I find the question interesting because of work I have done on Phil. 2:6ff. Granted, the Philippians text is vexed with exegetical issues and one has to concede that μορφή could denote "status" rather than "external appearance" in Philippians. However, one has to ask whether the Philo text really has any bearing on what Paul wrote. Secondly, how should Philo be interpreted?
One translation of Philo reads: "What connexion or resemblance was there between him [Gaius] and Apollo, when he never paid any attention to any ties of kindred or friendship? Let him cease, then, this pretended Apollo, from imitating that real healer of mankind, for the form of God is not a thing which is capable of being imitated by an inferior one, as good money is imitated by bad."
Hurtado also quotes Embassy 114: "Have we not, then, learned from all these instances, that Gaius ought not to be likened to any god, and not even to any demi-god, inasmuch as he has neither the same nature, nor the same essence, nor even the same wishes and intentions as any one of them"
From these passages, Hurtado extracts the idea that Philo might have divine moral/ethical attributes of deity in mind. But does he?
The late Dr. Rodney Decker writes:
Lightfoot is a classic example of those who base the meaning of μορφή on Greek philosophy. He explains that it refers to "the specific character" (129); that "μορφή must apply to the attributes of the Godhead" (132). "In Gk philosophical literature, μορφή acquires a fixed and central place in the thought of Aristotle. For him the term becomes equal to a thing's essence (οὐσία) or nature (φύσις).”1
However, Decker provides ample reasons to reject this understanding of μορφή in Philippians 2:6. We also learn that Hurtado's suggestion isn't new after all since Lightfoot thoroughly plumbed Philo, Aristotle, and other writers to examine the potential denotation of μορφή, and his view of the word fell along similar lines as Hurtado's. Yet Lightfoot was almost surely mistaken or at least only partially correct as I have pointed out in the first volume of Christology and the Trinity and so has Moisés Silva in his Philippians commentary.
For Decker's analysis, see http://ntresources.com/blog/documents/kenosis.pdf
Concerning "the specific character" understanding of μορφή, Lightfoot himself maintains that the ancient Neoplatonists and Philo both knew and utilized the word in this manner. See Lightfoot's analysis at https://archive.org/stream/cu31924029294398#page/n145/mode/2up/search/philo
Nonetheless, I emphasize that Paul likely did not use μορφή this way. Both Moulton-Milligan and BDAG support this contention.
Hurtado's discussion is here: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/the-form-of-god-philo-and-paul/#comments
8 comments:
Hi Edgar,
While I have no objection to Hurtado's proposal on theological grounds, it doesn't really seem to fit or flow, does it? To paraphrase:
"Although he existed in God's form (i.e. had the moral character of the deity), he did not consider (this?) equality with God as something to exploit, but emptied himself and took the form (moral character again, I assume?) of a slave."
Surely one must assume a literary correspondence between the two uses of MORPHE, which would mean that the Son emptied himself by taking the moral character of a man, correct? Such an odd expression may come easily to a modern Christian's mind, as explorations into the moral character of God are part of the modern theological conversation, but how likely is it that Paul would have come up with such an expression?
And, of course, there are also the problems that you noted. J.C. O'Neill once gave the game away when he said (to paraphrase again) that Expositors are all "sure that the text is orthodox". Set aside that presupposition and one will be able to discern interpretations that are much more plausible, biblically and historically.
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/a-note-on-philippians-26/
~Kas
Hi Kas,
I agree that Hurtado's proposal seems to interrupt the textual flow, although he might restrict the moral character understanding of morphe to the form of God. I don't know for sure, but it is a possibility..
It does make sense to draw a parallel between form of God and form of a servant, and I think that is a common approach by exegetes of Phil. 2:5-11. Moreover, from a philological standpoint, it is highly unlikely that Paul used morphe to simply denote the moral character of Christ. So many studies have dispelled the idea that "specific character" or any such idea is meant in Philippians 2 that it is amazing some cling to these ideas. Not only did Silva refute an idea along this line, but Daniel J. Fabricatore's interesting study does also. It is an entire book about the form of God and the form of a servant. See https://www.amazon.com/Form-God-Servant-examination-Philippians/dp/0761848282
I would like to write a review essay of his book. One other point is that Paul's concept of morphe was probably shaped by the Tanakh and we find morphe in Egyptian papyri.
As always, thanks for your helpful input.
I just read Decker's article, and he makes a sound judgement about MORPHE. His "discussion" of John 5 was insufficient and problematic, however, which caused him to reach a conclusion that seems unsound.
What I find interesting about Trinitarian exegetes is how they insist that at John 5 the "equality with God" involved Jesus' "nature" and that Jesus' opponents made a correct inference in judging that Jesus made himself ontologically equal with God. As Decker put it:
"Augustine comments to the effect that the Jews understand what the Arians [and their descendants the J.W.s!] cannot seem to grasp: that Jesus claimed to be truly God."
So both Jesus' opponents and his followers misunderstood him at just about every turn, but when the opponents judged that Jesus was making himself God ontologically, that they god right, right? Um...probably not!
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/11/john-5-was-jesus-equal-with-god-if-so-how/
~Kas
Hi Kas,
I primarily wanted to show how Decker refutes the Lightfoot understanding of MORPHE just like Fabricatore does. But then most of these scholars find a way to preserve their Trinitarian beliefs, and John 5:17 is an interesting example of this Tendenz.
Most argue that 5:17 proves the divinity of Christ, although some have even asserted that Christ showed himself to be equal to God by not claiming he was. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Thanks for the link. See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/11/jn-518-19-and.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2008/03/geza-vermes-part-ii.html
In the second link, please note the quotes from Rogers/Rogers and Paul Anderson.
