John Baumberger has a question about my translation of en morphē theou in Philippians 2:6 as “in the form of a god.” He takes issue with the indefinite construction on a couple of grounds:
1. The word theos ‘without the definite article almost always refers to God himself (and not “a god”) throughout scripture.’
2. The article with theos in verse 9 refers back to the theos of verse 6; therefore, en morphē theou in verse 6 must be translated “in the form of God.”
I haven’t done a comprehensive study of the use of the definite article with theos in the Greek Bible or other Hellenistic Jewish texts. We could make the obvious point that sometimes the anarthrous form does refer to a god.
Still, it is certainly the case that there are similar genitive expressions with theos which do not have the article but refer to the one God—“glory of God” (doxa theou), for example (1 Cor. 10:31; 11:7; Phil. 2:11). If morphē could be shown to mean “glory” (it can’t), then there wouldn’t be a problem with the traditional interpretation (but there is).
Indeed, the main argument for the translation “in the form of a god” is not that the article is missing in verse 6 but that morphē always denotes outward appearance. Since, on the one hand, it was impossible in mainstream Jewish tradition to speak about the outward appearance of the God who made the heavens and the earth, and on the other, morphē is widely used in Greek literature with reference to the gods, it seems highly likely that the Philippians would have heard en morphē theou as a reference to Jesus’ outward appearance as a god.
I suggest further in the book that “form of a god” is analogous to “voice of a god” and “heart of a god”:
Ask… whether any nation has ever heard the voice of a living god (phōnēn theou) speaking from the midst of the fire… (Deut. 4:33)
And the people were shouting, “The voice of a god (theou phōne), and not of a man!” Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God (tōi theōi) the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last. (Acts 12:22–23)
Because your heart was exalted and you said, “I am a god; I have inhabited a habitation of a god in the heart of the sea,” yet you are human and not a god, and you rendered your heart as a heart of a god (kardian theou). (Ezek. 28:2)
A god can have a personal voice, heart, and form. The Ezekiel and Acts passages are especially interesting because they belong to Jewish polemic against the divine ruler cult, which is, in my view, in the background of Philippians 2:6. I also make the point in the book that the first part of the encomium reverses the acclamation of Herod as a god and not a man. The story of Jesus’ career, to the observer, was that he turned out to be a man and not a god.
We also have the example of the man of lawlessness who “opposes and exalts himself over every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God (ton naon tou theou), presenting himself as a god (theos)” (2 Thess. 2:4*). Behind him are the prince of Tyre again, who says, “I am a god (theos eimi egō)” (Ezek. 28:2), and Antiochus Epiphanes, who “will be enraged and will be exalted against every god (panta theon) and against the God of the gods he will speak remarkable things” (Dan. 11:36* LXX).
Finally, Philo discusses the statement “I am the God (ho theos) who was seen by you in the place of a god (en topōi theou)” (Dreams 1:227-30). He thinks that there is a distinction here between “the God” and “some other.”
What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, “I am the God (ho theos);” but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, “He who was seen by thee in the place,” not of the God (tou theou), but simply “of a god” (theou).
He then goes on to identify the other “god” with “his most ancient word,” if I’ve understood him correctly, which perhaps has relevance for the interpretation of John 1:1, but the identification rests on a linguistic distinction between the true God with an article and other gods without.
So it seems that Hellenistic Jews of Paul’s time were at least aware of the potential theological significance of the definite article.
To your statement „it was impossible in mainstream Jewish tradition to speak about the outward appearance of the God who made the heavens and the earth“ I would say: Jesus did. See John 5:37.
@DoSi:
Hi DoSi,
It’s interesting that you just mentioned Jn 5:37, I was just thinking about it as a counter-example of the claim, “it was impossible in mainstream Jewish tradition to speak about the outward appearance of the God who made the heavens and the earth.“
As I understand Jn 5:37, Jesus is referring to the spiritual deafness & blindness of his Jewish hearers to God’s voice (Scriptures?) and “form” (eidos) that He was presently revealing himself in/through, as evidenced by their refusal to believe his words.
@DoSi:
This certainly opens up an interesting line of investigation. Here’s my translation of the passage:
And the Father who sent me, he has borne witness concerning me. You have neither heard his voice nor seen his outward appearance (eidos), and you do not have his word remaining in you, because him whom he sent, in him you do not believe. (Jn. 5:37-38*)
The word is eidos, not morphē. The connotations overlap (“form, outward appearance”), but whereas eidos is associated with the act of seeing something, morphē connotes the physical shape of the object or person. Eidos has a subjective orientation; morphē is more objective. One of the reasons the Jews resisted attributing morphē to God was that the word was so closely associated with the appearance or epiphany of pagan gods (physical beauty, noble demeanour, strength of body, etc.) and the concrete forms of idols.
There is a reference to the “appearance (eidos) of the glory of the Lord” in Exod. 24:17, but this is not a reference to the actual “form” of the “substance”or body of God, which is what morphē would bring to mind.
