03 - The Form of God

A - I should be glad if you would now turn to Php 2:6-11. If you are unprejudiced and closely observe what the passage actually says, if you will but ‘try the things that differ’, you will notice that the passage does not say that every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is GOD, but Lord, to the glory of God - THE FATHER. The one Who is God is The Father, Christ is but the Lord. This is a confirmation of my interpretation of ‘A Go d’, ‘God in a subordinate sense’.

B - Before we deal with this closing verse we must look at the earlier verses and also consider the context. The reason for this marvellous passage is in the words of Php 2:4-5 :

‘Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus’. The context therefore prepares us to see that Christ laid aside something that was really His own for the sake of others. Now let us examine the actual wording of the passage:

‘Who, being in the form of God’ (Php 2:6). The word ‘being’ is the Greek huparchon, and is given in the R.V. margin as ‘being originally’. It refers to time previous to the birth in Bethlehem. A - I believe the words ‘being originally’ are correct, and that whatever it was that is referred to by that term was laid aside when Christ became man.

B - We will test that. Turn to Luke 23:50-53 where we read:

‘Behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor ... this man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus’. The Greek reads Ioseph bouleutes huparchon. Do I understand you to believe that Joseph of Arimathaea ceased to be a ‘counsellor’ as soon as he begged the body of Jesus? A - No, I see no necessity.

B - Turn again to Acts 2:30-31 and read: A - ’Therefore being a prophet ... spake of the resurrection’.

B - The Greek reads prophetes oun huparchon. Do you believe that David ceased to be a prophet when he spoke of the resurrection of Christ? A - No, I do not; what is your purpose in these examples?

B - My purpose is to show by these parallels that there is no warrant for assuming that Christ ‘ceased to be in the form of God’ when ‘He emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant’. A - I cannot agree with you, for the Lord Jesus was certainly not in the form of God when He walked the earth. The Samaritan woman when she saw Him said, ‘How is it that thou, being a Jew’, and that is evidently the ‘form’ that all saw.

B - We can go no further until we have studied the expression ‘form of God’, for you evidently look upon the word as being synonymous with ‘figure’ or ‘shape’. The word form is a translation of the Greek word morphe, and is simply the same word twisted round as it passed through the Latin. It occurs only three times in the New Testament, Mark 16:12, Php 2:6-7. In the LXX we find it translated in Isaiah 44:13 as ‘figure’ and in Job 4:16 as ‘form’. Job makes a distinction between ‘form’ and ‘image’, saying ‘I could not discern the form, an image was before mine eyes’. When Christ said concerning the Father, ‘Ye have not ... nor seen His shape’ (John 5:37) the word is eidos, not morphe. Morphe is used by the LXX to translate the Chaldee ‘splendour’ in the Book of Daniel. The True Meaning of ‘FORM’ In Daniel we have the record of the humbling of Nebuchadnezzar. There we read that he was driven into the fields and ate grass like an ox. When the time came for his restoration we read: ‘And for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness (morphe) returned unto me’ (Daniel 4:36). There is no idea that Nebuchadnezzar meant that his shape changed, for the Chaldee word used does not allow the thought. Even the word shape bore something more than external figure, as may be seen in Shakespeare’s King Lear. Like Nebuchadnezzar, King Lear had left his throne, but as a result of his daughter’s wickedness he says: ‘Thou shalt find that I’ll resume the shape which thou dost think I have cast off for ever’.

Hooker and Bacon The A.V. was made in the year A.D. 1611. In A.D. 1594 Hooker wrote his Ecclesiastical Policy, and in A.D. 1620 Bacon wrote his Novum Organon. These writers come on either side of the date of the A.V. They are both writers who used language with precision. Hooker says:

‘Form in other creatures is a thing proportional unto soul in living creatures’. The modern meaning ‘figure’ or ‘shape’ cannot possibly fit this definition except in the world of crystals where shape is inherent and essential. Bacon says:

‘The form of a nature is such that, given the form, the nature infallibly follows. Therefore it is always present when the nature is present, and universally implies it, and is constantly inherent in it. Again the form is such, that if it be taken away, the nature infallibly vanishes’.

Bacon could not have meant external shape by form here. A - It looks as though Hooker, Bacon, Shakespeare and the A.V. used the word form in a much deeper sense than we do at present, and more akin to the usage of the LXX in Daniel 4:1-37.

B - Let me take an illustration from the works of God. Water is composed of two gases in chemical combination: Hydrogen and Oxygen. The chemical formula for water is H2O. The word formula is but the diminutive of forma, the Latin for morphe. Bacon’s words are exact when spoken of formula. Wherever we have H2O we must have water, it ‘infallibly follows’, and as soon as that formula is altered, water ‘infallibly vanishes’. Now, water exists in three different states, each having distinct and in some cases opposite characteristics. Water may be solid, liquid or gas - ice, water or steam. Yet with all the tremendous differences which are observable under these three states, the formula remains unchanged. Ice is H2O; to become water the external ‘fashion’ changes, but the ‘form’ remains. Steam, a mighty power, is invisible, yet its ‘form’ is precisely the same as that of ice and water.

