40 Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God

Last updated 07/26/15 this study is thirteen pages long

Some say that when Philippians 2:5-7 says "being in nature God" in reference to Jesus, then Jesus must be God. They
also say if Jesus has equality with God then Jesus is God.
On the face of it this might seem like a valid argument, however I will show that this interpretation is an incorrect
conclusion and that Philippians 2:5-7 does NOT show Jesus to be God.
Whether you agree or disagree, in part or in whole, big or small, please email me any feedback to help improve this
study. I would also appreciate any help with its logic, grammar, typos, editing etc.
Before analyzing the passage in question in Philippians 2:5-7, and the relationship of Christ with God, I am going to
provide some evidence that has to be taken into account when interpreting our passage.
The first part of the argument is based on the definition of the Greek morphe, whether it means "form" or "nature.
If morphe means "form" then the argument that Jesus is God is weaker, if it means "nature" the argument is stronger.
The second part of the argument is whether Jesus is or is not equal with God. If Jesus is not equal with God then the
argument does not exist, if Jesus is equal with God then the argument stronger but still confusing.
There is an in depth analysis 02E Jesus has no equality with God linked here
(From the Trinitarian viewpoint, if Jesus is not equal with God then he is not God.)
Part 0
Part 1A
Part1B
Part 2A
Part 2B
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

Definitions of Greek Morphe

Root words of Greek Morphe
G725/Harpagmos
The Word Nature in the NT
Disciples Share in the Divine Nature
The Septuagint Uses of Morphe
Mark 16:12
Translation Differences of Philippians 2:6
NIV Philippians 2:6-7
ESV Philippians 2:3-8

Part 0 Definitions of Greek Morphe

Lexicons, dictionaries and concordances are divided on whether Greek "morphe" should be translated as "form" or
"nature." Form with the meaning that is similar to image where it implies the outward appearance, or it looks like,
similar to a statue or a waxworks. Nature is in regards to his inner being, his original dna. Each definition therefore
implies a completely different view of Jesus relative to God.
G3444 Morphe
Bauer, W
Form, outward appearance, shape
Bullinger's
Form
NASB
Form, shape
TDNT
Form, external appearance
Thayer's
The form by which by which a person or thing strikes the vision. The external appearance
Louw Nida
Strong's
Vines
Summary:

Nature or character of something

Nature: Form
Inner essential nature

I am sure there are many more Greek dictionaries that support both viewpoints for the Greek word "morphe," either
outward form or inner nature. Generally the first group where the definition is "form" or "outward appearance" is what
something looks like, the second group is more about the inmost being.

Part 1A Root words of Greek Morphe:

G3444/Morphe is the root word of other New Testament words and is also used in compound
words. They are as follows:
G3444 Morphe
Word count 3
Form
G3339 Metamorphoo Word count 4
Transfigured, transformed
G3445 Morphoo Word count 1
G3446 Morphosis Word count 2
appearance or form

Gal 2:5-6, Mark 16:12

Nature or

Mat 17:2, Mk 9:2, Rom 12:2, 2 Cor 3:18

Gal 4:19
Rom 2:20, 2 Tim 3:5

to fashion: Form

Outer Visible Change:

1/ Mathew 17:2 And he was transfigured (G3339/metamorphoo) before them, and his face shone like the
sun, and his clothes became white as light.
On the Mount of Transfiguration, Christ was transformed before the apostles. They did not
see Christ get a new nature, rather they saw his outward form profoundly change.
2/ Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high
mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them.
Something about the outward appearance of Jesus changed.
3/ 2 Tim. 3:5 having the appearance (G3446/morphosis) of godliness, but denying its power.
The Bible speaks of evil men who have a form (morphosis) of godliness. Their inner nature
was evil, but they had an outward appearance of being godly.
Inner Character Change:
1/ Romans 2:20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment
(G3446/Morphosis) of knowledge and truth
This is an inner change in a person's understanding
2/ Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed (G3339/metamorphoo) 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.
This is an inner change in a person's personality
3/ 2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being
transformed (G3339/metamorphoo) into the same image from one degree of glory to another
Christians are being transformed. Our outer form and appearance is the same (although we
age and die) it is our inner character and personality that are changing.

