Chapter IV – The Character of Christ: The Form of God

Part II – The Character of Christ

Who? And… Well, Why?

For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also, Who, being inherently in the form of God…

hos (WHO) en (IN) morphe (FORM) theou (OF-God/OF-PLACER) huparchon (belongING/being-inherently)

In the previous section, we considered the fact that Paul is speaking of a current disposition in Christ Jesus, that we may presently adapt to this current disposition as well – to make ourselves low. Paul will now give the primary example of this humility as demonstrated in this One’s journey.

Paul begins his build toward Christ’s humility with the word “Who.” Christ is the Who in question. In learning of our Lord’s following actions, we will be able to recognize the fullest demonstration of humility that God has ever willed. And, with how central this humility is to Christ’s character, we will thus be brought to a realization of the disposition of the Son of God, maturing us in our subjection/faith-obedience to our Lord (Eph. 4:13.) Paul even clarifies, after the exhortation in 2:5-11, how we should put the realization of this disposition to use in our minds (Phil. 2:12.)

“Inherently”

Huparchon, “being inherently,” is not always translated thus. Oftentimes, the term is translated “belong,” for it recognizes a permanent possession of something. This is demonstrated by its elements, “UNDER-ORIGINATE.”

Christ is, inherently, or, belonging, or, possessing, IN the form of God. This term, inherently, helps us recognize that this is Christ’s default state – in the Image of His Father, as Paul proclaimed for us in the minor administration (2 Cor. 4:4.)

This is very important to note now, for we will see Paul’s contrastive statement in verse 7 when describing Christ taking the form of a slave, and be able to understand God’s pattern far more clearly. Christ under-originates here. This is His default; He is inherent, here, He belongs here, He possesses here. All other forms, then, are derivations which do not fully reflect Him.

It follows: if Matt. 1:18-23, and Luke 1:30-35 is the origin of our Lord, then the rest of this verse must say, “Being inherently in the form of a man,” or “form of a child,” or “form of a–

Form of God (And What it Doesn’t Mean)

Contrary to all popular creeds (which we refute by providing the evidence to the translation in the Greek,) Christ is said to be “possessing” in the form of God. The word “form” is, of course, one of the most heavily debated terms in all of scripture. Thankfully, the King James actually gets this one right! However, this frustrates a lot of Trinitarians, who now point to other translations to prove their position on the “Pre-Existence of Christ.” Most often the NIV is used, which says that Christ is “in very nature God.”

Such sloppy translation is commended by one William Barclay, who writes concerning morphe, “form” –

“…the word is morphe, which means THE UNCHANGING AND UNCHANGEABLE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF A THING…” – Jesus As They Saw Him, W. Barclay, p. 27

It is insisted by many Trinitarians that “form” must concern internal essence, as opposed to outward appearance. Yet when we briefly consider every use of the word morphe in the Greek New Testament (excluding the two in this passage,) we find that God never uses the term to describe something external.

Brief Word Study on “Form” and its Variants

The first use of “form” is found in Mark 16:12–

Yet after these things He was manifested in a different form to two of them walking, going into a field.

Here we receive explicit evidence toward Christ changing His shape toward others, after His resurrection. Though this form may be a different manifestation of Christ, we now know from Philippians 2:6, that Christ is inherently in the form of God. Any form change on His end is temporary, for the form of God is His inherent form, the form in which He belongs.

The only other uses of the word “form” are found in Paul’s letters. We find the verb morphosis, “FORMing,” in Rom. 2:20, speaking to the Jews (2:17) –

you have confidence in yourself to be a guide of the blind, a light of those in darkness, a discipliner of the imprudent, a teacher of minors, having the form of knowledge and the truth in the law.

This use of form is very instructive, that we may learn, not only of God’s usage, but of Paul’s usage of the term as well. When he uses “form,” here, it is obviously not in reference to a positive intrinsic quality of the Jew. As we know, the Judaizers of the day were very devout, and yet when it came down to it, they judged our Lord based on His appearance, whom He kept ties with, and disavowed His kingship based off His birthplace. These men were not truly “knowledgeable” and “truthful” in the law – but they kept the outward appearance, or the form, of this quality. They simply made it look like they were wise and studious!

Some may argue that Galatians 4:19 proves that form can mean something internal:

Little children mine, with whom I am travailing again until Christ may be formed in you!

Here, no one can deny that an inward work of grace is being discussed.

So what’s the deal? Why has every use so far depicted an external position, but this use refer to something unseen?

