καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς Ζεβεε καὶ Σαλμανα ποῦ οἱ ἄνδρες οὓς ἀπεκτείνατε ἐν Θαβωρ καὶ εἶπαν ὡσεὶ σύ ὅμοιος σοί ὅμοιος αὐτῶν ὡς εἶδος μορφὴ υἱῶν βασιλέων. (Judges 8:18)
ἀνέστην καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνων εἶδον καὶ οὐκ ἦν μορφὴ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν μου ἀλλ᾽ ἢ αὔραν καὶ φωνὴν ἤκουον (Job 4:16)
τέκτων ξύλον ἔστησεν αὐτὸ ἐν μέτρῳ καὶ ἐν κόλλῃ ἐρρύθμισεν αὐτό ἐποίησεν αὐτὸ ὡς μορφὴν ἀνδρὸς καὶ ὡς ὡραιότητα ἀνθρώπου στῆσαι αὐτὸ ἐν οἴκῳ (Isaiah 44:13)
τότε Ναβουχοδονοσορ ἐπλήσθη θυµοῦ, καὶ ἡ µορφὴ τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἠãοιώθη, καὶ ἐπέταξε καῆναι
τὴν κάµινον ἑπταπλασίως παρ’ ὃ ἔδει αὐτὴν καῆναι· (Daniel 3:19 Rahlfs)
Aquila includes morphe in Isaiah 52:14. Compare Tobit 1:13.
C.H. Talbert writes: "It is perhaps significant that Aquila reads μορφή in Isa 52 14 (Hatch and Redpath, 11, p. 934)."
See Talbert, "The Problem of Pre-Existence in Philippians 2:6-11." Journal of Biblical Literature (1967) 86 (2): 141–153.
From the Talbert paper:
ReplyDelete2 The obvious difficulties of any interpretation which sees pre-existence referred to in the hymn include: (1) Incarnation is here regarded as kenosis rather than and epiphany as in most other early Christian hymns (cf. John 1 1-18; I Tim 3 16); (2) here in early Christianity would there be a reference to a pre-existent reflection a decision of Christ; (3) the exegete is virtually committed to an interpretation of "emptied himself" as the giving up the form of God (divinity) for the form of a servant" (humanity); (4) only with difficulty can the conclusion be avoided that exaltation Lord is a higher state than being in the form of God (divinity). To read the hymn
referring to the human existence of Jesus rather than to his pre-existence, however enables one to avoid these problems."
These problems are non-existent when you stop assuming trinitarianism into "morphe". Also, the Socinian, "human" interpretation has its own problems within the context of kenosis.
A preexistent, yet subordinate divine being that gets sent by The Father, has none of these supposed issues.
The claim that Philippians 2:6-7 focuses on kenosis (self-emptying) instead of an epiphany does not conflict with Trinitarian doctrine. The self-emptying of Christ, as understood in Philippians 2:6-7, involves Christ voluntarily choosing to take on human nature, not merely a visible appearance (as in an epiphany) but an actual incarnation. This kenosis does not negate Christ’s divinity but highlights His humility in assuming human form while retaining His divine nature. John 1:1-18 and 1 Timothy 3:16 also reflect different aspects of the Incarnation, but Philippians emphasizes Christ's humility and self-sacrifice, which complements rather than contradicts the other hymns.
DeleteThe claim that the hymn does not support a reference to Christ's pre-existence and a conscious decision to become incarnate is unfounded. The text in Philippians 2:6-7 explicitly describes Christ as being in the "form of God" before His incarnation. This implies pre-existence and is consistent with other New Testament texts that speak of Christ’s pre-existence, such as John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-17. The phrase “emptied himself” (ἐκένωσεν) reflects Christ's voluntary choice to take on the "form of a servant," which requires pre-existence to make such a decision. A non-Trinitarian interpretation struggles to explain this voluntary self-emptying without Christ existing beforehand.
The objection that Trinitarians must understand "emptied himself" as giving up divinity is incorrect. Orthodox Trinitarian theology never claims that Christ ceased to be divine. Rather, kenosis refers to Christ relinquishing the privileges and glory of His divine status to take on human limitations. Christ did not give up His divine essence, but He temporarily set aside His divine prerogatives. This understanding aligns with the broader context of Christian theology, including passages like Hebrews 2:9, which speaks of Christ being "made lower than the angels" for a time, and John 17:5, where Jesus prays to be glorified with the glory He had before the world existed.
The idea that Christ’s exaltation after His death suggests a higher state than His pre-incarnate divine form is also problematic. In the Trinitarian view, Christ’s exaltation is not an elevation above His divine nature but a restoration of His full divine glory after the completion of His mission on earth (John 17:5). The exaltation refers to the glorification of Christ’s humanity, not the elevation of His divinity. His pre-incarnate divine state is eternal and immutable, but after His resurrection and ascension, He is glorified as both God and man, receiving worship and honor as the risen Lord.
The concept of kenosis does not imply a loss of divinity but a voluntary humility and assumption of human nature. The claim that these difficulties are non-existent in a Socinian or non-Trinitarian framework overlooks the fact that such interpretations struggle to account for the pre-existence and voluntary self-emptying of Christ described in the text. Additionally, the non-Trinitarian view cannot adequately explain why Christ, as a mere human or subordinate divine being, could "empty himself" in a way that involves such profound humility and sacrifice without prior divine status.
Judges 8:18: In this passage, morphe is used to describe the outward appearance or form of the men who were killed. They are said to resemble "the sons of a king" in morphe (form), which indicates that morphe here refers to their regal or noble appearance. This aligns with the common understanding of morphe as outward appearance, but it also has the nuance of status or dignity since they are being compared to royalty.
ReplyDeleteJob 4:16: Here, morphe refers to the shape or form of a vision, which is vague and indistinct. Job is describing an encounter with something that has a visible form (morphe), but it is not clear or recognizable. This suggests that morphe can refer to an appearance that is not fully discernible, highlighting the visual aspect of the term rather than its substance or nature.
Isaiah 44:13: In this verse, morphe is used to describe the form of an idol made by a craftsman. It is the physical shape or representation of a man that is being crafted. The use of morphe here clearly refers to outward appearance or form, specifically a man-made image. This reinforces the idea that morphe can denote external form or shape, particularly when applied to physical objects.
Daniel 3:19: In this context, morphe is used to describe the expression or appearance of Nebuchadnezzar’s face. His morphe changes due to his anger, emphasizing the visible, external transformation that occurs when his mood shifts. This reinforces the understanding of morphe as an outward expression or form.
Isaiah 52:14: In Isaiah 52:14, Aquila’s translation uses morphe to describe the appearance of the suffering servant. Here, morphe refers to the disfigured form of the servant, again emphasizing outward appearance. The servant’s morphe is marred, meaning his physical form is so altered that it is shocking. This is another clear example where morphe refers to external, visible characteristics.
Tobit 1:13: In Tobit 1:13, morphe is used in conjunction with grace (charis) and refers to the favor and outward appearance Tobit had before the king. This use of morphe could be interpreted as status or presentation, highlighting how Tobit was seen in the eyes of Shalmaneser. While it emphasizes outward perception, it may also imply Tobit's standing or favor before the king, hinting at a broader sense of social or royal standing.
Across these examples from the LXX, morphe refers to outward form, appearance, or visible characteristics. Whether describing the noble appearance of men, the indistinct form in a vision, the shape of an idol, or the disfigured appearance of the suffering servant, the term points to how something is perceived externally.
In Philippians 2:6-7, this usage can illuminate the understanding of Christ's morphe theou (form of God) and morphe doulou (form of a servant). While morphe refers to outward appearance in these LXX passages, it may carry deeper connotations when applied to Christ, as his morphe would not just involve appearance but also his divine status or nature, given the theological context of the passage. The use of morphe in the LXX provides a framework for understanding that Paul's use in Philippians could extend beyond physical appearance to encompass Christ's role, status, and identity, both in his pre-existent divine state and in his incarnation as a servant.