4/ Galatians 4:19 my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is
formed (G3445/morphoo) in you!
This is an inner change that happens inside a person, a transformation from one set of
thoughts to another.
Christ is being formed in us does not mean that we are becoming Christ but are becoming like
Christ.
If this passage said God was being formed in Christ it would not mean Christ was becoming
God although I am sure many would claim it.
Summary:
Outward Visible Change:
Mathew 17:2 he was transfigured before them
Mark 9:2
he was transfigured before them
2 Tim 3:5
having the appearance of godliness
Inner Character Change:
Romans 2:20 the embodiment of knowledge and truth
Romans 12:2 be transformed by the renewal of your mind
2 Cor 3:18
being transformed into the same image
Gal 4:19
until Christ is formed in you
From the Greek words that use morphe as their root word, the spread of definitions is fairly balanced and refer to
either an outward visible appearance or an inner character change.
Interestingly none of them point to the idea that G3444/Morphe should be translated as "nature," none of them are
even close!

Part 1B G725/Harpagmos
The last word in vs6.... a thing to be grasped, is G725/Harpagmos and usually means "snatching at, a reaching out to
grasp something," but is sometimes translated as "cling to" NLT, NIRV. Each definition can alter the interpretation of
the passage.
If it means "not something to cling to" it gives the thought that Jesus rather than keep an equality with God let go of
this and humbled himself. While those that say "not something to be grasped" show he did not have an equality with
God, which is exactly the opposite understanding.
The following quotes show a list of passages where harpazo, the root word of harpagmos, is used. All of them are in
the context of trying to get something, not in forfeiting something or giving up something already owned.

"It was in the days of John the Baptizer that a situation first arose-a situation that still exists-in which the
kingdom of heaven is stormed, and in which those who are eager to storm their way into it clutch at[harpazo]
it."-Matthew 11:12 Barclay

"Or, how can anyone get into a giant's house and carry off [harpazo]his goods, unless he first binds the
giant?"-Matthew 12:29 C.B.Williams

"When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches
away[harpazo] what is sown in the heart.."-Matthew 13:19 New Revised Standard Version

"Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force[harpazo], withdrew again to a
moutain by himself."-John 6:15 New International Version

"When the hired man, who is not a shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees a wolf coming, he leaves the
sheep and runs away; so the wolf snatches [harpazo] the sheep and scatters them."-John 10:12 Todays English
Version

"I give them eternal life and they will never perish; no one will ever snatch [harpazo] them out of my care."John 10:28 Revised English Bible

"What my Father has given me is greatest of all, and no one can wrest[harpazo]it from the Father."-John 10:29
The Complete Gospels

"And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched[harpazo] Philip away; and the
eunich saw him no more."-Acts 8:39 New American Standard Version

"And when a great dissension was developing, the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them
and ordered the troops to go down and take[harpazo] him away from them by force and bring him into the
barracks."-Acts 23:10 New American Standard Version

"Others you must pluck out[harpazo] of the fire, and rescure them.."-Jude 23 R.A.Knox

"And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was
caught up[harpazo]to God and to his throne."-Revelation 12:12 New American Standard Version

What is the common element in all these occurrences of harpazo? Not once is harpazo used in the sense of
retaining something but always in a way of a change, in an attempt at gaining something not already
possessed. Is the form of the word used at Philippians, harpagmos, used with a different significance? The
Expositor's Greek Testament makes this comment relative to the question:
"We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of its derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession',
'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to
glide from the true
sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast'.
Summary:
The root word of the last word in vs6, Greek "harpagmos," is always shown in a sense of "grasp at" rather than "hold
fast."

Part 2A The Word Nature in the NT

The following passages are six scriptures written by Paul using the Greek words for nature.
Strong's: G5449. phusis, foo-sis; from 5453; growth (by germination or expansion), i.e. (by impl.) natural
production (lineal descent); by extens. a genus or sort; fig. native disposition, constitution or usage:([man-]) kind,
nature ([-al]).
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged
natural (G5446/physikos) relations for those that are contrary to nature (G5449/Physis)
The women exchanged their natural sexual union with a man for one with a woman.
The natural/G5446/physikos relations are the ones they had in them at birth.
Romans 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature (G5449) do what the law requires
An inborn instinct, their nature, tells the Gentiles how to behave
Romans 11:24 For if you were cut from what is by nature (G5449) a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary
to nature, (G5449) into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural (G5449) branches, be
grafted back into their own olive tree.

