Noel Weeks by Todd Stanton
Editor's note: Though Noel Weeks passed away in 2020, he continues to speak through his work in Reformata. After we shared his article on Judges last week, I preached on Hebrews 13:7: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith." To "remember" is more than an intellectual recall—it is to remember with gratitude and affection. Noel was a mentor, a friend, and a guiding voice in the Australian church. By remembering him, I sought to put this verse into practice. May reflecting on his life and work not only inspire you to read his writings but also lead you to give thanks to God for the gift he was to so many.
The Psalter opens up its 150 psalms, not with a prayer, a praise, or a lament, but with wisdom. The very first word gives that away: "Blessed . . . is the man". Studies have shown that ʾašrê, the Hebrew word behind "blessed," is a word that comes out of the wisdom traditions of the ancient world. Hence why in a number of translations you might find "Happy is the man" or "Joyful is the man". The assumption behind this is that someone happy or joyful must be wise; for only the truly wise find fortune, fulfilment, joy, and happiness. Connect this to the New Testament, and then you understand why Jesus opened up His Sermon on the Mount with wisdom – all the Beatitudes beginning with makarios: the Greek translation of ʾašrê.
Though I don't necessarily have a problem translating Psalm 1 with "Happy is the man," there is an added element to the translation that needs to be mentioned. The Semitic cognates to ʾašrê (especially the Arabic) point to an aspect of meaning that conveys the idea of being "enviable".1 That is, "Enviable is the man". This is significant because it actually highlights the author's perspective as he describes this wise man. In other words, contrary to what many initially perceive, the "blessed man" is not being described from the perspective of God, but rather from the perspective of another man. In particular, the psalmist (and good evidence that it is David) is looking out upon society, and he says, "this man" is wise, "this man" is to be envied. Of course, God is behind the scenes; the reason he is wise and enviable, even happy, is that God is blessing that man. But the usual Hebrew word for "blessed" (baruch), where the perspective is God pouring down His blessings, is not the word here.
The question that comes then is: what makes this man enviable? What makes this man wise? Again, the psalmist looks out on society, and he sees masses and masses of people. In a real sense, they all look the same; all their thinking is the same; they are all doing the same things. And yet, there is a light in the midst of that darkness. There is someone who stands out, someone who is unique and different, and not different for difference's sake, but different in that it distinguishes him from being wise and not foolish. What is it that the psalmist sees about him? Why is he to be envied? Well, there is a two-letter word that is mentioned five times in the first two verses that gives us the answer:
Blessed is the man
Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor stands in the path of sinners,
Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;
But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
And in His law he meditates day and night.
It is where you find a man who makes the critical distinction between being wise or foolish. The preposition "in" expresses participation. Furthermore, the "not/nor" is a factual negation. Hebrew has two types of negation: potential ("maybe not") and factual ("never"). Thus, just taking the second line of verse 1, this wise and enviable man is never in"the counsel of the ungodly". In other words, he is never interested in following the way the world thinks. After all, the world is full of ungodly people. The word "ungodly" comes from the verb that means to "loosen". Specifically, it is a "loosening" with their minds – in this case, "loosening" their minds from God and God's law. Obviously, rebelling against God, or just simply ignoring Him and His law, is the definition of foolishness. Equally as obvious is that foolishness doesn't just rest on wrong thinking. Wrong actions define a fool as well. Hence, there is a noticeable digression in the psalm: from walking to standing to sitting, and, along with that, from thinking to doing to a habitual lifestyle. In other words, to sum up verse 1, the wise and enviable man never thinks like the world, acts like the world, nor cultivates habits like the world.
Now, I will stop here for the moment to begin tying all this to Noel Weeks. For reasons below, Noel could be seen as the embodiment of Psalm 1. All of us who knew Noel recognised that he was a man of much wisdom. For sure, he was very smart. He had the academic credentials to prove that.2 Yet we all know that having a PhD doesn't automatically make one wise.
