This really grabbed me today!

[face2face]

I would say He became human and therefore He WAS human. Though He didn’t have a human father.

So you would say the form of a servant (or slave) relates to the physical nature and not his demeanor? Interesting

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I still can’t understand what you’re even saying, sorry.

 

[Lambano]

So you would say the form of a servant (or slave) relates to the physical nature and not his demeanor? Interesting

I think it's both. If I recall correctly, Form (μορφή, "morphe") has meaning in Greek philosophy in regards to a thing's nature, i.e. everything is an implementation of Form and Substance. But the contrast between verse 6 and 7 is between "God" and "Slave", which goes beyond nature and includes demeanor, i.e. God owns everything and commands all, while a slave owns nothing and serves all. So, I think you're on to something.

 

[face2face]

I think it's both. If I recall correctly, Form (μορφή, "morphe") has meaning in Greek philosophy in regards to a thing's nature, i.e. everything is an implementation of Form and Substance. But the contrast between verse 6 and 7 is between "God" and "Slave", which goes beyond nature and includes demeanor, i.e. God owns everything and commands all, while a slave owns nothing and serves all. So, I think you're on to something.

That's the point though, when speaking about servitude morphe has nothing to do with one's nature.

 

[face2face]

I still can’t understand what you’re even saying, sorry.

All good, the point has already been made that Morphe doesn't relate to nature but character, which is further identified by "he humbled himself in obedience to death on the cross". It's clear trinitarian dogma has influenced the interpretation of these verses.

 

[Johann]

All good, the point has already been made that Morphe doesn't relate to nature but character, which is further identified by "he humbled himself in obedience to death on the cross". It's clear trinitarian dogma has influenced the interpretation of these verses.

You are the one having it all wrong, form=nature, not character, as a name is the character of a person.
J.

 

[Johann]

I think it's both. If I recall correctly, Form (μορφή, "morphe") has meaning in Greek philosophy in regards to a thing's nature, i.e. everything is an implementation of Form and Substance. But the contrast between verse 6 and 7 is between "God" and "Slave", which goes beyond nature and includes demeanor, i.e. God owns everything and commands all, while a slave owns nothing and serves all. So, I think you're on to something.

The form of a servant (morphēn doulou). He took the characteristic attributes (morphēn as in Php_2:6) of a slave. His humanity was as real as his deity.
In the likeness of men (en homoiōmati anthrōpōn). It was a likeness, but a real likeness (Kennedy), no mere phantom humanity as the Docetic Gnostics held. Note the difference in tense between huparchōn (eternal existence in the morphē of God) and genomenos (second aorist middle participle of ginomai, becoming, definite entrance in time upon his humanity).
Robertson.

The same word for form as in the phrase form of God, and with the same sense. The mode of expression of a slave's being is indeed apprehensible, and is associated with human shape, but it is not this side of the fact which Paul is developing. It is that Christ assumed that mode of being which answered to, and was the complete and characteristic expression of, the slave's being. The mode itself is not defined. This is appropriately inserted here as bringing out the contrast with counted not equality with God, etc. What Christ grasped at in His incarnation was not divine sovereignty, but service.
Was made in the likeness of men (ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος)
Lit., becoming in, etc. Notice the choice of the verb, not was, but became: entered into a new state. Likeness. The word does not imply the reality of our Lord's humanity, μορφή form implied the reality of His deity. That fact is stated in the form of a servant. Neither is εἰκών image employed, which, for our purposes, implies substantially the same as μορφή. See on Col_1:15. As form of a servant exhibits the inmost reality of Christ's condition as a servant - that He became really and essentially the servant of men (Luk_22:27) - so likeness of men expresses the fact that His mode of manifestation resembled what men are. This leaves room for the assumption of another side of His nature - the divine - in the likeness of which He did not appear. As He appealed to men, He was like themselves, with a real likeness; but this likeness to men did not express His whole self. The totality of His being could not appear to men, for that involved the form of God. Hence the apostle views Him solely as He could appear to men. All that was possible was a real and complete likeness to humanity. What He was essentially and eternally could not enter into His human mode of existence. Humanly He was like men, but regarded with reference to His whole self, He was not identical with man, because there was an element of His personality which did not dwell in them - equality with God. Hence the statement of His human manifestation is necessarily limited by this fact, and is confined to likeness and does not extend to identity. “To affirm likeness is at once to assert similarity and to deny sameness” (Dickson). See on Rom_8:3.
Vincent

Is this correct?
J.

