03.07. Equal With God

Chapter 7 - EQUAL WITH GOD The phrase “Who...thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (Php 2:6) has been interpreted many different ways. Before getting into what we believe the passage teaches in the light of the context, it will stimulate our thinking to mention some interpretations of this statement:
(1) Christ had no need to grasp at Divine equality because He had already possessed it as the eternal Son of God.
(2) Christ did not consider equality with God a thing to be tenaciously retained. (3) Christ did not consider the honor of being equal with God as something to be retained at the expense of robbing the universe of the glory of redemption.
(4) Although Jesus Christ was God, He cared less for His equality with God and His own things than He did for His own people.
(5) Christ did not hold fast and bring down to earth the visible demonstrations of His Deity.
(6) Christ did not falsely seize upon a title not rightly His. He did not regard His claims to equality with the Father as something stolen.
(7) Christ did not count His existence in a manner equal to God something to cling to.
(8) Christ did not hold fast and bring down to earth the visible demonstration of His Deity.
(9) Had Christ come into the world emphasizing His equality with God, the world would have been amazed but not saved. He did not grasp at this.
(10) Christ did not consider His God-equal existence a warrant for grasping (active) to Himself the glory afterward required.

Christ’s equality with God is a subject of great importance. Like Christ existing in the form of God, equality with God is foundational. Some say “equality with God” declares Christ’s Being and “form of God” expresses the manifestation of that Being. Others say “form of God” has reference to nature and “equal with God” denotes relation. There is one thing for sure, the two words “form” and “equal” complement each other. You cannot have one without the other.

One of the great passages on Christ’s equality with the Father is John 5:19-47. The Lord Jesus was so perfectly one with the Father that He could do nothing contrary to Him. As they are one in nature, they are also undivided in their working. As all is of the Father, all is by the Son. Christ had performed an act of mercy on the Sabbath. The man who had been healed was told to take up his bed and walk. Because of this act of mercy on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted Jesus Christ and sought to slay Him. God’s providence does not stop on the Sabbath. Furthermore, He is above all law which He ascribed for His creatures. He is His own law. Christ’s equality with the Father was declared when Christ said, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” (John 5:17). The clear declaration of truth does not satisfy wicked men; therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill Christ. They said, “...he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:18). The Jews thought this was sufficient evidence for capital punishment.

Christ gave examples of His equality with the Father (John 5:19-29). He is equal with the Father in works, quickening, judgment, honor, giving eternal life, authority, and resurrection of the dead. He is so perfectly one with the Father that He can do nothing contrary to Him. As it is impossible for the Son to do anything of Himself, it is impossible for the Father to do anything without the Son. Christ receives the same honor as the Father. There is an honor due to God only, and not to be given to any other. If the incarnate Christ is nothing more than man, how could He receive the same honor? Christ’s condescension took nothing from the “form of God.” No one can honor the Father who dishonors the Son. The equality of Christ with the Father is supported by witnesses (John 5:30-47). The first witness was Christ Himself. It is commonly stated that a man makes a poor witness in his own case. But it must be understood that Jesus Christ is no ordinary man; He is the God-Man. The reason a man is a poor witness in his own case is very simple. He is prejudiced, filled with self-love, and is subject to error. Christ is, however, “the Amen, the faithful and true witness” (Revelation 3:14). Christ’s statement “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true” of John 5:31 does not contradict “...Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true...” of John 8:14. In John 5:1-47, the Savior meant His witness was in itself insufficient as a matter of legal evidence. A testimony must be validated by two or three witnesses (Matthew 18:16). Therefore, Christ gave a fivefold witness. In John 8:1-59, the Jews were judging after the flesh. Their judgment was according to their corrupt hearts which could not understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). The other witnesses Christ mentioned were John the Baptist (John 8:32-35), His own works (John 8:36), the Father (John 8:37-38), and the Scriptures (John 8:39-47). According to Jewish law, the additional witnesses validated Christ’s testimony.

There are two major views of Php 2:6 b - “Who...thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (hos...ouch harpagmon hegesato to einai isa theo). They are
(1) equality was not something to retain in possession, and
(2) equality was not something to be seized in the future. With regard to the first view, the essential equality with God is not something that could be surrendered. The incarnation did not rob the Godhead of any virtue or honor. Christ remains equal with the Father in His position as Mediator, the God-Man. Concerning the second view, Christ considered not His future honor to be given Him by the Father something to be seized. The future equality would be connected with Christ’s exaltation as He appears to men on an equality with God.

Christ “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The Greek word for “thought” is the aorist tense of the verb hegeomai, which means to think, count, consider, esteem, or regard. Paul used the word in Php 2:3 - “...let each esteem other better than themselves”; Php 3:7 -
“But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ”; and Php 3:8 - “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord....” The context of this passage indicates a choice was made by the preincarnate Son and that choice was carried out by the immutable Christ in His state of humiliation. The word “robbery” comes from the Greek word harpagmon, accusative singular of harpagmos, which means something to grasp after; something to hold to; a thing seized or to be seized. This word is used only in Php 2:6, but the verb harpazo is used several times in the New Testament (Matthew 11:12; Matthew 13:19; John 6:15; John 10:12; John 10:28-29; Acts 8:39; Acts 23:10; 2 Corinthians 12:2; 2 Corinthians 12:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Jude 1:23; Revelation 12:5). The verb harpazo means to take by force, to claim for oneself, or to snatch out or away. In every case where the verb is used, there is no indication of something being “retained in possession,” but rather something seized or claimed for oneself. The context of Php 2:1-30 does not justify the idea of Jesus Christ possessing a position of equality which He had and gave up in the incarnation. It does, however, justify the idea of a choice made by the eternal Son in His preincarnate state that He would not grasp after equality with God, because the future equality was to be God’s gift following the incarnation, death, and exaltation (Php 2:9-11). The future equality would include the names “Jesus” and “Lord.” In these two names, both Saviorhood and Lordship are revealed. “Jesus” was His God-given name: “...thou shalt call His name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). To this “name” every knee must bow either in grace or in judgment. Every tongue must confess His “Lordship” either in grace or in judgment (Php 2:11). The equality of Saviorhood and Lordship is recognized by men in grace now, but it will not be recognized by Christ’s enemies until the judgment. The future equality promised Christ by the Father has to do with His offices, not with His essential personality. In Christ’s essential personality, He is existing in the form of God which includes equality with God. Consummation of Lordship will be the kingdom. Sovereignty is vested in Christ as the eternal Son of God, but the coming kingdom belongs to Him as the Son of David (Luke 1:31-33). A comparison of Adam and Christ has been suggested by some to clarify the idea which appears to be the correct interpretation in the light of the context. Adam asserted himself to be equal with God by an act of seizure (robbery). He was a son of God by creation (Luke 3:38). Satan told Eve if she would eat the forbidden fruit, she would “be as gods” (Genesis 3:5). Adam, as the head of the woman, deliberately ate of the forbidden fruit in an attempt “to be as god.” He sought to be lord independently of God his Creator, but he failed in his pursuit. Conversely, the Son of God by eternal generation, chose not to seize equality with God independently of His Father. The future honor of equality was not something to be grasped, but it was a gift to follow His humiliation.