Vaughn Ohlman, the "practical theonomist"

Vaughn Ohlman, the "practical theonomist" and reformed baptist who has written a couple self-published books which are popular among the formalistic, baptistic crowd of "reformed" Christianity, says that he holds to "the Grammatico-historical method of interpretation," and that he believes "every text of Scripture must be interpreted with an understanding of both the language that was used, and the context/culture/historical setting in which it was given."1 Immediately following that assertion, he declares that:

All Scriptures are sufficiently plain that there are no facts of history or linguistics which are so obscure, or lost in time, that Christians living today, with revelation of the Spirit and diligent searching of all of Scripture, cannot understand what God would say to them through that text.2

But here is where it gets interesting. He then goes out of his way to make clear that he rejects the "redemptive historical" interpretation of Scripture insofar as it rejects, as a methodology, examples within the historical narratives of Scripture to be considered normative for applying Christian ethics  today. This is what he must strictly adhere to in order for his books on "biblical" marriage (here and here) which reject dating and courting altogether, as well as his requirement of "headcoverings" for women (here) and absolute patriarchal authority (here) to seem convincing among "biblically" sensitive Christians today. Ohlman says he finds that aspect of redemptive-historical method which does not presume upon all historical examples of Scripture as being normative for Christians ethics, 

...to contradict our understanding of the issues raised in II Tim 3:16-17, the linguistic nature of many of the texts themselves, the way these texts are treated in the NT, and the way most commentators and preachers have treated those texts and examples throughout history.3

Ummm... the redemptive historical method contradicts the "linguistic nature of the texts themselves"? Is he serious? Can he be so narrow minded as to miss what is obvious from the text of Scripture itself? When a christian chooses not to presume that the various examples of behavior found throughout the historical narratives of Scripture are normative for Christian ethics in every generation, that is not at all the same thing as denying the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures (II Tim 3:16-17), nor does that lack of presumption inhibit the Scriptures in their entirety from being "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (II Tim 3:16). Ohlman is not simply mistaken in this regard. He is wrong as well.

Secondarily, the way in which these "texts are treated" by the New Testament  authors affirms and confirms the solid foundation of redemptive historical interpretation, and that the historical narratives per se cannot be interpreted as standing laws which are normative for Christians ethics in all generations, but must be interpreted in light of their own redemptive-historical context. For example, God clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins in the garden. And in Deuteronomy 22:11-12, God says, "You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together." Should we therefore disregard the narrative of redemption or the historical context of those passages and conclude that Christians ought to clothe themselves with animal skins only, and to avoid wearing clothing which use plant fibers (as linen does, as apposed to wool which is made of animal hair). Should we also conclude that it is immoral for Christians to wear clothing made of synthetic fibers? After all, God clearly clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins, not polyester. 

Consider another example. The Law of God says: "You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself." Later on the New Covenant we find Jesus wearing tassels on his garments (Matt. 9:20; 14:36; Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43, 44). Should we therefore conclude that all Christians at all times wear tassels on their garments too? Vaughn Ohlman's hermeneutic necessarily accepts these historical examples as normative for Christian ethics today. But don't misunderstand my main point: Vaughn Ohlman may not accept it himself. How can that be? Well, that can only be if his hermeneutic is arbitrary at this point. And if it's arbitrary, it's inconsistent too.

Last of all, Ohlman asserts that his interpretation is "the way most commentators and preachers have treated those texts and examples throughout history." That is simply not true. But even more embarrassing is the fact that he doesn't mention any commentators or preachers, let alone "most" of them, who support this narrow-minded claim of his. All one would have to do is take a cursory glance through the Nicene and Ante-Nicene church fathers, and the popular protestant reformers like Calvin, Luther, Bullinger, Zwingle, Knox, Baxter, Bunyan, Henderson, Rutherford, Owen, Turretin, etc.. in order to realize how bogus this claim of Ohlman's is. Such claims of his are a mask to cover up his bogus scholarship. "Most" commentators and "preachers" throughout history did not treat the various and widespread historical narratives of Scripture as standing examples of law which are normative for Christian ethics at all times. Ohlman needs to step down from his hermeneutical high horse to see what reality is like.

Sadly, Ohlman recommends Greg Bahsnen's books on theonomy ("By This Standard," "Theonomy In Christian Ethics," and "No Other Standard") on his blog. I say sadly because Dr. Greg Bahnsen spends an exhaustive amount of time demonstrating that this aspect of redemptive-historical hermeneutics, which Ohlman rejects, is fundamental to a consistent theonomic interpretation of Christian ethics contained within the Bible, and that Ohlman's rejection of such historic principles are an embarrassment to the "theonomic" community.

1.  http://vonstakes.blogspot.com/p/on-our-hermeneutic-summary-given.html
2.  Ibid. 

