From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Morphe: Hear ye PAUL (Was Re: Jesus denied he was God
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:53:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.220611.25781@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
> 
> For the Christians out there (especially Publius), I would like to see
> responses to Tim's post regarding his interpretation.  The definitions he
> gives for morphe and haragmos are exactly correct.  Check out Strong's
> Greek Dictionary of the New Testament.  Morphe is #3444 (form) and harpagmos
> is #725 (robbery).  The best rendering of verse 6 is in the KJV:
> 
>   "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
> 
> Don't waste time and space argueing about proper translations of the two words.
> I think we should spend our time discussing what the correct translation,
> given above, means.

Oh, but we *do* Scott. If it was true that the KJV translation is the 'best
rendering', then we could, as you say, simply worry about what it means, but
it is in fact a very misleading translation. '(h)arpagmos' cannot be simply
rendered 'robbery', it is a much more complex noun than that. It means
'plunder,something to be seized in war'. The KJV version simplifies this, 
and does so in such a way as to make it look as though Paul is saying Jesus 
*was* equal with God, when the passage actually says that there was a potential
for Jesus to have tried to *gain* equality with God, a potential which he 
rejected in obediently taking on human form. Once again, the christian
translator uses English to obscure the (uncomfortable) primary meaning
of the Greek.
Tim O'Neill
> 
> From Matthew Henry's commentary, I quote
> 
>   "...did not think himself guilty of any invasions of what did not belong
>    to him, or assuming another's rights....It is the highest degree of robbery
>    for any mere man or mere creature to pretend to be equal with God, or
>    profess himself one with the Father.  This is for a man to rob God, not
>    in tithes and offerings, but of the rights of his Godhead."
> 
> I think Mr. Henry is saying that it was not robbery for Jesus to claim to be
> God.  Rather, it was his right.  Yet, despite his rights, Jesus emptied himself
> and became man.  This is consistent with verses 3,4: "Do nothing from self-
> ishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard
> one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your
> own personal interests, but also for the interests of others." (NASB)  The
> model for this selfless attitude is Jesus (verse 5), which is where the
> disputed passage comes in.  Jesus could have looked to himself as God and
> thought himself (correctly) better than us; it would not have been robbery
> to do so.  But, he emptied himself of all his glory and took the form of a
> servant.
> 
> I'm not necessarily advocating this view (I only found the commentary about
> 1/2 hour ago), though it sounds consistent with the preceding verses.
> 
>   -- Scott @Brandeis
> 
>                            I asked Jesus,
>                      "How much do you love me?"
>                      "This much," He answered;
>                         and He stretched out
>                          His arms and died.
> 
> 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc