When was Jesus ‘in God’s form’? Philippians 2:6

Question

It is clear from the text that Jesus had a form of God prior to incarnation as per v7

“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” ‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2:6‬

When did He have this form?

• prior to Creation (as God in full glory, see John 17) or
• after Creation (as the Angel of the Lord)

What is relevant about when Jesus had this form of God?

What is significant about being in God’s form at that time?

• limitations
• particularities
• importance

How was this “form” μορφη used elsewhere?

We have some LXX OT passages that show the use of μορφη.

“It stood still, but I could not discern its appearance. A form μορφη was before my eyes; there was silence, then I heard a voice:” ‭‭Job‬ ‭4:16‬

And

“The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure μορφη of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house.” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭44:13‬

(Also Wisdom 18:1)

———————

[Some further thoughts]

And if Jesus was in the form of God after Creation and before incarnation would it not follow that all the sons of God (benei ha’Elohim) were also in the form of God, with Jesus being one of them?

Was Adam therefore not also in the form of God according to Luke 3:38? (Which I guess leads to the question - what does it mean to be in the the form of God or His likeness in the OT?). I understand it to mean being the representative of and exercising the power of God. Hence the term elohim, bearers of authority/power. Gen 1:26-28.

Answer 1

The form of angels (as spirit)

The form spoken of in Job 4:16 was the form of an angel. Thus, we have here an instance of the μορφη of an angel (appearance of an angel).

It stood still,.... That is, the spirit, or the angel in a visible form; it was before going to and fro, but now it stood still right against Eliphaz, as if it had something to say to him, and so preparing him to attend to it; which he might do the better, it standing before him while speaking to him, that he might have the opportunity of taking more notice of it: but, notwithstanding this advantageous position of it: I could not discern the form thereof; what it was, whether human or any other: (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)

The form of man (in an idol)

‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭44:13‬ was speaking of the μορφη of a man (the appearance of a man) in a statue/image of an idol. The form was described as resembling the 'beauty of a man**.

“The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house.” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭44:13‬

The form of parents in children

4 Maccabees 15:4 (NRSV) 4 In what manner might I express the emotions of parents who love their children? We impress upon the character of a small child a wondrous likeness both of mind and of form (μορφη). Especially is this true of mothers, who because of their birth pangs have a deeper sympathy toward their offspring than do the fathers.

The idea is that the children look like their parents outwardly (in appearance). in the text, it shows that μορφη had a distinctive meaning which is much concrete than homoia (likeness in the sense of 'similarity').

The form of God

“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” ‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2:6‬

What does morphe theou mean in Phil 2:6?

i discovered 3 possible explanations based on the first century Second Temple Judaism:

1. The visible outward appearance of God

(a) eidos

Both Deuteronomy 4:12 and John 5:37 told us that no has seen God in his form (using another Greek word for 'form' which is eidos).

The Greek word eidos is also referring to visible form like morphe as evident in its usage in Luke:

and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form (eidos), like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well. Luke 2:32

it is noteworthy that only Luke described the descending of the Holy Spirit with the Greek word eidos, all the other gospels merely described the Holy Spirit with the Greek word 'hos' (as, like) (Matthew 3:16, 1:10, John 1:32 ). Thus, in light of Deuteronomy 4:12 and John 5:37, the descending of the Holy Spirit in the Lukan gospel was a theophany. John also described that Jesus himself 'saw it' and thus, explains how Jesus saw God in John 6:46: not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.

(b) doxa

The glory or light (doxa) in the LXX refer to the Shekinah (the presence of God himself). The Shekinah is usually associated with fire or flames of fire manifesting as bright radiance or light, the underlying substance or nature of God as known in ancient Judaism. In the LXX, doxa and morphe are synonyms.

In the Pentateuch, the Hebrew word ‘temuna’ is translated as ‘morphe’ in Job 4:16 LXX and as ‘doxa’ in Numbers 12:8, Psalm 16:15 LXX. In Isaiah 52:14, the Hebrew word ‘to’ar’ is translated as ‘morphe’ by Aquila and as ‘doxa’ in the LXX.

