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"?


9 Answers 9


The Lord Jesus Christ was both “in the form of God” (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ) and “took the form of a servant” (μορφὴν δούλου λαβών).

If he “took the form of a servant”1 and was a servant,2 then “in the form of God,”3 he was God.

form of a servant: servant :: form of God: God
form of X: X :: form of Y: Y


1 Phil. 2:7
2 Isa. 42:1
3 Phil. 2:6


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.

  • 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
    Commented Apr 15, 2013 at 3:03
  • Do you find any significance in the different cases?
    – swasheck
    Commented Apr 15, 2013 at 15:13
  • 1
    @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
    Commented Apr 15, 2013 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
    Commented Apr 15, 2013 at 15:20

As Radz mentioned, there seems to be instances in the NT of both meanings ("appearance" and "nature").

I would say that "nature" fits in the case of Phil 2:6-7 because of the context - namely the contrast between "he existed" (ὑπάρχω (5225)) and "he took" (λαμβάνω (2983)). The first form (being God) is the original, the second form (a servant) was an extension or addition that He chose. This is consistent with another typical use of "nature": to describe our sin condition versus our being made in the image of God.

Of course, this is assuming my understanding of the English word "nature" is even valid...

  • I think the sort of “nature” you’re referring to in the last sentence of the second paragraph is φύσις rather than μορφή, drawn from Eph 2:3 - "ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί·" - "We were by nature children of wrath, just like the rest."
    – Susan
    Commented Sep 15, 2015 at 18:30
  • Welcome to the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange, we are glad you are here. When you get a chance, be sure to read up on how this site is a little different than most other sites. This is not a comment on the quality of your answer, but rather a standard welcome message.
    – ThaddeusB
    Commented Sep 15, 2015 at 19:01

What evidence is there that “morphe theou” in Philippians 2:6 means “God's nature”?

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

Philippians 2:6-7 (NASB)

6 "Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men."

The word " morphe-μορφη "also appears in the following verse in Philipians 2:7 and Mark 16:12

6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, — 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος -SBLGNT

The word " morphe " also appears in Mark 16:12 The NIV translates it "form".

Mark 16:12 1881 (WHNU)

12 μετα δε ταυτα δυσιν εξ αυτων περιπατουσιν εφανερωθη εν ετερα μορφη πορευομενοις εις αγρον

Mark 16:12 (NIV) 12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking

Below are excerpts of the comments made on the word "morphe" by Jason David BeDuhn Professor of Theology in his book "TRUTH IN TRANSLATION." Page 53.

[ What exactly Paul means by "in the form of God" is part of the intepretive debate about the passage. At least one possibility is that it is meant to echo the characterization of human beings as being made "in the image of "god in Genesis 1 ( in other words, Christ possessed that perfect form/image of God that humans originally had, but had lost through doing the opposite of what Christ is reported to have done).

The Greek word "morphe" is fairly generic. and can mean a number of things. But it does not mean "nature" or "essence, not does it signify that anything "was" or was "one with" something else. These four translations (NIV, TEV, AB. LB) do not translate the Greek, but substitute interpretation of their own that are not based in Paul's language at all. Therefore are inaccurate , and their bias is evident in what they try to import into the passage.. The TEV and NIV have tried to introduce a "two-nature Christology (first worked out by Christians at the Council of Chalcedon ove 300 years after the New Testament was written). ]


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


There's a different interpretation if you let the words speak for themselves and don't start with a presupposition of meaning. Some people are interpreting "Morphe theou" as though he was "physically God." But consider the context of John 1:1 differentiating the definite form "ho theos" (THE Divine, God) from the anarthrous nominative predicate "theos" (qualitatively godlike) due to the lack of a definite article.

Likewise, there is no definite article here, and theou is in the genitive case... it's not saying that Jesus' body IS ho theos... but that Jesus is a naturally heavenly being, who emptied himself to the level of humanity.

The context if the verse specifies that he considered equality with God not something to be seized/snatched/robbed (compared to lucifer's reasoning that he, being heavenly and more powerful than humanity could seize equality with God).

