Hey, folks.
I thought we could discuss the idea of the epexegetical genitive and if the phrases μορφὴ θεοῦ and μορφὴ δούλου are examples of such.
I’d like to give my thoughts on this, but first I’d like to get your opinions, if possible.
Markos - what do you think?
Thanks,
Jason
I will just comment that I read this passage through the Hebrew language as בצורה and that I think it makes much better sense. It seems to me that the Greek phrase ἐν μορφῇ is translational Greek (as well as λαβεῖν μορφήν) from a Semitic way of thinking - whether we assert that the author was thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic as a backdrop for this expression.
I want to look into how the Septuagint uses μορφή to get another perspective of the term.
Do you have opinions that weigh in on this question?
“Form of God” = Divinity
“Form of Man” = Humanity
“Form of Slave” = Slavery
Actually, Jason, we did discuss this question here:
http://discourse.textkit.com/t/what-kind-of-genitives-are-these/11909/1
On that thread, I wrote:
I can’t see how these can be technically epexegetical genitives since “assuming a form, that is, a servant” makes no more sense in Greek than it does in English.
On a side note, Stephen Hughes recently suggested on B-Greek a new (new, at least, to me) way to understand genitives. You pretend that the genitive case does not exist, and you replace the genitive phrase with a relative clause in which you use a verb that is implicit in the relationship between the two nouns. Thus
ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ
can be paraphrased as
ἐν μορφῇ ἣ ὁμοιάζει τῷ θεῷ
or
ἐν μορφῇ ἣν ὁ θεὸς πάρειχε.
In my opinion, this is a better approach than trying to categorize genitives with English meta-language terms. A true epexegetical genitive, i.e. Rom 4:11
καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς
would be paraphrased
καὶ ἔλαβεν σημεῖον ὅ ἐστιν ἡ περιτομή.
Yes, Mark. I’m aware that we’ve had this discussion in the past. For some reason, though, there is a poster on another forum who is not content to have a discussion once. The discussion is never over until you agree with him, and he uses questions like this (which lack all importance for the majority of us) as a battering stick to whack you over the head over and over again.
I realize the pitfalls of trying to label each instance of the oblique cases by function and that their uses are often more nuanced than this, but at the same time I feel compelled to defend my reading of this text.
What form was the subject (Jesus) in? The form of God. God was the form in which he existed. What form did he take? The form of a servant. It seems reasonable to me to read it as an epexegetical genitive. He existed in one form - and he took a different form. The first form was “God,” and the second was “servant.” It’s not talking about appearance or shape. It’s talking about the form of existence.
It sounds like you are saying that ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is a paraphrastic (and semitic?) way of saying ὑπάρχων θεός and that μορφὴν δούλου λαβών is another way of saying γενόμενος δοῦλος. Now, I don’t really disagree with you, as I believe Paul would say that Jesus was a god, and that he became a slave. But doesn’t he use μορφή plus the genitive to qualify both statements? Jesus was divine as far as form goes (I do think this means something much closer to “appearance” than “existence”,) and while he became a human being and a slave in form, he retained his inner divinity. Paul’s Christology, that is, is somewhat lower than Orthodoxy would want it to be, and he flirts a bit here with Docetism.
…there is a poster on another forum who is not content to have a discussion once. The discussion is never over until you agree with him, and he uses questions like this (which lack all importance for the majority of us) as a battering stick to whack you over the head over and over again.
If his point is that one cannot use an appeal to the epexegetical genitive in this passage to establish the doctrine of the trinity, I agree with him. What is his basic point?
Honestly? He’s using my opinion of this verse to say that I don’t know Greek and cannot understand the New Testament. LOL
Oh, and he does it all anonymously. He hides behind a moniker. It’s really silly. One of the Internet know-it-all’s that we all know about.
Normally, when we say that something appeared “in the form of” something else, it means that it isn’t really the thing itself. For example, we could say that Zeus is often portrayed as taking the form of an eagle and coming to make appearances before humans. Similarly, we hear that he sometimes took the form of an old decrepit man.
Should we understand Jesus as existing in the form of a god (that is, “like” a god, but not really a god) and then taking the form of a servant (being “like” a servant but not really a servant)? Or, has the word “form” here lost its literal force? If we read it as an epexegetical genitive, then we understand this idiomatically as saying “existing as God” and “becoming a servant.” The word μορφή doesn’t really bear its normal meaning in this way.
Do you see what I mean?
By the way, my reference to Hebrew was to the use of צורה (“form”) in a way that describes how something is done and turns an adjective into an adverbial expression.
For example, the adjective מהיר [mahir] means “quick,” and בצורה מהירה [be-tsurah mehirah] means “quickly.” Although the word צורה [tsurah] literally refers to appearance or form, it loses its concrete meaning in such expressions.
It seems to me reasonable to see μορφή doing the same thing - that it has lost its regular concrete meaning in this passage. I would assign it to epexegetical in that θεός is the form in his pre-human existence and δοῦλος (used here as both a descriptive term for “human” and also as a reference to the “Suffering Servant” song of Isaiah) is the form he took at incarnation.
We could read it as “existing in one form (that is, God)… taking another form (that is, a servant).” I cannot but understand the passage this way.