Angels , being made of both fire and pneuma (spirit, wind, breath) were similar to Yahweh in substance because Yahweh was also spirit (John 4:24) and fire. And like Yahweh, angels were also described as 'glorious ones' (doxas) (2 Peter 2:10).

However, in the book of Hebrews, the angels who were made of flames and spirits (Hebrews 1:7) were contrasted against the Son of God who was eternally begotten 'radiance from the glory''.

Hebrews 1:3 teaches us about the eternally generated "radiance from the glory" (the eternal begetting of the Son from the Father). Here the "radiance is the stamp of the substance [υποστασις - reality, nature] of the glory" (the Son is the stamp of the reality of the Father, which means that the Father cannot live without the Son because the Son makes the Father real or truly existing. Hence, they are coeval [of the same age: eternal]. It makes sense because you cannot be light without radiance.

Notes:

The Greek word apaugasma was used only once in the Septuagint to refer to Wisdom (Wisdom 7:26) and the author of Hebrews was applied this to Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:3).

The author of Hebrews specifically applied characteristics of Wisdom to Jesus like being ''the radiance of eternal light'' (Wisdom 7:26) ''only begotten'' (Wisdom 7:22)''begotten before all the ages'' (Proverbs 8:24-25, Sirach 1:4).

The Old Testament Wisdom was merely personified as eternally begotten from God, but Jesus was a real person who was himself truly eternally begotten from God.

The Father's substance which is flames of fire (glory, light) can eternally beget the person or hypostasis of the Son. How is it possible to beget a divine hypostasis from 'light' or 'fire'? Well, how did Adam came to be a person? Adam was made from the dust or soil from the earth! Eve herself was made from the human rib of Adam! and the angels themselves were created from wind and fire! Are we to ask again how possible is it for God to eternally beget the Son from his own substance? Why would the eternal generation of the Son from the substance of the Father be impossible? The Father was never without radiance for he never stops radiating as glory. Thus, the Son was eternal for he was that very radiance of the Father as Hebrews 1:3 says. These teaching were found also in summarised form in the creed of Nicaea in 325 C.E.

2. The nature or essence of God (ousia, physis)

The Greek word μορφη usually refer to visible appearance of someone or a thing in the Septuagint. At least in two cases, μορφη refers to the appearance with its associated nature (as in the angels who were spirits in Job 4:16 LXX or in the children who were humans in 4 Macc. 15:4 LXX).

Μορφη θεου refers to the very nature of God (NIV). In this case, morphe is synonymous with physis and ousia. In this sense of nature, the phrase μορφη θεου is also synonymous with θεοτης (deity, divinity) of Col 2:9.

Dennis Jowers (2006) had concluded that morphe refers to nature in his THE MEANING OF MORFH IN PHILIPPIANS 2:6–7. (https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/49/49-4/JETS_49-4_739-766_Jowers.pdf)

(b) eikon

According to scholars, the historical priestly background of the creation of man in Genesis shows how eikon was related to nature (The Transubstantiated Humanity: The relationship between the Divine image and the Presence of God in Genesis 1:26 ).

> In Ancient Near East, the image or statue of the god shares the nature of the
> transcended god it depicts so that the image or statue is a theophany
> It is the presence of god on earth so that earth itself
> contains paradise or heaven. The statue or image of the god is considered to be
> alive after the incantation or recitation of magical words usually
> through the invocation of the name of the god by the priests.
> After consecration, it is no longer called a statue
> but is called after the name of the god it transforms into. The
> particular statue or image , being a god, is treated as if a living
> being. It is being bath daily and offered food. Anyone who destroy the
> statue or image of the god must be destroyed (death penalty) because
> what he destroyed is not mere stone but a living image of the god.

The following are biblical characters who had eikon related to 'nature' (whether divine or human):

1. Man being made the living image of God meant Adam had divine nature (Gen 1:26-27, Acts 17:29) which meant killing any man (destroying the image of the god) is forbidden because man is the living image of God himself (Gen 9:6).

2. Adam begat Seth in his own image and likeness (Genesis 5:3). Ergo, they are of the same human nature.

3. The king in ANE and biblical worldview is called god because he share in the nature of God (much like the pattern in the NT see Acts 17:29, 2 Pet 1:4) specifically in the Israelite king who embodies the glory of Adam and is called god, participating in the divine nature through the anointing of Yahweh's spirit. So in antiquity every king biblical or pagan had the ruler as ontological god. 2 Chron 29:20

4. Jesus is the living image of God which means he share the nature of God ( which is normal to any images of gods in the ANE and biblical times). Now Jesus has the nature of God not only in his flesh (when his flesh participated in divine nature after he was raised from the dead) but also in his previous existence as a divine spirit in the names Word and Wisdom of God (Proverbs 8:25, 30, John 1:1-3, 1:14, Phil 2:6-8).

3. The behaviour of what is it like to be a true God

i think Philo of Alexandria (circa A.D. 50) who had used the phrase 'theou morphe' is also important in knowing the meaning of morphe theou of Phil 2:6 not only because the phrase looks very similar but also because of being contemporary with the apostles with the same culture of 1st century Judaism.

It is similar to Philo’s theou morphe (Embassy to Gaius 110-14). In Philo, morphe is synonymous with physis and ousia. However, morphe here being nature and substance refers not to the totality of divine attributes but to behaviour exemplified by a true Paean (i.e. a true god).

Conclusion

Paul deliberately used morphe rather than any of its synonyms homoia, eikon doxa and eidos because by using the Greek word morphe he cleverly applied all of its range of meanings to Jesus Christ:

Jesus was not only like (homoios) God, but that he was really in very nature (eikon, physis) God, and that when he became man, he still had the nature of God bodily (eidos). it also speaks of his glory or radiant light (doxa) which he emptied through his body and which he received when he was raised from the dead (John 17:5, Revelation 1:16). Christ promised the same glory (body of glory) to his people which he will give through his own power at the last day (John 17:22, Philippians 3:20-21).

The true nature of God was manifested in the self-emptying of Christ:

'Jesus did not think that to be equal with God is a thing to be used for his own benefit but rather, he chose to empty himself by becoming human. He did this so that he can use his equality with God for the benefit of others.' (Philippians 2:6-8).

Answer 2

God is eternal¹ and immutable (unchanging).² If the Lord Jesus Christ was “in the form of God,” and was thus God,³ then there was no point at which he was NOT in the form of God. Otherwise, he would not be God. For this reason, it is written of Jesus that he is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.”⁴

---

Footnotes

¹ 1 Tim. 1:17
² Jam. 1:17
³ By analogy, if Jesus was “in the form of a servant” and was thus a servant (Phil. 2:7 cf. Isa. 42:1), being “in the form of God,” he was God.
⁴ Heb. 13:8

Answer 3

5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 who, existing [a] in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself [b], taking the form of a servant, being made (becoming) [b2] in the likeness of men; 8 and being found [c] in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross (Philippians 2:5-8, ASV)

The heavenly Son who became Jesus existed[a] in God’s form (spirit, J 4:24) and subsequently emptied himself by taking the form of a slave (Ga 4:1-4)

This makes the “time” of being in the form of God as before he was born and the emptying of himself was at his birth (cp Ga 4:1-4)

The literal way to understand the Greek is that the Son emptied himself from being in God's form (ie the Father) to taking the form of a slave (ie baby human). See Excursus below.

The Son found himself to be a human being. He was no longer in the form of God. He was in the form of a slave.

Metaphorical uses of empty cannot apply to the Son of God. He was not useless like faith in the law. [G2]

---

[a] existing (ὑπάρχων, present active participle, same as Romans 4:19, “he [Abraham] being about a hundred years old.” (ASV) [b] emptied himself (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν, aorist active indicative) Empty is a finite verb, and two participles follow it, take and become. He emptied himself by taking the form of a slave and becoming the likeness of men.

