The Admiration of Education

[Asyncritus]

Over the last few years, I have become increasingly skeptical and disenchanted with what seems to be universal admiration (and in my view, unwarranted respect) for university and other academic qualifications.

This is especially so when the qualifications are distantly related to the interpretation of scripture.

If someone has technical expertise in say, ancient middle eastern languages, languages in general - Greek and Hebrew in particular - semantic logic, biblical archaeology, etc, then adulation occurs.

It’s difficult to understand why, because the Greek of the NT is the common Greek spoken by the ordinary man in the street – and the Hebrew must have been equally accessible to the unlearned.

Those are technical qualifications.

Such technical qualifications by no means qualify the holder/s thereof for undisguised admiration, especially in the areas of biblical exposition, and we should view the holders of such advanced qualifications with a considerable degree of distrust and healthy skepticism.

There are several reasons for my saying this. Let me begin with the common sense ones.

Take those with degrees in theology.

In order to obtain such qualifications, there has to be enormous amounts of opinion-swallowing and regurgitation. Kerkut once described the British biological undergraduate as "opinion-swallowing grub" who "repeats parrot fashion the views of the current Archbishop of Evolution."

Therefore the theological opinions memorised are probably those of the current 'archbishops of theology' - whose connections with the simple, basic truths and requirements of the gospel are tenuous indeed.

Those opinions MUST colour - very often distastefully - the opinions of the swallowers thereof.

After all, digested food become assimilated and a part of the body which has ingested it. Just so, with these theological opinions. They MUST colour - maybe DIScolour would be more appropriate here - the body of the eater's beliefs.

My own qualifications are in Agriculture, Mathematics and Financial Planning - and I can somberly testify to the truth of Kerkut's above-quoted remarks. Medicine, I can see from the efforts of my children, is not too far removed from this. I do not imagine that there is a vast amount of difference in other disciplines.

Therefore, qualifications, such as those listed in the second paragraph above, are reflections of the numbers of opinions swallowed, and facts crammed into receptive skulls, otherwise, examination successes and therefore degrees, cannot be obtained.

 

[Asyncritus]

The information obtained may or may not be relevant to biblical exposition. The thought processes employed (apart from Mathematics in my experience), consist first of memorisation, comprehension of those facts being memorised, and application of the facts third. All of these skills are relevant to biblical exposition - but they are decidedly not restricted to the holders of degrees and such.

Suppose someone holds an advanced degree because he or she has studied some ancient middle eastern language like assyrian or babylonian. It sounds marvellously erudite and profoundly impressive. And yet, it is totally irrelevant to biblical exposition. That knowledge may, just may, illuminate some obscure passage in say Job or Ezekiel.

But of what value is it to the ordinary disciple, with whom I am most deeply concerned? None, I would suggest, until the next fantastically advanced new translation, or even worse, commentary, is produced.

And therefore, the esteem in which such people are often held because of their qualifications, may be totally unjustified. Worse, any group which they may decide to spearhead, gains pseudo-credibility from the magnificence of the leader's (largely irrelevant) qualifications.

So a word of warning here. Do not be misled by the neon lights of academic qualifications. The bigger and brighter the lights, the greater the suspicions with which the possessors should be regarded. The most important lights in a nation, are those which shine from family homes - not the Las Vegas casinos.

Hence:

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

 

[Asyncritus]

Part Two
Scriptural Reasons for Skepticism

First, Jesus was a carpenter.

Second, His disciples and apostles are like Apollos, ‘learned in the scriptures’.

We note in their writings no quotations, citations or even references to the theologians of the day. One supposes that there were such theologians, but they are ignored – studiously and deliberately, it seems – in favour of the verbally, inerrantly and wholly inspired writings of the OT. The nearest exception it seems, is Peter referring to Paul’s writings:

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

Thirdly: Jesus was forever in conflict with the ‘doctors,’ ‘lawyers’ and the learned of His day.

Lu 5:17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.

The whole Army of Jewish Theological Academia was present in force. The BA’s, the MA ‘s, the BSc’s, the PhD’s, the FRS’s, the NAS’s or their ancient equivalents were all there.

The sheer weight of collected learning that day should alone have wrecked that roof.

The scholars were out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem. From the Oxfords, the Cambridges, the Harvards, the Yales – or their Jewish equivalents – were there to face down, debate with, and condemn this miserably uneducated carpenter from Galilee whose only qualification was JCSG - Joe’s Carpenter Shop Graduate.

And they despised Him for his lack of learning:

 

[Asyncritus]

Joh 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

And when we follow the account, we find that they were even ready to imprison him for speaking out, with that brilliant clarity of perception that they feared so greatly:

30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.

He so roundly and vigorously castigates the scholars of the day – the ones who made a living from their so-called expertise – that it’s a wonder that we haven’t learned the lesson that lies so plainly on the surface.

The parallels with our own time are extremely clear. The theology departments of the universities and seminaries are populated by people who make a living from theology.

 

[Asyncritus]

The ‘ministers’, ‘priests’ and ‘bishops’ and ‘archbishops’ who write the books so beloved and respected by far too many make a living from their positions, and from the proceeds of the books they write – and the more popular the books, the more money they make.

[Here’s NT Wright, with some eye-opening remarks. “…the claim is made that the creator of the entire universe has chosen to live uniquely on a small ridge called Mount Zion, near the eastern edge of the Judean hill-country. The sheer absurdity of this claim, from the standpoint of any other worldview (not least that of Enlightenment philosophy), is staggering.”

He also wrote that if one did not subscribe to the Enlightenment philosophy with its rejection of the bodily resurrection of Christ, then progress in the church (of England, one supposes) was unlikely if not impossible.]

I applaud his frankness, but given such attitudes, what excuse do we offer to bother reading these people? We applaud Wright who has ‘re-discovered’ doctrines which the veriest Christian babe could have informed him about. The applause seems folly to me – why do we not instead applaud the babe?

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 3 The Financial Considerations

We seem unaware of the financial considerations that abound in the theological arena. Book sales are at the forefront, and translations of the Bible are number one in these stakes.

The Bible is the best selling book on the planet, and the publishing houses are only too well aware of that fact, and seize every opportunity to cash in. Hence the vast numbers of ‘translations’ and ‘versions’ now available.

I marvel at the fact that there are so many ‘professional bible translators’ that there is at least one journal dedicated to this subject.

What are they doing, I ask myself? Is there so much work left for them to do? And who pays them? And why? What are they still ‘translating’, given the sheer volume of translations now extant and which have translated every word of the Bible n times over and over?

I am extremely grateful for the work of the textual scholars, the ‘lower critics’, who have by now ascertained with about 99.999% accuracy the exact texts of the NT and the OT.

But that work is now done – and very well, too, as far as I, with my limited acquaintance can tell. A glance at the critical apparatus of Souter’s Novum Testamentum Graece, published years ago, is enough to send one into fits of admiration or worse. The question is, if all that data existed then, what is left to be done today? How much more textual accuracy can emerge now?

As for the higher critics, the main occupants of the chairs of learning in the theology departments, I have little but contempt.

They dissect, brutalise, and destroy so much of the obvious meanings and authority of the text, that I wonder just how applicable Deut. 8 is to such people. Yet, they are paid to do their destructive work, and they do it well, if they value their positions and tenure.

 

[Asyncritus]

Since these are the professors and lecturers in the departments concerned, then what of the graduates of those departments, and the books they write? Should we not be deeply careful to avoid them and their writings like the flu of swine?

Their productions can only destroy, diminish, reduce, dilute the respect and affection we have for the Word of God, especially where the young in the faith are concerned: because they have not the armaments required to resist these onslaughts.

The apostle Paul, that learned scholar of Gamaliel, had to jettison his learning when he came to Christ. “I count it all but dung” he said. Every interpretation he held about the messianic prophecies had to be abandoned wholesale. And he did it. He had plenty to say about this later on too:

1 Cor.1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

[Which ‘wise’ is he referring to here? Very clearly, the ‘scholars’ of the day. There weren’t too many ‘scientists’ around. And his comment? Their ‘wisdom is to be destroyed’].

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

[Here are the ‘scholars and debaters’ again. What’s going to happen to them? They are going to be ‘destroyed’, and have already been made ‘foolish’.

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

[The scholars etc. did not ‘know God’ despite their smartness. They had memorized whole blocks of scripture, but didn’t know a word of its real meaning. Just so today. The professors and lecturers probably know the text with a minuteness that would put us to shame – but don’t have a clue about the truth.]

