"who, although He existed in the form and unchanging essence of God [as One with Him, possessing the fullness of all the divine attributes—the entire nature of deity], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped or asserted [as if He did not already possess it, or was afraid of losing it];" (Philippians 2:6, Amplified Bible)
Sorry, but there is great overreach in this verse by the Amplified Bible. While this passage is a highly contentious verse in NT scholarship, rendering morphe as "unchanging essence" does not seem warranted here at all and the bracketed "amplification" isn't any better.
P. M. Casey writes:
"On a strict definition of 'incarnation,' Philippians 2:6-11 does not qualify because Jesus was not fully divine, in the view of the original author" (From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God [Cambridge, UK and Louisville, KY: James Clarke and Westminster/John Knox, 1991], 112-114).
While the NIV translates Phil. 2:6, "Who being in very nature God," Carolyn Osiek believes that this translation is not wholly faithful to the Greek text. Contra the NIV, she does not think 2:6 teaches the absolute Deity of Christ (See Osiek 2000:60ff).
C.A. Wannamaker's article on Phil. 2:6ff contains the following observation:
"In this passage Paul maintains that Christ's universal sovereignty derives from the Father and that ultimately the Son shall be subject to the Father when he returns his present sovereignty to God. The subordinationist character of 1 Cor. 15:24-28 demonstrates quite clearly that Paul did not believe in Christ's absolute equality with God" (Wannamaker 187-188).
Observations from Wannamaker's article are found in my Christology and Trinity book, which can be purchased on amazon.com.
See C.A. Wannamaker (NT Studies, Vol. 33, 1987, pp. 179-193).
The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible treats the Greek this way: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped."
The Catholic NABRE reads similarly and contains this footnote on Phil. 2:6:
"[2:6] Either a reference to Christ’s preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though…in the form of God (Gn 1:26–27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Gn 3:5–6."
In any event, the Catholic Bibles I've consulted don't translate the Greek phrase, morphe theou as "in very nature God"
couldn't you also render the verse "the form of a god"? to contrast with "the form of a slave"
ReplyDeleteI realise I have said before its likely definite, but I also see a good argument for it maybe being indefinite.
due to the fact angels are called "gods" (granted not in the NT, but that's besides the whole point)
Christ is called "a god" "another God" etc
The ones in John 10 individually would be called "a god" ("gods" because they are all lumped into a group)
Moses is called "a god" (rendering by the Church fathers)
Paul is called "a god"
(note: the sense doesn't matter)
Scholar & Professor Paula Fredriksen on Philippians 2:
Delete“The Greek, however, does not quite correspond to the RSV’s English. In Philippians 2.6, Jesus is not ‘in the form of the [high] God,’ but in the form of ‘[a] god.’ Jesus does not demur from equality with God the Father, but from ‘god-status’ or, close to Paul’s word choice, equality with ‘[a] god.’ The god who exalts Jesus in verse 9, by contrast, is the high god (ho theos, the god), referred to as ‘God the Father’ in verse 11. The conventions of English capitalization–‘God’ with the upper-case G in all clauses–obscure Paul’s Greek. Paul distinguishes between degrees of divinity here. Jesus is not ‘God.'” (Paul: The Pagan’s Apostle), Kindle location 2654
---
Scholar David Bentley Hart made a big update to the philippians hymn in Philippians of his Bible translation:
"On the glorification of Jesus. Hart mentions that he is working on a second edition of his New Testament translation, where he plans to render the line in Philippians 2:6 about the preexistent Christ Jesus being ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ as “in the form of a god” rather than “in the form of God.”
The 2nd edition of the DBH (David Bentley Hart) NT👇🏿:
Philippians 2:6 is “who, subsisting in a god’s form, did not deem existing in the manner of a god a thing to be grasped,”
@Anonymous
DeleteThe suggestion to translate "morphe theou" as "in the form of a god" implies that Paul was presenting Christ as possessing a lesser or different kind of divinity, akin to that of angels or other beings occasionally referred to as "gods." Throughout Pauline writings, Christ is consistently portrayed as fully divine, sharing in the unique nature and essence of God the Father. For instance, in Colossians 2:9, Paul explicitly states that "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." The context of Philippians 2:6-11, which culminates in the universal acknowledgment of Jesus as Lord (a title reserved for Yahweh in the Old Testament), suggests that Paul is affirming Christ’s equality with God, not presenting Him as a lesser deity. The translation "in the form of God" aligns with this broader theological context and with Paul’s intent to emphasize the humility of Christ, who, despite being fully divine, chose to take on human form and suffer death.
In Greek, the use or omission of the definite article does not always correspond directly to the use of "the" in English. The context, rather than the presence of the article, determines whether "theos" (God) should be understood as referring to the one true God or a lesser divine being. In the context of Philippians 2, where Paul is discussing Christ’s pre-existent state and His incarnation, the most natural reading is that "theou" refers to the one true God. Translating it as "a god" introduces ambiguity and diminishes the passage's affirmation of Christ’s divinity.
Rendering the phrase as "in the form of a god" would significantly alter the theological meaning of the passage. The use of "morphe theou" is meant to emphasize that Jesus shared in the very nature and essence of God, not just an external or lesser divine form. The concept of Christ existing "in the form of God" underpins the entire argument of His humility: despite His divine status, He chose to humble Himself. Translating this as "in the form of a god" undermines the contrast between Christ's divine nature and His self-emptying, which is central to Paul’s message.
While it is true that some scholars explore alternative translations, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars and theologians support the traditional rendering of "in the form of God." This consensus is based on a holistic interpretation of the text within the broader context of New Testament Christology and the early Christian understanding of Jesus as fully divine. The traditional translation is also supported by the early Church Fathers, who understood the passage to affirm the divinity of Christ, rather than presenting Him as a lesser deity.
Yes, it's grammatically possible to render the construction, "form of a god." It could be treated that way.
ReplyDeletehttps://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/66/1/90/2386177?redirectedFrom=fulltext
ReplyDeleteI think I have posted before but I just noticed the mention of robbery. https://brill.com/view/journals/bi/25/3/article-p342_4.xml
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-philippians2-6.htm
ReplyDelete"In the form of God": Gr. morphē = form, shape: the essential characteristics and nature of deity were revealed to us in this form. This is a clear and unequivocal declaration of Jesus' deity. A related word, metamorphoó = to transform, to transfigure, expresses Jesus' transfiguration (Mt 17:2; Mk 9:2; cf. Rom 12:2; 1Cor 15:44 and following; 2Cor 3:18), although its primary meaning refers to Jesus' human form. Morphē is used in a similar sense: Mk 16:12 (cf. Lk 24:16).
"Equality with God": Gr. isos = equal, identical: This word appears in Jn 5:18, where Jesus "called God his Father, thereby making himself equal with God" (cf. Jn 10:30-33). The New Testament often asserts that Jesus is God, for example, Mk 9:37; Jn 1:1-4.14.18; 8:58; 13:19; 14:9; 17:11; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Col 1:15-19; 2:9-10; 1Tim 3:16; Tit 2:13; 2Pet 1:1; Heb 1:3,8.
"Emptied Himself": kenoó = to empty, to make void. In becoming human, it was necessary for the Son to empty Himself of certain states or privileges of deity and Godhood. However, He remained fully God and fully Man (the doctrine of hypostatic union was definitively articulated at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451). Theologians influenced by Arianism erroneously interpret this doctrine by associating Jesus' divinity with Jn 14:28 ("...the Father is greater than I"), as if Jesus was essentially lesser than the Father; of lower rank; or even a created being. However, Scripture also teaches that in a sense the Father also "receives" from the Son (e.g., Jn 16:15.23). Jesus submitted Himself (hypotassó) to the Father (1Cor 15:28), "that God may be all in all," but this in no way implies (ontological) inferiority, since He also submitted Himself (hypotassó) to Mary and Joseph (Lk 2:51), and Col 3:11 states that "Christ is all, and in all."
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteWe also need to take into account not only that there is a difference in theological background between the OT and the NT, it was written in a different language, so here it is not necessary to look at the general sense in which "elohim" is used in the OT, but to whom and in what sense "theos" was used in the NT originally written in Greek. And it is decisive: no inspired biblical text originally written in Greek calls anyone other than the true God "theos" in a positive sense. There is no biblical precedent for calling a person ontologically inferior to the Almighty God as "theeos" in a positive sense.
The NT manuscripts did not differentiate between "THEOS" with a lowercase, and "THEOS" with upper case, they distinguished whether Nomina Sacra were used or not. For example P46 gives a very interesting example in the text of 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, in which references to “God” and “Lord” (in reference to Jesus) are written as Nomina Sacra, but the "so-called" (thus false) “gods” and “lords” are written out in their entirety:
“With regard then to eating food sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol in this world is nothing, and that there is no God [ΘΣ] but one. If after all there are so-called gods [ΘΕOI], whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods [ΘΕOI] and many lords [KYPIOI], yet for us there is one God [ΘΣ], the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ [KΣ, IHΣ XPΣ], through whom are all things and through whom we live."
"THEOS" when applied to Jesus is always 'nomen sacrum' in the ancient MSS, so it should be translated with a capital letter.
Fun fact: The Arians of the 4th century interpreted John 1:1c by putting a full stop after «God was», and "the Word" was placed as the beginning of sence in the next verse. The ancient manuscripts did not use full stops, commas, etc., and I did not claim that such an NT manuscript exists, but that this is how the Arians interpreted away John 1:1c.
Ninc - I will say this once again, quoting Bowman "some good information,... but not entirely accurate"
ReplyDeleteAnd I will also note: your claims on the theological environment are very much unfounded, even the Church fathers disagree. If the theological environment was so different why refer so much to the OT and quote it, why translate it into Greek? if the environment was so different, according to many encyclopaedias the second temple period ended after Jesus' death (if my understanding is correct)
ReplyDeleteA problem with your nomina sacra claim is the forms not in nomina sacra are plural not singular - plurals are not in any list for forms of nomina sacra ALL nomina sacra are singular (source Wikipedia/ David trobish)
are you going to make the claim that everything written in nomina sacra is God?
" no inspired biblical text originally written in Greek calls anyone other than the true God "theos" in a positive sense." - but "gods" don't have to be in a positive sense (worshippable) or false/negative (if worshipped = idolotry) the word simply means "mighty" or "ruler" its a neutral term - your claim has no founding among any critics I can find. I would need to see significant evidence of this (Which you dont provide), which I can not find anywhere - evidence suggests they were similar and used the words in a similar way.. They were also under the same law - The mosaic law, I highly doubt any significant change occurred - its more likely once again you are omitting information.
elohim is translated theos rather than theoi for linguistical reasons not theological.
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the OT belongs to inspired writings does not mean that there are no substantial theological-linguistic-cultural differences between the NT. This distinction was made by the Church Fathers, who opposed both Marcionism, which rejected the OT as a whole, and the Ebionites, who professed the supremacy of the OT. The Church Fathers established a consensus on the relevance of the OT within the context of Christianity.
For Christians, only the moral commandments of the Old Testament are obligatory (since they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws are no longer binding on them. Thus, dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork, are also not obligatory. The Law refers to that part of the Old Testament revelation that is written in the five books of Moses; the prophets, on the other hand, represent the later revelation of the OT, which is recorded in the books of the prophets in both the narrower and broader sense. The expression 'the law and the prophets' together briefly signifies the entire OT revelation. However, the fulfillment of the law and the prophets occurred in different ways, depending on whether we consider the OT scriptures and the Mosaic religion in terms of theoretical (doctrines, promises, and prophecies) or practical (moral, ceremonial, and civil laws) aspects.
In its theoretical content, namely 1. the doctrines (dogmatics), Jesus completely retained, better illuminated, defined, and expounded them, and even expanded them with new doctrines; 2. the Old Testament promises and messianic prophecies were fulfilled by His life and institutions.
In its practical content, that is, the law, which includes 1. moral (lex moralis), 2. ceremonial (lex caeremonialis), and 3. civil (lex judicalis) laws, Jesus fulfilled.
Regarding the concept of God, there is a continuous development even within the OT, the earliest OT books do not assert pure monotheism, but rather monolatric henotheism, it seems that the existence of the gods of the pagans was not denied on a principle-categorical level, rather their worship was comdemned as being "idolatry" (the corresponding Hebrew term means adultery, referring to the marriage-like relationship between God and his people) and forbidden. Pure monotheism can be demonstrated for the first time in the book of Isaiah, according to which Yahweh is the only existing God, the other gods are not only "false", but also non-existent.
ReplyDeleteThat is why the Old Testament concept of "elohim" cannot correspond to the pure concept of God. This morphologically plural noun with a singular verb, then it refers to Yahweh, but when it is a plural verb, it is not really a concept of God, it does not establish a kind of demiurge-demigod category. Jesus is not simply an "el" or "eloah" but Elohim.
The fact that the evangelists translated a Hebrew text, or an Aramaic into Greek does not mean that they considered the Hebrew concept el/eloah/elohim equivalent to the meaning of theos/theoi. Of course, the pun came out just like that, but this is not unprecedented. For example, in Matthew 16:18 Jesus called Shimon Bar-Yonah not "Petros" but "Kepha" and then said "...and on this 'kepha' I build my my 'qahal'", etc. Then Matthew was forced to use a morphological distinction, since he could not call the grammatically feminine 'ekklesia' as 'petros', and he could not call the male Shimon as 'petra'.
But the bottom line is that no inspired, Greek-language text establishes this god-like, (partly) divine-demiurge-type, demigod concept for "theos", there is simply no biblical precedent for this. The Greek language used various terms to describe godlike, mythical beings, with the term "theos" corresponding to their "proper gods".
Why didn't the apostles call the Son for example "theios", "theïkós" (godlike) or "hemitheos" (demigod) instead of simply "theos" (in Nomen Sacrum, just like in the case of the Father) if Arian Christology is correct? How does it become clear to the contemporary readers of the apostolic writings that in the case of the Son, being ΘΣ denotes a different, ontologically inferior category of divinity/deity from that of the Father?
Ninc, you have gone way off topic of the original post, my prev comments still stand
ReplyDeleteunless of course Edgar doesn't mind me poking holes - But tbh I'm getting rather sick of the blatent theologically motivated rubbish, rather than just giving all important information
ReplyDeleteI don't mind you poking holes, Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to go full force here, as I have not researched what Ninc mentions specifically, but considering the track record I would not be surprised if information is omitted to make it look more one sided than it actually is.
ReplyDelete"since he could not call the grammatically feminine 'ekklesia' as 'petros', and he could not call the male Shimon as 'petra'." - this is not only misleading but also incorrect, if I understand this argument correctly that is. A feminine noun can modify a masculine noun, this is done numerous times throughout
"Why didn't the apostles call the Son for example "theios", "theïkós" (godlike) or "hemitheos" (demigod)" - because none of these words express what the apostle wants to say, a first year Greek student could tell you this.
You go by the adopted meaning or philosophical meanings which has been proven to not be what was intended by the apostles, as they were not philosophers.
Justin calls the Word "Another God" subject to the Maker of all things and refers to John 10 as proof for Jesus' deity - What you are trying to do is simply restrict others into 1 view (your own) with arguments that seem plausible such as limiting to the NT (and inspired), However almost no person worth their weight in Gold would agree with you, because this is not the right method to use. see Strongs
The word "god" implies ANYTHING you are wholly devoted too False or True.
"How does it become clear to the contemporary readers of the apostolic writings that in the case of the Son, being ΘΣ denotes a different, ontologically inferior category of divinity/deity from that of the Father?" - it is debated whether Theos is applied to the son at all in the NT (as what you are trying to make out)
You can take my next words out of context and twist them all you like, however honest hearted ones will know what I mean.
Theos is NEVER applied directly the son (with the article, Origen makes this distinction)
again you omit to mention what else is written in nomina sacra.
If Edgar can add more, I would appreciate as I have work to do (for work)
"it is debated whether Theos is applied to the son at all in the NT"
ReplyDeleteNo, even the JWs do not dispute this either, that "theos" is freely applied in the NT to the Son as well, only in his case they claim that "theos" here means something different than in the case of the Father, some lesser degree, second-class divinity. In fact, without biblical precedent, it is axiomatically presupposed that the worldview of the NT recognizes the diversity of the concept of "theos" similar to the Canaanite pantheon, where there is one chief god (Yahweh), and in comparison there are also "gods" who share in the divinity to different (lesser) degrees, and in this sense the Son is "a god." For this, they use the dilettantish argument that "god" (theos) without the definite article (ho) indicates that he is just a minor god, and that only the definite article establishes the real (almighty) deity.
All of this also ignores the fact that this monolatric henotheism existed latently in early, First Temple Israel, but already in the more mature phase of the Old Testament, the view that lesser gods also exist besides Yahweh was rejected on a principled level.
Thus this "theos" - "ho theos" distinction has no linguistic, logical, or theological basis, and the NT also calls the Father "theos" without the article (ho), and sometimes also uses "ho theos" in relation to the Son. This is just the usual terminology of the NT, the Father is usually "ho theos", the Son is "ho kyrios", while the Holy Spirit is "to pnenuma", not because these attributes are not true of the other two persons.
Some JWs I have debated with in the past have argued that Trinitarianism is a scandal to Muslims, for whom their (practically Arian) Christology is much easier for a Muslim to accept. Well, that's not true. This is how the Muslim confession of faith (Shahada) begins
ReplyDelete"I bear witness that there is no deity but God", "there is no god (ʾilāh) except the God (Allāh)", or "There is no god but God". Or even more: "there are no ilahs" (Arabic cognate of the Hebrew "eloah"), but only "the God."
So for a Muslim, the existence of lesser gods, eloahs, apart from the one God, is a greater scandal than Trinitarianism, which strictly, sharply distinguishes God from non-god, the uncreated Creator from the created. There is no place in this system for a demiurge-like, part-divine entity existing somewhere halfway between the One God and the created world.
"There is no place in this system for a demiurge-like, part-divine entity existing somewhere halfway between the One God and the created world." - this is your opinion, It is NOT Origen's or some of the other Church fathers. Origen makes a clear distinction between hupo and dia
ReplyDeleteinferior or not, agency is expressed by the use of the passive verb + dia - Who said Christs work is inferior anyway? an agent under the laws of those days was just as important as the "sender" or in this case "creator" though they have someone "behind it" as the "source"
and again even hardcore trinitarians (including catholics) acknowledge this si the most likely meaning to the text, even back to the church fathers.
You would have to prove the greatest scholars of all time wrong - something I don't think you can do.
"Thus this "theos" - "ho theos" distinction has no linguistic, logical, or theological basis" - not according to Origen and numerous others - it is more likely you are simply not providing a piece of the story. (or ignoring it)
" and the NT also calls the Father "theos" without the article " - what you fail to note, is when the article is omitted with the Father, is it the same grammatical construction as it is with the son? or is their a grammatical reason for it to be definite?
a nominative on its own without any other conditions will be taken as indefinite, but its works differently with the other forms. Datives and genitives don't need the article to be definite. demonstratives, prepositions are the same. Other contextual factors also, such as what is a genitive connected too.
""I bear witness that there is no deity but God", "there is no god (ʾilāh) except the God (Allāh)", or "There is no god but God". Or even more: "there are no ilahs" (Arabic cognate of the Hebrew "eloah"), but only "the God."" - but again its how you take this statement, this could mean 3 different things (2 of which are lies)
1) There is no God (taken in the context of the statement) but YHWH, that we should worship
2) There is no God, but YHWH - basically denying the existence of false Gods (Which Bible writers knew existed)
3) There is no God but YHWH - as in there is no "creator" but YHWH (compare: psalms 86:8,9 ) - this being a possible interpretation to this text.
The word differences are "easy" to explain away - you haven't exactly provided all the details.
"the view that lesser gods also exist besides Yahweh was rejected on a principled level." - this isn't entirely accurate or true. (see Justin Martyr for just one example of many)
and again Justin views Logos/ Wisdom as "another God" subject to the Maker of all things. He believes Logos was "made himself a beginning" (whatever that means to him) "before all creatures" - so at least on a basic level, Justin believes God "made" somethings before "the beginning"
None of this is as straight foreword as what you are trying to make out... also providing all information wouldn't go a miss either..
"couldn't you also render the verse 'the form of a god'?"
ReplyDeleteI prefer that rendering. Interestingly, if one sets aside the presupposition of trinitarianism then that rendering suddenly seems quite natural.
It may help to keep in mind that the two-powers theology probably emerged from within Judaism. Some scholars take the Son of Man in Daniel as the starting point for the two-powers contemplations, and, of course, the early Christians identified Jesus as the Son of Man. I think Phil. 2 is consistent with this branch of theology.
Sean - I could see it going both ways, they are both valid translations imo - unless you try to separate OT / NT theology (compare phil 3:19)
ReplyDeleteidk your opinion, I take son of man to be synonymous with "Christ" (or messiah)
While "morphe" literally can be translated as "form," it is important to understand that in the context of Philippians 2:6, this term goes beyond mere outward appearance. It conveys the idea of the essential attributes or the very nature of something. Scholars like Gifford and others have argued that "morphe" in this context implies the inherent qualities that constitute divinity, not just external form. The Amplified Bible's expansion, though interpretive, reflects this understanding by emphasizing Christ’s divine nature.
ReplyDeleteCasey’s interpretation is a minority position within New Testament scholarship. The majority of scholars and early church fathers have historically understood Philippians 2:6-11 as affirming Christ’s pre-existence in divine form and His voluntary act of humility in becoming human. The passage explicitly states that Christ "existed in the form of God" (morphe theou), which implies full participation in the divine essence before His incarnation. The traditional understanding is that this passage highlights both Christ’s divinity and His humility in not clinging to His divine status but instead taking on human form.
Osiek contends that translating "morphe" as “very nature” in the NIV goes beyond what the Greek text warrants and does not necessarily teach the absolute deity of Christ. The translation "very nature" by the NIV aims to capture the depth of what "morphe" signifies in this context. It is not just about external appearance but about the intrinsic qualities of Christ that make Him God. While some scholars might argue for a less robust translation, the majority consensus supports the idea that Paul is indeed affirming Christ’s full divinity. The phrase “very nature God” aligns with this understanding, as it emphasizes that Christ shares the same divine essence as God the Father.
Wannamaker suggests that Philippians 2:6 implies a subordinationist view, where Christ’s sovereignty is derived from the Father, and therefore, Christ does not have absolute equality with God. Philippians 2:6 does not necessarily promote subordinationism. Instead, it highlights Christ’s voluntary submission and humility. The passage emphasizes that although Christ existed in the form of God, He did not cling to His equality with God but chose to empty Himself and take on human nature. This act of humility does not negate Christ’s divinity but rather underscores the extent of His self-sacrifice. Furthermore, the broader context of Pauline theology does not support subordinationism; instead, it upholds the co-equality of the Father and the Son within the Trinity (e.g., Colossians 2:9).
While the Catholic translations cited may render the phrase differently, they do not fundamentally alter the meaning. The interpretation that Christ did not cling to equality with God but rather emptied Himself still points to His divine status. The difference in wording does not imply a denial of Christ’s divinity but rather reflects a different approach to translation. Catholic theologians and scholars, such as those referenced in the NABRE, still recognize Philippians 2:6-11 as a significant passage affirming the pre-existence and divinity of Christ.
See BDAG for information about morphe.
ReplyDeleteAlso, from http://www.thegoodbookblog.com/2012/sep/11/in-the-form-of-god-phil-26/
The phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ presents the first crux in our passage. Μορφή (here dat. sg. fem.) is best trs. “form” (most EVV; BDAG 659c). The NIV’s “in very nature God” (“truly God” [CEV]; “God” [NLT]; “possessed of the very nature of God” [H-M 114]) constitutes an interpretation that is neither well supported by the usage of the term in HGk. nor particularly suitable to the surrounding context. Although the term can be used substantially (Plato Phaed. 103e; Resp. 381c; Aristotle Met. 11.1060b; Phys. 2.1.193b; Plut. Quaest. plat. 1003b; Def. orac. 429a; Philo Spec. 1.327–28), there is no semantic component in μορφή that necessarily involves a corresponding “nature” (NIV) or ontology (pace Fee 204; H-M 114). The great majority of instances where μορφή and its cognates occur in HGk. mean simply “outward appearance” (Dan Fabricatore, Form of God, Form of a Servant: An Examination of the Greek Noun μορφή in Philippians 2:6-7 [University Press of America, 2009]; “form, outward appearance, shape” [BDAG 659c]; that “which may be perceived by the senses” [J. Behm, TDNT 4:745-46]).
The comments from the linked blog have been written by scholar J. Hellerman.
@Edgar Foster
DeleteThe response refers to BDAG’s definition of "morphe" as primarily referring to "form, outward appearance, shape." While this is one possible meaning of "morphe," it does not mean that this is the only or the most relevant meaning in the context of Philippians 2:6. The meaning of any word in Greek, just like in any language, is highly context-dependent. In philosophical Greek, as well as in the context of early Christian writing, "morphe" can indeed refer to something more substantial than outward form.
For instance, in classical Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle used "morphe" not just to signify outward appearance but to indicate the essential form or nature of a thing. In Philippians 2:6, the context strongly suggests that "morphe theou" refers to the divine nature of Christ, especially because Paul contrasts this "morphe" with the "morphe doulou" (form of a servant) that Christ took on in His incarnation. These contrasting uses indicate a shift not just in appearance but in status and essence—from divinity to servanthood.
You cited scholars like Gifford who argue that "morphe" in Philippians 2:6 implies the essential qualities of divinity. Philosophical works, particularly from Plato and Aristotle, give weight to this interpretation. The term "morphe" in their works was used to denote not merely an external appearance but the essential form or nature of a being. Aristotle used "morphe" to indicate the defining characteristics of a substance, and Plato in his Phaedo (103e) and Republic (381c) uses "morphe" to describe the essential nature of things.
Therefore, understanding "morphe theou" as referring to Christ’s divinity is not an overreach but a valid and historically grounded interpretation. It aligns with the traditional view that Jesus, prior to His incarnation, existed in the full essence and nature of God.
Philippians 2:6-7 presents a striking contrast between Christ’s pre-existent divine state and His voluntary act of humility in taking on human form. The phrase "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" underscores that Jesus, who had every right to cling to His divine status, chose to relinquish it in an act of humility. This further supports the idea that "morphe" here refers to His divine essence, not just outward appearance.
If "morphe" only meant outward appearance, it would make little sense to emphasize Christ’s humility in choosing to "empty Himself" and take the "form of a servant" (Philippians 2:7). The gravity of this act lies in the fact that Christ, being in the essential form of God, chose to humble Himself to become human, a theme echoed throughout the New Testament.
@Edgar Foster
DeleteThe New World Translation’s rendering, "did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God," is an interpretative departure from both the Greek text and mainstream scholarship. The Greek phrase ἁρπαγμόν (harpagmon) is better understood as "something to be grasped" or "exploited." The NWT translation introduces the idea that Christ did not "try" to become equal with God, which undermines the text's clear statement that Christ already existed in God’s form.
The traditional Christian understanding is that Christ, being in the form of God, already had equality with God but did not cling to it. This reflects His humility, not an inherent inequality with God. The res rapta et retinenda interpretation—that Christ did not cling to His divine privileges—is more contextually and theologically sound. This interpretation preserves Christ's full divinity while emphasizing His self-sacrificial nature. The NWT’s rendering distorts the text by implying that Christ never possessed divine equality, which contradicts the plain meaning of the Greek.
While Hellerman and others may emphasize "outward appearance" as the primary meaning of "morphe" in Greek, this interpretation does not adequately account for the theological context of Philippians 2. Paul is not concerned with Christ’s physical appearance but with His status and essence. The contrast between "morphe theou" (form of God) and "morphe doulou" (form of a servant) in the subsequent verse points to a shift in Christ's role and nature. Jesus moved from the divine state to human servanthood, which indicates much more than a mere change in outward appearance. It involves a profound transformation in status and function, rooted in His pre-existent divinity.
https://archive.org/details/TheBodiesOfGodAndTheWorldOfAncientIsrael/page/n38/mode/1up
ReplyDeleteNincsnevem, please examine all occurrences of morphe in the LXX. These examples indicate that morphe either means "outward appearance" in the GNT or "position." Compare Mark 16:12 as well and how the word is used there.
ReplyDelete@Edgar Foster
DeleteWhile it is true that "morphē" can denote outward appearance in certain contexts, such as Mark 16:12 where Jesus appeared in a "different form" (morphē hetera), it is a misstep to apply this meaning uniformly across all uses of "morphē" in the New Testament. The meaning of "morphē" is highly context-dependent, as is the case with most Greek words. The term does not have one rigid meaning but is shaped by its surrounding narrative.
In Philippians 2:6, the term "morphē" is paired with "theou" ("of God"), creating the phrase "morphē theou". The context is crucial here. Paul is making a profound theological statement about Christ’s pre-incarnate state. The contrast between the "form of God" and the "form of a servant" in Philippians 2:6-7 shows that Paul is discussing something much deeper than mere appearance or position. It is about the nature and essence of Christ in both His divinity and His humility.
If we interpret the word "morphē" in Philippians 2:6 as merely meaning "form, outward appearance, or shape," it leads to a problematic conclusion when applied to Philippians 2:7, where it says that Christ took the "morphē" of a servant. If "morphē" is understood solely as outward appearance in verse 6, then we would be forced to conclude that Christ only appeared to be human, but was not truly human, which aligns with the gnostic docetism view—a heretical belief that denies Christ's true humanity and teaches that His body was only an illusion.
Docetism, one of the earliest heresies, claimed that Jesus’ physical body and His suffering on the cross were not real, but only seemed to be human. This interpretation, however, is strongly rejected by orthodox Christian theology, which affirms that Jesus was both truly God and truly man. According to orthodox belief, Jesus took on real human flesh and experienced real suffering and death, not merely in appearance.
If "morphē" in Philippians 2:6 meant that Jesus was only outwardly like God and not truly divine, then the parallel use of "morphē" in Philippians 2:7 would suggest that Jesus was only outwardly human, not truly human. This would lead directly to a docetic interpretation, which contradicts the core Christian belief that Jesus became fully human while remaining fully divine.
However, "morphē" in this context carries a deeper meaning than mere outward appearance. It refers to the essential nature or attributes of something. In Philippians 2:6, it indicates that Jesus, in His pre-incarnate state, shared the very nature of God. Similarly, in Philippians 2:7, when Jesus "took the form of a servant," it means He truly and fully became human, not just in appearance but in essence, taking on the full nature and experience of humanity.
Therefore, interpreting "morphē" as merely referring to outward appearance is not only theologically misleading but also contextually flawed. The passage emphasizes Christ’s true divinity and true humanity. In verse 6, it speaks of His divine nature, and in verse 7, His true and full assumption of human nature. This understanding is consistent with the broader Christian teaching on the Incarnation, where Jesus, without ceasing to be divine, became fully human for the sake of humanity's salvation.
We also need to consider the broader philosophical and theological use of "morphē", especially in the context of early Christian thought and Greek philosophy. Plato and Aristotle used "morphē" to describe the essential characteristics or nature of a being, not merely its outward appearance. Paul’s use of "morphē" in Philippians 2 aligns more with this philosophical tradition than with a simplistic understanding of "morphē" as mere "outward appearance."
DeleteFurthermore, this is not a mere philosophical imposition onto the text. Early Christian writers, such as the church fathers, interpreted "morphē" in this passage as referring to the divine nature of Christ. The contrast in Philippians between "morphē theou" (form of God) and "morphē doulou" (form of a servant) shows that Paul is speaking of something much deeper than appearance—he is discussing Christ’s very nature and the profound act of humility involved in the Incarnation.
Philippians 2:6 explicitly states that Christ was in the "morphē theou" ("form of God"). To argue that this only refers to outward appearance or position weakens the theological depth of Paul’s message. Paul is emphasizing the radical humility of Christ, who, although existing in the divine nature, chose to empty Himself and take on the nature of a servant.
If "morphē" in Philippians 2:6 merely meant "outward appearance," the contrast between the "form of God" and the "form of a servant" would lose its force. The power of Paul’s statement is that Christ, who possessed the full essence and nature of God, willingly took on human nature to save humanity. This is far more than a change in position or appearance—it is a profound transformation rooted in Christ's divine essence.
In Mark 16:12, Jesus appeared to the disciples "in another form" ("morphē hetera). You suggest that this indicates that "morphē" *always* refers to outward appearance. However, the context of Mark 16:12 is radically different from Philippians 2. The post-resurrection appearances of Jesus involve Him appearing in various forms, and the word "morphē" here is indeed focused on appearance. But this usage does not nullify the deeper meaning of "morphē" in Philippians 2:6, where Paul is emphasizing Christ’s divine nature and His act of humility.
It is erroneous to take one specific instance of "morphē" from a different context and apply it universally to all instances, especially in a theologically rich passage like Philippians 2. The context of each passage must guide the interpretation.
Paul’s point in Philippians 2 is to highlight Christ’s humility and self-emptying (kenosis). The fact that Christ "did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited" (Philippians 2:6) shows that He already possessed divine status but chose not to cling to it for selfish purposes. If "morphē" only referred to outward appearance, the entire passage would lose its theological depth, as it would reduce Christ’s act of humility to a superficial change rather than the profound incarnation of the Son of God.
For the record, all I will say for now is that I didn't really apply the meaning for morphe across the board to all verses in the GNT. Did you notice where I said the term might also denote "position"? But I highly doubt it refers to nature or essence in the GNT and BDAG seems to concur and see also Moises Silva's commentary on Philippians.
ReplyDeleteI'm also not a Docetist and affirm that Jesus was truly human on earth: he did not just appear to be human. My comments about morphe chiefly pertained to the morphe theou in which he existed, I believe, before he became a human.
I respectfully disagree that Paul had Plato or Aristotle's meaning in mind for morphe when he employed it. First, it's almost impossible to make that determination from a philological or lexical analysis alone. Secondly, lexical studies of the GNT normally prioritize synchrony over diachrony. Hence, what a word meant to Greek philosophers some 300+ years previous is not necessarily what the word meant synchronically in the first century CE. Another factor that comes into play with lexical studies is the Greek papyri. What do they tell us about the word's meaning? Finally, while I study the Fathers, I'm not bound by their respective interpretations of the Bible.
ReplyDeletePlease see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/09/morfh-understood-as-status-philippians.html
ReplyDelete@Edgar Foster
DeleteThe word "morphē" appears in Philippians 2:6, where it is said that Christ existed in the "morphē theou" ("form of God"). In this context, Paul is clearly contrasting two "forms": the form of God and the form of a servant. The contrast highlights the humility and condescension of Christ, who, despite being in the "form of God," took on the "form of a servant." This is not a shift in mere status but a profound shift in essence and nature.
