The following passage in St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, is frequently quoted to prove, that Christ is equal with the Father. ‘Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' It is generally admitted, I believe, that our translation of this passage is not correct; though, probably, all would not agree in any other, which could be offered. In the improved version, the passage is as follows:—‘Let this mind be in you, which was in Christ Jesus also; who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly grasp at the resemblance to God; but divested himself of it.' Wakefield translates the passage thus; ‘Let the same disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, though in a divine form, did not think of eagerly retaining this divine likeness; but emptied himself of it, by taking a servant's form.” If it be said, that these are the translations of known Unitarians; I reply: our common translation is the work of known Trinitarians. If prejudice render the former suspicious; it renders the latter not less so. Macknight's translation is as follows. ‘Let this disposition be in you, which was even in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be like God.” Macknight was a learned Trinitarian; and he observes, that Whitby has proved in the clearest manner, that the original word rendered, equal, is used in the Greek version of the Old Testament, to express likeness but not equality. Whatever may be thought of the comparative merit of these different translations; it seems evident from the whole passage, that the apostle here speaks of two distinct beings; of whom, one only is the supreme God, and the other bears a resemblance to God; such a resemblance, however, that he was capable of undergoing the greatest changes, and did actually die. You will observe, the apostle does not say, that Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with the Father, or like the Father. Had this been his language, it would probably have been said, that he teaches us the equality between the first and second persons in the Godhead. He uses the term, God; and thus shows, that Christ is a being distinct from God, not a person in the divine nature. Whether it can be supposed, that one divine person is equal to another, or not; does any man believe, that any being can, with truth and propriety, be said ‘to be equal with God?”
...................................
Additionally:
Ralph Martin, says in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: "It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'"
The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of its derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"
The Greek says literally, "deemed not being-on-a-par-with-God a-thing-to-be-plucked (hARPAGMON)."
An added problem is that the word hARPAGMON is not found anywhere else in extant Greek; clearly it derives from hARPAZW, "pluck," "grasp in the hand," "seize." But if equality-with-God is something Jesus doesn't deign to grasp, is it reasonable to suppose that it is something he actually already has?
"A vigorous debate still continues around the hymnic passage. However, the suggestion that the hymn has been constructed with a strong allusion to Adam, or even modeled after the template of Adam
christology is still persuasive." p. 282, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, by James D.G. Dunn
If we read the preceding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean that we should try to be equal with God? Of course not.
metatron3@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment