John 1, and Philippians 2:5-7.

[John Reece]

Hey that's great, all the 26 occurrences of γενόμενος in NT:

http://biblehub.com/greek/genomenos_1096.htm

I no case: "was born".

It occurs 3 times in Philippians:



So it is also in the next verse Philippians 2:8 -- and we didn't that into account

7ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος: καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος 8ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.

The first/primary definition of γινομαι in BDAG is this:

1. to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced ....

Paul clearly used γινομαι in that sense in Galatians 4:4.

Galatians 4:4 (NRSV) But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law...

Galatians 4:4 (NA27) ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον

[Geert van den Bos]

The first/primary definition of γινομαι in BDAG is this:

1. to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced ....

Paul clearly used γινομαι in that sense in Galatians 4:4.

Galatians 4:4 (NRSV) But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law...

Galatians 4:4 (NA27) ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον

But in the same Galatians 4, in v.23 and v.29, γεννάω is used.

v. 23 ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι' ἐπαγγελίας
ESV But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise

v. 29 ἀλλ' ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκεν τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν.
ESV But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now

So the γενόμενον in v.4 must denote something else, like ( Aramaic Bible in Plain English): But when the end of time arrived, God sent his Son and he was from a woman and was under The Written Law,


Vulgata has:
v.4, at ubi venit plenitudo temporis misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere factum sub lege

v.23, sed qui de ancilla secundum carnem natus est qui autem de libera per repromissionem

v.29, sed quomodo tunc qui secundum carnem natus fuerat persequebatur eum qui secundum spiritum ita et nunc

[John Reece]

But in the same Galatians 4, in v.23 and v.29, γεννάω is used.

v. 23 ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι' ἐπαγγελίας
ESV But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise

v. 29 ἀλλ' ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκεν τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν.
ESV But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now

So the γενόμενον in v.4 must denote something else, like ( Aramaic Bible in Plain English): But when the end of time arrived, God sent his Son and he was from a woman and was under The Written Law,

The verbs γεννάω and γίνομαι have overlapping semantic fields; their usage is not mutually exclusive.

The verb γίνομαι has a wide range of nuances, one of which is definitely to be born; as demonstrated above, it is the primary meaning of the word in the history of its usage.

So, it is not true that in Galatians 4:4 γίνομαι must denote something other than born.

The meaning of words is determined by usage in context. In the context of Galatians 4:4, the sense is plainly that rendered in the NRSV: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law..."

The paraphrase of γίνομαι in the Aramaic Bible in Plain English has γίνομαι rendered by the preposition "from"; such a loose paraphrase as that cannot be taken seriously as evidence that Paul could not have been using γίνομαι simply as a synonym for γεννάω in Galatians 4.

The brilliant linguist and author of A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, Max Zerwick has this for γενόμενον at Galatians 4:4: aorist participle of γίνομαι be born.

The English speaking world standard Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) has this entry for γίνομαι in Galatians 4:4:

1. to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced (SIG 1168, 6; Epict. 2, 17, 8; Wsd 7:3; Sir 44:9; Just., A I, 13, 3; Tat. 26, 2) J 8:58; w. ἔκ τινος foll. (Diod. S. 3, 64, 1; Appian, Basil. 5 §1; Parthenius 1, 4; Athen. 13, 37 p. 576c ἐξ ἑταίρας; PPetr III, 2, 20; PFlor 382, 38 ὁ ἐξ ἐμοῦ γενόμενος υἱός; 1 Esdr 4:16; Tob 8:6; Jos., Ant. 2, 216) Romans 1:3; Galatians 4:4 (cp. 1QS 11:21). Also of plants 1 Cor 15:37. Of fruits ἔκ τινος be produced by a tree Mt 21:19 (cp. X., Mem. 3, 6, 13 ὁ ἐκ τ. χώρας γιγνόμενος σῖτος). W. ἀπό τινος foll. Ox 1081 (SJCh), 11 γε̣[ινόμε]νον, 14 γέγ[ονος], 14f γε[ι]νομεν[ον], 19 γέγονος.

[Geert van den Bos]

The verbs γεννάω and γίνομαι have overlapping semantic fields; their usage is not mutually exclusive.

