Transcript — How the Ancient Church Read the Bible | Fr. Stephen De Young

Auto-generated captions (timestamps link to the video). See the summary · watch.

00:22 >> Welcome to another episode of facts. I’m your host Stephen Boyce. Today we’re doing a very special episode one that I’m looking forward to. I’ve brought with me Father Stephen De Young on the Orthodox tradition in church and this is a real honor to have you. We’re excited to have you on facts for the first time. I’m going to let you introduce yourself and then we’re going to get into some of the discussion today about how did the ancient church read the Bible because I think that’s an important discussion today especially with many that are listening that are discerning out of and they’re struggling with proper exegesis and how to look at the church’s view of scripture. Father, thank you for joining us. Tell us a little bit about yourself to those that may not know who you are and those that do kind of reintroduce yourself. It’ll be fun. >> Yeah, I’m Father Stephen De Young.

01:10 I’m a Marvel Rivals Twitch streamer. I’ve also written a few books. The people have heard of few books. I’m an Orthodox priest obviously and I’m the pastor of Archangel Gabriel Church here in Lafayette, Louisiana where it is even now at this time of night on November 3rd yeah, I’ve got a PhD in Biblical Studies working on a another PhD, got a bunch of master’s degrees. >> Sounds like you like to read and write.

01:58 That’s what it sounds like to me. >> Hey, it it it it really is fun and talk. Yeah, I mean it really is fun. I mean at the end of the day, I mean the academic world to me is enjoyable. It It’s just I need 36 hours in a day to do most of it anymore, but you know, it is fun. >> Yeah, if you’re not in the whole if you’re not in academia in the sense of like being somewhere in the university involved in Machiavellian intrigue to try to keep your job and all that stuff. If you can get that part out of it, then yeah, academia is >> So good Yeah, it’s great. Otherwise, it’s great. >> Well, [snorts] let’s kind of let’s kind of get into the discussion of how we look at the Bible because this is something as a person like myself who was in Protestantism, we have a lot of presuppositions.

02:46 You read the Bible at face value. You think it makes plain sense in some And then there’s sections where you, you know, scratch your head and the one example I always like to use with Protestants is, explain to me why women should cover their head because of the angels and tell me how your Western mindset understands that. And usually there’s a lot of interesting conversations and sometimes you even get into conspiracy theories at that point. Um it so it’s really weird when you get into those. But then there’s some basic ones that everybody Oh, that’s pretty easy. You must be born again. I mean you hear that at every revival and tent meeting and Billy Graham crusade and then you actually get into the language of that and you find out, wow, there’s there’s some actual deep theological understandings that goes beyond just a basic understanding of what I thought that meant.

03:33 So when you’re dealing with the modern assumption in your essay on allegorical interpretation, you warned against the church fathers and and the patristics of that time are reading and writing these texts the way that we think and that the modern assumption will actually deviate from sometimes the true meaning of the text. So can you Can you kind of get into that and explain that a little bit why that’s so >> Yeah. Well, I I think in general a good hermeneutic principle for trying to interpret any text uh you want to try to interpret a given text the way the author of that text interpreted texts. Right? So, if you have somebody who as an author is interpreting other texts that weren’t written by them, that gives you a really good window in terms of how they understand texts to help you figure out how they write.

04:35 Right? So, if you look at, for example, for real practical biblical example, St. Paul, of course, is constantly citing, referencing, alluding to the Old >> And you can see there are sort of manifold ways in which he does that at different times. But you almost never find him, I’d say never, but then somebody’s going to pop up and then >> What about this one verse here? >> Right. Uh but you almost never see him doing that in the modern sense, where it’s like, “Okay, I’m going to quote Hosea. I need to try to discern Hosea’s intent, right? >> You know, >> what did Right? Um and that kind of thing, or assuming that a text This is another big problem we have, uh which we shouldn’t, but people still have when talking about the Bible.

05:33 They generally don’t have it with other texts, but with the Bible, often, if they’re on the conservative traditional side, they still have this problem of thinking that any given verse or passage, right, or pericope, or however you want to break it up, has a meaning. Right? We have this text and there is a meaning. There’s a correct meaning. Right? A single correct interpretation. And they view interpretation as, “Okay, this is the mode by which we’re going to arrive at >> Uh or and I’m speaking for my own Orthodox my own Orthodox contacts, a lot of converts to Orthodoxy who come from uh because they’re so used to in Protestant circles all this grammatical-historical exegesis and there’s this whole process and then if you use the process right, you get the They kind of go reactionary to that and they act like, well, no, that the actual there is still just one meaning, but it’s it’s out there in some mysterious place, right?

06:44 And there’s no way you as a simple layperson could ever possibly define it, right? And so we have to go to the church fathers who sort of mystically received the correct answers, right? Through the Holy Spirit. And then as soon as they read in the church fathers saying different things about the same passage, >> it sort of all falls apart. Right? Well, like, wait, which one’s right and which one’s wrong, right? Because there can only be this one correct interpretation, right? And so the texts themselves were looked at in this very different way. Um one way into that uh to understand just how expensive and difficult it was to get something written down.

07:33 >> Right. And there are lots of good examples of this in the New Testament period, like a book the size of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, which is 16 chapters, not the largest book even of the New Testament, uh would have cost the equivalent of about $5,000. >> In the New Testament era, just for a copy of just that one Epistle. But when you push back past that, when you go back into like 5th century BC Judea, right? The idea of having a Torah >> it is like the idea of having, you know, a mansion in Manhattan, right? It’s not something that like, you know, um and so, anything that was put into text in that way and then was preserved through the long laborious difficult process of preserving it, copying, recopying, right?

08:27 Handing it down. Was therefore sort of a literary And that’s what gives the phrase it is written so much weight. >> Ooh, yes. >> Right? This was written down, >> right? And preserved through all this time for us. Right? It’s It’s this sort of monument. It’s this sort of uh I mean, it’s like the standing stones in the Old Testament that they would erect in a place, right? Where something happened, right? Um and so, when you’re interacting that with that, you’re not just treating it like any other text. You’re not even treating it as a text really, right? When when you think of a text.

09:14 Like a note from your mom, right? Or like an email or like a >> It’s not or even reading a novel, right? This is a whole other thing, a whole other a whole other category, right? And so, these monuments then were seen to have all of these layers of meaning. And uh layers of interpretation was more about a pattern or a dynamic that’s happening in the text, a way in the text related to an older context and then bringing it back into relation with the present >> Someone would use probably the word application there, I’m assuming.

10:10 >> Right. Right. Right. And that’s why in in the essay you mentioned I’m arguing we should talk about allegorical application rather than allegorical interpretation. Was this a Was this a huge idea that maybe those in Alexandria, especially the schools there, took that philosophy of interpretation? They were very allegorical. They saw things through an allegorical lens, but they also were very applicable in a lot of the ways that they looked at the Old and New Testament. They tried to bring a lot of those scenes, numbers, images, and and really kind of romanticized them. Some would say maybe too much, but is is that part of their mindset of what they were going for? So, I think I think the whole Antioch-Alexandria thing gets a little overplayed.

11:01 >> Of course. >> I mean, it’s maybe helpful as a device, right? And if you’re you know, if you’re teaching a class on the first 600 years of church history, you know, that’s where you’re not going to go super in-depth. That could be helpful, right? In terms of just orienting right? A new person. I I because um like on the Antioch side where it’s all they took a more literal interpretation. Well, if you read the sermons of St. John Chrysostom in Antioch, he’s not doing literal Bible preaching the way >> independent fundamentalist fundamentalist [laughter] Baptists do. >> Expository preaching. Like that’s not really what he’s doing, right? Uh he’s got all kinds of typology and all kinds of other things going on, right?

11:47 Um and part part of it I think is that uh for a lot of Old Testament books, for example, the only complete commentaries we’ve got patristics-wise that have survived to this day, right? Um are and yes, I know he’s condemned. I’m not calling him a church father before somebody pops up to the >> Ah, hear you. Uh >> is Origen, right? >> But it’s true. It’s true. He did a lot on Joshua. He did a lot on the Psalms. He did a a lot on Joel. >> a ton of stuff on Joshua. >> Not a ton of stuff on the book of >> It’s like so so like even in his interpretations of the trumpets that were sounded that, you know, each trumpet represented this New Testament book.

12:34 I mean, he even argued like these trumpets are Peter’s right these trumpets are John’s these trumpets like he even took many of the scenes and said, “Well, this was speaking of proclaiming the gospel. The trumpets, you know, and so he did he did that kind of thing frequently in his writings.” Right. And so but that’s in the context of commentary, And I think we failed to take the genre difference into account. I know we can get into like Theodore of Mopsuestia and stuff, but like you know, when you’re preaching, you’re really trying to bring something to bear on your particular audience and their particular circumstance on that particular time, right?

13:21 These are people you know who you’re preaching to. And you’re trying to communicate something to them to resonate with them directly. That’s far less abstract than when you’re just going through verse by verse and doing commentary on on an Old Testament text. Right. And so that’s going to shift how you approach right? What you say. but yeah, there there’s what we see again and again with a lot of these things is that you read Origen doing that with the >> Like, well, that’s a stretch, right? >> Right. Right. >> That doesn’t How how could you verify whether that was accurate or not, right?

14:09 Like, how could you right? Like, if somebody comes along and proposes something similar but different. Right? Or like here here’s an actual example, right? The The three steps leading up to the altar in Ezekiel’s Right? St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory the Great, right? Says faith, hope, and love through which we approach God and his >> his altar and worship. And another church father says, “Oh, well, this is three steps. It’s the Holy Trinity.” Well, which which one’s right? What do the three steps >> Or do they even mean that at all? Do they have any significance to that? >> Or are they just, you know, talking about the fact that there were three steps and it had nothing to do with any of them today? >> It just took three steps to get there, >> Yeah. Yeah, it was so high and you know, Yeah, and so but but that’s fundamentally approaching the text in the in in in the wrong way, right?

15:04 Or approaching that evaluating that interpretation in the wrong way. >> In that what they’re doing with that what’s really an application, right? Is they’re trying to take again this text, this sort of literary monument that’s been passed down to them and bring it to bear on the present and their present hearers. So, the exact height of the altar and the average step length of an ancient right? Is is not super relevant to the person who’s at the end of the 6th century in Rome listening to St. Gregory preach. Right? He he, you know, it’s a fun fact, understanding the correct way to come before God in worship, the correct way to approach the altar of God is very much relevant.

16:05 Right? Is very much relevant. >> So, you would say it’s not wrong necessarily. It’s not wrong >> Right or wrong is not the way to evaluate this. Right? I can give another example. Um I did my dissertation on 1 John 2:2 D. So it’s it’s five Greek words, two of which are and and the. And I did, you know, you know how long dissertations are. There’s like 700 footnotes, right? Like >> More more than you care to use, but yes. >> But when you go when you go and look um you know, of course, in one chapter I’m going through the history of interpretation of 1 John 2:2, right? Um >> And what you find with all of the church fathers who comment on the verse, all the way up to and including the Venerable Bede in England, [laughter] right?

16:59 >> I love that. >> All the way all the way through there, they all say by saying this, not only for our sins, but for the whole world, right? Uh by saying this, St. John refutes the Donatists. >> Many years later. >> Yeah. So how do you assess this, right? How do How do you How do you say like, well, what? >> Like, are they claiming that St. John had some kind of prophetic vision at the time he was writing this letter that the Donatist schism would happen? >> right? And so he chose to address it. And now I guess we could just ignore that verse for the rest of history because unless the Donatists show back up and do it again, right?

17:47 Um of course not, right? Of course that’s not what any of them are saying, right? And by the time the Venerable Bede is writing that, there aren’t any Donatists anywhere near him at least. I don’t think there were any like >> They were on their way out by that >> Yeah, [clears throat] they’re not anywhere near him in in uh the British Isles. right? Uh That’s not what they meant at all, But they meant the principle. Right? Because if you read it in context, they’ll say the Donatists the church of Christ and the arena of and the people whose sins Christ died for they they limited that to those who are members of their churches in North Africa.

18:37 Right? That was it. And so what they were saying was the principle here of what St. John is talking about runs counter to that. It opposes that and opposes any idea like that. But they weren’t proposing that as They definitely weren’t proposing that as St. John’s authorial intent. >> So would it be safe to say that who uses the application is just as important or is it just free for everybody to do that or does it have greater meaning when say a bishop, like you mentioned, >> uh you know, St. Chrysostom in Antioch if he’s covering a section or if you have Gregory the Great covering a section. Does Does that application have greater weight coming from somebody like Gregory the Great or Chrysostom or, you know, Basil Caesarea?

19:31 Is Is it heavier than just somebody who sits by and maybe reads a section of a text or just somebody who’s doing textual crit- like Origen, for example. >> Is there greater weight to the interpreter who’s applying the text? there are those in the church from the beginning, right, whose job has been right, the task for which they’re set aside in in ordination, right, is men who are tasked with interpreting and applying the scriptures. That is what they are charged to do. And there’s two sides to that coin. They have the authority to do it and to do it >> And then they’re also have the responsibility and are held accountable by Christ on the day of judgement for how they did it.

20:25 Right? How they did it in shepherding the flock, right? Which is ultimately his flock. and so yes, the and this is I mean this is in the scriptures themselves. Right? And and confessional Protestants have always recognized this. Now, evangelicals today less so, shall we say. But the the there there is there are people set aside for this. You know, St. Paul says not many of you should presume to be teachers because yes, teachers are held to a higher level of responsibility. This is exactly what he’s talking about. >> That’s That carries a whole new weight if you understand it in that in that perspective because >> the the desire to just bring application to what was traditionally given is is a dangerous thing to get wrong, really.

21:15 And to abuse it would even be more of a judgment on yourself. >> So, yeah, the um St. Paul is also also says in the same context, submit to your elders. >> Right? Um and so those two go together. Right? That he’s saying because the flock is called upon to submit to these people who are in authority who God has placed over them. Right? And and to their interpretations and their applications. Right? That then is the reason for this responsibility. So, it’s never a reducible to a power relationship. It’s an accountability >> So, because of the the weight of what you said earlier, the texts themselves are typically rare and we we talk about the cost efficiency of that and and it’s just the accessibility.

22:11 And then in addition to that, you have many of people, especially in the early church, who are partially illiterate or illiterate completely. There’s so much oral tradition. Was the written tradition ever meant to be detached from somebody who’s doing the interpreting and explaining and applying? Were they always meant to be dependent with each other or independent of each other when the textual tradition was passed on, especially in these Jewish contexts? Was there ever a time where a text was to be understood to be sent to the and it was supposed to be an isolated thing away from an authority to interpret it? Or was it always meant to be kept in that context? >> Yeah. Well, no. It was It was always in that liturgical context.

23:00 Right? I mean, the sitz im Leben of of all of those texts was the gathered community. Right? The assembly. Uh I mean, St. Paul’s epistles the way he wrote them, right? Was that he had an amanuensis. He had >> a secretary. He had a scribe. >> He would dictate it to them. They would write it out and do grammar fixes and, you know, leave out stuff like when I say right every three words. Um they’d edit all that out and everything and then show it to St. Paul. St. Paul would approve the text. And then that scribe would physically take the letter to the community he wrote it to. Read it to them publicly in their And then be prepared to answer questions about it.

23:52 >> On behalf of St. Paul. That was the initial receipt of like his epistle to the Ephesians or his epistle to the Galatians or his right? Um his epistle to the Romans. So, from the very first time it was read publicly to the gathered church, the gathered Christian community in that city. And then that was the role it continued to have right thereafter. And so one of the big holes in uh biblical text criticism of the New Testament for example, there’s like about 42% of the manuscripts we have of the New Testament are lectionaries.

24:40 >> Yeah, that’s true. >> And you know where you can find the data from those lectionary manuscripts? Most of them nowhere. >> Yeah, there’s almost nothing of it. It’s just It’s just markings. It’s a lot of markings is all that >> The West The Westcott and Hort The Westcott and Hort text, which is the basis for like for the standard critical editions of the New Testament, whether you’re talking about Nestle Allen or >> Um it’s the Westcott and Hort text that’s been revised many times. They took two lectionary manuscripts into account. Out of around 2,500 that we have. Um the the Patriarchal Greek text that was first pub- by the Ecumenical >> Patriarch of Constantinople.

25:28 >> First published in 1904, uh and then revised edition in 1912. That text was the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament done by actual Greeks. Uh because the Turks before that wouldn’t let them have a operate a printing press, the Christians. they used 250 lectionaries, but they were handwritten lectionaries that were in use in Greek churches in 1904. That they physically gathered up and collated as manuscripts. But otherwise, all of that all of those lectionary texts, you have to work really hard to get access to any of those texts.

26:15 Now, if you do that work, you will find some amazing things that solve a lot of chronic problems with the New Testament like uh the uh the verse where Christ uh sweats drops of blood in Luke. Yeah, [clears throat] that shows up in Matthew sometimes. if you look in those lectionaries, there’s a reading that is put together a bunch of gospels that’s used in Holy Week in in the Byzantine era Greek that has that verse from Luke inserted into a big passage of Matthew. So, if you have that in your lectionary reading and that gets copied into a continuous text, oh, look what just happened.

27:06 That verse from Luke just showed up in Matthew in your continuous text. Um it also explains why the pericope adulterae bounces around. >> Yeah, sometimes it’s at the end of Luke, sometimes it’s [laughter] at the triumphal entry of Jesus, sometimes >> It was preserved as its own reading in a And sometimes, depending on the lectionary, it’s in between readings from St. John’s gospel, and sometimes the lectionary is in between or at the end of St. Luke’s gospel. Right? And so, the reason it bounces around is that those continuous texts were copied from lectionaries, and so they just inserted it wherever it was in the lectionary. Uh long ending of Mark, same thing. There’s a whole bunch of these things that get solved if you just look at the >> Yeah, that’s so true, and they’re they’re an underrated perspective because to to look at textual criticism, and I’ve seen this done, to look at textual criticism apart from the communities and how they would have received those texts.

28:06 The lectionaries are helping the understanding of the public corporate gathering around those texts, and to detach that is to actually ruin the opportunity to see what’s going on with because a lot of times they say, “Well, there’s a harmonization. This is just a scribe that was familiar with Matthew and Luke.” and thought, “Oh, there’s something missing here. I’ve got to harmonize it to sound like Luke.” Well, I mean, maybe in some cases, but like you said, it could be something more specific. It could have been a part of the lectionary readings Bringing it together. We even see this I mean I I talked about this in multiple of the textual analysis I did on the Didache for my PhD. There’s times where the writers of the Didache are quoting Matthew, Luke, Matthew, Matthew, Luke, back to Matthew all in a matter of two >> And they took the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain and they in there multiple times.

28:57 So where I’m saying they’re doing the textual critical analysis, I’m in Matthew 7. And then it’s like, wait, that’s not in Matthew, that’s in the Sermon on Wait, hold on that that’s Luke. And so I had to pull a fragment of Luke over here. And it’s like, all right, so I guess we’re now in Luke. No, no, we’re back over in Matthew, but now we’re not in Matthew 7, we’re in Matthew 5. And then you’re back to Luke again and it’s like, this is confusing. But even the Didache has quotations from the Sermon on the Mount where you can tell it was more lectionary form on the on the actual teaching the the the idea of that teaching of Jesus. And it’s Matthew, Luke, Matthew, Luke, Matthew, Luke and it’s interwoven the Sermon on the Mount, Sermon on the Plain together into two paragraphs and you got to reconstruct it. It’s really hard to do textual analysis on that because you got to bounce around so much.

29:44 So that was done pretty early on if we date the Didache to the late 1st century or wherever somebody wants to date it. Very, very early we already see them doing that kind of thing. >> Yeah. Yeah, and as and so as you get Erasmus, Stephanus, right? >> Yeah, Theodore Beza, >> of the of the New Testament text, right? The form that that took and that we now receive the New Testament in, for example, right? When we go and buy a Bible, any English Bible. That form has been fundamentally shaped by the removal of that text from its liturgical context in the gathered of the people gathered in worship. >> It’s no longer in that lectionary form.

30:36 Well, that’s kind of what we’ve done with interpretation, too. We’ve We’ve removed it from that lectionary form and its gathering. And And so, I’m I’m going to ask you this. So, let’s take Colossians, for It’s pretty often I think And I’m going to tie this to your point. It’s pretty often that we do see Paul recommending certain messengers who are carriers of these letters in addition to scribes. And then once the letter arrives, greet this person and listen to this person. I mean, you see that. So, for example, in Colossians [clears throat] chapter 4, he gives praise to Luke, uh Demas. Uh greet the brothers and sisters who are in Laodicea and Nympha and the church that is in her house. When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans.

31:26 And you, for your part, read my letter that is coming from Laodicea. And then it says, “Tell Archippus, see the ministry which you have received in the Lord, so that you may fulfill it. I, Paul, writing this greeting in my own hand, remember my imprisonment. Grace to you.” How he closes out Colossians and the understanding of like, all right, have this read, sent here, and this person, tell them to continue their ministry, and this person’s being sent to you in this way. Is this kind of where you see that come to reality with with the points that you are making that this is a community receiving a letter. They’re not just receiving a letter. They’re receiving a messenger. So, there’s like this chain of custody trusted writer, trusted a group of people, the church, and there’s a representative who is attached to both, so that you’re not getting some phony letter.

32:15 And that person is instructed to read and explain and take questions. And then there’s somebody at the church who’s also going to be doing the same thing and then continuing that into the next city. Is that kind of the pattern we’re seeing even in Colossians? >> Yeah, presbyters at that church, right? And are going to do that. And if there’s something that the given person can’t answer in terms of a question, they can bring that back to St. Paul. And you see St. Paul sort of in some of like in 2 Corinthians >> Corinthians, yeah. >> in you know, say this responding to feedback, right? >> You know, since the last letter, you know, here’s this other issue that’s come up or or I don’t think you really got what I was saying last time. >> So, if the initial messengers couldn’t resolve the issue at hand, those messengers would take the concerns back.

33:06 And then that’s a lot of times where we see multiple letters. It seems like there was possibly three letters to the Corinthians total. Uh it seems like >> be as many as six. >> Yeah, right. And yeah, depending on how you like and and we may have fragments of some of it, you know, woven into these others. it seems like the the people that Paul was already training and trusting with these texts very early on were also not just entrusted to just be like the postal service. They were actually supposed to be interpreters. They were supposed to be protectors of this letter and its contents and the intentions of its writer or its author. Would that be fair? >> Yeah. And and I think you see there the the the shape of what would become the dynamic between a a bishop and a and a presbyter.

34:02 >> Okay. Can Can you build into that a little bit? >> Right. With with when you get to the point where you have multiple churches in cities, >> where you have you have uh presbyters who are there as representatives of representing the Right? And the bishop is the one who actually has the teaching authority, but it’s sort of delegated in his absence, right? And so, in the same way, you see this that the person coming to read the letter and answer the question sort of has this the apostolic authority remains with St. Right? But it is partially delegated to his representative who is there representing him, right? And that authority when he comes to read the letter.

34:50 >> So, he’s he’s acting as that bishop in that moment, so to speak, because obviously the bishops the the the office of bishop was obviously attached to the apostolic >> per Acts chapter 1, but as they know they’re going to be leaving this world and receiving crowns, they designated some of these once were presbyters, like Titus, like Timothy, >> and now they’re going to have the responsibility to carry on the tradition of the apostles. And not many of them wrote their own texts, at least that we know of, but to continue interacting with the church with the same text that they already had and continuing to apply those as each generation goes on to its current context.

35:38 So, you would say that that So, the book of Colossians had its immediate effect in its day, but you fast forward a hundred years later, all of these people are now gone with the Lord, and there’s a new group, but that apostolic succession that the bishops are not only entrusted to guard these texts from corruption cuz they’re protecting its contents, but also its applications to the church. They’re supposed to continue this tradition. So, when Paul says, “What you’ve received, pass on.” And obviously that’s a very loose translation, but what you’ve received, “Pass it on, give it to faithful men.” That’s what he’s referring to specifically. >> Yeah.

36:24 Yeah, that that’s that’s a And this is this is ultimately what when you research the Jewish context, this is what binding and loosing is. Right. In in it’s there are all kinds of questions and all kinds of issues that aren’t like completely spelled out in the text. Right? And so, you have the office that was ultimately handed down to the Pharisees from Moses to Joshua with the laying on of hands and continuing. And a lot of that was answering questions about the text. Right? And okay, this is a sin Is it a sin? Yes, it is a sin. Okay. And how do we deal with that? Right? And when has the repentance that’s required of this been completed, Who who rules on that, right?