So, what exactly is wisdom, and how was Noel seen as wise? Well, take J. Oswald Sanders' definition of wisdom to start with:
If knowledge is the accumulation of facts, intelligence is the development of reason, wisdom is heavenly discernment. It is insight into the heart of things. Wisdom involves knowing God and the subtleties of the human heart. More than knowledge, it is the right application of knowledge in moral and spiritual matters, in handling dilemmas, in negotiating complex relationships.3
That sums up Noel Weeks. He had incredible insight into everything he put his mind to, whether it be biblical, theological, or even cultural. In fact, what Noel had a peculiar knack for was getting "under" any philosophical, historical, or theological argument. Within moments, he could tell you the underlying assumptions and presuppositions of the author or movement. By his own admission, this ability was a combination of 1) his scientific studies at university in zoology, where the "evidence" was pursued, and 2) his studies with Cornelius van Til at seminary in presuppositional apologetics, where the "antithesis" was uncovered. Add to all that his doctoral studies in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, and you have one of the last known polymaths of the world. If there was anyone who could unhesitatingly give you the "background" to any past or current theological, cultural, or societal issue of the day, Noel was your person. In other words, in our age of optics, fashion, and living on feelings, Noel knew how to analyse, evaluate, and think. May his tribe increase!
But it was more than just his God-given brain that made Noel extra-ordinary. Surely it begins with his academic acumen, but more importantly, Noel also had a resolute devotion and commitment to the authority and sufficiency of the Word of God. In other words, putting him back into Psalm 1, his great insight and wisdom were a result of seeing everything through the lens of Scripture. The beginning of verse 2: "But . . ." describes a great contrast between what the wise man never does and what he always does:
His delight is in the law of the Lord . . .
And in His law he meditates day and night.
Again, "in" marks the distinction between a wise man and a fool. For example, many Christians today may not be outright fools, for they hold to some form of the authority of the Scriptures, but they are nevertheless foolish because they deny its sufficiency by adopting their "counsel" from the world. Pointing out this foolishness is perhaps one of the great legacies of Noel. Because of his keen eye for getting below the "iceberg", he could warn us of the dangers that none of us could see.
Perhaps a few brief examples might help. Noel wore many hats: he was a churchman, a historian, a biblical scholar, a cultural critic, and more. For the sake of space, I have just picked three areas where Noel has made significant contributions. If anything, my goal is to whet your appetite and pique your interest to observe Noel's wisdom for yourself.
Church
Noel had incredible insight into the contemporary church. Not only was he on top of all the latest books, but as an itinerant preacher, he could see first-hand all the fads and trends that were coming into the church.4One particular concern he had was the shift he saw of many churches placing an over-emphasis on evangelism and programs to get people in the door. Obviously, Noel was not against evangelism, but as he often noted, "it is very hard to find anything in the New Testament epistles that could be interpreted as urging the believers to get out and evangelise".5 By contrast, the emphasis he did see in the New Testament epistles was on the edification of the saints. Why then a shift of priority from edifying the saints to the evangelising of sinners in most churches, even in Reformed ones, over the last 30-plus years? That was the question Noel asked. Notice, by the way, the questions of "what is the evidence?" and "what are the presuppositions?" are at the heart of the query.
Certainly, on the surface, the answer is pragmatism. The church's love for pragmatism ("what works") has been recognised over many years, perhaps beginning with the seeker-sensitive church and currently in the so-called worship wars. Of course, we can rightly criticise them all for being man-centred and Christ-less, but how did we get here? Were there cultural or theological factors that brought this about? This is where Noel was so helpful. Most of us would just say pragmatism is wrong and pound the pulpit to get back to the Bible. Noel, however, would expose the root cause of it all. In particular, Noel would say that Deism was behind much of the downgrade. In fact, a "functional Deism" (as Noel called it) was behind not just our pragmatic churches, but also behind other things, such as theistic-evolution and four-point Calvinism.
