On the use of “morphe” in the New Testament
Andrew Ansell
This Greek noun is used three times in the New Testament. Once in Mark
16:12, and twice in Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, chapter two, verses
6-7. In each case, the English versions like the King James, uses “form”.
Some of the modern versions, like the New International, has it at Mark,
“form”, but in Philippians, “nature”.
In all of its uses in the Old Testament, in the Greek Septuagint version,
“morphe” is used with the meaning that denotes “outward appearance”,
or, as Dr J H Thayer defines it in his Greek lexicon,
"the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision, the external
appearance" (p.418)
The object of this study, is to determine what the Apostle Paul mean in
his Epistle to the Philippians, when he says that Christ, “being in the
morphe of God…took upon Him the morphe of a servant”? Are we to
conclude with those like J Thayer, and Drs W F Ardnt and F W Gingrich,
in their Greek lexicon, where they say of “morphe”, "form, outward
appearance, shape, gener. of bodily form" (p.530), that Paul is speaking
of the “outward appearance” of Jesus Christ?
On the other hand, we have Dr Edward Robinson, in his Greek lexicon,
where he says of, “morphe may here have the sense of nature, phusis, so
that en morphe theou huparchon would be i.q. being of that nature, of the
same nature with God; comp. Eurip.Bacch.54…Plato Repub.II.p.381”
(p.509).
The exact meaning of “morphe” is very important. Does Paul speak of
Jesus as subsisting as very God; or, did He just have the appearance of a
divine being?
We here have the case, where one’s personal “theology” can determine
which way we are to understand the use of “morphe”. Dr Thayer, who
was a Unitarian (those who deny the Holy Trinity, and the Deity of Jesus
Christ), and the Jehovah’s Witneses, and any others in their camp, will no
doubt because of their personal convictions on the Person of Jesus Christ,
will argue for, “outward appearance”. Those who believe in what the
Scriptures clearly teach, will no doubt hold to the defination as given by
Dr Robinson. What, then did Paul want us to understand by his language?
Surely the meaning of this all important passage in Philippians, cannot be
determined by the personal “theology” of any individual? I feel that it is
benefical to the reader, that I here quote from the Greek grammarian, Dr
G B Winer, on another passage on the Deity of Jesus Christ, Titus 2:13;
“In the above remarks I had no intention to deny that, in point of
grammar, soteros hemon may be regarded as a second predicate, jointly
depending on the article tou; but the dogmatic conviction derived from
Paul’s writings that this apostle cannot have called Christ the great God
induced me to show that there is no grammatical obstacle to our taking
the clause kai sot…Christou by itself, as referring to a second subject” (A
Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, p.162. footnote, 3)
Dr Winer, like Thayer, was a Unitarian, where the theological system is
to deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. In the above passage, Dr Winer admits
that in text in Titus, Paul does indeed say that Jesus Christ is the “Great
God and Saviour”, which is borne out by the Greek grammar of the verse.
However, because in his theology, Dr Winer could not accept this fact of
Paul, when he argues in the text of his grammar for the reading, “of the
great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” We have to be honest when
we want to arrive at the truth, and not allow our preconceived notions
distort our judgement.
The use of “morphe”, in Mark’s Gospel, will clearly show that the
common meaning of the word was not used, but its philosophical use was
employed in all three places used in the New Testament. Mark’s account
of the post Resurrection events of Jesus Christ (which Luke’s Gospel has
a more fuller account), tells us that Jesus “was manifested en hetera
morphe (in another form)”, to the two disciples who were on the way to
Emmaus (Luke 24:13).
This is the only other place, in the entire New Testament, where the
Greek noun, morphe is used, apart from its use twice in Philippians 2:6,7.
In each place, the King James Version, as with most of the other versions,
renders the Greek, by our English form. The New International Version
has it form, in Mark’s use; and, very nature (footnote, in the form of, the
form), in the passage of Philippians. It seems that the translator’s of the
NIV saw a difference in the meaning of morphe, when it is used in
Mark’s Gospel, and when Paul uses it in Philippians. As we shall see,
there is no difference in the three uses of morphe, and that its use in Mark
16:12, gives us the real meaning of the word. I have chosen the use of
morphe in Mark, as the starting point of showing what Paul, who had
Mark as his companion, had in mind when he himself makes use of this
noun in his Epistle to the Philippians.
The noun morphe, can be traced back to the Greek poet, Homer, who
used is simply when referring to the outward form. This is the common
use of the noun, as it is so used in the Greek Version of the Old
Testament, known as the Septuagint. The Greek-English Lexicon by Dr
Joseph Thayer, has it defined, “the form by which a person or thing
strikes the vision; the external appearance, (page. 418) which he gives as
the meaning for all three uses. The reader will find that is meaning of
morphe, is accepted in the majority of works written on the passage in
Philippians. The use in Mark’s Gospel is hardly noticed. In the
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, we read, “Mk.16:12…not
in the transfigured corporeality of the risen Lord as one might naturally
suppose, nor in the form of a gardener, in which He appeared to Mary
Magdalene, but in the form of a traveller” (G Kittle, Vol.II, p.702). Dr
Joseph Lightfoot, in his masterful work on the Greek of the passage in
Philippians, has this to say of morphe, as used by Mark. “though morphe
here has no peculiar force, yet schema would perhaps be avoided
instinctively, as it might imply an illusion or an imposture” (Commentary
on Philippians, page 131).
Dr Lightfoot makes a very important point in Mark’s use of morphe,
rather than the Greek word, schema. However, as we shall see, Mark’s
use of morphe, is not in its common use. From Kittle’s it is clear that the
external appearance, is what is meant, by Mark’s language. This
conclusion is quite wrong, and the example of Jesus appearing to Mary,
and to the two disciples, in Kittle, is a misunderstanding of the use of the
force of the noun morphe. The account of Jesus appearing to Mary, is
found in John’s Gospel, of one of Jesus’ post Resurrection appearances.
We read that when Jesus began to speak with Mary, that she did not know
(or recognise) that it was Jesus, at first (John 20:14). It is quite obvious,
that this meeting took place very early in the morning, “while it was still
dark”, as verse one informs us. We are not even told how far from Mary
Jesus was standing, which would have made it difficult to know who she
was speaking with. Add to this the fact, that the clothes that Jesus would
have been wearing at this early in the morning, would have included a
shawl wrapped around His head. This would have been the same as the
account in the next chapter of John, when Jesus appears to some of the
disciples who were fishing, which again, would have been very early in
the morning, before day break. Which would explain why these disciples
also could not recognise Jesus, "But when the morning had now come,
Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus
(21:4). It should be noted, that the phrase, when the morning had now
come, in the Greek, literally means, "dawn coming on and still dark"
But, to assume that Jesus kept changing His external appearance, after
His Resurrection, to those whom He appeared to, is without any warrant.
If it might be said, that what I am saying here is only conjecture, then
Luke’s account of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, will indeed
satisfy any doubters.
We must first of all return to the language of Mark 16:12, where we are
told, that Jesus “appeared in another form”. For another, Mark uses the
Greek, heteros, which has the meaning, to express, “a qualitative
difference and denotes another of a different sort” ( W E Vine, Expository
Dictionary of New Testament Words, p.60). Mark does not use the Greek
allos, which also is used for another, but where its meaning is distinct.
“Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same
sort” (Vine, ibid). Allos, would have been the word used by Mark, had he
simply wished to show that it was Jesus’ external appearance, that had
changed. By using heteros, he clearly intended so show that the
difference was more than “meets the eye”.
Luke’s detailed account of Jesus’ meeting with the two disciples, is very
important to our further understanding Mark’s use of morphe. In the
twenty-fourth chapter of his Gospel, we have the account of a post
Resurrection appearance of Jesus, to two of His disciples, who were on
their way to the town of Emmaus. We take up the even from verse 13,
where Jesus joins them. We here have a very interesting record as given
by Luke, where he says, “But their eyes were restrained, so that they did
not know Him” (v.16). Here we read, that these disciple’s eyes were
“restrained”, by the Holy Spirit, so that they could not “recoginse” that it
was Jesus Who was speaking with them. In verse 31 we read, “Then their
eyes were opened and they knew Him”. This account very clearly shows,
that the external appearance of Jesus had not changed, except for the
imprints of the nails on His hands and feet, and the opening in His side,
where the spear had been thrust. If it was His external appearance that
had been changed, to what it usually was, then there would be no reason
for the Holy Spirit to have prevented these two disciples from
recognising Jesus in the first place. It is also very clear from this account
in Luke, that Mark’s use of morphe, could only be referring to a change
in the essential character of Jesus’ body. It is only after Jesus’
Resurrection, that we read that “He vanished from their sight” (Luke
24:31), that is, He became invisible to them, as the Greek has it. Thus, we
also read in John chapter 20, “Then, the same day at evening, being the
first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were
assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and
said to them, “Peace be with you” (v.19). It says that the door of the room
where the disciples where gathered, was shut, and yet Jesus came in
through the shut door. “And after eight days His disciples were again
inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and
stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!”” (v.26). These instances
clearly show that Jesus’ body, not His physical appearance, had changed
after His Resurrection.