God says of Moses that he will speak to him “mouth to mouth… in outward appearance (eidei) and not in riddles, and he saw the glory of the Lord” (Num. 12:8). This is part of a rebuke of Miriam and Aaron, who “were not afraid to speak against my servant Moses,” which fits the context of John 5:37 rather well: Jesus is another Moses against whom the Jews speak. He goes on to say, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me” (Jn. 5:46).
On the chariot throne in Ezekiel’s vision there is a “likeness as of an outward appearance (eidos) of a human person above” (Ezek. 1:26*). This whole bright, fiery apparition was “the vision of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.”
So the Jews never saw the eidos of God, but exceptionally Moses and Ezekiel saw the bright glory of YHWH. But at issue here is only the seeing—the visionary capacity—of the exceptional prophet or “son of man” (cf. Ezek. 2:1). It is not said that Moses, Ezekiel, or Jesus was “in the outward appearance” of God.
@Andrew Perriman:
Hi Andrew
How would you further distinguish between morphe and schema (cp. 1 Cor. 7:31 and Php. 2:8)?
Thanks
Jaco
@Jaco van Zyl:
I don’t think the abstract thought in 1 Corinthians 7:31, which has its own distinctive literary background (Euripides, Bacchae 832; Philostratus, Vita Apoll. 8.7 §312), is relevant for Philippians 2:6. The more common idea behind schēma is the shape, form, outward appearance of a thing or person, but perhaps especially, in the case of persons, with the manner of attire in mind.
Lightfoot says that morphē “has not and cannot have any of those secondary senses which attach to σχῆμα [schēma], as gesture or dress or parade or pretext.”
The daughters of Zion are finely dressed, but God will “humiliate the ruling daughters of Zion, and the Lord will reveal their schēma in that day (Is. 3:17-18). They will be dressed instead with sackcloth and girdled with a rope, so either their schēma is their naked form or the humiliated form that they will receive when Jerusalem is judged by God. Jesus was “found in schēma as a human person” but he humbled himself.
Similarly, Hezekiah “removed his royal apparel, clothed himself in sackcloth, and took up a humble schēma…” (Josephus, Ant. 10:11; cf. 11:221-3, 225).
In Shepherd of Hermas 25:1 there is a description of a visionary figure with a glorious face, who appears “in the schēma of a shepherd, with a white skin wrapped around him and with a bag on his shoulders and a staff in his hand” (Hermas 25:1*).
The word sometimes carries the negative connotation of a false, deceptive or seductive appearance, but these clearly do not apply in the case of Jesus being found in schēma as a human person:
For women are evil, my children, and by reason of their lacking authority or power over man, they scheme treacherously how they might entice him to themselves by means of their appearance (en schēmasin). And whomever they cannot enchant by their appearance (schēmatos) they conquer by a stratagem. (T. Reuben 5:1–2*)
Since I was drunk with wine, I did not recognize her and her beauty enticed me through the schēma of her presentation (kosmēseōs). (T. Judah 12:3*)
It’s possible, of course, that in Philippians 2:6 schēma is used only for stylistic variation.
The absence of the definite article before theou in Philippians 2:6 does not necessarily render it indefinite, as Greek grammar allows for anarthrous (article-less) nouns to function as definite when the context implies specificity. In Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian usage, theos often appears without the article yet unmistakably refers to the one true God (e.g., logos theou in John 1:1, where theos without the article refers to God in His nature). Similarly, the phrase doxa theou (“glory of God”) in 1 Corinthians 10:31 and Philippians 2:11 demonstrates that anarthrous genitives frequently denote the one true God. Perriman himself concedes this point but does not adequately explain why Philippians 2:6 should be an exception.
The suggestion that morphē exclusively refers to outward appearance and, therefore, supports an indefinite reading (“a god”) is also flawed. While morphē can refer to external characteristics, it often signifies the essential nature of something as expressed externally. In Philippians 2:6, morphē theou aligns with Paul’s intent to emphasize Christ’s divine nature, not a superficial or illusory appearance. This understanding is reinforced by the parallel between morphē theou (form of God) and morphē doulou (form of a slave) in verse 7, where the latter clearly refers to Christ’s assumption of a true human nature, not merely an outward disguise. The contrast is between the divine and human natures, not between two outward forms.
The theological context further undermines your claim. Paul’s hymn in Philippians 2:6-11 portrays the preexistent Christ as equal with God (to einai isa theō), a phrase that unequivocally affirms divine equality rather than subordination. Your interpretation diminishes this equality by suggesting that Christ was merely in the form of a god—a lesser, subordinate being. This reading is inconsistent with Paul’s broader Christology, which includes explicit affirmations of Christ’s divine status (e.g., Colossians 1:15-20, where Christ is called the image of the invisible God and the one through whom all things were created).
