From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Philippians 2:6 and the Deity of Christ  (Re: Morphe: ...)
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:37:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.052720.16524@engage.pko.dec.com>, pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
> 
> 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.

Of course they had to expand on the vocabulary used by Homer, Homer was
a very early writer. Later Greek writers (eg Plato) had a quite 
sophisticated vocabulary when it came to abstract concepts. Greek had
four major words for what we call 'love' for example. Your statement
is a bit like saying that English-speaking philosophers had to 
expand on the vocab used by the Beowulf-poet; true but irrelvant.

> > ... 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

'Phusis' Publius, what does 'phusis' mean? It means 'essential
nature'. Now if Paul had used 'phusis' there would be no doubt
as to what he meant. And if he had used 'eikon' there would also
have been no doubt. But he used 'morphe', which is far more
ambiguous than 'phusis' or 'eikon'. Thus, the meaning of this
part of the passage is far from clear. You certainly can't make
statements like:

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

given that, in this context, 'morphe' gives us no indication of
the metaphysical status of Jesus
 
> > ... 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.

Not at all, as I have explained above, the use of 'morphe' in this context
leaves it quite unclear as to what Paul is trying to say. If the passage
ended here, I would simply say that Phil 2 is too unclear to make any
theological or christological pronouncements upon, but then we have
'(h)arpagamos'  
 
> 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.

The fact that 'morphe' is used to describe both the heavenly form
and the earthly 'form of a slave' which Jesus took on Earth is certainly
an indication that we are meant to see a stark contrast i.e.
heavenly vs earthly. But to say that the heavenly being couldn't
be an angel simply because angels are also servants is imposing your
opinion on the text. The contrast between heavenly being and earthly
being is the point here, angels are heavenly beings and CAN be used
as an antithesis of a slave. In fact, the antithesis is very effective. 
 
> > ... 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.

The only difficulty involved is in translating this word in such a 
way that it does not do violence to orthodox doctrines. If you look
at Foerster's article again you will find that this word's root-verb
is quite easily and clearly translated as 'to seize as plunder, to
take in war'. It requires a lot of twisting to make it mean 'something
which has been taken and then later utilised', but the christian has
to twist it that way, otherwise yet another strut collapses from
under the doctrine of the Incarnation.
Tim O'Neill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc