Philippians 2:6-7--The Son Did Not Consider A Snatching

The inspired apostle Paul writes: ouch harpagmon egesato to einai isa theo. What is the significance of this construction? The Greek noun harpagmos is derived from the verb harpazo. Harpazo can denote the act of stripping, spoiling, snatching, seizing with force or robbing someone. Greek writers also employ the signifier to describe "an open act of violence in contrast to cunning and secret thieving" (Zodhiates 892). Moreover, harpazo carries the sense of a forcible seizure, a snatching away or taking to oneself (see Dunn’s observations in Dodd and Martin 77). Early Christian writers employ harpazo at Mt. 11:12; 13:19; Acts 8:38; 2 Cor. 12:2, 4; 1 Thess. 4:17, Rev. 12:5. The sense of the word in Phil. 2:6 is not so much retaining as it is that of forceful seizure:

Once we recognize that for Paul Christ did not possess equality with God in an absolute sense, for the very reason that he was the Son of God, the meaning of the problematic expression ouch harpagmon hegesato becomes clear. Every interpretation that assumes the essential equality of Christ with God is excluded. In spite of certain difficulties, the sense of ouch harpagmon hegesato must lie in the direction of res rapienda: the Son of God did not think equality with God something to be grasped. (Wannamaker 188)

Attributing a passive sense to harpagmos appears to be unwarranted (Hawthorne 84-85). Exploring this issue further before coming to any definite conclusions, however, we will now note the exegesis of Moises Silva:

The ambiguous phrase in v. 6, [ouch harpagmon hegesato], has created a literature far more extensive than it probably deserves. In particular, one is impressed by the futility of trying to reach a decision regarding Jesus' preexistence and deity on the basis of whether harpagmon has an active meaning or a passive meaning . . . if one opts for the passive idea, is the nuance positive ("windfall, advantage") or negative ("booty, prize")? Further, if it carries a negative nuance, we must decide whether it speaks of a thing already possessed, which one is tempted to hold on to . . . or a thing not possessed, which one may be tempted to snatch. (Silva 117)

Ultimately, Silva concludes that a sense of retaining may be the most likely meaning of harpagmos in Phil. 2:6. But he is forced to admit that such a conclusion is uncertain and not central to the "hymn" of Philippians 2:6-11 (117). Furthermore, Silva acknowledges that the few instances of harpagmos outside of Christian literature are all active and not passive (as is the case with harpagma). Consulting Abbott-Smith also reveals: "there is certainly a presumption in favour of the active meaning here" in Phil. 2:6 since the apostle does not use the LXX form harpagma. Paul thus speaks of an act of seizing: not of a thing seized or a thing retained (Abbott-Smith 60).