Good observation, and it isn't just the theoi in 3:6 LXX but also the plural in eikona hémeteran in 1:26 LXX, which automatically establishes that the eikona theou in v. 27 (paralleled by morphé theou in Philippians) is shared by a collective. What do you think about the link between the labousa of 3:6 and the harpagmon / labón in Philippians 2:6-7?
Phil 2:6.... Who is right?
by A-Team 13 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Narkissos
Interesting. Too bad lambanô is on the wrong side of the contrast, but the thematic parallelism certainly stands...
-
Leolaia
Well, I wonder if the reason why it seems to be on the "wrong side" is that there is an inversion of roles here. Harpagmos and the verb harpazó do not occur in Genesis (at least in this context) but they accord fairly well with the act that is described in Genesis 3:6: Adam and Eve take the fruit they were forbidden to even touch (hapsésthe, v. 3); it was thus an act of theft. This is precisely the kind of action that Jesus did not even "consider" doing (Philippians 2:6). He does "take" something though. Thus, the same verb in Genesis 3:6 is used in Philippians 2:7 to express an antithetical parallel between Jesus' taking human form (a downward taking, away from divinity) and Adam and Eve's taking the fruit (an upward taking, towards divinity).
-
Narkissos
The thrust of the text is clear (reaching down vs. reaching up indeed) -- but the Christological debate focuses on a very obscure side point, namely (!) whether to einai isa theô means something superior or equivalent to en morphè theou huparkhôn -- and the possible shifts of meaning and function of harpagmos make that ultimately undecidable (a bit like a second degree equation).
Although, imo, the economy of syntax strongly favours construing harpagmos as a "predicate of the object" (the natural function of the anarthrous accusative with a verb of judgement/opinion + double accusative) => he did not consider "being equal with God" as a harpagmos.