Филипљанима 2:6 Коментар

The apostle proceeds to further exhortations to several duties, to be like-minded, and lowly-minded, which he presses from the example of Christ (Phi 2:1-11), to be diligent and serious in the Christian course (Phi 2:12, Phi 2:13), and to adorn their Christian profession by several suitable graces (Phi 2:14-18). He then concludes with particular notice and commendation of two good ministers, Timothy and Epaphroditus, whom he designed to send to them (Phi 2:19-30).

INTRODUCTION TO PHILIPPIANS 2 This chapter contains several exhortations to unity, love, and concord, to humility, and lowliness of mind, and to a becoming life and conversation; and concludes with commendations of two eminent ministers of Christ, Timothy and Epaphroditus. The arguments engaging to harmony and mutual affection, are taken from the consolation that is in Christ, the comfort there is in love, the fellowship of the Spirit, and the bowels and mercies which become saints, Phi 2:1, as also from the joy this would fill the apostle with; and the things exhorted to are expressed by likeness of mind, sameness of love, and unity of soul, Phi 2:2, and the manner directed to for the preservation of such a spirit, is to do nothing in a contentious and vainglorious way, but in an humble and lowly manner, having a better opinion of others than themselves; and observing their superior gifts and graces, and so submit things unto them, Phi 2:3, and which humble deportment is further urged, from the instance and example of our Lord Jesus Christ, Phi 2:5, which is illustrated by the dignity of his person, the glorious divine form in which he was, and his indisputable equality with his Father, Phi 2:6, and yet such was his great condescension, that he became man, appeared in the form of a servant, and was humbled to the lowest degree, even to die the death of the cross, Phi 2:7, nevertheless God exalted him as man, and gave him superior honour to all creatures; and will oblige all to be subject to him, and acknowledge his dominion over them, to the glory of his divine Father, Phi 2:9, hereby suggesting, that in like manner, though not to the same degree, such who are humble and lowly minded shall be exalted by the Lord; and then with the greatest affection to the Philippians, and with high commendations of them, the apostle renews his exhortation to do all the duties of religion with humility and modesty; knowing that all the grace and strength in which they performed them was owing to the internal operation of divine power in them, Phi 2:12, and therefore should be done without murmuring against God, or disputings among themselves, Phi 2:14, and next he proceeds to exhort to an unblemished and inoffensive life and conversation, as the end and issue of a modest and humble behaviour; and this he enforces on them, from the consideration of their relation to God, being his children, which would appear hereby; and from the wickedness and perverseness of the people they lived among; and therefore should be careful, lest they be ensnared by them, to the dishonour of God, and the grief of themselves; and from their character as lights in the world, whose business it was to hold forth the word of life; and also from this consideration, that it would be the joy of the apostle in the day of Christ, that his labours among them had not been fruitless, Phi 2:15, yea, such was his love to them, that if even he was to die on their account, it would be matter of joy and gladness to him; and he desires they would express the same joy with him, Phi 2:17, and though he could not be with them in person, he hoped in a little time to send Timothy, for this end, that he might know how things stood with them; which if well, would be a comfort to him, Phi 2:19, the reasons why he picked Timothy as a messenger to them were, because there were none like him, for the sincere regard he had for their spiritual good, Phi 2:20, and which is illustrated by the contrary disposition and conduct of others, who sought themselves, and not Jesus Christ, his honour and interest, Phi 2:21, and besides, they themselves were witnesses of his filial affection to the apostle, and of his faithful service with him in the Gospel, Phi 2:22, and then he repeats his hopes of sending him quickly, as soon as ever he knew how it would go with him, whether he should be released or suffer, Phi 2:23, the former of which he had some confidence of, and that he should be able to see them himself in a little time, Phi 2:24, however, in the mean while he thought it proper to send Epaphroditus to them, whom he commends as a brother of his, a co-worker, a fellow soldier, a messenger of theirs, and a minister to his wants, Phi 2:25, the reasons of sending him were, because he longed to see them, and because he was uneasy that they had heard of his sickness; which was not only true that he had been sick, but his sickness was very dangerous, and threatened with death; however, through the mercy of God to him, he was recovered; and which was a mercy also to the apostle, who otherwise would have had an additional sorrow; wherefore another reason of sending him was, that upon the sight of him they might be filled with joy, and the apostle himself have less sorrow, Phi 2:26, and then he exhorts them, that when he was returned to them, they would gladly receive him, and highly esteem of him; and the rather, since the dangerous illness he was attended with was brought upon him through his labours in the service of Christ, and also of the apostle, which he performed in their stead, even to the neglect of his health and life, Phi 2:29.

