ἁρπαγμός - a verbl noun?

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
David805
Posts: 1
Joined: January 17th, 2025, 6:13 pm

ἁρπαγμός - a verbl noun?

Post by David805 »

In looking at different explanations of Philippians 2:6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, I came across Jason BeDuhn's (Truth in Translation p. 54) explanation of ἁρπαγμός. He cites Norwegian linguist Rolf Furuli who states, "When a noun with an ending -μός was made from a verb, it became a verbal noun entailing the activity of the verb." (The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation p. 263).

The argument BeDuhn makes is ἁρπαγμός is a verbal noun entailing the activity of ἁρπάζω which helps to understand the meaning of the hapax legomenon.

My question:
Is Furuli stating a general rule, that any noun with the ending of -μός made from a verb becomes a verbal noun entailing the activity of the verb?
Jason Hare
Posts: 1016
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: ἁρπαγμός - a verbl noun?

Post by Jason Hare »

I won’t comment any further on this than to provide you the following from Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 634–635 as provided in Logos Bible Software.
The translation of this participle as concessive is not entirely clear upon a casual reading of the text. The two options are either causal or concessive.

There are two interpretive problems in Phil 2:6–7 relevant to the treatment of this participle. First, of course, is the grammatical problem of whether this is concessive or causal. Second is the lexical problem of whether ἁρπαγμόν in v 6 means robbery or a thing to be grasped. The grammatical and the lexical inform one another and cannot be treated separately. Thus, if ὑπάρχων is causal, ἁρπαγμόν means robbery (“who, because he existed in God’s form, did not consider equality with God as robbery”); if ὑπάρχων is concessive, then ἁρπαγμόν means a thing to be grasped (“who, although he existed in God’s form, did not consider equality with God as a thing to be grasped”). As attractive as the first alternative might be theologically, it is not satisfactory. Ultimately, this verse cannot be interpreted in isolation, but must be seen in light of the positive statement in v 7—“but he emptied himself” (the participle ὑπάρχων equally depends on both ἡγήσατο and ἐκένωσεν). Only the concessive idea for the participle and a thing to be grasped translation for ἁρπαγμόν fit well with v 7.56

[FOOTNOTE]
56 Perhaps the largest issue of this text is the meaning of ἁρπαγμόν. Is it something to be grasped for or something to be retained? If the former, the idea would be that although Christ existed in God’s form, he did not attempt to become equal to God. If the latter, the meaning would be that although Christ existed in God’s form, he did not feel compelled to maintain his equality with God. Both views naturally fit with a concessive participle, though the relation of τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ to the μορφῇ θεοῦ hangs in the balance.


Appeal has been made to the article with the infinitive, as though it were anaphoric (so N. T. Wright, “ἁρπαγμός and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5–11,” JTS, NS 37 (1986) 344). If so, then “form of God” means the same thing as “equality with God” and ἁρπαγμόν is something to be retained. But, as we have argued elsewhere (see chapters on the accusative and infinitive), the article more probably is used to indicate the object in an object-complement construction. The connection with “form of God” is thus left open. In light of the predominant usage of ἁρπαγμόν as something to be grasped for, I am inclined to see a difference between μορφῇ θεοῦ and τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ. This does not deny an affirmation of the deity of Christ in this text, just that such a notion is found in τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ. μορφῇ θεοῦ carries that weight by itself (inter alia, there is the contextual argument: If one denies that Christ was truly God, one must also deny that he was truly a servant [note μορφὴν δούλου in v 7]). What, then, is the meaning of the infinitive phrase? It seems to suggest hierarchy, not ontology.

Putting the interpretation of all the elements together yields the following. Although Christ was truly God (μορφῇ θεοῦ), two things resulted: (1) he did not attempt to “outrank” the Father, as it were (cf. John 14:28 for a similar thought: “The Father is greater than I am”); (2) instead, he submitted himself to the Father’s will, even to the point of death on a cross. It was thus not Christ’s deity that compelled his incarnation and passion, but his obedience.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Jason Hare
Posts: 1016
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: ἁρπαγμός - a verbl noun?