  • 1
    Welcome to BHSX. Thanks for your answer. You could improve this by adding some references.
    – user25930
    Commented Jan 15, 2019 at 9:55
  • You could specifically develop how you get from "God" to "heavenly being." Qualitative nouns aren't adverbs or adjectives ("god-like"). The article in "ho theos" isn't equivalent to "the God" except when qualified ("the God of the Jews"): Greek simply doesn't use articles like we do in English, and their lack does not imply dichotomy between two instances of the same noun. "ho theos" is directly eq. to the Eng. "God." Not using an article in 1:1b makes theos qualitative. Qualitative use yields the fundamental identity as in the latter use of "man" in "was among men and was man himself." Commented Jul 24, 2019 at 23:16

Scripture: Col 1:15 “Who is the image (Eikon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.” Comment: The Greek word “Eikon” refers to the glorious visible image or form that God took upon himself as He emerged from timeless eternity. The word firstborn in this verse is the Greek word- Prototokos: (literally “first brought forth”. Scripture: Rev 3:14 “And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write: “These things, says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God”: Comment: “The Beginning of the creation of God” in this passage is essentially the same as “The firstborn of every creature” in Col 1:15.

  • Hello Donald, welcome to BHSE, so glad to have you here! Have you taken the tour of our site yet? We're a little different than other sites. Thanks. hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/tour
    – sara
    Commented Dec 21, 2019 at 14:33

Infuriatingly simple evidence: the immediate context.

Indeed, have this mind which Christ Jesus also had: who, being naturally in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking on the form of a slave: and being made in the likeness of men, and in fashion found as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death—even the death of the cross. For which reason also God greatly exalted him, and gave to him a name above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow—in heaven, on earth, and under the earth—and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord: to the glory of God the Father.

Since the form of a slave here refers to a human nature, or being made in what Paul calls for the sake of Christ's divinity, the 'likeness' of man, the form of God must refer to divine nature. This is supported by the fact that he didn't consider equality with God something ill-gotten for Him, but His right, and to be natural, but nonetheless relinquished it in the sense of taking on a humble nature—"emptying" himself.

This is the whole reason Christ is taken as an example of someone who 'takes no consideration for the thing which are his own, but other men's also' (previous verse). Human nature was certainly a mode of existence as was God's nature. Both fit the Word, because "the Word was made flesh and made His dwelling among us"—the Word whom John says, "is God" (John 1:1).


Upon analyzing Philippians 2:6 in context, we found out that Paul utilized the other lexical definition "nature" for μορφη in the passage in question.

μορφη θεου as the nature of God refers to innate divine attributes such as divine power (power in the sense of "ability"). In Philippians, Jesus had innate power (δυναμις) to resurrect the dead [Philippians 3:20-21]. In John's gospel, Jesus himself resurrects the dead through his own voice, calling the dead from their tombs [John 5:25, 28].

In John 1:1, the Father and Jesus were similar in being θεος ( i.e. God Almighty), that is, as possessor of all divine power (omnipotence), as evident in context [cf. John 1:3]. John 5:19 supports this.

John 1:3 Jesus created all things John 5:19 Jesus can do nothing of himself but can only do whatever which he sees the Father doing and he does all of those things in like manner [ομοιος]. Ergo, Jesus is Almighty, sharing the same omnipotence as the Father. The reason why Jesus had ability to create all things was because of his ability to do all things like the Father.

Jesus possesses all of what makes the God Almighty God Almighty (which is none other than ability to do all things).

2 Peter 1:1-4 also teaches the same.

Jesus was God [Θεος] who had divine power [θεις δυναμις] to make his people live godly lives and to make them participate in his divine nature [θειας φισεως], away from corruption that is in the world.

The concept is also found in Colossians.

Jesus had all the fullness of θεοτης [divine nature; Godhead; deity; all of what makes God God]. In context, it refers to the ability to create all things just like in John 1:1-3. In Colossians 1:16, Jesus was the agent of creation. Jesus created all invisible things in heaven (the angels) and all visible things on earth (animals, plants, humans etc.). Such supernatural power is part of what it is to be God by nature [Θεοτης].

The ability to resurrect the dead by one's own power shows that you have the nature of God. Ultimately, the ability to do all supernatural things (omnipotence) by one's own power shows that you have the nature of God. Historically, This substantiated the A.D. 325 Nicene Creed's doctrine that Jesus was ομοουσιος (of the same nature) with the Father.


The ultimate example of being God by nature in the New Testament was the ability to do supernatural things by one's own power. In the context of Philippians 2:6, Jesus was shown to possess the nature of God [μορφη θεου] because he had innate ability [δυναμις] to resurrect the dead. A plethora of other NT passages show the same and also that he had innate ability to do all things [John 1:3, 5:19, 5:25, 5:28; Colossians 1:16, 2:9; 2 Peter 1:1-4].

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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