My post on the gift of singleness last week has generated many responses, some favorable, some negative. Of the latter, some said I misrepresented Debbie Maken’s book; others took issue with my proposed biblical trajectory regarding singleness. I should clarify that my post was not intended as a book review of Maken’s book; I mentioned her only in the first and final paragraph to relate my comments to the contemporary scene. My primary purpose was to set forth the biblical teaching on singleness by way of a digest from the chapter on singleness in my book, God, Marriage & Family. I should also note that the digest is not a substitute for reading the entire chapter. Mrs. Maken has now responded to my post, and I find her response on the whole constructive and helpful in crystallizing some of the pertinent issues.

It is probably inevitable that those who don’t know me personally or who haven’t read my entire book, or at least the chapter on singleness, will misrepresent my position. Nevertheless, the issue is not served by misrepresentations, so let me start by correcting a few misapprehensions. First, Maken says I counsel singles, “instead of looking to Scripture,” to search their feelings, because I say in my original post that, all things being equal, if anyone is anxious about possibly having the gift of singleness, they may well not have it. So by her own account, Maken advocates living by Scripture and I advocate living by feeling. I will not dignify this characterization with a response other than to say that virtually my entire post was devoted to present the biblical teaching on singleness, and so to quote one sentence out of context is patently unfair and misleading.

Second, some have said that I am, in essence, “pro-singleness” and do not advocate marriage as the norm today. This is false. I do believe marriage is the norm today, as Jesus made clear in Matthew 19. Having said this, Jesus in the same passage proceeded to speak in positive terms about an exception to this norm, namely refraining from marriage for the sake of God’s kingdom. So it is really a both-and rather than an either-or proposition.

For this reason, third, I believe the central issue is: What is the “gift” Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 7 (and Jesus in Matthew 19)? Maken and others here dichotomize between the “gift of celibacy” (which they say exists, in a very narrow scope; for those “called . . . to accomplish something of monumental proportions,” to cite Maken) and the “gift of singleness” (whose existence they deny). To clarify, it may be helpful to note that neither “celibacy” nor “singleness” are biblical terms; the expression used most frequently in this context in Scripture is agamos, “unmarried.” Rather than erect an unbiblical dichotomy, therefore, it might be better to talk about people being divinely gifted to remain unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom. For some, this calling is permanent (apparently this, among other things, is what Maken means by “celibacy”), while for others it is temporary (Maken’s “singleness”?).

Here is the critical point, however: How does a person who is currently unmarried know whether or not their unmarried state is permanent or temporary? Maken says, if I understand her correctly, “Assume it is temporary unless you meet the high standard of ‘monumental service.’ ” Plus, hasten the day when the unmarried state comes to an end (i.e. get married). I would be less certain in assuming that in virtually every case a person who is currently unmarried must be urged to pursue marriage on the basis that marriage is the biblical norm. Note what Maken does here. She first distinguishes between celibacy and singleness (neither of which are biblical terms) on the supposition that only celibacy is a gift and then, unsurprisingly, finds that singleness is unbiblical! Yet this is circular reasoning and hence proves nothing. We are still left with the question, “What is it that Paul calls a divine gift in 1 Corinthians 7?” (and Jesus refers to as those who have “renounced marriage for the kingdom of heaven” in Matthew 19).

What is more, once Maken states, categorically, that singleness is unbiblical (her definition, over against celibacy), the implication, if I understand her argument correctly, is that virtually everyone who is currently single is so for unbiblical reasons. I have had unmarried men and women post on my blog saying they were content in their singleness, and others (favoring Maken’s view) have written in taking those people to task for their positive approach to singleness. This strikes me as judgmental and in conflict with Paul’s advocacy of a non-judgmental attitude toward others in Romans 14–15. I believe that intrinsic to Maken’s view is a certain arrogance and judgmental attitude that says, “I know what God’s will is for your life, and if you think differently, you’re wrong. Trust me, I know what Scripture says.”

The fact is, Scripture does not say whether Debbie or Jimmy or Sandra or Peter should get married or have the divine gift of singleness (or, more precisely, should remain unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom). Scripture provides general parameters (such as Genesis 2 or Jesus’ and Paul’s statements), and on a personal level every individual is called to discern God’s personal leading for them as they are led by the Holy Spirit.

Now Maken says in her response that her and my position (which, as she mentions, is widely held today and represents the prevailing view) are mutually exclusive. I see things differently. The way I see it, she and I agree on the following points:

• Marriage is the norm for believers today as it was in OT times (Genesis 2; Jesus’ reaffirmation of Genesis 2 in Matthew 19);
• Remaining unmarried is an exception to the norm and is presented as a divine gift in Scripture (Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 7).

The main difference, in my judgment, comes in the extent or degree to which God may call individuals to remain unmarried. I am not sure how Maken arrives at her test of “monumental accomplishments.” Nor do I know on what basis she judges just how rare (or virtually non-existent) this divine calling is. Perhaps she is overreacting here against certain teachings or practices; I’m not sure. In Matthew 19, Jesus globally refers to “some . . . others . . . and others”; there is no mention made of a very narrow limit. In 1 Corinthians 7, likewise, the discussion is general: “But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” It seems that Maken is importing her notion of the rarity of the “gift” into those passages; I cannot find it there.

Also, whether or not Maken is right in her bottom-line conclusion, I question some of the statements she is making in arguing for it. For example, she says that because “God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and his law does not change,” marriage is the norm and singleness is rare. That may be so, but hardly for the reason Maken cites. It is true that God never changes, but that does not preclude God pursuing a course with humanity that moves, for example, from the sacrificial system to worship in spirit and truth apart from sacrifices (other than in a metaphorical sense). Many more examples could be given (such as giving; see here my two-part series of articles on “tithing”). There is much development in Scripture, and to say this is inconsistent with the nature of God is not a very defensible argument theologically.

Maken also seems to imply on the basis of 1 Timothy 3:2 (“faithful husband”) that church leaders must be married. This, too, is a precarious position that is held by very few (if any) informed students of Scripture (see on this my treatment of this passage in the recently-released revised Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 12, pp. 524–25). Rather, as commonly held, Paul assumes (an entirely reasonable assumption) that most candidates for such a position will be married and so spells out marital and familial qualifications. It is an illegitimate argument from silence to infer from the marital qualification in 1 Timothy 3:2 that Paul required marriage from all church leaders. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that why Paul would have excluded himself (or people like himself) from eligibility for church leadership because he was unmarried. Notice also that it is nowhere mentioned that Timothy (the recipient of the letter in question) was married.

There are several other arguments in Maken’s response that seem precarious and open to question, such as the statement that, “The reason we have singleness running rampant today is because we no longer cherish marriage” (emphasis added). This analysis is surely unduly simplistic in that Maken attributes increasing singleness to one single cause when the situation is arguably considerably more complex. To be sure, marriage is under siege in our culture today, which is the very reason why I wrote my book God, Marriage & Family a couple years ago. Indeed, we stand united in our concern to defend marriage and to commend it. In addition, I, for one, also want to commend singleness as a legitimate (albeit exceptional) state for those who have received this divine gift and calling.

One element absent in Maken’s comments on 1 Corinthians 7 that would shed considerable light on the situation, in my opinion, is the particular background to Paul’s comments there. Specifically, it appears that in Corinth some taught that singleness is a state that is spiritually superior to marriage and hence told single people to stay unmarried and married people either to divorce their spouses (so they could be single and more spiritual!) or to live with their marriage partners in a continent relationship (remain married but refrain from sexual intercourse in the future). All this owing to the Greek philosophical dualism between matter (as evil) and spirit (good). Similarly, in Ephesus (1 Tim. 2:15; 4:3; 5:14) some disparaged marriage and procreation and in some cases even forbid marriage altogether.

It is in this context, as I develop in God, Marriage, & Family, that Paul’s comments should be understood. On the one hand, he made clear that singleness is not superior to marriage spiritually. People should not refrain from marriage on the basis of this belief, much less should they divorce their existing marriage partners to be more spiritual in an unmarried state! At the same time, Paul tried to balance his comments by noting certain advantages of the unmarried state for kingdom service and even called such a state a “gift” from God. It is this correction of a teaching that singleness is superior spiritually that is important for us to understand. Yet note how even when putting singleness in its place and proper context, Paul still speaks very positively about it and does not disparage it or cast it in extremely narrow terms.

I conclude with a few personal reflections. It appears that much of Maken’s underlying concern has to do with encouraging men to take more initiative and being more responsible in pursuing marriage. With this I heartily concur. I also concur that some women are too prepared to be content with “being married to Jesus” when they should pursue marriage to a flesh-and-blood husband. And, certainly, there are pastors and counselors who provide unhelpful teaching and counsel in this regard. As usual, there is an element of truth in every overcorrection or overreaction. Nevertheless, while Maken may be correct, at least in part, in diagnosing some of the problems in the contemporary scene, I have several concerns with Maken’s own alternative approach.

To begin with, if I were single, I would not appreciate being essentially labeled as almost certainly out of God’s will, and, if currently content in my singleness, being told that I am self-deceived or worse. Singles are already frequently excluded in many social settings in the church. Also labeling them as almost certainly out of God’s will is hardly going to help their situation, and this, in my view, is unfortunate. I think God would have us not only encourage those many toward marriage who are called to marriage (though not prod them to rush into marriage), but also affirm those few who are content in their unmarried state and see it, whether permanently or temporarily (and who among those who are currently unmarried knows for certain which it is?), as God’s calling for them. Indeed, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians, there are many advantages for the unmarried in serving in the church and in promoting God’s kingdom (whether Maken or I would describe their contribution as “monumental” or not).

When Maken writes, “The call to marriage applies uniformly to all mankind,” I would simply add, “Except for those who are called by God to remain unmarried, whether for a lifetime or a season in their life.” Despite Maken’s confident assertions, no one truly knows just how many people fit in that category except for God, and he really is the only one who needs to know. We don’t need to decide for someone else whether or not they are called to marry or to remain unmarried. We are not the Holy Spirit, so why are we not content to leave this decision up to God’s leading in that person’s life and that person’s own conscience and judgment? In the end, it is their life, isn’t it? Those women who have written me that they are bitter about being single very possibly don’t have the gift of singleness. But why deny that anybody (or virtually anybody) else may have that gift? This, to me, seems to be an extreme position, even a judgmental one, and I, for one, believe it is more appropriate—not to mention being more in keeping with Scripture—to affirm marriage as the norm and singleness as the exceptional, but honorable, calling for those who have received it.

Fair enough?

Technorati Tags: singleness, God, Marriage & Family, Scripture, Jesus, celibacy, marriage, Kostenberger

It seems strange why anyone would want to pit Jesus against the Bible, but in recent weeks the question which of these two is primary, Jesus or the Bible, has once again taken center stage in many circles. I am hesitant to weigh in on this issue since I have not published any major monographs on the subject, but the debate is important enough for me to venture a few thoughts to address the current debate.

Just as many argued when this issue was debated in the Southern Baptist Convention in recent years (where some argued that Jesus is properly at the center somehow apart from Scripture), so some argue now that Jesus (not the Bible) is properly at the center of Christian theology. If so, the Bible cannot be equally at the center and in comparison with Jesus is a more peripheral doctrine (though still very important).

One argument advanced in this regard is that if the Bible were central, how could people have come to faith in Jesus Christ before the New Testament was written? On one level, I would argue this is a moot point for us today since today the New Testament has been written (and has been for 1900 years), and it is our primary source (in more ways than one) for information about Jesus. Also, while the New Testament may not have been written, the Old Testament was, and the early Christians presented Jesus as the fulfillment of the Scriptures from the beginning.

In fact, in my view it is this observation that is at the very heart of the problem those have who argue for the supremacy of Christ over Scripture, doctrinally speaking: How do we know Jesus in the first place? Arguably, the only way we know Jesus truly is through Scripture. Conversely, if we think Scripture is deficient in some way, then our Jesus will look different from the way in which he is presented in the Gospels. If Scripture is our only reliable and authoritative source for who Jesus is, then how can we say that Jesus is more important than the Bible or pit the two against each other?

This is very obvious, I think, when we look at books about Jesus written by scholars who do not hold to a high view of Scripture. With this major constraint in their apprehension of Jesus gone, their “Jesus” is predictably different from the way in which he is presented in Scripture, and a gap between Jesus and Scripture opens up that drives a false wedge between the two and should never be there in the first place.