Each use of G5449/physis/nature is in reference to the original place or position of the branches.
1 Cor 11:14 Does not nature (G5449) itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him
Our core understanding, in our nature, is that a man does not have long hair!
Galatians 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature (G5449)
are not gods
The gods that the Galatians believed in were, by nature, never actually gods.
Ephesians 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the
body and the mind, and were by nature (G5449) children of wrath, like the rest of mankind
It is interesting that by nature we are not Godly people.
Summary:
Romans 1:26 The women exchanged their natural sexual union with a man for one with a woman.
Romans 2:14 An inborn instinct, their nature, tells the Gentiles how to behave
Romans 11:24 Each use of G5449/physis/nature is in reference to the original place or position of the branches.
1 Cor 11:14 Our core understanding, in our nature, is that a man does not have long hair
Gal 4:8
The gods that the Galatians believed in were, by nature, never actually gods.
Eph 2:3
It is interesting that by nature we are not Godly people.
Paul clearly had knowledge of words that described "nature" which he uses throughout his writings.

Part 2B Disciples Share in the Divine Nature

2 Corinthians 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine (G2316/theos) power
to destroy strongholds.
We as human beings have the use of divine power, which is "God/theos" power.
2 Corinthians 11:2 For I feel a divine (G2316/theos) jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to
present you as a pure virgin to Christ.
Paul having a theos/God jealousy could also perhaps be translated as a godly jealousy.
2 Peter 1:4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may
participate in the divine (G2304 Theios: divinities) nature (G5449 physis: Nature) and escape the corruption in
the world caused by evil desires.
Disciples will share in the "divine nature," the "theios physis," of God on this earth by acting in accordance to the
bibles teaching. If we share with God His divine nature, what does that mean about us? Obviously we don't share in
being God, my opinion is that as disciples filled with His Holy Spirit we share somehow in that way.
If this passage said that Jesus was to "participate in the divine nature," would people claim that meant he is God? What
would be the difference between disciples sharing with God's divine nature, and Jesus doing the same?
Summary:
2 Cor 10:4

We as human beings have the use of divine power, which is "God/theos" power.

2 Cor 11:2
2 Peter 1:4

Paul having a divine, or theos/God, jealousy could also be translated as a godly jealousy.
Disciples will share in the divine nature of God on this earth

Disciples will share in the spiritual and divine nature of God while on this earth, presumably Jesus did this already and
does now also.

Part 3 The Septuagint Uses of Morphe

The Jews translating the Septuagint used morphe several times, and it always referred to the
outward appearance.
1/ Judges 8:18 Then he said to Zebah and Zalmunna, "What kind of men were they whom you killed at
Tabor?" And they answered, As you, so they; each one the form of the son of a king."
Each of the dead soldiers were the "form" of the son of a king.
2/ Job 4:15 and 16: Job says, A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body
stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form (morphe) stood before my
eyes, and I heard a hushed voice.
There is no question here that morphe refers to the outward appearance.
3/ Isaiah 44:13 He shapes it into the form of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house
Isaiah has the word morphe in reference to man-made idols. He shapes it in the form
(morphe) of man, that it may dwell in a house. The verse is clear: the idol has the outward
appearance of a man.
4/ Daniel 3:19 Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury, and the expression of his face was changed
against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego
After Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzars image, he
became enraged and the form (morphe) of his countenance changed.
5/ Daniel 5:6 Then the kings color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him
"Then the kings color (morphe)was changed...
6/ Daniel 7:28 As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly alarmed me, and my color changed, but I kept the matter
in my heart
As for me Daniel, my thoughts greatly troubled me, and my color (morphe) was changed."
Summary:
Judges 8:18
Job 4:15
Isaiah 44:13
Daniel 3:19
Daniel 5:6
Daniel 7:28

Each of the dead soldiers were the "form" of the son of a king.
There is no question here that morphe refers to the outward appearance
He shapes it into the form of a man
the form (morphe) of his countenance changed.
the kings color (morphe) was changed
and my color (morphe) was changed."

These Septuagint examples all show that the definition of morphe is in regard to "form" rather than "nature." They are
each to do with how the outward appearance reflects the inner feelings and emotions

Part 4 Mark 16:12

Mark 16:11-12 But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.
12 After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.
Summary:
The word "form" in Mark 16:12 is from the same Greek word G3444/morphe. Jesus appeared in
a different outward appearance, he did not appear in a different nature as that will always
remain the same.

