13
Bacon could not have meant external shape by form here.
A - It looks as though Hooker, Bacon, Shakespeare and the A.V. used the word form in a much deeper sense than
we do at present, and more akin to the usage of the LXX in Daniel 4.
B - Let me take an illustration from the works of God. Water is composed of two gases in chemical
combination:
Hydrogen
and
Oxygen.
The
chemical
formula
for
water
is H2O. The word formula is but the diminutive of forma, the Latin for morphe. Bacon's words are exact when
spoken of formula. Wherever we have H2O we must have water, it `infallibly follows', and as soon as that formula
is altered, water `infallibly vanishes'.
Now, water exists in three different states, each having distinct and in some cases opposite characteristics.
Water may be solid, liquid or gas - ice, water or steam. Yet with all the tremendous differences which are
observable under these three states, the formula remains unchanged. Ice is H2O; to become water the external
`fashion' changes, but the `form' remains. Steam, a mighty power, is invisible, yet its `form' is precisely the same
as that of ice and water.
Form and Fashion
In the immediate context of Philippians 2 the apostle uses a word which means outward shape or figure when he
says, `and being found in fashion as a man'. Here the word used is schema. The constant morphe of water is H2O;
its schema (fashion) may be either solid, liquid or gas.
A - I remember reading the following in The Berean Expositor in connection with Philippians 2:6,7:
`Here the "form" of God is seen exchanged for the "form" of a servant'.
How do you reconcile this statement with what you have just brought forward?
B - I do not reconcile these statements. The passage you quote was written in 1913. We make no claim to
infallibility, but pray for the spirit of wisdom and revelation, and when this is granted it often couples unlearning
together with learning. There are many items in past volumes that would need altering if re-issued. Every statement
we make is presented to those who will `search and see', proving all things and holding fast that which is good.
A - I understand that if Christ were God, such an expression as `thought it not robbery to be equal with God'
would be superfluous. No one thinks of robbing himself of his own essential nature. Paul did not say Messiah was
`equal with God', but `He reckoned equality with God not a thing to be grasped after'. THE God was self-sufficient.
Messiah reckoned self-sufficiency not a thing to be clutched at. Here Messiah stood where Satan fell.
B - What do you understand by `equality with God'?
A - I take it to mean the same essential nature, and that Christ did not aspire to the supreme Godhead, but was
content with His subordinate position as indicated in John 1:1.
B - Seeing that `form' like `formula' means essential nature, this new statement must indicate something else.
The R.V. reads `on an equality with God'. Isa Theo indicates not essential nature, but mode of existence. Now one
mode of existence may be relinquished for another without touching the nature. The words of 2 Corinthians 8:9 are
an illustration, `Though He was rich, yet He became poor'. `Rich' and `poor' are modes of existence, but `He' who
made the exchange remained the same.
A - What does the statement mean then?
B - Christ, though essentially God and therefore surrounded with the accompaniments of Deity, voluntarily laid
all this glory aside and came to earth and was found in fashion as a man. `The form of God' has as its proper mode
the being `on an equality with God'. `The form of a servant' has as its proper mode `the fashion as a man'.
The counting it not a prize that He was on an equality with God is further explained by the words, `He made
Himself of no reputation', or more literally `He emptied Himself'. Of what did Christ empty Himself? The answer