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)