Best,
Edgar
Hi Kas,
I am just going to post these links; you can read them at your own leisure. The first is the commentary of John 5:17 by John Chrysostom--the second link is from ecatena:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/chrysostom/john/5.htm
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/john5.html
Larry Hurtado explores whether Philo's use of morphē can shed light on Paul’s use of the term in Philippians 2:6. While you assert that Hurtado's suggestion is not new, and you cite Lightfoot’s exploration of Greek philosophical traditions, including Aristotle and Philo, it’s important to recognize that exploring connections between Jewish Hellenistic thought and early Christian texts is valuable. Philo, as a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, engaged deeply with Greek philosophy, particularly Platonic and Aristotelian categories, and his writings help contextualize how Jewish thinkers interacted with Greek ideas about God and metaphysical concepts like morphē.
The question is not whether Paul is directly influenced by Philo, but whether morphē carries connotations beyond mere "outward appearance" in both authors. Philo uses morphē to describe divine qualities in an ethical or metaphysical sense, as seen in Embassy to Gaius. Therefore, it is plausible that Paul could use the term similarly to indicate divine status or qualities, rather than just visual or external form.
The heart of the issue in Philippians 2:6-7 is whether morphē denotes external appearance or something deeper, such as status, essence, or nature. You seem to dismiss the idea that morphē could mean "status" or "divine attributes," yet Philippians 2:6 places morphē theou in contrast with morphē doulou (the form of a servant). If we take morphē to mean merely outward appearance in both cases, the argument runs into theological problems. If Christ merely appeared as God, it could suggest a superficial divinity, which would undermine Paul's Christology, where Jesus is understood as truly divine.
If morphē theou refers to Christ’s status or divine nature, the kenosis (self-emptying) becomes a profound act of humility, where Christ, who truly possesses divinity, willingly takes on human nature and servanthood. This understanding better aligns with the broader narrative of the Incarnation and Christ’s humility.
You argue that morphē in Philippians should not be understood in the philosophical sense that Lightfoot and Hurtado explore. However, Paul's use of morphē cannot be separated from the conceptual frameworks of his time. Paul, writing in a Hellenistic context, would not be isolated from the intellectual currents of his era. The idea that morphē could refer to divine qualities or status is supported by early Christian and Jewish interactions with Greek philosophical thought.
Additionally, Moisés Silva, whom you reference, does not fully reject the possibility that morphē could refer to divine nature. Silva explores different interpretations of the word, ultimately highlighting the difficulty of reducing morphē to a simple term like "outward appearance." The contextual use of the term in Philippians suggests something more profound—likely divine status or the essential attributes of Christ’s divinity.
While BDAG and Moulton-Milligan emphasize that morphē can refer to outward appearance, neither lexicon exclusively restricts the word to this meaning. In fact, they acknowledge the broader semantic range of morphē, which includes connotations of status or form in a deeper, more substantial sense. In Philippians, morphē theou most naturally refers to Christ’s divine status or attributes, particularly given the context of Paul’s Christological argument.
You correctly acknowledge that exegetes often draw a parallel between "the form of God" and "the form of a servant" in Philippians 2. The idea of morphē denoting more than just external appearance makes sense when viewed in the context of Paul’s intended theological message. Philippians 2:6-7 describes a contrast between Christ’s divine status (or nature) and his voluntary submission to servanthood. To reduce morphē to mere outward appearance in both cases would fail to capture the profound transformation and humility that Paul emphasizes in the hymn.
Paul’s emphasis is not on Christ merely appearing to be God or merely appearing as a servant; instead, the hymn underscores the essence of his divinity and his real, full assumption of human nature in the incarnation. The contrast between divine status and servanthood suggests a change in status, not merely external appearance, aligning more closely with Hurtado's understanding of morphē.
You question whether Paul would have come up with such an expression as Hurtado proposes, suggesting that morphē refers to moral character. However, this overlooks how Greek terms, especially philosophical ones, had a broad semantic range. In Hellenistic contexts, morphē could refer to outward form, but it was not limited to that. Greek philosophical tradition often uses morphē to denote essential qualities or characteristics, not just physical appearance. Even if Paul does not use morphē strictly in the philosophical sense, the context and his theological goals in Philippians support a richer meaning—one that encompasses both status and essence.
While it might seem anachronistic to apply such a definition in a modern theological conversation, Paul's usage of morphē is embedded in his understanding of Christ’s pre-existence, divinity, and incarnation, which requires more than just a superficial reading of form or appearance.
You suggest that philological studies have refuted the idea that morphē could denote "specific character" in Philippians 2:6-7. However, many scholars, including those cited by Hurtado, argue that the term can indeed imply more than outward appearance. Daniel J. Fabricatore’s study, which you mentioned, examines the depth of the term and suggests that morphē can include the essential attributes or status of a person. Moreover, the context of the hymn in Philippians suggests that Paul is addressing much more than superficial characteristics; he is contrasting Christ's divine nature with his humility in taking on human nature and a servant’s role.
You mention that scholars, like Silva and Hawthorne, dispute the idea that morphē refers to Christ’s divine nature, suggesting that the text doesn’t claim Christ gave up divine status. However, the concept of kenosis (self-emptying) is integral to Paul’s argument. The self-emptying does not necessarily imply a literal subtraction of divine attributes, as some older interpretations suggest. Instead, it points to Christ’s humility in not clinging to the privileges of his divine status, as Hurtado and others argue. This reading does not require the abandonment of Christ’s divinity, but rather emphasizes his humility in taking on human form.
The problem with limiting morphē to outward form or moral character is that it flattens the theological depth of the passage. Paul’s hymn is not just about Christ’s appearance, but about his humility and the cosmic significance of the Incarnation. The divine morphē contrasts with the servant morphē, underscoring both the depth of Christ's pre-existent divine nature and his profound humility in becoming human.
Post a Comment