From the patristic period until today, John’s Gospel has served as a major source for the church’s knowledge, doctrine, and worship of the triune God. Among all New Testament documents the Fourth Gospel provides not only the most raw material for the doctrine of the Trinity, but also the most highly developed patterns of reflection on this material—particularly patterns tht seek to account in some way for the distinct personhood and divinity of Father, Son and Spirit without compromising the unity of God.

While there have been recent, fine studies on aspects of John’s doctrine of God, it is surprising that none summarizes and synthesizes what John has to say about God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In order to fill this gap, Scott R. Swain and I have written a fresh examination of John’s trinitarian vision.

Part One situates John’s trinitarian teaching within the context of Second Temple Jewish monotheism. Part Two examines the Gospel narrative in order to trace the characterization of God as Father, Son and Spirit, followed by a brief synthesis. Part Three deals more fully with major trinitarian themes in the Fourth Gospel, including its account of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and mission. A final chapter discusses the significance of John’s Gospel for the church’s doctrine of the Trinity, and a brief conclusion summarizes some practical implications.

The book is volume 24 in the New Studies in Biblical Theology (NSBT) series (series editor: D. A. Carson). The volume has just been released in the UK by InterVarsity Press. It is scheduled for release in the US by InterVarsity Press, in July 2008. In the series preface, D. A. Carson says about Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel: “This present volume is the joint product of a Neutestamentler and a systematic theologian. In their collaboration they have simultaneously attempted a detailed exegetical and theological understanding of what the Fourth Gospel says about God, using the categories of that Gospel itself, and mature understanding of the links between that text and the systematic formulations of what came to be called the doctrine of the Trinity. In what sense is it proper to think of the doctrine of God in John’s Gospel as trinitarian? Some are so suspicious of links between biblical exegesis and systematic theology that they will deplore any ostensible connections between the two, afraid that the latter will domesticate the former and stain it with anachronism, or that the former will dilute the latter and render it insipid. Drs Köstenberger and Swain, thankfully, are not numbered among them. …”

It is hoped that this volume will be a blessing to the church, that community gathered into the fellowship of the Father and the Son by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

As the angels told the women at the empty tomb, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee?” (Luke 24:5–6). The four New Testament Gospels record at least eleven resurrection appearances to Jesus to hundreds of individuals over a period of several weeks. None of the Gospels have all the appearances, which requires that we reconstruct the probable sequence of these appearances. The following chart will appear in my forthcoming New Testament Introduction due out with B & H sometime in the not too distant future. Click here if you want to see the chart.

A few weeks ago I blogged on the question whether or not Jesus was born on December 25. To continue the conversation, here is what I consider to be the best article on the subject, by Paul Maier, Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University. The piece originally appeared in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies presented to Jack Finegan, ed. J. Vardaman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), and is posted here by permission of the author. Maier writes, “In 1968 I published an article that offered fresh evidence in support of Friday, 3 April A.D. 33, as the date of the Crucifixion. Since then, much attention has focused on the other terminus of Jesus’ life in response to recent recalculations of dates for the death of Herod the Great and the birth of Christ. Although a precise date, as in the case of the Crucifixion, still seems unattainable for the Nativity, some further refinement within the usual range of 7 to 4 B.C. is possible, which would suggest late 5 B.C. as the most probable time for the first Christmas. This time frame, along with 3 April A.D. 33 for the Crucifixion, provides a very balanced correlation of all surviving chronological clues in the New Testament, as well as the extrabiblical sources. Earlier or later dates, in either case, tend to disregard or manipulate at least one or more of the sources. Using the form of a running commentary on the relevant chronological sedes in the New Testament, I will respond briefly to the current status of research on each. …”   To continue reading Paul Maier’s article, click here. 

This blog was originally written for inclusion in the Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, 4 vols., ed. G. Kurian (Blackwell, forthcoming), along with 15 other forthcoming entries.

Monogamy (from Gr. monos, “one,” and gamos, “marriage”) refers to marriage to one marriage partner. Monogamy is firmly embedded in the Old Testament teaching regarding God’s plan for marriage. According to Gen. 2:24, “A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” This clearly stipulates a heterosexual, monogamous relationship as the norm for God’s people across both covenant periods.

After the Fall, it took only six generations until monogamy began to be compromised. Barely after Adam had died, Lamech “took two wives” (Gen. 4:19). During the course of Old Testament history, prominent men such as Abraham (Gen. 16:3), Esau (Gen. 26:34; 28:9), Jacob (Gen. 29:30), Gideon (Judg. 8:30), David (2 Sam. 3:2–5; 5:13), Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:3), and others practiced polygamy. Nevertheless, the Old Testament never approves of polygamy.

