by the glory which
He says He had with the Father before the world was.
(J. Daille.)

COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(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 Acts 16:20; Acts 17:28;
1Corinthians 11:7; Galatians 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 expressedin John 1:1. (2) The word “form”
(which, except for a casualuse in Mark 16:12, is found only in this passageof
the New Testament)is to be carefully distinguished from “fashion.” There can
be no doubt that in classicalGreek it describes the actualspecific character,
which (like the structure of a material substance)makes eachbeing what it is;
and this same idea is always conveyedin the New Testamentby the compound
words in which the root “form” is found (Romans 8:29; Romans 12:2;
2Corinthians 3:18; Galatians 4:19). (3) On the other hand, the word
“fashion,” as in 1Corinthians 7:31 (“the fashion of this world passethaway”),
denotes the mere outward appearance (whichwe frequently designate as
“form”), as will be seenalso in its compounds (2Corinthians 11:13-14;1Peter
1:14). The two words are seenin juxtaposition in Romans 12:2; Philippians
3:21 (where see Notes). Hence, in this passage the “being in the form of God,”
describes our Lord’s essential, andtherefore 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. Paul’s earlier Epistles, in which he
carednot “to know anything save Jesus Christ,” and “Him as crucified,” the
main idea is always of our Lord as the mediator betweenman and God, yet in
the later Epistles (as here, and in Ephesians 1:10;Ephesians 1:20-23;
Colossians 1:15-19;Colossians 2:9-11;to which we may add Hebrews 1:2-4)
stress is laid, sometimes (as in Ephesians 1:10), on His gathering all things in
heaven and earth unto Himself; sometimes, evenmore explicitly, on His
partaking of the divine nature, and (as in Colossians 1:17)of His possessing
the divine attribute of creation. All this naturally leads up to the great
declarationof His true and perfect Godheadin John 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 enforcementof the words “being in
the form of God”;secondly, the translation thought it not a prize to be

graspedat to be equal with God, which begins in it the statement of our
Lord’s voluntary self-humiliation, to be completedin the words, “but emptied
Himself of glory.” The former preserves the literal translation of the original
word “robbery;” the latter, in accordancewith a not uncommon usage, makes
it equivalent to “the thing snatchedat,” and if this be allowed, has abundant
examples in other writings to support the meaning thus given to the whole
phrase. Either interpretation yields goodsense and sound doctrine; neither
does violence to the generalcontext. 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 Lord’s humility, and preserves the opposition implied in the “but”
following; (2) because it has the greatpreponderance 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 setno store on that
equality, as a glory to Himself, comparedwith the powerof giving salvationto
all men, which He is pleasedto considera new joy and glory.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary2:5-11 The example of our Lord Jesus
Christ is setbefore us. We must resemble him in his life, if we would have the
benefit of his death. Notice the two natures of Christ; his Divine nature, and
human nature. Who being in the form of God, partaking the Divine nature, as
the eternaland only-begotten Sonof God, Joh 1:1, had not thought it a
robbery to be equal with God, and to receive Divine worship from men. His
human nature; herein he became like us in all things except sin. Thus low, of
his ownwill, he stoopedfrom the glory he had with the Father before the
world was. Christ's two states, of humiliation and exaltation, are noticed.
Christ not only took upon him the likeness andfashion, or form of a man, but
of one in a low state;not appearing in splendour. His whole life was a life of
poverty and suffering. But the loweststepwas his dying the death of the cross,
the death of a malefactorand a slave;exposedto public hatred and scorn. The
exaltation was ofChrist's human nature, in union with the Divine. At the
name of Jesus, not the mere sound of the word, but the authority of Jesus, all
should pay solemn homage. It is to the glory of God the Father, to confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord; for it is his will, that all men should honour the Son as
they honour the Father, Joh5:23. Here we see such motives to self-denying
love as nothing else cansupply. Do we thus love and obey the Son of God?
Barnes'Notes on the BibleWho, being in the form of God - There is scarcely
any passagein the New Testamentwhich has given rise to more discussion
than this. The importance of the passageonthe question of the divinity of the

Saviour will be perceivedat once, and no small part of the point of the appeal
by the apostle depends, as will be seen, in the fact that Paul regardedthe
Redeemeras 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" - μορφή morphē - occurs only in three places in
the New Testament, and in eachplace is rendered "form." Mark 16:12;
Philippians 2:6-7. In Mark it is applied to the form which Jesus assumedafter
his resurrection, and in which he appeared to two of his disciples on his way to
Emmaus. "After that he appearedin 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, especiallya beautiful form, a
beautiful bodily appearance - Passow.In Philippians 2:7, it is applied to the
appearance ofa servant - and took upon him the form of a servant;" that is,
he was in the condition of a servant - or of the lowestcondition. The word
"form" is often applied to the gods by the classicwriters, denoting their
aspector appearance whenthey 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 ἰδέα
εῖδος idea eidos. The word occurs often in the Septuagint:
(1) as the translation of the word ‫ייצ‬- Ziv - "splendour," Daniel 4:33; Daniel
5:6, Daniel 5:9-10;Daniel 7:28;
(2) as the translation of the word ‫תיניּת‬ tabniyth, structure, model, pattern - as
in building, Isaiah44:13;
(3) as the translation of ‫תנונּת‬ temuwnah, appearance, form, shape, image,
likeness, Job4:16;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 Redeemerhad,
his powerto work miracles, etc. - or.
(2) nature, or essence - meaning the same as φύσις phusis, "nature," or ουσία
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 ofthe external marks which indicate a king - as his scepter,
diadem, coatof 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; John 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 correctinterpretation. In support of this interpretation,
and in opposition to that which refers it to his power of working miracles, or
his divine appearance whenon 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 ofmen." Of course, it must have been something which existed when
he had not the likeness ofpeople; that is, before he became incarnate. He must
therefore have had an existence before he appearedon 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 possessedwhichmade it proper to sayof him
that he was "in the form of God," which he laid aside when he appearedin the
form of a servant and in the likeness ofhuman beings. But assuredly that
could not have been his moral qualities, nor is there any conceivable sense in
which it can be saidthat 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 sustainedthe 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 depressedcondition, and not merely that
he appeared to be. Still it may be asked, whatwas 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 satisfactoryanswercanbe given. He

himself speaks John17:5 of "the glory which he had with the Fatherbefore
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
ceasedwhen he became incarnate; that there was some visible splendor and
majesty which was then laid aside. What manifestationof his glory God may
make in the heavenly world, of course, we cannotnow 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 GreatSovereignof the universe - for he
"dwells in light which no map can approachunto;" 1 Timothy 6:16. That
glory, visible manifestation, or splendor, indicating the nature of God, it is
here said that the Lord Jesus possessedbefore his incarnation.
Thought it not robbery to be equal with God - This passage,also, has given
occasionto much discussion. Prof. Stuart renders it: "did not regardhis
equality with God as an objectof solicitous desire;" that is, that though he was
of a divine nature or condition, be did not eagerlyseek to retain his equality
with God, but took on him an humble condition - even that of a servant.
Letters to Channing, pp. 88-92. Thatthis is the correctrendering of the
passageis apparent from the following considerations:
(1) It accords withthe scope and design of the apostle's reasoning. His object
is not to show, as our common translation would seemto imply, that he
aspired to be equal with God, or that he did not regardit as an improper
invasion of the prerogatives ofGod to be equal with him, but that he did not
regard it, in the circumstances ofthe case, as anobjectto greatly desired or
eagerlysoughtto retain his equality with God. Instead of retaining this by an
earnesteffort, 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 betterwith the Greek than the common version. The word
rendered "robbery" - ἁρπαγμος harpagmos - is found nowhere else in the
New Testament, though the verb from which it is derived frequently occurs;
Matthew 11:12; Matthew 13:19;John 6:15; John 10:12, John 10:28-29;Acts
8:29; Acts 23:10; 2 Corinthians 12:2, 2 Corinthians 12:4; 1 Thessalonians
4:17; Jde 1:23; Revelation12:5. 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), andhence something to be eagerlyseizedand
appropriated. Schleusner;compare Storr, Opuscul. Acade. i. 322, 323.
According to this, the meaning of the word here is, something to be seizedand
eagerlysought, 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 dispensedwith. The sense is, "he did not eagerlyseize and tenaciously
hold" as one does who seizes prey or spoil. So Rosenmuller, Schleusner,
Bloomfield, Stuart, and others understand it.
continued...
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary6. Translate, "Who subsisting (or
existing, namely, originally: the Greek is not the simple substantive verb, 'to
be') in the form of God (the divine essenceis not meant: but the external self-
manifesting characteristicsofGod, the form shining forth from His glorious
essence). The divine nature had infinite BEAUTY in itself, even without any
creature contemplating that beauty: that beauty was 'the form of God'; as 'the
form of a servant' (Php 2:7), which is in contrastedoppositionto it, takes for
granted the existence of His human nature, so 'the form of God' takes for
granted His divine nature [Bengel], Compare Joh5:37; 17:5; Col1:15, 'Who
is the IMAGE of the invisible God' at a time before 'every creature,'2Co 4:4,
esteemed(the same Greek verb as in Php 2:3) His being on an equality with
God no (act of) robbery" or self-arrogation;claiming to one's selfwhat does
not belong to him. Ellicott, Wahl, and others have translated, "A thing to be
graspedat," which would require the Greek to be harpagma, whereas
harpagmos means the actof seizing. So harpagmos means in the only other
passagewhere it occurs, Plutarch [On the Education of Children, 120]. The
same insuperable objection lies againstAlford's translation, "He regarded not
as self-enrichment (that is, an opportunity for self-exaltation)His equality
with God." His argument is that the antithesis (Php 2:7) requires it, "He used
His equality with God as an opportunity, not for self-exaltation, but for self-
abasement, or emptying Himself." But the antithesis is not betweenHis being
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 betweenHis being "in the FORM (that is, the outward glorious
self-manifestation)of God," and His "taking on Him the form of a servant,"
whereby He in a greatmeasure emptied Himself of His precedent"form," or
outward self-manifesting glory as God. Not "looking on His own things" (Php
2:4), He, though existing in the form of God, He esteemedit no robbery to be
on an equality with God, yet made Himself of no reputation. "Being on an
equality with God, is not identical with subsisting in the form of God"; 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, "His being," or NATURE, His already existing STATE OF

EQUALITY with God, both the Father and the Son having the same
ESSENCE. A glimpse of Him "in the form of God," previous to His
incarnation, was given to Moses (Ex24:10, 11), Aaron, &c.
Matthew Poole's CommentaryWho, i.e. relative to Christ Jesus, the eternal
Son of God by nature, very God extant with his Father before the beginning,
John 1:1 Galatians 4:4 1 Timothy 3:16 6:14-16 Titus 2:13; the express image
and characterofhis Father’s person, which implies a peculiar subsistence
distinct from the subsistence of his Father, John 8:42 2 Corinthians 4:4
Colossians 1:15 Hebrews 1:3; concerning whom, every word that follows, by
reasonof the Socinians, and some Lutherans, is to be well weighed.
Being; i.e. subsisting, in oppositionto taking or assuming, Philippians 2:7; and
therefore doth firmly prove Christ pro-existing in another nature to his so
doing, namely, his actualexisting of himself in the same essenceand glory he
had from eternity with the Father, John 1:1,2 17:5 2 Corinthians 8:9
Revelation1:4,8,11.
In the form of God; to understand which clearly:
1. The word
form, though it may sometimes note somewhatoutward, and so infer the glory
of Christ’s 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, Mark 16:12, which had
excelling splendour and beauty, giving occasionto conceive majestyin the
person, Matthew 27:2 2 Peter 1:16, (however, his resplendent garments could
not be accountedthe form of God, ) yet being, Luke saith, Luke 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 speaksof noted only an
accidentalform.
2. Whereas the
being or subsisting Paul here speaks of, respects (whatthe best philosophers
in their most usual wayof speaking do)the essentialform, with the glory of it,
since the verbs, in other scriptures of the same origin, signify somewhat
inward and not conspicuous, Romans 12:2 2 Corinthians 3:18 Galatians 4:19;
especiallywhen there is a cogentreasonfor it here, considering the form of
God, in opposition to the form of a servantafterward, and in conjunction with

equality to God, which implies the same essence andnature, Isaiah 40:25 46:5,
it being impossible there should be any proportion or equality betweeninfinite
and finite, eternaland temporal, uncreate and create, by nature God and by
nature not God, Galatians 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 Godby nature, Deu 4:35 6:4
2 Timothy 2:13; who only doeth wondrous things, Psalm72:18: for to all
Divine operations a Divine poweris requisite, which is inseparable from the
most simple essence andits properties.
Being, or subsisting,
in the form of God, imports not Christ’s appearance in exerting of God’s
power, but his real and actualexistence in the Divine essence, notin 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
conceitthe 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 Acts 14:11:so
that subsisting in the form intimates in the nature and essenceofGod, not
barely, but as it were clothed with properties and glory. For the apostle here
treats of Christ’s condescension, proceeding from his actual existence, as the
term wherein he is co-eternaland co-equalto God the Father, before he
abated himself with respectunto us. For he says not the form of God was in
Christ, (howeverthat might be truly said), that the adversaries might not have
occasionto say only there was somewhatin Christ like unto God; but he
speaks ofthat wherein Christ was, viz. in the form of God, and so that form is
predicated of God, as his essenceand 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 Sonto 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, Philippians 2:3
3:7,8 1 Thessalonians 5:13 2 Thessalonians3:15 1 Timothy 1:12 1 Timothy 6:1
Hebrews 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 accountof his being in the form of God, to be
equal to his Father, being a subsistentin the same nature and essencewith

him. From openly showing equal majesty with whom he did not for a time
abstain, in that he could reckonthis robbery, as if such majestywere that
which did not agree to his nature, ever presupposing this inherent right, to his
greatcondescension, orabasing himself, which follows as the term to which:
or, he resolvedfor a time not to show himself in that glory which was his own
right, but freely condescendedto 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 Fatherin power and
glory, John 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 snatchednot, 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
acknowledgedhe had it of the free gift of God, chopping in the adversative
particle, but, where it really is not: whereas we readnot in the sacredtext, 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 Godheadby
usurpation, and to have it by nature. In the former it is, q.d. Christ did not
rob or snatch awaythe 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)sayalso, 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 takenby
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 changethnot, as 1 Samuel 15:29 Isaiah55:8 Malachi3:6.
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. Forif 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 vouchsafedto abase
himself.
To be equal with God; neither is Christ saidto be equal to God only in respect
of his works, (whichyet argue the same cause and principle, John

5:19,21,23,26,27 10:37), but absolutely, he thought it not robbery to be
altogetherequal 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
answerthe masculine singular foregoing, to express the ineffable samenessof
the nature and essenceofthe 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 delegatedpowerfrom God, why should
the Jews have consultedto kill him, for making himself equal with God?
Which with them was all one as to make himself God, John 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, evenas the Father did in his own name, by
his ownpower, of himself, for his own glory: neither will the evangelist’s
saying: The Soncan do nothing of himself, John 5:19, infer an inequality with
the Father, when what he doth is equally perfect in power and glory with the
Father’s, 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 greaterthan the Son, that can only be
understood with respectto the order of their working, if we compare texts,
John 14:28 16:13-15. Neither, when Christ accountedit 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 respectwherein 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,whereinit is his due to
be his equal, and therefore one.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire BibleWho 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 accidentalform, 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 createdbeings nor does it
intend any outward representationand resemblance ofhim, such as in kings;

who, because ofthe honour and dignity they are raisedunto, the authority
and powerthey have, and because ofthe glory and majesty they are arrayed
with, are called gods:nor does it design the state and condition Christ
appearedin 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 Mosesfor doing less miracles is said to be a God
unto Pharaoh;since this accountdoes not regardChrist; as he was on earth in
human nature, but what he was antecedentto the assumption of it; or
otherwise his humility and condescensionin becoming man, and so mean, will
not appear: but this phrase, "the form of God", is to be understood of the
nature and essenceofGod, 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 possessedof 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 essenceofGod; and that there is but one form of God, or
divine nature and essence, commonto 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 cannotbe 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 ofit,
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 creationand providence are ascribedto
him, and the same worship, homage, and honour given him: to be "in the
form of God", and to be "equalwith 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
Satanattempted to do, and as Adam by his instigationalso affected;and so
the mind of a wickedman, 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 reckonedthat 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
assumedthat to himself which did not belong to him: as for the sense which
some put upon the words, that he did not "affect", or"greedilycatch" at
deity; as the phrase will not admit of it, so it is not true in fact; he did affect
deity, and assertedit strongly, and took every proper opportunity of declaring
it, and in express terms affirmed he was the Sonof God; and in terms easyto
be understood declaredhis 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, Mark 14:61 John 5:17. Others give this as
the sense ofthem, that he did not in an ostentatious wayshow 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 ofit; this he did at
certain times, and for certainreasons;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, ordid 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.
Geneva Study BibleWho, 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 ratherto debase himself.
(f) If the Son is equal with the Father, then is there of necessityan equality,
which Arrius that heretic denies: and if the Sonis compared to the Father,
then is there a distinction of persons, which Sabellius that heretic denies.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT CommentaryHYPERLINK "/philippians/2-6.htm"Php 2:6. The
classicalpassagewhichnow follows is like an Epos in calm majestic
objectivity; nor does it lack an epic minuteness of detail.
ὅς] 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 expressionas the λόγος ἄσαρκος, was with God.[92]The human
state is first introduced by the words ἑαυτὸνἐκένωσε in Php 2:7. So
Chrysostomand his successors, Beza, Zanchius, Vatablus, Castalio, Estius,
Clarius, Calixtus, Semler, Storr, Keil, Usteri, Kraussold, Hoelemann, Rilliet,
Corn. Müller, and most expositors, including Lünemann, 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, PersonChr. p. 80 f., Rich. Schmidt, l.c., J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm; comp.
also Hofmann and Düsterdieck, Apolog. Beitr. III. p. 65 ff. It has been
objected(see especiallyde Wette and Philippi, also Beyschlag, 1866,and
Dorner in Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1856, p. 394 f.), that the name Christ Jesus is
opposedto this view; also, that in Php 2:8-11 it is the exaltationof the earthly
Christ that is spokenof (and not the return of the Logos to the divine δόξα);
and that the earthly Christ only could be held up as a pattern. But Χριστὸς
Ἰησοῦς, as subject, is all the more justly used (comp. 2 Corinthians 8:9; 1
Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:14 ff.; 1 Corinthians 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 ὅς the whole summary of the history of our Lord, including His pre-
human state (comp. 2 Corinthians 8:9 : ἐπτώχευσε πλούσιος ὤν); therefore
Php 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 historicalChrist, has at once historically and ethically its deepestroot
in, and derives its highest, because divine (comp. Matthew 5:48; Ephesians
5:1), obligation from, just what is said in Php 2:6 of His state before His
human appearance. Moreover, as the context introduces the incarnation only
at Php 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 atvariance with the text and
illogical, though in harmony with Lutheran orthodoxy and its antagonismto
the Kenosis of the Logos,[94]to regardthe incarnate historical Christ, the
λόγος ἔνσαρκος, as the subject meant by ὅς (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
historicaldetails in Tholuck, p. 2 ff., and J. B. Lightfoot). Liebner aptly
observes that our passageis “the Pauline ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο;” comp. on
Colossians 1:15.
ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων] not to be resolved, as usually, into “although, etc.,”
which could only be done in accordancewith the context, if the ἁρπαγμὸν
ἡγεῖσθαι κ.τ.λ. 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
characterizedChrist’s pre-human form of existence. ThenHe was forsooth,
and that objectively, not merely in God’s self-consciousness—asthe not yet
incarnate Son (Romans 1:3-4; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4), according to John
as λόγος—withGod, in the fellowshipof the glory of God(comp. John 17:5).
It is this divine glory, in which He found Himself as ἴσα Θεῷ ὤν and also
εἰκὼν Θεοῦ—as suchalso the instrument and aim of the creationof the world,
Colossians 1:15 f.—and into which, by means of His exaltation, He again
returned; so that this divine δόξα, as the possessorofwhich 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 possessedby Him, that He may
appear at the παρουσία, not again without it, but in and with it (Php 3:20 f.).
Comp. 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15;Colossians 3:4. Μορφή, therefore,
which is an appropriate concrete expressionforthe divine δόξα (comp. Justin,
Apol. I. 9), as the glory visible at the throne of God, and not a “fanciful
expression” (Ernesti), is neither equivalent to φύσις or οὐσία (Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Chemnitz, and many
others; comp. also Rheinwaldand Corn. Müller); nor to status (Calovius,
Storr, and others); nor is it the godlike capacityfor possible equality with God
(Beyschlag), aninterpretation which ought to have been precluded both by
the literal notion of the word μορφή, and by the contrastof μορφὴ δούλου in
Php 2:7. But the μορφὴ Θεοῦ presupposes[95]the divine φύσις as ὁμόστολος
μορφῆς (Aesch. Suppl. 496), and more preciselydefines the divine status,
namely, as form of being, corresponding to the essence,consequentlyto the
homoousia, and exhibiting the condition, so that μορφὴ Θεοῦ finds its
exhaustive explanation in Hebrews 1:3 : ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ
τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, this, however, being here conceivedas predicated

of the pre-existent Christ. In Plat. Rep. ii. p. 381 C, μορφή 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 : μορφὴνἀμείψας ἐκ
θεοῦ βροτησίαν, Xen. Cyr. i. 2. 2 : φύσιν μὲν δὴ τῆς ψυχῆς κ. τῆς μορφῆς.
What is here called μορφὴ Θεοῦ is εἶδος Θεοῦ in John 5:37 (comp. Plat. Rep.
p. 380 D; Plut. Mor. p. 1013 C), which the Sonalso essentiallypossessedin His
pre-human δόξα (John 17:5). The explanation of φύσις was promoted among
the Fathers by the opposition to Arius and a number of other heretics, as
Chrysostomadduces them in triumph; hence, also, there is much polemical
matter in them. Forthe later controversywith the Socinians, see Calovius.
ὑπάρχων] designating more expresslythan ὤν the relationof the subsisting
state (Php 3:20; Luke 7:25; Luke 16:23;2 Peter3:11); 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 ὅς. Those who
understand it as referring to His human existence (comp. John 1:14) think of
the divine majesty, which Jesus manifestedboth by word and deed
(Ambrosiaster, Luther, Erasmus, Heinrichs, Krause, Opusc. p. 33, and
others), especiallyby His miracles (Grotius, Clericus);while Wetstein and
Michaelis evensuggestthat the transfiguration on the mount is intended. It
would be more in harmony with the context to understand the possessionof
the complete divine image (without arbitrarily limiting this, by preference
possibly, to the moral attributes alone, as de Wette and Schneckenburger
do)—a possessionwhich 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 ἑαυτ. ἐκένωσε κ.τ.λ., and expose them
to the risk of inserting limiting clauses atvariance with the literal import of
the passage;see below.
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸνἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ] In order to the right explanation, it
is to be observed:(1) that the emphasis is placed on ἁρπαγμόν, and therefore
(2) that τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ cannotbe something essentiallydifferent from ἐν
μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, but must in substance denote the same thing, namely,
the divine habitus of Christ, which is expressed, as to its form of appearance,
by ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχ., and, as to its internal nature, by τὸ εἶναι ἴσα
Θεῷ;[96] (3) lastly, that ἁρπαγμός does not mean praeda, or that which is
seizedon (which would be ἁρπάγιμον, Callim. Cer. 9; Pallad, ep. 87;Philop.
79; or ἅρπαγμα or ἅρπασμα, and might also be ἁρπαγή), or that which one
forcibly snatches to himself (Hofmann and older expositors);but actively:

robbing, making booty. In this sense, whichis ὰ 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): καὶ τοὺς μὲν Θήβῃσι καὶ τοὺς Ἠλίδι
φευκτέονἔρωτας καὶ τὸν ἐκ Κρήτης καλούμενονἁρπαγμόν, where it denotes
the Cretankidnapping of children. It is accordinglyto 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 respectto its
exertion of activity, to consistin His seizing what did not belong to Him. In
opposition to Hofmann’s earlierlogicalobjection(Schriftbew. I. p. 149)that
one cannotconsiderthe being as a doing, comp. 1 Timothy 6:5; and see
Hofmann himself, who has now recognisedthe linguistically correct
explanation of ἁρπαγμός, but leaves the objectof the ἉΡΠΆΖΕΙΝ indefinite,
though the latter must necessarilybe something that belongs to others,
consequentlya foreign possession. Nototherwise than in the active sense,
namely raptus, can we explain Cyril, de adorat. I. p. 25 (in Wetstein): οὐχ
ἁρπαγμὸν[98]τὴνπαραίτησινὡς ἔξ ἀδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο
φρενός; further, Eus. in Luc. vi. in Mai’s Nov. Bibl. patr. iv. p. 165, and the
passagein PossiniCat. in Marc. x. 42, p. 233, from the Anonym. Tolos.:ὅτι
οὐκ ἔστιν ἁρπαγμὸς ἡ τιμή;[99] as also the entirely synonymous form
ἁρπασμός in Plut. Mor. p. 644 A, and ληϊσμος in Byzantine writers; also
ΣΚΥΛΕΥΜΌς in Eustathius; comp. Phryn. App. 36, where ἁρπαγμός is
quoted as equivalent to ἍΡΠΑΣΙς. The passageswhichare adduced for
ἍΡΠΑΓΜΑ ἩΓΕῖΣΘΑΙ or ΠΟΙΕῖΣΘΑΊ ΤΙ (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 representthe relation in question as something made a booty of, and not
as the Acts of making booty. We have still to notice (1) that this οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν
ἡγήσατο corresponds exactlyto ΜῊ ΤᾺ ἙΑΥΤῶΝ ΣΚΟΠΟῦΝΤΕς (Php 2:4),
as well as to its contrastἙΑΥΤῸΝ ἘΚΈΝΩΣΕ in Php 2:7 (see on Php 2:7);
and (2) that the aorist ἡγήσατο, indicating a definite point of time,
undoubtedly, according to the connection(see the contrast, ἈΛΛʼ ἙΑΥΤῸΝ
ἘΚΈΝΩΣΕ Κ.Τ.Λ.), 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, powerand dominion,
riches, pleasure, worldly glory,” then He would have actedthe part of
ἁρπαγμὸνἡγεῖσθαι τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ; to which, however, He did not consent,
but consented, onthe contrary, to self-renunciation, etc. It is accordingly self-
evident that the supposed case ofthe ἉΡΠΑΓΜΌς is not conceivedas an

actionof 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, representedas capable, even
in presence of the will of God (see below, γενόμ. ὑπήκοος), althoughthe
apostle has only conceivedit as an abstract possibility and expressedit in an
anthropopathic mode of presentation, is decisive in favour of the personalpre-
existence;but in this pre-existence the Son appears as subordinate to the
Father, as He does throughout the entire New Testament, althoughthis is not
(as Beyschlag objects)atvariance with the Trinitarian equality of essencein
the Biblicalsense. By the ἁρπαγμὸνἡγεῖσθαι κ.τ.λ., if it had taken place, He
would have wished to relieve Himself from this subordination.
The linguistic correctnessand exactapposite correlationof the whole of this
explanation, which harmonizes with 2 Corinthians 8:9,[100]completely
exclude the interpretation, which is traditional but in a linguistic point of view
is quite incapable of proof, that ἉΡΠΑΓΜΌς, either in itself or by metonymy
(in which van Hengelagain appeals quite inappropriately to the analogyof
Jam 1:2, 2 Peter3:15), means praeda or res rapienda. With this interpretation
of ἁρπαγμός, the idea of ΕἾΝΑΙἼΣΑ ΘΕῷ has either been rightly takenas
practically identical with ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, or not. (A) In the former
case, the point of comparison of the figurative praeda has been very
differently defined: either, that Christ regardedthe existence equalwith 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
Wetsteinand J. B. Lightfoot); comp. Beza, Calvin, Estius, and others, who,
however, give to the conceptiona 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 concealit, as a prey (Matthies); or, that He did not desire to display it
triumphantly, as a conquerorhis spoils (Luther, Erasmus, Cameron,
Vatablus, Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, Quenstedt, Wolf, and many others,
including Michaelis, Zachariae, Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Flatt,
Rheinwald);[103] whilst others (Wetsteinthe 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 endeavouredto supply a
modal definition for ἁρπ. ἡγήσ., which is not at all suggestedby the text.—(B)

