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).
Cf Luke 14:11
ReplyDelete@Duncan
DeleteLuke 14:11 says, "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
This verse is highly relevant to the discussion of Philippians 2:6-11, where Christ’s humility and subsequent exaltation by God is emphasized. In Philippians, we see Jesus, who, though He existed in the form of God, did not cling to His equality with God but humbled Himself by taking on human form and becoming obedient to the point of death. As a result, God highly exalted Him, giving Him the name above every name.
This mirrors the principle laid out in Luke 14:11: Christ humbled Himself, and in response, God exalted Him. The key point in Philippians is not about Christ lacking equality with God, but about Him voluntarily setting aside His divine privileges and taking the form of a servant. Therefore, the humility spoken of in Luke 14:11 is exemplified perfectly in Christ's actions in Philippians 2:6-11.
The passage does not deny Christ's divinity, as some interpretations like the Jehovah's Witnesses’ might suggest. Instead, it emphasizes His humility in how He used His divine status—not for self-promotion, but for the sake of others, which resulted in His ultimate exaltation by God.
Quote:
ReplyDelete“In no verse does the word... [ harpazo ] or any of its derivatives [including harpagmon ] have the meaning 'to possess,' 'to keep.' It almost always means “ to seize,” “ to appropriate.” It is therefore inadmissible to depart from the true meaning of 'to seize' and to substitute for it the entirely different meaning of 'to hold on'" (The Expositor's Greek Testament, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1967, Vol. 3, pp. 436-437).
The interpretation that Christ did not possess equality with God and refused to grasp it (res rapienda) is inconsistent with the broader context of the passage, which emphasizes His voluntary humility and self-emptying (known as "kenosis"). The passage begins with the assertion that Christ "was in the form of God" (Philippians 2:6). The Greek term "morphe" here refers to Christ’s essential nature or divine attributes, not merely an outward appearance.
ReplyDeleteIf Christ was already in "the form of God," this implies that He had equality with God before His incarnation. This is key to understanding the contrast: although Christ had divine status, He did not cling to it but voluntarily emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant. The point is not that He was reaching for something He did not have, but that He was willingly giving up what He already possessed.
The more fitting interpretation of "harpagmos" is res rapta et retinenda—"something that one possesses but does not cling to." This view aligns with the idea that Christ did not consider His equality with God something to be clung to at all costs. The word "harpagmos," which can mean "something seized or retained," is not necessarily about forceful grasping for something not yet possessed. Rather, it can also indicate something already in one’s possession but not exploited.
A helpful analogy is the character of Gollum from The Lord of the Rings and his obsession with the One Ring. Gollum clung to the Ring, viewing it as his precious possession and refusing to let go. In contrast, Christ’s attitude was the opposite: although He had equality with God, He did not cling to it as something to be exploited for His own advantage but freely relinquished it for the sake of humanity. This fits with Paul’s larger point about humility and selflessness.
While it is true that "harpagmos" is derived from the verb "harpazo" (to seize), this does not necessarily mean that the word must have an active sense (res rapienda). As noted by scholars like Moises Silva, it is difficult to definitively argue for an active or passive sense based purely on the root of the word. Moreover, Silva acknowledges that the context of Philippians 2:6 supports the idea that Christ did not hold onto His divine status, rather than the notion that He was striving to attain it.
Additionally, the fact that the term "harpagmos" appears rarely in Greek literature means that we must look at the broader theological and contextual clues to understand its meaning in Philippians. Paul’s use of the term does not require an active sense of seizing something not yet possessed; rather, it aligns more naturally with the idea of something not clung to or exploited, which fits the overall narrative of Christ’s self-emptying.
The argument that Christ did not have equality with God because He was the Son of God is a theological misunderstanding. The Son’s equality with the Father is affirmed throughout the New Testament (John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-20, Hebrews 1:3). The traditional understanding of the Trinity holds that the Son is co-equal with the Father in His divine nature. Philippians 2:6-7 does not present a contradiction to this doctrine but rather highlights the Son’s humility in not clinging to His divine privileges.
ReplyDeleteIn the interpretation you provided, Christ’s act of humility is reduced to simply not grasping for something He didn’t have. This interpretation diminishes the significance of Christ’s kenosis (self-emptying). The power of the passage lies in the fact that Christ did have equality with God but voluntarily set aside the use of His divine attributes to become human. This is the heart of the passage’s theological depth: it shows Christ’s willingness to step down from His divine glory for the sake of humanity.
The New World Translation’s rendering of Philippians 2:6 ("did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God") is problematic because it introduces an idea that is not present in the Greek text. The Greek phrase "to einai isa theo" (to be equal with God) suggests that Christ already had this status, and the issue at hand is whether He would cling to it or exploit it. The NWT introduces the concept of "trying to be equal to God," which implies that Christ was never equal to God in the first place—a reading that is foreign to the original Greek and inconsistent with mainstream Christian doctrine.
@T
ReplyDeleteThe claim that harpagmos or any of its derivatives, including harpazo, "no verse" means "to possess" or "to keep" and always refers to "seizing" or "appropriating" is misleading for several reasons.
First, it’s important to note that harpagmos occurs only once in the entire New Testament, in Philippians 2:6. Therefore, making sweeping claims about its meaning based on biblical usage is problematic since we lack other biblical contexts to compare. This single occurrence means we must rely on broader linguistic analysis and the surrounding context to determine its meaning.
Second, while harpazo (the verb form) often refers to "seizing" or "snatching" in the sense of taking something by force, the noun form harpagmos can indeed carry the idea of something already possessed or retained. Scholars like Moises Silva have noted that harpagmos could imply something "clung to" or "held onto" rather than something to be forcibly seized.
In the case of Philippians 2:6, the context strongly suggests that Jesus did not consider His equality with God as something to be clung to or exploited (res rapta et retinenda), but instead voluntarily relinquished it. This contrasts with the res rapienda interpretation, which implies that Jesus was striving for something He did not already possess—an idea that runs counter to the traditional understanding of Christ’s pre-existent divine status.
Therefore, the Expositor's Greek Testament's claim that it is "inadmissible" to interpret harpagmos as "holding on" overlooks the broader possibilities of the word's meaning and the context of Philippians 2:6. This passage, when properly interpreted, emphasizes Christ’s voluntary humility, not His attempt to seize something that wasn't already His.