Before his kenosis, did The Son possess the Divine Name YHWH?
DeletePhil 2:9 states he received a name higher than the one he had before.
@Terence
DeleteIt’s crucial to understand the distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures, as well as the implications of His exaltation after His resurrection. Philippians 2:9 indeed states that Jesus received The Name “that is above every name” following His obedience unto death, but this does not imply that He lacked the divine name YHWH before His kenosis. Rather, it reflects the recognition and glorification of His human nature alongside His divine nature after His resurrection.
According to traditional Christian teaching, Jesus, in His divine nature, was always equal to the Father in glory. This means that as God, the Son possessed all divine attributes, including the name YHWH, from eternity. His kenosis involved a voluntary humility and the assumption of human nature, but this did not entail the loss of His divine identity or status. While as God He was equal to His Father in glory, as man He has been raised above all the Angels and Saints.
Thus, Philippians 2:9 refers to Christ’s exaltation in His human nature after His resurrection. The name that Jesus receives—whether it is understood as “Lord” or as a fuller recognition of His divine status—is a reflection of His victory over death and His glorification in His humanity. In His divine nature, He already possessed the divine name YHWH. What changes is the honor given to His humanity, which is now recognized as sharing in the full authority and power of God, seated at the right hand of the Father.
RE: "Additionally, the non-Trinitarian view cannot adequately explain why Christ, as a mere human or subordinate divine being, could "empty himself" in a way that involves such profound humility and sacrifice without prior divine status."
ReplyDeleteSo a subordinate being cannot exhibit tremendous humility and sacrifice? That's a bold statement.
-NC
Even if we were to look at it strictly from the Jw point of view- no matter what it took humility to actually give up your divine status ( whatever that means) to actually become human ( although sinless ) and suffer at the hands of religious traditions..
DeleteFor a creature not to want to be God is not humility, it is just a sign that you are not completely lunatic. Am I humble if I don't want to change into a nuclear submarine or a supernova?
DeleteAnother problem: If we place the Son outside the Godhead, then He has nothing to do with the broken relationship between the mankind and God, since he is just an innocent third party.
“ For a creature not to want to be God is not humility,” - this has nothing to do with wanting to be God or not… in christs case it was wanting to please his father..
DeleteAnd for your other problem: easy solution, what’s the definition to a mediator?
@Anonymous
DeleteYour argument seems to miss the point I was addressing regarding the "res reapienda" interpretation of Philippians 2:6 in the NWT. According to the NWT, Christ, as a mere archangel (according to their theology), displayed humility by not trying to seize equality with God. My point is that this interpretation leads to an absurd conclusion: why would it be considered an act of humility for a created being, like an archangel, not to attempt to become God? Such restraint is not genuine humility but simply rational behavior. It’s like praising someone for not trying to become a nuclear submarine—there’s no humility in recognizing that such a transformation is impossible. It is not praiseworthy or humble for a created being to not attempt to become God—it’s simply rational behavior, undermining the depth of humility attributed to Christ in Philippians 2:6.
To your point about Christ pleasing His Father, I don’t dispute that. In fact, the true act of humility lies in the real kenosis (self-emptying), where the pre-existent divine Son willingly set aside His glory to become human, suffer, and die for humanity. If Christ is a mere inferior being (as per JW theology), the depth of this humility and sacrifice is severely diminished. If He’s simply a creature, there’s no profound self-emptying because He’s just fulfilling His creaturely role, not giving up His divine status. The true humility of Christ lies in His willingness to set aside His divine glory, something that only makes sense if He is ALREADY divine, not a mere inferior being.
Regarding your point about a mediator, I think you’ve misunderstood my concern. The role of a mediator, by definition, is to bridge the gap between two parties—in this case, between God and man. If Christ is placed outside the Godhead (as in JW theology), He’s essentially an innocent third party with no inherent connection to the broken relationship between humanity and God. For the mediation to be truly effective, Christ must be both fully God and fully man—He must share in the nature of the offended party (God) and the offending party (humanity). Only then can He perfectly reconcile the two. The mediator role requires Christ to be fully divine and fully human, something JW theology cannot account for. Without full divinity, Christ would be an irrelevant third party in the reconciliation process.
“The role of a mediator, by definition, is to bridge the gap between two parties” - a mediator by definition is a member of neither party they are mediating… if they are a member of both parties they cannot be an effective mediator as this would be a conflict of interest..
DeleteAs the last Adam - Christ was a sinless human - so not God, but also not a member of the human race he was mediating for. ( as they sin- a lot)
“He’s essentially an innocent third party with no inherent connection to the broken relationship between humanity and God. “ - perfect mediator then, literally perfect, I’d want a person like this as a mediator..
“the depth of this humility and sacrifice is severely diminished. If He’s simply a creature, there’s no profound self-emptying because He’s just fulfilling His creaturely role, not giving up His divine status.” - I think giving up being in heaven with the father as a glorified spirit creature and coming to earth to die is humility at its finest..
creaturely role? Not sure that’s a just a creaturely role.. I think you diminish the price christ payer with the random sacrifice by saying that..
“an archangel, not to attempt to become God? Such restraint is not genuine humility but simply rational behavior.“ - is it? Ask Satan - I think he would disagree..
look at Satans actions, then tell me that grasping at equality with God is not humility- any spirit angel could grasp at equality with God..
@Anonymous
DeleteYou claim that "a mediator by definition is a member of neither party they are mediating." This is not correct, especially in light of 1 Timothy 2:5, which states, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus." According to this verse, Jesus is the man who serves as a mediator between God and mankind. If we follow your logic, Jesus could neither belong to humanity nor to God. But clearly, He is human, as the verse explicitly says, and yet He is also divine, according to Trinitarian theology.
A mediator doesn’t need to be an uninvolved third party; rather, a mediator must have a connection to both parties to effectively reconcile them. Christ, being both God and man, perfectly bridges the gap between humanity and God, making Him the ideal mediator. He represents God as God’s Son, and He represents humanity because He became fully human, sharing in our nature except for sin (Hebrews 4:15).
You argue that Christ is "not a member of the human race" because He was sinless. But being sinless does not disqualify Christ from being fully human. Adam was created sinless, and yet he was fully human before the fall. Likewise, Christ's sinlessness makes Him the perfect human, not less human. In fact, His sinlessness is essential to His role as the new Adam, who undoes the damage caused by the first Adam (Romans 5:12-19). To say that sinlessness excludes Christ from humanity contradicts the biblical understanding of what it means to be truly human.
You downplay the profundity of Christ’s humility by saying that His sacrifice was merely about leaving heaven as a "glorified spirit creature" to come to earth. However, in the Trinitarian view, Christ’s humility is much deeper than this. Philippians 2:6-7 describes how Christ, though being in the "form of God" (morphe theou), "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." He voluntarily emptied Himself, taking on the "form of a servant" and becoming fully human.
If Christ were merely an angel or a creature, His humility would not be as profound, because He would simply be fulfilling a natural, creaturely role. But because Christ is God, His self-emptying involves setting aside His divine privileges to enter into human suffering and death. This kind of self-sacrifice is unique and incomparable to any creature’s sacrifice. It is this voluntary lowering of Himself from divine glory to human limitation that demonstrates the depth of Christ’s humility.
You suggest that any angel could attempt to grasp at equality with God, implying that Christ’s refusal to do so is not a demonstration of humility. However, Philippians 2:6 emphasizes that Christ already had equality with God, but He chose not to cling to it. This is what makes His humility so significant—He didn’t try to become something He wasn’t; He already was equal to God but chose to humble Himself. Satan’s grasping for equality with God was an act of rebellion and pride, but Christ’s refusal to hold on to His divine privileges was an act of humility and obedience.
In conclusion, your argument relies on a misunderstanding of key terms like mediator, humanity, and morphe. Christ, in His dual nature as fully God and fully man, perfectly fulfills the role of mediator, and His humility is unparalleled precisely because He gave up the privileges of divinity, not just an elevated creaturely status.
“But clearly, He is human, as the verse explicitly says, and yet He is also divine, according to Trinitarian theology.” - since I don’t adhere to trinitarian theology, I don’t accept that as an answer…
DeleteYes he is human.. I didn’t deny that..
“He became fully human, sharing in our nature except for sin (Hebrews 4:15).” - precisely my point he was part of neither party - he wasn’t a sinful human.. which every other human at the time was.
“Christ is "not a member of the human race"” - I question your reading comprehension or your honesty on this statement because a five year old could figure out what I meant. I explicitly said “but also not a member of the human race he was mediating for. ( as they sin- a lot) “
This does not say he was not human it says he was not part of the majority of the human race he was mediating for: sinful humans
So tell me Ninc - where exactly do I say explicitly christ wasn’t a human again?
Also you shouldn’t omit context from a statement… that anyone can see clearly.. makes you look untrustworthy.
Also never used the word “lesser” or “fully” - you made this up and argued with yourself here.. not me.
“however, Philippians 2:6 emphasizes that Christ already had equality with God, but He chose not to cling to it.” - it would imply the opposite via the context..
also there is no instance where the word rendered “grasped” refers to something the subject already possessed.
Try a dictionary.
More on this later if I must
Or your copy and pasting pre-written arguments, which might explain why these convos look like we are talking to a brick wall and not a functioning human.
@Anonymous
DeleteThe discussion itself is rooted in understanding the biblical text in its theological context. When addressing Philippians 2:6, we have to consider the traditional Christian understanding that Christ is both fully human and fully divine. This isn't an arbitrary claim but a conclusion drawn from the entirety of Scripture, including texts like John 1:1-14 and Colossians 1:15-20, which affirm Christ’s divinity alongside His humanity. Therefore, this point needs to be engaged with, rather than dismissed, because the doctrine of the Trinity offers a coherent explanation of how Jesus could be both God and man.
Your point seems to be that Christ was not "fully human" in the sense that He did not share in our sinful nature. However, this misunderstanding comes from conflating humanity with sinfulness. Christ was indeed fully human, sharing all aspects of our nature except for sin, which is an intrusion into human nature, not an essential part of it. Adam and Eve were fully human before the Fall, and yet they were sinless. Hebrews 4:15 affirms that Christ was without sin, but this doesn’t make Him any less human—rather, it emphasizes that He is the perfect human.
If your argument is that Christ was not a member of the sinful human race, that’s understood. However, the fact that Christ was sinless doesn’t make Him an outsider to humanity. In fact, it makes Him the perfect mediator, because He shares our humanity without being tainted by sin. The notion that a mediator must be a neutral third party isn’t applicable here. According to 1 Timothy 2:5, “there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” His sinlessness doesn’t disqualify Him from being human, nor does it place Him outside the group He is mediating for. Instead, it qualifies Him to be the perfect mediator because He can stand on behalf of sinful humanity before God, having no sin of His own.
You mentioned that "there is no instance where the word rendered 'grasped' refers to something the subject already possessed." The Greek word HARPAGMOS in Philippians 2:6 does indeed carry the meaning of something that one does not need to hold onto or exploit. But the idea behind the passage isn’t that Christ lacked equality with God—it’s that He HAD it but chose not to cling to it. The concept here is that Christ, who was already in the form of God, did not regard His equality with God as something to be selfishly exploited, but instead, He emptied Himself. He HAD the divine privileges but did not use them for personal gain. Instead, He humbled Himself. The very context of Philippians 2:5-8 supports this interpretation.
Regarding your point about Christ being "kindly given" 'the Name above all' in Philippians 2:9, this passage speaks about Christ's exaltation in His humanity after His resurrection. He already possessed divine authority before His incarnation (as seen in John 1:1), but after His death and resurrection, His human nature is exalted, and His lordship is recognized universally. This doesn’t mean He wasn’t already divine; rather, His humanity is now glorified, and He is publicly declared “Lord” over all. His name "Lord" (Kyrios) is a recognition of His divine authority, already present but now fully manifested and acknowledged by all.
It seems that you’re interpreting subordination to imply inequality. However, Christ's functional subordination during His earthly life doesn’t imply ontological inferiority. The Son voluntarily submitted to the Father’s will, but this doesn’t mean He was less than God. This is an important distinction to make, as Trinitarian theology has always maintained that the persons of the Trinity are equal in essence, even if they have different roles within the Godhead.
"He has nothing to do with the broken relationship between the mankind and God, since he is just an innocent third party."
ReplyDeleteCorrect. That's what makes the ransom so precious. He became flesh, like his brothers in all respects. He was an innocent third party. That's why he was glorified to possess the name above every other name, based on the sacrifice he made.
And bringing it back to Foster's OP, how can we read "essence" into the meaning of "morphe" in this verse?
From Examining the Trinity:
Phil. 2:6: [Trinitarian Dr. Adam Clarke agrees with the interpretation of trinitarians Dr. Macknight and Dr. Whitby. He quotes Dr. Macknight who says his] “interpretation is supported by the term μορφῇ [morphe], form, here used, which signifies a person’s external shape or appearance, and not his nature or essence. Thus we are told, Mark 16:12, that Jesus appeared to his disciples in another μορφῇ, shape, or form. And, Matthew 17:2, μετεμορφώθη, he was transfigured before them — his outward appearance or form was changed. .... this sense of μορφῇ [morphe] θεοῦ [theou], is confirmed by the meaning of μορφὴν δούλου [morphe doulou], Philippians 2:7; which evidently denotes the appearance and behavior of a servant or bondman, and not the essence of such a person. See Whitby and Macknight.” - Clarke’s Commentary, NT, pp. 1100-1101, vol. 6A, Ages Software, Version 2.0, 1997.
@Nincs
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you taking time to clarify the mainstream view. Just to elucidate a little further, YHWH (the Son) gave up the Name YHWH in his human nature during his humiliation (Phil 2:9-11) but retained it in some sense? Or did he have the Divine Name while on Earth according to his own words at John 17:12? In what sense was it given?
Is the Name given to him in Phil 2 upon his exaltation higher than the Divine Name YHWH? Jehovah gives his Son the Name Jehovah as to his human essence/nature so that the second person of the Trinity has 2 Divine Names YHWH and possibly “Lord”? The son has 2 names while the Father presumably only retains the one Name YHWH? Have I missed something?
I’d still like to know how we arrive at morphe meaning essence in this context.
Finally, if he has 2 natures, then what exactly did he empty himself of? If he retained his Divine Nature Co-equal with the Father, in what sense did he humble himself in becoming a man?
@Terence
DeleteThe Son did NOT give up the Divine Name YHWH during His earthly ministry. The Divine Name is inherent to His divine nature, which He always possessed, even during His time on earth. The KENOSIS (self-emptying) described in Philippians 2:6-7 refers not to a relinquishment of His divinity or the Divine Name but rather to the voluntary setting aside of the PRIVILEGES and GLORY that were His as God. During His earthly ministry, Christ did not publicly display the full glory of His divinity. Instead, He took on the form of a servant, living humbly as a man.