This, by the way, is not tantamount to requiring belief in inerrancy as a requirement for salvation. It does mean that we acknowledge Scripture as primary in the sense that it alone is our fully trustworthy and authoritative source of information about Jesus. I am also not sure how helpful it is to pit inductive against deductive approaches to inerrancy. Surely there is room for both approaches, and what we have here is a false dichotomy, especially if the nature of Scripture is properly understood within the purview of the doctrines of God and revelation.

Jesus or the Bible? What a choice! Is it possible that the slogan, “Just give me Jesus,” can for some become an illegitimate escape route to evade a firmer accountability to the totality of biblical teaching? Some say they like Jesus, but they don’t like the church. We rightly say this is illegitimate, for the church is central in Jesus’ plan (Matt. 16:16). Are some now going to say that they like Jesus, but they don’t like the Bible? (Or is it wise to open the door so others may say this?)

Personally, I doubt that Jesus himself would have subscribed to a view that placed him above Scripture. Rather, in the words of Schlatter, he would have placed himself as “beneath Scripture,” as the one attested by Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, and as the one to whom the Scriptures testify (Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39, 46). The apostles, too, saw it this way. Paul could speak of “the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching . . .” (2 Tim. 3:15–16).

If it was good enough for Jesus, the apostles, and the early church to find the coming of the Messiah predicted in the Scriptures, and to identify Jesus as the fulfillment of these predictions, should it not be good enough for us?

Technorati Tags: Jesus, Bible, Christian, theology, doctrine, New Testament, inerrancy, Kostenberger

“30 and Single? It’s Your Own Fault”—a recent Christianity Today review summarizes the message, at least in part, of a recent controversial book, Getting Serious About Getting Married: Rethinking the Gift of Singleness, by Debbie Maken. The author herself got serious about getting married at age 28, signed up with a Christian web agency, and shortly thereafter entered marital bliss. Maken’s contention, however, that women who are in their late 20s or in their 30s and still unmarried have only themselves to blame for listening to erroneous evangelical teaching on the subject has created quite a stir among those very women who plead “not guilty” and question Maken’s categorical stance (singles should get married and those who teach the “gift of singleness” should stop misrepresenting the Bible’s teaching about God-ordained singleness), not to mention her theology of singleness.

What does the Bible say about singleness? In my book God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation, published by the same publisher as Maken’s book, I devote an entire chapter, Chapter 9 entitled “Undivided Devotion to the Lord: The Divine Gift of Singleness,” to this question. The first part of the chapter features a biblical theology of singleness in the Old Testament and New Testament plus a treatment of singleness in the early church. This is followed by a discussion of issues related to singleness, such as singleness and ministry, cohabitation and premarital sex, courtship and dating, and biblical teaching on singleness addressed to particular groups.

Space does not permit to reproduce the entire chapter, and readers of this blog are referred to the printed volume for complete coverage. A few salient points must suffice. In a nutshell, what I find is that in Old Testament times, singleness was rare among individuals old enough to marry. There were those who were in the unenviable state of widowhood such as Naomi or Ruth (who eventually did remarry); eunuchs who were widely looked down upon and excluded from congregational worship and the priesthood (Lev. 21:20; Deut. 23:1); those who could not marry due to disease (e.g. leprosy) or severe economic distress; those who did not marry because of some type of divine call (this was, however, exceedingly rare; but see Jer. 16:1–4); the divorced (Deut. 24:1–4); and unmarried young people prior to marriage.

The situation seems markedly different in the New Testament. The Baptist, Jesus, and Paul were single, and both Jesus and Paul mention celibacy, Jesus calling it “eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:12) and Paul speaking of singleness as a “gift from God” (1 Cor. 7:7). Both Jesus and Paul indicate that such a call to singleness allows unmarried men and women to devote greater and more undistracted attention to religious service (see esp. 1 Cor. 7:32–35). There is no question, therefore, that singleness can be God’s will for certain individuals; in those cases, at least, singleness is not a curse but a divine gift—just as “every good and perfect gift is from above” (Jas. 1:17). In fact, at certain times and in certain situations singleness is preferable to marriage (1 Cor. 7), though marriage continues as the norm (Matt. 19:4–6).

