I also take issue with Instone-Brewer’s conclusions. I think the biggest problem with his article (which is essentially an abstract of his published works) is his central thesis, namely that a correct understanding of the Bible’s teaching can only be attained through a doctorate level study of ancient rabbinic writings (though he does not say this is his central thesis, it does control the entire article and his conclusion). He does not argue based on hermeneutical, lexical, exegetical, or literary grounds, but on historical background alone. I do not doubt the importance of historical background for it certainly sheds light on certain aspects of the scriptures that are difficult for us to understand being so far removed culturally. However it is an entirely different thing to say that a passage of scripture is impossible to understand without a certain expertise in historical background. This presupposes that the Scriptures are constrained by historical background rather than being clarified by such. Would God communicate his truth to all people for all time by inspiring a passage that could only be widely understood by one culture or by a select group of scholars centuries later?