When Philippians 2:9-11 states that God has given Him "the name above every name," it refers to the public recognition and glorification of Christ in His human nature following His resurrection. After His resurrection and ascension, Jesus is acknowledged as Lord (Greek: Kyrios), a title that in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) is often used for YHWH. Therefore, the "Name" that is given to Jesus upon His exaltation is Lord, which encompasses both His divine authority and His newly glorified human nature. This does not mean He lacked the Divine Name before, but that in His human nature, He is now recognized universally as Lord.
The name given to Jesus after His exaltation is not "higher" than YHWH; rather, it is a public acknowledgment of what was already true about Him as God. Jesus, being divine, always possessed the Name YHWH. The "name above every name" given after His resurrection refers to the universal acknowledgment of His authority as Lord. In His human nature, He is now seated at the right hand of God, fully glorified and recognized as Lord of all.
This does not mean that He now has "two divine names," but that His humanity is fully glorified and recognized in the authority that is inherent to His divinity. The title "Lord" emphasizes His universal sovereignty and fulfills the prophecy in Isaiah 45:23 that every knee shall bow to YHWH, which Philippians applies to Jesus.
The Greek word MORPHE in Philippians 2:6 is often debated, but in this context, it refers to the outward expression of an inner reality. Christ, existing in the "form of God" (morphe theou), refers to His possession of the divine nature and the visible manifestation of God's glory. It does not mean merely a physical appearance but the essence or nature of divinity itself. This is supported by the contrast with the "form of a servant" in verse 7, where Christ takes on true human nature. In other words, MORPHE here indicates that Christ is truly God, possessing all the attributes and essence of deity, and He humbled Himself by becoming truly human.
The kenosis, or self-emptying, does not mean Christ gave up His divine nature. Instead, it refers to Him voluntarily setting aside His divine privileges and glory to live as a human being. He "emptied Himself" by taking on human limitations, suffering, and the conditions of human life, including death. He retained His divine nature fully, but humbled Himself by not fully exercising His divine powers and prerogatives while on earth. His humility is shown in His submission to the Father’s will and in experiencing the limitations and suffering of human life.
As Pius XII says:
“There is another enemy of the faith of Chalcedon, widely diffused outside the fold of the Catholic religion. This is an opinion for which a rashly and falsely understood sentence of St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (ii, 7), supplies a basis and a shape. This is called the kenotic doctrine, and according to it, they imagine that the divinity was taken away from the Word in Christ. It is a wicked invention, equally to be condemned with the Docetism opposed to it. It reduces the whole mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption to empty the bloodless imaginations. 'With the entire and perfect nature of man' - thus grandly St. Leo the Great - 'He Who was true God was born, complete in his own nature, complete in ours'.”
Morphe does not have the range to mean essense - Ninc has invented this
Delete@Anonymous
DeleteYou claim that morphe cannot mean essence, but this contradicts both ancient and modern scholarship. While morphe can refer to outward appearance in some contexts, in Philippians 2:6, it is used in a deeper, ontological sense. Christ being in the "form of God" (morphe theou) means that He possesses the divine nature, not just a divine appearance. This is consistent with the Greek understanding of morphe in philosophical contexts, where it often refers to the essential nature of a thing, not just its outward form. The contrast with the "form of a servant" further emphasizes the change in status, not in essence.
Applying "morphē" to only an external form is indeed problematic when referring to spiritual beings. Purely spiritual beings, such as God and the angels, do not have physical, spatial extension or visible appearance, and therefore, in this sense, they do not have a "form" in this sense either. Thus, if we were to interpret "morphē" in Philippians 2:6 as "form" in the sense of an external appearance, it would not make sense, since God does not have a physical form.
Therefore, we should consider the meaning that refers to the ontological nature or essential reality. When we say that Jesus was "in the form of God," it means that Jesus shares in the divine nature and essence. Thus, morphē here refers to His essential divine nature, not to any kind of physical shape or appearance.
To claim that morphe only refers to appearance undermines the profound theological point Paul is making: that Christ, though fully divine, took on the fullness of human nature to redeem us.
The translation of Philippians 2:6-11 has caused many difficulties, not only due to the “hapax legomena” but also because of the hard-to-define apocalyptic concepts (such as “form”, “likeness”) and the references to the servant of God and the Adam myth. Overall, exegetes now largely agree on the question of translation. The meaning of the key term in the text, MORPHE, lies between the ontologically interpreted nature (OUSIA, PHYSIS) and the empirical form, the external appearance (SCHEMA, 2:7; cf. 3:21; Rom 12:2). If MORPHE refers to essence, it is close to nature, but if it does not speak of essence, as in this case, then MORPHE refers to the mode of appearance. Therefore, MORPHE means the divine glory, the DOXA, which the God-Man had every right to. Hence, He did not cling to it as if it were something acquired or robbed (Phil 2:6), nor did He claim it, as was revealed during the Transfiguration. The result of Jesus’ humiliation is His resemblance to man (2:7), which consists in the fact that Christ fully possesses human nature, even though He transcends it (cf. Rom 8:3). It is not the external form He took that distinguishes Him from us, but the Person who bears that form.
ReplyDeleteFor a long time, the Philippians 2:6-11 passage was interpreted in the spirit of the fight against Arianism because Arius used verse 2:6 to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. In response to this denial, the Church Fathers interpreted MORPHE as "nature": Christ, who already permanently possessed the divine nature, took on human nature. Thus, they spoke of a twofold or gradual humiliation of Christ: the first step being the KENOSIS (the laying aside of glory and the assumption of human nature), and the second step being the humiliation of Christ's servant life. However, the text only speaks of the human Christ; it only indirectly declares that, as the Son of God, He previously possessed equality with God.
According to Philippians 2:6, an essential component of the mystery of redemption is that the Son of God did not cling to His heavenly glory but emptied Himself and took on the form of a servant. The eternal existence of the Son and His becoming man is similarly contrasted in John 1:14 and Galatians 4:4. According to exegetes, Philippians 2:5-10 was already an early Christian hymn that praised the Son's willingness to sacrifice and His love, with which He accepted the humble human condition and the work of redemption. The hymn refers to Jesus' three modes of existence: His eternal pre-existence, His earthly life, and His glorification after the resurrection. He did not regard the possession of divine glory as something to be clung to, but He emptied Himself. This should not be understood as Him giving up His divinity, but rather that when He took on human nature, He left it as true earthly humanity, the form of a servant, and did not seek the glory due to His divine person. His attitude is an expression of humility, which He continued throughout His earthly life: He was obedient unto death, even death on a cross. In every way, He became like us (Rom 8:3), for only in this way could He live a meritorious life and represent us in His sacrifice. The KENOSIS applies to the Son’s person in that He accepted the incarnation, but it also applies to Christ’s earthly life in that He went to the very limits of renunciation. The fullness of the KENOSIS was the acceptance of death, as this, in itself, expresses a distance from God. The apostle mentions obedience unto death to highlight the complete acceptance of the servant’s role. In this "God-distance," He fully demonstrated His reverence before the Father, and therefore, His merits surpass all limits. However, the KENOSIS was such that even during His earthly life, the hidden glory, the DOXA, shone through. This is alluded to in John 1:14: "We have seen the glory of the Father’s only Son."
Thanks for your reply. I could accept that kenosis refers to a denial of certain divine privileges, except that Jesus did maintain divine prerogatives while on earth, like resurrecting the dead, healing the blind, things a man could not do (cf. John 1:14, 48; 5:19-24; 10:30; 11:41; 13:1-3).
ReplyDeleteSo I come back to my question, exactly what did he EMPTY himself of? His reputation perhaps? Kenosis is either an actual emptying, nothing left over, or it is not. Was he emptied as to his deified body perhaps? But that would indicate that he has a different body i.e is a separate BEING from The Father, which I'm sure you'd disagree with.
Your exposition implies some sort of shape-shifting, not an actual change of being as far as I can understand it.
As to the Divine Name issue in Phil 2, in the OT/LXX The Father is referred to repeatedly as Kyrios and YHWH (Adonai, Adohn & YeHoWaH, Heb)so already possessed the Titles/epithets "Jehovah" and "Lord". Presumably in Trinitarian Theology, God The Son did not, otherwise how could he be "kindly given" the name "Lord" above all others? In any case it presents a subordinate Son in some sense during his preexistence, because based on your comments, he wasn't "Lord" until after his humiliation and exaltation. Further to complicate matters, he was called "Lord" repeatedly during his earthly ministry, so....?
I think I'll leave it there, me thinks.
@Terence
DeleteYou correctly note that Jesus retained divine prerogatives during His earthly ministry, like performing miracles and forgiving sins. So, when we speak of Christ's KENOSIS, it doesn’t mean He emptied Himself of His divine nature or abilities but rather of the privileges and glory that come with being God. For example:
John 17:5 speaks of Jesus asking the Father to glorify Him with the glory He HAD before the world began, indicating that He voluntarily laid aside the external display of His divine glory during His earthly life.
The KENOSIS is better understood as a self-limitation rather than a literal "emptying" in the sense of ceasing to be God. He humbled Himself by taking on the limitations of human nature, including suffering and death, while still retaining His divine nature.
Yes, Jesus performed miracles, forgave sins, and demonstrated divine authority. However, these acts were always performed in submission to the Father’s will (John 5:19-30). Christ was fully God and fully man. His miracles were not a contradiction to His KENOSIS but expressions of His divine authority, always carried out in dependence on the Father. He did not use His divine powers for personal gain or comfort, which would have been contrary to His mission of humility and obedience (Philippians 2:8).
The KENOSIS does not imply that Jesus emptied Himself of a "divine body" because God, as a pure spirit, does not have a body. Rather, MORPHĒ in Philippians 2:6 refers to His divine nature or status, not a literal form or shape. There is no shape-shifting involved. Christ maintained His divine nature but took on an additional nature—humanity. The "emptying" refers to His self-humbling, not to a loss of divine being or essence.
It’s important to recognize that the name "Lord" (Kyrios) is given to Jesus after His resurrection, but this does not mean He wasn’t already divine or lacking authority beforehand. Philippians 2:9-11 is describing Christ’s exaltation in His humanity. The name "Lord" (Kyrios) reflects His exalted status as the risen Messiah, where His full authority as both God and man is recognized by all creation.
John 1:1 already affirms that Christ was the Word and was with God and was God. The title "Lord" is not something He gained for the first time after His resurrection but is a recognition of His lordship over all things, now made manifest through His work of salvation.
Jesus was called "Lord" during His earthly ministry because He already possessed divine authority, but Philippians 2:9 speaks of the universal acknowledgment of this lordship after His exaltation.
While Jesus, in His incarnation, willingly submitted to the Father’s will and took on the role of a servant, this does not imply that He was not "Lord" or divine prior to His exaltation. The functional subordination during His earthly life does not negate His divine essence. After His resurrection, His human nature is glorified, and His authority is universally recognized.
In summary, the KENOSIS is not about Christ giving up His divine nature but voluntarily setting aside His divine privileges to live as a servant and die for humanity. His exaltation and the giving of the name "Lord" is about the recognition of His authority as both God and man. The KENOSIS demonstrates the depth of His humility and love, and His exaltation confirms His rightful place as sovereign over all creation.
"Applying "morphē" to only an external form is indeed problematic when referring to spiritual beings."
ReplyDeleteFailure to comprehend the spiritual does not make concrete statements like that true. Ref 1Co 15:44
-NC
@Anonymous
DeleteYour reference to 1 Corinthians 15:44, which speaks of a "spiritual body" (sōma pneumatikos), is addressing the nature of the resurrection body that believers will receive, not the nature of spiritual beings like God or angels. To clarify:
The "spiritual body" mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:44 is describing the glorified, resurrected body of the saved—humans who are raised to eternal life. This is not the same as referring to purely spiritual beings like God, angels, or the pre-incarnate Christ, who exist in a purely spiritual form without embodiment. While believers will have a transformed body after the resurrection, spiritual beings such as God or angels are not described as possessing "pneumatikos" bodies. They exist in a different category of being, without any scriptural reference to them having physical or "spiritual" bodies.
In 1 Corinthians 15:40, when Paul refers to "celestial bodies" and "earthly bodies," the context is about the resurrection body in comparison to earthly bodies, not about spiritual beings like angels or God. The "celestial bodies" mentioned in verse 40 are explicitly clarified in verse 41 as being the Sun, the Moon, and stars—these are physical, cosmic bodies, not spiritual beings.
The application of "morphē" in Philippians 2:6-7 refers to Christ's "form" as God before the Incarnation. Since God is spirit (John 4:24), "morphē" here cannot mean merely an outward, physical appearance. Instead, it points to Christ’s divine nature or essence, which He possessed fully before taking on human form. Applying "morphē" only to external form is indeed problematic when discussing spiritual beings like Christ, who, before His incarnation, existed in divine essence, not in physical or spatial form. Therefore, morphē in this context signifies His divine nature rather than any physical manifestation.
In summary, the reference to 1 Corinthians 15:44 about the "spiritual body" concerns the resurrection body of the saved, which is different from the nature of spiritual beings like God or angels, who do not possess "spiritual bodies" in the same sense. This distinction between spiritual and resurrected forms is essential in understanding how "morphē" applies in Philippians 2:6-7, where Christ’s divine essence is at the forefront of the discussion.
@Nincs
ReplyDeleteOne more comment from me…
“ Philippians 2:9 speaks of the universal acknowledgment of this lordship after His exaltation.” But it doesn’t say that, does it? It says he received a name. A name what was “kindly given” by someone else. The someone else would logically have the higher authority to give them such a name, no?
So Bible words such as morphe and kenosis take on new meanings in these texts, meanings not found in the immediate context or anywhere else within the Bible as a whole? On what basis are we layering all of this meaning on top of the text? Can you provide examples where morphe does not mean outward appearance but nature/essence? Can you share examples where kenosis means keeping the contents of something though not? “I emptied my pockets. Straight after someone asked me for some gum. I reached into my pocket and found the gum.” Jesus emptied himself of Divine right and privileges but kept them at arms reach?
You state that the Kenosis is a denial or self limitation as to his Divine Authority but then state: ”Jesus was called "Lord" during His earthly ministry because He already possessed divine authority.”
Wasn’t this the same Divine right and authority you suppose he emptied himself of (KENOSIS) in his sojourn to earth? Was he Lord or not? Other passages explicitly state that he has a “new name” (Rev 3:12). Is it new, or has he always retained it? Is his new Name higher than YHWH? Upon what authority did the Father, YHWH, give him a higher name, above all names?
Where does it speak about his human nature being acknowledged in Phil 2?
So…Jesus didn’t literally empty himself of anything as to his being. If anything he gained from the experience. You make it sound like he pretended not to be God in some sense while providing evidence that he was God (in some sense) 100% God and 100% man is 200% incomprehensible to me, and stretching the text to place the authors have zero knowledge of and if they did, they used exactly the kind of language required to hide what they really meant.
Finally, the humbling follows his kenosis, I’m not convinced they’re one and the same thing as you assert. Verse 8 follows verse 7, we shouldn’t collapse them together. Giving up an “external display of his divine glory” doesn’t INCLUDE dying and suffering. It’s a stand alone thing. In any case, your understanding of KENOSIS doesn’t sound very humble to me. “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (ASV) I should pretend to be something I’m not, limit myself as to my external appearances, I will get a bonus at the end of it, which is a return to the glory I was hiding from everyone during said “humiliation”. It makes the Gospel sound like The Secret Millionaire.
