In our book God, Marriage & Family we state that marriage is a covenant, in fact, even more than a covenant. We also note that marriage is a divine institution with covenantal features.

Some who hold to a “no divorce, no remarriage” view have objected to this categorization since it falls short of affirming the indissolubility of marriage under all circumstances as their view requires. They characterize marriage as a “covenant in which God participates” and presuppose that Old Testament covenants such as the Abrahamic covenant are paradigmatic for the husband-wife relationship.

But is God a party to the marriage covenant in exactly the same way as he is a party to the Abrahamic or other Old Testament covenants?

The Abrahamic covenant was between God and Abraham (representing God’s people); marriage is between a man and a woman before God and on the basis of God’s institution of marriage at creation. God is a party in the Abrahamic covenant (entering into covenant commitments, making certain promises, ensuring fulfillment, etc.); God is a witness to the marriage covenant between the man and the woman, as well as the Creator. He is not a party in a particular marriage in the same sense that he is a party in the covenants he directly initiated and entered such as the Abrahamic covenant.

In my view, Albert Mohler’s wording is exactly right when he says that “marriage is presented [in the Bible] as a sacred institution, a covenant made between the man and the woman before their Creator.”

For this reason, if a given marriage fails, it is not as if God had failed—nor does his being Creator and witness guarantee the indissolubility of any particular marriage (as the Roman Catholic Church teaches, calling marriage a “sacrament” and disallowing divorce). Marriages can be broken—most notably through adultery, which in the Old Testament was punishable by death through stoning. Marriages in that case were severed by death of the adulterous spouse. They were not indissoluble!

If the Old Testament covenants were indissoluble, why was there a need for a “new covenant” (see the Book of Hebrews, citing Jeremiah 31)? And why did so many individual Israelites not enter into God’s rest (i.e. salvation) as the Book of Hebrews reminds us?

The reason, I submit, is because it is only in Christ and in the new covenant he instituted with the Church that true believers are inextricably connected with God in an unbreakable covenant relationship. It is God’s plan and will that marriages be monogamous and lifelong, but as Jesus and Paul arguably allow, marriages can be severed in certain, clearly delineated circumstances.

For this reason we should take care not to equate too facilely all covenants in Scripture and allow Scripture itself to inform our understanding of the nature of marriage.

One final thought: Is it just a coincidence that “covenant” terminology (such as the Greek word for covenant, diathēkē) is not used for marriage in the New Testament? Instead, Paul, in his major discussion of the subject, Ephesians 5:21–33, uses the analogy of Christ’s relationship with the Church. This involves the principles of headship and submission, self-sacrifice, love, and respect. In Christ, the marriage relationship is restored as the “one flesh” union it was intended to be in the first place, just as Christ and the Church sustain intimate union with Christ as the head and the Church as the body of Christ.

Marriage is a covenant, defined as “a divine institution entered into by a man and a woman before God,” but it is even more. It is a one-flesh union, redeemed and restored in Christ, so that a Christian couple may bring glory to God by witnessing to his lordship, self-sacrifice, and love in all submission and respect.

Technorati Tags: marriage, covenant, divorce

Before returning to the important kingdom business of changing diapers, Debbie Maken has, in her own words, endeavored to “dissect” my reply in my previous post. As we will see, “dissect” my reply she did, but very selectively, and in many places misleadingly.

The opening salvo is that I and those in my “camp” (?) are “talk[ing] out of both sides of” our mouths. This is a surprisingly inflammatory way to start her critique, especially in light of her previous post objecting to my tone. Is this the tone she wants to use to model proper discourse? As to the substance of her comment, did then Jesus and Paul talk out of both sides of their mouth as well, since both affirmed marriage as the norm and remaining unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom as a divinely gifted exception?

Maken then refers to “a highly subjective test for singleness” I employ “so that the general rule of marriage can be swallowed whole.” I am not sure what she means by “swallowed whole.” I will say more about the “highly subjective” part later.

Maken’s only response to my point that we should leave the decision whether or not to marry in an individual person’s case up to that person and the personal leading of the Holy Spirit is the sarcastic statement, “Learning that I am not the Holy Spirit has lightened my burden significantly. I rest much better at night now.” However, sarcasm is no substitute for argument.

She goes on to note that singleness “is not a question of Christian liberty” as is buying a car. Does she then advocate compelling people to marry? (Elsewhere [see below] she speaks of marriage as a “requirement.”) Certain associations come to mind in this regard.

Maken then expresses concern “for the spouse they [the person who sinfully did not pursue marriage] could have had.” These are fairly complex matters to delve into theologically, and ultimately it would be best to leave these issues up to God’s sovereign providence.

She goes on to say that, “for most of history, Christian singles were being led by the Spirit to pursue marriage early in life, but now the Holy Spirit is directing teams of Christian singles to pursue marriage later in life. Is God taking a detour in redemptive history?” This comment neglects to understand the cultural nature of certain marriage customs. In the ancient near East, girls often married very young, as early as age 13, and were given to their grooms by the parents in the form of arranged marriages. A dowry was paid, etc. (see my book God, Marriage & Family). Is Maken saying that all these ancient near Eastern customs are permanent and normative for today in all cultures, including the United States? Does she advocate girls marrying at age 13, never meeting their future husband, parents paying dowry, and so on? This seems to be the implication of her comments. However, again, very few would support her in this—hermeneutically, theologically, and culturally.

I question whether Maken is right that the decision whether or not to marry is on the same ethical level as the decision whether or not to have an abortion, or whether or not Christ is the only Savior. There is no “gift of hell” in Scripture, but there is a gift of remaining unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom. Those are some really bad analogies, in my opinion. (Note I’m not saying Mrs. Maken is a bad person, just that she is using some bad analogies.)

Maken then attributes to me the statement and belief that “no ‘content’ single person . . . could be ‘self-deceived.’ ” This I never said, and do not believe. Let me ask this, however: Is Maken saying that all unmarried persons are self-deceived? This seems to be the case. If so, I would argue that this is an arrogant, judgmental, and highly inflammatory position for anyone to hold.

Maken also speaks of my “interchangeable usage of ‘singleness’ and ‘celibacy’ ” and calls this “sloppy.” Here is why I actually wrote:

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.

After this Maken reiterates her point that we must preach marriage (and having children) to the unmarried just as we must preach Christ to all. I have already addressed this point above. Again, let me say these are complex theological issues, and I believe Maken wades into these without adequate preparation.

Maken proceeds to state that “married to the wife/husband of our youth is required by God in Scripture” and that we ought not to “privatize our singleness as a cosmic unknown purely dependent on our circumstances or conscience or the personal leadings of the Holy Spirit.” Regarding Maken’s appeal to the Proverbs passage, this constitutes a misuse of Scripture, because (1) the passage in Proverbs talks about staying, not getting married; and (2) it is illegitimate to use this passage as biblical support for marriage being a “requirement.” To my knowledge, nowhere in Scripture is “requirement” language used with regard to marriage. As to Maken’s terminology, “privatize,” perhaps “personal” would be a better term. Indeed, the Holy Spirit’s leading is personal, is it not?

With regard to Maken’s claim that she has an “objective test” of whether or not a person should get married, it should be remembered that Matt. 19:11–12 and 1 Cor. 7:7 stipulate a divine gift of remaining unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom. Which “objective” test does Maken suggest for determining if anyone has that gift? The “monumental achievement” test? The “immune to sexual temptation” test? These are hardly more objective tests than the ones she decries as unduly subjective.

She then cites Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7 in support of the notion that “the fundamental nature of man required marriage, and that if he failed to marry in a timely fashion, he was placing his body and soul in spiritual peril.” I find it hard to see how these passages support Maken’s claim. Also, she cites the Westminster Catechism, while elsewhere being extremely critical of Reformed theology (including proponents such as John Piper). This seems to be a case of citing sources when they seem to support our argument but failing to cite them when they don’t. This is commonly known as “selective use of evidence” and does not qualify as serious scholarship.

