Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

John 1, and Philippians 2:5-7.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Geert van den Bos
    replied
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    My question was not "what is referred to in this scripture (Philippians 2:4-7)?"

    My question was "who is referred to in this scripture (Philippians 2:4-7)?"
    About Jesus Christ, a human being, not about God (the Father).

    Leave a comment:


  • Geert van den Bos
    replied
    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    To be fair, it does also read:

    ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος

    in {form, likeness} of man was he born
    γενόμενος is not "born" -
    It is a form of γίνομαι = to become, happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    Then who is it that is referred to in this scripture?

    Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
    a human being
    My question was not "what is referred to in this scripture (Philippians 2:4-7)?"

    My question was "who is referred to in this scripture (Philippians 2:4-7)?"

    Why is your answer evasive?
    Last edited by John Reece; 11-11-2014, 12:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Boxing Pythagoras
    replied
    Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
    it reads:
    καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος

    ie. in appearance found as man.
    To be fair, it does also read:

    ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος

    in {form, likeness} of man was he born
    Last edited by Boxing Pythagoras; 11-11-2014, 12:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Geert van den Bos
    replied
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post

    Who is it that was "in the form [or nature] of God"
    a human being

    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    and subsequently was "born [or made] in human likeness?"
    it reads:
    καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος

    ie. in appearance found as man.






    it being rather obscure reasoning.

    I think Paul has with μορφή some same thing in mind as Rashi with "d'yukan".

    Rashi on Genessis 1:27,
    in the image of God He created him: It explains to you that the image that was prepared for him was the image of the likeness of his Creator. — [from B.B. 58a]
    image of the likeness of his Creator = צלם דיוקן יצורו, "tzelem d'yukan yotsro".

    Before Rashi did already state:
    And God created man in his image: In the form that was made for him, for everything [else] was created with a command, whereas he [man] was created with the hands (of God), as it is written (Ps. 139:5): “and You placed Your hand upon me.” Man was made with a seal, like a coin, which is made by means of a die

    Elsewhere Jesus was called "image of the inviisble God" ,εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, (Colossians 1:15) which might denote the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
    Always a human being; not first God and later becoming man.
    Then who is it that is referred to in this scripture?
    Phil. 2:4 μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος σκοποῦντες ἀλλὰ [καὶ] τὰ ἑτέρων ἕκαστοι.
    Phil. 2:5 Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 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

    NRSV: Phil. 2:4 Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. 5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
    6 who, though he was in the form of God,
    did not regard equality with God
    as something to be exploited,
    7 but emptied himself,
    taking the form of a slave,
    being born in human likeness.
    And being found in human form,

    TNIV: Phil. 2:4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
    Phil. 2:5 In your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had:
    Phil. 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
    7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

    Who is it that was "in the form [or nature] of God" and subsequently was "born [or made] in human likeness?"

    Leave a comment:


  • Geert van den Bos
    replied
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    Glory and righteousness = the "form" of God?

    Christ Jesus divested himself of righteousness when he became a human being?
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    Are you saying that Christ Jesus was not a human being?

    Always a human being; not first God and later becoming man.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
    Nowhere is it written that "he became a human being", not in John 1:14 and also not in Philippians 2:7,

    7ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος: καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος

    But he emptied himself taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men; and he was found in the appearance as of man.
    Are you saying that Christ Jesus was not a human being?

    Leave a comment:


  • Geert van den Bos
    replied
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post

    Christ Jesus divested himself of righteousness when he became a human being?

    Nowhere is it written that "he became a human being", not in John 1:14 and also not in Philippians 2:7,

    7ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος: καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος

    But he emptied himself taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men; and he was found in the appearance as of man.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    The outward presentation, or form, of God would be a reference to the glory and righteousness of God...
    Glory and righteousness = the "form" of God?

    Christ Jesus divested himself of righteousness when he became a human being?

