Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is there any evidence that μορφῇ θεοῦ (morphe theou) in Philippians 2:6 means the "nature" of God the Father?

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, — SBLGNT

Several translations including the NIV render it as "nature":

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; — NIV

While many others (e.g. ESV, NASB, HCSB, ISV, NET, etc.) render it as "form":

who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. — HCSB

Is there evidence in the NT and/or contemporary first century literature that morphe is used as having the meaning of "nature"?

share|improve this question

4 Answers 4

Jesus was both "in the form of God" (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ) and "took the form of a servant" (μορφὴν δούλου λαβών).

Jesus "took the form of a servant" (Phil. 2:7) and he was a servant (Isa. 42:1). Jesus was "in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6) and he was __.

form of a servant: servant :: form of God: ___

form of X: X :: form of Y: Y

share|improve this answer

The word μορφῇ means "form, outward appearance, [or] shape"1 (occurring in the dative in this context following the preposition ἐν). To be very blunt, translating this as "nature" (as the NIV does) is a poor translation choice. Discussion of God's nature is theologically charged and thus using "nature" in this context could be misleading. The NET translators explain the usage of μορφῇ in Philippians 2:6 by saying:

The Greek term translated form indicates a correspondence with reality. Thus the meaning of this phrase is that Christ was truly God.2

The next verse uses the same word (but in the accusative) in the phrase μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ("taking [the] form of a slave"). Jesus truly was God, and also he truly was a servant. For an in depth understanding of the usage of μορφῇ both in biblical and extra-biblical writings I have copied a lexical entry for you:

μορφή, ῆς, ἡ (Hom.+) form, outward appearance, shape gener. of bodily form 1 Cl 39:3; ApcPt 4:13 (Job 4:16; ApcEsdr 4:14 p. 28, 16 Tdf.; SJCh 78, 13). Of the shape or form of statues (Jos., Vi. 65; Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv. I 67, 11]) Dg 2:3. Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons (Callisthenes [IV B.C.]: 124 Fgm. 13 p. 644, 32 Jac. [in Athen. 10, 75, 452b] Λιμὸς ἔχων γυναικὸς μορφήν; Diod S 3, 31, 4 ἐν μορφαῖς ἀνθρώπων; TestAbr A 16 p. 97, 11 [Stone p. 42] ἀρχαγγέλου μορφὴν περικείμενος; Jos., Ant. 5, 213 a messenger fr. heaven νεανίσκου μορφῇ): of God’s assembly, the church Hv 3, 10, 2; 9; 3, 11, 1; 3, 13, 1; Hs 9, 1, 1; of the angel of repentance ἡ μ. αὐτοῦ ἠλλοιώθη his appearance had changed m 12, 4, 1. Of Christ (ἐν μ. ἀνθρώπου TestBenj 10:7; Just., D. 61, 1; Tat. 2, 1; Hippol., Ref. 5, 16, 10. Cp. Did., Gen. 56, 18; of deities ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ μορφῇ: Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 6, 30; cp. Philo, Abr. 118) μορφὴν δούλου λαβών he took on the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7 (w. σχῆμα as Aristot., Cat. 10a, 11f, PA 640b, 30–36). This is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preëxistent Christ: ἐν μ. θεοῦ ὑπάρχων although he was in the form of God (cp. OGI 383, 40f: Antiochus’ body is the framework for his μ. or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; sim. human fragility [Phil 2:7] becomes the supporting framework for Christ’s servility and therefore of his κένωσις [on the appearance one projects cp. the epitaph EpigrAnat 17, ’91, 156, no. 3, 5–8]; on μορφὴ θεοῦ cp. Orig., C. Cels. 7, 66, 21; Pla., Rep. 2, 380d; 381bc; X., Mem. 4, 3, 13; Diog. L. 1, 10 the Egyptians say μὴ εἰδέναι τοῦ θεοῦ μορφήν; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 80; 110; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 190; Just., A I, 9, 1; PGM 7, 563; 13, 272; 584.—Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 357f) Phil 2:6. The risen Christ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ appeared in a different form Mk 16:12 (of the transfiguration of Jesus: ἔδειξεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἔνδοξον μορφὴν ἑαυτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 6, 68, 23). For lit. s. on ἁρπαγμός and κενόω 1b; RMartin, ET 70, ’59, 183f.—DSteenberg, The Case against the Synonymity of μορφή and εἰκών: JSNT 34, ’88, 77–86; GStroumsa, HTR 76, ’83, 269–88 (Semitic background).—DELG. Schmidt, Syn. IV 345–60. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq. Sv.3

Concerning the usage of μορφή in both passages, in v. 6 "being" (ὑπάρχων) in the form of God was natural (he was 'in the form of God'), while in v. 7 'taking' (λαβών) the form of a slave was an active choice.


