This, however, cannot be urged until we have examined the phrase `the Form of God' which we must now

We found that the word translated `being' in Philippians 2:6 means something more than existence, it includes

the thought of possession, of `being originally', but does not necessitate the idea that when the Lord Jesus Christ

took upon Him `the form of a servant' He must necessarily have relinquished `the form of God'. That can only be

decided after the meaning of the `form' of God has been ascertained.

There are a number of outstanding Commentators who teach that `the form of God' means `the divine

appearance' of which Christ by His incarnation `divested Himself'. Alford speaks of `the act of laying aside the form

of God'.

It is evident from these comments that in the mind of these writers `the form of God' does not essentially differ

from being `equal with God'.

If by the word `form' the apostle means `external appearance' it would seem that the apostle has not expressed

himself clearly, for :

(1) What is the external appearance of a `slave' (servant)? Are there not tall slaves, dwarfed slaves, slaves of

noble bearing, and slaves that cringe and fawn? Yet the same word `form' is used.

(2) If `form' refers to external appearance, then what is the added `fashion' of a man? Was not that external?

The same can be said of the two expressions `the form of God' and `the equality with God', which some confuse, but

which we hope to show are not synonymous.

It is abundantly clear that by the `form of a servant' the apostle means the `status' of a servant. `Form', says

Lightfoot, means not `external semblance but characteristic attributes'. It is conceded to-day, that the first meaning

that attaches to the word `form' does refer to outward appearance, but that is because it has come to be used of

things, and it is the recognized tendency of words to degenerate with time. When it is used of God, it cannot

possibly be used in this sense, for `God is spirit', is omnipresent and can have no `form' in the modern sense. We

must enquire, therefore, into the way in which the word `form' could be employed of God without reducing Him to

`shape and size'.

Bishop Lightfoot has an exhaustive treatise on the two words morphe `form' and schema `fashion' that cannot be

reproduced here owing to the many references to the writings of the Greek Philosophers.

Aristotle criticized the saying of Democritus who had said `anybody could see what was the form of a man'

meaning that he might be known by his shape and colour. Aristotle replied `a corpse has the form (morphe) of the

human shape (schematos), and yet nevertheless is not a man', meaning that while a corpse has the morphe of the

human schema, it has not the morphe of a man. The form referred to something else.

The difference between `form' and `fashion' may be perceived in Romans 12:2, where the word schematizomai

and morphoomai are used.

`Not to follow the fleeting fashion of this world (external), but to undergo a complete change, assume a new form

(internal), in the renewal of the mind'.

Justin Martyr evidently used these two words with discrimination. He says: `Christians do not believe the idols

formed by men's hands to have the form (morphe) of God; they have only the names and the shapes (schemata) of

demons; the form of God is not of this kind. His glory and form are ineffable. He thus appears to contrast the

visible schemata of demons, with the invisible immaterial morphe of God' (see: Bishop J. B. Lightfoot Saint Paul's

Epistle to the Philippians pp. 131,132).

Tyndale in A.D. 1534 translates the passage in Philippians 2:6 by `the shape of God', and this again must not be

read in the light of modern usage, but in the same way that Shakespeare uses the expression in King Lear. Lear had

relinquished the throne, but owing to his daughters' great wickedness he says :