Who 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 accidental form, 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 created beings nor does it intend any outward representation and resemblance of him, such as in kings; who, because of the honour and dignity they are raised unto, the authority and power they have, and because of the glory and majesty they are arrayed with, are called gods: nor does it design the state and condition Christ appeared in 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 Moses for doing less miracles is said to be a God unto Pharaoh; since this account does not regard Christ; as he was on earth in human nature, but what he was antecedent to the assumption of it; or otherwise his humility and condescension in becoming man, and so mean, will not appear: but this phrase, "the form of God", is to be understood of the nature and essence of God, 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 possessed of 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 essence of God; and that there is but one form of God, or divine nature and essence, common to 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 cannot be 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 of it, 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 creation and providence are ascribed to him, and the same worship, homage, and honour given him: to be "in the form of God", and to be "equal with 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 Satan attempted to do, and as Adam by his instigation also affected; and so the mind of a wicked man, 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 reckoned that 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 assumed that to himself which did not belong to him: as for the sense which some put upon the words, that he did not "affect", or "greedily catch" at deity; as the phrase will not admit of it, so it is not true in fact; he did affect deity, and asserted it strongly, and took every proper opportunity of declaring it, and in express terms affirmed he was the Son of God; and in terms easy to be understood declared his 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, Mar 14:61 Joh 5:17. Others give this as the sense of them, that he did not in an ostentatious way show 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 of it; this he did at certain times, and for certain reasons; 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, or did 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.

For he says of Christ, that, "being in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant," not the reality, "and was made in the likeness of man," not a man, "and was found in fashion as a man," not in his substance, that is to say, his flesh; just as if to a substance there did not accrue both form and likeness and fashion.

And God made man, that is to say, the creature which He moulded and fashioned; after the image of God (in other words, of Christ) did He make him And the Word was God also, who being in the image of God, "thought it not robbery to be equal to God." Thus, that clay which was even then putting on the image of Christ, who was to come in the flesh, was not only the work, but also the pledge and surety, of God.

This for certain is He "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none.

And the Sethians say that from the water was produced a first-begotten principle, namely a vehement and boisterous wind, and that it is a cause of all generation, which creates a sort of heat and motion in the world from the motion of the waters. And they maintain that this wind is fashioned like the hissing of a serpent into a perfect image. And on this the world gazes and hurries into generation, being inflamed as a womb; and from thence they are disposed to think that the generation of the universe has arisen. And they say that this wind constitutes a spirit, and that a perfect God has arisen from the fragrance of the waters, and that of the spirit, and from the brilliant light. And they affirm that mind exists after the mode of generation from a female-(meaning by mind) the supernal spark-and that, having been mingled beneath with the compounds of body, it earnestly desires to flee away, that escaping it may depart and not find dissolution on account of the deficiency in the waters. Wherefore it is in the habit of crying aloud from the mixture of the waters, according to the Psalmist, as they say, "For the entire anxiety of the light above is, that it may deliver the spark which is below from the Father beneath," that is, from wind. And the Father creates heat and disturbance, and produces for Himself a Son, namely mind, which, as they allege, is not the peculiar offspring of Himself. And these heretics affirm that the Son, on beholding the perfect Logos of the supernal light, underwent a transformation, and in the shape of a serpent entered into a womb, in order that he might be able to recover that Mind which is the scintillation from the light. And that this is what has been declared, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant." And the wretched and baneful Sethians are disposed to think that this constitutes the servile form alluded to by the Apostle. These, then, are the assertions which likewise these Sethians advance.

First one may contemplate him existing in his primary form, that of God, before he emptied himself. One will then see the Son of God not yet having come forth from him, the [incarnate] Lord not yet having proceeded from his place. But then compare the preexistent state of the Son with that which resulted from his assuming “the form of a slave” when he “emptied himself.” You will then understand how the Son of God came forth and came to us and as it were became distinguishable from the One who sent him. Yet in another way the Father did not simply let him go but is with him and is in the Son as the Son is in the Father.