Deism, of course, is the theology that came out of the Enlightenment (The Age of Reason), where the initial desire was to find a "middle way" – a more lenient religion than what was perceived in Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. It did not deny there was a God, but God was distant – transcendent, yes, but not immanent. Bette Midler perhaps summed it up best when she sang: "God is watching us from a distance". Though God is "creator", he placed both physical and moral laws in the universe and consequently, everything unfolds throughout history according to those rules. In other words, there is no need for God to intervene. This, then, begs the question of whether the earth was completed in an original state or did the earth develop from a more primordial state? Well, since God is already distant, the logic of Deist thinking would desire to explain creation with natural mechanisms and natural laws. Hence, why you can believe in a God but hold to evolution. In fact, Noel says it even stronger, "to accept evolution in any form, including 'theistic evolution' is to accept the principle behind Deism, namely an inactive, distant god".6
Ultimately, a consistent Deist will go further and not just deny God as creator but deny God as lawmaker as well. That is, any moral laws we do have would have been those given by God to men intuitively at the beginning but then developed by men over time. In other words, a natural explanation is behind any morality, not divine revelation. Furthermore, if that is the case, then the Bible could not be inspired, Jesus could not be God, man is not a sinner, and there is no regeneration or "new birth". God is distant, remember: no revelation, no inspiration, no incarnation, and no regeneration. Without those, the only "gospel" you are left with is simply ethics and morality: a belief in human goodness. That tragically is the legacy of the liberal church, where it has virtually emptied everyone out of its pews. Sadly, they did not heed the wisdom of Psalm 1. In a desire to be popular and tolerant, adopting the views of the world resulted in foolishness and failure. It always does.
Nevertheless, Deism (even Atheism) is still with us and as Noel rightly observed, "it is part of the intellectual and cultural air that we breathe".7 In other words, we conservative evangelicals may not formally embrace Deism, yet we nevertheless act as if God is distant, not active in the world. Hence, why Noel would describe many Christians as practical or functional Deists. Add to that the other aspect of Deism: a desire to be in the "middle" – popular, tolerant, and less offensive, and you will then have a church where everything is done to not only get people in the door, but once in, to make them comfortable. Remove the divine causes and with that the divine mandates, a natural man-made church is established with Jesus Christ as the centre in name only. In other words, a practical Deist church is a church that claims to uphold and maintain sound biblical doctrine but by its practice, that assertion is seriously doubted. The lesson here is that if God is active, as the Bible testifies, and it is He, and He alone, that regenerates the sinner, then it is required upon us to make sure we do God's business, God's way – regardless whether it "works" or not, whether it is "liked" or not. Being attracted to programs is not conversions.
Noel certainly was an academic, but a churchman first and foremost. As observed above, he used his academic prowess to help the church; to discern its errors and put it back on the right path. Noel had a lot more to say about the influences of Deism on the church, but I hope enough has been shown for you to be persuaded by his wise insights. As he rightly concluded, "if the church would just observe what is happening in the society around, it would avoid a lot of heartache".8
Comparative Method
Another area of great concern for Noel was so-called evangelical scholarship and, in particular, the discipline of the comparative method. His interest in this field takes him back to his doctoral studies, where his thesis was on the comparison between texts of Nuzi (an ancient city in modern-day Iraq) and the Bible.9
For those unaware, the comparative method is a scientific way of understanding one specific thing when it is pitted against another thing, normally something similar. In a real sense, anything can be compared: languages, economies, politics, etc. Thus, the method itself has a long pedigree, and it is not something isolated to biblical studies.10
Within biblical studies, however, making comparisons between the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (and the New Testament with Second-Temple Judaism) has been a preoccupation amongst biblical scholars since the Ancient Near East was unearthed some one-hundred plus years ago.11 The desire to find a background to help illuminate the biblical text or a comparison to help explain the text, that in itself is fine. As Noel used to say, "if you can find a background, then by all means find it".12 The issue that Noel had, however, in the whole venture of the comparative method was the absence, if not an out-right avoidance, of handling the historical questions that arose with those comparisons.13