In other news, LDL Cholesterol CAUSES heart disease. Even when it doesn’t.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969815/
@Terence
DeleteYes, Philippians 2:9 literally says that Jesus was “given” “the Name that is above every name.” This “giving” of a name doesn’t imply that Jesus never had authority or divinity before His exaltation. The idea is that, after His resurrection and exaltation, His lordship was recognized and universally proclaimed. The key here is public acknowledgment of His authority, rather than a suggestion that He had no authority before. In fact, Jesus Himself says in John 17:5 that He already HAD glory with the Father before the world began. So, while He may have temporarily humbled Himself (Philippians 2:7), His exaltation made His lordship universally recognized. Philippians 2:9 means that Christ was exalted according to his humanity, as God could not be exalted above.
Your question assumes that receiving a name from someone with higher authority suggests subordination. However, in Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal in their divinity. The Council of Florence affirms that while the Son receives everything from the Father, this is within the context of an eternal relationship, not a temporal limitation: “Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle.” The Father “giving” Jesus “The Name” does not suggest that the Son was ontologically inferior but reflects their distinct roles in the economy of salvation. The Son's exaltation after His resurrection is the recognition and revelation of His lordship over all creation (Phil 2:10–11). It's not about authority in essence but rather about the role Jesus plays in God’s redemptive plan.
You asked for examples where MORPHĒ means "nature" or "essence." In Philippians 2:6, MORPHĒ THEOU ("form of God") cannot simply mean "outward appearance" because God, as a spirit (John 4:24), has no physical form or external appearance. Therefore, MORPHĒ in this context refers to Christ's divine essence. Similarly, when Christ took the "form of a servant" (Phil 2:7), it doesn't mean He simply looked like a servant; it means He fully assumed the role and essence of a servant in His humanity. Regarding KENOSIS (emptying), it doesn't mean that Jesus emptied Himself of His divinity, but that He relinquished His privileges and glory (DOXA) as God to fully embrace human limitations.
You raise a valid point regarding Jesus being "Lord" during His ministry while also "emptying Himself." The two are not contradictory. In His incarnation, Jesus voluntarily laid aside certain divine prerogatives (like the constant display of His divine glory), yet He still retained His divine authority. This explains why He could perform miracles (as signs of His divine identity) while still living in humility. His KENOSIS was not about ceasing to be Lord but about not using His divine power for His own advantage, as seen in Matthew 26:53 when He refrains from calling legions of angels to avoid His arrest.
When Revelation 3:12 speaks of Jesus receiving a "new name," it is referring to a title of exalted glory that reflects His triumph over sin and death. This is not a suggestion that He didn't already possess divine status or lordship, but that His name and role are now recognized in a new, exalted manner after His resurrection. It's a title of victory and the completion of His redemptive work, rather than a brand-new identity that He didn’t have before.
DeletePhilippians 2:7–8 speaks explicitly about Jesus' human nature. The "form of a servant" and His "humbling" refer to His incarnation as a human and His obedient submission to death on the cross. His human nature is acknowledged in that He takes on our nature, except for sin (Hebrews 4:15), and experiences the limitations of human life.
You suggest separating KENOSIS and humiliation. However, Philippians 2:7–8 ties them together: Christ’s emptying leads to His taking on human form and becoming obedient to death, which is the ultimate act of humility. These two aspects are deeply connected, with KENOSIS referring to His self-emptying and TAPEINŌSIS (humiliation) referring to His obedience and suffering, culminating in His death. To separate them is to miss the point of how Christ’s humility unfolds.
“Pretending to be something I'm not” - This is a misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology. Jesus didn’t "pretend" to be anything. He IS both fully God and fully man. His divine nature was never "hidden" or set aside; rather, His GLORY was temporarily veiled in His humanity (John 17:5). When Philippians says, "Have this mind among yourselves," it’s calling believers to emulate Christ's humility, not "pretending" to be something we’re not. Christ was genuinely humble, and believers are called to follow that example.
In conclusion, Philippians 2:6–11 shows a progression: from Christ’s pre-existent divine status, to His voluntary emptying, to His ultimate exaltation. His emptying wasn’t a loss of divine power or authority, but a voluntary surrender of His divine privileges for the sake of humanity, culminating in the universal acknowledgment of His lordship after His resurrection. The distinctions between His divine and human natures remain clear, and they are essential for understanding the depth of His humility and sacrifice.
"While believers will have a transformed body after the resurrection, spiritual beings such as God or angels are not described as possessing "pneumatikos" bodies."
ReplyDelete1 Corinthians 15:45 immediately contextualizes the discussion using the "last Adam" as a further comparison. 15:49 compares the image of "we" in the spirit to the heavenly one. And 2 Peter 1:4 addresses the "we" who become partakers of "divine nature." While there is much we do not know, the appearance is that you are making concrete distinctions based primarily on doctrine instead of scripture.
None of this leads me to the understanding of Philippians 2 and the morphe discussion at hand that you are promoting. Thank you for your perspective, but I think I've heard what I need to in regard to this subject. I also don't want to hijack a thread in which I am a stranger to the proceedings. Have a wonderful day :-)
-NC
@Anonymous
Delete1 Corinthians 15:45-49 does indeed speak about believers having a transformed body after the resurrection, using the metaphor of the “last Adam” (Christ). However, this passage contrasts the natural (psychikos) body with the spiritual (pneumatikos) body that believers will have in the resurrection. The "spiritual body" in this context refers to the glorified, resurrection body that believers will receive, which is suited for eternal life. It’s important to recognize that this "pneumatikos" body is still a BODILY FORM—it’s a transformed human body, not the same as the nature of purely spiritual beings like God or angels, who are immaterial and do not have bodies.
When we talk about "spiritual bodies" in 1 Corinthians 15, we are referring to RESURRECTED HUMANS, not angels or God. Angels and God are not described as possessing ”pneumatikos” bodies because they are not BODILY beings in the same way that humans are. God is spirit (John 4:24) and angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14). Their essence is not described using the same terminology for physical or resurrected humans.
So, the key point is that “pneumatikos” body in 1 Corinthians 15 refers to a transformed human body, not to purely spiritual beings like God or angels.
2 Peter 1:4 speaks about believers becoming “partakers of the divine nature,” but this is not implying that believers become divine in essence like God. Rather, it’s a way of describing participation in God’s life through sanctification and glorification. It’s about sharing in the moral and spiritual qualities of God—holiness, immortality, etc.—but NOT becoming ONTOLOGICALLY divine.
This text does not blur the distinction between created beings (humans and angels) and the uncreated essence of God. Instead, it highlights the transformation of believers to reflect God's holiness, not a literal transformation into divine beings.
The distinctions I’m making are indeed based on Scripture. 1 Corinthians 15 is clearly talking about the future resurrected bodies of believers, which will be transformed, but they are still BODIES—not purely spiritual entities. There’s a sharp difference in Scripture between the resurrection body of believers and purely spiritual beings like God or angels. God, being spirit, does not have a body at all (John 4:24), and angels, being purely spiritual, are also not described as having bodies in the sense that humans do. This is why it’s important not to confuse the resurrection body (pneumatikos) with the immaterial nature of God or angels.
The discussion on MORPHĒ in Philippians 2 is significant. When it says that Christ existed in the MORPHĒ of God (Philippians 2:6), this is not referring to an external appearance but to His divine nature. The point being made is that Jesus did not consider His equality with God something to be exploited for His own advantage. Instead, He took the MORPHĒ of a servant (Philippians 2:7)—this again is not merely an external form but signifies His taking on the NATURE of a human servant.
To summarize:
1. "Morphē Theou" in Philippians 2:6 refers to Christ's divine nature, not just an external form.
2. "Morphē doulou" in Philippians 2:7 refers to Him taking on the nature of a servant, meaning His incarnation and full identification with humanity.
