ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν
ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς
ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ
σταυροῦ. (Phil 2:6-8)
Who, though he was in the form of God (μορφῇ θεοῦ), did not regard
equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking on
the form of a slave(μορφὴν δούλου), being born in human likeness (ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων
γενόμενος). And being found in human form, he humbled himself, and became
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Phil 2:6-8 NRSV)
In this pericope, Jesus is said to have
been in the “form” (μορφη) of God before He emptied Himself and was born. LDS and Trinitarians
agree that the context speaking of the personal pre-existence of Jesus wherein
Christ was in the “μορφῇ θεοῦ.” This obviously teaches that
the Father has a “form” or a “shape,” and is not incorporeal.
The only other instance of μορφη in the
New Testament appears in Mark 16:12:
After that he appeared in another form (μορφη) unto two of them, as they
walked, and went into the country.
In the LXX, we find the term in the
following verses (all quotes from the NRSV unless otherwise noted):
Then he said to Zebah and Zalmuma, "What about the men whom you
killed at Tabor?" They answered, "As you are, so were they, every one
of them; they resembled (μορφη) the sons of a king." (Judges 8:18)
It stood still, but I could not discern its appearance. A form (μορφη)
was before my eyes; there was silence, then I heard a voice. (Job 4:16)
Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form (μορφη) of his visage
was changed against Shadrash, Meshach, and Abednego: therefore he spake, and
commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times more than it was
wont to be heated. (Dan 3:19 KJV)
At that time my reason was returned to me; and my majesty and splendor
(μορφη) were restored to e for the glory of my kingdom. My counselors and my
lords sough e ut, I was re-established over my kingdom, and still more
greatness was added to me. (Dan 4:36)
Then the king's face (μορφη[alt. countenance KJV]) turned pale, and his
thoughts terrified him. His limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together . .
. Then was king Belshazzar became greatly terrified and his face (μορφη) turned
pale, and his lords were perplexed. The queen, when she heard the discussion
of the king and his lords, came into the banqueting hall. The queen said,
"O king, live forever! Do not let your thoughts terrify you or your face
(μορφη) grow pale. (Dan 5:6, 9-10)
Here the account ends. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly terrified
me, and my face (μορφη) turned pale; but I kept the matter in my mind. (Dan
7:28)
In the Greek Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
μορφη appears in the following texts:
Behold, let us make man in a form (μορφη) altogether like our own.
(Sibylline Oracle 8:442)
Then will we also rise, each one over our tribe, worshipping the King of
heaven, who appeared uon earth in the form (μορφη) of a man in humility. And as
many as believe on Him on the earth will rejoice with Him. (Testament of
Benjamin 10:7)
When conjured by magic by the wise men I become as Kronos. But when
again around those who bring me down I descend and manifest myself in another
form (μορφη). the measure of the element is unconquerable and without limit and
is unstoppable. I therefore, changing into three forms (μορφη), come down and
become such that you see. (Testament of Solomon A 15:5)
In terms of lexical definitions of μορφη, consider the following:
BDAG:
4984 μορφή
• μορφή, ῆς, ἡ (Hom.+) form, outward appearance, shape gener.
of bodily form 1 Cl 39:3; ApcPt 4:13 (Job 4:16; ApcEsdr 4:14 p. 28, 16 Tdf.;
SJCh 78, 13). Of the shape or form of statues (Jos., Vi. 65; Iren. 1, 8, 1
[Harv. I 67, 11]) Dg 2:3. Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons
(Callisthenes [IV BC]: 124 fgm. 13 p. 644, 32 Jac. [in Athen. 10, 75, 452b] Λιμὸς ἔχων γυναικὸς μορφήν; Diod. S. 3,
31, 4 ἐν μορφαῖς ἀνθρώπων; TestAbr A
16 p. 97, 11 [Stone p. 42] ἀρχαγγέλου μορφὴν περικείμενος; Jos., Ant. 5, 213 a messenger fr. heaven νεανίσκου μορφῇ): of God’s
assembly, the church Hv 3, 10, 2; 9; 3, 11, 1; 3, 13, 1; s 9, 1, 1; of the
angel of repentance ἡ μ. αὐτοῦ ἠλλοιώθη his
appearance had changed m 12, 4, 1.
Of Christ (ἐν μ. ἀνθρώπου TestBenj 10:7; Just., D. 61, 1; Tat. 2, 1; Hippol.,
Ref. 5, 16, 10. Cp. Did., Gen. 56, 18; of deities ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ μορφῇ: Iambl., Vi.
Pyth. 6, 30; cp. Philo, Abr. 118) μορφὴν δούλου λαβών he took on the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7 (w. σχῆμα as Aristot., Cat. 10a, 11f, PA 640b, 30-36). This is
in contrast to expression of divinity in the preëxistent Christ: ἐν μ. θεοῦ ὑπάρχων although he was in the form of God (cp. OGI 383, 40f: Antiochus’ body is the framework
for his μ. or
essential identity as a descendant of divinities; sim. human fragility [Phil
2:7] becomes the supporting framework for Christ’s servility and therefore
of his κένωσις [on the appearance one projects cp. the epitaph
EpigrAnat 17, ’91, 156, no. 3, 5-8]; on μορφὴ θεοῦ cp. Orig., C. Cels. 7, 66, 21; Pla., Rep. 2, 380d;
381bc; X., Mem. 4, 3, 13; Diog. L. 1, 10 the Egyptians say μὴ εἰδέναι τοῦ θεοῦ μορφήν; Philo, Leg.
ad Gai. 80; 110; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 190; Just., A I, 9, 1; PGM 7, 563; 13, 272;
584.—Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 357f) Phil 2:6. The risen Christ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ appeared in a different form Mk 16:12 (of the transfiguration of Jesus: ἔδειξεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἔνδοξον μορφὴν ἑαυτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 6, 68, 23). For lit. s. on ἁρπαγμός and κενόω 1b; RMartin, ET 70, ’59, 183f.—DSteenberg, The Case
against the Synonymity of μορφή and εἰκών: JSNT 34, ’88, 77-86; GStroumsa, HTR 76, ’83, 269-88
(Semitic background).—DELG. Schmidt, Syn. IV 345-60. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq. Sv.
Louw-Nida:
μορφή, ῆς f: the nature
or character of something, with emphasis upon both the internal and external
form - 'nature, character.' ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων 'he always had the very nature of God' Php 2.6; μορφὴν δούλου λαβών 'he took on the nature of a servant' Php 2.7 . In view
of the lack of a closely corresponding lexical item such as 'nature,' it may be
necessary to restructure the form of Php 2.7 as 'he became truly a servant.'
Verbrugge (Abridged):
Regarding this divine mode of being, the hymn says that Christ existed
in the past (“being,” 2:6). Th word used here for “being” (hyparcho) suggests Christ’s preexistence prior to his incarnation. En morphe thou characterizes ,
therefore, that existence before his earthly life. But then he “emptied himself”
(NIV, “made himself nothing”), taking the morphen
doulou (“form of a servant”). Some interpreters see this as a new form that
replaced the “form of God,” that is, that Christ’s mode of being was
essentially changed from a divine one to a human, servant one. Most
evangelicals, however, regard Christ as adding on a human form (nature) without
divesting himself of his divine form or nature.
Christ’s new ode of existence in his earthly life is described as that
of a “servant.” This has been interpreted in various ways. According to some,
Christ entered into a mode of existence that was under bondage and serfdom to
the rule of cosmic powers, and the elements of the world. It is perhaps best,
however, to see this as a title of honor, corresponding to the Servant of the
Lord in Isa. 53, who suffered on our behalf.
Rogers and Rogers, New Linguistic and
Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament
The outward display of the inner reality or substance. Here it refers to
the outward display of the divinity of the preexistent Christ, in the display
of His glory as the image of the Father.
EDNT:
The antithetical use of μορφη θεου and
μορφη δουλου in Phil 2:6f. is crucial for understanding the human as a whole. In
contrast to the traditional Lutheran interpretation, which relates both
expressions to the λογος ενσαρχος, it is generally accepted today that 2:6
refers to the preexistent Son of God, and 2:7 to the Son of God become a man.
Any additional interpretation of the pair must be based on the parallelism of
2:6 and 7. The change from μορφη θεου to μορφη δουλου is neither a simple change of appearance,
leaving the nature unchanged, nor a change of the Son’s nature. To contrast “appearance”
and “substance” ignores the wording of the hymn itself, which we cannot
characterize as a reflection on substance, nor does it anticipate the doctrine
of the two natures or deal with a change of “mode of existence.” . . . μορφη δουλου is thus to be understood [as meaning] “the form proper to a slave, as
an expression of his state,” and μορφη θεου likewise as “the expression of the divine
state.”
