Four Views On Moving Beyond The Bible To Theology, Excerpt

ZONDERVAN
Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology

Copyright © 2009 by Gary T. Meadors.
This title is also available as a Zondervan ebook.

Visit www.zondervan.com/ebooks.
Requests for information should be addressed to:

Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Four views on moving beyond the Bible to theology / Gary T. Meadors, general editor.
p. cm. — (Counterpoints)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes.
ISBN 978-0-310-27655-5 (softcover)
1. Bible — Use. 2. Theology — Methodology. 3. Bible — Hermeneutics. I. Meadors,
Gary T., 1945- II. Kaiser, Walter C. III. Doriani, Daniel M. IV. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. V.
Webb, William J.
BS538.3.F68 2009
220.601--dc22 2009021004
All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible,
New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible
Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. Or from the Holy
Bible, Today’s New International Version™. TNIV®. Copyright © 2001, 2005 by Inter-
national Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
Any Internet addresses (websites, blogs, etc.) and telephone numbers printed in this
book are offered as a resource. They are not intended in any way to be or imply an
endorsement by Zondervan, nor does Zondervan vouch for the content of these
sites and numbers for the life of this book.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means — electronic, mechanical,
photocopy, recording, or any other — except for brief quotations in printed reviews,
without the prior permission of the publisher.
Cover and interior design by Matthew Van Zomeren
Printed in the United States of America
09 10 11 12 13 14 15 • 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 4 8/7/09 11:09 AM

CONTENTs
Introduction
Gary T. Meadors 7
1. A Principlizing Model 19
WalTer C. Kaiser Jr.
Responses
daniel M. doriani 51
Kevin J. vanhoozer 57
WilliaM J. Webb 64
2. A Redemptive-Historical Model 75
daniel M. doriani
Responses
WalTer C. Kaiser Jr. 121
WilliaM J. Webb 133
3. A Drama-of-Redemption Model 151

Kevin J. vanhoozer
Responses
WilliaM J. Webb 210
4 A Redemptive-Movement Model 215

WilliaM J. Webb
Responses

5. Reflections on Moving beyond 271
the Bible to Theology
MarK l. sTrauss 271
al WolTers 299
ChrisTopher J. h. WriGhT 320
Conclusion
Gary T. Meadors 347
Select Bibliography 349
Scripture Index 353
Subject Index 361
Author Page 371

INTrODuCTION
Gary T. Meadors
HoW IS A ColleCTIoN of WRITINGS composed between 2,000

and 3,500 years ago relevant for current living? Informed
Christians would immediately respond by affirming that
the Jewish-Christian Scriptures contain truth that tran-
scends time and space and therefore inform our decisions
today. We are confronted with complicated modern ques-
tions concerning every aspect of life and death that call for
biblical answers (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, genetic research,
and gender and transgender patterns). We often struggle
with what we are required to obey today (e.g., in regard to
Sabbath patterns, household codes, male and female head
coverings or the lack thereof, almsgiving, fasting, how to
do church in the modern world, whether or not to go to
court, and how to educate our children). At times we are
confronted with issues for which there are no direct (e.g., a
“proof text”) or finalized biblical teachings (e.g., most Chris-
tians believe human slavery is wrong, but the Bible never
directly finalizes this issue).
We wonder why the Bible seems silent in regard to serious
social issues, issues that we believe violate a biblical world-
view and demand to be addressed. We look for answers and
often walk away feeling that the Bible is like a dummy in
the hands of a ventriloquist — you can make it teach just
about anything you desire. Your pastor or teacher may claim
that their view represents “what the Bible teaches” and we
should all accept their explanation. Then you have a pasto-
ral change, and the same Bible is used to prove the oppo-
site position! While sometimes the variations are the result
of clearly delineated lines of interpretation, sometimes the
7

8 Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology
views are really just logical constructs the teacher brings to

the table. This experience is also aggravated by the prolif-
eration of English Bibles where translations differ and seem
to slant toward one view or another. So what do you do as
a Christian who desires to please God, to follow the leader-
ship he has provided, and to obey his Word?
This book will assist you to progress in your understand-
ing of how the Bible teaches. It will also force you to consider
how you think about the Bible because you will hear several
different views from authors, all of whom affirm an inspired
Scripture, about how the Bible is relevant and authoritative
for current issues. This experience will help you engage the
fact that God has provided a special, inspired text for our
benefit, but he has not provided inspired commentaries. The
believing community glorifies God by engaging the debate
about how the Bible informs contemporary questions it did
not always originally envision.
WHaT DOEs GOING

“BEYOND THE BIBLE” MEaN?
1
The use of the term beyond in relation to the Bible may seem
contradictory. Some might react by saying, “Going beyond
the Bible is surely a liberal idea or a compromise because of
someone’s agenda to make the Bible say what they desire
to hear.” This kind of a reaction misunderstands the role of
theological analysis in relating the Bible to contemporary
issues.
This use of “beyond” merely represents a theologi-
cal construct that cannot claim a biblical context that
directly teaches the point scored. The context may imply
an interpreter’s claim or legitimately be used to construct
a larger premise to support a theological construct. Read-
1. The phrase “beyond the Bible” came to prominence with I. Howard

Marshall, beyond the bible: Moving from scripture to Theology (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2004), although the issues the phrase represents are part
of an ongoing debate. Marshall’s ongoing project is to see “if there can be a
principled way of moving from the ancient, authoritative text to its modern
application” (ibid., 7).

Introduction 9
ers have been going beyond the Bible since the inception of
interpretation. When you shake someone’s hand at church
rather than greeting him or her with a holy kiss (1 Thess.
5:26), you have gone “beyond the Bible.” You have decided
that the holy kiss was a cultural expression and have chosen
your own society’s expression. The Bible never directed you
or gave you permission to deviate from the command to
greet one another in this manner; rather, you have merely
assumed that times have changed and so has the manner
of greeting (although in many countries outside the United
States such greetings are still part of their culture).
At a more serious level, how do you account for the fact
that the Bible did not demand that slaves be released but
instead includes them as a typical part of the household
structures of the society at that time? Furthermore, where is
a proof text for God as a “trinity”? Yet, the church has almost
universally declared that slavery is wrong and God is three
in one. The church has reasoned theologically “beyond” the
existing biblical statements to views it believes God holds
to be true.
To be sure, there are texts that many believe hint at these
conclusions, but there is more or less a going beyond the
words on the page to achieve certain understandings. It is
sort of like having your feet anchored in the canon while
leaning over into the current world in order to achieve a
full accounting of how biblical truth applies. This imagery
seems somewhat supported by how the Wisdom litera-
ture of the Old Testament unpacks the implications of the
law without quoting it directly. In the Old Testament, all
of life seems “nested” in small bits of data that continue to
frame life application. Theological paradigms are therefore
required to make assertions about what is “biblical,” that is,
what God requires, in any given situation.
One might object to this and claim that good exegesis can
answer all of our questions. But can it? What about resolv-
ing the multiple issues of 1 Timothy 2:11 – 15? What about
Paul’s statement in 2:12 that “I do not permit a woman to
teach or to have authority over a man” (TNIV), or the more
challenging items in 2:13 – 15 and how they inform 2:12.
This text has been turned inside out in the gender debate

without resolution, although the various gender views all

claim it serves their position! When our interpretive meth-
ods require that we appeal to our theological assumptions
(e.g., are gender statements a result of creation or the fall?)
in order to explain a text, we have gone “beyond” the plain
statements of the text in order to solve our theological issue.
This is an inevitable and necessary part of doing theology. If
we claim that exegesis has solved the problem while equally
competent scholars disagree about the exegetical products,
we have deceived ourselves and perhaps deified our own
interpretive judgments. For whatever reasons, God has not
made the process simple or final in the human interpretive
arena.
Going beyond the immediate contexts and claiming that
there are larger implications that teach us in those contexts,
especially when a series of texts is evaluated, is a noble task.
Let me illustrate this by a threefold model to account for
how the Bible teaches. One can think of the Bible teaching
us at three levels:
• direct teaching (teaching that best represents what the
original author intended the original audience to
understand from the text)
• implied teaching (teaching that seems reasonably clear
by examining how texts speak; for example, Paul’s
speaking to Philemon about Onesimus, while never
directly stating a view on manumission, implies a
softer approach to an indentured servant)
• creative constructs (theologically constructed views
that interpreters argue best represent the totality of
the Bible)
One could think of direct teaching by noting how the
New Testament abrogates the normative food laws of the
Old Testament in Acts 10:9 – 16 and 1 Timothy 4:3 – 5. This
is teaching that requires our acceptance. implied teaching
can be no less demanding although not backed by a non-
debated proof text. The Trinity is a nonnegotiable belief for
Christians, but it is an implied teaching. Creative constructs,
however, represent more debatable categories that usually
require certain interpretive grids for reading texts. Views

Introduction 11
on eschatological issues such as the millennium and the

rapture of the church, and even forms for doing church,
usually fall into systems that endeavor to make sense out
of numerous connected texts by imposing certain grids by
which these texts are read.
Think of this threefold model as the concentric rings of
a bull’s-eye target. All of the categories that the model sur-
faces reflect biblical teaching, but the farther we go from the
inner circle (direct), the more we must present “lines of rea-
son” to account for our assertions and how they best repre-
sent biblical teaching. The taxonomy becomes increasingly
complicated as we move from “plain facts” to “constructed
facts.” This model is further complicated because we can-
not just live in the assumed static safety of the inner circle
of direct teaching; after all, we still have to account for what
the Bible intends forever normative teaching to be. Sooner or
later everyone must move outward from the inner circle.
As you read this book, you should reflect on each author’s
assertions and ask yourself, “Am I hearing direct, implied,
or creative assertions?” How does each view connect itself to
Scripture? At what point do the arguments of a view unpack
biblical implications, and how do you view the “lines of rea-
son” for that view’s assertions? Or, if a view stretches you
out beyond direct and perhaps implied statements (depends
on whom you ask!) to what God would do in new settings
or what Paul would say if he were alive today, how do you
make decisions about such assertions? Your judgments in
this regard will influence which view you believe best rep-
resents the teaching of the Bible for the modern world. If you
can advance your understanding of why or how a writer
holds a certain view, you will be well rewarded for the time
you spend in the study of the issues this book addresses.
Consequently, “going beyond the Bible” is not only a
legitimate task, it is a necessary one. Every time we make a
judgment about how we relate to biblical patterns or com-
mands and decide that “it doesn’t apply to us now,” we have
made a “beyond” judgment to a greater or lesser extent. Or,
if we fail to find a specific biblical context that addresses an
issue of current concern, we do not assume the Bible has
nothing to say, but we make a “beyond” judgment on the

basis of our theological understandings. The question we

need to face is, how do we justify our judgments? What
model guides our process of applying ancient texts to mod-
ern questions?
IssuEs aTTENDaNT TO MakING

“BEYOND” JuDGMENTs
Richard Longenecker’s 1984 publication new Testament social
ethics for Today stirred the pot in evangelical circles about
how to maintain a relevant Bible in the modern world. Longe-
necker’s burden was to address this issue: How “are the ideas
and solutions of the writers of the New Testament [relevant]
for contemporary social issues when society has changed so
dramatically and situations are not at all the same?”2 Longe-
necker labeled his model as a “developmental hermeneutic”
and endeavored to show how the New Testament was point-
ing toward new ethical patterns (e.g., slaves and gender in
relation to Gal. 3:28 were a major focus) and consequently
how the modern church can apply ancient texts. Longe-
necker’s work was a bit of a bombshell in some conservative
circles because it challenged the use of the Bible as a static
book of codes and called for an organic, dynamic method that
engages each successive generation in the development of a
Christian response to cultural challenges.
Longenecker’s work is a wonderful primer for the cur-
rent debate about how Scripture is relevant.3 The issues he
raised in 1984, and revisited in a 1999 publication,4 are still
at the center of current evangelicalism’s search for a model
2. Richard N. Longenecker, new Testament social ethics for Today (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), ix.
3. Professor Longenecker was invited to write a views chapter for this
project but declined with regrets because of his writing commitments in retire-
ment. The editor would encourage students interested in the issues debated
in this book to study Longenecker’s work as an introduction to the current
debate. The suggestive thoughts of this introduction are fully unpacked by
Longenecker’s two volumes.
4. Richard N. Longenecker, new Wine into Fresh Wineskins (Peabody, MA.:
Hendrickson, 1999), esp. chapters 6 and 7.

Introduction 13
that is both faithful to Scripture and relevant to contempo-

rary culture. Many of the issues in this debate center around
defining how Scripture is relevant through changing times
and locations.
WHaT Is THE NaTurE Of sCrIpTurE?

The debate regarding how the Bible is relevant today
touches the very core of the nature of revelation, the product
of which is the Bible. The umbrella of evangelicalism pro-
vides a variety of perspectives on this issue, ranging from
the Reformed to the charismatic. As you read the current
volume and reflect on the views presented on how to use the
Bible today, it is helpful to reflect on two major images used
to explain how Scripture is relevant.
First, is the Bible a reference manual for life in the sense
that it is a book of codes that apply the same way throughout
all time? In this sense, the codes transfer from one culture
to another in a concrete normative manner. The historical,
cultural, and sociological settings of the original audience
that the texts address are not really important since the Bible
ultimately stands above all of this in its declarations. For
this way of thinking, your decision-making method is to
locate a “proof text” to resolve each issue that arises. Your
methodology to argue your view is to assert what the text
says in black-and-white print and leave it there. We adjust to
biblical statements; biblical statements do not adjust to us.
The challenge of this view is what to do when you cannot
discover a “proof text” to cover your question. You either
develop secondary suppositions about how to argue from
the text to your issue, or you retreat into an assertive defen-
sive mode.
A second imagery is this: Is the Bible more like a story
that requires us to look behind the stage of players in order
to discern the universal principles that drive the point God
intends to score in the texts? The historical specifics are
important nuances but are not binding since it is the under-
lying principles that drive the narrative’s teaching. The Bible
is more organic in its development. One context builds on
another, and internal changes or progress may be discerned

within the flow of the text and thereby indicate to us God’s

will about certain issues. Consequently, proof texts are sub-
ordinated to contexts and the lines of reason they provide
that inform current questions that ancient authors may not
have had in mind to address. Views that follow this meth-
odology require a higher taxonomy of learning: you have to
get “beyond” brute facts to the implications and constructs
that the data provide. These kinds of approaches often
develop methodologies that posit development in what the
text teaches. They may posit trajectories of meaning in order
to predict how an issue should be treated in the future, or
develop figurative images that enable one to draw from the
text to its implications.
A major challenge of a story type view is to ask the
question, “When does the story end?” If Paul were alive
today, would he adjust his statements, for example, about
gender? When is the Bible speaking normative truth that
never changes, and when is it speaking culturally condi-
tioned statements? It is at this juncture that tension exists.
For the code type view, the story is over . . . next question!
For a story type model, some of the views you read will end
the story but continue to discern the principles the writers
began. Others will suggest different ways in which the story
continues within the contemporary believing community.
It is, of course, too simplistic to think that these two cat-
egorical images have clean lines of demarcation or that there
are no combinations of the two or even other models to
address the question. As you read the views and responses
in this book, you will discover that this subject is very much
a debate in process.5 The purpose of this volume is to make
the debate more prominent with a view to generating more
discussion so that we can move the issues intrinsic to the
debate forward.
It is important to affirm that the proponents of the variety
of views within evangelicalism hold a high view of Scrip-
5. Counterpoints series volumes usually provide views that have become

rather fixed representatives on a given subject. This volume, however, is pro-
viding an entrée into a subject that is currently emerging. Hence, the three
final reflective essays are unique for a Counterpoints volume.

Introduction 15
ture as God’s Word, although their views of how Scripture is

relevant in the contemporary setting may vary widely. It is
a mistake to assume that disagreement over how the Bible
teaches signals a greater or lesser view of the authority of
Scripture. The current volume is merely a sample of a devel-
oping discussion within evangelicalism about the question
of how the Bible has continuing authority. The last word has
not yet been achieved on this subject.6
OTHEr IssuEs TO CONsIDEr

When we were children we sang the song, “Every promise
in the book is mine, every chapter, every verse, every line.”
Now that we are adults, we know this is not true! The Bible
is a progressive revelation and history of God’s people over
a long period, and God’s ways of dealing with his people
have changed. Israel was promised a land; Christians are
not. Israel was promised blessings in relation to a physi-
cal temple; the church is a new kind of temple, and biblical
authors can speak analogically about temple and body.
A study of the Bible quickly alerts us to change, and often
change that is not forecasted or announced. We affirm change
has happened by inductive analysis (and common sense),
but we often cannot point to a particular text and say, “Aha!
That text abrogates, explains, or advances that past teach-
ing.” Such judgments must be made from theological mod-
els. Consequently, you will read about “development” within
and beyond the text, about the nature and validity of “trajec-
tories,” and assertions about “reading between the lines” of
what an author said and what they might say today.
Another major question to probe is this one: When is
a biblical statement normative for all time? We often deal
6. N. T. Wright’s contribution on this subject asserts that it is not “the

authority of Scripture” but “the authority of God exercised through Scripture”
that is the way forward. See his The last Word: beyond the bible Wars to a new
understanding of the authority of scripture (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
2005) and his fuller treatment in chapter five, “Theology, Authority and the
New Testament,” in The new Testament and the people of God (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992).

with texts that raise this question with noncritical common

sense. We realize that commands about day laborers, gor-
ing oxen, how to do evangelism, how often to observe the
Lord’s Supper, how to greet one another, or how to deter-
mine if a woman is pregnant need to be contextualized into
our own time and space. But noncritical common sense can
only carry us so far. We need more sophisticated paradigms
to determine when the Bible is describing and when it is
prescribing and when these two features have been adjusted
because we have moved on in time and space. Hopefully,
you will walk away from the reading of this volume with
a deep realization that “How is the Bible relevant?” is no
simple question, but it is one you cannot afford to avoid.
THE VIEWs rEprEsENTED IN THIs BOOk

The AuThors
The question of what Scripture means for contemporary cul-
ture is a topic of perennial interest in theology. This volume
represents four views on the subject:
• a principlizing model by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.
• a redemptive-historical model by Daniel M. Doriani
• a drama-of-redemption model by Kevin J. Vanhoozer
• a redemptive-movement model by William J. Webb
Each of these authors7 has published on the interpretation
and application of Scripture in a variety of arenas. Their
footnotes and the bibliography at the end of this volume
will provide you with the broader literature base. It is better
that this introduction resist offering an overview or opinion
of these views but rather leave that task between you, the
reader, and the primary sources themselves.8
In addition to the four views and their responses, we
have added three “reflections” from prominent scholars that
give a broader analysis of the question of relating Scripture
7. Please consult the author page for a description of each participant.

8. The reflection by Mark Strauss starts with an interactive overview of
the four views and thereby provides an introductory synthesis of the views.

Introduction 17
to contemporary issues. These sections will probe issues in

biblical and systematic theology as well as philosophy and
missiology that inform the current discussion of the rele-
vance of Scripture in the contemporary world.
One final comment before you launch into the core of
this volume. The original working title for this book used
the phrase “beyond the sacred page” rather than “beyond
the Bible.” The authors use the original phrase a great deal
since their work was completed prior to a title change. While
“beyond the sacred page” has a more poetic ring, “beyond
the Bible” was deemed to be more direct speech for the title.
These phrases are intended to be equivalent.

ChApTer one
a prINCIpLIzING
MODEL
Walter C. Kaiser Jr.
oNe of THe MoST IMPoRTANT INTeRPReTIVe TASKS, but the

one most lay people, teachers, and pastors often have had
little training in, is the move from determining what a text
meant in its original setting and context to applying that text
in one’s own day and culture. That move is filled with poten-
tial for great power in one’s teaching and preaching, but it
also possesses an equally great potential for mischief and
harm to both the speaker and the audience. These moves
are especially sensitive when the original text of Scripture
involves cultural elements that are different from cultural
elements in our own day. But as we will see, rather than
viewing these elements as obstacles to understanding the
text fairly, they are meant to actually help us in the task of
applying that text to other times and places. The textual
illustration of this kind of move used in a former day opens
up the potential for our determining what the principle of
the same issue being illustrated would be in our own day.
One proposal for bridging this gap between the “then” of
the text’s ancient context and the “now” application of that
19

same text in our day was entitled “ethnohermeneutics,”1

which recognized three horizons in this delicate cross-
cultural interpretation: (1) the culture of the Bible, (2) the
culture of the interpreter, and (3) the culture of the recep-
tor. It is important to note that all three horizons have to be
brought into the discussion of a scriptural text, yet without
allowing the second and third horizons to override, or dic-
tate, to the first horizon a new meaning; one that no longer
serves as the basis for a common communication on the sub-
ject first introduced by the original context.
In the early church fathers, cultural matters in the Scrip-
ture were discussed under the topics of “condescension,”
“accommodation,” and “acculturation.” From their stand-
point, the biblical writers did not make the interpretation
of the text more difficult when they introduced cultural
aspects; instead, they made it more accessible by showing
us how it could be applied. To illustrate this point, notice
how easily readers and interpreters of Philippians 4:2
handle “I plead with Euodia and Syntyche to agree with
each other in the Lord.” The particularization of the names
and the specificity of some altercation that had taken place
between these two ladies in the context of the church at
Philippi should not cause us to pass over that statement
in Paul’s letter and say in effect, “Oh, neither Euodia nor
Syntyche is a relative of mine, and I am not part of the
church at Philippi, so that word is not for me in my day.”
Instead, most will see it for what it is — a good illustration
of the principle Paul talked about in his letter to the Ephe-
sians (4:32): “Be kind and compassionate to one another,
forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” If
that is a legitimate way to handle this particularismus in the
New Testament, should not that same procedure work for
1. Charles H. Kraft, “Towards a Christian Ethnotheology,” in God, Man

and Church Growth: Festschrift in honor of donald anderson McGavran (ed. A.
R. Tippett; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973): 109 – 26, and Larry W. Caldwell,
“Third Horizon Ethnohermeneutics: Reevaluating New Testament Herme-
neutical Models for an Old Task,” asian Journal of Theology 1 (1987): 314 – 33.
See my chapter entitled “Obeying the Word: The Cultural Use of the Bible,” in
Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moises Silva, introduction to biblical hermeneutics: The
search for Meaning (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 222 – 39.

A Principlizing Model 21
the Old Testament, which has many more instances of that

same particularity and specificity involving people, places,
times, and issues?
Therefore, what happens in this and similar cases where
cultural issues intrude on the text can be handled by princi-
plizing the text.2 For example, in some cases in interpreting
the Bible, we will keep the principle affirmed in the theol-
ogy taught, along with the cultural-historical expression of
that principle where the cultural expression remains simi-
lar to its meaning in our times as well. Such would be the
case when Scripture taught lines of responsibility between
husband and wife — both the theology of marriage and the
cultural illustrations of it are rather closely proximate to one
another.
On other occasions, we will keep the theology of the
passage (i.e., one that is now embodied in a principle), but
replace the behavioral expression with some more recent
or meaningful expression from our contemporary world.
To illustrate this instance, we would appeal to 1 Corin-
thians 5, where a mother and son were guilty of incest (a
violation of the moral law of God), but the sanction for
that law of stoning (as was true in the law of Moses) was
replaced by temporary excommunication from the body of
believers until there was genuine repentance and restora-
tion to the church once again. Principles, then, must be
given priority over accompanying cultural elements, espe-
cially when directed to the times and settings in which
that text was written — times now different and separate
from the contemporary manner of expressing that same
principle.
Over twenty-five years ago I had occasion to put down
in print what I meant when I had repeatedly urged Bible
readers, teachers, and preachers to “principlize” the text
of Scripture. My emphasis then, as now, was that the task
of interpreting a text was not concluded until the reader
or interpreter had carried what the text meant over to the
present day and said what it now means. I had written in
the past:
2. See Kaiser and Silva, introduction to biblical hermeneutics, 233 – 37.

To “principlize” is to [re]state the author’s proposi-

tions, arguments, narrations, and illustrations in time-
less abiding truths with special focus on the applica-
tion of those truths to the current needs of the Church.3
Later, in that same textbook, I explained:
Principlization seeks to bridge the “then” of the text’s
narrative [or any other biblical genre] with the “now”
needs of our day; yet it refuses to settle for cheap and
quick solutions which confuse our own personal point
of view (good or bad) with that of the inspired writer.4
This method of “principlizing” I had attempted to dis-
tinguish from several older and newer ways of making the
biblical text contemporary and relevant to our own times:
Unlike allegorizing or spiritualizing, the method of
principlizing seeks to derive its teachings from a care-
ful understanding of the text [of Scripture]. Rather
than importing an external meaning into the Bible (this
includes pre-maturely using the analogy of subsequent
doctrines [usually called “The Analogy of Faith”] and
assigning these new meanings to the details of the ear-
lier narrative, meanings which were not in the mind of
the original author), we must receive only those mean-
ings authoritatively stated by the authors themselves.5
The first step in principlizing a passage from the Bible is to
determine what the subject of the focal point of that passage
is. My colleague Haddon Robinson has called this focal point
“the big idea of the passage.” Usually this focus can be found
expressly stated in the heart of the text selected (in a sum-
marizing verse or clause thereof) for teaching or preaching.
It is necessary to get a fix on this first lest we are tempted to
3. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an exegetical Theology: biblical exegesis for

preaching and Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 152.
4. Ibid., 198.
5. Ibid., 205. I distinguish between the “Analogy of Faith” and the “Anal-
ogy of [Antecedent] Scripture” in Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “Hermeneutics and the
Theological Task,” Trinity Journal, n.s. 12 (1990): 3 – 14, and Henri Blocher’s
careful study, “The ‘Analogy of Faith’ in the Study of Scripture,” scottish bul-
letin of evangelical Theology 5 (1987): 17 – 38.

impose a mold over the Bible by forcing it to answer one of our

favorite questions, but one the text never encompasses in its
purpose. A greater temptation is to introduce a truth taught
in the New Testament and to read the Bible backwards (as
in “eisegesis”) and claim here was a “deeper truth” or some-
thing that is a sensus plenior, presumably encrypted between
the lines and not in the grammar or syntax per se. Surely that
imposition has given “eye-popping” New Testament types of
truth to the Old Testament with plenty of contemporary rel-
evancy, but the question is this: Did the Holy Spirit come to
the same use of that text?
Once the topic/subject has been identified, then the
emphasis must be sought from any terms that are repeated
or are a key or part of the important words used in devel-
oping that same subject. Notice simultaneously has to be
given to the connecting words in that pericope that link the
phrases, clauses, and sentences, such as “because,” “since,”
“therefore,” or the like.
Once we have identified the subject, the emphasis, and
the ways in which the passage is connected, we can move
to see how each paragraph (in prose genres), scene (in nar-
ratives), or strophe (in poetical passages) can be expressed
in propositional principles. It is always best to avoid using
all proper names/nouns in stating the principle for each of
these units of thought (e.g., the paragraph in the prose sec-
tions, the scene in narrative sections, or the strophe in poeti-
cal sections of the Bible) except divine names, for all such
references to all other persons, places, or historic events will
only lock the text into the past and handicap its application
to the contemporary scene.
Likewise, all use of third person pronouns has the same
inhibiting function on formulating useful principles for our
day; instead of using third person pronouns, one is better
advised to express the newly devised principles in terms
of first person plural pronouns that have a hortatory func-
tion in the preaching and teaching situation — “Let us . . . ,”
“it’s our job . . . ,” or “we must. . . .” Of course second person
pronouns can likewise be used, but for teaching and procla-
mation purposes, it is always better if the speaker identifies
with the audience rather than pontificating from on high
against all of “you”!

Finally, it is likewise best if we use present tense verbs, pres-

ent participles, or imperatives for our principles rather than
past tenses, for once again putting the action descriptively in
the past severely limits the statement of the principles’ ability
to lead the reader or interpreter into the present and the future
or to view the text as directed to each one personally.
Before I leave the whole discussion of what is principl-
ization and how it functions, it is important to mention as
another illustration the use of the “Ladder of Abstraction.”6
The Ladder of Abstraction may be defined as “a continuous
sequence of categorizations from a low level of specificity up
to a high point of generality in a principle and down again
to a specific application in the contemporary culture.”
A good example of this is the appeal to the reason behind
a case law (ratio decidendi) that on the surface (prima facie)
appears to be no more than a prohibition for farmers, that
they should not muzzle an ox treading out the husks on the
grain (Deut. 25:4). Most of today’s readers of Scripture do
not own oxen, and even if they did, they would not use them
in our day in place of combines for thrashing and separating
the husks from the grain. Surely, therefore, here is a verse that
apparently is culturally and contextually frozen in ancient
times and not at all relevant to us in our day — unless there
was a principle behind this specific illustration.
Nevertheless, Paul dared to use this text not just once but
twice (1 Cor. 9:9 – 12 and 1 Tim. 5:18), to teach that persons
who were ministered to with the Word of God should pay
their pastors. How did Paul get from allowing oxen to take a
swipe of grain as they went round and round tramping out
the grain to paying pastors?7 Paul could have gone to Deu-
6. I must indicate my indebtedness again to Michael Schuter and Roy

Clements for the concept of the Ladder of Abstraction as it first appeared in
my book, Toward rediscovering the old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1987), 164 – 66.
7. See Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “The Current Crisis in Exegesis and the Apos-
tolic Use of Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:8 – 10,” Journal of the evangeli-
cal Theological society 21 (1978): 3 – 18; revised as “Applying the Principles of
the Civil Law: Deuteronomy 25:4; 1 Corinthians 9:8 – 10,” in The uses of the old
Testament in the new (originally Chicago: Moody Press, 1985; now reprinted:
Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001), 203 – 20.

teronomy 24:14 – 15, which taught, “Do not take advantage of

a hired man . . . pay him his wages”; instead, Paul appealed
to a text about oxen and then claimed that that text in Deu-
teronomy was not written for oxen (of course, oxen cannot
read!), but it was written “for us.”
What was Paul’s point? Some scholars quickly concluded
that the apostle was indulging in allegorical interpretation.8
But to claim that Paul used an allegorical interpretation
involved for most ignoring its original meaning and giv-
ing it a sense that was purely arbitrary. Others thought Paul
used a rabbinic type of argumentation, or even a Hellenis-
tic Jewish exegesis, but Paul did not suppress the historical
or natural meaning of the text. His argument was a well-
grounded, a fortiori type of logic that went from the lower
relations (of the oxen themselves to the owners of the oxen)
to insist that the same principle was true of the higher rela-
tions (of others who were being served and ministered to)
as well.
Here is how the Ladder of Abstraction works: from the
ancient specific situation (oxen that tread out grain) we move
up the ladder to the institutional or personal norm (animals are
God’s gifts to humanity and should be treated kindly), to the
top of the ladder, which gives to us the general principle (giv-
ing engenders gentleness and graciousness in those mortals
who care for and can minister back to those who serve them
as well, whether they are animals or people). As we descend
the ladder on the other side, we meet the theological and moral
principle behind our general principle (“love your neighbor”
or just the injunction in the ninth commandment), to the
contemporary or New Testament specific situation (pay those
pastors ministering to you, including Paul, 1 Cor. 9:9 – 12).9
In this movement on the Ladder of Abstraction, we must
move from the ancient specificity of the text (taking pity on
those muzzled oxen who are going crazy walking round
and round over top of grain they long to take a swipe at) up
8. W. Arndt, “The Meaning of 1 Cor 9:9, 10,” Concordia Theological Monthly

3 (1932): 329 – 35.
9. See my diagram of this process in Toward rediscovering the old Testa-
ment, 166.

to the overarching general principle that applies and gener-

alizes the particularity of the Scripture before we can once
again apply that abstracted general principle in a new con-
temporary specific situation. Paul’s point is not only one of
being kind to animals; rather, it is about the special work of
grace and generosity that takes place in the hearts and lives
of those who express special concern and love for those who
are ministering to them (whether as oxen threshing out the
grain or as ministers of the gospel feeding the people the
Word of God).
WHY GO BEYOND THE OBVIOus?

If the Reformers correctly taught us that sola scriptura was
the proper boundary for authoritative teachings for the
believing community, why are some now suggesting that we
must go “beyond the sacred page” to get modern answers
currently pressing for resolution in what is popularly called
our postmodern era? If the Bible was able to communicate
authoritatively in the day in which it was originally written,
why must we in our day raise so many questions that seem
to take us off, or beyond, the biblical page?
The answer to that query is readily at hand: because, so
it is claimed, there is so much complexity in contemporary
life that continues to pose more ethical, moral, doctrinal,
and scientific questions than the Bible seems, at least at first
glance, to be able to answer in a direct way for our genera-
tion. There are so many terms and so many new issues that
were never even directly contemplated when the Scriptures
were written that it would appear as if the biblical theolo-
gian and exegete is left with more questions than answers
in this postmodern world.
Accordingly, in recent years, a new literature has arisen
that suggests how, under carefully defined guidelines, it
is possible, indeed necessary, to go “beyond” the sacred
text to meet the challenges of our day. Some of the topics
that fall under the category of cultural assessment involve
the current fashion of wearing tattoos, involvement in
transvestism, using reproductive technologies to compen-
sate for infertility, advocating animal rights, treating the

environment more carefully than before, revising names

and functions of church officers, trying new hairstyles,
advancing clothing taboos, insisting on new head cover-
ings, and the like. But if going “beyond” is to be the rec-
ommended track for answering questions such as these,
then what becomes of our much valued sola scriptura
(“Scripture alone”)?
Our problem is not with our praiseworthy desire to offer
help to a baffled church and laity on contemporary ques-
tions not directly dealt with in the Bible, but it now is: How
can we establish procedures of interpretation that will take
us outside of the boundaries of Scripture (if that is what it
might take) while claiming the security and safety of pos-
sessing an authoritative source within those recently trans-
gressed boundaries? Even if this is not the correct way to
put the question, the point is this: How do we move from
the day and times of the Bible to our day and age? How
can we claim the biblical text for ourselves in a way that it
applies to the problems we face in this present day with all
of the new complexities, cultures, and content? Contempo-
rary interpreters of the Word of God are said no longer to be
content with moving from the specificity of the biblical text
followed by a generalizing principle to apply to different types
of people in different times and situations (as we have just
advocated in the Ladder of Abstraction).
It is for this reason, then, that we are called upon to sup-
ply some examples of how the method of principlization is
to be preferred over competing suggestions for helping us
answer the very same questions.
Is EuTHaNasIa MurDEr?
The term euthanasia was coined by H. E. W. Lecky in 1869,
meaning “good” (Gk. eu) and “death” (Gk. thanatos). Thus,
this form of death was viewed as an easy death or the act
or practice (either actively or passively) of letting or helping
people die, especially those suffering from some incurable
condition or disease. Scripture, however, does not directly
mention, or give explicit guidance, on the issue of the active
use of this form of death. Therefore, it is a good candidate

for us to ask if this might be a case of where we need to go

“beyond the sacred page.”
Euthanasia has been defined as represented by four dif-
ferent types:
1. voluntary, passive euthanasia, in which we allow the
patient to choose to let nature take its course; we
only give liquids and food where possible and make
the person as comfortable as feasible, without any
heroic steps to prolong his or her life, such as using a
machine, medications, or surgery
2. voluntary, active euthanasia, in which death is has-
tened by some active means by the individual or the
physician
3. involuntary, passive euthanasia, in which the patient
has not expressed a willingness to die, and cannot
do so, so that the medical personnel do not take any
extraordinary measures to prolong the patient’s life
4. involuntary, active euthanasia, in which usually the
physician or nursing staff do something to hasten
death, whether for economic, genetic, or humanitar-
ian reasons, regardless of the patient’s wishes.
What concerns us here are all the cases involving some form
of active role in bringing on death, whether by the patient or
by medical personnel.
But this raises a necessary question: Is not causing a
person’s death with the intent of alleviating one’s suffering
and pain, or for similar reasons, the same as murder? Now
that we have such enormous advances in medical technol-
ogy, how does a Christian patient, or a Christian physician,
determine what is the appropriate care for such an individ-
ual who is terminally ill, or who has suffered irreversible
brain damage? What biblical teaching on matters of life and
death apply to medical situations such as these?
The principles Scripture offers us for situations such as
this are these:
1. God is sovereign over life and death, for he is the one
who gives life and the one who takes it away (Job
1:21). Given the fact that all mortals are made in the
image of God, human life is sacred and is therefore to

be valued and treated with dignity. Human interfer-

ence with the time of a person’s death would be an act
of preempting God’s right to set that time.
2. All active forms of life-taking are condemned in Scrip-
ture as falling under the injunction against murder
(Ex. 20:13). This would include all active forms of
euthanasia, whether carried out by a doctor, nurse,
friend, or by the patient alone. Scripture does permit
taking of life in some situations, such as in self-defense
or in a just war, but active forms of euthanasia are not
included as one of those exceptions in Scripture.
3. Even when a person is in the grip of a tragic situation,
as King Saul was when he lay dying on the battlefield
(see 2 Sam. 1:9 – 16), the soldier who claimed he accom-
modated Saul’s unbiblical request to end his mortally
wounded life was executed by David. This is not
exactly a case of euthanasia, but it does illustrate the
principle that extenuating circumstances do not change
the prohibition against life-taking. It too is murder.
4. All arguments and societies that promote a “right to
die” are likewise condemned by the Bible. Such argu-
ments for a “right to die” deny God the opportunity to
work on the patient’s behalf and to control the day of
our death.
5. Though death is unnatural, yet inevitable, it is more
than a mere transition as humanism teaches. There is
both “a time to be born and a time to die” (Eccl. 3:2;
James 2:26). But death is more than a biological event;
death occurs when the spirit leaves the body. This
may not help or give a clinical diagnosis and a defini-
tion for medical personnel, but it would caution that
a rigorous definition for death must be used by them.
Accordingly, comatose patients may not be conscious,
but they are very much alive and need continued
treatment, unless critical vital signs and brain activity
have ceased.
6. The use of drugs to relieve physical and emotional
pain is biblically justifiable, for Proverbs 31:6 counsels:
“Give strong drink to one who is perishing, and wine
to those in bitter distress” (NRSV). The primary pur-
pose here is to relieve pain, not directly to shorten life.

There does not appear to be a need to go beyond the

principal teachings of the Word of God. Despite medical
and other philosophical questions that may surround the
issue of euthanasia, the principles of Scripture are adequate
for guiding those who need help with the hard choices that
arise in keeping up with the care of those who are perhaps
terminally ill.
WOMEN aND THE CHurCH

Is there any hope that all who share the conviction that the
Bible provides us with our source for a divine viewpoint
on matters it raises will ever be able to come to some sort of
agreement on a topic as sensitive as the issue of the biblical
teaching on women? Alas, despite the acknowledgment that
we all begin at the same point with Scripture, we surely show
lots of differences when it comes to this topic of the place of
women in the family and the church. However, even though
a good deal of our disagreements have to do with certain pre-
understandings that we all bring to the text of Scripture, the
power of God’s Word and the mighty work of God’s Holy
Spirit in assisting in the interpretation of that Word must not
be forgotten. So, for all who have grown weary of this topic,
let it not be the final resting point for the body of Christ. Our
Lord did have some definite meanings in mind when he
spoke so frequently on this area in Scripture.
power/sTrengTh on The heAd of A womAn

Both Genesis 2:18 (“I will make a power corresponding to
the man,” my trans.) and 1 Corinthians 11:10 (“The woman
ought to have authority/power on her head,” my trans.)
ought to be considered together, since those are the two
places in Scripture where the topic of “authority” or “power”
are used in connection with woman.10
10. Much of the material used here comes from my article, “Correcting
Caricature: The Biblical Teaching on Women,” priscilla papers 19/2 (2005):
5 – 11; and an earlier contribution of mine entitled “Paul, Women and the
Church,” Worldwide Challenge (September 1976), 9 – 12; and idem, “Shared
Leadership,” Christianity Today 30 (October 3, 1986): 12.

Our Lord saw Adam as incomplete and deficient as he

lived without the benefit of a companion. Therefore, God
pronounced, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen.
2:18). Surely, “two [were] better than one” (Eccl. 4:9 – 11). To
end man’s loneliness, God formed for the man, as the pres-
ent translations read: “a helper suitable for him.”
The use of the word “helper” is not to be taken in a pejo-
rative way, for that same word (Heb. <ezer) is used of God,
for example in Deuteronomy 33:26,29 (“he is your shield
and helper [strength]”), so that is not the reason for exam-
ining this concept. But R. David Freedman argued convinc-
ingly that our Hebrew word <ezer is a combination of two
older words from a Canaanite root: the one is <-z-r (with
the initial Heb. letter of <ayyin, meaning “to rescue, save”),
and the other is g-z-r
a (with the Canaanite ghayyin, mean-
ing “to be strong”).11 These two letters come in the alpha-
bet right where our letter o comes in the English alphabet.
We do know that both letters were originally pronounced
separately, for presently we do have such place names as
“Gaza,” “Gomorrah,” though today spelled with an <ayyin,
yet reflecting the two separate letters since we remember
some of the place names with a g type of laryngeal sound, as
in Ugaritic, from the Canaanite tongue, which today shares
about 60 percent of its vocabulary with Hebrew. Somewhere
around 1500 BC the two phonemes merged into one graph-
eme and thus the two roots merged into one with only the
textual context to indicate the difference. It is interesting to
also note how many of the twenty-one times the word <ezer
appears in the Old Testament that it is parallel to “strength”
or “power,” suggesting that in some cases, there were two
words still being represented under a single spelling.
This rendering of Genesis 2:18 as “power” could explain
what the apostle Paul was referring to when he argued in
1 Corinthians 11:10, “For this reason, a woman ought to have
power/authority [Gk. exousia] on her head” (my trans.). Paul
always uses exousia in its active, and not its passive, sense in
1 Corinthians (e.g., 7:37; 8:9; 9:4, 5). But in one of the weirdest
11. R. David Freedman, “Woman: A Power Equal to Man,” biblical archae-

ology review 9 (1983): 56 – 58.

twists in translation history, this one word exousia was ren-

dered “a veil, a symbol of authority.” But as Katherine C. Bush-
nell showed early in the twentieth century, the substitution
of “veil” for “authority” went all the way back to the Gnostic
Alexandrian teacher Valentinus, who founded a sect named
after himself sometime around AD 140. In his native Coptic
tongue, the word for “veil” and the word for “authority” were
similar both in sound and in print (ouershishi, “power, author-
ity,” and ouershoun, “veil”). Both Clement and Origin, who
also came from Alexandria, copied the same mistake, per-
haps from the same Egyptian Coptic texts; thus the translation
hangs on until our day (“a veil, a symbol of authority”). But it
has no basis in fact at all. The NIV dropped the “veil,” but it
still rendered the one word exousia as “a sign of authority.”
The result is that God gave to the woman a correspond-
ing power or authority as that possessed by the man. There-
fore, the woman was not man’s “helpmate,” but a full power
or authority corresponding to Adam.
musT men rule women And women Be silenT?

Genesis 3:16 is a command to men to “rule over [their
wives],” which has long been held by many, with 1 Corin-
thians 14:34 being understood to confirm that injunction.
But there are several things wrong with this so-called com-
mand and alleged parallel reference. Moreover, it must be
noticed that the reference in 1 Corinthians 14:34 to the “law”
has invariably been taken to point to Genesis 3:16. Both of
these conclusions are faulty. (1) There is no imperative in
the Hebrew word yimshal, which means “you will rule” over
her, rather than “you must/shall rule” over her (using the
English “shall” to translate the future Hebrew tense, but
which can carry in English an imperatival force). (2) The
question raised in 1 Corinthians 14:33b – 35 actually comes
from a letter addressed to Paul from the Corinthian church
and therefore is not normative teaching.12
12. D. A. Carson, exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1984), 38 – 40,

classifies this solution as one of his “exegetical fallacies,” but he does not tell
us what “law” and where in the “law” the demand for women to keep silent
is found. Paul answers four other times in the Corinthian letter questions

The tragedy of errors in this text begins with an Italian

Dominican monk named Pagino, who published his transla-
tion that included Genesis 3:16 in AD 1528 with the meaning
of “lust” in the phrase translated in the TNIV, “Your desire
will be for your husband.”13 The Hebrew text here reads tes-
huqa, a word that only appears three times in the Hebrew
Bible (Gen. 3:16; 4:7; Song 7:10), which simply means “turn-
ing.” The Greek Septuagint rendered it apostrophe, “turning
away.” The Samaritan Pentateuch gave it the same rendering
as did the Old Latin, the Bhairic Coptic, and the Ethiopic
version of AD 500. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, produced around
AD 382 with the assistance of the rabbis, rendered Genesis
3:16 this way: “Thou shalt be under the power of a husband,
and he will rule over thee.”
Instead of Genesis 3:16 darkly suggesting that a woman
had a certain sexual “desire” or “lust” for her husband,
which her husband had better take in hand before it all gets
out of control, the text, in a curse(!) passage, predicts that the
woman will turn (presumably away from God) toward her
husband, and as a result some men will indeed rule over
their wives. Eve should never have put her sole dependence
on her husband, for he too was a fallen sinner just like she
was. As a result, instead of a new gender hierarchy being
instituted as God’s new patriarchal norm, a curse fell over
the husband-wife relationship — one that could only be
healed in God and by his grace.
that had also been addressed to him; for example, in 1 Cor. 6:12 and 10:23,
Paul is pummeled with “everything is permissible,” but the apostle patiently
responds “not everything is beneficial,” or “not everything is constructive,”
or again, “but I will not be mastered by anything.” In a similar manner, Paul
responds to the question of women remaining silent by 14:36, “What! Did the
word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones (masculine plural)
it [the word of God] has reached?” (my trans.). Note in some Western texts,
verses 34 – 35 are placed at the end of the chapter. This also signals something
was going on with regard to the teaching of these verses. While the substance
of this silence tradition cannot be found in the biblical law, or anywhere else
in the Old Testament for that matter, it can be easily found in the Jewish law
of the Talmud and Mishnah.
13. See Katherine C. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women (originally published
in 1923 as Bible lessons of the Women’s Correspondence Bible Class; now often
reprinted privately), 128 – 45.

The principles here are again most straightforward and

do not call for any cultural or exegetical moves outside or
beyond the Scriptures.
women musT Be TAughT And enCourAged

To prAy And prophesy in puBliC
After Paul encouraged men everywhere to pray in pub-
lic settings in 1 Timothy 2:8, but to be careful about their
inwardly harboring hostility over some dispute or hidden
anger, he went on to draw a strong comparison (hosautos,
“similarly in a like manner”)14 in 2:9 for women, urging
that they too should lead in public prayers (“lifting up holy
hands in prayer”). But women are cautioned to dress mod-
estly in such situations and not draw attention to themselves
in this public venue.
But Paul also had advice for women who “prophesied” in
1 Corinthians 11:5. Paul defined what he meant by “proph-
esying” in 1 Corinthians 14:3: “But those who prophesy
speak to people for their strengthening, encouragement and
comfort.” But if Paul did not want women leading in prayer
and prophesying in public meetings, why did he speak in
1 Corinthians 11 only to the issue of whether their heads
were covered or not? Why not prune the practice of women
doing the forbidden act itself and cut it off at its very roots
rather than troubling anyone with a mere incidental issue of
how those engaged in a wrong practice were dressed?
But the radical part of Paul’s teaching in the 1 Timothy 2
passage is missed by most: We must teach women (gynē
en hēsychia manthaneto en pasē hypotagē, 1 Tim. 2:11). No
one thought it was worthwhile or even necessary to teach
women; not the Hebrews, not the Assyrians, not the Babylo-
nians, not the Greeks, not the Romans — only the Christians!
That is the only imperative in this text, but that apparently
is the one most miss when they treat this passage. But that
was the real bombshell of that day. Unfortunately, it is so
familiar to us in our day that by now we assume what is
14. The TNIV weakly rendered this comparative expression as just

“also.”

already functioning, so we do not need to pause to reflect

on the most startling aspect in Paul’s instruction concerning
women. But the thought of teaching women was seismic in
its day; it shook up everything. Why would anyone want to
do something so revolutionary as to teach women? What
would one teach them? And for what purpose(s) would one
teach them?
Why, then, does Paul go on to say that he did “not permit
a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she
must be quiet” (1 Tim. 2:12)? The answer comes in the gar
(“because”) clause that follows in verses 13 – 14: “For Adam
was formed first.” The Greek word for “formed” is eplasthē.
Paul’s usual word for “to create” is ktizō, but here Paul used
plassō, which can also refer “to shaping or molding educa-
tionally, spiritually.” If it is the latter, then instead of Paul
basing his argument on the “orders of creation” (Adam
came first, so by rights of primogenitor he must be over the
woman), he bases it on the “orders of education” (Adam
walked and talked with God in the garden before Eve was
formed). Since the woman had not as yet been taught, she
was all the more easily “tricked.”
Notice this key verb that is usually used when people are
unaware of aspects of what is being told to them (in this case
by “the serpent”). Could that not have been the reason why
“the serpent” took advantage of Eve? She had not walked
and talked with God in the garden of Eden as had Adam,
so she was at a disadvantage, as later on were the women
all over the Mediterranean world who had not been taught.
The Greek text insists that Eve was “thoroughly deceived”
(using the preposition ex in front of the verb to emphasize
the point). However, presumably, whenever any women
were first taught, the injunction against their refraining
from teaching and exercising any kind of authority would
be lifted.
Once again, the exegetical principles derived from the
text were adequate in and of themselves to cover the modern
as well as the ancient situation. Women most certainly were
to be taught and thereafter be permitted to pray in public
and to prophesy in public, for that is exactly what God had
ordered.

THE BIBLE aND HOMOsExuaLITY

The first person to use the word “homosexual” seems to be
a Swiss doctor in 1869 named K. M. Benkert. The ancient
world, of course, knew of the practice of homosexuality,
as did the Greek philosophers, who often reported their
involvement in such acts at their symposiums, where along
with their drinking, young boys performed homosexual
acts. But it became a modern issue on June 28, 1969, at a bar
in Stonewall Inn, New York, when the police raided this
establishment known to be frequented by persons of homo-
sexual orientation. The customers retaliated and as a result
police had to barricade themselves inside the bar for protec-
tion. This is usually given as the beginning of the modern
“gay activist era.” Later, in 1974, the American Psychologi-
cal Association was forced by the gay lobby to remove
“homosexuality” from its list of “pathological conditions,”
so it would no longer be regarded as a deviant perversion
of normal sexual relations in its categories of psychological
disorders.
Both male and female (also known as lesbianism) homo-
sexuality is defined as the persistent and predominating
disposition of a person to have forms of sexual relations
with persons of the same sex. Today modern ethicists and
researchers categorize homosexuality as “a sexual prefer-
ence” and not as a specific act. Whether homosexuality is
a behavior rather than a static orientation, or both, is still
debated. Some argue from a non-Christian point of view
that homosexuality is a learned preference and not the result
of any biological factors in one’s gene pool (still to this day
no genetic factor has been identified as such); thus homo-
sexuals are made, not born that way, from a confusion
over their sexual identity. Nevertheless, homosexuality has
moved from the margins (and closets) of society into the
mainstream even though their actual numbers are decid-
edly small (some say 2 percent and at most 5 percent of the
total population) in comparison with the political and ethi-
cal clout they bear in today’s world.
There are seven biblical passages that treat the homo-
sexual question, all from a negative point of view (Gen.
19:1 – 13; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Judg. 19; Rom. 1:18 – 32; 1 Cor.

6:9 – 10; and 1 Tim. 1:8 – 11). But foundational to all of them
is the plan God revealed in Genesis 1 and 2, that it was not
good for man to be alone, so God formed a woman, also
made in God’s image, and brought the man and the woman
together to become one and to fill the earth by procreation.
In the first of the seven texts, the “people of Sodom were
wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord” (Gen.
13:13); as a result, God sent two angels to investigate the
sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. The men of the city, how-
ever, wanted “to know” these strangers (Gen. 19:5 KJV).
According to what Derrick Sherwin Bailey argued in his
1955 homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition,15 the
Hebrew word “to know” (yada <) only dealt with issues of
hospitality, but not with any sexual references. Bailey chal-
lenged any reference to homosexuality or sodomy by saying
that whereas yada < appeared some 943 times in the Old Tes-
tament, only ten of those references carried any thought of
the idea “to have intercourse/sex with.” Therefore, what the
men of Sodom wanted was merely to get acquainted with
these strangers.
But if that were true, why did Lot surprisingly and unnec-
essarily offer his own daughters to the citizens of Sodom,
especially in his description of the daughters as those who
“have not known a man,” a statement that implies sexual
intercourse? Moreover, Jude 7 commented on this incident
at Sodom and described it as one of “gross immorality and
perversion.” Bailey’s case does not hold water.
Bailey handled the Gibeah story in Judges 19 in the same
manner. But if the issue was only one of hospitality, then
why did the homeowner in Gibeah, by whom the Levite and
his concubine had been given lodging, beg his fellow coun-
trymen not to act so “vile” (Judg. 19:23), as he too strangely
offers his daughter to those beating down the door of his
house?
Since the two texts in Leviticus (18:20 and 20:13) are
located in the section of Leviticus known as the Holiness
Code, pro-homosexual commentators want to claim that
15. Derrick Sherwin Bailey, homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradi-
tion (London: Longmans, Green, 1955).

these verses apply only to priests and to a call for ritual

purity, not to any moral issues as such. They argue that
if Christians are going to demand adherence to these two
texts against homosexuality, then they must also practice
the other demands in the same context, such as refrain-
ing from sowing a field with two different kinds of seed
(Lev. 19:19c), wearing clothes with mixed fabrics (19:19d),
and having marital relations with one’s wife during her
menstrual cycle (18:19).
The principle that groups these laws together was a
concern for what was “natural,” that is, maintaining the
created orders “after their kind.”16 It also involved a moral
aspect, as well as the continued well-being of the popu-
lace. The mixing of the seeds, for example, could have
resulted in certain forms of hybridization, which would
have removed from the farmers and landowners of that
day the ability to use a portion of their crops for next year’s
seed. Likewise, the menstrual period symbolically showed
that only God had sovereignty over the woman and not the
husband; therefore, a time of abstinence was mandated.
Thus, the text does not address the priesthood or ritual
provisions, but sees all of life within a moral context and
one in which God is sovereign over the so-called secular
and sacred. One simply cannot argue that having sex with
animals (Lev. 18:23) or illicit sex with one’s daughter (18:17)
was morally irrelevant, as some pro-homosexual interpret-
ers wish to view these texts; it certainly was a moral issue!
In fact, the context of Leviticus 18:1 set the practices of the
ungodly nations of Egypt and Canaan in juxtaposition with
those challenges for a different moral behavior among the
people of God.
The three New Testament texts on homosexuality (Rom.
1:26 – 27; 1 Cor. 6:9 – 10; 1 Tim. 1:10) call not simply for tem-
perance and moderation (again the homosexual response
to these texts), but for complete avoidance of all forms of
homosexuality. The text in Romans warns of those who have
16. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “The Book of Leviticus: Introduction, Commen-

tary and Reflections,” in The new interpreter’s bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon,
1994), 1:1134.

“exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones”

(Rom. 1:26). What Paul condemns are “perverts” (a modern
distinction that describes those who indulge in homosexual
acts in contrast to “inverts,” those who may have a homo-
sexual disposition but who do not practice it). Once again,
however, some have unsuccessfully tried to define “natural”
(kata physin) and “unnatural” (para physin) as being contrary
to the individual’s own nature and not as being contrary to
the Creator’s intention for them. But such word studies will
not sustain this heroic effort to establish a toehold for the
legitimacy of homosexual acts.
Paul gives a list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9 – 10 and
1 Timothy 1:9 – 10 in which “male prostitutes” (malakoi, lit.,
“soft to touch”) and “homosexual offenders” or “perverts”
(arsenokoitai, lit., “male in bed”) will not inherit the king-
dom of God. These principles are clear and straightforward.
One does not need to go “beyond the sacred page” to see
that God strongly dislikes the practices of such persons even
while his love is sufficient to embrace these same individuals
whose practices must be the grounds for repenting.
THE BIBLE aND sLaVErY

Human beings were made in the image of God and
designed to be bound only to him. But in the rebellion of
the fall, mortals rejected God as their Sovereign and wound
up oftentimes with other mortals being masters over them.
Accordingly, slavery had its roots in sin. Two forms of slav-
ery need to be sharpely distinguished: (1) biblical debt slav-
ery, and (2) pagan slavery.17
The ordinances on slavery appear in first position in the
Covenant Code of Exodus 21:2 – 11. This was natural enough
since Israel had just been released from their Egyptian bond-
age. And the teaching on slavery was divided into two sec-
tions: male slaves in Exodus 21:2 – 6 and female slaves in
21:7 – 11.
17. I am indebted for many of my ideas in this section to James B. Jordan,

The law of the Covenant: an exposition of exodus 21 – 23 (Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics, 1984), 75 – 92.

Immediately a distinction must be made between a

Hebrew slave and the type of slavery Israel had just experi-
enced in Egypt. A Hebrew slave may only serve for six years
and then he or she was to be set free with gifts to boot in the
sabbatical year (Deut. 15:12 – 15). Since the land could not
be used as collateral, for God was the owner of all the land
of Israel (Lev. 25:23), the only collateral left for the indebted
Hebrew was his or her labor power.
In contrast to this form of Hebrew debt slavery, there
were other slaves who were purchased in their pagan state.
And even though they also could be circumcised later on in
their servitude, nevertheless, they were not to be released
in the sabbatical year along with the Hebrew servants (Ex.
12:44; Lev. 22:11; 25:44 – 46). However, in these cases the
law allowed that slave to save up his money and buy his
freedom (Lev. 25:26, 49). So provision was made for manu-
mission and release for all slaves, unless the slave had com-
mitted a crime.
Deuteronomy 15 makes it clear that there were two ways
a Hebrew could become a slave: by committing a crime or
by getting into debt. Even in the case of debt slaves, these
Hebrews were to be released in the seventh year (i.e., the
sabbatical year, not the slave’s seventh year), and all debts
were to be cancelled in that sabbatical year. When the slave
was released, he took with him only what he brought with
him to slavery; thus, if he came with a wife and children,
they left with him. However, if he acquired a wife from his
master and he had children, they either stayed with the mas-
ter or they could be purchased with savings from the slave’s
time of work. The point seemed to be that if the Hebrew did
not show himself responsible while serving his master, he
might only land back in slavery once again in another seri-
ous debt situation, giving the newly acquired wife a rough
life for one who had not been taught to work or to be respon-
sible.
It is conceivable that some servants wished to remain in
the service of their master because the slave loved his mas-
ter. In that case, a ceremony of the piercing of the ear took
place. The Hebrew slave renounced his freedom, and his
master took him to a door or doorpost where he took an

awl and pierced the slave’s ear as a permanent sign of his

lifelong service (Ex. 21:5 – 6). This was not due to any com-
pulsion or pressure by the master; it was a free choice made
by the Hebrew slave. He wanted to stay because he loved
his master.
The slavery described here was not the same as that
found in pagan society, where, especially in a monarchy,
the assumption was made that all persons were not cre-
ated equal; some bloodlines, some families, some mortals
were called to be commoners. Added to this is our modern
concept of slavery, which is an outcome of the seventeenth-
century doctrine of the divine right of kings, designed origi-
nally to oppose the claims of the papacy. But this type of
slavery was not designed to bring relief to those who had
fallen into debt; it instead tacitly challenged God as King
over all and therefore divided society on a class basis.
While much of the debt slavery was hard and difficult, a
slave could gain instant freedom if he sustained any visible
sign of injury or had been beaten by his master (Ex. 21:20;
Lev. 24:17, 22). In fact, it could result in a capital offense if
the slave died; however, if the slave regained his strength
after a day or two, the presumption was to favor the master
even while the injured would still be compensated for the
lost time or for his medical bills. The threat of an instant loss
of the master’s investment no doubt had a strong mitigating
factor on most potentially abusive situations, for in the event
of proven abuse, the debt slave left immediately with the full
capitalization, regardless of how few days or months he or
she had worked to work off that hired loan.
Pagan society often kidnapped outsiders in order to make
them slaves (a capital offense in Ex. 21:16), or they could be
purchased from traders or through wars (Lev. 25:42, 44, 45;
Num. 31:26 – 47; Deut. 21:10 – 14). But making mortals into
slaves for other mortals could never be viewed in the Bible
as being anything less than preempting God’s lordship over
all.
If that is so, why were there no attempts to stop or to hin-
der the slave business in the Bible? There was, but all too few
get it. In the little book of Philemon, a book of only twenty-
five verses and 335 words, Paul makes it clear to Philemon

that he is sending back his runaway slave, Onesimus, who

had indeed robbed Philemon as well, but now was being
returned to Philemon “no longer as a slave” (v. 16). Here is
the focus of the book: Onesimus was no longer to be a slave,
“but better than a slave, as a dear brother” (v. 16b).
Onesimus, the slave and thief, was no longer to be a
slave. Paul thereby taught the slave-holder Philemon, who
lived at Colossae, as well as he now teaches us, that no one
must be held as a slave, even though Paul will not take this
action without having Philemon’s consent first. Moreover,
Paul is not recommending pure amnesty, with no payment,
for he writes in this letter what Adolph Deissman labeled
something comparable to a bank-draft when he adds in
verses 18 – 19, “If he has done you any wrong or owes you
anything [and he has, for this is what is called in Greek a
“first class condition”], charge it to me. I, Paul, am writing
this with my own hand.” That last statement is equivalent
to Paul’s personal signature and has been found on other
pieces of papyri in Koine Greek that were discovered early
in the twentieth century.
Alas, despite the clarity of Paul’s statements, many do not
believe the Bible ever finally took a stand against all forms
of involuntary, that is, pagan, slavery. This type of slavery
should not be lumped together with debt slavery, which
was a form of extracting oneself from debt when there was
no other means of raising collateral to satisfy this financial
emergency. Once again, the principles in the text are suffi-
cient to help us answer similar questions in our day.
THE BIBLE, aBOrTION, aND

EMBrYONIC sTEM CELL rEsEarCH
More Americans elect to have an abortion than any other
type of surgery. In fact, only three out of every four babies
conceived in the United States escape a surgically conducted
abortion; according to current statistics, the fourth one will
be terminated by an abortion.
Abortion, however, is not a recent phenomenon; it was
condemned by the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and

Hittites, all of which regarded it as a serious crime. Classi-

cal Greece, by contrast, condoned abortion. Yet the Hippo-
cratic Oath, which up until recently all doctors pledged as
they graduated from medical school, stated: “I will not give
a woman a pessary [i.e., a small soluble block inserted into
the vagina] to produce an abortion.”
Others joined in condemning abortion. The Jewish his-
torian Josephus wrote around the end of the first Christian
century: “The Law has commanded to raise all children
and prohibited women from aborting or destroying seed;
a woman who does so shall be judged a murderess of chil-
dren, for she has caused a soul to be lost and the family of
man to be diminished” (against apion 2.202). Likewise the
early church stated its view in didache 2.4 (a document also
known as The Teaching of the Twelve apostles): “Do not mur-
der a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant.”
In modern times, especially when in the 1820s the
human ovum was discovered, it was argued that a woman
was “with child” from the moment of conception. Modern
laws against abortion in the United States remained in place
until 1967, when a few states began to liberalize their abor-
tion laws, with eighteen states following suit by the end of
1970. However, on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court of
the United States of America handed down its infamous rul-
ing of Roe v. Wade, giving an even more permissive abortion
law than that previously held in the United States.
The Bible, not surprisingly, has nothing to say directly on
abortion. The reason, though, is not hard to explain. Abor-
tion was so unthinkable that there was no need to even
raise the topic in biblical law. Children were not a burden
or a problem, but a “heritage from the Lord” (Ps. 127:3).
The problem was not with a threat of pregnancy; it was
the opposite threat — barrenness and childlessness, which
would leave the family name extinct (Jer. 11:19). It was God
who opened and closed the womb, so that conception was
in his sovereign hand (Gen. 29:31, 33).
David celebrates God’s secret work in the womb of his
mother in Psalm 139:13 – 16, while he was being formed. It
was God who “knit” him together in his mother’s womb
when he was “woven together” in the depths of her belly.

God’s eyes saw David’s “embryo” (Heb. golmi, v. 16) and

poured his attention and love on him while he was being
formed in the womb before David had lived even one day
and done anything to attract the love of God. In like man-
ner, God set Jeremiah apart for his life’s work while he was
still in the womb (Jer. 1:5), just as John the Baptist leaped in
his mother Elizabeth’s womb when Mary greeted her (Luke
1:41 – 44).
Another text that places the value of a full life on the baby
in the womb is found in Exodus 21:22 – 25. “If men, who are
fighting, hit a pregnant woman and [lit.] her children come
out, but there is no harm [apparently to the mother or to
the child], the offender must be fined whatever the wom-
an’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is
harm [to either the mother or the child] you shall take life
for life” (my trans.).18 The plural word “children” is used to
allow for multiple births. Some suggest that word we have
translated as “harm” in verse 22 (NIV, “prematurely”) be
rendered “miscarriage,” but the Hebrew word for “miscar-
riage” (shakhol) is not used here (as it is in Gen. 31:38; Ex.
23:26; Job 3:16; Hos. 9:14).
Closely related to abortion is the more recent issue of
human stem cell research, which surfaced in November
1998 at the University of Wisconsin, where scientists were
able to isolate and culture human embryonic stem cells. The
problem that arises with this research, despite its wonder-
ful potential for supplying answers to human diseases such
as Parkinson’s, heart disease, and diabetes, is that to obtain
these stem cells, the embryo must be destroyed. Human
embryos can be obtained from three or four sources: (1) from
in vitro fertilization to produce embryos, (2) from frozen
embryos that are left over and not selected from the petri
dish for in vitro fertilization, (3) from human cloning of
embryos, and, more preferably, (4) from the human umbili-
cal cord after gestation.
In addition to the moral problem that comes from using
the first three sources for the stem cells (the same objections
18. The best short article on this topic and passage is Jack Cottrell, “Abor-
tion and the Human Fetus,” Christianity Today 17 (1972 – 73): 602 – 5.

that are made against abortion), so far embryonic stem cell

research has also not been able to direct the embryonic cells so
that they could effect the therapy wanted. Researchers deny
the humanity of the unborn embryo and regard the embryo
or fetus as only having “potential” human life and not being
a real person, a conclusion that does not concur with the bibli-
cal assessment of these same types of situations.
The moral objections raised here, however, do not apply
to human adult stem cells, which are usually obtained from
those seeking the resultant therapy. Thus, adults have sup-
plied bone marrow stem cells, which have been able to pro-
duce skeletal muscle, cardiac muscle, and liver cells. This
nonobjectionable adult stem cell research has, as a matter of
fact, already proven to be effective in the areas mentioned
here.
There are, once again, enough biblical helps to formulate
adequate principles for dealing with the issues of abortion
and embryonic stem cell research without going beyond the
Bible.
a sCrIpTuraL apprOaCH TO THE prOBLEM

aND THE DEVELOpMENT IN THE TExT
I. Howard Marshall noted that the liberal method of inter-
preting Scripture is to measure it by what contemporary
persons can believe and practice from it.19 But Marshall
insisted that evangelical readers of the Bible should not just
concern themselves with the liberals’ rejection of the Bible;
we should also seek to learn what is their motivation for
doing so and what principles have shaped that rejection. His
hunch is that more of the problem may be with the con-
temporary mind that has been shaped by a totally different
worldview and mindset.
Marshall calls for some new principled criteria to guide
us in seeing fresh significance in the interchange between
Scripture and its readers. Marshall has proposed that we can
19. I. Howard Marshall, beyond the bible: Moving from scripture to Theology
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 46.

obtain such criteria by noting three areas of development

where the early Christians not only built on their sources,
but as a matter of fact, went beyond them with the inevitable
result that a pattern of diversity was seen between the ear-
lier and later biblical materials.
The three areas of development that exhibited this
phenomenon of moving beyond the text of Scripture were:
(1) the use of the Old Testament by the early Christians,
(2) the teaching of Jesus that took the early church not only
beyond the Old Testament but was surpassed by the teach-
ing of the gospel writers, and (3) the teaching of Paul that
went beyond the “apostolic deposit” with further revelations
and teaching that reacted against those teaching errors such
as the Judaizers.
In the past, the term used to signify development in the
biblical text was called progressive revelation. This term has
not received much attention in recent times, since, as J. I.
Packer put it, “[Recent theological fashions] view Scripture
functionally, as a means of revelation in the present, rather
than a revelatory process in the past.”20
There are four negative ways in which progressive rev-
elation has been used:21
1. From a critical standpoint, this label has been used
to downgrade and label as inauthentic, truths about
which some scholars are skeptical while elevating
the “higher” truths of Scripture.
2. From an apologetic standpoint, this term has func-
tioned as a way of excusing and justifying the more
“primitive morality” of the Bible by means of a later
revelation that allegedly corrected it.
3. From a hermeneutical point of view, progressive rev-
elation became a slogan for the arbitrary and incon-
20. J. I. Packer, “An Evangelical View of Progressive Revelation,” in evan-

gelical roots: a Tribute to Wilbur smith, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer (Nashville, TN:
Nelson, 1978), 143.
21. These four are dependent in part on James Barr, The bible in the Mod-
ern World (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 145, and Packer, “Progressive Rev-
elation,” 146 – 47. Also see my book Toward old Testament ethics (Grand Rapids,
Zondervan, 1983), 60 – 64.

sistent process of selecting a few favorite teachings

from the Bible while regarding the rest as “base” or
“primitive.”
4. From a theological standpoint, it was a way of remov-
ing the focus of attention from the divine act of
disclosure and fixing it instead on human insight,
discovery, and genius.
The upshot of this long history of discussion has often
been to emphasize human discovery at the expense of
divine disclosure in revelation. But such a conclusion is too
heavy-handed and fails to meet the data from the text. There
is little doubt that the Bible witnesses to a historical series
of successive divine revelations. Did not Hebrews 1:1 – 2
explain: “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through
the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in
these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he has
appointed heir over all things, and through whom he made
the universe”? That same succession of revelations is seen
in our Lord’s promise of the coming New Testament when
he said to his disciples in John 16:12 – 13, “I have much more
to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the
Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.” Jesus
had already noted in John 15:27, “And you also must testify,
for you have been with me from the beginning.” Therefore,
instead of leaving us with analogies and scientific models,
our Lord promised to supply his followers with a coming
revelation (later called the “New Testament”) to accompany
what they already had in the Old Testament.
But there is more than historic development and suc-
cession here; there is also perfection of revealed truth at all
stages along the process, even though that perfection was
merely a perfection in seminal form with an incipient poten-
tiality for increasing growth, clearness, and fullness. It was
Geerhardus Vos who best described this seminal perfection.
He taught:
The organic nature of the progression of revelation . . .
[includes the] absolute perfection at all stages. . . . The
organic progress is from seed-form to the attainment
of full growth; yet we do not say that in the qualitative
sense the seed is less perfect than the [grown] tree. . . .

In the seed-form the minimum of indispensable knowl-

edge was already present. . . . Again, revelation . . . does
not proceed with uniform motion, but rather is ep-
ochal. . . . The discovery of so considerable an amount
of variableness and differentiation in the Bible [is not]
fatal to the belief in its absoluteness.22
Accordingly, revelation in Scripture can be true, eternal
in its source, and organically or seminally perfect without
its being complete in its statements, its history, fully devel-
oped in its supporting doctrines, or fully apprehended by
all its readers or listeners. When these factors are properly
accounted for, the apparent conflict between progress/
development and revelation begins to give way, and ways
in which the tension can be resolved emerge for these very
same factors. Just as the historic process was necessary, so
too was the process of revelation necessary in order for it to
be pedagogically graded for learning as the race grew, stud-
ied, and profited from the earlier divine disclosures.
To return to Marshall’s three categories of development,
he suggested that the first Christians went beyond what God
had offered in the Jewish Scriptures. He offered five examples
where these later New Testament believers went beyond: (1) in
the way God became more personal and parent-like to them;
(2) in their understanding of the three-foldness of God; (3) in
the way non-Jews would become not only part of the people
of God, but its majority group; (4) in the way concepts of the
afterlife moved from the fringe to the center of their thinking;
and (5) in the way the legislation of Pentateuch moved from
the center to less of an issue for Christians.
Likewise, Marshall observed that Christians moved
beyond the teaching of Jesus centering on the Old Testament,
and Jesus himself, to a proclamation of Jesus as the crucified
and risen one. Writers such as John selected, interpreted,
abridged, and elaborated on the words and works of Jesus
instead of merely repeating his words. There were four, not
22. Geerhardus Vos, biblical Theology: old and new Testaments (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 15 – 16. William Brenton Greene Jr. made use of Vos’s
quote in his “The Ethics of the Old Testament,” princeton Theological review
27 (1929): 184 – 91.

just one, fresh gospels that told the Christian story. Whereas
Jesus’ central theme had been the kingdom of God, later
teaching moved away from this center and reinterpreted the
teaching with an emphasis on imitating Christ instead.
Finally, Paul further developed the apostolic deposit by
also expressing the faith in new ways. Paul also had further
revelations, part of which he referred to as a “mystery,” that is,
that which was previously hidden but was now revealed.
Rather than seeing a fairly “cut and dried” production, the
New Testament writings offered perhaps a pattern that the
church of our day can continue to follow. Marshall remarked
that the closing of the canon was not compatible with the
closing of the interpretation of the canon, for the process of
doctrinal development goes on in our day just as it did in the
days of the writing of the New Testament. In other words,
perhaps we can do what the apostles did in the area of devel-
oping Scripture to newer forms of theology and practice.
In Marshall’s five categories, where the New Testament
believers went beyond Jewish Scriptures, all five illustrate
basically the progress of revelation in Scripture itself. In like
manner, for those who similarly argue that Paul’s teaching
went beyond Jesus’ teaching, it can again be demonstrated
that in each case it was an organic outgrowth of what Jesus
had given, often in a more incipient form.23 The case for dis-
unity or a real division of theology between Jesus and Paul
is rather weak. While it is to be admitted that Paul does use
a different terminology from that used by Jesus, this is not
to admit a discontinuity between the two. Often the differ-
ences can be traced to the fact that Paul was facing different
times and a different culture. In fact, Paul did refer to our
Lord’s teaching directly (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:15) and by allusion
in other passages (e.g., “a thief” in 1 Thess. 5:4, cf. Jesus in
Matt. 24:23; or in 1 Cor. 11:23).
Even the case that claims that there are significant
areas of expansion in the gospel of John over that of the
23. See David Wenham, paul: Founder of Christianity or Follower of Jesus?

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); idem, “Appendix: Unity and Diversity in the
New Testament,” in a Theology of the new Testament, ed. George E. Ladd (2nd
ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 684 – 719 (esp. 704 – 9).

three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) does

not amount to a case of total disunity or discontinuity. It is
true, of course, that John emphasized Jesus’ extended dis-
courses rather than his aphorisms, and John loved to point
to the miracles of Jesus to make his summons to believe
in the Lord Jesus Christ, but this is merely a difference in
emphasis. Even the famous alleged difference in the timing
of Jesus’ eating of the Passover meal can be harmonized (for
John’s reference to “the day of Preparation of the Passover”
[John 19:14]), as if it had occurred on Wednesday night with
the crucifixion taking place on Thursday evening) when we
realize that in John 19:31 Jesus’ crucifixion took place on
“the day of Preparation,” followed by the very next day as a
“special Sabbath” (i.e., the seventh day of Passover week). So
John places the crucifixion on Friday as do the Synoptics.
Although we do see a progressive development of an
organically related revelation, we do not agree that the apos-
tles in any sense of the term went beyond what Scripture had
taught, for they oftentimes developed what was already semi-
nally present in the revelation that had preceded it. And even
if these writers showed progress and development of doc-
trine, ethic, and thought, which we agree to so long as it has its
roots organically anchored in the stream of disclosures they
were continuing to unfold, we cannot agree that we, who are
the subsequent readers of this text, can in some similar way
“go beyond” the text based on an alleged apostolic example.
Our interpretive contributions are not in the same stream as
the revelatory words of God; we are but repeaters and appli-
ers of what has already been communicated in Scripture.
Our best contribution is to move up the Ladder of
Abstraction and state the general principle that embodies
what is seen in the specificity, culture, and times of the text
and then to apply it to our day in corresponding specif-
ics that elaborate on that same general principle. May our
Lord grant us his Holy Spirit in this task of interpretation
and “illumination,” rather than in an unauthorized work
of creating new authoritative directives, which the Holy
Spirit never promised to anyone beyond the prophets and
the apostles.

Four Views On Moving Beyond The Bible To Theology, Excerpt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Four Views On Moving Beyond The Bible To Theology, Excerpt

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Four Views On Moving Beyond The Bible To Theology, Excerpt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZONDERVAN

Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology

This title is also available as a Zondervan ebook.

Requests for information should be addressed to:

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

Cover and interior design by Matthew Van Zomeren

Printed in the United States of America

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 4 8/7/09 11:09 AM

3. A Drama-of-Redemption Model 151

4 A Redemptive-Movement Model 215

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 5 8/7/09 11:09 AM

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 6 8/7/09 11:09 AM

HoW IS A ColleCTIoN of WRITINGS composed between 2,000

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 7 8/7/09 11:09 AM

views are really just logical constructs the teacher brings to

WHaT DOEs GOING

1. The phrase “beyond the Bible” came to prominence with I. Howard

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 8 8/7/09 11:09 AM

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 9 8/7/09 11:09 AM

without resolution, although the various gender views all

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 10 8/7/09 11:09 AM

on eschatological issues such as the millennium and the

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 11 8/7/09 11:09 AM

basis of our theological understandings. The question we

IssuEs aTTENDaNT TO MakING

2. Richard N. Longenecker, new Testament social ethics for Today (Grand

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 12 8/7/09 11:09 AM

that is both faithful to Scripture and relevant to contempo-

WHaT Is THE NaTurE Of sCrIpTurE?

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 13 8/7/09 11:09 AM

within the flow of the text and thereby indicate to us God’s

5. Counterpoints series volumes usually provide views that have become

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 14 8/7/09 11:09 AM

ture as God’s Word, although their views of how Scripture is

OTHEr IssuEs TO CONsIDEr

6. N. T. Wright’s contribution on this subject asserts that it is not “the

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 15 8/7/09 11:09 AM

with texts that raise this question with noncritical common

THE VIEWs rEprEsENTED IN THIs BOOk

7. Please consult the author page for a description of each participant.

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 16 8/7/09 11:09 AM

to contemporary issues. These sections will probe issues in

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 17 8/7/09 11:09 AM

oNe of THe MoST IMPoRTANT INTeRPReTIVe TASKS, but the

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 19 8/7/09 11:09 AM

same text in our day was entitled “ethnohermeneutics,”1

1. Charles H. Kraft, “Towards a Christian Ethnotheology,” in God, Man

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 20 8/7/09 11:09 AM

the Old Testament, which has many more instances of that

2. See Kaiser and Silva, introduction to biblical hermeneutics, 233 – 37.

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 21 8/7/09 11:09 AM

To “principlize” is to [re]state the author’s proposi-

3. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an exegetical Theology: biblical exegesis for

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 22 8/7/09 11:09 AM

impose a mold over the Bible by forcing it to answer one of our

0310276551_4views_movingbeyond_bt_int.indd 23 8/7/09 11:09 AM

Finally, it is likewise best if we use present tense verbs, pres-

6. I must indicate my indebtedness again to Michael Schuter and Roy