Friday, December 1st | The Longer Reading of Ephesians 5:30 (pt.4)

Merry Christmas, everyone! It's December. It's December the first. It's Christmas the first.

Oh, that's right. September, October, November, Christmas. Happy Christmas the first.

Christmas the first. I'm Ryan Hill. I'm Jon Galantis. And you're listening to Clear View Today with Dr. Abbadan Shah, the daily show that engages mind and heart for the gospel of Jesus Christ. You can visit us online at ClearViewTodayShow.com or if you have any questions for Dr. Shah or suggestions for new topics, send us a text at 252-582-5028 or you can email us at contact at ClearViewTodayShow.com. That's right, and you guys can help us keep the conversation going by supporting the show. You can share it online with your friends and your family. You can leave us a good five-star review on iTunes or Spotify, anywhere you get your podcasting content from.

We're going to leave a couple of links in the description so you can do just that. And today's Christmassy verse is coming to us from Matthew 1-20. For while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. So beautiful, and we're going to talk about this in light of Christmas in just a second, but I always love when angels appear and they're like, do not be afraid. Because in popular media they're portrayed like these beautiful or handsome kind of majestic blonde, like, do not be afraid. But we don't know that's what angels look like. Angels could have been like 13 eyes and seven wings and just kind of like a giant wheel on fire. Do not be afraid. There was a reason they said don't be afraid because you were afraid. I thought for sure that was not the way you were going to go. I thought you were going to say angels could be like what we also see, which is they just look like regular people, like in a business suit or whatever, or I guess in like a robe. Like the head of a bull.

So fish face, 13 eyes, he comes up out of the water, Godzilla style, and he's on fire. Do not be afraid. Are you sure about that? I feel like the Renaissance people may have had some sort of insight when they painted them as just like regular people but with wings. But I don't know why I think that.

It doesn't translate very well to like a fresco, like a mural, you know, whatever. He says don't be afraid to take to you marry your wife, meaning he was able to discern Joseph's heart. He was clearly not of this world. But the truth of the matter is the baby that was in her was of the Holy Spirit, means this is the one that everybody has been waiting for. All these false alarms throughout history is culminating in your wife.

And you are privileged to be part of that. We talk a lot about Mary being chosen, like she's the one who was the mother of Jesus. But Joseph was also chosen.

Let's not forget that. Joseph and Mary came as a package deal. And Joseph had a lot to overcome. I mean, he was betrothed to Mary, but then on the surface it looked like she's unfaithful to him. And by all intents and purposes, society wouldn't have blamed him if he had divorced her quietly. But he was obedient to God and what God had called him to be, because he had the calling on him to be the earthly father that Jesus needed as he was growing up.

That's a big deal. They both sacrificed in their own way. And it's such a great picture of how men and women, husbands and wives, have different but still equal roles.

The roles that they play. Mary clearly made a sacrifice, a pregnancy that she didn't ask for, didn't plan on, but she carried to term and actually raised the Son of God. It was a huge sacrifice that she did for the love of God. So also with Joseph, he made that sacrifice as well. Albeit, it was different.

And yet they both completed it and fulfilled it in their own way that God had given to them. That's right. You're excited about it being Christmas. It's Christmas time. Here's the thing.

I'm with you now. At least we can meet here and say it's at least December. Right. So you got your Christmas mug.

It says, keep calm and get your ho ho ho on. I'm not going to point out that you've been drinking out of that since October. Yes. Yeah. So you're just like non-stop Christmas. I've always been this way.

Yep, since I was a kid. Let's rank order this. You're at the top. 10 out of 10. Christmas is great.

100 percent. I don't think I'm a one. I don't hate Christmas, but I would put myself at a three.

I'm ambivalent. Yeah, I would say one is like an Ebenezer Scrooge at the beginning of Christmas Carol. Yes. I hate Christmas. Christmas is worthless. It's pointless. It's bad. Yeah. I'm not there.

I would say a three or a four where I'm fine. Keep it quiet. Keep the festivities quiet. Let's do our Christmas. Let's have fun.