So, morphē in this context does not imply superficial appearance but the essence or nature of Christ in both His divine and human states.
To sum up, 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 and 2 Peter 1:4 do not undermine the understanding of MORPHĒ in Philippians 2 as referring to Christ’s divine essence. The “spiritual body” in 1 Corinthians 15 is a reference to the resurrection body that believers will receive, not to the purely spiritual beings like God or angels. The biblical distinction between the nature of God, angels, and humans remains intact, and the MORPHĒ discussion in Philippians clearly refers to Christ’s divine and human natures rather than mere outward appearance.
http://jwresearchblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/high-angel-christology-is-jesus-christ.html
ReplyDeleteContributed by a friend.
“I will maintain that Paul has used the expression ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ in Phil 2:6 as a status marker with no inherent ontological component. Translations like the NIV’s ‘in very nature God’ erroneously import an ontological element into a text concerned to address matters of power and social status. Reading μορφῇ in terms of status is hardly new. The interpretation can be traced back at least as far as the seminal work of Eduard Schweizer. A good deal more remains to be said in favor of Schweizer’s view, however, and it is timely to do so in light of current attempts to revive the traditional interpretation of μορφῇ that equates the term with οὐσία, or (God’s) essential nature.” (MORFH QEOU as a Signifier of Social Status in Philippians 2:6, JETS 52/4, December 2009), p. 779
ReplyDeletehttps://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/files_JETS-PDFs_52_52-4_JETS-52-4-779-797-Hellerman.pdf
The claim that MORPHĒ THEOU in Philippians 2:6 refers only to a status marker without any inherent ontological meaning, as argued by Schweizer and Hellerman, does not fully align with the broader biblical context and the historical understanding of the term MORPHĒ. While MORPHĒ can indeed be connected to outward appearance or status, this is not its primary meaning in this passage.
DeleteThe New Testament consistently portrays Jesus not just as someone possessing “a high status” (?), but as possessing the very nature of God. Passages such as John 1:1 (“the Word was God”) and Colossians 1:15-19 (“in Him all the fullness of deity dwells”) clearly establish Christ’s divine essence, not just His social status.
Early Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and the Cappadocians, interpreted MORPHĒ as referring to Christ's divine essence or nature. The term OUSIA (substance) in traditional Trinitarian theology is closely tied to the concept of MORPHĒ in this context, affirming Christ's full divinity. The historical interpretation of MORPHĒ THEOU as signifying essence reflects a deep-rooted understanding that Paul was communicating Christ’s divine nature, not merely His role or status.
The context of Philippians 2 does not support a purely social or status-based reading of MORPHĒ THEOU. Paul is discussing the profound humility of Christ in His incarnation. Christ, being in the MORPHĒ of God, did not consider equality with God something to be exploited (v. 6). Instead, He emptied Himself, taking on the MORPHĒ of a servant (v. 7).
The passage juxtaposes Christ’s MORPHĒ as God with His MORPHĒ as a servant. This shift from divine glory to servitude involves more than a change in status; it signifies a real transformation in how Christ expresses His existence. The movement from divine MORPHĒ to servant MORPHĒ implies that both refer to something more fundamental than mere status—they speak to His very mode of existence.
The KENOSIS of Christ was not merely a relinquishing of status but involved His divine rights and privileges as God. By taking on human flesh (John 1:14), He was not merely adopting a lower social role; He was entering fully into human nature without ceasing to be divine. This goes beyond a status shift—it is a profound expression of His divine humility and condescension.
While MORPHĒ can be used to refer to external appearance or form in certain contexts, it also carries deeper meanings that relate to the intrinsic nature of the subject in question. In the context of Philippians 2:6, where Paul is emphasizing Christ’s divine pre-existence and His choice to humble Himself, the ontological interpretation of MORPHĒ is more appropriate than a mere status reading.
DeleteIn Greek philosophy and language, MORPHĒ is not simply about outward appearance or social position but can refer to the inner reality or essential nature of a being. This meaning is more consistent with the theological implications of the passage, where Christ’s identity as God is central to the discussion of His humility and self-emptying.
If Paul was only speaking of status, why would he use the word MORPHĒ—a term that can imply nature—when he could have used terms that more directly denote status, such as DOXA (glory) or TIMĒ (honor)? The choice of MORPHĒ suggests that Paul was highlighting Christ’s divine nature rather than merely His rank or position.
Hellerman criticizes translations like the NIV for rendering MORPHĒ as “in very nature God,” claiming this erroneously introduces an ontological component. However, this criticism overlooks the fact that Paul's Christology consistently affirms the divinity of Christ. The traditional understanding of the passage as referring to Christ's divine nature is not an importation of external ideas but a reflection of the broader Christological framework found in the New Testament.
In this framework, Christ is depicted as pre-existent and possessing full divinity prior to His incarnation. This is not merely a matter of social rank or power, but of His intrinsic identity as God.
Hellerman’s argument also seems to misunderstand the implications of Philippians 2:9, where it is said that Christ was “given the name above every name.” This “name” refers to the recognition and proclamation of Christ as Lord (v. 11), a title that reflects His divine authority and the universal acknowledgment of His divine status. It does not imply that Christ lacked divinity or lordship before this exaltation but that His human nature was now exalted and His divine Lordship was universally proclaimed.
Those who think that MORPHE does have ontological connotations might find food for thought in this interesting shift in focus:
ReplyDelete“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
The claim that Paul is distinguishing between "degrees of divinity" and that Jesus is in the form of a lesser god ([a] god) contradicts the clear meaning of the passage. In Philippians 2:6, the phrase EN MORPHĒ THEOU does not suggest that Jesus is in the form of “a lesser god”, but that He possesses the very nature of God. The Greek phrase does not support the idea of gradations of divinity; instead, it points to equality with God, which is reinforced by the context.
DeleteThe word MORPHĒ as used here does not merely refer to an outward status or appearance, but to the essence of what it means to be God. The subsequent statement about Christ "not considering equality with God something to be grasped" directly supports the traditional interpretation that He already possessed this equality but chose not to exploit it.
The claim that Paul is referring to different degrees of divinity with Jesus as [a] god versus the Father as the God is not supported by the text of Philippians 2. The phrase TO EINAI ISA THEŌ in verse 6 clearly implies that Christ had the same status as God the Father. Paul does not introduce the concept of Jesus as a lesser divinity or a lesser god. This interpretation would contradict Paul's consistent Christology throughout his letters, where Jesus is depicted as sharing in the full divine nature (e.g., Colossians 1:15-20, 1 Corinthians 8:6).
If Paul intended to convey that Jesus was merely "a lesser god", he would have used different language to make that distinction clear. Instead, the text emphasizes that Jesus possessed equality with God and chose to humble Himself, which presupposes His divine status.
The idea that Paul is distinguishing between degrees of divinity or that Jesus is a lesser god is entirely absent from Paul’s theology and the broader New Testament witness. In fact, throughout the New Testament, Jesus is identified with the one true God. For example, in John 1:1, Jesus (the Word) is described as being with God and was God. Similarly, in Colossians 2:9, it states that "in Him the fullness of deity dwells bodily," making it clear that Christ shares the full divine nature, not a lesser status.
The Old Testament and Jewish monotheism strongly affirm the oneness of God (Deuteronomy 6:4). There is no room for a lesser god alongside God. Paul's Christology fits within this framework by affirming that Jesus, as the incarnate Son, shares in the one divine essence without compromising monotheism.
DeleteThe argument hinges on the distinction between "the God" (ho theos) and [a] god due to the presence or absence of the definite article in Greek. However, in Greek grammar, the lack of a definite article before THEOS does not necessarily imply that the word should be understood as a god. In fact, the definite article is often omitted in Greek when the emphasis is on the nature or character of someone or something, not on distinguishing between gods.
