Dear Friends,

I introduce this week’s thoughts with a personal experience from my early ministry that instilled in me the essential quality of proper Biblical hermeneutics.  Sadly sometimes the most sincere and conscientious of Bible students—and even preachers—take their preconceived ideas to the Bible, seeking passages to support their preconceptions.  Respectful Biblical study and interpretation requires—demands—the mirror opposite.  We take every thought or idea we have to the Bible and test it against the teaching of Scripture.  If Scripture fails to support the idea, we should reject the idea, however much we like it, and seek the true teaching of Scripture on the question.  Scripture, not our personal opinion, should be the exclusive authoritative word on spiritual truth.  God never indicates in Scripture that the truths He sets forth therein are negotiable or flexible.  They are fixed, or, as Paul writes by inspiration, “…yea, let God be true, but every man a liar….” ( Romans 3:4 )

A careful identification of the spiritual character of the people whose present state drove Paul from spiritual ecstasy to a near-desperate grief and prayer is essential to our understanding of Paul’s inspired teaching, not to mention a harmonious interpretation of the various doctrines of grace.  They all blend and harmonize with each other.  They contain no “rough edges.”  In no case do we need to “…give up” our mind to understanding the apparent inconsistencies (a comment made by Spurgeon regarding divine sovereignty and mans free will) of them. Such “apparent inconsistencies” more likely appear in our own errant interpretation of one or the other of these doctrines.   

I believe by following Paul’s reasoning in the Roman letter we can in fact identify these people and uncover the truth of Paul’s concern, a concern that in no way compromised his joy that nothing can possibly separate God’s chosen people from His love.   

God bless,

Joe Holder
 

Biblical Hermeneutics:  Avoid Too Much or Too Little

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.  ( Romans 9:1-5 )

            “If Primitive Baptists do not sponsor or approve of seminaries to train and to qualify their ministers, how do they communicate what they believe and practice to successive generations of preachers?”  This question is quite legitimate and sincerely asked by people who do not understand our culture.  The correct Biblical answer appears in Second Timothy 2:2 .

 
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ( 2 Timothy 2:2 , KJV )

I often grieve for fear that many older preachers in the present generation spent too much time augmenting their own ministry to understand their responsibility toward the next generation as instructed by Paul in this verse.  The verse establishes a pattern that covers at least four generations of ministers; 1) Paul, the teacher, 2) Timothy the student, 3) Timothy the teacher instructing “faithful men,” and 4) those faithful men teaching others in the next generation.  I suggest that four generations of conduct established and affirmed in inspired Scripture quite sufficiently sets a wise and Biblical “tradition” that we should respect.  My personal concern with seminaries appears in the practical fact that they train young ministers too much in isolation from the arena in which they will conduct their ministry, the local church.  What might work quite well in a classroom with a knowledgeable professor may utterly fail with less informed believers in a local church setting.  With embarrassing frequency seminaries also become hotbeds for errant theology.  Leading instructors in the seminary embrace error and pass it along to their students.

            I offer this introduction to our study for a reason.  When I started speaking in my home church and nearby churches, I found myself gently embraced under the loving—and very practical—care and tutelage of a number of wise and godly ministers from the older generation.  Three of these men stand out as lifelong influences on my theology as well as my practical view of “life in the trenches” of preaching and pastoral ministry, my uncle, Elder J. D. Holder, Elder J. M. Bullard, and Elder Gene Thomas.  To this day (over fifty years later) when faced with difficult issues in both areas of ministerial responsibility (theology and practical matters)I often find myself going back to conversations with these three men in those early days of “training” under their careful and gracious supervision.  Though two of these men have long since passed from this life, they still speak with integrity and clarity to me through their patient and godly influence in my spiritual youth.  I honestly doubt that I would have survived apart from their influence.  I offer this observation with obvious and admitted bias; when I see a preacher who has reached a stage of maturity in his ministry without that fatherly influence, I fear, both for him and for future men who may grow up under his influence.  I have sadly observed a number of men, some of them loudly claiming one or all three of the very men who shaped my early ministry, who utterly failed to grasp the character, much less the theology and wise practical insights of these men.  Such men often become “dropouts” in the Primitive Baptist “seminary” of the local church in conjunction with its pastor, though they may still live out the pretense of the ministerial office.

            During some of my early “classroom” sessions with all three of these men, the question of proper Biblical interpretation and application often appeared as a major element of significance in their agenda for my studies.  My uncle especially observed frequently that it is the responsibility of every sincere believer who seeks the guiding hand of Scripture to inquire of the passage, not to instruct it.  Do you understand the difference?  It is monumental!  Go to the passage and ask it—and its divine Author—to instruct you in its meaning.  Do not form your own ideas and then run to the passage hoping to find support for your private interpretations.