37:16 Um that kind of authority, right, is invested in right, in particular. It’s not just a free-for-all of well, how do you read it? How how do you Yeah. >> The Lord spoke to me in this text in this way, right? No, it’s not a circle of this is how I how I interpret it. This is how I mean it. It was never meant to be interpreted that way. >> Yeah. Yeah. And and so, you know, we we make fun of the Pharisees a lot because they had this whole huge pages and pages and pages of rules about what you could and couldn’t do on the Sabbath, right? if you take the commandment seriously, don’t do any unnecessary work on the you’re going to end up having somebody have to rule on is does this constitute work or not, right?

38:07 >> I mean, people are going to have questions about that. Right? Um have I violated it? Oh, I did. What do I need to do to make that right, you know? You’re going to have to make rulings, right? That’s >> So So, this is so important to the connection of apostolic succession in and of itself because this this is a popular discussion. I’ve already seen it in the comments here, too. There’s There’s a lot of discussion about this branch theory, and Anglicans are to blame for a lot of this branch theory. and I mean, you have guys like my friend Wes Huff who just recently said something about, you know, I’m a Baptist and I have apostolic succession because I affirm the apostles texts. just being able to do that clearly demonstrates that this chain of custody, and that’s what I call I call it a chain of custody because they’re this deposit has to have some sort of traceability and continuity to it.

39:05 >> This chain of custody. Does this prevent people from being able to just say, “Yeah, I’m you know, I’m a part of succession because I’ve inherited these texts and I believe these texts.” Does that give somebody rights to be able to I mean, to me that seems like a foreign and an alien concept to anything that Paul or Peter or John’s communities were trying to establish when they said, “Here’s the text. Here’s how to interpret them. Here’s how to deliver Question, answer, copy. >> Send over. Like everybody wants their beef now. Everybody wants a part of the money that’s coming to this deposit and say, “No, I belong I I I I I have I have stake in this. I have an inheritance in this deposit. Therefore, we have apostolic succession and branch theory.” How How does that play out cuz this is a big conversation on the internet right Well, part of the Yeah, I saw that video and what what Huff has with a lot of his statements since becoming kind of internet famous.

40:10 He doesn’t seem like a bad guy, but he he has a lot of the problem that uh a lot of the new atheists had, which is you’re smart and you’re an expert in one and so people ask you to weigh in on a whole bunch of things that you don’t know about and uh you should really say no if it’s a thing you don’t really know much about. >> It’s not a bad >> Hey, that’s not my field. Um >> Um it’s like Richard Dawkins. It’s like really good on biology, but like doesn’t understand philosophy or religion at all, right? So, he shouldn’t talk about them. >> Right. Yeah, I mean, we’ve seen this with Bart Ehrman recently. He’s big into theology now. It’s like, “Listen, like and [laughter] he was he was actually just on the channel debating twice.

41:00 He’s been on in the last year. And in some of his new books, it’s like you’re a better textual critic. Just don’t don’t get into >> textual critic. >> Right. So, but but his theology is terrible. And so >> Yeah, that’s not your thing. And so, yeah. And so, like that video like 25 years ago, I knew Myk Horton and Myk Horton’s better than that video. >> Like I was kind of disappointed in that. He’s a lot higher tier than that, right? That was like high school Sunday school level apologetics about apostolic succession in a Protestant church, frankly. Um But yeah, and you get you get this question sometimes in in Protestant circles of of you know, well, which is more important to teach what the apostles taught or to be in, you know, the succession of laying on of hands.

41:53 And my my my thought is always immediately, “¿Por qué no los dos?” Right? Like why do you have to pick one of those? >> Right? And and isn’t the the linear succession of laying on of hands, isn’t that the guarantee of the fact that you are actually teaching what the apostles >> Because an Arian could have said everything Wes Huff said in that video. >> He holds to the New Testament texts. He interprets them very differently than Wes Huff, but he holds to them. And he would claim that what he’s teaching from them is what the apostles >> Right? So, an Arian could do that. non-Chalcedonian can do that.

42:43 All these people who fundamentally disagree Paedobaptist can do that, Wes Huff. his whole thing is just like, I claim I have apostolic succession. Why? Cuz I >> Cuz what I teach is exactly what the apostles taught. Do you have evidence of that? No. >> That’s how I read the Bible, but everyone can say that. So, the place where you get that argument about the succession and the living memory of the apostles very powerfully right off the bat is St. Irenaeus of >> Right? Who says, look at the churches where there’s still a living memory of the apostles. What gospels do they use? >> four. All of them in different parts of the world.

43:29 You can go to Rome. You can go to Antioch. You can go to Right? They’re using the same four gospels. That should tell you something. Right? Uh that the the groups that are using something else have no connection directly, no historical connection, no connection of living memory to the apostles. Right? These gnostic groups. >> Who all claim that they were part of the apostles’ churches, of course. >> Right. Right. Um and so, it’s not just that. This is another thing that in that video it gets reduced to like the list of names. Right? So, I’m part of the Antiochian archdiocese in North America. You can go to our archdiocese website. You can see the list of names for the patriarchs of Antioch, right?

44:16 So, there is such a thing. Those things exist, right? Obviously, I’m sure there’s a Vatican website. I’m sure there’s tons of websites that have lists of all the bishops of Rome. >> Like since [laughter] since uh St. Peter consecrated St. Linus. Right? Um But that list is not even really the important part because along with that comes the actual history of who those men were and what they Right? And what they brought out and argued for when there were controversies, right? All of that is concluded is included. Right? So, it’s not just number one list of names, number two claim that anyone can make that we’re teaching exactly what the apostles taught, but an actual way to trace back through and through that list showing a of what’s being taught.

45:16 >> Yeah, I’d like to actually pull this up for a minute if I may, specifically with the subject [clears throat] talks about this and he says if there’s any heresies which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles because they existed in the time of the apostles. We can say, “Let them produce the original records of their churches. Let them unfold the role of their bishops running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that the first bishop of theirs, bishop shall be able to show his ordainer and predecessor of someone of the apostles or of an apostolic man, a man moreover who continued steadfast with the apostles.

46:06 For this manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers as the church of Smyrna which records that Polycarp was placed there by John and also the church of Rome which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit their several worthies whom as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles they regard as transmitters to the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy what is there that is unlawful for them to attempt? But should they even affect contravence they that advance in the step for they are their very doctrine after comparison with that the apostles would declare by its own diversity.

46:56 All right, so basically what he’s saying here is he argues for this that there’s a transmission of that could be proved by record of the And who ordained him. But there’s also this idea of the apostolic seed, a transmission of the seed in these episcopal places of the To me no Baptist or Presbyterian or or somebody who’s trying to vouch for a branch theory can produce this just on well, we have the deposit of the message. And the message is sufficient. That wouldn’t have that wouldn’t have worked at least in Tertullian’s day where these heretics arise, but they can’t produce this kind of a record.

47:48 And that’s what he’s saying. Let Let a heretic Let a heretic come into the church and try to prove that they have this kind of stability. That they have this kind of transmission. That they have this kind of apostolic age succession. what are your thoughts in relation to Tertullian here? >> Well, there’s not that continuity. And this gets really concrete, right? I mean, I can for example, um in the Patriarchate of Antioch um it’s kind of Orthodox practice any anyone who’s made a bishop composes their confession of faith. And that gets read publicly at their consecration as a bishop. Right? So, they don’t just affirm one that’s already been written. Right? So, they [clears throat] write about the Holy Trinity, they write about Christology, they write the whole They write it.

48:41 And they not only write it, they write it in a book that is Every bishop, so my bishop here in the United States, all right, when he was consecrated did this. These books are kept in Damascus at the Patriarchate of Antioch. They have them going back So, you can concretely on these pages right, as as the pages age and they age, you can see this is what this bishop believed. Two generations ago, this is what these bishops believed and taught. Three generations before that, this is what the bishops believed and taught. You can see that continuity going back. Right? This This is a concrete thing, right? It’s not just hypothetical, And the reality is if you’re a Baptist, for example, and I don’t see a way around this for a Baptist.

49:36 As a Baptist, you have to say that for a thousand years no one was validly baptized. On Earth. Because everyone on Earth who was baptized during that thousand years, right? We won’t argue about the early church. I’ll start in 500. We’ll go from 500 to 1500. Everyone who was baptized during that period was either baptized as an infant or baptized as a big group because their king converted to Christianity. That’s something Baptist also hold to be >> Yes, that’s something to think about. So, it’s not just oh, there’s a little break for a generation >> or something, right? Or the Meletian Schism happens and we’re not we’re we’re arguing about who the real Patriarch of Antioch is, right?

50:23 Or right? Or in the West, you know, the Avignon Papacy or something where you’re arguing about who the guy is. We’re talking a thousand years where no one is validly baptized according [laughter] to right? This gigantic break. And I always see two ways you can go with this, either which are problematic. You can bite the bullet and just become a restorationist and be like, yes, you know, for all intents and purposes the true faith vanished from the Earth for some extent centuries. >> Yeah, like a pure restorationist thing. Which they don’t want to do. >> No. right? And where they usually find themselves is on the other side of this when this kind of point gets brought up, they have to argue that those things aren’t really important.

51:14 Well, that’s not really the core the core of the gospel was still around in some faithful remnant somewhere where he can’t and this isn’t the core of the But then they have to turn around in another context and argue that well, no, this issue of baptism for example is so significant that we have to schism from the broader church over it. And it can’t be important enough to justify a schism. And not important enough to touch on the gospel at the same time. >> Yeah, that’s a good >> Not according to guys like Martin Luther or John Calvin or Heinrich Bullinger at >> That’s a good point. >> Right? So, see this doesn’t work >> So, is it possible and and and with Tertullian here, he says they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed, that would be the deposit of faith, which would involve the text.

52:13 So, is it ever for the text and the ordained to be in the transmission lines? >> Or must [clears throat] they always be together? The tradition that they’re receiving and passing on is ultimately a way of reading the text. >> So, this is the disconnect with the Baptist. They can’t they can’t just have the message and not the messenger. >> Some of the best evidence of this, we did a whole Lord of Spirits episode about St. Irenaeus of Lyon, uh his uh on the apostolic tradition. >> And one of the really fascinating things, so it’s on the apostolic tradition where he’s going to lay out, this is I’m going to give you the summary of the preaching of the apostles as it has been received.

53:05 There’s not a single quote from the New Testament in there. He does not say, he does not repeat what the apostles said in their writings contra say Westhoff, right? It’s all the Old Testament. So, the apostolic tradition for him is a way of reading the Old Testament. What the apostles came and proclaimed was a way of reading the Hebrew scriptures, the Christian Old Testament, in which we understand it speaking about >> Sure. I mean, that’s big debate. >> as the Messiah, right? Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ. Right?

53:52 So, it’s a way of reading the scriptures. That’s and applying them. That’s what gets handed down. And that’s the continuity. And so, if you have someone come along and propose a new reading or propose that everyone thus far has gotten it fundamentally that has to be rejected out of hand. And again, guys like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger would have agreed with me about that. >> I think they would have as well. And so, that’s a really important segue into one of your your main statements in the works that you did. You talk about reading the Old Testament through So, the way we understand the Old has I mean, this otherwise, this would just be easy.

54:39 The the Jews and the Christians would agree on how Isaiah 53 is talking about Daniel 7. I mean, I I mean, this is easy, but it’s not because it really does come down to the incarnation affected the way we interpret scripture and who has the authority to properly interpret it. And so, Christ and in his coming did this. But, you mention like use Paul’s treatment of Sarah and Hagar, for example, in Galatians 4 to explain an an application, a way that the Jews probably would not have looked at this. Clearly Paul did. >> So that that there So there’s you’ve got this you’ve got this licensed person by Jesus himself. He ordained and gave authority to his apostles. The apostles continue this tradition.

55:25 There’s a text that follows. There’s an interpretation that follows. But in a situation like Hagar and Sarah, it seems like Paul took great liberty to create that interpretation. Um what gave him the right to do that? And what gave you know, like so this really does play into the Old Testament because we depend on and those that are authorized people proper authorities to be able to define Old Testament meanings like the Sarah-Hagar situation in Galatians 4 because it seems like a great liberty Paul took here. >> Yeah. Well, yeah. And we have to again, like we’re saying before, we have to keep what he’s claiming, right? He’s not claiming this is the one true meaning. >> This is what Yeah, this is what Moses was talking about when he wrote about Hagar and Sarah, right?

56:16 Um >> and all that, right? He’s He’s isolating a dynamic, right? Within the text. Right? And saying that dynamic in the text with Hagar and Sarah is playing out again now. with the the the old covenant and the renewed covenant, right? And with with bondage and freedom and we could see this dynamic there. This is playing out again. This is a way to understand it, right? And it’s that idea of sort of a Right? And this is So a lot of a lot of Protestant arguments for sola when people try to counter them, there tends there seem to be just oh we need to counter this.