The appeal to Jewish polemic against divine ruler cults and his analogy with Herod’s acclamation as “a god” in Acts 12:22-23 is also misapplied. The polemic against rulers like Herod or Antiochus Epiphanes targets false claims to divinity, which stand in stark contrast to Paul’s presentation of Christ as the true divine Son. While such polemics serve to critique human pretensions to godhood, Philippians 2:6-11 affirms Christ’s authentic divine identity and His voluntary condescension in becoming human.
Finally, the use of Philo’s distinction between “the God” (ho theos) and “a god” (theos) to support his argument neglects the Christological implications of Paul’s writing. While Philo might differentiate between the true God and lesser beings referred to as “gods,” Paul’s context in Philippians 2 unequivocally associates Christ with the unique identity of the one true God. Paul concludes the hymn with the universal confession that Jesus Christ is Kyrios (Lord), a title reserved for Yahweh in the Septuagint, further affirming Christ’s divine identity.
@jkghjkl68:
Thank you for the careful engagement.
While morphē can refer to external characteristics, it often signifies the essential nature of something as expressed externally.
This statement is not true, and the paragraph as a whole begs the question. Morphē does not express the “essential nature of something as expressed externally.” It is expresses the outward appearance of something, which may or may not corresponds to some inner reality.
The construct would have to mean that God possesses an external appearance independent of the person of Jesus in which Jesus then appears. We cannot get away from the fact that morphē theou attributes an outward appearance to whichever deity is intended by theou.
I would like to see some of these frequent examples where morphē supposedly signifies the essential of a person or thing.
That Paul is talking about “Christ’s divine nature” in Philippians 2:6 is an assumption we make on the grounds of tradition.
Likewise, “form of a slave” does not self-evidently refer to his “true human nature.” All the lexicological evidence (for which see my book) points to it referring to his outward appearance: he appeared “slavish”—servile, wretched, sub-human—to the onlooker. It means much the same as “in the likeness of sinful flesh” in Romans 8:3. Obviously, we can assert otherwise, but the consistent usage of morphē seems to me to indicate a natural preoccupation with outward appearance as the basis for human estimations of the career of Jesus (specifically in this case pagan estimations) in contrast to divine estimation.
@jkghjkl68:
Paul’s hymn in Philippians 2:6-11 portrays the preexistent Christ as equal with God (to einai isa theō), a phrase that unequivocally affirms divine equality rather than subordination.
This is also incorrect, in my view. What Paul says is that Jesus did not seize at the opportunity to attain such equality with God or a god. A major part of my argument is that the harpagmon clause cannot mean that Jesus did not hold on to equality with God as being something already in his possession. The idiom seems always to mean that an opportunity is presented which may or may not be seized upon, which is why I think the temptation in the wilderness is very pertinent background for Philippians 2:6. It is that dramatic moment when Jesus refused the offer of divine kingship as it would have been understood by Greek readers.
Your interpretation diminishes this equality by suggesting that Christ was merely in the form of a god—a lesser, subordinate being. This reading is inconsistent with Paul’s broader Christology, which includes explicit affirmations of Christ’s divine status….
I disagree about the interpretation of Colossians 1:15-20, but this statement misses the point anyway. My argument is that the language of the first stanza of the encomium largely reflects a Greek evaluation of the career of Jesus. It is Pauline christology through the eyes of the sort of Greek onlookers who mistook Paul and Barnabas for Hermes and Zeus.
Such a reading is not strictly incompatible with an orthodox incarnational christology; it’s just not what is being said here. It’s completely compatible with a christology that says that Jesus performed extraordinary works of power in Israel, taught wisely, etc., but chose not to exploit his success and took instead a path of humiliation, suffering, and a wretched death on a Roman cross.
@jkghjkl68:
The polemic against rulers like Herod or Antiochus Epiphanes targets false claims to divinity, which stand in stark contrast to Paul’s presentation of Christ as the true divine Son.
Precisely. That’s why Jesus refused Satan’s offer of rule over the nations of the Greek-Roman world. Interpretation of the harpagmon clause is critical here.
@jkghjkl68:
…Paul’s context in Philippians 2 unequivocally associates Christ with the unique identity of the one true God. Paul concludes the hymn with the universal confession that Jesus Christ is Kyrios (Lord), a title reserved for Yahweh in the Septuagint, further affirming Christ’s divine identity.
Here again, I think, we need to understand Paul’s rhetoric—the whole point is the contrast between stanza one and stanza two. There is no reason to read back the evaluation of stanza two into stanza one.
Also kyrios is not a title reserved for YHWH in the LXX. Psalm 110:1 is critical for understanding New Testament christology: the kyrios who is YHWH said to the kyrios who is ʾadon, Sit at my right hand…. Jesus must surely have been regarded as the kyrios who is ʾadon—the one “appointed” Lord, Christ, Son of God, etc., following his resurrection from the dead.
Recent comments