WHAT DOES PHILIPPIANS 2:6 REALLY MEAN?

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (Phil. 2:5-6, KJV).

“You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had, who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,” (Phil. 2:5-6, NET)

“You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to” (Phil. 2:5-6, NLT).

“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Phil. 2:5-6, NASB).

“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (Phil. 2:5-6, NKJV). 

If there is one passage of the Bible that seems to say that the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, is coequal with God, it is this one. But is this really the message Apostle Paul sent to the Philippian believers in this place? Did Paul say here or in any other place that Jesus Christ is coequal with God?

The phrase “thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” as used in the KJV or the NKJV’s “did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” give a modern-day reader the impression that Paul was teaching Christ’s coequality with God in that passage. The question which every honest and sincere Christian wants answered is whether Paul did say that Christ was or is coequal with God. This is the question this article seeks to answer.

The rendering of almost all the English versions of the Bible are in no way different from that of the KJV and the NKJV. They say that Christ did not regard His equality with God as something to be grasped. Although the word “grasp” can mean either grabbing at something one does not have in order to get it, or clinging on to something one already has in order to retain it, the second meaning, that of clinging on to what one already has, is what they have written. Of the different versions at my disposal, only the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) have given a different rendering of the verse.

The publishers of some versions of the English Bible have shown a lack of conviction of what to make of the subject. The Today’s English Version (TEV), for example, in their 1976 version renders the verse as “He always had the nature of God but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God” (Emphases added throughout). But in their 1992 version, they changed the verse to read, “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God”. They have thus changed from their 1976 position which said Christ did not try to become equal with God, meaning that He was not equal with God to their 1992 position which means that Christ was equal with God but he did not hold on to it.

The same is true of the publishers of the New International Version (NIV). In their 1984 version they wrote,

“Who being in the very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped”. But they changed this in their 2011 version to read, “Who being in the very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage”.

The NIV Committee on Bible Translation made a publication in August 2010 where they attributed the change to progress in scholarship. The Committee wrote, inter alia, “When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word harpagmos, rendered “something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake …” – https://www.biblegateway.com/niv/Translators–Notes.pdf .

It has been found that the scholarship mentioned by the NIV Committee is the research work of Roy Hoover in his 1968 ThD dissertation at Harvard captioned “The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philological Solution”. That is where that interpretation is found. The Roy Hoover’s work was apparently unknown to the translators as at 1984 when the first edition was published. But the NIV Committee (and some other Bible commentators) later adopted Hoover’s interpretation of harpagmos to mean that Jesus Christ was indeed equal with God, but He chose not to use it to his own advantage.

Thus, like the NIV, many English translations have concluded that harpagmos which is found only in Philippians 2:6 means that Jesus Christ did not regard equality with God as something to cling to or something to use to His own advantage. In a nutshell almost all the versions of the English Bible affirm the Trinitarian creedal theology of Christ’s equality with God. Are they correct?

Harpagmos

The Greek word “harpagmos” is a masculine noun formed from the verb “harpazo”. In Strong’s Greek Lexicon #725, it means the act of seizing, especially by an open display of force, or the thing seized e.g. bounty (booty or spoil of war or prize).

Harpazo as defined in the Strong’s Greek Lexicon #726 means to seize, catch up, snatch away. Bible Helps properly defines it as “seize by force; snatch up, suddenly and decisively – like someone seizing bounty (spoil, a prize); to take by an open display of force (i.e. not covertly or secretly)”.

The word harpazo is used 13 times in the Bible. In the NKJV, the words in bold letters below are the translations of harpazo in the original Greek texts:

• The violent take it by force (Matt. 11:12);
• The wicked one … snatches away (Matt. 13:19);
• Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force (John 6:15);
• The wolf catches the sheep (John 10:12);
• Neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand (John 10:28);
• No one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand (John 10:29);
• The Spirit of the Lord caught [Philip] away (Acts 8:39);
• Commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them (Acts 23:10);
• Such a one was caught up (2 Cor. 12:2);
• How he was caught up into Paradise (2 Cor. 12:4);
• We who are alive and remain shall be caught up together (1 Thes. 4:17);
• But others save with fear, pulling [them] out of the fire (Jude 1:23);
• Her child was caught up to God (Rev. 12:5).

