The Philippians Hymn and Translational Bias

Introduction

This article will examine the tendentious translations offered by some of the modern versions of Phil 2:6. There is no doubt that linguists approach a text with certain assumptions and preconceptions. It is virtually impossible for anyone to approach a task such as this completely objectively. Normally, these preconceptions do not influence the translation unduly—but if the text is ambiguous, then translator’s assumptions do come into play.

Res rapta or Res rapienda?

Generally speaking, two different types of translation are offered for Phil 2:6—termed from the Latin Vulgate the res rapta (by right) or res rapienda (by force). With res rapta it means that Jesus was faced with the temptation to hold tightly the equality that he already possessed. He did not look upon his equality with God as a prize to be clutched (i.e. held onto or retained). In contrast, res rapienda expresses the view that he was tempted to seize what he did not actually possess, namely, equality with his Father (it implies violent seizure); he did not try to snatch at an equality with God.

Translations offer the following options (other versions could be cited):

He counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God (RV)
He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped (RSV)
(He) did not consider equality with God something to be grasped (NIV)
He did not think to snatch at equality with God (NEB)
He did not set store upon equality with God (Moffat)
…thought it not robbery to be equal with God (KJV)
He did not cling to his prerogatives as God’s equal (Phillips)
He did not cling to his equality with God (Jerusalem Bible)

It can be seen that the renderings divide themselves into two opposite tendencies. Phillips and the Jerusalem Bible treat the passage much as the KJV: Equality with God, these translations suggest, belonged to Christ, but he was prepared to forgo its privileges in order to ‘become a man’. On the other hand, the RV, RSV, NIV, NEB, and perhaps Moffat, regard equality with God as a tempting goal which Jesus (v. 5) refused to seek. For this latter group, Jesus did not forgo a pre-existent equality, but rejected the opportunity of taking such a quality improperly.

In view of the strong temptation which Trinitarians would have towards the former meaning, there is good ground for thinking that the translations which regard Jesus as refusing to seek equality with God are right, for they must in the main have been going against their own inclinations in choosing their rendering.

D. R. Burk has written on the linguistics of Phil 2:6 in which he honestly states his Trinitarian bias. Despite this, he concludes in favour of the res rapienda option, but then perversely presents a convoluted Trinitarian exegesis:

Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, did not try to snatch at an equality with God which properly belongs only to the first Person of the Trinity.[1]

In the 1950s, E. Stauffer thought that the question had been definitely settled (and we are inclined to agree) in favour of Res rapienda:

So the old contention about harpagmos is over: equality with God is not a res rapta … a position which the pre-existent Christ had and gave up, but it is a res rapienda, a possibility of advancement which he declined.[2]

Being in the Form of God

Another stumbling block is the phrase in v. 6 translated as follows:[3]

Being in the form of God (KJV, RV)

Though He was in the form of God (RSV)

Being in very nature God (NIV)

Though He existed in the form of God (NASB)

He always had the nature of God (GNB)

For the divine nature was his from the first (NEB)

The first word at stake here is the participle form of the verb u`pa,rcw (uparchō), and our translations have gone with ‘being’, ‘was’, ‘existed’, and ‘had’. A look at the representative use of this verb elsewhere and translations in uncontentious texts reveals ‘being’ is the best translation of the Greek.

Luke 16:33 being in torments (KJV)
Luke 9:48 for he that is least among you all (KJV)
Luke 23:50 He was a member of the council (RSV)
Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet (KJV); And so, because he was a prophet (NASB)
Acts 7:55 Stephen, being full of the Holy Spirit
Acts 17:24 being Lord of heaven and earth (RSV); he is Lord of heaven and earth (NASB)
Acts 22:3 being zealous for God (NASB); was zealous toward God (KJV)
Rom 4 : 19 he was about an hundred years old (KJV)
1 Cor 11:7 since he is the image and glory of God (RSV)
2 Cor 8:17 but being more forward (KJV)
2 Cor 12:16 being crafty (KJV)
Gal 1:14 being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions (NASB)
Gal 2:14 If thou, being a Jew (KJV)

This presents an overwhelming case against using in Phil 2:6 the verb ‘to have’ (GNB) which imports ideas of possession to the clause, or the verb ‘to exist’ (NASB) which imports overtones of pre-existence to the text. What the present participle of u`pa,rcw actually does in this table of texts is suggest that the ones referred to in all these passages were what is said of them, and legitimately so, but by no means necessarily eternally, either as to past or future. The ‘translations’ of the GNB (‘always’), NEB (‘from the first’) are therefore interpretative doctrinal paraphrases.

