Editorial -- By: Douglas Moo

Journal: Trinity Journal
Volume: TRINJ 16:2 (Fall 1995)
Article: Editorial
Author: Douglas Moo


Editorial

Douglas Moo

Trinity Journal seeks to serve the church of Christ by offering informed evangelical commentary on the issues that Christians at the end of the second millennium find themselves confronting. Some of these issues are obvious; the “felt needs” that we hear so much about these days. But others, not so obvious, can have just as serious an impact on the health of the church. And these latter kind of problems, precisely because they are not so manifest, may pose the greater danger in the long run. The authors of the four articles in this fascicle are dealing, by and large, with this kind of issue.

Don Garlington, of Toronto Baptist Seminary, has become almost a “regular” among the stable of writers who contribute to the Journal (“Romans 7:14–25 and the Creation Theology of Paul” [Fall 1990]; and “Burden Bearing and the Recovery of Offending Christians [Galatians 6:1–5]” [Fall 1991]). The question of the Christian and oaths, so important in post-Reformation controversy, is not one many Christians spend much time on today. But Garlington insists that we take Jesus’ words on the matter seriously and offers a new interpretation about how it is that his words are to be applied.

Our second article may seem an exception to the “not-a-felt-need” kind of article we feature in this fascicle—for few issues have received more attention in the last twenty years than that of women and the church. But by focusing on the largely ignored contribution of the resurrection narratives to the matter, Boyd Luter offers a fresh perspective. His article also illustrates the importance of structural matters in interpreting the gospels.

Many readers of Trinity Journal have probably never even heard of the issue that underlines Rodney Decker’s article. But “aspect theory” has created a major stir on many seminary campuses—including Trinity’s—and among NT scholars. This theory argues for a new approach to the interpretation of the Greek tense system. And before we dismiss the matter as just another scholarly quibble, we would do well to pause and think about how many points in books and sermons are built on a certain interpretation of a Greek tense. Change that interpretation, and many books and sermons may need to be revised. Decker, who teaches at Calvary Theology Seminary in Kansas City, does not offer a comprehensive description or critique of the theory, but he does do what is very important at this stage in the discussion—tackle a specific grammatical construction, with careful attention to context, to assess its “fit” within aspect the...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()