Well, if we look at the Greek, we find two words, side by side – morphoo, “FORM,” and en, “IN.” It is only because the word “in” is present that we can recognize that an internal quality is being discussed. If “form” inherently referred to something internal, Paul would not need to write “in.” That these two are side by side shows us that ‘in’ is absent from “form.”

Its final use is in 2 Tim. 3:5–

[men will be] having a form of devoutness, yet denying its power.

Sound familiar? We, who have been removed from the systematizing of the deception in the grace of God, are able to recognize that the religious institutions of today provide forms of devoutness – the external appearance of being holy and just and good – and yet deny the true authority of the One Who truly is. If this “form” were to mean something internal or essential to our being (as Barclay defined,) then, as with the “form of knowledge” of the Jews, we could not say that the power or knowledge is false, as the contexts (Rom. 2:17-24, 2 Tim. 3:1-5) would indicate.

Setting Aside the Trinitarian View

Having considered each use of “form,” we may return to our current verse. This cannot, as the Trinitarians say, refer to Christ being in the nature of God, for the word “nature” is absent (physis – Rom. 1:27.)

No “Godhead,” either, is referenced (here or anywhere – more on this in Chapter XXXVI-XXXVII.) As such, we have no reason to believe that this verse is saying that Jesus is God. It would be, simply, irrational for this claim to be made. Rather, the verse proclaims that His outward appearance held the quality of God (as noted by the genitive case of “God.”)

This somewhat buries the Trinitarian argument before it even gets off the ground (as could be expected.) This verse is critical to the Trinitarian “one nature, three persons” theory. Yet the language does not serve this theory, and rather emphatically distinguishes between Christ and God! It’s extraordinarily difficult to attain to a “Jesus is God” view without pushing this word “form” to mean something other than its definition. We much prefer not to alter the meaning of words for the sake of our pride in a doctrine (or to keep our paychecks.)

This is not the last time that we will be considering “form.” It will rear its head again in the next verse, and we will complete the thought when we get there. For now, we may now rest in the realization that is critical to Christ’s inherent place in the form of God:

He’s not God.

This outward appearance helps us recognize that He is not intrinsically God, for the word form denies us this theory. He is no more “God” than the Jews were keeping “law,” nor was He any less Himself than He was in a different form from His resurrected body in Mark. In this, we can note that Christ has a physical appearance. As such, Christ is not the Creator of all, the invisible God (2 Cor. 4:4.) Christ holds the outward appearance of the Creator of all (cf. Col. 1:15-20.)

This One, as such, is created, having an appearance made up of the same fabric from which the rest of the universe has been clothed. This is a critical factor which Arius is correct to assert. We understand that this logical step will be perceived as an assumption by the Trinitarian. This is okay; we demonstrate the merit to this step in Part III.

Nevertheless, the Trinitarian cannot perch on “form of God” and make it magically say what they want it to say. This is simply now language or truth works. This discovery pokes a large gap in the Trinitarian viewpoint. Regardless of your position, as to whether Christ “existed” or “did not exist” prior to His physical birth, it is readily apparent that if One has the outward appearance of Another, that the two are not literally one in the same. One appears as Another, and this would not need to be stated if Jesus were God, especially not in the middle of present-day administrational truth.

That One of these Beings has an outward appearance, while the Other does not, establishes reasonable doubt toward the Trinitarian view. Further objections will be considered from the Trinitarian view, but as most Trinitarians are unable to deal with this simple paradox without further twisting and demeaning the need for harmonious translation, we can safely assert that their view is irreparably damaged by this single word (and, again, the beginning of every single one of Paul’s letters, saying “Grace to you and peace from God, our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ,” which we will consider in greater detail later.)

Now, keep in mind that up until this point, we still have not explicitly “proven” that Christ existed prior to His birth. Much of the argumentation hitherto has been foundational, proving that Christ’s prior existence in a different form is simply a valid view, and that the so-called “objections” to this view are, in truth, easily rebutted when we keep the administrational boundary and Greek terms in mind. We will now be able to briefly consider the countercurrent: the Socinian objections which begin shifting the goalposts of proper scriptural translation by dismissing the nuance of the Greek, and dismissing the prior revelations of Paul’s authority, above the paramount apostles.

“Representative” vs. “Form”

From here, we must be careful to root our understanding in the truth – that is, we should not only disavow the revealed lie. We should now stand in the truth of the verses, lest another lie take its place.

