What “form” does God have?
Strongs….
μορφή morphḗ, mor-fay'; perhaps from the base of
G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts); shape; figuratively, nature:—form.
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.
Vincent
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.
A prize (harpagmon). Predicate accusative with hēgēsato. Originally words in ̇mos signified the act, not the result (̇ma). The few examples of harpagmos (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to harpagma, like baptismos and baptisma. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”).
To be on an equality with God (to einai isa theoi). Accusative articular infinitive object of hēgēsato, “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case theōi after isa). Isa is adverbial use of neuter plural with einai as in Rev_21:16.
Emptied himself (heauton ekenōse). First aorist active indicative of kenoō, old verb from kenos, empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a Kenosis doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. “He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty” (Lightfoot).
Robertson
He Thinks of Others, Not Himself (2:5–6)
The “mind” of Christ means the “attitude” Christ
exhibited. “Your attitude should be the same as that of
Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5 niv). After all, outlook determines outcome. If the outlook is selfish, the actions
will be divisive and destructive. James said the same
thing (see James 4:1–10).
These verses in Philippians take us to eternity past.
“Form of God” has nothing to do with shape or size.
God is Spirit (John 4:24), and as such is not to be
thought of in human terms. When the Bible refers to
“the eyes of the Lord” or “the hand of the Lord,” it is
not claiming that God has a human shape. Rather, it is
using human terms to describe divine attributes (the
characteristics of God) and activities.
The word form
means “the outward expression of the inward nature.”
This means that in eternity past, Jesus Christ was God.
In fact, Paul stated that Jesus was “equal with God.”
Other verses such as John 1:1–4; Colossians 1:15; and
Hebrews 1:1–3 also state that Jesus Christ is God.
Certainly as God, Jesus Christ did not need anything! He had all the glory and praise of heaven. With
the Father and the Spirit, He reigned over the universe.
But Philippians 2:6 states an amazing fact: He did not
consider His equality with God as “something selfishly
to be held on to.” Jesus did not think of Himself; He
thought of others. His outlook (or attitude) was that of
unselfish concern for others. This is “the mind of
Christ,” an attitude that says, “I cannot keep my privileges for myself, I must use them for others; and to do
this, I will gladly lay them aside and pay whatever price
is necessary.”
A reporter was interviewing a successful job counselor who had placed hundreds of workers in their
vocations quite happily. When asked the secret of his
success, the man replied, “If you want to find out what
a worker is really like, don’t give him responsibilities—
give him privileges. Most people can handle
responsibilities if you pay them enough, but it takes a
real leader to handle privileges. A leader will use his
privileges to help others and build the organization; a
lesser man will use privileges to promote himself.” Jesus
used His heavenly privileges for the sake of others—for
our sake.
It would be worthwhile to contrast Christ’s attitude
with that of Lucifer (Isa. 14:12–15) and Adam (Gen.
3:1–7). Many Bible students believe that the fall of
Lucifer is a description of the fall of Satan. He once was
the highest of the angelic beings, close to the throne of
God (Ezek. 28:11–19), but he desired to be on the
throne of God! Lucifer said, “I will!” but Jesus said,
“Thy will.” Lucifer was not satisfied to be a creature; he
wanted to be the Creator
! Jesus was the Creator, yet He
willingly became man. Christ’s humility is a rebuke to
Satan’s pride.
Lucifer was not satisfied to be a rebel himself; he
invaded Eden and tempted man to be a rebel. Adam
had all that he needed; he was actually the “king” of
God’s creation (“let them have dominion,” Gen. 1:26).
But Satan said, “You will be like God!” Man deliberately grasped after something that was beyond his
reach, and as a result plunged the whole human race
into sin and death. Adam and Eve thought only of
themselves; Jesus Christ thought of others.
We expect unsaved people to be selfish and grasping, but we do not expect this of Christians, who have
experienced the love of Christ and the fellowship of the
Spirit (Phil. 2:1–2). More than twenty times in the
New Testament, God instructs us how to live with “one
another.” We are to prefer one another (Rom. 12:10),
edify one another (1 Thess. 5:11), and bear each other’s
burdens (Gal. 6:2). We should not judge one another
(Rom. 14:13) but rather admonish one another (Rom.
15:14). Others is the key word in the vocabulary of the
Christian who exercises the submissive mind.
And I can give you a ton of other rabbinical and scholars writings.
J.