It does not seem exegetically or philologically sound to understand MORFH as "substance" or "nature" in Philippians 2:6-7. Jesus had the "form of a servant" insofar as he outwardly appeared to be a servant. Indeed he was a servant, but he was also much more since the disciples addressed him as Teacher and Rabbi. His outward appearance (form) did not tell the whole story: EN MORFH QEOU and MORFH DOULOU both refer to outward appearances.
Robert B. Strimple (in the Westminster Theological Journal) openly relates that for years he tried to maintain J.B. Lightfoot's strict distinction between MORFH and SXHMA until he had to admit: "there is really little evidence to support the conclusion that Paul uses MORFH in such a philosophical sense here [in Phil. 2:6ff]" (Strimple 259). Strimple also cites the four instances where MORFH occurs in the LXX (Septuagint). He writes: "in each instance . . . MORFH refers to the visible form or appearance" (Strimple 260).
It is also worthy of note that Aquila employs MORFH in Isa. 52:14 to describe the "outer appearance" of the Messiah. Since, as Strimple concurs, the theme of Jehovah's Suffering Servant undoubtedly played some part in the Philippians account--it seems reasonable to assume that MORFH as used in Isa. 52:14 bears the same meaning in Phil. 2:6ff. Strimple concludes: "meager though the biblical evidence is, it is sufficient to make a prima facie case for the reference being to a visible manifestation" (Strimple 260).
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ (Philippians 2:6, Nestle 1904)
A Link for Strimple's WTJ Paper: https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/ntesources/ntarticles/wtj-nt/strimple-philip2-wtj.pdf
4 comments:
Good comments.
Hellerman also noted that MORPH doesn't seem to mean "essential nature":
"Given the meaning of [hARPAGMON] outlined above, it is somewhat difficult to discern how Christ could potentially have regarded his [OUSIA] or essential nature as ‘something to be exploited.’ How does one exploit one’s essence?"
Indeed, so either "appearance" (Strimple) or "rank or status" (Hellerman) would be the more likely alternatives:
"The problem is immediately resolved by taking [EINAI ISA QEWi] (and, by extension, [MORFHi QEOU]) in a non-substantial sense, referring to rank or status. For it is quite easy to see how Christ could have regarded his position of power and prestige as ‘something to be exploited.’ And ‘position of power’ or ‘authority’ is precisely the way in which the idea ‘equality with God’ is used in several biblical and extrabiblical parallels” (MORFH QEOU AS A SIGNIFIER OF SOCIAL STATUS IN PHILIPPIANS 2:6, JETH), p. 788
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/52/52-4/JETS%2052-4%20779-797%20Hellerman.pdf
~Kas
Thank you, Kas. I do have Hellerman also posted somewhere on this blog, and I've read his article, which is pretty good. One thing that possibly supports the "status" understanding is a reference from Tobit, among others. Two other links you might enjoy:
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/06/john-hp-reumanns-commentary-on.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/10/ca-wannamakers-remarks-concerning.html
Tobit 1:13 is the reference I had in mind.
The central issue here is the interpretation of morphē theou ("form of God") and morphē doulou ("form of a servant"). Strimple argues, based on examples from the LXX and Isaiah 52:14, that morphē refers to outward appearance. However, this approach ignores the broader usage of morphē in Greek literature and its particular theological significance in the context of Philippians 2.
While it is true that morphē can refer to outward appearance in some contexts (such as Mark 16:12), its meaning in Philippians 2:6 is shaped by the contrast between Christ's pre-incarnate divinity and His incarnation as a servant. The contrast between "form of God" and "form of a servant" suggests something much deeper than mere appearance. If morphē referred only to outward appearance, it would imply that Christ was not truly human in His incarnation, which contradicts the core Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. Instead, morphē here likely refers to the essential nature or status of Christ, both as fully divine and fully human.
The broader context of Philippians 2 emphasizes Christ's humility and self-emptying (kenosis). In verse 6, Paul describes Christ as "being in the form of God" (en morphē theou hyparchōn), and in verse 7, He "emptied himself" by taking the "form of a servant" (morphēn doulou labōn). The structure of the passage highlights the radical nature of Christ's humility: although He existed in the morphē of God (indicating His divine status or nature), He did not exploit this status but instead took on the morphē of a servant.
Strimple and others argue that morphē refers to outward appearance in both verses. However, this interpretation weakens the force of Paul's argument. If morphē only means outward appearance, it would suggest that Christ only appeared to be divine and only appeared to be human, which aligns more closely with Gnostic or Docetic views than with orthodox Christian theology. In contrast, the traditional understanding of this passage is that morphē refers to the essential nature or status of Christ—He is truly divine and truly human.
Hellerman's suggestion that morphē theou refers to "status" rather than "nature" is another attempt to minimize the ontological implications of the passage. While it is true that morphē can sometimes refer to "status," this interpretation does not fit well with the broader theological context of Philippians 2. The passage describes not only a change in Christ's outward position but a profound act of humility and self-emptying, where the divine Son of God took on human nature. This is more than a mere change in "status"; it is an essential act of humility involving the full union of divinity and humanity.
If we accept the argument that morphē only refers to "status" or "outward appearance," we run into significant theological problems. First, it would imply that Christ's divinity was only a matter of appearance or position, undermining the doctrine of the Incarnation. Second, it would suggest that Christ's humanity was also only a matter of appearance, which directly contradicts the New Testament's affirmation of Christ's true humanity (John 1:14, Hebrews 2:14-17). The traditional understanding of morphē as referring to Christ's essential nature—both divine and human—preserves the integrity of the Incarnation and aligns with the rest of the New Testament.
Strimple's appeal to Isaiah 52:14 and Tobit 1:13 as support for his interpretation of morphē is also problematic. While morphē in these passages may refer to outward appearance, the theological and literary context of Philippians 2 is significantly different. Philippians 2 is part of a Christological hymn that emphasizes the humility and self-emptying of the pre-existent Christ. This is not merely about outward appearance but about the profound theological reality of Christ's Incarnation and His willingness to humble Himself for the sake of humanity.
Post a Comment