In a recent Zondervan publication, John Oswalt, long-time Old Testament scholar and author of the two-volume commentary on Isaiah in the NICOT series, discusses The Bible among the Myths. In light of recent controversial books by writers such as Peter Enns or Kenton Sparks, Oswalt tackles an important question: How is the Bible (actually, the Old Testament) similar or different from other ancient (Near Eastern) literature? Is it, to quote the subtitle, “Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature”?

In essence, Oswalt argues that while there are doubtless numerous surface similarities between the Old Testament and other ancient literature, on the larger level of the underlying worldview, the difference is vast: only the Old Testament lodges a robust claim of divine revelation, and as a result, only the three religions that take their cue from the Bible—Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—hold to divine revelation as a foundational components of their worldview. This simple, yet profound finding brings much-needed clarity to the debate.

One of my favorite sections in this book is Chapter 9, “Origins of the Biblical Worldview: Alternatives.” The respective headings tell the story: “John Van Seters: Israel’s Understanding of Reality Arose as a Late Creative Fiction”; “Frank Cross: Israel’s Understanding Arose in a Prose Rewriting of an Earlier Epic Poem”; “William Dever: Israel’s Understanding Is an Imposition of a Small Elite”; “Mark Smith: Israel’s Understanding Is a Natural Development from West Semitic Religion.” Understanding alternative views is very helpful especially for students.

Overall, Oswalt’s book excels in clarity of analysis and presentation. It is well written and argues and defends an exceedingly important thesis: that on a worldview level, Christianity and Judaism, with their claim of divine revelation, are unique. Perhaps my only criticism is that references to the above-mentioned Peter Enns or Kenton Sparks are conspicuously absent. This may be because Oswalt is narrowly focused on worldview rather than hermeneutical issues or because his volume was conceived prior to the publication of these other scholars’ works.

In any case, I highly recommend this volume as a supplementary text for courses in Old Testament survey or even in apologetics courses. This is a very welcome contribution to both fields, and I am sure Oswalt’s book will find a devoted following and many grateful readers.

My findings regarding the syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12 in the first edition of Women in the Church were widely accepted even among feminist scholars (though, of course, they still don’t agree with the book’s overall thrust on other grounds). There has been a recent exception, though, in the case of Philip Payne, who recently published an article in the journal New Testament Studies. In my 1995 essay in the first edition, I provided a thorough critique of Payne’s earlier unpublished 1988 paper on the subject. Now Payne, in turn, has responded to my study, claiming that 9 of the 100 syntactical parallels to 1 Timothy 2:12 that I presented do not match the pattern.

First of all, even if Payne were right and 9 of the 100 instances don’t fit the overall pattern, this would still be an over 90% success rate, which would be rather impressive. What is more, however, I carefully looked at Payne’s article and each of the 9 instances he discusses, and found that Payne’s analysis does not hold true. Essentially, he seems to be operating on the basis of the notion that verbs are “positive” or “negative” largely in and of themselves. More properly, however, verbs convey a positive or negative connotation in context. For this reason I would argue that Payne’s rebuttal is itself invalid and that my original conclusion stands.

That conclusion, in short, is that the expression “or” (oude) in 1 Tim 2:12 joins two expressions that are positive, “teaching” and “having or exercising authority.” This means that Paul, when saying, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man” (TNIV), did not merely speak out against women teaching false doctrine or women lording it over men (while saying it was OK for men to do so?!?). No, Paul did not want women even to engage in the kind of teaching or exercise of authority that was appropriate if exercised by qualified men in the church (see, e.g., 1 Tim 3:2; 5:17).

Naturally, this is not a welcome conclusion for those who contend that women ought to be allowed to serve as pastors and elders in the local church, though, it should be noted, this particular reading of 1 Tim 2:12 does not by itself settle the issue. Yet for those willing to meet on the common ground of the available evidence, the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12, particularly the kind of construction entailed by the use of “or” (oude) in this passage, sets important parameters for the proper understanding of Paul’s injunction. As interpreters arrive at a consensus on the most likely rendering of 1 Tim 2:12, this will put the discussion on a more solid biblical foundation.

NOTE: My original essay appeared in Women in the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995); the second edition, Women in the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), included an extensive interaction with the decade of scholarship subsequent to the first edition. The article mentioned above is Philip B. Payne, “1 Tim 2.12 and the Use of oude, to Combine Two Elements to Express a Single Idea,” NTS 54 (2008): 235–53. I will respond to Payne’s article in greater detail in a forthcoming publication, Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles (Broadman & Holman). An initial response will appear in the upcoming issue of the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

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.

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.

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.

Recently, I was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that pastors teach a 10% tithe out of “pragmatism, tradition and ignorance, quite frankly.” While this represents the essence of a statement I made during the course of a thirty-minute phone conversation, I am concerned that taken out of context, my comments are likely to be misunderstood. As interpreters of Scripture, we all know how important context is in understanding someone else’s message. By failing to supply the larger context, the Wall Street Journal in effect rendered my comments liable to be misconstrued. Hopefully, providing you with the background and larger context will show you my true heart in this and illustrate how easy it is to be misrepresented in one’s true intentions, no matter how cautious one is in dealing with the media, even publications as reputable as the Wall Street Journal.