In the New Testament, both Jesus and Paul upheld the biblical ideal of monogamy. When asked about the permissibility of divorce, Jesus reiterated God’s original plan for marriage as stated in Gen. 2:24 (Matt. 19:4–6 pars.). Paul, likewise, assumed monogamous, heterosexual marriage as the norm, even relating it to Christ’s relationship with the Church (Eph. 5:21–33; cf. Col. 3:18–19). Peter did likewise (1 Pet. 3:1–7; cf. 1 Cor. 9:5).

Scripture proscribes any form of extra-marital sexual intercourse, calling it sexual immorality (porneia), whether adultery, incest, or other forms of illicit sexual relationships (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Thess. 4:3–6). Jesus even taught that adultery is committed in a person’s heart (Matt. 5:32; cf. Heb. 13:4). In the Greco-Roman world, too, marriage was viewed as monogamous and lifelong (Modestinus, Digesta 23.2.1), though divorce often disrupted the marital bond.

Bibliography:

Campbell, Ken M., ed. Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003.

Hawthorne, Gerald F. “Marriage and Divorce, Adultery and Incest.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 594–601.

Keener, Craig S. “Marriage, Divorce and Adultery.” In Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments (ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 712–17.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. God, Marriage and Family. Wheaton: Crossway, 2004.

This blog was originally written for inclusion in the Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, 4 vols., ed. G. Kurian (Blackwell, forthcoming), along with 15 other forthcoming entries.

Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) was born January 14, 1875 at Kaysersberg in Upper Alsace, Germany, the son of a Lutheran pastor. In 1893, he began his studies at the University of Strassburg, taking classes in New Testament with the well-known German scholar Heinrich Julius Holtzmann. From 1902 until 1912, he served in Strassburg as a lecturer in New Testament, as pastor of a church, and as director of the Thomasstift. Apart from being a New Testament scholar, Schweitzer also earned a medical doctorate and was an accomplished organist and authority on the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Starting in 1913, with occasional interruptions, Schweitzer served as a missionary doctor in Lambaréné, equatorial West Africa. During this time Schweitzer continued his work as a scholar, contributing, among other works, a study on The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Schweitzer also received the 1952 Nobel peace prize on December 10, 1953. He died at Lambaréné on September 4, 1965.

Doubtless Schweitzer’s most influential scholarly work was his survey of studies on the life of Jesus, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A critical study of its progress from Reimarus to Wrede, a work he wrote not even being thirty years old. In this book, written in a lively style, Schweitzer discusses and critiques approximately 250 (mostly German) works on Jesus in the previous (nineteenth) century. In the end, he concludes that writing a life of Jesus is impossible, because we do not have the data for a biography in the modern sense. Those who were trying to do so nonetheless, according to Schweitzer, ended up domesticating Jesus, removing him from his time and transposing him into their own in order to render him intelligible to a modern audience. But Jesus refuses to be domesticated, and thus all liberal modern lives are blind alleys, falsifications rather than expositions of Jesus’ life.

For his part, Schweitzer endeavored to understand Jesus within his own first-century Jewish framework, presenting him under the rubric of what he calls “thoroughgoing eschatology” (though what he meant more closely approximates what today is understood as “apocalyptic,” that is, the expectation that the world will come to an end through the cataclysmic, end-time intervention of God). Within this framework, Schweitzer understood Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God as the proclamation that in him, Jesus, the end of time had dawned and was imminent. Yet Jesus died, and history failed to come to an end. By implication, Jesus was mistaken. While not followed in every respect by anyone, Schweitzer’s work has cast a long, influential shadow on subsequent generations of German and Anglo-American scholarship. The importance of Jesus’ Jewishness and his first-century Palestinian milieu is widely recognized today. At the same time, many would concur that Schweitzer underestimated the role of Jesus’ resurrection in spawning a movement that extends to every corner of the globe.

Bibliography:

Baird, William. History of New Testament Research. Volume Two: From Jonathan Edwards to Rudolf Bultmann. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003, pp. 229–37, 508–9.

Neill, Stephen and Tom Wright. The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986. 2^nd ed. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, pp. 205–15.

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A critical study of its progress from Reimarus to Wrede. Ed. and trans. John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001 [1^st orig. ed. 1906; 2^nd ed. 1913].

Idem. Out of my Life and Thought: An Autobiography. 2^nd ed. Trans. A. B. Lemke. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954 [1931].

Idem. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Trans. W. Montgomery. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1931 [1930].

