Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysis (E

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by rdp

έν μορφη, θεοὔ ("in the form of God") is a key phrase in the entire hymn. It stands at the head of the paragraph, and one's exegesis of it has a bearing on the interpretation of the whole passage. Since its meaning has been hotly disputed, it will be necessary to review some of the main lines along which it has been interpreted. It is of particular importance to note that the author does not say that Christ was "the form of God" (μορφὴ θεου), but that he was "in the form of God" (έν μορφῇ θεου), as though the form of God was a sphere in which he existed or a garment in which he was clothed (cf. Lk. 7:25).

The precise nuance of the important word μορφη (rendered in the AV and RV as "form"), which also turns up in the contrasting phrase of v. 7, μορφὴν δοὐλου, is unclear. Is the term to be understood as pointing: (1) to the external appearance, condition, position, or form of existence of something? Or does it denote (2) something more profound, so that it is equal to or closely related to the "nature" or "essence" of something? Could, for example, μορφῆ be regarded as an equivalent of εἰκυ'oν ("image") and/or δοξα ("glory")?

Related exegetical and theological questions arise: What is the background to μορφὴ θεου? Does the expression point to the divinity of the preexistent Jesus, or to the divinity or humanity of the earthly Jesus? Further, what is the relationship of this expression to the following τὸ εἵναι ὶσα θεὦ? Is τὸ εἵναι ὶσα θεω, like μορφὴ θεου, a possession that Christ already had?

μορφῆis found infrequently in the Greek Bible: apart from the two instances here (vv. 6, 7) it turns up in the NT only at Mk. 16:12, and in the LXX on only six occasions (four of which are in the canonical OT). Although μορφῆ appears only in this context in Paul's writings, cognate forms of the root μορφ- are elsewhere used by him: μὁρφωσις ("embodiment, outward form," Rom. 2:20; 2 Tim. 3:5), μορφὁω ("shape, form," Gal. 4:19), μεταμορφὁω ("transform," Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:18), συμμορφίζω ("give the same form," Phil. 3:10), and σὐμμορφος ("having the same form," Phil. 3:21).

μορφη, which appeared in Greek literature from Homer on-wards, in all its many nuances came to represent that "which may be perceived by the senses." It could also point to the embodiment of the form since possession of the form implied participation in its nature or character. In the six LXX instances (including the four occasions within the canonical books) μορφῆ refers to the visible form or appearance of something. But the term did not refer to external appearance alone; it regularly pointed to something more substantial. Similarly, from the NT contexts where μορφῆ and its cognates appear (noted above) it is clear that the word group describes not simply external appearance or behavior but also that which inwardly corresponds (or is expected to correspond) to the outward.

*As you can see, this is not on the same par with - say - John MacArthur or Matthew Henry commentaries.

*Below is another brief quote on the same passage from Baker Academics Exegetical Commentary Series, Dr. Moises Silva, that will hopefully (?) further elucidate my attempted point:

a. The initial statement (v. 6a). Much of the debate centers on the first line, “although he existed in the form of God,” particularly the force of the word “form” (morphe'). If we stress the classical usage of this term, the technical sense of Aristotelian philosophy suggests itself: morphe', although not equivalent to ousia (being, essence), speaks of essential or characteristic attributes and thus is to be distinguished from schema (the changeable, external “fashion”). In a valuable excursus on morphe' and schema, Dr. Lightfoot (1868: 127–33) argued along these lines and remarked that even in popular usage these respective meanings could be ascertained (cf. Trench 1880: 261–67). The many references where morphe' is used of physical appearance (see the third additional note on 2:6) make it difficult to maintain Lightfoot’s precise distinction, though there is an important element of truth in his treatment, as we shall soon see.

Dr. Käsemann (1968: 59–60) emphatically rejects the classical background on the basis of parallels in the literature of the Hellenistic religions, since “the conceptual language of the hellenistic period moves within an ideological framework quite different from that. …of the classical Greek era.” According to this new language, morphe' “no longer means the individual entity as a formed whole, but a mode of being [Daseinsweise] in a specific direction, such as, for example, being in divine substance and power."

Looks to me like exegetes often drive their exegesis towards certain conclusions that are "required". In both cases it seems as if the exegetes must make their way to "morphe" indicating "divine nature" yet distinct from the Father in order to uphold a trinitarian outlook on the passage.

Compare those with JFB:

Translate, “Who subsisting (or existing, namely, originally: the Greek is not the simple substantive verb, ‘to be’) in the form of God (the divine essence is not meant: but the external self-manifesting characteristics of God, the form shining forth from His glorious essence). The divine nature had infinite BEAUTY in itself, even without any creature contemplating that beauty: that beauty was ‘the form of God’; as ‘the form of a servant’ (Phi_2:7), which is in contrasted opposition to it, takes for granted the existence of His human nature, so ‘the form of God’ takes for granted His divine nature [Bengel], Compare Joh_5:37; Joh_17:5; Col_1:15, ‘Who is the IMAGE of the invisible God’ at a time before ‘every creature,’ 2Co_4:4, esteemed (the same Greek verb as in Phi_2:3) His being on an equality with God no (act of) robbery” or self-arrogation; claiming to one’s self what does not belong to him. Ellicott, Wahl, and others have translated, “A thing to be grasped at,” which would require the Greek to be harpagma, whereas harpagmos means the act of seizing. So harpagmos means in the only other passage where it occurs, Plutarch [On the Education of Children, 120]. The same insuperable objection lies against Alford’s translation, “He regarded not as self-enrichment (that is, an opportunity for self-exaltation) His equality with God.” His argument is that the antithesis (Phi_2:7) requires it, “He used His equality with God as an opportunity, not for self-exaltation, but for self-abasement, or emptying Himself.” But the antithesis is not between His being on an equality with God, and His emptying Himself; for He never emptied Himself of the fullness of His Godhead, or His “BEING on an equality with God”; but between His being “in the FORM (that is, the outward glorious self-manifestation) of God,” and His “taking on Him the form of a servant,” whereby He in a great measure emptied Himself of His precedent “form,” or outward self-manifesting glory as God. Not “looking on His own things” (Phi_2:4), He, though existing in the form of God, He esteemed it no robbery to be on an equality with God, yet made Himself of no reputation. “Being on an equality with God, is not identical with subsisting in the form of God”; the latter expresses the external characteristics, majesty, and beauty of the Deity, which “He emptied Himself of,” to assume “the form of a servant”; the former, “HIS BEING,” or NATURE, His already existing STATE OF EQUALITY with God, both the Father and the Son having the same ESSENCE. A glimpse of Him “in the form of God,” previous to His incarnation, was given to Moses (Exo_24:10, Exo_24:11), Aaron, etc.

Obviously, JFB take a trinitarian view, but they seem to jettison the identification of "morphe" with essential being and instead prefer it to refer to "external characteristics or appearance. As the second citation above notes, the LXX uses "morphe" to refer to external appearance, not essential "essence" or "being", and it is likely the NT writers - being familiar with LXX text-types and usages - would have had their vocabulary informed by said usages.