The verb γίνομαι has a wide range of nuances, one of which is definitely to be born; as demonstrated above, it is the primary meaning of the word in the history of its usage.

So, it is not true that in Galatians 4:4 γίνομαι must denote something other than born.

The meaning of words is determined by usage in context. In the context of Galatians 4:4, the sense is plainly that rendered in the NRSV: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law..."

The paraphrase of γίνομαι in the Aramaic Bible in Plain English has γίνομαι rendered by the preposition "from"; such a loose paraphrase as that cannot be taken seriously as evidence that Paul could not have been using γίνομαι simply as a synonym for γεννάω in Galatians 4.

The brilliant linguist and author of A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, Max Zerwick has this for γενόμενον at Galatians 4:4: aorist participle of γίνομαι be born.

The English speaking world standard Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) has this entry for γίνομαι in Galatians 4:4:

1. to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced (SIG 1168, 6; Epict. 2, 17, 8; Wsd 7:3; Sir 44:9; Just., A I, 13, 3; Tat. 26, 2) J 8:58; w. ἔκ τινος foll. (Diod. S. 3, 64, 1; Appian, Basil. 5 §1; Parthenius 1, 4; Athen. 13, 37 p. 576c ἐξ ἑταίρας; PPetr III, 2, 20; PFlor 382, 38 ὁ ἐξ ἐμοῦ γενόμενος υἱός; 1 Esdr 4:16; Tob 8:6; Jos., Ant. 2, 216) Romans 1:3; Galatians 4:4 (cp. 1QS 11:21). Also of plants 1 Cor 15:37. Of fruits ἔκ τινος be produced by a tree Mt 21:19 (cp. X., Mem. 3, 6, 13 ὁ ἐκ τ. χώρας γιγνόμενος σῖτος). W. ἀπό τινος foll. Ox 1081 (SJCh), 11 γε̣[ινόμε]νον, 14 γέγ[ονος], 14f γε[ι]νομεν[ον], 19 γέγονος.

There are 671 occurrences of the verb γίνομαι in NT scripture:

http://biblehub.com/greek/1096.htm

So at least in 668 occurrences it doesn't denote "birth" (except for if you take "being born" in a wider sense: everything that happens has been given birth)

Three occurrences, 2 x in Galatians 4:4 and 1 x in Philippians2:7, remaining under dispute.

As for Galatians 4:4 we have already seen that Paul in the same chapter uses another verb for being born, γεννάω.

"Born of a woman" might make sense, but "born under the law"? -- the letter to the Galatians being about that through circumcision one comes under the law; Galatians 5:3, I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
-- so translation "born under the law" is against the spirit of the letter.

And for Phillippians 2:7 we saw that the same γενόμενος is repeated in v.8 where it certainly doesn't carry the meaning of "being born".

And it was all about the γενόμενος in Philiipians 2:7, that if you translate "born" it implies that the earthly Jesus was God who had taken the form of a servant. Which seems to be rather unlikely and not in concordance with Paul's view (Paul never said that Jesus was God in human form)

[Boxing Pythagoras]

There are 671 occurrences of the verb γίνομαι in NT scripture:

http://biblehub.com/greek/1096.htm

So at least in 668 occurrences it doesn't denote "birth" (except for if you take "being born" in a wider sense: everything that happens has been given birth)

Three occurrences, 2 x in Galatians 4:4 and 1 x in Philippians2:7, remaining under dispute.

John and I each provided Lexical glosses for γίνομαι which show the word being used in the sense of birth. Apparently, you haven't even tried to look at any of the sources listed. John Reece even highlighted Romans 1:3, which very clearly uses γίνομαι in the sense of birth: περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα.

From the BDAG, we also have these Biblical uses:
1 Esdras 4:16, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐγένοντο καὶ αὗται ἐξέθρεψαν αὐτοὺς τοὺς φυτεύοντας τοὺς ἀμπελῶνας ἐξ ὧν ὁ οἶνος γίνεται
Tobit 8:6, σὺ ἐποίησας Αδαμ καὶ ἔδωκας αὐτῷ βοηθὸν Ευαν στήριγμα τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τούτων ἐγενήθη τὸ ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα σὺ εἶπας Οὐ καλὸν εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον μόνον ποιήσωμεν αὐτῷ βοηθὸν ὅμοιον αὐτῷ
1 Corinthians 15:37, καὶ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σῶμα τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις ἀλλὰ γυμνὸν κόκκον εἰ τύχοι σίτου ἤ τινος τῶν λοιπῶν
Matthew 21:19, καὶ ἰδὼν συκῆν μίαν ἐπὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἦλθεν ἐπʼ αὐτὴν καὶ οὐδὲν εὗρεν ἐν αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ φύλλα μόνον, καὶ λέγει αὐτῇ · μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ καρπὸς γένηται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. καὶ ἐξηράνθη παραχρῆμα ἡ συκῆ

