Form (3444) (morphe) refers to the nature or character of something and emphasizes both the internal and external form. In other words morphe refers to the outward display of the inner reality or the essential form of something which never alters. Morphe - 3x in 3v - Mark 16:12; Phil 2:6, 7 Mark 16:12 And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country. (cp Lk 24:16, the full account of this appearance is Luke 24:13-32) Comment: MacDonald "To Mary He had appeared as a gardener. Now He seemed like a fellow-traveler. But it was the same Jesus in His glorified body." Wuest essentially agrees "The Greek word “form” is the same as that used in the account of the Transfiguration, but Swete says that there was clearly nothing in the Lord’s appearance to distinguish Him from any other wayfaring man." Walvoord "This could mean that He took on a form different from that in which He appeared to Mary Magdalene or, more likely, that He appeared to them in a form different from that in which they had previously recognized Him as Jesus." (Philippians 2 At the Name of Jesus Every Knee Should Bow) Morphe stresses essence of one’s nature and specifically denotes the essential, unchanging character of something—what it is in and of itself. Morphe does not speak of external appearance or outward shape but of the essential attributes and the inner nature. When Paul says Jesus Christ was “in the form of God,” The Son is one in nature, one in attributes, one in character with the Father. As John MacArthur states morphe means that... The idea is that, before the Incarnation, from all eternity past, Jesus preexisted in the divine form of God, equal with God the Father in every way. By His very nature and innate being, Jesus Christ is, always has been, and will forever be fully divine. (MacArthur, J. Philippians. Chicago: Moody Press) Morphe contrasts with "schema" (Phil 2:8) which denotes the outward which changes from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance. For example, morphe of any human being is his or her humanity and this never changes. On the other hand, his or her schema is continually changing (no, you are aren't getting any younger!). A baby, a child, a boy, a youth, a man of middle age, an old man always have the morphe of humanity, but the outward schema changes all the time. The morphe never alters; the schema continually does. Does this help you understand this important distinction? Paul in using morphe is clearly teaching that Jesus Christ in His preincarnate state Christ possessed all the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw Him. Thus morphe refers to the outward display of the divinity of the preexistent Christ (see Vincent below). Hebrews affirms the deity of Christ writing that Jesus... "is the radiance of His (the Father's) glory and the exact representation of His (the Father's) nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (He 1:3-note) Paul wrote that "Christ...is the image of God" (2Cor 4:4), specifically that He is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of creation, for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. (Col 1:15, 16-note) Existed in the form of God Morphe (Adapted from Wuest) presumes an objective reality. No one could be in the form (morphe) of God who was not God. Morphe is the essential form which never alters which contrast with the similar word schema which describes the outward form which changes from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance. The derivative Greek word metamorphoo is found in Mt 17:2 where Jesus "was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light." (Mt 17:2) where the prefixed preposition meta- in a composition signifies a change and thus is translated "transfigured" or a change in form and could be rendered, "His mode of expression was changed before them." Our Lord's usual mode of expression as a Man was that of a bond-slave. That was an expression which came from His innermost being as the One who came not "to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Mk 10:45) But for a moment in (Mt 17:2) the mode of His expression was changed. He gave expression to the essence of His deity in which He is a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. The splendor and majesty of His deity (He 1:3-note) shone through the "clay walls of His humanity", and by means of a medium discernible to the physical eyesight of His astounded audience. The form of God in Philippians 2:8 speaks of an expression of His glory not discernible to our physical vision, although His resurrection glory will be for when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is and everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." (1Jn 3:2-note, 1Jn 3:3-note) Peter affirms that "though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory" (1Pe 1:18-note) Thus our Lord in His preincarnate state manifested the glory of His deity to the holy angels in an outward mode of expression discernible to these spiritual intelligences. The KJV Bible Commentary explains that morphe... signifies the mode in which He expresses His divine essence. Form (Greek morphe) “always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlines it” (H. A. A. Kennedy, The Epistle to the Philippians, p. 436) No creature could exist in the form of God, but Lucifer aspired to this (Isa 14:12, 13, 14). To give expression to the essence of deity implies the possession of deity. What Peter, James, and John witnessed on the Mount of Transfiguration was a glimpse of the outward expression of His deity (Mt 17:1, 2). Christ’s own eternal self-manifesting characteristics were shining forth from His divine essence. (Dobson, E G, Charles Feinberg, E Hindson, Woodrow Kroll, H L. Wilmington: KJV Bible Commentary: Nelson) Marvin Vincent has a lengthy more technical theological discussion on morphe explaining that "We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from schema = fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Morphe or form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: Schema = fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form...As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds. This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire. To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (Phil 2:7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being. Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God. This form, not being identical with the divine essence, but dependent upon it, and necessarily implying it, can be parted with or laid aside. Since Christ is one with God, and therefore pure being, absolute existence, He can exist without the form. This form of God Christ laid aside in His incarnation. (Vincent's multi-volume work is free with e-sword or you can read the online version). The word "God" does not have the article "the" in Greek (anarthrous), which stresses the quality or essence. John Walvoord... The expression “being in the form of God” (Note: The Greek being is not the usual verb on (to be), but huparchon in the form of an imperfect participle, meaning continued existence, emphasizing the fact that Christ had always been and still is in the form of God. The imperfect tense is in contrast to the aorist verbs used in reference to the incarnation which describe acts in time.) means not only that Christ is God, but that He always was God and that He existed as God, not simply because He possessed all the attributes of God, but because these were manifested outwardly and He had the appearance and glory of God. Being thus from eternity past all that God is both in substance and in manifestation, He did not consider His being on equality with God something that needed to be retained by self-effort, but rather “made himself of no reputation,” literally, “emptied Himself,” taking on the form of a servant. Three Greek words are used to describe the outer appearance of Christ: (1) Morphe (form), referring to divine nature and attributes in their manifestation. The form of God is in contrast to the form of a servant (v. 7) or the manifestation of Christ in the substance and attributes of a servant. (2) Homoiomati (likeness), meaning that Christ was made like other men in His essential attributes and manifestation as a genuine man (v. 7). (3) Schemati (fashion), referring to outer manifestation and more transient characteristics of humanity (v. 8). The use of the three words together affirm that Christ was from eternity past all that God is in substance, attributes, and manifestation. Becoming incarnate He was all that was necessary to genuine humanity apart from sin. In appearance he looked like a man and acted like a man. In His incarnate state Christ continued to be all that God is though appearing in the form of man. After His ascension and glorification He continued to be all that man is apart from sin, limitation, and human characteristics that pertain only to this life. (Philippians 2 At the Name of Jesus Every Knee Should Bow) DID NOT REGARD EQUALITY WITH GOD A THING TO BE GRASPED: ouch harpagmon hegesato (3SAMI) to einai (PAN) isa theo: (Ge 32:24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30; 48:15, 48:16; Ezek 8:2, 3, 4, 5, 6; Jos 5:13, 14, 15; Hos 12:3, 4, 5; Zec 13:7; Jn 5:18; 5:23, Jn 8:56, 57, 58, 59; 10:30; 10:33, 10:38, 14:9; 20:28; Rev 1:17, 18; 21:6) Who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped (ASV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God (Young's Literal) Let Earth and Heaven Combine He laid His glory by, He wrapped Him in our clay; Unmarked by human eye, The latent Godhead lay; Infant of days He here became, And bore the mild Immanuel’s Name. Remember that what Paul is doing in the deeply theological passages is exhorting the saints at Philippi to manifest a humble attitude motivated by the perfect example of our blessed Lord. Paul knows that if they manifest a "mind of Christ" attitude, this will ensure unity in their local body. Christ thought of others, not Himself. Unlike the first Adam, who made a frantic attempt to seize equality with God (Gen 3:5), Jesus, the last Adam (1Cor 15:47), humbled himself and obediently accepted the role of the Suffering Servant for the sake of Adam's spiritually dead progeny. This is the example Paul sets before the saints at Philippi. Regard (2233) (hegeomai = the middle deponent of the verb ágo = to lead) primarily means to lead and thus to "lead the mind" through a reasoning process to a conclusion. The idea is to think about something and come to a conclusion. Hegeomai is consideration which involves careful thought and not quick decision. It involves a conscious judgment resting on deliberate weighing of the facts. It is translated "esteem" in Phil 2:3 (note) Equality (2470) (isos) defines things exactly same in size, quantity, quality, character or number. Thing of your geometry class when you learned about an "isosceles" triangle, one having two sides of equal length. That is the picture of the Greek word "isos". In becoming a man, Jesus did not in any way forfeit or diminish His absolute equality with God. Dwight Edwards explains that... Out of love for us and the joy set before Him (He 12:2-note), He released His grip on equality with the Father and began sliding down the rope of humiliation. Christ had a perfect right to bold on to what was His. But He did not cling to His rights, but rather He let go of them with an five