I have written some on MORFH in Phil. 2:6ff. There is a reference from Tobit 1:13 which supports the denotation "status" or "condition" for the word MORFH although I prefer to define it (in this context) as external form/shape or outward appearance.
For MORFH, BDAG Greek-English Lexicon has "form, outward appearance, shape" and "gener. of bodily form 1 Cl 39:3; ApcPt 4:13 (Job 4:16; ApcEsdr 4:14 p. 28, 16 Tdf.; SJCh 78, 13)."
Additionally, MORFH is also used of the shape or form of statues (Jos., Vi.65; Iren. I, 8, 1 and Dg 2:3). The term also describes appearances in visions and Mk. 16:12 (in the longer reading of Mark's Gospel) relates that Jesus appeared in a hETERA MORFH or "different form." BDAG also states: "on MORFH QEOU cp. Orig. C. Cels. 7, 66, 21; Pla., Rep. 2, 380D; 381 bc . . ."
Louw-Nida has two definitions for MORFH ("nature" and "visual form of something"). It classifies Phil. 2:6-7 as an example of MORFH being employed to denote "the nature or character of something, with emphasis upon both the internal and external form" whereas it categorizes Mk. 16:12 as an instance of MORFH being utilized to mean "visual form, appearance."
Gerald F. Hawthorne (Word Biblical Commentary on Philippians) also points out that some scholars (such as P.M. Casey and Carolyn Osiek) have concluded MORFH can signify "status" or "condition." It would therefore be way off the mark to translate it as "nature" (if this claim is true) since the Greek term would then have reference to Christ's place/standing before God and before men. Hawthorne criticizes the last view because the extant literature does not appear to support it. However, Tobit 1:13 possibly uses MORPH to mean "status" or "condition":
"the Most High granted me favor and status with Shalmaneser, so that I became purchasing agent for all his needs."
Greek for Tobit 1:13: καὶ ἔδωκεν ὁ ὕψιστος χάριν καὶ μορφὴν ἐνώπιον ενεμεσσαρου καὶ ἤμην αὐτοῦ ἀγοραστής
hello Edgar a question on the subject, I also agree that morphe means external appearance but where I confuse it is the 7th verse where it says that "spoiled himself" the serious question of what Christ was dispossessed? and also where do I take that action in heaven or on earth?
ReplyDelete(Omar)
Hello Omar,
ReplyDeleteEnglish versions normally render that part, "he emptied himself." There are many suggestions for what Paul meant, and I have discussed that subject here and elsewhere. Some argue that he emptied himself of some divine properties (attributes) but others claim that Jesus emptied himself by pouring out his soul unto death. See Isa. 53. It is also an ongoing debate in scholarship about where he emptied himself, but I believe he took this action prior to becoming human.
I will post some links that might help.
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-response-to-philippians-26-7.html
ReplyDeletehttps://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/03/response-to-robert-m-bowman-on.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/06/hurtado-philo-and-morphe-qeou-form-of.html
thanks edgar for the information, look I was reading the work perspicasia and says the following under the theme jesucristo:
ReplyDelete...
The Son of God willingly accepted the assignment, as is clear from Philippians 2: 5-8, where it is recorded that he "emptied himself" of his heavenly glory and nature of spirit, and "took the form of a slave" to to be transferred to the terrestrial, material and human plane. "There is something that I can not harmonize on the one hand I know that the meaning of the word moprhe in all cases always speaks of a figure, EXTERNAL APPEARANCE however it seems that the work acumen says that Christ has divested himself of his "God-form" (heavenly glory and nature of spirit) osea rather it gives him the meaning also of divine nature what do you think about this point? it has created a little confusion to me this the best I'm not understanding well
Omar, the word MORFH has a semantic range like other words. So it could mean external appearance in one context, but mean status in another. But some translators and interpreters say the word can mean "nature." See how the NIV translates Philippians 2:6. However, the evidence does not favor understanding MORFH to mean nature in Philippians 2:6. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/12/hawthorne-and-philippians-26-7.html
ReplyDeleteHi Omar,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Edgar that "nature" isn't a very compelling option for MORFH. However, just for the sake of argument, let's say that we opt for that sense at Phil 2; what would that mean? I would suggest that the "nature" in question would be God's composition, which is "spirit" (John 4:24) or perhaps "glorious spirit". If we go that route, then the following paraphrase may capture the sense:
Although he exited as a glorious spirit being like God
He did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped
But he emptied himself and took the form of a slave
This would be theologically consistent with his status as one who is the "image" of God. It would also be consistent with his mission, as one who was to die as a man at the hands of Rome. You cannot kill a spirit being by nailing it to a stake, but you can kill a man that way.
~Kas
Good points, Kas.
ReplyDeleteOmar, see also Carl Conrad's observations on Phil 2:6ff:
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/04/carl-conrads-remarks-on-philippians-26.html
Philippians 2:6-7 presents a clear contrast between two forms: the "form of God" and the "form of a servant". If "morphe" refers merely to "status" or "condition," this would reduce Paul's profound theological point to a superficial change in rank, instead of a deeper transformation in the incarnation.
ReplyDelete"Morphe theou": The phrase indicates that Christ was in the very nature of God. This is more than a reference to His status or role; it points to His divine essence. Christ's humility lies in the fact that, though He possessed divine nature, He did not consider equality with God something to be "grasped" or exploited for selfish gain.
"Morphe doulou": Similarly, when Christ took on the "form of a servant," He didn’t just assume the external appearance of a servant but fully embraced the human condition, including submission and obedience to death. If "morphe" only referred to "status" or "condition," it would imply that Christ merely appeared as a servant, rather than truly becoming one in His incarnation—a view that aligns more with docetism than with orthodox Christian theology.
Paul's contrast between these two "morphe" forms shows a deeper theological point: Christ's divine essence and His willingness to take on true humanity.
While BDAG lists "form, outward appearance, shape" as definitions of "morphe," these meanings must be understood in light of the specific context. Importantly, BDAG also references Origen and Plato, whose use of "morphe" denotes more than mere outward appearance, especially when referring to divine or philosophical contexts.
In Philippians 2:6, "morphe theou" is not simply about external form or status. Plato and Aristotle used "morphe" to describe the essential characteristics or nature of a thing, not just its appearance. Given Paul’s theological message about the divine nature of Christ, the term "morphe" in this context must be understood as referring to Christ’s essential nature as God.
Louw-Nida also supports this interpretation, classifying Philippians 2:6-7 as an example where "morphe" refers to "the nature or character of something, with emphasis upon both the internal and external form." This aligns with the theological depth of Paul's message: Christ possessed the divine nature but chose to humble Himself by assuming the human condition.
You cite Tobit 1:13, where "morphe" is used in the phrase "granted me favor and status." While this example shows that "morphe" can indeed refer to status in certain contexts, it’s a mistake to apply this understanding universally to every instance of "morphe" in the New Testament, especially in Philippians 2:6.
The context of Tobit 1:13 is different from Philippians 2:6-7. Tobit speaks of receiving favor and status from Shalmaneser in a socio-political sense, but Philippians 2:6 addresses a theological reality about Christ’s pre-incarnate existence and His act of self-emptying.
The use of "morphe" in Philippians 2:6 is not about Christ gaining or losing status, but about His essence as God and His voluntary assumption of human nature. The Tobit example, therefore, doesn’t invalidate the interpretation of "morphe" in Philippians as referring to essence.
By reducing "morphe theou" to "status," the interpretation weakens Paul’s theological point about the Incarnation and Christ's divinity. Paul’s aim is to highlight Christ’s profound humility: despite His divine nature, He emptied Himself and took on true humanity for the sake of salvation. The notion of kenosis (self-emptying) is central to Philippians 2:6-7, and it involves a profound act of humility in which the Son of God does not exploit His divine status but fully embraces human limitations.
