# Translation of Phi 2:6/Did the KVJ translators get it wrong?



## KMK (Aug 28, 2008)

> Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:



J C Ellicott in his commentary says that a better translation of 'harpogmos' should be 'seized upon' rather than 'robbery'.



> The meaning then will be, (b) _He did not deem the being on an equality with God a thing to be seized on_, a state to be exclusively (so to speak) clutched at, or retained as a prize. Pg. 42



The ESV thinks so:



> Phi 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,



So does the NASB:



> who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,



Is there a consensus among modern theologians? And what are the theological implications of the change?


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 28, 2008)

No.

The AV rendering is teaching that by being equal to God (present tense) Christ is not stealing anything. It implies that he is already equal to God.

The other renderings teach that Christ did not grasp after being equal with God. They are implying that he did not already have equality with God. They also teach that his being in the form of God was only in the past. These are heresies.

This can be seen by the sentence starting with 'though' or 'although'. The form is, though I had in the past this, I didn't go seeking after in the future that. 

The form of the AV is, I am in the form of God and do not count it as robbing God to be so.

Ellicott is wrong if you believe Jesus has been, is, & always will be God.


----------



## Kim G (Aug 28, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> The other renderings teach that Christ did not grasp after being equal with God. They are implying that he did not already have equality with God. That is heresy.



I always took it to mean that, though Christ always was equal with God, He did not consider this something He had to hold onto (grasp). He was willing to let go of His own way (Not my will, but thine be done) and humble Himself in obedience to the Father.


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 28, 2008)

Kim G said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > The other renderings teach that Christ did not grasp after being equal with God. They are implying that he did not already have equality with God. That is heresy.
> ...



Christ always *is* equal with God, not was. He did not relinquish his equality with God during his earthly ministry. Also the set up of the modern versions listed do not imply that he no longer believed he had to hold onto it, but that he did not have to grasp after or grab ahold of it. By implication he did not have it.


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 28, 2008)

KMK said:


> The ESV thinks so:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It also seems to say that you can be in the form of God and yet not be equal with God. This sounds like the debate that brought about the Nicene Creed. And these two versions appear to come down on the wrong side of the debate.


----------



## TimV (Aug 28, 2008)

I notice it's the same in the Geneva Bible, so it looks like it was copied from that to the KJV. Reading through my TR interlinear, the word is translated "rapine" and (I presume) the same work in the Vulgate _rapinam_. If you add all those words together, you get taking by force, grasping, robbing, rapine (archaic for looting etc..) and all the versions mentioned so far can be reconciled.

Anyone know how Luther translated it into German, or an early French version?


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 28, 2008)

*Philippians 2:7*

ESV but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,being born in the likeness of men.

NASB but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Now the verse 6 reading in both makes sense. These two versions have succumbed, to in some form, the kenosis heresy. 

The ESV's 'nothing' makes no sense. Did he become nothing metaphysically, epistemologically, ethically, mathematically. In what sense did he become nothing? 

The NASB's reading is blatantly in support of the kenosis heresy by translating it as 'emptied'. 

Another reason to stick to the classic English translations of the Geneva and the Authorized Version.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 28, 2008)

This happens to be something I gave a lot of thought to some years ago. It was the NKJV that brought it to mind for me, namely the phrase, "robbery to be equal with God."

There's a number of versions available, and I'm no Greek or Hebrew scholar. And I don't just simply trust any one who claims he is. The question that I cannot get past is the one about who to believe! So I think it best to consider all of translations well whenever there is a discrepancy, and go for the meaning that is the plainest, and/or the one which comes out of a consideration of other verses which bring light to it. 

After a while I took it to refer to Christ's love in His humility, especially in contrast to His superiority. That is, though He knew He was "in the form of God", far above the station He occupied while in the "form of a bondservant", He did not grasp at His rightful station but rather submitted Himself. He did not appeal to "his rights", so to speak; He did not even appeal to His innocence even as a bondservant. So I took it to be more in line with Is. 53:7, "He was led as a lamb to the slaughter." 

I wouldn't say that the KJV got it wrong. I think they're likely closer. But either way it has to be taken to mean that Jesus did not appeal to His equality with God in order to forego the suffering state of being in the form of a bondservant. And this testifies to His deity every bit as much, that He laid it aside and did not think that He was robbed of it. If He could have been robbed of His deity then He would not be God. So it has to refer to His humility in laying it aside, and yet also not feeling threatened in doing so. 

