Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How should harpagmos be translated? | Phil 2:6 | Arnold | 116377 | ||
Why does the NASB translate the Greek word harpagmos (lexical form) as "a thing to be grasped"? The KJV translates it as "robbery": "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." While the NASB is in agreement with other modern translations (NIV, RSV, NJB, ASV), it appears that the older rendering is still possible, and that there are just a few classical sources (outside the NT) which could be used for a comparative study of the word. So on what basis is a decision made to translate harpagmos one way rather than the other? |
||||||
2 | How should harpagmos be translated? | Phil 2:6 | Morant61 | 116407 | ||
Greetings Arnold! 'Harpagmos' originally did mean 'robbery'. However, in it's only use in the New Testament, this meaning is impossible. Barnes explains it in the following way: ********************************* Thought it not robbery to be equal with God - This passage, also, has given occasion to much discussion. Prof. Stuart renders it: “did not regard his equality with God as an object of solicitous desire;” that is, that though he was of a divine nature or condition, be did not eagerly seek to retain his equality with God, but took on him an humble condition - even that of a servant. Letters to Channing, pp. 88-92. That this is the correct rendering of the passage is apparent from the following considerations: (1) It accords with the scope and design of the apostle’s reasoning. His object is not to show, as our common translation would seem to imply, that he aspired to be equal with God, or that he did not regard it as an improper invasion of the prerogatives of God to be equal with him, but that he did not regard it, in the circumstances of the case, as an object to greatly desired or eagerly sought to retain his equality with God. Instead of retaining this by an earnest effort, or by a grasp which he was unwilling to relinquish, he chose to forego the dignity, and to assume the humble condition of a man. (2) it accords better with the Greek than the common version. The word rendered “robbery” - harpagmos - is found nowhere else in the New Testament, though the verb from which it is derived frequently occurs; Mat_11:12; Mat_13:19; Joh_6:15; Joh_10:12, Joh_10:28-29; Act_8:29; Act_23:10; 2Co_12:2, 2Co_12:4; 1Th_4:17; Jud_1:23; Rev_12:5. The notion of violence, or seizing, or carrying away, enters into the meaning of the word in all these places. The word used here does not properly mean an act of robbery, but the thing robbed - the plunder - das Rauben (Passow), and hence something to be eagerly seized and appropriated. Schleusner; compare Storr, Opuscul. Acade. i. 322, 323. According to this, the meaning of the word here is, something to be seized and eagerly sought, and the sense is, that his being equal with God was not a thing to be anxiously retained. The phrase “thought it not,” means “did not consider;” it was not judged to be a matter of such importance that it could not be dispensed with. The sense is, “he did not eagerly seize and tenaciously hold” as one does who seizes prey or spoil. So Rosenmuller, Schleusner, Bloomfield, Stuart, and others understand it. ************************************ So, contextually, Christ already possessed equality with God, thus the word cannot mean 'robbery' in the sense that Christ had to 'take' equality with God (He already had it). This is why the modern translations have translated it differently. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Up | Down | |||
Questions and/or Subjects for Phil 2:6 | Author | ||
|
Makarios | ||
|
uncle rhemus | ||
|
Isaac Jesus | ||
|
consider | ||
|
Truthfinder | ||
|
bbruce | ||
|
Arnold | ||
|
Morant61 | ||
|
Noveta | ||
|
fellow worker | ||
|
abeck |