There are five GNT occurrences of μετασχηματίζω. The form that appears in 2 Corinthians 11:14 (μετασχηματίζεται) is present middle indicative 3rd person singular.
BDAG (641–642); Anthony C. Thiselton (The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000] 348–350) and Mihaila (The Paul-Apollos Relationship, 202–212) are difficult to reconcile with each other.
In Philippians 2:6-7, Paul describes Christ's self-emptying as taking on the MORPHĒ of a servant, which highlights a profound transformation that extends beyond mere outward appearance. This change in MORPHĒ (form) contrasts sharply with the SUPERFICIAL change in SCHĒMA (appearance) that Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 11:14, where Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. The distinction between MORPHĒ and SCHĒMA provides a crucial insight into the depth of Christ's self-emptying compared to Satan’s deceptive transformations.
Firstly, MORPHĒ in Philippians 2:6-7 refers to the intrinsic nature or essence of something. When Paul writes that Christ, "being in the form of God," took "the form of a servant," he is emphasizing a true transformation in Christ’s state of being. Christ's act of self-emptying (KENOSIS) involved not merely adopting a different appearance but a real assumption of human nature. He didn’t merely SEEM like a servant; He BECAME one, taking on the full reality of human existence, while still retaining His divine nature. The change in MORPHĒ reflects a deep, substantive shift in Christ’s mode of existence, as He humbly embraced the limitations of humanity, without relinquishing His divinity.
In contrast, the term SCHĒMA in 2 Corinthians 11:14 refers to external form or appearance. Paul writes that "Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." Here, the Greek verb METASCHĒMATIZŌ emphasizes a change in outward form, a disguise that conceals Satan’s true nature but does not alter his essence. Satan, at his core, remains a being of darkness, but through deception, he adopts the APPEARANCE of light. This is a superficial transformation intended to mislead, with no genuine change in nature or character. It is a false image projected for manipulation.
The fundamental difference between Christ’s MORPHĒ change and Satan’s SCHĒMA change lies in the depth of transformation. Christ’s self-emptying is an act of profound humility and love, where His change in MORPHĒ reflects a real sharing in the human condition for the purpose of salvation. His incarnation is a genuine participation in human suffering and death. In contrast, Satan’s change in SCHĒMA is a mere façade, designed to deceive without any true change in being. It is an act of manipulation rather than an act of self-giving.
Thus, Christ's transformation in MORPHĒ is a deep, authentic expression of His divine love and humility, whereas Satan's transformation in SCHĒMA is shallow, deceptive, and intended for harm. This distinction between MORPHĒ and SCHĒMA underscores the significance of Christ’s incarnation and the integrity of His mission, in contrast to the deceitfulness of Satan’s disguises.
7 comments:
BDAG (641–642); Anthony C. Thiselton (The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000] 348–350) and Mihaila (The Paul-Apollos Relationship, 202–212) are difficult to reconcile with each other.
I was focusing on the meaning of μετασχηματίζω. Not sure if the comments you reference have anything to do with that subject.
In Philippians 2:6-7, Paul describes Christ's self-emptying as taking on the MORPHĒ of a servant, which highlights a profound transformation that extends beyond mere outward appearance. This change in MORPHĒ (form) contrasts sharply with the SUPERFICIAL change in SCHĒMA (appearance) that Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 11:14, where Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. The distinction between MORPHĒ and SCHĒMA provides a crucial insight into the depth of Christ's self-emptying compared to Satan’s deceptive transformations.
Firstly, MORPHĒ in Philippians 2:6-7 refers to the intrinsic nature or essence of something. When Paul writes that Christ, "being in the form of God," took "the form of a servant," he is emphasizing a true transformation in Christ’s state of being. Christ's act of self-emptying (KENOSIS) involved not merely adopting a different appearance but a real assumption of human nature. He didn’t merely SEEM like a servant; He BECAME one, taking on the full reality of human existence, while still retaining His divine nature. The change in MORPHĒ reflects a deep, substantive shift in Christ’s mode of existence, as He humbly embraced the limitations of humanity, without relinquishing His divinity.
In contrast, the term SCHĒMA in 2 Corinthians 11:14 refers to external form or appearance. Paul writes that "Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." Here, the Greek verb METASCHĒMATIZŌ emphasizes a change in outward form, a disguise that conceals Satan’s true nature but does not alter his essence. Satan, at his core, remains a being of darkness, but through deception, he adopts the APPEARANCE of light. This is a superficial transformation intended to mislead, with no genuine change in nature or character. It is a false image projected for manipulation.
The fundamental difference between Christ’s MORPHĒ change and Satan’s SCHĒMA change lies in the depth of transformation. Christ’s self-emptying is an act of profound humility and love, where His change in MORPHĒ reflects a real sharing in the human condition for the purpose of salvation. His incarnation is a genuine participation in human suffering and death. In contrast, Satan’s change in SCHĒMA is a mere façade, designed to deceive without any true change in being. It is an act of manipulation rather than an act of self-giving.
Thus, Christ's transformation in MORPHĒ is a deep, authentic expression of His divine love and humility, whereas Satan's transformation in SCHĒMA is shallow, deceptive, and intended for harm. This distinction between MORPHĒ and SCHĒMA underscores the significance of Christ’s incarnation and the integrity of His mission, in contrast to the deceitfulness of Satan’s disguises.
Nincsnevem, all well and good, but please let's not make this thread another one about the kenosis of Christ. Thanks.
Yes, see pg.151- https://www.jstor.org/stable/27067572?read-now=1&seq=13#page_scan_tab_contents
Duncan, see https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/08d92b3f-8f66-4dc7-9f10-6170e8e9fbb6/content
Page 257, note 629.
https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781481317290_A45373083/preview-9781481317290_A45373083.pdf
See page 11, note 31.
Post a Comment