I've always preferred the KJV on this, but have taken the other versions to have the same meaning even if they used different words.


----------



## Kim G (Aug 28, 2008)

TimV said:


> Anyone know how Luther translated it into German, or an early French version?



From the Louis Segond version:

"lequel, existant en forme de Dieu, n'a point regardé comme *une proie à arracher *d'être égal avec Dieu,"

*arracher*=to grab/pull up/rip off/tear/uproot/wrench/wrest


----------



## TimV (Aug 28, 2008)

Thanks, Kim. 

So if Rob and grasp are poles of the same word and everything between are nuances, the French version tends toward the grasp.


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 28, 2008)

TimV said:


> I notice it's the same in the Geneva Bible, so it looks like it was copied from that to the KJV. Reading through my TR interlinear, the word is translated "rapine" and (I presume) the same work in the Vulgate _rapinam_. If you add all those words together, you get taking by force, grasping, robbing, rapine (archaic for looting etc..) and all the versions mentioned so far can be reconciled.
> 
> Anyone know how Luther translated it into German, or an early French version?



Luther's Bible followed the GV & AV reading of 'robbery'.

The problem with 'a thing to be grasped' is its implication. A thing to be grasped is something I don't yet have. If I have something that I have a right to, it is not robbery for me to possess it.


----------



## Kim G (Aug 28, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> The problem with 'a thing to be grasped' is its implication. A thing to be grasped is something I don't yet have.



Not so. If I'm holding my coffee mug tightly, I'm "grasping" it. That doesn't mean I don't have it. Christ was already "grasping" equality--He had it. But He didn't consider His equality so important that He wouldn't humble Himself under the Father.

If it said "grasping *at*" something, that means you don't have it yet.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 28, 2008)

Just for reference:

Links and Downloads Manager - Translations & Manuscripts - English Hexapla - The PuritanBoard
Links and Downloads Manager - Translations & Manuscripts - French Segond Bible - The PuritanBoard
Links and Downloads Manager - Translations & Manuscripts - Dutch Statenvertaling - The PuritanBoard


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 28, 2008)

Kim G said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with 'a thing to be grasped' is its implication. A thing to be grasped is something I don't yet have.
> ...



The text reads "a thing to be grasped" not "grasping". If I am "grasping" a coffee mug then indeed I do have it. If I say a coffee mug is "a thing to be grasped" this does not mean that I have it, but it is something to be grasped. Maybe I have it, maybe I don't. And in context of the verse's rendering in the modern versions it is a thing I do not already have. 

In the AV, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, asserts that he is already equal with God. I am not robbing God by being equal with him. I am not robbing anyone by being the possessor of the coffee mug. In the modern version's, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, there is no such assertion that Christ already has equality with God. I did not count possessing the coffee mug a thing to be grasped. Maybe because I already have it, or maybe because I don't and have decided I am not going to get it.

And of course the "was in the form of God" implies that there was some point in time in which Jesus Christ was not in the form of God. That is heresy. 

It is the "was in the form of God" that further implies that the phrase "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" means, at this point in time, he did not have equality with God. Both the ambiguous nature of the 2nd part of the verse in the modern versions and the usage of "was" in the first part of the verse make the modern version rendition of this verse communicate a separate message than the AV rendering.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 28, 2008)

Chris,
The modern renderings do not demand what you claim they demand. "robbery" is itself susceptible to being mistaken for a verb. At least the rendering "thing grasped" (or "to be grasped," the semantics are negligible) shows clearly that the term is a noun; in such a case "a thing *to be* grasped" (or "held onto") makes a much smoother sentence than without the copula.

Neither does the simple "grasp" imply a "taking hold from a condition of not holding". It simply describes the "hold" without necessitating an inceptive quality. "I am grasping" says nothing about if/when I began to grasp or that it could end. And if I point to the "thing" in my grasp, I describe it as "a thing to be grasped."

The word αρπαγμον is a noun. So, the focus in the passage is on the "thing" itself, or "action" itself as a "thing" under consideration. "equality with God" is appositional to αρπαγμον, i.e. the "thing".

It would be as easy for someone to view "robbery" as implying the possibility of unlawful taking, as "thing to be grasped" could lead someone to think Christ didn't have it in his hand. Neither would be correct (which is why we don't interpret in a vacuum, but use helps).

The main mistake in either case is emphasizing any verbal motion.


----------

