At this time when many (at least in this part of the world) enjoy their summer vacation and a break away from the office, I want to express my appreciation to all of you who visited this website over the past several months.

I have been encouraged by the personal notes and posts many of you have sent, and have benefited even from the more challenging messages I received from some of you. I’ll try to do better in responding once things kick back into gear.

The summer is always a time to be refreshed, to refocus, and to reset priorities for the coming year. At work, at church, and at home, what are things I can do better or differently, or things I should no longer do? How is my relationship with the Lord?

Over the past few months I have heard from many regarding the book God, Marriage & Family and the need for deeper, more biblical instruction in this area. This fall, I will speak in various settings on this topic of rebuilding the biblical foundations at home.

Let me also issue an open invitation to any of you who would like me to address a given topic in my blog this coming year. If you have any suggestions, please send those to me by clicking here. No promises, but I will try.

Again, thanks for stopping by and for our shared interests in restoring the BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS for the home, the church, and society. I look forward to continued fruitful and mutually sharpening discussion.

Technorati Tags: Kostenberger

One of my scholarly and personal heroes is Adolf Schlatter. At a time when Adolf Harnack espoused his liberalism, and Rudolf Bultmann eclectically appropriated David Friedrich Strauss’s mythological approach and Martin Heidegger’s existentialism, Schlatter stood firm in his advocacy of a biblical-theological, salvation-historical reading of the Bible and a high view of Scripture.

In the foreword to The History of the Christ in 1920, Schlatter wrote, “The knowledge of Jesus is the foremost, indispensable centerpiece of New Testament theology.” This stands in marked contract to Rudolf Bultmann, who opened his famous two-volume New Testament Theology thus: “The message of Jesus is a presupposition for the theology of the New Testament rather than a part of that theology itself.”

In his approach to hermeneutics, Schlatter was ahead of his time and uttered timeless principles such as these:

It is the historical objective that should govern our conceptual work exclusively and completely, stretching our perceptive faculties to the limit. We turn away decisively from ourselves and our time to what was found in the men through whom the church came into being. Our main interest should be the thought as it was conceived by them and the truth that was valid for them. We want to see and obtain a thorough grasp of what happened historically and existed in another time. This is the internal disposition upon which the success of the work depends, the commitment which must consistently be renewed as the work proceeds. (History of the Christ, 18)

In a day when interpretation increasingly becomes an exercise in reader response, or when texts are said to have a life of their own apart from the intentions of the author who willed them into being, Schlatter’s hermeneutic of perception, that is, of perceive listening and apprehension of the words of another, speaks a powerful message. Much of the contemporary interpretive confusion arising from undue subjectivism could be avoided if Schlatter’s words were heeded.

Also timeless if Schlatter’s emphasis on Jesus as the center of the biblical message read as a whole. This conviction is fleshed out compellingly in his 2-volume New Testament Theology, entitled respectively, The History of the Christ and The Theology of the Apostles. It also underlies Schlatter’s final work, a devotional called Do We Know Jesus? which he wrote in his old age during the last year of his life.

In this his final work, the 85 year-old Schlatter penned the following words, just shortly before the outbreak of World War II:

Do we know Jesus? If we no longer know him, we no longer know ourselves. For in our ancestral line, he is at work with unrivaled power. Compared to him, what is a Hildebrand become one with his sword, or a Krimhild burning with passionate lust? The condition of our inner lives and of our national community proves that the things Jesus built into this world are both present and at work among us. This is not obscured even by the numerous antichrists among us. For precisely when they, with blazing wrath, seek to suppress any memory of Jesus, their thoughts and intentions are inevitably shaped by the One they combat as their enemy.

It is on account of this raw courage, and this power of prophetic insight, that Schlatter, though dead, still speaks to us today and challenges us to engage in a hermeneutic of perceptive insight and humble confidence, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith.

For material on Schlatter see his two-volume theology, The History of the Christ and The Theology of the Apostles (Baker, 1997 and 1998). See also his biblical theology presented in devotional form, Do We Know Jesus? Daily Insights for the Mind and Soul (Kregel, 2005); and “Schlatter Reception Then and Now: His New Testament Theology (Part 1),” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 3/1 (Spring 1999): 40–51.

Technorati Tags: Schlatter, salvation-historical, Scripture, Jesus, New Testament theology, New Testament, Kostenberger, Bible

You’ve heard it said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Well, the same is true with regard to scholarship. Those who are unaware of the most recent scholarly work on a given issue will be greatly handicapped in discussions of that issue. This is true, among other things, regarding the proper interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12.

