Douglas Wilson’s Fear of Teaching Isaiah
A few weeks ago Douglas Wilson posted a video in an interview with Joe Rigney, an associate pastor at his church, where he was asked why he wouldn’t preach on certain books of the Bible. For instance, he had not preached through Isaiah and wouldn’t because of the difficulty with everything else happening in his life. Wilson is a presbyterian, covenant theologian, and postmillennialist, so he allegorizes scripture. That did not come out in his answer.
I know some don’t like hearing it, but allegorizing scripture means reading into the Bible. It’s not a literal, grammatical-historical interpretation of scripture. I’ve preached or taught through every verse of the Bible. For sure, some books are harder than others.
What I’ve found difficult with a book is unfamiliarity to start it. I just haven’t spent the time in that book like I have other books. A modern audience might find some books less easy to find interest. If you’re preaching on the judgment of several various nations for a good while, it might seem people find that harder to follow. It isn’t an interpretational issue. They will understand it, but will they care over several weeks, so that you will you keep their attention?
Not Difficult with Literal Approach
Even though certain books are harder than others to preach, I don’t find the Bible overly difficult to interpret as someone who takes it literally. It is a cohesive book, written by the same Author. Because of that, it all fits together and you can see that when you compare scripture with scripture. When you have to start making things up, that becomes very difficult, because those paying attention will see the contradictions and inconsistencies.
The Book of Isaiah itself is an important part of the comparison with other passages. The New Testament quotes Isaiah a lot, and many other books of the Bible and individual passages correspond to Isaiah. Isaiah looks to the past of its writings, the present, and the future for its harmonization. Everything fits and among other reasons that gives you the confidence that you’re getting the book right.
Hearing the Struggle from Allegorization
When I listen to Wilson and hear his spiritualizing texts, which will fit the Bible into his theology and system of interpretation, I understand his struggles. What I also hear from him very often is mockery of the actual interpretation of the text. He very often deals with the contradictions by insulting them. This calls on what he calls a serrated edge in his rhetoric to put down criticism.
I’m not saying that it is easier to preach a topical or textual sermon. In my opinion, to do those right is more difficult than exposition of a passage. For an allegorist, it’s easier to preach topical or textual. He can get away with reading into texts that way, especially when he pulls his texts out of context. What’s important to him becomes keeping consistency with his belief system. For instance, you don’t see infant sprinkling at all in the Bible, but an allegorist can prove that (not really though) with his eisegetical system of interpretation.
Someone who spiritualizes and allegorizes scripture, a book like Isaiah becomes a huge puzzle to fit together. He has many little pieces that don’t match and he’s got to convince his audience that they do. It becomes exhausting, much like someone who tries to keep his story straight with the inclusion of several lies.
Where Did You Get That?
When you hear someone spiritualize a passage, you might ask, “Where did you get that?” It is highly to completely subjective. You will not see in the text how they got it. They start going to several other passages, allegorizing them too and also taking them out of context, and then adding some historical dogma. Calvin said this, etc. Along with it might come some stories and other rhetorical devices that act as smoke and mirrors. I can see how this can wear on someone to where he won’t want to start a series on Isaiah. It is wrought with extreme difficulty.
Isaiah has a lot of chapters to make up things about. It becomes a house of cards that can easily come tumbling down. Somebody might read or hear someone preach through the same book with a literal interpretation and Isaiah makes total sense when that person teaches it. People have done that and it exposes what the allegorist will do.
I’ve found recently that postmillennialists especially are into podcasting. Percentage-wise, someone, who on a regular basis preaches through several books of the Bible with a grammatical, historical interpretation, isn’t sitting around discussing and defending the doctrines and issues that emanate from spiritualization. A person could listen to his series on the book and find it refreshingly cohesive, tight, and right. It rings true. That does not occur with postmillennialism and amillennialism.
Very often it sounds like there must be a lot of men who take this allegorical positions. There are not. They need their big megaphones to prop their positions up. Rhetoric becomes very, very important for their system. I understand their fear of not starting a book of the Bible.