The Christmas season is over, but the debate regarding Jesus’ probable date of birth is never out of date. While many have disparaged the traditional date of December 25, J. Stormer, PCC [Pensacola Christian College] Update (Winter 1996), cited by G. E. Veith, “Evidence December 25 is the right day,” online at http://www.geneveith.com/evidence-december-25-is-the-right-day/_184/, has recently argued for December 25 as a possible date of Jesus’ birth on the basis of the course of temple duties for the clan of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5, 8; cf. 1 Chron 24:10).

The argument goes as follows. The sons of Abijah ministered in the eighth month of the Jewish year (which started with Nisan anytime between early March and early April), that is, sometime between mid-October and mid-November. Luke 1:24 says that after Elizabeth conceived, she kept herself in seclusion for five months. Then, in the sixth month of her pregnancy came Gabriel’s announcement to Mary that the Lord Jesus would be conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:26–27). Counting from mid-October to mid-November (see above), the announcement to Mary and Jesus’ conception in her womb would have come sometime between mid-March and mid-April. A normal gestation period of nine months would place Jesus’ birth toward the end of December, making a birth date of December 25 entirely possible. (In addition, Stormer makes an argument from when lambs are born requiring shepherds to be out in the fields at night [cf. Luke 2:8], an argument which is ancillary and which we will not engage here since, unlike the above-described argument from the assigned temple duties, it is not put forward on the basis of Scripture.)

In principle, we are certainly open to the type of argument presented by Stormer. We do believe that there is nothing in the NT that rules out a winter date for Jesus’ birth. Nevertheless, in the ultimate analysis, we find Stormer’s argument unconvincing for the following reasons. First, his work is too anecdotal and makes some big assumptions that are not adequately documented. More importantly, his argument has some serious problems with regard to their handling of the available sources and evidence. He argues that the 24 courses of the priests each served for one month. However, he did not document that claim, and the OT does not indicate the length of priestly service. Clues in the Mishnah suggest that each course served for one week—not one month—by rotation (see, for example, the note on m. Taanith 2:6 in Danby’s translation of the Mishnah). Josephus and the Talmud confirm that the courses each lasted one week (Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 119). If, then, the priestly service lasted one week, not one month at time, this causes their entire chronology to break down. Most likely, therefore, each course of the priests served for one week, from Sabbath to Sabbath, two different times each year. Since we cannot be sure whether the course mentioned in Luke was the first or second annual course, and other difficulties are present as well, the information concerning Zechariah’s temple service in Luke 1 is hardly adequate for pinpointing the time of Jesus’ birth.

More likely correct are scholars such as Oscar Cullmann, Der Ursprung des Weihnachtsfestes (Zurich/Stuttgart: Zwingli, 1960), who points to the uncertainty regarding the date of Jesus’ birth in the first three centuries of the Christian era and believes the traditional date was determined by the church sometime in the fourth century (Cullmann specifies AD 325–354 as the most likely range, p. 24). The date was most likely chosen as the Christian equivalent to the Roman holiday of sol invictus (“the invincible sun god”), celebrated at the time of winter solstice, the message being that Jesus was Christians’ true invincible “sun” (see also the helpful collection of data in Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, rev. ed. [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998], 320–28).

As mentioned, this does not necessarily mean that Jesus could not have been born in December, or even on December 25, but that the specific argument set forth by Stormer is found wanting. In addition, in light of the argument advanced by Cullmann and others, greater historical probability attaches to the traditional date having been chosen, not primarily on the basis of historical data, but in relation to the surrounding culture. In any case, our Christian faith should not rest on Christmas (which, after all, with all its trappings is only a human tradition), much less on the date of Christmas as December 25, but rather on the reason for the season—the virgin-born, divine-human Son of God, who came to save sinners by dying a sacrificial, substitutionary death on the cross and rose again on the third day (1 Cor 15:3–4).

As Mike Huckabee said during one of the ubiquitous television debates recently, “Jesus was way too smart to run for political office.” Isn’t that the truth. One certainly sympathizes with the candidates having to reinvent themselves about once every few days to appeal to different constituencies of voters. Indeed, Jesus didn’t run for political office. In fact, he said that his kingdom was not of this world. This doesn’t mean he was so otherworldly that he was of no earthly good. To the contrary, he was well aware of people’s anxieties and preoccupation with existential necessities. He was critical of those who hoarded wealth while failing to consider the needs of others or to make preparations for their eternal destiny. He urged some who came to him to sell all their possessions to give to the poor. Thus while not running for political office, Jesus was interested in matters of economics and (voluntary) economic redistribution.

