Before diving into Philippians, however, let me comment on two subjects. First, with regard to these so-called "proof texts." The idea of the Trinity is NOT based on texts or words. Far from it, you will find very few concise summaries of the Triune God concept, even in the New Testament where I believe God has fully revealed His nature to mankind. Rather, the idea of the Trinity is based on God's divine attributes as revealed through the person of the Father, the person of the Son, and the person of the Holy Spirit. These ideas are scattered throughout the Bible, so that one who reads it from cover to cover, in context, becomes acutely aware of the truth about God's nature, without having it presented in one verse or another.
Therefore, it is IMPERATIVE that any time we read a verse, we see it in its historical and physical context.
Now, for Philippians. This letter was written by Paul's hand to a church planted by the grace of God in Philippi, the first city they came to in Macedonia. Paul had been called to go there in a vision, in which he saw a Macedonian man pleading, "Come over and help us!" (Acts 16:9). The first converts included a rich merchant woman named Lydia and her family, a slave girl freed from divining spirits by which her masters had spiritually exploited her, and a jailer who, along with his family, believed in the Lord Jesus after Paul and Silas were divinely freed from their cells in the middle of the night. This church probably met in Lydia's home (16:40.)
At the time of writing, the Philippian church was faithful and true to the gospel, despite external persecution (1:29) and internal rivalries among some members (1:15-16, 2:3). Everyone was preaching the gospel, but some people were doing so out of a desire to get a one-up on Paul, who is now imprisoned and out of commission (1:12-18). Paul shows no concern for himself, but rather for the health of the congregation, encourages them to show humility and shed their ambition for status as great missionaries (2:1-4). That brings us to the well-known passage found in 2:5-11:
"5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."
The bolded text is quoted as a "Trinity proof text" in the tract I am referring to. They quote it in King James, and then, disagreeing with the old-English text, proceed to quote six "better" English translations of this verse, ALL of which are from non-standard translations of the Bible.
The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes (Translated by one individual).
Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfafflin (Individual author, double translation from German)
La Bibbia Concordata (Double translation from Italian)
Today's English Version (Heavily paraphrased version for children and non-English speakers)
New World Translation (Translated by four individuals without scholarly credentials)
The New Jerusalem Bible (Moderate literal translation)
"Some claim, however," they write, "that even these more accurate renderings imply that (1) jesus already had equality but did not want to hold on to it or that (2) he did not need to grasp at equality because he already had it." They proceed to argue against Jesus' having equality with God, by saying that He might have briefly snatched at it, rather than laying hold of it permanently.
This point is moot, however, because standard lexicons render the verb αρπαζω as "to take by force," which has no time constraint attached to its meaning. As to the various "more accurate" renderings that supposedly lend weight to their argument... how can these possibly be an improvement? Two of them are double translations, so we have no idea what the author's original text actually said! One is a children's Bible, and only the New Jerusalem Bible was actually translated by a committee of more than one scholar with a degree in Biblical languages! These supposedly superior renderings still apply the same idea, though using different turns of phrase that in varying degrees depart from the original Greek.
Rather than playing semantic games with English, let's go back to the Greek to see what Paul actually wrote.
Here is the original text, and a word-for-word, but awkward translation of my own:
Greek: "ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεοω,"
Literal: "who, in form of God being, did not taking by force consider the being equal to God,"
Smoothed out: "who, being in God's form, did not consider the being equal to God to be taken by force,"
I want to focus on the connection between two phrases: "form" and "the being equal with God".
The word "nature/form" renders the Greek μορφη, which according to my lexicon means:
1) the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision, and
2) external appearance.
It occurs 2 other times in the New Testament:
Mark 16:12: "After that, [Jesus] appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country."
Philippians 2:7: "But emptied Himself, taking on the form of a bondservant..."
The NIV quoted above seems to have attempted to clarify "form" using "nature" instead. For our study, let's stick to the original language, keeping in mind the meaning of μορφη as defined above.
Second, let's look at the phrase "το ειναι ισα θεοω". This literally means "the being equal with/to God," usually phrased "equality with God." What is unique about this phrase is not the key words it contains, but the presence of the definite article. In contrast, μορφη lacks the article.
As we have seen from previous study, the presence or absence of the article doesn't imply which English article we should use, but rather the entirety or elasticity of the noun or clause that it modifies.
First, the absence of the article with μορφη stresses essence and quality, rather than entirety. Paul is careful not to equate Jesus with the entire Godhead (i.e., Son = Father = Spirit; that would be Sabellianism). Instead, as in John 1:1, He is θεος in essence and quality, though distinct in person from the Father and the Spirit.
