Here are a few translations that agree.
American Standard Version
“Who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,"
Goodspeed
“Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God,"
English Standard Version
"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,"
Catholic New Jerusalem Bible
"Who, being in the
form of God, did not count equality with
God something to be grasped."
New World Translation
"Who although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God."
Add Phil 2:6 to the list of trinity “proof” texts that are at best disputed. Is anyone seeing a pattern yet?
....................................................
There are several NT Greek words in Phil. 2:6 which are misused by many trinitarian scholars.
One of them is
harpagmos.
There could be
some doubt about the meaning of the word
harpagmos if we looked only at the NT Greek Scriptures (since
harpagmos occurs only at Phil. 2:6 in the entire New Testament). We would then only have the meaning of the source words for
harpagmos to determine its intended meaning.
Even so,
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that
harpagmos means “
plunder” and that it comes from the source word
harpazo which means: “to
seize ... catch away, pluck,
take (
by force).” - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.
“725 harpagmós – to
seize, especially by an
open display of
force. See
726 (
harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies,
copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.
And the
New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “
harpagmos; from
[harpazo]; the act of
seizing or the thing
seized.” And, “
harpazo ... to
seize, catch up,
snatch away.” Notice that all have to do with taking something away
by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.
In fact, the trinitarian
The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:
“We cannot find any passage where
[harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include
harpagmos] has the sense of ‘
holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘
seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is
not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’ ”
Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that
harpagmos is “akin to
harpazo, to
seize, carry off
by force.” - p. 887,
An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
And the trinitarian
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the
majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)
“have taken
harpagmos to mean a thing
plundered or
seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize
of war.” - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.
The key to both these words
(harpagmos and its source word,
harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize” used in a trinitarian Bible for
harpagmos, it has to be understood
only in the same sense as a pirate ship
forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize”!
We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of
harpazo (the source word for
harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since
harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.
In the Septuagint
harpagmos (in its forms of
harpagma and
harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s
A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in
every case its meaning is the
taking of something away from someone
by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare
ASV).
So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that
harpagmos means either
taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been
taken by force (a noun).
Many trinitarian translators, however, either make nonsense out of the meaning of Phil. 2:6 by actually using the proper meaning of “robbery” or “taken by force” without showing God’s clear superiority over Jesus which the context demands, or, instead, making sense of it by choosing a word that doesn’t have the
proper meaning of “taking by force.”
For example, the
King James Version (KJV) does use “robbery” (a nearly-accurate meaning for
harpagmos) but obviously mangles the meaning of the rest of the statement so that it doesn’t even make proper sense: “thought it not
robbery to be equal with God.” This is a nonsensical statement even by itself. In context it is even more inappropriate!
Yes, as we have seen above, even in the
KJV it is apparent from context that the purpose of this example is to emphasize lowliness of mind, humility: to regard others as better than yourself (vv. 3-5). Paul certainly wouldn’t destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is
thinking that it isn’t robbery for him to be equal with the Most High! Besides being a nonsensical statement, it is just the opposite of humility! Instead, to be in harmony with the purpose of Paul’s example, we must find a Jesus who regards God as
superior to himself and won’t give even a moment’s thought about attempting to take that most high position himself, but, instead,
humbles himself even further.
Trinitarian scholar R. P. Martin, for example, feels the context (especially the obvious
contrast of verses 6 and 7) clearly proves that
harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to
seize equality with God. Emphasizing the fact that this is a
contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with “but
[alla].” In accord with this, he tells us,
“V[erse] 6b states what Christ
might have done [or could have
attempted to do], i.e.
seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he
chose to do, i.e. give himself.” -
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604.
Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6
