This is the transcript of Restitutio episode 520: In the Form of a God with Andrew Perriman This transcript was auto-generated and only approximates the contents of this episode. Sean Finnegan: Hey there, I'm Sean Finnegan and you are listening to rest of Studio podcast that seeks to recover authentic Christianity and live it out today. Philippians 2 six through 11 has generated an immense amount of scholarly literature such as journal articles and monographs, not to mention blog posts, video lectures and podcasts, and so on. What does the enigmatic phrase in the form of God mean? Did Paul intend us to think Jesus refused to grasp at equality with God, or that he refused to exploit the equality he already had? What does it mean that Jesus emptied himself? Today we are getting into the weeds in order to understand what Philippians 2 is all about. I don't want to say too much before you get a chance to listen, but I can at least tell you this. Doctor Perryman does not believe it's about a pre existent being becoming a human. So without further ado, here is episode 520 in the form of a God. With Professor Andrew Perryman. Today we're talking with Doctor Andrew Perriman, author, Blogger Associates, Research fellow at the London School of Theology. Last time we looked at a smattering of pre existence texts and Paul and today we're going to focus on. The big one? Philippians 2 six through 11 let me just begin with a broad question here. How long have you been thinking about this text in a Hellenistic way as opposed to the sort of traditional way? Andrew Perriman: One in the last three or four years, they work slowly on a book like this, so it's not done in a hurry. That's an interesting. I mean it. That is one of the key issues. Is the perspective from which Christ is being view. Food that probably took me. A little while. To sort of clarify that aspect of it, because it's a sort of literary thing, the language is not. It's not even sort of Hellenistic Jewish, it's sort of Greek. Some of this language, I mean that that's overstating it. Yeah. Anyway, so yes, the last sort of couple of years, three years. Sean Finnegan: It was pretty. Apparent that you had a. Lot of thoughts. On the subject and you, you had mentioned the the Hoover article before. We'll come back to that in due course. But let me read it out. So everyone has it fresh in their minds then we can work our way through. Philippians 26 says who though he was in the form of God? And again. This is the ESV so. We think we will have some alternative translation suggestions coming up very shortly, but who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore, God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God. So I figure we begin in verse 6, where it says he was in the form of God. And of course, the translation I'm reading from has a capital G. On God here. Uh, you've got. You've got 4 chapters in your book on this. Phrase where would you like to start? Andrew Perriman: I think we could probably skip more or less skip over the first three of those chapters and. Sean Finnegan: Well, a lot of it is. Surveying because there's just been so much scholarship done on that on that term. Andrew Perriman: The fact that there is so much scholarship there. Points to the. You know fundamental problem. It was all trying to to make the word work in a way that it's not designed to the word morphing. Or form. So I mean whether it was strictly necessary to review the pretty much or send him I think. All the major. Lines of interpretation I'm sure I've missed something out. I mean, from the point of view of scholarship, it probably is helpful to have done that, but it we don't need to go through all of that really to sort of get to the main point, because I think the the main point can be established in a in a fairly straightforward way and obviously one can dispute it, but it's not difficult to explain. Yes, but obviously it was usually the assumption was in the form of God. That idea has probably been a. Round going way back. Can we talk about Morphy? Sean Finnegan: Then yeah, I say just dive in and we'll see what you have to say. Andrew Perriman: The the Jews never use in in sort of Hellenistic Jewish writings. There are a couple of disputed passages, one in file and one in Josephus, but it's, I mean, I think pretty consistent both in in Hellenistic Jewish and in non Jewish Hellenistic writing. So in sort of normal Greek literature. Throughout this period, morphine is never used of the one living God, the one true God, for the simple reason that it always has reference to the external appearance of an object or a person or a God. So you know the reason why there was so much. Research to work through so many other alternative interpretations. Is it people have been wrestling with that basic issue? If if we assume that this is a reference to the God of the Jews, the God who created the heavens and the earth, how on Earth can we make this word more faith fit that paradigm, that sort of theological assumption. So it's only at a very fairly late stage. I mean there must have been one or two. Exceptions but in. Terms of the stuff that I read. It's only in the last sort of 10 or 20 years that the possibility has been broached that this might be a reference to a God rather than the God of Israel and the God who created the heavens and the earth. So that explains the the convoluted accounts that we have, the the commentaries, the efforts that they go to. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, I've got a little list here for. You. Let's see. Probably the most popular and certainly Michael Bird and his people, the high, the early high Christology, the NIV people and so forth, they're going to argue for some version of. Yeah, or being but others have suggested more like a VOSA glory. A covode, you know, or status. And you certainly have bodily appearance, mode of existence that they use a German word for that the sign visa. Then you have the idea of James Dunn about like. The image like Adam and the image. God. So you know, it's just like one after another. After another of these different proposals. Andrew Perriman: Yeah, that mean that's that's a very good way of putting it. I should have done that. So morphine does not mean USIA. When Aristotle talks about the relationship between morphine and Asia, it's it's that he used. I think he uses the example of a table. Morphine refers to the shape of a table a, a flat surface with four legs. Osia would be the substance of it that that it's made of wood. It's what it's made out of. Performance substance are not the same thing. And I mean it, that was that was very well understood. Word an object or a person can be made of one thing, but has a particular form. They're not the same. Sean Finnegan: So you could have a wooden table and a metal table and a plastic table. They could all have the same form but different substances. Andrew Perriman: Yeah. And the different the different Russia. Yeah, exactly. Argue for an equivalence of of form and glory on the basis of sort of the either the you know the