The Oxford English Dictionary, gives us insight as to why the translators
of the King James Version, chose the English word, form, where its
philosophical use was employed.
“4. Philos.a. In the Scholastic philosophy: The essential determinant
principle of a thing; that which makes anything (matter) a determinate
species or kind of being; the essential creative quality.
This use of form (Aristotle's morphe or eidos) and matter (hule) is a
metaphorical extension of their popular use. In ordinary speech, a portion
of matter, stuff, or material, becomes a ‘thing’ by virtue of having a
particular ‘form’ or shape; by altering the form, the matter remaining
unchanged, we make a new ‘thing’. This language, primarily applied only
to objects of sense, was in philosophical use extended to objects of
thought: every ‘thing’ or entity was viewed as consisting of two elements,
its form by virtue of which it was different from, and its matter which it
had in common with, others.” (online editon)
The use of form at this time, can be seen from the Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary.
“In Bacon’s usage: the objective conditions of which a sensible quality or
body depends for its existence. 1605…The particular mode in which a
thing exists or manifests itself. ME; a species, kind, variety. 1542” (Vol.
I, page 737. 1969 edition)
The King James Version was produced between 1604-1611, at which
time they would have had the definitions of morphe, which was used for
the essential determinant principle of a thing, and a determinate species
or kind of being; the essential creative quality. Which can hardly be used
to denote the external appearance. The evidence clearly shows, that the
noun, morphe, did not retain its original use of external appearance
(Homer), but was later used by the play writer, Euripides (480-406, B.C.)
and the philosophers, Plato (429–347 B.C), and Aristotle (384-322, B.C.),
to denote the essential character, the nature.
It will suffice to show from Scripture, as found in the writings of the
Apostle Paul, the force of the noun morphe, where it can only be used to
denote the essential.
a) Romans 12:2, "And do not be conformed to this world, but be
transformed by the renewing of your mind"
This one verse sheds much light, not only on the use of morphe, but also,
schema, which Paul uses in Philippians 2:8, where the English renders the
Greek by, fashion. In this verse from Romans, we are firstly concerned
with the word, transformed, which is in the Greek, metamorphoo, which
is used for a radical change of the heart and mind, which is an inward
change. This is further brought out by the words, by the renewing of your
mind, which can hardly be something external. Secondly, we have the
word, conformed, which is from the Greek adjective, suschematizo,
literally, "be not fashioned to this world", which refers to that which is
outward.
b) Romans 8:28, "conformed to the image of His Son". Here, conformed,
is from the Greek, summorphos, where, together with, image (Greek,
eikon, as used in Colossians 1:15), speaks of an inward change of those
who are born-again, whose characters are to be more like that of Jesus.
c) Galatians 4:19, "until Christ is formed in you". Clearly, here formed
(Greek, morphoo), can only be used of an inward change. Again, this is
brought out by the use of the Greek preposition, en, in you.
We can reject such conclusions as we read in works on this passage in
Philippians, like that which Dr J F Bethune-Baker, who says, "whatever
the precise meaning of morphe may be, there is clearly implied here that
the morphe theou is for the time renounced, in order that the morphe
doulou may be assumed and the life may be lived as man" (An
Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine, page 295). This
view I have read in many other works with deal with this passage in
Philippians, which wrongly supposes, that in order for Jesus to have taken
upon Himself the form of a bond-servant, that He first had to divest
Himself of His form of God. Paul has no such thing in mind here.
This concludes our examination of the Greek word, morphe, as used by
the Apostle Paul, and his companion, Mark. There can be no doubt, that
in each of the three instances, where this noun is employed, that it was
done so in its philosophical sense, and not its common use.