In our book Women in the Church, published in 1995, my collaborators and I set forth the proposal that the passage means exactly what it says—imagine that!—which is, Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man,” the implication being that women ought not to occupy the office of elder or overseer in the church (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2).

In keeping with sound hermeneutical procedure, Women in the Church looked at the passage from every conceivable angle, including historical-cultural background, literary genre, lexical study, semantic analysis, exegesis of the passage in context, hermeneutics, world view, and the history of scholarship.

At the heart of the book were the two chapters devoted to lexical and semantic analysis. In the former, the likelihood was suggested that “exercise authority” (Grk. authentein) carries a neutral or positive connotation, but owing to the scarcity of the term in ancient literature (the only NT occurrence is 1 Tim. 2:12; found only twice preceding the NT in extrabiblical literature) no firm conclusions could be reached on the basis of lexical study alone.

Complementing the lexical analysis was the syntactical study of the phrase “not . . . to teach or have authority,” which yielded the unequivocal conclusion that both terms, “teach” and “have authority,” carry the same force, whether positive or negative, when joined by the coordinating conjunction “or” (Grk. oude). This was demonstrated by a plethora of examples both from the NT and extrabiblical Greek literature.

Since the word “teach” regularly in the Pastorals is presented as a positive activity (see esp. 1 Tim. 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2), and one in which Timothy and other church leaders are called to engage, it was concluded that a negative force of “teach” in 1 Tim. 2:12 is highly unlikely, especially since a different word, heterodidaskalein, “to teach falsely,” is used elsewhere in the same epistle (1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3). Thus lexical study, supported by semantic analysis, strongly indicated the correctness of the conventional reading adopted by virtually all translations, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority.”

Since the publication of the first edition of Women in the Church in 1995, both complementarian and egalitarian scholars have reviewed the work, whether in book reviews or commentaries. In the second edition of Women in the Church, which appeared last year (2005), I take up the last decade of scholarship on the syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12 and review all the responses to my syntactical study (see Women in the Church, 2d ed., pp. 74–84).

Here is what I find. Major recent commentaries, such as William Mounce’s Word Biblical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, concur with the findings of Women in the Church and have incorporated them into their discussion. With the exception of Linda Belleville, even all the egalitarian scholars who reviewed my chapter on the syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12, agree with my conclusion! This includes even those, like Kevin Giles, who are vehemently opposed to the overall message of the passage and its implications as interpreted in the book. Tellingly, Giles, for example, argues that the author of the Pastorals here probably broke the rules of Greek grammar!

Egalitarian scholars such as Alan Padgett, Craig Keener, and, it appears, also William Webb likewise concur with the construal of the syntax of 1 Tim. 2:12 in Women in the Church. Perhaps most remarkably, a German reviewer, Judith Hartenstein, writes,

My theological position is very different from that of Köstenberger. Nevertheless, I often find his analysis of texts and exegetical problems convincing and inspiring, especially if he uses linguistic approaches. . . . . Likewise, I agree with Köstenberger’s reading of 1 Tim 2. Köstenberger shows that the text demands a hierarchy between men and women and is meant as normative teaching. But with a different, far more critical view of the Bible, I need not accept it as God’s word. (It helps that I do not regard 1 Timothy as written by Paul.)

To be sure, this does not mean that every disagreement with my construal of the syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12 necessarily stems from an errantist stance toward Scripture. Nevertheless, it shows that interpreters’ presuppositions frequently tend to override the actual exegesis of the passage. Yet, unlike in Hartenstein’s case, this often remains unacknowledged.

A case in point is I. H. Marshall. In his 1999 ICC commentary on the Pastorals, Marshall at the outset indicates his acceptance of the findings of my study by noting that it has “argued convincingly on the basis of a wide range of Gk. usage that the construction employed in this verse is one in which the writer expresses the same attitude (whether positive or negative) to both of the items joined together by oude.”

Yet Marshall proceeds to opt for a negative connotation of both terms “teach” and “have authority,” because he says false teaching is implied in the reference to Adam and Eve in verse 14. This, however, is hardly the case. More likely, Paul’s concern was with women being the victims of false teaching, not its perpetrators (see esp. 1 Tim. 5:14–15). Also, Marshall fails to adequately consider the above-mentioned point, that teaching is virtually always construed as a positive activity in the Pastorals and that it should therefore be construed positively also in 1 Timothy 2:12.