Later, Maken holds up Jeremiah and John the Baptist as prototypes of those who remained unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom. To be sure, these two individuals fall into this category, but how does Maken know they are typical? Neither Jesus nor Paul specifically cite Jeremiah or John the Baptist, or any other specific individual (other than Paul citing himself), nor do they say that this gift is “rare” or the like as I mentioned in my previous post (no response from Maken on this point).

In conclusion Maken claims that she has “an entire cadre” of theologians on her side, as well as “historical precedent . . . Scripture, and . . . good old-fashioned logic.” If so, one wonders why at the same time Maken gives the impression that she is the lone voice in the wilderness on this issue (sorry for this allusion to John the Baptist).

I mentioned at the outset that Maken is highly selective in “dissecting” my previous post. Here is a list of issues I raised that she does not address:

• her argument that 1 Tim. 3:2 precludes unmarried men from serving in church leadership (to my knowledge held by no serious published commentator today); in addition, she requires that those who are married are also having children, but she never addresses implications of this requirement with regard to those unable to have children;

• her rationale from God’s unchanging nature that marriage as the norm per Genesis 2 cannot now be changed to singleness as a divine gift (incidentally, how does she square this argument with Jesus’ statement that in the eternal state there will be no more marriage? if God is unchanging, and his unchanging purpose is marriage, how are we to interpret Jesus’ statement that there will be no marriage in heaven?);

• my argument that neither in Jesus’ nor Paul’s statements on the subject (Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7, respectively) is there any explicit reference made as to singleness being “rare” or limited to “monumental achievements” (Maken’s “objective test”).

Maken also seems unable or unwilling to acknowledge that I do advocate marriage as the norm today and refraining from marriage as being for those who are divinely gifted to do so. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is an area in which she and I agree (whether or not she is prepared to acknowledge this). It is unhelpful for someone who holds to an extreme position (as Maken does, marriage as the virtually universal “requirement”) to try to push someone who holds to a different view to the opposite extreme. What to her appears to be speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth is in fact an effort to hold biblical perspectives in tension, which is precisely what both Jesus and Paul sought to do in Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7. I invite you to look at both passages and see that both Jesus and Paul sought to affirm the legitimacy of both marriage and remaining unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom for those divinely gifted in those passages. It is unclear to me how Maken can claim to have Scripture on her side while failing to strike the same balance characteristic of Jesus and Paul in her adjudication of the issue.

In conclusion, I am struck by the man-centered nature and emphasis in Maken’s work. She calls on the unmarried to “get serious about getting married.” Is reality really as simple as this? Is lack of serious pursuit of marriage really and ultimately the most pressing problem, and getting serious about getting married the solution? It seems that Maken’s emphasis is almost unilaterally on man’s (or woman’s) initiative, while God’s providence and the Holy Spirit’s leading are disparaged. Are we not to trust God as to his timing and his way of leading in this intensely personal area of our lives? In the end, one wonders just how Christian Maken’s thinking is and to what extent shallow theology masks a focus on people going out and trying to force the hand of a recalcitrant and ambivalent God who has largely left humans to their own devices.

See also my previous posts here and here.

Technorati Tags: marriage, singleness, Kostenberger, Bible

“What have you been up to lately?” “What are you currently working on?” These are questions I am sometimes asked. Since you asked, here’s my answer.

Just out is Vol. 12 in the revised Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. Tremper Longman and David Garland), which includes my commentary on 1–2 Timothy and Titus on pp. 488–625.

A few years ago, I participated in a conference on the use of the OT in the NT at McMaster Divinity School in Hamilton, ON. The conference papers have now been published in a revised format in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). Contributors include Stanley Porter, Dennis Stamps, Timothy McLay, Michael Knowles, Craig Evans, Paul Miller, James Aageson, Sylvia Keesmaat, Kurt Richardson, and myself. My essays, “The Use of Scripture in the Pastoral and General Epistles and the Book of Revelation” and “Hearing the Old Testament in the New: A Response,” are found on pp. 230–54 and 255–94, respectively. The book gathers essays on the use of the OT and in the NT related to rhetoric, the LXX, and each of the NT books. It would make a fine text for classes on the use of the OT in the NT.

