His educational pedigree is enough to disqualify him As a serious theologian. Moody and a Dispensationalist. Too biased. I like to stay as neutral as possible and let the language say what it says even if I don’t like What it says. I’m certainly still biased and have presuppositions but I do make an attempt to factor that in and own it.
You have simply decided to believe what you want rather than looking for the truth. Wuest is not so much of an ancient language scholar as he is a compiler of knowledge. He quotes the actual scholars and has compiled the translations into a comprehensive study.
Yes, I am saying translations, not personal opinion. There would be no reason to discount such a study unless you knew it would destroy Your opinion. you already admitted you couldn't look at opposing views as it might sway you from your own mistaken interpretations.
I attended a Wesleyan Holiness Bible College in south Florida for a year. Second semester I took a course on the book of Romans. Being from a very legalistic, separatist works oriented view of scripture and faith the course was biased heavily in that direction.
Years later, I went back to the two books used in the teaching of that course. By that time in life I’d figured out that I needed opposing views to help work through things. What I found amazed me at the time.
Rather than simply addressing the text and attempting to contextualize Paul was saying, especially on the more difficult passages, the text books were an ironic academic gymnastics competition. “Paul says so and so”. So and so said x y and z about what Paul said and whatcha ma jigger said ducky do about what so and so said about what Paul meant when he said so and so.
I’ve read and studied compilers of knowledge. They end up being apologists for a biased view in my experience and based on the witness of history.
The Reformation and the Renaissance are ruts in the road of history which were made by the same wagon. Each represents what we are discussing at the moment. In Europe, both secular and religious knowledge had been reduced to compiled knowledge, so much so, that original texts and their meaning had been lost and had to be rediscovered.
As a dedicated Dispensationalist Mr Wurst can only lend a dispensational bias. Then, it has to be accepted that dispensational theology is a teaching that came onto the scene very abruptly on the 1830’s. That being the case it would be worthwhile to go back and consider those text from the perspective of pre Dispensational Theology commentators such as Matthew Henry or John Gill.