On Christmas Day, absolutely. Go all out. But, you know, leading up to it, I'd say put me at a three and a four. Where do you think you fall, Dave?

I'm like a three. Yeah? Yeah. I think Christmas has a great purpose and a great meaning as far as, you know, Christianity and Christ coming into the world. I think that Christmas should be celebrated at the very most starting in December. I don't think it should have any like... Like September's crazy, right? September's crazy.

October's crazy. November, you're getting there, but people start in November, stop, go to Thanksgiving, and then restart. Right. I think that just wait until... They take a Thanksgiving break.

Right. I think that wait until December. December 1st, you start playing Christmas music. You start doing your decorations, that kind of stuff. I don't decorate because I don't see the purpose in it. Yeah. Did you decorate with your mom when you were a kid? She decorated. Okay.

I was just there. Okay. Also, I don't have a family or children, so I don't have any point in decorating.

It's not going to be a fun thing. Yeah, it's like you decorate your house and then you just sit down and look at it. Yeah. Or you ignore it. Correct.

If it would be a fun thing to do... That's what you do? You just... Yes. You decorate your house and you sit down and look at it.

You want the atmosphere so that you can sink down like you're in a hot bath. That's the one. And bask in the wintery... Like the... Fireplace. Uh-huh. Crackling. Stockings.

Stockings are hung by the chimney with care. That is what it is. If you don't like it, then I don't know what to tell you. I don't want to say I don't like it because... Have a cup of Christmas cheer. I feel like I'll get blasted in the Clearview Today mailbox with me being a Grinch. You can't be a Christian and be a full-on Grinch. You can't do it.

You have to at least be a three or a four. Yeah. Yeah.

Because you will get some hate for that. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. That's true.

They're like, oh, you don't like Jesus's birthday? Okay. All right. All right. Okay.

Yeah, I like it. I'll meet you at a four. I'll meet you at a Christmas season... Season, not holiday.

Season begin for you and why is it September? Or you can visit us online at clearviewtodayshow.com. Stay tuned. We'll be right back. What's going on, listeners? My name is Jon.

And I'm David. And we hope you are enjoying the podcast thus far. You know, we really appreciate how many of you download the podcast every day.

Right. But we also want to remind you that we are first and foremost a radio show. Clearview today is actually syndicated through the Truth Network and we just want to let you know right now that in addition to hosting the all-time best Christian talk show of all time Hashtag Clearview today.

Hashtag Clearview today. The Truth Network also as it turns out has an extensive library of Christian programming We really love everything they're doing at the Truth Network because the whole goal is to encourage, challenge, confront, and uplift listeners with the life-changing truth of Jesus Christ through Christian talk radio. And listen, we know we're not the only show wanting to expand its audience So if you have a vision for your show or for your ministry Why don't you consider syndicating your show through the Truth Network because they rely on decades of experience of self syndication with a full array of features for your long-form or short-form content.

Make sure you visit the Truth Network online today at truthnetwork.com or you can give them a call at 336-759-0363 Again, that's 336-759-0363. Well John, are you ready? I was born ready, my friend. Let's hop right back in.

Welcome back to Clearview today with Dr. Abaddon Shah, the daily show that engages mind and heart for the gospel of Jesus Christ You can visit us online at clearviewtodayshow.com or if you have any questions or suggestions for new topics send us a text at 252-582-5028 That's right, Dr. Shah. Happy Christmas. Merry Christmas. For a second I thought I was in Britain or something. Happy Christmas.

In India, that's what you say. You say happy Christmas? There's no Merry Christmas.

I think Merry is just an America thing, right? Wow. Happy America. That's why they started it. That's it.

No, I'm just kidding. It's like people in Washington himself started it. And it shall be Merry Christmas.

Because it's America. That's right, that's right. America Christmas. Happy Christmas, Merry Christmas. We did want to let you know that the month of December is no more.

It goes, what did you say, October, November? October, November, Christmas. Of course, this is Christmas month. We're on Christmas the first.

Christmas the first. That's what my calendar says. I don't know about y'all.

You said it in the intro and it still cracks me up. I don't know about y'all. That's what my calendar says. Tomorrow is Saturday, Christmas the second. Correct.

That's right. You know what better way to start off the Christmas season than right here in the Clearview Today studio with Dr. Abaddon Shah, who is a Ph.D. not only in Christmas, but in New Testament textual criticism as well. He's also a professor at Carolina University, author, full-time pastor, and the host of today's Christmas show.

Right? The host of today's Christmas show. What could be more Christmasy than diving into Ephesians 5-30 with some more New Testament textual criticism? Well, because textual criticism is like the field of Christmas. It just keeps on giving. It just keeps on giving. There's always new presents to be found.

Well, we said that in one of the earlier shows. It's like... Lots of new variants to be found. Exactly, yeah.

There's all... you just keep digging. You like dig into the stocking. It's like... Right. There's something more. Well, we have been talking a lot about textual criticism this week because you were able to go to ETS this past week to present this paper on Ephesians 5-30. And it was one of the things that I think we haven't even begun to see the fruits of it yet. But we know that God is working and moving through it.

Oh, absolutely. This paper enabled me to dive back into the field and once again to realize why God called me into this field. Why he called me into New Testament textual criticism.

When I first began my Ph.D. work, it was... or first began pursuing a Ph.D. degree, I was kind of conflicted. Should I go into Old Testament or New Testament? Should I go into just New Testament as in grammar or some literary device or some theology? Or should I go into this field of textual criticism, which is actually lower criticism? In New Testament studies or in biblical studies, there's higher criticism and lower criticism. Higher criticism is the field of questioning the veracity or even like form criticism, source criticism.

This all falls under higher criticism. Did it really happen? Did it really happen?

Did the miracles happen? That all falls under higher critical studies. Lower criticism is actually textual criticism, where you're looking at the text to see was this in the original autographs?

Was this in the original manuscripts? And so I chose this subject. I was like, you know, I feel like looking at the text is at the heart of this Ph.D. True.

I want to do this. Yeah. And I love how you said like talking about this specific paper as a chance to dive back into the field, because a lot of people don't know.

Like we say it that way for a reason. Dr. Shah has a Ph.D. in New Testament textual criticism, but also a professor. You spend time teaching. You're a professor at Carolina University, an author. You write books. You're a full time pastor. And we do this radio show.

So there's five big components of what you do and how you contribute to the field. And people only assume at any one time you're wearing one hat. So like your students are like, Dr. Shah is just a professor. This is what he does all the time. People here at the church are like, he's a pastor. This is what he does. People who read your books, like he just spends his time writing these books.

They don't realize that these are five major hats to be wearing. And sometimes it involves taking one off, putting another one on, still doing it, but having to focus heavy on this one. So this Ephesians 5.30 thing has been a chance for you to really, like you said, dive back into the field of criticism.

Dude, the original field. And it felt great. It was tough because I had to discipline myself. I had to set a limit of at least three to four hours a day. I'm going to stay in this topic. I'm not going to let up until it happens.

And sometimes I did five to six hours a day. Some days it was hard because of meetings and I'm on several boards and church leadership management. So many things are going on. We're adding on. Our church is expanding, growing.

So we're building a new sanctuary. So because of that, my time was taken away. But I disciplined myself to dig into this field and to refresh a lot. A lot of things I already knew, but I had to get a refresher.

And then a lot of things I had sort of put on the back burner that I was able to bring back to the front and study them. And then the paper was the final outcome. And still work in progress because even though I presented the paper, I got a lot of good feedback. And I'm going to be adding some things, deleting some things, editing some things. And then it'll be published, already promised on a blog site, a famous blog site.

We're going to make it public later on. And then it'll also be going into a theological journal. That's right. That's incredible. And that's a big deal because people, you already have made a connection with a Bible translator who's like, hey, I want to dive into this subject a little more with you, which means that this paper could be, and will contribute to a future translation of the Word of God. That's a huge deal. Of course. And I'm grateful for that. Whether I get credit for that or not, it's a great thing to know that someone said, this helped me a lot. Thank you.