It is very clear that, in all the 13 places, the word harpazo carries the idea of snatching someone or something from a person or place by the use of some force. The notion of holding on to something already in one’s possession is totally absent in all the 13 places.

In his book entitled “The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation With a Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Professor Rolf Johan Furuli of the University of Oslo states, “When a noun with the ending “mos” was made from a verb, it became a verbal noun entailing the activity of the verb” (page 263). In other words, the noun is to be interpreted in accordance with the action in the verb.  An example of this is harpagmos which is a noun based on the verb harpazo. Another one is hagiasmos (consecration, purification, sanctification)formed from the verb hagiazo (consecrate, purify, sanctify).

Having regard to the usage of the verb harpazo, and the Rolf Furuli Rule, the correct meaning of harpagmos in Phil. 2:6 is the snatching or grabbing at something one does not have, that is, a seizure or usurpation. The verse means that our Lord Jesus Christ did not aspire to equality with God.

All the translations which assert Christ’s equality with God in Philippians 2:6 contradict Paul’s writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 3:23; 11:3; 15:27-28; 2 Cor. 11:31) and the Ephesians (Eph. 1:3,17) making Paul out as contradicting himself. They also contradict Christ’s frequent and explicit statements that God is His God which totally annuls any claim of equality with God. See John 20:17; 14:28; Rev. 3:12. Apostle Paul couldn’t have contradicted himself and the Lord Jesus Christ. The translators failed to grasp the correct interpretation of Philippians 2:6 because of their Trinitarian bias and their failure, willingly or ignorantly, to apply the known principles of sound biblical hermeneutics.

Biblical Truth and Men’s Traditions

The bizarre reality of Christian theology is that whereas biblical truth on any subject of the Christian faith remains singular and unchanging, men, by their lack of proper insight into the scriptures, have developed and taught many conflicting and fallacious teachings about God, Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. And through indoctrination and denominationalism, too many people have been made to accept the doctrines of men as biblical truth.

The Bible has plainly taught that Jesus Christ is not coequal with God. If indeed He is coequal with His God and Father, it will be senseless for us to say there is one God. The Bible has made it known that although Jesus Christ is in reality a God Being, He did not exist by Himself. He derived His life or existence from God, the Father of all beings. There is only one self-existed Being and He is the Father.

This point alone shows that Christ is not coequal with the Father. The Godhood of the Son derives primarily from the fact that He was begotten by God Himself, as opposed to someone begotten by a created being. The begotten cannot be coequal with the self-existed begetter.

Jesus Christ is a God Being because (i) God gave birth to Him and that made Him inherit the God nature from the Father; (ii) He, like His God and Father, has life in Himself (John 5:26). By “life in Himself” is meant the possession within oneself the power to give life to others. In other words, the Son, like God, is a “source” or “fountain” of life. God gave or granted His only begotten Son to be a fountain of life like Himself. Jesus Christ derived His life or existence from God and all of creation derived their existence from God through Jesus Christ. It is from the fountain which God had put in His Son that the Son gave life to all that were created by God through Him. The possession of life within Himself, out of which He gave life to others, like the Father, is what makes the Son God. His Godhood, however, is derived from, subordinate to, and subsumed in the Godhood of the Father who gave birth to Him and granted Him, before the beginning, to be a giver of life.