Part 5 Translation Differences of Philippians 2:6

The following twenty or so translations can be seen to be very divided in understanding Philippians 2:6
A/ In the form of God - and not equal with God:
Darby: who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God
ASV: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped
ESV: who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped
LEB: who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped
NET: who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped
NASB: who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped
RSV: who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
These translations all say Jesus is in the "form of God" but that he was not equal with God.
B/ In the form of God - and equal with God
AV: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
DR: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
GW: Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality
HCSB: who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own
advantage
ISV: In Gods own form existed he, And shared with God equality, Deemed nothing needed grasping
KJV: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
NKJV: who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God
NRSV: who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
YLT: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God
These translations all say Jesus was in the "form of God" and that he was equal with God.
C/ In his nature God - and not equal with God
NIV: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped
D/ In his nature God - and equal with God:
NIRV: In his very nature he was God. But he did not think that being equal with God was something he should hold on
to
TNIV: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage
These two versions say his nature was God and he was equal with God
It is interesting that the NIV doesn't fully agree with the later NIRV and TNIV in that the NIV says that Jesus was not
equal with God.
E/ He was God - and equal with God:
NLT: Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to

The NLT is very clear in that Jesus is/was God but the equality that he had he gave up temporarily.
F/ Like God - and equal with God:
NCV: Christ himself was like God in everything. But he did not think that being equal with God was something to be
used for his own benefit.
Jesus was like God and equal with God.
Summary:
A/
In the form of God
B/
In the form of God
C/
In his nature God
D/
In his nature God
E/
He was God
F/
Like God

and not equal with God:

and equal with God:
and not equal with God:
and equal with God:
and equal with God:
and equal with God:

7
9
1
2
1
1

Of twenty one translations only the NLT actually say that Jesus is God and is equal with God. All other translations are
open to interpretation.
Eight are not equal with God and thirteen are equal with God.
Sixteen are in the form of God, three are in his nature, one is God and one like God.
Based on whether Jesus is or is not equal with God.
Group A and C:
Jesus cannot be God if he is not equal with God.
Group B, D, E, F:
Jesus could, but not certainly, be God if he is equal with God
Based on whether Jesus is in the "form" of God, or "nature" of God
Sixteen translations say he was "in the form of God."
Three translations say he was "in his nature God."
One says he was God, one says he was like God.
Because of the large amount of disagreement between the translators it is plain to see that even the experts in language
were unsure what the passage means. There is so much doubt it is not possible to determine which is correct, however
a huge cloud of doubt is thrown over the three NIV translations based on the others shown here.

Part 6 NIV Philippians 2:6-7

Although the evidence provided previously shows that Greek morphe should be defined as "form" rather than
"nature," I have assessed the NIV where morphe is defined as "nature."
NIV Philippians 2:6-7 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6a
Who, being in very nature God,
hos hyparcho en
morphe theos
who being
in
nature God
6b

did not consider

equality with God something to be grasped,
ou hegeomai ho eimi isos
theos
harpagmos
not consider equality
God
grasped

but made himself nothing, taking the very nature (G3444 Morphe) of a servant, being made in human likeness.

Vs 6a Jesus is the same nature as God. Jesus came into existence he is the firstborn of God, the Son of God, the image
of God, he is of God, and God's "one and only" son, all with slightly different definitions. God is a spirit and Jesus is a

spirit, however angels and demons are also spirits yet none of them are God. This makes sense as he came from God
and must have a heavenly spiritual Godly nature.
Human beings have the same human nature as their parents, the same nature different people.
Vs6b Even though he has the same nature Jesus did not consider equality with God.
That Jesus did not consider equality with God indicates there are two of them, God and Jesus.
That Jesus did not consider equality with God indicates no possibility that Jesus is equal with God, and that Jesus
knew it.
If the passage said Jesus did consider equality with God, it would indicate a possibility that Jesus was equal with
God but perhaps he chose not to. (This would bring up the problem of two Gods.)
If this passage said Jesus did consider equality with God, those who think Jesus is God would use it to confirm that
theory.
The word not (Strongs G3756 ouch) is the key word written here to confirm Jesus has no equality with God.
If Jesus is God:
Did consider equality with God cannot make sense if Jesus is God.
Did not consider equality with God cannot make sense if Jesus is God.
If Jesus is not God:
"Did" consider equality with God cannot make sense if Jesus is not God
Therefore the only sentence that can make sense is "did not" consider equality with God because Jesus is not God.
Vs 7 Jesus then came to earth in human nature.
Jesus became a servant, God is not a servant he is always the master.
Summary:
Christ who had the same divine nature as God now takes on the nature of a man as a slave.
Even though he has the same nature Jesus did not consider equality with God.
That Jesus did not consider equality indicates no possibility that Jesus is equal with God
If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say it? Of course
God has the
essential nature of God, so why would anyone make that point? Paul is
reminding the Philippians that
Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

