A few days ago, I had a radio interview with Kevin Boling, pastor of Mountain Bridge Bible Fellowship and host of the radio program “Knowing the Truth.” In that interview for “Knowing the Truth,” Pastor Boling and I discussed a book that I edited in 2005, Whatever Happened to Truth? Contributing authors included Al Mohler, J. P. Moreland, and Kevin Vanhoozer. The book opens with my article, “’What is Truth?’ Pilate’s Question in its Johannine and Larger Biblical Context.” Al Mohler contributed the essay, “Truth and Contemporary Culture.” The chapter entitled “Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn” was written by J. P. Moreland. Kevin Vanhoozer offers the article “Lost in Interpretation? Truth, Scripture, and Hermeneutics.”

Here is what one reviewer said about the book: “Here is an anomaly: Christians outside the West dying because they believe their faith is true and Christians inside the West doffing their hats to the idea and then looking the other way! This book explores what it should mean to say that Christians know the truth, doing so in ways that are searching, sure-footed, biblically convincing, and intellectually satisfying.” (David F. Wells, Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary).

For those of you who might be interested in listening to that radio interview, here is the link: www.sermonaudio.com/knowingthetruth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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