fingers. (Philippians) Grasped (725) (harpagmos from harpazo = to seize upon with force) originally meant “a thing seized by robbery” and eventually came to mean anything snatched, clutched, embraced, or prized, thus is sometimes translated “grasped” or “held onto” as a treasure is clutched and retained. Given this definition we can paraphrase this verse... “Christ did not regard His equality with God as a treasure to be clutched and retained at all costs.” Jesus refused to selfishly cling to His favored position as the divine Son of God nor view it as a prized possession to be used for Himself. The KJV Bible Commentary explains that... This word (harpagmos) has two distinct meanings. One, a thing unlawfully seized, and two, a treasure to be clutched and retained. Christ did not cling to His prerogatives of His divine majesty, did not ambitiously display His equality with God. Christ waived His rights to: (1) express His deity; (2) display His divine attributes; and (3) demonstrate His equality with God. He did not regard His position as equal with God as something to be held onto, but as something to be relinquished for the redemption of man. He gave up His throne in glory for a cross of shame and suffering. (Ibid) In his classic book "The Incarnation" E H Gifford (published about 1896) explains this mysterious divine transaction as... Thus it is not the nature or essence . . .but the mode of existence that is described in this second clause [“did not consider it robbery to be equal with God”]; and one mode of existence may be changed for another, though the essential nature is immutable. Let us take St. Paul’s own illustration, 2Cor 8:9 “Though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.” Here in each case there is a change of the mode of existence, but not of the nature. When a poor man becomes rich, his mode of existence is changed, but not his nature as man. It is so with the Son of God; from the rich and glorious mode of existence which was the fit and adequate manifestation of His divine nature, He for our sakes descended, in respect of His human life, to the infinitely lower and poorer mode of existence which He assumed together with the nature of man. Wuest writing on harpagmos notes that.. The Greek word has two distinct meanings, “a thing unlawfully seized,” and “a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards.” When a Greek word has more than one meaning, the rule of interpretation is to take the one which agrees with the context in which it is found. The passage which we are studying is the illustration of the virtues mentioned in Phil 2:2, 3, 4, namely, humility, and self-abnegation for the benefit of others. If our Lord did not consider it a thing to be unlawfully seized to be equal with God in the expression of the divine essence, then He would be asserting His rights to that expression. He would be declaring His rightful ownership of that prerogative. But to assert one’s right to a thing does not partake of an attitude of humility and self-abnegation. Therefore, this meaning of the word will not do here. If our Lord did not consider the expression of His divine essence such a treasure that it should be retained at all hazards, that would mean that He was willing to waive His rights to that expression if the necessity arose. This is the essence of humility and of self-abnegation. Thus, our second meaning is the one to be used here. (Wuest, K. S. Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: Studies in the Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) Vincent adds this note on harpagmos taking it to mean a highly prized possession, we understand Paul to say that Christ, being, before His incarnation, in the form of God, did not regard His divine equality as a prize which was to be grasped at and retained at all hazards, but, on the contrary, laid aside the form of God, and took upon Himself the nature of man. The emphasis in the passage is upon Christ’s humiliation. The fact of His equality with God is stated as a background, in order to throw the circumstances of His incarnation into stronger relief. Hence the peculiar form of Paul’s statement. Christ’s great object was to identify Himself with humanity; not to appear to men as divine but as human. Had He come into the world emphasizing His equality with God, the world would have been amazed, but not saved, He did not grasp at this. But rather He counted humanity His prize, and so laid aside the conditions of His preexistent state, and became man. (Greek Word Studies) Philippians 2:7 but emptied (3SAAI) Himself, taking (AAPMSN) the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. (NASB: Lockman) Greek: talla heauton ekenosen (3SAAI) morphen doulou labon, (AAPMSN) en homoiomati anthropon genomenos; (AMPMSN) Amplified: But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being. . (Amplified Bible - Lockman) KJV: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Barclay: but he emptied himself, and took the very form of a slave, and became like men. (Westminster Press) Lightfoot: but divested himself of the glories of heaven, and took upon him the nature of a servant, assuming the likeness of men. Phillips: but stripped himself of all privilege by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born as mortal man. (Phillips: Touchstone) Wuest: But emptied Himself, having taken the outward expression of a bondslave, which expression came from and was truly representative of His nature, entering into a new state of existence, that of mankind. (Eerdmans) Young's Literal: but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, BUT EMPTIED HIMSELF: alla heauton ekenosen (3SAAI): (Ps 22:6; Isa 49:7; 50:5,6; 52:14; 53:2,3; Da 9:26; Zec 9:9; Mk 9:12; Ro 15:3; 2Co 8:9; Heb 2:9-18; 12:2; 13:3) The old King James is still a beautiful and poignant rendering... But made Himself of no reputation... Regarding the pronoun "himself" the KJV Bible Commentary notes that... Himself is accusative in Greek. He did not empty something from Himself, but He emptied Himself from something, i.e., the form of God. The figure presented is similar to pouring water from a pitcher into a glass. The form is different, but the substance remains the same. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb 13:8). Christ emptied Himself of His divine glory (Jn 17:3), but not of His divine nature. He emptied Himself of the self-manifestation of His divine essence. “He was not unable to assert equality with God. He was able not to assert it” (M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament. p. 433). He stripped Himself of His expression of deity, but not His possession of deity. He restricted the outward manifestation of His deity. In His incarnation, He clothed Himself with humanity. He was like a king temporarily clothing himself in the garb of a peasant while still remaining king, even though it was not apparent. When Christ became incarnate, He was one person with two natures, divine and human, “each in its completeness and integrity, and that these two natures are organically and indissolubly united, yet so that no third nature is formed thereby. In brief, to use the antiquated dictum, orthodox doctrine forbids us either to divide the person or to confound the natures” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 673). Christ emptied Himself in order that He might fill us (2Cor 5:21; 8:9). (Dobson, E G, Charles Feinberg, E Hindson, Woodrow Kroll, H L. Wilmington: KJV Bible Commentary: Nelson) Emptied (2758) (kenoo from kenos = empty) means to completely eliminate elements of high status or rank by eliminating all privileges or prerogatives associated with such status or rank. Emptied does not mean that Jesus gave up divine attributes. In short, Jesus did not surrender His deity! But He did veil His glory. Marvin Vincent explains that emptied is Not used or intended here in a metaphysical sense to define the limitations of Christ’s incarnate state, but as a strong and graphic expression of the completeness of his self-renunciation. It includes all the details of humiliation which follow, and is defined by these. Further definition belongs to speculative theology. not intended in a metaphysical sense (i.e., that he gave up divine attributes), but is a “graphic expression of the completeness of his self-renunciation” (M. R. Vincent, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, p. 59 ). Kenoo was used of removing things from a container, until the container is empty; of pouring something out, until there is nothing left. So of what did He empty Himself? To reemphasize, He did not empty Himself of His divine nature for that would be impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There is controversy concerning the precise meaning of the "kenosis", some theologians of liberal persuasion suggest that Jesus became human in the sense that He was fallible, possibly even sinful. Conservative theologians interpret this passage to mean that Jesus took on the limitations of humanity. This involved a veiling of His preincarnate glory (Jn 17:5) and the voluntary nonuse of some of His divine prerogatives during the time He was on earth (Mt 24:36). John Walvoord... The Greek expression ekenosen, meaning to empty, is a strong word speaking of the dramatic act of incarnation. It must be interpreted, however, by its context. Christ did not empty Himself of deity, but of its outward manifestation. He emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant (Greek labon, meaning taking, an aorist participle indicating simultaneous action). The incarnation did not change the person and attributes of Christ in His divine nature, but added to it a complete human nature. To achieve the divine purpose of becoming the Savior, the divine glory needed to be veiled. Christ voluntarily, moment by moment, submitted to human limitations apart from sin. The humiliation was temporary. The incarnation was everlasting. (Philippians 2 At the Name of Jesus Every Knee Should Bow) For an excellent discussion of Philippians 2:6-11 from a thoroughly conservative and Scripturally based perspective John MacArthur's Philippians 2:6-11 Incarnation of Triune God is highly recommended. Clearly Jesus did not cease being God for He Himself made the clear declaration to Philip in the form of a question... "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (Jn 14:9) Aside He threw His most divine array, And hid His Godhead in a veil of clay, And in that garb did wondrous love display, Restoring what He never took away. TAKING THE FORM OF A BONDSERVANT: morphe doulou labon (AAPMSN): (Isa 42:1; 49:3,6; 52:13; 53:11; Ezek 34:23,24; Zec 3:8; Mt 12:18; Mt 20:28; Mk 10:44,45; Lk 22:27; Jn 13:3-14; Ro 15:8) The passage denotes the special or characteristic form or feature of a person or thing. Morphe is the essential form which never alters; schema is the outward form which changes from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance. Taking (2983) (lambano) is an instrumental participle in the Greek, indicating the means by which the action in the main verb is accomplished. Our Lord set Himself aside by taking upon Himself the form of a servant. The word "form" (morphe) has the same content of meaning as the word "form" in Php2:6. “Taking” does not imply an exchange but adding something and so Paul teaches that the Lord did not lay aside the form of God and did not cease to be God, but He added the “form” of man.