Part 2: How to reconcile orthodox Christian theology with historical criticism: The Answer! (2021-01-01) ​

0:00:01 hello this is part two uh
0:00:03 of uh my discussion of how is it
0:00:06 possible to reconcile
0:00:08 orthodox christian theology when it
0:00:09 comes to the trinity
0:00:11 the incarnation the deity of christ with
0:00:14 historical criticism and its emphasis
0:00:16 on the historical objective reading of
0:00:19 texts without
0:00:20 later presuppositions and ideas
0:00:22 intruding anachronistically
0:00:24 into our reading of text try to
0:00:26 understand it as an original
0:00:28 historical context so um i'm
0:00:31 reading from this book by dale martin
0:00:35 which
0:00:36 is written in part to offer the solution
0:00:39 to this and i want to share with you the
0:00:41 solution and discuss the merits
0:00:43 or otherwise of his proposed solution to
0:00:45 this contradiction because
0:00:47 new testament scholars overwhelmingly
0:00:48 are christians they believe in
0:00:50 christianity
0:00:51 and yet their own profession the text
0:00:53 they study suggests a very different
0:00:55 kind of understanding of
0:00:56 jesus god and so on than the one they
0:00:59 believe and how do they reconcile how do
0:01:01 they live with this contradiction if it
0:01:02 is a contradiction
0:01:04 and dale martin the professor from yale
0:01:06 offers um
0:01:07 a uh according to the reviewers on the
0:01:10 back of the book
0:01:10 um a very good plausible solution
0:01:14 so i want to share that solution with
0:01:15 you and you may assess it
0:01:17 uh for your own use uh for yourselves
0:01:21 so um i got to the bit in the passage
0:01:23 where he is discussing
0:01:25 paul's views of god and christ in 1
0:01:28 corinthians
0:01:29 chapter 11 verse 3. i'll just read the
0:01:32 passage or the verse
0:01:33 but i want you to understand says paul
0:01:35 that christ is the head of every man
0:01:38 and the husband is the head of his wife
0:01:41 and
0:01:41 god is the head of christ that's what
0:01:44 paul
0:01:45 says so here we have jesus in heaven
0:01:47 this is after the resurrection after the
0:01:49 ascension
0:01:50 this is uh paul's theology of of god
0:01:54 if you like his understanding of the
0:01:55 hierarchy within the godhead if that's
0:01:57 what it is
0:01:58 so dale martin says although paul
0:02:00 believes jesus is divine in some sense
0:02:04 he seems not to accord jesus complete
0:02:06 divine equality with god the father
0:02:08 he can speak of christ and god as two
0:02:11 different persons
0:02:12 in a hierarchical relationship when paul
0:02:15 in 1 corinthians
0:02:17 11 3 offers something of an equation
0:02:20 christ is the head of man man is the
0:02:22 head of woman
0:02:23 god is the head of christ we must assume
0:02:26 subordinate relations in each case the
0:02:29 parallelism
0:02:30 doesn't work otherwise christ is no more
0:02:33 equal to god
0:02:35 the man is to christ
0:02:38 so here we here we have uh our first
0:02:41 problem
0:02:42 uh del martin candidly acknowledges that
0:02:45 paul is not giving us
0:02:46 uh the definition of the trinity which i
0:02:48 mentioned in the previous video
0:02:50 where the three distinct persons are
0:02:52 equal in divinity they're not clearly
0:02:54 here they are subordinate the son of
0:02:56 christ rather
0:02:57 is subordinate to god he was another
0:02:59 being
0:03:01 then he says the same seems to be
0:03:03 assumed in another passage in 1
0:03:05 corinthians
0:03:06 15 24 to 28
0:03:09 which i'll just read to you it says the
0:03:12 same letter of paul
0:03:14 and verses 24
0:03:18 to 28 where paul
0:03:21 says then comes the end when the
0:03:25 when he hands over the kingdom to god
0:03:28 the father
0:03:29 after he has destroyed every ruler and
0:03:31 every authority and power
0:03:33 this is he meaning jesus of course for
0:03:36 he must reign
0:03:37 until he has put all his enemies under
0:03:40 his feet
0:03:41 the last enemy to destroy to be
0:03:43 destroyed is death
0:03:44 for god has put all things in subjection
0:03:48 under his feet but when it says all
0:03:50 things are put
0:03:51 in subjection it is plain that this does
0:03:54 not include the one
0:03:56 who put all things in subjection under
0:03:58 him
0:03:59 when all things are subjected to him
0:04:01 then the son himself will also be
0:04:04 subjected to the one who put all things
0:04:06 in subjection under him
0:04:08 so that god may be all in all
0:04:13 so uh dale martin says the same may be
0:04:15 assumed later in 1 corinthians 15
0:04:18 god temporarily puts all things
0:04:21 under subjection to christ who after
0:04:24 subjecting all things to himself
0:04:27 then puts everything again under
0:04:28 subjection to god
0:04:30 including himself again of a
0:04:33 hierarchical relationship with the son
0:04:35 very much subordinated to god he
0:04:38 continues
0:04:39 some texts of the new testament do
0:04:41 accept
0:04:42 the divinity of jesus but they seem not
0:04:45 to all agree about when
0:04:47 jesus became divine as i've said a
0:04:49 number of times in the ancient world
0:04:51 in judaism and in the greco-roman world
0:04:54 there was a spectrum of beliefs about
0:04:56 the divinity some people were
0:04:58 those obviously god himself the most
0:05:00 high law the
0:05:01 yahweh but other beings could also be
0:05:04 called divine in some sense
0:05:06 uh the king in psalm 45 is addressed as
0:05:09 god um
0:05:10 melchizedek is also seen as divine
0:05:13 figure in the dead sea scrolls
0:05:15 and um the son of hezekiah
0:05:18 in isaiah is also called god that's in
0:05:21 isaiah 9
0:05:22 6 and so on and so on there are many
0:05:24 examples
0:05:25 so some early christians believe that
0:05:28 jesus was a mere
0:05:29 human at his birth but that he was
0:05:32 adopted
0:05:33 as god's son some time later
0:05:36 according to what may be the original
0:05:38 reading of luke 3
0:05:40 22 yes this is luke believing this
0:05:43 3 22 you are my son the beloved
0:05:46 today i have begotten you jesus is
0:05:49 begotten by god
0:05:51 at his baptism according to some other
0:05:55 early christians
0:05:55 apparently jesus became god's son only
0:05:58 at his resurrection
0:06:01 as reflected in passages in acts
0:06:04 in one sermon delivered by peter in acts
0:06:06 god made
0:06:07 jesus lord and messiah at some point
0:06:11 acts 2 36 so jesus wasn't lord or
0:06:14 messiah before
0:06:16 god another being made jesus lord and
0:06:19 messiah
0:06:20 at that particular point acts 2 36
0:06:23 in a later sermon of paul in acts one
0:06:26 statement suggests that god adopted
0:06:28 jesus
0:06:29 as his son at the resurrection this is
0:06:32 acts
0:06:33 13 32-33
0:06:36 paul himself seems to portray knowledge
0:06:38 of such a christology
0:06:40 in one of his letters in romans chapter
0:06:43 1 verse 4
0:06:44 paul says that god designated jesus as
0:06:47 the son of god
0:06:48 by resurrection from the dead the most
0:06:52 normal reading
0:06:53 of the greek would be that god made
0:06:55 jesus his son
0:06:57 by means of the resurrection so jesus
0:06:58 wasn't god's son
0:07:00 in your entire life until the
0:07:02 resurrection when god made him
0:07:04 that way um made him his son by means of
0:07:07 resurrection in the way a priest or pope
0:07:10 or other authority
0:07:11 made someone a king or queen at the time
0:07:14 of the declaration or
0:07:16 coronation so this might be paul's
0:07:19 understanding in romans 1
0:07:21 that this terminology is recited by paul
0:07:23 is significant
0:07:24 since paul himself seems to believe that
0:07:27 jesus was god's son
0:07:28 already in some pre-existence state
0:07:30 philippians 2
0:07:31 5 to 11. i take it that paul is here
0:07:35 quoting a formula
0:07:37 about christ he had encountered
0:07:39 elsewhere
0:07:41 so he's quoting an earlier creedal
0:07:44 belief about jesus
0:07:45 at any rate one can cite new testament
0:07:47 texts that on their
0:07:48 surface on their face do not reach a
0:07:51 very orthodox christology and certainly
0:07:54 not
0:07:55 trinitarian certainly not trinitarian
0:07:58 as the passages and there are many
0:08:00 others he's just cited
0:08:02 and here we come to the paragraph which
0:08:06 is dale martin's solution to
0:08:09 this paradox this contradiction
0:08:11 apparently between his own personal
0:08:13 beliefs and jesus deity and
0:08:14 everything he's just said about the
0:08:16 historical meaning of these texts in
0:08:19 paul and the gospels and here we go
0:08:21 it will be my contention in this chapter
0:08:24 however
0:08:25 that we need not become bad historians
0:08:28 in order to be good theologians
0:08:31 even if the new testament authors were
0:08:33 not familiar
0:08:35 with the doctrine of the trinity as it
0:08:36 became defined in the great creeds and
0:08:39 councils
0:08:40 we may take the liberty of reading the
0:08:43 new testament
0:08:44 theologically rather than historically
0:08:47 as teaching trinitarian theology
0:08:51 and he spends the rest of the chapter
0:08:52 illustrating how to do that
0:08:55 so he was he says even if the new
0:08:57 testament authors
