`Thou shalt find that I'll resume the shape which thou dost think I have cast off for ever'.

No reader of Shakespeare believes for an instant that King Lear referred to bodily appearance here. It was rather

the relinquished `status' of Royalty to which he referred.

On either side of the year in which the Authorized Version was produced, are two great writers, Hooker, A.D.

1594 and Bacon, A.D. 1620. Hooker says: `Form in other creatures is a thing proportional unto soul in living

creatures' and therefore, to this writer, `the form of God' would refer rather to `the soul of God' if such a term could

be permitted, than to an external shape. In Hooker's estimation `form' meant not external appearance, but essence or

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'. This cannot be true if `form' refers merely to external

shape, splendour, etc. Sugar is sweet whether it be in the `form' of a cube, small grains, powder, or syrup. Bacon

could not possibly have used the word `form' in the sense of shape or appearance, or any thing accidental, for thus

applied his words simply make nonsense.

As the glory of the Lord is at stake, let us spare no pains in arriving at just conclusions. We will therefore

rewrite Bacon's lines in order that the error we are combating may be made evident :

`The external appearance of a nature is such, that given the external appearance, the nature infallibly follows.

Therefore it (i.e. the external appearance) is always present when the nature is present, and universally implies it,

and is constantly inherent in it. Again the external appearance is such, that if it (i.e. the external appearance) be

taken away, the nature infallibly vanishes'.

Let us illustrate the `essential' character of the word `form' as distinct from `accidental' characters.

Water is composed of two gases in chemical combination: hydrogen and oxygen. As one part of oxygen

combines with two parts of hydrogen, the chemical formula for water is therefore H2O, and this formula (or form)

never changes. As Bacon observed, wherever we have the combination which is set forth by the symbols H2O

`water' `infallibly follows', and as soon as that formula is altered water `infallibly vanishes'.

Now, just as the apostle, when speaking of Christ, differentiates between `form' and `fashion', so we can go on to

speak of the different `states' in which the substance called `water' may exist. Water may exist as a solid, a liquid or

a gas. It may be ice, water or steam. Each of these states is associated with properties which are unknown and often

contrary to the properties that mark the other states, yet however different a solid may be from a liquid, and both

from a gas, the `form' H2O remains unchanged and unchangeable. The constant morphe of water is H2O, its schema

(fashion) may be either solid, liquid or gas. The `form' of God cannot alter, though the `fashion' which deals with

appearance, may.

We do not think it profitable to devote time and space to extracts from the Greek Philosophers to prove that this

meaning of `form' was common among them. Those who could use the extracts to profit can find them in the

treatise `The Synonyms morphe and schema' in Bishop Lightfoot's `Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians',

or in the book entitled `The Incarnation' by Dr. E. H. Gifford.

`Thus it is clear', comments Gifford, `that the philosophical sense of `form' was as familiar to our translators as

that of morphe to contemporaries of St. Paul'.

`For the interpretation of "the form of God" it is sufficient to say that (1) it includes the whole nature and essence

of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and (2) that it does

not include in itself anything "accidental" or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions

of glory and majesty; which may at one time be attached to the "form", at another separated from it. (3) The Son

of God could not possibly divest Himself of the "form of God" at His incarnation without thereby ceasing to be

God: so that in all interpretations which assume that "the form of God" was laid aside when "the form of a

servant" was assumed, it is, in fact, however unintentionally and unconsciously, denied that Jesus Christ during

His life on earth was really and truly God' (Gifford).