Appearance (4976) (schema gives us English "scheme") refers purely outward and appeals to the senses. The contrast here is between what He was in Himself, God, and what He appeared in the eyes of man. "Likeness" states the fact of His real resemblance to men in mode of existence. (Derivative words of schema = metaschematizo, suschematizo) Schema "always refers to what may be known from without." (Schneider, TDNT 1:954) Schema in this verse signifies what Jesus was in the eyes of men. Schema describes the entire, outward, perceptible mode and shape of Christ's existence as a man. Thayer says schema is... the habitus, as comprising everything in a person which strikes the senses, the figure, bearing, discourse, actions, manner of life, etc. Schema should be distinguished from the Greek word morphe which signifies "form" in Phil 2:7. Vine (quoting from Gifford's work "The Incarnation") says that morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists.…Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ.… For the interprehtion of ‘the form of God’ it is sufficient to say that (1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and (2) that it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the ‘form,’ at another separated from it.… “The true meaning of morphe in the expression ‘form of God’ is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, ‘form of a servant.’ It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that ‘form’ must therefore have the same sense in both.” Expositor's adds that morphe “always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it...the words mean ‘the being on an equality with God.’” KJV Bible Commentary The word form (Greek morphÄ") differs from fashion (Greek schÄ"ma) as that which is intrinsic from that which is outward. The contrast is between what He is in Himself (God) and what He appears to be in the eyes of men (man). Christ had all the qualities which Adam had before he sinned, but not the sinful nature which came through Adam’s fall. (Dobson, E G, Charles Feinberg, E Hindson, Woodrow Kroll, H L. Wilmington: KJV Bible Commentary: Nelson or Logos) Radmacher explains that schema is the third word Paul uses to show the Philippians that Jesus Christ who is fully God from all eternity is also fully man. In the previous verses, Paul describes Jesus as possessing the nature of God and taking on the nature (morphe) of a servant. Jesus came to the earth with the identity of a man (homoÃoma = likeness). Here the word appearance points to the external characteristics of Jesus: He had the bearing, actions, and manners of a man. (Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. The Nelson Study Bible: NKJV. Nashville: Thomas Nelson) Barclay writes that... There are two Greek words for form, morphÄ" and schÄ"ma. They must both be translated form, because there is no other English equivalent, but they do not mean the same thing. MorphÄ" is the essential form which never alters; schÄ"ma is the outward form which changes from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance. For instance, the morphÄ" of any human being is humanity and this never changes; but his schÄ"ma is continually changing. A baby, a child, a boy, a youth, a man of middle age, an old man always have the morphÄ" of humanity, but the outward schÄ"ma changes all the time. Roses, daffodils, tulips, chrysanthemums, primroses, dahlias, lupins all have the one morphÄ" of flowers; but their schÄ"ma is different. Aspirin, penicillin, cascara, magnesia all have the one morphÄ" of drugs; but their schÄ"ma is different. The morphÄ" never alters; the schÄ"ma continually does. The word Paul uses for Jesus being in the form of God is morphÄ"; that is to say, his unchangeable being is divine. However his outward schÄ"ma might alter, he remained in essence divine. (Barclay, W: The Daily Study Bible Series. The Westminster Press or The New Daily Study Bible New Testament - Logos) NIDNTT has this note on the classic use of schema... (1) form, shape, figure; (2) appearance, as opposed to reality; (3) bearing, air, mien; (4) fashion, manner; (5) character. Greek thought did not sharply distinguish between the external and the internal. SchÄ"ma denotes the form that is seen. It could thus denote the role played by an actor which includes its essential character (Plato, Leg., 11, 918e). But the outward form can also be deceptive, and appearance become a sham. SchÄ"ma can thus mean mere appearance as opposed to reality. It can also mean a dancing figure (Plato, Ion, 536c), bodily attitude or bearing (Eur., Medea, 1039), clothing (Xen., Cyr., 5, 1, 5), and occasionally semblance (Theophrastus, Historia Plantarum, 3, 12, 7). In studying the Greek word, one has to beware of the modern outlook which would relate schÄ"ma merely to external things, implying that the essential character was something different. To the Greek mind, the observer saw not only the outer shell but the whole form with it. (Brown, Colin, Editor. New International Dictionary of NT Theology. 