My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?

[Der Alte]

Thanks for the suggestion! However, the given translation above for Philippians 2:6-11 (NIV) is problematic; the translation for this text has been subject for much debate (because of its Christological implications), but having studied the debate and looked at the Greek, personally I think the ESV and NASB translations are much better:
Philippians 2:6-11 (ESV)

6 who, though he was in the form (= Greek 'morphe') of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped (= Greek 'harpagmon'), 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form (= Greek 'morphe'), he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.​

Reasons for that:

• the same word 'morphe' used in v6 and v8 is obviously used as a contrast, this contrast is kept in the ESV/NASB translations, but completely lost in the NIV one, as the meaning of 'appearance/form' was changed to 'being in very nature' in v6, which therefore is inconsistent and missing the contrast-based illustration of Jesus' humility.
• the word 'harpagmon' (strong nr G725) occurs only once here in the NT, but its related verb 'harpazo' (strong nr G726) occurs 13 times in the NT (see the list at Strongs's #726: harpazo - Greek/Hebrew Definitions - Bible Tools) and is always associated with taking something by action/force. That means the 'grasped' translation is a much better fit than the 'abused' translation.
• the verses 9 and 11 convey the idea of God = God the Father, and that he is above Jesus; as it is God who 'exalts' and 'bestows', and ultimately the acknowledgment that Jesus is Lord is to the glory of God the Father. This makes no sense if Jesus was fully equal to God the Father in authority in the first place.

Apart from that, the NIV translation introduces logical problems:

• if Jesus is declared to be 'in very nature God' (NIV); it is rather unexpected to talk about 'equality with God', but one would expect 'equality with God the Father'. As soon as we state something about the equality of <x> with God, then <x> cannot be God identity-wise, otherwise the statement makes no sense. If Jesus is God (capitalised) identity-wise, it is illogical to speak about Jesus' equality with God.

Taken all together, to me (and many others apparently ), it seems the ESV/NASB translation is a much better fit with no logical problems.

Another mostly overlooked issue in Philippians 2:9 is the question of the name of Jesus. The verse implies the name 'Jesus' (~ meaning 'YHWH saves') is above every name; but 'Jesus' is not the new name for God, it refers to the name of God. When God (name 'YHWH') gives Jesus a name above every name (='Jesus'), it would be assumed that name is not above God's very own name 'YHWH'.

The same thought and pattern can be seen in:

1 Corinthians 15:27 (ESV)

For God has put all things in subjection under his (=Jesus) feet. But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he (=God) is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.​

Given 1 Corinthians 15:27 it would be consistent to assume the same exception would also hold for the name of God (=YHWH) and the name of Jesus.

Just my thoughts and analysis on these matters ...

In the early 80s my first Greek professor in grad school was Dr. Roger Omanson, now deceased, he was on the initial NIV translation committee.
In Romans 12:2, Paul used a form of the word morphe μεταμορφόω.

2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed [μεταμορφουσθε] by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.​

Was Paul telling the church to pretend, put on the appearance of changing or was he telling them to actually, literally be changed?

The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:

When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /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.”​

See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes​

A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.

‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article​

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

In the early 80s my first Greek professor in grad school was Dr. Roger Omanson, now deceased, he was on the initial NIV translation committee.
In Romans 12:2, Paul used a form of the word morphe μεταμορφόω.

2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed [μεταμορφουσθε] by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.​

Was Paul telling the church to pretend, put on the appearance of changing or was he telling them to actually, literally be changed?

The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:

When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /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.”​

See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes​

A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.

‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article​

Excellent thanks for sharing.

Also let me know if you agree with this below and if not where you might disagree , Thanks !

Phil 2:5-8
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
NIV

These translation capture the meaning of the text in its CONTEXT.

New International Version
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

New Living Translation
Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,

New King James Version
but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

King James Bible
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


Thayers Greek Lexicon
namely, τοῦ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ or τῆς μορφῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, i. e. he laid aside equality with or the form of God (said of Christ), Philippians 2:7


Strongs Lexicon
From kenos; to make empty, i.e. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify -- make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.