Part 7 ASV Philippians 2:1-9

As identified earlier the correct definition of the Greek word morphe is "form" indicating outward appearance.
The ASV has that definition in place, they also translate G4976/schema to "appearance." Problems with several
translations include them missing out the first part of vs8, or if they include it they have made the earlier verses
difficult to understand.
ASV Philippians 2:1-9 If there is therefore any exhortation in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any
fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions,
2
make full my joy, that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind; 3doing
nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself;
4
not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others.
5
Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6
who, existing in the form (morphe) of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be
grasped,
7
but emptied himself, taking the form (morphe) of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;
8
and being found in fashion (G4976/schema) as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto

death, yea, the death of the cross.

9
Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name
Vs1-2 Paul begins instructing followers of Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit to be unified in their love for others.
Vs3 We should not do things for our own selfish needs but have a modest view of our own importance, and being
humble servants count others more significant that ourselves. He tells us how not to be equal with others.
Vs4 Consider others interests before your own.
Vs5 Disciples are told to take Jesus as the example.
Vs6a Jesus' example was this:
He was in the form of God, the image of God, the likeness of God, he was representing God, acting in the way God
would want him to behave.
Vs6b Jesus realized he could not consider thinking he would be equal with God.
Vs7 Jesus changed from a heavenly being to an earthly being.
He was in the form of a servant, the image of a servant, the likeness of a servant, he was serving God, serving in the
way God would want him to serve. He was now the likeness of a man, never equal with his master God.
Vs8 Now having the appearance of a man, he acted as a humble servant, even dying for his God.
His appearance (schema) changed just as it does in humans, there are some that say "morphe" is a synonym for
"schema."
Vs9 God then elevated Jesus to a superior, high ranking and powerful position over all others.
The overall context of the first eight verses is this: the first four verses are in regards to how disciples should act which
are then compared with how Jesus acted.
This entire passage would make absolutely no sense at all if we think that Jesus is/was God, vs6 would not be an
example for verses 2-5. Such an interpretation is in direct opposition to the point of vs3.
Summary:
Vs6a Jesus was in the form of God, the image of God, the likeness of God.
Vs6b Jesus did not count equality with God a possibility, just as disciples don't.
Vs7 Jesus changed from heavenly form to human form, from spiritual form to physical form. His outward appearance
changed from one to another.
Vs8 Jesus died for his God.
Jesus said He who has seen me has seen the Father. Christ always did the Fathers will, and
perfectly represented his Father in every way. Therefore it is not difficult to say Jesus is in the
"form" of God.
That Jesus did NOT consider equality with God signifies he is not God.
That Jesus had emptied himself, confirms that he is not God who is unchanging. If God empties himself either we
have a God who is not God, or we have a God who is God and a God who is empty therefore we have two Gods. Both
solutions are logically impossible and unbiblical.
There is another individual study on Philippians 2:9-11 which address more uncertainties.

Part 8 Quotations from Bible Scholars

Below are some interesting quotes that I discovered during my research.
Please consider: Being "equal to someone or something" [like being "the image of someone"] is really a
statement that you are not really that person or thing at all! When we intend to identify someone or
something, we come right out and say it. We do not say, "David is equal to the king of Israel;" "Jesus is equal
to the Christ;" "Jehovah is equal to God;" etc.! No, we clearly say, "David is King over Israel" - 2
Sam. 5:17;
"Jesus is the Christ" - 1 Jn 5:1; "Jehovah is God" -

