"I know that is what the Bible says
alright, but what do the scholars say about it?" I have heard that statement
made many times, and it reflects an attitude. There is a widely prevalent
idea that the final word to be said about the meaning of any passage of
Scripture is the word of some scholar. If "Dr. So-and-So" said it means
this, then it must mean this.
Many are of the opinion that a scholar
would not sacrifice his reputation as a scholar to the extent that he would
pervert a passage, but such an idea is false. The only proof one needs to he
assured that scholars do wrest the Scriptures is to read the scholars. Here
is a verse that has but one meaning and even though the simplest honest
person can understand its meaning, when the scholars get through with it
they have it meaning a dozen different things, none of which is what God
intended. One scholar says the passage means this, another says it means
that, and still another something else. The fact that they give
diametrically opposite interpretations is evidence within itself that
somebody is perverting the passage.
Who is a Scholar?
There are several failures that people make
with regard to the subject of Biblical
Scholarship. The first is, a failure to
recognize who is a scholar and who is not. Right here it is well that I say
that one does not have to be a scholar to recognize a scholar and to
appreciate true scholarship. In no sense do I set myself up as a scholar,
but I can read my Bible and I can likewise read what scholars say about the
Bible, and I can compare the truths of the Bible with the contradictory
opinions of men, and thus I am in position to see the perversions of
scholars and to write concerning them. But the question is, Who is a
scholar? There are some who have the idea that a scholar is a man with a
Ph.D. degree. I would not for a moment minimize education (I am in the
educating business), neither would I speak disparagingly of degrees, but I
know that a degree is not infallible evidence of one's being a scholar.
Again, others think that a scholar is one who has written a book. I like
books and I appreciate men who have given their time to write books that I
might learn from them, but I have seen many books. that did not come from
scholarly mind& A prolific writer is not necessarily a scholar. Webster
defines a scholar as "one who has engaged in advance study and acquired
knowledge in some special field." He may have a degree or he may not.
There is a trend among some brethren today
toward looking for the degree instead of the knowledge. Here is a great
denominational preacher that must be met in debate. Whom shall we go? You
had better get the man who has the knowledge. Here is a church that is
looking for a preacher? Whom shall we get? You had better get the man who
can preach and do the job, whether he has the degree or not. Many brethren
need to learn that the younger men are not the only scholars we have, but
men who have studied the old Book and who have acquired the knowledge,
regardless of their lack of formal education, these are our scholars in the
highest sense of the term.
What Scholarship Does
Not Guarantee
First, scholarship does not guarantee
honesty. We are speaking
primarily in this article of the reputed scholarship in denominational
circles. A scholar ought not to be as susceptible to prejudice as one who is
not, but often we find that he is. He may try to give the impression to
others that he is only interested in the facts he finds and the truths he
discovers, but it is altogether possible that he has a creed to uphold and a
preconceived opinion to defend. For example, Hastings' Dictionary of the
Bible is generally regarded as a somewhat scholarly work by students of
the Bible, but it is full of false teaching, and the scholars who have
written on the various subjects have not given an honest and true
interpretation of the Scriptures. On the subject of Balaam's ass, P. 80, of
the one-volume dictionary, it has this to say:
"The story of the ass is plainly out of
harmony with the narrative just outlined. It is a story belonging not to the
wilderness, but to a land of vineyards. It ignores the embassy that has been
sent to bring Balaam across the wilderness, for it represents Balaam as
traveling alone. It is also unlikely that so long a journey as that from the
Euphrates to
Moab would be attempted upon an ass."
This is a scholar's interpretation of the
story of Balaam's ass. In other words, it just did not happen that way. This
is scholarly perversion!
"The modern study of geology and
comparative mythology has made it impossible to see in the story of the
Deluge the literal record of an historical event . . . The difficulties in
the story as it stands are immense. (a) All the water in the world, together
with all the vapour if reduced to water, would not cover the whole earth to
the height of Mt.
Ararat. And if it had, it is impossible to
imagine how it could have dried up in a year and 10 days (not to speak of 40
days), or whither it could have flowed away. (b) If only a single family
survived, it is impossible to account for the wide variety of races and
languages. (c) The means of safety is not a ship, but simply a huge chest,
which would instantly capsize in a storm . . . (d) The collection by Noah of
a pair of every kind of animal, bird and creeping thing, which would include
species peculiar to different countries from the arctic regions to the
tropics, is inconceivable ... From every point of view it is clear that the
story is legendary, and similar in character to the legends which are found
in the folk-lore of all peoples."
