Chapter Eight: Jesus vs Abusive Scholarship
We have been discovering up to this point that hearing Jesus is key, that listening to voices that detract from Jesus, or the words of the Bible, is to fall in line with the serpent’s playbook. But we have also seen how religious experts like the Pharisees and rabbis claimed to be faithful to the word of God but were disobedient to it.
It’s time to start analyzing the situation for our time period. Keep in mind what we have been pointing out: Jesus said Listen to Him!
At a junior high school reunion many years ago, I ran into an old friend who majored in philosophy. When I mentioned I was now a Christian, he remarked, “Did you know the New Testament was written in ‘comic book’ Greek?”
That was news to me. I knew it was written in Koine Greek, but I’d never heard it put that way. Then again, he studied classical Greek—the language of Plato and Aristotle—not biblical Greek. And I wondered if my atheist friend even realized how seriously scholars take this ‘comic book Greek.’ That may have been his point. Still, it got me thinking.
Just how “intellectual” were Jesus and His disciples?
The truth is, Koine Greek wasn’t “low” because it was simple—it was powerful because it was accessible. Jesus didn’t come to dazzle the elite. He came to preach good news to the poor, bind up the brokenhearted, and open blind eyes. The New Testament was written in the people’s language because the gospel is for the people—all of them.
From what we know, the only apostle with formal higher education was Paul—and he didn’t just downplay it, he renounced it as “dung” compared to knowing Christ (Philippians 3:8). Luke and the author of Hebrews may also have been highly educated, but like Paul, they never used learning as a badge of authority. Their standing, as with all the apostles, came from their calling and the Spirit’s ministry working through them. As Paul said, “My speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith wouldn’t stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:4–5).
The Jerusalem leaders, when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, “perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men” and marveled, recognizing “that they had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). This was the true qualification: not degrees, but God’s Spirit. “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves… but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as servants of a new covenant” (2 Corinthians 3:5–6). The rest? Fishermen, tax collectors, and everyday people. Even Jesus, who confounded the educated experts of his day, was raised in a carpenter’s home, not a philosophy hall.
So what would we discover if we compared Jesus to today’s scholars? Would His moral priorities match theirs? Would He recognize the kind of qualifications modern scholars use to establish their authority to teach Scripture? Or would it look to Him like they were dissecting a comic book and thereby overlooking the main point of the story?
That raises a deeper question: Have we placed too much weight on scholars? Are we deferring to academics to interpret Scripture while stepping right over the heart of the message—as if it were an annoyance getting in our way?
Jesus didn’t say, “Blessed are the educated,” but “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” If we’re not careful, we can spend our lives studying the trees and never recognize the forest—the one who hung on a tree to save us.
“For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
Scholarship in Its Proper Place
Scholarship itself isn’t the enemy. Much good and essential knowledge comes from scholars—original languages, textual criticism, historical and cultural context, and more. The problem comes when man’s system replaces God’s system for perfecting the saints, even if it uses all the same biblical words. That’s when it becomes deception.
It’s like a bank robber teaching a course on banking. He’s in a bank, handling money, even using the right terminology—but his goal is to break the very laws he’s claiming to teach. Likewise, when a system redefines the five-fold ministry into something God never ordained—an institutional framework—and then teaches it under biblical titles, it isn’t producing Spirit-led, morally equipped saints. It’s creating a counterfeit version while calling it the real thing.
Genesis 3 shows the core issue: Who defines what is good?
|
Five-Fold Role |
Tree of Life – God’s direct authority, Spirit-led roles functioning as Christ gave them (Ephesians 4:11–13) |
Tree of Knowledge – Man’s redefinition to fit institutional priorities, still using biblical labels |
|
Apostles |
Sent by Christ, Spirit-commissioned, planting & overseeing churches, guarding doctrine |
Replaced by presidents & boards chosen for credentials and fundraising |
|
Prophets |
Hear God’s voice today, speak His word for guidance, warning, edification |
Reduced to studying past prophets with no expectation of hearing God now |
|
Evangelists |
Lead people to Christ, equip others to do the same |
Taught as a class in methods & history, rarely modeled or practiced |
|
Pastors |
Shepherd, protect, and personally care for the flock |
Limited to academic advising, without true pastoral relationship |
|
Teachers |
Teach God’s Word to produce obedience and transformation |
Focus on academic mastery, research, theory—transformation optional |
If the goals and outputs of the five-fold ministry were the same, then the qualifying tests of achievement would be the same. But as we can see, the goals and outputs of institutions are not a reprint of 1 Timothy 3:1–7 or Titus 1:6–9.
We should value scholars, but value them in their biblical place—as servants to the body, just as with all of the gifts and callings, not replacements for God’s appointed ministries.
• “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Corinthians 8:1). Paul said this about the Corinthians’ theological knowledge of idols, but the principle holds wherever knowledge is wielded for status rather than service
• Jesus came “as one who serves” (Luke 22:27)
• “Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant” (Mark 10:43–44)
When scholarship serves under Spirit-led leadership, it becomes a vital support to the body:
• A textual critic helping a pastor unpack a difficult passage.
• A historian helping a teacher or prophet bring clarity to God’s message.
But when scholarship claims doctrinal or directional moralauthority, it steps outside its biblical lane. This is not to say being a scholar and being a pastor, prophet, or other ministry role is mutually exclusive. The difference is whether one is Spirit-led toward God’s immutable standards or knowledge-driven in a way that subverts those standards and replaces them with the traditions of men. You can have knowledge without God’s morality, but you cannot truly have God’s morality without knowledge. In fact, God’s people are “destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).
That’s where the “bank robber” analogy applies. Not all scholars are bank robbers by any means—but when scholars steal authority that isn’t theirs to impose, their goals are no longer in line with God’s moral standards. The biblical and most fruitful place for a scholar is as an indispensable support to the five-fold ministry, not as a replacement for it. Otherwise, scholarship risks inverting a servant role into an authoritative role, reversing Jesus’ mandate that all ministry positions are to serve rather than overlord. And as with any discipline, the honest ones are happy to see the dishonest ones exposed; it’s the dishonest ones who fear being exposed to the light.
A scholar may have a genuine calling, but if shaped primarily by the Tree of Knowledge system, they risk importing those morals into the church. That’s not merely an academic misstep—it’s a moral hijacking. And as Romans 6:16 warns, “Whom we yield to obey, his servants we are.”
So when the bank robber teaches banking, you might learn some real skills—but if you also pick up his ethics—inverting God’s standards under human governance like the serpent did—you’ll end up using those skills to rob rather than to serve. In the same way, when scholarship keeps its servant’s heart, it strengthens the body. But when it keeps the morals of the institution that trained it—focusing on academic mastery and sidelining moral transformation—it robs the church of the very thing it claims to give—God’s way of equipping the saints.
Will the Real Biblical Standards Please Stand Up?
How many scholars or institutions of higher learning are laser-focused on prioritizing and establishing God’s immutable standards of moral good and evil, rather than chasing knowledge for knowledge’s sake, academic recognition or intellectual pursuits? Sadly, not many—at least not that I’m aware of. It’s certainly not the kind of curriculum that I’ve seen widely advertised as their focus.
Most appear more concerned with being seen as credible among their peers than being found faithful before God. Some even advertise that their curriculum is designed to indoctrinate—though they’ll call it teaching—their students into their particular brand of Christianity. And when that’s the priority, the serpent’s playbook seems to offer a ready-made curriculum.
The early Christians never treated spiritual leadership as an academic achievement. Yet today, most leaders are groomed through systems that prize intellectual performance, institutional loyalty, and doctrinal conformity—rather than tested moral character and spiritual fruit. Paul’s qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are entirely moral and relational: faithful in marriage, self-controlled, gentle, not greedy, able to lead their own family well. Not one mention of academic prowess other than “apt to teach.”
This is not a minor oversight—it’s a complete mismatch of goals. If we aim leaders toward scholastic qualifications, we shouldn’t be surprised when they lack the moral training and spiritual discernment required to shepherd God’s people. This mindset ends up measuring different standards—and producing a different kind of leaders than are biblically proscribed.
Comparison of Leadership Qualifications
|
Category |
Typical Theological Programs |
Biblical Elder Qualifications (1 Tim 3 & Titus 1) |
|
Primary Emphasis |
Academic mastery, doctrinal alignment, denominational approval |
Proven moral character, spiritual maturity, and household leadership |
|
Entry Requirement |
High school diploma or undergraduate degree |
Not specified—assumed to be based on spiritual fruit and maturity |
|
Core Training Focus |
Church history, Greek/Hebrew, systematic theology, pastoral theory |
Daily living out the faith, being above reproach, hospitality, sound teaching through example |
|
Evaluation Metrics |
Grades, papers, exams, institutional approval |
Blamelessness, faithful marriage, obedience of children, reputation with outsiders |
|
Ordination/Appointment |
Granted by academic boards or denominational authorities |
Recognized by local believers based on consistent moral, godly living |
|
Character Assessment |
Minimal or indirect; mostly assumed if not disqualifying |
Central and non-negotiable; must be tested and observed |
When moral character is optional and credentials are king, we end up with leaders who are certified by men—but not necessarily proven by the standards God gave us to observe. And that marks a clear shift in who defines good and evil: man, or God.
