Philippians 2 6

Philippians 2:6 Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Thu Dec 23 11:18:44 EST 1999

Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6 In a message dated 99-12-22 21:56:33 EST, alexali at surf.net.au writes:<< Then, besides the sense of EN MORFHi QEOU, there is the sense of the participle, hUPARCWN. I wonder if some translators have understood this as having a causal force (because he was / through being), and others as having a concessive force (although he was / despite being). (I do not mean to imply by the terms ‘causal’ or ‘concessive’ anything more than that these are useful for this discussion in English of the Greek text; see Smyth #2060, and Carl’s comments a couple of days ago on the the term “connective” or “pertinentive” with reference to the genitive.) >>Professor Gerald Hawthorne understands hUPARCWN in a causal sense. His translation is, “precisely because he was in the form of God he reckoned equality with God not as a matter of getting but giving” (Hawthorne [1983] ). Richard R. Melick Jr. (NA Commentary) critiques Hawthorne’s idea as follows: “Hawthorne, Philippians, 85, takes the participle causally: “Precisely because he was in the form of God.” The idea is attractive, but the text speaks of giving up what one has, and the concessive emphasizes that more” (Melick [1991] ). Moises Silva also construes the participle concessively, writing: “The NASB is justified in bringing out the concessive force of the participle (contra Meyer, Hwth.), and that in turn sheds light on the second part of v. 6” (Silva [1988] ).Lastly, Richard A. Young also construes hUPARCWN in a concessive manner. See his intermediate grammar.Edgar Foster

Philippians 2:6Philippians 2:6