"The notion of isotheotes, mortal parity with a god, goes back to Homer and Sappho. Heracles had bridged the gap, had been admitted to the Olympian pantheon. Empedocles as shaman drew a huge following when he proclaimed, 'I go among you a god immortal, mortal no longer.'" See Peter Green, The Hellenistic Age: A History, pages 50-51.
Compare Philippians 2:6-7, wherein Christ refused to grasp at equality with God.
17 comments:
In Philippians 2:5-8 the state of being of God is explicitly attributed to Jesus as an existing state, and the word God is without an article just as much as when mentioning equality with God in the next verse. Therefore, it is entirely natural to refer both mentions of "theos" to the same thing. In addition, equality with God appears as something instead of which Jesus became human, so we must imitate this self-sacrificing mindset. But Paul does not emphasize that we should not strive higher than we deserve, but that we should not even seek what is rightfully ours, and consider others superior to ourselves (Philippians 2:3). From this, it is highly probable to take the word "harpagmos" (booty) in the sense of "res rapta" (seized thing), and not what your translation suggests, namely that Jesus did not want to seize equality with God.
Every attempt to render "harpagmos" here with "seizing" or a similar action and argue on this basis that Jesus "did not entertain the idea of usurpation to become equal with God", or as the NWT renders it: "did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God." is entirely fruitless. The word "hegeomai" does not mean "to consider," but "to regard as." It has a well-defined complement in Greek, which is grammatically expressed with a double accusative. In light of this, the above interpretation would lead here: "Jesus did not regard being equal with God as robbery" - which would grammatically mean exactly the opposite of what JWs want to get out of it: that is, he considered it something that is due to him. This is the basis for Furuli's argument, who wants to exploit that the "-gmos" suffix primarily creates active-minded nouns.
Jesus Christ, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized violently (in equality with God); or the latter words could also be understood as: he did not consider it a thing to which he had to cling at all costs. Since the corresponding Greek (harpagmos) word is used only here by Paul in the Scriptures, there is no other way to determine its meaning than to consider the context in the text. However, since the apostle says later that Jesus Christ exchanged his existence similar to God for existence similar to humans, and took on a human form, it seems more probable that Jesus Christ did not cling at all costs to equality with God, but became similar to us, humans.
Jesus Christ was "in the form of God": the Son, the second divine person, was in divine glory and majesty according to his divine essence and nature. Before the incarnation, his form, or mode of existence, was the glorious and majestic divine existence. The term 'morphe' indicates the mode of appearance or existence, from which the essential property or state of a thing can be known. What is asserted here about Christ is that He possessed existence in a divine manner from eternety. If being "in the form of God" only means that he existed as a spirit and nothing more, then why does the Bible never claim that angels exist "in the form of God"? Furthermore, the second half of the verse makes it clear that His existence "in the form of God" also meant "equality with God", just he did not consider this a "harpagmos" (a booty, what he needs/wants to retain at all cost), so he did not cling to this glory arising from equality with God at all costs, etc.
"Equality with God": the Son was essentially equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and before the incarnation, in the manifestation of divine glory and majesty. Which He should grasp as booty, robbery: The rare word 'harpagmos' elsewhere only appears in the active sense of "robbery," which loses its meaning in this context. Based on its analogy with the more common 'harpagma', expressing consciousness, a passive interpretation is suggested, both in the sense of being seized by something (res rapta), and in the sense of being seized by something (res rapienda). The text context really requires the first meaning, to seize something and cling to it (res rapta et retinenda).
And from the continuation it becomes clear that he was in equality with God, but he did not insist, cling on staying in it, so he undertook his self-emptying.
The Philippians 2:6 is clearly mistranslated by the Arian Bible translations.
The Gothic translation made by the Arian Wulfila (Ulfias) is a good example of this, Philippians 2:6, which correctly means "thought it not robbery [harpagmos] to be equal with God", the Gothic Arian Bible has "thought it not robbery to be similar (galeiko) with God".
The NWT rendering of Phil 2:6 is even worse than Wulfila's.
That is why an accurate Bible translation would be important, and it is clear how much the second half of Philippians 2:6 was distorted by the Arians. Wulila distorted the meaning of "isa", JWs did it with "harpagmos".
Therefore, Paul writes to the Philippians that you should have the same self-denying, humbling love as Christ's. Although he possessed a divine nature and reality, and it would not have been presumptuous to regard divine attributes as his own: he stripped himself of this infinite majesty, and taking on human nature, became completely similar to humans, except for sin, and appeared externally only as a human. Others interpret it this way: He was indeed in possession of his divine nature, but did not want to boast with it, to show it off as his spoils in the triumphal procession of the victor: but he hid it, etc. He renounced the latter, the appearance in divine glory and majesty, stripped himself of it, or as the apostle says: he emptied himself when he took on the form of a servant and became like humans. He already was truly, properly, and essentially God from eternity, and by taking the form of a servant, became truly a man, and as man the servant of God, but remaining always God as before.