...to say nothing of the very many extra-Biblical sources for translating γίνομαι as "born" which I provided and you have simply ignored.

As for Galatians 4:4 we have already seen that Paul in the same chapter uses another verb for being born, γεννάω.

What's your point? Using two words with similar meanings doesn't invalidate the meaning of one or the other. You see, there are these things called "synonyms" in grammar...

"Born of a woman" might make sense, but "born under the law"? -- the letter to the Galatians being about that through circumcision one comes under the law; Galatians 5:3, I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
-- so translation "born under the law" is against the spirit of the letter.

How do you figure? I'm fairly certain that Paul would have thought that Jesus, being Jewish, had been born under the law and therefore obligated to keep the whole law.

And for Phillippians 2:7 we saw that the same γενόμενος is repeated in v.8 where it certainly doesn't carry the meaning of "being born".

Yes, because the Philippians 2 hymn is poetry. And, as is fairly common in poetry from that era (and, indeed, poetry from before that era and after, even into modern times) the poem uses a word with different meanings to mean different things at different points in the poem. Using the same word in different ways links two disparate ideas, and makes memorization of an oral tradition easier.

And it was all about the γενόμενος in Philiipians 2:7, that if you translate "born" it implies that the earthly Jesus was God who had taken the form of a servant. Which seems to be rather unlikely and not in concordance with Paul's view (Paul never said that Jesus was God in human form)

Once again, saying that Jesus was born does not imply that Jesus was God who had taken the form of a servant. Being "in the form of God" is not necessarily the same thing as being God.

[Geert van den Bos]

John and I each provided Lexical glosses for γίνομαι which show the word being used in the sense of birth. Apparently, you haven't even tried to look at any of the sources listed. John Reece even highlighted Romans 1:3, which very clearly uses γίνομαι in the sense of birth: περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα.

Sorry, I looked John Reece's reference to Romans 1:3 over the head. But it surely doesn't have the meaning of "born" - like most translations also don't have:
http://biblehub.com/romans/1-3.htm ESV concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

From the BDAG, we also have these Biblical uses:
1 Esdras 4:16, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐγένοντο καὶ αὗται ἐξέθρεψαν αὐτοὺς τοὺς φυτεύοντας τοὺς ἀμπελῶνας ἐξ ὧν ὁ οἶνος γίνεται
Tobit 8:6, σὺ ἐποίησας Αδαμ καὶ ἔδωκας αὐτῷ βοηθὸν Ευαν στήριγμα τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τούτων ἐγενήθη τὸ ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα σὺ εἶπας Οὐ καλὸν εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον μόνον ποιήσωμεν αὐτῷ βοηθὸν ὅμοιον αὐτῷ
1 Corinthians 15:37, καὶ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σῶμα τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις ἀλλὰ γυμνὸν κόκκον εἰ τύχοι σίτου ἤ τινος τῶν λοιπῶν
Matthew 21:19, καὶ ἰδὼν συκῆν μίαν ἐπὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἦλθεν ἐπʼ αὐτὴν καὶ οὐδὲν εὗρεν ἐν αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ φύλλα μόνον, καὶ λέγει αὐτῇ · μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ καρπὸς γένηται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. καὶ ἐξηράνθη παραχρῆμα ἡ συκῆ

How then would you translate 1 Corinthians 15:37? Not one here has "born" http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-37.htm
And Matthew 21:9?

...to say nothing of the very many extra-Biblical sources for translating γίνομαι as "born" which I provided and you have simply ignored.

1) I don't have those texts 2) we are discussing the bible, and especially Philippians 2:7.

What's your point? Using two words with similar meanings doesn't invalidate the meaning of one or the other. You see, there are these things called "synonyms" in grammar...