Greek and the Hebrew text. I I mean again they're not the same word. One example that that was referred to because I mean the Hebrew and the Greek don't sort of overlap exactly in Daniel and you you form Morphy is often used for the appearance of a person's face and and so that there are the situations there where makes it very clear that morphine refers to the the appearance of a person's face in anger or wrath or. Happiness or something like it's it's the the expression. Sean Finnegan: But why is your face? Falling. Why is your countenance falling? That sort of thing? Andrew Perriman: But yes, that sort of thing I anger is is a is a common one. The same for the icon you you try and. Find points where it looks as though more of an icon mean the same thing form and image. So if if man is in the image of God that it can we not say that form was equivalent to that? Well, no I can't. But we can't because the words are doing too quite different things again. So you look at look at these passages in detail. I think it can be shown on say we'd have to sort of read the book to make the point, but that was basically my argument that where people were trying to sort of make more framing one of these other things, it's relatively easy to show that morphine does not mean that thing, that it always. This has reference to the external appearance of something the passage in Philo that is often cited is the description of the the Bush that you've got this sort of something glorious shining in the middle of the Bush, and he talks about the form of it. He's using that word, Morphy. This is either writing in Greek. One argument that's been that that well, because this was an epiphany of Yahweh. In the Bush. Therefore, Philo is thinking that God in the Bush has a form. But when you read the passage through, it finally reflects on this and say, well, no, it can't have been God, precisely because this. Whatever it is has a. Form, therefore, we'll call it an Angel. He differentiates there between the presence of the Invisible God and who does not have a form, does not have a morphy, and the presence of an Angel who can be attributed A morphe because angels appear looking like people very often. That's a perfectly normal and appropriate use of Morphy, which is why many of some of the arguments will be that what Paul is saying here is that that Jesus pre existed in heaven in angelic form. In some way and. There are various other. Ways in which people have tried to find a precedent for the idea. That that God. Has a human form that there were certain strands of Judaism at the time the Ebie and Knights, for example, and one or two other sort of less lesser known groups who conceived of God. Having sometimes a gigantic human form, so there there's one text that talks about. Being an angelic figure 96 miles high or something like that. So but apart from these being somewhat obscure, it seems very unlikely that that's what Paul's getting at in in this case. Sean Finnegan: So you're saying? The word morphe or I you have. To pardon my Greek, I use a modern accent but. So I say morphine. The the problem with this word is. That it can't refer to God. Andrew Perriman: No, but if it if it refers to God, then then Paul is thinking specifically of a visual appearance. The external appearance of the living God of Israel is that likely the easiest solution? I mean, it's not doesn't stand on its own because it it works with the rest of how we sort of read the rest of the verses 6 to 8 it widely. There's plenty of examples of Morphy being used both by Jews, but obviously you know commonly by Greeks to refer to the form of a God. That would be a very natural way of hearing the expression. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Andrew Perriman: So that's where we get the you know. The shift of. Perspective. So this is not Paul, the Jew affirming that actually Jesus was a God rather than the God or a God, rather than just a man. My argument is that the encomium is written from. A Pagan perspectives and then there might be, you know, not necessarily someone who's still a Pagan, presumably someone a Pagan who has become a believer in Jesus but it but it's telling the story of Jesus in a very condensed way. And perhaps it's a a pricy of an oral tradition or some bigger text that that goes into more detail. But it captures a perspective on Jesus from a sort of Pagan. Mind that that that's sort of the basic argument there. We allow morphe to mean exactly what it means everywhere in appearance. Sean Finnegan: Right. And that's that's. Really, the strength of your argument. Is that yeah, you're. Using the word the way it's used in other Greek literature, outside the New Testament, the way it's used in the New Testament, the way it's used. In the. To agent rather than sort of like looking for that secondary meaning or sort of bending it a little shading it this way, or shading it. That you're like, no. It means what it means and that kind of brings us to some of the the divine man stuff and the parallels with heroes. Clerical workers rulers as well. Maybe you could just talk. A little bit about that, explain a little bit to those who are not familiar with how the Greco Roman world. Thought about. Gods, lowercase G gods. You know what might have been in mind here? Andrew Perriman: Yes, I mean a big question. There's a whole range, a whole package of ways in which you could talk about, you know, the the gods at one end and and humanity at at the other end. And certainly along that, that spectrum appear not that many but certain human figures who have divine attributes or. This idea of a divine man with for a while that was quite a common way. Of explaining aspect of Mark Scotsport, what the the early Christians had done was that they found the Divine Man concept in the Pagan world and create effectively created Jesus as her Jewish divine man. One of the assumptions there was that the historical Jesus didn't really exist, but he was an invention along the lines of. Hellenistic divine man, that argument has come back around again. The scholars saying, well, actually you can do something with that if you just simply allow the mark. Or the tradition. Is again as I was saying before looking at Jesus through a Pagan lens through a gentile lens, through a Greek lens, and and inevitably some of the conceptuality. Some of the stories that are told they take on a Hellenistic style, a Hellenistic sort of mood, a Hellenistic language in the telling. There's that idea, but people like Pythagoras Apollonia. Is heracles. Hercules is is a a prominent figure, then they're not exact analogies to Jesus, but at least it it does point to the fact that it wouldn't be a peculiar thing to do, to speak of a miracle. Working Jew in divine man terms. And the other important. Example is from Josephus where we had this idea that that Moses is a divine man, a divine figure, a child in divine in form is he's when it you know when it, when she brings up a child, the the daughter of Farrah. I think it says that she's brought up a child. Divine, informed hider more