What is more, as Jesus taught, in the final state people will no longer marry but be like the angels in heaven (Matt. 22:30). That is, all of us will spend eternity as singles! When I did research on this chapter for God, Marriage, and Family, I was surprised to find that there is in Scripture a trajectory, or development, from singleness being rare and highly undesirable (OT) to singleness being presented as advantageous for kingdom service and as a divine gift (NT) to singleness being the universal state of humanity in heaven. In the book I briefly discuss possible reasons for this rather startling fact (see esp. the chart on p. 198 and the comments on pp. 198–99). For our present purposes it is sufficient to close with the following brief observations.

First, groups such as the Roman Catholic Church err greatly when they require celibacy for all its priests. This contradicts explicit biblical teaching regarding the first apostles (1 Cor. 9:5); Pauline instructions regarding elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5, 12; Titus 1:6–7); and blatantly disregards Paul’s severe warning in passages such as 1 Tim. 4:3 that forbidding people to marry is tantamount to propagating “things taught by demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). I have written on this subject at some length elsewhere.

Second, even though we must not require singleness of all church leaders, we should not portray singleness as a second-class or undesirable status in the church either. If Paul calls singleness a divine “gift,” this implies that this gift is good (though obviously not everyone has it). Also, if it is called a gift, it is given by someone else, God, rather than originating with the person who has that gift. Which leads to the often-asked question, “How do I know if I have the gift or not?”

In short, my answer to this question usually is, “If you ask this question with fear or trepidation, this probably means that you do not have the gift.” Having said this, it is impossible to know for certain whether or not one has the gift of singleness until one dies. In some cases, it may be that it is God’s will for a person to remain unmarried for a season and later in life provides a marriage partner. And there are many other possible scenarios. In any case, as mentioned, Jesus and Paul make clear that singleness has many advantages for Christians and should not be despised.

30 and still single? Is the author of the above-mentioned book right with her advice that women in that situation better get busy and sign up with a dating agency? Not necessarily. Space does not permit a detailed review of the book and the author’s argument. Suffice it to say that God’s leading is individual and personal and cannot be reduced to one and only one way of guidance. Who is she to say how God may lead you if you are a woman in your thirties and still single? At the same time, there may be an element of truth in what she says. In some cases—and you need to examine whether or not this could be you—singleness may in part be self-inflicted (if it is indeed God’s will for a given person to get married), and there may be things you can, and should, do to cooperate with God’s purposes in your life (while remembering all the while that God is sovereign). Knowing this calls for wisdom, prayer, discernment, and trust in the God who alone knows you and cares for you intimately—the God who has a wonderful plan for your life, a plan that may, but in most cases probably does not, include singleness.

For further reading, see God, Marriage, and Family as well as my commentary on the Pastoral Epistles.

Technorati Tags: singleness, Old Testament, New Testament, church, Jesus, Kostenberger, family, Bible

In my BECNT commentary on John’s Gospel, I propose that John follows a chronological arrangement in his Gospel. The specific dates listed below are predicated upon a A.D. 33 date for Jesus’ crucifixion. As is well known, the two major possibilities for the crucifixion are A.D. 30 (the traditional date) and A.D. 33. Harold Hohner, among others, in Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ and in his Dictionary of Jesus & the Gospels entry on chronology, has set forth (in my view) highly persuasive arguments for the latter, A.D. 33, date, including the fact that Luke’s reference to the 15^th year of Tiberius (A.D. 14–37) in Luke 3:1 most likely refers to A.D. 29 as the start date of Jesus’ ministry. The following chart is reproduced in essence from pp. 11–13 of my BECNT commentary:

Origin (1:1–18)

Initial ministry (1:19–2:12; A.D. 29–30)

First Passover and first full year of ministry (2:13–4:54; A.D. 30–31)

Second year of ministry (ch. 5; A.D. 31–32)

Second Passover recorded in John and third year of ministry (6:1–11:54; A.D. 32–33)

Third Passover in John, passion week, resurrection appearances (11:55–21:25; A.D. 33)

To my knowledge, no similar detailed Johannine chronology has previously been proposed. Together with Craig Blomberg’s recent work The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel and my contribution, “John,” to the Zondervan Illustrated Backgrounds Commentary, I believe this proposal continues to make a strong case for the historical reliability of John’s Gospel. Richard Bauckham’s forthcoming Eerdmans publication on the Gospels as eyewitness testimony will further add to this trend. The time has come for scholars to take John’s Gospel seriously, not only with regard to theology, but also with regard to history. If John’s Gospel is untrue historically, how can it be true theologically?