That Christ was to come in low estate in His first advent. In Isaiah: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the Arm of the Lord revealed? We have declared in His presence as children, as a root in a thirsty ground. There is no form nor glory in Him; and we saw Him, and He had no form nor beauty; but His form was without honour, and lacking beyond other men. He was a man set in a plague, and knowing how to bear weakness; because His face was turned away, He was dishonoured, and was not accounted of. He bears our sins, and grieves for us; and we thought that He was in grief, and in wounding, and in affliction; but He was wounded for our transgressions, and He was weakened for our sins. The discipline of our peace was upon Him, and with His bruise we are healed. We all like sheep have gone astray; than has gone out of his way. And God has delivered Him for our sins; and He, because He was afflicted, opened not His mouth." Also in the same: "I am not rebellious, nor do I contradict. I gave my back to the stripes, and my cheeks to the palms of the hands. Moreover, I did not turn away my Gee from the foulness of spitting, and God was my helper." Also in the same: "He shall not cry, nor will any one hear His voice in the streets. He shall not break a bruised reed, and a smoking flax He shall not extinguish; but He shall bring forth judgment in truth. He shall shine forth, and shall not be shaken, until He set judgment in the earth, and in His name shall the nations trust." Also in the twenty-first Psalm: "But I am a worm, and no man; the accursed of man, and the casting away of the people. All they who saw me despised me, and spoke within their lips, and moved their head. He hoped in the Lord, let Him deliver him; let Him save him, since he will have Him." Also in that place: "My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue is glued to my jaws." Also in Zechariah: "And the Lord showed me Jesus, that great priest, standing before the face of the Angel of the Lord, and the devil was standing at his right hand to oppose him. And Jesus was clothed in filthy garments, and he stood before the face of the Angel Himself; and He answered and said to them who were standing before His face, saying, Take away his filthy garments from him. And he said to him, Behold, I have taken away thine iniquities. And put upon him a priestly garment, and set a fair mitre upon his head." Also Paul to the Philippians: "Who, being established in the form of God, thought it not robbery that He was equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore also God exalted Him, and gave Him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, of things in earth, and of infernal things, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord in the glory of God the Father."

That there is given to us an example of living in Christ. In the Epistle of Peter to them of Pontus: "For Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that ye may follow His steps; who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, threatened not, but gave Himself up to him that judgeth unrighteously." Also Paul to the Philippians: "Who, being appointed in the figure of God, thought it not robbery that He was equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, He was made in the likeness of man, and was found in fashion as a man. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, and the death of the cross. For which cause also God hath exalted Him, and hath given Him a name, that it may be above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowed, of things heavenly, and earthly, and infernal; and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in glory of God the Father." Of this same thing in the Gospel according to John: "If I have washed your feet, being your Master and Lord, ye also ought to wash the feet of others. For I have given you an example, that as I have done, ye also should do to others."

If Christ were only a man, he would have been said to have been “in the image of God,” not “in the form of God.” We know that humanity was made in the image, not the form, of God.

He never either compared or opposed himself to God the Father. He remembered [throughout his earthly ministry] that he was from the Father.

[Paul] acknowledged Christ and no other to be the Son of God. The flesh that Christ assumed was called “the form of a slave” and “son of man.” But as to that birth which, unknown to all, was from the Father and before all ages, he was Son of God.

What clearer and more decisive proof could there be than this? He did not become better from assuming a lower state but rather, “being God, he took the form of a slave.” … If [as the Arians think] it was for the sake of this exaltation that the Word came down and that this is written, what need would there be for him to humble himself completely in order to seek what he already had?

"For He thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, taking upon Him the form of a servant: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself unto death, even the death of the cross."

Being in the image of God, [humanity] still needed to receive the likeness. The Word, having been sent into the world to perfect this, first of all took on our own form, even though in history it has been stained by many sins, so that we for our part, on whose account he bore it, should be once again capable of partaking in his divine nature. Hence it is now possible for us to receive God’s likeness. Think of a skilled painter painting a likeness of himself on a surface. So we may now imitate the same characteristics that God himself has displayed in his becoming a human being. We hold these characteristics before us as we go in discipleship along the path he set out. His purpose in consenting to put on human flesh when he was God was this: that we, upon seeing the divine image in this tablet, so to speak, might imitate this incomparable artist.

He did not say “having a nature like that of God,” as would be said of [a man] who was made in the image of God. Rather Paul says “being in the very form of God.” All that is the Father’s is in the Son.

The form of God is absolutely the same as the essence. Yet when he came to be in “the form of a slave,” he took form in the essence of the slave, not assuming a naked form for himself. Yet he is not thereby divorced from his essence as God. Undoubtedly when Paul said that he was “in the form of God,” he was indicating the essence along with the form.

"Being in the form of God." If "in the form" how sayest thou, O wicked one, that He took His origin from Mary, and was not before? and how dost thou say that He was an energy? For it is written, "The form of God took the form of a servant." "The form of a servant," is it the energy of a servant, or the nature of a servant? By all means, I fancy, the nature of a servant. Thus too the form of God, is the nature of God, and therefore not an energy. It is written, "He counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." Now equality is not predicated, where there is but one person, for that which is equal hath somewhat to which it is equal. Seest thou not the substance of two Persons, and not empty names without things? Hearest thou not the eternal pre-existence of the Only-begotten? And he not only bears record of this, but of His equality too, as John also doth, that he is no way inferior to the Father, for he saith, "He thought it not a thing to seize, to be equal with God." Now what is their wise reasoning? Nay, say they, he proves the very contrary; for he says, that, "being in the form of God, He seized not equality with God." How if He were God, how was He able "to seize upon it"? and is not this without meaning? Who would say that one, being a man, seized not on being a man? for how would any one seize on that which he is? No, say they, but he means that being a little God, He seized not upon being equal to the great God, Who was greater than He. Is there a great and a little God? And do ye bring in the doctrines of the Greeks upon those of the Church? With them there is a great and a little God. If it be so with you, I know not. For you will find it nowhere in the Scriptures: there you will find a great God throughout, a little one nowhere. If He were little, how would he also be God? If man is not little and great, but one nature, and if that which is not of this one nature is not man, how can there be a little God and a great one? He who is not of that nature is not God. For He is everywhere called great in Scripture; "Great is the Lord, and highly to be praised." This is said of the Son also, for it always calls Him Lord. "Thou art great, and doest wondrous things. Thou art God alone." And again, "Great is our Lord, and great is His power, and of His greatness there is no end." But the Son, he says, is little. But it is thou that sayest this, for the Scripture says the contrary: as of the Father, so it speaks of the Son; for listen to Paul, saying, "Looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of our great God." But can he have said "appearing" of the Father? Nay, that he may the more convince you, he has added with reference to the appearing "of the great God." Is it then not said of the Father? By no means. For the sequel suffers it not which says, "The appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." See, the Son is great also. How then speakest thou of small and great? Listen to the Prophet too, calling him "The Messenger of great counsel." "The Messenger of great counsel," is He not great Himself? "The mighty God," is He small and not great? What mean then these shameless and reckless men when they say, that being little He is a God? I repeat ofttimes what they say, that ye may the more avoid them. He being a lesser God seized not for Himself to be like the greater God! Tell me now (but think not that these words are mine), if he were little, as they say, and far inferior to the Father in power, how could He possibly have seized to Himself equality with God? For an inferior nature could not seize for himself admission into that which is great; for example, a man could not seize on becoming equal to an angel in nature; a horse could not, though he wished it, seize on being equal to a man in nature. "Form" implies unchangeableness, so far as it is form. It is not possible that things of one substance should have the form of another, as no man has the form of an angel, neither has a beast the form of a man. How then should the Son? Now in our own case, since we men are of a compound nature, form pertains to the body, but in the case of a simple and altogether uncompounded nature it is of the substance. But if thou contendest that he speaks not of the Father, because the word is used without the article, in many places this is meant, though the word be used without the article. Why say I, in many places? for in this very place he says, "He counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God," using the word without the article, though speaking of God the Father.