57:07 >> Because they’re making an argument, And a lot of these arguments we need to step back I think first. uh I I don’t I I don’t think those arguments really have anything to do with sola scriptura. And here’s prime A lot of the arguments they use are this just them trying to prove the sufficiency of scripture. >> Right. 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17, right? Exhibit A, right? All these things the scriptures are sufficient for everything. Scriptures are sufficient for everything, right? Um as if Now, I’ve never heard a Roman Catholic do this. You might know better than me. I’ve never heard an Orthodox person claim the scriptures are >> Right.

57:58 So, I’m not even totally sure who they’re arguing with. There seems to be another presu- presupposition that somehow if the scriptures are sufficient, that means there is nothing else. Right. And that’s why they’re arguing for the solo part of sola scriptura. >> But that doesn’t logically follow. Right? Like a meal could be sufficient. That doesn’t mean that’s the only food I ate. Right? Like >> It’s a good point. >> Right? You You can have a sufficient number of calories to keep you alive. You can still eat more and different things. >> But um But where the rubber really meets the road on this and I’ve asserted this and I still defend this. I think you can prove every bit of Christian dogma and doctrine from the >> If you read the Torah the correct way.

58:56 You want Here, I’ll I’ll choose a non-controversial example. You want the Second Council of Nicaea, the Seventh Ecumenical Council? Genesis 9. He who spills man’s blood his blood shall be spilled by man because in the image of God has God made man. The dishonor you do to God’s image passes to the prototype. Therefore, it’s punishable by death, right? >> Uh you want the anathemas of the Seventh Ecumenical Council? look at the rules in the Torah governing who could handle and move the ark and touch the ark of the covenant. Who could handle and move the curtains of the temple with the cherubim on them? What happened to anyone who did not properly venerate and respect them and follow those rules?

59:43 Death penalty. Right? Not even death penalty where they killed the people like they dropped >> Dropped dead on their own. They they excommunicated themselves. >> Yes. Yes. And that’s what the anathema is, right? The anathema is being exiled from paradise. It’s being cut off from the tree of life. From the sacramental life of the church. right? So, there you go. Second Nicaea in the Torah. Right? And you can go out the Trinity, Exodus 31, right? God speaks to Moses face to face and nine verses later he says no one can see my face and live. So, there’s a God who you can see and there’s a God who you can’t see. And it’s the same God. >> subject of hypostasis [laughter] and usia, all all all of that is being >> Right.

1:00:32 So, that’s that’s all in the Torah. So, I could I’m making an argument here. The Torah is sufficient. >> And you would probably argue other things too from like the perspective of you could even argue the Eucharist through Melchizedek who brought bread and wine. >> Melchizedek, right? At the oak of Mamre, right? God comes and sits and eats. >> Right? With with Abraham. How does Christ prove the bodily resurrection to his disciples? By sitting and eating with them. >> I I’m I’m I’m I’m sitting here thinking of other examples like Paul who talks about the rock that brought forth waters and he even says that rock was Christ. I mean literally says that rock was Christ and thinking about it the Passover lamb the eating of the lamb.

1:01:22 I’m going through so many examples even you know the people there’s bitter waters and the Lord shows Moses a tree and the trees make the water sweet. I’m thinking of examples now this people like you started with his arms to defeat the Amalekites. The snake lifted up in the wilderness in numbers the crucifix. >> I’m thinking of so many things you started a domino my brain is sitting there going >> Yes like all of this is in the Torah. So I can make this argument and I think I can win this argument that the Torah is sufficient. I wouldn’t debate you on it. Yeah [clears throat] for all of the needs that doesn’t that doesn’t mean there’s no more scripture. That doesn’t mean only the Torah is scripture just cuz it’s sufficient.

1:02:09 Right? But then what do we see in the rest of the Hebrew Bible and the rest of the Christian Old Testament? That’s not disconnected from the Torah. In fact you’re seeing what’s in the Torah play Cuz it’s always referenced back to you didn’t practice this and that’s why this is Deuteronomy prophesies that once they’re in the land they’re going to forget God they’re going to worship foreign idols. God’s going to send foreign invaders and send them into exile and then they will repent and you will bring them back to the that’s all in Deuteronomy. Right >> right but then we see it play out. Right and in Deuteronomy 10 it gives the commandments about the type of king you’re supposed to have so it should not multiply wives to himself and then we see Solomon and we see it play out. Right and and so what we get from the rest of the Hebrew scriptures is a way of reading the Right if you isolated the Torah from the rest of that you could read it lots of different ways.

1:03:11 Right? And then what we get in the New Testament is a way of reading the entire Old Testament. So, it’s continuation. >> And it’s continuation. >> And then that way of reading the whole is what then gets handed down. Right? As holy tradition. That way of reading and applying the church is within within the church. As a historical body. >> So, how much do books like within the apostolic writings, you see the Epistle of Barnabas, for example, which is not you know, inspired but many of the early church certainly believed Barnabas wrote it, and that’s obviously up for debate.

1:03:59 But regardless of whether he wrote it or not, it’s very in-depth in the way that God instructed in Torah, especially the unclean animals. Like, well, it wasn’t it wasn’t about this animal represented this kind of sin, and this animal represented this kind of sin. Like, you really see this typology start coming out very early in relation to the Old Testament, how the Jews missed the point. And that that’s the Epistle of Barnabas. The Jews totally missed the point. Like, he didn’t tell you not to eat this animal because the animal in of itself was a This animal represents this type of lifestyle. It represents this type of Like, we see this very early even in the non-New Testament texts. >> Yeah. Well, and they’re they’re following that model. >> That’s what I’m getting at.

1:04:46 >> Cuz you see the same You see the same thing in in in the Gospels, right? Christ gives it You search the scriptures in vain, right? You know, they say all the law and the prophets spoke concerning him, right? But obviously, his Jewish opponents, described as Pharisees, who were reading those texts all the time, didn’t see that, right? and so, that emphasis in Barnabas, but Barnabas, I’ll use Barnabas as an Barnabas does this interesting thing with the Day of Atonement. In Leviticus 16, where he reads it typologically in terms of Christ. >> He’s also reading it the exact same He’s doing the exact same thing that Saint Matthew does in his account of Christ’s He’s just doing it in Epistle format instead of narrative To the point that in the Greek the two use some of the same words.

1:05:41 >> Okay. So, the Epistle of Barnabas is describing it, for example, it talks about the scarlet thread that’s tied around the goat’s neck, which isn’t in Leviticus 16. And if you go to Saint Matthew’s Gospel, it talks about him being robed around. You can look at the Greek verb with the scarlet robe. Right? And it talks about how they would they would as they were driving they would drive the goat out of the city by striking it with a reed and spitting on it. Right? And Saint Matthew’s Gospel in that same scene, they take the reed from Christ and strike him with it.

1:06:32 It’s the same word for reed in Greek. >> This is fascinating. >> And spit on him, right? And and mock him and reject him, right? And the reason this is super important, right, to see that they’re doing the same thing, right? This gives us a window into what Saint Matthew is doing in terms of the Day of Atonement ritual by comparing it with Saint Barnabas or the Epistle of Barnabas if it was written by Saint Barnabas. but this also contextualizes that in Saint Matthew’s Gospel, when the people cry out at the end of this ritual and Christ is, you know, about to be driven out of the city, his blood be on us and on our children. What is Saint Matthew talking about if he’s talking about the Day of Atonement And the renewal of the covenant.

1:07:26 And the blood of Christ being upon them, right? That changes what St. Matthew is from this thing that’s used in various horrific ways throughout history into no, this is an example of what we see several times in the gospel of someone unintentionally prophesying. Right? They mean one thing by it when they say it. Like Caiaphas is saying it’s good for one man to die for the people. Right? >> Didn’t realize he was prophesying something that >> They mean one thing, but it’s actually true in another way. >> So So we could >> Bob who says that right, is actually saying more than they know, right? >> So what we could argue from the Epistle of Barnabas with the interpretation of Leviticus 16 and the scapegoat, that we have an early tradition of how the church communities were already interpreting Leviticus and these others through the lens of the gospel narrative of Matthew.

1:08:23 So we already start seeing this deposit. That’s a part of the deposit that’s being passed on. That’s part of which you’re not going to get Thankfully we get it in the written form in the Epistle of Barnabas, but the churches would have already been doing this before Barnabas wrote it down. >> This would have already been a common understanding to the community. >> Yes. Yes. So the interpret When the church fathers interpret scripture, it is not substitutionary interpretation. They’re not interpreting it so that you don’t have to. >> They’re showing you how to. >> How to do it. >> This is the way to read and interpret and apply the scriptures that’s been handed down. >> So how does Sola Scriptura come into play here?

1:09:12 Because they would say, a lot of them yeah, there’s some that are more Sola than Sola, but the the Solas would say, “Hey look, no, no, no, we think we should use the Epistle of Barnabas. We’re not saying you shouldn’t. It helps us understand things like that. So, they’re they would say we need these other sources. We want to use these other sources come into But, there’s only one infallible source, and that can only be scripture. And all of these interpreters, Epistle of Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Jerome, and Augustine, you know, they’re they’re fallible. And they make mistakes. And then they always go to crazy things like Irenaeus said Jesus was 50, so we can’t, you know, he’s not infallible, so we can’t trust him.

1:10:02 And >> You know, and they start doing that. They find the the the one little thing that’s just kind of out there. And all >> Well, that’s a bad interpretation of Saint Irenaeus, but we won’t go there. >> I No, no, no. I I’ve demonstrated that multiple He’s my patron saint, and I get so sick of people doing this to him. And and you know, people It’s okay. Protestants love Saint Jerome back here. And and they really should let him go. Um he’s not on their side. But, I love Caravaggio, so I’m just happy you have that in general. Oh, yeah. It was 1600 1602, I think maybe, this painting. Oh, it’s so beautiful. It’s one of my I have the Doubting of Saint Thomas in my living room, which you can’t see from here, but I have a print of it. But but their perspective is is like, oh, see, see, you know, these are fallible men trying to do their best to and you know, to bring the infallible truth out just like we are, you know.

1:10:53 Like So, that’s the mindset. So, how should we approach their discussion? Because you brought up Sola Scriptura a minute ago, but their their goal is to get the right interpretation. But, when you counter their interpretations, and well, none of the church fathers believe this. Well, they believe Jesus was 50. Or well, Augustine said babies that are unbaptized go straight to hell. And well, you know, and and there’s always the well, you know, and and then they insert the problem. Well, so the basic the basic problem with Sola Scriptura is that it is completely dependent on an early modern epistemology. >> It presumes the fact that the text of scripture is a brute fact.

1:11:48 uh someone can someone can somehow receive that text or its contents Right? And And this is And I say it’s even early modern cuz even a guy like is going to tell you that you never receive anything uninterpreted. Everything you receive is already been digested through your interpretive grid. >> That’s one way to look at it. That’s you don’t have to go to Now, most Protestants are more in the kind of camp >> uh than Hegel uh unless they’re like European liberal Protestants. But >> mention the Germans, but go ahead. >> There are liberals in the Catholic Church, too.

1:12:35 Go ahead. >> Those folks um uh that that doesn’t help them really either. Of course, when you get the more the more once you get to Heidegger, you’re actually moving out of modernity, and so it’s even further removed. So um but you have to you have to sort of assume that. You have to argue that you have access to the text of scripture apart from the actual lived experience of reading it. Right? And interpret it. Cuz as soon as I as a fallible person sit and read it, boom, infallible means nothing. So effectively there’s a they’re positing an infallible rule that there is no infallible access to.

1:13:24 We don’t even have to argue about is there an infallible interpreter. >> There’s no infallible access to it. >> Right? Um even if it’s not translated. >> Right? Even if you’re talking about quote unquote Right? You’re going to the Greek or the Hebrew. Right? There’s been a whole series of decisions behind the text that you get there. Right? And none of us is a native speaker of biblical Hebrew or first-century Greek. And any lexica or tools we use are >> Yes, they are. That’s That’s a good >> Right? So, there is no pre- pre-interpretive access to the biblical And so, it just it it it fundamentally doesn’t work.