In my updated chapter in the 2d edition of Women in the Church, I detail several other problems with Marshall’s interpretation (regarding which see pp. 75–76, 84). The noted commentators William Mounce and Craig Blomberg, likewise, have ably critiqued and refuted Marshall’s position. We should also note that Marshall does not believe Paul wrote the Pastorals but rather that someone else wrote it under Paul’s name (he calls this “allonymity”) and that Marshall practices a sort of content criticism of the Bible according to which he identifies a central core of its teaching—in the case of gender roles, the reference in Galatians 3:28 to there being no more male nor female in Christ—and on this basis rules out other passages which he considers to be in conflict with this central core—such as 1 Timothy 2:12! In light of these larger presuppositions, it should not surprise us that Marshall the exegete finds ways to circumvent what appears to be a considerably more likely reading of the passage, where both teaching and having authority are positively construed.

With this we have come full circle. Those who are unaware of the history of scholarship on a given issue are likely to repeat the mistakes of the past. The challenge is not for us to find a scholar who happens to agree with us and then pit “our” scholar against those supporting the views of others. Rather, we ourselves have a responsibility to study to show ourselves approved by God, rightly handling the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).

For the complete survey of recent scholarship on the syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12, see Women in the Church (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 74–84; see also my survey of the first edition of the book, “The Crux of the Matter: Paul’s Pastoral Pronouncements Regarding Women’s Roles in 1 Timothy 2:9–15,” Faith & Mission 14/1 (1997): 24–48.

Technorati Tags: scholarship, elder, church, hermeneutics, complementarian, egalitarian, Scripture, exegesis, Kostenberger, Bible

The opening chapters of Genesis narrate God’s creation first of Adam, then of Eve from and for Adam as his “suitable helper” (Gen. 2:18, 20). The notion of Adam’s “headship,” that is, his position of ultimate responsibility and authority for his marriage and family, is supported by a series of factors:

• Adam’s creation prior to the woman
• Adam’s naming of the animals prior to the creation of Eve
• Adam’s naming of Eve subsequent to God’s creation of her
• God’s holding Adam—not Eve—responsible for his and Eve’s sin even though Eve had sinned first
• the woman’s designation as the man’s “suitable helper”

In the New Testament, Paul speaks of Adam’s representative actions on behalf of all of humanity (his “federal headship”) and of Christ’s serving as the head of a new humanity (Rom. 5:12–21). Paul also repeatedly affirms God’s creation first of Adam and then of Eve and on this basis makes pronouncements with regard to the man’s headship (1 Cor. 11:8–9; 1 Tim. 2:13).

Thus in 1 Cor. 11:3–5, reference is made to Christ’s headship over the man; the husband’s headship over his wife; and God’s headship over Christ, conveying the notion of authority (cf. 1 Cor. 11:10). In Ephesians, Paul speaks of Christ’s headship over all things in the church, again conveying the notion of authority (Eph. 1:21–22; cf. 4:15; Col. 1:18; 2:10, 19).

In Eph. 5:23, Paul writes that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. This connotes both loving provision (Eph. 5:25–29) and authority (Eph. 5:22). Hence Christ’s headship in a primary sense and the husband’s headship over his wife in a derivative sense are an integral part of Paul’s teaching on the nature of the church Christ’s “body.”

Today, the husband’s headship is challenged by some who claim that the New Testament teaches the husband’s and the wife’s “mutual submission” with reference to Eph. 5:21. However, in context it is only the wife that is called to submit (Eph. 5:22; cf. Col. 3:18) while the husband is called to love his wife sacrificially (Eph. 5:25–27).

Both 1 Cor. 11:3 and the Christ-husband analogy in Eph. 5:23 strongly suggest the husband’s headship in the home, and passages such as 1 Tim. 2:12 and 3:2 indicate that men are assigned ultimate responsibility and authority in the church. This congruity between God’s order for the home and the church flows from the fact that the church is “God’s household” (1 Tim. 3:15).

While the senses “source” and “pre-eminent” have been proposed for kephalē, no passage is extant where that sense is favored by the context. In fact, every time one person is referred to as the “head” of another person in both biblical and extrabiblical literature, the person who is the “head” has authority over the other person and kephalē conveys the notion of authority.

For further study see my forthcoming commentary on the Pastoral Epistles in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 12 (Zondervan); God, Marriage & Family; and my various other publications on Gender and Family.