Not only did Jesus not run for office, he also did not endorse political candidates. Yet he was concerned about matters of righteousness and character. He excoriated the leaders of his day for their phoniness and hypocrisy and urged them to repent. He exhorted them to be honest, unselfish, God-fearing, Christ-believing, and authentic, calling on them to strive for consistency in the way they lived. Flip-floppers and phonies were anathema, as were those who compromised righteousness and morality in either the public policy arena or their personal beliefs and practices. Jesus also stayed above partisan politics. His aims were spiritual and transcended the affairs of this world. In the end, the leaders of both major parties of his day conspired, in an alliance of political expediency, to get rid of him. This did not catch Jesus by surprise. He expected no less. His trust was not in any human party or institution, for he had a realistic appraisal of human sinfulness and the fickleness of the crowds who could be won by promises of having their immediate needs met.

Jesus’ own vision transcended mere human earthly existence. Of course, he was no politician. But he set before people a vision that was grand and inspiring and able to capture their imagination. He was very good one-on-one, and could convince individuals to leave their previous occupation and follow him. He was able to connect with people and spoke their language. He talked about things that mattered to people rather than speaking in abstract terms. This is all the more remarkable as he was the Son of God who had come to earth from above. His identification with the people to whom he came to minister was complete. In fact, he came to serve them rather than recruiting them in order to help him meet his own objectives and selfish ambitions.

The purpose of this brief sketch, which is impressionistic at best and certainly anything but complete, is not to present Jesus as the “exemplary candidate.” Perhaps, though, reading through these reflections can serve as a prism refracting some light on the candidates in the present primary season. Which candidate(s) reflect Christlikeness in any (or several) of the areas mentioned in their demeanor and approach? Which candidate(s) look more like the people Jesus denounced as unrighteous or hypocritical? There is not, nor ever will be, a perfect candidate. We should not put any of the present or future candidates on a pedestal. But for those who are eligible to vote there is a choice to be made. Few of us will ever run for political office. But as we vote, as Christians, we ought to use Christian criteria in making our determination in choosing the best candidate. In this regard, as in any other matter in the Christian life, there is no better criterion than the character and values of Jesus.

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”

When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.

And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. (Luke 2:1–21 ESV)

Who are the main characters in the Christmas story told by Luke the evangelist? There are two kinds of characters: (1) named; and (2) unnamed. To start with the latter, there are especially two groups: angels, who are messengers of good news; and shepherds, who become witnesses of the birth of the Christ child (note that no animals in the stable are mentioned).

On the named side, there are the Emperor (Augustus) and the Governor (Quirinius) on the one hand, and the parents of the Christ child on the other (Mary and Joseph). The parents are first listed as “Joseph and Mary,” though later the order is reversed: “Mary and Joseph.” Mary is mentioned a third time (most of any) as the one who pondered “all these things” in her heart.

Interestingly, the name of the Christ child is withheld in Luke’s birth narrative until the final verse. He is called “child,” “her firstborn son,” “a baby,” “the baby,” and “this child.” Most notably, he is called “a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” Only at the formal name-giving, 8 days after the birth, is his name finally made explicit: “Jesus.”

By withholding the name of the Christ child throughout his narrative, Luke builds suspense and helps the reader take in the surroundings accompanying the birth of this unusual child. When the Christ child was born, it was not only as a baby, but as a baby as of yet without a name—without a name, that is, other than “a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”

He is not only “a” Savior, but “my” Savior. He most assuredly is the Christ, God’s long-awaited Anointed One. And he is “the Lord,” who by virtue of his redemption commands our unquestioned obedience. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt 28:18). Is he also your Savior and your Lord?

I certainly hope that he is, or, if not, that you will acknowledge him as such this Christmas season. Unlike in Jesus’ day, when “there was no place for them in the inn,” “let every heart prepare him room.” Merry Christmas, everyone!

Books in Bible and theology continue to pour from the presses at an ever-accelerating pace. Surely, of the making of books there is no end … (in fact, I’m working on a few myself right now). In case anyone is interested, here is my “completely objective” list of the “Best of 2007,” ranked in order of importance. As always, I welcome your comments and suggestions regarding any additions or subtractions.

1. Greg Beale and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Baker. In the interest of full disclosure, I contributed “John” to this volume, but still no reason not to award first place to this book. The publication of this volume is truly a significant event in evangelical scholarship.

2. Bruce Waltke. An Old Testament Theology. Zondervan. The magnum opus of an exceedingly prolific Old Testament scholar.

3. (tie) John Piper. The Future of Justification. A Response to N. T. Wright. Crossway. A very helpful and important contribution to the ongoing discussion of the biblical teaching on justification and imputation.

3. (tie) Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions. Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Crossway. A compelling defense of the doctrine of penal substitution.

