uparkhein and einai in Phil 2,6

[muminustrollus]

Phl 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:


Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

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

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the English text of the KJV we have the same verb "to be" for two distinct Greek verbs: the first (being in the form of God) is the present active participle uparkhon while the second (being equal to God) is the infinitive einai.

My question to you all is: Is this difference grammatically and exegetically significant?

[muminustrollus]

I have just noticed that the first meaning of "up-arkhein" is to "begin". Why is this meaning never taken into consideration?

Why could Jesus not have begun to be in the form of God?

[klewlis]

the New American Standard (generally more reliable than KJV for various reasons) translates it thus:
" who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,"

for [face=SPIonic]uparxw[/face] Bauer lists two definitions:

1. exist (really) , be present, be at one’s disposal; be (found) somewhere; (with tini) what belongs to someone, someone’s property, possessions, means
2. as a widely used substitute in H.Gk. for ei\nai w. a predicate noun and oft. Very freq. in the ptc. w. a predicate noun who is, since he is, etc.

Note that neither of these indicate "beginning to be", but simply "being".

Since Bauer considers the first to be a common substitute for the second, I doubt that there is any exegetical significance.

Liddell lists more meanings for the word which include the one you gave... however, when it comes to specifically koine it's usually safest to trust Bauer, since Liddell goes all through classical greek and the word meanings changed so much...

[Bert]

I have just noticed that the first meaning of "up-arkhein" is to "begin". Why is this meaning never taken into consideration?

Why could Jesus not have begun to be in the form of God?

Are you possibly confusing [face=SPIonic]u(pa/rxw [/face](Exist) with [face=SPIonic]a)/rxw [/face](which in the middle means begin)?

[muminustrollus]

No but I found the meaning of "coming into existence" and "begin" in a Greek-French dictionary. In fact that is the first meaning given in that dictionary and that seems normal since it is derived from the root "arche".

To be with an incipient nuance.

I have found another example of uparcho in Phillipians 3,20

for our "conversation" (KJV) is in heaven...

Apparently the Greek word "politeuma" means citizenship or commonwealth.

Considering that there is a real possibility that we may lose our faith this citizenship is somewhat precarious.

Could we say that uparchein is less ontological and steadfast as einai?

Why did Paul not simply say simply ON EN MORPHE THEOU?

[muminustrollus]

And what does the fact that uparchon is a present participle say about the meaning of the verse?