It's just strong indication that Galatians 4:4 doesn't want to say "born".

How do you figure? I'm fairly certain that Paul would have thought that Jesus, being Jewish, had been born under the law and therefore obligated to keep the whole law.

You only come "under the law" through circumcision. Besides that it was exactly the clue of Paul's letter tot the Galatians.

Yes, because the Philippians 2 hymn is poetry. And, as is fairly common in poetry from that era (and, indeed, poetry from before that era and after, even into modern times) the poem uses a word with different meanings to mean different things at different points in the poem. Using the same word in different ways links two disparate ideas, and makes memorization of an oral tradition easier.

"genomenos" is repeated to build it up: as servant he was obedient unto death.

Once again, saying that Jesus was born does not imply that Jesus was God who had taken the form of a servant. Being "in the form of God" is not necessarily the same thing as being God.

How could he be in the form of God before born?

Or do you mean that as fetus he was in the form of God?

[John Reece]

There are 671 occurrences of the verb γίνομαι in NT scripture:

http://biblehub.com/greek/1096.htm

Here is the beginning of the Bible Hub page to which you provide the above link.

Original Word: γίνομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ginomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ghin'-om-ahee)
Short Definition: I come into being, am born
Definition: I come into being, am born, become, come about, happen.

As for Galatians 4:4 we have already seen that Paul in the same chapter uses another verb for being born, γεννάω.

A good writer may use a synonym rather than over using a single word in given context.

"Born of a woman" might make sense, but "born under the law"? -- the letter to the Galatians being about that through circumcision one comes under the law; Galatians 5:3, I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
-- so translation "born under the law" is against the spirit of the letter.

"Born under the law" is just a way of saying "born a Jew".

And for Phillippians 2:7 we saw that the same γενόμενος is repeated in v.8 where it certainly doesn't carry the meaning of "being born".

There is nothing remarkable about that; γίνομαι (lexical form of the inflection γενόμενος) has a broad semantic range.

And it was all about the γενόμενος in Philiipians 2:7, that if you translate "born" it implies that the earthly Jesus was God who had taken the form of a servant. Which seems to be rather unlikely and not in concordance with Paul's view (Paul never said that Jesus was God in human form)

There we have it: your presuppositional motivation for making weak arguments ― such as resorting to a loose paraphrase of an Aramaic translation of the Greek text in question, wherein the verb γίνομαι is rendered by the preposition "from".

[Geert van den Bos]

Here is the beginning of the Bible Hub page to which you provide the above link.

Original Word: γίνομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ginomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ghin'-om-ahee)
Short Definition: I come into being, am born
Definition: I come into being, am born, become, come about, happen.

And here what follows it:

1096 gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means "become" (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb "to be" (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).

1096 (ginomai) means "to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109).

M. Vincent, "1096 (gínomai) means to come into being/manifestation implying motion, movement, or growth" (at 2 Pet 1:4). Thus it is used for God's actions as emerging from eternity and becoming (showing themselves) in time (physical space).

A good writer may use a synonym rather than over using a single word in given context.

That's a very weak argument.

"Born under the law" is just a way of saying "born a Jew".

1) It is not "born" under the law 2) as stated above: you only come under the law through circumcision.

There is nothing remarkable about that; γίνομαι (lexical form of the inflection γενόμενος) has a broad semantic range.

Yes, but Paul had another word to his disposal: γεννάω, which he did not use here (Like also not in Galatians 4:4 and Romans 1:3)

There we have it: your presuppositional motivation for making weak arguments ― such as resorting to a loose paraphrase of an Aramaic translation of the Greek text in question, wherein the verb γίνομαι is rendered by the preposition "from".

It is about the question wether Paul does present Jesus as being God, or not. I say not.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Sorry, I looked John Reece's reference to Romans 1:3 over the head. But it surely doesn't have the meaning of "born" - like most translations also don't have:
http://biblehub.com/romans/1-3.htm ESV concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

In what world is "descended according to the flesh" not a reference to birth?

How then would you translate 1 Corinthians 15:37? Not one here has "born" http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-37.htm
And Matthew 21:9?

The word has a denotation of biological generation. So, 1 Corinthians 15:37 could certainly be translated:
"And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be birthed, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain."

