Interpretations of grasping ("Harpagmos")

  • Thread starter Thread starter CastingCrown
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CastingCrown

Guest
Hey guys,

I’m reading the “Ignatius Catholic Study Bible” and I’m on the “Word Study” on page 359 where the different interpretations of Philippians 2:6 are given:

“though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” - Philippians 2:6

The Word Study offers four possible interpretations, but I don’t really see the difference between (1) and (3). Can anyone help me out?

*(1) Some, like the Latin Fathers, take it to mean “something seized”. Jesus did not consider equality with God something he had aggressively acquired for himself, since it belonged to him by nature and right.

(3) Still others prefer the meaning “something to be seized that is not already possessed”. The point here is that Jesus, as a man, did not see the prerogatives of God as something he should reach for or seek to acquire"
*

Is it that in (1) Jesus in his pre-incarnate divinity does not seize at divinity because He already has it, whereas in (3) the humanity of Christ does not seek to seize divinity? 🤷
 
It sounds like the distinction is between the intrinsic equality with God in number 1, and the extrinsic prerogatives of God in number 3. Of course the two senses would not be mutually exclusive. On the one hand as a Divine Person, Jesus is eternally equal to the other two Persons of the Trinity (except on the order of internal relationships within the Trinity). On the other hand He submitted His human will to the Divine Will.
 
Thanks for responding Aelred. So is the essential difference that (1) is talking about His Divine will and (3) is talking about His human will? Is it there no “seizing” going on because in (1) He has it already and in (3) His human will is humbled?
 
There’s grasping as in “holding onto it kicking and screaming” (vs just knowing you’ve got it and not having to get all defensive about it), and then there’s “if a man’s reach does not exceed his grasp, then what’s a heaven for?” grasping without being able to actually get hold of it.

If it makes you happier, there’s always “He didn’t grab for it because He already owned it.” (“Dialogue of Augustine and Orosius” – not actually by St. Augustine or Orosius, apparently, but a sort of dramatized Q & A to help students remember.)
 
CastingCrown said:
Hey guys,

I’m reading the “Ignatius Catholic Study Bible” and I’m on the “Word Study” on page 359 where the different interpretations of Philippians 2:6 are given:

"though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" - Philippians 2:6

The Word Study offers four possible interpretations, but I don’t really see the difference between (1) and (3). Can anyone help me out?

*(1) Some, like the Latin Fathers, take it to mean “something seized”. Jesus did not consider equality with God something he had aggressively acquired for himself, since it belonged to him by nature and right.

(3) Still others prefer the meaning “something to be seized that is not already possessed”. The point here is that Jesus, as a man, did not see the prerogatives of God as something he should reach for or seek to acquire"
*

Is it that in (1) Jesus in his pre-incarnate divinity does not seize at divinity because He already has it, whereas in (3) the humanity of Christ does not seek to seize divinity? 🤷
Click to expand...
On the difference between #1 and #3 I agree with Aelred. The indented is from BADG lexicon, thought it was interesting

arpagmos
b. But a good sense is also possibly a piece of good fortune, windfall prize, gain. Again it remains an open question whether the windfall has already been seized and is waiting to be used, or whether it has not yet been appropriated. In favor of the former is the contrast between Adam (implied as a dramatic foil) and his anxiety about death and equality with God and Jesus’ majestic freedom from such anxiety, with culmination in the ultimate vindication of Jesus, whose destiny contrasts with Adam’s implied fate, “did not consider equality with God a prize to be tenaciously grasped”

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. 6 And…she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
 
CastingCrown said:
Hey guys,

I’m reading the “Ignatius Catholic Study Bible” and I’m on the “Word Study” on page 359 where the different interpretations of Philippians 2:6 are given:

"though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" - Philippians 2:6

The Word Study offers four possible interpretations, but I don’t really see the difference between (1) and (3). Can anyone help me out?

*(1) Some, like the Latin Fathers, take it to mean “something seized”. Jesus did not consider equality with God something he had aggressively acquired for himself, since it belonged to him by nature and right.