They say that the words, "He counted it not a prize," are of wrongfully seizing. We have proved, that this is altogether vapid and impertinent, for no man would exhort another to humility on such grounds, nor in this sort does he praise God, or even man. What is it then, beloved? Give heed to what I now say. Since many men think, that, when they are lowly, they are deprived of their proper right, and debased, Paul, to take away this fear, and to show that we must not be affected thus, says that God, the only begotten, who was in the form of God, who was no whit inferior to the Father, who was equal to Him, "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." Now learn what this meaneth. Whatsoever a man robs, and takes contrary to his right, he dares not lay aside, from fear lest it perish, and fall from his possession, but he keeps hold of it continually. He who possesses some dignity which is natural to him, fears not to descend from that dignity, being assured that nothing of this sort will happen to him. As for example, Absalom usurped the government, and dared not afterwards to lay it aside. We will go to another example, but if example cannot present the whole matter to you, take it not amiss, for this is the nature of examples, they leave the greater part for the imagination to reason out. A man rebels against his sovereign, and usurps the kingdom: he dares not lay aside and hide the matter, for if he once hide it, straightway it is gone. Let us also take another example; if a man takes anything violently, he keeps firm hold of it continually, for if he lay it down, he straightway loses it. And generally speaking, they who have aught by rapine are afraid to lay it by, or hide it, or not to keep constantly in that state which they have assumed. Not so they, who have possessions not procured by rapine, as Man, who possesses the dignity of being a reasonable being. But here examples fail me, for there is no natural preeminence amongst us, for no good thing is naturally our own; but they are inherent in the nature of God. What does one say then? That the Son of God feared not to descend from His right, for He thought not Deity a prize seized. He was not afraid that any would strip Him of that nature or that right, Wherefore He laid it aside, being confident that He should take it up again. He hid it, knowing that He was not made inferior by so doing. For this cause, Paul says not, "He seized not," but, "He counted it not a prize"; He possessed not that estate by seizure, but it was natural, not conferred, it was enduring and safe. Wherefore he refused not to take the form of an inferior. The tyrant fears to lay aside the purple robe in war, while the king does it with much safety. Why so? because he holds his power not as a matter of seizure. He did not refuse to lay it aside, as one who had usurped it, but since He had it as His own by nature, since it could never be parted from Him, He hid it. This equality with God He had not by seizure, but as his own by nature.

[Daniel 7:13] "...And He arrived unto the Ancient of days, and they brought Him before His presence, and He gave unto Him authority and honor and royal power." All that is said here concerning His being brought before Almighty God and receiving authority and honor and royal power is to be understood in the light of the Apostle's statement: "Who, although He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and was found in His condition to be as a man: He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:6-8). And if the sect of the Arians were willing to give heed to all this Scripture with a reverent mind, they would never direct against the Son of God the calumny that He is not on an equality with God.

God who is eternally wise has with him his eternal Wisdom [the Son]. He is not in any way unequal to the Father. He is not in any respect inferior. For the apostle too says “who, when he was in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God.”

Wherein lies the Son’s equality? If you say in greatness, there is no equality of greatness in one who is less eternal. And so with other things. Is he perhaps equal in might but not equal in wisdom? Yet how can there be equality of might in one who is inferior in wisdom? Or is he equal in wisdom but not equal in might? But how can there be equality of virtue in one who is inferior in power? Instead Scripture declares more simply “he thought it not robbery to be equal.” Therefore every adversary of truth who is at all subject to apostolic authority must admit that the Son is in some one respect at least the equal of God. Let him choose whichever quality he might wish, but from that it will appear that he is equal in all that is attributed to divinity.

These things are said partly on account of the economy by which the Son assumed humanity … partly because the Son owes to the Father his existence and also owes to the Father indeed his equality or parity with the Father. The Father, however, owes to no one his being, whatever he is.

They that have done well will go to live with the angels of God; they that have done evil, to be tormented with the devil and his angels. And the form of a servant will pass away. For to this end He had manifested Himself, that He might execute judgment. After the judgment, He shall go hence, will lead with Him the body of which He is the head, and deliver up the kingdom of God. Then will openly be seen that form of God which could not be seen by the wicked, to whose vision the form of a servant must be shown. He says also in another place on this wise: "These shall go away into everlasting burning" (speaking of certain on the left), "but the just into life eternal;" of which life He says in another place: "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." Then will He be there manifested, "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Then He will manifest Himself, as He has promised to manifest Himself to them that love Him.

When he dwelt among humans, he appeared as God by his acts and works. “For the form of God” differs in nothing from God. Indeed, the reason for his being called the form and image of God is to make it apparent that he himself, though distinguishable from God the Father, is everything that God is.… His works revealed his form. Since his works were not those of a human, he whose work or form was that of God was perceived to be God. For what is “the form of God?” Is it not shown by the evidences given of his divinity—by his raising of the dead, his restoration of hearing to the deaf, his cleansing of lepers?