1:14:20 Like, it can’t be what it has to be in their system. Um and the rubber really meets the road when you run into a Van Tilian because Van Til was influenced enough by frankly Hegel that he knew that. He knew that there’s no Your presuppositions are filtering >> you have. So, the there is no brute facticity of the Bible. Right? Um or the biblical text. and they wrestle mightily to square that circle. Right? And they’re >> Sure. Sure. Yeah, I know a lot of Van Til fans. I know a lot of Van Til [laughter] fans. But yeah, so it it it just it it it fundamentally can’t can’t do that. Everybody who’s reading scripture is taking a reading of scripture.

1:15:11 And so, the question then becomes And And this is why this this relates to why sola scriptura ultimately always collapses into solo scriptura. >> Yeah, it almost naturally flows to that the secondary standards, whenever you hear Protestant folks talking about secondary standards, they mean it. They affirm it. But practically, pragmatically, in any argument, in any discussion, nothing can function as a secondary They’ve got a very Platonist metaphysics going on in Protestantism, right? So that there’s the Bible and everything outside the Bible. Right? Because as soon as they say, “Oh no, yeah, we need to take these things into account.

1:15:59 We need to take these things into account.” And they’re happy to They’re happy to quote them when they agree with their reading. >> But as soon as it goes counter to their reading of scripture, then it’s Which means it’s not functioning as any kind of authority. Secondary or primary. Right? It’s just sort of, “Oh hey, there is somebody else who agrees with me. That’s a >> Right? But if the same person disagrees with you, or when the same person disagrees with you, their disagreement is irrelevant. Which means they’re not functioning as any kind of authority for you. >> So in the collapse of authorities, so somebody brought this up a second ago, so how do we read anything, including the church fathers?

1:16:47 So [laughter] how how do we how do we get how do we get to the bottom of anything? Are we just stuck? Um cuz there’s not >> to adopt a reading. You have to adopt a way of reading. >> But that that leaves people with the sense of uncertainty. And people don’t like to feel uncertain, but it’s like, what if what if I’m wrong? What if what if I go into error? I mean, that people don’t like the feeling of uncertainty. So how does that play into this? >> I I know they don’t, to a certain extent, you just got to buckle up, buttercup. That’s the world, >> The text of scripture isn’t certain. >> Now you know the Protestants aren’t going to like that. The Protestants don’t like that.

1:17:33 >> issues. There’s way more issues. Even if we could all agree on a list of books of the Old Testament, what version of those >> Which version of Jeremiah? >> Which version of Esther? Which version of Daniel? I’m really eager. I’ve put this challenge forth a couple times now. I want a Protestant to give me an argument for the canonicity of the book of Nehemiah as it appears in English >> There’s a There’s a book of Esther that appears in all those canon lists they appeal to in Josephus and stuff, but if you read Josephus, he’s very clear. He’s not talking about Ezra Nehemiah, he’s talking about First Esdras. >> Yes. Yeah, he uses First Esdras a lot. >> That’s the canonical one for him.

1:18:21 Every church father who quotes from it quotes from First Esdras, not from Hebrew the Hebrew Ezra Nehemiah. I do not think there is an argument that the Hebrew text of Ezra Nehemiah, which means basically Nehemiah, cuz part of Nehemiah is in First Esdras, but the rest of Nehemiah, the rest of Hebrew Nehemiah being Christian canon, I do not think there is an argument. >> I tend I tend to agree with you. I really do because this is this is what we see cited when it’s referred to. there’s so many problems with that that argumentation like you mentioned with Esther, all these Protestants that are trying to go to Melito of Sardis and some of these others. Some of them don’t even have Esther.

1:19:07 None. Zilch. Like they’re not there at all. So, and then when you do, it’s uh Clement of Rome for example, I demonstrated that Clement of Rome in in my doctoral uh breakdown and textual analysis, he’s citing both Judith and Esther not not directly but indirectly. He’s summarizing their stories, but he mentions Esther in a prayer-like state, which is not in the Hebrew. So, Clement of Rome in the first century utilizing the book of Esther to his group is not using of course and of course they’re using the Septuagint versions or some credit Obviously, we have a critical edition. They probably didn’t, but he clearly had the longer recension of Ezra of Esther in his church, and that’s what he was utilizing. And I remember asking a Protestant, while I’m doing my work as a Protestant, saying, “Well, to Clement of Rome in the 1st century, the canon Esther was the long recension.” He was like, “Yep.” “But our canon on Sunday morning that we’re using for Esther doesn’t have that.” He’s like, “Yep.” I said, “Well, what do we do with that?” And he said, “You know what?” He said, “It’s something we got to deal with.” Yeah, how?

1:20:14 What are we going to >> Like, you know, like So, I mean, I’m asking professors for help on this, and it’s just like, “Oh, yeah. Yeah, he was using a” It’s like, “Well, don’t you think that’s pretty important? This guy is mentioned by Paul in Philippians. He’s a successor of Peter. He’s quoting, and he’s teaching. If you went to Rome in in the ’90s, and you wanted to hear a sermon or a homily from him, and he hits Esther that day, he’s using the long recension, and our church is using the short recension. What do we do about that?” And then basically, nobody has an answer. It’s like, “Well, it’s just something we got to think through.” Well, that’s great, but that’s problematic. So, again, I agree with you. We see some of this stuff and the dynamics that it takes place even in the 1st century, and it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work in the Protestant model of even canon, because like you said, establishing books is one thing, which forms of them And even if you’re in more of the the Greek text side of things, it’s like even Jerome talks about this particularly in the book of Daniel.

1:21:15 He he says that the authorities chose the Theodotion text over the 70. So, because I mean, obviously, Aquila had their Symmachus, and and and it’s like, “Well,” and he speaks of these authorities have chosen the public readings to come from the Theodotion. And so, they were making these choices. >> Yes. Our public readings on Holy Saturday are from Theodotion. So, let me put a to find a on this. The version of Daniel that we read from liturgically in the Orthodox Church on Holy Saturday was translated by a non-Christian Jew in the 2nd century AD. >> Let that sink [laughter] in. Let that sink in. Let that sink in. >> That’s the version we use in the church. >> Um so yes, this is all messy.

1:22:02 This is all incredibly messy. And people don’t like mess, right? >> But it seems like Jerome believed that an authority, and I wrote about this recently in one of my most recent papers on his view of Canon, he said that these authorities, these magistrates like almost in a universal sense, like this is the readings of Daniel. We’re going to be using this one over the 70. The 70 has a story of Susanna, but it’s in a different location and a different size than the Theodotion. And then obviously Bel and the Dragon. And to this day even the Catholics, of course, use the same Theodotion or translations of Theodotion. So he he’s saying that these texts can’t resolve themselves. Jerome is saying that there needed to be authorities.

1:22:50 And typically when he uses the words authorities, he’s speaking of sometimes the Ecumenical Council of sometimes he’s just talking about fathers in the church or the bishops. And this is something that emerges over time, just like the Canon. >> Right? And that we believe is the work of the Holy Spirit, right? Over time, right? I can agree with the Protestants when they say, right? And and a lot of this I’m getting from Michael Kruger’s work, frankly. Um that, you know, the same Holy Spirit who inspired the scriptures led the church to recognize those same scriptures, right? Over time. Totally agree with that. I also think that same Holy Spirit who spoke through the Ecumenical Councils led the church to embrace them as the Ecumenical Councils over time.

1:23:37 I also that I just extend that. Right? That metaphor that that we see that emerge over time. but I think the core answer to the messiness, right, for the people who are disturbed by that, by some of the [laughter] messiness and the things that are getting thrown out is too often when we argue about this, when we’re talking about it amongst ourselves or when we’re arguing with each other or with our Protestant friends, we’re arguing as if we’re all atheists. >> I need to bring forth these historical evidences and da da da da da da to try to prove that my position on this is logically correct, right? Like we’re making arguments an atheist can make.

1:24:25 Like in terms of historical arguments or the reason to me to accept the church’s way of reading the scriptures, of reading and applying the scriptures, the one that’s been handed down through the reason to accept that is that the church is the place where people are repenting of and being set free from sin. Where people who were in hatred toward each other are being reconciled. Where people are finding salvation, where people are encountering Christ. Once you identify where the church is, then that’s the place where the authority is. And that’s the place where the churches are being read correctly. And then one submits oneself to that. You say, “Because this is the place, I am going to adopt this way of reading and understanding the scriptures.

1:25:19 This way of praying. Right? This way of seeing God and myself in relationship to God, right? Um not vice versa. Not somehow this all gets demonstrated to me in some kind of {quote} {unquote} abstract fashion and then I decide to sign on for it, right? Like point by Right? And now right? That’s That’s not how Christianity has ever worked. >> Yeah, I think I think for us that it comes down to especially those in the East and the West, we look at authority very different than Protestants. And I think it’s because um you know, most of Protestantism is a sign of defying authority at the end of the day.

1:26:05 It’s what it is. Submission to authority doesn’t exist in many of the Protestant circles. If you don’t agree with something or a group or a pastor or church, you just leave and start a new one. I mean, plant and salt. And you find another group that agrees with you and it just keeps mutating. Um we don’t have that luxury and a lot of cases. I mean, even even Jerome himself cuz we’ve been talking about him a little He personally had an opinion that didn’t always align with the church even when it came to he talks about how when he was dealing with the subject of Tobit and Judith when he was translating this into the he struggled with including it because he was being criticized by these Jewish communities or I call he calls them the Hebrews that were in the area of Tiberias, these authorities of the Jewish scriptures of the Hebrew.

1:26:56 And they were like, you shouldn’t be reading this publicly. Why are you translating Tobit to be read publicly? Why are you translating And And he finally got it one point he said, “Look, I would rather be criticized by Pharisees than disobey my bishop.” He personally would have probably If it were left to him, I I really do believe even in my opinion that Jerome would have have followed suit with more of the Hebrew way of thinking on things especially from what he had studied from these authorities in Tiberias. I do think that he tended that direction, but he was also a good churchman who understood the authority doesn’t rest in the Jews. The authority rests in the church and the church has taught this and therefore I submit to whether I like it or not. Um and and he went and translated things that he personally probably wouldn’t preferred or believed would be the better way to do it.

1:27:49 But, he was an obedient son of the church. And I don’t I don’t And this is why it always bothers me that the Protestants love using Jerome for the subject of canon, which is why I wrote the paper I did on his view of canon, because they really don’t follow Jerome on canon. He He would have submitted to the church against his own personal view of canon, and they don’t do that. >> Yeah. And this And this isn’t in the context of the of the church, this isn’t just again a power relationship. Right? [snorts] The power and authority is here. I have to submit to it whether I like it or not. I mean, that’s kind of functionally true. But, >> the purpose of that authority The purpose [clears throat] of the gospel is transformative.

1:28:38 is me being transformed. >> Right? And so, if I just have my way and do things as I see them, I will never be transformed, like definitionally. Right? [laughter] I will remain exactly as I am, thinking exactly as I do, right? Um that yielding is yielding to being molded and shaped. Right? And And so, this is This is a core issue, I think, that emerge I really understood this after the last online conversation I had with uh Gavin Ortlund. In the Protestant paradigm, someone becomes a Christian all by themselves. Through an experience, right?

1:29:28 Through some evangelical circles saying the sinner’s prayer, which is like the evangelical shahada. Um Right? Or Or whatever, right? That They have an experience, they go to a place, they hear Let’s be fair, right? For someone like Gavin Ortlund, they hear strong preaching of the gospel message, and they accept it, right? But, the it it’s the on this individual level. Now they are a Christian. And as a Christian, they are to assemble with fellow Christians. And so they try to find a gathering of Christians with which they mostly agree. And when the rubber meets the road or they change their mind and they no longer agree, then they go and find a different one.

1:30:15 And if they can’t find one, they start That that’s >> for a new guy. And so that is exactly backwards from what being a Christian means. Right? That that that ex- Not that that experience isn’t real. Right? Or hearing the gospel and accepting it, not that that’s not real. But that’s the beginning of becoming a >> And the way you actually become a Christian is by entering into the assembly of Christians and then being shaped into a Christian by that. Being taught, discipled, led, shaped, changed, transformed into a Christian. More and more into the likeness of And so it’s a it’s a exactly a backwards way of thinking about it.

1:31:06 >> That’s encoded into the ecclesiology. Based on their view of each individual person’s conscience being sort of >> Well, let’s um let’s get to some of these super chats and comments here. Some good stuff. By the way, if you haven’t liked or subscribed yet, I don’t know what you’re waiting for. Uh go ahead and do that. We’d love to have you uh follow along with the channel. If you’re enjoying this video, give us a like. If you like having Father Stephen DeYoung on, make sure you like and let us know about it. Let’s see here. Thanks for the 100 Somebody’s saying hi. Thank you, Maria. >> That’s some kind of crypto you do on your channel. >> You know, I’m still learning the whole jewels thing. Somebody threw jewels at me.

1:31:52 I had to ask I had to literally ask a friend on the side like what does that mean they’re like here let me and I and then he explained and I’m like I still don’t know what it means it’s good is all I know so I’ll take jewels so >> I have a parishioner named Jules who has given me a lot of PTSD and so every time I hear it I get a little triggered. >> It’s a little triggered so keep the jewels down just send your straight money and what’s all this cryptic stuff listen just send the real stuff that can’t you know send you do it at Alex store and yet just send $10 that’s better no Alex says Plato brains melting at this episode and finally someone can tell me what electionary is father Stephen DeYoung any updates on the episode succession essays with Doc Branson I will pay big money for that >> Yeah so there’s a there’s a one of those like four views five views books coming out theoretically at some point where Dr.

1:32:54 Gavin Ortlund worked on one of the chapters on the Joe Protestant chapter and me and Doc uh who is Dr. Beau Branson but I call him Doc Branson cuz that just sounds cool like it sounds like a guy riding on the wings of a biplane like throwing punches like [laughter] so Doc Branson it is I the only update I have is randomly like a week or 10 days ago they floated like a really super detailed minor edit past me and Doc Branson to make sure it was okay so I guess progress is being made on it being printed that’s the first I had heard in like nine months so I think >> Tomorrow it will be sooner than it was today I don’t I don’t know.

1:33:42 >> I don’t know if [laughter] that’s the answer he’s going for by the way you mentioned how triggering jewels are and so look how many people I’m not even look at somebody sent 111 jewels five jewels 10 joules, 30 Oh my goodness. They’re going crazy. So, if you’re to to get triggered, I I didn’t do this. This is not me. These are Orthodox guys, too. I just want to throw that out there. One of them is Alex, so >> No respect. No respect. >> I’m telling you. Is this how you guys treat your priests? Come on. Oh, let’s see here. Orthodox Tony, we see the same epistolary style tradition passed on to the apostolic father Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Dionysius.

1:34:35 And I This is probably referring back to our conversation, specifically with I think this is at the point where we’re on Colossians, >> Yeah. Sending the representative to go and read it and yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Good point. And Alex says, “According to Saint Irenaeus in the apostolic preaching, the first prophecy about the new covenant church is Noah’s blessing to Japheth or Japheth.” Japheth Japheth is wild. >> Yeah, that’s the um Shem throwing open his tents to Japheth being the the father of the uh the um Western the European peoples. um specifically the Greeks. >> So, so this is pointing the fact that we have an early episode tradition that’s already looking at the Torah.

1:35:23 I’m assuming this came in when we were on the Torah side >> talking about how it’s Old Testament how he only quotes the Old Testament. And so, he goes back there and says, “Shem throwing open his tents to welcome in Japheth is a prophecy about the Gentile inclusion in the church.” >> Oh my goodness, the jewels are coming flying in. Oh my goodness. >> Japheth, by the way, is is lexically identical to Eupater, who the Greeks believed was their original ancestor from where we >> Okay. Well, that’s pretty cool. Let’s see. One Catholic threw some jewels at you. Haley did. Good for you, Haley. She’s a moderator. She does great. So, you got Haley, more jewels, and then Nick Norelli five.

1:36:10 Go team. Go team. That’s my wife. So, that’s that’s allowed, I guess. Um so, my wife threw five jewels, as well. They they uh you Oh my goodness, people. This is crazy. They’re coming after us with a I feel like I’m Listen, uh I We started something we probably shouldn’t have. We should have just praised the first two and let it go, but that’s hilarious. Somebody says, “So, why does the Orthodox Study Bible have Nehemiah, if it’s not canonical?” >> The Orthodox Study Bible has a lot of >> That’s it. Nothing else needs to be said. >> Um if you listen if you’ve listened at all to So, there’s a there’s a podcast that’s my podcast.

1:36:56 It’s not really a podcast called The Whole Council of God, which is my my parish Bible study uh that I record and got gets distributed as a podcast, where I’ve I did one pass. I went verse by verse through the whole uh the longer Orthodox canon. And now we’ve looped around and uh are doing it again. But um if you’ve listened to any of that, you you’ve heard me make many comments about the Orthodox Study Bible. most recently, uh it claims that uh traditionally Traditionally does a lot of work here. Traditionally, uh the prophet Samuel wrote the books of and First and Second Samuel or First and Second Kingdoms.

1:37:45 Um I did a little research. Traditionally here apparently means the which is kind of unique for an Orthodox source to refer to the Talmud as traditionally. Also fascinating because the prophet Samuel dies in 1st Samuel 23. meaning half of the text involved takes place after his death. So, there’s lots of things that the the Orthodox >> Kind of leaves you in a weird spot, doesn’t it? >> Yeah, part of it is The Old Testament was translated by a whole bunch of different volunteers. I’m trying to be fair.

1:38:31 They just translated from Rahlfs’ critical edition of the Greek. And so, they kind of just used whatever is in there. Which is just whatever’s in Codex But if you actually get a copy of Rahlfs, I don’t have mine handy. It’s a big thick blue text, there’s all kinds of stuff in there that’s not in the Orthodox Old Like the Odes of Solomon are in there. Stuff, right? Like >> That’s cuz it’s what’s in Codex Alexandrinus, right? That’s not >> read. It’s a great read. >> That’s So, yeah, there’s lots of things. But uh yeah, if if it was me, >> right, I would have had 1 Esdras and then I probably would have put in 2 Esdras.

1:39:18 Um It’s a But yeah, the Orthodox Study Bible has 1 Esdras in there and then it has Ezra-Nehemiah from the the Hebrew scroll. So, you literally get Esther in its entirety twice in a row. >> And then >> part of Nehemiah twice in a row. Like it’s a weird I don’t know, maybe they had to do it. There were some things they had to do to get it distributed by Thomas Nelson. And they wanted to do that to get it in Through Thomas Nelson’s distribution. There’s There’s See, there’s practicalities here, too. That’s why they use the New King James Version for the New Testament, even though nobody likes the New King James Version.

1:40:04 And if you read the study Bible notes on the New Testament, like half the study Bible notes in the Orthodox Study Bible on the New Testament are correcting the New King James Version. They’re like correcting it to the Greek and it’s like, “Why didn’t you just Well, it’s the one that Nelson owns and we want Nelson to >> Yeah, it’s it’s all about who stamps on there. It’s contracts. It’s I mean, yeah, I don’t understand. I I I really do not understand why still if if we’re all held to study Bibles, like the big one right now for for Catholics is the Ignatius Study Bible. And I mean, it’s it’s this big. I’m not even kidding. Um I I joke. My wife bought me the Ignatius Study Bible. Of course, Scott Hahn was a big part of that along with his team. And um I say, “If you buy an Ignatius Study Bible, make sure you rotate arms.

1:40:54 You’re going to have one bicep bigger than the other by the time because it’s so huge.” But like, we’re not bound to these study Bibles. I mean, >> just because they’re helpful. They’re tools, but like it’s not some binding situation that we got to we got to have this version of it or something. So, I get the question, but it’s it’s it’s almost implying something that’s just not realistic. >> have an ecumenical council where all the Orthodox bishops gathered and endorsed that the Orthodox Study Bible the text of scripture or anything. >> See. All right, this is Josh. He’s an Orthodox. He actually goes to He goes to St. John the Ladder as well with the two friends I I had mentioned James Gilbert and Tristan Parker. So, is Dr.

1:41:41 James White watching tonight for debate prep? LOL. Oh man, James >> know if I don’t think this will help him >> In terms of the topic of of the debate. >> James White needs to let me learn on his own. >> I’ve been very dogmatic about the fact that that debate is just going to be about the teaching of >> So, I am granting, for the sake of argument, Sola Scriptura to Dr. James White for the purpose of this argument. We are only going to be arguing from the scripture. I’m going to be I’m super excited about getting into the Greek with him. Uh it’s going to be we’re not uh yeah. So, >> He’ll tell you all about his debates against the uh Catholics in the 90s.

1:42:28 You get to hear about that. Uh >> I watched a bunch of those. I watched a bunch of those. >> Uh I I mean, I was on James White’s program a couple of times. We’ve done panel discussions together when I was uh Protestant. I mean, he and I were friends and now he’s like taking potshots at me at Twitter. But, somehow it’s it’s my fault, I guess, because I didn’t call him when I converted, you know. These guys don’t call me. And then he makes ridiculous assertions about uh Ignatius of Antioch and I offered to debate that and he won’t debate it unless I debate the Immaculate Conception. And then it’s just we’ve gone in circles for about 6 months now and it’s getting us nowhere. Bless his Uh seriously, I I will be watching that debate with great interest. And by the way, congratulations to myself and Alex Uh Alex, you and I were both uh blocked by Gavin Ortlund on Twitter.

1:43:19 So, congrats on that. it it’s just it’s funny uh how that works. And it’s Alex’s fault, first of all. And you can laugh about it if you want. It’s your fault. I mean, I all I did was It’s your fault that we got blocked. I just want to throw that out Uh we found another evidence that Hurtado does not hold the position that Gavin claimed. And so, I posted the evidence after I was actually found it on accident. I literally found it on accident reading um Israel’s Lord on the two powers last Commenting on Hurtado and I I highlighted it in pink, sent it over to Alex. Alex gets all excited and starts sending me a voice text saying, “Vindicated!

1:44:06 Vindicated!” And so, he was like so So, I posted it on Twitter today, tagged him and said, “Look, here’s further evidence of your thoughts and views and and then we all got blocked. So good times. Today was a a day that will live in infamy. And I blame I mean this is what I get for hanging out with the Orthodox. I get blocked with them. It’s great. Thanks a lot, Alex. Appreciate it. >> So each you you you are a uh glutton and a drunkard and a friend to Ortho Bros and sinners. >> Apparently so. >> It’s it’s it’s something I I I guess it’s a badge I’m going to have to wear and that’s fine. >> No, I’ve I’ve been I’ve been saying for years that the only person I would debate is uh Dr. James White.

1:44:53 And so he came down here to speak in uh in Opelousas, which is near near Lafayette. Uh down here at a Baptist church doing an anti-Roman Catholic thing cuz this area is super heavily Roman Catholic, right? The Cajuns. Um and so I I showed up and I brought my uh all my catechumens at the time to hear him speak. Um and gave him copies of some of my books and uh and now at the end of the long game I got an email, “Hey, do you want to debate him?” And I’m like, “Well, yeah, I’ve said all these years I he’s the only one I would debate.” >> So good. I I love it. I I love it. >> to do this. So yeah. >> No, and and I’m you know, I’m still I’m going to I mean to me going through these texts in the Greek with him in the New Testament and stuff, going through this stuff about atonement, that’s that’s fun for me.

1:45:49 Like that’s uh it’s going to be a great time as far as I’m >> subject, too. And and he’s a great debater. I mean, people I I I know people in the chat like want to treat Dr. White like he’s not an idiot. He’s very smart. I’ve I’ve watched I’ve been a part of his debate preps. He’s helped me debate prep. And he’s very very good at getting debates ready. He’s also good at shifting things when he gets cornered, but keep keep him keep him on his toes, but >> But yeah, I I I thought I thought what what Craig said the other day was was true. He said, “Hey, even if the Yankees haven’t won a World Series in a couple of years, they’re still the Yankees, you know?” >> True. [laughter] That’s true. Yeah, yeah, it’s a good way to look at it. Yeah. He is the New York Yankees of the debate world.

1:46:37 He’s still bragging about his ’90s World Series Hey, he’s still the Yankees. >> He’s still a Yankee. They’re still competitive. They’re still in the game. They still they still make a splash and have a big, big budget. Um let’s see here. There was another super chat that came in. We’ll just take a few more. If you have any more super chats, this is the time to get them in because we’re going to wrap this thing up. We’re getting right around the hour 45. I don’t want to keep Father De Young past the two. So, um if you have any more super chats and for somebody everybody’s laughing about how how shiny the program is all these jewels coming in. Just so you guys know in the audience, I’m actually going to have to go on uh you know, Google and and call a friend again and say, “What what are the jewels mean?” Cuz I got like 7 billion of them tonight.

