Contra Moen: Philippians 2:6

Philippians 2:6 NASB who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

In his article “The Assumed Trinity: A look at Philippians 2:6”, Skip Moen attempts to refute trinitarian interpretations of Philippians 2:6. His arguments are mostly focused on the original Greek text of the verse. Moen’s article can be especially stumbling to many Christians since his explanations seem to make sense and he appears to know what he is talking about.

Indeed, if Moen is purporting to refute an interpretation of a verse based on the original Greek text, then it would not be unreasonable to expect that he had better know Biblical Greek! However, when one actually examines the arguments which he makes throughout the article, it becomes apparent that Moen does not really know Biblical Greek: He even violates some basic points of Biblical Greek grammar which any beginning student would have known better!

Where does “not” belong?

After a short introduction, Moen makes his first argument:

Ureil ben-Mordechai points out that the Greek negative in this verse (ouk) is not attached to the verb (hegesato) but rather to the noun harpagmon. That means the reading of this verse should be “counted not something to be grasped,” instead of “not counted something to be grasped.”

Later on, he writes:

In the Greek text, the negative ouk is clearly present before the noun, not before the verb. ... The particle negates the noun, not the verb.

In the Greek text of Philippians 2:6, the negative particle ouch comes immediately before the noun harpagmon “something to be grasped” and not the verb hēgēsato “considered”. Based on this, Moen argues that it is not possible that ouch is being applied to hēgēsato.

However, as any beginning student of Biblical Greek would know, this is not at all the case. According to the Liddell–Scott–Jones lexicon:

οὐ is generally put immediately before the word which it negatives...

In other words, just because the negative particle ou is put immediately before a word does not necessarily mean that it is being applied to that word. Thus, the ouch in Philippians 2:6 could very well be applied to hēgēsato “considered”. This is actually more likely, given the literary structure of the passage: The contrastive particle alla “but” in verse 7 indicates that a contrast is being drawn between what Jesus did not do (“consider being equal with God something to be grasped”, v. 6) and what he did instead (“he emptied himself”, v. 7).

Though highly unlikely, it is still technically possible that ouch is being applied to harpagmon “something to be grasped” rather than hēgēsato “considered”. However, the argument which Moen makes for it in his article is based on false claims about Biblical Greek grammar.

Unattainable?

Even then, it would not make much of a difference: I would still agree with Moen that Jesus considered being equal with God “not something to be grasped”—albeit as a reasonable conclusion of the text, rather than the direct message of the text. However, Moen asserts that there is actually a very big difference:

Let me make the difference clearer. The standard Christian translation of this Greek phrase suggests that Yeshua did not consider equality something to be grasped. But the actual Greek text reads, “counted equality not something that could be grasped.” In other words, if the negative particle ouk is tied to the noun rather than the verb, the implication is the Yeshua saw equality with God as something unattainable.

Oh, how interesting! Earlier on, Moen translated the expression as: “counted not something to be grasped.” Here, he translates the same expression as: “counted equality not something that could be grasped.” Where did Moen suddenly find the warrant to change “to be” to “could be”?

Even if we grant to Moen that the negative particle ouch is being applied to harpagmon “something to be grasped” rather than hēgēsato “considered”, the Greek text only says that Jesus “considered being equal with God not something to be grasped.” The idea that Jesus saw equality with God as “unattainable” or “not something that could be grasped” is not communicated anywhere in the Greek text.

Is “although” in the Greek text?

Next, Moen addresses the “although” in the NASB:

But now we have a problem. There is no Greek word for the translation “although.”

The only problem we have here is that Moen is being misleading. He is technically correct that a word for “although” does not occur in the Greek text of the verse. However, Moen seems to be suggesting that the NASB translators snuck in the word “although” without any good reason—just as he himself had done earlier on with “not something that could be grasped”.

The Greek expression rendered “although He existed” in the NASB is the word hyparchōn, which is the present participle form of the verb hyparchō “to exist”. (We will look at the meaning of hyparchō later on.) The standard way to render the present participle is to render it just like an English present participle: adding the -ing ending. Thus, if we were to render hyparchōn more rigidly in English translation, we would get:

Who, existing in the form of God...

However, the question arises: What is the force of the present participle in this context? The answer can be found by looking at the fuller context in which it is being used:

Who, existing [hyparchōn] in the form of God, considered [hēgēsato] being equal with God not something to be grasped.

(Note that for the sake of argument, we are granting to Moen that the negative particle ouch “not” is being applied to harpagmos ”something to be grasped”.)

By looking at the relationship between the two verbs hyparchōn “existing” and hēgēsato “considered”, one can see that the intended meaning of the Greek text is: “Despite the fact that he was existing in the form of God, he still considered being equal with God not something to be grasped.”