In the secondcase,in which a distinction is made betweenτὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ
and ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, 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 ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, did not desire to seize to Himself the
εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, to graspeagerlythe possessionofit.[104]In this view
expositors have understood the ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ as the divine plenitudinem et
altitudinem (Bengel);the sessionemad dextram (L. Bos);the divine honour
(Cocceius,Stein, de Wette, Grau); the vitam vitae Deiaequalem (van Hengel);
the existendi modum cum Deo aequalem(Lünemann); 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 ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα in Php 2:9 (Rich. Schmidt); the
nova jura divina, consisting in the κυριότης πάντων (Brückner); the divine
δόξα of universal adoration (Schneckenburger, Lechler, comp. Messner);the
original blessednessofthe Father(Kahnis); indeed, even the identity with the
Father consisting in invisibility (Rilliet), and the like, which is to sustain to the
μορφὴ Θεοῦ the relation of a plus, or something separable, or only to be
obtained at some future time by humiliation and suffering[105](Php 2:9). So,
also, Sabatier, l’ apôtre Paul, 1870, p. 223 ff.[106]In order to meet the ΟὐΧ
ἉΡΠ. ἩΓ. (comparing Matthew 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 takenit to Himself, it would have
been a seizure, an usurpation. But as ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπ. alreadyinvolves the
divine essence,[107]and as ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ has no distinctive more special
definition in any manner climactic (comp. Pfleiderer), Chrysostomhas
estimatedthis whole mode of explanation very justly: εἰ ἦν Θεός, πῶς εἶχεν
ἁρπάσαι;καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἀπερινόητοντοῦτο;τίς γὰρ ἂν εἴποι, ὅτι ὁ δεῖνα
ἄνθρωπος ὤν οὐχ ἥρπασε τὸ εἶναι ἄνθρωπος;πῶς γὰρ ἄν τις ὅπερ ἐστὶν,
ἁρπάσειεν. Moreover, in harmony with the thought and the state of the case,
Paul must have expressedhimself conversely:ὃς ἴσα Θεῷ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπ.
ἠγ. τὸ εἶναι ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, so as to add to the idea of the equality of nature
(ἴσα), by wayof climax, that of the same form of appearance (μορφή), ofthe
divine δόξα also.

With respectto τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, it is to be observed, (1) that ἴσα is adverbial:
in like manner, as we find it, although less frequently, in Attic writers (Thuc.
iii. 14;Eur. Or. 880 al.; comp. ὁμοῖα, Lennep. ad Phalar. 108), and often in the
later Greek, and in the LXX. (Job 5:14; Job10:10
Expositor's Greek TestamentHYPERLINK"/context/philippians/2-
6.htm"Php 2:6-11. In the discussionof this crux interpretum it is impossible,
within our limits, to do more than give a brief outline of the chief legitimate
interpretations, laying specialemphasis on that which we prefer and giving
our reasons. As regards literature, a goodaccountof the older exegesis is
given by Tholuck, Disputatio Christologica, pp. 2–10. Franke (in Meyer5)
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: Räbiger, 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 Conceptionof
Christ, p. 188 ff. It may be useful to note certain cautions which must be
observedif the Apostle’s thought is to be truly grasped. (a) This is not a
discussionin technicaltheology. Paul does not speculate on the greatproblems
of the nature of Christ. The elaborate theories rearedon this passage and
designated“kenotic” wouldprobably have surprised the Apostle. Paul is
dealing with a question of practicalethics, the marvellous condescensionand
unselfishness of Christ, and he brings into view the severalstagesin this
process as facts ofhistory 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 rhetoricalstructure 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. Muchtrouble would be savedif interpreters instead of minutely
investigating the refinements of Greek metaphysics, on the assumption that
they are present here, were to ask themselves, “Whatother terms could the
Apostle have used to express his conceptions?”(c) It is futile to attempt to
make Paul’s thought in this passagefit 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.
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges6. Who]in His pre-existent glory.
We have in this passagea N.T. counterpart to the O.T. revelation of Messiah’s
“coming to do the will of His God” (Psalm 40:6-8, interpreted Hebrews 10:5).
being] The Greek word slightly indicates that He not only “was,”but “already
was,” in a state antecedentto and independent of the actionto be described.
R.V. margin has “Gr. originally being”; but the American Revisers dissent.
in the form of God] The word rendered “form” is morphê. 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 (schêma)rendered “fashion” in Php 2:8 below; where see note.
See notes on Romans 12:2 in this Series for further remarks on the difference
betweenthe two words; and cp. for full discussions, Abp Trench’s Synonyms,
under μορφή, and Bp Lightfoot’s Philippians, detachednote to ch. 2.
Here then our Redeeming Lord is revealedas so subsisting “in the form of
God” that He was whatHe seemed, and seemedwhat He was—God. (See
further, the next note below, and on Php 2:7.) “Though [morphê] is not the
same as [ousia, essence],yet the possessionofthe [morphê] involves
participation in the [ousia] also, for [morphê] implies not the external
accidents [only?] but the essentialattributes” (Lightfoot).
thought] The glorious Personis viewedas (speaking in the forms of human
conception)engagedin an actof reflection and resolve.
robbery] The Greek word occurs only here in the Greek Scriptures, and only
once (in Plutarch, cent. 2) in secularGreek writers. Its form suggests the
meaning of a process oract 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. “Aninvader’s or plunderer’s prize” would thus fairly
representthe 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 Scottrender, “a matter of robbery,” which is
substantially the same;Bp Ellicott, “a thing to be seized on, or graspedat.”—
The context is the best interpreter of the practicalbearing 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 Chrysostomon this passageatlarge); (b) must imply that His
thought about the Equality was one of supremely exemplary kindness towards
us. These conditions are satisfiedby the paraphrase—“He dealtwith 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 sacrificeand 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 possessionto be equal with God, and yet” &c. But the context
and the Greek phraseologyare 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
Personagein view is not anotherand 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 occurnot 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—inany, wayother than direct assertion, as in John 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 Sonis Godonly in a secondaryand inferior sense, but that the
Father is the eternal, true, and necessaryFountain of the eternal, true, and
necessaryGodheadof the Son.—Forthis use of the word God, see e.g. John
1:1; 2 Corinthians 13:14;Hebrews 1:9; Revelation20:6; Revelation22:1.

Bengel's GnomenHYPERLINK"/philippians/2-6.htm"Php 2:6. Ὃς)
inasmuch as being one who.—ἐνμορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, subsisting in the form
of God) The name God, in this and the following clause, does notdenote 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 againit does
not denote the being on an equality with God, but something prior, viz. the
appearance [outwardmanifestation] of God, i.e. the form shining forth from
the very glory of the Invisible Deity, John 1:14. The Divine nature had infinite
beauty in itself, even without any creature contemplating that beauty. That
beauty was the μορφὴ Θεοῦ, form of God, as in man beauty shines forth from
the sound constitution and elegantsymmetry of his body, whether it has or
has not any one to look at it. Man himself is seenby his form; so God and His
glorious Majesty. This passagefurnishes an excellentproof 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 ofthe 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. Moreoverthe form of God is used rather than the form of
the Lord, as presently after on an equality with God: because Godis 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
ceaseto 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 soonas He assumedit, to be on an equality with God, to
adopt a mode of life and outward distinctions, which would correspondto His
dignity, that He might be receivedand treated by all creatures as their Lord;
but He acteddifferently.—οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸνἡγήσατο, He did not regard it a
thing to be eagerlycaughtat as a prey) as a spoil. Those, to whom any
opportunity of sudden advantage is presented, are usually eagerin other cases
to fly upon it and quickly to lay hold of it, without having any respectto
others, and determinately to use and enjoy it. Hence ἁρπαλέα, with
Eustathius, means, τὰ πάνυ περισπούδαστα, the things which a man may with
all eagernesssnatchfor his own use, and may claim as his own: and the
phrases occur, ἅρπαγμα, ἁρπαγμὸν, ἕρμαιον, εὕρημα, νομίζειν, ποεῖσθαι,
ἡγεῖσθαι, ἁρπάζειν. E. Schmidius and G. Raphelius have collectedexamples
from Heliodorus and Polybius. But Christ, though He might have been on an
equality with God, did not snatchat it, did not regardit as spoil.[17]He did