On that note, it is argued by some of Christ’s own that “form of God” is not Christ’s inherent place, but that the verse is simply referring to Christ being God’s representative on earth. To quote Liam from his same commentary:

“To be in the form of God does not allude to a physical body that Christ was in during His pre-incarnate life. Instead, to be in the form of God simply refers to Christ acting as God’s representative.”

This argument, unfortunately, operates under another series of logistical errors. Most notably, Liam is heavily vying for ambiguity (logically, an ambiguity fallacy.) He transforms the term ‘form,’ which has a clear and undeniable meaning in the Greek scriptures, into his flexible term “representative.” This claim specifically uses the imprecise language of a theologian instead of a student of Holy Writ, changing the words from something Paul said, to something Liam wished Paul had said.

Furthermore, there is an equivocation fallacy. By changing the word ‘form’ to ‘representative,’ Liam reframes the passage as if Paul were writing of an authority or office that Jesus has. This, too, is questionable. We already dealt with a term in this very passage which refers to the office Jesus has (“Christ.”)

Worse still, this interpretation becomes a major problem for the second half of the passage, where in verse 7 we read of Christ taking the form of a slave. The problem is that one form juxtaposes the other. The “form of God” juxtaposes “form of a slave.” The two are opposing each other, not simultaneous. Hence when He’s in one form, or “outward appearance,” it would be irrational to suppose that He is simultaneously in the other contrasting form as well.

Liam’s argument, then, is simply baffling. Christ is God’s representative regardless of the form He is in. Outside of this passage, scripture documents a wealth of “form” changes by Christ. On the holy mount, Christ was transformed (metamorphoo, Matt. 17:2, Mark 9:2.) As previously mentioned, Christ appeared in different forms to people after His resurrection (Mark 16:12.) Mary did not recognize the form of the resurrected Son of God (John 20:14.) Shoot, we cannot even claim that the form that Paul sees on the road to Damascus, or the form that the apostles saw when He finally appeared to all of them are the “same forms” mentioned previously! And none of these cases could be used to argue that Christ ceased being the “representative” of God.

Yet when we apply Liam’s logic, Christ empties Himself of the “representative of God,” to take the form of a slave! He ceases to represent God at the moment He ‘comes to be in the likeness of humanity,’ and ‘becomes obedient unto death, even the death of the cross!’ What a sorry state of affairs the cross would be, where God is not represented at the ultimate act of mediation between Himself and His creatures!

We are, indeed, not speaking of “representation,” but of “form.” To ignore this difference is to ignore the words of inspiration, an ideal which runs counter-intuitive to the supposed Socinian integrity toward Holy Writ. Remember, the verse proclaims that His outward appearance held the quality of God (as noted by the genitive case of “God.”) This sword of truth swings both ways. Christ cannot be said to be God, sure – but He also cannot be said to carry the outward appearance of God while in sin’s flesh! Otherwise, we could all lay claim to being in the “form of God,” when saved. I’m in the form of God, if this is the case – having been justified under law, as Christ is! The same would be true of you, or others under Paul’s message.

Of course, this is not the case, for these bodies still weaken daily under the corrupted influence of our milieu. God says that our bodies are dead because of sin (Rom. 8:10.) Christ, too, held the likeness of sin’s flesh (Rom. 8:3.) To proclaim that we are in the form of God is, simply, idolatry, rooted in pride for this flesh, and should be dismissed as stupid reasoning (Rom. 1:22-23.)

Not one iota of scripture infers that Christ, at any point, ceases to represent God. To proclaim that “form of God” speaks solely of representation, then, denies that Christ represents God even in the form of a slave (Matt. 1:23, 2 Cor. 5:18-19.) Christ empties Himself of the form of God. This therefore cannot refer to representation, as if “form of God” were a rank or title, since it is taken away. It also directly denies the physical property of the word “form,” which is an error so obvious I need not expound further upon it. Since this illogical view is so radically short-sighted, and runs into this false concession concerning Jesus, it is apparent that it must be retracted if its heralds are to be considered with any sort of intellectual integrity on scriptural matters from studied believers (1 Tim. 6:3-5.)

Jewish Principles

To attempt to ground his view, Liam adds to the word of God by looking to Jewish culture for truth, claiming that we must adhere to a “Jewish Principle of Agency” in order to justify changing “form of God” into “representing God.” On this rickety bridge, he claims that there are men that appear in the Old Testament “in the form of God.” He cites Exodus 4:15-16, and 7:1, which say, respectively:

You will speak to him and place the words in [Aaron’s] mouth. And I shall come to be with your mouth and with his mouth, and I will direct both of you as to what you shall do. So [Aaron] will speak for you to the people; it will come to be that he shall become a mouth for you, and you shall become an elohim for him.