Technorati Tags: Genesis, creation, New Testament, Christ, God, headship, husband, wife, mutual submission, Kostenberger, Bible

Since this is the first year of the BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS book awards, books published in 2003–2006 were eligible. Awards are given with strict impartiality and based solely on academic merit. No favoritism as to authors or publishers. Books I wrote, endorsed, or to which I contributed in any way are ineligible. This is a no-spin zone! Who says CT or the ECPA should be the only games in town? These are the best per category, including a brief rationale:

Bible, Commentary & Reference

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ed. Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Not perfect in execution, but groundbreaking in its vision and scope.

Greek & Lexicography

John A. Lee. The History of New Testament Lexicography. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. Masterfully chronicles the history of NT lexicography and exposes the many sins of the guild.

Jesus & Synoptic Studies

Aquila H. Lee. From Messiah to Pre-existent Son. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Presents a well-argued, plausible scenario for the early church’s belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.

Johannine Studies

Charles E. Hill. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Denounces once and for all the Bauer thesis of second-century “orthodox Johannophobia.”

Pauline Studies

D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds. Justification and Variegated Nomism, 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001, 2004. Invaluable resource for the “new perspective” debate.

Missions

Eckhard J. Schnabel. Early Christian Mission, 2 vols. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004. The new Harnack for a new millennium.

Church History 

Charles Kannengiesser, ed. Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004. A landmark compendium and reference work for the patristic interpretation of Scripture.

Technorati Tags: Kostenberger, Bible, Church History, Exegesis, New Testament

In the current issue of WORLD Magazine, Jamie Dean zeroes in on both of the major enemies of marriage I also highlight in my book God, Marriage & Family: homosexuality and divorce. She talks about various ways in which government agencies are trying to help but quotes me as saying that the current marriage crisis is ultimately spiritual, not political. To read the entire article, click here.

For further study on marriage and divorce, see God, Marriage, and Family as well as “A Biblical Framework for Marriage,” in the Midwestern Journal of Theology. See also “Feminism, Family, and the Bible: A Biblical Assessment of Feminism’s Impact on American Families,” in The Religion and Society Report

Technorati Tags: marriage, homosexuality, divorce, Kostenberger, Bible, culture

The New Testament epistles regularly speak of a plurality of church leaders, commonly called “elders,” “overseers,” or “shepherds.” In addition, deacons were appointed to meet various needs in the local church. As early as c. A.D. 50, Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders . . . in each church” (Acts 14:23). A decade later, Titus is instructed to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5). Paul’s epistle to the Philippians is addressed to the “overseers and deacons” at Philippi (Phil 1:1). This conforms to the pattern stipulated in 1 Timothy 3 where qualifications for overseers (male only: 1 Tim 3:2; cf. 2:12) and deacons (both male and female) are given (1 Tim 3:1–7 and 8–12, respectively).

The synonymous use of “elders,” “overseers,” and “shepherds” is widely accepted today. Three primary New Testament references can be cited:

• Acts 20:17, 28: “Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. . . . Keep watch over . . . the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds . . .”
• Titus 1:5–7: “appoint elders . . . . An elder must . . . . Since an overseer . . .” (qualifications are the same as those for overseers in 1 Tim 3:1–7).
• 1 Peter 5:1–2: “To the elders . . . . Be shepherds . . ., serving as overseers . . .”

“Elder” refers to a stage of life, possession of life experience, and commensurate status in the church. “Overseer” refers to the function of giving oversight to the entire church. “Shepherd” (“pastor”) is a metaphor for personal care given to members of the church (Eph 4:11–12).

While elders are to lead by example (1 Pet 5:3), they do have genuine authority, and church members are enjoined to submit to them. Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.” 1 Thessalonians 5:12 likewise commands believers “to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you.” The biblical pattern is therefore for a body of male elders jointly to give oversight to the entire church, including one or several pastors who are devoted primarily to teaching and pastoral care (see esp. 1 Tim 4:14: “body of elders,” Gr. presbyterion; 1 Tim 5:17: “elders who direct the affairs of the church . . ., especially those whose work is preaching and teaching).

For a fuller treatment of elders and deacons, see my commentary on 1–2 Timothy and Titus in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 12 (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, forthcoming). See also “Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 7/3 (Fall 2003): 4–17; “The New Testament Pattern of Church Government,” Midwestern Journal of Theology 4/2 (2006): 24-42; and Chapter 12 in God, Marriage & Family.

Technorati Tags: New Testament, church, elders, shepherds, biblical, Kostenberger, BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS, deacon, deacons, Bible