not suddenly use that power; compare Psalm 69:5; Genesis 3:5, etc. This
feeling on His part is at the same time indicated by the verb ἡγεῖσθαι, to
regard, to treat it as. It would not have been robbery (rapina), if He had used
His own right; but He abstainedfrom doing so, just as if it had been robbery.
A similar phrase at 2 Corinthians 11:8, where see the note, may be compared
with it.—τὸ εἶναι ἶσα Θεῷ) ἶσα, the accusative usedadverbially, 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 μορφὴνis put, makes now an emphatic addition [Epitasis]. It is
not therefore wonderful, that He never calledHimself God, rather rarely the
Son of God, generallythe Song of Solomonof man.
[17] Many think rightly, from a passageofPlutarch, quoted by Wetstein, that
ἁρπαγμὸς signifies the actby which anything is greedily seized, and the desire
which leads to it; but that ἀρπάγμα, having a neuter ending, indicates the
objectdesired, the thing seized, the prey. Drusius, in Crit. S.S., Lond., tries to
show that ἁρπαγμὸς, as wellas ἁρπάγμα, though both strictly signifying an
act, may signify the thing which is the objectof the act. Wahl renders
ἁρπαγμὸς, “res cupidè arripienda et necessario usurpanda.” So Neander,
“ConsciousofDivinity, He did not eagerlyretain 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 againstἁρπαγμὸς being takenin 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 Olshausenargues,
ἀλλʼ ἐκένωσεν, may seemto suit better Wahl’s rendering. But ἁρπαγμὸς, 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 evenres
rapienda. As to the antithesis, ἀλλʼ plainly means, And yet: Though having
been in the form of God, etc., yet, etc.—ED.
Pulpit CommentaryVerse 6. - Who, being in the form of God. The word
rendered "being" (ὑπάρχων) means, as R.V. in margin, being originally. It
looks back to the time before the Incarnation, when the Word, the Λόγος
ἄσαρκος, was with God (comp. John 8:58; John 17:5, 24). What does the word
μορφή form, mean here? It occurs twice in this passage - Ver. 6, "form of
God;" and Ver. 7, "form of a servant;" it is contrastedwith σχῆμα fashion, in
Ver. 8. In the Aristotelian philosophy (vide ' De Anima,' 2:1, 2) μορφή. is used
almost in the sense of εϊδος, or τὸ τί η΅ν εϊναι as that which makes a thing to

be what it is, the sum of its essentialattributes: it is the form, as the expression
of those essentialattributes, the permanent, constantform; not the fleeting,
outward σχῆμα, or fashion. St. Paul seems to make a somewhatsimilar
distinction betweenthe two words. Thus in Romans 8:29; Galatians 4:19;2
Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:10, μορφή (or its derivatives) is used of the
deep inner change of heart, the change which is describedin Holy Scripture as
a new creation;while σχῆμα is used of the changeful fashion of the world and
agreementwith it (1 Corinthians 7:31; Romans 12:2). Then, when St. Paul
tells us that Christ Jesus, being first in the form of God, took the form of a
servant, the meaning must be that he possessed originally the essential
attributes of Deity, and assumed in addition the essentialattributes of
humanity. He was perfectGod; he became perfect(comp. Colossians1:15;
Hebrews 1:3; 2 Corinthians 4:4). Fora fuller discussionofthe meanings of
μορφή and σχῆμα, see BishopLightfoot's detached note ('Philippians,' p. 127),
and Archbishop Trench, 'Synonyms of the New Testament,'sect. 70. Thought
it not robbery to be equal with God; R.V. "countedit not a prize [margin, 'a
thing to be grasped']to be on an equality with God." These two renderings
representtwo conflicting interpretations of this difficult passage. Do the
words mean that Christ assertedhis essentialGodhead("thoughtit not
robbery to be equal with God," as A.V.), or that he did not cling to the glory
of the Divine majesty ("counted it not a prize," as R.V.)? Both statements are
true in fact. The grammatical form of the word ἁρπαγμός, whichproperly
implies an action or process, favors the first view, which seems to be adopted
by most of the ancient versions and by most of the Latin Fathers. On the other
hand, the form of the word does not exclude the passive interpretation; many
words of the same termination have a passive meaning, and ἁρπαγμός itselfis
used in the sense ofἅρπαγμα by Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, and a writer in
the 'Catena Possini'on Mark 10:42 (the three passages are quoted by Bishop
Lightfoot, in loco). The Greek Fathers (as ChrysostomὉ τοῦ Θεοῦ υἱὸς οὐκ
ἐφοβήθη καταβῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀξιώματος, etc.)generallyadoptthis
interpretation. And the context seems to require it. The aoristἡγήσατο points
to an act, the act of abnegation;not to a state, the continued assertion. The
conjunction "but" (ἀλλὰ) implies that the two sentencesare opposedto one
another. He did not grasp, but, on the contrary, he emptied himself. The first
interpretation involves the tacit insertion of "nevertheless;" he assertedhis
equality, but nevertheless, etc. And the whole stress is laid on the Lord's
humility and unselfishness. It is true that this secondinterpretation does not
so distinctly assertthe divinity of our Lord, already sufficiently assertedin the
first clause, "being in the form of God." But it implies it. Not to graspat
equality with God would not be an instance of humility, but merely the

absence ofmad impiety, in one who was not himself Divine. On the whole,
then, we prefer the secondinterpretation. Though he was born the beginning
in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God as a thing to be
grasped, a prize to be tenaciouslyretained. Not so goodis the view of Meyer
and others:"Jesus Christ, when he found himself in the heavenly mode of
existence ofDivine glory, did not permit himself the thought of using his
equality with God for the purpose of seizing possessions and honor for himself
on earth." The R.V. rendering of the lastwords of the clause,"to be on an
equality," is nearer to the Greek and better than the A.V., "to be equal with
God." Christ was equal with God (John 5:18; John 10:30). He did not cling to
the outward manifestationof that equality. The adverbial form ἴσα implies the
state or mode of equality rather than the equality itself.
Vincent's Word StudiesBeing in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων)
Being. Not the simple είναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from
the beginning. See on James 2:15. It has a backwardlook 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 characterofthe being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently
identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα
fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses andwhich is changeable.
Μορφή form is identified with the essenceofa person or thing: σχῆμα fashion
is an accidentwhich 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 essentialbeing of God expresses itself. We have no word which canconvey
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 expressionofa
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 essentiallyone with God. The
expressionof deity through human nature (Philippians 2:7) thus has its
backgroundin the expressionof deity as deity in the eternal ages ofGod's
being. Whateverthe 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 necessarilyimplying it, canbe parted with or laid aside. Since Christ is
one with God, and therefore pure being, absolute existence, He canexist
without the form. This form of God Christ laid aside in His incarnation.
Thought it not robbery to be equal with God (οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸνἡγήσατο 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 statementis
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 assertedequality: 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 assertionofdivine dignity, but
relinquished it. The antithesis is thus entirely destroyed.
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 regardHis divine equality as a prize
which was to be graspedat 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 passageis upon Christ's humiliation. The fact of His equality
with God is statedas a background, in order to throw the circumstances of
His incarnation into stronger relief. Hence the peculiar form of Paul's
statementChrist's great objectwas 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 savedHe did not graspat this. The rather He counted humanity His prize,
and so laid aside the conditions of His preexistent state, and became man.
Jesus: Equal With God
John Piper
• /authors/john-Scripture: John 5:1–24 Topic: The Deity of Christ
I see at least three main things going on in John 5:1-24. One of these three main things we saw
the last time we looked at the text, namely, the healing of this man at the pool of Bethesda, and
Jesus’ statement that the point of the healing was not to gratify sign-seekers but to conquer sin.
1) A Healing to Conquer Sin
l "
So in verses 8–9, “Jesus said to him, ‘Get up, take up your bed, and walk.’ And at once the man
was healed, and he took up his bed and walked.” Jesus gets away so quickly to avoid excessive
focus on the miracle that the man doesn’t even know who healed him when the authorities
question him about carrying his bed on the Sabbath. Verse 13: “Now the man who had been
healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place.”
So we wonder: Is this a random miracle that Jesus did and then escaped without anyone even
knowing who he was or why he did it? The answer comes in verse 14: “Afterward Jesus found
him in the temple and said to him, ‘See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may
happen to you.’” In other words: I have sought you out to tell you the point of what I did to you.
I healed your body with the aim that it would lead to the healing of your soul. I conquered your
sickness with a view to conquering your sin. I healed you for the sake of your holiness.

