μορφή

morfhv morfhv,
morfh'",
hJ (from root signifying `to lay hold of', `seize' (cf. German Fassung); Fick, Part i., p. 174; Vanicek, p. 719), from Homer down, the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance: children are said to reflect
yuch'"
tev
kaiv
morfh'"
oJmoiovthta (of their parents), (4);
ejfanerwvqh
ejn
eJtevra
morfhv, ;
ejn
morfhv
Qeou'
uJpavrcwn, ;
morfhvn
douvlou
labwvn, ; -- this whole passage (as I have shown more fully in the Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. for 1873, pp. 33ff, with which compare the different view given by Holsten in the Jahrbb. f. protest. Theol. for 1875, p. 449ff) is to be explained as follows: who, although (formerly when he was
lovgo"
a[sarko") "he bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God (the sovereign, opposed to
morfhv
douvlou), yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained (see
aJrpagmov", 2), but emptied himself of it (see
kenovw, 1) so as to assume the form of a servant, in that he became like unto men (for angels also are
dou'loi
tou'
Qeou', ; f) and was found in fashion as a man". (God
mevnei
ajeiv
aJplw'"
ejn
th'/
aujtou'
morfhv, Plato, de rep. 2, p. 381 c., and it is denied that God
fantavzesqai
a[llote
ejn
ajllai"
ijdevai" ...
kaiv
ajllattonta
tov
aujtou'
ei\do"
eij"
pollav"
morfa" ...
kaiv
th'"
eJautou'
ijdea"
ejkbaivnein, p. 380 d.;
hJkist!
a[n
pollav"
morfa"
ijscoi
oJ
Qeov", p. 381 b.;
eJnov"
swvmato"
oujsivan
metaschmativzein
kaiv
metacaravttein
eij"
polutropou"
morfa", Philo leg. ad Gaium sec. 11;
ouj
gavr
w{sper
tov
novmisma
parakomma
kaiv
Qeou'
morfhv
givnetai, ibid. sec. 14 at the end; God
e[rgoi"
mevn
kaiv
carisin
ejnerghv"
kaiv
pantov"
oJutinosoun
fanerwtero",
morfhvn
dev
kaiv
mevgeqo"
hJmi'n
ajfanestato", Josephus, contra Apion 2, 22, 2.)*(Synonyms:
morfhv,
sch'ma: according to Lightfoot (see the thorough discussion in his `Detached Note' on Phil. ii.) and Trench (N. T. Synonyms, sec. lxx.),
morfhv form differs from
sch'ma figure, shape, fashion, as that which is intrinsic and essential, from that which is outward and accidental. So in the main Bengel, Philippi, others, on ; but the distinction is rejected by many; see Meyer and especially Fritzsche, in the place cited Yet the last-named commentator makes
morfhv
douvlou in Philippians, the passage cited relate to the complete form, or nature, of a servant; and
sch'ma to the external form, or human body.)