I wrote this study during my seminary years at Bob Jones University and lightly revised it in 2008.
One of the primary battlegrounds for the debate concerning the Trinity is Philippians 2:6. The Greek text reads, “ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ.” What is this verse teaching, and what is the meaning of “ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων” and “ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῶ”? The Watch Tower publication, Should You Believe in the Trinity, is attacking the deity of Christ from different versions and commentators, twisting even Trinitarian men to try to prove that Christ was not God. What follows are some general remarks concerning the last phrase of the above verse and some comments on the false claims of the article of the (so-called) Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The word ἁρπαγμός is a hapax legomenon in the Greek Scriptures, both in the Old and New Testaments. According to the new BDAG, it means (1) an act of violent seizure of property, robbery (under which Phil 2:6 is included); (2) a product, as equal to ἁρπαγμα, something to which one can claim or assert title by gripping or grasping; (a) booty; (b) a piece of good fortune, windfall, prize, gain; and (3) rapture.1 Robertson suggests, “The few examples of ἁρπαγμός (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα, like βαπτισμος and βαπτισμα.2 He argues this even though the –μα ending usually designates the result of an action while the –μος usually designates the action itself.3 One of its noun cognates, ἁρπαγμα, occurs only in the LXX, a total of 18 times.4 This word has the meaning of the object acquired by the act of seizure. Another noun cognate, ἁρπαγή, occurs in the Scriptures 8 times,5 and may either designate (1) the act of seizure, (2) the product of seizure, or (3) the desire for seizure (i.e., greediness).6 There is as well an adjectival cognate, ἅρπαξ, which occurs 6 times in the Scriptures,7 and it either describes (1) the quality of the person doing the act of seizure or (2) is used as a substantive for the one seizing. All of these words are connected to the verb ἁρπάζω, which occurs 48 times in the Greek Scriptures.8 The verb seems to always carry the idea of “grasping after” rather than “holding onto.”
The main issue concerns the meaning of the word ἁρπαγμος, whether it is means (1) to hold onto or (2) to seize, and if it means to seize, whether (a) the product of seizure is in view or (b) the act of seizure.9 Do the latter imply that He does not have equality with God, or does it imply that He does not regard it as something to be grasped because He already has it? These various possibilities would create essentially three different translations: (1) He did not consider being equal to God a thing to be held on to, (2a) He did not consider being equal to God to be a thing to be grasped, or (2b) He did not consider being equal to God to be an act of seizing. Another important issue that comes into play with (2b) is whether ἁρπαγμός has as its object τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῶ or not. The first two translations say that it does, while the last one thinks it does not. A fourth translation might be suggested, which is basically the same as the previous, but a slight more interpretative, (2c) He did not consider being equal to God to be a seizing or to be (an opportunity for) seizing (i.e., to be used for His own advantage). These last two options differ from the rest in that the thing being held on to or grasped after is not equality with God, rather ἁρπαγμός refers to the general characteristic of being self-seeking (i.e., the fact that Christ was not grasping after things but giving of Himself—even unto death.)10 A final issue relates to the participial use of ὑπάρχων, whether it should be seen as concessive or causal. Was it because Christ was in God’s nature that He did not consider being equal with God to be a seizing, or was it in spite of it. Notice the eight possible translations that result, each communicating a different idea.
Concessive
(1) Who, although He existed in God’s nature, did not consider being equal to God to be a thing to be held onto.
(2a) Who, although He existed in God’s nature, did not consider being equal to God to be a thing to be grasped after.
(2b) Who, although He existed in God’s nature, did not consider being equal to God to be an act of seizing.
(2c) Who, although He existed in God’s nature, did not consider being equal to God to be an opportunity for seizing.
Causal
(1) Who, because He existed in God’s nature, did not consider being equal to God to be a thing to be held onto.
(2a) Who, because He existed in God’s nature, did not consider being equal to God to be a thing to be grasped after.
(2b) Who, because He existed in God’s nature, did not consider being equal to God to be an act of seizing.
(2c) Who, because He existed in God’s nature, did not consider being equal to God to be an opportunity for seizing.
The grammar of the verse is this. ὃς is functioning as the subject of the sentence, referring to Christ Jesus in the previous verse. The main verb of the sentence is ἡγήσατο, which is negated by οὐχ. ἡγέομαι often takes a double accusative construction, as we have here—a double accusative object/predicate.11 The first accusative, or the direct object, is the articular phrase τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῶ. Literally, “the being equal to God” is what He did not consider. The second accusative, or the predicate, is the noun ἁρπαγμὸν. In this kind of construction, the object becomes the subject of its own clause, with the predicate becoming its object. Therefore, we have, “The being equal to God is not a seizing (or a thing to be seized, depending upon how the word is understood). Finally, the phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is functioning in some adverbial relationship to ἡγήσατο, either as causal or concessive. The verb ὑπάρχων designates a state of existence, and the prepositional phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεου designates the sphere of that existence. See the diagram below for a graphical representation.