Finally, then-LDS apologist, Kevin Graham,
wrote a response to J.P. Holding (author of The
Mormon Defenders [2001]) on the issue of Phil 2:6-7 and the question of the
“form” of God and how it relates to LDS theology. As it is no longer available
online, here is the full article:
Philippians 2:6-7
"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"
Here we find an explicit reference to the “form” of
God. Naturally, the Evangelical paradigm leans toward an abstract understanding
of this verse. Holding asserts that the term used for form, “can mean ‘shape’
but also has the figurative connotation of ‘nature.’” And he concludes that,
“in all probability” this refers to the glory and dignity Christ shared with
the Father.” [1] This is a
blasé, insufficient treatment of the Greek morphe. Holding tries to pass
this argument off as if it could go either way while failing to deal with the
fact that morphe always refers to the visual sense in NT Greek. He
offers no evidence that the term means “nature,” other than “sound bites” from
two very Evangelical scholars, Fee and Hawthorne. No critical analysis is
offered for this theological conclusion; we’re just supposed to accept it on
their say-so.
The fact is morphe is found only once more
in the New Testament (Mark 16:12 ) when Christ appeared in form. He was recognized visually
(Lk 24:13-35). Even more significant is that it appears six more times in the
Septuagint, and as Peter O’Brien notes, each instance refers to a “visible form
or appearance of something.” [2] Holding responds to this with,
Which still proves nothing
about its specific use in Phil. 2:6-7.
I think by now it is a forgone conclusion that no amount
of evidence will satisfy Holding’s demands, but these facts certainly do
nothing to help Holding’s case if the all other examples of morphe
support the LDS interpretation. A reasonable question would be to ask why
should we suddenly assume a peculiar rendering (nature) is legit, let alone
more probable? Holding offers no answer. And “proof” is not the purpose of this
statement. Rather, it is to strengthen the inductive argument contra Holding’s
bald assertion that “nature” is the more probable meaning. Holding implies that
Peter O’Brien also supports this translation. He does not.
We want to know if O'Brien
considered the view I offered, and what he said about it, and why he thinks (if
he does) it is wrong.
Interesting. Holding provided O’Brien as a reference
in his own book, but he doesn’t know what he said. Suffice it to say, O’Brien
was misused since he did not subscribe to this interpretation. Instead, he
merely cited this view as a common interpretation among Evangelicals, and notes
that this was first used in “Greek philosophy” beginning with Aristotle;
something we have maintained all along, and something Holding flat out rejects.
O'Brien concluded that Holding's preference is weak on the basis that “there is
little evidence that Paul uses morphe in such a philosophical sense.” [3] We can guess that Holding concedes this point since
he offers no evidence except Hawthorne, who opines that “nature” fits better
since it is “not likely that the author of the hymn had in mind that Christ
merely looked like or had the external appearance of a slave.” [4] Well if he looked liked a slave while naked and
beaten on the cross, then why isn’t it likely?
But let’s test this by considering the alternative
“nature” reading. In the context of this passage, it is stated that Christ
“took upon him the form of a servant.” But what is the form of a servant? The
“essential nature” of a slave is the same as that of any other human being. The
form, therefore, must refer to the semblance or demeanor of a slave as the distinguishing
characteristic. One gets the sense that Holding sees this dilemma; consequently
he avoids a dead-end with a quick u-turn by arbitrarily defining nature as the
slave’s “activity and attitude.” Thus, he is recreating the Greek language to
fill in the holes of his argument. But to refute this argument all one needs to
do is ask whether the passage is calling Christ “God” insofar as he shares his
“activity and attitude.” Holding is trying to have it both ways, as he goes
against his own authorities who said morphe, “truly and fully expresses
the being which underlies it,” and that it “means that which truly
characterizes a given reality.” [5] Does “activity and attitude” truly and fully
express the being which underlies it? By this standard, someone who runs around
on all fours and throws bananas becomes a monkey “by nature.” Is this how we're
supposed to consider Christ “God,” because He merely imitates His Father's
“activity and attitude”? Healing the sick and walking on water is an activity
in which even his apostles participated, so are they equal to Christ in divine
nature? This is absurd.
He prefers the “nature” interpretation when applied
to Christ, but when dealing with the form of a slave he abandons this logic.
Instead of dealing with the fact that it can’t apply to his position, he
quickly detours by showing his audience how “likeness of men” doesn’t conform
well to the “exalted man” notion. He then goes on about how LDS have to add the
qualifier “mortal” in order to make sense of it. But this argument is not
sound, for the “form of God” in LDS thought includes the magnificent glory
which mankind is lacking. It isn’t just a matter of human contour. Therefore,
the “likeness of men” and the “form of God” are not synonymous in an LDS
context, as Holding assumes. So the LDS explanation is firmly grounded, as it
is supported with scriptures central to this motif. Christ had a glorious body
which he gave up coming to earth, and the New Testament speaks of the glorious
body that Christ and all mankind will inherit after this life. O’Brien also
draws allusions to this teaching in the New Testament, such as: “The glory I
had with you before the world began” and “The radiance of God’s glory and the
exact representation of his being.” [6] Other verses also allude to this motif:
Phil 3:21 “Who will
transform and fashion anew the body of our humiliation to conform to and be
like the body of His glory and majesty, by exerting that power which enables
Him even to subject everything to Himself.”