5. Daniel Akin, ed. A Theology for the Church. B & H. A very fine collection of contributions on Systematic Theology produced by a Baptist team of scholars. Again, in the interest of full disclosure, the contributors include the president, dean, and colleagues of the school where I teach, but not a reason not to include this important new volume in this list.

6. Donald McKim, ed. Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. IVP. A major second edition that will serve as a very useful reference for years to come.

7. Philip Noss, ed. A History of Bible Translation. American Bible Society. For anyone interested in Bible translation, this is a must.

8. Mark Strauss. Four Portraits, One Jesus. An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels. Zondervan. Beautifully produced and competently written, this is a very accessible resource on Jesus and the Gospels, probably the best currently available on its level.

9. Jeannine Brown. Scripture as Communication. Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics. Baker. A stimulating new book on hermeneutical theory in the Vanhoozer tradition that is sure to make a contribution to the field.

10. Tom Thatcher, ed. What We Have Heard from the Beginning. The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies. Baylor University Press. Thatcher has assembled a remarkable group of scholars representing the past, present, and future of Johannine studies. This book gives an excellent orientation to the state of the field. Includes an essay by Don Carson and a brief response by yours truly.

[Note: I gave this speech at this year’s ETS Banquet in San Diego. I was also presented a copy of the newly published book I edited titled Quo Vadis, Evangelicalism? The picture to the left shows Lane Dennis, President of Crossway Books, officially presenting the new publication.]

Thank you, Ron, and thank you, Alan, for summarizing for us the first 40 years or so of the history of the publication of the Journal. It is a privilege and a sacred stewardship to serve the Society as JETS editor, and I want to thank the executive committee and all of you for your trust, encouragement, and support. Since I assumed the editorship in 1999, I have attempted to continue in the fine tradition of the Journal, both in terms of quantity and quality. In terms of quantity, page numbers have increased several times in the last few years and presently stand at over 200 pages per issue, for a total of almost a thousand pages a year. Just this year we published close to 700 pages of articles and over 250 pages of book reviews.

In terms of quality, as many of you know, the Journal is a fully refereed journal. What this means is that every serious contribution is reviewed anonymously by one or several experts in the field, and that normally as the Editor I act on the recommendation of these reviewers. I think one thing that makes JETS particularly unique is the broad range of articles we publish, from Old and New Testament studies to Systematic Theology and Church History to Preaching and Missions and other disciplines. Producing the Journal is a team effort, and I would be amiss not to thank my book review editors, the editorial committee, the many referees, and our typesetter, Eisenbrauns, for their valuable and indispensable contribution.

If you believe in the viability of our Journal, there are several things you can do to enhance its stature. You can use JETS in your research and cite relevant articles in your writing. You can submit your work to the Journal and entrust us with publishing your best research. You can also speak well about the Journal to your colleagues, including those who may regard it lightly, frowning on our belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. I am certainly excited about our Journal and about publishing and promoting first-rate evangelical scholarship as I continue to serve in this role.

As you know, this year it has been my joy to edit, not only the Journal, but also the anniversary volume, Quo Vadis, Evangelicalism? published by Crossway. For our remaining time together I would like to summarize for you some of the main contributions of the book and conclude with a brief assessment of the future of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Journal and of evangelicalism as a whole. Hopefully, this will whet your appetite to read the whole volume, maybe over Christmas break, if not before.

I. INTRODUCTION

Quo Vadis, Evangelicalism? Where are we going as evangelicals? With the passing of a generation of leaders in our movement in recent years, evangelicalism is somewhat in ferment and transition, and I believe we are at a critical juncture which presents us with both challenges and opportunities. The purpose of Quo Vadis, Evangelicalism? is to gather seminal presidential addresses over the course of the Journal’s 50-year history so that insights from the past can serve as guides for the future. I am convinced that Quo Vadis, Evangelicalism? is a timely compilation that can help us chart our course for the years to come. But don’t take my word for it. Here is what some of evangelicalism’s leaders have to say about the volume:

Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School and a senior editor of Christianity Today, says, “This anthology of ETS presidential addresses shows how … an unswerving commitment to the totally truthful Word of God written and the transforming message through the living Word of God, Jesus Christ—has guided the evangelical academy for the past half-century. This book has both historic importance and contemporary relevance for the issues evangelicals face today.”

David Wells, Distinguished Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Gordon-Conwell, and one of our plenary speakers this year, writes, “This book gives us a snapshot of evangelical scholars engaging their world over the last fifty years. It is a valuable history. But more than that, it also shows just how difficult it is to preserve Christian orthodoxy, constantly beset as it is by questions, challenges, and perplexities. This calls for both fidelity and wisdom and these presidents showed that they had what was needed.”

