Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 2:6 - 2:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_2:6. The classical passage which now follows is like an Epos in calm majestic objectivity; nor does it lack an epic minuteness of detail.
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 expression as the λόγος ἄσαρκος , was with God.[92] The human state is first introduced by the words ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε in Php_2:7. So Chrysostom and 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, Person Chr. 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 especially de Wette and Philippi, also Beyschlag, 1866, and Dorner in Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1856, p. 394 f.), that the name Christ Jesus is opposed to this view; also, that in Php_2:8-11 it is the exaltation of the earthly Christ that is spoken of (and not the return of the Logos to the divine 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. 2Co_8:9; 1Co_8:6; Col_1:14 ff.; 1Co_10:4), since the subject not of the pre-human glory alone, but at the same time also of the human abasement[93] and of the subsequent exaltation, was to be named. Paul joins on to ὅς the whole summary of the history of our Lord, including His pre-human state (comp. 2Co_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 historical Christ, has at once historically and ethically its deepest root in, and derives its highest, because divine (comp. Mat_5:48; Eph_5:1), obligation from, just what is said in 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 at variance with the text and illogical, though in harmony with Lutheran orthodoxy and its antagonism to the Kenosis of the Logos,[94] to regard the incarnate historical Christ, the 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 historical details in Tholuck, p. 2 ff., and J. B. Lightfoot). Liebner aptly observes that our passage is “the Pauline ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο ;” comp. on Col_1:15.
ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων ] not to be resolved, as usually, into “although, etc.,” which could only be done in accordance with 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 characterized Christ’s pre-human form of existence. Then He was forsooth, and that objectively, not merely in God’s self-consciousness—as the not yet incarnate Son (Rom_1:3-4; Rom_8:3; Gal_4:4), according to John as λόγος —with God, in the fellowship of the glory of God (comp. Joh_17:5). It is this divine glory, in which He found Himself as ἴσα Θεῷ ὤν and also εἰκὼν Θεοῦ —as such also the instrument and aim of the creation of the world, Col_1:15 f.—and into which, by means of His exaltation, He again returned; so that this divine δόξα , as the possessor of which before the incarnation He had, without a body and invisible to the eye of man (comp. Philo, de Somn. I. p. 655), the form of God, is now by means of His glorified body and His divine-human perfection visibly possessed by Him, that He may appear at the παρουσία , not again without it, but in and with it (Php_3:20 f.). Comp. 2Co_4:4; Col_1:15; Col_3:4. Μορφή , therefore, which is an appropriate concrete expression for the 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 Rheinwald and Corn. Müller); nor to status (Calovius, Storr, and others); nor is it the godlike capacity for possible equality with God (Beyschlag), an interpretation which ought to have been precluded both by the literal notion of the word μορφή , and by the contrast of μορφὴ δούλου in Php_2:7. But the μορφὴ Θεοῦ presupposes[95] the divine φύσις as ὁμόστολος μορφῆς (Aesch. Suppl. 496), and more precisely defines the divine status, namely, as form of being, corresponding to the essence, consequently to the homoousia, and exhibiting the condition, so that μορφὴ Θεοῦ finds its exhaustive explanation in Heb_1:3 : ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης κ . χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ , this, however, being here conceived as 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 : μορφὴν ἀμείψας 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 Joh_5:37 (comp. Plat. Rep. p. 380 D; Plut. Mor. p. 1013 C), which the Son also essentially possessed in His pre-human δόξα (Joh_17:5). The explanation of φύσις was promoted among the Fathers by the opposition to Arius and a number of other heretics, as Chrysostom adduces them in triumph; hence, also, there is much polemical matter in them. For the later controversy with the Socinians, see Calovius.
