Apostolic Friends Forum - Being in the form of God, thought it not robbery

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - Being in the form of God, thought it not robbery (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=51967)

Being in the form of God, thought it not robbery

I have been studying this passage in Philippians 2:6, noticing the translations are kind of all over the place.

Some say - "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;" NIV

"Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to." NLT

KJV says it this way - "King James Bible
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery (the act of seizing) to be equal with God:"

Some Commentators say:

Quote:

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God; R.V. "counted it not a prize [margin, 'a thing to be grasped'] to be on an equality with God." These two renderings represent two conflicting interpretations of this difficult passage. Do the words mean that Christ asserted his essential Godhead ("thought it not robbery to be equal with God," as A.V.), or that he did not cling to the glory of the Divine majesty ("counted it not a prize," as R.V.)? Both statements are true in fact.

Pulpit Commentary

Quote:

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God - This passage, also, has given occasion to much discussion. Prof. Stuart renders it: "did not regard his equality with God as an object of solicitous desire;" that is, that though he was of a divine nature or condition, be did not eagerly seek to retain his equality with God, but took on him an humble condition - even that of a servant. - Barnes

Yet, I find that Gill seems to have it more correct, in my estimation:

Quote:

Philippians 2:6
thought it no robbery to be equal with God; the Father; for if he was in the same form, nature, and essence, he must be equal to him, as he is; for he has the same perfections, as eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immutability, and self-existence: hence he has the same glorious names, as God, the mighty God, the true God, the living God, God over all, Jehovah, the Lord of glory, &c. the same works of creation and providence are ascribed to him, and the same worship, homage, and honour given him: to be "in the form of God", and to be "equal with God", signify the same thing, the one is explanative of the other: and this divine form and equality, or true and proper deity, he did not obtain by force and rapine, by robbery and usurpation, as Satan attempted to do, and as Adam by his instigation also affected; and so the mind of a wicked man, as Philo the Jew says (i), being a lover of itself and impious, οιομενος ισος ειναι θεω, "thinks itself to be equal with God", a like phrase with this here used; but Christ enjoyed this equality by nature; he thought, he accounted, he knew he had it this way; and he held it hereby, and of right, and not by any unlawful means; and he reckoned that by declaring and showing forth his proper deity, and perfect equality with the Father, he robbed him of no perfection; the same being in him as in the Father, and the same in the Father as in him; that he did him no injury, nor deprived him of any glory, or assumed that to himself which did not belong to him: as for the sense which some put upon the words, that he did not "affect", or "greedily catch" at deity; as the phrase will not admit of it, so it is not true in fact; he did affect deity, and asserted it strongly, and took every proper opportunity of declaring it, and in express terms affirmed he was the Son of God; and in terms easy to be understood declared his proper deity, and his unity and equality with the Father; required the same faith in himself as in the Father, and signified that he that saw the one, saw the other, Mar_14:61 Joh_5:17. Others give this as the sense of them, that he did not in an ostentatious way show forth the glory of his divine nature, but rather hid it; it is true, indeed, that Christ did not seek, but carefully shunned vain glory and popular applause; and therefore often after having wrought a miracle, would charge the persons on whom it was wrought, or the company, or his disciples, not to speak of it; this he did at certain times, and for certain reasons; yet at other times we find, that he wrought miracles to manifest forth his glory, and frequently appeals to them as proofs of his deity and Messiahship: and besides, the apostle is speaking not of what he was, or did in his incarnate state, but of what he was and thought himself to be, before he became man; wherefore the above sense is to be preferred as the genuine one, - Gill

The scriptures, IMO, do not ever seem to imply that Jesus was trying to separate Himself from the Glory of the Father, i.e., "thought it not a prize to be grasped at to be equal with God," as Ellicott's Commentary states.

Philippians 2:7 begins with "but", which indicates that verse 6 and 7 are opposed to each other. I do not believe the "but" goes as far in opposition as some Commentators state.

Jesus tells us that "greater things than these will you do..."

I believe that Philippians is simply saying that while we acknowledge the power and authority we have with God through the Spirit, our main desire should always be love and compassion which only belongs to a servant.

As way of example, the gifts of the Spirit are something to be desired. However, if we desire them to bolster or set our ministry apart we are on the road to shipwreck. As I heard a pastor state, "the crazy side of Waco" or something to that effect.

But, if we pray and seek the Gifts because we have love and compassion toward those who need God to come in and lift them up in the most miraculous way to set their lives in order, that is what the heart of a true servant looks like to me.

Just my thoughts today - Seek charity...