Check out the course description and required reading for the Theology & Pop Culture class I’m about to begin at Fuller:

DESCRIPTION: This multi-disciplinary course will strengthen students’ cultural literacy by helping them understand the ways pop culture is created, marketed, consumed, received and critiqued. The course will examine pop culture artifacts as works/texts, consumer products, and pervasive agents of spiritual formation. Students will develop biblical/theological, historical, and economic understandings of music, film, TV, radio, periodicals, books, advertising, and the Internet.

SIGNIFICANCE FOR LIFE AND MINISTRY: In this course students will reassess pop culture’s relevance to their lives, their ministry, and the church’s engagement with mainstream culture.

LEARNING OUTCOMES: Pop culture is pervasive and influential. Students successfully completing this course will:

1. Develop a theology of culture and pop culture that helps them analyze their own culture consumption, prepare them for meaningful and effective ministry in a media-saturated age, and address culture’s role in their own spiritual growth and that of those for whom they care;
2.  Understand how pop culture products are created, disseminated, used and abused;
3. Evaluate the varied economic, social and spiritual impacts of mass media and products;
4. Assess evangelicals’ historic responses to popular culture in order to develop more effective ways of impacting and engaging both culture and those who create it.
5. Develop strategies and activities for teaching cultural literacy to others.

REQUIRED READING:

• Beaujon, Andrew. Body Piercing Saved My Life: Inside the Phenomenon of Christian Rock. (DeCapo Press, 2006), 291 pp.
• Hipps, Shane. Flickering Pixels: How Technology Shapes Faith and Culture. Zondervan, 2009. 208 pp.
• Lewerenz, Spencer and Nicolosi, Barbara, eds. Behind the Screen: Hollywood Insiders on Faith, Film and Culture. (Baker Books, 2005), 216 pp.
• Lynch, Gordon. Understanding Theology and Popular Culture. Blackwell Publishing, Inc., 2004, 195 pp.
• Schaeffer, Francis. Art and the Bible (InterVarsity Press, 1973), 63 pp.
• Vanhoozer, Kevin, Charles Anderson, and Michael Sleasman (editors). Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends. Baker Academic, 2007. Introduction and two case studies. (roughly 250 pgs)
• You must also purchase, read and bring to class a recent issue of Entertainment Weekly magazine. Selected articles, videos, audio recordings, and other materials to be distributed in class.

This is in addition to the film class I’m hoping to get into at City College of San Francisco.

Right up my alley I tell ya! I love it!

I truly believe every Jesus-follower is called to be a missionary regardless of where they live.

These words of Jesus come to mind. When praying to His Father He said:

“As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.” John 17:18

Followers of Jesus have been ”sent into the world” for a reason, and it’s not to hide.

If you really want to influence culture, learn to engage it.

Constantly throwing rocks is the easy way out, and it’s often not very helpful.

About: this paper was presented to Dr. John Goldingay at Fuller Theological Seminary during my second year for a class on the Prophets.

Amos and Micah share a great deal of similarities. Yet, they are different in several respects. Dealing with a small period of overlap within the 8^th Century B.C., both books address issues of judgment as a result of wickedness. We will examine how the two books are similar, then we will examine how the two books are similar though different, and finally we will examine how the books are different altogether. To the similarities of Amos and Micah we now turn.

Amos and Micah are similar in seven areas. First, both books focus on the wealthy people who were oppressing the poor. Second, both books understand that the Lord desires justice and not sacrificial offerings. Third, both Amos and Micah understand that desolation was going to come upon the land as a result of the wickedness. Fourth, both books understand that the people would be made desperate. Fifth, the Lord in both identifies the various wicked deeds of the people and then holds them responsible for them. Sixth, the time following the exodus from Egypt is seen in both as ideal for Israel. Finally, both books determine that Israel will come out of punishment on top of the nations.

Both books focus on the wealthy people who were oppressing the poor. In Amos, the Lord charges Israel for profaning his name by oppressing the poor (2:7-8). He identifies one of their major transgressions was that the rich were oppressing the poor and needy (4:1). The Lord identified that the rich were those who were at ease and secure in their lives (6:1), and they were those who lived in luxury, sleeping on ivory beds, lounging on couches, eating lambs of the flock, and singing idle songs (6:4-5). In Micah, the Lord saw the wicked—those who plotted evil deeds on their beds and did their plans since they had the power to do it, and they were also those who coveted fields, homes, and inheritances and took them from their rightful owners (2:1-2). These wicked ones described seem to be rich. If this reference is not clear enough, then this next one will be of help to us. The wicked were prosperous ones who obtained prosperity through dishonest means (6:9-11). These wealthy ones were full of violence (6:12). The idea is that the wealthy ones were oppressive through force. Both Amos and Micah focus on the wealthy people who were unjust, corrupt, and oppressive towards the poor.

Amos and Micah understand that the Lord desires justice and not sacrificial offerings. In Micah, someone wonders if they could approach the Lord with burnt offerings and if they could please the Lord with ram and oil offerings (6:6-7). They wonder if they could offer up their firstborn for appeasement (6:7). But Micah responds, saying that the Lord has already told them what he desires and requires—to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with him (6:8). In Amos, the Lord despises the sacrifices and offerings of the people (4:4-5), and he charges them to seek and love good, hate evil, and establish justice (5:14-15). Again, the Lord says that he will not accept their offerings (5:22), but instead he wants justice and righteousness (5:24). Both books understand that the Lord desires justice and not sacrificial offerings.

Both Amos and Micah understand that desolation was going to come upon the land as a result of the wickedness. In Amos, several visions show the desolation of the land. The first one was a vision of locusts eating up the grass (7:1). The second one was a vision of fire eating up the land (7:4). The third one was a vision of a plumb line, and the Lord said as he held a plumb line that he would make the high places desolate (7:7-9). In Micah, the Lord says that he will strike Jerusalem down and make them desolate (6:13). The Lord was going to lay Samaria bare so that it would be fallow (1:6-7). Both books understand that the Lord would lay the land desolate because of the people’s wickedness.

Both books understand that the people would be made desperate. Micah seems to feel desperate like one without food at the end of summer (7:1). The Lord declared that they would eat and not be filled, they would save but would not have provisions, and they will work but not see the fruit of their labor (6:14-15). Micah comments that the faithful and upright are gone, only the violent remain, and the violent are also corrupt and oppress the weak (7:2-3). The idea seems to be representative of the familiar saying, “Desperate times call for desperate measures.” Micah even says that given the times, it is important to protect yourself (7:5-6). Amos has another vision in which he sees a basket of summer fruit (8:1). The Lord declares that there was going to much wailing and vast amounts of dead bodies (8:3). Furthermore, the Lord said there would be a famine, a drought of the word of the Lord (8:11-14). The people would be laid to waste, but they would also not hear the word of the Lord. Both Micah and Amos understand that the people would be made desperate.

Micah and Amos both show how the Lord identifies the various wicked deeds of the people and then holds them responsible for them. In Amos, the Lord charges Israel for selling people for goods (2:6). He charges them with profaning his name (2:7-8). He charges them for forsaking Him and for turning their backs on Him (2:9-12). He identifies their transgressions—oppressing the poor and needy and offering up unacceptable sacrifices, tithes, and offerings (4:2-5). The Lord identifies the rich and their deeds (6:1-5). And the Lord holds the people accountable for their ways by bringing exile (6:7). In Micah, the Lord charges Samaria for plotting evil deeds and doing it out of their power and for coveting fields and houses and taking them from their rightful owners (2:1-2). The Lord identifies how they became prosperous through dishonest means (6:9-11). He charges them with being full of violence, lies, and deceit (6:12). And the Lord holds them accountable for their ways by bringing exile (2:3) and destruction (6:13). Both books show the Lord as the one who identifies the wickedness of the people and judges them accordingly.

The time following the exodus from Egypt is seen in both books as the ideal condition for Israel. In Micah, the people plea for the Lord to return Israel, as the familiar saying has it, to “the good ol’ days” (7:14-15). They look at the time after they came out of Egypt, a time when they were in the wilderness, which was a time of renewal for the people and of utter dependence on the Lord. Earlier in the book, the Lord looks back to the same event as an explicit marker that He had chosen them to be His own people (6:4). It was a time of redemption. In Amos, the Lord marks Israel’s special condition as being the people that He had brought out of the land of Egypt and led into the wilderness for forty years (2:10). Later in the book, the Lord says that sacrifices were neither necessary nor desired during the time in the wilderness, nor are they desired now (5:25). The wilderness, that is, the time after the exodus from Egypt, was representative of what was ideal for Israel both in Micah and Amos.

Both books determine that Israel will come out of punishment on top of the nations. Amos concludes in the end that Israel will be restored. The Lord will rise up the booth of David and rebuilt the land, in order that the people may possess it and the nations (9:11-12). In Micah, Jerusalem will be the place that all the nations of the world will look to and travel to (7:11-13). It will also be the place from which the Lord will rule (4:3). The Lord will cause Jerusalem to prosper (4:11-13). He will rise up a new leader over Israel that will come out of Bethlehem in Judah (5:2). In the new age, Israel will be protected and will be victorious over all the nations (5:7-9). Amos and Micah both determine that Israel will come out of the punishment on top of the nations.

We have seen that both books are similar in more than a handful of ways. But Amos and Micah do share some similarities with their own distinctive touch in four areas. One, both books have judgment as the key theme. Two, both books proclaim exile as the result of the wickedness of the people. Three, both books demonstrate that the prophets received opposition. Last, both used Israel as a means for communicating to the nations. Although Amos and Micah share these similar areas, each of them has their own distinct uses. In this sense, we can say that they are similar though different.

Both Amos and Micah have judgment as the key theme. However, they are not quite the same in the way that judgment is portrayed. Judgment in Micah is primarily for Israel and Judah, and only by extension the rest of the nations (1:4-5). In Amos, judgment is coming to all the nations for their wickedness (1:3-2:16). Judgment is portrayed in Amos as destruction by fire (1:3-2:5). Israel is the only nation in Amos that is not punished with destruction by fire. Instead, the Lord decides to press and shame Israel (2:13-16). In Micah, judgment is portrayed as desolation and destruction (1:6-9). The similarity is evident; judgment is the key theme in both. The difference between the two books is the scope of judgment. Micah views judgment for Israel and Judah, while Amos views judgment for all the nations. In this way, they are similar though different.

Both books proclaim exile as the result of the wickedness of the people. However, they do not have precisely the same view about the exile. Micah seems to have the idea that the exile is most certainly going to happen (2:3) and that it is in the midst of happening (5:1). Yet, they would be rescued eventually from their exile (4:9-10). Amos seems to have the idea that the exile was dependent on the people. If only they would love good and hate evil, and if they would only seek God, then they would be saved (5:4, 6, 14-15). Amos also seems to have the idea that they would return from their exile (9:14-15). The similarity is plain: exile is a main punishment in both books. The difference between the two is the nature of the exile. Micah thought it was inevitable and nothing could stop it. Amos thought something could still be done. In this way, the books are similar though different.

Both books demonstrate that the prophets received opposition. However, the prophets respond to their criticisms in different ways. Amos is opposed by Amaziah (7:10-11). Amaziah charges Amos with conspiracy, and he tells Amos to leave and never again prophesy (7:10-13). Amos responds that he is not a prophet, but rather, a herdsman who was chosen by the Lord to speak (7:14-15). Then Amos reports the Lord’s judgment to Amaziah concerning him. He told Amaziah that his wife will become a prostitute, his sons and daughters will die by the sword, his land will be distributed out, he will die in exile and in shame, and Israel will go into exile because of his opposition to Amos (7:16-17). Micah is opposed by a preacher who tells him not to preach for disgrace would not come upon the people (2:6). Micah retorts back by saying that his words are helpful while the opposing preacher’s are not, for the preacher was the people’s enemy, saying that he (or she?) did not keep the peace, that he (or she?) drove women out and robbed their children (2:7-9). Micah summarizes the people that the opposing preacher represented by saying (possibly) that he should leave the people for it is not a place of rest and it is a place of folly (2:10-11). Amos and Micah are similar in the sense that they both received opposition as prophets. Yet, they are different in their responses. Micah retorts back and charges his accuser with being an enemy of the people, and then he seems reflect on the condition of his people. Amos responds by saying God chose him to speak and so his authority comes from the Lord, and the Lord will deal with Amaziah for his opposition. In this way, Amos and Micah are similar though different.

Both books used Israel as a means for communicating to the nations. Yet, they have different ways of using Israel to communicate to the nations. In Amos, Israel is stripped and plundered, and the nations, i.e., Ashdod and Egypt, are called to look at what was happening in Samaria (3:9-12). The Lord seems to be communicating to the nations when he tells Ashdod and Egypt to look upon the destruction and shame of Israel. What precisely is being communicated I am uncertain, but I would posit that the Lord is using Israel as an example for the nations, saying in effect that the rest of the nations should take what He was doing to Israel to heart, so that it would not happen to them. In Micah, the nations would look upon Israel and fall on their face in fear (7:16-17). It seems that Israel in this case is being used to communicate the glory of God, which would lead the nations to turn to the Lord in fear and respect. Both books demonstrate that Israel is a means for communication. However, Israel communicates in different ways. Amos uses Israel negatively to communicate to the nations; do not do as they do or you will become like them. Micah uses Israel positively to communicate to the nations; they are the result of God’s glory, so recognize the Lord for who he is. In this sense, Micah and Amos are similar though different.

We have seen how Micah and Amos are similar, and we have also seen how they are similar though different. Now we will see how they are each unique apart from each other. There are five areas in which Amos and Micah are different from each other. First, they are different in their post-exilic vision of a new age and a new ruler. Second, they are different in the way the Lord confronts Israel. Third, they are different in the reason for the Lord giving judgment. Fourth, they are different in their view of the Day of the Lord. Finally, they are different in view of the Lord’s rule.

Micah and Amos are different in their post-exilic vision of a new age and a new ruler. Micah has a vision of a new age and a new ruler, whereas Amos has no such vision. Micah has a vision of a new ruler of Israel that will come forth out of Bethlehem in Judah (5:2). This ruler will be “from ancient days” (5:2). The ruler will give the people over to oppressors, but when the exile is over he will reign (5:3). He will be the shepherd over the flock, that is, Israel (5:4). This ruler will stand in the strength of the Lord bringing security and peace (5:4-5). The new age would be a prosperous time for the people, and they would give all glory to the Lord (4:11-13). They would have leaders in the new age that would protect them from Assyrian invasion (5:5-6). And in the new age they would have victory over all the other nations (5:7-9). This vision of a new age and a new ruler is unique to Micah. Amos has no such vision.

Micah and Amos are different in the way they portray the Lord’s confrontation of the people. In Amos the Lord laments over Israel, but in Micah the Lord takes Israel to court. Amos highlights the relationship aspect between the Lord and Israel. The Lord said to Israel, “I know you, I will punish you” (3:2). He speaks in covenantal terms, saying that he tried to get their attention and draw them back to Him by taking away their food and bread, by not providing rain, by giving them blight and mildew, by wasting their gardens, by giving them a pestilence like what he did in Egypt, by killing their young men with the sword, by taking away their horses, and by overthrowing some of them like Sodom and Gomorrah (4:6-11). He is making a charge against Israel, but it is done in more covenantal and relational terms. However, the Lord takes Israel to court. He officially declares before all of creation that He made them His people when He brought them out of Egypt and slavery and saved them from Moab (6:4-5). He officially charges them before all of creation for forsaking him and taking on dishonest prosperity, violence, and deceit (6:9-12). Then he officially declares their judgment before all of creation, which was destruction and futility (6:13-16). Micah has no indication of a pursuit before judgment, whereas Amos does. The Lord, in Amos, attempted to get their attention before bringing judgment. This attempt is absent in Micah.

Micah and Amos give different reasons for the Lord’s judgment. In Amos, the Lord brings judgment on the earth as a result of the sins of the nations. In Micah, the Lord brings judgment on the earth as a result of the transgressions of Israel and Judah, and the nations would suffer by extension. Micah says that the judgment was against the whole earth as a result of the sins of Israel and Judah (1:4-5). But Amos identifies the wickedness of the nations, and the Lord deals with them accordingly. Damascus is given to destruction and exile for threshing Gilead (1:3-5). Gaza is given over to destruction and desolation for exiling communities to Edom (1:6-8). Tyre again is given to destruction for delivering communities to Edom (1:9-10). Edom is given to destruction for going after Israel with the sword (1:11-12). The Ammonites are given to destruction for ripping open pregnant women in Gilead (1:13-15). Moab is given to destruction for burning the king of Edom (2:1-3). Judah is given to destruction for rejecting the law of the Lord (2:4-5). Israel is given to pressing and shame for profaning the name of the Lord, selling people for goods, and oppressing the poor (2:6-16). Micah does not have the idea that the nations are being judged for their wickedness alone, but rather, that the nations are feeling the effects of the punishment of Israel and Judah for their evil deeds. Amos has the idea that the nations are being punished for their own wretchedness apart from Israel and Judah.

Micah and Amos are different in their view of the Day of the Lord. In Amos, the Day of the Lord is gloomy. But in Micah, the Day of the Lord is gloomy, yet it will usher in a new age. The Day of the Lord in Amos’ view was going to be a time of harsh judgment on the nations, including Israel (5:18-20). It would be dark and gloomy, and it would be frightening and scary (5:18-20). In Micah, “day” signals what the Lord would do in a similar way as “day of the Lord” functions in Amos. The Lord will remove the inheritance from the wicked (2:4-5). He will assemble the lame and those driven away and make them into a remnant and a strong nation, and he will reign over them (4:6-7). He will cut off their horses and chariots from them, he will cut their cities off, he will cut off their evil practices, and he will show them His vengeance (5:10-14). The walls of Jerusalem will be extended and built, and all of the nations between Assyria and Egypt, Egypt and the River (Euphrates?) would come to the Lord, and the earth will be desolate because of the wickedness of the inhabitants (7:11-13). The Day of the Lord in Micah, although not explicitly mentioned, is a time of judgment, destruction, and renewal. In Amos, it is only a gloomy and harsh judgment with no view of renewal on the horizon.

Micah and Amos are different in the way they view the Lord’s rule. Amos sees God ruling from the throne in the heavens, whereas Micah sees God setting up his throne on Zion and ruling the earth from there. Micah views God as ruling not from heaven but on earth (1:3). Micah envisions the Lord setting up his thrown upon Zion. From Zion the peoples will stream to him (4:1). From Zion the nations will come to worship him (4:2). Zion would be a place from which the Lord’s instruction would come forth and his word would come out from (4:2). Jerusalem being synonymous in understanding with Zion, the Lord will also judge the nations from Jerusalem (4:3). As a result of his ruling on earth and from his throne in Jerusalem and on Zion, there will be no war and there will be peace (4:3-4). Amos has a different way of talking about the Lord’s reign. He does open by saying that the Lord roars from Zion and speaks from Jerusalem (1:2), but he closes with God ruling from the heavens (9:6). The Lord builds his chambers in the heavens and his vault on the earth (9:6). All of creation, from heaven to earth, is the Lord’s place, and he reigns from any portion of it. Micah’s vision is different in the sense that it does not have the element of reigning from any portion of creation that Amos has.

As we have seen, Amos and Micah share a great deal of similarities, but they do have their differences. Amos and Micah share several features, such as the focus is on the wealthy who oppress the poor, the understanding that the Lord desires justice and not sacrificial offerings, and the understandings that the people would be made desperate and the land desolate. Amos and Micah are similar though different in several aspects, such as in the way they approach, use, or view judgment, exile, or opposition. Finally, we have seen how Amos and Micah are unique with respect to each other in several ways, such as Micah’s post-exilic vision of a new age and a new ruler, Amos’ description of the Lord’s attempt to gain the attention of Israel, Micah’s creation court scene, and Amos’ creation aspect of the Lord’s reign.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. Art Patzia at Fuller Theological Seminary during my second year for a class covering Acts through Revelation.

Does Paul in 1 Timothy 2 prohibit women from preaching at the pulpit? In answering this question, it is sometimes stated that Paul was not the author of the pastorals, which includes 1 Timothy, and as a result, the difficult statements therein have little or no binding authority. In the issue of authorship, Christians have split into opposing camps, sometimes declaring opponents to be uncommitted to the authority of Scripture. Indeed, there is a camp of scholars who do not believe that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. For the other camp Paul is certainly the author. What are the arguments for and against Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles? Although Paul is identified to be the author at the beginning of each of the Pastoral Epistles, some scholars look at other pieces of evidence from throughout the letters as a whole and determine that they are not genuinely from Paul but from someone else. Others find a way to explain how Paul is in fact the author of these epistles in keeping with the Pauline attribution at their beginnings. We will explore the various arguments against Pauline authorship and allow arguments in favor of Pauline authorship to interact with them. However, in the end we must ask ourselves what we can make of the situation by asking ourselves if the question of authorship is as important as we have made it out to be.

Someone Other Than Paul as the Author of the Pastoral Epistles

There are two kinds of arguments that maintain Paul was not the author or sole author of the Pastoral Epistles. The pseudonymous arguments maintain for various reasons that someone other than Paul wrote the pastorals using his name. The fragment theory argument maintains that there was a collection of personal correspondences of Paul that were used to create the pastorals. These fragments of the personal letters were augmented and adapted to a new letter to meet the needs of a particular situation. But Paul was not the direct author of the actual Pastoral Epistles as we know them today. Let us look at these two types of arguments that maintain someone other than Paul as the author of the Pastoral Epistles.

The Pseudonymous Arguments

As a whole, the pseudonymous hypothesis assumes several ideas dealing with accepted practices, stylistic differences, and historical features. First, pseudonymous hypotheses assume pseudonymity was an accepted practice during the late first and early second centuries. Second, it assumes stylistic differences can be attributed to different authors other than Paul. And third, it assumes historical features present in the pastorals are post-Pauline. These three ideas in general result in the argument that Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, but rather a pseudonymous writer who perhaps knew Paul wrote them instead.¹ We will look closely at some of the popular arguments from the pseudonymous vein, such as those that focus on post-Pauline Gnosticism, the Pauline school of theology and literary style, Paul’s activities as reported in Acts, and other details and considerations.

Gnosticism is thought very strongly by many scholars to be the heresy addressed in the Pastoral Epistles. Gnosticism was a post-Pauline development. Therefore, these scholars argue that the pastorals were post-Pauline. In other words, Paul did not write them, because the heresy addressed did not come until after Paul’s death. Someone else wrote the pastorals and put Paul’s name to them, a practice known as pseudonymous writing.² Many scholars who argue for this understanding suggest that the pastorals were written around the late first or early second centuries, in order to revive Pauline teaching and to provide the definitive method for denouncing Gnosticism.³ However, Gnosticism as a systematic religion came after Paul’s death, but its thoughts and ideas as an informal structure were present during the latter half of the First Century A.D.; it is likely that Paul was familiar with these informal ideas and to have addressed them when writing the pastorals.⁴ Furthermore, statements in the pastorals indicate the author was dealing with a prominent Jewish element of heresy. These statements refer to circumcision, Jewish myths, and law disputes, as in Titus 1:10, 14; 3:9. These require a broader understanding of Gnosticism as the heresy being addressed. There is plenty of evidence that indicates the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles was mixed. This Gnosticism apparently attached itself to some parts of Judaism, whereas the Gnosticism of the Second Century A.D. was opposed to the features of Judaism with one exception, the Jewish cosmology. If the Gnosticism addressed was an early one that was mixed with Judaism, much like what we find in Colossians, then an early date of authorship for the Pastoral Epistles is best. If the date was early, not only was it possible that Paul wrote the pastorals, but a pseudonymous author was very unlikely, since a different author would not have succeeded in writing them so close to Paul’s life and death.⁵

Some scholars arguing for the pseudonymity of the pastorals maintain that Paul had a theological school. Students at the schools of Pythagorus and Plato wrote letters in the names of their respective philosophers; with this fact in view, some scholars believe Paul could have had a school of his own and the students would have likely practiced writing in his name as did the students of Pythagorus and Plato.⁶ Paul and his close coworkers over time assembled into a group that discussed his theology. Following his death, members from this school could have written in the name of Paul, containing his theology while expressing it in a different style. Vocabulary and grammar could be different, for example. This practice would have been considered authoritative, for the new writer would have been revealing Paul’s thoughts and ideas; since he was Paul’s pupil and Paul was his teacher, he had the ability to do so.⁷ Therefore, the student from the school could write in the name of Paul, thus expressing Paul’s theology after Paul had died, and the writing would have been accepted as Paul’s own material. This practice would account for the stylistic differences evident in the pastorals and the accepted letters—those letters that are accepted to be genuinely Pauline. What are those differences?

There are many differences between the Pastoral Letters and the accepted letters, depending on the perspective from which the two categories are being examined. From a vocabulary perspective, word choice is quite different in the Pastoral Epistles compared to the accepted letters. The pastorals have a sum of 902 words. Of the 902 words, 54 of them are proper names. With the proper names aside, there are 848 words. Of the 848 words, 306 never occur in the accepted letters. About 36 percent of the vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles does not exist in the Pauline vocabulary of the accepted letters. Furthermore, 175 words in the pastorals exist nowhere else in the entire New Testament. Only 50 words out of the 858 words occur in the accepted letters but nowhere else in the New Testament. From a content perspective, the Pastoral Epistles express the same general ideas but with different words and phrases than the accepted letters. From the perspective of favorite words, words that are clearly Paul’s and are distinctively his, the Pastoral Epistles do not use any of these key words. Words like “cross” or “crucify” occur 27 times in the accepted letters, but never in the pastorals. Neither do the words “son” or “adoption” occur in the pastorals, whereas they occur 46 times in the accepted letters. From a grammar or syntax perspective, the Pauline characteristic of particles that link sentences together in the Greek language are over abundant in the accepted letters while non-existent in the Pastoral Epistles.⁸ One other particularly convincing piece of evidence regarding literary style deals with the dating of particular vocabulary. There are a large number of words in the Pastoral Epistles that occur nowhere else in Paul but are characteristic of second century writings.⁹ Indeed, there are a large number of stylistic differences between the pastorals and the accepted letters of Paul.

These differences do not necessarily indicate that the author was a student of Paul’s who was writing pseudonymously. In other words, the stylistic differences do not require that a different author other than Paul was responsible for the Pastoral Epistles. There are a number of other factors that must be considered when attempting to arrive at a conclusion concerning these differences. Paul used an amanuensis in composing other letters, such as Romans, so it could be possible that he used at least one when writing the pastorals. The use of an amanuensis would certainly account for the stylistic differences between the Pastoral Epistles and the accepted letters. It should also be considered that most of the accepted letters were co-authored between Paul and Timothy. If we consider that the pastorals were written only by Paul, then the letter is certainly going to be different from the letters where Paul was not the sole author.¹⁰

And what about other reasons for differences? The differences in vocabulary, grammar, or style could simply be attributed to the fact that Paul was addressing different subject matter, which required different vocabulary. He also had a different audience from the audiences of the accepted letters. How does that affect our understanding of the differences? What of the fact that age and time could have caused the differences? Could Paul have changed his style over time? And what do we do with some of the criteria in the conclusions of the differences? The letters within the accepted letters could be denied acceptance according to the same criteria. For example, Paul’s use of “examine” occurs 10 times in 1 Corinthians, but nowhere else in Paul’s letters. Should 1 Corinthians be considered pseudonymous because it contains a keyword that does not exist elsewhere in Paul’s letters?¹¹

Finally, there is no evidence for a school of theology. No Pauline school seems to have existed during or after the life of Paul, for none of the post-apostolic writers reference or appeal to such a school, namely, Clement of Rome, Papias, Ignatius, or Polycarp. If there was a school of theology, none of these writers knew of it or felt the need to write about it.¹²

For many scholars, Paul’s activities in the Pastoral Epistles do not align with the activities mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles, leading them to conclude that it was not Paul who wrote them, since they are supposedly telltale signs of pseudonymity. These scholars point out the factual discrepancies between 1 Timothy 1:3 and Acts 20:4-6, for example, where in the pastoral epistle Paul urged Timothy to stay in Ephesus as he urged him while he was on his way to Macedonia, but in Acts Timothy went on ahead to Troas where Paul eventually met up with him.¹³ Furthermore, the pastorals speak of missions and events that Acts do not report, such as a mission in Crete in Titus 1:5 and a winter in Nicopolis in Epirus in Titus 3:12.¹⁴

Those scholars wishing to harmonize these seemingly problematic facts argue that Paul was released from the imprisonment with which Acts closes. They argue that it seems possible that Paul thought release from prison was possible in Rome; it is possible even that Paul expected to be freed. They refer to Philippians 2:24, where Paul says that he trusts in the Lord he would come to see the Philippians, and Philemon 22, where Paul says that Philemon ought to prepare a lodging for him, since he would be coming soon. We do know that Paul wanted to go to Spain, which is clear from Romans 15:24, 28. The Muratorian Canon says that Luke omitted the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain. Both Chrysostom and Jerome in the fifth century were certain Paul reached Spain. Clement of Rome wrote about A.D. 90 that Paul preached both in the East and the West and instructed the whole world, starting in the East and having gone into the far reaches of the West. Although it is not certain that the far reaches of the West necessarily refer to Spain, it is at least a possibility. If it does, then it would indicate that Paul was set free as Eusebius reported in his history of the church and, for whatever reason, Acts is incomplete. If Acts did not give the full story, either because it was written before the rest of Paul’s story was completed or because the reason for writing did not require the full story, then there is no problem between Acts and the activities reported in the Pastoral Epistles. Acts could have been incomplete, selective, or both. The events in the pastorals do not necessarily contradict Acts.¹⁵

However, despite the words evidenced in the Muratorian Canon, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Clement of Rome, we still cannot be certain that Paul made a journey to Spain as he planned. There is no evidence in Spain itself that Paul made it there. Furthermore, no tradition regarding Paul’s journey to Spain originated from that location. We cannot know for certain that Paul made it to Spain, or if he was released from his imprisonment in Rome. As a result, the differences between the Pastoral Epistles and Acts are hard to reconcile.¹⁶

There are several other factors that lead scholars to maintain a pseudonymous argument, which include, but are not limited to, the following: Marcion’s omission in his own canon; ecclesiastical structure; and orthodoxy. These arguments suggest at the least Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles. To these various issues we now turn.

Marcion, a Gnostic heretic, omitted the Pastoral Epistles from his New Testament canon. He believed that Paul did not write them. However, it is likely that much of the content of the pastorals did not suit well with Marcion, and he likely rejected its authority and did not give it a place in his canon. Statements dealing with the good value of the law and the rejection of knowledge in 1 Timothy 1:8; 6:20 would likely have offended him.¹⁷ He may have omitted it sure enough, but not necessarily because it was thought that Paul did not write the pastorals.

The Pastoral Epistles reflect a higher church structure than the rest of the accepted letters. The church structure contained in the pastorals comes from a much later development than was present during Paul’s time. However, the pastorals mention distinct classes in the Church, such as elders, deacons, and widows, but these classes were referred to quite early, including in the New Testament. The church structure mentioned in the pastorals does not indicate a post-Pauline date.¹⁸ But it can be argued that although Paul does mention such classes of church members elsewhere, as in Philippians 1:1 where he mentions bishops and deacons, he is nowhere else concerned with their duties. It is the duties that seem uncharacteristic of Paul in the pastorals, which leads some scholars to believe that Paul did not write them. Since the duties of the church leaders were the concern of the Didache and Ignatius in his letters, which were late First Century A.D. documents, these scholars argue that the Pastoral Epistles came from that same time and were not written by Paul.¹⁹

The Pastoral Epistles seem to be largely concerned with orthodoxy, that is, right belief or teaching. This concern seems to imply a post-Pauline date for authorship. Orthodoxy was a stage of theological development when doctrine was finalized and needed to be protected from being corrupted. However, it Paul had a concern for defending orthodoxy from the very beginning, such as the whole of Galatians or 1 Corinthians 15.²⁰

The Fragments Theory Argument

According to this view, a common practice would have been to take something that was in fact Paul’s, fragments of his writings, and adapt it in written form to something else. We cannot, according to this theory, go as far to say that a disciple of Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles because of the personal statements made regarding Paul in the letters. For example, a disciple of Paul would honor him and extol him, but would not claim Paul to be the foremost sinner as in 1 Timothy 1:15. Also, why would a disciple tell Timothy to drink a little wine for health reasons in 1 Timothy 5:23? Furthermore, the fourth chapter of 2 Timothy is so personal and intimate that it could not have been written by a disciple. As a result, Paul may not have written the Pastoral Epistles as we know them, but he did have his part in them.²¹

Instead, Paul would have likely had private correspondence with other people. Philemon is an example of private correspondence; it is unlikely that this letter is the only one of this nature. There very well could be fragments of Paul’s other correspondence letters in the hands of another Christian, who, seeing a particular need of the Church, applied them to a customized letter. Taking the fragments, the new author could have adapted and expounded on the fragments, making them ever relevant to the situation at hand. If this theory were correct, then it would account for the similarity in concepts between the Pastoral Epistles and the accepted letters, but also the differences in literary style.²²

However, there is no unified agreement on which parts of the Pastoral Epistles are fragments of Paul’s personal correspondence letters. Additionally, it is not likely that any personal correspondence letters would have been preserved, since they would have not contained theological matters. And there are also questions. Why augment and adapt the letters? Why not simply copy the letters as they were and pass them around? Why did the new author write three letters? Why not one? This theory seems to produce too many unanswerable questions to be of any help.²³

Conclusion

We have seen that there are two kinds of arguments against Paul as the author of the Pastoral Epistles. The first argument appeals to the practice of pseudonymous writing. Scholars who maintain that someone wrote the pastorals in Paul’s name to gain authority appeal to various factors, such as Gnosticism, a Pauline school of theology, literary or stylistic differences, historical discrepancies, Marcion’s omission in his canon, church structure, and orthodoxy. However, the opposing side has a rebuttal for each of these considerations. The Gnosticism present in the pastorals is of an early kind, so that the Gnosticism element itself does not necessarily require a late date. No post-apostolic writers make mention of any sort of school of theology. The use of an amanuensis would explain stylistic differences; Paul’s accepted letters were co-authored, but the pastorals were solely the work of Paul, which could also explain the differences in style. It is possible that Paul did make it to Spain and was freed from his Roman imprisonment, so that the pastorals pick up historically where Acts leaves off. Marcion could have purposefully omitted the pastorals due to their conflicting content with his theological agenda. The church structure terms were present early on for Paul and the other epistles in the New Testament and do not require understanding a later date for authorship. The concern for orthodoxy was also present early on and likewise does not require a later date.

The second argument appeals to a collection of personal letters that would have been used by a later writer to instruct the Church in a particular situation. However, this argument raises too many additional questions. Furthermore, there is no evidence for a collection of personal correspondences or the use of fragments from this collection.

Determining the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is difficult. But the decision or conclusion cannot be made with certainty. The question is, what do we make of this uncertainty? Do we displace the pastorals from the New Testament canon? Are they less authoritative? Do they bear any authority at all? Of course they do. They were accepted early on and have been used to instruct the church ever since. We need to be careful to not allow the uncertainty of authorship divide and conquer us. Instead, we should unite on the issues that matter most, agree to disagree, and uphold the authority of Scripture as a whole, even when we cannot be fully assured of the authorship of each book or letter.

Bibliography

Achtemeier, Paul, Joel Green, and Marianne Thompson, eds. Introducing the New Testament: Its literature and theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001.

Barclay, William. The Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Daily Bible Readings. Glasgow: The Church of Scotland, 1956.

Ellis, E. E. “Pastoral Letters,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph Martin, and Daniel Reid, eds. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993. 658-666.

Gundry, Robert. A Survey of the New Testament. 4^th ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003.

Patzia, Arthur. The Making of the New Testament: Origin, collection, text & canon. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1995.

Towner, Philip. 1-2 Timothy & Titus. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Grant Osborne, D. Stuart Briscoe, and Haddon Robinson, eds. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. Art Patzia at Fuller Theological Seminary during my second year for a class covering Acts through Revelation.

Introduction

Many people find Paul’s perspective on women to be very confusing. Paul seems to affirm a positive view of women, such as in Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 16, 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, 1 Timothy 5:3-16, and Titus 2:3-5, where he identifies women to be on the same level playing field as men. However, Paul also seems to have a negative view of women, such as in 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, Ephesians 5, and 1 Timothy 2, where he subordinates women to men. Does Paul contradict himself? Some scholars have argued that there is no contradiction and that Paul does have a good perspective on women. We should look at the aforementioned negative texts and see how scholars who argue that Paul has a positive view of women and does not contradict himself make their case. We will look at what they argue and claim regarding each of the negative texts, and then we will summarize their methods. Before we look at the scholarly explanations of the seemingly negative texts, let us first look at the general feel of the positive texts, so that we will see the distinction between the two types that are often juxtaposed.

Looking at Scripture

Positive Texts

There are five positive texts that we should briefly summarize, which are Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 16, Titus 2:3-5, 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, and 1 Timothy 5:3-16. In Galatians 3:26-29, Paul argued as follows: in Christ, we are all equals; ethnic, social, and gender distinctions do not exist in Christ. The issue at hand is a present equality in Christ for every person so that gender distinctions do not exist.

In Romans 16, Phoebe is identified as a deacon and a benefactor (vv. 1-2), Prisca (or Priscilla), who is a coworker with Paul, is the object, along with her husband, of much gratitude among the Gentiles, and in fact she and her husband host a house church (vv. 3-5), Mary is said to work hard for the Roman church (v. 6), Junia is identified as a relative of Paul and as being prominent among the apostles (v. 7), Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis are identified as workers in the Lord (v. 12), Rufus’ mother is identified as a non-biological mother to Paul (v. 13), and Julia and Nereus’ sister are identified among a company of saints (v. 15). All of these people are women, and they are all considered to be prominent in some way or another in the church. It seems in this text that women were seen as coworkers and equals alongside men in Paul’s view. The next three passages give or affirm some sort of rights or privileges to women. In Titus 2:3-5, older women are charged with specific instructions for leadership for the specific purpose of teaching younger women. Here it seems women are specifically given a leadership role in ministry in this specific text, and although it is a leadership role over other women, it is a leadership role nonetheless. In 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, each man is urged to have his own wife and each wife should have her own husband (v. 2). The husband should give his wife her conjugal rights, and the wife to her husband (v. 3). The wife does not have authority over her body, and the husband does not have authority over his body (v. 4). Paul views marriage through a lens of equality, so that wives have the same rights as their husbands. In 1 Timothy 5:3-16, Paul affords provision for women by the church, women who are old widows and are true widows–those who meet specific qualifications. Paul shows concern for widows.

Therefore, the positive texts that we have looked at seem to demonstrate that Paul had a positive view of women. He was concerned for the care of widows. He upheld equality in terms of conjugal rights in marriage between the husband and wife. He made room for women to teach at least other women. He perceived women to be equal co-workers alongside himself and other men in service to the church and to the Lord. He taught that in Christ there is neither male nor female; in Christ there is no gender distinction. However, Paul elsewhere seems to contradict this positive view. We should now look at the seemingly negative texts and see how some scholars have treated these passages.

Negative Texts

There are four seemingly negative texts that we are going to look at, which are 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, Ephesians 5:21-33, and 1 Timothy 2:8-15, respectively.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, there are several pieces that point toward a negative view of women. We should summarize this text’s contents. Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ (v. 3). Disgrace comes upon the head of a man who prays with his head covered (v. 4). Disgrace also comes upon the head of a woman who prays with her head uncovered (v. 5). Man is the reflection and image of God, and women are the image and reflection of man (v. 7). Woman was made from man and woman was made for man (vv. 8-9). Woman should have authority on her head because of the angels (v. 10). In the Lord woman is not independent from man nor man independent of woman (v. 11). Woman came from man but so also man comes from woman through childbirth (v. 12). However, all things come from God (v. 12). It should be asked, “Is it proper for women to pray with their heads unveiled?” (v. 13). It should also be asked, “Does nature say men who cover their heads are a disgrace?” (v. 14). Finally, it should be asked, “Does nature say women who have long hair are glory?” (v. 15).

There are no less than six questions regarding 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. What does “head” mean? What does the relationship between Christ and man, husband and wife, and God and Christ mean in relation to “head”? What is the significance of head coverings? What does the image of God and image of man mean? What does “because of the angels” mean? What does it mean that man and woman are not independent of each other in the Lord? Perhaps these questions should be answered (or attempted to be answered) by considering the issue at hand.

Paul seems to be concerned with praying according to the social customs in public and seems to be addressing a specific issue that the Corinthians had inquired to him about. But it seems from this text that Paul perceived men to be the rulers of women. Is this Paul’s view? Linda Belleville says that it is not.

According to Belleville, 1 Corinthians 11 explains how women should pray or prophesy, but it does not question who or what one should pray.¹ To be clear, her point is that Paul was not restricting wives from speaking in church worship, but rather he was prescribing how women generally ought to speak in church worship.²

In Belleville’s view, the issue in 1 Corinthians 11 is not concerning husbands and wives, but rather males and females; it has been suggested that since virtually all women were married during the First Century A.D., it can be assumed that “males” and “females” is understood to mean “husbands” and “wives,” but this proposal does not consider Paul’s care for widows, virgins, and the divorced earlier in 1 Corinthians.³

Belleville argues that Paul’s instructions were addressing a specific situation. During the First Century A.D., Asia Minor had fixed customs regarding gender attire. The words “shameful”, “proper”, and “disgraceful” in 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrate that Paul seems to be concerned with these social customs regarding gender attire. However, Paul’s appeal to Genesis 2 involves something more than inappropriate attire; women and men are taught by nature to wear their hair differently from each other. By addressing the issue of hair, gender distinctions are clearly at hand. Women were approved by Paul to pray or prophesy alongside men, but Paul was concerned with how they publicly performed prayer or prophecied.⁴

Belleville demonstrates that the attire in question in 1 Corinthians 11 is headgear. Is it hair? Is it a covering? Verses 14-15 seem to indicate that women ought to cover their heads with something else because of their long hair. The long hair is understood to be a covering provided by nature, but it is not the head covering itself. Also, in v. 6, Paul said that if a woman will not cover her head then she should cut off her hair, which assumed a different covering from her hair itself. Verse 10 also suggests that something other than the woman’s hair ought to be placed on her head, because there was no indication in the First Century A.D. that hair and authority were linked, but it was an accepted practice for female laity in Roman religions to place a cover on their heads before performing religious functions.⁵

Furthermore, Roman women did not wear head coverings in public, but religious laity and civic leaders did cover their heads in public by pulling their togas up far enough to cover their head. There was a leadership role for women in the First Century A.D. But there was still a necessity to keep distinctions between the sexes, even though both genders are equal in Christ.⁶

Head coverings are not the only piece of the text in question. Paul’s use of “head” is also a strong focus in modern scholarship and research concerning 1 Corinthians 11. Belleville argues that we can determine how Paul was using “head” by drawing on the language of vv. 7, 8, and 12, and we will find that he used it something along the lines of “glory.”⁷

In Belleville’s understanding, the problem for Paul was when a woman uncovered her head attention would be drawn to her masculine origin or “head,” so that attention was taken away from God. Women were to cover their heads so that God was the focus of everyone’s attention.⁸

Craig Keener argues along the same lines as Belleville. He is additionally helpful in terms of his treatment on head coverings. He notes the function and significance of a woman who revealed her hair in public for the Corinthian cultural setting. According to Keener, a wife who revealed her hair in public was tantamount to cheating on her husband, for a woman’s hair was perceived as a sexual object by men. This thought also explains why virgins and prostitutes uncovered their hair in public; they were seeking to draw attention to themselves, that is, they were attempting to attract men.⁹ At the very least, head coverings were typical of married women.¹⁰ Husbands wanted to preserve their rights to the beauty of their wives; head coverings helped to preserve such rights. When wives went into public without their heads covered, they were perceived as being immodest for publicly displaying their beauty, for the head and hair were seen as the most important part of a woman’s beauty.¹¹

Keener is also helpful in his treatment of Paul’s phrase, “because of the angels.” Keener argues that the statement for a woman to have a covering over her head because of the angels was Paul’s way of saying that women did have authority over their heads but they needed to use their authority responsibly, that is, for propriety’s sake. Paul’s intention was to avoid contention by adhering to cultural customs.¹²

Keener’s argument that Paul was attempting to avoid conflict with cultural customs is supported by Walter Liefeld’s argument that Paul was instructing women in this way for evangelistic purposes. Liefeld links Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to what we find in 1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1, because of the conjunction de that joins the two passages together. The earlier passage is concerned with actions for the sake of evangelism, and de in 1 Corinthians 11:2 links this new passage with the previously stated evangelistic purpose.¹³

Belleville, Keener and Liefeld, along with other scholars, argue that Paul was giving instructions based on a specific situation. According to these scholars, Paul did not prohibit women from speaking, but rather he instructed them for their situation how they were to speak when they were at church worship. They also emphasize Paul’s intentions for the instructions; they served an evangelistic function. Their arguments point out that Paul did not contradict himself, because he was not instructing the Corinthian women with timeless rules. Instead, he acknowledged their rights, but for the sake of the gospel, he asked them in their particular situation to give up their rights. For these scholars, there is no contradiction, because the positive texts have a timeless scope while 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has a limited and specific scope.

1 Corinthians 14:33-36

In 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, Paul made a rather negative and harsh remark concerning women. The text reads that women should be silent as in all the churches of the saints (vv. 33-34). Women are not permitted to speak (v. 34). Women are to be subordinate as the law says (v. 34). If women desire to know anything, they need to ask their husbands at home (v. 35). It is shameful for a woman to speak in church (v. 35). This passage sounds like it is in contradiction with Romans 16 or Galatians 3. However, there are some questions that must be asked regarding this passage. What does Paul mean when he says, “As in all the churches of the saints?” What law did Paul refer to? What is the significance of the questions that Paul asks in v. 36? It does seem as though Paul was concerned about disorder in the church worship, and he did instruct women to be silent in the church. It seems as though Paul did have a negative view of women, especially when he restricted them from speaking in church worship. Is this accurate? Again, Belleville disagrees.

Belleville demonstrates that this passage is difficult enough to begin with, let alone the fact that it seems that Paul was contradicting himself. There is much to consider in terms of the difficulty of this passage. Paul did not specify to what or to whom women were to submit. Paul did not specify if the law was the Mosaic law, church law, or the law of the land. Paul did not specify what it was that the women desired to learn. Paul did not specify why it was disgraceful for women to speak in church worship.¹⁴

The phrase, “as in all the congregations of the saints,” adds to the difficulty of this passage. Does it go with the preceding words or the following words? If the phrase goes with the following words, then it approves the silence of the women in the church. If the phrase goes with what precedes it, then it approves orderly worship in the church.¹⁵

Belleville rightly argues that we need to come to terms with the use of “as” phrases in Paul’s writings in order to understand this phrase in 1 Corinthians 14. Did Paul use “as” phrases to conclude or begin a thought? He used them for both. How did Paul use “as” phrases in regards to church practice? In 1 Corinthians 4:17; 7:17; 11:16, similar “as” phrases conclude Paul’s arguments. Specifically concerning church practice, “as” phrases conclude arguments and instructions in 1 Corinthians. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 14:33 fits the mold. We should attach the present “as” phrase to the preceding words due to the pattern of “as” phrases in connection with church practices in 1 Corinthians. Furthermore, according to Belleville, if the “as” phrase goes with the following words, Paul would be repeating himself rather sloppily with the words “in the churches” said twice in the same sentence. Finally, the words, “let the women,” are a typically Pauline way of starting a new paragraph, such as in Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18. Given the use of “as” statements in 1 Corinthians in connection with church practice, given the use of the words “in the churches,” and given the use of the words “let the women,” we can be confident that “as in all the churches of the saints” belongs with the preceding words.¹⁶

Belleville points out the confusion behind the phrase “as the law says.” We simply do not know what law Paul was referring to. There is no Old Testament law that instructs women to submit to their husbands. Genesis 3:16 is not understood in this way, so we cannot attribute it as such. Jesus did not instruct women to submit to their husbands either. Paul did instruct women to submit to their husbands, but he did not equate his instructions with the law. Was it the law of the church or the law of the land? Greek and Jewish marital contracts did involve wifely obedience, but Roman contracts typically did not. Since the word “husband” is not present in this passage, we should consider it on a broader basis. We should start by looking at Paul’s use of “submit” elsewhere in his letters. “Submit” for Paul was virtually voluntary. Churches submit themselves to their leaders (1 Cor. 16:16), believers submit themselves to secular authority (Rom. 13:1), slaves are to submit themselves to their masters (Col. 3:22), and wives are to submit themselves to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5). The context of 1 Corinthians 14, in addition to the typical use of “submit” throughout the rest of Paul’s letters, helps us to understand what Paul meant here in v. 34. Paul said that the spirits of the prophets were to submit to the prophets, so that when another prophet received a revelation, the first prophet was to sit and be silent; furthermore, those who spoke in tongues were to be silent when there was no one to interpret. Therefore, to be silent was to be in submission. The idea was to have control over the tongue for the purpose of preserving order. Tongues speakers, prophets and women were to be silent for the sake of orderly worship.¹⁷

Belleville argues that since we do not know of a Roman, Greek or Jewish law from the First Century A.D. that commanded women to submit, we must look for help elsewhere, and we can find it by focusing on what Paul meant by “silence.” We know that women are permitted and approved to pray and prophesy in the church, so what kind of silence is Paul talking about? There are four things we need to note. One, the context of 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 is about public worship. First Corinthians 14:23, 26 uses the words, “When you gather as a church,” which indicate that a public service is in mind. Two, the speaking that is being silenced is of a disruptive nature. Paul is focused on orderly worship and orderly speaking, so the silencing of speaking must be an effort to stop the kind that frustrates the orderly service. Three, the source of the disruptive speaking is married women. In 1 Corinthians 14:35, Paul tells the married women to ask their own husbands questions at home. Four, the women were disrupting out of a desire to learn. Inspired speech was not the issue; Paul was not instructing against the use of spiritual gifts. The women made the mistake of asking questions in the wrong place, and it is likely that they were asking the wrong people too, otherwise Paul would not have said, “ask your own husbands.” To ask another man a question and not one’s own husband would have been shameful for anyone in the Greco-Roman culture of the First Century A.D. Blurting out questions would have caused confusion, which would have hindered the church’s witness to outsiders. Furthermore, in pagan worship it was improper for women to blurt out questions, and public speaking was discouraged in that culture, so to have women asking questions during a worship service would have been disgraceful.¹⁸

Belleville argues further that women were in a position to ask questions. According to Belleville, women were not well-educated, which would give rise to questions. Formal instruction for women typically stopped around ages 12-16, depending on if the female was a Jew, Greek or Roman. Lower-class women were not in a position to pursue formal instruction as a career. Instead, women were in charge of raising children and managing the household, so there was hardly any time for them to learn.¹⁹

Belleville notes that Paul in fact affirmed the right for women to learn and be instructed in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, but he instructed them to do it at home with their own husbands. He also affirmed the right for women to ask questions, but again, this was to be done at home with their own husbands. Also, bear in mind that it was not only women who were silenced, but it was also “long-winded prophets” and “unintelligible speakers.” Paul targeted anyone or anything that disrupted the edification of the church.²⁰

Keener points out as Belleville does that Paul seems to be silencing questions. He is helpful in pointing out the significance of asking questions in a public format in the First Century A.D. It was possible for questions to lead to shame. In all ancient lecture settings, questions were permitted, except when the person who was asking the question was not sufficiently educated. When someone was not sufficiently educated, it was expected that he or she would keep silent.²¹ Furthermore, whispering during a lecture was perceived as rude.²² It may not have been acceptable for unlearned people to ask the speaker questions, but it neither was it acceptable for the unlearned people to ask the learned people around them during the speaker’s lecture. Both were seen as shameful. Paul seems to want to spare the women from such shame.

Keener concludes with a similar statement as Belleville. According to Keener, Paul instructs women to learn by asking their own husbands questions at home. In Paul’s view the husbands were responsible for educating their wives. He avoided breaking cultural customs of propriety by giving such instructions, but he was not against their learning, nor did he prohibit them from praying or prophesying in church worship. The issues here were not gender, but propriety, and not speaking, but learning.²³

Belleville, Keener, and others, have argued that Paul was silencing women in a specific form of speech, and he was not silencing speech in its totality. They do reference back to 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul affirmed that women pray and prophecy in church worship, so he was not silencing all speech. They recognize that Paul’s instructions were given in order to meet a specific need, as they did in their treatments of 1 Corinthians 11. They emphasize that women were uneducated and would have been prone to asking questions. Given the possibility for questions to bring shame onto the uneducated women, Paul instructed them to learn by asking their husbands questions at home. Their arguments indicate that Paul did not contradict himself. He was writing his letter within the confines of a specific situation and was not laying down timeless guidelines. Therefore, Paul was not being negative or misogynistic. Rather, he was positively affirming women’s right to learn, but he made that right available in such a way that the women’s pursuit of their rights did not hinder the gospel.

Ephesians 5:21-33

In Ephesians 5:21-33, all the believers are told to be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ (v. 21). Wives are told to be subject to their husbands as they are to the Lord (v. 22). The husband is said to be the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church of whom he is its Savior (v. 23). As the church is subject to Christ, so also should wives be subject to their husbands (v. 24). Husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (v. 25). Husbands are also told to love their wives as they love their own bodies, for whoever loves his wife loves himself (v. 28). The argument closes, saying that husbands should love their wives as themselves and wives should respect their husbands (v. 33). There are at least a couple of questions that arise from this passage. What did Paul mean when he said, “be subject to one another,” but then turned around and explicitly told the wives to be subject to their husbands and did not instruct the husbands to be subject to the wives? How are we to understand his statement that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church? The issue seems to be that Paul was addressing how the Ephesians should be living as imitators of God, which includes submitting to each other. This submission seems to work out differently in Paul’s mind for husbands and wives. Submission for husbands is to love, and for wives is to respect. But it seems as though Paul negatively instructed women to submit to the leadership of their husbands. Is this what Paul was affirming? Belleville does not agree.

According to Belleville, wives are called to submit to their husbands, but it is important to note that they are called to submit, not to obey. Obedience is required of an inferior. In this context we find that slaves and children were instructed to obey their superiors. However, submission is a voluntary and humble acceptance of the wishes of an equal. The wives are free and responsible agents equal to their spouses. Furthermore, what the wives are instructed to do is no different from what all believers are called to do to one another. Paul instructed all of the Ephesians to submit to one another before he instructed the wives to submit to their husbands. The implication is that the instruction Paul gave to women was not negative, and it did not necessarily indicate a hierarchical subordination.²⁴

Belleville argues that the instruction to the women has an evangelistic purpose. She says that there is good reason to accept that Paul’s instructions reflected the social customs of the First Century A.D., and so must be understood as an evangelistic tool in their cultural context. First, the instruction for the wives to submit is not grounded in the creation order of male and female. Paul quoted the creation order to stress mutuality in marriage, but he did not appeal to the creation order when instructing the wives to submit. In wanting not to discount the gospel, Paul wanted to appeal to the culture by following the social norm. Second, the instruction to the wives is not grounded by Paul in Scripture, as are the other instructions given to children and husbands. Instead, Paul stated that the wives should submit to their husbands because it was fitting (and he instructed slaves to obey their masters for the same reason). Again, Paul was attempting to appeal to the social norms of their culture. Third, Paul based his instructions on social reasons. Elsewhere in the New Testament, wives were instructed to submit to their husbands so that God’s word would not be discounted (Titus 2:5). Evangelism through social norms was the goal of the church. In order for the gospel to be credible, the Christians had to act in socially acceptable or inoffensive ways.²⁵

Belleville looks at Paul’s use of “head” and the analogy here as a distinctive feature describing the relationship between the husband and wife. Focusing on the analogy of Christ and his relationship to the church, she argues that Christ is both savior and sustainer of the church. Neither nouns, “head” or “savior”, have the definite article, so the two are descriptive rather than definitive. “Head” in this instance refers to source, not chief ruler; likewise, “savior” refers to life-giving preservation. Christ sacrificed his life so that the church, which finds its source in Christ, could live. This sacrificial preservation is the model for which the husband ought to love his wife. As Christ cares for and tends to the church’s needs, so also must the husband provide for his wife. Paul continued on to say that such provision was really caring for oneself. The church is Christ’s body, and the wife is the husband’s body, because the two have become one flesh.²⁶

Belleville rightly notes that Paul instructed the husband to love, not rule, his wife. Paul does not give any sort of ruling authority over the wife to the husband in this instance. Instead of instructing the husbands to rule over their wives, whom he had just instructed to submit to their husbands, he instructed them to love their wives. Furthermore, Paul instructed them three times to love their wives, once in v. 25, v. 28, and v. 33. The example of Christ excludes ruling over, because, after all, Christ came to serve. Similarly, Paul did not give any sort of decision-making rights to the husband in this instance. In Paul’s understanding, the heart, not the head, was what made decisions (1 Corinthians 7:37). It is important that he does not say the husband is the heart of the wife. The analogy of “head” only expresses source, which is made clear when Paul sited Genesis 2, identifying that the church is the Eve of the Second Adam, being bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh.²⁷

Keener perceives Ephesians 5:21-33 in a similar way as Belleville, but he is helpful in pointing out some additional pieces of information. He affirms that Paul upheld traditional Roman family values, probably because the Romans did not like Eastern religions that put into question or attempted to challenge their social customs, and in some cases they discounted such religions.²⁸ Whatever the reason, Paul used traditional categories of household codes, which were the codes for husbands and wives, parents and children, and masters and slaves, but he radically differed in his instruction when he told all the believers to mutually submit.²⁹

Keener emphasizes that Paul’s language was radical. He instructed all believers to submit to each other. The instructions he gives men is not typical. Rulers of the house were generally instructed in how to rule, not how to love.³⁰ Even the subordinates in Paul’s household code here in Ephesians, the wives, children and slaves, were to submit voluntarily, which was not the typical household code language. Paul, while working within particular cultural confines, instructed wives, children and slaves without calling into question the social practices and customs. According to Keener, Paul was giving specific instructions for specific situations.³¹

I. Howard Marshall points out an important connection between Ephesians 5:21 and 5:18.

Ephesians 5:18 is a command to be filled with the Spirit, and what follows is a set of participles that describe how believers should be filled. The last participle is found in 5:21. This participle identifies that submitting to one another is one of the ways believers are to be filled with the Spirit. This idea of submitting is made explicit to the wives in Ephesians 5:22, but the men, including husbands, were instructed to submit as well.³²

Belleville, Keener, Marshall, and others argue that Paul was not negative but positive. Paul was arguing for women to choose to submit themselves to their husbands for evangelistic purposes. Again, they emphasize that Paul was meeting a particular situation with specific instructions. Their arguments demonstrate that Paul was not contradicting himself because his timeless principles were not being violated or reversed. In fact, they point out that Paul was unusual, because he did not instruct the men to rule, but to love, and for reasons that were not typical.

1 Timothy 2:8-15

In 1 Timothy 2:8-15, a negative view seems to be plainly in sight. Men are to pray in every place with their hands lifted up and without anger or argument (v. 8), while women are to dress modestly and decently, without braids, gold, pearls, or expensive clothes (v. 9). Instead, women are to dress with good works (v. 10). Women are to learn in silence in full submission (v. 11). Women are not permitted to teach or bear authority over a man (v. 12). Women are to keep silent (v. 12). Adam was formed first, and then Eve, but it was Eve who was deceived (vv. 13-14). This text raises no less than eight questions. What did Paul mean by “dress modestly”? Why would Paul say that women could not dress with braids, gold, pearls or expensive clothes? What did Paul mean by “dress with good works”? What did he mean by “learn in silence and in full submission”? Why did he not permit women to teach or bear authority? Why did he instruct women to keep silent? What was Paul’s purpose in referencing and discussing Adam and Eve? What did Paul mean when he said that women will be saved through childbearing? There are not a few questions to face, but everyone who argues that Paul does not contradict himself must deal with each of these questions. In this passage, Paul seems to be instructing men and women how to pray. It seems as though he was not allowing women to teach or be a leader over men. Is this so? Belleville does not think so.

Belleville understands that the primary purpose of 1 Timothy was to instruct leaders against false teaching.³³ She argues that Paul was addressing a specific and problematic situation, which means he was not giving universal instruction. Furthermore, his instructions to the church in Ephesus were out of concern for their evangelistic witness. However, Paul did affirm women’s right to learn and be instructed. He instructed how it ought to be done by appealing to cultural customs, not apostolic authority or Scripture.³⁴

With this agenda in mind, Belleville argues that the more difficult parts of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 are obscure but still relative to a specific temporary setting. Even the verb “to permit” is not a typical biblical prohibition. Given the use of this same verb elsewhere in the Bible, Belleville suggests that it is best to understand this particular prohibition to be a temporary restriction that is limited in scope.³⁵

This limited restriction was twofold for Paul. Belleville argues that this twofold restriction contains two equal parts of the whole. One, women were not permitted to teach, and two, women were not permitted to bear authority over men. This twofold restriction is actually one and the same in Greek. What kind of teaching is not permitted? Belleville argues that we should understand the kind of teaching that is temporarily restricted by Paul by looking at the second part of the twofold restriction.³⁶

Understanding of the verb authenteô, “bear authority,” is complicated. The verb is an hapax legomenon, and it is not a frequently used term outside of the New Testament. It is used outside of the New Testament in a negative way, such as “to domineer”, and its cognate forms can be translated as “murder.” Furthermore, if Paul was talking of the exercise of authority, as is found in the English translations, he would have used his normal term, exousia, or its cognate verb, exousiazô. Since he did not, we must question why. The verb form of our present text is rare, although the noun form is common. Predominantly, it was used of committing a crime or act of violence up to the Second Century A.D. It was also used in reference to taking matters into one’s own hands, to exercise mastery over, and to hold absolute control over someone or something. From the Second Century B.C. through the First Century A.D., the idea of exercising authority is not attested for this verb. If we are to take the verb in the sense of authority, then we have to take it in terms of holding control or mastery over another, which is how the Vulgate and early Latin versions understand the verb.³⁷

Belleville appeals to Greek syntax to demonstrate that the two verbs are paired together in a specific way. The use of the neither/nor construction in Greek is important. It can be used to pair synonyms, antonyms, or closely related ideas. At other times it can be used to define a related purpose or goal, to move from the general to the particular, or to define a natural progression of related ideas. Since teaching and authentein are not synonyms, antonyms or closely related ideas, we can be sure that we are not dealing with such pairs. We do not have closely related ideas, unless we take the verb to mean “exercise authority”, which is not attested during the time leading up to and through the First Century A.D., nor do we have the movement from the general to the particular. What fits well is the neither/nor Greek construction defining a related purpose or a goal, where the goal of teaching is to dominate or get the upper hand.³⁸

Belleville appeals to the structure of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, noting a parallelism in vv. 8-12. According to Belleville, men are addressed first; they are instructed to pray by lifting up holy hands and without anger. Women are addressed next; they should pray in appropriate attire and without attempting to teach a man in a dictatorial way. The first part of both is how they should pray in their appearance. The second part deals with the attitude, and it is a prohibition against anger and contention.³⁹

Belleville suggests that there could be a possible influence from the cult of Artemis in the teachings of the false teachers. It is possible that within the false teaching the women were being encouraged to usurp authority as teachers over the men, since the cult believed that the female was superior to the male. However, this goes against the creation order, in which neither male nor female are to dominate the other. Paul appears to be correcting the false teaching and to be attempting to bring them back into mutual submission to each other.⁴⁰

David Scholer focuses on 1 Timothy 2:15 as being not only the climax of the text (2:8-15), but also as the key to understanding the text as a whole. Verse 15 is linked with the preceding verses with the conjunction, de, and it depends on the previous verse to supply the subject for its opening verb. Paul said that women will be saved through childbirth, provided that they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. This identifies that women were identified among the saved through fulfilling the social norms of the Greco-Roman culture during the First Century A.D. in terms of maternal and domestic roles expected of them. This concern for propriety exists earlier in the passage. In v. 9, Paul addressed women’s attire. His instruction was concerned with women’s domestic role according to the contemporary culture.⁴¹

Scholer looks at the structure of the entire passage and not just at the last verse. First Timothy 2:8 instructs men to pray with the proper posture and attitude. Prayer was the preceding theme from 2:1-7, and it is clear that the context is in the church. The instructions for women’s dress is unqualified, but it is similar to 2:15 in that it uses the social norm for decency so that God’s word is not discounted. Furthermore, we find that Paul’s instructions for women’s attire was not different from the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultural norms. In fact, rejecting outward appearance was part of wifely submission in the First Century A.D. A woman who adorned herself with gold, pearls, and expensive clothing was proclaiming sexual infidelity in that culture. Paul’s thought progression moved from women’s adornment to submission in vv. 9-12. Adornment and submission were two sides of the same coin in Paul’s culture. Therefore, the instructions given in vv. 11-12 must be understood in light of vv. 9-10.⁴²

According to Scholer, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 comports well with the generally expected behavior of women in the First Century A.D. These verses focus on honorable behavior, as do vv. 9-10 and v. 15. In 1 Timothy 2:11-12, we have instructions being given to meet the needs of a particular situation. We can be sure that these verses are not a universal command because the immediate context of 2:9-15 and the larger context of 1 and 2 Timothy is dealing with the issue of false teaching. The false teaching in Ephesus had women as a particular focus and encouraged them to radically challenge appropriate social behavior. As a result, the situation merited Paul’s instructions in vv. 11-12. Furthermore, the climax of the immediate context, v. 15, indicates that the paragraph is situational, so what precedes it in the same paragraph must also be situational.⁴³

After looking at 1 Timothy 2:8-12, Scholer turns to Paul’s allusions to Genesis 2-3 in 1 Timothy 2:13-14. Scholer reports that these allusions have been thought by some to clearly indicate, by an appeal to creation ordinances, women are inferior to men and are required to submit to their husbands and not teach or have authority. In other words, they look at the allusions as proof for universal application in 1 Tim. 2:8-15. However, alluding to Old Testament texts does not intrinsically give Paul’s instructions a universal intent. Furthermore, only v. 13 is part of the creation ordinance. What we find in v. 14 deals with the first sin, which is not to be confused with creation. Elsewhere, Paul looked before the sin of Eve to Genesis 1 to argue for the mutuality, not hierarchy, between man and woman (cf. Galatians 3:28).⁴⁴

Scholer argues that Paul was selective in his use of Genesis 1-3 and Eve in 1 Timothy 2:13-14. However, Paul elsewhere attributed sin and death to Adam (cf. Rom. 5:12-14), and in another instance he used Eve to teach against false teaching. According to Scholer, the facts show that Paul used whatever best fit his points. Paul often used other arguments to support his own points. This passage is in keeping with the rest of Paul’s tendencies. Therefore, 1 Timothy 2:13-14 functions for Paul as an explanatory argument to support the points he made in vv. 9-12.⁴⁵

Belleville, Scholer, and others argue that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is not a timeless restriction. They emphasize that the letter was written for a specific need to a specific people in a specific location during a specific moment in time. They also argue by means of syntactical, lexical and form analysis to demonstrate that the teaching restricted is a kind of teaching that attempts to domineer or dominate. They demonstrate that Paul was not contradicting himself because his timeless teachings were not reversed in the specific instructions he gave for the situation he was dealing with. Paul still affirmed women’s participation in prayer alongside of men, but it was to be done in a culturally acceptable and fitting way. According to these scholars, this text is neither negative nor timeless.

Conclusion

Scholars like Belleville, Keener, Liefeld, Fee, Marshall, and Scholer appeal to the cultural setting and evangelical purpose of Paul when dealing with those seemingly negative and misogynistic passages of his letters. They typically demonstrate that Paul wrote letters for specific situations, and therefore his letters must be understood in light of those specific situations to which he wrote. Their basic argument suggests that whenever we can determine Paul’s instructions (or restrictions) to be tied to a specific setting, their literal (word-for-word or face value) understanding must be tied to the specific setting and not perceived to be a universal truth or timeless instruction. In their view, whenever Paul appeals to culture, so far as we can tell, we need to interpret those appeals for their cultural meaning and value.⁴⁶ By following such a method, in their arguments these scholars have demonstrated that Paul neither contradicted himself nor possessed a misogynist view.

For these scholars, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has a high view of women, where Paul understands their rights and upholds them, but he asks them to give them up for the cause of the gospel. In 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, they argue, Paul was affirming the right of women to learn, but he was giving helpful instructions how they were to go about learning. These scholars argue that Ephesians 5:21-33 is an exhortation for wives to purposefully choose to submit to their husbands for the sake of the gospel. 1 Timothy 2:8-15, according to these scholars, instructs women to dress appropriately so that the gospel would not be discounted, and prohibits women from teaching in a domineering way. Therefore, in their view, Paul is seen to have a positive view of women. He was not a misogynist. In these passages, he upholds women’s rights, affirms their abilities, but pleads for them to take on specific instructions for the sake of the gospel. These passages further compliment the positive passages, such as Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 16, 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, and others previously mentioned. Paul did not contradict himself, and according to these scholars, he had a positive perspective of women.

Bibliography

Belleville, Linda. “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15.” Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothuis, and Gordon Fee, ed. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005.

__________. Women Leaders and the Church: Three crucial questions. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.

Fee, Gordon. “Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.” Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothuis, and Gordon Fee, ed. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005.

Keener, Craig. “Learning in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.” Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothuis, and Gordon Fee, ed. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005.

__________. “Man and Woman.” Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph Martin, Daniel Reid, ed. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

__________. Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and women’s ministry in the letters of Paul. 7th printing. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007.

Liefeld, Walter. “Women, Submission & Ministry in 1 Corinthians.” Alvera Mickelsen, ed. Women, Authority & the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

Marshall, I. Howard. “Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33.” Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Groothuis, and Gordon Fee, ed. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2005.

Scholer, David. “1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry.” Alvera Mickelsen, ed. Women, Authority & the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

__________. “Women in Ministry.” Selected Articles on Hermeneutics and Women and Ministry in the New Testament. Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, 2005.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. Tony Petrotta at Fuller Theological Seminary during my second year for a class on the Exegesis of the Psalms.

Introduction

Psalms is a wonderful prayer book. It is a collection of about 150 psalms in five sub-collections. Psalm 63 belongs to the second book within Psalms. It has been argued by some that Psalms was randomly assembled and created, but it seems that when considered as a whole there is a “rhyme and reason” to its order. The Psalms as a whole touch on a wide range of emotions. Indeed, there are several different kinds of psalms, such as praise, lament, imprecatory, royal, and ascent psalms. Praise psalms are those psalms that praise the Lord. Lament psalms express sorrow and pain. Imprecatory psalms seek divine retribution for wrong done. Royal psalms express the relationship between God and his chosen king. Songs of ascent psalms are those songs that were sung on the way up to Jerusalem. It seems that Psalm 63 follows in the footsteps of Psalms 1 and 2, and, although it is in general a praise psalm, it also has lament and royal elements.

Psalms 1 and 2 seem to be the thesis for the book of Psalms. Psalm 1 contains a strong wisdom motif in its worldview. It bears the idea that the righteous are those who delight in God and meditate on His law all throughout the day and on a daily basis. The wicked are contrasted with the righteous; they they do not last. Why? Because the Lord watches over the way of the righteous. Psalm 63 reflects this idea. The Lord is the help of the psalmist. In Psalm 1, the wicked perish. Psalm 63 bears this idea as well. Those who seek the life of the psalmist have death and misfortune.

Psalm 2 is a royal psalm. It bears the idea that the king is God’s chosen one, but he is conspired against by the other kings of the world. Psalm 63 has this idea of a king who is conspired against. But in Psalm 2, the Lord watches over His king and causes him to prosper. The same idea is in Psalm 63. The king is protected from lies and therefore he gives praise along with the people to whom it is due–God.

Psalms 1 and 2 set the tone for the whole book of Psalms, which is why Psalm 63 shares many similarities with them. Although not every psalm might have such a strong connection, the concepts are shared all throughout the book. It is as though the various psalms were assembled in a meaningful way, but they each interact and interpret each other. And what are the shared concepts? Psalms 1 and 2 instruct the readers to live under the rule and reign of God as they take refuge in him. The book of Psalms instruct the readers how to pray to, worship, and profess faith in God.¹ Psalms teach the readers what it means to trust and live under God’s rule.² Psalm 63 accomplishes just that. But even psalms like Psalm 137 accomplish the same goal. Psalm 137 instructs the reader how to grieve and seek revenge in trust of and submission to God’s rule. All of the psalms are theologically pertinent, and together they teach the reader how to approach God appropriately in prayer, worship, and life.

Since the Psalms are God’s instructions to those who follow him in submission to his reign and in trust and hope of his protection, we would do well to learn to pray them. The Psalms teach us how to pray in a variety of circumstances. Whether good or bad, God wants us to approach Him. But how? Sometimes we do not know how to come to God. The Psalms instruct us in all facets of life how to approach Him. The Psalms are able to teach us how to put trust in God and how to allow Him to be in control over our lives. When we approach the Psalms, we should be asking ourselves, “How does this psalm teach me to trust God? And how does this psalm teach me to submit to God’s rule?”

Exegesis of Psalm 63

Psalm 63:1

d¡Iw∂dVl rwñøm◊zIm - “a psalm of David.” This phrase could mean “a psalm to David.” This translation could mean two things. First, it could mean that the psalm is attributed to David as the author. Second, it could mean that the psalm is dedicated to David. But if the phrase should be rendered “a psalm of David,” then it would mean that David was the author. According to Amos Hakham, this psalm is likely reflecting on one of the times David was in the wilderness, which may or may not make David as the author.³ Jean Calvin took the psalm as David’s circumstantial vows.⁴ So which is it? Did David write it as Calvin thought or did someone else, which is a possibility as Hakham points out? The rest of the psalm will need to be considered in order to determine if David wrote it.

:há∂d…wh◊y r¶A;b√dImV;b w#øtwøyVhI;bŒ - “when he was in the wilderness of Judea.” These words have caused many scholars to see the psalm as a reflection upon David’s trips to the wilderness, thus connecting with 2 Samuel 16:14 or 1 Samuel 22-25. John Goldingay takes it as a connection with 2 Samuel 16:14 over and against 1 Samuel 22-25.⁵ But do these words have to be a geographical reference necessarily?

Robert Davidson suggests that the reference to the wilderness is a spiritual reference and not geographical. Since this psalm has been used in many different ways throughout the centuries, Davidson thinks that it must be a spiritual metaphor. If it were geographical, it would have been tied to a specific use. But the psalm has been diversely applied; a spiritual metaphor accounts for this diversity according to Davidson.⁶

Was David the author? Was this psalm written by David concerning one of the times he was in the wilderness? Again, we will need to examine the rest of the psalm before we can determine if Davidic authorship is genuine, and if it was his own reflection on his time in the wilderness.

Psalm 63:2

yóîrDcVb ∞ÔKVl ;h∞AmD;k y#IvVpÅn —°ÔKVl hWDaVmDx D;Kñ®rQSjAvà≈a h#D;tAa y¶IlEa —My§IhølTa - “God, you are my God, I seek you, my soul thirsts for you, my flesh yearns for you.” D;Kñ®rQSjAvà≈a occurs only twice in this form throughout the entire Hebrew Bible. It is the piel imperfect first common singular form of the root rjv. What is the dot for? The dot in the end of the verb, located in the K, is a daghesh forte that strengthens the consonant. hWDaVmDx occurs only twice in this form throughout the entire Hebrew Bible. It is the qal perfect third feminine singular form of amx. h∞AmD;k is a hapax legomena (meaning, it only occurs once in this form in the entire Hebrew Bible). It is the qal perfect third masculine singular form from the root ;hmk. The dot in the beginning of the verb is a daghesh lene. It hardens the k.

The phrase “you are my God” is not consistently rendered in all of the commentators’ translations. Dahood, for example, has “my God, for you I long,”⁷ whereas Davidson has “you are my God.”⁸ The cantillation marks indicate that h#D;tAa belongs with y¶IlEa and not D;Kñ®rQSjAvà≈a. Dahood’s translation is interesting, but all things considered, it is also incorrect.

D;Kñ®rQSjAvà≈a is an important verb as it sets the tone for the rest of the phrase. It bears the idea of seeking with eagerness, as related to waiting for the dawn.⁹ Calvin translated it accordingly: “Early will I seek [you].”¹⁰ The word is regularly used for looking for the dawn, but in this context it is translated as “seek” with the idea of longing.¹¹ The psalmist is saying that he longs for God. But this longing is in the imperfect form. The force of this form is incomplete action. In this case, the longing is continual and should be translated as a present form (“I seek”).

The phrase “my soul thirsts for you, my flesh yearns for you” is an additional expression of longing. According to Goldingay, “soul” refers to the being as a whole, specifically a being who longs and desires, while “flesh” refers to the physical being.¹² Sometimes “soul” can be understood in connection with thirst as a reference to the seat of thirst.¹³ The psalmist is desiring God as a person desires water when thirsty. The psalmist is saying, “I am thirsty for you, God.” Furthermore, “yearn” is to be faint with longing.¹⁴ The physical psalmist is faint with desire for God.

This seeking motif is the psalmist’s way of expressing a holistic approach to adoration. The psalmist is basically saying, “I yearn for you with all my emotions and all my limbs.”¹⁵ This longing is quite expressive, and it seems to be an important theme for the psalm.

:Mˆy`Dm_yIlV;b P∞EyDo◊w h™D¥yIx_X®r`RaV;b - “in dry and weary land without water.” Syriac manuscripts have “as” instead of “in.” Symmachus’ Greek translation has “as.” This Greek text may be relying on the Syriac, or perhaps it was perceiving the V;b in the same way as the Syriac manuscripts. V;b can be translated as “as.”¹⁶ Therefore, the variants are explained by the V;b. The V;b is the more likely reading as it is more difficult than V;k, and it accounts for the “as” reading in Symmachus’ Greek translation as well.

This phrase is the reference that connects vv. 1 and 2. The question remains: is this a reference to a geographical location or is this a reference to a spiritual setting? Before we answer this question, we should consider the rest of this psalm.

Psalm 63:3

ÔKy¡ItyˆzSj v®dêO;qA;b NE;kœ - “So I saw you in the holy place.” The verb “I saw” is in the perfect form. The force of the perfect is completed action. Calvin took it as a completed action: “Thus in the sanctuary have I beheld [you].”¹⁷ But the perfect is not always completed action. Dahood took this phrase as a request: “So in your sanctuary may I gaze on you.”¹⁸ Which is it? A request or a reflection? Since the psalm later speaks of blessing God as a result of what had happened, the context suggests that this perfect form is completed action, not a request, and should be understood as a reflection. The psalmist is reflecting on his experience from when he saw God in the holy place or sanctuary.

:ÔKá®dwøbVk…w #ÔK◊ΩzUoŒ twñøa√rIl - “to see your might and your glory.” The psalmist was defining what he saw in the sanctuary when he said this phrase. twñøa√rIl is an infinitive construct stating attendant circumstance and should be translated as “beholding.”¹⁹ This phrase is a reference to the Temple where God’s power and glory are manifested.²⁰ According to Davidson, this psalm was written in the context of corporate worship.²¹ This phrase does support his position. It should be noted that this position does imply that David was not the author of the psalm. David would not have written a psalm that reflected on a visit to the Temple, which was constructed after his life.

Psalm 63:4

:ÔK◊n…wájV;bAv◊y y¶AtDpVc MyGˆ¥yAj`Em ÔK√;dVsAjœ bwâøf_yI;k - “For your lovingkindness is better than life, my lips praise you.” ÔK◊n…wájV;bAv◊y is a hapax legomena. It is the piel imperfect third masculine plural form of jbv.

Here the psalmist continues his thoughts on the adoration of God. He reflects on the glory of God and how His lovingkindness is better than life. A couple of things should be stated about this phrase. First, “lovingkindness” does not entirely grasp the concept of the Hebrew word. dsj is a very important word in Hebrew. It bears the idea of lovingkindness, but it also bears the idea of community, faithfulness, loyalty, kindness, grace, and favor. In this case, the Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) lexicon translates dsj as “good.”²² This translation is insufficient. It lacks the distinct flavor of a very rich word. In order to help preserve the word’s meaning, we will leave it untranslated as we emphasize the rich depth of dsj.

Second, this phrase is difficult to understand. What does it mean that the Lord’s dsj is better than life? The word for life is a participle; the context requires that the verb stand as a noun. We have translated it as “life” and not “living.” The psalmist is comparing life with the Lord’s dsj. Since dsj is a rich term, it recalls back to mind the Lord’s faithfulness and tender-care for His chosen people, Israel. The psalmist is saying that the Lord’s faithfulness to His people is better than sustained life.²³

The phrase “my lips praise you” has an imperfect form for the verb. The force of the verb is incomplete action. Incomplete action does not necessarily mean that it bears the idea of future action; it could be present tense. In this case, the context suggests that the phrase is in response to the comparison already made. The lips praise as a result of the Lord’s incomparable dsj.

Psalm 63:5

y¡D¥yAjVb ∞ÔKVk®rDbSa N∞E;k - “So I bless you in my life.” Goldingay takes ∞ÔKVk®rDbSa as “I will worship you.”²⁴ However, BDB supports “bless” instead of “worship.”²⁵ Goldingay uses the future to translate the imperfect form here. But this is the only instance he seems to use the future. Everywhere else in his translation he uses the present. Why change here? The context suggests a present translation. The psalmist blesses the Lord because of His dsj.

:y`DÚpAk a¶DÚcRa ÔKVmIvV;bŒ - “in your name I lift up my hands.” The psalmist talks of lifting up his hands. The lifting of hands was an ancient custom, in which praying was done with hands pointed towards heaven.²⁶ As Calvin noted, this is not a reference to praising the Lord, but rather, it is a reference to praying and vowing.²⁷

Psalm 63:6

y¡IvVpÅn o∞A;bVcI;t NRv®dÎw∑ bRl∞Ej wôømV;k - “As with fat and fatness my soul is satisfied.” Here we have figurative language, and it is difficult to translate. bRl∞Ej does mean “fat.” In this case, it is the “fat of beasts for food.”²⁸ Its counterpart NRv®dÎw∑ also means “fat.” It may be a reference to “fatness” or “fertility.”²⁹ These two words need to be understood together. Calvin translated them as “morrow and fatness.”³⁰ His translation does not quite convey the meaning of these two words together. Goldingay translates them together in this way: “As with a rich feast.”³¹ Hakham takes these words together as a contrast with “thirst” from the beginning of the psalm, for the language calls to mind pleasant, rich, nutritious fluids.³² The language notes that the psalmist has found satisfaction. We can conclude that Goldingay’s translation is satisfactory, since the language gives the idea of being rich in nutrition.

:y`IÚp_lR;lAh◊y twGønÎn√rŒ y¶EtVpIc◊w - “and with joyful lips my mouth praises.” twGønÎn√rŒ is a hapax legomena. It is the feminine plural form of hÎnÎn√r.

The psalmist declares that he will praise God with his mouth. His lips are joyful. This phrase implies physical satisfaction that inspired songs of praise as at a sacrificial meal when songs are sung. This indicates that in the psalmist’s viewpoint closeness comes through the sacrificial system.³³

Psalm 63:7

y¡Do…wx◊y_lAo ÔKy¶I;t√rAk◊z_MIa - “When I remembered you upon my bed.” While MIa would normally be translated “if,” in this case it has the sense of “when”³⁴ or “as often.”³⁵ We could render y¡Do…wx◊y_lAo as “upon my couch,” but, given the context, “upon my bed” is a much more suitable translation.

:JK`D;b_h‰…gVhRa tw#ørUmVvAaV;bŒ - “in the night watch I meditate on you.” tw#ørUmVvAaV;bŒ is a hapax legomena. It has the preposition ;Vb prefix and it is the feminine plural form of h∂r…wmVvAa.

tw#ørUmVvAaV;bŒ is plural. Hakham suggests that it is a plural of emphasis, implying that the psalmist meditates on God for the entire night.³⁶ h‰…gVhRa is the imperfect form, which has the force of incomplete action. It could be future, but it could be present. The verb itself has the idea of making noises. Whether it means to mutter, coo, plan, or ponder, it is clear that some sort of noise is indicated.³⁷ Goldingay translates it in this way: “in the night watches I talk about you.”³⁸ But Goldingay concedes that the talking “is the kind of quiet talking within oneself that one does in the night on one’s bed.”³⁹ This audible sound is one that can only be heard by the one who is “talking.” It is not future action. It is current action that is not yet completed. It is ongoing.

Psalm 63:8

y¡I;l hDtâ∂r◊zRo Dty∞IyDh_y`I;k - “For you were a help to me.” hDtâ∂r◊zRo occurs only three times in this form throughout the entire Hebrew Bible. It has the directional h suffix and it is the feminine singular form of h∂r◊zRo.

The psalmist is meditating in the middle of the night on what the Lord was to him. The Lord was his help.

:N`E…nårSa ÔKy∞RpÎnV;k l™ExVb…w - “and in the shadow of your wings I will shout for joy.” l™ExVb…w occurs only three times in this form throughout the entire Hebrew Bible. It has two prefix additions. First, it has the conjunctive w. This letter is pronounced as a shureq (…w) in order to make the pronunciation easier between the w and the b. Second, it has the preposition ;Vb. It is the masculine singular construct form of lEx.

Commentators do not seem to agree on the meaning of “shadow of your wings.” Davidson suggests that it is a reference to the Temple cherubim in the Ark of the Covenant that symbolizes God’s presence with his people and his protection over them.⁴⁰ Calvin took it as a reference to the Lord’s protection without any connection to the cherubim.⁴¹ What is particularly interesting is that Hakham, already noting that the Temple is in view earlier on in the psalm, does not see this phrase as a reference to the cherubim, the Ark of the Covenant, or the Temple, but instead, he sees it as a metaphor that compares trust in God to a fledgling bird who hides beneath its mother’s wings.⁴² Since the psalmist has said that God was a help to him, the idea of trust seems favorable. Then again, so does protection. But the metaphor of the mother bird has in view both trust in God and God’s protection, as do the cherubim, which themselves are a metaphor. The decision is difficult, but given that the context concerns the Temple, it is likely that Temple imagery is being alluded to here.

Psalm 63:9

ÔKyó®rSjAa y∞IvVpÅn hâ∂qVb∂;d - “My soul clung after you.” hâ∂qVb∂;d is an important word here. It reflects Deuteronomy 13:5, in which the people are to cleave to the Lord.⁴³ This is the same word used of Ruth when she refused to be separated from Naomi (Ruth 1:4), and it is also used of a man clinging to his wife (Genesis 2:24).⁴⁴ It is the perfect form, and as such the force of the verb is completed action. It should be translated “clung” or “has clung.” The word itself is figurative of loyalty and affection while keeping in close physical proximity.⁴⁵ According to Davidson, the psalmist is essentially saying that God has a firm grip on him and will not let go.⁴⁶ Davidson’s interpretation is good when the next phrase of the verse is considered. But this phrase itself seems to note loyalty to God and not the other way around. The psalmist is declaring that his soul has clung to God and will not let go. It is not until the next phrase that we find out that God also has a firm grip on the psalmist.

:ÔK`RnyIm◊y h¶DkVmD;t y#I;bŒ - “your right hand firmly grasped onto me.” In the former phrase, there was the idea of sticking or clinging. Did that idea come through in this new phrase? Goldingay does not have “firmly grasped,” but instead has “upheld.”⁴⁷ Hakham also translates h¶DkVmD;t as “support.”⁴⁸ Calvin translated it as “sustain,” which has the idea of supporting, and it also fits well with the sustenance motif from the beginning of the psalm.⁴⁹ Dahood translated it as “grasp.”⁵⁰ However, the majority of the commentators do not translate it in the way that Dahood did.

Yet, Dahood’s translation seems to be more desirable for a couple of reasons. First, Hebrew poetry likes balance. By translating h¶DkVmD;t as “grasp,” the two phrases become parallel with each other and attain balance. The psalmist would be reflecting on a reciprocal relationship with the Lord. As the psalmist clings to God, God firmly holds onto the psalmist. Second, by using “sustain,” or something like it, the construction of the phrase has to be ignored. y#I;bŒ is overlooked in order to use “sustain.” But y#I;bŒ seems to be rather significant, since it is in the beginning of the phrase when it would normally be found at the end of the clause. There seems to be a major problem with leaving y#I;bŒ out of the translation in order to use “support.” Dahood’s translation seems preferable.

Psalm 63:10

y¡IvVpÅn …wâvVqAb◊y hDawøvVlœ hD;m#Eh◊w - “But they seek to ruin my soul.” The conjunction ◊w marks off a stark contrast.⁵¹ The psalmist seeks the Lord. These men do not seek the Lord, but rather, they seek the psalmist’s life. “Seek” is not the same word here as in the beginning of the psalm. …wâvVqAb◊y is the piel imerfect form of vqb. In this context, vqb means “to seek to take one’s life.”⁵² As stated before, yIvVpÅn represents the person as a whole. The psalmist is saying that there are people who seek to destroy him, which stands in stark contrast to his own seeking.