ὑπάρχων ] designating more expressly than ὤν the relation of the subsisting state (Php_3:20; Luk_7:25; Luk_16:23; 2Pe_3:11); and hence not at all merely in the decree of God, or in the divine self-consciousness (Schenkel). The time is that of the pre-human existence. See above on ὅς . Those who understand it as referring to His human existence (comp. Joh_1:14) think of the divine majesty, which Jesus manifested both by word and deed (Ambrosiaster, Luther, Erasmus, Heinrichs, Krause, Opusc. p. 33, and others), especially by His miracles (Grotius, Clericus); while Wetstein and Michaelis even suggest that the transfiguration on the mount is intended. It would be more in harmony with the context to understand the possession of the complete divine image (without arbitrarily limiting this, by preference possibly, to the moral attributes alone, as de Wette and Schneckenburger do)—a possession which Jesus (“as the God-pervaded man,” Philippi) had (potentialiter) from the very beginning of His earthly life, but in a latent manner, without manifesting it. This view, however, would land them in difficulty with regard to the following ἑαυτ . ἐκένωσε κ . τ . λ ., and expose them to the risk of inserting limiting clauses at variance with the literal import of the passage; see below.
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο 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 cannot be something essentially different 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 seized on (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, which is 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 φευκτέον ἔρωτας καὶ τὸν ἐκ Κρήτης καλούμενον ἁρπαγμόν , where it denotes the Cretan kidnapping of children. It is accordingly to be explained: Not as a robbing did He consider[97] the being equal with God, i.e. He did not place it under the point of view of making booty, as if it was, with respect to its exertion of activity, to consist in His seizing what did not belong to Him. In opposition to Hofmann’s earlier logical objection (Schriftbew. I. p. 149) that one cannot consider the being as a doing, comp. 1Ti_6:5; and see Hofmann himself, who has now recognised the linguistically correct explanation of ἁρπαγμός , but leaves the object of the ἉΡΠΆΖΕΙΝ indefinite, though the latter must necessarily be something that belongs to others, consequently a foreign possession. Not otherwise than in the active sense, namely raptus, can we explain Cyril, de adorat. I. p. 25 (in Wetstein): οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν [98] τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς ἔξ ἀδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο φρενός ; further, Eus. in Luc. vi. in Mai’s Nov. Bibl. patr. iv. p. 165, and the passage in Possini Cat. in Marc. x. 42, p. 233, from the Anonym. Tolos.: 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 passages which are 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 represent the relation in question as something made a booty of, and not as the act of making booty. We have still to notice (1) that this οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο corresponds exactly to ΜῊ ΤᾺ ἙΑΥΤῶΝ ΣΚΟΠΟῦΝΤΕς (Php_2:4), as well as to its contrast ἙΑΥΤῸΝ 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, power and dominion, riches, pleasure, worldly glory,” then He would have acted the part of ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ ; to which, however, He did not consent, but consented, on the contrary, to self-renunciation, etc. It is accordingly self-evident that the supposed case of the ἉΡΠΑΓΜΌς is not conceived as an action of the pre-existing Christ (as Richard Schmidt objects), but is put as connecting itself with His appearance on earth. The reflection, of which the pre-existent Christ is, according to our passage, represented as capable, even in presence of the will of God (see below, γενόμ . ὑπήκοος ), although the apostle has only conceived it as an abstract possibility and expressed it in an anthropopathic mode of presentation, is decisive in favour of the personal pre-existence; but in this pre-existence the Son appears as subordinate to the Father, as He does throughout the entire New Testament, although this is not (as Beyschlag objects) at variance with the Trinitarian equality of essence in the Biblical sense. By the ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι κ . τ . λ ., if it had taken place, He would have wished to relieve Himself from this subordination.