And John Woodbridge, Research Professor of Church History at Trinity, comments, “For those who think evangelical Christians are intellectually blinkered when they uphold the infallibility or inerrancy of Holy Scripture, this book should give genuine pause. It constitutes a veritable treasure trove of sparkling insights and reflections upon the meaning, importance, and biblical warrant of the doctrine. In fact, a belief in the Bible’s infallibility represented the central tradition of the Christian churches … until at least the mid-nineteenth century. Today’s evangelicals reside squarely in that great Christian tradition.”

These words are a tribute to our Society and to many of you who have shaped the life of the ETS in significant ways in the past decades. I think we can be grateful to God for all that he has done, and for his faithful servants who have defended the integrity of his Holy Word. This is truly a moment of celebration. Sometimes we are too focused on problems and controversies and forget to give thanks to God. I believe that tonight providence has presented us with a golden opportunity to reflect on the 50 years of publication of the Journal and to celebrate the gift of leaders God has given to the Society. Many of these are present today, and I would like to ask all past ETS presidents in attendance (and our President-Elect and future president) to please stand up for a moment so that we can recognize them for their contribution to the life of our Society.

I would also like to express my personal appreciation to the past editors of the Journal. Thank you, Ron, for your many years of faithful service as editor and for your fine summary a few moments ago of the “Youngblood years.” And thank you, Alan, for covering the early years of the Journal, including Sam Schultz’s tenure as editor, so capably. In the remainder of our time together, as mentioned, I would like to review with you the contributions of our past presidents that are featured in Quo Vadis, Evangelicalism? I have served with several of them on the executive committee and have come to know and appreciate them and their visionary leadership deeply on a personal level.

II. QUO VADIS, EVANGELICALISM?

But before I do this let me share with you for just a moment some of the interesting tidbits I discovered while working on Quo Vadis? Did you know, for example, that several presidential addresses were never published in the Journal and as far as I know are no longer available to us today? (And I should add that if any of you happen to have any of these addresses I am about to mention in your personal possession, I would love for you to come forward after this meeting and to let me have these so we can publish them in some appropriate way in the future.) These lost presidential addresses include: Allan MacRae’s “Challenges of Evangelical Scholarship” (delivered in 1960); R. Laird Harris’s “The Cosmology of the Hebrews” (1961); Burton Goddard’s “Evangelical Theological Stewardship” (1964); Kenneth Kantzer’s “Blueprint for Evangelical Strategy” (1968); and Gleason Archer’s “The Glorious Liberty of the Children of God” (1986).

I tried to locate these addresses, particularly those relevant to the topic of the ETS Festschrift, but unfortunately in each case was unsuccessful. With regard to Allan MacRae, I contacted Wayne Sparkman, director of the PCA Historical Center in St. Louis, MO, where many of MacRae’s papers are kept, yet he did not succeed in locating MacRae’s ETS presidential address, even though the Center had just received over a dozen boxes containing MacRae’s materials and had started going through these.

I also got in touch with Burton Goddard, who responded in a note dated February 28 of this year, writing, “Sorry. I do not have what you request.” (I am told that Burton has since gone to be with the Lord.)

Dick Kantzer, son of Kenneth Kantzer, informed me in a message on February 22 that he was unable to locate his father’s ETS address, adding, “It is also possible that my father recycled portions of that speech and literally cut and stapled it into any number of other presentations, since those were the days he was constantly working to build and shape evangelical institutions.”

I was also disappointed that I could not include an address by one of the towering figures of the American evangelical movement of the last century, Carl F. H. Henry. Henry delivered his ETS presidential address on the topic of justification (in 1969), a very important topic, though not the subject of the ETS anniversary volume. Upon checking, I did discover that Henry delivered the banquet address at the founding meeting of the Society, December 27–28, 1949, in Cincinnati, OH, on “Fifty Years of American Theology and the Contemporary Need,” which led to the publication of Henry’s Fifty Years of Protestant Theology the following year, a volume still very much worth reading. However, I was not able to locate Henry’s banquet address itself.

Finally, Roger Nicole told me in two pieces of written correspondence of his presidential address, given in 1956, the year prior to the first publication of the Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society. Roger writes that he delivered his address before some 80 people at the most at Westminster Theological Seminary. His address was entitled something like “Progress and Prospects in the ETS.” He writes that, “Having moved my library twice since 1956, I don’t have the text of this address.”

After acknowledging these few instances where I have come up empty, let me now share some brief words of appreciation for each of those ETS presidents whose addresses are included in the Quo Vadis, Evangelicalism? volume. I did not have the privilege to know personally Ned Stonehouse, Warren Young, and Gordon Clark, who delivered the first three addresses included in the book, but I have the greatest appreciation for the contribution of these men in laying a foundation for our Society during its early years (1957–1970).