When the Wall Street Journal reporter called me shortly before Thanksgiving telling me how I would be quoted, I immediately objected, pressing that the word “ignorance” be changed. The reporter flat-out refused. When I insisted on the change, she said she would take up the matter with her editor, but she could not promise that the change would be made. In the end, the quote was left as it was. I also objected to the reporter’s characterization of me as “challeng[ing] tithing in classes on the New Testament,” but again to no avail. It appears that I was needed as a representative of “Anti-Tithing in the Classroom” (the subheading), even though this is only a very partial and tendentious representation of my teaching practice.

What do I teach with regard to Christian stewardship and giving? The answer is: I teach exactly what the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 says on this issue: “God is the source of all blessings, temporal and spiritual; all that we have and are we owe to Him. Christians have a spiritual debtorship to the whole world, a holy trusteeship in the gospel, and a binding stewardship in their possessions. They are therefore under obligation to serve Him with their time, talents, and material possessions; and should recognize all these as entrusted to them to use for the glory of God and for helping others. According to the Scriptures, Christians should contribute of their means cheerfully, regularly, systematically, proportionately, and liberally for the advancement of the Redeemer’s cause on earth” (emphasis mine).

Note that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 does not use the word “tithe” or “tithing” or specify a particular percentage of one’s income. It (rightly, in my opinion) sets financial giving within the larger context of one’s overall stewardship of all of one’s possessions, material and otherwise. It also shows that Christian stewardship (including giving of one’s resources) is part of one’s worship and lists several New Testament principles regarding how one should give: cheerfully, regularly, systematically, proportionately, and liberally. As Daniel Akin rightly noted in a recent BP First Person piece, these are the distinctives of what can be called “Grace Giving.” At the same time, and this was my point in answer to the reporter’s question, neither the New Testament nor our confessional statement make mention of a specific percentage, be it 10% or another percentage, as mandatory for all believers today.

So, is my teaching “anti-tithing in the classroom”? Not at all. My focus is not on how not to give, but on the New Testament principles for giving highlighted in the Baptist Faith and Message. As one who grew up Roman Catholic in Austria at a time when a fixed percentage of “church tax” was deducted on an individual’s tax form, I have come to cherish the New Testament emphasis on voluntary giving. I am concerned that if we stipulate a minimum percentage figure for giving as required in a church covenant, for example, giving will no longer be voluntary as the New Testament teaches. It is true, therefore, that if a student in one of my classes asks me if I believe that the New Testament teaches that all Christians must give (at least) 10% of their income to their local church, I cannot in good conscience say “yes” to that question but must qualify my answer in several respects: the heart attitude is more important than the specific amount; giving is part of our Christian stewardship and worship and should occur in a spirit of grace, not legalism; and so on.

Did I therefore convey by my comments that Christians need not give, or need only give a small amount to their local church? Not at all. To the contrary: it seems to me that rather than inducing believers to give as little as possible, God’s grace should most certainly be expected to move the grateful redeemed sinner to give liberally, even sacrificially, recognizing that all that he or she has is not his or hers, but God’s in the first place. In this context, I told the reporter that we should approach the matter of giving not in a spirit of pragmatism or in fear that unless we teach a 10%-minimum requirement people will not give, or give only little. Rather, we should have faith in God’s work in the hearts of our people, trusting that he will move them to give freely just as they have freely received.

If I may be so bold as to add a comment to all of us as Bible-believing Southern Baptists. Battles have been fought over the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, and this doctrine is rightly important to us, for from it flow many other scriptural doctrines. Yet inerrancy must be more than merely a doctrine we affirm in general terms; inerrancy must be practiced as we approach any given issue, including that of Christian stewardship. This was my point when I spoke to the reporter about “tradition.” When we deal with a question, we should ask: What does the Bible say on this issue?, not merely: What is our tradition? In this context, when I spoke of “ignorance,” what I had in mind was the fact that some (though by no means all) may be insufficiently familiar with the biblical teaching on Christian giving. But if we hold that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, we should know and study what the Bible says. Certainly, I would hope that as Southern Baptists we can have a meaningful discussion on what Scripture teaches on a given subject, including Christian giving.

I realize that this is a particularly volatile issue, because money is at stake, and this strikes very close to our livelihood and security. But in this area, as in all others, we should trust the Lord to provide for all our needs. Do I think all those who teach a 10% tithing requirement do so out of ignorance? Not at all. Do I believe Christians should not give or only give a little? No! Instead, they should give as much as they possibly can, which in most cases, I believe, should be considerably more than 10%. Do I believe that the New Testament teaches a 10% giving requirement for all Christians? I do not, and here some of you may disagree, and I am open to further discussion on this topic. I trust that this piece serves the purpose of clarification and better understanding. I have learned that when scholars are subjected to the laws of journalism (where all too often soundbites trump accuracy in substance), the whole truth often becomes the casualty. But who knows, perhaps God is able to use even a Wall Street Journal reporter to his good ends of helping us learn more about how, and how much, we should give to advance his kingdom? I believe he is.

Dr. Köstenberger is Professor of New Testament and Director of Ph.D. studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC and founder of BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS (www.biblicalfoundations.org). He has co-authored a two-part series on tithing (here and here), as well as a blog summarizing his views on this subject, that are posted on his website.

NOTE: Dr. Andreas J. Köstenberger delivered this address at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Diego, CA, on November 19, 2007. The address is adapted from his essay in the new book What We Have Heard From the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies (ed. Tom Thatcher; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007).