Speaking of the use of the OT in the NT, a major forthcoming reference work is a work co-edited by D. A. Carson and G. K. Beale, Commentary on the Use of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker). This new reference work will be presented in commentary format from Matthew to Revelation, commenting on all significant instances of the use of the OT in the NT. Contributors include Eckhard Schnabel, Douglas Moo, Rikki Watts, the editors, and myself (on John’s Gospel). The book is scheduled to be released by the Annual ETS Meeting in November 2007.

While still on this topic, I also wrote the entry on “Testament Relationships” for the forthcoming Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. Stanley E. Porter), which is to be released in the next few months.

Another forthcoming publication is the essay on “Baptism in the Gospels” in Believer’s Baptism: The Covenant Sign of the New Age in Christ (ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright; Nashville: B & H). Ardel Caneday, Mark Dever, Duane Garrett, Steven McKinion, Jonathan Rainbow, Thomas R. Schreiner, Robert H. Stein, Stephen Wellum, Shawn D. Wright, and myself. The book will provide a comprehensive treatment of baptism in biblical studies, church history, and systematic theology and is due out in January 2007.

Finally, the next issue of the Bulletin of Biblical Research 16/2 (2006) will feature the second part in my two-part series on tithing (co-authored with David A. Croteau), “Reconstructing a Biblical Model for Giving: A Discussion of Relevant Systematic Issues and New Testament Principles.”

Thanks for your interest. Now it’s time to get back to work . . .

If recent hermeneutical thought has taught us anything, it is that biblical interpretation must proceed in keeping with the given genre of a particular text. It occurs to me that if this is true with regard to the interpretation of biblical passages, it is true also with regard to—blogs!

What is the genre of “blog,” then? My admittedly random research on this subject (i.e. the unscientific perusal of a variety of blogs over the past year or so) indicates that there is little writing on the subject. In fact, the present blog may be the first effort to deal precisely with this subject.

If anything authoritative can be said about the subject, it is that there is no discernible uniform pattern as to the genre of “blog.” Here is the way in which some, almost entirely on an implicit level, seem to conceive of what blogging is all about—for them:

• Diary: various entries that reveal private information in a rather public manner; there is no hard and fast line between this genre and the next one, that of “journal”; technically, journals are intended for wider circulation, while diaries are more private in nature

• Journal: many blogs take the form of personal notes, of travels, insights from Bible study, and so on, on the assumption that what a given individual found helpful might help others as well

• Academic paper: in some cases, people may post a researched piece, including footnotes and technical material, though this is less frequent

• Editorial: this is the way I conceive of some of my entries; it is my opinion on a subject of contemporary relevance

• Sermon or homily: not infrequent is what Scripture calls a “word of exhortation” (Acts 13:15; Heb 13:22), that is, a message designed to challenge others to integrity, commitment, or other virtues

• Panel discussion: some essentially perceive of their blog as a forum for discussion where they toss out ideas and enjoy stimulating interchange with other like-minded individuals

• Treatise or essay: this is similar to academic paper, but less rigorous in documentation; it tends to be a rather lengthy exposition of a person’s views on a given subject

The purpose of this piece is not to adjudicate which is the “right” or “wrong” way to conceive of a blog. Clearly, there is more than one legitimate way in which to blog. However, it may be helpful to raise our consciousness as to how we conceive of our own blogs and, what is equally important, how we read and interact with the blogs of others.

I have previously posted on why I blog. I do not consider blogging as a substitute for scholarly work but as a distribution mechanism by which some at times more technical material can be simplified, condensed, and presented in a more accessible format. This is an outflow of my commitment to make scholarship subservient to the church at large. It is also a modest expression of my commitment to help feed the hungry and provide for at least a few needy children.*

It occurs to me that some of us are not very good listeners or readers of others’ blogs. Much would be gained if we were to intuit the proper genre of another’s blog and critique that blog in keeping with the authorially intended genre. For example, if someone writes a blog editorial-style, is it fair to critique his piece as if it were intended as an academic paper? Should we respond to a journal-type blog as we would to an essay? Neither would be in keeping with sound principles of interpretation or communication. But I have seen quite a few examples of genre-misidentification with resultant communication breakdown in the blogosphere.

