Phili 2:6, 9 | Clarke | e4.org | Verse 6. Who, being in the form of God ] This verse has been the subject of much criticism, and some controversy. Dr. Whitby has, perhaps, on the whole, spoken best on this point; but his arguments are too diffuse to be admitted here. Dr. Macknight has abridged the words of Dr. Whitby , and properly observes that, "As the apostle is speaking of what Christ was before he took the form of a servant , the form of God , of which he divested himself when he became man, cannot be any thing which he possessed during his incarnation or in his divested state; consequently neither the opinion of Erasmus , that the form of God consisted in those sparks of divinity by which Christ, during his incarnation, manifested his Godhead, nor the opinion of the Socinians , that it consisted in the power of working miracles , is well founded; for Christ did not divest himself either of one or the other, but possessed both all the time of his public ministry. In like manner, the opinion of those who, by the form of God understand the Divine nature and the government of the world, cannot be admitted; since Christ, when he became man , could not divest himself of the nature of God; and with respect to the government of the world, we are led, by what the apostle tells, , to believe that he did not part with even that; but, in his divested state, still continued to uphold all things by the word of his power . By the form of God we are rather to understand that visible, glorious light in which the Deity is said to dwell, , and by which he manifested himself to the patriarchs of old, ; which was commonly accompanied with a numerous retinue of angels , , and which in Scripture is called The Similitude , ; The Face , : The Presence , ; and The Shape of God, . This interpretation is supported by the term μορφη, form , here used, which signifies a person's external shape or appearance , and not his nature or essence . Thus we are told, , that Jesus appeared to his disciples in another μορφη, shape , or form . And, , μετεμορφωθη, he was transfigured before them -his outward appearance or form was changed . Farther this interpretation agrees with the fact: the form of God , that is, his visible glory , and the attendance of angels , as above described, the Son of God enjoyed with his Father before the world was, ; and on that as on other accounts he is the brightness of the Father's glory , . Of this he divested himself when he became flesh; but, having resumed it after his ascension, he will come with it in the human nature to judge the world; so he told his disciples, : The Son of man will come in the glory of his Father, with his angels , &c,. Lastly, this sense of μορφηθεου, is confirmed by the meaning of μορθηδουλου, ; which evidently denotes the appearance and behaviour of a servant or bondman , and not the essence of such a person." See Whitby and Macknight . Thought it not robbery to be equal with God ] If we take these words as they stand here, their meaning is, that, as he was from the beginning in the same infinite glory with the Father, to appear in time -during his humiliation, as God and equal with the Father, was no encroachment on the Divine prerogative; for, as he had an equality of nature , he had an equality of rights . But the word αρπαγμον, which we translate robbery , has been supposed to imply a thing eagerly to be seized, coveted, or desired ; and on this interpretation the passage has been translated: Who, being in the form of God, did not think it a matter to be earnestly desired to appear equal to God; but made himself of no reputation , &c. However the word be translated, it does not affect the eternal Deity of our Lord. Though he was from eternity in the form of God-possessed of the same glory, yet he thought it right to veil this glory, and not to appear with it among the children of men; and therefore he was made in the likeness of men , and took upon him the form or appearance of a servant : and, had he retained the appearance of this ineffable glory, it would, in many respects, have prevented him from accomplishing the work which God gave him to do; and his humiliation , as necessary to the salvation of men, could not have been complete. On this account I prefer this sense of the word αρπαγμον before that given in our text, which does not agree so well with the other expressions in the context. In this sense the word is used by Heliodorus , in his AEthiopics , lib. vii. cap. 19, &c., which passage Whitby has produced, and on which he has given a considerable paraphrase. The reader who wishes to examine this subject more particularly, may have recourse to Heliodorus as above, or to the notes of Dr. Whitby on the passage.

