What is the justification for the New international Version and New Living Translation's translation of Philippians 2:6?

Question

Philippians 2:6 NIV Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage

Philippians 2:6 NLT Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to

Philippians 2:6 ASV who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped

Philippians 2:6 YLT who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,

Most translations from Bible Hub show "in the form of God" but not NIV and NLT. What is the justification for NIV's and NLT's translation of Philippians 2:6?

Answer 1

I interviewed Dr. Taylor (NLT) on Bible translation

Your Question is about how Bible translators think. This is a good and normal curiosity for many Bible readers, which we should allow on the Hermeneutics site.

I was in a Bible introduction class at Moody, and our group was assigned to research the Living Bible. The New Living Translation was Ken Taylor's second translation, which he oversaw through multiple committees. He personally translated the Living, but gave me a copy of the NLT when I met with him.

I later went back and told him about the NLT, "I like your translation, but for word studies I prefer the NASB."

Dr. Taylor replied, "I agree with your analysis. If we are going to study the words, we need to have the words. But, this [NLT] is for the people to be able to understand."

That was his defense on how he translated the NLT the way he did.

I have done Bible translation from Greek

I think you are trying to ask why it may have been translated the way it was—essentially asking about the rationale behind Bible translation. You're not asking the translators directly, you're asking people with experience to explain the thinking of Bible translators in general.

Remember, different Bible translations have different purposes. Translators keep those purposes in mind to make their translations different from other translations, thus more useful to Bible readers.

The Greek text in question:

Philipians 2:6 (greekbible.com)

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,

The text you are boldfacing is literally "in form of God being" from "ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων" (eno morphae theou huparchoen). You can see in there the word for "morph" or "form".

Why, then? Speculating based on experience

I have translated the Book of Revelation. I've also taught mature adults and young children, reading from Greek and translating as I read for understanding at their level. I wrestle with these questions constantly myself.

The NIV and NLT translators probably felt that "form" might diminish the Soteriological claims of who Jesus was. They probably wouldn't want readers to get any impression of "merely form of, but not really, God". I certainly know Dr. Taylor would have felt that way as his rationale behind the NLT.

NIV & NLT differences

I lived in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area almost 30 years and rubbed shoulders with Zondervan editors, which publishes NIV. Zondervan (NIV) aims more at "adult basic understanding" while Tyndale (NLT) gives a little more focus toward children.

The NIV tends to have a word in English for a word in Greek, translating "form"/morph as "nature". But, the NIV is hardly a "word-for-word" translation as the NASB is. The NLT tried to be just a little more unbound by word-for-word translation than NIV, aiming just a little more for the understanding of the reader.

Wanting children to understand, the NLT translators likely think that differentiating between "God being in the form of God" vs "God being God" splits hairs without understanding and only causes confusion.

When I talk to seven year olds, I certainly don't try to explain how "form" is different from "substance"; Tyndale House probably doesn't want to either.

Hence, NIV would naturally want to use "nature" for adult easy reading while NLT would naturally just leave it out to avoid confusion.

---

Theological influence

Afterthought:

It came up in the discussion that the omission in NLT and alternate of NIV term "nature" are based on presumptions of the Trinitarian publishers. Both Tyndale (NLT) and Zondervan (NIV) are Trinitarian, at least in reputation (churches 'have' doctrine, publishers 'favor' doctrine). Both their theology—and the theology of their readers especially—directed their choices as a matter of course. They wouldn't and shouldn't say so in the translation notes within their circles because of their own shared presumptions. Trinitarians will expectedly translate Trinitarian. We can't fault them for that, but we should surely observe.

Similar presumptions in translation occur with the worldviews of Mandarin and English speakers I have encountered in Taiwan over the last 12 years. So back to the OP: Why? Theological presumptions are indeed a more than 0% factor. I don't want to dive too deep in that because that should be discussed on Christianity.SE. This approaches the overlap of Hermeneutics and Christianity/SysTheo.

On a personal note, I would try to use some word understandable to both children and adult readers, not just omit. The "likeness", "form", and "nature" aspect of the incarnation of Christ is a fascinating concept behind the text. This concept existed in the minds of the NT writers. I don't understand the concept perfectly myself, so I can't make assumptions on the best way to translate text that affects our understanding on that concept.

We want translation of their words to express that beauty in their ideas. None of us know how to do that perfectly. That's why Tyndale was founded by Dr. Taylor, to offer yet one more perspective/translation to assist discussion as we collectively read a text to understand more of what can never be fully understood.

In other words, I would try to limit my own theology's influence on translation and try to let the text come through so as to be the influence on my ongoing development of theology. I couldn't do it perfectly, though. No other translator can either.

Answer 2

I am probably expressing a minority view here but I believe it is the correct one and people can feel free to push back if they wish. It seems there have been several variations on this question lately which shows me that it must be important. It is also interesting to me that I have not come across a single accurate translation of this text, and again, I am open to someone proving me wrong. I suspect most people will merely be able to say, “You have your opinion and I have mine.” Here’s the Greek, so the language scholars can verify easily.

6Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ

A rough literal translations would be

Who in form of God existing, not considered robbery to be equal to God.