Knowing that he is “in the form of God,” he committed no theft.… Rightly, then, he equaled himself with God. For the one who “thinks robbery” is the one who makes himself equal to another whose inferior he is.

God is the very principle of life. God is being itself. God contains life as a principle of life and so also understanding. But life and understanding are in a sense the form and image of what exists. What most truly exists is God. God is being itself, as many agree, and more so that which is above existence. The form of existence is motion, understanding and life.… Christ is said to be “the form of God” because Christ is life, consciousness and understanding.

It was he who was and is and always shall be in the form of the Father, the true Son, immutable and unchangeable because he is God and the all-powerful Son of the Almighty, who nonetheless deigned to lower himself for our salvation, so that he might cause us to rise even as we lay prostrate.

What does this mean—“being equal to God”? It means that he [the Son] is of the very same power and substance [as the Father]. … It is in this sense therefore that Christ was equal to God. Note that Paul did not say Christ was “similar to God,” for that would imply that Christ possessed some accidental likeness to the substance of God but not that he was substantially equal. … Thus Christ is the form of God. The form of God is the substance of God. The form and image of God is the Word. The Word is forever with God. The Word is of one substance with the Father, with whom from the beginning it remains forever the Word.

It would be a kind of robbery if two things were not equal by nature but were forced to be made equal or made equal through some accident. It therefore shows great confidence and bespeaks the very nature of divinity when Paul says of Christ that he did not think it robbery to be equal with God yet did not consider this equality something he had to fortify.

You must choose one of two paths. Either there is a single inequality in the two [divine Father and divine Son] or there is a single equality in the glory of divinity itself. For no one is either greater or less than his own form.… This singular equality is seen not only in the concord of their willing together. It is rather in their very deity, since the form of equality is in no way divided into parts. Where there is one equality, there is no discord. Where there is one equality, neither is prior to the other. Neither is posterior nor subordinate, since there is no distinction in the united equality, which is the fullness of divinity.

But if [the Arians] think the “form of God” is not the being of God, let them be asked what they think is the “form of a slave.” … If the form of a slave is the being of a slave, then the form of God is God.… Furthermore, let us recognize also that the apostle uses the example of Christ as a lesson in humility.… If the Son was not equal to the Father but inferior, he did not obey in humility—he merely fulfilled his station.

Being God, and God by nature, and having equality with God, he thought this no great thing, as is the way of those who have received some honor beyond their merits, but, hiding his merit, he elected the utmost humility and took the shape of a human being.

You see that he reveals Christ to be a man but not merely so, since he is the mediator of God and humanity.… He is trueborn God by nature with respect to his Father, but with respect to humanity he is Mary’s trueborn son by nature, begotten without the seed of a man.

Suppose that when he became a slave he ceased being truly Lord. How then could it be said that in his coming the one who was “in the form of God took the form of a slave”?

He did not rob, because who he was, he was by nature. Thus the omnipotence of the Father was in the Son and the omnipotence of the Son in the Father. The Father is never without the Son nor the Son without the Father.

While the whole Word came to us when “the Word was made flesh,” the whole remained with the Father in Spirit, equal to the Father, from whom he is eternally begotten yet made less by the gracious assumption of flesh so that he could be visible to us. And by this the Lord from the Lord remained Lord “in the form of God.” In order that he might come to slaves he received “the form of a slave” from his handmaid.

Therefore that person truly touches Jesus who believes the Son to be coeternal with the Father. For in the heart of Paul, Jesus had already ascended to the Father when the same Paul was saying: "Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God." Hence John also touched our Redeemer with the hand of faith, who says: "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 were made through him." Therefore that person touches the Lord who believes him equal to the Father in eternity of substance.