It is, of course, quite true that the use of the participle for ‘being’ implies much more than ‘this being so’, but this does not imply something intrinsic, and by no means implies something without beginning or end. In what sense, then, was Jesus in the form of God?

Form

It is not warranted to replace the word ‘form’ by ‘nature’, as is done by some versions. The word morfh, (morphē) is only found three times in the NT, two of them in the present passage. They are:

Mark 16:12 After these things He was manifested in another form to two of them
Phil 2:6 Being in the form of God
Phil 2:7 He emptied Himself taking the form of a bondservant

The first of these cannot refer to the very nature of Christ, which was unchanged throughout his resurrection appearances. This is nearly as clear in the third: Jesus voluntarily undertook to behave like a bondservant rather than claim equality with God.

A little more light is thrown on this matter by considering the related verb morfo,w (morphoō), which occurs once only in the NT:

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you… Gal 4:19 (KJV)

As well as the cognate noun mo,rfwsij (morphōsis), which occurs twice:

An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Rom 2:20 (KJV)

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2 Tm 3:5 (KJV)

And the composite and cognate verb metamorfo,w (metamorphoō),

And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. Matt 17:2 (RSV); cf. Mark 9:2

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. Rom 12:2 (KJV)

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. 2 Cor 3:13 (KJV)

Taking this database of texts, it is plain that morphoō has to do with what is seen or apparent to view; the verb does not imply anything about nature or an identity of nature. The ‘form of servant’ denotes something about the role of an individual and ‘form of God’ is put in apposition to that role and should likewise be taken as denoting a role Jesus manifested. The point of Paul’s argument is that Jesus was, (and the rest of us are not) the subject of a direct divine begettal, so that God alone was his Father. Having this intimate relationship with God, he was tried as to whether he would be content with the position of a servant or whether he would covet equality with God. That he might be himself God (equal to God) is no part of the argument, and would in fact frustrate the argument should it be entertained as a premise.

The OT background to Jesus being a servant is Isaiah’s prophecies of the Suffering Servant (Isa 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-52:12). There is in these prophecies a visual aspect of ‘form’ which explains why Paul should use the expression ‘form of a servant’:

Look, my Servant… Isa 52:13 (KJV revised); cf. Isa 42:1

As many were astonished at you; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men… Isa 52:14 (KJV revised)

…he has no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Isa 53:2 (KJV revised)

Paul is constructing a play on the words of Isaiah using ‘form’ and ‘servant’ while conveying the point that Jesus chose the role of God’s servant. The reason why Paul juxtaposes ‘form of God’ with ‘form of a servant’ relates to Hezekiah and the promise made in his accession hymn of Isa 9:6-7. Here, he is described as ‘the mighty God’, an epithet for his future kingship. As a type of Jesus, Hezekiah suffered on behalf of the people, and through his suffering, the people were delivered and had peace (Isa 38:17); i.e. though Hezekiah was in the form of God, he took on himself the form a servant.

Conclusion

Jesus’ choosing to be a servant functioned as an example to the disciples—Paul exhorts the brethren to have the same attitude as Christ—he does not say: “Though some of you are equal to—if indeed not even superior to—many of your brothers, yet keep Jesus’ attitude in mind: he was in the form of God but he did not consider his equality with God to be a prize”. Rather, he says: “Jesus refused to snatch at equality with God—instead, he chose the path of self-sacrifice and service”.

The argument had to be relevant to first century Christians—the ordinary believer did not have a ‘pre-existent form of God’ that they could chose to voluntarily relinquish and neither did Christ. All men are made in the form (image) of God (only Jesus more so) but not in virtue of any pre-existence. The question is not one of pre-existence but of privilege. The believer now shares in the same privileges as Christ as they become transformed into his image (of obedient sons and daughters). We conclude with a quote by J. Murphy-O’Connor:

The common belief that Phil. 2:6-11 starts by speaking of Christ’s pre-existent state and status and then his incarnation is, in almost every case, a presupposition rather than a conclusion, a presupposition which again and again proves decisive in determining how disputed terms within the Philippians hymn should be understood.[4]

[1] Dennis R. Burk, Jr., “The Meaning of Harpagmos in Philippians 2:6 – An Overlooked Datum for Functional Inequality within the Godhead”, available online at http://bible.org [cited 22/03/2010].

[2] E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology London: SCM, 1955), 284, note 369.

[3] A. D. Norris, Acts and Epistles (London: Aletheia Books, 1989), 529-535, provides a large part of the linguistic analysis that follows.

[4] Cited in J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (2nd ed.; London: SCM Press, 1989, 114.