Matthew 21:9 would be legitimately translated with:
"Then he said to it, 'May no fruit ever be born from you again!'"

1) I don't have those texts 2) we are discussing the bible, and especially Philippians 2:7.

Most are freely available, in the original Greek, online. The easiest place to find most of them is the Perseus Digital Library, which also has the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon with entries fully linked to its hosted texts. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/

It's just strong indication that Galatians 4:4 doesn't want to say "born".

No, it really isn't. If I were to say, "I ran a marathon," and then later said, "I sprinted to the finish," that is not an indication that "to run" cannot mean "to quickly traverse a distance by locomotion of the legs." You would not be justified in claiming that when I said, "I ran a marathon," I really meant that I organized and officiated an event in which other people engaged in a marathon, even though "to run" can also have such a meaning.

You only come "under the law" through circumcision. Besides that it was exactly the clue of Paul's letter tot the Galatians.

No, Gentiles only come under the law through circumcision. Paul's letter to the Galatians makes it quite clear that Jews were born into a heredity which was bound by the law. This is especially evident in verses like Galatians 2:15, 4:1-3, and the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in 4:21-26.

"genomenos" is repeated to build it up: as servant he was obedient unto death.

No, it's meant to be a parallel. He emptied himself, and was born/"became in human likeness." He humbled himself, and became obedient. It's a poetic play-on-words meant to indicate this parallel. This is a fairly common tool in poetry of that era and people.

How could he be in the form of God before born?

Or do you mean that as fetus he was in the form of God?

Once again, Paul believed that prior to his human birth, Jesus had existed as a being "in divine form." That does not mean that Paul believed this pre-existent being was God.

[John Reece]

Yes, but Paul had another word to his disposal: γεννάω, which he did not use here (Like also not in Galatians 4:4 and Romans 1:3)

The verb γεννάω was normally used in a transitive or active sense; i.e., to become the parent of, beget, or to give birth to, bear, or to cause something to happen, bring forth, produce, cause = the three definitions of γεννάω in BDAG.

Paul did not use γεννάω in Galatians 4:4, Romans 1:3, or Philippians 2:7 because none of those senses of γεννάω were appropriate or fitting in any of the three texts in question; rather, the sense called for in the respective contexts was that of the intransitive or passive sense expressed by γίνομαι, the sense of which is to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced = the first/primary definition of the word in BDAG and other Greek lexica.

[Geert van den Bos]

The verb γεννάω was normally used in a transitive or active sense; i.e., to become the parent of, beget, or to give birth to, bear, or to cause something to happen, bring forth, produce, cause = the three definitions of γεννάω in BDAG.

Not so by Paul (Romans 9:11, Galatians 4:23.24.29)and also not by Matthew (2:1.4; 19:12) ; and etc. Look after here:
http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1080.htm

Paul did not use γεννάω in Galatians 4:4, Romans 1:3, or Philippians 2:7 because none of those senses of γεννάω were appropriate or fitting in any of the three texts in question

not true.

[John Reece]

Not so by Paul (Romans 9:11, Galatians 4:23.24.29)and also not by Matthew (2:1.4; 19:12) ; and etc. Look after here:
http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1080.htm

not true.

I stand corrected; 'should have done more research.

ETA: This demonstrates why I am so often tempted to give up and cease participation in TWeb communications any more: my mind does not think clearly; if my brain functioned normally, I would not have been so stupid as to overlook the fact that although lexical definitions of γεννάω are active/transitive, that does not preclude passive forms of the verb that are prolific in the scriptures.

However, I will soldier on. What's a little embarrassment compared to the joy of dealing with biblical languages?

[John Reece]

Let's go back to the OP and get a second opinion by another scholar (the first is here).

From Philippians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Baker Academic, 2008), by Moisés Silva (via Accordance):

In view of the great variety of contexts in which morphē may be used, Hawthorne makes a significant point in admitting that the word’s “precise meaning is elusive” (...). To put it differently, morphē is characterized by semantic extension; it covers a broad range of meanings and therefore we are heavily dependent on the immediate context to discover its specific nuance. Here in Phil. 2:6 we are greatly helped by two factors. In the first place, we have the correspondence of morphē theou with isa theō. Käsemann, as we have noticed, was absolutely right in emphasizing that being “in the form of God” is equivalent to being “equal with God.” To go beyond this equivalence and inquire whether morphē tells us precisely in what respects Jesus is equal with God (in essence? attributes? attitude? appearance?) is asking too much from one word.