Internet etiquette is important, especially for Christians. Wisdom and spiritual maturity ought to be the primary pursuit and heart’s desire of every Christian blogger. But my topic today is more narrow. What I would encourage all of us to refine and hone is our ability to reflect intelligently, and to develop skills in, is to identify properly which genre a given blog represents and to respond accordingly. That way we won’t try to drive a square peg into a round hole but rather write blogs that resemble well-driven nails (Eccl 12:11) and in our responses speak words that are apt and refresh rather than hurt and offend (Prov 25:11).

*My own.

Technorati Tags: interpretation, blogging, Kostenberger, internet etiquette

Note: The following reflections are excerpted from Andreas J. Köstenberger, “1–2 Timothy, Titus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 12: Ephesians ~ Philemon (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), pp. 580–81.

In contrast to the false teachers, Timothy must make every effort (spoudazō, cf. 2 Tim 4:9, 21; Titus 3:12; Gal 2:10; 1 Thess 2:17; Eph 4:3) to present himself (paristēmi—an allusion to OT ritual? cf. Rom 6:13; 12:1; see also 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:27; Col 1:22, 28) to God as one tested and approved (dokimos; cf. Rom 14:18; 16:10; 1 Cor 11:19; 2 Cor 10:18; 13:7; the opposite adokimos in 2 Tim 3:8; Titus 1:16; cf. 1 Cor 9:27). The heretics twist the Scriptures to fit their own theology; Timothy ought to model a proper use of God’s word. Paul employs three further images. The first is that of a workman (ergatēs; cf. Matt 9:37–38 par.; 1 Tim 5:19 cf. Luke 10:7) who has no need to be ashamed (anepaischyntos; cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.243) but correctly handles the “word of truth,” that is, the apostolic (Pauline) exposition of the saving message of the gospel.

Paul previously told Timothy not to be ashamed of the gospel (e.g., 2 Tim 1:8). Here shame is a result (ultimately at God’s judgment, 1 John 2:28), not of fear of being identified with Christ, but of lack of proper training and skill in handling God’s word. Analogously, there may be those today who are willing to identify openly with Christ and preach his word, but who owing to inadequate training fail to handle God’s word properly and thus ought to be ashamed. Those people need not more courage or commitment but proper training in understanding and communicating the scriptural message (cf. 2 Tim 3:16–17). Just as a workman takes pride in a job well done, proper preaching of God’s word requires training and skill.

The expression “handle correctly” (orthotomeō) conveys the notion of “cutting straight” (as opposed to crooked) with possible reference to the cutting of a road to make a straight path (cf. Prov 3:6; 11:5 LXX; most Fathers interpret the term as plowing). In an age where Roman roads were masterful examples of skilled engineering, this metaphor would have communicated well. Whatever the setting, the point here is that a workman’s job must be performed with skill. There is no room for incompetence or shortcuts, and an untrained workman may do more harm than good. Jesus noted that “everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40). Paul was “thoroughly trained” under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), and Jesus’ disciples were recognized as having “been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). The key is to handle God’s word in keeping with its intended purpose and to communicate its meaning properly (cf. 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; contrast Acts 13:10).

As a properly trained workman, Timothy must not only stay on the straight path himself but also ensure that those under his care likewise are shown the paths of God’s truth. There is no substitute for thorough training in the Scriptures, even in a day where modern technology has made learning the biblical languages easier and where the internet has opened new avenues of theological education. Moreover, the primary subject of training for the Christian minister must be “the word of truth” (i.e., the word that is true, an epexegetic genitive), not various derivative subjects. In Timothy’s case, his training had come largely as a result of his long-term association with Paul in ministry (2 Tim 3:10–11; cf. Acts 16:1–5). If ministerial training today is to be effective, there must be similar mentoring or internship opportunities for young aspiring pastors and Christian workers. Conversely, cults regularly distort the teaching of the Scriptures, with disastrous results for their members and converts.

Technorati Tags: Paul, Timothy, Christ, Kostenberger, Bible