Deputy Dog,
Many scholars point out that the expressions "form [morphe] of God" and "image [eikon] of God" are similar in meaning. For example, James Dunn, in his monumental work Christology in the Making, states on page 115: "It has long been recognized that morphe and eikon are near synonyms." R.P. Martin, in an article on "Morphe in Philippians 2:6," states that "morphe and eikon are equivalent terms that are used interchangeably in the LXX [Greek Septuagint]." -- Expository Times, Vol. 70, Number 6, March 1959, pages 183-184.
The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphe, “form, outward appearance, shape.” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphe and the word for "appearance" (schema) are often interchangeable.
According to Bauer's Lexicon, Josephus used morphe to describe the shape of statues that were in the image, shape or form of living persons. If these examples aren't enough, I can supply you with several more.
Philippians 2:7 doesn't say Jesus became a bond-servant. It says he took the "form" of a bond-servant. There is a big difference. In Eden the devil took on the form of a cunning and deceitful serpent, but that doesn't mean he actually was a serpent. Jesus did the opposite. Though he held a highly-privileged position as God's Son, he took on "the form of a bond-servant." But that doesn't mean he actually became a bond-servant who was forced into slavery beyond his own will.
It certainly is true that Jesus was obediently submissive to the point of death. But we have to keep in mind the terminology of the Bible, not our own personal definition of bond-servant (doulos). The word doulos occurs 120 times in the New Testament, and this is the only verse that compares Jesus to a bond-servant. But it does not say he was such. It says, on the other hand, that he took on the "form" of such.
I think you should be able to see clearly that someone "in the form of" someone else does not mean that both are one and the same. Christ being "in the form of" God therefore does not mean that Christ is God in the sense that the Father is God. The Father alone is the only "true" or authentic God, according to Jesus himself. -- John 17:3.
I apologize for typing "Robert" Thayer instead of "Joseph" Thayer. For over a century, Joseph Henry Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon has been lauded as one of the best New Testament lexicons available. Thayer's Lexicon was compiled several years before he changed his position on Biblical inerrancy, but he never wavered in his belief in the overall soundness of Christianity. He never expressed himself as having, in your words, "a low view of scripture."
If the bible tells me that Jesus took the "form"/ morphe¯ of a "servant"/doulos, I believe he did do what it says. You don't "but Christ was never a bond-servant or doulos" (to most people this looks like you don't believe or don't "understand the Scriptures")
If you really do believe what the Bible says, I think it would be evident in your acceptance of what those wiser than you or I have to say about doulos and its use in the Bible. How do you know that "most people" would take the position that those with the correct understanding of doulos "don't 'understand the Scriptures'"?
That passage does not even address the matter of Jesus being a servant, you are reading it into the text.
Please read the parable of the landowner once again. Every commentary I've ever read says the obvious, that Jesus is not one of the "servants" (doulos) but that he is instead the "son" (huios) in that parable.
I suppose you think he came disguised as a servant? What would that accomplish ?
I never used the word "disguised," so why bring it up? The point of Philippians 2:6 is that Jesus could have asserted himself, being as he was the very Son of God; but instead he humbled himself before others. He was not in forced slavery as a bond-servant, but he acted as if he were. He was not a bond-servant, but he took on the "form" of one.