Refreshing, Cohesive Literal Interpretation
The anxiety over beginning the teaching of a book of scripture should be tell-tale. I’m not saying someone should not take a respectful tack with every book of the Bible he teaches. He should. However, scripture is perspicuous and it all fits very nicely together. It is refreshing and rather than fear, the literal expositor will relish initiating and continuing through any and all of the wonderful books of the Bible.
Some people may take Doug Wilson as just being humble. He doesn’t know, and isn’t that refreshing? Certain passages are harder to be understood. They take more time and effort. It’s worthy of admitting that. Someone should ask someone else at times his thinking on a text. Get some help. However, it’s important to know when this difficulty comes because of a faulty system of interpretation and a wrong doctrinal framework.
Bro. Brandenburg,
Among those Baptists with which I am familiar, it is common for preachers to distort Scripture meaning and application by reading into texts subjects that are not present. Many are not aware they do this. Some pastors and preachers I know will not commit themselves to teach verse-by-verse through a Bible book. Some might take multiple texts from a Bible book and preach a series on a theme but, because they select only certain verses and bypass others (cherry-picking), they really do not let the Bible say what it says. It is context and details that are problems for many preachers.
As you know, context is a limiting factor. When an interpreter commits to keep his interpretation of a Bible text aligned with its context, if he is honest, he cannot force his theological views upon the text, but rather, his theology is informed by Scripture. I am convinced some preachers stay away from certain parts of Scripture because they either know, or at least suspect, the Bible teaches something different than what they or their religious associates believe.
Our challenge is to change our beliefs when we see the Bible plainly teaches something different than what we and our religious associates believe.
Where the theological views of some are concerned, details that occur in Bible texts are a problem. When I teach Bible Study skills classes in seminary, in the first session I take students to the story of the Rich Ruler and challenge them. Jesus instructed that man to sell his possessions, give to the poor, and as a result, “you will have treasure in heaven” (Mark 10:21). I say to the students: “If you believe what Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches about the way one receives eternal salvation, then did Jesus tell the Rich Ruler how he could be saved? And, if that man was unsaved and did what Jesus told him to do, would he have treasure in heaven? Whatever you believe was the spiritual condition of that man, you have to deal with the Lord’s words to him.” Many preachers either miss this altogether or choose not to deal with these details.
To those I teach I say: “We must strive to become and remain consistent in our theology. Many do not, and consequently, are not.”
Thank you for your commitment to truth.
Bro Barger,
I agree with you. Many independent or unaffiliated Baptists do not preach expositional sermons. They don’t even know how to do it. Churches don’t train it. As a result, there is a lot of spiritualizing and allegorizing that I’ve heard through the years. It is disturbing, because it is reading into the text. The net effect is that you get an opinion rather than what the text says. You get man instead of God. However, it is often said with great assurance and many times passion, as if it is unquestioned authority, the voice of God going forth.
In other words, independent and unaffiliated Baptists that would perhaps claim to be premillennial and dispensational preach like a covenant theologian, presbyterian, postmillennialist in content, perhaps with more significant passion. Part of this is that these men are reading, and they maybe don’t even know it, covenant theologians, who wrote in the 17th to 19th centuries and taking the same tack as them without the knowledge of why. They think that’s how they should operate too and without understanding what’s happening. I think this happens a significant amount of time.
Bro Barger,
Since you didn’t answer the question I’m interested to hear your take on the rich ruler’s spiritual condition since it’s apparent to me from the context that Jesus tells us what his spiritual condition was in verse 23. He would not “enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus also, in the same verse, calls him not only to give to the poor but to follow him. While it’s true that none is saved by selling what they have and giving to the poor, if they are unwilling to deny themselves and follow Christ they have not believed the gospel with an understanding heart (good ground of Matt 13).
I’m wondering if I would pass the test in your class.
