Simon Kistemaker on Two Lukan Parables

The following articles are now available online in PDF. Please visit the latest additions page for the links:


Simon Kistemaker, “Shrewd Manager: An Exposition of Luke 16:1-9,” Evangel 2:2 (1984): 13-14.

Simon Kistemaker, “Children in the Market Place,” Evangel 4:2 (1986): 12.

My thanks to Professor Kistemaker for his kind permission.

John W. Drane on Simon the Samaritan and the Lucan Concept of Salvation History,

The following article is now on-line in PDF on my "Latest Material" page.:

John W. Drane, "Simon the Samaritan and the Lucan Concept of Salvation History," Evangelical Quarterly 47.3 (July-Sept. 1975): 131-137.

My thanks to Professor Drane for his kind permission to reproduce this article.

Vox Evangelica Volume 27 now on-line

The following articles are now available on-line in PDF:

Derek J. Tidball, "Editorial Note: Vox Evangelica 1962-1997," Vox Evangelica 27 (1997): 6.

Stanley J. Grenz, "Christian Integrity in a Postmodern World (The Laing Lecture for 1997)," Vox Evangelica 27 (1997): 7-26.

Chrys C. Caraounis, "The Biblical Attitude to Homosexuality Against its Ancient Background," Vox Evangelica 27 (1997): 27-44.

Peter James Cousins, "Great Lives in Troubled Times: The Date and Settings of the Octavius by Minucius Felix," ," Vox Evangelica 27 (1997): 45-56.

Peter G. Riddell, "Islamic Variations on a Biblical Theme as Seen in the David and Bathsheba Saga" Vox Evangelica 27 (1997): 57-74.

Max Turner, "The Spirit in Luke-Acts: A Support or a Challenge to Classical Pentecostal Paradigms," Vox Evangelica 27 (1997): 75-101.

This bring the digitisation of this journal, begun in 2006, to a conclusion. My thanks once againt London School of Theology for their permission and especially to Dr Anthony Billington for his assistance.

Vox Evangelica Volume 24 now on-line

The following articles are now online in PDF:

Alan Kreider, "Worship and Evangelism in Pre-Christendom (The Laing Lecture for 1994)," Vox Evangelica 24 (1994): 7-38.

Meic Pearce, "The Laing Lecture for 1994: First Response," Vox Evangelica 24 (1994): 39-40.

Philip King, "The Laing Lecture for 1994: Second Response," Vox Evangelica 24 (1994): 41-42.

Clive Calver, "Red Herrings and Hot Potatoes: The Real Isssues for Evangelicals Today," Vox Evangelica 24 (1994): 43-54.

Martin Wroe, "First Response to Red Herrings and Hot Potatoes: The Real Isssues for Evangelicals Today," Vox Evangelica 24 (1994): 55-58.

Derek Tidball, "Second Response to Red Herrings and Hot Potatoes: The Real Isssues for Evangelicals Today," Vox Evangelica 24 (1994): 59-62.

Alan M. Linfield, "Sheeps and Goats: Current Evangelical Thought on the Nature of Hell and the Scope of Salvation," Vox Evangelica 24 (1994): 63-76.

Mary J. Evans, "'A Plague on Both Your Houses': Cursing and Blessing Reviewed," Vox Evangelica 24 (1994): 77-90.

Steve Motyer, "Expounding 1 Timothy 2:8-15," Vox Evangelica 24 (1994): 91-102.

Max Turner, "'Empowerment for Mission'? The Pneumatology of Luke-Acts: An Appreciation and Critique of James R. Shelton's Mighty in Word and Deed," Vox Evangelica 24 (1994): 103-122.

Howard C. Bigg on the The State of the Q Hypothesis in 1988

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

Howard C. Bigg, "The Present State of the Q Hypothesis," Vox Evangelica 18 (1988): 63-73.

This should prove useful to anyone studying Gospel origins.

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.

F.F. Bruce on St Luke's portrait of St Paul

The following article is now online in PDF:

F.F. Bruce, "St Luke's portrait of St Paul," George Dion. Dragas, General editor., Aksum - Thyateira. A Festschrift for Archbishop Methodios of Thyateira and Great Britian. London: Thyateira House, 1985. pp.181-191.

I found this a particularly interesting study. I would guess that, given its somewhat obscure source, that very few people would have read it before. One of my favourite parts is Bruce's suggested answer to the question why Luke seems reluctant to mention Paul's collection for the poor of Jerusalem in Acts:

The reason, I suggest, was apologetic. When the time came for Paul’s accusers to formulate their charges against him at the hearing of his appeal before the imperial tribunal, the Jerusalem relief fund could well have been misrepresented as an inter­ference with the collection and delivery of the annual half-shekel tax to the temple authorities in Jerusalem. The organization and conveyance of this tax enjoyed the express protection of Roman law. But the half-shekel tax was exacted from Jews; Paul’s relief fund was contributed by Gentiles. Even so, it could have been argued that the Gentile contributors were po­tential proselytes to Judaism, whom Paul had enticed away from the synagogue into an association of his own, and that the relief fund represented an improper diversion of money which, but for Paul’s activity, would have gone ultimately to swell the temple re­venue. The accusation that Paul had violated the sanctity of the temple by bringing Gentiles within pro­hibited bounds (Acts 21:28; 24:6) could not be su­stained since no witnesses could be produced; but here was a more subtle attempt to convict Paul of infringing the temple privileges, and one which a skilled advocate could present in a persuasive way. In former times it was argued by more than one scholar that Luke’s narrative was written to provide Paul’s counsel for the defence with factual material to be used at his trial before Caesar; if this thesis can no longer be sustained in its earlier form, it may still be argued that a document prepared for this purpose served Luke as one of his sources for this part of his narrative. (Why could such a document not have been prepared by Luke himself?) The issue of the relief fund would in that case have been too delicate to be treated in detail; Luke, or the author of his source, judged that Paul’s reference to “alms and offerings” in his defence before Felix was as much as it was politic to say on this subject. If the “alms and offerings” are said to have been designed for Paul’s “nation”, this should not be dismissed as a suggestio falsi: Paul himself hints here and there in his letters that he envisaged the relief fund not only as a gift to the church of Jerusalem but also as a witness to the whole Jewish nation at the centre of its life.

F.F. Bruce on the Use of the Book of Zechariah in the Passion Narrative

The following article is now online in PDF:

F.F. Bruce, "The Book of Zechariah and the Passion Narrative," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 43 (March 1961): 336-353.

Quotatle quote (I love the characteristic understatement here):

Even so, one may well hesitate to go so far as to find an echo of Zechariah ix-xiv in his statement that the high priest’s slave whom Peter wounded at Jesus’ arrest was called Malchus (John xviii. 10). It has been suggested in one of the most important studies of the Fourth Gospel to appear in recent years that John called the slave Malchus to show that the narrative of the arrest fulfilled Zechariah xi. 6, “I will cause men to fall each into the hand of his neighbour, and each into the hand of his king (malkô)”. But there is a basic appropriateness about John’s other allusions to Zechariah ix-xiv which is lacking here; no one fell into Malchus’ hand, and why, of all the people present, should the high priest’s slave be chosen to fulfil the prophecy about a “king”? It is more likely that the Evangelist tells us that the slave’s name was Malchus because he happened to know that Malchus, in fact, was his name.

Donald E. Cook on the Gospel Portrait of the Pharisees

The following article is now available in PDF:

Donald E. Cook, "A Gospel Portrait of the Pharisees," Review & Expositor 84.2 (Spring 1987): 221-233.

The Pharisees were an important group in Jewish society in the time of Jesus with whom both He and the early church interacted. It is interesting to read how the different Gospel writers each had their own take on them.

Harold W. Hoehner on Why Pilate Handed Jesus Over to Herod Antipas

The following article is now online in PDF:

Harold W. Hoehner , "Why Did Pilate Hand Jesus Over to Antipas?" Ernst Bammel, ed., The Trial of Jesus. Cambridge Studies in honour of C.F.D. Moule. Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 13. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1970. Pbk. ISBN. 0334016789. pp.84-90.

Shortly after completing the article by F.F. Bruce on Herod Antipas I came across the above book of essays and Harold Hoehner's contribution caught my eye because of its subject. SCM Press have kindly granted me permission to reproduce the relevant chapter which cites Bruce's earlier work approvingly in footnote 27.

Tyndale Bulletin to be put on-line this year

In November 2005 Mark Goodacre noted in his blog that he never consulted Tyndale Bulletin "because of its weak on-line presence". I have heard that this is about to change and that later this year the complete run of Tyndale Bulletin will be available on-line to subscribers (with new editions appearing after one year). When it appears I will of course be linking to this articles from my sites, but in the mean-time I have been given permission to host 10 articles from the journal. The first four are now available, 3 on www.biblicalstudies.org.uk and one on www.earlychurch.org.uk (see my other blog for details).

Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Magic in the biblical world," Tyndale Bulletin 34 (1983): 169-200.

John F. Maile, "The Ascension in Luke-Acts," Tyndale Bulletin 37 (1986): 29-59.

Thomas Renz, "Proclaiming the future: history and theology in prophecies against Tyre," Tyndale Bulletin 51.1 (2000): 17-58.

The remaining articles will appear as I receive permission from the authors.