Count how many heretics are overthrown here. Marcion of Pontus said that the world and the flesh are evil, and that therefore God did not assume flesh. Marcellus of Galatia, Photinus, and Sophronius said that the Word of God is a power and not a hypostatic being, and that this power dwelt in Him Who came from the seed of David. And Paul of Samosata said that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mere names ascribed to one person. Arius said that the Son is a creature. Apollinarius of Laodicea said that He did not assume a rational soul. So then, see how all these heretics fall by almost a single blow: "being in the form of God." How then do you, Marcellians, say that the Word is a power and not a substance? The form of God means the substance of God, just as the form of a servant means the nature of a servant. And how do you, Samosatan, say that He began His existence from Mary? For He pre-existed in the form and substance of divinity. But see how Sabellius also falls. "He did not consider it robbery," says the apostle, "to be equal with God." "Equal" is not said of one person; if He is equal, He is equal to someone. Thus it is clear that two persons are spoken of. And Arius is refuted in many ways: "in the form of God," that is, in substance. And he did not say "having become" — γεγονώς, but "being" — ὑπάρχων, which is similar to the saying: "I am He Who Is" (Ex. 3:14). And: "He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God." Do you see the equality? After this, how do you say that the Father is greater and the Son is lesser? But look at the senseless obstinacy of the heretics. The Son, they say, being a lesser God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with the great God. But first of all, what Scripture teaches us that there is a lesser and a greater God? Thus teach the pagans. And that the Son is also a great God, hear what Paul says: "looking for," he says, "the appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" (Tit. 2:13). Then, if He is small, how did He not consider it robbery for Himself to be great? Furthermore, Paul, intending to teach humility, would have appeared absurd if he were suggesting the following: since the lesser God did not revolt against the greater God, you also must humble yourselves before one another. For what kind of humility is it when the lesser does not revolt against the greater? That is mere powerlessness. Humility is that He, being equal and co-equal in power with God, voluntarily became man. So then, enough about this. Next, see what Paul says: "He did not consider it robbery." When someone has stolen something, he is afraid to set it aside, lest he lose what does not belong to him. But when he has something by nature, he easily disregards it, knowing that he cannot be deprived of it, and if he should seem to renounce it, he will take it up again. Thus the apostle says that the Son of God was not afraid to lower His own dignity, because He possessed it — that is, equality with God the Father — not through robbery, but recognized this dignity as belonging to His own nature. Therefore He also chose self-emptying, since even in self-emptying He preserves His greatness.

Then when he says, who, though he was in the form of God, etc., he proposes the example of Christ. First, he mentions Christ's majesty; secondly, His humility (2:7); thirdly, His exaltation (2:9). He mentions Christ's majesty first, in order that His humility might be more easily recommended. In regard to His majesty he proposes two things, namely, the truth of His divine nature, and His equality. He says, therefore: who, namely, Christ, though he was in the form of God. For it is through its form that a thing is said to be in a specific or generic nature; hence the form is called the nature of a thing. Consequently, to be in the form of God is to be in the nature of God. By this is understood that He is true God: "That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ" (1 Jn. 5:20). However, it should not be supposed that the form of God is one thing and God himself another, because in simple and immaterial things, and especially in God, the form is the same as that whose form it is. But why does he say, in the form, rather than "in the nature"? Because this belongs to the proper names of the Son in three ways: for He is called the Son, the Word and the Image. Now the Son is the one begotten, and the end of begetting is the form. Therefore, to show the perfect Son of God he says, in the form, as though having the form of the Father perfectly. Similarly, a word is not perfect unless it leads to a knowledge of a thing's nature; and so the Word of God is said to be in the form of God, because He has the entire nature of the Father. Finally, an image is not perfect, unless it has the form of that of which it is the image: "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature" (Heb. 1:3). But does He have it perfectly? Yes, because He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. This can be taken two ways: in one way, of His humanity. But this is not the way Paul understood it, because it would be heretical; for it would be a grasping [robbery] if it referred to his humanity. Therefore, it must be explained in another way, namely, of His divinity, according to which equality with God is said of Christ. It is contrary to reason to say otherwise: because the nature of God cannot be received in matter; but the fact that someone existing in a certain nature participates in that nature to a greater or lesser degree is due to the matter; which is not the case here. Therefore, we must say that He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, because He is in the form of God and knows His own nature well. And because He knows this, it is stated in John (5:18): "He called God his Father, making himself equal with God." But this is not a grasping, as it was when the devil and man wished to be equal to Him: "I will make myself like the Most High" (Is. 14:14); "You will be like God" (Gen. 3:5), for which Christ came to make satisfaction: "What I did not steal must I now restore?" (Ps. 69:4).