:X®r`DaDh twñø¥yI;tVjAt`V;b …wa#øbÎyŒ - “they come to the lowest parts of the earth.” X®r`DaDh twñø¥yI;tVjAt`V;b is a hapax legomena. This construct chain occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The first noun has the preposition ;Vb prefix and it is the feminine plural construct form of yI;tVjA;t. The second noun has the definite article Dh. The article has a qamets instead of a pathach due to compensatory lengthening, since the a cannot take a daghesh forte. The noun is the feminine singular absolute form of X®rRa.

Is the psalmist saying that the people who seek to destroy him will stop at nothing and will search for him even unto ends of the earth? Or is he stating something else? According to Dahood, the psalmist is making a reference to the netherworld.⁵³ Goldingay suggests that it is a reference to Sheol.⁵⁴ Tate sees this phrase as an indication that the enemies will die a premature death and enter the netherworld as the outcome of their efforts.⁵⁵ However, the text does not indicate that they would die prematurely; it affirms only that their end result will be death. “The lowest parts of the earth” is figurative, but in what sense? Is it figurative simply for death or for the afterlife in Sheol? Evidence is inconclusive, so we will not consider it further. What we should consider is the translation of …wa#øbÎyŒ.

Is the imperfect verb …wa#øbÎyŒ stating a future event, or is it a request? The former would be translated “they will go,” and the latter would be translated “may they go.” Robert Alter translates it as a request.⁵⁶ Martin Rozenberg and Bernard Zlotowitz translate it as a request, although they have “let them go” instead of “may they go.”⁵⁷ Goldingay translates it neither as a future nor as a request, but rather, as a present: “But they . . . go.”⁵⁸ In keeping with the balance of the verse, it seems that Goldingay has the more suitable translation. The first verb of the verse is also an imperfect, and it is translated as a present continuous action: “they seek” or “they are seeking.” Balance indicates that …wa#øbÎyŒ should be translated in a similar fashion.

Psalm 63:11

b®r¡Dj_yéd◊y_lAo …whñüryˆ…gÅy - “they poured him upon the power of a sword.” …whñüryˆ…gÅy is a hapax legomena. It has the third person masculine singular pronominal suffix …wh and it is the hifil perfect third masculine plural form of the root rgn. The n assimilates into the g as a daghesh forte, which is why it does not appear in this form.

This phrase is difficult to interpret for three reasons. First, what is a good translation of yéd◊y? Although “hand of” would be a literal translation of this dual construct noun, “power of” is preferable. The language is figurative, for a sword does not have hands. This word can be translated as “power” when it is used figuratively.⁵⁹

Second, who or what is being poured upon the sword? Tate suggests that it is the psalmist. The people seeking his life want to kill him, and so they want to pour him upon a sword.⁶⁰ Rozenberg and Zlotowitz suggest that …whñüryˆ…gÅy is passive, translating it “May they be split apart by the sword.”⁶¹ In this case, the “who” are the ones seeking the psalmist’s life. But can the singular third person masculine pronominal suffix be collective? Goldingay suggests that the language is strictly metaphorical and is a reference to pouring water or blood onto the ground.⁶²

Third, in what sense is the imperfect being used? Is it future, is it a request, or is it a present verb? Goldingay takes it as present as a balance between vv. 10 and 11.⁶³ Tate takes it as a future of possibility, translating it in this way: “Those who would hand over.”⁶⁴

Although it is difficult, we can at least come up with a working hypothesis and offer a good translation of the phrase. We have already noted that “power of” is a good translation of the figurative use of yéd◊y. It seems that the singular form of the suffix rules out water or blood being poured onto the ground, for both water and blood are plural forms in Hebrew. The suffix must be a reference to the psalmist. And what of the imperfect? It seems as though it is a present continuous form. The people seeking his life are handing him over to the sword, which is another way of saying that they are trying to kill him. The phrase stands parallel to the previous verse, and therefore the imperfects from v. 10 indicate that the imperfect here in v. 11 should be translated as a present.

:…wáyVhˆy My∞IlDoUv t™DnVm - “they are a portion for foxes.” The psalmist declares that the people seeking to destroy him are a portion for foxes. Foxes are those animals that eat the decaying flesh of dead animals. He is saying that their end is death, but their bodies are left for the animals to feed upon, which was considered an awful tragedy.⁶⁵

The imperfect form …wáyVhˆy here can be future, present, or a request. Goldingay translates it as a present.⁶⁶ Tate translates it as a future.⁶⁷ Alter translates it as a request.⁶⁸ But, in keeping with the use of the balance of vv. 10 and 11, we should translate …wáyVhˆy as a present tense, “they are,” as Goldingay does.

Psalm 63:12

wóø;b o∞D;bVvˆ…nAh_lD;k lE;lAhVtˆy∑ My¶IhQølaE;b jºAmVcˆy JKRlR;mAh◊w - “but the king rejoices in God, all who swear to him praise.” My¶IhQølaE;b jºAmVcˆy is a hapax legomena. The first word is the qal imperfect, third masculine singular form of jmc. The second word has the preposition ;Vb prefix and it is the masculine plural form of MyIhølTa. o∞D;bVvˆ…nAh_lD;k is a hapax legomena. The first word in the chain is the preposition lD;k. The preposition is attached to the second word by a maqqef. The second word is a participle with the definite article prefix. The participle is the nifal masculine singular form of obv.

The psalmist is contrasting the king with the people who sought to ruin him. The imperfect, just as before, can be future, present, or a request. We will keep the balance of the previous verses, as does Goldingay, by translating the verb jºAmVcˆy as “he rejoices.”⁶⁹ However, the imperfect is not the main problem at this point. The focus for the interpreter is on “swear.” Who is doing the swearing and to whom are they swearing?

The psalmist has shifted in this phrase to the third person. He refers to himself as “the king.” The first clause of this phrase stops before the hithpael verb lE;lAhVtˆy. Is “the king” still in view when the psalmist writes, “All who swear to him praise” (italics mine)? Are the people swearing to the king, or are they swearing to God? Goldingay suggests that it is the king who is sworn to.⁷⁰ Hakham suggests that it is God who is sworn to.⁷¹ Since the king is the subject in the first clause of this phrase, it seems most suitable that the king is also the object of the second clause. It is as though the people are joining the king in praising and rejoicing. Goldingay suggests that the “in God” of the first first clause of this phrase is implicit in the second clause as the object of the praise, while “the king” carries over as the object of the swearing.⁷²

:r®q`Dv_yérVbwíød y∞IÚp r#EkD;sˆyŒ y¶I;k - “for the lips of the ones who speak falsely are shut up.” r#EkD;sˆyŒ is a hapax legomena. It is the nifal imperfect third masculine singular of rks.

The imperfect here is treated as a present in order to keep the balance of the verse. Goldingay uses the present to translate this imperfect,⁷³ as does Alter.⁷⁴ The people praise God because the lips of those who speak lies are shut closed. False speakers are stopped from speaking, and therefore the people have reason to rejoice. God is seen as the one who stops their lips from speaking lies, which is why he is praised by the king and his people.⁷⁵

Theological Implications of Psalm 63

How does Psalm 63 teach us to trust God, and how does it teach us to submit to his rule? Psalm 63 is in keeping with the theological tone of Psalms 1 and 2: God reigns and we should trust him. Before we answer these questions, however, we should consider whether or not David was the author of Psalm 63.

The language of Psalm 63 alludes to the sacrificial system of the Temple. As such, David is not likely the actual author. The words of verse 1 like are an attribution to David as a possible scenario of how this psalm could have been used or applied. The psalms have been used in a diverse way throughout the centuries, and Psalm 63 is no exception. It was used by the early Greek church for their introductory psalm for Sunday morning worship and by other church traditions for the Eucharist due to the “feast” motif. Scholars today question whether it was used for the great Jerusalem festival at the Temple before the exile, for a night vigil at the Temple, or for the king in some fashion or another.⁷⁶ Time has demonstrated the flexibility of the psalm. It does not need to be tied down to a specific event to be understood or useful. The “wilderness” language itself is spiritually and theologically significant. It is under spiritually dry times that one finds renewal, much like the Hebrews did when they were in the wilderness after leaving Egypt. Those who find themselves in a similar situation can look to Psalm 63 without referencing David or his time in the wilderness. By understanding this psalm without attaching it to David, the wilderness language becomes much more meaningful. It is best to keep them separate.

Psalm 63 teaches us to trust in God’s support. The Lord’s support is clearly highlighted in the word dsj. The Lord is seen as faithful, gracious, and loving in this one word. His dsj is better than life itself. It represents His support by his mighty hand. It represents his protection. Trust in God comes when we reflect on His dsj–his support, protection, and help. The one who trusts in Him sincerely desires for Him. He or she longs to be satisfied by God, so much so that there is a physical passion and a spiritual thirst for Him. This search for satisfaction is highlighted through meditation throughout the night. John Chrysostom said of this psalm that we should at the very least remember God while on our beds and in the morning meditate on Him.⁷⁷ It also involves intense and intentional sticking to God, which results in glorifying and worshipping God through songs of praise and rejoicing.⁷⁸

Psalm 63 teaches us also to submit to God’s rule by letting him be our protection. But if the Lord is our protection, then he is also the one who takes divine retribution on our behalf. As he keeps us safe, he also brings our enemies down and brings dread upon them. It involves relying on God as our help. He will help us by taking care of us and by dealing rightly with those who seek to do us harm.

Bibliography

Alter, Robert. The Book of Psalms: A translation with commentary. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007.

Brown, Francis, Driver, S., and Briggs, Charles. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an appendix containing the biblical Aramaic (BDB). Based on the lexicon of William Gesenius, as translated by Edward Robinson, and edited with constant reference to the thesaurus of Gesenius as completed by E. Rödiger, and with authorizes use of the German editions of Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Reprint. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1906.

Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries: Joshua and the Psalms. 2 vols. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc.

Chrysostom, John. On the Epistle to the Hebrews. P. Schaff et al, eds. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (NPNF). 2 series (14 vols. each). Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1887-1894. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952-1956. Reprint, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994. Querstin F. Wesselschmidt et al, eds. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament. Vol. 8. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007.

Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms II: 51-100. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1968.

Davidson, Robert. The Vitality of Worship: A commentary on the book of Psalms. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Cambridge, U.K., and Edinburgh: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and the Handsel Press Ltd, 1998.

Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (GKC). Edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch. Revised by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.

Goldingay, John. Psalms. 2 vols. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Tremper Longman III, ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Hakham, Amos. The Bible: Psalms with the Jerusalem Commentary. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook.

Holladay, William. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Based upon the lexical work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971.

McCann, Clinton, Jr. A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as torah. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993.

Rozenberg, Martin, and Zlotowitz, Bernard. The Book of Psalms: A new translation and commentary. Northvale, New Jersey, and Jerusalem: Jason Aronson Inc., 1999.

Tate, Marvin. Word Biblical Commentary: Psalms 51-100. 59 volumes. John Watts et al, eds. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. Scott Lupo at Fuller Theological Seminary during my second year for a class on American Church History.

The voice of the African American community was muted for many years. Segregation suppressed the voice as it oppressed the community and stripped them of freedom. But when the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. rolled around, and when African Americans gained a new sense of dignity, they decided to stand up, or, in many cases, sit down, for their right to freedom.

King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail reflected the African American desire for freedom in the middle of the twentieth century. We will look at the African American Revolution—the events that led up to the arrests in Birmingham starting in the middle of the 1950s—and we will examine King’s letter, so that we might see how his letter reflected the broader cultural context and responded to inner struggles from within the church. To the African American Revolution we now turn.

The African American Revolution emerged in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Weary of waiting for the strategies of associations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), African Americans took heart and with great courage protested for their freedom. They marched, picketed, went to jail, and suffered harm, pain and inhumane acts for their cause. Direct action, not indirect research, arguments, or politics, was their tool.¹ But what precisely was it that they were fighting?

Jim Crow was a set of customs that marked African Americans off from whites. It would not only segregate African Americans, but it would also require them to live in a demeaning way. Not only would they be required to ride in separate railroad cars when taking the train, they would also have to move aside on sidewalks as whites passed them by. Failure to adhere to these customs resulted in insults, beatings or lynchings.²

Jim Crow caused unsuitable living conditions for African Americans. Colin Powell talked about not being permitted to use the bathroom at a gas station in Woodbridge, Virginia, on a trip from Massachusetts to North Carolina back in 1962 for a military training exercise. He said that he had to pull off to the side of the road so he and his wife could relieve themselves in the woods.³ Not only did Jim Crow create poor living conditions, but it also created a horrible public life for African Americans, too.

Laws were extensive and extreme when it came to segregation. There were laws for nearly every aspect of public life, strictly separating African Americans from whites “on streetcars, buses, and railroads; in schools; in waiting rooms, restaurants, hotels, boardinghouses, theaters, cemeteries, parks, courtrooms, public toilets, drinking fountains, and every other public space.”⁴ Some states went to extreme lengths to enforce segregation: “Oklahoma required separate telephone booths for the two races; Florida and North Carolina made it illegal to give white pupils textbooks that had previously been used by black students.”⁵ Jim Crow made life miserable economically as well.

African Americans were significantly poorer than whites. One of the main reasons for their poverty was because they were only offered the most menial positions, positions that whites would not take. African Americans were treated as second-class citizens who were only suitable for fieldwork, cooking, laundry, collecting garbage, and other similar tasks.⁶ Life was certainly hard for African Americans, especially so when the United States Supreme Court seemed to agree with segregation.

Before the twentieth century, the court system was unfavorable for African Americans. The Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited discrimination in public accommodations, was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1883 and sanctioned laws of segregation.⁷ Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled in 1896 that the states were required to provide for African Americans equal accommodations as that of the whites. This idea is simply stated, “Separate but equal.”⁸ Segregation was the reality for African Americans. But what did this reality mean for them?

With segregation as the reality, African Americans were practically considered second-class citizens. Although states were required to accommodate them, what was actually provided was far inferior than what was given to the whites. African Americans continually found themselves at a disadvantage.⁹

African Americans were disadvantaged by several factors, some of which we have already mentioned. African Americans suffered economic, public, and health disadvantages. But that is not all. Not only were African Americans struggling with poor public accommodations, they were also suffering from poor legal accommodations as well. Legal protection was nonexistent. In fact, it was corrupt. African Americans were being lynched, and those who were involved in the violent acts were protected by white supremacists who ruled the court system.¹⁰ However, the courts did not remain corrupt, and in the middle of the twentieth century, things began to change.

In 1955, the Supreme Court overruled the 1896 ruling regarding the “separate but equal” doctrine, saying that it contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision was motivated by the NAACP who’s subdivision for legal affairs presented their argument that education was not “separate but equal” for African Americans.¹¹ At about this time, the African American community started to stand up, or, in several cases, sit down, for their freedom. One of the major victories was a boycott that started with the arrest of Rosa Parks.

In December of 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested for disturbing the peace. She had refused to move from her seat on a bus when her seat was redesignated “whites only.” The NAACP used this event as an opportunity to fight segregation in the transportation system. They developed the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) in order to spread word in the African American community about a planned boycott on the bus system. Martin Luther King Jr. was made the president of the MIA. This association was able to sustain the boycott for an entire year.¹²

What ought to be noted from this boycott was the attitude of the one the event started with—Rosa Parks. Contrary to popular thought, she was not physically tired. She was in her early forties. If she was tired, then she was tired of being mistreated. Rosa Parks was purposefully disobeying the bus driver in order to make a statement. She was tired of giving in to the outrageous laws. She decided to take a stand, or, more precisely, a seat.¹³ This sort of action was a nonviolent response to oppression. This idea was what the boycott was all about. Nonviolent response was still action, and it was the main tool that Martin Luther King Jr. was to use throughout the Civil Rights Movement. But he was not always a purely a supporter nonviolent direct action.

Prior to January of 1956, Martin Luther King was attracted to nonviolent resistance, but he still had his ties with violence. He kept a gun at home and had armed guards protect his house. He severed his violent ties when his wife and infant daughter became victims of violence on January 30, 1956. A stick of dynamite exploded on his front porch, but no one was hurt. However, when King arrived at home, he came to a situation in which the African Americans in the community were ready to go to battle with the whites. Realizing that they were outnumbered, King decided that the battle would have to be a nonviolent one for pragmatic reasons. Nonviolence would give them the moral high ground for battling in court, and it would help prevent needless loss of lives. He urged the community to love their enemies and “meet hate with love.”¹⁴ Nonviolence was much more to King than meeting hatred with love, however. He had deep philosophical reasons for utilizing it as opposed to violent reaction.

King’s goal for nonviolence was for reconciliation, not bitterness or humiliation. He wanted peace, not domination. He felt that violence was a reaction against circumstances that seek to humiliate one’s enemy. But King was not looking to destroy his enemy. He was looking to join with his enemy in community. In his eyes, nonviolence was the means for reaching this goal.¹⁵ But in the face of harsh adversity, would nonviolent action work?

The states of the south disregarded the rulings of the Supreme Court and heavily put nonviolent action to the test. In March of 1956, the southern states declared that the Supreme Court’s decision a year earlier was a breach of states’ rights. They justified keeping Jim Crow since it would help prevent rioting and violence.¹⁶ In the south, cruelty was there to stay. But there seemed to be some hope. The boycott in Montgomery and the Park’s case seemed to gain some ground.

In November of 1956, the Supreme Court ruled in Park’s case, ordering Alabama to desegregate the transportation system. Montgomery complied, and the MIA called off the strike. Other cities attempted the same tactic, and a few succeeded. Birmingham, however, was met with violent opposition by bombing the home of one of the ministers, Fred Shuttlesworth.¹⁷ Focus shifted from Montgomery to Albany, where King was not met with the same success.

In November of 1961, the African American community started a series of demonstrations in Albany, Georgia, in which Martin Luther King was involved. He was arrested along with many other African Americans, but since he had strong political support and connections, he was released under the promise that certain reforms would be made by the city officials. However, the city made no changes, and the demonstration had little effect.¹⁸

When the demonstrations in Albany did not help, King turned to Birmingham. In February of 1963, African Americans marched in protest, organized sit-ins, and urged for voter registration rights in Birmingham. Hundreds were arrested, including King.¹⁹

King was placed in solitary confinement. He had a narrow cell with a bunk bed, but no mattress. He was not given the opportunity to call his wife or attorney. A couple of days after being booked, two attorneys visited him briefly. The following day, King found out his bail had bee raised by his friend Harry Belafonte. Then the day after, he was finally able to contact his wife, whom had been working to contact the President. President Kennedy had opened up the case to the media so that the whole nation was focused on how King was being treated.²⁰

During his time at the Birmingham jail, King wrote a letter. The letter was a response to eight white religious leaders who had written King a public letter through the newspaper. Just as African Americans were unwilling to tolerate injustice any longer, King also was unwilling to let them have the last word; he responded and defended his position against their statements.²¹ We will now look at the development and argument of the letter.

King saw himself as a prophet and as a missionary. He thought that he was delivering unwanted messages amidst an oppressive and violent people just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. had done in villages that were not their own. He thought that he was delivering good news and was spreading the gospel just as the Apostle Paul had done.²² Indeed, King was not welcomed by all. He was rejected by many, and he was even stabbed by an old African American woman before his time in Birmingham’s jail.²³

King was aware that what happened in one area affected all the other areas. He stated, “Whatever affects one [community] directly, affects all [communities] indirectly.”²⁴ If injustice existed in one community, then it threatened justice in all the other communities.²⁵ For this reason, King felt it necessary to confront injustice in Birmingham by using nonviolent direct action, which had worked in Montgomery.

The religious leaders that wrote to King basically stated that they did not like the nonviolent demonstrations. King responded by critiquing them. They were concerned with the demonstrations, but they were not concerned about the circumstances that birthed the demonstrations.²⁶ As was made plain earlier, injustice in the corrupt court system, failed protection in the communities, broken promises by government officials, and disappointments all around left the African American community in a disadvantage that left no alternative but to resort to nonviolent direct action.²⁷

The nonviolent direct action was directed towards merchants. The African American community was going to force merchants to recognize the need for change by making their pocket books suffer.²⁸ The bus boycott in Montgomery achieved this goal to a certain extent, although the victory was won in the courts instead, but the concept there was the same concept in Birmingham. King stated, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”²⁹ It was time for the African American community to receive the attention that they were due. This movement towards negotiation could only be achieved by pressure. Pressure and tension were necessary in order to bring the issue to the forefront.³⁰ It was imperative that the issue be dealt with, because the condition of African Americans could no longer be ignored. They were not willing to wait any longer for the freedom that was due to them. King wrote about the atrocity of segregation, of how mothers and fathers were killed, sisters and brothers were drowned, and African Americans were denied the ability to access essentials for sustaining life.³¹ He was reflecting on the cruel code of Jim Crow, which we discussed earlier. Under these conditions and codes, King and the rest of the African American community could not wait. They had to take action.

The religious leaders were likely to have asked, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” King told his congregation to obey the laws, but here he was getting arrested for disturbing the peace. If they did ask such a question, they already had their answer. King anticipated this question and dealt with it in the letter.

King saw a difference between just laws and unjust laws. Just laws are humanly constructed codes that align themselves with the moral law of God. Unjust laws are codes that fall out of line with the moral law. Any law that degrades the soul is unjust; segregation is unjust because it degrades the soul. Therefore, in his mind King had the right to urge the congregation to obey just laws and to disobey unjust laws.³²

It ought to be mentioned that King used support for his arguments that were relevant for the eight religious leaders. The eight religious leaders were comprised of seven clergymen and a Jewish rabbi. King used Christian support, such as Augustine, Aquinas, Niebuhr, Tillich, and the martyrs of the early church. But King also used Jewish support such as from Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego, as well as from Martin Buber. The letter itself was written to these religious leaders, and he was using support from their own backgrounds for his argument.

King made clear that his major problem was not with these religious leaders only. His problem was also with white moderates who wanted peace and not justice. He saw white moderates as lukewarm, and he blamed them for blocking progress. White moderates were, in a sense, sweeping the issue under the rug while the African American community was exposing the tensions that were already present. White moderates hindered the issue from being exposed.³³

King addressed the issue regarding the outcome of nonviolent direct action demonstrations. Often it resulted in violence. The eight religious leaders contended that it was not right to precipitate violence. King disagreed. He associated the situation with that of Jesus, saying that He was not condemned when he came to earth, which led to a violent uproar and ultimately to crucifixion. King is no more condemned than Jesus for taking part in nonviolent direct action that happens to lead, in some cases, to violence.³⁴

King directed his focus back on white moderates. He criticized them for saying that time will eventually bring justice to the African American community. King asserted that time was not on anyone’s side, for time is neutral. He strongly stated that the people would have to repent for hateful worlds and also for silence. Both bad people and good people have harmed the African American community.³⁵

In the letter, King identified how he wanted to come to a solution before extremists could do any real damage. Ironically, and to his surprise and disappointment, he was labeled an extremist. But he eventually warmed up to the label, thinking himself to be an extremist of love, not hate or violence, and of justice, not injustice.³⁶

King recognized that injustice had to be fought with persistent and nonviolent direct action. But he was greatly disappointed by the inaction or laxity of the church. He argued that in effect the demonstrators acted as the True Church, for they were “God-intoxicated” in the same way that earlier Christians had brought an end to ancient evils like infanticide and gladiator games.³⁷

King felt that the police department in Birmingham should not be commended as the eight religious leaders had lauded. King argued that it is immoral to use good to preserve injustice in the same way that it is immoral to use evil to preserve justice. The nonviolence of the police department was to preserve segregation, and for that reason it was immoral. King wondered why the religious leaders had not praised the demonstrators for their courage and willingness to suffer, or their discipline in the face of severe adversity. He was basically accusing the eight religious leaders of having their morals out of alignment and they were directly involved in the preservation of segregation through passivity. Instead of passively supporting segregation, they should have actively opposed segregation as Christians (and Jews). These leaders reflected the failure of the church as a whole. It was lax, and in its silence it supported segregation, which broke the hearts of many, including King.³⁸

King’s letter was a good indicator of the times. People were divided over the issue of segregation. Some African Americans did oppose King, but for the most part, the community joined him in nonviolent action in an effort to be heard. It worked, and King’s letter was one of the first influential voices to be heard. It reflected the desire of the African American community for justice and action amidst injustice and passive reinforcement. It reflected the movement towards freedom down a difficult and painful road. King’s letter not only reflected the broader movement towards the road to freedom and the desires of the African American community, but it was well-argued as he reprimanded the eight religious leaders and the church as a whole for passively reinforcing segregation. Although his letter did not affect change immediately, it did help raise the voice of the African American community, so that the issue came to the forefront and the people were forced to address it. It could not be swept under the rug. Their voice was heard.

Bibliography

Ahlstrom, Sydney. A Religious History of the American People. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1972.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” In African American Religious History: A documentary witness. 2^nd ed. Milton Sernett, ed. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1999.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. I Have a Dream: Writings and speeches that changed the world. James Washington, ed. New York: HarperCollins Publisher, 1992.

Parks, Rosa. My Story. In Autobiography of a People: Three centuries of African American history told by those who lived it. Herb Boyd, ed. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Patterson, Lillie. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Freedom Movement. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1989.

Thernstrom, Stephan, and Thernstrom, Abigail. America in Black and White: One nation, indivisible. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997.

Winters, Paul, ed. The Civil Rights Movement. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2000.

About: this paper was delivered to Professor Dale Liid at Fuller Theological Seminary during my second year for the second quarter of the Biblical Hebrew class.

Ruth 4:1-4 describes the portion of Ruth where Boaz confronts the next-of-kin. In this text, Boaz publicly and officially declares to him to take charge of his responsibility, since he has not yet acted and fulfilled his duty. Let us examine the text in Hebrew, the original language with which the book of Ruth was written, starting with verse 1.

Boaz went to the city gate most likely during the conversation between Ruth and Naomi in Chapter 3 (these two events may in fact be simultaneous). Although it is not imperative to understanding the story, it might help in understanding the setting to know that the events may be happening at the same time. According to one commentator, Boaz was the head of the Sanhedrin; the Sanhedrin met at the city gate.¹ Regardless if this is true, for the text itself does not say Boaz was the head of the Sanhedrin, official matters were dealt with at the city gate. Boaz is seeking to officially settle the issue with the next-of-kin. What was the issue?

The next-of-kin, or גֹאֵל in Hebrew, had not performed his duty. As גֹאֵל, he was to buy the land from Naomi, thus keeping it in the family. But this גֹאֵל had not even so much as indicated that he was going to fulfill his role. As a result, Boaz went to the gate to resolve the issue. After Boaz arrived at the gate, the text literally says, “And behold, the kinsman was passing by whom Boaz was speaking of.” It is as though God orchestrated the event. Boaz was speaking of the גֹאֵל at the gate, and while he was speaking, not as coincidence, he came passing by.²

Boaz took charge at the moment the גֹאֵל was passing by. He commanded him to turn and sit down. But he did not call him by name. The NRSV rendering, “friend,” is misleading. The Hebrew reads פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי. The meaning of this phrase has been lost.³ It is possible that it could be a name, but it is highly unlikely. It is possible that it could have an idea of concealment or secrecy behind it, but this is quite uncertain. It is probably best to take it to mean “So and so” (literally, “certain one–so and so”). Perhaps the reason for this convoluted phrase is the fact that in one copy of the Septuagint, one commentator says, the phrase is translated into Greek to mean “anonymous,” while in a different copy of the Septuagint, the phrase is translated to mean “secret.” It is plausible that this textual variant contributes to the obscure interpretation of the phrase for us today. Whatever the reason, the end result is we have lost the way the original audience heard, interpreted, and understood this phrase.⁴ One commentator likes the translation “John Doe.”⁵ However, this translation would lead a contemporary reader to believe that the person’s name is simply not known and so the anonymous name is applied to that person. However, we do not know if the situation merits this translation. Perhaps the real name was known to the original audience, and it was instead left out of the text and replaced with the anonymous phrase for dramatic effect (i.e., “unmentionable one”). In any case, it seems best to leave the translation as “So and so,” so that no confusion or incorrect interpretation might take place.

After commanding פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי to turn and sit, the text says he turned and sat down. In verse 2, Boaz then proceeded to get 10 elders to sit down at the gate. Ten men were necessary for a lawful assembly.⁶ One commentator says that 10 sages were required to be present for marriage ceremonies, and thus links the situation here in Ruth with a wedding.⁷ The text itself does not necessarily indicate that a wedding ceremony is occurring. To proclaim a wedding in this text is to interpret beyond the boundaries of the text. In other words, it makes more out of the story than is actually present. We need only to say that an official meeting is taking place, since the setting is at the city gate and ten elders of the city are present, which satisfy the requirements to have an official meeting.

After having assembled 10 elders at the gate, in verse 3 Boaz then speaks to פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי. He says that Naomi is selling the plot of land that belonged to Elimelech, their brother. What is difficult here is the Hebrew word מָכְרָה. It is Qal Perfect, which means it is rendered literally, “She sold.” Did Naomi already sell the land? Verse five prohibits a sale, since Boaz charges פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי to purchase the land, and there is no mention of a waiting period in accord with the law if it was previously sold.⁸ As in this case, the Qal Perfect can have a present meaning. In this case, the verb ought to be translated, “She is selling,” or, “She is going to sell.” One commentator argues that since the land itself was not sold, only the right to use the land could be purchased, she in fact was not selling the land but was surrendering her rights to the use of the land.⁹ This understanding seems logical enough, but the text does not strongly support it. Perhaps the text is literally, “She is going to sell,” but in the back of the minds of the audience it was understood that she was selling her rights to the land. In any case, a transaction is in view; it is the goods that are being purchased that are in dispute for this particular commentator. The Septuagint notes that the land was given to Naomi and does not have the idea of a purchase. This issue is not easily resolved. It seems as though the Septuagint translation wants to avoid Naomi selling land in any case, and so interprets it to mean that Naomi was given the plot of land Boaz was talking about. The Septuagint reading is very unlikely to be original, since it can be explained from the more difficult reading. It is somewhat problematic for a woman to be in charge of selling land. The Septuagint wants to avoid this problem and has strayed from the original reading. To sum up this situation, we can be certain that a transaction is in view, but all the specific details surrounding the transaction are uncertain.

Boaz continued speaking in verse 4. He literally said, “I said I will uncover your ears to say,” meaning, “I said I will reveal to you by saying.” Boaz is saying that he has set out to inform פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי of his duties. What were his duties? Boaz explicitly stated the duties, and he underscored the legal ramifications of his decisions, since they were at the gate with 10 elders. He said, “Buy the plot of land before the ones sitting down and before the elders of my people.” Boaz charges him to buy the land Naomi is selling, which is the responsibility of the next-of-kin. One commentator has argued that there are two groups present at the meeting, as indicated by the double use of נֶגֶב.¹⁰ Another commentator argues that this double use is a reiteration. The second use is in apposition to the first to note the same group. In other words, there is only one group present.¹¹ Given the setting from verse 1, we should agree with the latter commentator and take the double use of נֶגֶב to be an appositional statement in reference to the same group. Boaz charges the גֹאֵל to purchase the land in the presence of the 10 elders he had assembled at the gate. He conditionally states, “If you will redeem, redeem.” In other words, “If you intend to act as kin, do it!” The second “redeem” is a command. He is firmly stating that if he intends to act as kin, he needs to do it promptly. But Boaz does not stop there. He continues his conditional statement, saying, “And if he will not redeem declare it to me.” Here we must stop to consider some important textual issues.

The text is written as “he will redeem.” However, many manuscript versions have “you will redeem.” It is odd to have the text in the third person while directly speaking to the גֹאֵל. It is problematic to have it in the third person. But it is precisely for this reason that we can say that “he will redeem” is the original text, for it explains the change in the other manuscripts into the second person (and not the other way around). If it was original, since it is difficult, later scribes would have changed it to the second person to make it easier and more in harmony with the context. Given this reason alongside of the fact that there are more manuscripts in support of the third person, the correct reading is “he will redeem.” It should also be noted that this verb is not passive, so any translation wishing to interpret it as “it will be redeemed” is not correct.¹²

If the גֹאֵל would not redeem the land, then Boaz requested that it be declared to him so that he would know, for there was no one else to redeem the land. But Boaz was next after the גֹאֵל he was confronting. The text reads, “and I will know,” but in the margins of the Hebrew Bible there is a marking indicating that the text should be audibly read as “and I may know.” The difference between the two is important. The former is incomplete, which is understood as an action to be done in the future. The imperfect makes the verb as a result of the declaration. The latter is causitive, which is understood to cause an action to be done. The cohortative makes the verb function as the purpose of the declaration. In this case, the text is written as imperfect, but it is understood by the scribes to be cohortative. In other words, although it is written as imperfect, and this is the original text, it is understood to be cohortative, so that it is not translated “and I will know,” but rather, “and I may know.”¹³

For the first time in the narrative, the גֹאֵל speaks. He said, “I will redeem.” However, he responds with the imperfect rather than the perfect. The perfect would be used if it were an official declaration, but since he responded with the imperfect, he was indicating that he was willing to perform the duty of the גֹאֵל, but at the same time he was leaving the option open for Boaz to take over.¹⁴

In the end, Boaz took the position of גֹאֵל and from his line came King David and eventually Jesus Christ. Boaz was not only a leader, but he was a valiant and noble leader. He helped, by the power and guidance of the Lord, to set things right for Naomi and Ruth, so that Naomi could override her previous declaration to be called Bitter (Mara) and instead be called Pleasant (Naomi). As for “So and so,” we do not know what became of him. We do know that Scripture has purposefully left as much as his name out.

In this text, we come to an important truth. We need to be led by God and to do what is right. Boaz was led by God to do what was right in relationship to his relatives. How often do we complain about having to go meet with relatives in our setting today? It should not be so. Family is important. The Bible places a strong emphasis on the importance of family, including relatives. God honors those who stand by the needs of their family. Boaz was honored by eventually having his lineage blessed with kingship; in addition, he was blessed when his lineage took on the Messiah, God’s chosen one. Therefore, we need to do what is right as God has instructed us to do, including with our family. If anyone has a relative in need, so long as it is possible, come to that relative’s aid. Lend them money without requiring a return. Loan them possessions. Tend to them when they are sick, or when they are near death. Do not forsake family; hold on to relatives.

A family had a grandmother who was a heavy smoker. She developed emphysema and needed an oxygen tank to help her breathe. Eventually, she developed lung cancer. She was in a terrible amount of pain. However, her family did not come to her aid. She was a bitter woman. For some reason or another, she treated her daughter-in-laws very terribly. Her grandchildren suffered psychologically from the verbal abuse that she shot at her sons’ wives. But her sons did not do what is honoring to the Lord. They did not aid their mother. She died bitterly. The story of Ruth demands that we do differently. If we ever find ourselves in that position, we should tend to our mothers even if they have dealt bitterly with us and with our wives. We need to spread the love of God to everyone, including those who hurt, and especially to our family. Just as Boaz acted, so also should we take leadership and honor God by coming to the aid of our family.

Bibliography

Gray, James. The Biblical Museum: A collection of notes, explanatory, homiletic, and illustrative, on the Holy Scriptures, especially designed for the use of ministers, bible-students, and Sunday school teachers. Vol. 3. New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Company, year not found.

Broch, Yitzchak. Ruth: The book of Ruth in Hebrew and English with a Talmudic-Midrashic commentary. 2nd ed. Jerusalem and New York: Feldheim, 1983.

Bush, Frederic. Word Biblical Commentary: Ruth, Esther. David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, John Watts, eds. Vol. 9. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1996.

Campbell, Edward. Ruth: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1975.

Zlatowitz, Meir. The Book of Ruth. 2nd ed. Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1993.

About: this paper was submitted to Dr. David Nystrom at Fuller Theological Seminary during my first year for a class concerning Women, the Bible, and the Church.

Introduction

Out of the two major competing positions dealing with women and ministry, one of them proves to be too problematic for me to uphold as a viable option for my own personal position on the issue. The two options are egalitarianism and complementarianism. Complementarianism, the position that generally denies women the right to participate in formal church leadership, desires to be true to the biblical texts by allowing them to speak out to the interpreter through responsible hermeneutics. Egalitarianism, the position that generally gives women the right to be involved in any form of church leadership, also seeks to be true to the authority of the text. The fact that complementarianism seeks to be true to the text does not indicate that egalitarianism does not. Both believe themselves to approach the Bible as the authority on the issue and they both desire to responsibly study the biblical texts. In order to responsibly study the biblical texts, the interpreter needs to take into consideration several hermeneutical factors such as, but not limited to, cultural influences, exegesis, and terms. Although the complementarian position admirably desires to be true to the biblical texts, it fails by inconsistently maintaining dialogue with relevant cultural contexts, by conveniently overlooking key exegetical insights, and by inadvertently embracing a faulty understanding of the church leadership depicted in the New Testament. As a result, out of the two major competing options presented, I do not agree with complementarianism and naturally lean towards egalitarianism.

Why I am not a Complementarian

The basic desire of the complementarian position is for interpreters to be responsible exegetes by allowing the text to speak for its self. This approach contains no less than three hermeneutical presuppositions. One presupposition maintains that the interpreter must consider the cultural contexts that are involved in the interpreting process. The interpreter must at least recognize that culture has a powerful influence in the interpretation process. Culture influences interpreters in a similar way that it influenced the biblical authors and audiences; we are culturally biased. Every interpreter’s understanding of the biblical texts is culturally confined socially, individually, ecclesiastically and theologically (Scholer 1986, 215). It is essential to consider the cultural influences when responsibly studying the Bible and to proceed cautiously with the highest level of sensitivity towards the historical-cultural settings involved (Scholer 1986, 215). It is also important to carefully recognize and consider the influences of the biblical authors, since they thought and lived according to particular cultural settings (Scholer 1986, 215). The Bible is equally culturally influenced, containing texts that were written for specific cultural-historical settings (Scholer 1986, 215). Therefore, in order to responsibly study the Bible, one must presuppose the recognition of and dialogue with the historical-cultural contexts and influences.

Another presupposition contends that the interpreter must study the texts in the original languages and be mindful of skewed lexical data. It is true that words in the biblical languages have disputed meanings. Other words have become translated in such a way that they lost the meaning for which they were originally penned (for example, Belleville’s treatment of proistêmi in Women Leaders and the Church, p. 139). It is important when responsibly studying Scripture that we are cautious of the data in lexicons, because some words have been culturally influenced over time to take on a particular English gloss that does not necessarily fit the original use of the word (Nystrom 2007, February 10). For this reason, the responsible exegete must presuppose the necessity to weigh the data carefully when studying the texts in the original languages and considering the possibility of having skewed lexical information.

One final presupposition present in the complementarian argument is the necessity for the interpreter to determine how the original audience would have interpreted it. This presupposition is tied in with the first, but it is much more narrowly defined. This presupposition identifies that it is irresponsible to interpret something that was written 2,000 years ago according to our cultural values, views and understandings. If an interpreter were to do that, then the text will lose its original meaning. However, the original meaning is essential; without it, the text simply would not matter. We need to know what the author intended and how the audience understood it. If we do not determine these things, then we will make the text mean whatever we want, becoming reckless and valueless because it is merely our understanding and not the understanding of God or the author (Caird 1980, 61). Therefore, it is essential that we retain the value of the text by seeking the original meaning as understood by the biblical author and audience.

Out of these three fundamental presuppositions, none of them are maintained well by the complementarian position. It suffers logically as the basic tenets of its central premise are not consistently adhered to. Now that we have arrived to a brief understanding of the logical impairment of complementarianism, we can now look at three of its hermeneutical failures.

True to the Text Versus Dialoguing with Cultural Contexts

The complementarian position desires to be true to the text, but it suffers from inconsistently maintaining dialogue with cultural contexts and influences, which is evident in its contradicting practical uses of cultural influences and its basing of arguments from silence without regard to cultural influences. As we have already noted, in order to be responsible exegetes, it is essential to consider and dialogue with all the relevant cultural contexts. However, because complementarianism lacks this essential dialogue, it suffers from inconsistency. Dan Doriani’s book, Women and Ministry: What the Bible teaches, a good representation of the complementarian position, proves this point quite well. (Although one book cannot represent a position like complementarianism entirely, this book does cover all the basics of the position and sums up the complementarian position quite nicely.) Doriani failed to recognize the cultural influences of the biblical authors, although he does recognize at least in part the cultural influences of the interpreters and the biblical audience. However, he is inconsistent in the way he recognizes them.

Doriani failed to thoroughly address the cultural issues involved in the story of Deborah in the Old Testament book of Judges (2003, 33-34). He did not explain the cultural significance present in the fact that the Israelites came to Deborah to have her judge them. This fact alone indicates through cultural practices that Deborah did have authority (Nystrom 2007, January 13). Doriani did not mention this fact at all, but rather he focused on his own interpretation and reading of the story that understood Deborah to be a private judge, since everyone came to her while she was “under a tree” (2003, 110). Conversely, Doriani attempted to thoroughly address the cultural contexts involved in the naming of the animals after creation in Genesis 2 (2003, 55). He readily points out that naming was understood in that culture to be an authoritative act (2003, 55). Doriani’s book suffered from an inconsistent use of cultural contexts.

In terms of cultural influences, Doriani made some conflicting points. First, when commenting on 1 Corinthians 11, Doriani said that Paul wants his Corinthian audience to maintain the customs of their culture (2003, 76). It sounds as if Doriani was affirming cultural influence, even if only as an evangelistic tool. However, Doriani did not allow culture to influence modern interpretations or readers in his comments on 1 Timothy 2 (2003, 98). It sounds like Doriani was adamantly opposed to cultural influence. The former seems to look upon cultural influence on a positive note, while the latter has a very negative one. Is that not inconsistent? Which one is it? Doriani recognized cultural influences, demands and ideals for our time as negative, but for some reason or another he did not recognize them as negative for Paul’s time. It is safe to say that Doriani would hesitate to argue that we should adopt the customs of our culture—women leading in authoritative positions—if only as an evangelistic tool, even though he has no problem saying that Paul would have argued for that to the Corinthians. Doriani’s book suffered from contradictory uses of cultural influences.

Doriani’s book also formed several arguments from silence to help prove his point that women were not given biblical authority to preach and teach as authoritative leaders. His points were already weak because they were arguments from silence, but they were even more devastated by the lack of consistent dialogue with cultural contexts. For instance, Doriani identified that because women were not ever commanded to go and preach the gospel, they do not have the authority to preach (2003, 124). However, this point does not say much. Why? If cultural influences were considered, it would have been realized that women were typically not mentioned at all during the first Century A.D. (Nystrom 2007, January 13). Therefore, it seems normal that women are not mentioned much throughout the New Testament and it ought to be expected for that time period. In other words, it is no wonder that we do not read stories of women doing all sorts of miracles, sermons and teaching, since no one else mentioned it outside of the New Testament either (Nystrom 2007, January 13). The fact remains that the authors of the Bible were also culturally biased just as we are. The problem is Doriani did not even mention this fact.

Other complementarians (if we can label them as such) throughout history have also based their position on similar arguments from silence. One source from history argued that if women were to teach, then Jesus would have commanded it, implying that because he did not, women are not allowed to teach (Didascalia apostolorum 3.6). Another source, Panarion, written by Epiphanius, also argued from silence, saying that women were not entrusted with the rite to administer baptism, because a woman did not baptize Jesus (79.2,3-4,1). Similarly, Epiphanius constructs another argument from silence, saying that Jesus chose twelve males to be his chosen apostles to spread the gospel throughout the world, so women have not been entrusted with this task and should not participate in it (Panarion 79.2,3-4,1).

To sum up Doriani and the others in the complementarian position, they fail hermeneutically, because they wanted to affirm cultural influence as a viable factor only when it supported what they wanted to say. When it did not give direct support to their position, they denied the influence of culture as a pertinent factor to hermeneutics. Complementarianism is inconsistent in maintaining dialogue with cultural contexts. It is inconsistent in maintaining cultural influences as a factor when interpreting the biblical texts, not only for us, but also for the composition of the writing of biblical authors and the understanding of the biblical audience. Although the complementarian position wants to be true to the text, it is not, because it suffers from inconsistent dialogue with, contradicting practical uses of, and basing arguments on silence without regard to cultural influences.

True to the Text Versus Overlooking Key Exegetical Insights

The complementarian position desires to be true to the text, but it suffers from conveniently overlooking key exegetical insights, such as particular words and significant phrases. Again, Doriani’s book demonstrated this point for us as a representative of the complementarian position. Two examples of many of the overlooked exegetical insights in his book are Doriani’s failure to recognize the use of ’adam in his treatment of Genesis 1-2 (2003, 54-59), and his failure to recognize the significance of “because of the angels” in relation to “in the Lord” in his comments on 1 Corinthians 11 (77-79). Doriani’s book and position were incomplete, because he does not thoroughly and consistently examine the original languages or consistently practice basic hermeneutics.

The Hebrew language uses ’adam and ’ish for man in Genesis 1-2. Doriani failed to recognize the Hebrew in his comments on this biblical passage (2003, 54-59). Although we do not know why he overlooked this material, we do know that his position was worse off because of it. Richard Hess pointed out two word plays involved in Genesis 1-2 (2005, 87). The first one is ’adam (human) and ’adamah (ground). The Hebrew words for man and ground are a word play, where the latter is the source from which the former came into existence. The second play on words is with ’ish (man) and ’ishah (woman). Although linguistically it is unintentional, the vocabulary is intentional; therefore, we still have a play on words when the author of the Genesis text used them (Hess 2005, 87). Woman and man here function in the same way as man and ground function earlier in the story, where the latter is the source for the former. Note the presence of the source language in the word plays. Would this language not be at least indirectly pertinent in the discussion of kephalê later on for Doriani? Apparently it was not, because he did not mention it at all in his book. Or perhaps it was problematic for his argument so he chose to exclude it. Either way, the fact is his treatment of Genesis 1-2 was not thorough enough, which left the reader wondering if maybe Doriani has missed something important, whether here or elsewhere in the biblical texts.

In commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:7-12 within a larger treatment of verses 3-16, Doriani argued that “because of the angels” should read “because of the messengers” in verse 10 (2003, 78). Doriani noted that a Roman visitor might be shocked to hear women speaking in the gatherings, because women were not allowed to speak in public, so Paul wanted women to show submission to men by covering their heads for the sake of the messengers (2003, 78). Additionally, further evidence for the lack thoroughness in his argument is that Doriani did not even treat verses 11-12 in his section called “11:7-12” (2003, 77). Is it not significant that Paul first wrote “because of the angels” followed by “Nevertheless, in the Lord”? Are these two phrases related, either as complementary or contrasting statements? Doriani’s treatment was insufficient to answer that question because he completely overlooked the second statement. Furthermore, Doriani’s treatment of the first statement was also insufficient because he failed to compare the use of the word angel here with its earlier occurrences in the letter.

However, Gordon Fee looked at this passage in light of the surrounding texts of the letter and does attempt to work through the difficult parts of the current text. Fee argued that Paul was possibly agreeing in principle with the likely Corinthian belief that they were like the angels, which is evidenced in 1 Corinthians 13:1 in which their speaking in tongues was perceived to be speaking the language of the angels (2005, 157). Paul refers to angels in 1 Corinthians 4:9 as his witnesses for his apostolic weaknesses, and he proclaims that the Corinthians will participate in the judgment of the angels in 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 (Fee 2005, 157). Fee wrote, “Within this scenario, our sentence [v. 10] could be yet another instance in the letter where Paul is reflecting their own point of view—in this case, of some Corinthian women” (2005, 157). In other words, Paul is affirming the Corinthian women’s viewpoint that due to their “angelic” status they have the authority to do what they please in regards to their own heads (Fee 2005, 157). The “nevertheless” qualifies this possibility, so that Paul continues to stand by what he has already said in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, which states that woman is the glory of man, while not allowing that fact to be used for the subordination of women (Fee 2005, 157). Interpreting the present text in light of the surrounding texts keeps us from interpreting angels as messengers. The question is not what we can make of this possibility. The real question is, “What can Doriani make of this possibility”?

In sum, exegetically speaking, complementarianism cannot be fully relied upon, because it is selective and not thorough. Doriani is a prime example. He overlooked key exegetical insights and neglected fundamentally basic hermeneutical methods for whatever reason. The trustworthiness of Doriani’s treatment was therefore in jeopardy and his argument was skewed because it was based on unreliable interpretation. Although complementarianism wants to be true to the text, it fails hermeneutically for overlooking key exegetical insights and neglecting proper hermeneutics.

True to the Text Versus Misunderstanding New Testament Church Leadership

Before we examine the third hermeneutical failure of the complementarian position, we should quickly review what we have already seen. In terms of dialoguing with cultural contexts and overlooking key exegetical insights, complementarianism suffers hermeneutically. The first point is quite important as any interpreter must take cultural contexts and influences into consideration in order to best understand the meaning of the text. However, the second point is not so crucial as it only shows that the complementarian position is neither hermeneutically perfect nor completely reliable. If it were, then there would be no need for this paper and there would be no debate about the issue. In fact, Doriani’s book is not the example that suffered from overlooking exegetical insights. Linda Belleville’s book, Women Leaders and the Church: Three crucial questions, overlooks the same key phrases addressed above in her treatment of 1 Corinthians 11 (2000, 126-131). Overlooking exegetical insights is not a problem that is relative only to complementarianism. There are so many pieces of information to work through and so many exegetical insights to comment on that it is impossible to treat them all in a small section of a book. Therefore, this second point serves only to show that complementarianism is not perfect, because it must abandon its central premise at times for the sake of space; it fails to achieve what it seeks—to stay true to the text. However, this next point is of the utmost importance and is the most crucial highlight of the failures to the complementarian position.

The complementarian position is primarily based on a particular notion of New Testament church leadership. It believes that the New Testament upholds church “office” in that all pastoral positions are official and public leadership roles are designated by God who decided it was best to only make the positions available to males. Is this belief an accurate description of New Testament prescribed church leadership? Doriani, who represented the complementarian position regarding church leadership very well, argued for it as an accurate interpretation of the New Testament in his chapter on the gifts of the Spirit and women’s roles (2003, 101-114).

Doriani argued women can function in ministry and serve some ministry roles, but they cannot hold a ministry office (2003, 109). First, he perceived function to be a brief exercise of any spiritual function, so that women can temporarily perform spiritual functions as necessary (2003. 109). Second, he understood roles to be regular spiritual service that can be “customary, joyful, and effective” (2003, 109). Finally, Doriani contended that an office is a church recognized calling in which the church consecrates the person for formal leadership (2003, 110). Those who hold such offices, such as priests, monarchs and apostles, must be males who meet the necessary biblical criteria. Doriani concluded that women cannot hold such offices that are a “formal position” and “formally bestowed” (2003, 110). But what exactly was Doriani referring to as offices? He primarily referred to the leadership offices of elders and deacons, but even he admitted that it is possible for women to be deacons (2003, 127).

Elders were held with great leadership authority as the highest office in the church for Doriani (2003, 111). Doriani perceived the office of elders to be closed to women: women may not participate in church leadership as elders, but they can work alongside and aid the efforts of this office (2003, 111). Doriani appealed to the following facts within Scripture to show the exclusivity of male leadership: the law said Israel’s priests were supposed to be male; monarchs were supposed to be male; the twelve apostles Jesus chose were all male; Paul assumed that all elders were male; the first missionaries and church planters in Acts were all male; and all of the traveling companions Paul mentioned in his letters were male (2003, 23). Women may have served in ministry roles but not as official leaders (2003, 24). In fulfilling teaching as a ministry role, Doriani argued that women only taught privately (2003, 36). Public teaching was reserved for males as elders (2003, 174). Authoritative leadership is reserved for offices such as apostles and elders, who succeeded the apostles, but women cannot participate in either of these offices (2003, 84).

Is this kind of leadership really what the Bible prescribes? Belleville would disagree. In her book, Women Leaders and the Church: Three crucial questions, Belleville studied church leadership in detail, and her findings reveal the problems of the presupposed church leadership of Doriani and the complementarian position.

Belleville detailed five church leadership terms found in the New Testament: leader/guide; shepherd; overseer; elder; and deacon (2000, 138). First, Belleville examines the use of leader/guide in the New Testament. She looks at the characteristics of a leader/guide as depicted in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 first. The word in Greek for leader/guide is proistêmi, and in this passage leaders are described as “those who ‘work hard,’ ‘admonish,’ and ‘go before’ (Belleville 2000, 138). A leader is one who participates in the “exhausting and tiring character of leadership” (2000, 138). A leader is one who corrects and redirects wrong behavior (2000, 138). A leader is also one who leads the way, protects or cares for by standing or going before someone (2000, 138). Paul uses these characterizations of a leader in Colossians 3:16, 1 Thessalonians 1:3 and Titus 3:8 to describe the work of the church, which indicates that “Paul is not talking about a leadership role that is distinctive in any way” (Belleville 2000, 138). Furthermore, the Greek word for leader, proistêmi, is often translated either as “over,” “above,” or in “charge of” in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 (2000, 139). In 1 Timothy 3:4-5 and 12 it is often translated as “to manage” or “to rule” (2000, 139). Belleville asked, “But does the term carry these commanding overtones?” (2000, 139).

In order to answer her question, Belleville examined how proistêmi is used throughout the rest of the New Testament. She determined that this word “clearly points to a leadership capacity of some sort,” but that it is a guiding leadership—not a ruling one (Belleville 2000, 139). Belleville determined this conclusion to be true based on three reasons: proistêmi is grouped together with the spiritual gifts that offer practical assistance to the needy; the noun form of proistêmi, prostatis, was used of those “who provided patronage and protection”; and the parallel words used alongside of proistêmi are of pastoral activities (2000, 139). Because she viewed this term as pastoral in nature, Belleville viewed any rendering that translates this word with an authoritative sense in mind as “less than desirable,” such as “to rule,” “to be in charge of,” or “to manage” (2000, 139). She rightly noted that this term is a qualification for overseers (1 Timothy 3:4-5) and deacons (1 Timothy 3:12), and it identifies one of the functions of the elders (1 Timothy 5:17), so that at the least it ought to cause us to question why we construct these leadership roles in a authoritative, ruling structure (2000, 139).

Second, Belleville demonstrated the use of shepherd in the New Testament. Local leaders are commanded to be “shepherds of God’s flock” (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2). Belleville looked at the role of a shepherd as “one who guides, protects, and cares for the flock” (2000, 140). Shepherding in the New Testament does not involve ruling authority, especially since Peter instructs the elders in Asia to not rule over the people in 1 Peter 5:3 (Belleville 2000, 140). Instead, shepherding requires being an example by leading the people in thought, word and deed (2000, 140). But a shepherd is also a teacher, as is evident in Ephesians 4:11, where the Greek syntax calls for pastors and teachers to be conceptually joined together (2000, 140). This joining means that shepherding is inseparable from teaching (2000, 140). Belleville noted that the shepherding leadership is used in reference to elders (2000, 140), and teaching leadership is also used in reference to elders as well as overseers (141). As a result, we determine that shepherds need to be able to teach so that they can fight off the predators that seek to harm the flock; metaphorically, we are speaking of false teachers who distort truth when we talk of predators, so it is therefore necessary that the shepherds be able to teach and refute false teaching in order to protect the flock (Belleville 2000, 141).

Third, Belleville explored the word overseer in the New Testament. Overseer is the first term mentioned here that is not only used to describe a leadership task but also a specific leadership group (Belleville 2000, 141). In Greek, overseer is episkopos, which is often translated as bishop, being traditionally defined as “a position of rule and authority” (2000, 141). However, Belleville noted that episkopos is descriptive of a pastoral function and is more properly rendered as overseer (2000, 141). An episkopos watches over and looks after those in one’s care; the term is used of God’s renewed concern for his people, of caring for those in need in society, including, but not limited to, the sick, prisoners, widows and orphans, and of the care that Paul and Barnabas gave to the new churches in Galatia (Belleville 2000, 141; Luke 7:16; Acts 15:14; Matthew 25:36, 43; James 1:27; Acts 15:36). Furthermore, the qualifications for overseers are that they must be hospitable and able to teach, above reproach, considerate, and well thought of by outsiders, family oriented, act respectably and with self-control, and they should not be recent converts (2000, 141-142; 1 Timothy 3:2-7). In weighing the textual witnesses, Belleville determined that overseers were omitted from 1 Peter 5:2 due to an apparent redundancy, so the term is actually synonymous with shepherds and should be in the text (2000, 197). Therefore, Belleville wrote, “Overseers are shepherds of God’s people. They are not appointed or elected by the congregation but put there by the Holy Spirit. Their job is to keep watch over and to pay close attention to the flock” (2000, 141). Because overseers and shepherds are synonymous, it is hard to see how they differ. Belleville proposed that overseer is indicative of a position of church leadership, while shepherd is indicative of the task of church leadership (2000, 141). She also noted, however, that the qualifications Paul listed for an overseer are not ones that we would associate with an office, especially because he does not give a job description (2000, 141). If we are to call overseers an office, then we have to define office as a common service, but there is no indication regarding the function of the overseers that we could call it a position of ruling authority (Belleville 2000, 142).

Fourth, Belleville looked at elder in the New Testament. Belleville admitted that elder might in fact be an office (2000, 143). This term is not portrayed as the responsibility of the congregation, and out of all leadership positions mentioned so far, it is the only one that is given by appointment (Belleville 2000, 143). Elder is actually consistently used in the plural form, indicating a corporate entity rather than a particular function (2000, 143). The Greek term for elder, presbyteros, is often used in the New Testament in reference to those of older age, and therefore highly valued and respected within the church community (Belleville 2000, 143). However, elders did not rule the church community, although they did play an official role in it (2000, 143). Belleville suggested that elders were at least to a certain extent guardians of the apostolic tradition, and beyond this guardianship they were summoned to pray and care for the sick, aid the weak, refute false teaching, commission for service, preach and teach, be shepherds and guides of the flock, and possibly even be the handlers of the money (2000, 144; Acts 20:17-18, 29-31, 35; 1 Timothy 4:14, 5:17; Titus 1:9; 1 Peter 5:1-2; James 5:14). This leadership role was pastoral in nature, so that although they were appointed into the office of elder they functioned in a practical way (Belleville 2000, 144).

The qualifications for elders reinforce their function (2000, 144). The elders were not given a job description; instead, they were to be hospitable, able to refute false teaching and adhere to sound doctrine, blameless, upright, holy, not overbearing or quick-tempered, to love the good, faithful to their spouse, have obedient and believing children, self-controlled and not given to excesses (Belleville 2000, 144). Elders were a “group whose responsibility was to care for the spiritual life of the local congregation” (2000, 144; emphasis mine). The job of the elders was to “shepherd God’s flock” (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2), and their function was to serve and shepherd, not rule (2000, 144). Ruling and authority are nowhere close to being connected with the elders in the New Testament (2000, 145). An elder seems to have a “wide range of functions that a number of leaders performed in the early church” (Belleville 2000, 145).

Finally, Belleville examined the use of deacon in the New Testament. Deacon comes from the Greek word, diakonos, which means servant. The verb form of the noun means “to serve” or “to wait on tables” (Belleville 2000, 145). The New Testament does not give us a job description for deacons (2000, 145). What is important is that the qualifications for deacons are spelled out, and these requirements are very close to the ones for those who are overseers and elders (2000, 146). There is a focus on the character and lifestyle on the deacon in the same way that there is for the overseers and elders (2000, 146). Deacons are to be above reproach, have strong family values, act respectably, have self-control, and adhere to sound doctrine (Belleville 2000, 146; 1 Timothy 3:8, 10-12). The difference in qualifications of deacons from the overseers or elders is that deacons must be “sincere” and tested over a period of time (2000, 146; 1 Timothy 3:8, 10-11). Belleville viewed these two qualifications as perfectly understandable given the nature of the role of the deacon if it included “some house-to-house visitation” (2000, 146). To the best of our knowledge, deacons were primarily responsible for caring for the material needs of the church (Belleville 2000, 146; Acts 6:1-4; 1 Peter 4:11).

Belleville noted that of the five church leadership terms presented only two have any ties to women. She showed that Phoebe was a leader (prostatis) and a deacon (2000, 147). However, she also showed that of the five terms, no men are singled out in those positions, with the one exception where Peter identifies himself to be an elder in 1 Peter 5:1 (2000, 147). Belleville suggested that the reason for the lack of identification is because we define deacon, elder and overseer differently than the New Testament (2000, 147). We place emphasis on position while the New Testament places emphasis on service (2000, 147). In other words, the way we currently define church leadership is not how the New Testament defines it. We have constructed church leadership after a different model than the New Testament—an authoritarian type based on management and ruling—when the New Testament looks at leadership as service.

Bearing this distinction in mind, the complementarian position faces some huge problems. The New Testament prescription for leadership does not involve a ruling office as complementarianism says it does. The argument that women cannot be in authoritative church leadership positions is very problematic in the light of the New Testament prescription for church leadership. Biblical church leadership is not about authority. However, complementarianism presupposes that church leadership is about authority and in that sense does not stay true to the text. Complementarianism suffers hermeneutically because it looks into the text that which does not belong there—authoritative church leadership. It is guilty of keeping women from participating in leadership on account of this unbiblical principle. Basically, its terms are flawed, because they are based on a non-biblical idea. Additionally, its argument is invalid because of its flawed terms. Doriani did not ever explicitly say that women cannot be involved in church ministry apart from the basis that they are not to be in positions of authority, and since the office of elders is a position of authority, they cannot serve in that office. However, since church leadership is not biblically based on authority, this argument is irrelevant. The complementarian position has irresponsibly allowed its cultural contexts to define how they understand leadership in the New Testament. Through irresponsible hermeneutics, complementarianism has inadvertently embraced a faulty understanding of New Testament church leadership.

CONCLUSION

I cannot hold the complementarian position because of these three hermeneutical failures. In order to be a responsible exegete, I have to consider the cultural contexts and influences even if I do not want to. I have to wade through, identify and examine all the exegetical insights, and I have to allow the Bible to inform me. I should not inform the Bible, nor should I be exegetically negligent of important insights, nor disregard cultural influences in the interpretation process. Complementarianism fails in these areas. Although it desires to be true to the texts, it fails hermeneutically in its treatment of cultural contexts, use of exegesis, and commanding influence of modern presuppositions over interpreting biblical texts. I simply cannot be a serious scholar or theologian and attempt to hold any view that suffers from irresponsible hermeneutics, especially when it claims that it does employ responsible hermeneutics. Therefore, I cannot hold a complementarian position regarding women, the Bible, and the church.

Instead, I hold an egalitarian position. This position seeks to consider the cultural influences involved in the interpretation process, both on the part of the interpreter and the biblical author. It additionally position seeks to be mindful of the lexical data available to us as we study the original languages and perform exegesis, and seeks to allow the text to speak for itself and not place our own constructs onto the text. In other words, I believe the egalitarian position is culturally, linguistically and textually sensitive, allowing the text to inform the interpreter, demonstrating care in the interpretive process, and by recognizing cultural biases. Given these factors, egalitarianism is more capable of staying true to the text than complementarianism. For this reason, I am not a complementarian, but rather an egalitarian.

Reference List

Belleville, Linda L. 2000. Women Leaders and the Church: Three crucial questions. Grand

Rapids: Baker Books.

Caird, G. B. 1980. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Quoted in David M. Scholer. “Unseasonable Thoughts on the State of Biblical

Hermeneutics: reflections of a New Testament exegete.” Selected Articles on

Hermeneutics and Women and Ministry in the New Testament. 15^th ed. 7-13. Pasadena, California: School of Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2005. Originally published in American Baptist Quarterly 2 (1983), 134-41.

Didascalia apostolorum 3.6. Quoted in Patricia Cox Miller, ed. Women in Early

Christianity: Translations from Greek texts, 31. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic

University of America Press, 2005.

Doriani, Dan. 2003. Women and Ministry: What the Bible teaches. Wheaton: Crossway Books.

Epiphanius, Panarion 79.2,3-4,1. Quoted in Patricia Cox Miller, ed. Women in Early

Christianity: Translations from Greek texts. 66-68. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic

University of America Press, 2005.

Fee, Gordon D. 2005. “Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.”

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy. 2^nd ed. Ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merril Groothuis, and Gordon D. Fee, 142-160. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos.

Hess, Richard S. 2005. “Equality With and Without Innocence: Genesis 1-3.”

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy. 2^nd ed. Ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merril Groothuis, and Gordon D. Fee, 79-95. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos.

Nystrom, David. 2007. Women, the Bible, and the Church. Lecture Notes from January 13.

_______________. 2007. Women, the Bible, and the Church. Lecture Notes from February 10.

_______________. 2007. Women, the Bible, and the Church. Lecture Notes from February 24.

Scholer, David M. 1986. “1 Timothy 2:9-15 & the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry.”

Women, Authority & the Bible. Ed. Alvera Mickelsen. Downers Grove:

InterVarsity Press, pp. 193-219.

_______________. 2005. “Unseasonable Thoughts on the State of Biblical Hermeneutics:

reflections of a New Testament exegete.” Selected Articles on Hermeneutics and Women

and Ministry in the New Testament. 15^th ed. 7-13. Pasadena, California: School of

Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary. Originally published in American Baptist Quarterly 2 (1983), 134-41.

About: this paper was submitted to Dr. David Nystrom at Fuller Theological Seminary during my first year for a class on Women, the Bible, and the Church.

Linda L. Belleville’s book, Women Leaders and the Church: three crucial questions, addresses the issue of women in church leadership through the importance of history and literary analysis. In her book, Belleville asks three questions. First, she asks, “In which ministries can women be involved?” Second, she asks, “What roles can women play in society?” Finally, she asks, “Can women hold positions of authority?” Belleville does well hermeneutically within her three crucial questions by taking into consideration the cultural influences of the biblical texts, the contextual understandings of the interpretations and translations of biblical texts, all of the relevant controversial biblical passages, and the biblical understanding of church leaders. After having gained a brief summary of the three crucial questions, we can look at how the four considerations affect Belleville’s book in a positive way.

One of the main questions raised in the issue of women leadership regards the ministries that women can be involved in. Belleville seeks first to tackle this question. She explores the history of the religious roles of women in Judaism, in Greek and Roman societies, and in the early church. Within these sections, we find that women were active as religious leaders throughout all of the aforementioned categories. At a minimum, we can say and accept that women did have a leadership role in the religious activities of the Jews and the early church.

Another main question that is raised deals with what roles women can play in society. Belleville tackles this question second, focusing on marriage, family and society at large. She explores the roles of women during the times of the New Testament, which does not exclude women outside of the early church, but rather, includes a study of women in Jewish, Greek and Roman societies as well. Belleville seeks to find a biblical perspective on the societal roles of women and focuses on several key biblical texts, including all of the following categories: Genesis 1-2; Genesis 3; Jesus’ teachings; apostolic teachings; and submission and headship in the New Testament. Belleville gives a fair treatment of these texts through historical and literary analysis, which makes this study both valuable and meaningful for answering the question, “What roles can women play in society?” As a result of her exegesis, we see through careful and responsible analysis that these texts, at the very least, reveal women to be equal to men.

One final question that arises in the issue of women in ministry addresses whether or not women can hold authoritative positions. Belleville saves this question for last. Of the three questions mentioned in the book, this last one has the most importance with the church, because it deals with how the church ought to function. In answering this question, Belleville begins by questioning our understanding of the word authority and our leadership structures for the church. She continues by looking at the language of women and leadership in the biblical texts followed by a detailed analysis of biblical passages that suggest some limits for women. Belleville truly gave a thorough and fair treatment in answering the question, “Can women hold authoritative positions?” Because of this treatment, we can not only walk away from the book and the relevant biblical passages with a good understanding of the exegesis of the passages, but we can also see that at a minimum women are just as able and just as permitted to lead the church as men.

Having had a good yet brief summary of the book, we can now critique Belleville’s Women Leaders and the Church: three crucial questions. When one allows the book to stand by itself and to read and critique it on its own merit, it is hard to find something negative about this book. In fact, the only constructive-critical remark that seems apparent is a few unsupported remarks. For example, on page 117, Belleville makes a remark about what Ephesians 6:4 means in regards to the father’s treatment of his child or children. She writes, “What he targets is the father’s apparent tendency to be too heavy-handed in the area of discipline” (2000). This remark is not expounded upon. Because it is not explained, we are left without any support for that remark. How did she arrive to this conclusion regarding the heavy-handedness in the discipline on the part of the father? Why did she come to this conclusion and not something else? Although this is a problem, it should be noted that it is a minor one that is not problematic to her argument. Such remarks are few throughout her book and therefore do not warrant a large caution against her writing or her methodology. In truth, Belleville’s book was put together so well that it can mostly only be praised. In fact, there are four very important features of her book that are to be applauded.

First, Women Leaders and the Church takes into consideration the cultural influences of the biblical texts. It is absolutely essential that we look at biblical texts alongside of their cultural settings. Culture influences people; people wrote the biblical texts; therefore, in order to best understand the biblical texts, even if not fully, we must take into consideration the cultural influences from their time. Belleville’s book addresses the culture from the time of Jesus and Paul, as well as before and after the times of the New Testament, and then it looks at Scripture in light of that information. We see this practice throughout the book, but we see it the most in the answer to the first question, “In which ministries can women be involved?” In her analysis of Jewish, Greek and Roman cultures, we find that women were in fact involved in various religions as leaders, and, when she addresses the leadership roles of women in the early church, she compares and contrasts them to those of the Jewish, Greek and Roman ones. However, past culture is not all that ought to be involved in hermeneutics, but also modern culture, which influences how we understand things today, including biblical texts.

Second, Belleville’s book takes into consideration the contextual understandings of modern interpretations and translations of biblical texts. In order to best understand the biblical texts, we must be responsible exegetes and do our best to keep our own understandings, views and theological lenses from reading something into the text. Although we cannot entirely keep our own cultural presuppositions from influencing how we interpret the biblical texts, we need to at least make an effort to protect the texts from our cultural understandings. Belleville does a great job of this very thing in her treatment of headship in the New Testament, which she treats very well in answering the question, “What roles can women play in society?” Belleville was as careful as she could possibly be to keep our modern cultural understandings of the definition and concept of headship from influencing how we understand the New Testament concept of headship. As a result, we learn that our understanding of headship differs greatly from what the New Testament portrays. Not only is it important that we take our own cultural influences into account in addition to the cultural influences of the biblical times, but it is equally important to compare Scripture with Scripture and to address not one passage but all the passages that pertain to the relevant issue.

Third, this book takes into consideration all of the relevant controversial passages and allows them to speak for themselves to the best of Belleville’s abilities. She does not focus on one biblical passage that goes against egalitarianism, explain it away and then end her argument there. Rather, she looks at the totality of the biblical corpus as best as she can in just three chapters and examines all the relevant and controversial biblical passages that are commonly and widely used in having men lead. She allows the texts to speak for themselves while looking at them in depth. The two most controversial passages, 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2, were given the most treatment, as should be expected, since they are widely used to deny and keep women from taking leadership positions. We can leave Belleville’s book with a good defense of the equality of women, because she presented a broad biblical treatment that deals with texts that are both supportive and seemingly non-supportive at first glance, leaving no room for accusations that her book ignores the totality of Scripture. Understanding the cultural influences and looking at the whole of the biblical texts is necessary, but Belleville does not stop there, for she also re-examines the biblical understanding of church leadership, which is absolutely necessary when talking about how church leadership ought to work.

Finally, Belleville takes into consideration the biblical understanding of church leaders through strong word analysis. In order to even talk about the structures of church leadership, we have to define our terms. Belleville does well to not only look at the leadership language of the New Testament—in Greek—but also how those words were used outside of the New Testament. Through her study, we find that leadership as understood in the New Testament is not how we traditionally think of leadership. Additionally, we find that the way we have our church structured is not how it is supposed to be. Church leaders are to be co-sufferers who serve alongside the rest of the church. We also find that the church leaders do not have official authority, but rather it is Jesus and the church that have authority and not the leaders of the church. Therefore, we leave the book with the knowledge that the hierarchical system that we have traditionally utilized for church leadership is vastly different from the vision of Jesus and Paul.

Belleville’s book, Women Leaders and the Church: three crucial questions, is quite valuable to the issue concerning women in leadership of the church. It is to be commended for defining leadership, addressing all the most relevant biblical texts and not ignoring the difficult ones, protecting against modern cultural influences and incorporating the cultural influences from around the times of the biblical texts within the three crucial questions regarding women and ministry, societal roles, and authority. Belleville demonstrates herself to be a responsible scholar in this book and enables us to talk intelligently about women in leadership in light of Scripture and history.

Bibliography

Belleville, Linda L. 2000. Women Leaders and the Church: three crucial questions. Grand

Rapids: Baker Books.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. David Nystrom at Fuller Theological Seminary during my first year for a class on Women, the Bible, and the Church.

Dan Doriani’s book, Women and Ministry: what the Bible teaches, is not only a good book, but also a good representation of a complementarian or traditional interpretation of the Bible regarding church leadership and women.  The book is well-written and contains some very good analysis in terms of methodology.  Although Doriani produced a well-written book, demonstrated opposing views in a seemingly fair way, and at least gave women the ability to lead in some roles of the Church, he failed to do three crucial things: to address the influence of the Graeco-Roman culture on Paul and on Christians of the first century A.D. and following; to not identify the views and perceptions from the Graeco-Roman culture regarding women; and to indicate the leadership roles that women had during the house-church structure that existed prior to the institutionalization of the Church.  Before we come to terms with the book’s shortcomings, we must first gain a brief understanding of the content of the book.

If we had to break Women and Ministry down into constituent parts, it would be comprised of three parts.  The first section of the book is an argument for the traditional or complementarian  interpretation regarding women, which basically understands that women cannot be elders of a church and must submit to the authority of church leaders as well as their husbands.  This section is made up of eight chapters, in which males are seen as the ones who fulfill the role of leadership within the family and within the Church while women fulfill the role of the caretakers of the household as well as the Church.  The second section of the book is one chapter and it is a comparison of the egalitarian and complementarian views.  That chapter gives a seemingly fair treatment of both sides, but as would be expected the weight of the treatments is given to the complementarian viewpoint.  The third section of the book is the final chapter that deals with a history of women and ministry.  Doriani highlights the major historical thoughts, perspectives and practices regarding women in church leadership in this section, detailing the major influences from Chrysostom to Jerome to Luther and beyond.  These three sections combine to give a decent presentation of the complementarian view.

The constituent parts support Doriani’s idea that women can lead in the Church and can use their gifts in leadership roles, but they cannot have any authoritative positions over the Church as a whole or over men.  They are welcome to serve alongside of men and attend to the members of the Church, but they cannot oversee the Church.  It should be noted that Doriani does argue for women to be able to teach the Church, including men, but only when they are teaching children or, when teaching men, if teaching while under the direct authority of a man or of men.  Therefore, although Doriani is a complementarian, he does argue for women to be actively involved in serving the Church and even leading within the Church alongside men even though they may not oversee the Church.

Now that we have a brief understanding of the content of the book, we can now look at some positive and negative critiques of Women and Ministry.  The following list contains three key positive remarks of the book: one, it is well-written; two, it fairly demonstrates opposing views; and three, it at least gives women the ability to lead in some roles of the Church.

Doriani did a great job of putting this book together.  Overall, Women and Ministry is easy to read.  Sentence structures were simple and not overly complicated, and the chapters were broken down in such a way that the material was easy to work through, making this book quite pleasant to read.  However, easy reading does not indicate a good argument, although it helps in understanding the argument.  What is particularly notable about this book is that it fairly demonstrates opposing views in tandem with the view that is held by Doriani.

Doriani included material–arguments, counter-arguments, interpretations, etc.–from opposing views interspersed throughout the book.  He even included an entire chapter to the comparison between the main opposing view, egalitarianism, and complementarianism.  He clearly articulated the complementarian interpretation, as should be expected, but he also did a fair job of portraying how the egalitarian view regards the issue of women in church leadership.  Granted that it is not the complete and full view of the egalitarian that Doriani portrays, what he portrayed is sufficient enough to give a general understanding of the opposite view to complementarianism.  It was commendable of Doriani to at least wrestle with the opposing views and not just take a streamlined, one-sided approach to the issue at hand.  But this book is not commendable only for its fair treatment of both sides, for it is also commendable for its allowance and approval of women to partake in some forms, although not all, of church leadership.

Doriani nobly argued for women to participate alongside of men in servant leadership.  Although he would not argue for women to be a senior pastor of a church, Doriani made it quite clear even from a biblical standpoint that women should lead in the church to a certain level.  He sees them as able people who, having the same gifts of the Spirit as men, should be using their God-given gifts.  Doriani recognizes the need for women to use their gifts for the benefit of the Church and he urges them to do so.  Women are not simply a complement to men in theory for Doriani; rather, they are complements in practice, but if they do not put their gifts into practice alongside of men, then they have lost their complement.  For Doriani, it is absolutely essential that women be in church leadership with the exception of authoritative, elder or overseer leadership.

This book is commendable for its textual and compositional simplicity, demonstrative fairness of argumentation, and Church utilization of women.  However, the book is not perfect.  The following list is comprised of three key negative remarks concerning Women and Ministry: one, its failure to address the influence of the Graeco-Roman culture on Paul and the Christians from the first century A.D. and following; two, its failure to identify the views of women in the culture of Paul; and three, its failure to indicate the leadership roles of women from the house church structure that the early Christians had prior to the institutionalization of the Church.

Doriani recognizes cultural influences, demands and ideas for our time, but he does not recognize the cultural influences on Paul during his time, which would have impacted what Paul taught, preached and wrote.  The question at stake is if Doriani is being consistent.  On the one hand, he refutes the idea that our contemporary culture should influence how we operate in terms of roles, both in the home and in the Church (cf. 2003, 98).  However, on the other hand, he either fails to realize or chooses to ignore that the culture that Paul grew up and lived in would have influenced his thought process, his presuppositions, his values and his ideals, including, but not limited to, male and female roles.  As a result, Doriani argues that the biblical model as identified by Paul transcends culture and should be the model that we employ today as Christians despite what our contemporary culture says (cf. 2003, 94).  At the least we can say that Doriani is unintentionally inconsistent in this point.  Not only is Doriani inconsistent but his book is also inadequate.

Doriani recognizes that women were not looked upon very well in the Graeco-Roman culture, including in the Jewish culture that resided within the larger Graeco-Roman setting.  He notes that some rabbis exhorted men to steer clear of women, including their own wives, and others basically taught that talking to women was evil (2003, 41).  Although Doriani does well in recognizing that the common perception of women during the time of Paul and even of Jesus was not very good, he fails to address the fact that Paul would have been heavily influenced by this perception and that it would have affected his command for women to keep silent and have no authority over a man (1 Timothy 2).  He demonstrates that in his ministry Jesus called women to discipleship and ignored the common cultural perceptions (2003, 42).  However, he claims that it was not Jesus’ goal to liberate women from these perceptions and roles (2003, 42).  As a result, he argues that Jesus calls women to discipleship while still functioning within the culturally-defined gender roles (2003, 46).  If we cary out his logic all the way through, however, we would also have to accept the ideas that Jesus would have affirmed that women should have less legal rights as men and that he would have upheld the perception that women were “mentally and spiritually inferior to men” (2003, 41) as well.  According to Doriani’s own logic that the Bible forms the model society that Christians are to follow (cf. 2003, 37), we should be operating according to these perceptions today.  His treatment regarding the negative views of women is entirely inadequate for the task, and beyond that problem lies Doriani’s failure to address the fact that women were likely to have been leaders of house churches in the first century A.D. prior to the institutionalization of the Church.

Doriani did not rightly point out that women were co-leaders with men in house churches before the Church became a structured institution starting in the second century A.D.  He did well to show that women were not allowed to be authoritative Church leaders throughout the overwhelming majority of Church history, but he really did not give any good indication that women were house church leaders prior to the institutionalized Church.  If he had, it may have spoken against his argument, even if just slightly, which is probably why he did not address it.  Instead, he explained away any sort of possibility for women to be understood in the New Testament corpus as Church leaders, so that there would not be a need to identify that women and men led the Church in a house-church structure.  In this way, by not entirely giving the full picture, Doriani’s book is misleading.

Women and Ministry: what the Bible teaches is a simple and fair treatment of the complementarian view, which actually argues for women to be utilized in the Church, but it is still inconsistent, inadequate and misleading in the end.  Doriani put together a well-written book on women and ministry, fairly demonstrating not only his own view but also opposing views while giving women some room to lead within the Church under the authority of male leaders.  However, he fell short by failing to address the cultural influences on Paul from the first century A.D., by failing to identify the perspectives from the first century A.D. on women and completely interact with them, and by failing to indicate that women did have leadership roles in house churches in the first century A.D.  Although it is not a perfect book, Women and Ministry is a good portrayal of the complementarian view and is valuable for understanding the overall picture of women in Church leadership.

Bibliography

Doriani, Dan.  2003.  Women and Ministry: what the Bible teaches.  Wheaton: Crossway Books.

About: this paper was submitted to Dr. David Nystrom at Fuller Theological Seminary during my first year for a class on Women, the Bible, and the Church.

If anyone would like to study about leadership and women from the first century A.D. through the fifth century A.D., coming to terms with the texts from that time period is absolutely essential. Patricia Cox Miller put together a book that gives such a student the opportunity to do just that, to become acquainted with the texts from the first through fifth centuries A.D. regarding leadership and women. Miller’s book, Women in Early Christianity: translations from Greek texts, is a collection of documents from the relevant time period that concern women from the male’s perspective, both positive and negative. Although Miller’s collection of texts concerning women from the first century A.D. and forward provides the reader with the ability to read about the various views concerning women and leadership, it fails to give any direction to the reader for dealing with the texts provided, and it does not provide any information to the crucial Jewish roots of Christianity regarding the Jewish perspective on women and women leadership from the same time period as the other texts. Before we proceed to critiquing this collection of texts concerning women, we must first grasp the heart of the content of the book by summarizing the sections of each chapter.

Miller’s book does not employ any texts written during the first through fifth centuries A.D. that were written by women, because such texts that were written by women during that era have not been preserved for us today in the same way that texts written by men have been preserved (2005, 1). Men wrote all the texts contained in Miller’s collection. These texts portray how men viewed women throughout the time period that we are looking at, what they expected of women, and what they thought was acceptable for a woman to do in terms of leadership. Miller notes in her introduction that the men that wrote about women during our selected time period were primarily interested in “women’s roles as teachers, prophets, martyrs, widows, deaconesses, ascetics, virgins, patrons, wives, mothers and sisters, and metaphors” (2005, 1). Therefore, such categories are what Miller has organized the texts into.

Miller does well to note that in the broader context of leadership within the first century A.D., women had a large role. Miller notes that it was not until the second century A.D. that the Church began to organize itself according to the male-oriented societies that it lived in (2005, 5). It was in this society that women were defined by their roles as wives and mothers while men were defined by their roles as public authorities and political figures (2005, 5). After she established that the Church did not become male-oriented like the culture around it until the second century A.D., Miller rightly shows that women did have a large leadership role in the first century A.D. with three main points. First, she points out that both women and men led house churches during the first century A.D. (2005, 6). Second, Miller points out that Paul supported women’s public prayers and prophecies so long as they were veiled (2005, 6). Third, she points out that there were women among Paul’s notable missionaries, even identifying one woman by the name of Junia as “foremost among the apostles” (2005, 6). However, in the end, the high view of women as ones who can lead lost out to the cultural view regarding women, so that as the Church began to structure itself, it patterned after its surrounding culture and the leadership roles of women heavily declined (2005, 7). Although women were no longer perceived as authoritative figures, they did have a role to fulfill in the Church. Women did have a part in the male-oriented and structured Church as widows and also as deaconesses (2005, 7).

Apart from leadership, Miller spends much of the space in the book regarding texts that focus on women and virtues that they ought to pursue, such as asceticism and virginity, and examples of women with such virtues. In particular, the virgin female captured the imagination of the Christian authors, since it was this kind of female that was believed to have the ability to overcome the perceived and understood disadvantages of the female gender (2005, 8). In addition to women, virtues and female exemplars, Miller also spends a good portion of space on marriage. She shows how the Christian understanding and practice of marriage had been primarily shaped by the surrounding culture of the Church, which in turn affected the role of women, for in the broader context of the Graeco-Roman culture that the Church resided in men functioned in the public sphere while women operated in the private (2005, 13). Finally, Miller addresses the various themes that women were used to depict. The texts concerning such images demonstrate how powerful the images of women were to the authors (2005, 14).

Miller’s choices for including the texts in this book concerning women within the topics of leadership, virtues, marriage and images combine to give the reader a good conglomerate of texts concerning women from the first through fifth centuries A.D. However, do these texts do anything else other than beg to be read? These texts do nothing more than beg to be read, because Miller neglects to provide any direction with what we can do with these texts, so all we can do is read them unless we know anything of anthropology, sociology or Graeco-Roman culture and history to make anything of the collection of texts.

The texts concerning leadership roles in the Church demonstrate that women were at one point in time in the history of the Church capable and authoritative leaders as teachers, prophets, widows and deaconesses in some fashion or another. However, the role of teacher became heretical for women to publicly partake in (2005, 17), as did the role of prophet (2005, 31). The arguments that do not allow such roles to be filled by women were based on poor logic. As is the general case of the majority of the provided texts, the argument against women in leadership is founded upon arguments from silence. In one of the an excerpts from Didascalia apostolorum, the argument against women leadership in the public sphere rests on the fact that Jesus himself did not specifically command that women should teach, and therefore women are not allowed to (2005, 31). Men used such arguments of silence to deny women leadership roles in the public domain. All women who held any authoritative public leadership role were declared to be heretics. The main text that Miller incorporates into her collection, which positively looks upon a woman as a good teacher, is written by a male regarding his sister (2005, 22-29). This text functions to show that women could be teachers in the family, but it says nothing of women being teachers in public. The only real role women could have in the end was that of a deaconess, and in that role women taught and served women, but never men, and furthermore, this role was challenged by some. Many more texts were included regarding the other topics, to which we will now address.

The texts that Miller included in her section regarding women and their behavior as either virgins or wives basically perceive women to be inherently shameful. A woman, for example, who exposes her throat while drinking from a cup is immodest (2005, 71). Again, she is shameful for using perfume (2005, 72-73). Because of the perception that women were shameful beings, the virtue of virginity and the virtue of chastity were perceived as the way by which women can overcome their shamefulness, and it was only the chaste virgin that would have some sort of role in the Church (2005, 192). However, John Chrysostom did have good perceptions of marriage as well as the ascetic life, so asceticism was not the only lifestyle aspired to (2005, 268-76). The thoughts and ideas regarding these virtues, chastity and virginity, were exemplified in several different stories of heroines and biographies of women, who become models that men directed women to for guidance on how to live.

Miller focuses on the use of metaphorical images of women to make particular theological points at the end of the book. The first theological image portrayed with a woman is the metaphorical depiction of Eve who represented disobedience (2005, 289). However, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was understood by some to be the reversal of Eve, and was thus the second theological image portrayed with a woman in the book (2005, 289). Furthermore, feminine imagery is used to depict God, the Church and even virtues (2005, 307).

The texts that Miller compiled into this book help give the reader a sense of the male-minded perspective regarding women from the first through fifth centuries A.D., but the book does not do anything more than that. We know from reading this text that women were held in much less esteem than men, except in family situations where siblings or mothers are looked upon with much adoration. We know from reading this text that women were thought to be rulers of the private domain only and never the public, so that teaching publicly became problematic for women. Yet, we do know that women did serve a role in the Church as deaconesses, and some, whether heretical or not, did teach. As a whole, however, this book does not offer anything else than that, because the book must have been designed for those who have had Graeco-Roman cultural-historical academic training. Without this particular background, the book is nothing more than a collection of texts that do not inspire any substantial conclusions for the reader regarding women in ministry, but it does give the essential sources and background texts that scholars reference when making such conclusions.

The book failed to include any texts regarding women from a Jewish, rabbinic background. Nothing from the Mishnah or Gemara was included. No comments from rabbis were given. The fact is that if we are to understand women in early Christianity, we must understand first where Christianity comes from, which is Judaism. Christians during our selected time period were widely influenced by Judaism. It is also safe to say that at least in part the Jews from the area that we now label as Palestine were influenced by the Roman culture that invaded them. Therefore, if we are to understand Christianity, we have to come to an understanding of both Roman culture of that time and Judaism, since they together form the basis of how Christians during that time period thought and understood how things should operate, including leadership roles and women within the Church. This book only provides one step of several to understanding women in early Christianity, because it neglects to give Jewish texts or Roman cultural background while only giving Greek texts.

Women in Early Christianity: translations from Greek texts does well to provide how the early Church viewed women both publicly and privately throughout the first through fifth centuries A.D. However, it failed to give any sense of direction for understanding women in early Christianity and what impact that should have on us today. What are we to make of these texts? Miller does not say. On top of that, only Greek texts are provided. Nothing representing the Jewish influences was in the book, which is sad, because we cannot forget that Jesus and Paul were Jews who were raised and taught as Jews, so the Jewish understanding regarding women is necessary for understanding how the early Christians perceived them. Despite the lack of direction for making use of the material provided and the absence of documents concerning the Jewish perspective, the book provides good information for understanding the various views regarding women and leadership that were held from the first century A.D. and forward. At the very least, we can leave the text with some indication of the views of the early Church regarding women throughout the selected period in history, which serves to give us a start to the subject of women in early Christianity and beginning a search for coming to some conclusions regarding this subject.

Bibliography

Miller, Patricia. 2005. Women In Early Christianity: translations from Greek texts.

Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. Libby Vincent at Fuller Theological Seminary during my first year for a class in systematic theology.

Introduction

What will hell be like? That question is a tough one to answer, but when we look at Scripture we can indeed answer it. However, answers vary even though they are claimed to be based on sound biblical interpretation. But which one is correct? Although there are several different interpretations or views regarding what hell will be like, our own examination of Scripture will inform us if the information given by one view or another is erroneous or correct. What will hell be like? Robert A. Peterson thinks he knows what it will be like. He says it will be eternal punishment. In his book, Hell On Trial: the case for eternal punishment, Peterson looks at several areas of theology to indicate that hell will be eternal punishment, and he spends much space looking at what the Bible has to say regarding what hell will be like.

In observing the Old Testament portion of the Bible, Peterson looks at three sections. First, he looks at several judgment passages that are found in the Old Testament, which are as follows: the Deluge, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues of Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea, and the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities of Israel.¹ Second, he examines what the Old Testament has to say about Sheol.² Third, he explores Isaiah 66:22-4 and Daniel 12:1-2.³ After looking at these three sections of the Old Testament, Peterson looks at the New Testament to determine what it has to say regarding hell, and he starts with Jesus.

Peterson looks at Jesus and what he said regarding what hell will be like. In order of the canonical books, he looks at the content of the four gospels. He explores several texts in Matthew (5:21-2, 27-30; 7:23; 8:11-2; 10:28; 13:30, 40-3, 49-50; 18:6-9; 23:15, 33; 24:51; 25:30, 41, 46),⁴ and several passages in Mark (1:24; 3:11; 5:7; 9:42-8), Luke (16:19-31) and John (3:16-21, 36; 5:28-29; 8:21, 24).⁵ Peterson does not stop at the end of the canonical gospels, for he also treats several passages from different epistles. He examines Romans 2:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, Hebrews 6:1-3, Jude 7 and 13, and Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10, 14-15; 21:8; 22:15.⁶ Of all these texts, Peterson chose ten to focus on in his treatment of the traditional view in Two Views of Hell, a book that debates the traditional (eternal torment) and conditional (annihilation) views of hell.

Peterson resorts to a fair exegetical treatment of his ten chosen Scripture passages in Two Views of Hell. He specifically looks at Isaiah 66:22-24 and Daniel 12:1-2, demonstrating that the Old Testament taught that there would be everlasting contempt for all the wicked ones.⁷ He looks at Matthew 18:6-9, Revelation 14:9-11, and Revelation 20:10, 14-15, which he argues that these texts teach eternal torment.⁸ Peterson examines Matthew 25:31-46, a text that he claims reveals eternal condemnation.⁹ He explores Mark 9:42-48 and determines that it teaches eternal suffering.¹⁰ He looks at 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and says it proclaims eternal destruction.¹¹ Peterson examines Jude 7, which he claims that it teaches eternal punishment.¹² He also looks at Jude 13 and argues that it teaches eternal darkness.¹³ Of these ten passages, Peterson consistently focuses on the eternal element of each of them, which is characteristic of the traditional view since it is based on the never ending punishment of the wicked.

Granted that Peterson has written extensively on this topic and on each of these passages, it is necessary to keep his exegesis in check. Therefore, it is only right that we should perform our own exegesis of these texts so that we can clearly determine if what Peterson has written is correct or erroneous. If it is correct, then we can place confidence in Peterson and the traditional view. If it is not, then we might still be able to place confidence in the traditional view, but it would be hard to place any in Peterson. We will conduct our own exegesis of five of the ten aforementioned passages from Two Views of Hell. After having performed our own exegesis, we will briefly compare and contrast the two exegetical studies and then come to a conclusion regarding the reliability of Peterson and the traditional view of hell. To the following passages we now turn: Matthew 18:6-9; Matthew 25:31-46; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10; Revelation 14:9-11; and Revelation 20:10-15.

Exegesis of Five Passages

Matthew 18:6-9

Matthew 18:6-9 is translated as follows:

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to stumble, it would be better for him should a donkey’s millstone be hung around his neck and he be thrown into the depths of the sea and drowned. Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks. For it is necessary that stumbling blocks come but woe to the person through whom they come. But if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter into life crippled or lame than to be thrown into eternal fire having two hands or two feet. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pick it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter into life with one eye than to be thrown into the hell of fire having two eyes.¹⁴

The beginning of this passage concerns disciples, not literal children.¹⁵ Jesus, in talking of his followers, warns against causing others to stumble in their faith. In other words, the issue being discussed concerns disciples being caused to lose their faith, whether by someone else or all by one’s own self.¹⁶ Jesus is expressing a concern for the avoidance of offense that would cause someone to lose faith.¹⁷ He is concerned against actions and behavior that act against the spiritual well being of another person.¹⁸ We should bear in mind that Jesus expects his disciples to do everything in their power to keep themselves from stumbling. We should also bear in mind that Jesus considers it a dire situation and act for someone to cause another to stumble. It is within these two elements that we must understand Jesus’ statements regarding hell.

As we pay special attention to vv. 8 and 9, we should also be aware of a few other syntactical and vocabulary issues in this passage. In v. 6 we have a comparison being made by Jesus. He says that it would be better for a person who makes one of his disciples to stumble to be drowned in the deep sea by having a large object hung on his neck and being cast into the sea. The comparison clearly indicates that the actual judgment will be something much worse. However, Jesus does not clarify what the true judgment will entail; he leaves his listeners with the dreadful picture of the drowned person and adds nothing more to the future judgment.¹⁹ At any rate, this picture expects a dire punishment for something quite scandalous. The Greek word for “to stumble” (v. 6) is skandalizein. Some have understood the use of this word in this text as the serious causing of someone to fall into sin, or perhaps even to lose their faith in Jesus and the gospel; it is not a simple personal offense.²⁰ This verb entails much more than a personal offense as it “speaks of setting off the bait stick of a trap and thus ensnaring.”²¹ Commentators either say that the stumbling mentioned is either in reference to disciples sinning or losing faith. In either case, the well being of the disciple is at stake, because someone is actively acting against his or her interest when causing someone to stumble.²² This picture demonstrates the severity for causing someone to stumble; the ramifications of such an action are dire.

Jesus uses picturesque hyperbole in the verses to follow, which demonstrates a necessity for a desire towards drastic action in order to overcome stumbling blocks.²³ Jesus commands that his disciples cut off their hand or foot and throw it away if it causes them to stumble. He actually expects that their hands and feet will in fact cause them to stumble.²⁴ Since he expects that they will stumble by use of their appendages, it is odd that he would command them to cut them off and throw them away. The same is true of his conditional statement regarding the eye. He expects it to be true for his disciples to stumble by use of the eye, and it is equally as odd as in the earlier conditional statement for him to command that his disciples pluck out their eyes and throw them away. The mixture of the first class condition with the harsh imperatives serves as a clear indication that we are dealing with hyperbole. In telling his disciples to cut off their hands and feet or pluck out their eyes and throw them away, Jesus “is using picturesque language to make clear that he looks for a complete and thorough repudiation of evil. . . . [And] his followers should take decisive action to be rid of sin.”²⁵ However, we must ask ourselves why Jesus would expect such a drastic measure. The answer is to keep oneself from reaping harsh punishment.

Jesus alludes to the kind of punishment that will be given to the one who does not guard against stumbling. He talks of eternal fire and hell of fire in reference to that one’s punishment. The phrase “eternal fire” in v. 8 is important in two ways. One, “eternal” denotes a period without end.²⁶ This adjective modifies “fire,” which indicates that it is to be understood as being without end. Two, “fire” is a reference to the substance with which God will punish sinners.²⁷ This language depicts judgment and punishment. When we combine “fire” with “eternal” we end up with a punishment without end, “eternal fire.” This phrase is “used metaphorically in an expression that brings out the painfulness of the lost in their eternal lostness.”²⁸ The phrase “hell of fire” in v. 9 is somewhat confusing. However, “of fire” in Greek is a genitive of content, which means that it identifies the content of the noun it belongs to. In this case, hell is said to contain fire. The idea of fire as God’s punishment of sinners is also present in this phrase. The two phrases combine to show a small picture of what hell will be like. Hell will involve some form of punishment. This punishment will take place in hell, and it will never end.²⁹ It is no wonder that Jesus would resort to commanding such drastic measures, because “given how high the stakes are, any sacrifice is worth making to keep oneself back from a life of sin.”³⁰

Jesus took stumbling very seriously. He charged the person who actively tries to cause another to stumble with a serious offense and he charged his disciples to do everything that they possibly could to actively keep themselves from stumbling. The former he proclaims harsh punishment on; the latter he warns against harsh punishment. It is the latter punishment mentioned that gives us any sort of clarity towards what hell will be like, while the former is left open to one’s imagination. The fundamental idea of punishment in the latter is it will take place in hell and it will be without end. The text does not indicate anything further regarding what hell will be like.

Matthew 25:31-46

Matthew 25:31-46 is translated as follows:

But whenever the Son of Man might come in his glory and the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne; and all the nations will be gathered together before him, and he will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to the ones on his right, “Come here blessed ones by my Father, receive your inheritance the kingdom having been prepared from the laying of the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me a drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I was naked and you put clothes on me, I was weak and you tended to me, I was in prison and you came to me.” Then the righteous ones will answer him by saying, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you or thirsty and give you a drink? And when did we see you as a stranger and invite you in, or naked and put clothes on you? And when did we see you weak or in prison and we came to you?” And the king having been answered will say to them, “Truly I say to you, whatever you did to one of the least of these brothers of mine you did to me.” Then he will say to the ones on his left, “Go away from me accursed ones into the eternal fire the one having been provided for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you did not give me something to eat, I was thirsty and you did not give me a drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I was naked and you did not put clothes on me, I was weak and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they will say, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or weak or in prison and did not serve you?” Then he will answer them saying, “Truly I say to you, whatever you did not do to one of the least of these, neither did you do to me.” And these ones will depart to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

This long passage is a story told by Jesus concerning the Judgment Day to come at the end of this age. There are two things that we should note regarding the story. First, the story’s details must be taken as “revealing images rather than literal descriptions.”³¹ We need to bear in mind that the story is apocalyptic in nature and is not to be taken as an actual account of what will precisely happen. Second, this story “deals with the evidence on which people will be judged, not the cause of salvation or damnation.”³² This story emphasizes judgment; it is not concerned about how one is saved or damned, but rather it is concerned about what deeds a person has done, which is implicitly connected to one’s condition of either being saved or damned. Bearing these two notes in mind, we can now set out to study this passage.

Jesus makes it clear that judgment is the topic when he brings the Son of Man language into the story, for the coming of the Son of Man indicates judgment.³³ In this story, Jesus brings judgment for the righteous and the wicked. He judges that the righteous will go to eternal life while the wicked go to eternal punishment. Both judgments are eternal—without end—so that both will experience the retribution for their deeds in the present life forever and ever. The righteous ones will receive the kingdom that was prepared for them since before the universe was created (v. 34). However, the wicked will enter the eternal fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels.³⁴ It is in the eternal fire that the wicked will be punished forever. They will receive “eternal punishment” in the eternal fire. “Eternal” means, “without end.” The righteous will have life without end. Similarly, the wicked will have punishment without end. The syntax demands this understanding. The two phrases, “eternal punishment” and “eternal life” are joined by the conjunction, kai. This conjunction informs the equality of the attributes of the two nouns that it joins together. In this instance, the attribute of time is the same. We are certain that the righteous will experience life without end in the kingdom prepared beforehand. Because kai ties “life” and “punishment” together, and especially because both of these nouns are modified by the exact same adjective, we have no choice but to view “eternal” in the same way for both instances. Therefore, the punishment of the wicked will also be without end in the same way that life will be for the righteous. Note also that this punishment is of a particular kind. It is one that denotes transcendent retribution.³⁵ God will repay the wicked for their deeds. Furthermore, Jesus is speaking of a punishment without end,³⁶ but it is not clear how that punishment will be carried out.

This story proclaims judgment for the righteous and the wicked. The righteous will be given eternal life, but the wicked eternal punishment in eternal fire—the same fire that was made for the devil and his angels. This text tells us that hell will involve a never ending punishment. However, it does not describe the punishment in any further detail. Thus far we have seen two texts that indicate hell will involve eternal punishment of the wicked. Will it involve anything else?

2 Thessalonians 1:5-10

2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 is translated as follows:

An indication of the righteous judgment of God for us to be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, on behalf of which you also suffer, since it is just for God to repay persecution to the ones who persecute you and relief to you who are persecuted with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his mighty angels in a flaming fire, giving retribution to the ones who did not know God and obey the good news of our Lord Jesus, any of those will pay a penalty of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and away from the glory of his strength when he comes to be glorified in his saints and to be marveled at in all the ones who believe, for our testimony was believed by you, on that day.

This passage takes place in the midst of a discussion on suffering. The verse that we will pay particular attention to is v. 8, but we have to understand it within the context of suffering and vv. 5-10. What is clear from this passage is suffering will be avenged. God will repay those who inflict others (v. 6). God is just. He will return persecution for those who persecute, and rest for those who are persecuted (vv. 6-7). The author of 2 Thessalonians makes a connection between those who persecute and those who either do not know God or did not obey the gospel of Jesus Christ. Such ones will be judged with punishment, which is understood by the phrase “in a flaming fire,” which is tied to the revelation of the Lord Jesus. The use of fire language denotes punishment of divine judgment.³⁷ Since the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ will usher in a time of judgment, the context indicates that the author of 2 Thessalonians is writing about the Day of Judgment.³⁸ We must bear in mind that what we see here is apocalyptic language, which ought not to be taken literally, and that “Paul seeks to portray the frightening punishment awaiting those outside the community and especially the enemies of the community.”³⁹ With this view in mind, we can look at four important features of this text.

First, rest is promised to those that are afflicted. “Rest” denotes “relief from something onerous or troublesome.”⁴⁰ Furthermore, in itself it is “the lifting of the pressure caused by persecution [sic], but it is accompanied by the positive blessing of participation in God’s ‘own kingdom and glory’ (1 Thess. 2:12).”⁴¹ At the time of the revelation of the Lord, the time when Jesus will come and bring judgment, God will give relief from the afflictions of the oppressors to the oppressed. However, the oppressors will themselves be oppressed by God.

Two, Christ will bring punishment on the ones who both do not know God and obey the gospel at his revelation. “Punishment” denotes “penalty inflicted on wrongdoers.”⁴² The ones who did not know and obey the gospel are wrongdoers deserving of a penalty. These ones, those not knowing God and obeying the gospel, are due for punishment.

Three, the aforementioned wrongdoers will pay a penalty. “Penalty” denotes “punishment meted out as legal penalty.”⁴³ These ones will be judged and they will be punished for their actions. But how will they be judged? What kind of penalty will they pay? The answer is forthcoming.

Fourth, such wrongdoers will pay a penalty of eternal destruction. “Eternal” means “without end,” and it modifies “destruction.” The noun, “destruction,” is difficult to determine how it ought to be translated. It does mean “a state of destruction.”⁴⁴ However, it can be in reference to physical destruction or a metaphorical one.⁴⁵ The discussion on the use of this word and its translation into English is written best in the following words:

If it were literal here it would imply the annihilation of the enemies of God. On the other hand it may have a more metaphorical signification. The problem is made more difficult by the qualifying adjective [aiônios]. It can mean either something without end or something that is final or ultimate. The latter would accord with the sense of annihilation, while the former would fit with the idea of destruction in the metaphorical sense of punishment. As there is no evidence in Paul (or the rest of the NT for that matter) for a concept of final annihilation of the godless, the expression ‘eternal destruction’ should probably be taken in a metaphorical manner as indicating the severity of the punishment awaiting the enemies of God . . .⁴⁶

The “eternal destruction” mentioned is metaphorical. The metaphorical language fits the apocalyptic style, which we have noted needs to be taken in a non-literal way. Given that v. 8 contains metaphorical language (i.e., flaming fire) and because it points towards a social exclusion contrasted to the state of the readers that deserves divine retribution,⁴⁷ it makes sense that we should understand “eternal destruction” as figurative, not literal. Those wrongdoers that did not know God and did not obey the gospel must face a severe punishment, for they have excluded themselves from the salvation of Jesus Christ.

This passage identifies that hell will involve punishment for the wicked. We still do not know what kind of punishment they will receive while in hell. Yet, we do know that the punishment—destruction—will last forever. Considering that the wicked will pay their penalty “away from the presence of the Lord,” hell will also entail being out of the presence of Jesus Christ. Apart from these things, the text is silent. Except that it will involve a severe punishment that will have no end, we still do not know much about what hell will be like.

Revelation 14:9-11

Revelation 14:9-11 is translated as follows:

And another angel, a third one, followed them saying in a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and this image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, then they will drink from the wine of the wrath of God being poured out undiluted in the cup of his anger and they will be tormented with fire and sulfur before the holy angels and before the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises up forever and ever and they do not have rest day and night the ones worshiping the beast and his image and if anyone receives the mark of his name.

This passage contains some additional information that we have not yet seen concerning hell. It is similar to the others in that it also uses fire language to indicate judgment.⁴⁸ It too has an element of punishment without end just as the other texts do. Although this text shares some similarities with the ones we have already looked at, it does shed some new light on what hell will be like.

This passage reveals that hell will involve God’s wrath. The wicked ones “will become drunk with God’s wine, the effect of which will not be temporary. God’s wine will make the nations submissive to his judicial will forever . . .”⁴⁹ Part of God’s judicial will for the wicked is torment. Those who worship the beast and his image and receive a mark on their foreheads or hands will be tormented in fire and sulfur in the presence of Jesus and the angels. Given the context of judgment, the word for “they will be tormented” in Greek means “to subject to severe distress.”⁵⁰ What will they be tormented with? They will be tormented with fire and sulfur. Fire is indicative of punishment; however, sulfur is indicative of suffering. Suffering is emphasized in this text—a new feature in our research to what hell will entail—“when [‘sulfur’] is added to the image . . .”⁵¹ The torment of the unbelievers is a conscious one that attacks the spirit and psyche, which is not an uncommon feature for Revelation as a whole in reference to trials that precede the Day of Judgment or are part of it.⁵² The result of the torment, the smoke, is a mixed metaphor. The smoke is “figurative of an enduring memorial of God’s punishment involving a real, ongoing, eternal and [sic] conscious torment. . . . The genitive [tou basanismou] does not express the source of the smoke (‘the smoke arising from [their] torment’; brackets in the original) but association or reference: ‘the memorial to [their] torment’” (Brackets in the original).⁵³ Furthermore, the smoke ascending forever and ever is a reminder for past and ongoing judgment, which is seen in the following words:

It is not the smoke of a completed destruction, but ‘smoke of their torment.’ The nature of the torment is explained in the second part of v. 11 [sic]: it is not annihilation but lack of rest. Indeed, annihilation would be a kind of rest or relief from the excruciating torment of the brief final judgment. Therefore, the smoke is metaphorical of a continued reminder of the ongoing torment of restlessness, which endures for eternity.⁵⁴

This passage tells us three important things about what hell will be like in the context of the final judgment, and some of which are new pieces of information. One, hell will involve God’s wrath. Two, hell will involve torment. And three, the torment will never end. Except for these three important things, the text does not tell us anything else about what hell will be like.

Revelation 20:10-15

Revelation 20:10-15 is translated as follows:

And the devil the one who deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and sulfur where also the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it, of whom the earth and the heaven fled away from his presence, but no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the large and the small, standing before the throne. And scrolls were opened, then another scroll was opened, which is the scroll of life, and they judged the dead from what was written in the scrolls regarding their works. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and they were judged last according to their works. Then death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone is not found written in the scroll of life, he will be cast into the lake of fire.

This passage also uses fire language, which indicates judgment is a key theme in it. This passage notes the same things as the other four passages, except that it proclaims that the devil, the beast and the false prophet are all going to be thrown into the lake of fire to be tormented for all eternity. In addition, it also proclaims that everyone will be judged according to their deeds, which are written in the scrolls, and everyone will be judged according to the scroll of life. This context of judgment is important to note for interpreting this text.

Within the context of judgment, the devil is cast into the lake of fire along with the beast and the false prophet to be tormented day and night forever and ever. To be sure, the lake of fire certainly is not a literal place, but rather it is spiritual.⁵⁵ It is the second death, which “is separation forever from God’s presence in the ‘city’ of God.”⁵⁶ “To be tormented” is “to be subjected to severe distress.”⁵⁷ What kind of torment are we talking about? The kind of torment referenced is “conscious suffering, especially spiritual and psychological suffering. . . . that this is a real, ongoing suffering for those represented by the images of ‘beast and false prophet’ is apparent, since the same expression of eternal punishment applies to the individual devil in this verse and since virtually the same expression is applied to the individual followers of the beast in 14:10-11” (Italics in the original).⁵⁸ The devil, the beast and the false prophet will be subjected to severe distress, and this will happen for all eternity. The preposition, eis, is an extension in time that indicates duration,⁵⁹ so that “forever and ever” refers to a time that has no end.⁶⁰ Not only will the devil, beast and false prophet be judged at the Day of Judgment, but so also will everyone who has ever lived. No one can hide from the Judge. Everyone is subject to judgment. All will be judged according to their works. “Judge” denotes “a judgment based on taking various factors into account.”⁶¹ Everyone’s deeds will be taken into account when they come before the Judge. However, no one’s deeds will be good enough to save one’s self from the wrath of God. What counts is whether or not one’s name is written in the scroll of life. If it is not, then that person will be cast into the lake of fire. Since eternal torment awaits the devil, beast and the false prophet in the lake of fire, it also awaits anyone whose name is not found in the scroll of life. Since we are not viewing the lake of fire as a literal location, we do not take it to mean that it indicates annihilation, but rather eternal torment.⁶² Indeed, “It appears that our author believes in eternal punishment rather than annihilation of the wicked in view of Rev. 14:10-11 [sic]” (Brackets in original).⁶³

This passage indicates that hell will involve eternal torment. This torment will be of such a kind that it will vex the spirit relentlessly. Hell will also involve the devil, the beast and the false prophet being tormented along with all those who did not have their name written in the scroll of life.

Conclusion

The exegesis of Matthew 18:6-9, Matthew 25:31-46, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, Revelation 14:9-11, and Revelation 20:10-15 reveal several things about what hell will be like. Much of the information provided by these texts is repetitive, but they all bring something new to the argument. Of these five texts, there are at least four common themes, which are as follows: one, hell is a place; two, hell is eternal; three, hell will involve eternal punishment; and four, hell will include the wicked. These texts also reveal that hell will be a place of oppression and destruction for the wicked (2 Thess. 1:5-10), and it will torment its inhabitants by not giving rest to them (Rev. 14:9-11). Hell was designed for the devil and his associates, but all those who did not have their name written in the scroll of life will be sent to hell to join the devil (Matt. 25:31-46; Rev. 20:10-15). Whatever hell may be like, it will certainly not be pleasant, which is why Jesus emphasizes that his disciples should do everything that they can to avoid it by taking drastic measures in this life (Matt. 18:6-9).

The exegesis that we have conducted revealed that the five passages proclaim that hell will involve eternal punishment. We agree exegetically with the general understanding of these texts that Peterson presents in Two Views of Hell and Hell on Trial. In his treatment on Matthew 18:6-9, Peterson notes that Jesus is referring to eternal destinies and his disciples.⁶⁴ Peterson also demonstrates that Jesus uses picturesque language for the drowning of a person to leave the listener or reader with a horrific image to show the severity of one who causes another to stumble.⁶⁵ We also agree with Peterson’s comment that when speaking of cutting off appendages Jesus “means that his hearers should take drastic action rather than sin and face the horrors of hell.”⁶⁶ Although we differ in the translation of skandalizein (Peterson translates it as “to sin” while we translate it “to stumble”), he does maintain the force of the hyperbole as we do. However, Peterson talks of “the torments of hell” in relation to “eternal fire.”⁶⁷ At this point we disagree. This text makes no mention of torment. If we are to be true to the text and allow it to speak for its self, we have to recognize that the text reveals eternal punishment and not necessarily torment. However, despite this difference, Peterson still demonstrates that the text does indicate eternal punishment. The only problem is he was a little irresponsible with his choice of words. This particular text teaches eternal punishment, not torment.

In his treatment of Matthew 25:31-46, Peterson notes Jesus is talking about the end times, a time of judgment.⁶⁸ He rightly considers that the symmetrical design of the passage to indicate that the two destinies mentioned will be everlasting.⁶⁹ However, Peterson does not refer to the grammar to prove his point, but rather, to a linguistic structure that may or may not be true. Although it is quite possible that what he says is true, referring to the grammar would have been a stronger basis for supporting his claim, a claim that is truly navoidable when examining the grammar in Greek, which we have done. Furthermore, Peterson, comparing Scripture with Scripture, identifies that the accursed ones will suffer the same fate as the devil when he considers Revelation 20:10.⁷⁰ Peterson makes a good connection between these two passages of Scripture, and we accept his hermeneutical practice of comparing Scripture with Scripture.

In his treatment of 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, Peterson notes that Paul is describing judgment for oppressors, the ones who are ignorant of God and do not obey the Lord’s gospel.⁷¹ Peterson does well to note that the punishment language of destruction could mean annihilation, but that when we consider the word for “destruction” in terms of its adjective, “eternal,” or as Peterson has it, “everlasting,” it must mean a destruction that will not end.⁷² We agree with Peterson, and we applaud him for the way that he notes the language could mean annihilation but that with all things considered it does not, but rather, it means a state of destruction that has no end.

In his treatment of Revelation 14:9-11, Peterson rightly notes that the Last Judgment is in view.⁷³ He notes that the language of Revelation 14:9-11 points towards “the terror of falling into the hands of the living God.”⁷⁴ He does well to note that the horrific image of fire is not to be literally understood,⁷⁵ which we determined to be true as well. Peterson also correctly notes that the torment mentioned will be endless.⁷⁶ Our exegesis is very close to, if not the same as, Peterson’s regarding this passage.

In his treatment of Revelation 20:10-15, Peterson does well to show that unsaved humans suffer the same fate as the devil, the beast and the false prophet in the lake of fire.⁷⁷ The devil will be eternally tormented in the lake of fire, and Peterson rightly points out that the same fate awaits the unsaved.⁷⁸ Peterson’s hermeneutics are very good, and we agree with what he has to say regarding this passage.

Overall, Peterson’s exegesis is sound and valid. Much of what we discovered in our own exegesis was also demonstrated in Peterson’s. Our exegesis of the same passages demonstrates that Peterson is not erroneous. His exegesis is trustworthy. Therefore, we can place confidence both in Peterson and the traditional view. The traditional view is present in our own exegesis as well as Peterson’s; it merits our confidence because of it is founded on sound exegesis.

In sum, the traditional view—eternal punishment—is a biblically sound position in accord with what we have studied. Peterson’s argument for the traditional view is good, and it was confirmed by our own exegesis. We can confidently say both by Peterson and ourselves teach eternal punishment. This exegetical comparison has determined that Peterson points us in the right direction; we can be confident in what he teaches because his exegesis is sound. Therefore, we have a good start to this study, but the research should not stop here. More Scripture should be studied; more research conducted; more exegesis performed. However, at this point in our research, we can say that the Bible points towards the traditional view of hell, a view that affirms that hell will entail eternal punishment.

Bibliography

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3^rd edition (BDAG). Revised and edited by Frederick Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Beale, G. K. The Book of Revleation: a commentary on the Greek text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and Donald Hagner. Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Carlisle, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. and Paternoster Press, 1999.

Bruce, F. F. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Vol. 45 of Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by David Hubbard, Glenn Barker and Ralph Martin. Waco: Word Books, 1982.

Fudge, Edward, and Robert Peterson. Two Views of Hell: a biblical & theological dialogue. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Hagner, Donald. Matthew 14-28. Vol. 33b of Word Biblical Commentary Series edited by Bruce Metzger, Ralph Martin and Lynn Losie. Dallas: Word Books, 1995.

Keener, Craig. Revelation. NIV Application Commentary. Edited by Terry Mucket, Eugene Peterson, Scot McKnight, Marianne Thompson, Klyne Snodgrass, Stanley Gundry, Jack Kuhatschek and Verlyn Verbrugge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Edited by D.A. Carson. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Leicester, England: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. and Apollos, 1992.

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and Donald Hagner. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Bletchley, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. and Paternoster Press, 2005.

Peterson, Robert. Hell on Trial: the case for eternal punishment. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1995.

Wanamaker. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. New International Greek Testament Commentary.

Witherington, Ben. Revelation. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Edited by Ben Witherington. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. Libby Vincent at Fuller Theological Seminary during my first year for a class in systematic theology.

Introduction

In learning about hell, Two Views of Hell: a biblical and theological dialogue, co-authored by Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, is quite helpful, because it examines the biblical corpus to determine how we should understand hell. The two evangelical positions presented in the book wrestle with the key biblical texts that deal with hell, therefore giving the reader a solid biblical foundation for understanding hell in addition to good summaries of the two evangelical positions. This book summarizes two views of hell in debate form. The first view, presented by Fudge, is the conditional or annihilation view, which maintains that God will cause all those who are not saved to cease to exist, which I disagree with. Peterson argued for the second view, the traditional view that I affirm, which asserts that God will eternally torture the unsaved. Two Views of Hell posits that there is an evangelical controversy on the understanding of hell, so that, although the authors argued for the superiority of their own positions, it demonstrates that the evidence for this controversy is mixed. While conditionalists have logical reasoning and traditionalists have sound lexical and grammatical analysis as their strengths, the reader has to make a decision based on which side has the most conclusive evidence, since neither side is completely indisputable. Let us now turn to the two positions and examine them and determine which one was not only more convincing but also which one is the best argument.

Two Views of Hell

The Conditional View

The conditional view has a lot going for it. It is logical, sensible, and reasonable. It makes sense that God, since he is a loving God, would not necessarily desire for the people he created but are not saved to endure eternal torture. Therefore, it is only logical that God would annihilate them for love’s sake. It is sensible because it gives just results. God is a just God. Therefore, he cannot torment someone for all eternity, since that someone only missed the mark for a short time. Sure, he can torture them to a just degree, but then he will bring them to utter destruction, both out of love and justice. It is reasonable that God would annihilate those who are not saved, because it is based on Scripture, especially those passages that talk of death and destruction awaiting those who are not saved. Although the conditional view has good logic and reasoning, it suffers from poor hermeneutics and unsound arguments.

The conditional view suffers due to two major flaws—eisogesis and unsound reasoning. These eisogetical interpretations and unsound arguments can be seen in several areas of Fudge’s presentation, including, but not limited to, his treatment of the lake of fire in Revelation 20:13-15, “quench the fire” in Isaiah 1:27-28, 30-31, the similes in Psalm 1, “eternal contempt” in Daniel 12:1-2, Judith and Isaiah, the end of weeping, “eternal”, the cross, Hebrews 6:7-8, and Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4. Errors like these prevent me from affirming his position. We will now examine the following flaws: “quench the fire” in Isaiah 1:27-28, 30-31; Judith, Isaiah, and Tartarus; and “eternal.”

Fudge made a mistake in saying that the unquenchable fire mentioned in Isaiah 1:27-28, 30-31 is indicative of total destruction. He notes that passages like Isaiah 34:10-22, Ezekiel 20:47-48, Amos 5:6 and Matthew 3:12 use unquenchable fire to signify an un-extinguishable fire that “consumes until nothing is left.” Although that may be true in other passages, it is not necessarily the case here in Isaiah 1:27-28, 30-31. In fact, there is no linguistic evidence present in this passage to indicate what Fudge argues for. Indeed, he is importing foreign information into this passage. He is not performing exegesis, but rather, eisogesis, which means that he is making the text fit his understanding rather than make his understanding fit the text. Furthermore, the words of Isaiah indicate precisely the opposite of what Fudge argues—a non-stop, un-extinguishable or eternal burning.

Another mistake Fudge makes is his inconsistent remarks on how Greek philosophy has influenced our perception on hell. Fudge rightly notes that much of the language and thought of immortality comes from Greek philosophy. He specifically notes its involvement in Judith 16:17, a Jewish apocryphal book, which resembles Isaiah 66:24. He says that Isaiah’s mention of unburied corpses was tied to shameful destruction and has no understanding of everlasting pain. He argues further that Judith added the Greek philosophical understanding in natural immortality and imported it into the text of Isaiah 66:24 and combined them to form a new whole. Fudge negatively critiques the Judith text—as well as several of the greatest leaders in the history of the church—for being culturally influenced and maintaining eternal torment. However, he fails to note the cultural influence that is involved in 2 Peter 2:4. Tartarus is mentioned as a place reserved for the judgment of the rebellious angels in this passage. Fudge rightly notes that Tartarus is a place mentioned in the Odyssey, and it was “the place where the Titans were chained for endless punishment.” Fudge essentially entirely dismisses the importance of Tartarus, saying that it is mentioned in reference to angels and not to humans and therefore has no bearing on the discussion. But it is of utmost importance.

The use of Tartarus by Peter demonstrates cultural influence or syncretism. Either way, something that was not biblical became biblical, whether because Peter decided to make it as such (syncretism—taking a part from another religion and making it part of one’s own) or he was convinced that it was a true place (cultural influence—being influenced in such a way that cultural values, myths, etc. become truth to a person). Fudge does not recognize these options here. As a result, he does not take cultural influence or syncretism seriously, which he should if he is going to be consistent. On the one hand, he criticizes Judith for being culturally influenced; on the other hand, he has nothing to say about Peter being culturally influenced, even if only as a possibility. Fudge has undoubtedly presented an unsound argument. His view is unsound because it is inconsistent; one cannot have a sound argument if it is inconsistent.

A mistake that Fudge also makes is his use of linguistics. For example, when speaking of present choices having eternal consequences, Fudge examines the use of “eternal” in the New Testament. Of all the times it is used, he only focuses on a handful of them. Of that handful, Fudge looks at how it is used in one instance—Mark 3:29—to describe sin. He takes the words “eternal sin” to demonstrate that “eternal” is indicative of the outcome or result, not the duration of the sin. Then, Fudge takes this understanding of “eternal” and forces it upon every instance of the word in the New Testament, generally speaking. His linguistic reasoning is unsound. A word may be used in one particular way at a given moment, but it does not necessarily have to be used in that same way everywhere else that it may occur. This problem is one of the major features to Peterson’s rebuttal. Fudge’s evidence here suffers from unsound reasoning.

A final mistake made by Fudge, which is rightly highlighted by Peterson in his rebuttal, is in his treatment of Revelation 20:10-15. Peterson points out that Fudge argues that this passage identifies annihilation for all who are not saved. Peterson demonstrates the problems with Fudge’s treatment. First, “Fudge fails to mention the devil, who, along with the beast and the false prophet, is cast into the lake of fire.” In commenting on this failure, Peterson shows that Fudge is being inconsistent. Fudge claims that the beast and the false prophet are not real people, so their punishment is not the same as that of humans. However, as Peterson points out, the devil is included in the lake of fire for eternal punishment as the beast and the false prophet. Fudge has to consider the devil as a real individual if he is an Evangelical Christian. Revelation 20:13-15 identifies that the devil is going to be thrown into the lake of fire; then, a few verses later, the unsaved are thrown into the same place. Since we know that the lake of fire will be a place of eternal torment for the devil, why would it not be the same for the unsaved? Again, Fudge’s argument is unsound.

I do not affirm the conditional view, because, while it is appealing and logical, it suffers from an unsound argument based upon an eisogetical foundation. It is not so with the traditional view, however, to which we now examine.

The Traditional View

The traditional view does not have a lot going against it. It suffers from a few unnecessary or unhelpful points in the argument, but overall it is quite good. One of its problems is an unnecessary appeal to historic church leaders. Peterson’s use of Tertullian, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley and others are of little importance. In effect, he is merely namedropping, an unnecessary feature. It is expected that many historical church leaders would champion the traditional view. To spend an entire chapter on demonstrating the traditional view of these leaders is overkill. Peterson had good reason to include it, however. Fudge had previously attacked church leaders from history who maintained the traditional view for being culturally influenced by Greek philosophy. Therefore, Peterson was attempting to demonstrate that Greek philosophy did not influence the historical church leaders, but rather Scripture did. This attempt was unnecessary and unhelpful for a couple of reasons. First, no one can escape cultural influence. Given the time of many of the church leaders from history, it ought to be expected that they would be influenced by Greek philosophy. Second, mentioning the church leaders from history has no conclusive effect. It is nothing more than namedropping, and it does not help to further the argument.

Another problem that faces the traditional view, which is not unrelated to the first problem, is the question of cultural influences that Fudge brings to the table. Truthfully, Peterson did not directly address the problem. Fudge says that many Christians based their position on Greek philosophy through cultural influence. Peterson does well to show that the various leaders supported their argument through Scripture, but he fails to show whether or not they were culturally influenced in their exegesis and understanding. Therefore, his treatment of the church leaders from history was unhelpful.

A final problem for the traditional view is its attempt to use the cross to further its argument. Peterson identifies that the cross event is a substitutionary atonement. Christ was our substitute and he took our punishment for us. However, Christ did not suffer an eternal torment; rather, he suffered the equivalent to it. Peterson wrote, “[H]is temporal anguish was equal to the eternal condemnation due sinful human beings.” Since Jesus is God, he is infinite, so he suffered an equivalent punishment by dying on behalf of the world to satisfy justice. It was because Jesus was God that he “was capable of suffering in six hours on the cross what we can suffer only over an infinite period of time.” However, we have no reason to believe that his temporal punishment was the equivalent to an everlasting one. Fudge does well, in his rebuttal to the traditional view, to point out that Jesus did in fact die and was not tortured forever. Peterson’s treatment of the cross is overly complicated, and it is therefore unhelpful. Although his position contains some slight setbacks, Peterson’s exegetical skills clearly make up for his imperfections.

I affirm the traditional view, because it performs strong exegesis, especially lexical and grammatical analyses of ten key texts—Isaiah 66:22-24, Daniel 12:1-2, Matthew 18:6-9, Matthew 23:31-46, Mark 9:42-48, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, Jude 7, Jude 13, Revelation 14:9-11, and Revelation 20:20, 14-15. All of these exegetical studies perform exceptional hermeneutics. We will now examine the following highlighted areas: Matthew 18:6-9; Matthew 23:31-46; and Revelation 20:10-15.

Peterson examines Matthew 18:6-9, in which Jesus mentions two key phrases, “eternal fire” and “fire of hell.” Peterson says that these phrases, combined with the rest of the passage, focuses on eternal destiny for the wicked. He notes that the passage is said in response to a question from the disciples, who asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Jesus responds with an unlikely answer. He said that whoever would make himself low like a child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus, Peterson claims, is saying that true disciples are those with childlike humility. Then, Jesus employs a graphic image to describe the punishment of sinners. He describes the drowning of a person. Jesus identifies that his hearers should do whatever it takes to keep them from sinning so that they do not face such harsh punishment. Peterson demonstrates that Jesus is making a contrast between heaven and hell in this passage. There are two options. First, there is life. Second, there is eternal fire, which is the fire of hell.

Peterson compares his summary with the conditional view’s treatment of the same passage, Matthew 18:6-9. He rightly notes that Fudge starts with this passage and then switches to other passages without directly dealing with the text at hand. Fudge does not deal with the text in its context as Peterson does, but rather, he appeals to other passages and imports their content into the present text. Peterson accomplishes two things. One, he reveals the lack of credibility to Fudge’s treatment of Matthew 18:6-9. And two, he shows that he has done a better job of interpreting the text. He concludes that the reference to eternal fire indicates that there will be an eternal punishment for the wicked, and even though the text here does not specify precisely what kind, it does not need to. I affirm as Peterson does that the text leaves the reader with the knowledge that the wicked will be tormented for an eternal length of time.

Peterson’s linguistic skills are clearly seen in his treatment on Matthew 25:31-46. Although he continues his exceptional exegetical skills that he employed all throughout his treatment of biblical passages, which we have seen in his section on Matthew 18:6-9, his section here on Matthew 25:31-46 really shines bright. Especially in regard to the last sentence of the passage, Peterson rightfully appeals to the symmetry of terms. On the one hand, we have eternal life, and on the other, eternal punishment—all in the same sentence. In referencing a notable and highly distinguished Greek lexicon, Peterson appeals to linguistic authority, something that Fudge does not do, to define “punishment.” He notes that it could mean “long-continued torture,” “divine retribution” or “eternal damnation.” If we combine this lexical data with the fact that Jesus teaches that the wicked will be thrown into eternal fire, the interpretation of eternal tormenting comes across very strong.

In comparing his interpretation to that of Fudge, Peterson demonstrates superiority in his presentation. He shows that Fudge’s use of “punishment” in Matthew 25:31-46 is wrongfully rendered, being purposefully adapted to fit the needs of the conditional view, and I agree with his assessment. Fudge argues that eternal punishment does not indicate eternal suffering in hell, but he has not appealed to any linguistic authority to support his argument. Peterson rightly identifies that “eternal” modifies both “punishment” and “life” within the same sentence. Therefore, while Fudge renders “eternal” one way for “life” and another for “punishment,” Peterson correctly renders it the same for both nouns. He does well to identify that Fudge errs by saying “eternal life” is never-ending bliss while “eternal punishment” is irreversible annihilation. Peterson clearly gives the best treatment of this passage, utilizing not only sound exegesis, but also excellent linguistic analysis.

Peterson also works through Revelation 20:10-15 in addition to the texts from Matthew that we have already looked at. Peterson’s exegesis here is exemplary. He does well to include the whole context, which is crucial to understanding the last clause of the passage, to demonstrate that the text says that the wicked will suffer eternal torment in the lake of fire. Indeed, the devil is included with the beast and the false prophet in the lake of fire where they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. All those who are not saved will be thrown into the lake of fire—where there is eternal tormenting—along with the devil, beast and prophet.

In comparing his treatment to that of Fudge, Peterson points out Fudge’s poor assumptions that persuaded his understanding of the text. He notes that Fudge assumes that the beast and the prophet are institutions, not persons, and are incapable of eternal suffering. I disagree with Fudge on this point, because he fails to recognize the whole context, while Peterson does take it into consideration. The context includes the devil in the lake of fire, and since the devil is an individual capable of punishment and suffering, Fudge has come to a wrongful conclusion. Peterson’s exegesis of the passage is superior, and I affirm with him that the lake of fire will hold eternal torment for all those who are not saved, the devil, the beast and the false prophet.

Conclusion

In this debate on hell, Fudge presented an understandable case, using logic and reason to attempt to establish his view. However, Peterson noted the poor quality of Fudge’s case, and gave it some devastating comments in his rebuttal. Peterson’s case was very good too, using exemplary hermeneutical tools to establish his view. Fudge was not quite able to tear down Peterson’s presentation in his rebuttal, although he did have a few good things to say in response to him. Overall, Peterson won the debate. He had the best case with the most conclusive evidence. Yet, the book still demonstrates that the evidence is mixed in this debate, and it requires that a decision should be made based on the most conclusive evidence. In the end, the traditional side had the most conclusive evidence with its sound exegesis. I affirm that the traditional view as it contains the most conclusive evidence. Although I realize that the evidence is mixed, as the two views stand in juxtaposition, I have to choose the traditional view, because it is much more sound as it is constructed on excellent exegetical methods while the conditional view is not. I affirm that Scripture teaches that hell is non-fellowship with God, as both views do, but that it also proclaims eternal torment for the unsaved in hell, as does Peterson.

Bibliography

Fudge, Edward and Peterson, Robert. Two Views of Hell: a biblical & theological dialogue.

Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. Libby Vincent at Fuller Theological Seminary during my first year for a class in systematic theology.

Introduction

Much ink has been spilt on the relationship between the church and the world. Many authors have written books on how we ought to change the church in how it relates to the world. Two such books, Resident Aliens and The Emerging Church, fall into this category. The first book, Resident Aliens, written by Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, focused on distinguishing the church from its surrounding culture. The second, The Emerging Church, written by Dan Kimball, focused on conforming the church to cultural preconceptions on spirituality. Although these two books are similar because of a common audience, subject and goal, they are very different due to their main agendas, ministry focuses and warnings. In comparing the similarities and differences, and positives and negatives, we will see that both books give a good reality check for the church, but that one of them, The Emerging Church, presented a better overall case and had a greater impact on the reader.  It is to the comparison of these two books that we now address, starting with their similarities.

Resident Aliens vs. The Emerging Church

Comparing and Contrasting

Similarities

Both of our books were written to pastors. These books were written to pastors to help encourage change within the church. The first book, Resident Aliens, was written in the 1980s to exhort pastors to care for the Christians in their churches. Likewise, The Emerging Church, was written within the last five years to exhort pastors to effectively reach out to the emerging culture. Both of these books share a similar audience. Both of our books were written with role of the church in the world in mind. Although they take different approaches, both books have the same subject. Both of our books have goals to change the church. The differences are that they want do change the church in different ways. Even though our books, Resident Aliens and The Emerging Church, share similar audiences, roles and desires, they are quite different from each other. Now that we have addressed their similarities, we can now examine the differences between these two books.

Differences

The main agendas for our books seem to be opposites. Resident Aliens seeks to distinguish the church while The Emerging Church seeks to conform it. The former defines the church as a colony and Christians as resident aliens, and as such it argues that the American church needs to distinguish itself from its surrounding culture. The latter presents its case that the church needs to adapt to the changes in culture in order to be optimally effective missionaries in the emerging world. These main agendas are opposites–on the one hand, the church should get uninvolved with culture, and on the other, the church should get involved in the culture. However, when we consider that the objects of culture are different in these main agendas, we have to maintain that they are not truly opposites, because they are not focused on the same exact things. Therefore, we can say that they have exhortations that seem to stand in tension with each other, but they are not opposite or contradictory arguments. They are in fact different but not opposites. Our books’ main agendas are different, as we have now seen, but their ministry focuses and roles for the church are different as well.

Unlike the main agendas, the ministry focuses of these books are complete opposites. Resident Aliens is focused on ministering to Christians whereas The Emerging Church is focused on ministering to non-Christians. The goal of Resident Aliens is to change the church for the purpose of helping Christians fulfill what they are called to–to be “faithful to their promises, love their enemies, tell the truth, honor the poor, suffer for righteousness, and thereby testify to the amazing community-creating power of God.” This book does not lack a missional focus, as it identifies the importance of the church determining to worship Christ in all things, to be faithful and effective as it brings new people into the alternative “countercultural social structure called church.” The goal of The Emerging Church is to change the church for the purpose of helping non-Christians come to Christ while still allowing for the edification of believers. These books identify different roles for the church. Resident Aliens identifies that the role of the church is to be different than the world, but The Emerging Church identifies that the the church’s role is to adapt to the world. Proclaiming different roles for the church could seem to be contradictory, but we have to remember that these two books have different ministry focuses. We cannot examine the proclaimed role for the church without looking at the proclaimed ministry for each book, otherwise we will make the mistake of believing these two books to contradict each other. By looking at the role and ministry incorporated in each book, we can see that the agendas are truly different but not contradictory.

Now that we have compared and contrasted the two books, we should examine the positives and negatives of Resident Aliens and The Emerging Church, so that we can determine which book has the better overall case for their different agendas in an effort to identify the book that had the greatest impact on the reader.

Considering the Positives and Negatives

Resident Aliens did a fantastic job of presenting a correct understanding of the role of the church members as witnesses of God. A church without witness would be pointless, so it is imperative for a book that deals with the role of the church to include such a vital understanding. However, it did not do so well in presenting a clear theme of distinguishing the church from the world. It seems to either neglect or be ignorant of a dual kingdom citizenship for believers in the church. The idea of “already but not yet” is hard to find in this book, leaving its main agenda somewhat incomplete and unclear.

The Emerging Church did an exceptional job of demonstrating a correct understanding of church leadership from a biblical perspective. The way that it used the contemporary analogies from Star Trek to portray its understanding of the true biblical portrait of church leadership was brilliant and stimulating. The one thing that it lacked was that out of all the examples it gave for reaching the emerging culture, it failed to give any suggestions outside of a worship gathering setting. It identified the importance of discipleship, but in the end no concrete examples were given, at least not in the same way that concrete examples were given for worship gathering sets and room structures.

Conclusion

Resident Aliens and The Emerging Church, with their different agendas, ministries and church roles, and similar audience, goal and subject, had different impacts on the reader. The first book was good, but the second was better for three reasons.

First, The Emerging Church is much more contemporary than Resident Aliens. It is up to date and much more relevant. Resident Aliens is much older and is incapable of relating to the current reader in the same way that The Emerging Church can. Therefore, The Emerging Church is more desirable because it is much more impacting as it reaches into and attempts to affect a time that the reader is currently familiar with.

Second, The Emerging Church has a much more fluid presentation than Resident Aliens. It seemed to have a textbook feel to it. It was easy to follow because of its small sections and well-thought out structure. It was aesthetically pleasing with fun graphics and colorful design. Most importantly, its content was lively, interactive–especially with the discussion questions at the end of each chapter–and well-written. Its content was not any more important than what we find in Resident Aliens, but much of what we read depends on how it is visually, artistically and logically presented. Therefore, in respect to the overall presentation of the books, The Emerging Church is superior.

Third, The Emerging Church has a much better argument for the role of the church as witnesses than Resident Aliens. Although the role of the church as witnesses is not foreign or nonexistent in the latter, it is clearly the dominant focus in the former. As a result, the entire book is built on the role of the church to adapt to the culture for the purpose of being a witness in an effort to reach the emerging culture.

In sum, Resident Aliens and The Emerging Church are similar but different books written for different times. Therefore, it is hard to simply compare them side-by-side. However, we can compare them in terms of personal impact. Even though it was much longer, The Emerging Church was the book that had the greatest impact because it is more contemporary and relevant, it has a better overall presentation and it has a better argument for the role of the church. Both books are good and both serve the church well. Resident Aliens is a valuable resource in talking on how the church should continue to exist in relation to the American culture as a colony, and The Emerging Church is a valuable resource in talking on how the church should continue to reach out to the American culture as a witness.

Bibliography

Hauerwas, Stanley and Willimon, William. Resident Aliens. Nashville: Abingdon, 1989.

Kimball, Dan. The Emerging Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. Libby Vincent at Fuller Theological Seminary during my first year for a class in systematic theology.

Sadly, the Bible has been a source of grief throughout certain points in history, such as the American slave trade. James Evans pointed out this unfortunate problem in United States’ history in his book, We Have Been Believers. Evans noted that the church has been guilty of eisogetically studying the Bible so as to use it for its own benefit at certain points in history, and the American slave trade is no exception. He perceives that there are four things a preacher or theologian must take into account before properly ministering to African-American theologians, which are as follows: one, cultural influences cannot be escaped; two, the Bible must be allowed to speak to today; three, the biblical story is more important that the individual words that comprise the story; and four, the Bible’s authority must be understood within the history of its acceptance, which was during a struggle for liberation. These four perceptions have impacted my philosophy for ministry and me by forcing me to realize that I need to be sensitive when utilizing the Bible, by urging me to be cautious of cultural influences, and by challenging me to make Scripture relevant. Let us begin by quickly examining the four perceptions that Evans presented in his book and then briefly look at the three ways his perceptions have had an impact on my ministry philosophy and on me.

Evans’ four perceptions are an answer to a simple question that asks, “What does the history of African-American biblical interpretation mean for systematic theology?” For Evans, it is a four-fold answer. He wrote, “First, it means that social location conditions biblical interpretation. . . . Second, what the Bible means takes priority over what the Bible meant. . . . Third, the story takes priority over the text. . . . Fourth, the African-American theologian must articulate the liberating hermeneutic that grants authority to Scripture in the experience of black Christians.”¹ It must be admitted that cultural influence cannot be escaped in biblical interpretation. The Bible must continue to speak to today and not to the past. The meaning behind the words is more valuable than the words themselves. In speaking to black people, the black Christian tradition concerning the Bible must be utilized. These four perceptions have had an impact on my ministry philosophy and on me in three ways.

First, Evans’ four perceptions have brought me to the realization that I need to be sensitive when referring to the Bible. The Bible has been a source of grief in many people’s lives, so to refer to the authority of Scripture is not always helpful and is sometimes harmful. I need to be sensitive to this possibility at all times if I am to effectively minister as a church leader and even as a person. If I do not, then not only will people not want to hear me at the pulpit or in the front of a classroom, but even more broadly I will be disdained as an individual.

Second, Evans’ four perceptions have urged me to be cautious of cultural influences. I cannot be irresponsible and eisogetically interpret the Bible. I would make myself unworthy of anyone’s trust should I do so. However, I must be mindful that I cannot fully escape my cultural influences, but at the very least I must try to allow Scripture to speak to me and to my contemporaries without allowing my own culturally influenced perceptions speak to Scripture.

Third, Evans’ four perceptions have challenged me to make Scripture relevant. Although exegetical and historical studies are exhilarating and fruitful, they are not enough. Scripture must be spoken in such a way that it ministers to today’s people. It spoke in the past and it should speak to today. The challenge is how I will allow for Scripture to speak to today in my teaching, preaching and writing? I must find a way to allow Scripture its own place to speak to today.

I believe Evans is correct in his perceptions, that culture influences biblical interpretation, the Bible must speak to today, the story behind the words is more valuable than the words, and black Christian tradition must be utilized for ministering to African-Americans. These perceptions have persuaded me to realize that I need to be sensitive when referring to the Bible, to be cautious of my own cultural influences as well as others’, and to be a vessel for which Scripture can speak to today. My ministry is impacted through these three persuasions because all my preaching, teaching and writing must pass these three types of tests—relative (Am I relating well or turning people off by using Scripture in this way?), cultural (Am I pulling this idea out of or placing it into Scripture?), practical (Am I allowing Scripture to be relevant or am I making it an archaic book that is irrelevant?). Personally, Evans’ four perceptions speak to me entirely in relational terms. It is helpful to be reminded to be cautious of eisogesis and to make Scripture relevant, but most of all to be mindful of others’ feelings. How can I make an impact as a person and as a teacher, preacher or writer? Evans makes it clear. I can have an impact in my life by be responsible with the Bible and by making the message of the Bible relevant.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. Libby Vincent at Fuller Theological Seminary during my first year for a class on systematic theology.

Introduction

Why is there suffering in this life? Some argue that it is by the hand of evil that suffering comes. But this answer naturally leads to another question, which asks, “Where did evil come from?” Some argue that God created evil in his sovereignty, while others argue differently. Suffering and evil pose a large problem for many, especially when it comes to placing faith in God. Not only does it pose a problem for people, but also for theology. There are many systematic theological interpretations and views, but many—if not all—do not do well in answering the problem of suffering and evil. And how exactly do systematic approaches attempt to answer the problem of evil? The answer rests in the interpretations of the doctrine of the providence and sovereignty of God.

However, there is a problem in this doctrine, because God is an infinite God, which means that finite humans cannot completely understand him in his nature and in his ways, meaning that we cannot infallibly know the providence and sovereignty of God. Although we may not fully comprehend the eternal God, we can examine several different interpretations and applications of the doctrines of the providence and sovereignty of God to the problem of suffering and evil in an effort to determine how we might apply them to the problem ourselves in our lives and ministries. The application of this theology is absolutely imperative, for as faith without works is dead (cf. James 2:14ff.), so also is theology without practice. Yet, before we can apply our theology, we must first come to an understanding of the doctrine of the providence and sovereignty of God. We will first define our terms, and second we will examine the major systematic approaches—Arminianism, Calvinism, Open Theism and Molinism—to the providence and sovereignty of God before looking at how each fails in dialogue with the problem of suffering and evil. Then, we will look at other views and interpretations before we determine the best way to approach an answer to our problem before we get practical.

Providence and Sovereignty in Dialogue with Suffering and Evil

Sovereignty and Providence

Definitions

Before we look at systematic approaches to the providence and sovereignty of God, we ought to define what it is that we are specifically looking at. Providence is understood in the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 as God’s power upholding creation while at the same time ruling over creation in such a way that every single event, whether rain drops or hurricanes, sickness or health, or life or death, is not happenstance, but rather by his hand (Migliore 2004, 118). Therefore, the providence of God includes his sovereignty, which is his supreme control over all things, including humanity (Geisler 1999, 15). The various approaches looked at below, however, take different interpretations of these definitions. We should grasp these different views in order that we might learn how we can apply God’s providence and sovereignty to the problem of suffering and evil.

Systematic Approaches

Arminianism

The sovereignty of God in Arminian theology does not mean determinism, but rather, a control over all things that is not absolute, meaning it is not meticulous in governance to the point that it excludes human free will (Olson 2006, 116). In other words, the sovereignty of God in Arminianism upholds that God has a contingent control over all of creation, including humanity, whom He has given the right to choose. The providence of God is understood in the classical sense in Arminian theology in three parts: God’s preserving (sustaining); concurring; and governing (2006, 117). God’s sustaining means the providential preservation of creation, which includes the laws of nature (2006, 117). God’s concurrence is his consent for any and all of creation’s choices and actions (2006, 117). God’s governance involves how God governs, rules, leads and guides the world (2006, 117). It is in the interpretation of how God governs that Arminian theology is different from Calvinism and the others.

Arminian theology upholds that the governance of God involves his exercise of control, but that he does not use that control to the point that he excludes human free will nor does it make him the creator of evil (Olson 2006, 117). In fact, Arminians reject meticulous control on the basis that it will not make God the author of sin and evil (2006, 118). However, Arminians do argue that God “indirectly [causes sin and evil] to happen; God renders it certain because he wants it to happen for some greater good and ultimately for his own glory” (2006, 119). The issue for Arminians is not that they deny the sovereignty and providence of God, because they actually uphold it, but they interpret them differently than Calvinists and others do (2006, 119). Yet, Calvinists and others seem to have a misunderstanding of Arminian theology, because they often claim that Arminians deny the sovereignty of God on the basis that God’s sovereignty is incompatible with human free will.

Calvinist authors Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams, in Why I am Not an Arminian, write that Arminian theology is lead by human free will toward an indeterminist incompatibilism, where divine sovereignty and human free will are incompatible, because human beings are free, which means that God simply cannot be sovereign over the history of humanity (2004, 138). In other words, Calvinists argue that Arminians believe that if our choices are determined and are therefore necessary, then such decisions are not actually free, meaning that humans are not responsible for their choices (2004, 138). Furthermore, they argue that Arminians believe that because the Bible declares humans are morally responsible for their choices, God must not determine human choices; therefore, he is not sovereign (2004, 139). These arguments may be true of some Arminians, but certainly not all, as Roger E. Olson, an Arminian and a theology professor, has contested in his book, Arminian Theology: myths and realities, that “Classical Arminians do believe in God’s sovereignty and providence over human history” (2006, 119).

Arminian theology believes in the providence and sovereignty of God, despite what outside critics say, but Arminians define sovereignty in such a way that they do not uphold meticulous governance. Human free will is important in Arminianism, but it is not the sole feature of God’s providence. Arminian theology believes God does not meticulously govern and determine every little detail of our lives, particularly our choices and actions, but he is still sovereign and in control over all that happens in creation so that he points all things to a good end (Olson 2006, 121). For Arminians, “God’s governing providence is comprehensive and active without being all-controlling or omnicausal” (2006, 121).

Calvinism

Whereas the sovereignty of God in Arminian theology does not mean determinism, in Calvinistic theology it does (Geisler 1999, 17). God’s sovereignty means that he has absolute control of all things (1999, 15). Therefore, Calvinistic theology upholds the providence of God as meticulous governance with his absolute control over all things (Peterson and Williams 2004, 144). In other words, God’s providence means that he oversees and guides all of creation (2004, 157). Calvinists believe that God governs all things in his sovereignty, and that nothing that comes to pass has any effect on his sovereign ordinances (Walls and Dongell 2004, 122). In fact, God knows all things, including what humans will do in the future, precisely because he has determined beforehand what they will decide to do and what actions they will perform” (2004, 122). This determination is part of the Calvinist’s doctrine of the theology of the governance of God, which is part of the doctrine of providence. Calvinism varies drastically from Arminianism simply in the determinism factor in the governance of God.

There is some diversity in Calvinistic theology, however, just like any systematic theology, when it comes to interpreting how the determinism of all events affects human free will. Some Calvinists actually sacrifice human free will in order to uphold God’s sovereignty, thus denying the whole of the biblical corpus in an effort to uphold one facet of Scripture. However, there are Calvinists who, although they believe in meticulous determination, uphold human free will in tension with God’s sovereignty as two noncontradictory parts to the whole of providence. Norman L. Geisler, a moderate Calvinist (as opposed to an extreme Calvinist), views providence like a two-sided coin: one side is the divine sovereignty of God; on the other is human responsibility or free will (1999, 19). Geisler argues that there is no contradiction between the two in chapter three of his book, Chosen But Free: a balanced view of divine election. Geisler points out what he calls the law of noncontradiction, which states that there is a contradiction only “if two logically opposite statements are said of the same thing at the same time and in the same relationship” (1999, 46). Because foreknowledge and determination are in different relationships to events than human free will, there is no contradiction between the two. For example, to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was determined by God and to also say that Jesus’ death on the cross was freely chosen by Jesus himself is “not contradictory because they are said in a different relation (or ‘sense’)” (1999, 46). However, to say Jesus freely chose it and to say Jesus did not freely choose it would be a contradiction, or to say God determined it and to say God did not determine it would too (1999, 46). Geisler successfully demonstrates that providence is not self-contradicting, but it does pose a mystery for humans.

Other Calvinists, like Peterson and Williams, seem to claim mystery as an ignorant end-all argument, which emphasizes that God is infinite and we cannot understand how in his Sovereignty and meticulous control over all our decisions and actions we can have free will and be held morally responsible for them. This argument is based on the sole fact that the Bible inevitably teaches both, and it is therefore not contradictory (Peterson and Williams 2004, 149). Despite the fact that the sovereignty of God and human free will seem to overlap or even call each other into question throughout Scripture, the Bible teaches both, so Calvinists affirm both, and many claim that the two are compatible without ever working them out as such (2004, 1999). However, this argument presupposes a major and vital assumption: the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Because Calvinists assume that the Bible cannot be wrong, they also believe that it can in no way be in contradiction to itself. This logic invariably means that since the Bible affirms both God’s sovereignty and human free will, they must in some way not be contradictory, else the Word of God be erroneous. For Peterson and Williams, this argument is good enough on its own and how God’s sovereignty and human free will work out in the providence of God does not need any further explanation. However, this reasoning will not work for many looking with a critical eye at the issue of providence, and so this understanding poses a problem for critical thinkers.

Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of God and the meticulous governance of all creation. However, human free will is in fact important in Calvinistic theology and is not completely discarded for the sake of God’s sovereignty, but it is still subject to the providence and sovereignty of God (Peterson and Williams 2004, 144). For Calvinists, God’s sovereign lordship over “his creation includes the moral responsibility and freedom of human beings” (2004, 144).

Open Theism

Many Arminian or incompatibilist critics seem to confuse these groups with Open Theists, who are actually different from those who uphold Arminian theology. Open Theism is actually the theology that denies the sovereignty of God in its traditional sense, not Arminianism. Open Theists uphold that traditional views of God have been largely shaped by Greek philosophy rather than by biblical exegesis (Walls and Dongell 2004, 142). For this reason, Open Theists argue that doctrines dealing with God as absolutely immutable or unchangeable are ones that were influenced by Greek philosophy rather than by Scripture (2004, 142). Furthermore, Open Theists believe that God is omniscient only in the sense that God knows all that can be known or what is logically possible to know (2004, 142). Since future events are up to humans to choose and enact, in order to be truly free they cannot be known by God according to Open Theists, who determine that God must not know future free events, but he still knows all things that are logically possible to know (2004, 142). Open Theists are making their argument that God knows only that which can be known on the basis of the limitations understood in the doctrine of omnipotence. The logic of Open Theists is as follows:

Most traditional accounts of omnipotence do not claim that God can do literally

anything. Rather, they hold only that God can do anything that is logically possible and

compatible with his perfect nature. Thus God cannot lie or make a square circle. . . .

The fact that God cannot make square circles or married bachelors does not in any way

detract from his perfect power. Similarly, it is argued, the fact that God cannot know

what is impossible to know does not detract from his perfect knowledge. If it is

impossible in principle to know future free actions, then omniscience does not pertain to

such action. (2004, 143)

God is viewed in Open Theism as all knowing of logical facts, but human freedom is unknown territory to God, yet this in know way diminishes his omniscience.

Therefore, in His sovereignty, God created a world that is “logically possible and compatible with his perfect nature” (Walls and Dongell 2004, 144). In his sovereignty, it is admitted by Open Theists, God could have created a world in which libertarian freedom did not exist, so that he meticulously controlled everything (2004, 144). However, because it is obvious that there is human freedom, God made a world in his sovereignty in which it functions from human free will rather than by meticulous control (2004, 145). Open Theists point out that this reason in no way diminishes the sovereignty of God; God is not less sovereign in a world he chose to grant free will any more than in a world where he meticulously determines everything (2004, 145). Therefore, sovereignty for Open Theism is simply human freedom to choose in accord with one’s will (2004, 145).

Open Theists continue their argument, claiming less control does not mean less sovereignty, because God himself chose to have less control” (Walls and Dongell 2004, 145). They do contend, however, that God still maintains control throughout all events. Therefore, Open Theists argue that life is like a chess game, where God is the chess master and we are the novices, so that even though God does not know all our exact moves until we actually make them, he does have ultimate control of life all throughout and will achieve his end goal, and nothing can catch God off-guard (2004, 146).

Open Theists deny the traditional understanding of sovereignty and completely uphold human free will. However, human free will was and is God’s will for us to have according to Open Theists, which means that God’s sovereignty is seen in the fact that we have free will. For Open Theism, providence is God’s sovereignty expressed in human free will combined with God’s intervention throughout history to bring about his end goal (Roy 2006, 261).

Molinism

Molinism takes a “middle” approach to Calvinism and Arminianism. Now, by “middle” we do not mean in between Calvinism and Arminiansm, but rather in between natural and free knowledge. Molinism upholds middle knowledge, which is all knowledge that falls in the middle of natural and free knowledge. The natural knowledge of God is truths that are essential, meaning all truths that could not be other than they are, like mathematical truths (Walls and Dongell 2004, 135). The free knowledge of God is the opposite of natural knowledge, and it is truths that could have been other than they are (2004, 135). Middle knowledge, therefore, is everything in between these two in that it shares a characteristic from each, which is seen in the following statement:

On the one hand, it is similar to natural knowledge in that it is known by God prior to his decision to create and it does not depend on what he decides on that score. On the other hand, it is similar to free knowledge in the sense that it pertains to truths that are contingent rather than necessary. . . . the object of middle knowledge, broadly speaking, is what all possible created free wills would do in all possible circumstances or states of affairs. (2004, 135)

Therefore, Molinism is represented in this conditional statement: “If A, then Y, but if B, then Z”; and so on and so forth. Middle knowledge itself is God’s knowledge of all possible employments of free will in any given event or choice, including the one that will actually be employed (2004, 134). Providence is therefore seen in Molinism as God’s arrangement of the world as he chooses in accordance with his middle knowledge (2004, 137).

In Molinism, God has no control of his middle knowledge (Walls and Dongell 2004, 137). Yet, even though he does not have control over it, he does possess such knowledge. In terms of the providence of God, Molinism gives an explanation for how God can have control over various circumstances without being a determinist of human choices (2004, 138).

Molinism suffers from its inability to work out God’s foreknowledge with middle knowledge. It does not logically work to exaplain “how God can have foreknowledge of our future free choices as well as the middle knowledge on which such foreknowledge depends” (Walls and Dongell 2004, 141). Like some Calvinists who claim ignorance, it has been suggested within the Molinist interpretation that we simply need to embrace mystery at this juncture (2004, 138). On the basis that there are several things about God that we do not know and are a mystery to us, it seems fair to accept that we cannot even begin to understand how God knows future free choices (2004, 138). This ignorance causes a problem for us later on in our dialogue with suffering and evil, however.

Molinism upholds the sovereignty of God in His providence while still allowing for human freedom, but it goes beyond Arminianism or Calvinism by believing God knows all choices that one could make in addition to the one choice that one will make. God still has complete control while humans take their own paths, and God also knows all the possible paths that they could have also taken.

Suffering and Evil

Now that we know what it is exactly that we are looking at and the different interpretations involved, we can begin to look at how they interact with the problem of suffering and evil. The question is, “How can we affirm the providence of God in the face of evil and suffering?” The doctrine of providence really is haunted by the reality of evil, and therefore we ought to look at how the aforementioned systematic approaches attempt to solve the problem of suffering and evil.

Arminianism, Open Theism, and Molinism

Arminianism, Open Theism and Molinism, all operating off of the importance of human free will over or in the sovereignty of God, uphold that God is not the author of sin or of evil, but rather humans are. Since they have free will, the problem is not God’s, but humanity’s. Humans are responsible for all the suffering and evil that exists in the world, and in his Sovereignty, God permits and allows suffering and evil to exist as a result of human free will. In Open Theism, God does not actually intend for evil events and suffering to happen, but they happen because humans bring it upon themselves, and yet, at times God will turn the events of suffering and evil into good, and others he will intervene and keep them from happening at all (Roy 2006, 263). In Arminianism, God permits things to happen in his sovereignty, and to this permission he has ordained the events, but he can turn those events into good (Olson 2006, 119). In Molinism, God permits things to happen in his sovereignty, because in the end he knows that the bad events will eventually become good in the choices that we make along the way (Walls and Dongell 2004, 137-8). These answers to the problem of suffering and evil are helpful, but they are not flawless.

Calvinism

Because Calvinistic theology upholds that God is meticulously sovereign, it also upholds that God has ordained sin, evil and suffering since before the dawn of time. However, moderate Calvinists would say that the Bible does not say that God authored sin, evil or suffering. Therefore, Calvinism upholds that all events, the good and the bad, the directly and the indirectly caused, happen because God intends for them to happen (Walls and Dongell 2004, 127). Therefore, sin, suffering and evil do not exist outside of God’s sovereign rule (Peterson and Williams 2004, 158). However, Calvinism’s answer is not without its problems, either.

Problems

None of the aforementioned theological approaches can fully answer the problem of suffering and evil, which means we still have a problem. Calvinism suffers from the fact that it relies on philosophical judgments at particular theological junctures, especially here in the problem of suffering and evil (Walls and Dongell 2004, 149). In presenting its case for the providence of God in the problem of suffering and evil, “Calvinism depends on both a controversial philosophical judgment and a contested interpretation of Scripture” (2004, 149). As it is, popular Calvinism is not fully able to support its claims for the meticulous governance in suffering and evil. Arminianism and Molinism fail to address that God created the world knowing beforehand that sin and evil would eventually enter it, which in essence means that he ordained it from the beginning (Peterson and Williams 2004, 157). Molinism also suffers from the fact that it fails to logically work out God’s foreknowledge of future free choices with middle knowledge. Because it is not able to work this problem out, neither can it even begin to answer the problem of suffering and evil in God’s providence. Open Theism does not give any help in answering the problem of suffering and evil, because while humans are responsible for it, God still intervenes part of the time, but the problem then becomes why God does not intervene all the time (Roy 2006, 263). The question in Open Theism is, “By what basis ‘will God’s wisdom decide which evils to prevent and which to permit’ (2006, 263)?” None of these theologies have proven infallible. Now our question is, “What can we do as Christians who believe in the providence of God since suffering and evil exist?”

Getting Practical

In every aforementioned systematic approach, no matter how we look at them, all of them uphold some sense of God’s providence and sovereignty. How, then, can we apply God’s providence and sovereignty to suffering and evil? The answer is simply to draw applications from the fundamental truth that God is in fact, whether we know how or not, in control of all things, events and people in some way or another. Daniel L. Migliore provides some helpful guidance in answering our problem in his book, Faith Seeking Understanding: an introduction to Christian theology. He does recognize that the providence of God is severely challenged by the reality of evil (2004, 118). To start, he explores how some theologians have looked at the providence of God in the past in relation to suffering and evil. First he looks at Augustine and then he looks at Calvin.

Migliore shows how Augustine talked of God’s allowing or permitting events to occur and uses all events, including the good and the bad, to accomplish his divine purposes. Migliore writes of Augustine’s understanding, “God exercises sovereignty over evil by bringing good out of what by itself is only negative and destructive” (2004, 122). In his City of God, Augustine wrote, “By the ineffable mercy of God even the penalty of man’s offense is turned into an instrument of virtue” (13.4). To sum up Augustine in the light of the way Migliore describes him and his theology of providence, he believes in a sort of salvage providence, where God obviously uses good events for his good purposes, but he also salvages bad ones and uses them for good purposes too. Calvin, however, does not see the providence of God in the same light.

Calvin upholds a providential micro-management. In this micro-management of God, things do not happen by fortune, chance or caprice, but by God’s secret plan (Migliore 2004, 122). In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin wrote, “[N]othing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by God” (1960, 1.16.3). Everything that happens, whether good or bad, is specifically ordained by God as part of his meticulous plan according to Calvin as Migliore interprets.

It seems that the Arminian, Open Theistic and Molinistic theologies of the providence of God seem to align themselves with Augustine in some way or another, while Calvinism obviously follows Calvin. But these interpretations are not the only ones that exist. Building off of the systematic approaches, there are a number of various non-systematic interpretations that are quite practical in dealing with the problem of suffering and evil. Migliore highlights three other different yet practical answers to the problem of suffering and evil in the providence and sovereignty of God.

The first answer Migliore highlights is the incomprehensibility of God interpretation. This answer states, “We do not know why there is so much evil in the world, or why it is distributed so unevenly, but we are nevertheless to trust God and have patience” (2004, 123). This interpretation calls people to claim ignorance and that we do not need to understand why we are in a world with suffering and evil because God is God and we cannot conceivably fathom it. It is true that “[w]e must surely agree that our knowledge of God’s ways is limited and that sometimes silence is a far more appropriate response to the enormity of suffering than feeble attempts to answer the question why” (2004, 123). However, we really ought to be weary of suppressing all questions and be careful of encouraging the unchallenged acceptance of any or all suffering (2004, 123).

The second answer Migliore highlights is the punishment versus the chastisement of God interpretation. In this answer, suffering can be looked at in two different ways. It can be considered as the punishment of the wicked, or it can be considered as the chastisement of the children of God. This answer says, “[B]oth the good and the wicked receive what they deserve, if not in this life, then in the life to come” (Calvin 1960, 1.5.10). This interpretation calls people to unquestionably accept suffering and evil as part of either God’s punishment or chastisement. However, there is a problem with this answer, because Jesus explicitly calls this line of thinking into question, like in John 9:1-3 and Luke 13:4 for example (Migliore 2004, 124). Indeed, human actions have consequences, and sometimes a person’s reckless and sinful behavior brings suffering in its wake, but not all suffering can be caused by sin alone, and it certainly cannot be attributed solely to the sin of the one suffering (2004, 124).

The third answer Migliore highlights is a divine pedagogy interpretation. It states, “Christians are to view all suffering as an opportunity for spiritual growth” (2004, 124). This answer focuses on learning to have contempt for our present lives and to meditate on our future lives (2004, 124). This answer believes that “God sends poverty, bereavement, diseases, and other perils to wean us away from this earth, to cause us to fix our eyes on heaven rather than on the goods of the present life” (Calvin 1960, 3.9.1). This interpretation calls people to hate God-given life and place all hope in the future. Unfortunately, this answer is problematic, because it leans toward calling suffering itself good, and it seems to devalue this life for the sake of the next, at least at the surface level. Additionally, in this answer, Paul is often quoted to support it, but he must be understood in that his primary thinking of suffering is about events of suffering that are willingly assumed for the sake of Christ and the gospel, not for any or all suffering in general (Migliore 2004, 124-5). Furthermore, advocates of this divine pedagogy quote Romans 8:18 as proof, but Paul’s statement here “ought not to be used to obscure the distinction between suffering that is willingly accepted for the sake of God’s reign and suffering that arises from conditions that can and should be changed” (2004, 125). At best, in this answer we can learn from our suffering like Jesus did (Heb. 5:8), but we should not convert suffering into the general truth that it is good (2004, 125).

Thus far, none of the systematic approaches proved fully capable of providing a sound argument for the providence of God in the problem of suffering and evil, nor have any of the non-systematic answers proved completely sound. Where then shall we go? Shall we protest God and put him on trial for being silent and inactive in the midst of suffering and evil (Migliore 2004, 129)? Shall we affirm that God is in fact not all sovereign and give up hope (2004, 129)? Or shall we fall back on the idea that evil and suffering exist for the sole purpose of providing opportunities for us to grow and thus accept human suffering (2004, 130)? We can turn to two places in theology: first, the Trinity; and second, the fundamental premise of any orthodox theology that in some sense God is sovereign.

Turning to the Trinity

The Trinity would be a great place for us to turn to in order to understand the providence of God in dialogue with suffering and evil. When we look at the cross event in the Trinity, which was no doubt part of God’s plan and thus within His providential care, we see all of the suffering in the world as encompassed in the Son’s affliction, the Father’s grief, and the Spirit’s comfort, and it is the Spirit “who inspires courage and hope to pray and work for the renewal of all things” (Migliore 2004, 132). Therefore, we can “couple emphasis on the suffering of the triune God with hope in the eschatological victory of divine love over all evil and the participation of creation in God’s eternal joy” (2004, 133). We accept suffering in the present because we have hope in the future, knowing that God will eventually end all suffering and bring us into his eternal presence.

The central feature of the Trinitarian understanding of divine providence in dialogue with the problem of suffering and evil is fixed on the power love, which is at work in Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection (Migliore 2004, 133). This understanding is not based on the “logic of control” but on the “logic of Trinitarian love,” which is “the self-giving love of the creator, redeemer, and consummator of the world” (2004, 133). The Trinitarian view upholds that the “God who creates and preserves the world is not a despotic ruler but ‘our Father in heaven’; not a distant God but a God who becomes one of us and accompanies us as the incarnate, crucified, risen Lord; not an ineffective God but one who rules all things by Word and Spirit rather than by the power of coercion” (2004, 133). This Trinitarian power of love teaches us three lessons.

One, providence does not mean fatalism. Migliore writes, “The love of God the creator and provider is at work not only where life is sustained and enhanced but also where all that jeopardizes life and its fulfillment is resisted and set under judgment” (2004, 133). Therefore, the providence of the triune God does not foster fatalism, and evil itself is to be resisted, as seen in Romans 12:21, for example (2004, 134).

Two, God is always faithful. Migliore writes, “The love of God the redeemer is at work both in the heights and in the depths of creaturely experience, both when the creature is strong and active and when it is weak and passive” (2004, 134). As indicated in Romans 8:28, God is ever faithful (2004, 134). In fact, “God does more than work for the preservation of life and against all that threatens it; God also intimately accompanies creatures in their activity and in their suffering” (2004, 134). God is not so far removed from his creation that he does not or cannot relate with it, including events that are full of evil and suffering. Indeed, “God is present as co-sufferer with all the wretched of the earth, whether in cancer wards or in concentration camps” (2004, 134).

Three, new life testifies to God’s Spirit still at work. Migliore writes, “The love of God the sanctifier is at work everywhere, preparing for the coming reign of God, planting seeds of hope, renewing and transforming all things” (2004, 135). The simple fact of the matter is that the “appearance of new life in the midst of death, wherever it may occur, is a sign that God’s Spirit is still at work, transforming the groaning creation and moving it toward the completion of God’s purpose in Christ” (2004, 135).

Turning to Fundamental Sovereignty

The fundamental doctrine of sovereignty is also a great place to turn to in order to understand the providence of God in dialogue with suffering and evil. We must understand that at the very least “[w]e can be confident that God reigns and that evil is firmly under God’s control” (Migliore 2004, 123). This truth has three lessons.

First, this lesson “teaches us the humility to receive adversity from God’s hand even though we cannot understand the reason” (Migliore 2004, 123). Although we may or may not have it all figured out, we do know that God is sovereign; therefore, we ought to humble ourselves and accept God’s providential control over anything that happens to us, thus trusting in him to provide and care for us in the good and the bad events that fill our lives. Second, this lesson teaches us “to give thanks for the times when we prosper” (2004, 123). Because God reigns, when we come to times in our lives when we prosper, we ought to give thanks to God who has allowed us to prosper, or who has given us our prosperity. Third, this lesson teaches us that “trust in God’s providence sets us free from all undue anxiety and care” (2004, 123). The truth is that God’s reign over evil and all creation empowers us to trust God in all circumstances, even when things are looking grim.

Calvin sums these lessons up in these words: “[G]ratitude of mind for the favorable outcome of things, patience in adversity, and also incredible freedom from worry about the future all necessarily follow upon this knowledge [of providence]” (1960, 1.17.7). God’s providence leads believers to gratitude, patience and freedom. When we understand God’s providence in the general sovereignty of God, we learn to live through evil in the comfort of God’s power as he suffers with us while we work against suffering and evil.

Conclusion

Even though we might not understand God, His providence or His sovereignty completely, because we are finite creatures and He is the infinite Creator, we do know that in at least some sense He is in control over all things and events, and so we conclude that we can believe in God’s providence despite the problem of evil and suffering. Suffering and evil pose a huge problem for systematic theologians throughout the various theological interpretations that exist. None of the systematic approaches to the providence and sovereignty of God seem adequate enough to infallibly answer the problem of suffering and evil. Each one has its own faults. Other attempts to answer the problem of suffering and evil within the framework of God’s providence and sovereignty have proven practical but somewhat misleading, yet at least they are practical. Despite their shortcomings, the sovereignty of God in any orthodox biblical account of God should be recognized as a great source of comfort, because “God is in control and all things are indeed ordained and governed by him in some sense” (Wall and Dongell 2004, 151). Roy is right when he says, “[I]n and through every experience of suffering and evil, God is at work to accomplish his good purposes” (2006, 266). Therefore, there is hope in the midst of suffering and evil for all those who recognize in at least some sense that God is in fact in control over all creation and that nothing falls outside of his power and authority, and while suffering and evil pose a problem for theologians, they do not pose a problem for God.

Additionally, when we look at the cross event, we see a God who suffers alongside the sufferer—Jesus Christ. This fact also gives courage to those who affirm the providence of God to seek refuge in Him. Prayer becomes an essential tool for all those who are going through suffering or some sort of evil event, because it enables God to meet His children where they are at; through prayer God suffers with us, and through prayer we humble ourselves, yielding ourselves to God’s providential control. Furthermore, because God is in control, we can also thank him in prayer for the times that we prosper. But when we undergo suffering, we can approach him in prayer, express our anxiety and feelings to him, knowing that he has everything under control. We must learn to, in light of his sovereignty, humble ourselves and trust Him in times of suffering and evil, realizing that all trouble and hardship is “foreseen by God and ordered and used by him for their ultimate good” (Roy 2006, 266).

In light of all these interpretations, there are two things we must bear in mind as we learn about providence and sovereignty in tandem with suffering and evil. First, no image of God and no doctrine of providence “can be compelling that is not rooted in and tested by the gospel of the crucified Lord” (Migliore 2004, 137). Second, prayer is necessary in the life of the Christian and in theological work, “most especially in response to the continuing power of radical evil” (2004, 137). Although the search of faith for understanding never actually reaches full comprehension now in the present, “the call to discipleship in faith, hope, and love is clear. Christians know that they are summoned to watch, pray, and struggle for God’s new world of justice and peace in the company of all who are afflicted and cry for deliverance” (2004, 137).

Reference List

Augustine. City of God. Quoted in Daniel L. Migliore. Faith Seeking Understanding: an

introduction to Christian theology, 2^nd ed., 122, n. 10. Grand Rapids and

Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.

Calvin, Jean. 1960. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Ed. John T. McNeill.

Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Quoted in Daniel L. Migliore. Faith Seeking

Understanding: an introduction to Christian theology, 2^nd ed., 122-4, n. 11, 14, 19.

Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.

Geisler, Norman L. 1999. Chosen But Free: a balanced view of divine election. Minneapolis:

Bethany House Publishers.

Migliore, Daniel L. 2004. Faith Seeking Understanding: an introduction to Christian theology.

2^nd ed. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Olson, Roger E. 2006. Arminian Theology: myths and realities. Downers Grove: InterVarsity

Press.

Peterson, Robert A., and Williams, Michael D. 2004. Why I am Not an Arminian. Downers

Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Roy, Steven C. 2006. How Much Does God Foreknow?: a comprehensive biblical study.

Downer’s Grove and Nottingham: IVP Academic and Apollos.

Walls, Jerry L. and Dongell, Joseph R. 2004. Why I am Not a Calvinist. Downers Grove:

InterVarsity Press.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. Libby Vincent at Fuller Theological Seminary during my first year for the first quarter of systematic theology.

Introduction

Did Jesus Christ not emphatically proclaim that he is the only way to God and to heaven?  It would seem that Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen has forgotten that Jesus did in fact claim himself to be the exclusive means by which anyone can be in a relationship with God or to have a ticket into heaven when first glancing at his book, Trinity and Religious Pluralism: the doctrine of the trinity in Christian theology of religions, which is designed to progress some new theological territory in systematic theology.  This territory is referred to by Kärkkäinen as “theology of religions.”  In this book, Kärkkäinen goes through and critiques nine trinitarian theologians and their theology of religions in exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralisms categories , some of which I liked and others I did not.  In order to proceed, we must first define our terms.

Trinity and Religious Pluralism in Review

Defining our Terms

This book is primarily focused on theology of religions, but what is it?  Kärkkäinen defines theology of religions as that which “deals with how Christianity should relate to other religions” (2004, 1).  Essentially, theology of religions can be defined as a Christian understanding of Christianity in relation to all other religions.  Kärkkäinen did well, however, to define the terms by which he would be categorically referring to in regards to theology of religions: exlusivism; inclusivism; and pluralisms.

Exclusivism is defined by Kärkkäinen as the theology of religions that holds to salvation as “available only in Jesus Christ, to the extent that those who have never heard the gospel are eternally lost” (2004, 3).  This category claims that Jesus Christ is exclusively the only way to heaven and he is the only way to God, and therefore all other religions do not lead to God or to heaven.  This category did not receive much treatment, if truly at all, in Kärkkäinen’s book, probably because there are not very many theologians who have actually written on theology of religions from this perspective.  At any rate, this category is not given much space in his book.  Inclusivism and pluralism, however, are apparently Kärkkäinen’s main focus.

Inclusivism is defined by Kärkkäinen as the theology of religions that holds that “while salvation is ontologically founded upon the person of Christ, its benefits have been made universally available by the revelation of God” (2004, 3).  This category of theology of religions basically upholds that Christ’s salvific act was universal and therefore the effects of it affect all men through the working of the Holy Spirit.  The most ink was spilt on this category within Kärkkäinen’s book, as five chapters out of 12 were devoted to it.  Still, a significant amount of space was devoted to pluralisms.

Pluralisms is defined by Kärkkäinen as the theology of religions that holds that “other religions are legitimate means of salvation” (2004, 3). Pluralisms, which is used by Kärkkäinen as the singular, not plural, despite the way he spells it, allows for other religions to be true in that of themselves as they function for different end goals.  It allows for all regions to be correct and that, for example, both Jesus Christ and Buddha are both means for bringing salvation.  This is different from, for clarity’s sake, inclusivism, because while pluralisms hold that all religions are legitimate in their own right, they have different end goals and they are all true, inclusivism holds that God–the God of Christianity–works in all religions to bring about salvation through Jesus Christ.

To sum up our terms, let’s conceptualize our categories in relation to theology of religions in terms of God’s grace umbrella–God-provided salvation.  First, exclusivism states that only Christianity is included under God’s grace umbrella.  Second, inclusivism states that other religions are also included with Christianity under God’s grace umbrella.  Third, pluralisms state that each religion has its own grace umbrella.  It is within these categories that Kärkkäinen critiques nine trinitarian theologians: Karl Barth; Karl Rahner; Jacques Dupuis; Gavin D’Costa; Wolfhart Pannenberg; Clark Pinnock; John Hick; Raimundo Panikkar; and S. Mark Heim.  Barth represents most closely the exclusivism category, while Rahner, Dupuis, D’Costa, Pannenberg and Pinnock represent the inclusivism category, and Hick, Panikkar and Heim represent the pluralisms category in Kärkkäinen’s book.

The Three Categories and Their Respective Theologian Representatives

Kärkkäinen’s critique of Barth can be summed up with this statement: “It was Barth who claimed that what makes the Christian doctrine of God different from the gods of other religions is the Trinity” (2004, 1).  Basically, for Kärkkäinen, Barth represents the exclusivism category in the fact that Barth states that the trinity is the end of the dialogue.  Barth’s understanding is, according to Kärkkäinen, that the Trinity makes Christianity different (2004, 1).  By means of talking of the exclusiveness of the Trinity, Christianity is therefore the only way to heaven and to God.  This is the only time we will see a hint of this line of thinking in the book.  The rest of the book details inclusivism and pluralisms instead.