‏ Philippians 2:6

Verse 6. Who, being in the form of God] This verse has been the subject of much criticism, and some controversy. Dr. Whitby has, perhaps, on the whole, spoken best on this point; but his arguments are too diffuse to be admitted here. Dr. Macknight has abridged the words of Dr. Whitby, and properly observes that, "As the apostle is speaking of what Christ was before he took the form of a servant, the form of God, of which he divested himself when he became man, cannot be any thing which he possessed during his incarnation or in his divested state; consequently neither the opinion of Erasmus, that the form of God consisted in those sparks of divinity by which Christ, during his incarnation, manifested his Godhead, nor the opinion of the Socinians, that it consisted in the power of working miracles, is well founded; for Christ did not divest himself either of one or the other, but possessed both all the time of his public ministry. In like manner, the opinion of those who, by the form of God understand the Divine nature and the government of the world, cannot be admitted; since Christ, when he became man, could not divest himself of the nature of God; and with respect to the government of the world, we are led, by what the apostle tells, Heb 1:3, to believe that he did not part with even that; but, in his divested state, still continued to uphold all things by the word of his power. By the form of God we are rather to understand that visible, glorious light in which the Deity is said to dwell, 1Ti 6:16, and by which he manifested himself to the patriarchs of old, De 5:22, 24; which was commonly accompanied with a numerous retinue of angels, Ps 68:17, and which in Scripture is called The Similitude, Nu 12:8; The Face, Ps 31:16: The Presence, Ex 33:15; and The Shape of God, Joh 5:37. This interpretation is supported by the term μορφη, form, here used, which signifies a person's external shape or appearance, and not his nature or essence. Thus we are told, Mr 16:12, that Jesus appeared to his disciples in another μορφη, shape, or form. And, Mt 17:2, μετεμορφωθη, he was transfigured before them-his outward appearance or form was changed. Farther this interpretation agrees with the fact: the form of God, that is, his visible glory, and the attendance of angels, as above described, the Son of God enjoyed with his Father before the world was, Joh 17:5; and on that as on other accounts he is the brightness of the Father's glory, Heb 1:3. Of this he divested himself when he became flesh; but, having resumed it after his ascension, he will come with it in the human nature to judge the world; so he told his disciples, Mt 16:27: The Son of man will come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, &c,. Lastly, this sense of μορφηθεου, is confirmed by the meaning of μορθηδουλου, Php 2:7; which evidently denotes the appearance and behaviour of a servant or bondman, and not the essence of such a person." See Whitby and Macknight.

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God] If we take these words as they stand here, their meaning is, that, as he was from the beginning in the same infinite glory with the Father, to appear in time-during his humiliation, as God and equal with the Father, was no encroachment on the Divine prerogative; for, as he had an equality of nature, he had an equality of rights.

But the word αρπαγμον, which we translate robbery, has been supposed to imply a thing eagerly to be seized, coveted, or desired; and on this interpretation the passage has been translated: Who, being in the form of God, did not think it a matter to be earnestly desired to appear equal to God; but made himself of no reputation, &c. However the word be translated, it does not affect the eternal Deity of our Lord. Though he was from eternity in the form of God-possessed of the same glory, yet he thought it right to veil this glory, and not to appear with it among the children of men; and therefore he was made in the likeness of men, and took upon him the form or appearance of a servant: and, had he retained the appearance of this ineffable glory, it would, in many respects, have prevented him from accomplishing the work which God gave him to do; and his humiliation, as necessary to the salvation of men, could not have been complete. On this account I prefer this sense of the word αρπαγμον before that given in our text, which does not agree so well with the other expressions in the context. In this sense the word is used by Heliodorus, in his AEthiopics, lib. vii. cap. 19, &c., which passage Whitby has produced, and on which he has given a considerable paraphrase. The reader who wishes to examine this subject more particularly, may have recourse to Heliodorus as above, or to the notes of Dr. Whitby on the passage.

‏ Philippians 2:9

Verse 9. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him] If by his humiliation he has merited pardon and final salvation for the whole world, is it to be wondered that the human body, in which this fulness of the Godhead dwelt, and in which the punishment due to our sins was borne upon the tree, should be exalted above all human and all created beings? And this is the fact; for he hath given him a name, τοονομα, the name, which is above every name: το is prefixed to ονομα here by ABC, 17, Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Cyril, and Procopius. This makes it much more emphatic. According to Eph 1:20, 21, the man Christ Jesus is exalted to the right hand of God, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. From which it appears that no creature of God is so far exalted and so glorious as the man Christ Jesus, human nature being in him dignified infinitely beyond the angelic nature; and that this nature has an authority and pre-eminence which no being, either in heaven or earth, enjoys. In a word, as man was in the beginning at the head of all the creatures of God, Jesus Christ, by assuming human nature, suffering and dying in it, has raised it to its pristine state. And this is probably what is here meant by this high exaltation of Christ, and giving him a name which is above every name. But if we refer to any particular epithet, then the name JESUS or Saviour must be that which is intended; as no being either in heaven or earth can possess this name as he who is the Redeemer of the world does, for he is the only Saviour; none has or could redeem us to God but he; and throughout eternity he will ever appear as the sole Saviour of the human race. Hence, before his birth, Gabriel stated that his name should be called JESUS; giving for reason, he shall SAVE his people from their sins. The qualifications of the Saviour of the world were so extraordinary, the redeeming acts so stupendous, and the result of all so glorious both to God and man, that it is impossible to conceive a higher name or title than that of JESUS, or Saviour of the world.