            A major strategy in this process that these men taught me well is this.  Carefully and objectively evaluate the passage against your interpretation of it.  If the passage says either too much or too little to support your interpretation, your interpretation is wrong!  Abandon it and seek the passage’s instruction.  This interpretational—or hermeneutical—policy inherently includes two strategies, not one.  If faithfully followed, they will guide the seeking Bible student wisely to the correct interpretation and application of the text.  In some instances the passage may say too much for our interpretation.  In other cases it may say too little for our view.  In both cases the hermeneutical principle requires us to abandon our view and seek from the passage its correct and balanced message.

            What is the significance of this hermeneutical principle to the passage at hand?  Simple, the passage says far too much to support the common interpretation imposed onto it by contemporary theologians, and by a few of our own folks.  Let me illustrate my point.

Paul was not telling us how he grieved and prayed for the regeneration of the lost, in this case natural/cultural Jews.  This view inherently grows out of one of two errant theological preconceptions.

            The first error is historical Arminianism, teaching introduced into the second generation of the Reformation by James Arminius.  Arminius did not originate this theology, but he certainly advanced its popularity.  A fundamental premise of Arminianism is that humans are both causative and instrumental in the regeneration (new birth) of lost souls.  Thus Arminian theology would interpret this passage as if Paul viewed himself as responsible, both causatively and instrumentally, for the new birth of the people named in this passage.

            The second error is something of a hybrid between Arminianism and the doctrines of grace.  In this view we are not causative in regeneration, but we are instrumental in regeneration, either of ourselves or of others.  This view is held by several groups in our day that generally claim to embrace the doctrines of grace, but whose overall theology falls distinctly short in this particular point.  John MacArthur and John Piper are two well known advocates of this view in our time.  This errant view would interpret Paul’s grief in our study verse as indicative of his concern that God might use him as the instrument in the regeneration of those Jews for whom he grieved and prayed.  This view logically grows out of the hybrid theology of such historical figures as Andrew Fuller who, though claiming to retain the doctrine of election in his personal beliefs, also advocated the necessity for a personal decision or some form of human instrumentality as essential for the new birth to occur.

            Calvinistic Fullerism does not typically view the human interaction it requires as causative, but it distinctly views it as instrumental and necessary in at least the majority of cases for the new birth to occur.

            I suggest that the logical paradigm of Calvinistic Fullerism, likely the most popular view of “Calvinism” in our day, is—at its heart—illogical and therefore unstable.  Historically over a period of several generations those who embraced this theology followed a theological drift, either into full Arminianism or extreme predestination.

            The drift into Arminianism occurs as those who embrace this idea slowly lose the distinction between instrumentality and cause, eventually making the human interaction they believe necessary in the new birth both causative and instrumental, not merely instrumental.

            The drift into extreme predestination is somewhat more subtle.  Since Fuller embraced both election and human instrumentality as part of his theological paradigm, he—or at least his ideological successors—had to logically embrace an excessive view of predestination to ensure that all of the elect would both hear and embrace the essential message of the gospel.  Otherwise they would face the full breakdown of election.  If God elected those whom He would save, and if He ordained human instrumentality as the means or agency to effect their regeneration, it logically follows that He must predestinate that all of the elect would hear the gospel, and that they would believe it.(1, See Footnote 1)   Thus Calvinistic Fullerism will eventually manifest its lack of logical stability by a degeneration into Arminian theology or extreme predestination.

            Having examined the hermeneutical flaws of the errant views of our passage, let’s examine its true import.  I indicated above that the passage says too much for either of these views.  Notice carefully the rather lengthy and descriptive list of terms that Paul uses to identify these people.

1.         Paul refers to them as “…my brethren….”  Viewed in isolation we could allow this term to refer to the people as his natural relatives, his racial relatives, or his cultural relatives.  Let’s follow the clues.

2.         Next he refers to them as “…my kinsmen according to the flesh….”  Again this term could apply either way, but we are distinctly sensing even at this early stage that Paul is working to define the identity of these people with great care.

