The full collection of available articles and ebooks of Johnson are gradually being made available in the Johnson C. Philip Library. Since he started publishing around 1965, when there was little facility for archiving, we are trying to locate them by hunting in very old publications and periodicals. Thus the full task will take some time.
.
Dear Uncle,
I was going through the article “Triune God” by brother T.John Mathew based on the Doctrine of Trinity.On page 22, under the section “Father Greater than I”, there is a phrase “without holding on to His equality with God”.This is from Philipians 2:6. I feel the various translations of the Bible are not consistent in rendering the “meaning” of this phrase.
1.KJV
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God”. This means that Jesus did not think being equal with God was wrong-meaning that Jesus thought that he was God.
2.NIV 1984
“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,”.This means that Jesus did not try to be equal with God.
3.NIV 2011.
“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;”
This is quite different from the 1984 phrasing. The reason for the change is noted at the page Translators’ Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation(http://www.niv-cbt.org/niv-2011-overview/translators-notes/) and quoted here:
“When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.””
It is interesting to note that in just three decades time, finally the NIV translators were able to pin down the meaning of an uncertain word.
4.ESV
“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ”
5.CEV
” Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God. ”
6.BBE
“To whom, though himself in the form of God, it did not seem that to take for oneself was to be like God;”
7.ASV
“who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, ”
8.RV
“who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,”
9.LITV
“who subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God”
10.MAL
“അവന് ദൈവരൂപത്തില് ഇരിക്കെ ദൈവത്തോടുള്ള സമത്വം മുറുകെ പിടിച്ചു കൊള്ളേണം എന്നു വിചാരിക്കാതെ ദാസരൂപം എടുത്തു.”
Dear John,
the reason for variation is one word which was
not clearly understood. Now that it is understood
translations have improved.
Remember, new testament Greek is not spoken
anywhere in the world today. Thus discovering
meanings has taken some time.
with greetings — Johnson uncle
Dear Uncle,
The article was not written by you.Still, in the light of the new meaning of that particular greek word,can we expect some changes under the section “Father Greater than I”? Or can we conclude, although Jesus was equal with God but made Himself a little lower than the angels, emptied Himself, and took the form of a servant and died on the cross,obeying the will of the Father? Is it in this sense that Jesus pointed out that the Father was greater than He?
Regards
John
Such things can be brought out only in Bible Expositions
not in translations. That is why good expositors should
continually keep reading
Johnson uncle