representation of an object but in some way to participate in the being of the object it

symbolized. In some sense it was the object it represented, "the reality itself coming to

expression". This is all in line with the meaning of morphe in Phil. 2:

Our next problem is the meaning of harpagmos "robbery". We have no help from its

usage, for, as stated before, it occurs nowhere else in the N.T. and not once in the 70:

Furthermore, it is very rarely used in Greek literature generally. The word may be taken

actively as the A.V., or passively as in the R.V. "Counted it not a prize to be on an

equality with God."  One view means that equality with God was Christ's normal

possession and inherent right. It was not a thing to be seized, for in the "form of God"

He had no need to grasp after that which He already had. The other view is that the Lord

did not consider equality with God a thing to be maintained at all costs, "a prize which

must not slip from His grasp" (Lightfoot), but emptied Himself and became incarnate.

The question is not only which view fits the present context, but also the remoter context

of John 1: 1 and Col. 1: 15-18. We feel that this has been forgotten by many expositors.

Furthermore, are the expressions the "form of God" and "on an equality with God"

parallel expressions? Those who say "yes" hold the view that the pre-incarnate Word

already possessed equality with God and therefore there was no need for Him to attempt

to seize it, but on the contrary, He voluntarily humbled Himself.  The other view

postulates that before Bethlehem Christ had not this equality. He could have seize it, but

rather than doing so, chose the lowly path of obedience and humbling, waiting for the

Father to exalt Him as Lord and give Him this equality which He did not have previously.

This latter view has been largely followed by expositors since Lightfoot's day. We ask

therefore which view fits the context of the whole of Scripture dealing with the Word

Who was God and then in due time, God manifest in the flesh? In appealing to the

example of Christ, do we expect to read of a right which He did not possess and might

have seized, or a glory which He had and renounced for us and for our salvation, and one

day will receive back again manifestly to all creation?

For ourselves, though not the fashion at the moment, we believe the latter view is the

true one. However, there are modern scholars who accept it, such as S. H. Hooke (Alpha

and Omega) and W. Barclay (Great Themes of the New Testament). Dr. Barclay writes,

"Jesus Christ did not consider His own equality with God an act of seizure and of

plundering. There was no necessity that He should do so, for that equality was His . . . . .

by right".

We are told by some expositors that this view does not fit the context, but we are

absolutely at a loss to understand why this is so. In our estimation it fits not only the

context we are dealing with, but, as before stated, the remoter context of John 1: 1 and

Col. 1:,  which is apparently forgotten by these critics and must be taken into

consideration if a Scriptural and correct understanding of Phil. 2: 5-11 is desired. This

may seem to raise a problem in the exaltation mentioned in the verses that follow but we

must not try to trim the first statements of this hymn in order to fit (as we may think) its

final lines.