In Philippians 2:6, did Jesus not consider seizing equality with God, or did he not consider clutching his being like a god?

Question

Philippians 2:5-7 ESV

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Paul appears to be saying that though Jesus was in the form of God (as a god, an angelic son of God in God's image), he did not consider seizing equality with God (like Satan), but emptied himself in humility.

The Greek word ἁρπαγμὸν (harpagmon) appears to be the decisive factor. It means to rapidly seize or aggressively steal something.

What do you think?

Answer 1

Starting at vs6 of Philippians 2. "who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." I use the NASB and it uses the word "although" and I understand it is not in the Greek.

The following is what Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson said about the verse.

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

Vs7, "but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." Jesus Christ, who already existed in the form of God, or as God, took on another form, that of a man.

So what did He empty Himself of? It was not His deity or attributes. He emptied Himself of the "expression" of deity, not the possession of deity. Or to put it another way. He did not "cling" to the prerogatives of deity He already had.

When He became flesh His deity was veiled or concealed. Hebrews 10:19-20, "Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, vs20, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the "veil," that is His flesh."

Vs8, "And being found in APPEARANCE as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

So what is the result of God becoming a man in the person of Jesus Christ? Vs9, "Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, vs10, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.

Vs11, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

In closing you said, "Paul appears to be saying that though Jesus was in the form of God (as a god, an angelic son of God in God's image), he did not consider seizing equality with God (like Satan), but emptied himself in humility."

You want to know what I think? From Philippians 2:6-11, where did you get the idea that Jesus Christ "was a god or an angelic son of God."

Answer 2

The entire logic of the sentence goes that although He was equal to God (He did not consider it as robbery ἁρπαγμόν, that is to say, as something that did not belong to Him and snatched by Him illegitimately, like Satan did /Isaiah 14:14/), however He humbled Himself and having been in the "form of God" became in the "form of man", and since even the Arians on steroids will not deny that "in the form of man" here means 100% man, so, in virtue of parallelism contained in this sentence one must also necessarily assume that "in the form of God" means 100% God, and exactly this is said in the opening sentence that He did not consider it as robbery, as a thing stolen and not belonging to Him properly, which is, His equality to God.

Answer 3

I interpret ἁρπαγμὸν in the sense of "a thing to be jealously held on to". Jesus already had equality with God - being in the form of God - but was willing to relinquish it.

Answer 4

"Though he was in the form of a god, he did not consider his being like a god something to be clutched, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being made in the likeness of men."

An anarthrous genitive construction:

This technical note reveals the genitive construction with a preposition en morphēi theou (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ) in Philippians 2:6. The following summary is based on Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (1996).

A noun in Greek without the article (that is, an anarthrous noun) may be indefinite (“a woman,” “a house”) or qualitative (“life,” “love”), but under certain conditions definite nouns (“the woman,” “the house”) may also lack the article (244-45).

One of those conditions is if the noun is the object of a preposition, so if we just had en morphēi, for example, morphē could be either definite or indefinite (“in the form” or “in a form”), and we would have to rely on the context to resolve the ambiguity (247). As it is, the definiteness or otherwise of morphēi is determined by its relation to theou, as we shall see.

In the case of genitive constructions such as morphē theou, Apollonius’ canon applies (250-54), though by no means without exceptions: the two nouns either both have or do not have the definite article, and there is little semantic difference between the two. There is a corollary to this rule which says that when both nouns are anarthrous (as in the present instance), they will usually have the same semantic force: both will be definite, or both will be qualitative, or both will be indefinite.

None of these considerations—I think I can say with some confidence—precludes my translation. As far as the syntax goes, we could translate either “in the form of the god,” which in context would probably have to be the God of Israel since no other god has been mentioned, or “in the form of a god”—or perhaps qualitatively “in the form of divinity.”

The thrust of the syntactical discussion, in other words, is not that the anarthrous theou must be definite but that it may be definite.

But my contention is that morphē does not allow a reference to the one God of Jewish belief because it invariably denotes the outward appearance of a person or object. Andrew Perriman deals with the many attempts to rescue the traditional view, or something like it, at considerable length in In the Form of a God: The Pre-existence of the Exalted Christ in Paul.