Whereas God’s existence is not derived from any other being, Christ’s existence was derived from God. His existence was not independent of God (John 5:26). That is why God is the God of Jesus Christ before and during His incarnation or humiliation. God remains His God even after His ascension and glorification (Rev. 3:12). Jesus Christ Himself is the one who said that God is His God. When He said the Father is greater than Himself, He didn’t qualify that statement in any sense. And His apostles, including Paul, did not teach anything which contradicts the clear and explicit words of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Conclusively, Apostle Paul did not write in Philippians 2:6 that Christ was equal with God. What the apostle wrote is that Christ’s possession of Godhood or having the same form [Greek: morphe] as God did not make Him aspire to equality with God. He did not think of wanting to become equal with God.

In all the 13 times the verb harpazo is used in the Bible, it does not connote the idea of holding on to something one already has in one’s possession. The noun harpagmos which is derived from that verb cannot honestly and correctly be interpreted to mean holding on to something already possessed by someone. Therefore, the correct interpretation of Philippians 2:6 is that Jesus Christ did not think of seizing equality with God even though He was in the form of God. The Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) renders it: “Though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God something to be possessed by force”.

The English translations of that verse which say that Christ was equal with God negates not only the writings of Paul as seen in other passages but also the ipsissima verba of the Lord Himself. All the translators who adopt the translation of Christ’s equality with God have been misled by the Trinitarian falsehood. Some of these theologians have resorted to calling harpagmos an enigmatic word because the usage of the verb “harpazo” from which “harpagmos” is formed faults with their interpretation.

There have been unending arguments on almost all the subjects of the Christian faith. Interestingly many people who are in the different schools of thought do not have the correct understanding of what the scriptures teach. Many Christians cannot understand how Jesus Christ could be God and yet God is His God. But the Bible has made it known that Jesus Christ is a life-giving Spirit-Being like God, but His existence is derived from God. That is why He is God, but He is not coequal with His God who granted Him His existence. The Supreme One who granted the Son to also have life in Himself is the One God. The Son has been with the Supreme One before the creation of all things and He has been and will always be subordinate to the Supreme One who alone is called the God of Gods, the Most High [God] and the Almighty. That is why the Supreme One remains the God of our Lord Jesus Christ even after Christ’s ascension and glorification (Rev. 3:12). Jesus Christ is the only God who has a God.

The Apostle Paul clearly understood the scriptures which say that God the Father is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ (Ps. 45:6-7). He affirmed this in many places, including 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1:3,17; Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31. 

I hope my fellow Christians understand what it means for the apostle to say that God is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is evident that, inasmuch as the Father is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, He cannot be equal with His God. God is His God, not only in His incarnation but also in His divinity (John 5:26; Rev. 3:12).

Having regard to the above fact, we know that all the versions of the English Bible, including the KJV, which interpret Philippians 2:6 as Christ not regarding equality with God as robbery, or that Christ is equal with God, cannot be correct. The fact that God is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ is more than enough proof that Jesus Christ and God, the Father, are not coequal.See John 10:29; 14:28. Paul never contradicted the words of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6:3) nor was he ever found reversing himself. He wrote to the Corinthians that God is Supreme over Christ (1 Cor. 11:3) and to the Ephesians that God is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:17). He would have reversed himself if he wrote to the Philippians that Christ is equal with God.

The correct interpretation of Philippians 2:6 is that Jesus Christ never gave thought to the idea of wanting to snatch at equality with God even though He was in the form of God. This is the interpretation that makes harpagmos agree with the usage of the verb harpazo from which it was derived. It is also the interpretation that harmonizes Paul’s writing in Philippians 2:6 with his writings in other places.

In summary, the verb harpazo from which the noun harpagmos is derived and used in Phil. 2:6 always means to snatch something away, take it by force, pluck up, and catch away. Therefore, the noun harpagmos found only in Philippians 2:6 means grasping at something one does not have, by the use of some force. It means our Lord Jesus Christ didn’t attempt at “snatching at” equality with God. He did not even think of it. Instead, He humbled Himself by taking the low estate of an undignified human slave.