(3) Still others prefer the meaning “something to be seized that is not already possessed”. The point here is that Jesus, as a man, did not see the prerogatives of God as something he should reach for or seek to acquire"
*

Is it that in (1) Jesus in his pre-incarnate divinity does not seize at divinity because He already has it, whereas in (3) the humanity of Christ does not seek to seize divinity? 🤷
Click to expand...
It is possible the humility of Jesus Christ is being contrasted with the prideful arrogance of Lucifer who did try to ‘seize’ equality with God.

As a footnote, ‘harpazo’ translated ‘rapture’ or ‘caught up’ is a form of this verb.
 
Guys,

Thanks for your insight into this passage, but I’m particularly trying to understand the distinction the commentary is making here. It lists a couple of other interpretations which you guys have touched upon, but I’m really trying to boil down the meaning of (1) and (3).

Earlier I asked:

Is the essential difference that (1) is talking about His Divine will and (3) is talking about His human will? Is it there no “seizing” going on because in (1) He has it already and in (3) His human will is humbled?

Yes/No? :confused:

Aelred wrote:

“It sounds like the distinction is between the intrinsic equality with God in number 1, and the extrinsic prerogatives of God in number 3”

I think I understand “intrinsic equality”, but I’m not sure what “extrinsic prerogatives” are… 😊
 
CastingCrown said:
Guys,

Thanks for your insight into this passage, but I’m particularly trying to understand the distinction the commentary is making here. It lists a couple of other interpretations which you guys have touched upon, but I’m really trying to boil down the meaning of (1) and (3).

Earlier I asked:

Is the essential difference that (1) is talking about His Divine will and (3) is talking about His human will? Is it there no “seizing” going on because in (1) He has it already and in (3) His human will is humbled?

Yes/No? :confused:

Aelred wrote:

“It sounds like the distinction is between the intrinsic equality with God in number 1, and the extrinsic prerogatives of God in number 3”

I think I understand “intrinsic equality”, but I’m not sure what “extrinsic prerogatives” are… 😊
Click to expand...
Jesus said, “I came down from heaven not to do my will, but the will of Him who sent me”"
Does this answer your question?
 
CastingCrown said:
In what way does that distinguish between (1) and (3)?
Click to expand...
as 1). Jesus Christ as the Son of God came down from heaven to do his Father’s will, not his own will. As the Son of God in his divine will, he came to this earth as the Word made flesh. That is what the scripture seems to be saying to me, but I suppose that it is open to other understandings.
 
byeveryword said:
as 1). Jesus Christ as the Son of God came down from heaven to do his Father’s will, not his own will. As the Son of God in his divine will, he came to this earth as the Word made flesh. That is what the scripture seems to be saying to me, but I suppose that it is open to other understandings.
Click to expand...
…and that’s different from (3) how?
 
CastingCrown said:
…and that’s different from (3) how?
Click to expand...
One can go in several directions with this question. It is possible that the divine will of the Son of God became incarnate and thus, submitted to God the Father. The divine will of the Son of God was one with the human will in the humanity of Jesus Christ, and thus, submitted to God the Father. The human will of Jesus Christ submitted to his heavenly Father. My sense of the meaning of scriptures in their entire is the first option. The early church fathers are divided on this issue.
 
byeveryword said:
One can go in several directions with this question. It is possible that the divine will of the Son of God became incarnate and thus, submitted to God the Father. The divine will of the Son of God was one with the human will in the humanity of Jesus Christ, and thus, submitted to God the Father. The human will of Jesus Christ submitted to his heavenly Father. My sense of the meaning of scriptures in their entire is the first option. The early church fathers are divided on this issue.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t think I’m being clear in what I’m asking.

In the initial post I gave two of the possible interpretive views which I found in my Bible commentary. However, to me, they sound like they’re saying basically the same thing. I’m therefore trying to work out exactly what the distinction is between those two senses of “harpagmos” (rather than simply exegeting the passage).

So, what is the difference between the (1) interpretation of “Harpagmos” and the (3) interpretation of “Harpagmos”?
 
CastingCrown said:
Sorry, I don’t think I’m being clear in what I’m asking.