    Leave a comment:


  • Boxing Pythagoras
    replied
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    NRSV: 2:5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
    6 who, though he was in the form [μορφή] of God,
    did not regard equality with God
    as something to be exploited,
    7 but emptied himself,
    taking the form [μορφή] of a slave,
    being born in human likeness.
    And being found in human form,
    8 he humbled himself
    and became obedient to the point of death—
    even death on a cross.

    What is the "outward presentation"/"outward appearance" ― i.e., your interpretation of μορφή ― of God in the context of Philippians 2?

    What is "the outward presentation of the attributes" ― i.e., your interpretation of μορφή ― of God in the context of Philippians 2?

    What is "the form [μορφή] of a slave" in the context of Philippians 2? How does that "form" differ from the "form" of a free person?


    TNIV: Phil. 2:5 In your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had:
    Phil. 2:6 Who, being in very nature [μορφή] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
    7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature [μορφή] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

    Phil. 2:8 And being found in appearance as a human being,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
    even death on a cross!

    In Philippians 2, is the μορφή of God visible or invisible? If it is visible, can you draw a picture of it? If not, why not?

    In the context of Philippians 2, is the μορφή of a slave visible or invisible? If it is visible, how does it differ from the μορφή of a free person? Can you draw a picture of the respective persons ― i.e., a picture of a slave and a picture of a free person ― to illustrate the difference in the visible appearance of one compared to the other?
    The outward presentation, or form, of God would be a reference to the glory and righteousness of God, but not necessarily a reference to the person of God (in the theological sense of the word).

    Insofar as how the μορφή of God differs from the μορφή of a slave, I'll leave that to theologians to discuss. However, proper exegesis-- I'm sure you'll agree-- should make the theology fit the meaning of the words, and not vice versa. The fact that the passage is difficult doesn't give us license to simply pretend that the words used held a different meaning for Paul than for every other Greek writer. The word μορφή does not refer to the underlying nature of an entity. The Philippians 2 hymn is contrasting the μορφή of the pre-existent Jesus with the μορφή of the incarnated Jesus.

    Though he had been in the form (μορφή) of God, he emptied himself to take on the form (μορφή) of a slave, born in the form (ὁμοίωμα) of a human. And being found in the form (σχῆμα) of a man, he humbled himself.

    I don't know what Paul (or, possibly, the pre-Pauline originators of this hymn) specifically meant by ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ; however, I do believe that the words were chosen intentionally. And all three of these Greek words (μορφή, ὁμοίωμα, σχῆμα) refer to the form, the outward expression, of that which was being described.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    I agree with the BDAG entry when it links μορφή with "expression" or "essential identity," but I would contend that these are both still best understood as the outward presentation of that which is being described, rather than as an invisible nature which belies the outward appearance.

    Again, every single other usage of μορφή in Greek literature denotes this sort of outward presentation of attributes, in stark contrast to the idea of an invisible or hidden nature.
    NRSV: 2:5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
    6 who, though he was in the form [μορφή] of God,
    did not regard equality with God
    as something to be exploited,
    7 but emptied himself,
    taking the form [μορφή] of a slave,
    being born in human likeness.
    And being found in human form,
    8 he humbled himself
    and became obedient to the point of death—
    even death on a cross.

    What is the "outward presentation"/"outward appearance" ― i.e., your interpretation of μορφή ― of God in the context of Philippians 2?

    What is "the outward presentation of the attributes" ― i.e., your interpretation of μορφή ― of God in the context of Philippians 2?

    What is "the form [μορφή] of a slave" in the context of Philippians 2? How does that "form" differ from the "form" of a free person?

    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    .... Again, every single usage of μορφή which I have been able to find supports a translation of "form" or "shape" over against the NIV's "nature." The word "nature" inherently implies an invisible quality, while μορφή clearly denotes something visible.
    TNIV: Phil. 2:5 In your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had:
    Phil. 2:6 Who, being in very nature [μορφή] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
    7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature [μορφή] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

    Phil. 2:8 And being found in appearance as a human being,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
    even death on a cross!

    In Philippians 2, is the μορφή of God visible or invisible? If it is visible, can you draw a picture of it? If not, why not?