Stephen Neill famously stated that the Germans never bury their scholarly corpses or, as he puts it, “no ghosts are ever laid in Germany.” He remarked that in the writings of Bultmann, for example, “we encounter the full procession of the ghosts.” I’m not sure if those of us in other countries are doing any better. Regardless of where the truth lies in a given instance, surely, not everything proposed by scholars should be regarded as genuine progress. But if not, then at least some of our scholarly work is in fact a step backwards (though most of us will of course find this difficult to admit), unless you are a hard-core postmodernist (if there is such a thing). This leads me to the question I am posing for us to discuss today: “What constitutes progress in biblical studies generally, and Johannine studies in particular?”

To my mind the most fascinating issue raised by Don Carson’s essay is precisely that of “progress” in biblical scholarship. As recently as in 1990 Moody Smith could state without fear of contradiction that Lou Martyn’s version of the “Johannine community hypothesis” constituted one of the assured paradigms in Johannine study on which others could confidently build their hypotheses. A decade and a half later, this consensus has significantly eroded. In fact, some former proponents of the hypothesis have publicly renounced it, while others have severely criticized it as inadequately taking into account the testimony of the early church and as being at odds with first-century Christianity, not to mention the difficulty the Johannine mission theme presents for radically sectarian readings of John’s Gospel.

What only a short while ago seemed to be a common foundation of Johannine scholarship has thus given way to a state of things in which “the center does not hold.” Don Carson speaks of the “balkanization” of Johannine studies and notes the absence of widely accepted paradigms. In fact, it appears that, efforts at integration notwithstanding (such as our discussion here today), the discipline is in considerable ferment if not disintegration.

This state of affairs, in my view, is tied to the notion of “progress” in biblical scholarship. Too often, certain views in Johannine scholarship have been overturned not on the basis of new, better evidence, but owing to different philosophical presuppositions that led scholars to abandon established views in favor of those more in keeping with their larger perspectives on Scripture. At the end of his essay, Don Carson suggests that there may be certain benefits to what he calls “confessional” Johannine scholarship (as well as perils to “dogmatic anti-confessionalism”). I think he has put his finger on a key question, namely whether rejecting various doctrinal commitments as out of bounds for biblical scholarship has really advanced the discipline and led to discernible progress.

In fact, I would go even further than Carson. To the extent that recent Johannine scholarship turns out to be a blind alley (a Sackgasse), if not a step in the wrong direction, rather than politely compliment such scholarship for its valuable contribution to the field, we should refuse to call this “progress.” “Progress” in Johannine scholarship should not be conceived in evolutionary terms as if “more recent” necessarily meant “more accurate.” Rather, the burden of proof should be placed on newer theories to show how they are superior to established ways of conceiving of the nature of John’s Gospel.

So I ask: Is it possible that what is viewed by some as progress may in fact be regress? In this postmodern world paradigms are increasingly rare. Most likely the future will witness increasing atomization and polarization between “confessional” and critical scholarship. Ideally, the text of John’s Gospel and the available evidence could serve as common points of reference and as a proving ground for the hypotheses of scholars from a variety of viewpoints and faith commitments. Time will tell if this is a realistic possibility.

In the meantime, I think, perhaps we should follow Nicodemus’ (and Joseph of Arimathea’s) example and give some scholarly theories in Johannine studies their well-deserved burial. In the salvation-historical scheme of things, burial precedes resurrection. Thank you very much.

[Update] The audio of this interview is now available here.

In case you’re interested, Dr. Kostenberger will be interviewed today (November 13) on the Moody Bible Radio Network on “Prime Time America.” The program will be broadcast at 5:30 pm EST. Topics include the newly published book Quo Vadis, Evangelicalism? (Crossway) on the future of evangelicalism and the ETS Annual Meeting, which is about to start in San Diego.

NOTE: Time has picked up on this debate (HT: Justin Taylor)

David Instone-Brewer took the time to respond to my previous post on divorce and remarriage. In the response he clarifies some misunderstandings connected with his CT article. His response is below:

Dear Andreas

Thank you for interacting with my work at such length and with such evident understanding of my arguments.

I share your main problem with my CT article, which is that some people who are not familiar with my work might conclude that I’m advocating divorce for minor reasons. My actual conclusions are closer to yours – that neglect has to be persistent and serious, ie more-or-less equivalent to abandonment (a concept which you rightly picked up from my books).

When I wrote the Christianity Today article, I struggled greatly with the word limit for such an important subject. There wasn’t room to define neglect, so I referred readers to my Divorce & Remarriage in the Church (the full text is at www.DivorceRemarriage.com)

The book points out that ‘neglect’ is an inadequate modern-day way of summarising the stipulations of ‘food, clothing and love’ in Ex.21.10f (as repeated in marriage contracts in Jesus’ day). It also details the way in which Jesus emphasises that a wronged partner should forgive and forgive and forgive and that turning to divorce as a remedy for persistant neglect is a last resort.

I’m sorry that I have caused confusion by not making this clear in the article itself. See my response to this and other issues here.

David Instone-Brewer

Thank you very much for your comments on my previous post on the CT article by David Instone-Brewer and the response by John Piper. In light of the many excellent questions and comments, I decided to follow up with another post responding to comments made both on Justin Taylor’s blog and on this one. I certainly don’t expect to convert everyone to my view, but hopefully my comments will clarify some of the things I left unaddressed in my previous post. Again, please remember that much of this is addressed more fully in Chapter 11 of God, Marriage & Family. Also, my first post here at Biblical Foundations addressed the topic of divorce and remarriage. Since I don’t know all your full names, my responses below are to the various questions you raised. You know who you are, and will have no problem finding where I addressed your particular question. Please understand that I will not be able to continue this dialogue indefinitely, though your questions and comments are always welcome, and will be incorporated in the second edition of God, Marriage & Family if and when it is published.

