I think there's a fairly good reason for form being included.
Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων)
Being. Not the simple είναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas_2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή).
We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape.
The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive
nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus
permanently identified with that nature and character.
Thus it is
distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable.
Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form.
For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Mat_17:2.
As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality.
Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.
This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence.
It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire.
To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (Php_2:7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being.
Whatever the
mode of
this expression, it marked the being of
Christ in the eternity before creation.
As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God.
This form, not being identical with the divine essence, but dependent upon it, and necessarily implying it, can be parted with or laid aside. Since Christ is one with God, and therefore pure being, absolute existence, He can exist without the form. This form of God Christ laid aside in His incarnation.
Thought it not robbery to be equal with God (οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ)
Robbery is explained in three ways. 1. A robbing, the act. 2. The thing robbed, a piece of plunder. 3. A prize, a thing to be grasped. Here in the last sense.
Paul does not then say, as A.V., that Christ did not think it robbery to be equal with God: for, 1, that fact goes without. saying in the previous expression, being in the form of God. 2. On this explanation the statement is very awkward.
Christ, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God; but, after which we should naturally expect, on the other hand, claimed and asserted equality: whereas the statement is:
Christ was in the form of God and did not think it robbery to be equal with God, but (instead) emptied Himself. Christ held fast His assertion of divine dignity, but relinquished it. The antithesis is thus entirely destroyed.
Taking the word ἁρπαγμὸν (A.V., robbery) to mean a highly prized possession, we understand Paul to say that Christ, being, before His incarnation, in the form of God, did not regard His divine equality as a prize which was to be grasped at and retained at all hazards, but, on the contrary, laid aside the form of God, and took upon Himself the nature of man.
The emphasis in the passage is upon Christ's humiliation. The fact of His equality with God is stated as a background, in order to throw the circumstances of His incarnation into stronger relief. Hence the peculiar form of Paul's statement Christ's great object was to identify Himself with humanity; not to appear to men as divine but as human. Had He come into the world emphasizing His equality with God, the world would have been amazed, but not saved He did not grasp at this. The rather He counted humanity His prize, and so laid aside the conditions of His preexistent state, and became man.
i think Vincent answers this in an excellent way, indeed a scholar, and not those who think they are scholars.....
Being (huparchōn). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of huparchō. In the form of God (en morphēi theou).
Morphē means the essential attributes as shown in the form.
In his
preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.
Short, but powerfully stated by Robertson. A true scholar.
Who] in His pre-existent glory. We have in this passage a N.T. counterpart to the O.T. revelation of Messiah’s “coming to do the will of His God” (Psa_40:6-8, interpreted Heb_10:5).
being] The Greek word slightly indicates that He not only “was,” but “already was,” in a state antecedent to and independent of the action to be described. R.V. margin has “Gr. originally being”;
but the American Revisers dissent.
Wonder why the ARV would "dissent?"
in the form of God] The word rendered “form” is morphê. This word, unlike our “form” in its popular meaning, connotes reality along with appearance, or in other words denotes an appearance which is manifestation.
It thus differs from the word (schêma) rendered “fashion” in Php_2:8 below; where see note. See notes on Rom_12:2 in this Series for further remarks on the difference between the two words; and cp. for full discussions, Abp Trench’s Synonyms, under μορφή, and Bp Lightfoot’s Philippians, detached note to ch. 2.
Here then our Redeeming Lord is revealed as so subsisting “in the form of God” that He was what He seemed, and seemed what He was—God. (See further, the next note below, and on Php_2:7.)
“Though [morphκ] is not the same as [ousia, essence], yet the possession of the [morphκ] involves participation in the [ousia] also, for [morphκ] implies not the external accidents [only?] but the essential attributes” (Lightfoot).
Clear answer and @Lambano couldn't answer, forgetting the "attributes" Since he approach the scriptures in "a different manner"
Another piece of scholarly work done by scholars from Cambridge.
Hopefully this will shine a little light for those who appreciate and love our Lord and great God Christ Jesus.
J.
