Philippians 2:6

[Wootah]

Here is a list of all bible translations of the verse.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/philipp ... mpare.html

NIV: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage
ESV: who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped

NWT: who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.

I'd like to get into the greek, of this and try to see where the translation came from. I'll be learning as we go as well.

First question - what does the NWT mean gave no consideration to a seizure?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]
As the ESV says...Jesus did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped. That word in the Greek indicates something that someone did not have previously but then takes it with some force. It would be a "seizure." Jesus did not even consider it.

[Difflugia]

NWT: who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.

I'd like to get into the greek, of this and try to see where the translation came from. I'll be learning as we go as well.

First question - what does the NWT mean gave no consideration to a seizure?

The Greek is in three clauses:

1. Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (Hos en morfe Theou hyparchon)
2. οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο (ouch harpagmon hegesato)
3. τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ (to einai isa Theo)

Word-for-word, these are roughly:

1. Who in form God's existing
2. not seizure believed
3. the being equal God's

The Greek ἁρπαγμὸς is the noun form of ἁρπαγη. ἁρπαγη broadly means to seize or take and can be used either literally, in which case it generally means some sort of theft, or figuratively to mean either rape or to grasp a concept. It has also been used to mean something that was won through difficulty, like a prize, or something that was guarded jealously, like a treasure. The latter sense is how it's usually understood by translators that use the word "grasped."

The problem with it is that ἁρπαγμὸς as the noun form ("a taking"), could mean either the thing being taken or held onto, as it's usually interpreted, or the act of taking itself. That gives several rather divergent, but equally correct and justifiable, ways to understand the meaning.

• Who, existing in the form of God, believed equality with God was not something to take.
• Who, existing in the form of God, believed his equality with God was not something that had been taken.
• Who, existing in the form of God, believed his equality with God was not something to be retained.
• Who, existing in the form of God, believed equality with God was not an idea to be latched onto.
• Who, existing in the form of God, believed that to be equal with God was not theft.

In short, the Greek's ambiguous and in the worst possible ways. I'm sure Paul thought otherwise, but it's phrased in a way that Jesus could have either been equal with God from the beginning or was never equal with God and didn't want to be. If he was equal with God, it may have either been his divine right to continue being so or he may have willingly given it up. It's the perfect recipe for readers to impose their own Christology onto the text.

[JehovahsWitness]

In short, the Greek's ambiguous and in the worst possible ways.

If that were the case, what we as Jehovah's Witnesses do is go to other texts, both by Paul and by other writers (whether written during the same period or not) and settled on the reading that most harmonizes with the bible as a whole.



JW

" I said, I am God's SON [...]" (John 10: 36)
- - Jesus Christ

"And a voice came from heaven: "You [Jesus] are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." (Luke 3:21-22)
- - Almighty God

"Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, THE SON OF THE LINVING GOD! Then Jesus said to him, "[...] flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, though my Father in heaven has." -- Matthew 16: 16, 17 (International Standard Version 2008)

"You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners. -- Heb 1:9

"But of that day and hour no one has knowledge, not even [...] the Son, but the Father only." -- Matthew 24: 36© Bible in Living English.

" ...Christ has authority over every man, [....], and God has authority over Christ." -- I Cor 11: 3 : GOD'S WORD® Translation (1995)
bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-3.htm

Matthew 27:46: "About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

"By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me." -- John 5:30 & John 14:31 & Matthew 20:23

"As the Father hath taught me, I speak those things.." - John 8:28

"The Son cannot do anything at his own pleasure, he can only do what he sees his Father doing." -- John 5:19 (The Holy Bible, by Monsignor R. A. Knox)

John 7:16 "It is not my teaching, but his who sent me." -- Jesus © Bible in Living English.

Matthew 28: 18 "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been GIVEN to Me in heaven and on earth."New American Standard Bible (1995)

Matthew 20:23, JB "As for seats at my right hand and my left, these are not mine to grant; they belong to those to whom they have been allotted by my Father,"

"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." -- Mark 10:18, JB

Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

Colossians 1:18 says Christ is the firstborn from the dead. However, God does not die Habakkuk 1:12.

[tigger 2]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]

Harpagmos (Phil. 2:6)

Notice how these two trinitarian Bibles have rendered it:
1. “He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς] equality with God” - NEB.
2. “He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God” - TEV (and GNB).

We believe that the translations by the trinitarian NEB and TEV Bibles of this part of Phil. 2:6 must be the intended meaning of the original writer of this scripture because (in part, at least) of the obvious meaning of the New Testament (NT) Greek word harpagmos (ἁρπαγμὸς).

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means “plunder” and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: “to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force).” - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.

“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.

And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.” And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.” Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.

In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:
“We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’ ”

Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is “akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force.” - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)
“have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war.” - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize” used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize”!

We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.

In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).

So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).

Many trinitarian translators, however, either make nonsense out of the meaning of Phil. 2:6 by actually using the proper meaning of “robbery” or “taken by force” without showing God’s clear superiority over Jesus which the context demands, or, instead, making sense of it by choosing a word that doesn’t have the proper meaning of “taking by force.”

For example, the King James Version (KJV) does use “robbery” (a nearly-accurate meaning for harpagmos) but obviously mangles the meaning of the rest of the statement so that it doesn’t even make proper sense: “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is a nonsensical statement even by itself. In context it is even more inappropriate!