For example, many Old Testament scholars assume that Genesis 1 is an adaptation of, or a reaction to the Babylonian Creation Epic, otherwise known as Enuma Elish. Pick up an evangelical book or commentary published over the last 25 years and there will be some discussion of this Babylonian text having some influence on the Creation account.14 Noel, however, asks the obvious question: does anyone know when Enuma Elish was written? In other words, show me the evidence! His point is that if we believe Moses is responsible for all of the Pentateuch, including Genesis 1, then the Babylonian text must have been written and known sometime around 1500 BC or before. The consensus amongst scholars, however, has the Babylonian text written no earlier than 1100 BC. Thus, the historical issues immediately arise, which, as Noel urges, must be addressed. Does this mean we must push Moses' date to make it fit the Babylonian Epic or do we just deny him the authorship of Genesis 1 altogether? Furthermore, even if all the dates do happen to harmonise, what evidence is there that Moses (or any biblical author for that matter) knew of Enuma Elishand then expected the Hebrews to know of it as well? How did they know he was writing to refute the pagan creation account? What Noel began to observe with all the evidence at hand was that the Bible had very little if any "background". He described this as "The Isolation of the Bible and Its Denial" which, by the way, is the same title that he gave at Westminster Theological Seminary for the 2016 Gaffin Lecture.15
The upshot of all this is that Noel has been a lone voice in raising these concerns:
We face the dilemma, that we believe that we should interpret the Bible against its background, but we struggle to find immediate and clear evidence of that background. However, would you find treatment of this problem in most of our literature on biblical interpretation? I suggest that the impression given is that the problem does not exist.16
One target that Noel had in his sights over the years was Professor John Walton, a very popular and influential Old Testament scholar from Wheaton College. Noel has repeatedly exposed and refuted his shoddy scholarship.17Walton goes as far as saying that to truly understand Genesis 1 (and any other biblical text), you must read it with the eyes of an ancient Near Easterner (whether a Babylonian, an Egyptian, a Hittite, etc).18 In other words, the Bible cannot be read without the background; knowledge of the Ancient Near East is absolutely vital. For instance, if you walked up to a Hebrew living in Israel during the 8th century BC and asked him what Genesis 1 meant, that Hebrew would reply, "I don't know, let's go ask a Babylonian"! It sounds absurd, I know, but that really is no exaggeration. The obvious consequence, of course, is that you need John Walton to know exactly "What Moses Really said". If that sounds vaguely familiar, it is because it wasn't until N.T. Wright arrived a few years ago, and we learned "What Saint Paul Really Said".19Welcome to the neo-Gnosticism of so-called evangelical scholarship!
While Noel needed to critique bad methodology when he saw it, he was happy to illustrate good methodology as well. That is, he believed in the comparative method, but he understood that comparisons do not always have to highlight the similarities. The differences must be observed as well. He exemplified this in what could be described as his magnum opus, Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships.20 As the title indicates, Noel did a thorough study of all known covenants and treaties of the 2nd and 1stmillennium BC and noted the uniqueness of each of them, sometimes the uniqueness of them within the same nation over time. In other words, he did not just compare biblical covenants with Hittite covenants but Hittite covenants with Assyrian covenants and Assyrian covenants with Egyptian covenants. Noel's goal was to discuss all the evidence, which meant that all of the covenants and treaties had to be on the table, not just a few. A complete picture had to be given.
Not surprisingly, Noel's conclusions went against the current consensus. What he found
in the course of his investigation was that there was a huge presupposition to just about every scholar's work on covenants and treaties. They all held to some international form that hovered above culture and history. To put it another way, their starting assumption was uniformity of the ancient world. According to Noel, the assumption of uniformity is not just wrong; it is bad scholarship. It creates a model of simplicity for the Ancient Near East that in reality, is rather complex.