The linguistic correctness and exact apposite correlation of the whole of this explanation, which harmonizes with 2Co_8:9,[100] completely exclude the interpretation, which is traditional but in a linguistic point of view is quite incapable of proof, that ἉΡΠΑΓΜΌς , either in itself or by metonymy (in which van Hengel again appeals quite inappropriately to the analogy of Jam_1:2, 2Pe_3:15), means praeda or res rapienda. With this interpretation of ἁρπαγμός , the idea of ΕἾΝΑΙ ἼΣΑ ΘΕῷ has either been rightly taken as 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 regarded the existence equal with God, not as a something usurped and illegitimate, but as something natural to Him, and that, therefore, He did not fear to lose it through His humiliation (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, and other Fathers; see Wetstein and J. B. Lightfoot); comp. Beza, Calvin, Estius, and others, who, however, give to the conception a different turn;[101] or, that He did not desire pertinaciously to retain for Himself this equality with God, as a robber his booty, or as an unexpected gain (Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Vatablus, Kesler, and others; and recently, Hoelemann, Tholuck, Reuss, Liebner, Schmid, Wiesinger, Gess, Messner, Grimm; comp. also Usteri, p. 314);[102] or, that He did not conceal it, as a prey (Matthies); or, that He did not desire to display it triumphantly, as a conqueror his spoils (Luther, Erasmus, Cameron, Vatablus, Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, Quenstedt, Wolf, and many others, including Michaelis, Zachariae, Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Flatt, Rheinwald);[103] whilst others (Wetstein the most strangely, but also Usteri and several) mix up very various points of comparison. The very circumstance, however, that there exists so much divergence in these attempts at explanation, shows how arbitrarily men have endeavoured to supply a modal definition for ἁρπ . ἡγήσ ., which is not at all suggested by the text.—(B) In the second case, in which a distinction is made between τὸ 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 grasp eagerly the possession of it.[104] In this view expositors have understood the ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ as the divine plenitudinem et altitudinem (Bengel); the sessionem ad dextram (L. Bos); the divine honour (Cocceius, Stein, de Wette, Grau); the vitam vitae Dei aequalem (van Hengel); the existendi modum cum Deo aequalem (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 blessedness of the Father (Kahnis); indeed, even the identity with the Father consisting in invisibility (Rilliet), and the like, which is to sustain to the 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 Mat_4:8 ff.), de Wette (comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. p. 151) makes the thought be supplied, that it was not in the aim of the work of redemption befitting that Christ should at the very outset receive divine honour, and that, if He had taken it to Himself, it would have been a seizure, an usurpation. But as ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπ . already involves the divine essence,[107] and as ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ has no distinctive more special definition in any manner climactic (comp. Pfleiderer), Chrysostom has estimated this whole mode of explanation very justly: εἰ ἦν Θεός , πῶς εἶχεν ἁρπάσαι ; καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἀπερινόητον τοῦτο ; 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 expressed himself 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 way of climax, that of the same form of appearance ( μορφή ), of the divine δόξα also.
With respect to 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; Job_10:10; Job_11:12; Job_13:12; Wis_7:3, according to the usual reading). This adverbial use has arisen from the frequent employment, even so early as Homer (Il. v. 71, xv. 439; Od. xi. 304, xv. 519 al.), of ἴσα as the case of the object or predicate (see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 847; Krüger, II. § xlvi. 6. 8). But as εἶναι , as the abstract substantive verb, does not suit the adverbial ἴσα , pari ratione, therefore (2) τὸ εἶναι must be taken in the sense of existere; so that τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ does not mean the being equal to God (which would be τὸ εἶναι ἴσον Θεῷ ), but the God-equal existence, existence in the way of parity with God.[108] Paul might have written ἴσον (as mascul.) Θεῷ (Joh_5:18), or ἰσόθεον ; but, as it stands, he has more distinctly expressed the metaphysical relation, the divine mode of existence,[109] of the pre-human Christ. (3) The article points back to ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων , denoting the God-equal existence manifesting itself in that μορφή ; for the μορφὴ Θεοῦ is the appearance, the adequate subsisting form, of the God-equal existence. (4) Ernesti (in controversy with Baur), who is followed by Kähler, Kahnis, Beyschlag, and Hilgenfeld, entertains the groundless opinion that our passage alludes to Genesis 2 f., the ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ pointing in particular to Gen_3:5. In the text there is no trace[110] of any comparison of Christ with the first human beings, not even an echo of like expression; how different from the equality with God in our passage is the ἔσεσθε ὡς θεοί in Gen_3:5! Certainly, any such comparison lay very remote from the sublime idea of the divine glory of the pre-existent Christ, which was something quite different from the image of God in the first human beings. Comp. also Rich. Schmidt, p. 172; Grimm, p. 42 f.