Existing in the morphē of God (has the Bible ever said that about any angel before?), and did not regard as "harpagmos" to BE (einai) equal (isa) with God. What does it mean not regarding/considering something as "harpagmos"? This expression can only be described as something that you cling to at all costs, by force, approx. as Gollum clings to the One Ring "my precious"). So he didn't cling, insist on his equality with God (which he already had), by continuing to stay in the morphē of God, BUT etc.
The beginning of the sentence states that Christ was "in the form of God"; the original term for "form" (morfé) primarily means the exterior, that shape in which someone appears identifiable and recognizable to others; it is no coincidence that several translators interpret it as "existence" or even "nature". The translated word "existed" (hyparkhon) is the participle of the verb hüparkhó (to exist, to subsist, to be in existence) indicating continuous action ("...being" or "...existing").
As for the first disputable detail, the meaning of the negation 'ukh' is "not", and it negates the verb (hegesato). The 'hegesato' is the aorist form of the verb 'hegeomai' (whose role here only indicates past tense), which means to deem, to think, to believe, to regard, to see someone or something as something (Phil 2:3,25, 3:7-8, 2Cor 9:15, 1Tim 1:12, Acts 26:2 etc.). The meaning of 'harpagmos' is robbery, loot, stolen, forcibly acquired thing; it derives from the verb 'harpadzó', which means "to rob" (see Mt 11:12, 12:29, Jn 10:19), or to snatch (Jn 6:15, Acts 8:39, 23:10, Jude 23, Mt 13:19, 1Thess 4:17); from this verb stems the words harpax (predator, robber, plunderer) and harpagé (robbery, desire to rob). 'Harpagmos' is rare in ancient Greek, and it only appears here in the New Testament.
The second clause refers to what the Son did not consider robbery: to 'einai' is a noun derived from the verb eimi (to be). The meaning of 'isa' (dictionary: 'isos') is equal, the same, similar in size etc.; from this stems isotes = equality, identity, fairness. Therefore, Christ did not consider being equal to God as robbery, in other words, being equal to God. The natural translation of the two details: "Being in the form of God, he did not consider it robbery" to be "equal to God". It is crucially important that being "equal" to God is continuous, state-like. The Son did not acquire this, as if there was a time when he was not in the form of God. He was originally in this form of existence, so it could not have been an achievable goal for him. He originally "existed in the form of God". The WTS, however, represents it in exactly the opposite way, as if he should not have thought of becoming equal with God, and since he did not do this, he became an example for the Philippians.
Paul does not claim that Christ "did not want to rob" (ukh hegesato harpadzein) what was His from God. Nor does he say that Christ refrained from "being equal to God", from becoming equal to God (see the purpose clause of NWT: "that..."), or "making himself equal to God" (cf. Jn 5:18).
The section preceding Phil 2:6 not only talks about measuring ourselves against others but also about compassion, love, common aspirations and worries, avoiding disputes, humility, and finally in verse 5, that no one should look out for their own benefit only, but everyone should also look out for the benefit of others!
Then comes the elliptical Greek sentence, which every translator has to complete: "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus", or more acceptable in the present tense: ho kai en Khristo Iesu [estin] = "as it is in Christ Jesus", or it can be supplemented with a modal auxiliary verb: ho kai en Khristo Iesu [einai dei] = "...as it should be in Christ Jesus".
This needed to be clarified in order to see that, according to Paul's line of thought, the basic attitude of believers in Christ is to place the interests of others above their own. Christ Jesus is cited as an example of this selflessness, who, despite being equal to God in the form of God (the upper pole), took on the form of humans for a time for the sake of humans (the lower pole). The Son almost "emptied himself" (heauton ekenosen), took on a servant's form, became similar to humans, and obeyed even to death. This astonishing, self-sacrificing love is what Paul presented to the Philippians as an example to follow (cf. Mk 10:45). The Society denies that in Christ, God became man. This translation and explanation suggest that Paul takes Jesus' humility before Jehovah as an example of humility. Accordingly, if we should regard others as better than ourselves, then Jesus is the best example of this because he regarded God, that is, Jehovah, as better than himself, and did not want to become God. According to the Bible verse, the Son's pre-incarnation state is described as "being in the form of God", "being equal to God", but he did not cling to this, but took on a human, servant form. Paul makes God, who humbled himself to us in Christ, an example of humility.
