μορφή, μορφῆς, ἡ (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 ψυχῆς τέ καί μορφῆς ὁμοιότητα (of their parents), 4Ma 15:3 (4); ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρα μορφή, Mar 16:12; ἐν μορφή Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, Php 2:6; μορφήν δούλου λαβών, Php 2:7; — 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 λόγος ἄσαρκος) "he bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God (the sovereign, opposed to μορφή δούλου), yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained (see ἁρπαγμός, 2), but emptied himself of it (see κενόω, 1) so as to assume the form of a servant, in that he became like unto men (for angels also are δοῦλοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, Rev 19:10; Rev 22:8 f) and was found in fashion as a man". (God μένει ἀεί ἁπλῶς ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ μορφή, Plato, de rep. 2, p. 381 c., and it is denied that God φαντάζεσθαι ἄλλοτε ἐν ἀλλαις ἰδέαις ... καί ἀλλαττοντα τό αὐτοῦ εἶδος εἰς πολλάς μορφας ... καί τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἰδεας ἐκβαίνειν, p. 380 d.; ἡκιστ’ ἄν πολλάς μορφας ἰσχοι ὁ Θεός, p. 381 b.; ἑνός σώματος οὐσίαν μετασχηματίζειν καί μεταχαράττειν εἰς πολυτροπους μορφας, Philo leg. ad Gaium § 11; οὐ γάρ ὥσπερ τό νόμισμα παρακομμα καί Θεοῦ μορφή γίνεται, ibid. § 14 at the end; God ἔργοις μέν καί χαρισιν ἐνεργής καί παντός ὁυτινοσουν φανερωτερος, μορφήν δέ καί μέγεθος ἡμῖν ἀφανεστατος, Josephus, contra Apion 2, 22, 2.) [SYNONYMS: μορφή, σχῆμα: according to Lightfoot (see the thorough discussion in his ’Detached Note’ on Phil. ii.) and Trench (N. T. Synonyms, § lxx.), μορφή form differs from σχῆμα 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 Rom 12:2; but the distinction is rejected by many; see Meyer and especially Fritzsche, in the place cited Yet the last-named commentator makes μορφή δούλου in Philippians, the passage cited relate to the complete form, or nature, of a servant; and σχῆμα to the external form, or human body.]