and he uses the expression `point of time' several times in his exposition, as huparchon must `be referred to a point

of time prior to the incarnation'.

The Bishop assumes that the phrase `being in the form of God' must refer exclusively either to the pre-existence

of Christ, or to His incarnate state, `it thus', says Gifford, `excludes the obvious and most important alternative, that

it may apply to both'.

First, we observe that being an imperfect participle, huparchon points to an indefinite continuance of being. The

imperfect expresses an action in the course of performance, not yet ended. For example, we have the imperfect on in

combination with the aorist (as in Phil. 2:6) in John 11:49, `And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest

that same year, said'. No one would suggest that immediately Caiaphas finished what he `said', that he ceased `to be'

high priest. This, however, is not a perfect illustration as the word used is the participle of eimi `to be'. Let us see

the usage of huparchon.

`And, behold, there was (huparchon) a man named Joseph, a counsellor ... he ... went unto Pilate and begged the

body of Jesus' (Luke 23:50-52).

It is impossible to suggest that Luke intended by the use of the word huparchon that Joseph ceased to be a

counsellor as soon as he had begged the body of Jesus!

Or again, in Acts 2:30,31, we read of David that `being a prophet ... spake of His resurrection'; there can be no

thought that David ceased to be a prophet as soon as he spoke of the resurrection of Christ.

Paul's usage of huparchon with an aorist verb is found in 2 Corinthians 8:17 and in 12:16.

`But being more forward ... he went unto you'.

`Being crafty, I caught you with guile'.

`Did Titus cease to be zealous at the moment of starting to visit the Corinthians? Or does St. Paul mean, in his

ironical statement, that in the opinion of the Corinthians, he ceased to be crafty as soon as he had once caught

them with guile? It is impossible, I think, to find or imagine passages more exactly parallel in grammatical

construction to Philippians 2:6 than these two examples of St. Paul's own use of huparchon' (Gifford).

The earliest direct quotation of Philippians 2:6 that is in our possession is found in the letters of the Churches of

Lyons and Vienna to their brethren in Asia (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica v. c.2). The letter speaks of those who

had been tortured for their faith :

`They were so zealous in their imitation of Christ, Who being in the form of God counted it not a prize to be on

an equality with God - that though they were (huparchontes) in such honour, and had borne witness not once

nor twice, but many times ... they neither proclaimed themselves martyrs nor suffered us yet to address them by

that name'.

Had these sufferers ceased to be held in honour as martyrs, there would have been no humility on their part in

refusing the title, and they could not have been considered as imitators of Christ, if they refused a title which did not

really belong to them.

It will be seen therefore that so far as the word huparchon is concerned, there is no need to limit our

interpretation of Philippians 2:6 to either Christ's pre-existence or to His humanity. It has been wrongly assumed

that the existence `in the form of God' must have ceased at the moment indicated by the verb ekenosen `He made

Himself of no reputation'. This is not the case.

To maintain this position, however, necessitates an examination of the meaning of the expression `the form of

God', for if this means, as Whitby, Macknight, Calvin and others have maintained `the visible glorious light in which

the Deity is seen to dwell', `the form of a king consists of the external marks which indicate a king, etc.'; then most

certainly the Lord Jesus Christ in His humiliation had no such `form', no such `marks'. This, however, we hope to

show is a misconception. It is confusing the `form of God' with `being on an equality with God' and we only make

this observation here to prevent any reader misunderstanding our reference to Whitby, Calvin and others, for we

believe they are wrong and have missed the meaning of the apostle.