 

[face2face]

You are the one having it all wrong, form=nature, not character, as a name is the character of a person.
J.

Servitude (being a slave) cannot relate to nature J. - its about the characteristics of Christ who not claiming to be a Son made himself a servant. God cannot be a slave J!

 

[Johann]

Servitude (being a slave) cannot relate to nature J. - its about the characteristics of Christ who not claiming to be a Son made himself a servant. God cannot be a slave J!

You forget the dual nature of Christ F2F.
J.

 

[face2face]

@Johann He had the resemblance and demeanor of the Father mentally and morally. His character was the express image of his Father's person. (Hebrews 1:3). It's important you lean toward those verses which clearly define his nature as being sins flesh. Romans 8:1-3

 

[face2face]

You forget the dual nature of Christ F2F.
J.

That's correct - you cannot define it in any terms - its a paradox that no-one has ever been able to define.

You recall my question to you about Romans 8:1-3

How did God condemn sin in the flesh?

 

[Johann]

That's correct - you cannot define it in any terms - its a paradox that no-one has ever been able to define.

You recall my question to you about Romans 8:1-3

How did God condemn sin in the flesh?

Pretty self explanatory F2F, you don't need a lexicon or a "commentary" a anathema to you, to read and believe what stands written in this portion of Scripture you have posted.
J.

 

[Johann]

It's important you lean toward those verses which clearly define his nature as being sins flesh. Romans 8:1-3

I think you should rewrite your signature on...His nature as being sins flesh.
J.

 

[Johann]

Servitude (being a slave) cannot relate to nature J. - its about the characteristics of Christ who not claiming to be a Son made himself a servant. God cannot be a slave J!

Yah·weh e·lo·Hei·nu Yah·weh e·Chad

This is where you and I differ F2F, echad is not yachid
J.

 

[face2face]

Yah·weh e·lo·Hei·nu Yah·weh e·Chad

This is where you and I differ F2F, echad is not yachid
J.

So you hang the entire Trinitarian formula from these two words? Surely not J. Why don't you post up some commentaries on the meaning of both and lets see where the dust settles?

 

[face2face]

I think you should rewrite your signature on...His nature as being sins flesh.
J.

You avoided the question and rightly so J.
Precisely how did God rightly condemn sin in the body of Jesus Christ? Romans 8:1-3

 

[Lambano]

What Paul is trying to highlight here is Christ's φρονέω ("phroneo", mindset) that lets go of self-interest and looks after the interests of others. This can be seen in the introduction in Philippians 2:1-5. And this is the mindset we also are challenged to have within ourselves.

So, while Christ μορφή may have changed, His φρονέω did not.

 

[Brakelite]

What Paul is trying to highlight here is Christ's φρονέω ("phroneo", mindset) that lets go of self-interest and looks after the interests of others. This can be seen in the introduction in Philippians 2:1-5. And this is the mindset we also are challenged to have within ourselves.

So, while Christ μορφή may have changed, His φρονέω did not.

The mind of Christ.

 

[Lambano]

If things have μορφή (form) and ουσία (substance/essence), is identity tied to essence only, or to a particular implementation (Gr ὑπ:όστασις, Lat: persona) of form plus essence?

 

[Johann]

If things have μορφή (form) and ουσία (substance/essence), is identity tied to essence only, or to a particular implementation (Gr ὑπ:όστασις, Lat: persona) of form plus essence?

Lambano, you really don't impress me with your Greek.. the morphe, and what it is has not been answered and I would say Vincent and Robertson are better scholars than you, wouldn't you agree?
Remember the dual nature of Christ Jesus and the tavNit and I am not referring to the hupostasis here either.
While you and I are at it, what is the difference between echad and yachid?
Two simple questions
J.