And we're going to be considering this at the paper, at their meeting. And so I was pretty excited about that. Yeah, that's really awesome. That's really awesome.

Do you want to talk a little bit more about Ephesians 5.30, just kind of diving a little further into the paper? Yeah, we're just going on and on. Every show we're adding a little bit here and there and kind of going off on rabbit trails.

No, I love it. So, kind of moving along, sometimes people wonder if, how do scholars discuss these variants? Do they even talk about them in their commentaries?

Well, yes. And I don't have time to go list all the scholars who have discussed this reading in some form or another. But just kind of moving along, I come across one by a scholar by the name of E.K. Simpson.

E.K. Simpson wrote a commentary on Ephesians, along with F.F. Bruce, who wrote the commentary on Colossians.

They put this one commentary together in the New International Commentary series. And in his commentary, what I like about E.K. Simpson is that he has a way with words. He may not dig deep in Greek and all that stuff for the reader, but he has a way with words. So he says this about this reading. He says, and he's in favor of the longer reading. He says, it means this longer reading delineates with a realism no other phraseology could equal the inwardness of the union of the Lord and his people.

And accords with the previous declaration that he who loves his wife loves himself and that none hate their own flesh. Wow. Wow. He does. He certainly does have a way with words. I guess what I did, even though the paper was done, I went ahead and bought E.K. Simpson's commentary along with F.F.

Bruce, which is the other half. And it's in my library now. Nice.

It's just so good. Yeah. Marcus Barth, for those of you who know anything about theology, Marcus Barth is called Barth's son. And he wrote the commentary on Ephesians in the Anchor Bible series. And he said, and he does not support the longer reading. And for the sake of our listeners, you do.

I do. But Marcus Barth, who wrote this commentary, I would say maybe 30 years ago, he said that the lack of textual authenticity means the longer reading is not authentic. The lack of textual authenticity need not preclude the truth of their content. Even though the longer reading may not be right, which I disagree with Marcus Barth, what he is saying is there is so much truth in it. It's still the truth. Wow. That's a good outlook to have.

He sort of took the middle ground. Yeah. Like, it's not the word of God, but it's still true.

It's still good. Yeah. So let's discuss it, is what he's saying. Okay.

That's important. Not the word of God, but so it may contain the truth of God. But even just to be willing to sort of take that position of, I don't agree with this, but I'm willing to enter into this discussion.

I'm willing to give some ground here so we can have a back and forth. Yeah. Like, I don't think it's the word of God, but it's still good. Yeah. Yeah. It's still good. It's beneficial, I guess, to- It's beneficial is what he's saying. Yeah.

And then Harold Honer, who wrote a magisterial work. I mean, it is this thick. Wow.

For those of you who are just listening, this thick would be at least two and a half inches in width. Wow. It's big.

It's huge. Yeah. On Just Ephesians. Wow. There's no Philemon.

There's no other book tucked in it. Isn't it crazy- Philippians- This is an aside, but isn't it crazy how they can write in a commentary for one book of the Bible thicker than the Bible itself? Yeah. Oh, yeah. That's a couple times over. Yeah. Like Marcus Barthes, he's two volumes this thick. Just on Ephesians?

Just on Ephesians. Wow. But he covers every single detail.

And in places where you go, man, I think that's so interesting. Has anybody thought of that? Ninety percent of the commentators haven't. Open up Marcus Barthes, he has an appendix discussing that issue. He's got it.

He's got a net in there. And he spent like eight to 10 pages discussing... Not eight to 10, I'm sorry. Five to six pages discussing the longer reading. Wow. So was this... This is a little bit of a departure, but was this his crowning jewel, his magnum opus? Or does he have other works in addition to Ephesians? We'll be talking about Marcus Barthes or Harold Horner.

Marcus Barthes. Yeah. He has other books. Yeah. That's crazy. Yeah, because I can imagine getting to the end of my lifetime and being like, here, I wrote this.

This is my crowning achievement. Yeah, that's just like a segment of my works. Gosh. That's crazy. And also Harold Horner has other commentaries, too.

Wow. Even though he has this thick a commentary on Ephesians. But anyways, he said that the third reading, which is a longer reading, is preferred with great hesitancy as indicated by his enclosure within brackets. So he supports a longer reading, but he puts it in brackets to say, I am 95% sure, but there's a little bit of hesitancy.

Is that common with scholars to... Sometimes. Kind of give some leniency?

Some leniency. So you're not saying 100% that's true. Yeah.

I would say 100%. Yeah, yeah. But he would say, I'm leaning very heavily on this side. And then he goes on to say, it is accepted as the best reading because of its overwhelming external evidence and because it is a harder reading with regards to internal evidence.

What he's saying is, the external evidence is so rich and the internal evidence is so hard that, just like we talked about it, why in the world would a scribe take the next verse as the impetus to introduce an Old Testament quotation as a variant, but not quoted word for word, and even invert the bone and flesh order? There's a lot of mental gymnastics that has to happen. Yeah, it is a harder reading. Yeah. It is a harder reading because we're talking about, we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. That becomes too hard and fast. If you were telling me where we are members of his body and stop there, okay, spiritually, we are all members of Christ, guys.

We are his hand and feet. What the longer reading does is it makes it even more concrete. Yeah. Yeah, there's more specificity to it. There's more complexity that's brought in by that phrase.

So to add that in, that kind of goes contrary to what you would think. Flesh and bones? I mean, it's not just like we are spiritual members. No, flesh and bones. Flesh and bones means like, am I physically connected to him? Yeah.

Is my body his, his body physically? It's not probable that a scribe would go out of his way to make it more complex. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. Because they would tend to lean towards simplifying it if they're going to alter it. Right, they wouldn't make it more complicated. Gotcha.

You just described a major text critical dictums in deciding for a reading. Achievement unlocked. Put an achievement sound right here.

Your gamer score just went up. Yeah, I love that. Yeah, that's a big part.

I got you. And so Harold Horner says the internal evidence is too much, it's too hard for us to say this is not original because scribes typically simplify it. Here you're telling me the scribe made it more complicated? Eh, I don't know about that. Yeah, that's a great, that's a great talking point.

And I feel like it's something that we don't, we don't really take into account. Yeah. So let's say, we're talking about the longer reading of Ephesians 5.30. So let's say, I know Dr. Shaw, your position and the one that we're holding on the show is that the longer reading is original to the text.

Right. Since that is true, the longer reading of Ephesians 5.30, what does that do for us? How does that change our approach to this passage? How does that unlock some new understanding for us?

What doctrines does that impact? So let me back up first and say something about how this longer reading has been interpreted by certain scholars. One that comes to mind immediately is the one that you brought up, John.

Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman in his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Some of you may be familiar with that. Some of you may be familiar with his more popular book, which is misquoting Jesus.

Yes. In this book, he says, his thesis is that the orthodox scribes, more specifically the proto-orthodox scribes, intentionally corrupted the manuscripts of the New Testament to make them more orthodox. These guys knew somehow, these proto-orthodox scribes, they were like, in about two or three hundred years, this is what's going to be widely accepted as true. We already know that, guys. Let's not even worry with how we know it, but we know that they're going to accept these set of beliefs as true. So we're going to alter these manuscripts so that in two or three hundred years from now, it'll all be crystal clear. How do you know this?

Is this like a Doc Brown and Marty McFly situation? I just know. Oh, all right. I'm proto-orthodox. Are you proto-orthodox? Does it say that on your name?

No, you're not. I guess. That's it. That's what they said.

That's what they said. Like seriously, how would he say, how would they alter the manuscripts? It would be like me putting stuff online that in the next couple hundred years, I know what society is going to be like, so I'm just going to go ahead and alter our stuff now so that it fits in with what they will think two or three hundred years from now. This is just mental gymnastics all over again.

This is just kind of like inventing reasons that this is true. Right. And that's what makes his thesis so hard. I'm trying to find his book that I have with me on Kindle, which is the Orthodox Corruption of Scriptures, second edition. And in this, he begins to look at the various, here it is. He looks at different doctrines like the adoptionist. Adoptionism was like Jesus was not God, but God the Father adopted him and he adopted him either at baptism or at transfiguration. Right.

