From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Philippians 2:6 and the Deity of Christ  (Re: Morphe: ...)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:27:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.042540.24510@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>
> ... The greeks
>had a fairly precise language when it came to such concepts, more
>precise than English when it comes to such philosophical terms, 

This is not true!  The Greek philosophers often had to expand
the meanings of the words beyond the meanings in, say, Homer, just to
express their philosophical concepts.  They often had to invent new
meanings for the words they chose to use.  This is understandable
for they had few predecessors to define philosophical terms for them.

But this is really a side issue, as far as this thread is
concerned ....

> ... If Paul simply meant outward appearance, physical
>shape or that which can be perceived he would have used the word
>'eikon'. 

But 'eikon' (or 'eidos') is very different from 'morphe'.  And
again I quote Behm from Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament:

	"'eidos' denotes the appearance of the kind, what is
	 common to the individuals, while 'morphe' is the
	 individual form of appearance.  To 'eidos', clings
	 the idea of what may be perceived and known by others,
	 but 'morphe' indicates what is objectively there."
	                           - Kittel's TDNT, v. 4, p. 743

Precisely because Paul used 'morphe', instead of 'eidos',
in Phil. 2:6, it can only refer to God, not angels.

> ... and I am quite aware of the 
>amount of discussion of this question by Behm in Kittel's dictionary.
>The reason Behm devotes so much attention to this word is that he has
>to tie himself in knots to get 'morphe' to mean anything like
>'essential nature'; the meaning required by orthodox doctrine. Despite 
>this, the word actually means 'form', pure and simple.

Actually, orthodox doctrine does not require 'morphe' to be translated
as 'essential nature'.  Even if it gets translated as 'form', the fact
that Paul used 'morphe', instead of 'eidos', is sufficient for Phil 2:6
to confirm the Deity of Christ.  

Furthermore, the 'morphe' of God in Phil 2:6 is meant to be the
antithesis of the 'morphe' of a servant mentioned in the next
verse (Phil. 2:7).  Thus, the 'morphe' of God in Phil. 2:6
can NOT mean the angelic form, for the angelic beings are also
servants and thus can not be used as the antithesis of the
'morphe' of a servant in Phil. 2:7. 

> ... As J.H.
>Houlden has written in 'Paul's Letters from Prison':
>
>	It is not [Paul's] concern to make precise metaphysical statements
>	about Christ's metaphysical status' (p. 73)

But the Scripture does not approach the Person of Christ from the
metaphysical (Hellenist) prospective.  Rather, it approaches this issue
from the Hebrew prospective: God came to dwell among us in the person
of Messiah, just like the Shekhinah glory came to dwell among His
people Israel in the Holiest Place of the Temple.

> ... But '(h)arpagmos' is best translated as 'something to be 
>seized, stolen or plundered (in war)'. 

The difficulty in translating this word '(h)arpagmos' is acknowledged
by many Bible scholars.  This word can have different meanings,
depending on the context and the grammar.  In Kittel's TDNT, Foerster
carefully examined its usage in Phil 2:6 and concluded that it can
only be translated as 'something to be utilized'.  Christ did not
regard His equality with God as something to be utilized.  Rather, He
humbled Himself and came to this earth as a human being to do the
will of the Father.  This is the very nature of Incarnation.


Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.