In the second place, and most important, morphē theou is set in antithetical parallelism to μορφὴν δούλου (morphēn doulou, form of a servant), an expression further defined by the phrase ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώ-πων (en homoiōmati anthrōpōn, in the likeness of men). It is possible to cite parallels in which morphē is used to designate what is distinctively divine in contrast to what is distinctively human (cf. BDAG 659, s.v. μορφή). It appears then that Lightfoot (1868: 133), although misguided in seeing here a more or less philosophical meaning of “essence,” was not off the track in detecting a contrast between “the true divine nature of our Lord” and “true human nature.” And it moreover follows that the Philippians passage, although not written for the purpose of presenting an ontological description of Christ, is very much consonant with the trinitarian formulas of the fourth–century church.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Let's go back to the OP and get a second opinion by another scholar (the first is here).

From Philippians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Baker Academic, 2008), by Moisés Silva

In view of the great variety of contexts in which morphē may be used, Hawthorne makes a significant point in admitting that the word’s “precise meaning is elusive” (...). To put it differently, morphē is characterized by semantic extension; it covers a broad range of meanings and therefore we are heavily dependent on the immediate context to discover its specific nuance. Here in Phil. 2:6 we are greatly helped by two factors. In the first place, we have the correspondence of morphē theou with isa theō. Käsemann, as we have noticed, was absolutely right in emphasizing that being “in the form of God” is equivalent to being “equal with God.” To go beyond this equivalence and inquire whether morphē tells us precisely in what respects Jesus is equal with God (in essence? attributes? attitude? appearance?) is asking too much from one word.

In the second place, and most important, morphē theou is set in antithetical parallelism to μορφὴν δούλου (morphēn doulou, form of a servant), an expression further defined by the phrase ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώ-πων (en homoiōmati anthrōpōn, in the likeness of men). It is possible to cite parallels in which morphē is used to designate what is distinctively divine in contrast to what is distinctively human (cf. BDAG 659, s.v. μορφή). It appears then that Lightfoot (1868: 133), although misguided in seeing here a more or less philosophical meaning of “essence,” was not off the track in detecting a contrast between “the true divine nature of our Lord” and “true human nature.” And it moreover follows that the Philippians passage, although not written for the purpose of presenting an ontological description of Christ, is very much consonant with the trinitarian formulas of the fourth–century church.

I'll have to disagree with Silva and Kasemann, here. Paul seems to directly contrast μορφῇ θεοῦ with ἴσα θεῷ, in the passage, rather than equating the two concepts. Jesus was "in divine form," but did not grasp after "equality with deity," and thus he emptied himself to take on the form of a slave in human likeness.

[Geert van den Bos]

From Philippians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Baker Academic, 2008), by Moisés Silva

In view of the great variety of contexts in which morphē may be used, Hawthorne makes a significant point in admitting that the word’s “precise meaning is elusive” (...). To put it differently, morphē is characterized by semantic extension; it covers a broad range of meanings and therefore we are heavily dependent on the immediate context to discover its specific nuance. (...)And it moreover follows that the Philippians passage, although not written for the purpose of presenting an ontological description of Christ, is very much consonant with the trinitarian formulas of the fourth–century church.

"morphē" doesn't occur in NT, except for (2x) here and in Mark 16:12 (in the later added "longer ending of Mark")

But it is also in "metamorphoomai" -- be changed in form, be transformed;
occurring in Matthew 17:2 = Mark 9:2 ("The transfiguration of Jesus" on a high mountain )

and in Romans 12:2,
καὶ μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός, εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον
ESV Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.


Interesting of course that συσχηματίζεσθε has in it the same σχημα that Paul used in Philippians 2:7, καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος; a word that besides here just occurs in 1Corinthians 7:31, καὶ οἱ χρώμενοι τὸν κόσμον ὡς μὴ καταχρώμενοι: παράγει γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ESV and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.


"metamorphoomai" still also in 2 Corinthians 3:18,
ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν, καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος.
ESV:And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
.


It being things hard to grasp / translate, but to me it seems rather clear that Paul wasn't a Trinitarian avant la lettre.