The fact that it is in the form (morphe) of a man shows conclusively (as we should know anyway) that it
is not a man! If the writer of this scripture had somehow intended to say that the artificer had indeed
made
the piece of wood into a real man, he would not have used morphe. He would have written that the
artificer
"makes it into a man." And, of course, it is equally true that Paul would not have said Jesus was in the form
(morphe) of God if he had meant that Jesus was God! The use of morphe there shows that
Jesus was not God!
"`It is universally admitted that the two phrases ["morphe of God" and "morphe of a slave"] are directly
antithetical, and that `form' [morphe] must therefore have the same sense in both.'"
What meaning do all these parallel words share? Like "image" they all mean, not the actual thing but a
representation, a similarity, something with only the outward appearance of some other thing.
Therefore, since "morphe" in the phrase "morphe of a slave" is proven by its synonymous parallels
(homoiomati, schemati) to mean merely a likeness, then "morphe" in the further parallel of "morphe of God"
must also mean merely a likeness! So, just with its own internal meaning alone, Phil. 2:6-8 shows
that "morphe
of God" must mean in a form like God's or similar to God
Paul contrasts the morphe of God with the morphe of a servant. It seems nonsensical to have Paul
contrasting a "what" (a divine nature) versus a "who" (a servant). Trinitarians are then forced to read
"form
of a servant" as if it says, "form of a human" but this is not what Paul says. Furthermore, a servant
is not a
servant due to possessing a nature that categorizes him as a servant. A servant is a servant due to his position in life
and the servant activities he performs. This speaks to function, not being.
Similarly, we Christians are to be transformed (metamorphoomai) by renewing our
minds to Scripture.
We do not get a new nature as we renew our minds, because we are
already partakers of the divine
nature, but there will be a change in us that we, and
others, can tangibly experience. Christians who
transform from carnal Christians, with all
the visible activities of the flesh that lifestyle entails, to being
Christ-like Christians, change
in such a way that other people can see the difference.
the average Christian does not feel that Christ was made like his brothers in every
way (Heb. 2:17), but instead feels that Christ was able to do what he did because he was
fundamentally different. If Jesus is also God then he is not like us in every way because we
are not God, therefore this scripture is
contradicted.
God who does not change, did
change?
Summary:
The quotes here are here for interest.
Summaries and Final Conclusion:
Part 0
I am sure there are many more Greek dictionaries that support both viewpoints for the Greek word
"morphe," either outward form or inner nature. Generally the first group where the definition is
"form" or "outward appearance" is what something looks like, the second group is more about the
inmost being.
Part 1A

Outward Visible Change:

Mathew 17:2 he was transfigured before them
Mark 9:2
he was transfigured before them
2 Tim 3:5
having the appearance of godliness
Inner Character Change:
Romans 2:20 the embodiment of knowledge and truth

Romans 12:2 be transformed by the renewal of your mind

2 Cor 3:18
being transformed into the same image
Gal 4:19
until Christ is formed in you
From the Greek words that use morphe as their root word, the spread of definitions is fairly
balanced and refer to either an outward visible appearance or an inner character change.
Interestingly none of them point to the idea that G3444/Morphe should be translated as "nature,"
none of them are even close!
Part 1B

The root word of the last word in vs6, Greek "harpagmos," is always shown in a sense of "grasp
at" rather than "hold fast."

Part 2A

Romans 1:26 The women exchanged their natural sexual union with a man for one with a woman.
Romans 2:14 An inborn instinct, their nature, tells the Gentiles how to behave
Romans 11:24 Each use of G5449/physis/nature is in reference to the original place or position of
the branches.
1 Cor 11:14 Our core understanding, in our nature, is that a man does not have long hair
Gal 4:8
The gods that the Galatians believed in were, by nature, never actually gods.
Eph 2:3
It is interesting that by nature we are not Godly people.
Paul clearly had knowledge of words that described "nature" which he uses throughout his
writings.

