Bible Gem 1926 – An Attempt to Explain Jesus as the Morph of God (Phil 2:6)

Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.

Phil 2:5-8

Let’s compare the Versions:

• (ASV)  who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
• (CEV)  Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.
• (CJB)  Though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God something to be possessed by force.
• (ERV)  He was like God in every way, but he did not think that his being equal with God was something to use for his own benefit.
• (GNB) He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.
• (GW)  Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.
• (ISV)  In God’s own form existed he, and shared with God equality, deemed nothing needed grasping.
• (KJV)  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
• (LITV)  who subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
• (MSG)  He had equal status with God but didn’t think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what.
• (NLT)  Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.
• (RV)  who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,
• (TLB)  who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God,
• (TLV)  Who, though existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to be grasped.
• (TPT)  He existed in the form of God, yet he gave no thought to seizing equality with God as his supreme prize.
• (TS2009)  who, being in the form of Elohim, did not regard equality with Elohim a matter to be grasped,

Here are some comparative versions for you Indonesians in your mother tongue:

• (BIS)  Pada dasarnya Ia sama dengan Allah, tetapi Ia tidak merasa bahwa keadaan-Nya yang ilahi itu harus dipertahankan-Nya.
• (IMB)  Dia yang ada dalam wujud Elohim, tidak memperhitungkan kesetaraan dengan Elohim sebagai sesuatu yang harus dipertahankan.
• (ITB)  yang walaupun dalam rupa Allah, tidak menganggap kesetaraan dengan Allah itu sebagai milik yang harus dipertahankan,

I realise if I am going to do this with each segment I am going to have to deal with one element of the text at a time. Therefore I appeal to you my Gem readers to give me input as to whether I am on the right track or this is too much detail. I want to tailor this to your liking. I don’t want to add more detail that you want. Take the time now to add your comments in the section below. I believe the Comments section has now gone live. Test it out.  Although I have given you the variation in the translations  I have deleted some that I considered not helpful. I have highlighted other elements in yellow which I disagree with or consider to be red herrings which would lead us down the wrong path.  I only wish to put before you those things for your consideration which are helpful.  Again, tell me what is helpful and what is not.

Now for our exegesis:

Form of God [μορφῇ Θεοῦ]

This is our first feature to deal with. [Morphē] is the transliteration of the Greek. We understand this term in modern English well. There are a host of words in English which are derived form the Greek root word.

Morpheme, morphesis, metamorphesis, morphic, morphology, morphological and many more. These days we even use morph as a verb – to morph into something. Toys these days can morph into something else. We now have movies featuring morphs. You get the idea. I am not meaning to be disrespectful but we might even talk about Jesus being a morph of God in this current age and younger people would understand what I mean. But in what form is He a morphological form of God? Let’s explore the notion more fully. I want to plumb the depths of this passage for my own understanding. But I wish to take you with me; not turn you off with too much information.  

We need to realise that Jesus already existed in the form of God in his pre-temporal existence. Wow that is an interesting word I have come up with. But that is what it is. Before the incarnation Jesus already existed as a part of the Godhead. Though eternally existing as God we are not told anything about the morphology of Jesus in His pre-temporal form – His form in the time before He stepped into human existence bounded by time and space. I admit to having some difficulty using terms to explain what I mean. I already realise having reached this point that I am not going to get past the first exegetical note on [morphē] in this Gem. There is just too much to deal with.

The present participle [ὑπάρχων] huparchōn has more depth to it than I have realised because the continuity of it appears to cover Jesus’ pre-incarnate state and His post-incarnate state. But if nothing else it hints at His continued existence before and after His incarnation. Oh believe me, I knew this was going to be complicated, I just didn’t know how complicated. I have just realised that the English language is not up to the task of explaining God. Perhaps Greek isn’t either or at least I just don’t know it well enough. Which leaves me with the challenge of explaining what I wish to explain but without the words to do it.

To what degree did Jesus exist (not subsist as I took issue with the LITV above). Jesus was never a sub-existent form of God. The Bible tells us He existed in a form equal with God. But of course my (our) minds want to know what morphology did that form take? Often when people talk of going to heaven (á la Dominggus Kenjam) the description is in term of a bright light in the form of a man. But the light is too bright to make out the detail. That accords with the idea of God being unapproachable light. Many commentators introduce the idea of glory when attempting to talk about God’s and / or Jesus’ “appearance” as God. The older commentaries all talk about the glory, brightness, dazzling nature or form of the image or appearance of God. You can see how the abstract terms come out in order to describe the form of God when He is not clothed (as Christ in the incarnation of a human form.) Yes I confess I am having trouble describing this feature. The truth is I am without words (yes it happens) to describe what I want to say. I just don’t know how to do it.

More recent commentators or commentaries seem to use morph, morphē  or form to describe what I want to say. But that still leaves us with the feeling of inadequacy of how actually to describe the form God and Jesus take when Jesus is not incarnated in human form.  It seems in Paul’s description of the pre-temporal existence of Christ there is a hint of the glorified image of the form of the glory of God. I don’t know how else to put it. I confess my inadequacy. Paul seems to use morphē  in a loose popular sense in much the same way we might use “nature” as a substitute for “form”. i.e. the nature or form of God. But what actually are we describing with those words.

Jac J Muller in the New International Commentary series writes “the form of God means neither the abstract essence or being of God nor merely an external form or appearance of God, but His divine nature, which is inseparable from His person and in which the Divine Being realises Himself in His immanent, inherent divine glory and godly attributes.” Well there you have a theological statement telling you what the morphē of God is all about. But  I am sure it falls as far short for you as it does for me. I won’t even bother to quote some of the other attempts in commentaries but simply say that human language appears to be inadequate for the task. [Morphē] I think refers to the inner, essential nature of a person or thing. The “form of God” is not to be conceived as a mere appearance but as the core existence which exhibits God’s or Christ’s true nature. But more than that I cannot add nor make an earth shaking statement which might be useful to you.        

In the next Gem I will attempt to come to grips with the second half of the first verbal cascade.

“Christ Jesus . . . counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped”  

• possessed by force
• by force he should try to remain
• take advantage of
• robbery
• seized
• cling to
• demand and cling to his rights

Do you see an allusion in this section?

Hang on to your seat, hat, whatever you want to hang on to, just not “equality with God”.

Well you don’t have to bother about that because like me you just don’t have it anyway.    

The astute ones of you will see that I omitted the Propositional Analysis layout in this Gem as I didn’t think it added anything to the Gem given what we were dealing with this time. If I think it is necessary I will add it. Otherwise if you want to see it you can simply click the related Gem which features it. Enough for today.

We don’t want form and formality, image or appearance, we want the breath of God and HIs Word in our lives to lead us to the reality of Him.

Ian Vail