While the BDAG lexicon lists MORFH as referring to "outward appearance, shape, form," it is crucial to notice that lexicons provide a range of potential meanings for words. The specific meaning in any passage depends on the context.
For example, in Mark 16:12, where Jesus appears "in a different form" (hetera morphē), the term clearly refers to visual appearance because it deals with a post-resurrection vision. However, in Philippians 2:6-7, the use of "morphē" cannot be confined to visual appearance or status because the text is discussing Christ's divinity and subsequent incarnation.
If we interpret "morphē" in Philippians 2:6 as mere status or appearance, the parallel with "form of a servant" (morphē doulou) in Philippians 2:7 becomes problematic. If "morphē" here only means "status," it would imply that Christ’s humanity was merely a change in role and not a real incarnation. This would lead to the docetic heresy, which teaches that Christ only appeared to be human but wasn’t truly human.
Louw-Nida's classification of "morphē" in Philippians 2:6-7 as referring to the "nature or character" of something, with emphasis on both internal and external form, is significant. The passage is not discussing Christ’s outward appearance or status in isolation, but rather His divine nature and the humility of the incarnation.
Theologians like A.T. Robertson and Gerald F. Hawthorne support this interpretation. Hawthorne specifically refutes the idea that "morphē" only refers to status, arguing that the extant literature doesn’t substantiate such a narrow meaning for the word in this context.
Tobit 1:13 uses the word "morphē" in a way that you claim to support the meaning of "status" or "condition." However, this passage is unique and isolated. Isolated examples of a word being used with a certain meaning in a non-theological context don’t carry sufficient weight to establish the meaning of that word in a vastly different context like Philippians 2:6, which deals with deep Christological truths.
In Tobit, "morphē" seems to carry the idea of favor or approval granted by a king. It reflects Tobit’s privileged position before a ruler, but this does not align with the theological and Christological context of Philippians, where Paul is discussing Christ's pre-existent divine nature and His incarnation.
To reduce "morphē" to mere "status" would dilute the profound theological depth of Philippians 2:6-7. Paul is speaking of Christ’s voluntary humility, self-emptying, and taking on true human nature. The passage describes the Incarnation, where Christ—who existed in the very nature of God—took on human flesh. If we only see this as a change in status or position, the radical nature of Christ’s kenosis (self-emptying) is lost.
The Orthodox Christian interpretation affirms that Christ was truly divine (in the "morphē theou") and truly took on human nature (the "morphē doulou"). This interpretation maintains the balance of the hypostatic union, where Christ is fully God and fully man.
@Edgar Foster
ReplyDeleteWhile you acknowledge that "morphe" could denote "position," you deny that it refers to "nature" or "essence" in the New Testament, leaning on sources like BDAG and Moisés Silva. However, this overlooks the strong contextual and theological evidence supporting that "morphe" in Philippians 2:6 does refer to Christ's divine essence.
The contrast between "morphe theou" (form of God) and "morphe doulou" (form of a servant) suggests a shift not merely in outward appearance but in state of existence. This isn’t a trivial shift in roles or rank but a profound change in the nature of existence. Christ, who shared the very essence of God, took on the essence of a servant.
While it's valid to say that Paul didn’t necessarily have Plato or Aristotle explicitly in mind, it's important to note that Greek philosophical language and thought permeated the culture of the first century. Even if Paul didn’t adopt their concepts consciously, the semantic range of "morphe" in classical Greek influenced how the word was understood. Plato and Aristotle used "morphe" to refer to the inner nature or essence of a thing, and this philosophical background cannot be ignored, even in a biblical context.
Philippians 2:6-7 clearly contrasts Christ’s pre-incarnate existence ("morphe theou") with His incarnate state ("morphe doulou"), and interpreting "morphe" as merely outward appearance weakens the theological point. The passage makes a theological claim about Christ's essential divinity—it was His divine nature that He didn’t cling to for selfish purposes, not merely an exalted position.
You mention the distinction between synchrony and diachrony, suggesting that Paul’s use of "morphe" must be understood in the immediate first-century context rather than with reference to earlier Greek usage. However, synchronic meaning is influenced by diachronic development. The meaning of a word at any given time is shaped by its historical usage, and "morphe" had been used for centuries to refer to essence or nature in philosophical contexts.
Moreover, in Paul’s Christological context, he is presenting a theological doctrine—one that affirms Christ’s divinity and His humility in assuming human form. It is unlikely that "morphe" here would be restricted to something as superficial as position or outward appearance, given the depth of theological reflection Paul is offering.
While BDAG and Silva are respected sources, they do not definitively settle the debate. BDAG does offer various meanings for "morphe," including outward form, but in the context of Philippians 2:6, it’s critical to understand that Paul isn’t merely saying Christ had a divine appearance but rather that He possessed the full nature of God.
Additionally, early Church Fathers, many of whom were steeped in both Greek philosophy and Christian theology, interpreted "morphe" in Philippians 2:6 as referring to Christ’s divine essence. The consensus among early theologians was that "morphe theou" denotes Christ’s ontological equality with God, not a mere outward form or status.