1986. Zondervan or Computer version) The only other NT use of schema is 1 Corinthians 7:31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form (schema) of this world is passing away (cp similar statement in 1Jn 2:17). Comment: In the context of 1Cor 7:31, schema signifies that which comprises the manner of life, actions, etc., of humanity in general. There is one use of schema in the Lxx in Isaiah 3:17 where it refers to the "proud bearing of women." (Schneider, TDNT). Appearance in summary defines the outward mode and expression. While on earth, Jesus did not give expression to the glory of His deity except on the Mount of Transfiguration. He appeared as the Man Christ Jesus to the world around Him. He was in His humiliation. And of course in contrast to the occasional nuance of schema meaning deception, Jesus' schema never for an instance presented even a suggestion of deception. He was fully Man, just as other men saw Him. Indeed John records Jesus' schema as interpreted by Nathanael... Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no (not "me" but "ouk" = absolute negation) guile (dolos)!" (Jn 1:47) Spurgeon's Exposition... He had not descended low enough yet, though he had come down all the way from the Godhead to our manhood: “he humbled himself.” What a cruel and ignominious death for the Son of God to suffer! Did he lose anything by all this wondrous condescension? Will you lose anything by any dishonor that may come upon you for Christ’s sake, for the truth’s sake? No; listen to what followed our Savior’s humiliation:— He humbled himself, so be you not unwilling to humble yourself. Lower than the cross Christ could not go, his death was one of such extreme ignominy that he could not have been more disgraced and degraded. Be you willing to take the lowest place in the Church of God, and to render the humblest service, count it an honor to be allowed to wash the saints feet. Be humble in mind; nothing is lost by cherishing this spirit, for see how Jesus Christ was honored in the end. D A Carson explains this section noting that Jesus Christ... “made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant [literally, slave] . . .” (Phil 2:7). But Paul does not tell us that Christ exchanged one form for another; he is not saying that Jesus was God, gave that up, and became a slave instead. Rather, without ever abandoning who he was originally, he adopted the mode of existence of a slave. To do this, he (literally) became “in human likeness (morphe)” (Phil 2:7). The idea is not that he merely became like a human being, a reasonable facsimile but not truly human. Rather, it means that he became a being fashioned in this way: a human being. He was always God; He now becomes something He was not, a human being. “And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!” (Phil 2:8). (Basics for Believers : an Exposition of Philippians) Bob Utley... In Greek philosophy morphÄ" meant “the inner form of something that truly reflected its inner essence,” while “ schÄ"ma ” meant “the outer changing form of something that did not fully represent its inner essence” (cf. 1Cor. 7:31). Jesus is like us in all ways except fallen mankind’s sin nature. (Philippians 2 Commentary) Marvin Vincent says that when we consider morphe... 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...As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. Alexander Maclaren... Equally emphatic in another direction is Paul’s next expression, ‘In the form of God,’ for ‘form’ means much more than ‘shape.’ I would point out the careful selection in this passage of three words to express three ideas which are often by hasty thought regarded as identical, We read of ‘the form of God’ (Phil. 2:6),’ the likeness of men’ (Phil. 2:7), and’ in fashion as a man.’ Careful investigation of these two words ‘form’ and’ fashion’ has established a broad distinction between them, the former being more fixed, the latter referring to that which is accidental and outward, which may be fleeting and unsubstantial. The possession of the form involves participation in the essence also. Here it implies no corporeal idea as if God had a material form, but it implies also much more than a mere apparent resemblance. He who is in the form of God possesses the essential divine attributes. Only God can be ‘in the form of God’: man is made in the likeness of God, but man is not ‘in the form of God.’ Light is thrown on this lofty phrase by its antithesis with the succeeding expression in the next verse, ‘the form of a servant,’ and as that is immediately explained to refer to Christ’s assumption of human nature, there is no room for candid doubt that ‘being originally in the form of God’ is a deliberately asserted claim of the divinity of Christ in His pre-existent state. (The Descent of the Word) Lightfoot in his commentary on Philippians has a lengthy discussion of schema as it differs from morphe... The word schema corresponds exactly in derivation, though but partially in meaning, to the old English ‘haviour.’ In its first sense it denotes the figure, shape, fashion, of a thing. Thence it gathers several derived meanings. It gets to signify, like the corresponding Latin ‘habitus,’ sometimes the dress or costume..., sometimes the attitude or demeanor.... Schema is used also for a ‘figure of speech,’ as the dress in which the sense clothes itself or the posture which the language assumes. It signifies moreover pomp, display, outward circumstance....Morphe, like schema, originally refers to the organs of sense. If schema may be rendered by ‘figure,’ ‘fashion,’ morphe corresponds to ‘form.’ Morphe comprises all those sensible qualities, which striking the eye lead to the conviction that we see such and such a thing....the great and entire change of the inner life, otherwise described as being born again, being created anew, is spoken of as a conversion of morphe always, of schema never. Thus ‘He fore-ordained them conformable (summorphous) to the image of His Son’ (Ro 8:29); ‘Being made conformable (summorphizomenos) to His death’ (Phil. 3:10); ‘We are transformed (metamorphoumetha) into the same image’ (2Cor. 3:18); ‘To be transformed by the renewal of the mind’ (Ro 12:2); ‘Until Christ be formed (morphothe) in you’ (Gal. 4:19). In these passages again, if any one doubts whether morphe has any special force, let him substitute schema and try the effect. In some cases indeed, where the organs of sense are concerned and where the appeal lies to popular usage, either word might be used. Yet I think it will be felt at once that in the account of the transfiguration metaschematizesthai would have been out of place and that metamorposthai alone is adequate to express the completeness and significance of the change (Mt 17:2, Mark 9:2). Even in the later addition to Mark’s Gospel here our Lord is described as appearing to the two disciples en hetera morphe, though morphe here has no peculiar force, yet schema would perhaps be avoided instinctively, as it might imply an illusion or an imposture. It will be observed also that in two passages where Paul speaks of an appearance which is superficial and unreal, though not using schema, he still avoids morphe as inappropriate and adopts morphosis (Ed: "the state of being formally structured, embodiment, formulation, form...In 2Ti 3:5 the idea of mere outward form is derived from the context" BADG) instead (Ro 2:20, 2Ti 3:5). Here the termination denotes the aiming after or affecting the morphe. And the distinction, which has thus appeared from the review of each word separately, will be seen still more clearly from those passages where they occur together. In Ro 12:2 (suschematizo...metamorphoo) the form of the sentence calls attention to the contrast, and the appropriateness of each word in its own connection is obvious: ‘Not to follow the fleeting fashion of this world, but to undergo a complete change, assume a new form, in the renewal of the mind.’... Thus in the passage under consideration the morphe is contrasted with the schema, as that which is intrinsic and essential with that which is accidental and outward. And the three clauses imply respectively the true divine nature of our Lord (μορφὴ Θεοῦ), the true human nature (μορφὴ δούλου), and the externals of the human nature (σχήματι ὡÏ‚ á¼â€žÃŽÂ½ÃŽÂ¸ÃÂÃâ€°Ãâ‚¬ÃŽÂ¿Ãâ€š). (Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians}, (St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians - page 125-131) Joseph Beet... Fashion (in NT only 1Co 7:31) differs from form as any occasional appearance or visible clothing differs from an expression which corresponds to actual inner reality. The form of God is the appropriate self-manifestation of the Son’s essence, of His equality with God. The fashion as a man was the outward guise of humanity, a visible clothing bearing only a distant relation to the actual nature of the Son. It is practically the same as in the likeness of men, except perhaps that it recalls more conspicuously the outward aspect of Christ as an individual man. In this outward guise, by those who sought Him, the Incarnate Son was found. This last word keeps before us, as does the conspicuous repetition of the word form, the self-presentation of the Son both as God and as Man. (Philippians 2 Commentary) James E Rosscup writes that Jesus did not rid Himself of the essence in which He was God, or relinquish the attributes of God. He always remained God but also became man. He was fully God and fully man, in one Person. He did not exchange the “form” of God (let it go), but always had this, and simply added or took the form also of a man in being fully humanity. What He emptied Himself of was the exercise, use, or expression of the prerogatives of being God. As a servant, He showed perfect submission to the Father to do His will as the God-man. This is as other humans also can obey whatever is God’s will for them, as in many things it varies for each person. Christ worked miracles only as these served the Father in His will and timing, and many times bypassed showing the power He could have asserted, never making His own way easier. He lived as a true human, experiencing thirst, hunger, and weariness in His treks instead of moving from one place to another in an instant. (An Exposition on Prayer in the Bible: Igniting the Fuel to Flame Our Communication with God) HE HUMBLED HIMSELF: etapeinosen (3SAAI) heauton: (Acts 8:33; Heb 5:5, 6, 7; 12:2) In Proverbs we read that... The fear (reverential awe) of the LORD (Jehovah) is the instruction for wisdom, and before honor comes humility (Compare - the Cross, before the Crown!). (Pr 15:33) "STOOPING LOWER" Jesus put aside all personal rights and interests in order to insure the welfare of others. In so doing He gave us His perfect example to follow in His steps (1Pe 2:21-note, 1Jn 2:6). F B Meyer spoke of applying Jesus' pattern of living as a Man to our life as men and women who are now in Him (and enabled by His indwelling Spirit, the Spirit of Christ)... I used to think that God’s gifts were on shelves one above the other, and that the taller we grew in Christian character the more easily we could reach them. I now find that God’s gifts are on shelves one beneath the other and that it is not a question of growing taller but of stooping lower.