If you understand it otherwise, how would you explain it? How do you understand ἐν μορφῇ and λαβεῖν μορφήν here?
Thanks,
Jason
ὃς ὢν ὁμοῖος θεῷ…ἐγένετο ὁμοῖος δούλῳ.
What does it mean to be “like” God and “like” a servant? Would that mean that he was neither God nor a servant but only seemed like each?
Hi Jaihare,
Greetings and peace…
The problem is with your assertion that Θεοῦ and δούλου in Phil. 2:6-8 are epexegetical genitives . This simply cannot [reasonably speaking] be the case. Perhaps you should re-visit the definition of epexegetical genitive.
Whether μορφῇ in Phil. 2:6-8 means “the nature” (as in ontology) or “appearance” (as in function) is a separate issue, worthy of discussion, but not the bone of contention at this time.
Best regards,
Hello, JM.
I realize that you think it’s a problem. You’re the one who forced me to re-open this question in the first place. I’m more than aware of your opinion and its relative value.
Thank you.
Hi Jaihare,
Greetings and peace in the name of Jesus Christ who came from the only true God, the Father …
In GGBB, p.95 Wallace describes how to test for an epexegetical genitive. :
“Every genitive of apposition, like most genitive uses, can be translated with > of > + the genitive noun. To test whether the genitive in question is a genitive of apposition, replace the word > of > with the paraphrase > which is > or > that is> , > namely> , or, if a personal noun, > who is> . If it does not make the same sense, a genitive of apposition is unlikely; if it does make the same sense, a genitive of apposition is likely.”
So let’s do that for both “form of God” (μορφῇ Θεοῦ ) and “form of a servant” (μορφὴν δούλου ).
“Form” that is “God”…>> Not only do the two nouns not make the same sense, but the entire formula is senseless.
“Form” that is “a servant”…>> Again, no sense.
Also you are effectively arguing that “form” (μορφῇ) means the same thing as “God” (Θεοῦ) and “a servant” (δούλου) ! So to say μορφῇ Θεοῦ and μορφὴν δούλου in Phil. 2:6-8 are both epexegetical genitives is IMHO beyond ridiculous.
I mean no personal offense JaiHare, but I very strongly feel that you’re mistaken . Would you please reconsider ? Let’s be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
I will say that I’m glad you at least attempt to maintain decorum on this forum. What is the difference between here and CF?
Greetings in my own name. I speak for myself, not for an eternal being that should be able to communicate for itself.
Notice the use of the word “likely.”
Just as “temple” is not a synonym of “body” and “sign” is not a synonym of “circumcision,” we have to be a little less literal than you’re suggesting here.
If you removed “of his body” from the verse talking about Jesus destroying the temple, you would never come to the conclusion that he was talking about his body - just as the Jewish leaders are portrayed as not understanding him correctly when he made the statement without the clarification.
We need to understand that “his body” was the literal reality, while “temple” was a metaphor - which was clarified and explained by the use of the genitive. Similarly, “circumcision” was the thing that really happened, but Abraham was (as we are) supposed to understand it as a “sign” by metaphor.
In this case, we have a metaphor of being one form and taking on another, the idea of transformation. What was the reality of the first form? Deity (θεός). What was the reality of the second? Servant (δοῦλος). The genitives explain what the form (a metaphorical use of the term) was really meant to refer to.
In my opinion, this is a good example of the epexegetical genitive.
Can you explain why it would not be one? Or, is it just because it would conflict with your theological opinions?
χαῖρε, φίλε Ἰάσον!
Jesus is like Yahweh in that He is also a god and he co-created the universe. He’s not the same as Yahweh. Jesus was like a slave the way Paul was like a slave.
Paul wrote Rom. 1:1:
Παῦλος, δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ…
but he also wrote 1 Cor. 9:1:
οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος?
χαίροις δὴ ἐν Κυρίῳ, φίλτατε!
ἐν κυρίῳ τινὶ χαίρειν οὐ δύναμαι ὅτι οὐκέτι πιστεύω. σοὶ δὲ εὐχαριστῶ, ὦ φίλε ἄδελφέ μου, διδόντι μὲν τὰς γνώμας σου λαλοῦντι δὲ ἀληθῶς καὶ καλῶς.
Hi JaiHare,
Both “temple” and “sign” have applicative precedents for “body” and “circumcision” respectively in the bible , but not “form”, as in , “God.” Also, as I pointed out earlier, it seems unreasonable that the head noun “form” is defined in two different ways in two epexegetical genitive constructions within the same context , “God” and then as “a servant.” Do you have any other example from the bible of such a phenomenon ?
I hope others can participate and contribute to this discussion. You and I seem to be at an impasse here. I hope there are no hard feelings , we can certainly agree to disagree respectfully.
Be well, and peace,
Is this your personal opinion or what you assert was the opinion of early Christians? I don’t have a problem imagining that early Christians were something other than strict monotheists (given my opinions about the composition of the text of the NT - which I have not shared with you), but it is at least claimed by Christians that they are monotheists and worship the God of Israel only. The idea that Jesus is “another god” is not kosher according to the majority of Christians.