Misplaced Priorities
The shift from obedience to analysis—from the fear of God to a fascination with complexity or technical correctness—has turned many places of higher learning into breeding grounds for doubt rather than strongholds of truth. For example, some of the most renowned institutions—Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, and Cambridge—once prioritized studying God (theology). Over time, however, they gradually shifted toward academic prestige, intellectual independence, and moral relativism. It seems scholars now specialize in scrutinizing the Scriptures like ancient texts under a microscope, while ignoring the one thing that gives Scripture power and sets the Bible apart from any other book: God’s moral authority.
Paul said he exercised himself daily to keep a conscience void of offense toward God and man. That’s not a scholarly endeavor. That’s a surrendered moral life.
So, when higher learning is elevated above higher moral living, it usually produces nothing more than an educated version of rebellion. Am I wrong? Let’s dig a little deeper.
Can you think of any seminary programs that are geared specifically
toward upholding God-defined moral standards over man’s?
That doesn’t appear to be an easy question to answer with confidence.
While many seminaries claim to uphold biblical morality, very few are truly structured around the core priority of establishing, instilling, and defending God’s immutable standards of good and evil—especially as a bulwark against the serpent’s age-old tactic of redefining them—and even fewer are openly set against the traditions of men with the goal of upholding God’s commandments as the highest priority Most are built around systematic theology, biblical languages, church history, and pastoral or missional training—with ethics often treated as a separate, optional category, rather than the central thread running through and enabling everything.
Maybe it’s because God’s biblical morality is, in many ways, remarkably simple: trust and obey God.
“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13, KJV)
Even conservative seminaries that affirm biblical authority often lean heavily on academic methodology, which can subtly shift the focus from living truth to analyzing concepts. And once biblical morality becomes just one “department” among others, it loses its status as the foundation for all doctrine, interpretation, and application.
“16Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and forinstruction in righteousness, 17that each person who belongs to God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
That said, a few schools have pockets of faculty emphasizing moral obedience and practical holiness—some professors more than institutions. But even then, the dominant structure often seems to reflect a scholastic model that appears to divorce moral urgency from theological precision.
In answer to the question: Is there a program where moral discernment—based on God’s definitions—is the central lens for interpreting Scripture, training leaders, and guarding against deception? The answer is (from the outside looking in, at least): rarely, if ever.
Which begs another question:
If seminaries and institutions were genuinely concerned with God’s immutable standards—not just doctrinal orthodoxy or theological prestige—then why aren’t they leading the assembly into God’s blueprint for how the Body of Christ is to grow, be equipped, and come into the unity of the faith, unto a perfect man—a blueprint grounded in His moral standard?
Ephesians 4 lays it out with stunning clarity:
“And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:11–13)
By God’s decree, the path for perfecting the saints comes straight from Scripture. His prescription is not degrees, credentials, or faculty chairs—but Spirit-called people who function in grace. It’s not a school—it’s a Body, equipped by gifted members for the good of all. It’s not a syllabus—it’s a mentorship, where we are called to make disciples, not just accredited students.
Yet seminaries operate as if Christ left behind a curriculum instead of a Congregation. They’ve institutionalized the very thing Jesus decentralized—and consistently warned against: the tendency of religious experts to define godliness on their terms. They may affirm the goal—maturity, unity, spiritual strength—but they replace God’s means with a man-made imitation. It may not be an intentional rejection—but it’s undoubtedly no embrace of God’s standard. And that’s not just a difference in method—it’s a form of unbelief, if not a subtle form of defiance. In the end, it amounts to the same thing: a rejection and replacement of God’s immutable standard with a man-made imitation.
When seminaries create scholars but not servants, they’ve traded the grace of calling for the prestige of credentials. Where Christ said, “Call no man on earth your father” (Matthew 23:9) or granted other titles of status, the institutions have crowned their graduates with Ph.D.s and called them “doctor” as a subtle workaround.