Before addressing your questions, let me draw your attention to two extensive notes in God, Marriage & Family that address Instone-Brewer’s inclusion of neglect as legitimate grounds for divorce. On p. 412, n. 76, I wrote, “To this some have added other extreme circumstances (such as persistent spousal abuse) when confronted through the process laid out in Matthew 18:15–17, though great caution would need to be exercised in this regard in order not to undermine the high scriptural view of marriage. … Others, such as Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, passim, postulate the permissibility of divorce more broadly for material and emotional neglect. Instone-Brewer maintains that Jesus’ silence on this point in Matthew 19 should be construed as tacit agreement with universal Jewish practice in this regard on the basis of Exodus 21:10–11 … and contends that Paul alludes to the same passage in 1 Corinthians 8:3.”

At this point I refer to an earlier critique of Instone-Brewer’s view in God, Marriage & Family, which is found on p. 355, n. 25, where I wrote, “Cf. Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, 99–110, who also documents the influence of this passage on Jewish divorce laws, which stipulated the permissibility of divorce for both material … and emotional neglect. … Instone-Brewer proceeds to argue that Jesus’ silence on divorce on the basis of Exodus 21:10–11 should be construed as his agreement with the Jewish consensus view at this point … and that Paul’s allusion to this passage in 1 Corinthians 7 should be taken to imply that Paul, too, allowed for divorce because of marital neglect. … We find Instone-Brewer’s arguments from silence precarious, however. In Jesus’ case, one would have expected him to add marital neglect to porneia as a second exception for divorce if he had approved of neglect as a legitimate ground for divorce. In Paul’s case, it is one thing to say that he alluded to Exodus 21:10–11 but quite another to say that this implies that he approved of divorce for marital neglect. Especially in light of the major ramifications of such a view (namely, that this would render divorce for marital neglect biblically legitimate today), it seems reasonable to require more explicit biblical warrant than the double argument from silence provided by Instone-Brewer.”

I think what these quotations show is that Instone-Brewer’s position as argued in his recent CT essay is only a popularization of the view he has argued for years in his scholarly work and that his position has already been addressed in scholarly treatments such as in God, Marriage & Family. Now to your questions.

Q: It seems you are distinguishing between abandonment and neglect. The former is a legitimate ground for divorce, the latter is not. What is the difference?

A: You are right, I am making this distinction, and you are also right that I believe the former is a legitimate ground for divorce while the latter is not. First of all, let me say that I used the term “abandonment” in my previous post only because this is the term Instone-Brewer used in his essay, and so I accommodated myself to his usage. The more conventional term in the literature, I believe, is that of “desertion by an unbeliever” or something similar. This scenario, of course, is dealt with by Paul in 1 Cor 7:15–16. Some, in fact, believe that Paul himself, upon coming to faith, was deserted by his wife, which is possible though hardly verifiable. What this “desertion by an unbeliever” (or “abandonment,” for short) involves is one marital partner’s coming to faith in Christ and the other spouse’s rejection of her partner’s Christian faith and their reneging on their marriage. In such cases, Paul says, the Christian spouse “is not bound” (1 Cor 7:15), which most interpret not only as establishing a legitimate grounds of divorce but also permission to remarry, in part on the strength of the parallel in 1 Cor 7:39, where a synonym is used in the Greek, “A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.” In other words, verse 39 makes explicit (in the case of the death of a spouse) where is left implicit in verse 15: those left without a spouse (whether through the spouse’s death or desertion) are not only not “bound” (i.e. can divorce legitimately) but also free to remarry. As Instone-Brewer notes in his essay, this comports entirely with the standard Jewish formula for divorce, “You are free to marry anyone you wish.” So much for “abandonment” or, perhaps better and less ambiguous, “desertion by an unbelieving spouse.” Notice, then, that this scenario is very clearly defined and considerably more narrow than a broad “abandonment” category which may include abuse and neglect as it does in Instone-Brewer’s essay. Certainly, some cases of neglect and/or abuse may fall in the category of abandonment, but not necessarily in the sense in which Paul defines it in 1 Cor 7:15. As one of you said very well (so well that I simply reproduce your comments, rather than trying to improve on them), “I understand ‘abandonment’ to be referring to the case mentioned in 1 Cor 7, where one person comes to faith, but the spouse doesn’t and leaves them because of it. ‘Neglect’ would be more like a person not taking good enough care of the spouse (or not honoring, etc.). So abandonment would—they took off, am I stuck in this marriage or free to remarry? Neglect would be, we’re still married but I don’t get good enough [or any] love/food/sex/emotional support/whatever, can I divorce her and marry someone better?” (Incidentally, I also agree with your comment [slightly edited] that “in Instone-Brewer’s paper … he argues that Jesus only meant to slap down ‘any cause’ divorce, but then Instone-Brewer argues that divorce for a nebulous concept of neglect is legitimate—which is really close to ‘any cause’ divorce!)

Q: Would it not be better to understand the term “not bound” in 1 Cor 7:15 as referring to people’s right to live in peace rather than making this statement grounds for divorce and subsequent remarriage?

A: The entire chapter (1 Corinthians 7) deals with various instances of legitimate and illegitimate divorce. I believe the background is that some, for whatever reason, taught it was more spiritual to refrain from sex and/or marriage (incidentally, hardly a very common view today). If so, the implication was that single people shouldn’t marry and married people shouldn’t have sex or divorce their spouse altogether. Against this background Paul’s teaching makes perfect sense. He says, sure, being single is good, if anyone has that gift (see my interchange with Debbie Maken here, here, and here at this point), and even there, those who are unmarried but don’t have the gift should get married, because it is better to marry than to burn with passion (vv. 8–9). If you’re married, Paul says, don’t refrain from sex other than for a short time by mutual consent for the purpose of prayer (v. 5). Certainly don’t divorce your spouse, or if you do (disobeying Paul’s directive), certainly don’t remarry (vv. 10–11). To those who are married to an unbeliever, Paul says, continue in the marriage if the unbelieving spouse is willing to do so, but if not, you are “not bound” (vv. 12–16). In this context, it seems that Paul is not merely talking about living in peace but specifically about legitimate vs. illegitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage, a subject to which, as mentioned, he returns in verses 39–40.

Q: Exodus 21 says neglect is grounds of divorce for a slave, so certainly free women should have the same right.

A: The underlying problem is that Exodus 21 is not addressed in the NT by either Jesus or Paul, as far as I can see. So should we just assume it still applies because it is mentioned in the OT? That’s what Instone-Brewer does, largely on the strength of first-century Jewish rabbinical teachings. For most of us, this is not good enough; we need an explicit NT reference here. This, of course, entails important large theological questions regarding the relationship between the OT and the NT and hermeneutical issues bound up with this.

Q: What about cases of spousal abuse, then? What about cases where a husband beats his wife, or stops having sex with her, or fails to provide for her? What are the pastoral implications of these scenarios?

A: First of all, please see my comments in the introduction (i.e. the quotes from God, Marriage & Family) above. As a biblical scholar, my primary aim is to determine what Scripture actually teaches. I realize that there are many, many pastoral implications that must be dealt with no matter what one’s position is. I would ask us to remember that every case is different and must be dealt with on its own terms. I would also caution us against falling into the same kind of casuistry for which the Pharisees are known. We should not try to legislate what to do in every conceivable circumstance but apply known biblical principles to a given specific situation with which we are confronted. That said, certainly, cases of persistent spousal abuse may require at least temporary separation and a variety of means of seeking to stop the abuse and help restore the marriage if possible. Beyond this, I will leave dealing with this area and the numerous facets it raises to my esteemed colleagues in biblical counseling.

Q: If you allow for abandonment, why not see all the Exodus requirements as specifications of abandonment?

A: Please see my clarification on the distinction between abandonment and neglect above. I know what you mean, and I briefly toyed with the idea of subsuming neglect under abandonment, but in the end I believe that the scenario presented by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 (per my discussion above) is considerably more narrow and specific than a broad “neglect” and “abuse” category. What he had in mind, I am convinced, was a case whether one partner became a Christian and the other rejected him and left the marriage because of his spouse’s Christian faith. This is very different from a vague generic notion of “abandonment” or a variety of other types of neglect or abuse.

Q/Comment: One of the strengths of Instone-Brewer’s article is that he addresses spousal abuse, which is the most pastorally sensitive issue.

A: I agree, and address it he does, but without adequate NT support, in my opinion, and with the effect, as Piper says, of “tragically widening the grounds of legitimate divorce.” Beyond this, see my response to the previous question.

Q: Aren’t the things contemplated in Exodus 21 tantamount to abandonment? If someone lacks adequate food and clothing, and gets no sex from her husband, I’d argue she’s been abandoned.

A: First of all, let’s remember that it’s not what you or I or anyone argues but what Scripture says. We must not substitute clever reasoning for the plain teaching of Scripture. It’s not a matter how skillful a debater we are in trying to make a point but a matter of seeking to discern God’s revelation with a prepared to obey it no matter what it is and whether or not it agrees what we would like Scripture to say. It seems to me that there are some who really want Scripture to say that divorce for neglect and/or abuse is legitimate and others who really want to believe that Scripture does not allow for divorce under any circumstances. (I’m not judging anyone’s motives here, some of you have said so yourself in your comments.) I think it’s very healthy and important to acknowledge that as one’s presupposition in coming to the text of Scripture, but then we must allow the Word to come back at us on its own terms, no matter how painful that may be. That said, I believe reasoned exegetical and theological argument can be helpful in working toward a proper understanding of Scripture’s teaching on a given subject, or I wouldn’t be writing this post right now (and longer treatments as well).

We know that neglected children should be taken from parents.

I’m not sure if this parallel holds, just as I don’t believe Scripture says wives are to obey their husbands exactly in the same way children ought to obey their parents.

So do you think that Exodus 21:10–11 is irrelevant, misinterpreted by Instone-Brewer, or superseded by Jesus? If the latter, is that supersession also an argument from silence, or does it build on the exception clauses?

A: That’s a very perceptive question (or series of questions). Please read my introductory comments (quotes from God, Marriage & Family) above, which indicate the reasons for my hesitation in this regard, in part because of Jesus’ silence on the subject in places such as Matthew 19. Am I therefore employing an argument from silence, too? It depends on how to define “argument from silence,” I suppose. The way I see it, an argument from silence is saying something applies even though it is not stated in Scripture while what I’m saying is something doesn’t apply because it isn’t stated. To me, that’s just common sense, or at least proper hermeneutical caution.

Q: How do you account for the lack of exception clause in Mark and Luke? Does that not lend support to the “betrothal view”?