The first address by Ned Stonehouse bore the title, “The Infallibility of Scripture and Evangelical Progress” (1957). In this address, Stonehouse combines a very keen intellect with a firm commitment to biblical inerrancy. In essence, Stonehouse argued that, contrary to what some allege, rather than being a hindrance to true evangelical progress, a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is actually an indispensable prerequisite to it. In this he turned the tables on his opponents who argued that inerrancy presents a hindrance to the open-minded investigation of Scripture. To the contrary, Stonehouse believed that the evangelical commitment to the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture would prove to be a liberating and energizing force by which we “lay hold with all our powers upon the Word of God in order that all our thoughts and ways may come under his control.” I believe Stonehouse was exactly right and he and others like him left us an important foundation on which to build the house of responsible, faithful evangelical scholarship.

In the second address included in Quo Vadis, Evangelicalism? Warren Young spoke on “Whither Evangelicalism?” (1958). Young believed that the ETS and the evangelical movement at large would progress if their theology, while grounded in “the unchanging Truth of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and recorded in our unchanging Bible,” was to explore creatively ways of addressing the ever-changing world around us. This is a very apt way of putting the challenge that continues to be before us. Young, somewhat prophetically, urged that there should be room for this kind of creative exploration in the ETS, or progress would likely be stifled. As a postscript, I should add that Roger Nicole informs me that “Warren Young resigned from ETS very shortly after his presidency, developing doubts regarding the viability of believing in the inerrancy of the autographs that we do not have,” an illegitimate response to a legitimate concern.

Moving on to the third address, Gordon Clark’s “The Evangelical Theological Society Tomorrow,” what I appreciate about this address is, similar to Stonehouse, Clark’s unflinching commitment to a high view of Scripture and biblical inerrancy in conjunction with a very sharp intellect. In his address, for example, he includes a lengthy rebuttal of one ETS member who resigned his membership saying it was “spiritually unnecessary and intellectually impossible to accept the last clause of the Society’s doctrinal basis” regarding inerrancy. Still, Clark commended this person for his integrity, saying it was better for him to resign honestly than to remain dishonestly, and this, I believe, also continues to be true today.

This leads me, briefly, to the next, second, period showcased in the volume, which you may call “The Maturing Movement” and which encompasses the decades between 1971 and 1999. The next ETS president whose address is included in the volume—and one whom many of us know very well—is Stan Gundry (his address bore the title “Evangelical Theology: Where Should We Be Going?”). One of the many things I appreciate about Stan is that he is not afraid to face what may be uncomfortable complexities in our dealing with Scripture and the Christian faith. As I say in the foreword to the book, Stan exemplifies “the type of honest self-examination and openness to the evidence” that he calls for “in dealing with thorny issues defying simplistic resolution.” Stan also is convinced of the importance of hermeneutics and global missions, something many of us likewise firmly believe are vital issues for us as evangelicals to pursue and practice.

The next address in the volume is by Alan Johnson whom you’ve already heard speak a few minutes ago. As many of you will remember, Alan delivered his address on the topic “The Historical-Critical Method: Egyptian Gold or Pagan Precipice?” The question Alan sought to tackle was, and still is, are the tools used by the practitioners of the historical-critical method themselves hopelessly tainted by anti-supernaturalist presuppositions so as to render them useless for inerrantists or can they be transformed in the hands of Bible-believing scholars to serve as useful means of studying various aspects of Scripture? Johnson answered cautiously in the affirmative, and again I tend to agree. I appreciate Alan’s sound and balanced judgment, especially in the areas of ethics, hermeneutics, and New Testament studies. I am particularly grateful for his advocacy of a hermeneutical wisdom that seeks to avoid both undiscerning accommodation to critical methods and a reactionary retreat into fideism and deductive thinking.

Moisés Silva, in the next address entitled “Can Two Walk Together Unless They Be Agreed?” spent much of his time urging evangelicals to heed James Barr’s critique of what he called “fundamentalists” in his book Fundamentalism, even though he strongly objected to Barr’s tendentious description of “fundamentalism.” In this, I believe, Moisés exemplifies the virtue of being willing to listen to the legitimate points of criticism even by those who in many ways are themselves biased if not ignorant of who evangelicals are. This is truly a mark of wisdom, because it would be very easy to dismiss someone like Barr as an outsider and as ill-informed (or worse), but Silva did not do that. And I think this is a very important quality for us as evangelicals: to hear criticisms where they may be legitimate by those outside our movement.

