Jesus in the FORM OF GOD at Philippians 2

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

"A vigorous debate still continues around the hymnic passage. However, the suggestion that the hymn has been constructed with a strong allusion to Adam, or even modeled after the template of Adam christology is still persuasive." p. 282, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, by James D.G. Dunn 

A rule of hermeneutics states that you cannot use an ambiguous scripture as a proof text.
The ambiguity here is simply one that is shared by many translators and exegetes.
The Harper Collins Study Bible NRSV states that some of the key words used here "had puzzled interpreters" and are "problematic." 

Sure, we have the way that Trinitarians like to look at this verse, as is stated in Heinz Cassirer's "did not look upon his equality with God as something to be held in his grasp," but there are many others that do not see this in the same way: 

"who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men" ASV
"who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" NASB
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" Revised Standard Version
"Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal with God." Rotherham
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped" TCE
"Christ Jesus, who, when he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as a prize" Bible in Living English
"Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped" New Jerusalem Bible
"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped" New American Bible
"who, though being in God's Form, yet did not meditate a Usurpation to BE like God" Emphatic Diaglott
"Who, [beginning] [existing] in a form of God did not consider a seizing, to be equal to God" 21st Century Literal
"although he was like God in nature, he never even considered the chance to be equal with God." 21st Century Free
"who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." Revised Version
"Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God." An American Translation/Goodspeed
"who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped" NET Bible
"who though he had god-like form, did not regard it as a prize to be equal to God." The Original NT-Schonfield
[Footnote: "Referring to the sin which Adam was tempted by Satan to commit, and which Lucifer in his former state had committed (Gen 3:5; Isa 14:12-14). Moses is said to have had a divine form, and as an infant to have received the crown from Pharoah's head (Josephus, Antiq II 232-235). The Christ Above of the Jewish mystics had angelic likeness as a Son of God (Dan 4:25-28; Job 1:6-7)."]
"who - did not think it a matter to earnestly desired." -Clarke
"Did not regard - as an object of  solicitous desire." -Stuart
"Thought not - a thing to be seized." -Sharpe
"Did not eagerly grasp." -Kneeland
"Did not violently strive." -Dickinson
"did not meditate a usurpation." -Turnbull

If, as the New Scofield Bible says, that this verse is the strongest assertions of Christ's deity, then those who hold such a position have a real problem.

These verses are about humility, and how, unlike Adam, Jesus did not try to be equal to God. That is why the preceding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean that we should try to cling to our equality with God? Of course not. To translate this verse in a way that promotes the deity of Christ robs it of its true force and meaning.

But what of the phrase, "form of God" or EN MORFH QEOU

Carolyn Osiek writes that the NIV translation, "being in very nature God," misses the mark since it "overstates the traditional  interpretation" by rendering MORFH as "very nature" instead of "form." Osiek goes on to say that MORFH [in the Phil account] does not mean nature, "but form, shape, or appearance . . ." She says more and favors the understanding "status" for MORFH. She goes on to say that "divinity in the absolute sense is probably not being ascribed to Christ."  EN MORFH QEOU appears to be a dative of indirect object that describes "an exalted heavenly figure very close to God," but not one who possesses absolute divinity (Osiek, Carolyn. _Philippians, Philemon_. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000). See page 60.

Also, "This interpretation is enhanced by the rest of verse 6: he did not consider it a hARPAGMOS, something to be seized or exploited, to be ISA QEWi, equal or of equal status to God" (Osiek 60).
I think she has something here regarding status, since EN MORFH QEOU (in the form of God) seems to be contrasted with EN MORFH DOULOU (form of a slave). A slave is not the antithesis of deity. A slave, or servant, has the bearing of status or function among humanity, serving humans while heavenly beings, angels, have also served and held a functional equality with God.
[See Exodus 3:2, 14-16 cf. Acts 7:30-32; Gen 16:13, 21:17; 22:15,16; 31:11, 13, Jg 6:12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23; 13:6, 21; Deut 5:24; Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23; Psalm 8:5; 82:1; 97:7; 138:1.]
They are representatives, and as such, can even bear the title of "God." See footnote Psalm 45:7 New American Bible.

As Buchanan says, "a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power of attorney for the one who sent him"

But for sure, the notion that MORFH can also mean outer appearance, but too much cannot be read into this as assuming divinity in its absolute sense, as even sinful humans can have a "form [MORFWSIN] of godliness, although they have denied its power." 2 Tim 3:5 NASB

"But Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father does not mean absolute identity of being. Although the Son of God in his preexistent being was in - the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God."-The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. II, p. 80."When he [Paul] says that Christ existed in the form of God, he implies that Christ was of the same nature as God, [yes a spirit] that the principle of his being was essentially divine. Since he had this affinity with God, he might have aspired to "equality" with him; he might have claimed an equal share in all the powers which God exercises and in all the honors which are rendered to him by his creatures. Standing so near to God, he might have resented his inferior place and thrown off his obedience. (d) Yet he never attempted the robbery which might have raised him higher….But in Greek, as in English, the word "robbery" involved the idea of violent seizure, and what Christ resisted was not merely the prize but the means of obtaining it. He refused to seize for his own the glory which belongs to God….Paul…set the obedience of Christ over against that old conception  of a heavenly being  [Satan] who had sought by violence to make himself equal to God." (e.a.)-The Interpreter's Bible, in loc cit.