Louw Nida Greek Lexicon
87.70 κενόωb: to completely remove or eliminate elements of high status or rank by eliminating all privileges or prerogatives associated with such status or rank.

What Paul makes very clear in this passage is that in addition to being God, He became man. The Incarnation was not a subtraction of His deity but an addition of humanity to His nature. This passage does not say Jesus gave up His deity but that He laid aside His rights as Deity, assuming the form of a servant in verse 7. The text says He was in the form of God or being in the very nature of God in 2:6. Just as He took upon Himself the "form of a servant" which is a servant by nature, so the "form of God" is God by nature. The word "being" from the phrase: being in the very form of God is a present active participle. This means "continued existence" as God. What Paul is actually saying here is Jesus has always been and still is in the "form of God". If you continue reading the passage Paul really drives this point home so that his readers have no doubt what he is trying to get across to the Philippians. Paul says that every knee will bow and will one day Confess Jesus is LORD. Paul takes the passage in Isaiah 45:23 which clearly refers to Yahweh a name used for God alone and says this of Jesus. The fulfillment of YHWH in Isaiah 45 is none other than Jesus who is God(Yahweh) in the flesh.

He self limited His divine prerogatives via the Incarnation as per Phil 2. In other words did not use them to His advantage but was in submission to the Father for 33 years to accomplish our salvation. All the FULLNESS of DEITY dwells in bodily form. Col 1:19;2:9. Jesus was and is fully God lacking nothing in His Deity.

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Even through Christ existed in the form of God He did not regard equality with God something that He needed to reach for or grasp. Why because it was already His and never gave that up for a millisecond.

Paul is using syllogisms from the text in Philippians 2.

Just as the term “form of God” in verse six does not mean “less than God” because of the phrase “equality with God" in the prior passage.

It goes to reason in the same way with the 2 phrases in the “form of a servant” and in the “likeness of man” in verse seven do not mean that Jesus was any “less than human,” but instead means He was the same or “equal with all humans.”

In Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9 the Apostle Paul said, For in HIM (CHRIST) ALL of the “ fullness of deity dwells bodily. “Did Paul use the word fullness there to mean partially? NO as Jesus did not empty Himself of His Deity. Jesus Divinity is FULL, complete lacking in nothing. The ENTIRE Fullness of Deity dwells (is present) bodily in Jesus. In Colossians 1:19 it is describing His earthly ministry and Colossians 2:9 it is describing His Post Resurrection/Ascension Glory as God Incarnate.


Colossians 1:19-20
For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven

Colossians 2:9-10- For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;

Colossians 3:1- Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Paul is talking in Colossians chapters 2-3 about the glorified resurrected Christ now seated at the right hand of God not the earthly Christ pre resurrection. He is in a human glorified resurrection body and that He continues to have all the fullness of Deity dwelling bodily in the present.

 

[Carol Walker]

.

 

[Carol Walker]

While I am not a scholar of the Word and have not made a study of the original languages it was written in, I have spoken with someone who has studied theology extensively. I think that in order for the payment for our sins to be complete, Jesus would have had to suffer through at least most of what we would have suffered as sinners. Obviously He could not go through Hell. That's not what I'm saying.
But part of the wages of sin is the separation from God, and I believe that, in that moment when Jesus cried out to God on the cross, that's what He was experiencing.
How can God turn away from Jesus? If the Trinity is both One and Many, it sounds a lot to me like it's wholly possible for one part of the Trinity to turn their presence away from another. Jesus paid (in full) for the sins of all who would eventually believe in Him. So He must have had to pass through every stage of that price except Hell itself, which is reserved for those who ultimately reject God and therefore is not part of the salvation process. That pain of separation from God would have been a shock to Jesus(who'd already confirmed that before His death and ressurection was not completely aware of all the Father had planned for the future. So it stands to reason that Jesus would have been somewhat unprepared for the horror of being, for however long it was, separated from the presence of His Father. But that was part of the price of our redemption.