Yahweh said to Moses, “See, I appoint you an elohim to Pharoah; and Aaron, your brother, shall come to be your prophet.

The claim, of course, is that being “appointed an elohim” and “being inherently in the form of God” are one in the same.

This is the third category error on Liam’s part – Moses and Aaron are delegated elohim, but Christ is inherently in the form of the Yahweh. Liam’s claim denies the definition of both of these words (“Elohim” meaning “subjectors” and “form” meaning outward appearance.) As one can plainly see from the above citations, being appointed a subjector is not the same as possessing the outward appearance of the living God (further making this claim a false equivalency.) We see (and will further discuss) the form of God whenever He physically appears in the tent of appointment.

See, because He appears – the outward appearance of God is manifest.

Finally, this reveals an underlying pre-supposition among the Socinian view: that “form of God” is not literal, and is a figure of speech, speaking broadly of representation. The premise, through this pre-supposition, is that the Jewish principle of agency must be recognized, because Paul is a Jew. It appears that this underlying pre-supposition is found in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35. These passages, they suppose, regard Jesus’ birth, and thus Jesus’ inception. These passages are the foundation for the view, and is the only reason believing publications as the “Non-Existence Task Force,” and “The Bible Student’s Notebook,” and “That Happy Expectation Blog” feel justified in doing all of this to the text. Note that they cannot read the passage literally and directly, any more than the Trinitarian can. While they admit the basic meaning of “form,” they add “representation,” for without this addition they would be left to consider the passage as a literal description of Christ. They would be left to re-evaluate their position founded upon loosely-strung syllogisms across the text.

Note further that the justification is rooted, most of all, outside of the immediate context! This makes the claims Liam make speculative – that is, stated, but not asserted in the immediate context of the passage. We are never begged to leave the immediate context to modify the basic reading of any verse. Illogic methods as this are practiced by the church, and are best left to the religious.

In strict, logical terms, this is called eisegesis. It is the practice of reading your own personal or cultural ideas into the text. Here, Liam’s teaching uses Jewish culture to reinterpret a distinctly Greek letter to an audience in Philippi, when Paul does not state any agency principles whatsoever. And, in the next chapter of this non-Jewish letter, (1) in our present secret administration, (2) written to a mixed crowd, (3) where there is no perceived Jew or Greek, and (4) inspired by the God Who is not a Jew and is not limited to Jewish perception, Paul writes:

And am I having confidence in flesh, also? If any other one is presuming to have confidence in flesh, I rather:

-       in circumcision the eighth day

-       of the race of Israel

-       of the tribe of Benjamin

-       a Hebrew of Hebrews

-       in relation to law

-       a Pharisee

-       in relation to zeal

-       persecuting the ecclesia

-       in relation to the righteousness which is in law

-       becoming blameless.

But things which were gain to me, these I have deemed a forfeit because of Christ. But, to be sure, I am also deeming all to be a forfeit because of the superiority of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, because of Whom I forfeited all, and am deeming it to be refuse…

So, yeah, that guy most certainly isn’t forcing Jewish principles of agency down the Gentile’s throats, so that they may grasp the point he’s making. If he were, then the great secret of this present secret economy – that we are joint partakers and a joint body, where “circumcision” ideology is not supreme at all – becomes a moot point.

The problem with all of this is that the progression of the passage (“inherently in the form of God, not pillaging, nevertheless empties, takes different form, found in fashion as man, humbles Himself,”) is disregarded if Christ’s body of humiliation (cf. Phil. 3:20-21) could aptly be called the “form of God.” He would be in the form of a man at the same time as He would be in the form of God.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the exact opposite problem of the Trinitarian view. Whereas the Trinitarian would deify Christ into the One God, the Socinian would degrade Christ into one man. Both perspectives would rather place the passage into a blender, and scramble up the phrases while forcing the notion that Paul is speaking metaphorically. The definition of “form,” as simple and plain as can be, is firmly denied by these great schools of “wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:17-31.)

A Brief Education on the Greek, to Reinforce our Apostle

What do we get from all this? This Jewish principle of agency, while interesting, is:

*drum roll please*

Not Paul’s evangel!

Nor does it modify the phrase “form of God!”

Thank you; save your applause! We’ll be here all week.