A: Ultimately, I don’t know why the exception clause is not in Mark and Luke. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you he does (he’s lying). I believe we’re left here with reasonable inferences. In God, Marriage & Family, on p. 242, I quote Instone-Brewer at length, who notes that there are times when it is reasonable to infer from scriptural silence on an issue that people commonly agreed on this issue. If this is true in the present case, Mark and Luke may have felt they did not need to state an exception that was commonly agreed upon, namely, that adultery constituted a legitimate ground for divorce, and Matthew included this only as a side comment, as it were. Having said that, I believe that even having the exception clause—not once, but twice in Matthew—only in one Gospel requires us to obey what it says, and we should be careful not to try to explain it away or “harmonize” it with Mark and Luke just because these Gospels do not include it.

Q: In your view, would a repentant adulterer put his or her non-adulterous spouse under biblical obligation to receive him or her back? Or would the non-adulterous spouse still have “grounds” for divorce even if the adulterous spouse repented and sought (with God’s help) to take every step necessary to be restored in the marriage?

A: Like I said above, every case is different, so it’s difficult to address this scenario in general terms. Certainly, Jesus’ statement to Peter comes to mind that Christians must always be prepared to forgive. If the adulterous spouse is repentant and willing to continue in the marriage, the victim, as a Christian, should, with God’s help, try to forgive and be willing to continue in the marriage, but there are a lot of factors that may enter into a given situation that are hard to deal with in general terms.

To recap, then, in my view Instone-Brewer is too permissive, while Piper is too restrictive. It is not my desire to start any new schools, along the lines of the “school of Hillel” or the “school of Shammai,” the “school of Instone-Brewer” or the “school of Piper”! Hopefully our discussions help us all clarify our thinking on this important issue. I genuinely value this dialogue with many of you in the spirit of “as iron sharpens iron.”

Thank you for your patience, those of you who read thus far, and for your excellent comments and questions. Unfortunately, my time’s up and I must return to other pressing matters. Please feel free to respond to my comments above, but know that I may not be able to reciprocate any time soon!

The Book of Proverbs wisely counsels, “Like one who grabs a stray dog by the ears is someone who rushes into a quarrel not their own” (Prov 26:17). For this reason (if no other) I am reluctant to enter into the fray by offering some reflections of my own on the recent interchange between David Instone-Brewer and John Piper (or, more accurately put, on Instone-Brewer’s CT article and Piper’s response to it on his blog). Yet with some trepidation I will do so nonetheless, not in order to engage directly with one or the other of these individuals (both of whom I know personally and respect profoundly), but because this is a very important and serious topic addressed in Scripture that has many and real implications for all of us, in our own lives and in the lives of others around us entrusted to our spiritual care.

Starting with Instone-Brewer’s article (which summarizes several of his much larger works on the subject), for the sake of those unfamiliar with Instone-Brewer’s position, I will first offer a brief summary of his argument and then move immediately to a critique. Instone-Brewer looks at the first-century positions on divorce and remarriage held by the schools of Hillel and Shammai in order to understand the background for Jesus’ pronouncement in Matt 19:9 that divorce is not permitted “except for porneia.” He notes that both views were predicated on a certain interpretation of Deut 24:1. The Hillelites interpreted the phrase in this passage allowing divorce for “a thing of nakedness” or “a cause of immorality” to indicate that divorce was permitted for adultery (“nakedness,” “immorality”) as well as for any other “cause” or “thing.” This, then, is behind the Pharisees’ question in Matt 19:3: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” In essence, they asked Jesus whether or not he agreed with Hillel’s interpretation of Deut 24:1. The school of Shammai, on the other hand, interpreted “a cause of immorality” as one single phrase referring to adultery, taking a much more restrictive position on the legitimacy of divorce. In reply to the Pharisees’ question, Jesus gave a resounding “no.” He did not agree that divorce was legitimate “for any and every reason,” as Hillel did. Those who divorced their wife for any reason other than porneia and remarried committed adultery. According to Instone-Brewer, Jesus thus did not reject the Old Testament itself at this point but merely a faulty interpretation of it, defending the proper understanding of Deut 24:1 as allowing divorce for adultery only.

As far as I’m concerned (though not Piper, see below), I say, so far so good. (I do not agree with Piper’s criticism of Instone-Brewer’s use of the Jewish background in this case. Using information on the first-century schools of Hillel and Shammai and their respective views on divorce is a staple of evangelical interpretation of Matthew 19, and rightly so, since the occasion was the Pharisees’ question in Matt 19:3, which clearly reflect their own first-century Jewish context.)

At this point, however, Instone-Brewer proceeds to make an argument from silence. He says that Jesus did not only defend adultery as a grounds of divorce per Deut 24:1, he also “didn’t reject the other ground for divorce in the Old Testament,” divorce for neglect, based on Exod 21:10–11. Instone-Brewer’s logic here eludes me. He seems to be saying that unless Jesus explicitly stated that divorce was not allowed in cases of neglect, we must assume he allowed for it (a classic argument from silence). This logic seems less than compelling to me, however, just as arguments from silence often tend to be rather precarious. How did Instone-Brewer get from an exception (however understood) that Jesus explicitly made to an exception he supposedly implied? (I realize Instone-Brewer says that Jesus did not have to make this explicit, since it was universally believed, but I would still like to see demonstration of a more direct connection with New Testament teaching here.) In terms of contextual exegesis, Jesus was simply addressing a question posed to him (Matt 19:3; see above); hence it seems that Exod 21:10–11 does not enter in to the discussion at Matt 19:9 at all as far as I can see. At this point, then, Instone-Brewer does seem to move from biblical exegesis to Jewish background, and does not have clear scriptural support (as Piper alleges more globally).

In his response to Instone-Brewer’s piece, then, John Piper states at the outset that in his view “the implication of this article is that every marriage I am aware of could already have legitimately ended in divorce.” (As will be seen below, I share this concern, though I do not agree that this requires the “betrothal view,” essentially a “no divorce under any circumstances” position, as Piper seems to imply.) Piper first turns to Instone-Brewer’s reasoning from Exod 21:10–11, correctly (in my view) identifying this as an argument from silence and questioning several other aspects of Instone-Brewer’s interpretation of this passage. Next, Piper turns to Instone-Brewer’s handling of the exception clause in Matt 19:9 in relation to Deut 24:1. Piper contends that Jesus disagreed with Deut 24:1 rather than merely clarifying the meaning of the passage (as Instone-Brewer contends), citing Mark 10:4–9. Instead, Jesus went all the way back to the beginning and reiterated God’s perfect plan for marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman. I agree with Piper that this is what Jesus does in Matthew 19, except for the one exception Jesus explicitly states in Matt 19:9 (a crucial point), which Piper leaves aside initially.

But this is the exact point that is debated. I certainly agree that Jesus upheld and reaffirmed God’s original intention for marriage as a permanent, lifelong union, but the crux interpretum here is what is meant by “except for porneia” in Matt 19:9. I contend that in this case (adultery/sexual immorality), Jesus allowed an exception. Piper agrees that there is an exception, but he defines porneia as referring exclusively to breaking an engagement, something for which he has in my view insufficient exegetical and lexical support (see Chapter in God, Marriage & Family). This is not the place to critique Piper’s version of the “betrothal view”; I have done so at length elsewhere, and maintain that what I have said in God, Marriage & Family is the most plausible understanding of the “exception clause” despite Piper’s response in What Jesus Demands from the World (remember that the “betrothal view” is held by a minority and that understanding porneia more broadly in Matt 19:9 has wide support among conservative evangelical commentators). As several individuals commenting at Justin Taylor’s blog have rightly pointed out, Piper’s reading of porneia in Matt 19:9 as exclusively referring to breaking an engagement does not constitute the most natural reading of the word in this passage but rather seems contrived, perhaps reflecting an effort to protect the notion of the indissolubility of marriage under all circumstances (though I am aware that Piper believes his reading is the best way to exegete the passage).

Thus I agree with Piper’s criticism of Instone-Brewer’s treatment of Exod 21:10–11 yet disagree with his criticism of Instone-Brewer’s handling of Matt 19:9 and Deut 24:1. Here, then, is the important point: Piper’s concern that Instone-Brewer “tragically widens the grounds of legitimate divorce” largely pertains to Instone-Brewer’s inclusion of spousal neglect as a legitimate grounds of divorce on the basis of Exod 21:10–11, which I also reject, while it does not equally apply to the understanding of the exception clause as allowing divorce in cases of adultery. The latter is an exception made in continuity with the Old Testament (where adultery was punishable by stoning), and Jesus does not mandate divorce in the case of adultery but merely allows for it. Moreover, adultery is the sole exception made by Jesus (plus abandonment by Paul, 1 Cor 7:15-16) and can be clearly delineated so that it does not amount to opening the floodgates to indiscriminate divorce as Piper fears.

To the contrary, I would ask us to consider whether elevating the scriptural ideal (with Jesus as the bridegroom “who will never divorce his wife and take another,” to quote Piper, citing Eph 5:25) without allowing divorce even in cases of spousal adultery may be going beyond Scripture and thus is pastorally doubtful. I continue to maintain, therefore, that affirming a high view of marriage as Jesus did while allowing exceptions for divorce in cases of adultery and abandonment remains the option that is exegetically most defensible and pastorally most sensible.

Last night, Ann Coulter said on a television program that Jews need to be “perfected,” with reference to the teaching of the Old and New Testament. Her talk show host promptly declared himself “offended,” and this morning Joe Scarborough, on his show, countered Coulter, saying to his “panel of experts” that “nowhere in the New Testament” did he find the teaching she was talking about. Instead, people would be judged on the basis of whether they fed the hungry, helped the sick, and visited those in prison. He also said we should not judge other people.

I know when I’m out of my league, and so for the most part try not to comment on politics (I’ll leave that to pundits such as Ann and Joe), but in this case, they ventured into the area of Christian theology and biblical exegesis, and on this territory I feel a little more comfortable contributing to the discussion. In short, I am going to argue that while I may have wished that Ann Coulter had expressed her view with greater theological sophistication, she did have a point, and Joe’s efforts to “clarify” the New Testament’s teaching fell, at least in my opinion, flat.

Rightly interpreted, does the New Testament teach that the Jews need to be “perfected,” to use Ann Coulter’s language? Do Jews need to believe in Jesus the Messiah in order for them to be saved? Or is this belief optional, just for Christians, and non-Christian Jews can go on holding to their own beliefs (which involves rejecting Jesus as Messiah)? (In case some of you reading the last sentence are wondering about the phrase “non-Christian Jews”—as if there were “Christian Jews”—there were, and are, in fact Christian or messianic Jews who believe in Jesus as Messiah.)

To address this issue, we must do better than Joe Scarborough, quoting one or two passages out of context. We need to look at all the relevant passages on the topic in Scripture, and try to understand the biblical theology on this subject. Since the genre of this post is that of a blog, not a scholarly monograph, this is not the place to do this; I will limit myself to a few key passages. On the one hand, Jesus did acknowledge that “salvation comes from the Jews” (John 4:22), that is, the Jews are God’s chosen people per the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), and it is through them that the Messiah, Jesus, came. Jesus was a Jew!

At the same time, Jesus unequivocally claimed to be the Messiah and the only way to God. In John 14:6, he is quoted as saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” The same belief is echoed by the early Christians. Thus Luke quotes Peter as teaching, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). So who is this name? “… then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead … Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone’” (Acts 4:10–11, quoting Ps 118:22). The name without which no one—Jew or non-Jew—can be saved is Jesus. (And notice that Peter was addressing his fellow Jews.)

What will happen to Jews, then, who reject Jesus as Messiah? In John’s Gospel Chapter 8, in a passage many consider (erroneously, in my opinion) anti-Semitic, Jesus is quoted as saying that the Jews—his own people—are “children of the devil,” which, in context, means “sinners.” Imagine that—Jews are sinners, just like the rest of us! But if they are sinners, they need salvation. And how can they be saved? By feeding the hungry, helping the sick, and visiting those in prison, as Joe Scarborough is misrepresenting Jesus as teaching? No! According to both Jesus and the early church, salvation—not only for non-Jews but also for Jews—is “found in no one else” but Jesus.

So how do Jews get saved? Just like the rest of us—by believing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:31). There is no special arrangement, no exception, no partiality. As Paul wrote, “There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” That’s what the New Testament says. You didn’t hear it on Joe Scarborough’s morning show—but check it out, it’s right there in the Bible. Maybe Ann Coulter, in her amateurish way of expressing it, did have a point—this time?

Christians celebrate Christmas and Easter every year, but few know when Jesus was actually born and when he died. With Christmas less than 3 months away, some of you may find the following post helpful. Not that any great doctrine rests on the calculations below, but it sure is nice that we can have reasonable confidence that the dates of Jesus’ birth and death are secure and can be gleaned from a combination of biblical and extrabiblical historical data. I may not be willing to stake my life on the accuracy of the data below, but I am confident enough of these calculations that the license plate of my van reads as follows: 5BC–AD33. So here you go:

Jesus’ birth most likely took place in late November of 5 B.C. (the most authoritative treatment of which I am aware is Paul L. Maier, “The Date of the Nativity and the Chronology of Jesus’ Life,” in Chronos, karios, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan [ed. J. Vardaman and E. M. Yamauchi; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989], 113–30). This, incidentally, would allow enough time for Jesus to be born and for Herod (who died in 4 B.C.) to mount his campaign to have all the boys two years old and under in Bethlehem and vicinity killed (see Matt 2:16, 19).

Jesus’ crucifixion probably occurred on Friday, April 3, A.D. 33. Luke 3:1–3 tells us that John the Baptist, Jesus’ forerunner, began his ministry “in the 15^th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” Both Roman historians Tacitus (Annales 4 §4) and Suetonius (Tiberius 73) date the beginning of Tiberius’s reign at A.D. 14 (the precise date is August 19, the day of Emperor Augustus’s death). Hence the 15^th year of Tiberius’s reign, counting from August 19, A.D. 14, brings us to A.D. 29 (14 + 15 = 29).

According to Luke 3:23, Jesus was “about 30 years old” when he began his ministry. If Jesus was born in 5 B.C. (as argued above) and began his ministry, as is indicated by all four Gospels, shortly after that of John the Baptist (that is, in the latter part of the year A.D. 29), this would mean that Jesus was about 33 years old when he began his public ministry (see H. W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977], 31–37 and B. Messner, “’In the Fifteenth Year’ Reconsidered: A Study of Luke 3:1,” Stone-Campbell Journal 1 [1998]: 201–11).

John’s Gospel records Jesus’ appearance at at least 3 Passovers: (1) in Jerusalem (2:13, 23); (2) in Galilee (6:4); and (3) again in Jerusalem (11:55; 12:1). In addition, it is likely that he attended a fourth Passover not recorded in John but recorded in the Synoptics (Matt 12:1 pars.?). This adds up to a length of about 3 ½ years for Jesus’ ministry. If he began his ministry in late A.D. 29, this brings us to A.D. 33 for the crucifixion. It so happens that because of astronomical calculations A.D. 30 and 33 are the only possible dates for Jesus’ crucifixion as far as the date of Passover in these two years is concerned (for the dating of the four Passovers in question see esp. C. J. Humphreys and W. G. Waddington, “The Jewish Calendar, a Lunar Eclipse, and the Date of Christ’s Crucifixion,” Tyndale Bulletin 43 [1992]: 331–51, esp. 335).

Finally, John 2:20 says that the temple was completed 46 years ago (see for this translation A. J. Köstenberger, John [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004], 109–10). According to Josephus, the renovation of the temple building proper started in 20/19 B.C. (Antiquities 15.11.1 §380), with completion 18 months later in 18/17 B.C. (Antiquities 15.11.6 §421). Again, counting from 18/17 B.C., adding 46 years brings us to A.D. 29 (there was no year zero)—a great way to check our math above!

For Further Study: See the chart in A. J. Köstenberger, John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 11–13, and commentary at 1:19 and 2:20, and the previous post on Johannine chronology here. See also H. W. Hoehner, “Chronology,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. J. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 118–22.