Jesus’ Miracles: Not an End in Themselves
l "
None of the physical miracles of Jesus was an end in itself. They all point to something more
about him and about the kingdom of God and about the spiritual and moral transformations that
he is working. When he fed the five thousand from a few loaves and fish, the point was that he
himself is the true bread from heaven. But in John 6:26, he had to say to the crowd, “Truly, truly,
I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the
loaves” (John 6:26). You missed the spiritual sign-character of the miracle; you only saw the
physical shell.
So he is saying to the healed man now in John 5, “Don’t miss what your healing was a sign of.”
Your healing was about your holiness. I have come for that. So look to me and turn from sin.
That’s one of the three main things that are going on in this text. And we will come back to it at
the end.
The other two main things have to do with the way the Father and the Son are related, and the
fact that this miracle of healing was done on the Sabbath. So let’s take those one at a time and
see how they are related to each other and how they relate to the healing and its aim in the man’s
holiness.
2) Jesus’ Relationship to the Father
l "
A dominant theme in this passage is the way Jesus relates to God the Father. Verse 16 says that
the Jews were persecuting Jesus because he had healed this man on the Sabbath: “And this was
why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.”
So Jesus responded with an explanation in verse 17: “But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is
working until now, and I am working.’” Leave aside the question of the Sabbath for a moment
and simply focus on the relationship of Jesus to God. This is what the Jews did, and it elevated
their persecution to plan to kill. Here is what they heard Jesus say about his relationship to God.
Verse 18: “This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he
breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with
God.”
Jesus Let It Stand
l "
Now what is crucial to see here is not why they would draw that conclusion, but that Jesus let it
stand. They were there. We weren’t. They could see and hear the way he spoke about God as his
Father. And evidently there were sufficient indications in what he said and the way he said it that
they thought, This is over the top. This man really is treating himself as equal with God in the
way he talks about God.
Jesus lets it stand and begins to unpack its implications. He says that 1) the Son doesn’t—indeed
the Son can’t—go his own way but stays in perfect step with the Father; and 2) the Father

doesn’t go his own way but acts in perfect step with the Son. 3) Then he gives two implications
of this for us. Take these one at a time.
Jesus Does Only What the Father Does
l "
First, the Son only does what the Father does. They act in perfect synchronization. Verses 19–20:
“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but
only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For
the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing.”
The most important statement in those verses is the second half of verse 19: “Whatever the
Father does, that the Son does likewise.” This is different from saying: Jesus chooses some
things to do that he sees the Father doing and so only does what the Father is doing. It says,
“Whatever the Father does,” Jesus does. When the Father acts, Jesus acts. This is the sort of thing
the Jews heard Jesus say. And they concluded rightly: You talk like you’re equal with him. You
talk as if for him to act is for you to act—as if there is some kind of essential connection or
union.
The Father Acts in Step with Jesus
l "
Second, in verse 22 it seems to go the other direction, that the Father acts in step with the Son.
Verse 22: “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.” Now when you
read this, you can’t throw away everything you just read in verse 19 as though it suddenly
stopped being true. Verse 19 says, “The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he
sees the Father doing.” So when verse 22 says, “The Father judges no one, but has given all
judgment to the Son,” it can’t mean the Son doesn’t see the Father judging but goes ahead and
judges anyway. And John 3:36 says clearly that if you don’t believe in Jesus, “the wrath of God
remains on him.” That is, God does judge.
So I take verse 22 to mean: “The Father judges no one [on his own].” The Father doesn’t go off
on his own, without any reference to the Son, and judge the world. He judges no one like that.
Another thing verse 22 seems to mean is that the Son, not the Father, is the frontline, historical
criterion of who comes into judgment. That’s the point of verse 23: “Whoever does not honor the
Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” In other words, whether God is dishonored with
the effect that judgment falls is determined by the frontline, historical person of Jesus. If people
honor him for who he really is, then God the Father is honored for who he really is. So in that
sense, all judgment is given to the Son. What people make of him decides their final judgment.
But that’s because what they make of him is what they make of God.
So it seems to me that the part of verse 22 (“The Father judges no one, but has given all
judgment to the Son”) means the Father is not the frontline, historical criterion of judgment, but
is in perfect step with the Son’s judgment because the one who does not honor the Son does not
honor the Father.

Two Implications
l "
I said that there were two implications for us from the fact that the Son stays in perfect step with
the Father, and the Father acts in perfect step with the Son. One of them we just saw. In the
twenty-first century world of teeming pluralism, with religions and worldviews and cultures and
lifestyles competing for our allegiance, verse 23 lands like a bombshell: “Whoever does not
honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.”
In other words, if you want to know if someone in another religion, or no religion, honors God
(has a true worshipful relationship with God), the test that you use to know this is: Do they honor
Jesus for who he really is—as the divine Son of God, the Messiah, the crucified and risen Savior
of the world, the Lord of the universe and Judge of all human beings? If they don’t, then they
don’t honor God. That’s the first implication.
The second is in verse 24: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him
who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.”
If we hear the message of Jesus in the Gospel of John taken in its totality—not just some
distorted part of it—and, if through that message and that person, we come to trust God as the
one who sent him for our salvation, two amazing things happen.
1) We not only will have eternal life, but we already have it, and 2) we not only will not come
into the judgment of condemnation, but have already passed through judgment and are safe on
the other side. Jesus has become that judgment for us. When we are united to him by faith, his
death becomes our death, and his crucifixion our crucifixion, and his curse on the cross our curse
on the cross, and his resurrection our resurrection. We have already “passed from death to life”!
This is glorious news beyond all words. Exult in this. Know this about yourself as a believer. Be
made radically courageous by this.
So the first main issue in this text is the man’s healing and its purpose to lead the man to
holiness. And the second main issue in this text is the way the Father and the Son are equal so
that when one is acting the other is acting—with the two implications that if we don’t honor the
Son, we don’t honor the Father, and if we believe on the Father through the word of Jesus, we
have already passed from death to life and are on the other side of condemnation.
3) The Issue of the Sabbath
l "
That leaves one more main issue in the text to deal with—the issue of the Sabbath. Now, in what
we have seen about Jesus’ relation to the Father, we have the foundation to make sense of Jesus’
answer to their criticism. Remember that verse 16 says, “And this was why the Jews were
persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things—namely, this healing—on the Sabbath.”
Now what is Jesus’ explanation? He had given an explanation to the healed man for why he was
healed—namely, this is about the pursuit of your holiness. I conquer sickness to show you that I
want to conquer sin. And now he has an explanation for the Jewish leaders who are criticizing
the fact that this happened on the Sabbath. He says in verse 17, “My Father is working until now,
and I am working.”