Yeah. So there are readings in the New Testament that open the door to adoptionist Christianity, Christology. So the scribes began to alter those readings to make them anti adoptionist. They're saying individually they did it.

There was not a collective effort. Just a scribe. Okay, so it was just kind of like a case by case thing.

Case by case, a scribe. Oh, okay. He's like, this looks too deusetic to me. So case in point, Ephesians 5.34, we are members of his body. You know what? Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Hold on, hold on, hold on right here. I can put of his flesh and of his bones. So if there is any Gnostic out there who will make Jesus just to be God and not really flesh and bones, this does it. Okay.

We have an anti-deusetic corruption right here. And the scribe would take that, and in Bart Ehrman's view, he would take that unbelievable risk of altering scripture so that it would conform to something that isn't even really an issue quite yet. It makes sense, dude.

I understand. There are many, many, many, many, many, many, many problems with Ehrman's thesis, albeit when you go through Ephesians, there are many other places. Why didn't the scribes change that? Why didn't the scribes change this? Why didn't the scribes change this? Right. Why this one?

Why this one? Like, I don't have a PhD in New Testament textual criticism, so I'm not going to sit here with no master's degree or no PhD and pretend like Bart Ehrman's silly and doesn't know what he's talking about. But it's kind of like you said earlier this week. Like, if we look at Occam's Razor and say, why are we inventing all these different ways that this could be, rather than saying it probably was the way that Paul wrote it. And then there are verses prior to and after this where if he is saying that these manuscripts right here corrupted this text to make it more anti-dossetic, but then those same manuscripts in the verses following are completely supporting a docetic doctrine. I don't think the Bible is docetic.

We know that. Jesus was fully man became fully God became fully man. But those same manuscripts in the very next verse can easily be taken to mean docetic. You want to mention what docetic means just for our listeners? Docetic is dokeo means to appear.

Okay. So docetic means he only appeared human. He was not human. He was God. He was divine the whole time.

No humanity. Just a spirit. Just a spirit. Gotcha. And so he only appeared. That was not real. That was a early church heresy.

And so according to Bart Ehrman, these proto-orthodox scribes made an anti-dossetic corruption to save Christianity for the following generations who would be full-fledged orthodox. Understood. And so but there are so many problems.

The same manuscripts that he accuses of being anti-dossetic here in the very next verse or a verse later, they don't do anything to a very that I would be saying like that right there could be taken by the docetics. Right. Oh no. They're fine with that one. Yeah. So it's odd that this one would be the one that was changed. This is a problem.

Anti-dossetic corruptures of scripture. But here they're fine with it. Right. And they're fine with that. And they're fine with this. And they're fine with that.

Why didn't they change them consistently? Yeah. Ehrman's like, I don't know. Yeah. I don't know. Great.

That's a wonderful. Scribes were kind of goofy, man. Yeah. Scribes were kind of goofy.

I don't know. Sometimes they just wanted to do what they did. Well, and that's why we can sit here.

Scribes gonna be scribing. That's why, you know, conversations like this are so important. I appreciate it so much, Dr. Shaw, your heart in bringing this to not just us, but to our listeners and our viewers as well, because we have the benefit of sitting in and learning from you and having these types of conversations.

But somebody who doesn't have that on a regular basis, they can hear that reasoning and be like, oh. You know what all this means? We got to do a few more episodes on this. Let's do it, man.

Let's do it. Let's take maybe a weekend break and dive back in on Monday. I love it.

I love it. You guys, make sure you jump back in with us on Monday. If you enjoyed today's episode, you learned something about God's Word, about how it's translated and about how your faith needs to be impacted by that, write in and let us know 2525825028. Visit us online at cleareetodayshow.com and partner with us financially by scrolling to the bottom of that website, clicking that link and joining our Clearee Today Show family. Have a great weekend. We love you guys. We'll see you Monday on Clearee Today. I'll see you guys next time.