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

That this is a hugely pointed group of statements which can be aimed directly at our establishments of today, cannot be doubted.


A rough paraphrase would be: Avoid them like the plague.

 

[Asyncritus]

Certainly be deeply skeptical of their writings.

Certainly be very aware that nonsense, even when dressed up in stately academic robes, remains nonsense. As Shakespeare said, a rubbish bin by any other name smells just as bad.

Our faith should be derived from Scripture alone – and should owe nothing to the teachers and writers of the day.

Why then should we, today, read avidly, respect highly, and kow-tow to their opinions? Why even bother to spend time trawling through their writings which are guaranteed to be poisoned by their false doctrines? Is there nothing better to do with your time?

I was appalled to read the writings of some theologian on the meaning of the simple passage in Ecclesiastes 3 dealing with the non-immortality of the soul. The ducking and diving he had to indulge in to avoid the simple force of the passage was nothing short of disgraceful – and ended up by his impugning the truth of what Solomon said, and questioning whether Ecclesiastes should even be in the canon.

Suppose that what he said about other matters in Ecclesiastes was true. The drop of poison in the otherwise clear waters of Ecclesiastes could very easily do serious, maybe unrecognized damage to the belief system of the unwary.

One of the first talks I ever gave was on Paul’s landing in Malta. Unwarily, I read Barnes’ commentary on the incident – and he suggested, and I proudly parroted – the idea that the serpent was a species called Coronella austriaca, which, said he (and therefore me), resembled the viper, but was really non-poisonous.

I was shot down in flames for my stupidity, and deservedly so. But if Barnes was adrift in that simple incident, then what else might he not have misled me about? Surely, underlying that piece of commentary, is the concept that the miraculous is unlikely if not impossible.

Why should I bother reading him again? Or any of the others he is/was typical of? Wouldn’t it be folly to drink of a fountain known to be sending forth bitter waters? I think it would, and I roundly condemn the practice.

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 4 The Plain Man’s Practice

Too many of us believers pay lip-service to the idea that that Bible is a wonderful book: the most wonderful in the world, without realising just how wonderful it really is. Very often we agree to that statement, and couldn’t justify it.

It can be wonderful at any number of levels. The simplest level, and in the writer’s humble opinion, the most important one of all, is where we take at face value the simple truths expressed in it.

Those ‘simple’ truths – like for instance, ‘God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life’ – are the most valuable ones of all to the believer.

He did give His Son. Whosoever believes on Him shall have everlasting life. There is nothing more important than that to anyone, especially when an open grave stares us in the face.

 

[Asyncritus]

Many believers, having accepted that truth and others like it, want to move on further, and some go very far indeed. They learn Hebrew and Greek. They study the works of famous writers on Scripture. They become very learned people. They are able to discuss very fine points with other well-informed persons. They become lecturers/ writers etc on various circuits, in colleges and theological seminaries

Yet, for many years, the thought has niggled away that there is something very unsatisfactory about all this.

 

[Asyncritus]

The people for whom the New Testament was written were very often illiterate. Education wasn’t universal.

The ordinary Joe-in-the-mud-hovel was the usual recipient of these books and letters – but he had to have somebody read it to him, when, and if, he ever got near to a copy. Therefore, the finer points couldn’t have been the ones most important to him.

In our time, education is nearly universal. There are many excellent translations easily available – so, why go to the trouble of learning Hebrew or Greek? (Remember – a man who knows a great deal about paint is not necessarily a great artist!)

Is it likely that you could come up with some linguistic gem that generations of highly skilled translators have completely missed? I think not.

But it does mean that we have access to a very accurate idea of what the writers were saying – without having to know the original language. If we go to the trouble of reading several versions of a single passage, it is unlikely we will miss much.

So what about the people in those days who had no access to a theological seminary or university? Were they excluded from hearing the message?

Unlikely – neither the Almighty nor his apostles and prophets would send something the hearers would need university degrees to understand.

The apostles themselves, with the exception of Paul of Tarsus, were very ordinary folk, from an educational point of view.

 

[Asyncritus]

And what about all those mighty tomes of commentary written by all those erudite scholars, and read by those who want to become erudite scholars? Doesn’t the believer have to read these things? Well, there weren’t too many tomes around when the prophets of the Old Testament or the apostles of the New were writing the Word of God.

