From: Alex / Ali (alexali@surf.net.au)
Date: Wed Dec 22 1999 - 21:57:50 EST
<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>
<P>The passage at Philippians 1 verse 6 is one that has provoked my thinking
over many years; I am sure there are many list members for whom this is also
true. For me, the difficulties of interpretation have been delightfully
intriguing rather than frustrating, but it may be well to say at the outset
that, in so far as yielding an understanding that is certain, I suspect the
verse is intractable. I have noted the carefully worded and judicious
exhortation from Carl that we discuss this with a respect for one another's
different opinions, and seen such courtesy in views expressed that do differ
from my own. (Because I receive the daily digest, I have not seen postings on
the subject that may have been sent since the last dispatch in that form.)</P>
<P>One of the difficulties of the verse resides in the word hARPAGMON, a NT
hapax and rare even outside the NT. The standard works indicate how its
meaning is uncertain, but include robbery, a thing to be seized ('res
rapienda'), a thing that has been taken ('res rapta'), a windfall, prize,
privilege. Moulton & Milligan's note on this word is worth reading, as
are the more recent reference works.</P>
<P>Then, besides the sense of EN MORFHi QEOU, there is the sense of the
participle, hUPARCWN. I wonder if some translators have understood this as
having a causal force (because he was / through being), and others as having a
concessive force (although he was / despite being). (I do not mean to
imply by the terms 'causal' or 'concessive' anything more than that these are
useful for this discussion in English of the Greek text; see Smyth #2060,
and Carl's comments a couple of days ago on the the term "connective"
or "pertinentive" with reference to the genitive.)</P>
<P>Understanding the participle as having a causal force (perhaps 'explanatory'
would be a clearer term here) allows the understanding, *because/since he was in
the form of God* he did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. [Taken
this way, "in the form of God" is not pointing to a disjunction
between form and reality, but is speaking of a form that represents a
reality; the contrast that is explicit in the text is not 'form of God' /
'reality of God' within the single verse, but 'form of *God*' MORFHi QEOU (verse
6) / 'form of a *servant*' MORFHN DOULOU (verse 7).]</P>
<P>However, taking the participle hUPARCWN as concessive may yield a sense:
"*although* he was in the form of God, he did not consider equality with
God a thing to be grasped." The sense of hARPAGMON here is more difficult -
or perhaps it is as more true to say that the paucity of evidence as to its
meaning is the difficulty. The verb hARPAZW often has me thinking of a fist
clenched tightly to hold onto what has been taken in hand (though its sense is
more to do with the snatching or seizing than the holding). I have wondered if
this might allow hARPAGMON a meaning that in this present passage would give the
sense (in a paraphrase), "Although he was in the form of God, (yet) he did
not consider he should hold on tight to his equality with God, but instead he
let it go and emptied himself, taking the form of a servant
…". [This concessive understanding of hUPARCWN underlies such
translations as WE: "He was in every way like God. Yet he did not think
that being equal to God was something he must hold on to" and NASB
"who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with
God a thing to be grasped" of those which Grant Polle cited in his original
post.]</P>
<P>In the context of the surrounding verses, this seems to yield an acceptable
sense: 'Each is not to consider his own interests but those of others; have this
mind in you which also is in Christ Jesus, who, although he was in the form of
God, did not consider equality with God something to be held on to, but emptied
himself, taking the form of a servant …". However, in this
reading, the meaning of hARPAGMON is more problematic, and the point of
transition between one idea and the next is misplaced, for it gives undue
emphasis to a contrast between "although he was in the form of God"
and "(yet) he did not consider equality with God something to be
grasped". This fails to give sufficient weight to the adversative ALLA with
which verse seven begins.</P>
<P>To place the first understanding in the wider context gives: 'Each is not to
consider his own interests but those of others; have this mind in you which also
is in Christ Jesus, who since he was in the form of God did not consider
equality with God as robbery, but (ALLA) he emptied himself, taking the form of
a servant …". In this way, the point of transition between what
Christ Jesus was and what he became gives due force to the ALLA and is properly
coincident with the contrast between MORFHi QEOU and MORFHN DOULOU, and makes
good sense in the context of the Philippians being exhorted to consider the
interests of others as did Christ Jesus.</P>
<P>As I indicated earlier, the fullness of the meaning of the verse is beyond
certainty; yet what we can wrestle with is breathtaking enough. I see that in
Zerwick/Grosvenor 'A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament' the
suggestion that in hARPAGMON is "probably a tacit allusion to Adam who
tried to usurp equality with God". That had not occurred to me; but
the avenues for exploration in this verse are many.</P>
<P>At any rate, the verse and its context are very fitting for contemplation at
Christmas.</P>
<P>Dr Alex Hopkins (Melbourne, Australia)</P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:51 EDT