Part 2B

2 Cor 10:4
2 Cor 11:2
jealousy.
2 Peter 1:4

We as human beings have the use of divine power, which is "God/theos" power.
Paul having a divine, or theos/God, jealousy could also be translated as a godly
Disciples will share in the divine nature of God on this earth

Disciples will share in the spiritual and divine nature of God while on this earth, presumably Jesus
did this already and does now also.
Part 3

Judges 8:18
Job 4:15

Each of the dead soldiers were the "form" of the son of a king.
There is no question here that morphe refers to the outward

Isaiah 44:13
Daniel 3:19
Daniel 5:6
Daniel 7:28

He shapes it into the form of a man

the form (morphe) of his countenance changed.
the kings color (morphe) was changed
and my color (morphe) was changed."

appearance

These Septuagint examples all show that the definition of morphe is in regard to "form" rather than
"nature." They are each to do with how the outward appearance reflects the inner feelings and
emotions
Part 4
The word "form" in Mark 16:12 is from the same Greek word G3444/morphe. Jesus
appeared in a
different outward appearance, he did not appear in a different nature
as that will always remain the
same. It would be impossible to translate "morphe"
as nature in this passage and it make sense.
Part 5

A/
B/
C/
D/
E/

In the form of God

In the form of God
In his nature God
In his nature God
He was God

and not equal with God:

and equal with God:
and not equal with God:
and equal with God:
and equal with God:

7
9
1
2
1

F/

Like God

and equal with God:

Of twenty one translations only the NLT actually say that Jesus is God and is equal with God. All
other translations are open to interpretation.
Eight are not equal with God and thirteen are equal with God.
Sixteen are in the form of God, three are in his nature, one is God and one like God.
Based on whether Jesus is or is not equal with God.
Group A and C:
Jesus cannot be God if he is not equal with God.
Group B, D, E, F:
Jesus could, but not certainly, be God if he is equal with God
Based on whether Jesus is in the "form" of God, or "nature" of God
Sixteen translations say he was "in the form of God."
Three translations say he was "in his nature God."
One says he was God, one says he was like God.
Because of the large amount of disagreement between the translators it is plain to see that even the
experts in language were unsure what the passage means. There is so much doubt it is not possible
to determine which is correct, however a huge cloud of doubt is thrown over the three NIV
translations based on the others shown here.
Part 6

NIV Philippians 2:6-7 Christ who had the same divine nature as God now takes on the nature of a
man as a slave.
Even though he has the same nature Jesus did not consider equality with God.
That Jesus did not consider equality indicates no possibility that Jesus is equal with God

If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say it? Of
course God has the
essential nature of God, so why would anyone make that
point? Paul is reminding the
Philippians that Jesus represented the Father
in every possible way.
Part 7

ASV Philippians 2:3-8

Vs6a Jesus was in the form of God, the image of God, the likeness of God.
Vs6b Jesus did not count equality with God a possibility, just as disciples don't.
Vs7 Jesus changed from heavenly form to human form, from spiritual form to physical form. His
outward appearance changed from one to another.
Vs8 Jesus died for his God.

Jesus said He who has seen me has seen the Father. Christ always did the
Fathers will, and
perfectly represented his Father in every way. Therefore it is not
difficult to say Jesus is in the
"form" of God.
That Jesus did NOT consider equality with God signifies he is not God.
That Jesus had emptied himself, confirms that he is not God who is unchanging. If God empties
himself either we have a God who is not God, or we have a God who is God and a God who is
empty therefore we have two Gods. Both solutions are logically impossible and unbiblical.

Final Conclusion:
The Greek word "morphe" is in Philippians twice and also in Mark 16:12. The problem is that we have a word that is
difficult to define due to its rarity. Theologians are going to argue until doomsday regarding what it means, this makes

it hard to use as a doctrinal base. Does it refer to an outward appearance or an inner nature? How do we prove it either
way? Numerous lexicons and dictionaries have it one way, and numerous have it the other way.
Based on the root word analysis along with Mark 16:12, the evidence shows that "form" should be the correct
definition rather than "nature."
The argument that if Jesus shares in the same "nature" as God then he must be God has no strength to it because
disciples will also share in the spiritual and divine nature of God while on this earth.
The Septuagint when writing "morphe" in the OT use it in a way to describe form or outward appearance. They never
use it in a way to show inner nature.
When comparing twenty one different translations we are left in a confused mess due to at least six different ways of
interpreting the passage. To me it is quite unbelievable that there could be such differences among scholars.
Due to this point alone it would be best to resist from trying to argue important biblical doctrine on such a difficult
passage.
However because Jesus did NOT consider equality with God signifies he is not God. That Jesus had emptied himself,
confirms that he is not God who is unchanging. If God empties himself either we have a God who is not God, or we
have a God who is God and a God who is empty therefore we have two Gods. Both solutions are logically impossible
and unbiblical.
Therefore nothing in Philippians 2:1-9 shows that Jesus is God