Tuesday, May 26, 2020

Greg Stafford on Philippians 2:6-9 in the Greek and the NWT


The NWT renders Phil 2:6-9 thusly:

Who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave's form and came to be in the likeness of men.  More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake.  For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name,

As I hope to delve more into JW-related issues on this blog in the future, I will reproduce Greg Stafford’s commentary on this passage and the NWT rendering thereof (as I am sure many readers will not have encountered as informed a JW as Stafford [at the time of writing, he was the leading JW apologist]):

The translation and resulting meaning of Philippians 2:6-9 has troubled scholars for centuries. Yet, in examining the text I found that there really is little over which to be troubled once we set aside the doctrinal restrictions on what the text can mean in the context of first century CE and earlier theology. That is to say that if we attempt to bring post-biblical theological articulation into harmony with Philippians 2:6-9, then many problems may result.

In explaining the meaning of this passage I believe the double-accusative view of hegeomai with “being equal/like God” as the direct object and “exploit” (harpagmon) the predicate accusative is the best option. I interpret morphe in its common sense of “form,” and accept isa (“on an equality”/”in a likeness”) as modifying einai (“being”) and involving either an equality or ‘likeness’ of form, since isa can mean equality or likeness (as in the LXX of Job 10:10; 11:12; 13:12, 28; 15:16; 24:20; 27:16; 28:2; 29:14; 30:19; 40:4; see also Wisdom 7:3). Finally, I see no reason why theou (the genitive form of the Greek word for “God” or “god”) should be viewed as indefinite, namely, “form of a god.” Only a desire to read later Trinitarian meanings and distinctions into the text can argue against such a translation. There is certainly no grammatical or semantic obstacle to such a translation. With the above points in mind, I offer the following translation of Philippians 2:6:

Who, even though he was existing in the form of a god [or ‘a divine form,’ or ‘God’s form’], did not consider being on an equality with [or, ‘existing in the likeness to’] God as something to exploit.

I believe such a translation is in keeping with the most well-founded syntactical explanation and is also in complete harmony with the biblical sense of the terms used, particularly morphe (‘”form”), theos (“a god”) and isa (“equal” or “like”). To help explain my understanding of this text, certain technical terms and expressions will have to be employed as part of a grammatical analysis of Philippians 2:6-9 and other texts. I encourage those readers unfamiliar with Greek grammar to sit through what follows and take with them what does make sense, leaving the rest for further reflection at some later date.

The syntactical question hinges on whether we have in Philippians 2:6 an idiomatic use of hegeomai (a verb which in this instance means to “think” or “consider”). By “idiomatic use” I mean a use that conforms to what we find elsewhere regarding a particular use of hegeomai, namely with a double accusative. Where we have such a double accusative used with hegeomai, it seems that the accusative following hegeomai always serves as the object of the verb and the accusative, preceding hegeomai serves as the predicate accusative, describing the object. Roy W. Hoover, “The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philological Solution,” Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971), pages 102-103, refers to an example from Isidore of Pelusium in the fourth century CE, who writes, Ei hermaion hegesato to einai ison (“If we considered being equal a treasure”). Here we have hegeomai used with a double accusative, where the accusative following the verb (to einai ison) is the direct object and the accusative preceding hegeomai is the predicate accusative, further describing to einai ison.

Another example of this idiom is in the Diodorus Siculus, Library 15.4.3, which reads: “On arriving in Egypt he met the king and urged him to continue the war energetically and to consider the war against the Persians a common undertaking.” Here we have hegeomai with a double accusative construction, where the articulated ton pros tous persas polemon (“the war against the Persians”) is the accusative object and koinon (“common undertaking”) is the predicate accusative.

Still another example can be found in the Letter of Aristeas 292.2, which R.J.H. Stutt translates, “you consider injustice the greatest evil” (in James H. Charlesworth, ed. The Old Testament, vol. 2 [New York: Doubleday, 1985], page 32). Here we have the same pattern of predicate accusative (“greatest evil,” megiston kakon), hegeomai (“consider”), and (articulated) accusative object (“injustice,” ten adikian). Another instance of this idiom can be found in Josephus’ War of the Jews, Book 2, 581, where he writes, “to consider the harm of your friends as your own.” Here the predicate accusative oikeion (“one’s own”) precedes hegeomai (“to consider”), and hegeomai is followed by the articulated accusative object ten blaben (“the harm”).

It seems that the accusative-hegeomai-accusative construction, particularly when the accusative following hegeomai is articulated, always conforms to the previously described usage. With this syntactical question reasonably settled, we can now consider the semantic range of several key terms. For morphe, “exterior form,” which may nor may not reflect the underlying nature, is acceptable. Compare Mark16:12 (longer ending) where it clearly does not reflect the underlying nature, as Jesus had been raised as a “spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45) and appeared to the disciples in “another” form. This is similar to the manner in which angels in the past had assumed human forms but without possessing the underlying nature of humanity (Genesis 19:1-3). Still, in this case there does not seem to be any reason to disconnect the divine form of the prehuman Jesus from the divine nature that underlies that form, since it was not a form that Jesus assumed but owned before coming to earth. Jesus’ prehuman “form,” reflecting his divine nature, was “equal” or “like” God in that they were both divine and had either equal or like appearances, which is entirely consistent with Hebrews 1:3, “He is the reflection of [God’s] glory and the imprint of [God’s] being.”

What, then, are the different implications between the translation I offer and that found in the NWT? My translation suggests that the prehuman Jesus gave up an equality or similarity that the prehuman Jesus gave up an equality or similarity of form/nature with God instead of choosing to exploit it for his own gain, as did Satan. The NWT suggests that Christ showed his humility, not in giving up a certain equality, but by never reaching out for it in the first place, as did Satan. Implicit in the NWT’s use of “existing in the form of God” is a certain equality or similarity in appearance between Christ and God, but NWT does not connect the use of harpagmon with Christ’s ownership of such an equality or similarity with God. NWT instead connects the sense it gives harpagmon with what Christ did not have, or did not seek to have. But, again, ultimately the fact that Christ gave up his divine form/nature and took the form/nature of a human (compare John 1:1, 14; Hebrews 1:3) is present in both translations. Also, to truly take on the weaknesses and limitations of humanity, Christ would had to have given up such human limitations, namely, his divine nature, intrinsic to which and attributes that cannot coexist with the intrinsic attributes of human nature. And therein lies the great fallacy of the Trinitarian incarnation.

If my suggested understanding of this passage is correct, then in giving up his equality/likeness with God Christ showed his humility, which is Paul’s point in bringing up this account of his prehuman activities (Philippians 2:5). On the other hand, in favor of NWT’s reading is the possible comparison with Adam and Eve, who were also in God’s likeness in a different sense (Genesis 1:26) but who did not resist the urge to reach out and become equal with or like God (Genesis 3:5-6). In short, in Philippians 2:6 there is a very real possibility that Paul asserts Christ’s prehuman ownership of an equality with God that he did not exploit for his own gain, an equality or similarity that he is elsewhere expressly said to have possessed (Hebrews 1:3). (Greg Stafford, Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses [Murrieta, Calif.: Elihu Books, 2002], 213-16 n. 5)