This use of the participle to express “despite the fact that” is known as “concessive”. Regarding the concessive use of the present participle, Daniel Wallace, the foremost Biblical Greek grammarian, writes:

The concessive participle implies that the state or action of the main verb is true in spite of the state or action of the participle. Its force is usually best translated with although. This category is relatively common. (Wallace, p. 634)

Therefore, it is not as if the NASB translators inserted the word “although” because of their presupposition that Jesus is God. Rather, it was because they recognized that the present participle form of the verb hyparchō in this context denotes concession, and one of the ways to express concession in English is to use the word “although”, if not the phrase “despite the fact that”.

What does hyparchō mean?

Next, Moen addresses the meaning of hyparchō:

And, by the way, there is no Greek word for “He existed” either. The verb, hyparchon, comes from hypo and archomai, literally means, “to begin under (quietly).”

Later on, Moen writes of hyparchō:

but you can see that the nuance of the verb is not a continually state of being but rather the beginning of existence (as archomai means the first in a temporal order).

Here, Moen commits a classic example of the etymological fallacy: assuming that the meaning of a compound word is necessarily strictly derived from the meanings of its component words. This is just as ridiculous as asserting that the English word butterfly must mean “flying butter” just because it is made up of the words butter and fly!

The meaning of a word is determined by its actual usage, and not by its etymology. The English word nice used to mean “stupid” in older English, and it came ultimately from the Latin word nescius, meaning “ignorant”. Yet today, nobody thinks that a “nice” person is someone who is stupid or ignorant.

So, what was the meaning of hyparchō as it was used during the first century CE? The Bauer–Danker–Arndt–Gingrich lexicon assigns the following definition for hyparchō in Philippians 2:6, among other passages:

to be in a state or circumstance, be as a widely used substitute in H. Gk. for εἶναι, but in some of the foll. pass. the sense ‘be inherently (so)’ or ‘be really’ cannot be excluded.

Indeed, during the first century CE, the verb hyparchō meant “to be; to exist” without any connotation of coming into existence. That is how hyparchō is used throughout the New Testament. Other lexicographers tease out the nuances of hyparchō:

to be, prop, expressing continuance of an antecedent state or condition. (Abbott-Smith)

involving an “existence” or condition both previous to the circumstances mentioned and continuing after it. (Vine)

It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. (Vincent)

In other words, hyparchō denotes “already being; continuing to be what one already is”. Thus, the word hyparchōn at the beginning of the passage emphasizes that Jesus was already God in essence (see below for the meaning of the expression “form of God”).

Does hyparchōn indicate Jesus’ pre-existence?

Next, Moen takes issue with the NASB rendering hyparchōn as a past tense in English:

The verb here is a participle in the present tense so it cannot be translated “He existed.” It should be translated as “existing” or “belonging” or “being present as.” Without a past tense it is difficult to understand why the translators determine that this is a statement about pre-existence.

It is difficult to understand how Moen can so boldly talk about tenses in Biblical Greek when he is unaware that there is no such thing as a “past tense” in Biblical Greek, and that even what we call the “present tense” in Biblical Greek does not always signify present time—especially in terms of a participle!

The NASB translators used an English past tense verb “existed” to render the present participle hyparchōn because unlike Moen, they were not ignorant of this basic principle regarding the present participle:

The present participle is normally contemporaneous in time to the action of the main verb. (Wallace, p. 625)

Thus, the present participle itself does not signify any time; let alone present time. Rather, it is dependent upon the main verb of the sentence to determine the time of its action. In the case of Philippians 2:6, the main verb is hēgēsato “considered”. Since the action of hēgēsato occurred in past time, then the action of hyparchōn (the present participle) must likewise be occurring in past time.

Of course, it is not wrong to render the present participle hyparchōn with the English present participle “existing”, as I myself had done earlier. However, to argue that hyparchōn signifies present time just because it is in the present tense is a violation of basic Biblical Greek grammar.

What is the “form of God”?

Next, Moen addresses the expression “form of God”:

So now we need to know what morphe (“form”) means. It turns out that morphe in the LXX is associated with “facial expression” or “facial color.” In classical Greek, morphe theou is often used of the gods of Greek religion; gods who have obvious physical forms. Of course, the Tanakh absolutely rejects any such application to YHVH, as does Yeshua in John 4. ... No Jew in the first century would have ever thought of God in terms of physical form.

Of course, no Christian thinks that God has a physical form either, but what Moen goes on to claim about morphē, the Greek word rendered “form”, is interesting:

Morphe is a word about appearance, matter, what is perceived by the senses and not what is mentally apprehended.