The word "harpagmos" in dictionaries does not directly mean robbery, loot, but rather looting, predation. However, it cannot be translated this way, as the meaning of the sentence would change to the opposite (even along the interpretation of the Watchtower): "Jesus did not consider it looting if he wanted to be equal with God." The word also has the meaning of "desirable acquisition," in which the aspect of seizing has completely faded. Therefore, it must be resolved somehow, and definitely by translating the word "harpagmos" with its object: something seized or to be seized, looted, robbed. If any translation does not proceed this way, it will be forced to paraphrase, so it cannot be used as an argument in the present debate.
At this point the NWT also uses a paraphrase: "the idea of trying to be equal to God". The purpose structure is completely missing from the Greek, it was only added by the interpretive effort of the translator. Similarly, the word "although" expressing the opposing aspect is not present in the Greek, although NWT also adds it: "who, although he was existing in God’s form". This translation solution is not falsification in itself, but it definitely unambiguously interprets an ambiguous Greek structure along some ideology. So it cannot be paraded as a "more accurate translation."
However, the New World Translation is also forced into a falsification that those defending it usually don't dare to address: "did not consider that", or "did not concern himself with the [...] thought". However, the meaning of "hegeomai" is not "to think about something", but "to consider / regard something as something". The correctness of this translation is also reflected in the grammatical structure of Phil 2:6, which, in accordance with the general sentence scheme of "hégeomai", contains a double object: "harpagmon" and "to einai isa theo", i.e. "loot" and "being equal with God". This meaning is not reflected by the Watchtower Bible, but it embezzles it.
A lot turns on this, because it becomes clear that the Watchtower Society bends the text with ideological intent, but this time it does not unambiguously interpret ambiguous Greek with interpretive translation, but falsifies unambiguous Greek with it.
It is precisely the context that makes it clear that Paul here presents Jesus as a divine person renouncing his existing possessions, not as someone who does not reach for something that is not his. There is no such thing in this text as the Watchtower ideologue pours in, that Jesus regarded God as more than himself. This is not exegesis, but the killing of the text at issue with sectarian theology.
The continuation ("but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant") states that Jesus did not demonstrate his humiliation by not seizing equality with God, but by not clinging to it. Otherwise, Paul's illustrative example would have lacked even the semblance of aptness. How would the example of Jesus, who does not reach above his own due, justify that we consider others superior to ourselves? To encourage this, Paul had to present a Jesus who does not cling to what is his, but voluntarily renounces it.
Some commentators want to demonstrate a difference between the contents of the following expressions: "being in the form of God," and "equality with God". But this is impossible, because in the continuation Paul contrasts the form of God with the form of a servant, so when Jesus took the form of a servant, he did not merely give up being equal with God, but also the divine form. Since he renounced both, it is obvious that Paul considered the two equal here.
Dear Nincsnevem, I've allowed you some leeway with your posts, but it's tiring to see someone who's not interested in discussion/dialogue but who only wants to criticize JWs, the NWT, and propagate Catholicism on this forum.
What you're posting is nothing new to me: I've dealt with the same stuff for about 40 years. I've debated Catholics before about the Trinity, the afterlife and ecclesiology. We walked away still holding to our faith and having goodwill for each other.
I don't know you personally but I can tell you've done your research and prepared your criticism of the NWT, many of which are misguided. It's not that I don't feel you can't be answered or have not been refuted, but it's hard to dialogue when a person submits a flood of material that seems to be mostly cut and paste. Moreover, you go off the subject and immediately proceed to attack JWs/NWT. My tolerance level is starting to run short, my friend. I just ask that you try to respect what we're doing here. Thanks.
Dear Mr. Foster,
I had absolutely no intention of being disrespectful to you or flooding your blog.
These materials are mostly my own notes, which cannot be found on the Internet.
I like to debate and engage in civilized dialogue, so I shared the notes so that many misunderstandings might be clarified in the light of them.
It was not my intention to offend you in your faith, I just wanted to share my counter-arguments in the spirit of dialogue.
Nincsnevem, I want to make it clear that I'm not attributing any malicious intent to you. You seem like a sincere and decent person. I want to address some things you brought up, but I can only participate in focused discussions.
Hope I don't sound like an old curmudgeon. Best regards.
Nincsnevem check this out.https://lamejortraducciondelabiblia.blogspot.com/search?q=filipenses+2
This blog will translate into English in your Google browser.
Dear "Anonymous",
Thanks for the link, I looked it up, otherwise I don't need a translator, I'm also fluent in Spanish (it wasn't difficult after Latin :D). It would also deserve strong criticism that, what a thing it is in the 21st century that within the JW denomination in non-English speaking countries the Bible is translated from English into the local vernacular languages, so it is a translation of a translation.