The corollary to Apollonius’ canon was developed on the basis of studies of the New Testament literature, and the only other genitive construction with an indefinite theou I could find is in the acclamation of Herod, “The voice of a god (theou phōnē) and not of a man!” (Acts 12:22). In English “the voice of a god” is a natural translation: no particular god is specified, but it is the voice of that indefinite “god” that is intended. A similar New Testament exception to the corollary would be “the face of an angel” (prosōpon angelou) in Acts 6:15.

But it is hardly a peculiar idea, and other examples of the anarthrous genitive construction with an indefinite theou may be cited.

• In the Septuagint: “voice of a god” (phōnēn theou) (Deuteronomy. 4:33), “habitation of a god” (katoikian theou) (Ezekiel. 28:2), “heart of a god” (kardian theou) (Ezekiel. 28:2, 6).
• In the Lexicon of Photius, the word theeidestaton (“most godlike”) is defined “possessing the outward appearance of a god (theou idean)” (D42 [B48] Photius, Lexicon).
• We have reference to a person who “did not wear a ring with the image of a god (theou sēmeion)” (Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana, Testimonia 256).
• Nestor says to Telemachus: “Tell me…, do the people throughout the land hate you, following the voice of a god (theou omphēi)?” (Homer, Odyssey 3.214-15; cf. 16:96).
• Dio Chrysostom says that the Sibyl “obtained as her prerogative the voice of a god (theou phōnēn)” (Discourse 37 13).
• In a polemic against idolatry, Josephus says that people have transformed base passions into “the nature and form of a god” (theou physin kai morphēn) (Ag. Ap. 2:248).

"Being in the form of a god” presupposes theologically just this sort of background. Jesus pre-existed his human incarnation appearing godlike being the Chief Angel of God's Presence as the Son of the God of Israel.

Answer 5

Philippians 2:5-7 provides no evidence to imply Jesus is equal (the passage actually says he is not equal) or God.

There is no evidence from the OT for Paul to provide such a passages, noting that there were no other scriptures other than the OT from which Paul could form any argument. There was no NT or unknow scriptures related to Jesus other than the OT.

There is nothing in the OT that God would come down as a human, or die for our sins etc…, quite the contrary.

Philippians 2:8-9 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore, God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,

If the implication is that Jesus was God the above passage than provides numerous obstacles;

1. Is God mortal or did he die? 1 Timothy 6:16 - Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
2. Humbled himself to death – did he? Why pray to be saved if he is humbling himself to death. Did God Jesus not know why he has come down, but Paul did?
3. If he is God how can he then be exalted?
4. Highest place – did God Jesus not already have the highest place?
5. Above every name – is being God not sufficient to be above every name already?

The problem is as with much of the bible it’s the teachings of Paul not Jesus. Take Paul away from the material source and you have the ONE God – the message preached throughout history by all the prophets.

The early Christians such as the Ebionites were not trinitarians, this all came about after emperor Constatine and the Greek gods influence and everyone was forced to believe in Jesus being God (Council of Nicea 325CE).

For more see:

God is not a man: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/77892/33268 Is Jesus equal to God: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/69382/33268

Answer 6

The OP offers one side of the discussion (actually, many discussions) around the polysemous word, ἁρπαγμός. It is well understood to have two meanings. It's commonly known verbs can have active and passive senses. However, some nouns can exhibit these two senses, too. The lexical semantics of the word ἁρπαγμός define it as being one such word.

1. To rapidly seize (as the OP has noted) [active sense]
2. To tenaciously hold on to [passive sense]

With a little thought, one can see the strong relationship between these two meanings; but, one is active, the other passive.

Now, that highlights the problem. One can't resolve the Trinitarian question by a focus on a lexical solution. The word has two meanings. So, how does one resolve that?

First an illustration.

A house has a structure. That is, the elements within the structure have relationships with the house and with each other. The larger house structure defines the structure of the smaller rooms within it. If the bathroom door opens into the den, that door can't also open into the kitchen. Those rooms, in turn, define the structure and constrain the relationships between the elements within each room, that is, the furniture. And so on. The toilet paper is next to the toilet, it's not on the shelf in the living room. Just like form and function work together, so the detailed elements within a larger structure work together. Coherency rules.