The apostle beseeches them by various considerations, to live in unity and in the spirit of the Gospel, loving each other; and each to prefer his brother to himself, Phi 2:1-4. He exhorts them to be like-minded with Christ, who, though in the form of God, and equal with God, made himself of no reputation, and humbled himself to the death of the cross for the salvation of man; in consequence of which he was highly exalted, and had a name above every name; to whose authority every knee should bow, and whose glory every tongue should acknowledge, Phi 2:5-11. They are exhorted to work out their own salvation through his power who works in them, that they may be blameless, and that the apostle's labor may not be in vain, Phi 2:12-16. He expresses his readiness to offer his life for the Gospel, Phi 2:17, Phi 2:18. Intends to send Timothy to them, of whom he gives a very high character; yet hopes to see them himself shortly, Phi 2:19-24. In the meantime sends Epaphroditus, who had been near death, and whom he begs them to receive with especial tenderness, Phi 2:25-30.

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, Ti1 6:16, and by which he manifested himself to the patriarchs of old, Deu 5:22, Deu 5:24; which was commonly accompanied with a numerous retinue of angels, Psa 68:17, and which in Scripture is called The Similitude, Num 12:8; The Face, Psa 31:16 : The Presence, Exo 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, Mar 16:12, that Jesus appeared to his disciples in another μορφη, shape, or form. And, Mat 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, Mat 16:27 : The Son of man will come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, etc,. Lastly, this sense of μορφη Θεου, is confirmed by the meaning of μορθη δουλου, Phi 2:7; which evidently denotes the appearance and behavior 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 ἁρπαγμον, 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, etc. 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 ἁρπαγμονbefore 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 Ethiopics, lib. vii. cap. 19, etc., 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.

CONTINUED EXHORTATION: TO UNITY: TO HUMILITY AFTER CHRIST'S EXAMPLE, WHOSE GLORY FOLLOWED HIS HUMILIATION: TO EARNESTNESS IN SEEKING PERFECTION, THAT THEY MAY BE HIS JOY IN THE DAY OF CHRIST: HIS JOYFUL READINESS TO BE OFFERED NOW BY DEATH, SO AS TO PROMOTE THEIR FAITH. HIS INTENTION TO SEND TIMOTHY: HIS SENDING EPAPHRODITUS MEANTIME. (Phi. 2:1-30) The "therefore" implies that he is here expanding on the exhortation (Phi 1:27), "In one Spirit, with one mind (soul)." He urges four influencing motives in this verse, to inculcate the four Christian duties corresponding respectively to them (Phi 2:2). "That ye be like-minded, having the same love, of one accord, of one mind"; (1) "If there be (with you) any consolation in Christ," that is, any consolation of which Christ is the source, leading you to wish to console me in my afflictions borne for Christ's sake, ye owe it to me to grant my request "that ye be like-minded" [CHRYSOSTOM and ESTIUS]: (2) "If there be any comfort of (that is, flowing from) love," the adjunct of "consolation in Christ"; (3) "If any fellowship of (communion together as Christians, flowing from joint participation in) the Spirit" (Co2 13:14). As Pagans meant literally those who were of one village, and drank of one fountain, how much greater is the union which conjoins those who drink of the same Spirit! (Co1 12:4, Co1 12:13) [GROTIUS]: (4) "If any bowels (tender emotions) and mercies (compassions)," the adjuncts of "fellowship of the Spirit." The opposites of the two pairs, into which the four fall, are reprobated, Phi 2:3-4.

Translate, "Who subsisting (or existing, namely, originally: the Greek is not the simple substantive verb, 'to be') in the form of God (the divine essence is not meant: but the external self-manifesting characteristics of God, 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' (Phi 2:7), which is in contrasted opposition to it, takes for granted the existence of His human nature, so 'the form of God' takes for granted His divine nature [BENGEL], Compare Joh 5:37; Joh 17:5; Col 1:15, 'Who is the IMAGE of the invisible God' at a time before 'every creature,' Co2 4:4, esteemed (the same Greek verb as in Phi 2:3) His being on an equality with God no (act of) robbery" or self-arrogation; claiming to one's self what does not belong to him. ELLICOTT, WAHL, and others have translated, "A thing to be grasped at," which would require the Greek to be harpagma, whereas harpagmos means the act of seizing. So harpagmos means in the only other passage where it occurs, PLUTARCH [On the Education of Children, 120]. The same insuperable objection lies against ALFORD'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 (Phi 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 between His 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 between His 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 great measure emptied Himself of His precedent "form," or outward self-manifesting glory as God. Not "looking on His own things" (Phi 2:4), He, though existing in the form of God, He esteemed it 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 (Exo 24:10-11), Aaron, &c.