So the conclusion is very simple. You and me, ordinary people without heavy theological earth-moving equipment, are in no way shut out from understanding the Word of God.

That equipment wasn’t necessary in those days, and it isn’t necessary now. Notice the word necessary. Useful – maybe. Helpful – possibly. But necessary, no. Dangerous, even as I have been saying.

 

[Asyncritus]

Part 5 The Distinction between Information and Interpretation

At some time or the other, we will need information to help us understand the situation being addressed in the text. This is particularly so in the historical and many of the prophetic accounts in the OT. If we don’t know, how do we find out?

The most dependable way, which sometimes leaves out many things we might like to know, is to go back into scripture itself, and make inferences from the data given there, at all times recognizing our own fallibility.

If that fails, then we are forced – in my own case, extremely reluctantly – to consult reference works such as Bible dictionaries or even Google these days.

 

[Asyncritus]

But we immediately expose ourselves to examples of thundering tripe, and we do well to recognize that fact, and at the same time keep our heads tightly screwed on.

I could multiply examples, but a simple one is the parable of the mustard seed. I gave up reading the dictionaries when I found them saying that a mustard tree grows to about 8 or 10 feet high, so that is what Jesus must have meant by growing into ‘a great tree’. Look at Google on the point and be amazed that such a simple parable could possibly be so greatly abused.

So factual information is available – but even then we MUST use our God-given common sense and read critically, especially when information verges on interpretation.

The transition is usually clearly defined, and words such as ‘Biblical scholars agree/ think …’ are clear markers.

At that point you stop reading and go puzzling about it on your own.

Remember the Biblical scholars described above? Those are usually the ones to eschew. They are unlikely to be able to tell you anything you couldn’t figure out for yourself, and worse, their opinions may be tainted with errors or poisonous attitudes.

 

[Asyncritus]

There can be no better advice than Isaiah’s. I urge readers to heed the advice given above, and stand on your own intellectual two feet. We are not critics, we are not scholars.

We are Christ’s disciples, (Definition: a follower or pupil of a teacher, leader, or philosopher: doctrine…Oxford Dictionary)

And there’s no better way of doing that, than to do as He did, especially in this vitally important matter.

I underline the fact again, that He never quoted a single theologian of his day, except to assault their teachings.

If we must read other materials, then let them be by brethren who have the same doctrinal structure as we do.

Even here, there is no assurance that they are correct – especially when they themselves lean heavily on the opinions of others who do not have the same beliefs that we hold.

Think for yourself – and by thinking I simply mean: ask the hard questions, and find the answers. And if you can’t find the answers, keep the questions at the back of your mind, and the answers will one day become perfectly clear.

What was Isaiah’s instruction again?

“To the law and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, they have no light in them.”

Notice, you must know what the word says. You must test the teachers for yourself. And fear no consequences. The light of the word will expose darkness for what it really is.

 

[reba]

2.6: Please keep posts down to a respectable length and provide source and/or links for your info. We want to respect copyrighted material. Be sure at minimum to cite your source and keep all posts in compliance with Fair Use copyright law. Plus, you stand a better chance of getting your post read if it contains a link with an excerpt from source that's relative to your point.

Please take notice of the parts of the above paragraph that apply. I believe they are the portions highlighted in blue. Also please consider some adjustments to keep in compliance with the TOS.... thanks

 

[Free]

Over the last few years, I have become increasingly skeptical and disenchanted with what seems to be universal admiration (and in my view, unwarranted respect) for university and other academic qualifications.

This is especially so when the qualifications are distantly related to the interpretation of scripture.

If someone has technical expertise in say, ancient middle eastern languages, languages in general - Greek and Hebrew in particular - semantic logic, biblical archaeology, etc, then adulation occurs.

It’s difficult to understand why, because the Greek of the NT is the common Greek spoken by the ordinary man in the street – and the Hebrew must have been equally accessible to the unlearned.

Those are technical qualifications.

Such technical qualifications by no means qualify the holder/s thereof for undisguised admiration, especially in the areas of biblical exposition, and we should view the holders of such advanced qualifications with a considerable degree of distrust and healthy skepticism.

There are several reasons for my saying this. Let me begin with the common sense ones.

