Filipenses 2

Filipenses 2:8

Maclaren - Equally emphatic in another direction is Paul’s next expression, ‘In the form of God,’ for ‘form’ means much more than ‘shape.’ I would point out the careful selection in this passage of three words to express three ideas which are often by hasty thought regarded as identical, We read of ‘the form of God’ (Phil. 2:6),’ the likeness of men’ (Phil. 2:7), and’ in fashion as a man.’ Careful investigation of these two words ‘form’ and’ fashion’ has established a broad distinction between them, the former being more fixed, the latter referring to that which is accidental and outward, which may be fleeting and unsubstantial. The possession of the form involves participation in the essence also. Here it implies no corporeal idea as if God had a material form, but it implies also much more than a mere apparent resemblance. He who is in the form of God possesses the essential divine attributes. Only God can be ‘in the form of God’: man is made in the likeness of God, but man is not ‘in the form of God.’ Light is thrown on this lofty phrase by its antithesis with the succeeding expression in the next verse, ‘the form of a servant,’ and as that is immediately explained to refer to Christ’s assumption of human nature, there is no room for candid doubt that ‘being originally in the form of God’ is a deliberately asserted claim of the divinity of Christ in His pre-existent state. (The Descent of the Word) Lightfoot in his commentary on Philippians has a lengthy discussion of schema as it differs from morphe... The word schema corresponds exactly in derivation, though but partially in meaning, to the old English ‘haviour.’ In its first sense it denotes the figure, shape, fashion, of a thing. Thence it gathers several derived meanings. It gets to signify, like the corresponding Latin ‘habitus,’ sometimes the dress or costume..., sometimes the attitude or demeanor.... Schema is used also for a ‘figure of speech,’ as the dress in which the sense clothes itself or the posture which the language assumes. It signifies moreover pomp, display, outward circumstance....Morphe, like schema, originally refers to the organs of sense. If schema may be rendered by ‘figure,’ ‘fashion,’ morphe corresponds to ‘form.’ Morphe comprises all those sensible qualities, which striking the eye lead to the conviction that we see such and such a thing....the great and entire change of the inner life, otherwise described as being born again, being created anew, is spoken of as a conversion of morphe always, of schema never. Thus ‘He fore-ordained them conformable (summorphous) to the image of His Son’ (Ro 8:29); ‘Being made conformable (summorphizomenos) to His death’ (Phil. 3:10); ‘We are transformed (metamorphoumetha) into the same image’ (2Cor. 3:18); ‘To be transformed by the renewal of the mind’ (Ro 12:2); ‘Until Christ be formed (morphothe) in you’ (Gal. 4:19). In these passages again, if any one doubts whether morphe has any special force, let him substitute schema and try the effect. In some cases indeed, where the organs of sense are concerned and where the appeal lies to popular usage, either word might be used. Yet I think it will be felt at once that in the account of the transfiguration metaschematizesthai would have been out of place and that metamorposthai alone is adequate to express the completeness and significance of the change (Mt 17:2, Mark 9:2). Even in the later addition to Mark’s Gospel here our Lord is described as appearing to the two disciples en hetera morphe, though morphe here has no peculiar force, yet schema would perhaps be avoided instinctively, as it might imply an illusion or an imposture. It will be observed also that in two passages where Paul speaks of an appearance which is superficial and unreal, though not using schema, he still avoids morphe as inappropriate and adopts morphosis (Ed: "the state of being formally structured, embodiment, formulation, form...In 2Ti 3:5 the idea of mere outward form is derived from the context" BADG) instead (Ro 2:20, 2Ti 3:5). Here the termination denotes the aiming after or affecting the morphe. And the distinction, which has thus appeared from the review of each word separately, will be seen still more clearly from those passages where they occur together. In Ro 12:2 (suschematizo...metamorphoo) the form of the sentence calls attention to the contrast, and the appropriateness of each word in its own connection is obvious: ‘Not to follow the fleeting fashion of this world, but to undergo a complete change, assume a new form, in the renewal of the mind.’... Thus in the passage under consideration the morphe is contrasted with the schema, as that which is intrinsic and essential with that which is accidental and outward. And the three clauses imply respectively the true divine nature of our Lord (μορφὴ Θεοῦ), the true human nature (μορφὴ δούλου), and the externals of the human nature (σχήματι ὡς ἄνθρωπος). (Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians}, (St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians - page 125-131) Joseph Beet - Fashion (in NT only 1Co 7:31) differs from form as any occasional appearance or visible clothing differs from an expression which corresponds to actual inner reality. The form of God is the appropriate self-manifestation of the Son’s essence, of His equality with God. The fashion as a man was the outward guise of humanity, a visible clothing bearing only a distant relation to the actual nature of the Son. It is practically the same as in the likeness of men, except perhaps that it recalls more conspicuously the outward aspect of Christ as an individual man. In this outward guise, by those who sought Him, the Incarnate Son was found. This last word keeps before us, as does the conspicuous repetition of the word form, the self-presentation of the Son both as God and as Man. (Philippians 2 Commentary) James E Rosscup writes that Jesus "did not rid Himself of the essence in which He was God, or relinquish the attributes of God. He always remained God but also became man. He was fully God and fully man, in one Person. He did not exchange the “form” of God (let it go), but always had this, and simply added or took the form also of a man in being fully humanity. What He emptied Himself of was the exercise, use, or expression of the prerogatives of being God. As a servant, He showed perfect submission to the Father to do His will as the God-man. This is as other humans also can obey whatever is God’s will for them, as in many things it varies for each person. Christ worked miracles only as these served the Father in His will and timing, and many times bypassed showing the power He could have asserted, never making His own way easier. He lived as a true human, experiencing thirst, hunger, and weariness in His treks instead of moving from one place to another in an instant. (An Exposition on Prayer in the Bible: Igniting the Fuel to Flame Our Communication with God) HE HUMBLED HIMSELF: etapeinosen (3SAAI) heauton: Acts 8:33; Heb 5:5, 6, 7; 12:2 In Proverbs we read that... The fear (reverential awe) of the LORD (Jehovah) is the instruction for wisdom, and before honor comes humility (Compare - the Cross, before the Crown!). (Pr 15:33) STOOPING LOWER He humbled Himself - We read later that God exalted Him but here it is clear that this was Jesus' voluntary choice. He willingly and graciously did this Himself. He was not forced. He offered Himself to death! While believers cannot humble themselves in the same way, they can humble themselves by dying to self. (Mk 8:34-35) Spurgeon on humbled Himself - Our text does not speak so much of the humiliation of Christ in becoming man, as of His humiliation after He took upon Himself our nature. He had not descended low enough yet, though He had come down all the way from the Godhead to our manhood.What will not Christ do for us who have been given to Him by His Father? There is no measure to His love; you cannot comprehend His grace. Oh, how we ought to love Him, and serve Him! The lower He stoops to save us, the higher we ought to lift Him in our adoring reverence. Blessed be His name, He stoops, and stoops, and stoops, and, when He reaches our level, and becomes man, He still stoops, and stoops, and stoops lower and deeper yet....