Technorati Tags: John’s Gospel, Jesus, Kostenberger, Gospel, New Testament

In his final work, provocatively titled Kennen wir Jesus?, Adolf Schlatter challenged his readers one final time with the greatest pursuit of all—knowing Jesus, that is, pursuing an ever-closer spiritual relationship with our Lord based on a growing and increasingly thorough understanding of who he is and what he came to do, and how each of us fits into his divine plan. This is contrary to our natural, sinful bent of fitting God into our plans; what God wants the regenerate believer to do instead is reorient our lives so we increasingly fit into his plan, which, in any case, is far superior to the plan we have for our lives. The following selection from Schlatter’s devotional/mini-theology is from the English translation of this work, Do We Know Jesus? (Kregel, 2005; translation by Robert Yarbrough and myself). It is my hope that many of you upon reading the selection below will take up the volume and read it through as part of your quest to know Jesus, and know him more intimately.

Away with the Old Thoughts

January 5

Jesus began to proclaim and to say: “Repent! For the rule of heaven is near” (Matthew 4:17).

New ideas, new goals, new desires, new actions—clearly this demand resulted from Jesus’ coming to men. His existence testified to the fact that God’s rule was near and that God’s work was done by which he brought people to their divinely desired goal. This, however, revolutionizes our entire outlook. Not a single thought is left untouched. To be sure, the message transmitted to our senses by nature remains intact. Man is not removed from nature. The sun still shines for him, for he is not transformed into a bodiless spirit. Over this portion of our mental state we have no control. We cannot obtain it when our senses fail, nor can we reject what nature shows us through them. But through this experience and knowledge we are given material which we process internally. We transform our perceptions into a whole, evaluate what happens to us, and create images by which we stimulate our desires and set aims for it. It is this aspect of our outlook that Jesus’ command addresses when it says, “Do away with your thoughts!” We use different words for it: world view, philosophy, theology, morality, politics. These terms convey the different ways in which our mental faculties operate.

But these differences never invalidate Jesus’ command which demands from us new thoughts and a new will. Yet our thoughts and wills become new solely by the renunciation of old thoughts and by a shedding of our old desires. What is new does not merely supplement the old. Rather, it replaces it. This lends profound seriousness to the demand “renew your thoughts,” and this is what ecclesial language had in view when it called what Jesus desires “repentance.” But this word does not express the essential element in what Jesus is after, namely the transformation of our conduct.

We express thereby that we strongly experience the battle in which Jesus’ call places us, because he calls our thoughts and desires reprehensible. This battle affects our innermost lives and has at the same time far-reaching consequences for our dealings with one another. In this battle, it is even thoughts that are dear to us that come under divine condemnation, and we must judge aspirations reprehensible to which we have devoted our entire lives up to that point. This is not a matter of a gradual process, such as changes in general culture where a first discovery leads to a second one. To the contrary, Jesus demands a decision and thus brings about division. This is inevitable because God’s kingdom is not a supplement or continuation of our natural existence. Our relationship with God is now ordered by God’s gracious will, and this revolutionizes our condition.

The disciples provide a graphic example of the nature of such repentance. When they considered their participation in God’s plan, they thought of God’s Law, and when they looked at the outcome of their lives, they assumed that their end would be death. As long as they sought God’s gift to them in the Law, they looked for righteousness in themselves. But now they long for God’s kingdom and righteousness and know that his kingdom is not characterized by the demanding God who calls people to work but that it takes place through the revelation of his grace. Thus they live on account of what God produces from them, and they know that God’s kingdom brings about God’s eternal fellowship with them, granting them eternal life. Everything became new in the disciples. They were elevated to the liberty of faith which is given forgiveness of sins, and they were liberated from resigning themselves to death. This was a total “turnaround.”

Technorati Tags: Schlatter, Jesus, God, Kostenberger, New Testament, theology