fair. Fail. It's exactly that idea that you could have a normal human person who is perceived to have divine qualities, and in this case this is the Jew Josephus telling the story of Moses to the Gentiles, to the Greeks, and using Greek language and and thought forms to make the. Point why would we not imagine that Hellenistic Jews or converts from paganism would do something similar with Jesus in in order to pray? With him. In the the. The thoroughly sort of paradoxical way that this incoming does praise him. The other strong example is in act or two examples. He acts we have to go back to the end of acts. Paul in in Acts 28, six is bitten by a snake, survives a snake bite, they jump to the conclusion. He's paying. It's look at him, thinks he. He's a. God, right? Sean Finnegan: The witnessing of a miracle in an ordinary human being triggers the Hellenistic mind, or the the Roman mind to say. Oh, this could be a God. Andrew Perriman: Yeah. Yeah. And that's sort of as much as we need to say we're not making some sort of Hellenistic divine man, Pagan God, the Christology out of this, you can't. There's no need to push it too hard. This is simply rhetoric. This is an encomium. It's it's the language of praise. And and if you're praising him from a Greek perspective. That's at least as a starting point. That's not all that's said about him, but let's begin with this idea. This is a person who appeared to. Greek are and the Greek imagination where they're hearing stories about him in in Corinth or Philippi or wherever they are. The idea that comes to mind when you hear these stories is this is this is a a God like person, this person, a someone in the form. Of a God. Sean Finnegan: And it is somewhat restrained as well because it doesn't say he is a God who, being a God, says he's in the form of a God in the appearance. So there there's a little bit of distance, a little bit of separation there to indicate, you know, a kind of. Andrew Perriman: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. There's a detachment there. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Sean Finnegan: A Christian perspective. Go ahead and. Hit that other one and acts. What was it? Max 13. Andrew Perriman: Yeah. When Paul and Barnabas arrive in Leistra, they heal the chap and they are immediately taken to be gods. And so they, you know, they want to sacrifice to them. Paul has to sort of push back and say, no, no, no, we're we're men just like you. But the a natural assumption to make from the Greek point of view that someone who performs. Miracles like this this is. The category we. Have we're not Jews? We're Greeks. The fall back category is a divine person or a God. Odd. I mean the interesting thing then is that the the Jews turn up all this stoned and and left. You know he's out, left outside the city close to death. This little story begins with Paul being mistaken. For a God. Appearing to the Greeks in the form of a. God and yet ending up left for dead very clearly. Not a God. Because he's he's been stoned by the Jews and then barely survives. So he begins in the form of a God. He's found outside the city in very mortal human form. Whether the encomium in any sense echoes that experience, and I think there is. There's an argument I'm I can kind of sort of keep a lid on this. Timothy is from Lystra. And and they don't pick him up this time they come back again and pick him up Timothy's half Greek. He's half Jew, half Greek, young man gifted. Why not imagine that Timothy Hill was with Paul is writing. He's he's mentioned in the Philippines. He's with Paul. Why not someone like Timothy? If not Timothy himself being able to bring this sort of hybrid combined Jewish Greek perspective on Jesus informed by? The experience of Paul and Barnabas and Paul in particular appearing in the form of a God being left for dead, clearly very mortal and and so on, left outside the city as Jesus was. That's very speculative and there's no way of sort of proving it one way or another. It sort of begins to sort of create a sense of plausibility here that these stories about Jesus are this way of speaking about Jesus could very naturally have emerged in these sort of Greek cities in Asia Minor or wherever. Paul has, you know, maybe that that by the time they get to Philippine has become a way of speaking about. These are sitting and the the tradition develops and so on and and Paul picks it up again when he writes to the Philippians. Why not? But it's only the starting point. So then where where we need to go next is? The rest of the. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, let's look at the second-half of verse six. He did not count equality with God. A thing to be grasped. Now many translations are are going to read something like the NIV, which says did not consider equality with God, something to be used to his own advantage. Andrew Perriman: Yeah, which is a very loaded translation. It's very low. Sean Finnegan: What they do is they kind of read that back into in Morphy they you and use that to equate the two together. So what are your thoughts on that there? Andrew Perriman: Yeah, I mean there there's two questions there. What is it being equal to God part the point, the the Easter, the, the the being light because it's adverbial, the argument is and this is it's more being treated as. So you're being regarded as or being the the those sort of that sort of language appears very it's quite common. People are are treated as though God like as though a God. There's this idea of how people are respected. The honor given to someone. It's as though they were a God. It's it's sort of something like that. Maybe. Maybe we could sort of say a little bit more about that, but the the key point is or the key. Issue is the arpeggios expression, so did not count the being equal or being like God or a God. Again it can go both ways. A thing to be grasped, so the harp agnos is that the grasping bit and you've got this, not counting something, a thing to be grasped. There's a a double accusative construction. There and Roy Hoovers's argument was that that's an idiomatic expression that carries this idea well. I mean, actually, I mean the it's not that idiomatic because the the meaning is fairly obvious. I mean, often an idiomatic expression is 1 where it's more than the sum of the parts and. And if you simply. Read the parts together. You come to the wrong conclusion. There's the the expression works in a way that that's. Not consistent with the actual terms, but here I think you count something. A thing to be grasped, it's it's fairly straightforward idea. The examples that he gives. Are very limited and sort of five or six examples and they they all come somewhere from somewhat later than the new testimony, either from Greek romantic. Literature. So the Greek novels or from the Greek fathers looking sometimes sort of reflecting on passages like this. And so on. The Hellenistic novel part, I think it's intriguing because it's examples of of plotting and intrigue and opportunity and adventure, these sort of stories are often with