In the next clause, however the presence of the article, "το," sums up "the being equal with God" to connect it with something specific, something that has already been described here... it is the clause to "being in form God". In fact, we could paraphrase this sentence as:
"who, being in the form of God, did not consider [THAT aforesaid quality] something to be taken by force..."
According to Paul, "being in the form of God" refers to the same thought as "equality with God."
Jesus = God in essence and quality, yet He did not consider that equality with God something to be taken by force... what does this mean?
Contrary to what the tract says, I think that it DOES mean that Jesus didn't grasp at equality with God because He already had it.
Let's step back and look at the context.
Paul, speaking about an attitude of humility and a shedding of selfish ambition, compares this attitude to Christ's, when He:
-made Himself nothing,
-took on human, rather than divine, form or appearance,
-humbled Himself,
-died, and
-was subsequently raised up
-received the name above all names,
-receives the worship of all created beings
Here is my interpretation, then: Jesus, who was and is God, humbled Himself and became something lower, something "a little lower than the angels." In the same way, we who have this or that status in the church through our experience or works, should not consider those qualities something to be taken by force, but should make ourselves nothing, and "in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself" (2:3). God, seeing our humility, may then work in us "both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (2:13).
__________
As to the English Bible...
What is a "standard" translation? Let me briefly describe how Christians regard Biblical translation. Translations are respected for Biblical study only when they meet the following criteria: 1) are translated word-for-word, 2) consistently reproduce the linguistic features of the original text, and 3) communicate the exact thought being expressed in the original text. Those that are either literal to the extreme (risk of communicating error) or too free in paraphrasing, are generally rejected for any form of serious study. Slightly freer translations, such as Dynamic Equivalent or Idiomatic are becoming popular for reading, especially among those who may have low literacy, speak English as a second language; and those who prefer a particular aesthetic quality over accuracy might pick an inferior literal translation such as King James afficcionados and those who read the New Jerusalem Bible for its poetic qualities (Beckman and Callow, 1974). However, the only recommended translation for study is a "modified literal" translation. Generally, translations tend to be more accurate when they are translated and peer-reviewed by a large committee of scholars, rather than one individual or small group whose biases may enter the text.
Following is a list of well-known English translations that are respected in general Christian circles, those listed first being considered the most accurate:
Literal / Modified Literal:
New American Standard Bible
The Amplified Bible
English Standard Version
Revised Standard Version
King James Version
New King James Version
Holman Christian Standard Bible
New Revised Standard Version
New American Bible
New Jerusalem Bible
New International Version
Today's New International Version
Dynamic Equivalents / Paraphrased Versions:
New Christian Version/International Christian Version
New Living Translation
NIrV (never heard of it)
Today's English Version
Contemporary English Version
The Living Bible (translated by one man for his son)
The Message (almost unrecognizable)
As you can see, the only translation even considered remotely acceptable is the New Jerusalem Bible, which is listed very low on the roster of literal, peer-reviewed translations.
The New World Translation, actually, has a poor reputation among all circles except the sect in which it was formed, and I will give pause to its credentials here. When the NWT was first released in 1947, the committee members' names and academic credentials were not even released to the public, supposedly in the interest of giving glory to God through the quality of its text alone. However, the quality of its text spoke for itself against scholars using it because of its pervasive inconsistencies. For example, when the word προσκυνεω is used in reference to Jehovah, it is translated "worship," but when used in reference to Jesus, it is translated "obeisance." Verb tenses are inconsistently translated in strategic places, such as Jesus' self-statement of "I am" in John 8:58, which they translate "I will prove to be" in blatant defiance with the Greek. Also, although there is no historical or manuscript evidence that God's name in the form of the tetragrammaton is used in the New Testament, they insert the name "Jehovah" 237 times where the original text says "κυριος". However, in Philippians 2:11, they translate it as "Jesus Christ is Lord," and so in any other references to Jesus as "κυριος." By their own translation rule, Philippians 2:11 should read "Jesus Christ is Jehovah, to the glory of God the Father." This would be a matter of consistency in reproducing the linguistic features of the original text, one of the key criteria to determine a translation's accuracy. NWT fails the test.
The New World Translation Committee's names have become public only after several years and some digging:
Nathan Knorr, President of the Watchtower Society (no academic training in any Biblical language).
Fred Franz: (studied non-Biblical Greek for 2 years at the University of Cincinatti).
Albert Schroeder: (no academic training in any Biblical language).
George Gangas: (no academic training in any Biblical language).
In contrast, the NASB, regarded as one of the most faithful and accurate English translations available, was translated by a committee of 40 scholars, ALL of whom held doctorates in Biblical languages. Their names appear on the flyleaf of all NASB Bibles.
This fact is less surprising when one considers the fact that, as far as I have been able to determine, few if any baptized Jehovah's Witnesses have received any degree in Biblical languages from an accredited university, in a sect of over six million zealous Bible students (Spencer, 2002). Biblical education is provided only under the auspices of the sect and its leaders.
I can´t play at this level ;)
ReplyDeleteBut I´ll try my best!
Equality with God... Semantics or truth?
ReplyDeleteUna posibilidad de interpretación es la que mencionas.
Lo admito, es posible.
"Jesús...un Dios, no consideró necesario tomar por fuerza los atributos divinos, porque ya los tenía"
Pero el contexto, es enseñar humildad.
Si en verdad este texto está mostrando que Jesús es Dios...
entonces el texto no me parece a mí, una forma clara de enseñar humildad.
El texto....traducido de varias formas dice:
"el cual, aunque existía en forma de Dios, no consideró el ser igual a Dios como algo a qué aferrarse"
Voy a pensar nuevamente en que la enseñanza es la humildad.
Lo que Pablo trata de enseñar es la "Actitud mental" de ser humilde.
Una persona humilde no se considera la más grande porque asume que no lo es.
Esta porción creo yo es un poderoso argumento para ver que hablamos de dos personas distintas con distinto rol y poder.
Fíjate que Pablo dice que Jesús se humilló hasta la muerte.
Y estando muerto fue levantado por Dios (Jesús no existía, estaba muerto)
Y le fue dado un nombre "encima de todo otro"...uno superior al que tenía antes.
Si ya era Dios todopoderoso, ya poseía ese atributo, aún antes de venir.
Pablo dice que es una nueva condición y nombramiento...para que en el nombre de Jesús se doble toda rodilla...para la gloria de Jesús?...o del Padre?
En verdad este texto...me crea problemas pues.
Veo que Pablo indica que debemos ser humildes pues Cristo aún estando en forma de un ser divino (o celestial, un Dios, o Dios), se humilló y prefirió hacerse hombre, y "aprendió humildad por las cosas que sufrió". Jesús fue resucitado por Dios, y a partir de entonces alcanza un nivel superior al que tenía antes de morir o antes de venir a la tierra.
Pablo habla de que los cristianos debemos cuidar los intereses de los demás con humildad. Y Jesús cuidó de los intereses del Padre, pues por su sacrificio, el nombre de Dios es glorificado.
Yo sé que la NWT es una pésima traducción, sin embargo, este texto...tomado como lo tomes, no me transmite la idea de un Dios que no usurpa algo porque ya lo tiene.
"Si en verdad este texto está mostrando que Jesús es Dios...
ReplyDeleteentonces el texto no me parece a mí, una forma clara de enseñar humildad.... Una persona humilde no se considera la más grande porque asume que no lo es."
There are two aspects of humility that the Bible points out. One is that of understanding our smallness.
In one parable, Jesus advised His disciples that, when invited to the table, they should take the humblest place, so that when he who invited you comes, he should say, "Friend, go up higher," and not have to displace you from his right hand for a more important guest (Luke 14:10). Paul also wrote that "If anyone thinks himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceives himself," (Galatians 6:3).
However, the second aspect of humility--that which Jesus demonstrated--is to lay aside greatness out of love.
On the night He was betrayed, Jesus took on a task that no one in His place would have done. He, being a Rabbi, being the leader of the disciples, being their friend, their Master, their Lord... stripped down to a towel, the garment of a slave. He knelt by their dirty, mud-stained feet and washed them. This task was only ever carried out by a man of the most base servant status.
"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you," (John 13:15-18).
In context, some of the Philippians were prideful because they were preaching the gospel. They were--they were doing God's work. However, their attitude was that of envy and rivalry and selfish ambition (1:15, 17). Paul advises them to "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves." (2:3).
It is this second aspect of humility in which Paul encourages the Philippians. Never once does he call them anything less than partners in the gospel, in whom he rejoices (1:3-7).
Our motives for preaching the gospel should not be to flaunt our status and our works, but our love for one another. That love must make us willing to suffer, as Paul suffered; indeed, as Christ humbled Himself to suffer despite His divinity. I think that is the lesson in Philippians 2.