An Exegetical Examination of Philippians 2:6: Interpreting οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο
The interpretation of Philippians 2:6, particularly the phrase οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο (not something to be grasped/robbery), stands as a crucial point of scholarly debate concerning Christology and the ethical implications for the Philippian community. This passage, situated within Paul’s exhortation to humility and unity (Phil 2:1-4), presents Christ’s self-emptying (κένωσις) as the ultimate paradigm. The core exegetical issue revolves around whether ἁρπαγμὸν refers to an act of seizure (actus rapiendi) or something seized/plunder (res rapta), and how this understanding informs the nature of Christ’s pre-incarnate state and his subsequent condescension.
Philippians 2:6 (Nestle 1904)
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The SBLGNT (2010) text for Philippians 2:6 is identical to the Nestle 1904 edition: ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ. There are no significant textual variants for this verse across these critical editions.
Textual criticism of Philippians 2:6 (NA28) confirms the stability of the Greek text, with no significant variants affecting the reading of ἁρπαγμὸν. Thus, the exegetical challenge lies not in textual reconstruction but in lexical and grammatical interpretation.
Lexically, the term ἁρπαγμὸς (harpagmos) is a noun derived from the verb ἁρπάζω (harpazō), meaning ‘to seize, snatch away, carry off by force’. According to BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, 3rd ed.), ἁρπαγμὸς can mean either “the act of seizing or robbing” (actus rapiendi) or “something to be seized, plundered, or gained” (res rapta). The rarity of nouns ending in –μος that signify the *act* rather than the *result* or *object* of an action often leads scholars to favor the “something to be seized/plunder” interpretation. KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. I) explores this semantic range, noting that while the –μος suffix can occasionally denote action, the more common usage points to the *object* or *result* of the action. This suggests that ἁρπαγμὸν more likely refers to something *held onto* or *regarded as plunder* rather than the *act* of grasping itself.
The original post’s insight into Paul addressing a “fear factor” and encouraging courage in the Philippians (Phil 1:28) offers a compelling contextual lens for understanding ἁρπαγμὸν. Paul, himself in chains (Phil 1:7, 14) and facing potential death, emphasizes Christ’s obedience even to death (Phil 2:8). This broader context of steadfastness in suffering suggests that Christ’s example in 2:6 is not merely one of abstract humility, but of courage and confidence stemming from secure possession. If Christ “did not consider his equality with God as something to be clung to or feared losing,” it implies he was not insecure in his divine status. This resonates with the Philippians’ call to not be terrified by their adversaries (Phil 1:28) and not to fear losing what is inherently theirs. Christ, possessing deity inherently, did not need to cling to its outward manifestations as a robber would cling to ill-gotten plunder. His willingness to relinquish the external “form of God” (μορφῇ θεοῦ) for the “form of a servant” (μορφὴν δούλου) thus becomes an act of profound courage and secure generosity, providing a powerful model for the Philippians to be “like-minded with Christ” (Phil 2:5) in their own trials.
Translation Variants
The ambiguity of ἁρπαγμὸν has led to diverse translations, each carrying distinct grammatical and rhetorical implications:
- King James Version (KJV): “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This translation, by rendering ἁρπαγμὸν as “robbery,” leans towards the actus rapiendi interpretation, implying that Christ’s equality with God was not usurped but rightfully his. Grammatically, “robbery” functions as a predicate nominative describing the nature of “being equal with God.” Rhetorically, it emphasizes Christ’s inherent deity.
- New International Version (NIV): “did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.” The NIV’s rendering of ἁρπαγμὸν here as “something to be used to his own advantage” interprets the term as a res rapta, an object or status that could be exploited. Grammatically, “something to be used…” clarifies the nature of the object not to be grasped. Rhetorically, it underscores Christ’s selfless renunciation of privilege.
- English Standard Version (ESV): “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” Similar to the NIV, the ESV takes ἁρπαγμὸν as a res rapta, an object. “A thing to be grasped” directly translates the potential passive meaning of the noun. This translation rhetorically highlights Christ’s voluntary non-clinging to his divine prerogatives.
- New American Standard Bible (NASB): “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.” This closely aligns with the ESV, emphasizing the object of potential seizure. It implies that Christ did not view his divine status as something he had to hold onto out of fear or self-interest, but rather possessed it securely and willingly laid aside its outward expression.
Grammatically, τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ (to be equal with God) functions as the direct object of ἡγήσατο (he considered/regarded), with οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν serving as a predicate accusative describing the nature of that object. Rhetorically, Paul employs Christ as the supreme example of humility (Phil 2:5-11), directly contrasting any tendency towards self-preservation or fear of loss within the community. The interpretation of ἁρπαγμὸν as “something to be clung to” or “plunder to be retained” strengthens this rhetorical force, emphasizing Christ’s secure possession of divinity and his radical, unforced condescension.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on lexical analysis, the contextual emphasis on courage and self-sacrifice in Philippians, and the grammatical structure, the interpretation of ἁρπαγμὸν as res rapta (something to be grasped/clung to) provides the most robust exegetical framework. This reading aligns with Paul’s broader argument in Philippians 1-2, where Christ’s secure, non-anxious relinquishment of divine prerogative serves as the ultimate model for the Philippians to face suffering and opposition with steadfastness and humility, without fearing the loss of their own identity or possessions.
- He did not consider being equal with God as something to be selfishly grasped or clung to. This emphasizes Christ’s secure possession of divine equality and his willingness to not cling to it for personal gain or out of fear, providing a model for selfless humility in the face of potential loss or suffering.
- Though existing in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God as plunder to be held onto by force. This interpretation highlights that Christ’s divine status was inherent and sovereign, not something he had to seize or violently secure. His secure possession empowered his radical act of self-emptying, demonstrating courage rather than fear of losing his status.
- He did not consider his status of being equal with God as something to be jealously retained. This conveys the idea that Christ, being fully divine and secure in his position, did not need to anxiously guard or fear losing his divine status, thus enabling his radical act of self-emptying for the sake of others and setting an example for the Philippians to not be terrified of losing their own standing or life.