3.         “… Who are Israelites….”  Set in isolation we might view this term as referring only to natural or national Jews.  However, given the setting of the word in the Roman letter, we must first examine the letter to determine Paul’s intent in this context.  At the time he wrote this letter, it appears with some degree of certainty that Paul had never visited Rome , though he likely knew many of the people in that church.  However, he had become the focus of a rather intense controversy within that church dealing with God’s purpose for Jews and Gentiles, as well as God’s operations of grace in our final or eternal salvation.  From a literary perspective Paul wrote the Roman letter as a dialectical argument, a common ancient form of written debate in which the writer’s objective is to win the person to his view, not merely win the debate.  In this case Paul seeks to settle the dispute so dramatically that he will be welcomed to visit Rome , but then upon his departure to the west actually to receive the Roman church’s financial help as he intends to travel to Spain or other points to the west of Rome .  In the second chapter—closing verses—Paul clearly defines a “Jew” in such precise terms as to eliminate a merely nationalistic or natural definition from his argument.  Israel —Jew; the people defined are the same group.  Thus when Paul uses the term “Israelites” in this passage, he is not referring merely to cultural or natural Jews, but to the same kind of people whom he already defined in the second chapter.  In formal debate, ancient or modern, the writer is expected to define his terms specifically as he plans to use them in his reasoning.  Only if, during the process of the debate, he revises that definition are his readers to conclude a different definition to the one that he originally gave.  Paul’s use of this term “ Israel ” begins to tighten his definition of the people to whom he refers in this passage.

4.         “…to whom pertaineth the adoption….”  While in a remote sense Old Testament writers may refer to national Israel as God’s “adopted” people, Paul has already used the term “adoption” in his Roman letter, specifically with reference to God’s elect being raised and glorified with their Savior at the Second Coming ( Romans 8:23 ).  Unless Paul wishes to redefine “adoption” in some other sense, something that he did not do in this letter, we are bound to accept this use of the term in the Roman letter.  By his definition/interpre tation of “adoption” as a reference to the resurrection of God’s chosen people in the eighth chapter, Paul has already given us the precise meaning he intends in the ninth chapter.  He is referring to God’s chosen or elected children here.

5.         “…and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises….”  Similar arguments can—and should—be made from each of these terms as appears in the fourth point above.  The hermeneutical principle takes shape.  Paul in this passage simply says too much for us to interpret the objects of his passion as being unsaved people whose eternal state is in question, or for that matter as unregenerated elect persons.

6.         “…Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all….”  In the eleventh chapter (specifically, 11:28 and context) Paul will make the point that these people to who he refers are in fact God’s elect children, though he also will there assert that they are enemies “As concerning the gospel….”
 

In subsequent teaching in the ninth chapter Paul will assert that these people are not merely Abraham’s children, but specifically that they are Abraham’s children in the line of Isaac and Jacob, God’s chosen people.  He will further claim them as having a zeal of God, though their zeal was based on ignorance, not fact—a logical explanation of his present grief (10:2-3).  He will affirm that the essential law of divine grace is resident in their hearts already (10:6-10).  And, finally, in 11:28, he will affirm that they are God’s elect, though they are also enemies to the gospel.

            So who are these people whose present state caused Paul such grief and what is their state?  Based on Paul’s own teaching in the Roman letter, I believe that we may rightly conclude that they are first, God’s elect, and, secondly, regenerate elect.  I also believe that we may conclude that they have rejected the message of Jesus as the divinely predicted Messiah, God Incarnate, the basic principle of which they are willingly ignorant.

           If this be the case, Paul’s grief for them grows out of their rejection of Jesus as God Incarnate and the temporal judgments that soon shall fall on them unless they acknowledge Him and this foundational truth.  This view explains Paul’s grief—and should urge upon us similar grief toward those whom we know who, though giving evidence of a work of grace in their hearts, reject the true character of Jesus as the one-and-only Savior of sinners by His exclusive grace, both in the cause and in the instrumentality of their redemption and new birth.  May we be so passionate for the same truth that Paul preached, and may we be so passionate toward those who do not understand God’s amazing grace as clearly as we.

(1) This blend of human instrumentality and extreme predestination appears in several fellowships that seek to reconcile divine election and human instrumentality.  Some thirty five years ago I was visiting a Landmark Baptist conference in Hayward , California .  Some of the men who spoke clearly believed and advocated human instrumentality.  However, this particular sub-fellowship within the Landmark “camp” sought to avoid the idea of any form of human cause in regeneration.  One of the conference speakers spent a major portion of his time rehearsing the story of Joseph from the Book of Genesis.  When he was ready to make his point from Genesis 50:20 , he read the verse, paused, and then shouted as loudly as his voice would allow, “Absolute predestination of all things!”  Extensive dialogue with various representatives from this group affirmed their dual belief in absolute predestination and human instrumentality, though they denied any element of human cause in regeneration.  In fact I read a debate between the pastor of the particular church I visited and a Landmark preacher of the more liberal school who embraced human cause as well as instrumentality.  The more liberal Landmark preacher repeatedly referred to the conservative Landmark pastor as a “Hardshell” or Primitive Baptists because he rejected human cause.  In fact neither man embraced the historical Primitive Baptist—and I believe Biblical—view that rejects both human cause and human instrumentality in regeneration.  I believe the Biblical view of regeneration is direct regeneration by the exclusive instrumentality of the Holy Spirit.