the sort of romantic part and and people would argue, well, that sort of somewhat irrelevant because that is it's so far from the language of this high. Elevated language of a a hymn or an encomium to. Jesus. But if if we think beginning to think of this as Hellenistic Greek post Pagan reflection on the person of Jesus, it may well be that that type of language would be very appropriate for describing this extraordinary occurrence. Sean Finnegan: Well, it's what he didn't do as well. Right. He didn't seize, he didn't grasp. It's not like they're saying he did grasp. It's almost contrasting him to the romantic stories novels. And so forth. Andrew Perriman: Yes, I mean yes, that's, that's where that's where we go with it. People are presented with opportunities that they should. Take or that. They shouldn't take, and that you know, that's because that's the nature of these stories. It can. It can go. It can go either way. There's a passage in in Josephus where the verb alphanso is used for the seizing power and and kingship. So there there's all there are. Various ways in which that can be used. I think Hoover gets that right. Whether it was an idiom and and and it can be traced back to the 1st century. I'm I'm not so sure, but I think it's so obvious and there are similar expressions. That they they give us sort of some confidence that that's how it's working, something like this? He sort of. Shifts from all the. These are all stories, incidents in which someone is presented with an opportunity. At this moment when this thing happens, they are presented with an opportunity and they either seize that opportunity or they don't seize it. They're given that choice in none of those stories. Is this something that they have before that moment? They don't bring it to the moment and then decide whether it can be exploited or not to my advantage, which was the NIV translation. It's it's presented to them if who was right about the idiom. That he's wrong when he jumps to the conclusion that that means that Jesus already was in possession of it, and Tom Wright and others have sort of rung with that idea in defence. Of the thought that. Jesus had something from eternity that he decided not to hang on to or exploit to his advantage, and so, you know, becomes man. And so on. So I I don't think if it is an idiom or even if it's not that it can be used in that way, it suggests something that you seize and take hold of when you're given that opportunity. So then you ask, well, when was Jesus given the opportunity to grasp something that could be spoken about as? Being equal to God or being looked at as someone equal to God being honoured as someone equal to God, and it seems to me the obvious occasion is in the wilderness. The testing by Satan in the wilderness. When one of the three temptations is to be given rule or dominion over the the nations of the oikoumene and, and I think for Luke that that sort of the world of Greece and Rome, that's the empire. So he's presented with this and he he turns it down. He turns that that down, he rejects that opportunity. So despite being in the form of a God and this sort of being rich, you know that would be one way of talking about his his richness. He's received the spirit, he. He will go on to perform miracles and teach in marvellous ways. He has all the attributes of a divine man or a a God like figure, or a God who's come and become revealed to an epiphany of a God on Earth he has. All that but he. Turns down the opportunity to translate that to turn that into. A rule over the. Nations as offered by Satan. Because that's not the way. That's not the path that has been set before him. He is will. He will take the path of poverty of self renunciation and so on. So he rejects the opportunity to be revered as equal to a God or equal to the God, perhaps even as as a as Caesar, like figure as a. Gentile divine ruler, a Greek divine. Ruler turns that opportunity down and then we have the other thing that I I I sort of find really compelling. He enters himself. I didn't see anyone make reference to this, but there's a there's a passage again in Philo talks about Moses leading the people out of the city. So I mean it's. Sort of miss. I think it's a misunderstanding of of the exodus in some in some respects, but the way he he tells it, Moses leads the people out of an urban context into the wilderness. And the reason he does so is so that they might empty their souls from their offences. So they acquired a certain way of behaving in the cities. That is inappropriate for their vocation as God's people, so that they have to be taken out into the wilderness and it's the same word can have say they empty themselves of all that they have brought with them, and obediently pursued the vocation that God has given them as his people. It doesn't exactly mirror what's going on in that Philippians. But as soon as we allow for the the idea that that Jesus is tempted in the wilderness by Satan turns down their attention, and as part of that spends 40 days in the wilderness, he hungers, and he thirsts. That sort of sounds to me, you know, potentially we've got a a story being told here where Jesus emptying. Himself in the building is so that he can pursue the calling of self denial self. Seeing poverty in in that metaphorical sense that it's been set before him. So there you've got a Pagan mind drawing on sort of Hellenistic and Hellenistic Jewish language and ideas and stories. Let me just mention this one as well. I when Josephus tells the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife. I think he, he tells it. In a very similar. Way this is sort of paraphrasing it a little bit. He says that the part of his wife has fallen in love with him, not least because of his beautiful form, you morphia and he has. A beautiful form. And she determines to seduce him in the way that that Satan determined to seduce Jesus, who was in the form of a God, assuming that being in the slammer of a slave. So then we've got the same language, you know, your slave like figure, but he's beautiful in form. He would consider it a stroke of good fortune. His mistress should proposition him and that good fortune language. Hoover makes a lot of that has been very similar to the the idiom that he thinks he's he has with this arpeggios claw. So the this idea. Here Joseph would see this this sort of opportunity given him a good fortune given to him by this seduction. To be with this powerful woman. So it's the language is all very similar. It's a Hellenistic story about temptation of of someone in in beautiful form, who actually then has this. All of the you know this. The schema which is the language that Paul uses. Slave and like Jesus, Joseph has turns down that offer. He turns down this stroke of good fortune that's been offered to him. Jesus does the same thing. So perhaps whoever wrote this brief line in the encomium has this type of story in mind. That's one of my argument in the book. It's this type of Hellenistic story. Jewish story that is given full to the language of the encomium begins with. It's all