Additionally, you may want to check out the book entitled Where Christology Began : essays on
Philippians 2 ; Ralph P. Martin, Brian J. Dodd,  editors. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.

This is again, where the Adam Christology talked about above comes into play.

Rom 5:14 Nonetheless death reigned over all from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sin was not the breaking of a commandment, as Adam was. He prefigured the One who was to come..."1 Cor 15:22 Just as all die in Adam, so in Christ all will be brought to life.
1 Cor 15:45 So the first man, Adam, as scripture says, became a living soul; and the last Adam has became a life-giving spirit.

If we lost eternal life because of Adam, who was once perfect and without sin, then it only follows that it would take another Adam, another perfect man, to get it back for us.
The NWT renders 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 in a superior manner when it deals with the ransom,

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all-[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times."

Rob Bowman calls the NWT's rendering at 1 Tim 2:6 of antilutron ["a corresponding ransom,"] an "overtranslation." (See Why You Should Believe In The Trinity. pp. 76, 77)

Now, the NASB, NJB and others all render this as simply "ransom."  If Paul wanted just "ransom," he could have just used LUTRON, but instead he used LUTRON with the preposition ANTI, indicating, as grammarians generally agree, of "substitution." Vine's says that ANTILUTRON is "significant," and indicates a "substitutionary ransom." Surely Vine's take on this must also be considered "overtranslation."

Actually, it could be said that translating ANTILUTRON as simply "ransom" is undertranslation.

H.A.W. Meyers says: “The word antilutron, is synonymous with antallagma
in Mt. 16:26; it is distinguished from the simple lutron only in this,
that the preposition makes the idea of exchange still more
emphatic."--Meyers Commentary on the NT."Antilutron: a corresponding price."--Young’s Concordance.
"It signifies a substitute ransom price, a ransom in place of another or others." Paul's Letter to the Colossians-An Exegetical and Devotional Commentary by J. Hampton Keathley III-Biblical Studies Press 2001, p. 64
"the reference in 1 Timothy 2:6...has a substitutionary meaning." Davies, Christ in our Place, 89-90
"A ransom, price of redemption, or rather corresponding ransom. It
properly signifies a price by which captives are redeemed from the
enemy; and that kind of exchange in which the life of one is redeemed by
the life of another. so Aristotle uses the verb antilytroo for redeeming
life by life."--Parkhurst's Lexicon;47

A look at the word ANTI help us with this reasoning. The BDAG Lexicon says that it is "indicating that one thing is equiv[alent] to another" and some of the examples it gives are Matt 5:38, "Eye for [ANTI] eye and tooth for [ANTI] tooth" and Romans 12:17, "Never pay back evil with [ANTI] evil."
This substitutionary value is stressed further by the use of the prepositional hUPER following LUTRON in 1 Timothy. So, when the Bible tells us that, "it was through one man [Adam] that sin came into the world, and through sin death, and thus death spread to the whole world" then it requires another Adam to free us from this sinful inheritance of death. (Romans 5:12) Both Adam and Jesus are called the "Son of God" [Luke 3:38; 4:3] but, while Adam may at the same time be the father of a sinful many,  Jesus will bear their sins, and we can be in this way counted as offspring of  the father and suffering servant who gives us eternity. (Isaiah 9:6; 53:10-12)

For God, the creator of universe, the awesome, powerful, dynamic Almighty Jehovah to have to pay this price is not the ANTILUTRON, it is not a corresponding, substitutionary ransom, for a million planets housed with billions of people could never measure up to the immeasurable Yahweh.

........................................

Now let's take a different look at Phil 2:5-7..."Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave...

You have to wonder if QEOU should be taken as indefinite here, such as “form of a god”? This would highlight a parallel that is overlooked by most, the parallel between "the form of a god" and "the form of a slave."

"In the epistle to the Philippians, 2. 6—11, he represents the Logos, as being first in the form of a god, and afterwards humbling himself, laying aside his majesty, and taking the form of a servant..." [A Monotessaron; Or The Gospel of Jesus Christ, According to the Four Evangelists by John Samuel Thompson 1828]

"Agreeably to the language here made use of, it is said in another place, that Christ, being in the form of God, or in the form of a God, took upon himself the form of a servant." ~Rev. Timothy Kenrick 1828