So, how could this be translated faithfully in readable English? There are different options that don’t affect the meaning, but I would suggest something like this.

Who, though existing in the form of God, did not consider seizing equality with God.

So the text clearly shows that for Jesus to become equal to God, he would have had to try to seize something that was not meant for him to attain. I realize that centuries of church history and doctrine would have us think otherwise but I believe this translation fits much better with what the rest of the Bible says about the relationship between the Father and the Son, such as Jesus saying that the Father is greater than he and his current place now at the right hand of the Father, but that goes beyond the scope of this question.

Let us now revisit the two translations mentioned in the question above.

Philippians 2:6 NIV Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage

Philippians 2:6 NLT Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to

To me, it’s a pretty big leap to go from form (appearance) to nature (essence). The NLT leaves out "form" altogether. Why do they do this? I believe they have a theological bias to show that Jesus was equal to the Father. Ironically, the Greek is saying exactly the opposite.

Answer 3

Overview
In addition to those answers which examine the different translation philosophy, I would add there is a legitimate hermeneutical approach which justifies nature.

Who, while being in the form of God, did not regard the being equal with God a thing-to-be-grasped (DLNT)
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ

The Disciples Literal New Testament uses form which is probably the better word-for-word treatment of μορφῇ. Note however, the DLNT italicizes the and of to show the translator understood them as ellipses. The literal Greek is morphē theou: there is no article. The literal Greek differs from an English interpretation of the form/appearance/nature of the God.

If morphē is taken as form or appearance, that hardly settles the meaning, because how does the form or appearance of God exist apart from the nature of God? In other words, it is true morphē most likely envisions that which is external, but how can one have morphē theou, which is external of God, independent of that which is internal, or by nature God? Arguably, the only way one has the external form or appearance of God is by also possessing what is by nature God. Conceptually, neither form, appearance, or nature do justice to the phrase Paul has constructed. Any attempt to use the lexicon to understand the intended meaning as either form, or appearance, or nature will fall short of conveying Paul's meaning.

Glory
What form or appearance would agree with Paul's terminology? Contextually, the outward appearance would be glory which is how the passage begins and ends:

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. (2:3 KJV)
μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐριθείαν μηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν ἀλλὰ τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν

and every tongue should confess-out that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (2:11 DLNT)
καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός

Paul begins by encouraging the Philippians to do nothing out of self-seeking glory and ends with the phrase δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός, glory theou Father. Understanding morphē theou as glory agrees with what Jesus said of Himself:

⁴ I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. ⁵ And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (John 17 ESV)

Philippians 2 fits what is found in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus had morphē theou, glory with the Father before the world was. He emptied Himself of this glory in order to take on the form of a slave. In this case, Paul is making a parenthetical statement to the Gospel tradition. He has added the details of how the prayer was answered.

⁹ Therefore God also highly-exalted Him, and granted Him the name above every name ¹⁰ in-order-that every knee should bow at the name of Jesus— of heavenly ones and earthly ones and ones under-the-earth— ¹¹ and every tongue should confess-out that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (DLNT)

In addition to receiving back that of which He emptied Himself, He was more highly exalted.

Holiness
What "nature" of God does Jesus have? He was without sin (cf. Hebrews 4:15). Being without sin, He would be holy. The sense of being holy is to be separate. Since sin separates man from God who is holy, Jesus emptied Himself of that which by nature separates man from God. This was accomplished by taking on human form, which is the from of a slave (cf. Romans 6:16-19). That is, He who was without sin and was holy had the appearance of a sinner who by nature had the appearance of being separated from God.

Conclusion
Based upon the New Testament, form, appearance, and nature all fit Paul's use and can reasonably used to translate the phrase. If there is any inaccuracy in translating morphē theou as "nature of God" it lies in capturing only part of the full meaning. Yet the same could be said of "form/appearance of God." If one was to use a single word, in my opinion it would be "glory."

Answer 4

Young's Literal Translation Philippians 2:

6a who, being in the form of God,

being
ὑπάρχων (hyparchōn)
Verb - Present Participle Active - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 5225: To begin, am, exist, be in possession. From hupo and archomai; to begin under, i.e. Come into existence; expletively, to exist (verb).

[the] form
μορφῇ (morphē)
Noun - Dative Feminine Singular
Strong's 3444: Form, shape, outward appearance. Perhaps from the base of meros; shape; figuratively, nature.

YLT uses a more literal methodology in its translation. American Standard Version has done similarly:

who, existing in the form of God

These are more conservative translations for English-speaking natives. On the other hand, NIV adopted a more dynamic strategy, translating the concept indicated by the word:

Who, being in very nature God

NIV appeals to the international English readers/scholars whose mother tongue may not be English.

New Living Translation took this translation liberty another step:

Though he was God

Read Jesse Steele's answer for further explanation of NLT translation philosophy.

What is the justification for the New international Version and New Living Translation's translation of Philippians 2:6?

Basically, NIV and NLT are more liberal compared with YLT and ASV. There are advantages and disadvantages to every translation. I advocate reading more than just one version. Particularly, when it comes to proving a doctrine, like in this case, do not just rely on just one single translation. Relying on a single liberal translation could really mess things up.