there in Josephus, in Philo, and perhaps in. In these Greek romances and the stories of the gods and stories of divine men and so on. There's enough there to account for this statement about Jesus. All we need to do is is say that this allow that this is coming from a post Pagan perspective rather than a sort of Orthodox Jewish or Jewish Chris. Point of view. Sean Finnegan: Right. And avoid the temptation to read it anachronistically and like 4th century categories, right? Andrew Perriman: Yeah, I have no problem with what they did with this in the 4th century, because I think once you sort of take this into a very different world. That was bound to happen, but it it hasn't happened here. And actually there's something far more. Citing an interesting going on, I think yes. Then you know Chalcedonian Christology. Sean Finnegan: Right. Andrew Perriman: I probably shouldn't say that, should I? Never mind. Sean Finnegan: In verse 7. In verse seven, it says he emptied himself by taking the form of a servant or it's really the word slave. It kind of drives me nuts when English translation soften. That but yeah. So he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave being born in the likeness of men. That last clause leads people to think that. This act of emptying is the act of incarnation because it's what simultaneous with becoming born. Learn as a human. So could you explain how you disentangle those two? Andrew Perriman: Well, it's. I mean, it's being born and I and this is gonna see the participle. The assumption that this is referring to a birth, which I think is wrong. I think there's enough evidence that the use of the word there that that participle it's, you know, my. The we only. Need to translate it and becoming having big, but I mean it's used so often in this in the sector. Again it just as a way of of identifying someone very often in the genealogy all we need to argue here is. Is that in that having become in the likeness of men. So he's gone from being in the form of a God to being in the likeness of a man or a person, and having been found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself. Then we're we're on that trajectory to suffering and death because he's not living this out as a divine man. He's living this. Out as a very human person, the same as Paul had to live this out as a very human person, very mortal, very fragile, very vulnerable, and so on. Which is, you know, goes back to the mysterious story. I mean, yes, we we need to look at the use of the verb in in much more detail, which I can't off the top of my head do. Sean Finnegan: But you're reading it as he emptied himself by taking the form of a slave, being in the likeness of men that you know it's talking about the same thing. It's not saying that heavenly being emptied himself of his divine qualities or refused to exploit them. Whatever, and took a human. Form it says he took. He emptied himself by taking the form of a slave. And then rather than looking at the next phrases, then he became a human being. It's it's saying he was a human being as as a slave. He was a human being. These are contemporaneous. These are, you know, if you get rid of the word born there, it reads totally differently. That seems to be your what you're saying. Andrew Perriman: Yeah, I mean I, I mean, I think having been in the likeness of men is a is at one level just a sort of simple repudiation of this form of a God thing. It it's part of that. If you think he's in the form. Of a God about his stand, his status and his power, and his intention and everything else. He's not the the argument here is that he lives this out in very human form, and which is partly why presumably this is put in a, you know, passage of parenthesis. This is part of the exhortation to the Philippians to be of 1 mind to think of one thing. Not according to selfish ambition. Not according to vain glory. Empty yourselves, you know. Go out into the metaphorical wilderness and empty yourselves of vain glory and ambition. In humility, consider others better than yourselves. You're right. We don't have to have a a strict ontological divide marked by the transition of birth from being heavenly to being earthly there. There are probably some layers here that sort of work their way out and and if this is sort of condensed from a. You know, a larger piece of thought, a a larger story of. Jesus. Then you accept that these phrases are sort of jammed together in, in, in ways that perhaps in normal usage, in liturgical usage or in evangelistic usage or storytelling around the the you know. The dinner table. Whatever they did, it would have come out differently. So yeah, no, I mean, I. But I I. Agree with you, this is not about incarnation. So you know, one of the take the piece overall the whole of being. William Jack Sanders talks about it as a this sort of cosmograph said of you, Ben, you come. Jesus comes down, can you? Sean Finnegan: Yeah, that was gonna be. My next question comment on the COSMOGRAPH. There you got thesis. Yeah, I wish I. Andrew Perriman: Mean I I think it's a marvelous way of of of thinking about it, but I think it's wrong. There's no dissent and there's no ascent either. So this is an incoming it's a praise of Jesus and it's all about how he appears to the world. He appears in the form of God. Had he made the decision to take a very different course, therefore he becomes in the like the cement, how do we look at? He looks like a man he looks. Like a slave. He dies a a death. God then exhorts him. There's no there's no resurrection. There's no ascension. None of this language suggests that ascension, the exalted language. Yeah. So sin, yeah, they could just as well refer to as status. It's you're given an elevated status reputation with the name, which is above every name. So that's that is talking about the name rather than the individual. It's not about Jesus being in heaven at the right hand of God, it's it's the reputation that he has. Perhaps the authority that goes with it, so that at the name of Jesus, every niche abound and so on. And and we we go all the way through at the same level. This is a person who has gone from. Being in God like form. To be utterly degraded in peoples eyes to having in expectation this person and not Caesar or some other ruler as being confessed as Lord in the the the language of Isaiah. So I once we got this sort of you bend idea in our heads way back that this is basic crystology into the divine crystology we've missed the way that it works as a passage. As well, we've. Over interpreted it so that it's listening to the language and the language work the way it does. And I think we sort of. Hear it in a very different way. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, something else you mentioned is getting into the mind of Paul's perspective, not just Paul, but the early Christian perspective that. For them, Christ is heavenly, being who empowers you know them through the spirit and really the pre existence of Christ is his earthly life and ministry. From that point of view, which I thought was like really a a kind of a fresh way to take it. And so they're they're kind of like. Going back like, oh, what was he like? Before that, Jesus, we know now and you know, saying before, it's not saying him in heaven. No, he's in heaven now. We're talking about him on Earth and you know the details. Don't seem to be very much focused on in Paul, right? You know there's a little bit here and there of historical biographical details, but like the overall way he was is clear, you know, he had these opportunities. He didn't see, he didn't seek to be like, sees or he didn't seek to. To acquire the the power over the nations. He humbled himself like a normal human being, or even a slave human being, to the point of death on the cross. You know that and that that would then be an inspiration to the present day Philippians of how they should be. You know, telling a story about an alien come down or a second member of the Trinity. Or however you want to conceive of it. You know, it might be beautiful. It might motivate to some degree, but it's not relatable. Andrew Perriman: Yes. So I mean, so to go back to the where you started with that, I mean that sort of came fairly late in the in, in the the working on this this sort of realization that let's look at this from where Paul was this Jews and the Greeks, he has proclaimed the Risen Lord. And and you see you sort of see this in Galatians. I think that's why, you know, we we started regulations why you need to go back and talk about the Sun sent to Israel. It's because you've got these highly humanistic, you know, spirit filled gala. Actions of susceptible to some sort of judaizing thing going on, and they they've got to be circumcised. It sort of makes it very clear that the that people have come into this whole thing confessing Jesus as Lord Heavenly Lord, someone seated at the right hand of the father receiving the the spirit in in confirmation of that. So it's all this is a very spiritual. Thing going on in the present and and it it, it raises some questions, yes. So what Paul has to deal with and in the 1st place is how does that relate to. Israel's story. He has to sort of look back. From there, most. Of what? He. Says looks forward. So we where we were talking about Colossians. So much of what Paul is concerned about is what, where this is leading that. He's yes, he's at the right hand of the father now, but that has implications for the Greek and for the Jew and for the, you know, the whole world as he saw it. So the perusia is, is sort of where this is taking them. Whatever we understand by that but. I mean he. Also needs to look back. He needs to to put the resurrected Jesus the exhorted Jesus in the story of Israel. Therefore you know God sent his son sent out his son to Israel to redeem those under the law, and so on. We've also seen, as I mean you made the point sort of making the point there. He also has to account for the fact that Jesus is is exalted at the right hand of the father only because he was executed, you know, rejected by Israel and executed by Rome in a in an utterly degrading, an inappropriate way for, you know, the the future of the king. Of the nations, the one who would rule over the nation, so he looks back from that purpose to try and show, not least through this wisdom language, that that was utterly right for God. That it was offensive to the Greeks. It was it to the Jews. It was. It was funny to the Greeks. But this is how God's doing it. This is where the wisdom of God has finally got purchase in history to make a the change bring about the change that they have been waiting for for so long. And then the other thing. Be the very experiential part to this was that we we are suffering now. He's calling others to suffer. If he can point back, go back and bring in, bring to people's minds. The Jesus who had so much going for him, so much wealth but but rejected the potential in that, turned down the the temptation put before him the opportunity and chose the way of suffering that that way of poverty and humiliation and everything else that models, that is the example. As you're saying, the pool has very, very clearly set for himself. Again, these are the reasons why they there was a need to look back from that place where you you proclaim Jesus as a risk. The Lord. So yes, we look back from there for some very important reasons. But as you say, Paul had no reason to look back beyond that. The there's no. Before this, before. It seems odd to me. You got a passage like 1 Corinthians 15. He would he went to. A lot of trouble. To defend the belief that Jesus had raised from the. It it, it just seems odd then that that scholars can say well actually pre existence is is presupposed here. So he he didn't need to explain pre existence to people that he sort of takes that as obvious. But he did need to explain resurrection given the history of Jewish thought. OK resurrection comes along at a fairly late. Age, perhaps, but it's there. It's part of the tradition. It's part of his Pharisee tradition. It is part of what Jesus talked about. It's what happened to Jesus. He has to make a case for it because plenty of people are sceptical or they they misinterpret it. Why would he? If he believed that? Jesus. Been with God from eternity and had had been Incarnate in in the he can take that for granted and expect everyone else to to to understand that without comment it just doesn't make sense to me. Sean Finnegan: You would think he would have a similar kind of explanation to what we see in first credit as 15 with respect to resurrection that we find that with respect to pre existed. Andrew Perriman: Yeah, well, why wasn't it part of his message in the 1st place? So did it raise the question? I mean, part of his Gospel central to his gospel was Jesus was raised from the dead. That raised questions. He got opposition. He got, you know, the Jews did the would would rejected that idea. And he had to argue about. It why keep? A lid on this other part. But Jesus had been there from eternity. And and so on. If he, if that's what he thought. Sean Finnegan: Good questions to think about, huh? Andrew Perriman: I I don't know, maybe there's an answer to it and some. Of them what? Sean Finnegan: Would you say has been the response to your? Look, have you heard much or? Andrew Perriman: Yeah, well, that's interesting. I I, I mean, I don't know, I haven't. I haven't sort of gone out of my way to look at. I mean, I did a Mike bird was one of the editors of he's one of the editors, the series daily capes. Yeah. So I I did a an interview with both of them and I, you know, they you can you can tell they're cautious but they they took it fairly seriously. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, yeah, I heard that interview. I was like. Wow. Why aren't they roasting you? But they they were just. Like this guy? Andrew Perriman: Yeah. No, I I did. Well, I mean they, it's they've edited the series. So that's why they they, I mean Unitarians like this. So they get a lot of enthusiasm from Unitarians. And you know that I make it clear I'm I don't think of myself as a Unitarian. I don't think that's really the issue. I I think the the eschatology part is far more interesting there or not. Not far. But it's more important. And until we get the story right, then we're not going to get. We haven't got the right bearings to coordinate. The pyramid. To understand the Christology, I think the church that you know and the tradition of interpretation has marginalized eschatology by and large. So you know, we're still working on that and I in in many ways I see this as a book about eschatology as much as about Christology. In my mind, I mean in it's not in practice but. That's how I think. Sean Finnegan: About it. So as far as how you work out your own Christology, would you would you say something like well Paul didn't believe in Pre existence but? You know as time. Went on, it became clear that that was actually the case based on what other parts of the New Testament or the lived Christian experience or or how would you work that out? Andrew Perriman: I I mean I I look, I haven't. I haven't worked this out thoroughly. This I I I I do I do biblically into new biblical studies and I. But I mean you have to think this through to some extent I mean I mean my approach is. Looking forward from the New Testament, you're you're telling a story of effectively, of conquest of the Pagan world. So I would see it in that way. So, you know, Paul sets out from Jerusalem plans to go as far as Spain. And I think what he's doing effectively is annexing that whole world for the God of the Jews. For the God of his people and the agent of that annexation will be Jesus. He's merely a herald, and this is gonna come about because and then everything in Philippines too. For example, it tells that. Sorry, so I I. Take quite seriously the historical transition that comes about when the Greeks finally confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the father, the the conversion of that world as a as a historical. Moment I you. Know I'm happy to sort of think of as a fulfillment of the. The hopes that are expressed in the New Testament but but with that I mean once that story has reached that climax, we sort of get into this happy ever after thing. Except it's not as happy as. You know, we would liked it to be that you enter a different world and effectively the apocalyptic story that's given us in the New Testament is trend has to be translated into something that will, in a new world view that would manage the world as that the Greeks and the Romans saw it. So it becomes. Sort of. It gets assimilated into some sort of platonic philosophical infrastructure of thought, and so on you the the Church fathers had to create a new worldview, and that worldview is fundamentally theological, and it would no longer make sense to do it in the same terms as we have in the New Testament, because the story has moved on. And and we now as sort of mainstream Christianity in my world, which is sort of loosely evangelical in a UK, European setting, that's what we've. Heritage. What? How well that language and that conceptuality works for us now is another thing. So and we we are in all sorts of different ways really processing that and the Unitarian option is is one of the strands that that's probably that's feeding into it in one way or another. But it it's not the only thing. So I I you know, I try and. Sort of take. As broad a perspective on this as one you know, one possibly can while staying relevant to the context in which we find ourselves. But I mean, we certainly are rethinking that we for the most well, certainly not people I know churches I know aren't proclaiming Trinitarian Orthodoxy. That's not the message. That's not the message we think is going to make an impact in the world. Far more often we talk about the Lordship of Jesus. That is a very useful concept for us. A very useful reality for us, so I, you know. Sean Finnegan: And it's very Pauline. Andrew Perriman: And it has the distinct benefit of being very poor. All I'd say is that that it was poor, it was relevant for. All in a different way to with this for now. Paul had this whole Christendom thing ahead of him. We have it behind us, so we're having to work out what the Lordship of Jesus means for the church. Now. It's certainly in the Western context. Sean Finnegan: Perhaps a return to that early mindset when the church was a minority and it it was disempowered. Andrew Perriman: Yeah. No, that's that's certainly part of it. And we need to go out into the desert and empty ourselves with a. Lot of bad habits that. We've acquired over 2000 years. And and start again. Yeah, why not? Sean Finnegan: So what's next for you? Do you have your next project? Get out. Andrew Perriman: I I'm doing a lot. Of work for the London School of Theology at the moment, more than I have done normally would do normally the I have a a masters program that is being re written and I'm doing quite. A bit. Of that. So then I'll keep me going for the next six months. The big chunk on romance for that. And I wrote a book on romance of 10 years, 12 years back. So it's it's been fun going back to that. Again, the mission part of this, the I I I guess I need to sort of come back to the how how do we tell the New Testament story now or the biblical story now in a way that takes seriously our present circumstances, which are very different to the. Ancient circumstances. You know, the whole climate crisis part to this environmental global aspect to it. I have some ideas, some thoughts on how we use the biblical material within the ecological crisis. There's some again trying also looking for an unconventional. Spin on the whole thing. And then we'll. We'll see how it goes, but that's. What I've got in mind? Sean Finnegan: I'd be curious to see what you come up with. Once again, how can people follow your work? Andrew Perriman: Yeah. They apart from buying the books you, the I blog at www.post host there's a POSTOS t.net or just Google my name that usually works. Sean Finnegan: Yeah. And you've got your book in the form of a God. If people want to get much, much, much more in depth on Philippians too and the other pre-existing texts and Paul so-called that they they would be able to take a look. With that, thanks so much for speaking with me today, Doctor Perriman. Andrew Perriman: Well, that was. Fun I really enjoy it. I appreciate. The opportunity, thank you. Sean Finnegan: Well, it brings this interview to an end. What did you think? Come on over to restitutio.org. It's the word restitution with no end and find episode 520 in the form of a God. I would love to hear your thoughts about that. I imagine that some of you are thinking, boy, I didn't really follow that too well because you guys used a bunch of Greek words and technical terms, so just apologies for that. If it got too in depth. I imagine some others of you are thinking, Sean, I really could have done with another two or three hours of discussion here. You guys just barely scratched the surface. You didn't really get into some of the stuff I'm interested in. Later verses like verses 8910 and 