John Keir Howard on 'Christ our Passover': A Study of the Passover-Exodus Theme in I Corinthians

The following article is now available on-line. Visit the latest additions page for the link:

John Keir Howard, "'Christ our Passover': A Study of the Passover-Exodus Theme in I Corinthians," The Evangelical Quarterly 41.2 (April-May 1969): 97-108

My thanks to the author for his kind permission to republish his article.

Stephen Smalley on Spiritual Gifts and 1 Corinthians 12-16

The following article is now available on-line in PDF:

Stephen S. Smalley, “Spiritual Gifts and 1 Corinthians 12-16,” Journal of Biblical Literature 87.4 (Dec. 1968): 427-433. Read the article here.

Richard E. DeMaris on Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Cor. 15:29)

The following article is now on-line in PDF:

Richard E. DeMaris, “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology,” Journal of Biblical Literature 114.4 (Winter 1995): 661-682. Click here to read.

Dr. DeMaris has asked me to point out that an updated version of this article can be found in the chaper "And the Greatest of these is Death" in The New Testament in its Ritual World. London: Routledge, 2008. Pbk. ISBN-13: 978-0415438261. pp.57-71.

G.J. Laughery on Paul: Anti-marriage? Anti-sex? Ascetic?

The following article is now available on-line in PDF;

G.J. Laughery, "Paul: Anti-marriage? Anti-sex? Ascetic? A Dialogue with 1 Corinthians 7:1-40," The Evangelical Quarterly 69.2 (Apr.-June 1997): 109-128. Click here to view

Reformation & Revival Volume 11 now on-line

Four more complete issues now available on-line in PDF. Click here to visit the full listing.

Andrew C. Clark on Apostleship: Evidence From the New Testament and Early Christian Literature

The following article is now available on-line in PDF:

Andrew C. Clark, "Apostleship: Evidence From the New Testament and Early Christian Literature," Vox Evangelica 19 (1989): 49-82.

An interesting an wide-ranging study of what it the term "apostle" meant in the early church. The summary reads:

W Bauer comments that in early Christian literature generally, ‘the number twelve stands so fast that exceedingly often twelve disciples are spoken of where actually only eleven can be meant eg Gospel of Peter 5:9; Ascension of Isaiah 3:17; 4:3; 11:29; Kerygma Petrou’. Much is said in the apocryphal Acts and Epistles of the various views and activities of the apostles after the ascension, especially of their missionary work throughout the world. Paul is not deliberately excluded from the number, but ‘it was only when Marcion and later Jewish Christianity began to play Paul against the earliest apostles that thought was given to the circle of apostles, and the Early Catholic Church maintained that “the twelve and Paul” qualified as apostles’. As regards the apostolic writings, it was probably the rise of Montanus, who advocated ‘the new prophecy’, that is the continuing revelation of the Holy Spirit as in apostolic times, that raised the hermeneutical question of the status of apostolic and post-apostolic writings respectively. Gerald Bray comments that ‘Tertullian is the first Christian writer to regard the apostolic age as definitely over, and to quote the writings of the apostles on a par with the Old Testament Scriptures as a matter of course’. He points out, however, that ‘the fact that he could do this without argument shows that the apostolic writings must have been regarded as Scripture even before his time’.

Max Turner on Spiritual Gifts then and now

The following article is now on-line in PDF:

Max Turner, "Spiritual Gifts Then and Now," Vox Evangelica 15 (1985): 7-64.

This article makes up the large part of Volume 15 of Vox Evangelica provides some valuable insights to those (like myself) interested in the subject of spiritual gifts. This passage in particular caught my attention:

3.2.2.3 Tongues as an Aid to Private Devotion?

This, the usual explanation given by Pentecostals, Charismatics and, for that matter, by most New Testament scholars, has been vigorously denied by Edgar who insists: (1) that such a view contradicts the purpose stated in 1 Corinthians 14:22; Mark 16:15-17 and implicit in Acts 2:1-13. (2) A private gift would not be for the edification of the church and makes it unique. (3) Such a gift would be self-centred. (4) If the gift of tongues could edify it would surely be given to all. (5) If the purpose is private devotion directed to God why should there be a gift of interpret­ation? (6) Anyway Paul says that tongues do not edify the believer; his mind remains fallow. (7) It is clear that in 1 Corinthians 14:2 using a gift to speak ‘only to God’ is equivalent to ‘speaking into the air’ (14:9): it is, for Paul, a negative concept, not something to be exercised. (8) In 14:14-16 Paul discourages praying with the Spirit alone (which is not tongues anyway) and urges praying with the mind also.

These points need not delay us long. We take them seriatim: (1) There is no contradiction between tongues viewed as an aid in devotion and what is said in 1 Corinthians 14:22; Mark 16:15-17 and Acts 2:1-13 unless one arbitrarily asserts tongues may only have one function. Edgar does just this, but he is inconsistent here for he is forced to admit that Acts 10:46; 19:6 do not denote sign-gifts of evangelistic import. Edgar is wrong in giving exclusive place, or even primary place, to the function of tongues stated in the long ending of Mark and implied in Acts 2: in doing this he almost certainly misrepresents Paul. (2) As exercised in the church, with interpretation, the gift does edify. And if used privately to build up the individual this also (albeit indirectly) edifies the church. But the notion that no gift could possibly be given to benefit the receiver/user (rather than the church he serves) is quite arbitrary and fails to see that all the other gifts build up the endowed as well (though we admit not exclusively). (3) Why can the gift not be God-centred? (4) If tongues is merely one gift amongst many by which an endowed person might be built up then he who has not received the gift is not thereby necessarily impoverished. (5) On Edgar’s view it should be an anomaly that the gift of interpretation is required at all: but on the view presented above the speaker who has tongues and interpretation will not only edify the church more, but also edify himself more (note that Paul assumes that it is the tongues-speaker who should interpret usually, vv.5, 13). (6) Edgar’s antithesis is false; Paul allows that spiritual activity not cognitively recognized by the practitioner may edify (cf. Rom. 8:26). (7) To be sure, Paul bans the phenomenon (if uninterpreted) from the assembly; but he fully recognizes that it is genuinely a speaking to God (14:2, 28)―the problem for the assembly is that unless interpreted it is ‘only to God’. It is perfectly right of Edgar to say that Paul does not hereby positively advocate private devotional tongues; but what Paul says nevertheless entails that he considered it an appropriate use. Later, however, in 1 Corinthians 14:28 Paul commands that if glōssai are not interpreted the speaker should then be silent in church; he should speak rather ‘to himself and to God’. As it is improbable that Paul is counselling private use of tongues in church when another is ministering, this seems to be a positive injunction to private use. (8) Praying and singing with the Spirit are almost certainly tongues (or, at least, not forms understood to the speaker) else the contrast with prayer en nō(i) makes contextually less sense. This is confirmed by the contrast en glōssē(i)/en nō(i) lalein in verse 19. However much we agree with Edgar that Paul encourages prayer ‘with the mind also’, he clearly recognizes―as valid―prayer that is not with the mind, but is merely glōssē(i) (14:14).

We conclude that Paul saw a variety of functions to be fulfilled by tongues-speech, but probably saw its major role to be a private one.

Wayne Grudem on The Meaning of kephale (“Head”): A Response To Recent Studies

I was recently asked to place online the following article. Happily it is already on-line on the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website:

Wayne Grudem, “The Meaning of kephale (“Head”): A Response To Recent Studies,” Trinuty Journal ns 11.1 (Spring 1990): 3-72 = Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed., John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Westchester: Crossway, 1991. Pbk. ISBN: 185684045X. pp.425-468.

Wayne Grudem on "Does kephale ("Head") Mean "Source" Or "Authority Over" in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples"

The following article is now on-line in PDF:

Wayne Grudem, "Does Kephale ("Head") Mean "Source" or "Authority Over" in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples," Trinity Journal ns 6.1 (Spring 1985): 38-59.

This is an important article for those interested in the role relationships of men and women because it fatally undermines the oft-repeated and unfounded argument that kephale means 'source' and not 'head' in the NT. Grudem's later article on this subject is also available on-line:

Wayne Grudem, "The Meaning Of kephale ('Head': 'An Evaluation Of New Evidence, Real And Alleged," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44.1 (2001): 25-65.

I have recently added another article that addresses the issue from a complimentarian position that is worth a read:

The New Testament Teaching on the Ministry of Women (P.G. Nelson)

F.F. Bruce on Paul and Jerusalem

The following article is now available on-line in PDF:

F.F. Bruce, "Paul and Jerusalem," Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968): 3-25.

FFB reconstructs the relationship of the Apostle Paul with the church of Jerusalem as deduced from his epistles and the book of Acts.

William B. Badke on what Paul meant by "Baptised into Moses" and "Baptsed into Christ".

The following article is available in PDF:

William B. Badke, "Baptised into Moses - Baptised into Christ: a Study in Doctrinal Development," The Evangelical Quarterly 60 (1988): 23-29.

This is a study of Paul's teaching in Romans 6:3. Dr Badke summarises his argument as follows:

It is the contention of this paper that, only if death and resurrection with Christ had not yet been connected thematically with baptism, would Paul have used the expression 'baptised into Moses'. If such a connection had not yet been made, Paul's meaning would simply be that the Israelites adhered themselves to Moses, and thus to God, through a baptism-like act. This would say nothing more than the Old Testament text already implies and would leave no implication that Moses was to be seen as a resurrected saviour leading his people into a better world and imparting to them the mysteries of God. Paul was far too careful a pastor to have allowed for such a false implication. He could use 'baptised into Moses' freely, because he himself had not yet made the connection between baptism and death-resurrection, let alone teaching it to anyone else.