Philippians 2:6 - Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible

Who, being in the form of God, &c.— "Who, being possessed of the divine nature, and of all its essential perfections, as the Son of God, and as the brightness of the Father's glory, and express image of his person (Hebrews 1:3.); and so really, and in the strictest sense, God, in the true and proper form of Deity, did not count it an usurpation, injury, or wrong, or any act of rapine in him, to claim an equality of nature with God the Father; he and the Father being essentially One, though personally distinct (John 10:30.)." In order to set forth the great humility of Christ in becoming man, the Apostle first tells us from how great and glorious a state he in some sense descended; he was in the form of God. The following words go on to describe the excellency of his glory, which was so real and transcendent a glory, that he thought it no robbery to be, that is to say, he thought himself entitled to be equal with God. But if he thought it no robbery to assume this equality to God, undoubtedly he was equal: or if it was the effect of his humility, according to the translation of some, that he did not insist upon his equality with God, then certainly he had such an equality; for where is the humility of not insisting on an equality which does not belong to us? The Arians, translating these words, make use of expressions purposely chosen to exclude Christ from the dignity here mentioned; for thus they make the Apostle speak: "Who being in the form of God, did not arrogate, assume, or lay claim to any equality or likeness to God;" but this language bears no analogy to the words in the original, nor can be made to agreewith the aim and design of the Apostle. St. Paul therefore evidently supposes, in his argument, that this equality to God and form of God did belong to Christ before his humiliation. Besides, the form of the argument affords us still farther evidence that St. Paul esteemed these characters to be proper and peculiar to Christ, his natural and inherent, not his borrowed glories. Should God communicate his glories to a creature, yet the glories of God so communicated, could in no sense be said to be the creature's own glories. Our own glories are those only which are proper and peculiar to our nature.