Phil 2:6,7 "Thought it no robbery" or "a thing to be grasped"

[God'sElectSaint]

I've noticed in Philippians 2:6 in the Authorized it's translated "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: " and the 1901 ASV has "who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, " Now to me these seem to be opposite of each other. From the KJV/NKJV How I understand the verse to mean Jesus was in the form of God, and did not think it was wrong to be equal with God but made himself of no reputation. But ASV/ESV seem to imply that Jesus didn't want to take advantage of his equality with God, maybe? I don't know, the KJV rendering makes more sense to me but is it a valid translation? It would seem to be one or the other is wrong unless I'm missing something. har-pag-mos'
From G726; plunder (properly concrete): - robbery.

From Strong's it would suggest the KJV is right I suppose. Anyone have an opinion on this. What's the proper translation and interpretation thereof?

 

[MW]

There are a range of exegetical issues tied up with this passage, and many of them are interlocking. If the perspective of Christ refers to His Person before He became man (the classic view), "robbery" or a similar sense is required because equality with God is understood to be already in possession. Others suppose it is speaking from the perspective that Christ has already become man, and then the idea is that as man He did not stand on His divine dignity. This suggests the idea that equality is something not in possession and therefore yet to be attained or "grasped."

Another issue concerns form (morphe), which is classically understood to refer to essential attributes of divinity. ESV following RSV translates "was," so one must either deny that form (morphe) means essential attributes, or one has to suppose Christ divested Himself of these when He became man. If the former, a clear testimony to the divinity of Christ is lost. If the latter, the theory of kenosis is established.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Interesting point. The ESV does miss the mark with "though, he was in the form of God" that's actually a very disappointing translation choice. Looking at more The KJV/NKJV rendering makes more sense as I believe it describes him prior to his humanity since the next verse is "he made himself of no reputation" which I feel is where his humanity comes in. I feel thought it not robbery qualifies "being in the form of God". For instance to paraphrase a little "Jesus being that he is God, did not consider it wrong to be equal with God but yet made himself of no reputation, and so on.

 

[MW]

Interesting point. The ESV does miss the mark with "though, he was in the form of God" that's actually a very disappointing translation choice. Looking at more The KJV/NKJV rendering makes more sense as I believe it describes him prior to his humanity since the next verse is "he made himself of no reputation" which I feel is where his humanity comes in. I feel thought it not robbery qualifies "being in the form of God". For instance to paraphrase a little "Jesus being that he is God, did not consider it wrong to be equal with God but yet made himself of no reputation, and so on.

That is essentially the classic position.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Interesting point. The ESV does miss the mark with "though, he was in the form of God" that's actually a very disappointing translation choice. Looking at more The KJV/NKJV rendering makes more sense as I believe it describes him prior to his humanity since the next verse is "he made himself of no reputation" which I feel is where his humanity comes in. I feel thought it not robbery qualifies "being in the form of God". For instance to paraphrase a little "Jesus being that he is God, did not consider it wrong to be equal with God but yet made himself of no reputation, and so on.

That is essentially the classic position.

Yeah I thought so. Because I've heard for instance, James White say the KJV is ambiguous in Phi 2:6 but I believe he's wrong here. It's not ambiguous it's just saying the exact opposite most other translations are saying. Ya know there's some good modern translations out there and the KJV may have a few problems but it is, in my opinion far from being a obsolete relic of the past. I feel like I've benefited a lot from using the KJV since early on in my Christian walk.

 

[MW]

but I believe he's wrong here.

He is reacting to the charge of doctrinal inaccuracies in modern versions by attempting to find the same in the AV. The problem with his apologetic method is that it leaves the church without any accurate translation. Most of his examples are just silly.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

but I believe he's wrong here.

He is reacting to the charge of doctrinal inaccuracies in modern versions by attempting to find the same in the AV. The problem with his apologetic method is that it leaves the church without any accurate translation. Most of his examples are just silly.

Yeah quite a few are and that's unfortunate because I think a lot of his other work.