Bro. Thompson, thank you for your interest in my understanding of the rich ruler’s eternal spiritual condition. I shall keep my reply brief. I use the challenge I present to seminary students as a means of testing their responses. Students’ responses give me insight into their willingness to consider and think about things of which they might not have previously heard or thought. Because of religious conditioning, the young man’s question to Jesus (Mark 10:17) sends people in a certain direction. In his time and culture, “eternal life” did not necessarily refer to duration, but could describe a quality of life, a full-orbed life. We must keep in mind that possession of eternal salvation does not guarantee one will have a perfect theology. None of us has this. Nor does possession of eternal salvation guarantee one will have assurance of it. As for Mark 10:23 and the subject of the Kingdom, the Kingdom is not salvation, and it is not heaven. On multiple occasions Jesus spoke to his saved apostles about the possibility of them not entering the Kingdom. The subject of the Kingdom is not applicable to the need of unsaved persons but rather is restricted in application to the lives and Christian service of believers. The rich ruler walked away from an opportunity to make Jesus the King of his life. Jesus is the Savior of every believer, but He is not the King (Lord) of every believer’s life. The latter is a choice believers must make, daily if not multiple times daily. An important point I always make is: It is no harder for a billionaire to be saved than it is for a beggar. Unfortunately, some of God’s people complicate the matter by adding conditions to salvation that God has not put there. Divesting oneself of his wealth, for example, is not a condition of salvation, nor is a commitment to Christian living (Romans 4:4-5). It is more difficult for a materially wealthy believer to make Jesus the King of his life because of the natural tendency to place confidence in wealth. In order for one to be theologically consistent who believes works play no role in receiving eternal salvation, he must say that Jesus did not tell the rich ruler how to be saved (Mark 10:21). The Lord spoke to the man about works. This leaves one with these options: 1) either Jesus lied to the man about how to be saved (Jesus “loved him,” 10:21), or 2) the man did not need to be saved because he already was. My conviction about the rich ruler is that he was a child of God who had no assurance of his salvation. A problem for him were his erroneous religious beliefs. God has many children like this. I have written on this subject and my material is available via email. jbarsofar@gmail.com Thanks again.
I don’t want to take over brother Brandenburg’s blog (again). So I’ll keep it brief. Mr. Barger, I think you should read more of brother Brandenburg’s articles on repentance and salvation. I also am of the conviction that until you come to understand sound doctrine you should not be teaching others. Sounds to me like you’ve been infected with a very common misunderstanding of the Bible found in the independent fundamental Baptist world. I’ve sadly seen it affect my own family and many others to their detriment and the detriment of those who hold to your false beliefs.
Unfortunately, those I know who are convinced of your position are seldom willing to hear the contextual interpretation of the Bible that opposes their false teaching. So if brother Brandenburg’s articles don’t convince you I doubt I’d be able to have any further meaningful conversation with you in the topic.
I do not take offense with these harsh remarks. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Romans 14:5) and “to his own master he standeth or falleth” (14:4).
I did a short three part series on the rich young ruler:
Part One — https://kentbrandenburg.com/2013/03/18/the-rich-young-ruler-tell-tale-passage/
Part Two — https://kentbrandenburg.com/2013/03/20/the-rich-young-ruler-tell-tale-passage_20/
Part Three — https://kentbrandenburg.com/2013/03/21/the-rich-young-ruler-tell-tale-passage_21/
Thank you, Brother. I will try to look these over. I have received not-so-nice emails from some who read your blog. If I read you correctly, I know you believe Romans 4:4-5 mean what they say. “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” I agree mostly with what you write. I judge you to be a sincere man who loves the Lord and His Word. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Romans 14:5). if you choose not to post this reply, I understand. Take care.
J. Barger
Bro Barger,
I haven’t talked to anyone about you. I believe I defended you when you were here before. I don’t agree with your position on the rich young ruler, which might mean we disagree on other passages, I don’t know, but I’ve not put anyone up to saying anything to you here or anywhere. I’m just letting you know.
A few other things. Just because someone reads here doesn’t mean that I approve of everything they might do. If someone comes at you here in the comment section, I might not defend you, but you have the freedom to go back at them if you want. I will not always moderate harsh statements. Someone may think a particular doctrine is worse than a strong statement against it.