In the initial post I gave two of the possible interpretive views which I found in my Bible commentary. However, to me, they sound like they’re saying basically the same thing. I’m therefore trying to work out exactly what the distinction is between those two senses of “harpagmos” (rather than simply exegeting the passage).

So, what is the difference between the (1) interpretation of “Harpagmos” and the (3) interpretation of “Harpagmos”?
Click to expand...
Actually, you answered your own question in your first post. I am avoiding it because I do not necessarily think it covers all the bases.

1)as the divine Son of God, and in the form of God, he did not need to grasp equality with God, because he was equal with God.

2)though being in the form of God, in his humanity, Jesus Christ humbled himself in becoming a servant, and did not attempt to grasp equality with God.

3)as the divine Son of God, being in the form of God, he did not grasp equality with God because he is the only-begotten of God.
 
byeveryword said:
Actually, you answered your own question in your first post. I am avoiding it because I do not necessarily think it covers all the bases.

1)as the divine Son of God, and in the form of God, he did not need to grasp equality with God, because he was equal with God.

2)though being in the form of God, in his humanity, Jesus Christ humbled himself in becoming a servant, and did not attempt to grasp equality with God.

3)as the divine Son of God, being in the form of God, he did not grasp equality with God because he is the only-begotten of God.
Click to expand...
Again, I’m not looking for a complete exegesis here, I’m just trying to understand the distinction my commentary is making between two particular senses of “harpagmos”.

I think I’ll draw a line under this topic by summarizing my interpretation of the senses offered by my commentary:
  1. Jesus didn’t see equality with God as something which “needed to be seized” because it was something He possessed by nature and right. (Latin Fathers)
  2. Jesus didn’t see equality with God as something to which he needed to “cling”. (Some Greek Fathers)
  3. Jesus, in His humanity, saw that equality with God is not something at which man should “grasp”.
  4. Jesus didn’t see equality with God as something that should be exploited for personal gain.
The context of this passage is that Paul is telling the Philippians that they should imitate Christ, humble themselves and serve one another. I would suggest that the fourth item here is the sense that Paul would have had in mind, although these senses are not mutually exclusive.
 
CastingCrown said:
Again, I’m not looking for a complete exegesis here, I’m just trying to understand the distinction my commentary is making between two particular senses of “harpagmos”.

I think I’ll draw a line under this topic by summarizing my interpretation of the senses offered by my commentary:
  1. Jesus didn’t see equality with God as something which “needed to be seized” because it was something He possessed by nature and right. (Latin Fathers)
  2. Jesus didn’t see equality with God as something to which he needed to “cling”. (Some Greek Fathers)
  3. Jesus, in His humanity, saw that equality with God is not something at which man should “grasp”.
  4. Jesus didn’t see equality with God as something that should be exploited for personal gain.
The context of this passage is that Paul is telling the Philippians that they should imitate Christ, humble themselves and serve one another. I would suggest that the fourth item here is the sense that Paul would have had in mind, although these senses are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Your summary of explanations seem very accurate, except for the last clause of 3). I would think that it should say, 'something at which ( Jesus, rather than man) should ‘grasp’.

Contrasting and applying the humility of the Son of God, or of Jesus Christ in this scripture to the church as a whole, seems to be Paul’s intent to the church of Philippi. In the end, the discussion is whether we contrast the humility of the Son of God with the desired humility of the church, or do we contrast the humility of **Jesus Christ on earth **with the desired humility of the church?
 
Being (uparcwn). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of uparcw. In the form of God (en morph qeou). Morph means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (arpagmon). Predicate accusative with hghsato. Originally words in -mo signified the act, not the result (-ma). The few examples of arpagmo (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to arpagma, like baptismo and baptisma. **That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (to einai isa qeoi). **Accusative articular infinitive object of hghsato, “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case qewi after isa). Isa is adverbial use of neuter plural with einai as in Revelation 21:16 . Emptied himself (eauton ekenwse). First aorist active indicative of kenow, old verb from keno, empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a Kenosi doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. “He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty” (Lightfoot). biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/philippians/philippians-2-6.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top