Post by Jason Hare »

From Bruce M. Metzger, Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek, (Princeton, NJ: Self-Published, 1978), 42–43:
2. An action is indicated by -μος (2) and -σις (3) . The latter suffix often produces the abstract name of an action.
Examples:
  • βαπτισ-μός (from βαπτίζω), a washing, purification (the act of which βάπτισμα is the result; see below)
  • καθαρισ-μός (from καθαρίζω), a cleansing, purification
  • ἀπολύτρω-σις (from ἀπολυτρόω, I release on payment of a ransom), a releasing effected by payment of a ransom (λύτρον), redemption
  • δικαίω-σις (from δικαιόω), an act of adjudging one to be righteous, justification
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Jason Hare
Posts: 1016
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: ἁρπαγμός - a verbl noun?

Post by Jason Hare »

From A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Logos Bible Software, 2006), 151–152 [§II.V.III.(b).2].
[Secondary or Derivative Substantives] (α) Those from verbs. Words in -μός expressing action. From verbs in -άζω come ἁγιασ-μός (ancient Greek ἁγίζω, but later form common in LXX and N. T.); ἁγνισ-μός (from ἁγνίζω, Dion. Hal., LXX, Plut.); ἀπαρτισ-μός (Dion. Hal., Apoll. Dysc., papyri); ἁρπαγ-μός (ἁρπάζω is from root ἁρπ, like Latin rapio. Ἁρπαγ-μός once in Plutarch, ἁρπαγή common from Æschylus); γογγυσ-μός (from γογγύζω, Antonin.); ἐνταφιασ-μός (Plutarch and scholia to Eur. and Arist., ἐνταφιάζω); ἱματισ-μός (from ἱματίζω, LXX, Theophr., Polyb., Diod., Plut., Athen.); πειρασ-μός (from πειράζω and common in the LXX). From verbs in -ίζω we have βαπτισ-μός (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 62) used by Josephus of John’s baptism, but not in the N. T. of the ordinance of baptism, save in Col. 2:12, in אc BD*FG 47, 67**, 71, a Western reading rejected by W. H.; ὀνειδισ-μός (Plutarch and Dion. Hal.); παροργισ-μός (not found earlier than LXX nor in κοινή writers, Dion. uses παροργίζω); πορισ-μός (Sap., Polyb., Jos., Plut., Test. XII Patr.); ῥαντισ-μός (LXX); σαββατισ-μός (Plut. and eccl. writers); σωφρονισ-μός (Jos., Plut., etc.); ψιθυρισ-μός (from ψιθυρίζω, LXX, Clem. Rom., Plut., onomatopoetic word for the hissing of the snake). The ending -μός survives in literary modern Greek. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 288. The tendency to make new words in -μός decreased. The modern Greek vernacular dropped it (Thumb, Handbook, p. 62).
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Jean Putmans
Posts: 162
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands

Re: ἁρπαγμός - a verbl noun?

Post by Jean Putmans »

In general it seems to be: verbal root + μος = activity of the verb (αρδεω > αρδμος), but - language not like mathematics - sometimes these nouns mean the result of an activity or some concrete object: ερυω > ρυμος, πλεκω > πλοκαμος, πλοχμος

(comp. Kühner-Blass II, p. 272, par.30)
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4235
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: ἁρπαγμός - a verbl noun?

Post by Jonathan Robie »

The word ἁρπαγμός can mean either taking something by force or holding onto something tightly. This gives us two possible ways to understand the passage: Was Christ rejecting the idea of grabbing equality with God, or was He letting go of something He already had?

The context of Philippians 2:6-7 shows Christ’s humility and willingness to give up His status. This fits best with the idea that He chose not to hold onto His equality with God but let it go for our sake.

I think this relates to the deep humility of Christ in this passage and how it speaks to His selflessness and love.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”