1:47:23 Is that does that go into crypto? What like what does that mean? So, it’s unless somebody in the audience was explaining to me what it means. I’m still learning. I was just told it’s a good thing and don’t worry about it. Well, I’m worried about it now because you guys shot jewels out of left field. And if if Father De Young has to go into like some sort of therapy as a result, you’re first of all all to blame and should pitch in and pay for it. at least explain to me what this means if you’re going to send them our way, but either way. Luigi got shrooms. What a name. What a name. Father Stephen, how do you explain the contradiction in Luke 2:2 that Jesus was born during the time of King Herod, but also Oh, this is the whole census thing.

1:48:11 Ah, okay. Okay. >> somebody was cleaving to antiquity before you went live. >> What’s that? >> He was doing cleaving to antiquity. Ben was doing a debate review live before >> Oh, was he? >> we went live. >> Oh, okay. >> And this came up in the debate. So, I’m thinking maybe he was watching that >> That’s why he asked this question. >> I was like cuz I’m wondering like where in the world did this come from? I I I was wondering that. I mean, somebody asked a question, so I might as well >> Yeah. Yeah, so here’s here’s the thing you have to take into account. Um all of that dating cuz the the idea that there’s a contradiction is like when Quirinius came into what area at what year? Right?

1:48:57 And when Herod died right? There’s a gap in between there. So, it literally can’t have been at the same time. Is the idea. But the question then depends on the accuracy of the dating of those two And in in Quirinius’s case, that whole geographic thing cuz it says Quirinius was governor of Syria. Syria was not a country. >> Right? Or a single Roman province at the time we’re talking about. Syria was a region. So, the fact that Quirinius was somewhere in Asia Minor does not mean he was not in Syria. From certain perspectives. Um look at where Antioch was.

1:49:50 Um what was the city of Antioch is now in modern Turkey. not modern Syria. So, there’s that geographic issue. But also the dating of all this is way less secure than certain people looking for Bible uh would have you believe. Until about 30 35 years ago there was no non-textual evidence of the existence of Pontius Pilate. And we found some inscriptions. >> Inscriptions. [laughter] >> Since then. That’s right. That’s right. Right, that have proved that he existed. Okay. So, and that’s Pilate, who is a much more important figure than Quirinius.

1:50:42 Okay. >> In terms of relative dating. But also, if you are in the literature, you probably don’t know this, but Herod’s death has been re-dated. >> When was this? Recently? >> This is the last 15 years. >> Okay, so it’s very, very recent. So, you used to get all of these people that Christ was born in 6 BC. >> And it was because of Herod, doing the math of 2 years. >> starting with Herod. That’s right. >> Right, 2 year Yeah, it had to be at least 2 years before Herod’s death. Right? And so, everyone said Herod died in 4 BC.

1:51:29 You could Any textbook from that period, 4 BC, Herod died. Right? Everywhere you look. If you get any contemporary journal articles, they’re going to tell you Herod died in 1 BC. >> And now everybody, for that and other reasons, is actually dating Christ’s birth to 3 BC. Which lines up with a whole bunch more things, by the way. For example, 30 AD is one of the years when uh Passover fell on a Sabbath. >> So, it’s connecting the weeks together. >> So, that fits a whole bunch of things. It also fits a bunch of astrological stuff, but that’s a whole other rabbit about astrological symbolism in Revelation and in St.

1:52:20 Luke’s gospel connected to the birth of Christ. and St. Matthew’s gospel with the Magi, So, Herod’s death Now, remember, we’ve got we’ve got two events here that we’re relying on to accept. Herod’s death and when does Quirinius move to Syria? So, there’s an ambiguity about where Syria is. Herod’s death has just been moved 3 Right? And the current argument is that Quirinius came to what they want to call Syria in 6 AD. So, we’re not talking about a big gap. >> And the gap is getting smaller. Right? I would not put a lot of weight the current archaeological construction of the exact years when those things happen, cuz it can’t support that way.

1:53:19 the farther the further back you go, the worse it gets, by the way. Um if you think the Herod thing is is crazy, they just shifted the whole timeline of Egyptian history by more than a century. >> Yeah, that changes a lot of history. That doesn’t just change the biblical uh timelines of the gospels, specifically. >> I’m with Alex. I’m like, I need to look into this more. I Yeah. You said so many things today where I had to sit here and just stare and go, man, that that shifts that? That sh- I mean, it The dominoes have been hitting all night with these deep thoughts. Thank you for doing that. Uh I’m over here I’m sitting here with a I’m over here writing these things down. Like, okay, now I’ve got to look into this.

1:54:05 I’m over here with Alex. He’s like, I need to look into this. I’m writing it down, Alex. I’m writing it down. I mean, I’m sitting here like, I study this, study that. >> Yeah. Cuz everybody says everybody assumes you get to the Roman Empire, they’re like, oh, Roman records, Roman records. It’s like, yeah, in Rome. >> Stuff happening in Rome. >> Yeah, we have incredible records. >> So let me let me be clear here. So when we say Syria in Luke’s gospel, people are wrongly assuming Syria of today. >> Or something similar, yes. >> But it’s really >> reached into Eastern Asia Minor. Um it some some places refer to the whole Levant as being part of Syria. >> What’s now Lebanon was always considered part of Syria.

1:54:56 That’s [laughter] the western part of what’s now Iraq was considered Syria. >> So this goes to what we’ve been talking about this whole time when we when we’re studying these texts, we have to be when we’re coming into them and just reading them through a modern lens or a modern understanding. >> Yeah. You will see sometimes it in in really good biblical translation, sometimes you’ll see this phrase And that Coele-Syria is greater Syria, right? Like >> regional categorization of Syria. >> That’s That’s incredible. We have another super chat. Father S, you spoke with a rabbi or someone Whose show is this?

1:55:43 Father Rutich’s show? >> Jacob Jacob Rutich is a an Orthodox Jewish guy from a Hasidic background who’s a friend of mine. >> Oh, okay. >> Who has a channel and I’ve gone on there a couple of times to >> He asked about how much >> Sometimes discuss and sometimes argue. He’s got a couple friends who have a rabbinical training and stuff and we’ve argued a bunch of stuff there. >> Oh, I see. Okay. >> A lot of me defending St. Paul and different things. Yeah. >> Jewish Christians would have to internalize Paul’s anxieties about the Do we Orthodox have to internalize this >> That’s it, guys. Pack it up. Father Steven said no.

1:56:29 >> I’m not totally sure what you mean about anxieties about the law. Um I’ve got a whole book on St. Paul, St. Paul the Pharisee. that’s not only a biography and introductions to the epistles, but I did a new translation, too. from the Greek. Uh where I go into this a lot, but um I think the I mean the core thing in a lot of those discussions is their view of St. Paul. They’re very much on a version of the St. Paul hijacked the Jesus movement kind of thinking. the kind of stuff you see from like James Tabor and stuff.

1:57:20 from the Jewish perspective. And but what’s interesting is like with James Tabor it’s all very much St. Paul took it away from Judaism. St. Paul is either not Jewish or some kind of self-hating Jew and [laughter] right and didn’t know anything about Judaism and sort of de-Judaized it. What’s interesting about that is that if you’re familiar with 19th and 20th century early 20th century they’re all doing the opposite. They were all St. Paul is the evil Jewish guy who came and Judaized Chris Jesus’ movement which was, you know, uh now these were Germans, but they you know >> Father, forgive them.

1:58:08 >> Yeah, so Right, but but it’s sort of reversed. Yeah. And so a lot of our discussions and straight-up arguments I channel with a lot of those guys. has been about me trying to dem- and demonstrate that no, St. Paul really did have the Pharisaic training that the scriptures claim he had with Gamaliel and his epistles really are more intelligible from a Jewish point of view than not. Um because a lo- a lot of where they’re coming from comes from them just accepting that Martin Luther was reading St. Paul correctly. >> On the works of the law, the whole subject of the works of the law.

1:58:53 >> pretty much everything else, right? >> That’s You don’t want Luther to be your guy. You don’t want Luther to be your >> Yeah. Well, yeah, especially if you’re Jewish. Um >> No. Yeah, [laughter] of all the people, he’s not in your corner. He is not in your corner. So, but the but that’s what happens is they end up imputing a lot of that stuff to St. Paul. Right? Um which of course is totally I argue uh uh totally off base. And uh I don’t Do you know Do you know Dr. Matthew Thomas? >> I don’t think I do. >> Okay. He’s He’s one of your guys, man. He’s Roman Catholic.

1:59:40 Um >> What did What did he write? Did he write a book? >> His dissertation was published as uh St. works of the law in light of second >> Oh, yeah. So, he he published a book from the dissertation, I’m pretty sure. >> Yeah, that’s No, that is his pu- the published version of his dissertation. >> Yeah. Yeah, okay. Yes, yes, yes. Oh, I don’t know him, but I have his book. In fact, we used his book, my co-hosts and I used his book I think 2 weeks ago, maybe 3 weeks ago now on an episode. We actually read excerpts from the book cuz I had it pulled up digitally >> Okay. Yeah, >> yes, he’s Yes, I know who he is. Not Not him as a person, >> I’ve gotten to know him as a person a little bit. Um >> He’s a great writer. His writing’s >> He TA’d for Hans Boersma at one point.

2:00:29 >> So, he’s got the the cred, right? >> I I just say he’s a great His writing’s phenomenal. He does a great >> a lot of work on justification. He’s doing some work right now on >> Got to have him on the show. Well, come on, Alex. >> Epistles. So, you especially might want to talk to him about that. >> I would love to contact him on the Clementine Epistles because most of the I’m going to be careful here. Okay. A lot of those that I am friends with on the Clementine Epistles are at at podcasting. Like, they’re just They’re great people. They’re wonderful people. They’re great writers, but give them a microphone and they struggle so much.

2:01:16 By the way >> on Alex’s stream. I introduced him to Alex and he went on Alex’s stream, so Alex, I’m waiting on that text message over here. Okay, he says I’ll connect you. Perfect. Uh [laughter] so, problem solved. Now, this is great. I actually just submitted a paper to a journal. It’s It’s under peer review right now on Second Clement. I was really excited about releasing it. I’ve kind of kept that one quiet, but it is in the peer review. My Ignatius has been accepted with a few different I got to make a couple adjustments to it. I’m glad I said that out loud. I need to write that down. I need to make a few adjustments to that, but my Second Clement, so it’s really hot in my mind right now, so that’d be a great conversation. I’m leaving myself a note.

2:02:02 But anyway, the Clementine Sorry, the Clementine scholars some of those We’re talking about Clement, we’re talking about all this stuff, and my brain’s going, “Wait, I need to write that down.” But no, the Clementine scholars, for example, many of them are not They don’t want to podcast. They actually don’t want to come on shows. And And I’ve asked I’ve asked many of them. Like, “Hey, what do you think about this?” “I’m not very good at that.” I was like, “Yeah, you’re probably right.” But they’re writing. Some of these guys are doing a great job. Most are Protestant, though. I don’t I didn’t realize we had some Catholic guys out there that are that that enjoy actually coming on podcast. That’s good. That’s good. >> So, yeah. Yeah, he’s he is I’m sure he’d be willing to come talk to you and he’s uh great guy, top-notch top-notch stuff.

2:02:48 >> That’s good. All right. Well, any um last things that we need to know? I’ve got some references here for everybody, by the way, different researchers um and I can I’m going to add some links after the live stream. Uh I had worked through some of these here on allegorical interpretations, uh the religion of the apostles. Now, you said some of these have been >> Yeah, some of the So, some of those are posts on my old blog. It’s a a lot of that material has been sort of updated or revised and gone into print form in my books. I’ve got six books right now. Seventh one coming soon-ish. >> Right. Um Religion of the Apostles is the first one.

2:03:35 You can get If you go to Ancient Faith Publishing, you can and search my name, all six of them will come up and you can >> All right. And what I’ll do is I’ll send a link here to everybody, so that way you can have um a contact to Father Stephen De Young’s books. I’ve read a lot of the paper forms. There’s there’s PDFs of you everywhere online. It’s great. Uh I don’t know if that was like I I don’t know if it’s supposed to be, maybe they’re illegal. I’m sorry. >> But I did reference some digitized >> Yeah. Well, though yeah yeah, and some of the like I said, some of those are old blog posts that are in essay essay format and stuff. But yeah, the books I’ve got Religion of the Apostles, which is sort of a one-volume Orthodox biblical theology. It’s about the early Christianity, like first-century Christianity, and Second Temple Judaism.

2:04:23 Um God is a Man of War about violence in the Old Testament. Um Whole Counsel of God, that’s sort of an intro to the Saint Paul the Pharisee, that I I just talking about the Saint Paul book. >> Apocrypha, which is not about {quote} “the Apocrypha.” It’s about actual Apocrypha, like the Enochic literature, Jubilees, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, all that kind of stuff. it’s based around uh, Saint Nikephoros the Confessor of Constantinople, who was the Patriarch of Constantinople around 800, beginning of the 9th century. Um, has had a canon list where he listed the books that are read publicly by everyone, the books that are read publicly by some, and then books that are good to be read privately.

2:05:11 And that privately is where the word Apocrypha comes from. It doesn’t mean hidden or secret or banned from the Bible. It just means privately. Like, >> Um, and so the book the texts that are in there are based on his list at the beginning of the 9th century. Uh, which ones he had listed as to be read privately. Um, and then, uh, the sixth book is the Baal book, that is sort of Old Testament background going into stuff about the Baal cycle, stuff we know from archaeology about the worship of Baal in the ancient world and how that then enlightens passages in the Old Testament that have to do with Baal, or that use Baal language. >> Well, I will definitely have a link for that in the description for those, um, at the end of this video.

2:05:58 And there is one more, uh, last-minute super chat that came completely off topic. I saw in the live stream that Father Stephen was reading Blood Meridian. What do you think of it and what is Judge Holden? >> Uh, it is it is good, but not for the faint of heart. You have to understand I’m a I’m a weird sick individual. the the more sort of horrible and bleak a story is, the more I enjoy it. >> Oh my. >> So, Blood Meridian is like right up my like, I think it’s it’s it’s sort of, the equivalent of, you know, if somebody has ADHD, you give them a stimulant and that like has a counter effect and it Right? So, like I being Dutch have this naturally stoic kind of depressive personality and so when I watch just bleak horrible things happen to people, it makes me feel better.

2:06:55 Um Yeah, and I don’t I don’t I don’t think Judge Holden is a spiritual being. I just I just think I know there’s all these theories, but I think I think Judge Holden is just a uh a represent a representation of what you might call a more modern Nephilim where it like somebody who’s just been completely gone over and become demonic in their a human has become totally demonic in their aspect of their >> Wow. Okay. Well, we have admittance on on the worldwide web. No, just That’s interesting though. I Hey, some people like that kind of thing. I you know, some people can’t sleep at night if they read that kind of thing.

2:07:40 [laughter] So, everybody else My wife’s like that with certain things. Like she loves these um homicide stories and mass killings and >> she’ll she’ll Well, we’ll talk in the morning. She’ll be like, “You know, I didn’t sleep good last night.” It’s like, “Of course you didn’t sleep good last night.” Before we went to bed, you’re watching stories of how people were chopped up and put in refrigerators. Of course you didn’t sleep last night. I wouldn’t sleep either. I mean, [laughter] like I I just can’t. Some people love like these weird scenarios, mass killings. It’s like, “No, no, no, no, no. Not for me.” >> My My favorite novel of all time is Albert Camus’ The Stranger. I read when I was first time when I was 16 and was like life-changing. So, if that gives you an idea of the kind of stuff that most people find horribly depressing that I find inspiring, there’s an example.

2:08:30 >> I think Alex is trolling me on this. Is this a trap cuz you saw my post about this? Thoughts on the Native American angels in the Chosen trailer. Did you post on this too because I said something about this yesterday and everybody got all hysterical, but thoughts on the Native American angels in the chosen trailer, Mormon influence? >> Like I have I have eschewed I have eschewed the the whole chosen thing in the first place. So, there’s probably a little bit of that. It’s kind of an inverse of if you’ve ever seen the movie Prophecy with Christopher Walken. Uh there’s a whole scene where the devil shows up and the devil is played by Viggo Mortensen. In the >> in the movie.

2:09:17 Yes, and there’s a Native American context to it. So, I get maybe this is the inverse they’re trying to be pro pro-Native American spirituality rather than having portraying them as devil worshipers as the prophecy did. Um >> But is it But is it the Mormon influence is the real question. See, people don’t even know what they’re talking about. I mean, I posted on this. >> Tech- Technically speaking, I think My understanding of Mormonism is that the the native of the darker-skinned Native Americans are the Lamanites and they’re the not good ones. >> I’m looking for >> the Jewish ones. >> People are making me do this. >> I’ve got to I’ve got to put it up here.

2:10:05 I’m sorry. Hold on. Let’s see if I can get it to work. Everybody wants to know what we’re talking about. That is the >> corny to me, but >> I I’m not going to lie. I thought it was AI. I’m not even kidding. I I I really did. I I really did. I I saw it flash on the TV or on the computer screen when I was sitting there going through and scrolling through Facebook. I was like, “Oh, somebody’s AI made some new clip cuz everybody’s got these chosen clips now that are fake. They’re not even real.” I just thought it was another chosen clip that somebody did out of AI.

2:10:55 I I had no idea. And then it turns out it was real and then Dallas whatever his name is that put these out. He’s like bragging about it on social media. I said, “You’re proud of this? This is incredible.” This is incredible. >> No, I have I but I I’m I have no real familiarity with The Chosen. I was a consultant on the first season of House of David on Amazon Prime. >> I heard that. >> Not the second season, but I I was actually a consultant on the first and I don’t take credit or blame for most of the first season. >> I really enjoyed some of that. I’m not >> There were a couple scenes that did come from me. >> Can you share those? >> Um the one for sure came from me was the scene with Agag. >> who’s the Amalekite king.

2:11:41 >> Yeah. Saul was supposed to kill every he Uh so, here’s the funny thing. Uh that thing he’s saying in the scene >> the language whatever language that was. And that came from you. >> I put that Yes, that’s an actual Ugaritic death curse. >> with a couple pieces left out, but Um and he actually called me from the the day they were filming that cuz he wanted me to go over it with him. >> So that the pronunciation >> So that he got the pronunciation correct and he wanted to know what each word meant to help him deliver it. >> Yeah, you want to be passionate and play the part. Yeah. >> Yes, yeah. Yeah. So, I So, this super long distance phone call. >> Well, that’s really cool.

2:12:29 I I actually again, I was really into it. I was binge watching it there for a while. I I really enjoyed it. Um I didn’t I I You know what? I had heard rumors that that was something you were part of, but I did not realize that was Well, that’s cool. Well, congrats on that. Way to make an Ugaritic death curses, who would have >> Well, you said you like dark things. I mean I mean we just heard it. It’s like did they consult you for theology accuracy of David? The No, came in at Ugaritic death curses. That was That is awesome. That is >> We got We need a realistic Amalekite king right here. >> That is so cool. Well, I appreciate you coming on and you know, getting through some of the discussion.

2:13:17 I’m not sure if it was coherent. But we we answered a lot of questions about interpreting scripture, looking at scripture through the historic lens of the church. I think there’s a lot for people to digest and take in and I hope that those that listen would take notes and go back and listen to this again. If you really enjoyed this, something I’d appreciate you guys to do is not just put something in the comments here. By the way, I linked the website to find all of Father DeYoung’s books. All of those it’s in there and then I will link it in the description as well. But a way to show your support and appreciation for this would be to leave a comment after the video’s over. Let us know how you enjoyed it afterwards. That really helps videos not just in the live chat and you guys are still throwing jewels at us.

2:14:03 But yes, also Haley is correct. Do not forget to like the video and they’re still coming. They’re still coming and this is all the Orthodox fault. All right, you guys are killing me over here and you’re going to make me show every single one of them. But Father, thank you for coming on. I know your time is precious and you have a lot of things that you’re you’re doing right now and studying and getting ready for debate. So, I appreciate your time. It means a lot to us and we appreciate the friendship even though, you know, we’re obviously in the system over here. We We love our Eastern Orthodox and we appreciate your work. You’ve done a great job. You do great great research and writing. I’ve learned from you and I learned from you in the show. So, I really do appreciate you and and the work that you put into things.

2:14:51 >> Thank God. And and to all the haters, see I can speak with Roman Catholic people and be nice. >> We can get along. >> There’s there’s there’s there’s opportunities. I just think we need to take them. [laughter] Again, I I I’m telling you like there’s there’s so many things um and just saying this I I’d the attacks that have come on Christianity, especially from the Orthodox Alex and I were talking this earlier today against Orthodoxy and Catholicism are the things that actually united us for the first thousand years of the church. Some of the most essential beliefs um if there was a reason for Orthodox and Catholics to come together, it’s to squash Protestantism trying to and kidnap our inheritance and and to squander it. And so there’s so many things. I mean the the filioque and papal supremacy, we can put that aside.

2:15:39 It’s been going on for years. >> I wish you guys would put those aside. That would be great. >> sure of course. >> I I I’LL TALK TO YOU AFTER WE GET OFF the stream. I was I was talking about how you know if there’s two crises in a house, you’ve got the microwave your wife comes and says the microwave went out and your daughter comes to you and says, “Dad, the bathroom’s you know water shooting everywhere. The pipes are busted.” You know that some some things you just put aside. The microwave is important, but it’s not the most important thing. We’ve got a leak. I think that we can put aside some of these other things right now that we’re probably not going to resolve in our lifetimes anyway. Um and focus on the things that actually do unite the East and the West. And these important things like the the attacks on the intercession of the saints, the attacks on the Theotokos.

2:16:26 And some all of a sudden Pelagianism is now a good thing again. Um I mean I I can’t even believe we’re having have the conversations we are. So I think it’s good that we we get together and we talk about the things that did unite our churches and and pray for unity and pray the Lord would work in our leaders and our churches. And uh I’m not going to figure it out. I can tell you that. And I don’t people on the internet figured it out. Those things those things are ultimately an attack on >> I mean it’s kind of that simple. It’s an attack on Christianity. It’s not it’s not an attack on some system within Christianity or something. It I mean that’s Like we talked about with the Baptists, there’s a thousand years where nobody’s validly baptized apparently, right?

2:17:12 Like You can’t um I mean it was a real irony. I’m not I’m not here to to bash Dr. Gavin Ortlund because I actually like the guy. I’ve met him in person and I I like him. but he put up a he put up a video at one point about, you know, why reasons why he wouldn’t become or couldn’t or I forget how he phrased it, become Eastern Orthodox. And one of them was like oh, he would have to reject the whole Western tradition and say there was, you oh, that was all wrong. And I’m like, well, to be a reformed Baptist, you’re rejecting the Eastern and the Western tradition for at least a thousand years.

2:18:03 You know, um >> he’s rejected the Western tradition by at least not being Catholic from that from my perspective. >> Right, but I mean even even from, you know, he’s saying that during that thousand years, you know, the church that was copying the the scriptures were of no effect. >> And if they’re able to completely accurately copy them but not understand them or preach them correctly or understand that very basic things to Christian faith and practice were unbiblical for all that time. And it’s not even as if the magisterial reformers suddenly realized they were unbiblical. Most of these things the magisterial reformers still held to. >> Yes, they did. Yes, they did. >> It’s not until the 18th and 19th that Protestants, particularly American Protestants, suddenly discovered that these things were unbiblical and had been all along.

2:19:00 >> You’re you’re 100% right, and and I just did an episode on this last week on Saturday just talking about are are you actually a part of the Reformation or the Radical Reformation because most of those things you know, most of those things have really played out that most people today in the Pentecostal Baptist world they’re they’re product of the Radical Reformation, not the Magisterial >> Although I have to I have to be honest, I think you’re being a little unfair to the Radical Reformation there because the Mennonites and the uh >> the Quakers and the uh I think their tradition is actually I would I would I think there’s more of value there than there is in American Evangelicalism. >> I would agree. I would agree. >> Non-confessional Protestants. I distinguish between Evangelicalism and confessional Protestantism.

2:19:49 I think they’re two different things, right? So I’m not talking about confessional Protestants like Gavin Ortlund or James White or any of those folks, Mike Horton, any of those folks. They’re in a different category. But American Evangelicalism, your non-denominational Right? Your independent fundamentalist Baptist churches. That that is >> the Walmartization of something resembling Christianity. Like that’s not >> the main framework of the of the Radical Reformation was a rejection of institutional churches, and that’s what led to all these autonomous independent, you know, freelancing churches. And so these products have come from that movement. It’s unfortunate in in some senses cuz obviously Luther didn’t care for those crowds at all.

2:20:36 But the Walmartization is an interesting way to put it, for sure. >> But anyway >> Low-value Christianity, yeah. >> So good. Well, all right, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining this episode of Facts. Again, leave us a comment, leave us a like. Would love to have you back on future episodes, so make sure you subscribe as well. As always, folks, grace and peace to you. God bless.