[92] That Christ in His Trinitarian pre-existence was already the eternal Principle and Prototype of humanity (as is urged by Beyschlag), is self-evident; for otherwise He would have been one essentially different from Him who in the fulness of time appeared in the flesh. But this does not entitle us to refer the pre-existence to His whole divine-human person, and to speak of an eternal humanity,—paradoxes which cannot exegetically be justified by our passage and other expressions such as 1Co_15:47; Rom_5:12 ff; Rom_8:29; Col_1:15. The Logos pre-existed as the divine principle and divine prototype of humanity; Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος , and this, apart from the form of expression, is also the teaching of Paul. Only in time could He enter upon the human existence; the notion of eternal humanity would refute itself.
[93] Hence Philippi’s objection, that φρονεῖν is elsewhere applied to man only, and not to God, is devoid of significance. Unfounded is also Beyschlag’s objection (1866) drawn from the word σχήματι ; see below.
[94] According to which Christ had the full divine majesty “statim in sua conceptione, etiam in utero matris” (Form. Conc. p. 767). But He had it in His state of humiliation secreto, and only manifested it occasionally, quoties ipsi visum fuerit. In opposition to this, Liebner rightly observes, p. 334: “This is altogether inadequate to express the powerful N. T. feeling of the depth and greatness of our Lord’s humiliation. This feeling unmistakeably extends to the unique personal essence of the God-man, and in conformity with this, to the very heart of the act of incarnation itself.”
[95] Bengel well says: “Ipsa natura divina decorem habebat infinitum, in se, etiam sine ulla creatura illum decorem intuente.”—What Paul here designates simply by ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is pompously expressed by Clement, Cor. I. 16: τὸ σκῆπτρον τῆς μεγαλωσύνης τοῦ Θεοῦ . The forma mentis aeterna, however, in Tacitus, Agric. 46, is a conception utterly foreign to our passage (although adduced here by Hitzig), and of similar import with Propertius, iii. 1, 64: “ingenio stat sine morte decus.”
[96] An entirely groundless objection has been made (even by Lünemann) against the view which takes τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ as not essentially different from ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ εἶναι , viz. that Paul would, instead of τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ , have written merely τοῦτο , or even nothing at all. He might have done so, but there was no necessity for his taking that course, least of all for Paul! He, on the contrary, distinguishes very precisely and suitably between the two ideas representing the same state, by saying that Christ, in His divine pre-human form of life, did not venture to use this His God-equal being for making booty. Both, therefore, express the very same divine habitus; but the εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ is the general element, which presents itself in the divine μορφή as its substratum and lies at its basis, so that the two designations exhaust the idea of divinity. Comp. also Liebner, p. 328.
[97] On ἡγεῖσθαι , in this sense of the mode of regarding, which places the object under the point of view of a qualitative category, comp. Krüger on Thuc. ii. 44. 3.
[98] Lot did not let the refusal of the angels be a making of profit to himself.
[99] Where, according to the connection, the sense is: Not a seizing to oneself is the position of honour, as among the heathen, but a renouncing and serving after the example of Christ.
[100] Räbiger and Wetzel, and also Pfleiderer, l.c., have lately adopted this view; likewise Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1873, p. 311 f. Hofmann also now explains the passage in a way not substantially different. But Grimm, l.c. p. 38, very unjustly describes the retention of ἁρπαγμός in the sense which it has in Plutarch, as petty grammatical pedantry. The ideas, spoil, booty, occur in countless instances in all Greek authors, and in the LXX., and are very variously expressed ( ἁρπαγή , ἅρπαγμα , ἀρπασμα , ληΐς , σκύλευμα , σῦλον , λεία ), but never by ἁρπαγμός , or any other form of word ending with μος . It is true that various substantives ending in μος may denote the result of the action; not, however, as we may be pleased to assume, but solely in accordance with evidence of empirical usage, and this is just what is wanting for this sense in the case of ἁρπαγμός . Its rejection, therefore, in our passage, is not pedantic, but is simply linguistically demanded. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 426, ed. 2, erroneously objects to our view of ἁρπαγμός , that, in that case, it would be impossible to conceive of any object, and that thus an utterly empty antithesis to the giving up of Christ’s own possession is the result. As if there were not given in the very notion of ἁρπαγμός its object, viz. that which does not belong to the subject of the action, and this, indeed, in its unrestricted and full compass, just because nothing special is added as an object.