What Is Jesus Saying?
l "
What’s he saying? I think something like this. My Father and I created a perfect world, a
paradise, and then we rested, not that we were tired, but stepped back as it were and enjoy the
perfect display of our own glory revealed in our creative handiwork. That’s what Sabbath is
for—the restful, focused, enjoyment of God.
But then sin entered the world, and through sin came sickness and calamity and death. And from
that moment, my Father and I have been working again. We have been working—in many ways
that you don’t understand—to restore a Sabbath paradise to the universe. We have been working
to overcome sin and sickness and death.
Even your own law, which contains the Sabbath command, was part of our working to conquer
sin and hold back the miseries of unrighteousness and point you forward to a Messiah, a Savior,
who would come and perform the decisive acts of restoration and transformation toward the new
heavens and the new earth.
When I heal a man, and intentionally do it on the Sabbath, I am showing you something about
myself. What was happening at the pool of Bethesda was that my Father and I were revealing the
world that is coming. It is a world in which there will be no sickness and a world in which there
will be no sin. “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Repent and Rejoice
l "
“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his
judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Romans 11:33). Whether you see it or not, here is my
response to your accusations about my Sabbath-breaking:
I and the Father are one. We created the world and the Sabbath. Since sin and sickness
entered the world, my Father has been working, and I have been working, to restore
Sabbath joy and wholeness and rest to the world. That is what I am doing here and now
in the months that remain to me on the earth. I will deliver the decisive victory at the
cross. And I will come again to complete my redeeming work. And in that kingdom,
there will be no sickness, and there will be no sin. Therefore, repent, and rejoice that a
man has been saved from both on the Sabbath. Amen.
PRECEPT AUSTIN RESOURCES
BRUCE HURT MD
Philippians 2:6 who, although He existedin the form of God, did not regard equality with
God a thing to be grasped (NASB: Lockman)

Greek: tos en morphe theou huparchon (PAPMSN) ouch harpagmon hegesato (3SAMI)
to einai (PAN) isa theo
Amplified: Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God
[possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this
equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained (Amplified Bible -
Lockman)
KJV: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Barclay: for he was by nature in the very form of God, yet he did not regard existence in
equality with God as something to be snatched at (Philippians 2 Commentary)
Lightfoot: Though existing before the worlds in the Eternal Godhead, yet he did not
cling with avidity to the prerogatives of divine majesty, did not ambitiously display his
equality with God
Phillips: For he, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to his prerogatives as
God's equal, (Phillips: Touchstone)
Wuest: Who has always been and at present continues to subsist in that mode of being in
which He gives outward expression of His essential nature, that of Deity, and who did not
after weighing the facts, consider it a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards,
to be equal with Deity (in the expression of the divine essence)
Wycliffe: "Though in His pre-incarnate state he possessed the essential qualities of God,
he did not consider his status of divine equality a prize to be selfishly hoarded"
Young's Literal: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to
God,
WHO ALTHOUGH H E EXISTED IN THE FORM OF GOD: hos en morphe theou
huparchon (PAPMSN):
• Isa 7:14; 8:8; 9:6; Jer 23:6; Mic 5:2; Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1, 1:2, 1:18 ; 17:5; Ro 9:5; 2Co 4:4;
Col 1:15;1:16 1Ti1:17; 3:16; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:1, 1:3 1:6 1:8; Heb 13:8
• See Torrey's Topic The Humility of Christ)
/files/images/christeternity.jpg
/files/images/christeternity.jpg
Click to Enlarge
Irving Jensen - Surveyofthe NT- Used by permission
Now Paul proceeds to describe the humiliation of the Son so that we might understand what it
means to “Have the mind of Christ.” He begins by emphasizing that Jesus Christ possessed the
essence of God's nature from all eternity.
John wrote that before time began, Christ was already in existence with God "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, 2, 3)
Paul affirms His divinity writing that Jesus 'is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all
creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created by

Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Col 1:15, 16-
note; Col 1:17-note)
The writer of Hebrews adds that Jesus "is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation
of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification
of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb 1:3-note)
Wuest paraphrases Phil 2:6 this way "Who has always been and at present continues to subsist in
that mode of being in which He gives outward expression of His essential nature, that of Deity,
and who did not after weighing the facts, consider it a treasure to be clutched and retained at all
hazards, to be equal with Deity (in the expression of the divine essence) (Philippians
Commentary - Verse by Verse Comments Online)
Lightfoot has a lengthy "paraphrase" writing that "Though existing before the worlds in the
Eternal Godhead, yet he did not cling with avidity to the prerogatives of divine majesty, did not
ambitiously display his equality with God; but divested himself of the glories of heaven, and
took upon him the nature of a servant, assuming the likeness of men. Nor was this all. Having
thus appeared among men in the fashion of a man, he humbled himself yet more, and carried out
his obedience even to dying. Nor did he die by a common death: he was crucified, as the lowest
malefactor is crucified. But as was his humility, so also was his exaltation. God raised him to a
preeminent height, and gave him a title and a dignity far above all dignities and titles else. For to
the name and majesty of Jesus all created things in heaven and earth and hell shall pay homage
on bended knee; and every tongue with praise and thanksgiving shall declare that Jesus Christ is
Lord, and in and for him shall glorify God the Father "
David Jeremiah - If anyone had the right to be self-centered, it was Jesus Christ. He had existed
throughout eternity. The word used here for “being” (existed) occurs fifty-nine times in the New
Testament, and every time it has reference to prior existence. If we are to understand the
greatness of Christ’s sacrifice, we must try to comprehend the lofty position He held before He
was made man. Not only had Christ existed eternally, but He had existed eternally as God.
(Count it All Joy)
Notice Paul does not say that Jesus “came to exist” or “entered into existence.” He has always
existed as God!
Existed (5225) (huparcho from hupó = under + árcho = begin or arche = beginning) means
literally to begin under and then to exist, be present or be at hand. It denotes the continuance of a
previous state or existence. To live, to behave or to continue to be. To be in existence. Vine says
huparcho means to be in existence and in a secondary sense to belong to with the article
signifying one's possessions (the things which one possesses, which exist so to speak). BDAG
saays "the basic idea: come into being fr. an originating point and so take place; gener. 'inhere,
be there'" Huparcho involves continuing to be that which one was before (cf translated as
"being" and "exist"). Huparcho denotes the continuance of a previous state or existence. It
stresses the essence of a person’s nature, that which is absolutely unalterable, inalienable, and
unchangeable. There is another sense (see note below) meaning to be at one's disposal
(possessions, property; means, resources). Our "citizenship is (huparcho in present tense =
continually exists) in heaven" = it is a present reality! Hallelujah!
Mounce says huparcho "is a multifaceted term ranging in meaning from the verb “to be” (see
be), to being used as the noun for “possessions” (i.e., to describe things being at one’s disposal;
see possess, possessions), to being translated as “exist.” In Lk 7:25, Jesus says that those wearing

JESUS' EQUALITY WITH GOD

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to JESUS' EQUALITY WITH GOD

Similar to JESUS' EQUALITY WITH GOD (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

JESUS' EQUALITY WITH GOD