According to Catholic teaching, no Bible translation is inspired, and therefore it has never declared about any Bible translation (neither the Septuagint nor the Vulgate) that it is linguistically flawless, inerrant and cannot contain unintentional mistranslations. Only the original text is inspired by God, every translation is just a translation, which necessarily represents a kind of interpretation of the words in the original language, and is necessarily imperfect.
The Vulgate is only a model text (editio typica) in the Catholic Church, while the instruction 'Liturgiam authenticam' specifies that Catholic Bible translations into the local languages should not be made from the Vulgate, but rather must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, and the Vulgate must instead simply be used as an "auxiliary tool".
So it does not at all play the same role as the New World Translation in your denomination, where the English text is translated (translation of a translation) into each local language.
At the same time, it is also a rule that no single translation can be used as an authority, since in case of controversial interpretation, one must always go back to the original language.
If I don't understand a part of the Bible, I usually look first to see how the ancient Christian church fathers interpreted it, because according to my belief there was never a "great apostasy", there was no break in the faith of the early church, so what the Church believes today, it has always believed, therefore the extra-biblical sources, if they are obviously not equivalent to the Bible itself, on the whole attest to the faith of the early church, which is the authentic guardian of the apostolic teaching.
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Philippians%202:6
Mr. Foster,
let me also recommend the following article to your attention:
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/christou_crebegot.html
Another great article dealing with the ante-Nicene Church Fathers
https://e-homoreligiosus.blogspot.com/2021/05/roman-monteros-collection-of-quotations.html
Dear Anonymous Anonymous (7:09 PM)
I am well aware of JW apologists and Arians' abusive, cherry-picking citation of patristics, if you want I can answer it in more detail, I will mention only three examples:
1. In connection with Justin Martyr, the part where he allegedly called Jesus an angel is quoted. Well, that is wrong, Justin did not have an angel-Christology in the JWs' Michael sense, the text of his First Apology's LXIII chapter reveals that he did not mean that Jesus was an angel, but that he appeared as the "angelos" of the Lord, and that he was CALLED an "angelos" because he acted as a messenger.
" ὃς καὶ ἄγγελος καλεῖται, διὰ τὸ ἀγγέλλειν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὅσαπερ βούλεται αὐτοῖς ἀγγεῖλαι ὁ τῶν ὅλων ποιητής"
Justin uses also the verb ἀγγέλλω, to convey messages, to announce. The similarity between ἄγγελος and ἀγγέλλω cannot be retained in English, and therefore the point of Justin's remarks is lost to the English reader. The Hebrew malʼākh and the Greek angelos simply mean "messenger", in a general sense. Here it's especially clear that Justin used the general meaning of angelos: "He is called 'angelos', BECAUSE He announces..." So here the word "angelos" is to be understood in the general sense: messenger, not angel in the sense of "spirit creature". Justin Martyr clearly recognized Jesus as truly God, not a WTS sebse lowercase god/demigod.
"Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36)
2. The citation of Origen is particularly problematic, because although he really had unorthodox ideas and formulations, he was not Arian, rather Trinitarian, and it is no coincidence that although his Christology did not receive particular criticism in the later Origenist crisis. Origen very accurately says, "He was incarnate when he was God; and when he became man, he remained what he was before: God." Probably the term God-man (θεάνθρωπος) comes from him (Origen. Princip. Praef. 4; cf. in Jn tr. 6.). Check also: De Principiis IV.27, I.6, II.2.2, II.4.3, and read:
* https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/origens_christology.htm
3. The Arians refer to the fact that several pre-Nicene church fathers, even Athanasius - probably due to the LXX rendering of Proverbs 8:22 - used the Greek term "ktizo" for the origin of Jesus from the Father, which was often translated as "created". In fact, the Greek word ἔκτισέ (ektise) does indeed have nuances. While it often means "created," it can also be understood in the sense of "established" or "ordained." In fact, "ktizo" cannot be understood in the Arian/JW sense (which is practically: poio) for them, because it turns out that the Church Fathers did not understand it that way, so their citation is out of context, also disregarding nuances lost in translation, so it is unfair to the author. Dionysius of Rome pointed out that "there is more than one meaning of the word created" (ktizo), and "this created (ktizo) is not to be understood in the same manner as made (poio)". Read:
* http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/christou_crebegot.html
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/ktizo
For ktizo, see also Paul Blowers, Drama of the Divine Economy, p. 203ff.
Also check out Takamitsu Muraoka's Septuagint lexicon.
Post a Comment