[101] Beza: “Non ignoravit, se in ea re (i.e. quod Deo Patri coaequalis esset) nullam injuriam cuiquam facere, sed suo jure uti; nihilominus tamen quasi jure suo cessit.” So also Calvin, substantially, only that he erroneously interprets ἡγήσατο as arbitratus esset, “Non fuisset injuria, si aequalis Deo apparuisset.” Estius: “that He had not recognised the equality with God as an usurped possession, and therefore possibly desired to lay it aside, but had renounced Himseif,” etc.
[102] In this class we must reckon the interpretation of Theodoret (comp. Origen, ad Rom. v. 2, x. 7, Eusebius, and others): that Christ, being God by nature, did not hold His equality with God as something specially great, as those do who attain to honours παρʼ ἀξίαν ; but that He, τὴν ἀξίαν κατακρύψας , chose humiliation. To this comes also the view of Theodore of Mopsuestia: μορφὴν γὰρ δούλου λαβὼν τὴν ἀξίαν ἐκείνην ἀπέκρυψεν , τοῦτο τοῖς ὁρῶσιν εἶναι νομιζόμενος , ὅπερ ἐφαίνετο .—Tholuck compares the German expression: als ein gefundenes Essen (einen guten Fund) ansehen. According to him, the idea of the whole passage is, “Tantum aberat, ut Christus, quatenus λόγος est, in gloria atque beatitate sua acquiescere sibique soli placere vellet, ut amore erga mortales ductus servi formam induere ac vel infimam sortem subire sine ulla haesitatione sustineret.”
[103] To this belongs also Pelagius, “Quod erat, humilitate celavit, dans nobis exemplum, ne in his gloriemur, quae forsitan non habemus.”
[104] So also Lünemann, who, in the sense of the divine pre-existence of Christ, paraphrases thus: “Christus, etsi ab aeterno inde dignitate creatoris et domini rerum omnium frueretur, ideoque divina indutus magnificentia coram patre consideret, nihilo tamen minus haud arripiendum sibi esse autumabat existendi modum cum Deo aequalem, sed ultro se exinanivit.” In a sense opposed to the divine pre-existence, however, Beyschlag says, Christol. p. 236 f.: “Christ possessed the μορφὴ Θεοῦ (that is, ‘the inner form of God’); He might have but stretched out His hand towards the ἴσα Θεῷ εἶναι ; He disdained, however, to seize it for Himself, and chose quite the opposite; therefore it was given Him as the reward of His obedience, etc.” Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschrift, 1871, p. 197 f., says: the Pauline Christ is indeed the heavenly man, but no divine being; the equality with God was attained by Him only through the renunciation, etc.
[105] The lead in this mode of considering the passage was taken by Arius, whose party, on the ground of the proposition ἐκεῖνο ἁρπάζει τις , ὃ οὐκ ἔχει , declared: ὅτι Θεὸς ὢν ἐλάττων οὐχ ἥρπασε τὸ εἶναι ἴσα τῷ Θεῷ τῷ μεγάλῳ κ . μείζονι . See Chrysostom.
[106] He thinks that the divine μορφή of Christ stands to the ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ in the relation of potentia to actus. “Christ était des l’origine en puissance ce qu’ à la fin il devint en réalité;” the μορφὴ Θεοῦ denotes the general form of being of Christ, but “une forme vide, qui doit êtré remplie, c’est-à-dire spirituellement réalisée.” This higher position He had not wished to usurp, but had attained to it “réellement par le libre développement de sa vie morale.”
[107] Not merely the similarity, from which is there distinguished the equality by