So what is the answer to our question of why most seminaries aren’t leading the way in supporting and instilling Ephesians 4:11-13 as God’s standard for perfecting the saints?
Apparently, it’s because they’re in direct competition with one another.
After all, isn’t that precisely what the Pharisees did when they added to and subtracted from the commands of God according to their man-made traditions?
I think it’s fair to say that when scholars act as if they have the final say on how God’s standards of good and evil should be interpreted, they’re putting their judgment above His. And if that’s not overstepping their bounds, what is?
Again, I’m not saying the Bible is against higher learning, nor am I. I depend on these scholars and their research quite often! What is at issue is who defines what is good and evil morally. If God has appointed the five-fold ministry to the task of perfecting the saints, and scholars appropriate that role and responsibility unto themselves, then God’s will has been sidestepped and thwarted. For the record, this isn’t just about titles—as if a dean or chancellor could start calling himself an apostle or prophet and somehow be aligned with God’s standard. The fivefold ministry isn’t defined by institutional labels or academic achievement. It’s defined by the gifts and callings that God Himself places within individuals—woven into their character, personality, and spiritual maturity. These traits flow from what God has forged through life’s testing—not from what can be heard in a lecture or learned in a classroom. And also for the record, bestowing the titles of the five-fold ministry in order to overlord through the titles is to do the exact same thing I am calling “abusive scholarship.”
So the question stands: If they really believe God’s standards are immutable, then why do they replace His plan for growth and perfection with man-made systems of education and qualifications? Why don’t they trust that God still raises apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers—and that these, operating as God intended, are God’s means by which saints are perfected, and that specifically for the work of ministry?
Is God’s Opinion: Optional?
Unless, of course, their goal was never truly to let God be the one who alone defines good and evil. Maybe the real aim has always been to keep pursuing the knowledge of good and evil—but on their terms. Shaped to fit their own independently developed ideas, just as the serpent first suggested—and just as Jesus exposed when He called out the Pharisees. In doing so, some, if not many, modern scholars have likewise subtly yet effectively elevated themselves to God’s level of authority in defining and establishing moral good and evil—as if God were welcome to His opinion just as much as they—so long as His ‘recommendation’ meets with their approval.
At first glance, a kind of equality with God may appear to be the extent of their ambition, claiming that they merely clarify God’s words. But a closer look reveals an even darker view they have of themselves. If they were content to be “coequal” with God in determining moral good and evil, then why do they authorize themselves with veto power to override God’s moral decrees, all the way up to the first commandment? Surely, the one who can nullify the other is the one with the ultimate authority.
“You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend into heaven! I will exalt my throne above the stars of God! I will sit on the mountain of assembly, in the far north! I will ascend above the heights of the clouds! I will make myself like the Most High!’” (Isaiah 14:13-14)
“How do you say, ‘We are wise, and Yahweh’s law is with us?’ But behold, the false pen of the scribes has made that a lie.” (Jeremiah 8:8)
Hidden Parallels Between Scholarly Ambition and Isaiah 14
What began with Lucifer’s desire to rival God’s authority is echoed today in scholarly efforts to redefine what God has already declared.
|
Lucifer’s Ambition (Isaiah 14) |
The Abusive Scholar’s Ambition |
|
“I will ascend into heaven.” |
“I will rise above ancient limitations.” |
|
“I will exalt my throne…” |
“My academic authority supersedes outdated commands and biblical ministries.” |
|
“I will sit on the mount…” |
“I will determine what God really meant—and expect others to heed it.” |
|
“I will ascend above the clouds.” |
“Our scholarly tradition refines what Scripture only hints at.” |
|
“I will be like the Most High.” |
“We have the responsibility to define good and evil for our time for the people’s sake.” |
“Surely, the one who can nullify the other is the one with the ultimate authority.”
—And that was the serpent’s goal: to subtly enthrone man as moral judge,
as if God were welcome to His opinion—as long as it meets with their approval.
So what started as a subtle shift in authority has now produced a full-scale replacement. The experts are in charge, the fruit is missing, and the very standards by which we were to be perfected have been quietly sidelined.
But if this theft has occurred, then surely Scripture has something to say about how it happened, and how we’re supposed to respond. And it does.
Jesus warned us. Paul warned us. Even the first deception in Eden laid it out in detail.
So let’s go back to the beginning—because history is repeating itself.