If "morphe" is understood as mere outward form or status, the depth of Christ’s humility is diminished. Paul is not merely saying that Christ had a high position and then took on a lower one. Rather, He is saying that Christ, who was fully God, became fully human. This is the mystery of the Incarnation—God becoming man—which is far more than a shift in status or role.
You mention that morphē typically refers to external appearance, and you’re trying to reconcile this with the idea of Christ "divesting" Himself of His divine nature or "God-form." While it is true that morphē can sometimes refer to external form or appearance (like in Mark 16:12), the context of Philippians 2:6-7 suggests something much deeper than mere outward appearance.
ReplyDeleteIn Philippians 2:6-7, Paul is contrasting two states: Christ in the "form of God" (morphē theou) and Christ in the "form of a servant" (morphē doulou). To limit morphē to just "external appearance" in this context would imply that Christ only appeared divine or only appeared human, but was not actually either in essence. This view would align more closely with docetism, a heretical belief that Christ's humanity was only an illusion. However, Christian theology firmly rejects this idea, affirming that Christ was fully divine and fully human.
If you insist that morphē only means external appearance, then you'd have to argue that Christ merely appeared to be a servant, which contradicts the very essence of Paul's message about Christ's humility. Rather, morphē in this context refers to the essential nature or characteristics of something, which means that Christ was truly divine in His pre-incarnate state and truly took on human nature in His incarnation. The NIV, which translates it as "nature," captures this deeper meaning well.
You’re asking a key theological question: What did Christ empty Himself of? And did He do this in heaven or on earth?
Philippians 2:7 says that Christ "emptied himself" (ekenōsen), and the verb here does not mean that He literally ceased to be divine. Rather, it indicates that He voluntarily set aside the privileges and glory of His divine status. Christ did not cease to be God, but He chose not to cling to the rights and privileges of being equal with God, instead humbling Himself by becoming fully human.
Think of it this way: Jesus, in His divine nature, voluntarily refrained from using His divine attributes for His own benefit. He didn’t stop being divine, but He lived and functioned as a human, experiencing hunger, pain, and even death. This "emptying" was about humility and self-limitation, not a loss of divine essence. Isaiah 53, which you referenced, speaks of Christ pouring out His soul to death, and this ties into the idea that He gave up His rights and privileges for the sake of humanity.
Regarding when this occurred, the "emptying" began with the Incarnation—when Christ took on human flesh. It didn’t happen after He became human; rather, it was in becoming human that He "emptied" Himself, stepping down from His divine glory to take on the frailty of human nature.
Some interpreters suggest that morphē in Philippians 2:6 refers to "status" or "condition" rather than "nature." While this is a possible interpretation, it weakens the theological point that Paul is making about Christ's humility. Christ’s humility is not just about changing His position or rank—it’s about the profound act of God becoming human. The contrast between the "form of God" and the "form of a servant" emphasizes that Christ didn't cling to His divine privileges but took on real human nature. This goes beyond status; it speaks to His essential self-emptying for the sake of salvation.
ReplyDeleteIf morphē in Philippians 2:6 only refers to status, then the text would be reduced to describing a change in rank rather than the Incarnation—the mystery of God becoming man. Paul’s emphasis is not just on a change in position but on the radical humility involved in Christ taking on human nature while remaining fully divine.
You mention that if morphē means "nature," then the nature in question would be God’s composition as spirit, referencing John 4:24 ("God is spirit"). This is true—God is spirit—but Christ’s taking on human nature involves more than just appearing as a spirit being or changing His form. The Incarnation means that Christ, who was fully divine, took on human flesh. He didn’t just become a lesser version of God or take on an appearance of being human—He fully entered into the human condition while retaining His divine nature.
This is why the Incarnation is such a profound mystery. As Philippians 2:6-8 explains, Christ, while being fully God, chose not to exploit His equality with God but humbled Himself to the point of death, even death on a cross. This goes far beyond a change in status or outward form—it speaks to the depth of His divine love and humility.