In John 1:1, for example, we read that THEOS ĒN HO LOGOS, where the term THEOS lacks a definite article. However, this is not to suggest that the Word (Jesus) is a lesser god but that He possesses the nature of God. A similar grammatical principle applies in Philippians 2:6.
The passage in Philippians 2:9 states that Jesus is given "the name that is above every name" after His exaltation. This refers to the universal recognition of His Lordship after His resurrection and ascension. The title "Lord" (Kyrios) in this context aligns with the Old Testament understanding of God as YHWH, and it is applied to Jesus in recognition of His divine authority.
The giving of the name "Lord" does not imply that Jesus was not divine prior to this exaltation. Rather, it marks the moment when His human nature is publicly glorified and recognized universally. His divine nature was always present, but it is His exalted humanity that is now honored alongside His divinity.
Paul consistently emphasizes Jesus' full divinity and equality with God throughout his letters. There is no indication anywhere in Paul’s writings that he considered Jesus to be a lesser god or a being with diminished divinity. On the contrary, Paul refers to Christ as the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) and the one through whom all things were created (1 Corinthians 8:6). The suggestion that Paul is distinguishing between “a god” and “the God” is inconsistent with the broader Pauline corpus.
I will allow another comment or so, about this subject. We're not going to agree on the significance of morphe in Philippians 2:6 and numerous claims are being repeated. The needle is not going to move, so I'm ready to move on.
ReplyDeleteThe most complete study of μορφῇ that I’m aware of is “Form of God, Form of a Servant: An Examination of the Greek Noun μορφῇ in Philippians 2:6-7,” by Daniel J. Fabricatore.
ReplyDeleteHere’s how the writer sums up his findings:
“The overwhelming majority of uses of μορφῇ in all of Greek literature referred to the form or shape of someone or something, but even more significant, the uses expressed the fact that μορφῇ denoted a form or shape that was observable. The majority of uses fell into the category of visible appearance. A small minority of examples were found that denoted the essence or nature of a person or thing. However, even in several of these uses, μορφῇ was referring to the visible appearance that described the underlying nature.” (pages 203 & 204)
Notice that the meaning that one would assume is valid based on the NIV's mistranslation of the text is only found in a "small minority" of uses, while the vast majority have to do with visible appearance.
Interestingly, David Bentley Hart, himself a Trinitarian, agrees with the thoughtful analysis of Paula Fredriksen from "Paul: The Pagan's Apostle" (quoted above), and offers this thoughtful rendering of Philippians 2:6:
ReplyDelete"who, subsisting in a god's form, did not deem existing in the manner of a god a thing to be grasped"
See the second edition of his, "The New Testament: A Translation".
While Daniel J. Fabricatore’s study provides an extensive analysis of the usage of MORPHĒ in Greek literature, it does not fully resolve the specific meaning of MORPHĒ in the context of Philippians 2:6-7. Fabricatore notes that most uses of MORPHĒ in Greek literature referred to a visible form, but he also acknowledges that a minority of examples relate to the essence or nature of something, including in cases where MORPHĒ reflects the visible manifestation of an underlying reality.
ReplyDeleteThis is crucial because MORPHĒ in Philippians 2:6 is being used not in a general Greek literary context, but in a Christological context, which requires a more nuanced reading. The fact that MORPHĒ can refer to both the outward appearance and the underlying essence supports the traditional understanding of the term as referring to Christ’s divine nature.
The argument that the “minority” of cases where MORPHĒ refers to essence or nature should be dismissed because of its less frequent usage is not valid. In any language, words can carry multiple meanings depending on the context. The New Testament often uses words in ways that transcend common secular usage, particularly when describing theological truths. In Philippians 2, the context suggests more than just visible appearance because it contrasts Christ's divine form (Phil 2:6) with His servant form (Phil 2:7).
If MORPHĒ is limited to just outward appearance, then the transformation described in Philippians 2 becomes superficial, reducing the significance of Christ's incarnation. The passage would then fail to capture the full weight of His self-emptying, which is a key theological point in this text. The context suggests that Paul is emphasizing Christ’s humility and divine condescension, both of which imply more than just a change in outward status or form.
Philippians 2:6-7 is a passage dealing with the incarnation and the KENOSIS (self-emptying) of Christ. Paul is not merely discussing outward appearances or social status but is delving into profound theological realities. The transition from the MORPHĒ of God to the MORPHĒ of a servant speaks to a transformation that involves not only external form but also the assumption of a human nature.
In this context, MORPHĒ as “visible appearance” alone would be insufficient to describe the depth of Christ’s humility. The theological message here is that Christ, who is by nature God, voluntarily took on the MORPHĒ of a servant, meaning that He truly became human without ceasing to be divine. This is not merely about status but about the reality of His nature.
David Bentley Hart’s translation of Philippians 2:6 as "subsisting in a god’s form" reduces the weight of Paul's point. Hart’s phrasing emphasizes Christ as merely appearing in "a god's form," but Paul’s Christology clearly presents Christ as the pre-existent Son who is fully God. The traditional interpretation of this passage by Trinitarian theologians affirms that Jesus possessed the nature of God, not just the form of a god, and this aligns with other scriptural references to Christ’s divinity (e.g., Colossians 1:15-20, John 1:1-3).
ReplyDeleteHart’s rendering that Christ did not deem “existing in the manner of a god a thing to be grasped” overlooks the equality with God that Christ possessed, as mentioned in the Philippians 2:6 text. Christ did not need to grasp for equality with God because He already possessed it. His humility lies in the fact that He chose not to exploit this equality for His own advantage, but instead emptied Himself by becoming human.
The claim that MORPHĒ and KENOSIS take on “new meanings” in Philippians 2 is also misleading. The traditional understanding of KENOSIS (self-emptying) does not imply that Christ ceased being divine, but rather that He voluntarily set aside the privileges of His divinity to fully enter into the human condition. This theological point aligns with the broader Christian doctrine of the incarnation.
Christ, while still possessing divine authority, chose to operate within the limitations of human existence. He performed miracles and wielded divine power, but His self-emptying refers to His humility in taking on human limitations, suffering, and death—something that no ordinary human would choose. Philippians 2:9 does not imply that He lost His divine nature, but that His human nature was exalted alongside His already-existing divine nature after His resurrection.
The attempt to reduce MORPHĒ in Philippians 2:6-7 to a mere marker of outward status misses the deeper theological point Paul is making about Christ's divine nature and His voluntary incarnation. While Fabricatore’s study highlights the common usage of MORPHĒ in Greek literature, the minority usage referring to essence or nature is clearly more appropriate in this Christological context. Additionally, Hart’s translation downplays Christ’s equality with God, which is a central theme in Philippians 2, and does not adequately convey the depth of His humility and self-emptying.
Therefore, MORPHĒ in this passage should be understood in a way that affirms both Christ’s pre-existent divine nature and His voluntary assumption of human nature, not merely as a reference to external status.
I'm going to have the last word in this thread with this quote from the Greek Lexicon for the Septuagint:
ReplyDeleteμορφή,-ῆς+
N1F 0-1-1-7-4=13
JgsA 8,18; Is 44,13; Jb 4,16; DnLXX 3,19; DnTh 4,36(33)
form, shape Is 44,13; form, outward appearance Jb 4,16; comeliness Tob 1,13; countenance DnTh 5,6
Cf. SPICQ 1973 37-45; 1978a 568-573; STEENBURG 1988, 77-86; WALLACE 1966, 19-21; →NIDNTT;
TWNT
Trinitarians want to insist that Paul affirms Christ's absolute deity in Philippians 2, but that is an assumption that they impose on the text. They also try to give diachrony precedence over synchrony in this case as they change rules of the game.
ReplyDelete