We must now pass to other equally important words and phrases in this most wonderful passage, and while

carrying with us what we have already learned, we must reserve our judgment of the intention of the whole, until

each clause has been examined.

No amount of weariness to the flesh, limitations of space, or flight of time can in any sense be weighed over

against the seriousness of the passage we have before us; the fullest and most painstaking investigation is as nothing

when compared with the awful and far reaching nature of the theme.

We have seen that `the form of God' must not be confounded with appearance, glory or any accompaniments of

Deity, but that just as the `form' of water H2O remains constant, even though the `fashion' changed, being sometimes

ice, a solid, sometimes water, a liquid, and sometimes steam, gas, so Christ who originally subsisted in the form of

God is here in Philippians 2:6-8, said to have exchanged the glory that He had before the world was, for the

humiliation of manhood, servitude and ignominious death, without laying aside His essential nature, for to do so is

an impossibility to either God or man.

In the clause that awaits us we have that act of laying aside indicated, He `made Himself of no reputation'; the

moral element involved `He thought it not robbery to be equal with God', and an indication as to what He actually

laid aside, namely the `being on an equality with God' (R.V.). Taking the words as they come, we have to consider :

Ouch harpagmon hegesato to einai isa Theo. The adverb of negation `not' is expressed in the Greek by the

words ou and me. `Ou expresses full and direct negation independently and absolutely, whereas me expresses a

dependent and conditional negation' (Dr. E.W. Bullinger's Lexicon).

Philippians 2:4 is an example of the use of me, Philippians 2:6, an example of the use of ou. The reader will

realize that the form ouch is required because of the aspirate with which the next word harpagmon commences.

Harpagmon. This word occurs but once in the Greek New Testament in Philippians 2:6, where the Authorized

Version translates it `robbery'. It is derived from a root that means `to seize, snatch, plunder, rob, pillage'

Harpazo, the verb, occurs thirteen times, `the violent take it by force', `the wicked. . . catcheth away', `the wolf

catcheth them', ` pluck ... out of my hand'.

Harpax occurs five times: `ravening wolves', `extortioners'.

Harpage occurs but three times: `extortion', `ravening' and `spoiling'.

Diarpazo occurs four times, in each passage being translated `spoil'.

Sunarpazo occurs four times, in each passage being translated `caught'.

There is no ambiguity about the meaning of the word harpagmon therefore, the only question that arises is, does

the word denote an action that is a `robbery', as is indicated by the Authorized Version, or is it the object of an

action that is `a prize' as indicated by the Revised Version?

Gifford gives the following free paraphrase in order to place before the reader the two interpretations that are

under consideration.

(1) With the active sense of `robbery' or `usurpation' we get the following meaning :

`Who because He was subsisting in the essential form of God, did not regard it as an usurpation that He was on

an equality of glory and majesty with God, but yet emptied Himself of that co-equal glory, by taking the form of

a created servant of God'.

(2) The passive sense gives a different meaning to the passage :

`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 a prize and treasure to be held fast, but emptied Himself thereof, etc.'.