Take those with degrees in theology.

In order to obtain such qualifications, there has to be enormous amounts of opinion-swallowing and regurgitation. Kerkut once described the British biological undergraduate as "opinion-swallowing grub" who "repeats parrot fashion the views of the current Archbishop of Evolution."

Therefore the theological opinions memorised are probably those of the current 'archbishops of theology' - whose connections with the simple, basic truths and requirements of the gospel are tenuous indeed.

Those opinions MUST colour - very often distastefully - the opinions of the swallowers thereof.

After all, digested food become assimilated and a part of the body which has ingested it. Just so, with these theological opinions. They MUST colour - maybe DIScolour would be more appropriate here - the body of the eater's beliefs.

My own qualifications are in Agriculture, Mathematics and Financial Planning - and I can somberly testify to the truth of Kerkut's above-quoted remarks. Medicine, I can see from the efforts of my children, is not too far removed from this. I do not imagine that there is a vast amount of difference in other disciplines.

Therefore, qualifications, such as those listed in the second paragraph above, are reflections of the numbers of opinions swallowed, and facts crammed into receptive skulls, otherwise, examination successes and therefore degrees, cannot be obtained.

Not sure what you're saying and what your point is.

 

[Free]

The information obtained may or may not be relevant to biblical exposition. The thought processes employed (apart from Mathematics in my experience), consist first of memorisation, comprehension of those facts being memorised, and application of the facts third. All of these skills are relevant to biblical exposition - but they are decidedly not restricted to the holders of degrees and such.

Suppose someone holds an advanced degree because he or she has studied some ancient middle eastern language like assyrian or babylonian. It sounds marvellously erudite and profoundly impressive. And yet, it is totally irrelevant to biblical exposition. That knowledge may, just may, illuminate some obscure passage in say Job or Ezekiel.

But of what value is it to the ordinary disciple, with whom I am most deeply concerned? None, I would suggest, until the next fantastically advanced new translation, or even worse, commentary, is produced.

And therefore, the esteem in which such people are often held because of their qualifications, may be totally unjustified. Worse, any group which they may decide to spearhead, gains pseudo-credibility from the magnificence of the leader's (largely irrelevant) qualifications.

So a word of warning here. Do not be misled by the neon lights of academic qualifications. The bigger and brighter the lights, the greater the suspicions with which the possessors should be regarded. The most important lights in a nation, are those which shine from family homes - not the Las Vegas casinos.

Hence:

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Not sure what you're getting at here either.

 

[Free]

Part Two
Scriptural Reasons for Skepticism

First, Jesus was a carpenter.

Second, His disciples and apostles are like Apollos, ‘learned in the scriptures’.

We note in their writings no quotations, citations or even references to the theologians of the day. One supposes that there were such theologians, but they are ignored – studiously and deliberately, it seems – in favour of the verbally, inerrantly and wholly inspired writings of the OT. The nearest exception it seems, is Peter referring to Paul’s writings:

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

Thirdly: Jesus was forever in conflict with the ‘doctors,’ ‘lawyers’ and the learned of His day.

Lu 5:17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.

The whole Army of Jewish Theological Academia was present in force. The BA’s, the MA ‘s, the BSc’s, the PhD’s, the FRS’s, the NAS’s or their ancient equivalents were all there.

The sheer weight of collected learning that day should alone have wrecked that roof.

The scholars were out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem. From the Oxfords, the Cambridges, the Harvards, the Yales – or their Jewish equivalents – were there to face down, debate with, and condemn this miserably uneducated carpenter from Galilee whose only qualification was JCSG - Joe’s Carpenter Shop Graduate.

And they despised Him for his lack of learning:

Not sure what your point is here either.

 

[Free]

Joh 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

And when we follow the account, we find that they were even ready to imprison him for speaking out, with that brilliant clarity of perception that they feared so greatly:

30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.

He so roundly and vigorously castigates the scholars of the day – the ones who made a living from their so-called expertise – that it’s a wonder that we haven’t learned the lesson that lies so plainly on the surface.

The parallels with our own time are extremely clear. The theology departments of the universities and seminaries are populated by people who make a living from theology.

And? There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a living from theology:

1 Cor 9:4-14, 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? 8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. (ESV)

1 Tim 5:17-18, 17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages." (ESV)