0:08:58 uh were not familiar with it with the
0:09:00 doctrine of the trinity
0:09:02 we may take the liberty he says
0:09:05 of reading the new testament in a
0:09:07 christian way
0:09:08 theologically he says in terms of later
0:09:11 christian beliefs
0:09:12 rather than historically in other words
0:09:14 in terms of the actual historical
0:09:16 teaching of these texts
0:09:18 as teaching trinitarian theology
0:09:21 so there we have it are you as impressed
0:09:23 with this as i was when i first came
0:09:25 across this chapter
0:09:27 uh okay so how do you reconcile how do
0:09:30 you square the circle
0:09:32 you take liberties with the text it
0:09:35 doesn't say
0:09:36 jesus it doesn't teach the trinity but
0:09:38 you read into those passages
0:09:41 trinitarian theology and that's how you
0:09:44 do it and he goes through some passages
0:09:47 which in their historical context in
0:09:49 other words what was meant by the
0:09:50 authors as far as we can tell in their
0:09:52 first century context did not
0:09:54 teach trinitarian theology did not teach
0:09:56 jesus
0:09:57 was god but we read them theologically
0:10:01 to mean that they did teach that now
0:10:03 this is called in the trade
0:10:05 esogesis meaning you read something into
0:10:08 a text
0:10:09 rather than exegesis which is the
0:10:11 historical critical method of reading
0:10:13 trying to uncover as best we can the
0:10:15 historical meaning
0:10:16 and the author's meaning of a text so
0:10:19 this is the great solution
0:10:21 you basically um read stuff in
0:10:24 you read your later christian theology
0:10:26 into earlier texts
0:10:28 as if those earlier texts were saying
0:10:30 something that they were not saying
0:10:32 you practice anachronism so when jesus
0:10:35 is portrayed uh uh well i'm not gonna go
0:10:38 this is
0:10:39 uh too much to go into in one video but
0:10:41 i want to
0:10:42 share with you the great solution and
0:10:44 how personally
0:10:46 i was disappointed by this because i
0:10:48 expected something slightly more
0:10:50 creditable
0:10:51 and morally uh meritorious than simply
0:10:54 changing the text
0:10:56 to make them what we want them to
0:10:57 believe today
0:10:59 that's not in my view honest it lacks
0:11:03 integrity it's not taking the bible
0:11:06 seriously
0:11:07 it's imposing our own later ideas which
0:11:09 are quite different
0:11:11 onto the bible to make it say
0:11:14 shall we say torture it into saying what
0:11:17 we
0:11:17 want it to say so we are hearing our own
0:11:19 thoughts echo back to us we're not
0:11:21 really attending to
0:11:23 what paul says or matthew mark and luke
0:11:25 we're hearing our own thoughts read back
0:11:27 to
0:11:28 us through our through this echo that we
0:11:30 give it
0:11:31 um and um i'm disappointed
0:11:35 um in this great professor at yale for
0:11:37 offering this as
0:11:38 solution we may take the liberty he says
0:11:42 of reading the new testament uh reading
0:11:45 into the new testament the later
0:11:46 christian doctrine
0:11:48 and that's how you save your orthodox
0:11:51 christian
0:11:51 faith so to be so judgmental but i i
0:11:54 expected more
0:11:56 from dale martin
0:11:58 Music
0:11:59 than that but there you have it that is
0:12:01 how you reconcile
0:12:03 traditional orthodox christian beliefs
0:12:05 about the trinity about the incarnation
0:12:07 about the
0:12:08 deity of jesus about the father son and
0:12:11 holy spirit being equal
0:12:13 that's how you reconcile those beliefs
0:12:15 with the uh the
0:12:17 christian scriptures um and you you
0:12:20 basically
0:12:20 read your views into it and say lo
0:12:24 the bible is orthodox but the bible
0:12:27 isn't orthodox
0:12:28 it doesn't say what you want it to say
0:12:30 we must be honest
0:12:31 and take our texts as they stand and
0:12:34 they lead
0:12:36 inevitably into a very different kind of
0:12:38 belief about jesus
0:12:40 it means interestingly that people like
0:12:42 aries the great heretic
0:12:44 uh of the fourth century arianism
0:12:47 uh is much closer to the teaching of the
0:12:50 new testament
0:12:51 then athanasius beliefs about the
0:12:54 trinity
0:12:55 it means that those who were scorned and
0:12:57 oppressed and uh
0:12:58 kicked out excommunicated from the
0:13:00 church for so-called heresy
0:13:02 uh like aries and many others like him
0:13:04 were actually closer to the truth
0:13:06 of jesus about jesus than those who
0:13:10 by fair means and foul came to dominate
0:13:14 the church's discourse on theology
0:13:17 anyway that's my view till next time