11. And I knew there was no way to please everyone, to be honest. And it's not really on me to do that because Doctor Perryman wrote a book. So if you want to go more in depth. Go get his book in the form of a God. It's. Awesome, I read. The whole thing cover cover on my vacation last summer and I'll be honest, it's a little dry, but the content is worth it. It's worth putting the effort in if you're really interested in the subject of pre existence and the Apostle Paul's writings in particular. So take a look at that. If you are interested, you can get it on the with the stock website or on Amazon. And I think if you are someone who doesn't believe in the pre existence of Christ. You kind of owe it yourself to support this guy. I mean, he's sticking his neck out as a scholar. Writing this so if you don't want it, fine, buy it and give it to a friend. There you go. End of my pitch. For the record, I'm not getting any. Kickbacks for selling pyramids books. I'm just. Such a big fan, so as many of you know, last week was part one where we looked at pre existence and other techs. In Paul's epistles, and we got some feedback in for that that I'd like to read out, Kerry wrote in saying a couple of interesting points. But if this is supposed to support a pre existent Jesus, then I've definitely missed it some academic. Waffle to wade. True, my conclusion? The Bible is simpler than academia, only confirming what Paul wrote at First Corinthians 118 to 31. Talking about the wisdom of this world, I presume. Well, Carrie, I think maybe I have failed you or doctor Perryman or both, but actually that's exactly what we were trying to argue for is. That Paul isn't teaching the pre existence of Jesus, so I'm not sure how we got our wires crossed there. You didn't miss it. It. We were arguing against it. So there you have it. As far as the Bible is simpler than academia. I want to make a couple of comments on that, I think. You're both right and wrong at the same time, and I don't know in what sense you meant it, so I'm not. I can't judge your statement here, but I I would just say this. First of all, the Bible is written by a variety of different kinds of authors who are educated to different degrees from very, very little to very highly educated. Paul happens to come on that. More highly educated side of Scripture. Years, but he is writing to be understood by people in his own time. So I think it is helpful to keep in mind that if a simpler explanation works sort of like an Occam's razor approach, then that would generally be my preference because more often than not, the Bible is not trying to. Get into an incredible amount of nuance. It's more trying to just convey things simply for regular. People. But we do need scholarship to understand how to read the Bible the way the original audience would have read it. And that's because our culture, language, historical knowledge, scientific knowledge, philosophical knowledge, ethical knowledge, and so forth. Is so vastly different than the way people thought 2000 years ago in that part of the world at least, I'll speak as an American and imagine it's certainly true for the. As well that it's very easy for us to misread. It's very easy for us to read later Christian tradition into the 1st century, and that's in fact what happens over and over again with Philippians 2 people. Even scholars, sometimes such as Michael Bird, they insist. That the NIV is very bad reading, which you heard Doctor Perryman essentially say that in the interview. The NIV's very bad reading of Philippians 26 saying that Jesus being in very nature God, which is not at all what the Greek reads but to say morphine, say oh in the form of God is a reference to Russia or substance or nature is just a no go and look. If you're just a regular person and you read the NIV, which let's face it, is one of the most popular Bible translations on the planet for the English language. You're just going to. Say Oh well. Yeah, Paul says Jesus was very nature God. And then he became a human being because that's what the translation says. And This is why we need academia. This is why we need scholarship to hold translators accountable, to generate better translations and to figure out what would this have meant. In that 1st century. What would that have meant? In a place like Philippi. But Carrie, you are certainly correct that sometimes academics do over analyze and overly nuanced, overly complicate. And that is certainly a good warning for all of us, Steve wrote in saying nice episode with a very reasonable approach by Andrew to some of the allegedly awkward verses in proof text. I was wondering. Why he left out the most obvious elements in the creation of all things verse of Colossians 1. 16 and him all things were created things in heaven and on Earth. God made the heavens and the Earth, not just the stuff in and on people quote this as some kind of ACE, but. Conveniently overlook the actual words regarding what was made. So Steve, if I understand you correctly, you're pointing out that what we have in Colossians 116 is that what Jesus created or what was created in Jesus or by Jesus was. Things in heaven. And things on Earth, not heaven and earth. I think I'm. I'm. I'm following you here. That's a. Good point for me, it's all about the qualifiers. When he goes on to say whether Thrones or dominions and authorities and so forth, rather than weather trees and and birds and oceans and mountains. So for me that is a real signal that we're not talking about Genesis creation and then the parallel between the language, the Exaltation, Ascension, language of the end of Ephesians, chapter one. It's just so closely mirrored in Colossians one that either Ephesians one is talking about the creation of the universe or Colossians one is talking about the ascension of Christ to the right hand of God. And I think the 2nd is much more likely than the 1st. But to be. Fair to Doctor Pyramid, I didn't really give. Him much time. To deal with Colossians one, and he does quite a job in his book, which is why you should get it and see what he says in full on Colossians 1. To learn more. Well, that's going to have to be it for today. I do want to let you know I've got a couple of more interviews. In the can one. A pastor named Nathan Massey, who goes through Ignatius of Antioch, one of the most important church fathers when it comes to Christological development, and then another interview with Troy Salinger, who is discussing the whole theory of postponement. The idea that Jesus was proclaiming. The Kingdom to be very near to arrive, but that got postponed because of the rejection of the Jewish religious leaders. So stay tuned for those coming up. I also have another booking with a scholar to talk about adoptionism, and I'm hopeful that we'll be able to record that tomorrow and put that out in the next few weeks as well. So thanks everybody for listening to the end, if you'd like to support us here at rest of Studio, you can do that at the website restitutio.org. We'll catch you next week. And remember, the truth has nothing to fear.