Texts work the same way. While one could actually make "toilet paper on a living room shelf" work (with a little planning), no one would opt for such a complex solution. Simpler solutions (aka Occam's Razor) provide the sensible, rational results. The elements of a text work just like toilet paper placement. It's much more coherent to relate the toilet paper to the larger elements via a defined relationship to the toilet. To make this obvious, no one who sees a roll of toilet paper on the living room shelf would immediately think that means to be used in the bathroom. The toilet paper on the shelf has different meaning than the toilet paper next to the toilet. The relationship defines.

In other words, to resolve a lexical problem (toilet paper placement), you examine the large semantic elements (the function of the rooms). One can't just examine the toilet paper. Consideration must be given to the cohesive properties of the larger structures.

Now, with that illustration and metaphor in mind:

Philippians 2:6-11 is a well known poem, structured as a chiasmus. Anyone can see this quite easily since the semantic content of the poem starts and ends with exalted elements and the center is highly debased. In fact the exact center is the genitive phrase, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ ("a cross kind of death"). From beginning to middle and middle to end there's a staircase leading down and then one leading back up. The chiastic structure is clearly there.

This structure fixes in place certain details and, more importantly, cohesive relationships between those details. The center is prominent and the beginning and end directly relate to each other. This forces certain semantic correlations. These correlates constrain interpretation of the respective elements. Just like the toilet paper is next to the toilet, the architect of the text has placed the crucifixion in the focused middle, and has placed the exaltation at the beginning and the end. This is very standard, typical chiastic form: A relates to A', B to B', and so on. See this page for more information about chiasma.

So, let's make the OP's assumption: Jesus is a god (a demigod of some sort). This assumption presents an immediate conflict within the poem because of the structure of the poem.

There are two expressions used in the second half of the poem:

bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

This is the name above every name. What name is that? Or, more importantly, whose name is that. In ancient cultures (as opposed to our modern one), name identified the person. That is, it brought to the forefront the who that person is. It wasn't just a label on the front of their shirt. In this case, this person is identified as a person who is above every other person. There is only one person who is that. God. The only other possibility is the logical contradiction of a person being above God. That person, by definition, would be God.

Question then: How does this relate to the demigod at the beginning of the poem?

Next:

so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

And the poem, lest the point be misunderstood, goes even further to reinforce the extent of this exaltation. Every knee will bow! How is the set of persons defined who bow? Is it just human beings? No! The set is composed of every single being, without exception, that was (and is, and will be) ever created--"of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth." If the being has knees, that being bows in worship. No exceptions.

And the text is very explicit, re-announcing that this person is Jesus. There's no doubt left by the text as to who is being referred to.

Question then: How does this relate to the demigod at the beginning of the poem?

I see only three answers.

1. One has to admit that the demigod announced at the beginning of the poem has now, at the end of the poem, been exalted into the position of being the one and only God. This alternative is more difficult to explain than the Trinitarian position. It's some kind of diastatic transcendence. One is going to have to go to a lot of effort to explain this new theological doctrine.
2. One has to become a pantheist. If the exalted person is to be worshiped as a God, and there is already a God (the Father), then one must now accept that there is now an additional God. And this must not be a demigod, but an actual God. Pantheism is the only alternative. In this case one has ironically forfeited one's non-trinitarian position for pantheism (non-trinitarianism being an extremely strong form of monotheism).

And the third:

A better explanation is that this exaltation mirrors the beginning of the poem. Jesus let go of the "form of God." That is, he let go of that which makes God transcendent as God. He transcended his transcendence and became immanent. This immanence is then transformed back into transcendence in the glorification of Christ.

The form of God, mentioned at the beginning of the poem, that is, the transcendence of God, is mirrored in the poem by its opening and closing statements. How? In typical chiastic form:

He already existed in the form of God

mirrors

the glory of God the Father.

'Form' and 'glory', while certainly not synonymous, share a common lexical component of 'visibility'. The transcendence, in order to make it graspable, is described as 'form'. How else could one label it? And so, it is let go. The end result, after the crucifixion, is to exalt back into the transcendence of God and into full glory.

So, the problem, presented by the structure of the text, is that if one makes the OP's assumption, and if one wants to remain a monotheist, then one also has to explain how Jesus became God.

The text is written to constrain to only one solution.