Rahner basically says that the grace of the Trinity has affected the world for all ages (2004, 42).  The Trinity, then, is not really exclusive to Christianity, but it can also be implicitly found in other religions, due to the universal nature of the salvific act of God through Christ.  Dupuis understands that the Trinity is relational and is present in other religions as well as in Christianity (2004, 59).  Therefore, the Trinity is not confined to Christianity merely based upon the fact that this religion claims the Trinity for itself, because the Trinity is relational, and it can relate to people outside of the Christian religion.  D’Costa understands that the existence of the Trinity in other religions also reveals the existence of the church in those religions (2004, 69-70).  This means that the church is not just those involved in the Christian religion, but extends to all who belong to a religion, which implies that everyone belongs to the church–the bride of Christ.  Pannenberg perceives that the Trinity is the common ground for evaluating all religions (2004, 89).  This line of thinking makes the Trinity to be the place where all religions convene together, a place of convergence, therefore making all religions in some way salvific through the Trinity.  Pinnock upholds that the Trinity uses all religions to transform the friendship between God the Father and humanity (2004, 101-2).  This makes the Trinity out to be involved in all religions to bring about God’s salvation for humankind.

The development, therefore, of the Trinity within the category of inclusivism goes from affecting the world, to relating to the world, to existing in all religions, to becoming the converging point for all religions, to employing religions for redemption.  Inclusivism’s use of the Trinity has broadened in its development throughout Kärkkäinen’s book.  Having a firm grasp of the trinitarian development of inclusivism in juxtaposition of the exclusivism’s use of the Trinity, we can now proceed to the development of the Trinity in pluralisms.

Hick understands that the Trinity is not three in one, rather essentially three modes, and the modes represent different ways by which God can be known (2004, 113).  Therefore, the Trinity is used here as a proof for the fact that there are multiple ways of going about religion, or at least multiple ways to know God.  Pannikkar holds that the Trinity is a way to structure the world, and it can therefore be seen in any aspect of life, including religion, which means that the Trinity is the originating and driving force behind all religions (2004, 121-3).  This makes the Trinity the motivating force in all religions, but more importantly it makes the Trinity ambiguous so that it can be seen in anything and thus claim anything, in this case various religions, to be of God or working for God.  Heim basically says that the diversity of the Trinity demonstrates that there is a diversity in religious goals (2004, 136).  This makes the idea that because there is diversity within the Trinity, there must also be diversity among religions, which would mean there must be diversity in terms of religious goals.

The development of pluralisms’ use of the Trinity, then, goes from different ways for knowing God, to seeing the Trinity in anything and everything, including religions, to having different goals of religions.  The use of the Trinity in pluralism does not broaden the perspective of the Trinity as inclusivism does, rather it multiplies the use in its categorical perspective.

Personal Matters and Conclusion

Before Kärkkäinen closed his book with a drug-out summary of his critique of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralisms, he performed a short case study focusing in on the way Catholicism and Islam relate to each other in theology of religions.  It demonstrated that Islamic followers criticize Christianity for upholding the Trinity, which they claim is a distortion (2004, 156).  To them, the Trinity is really “tritheism” (2004, 156).  Our author clearly shows that “the doctrinal concept of God is not the same in these two faiths” (2004, 157).  This implies that pluralisms do not function well between the two religions being studied, thus ruling it out as a viable option as a theology of religions.  Kärkkäinen does well to show that “For Christians it is clear that the trinitarian faith is monotheistic, but for Muslims it means blasphemy” (2004, 160).  These two religions cannot stand together.

Kärkkäinen’s final critical comments in the last chapter seemed drug out a bit.  He continued going on and on about one particular point that could be boiled down to a simple statement.  In truth, the whole book can be boiled down to this statement: the only way to approach theology of religions is through the Trinity, which has had a vast array of approaches in that of itself, including, but not limited to, a narrow, broad, and multiple use of the Trinity for inter-religious dialogue.  Additionally, the three categories are washed away in the end, even by our author, in the fact that it is impossible to have an inclusivism or pluralisms view “without sacrificing the built-in tendency of each religion to assume the finality of its own truth claims” (2004, 166).  It just is not possible to uphold inclusivism or pluralisms for this reason.  We know that that Trinity is exclusive to Christianity, and salvation is exclusive to Christianity; however, exclusivism does not mean exclusion!  Therefore, the whole purpose of theology of religions is this: “to learn and share but also to persuade the Other [all religions and all other people outside of Christian religion] (contra Dupuis and pluralists), yet in ways that honour the Other and give him or her the right to make up his or her own mind” (2004, 181).  It seems, then, that Kärkkäinen has not lost sight of the fact that Jesus did in fact make strong claims to be the exclusive way to God.

Kärkkäinen sought to review the categories of theology of religions in this book.  He did do well in critiquing several trinitarian theologians and their perspectives on theology of religions in relation to the Trinity.  What I have determined from reading this book is that the bottom line is that there are really only two categories: exclusivism and non-exclusivism.  It is impossible to hold to a true category that upholds either inclusivism or pluralisms because such categories deny exclusive truths of the respective religions.  Furthermore, the whole purpose of theology of religions is not necessarily to determine how God will save humanity, whether through one particular religion or through various methods, but rather to learn to respect other religions and to respectively persuade them towards Christ (2004, 181).  Thus, theology of religions is really, at least in the sense of Kärkkäinen, an apologetic for witnessing to people of other religions.

Reference List

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti.  2004.  Trinity and Religious Pluralism: the doctrine of the trinity in

Christian theology of religions.  Aldershot, England and Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate

Publishing Limited and Ashgate Publishing Company.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. Libby Vincent at Fuller Theological Seminary during my first year for the first quarter of systematic theology.

Introduction

What do we know about sin?  The Bible tells us about sin, so why is it that many people attempt to describe sin outside of the biblical terms already set before us?  Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., wrote a book, Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: a breviary of sin, in which he attempts to resurface what was once a most serious treatment of sin (1996, ix).  Unfortunately, Plantinga predominately resorts to describing sin in terms that fall outside the biblical vocabulary.  Indeed, Plantinga’s treatment of sin is an experiential-conceptual summarization of sin and is far from having a solid biblical foundation, because it is based primarily on modern-day case studies and vocabularies of sin with seemingly few biblical references.  Of course, there are times when Plantinga intertwines biblical texts with modern-day ideas of sin, but for the majority of his book the Bible is sparsely referenced.  Before we analyze the book, we ought to gain a familiarity with Plantinga and his treatment of sin.

An Analysis of Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be

A Book Review

Plantinga begins his book with a broad definition of sin–the vandalizing of shalom.  For him, shalom represents the way things really ought to be in life (1996, 10).  However, he decides to define sin more explicitly.  First, he defines what qualifies something as a sin: “any act–any thought, desire, emotion, word, or deed–or its particular absence, that displeases God and deserves blame” (1996, 10).  Second, he defines sin in criteriological terms: “such instances of both act and disposition” (1996, 13).  Basically, for Plantinga, sin is the disturbance of shalom–wholeness, justice, and peace (1996, 10, 14), and from here the rest of the book can be quickly summed up, for the rest of the chapters rest on this definition of sin.

Plantinga describes sin as the corrupting of spiritual hygiene in the second chapter.  Specifically, he argues that sin is the corruption of shalom, which is brought about in the fact that human nature is despoiled (1996, 31, 32).  This leads into the next chapter, which talks about sin as the perversion, pollution, and disintegration of shalom (1996, 39).  Plantinga seeks to demonstrate that perversion leads to pollution, which leads to disintegration, and all of which is brought about by corruption (1996, 47).  Thus far, sin is at its most basic level a disturbance of shalom, which leads to spiritual corruption (an attack of the spirit, which breaks it down so that it becomes vulnerable for more sins), which leads to perversion (being twisted), which leads to pollution (spiritual uncleanness, which weakens through addition and division), which leads to disintegration (the breaking down of structural integrity at the personal and social levels; it is a spiritual deterioration), which leads to death.  Plantinga continues in the next chapter to show this progression of corruption.

On the one hand, sin despoils, but on the other, it generates (Plantinga 1996, 53).  Plantinga writes that “sin is both fatal and fertile” (1996, 54).  In other words, according to Plantinga, sin is like cancer, which “kills because it reproduces” (1996, 55).  Not only that, but it repeats its own history (1996, 58).  However, we might not know why, and we might not know why people sin for that matter, but we see the pattern of historical repetition, and such is the progress of corruption–it continues on throughout time.  In other words, corruption takes its toll in every generation.  This is not enough description for Plantinga, however, who turns to a new descriptor of sin in the next chapter.

Plantinga describes sin as a parasite next.  Basically, for Plantinga, sin piggy-backs on good and sucks the life right out of it so as to gain life for itself.  Plantinga writes that it is a “fearfully powerful spoiler of the good” (1996, 88), which shows that good is the original and evil is nothing more than the derivative (1996, 89).  Beyond this, however, in the next chapter, Plantinga describes sin as masquerading around in disguise of good (1996, 98).  Sin is therefore a self-deception, “a shadowy phenomenon by which we pull the wool over some part of our own psyche,” so as to “forget that certain things are wrong and that we have done them” (1996, 105).  Therefore, it is a corrupted consciousness (note the progression of corruption here).  At this point, Plantinga has described sin in several different non-biblical terms, and now his focus will turn to the qualification of sin as folly.

Plantinga shows that “not all folly is sin, but all sin is folly” (1996, 121).  We know this to be truth because not all follies disturb shalom (1996, 119).  Furthermore, sin is the best example of folly (1996, 121).  In the next chapter, however, Plantinga argues that while not every addiction is sin, there are addictions that are sin (1996, 129).  In such cases, addiction is also folly, but more than that, it is really all about idolatry (1996, 148).  Moving on, Plantinga addresses the methods of sin–attack and flight.

Sin can be actively aggressive.  Plantinga calls this active aggressiveness “attack.”  It is an assault on humanity, as is made self-evident in lying, which Plantinga demonstrates how it leads to envying, which leads to coveting, which leads to anger, and all of which stems out of pride (1996, 155-67).  However, sin is not solely actively aggressive.  It is also passively aggressive.  Plantinga calls this side of the aggression of sin “flight.”  Flight is really for Plantinga an evasion of moral responsibility (1996, 180).  Plantinga demonstrates that evasion is practiced in agency, conforming, conniving, leaving town (abandoning), specializing (performing), minimizing, going limp, cocooning and amusing ourselves to death (1996, 176-93).  Specifically, flight from shalom is not fulfilling one’s responsibility in finding one’s role in the “building of shalom” (1996, 197).

So there we have it–sin is the disruption and vandalizing of shalom, whether intentionally or unintentionally, through corruption and the effects of corruption, actively or passively, throughout all generations, for which we are held accountable to and will be judged accordingly.  Now that we have a good grasp of the content of the book, we can now analyze Plantinga’s treatment of sin.

A Book Analysis

Plantinga resorts to an experiential-conceptual summarization of sin as opposed to bliblical exegesis of particular passages to describe sin, nor does he use popular biblical terms to describe sin, like transgression or iniquity.  Although his vocabulary and case studies are helpful, for the most part they simply do not do a very good job of getting the biblical ideas of sin across.  In order to come to a solid understanding of a biblical idea, we have to come to understand it in its biblical context and terms.  Therefore, because Plantinga failed to address the concept of sin in its biblical settings through exegesis, his descriptions, metaphors and terms are insufficient to serve his purpose–to bring out a lost awareness of sin.  In other words, sin is a biblical idea, and in order to fully understand that biblical idea it will take biblical terms and examples to come to a complete awareness of it.  Because we barely received any of this biblically grounded description from Plantinga, his description falls short.  His concept of sin as a parasite is a case-in-point.

Plantinga sought to demonstrate sin as a parasite in the fifth chapter.  He wrote that evilness appears alongside good, and this is because the two are intertwined and grow out of each other (1996, 80).  The question that arises is whether or not sin and evil are a created thing, a descriptor of something, or something else entirely.  What comes to mind is James 4:17, which redefines our concept of sin to be that it is an unfulfilled good.  The idea is that it is a depraved or despoiled good.  In fact, Plantinga addresses this with the words of C. S. Lewis near the end of this chapter.  While Plantinga writes, “[S]in is a parasite, an uninvited guest that keeps tapping its host for sustenance,” Lewis says that sin is only “spoiled goodness,” and Augustine says that evil does not exist except that it is a privation of good (1996, 89).  In the insufficiency of his modern terminology, we see some inconsistency.

Plantinga’s analogy is saying that sin is its own being apart from good and it leeches onto good to find life, but Lewis and Augustine are saying that sin is not its own being and that it is a corrupted good.  In other words, for Lewis and Augustine, sin is an issue of degrees on the goodness scale, which differs from Plantinga in whom sin is an actual force that thrives off of sucking the life out of goodness.  The problem is that Plantinga tries to use Lewis and Augustine to support his idea that sin is a parasite, when in reality they do nothing of the sort.  If this is wrong and Plantinga would disagree with this assessment, then it is his own fault, because he did not otherwise make his point clear enough in his book, as it really does point to a contradiction or inconsistency in the different descriptions of sin.  But despite this seemingly apparent contradiction, we do not see biblical terminology, rather case studies and modern-day vocabulary, which further substantiate the insufficiency of his treatment of sin.

Plantinga filled his book with all sorts of modern-day case studies of sin, which demonstrate how human nature has been infiltrated by sin.  Murder stories, abuse stories, a Yale University psychology study, and other perverse cases were told to demonstrate and substantiate his points about sin.  Although they were good in demonstrating the perversion of human nature, they really did not do a great job in bringing home the biblical concept of sin as a whole.  Something was missing; that something was solid biblical support.  Scriptural texts specifically, yet sparsely, addressed (not merely referenced in footnotes) in his book are used in such a way that he is making the texts conform to the points that he wants to make.  Unfortunately, this makes his points stand on a shaky foundation.  Mentioning Scripture in passing or quoting a few words of a passage without yielding its context hardly constitutes the necessary Scriptural support for making one’s claims.  In fact, Plantinga makes his claims first and then gives Scriptural support for those claims second.  If he really wanted to do a good job of resurfacing the seriousness of sin, then maybe he should have allowed the biblical text to speak for itself, then bridged the gap between the biblical audience and today’s audience, and then finally applied the basic theological principles of that text into today’s cultural context.  Plantinga’s method, as is evident in this book, starts by applying his concepts of sin, which he forcefully places into the biblical text, in today’s context first, neglecting to bridge the gap between the two cultures, and then partially quotes a Scripture, generally speaking.  Indeed, his concepts of sin are structured on a shaky foundation of Scripture that is very insufficient for the task.

If Plantinga would have done some exegesis of James 2 and 4:17, Romans 3, and 1 John 1, he could have made some of the main points that he did, but would have been more Scripturally grounded, for the ideas of sin as corrupted and neglected good, that all have this corruption, and all are self-deceived are inherent in these texts.  Plantinga’s experiential-conceptual summarization of sin is un-biblically founded, and even his biblical descriptions and references are found wanting, which is the largest failure of his book, as seen in his description of sin as a parasite.

Plantinga failed to address key passages of the Bible, and he also failed in allowing other things in his book to distract the reader.  His abundant comma splices detract from the impact of his sentences, his vocabulary choices at times detract from the value of some of the concepts, and his use of long segments on a particular point are seemingly drawn-out and boring.  Perhaps he uses grammar rules unfamiliar to this reader, and perhaps the vocabulary of this reader must be broadened, but at least if Plantinga had done some exegesis in place of giving lengthy and drawn-out segments of insufficient descriptions of sin, he would have had better support for his arguments.

Conclusion

Plantinga did a good job in giving modern-day examples and case studies of sin.  Sin is a present-day reality just as much as it is a biblical one.  His book will serve pastors well in giving practical examples and concepts of sin in our cultural context today.  However, it will not serve pastors well in the sense that it does not do good or any exegesis, so the pastor must work that out on his or her own and may find that the results differ from Plantinga’s experiential-conceptual descriptions of sin.  In addition, we really cannot fault Plantinga for not doing any exegesis in the sense that it was not his intention to do so.  However, in order to come to terms with a biblical idea, one must dive into the Bible to gain a firm grasp of that idea.  Plantinga failed to do so in his book, and therefore it is only fair to say that he has only skimmed the surface of the whole concept of sin, and he has not fully submerged into Scripture to resurface our awareness of sin but merely dipped his feet in.  His treatment of sin abandoned biblical terms, concepts and theological principles regarding sin for modern-day examples and terminology.  His treatment was good, but it was not great, and it was definitely insufficient for the job at hand.  Overall, I disagree with Plantinga’s hamartiology as a whole because of his methodology and terminology, and ultimately, even though I agree in certain areas with him, I reject his assessment as being an inadequate one that clearly falls short of the Bible’s treatment of sin.

Reference List

Plantinga, Cornelius, Jr. 1996. Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: a breviary of sin. Grand Rapids,

Michigan and Leicester, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and

Apollos, 1995.  Reprint, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and Apollos (page

references are to the reprint edition).

About: this paper was submitted to Dr. Chris Corwin at Fuller Theological Seminary during my first year for a class on the Writings.

What Does it Mean?

What does the comparison between Kings and Chronicles mean? Does it mean anything? The comparison does demonstrate that there is a relationship between the two documents, and there are a variety of possibilities that explain that relationship. The best possibility is the one that can account for as much of the evidence available to us. Out of all the possibilities out there regarding this relationship, there are five that seem most probable.

It appears that Kings and Chronicles are very similar despite their various differences. The long sections of nearly identical content demonstrate how similar these two documents are. How could this closeness be explained? There are several realistic possibilities that would explain the similarities and differences of these two documents. First, what we will call the Author Hypothesis, the two documents share the same author. The author wrote Kings and Chronicles at different times and for different purposes. As a result, they share much of the same content, but he or she expounds or deletes wherever necessary to accomplish the desired goal. This theory accounts for the similarities in content as well as the differences. It accounts for the different foci of the two documents as well. Perhaps the author had an initial focus when writing the one, and then wanted to accomplish a new goal by focusing on something else, hence the focus on all of David’s heirs to the throne in Kings and only on David’s Judaic heirs to the throne in Chronicles.

Second, what we will call the Document Source Hypothesis, the two documents copied from the same document, that we will label “D.” The author or authors of Kings and Chronicles could have copied from D to create those documents. This theory accounts for the similarities between Kings and Chronicles. It makes sense that when the author(s) felt necessary to alter the content provided by D, whether by adding, subtracting or summarizing, which accounts for the differences. The Document Source Hypothesis also accounts for the variants in themes, because the two documents, although copying from D, served different purposes, hence Kings’ focus on all of David’s heirs and Chronicles’ Judaic heirs.

Third, what we will call the Various Historian’s Hypothesis, the two documents were written by different historians, but because they were writing about facts in history, it is to be expected that there would be much of the same content with some differences. Although some details are different, there are some sections that are in the one and not in the other, among other minor differences, the majority of the two books are very much the same if we consider all of the latter portion of Chronicles (in the English translation, 2 Chronicles) to the book of Kings (1 & 2 Kings). If two various historians wrote Kings and Chronicles, where one historian wrote Kings, and the other historian wrote Chronicles, it would make sense that there would be much of the same content with minor differences throughout. However, this theory does not account for the fact that much of the text in both books are nearly word for word. How could two various historians write a historical-narrative account that is nearly word for word, particularly when the texts that are practically identical are not speeches or quotes? Aside from this problem, this theory does account for the different foci in Kings and Chronicles. One historian focused on the kingly rule of all of David’s descendants while the other focused only on David’s descendants that ruled over Judah. This theory accounts for the different foci and also the various additions and omissions.

Fourth, what we will call the Formal Oral Tradition Hypothesis, the two documents were written down after a formal oral tradition had been established. The formal oral tradition would be a well-structured oral narrative that would have been memorized word for word and passed on to generation to generation. This theory would account for the similarities, but not necessarily the differences. It would not account for the different foci, additions, omissions or summaries.

Fifth, what we will call the Informal Oral Tradition Hypothesis, the two documents were written down after an informal oral tradition had been established. The informal oral tradition would be a structured oral narrative that has key points or highlights but the minute details of the story would be somewhat flexible. This theory would account for the similarities—the highlights are all the same between Kings and Chronicles—and the differences—the details can be flexed a little. In addition, because the details can be flexed a little, the narratives can be used for different purposes since parts can be added, omitted, or summarized.

Out of these five different possibilities, two seem to be the most probable. The first one is the Document Source Hypothesis. This hypothesis is quite attractive because it was practiced among the Hebrew authors of the Hebrew Bible. The author of the Pentateuch, for example, most likely copied from the Code of Hammurabi, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enuma Elish and other Ancient Near Eastern texts. If not from those extra-biblical texts, we can say that the author did copy texts from Exodus when writing Deuteronomy. The practice of copying from another source, whether it be the authors or someone else’s, is evidenced in the Bible. It is not a problem and it is perhaps acceptable to see the Document Source Hypothesis as valid. It would not be beyond the practices of writing for the Hebrew authors, as is evidenced with the Exodus and Deuteronomy similarities and differences. Furthermore, if D were not true, the Document Source Hypothesis could be true if Chronicles copied Kings or vice versa, because one document relies on another in order to produce a finished product. Given the practices of the Hebrew authors, it would not be unlikely for the Document Source Hypothesis to be true, and it accounts for all of the similarities and differences.

The second theory is the Informal Oral Tradition Hypothesis. This hypothesis is fairly attractive given the practice of the Hebrews to teach in groups around fires in the towns and villages. Narratives were one of the primary ways of teaching the children about the Lord and about their heritage. It is not unlikely, then, that the traditions of the kings who reigned as sons of David were passed on orally in an informal way such as around a group setting in the villages. Similarly, it is not unlikely that the traditions being passed down were eventually written down. These documents of the informal oral transmissions account for all the similarities and differences between Kings and Chronicles.

Of the two most probable options, it is most likely the former, not the latter, that is true, because of a few significant reasons. One, too many significantly large sections are nearly word for word in Kings and Chronicles. It seems most likely that a source would be necessary to account with any certainty for the near identical content of the two documents. Two, more source criticism can be demonstrated throughout the Hebrew Bible than can informal oral tradition. In other words, the authors of the Hebrew Bible often practiced copying and editing other sources to form new documents. The Informal Oral Tradition could be true, but it is not as easily or as readily demonstrated as is the Document Source Hypothesis. The weight of the evidence points to the Document Source Hypothesis. Three, Chronicles and Kings both explicitly reference other texts, and it seems that the author of these two documents may have either referred to or copied from them.

The texts that Kings refers to are the book of the annals of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41), the book of the annals of the kings of Israel (1 Kgs 14:19) and the book of the annals of the kings of Judah (1 Kgs 14:29).¹ Chronicles mentions the book of the kings of Israel (1 Chrs 9:1; 2 Chrs 20:34; cf. 2 Chrs 33:18), the book of the annals of king David (1 Chrs 27:24), the book of the kings of Judah or of Israel and Judah (2 Chrs 16:11; 25:26; 27:7; 28:36; 32:32; 35:27; 36:8) and the annotations of the book of the kings (2 Chrs 24:27).² Chronicles also includes references to information that came from all of the following people: Samuel the seer (1 Chrs 29:29); Nathan the prophet (1 Chrs 29:29; 2 Chrs 9:29); Gad the seer (1 Chrs 29:29); Ahijah the Shilomite (2 Chrs 9:29); Iddo the seer (2 Chrs 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chrs 12:15); the prophet Isaiah (2 Chrs 26:22); and the seers (2 Chrs 33:19).³ Furthermore, Chronicles heavily relies on the Pentateuch, Judges, Ruth, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations and Zechariah.⁴ It is apparent that the author of Chronicles did not creatively or originally write it, but rather, selected, arranged and integrated his sources, whatever and whichever ones he or she may have used, into a narrative historical account of the Judaic reign of David’s descendants.⁵

Based on Chronicles’ heavy dependence on Genesis, Samuel and Kings, we know that source work is being executed. When we add the heavy influences of all the other Hebrew sources and the textual references to additional ones, the Document Source Hypothesis stands out the most, even if Kings and Chronicles had more than one source. This theory best accounts for all of the present evidence—the references to other sources, word for word sections, similarities, differences, and the different foci of the two documents—and is the one most or generally accepted.⁶

So what does this mean? It means that Chronicles was not merely written down by God through the hand of a man or woman. It does not mean that Chronicles is void of the inspiration of God, but rather it means Chronicles was written as a re-working or re-telling of a particular history for a specific purpose by use of what other people had already written. God could have inspired that process just as much as he would have inspired a single author to creatively and originally write a letter. It also means that Chronicles could contain unbiblical portions of text; however, this possibility is not a problem or a threat, because God inspired its assembly process. This comparison plainly reveals Chronicles and Kings, though similar and different, serve different purposes.

Bibliography

The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 3^rd ed. New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha.

Michael D. Coogan, ed. Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom and Pheme Perkins,

associate eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

The NIV Study Bible: New International Version. Kenneth Barker, ed. Donald Burdick, John

Stek, Walter Wessel and Ronald Youngblood, associate eds. Grand Rapids: Zondervan

Bible Publishers, 1985.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. Chris Corwin at Fuller Theological Seminary during my first year for a class on the Pentateuch.

Why are there two Law-codes that are similar though different in the Pentateuch? Why does it seem that the Pentateuch closely parallels other texts from the Ancient Near East, like the Code of Hammurabi? These questions are tough questions. It is certainly something that is beginning to take notice by college students who are first introduced to such parallelisms, and several other readers on the world wide web.¹ It is causing such readers to really put into question the inerrancy and the infallibility of Scripture. The question is should Ancient Near Eastern parallels between the Code of Hammurabi and the Pentateuch, which is the present focus, affect our interpretation of the Decalogue much less the rest of Scripture? The Pentateuch does share similarities with other law-codes of the Ancient Near East, but such similarities do not do anything more than to demonstrate God’s ability to meet the people in their own cultural context. Perhaps by looking at the similarities and differences between the two Law-codes of the Pentateuch, which is first given in Exodus 20 and second in Deuteronomy 5, we can determine why there are two similar though different accounts. When we have accomplished that, then we may be able to determine why there are similarities between the Pentateuch and the Code of Hammurabi. Finally, after having completed all aforementioned tasks, then we will be able to determine how the similarities between the Pentateuch and Ancient Near Eastern texts might affect our interpretations of the Bible and the Decalogue. We should begin by first examining the immediate contexts of the Law-codes found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

Exodus 20 is spoken by the Lord. God speaks the Law to Moses, who is to deliver the Law to God’s people. The people have just recently been delivered from the land of Egypt and have escaped death by the army of Pharaoh. Now the Lord is giving them the Law and the decrees that they are to follow as his people.

Deuteronomy 5 is not spoken by God. Rather, Moses is retelling the Law from God’s perspective. At the time that he speaks the Law to the people of Israel, he is talking to the next generation of Hebrews, not the old and rebellious generation who had all died with the exception of Joshua, Caleb and Moses. The people were on the verge of entering the Promised Land when Moses retold the Law to the people.

These immediate contexts have some huge differences. The former giving of the Law came straight from the mouth of the Lord. However, the latter one came indirectly from the Lord through Moses’ mouth. Additionally, the former Law-code was given after leaving the land of Egypt, whereas the latter one was given right before entering the Promised Land. Understanding these differences in context may help us understand why the two Law-codes have differences themselves.

With the exception of a few major differences, for the most part the two Law-codes are the same. Yet, each has subtle–minor–differences. We should take a look at the major differences of both, starting with the first giving of the Law found in Exodus, and we will do so using the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the text.

The first verse of Exodus 20 is entirely different from the first verse of Deuteronomy 5. This verse sets the immediate context–the Lord is speaking. In English, there are only a few notable differences. In verse 5 there is the addition of the article preceding “fourth generation” that the Deuteronomy Law-code does not have. In verse eight, the verb is “Remember” rather than “Observe,” which the Deuteronomy Law-code contains. The list of things not to do and who is not to do it on the Sabbath in the Exodus Law-code is much shorter than the one in Deuteronomy. The reason for this Sabbath Law is entirely different in the Exodus account than the one in Deuteronomy. Finally, the order of which the objects of coveting are given in the Exodus account are switched in the Deuteronomy account.

In Deuteronomy’s Law-code, which Moses is speaking, not the Lord as opposed to the Exodus Law-code, we do not see any differences, with the exception of the missing article that the Exodus account has, until verse 12 where we have the verb “Observe” rather than “Remember.” Verses 12-16 are vastly different than what we see in the Law-code in Exodus; they are longer than the same section in Exodus. Verse 12 adds “as the Lord your God commanded you” to the third commandment. It adds the conjunction, “or,” several times in verse 14 in identifying who is to not do any work. In the same verse it adds extra livestock language–ox and donkey. Also in verse 14 we see that the order of “resident alien” is switched from that in the Exodus account. Finally at the end of 14 these words are added that are not in the Law-code in Exodus: “so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.” In verse 15, the reason for the sabbath day is entirely different than the one given in Exodus. In verse 16, the text adds the phrase, “as the Lord your God commanded you,” to the fourth commandment. It also adds an extra blessing for keeping this commandment, which are in quotations as follows: “and that it may go well with you” in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. The sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth commandments are all linked together with the conjunction in Hebrew, but in the NRSV it is simply connected by “Neither.” Finally, in verse 21, the text has the objects of coveting switched from what is given in Exodus, and it adds that a field may not be coveted either.

The most significant differences between the texts are the verb choice and the reason for the third commandment, and the additional phrases contained in Deuteronomy that do not exist in Exodus. The third commandment as a whole is much shorter in the Law-code found in Exodus 20 than what we see in Deuteronomy 5. Deuteronomy 5 adds two additional phrases and gives a longer reason for the third commandment than does the Exodus 20 account. We should look at these phrases and key differences in light of the immediate contexts.

It would seem that because Moses is retelling what the Lord spoke to him that he would end up lengthening what was told to him. Typically the original source is shorter than other versions that follow, though this is not always true. It seems logically fair to say that because the Lord spoke the Law into existence it makes sense that it is shorter than when Moses retells it to the people, because there is a natural tendency to lengthen things when retold. This also would account for the differences too. It still has all the essential parts, but since there are two different authors here–the Lord in the first and Moses in the second, although Moses is still using the original–it accounts for the differences between the two texts, particularly the extra phrases. It also seems logically fair that given the times that these were written–after the exodus and before entering the Promised Land–we can determine why the reasons given for the third commandment are different.

The reason given for the third commandment in Exodus 20 stems from creation. The Lord says, “[F]or in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it” (v. 11). The Lord is identifying that he has created everything, including the sabbath day, and he has consecrated it. For this reason, the Lord says, “Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy.” The Hebrews are to remember what God did in creation–he created all things and then rested on the seventh day.

The reason given for the third commandment in Deuteronomy 5 stems from the exodus. Moses says, “Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day” (v. 15). Moses is using the exodus event to exhort the Hebrews to observe the sabbath day, for the Lord commanded them to keep it–the same Lord who saved them from the hand of Pharaoh and delivered them from Egypt.

It seems that the reason for the third commandment in the latter account is feeding off of the allegiance of the Hebrews to the Lord as the obedient people of God, whereas the former one really seems to be feeding off the nature of God as the One who rests. It seems that the Lord was drawing on the creation act following the exodus to identify this truth: the God who saved the Hebrews from the land of Egypt is also the God who created all things. It also seems that Moses was drawing on the exodus act prior to entering the Promised Land to identify this truth: the God who brought them out of the land where they did not belong is going to bring them into the land where they do. Therefore, both reasons are being used strategically, and since they are extra details to further drive home the command, it is fair to say that it was totally acceptable for Moses to change it so long as the essential backbone of the text was not changed–keep the sabbath holy. Combine this logic with the aforementioned fact that Moses was restating to the Hebrews what the Lord had spoke to him, it is no wonder that the two Law-codes are similar though different. All the essential material is present in both, but the only differences are there for strategy or for more detail. What are we to do with this information?

It is possible that the people of the Ancient Near East–the Hebrews included–could have had no problem having an original text and then retelling the story or re-giving the text in a different way for a different purpose. We see that in the two Law-codes in the Pentateuch, where Moses retold the giving of the Law of the Lord, but made his own changes and interpolations. This could have been a common practice. If so, then it is also possible that Moses or whoever wrote the Pentateuch had an original source for which much of the Pentateuch parallels, i.e., an original that the Pentateuch is modeled after–much like how Moses’ retelling of the Law was modeled on the Lord’s giving of the Law, though it did not follow it directly. What this means is that the Pentateuch is not fully 100% original. It also means that Moses or whoever wrote the Pentateuch could have copied from another source or other sources, but since there was no sense of plagiarism at that time, it was probably a perfectly acceptable practice. In this case, the Code of Hammurabi parallels portions of the Pentateuch, and it seems that some of the law-codes given in Exodus 22 are intimately connected with laws 241-55 of the Code of Hammurabi. Before we get into the close connections between the two, we should gain a quick and simple background to the Code of Hammurabi.

The Code of Hammurabi was created ca. 1780 BCE.² The Code gives rules and the punishments that will be given for those who break the rules.³ It covers topics such as theft, agriculture, women’s rights, marital rights, slave rights, murder, death and injury.⁴ Excuses or explanations for breaking the laws were not accepted, because the laws were posted all over the land for all the people to see and therefore they could not plead ignorance.⁵ This law-code was written by King Hammurabi, who lived between 1728 BCE-1686 BCE.⁶ In an effort to please his gods, Hammurabi wrote the law-code, but he apparently did not consider himself related to any god, but he did claim himself to be “the favorite of the gods.”⁷ It is quite possible that Moses or the author of the Pentateuch had access to this law-code, especially since it was written at least 500 years prior to the earliest and traditionally proposed date for the Pentateuch–approximately 1200 BCE–which also accounts for why the two sound similar in description.⁸

The Code of Hammurabi shares parallels with the Pentateuch. Laws 241 through 255 of the Code seem to have close ties with Exodus 22. Exodus 22 has similar concepts and vocabulary to nine of the 15 laws in the Code. Exodus 22:10-15 seems to be right out of the Code.

Note law 244 in the Code of Hammurabi. It deals with a hired ox or ass being killed by a lion in a field.⁹ The owner incurs the loss, not the one who rented the animal.¹⁰ This is parallel to the last sentence–verse 13 of Exodus 22: “If it was mangled by beasts, let it be brought as evidence; restitution shall not be made for the mangled remains” (NRSV; note the context of this passage is also of a hired animal for labor).

The 245th law of the Code of Hammurabi is paralleled here as well. It says that if anyone hire oxen and strike them or treat them badly, then they shall have to compensate the owner with the law of retribution, “oxen for oxen.”¹¹ In Exodus 22, if a borrowed animal is injured while the owner is not present, then full restitution shall be made, but if the owner is present, then no restitution will be made, yet if it was hired, then the hiring fee must be paid (vv. 14-15, NRSV). We see the law of retribution in this text too .

In fact, verses 14 and 15 parallel laws 245, 246, 247, 248 and 250 of the Code of Hammurabi. Laws 246-48 and 250 deal with other injuries to the hired animals and the retribution that will be made for the respective losses and who will incur the loss.¹² However, law 249 in the Code deals with God striking the hired animal.¹³

Law 249 in the Code of Hammurabi parallels Exodus 22:11, which reads, “an oath before the Lord shall decide between the two of them that the one has not laid hands on the property of the other; the owner shall accept the oath, and no restitution shall be made” (NRSV). Law 249 reads, “If any one hire an ox, and God strike it that it die, the man who hired it shall swear by God and be considered guiltless.”¹⁴ Note the parallel oath language between the two.

Laws 251 and 252 in the Code of Hammurabi parallel Exodus 21 and not 22. Exodus 21:28-30 identifies what happens when an ox kills someone and what is to happen to that ox, especially if it has had a past of doing so, and if the owner has been warned, for he could be put to death for not gaining control of the ox (v. 29, NRSV). This directly parallels law 251,which reads, “If an ox be a goring ox, and it shown that he is a gorer, and he do not bind his horns, or fasten the ox up, and the ox gore a free-born man and kill him, the owner shall pay one-half a mina in money.”¹⁵

Law 252 specifies that if the ox gore and kill a slave, the owner will have to pay one-third of a mina.¹⁶ This parallels verse 32 of the 21st chapter of Exodus, which reads, “If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall pay to the slaveowner thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned” (NRSV). Ezekiel 45:12 identifies that a mina is 60 shekels. Therefore, assuming that this mina identified in Ezekiel is the same measurement as referenced in the Code of Hammurabi, then the Code requires only approximately 20 shekels for payment, whereas the Pentateuch requires 30. However, the weight measurements might be different among the two systems even though they share the same vocabulary, and so no substantial weight should be given to this observation unless further research could substantiate it. However, in ancient Sumeria, a m’na was 60 shekels, and if a m’na is the same as the mina mentioned in Ezekiel, then it could be a helpful observation, because it would reveal that there was some sort of connection, whether directly or indirectly, of the Pentateuch on the Code of Hammurabi.¹⁷

So how exactly do all these facts and all this information regarding the relationship between the two Law-codes of the Pentateuch and the Code of Hammurabi with the Pentateuch affect our interpretation of the Pentateuch and the rest of the Bible for that matter? Well, if there is a dependency on the Code of Hammurabi by the Pentateuch, and there definitely appears that there is, this can mean several things: one, the Pentateuch utilized writing methods of its time, and therefore God inspired the author in using such methods; two, the Pentateuch did not utilize writing methods of its time, and therefore God inspired Moses or whoever wrote the Pentateuch to plagiarize as we know plagiarism; finally, the Pentateuch relies on extra sources, and therefore it cannot be inspired by God.

Given the method employed by Moses in retelling the Law-code to the Hebrews, it would seem that he was accustomed to taking a story and revamping it to fit his own needs. If this is the case, then it would come as to no surprise that he would use other sources like the Code of Hammurabi to put his book together. Therefore, there really is no problem here, and there is also no need to question God’s inspiration on the text. God can choose to inspire as he deems necessary, whether through plagiarism or by inspiring the other sources to write their texts, so that Moses or whoever wrote it could utilize them to make the Pentateuch or through Ancient Near Eastern practices and methods of writing. Despite this question of the involvement of the inspiration of God in the Pentateuch, seeing the connection between the Pentateuch and other Ancient Near Eastern texts proves to be invaluable.

It seems clear that God was able to meet the Hebrews where they were at. He approached them, instructed them and commanded them in terms that they were familiar with in the cultural setting that they lived in. God is not so far removed from us that he is entirely unable to speak to us in a meaningful way. Rather, he has shown that he can meet a people in the culture that they know, save them, guide them and love them.

How do the Ancient Near Eastern parallels affect my interpretation of the text? Hardly at all, except to show that God seeks to relate and communicate with us in the culture that we know. Seeing how Moses or the author of the Pentateuch uses inter-textual sources, i.e., Exodus 20 for Deuteronomy 5, it seems like it would not have been questioned if other outside sources were employed. The similarities of the Ancient Near Eastern parallels with the Pentateuch affect my interpretation of the Decalogue in a good way in that it reveals God’s ability to meet his people where they are at in how they think and operate. God does not force anyone to approach him in terms and thoughts that he considers, rather, he comes to us and uses how we think, operate and communicate, in order to teach, instruct, guide and lead us in love.

Reference List

McKnight, Scot. “Scripture and Incarnation.” Jesus Creed. November 3, 2006.

<http://www.jesuscreed.org>. Accessed on November 9, 2006.

“The Code of Hammurabi.” Washington State University. Edited by Richard Hooker.

Translated by L. W. King. 1910. Last updated June 6, 1999.

<http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM>. Accessed October 19, 2006.

Wikipedia contributors. “Code of Hammurabi.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Code_of_Hammurabi&oldid=78983610>.

Accessed October 2, 2006.

_______________. “Mina.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mina_%28unit%29>. Accessed November 10, 2006.

About: this paper was delivered to Professor Peter Rodgers at Fuller Theological Seminary during my second year for a class on Exegetical Methods.

Translation

Mark 1:1-11

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God. As it was written in the prophet Isaiah, “Behold, I am sending my messenger before you, who will prepare your way. A voice crying out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight’.” John was present in the wilderness baptizing and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins. And all the land of Judea and all the people of Jerusalem were coming out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River while confessing their sins. And John was wearing camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist, and he was eating locusts and wild honey. And while speaking he proclaimed, “One mightier than me is coming after me, of whom I am not worthy to stoop down to loosen the straps of his sandals. I baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” And it happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John, and immediately, while rising up from the water, he saw the heavens splitting and the Spirit coming down onto him like a dove, and a voice came from the heavens, “You are my only son. I am well pleased with you.”

Notes

1:1 – Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εύαγγελίου – The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, Son of God. Ἀρχὴ is anarthrous. Every time it is used in Mark, it never has the article, and it is always translated as definite. Ἀρχὴ is defined by τοῦ εύαγγελίου. This is the beginning of the good news. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is the subject of τοῦ εύαγγελίου. The good news is concerning Jesus Christ. It is possible that Mark 1:1 stops with Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and υἱοῦ θεοῦ was not part of the original text, but it is not likely. Textual witnesses not containing υἱοῦ θεοῦ are א, Θ, and Origen. It appears that in light of the evidence of א‭ ‬and Origen, the Today’s New International Version (TNIV) omits υἱοῦ θεοῦ in its translation, leaving the verse in this way: “The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah.”  However, B, D, and A include υἱοῦ θεοῦ. The New International Version (NIV), King James Version (KJV), New Living Translation (NLT), and New American Standard Bible (NASB) all include υἱοῦ θεοῦ in their translations. Since the support for υἱοῦ θεοῦ is broad, having Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine support, and it can account for the absence in the three aforementioned witnesses as homoiteleuton, where scribes would have allowed it to drop out due to the long string of genitives, we should accept it as part of the original text. Furthermore, the gospel as a whole allows for its inclusion since the Sonship of Jesus is a key theme throughout. υἱοῦ θεοῦ is a title of Jesus Christ, identifying him as the Son of God.

It is important to note the connection between this opening verse and the birth statement of Caesar Augustus in the Roman emperor cult. The Priene incription comes from 9 BC; it identifies Caesar as a savior and as a god, who was the beginning for the world of good news (Evans 2003, 1066). The language of Mark 1:1 echoes this Priene inscription (2003, 1066). Mark 1:1 is an attempt to challenge the claims of the Roman emperor cult (2003, 1066).

1:2 – Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ – As it is written in the prophet Isaiah. Mark includes the reference to the prophet Isaiah, whereas Matthew and Luke do not. Matthew and Luke only reference Malachi 3:1 and they make no mention of Isaiah 40:3. The conjunction Καθὼς connects Mark 1:1 with the quotations in 1:2-3 (France 2002, 50). Therefore, the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God, is tied to the quotations that follow. If Mark 1:1 is to be understood as the title of the whole gospel, we must not neglect its immediate connection with 1:2-3. Some textual witnesses have in the prophets as opposed to in the prophet Isaiah. The KJV follows this variant, but the NIV, NLT, TNIV, and NASB all have Isaiah as the reference. To take Isaiah out of the reference was clearly an attempt to get rid of confusion since Malachi 3:1 is also quoted in 1:2, and that before Isaiah.

ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν πρὸ προσώπου σου ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου – Behold, I am sending my messenger before you, who will prepare your way. This quotation comes from Malachi 3:1, and it echoes Exodus 23:20, which also echoes the wilderness (France 2002, 63). God is speaking here, and he proclaims that he will send a messenger who will prepare the way. This quotation is paired with a quotation from Isaiah 40:3.

1:3 – φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ – A voice crying out in the wilderness, “Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.” The messenger from Malachi 3:1 is the voice crying out in the wilderness who proclaims, “Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.” This quotation is from the Septuagint of Isaiah 40:3 (Gould 1896, 5).

Note the use of way and paths in Mark 1:2-3. This theme is identified to be the gospel of Jesus Christ mentioned in 1:1 (Edwards 2002, 28-9). The quotations themselves are used to demonstrate that the kingdom of God inaugurated by Jesus is the culmination of Jewish history, of which its prophecies pointed to Jesus (Gould 1896, 5). Therefore, Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 (and Exodus 23:20) together are the Ἀρχὴ from Mark 1:1. The gospel of Jesus Christ did not start with the incarnation, but with the Old Testament.

1:4 – Ἰωάννης ἐγένετο ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ βαπτίζων καὶ κηρύσσων – John the Baptizer was in the wilderness and was preaching. Many have argued the Gospel of Mark refers to John as Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτίζων, so that ὁ βαπτίζων is his title. They argue that while the textual witnesses are split, the article should be included in 1:4. By taking into account the style of Mark, it is argued that we find this is the favorite way of identifying John in the gospel narrative (Elliot 1993, 192). They say it is easy to see that due to the influence of Matthew and Luke, which refer to John in the noun form (βαπτιστής) as opposed to Mark who refers to him in the participial form (βαπτίζων), it was likely for scribes to change to the more popular title in the noun form (1993, 191). Being more familiar with the noun form, it is likely that scribes did not recognize ὁ βαπτίζων as a title for John in 1:4, so they attempted to clean up the verse by omitting the article and make βαπτίζων parallel with κηρύσσων by joining it with καὶ it is argued (1993, 192). However, this argument is not satisfactory.

The text does not necessarily support the use of a title. The inclusion of καὶ makes the understanding of the participle βαπτίζων tied to κηρύσσων. Furthermore, the rest of this section does not refer to John as the Baptizer; at times the Gospel of Mark finds it necessary to refer to John as the Baptizer or the Baptist, but not every time does it give him this title. This section refers to ὁ Ἰωάννης (1:6) and Ἰωάννου (1:9) in addition to Ἰωάννης here. There is no reason to identify him as the Baptizer since no other John has been mentioned yet. While Matthew uses the noun form in the parallel text (3:1), Luke does not refer to John as one associated with baptism, but rather with his father, Zachariah (3:2). Furthermore, the way ἐγένετο is translated affects whether or not we should understand the participle as a title. If we translate it at the beginning of the sentence as we do later on in the section in 1:9, it becomes, “It happened that John the one baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming . . .” However, this is awkward. It is better to place it at the end, so that it becomes, “John, the one baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming . . . was present.” But this is true only if we keep the article. There is no reason for us to keep the article if we are not going to maintain that the participle functions as John’s title. The title is not necessary. If it actually is a title, the rest of the section is not concerned with it. If we do not include the article, then ἐγένετο becomes, “John appeared in the wilderness baptizing and proclaiming . . .” The dative ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ is a dative of place, identifying where John was present. It is significant that D, which is more expansive, does not include the article. It is also significant that the majority of the Byzantine texts do not include the article, and neither does A or W. Furthermore, Θ does not have the article. In favor of the article are א, B, L, and Δ. The textual witnesses are seemingly split. The inclusion of the article, however, can be explained by the attempt to identify βαπτίζων as the title of John, which would need the article. The evidence is mixed among the textual witnesses, and although the text is best supported as having the article, it can be argued that the article does not belong in the text, especially if one does not see the necessity for a title to be present. The NIV and KJV do not translate the participle as the title for John, but instead they treat βαπτίζων and κηρύσσων as parallel. This translation is supported by the inclusion of καὶ, because it joins the two participles as a dual action of John as present in the narrative. The majority of the textual witnesses include καὶ. The one major exception is B, which does not include καὶ but does include the article. If the article is included it is hard to see the need for καὶ. Yet the textual witnesses are stronger in support for καὶ than for the article. Since καὶ fits the text nicely between the two masculine nominative present participles, and because it has early and broad textual support, we can be confident that it belongs in the text. Given that it belongs in the original text, we have to consider the article in light of this confidence. The use of καὶ between the participles desires a parallel translation, which does not easily allow for βαπτίζων to be attached to the article and understood as a title. The NASB, TNIV, and NLT all take the participle as the title for John, and they treat κηρύσσων as a parenthetical phrase relating to ἐγένετο. No matter how we understand the original text, the context clearly indicates that John was present in the wilderness baptizing and proclaiming, no matter how the text is determined here in 1:4. Since the use of βαπτίζων at this time is still in the introduction to Mark, it is at least possible that Mark was not using it as a title here but rather to define his action, and since he was so well known for this action, later in Mark he was defined with the title to clarify who he was so that the title echoed his function out in the wilderness.

The wilderness theme is important. John the Baptizer is immediately identified as the messenger from Malachi 3:1 and the voice who cries out in the wilderness from Isaiah 40:3. John the Baptizer is the one who prepares the way of the Lord. It is with the coming of John that we know the coming of the Lord is immanent. The wilderness itself is significant. It was a place of renewal, of hope and new beginnings (France 2002, 57). It was where God made the people who came out of Egypt his own (2002, 57). It was where Israel learned to trust God for protection and provision (2002, 57). It was where God prepared the way for his people (Edwards 2002, 27). Thus, from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3, John the Baptizer’s presence in the wilderness is linked with this renewal theme, which is a preparation for the coming of the Lord.

βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν – a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins. This baptism was different from the common ritual washings that were regular and repeated (France 2002, 66). It was different because it was performed by an outside agent, John the Baptizer, whereas the ritual washings were administered by the individual (2002, 68). Furthermore, John’s was a baptism of repentance. It signified moral and spiritual renewal, which fits his presence in the wilderness (Edwards 2002, 30). His baptism was a practice of moral reform (2002, 31). Repentance itself was the inward act, but his baptism was the outward sign of that inward act (Gould 1896, 6). He preached a baptism of repentance for the purpose (εἰς) of forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness of sins dealt with the cancellation of the guilt of sin (BDAG, 155). His baptism involved the forgiveness of sins in some way or another. In Matthew, John proclaimed, “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has come” (3:2). However, Luke retains the βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (3:3), but it also adds the connection to Isaiah 40:3 in Luke 3:4. Matthew brings in Isaiah 40:3 as John quotes it in his proclamation in Matthew 3:3.

1:5 – καὶ ἡ Ἰουδαία πᾶσα χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν καἰ ἐβαπτιίζοντο ὑπ᾽αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ἐξομολογοὐμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτἰας αὐτῶν – And all the land of Judea and all the people of Jerusalem were coming out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, while confessing their sins. It is interesting that the people of Judea and Jerusalem were leaving the central hub of the Jewish universe to meet John the Baptizer out in the wilderness. The fact that they went out to him and not vice versa is striking as well. As indicated already, they were being baptized by John, which is different from the regular ritual washings in Judaism. They were confessing their sins, which is contemporary or simultaneous with their being baptized by John. The NIV, KJV, TNIV, and NASB takes ἐξομολογοὐμενοι as contemporaneous to ἐξεπορεύετο. The NLT takes ἐξομολογοὐμενοι as temporal with a past tense, like this: “And when they confessed their sins, he baptized them in the Jordan River.” However, the present tense of ἐξομολογοὐμενοι indicates a simultaneous action with ἐβαπτιίζοντο and should be translated as “while confessing,” but it does not mean that the people were baptized as they were actually confessing their sins. The confession and the baptism were simply bound up as a unit; the text does not indicate which action happened first. Matthew contains this same contemporary participial phrase in 3:6.

1:6 – καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης ἦν ἐνδεδυμένος τρίχας καμήλου καὶ ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐσθίων ἀκρίδας καὶ μέλι ἄγριον – And John was wearing camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist and he was eating locusts and wild honey. Neither Matthew or Luke contain the reference to John’s clothing or diet as Mark does here in 1:6. This statement regarding the clothes reinforces John’s prophetic image (France 2002, 69). It echoes 1 Kings 1:8, which identifies that Elijah wore hair and a belt (Edwards 2002, 32). Mark is identifying John the Baptizer with Elijah. The statement regarding the diet demonstrates, if anything, John’s character. He was a man of the wild and survived, apparently, off of the land, though still within the limits of the Law.

1:7 – Καὶ λέγων ἐκήρυσσεν ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μου ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου – and while speaking, he proclaimed, “One mightier than me is coming after me.” While he was speaking to those he was baptizing, he proclaimed that someone else would come after him, and that one would be greater than John. λέγων is contemporaneous with ἐκήρυσσεν; it is possible to not even translate λέγων since the main action is synonymous with it, but to match the style of the text it is appropriate to keep it in the translation.  ἰσχυρότερός indicates one who is stronger either physically, spiritually or mentally, and in this case it indicates someone who would be stronger spiritually (BDAG, 480). ἔρχεται indicates that the coming of the ἰσχυρότερός was immanent (Cranfield 1959, 48). Furthermore, the coming of the Lord was seen as immanent since the messenger was in the wilderness preparing the way. The proclamation of the messenger reinforces this immanent coming.

οὗ ἱκανὸς οὐκ εἰμὶ κύψας λῦσαι τὸν ἱμάντα τῶν ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ – of whom I am not worthy to stoop down to loosen the straps of his sandals. John makes a comparison between himself and the immanent ἰσχυρότερός. He humbly declares himself not even fit to perform the role of a Gentile slave to the ἰσχυρότερός (Edwards 2002, 33). Matthew has a different account of this humbling statement than Mark and Luke. Mark and Luke (3:16) both say that John humbly admits he is not worthy of untying the sandal straps of the ἰσχυρότερός, whereas Matthew (3:11) says John admits that he is not worthy to carry the sandals of the ἰσχυρότερός.

1:8 – ἐγὼ ἐβάπτισα ὐμᾶς ὕδατι. δὲ αὐτὸς βαπτίσει ὐμᾶς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ – I baptized you with water. But he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. John makes an additional comparison that demonstrates further the superiority of ἰσχυρότερός. This comparison is regarding baptism. Matthew (3:11) and Luke (3:16) says that John claimed that the ἰσχυρότερός will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire, and they make no mention to his own baptism in contrast. In Mark, John’s baptism was with water, which is in contradistinction to the baptism of the ἰσχυρότερός who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. The aorist ἐβάπτισα does not indicate that John had ceased baptizing, but it probably indicated that he was talking to those he had already baptized and so it was appropriate to use the aorist. John contrasts the two baptisms, which is evident in the contrastive δὲ. The baptism of the ἰσχυρότερός is inward, not outward (France 2002, 71). In other words, it is spiritual not physical. John’s baptism was preliminary or preparatory, meaning it was of lesser significance than the spiritual baptism of the ἰσχυρότερός (2002, 71). John’s baptism was paving the way for a permanent and more powerful reality to come in the baptism of the ἰσχυρότερός. Furthermore, John’s baptism was symbolic; it outwardly expressed an inward reality. His was a ritual or physical expression, but the baptism of the ἰσχυρότερός is strictly a spiritual or inward reality (Gould 1896, 2). The baptism of the ἰσχυρότερός is of greater significance for the sole reason that the bestowal of the Holy Spirit was the action of God in the Old Testament (Edwards 2002, 33). To say that the ἰσχυρότερός would baptize with the Holy Spirit was tantamount to identifying him as God.

1:9 – Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας – And it happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee. The ἰσχυρότερός abruptly enters the scene at this point in the narrative, but only the readers  already familiar with the story of the good news of Jesus Christ know this to be true. The text itself does not yet identify this Jesus of Nazareth as the ἰσχυρότερός. In fact, the text lends to the idea that this Jesus is certainly not the ἰσχυρότερός. Jesus comes from Nazareth, a town in Galilee that was very much incomparable to Jerusalem. Jesus was sort of a “nobody” who came from an obscure town. This Jesus would not have been a good fit for the ἰσχυρότερός John mentioned in his proclamation (France 2002, 75).

καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου εἱς τὸν Ἰορδάνην – and he was baptized by John in the Jordan. If the former clause in 1:9 did not entirely convince the readers that Jesus was not the ἰσχυρότερός, this current one does. To be baptized by John would likely disqualify Jesus as the ἰσχυρότερός in the readers’ minds (France 2002, 75). It is often speculated as to why Jesus was baptized, but the text does not give us any real answers. We know that it happened, and it was apparently necessary, but beyond that we do not know. The NLT improperly translates the Greek text, taking the passive βαπτίσθη and translating it as an active, in this this way: “One day Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and John baptized him in the Jordan River.” The NIV, KJV, TNIV, and NASB all properly translate βαπτίσθη in the passive.

1:10 – καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος εἶδεν τοὺς οὐρανοὺς σχιζομένους καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν ὠς περιστερὰν – and immediately while rising up from the water he saw the heavens splitting and the Spirit coming down onto him like a dove. Here we see the Gospel of Mark’s first stylistic use of εὐθὺς. Luke omits the rising up theme and adds an element of prayer in the baptism of Jesus (3:21). Matthew retains Mark’s use of εὐθὺς, although there is a textual variant in Matthew regarding its use (3:16). Only the KJV and NASB retain the use of εὐθὺς in their translations of Mark. The NIV, NLT, and TNIV either ignore it, “As Jesus was coming up out of the water” (NIV and NLT), translating the participle as simultaneous with εἶδεν, or a more colloquial phrase is used, “Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water” (TNIV). Any of these translations is acceptable. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens splitting open. Matthew and Luke do not use the same verb in reference to the heavens. Whereas Mark uses σχίζω, “to tear open” (BDAG, 981), Matthew (3:16) and Luke (3:21) use ἀνοίγω, “to render something accessible or open” (BDAG, 84).

The vision in Mark is reminiscent of Ezekiel 1:1 and Isaiah 63:19 (64:1 in English texts; France 2002, 77). The vision in Ezekiel, also by a river, saw the heavens open. Isaiah is a plea for God to tear open the heavens and come down. At the baptism God tore open the heavens and came down. Not only did Jesus see the heavens splitting, but he also so the Spirit coming down onto him, which is significant. The Spirit was given by God to particular people in the Old Testament, but it was an identifying marker of the Messiah, such as in Isaiah 11:2; 42:1; and 61:1 (France 2002, 77). Texts like these identify the expectation that the Messiah would be endowed with the Spirit (Edwards 2002, 36). Thus, Jesus is marked out as the Messiah when the Spirit comes down and rests on him (France 2002, 77). This theme of splitting is also found in the Testament of Levi and other Jewish texts. It appears during cataclysmic demonstrations of God’s power, like the splitting of the Red Sea in Exodus 14:21, Moses’ splitting of the rock in Isaiah 48:21, the splitting of the Mount of Olives on the Day of the Lord in Zechariah 14:4, or the descent of the heavenly man in Joseph and Aseneth 14:3 (Edwards 2002, 35-6). The splitting is significant precisely because it marks an incident of utmost importance.

That the Spirit was visible like a dove may only mean that Jesus could see the Spirit, but it does not necessarily mean anything more (Evans 2003, 1067). It could be possible that it echoes Genesis where Noah sends out a dove, but the vocabulary does not match, and it is difficult to say whether or not this was intended by the author.

1:11 – καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός ὁ ἀγαπητός μου εὐδόκησα ἐν σοὶ – and a voice came from the heavens, “You are my only son; I am well pleased with you.” The fact that a voice is coming from the heavens stands in stark contrast to the voice that came from the wilderness. In contrast to the words that came from the wilderness, the words that are to follow in 1:11 stand out as being of utmost importance (France 2002, 79). Some textual witnesses do not have the verb ἐγένετο, such as the original hand of א, and D. Others have ἠκούσθη instead, such as Θ and 28. It is likely that the text did not originally include ἐγένετο, although it seems that it was at least implied, because D, which is normally expansive, is shorter, and the original, earlier copy of א‭ ‬omits it, and the other variants can be explained by scribal attempts to clarify what the action of the voice from heaven was. The text used above is supported by the second correct of א, A, B, and L. Matthew and Luke differ from Mark and from each other. Matthew supplies λέγουσα, “saying” (3:17). Luke supplies γενέσθαι, “came” (3:22). Given Matthew and Luke’s practice of supplying an action, it is possible that Mark would have supplied ἐγένετο, but the evidence does not strongly support its inclusion. The NLT does not use either, but instead supplies “said.” The NIV, KJV, TNIV, and NASB retain the use of ἐγένετο, or at least they might supply it as an implied verb.

The statement, “You are my only son; I am well pleased with you,” comes from the heavens. Luke follows Mark here, while Matthew puts the statement a little differently. Matthew has “This is my only son, in whom I am well pleased” (3:17), which is different from the use use of the second person in Mark and Luke (3:22). The first clause of the statement is probably from Psalm 2:7 and Genesis 22:2 (Evans 2003, 1067). Psalm 2:7 says, “You are my Son; today have I begotten you.” The first clause of the heavenly statement in 1:11 is quite close with the first clause in Psalm 2:7. The addition of ἀγαπητός probably comes from Genesis 22:2. It reads, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love.” In the Septuagint, only is ἀγαπητός. The original meaning of ἀγαπητός is only (Turner 1930, 13). We must beware of the NIV, KJV, NLT, TNIV, and NASB, which all translate ἀγαπητός as a referent to one being loved and without the idea of only. The noun ἀγάπη was a Christian creation; it is rarely found in the Septuagint and not found in classical Greek literature. Aristotle used it of an only son in Ethics and of the only eye of a one-eyed man in Rhetoric (Turner 1930, 13). The Septuagint uses ἀγαπητός as only in Genesis 22:2, 12, 16; Amos 8:10; Jeremiah 6:26; and Zechariah 12:10 (1930, 13). For the purposes of this section of the Gospel of Mark, ἀγαπητός ought to be translated as only. Jesus is identified by the voice from the heavens as the only son. The heavenly voice at the baptism declared Jesus to be God’s son, and anointed and equipped him with God’s Spirit (Edwards 2002, 39).

The latter part of the baptism, Mark 1:10-11, which is based on Isaiah 63:19 (64:1 in English texts), contains all the elements of the Testament of Levi. The Testament of Levi says, “The heavens will be opened, and from the temple of glory sanctification will come upon him, with a fatherly voice, as from Abraham to Isaac. And the glory of the Most High shall burst forth upon him. And the Spirit of understanding and sanctification shall rest upon him [in the water]. For he shall give the majesty of the Lord to those who are his sons in truth forever” (18:6-8; Charlesworth, 1.795). This text expands Isaiah 63:19 (Edwards 2002, 35). In Jewish tradition, the splitting of the heavens, the giving of the Spirit, and the voice from heaven signify the inauguration of the kingdom of God (2002, 34). Therefore, Jesus is seen as the inaugurator of the kingdom of God in 1:10-11, especially because the heavens have opened and the Spirit has come forth (2002, 34). He is clearly identified as the ἰσχυρότερός, despite coming from Nazareth and being baptized by John.

Bibliography

Charlesworth, J., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. In Edwards, James, The Gospel According to Mark, ed. D. A. Carson, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Cambridge, U. K., and Leicester, England: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and Apollos, 2002), 35.

Cranfield, C. E. B. 1959. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Ed., C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in 2000.

Edwards, James. 2002. The Gospel According to Mark. Ed., D. A. Carson. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Cambridge, U. K., and Leicester, England: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and Apollos.

Elliot, J. K. 1993. The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark. Leiden: Brill.

Evans, Craig. 2003. Eerdman’s Commentary on the Bible. J. D. G. Dunn and J. W. Rogerson, eds. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company.

France, R. T. 2002. The Gospel of Mark: A commentary on the Greek text. I. Howard Marshall and Donald Hagner, eds. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Cambridge, U. K., and Carlisle: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and The Paternoster Press.

Gould, Ezra. 1896. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Samuel Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles Briggs, eds. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Reprinted in 1969.

Turner, C. H. 1930. The Gospel According to St. Mark: Introduction and commentary. New York and Toronto: The Macmillan Co.

About: this paper was delivered to Professor Peter Rodgers at Fuller Theological Seminary during my second year for a class on Exegetical Methods.

The long string of genitives in Mark 1:1 is quite intriguing. The textual variant in this verse regarding υἱοῦ θεοῦ is difficult to determine. The oldest and best manuscripts are divided; likewise, scholars are divided. It is not an easy task to determine whether or not υἱοῦ θεοῦ belongs in Mark 1:1, but if we are going to be responsible students of the text, we must tackle this task. We need to look at the evidence we have externally and internally in order to complete this task. First, what are all the significant alternative readings that are available for υἱοῦ θεοῦ in this verse, and what textual witnesses support them?

The phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ is omitted by several key witnesses. Both the original writing of Codex Sinaiticus (א; A.D. Fourth Century) and Codex Koridethi (Θ; A.D. Ninth Century) omit υἱοῦ θεοῦ, as do some other manuscripts. Origen does not include υἱοῦ θεοῦ when he quotes from Mark 1:1 in the middle of the Third Century A.D. Several church fathers in addition to Origen omit this phrase, such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Asterius and Serapion during the Fourth Century A.D. According to the United Bible Society’s (UBS) The Greek New Testament in the fourth edition, a single Coptic manuscript from the Third Century A.D. also supports this omission, whereas Nesle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece in the 27th edition states that the entire Coptic tradition lends itself to a different reading. Even if we neglect the Coptic witnesses due to inconsistency, this alternative reading has enough early and strong support from that of Origen in the Third Century A.D. and א‭ ‬in the Fourth Century A.D. Furthermore, Both Irenaeus and Epiphanius omit “Jesus Christ Son of God.” This genitive string is omitted in the Greek quotation by Irenaeus in the Second Century A.D. Given his relatively early date it seems as though the omission of the shorter phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ from the first reading we looked at is further supported by Irenaeus’ omission of the larger genitive string.

The omission of the phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ is strongly supported by the Greek fathers Origen and Irenaeus. Furthermore, it is strongly supported by א‭ ‬in the original hand. However, there are two significant points to be made regarding these pieces of evidence. First, any omission in the quotes of the Greek fathers does not necessarily indicate that the original text did not include υἱοῦ θεοῦ (Cranfield 1959, 38). There is a possibility to consider that the original text included the phrase but the text they received had already been edited to omit it. Therefore, we cannot say with absolute certainty that the text did not include the phrase based on the absence of  υἱοῦ θεοῦ in their quotations. Second, since א‭ ‬was corrected early on, the support of the original hand does not necessarily indicate that the original text of Mark 1:1 did not include υἱοῦ θεοῦ. The original hand comes from the Fourth Century A.D., and the first corrector could have edited the text within that same century. If we accept that א‭ ‬was corrected fairly quickly to fix a mechanical error (France 2002, 49), then the best and earliest manuscript support for the omission of υἱοῦ θεοῦ falls out. Since there is some uncertainty, we cannot say with absolute assuredness that the omission is correct in the original hand of א. Although at first it appeared that the omission had strong support, it now seems that it lacks conclusive evidence.

There is much strong evidence for the inclusion of the phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1:1. The first corrector of א‭ ‬contains this inclusion. Additionaly, Codex Vaticanus (B; A.D. Fourth Century), Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D; A.D. Fifth Century), Codex L (L; A.D. Eighth Century) and Codex W (W; late ninth or early tenth century A.D.) all support the inclusion of υἱοῦ θεοῦ. Furthermore, although they also include the article in front of θεοῦ, Codex Alexandrinus (A; A.D. Fifth Century), Codex Sangallensis (Δ; A.D. Ninth Century), the Majority Text, Family One and Family Thirteen all include the phrase. The entire Latin (as early as the Second Century A.D.) and Syriac (as early as the Fourth Century A.D.) traditions support the inclusion of this Greek phrase. Overall, this reading has a great deal of early support from the second, fourth, and fifth centuries. If we include the Coptic tradition according to Nesle-Aland, then we also have support from the Third Century A.D., which would make the evidence much more neat, so that we would have a consecutive series of support through the second through fifth centuries. It bares strong Alexandrian (B), Western (D) and Byzantine support (A). It is noteworthy that it is included by B, which is generally regarded as one of the best manuscripts (Metzger and Ehrman 2005, 67), and D, which is quite free and expansive, although sometimes it does omit (2005, 71). Likewise, it is significant that א‭ ‬was corrected to include υἱοῦ θεοῦ.

The inclusion of the phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ is strongly supported, but a few comments must be made. It is important to note that Mark 1:1 functions as the title to the gospel. As such, there was a scribal tendency to expand titles or quasi-titles much like this one (Edwards 2002, 25). Furthermore, according to some scholars, since υἱοῦ θεοῦ is an important phrase or title throughout Mark, were it original it seems unlikely that a scribe would allow it to drop out (Edwards 2002, 25-6). Therefore, if we maintain that the original text included υἱοῦ θεοῦ, we will have a difficult challenge to explain how scribes omitted it early on, such as in the original hand of א. Nevertheless, scribes had a tendency to clean up the language of the text, and given the long string of genitives, it is a good possibility that a scribe decided to omit the phrase (Cranfield 1959, 38). Furthermore, since the Sonship of God was taken for granted early on in the history of the Church, it is very possible that a scribe would have had no problem omitting the phrase to clean it up (Cranfield 1959, 38). The phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ is strongly supported by a fair amount of key textual witnesses, and although it is not without its own difficulties, it seems that it has the most conclusive evidence of the two possibilities for this variant.

If we are to consider υἱοῦ θεοῦ as original in Mark 1:1 according to the textual witnesses of B, D, W, L, A and the entire Latin and Syriac traditions over and against the original hand of א‭ ‬and the quotations from Origen and Irenaeus, we need to consider the context of the verse and also the larger narrative thread to make sure that it fits the passage and the gospel. The concept of Jesus as God’s Son is involved in Mark 1 at the baptism of Jesus. The language of the chapter allows for υἱοῦ θεοῦ as original. The english rendering, “Son of God,” occurs twice, and in two other locations it appears somewhat differently. In Mark 1:1 and in Mark 15:39 we read, “Son of God,” but in Mark 3:11 we read, “the Son of the God” (this translation is a literal rendering to reflect the difference in Greek between the verses) and in Mark 5:7 we read, “the Son of the Most High God.” It has been argued that the phrase, “Son of God,” is a key theme for Mark and it is therefore likely that it was original in Mark 1:1, but this argument is misleading in the way that it is worded. Four total instances throughout the gospel, if we include Mark 1:1 as original, does not seem to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, only twice is it rendered, “Son of God,” again, only if we include Mark 1:1. The sample is too small to make a decision based on this factor alone, which is based on instances of word choice. Instead it should be said the concept of Jesus as God’s Son is a key theme in Mark, so we do not need to question if υἱοῦ θεοῦ fits the context of Mark. Furthermore, this theme functions climactically in the gospel, and therefore it is a highlighted feature, even if the phrase “Son of God” does not occur often, but this does not necessarily indicate that υἱοῦ θεοῦ was original in Mark 1:1. Regardless if it were original to the first verse of the Gospel of Mark, “Son of God” still functions appropriately in Mark 15; there is no reason for υἱοῦ θεοῦ to be included in Mark 1:1 on the basis of one other instance albeit climactic and important. Notwithstanding the internal evidence for providing cause to include it, if it was original, it would fit the narrative story, so we are permitted to include it if we have strong support from textual witnesses.

Given that the phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ is well-attested among the manuscripts early on, it can account for the other variants and it complements the function of “Son of God” later in Mark 15, it is very likely that it is in the original text of Mark 1:1, which is further indicated by its wide support in the Western, Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. It has support as early as the Second Century A.D. It is easy to see that a scribe could later omit the original words υἱοῦ θεοῦ due to the long string of genitives, and since there was no theological problem early on to address, it was not necessary to keep, which explains why we have early textual witnesses with the phrase and others without it. But because the phrase fits the later use in the Gospel of Mark, there is no problem with the inclusion, and so it is very likely that υἱοῦ θεοῦ is original to Mark 1:1. It does not seem to be quite as Craig Evans suggests, that the use of “Son of God” in Mark 15:39 proves the inclusion of the genitive form of “Son of God” in Mark 1:1, which he says anticipates what is to come at the cross (2006, 95), but what he implies supports the inclusion–υἱοῦ θεοῦ fits well with the narrative thread of the gospel. Was this phrase added in order to clarify any theological points? Bart Ehrman suggests that υἱοῦ θεοῦ was added in at a later time to make the assertion that Jesus is the Son of God before the baptism and much sooner than the cross event (1993, 75). But given its early support and the tendency for scribes to clean up texts, it is more likely that υἱοῦ θεοῦ was original and that it dropped out as scribes cleaned up the long string of genitives, which was not a problem since the Sonship of Jesus was not a theological debate early on, for how else could the inclusion of this phrase be explained since it is so early  and wide? The earliest and best supported reading that most sensibly accounts for the other alternatives and best fits the text is the most likely reading; in this case, υἱοῦ θεοῦ fits such a description. This reading must be original.

Reference List

Cranfield, C. E. 1959. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. C. F. D. Moule, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, James. 2002. The Gospel According to Mark. Pillar New Testament Commentary. D. A. Carson, ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan and Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Ehrman, Bart. 1993. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Evans, Craig. 2006. Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. S. E. Porter, ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

France, R. T. 2002. The Gospel of Mark. New International Greek Testament Commentary. I. Howard Marshall, Donald Hagner, eds. Grand Rapids, Michigan and Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Metzger, Bruce and Bart Ehrman. 2005. The Text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration. 4th ed. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. David Nystrom at Fuller Theological Seminary during my second year for a class on the Gospels.

When it comes to studying the New Testament, examining the four gospels and the life of Jesus is of utmost importance. Graham Stanton’s book, The Gospels and Jesus, provides New Testament students and Christians alike with the ability to study this important topic. A short summary of Stanton’s book will help us to see the various areas involved in this kind of study, that is, in studying Jesus and the gospels. By briefly summarizing The Gospels and Jesus we will be able to see some of the book’s strengths, which include, but are not limited to, Stanton’s right understanding of a dual perspective of the authors of the gospels, his delightful treatment of determining what is a gospel and how we are to understand and study the four gospels of the New Testament, his intriguing though serious study of the Gospel of Thomas, and his perception on parables in the gospels. To a short summary of The Gospels and Jesus we now turn.

In the first of two parts in the book Stanton addresses the four gospels of the New Testament. In the first chapter he introduces this study by briefly examining how the understanding and knowledge of Jesus came to us through the gospels. In this chapter he shows the difficulties that are involved in this particular study by making an example of the Lord’s prayer (pp. 6-12). In the second chapter he examines what is a gospel, which is an essential study in order to understand what the gospels are trying to communicate or accomplish. Using the categories listed by Stanton, are the gospels biographies, history, proclamation, or stories? Stanton argues that the authors of the gospels were attempting to not only tell the story but also the significance of Jesus, so gospels are a blend of biography, history, proclamation and story (p. 36). He reviews source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism and literary criticism in this chapter, which are different scholarly approaches to reading, studying and interpreting or understanding the gospels. After examining introductory matters regarding the gospels, Stanton turns to each individual gospel.

Stanton’s next four chapters examine the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, respectively. He pays careful attention to the traditions, redaction and sources of all four gospels. He emphasizes that Matthew and Luke both formed their own versions of the gospel according to the tradition of Mark, which they reshaped for their own purposes (pp. 38-9). He pays special attention to the way of Jesus and discipleship in Mark, the way of righteousness in Matthew,  salvation history or how God’s way triumphs in Luke, and Jesus as the way in John. He seeks out the relationship between John’s gospel and the synoptic gospels. Stanton also looks at the purpose and provenance of each gospel as well, although he admits that we do not know such things for certain regarding the four gospels of the New Testament. Now that he has looked at the four gospels of the New Testament, Stanton evaluates why there are only four gospels.

In the seventh chapter other texts considered to be gospels are examined to determine why they were not included in the New Testament. Such texts considered are the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter. In regards to the Gospel of Peter, Stanton quickly concludes that the gospel is valueless due to its legendary fashion (pp. 131-2). Stanton also briefly examines the Egerton Gospel, partial or fragmentary gospels, and infancy gospels before giving his own conclusions to the four gospels of the New Testament. Now that he has looked at the distinctive theological and literary features of each of the gospels and has looked at the broader topics and issues concerning them, Stanton moves on to the second part of his book.

A study of Jesus in the gospel traditions comprises the second part of The Gospels and Jesus. In the eighth chapter Stanton looks at the knowledge that we have concerning Jesus. It is here that he answers the question, “Did Jesus exist?” He examines Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts and evidence to show that there is support for the existence of Jesus. In the ninth chapter, Stanton assesses this evidence. He argues that historians generally agree that Jesus existed but they disagree on who Jesus was. Stanton seeks to find and utilize criteria for examining the gospels of the New Testament to find authentic traditions concerning Jesus. He argues that anything in the gospel traditions that would have been an embarrassment to the followers of Jesus would have been authentic, and anything that links Jesus traditions to Jewish contexts would have been authentic too. In the tenth chapter Stanton looks at John the Baptist and compares him to Jesus. John the Baptist was “the witness” of the Gospel of John, noting that he is not called “John the Baptist” in that gospel, because his primary role is to bear witness and not to baptize in that tradition (pp. 178-9). Then he looks at John the Baptist in the synoptic gospels. After looking at John the Baptist in all of the gospels, he seeks to determine what we know of this character. He resorts particularly to Josephus to find historical information on John the Baptist just as he did for Jesus. All of this information is given in an effort by Stanton to provide the context for the life of Jesus. The next couple of things that Stanton does is to consider Jesus as a prophet-teacher and look at his teaching on the kingdom of God.

In the eleventh chapter Stanton examines the prophet-teacher role of Jesus. He posits that Jesus functioned in a dual role–both as a prophet and a teacher. These two roles are similar but they are not the same according to Stanton (p. 190). He notes that the evangelists refer to Jesus both as a prophet and a teacher; therefore, we must understand Jesus in light of these references, especially when looking at the prophetic sayings and actions of Jesus in the gospels and also when coming to an understanding of the way he taught his disciples and how they interacted with him. In the twelfth chapter Stanton looks at the frequent teaching of Jesus on the kingdom of God. He notes that Jesus gives no clear explanation of what he means by “the kingdom of God” (p. 204). He wants to know whether the kingdom is temporal or spatial, and he concludes that it is mostly temporal but it is used both ways by Jesus. He concludes that what Jesus means by the kingdom sayings is God’s kingly rule in the time and place where God’s power and will have control (p. 214). Next, Stanton looks at how Jesus taught using parables and aphorisms and he looks at the miracles of Jesus.

In the thirteenth chapter Stanton looks at parables and aphorisms. Leslie Houlden’s book, Jesus: the complete guide, also includes articles on the teachings and parables of Jesus, so it seems that Stanton is following good scholarship throughout his book by adhering to particular categories to study the life of Jesus. Stanton says parables are primarily comparisons typically done in a story form and aphorisms are short and pithy sayings. He notes that the evangelists give us many parables. Aphorisms are closely related to parables, although they are not the same (p. 229). In the fourteenth chapter Stanton examines the miracles and exorcisms of Jesus. He looks at how the evangelists portray Jesus and the miracle traditions, which he says are not unique to the gospels of the New Testament, and he also asks whether or not Jesus did in fact perform miracles. After concluding that historians generally agree that Jesus did perform miracles, he asks another question–why did Jesus perform them? Stanton determines that Jesus performed such things in his ministry because they were the kingdom of God in operation (p. 239). From here, Stanton looks at how Jesus understood himself–whether as Messiah, Son of God or Son of Man.

No book on the life of Jesus can escape the task of determining who Jesus thought of himself by examining the titles or names of Jesus, such as the Son of Man or the Son of God, and in a similar fashion with other books on Jesus, such as Jesus: the complete guide, by Leslie Houlden, Stanton spends the fifteenth chapter examining who Jesus thought of himself. Did Jesus think of himself as the Messiah? Did Jesus refer to himself as the Son of God? Or were these titles designed and attributed to Jesus by the post-resurrection church? Stanton concludes that it is difficult to determine which titles or claims were created by the church and which ones were used by Jesus himself (p. 252). Interestingly and intriguing enough, he thinks that Jesus probably did not refer to himself as Messiah (p. 252). Although it is likely that he did not call himself the Son of God, Jesus did refer to God as the Father, so it is easy to see that it could be that the church created and attributed this title to Jesus (p. 252). The title “Son of Man” became a messianic title over time as the church developed and attributed it to Jesus, although Jesus did use it indirectly of himself (p. 252). Now Stanton looks at the conflict involved in the ministry of Jesus.

In the sixteenth chapter Stanton looks at the conflict Jesus had with other leaders. He looks at how the gospels portray the conflicts and then he looks at the various competitors, namely the Essenes, Sadducees, “zealots,” scribes, and Pharisees over issues of Sabbath, purity and divorce. He notes in the last section of this chapter that Jesus did not intend to abolish the laws of the Old Testament, but he did mean to interpret them differently than what was commonly taught and understood during his time. Next, Stanton looks at the passion narratives.

In the seventeenth chapter Stanton looks at the last days of Jesus through the perspective of the four gospels of the New Testament. He examines the passion narratives, especially the last supper and compares it to the Jewish Passover seder (p. 277). Then he considers several reasons to determine why Jesus was put to death; he also examines the accusations against Jesus that lead to his demise. He also looks at Jesus as the crucified Messiah-King and the resurrection, questioning whether or not it actually happened. From here Stanton asks, “Who was Jesus of Nazareth?

In the last and final chapter of the book Stanton reviews the content of the book and considers who Jesus was. He proposes that the only way to know anything about Jesus is to start with the gospels and critically examine them and take into account the position of the evangelists and “the modifications they have introduced” (p. 293). He argues further that we must understand Jesus in the context of first-century Judaism (p. 293). He also argues that there are traditions in the gospels that can in fact be considered trustworthy and reliable information; he appeals to traditions that would have been an embarrassment to the followers of Jesus as being authentic, because no one would make it up unless it was true due to the effect it would have (p. 295). He concludes that although we cannot reconstruct the exact and entire life of Jesus, we do know a good deal about him (p. 295).

Now that we have briefly summarized The Gospels and Jesus, we can look at three of its strengths. We will look at the following points: first, Stanton’s right understanding of a dual perspective of the authors of the gospels; second, his intriguing though serious study of the Gospel of Thomas; and third, his perception on parables in the gospels.

Stanton takes a good position regarding the nature of the gospels. He does well by saying that we should understand the gospels in light of the evangelists’ dual perspective when writing them. He argues that the evangelists intertwined story and significance, which means that they were writing both about the life of Jesus and also what his life meant for their readers and themselves (p. 5). They were not specifically looking to write a biography, history, novel or theological treatise; they were looking to tell the story of Jesus and what it means for the world by using biographical, historical, narrative and theological features. This fact is rightly noted by Stanton, and it is certainly one of the strengths of this book.

Stanton takes the Gospel of Thomas seriously and does not pass over it as a waste of time, which is a strong point of the book. Many scholars have thought highly of this gospel, so it is necessary for Stanton to take it seriously if he is to gain good repute on a wide scale. He notes that the Gospel of Thomas comes from a considerably later date than that of the four gospels of the New Testament, and it sounds quite different from them as well. He determines that this document does not provide what its positive critics claim–a new royal path back to the historical Jesus–but he takes this document seriously and critically analyzes the text and submits that five of its sayings (or logia, to be precise) might actually be authentic, meaning that they might come from the mouth of the historical Jesus (p. 129). Stanton’s ability to critically examine the Gospel of Thomas and take it seriously is certainly one of the strengths of this book.

Stanton’s treatment of parables and aphorisms is a strength of the book. He rightly states that parables must interpret the student’s understanding and the student’s understanding must not interpret the parables. What Stanton means is that the parables have to be understood in the context of the First Century A.D. We should not import our own understanding into the parables, but allow the parables to speak to us and shape and mold our understanding (p. 227). This point is a particularly good one and is certainly a strength of the book as it stands as a good hermeneutic not only for studying parables but the Bible as a whole.

Stanton’s book, The Gospels and Jesus, is a great book as it enables New Testament students to gain a good grasp of Jesus in the gospels. Stanton’s book stands out for its good perception on parables, for its fair critique and serious treatment of the Gospel of Thomas, and its right understanding of the dual-perception of the evangelists through which we must understand the gospels. Any student of the New Testament must certainly read and come to terms with the content of this book as it is generally filled with helpful, delightful and invaluable information regarding Jesus and the gospels.

About: this paper was delivered to Dr. David Nystrom at Fuller Theological Seminary during my second year for a class on the Gospels.

We do not know as much as we sometimes believe about Satan. Although Satan figures as a key player throughout the Old and New Testaments, the Bible does not give a detailed theology regarding this evil being. It is important to come to terms with what the Bible does offer us, and understand Satan in the biblical view. We must determine what the Bible calls Satan, how the Old Testament views him, and what the New Testament has to say as well, so that we can gain a biblical view of Satan.

The Bible uses several names for Satan. It has a small collection of proper names that it attributes to him. The Bible calls him Satan–Adversary or Accuser–in 1 Chronicles 21:1; Job 1:6; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; and Romans 16:20. It calls him Abaddon in Revelation 9:11. Abaddon in Hebrew is identified as Apollyon in Greek, meaning Destroyer.¹ He is called Beelzebub, which probably comes from the Philistine deity known as the Lord of the flies (Matthew 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15).² He is called Belial, which may mean Worthlessness (2 Corinthians 6:15).³ The Bible also has a wide variety of titles for Satan. Revelation 12:10 calls him the accuser of our brothers. He is called the adversary (1 Peter 5:8). Revelation 9:11 calls him the angel of the bottomless pit. He is called the devil (Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:2, 6; Revelation 20:2). He is called the enemy in Matthew 13:39. He is called the evil spirit in 1 Samuel 16:14. He is called the lying spirit in 1 Kings 22:22. The Bible calls him the liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). He is called a murderer in John 8:44. He is called the great red dragon in Revelation 12:3. He is called the old serpent in Revelation 12:9; 29:2. He is called the serpent (Genesis 3:4, 14; 2 Corinthians 11:3). He is called the power of darkness in Colossians 1:13. He is called the prince of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). He is called the prince of demons in Matthew 12:24. He is called the prince of the power of the air in Ephesians 2:2. He is called the ruler of the darkness of this world in Ephesians 6:12. He is called the spirit that works in the children of disobedience in Ephesians 2:2. He is called the tempter (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5). He is called the god of this world in 2 Corinthians 4:4. He is called the unclean spirit (Matthew 12:43). He is called the wicked one in (Matthew 13:19, 38). The Bible has a large collection of names or titles to refer to Satan, but it favors the name Satan when referring to him. The name Satan occurs 18 times in the Old Testament, and 35 times in the New Testament.⁴

The Old Testament has a lesser view of Satan in terms of his role or function as an evil being. Satan is understood to be the serpent in Genesis 3, in which he is abruptly introduced. The book of Job adds some important details. Satan is identified as one of the sons of God (Job 1:6-9, 12; 2:1-7). It appears that Satan is part of the heavenly council–the sons of God or heavenly beings (Psalm 89). Job identifies that Satan roams the earth (1:7; 2:2). He is able to be in heaven even though he is able to roam the earth. Satan means adversary when used in reference to a military or political opposition, but when in reference to legal matters it means accuser.⁵ The Old Testament image bound up in the name of Satan is a heavenly prosecutor accusing people of breaking the law. In Genesis 3, Satan is depicted as a serpent who does not accuse Eve but twists the perception of the tree from which she was not able to eat. In 1 Chronicles 21, Satan provokes David to sin. In Job 1 and 2, Satan does not accuse Job of sin but accuses him of being obedient only because God caused him to prosper. In Zechariah 3, Satan is present and he is accusing Joshua the High Priest, but he is rebuked by the Lord. For the Old Testament, Satan is identified as a heavenly being who stirs up trouble.

The New Testament has a higher view of Satan as an evil being. Satan is not seen simply as troublesome in the New Testament. He has gone beyond the accusing idea from the Old Testament and has become much more proactive. The gospels reveal several proactive actions. Satan tempts Jesus in Matthew 4 and Luke 4. He seeks to take away the word of the kingdom planted in the hearts of the hearers (Matthew 13:19). Furthermore, he grows his own children (“tares”) to choke out the good seed (Matthew 13:38-9). Satan is able to bind or possess (Luke 13:16; John 13:27). Jesus identifies Satan as a murderer (John 8:44). In the rest of the New Testament, Satan is understood to be at war with Christians. He seeks to fill Christians’ hearts to lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3). He seeks to pervert the righteous ways of the Lord (Acts 13:10). Satan has power over those who do not belong to God (Acts 26:18). He blinds the minds of those who do not believe (2 Corinthians 4:4). He corrupts the minds that belong to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3). Satan works to create disobedience (Ephesians 2:2). He hinders the work of God’s human agents (1 Thessalonians 2:18). He condemns and snares believers (1 Timothy 3:6). He is a roaring lion seeking to devour those who believe (1 Peter 5:8). In the book of Revelation, Satan throws people into prison so that they will stand trial (2:9). Satan has progressed in function from the Old Testament to the New. While before he was present and mettlesome, he is now in the New Testament the key opponent of Jesus and his disciples.

The biblical view of Satan is certainly not good but it is not very detailed either. There is not a lot in the Bible concerning Satan. It seems as though he is not a subject or a topic that it is severely concerned about. What we do see are the names and titles regarding Satan. The names and titles given to him throughout the Bible–mostly from the New Testament–portray Satan to be a troublesome enemy who seeks to do physical and spiritual harm. The Old Testament portrays Satan to be a heavenly being who is able to be in heaven and on earth, but he accuses people, twists information around, and provokes people to sin. He is understood to be evil, but he does not play a prominent role throughout the entire Old Testament except for a few key instances like in Genesis 3, Job 1 and 2, and Zechariah 3. When the New Testament comes around, Satan is much more prominent. He is not one to be taken lightly. He proactively seeks to fight against Jesus and his followers by tempting people to sin, to inflict pain on people, to cloud the minds of those who follow Jesus, to bind the minds of those who do not believe, and pervert the ways of the Lord. Where he comes from we do not know other than he is one among the sons of God that form his heavenly council, but he has been cast out from heaven and currently awaits punishment while he roams the earth (Revelation 12:9-12; 20:1-10).