The first address chosen under the third and final rubric, “Recent Reflections,” drawn from the years 2000 through 2007), is that of Darrell Bock. Darrell delivered one of the most far-ranging presidential addresses in recent memory (as well as one of the longest, I might add) on the topic of the present and future of evangelicalism in 2001. He said that, as the ETS, we should be a “purpose-driven Society” (with a nod to Rick Warren; as many of us know, Darrell has been trying to land a bestseller like The Purpose-Driven Life for a long time, but I guess “The Purpose-Driven ETS” didn’t sell quite as well as The Purpose-Driven Life). Bock says that this large, all-encompassing purpose, properly conceived, is the church’s missional mandate, and in this, as we shall see, Darrell is far from being alone. What I appreciate most about Darrell, and what I believe he contributes to the evangelical movement at large and to our Society in particular, is the virtue of majoring on the majors. It is commendable how he seeks to view current crises or issues within the larger context of the history of evangelicalism and within the framework of the church’s missionary mandate. This has served us especially well in dealing with the most recent controversy in our Society surrounding Open Theism.

Another shining light in our Society is Millard Erickson. Millard delivered an extremely helpful ETS presidential address, entitled “Evangelical Theological Scholarship in the Twenty-First Century” (2002). In characteristic humility, he referred to this as his “I Have a Hope” speech. In a quiet but nonetheless penetrating way, this is a stirring speech indeed, and I would urge you to reread it (or to read it for the first time) in the anniversary volume in which it is included. In my view Millard’s address is one of those rare instant classics, invaluable for all of us who aspire to craft better arguments and who endeavor to teach our students to do the same.

The final address included in the volume is by Craig Blaising, and it is truly a fitting conclusion to the volume, as it is entitled “Faithfulness: A Prescription for Theology” (delivered two years ago in November 2005). Like Bock, Blaising roots ETS’s mission and evangelical scholarship, rightly understood, in the church’s missionary mandate. This seems to reflect a growing consensus in many circles. Here Craig’s maturity of judgment, and especially his level-headedness, is evident when he critically dissects books such as Bart Ehrman’s Lost Christianities. Thank you, Craig, and thank you, all, for your vital contributions to the ETS.

III. CONCLUSION

I conclude. As I reflect on the ETS Festschrift, dedicated to this Society and to its Journal, I believe Quo Vadis, Evangelicalism? bears telling testimony to the maturing of the evangelical movement over the past half-century. In the early years of the Society, the common affirmation of inerrancy provided the basis for scholarly exploration, and while in subsequent years a variety of issues came to the fore that were debated vigorously, inerrancy has never been set aside from its place as the critical cornerstone on which the Society was established.

Recently one writer sought to argue that affirming inerrancy on the basis of God’s truthfulness is fallacious and unduly deductive in its reasoning and logic. Instead, we should look at the way in which the canon was determined by the church of the first centuries. As a biblical scholar, I think I can see where this writer is coming from, but at the same time I wonder if the proposal is unduly disjunctive. If Scripture is the Word of God, and if God is truthful (which he certainly is), why would it be illegitimate to hold that, as the Word of God, and on the basis of God’s truthfulness, Scripture is “therefore” wholly and infallibly true? To be sure, inerrancy must not be construed so tightly that the doctrine is domesticated and narrowed to serve the partisan interests of those who strenuously argue for particular methodologies or denominational distinctives. But I believe that after over 50 years of the existence of our Society, the wisdom of our founders has been amply demonstrated and vindicated, and it will be hard to improve on it in the years to come.

In this maturation of the Society over the past half-century, the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society has had a vital role as the publishing organ of the Society, helping to fulfill its purpose “[t]o foster conservative biblical scholarship by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures.” Delivery systems have changed, and will continue to change, but the contribution made by our Journal will continue, thanks to the excellent contributions of so many of you. Thank you again for a wonderful evening celebrating our Society and the Journal. Let me close in prayer.

Lord Jesus Christ, thank you for all that you have done for us, both in revealing yourself to us and in redeeming us from our sin and calling us into your service. We are mindful, Lord Jesus, of your final prayer before your crucifixion, and I would like to pray a portion of this prayer specifically for this special group of people, my brothers and sisters in Christ here in the ETS, asking that what you prayed for for your disciples would also become an increasing reality in our midst. And this is what you prayed, and this I pray for all of us today:

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.”

I pray, Lord Jesus, that we would become perfectly one, even as you and the Father are one, so that the world may know and believe that the Father sent you and that you loved them even as the Father loved you. And this I pray in Jesus’ precious and holy name, and for his glory. Amen.