Does The Form of God Mean A Timeleess Nature? Philippians 2:6, Response to Dr Dalcour Part 7

At 40:15 - 40:43 Dr Dalcour cited Greek scholars to allege that morphe/form only means a nature rather than a visible form.


I spent a great deal of time looking at what many scholars had to say about the form of God in Philippians 2:6 and found that about half of the scholars said that morphe means a “nature,” while the other half affirmed that morphe means a visible form.


Greek scholar Rodney J. Decker wrote in his online article, “Philippians 2:5-11, The Kenosis,”

“A much more likely context in which to understand μορφή [form/morphe] is biblical Greek … Instead the LXX (Septuagint) text must be used. There are four uses there: Judg. 8:18; Job 4:16; Isa. 44:13; Dan. 3:19. Although this does not represent a large number of uses, it does provide a consistent picture of the use of μορφή [morphe]. In each instance the word refers to the visible form of the individual so described, not to his essential attributes. ‘Meager though the biblical evidence is, it is sufficient to make a prima facie case for the reference to a visible manifestation{Strimple, “Phil. 2,” 260.}.” (Source:


The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphe, “form, outward appearance, shape.”


The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, interprets morphe to be a “form, external appearance.”


Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphe, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.


Mark 16:12 is the only other place in the Greek NT that uses the Greek word “morphe.” The text says that “Jesus appeared in a different form (a resurrected morphe).” We know that Jesus could not have appeared in an invisible form after his resurrection or Docetism would be true. Therefore the meaning of the Greek word “morphe,” translated as “form” in Philippians 2:6, proves that a visible and tangible form or image of the invisible God was already made flesh rather than an alleged pre-incarnate form or image.


Mark 16:12 uses “morphe” for Jesus appearing in a different "form" after his bodily resurrection so we know that “morphe” means an external form of God as the image of the invisible God (the Father - Col. 1:15). If Jesus was not in the visible form (morphe) of God when resurrected, docetism would be true.


Dr Dalcour continues to falsely allege that Oneness theology denies the distinctions between the Father and the Son. No knowledgeable Oneness theologians would ever affirm that God the Father as God the Father would consider equality with God a thing to be grasped because Philippians 2:5-9 is addressing the post incarnational man Christ Jesus who began to exist in the form of God on the earth as a man. Thus the Son did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped as a true human being rather than as another alleged coequal God Person.


Trinitarians have never been able to explain how another distinct true God the Son Person could have the capacity to regard equality with God in a pre-incarnate state if he was already a second distinct true God Person to begin with. For how could another distinct Almighty divine Person have the capacity to regard equality with another distinct Almighty Divine Person if the second divine person was already fully Almighty to begin with? Thus, Philippians 2:5-9 has to be addressing the post incarnational man Christ Jesus who was already in the form of God on the earth rather than a pre-incarnational God the Christ Jesus up in heaven.


The Son of God could not have “already” existed (huparchon) in the form (morphe) of God before the incarnation because huparchon (Acts 17:24 and Luke 16:23) is used for one entering into a new function or state of existence.


For example, in Acts 17:24 huparchon is linked with “Lord” to show that God the Father became “Lord” over His creation after He began His creation. Acts 17:24 (ESV) links huparchon to God “being (huparchon) Lord (kurios).”


“The God who made the world and everything in it, BEING (huparchon) LORD (kurios) of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man.”

Luke 16:23 (KJV) links huparchon with “Hades” and “torments” in Hades.


“And in HELL (Hades) he lift up his eyes, BEING (huparchon) in TORMENTS …”


Philippians 2:6 (BLB) links huparchon to the “morphe” (form) of God.


“Who, EXISTING (huparchon) in the FORM (morphe) of God, did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped,”


The inspired text indicates that the God who previously existed (huparchon) entered into a new state or condition by becoming the “Lord” of His creation. So also did the rich man who previously existed on earth entered into another state or condition by entering into the “torments” of “hell”. In like manner, Philippians 2:6 links huparchon with morphe in order to show that God also entered into a new state of existence by obtaining a morphe (form) of God via his virgin conception. How can Trinitarians affirm that huparchon proves that Jesus timelessly pre-existed in the form (morphe) of God when huparchon is used to show that God entered into that condition?


Since huparchon has the connotation of meaning that one has come into a new state of existence, huparcho addresses Jesus as God the Father manifested in the flesh who became a man in the form (morphe) of God. For example, James 2:15 says, "If a brother or sister be [huparchon] naked [`without clothes'] …" Obviously a brother or sister could not have always eternally existed in a naked condition throughout eternity past. This proves that the Greek verb “huparchon” means that a person has “began” or “came into” a particular condition (“naked” in James 2:15; “Lord” in Acts 17:24; “torments” of “hell” in Luke 16:23; “the form of God” in Philippians 2:6) rather than always having been in that condition.


Trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Robert Young noted the correct, complete meaning for huparchon in James 2:15, “BEGIN to be [uparchon] naked” (Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 ed.) Just as a brother or sister can be (huparchon) naked in James 2:15 while pre-existing that condition in a clothed condition, so huparchon proves that the God who became incarnate as a man pre-existed as the invisible God before coming into existence in the form of God rather than having always existed in the form of God.


The earliest Christian witness affirmed that Jesus was first invisible before becoming visible in the form of God.


In AD 107, Ignatius wrote to Polycarp 3:2 “Look for Him who is above all time, the Timeless, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible.”

In AD 125, Aristides of Athens opened his Apology to the Emperor by affirming that “God is not born, not made … form (morphe) He has none.” Then Aristides wrote that the same God who had no “form” came down from heaven:

“God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed Himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.”


In about AD 60, Hermas wrote, “The pre-existent Holy Spirit which created all things did God make to dwell in a body of flesh chosen by Himself.” 


At 43:02 - 43:14 into his video, Dr Dalcour referenced Jesus allegedly pre-existing in a pre-incarnate form of God and later emptying himself in the incarnation. Then he said that “all scholars … are on my side.”


Professor A.H. McNeile wrote that the Greek grammar in Philippians 2:6 shows that Christ emptied himself of his divine rights and privileges throughout his earthly ministry rather than at “a single moment of incarnation”:

“In this case the aorist ‘ekenosen’ (he emptied himself) does not refer to a single moment of 'incarnation' but the completeness of a series of repeated acts; his earthly life, looked at as a whole, was an unfailing process of self-emptying.” A.H. McNeile. former Regius Professor of Divinity.


Dr Jermome Murphy O’Connor wrote, “We have here an ‘emptying’ related directly to the terrestrial (earthly) condition of Christ...”


The Emphatic Greek Diaglott renders Philippians 2:7 as, “but himself emptied, a form of a slave having taken, in a likeness of men having been formed,


The Emphatic Greek Diaglott shows that the Greek grammar in Philippians 2:7 shows a post-incarnational Christ who emptied himself only after “having taken” “a form of a slave” and only after “having been formed” in the “likeness of men.”


In his scholarly online article, “Kenos, Christ Emptied Himself,” Trinitarian theologian Dan Musick wrote, “Verse 6b: ‘did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped’ - This is clearly a statement regarding Christ's human nature. Would it make any sense for Paul to state that Christ, as God, did not regard equality with God as a thing to be grasped since He was already God? Is the idea of God regarding equality with God a thing to be grasped a sensible issue to raise? It is only as man that Christ did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped. This alone makes sense. Verse 7a: ‘but emptied Himself’ - ekenesen - As man Christ emptied himself.” (Source: Dan Musick


Regarding Christ allegedly pre-existing in a pre-incarnate form of God before emptying himself in the incarnation, Dr Dalcour had said that “all scholars are on his side.” Since I just cited a few Trinitarian scholars who affirm that Christ emptied himself in his “terrestrial (earthly) condition,” “all scholars” are clearly not on Dr Dalcour’s side.


Dr Dalcour referenced Jesus allegedly pre-existing in a pre-incarnate form of God and later emptying himself in the incarnation. Then he said that “all scholars are on his side.” Dr Dalcour has clearly not done his homework. Edward Dalcour criticizes Oneness theologians for alleged minor areas of disagreement and then pretends that all Trinitarian theologians believe the exact same things about their Trinitarian doctrine.


In Philippians 2:7, Paul spoke of Jesus being in the morphe/form of a servant, but in Philippians 2:6 Paul had addressed Jesus being in the morphe/form of God. If the form/morphe of God meant the divine nature of God in verse 6, as many Trinitarian scholars suppose, then that would mean that the second use of form/morphe in verse 7 would also have to be the divine nature. Since the second use of form/morphe in verse 7 says, “in the form/morphe of a servant,” it is hard to imagine how the divine nature is the form of a servant. For God’s Divine Nature as God is not “a servant.” Hence, if morphe/form meant a divine nature, then how could a divine nature be the divine nature of a servant in verse 7? Since the “form of a servant” clearly implies the “form of a man,” the Trinitarian eisegesis of Philippians 2:6-7 is clearly exposed.


For Free BOOKS
For Video Teachings, subscribe to our YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Please reload