Prior to His incarnation Christ subsisted in the form (morphe) of God - (Philippians 2:6)[Top]
Philippians 2:6 is considered strong evidence that the Word was God. Verses 1-11 clarify that it is a plea for unity and humility, with Christ Jesus’ “humbling of self and obedience to the point of death” as the exemplary attitude true believers should emulate (NAB notes 2,1-11).
Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,
Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself,
becoming obedient to death,
even death on a cross. (Ephesians 2:5-8 NAB)
The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that these verses are not grounds for equating the Word with God, and focus their analysis on the latter part of verse 6 which reads “…who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped (NAB; “gave no consideration for a seizure” NWT; “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” NKJV). They teach that “robbery” (Greek harpagmos) does not convey the idea of holding in possession or retention in the sense of holding on to equality, but that it means to seize or snatch violently (Reasoning, 420). Therefore, Christ was not holding on, or trying to hold on, to equality with God but thought it as something that could not or should not be attained or grasped or reached for, being only a man.
Strong and Vine’s disagrees with their assessment and applies “robbery” (harpagmos) in a different way that comports more with the context of the entire sentence and accompanying verses. “At Philippians 2:6 “robbery” (harpagmos), “as a verb, means “to seize, carry off by force” (Strong and Vine’s, 42). “The middle/passive sense gives meaning to the passage as the purpose of the passage is to set forth Christ as the supreme example to the Philippians (and us) of humility and self-renunciation: “Who though He was subsisting in the essential form of God, yet did not regard His being on an equality of glory and majesty with God as a prize and a treasure to be held fast, he would not feel as if He had been robbed to give up His shared glory” (ibid., 42). Strong and Vine’s application of “robbery” (harpagmos) is diametrically opposed to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ use of that same term.
In all fairness to the Jehovah’s Witnesses it should be noted that there are at least two views on the matter, one of which agrees with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. With reference to Philippians 2:6 the Catholic New American Bible (NAB) states that it is:
Either a reference to Christ’s preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though … in the form of God (Gn 1, 26-27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Gn 3, 5-6.
So, equality with God is something Christ was willing to relinquish, or as the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret verse 6, Christ gave no consideration to seizing or grasping for equality with God.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, have utterly missed the point again by focusing on the wrong issue. Equality within the immanent Godhead is not established by the Word relinquishing it prior to His incarnation or grasping for it as a man after He became incarnate. Even though the latter part of verse 6 assumes His equality one way or the other, the first part establishes that assumed equality because the Word existed in the “form” of God. Focusing on “robbery” or “seizure” or “grasping” in order to determine the Word’s equality with God detracts from the primary issue of Christ’s subsisting in God’s “form” (morphe).
That His existing in God’s form equates Him with God is only emphasized by His stated “equality” (verse 6) regardless of whether it could be retained by God the Son or grasped for by the created humanity of Jesus.
“Form” (Greek morphe) denotes “the special or characteristic form or feature” of a person or thing; … it is used with particular significance in the NT only of Christ … in Phil 2:6, “being in the form of God,” and … 2:7 “taking the form of a servant” (Strong and Vine’s, 167).
An excellent definition of the word is: morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists …. (3a) Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the person of Christ …. (b) For the interpretation of ‘the Form of God’ it is sufficient to say that (3b1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and (3b2) that it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the ‘form,’ at another separated from it ….
(4) The true meaning of morphe in the expression “form of God” is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase “form of a servant.” It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that “form” must therefore have the same sense in both. (Strong and Vine’s, 167)
In other words, if the Word existed in the form of a servant He was that servant, and if the Word existed in the form of God He was that God. This complete similarity, the consubstantial existence, includes of necessity the divine person Christ’s eternal existence and all other relevant characteristics of the immanent triune God - the “fullness” of the Godhead. Had the Word been created, the imprint or stamp (Hebrews 1:3) would have been far less than “complete,” or “whole.”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses want you to believe that Jesus was not God because he did not consider seizing or acquiring equality with God, which would mean he was just a man, and therefore He could not be God. But at the expense of repetition, Trinitarians hold that the created humanity of Jesus is not God, and accordingly His grasping for equality has no bearing on whether God the Son, the preexistent Word, was divine, which is the primary issue. Conversely, if “robbery” or “seizure” or “grasping” refers to Christ hanging on to equality Christ would have to be equal because it says he was equal and because He was in the form of God. As such, the created Jesus’ thoughts and actions would have been immaterial in proving or disproving His preexistent equality. Philippians 2:6 means in part:
Christ possessed equality with God prior to His incarnation, and then for a time veiled that glory, being always God in all of the co-equal attributes, but in the incarnation never using His Godly powers to better Himself. He was fully God, fully man, God taking on the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), not a man adding Godliness. (Strong and Vine’s, 42)
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-6.html#30