Thankfully, we do not need to adhere to the world of sin’s ideas and theories concerning Christ. For we have been freed, through Paul’s evangel alone, into the glorious freedom of the children of God (Rom. 8:21,) through God’s gift of a pattern of sound words (2 Tim. 1:13.) We are no longer a part of the corrupted system (Rom. 8:20, 2 Cor. 5:14-17, Eph. 2:1-10.)

As such, we should not be entering into the world’s ideals and beliefs in order to attempt to contextualize God’s word, but vice versa. Otherwise, we might as well invite Satan to take our hand and gingerly guide us off of our Pauline platform. It’s like taking the blue pill! “Hey Neo, I know you just learned that man’s corrupted theology aims to change the word of God, but have you ever read the NIV?”

But let’s take this beyond the surface level and dive into the Greek – not just for this topic, but for many future topics as well. The argument that Paul is speaking of Christ as a “representative” implicates “form of God” as some sort of simile, or metaphor, or other figure, meant to convey the generic declaration that Christ is the “only-begotten Son of God” (if this were true, it would be extraordinarily unhelpful that He waited until the middle chapter of our present secret administration, which contain the highest unfoldings in scripture, to impart this minor affirmation.)

If Paul wanted to convey that Christ is simply a “representative” of God, and gave little thought to the meaning of the word “form” (which he had employed before in prior letters, and which very much does not mean “represent,” but “outward appearance,”) then Paul would have used the quirks of the Greek language to convey the thought of “representation” or “figurative” language, here.

Examples? Sure! There are no shortage of scriptural examples which may educate us on how the Greek denotes representation. Observe Matt. 1:23–

And they shall be calling His name ‘Immanuel,’ which is (represents,) being construed, ‘God with us.’

The “which is,” here, signifies the representation of the word ‘Immanuel’ in English. Try Matt. 13:37–

He that is sowing the ideal seed is (represents) the Son of Mankind.

The representation is found between the Son of Man and the parable of the darnel of the field. Here’s more, in the next verse:

Now the field is (represents) the world.

Oof. And the next:

Now the enemy who sows them is (represents) the Adversary. Now the harvest is (represents) the conclusion of the eon.

This is the verb eimi. It will appear later in an important discussion regarding John 8:58. Grow familiar with it now. It is an irregular verb. The above passages inflect this verb in two different ways, so that it reads as estin or eisin. Estin changes the verb from “I-am” to “he/she-is-being.” Eisin changes eimi into “they-are-being.” The difference is in person and number – usually a third party is in view.

estin, and its variation, eisin, are present in many explanations of parables, for a parable is a figure or series of figures. That which they represent must be deciphered. This is especially apparent in the book of Revelation, which discusses this representation numerous times (Rev. 1:20, 4:5, 5:6, 17:9-10, 12, 15, 18, etc.) But it is not strictly limited to parables, for Paul uses it many times, when speaking of other figures of association.

More examples? Sure! We are in no rush. Let’s run through each use of the terms in Romans 1-8, and briefly meditate on this semantic use of the term. We see the evangel “represents” the saving power of God (1:16.) That which is known of God being apparent is “represented” in men who detain the truth in injustice (1:19.) God “represents” blessing into the eons (1:25.) Mankind in unrighteous conduct “represents” one who is deserving of death (1:32.) The judgment of God “represents” an accordance with truth (2:2.) God’s judgment “represents” impartiality toward the flesh (2:11.) The Gentiles, who do not have the law, “represent” a law to themselves (2:14.)  The outward Jew does not “represent” the inward Jew (2:28.) The judgment of the slanderers of Paul’s message “represent” fairness (3:8.) Man does not “represent” righteousness (3:10.) Man does not “represent” understanding or seeking God (3:11.) Man does not “represent” kindness (3:12.) Mankind’s eyes do not “represent” fear of God (3:18.) The sinning parties of mankind do not represent a “distinction” (3:22.) The law “represents” the standard whereby transgressions are enforced (4:15.) The faith of Abraham “represents” the father of us all (4:16.) God’s assurance “represents” His confidence in His ability to fulfill His promises (4:21.) Adam “represents” a type of Christ (5:14.) A widowed woman “represents” freedom from marital law (7:3.) The law “represents” the spiritual (7:14.) “Good” is not “represented” by Paul’s flesh (7:18.) Christ’s spirit “represents” one owned by Him (8:9.) Those led by God’s spirit “represent” sons of God (8:14.) Observance “represents” a lack of expectation (8:24.) And Christ is our representative, pleading for our sakes (8:34.)