Yes, even in the KJV it is apparent from context that the purpose of this example is to emphasize lowliness of mind, humility: to regard others as better than yourself (vv. 3-5). Paul certainly wouldn’t destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn’t robbery for him to be equal with the Most High! Besides being a nonsensical statement, it is just the opposite of humility! Instead, to be in harmony with the purpose of Paul’s example, we must find a Jesus who regards God as superior to himself and won’t give even a moment’s thought about attempting to take that most high position himself, but, instead, humbles himself even further.

Trinitarian scholar R. P. Martin, for example, feels the context (especially the obvious contrast of verses 6 and 7) clearly proves that harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to seize equality with God. Emphasizing the fact that this is a contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with “but [alla].” In accord with this, he tells us,
“V[erse] 6b states what Christ might have done [or could have attempted to do], i.e. seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he chose to do, i.e. give himself.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604.

When even a number of respected trinitarian scholars are willing to admit the actual meaning (or even an equivalent compromise) of harpagmos at Phil. 2:6, it becomes necessary for honest-hearted, truth-seeking individuals to admit that Phil. 2:6 not only does not identify Jesus as God, but that it clearly shows Jesus is not God! .

[Difflugia]

In short, the Greek's ambiguous and in the worst possible ways.

If that were the case, what we as Jehovah's Witnesses do is go to other texts, both by Paul and by other writers (whether written during the same period or not) and settled on the reading that most harmonizes with the bible as a whole.

And I'm sure you think you're unique in that.

What point do you think you're making? That you think Jesus was the Son of God? OK, so do most of the people reading Philippians 2. That being under the Father's authority means that Jesus wasn't "equal to God?" Maybe, but that sort of depends on what "equality," "authority," and "emptied" mean. You haven't explained the theology behind any of your quotes, how they relate to each other, or how they inform a reading of Philippians 2.

All you've supported is that I was right when I said that readers impose their own Christology onto the text.

[onewithhim]

In short, the Greek's ambiguous and in the worst possible ways.

If that were the case, what we as Jehovah's Witnesses do is go to other texts, both by Paul and by other writers (whether written during the same period or not) and settled on the reading that most harmonizes with the bible as a whole.

And I'm sure you think you're unique in that.

What point do you think you're making? That you think Jesus was the Son of God? OK, so do most of the people reading Philippians 2. That being under the Father's authority means that Jesus wasn't "equal to God?" Maybe, but that sort of depends on what "equality," "authority," and "emptied" mean. You haven't explained the theology behind any of your quotes, how they relate to each other, or how they inform a reading of Philippians 2.

All you've supported is that I was right when I said that readers impose their own Christology onto the text.

Yes, to each his own. Some folks will stick to their own opinions no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented to them, unfortunately. Well, the majority rejected what Jesus had to say, so JWs are in good company.

[Difflugia]

...these two trinitarian...
...by the trinitarian NEB and TEV...
...by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher...
...also by trinitarians...
...the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament...
...in many trinitarian translations...
...the very trinitarian NT Greek expert...
...mostly trinitarian, of course...
...used in a trinitarian Bible...
...according to trinitarian Zondervan...

We know. We know because nearly all Christians for the last 1600 years have been trinitarians. Labelling "trinitarian" things makes your screed neither more convincing nor readable and it comes across like a cattle rancher trying to brand everything on Earth that isn't his.

I follow what you're saying in general and actually agree with a lot of it, but you've buried a very important bit of handwaving here:

For example, the King James Version (KJV) does use “robbery” (a nearly-accurate meaning for harpagmos) but obviously mangles the meaning of the rest of the statement so that it doesn’t even make proper sense: “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is a nonsensical statement even by itself. In context it is even more inappropriate!

Why is that more nonsensical or inappropriate than any other rendition? That's kind of the point: none of the understandings really make sense in a literal sense, especially in context. How is equality with God something which may be stolen? If "equality with God" is something that may be stolen, but Jesus hadn't done so, of what did he empty himself in verse 7? The line appears to have been lifted from a poem or hymn, which makes figurative allegory even more likely, but what, if anything, is literal and what's figurative?

As a likely part of a prior hymn or creed and considering the weird form of negation, the "not" refers to the "robbery" rather than "considered", it's probably a response to something that a rival Christian group believed, like that Jesus had somehow stolen his divinity.

So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).

Even if we narrow down the translation to these two understandings, they lead to very conflicting readings. Jesus judged that equality wasn't something he would snatch from God, implying that he could have done so if he wished? Jesus was denying that his equality was something he had forcefully taken, again as though it could have been? The honest goal here isn't to pick a reading that already makes sense, but to figure out what allegorical sense the author intended by his literal nonsense.

[JehovahsWitness]

In short, the Greek's ambiguous and in the worst possible ways.

If that were the case, what we as Jehovah's Witnesses do is go to other texts, both by Paul and by other writers (whether written during the same period or not) and settled on the reading that most harmonizes with the bible as a whole.

What point do you think you're making?

I think the point is clear enough, how we (Jehovah's Witnesses ) deal with ambiguous texts.






JW




RELATED POSTS

QUESTION: Can Philippians 2:5, 6 be used to support the trinity?
viewtopic.php?p=872798#p872798

How should Harpagmos rightly be translated? [tigger]
viewtopic.php?p=1041994#p1041994

To learn more please go to to other posts related to ...

GOD, JESUS and ...THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED

[1213]

...
NWT: who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.

I'd like to get into the greek, of this and try to see where the translation came from. I'll be learning as we go as well.

First question - what does the NWT mean gave no consideration to a seizure?

I have understood it means, he didn’t claim he is equal with God, which also comes clear from here:

...the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28