2 Cor 3:18 “But we all,
with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are
transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the
Spirit.”
1 John 3:2 “Beloved, now
are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We
know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see
him even as he is.”
Thus O’Brien concludes that, “The phrase en
morphe theou is best interpreted against the background of the glory of
God, that shining light in which, according to the OT and intertestamental
literature, God was pictured.” [7] The Bible spoke of Christ’s glorified form after
his resurrection, and given the context of Phil 3:21, it appears certain that
this is the understanding of Phil 2:6-7.
Markus Bockmuehl is another respected authority on
Philippians, and he concurs with O’Brien:
A prima facie or ‘literal’ reading in terms
of ‘visible for’ would certainly produce
a semantically meaningful interpretation, in keeping with the recurrence of
the word morphe in verse 7: Christ took on the ‘form’ of a slave-which
must mean something fairly concrete, perhaps including the fact that Christ
suffered the execution customarily meted out to rebellious slaves. [8]
Holding responds:
Bockmuehl is here confusing
expression of activity and attitiude with the concrete results of activity and
attitude.
And I can only suppose Holding’s expertise as a
librarian outweighs Bockmeuhl’s authority on this matter. I’m sorry, but this
just isn’t reality. Holding is on a fishing expedition but forgot to bring his
pole. He is coming up with strange explanations to make his view fit into the
text, and those scholars in the field who do not entertain his efforts are just
“confused.” Holding has failed at every opportunity to produce any scholarly
evidence that “nature,” or even more to the point, “activity and attitude” is
what is implied by morphe. It is so alien to the common usage of the
term, that it is difficult to even consider it seriously. And again, even if he
could provide an example where morphe was used in such a way, he’d have
a difficult time applying this argument throughout the entire context since it
would be dubious to argue that Christ was only in the “form of God” in the
sense of “attitude and activity.” Bockmuehl notes that the proper reading,
[A]lso finds support in several of the earliest
Christian interpretations of our text. In the Ascension of Isaiah, the
Lord of all the heavens transforms himself ‘until he becomes like you in form
and in appearance’ (8.9-10; cf. 9.13); similarly, the Odes of Solomon
7.4-6 affirm that Christ became like us in appearance (demuta) and in
form (tzurta). In relation to the human Christ, the word ‘form’ was
evidently understood to carry certain palpably visual connotations. [9]
Holding dismisses these evidences on the basis that
a slave is not mentioned. This tactic, trying to highlight discrepancies in
order to detract from obvious commonalities, simply won't suffice. By this
standard none of the Gospels have anything to do with each other. Pointing out
one discrepancy does not warrant the dismissal of clear parallels to God’s
glorified form which was stripped of its glory while on earth; essentially what
Phil 2:6 is saying. The theme of Christ’s form of glory is replete in early Christian
and Jewish traditions, something which Holding doesn’t even begin to touch. The
proper method of “trying to figure out how the audience would have understood”
this phrase is now the bane of Holding's apologetic.
Finally, it is hardly necessary to assume the
author had “nature” in mind in this instance, especially when there is a
perfectly good word in Greek for a visual manifestation of one’s “essential
nature”: eidos. [10] It appears five times in New Testament Greek, and
even in these instances a visual image is implied. For example the Gospel of
John uses this term, “You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His
form (eidos).” [11] So the nature theory seems to be based more on a
theological necessity than proper exegesis. Even more problematic for the
popular exegesis is this. If “in the form of God” means the very nature of God,
then Christ could not have been “Very God” while on earth, since this is what
he is said to have sacrificed and left behind in coming to the earth.
Holding deals with none of this.
[1] Holding, 30.
[2] Peter T.
O'Brien, “The Epistle to the Philippians. A Commentary on the Greek Text”; The
New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991), p. 206.
[3] Ibid,207.
[4] Holding, 30.
[5] Holding, 30.
Citing Hawthorne
[6] John 17:5;Heb
1:3.
[7] O’Brien, 211.
[8] Markus
Bockmuehl, “The Form of God (Phil. 2.6). Variations on a Theme of Jewish
Mysticism,” Journal of Theological Studies 48.1 (1997): 11-12.
[9] Ibid.
[10] As Liddell and
Scott point out in their lexicon, “morphe” means form, shape, fine, beautiful
form or shape, figure, fashion, appearance, outward form or semblance. It is
opposed to “eidos” which means “true form.”
[11] John 5: