The Trinity in John's Gospel

Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John's Gospel by Andreas J. Kostenberger
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This was a superb book. It is very well organized and easy to read. The apostle John loaded his gospel with helpful literary insights and allusions to the unity and plurality of God, which would have been familiar to first century Jews and proselytes to Judaism. This book helps draw out all of those literary insights and allusions. There are also a good number of important translational insights. And to top it all off, there is an entire section devoted to the theology of evangelism & mission derived from John's gospel.

View all my reviews

Jakob Van Bruggen on Paul

Paul: Pioneer for Israel's Messiah by Jakob Van Bruggen
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

After reading his other two theological books by P&R publishing I thought this one would be as helpful. It actually showed me how nit-picky and arbitrary his opinions can actually be at times, overriding some valuable insights endorsed among other scholars. The greatest disappointment was his chronology of Paul's life and letters, which affects the majority of his insights. Even though there were a handful of interesting insights, it was only a handful -- which was very disappointing for a 400 page book.

View all my reviews

Future Men

A young man ought to follow the pattern of biblical courtship. But words by themselves protect nothing, and nowhere is this more evident than with words like courtship. Calling something by the right name is no protection. Living before God with a right heart is our only protection. Unless wisdom governs, words are like proverbs in the mouth of a fool--like the legs of a crippled man (Prov. 26:7). So it doesn't matter if it is called courtship, biblical courtship, or covenantal dating. What matters is more intangible. Unless wisdom governs, as I am fond of saying, courtship means that six idiots are involved instead of two. In dealing with mysteries, wisdom is essential, and a set of wooden rules is useless. 

 ...A young man who wants a wife needs to remember certain key principles as he approaches the whole matter. What are some of the essential principles? The first is that attitude is first. In the arrogance of youth, one of the things which potential suitors demand is "a checklist" so that they can be in control of the process. But an attitude of wise submission shows deference and humility to those in authority. 

 Secondly, maturity matters. The conservative Christian world is generally consistent in creating "marriage nerds." In the secular realm, "worldly wisdom" is certainly immoral, but is far more cautious about the responsibilities of marriage than Christians are. As a general rule--not in every instance--but as a general rule, marrying before adult maturity is very foolish. 

 Third is the principle that young men have to know their limitations. Like a twelve-year-old boy who believes he can compete in a basketball game with grown men, many young men think they have a high view of marriage when they only have a high view of themselves. But one of the most essential characteristics of a husband is one of the most difficult combinations for men to achieve--confident humility. This is very hard to find in young men, and in our midst, it is not yet abundant. 

 A fourth principle is that of preparation: if you were going to live in a foreign country, would you prepare? If you were going to become an astronaut, would you prepare? If you were going to become a concert pianist, would you prepare? And so how do your sons prepare for the mystery of marriage?

 ...In all this, parents of daughters must be prepared to exercise a judicious authority. Parents of sons must be prepared to give godly and restraining advice. ...We live in a fallen world in which God works redemptively. This means that nothing can be assumed to be in submission to God. But it can be assumed to be in submission to Him or not. It must be one or the other. Consequently, we must consider all things as a blessing, or as a curse, depending upon its relationship to the Word of God.1

1.  Douglas Wilson, Future Men [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001], pp. 145-148

Better to marry than to burn

Christians often interpret Paul's statement in I Cor. 7:9 (i.e. "it's better to marry than to burn") as though, as a general rule, it's better to get married hastily than to be consumed with sexual passion. But as Gordon Fee points out,1 Paul does not say (as the ESV & NIV translate it), "if they cannot exercise self control, it's better to marry than to burn with passion." Rather, in the Greek, Paul says, "if they are not exercising self control (i.e. practicing continence), it's better to marry than to burn with passion."

In context, Paul is referring to those people in Corinth who are doing the same sorts of things as some of the married couples in verses 1-7 are tempted to do, i.e. indulging in sexual immorality.

And as Fee also points out, the formation of clubs which associated with and indulged in cultic prostitution is but one example of a very common sin throughout Corinthian culture, and Paul alludes to that association two other times in this first epistle to the Corinthians. The antidote for such deeply rooted  sinful practices, Paul says, is marriage. Fee notes carefully: 

In this case, then, Paul is not so much offering marriage as the remedy for sexual desire of 'enflamed youth,' which is the most common way of viewing the text, but as the proper alternative for those who are already consumed by that desire and are sinning.

Leon Morris's comments are in complete agreement with Fee. Commenting on verse 9, he writes:

But this depends on their having the gift of continence. If God has not given them this gift, they should marry (a command, not a permission), for it is better to marry than to burn. NIV adds with passion, which yields a good sense and may well be right. But the verb could be understood of burning in Gehenna, and this is supported by the fact that there is no cannot in the original; the Greek means 'if they are not living continently.' Paul has recently said that the sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God (6:9-10).2

Archibald Robertson comments on the meaning conveyed by the active/middle voice of this verb which Paul uses here for "exercising self-control". He writes: 

What is meant by this failure to have power over themselves is partly explained by εγκρατευονται (present tense in both verbs). A prolonged and painful struggle seems to be intended, a condition quite fatal to spiritual peace and growth.3

Ben Witherington's comments on 1st century Corinthian culture also support Fee's observations. He writes: 

Because of work or because of arranged marriages, Romans frequently looked outside the home for pleasure and for much else that we would associate with home and family. ...A good deal of this background information comes into play in 1 Corinthians 7 because of the household setting of the ekklesia.4  

He concludes with these remarks: 

The repeated theme of sexual passion or misconduct and, in response, Paul's stress on self-control (cf. vv 2, 5, 9, 36, 37) probably tells us more about the problems in Corinth than about Paul's view of the purposes of marriage.5 

And finally, the comments of Charles Hodge are succinct concerning the importance of interpreting these statements within a first century Corinthian context. Commenting on verses 9 & 10, he writes:

If these verses and others of like import, are to be understood of men generally, and not of men in the peculiar circumstances of the early Christians, then it must be admitted that Paul depreciates marriage, and that he represents it as scarcely having any higher end than the sexual intercourse of brutes. This cannot be his meaning; not only because it is contrary to Scripture, but also because Paul elsewhere, Eph. 5:22-33, represents marriage as a most ennobling spiritual union. ...This must therefore be borne in mind in the interpretation of this whole chapter.6

1.  Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987], p. 288-9

2.  Leon Morris, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: I Corinthians [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985], p. 105. Emphasis in bold is mine.

3.  Archibald Robertson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975], p. 139

4.  Ben Witherington III, Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995], p.173

5.  Ibid., pp. 176

6.  Charles Hodge, A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974 reprint], pp. 111-2. Italics mine.

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