On what basis does Moen assert that these two things are mutually exclusive? He never proves it, and his entire argument for what “form of God” means rests on this unfounded assertion. While morphē is certainly used of outward appearance, there is no reason why it cannot be used metaphorically:

[Morphē] refers to that which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it. (Hawthorne, p. 101)

In this context, the versatility of morphē is precisely what makes it a better choice of word to describe Jesus’ God-essence in this passage rather than some other Greek word which refers strictly to nature:

Morphe was precisely the right word for this dual usage, to characterize both the reality (his being God) and the metaphor (his taking on the role of a slave), since it denotes ‘form’ or ‘shape’ not in terms of the external features by which something is recognized, but of those characteristics and qualities that are essential to it. Hence it means that which truly characterizes a given reality. (Fee, p. 204)

Moen’s complaint, of course, is that this is not possible:

According to Bruce’s logic, if I have the proper form of worship, then that means I automatically have the essence of worship. But we all recognize that this isn’t the case. Why, then, does Bruce claim that it must be the case in Philippians 2?

Notice that Moen’s argument is based on his still-unproven assertion that morphē strictly refers to outward appearance, and cannot possibly be used metaphorically. Moreover, Moen is comparing apples with oranges: Unlike God, worship is not a being, and hence its “form” is not given by any underlying being. That is why morphē is never used in the Bible for the “form” of worship.

Is the Trinity consistent with Jewish thought?

Several times in his article, Moen appeals to “Hebrew / Hebraic / Jewish thought” to substantiate his rejection of the teaching of the Trinity. The idea is that the concept of the Trinity was not within the thought paradigm of Jesus and his fellow Jews of the first century CE, and so it cannot be true. Of course, that is not at all the case, but it would take much more than just one article to lay that out fully. For now, it would be helpful to examine the claims Moen makes about historical Jewish thought.

In his discussion on the expression “form of God”, Moen argues that just because Jesus has the “essence” of God does not mean that he is himself God:

But Hebraic thought does not make this Greek philosophical equivalence. In the thought of the ancient Middle East (in Semitic cultures), essence is a functional concept related to purpose, not attribute.

I am not sure why Moen brings up the “thought of the ancient Middle East (in Semitic cultures)” here. May I remind Mr Moen that ancient Middle Eastern thought did not conceive of God being one; they were polytheistic! Does that therefore mean that God cannot possibly be one? Of course not.

Also, notice how Moen assumes that “Hebraic thought” lacks the capability to conceive of and express ideas of essence underlying being. As he elaborates:

In Hebrew thought, I am what I do. God is not defined by some set of attributes (e.g. the via negativa of Aquinas) but rather by His actions. Purpose determines existence.

However, that is not at all the case. In the Jewish scriptures themselves, human beings are described as “ground”, “dust”, and “ashes” to emphasize their essential mortality and vanity. Speaking of the essence of God, Jesus himself said: “God is spirit.” (John 4:24) The Apostle Paul describes God as “eternal” (Romans 16:26) and “invisible” (1 Timothy 1:17).

Moen concludes his article with a typical appeal to Rabbinic Judaism:

Which version is more likely to be consistent with first century rabbinic Jewish thought?

Moen is clearly unaware that there is no such thing as “first century rabbinic Jewish thought” since Rabbinic Judaism did not exist yet during the first century CE. Of course, when it did finally appear in history, Rabbinic Judaism would not have been able to accomodate the concept of the Trinity. However, it should be remembered that Rabbinic Judaism developed in response to Christianity; to disprove Christian claims that Jesus is the Messiah, and God in the flesh. (This happens to be my main area of study.)

Conclusion

Of course, this article has not covered every claim Moen makes in his article. The rest of it is mostly smokescreen and strawman arguments which are easy to identify and deal with. Like many other unitarians, Moen approaches the text with unitarian presuppositions; assuming from the outset that God cannot be a Trinity, and Jesus cannot be God.

Nevertheless, it has been sufficiently demonstrated in this article how Moen’s arguments, purportedly based on the original Greek text of Philippians 2:6, ironically reveal that he does not really know Biblical Greek. Either that, or he is being intentionally deceitful. It is astounding how Moen still has the cheek to remark of other translations:

There is no linguistic justification for this but it certainly settles the issue for any reader unaware of the Greek grammar.

O the hypocrisy!

Bibliography

Carson, Donald Arthur, Exegetical Fallacies, Baker Book House, 1984, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Fee, Gordon Donald, The New International Commentary on the New Testament – Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 1995, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Hawthorne, Gerald F., “6. In the Form of God and Equal with God (Philippians 2:6)”, in Where Christology Began – Essays on Philippians 2, Ralph P. Martin & Brian J. Dodd editors, Westminster John Knox Press, 1998, Louisville, Kentucky.

Wallace, Daniel, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Study of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes, Zondervan Publishing House, 1996, Grand Rapids, Michigan.