[b2] being made γενόμενος = became a human being

[c] and being found- Grammatically verse 8 και (and) starts a new thought. There is then a new finite verb (humble) which is a new separate action from “empty.” So, the emptying does not grammatically include the humbling. He humbled himself, [by] becoming obedient (participle) to the point of death. This is an example of a finite verb with an included action. But verse 7 is a completed action and 8 is not a continuation of the “emptying

---

Excursus on Empty himself

The Greek word ** ϰενόω** (empty) has multiple views, and the subject is frequently termed Kenosis, or emptying. Trinitarians and Biblical Unitarians both add an object of empting that is not found in the text. [1214] [1]

I am going to present a case for a literal sense which adds nothing to the Greek text by looking at Greek syntax.

Also I will be providing evidence from a Trinitarian commentary, as a hostile witness, who views the syntax of ϰενόω in a similar way, and adds grammatical evidence for this view.

I appeal to the fact that the verb “empty” (ϰενόω) merely has as its object, “himself” (εαυτόν). Both Trinitarians and BUs add something to the text because of their interpretation. However, what was emptied was “himself.” Most commonly I see this expressed as “he emptied himself of his prerogatives.” But that is not what the text says grammatically or literally.

In short, ask yourself, what was he “in” before he emptied himself? The form of God. And where did he end up? The form of a slave. Think of it like this. The Son of God is fine wine. The form of God is a crystal goblet and the form of a slave is a wooden cup. The Son emptied himself from the only thing he was in, in context, the form of God, the crystal goblet. He was then in the form of a slave, a wooden cup. The content was “himself.” [G1]

This is a grammatical argument, and it is the only literal way to view this text.

But is it defensible? In an article from JTS in 1911 we find W. Warren making a case for what is emptied to be “himself,” for which he gives examples. He said,

But why not take the words as they stand, as expressing exactly St. Paul’s thought? Viz. not that He emptied Himself of anything but that what He poured out was Himself, emptying His fullness into us.

Indeed, why go looking to add something to the text when it is not necessary?

He did not empty himself of anything. "Himself" is what was emptied from the form of God.

---

[1214]“ in the form of God.” Morphe (form) is the status of the human, historical Jesus who reflected God his Father. Morphe has to do with visible, outward appearance (cp. Ex. 24: 17; Num. 12: 8: “form,” LXX “glory”). It carries in this passage the notion of position and status as in Tobit 1: 13 (“ status”). -- The One God, the Father, One Man Messiah Translation New Testament with Commentary Sir Anthony F. Buzzard, MA (Oxon.), MATh, Hon. PhD

[1] BUs consider the whole passage to refer to his human sacrifices, first of his humble life, and then his obedient death. However this runs counter to the grammar.

Empty is a finite verb, and two participles follow it, take and become. He emptied himself by taking the form of a slave and becoming the likeness of men. Grammatically verse 8 και (and) starts a new thought. There is then a new finite verb (humble) which is a new separate action from “empty.” So, the emptying does not grammatically include the humbling.

He did not empty himself by humbling himself. He humbled himself, [by] becoming obedient (participle) to the point of death. This is an example of a finite verb with an included action. But verse 7 is a completed action and 8 is not a continuation of the “emptying.”

[2] This usage of the word is well attested. Thus Sophocles, Lexicon, S.V. : ‘ϰενόω, to empty, said of the thing containing. Classical.—a. to empty, of the thing emptied our poured out’ (with references to Philo and Chrysostom among others). Suicer, too, gives examples of this sense: Chrys. In Psal. Xli TANTA TA ONTA EIS TOUS PENHTAS KENOUN; id,. Serm. Lvii THN SPODHN TAUTHN … KENWUSIN APASAN; Greg. Naz. EN TOIS PARERGOIS KENWSAI THN ISXUN

[G1] The emptying of "himself" is from being in the spirit form of God (outward appearance) to the human form (likeness) of a slave (ie human baby.)

Galatians 4:1 "Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law."

[G2] Metaphorical uses of "Empty"

Romans 4:15, ASV For if they that are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect

Was the human Son of God no more effective than works of the law are today? Never may that be said! Κεναω with a metaphorical sense is not something that retains its usefulness but is merely set aside.

Κεναω never means nullifying a position of authority in any metaphorical usage.

After all, he retained his authority:

Mt 7:29 for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. (ASV)

and even post resurrection is subject to his Father:

1 Co 12:3. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Answer 4

Jesus had God's form when he was created. Revelation 3:14.

When on earth as a perfect man, Jesus reflected his Father’s qualities and personality to the fullest extent possible within human limitations, so he could say that “he that has seen me has seen the Father also.” (Joh 14:9). Jesus imitated his father’s qualities so well that the Bible calls him “the image of the invisible God.”​ Colossians 1:15.

How was form used elsewhere?

Other uses of morphe in the Bible, morphe sometimes refers to outward appearance. The Gospel of Mark has a reference to the story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphe)” to these two men so that they did not recognize him (16:12).

God created man in His image, according to His likeness. (Genesis 1:26, 27) God endowed humans with qualities that mirror his own. Adam was a perfect son of God before his fall, made in His ‘image and likeness.’ But since “God is a Spirit,” the resemblance could not be physical. (Genesis 1:26; John 4:24) The likeness lay in qualities that elevated man far above the animals. Yes, implanted in man from the beginning were the qualities of love, wisdom, power, and justice. He was endowed with free will and a capacity for spirituality. An innate moral sense, or conscience, enabled him to distinguish right from wrong. Man had intellectual capacity, enabling him to meditate on the reason for the existence of humans, to accumulate knowledge of his Creator, and to develop intimacy with that One. Thus equipped, Adam had all he needed to fulfill his role as administrator of God’s earthly handiwork.

Colossians 3:9, 10 indicates that being made in God’s image has to do with personality traits. Those who want to please God are urged to clothe themselves “with the new personality,” which is “made new according to the image of the One [God] who created it.” That is why Christians are urged to imitate God, Ephesians 5:1

There are verses in the bible where a representative or image of someone is called by the name of someone whose attributes were manifested through him.

"Jesus turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me Satan" Matthew 16:23. Peter was not literaly Satan.

"Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? Judas was not literally a devil.

In Matthew 11:13-14, Jesus refers to John the Baptist by the name Elias, but when they ask John the Baptist, "Are You Elias?" he replied "I am not".

Answer 5

Jesus is always in the form of God from conception. This was always his role - to be the form, the image of God in all he did and said until the crucifixion took his life.

We might ask this question to further determine an answer...

What is not being, 'in the form of God'?

1. As Jesus could do nothing of himself (even his words were provided by the Father) it has nothing to do with power.
2. Jesus was mortal - death was MASTER over him, so it has nothing to do with eternal life. Rom 6:9
3. Jesus didn't know everything - so nothing to do with ultimate knowledge. (Luke 2:52)
4. Jesus said he was a man, therefore not God. He didn't have the form of God that made God God. Can we say God has the 'form of God', no that would be silly. God just is God.
5. Jesus is not the Father - so it has nothing to do with his role.
6. Jesus was not spirit - being mortal, born of the flesh, so it has nothing to do with life or spirit status. (Rom 6:9)
7. Jesus is not creator of all things aka Genesis, so it has nothing to do with creating ability.

That should do for now.

So then how IS Jesus like His God - that he was 'in the form of God'?

1. He was without sin, born without the corruption of all since Adam.
2. This makes him holy, righteous, loving, gracious, glorious (to a degree while flesh)

So Jesus was always in God's form or likeness while he was fleshly, mortal and subject to death because - he had no evil in his nature. Now he is ascended and immortal and he is like God in so many more ways - but still not God.

It's an important consideration that though Jesus was in God's form - he as the son of God, had certain divine position and authority - even while a man, born of the flesh. When he took on himself the nature or form of a servant, he lost nothing of what the 'form of God' entailed. Just as a CEO might don a cap and serve others sausages or help fight bushfires, he is still CEO.

It was his being in the form of God that enabled him to be the Lamb of God who takes away sin - the servant nature of his life was the way he fulfilled this mission - through love - not power.