ὃς οὐχ ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῶ ἁρπαγμὸν
[εἶναι]
ὑπάρχων
ἐν μορφῇ θεου
1. Concerning the comments of Ralph Martin and The Expositor’s Greek Testament, it is not necessary to see the word ἁρπαγμός as “holding onto” in order to understand this passage as teaching the equality of the Son of God to the Father concerning His divine essence—something which the author of the article almost assumes as essential. As it is seen from translations 2a-c above, ἁρπαγμός is being used in the active sense of “grasping.” The author makes the bold assertion that according to the comments Ralph Martin and The Expositor’s Greek Testament, “The translators of… the King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends.” But even the KJV itself is using ἁρπαγμός in the sense that these sources demand it must be taken, not in the sense of “holding onto.” His citing these comments does not even have any bearing on the two translations that were quoted as being wrong, but rather it supports them. These comments oppose translation 1 above, the translation supported by Robertson, which views ἁρπαγμός as “holding onto.”12 In fact both of the sources cited are Trinitarian. Notice what The Expositor’s Greek Testament goes on to say, “He [Christ] has always… shared in the Divine nature…. But it is only as the result of His Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection and Exaltation that He appears to men as on an equality with God, that He is worshipped by them in the way in which Jehovah is worshipped.”13 How conveniently did our author omit this portion in his citation. Martin as well affirms the full deity and equality of the Son of God to His Father.14 Finally, the author goes on in the same paragraph and says that Christ did not think it was “appropriate to be equal to God,” but he is the one guilty of reading his antitrinitarian presuppositions into the text, coming up with a conclusion that the passage does not support in the least, the very thing he is accusing the KJV translators of doing.
2. The author also claims that there are two ways in which Trinitarians misinterpret the text to support the equality of the Father and Son, either by (1) saying that Christ had it but did not hold onto it or (2) by saying that He did not need to grasp after it because he already had it. He deals with the first (for which there is linguistic and exegetical basis) in his citations of Ralph Martin and The Expositor’s Greek Testament, but he does not deal with the second thoroughly at all. He gives no exegetical or linguistic basis for assuming Christ did not have equality with God, but only tries to argue from the context, reading his view into the passage and forcing it to fit. The essential thrust of the context is this. Paul begins chapter 2 by calling the Philippians to live in light of their unity in Christ (vv. 1–2). In order for this positional reality to become an experiential one, it was necessary that no one act with selfish motivations in mind (v. 3). Each Christian must be humble in mind, thinking highly of others and acting in pursuit of others’ well being (v. 4). This attitude that is essential for Christian unity was most perfectly displayed in Christ (v. 5). Who, because He was in nature God did not consider this His equality with God to be an occasion for self-seeking or grasping after (v. 6), but rather He saw it as an opportunity to humble Himself in the incarnation, becoming a man and a servant (v. 7). This humility took Him all the way to death (v. 8). And because of His humble obedience, God has exalted Him to the place of supreme worship (vv. 9–10). This was the attitude that the Philippian believers were supposed to have in order to maintain unity as the body of Christ.
3. The author’s final paragraph is full of twisted exegetical conclusions and faulty presuppositions, claiming that this passage “cannot be talking about any part of Almighty God,” referring to God as Jesus’ “Superior and Creator.” This passage, far from denying the teaching that Jesus was an inferior, created being, is a masterful affirmation of the full equality of divine essence between the Father and the Son. Christ is in His very essential being in God’s nature, fully divine, which the second half of the verse parallels with being equal to God. This is not to say however, that, while there was and is an essential equality in divine essence between the Father and Son, there was not a functional subordination during Christ’s earthly ministry. Christ continually expressed dependence upon the Father and submission to Him in every aspect of His life and ministry. He claimed that His Father was indeed greater than He, not in essential being but in function as Father. This is precisely that of which he emptied Himself.
The (so-called) Jehovah’s Witnesses often create a straw man, misrepresenting the Trinitarian position as Modalism. Trinitarians do not claim that Jesus is the Father or that the Father is Jesus, because Scripture makes no such claim—something that antitrinitarians often wrongly assert. But Scripture does claim that Jesus is Yahweh, the one true God, and that the Father is Yahweh the one true God, both fully divine, with distinct personalities, yet one in essence.
Notes
1. BDAG, 133. ↩
2. Robertson’s Word Pictures, IV, p. 444. ↩
3. See Robertson’s Word Pictures,, where he says, “Originally words in –μος signified the act, not the result (-μα).” ↩
4. These occurrences are Lev. 5:23; Ps. 61:11; Job 29:17; Mal. 1:13; Is. 42:22; 61:8; Ez. 18:7, 12, 16, 18; 19:3, 6; 22:25, 27, 29; 33:15; including two apocryphal passages Sir. 16:13; Pss. 2:24. ↩
5. It occurs 5 times in the OT and 3 times in the NT. It also occurs 4 times in the apocryphal literature. ↩
6. BDAG, 133. ↩
7. It occurs once in the OT in Genesis 49:27, and 5 times in the NT in Mat. 7:15; Luke 18:11; 1 Cor. 5:10, 11; 6:10. ↩
8. There are 34 OT occurrences and 14 NT occurrences. It also occurs 6 times in the apocryphal literature. ↩
9. The product of seizure may also carry a good or bad connotation. ↩
10. For a very full treatment on this verse and support for this translation, see the NIGTC on Philippians by Peter O’Brien, pp. 211–16. ↩
11. It could as well be taken as an indirect discourse with the verb of thinking, although the meaning is hardly changed. ↩
12. Robertson, IV, p. 444. “Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (‘robbery’).” ↩
13. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 437. ↩
14. Ralph Martin, Philippians, 96–97. ↩