Now, you may be asking: Gerudo… Seth… why are you citing all this?

Every use within figurative passages most serve as an indicator in the Greek which help us understand it. Please note, most importantly, that we are not arguing that “is being” or “they are being” lexically means “represents” in every occurrence. We know we are stretching some of our statements above. Each use of these terms varies both regarding force, and what kind of relationship is being established. We are showing its range, not vying for you to replace ‘is’ with “represents” on every occasion. It is a general principle that, if there is an accompanying explanation of a figure, it will be provided via estin or eisin.

To our lack of surprise, neither estin or eisin are present in Phil. 2:5-8. These words are hardly present in the entire letter, in fact. Eisin is absent, and estin appears only 5 times (1:7 – Paul’s justness represented by his disposition toward the saints, 1:8 – God represents Paul’s Witness, 1:28 – the opposers representing proof of their own destruction, 2:13 – God’s power representing our acts, 4:8 – truth representing a pillar of virtue.)

It follows: if we do not have a clear indicator, from the Greek, for a figure of association, then why should we treat Phil. 2:6 as a figure of association? We should be taking things literally, if possible, per the grammatical rule of proper interpretation. It is the judgment of man, today, which simply “claims” that the saints in Philippi “would” change what Paul said into something else. If interpretation is entirely contingent on the judgment of man, then we might as well open the door back up to Trinitarian dogma.

What we have, instead of the verb eisin or estin in the Greek, is the preposition en, or “IN.” This preposition appears an overwhelming number of times (appearing 66 times in Philippians!) And it always refers to identification – not representation. This becomes most apparent through a word study of the phrase “in Christ/Christ Jesus,” found 85 times throughout Paul’s inspired writings (see Volume 78, p. 235 of the Unsearchable Riches.)

This preposition, in conjunction with the verb “being-inherently,” helps us grasp that this is not a figure of association, but of identity. Christ possesses the outward appearance of God. He is in this form, by default. Any other shift, then, is a secondary – not the primary – form. Almost all will argue that Christ is no longer in the form of a slave; this assuredly verifies the power behind this clause “inherently in.”

We further cannot infer that “form of God” solely comes after taking the “form of a slave,” for Paul’s construction of this passage completely denies this. For Paul, the form of God is prior to the form of a slave (2:5, 2:7,) and His emptying Himself occurs in junction with this event (2:7.)

“Form” And How it Helps Us

It is further argued by the (rather insistent) Socinian group that, since God is Spirit (John 4:24,) and thus invisible (2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15,) that God thus has no outward appearance. This is only true if we are regarding God alone, as distinct from Christ. There is no moment in which God actually appears to anyone.

However, if we are using the statement above to conclude that Christ could not wear the outward appearance of God, as His Image and Form on every occasion, then it is simply a faulty conclusion, for it denies that Christ is inherently identified as the outward appearance of God, per the plain claim from our apostle. God no one has ever seen (John 1:18.) It is Christ, consequently, Who unfolds the Father in His various forms (John 1:18, 2 Cor. 4:4, Phil. 2:6, Col. 1:15.)

It is further imposed by the Socinian sect within our body today that any “appearance” of God in the Old Testament may be delegated two explanations: either that the one “appearing” is, in truth, a messenger, and not God Himself, or that God did manifest Himself in some other way. I’ve not too much to say on this matter quite yet. There is, to this day, no evidence which would indicate that God presents an outward, visible image of Himself apart from Christ (especially in light of John 1:18.) It is, simply, a blatant wrong that has been given no credibility – especially when we view the text in light of Paul’s present secret economy. Hence it remains theoretical. We will confront the argument during our meditation on the Old Testament passages which may be understood as pertaining to Christ in light of Paul’s revelations.

So! What do we grasp from all of this?

The form, or outward appearance of God, is apparent throughout much of the Old Testament. We will be covering many examples of this in Part VI of our study. We will first surveyed Paul’s stance on the matter, in order to consider the Bible in the most unique, comprehensive, and satisfying way: in light of God’s supreme revelations.

Meanwhile, the form is said to be Christ Jesus – and it truly is this simple. When we view the form of God, anytime God is said to “appear” in the book we are reading, we may recognize that we are witnessing Christ Jesus, the Just Representative of God.

As Philippians 2 unfolds, we will be able to see the importance of Christ’s place here, first in the form of God, and how this contributes to the supreme demonstration of humility.

- GerudoKing, Seth Fahlenkamp, Jordan White