1 William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 659.

2 Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Php 2:6.

3 Arndt, Danker, and Bauer, 659.

share|improve this answer
Let me know if you want to know more about any of the works referenced in the lexicon. I have a guide to the abbreviations used; I know they are not always clear. –  Dan Apr 15 '13 at 3:03
Do you find any significance in the different cases? –  swasheck Apr 15 '13 at 15:13
@swasheck not particularly, just the role they play in each sentence. In v. 6 it is in the dative because of the preposition. In v. 7 it is in accusative because it is the direct object of the participle. The genitive 'slave' just modifies the object here to explain what type/kind of form was taken. Am I missing something? –  Dan Apr 15 '13 at 15:17
@swasheck If I played on anything linguistically it would be that "being" (ὑπάρχων) in the form of God was natural (he was 'in the form of God'), while 'taking' (λαβών) the form of a slave was an active choice. –  Dan Apr 15 '13 at 15:20

The occurrence of morphe and its co-words in the New Testament proves that it denotes " nature" not just mere appearance:

Moral nature Romans 12:2 ( are we to change in "appearance' only as Christians and not in our moral nature? also 2 Corinthians 3:18 ) Servant's nature Philippians 2:7 ( did he just "appeared" to be a servant or really become a servant?) God's nature Philippians 2:6 ( Even though if it means "appearance" here it still requires that he has the Father's nature because only the Father has a divine appearance. Check below)

"Son of Man" Daniel 7:13

"Son of Man" Revelation 1:13


"The hair of his head was pure like wool" Daniel 7:9

"The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as snow" Revelation 1:14


"A Man clothed in Linen" Daniel 10:5

"A Man clothed with a Long Robe" Revelation 1:13


"With a belt of fine Gold" Daniel 10:5

"With a golden sash" Revelation 1:13


"His face like the appearance of lightning" Daniel 10:6

"His face was shining like the sun shining in full strength" Revelation 1:16


"His eyes like flaming torches" Daniel 10:6

"His eyes were like a flame of fire" Revelation 1:14


"His arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze: Daniel 10:6

"His feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace" Revelation 1:15


"The sound of his words like the sound of a multitude", Daniel 10:6

"His voice was like the roar of many waters" Revelation 1:15


"I fell on my face in deep sleep with my face to the ground" Daniel 10:9

"When I say him I fell at his feet as though dead" Revelation 1:17


"And behold a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees" Daniel 10: 10

"But he laid his right hand on me…" Revelation 1:17


"Then he said to me, Fear not" Daniel 10: 12

"…Saying, Fear not" Revelation 1:17

share|improve this answer

The Greek Phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ means “in very nature, God” ( NIV 2011)

In Biblical Greek, μορφῇ means “form” ( nature, outward appearance). It’s dual meaning is used in the Bible. MORPHE as “nature” is used for about 5 times in the NT ( Phil. 2:6, Romans 12:2, Phil. 3:10 and 21,Gal. 4:19 ) and as “outward appearance” in both the OT (Daniel 3:19 ) and the NT ( 2 Timothy 3:5 ).

The context wherein the Greek word μορφῇoccurs in the Carmen Cristi reveals that its denotation is ‘nature’ and not ‘appearance.’

Who, existing in very nature, God …taking the very nature of a servant… ( Philippians 2:6-7 NIV).

God has no physical appearance but rather, he has a real essence.

“The Greek term translated form indicates a correspondence with reality. Thus the meaning of this phrase is that Christ was truly God.” ~ NETBible on Philippians 2:6's "en morphe theou."

"Christ was truly God..." ( Philippians 2:6 CEV).

In Philippians 2:6-7, it is clear that Jesus has dual form.

Jesus is ‘God in form.’ ~ Philippians 2:6 Jesus is ‘servant in form.’ ~ Philippians 2:7


1) English Dictionaries define “form” as “essence” (nature) not just “external appearance."

2) Christ did not literally emptied himself.

Christ did not literally make himself empty of anything in Philippians 2:7.

In Romans 4:4, Paul said that “faith is made void ( Greek: ἐκένωσεν ).”Faith did not literally emptied itself of anything. Likewise, in Philippians 2:7, Jesus did not literally make himself empty of anything.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.