Second, scholarship does not guarantee
infallibility. The scholar's
interpretation is not inspired of the Holy Spirit though some might think
so. He is human as well as we, and even though we grant him the utmost
honesty, it is still possible for him to pervert the Scriptures. One scholar
may explain ninety-nine scriptures truthfully and rightly, and yet pervert
the hundredth. For example, Albert Barnes was a Bible scholar who has given
us a very good commentary on the Scriptures. He is regarded by conservative
students of the Bible as outstanding. But his scholarly comments are not
infallible. On Rom. 6:4 he has this to say: "While it is admitted
that the allusion here was probably to the custom of immersion in baptism,
yet the passage cannot be adduced as an argument that that is the only mode,
or that it is binding on all Christians in all places and ages, for the
following reasons: (1) The scope or design of the apostle is not to discuss
the mode of baptism . . . It is just as true that they who are baptized by
affusion, or by sprinkling, are baptized into his death. (2) If this was the
mode commonly, it does not follow that it was the only mode, nor that
it was to be universally observed. (3) If this is to be pressed literally
as a matter of obligation, why should not also the following expression,
'If we have been planted together,' etc. be pressed literally, and it be
demanded that Christians should somehow be 'planted' as well as 'buried'?"
Third, scholarship does not guarantee
omniscience in all fields of study.
If it does not guarantee absolute
correctness in even one field, to be sure, it does not mean that a scholar
in one study is an authority in all. Yet some have that conception of
scholarship.
The Practical Use of
Scholars
Since all are not scholars who are reputed
to be scholars, and since not all scholars can be depended upon for absolute
honesty, correctness of interpretation and complete knowledge, the question
comes; What should be our attitude toward scholars and their works? To what
extent ought we to study books of the scholars? These suggestions might be
timely.
First, do not despair of scholarly works to
the extent you refuse to read them.
True it is, you will find many thoughts and
ideas you cannot accept, but I have never read after any man whose ideas I
could accept entirely. I am conscious of the fact that one must not saturate
himself with liberal denominational and modern views to the extent he cannot
refute that which is false as he goes. The trouble with some of our younger
brethren has been to expose themselves in modern theological schools and
seminaries to so much that is supposed to be scholarly, and yet false and
rotten to the core, that they have not had time to study the Truth and
refute the error. There is obvious danger in reading so much that is false
with little time to intelligently study the Truth to see wherein error lies.
Therefore, it is far better to read books that will tend to build up faith
first, and know confidently that you are on sure footing. Then, in order to
be able to expose the heresies that are taught by some scholars and believed
by many, look at their doctrines, read their works and become familiar with
their teachings.
Second, do not substitute the reading of
scholars for independent thinking and study.
Many brethren have done this. To the
Wednesday evening Bible Study, Johnson's Notes or Clarke's Commentaries are
carried. When asked for an explanation of a certain verse, instead of giving
what he believes about it, a brother simply reads from the commentary, and
for him that settles it. This is the danger of commentaries and Bible study
aids. To be sure, there is a place for scholarly treatises and they can
serve a good purpose in the development of our Bible knowledge, but they are
often misused and abused. Someone has given this advice, "Read them all and
accept none," and that may not be bad advice at all.
Paul's statement to
Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:13
is interesting. He said, "The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when
thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the
parchments." Paul read books! Of course, it is impossible to determine just
exactly what these books were, but the fact remains that Paul read them and
he wanted them. So it should be with Christians today. If you would grow in
knowledge, read and study. Read and study the Bible first, then read and
study good books about the Mom But in your reading of books, do not
substitute mere reading for independent thinking and study. Read the
scholars if you will, but throw them all aside, go back to the Bible and
decide for yourselves the meaning thereof.
Third, do not substitute the mere opinions
of men for faith in the Word of God.
If the opinions of reputed scholars are
contrary to the plain teachings of the Bible, there ought not to be a
moment's delay in rejecting the scholars and accepting the Bible. God's Word
is our standard of authority and not what men say about God's Word. "Let God
be true and every man a liar."
The Responsibility of
the Teacher
James
said, "My brethren, be not many teachers, knowing that we shall receive the
heavier judgment" (Jas. 3:1). John said, "Beloved, believe not every
spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false
prophets are gone out into the world" (I Jno. 4:1). In 2
Thessalonians 2:11, 12 Paul said it is possible to believe a lie and be
damned. These scriptures impress us with great truths. First, it is a
fearful responsibility that rests upon a teacher of God's Word, and those
who are guilty of perverting the Word shall certainly receive the greater
condemnation. Second, the possibility of perversion among teachers is stated
because many false prophets are gone out into the world. There are false
prophets today even among the scholars and the doctors of the law. Third, if
one does not discriminate between truth and error but is deceived into
believing a lie, he will certainly be damned.
---
Preceptor - December, 1951