Form and Fashion In the immediate context of Php 2:1-30 the apostle uses a word which means outward shape or figure when he says, ‘and being found in fashion as a man’. Here the word used is schema. The constant morphe of water is H2O; its schema (fashion) may be either solid, liquid or gas. A - I remember reading the following in The Berean Expositor in connection with Php 2:6-7 :

‘Here the "form" of God is seen exchanged for the "form" of a servant’.

How do you reconcile this statement with what you have just brought forward?

B - I do not reconcile these statements. The passage you quote was written in 1913. We make no claim to infallibility, but pray for the spirit of wisdom and revelation, and when this is granted it often couples unlearning together with learning. There are many items in past volumes that would need altering if re-issued. Every statement we make is presented to those who will ‘search and see’, proving all things and holding fast that which is good. A - I understand that if Christ were God, such an expression as ‘thought it not robbery to be equal with God’ would be superfluous. No one thinks of robbing himself of his own essential nature. Paul did not say Messiah was ‘equal with God’, but ‘He reckoned equality with God not a thing to be grasped after’. THE God was self-sufficient. Messiah reckoned self-sufficiency not a thing to be clutched at. Here Messiah stood where Satan fell.

B - What do you understand by ‘equality with God’? A - I take it to mean the same essential nature, and that Christ did not aspire to the supreme Godhead, but was content with His subordinate position as indicated in John 1:1.

B - Seeing that ‘form’ like ‘formula’ means essential nature, this new statement must indicate something else. The R.V. reads ‘on an equality with God’. Isa Theo indicates not essential nature, but mode of existence. Now one mode of existence may be relinquished for another without touching the nature. The words of 2 Corinthians 8:9 are an illustration, ‘Though He was rich, yet He became poor’. ‘Rich’ and ‘poor’ are modes of existence, but ‘He’ who made the exchange remained the same. A - What does the statement mean then?

B - Christ, though essentially God and therefore surrounded with the accompaniments of Deity, voluntarily laid all this glory aside and came to earth and was found in fashion as a man. ‘The form of God’ has as its proper mode the being ‘on an equality with God’. ‘The form of a servant’ has as its proper mode ‘the fashion as a man’. The counting it not a prize that He was on an equality with God is further explained by the words, ‘He made Himself of no reputation’, or more literally ‘He emptied Himself’. Of what did Christ empty Himself? The answer must be, He emptied Himself of that which He did not regard as a prize. He did not lay aside His essential nature, He did lay aside the glory that was His own proper right. Let us now look at the words: ‘... made Himself of no reputation’ (A.V.).

‘Emptied Himself’ (R.V.). The two words ‘Not ... but’ leave no room for doubt as to what was ‘emptied’. The being on equality with God, the ministry of thousands of angels, the glory, this He voluntarily laid aside. The two statements:

Himself He emptied.

Himself He humbled. explained one another. Chrysostom in his commentary on Philippians says:

‘What then should we say in answer to Arius, who said that the Son is of other substance (than the Father)? Tell me what is the meaning of this - He took the form of a servant? He became man says Arius. Therefore also subsisting in the form of God, He was God ... The form of a servant - man by nature; therefore the form of God -God by nature’.

Bishop Pearson draws attention to the inexactness of the A.V. In the A.V. we read:

‘... made Himself of no reputation, AND took upon Him the form of a servant, AND was made in the likeness of men’ (Php 2:7).

Here we have two copulative conjunctions ‘and’, and three distinct propositions. The original is not so. The words together give one expression of the condescension of Christ:

‘But emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men’. The humiliation thus commenced goes down to the death of the cross; then comes the glorious exaltation: ‘Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a (the) name which is above every name: that at (in) the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father’ (Php 2:9-11). We now reach the verse to which you drew attention. Your comment was, I believe, that every tongue is not going to confess that Jesus Christ is God, but Lord, to the glory of God, Who is not Christ, but the Father. A - Yes, that was my statement.

B - In the first place we have seen that the Saviour laid aside His glory, but not His Godhead. That glory we see given back in the great exaltation. This exaltation answers John 17:5 : ‘And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own Self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was’. The structure of the passage may be helpful to us:

A1 EQUALITY. The accompaniments of Deity.

    B1 a1 He emptied Himself.

        b1 Servant. To obey.

            c1 Likeness of men. Kinsman redeemer.

                d1 Found in fashion as man.

    a1 He humbled Himself.

        b1 Obedient. As servant.

            c1 Death. Kinsman redeemer.

A2 EXALTATION.The accompaniments of Deity restored.

    B2 a2 Name.

        b2 Every knee.

            c2 In heaven.

In earth. Under earth.

        b2 Every tongue.

    a2 Lord.

Looking at the structure, what do you say is the name which is above every name given to Christ at His exaltation? A - I should say ‘The Lord’, only that title is used of Christ before the day of His glory.

B - I think upon examination you will see that the title is invested with a great fulness in this passage. Kurios, ‘Lord’, is the constant translation of the Hebrew ‘Jehovah’. He Who humbled Himself even unto death will be confessed in that day as Jehovah.