The richness of this passage caused me to think about another passage that Paul wrote that is just as phenomenal, and that is Philippians 2:5-11. For this post, I just want to focus on verses 5-6, which reads,
"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,"
I want to spend our time together in verse 6. Almost every phrase in this verses is debated and has different interpretations. We are about to get really in depth and theological here, as well as discussing some Greek words. If you don't like some of the technical stuff, you can skip ahead. However, you still need to read the summary of each view. It makes the payoff at the end much richer. With that being said, I'll share with you some various view, and then give you what I think about the phrase.
“Form of God”-this is the key phrase of the entire hymn, and our interpretation of it will affect how we see the rest of the passage.
Various Interpretations
This word form- morphe, can mean an external appearance or condition, or the form of existence of something. It can also mean something more profound, so that it is related to the nature or essence of something. It is important to note that it does not say that Christ “was the form of God, “ but existed “in the form of God”, as though the “form of God" was a sphere in which He existed or a garment in which He was clothed.
Is the term to be understood as pointing: (1) to the external appearance, condition, position, or form of existence of something? Or does it denote (2) something more profound, so that it is equal to or closely related to the ‘nature’ or ‘essence’ of something? Could, for example, μορφή be regarded as an equivalent of εἰκών (‘image’) and/or δόξα (‘glory’)?
1. Philosophical sense- most of the church fathers and some modern commentators see the word morphe as acquiring the idea it took on in Greek philosophy, namely Aristotle. The word takes on the idea of “nature, quality, and essence”. This means that what Paul is talking about is the essential nature and character of God. The term, used in this sense, disregards any sense of outward appearance. But I think there is very little evidence that Paul uses the term in this manner.
2. Adam-Christ contrast- A popular view that also draws upon OT background (Gn. 1:26–27 and 3:1–5) equates μορφή with εἰκών (‘image’) and interprets the entire hymn in terms of an Adam–Christ contrast. This explanation of "in the form of God" is meant to play on the familiar first Adam–second Adam theme. It is very doubtful, however, whether the apostle intended to draw the Adam–Christ parallel at all, and the view has been subjected to linguistic, exegetical, and theological criticisms that have not been satisfactorily answered.
3. Status- This interpretation says that the form of God was a condition or status that Christ held. It refers to his original position as God. In essence, He was the “first man”, thus holding a unique place within the divine life and one with God. The problem with this view is that the word morphe does not carry this type of meaning, It is only found with this type of meaning once in extra biblical literature, and like the Greek philosophical view, it is highly unlikely that Paul had that concept in mind.
4. The Glory of God- Taking as its point of departure the notion that morphe denotes the visible form or characteristic of a person or object under consideration, the phrase "the form of God" is understood as His glory. God's glory is the shining light in which, according to the OT and intertestamental literature, God was pictured. On this view "the form of God" does not refer to external appearance alone. It also includes participation in its nature or character of that form. On this view one can picture the preexistent Christ as clothed in the garments of divine majesty and splendor. The expression "in the form of God" fits nice with Jn. 17:5, "the glory I had with you before the world began", and reminds us of Heb. 1:3, "the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being."
I believe the best way to interpret this phrase “form of God”, is in light of the OT, thus seeing the form of God as relating to the glory of God. Thus, the form of God that Jesus was existing in is nothing short of the glory, nature, and character of God Himself. Here, we must ask the question, “what is the glory of God”? The original meaning of glory has to do with weightiness. The glory of God summarizes the seriousness, the perfection, and the infinite significance of all of the attributes of God. It sums up who He is, in the awesome brightness and weightiness of all His perfections. John Piper says the glory of God is his “going public of his infinite worth.” So God's glory is the radiance of His holiness, the radiance of His manifold, infinitely worthy and valuable perfections.
“did not regard equality with got as something to be grasped” – The key here is what does the word translated “grasped” mean?
Various Interpretations
Arpagmos is the Greek word for "grasped," and occurs only here in the Greek Bible and only rarely in extrabiblical Greek (where most of the instances are patristic quotations of, or allusions to, Phil. 2:6 itself). The noun itself is derived from the verb form ἁρπάζω, meaning to "snatch, seize," and has been taken in an active (and usually abstract) sense to denote "the act of snatching or seizing". In the passive sense it is meant to signify "that which is seized", whether in the bad sense of "what is stolen", "prey", "booty", or in the good sense of "prize" or "gain".
1. Prize or treasure- In this view, the statement does not refer to Christ’s majesty, but to His humiliation. He did not regard the rank and privilege of his equality with God, which He already possessed, as something to be clung on to greedily. Instead, He gave them up at the incarnation. He did not give up his divinity, but gave up the privileges of divinity.
2. Prize or gain (in the passive sense)- In other words, this is something that Christ refused to try to snatch at or grasp for. Christ had the equality of God as His image, and refused to try to grab at the prize of being the ruler of the world.
3. Idiomatic expression- something to use for one’s own advantage
I understand this phrase to be an idiomatic expression, a colloquial or informal way of saying something, which means “something to use for one’s own advantage”. Therefore,I believe this to be the best interpretation here. To sum up what we have thus far - 6 Precisely because he was in the form of God, he did not regard this divine equality as something to be used for His own advantage. Thus, Jesus refused to use for His own gain, the glory that He had with the Father before the foundation of the world. Oh, He could have used His power for His own advantage, like so many despots and dictators do, but instead he saw His equality with God as something that qualified Him for the role of Redeemer. It was something that qualified Him to suffer and die and to be a servant. So, what we see in verse 7, is that instead of using His equality with God for His own advantage, He empties Himself and takes the form of a slave.
Let's think of some application points here.
Do you use your status or circumstances to get or give?
Jonathan Edwards points out that Jesus Christ is the mighty Lion and humble Lamb.
"In the God-man there is a perfect union of infinite majesty and infinite meekness. He administers infinite justice and infinite grace. The One who manifests deepest reverence towards God is equal with God. In Him supreme dominion is joined with the most humble spirit of obedience, perfect self-sufficiency with complete trust and reliance upon his Father. He demonstrates infinite worthiness of good, and the greatest patience in suffering." -Jonathan Edwards, The Excellency of Christ
Do you view your status and circumstances as a place to manifest the glory of God?
The circumstances you find yourself in are not given to impair you. Rather, they are meant to glorify God. Make them an act of worship, and make them better and more beautiful. Like the incarnation, The Word took lowly human nature, and when He put it on, deified it. Listen to what Athanasius, the Nicene church father who was partly responsible for the hammering out the relationship between the two natures of Christ in the 4th century A.D. says,
“For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, ‘gave’ it graciously to the race of man. For as He was ever worshipped as being the Word and existing in the form of God, so being what He ever was, though become man and called Jesus, He none the less has the whole creation under foot, and bending their knees to Him in this Name, and confessing that the Word’s becoming flesh, and undergoing death in flesh, has not happened against the glory of His Godhead, but ‘to the glory of God the Father."