    In the context of Philippians 2, is the μορφή of a slave visible or invisible? If it is visible, how does it differ from the μορφή of a free person? Can you draw a picture of the respective persons ― i.e., a picture of a slave and a picture of a free person ― to illustrate the difference in the visible appearance of one compared to the other?

    Leave a comment:


  • Boxing Pythagoras
    replied
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post


    In truth, the meaning of μορφή in the context of Philippians 2 is not that wooden.

    My original posting of the BDAG entry was at the very end of my day (last night) when I was even less alert than usual, so I will post it again to include what I failed to emphasize before.

    From BDAG via Accordance:
    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 BC]: 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; s 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 μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων although he was in the form of God (cp. OGI 383, 40f: Antiochus’ body is the framework for his μορφή or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; similarly 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][/b]; 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.

    What is "the form or shape" of God? Can you draw a picture of it?

    The semantic range of μορφή in the context of Philippians 2 is indeed broad enough to include the NIV rendering ("nature"), as noted by Peter O'Brien.

    The semantic range of μορφή in the BDAG entry includes not only "form or shape" but also "expression", "essential identity".

    From the BDAG entry:
    • "the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7"
    • "his μορφή or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; similarly human fragility [Phil 2:7] becomes the supporting framework for Christ’s servility"


    What is the difference in "form or shape" between a human being who is a slave and a human being who is an emperor?

    What is the "form or shape" of Christ's servility and how does that "form or shape" differ from the "form or shape" of King Herod's arrogance?
    I agree with the BDAG entry when it links μορφή with "expression" or "essential identity," but I would contend that these are both still best understood as the outward presentation of that which is being described, rather than as an invisible nature which belies the outward appearance.

    Again, every single other usage of μορφή in Greek literature denotes this sort of outward presentation of attributes, in stark contrast to the idea of an invisible or hidden nature.

    Honestly, I don't think this is at all problematic for orthodox theology. The pre-existent Word of John's prologue was in the form of God. When the Word was incarnated, it took on the form of a slave. This says nothing at all about the nature or personhood of Christ, and one is still free to justify orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    This lexicon entry would seem to agree with me. It explicitly notes that Phil 2:6-7 contrasts being in the form of God with taking on the form of a slave. Again, every single usage of μορφή which I have been able to find supports a translation of "form" or "shape" over against the NIV's "nature." The word "nature" inherently implies an invisible quality, while μορφή clearly denotes something visible.
    In truth, the meaning of μορφή in the context of Philippians 2 is not that wooden.

    My original posting of the BDAG entry was at the very end of my day (last night) when I was even less alert than usual, so I will post it again to include what I failed to emphasize before.

    From BDAG via Accordance:
    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 BC]: 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; s 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 μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων although he was in the form of God (cp. OGI 383, 40f: Antiochus’ body is the framework for his μορφή or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; similarly 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][/b]; 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.

    What is "the form or shape" of God? Can you draw a picture of it?

    The semantic range of μορφή in the context of Philippians 2 is indeed broad enough to include the NIV rendering ("nature"), as noted by Peter O'Brien.

    The semantic range of μορφή in the BDAG entry includes not only "form or shape" but also "expression", "essential identity".

    From the BDAG entry:
    • "the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7"
    • "his μορφή or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; similarly human fragility [Phil 2:7] becomes the supporting framework for Christ’s servility"


    What is the difference in "form or shape" between a human being who is a slave and a human being who is an emperor?

    What is the "form or shape" of Christ's servility and how does that "form or shape" differ from the "form or shape" of King Herod's arrogance?
    Last edited by John Reece; 11-06-2014, 10:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Boxing Pythagoras
    replied
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    From BDAG via Accordance:
    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 BC]: 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; s 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 μορφή or essential identity as a descendant of divinities; similarly 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][/b]; 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.

    This lexicon entry would seem to agree with me. It explicitly notes that Phil 2:6-7 contrasts being in the form of God with taking on the form of a slave. Again, every single usage of μορφή which I have been able to find supports a translation of "form" or "shape" over against the NIV's "nature." The word "nature" inherently implies an invisible quality, while μορφή clearly denotes something visible.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X