3.  Ibid.

Warnings of Kingdom Division: Matthew 11-12 (A and A')

As noted in the previous post, chapters 11 and 12 of Matthew's gospel revolve around a central theme of Sabbath rest, but that theme is first bracketed by warnings of kingdom division, a sign from God concerning soon-coming judgment upon the land, and a brief exhortation about God's true family. The first section concerning the warnings of kingdom division are found in 11:1-19, section (A):

When Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in their cities.

Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.”

As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written,

“‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates, “‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”

The corresponding section is found in 12:22-37 (section A') as seen below:

Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons." Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age, or in the age to come. Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. 

A few things are noteworthy about these parallel passages. First, John the Baptist arrives on the scene, so to speak (even though he's in prison), and he sends a message to Jesus. He asks Jesus if he is "the Coming-One" or if his disciples should look for another One? Jesus doesn't respond with an affirmative yes or no. He responds with credentials which only Yahweh himself could provide, credentials listed throughout the prophecies of Isaiah (61:1-2; 26:1-19; 35).

After responding to John's disciples, Jesus turns to the crowd which followed him, asking them why they left John to follow him. And Jesus knows that they left John to follow him because John was "much more" than a mere prophet. John was the messenger --the angel-- of whom Yahweh spoke in Malachi 3, saying, "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you." John the baptist is the "Elijah" spoken of in Malachi 4. And because there were faithful Jews who understood that John's ministry was paving the way for Israel's Messiah, Jesus describes his own generation of Jews (i.e. "this generation") as being clearly divided. But the division is not between John the messenger and Jesus the Messiah; rather, the division is between the disciples of Jesus and the disciples of the Israel's rulers. (This is a pattern which we saw throughout the last section of narratives, chapters 8 & 9.) John came neither eating or drinking and they accused him of having a demon. Now Jesus comes eating and drinking and they accuse him of gluttony and lawlessness. Clearly John had disciples who were anticipating The Coming-One, Jesus. And so, Jesus and John have disciples who are on the same side of this battlefield. Those who accuse both Jesus and John of demon possession are the disciples of those who rule Israel. 

Matthew provides a similar message in the parallel section (A'). There we find Jesus healing a demon-oppressed man, but because of these works the Pharisees accuse Jesus of allegiance to the prince of demons (similar to their treatment of John). Perceiving their thoughts, and why they would be saying such evil things about his miraculous "deeds," Jesus then describes their kingdom --the kingdom of Israel-- as being divided. "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste. ...Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."  Either Jesus is under the influence of the prince of demons, or the Pharisees are. Either Jesus' disciples are wise, and the disciples of the pharisees are not, or Jesus's disciples are fools and will stand condemned by their allegiance to false prophets (both John and Jesus). But, as Jesus says, wisdom is justified by her deeds, and the real fools will be justified by their own words against the Holy Spirit of Wisdom incarnate. 

What Godly People Do

When God created man in knowledge,1 righteousness, and holiness,2 with dominion over the creatures,3 and told him to be fruitful and multiply, that was a mandate to fill the earth with godly people who would produce a godly culture. That is what godly people do. The goal was not to multiply misery or to populate hell but rather to advance God and His kingdom. The introduction of sin fouled the planet. In fact, it made it green: green with envy. Sin corrupted the culture. Soon thereafter, God promised a Redeemer.4 

1.  Col. 3:10

2.  Eph. 4:24

3.  Gen. 1:26; Psa. 8:6-8

4.  Randy Booth, The Church-Friendly Family [Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2012], p. 1

John the inquisitive prophet & Peter the confessing apostle

In his book, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary, David Garland observes an interesting parallel between John the Baptist in Matt. 11:1-19 and Peter the apostle in 16:13-20. Garland's outline is below:

John the Prophet

a  11:2  Question about Jesus

   b  11:3-5  Jesus’ answer

      c  11:6  Beatitude for those who respond to Jesus

         d  11:7-15  John’s role explained

Peter the Apostle

a‘  16:13-20  Question about Jesus

   b’  16:14-16  Jesus’ answer

      c’   16:17  Beatitude for those who respond to Jesus

         d’  16:18-20  John’s role explained1

Because Matthew parallels the initial imprisonment and witness of John the Baptist with Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah, Matthew is likely setting up Peter to be a martyr (i.e. a witness) in the eyes of his Jewish audience as well. Just as John would be martyred for his faith (14:1-12), so Peter would be martyred for his witness to Jesus as the Christ. Peter, the apostle to the circumcised, leads Christian Jews down the highway to Zion which John the Baptist paved for Israel.

1.  David E. Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary [Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2001], p. 124

The Literary Structure of Matthew 11-12 & 11-16

Unlike chapters 10 & 13, which are discourses (or "sermons," as Peter F. Ellis describes) of Jesus, chapters 11 & 12 of Matthew contain a series of narratives all woven together into one stream of thought concerning Israel and the rise of their King -- King Jesus. The following is a breakdown of these chapters alone:

A)  Warnings of Kingdom division [Accusations of demon-possession/Wisdom justified by her deeds] (11:1-19)

B)  A Sign for a city  (11:20-24)

C)  The Father’s family  (11:25-30)

     

      D1)  Sabbath Day: Accusations of Sabbath breaking (12:1-8)

      D2)  Sabbath Day: Jesus heals a man with a “withered hand” in their synagogue (12:9-14)

      D3)  Sabbath Day: Jesus leaves the synagogue & many Jews follow him in hope (12:15-21)

A’)  Warnings of Kingdom division [Accusations of demon-possession/Fools justified by their words]  (12:22-37)

B’)  A Sign for a city  (12:38-45)

C’)  The Father’s family  (12:46-50)

Interestingly, after chapters 11 & 12 are complete, Matthew moves on to a discourse (or sermon) of parables in chapter 13 relating to the growing hatred of Israel's rulers as manifested in chapters 11 & 12; and then the following chapters --chapters 14 through 16-- follow the pattern of chapters 11 & 12. The major difference between chapters 11-12 and 14-16 is the response of faith between Israel's rulers and the disciples of Jesus. The literary structure for all of this is as follows:

A)  Matt. 11:1-19  John the Baptist, a witness in prison

 B)  Matt. 11:20-24  Woe to unrepentant cities

  C)  Matt. 11:25-30  All things handed over to the Son of God, the "wise" men of Israel are blind to this truth

   D)  Matt. 12:1-8  Pharisees accuses Jesus’ disciples of breaking the Sabbath/Jesus responds

    E)  Matt. 12:9-14  Jesus withdraws and enters "their synagogue"/Pharisees display great hatred

     F)  Matt. 12:15-21  Jesus withdrew from there, and many followed him, and he healed them all

      G)  Matt. 12:22-37  Warnings of Kingdom division

       H)  Matt. 12:38-45  Jesus is asked to show a "sign”/a sign of Jonah is promised/ House cleansed of demon, 7 more return

a)  12:46-50 -- Jesus' mothers, brothers, and sisters

   b)  13:1-52 -- Parables of the kingdom that explain the reaction to Jesus

a')  13:53-58 -- Jesus' mothers, brothers, and sisters

A’)  Matt. 14:1-12  John the Baptist, a martyr (witness)

 B’)  Matt. 14:13-21  Jesus feeds 5,000 with 5 loaves of bread

  C’)  Matt. 14:22-36  Jesus walks on water, declared to be the Son of God

   D’)  Matt. 15:1-20  Pharisees accuses Jesus’ disciples of breaking the Elder’s traditions/ Jesus responds

    E’)  Matt. 15:21-28  Jesus withdraws and enters the district of Tyre and Sidon/Canaanite woman displays great faith

     F’)  Matt. 15:29-31  Jesus withdrew from there, and great crowds came to him, and he healed them all

      G’)  Matt. 15:32-39  Jesus feeds 4,000 with 7 loaves of bread

       H’)  Matt. 16:1-12  Jesus is asked to show a "sign"/a sign of Jonah is promised/Warning of leaven/teaching of Pharisees

                     

Notice that instead of woes and warnings of judgment upon the cities of Israel which would not repent, Jesus breaks bread and blesses 9,000 disciples around Galilee of the Gentiles, and he does so with only 12 loaves of bread (total). While the self-proclaimed wise and intelligent rulers of Israel are blind to the Son of God receiving all things, his disciples openly and gladly acknowledge this truth. And instead of finding a synagogue of Satan filled with Pharisees who hate him, Jesus travels to the Gentile coast of Tyre and Sidon and finds a Canaanite woman whose faith in him is great. 

The narrative from chapter 11 to chapter 16 is a movement of King Jesus and his dynasty arising and growing in the midst of his people. It's also a movement which appears to be gaining momentum by chapter 16, preaching and teaching in the "northern" kingdom territory, only to find out after that, when Jesus preaches and teaches in the "southern" kingdom of Judea, that Israel would eventually reject her King and crucify their Messiah.

Calvin & Baptism of the Roman Church

In Peter Lillback's insightful and challenging book, The Binding of God: Calvin's Role in the Development of Covenant Theology, he notes a unique illustration which John Calvin used to connect the covenant-sign of baptism with "general election," along with it's consequential idea of falling away from such "general election" because of covenant-breaking. Calvin's illustration is of those baptized into the Roman Catholic church. He writes:

The same thing that the Prophet brought against the Israelites may be also brought against the Papists; for as soon as infants are born among them, the Lord signs them with the sacred symbol of baptism; they are therefore in some sense the people of God. We see, at the same time, how gross and abominable are the superstitions which prevail among them: there are none more stupid than they are. Even the Turks and the Saracenes are wise when compared with them. How great, then, and how shameful is this baseness, that the Papists, who boast themselves to be the people of God, should go astray after their own mad follies!1

1.  Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin's Role in the Development of Covenant Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001] p. 224, f.n. 53. Italics mine.