Thus, Noel's work on covenants and treaties pretty much decimated the prevailing presupposition that there was a consistent Ancient Near East mindset consistently across the Ancient Near East timeline. Uniformity is patently false. Noel proved that by giving several examples where the Egyptians were different to the Babylonians and the Babylonians were different to the Hittites. He also presented evidence that later Assyrians changed matters on covenants from earlier Assyrian covenants. Noel's basic yet profound point was that each ancient culture needed to be understood on its own terms.21 Far from what we are told, there really is no "Bible and the Ancient Near East" as if the Bible and the Ancient Near East are lumped in as one and both are seen all-together homogenous.
To go even further, and brighten the limelight even more on Noel, he not only had a knack for exposing the presuppositions of scholars, but he would then go ahead and expose the presuppositions of the presuppositions! In this case, the presupposition of a covenantal uniformity across the ancient world was easily explained by the Deist model we discussed earlier. Since in Deism, God's activity is excluded from the world, everything that happens must have its source in some activity in the physical realm that God created in the beginning. Thus, the activity of authors must be traceable back to something that flows out of their physical environment. Sure, over time covenants within cultures were tweaked here, rearranged there, but overall, there is nothing completely new. Thus, within a Deistic worldview, there had to be one pre-existing covenant and treaty. Furthermore, if you were to be a consistent Deist, then you would have to say that something was pre-existing out of which the biblical covenants (even the biblical texts) had been composed. Remember, divine revelation is absent in the theology of a Deist. A Deist mentality must find natural sources for everything that happens in the world, whether we are talking about conversion, creation, or covenants. The obvious question that then comes is: why are evangelical scholars acting like Deists?22
In the end, Noel's thesis was that the development of covenants in Israel and across the ancient world had to be seen on its own, in their own contexts. There was no "borrowing" or "diffusion," even "polemics".23 In fact, as evangelicals who take the Bible at face value, our presupposition of biblical texts and biblical covenants is that they are the result of "men moved by the Holy Spirit".
Culture
One final area where I want to put Noel's wisdom on display is his keen analysis of all the shifts and changes within the culture. When we look out and see our society in a swamp of sin, embracing homosexuality, transgenderism, same-sex marriage, etc., we understand that as a result of the wrath of God letting us go. One cannot read Romans 1 and not see that what Paul is describing there is unfolding before our very eyes. So, in that sense, we get it. We understand why unbelievers do what they do. They have no fear of God before their eyes, and they love sin.
Noel, however, was able to give a human perspective, so to speak. Yes, there were divine forces at work behind it all, but there were also philosophical and cultural forces as well.24 Take for example, the legislation of same-sex marriage in Australia. Put to a vote a hundred years ago, it would have never been passed. Why now? What has been at work, behind the scenes, to get us to this point? Noel would argue that it has been the subtle rise of Marxism within our country: a Neo-Marxism, if you will.25
Back in 2017, when same-sex marriage was legalised in Australia, to say it was the result of Neo-Marxist forces at work would have come as a surprise to many. It certainly was to me. However, over the last few years, no one would doubt that anymore. Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and several other organisations are now household names, and their Marxist agenda has been made loud and clear.
Basic Marxism is a secular philosophy with Utopian hopes, accomplished only when the "oppressed" rise up, revolt, and ultimately defeat those who "oppress". Initially, for Karl Marx, those who oppress were the capitalists (bosses), and those being oppressed were the proletariat (workers). Thus, it began as a socio-economic theory. However, over time, it developed into moral categories, making the list of those being oppressed larger and larger. Of course, the so-called oppression was more perceptive than real. Anyone was a victim if they "felt" like a victim. That is, victimisation went to those who felt stifled and suppressed by the social conservatism of the day. Furthermore, fundamental to victimisation was the absence of power and control.26
Neo-Marxism, then, had a pool of people to replace the working class as the ground troops of the revolution: women, homosexuals, transgenders, and American Blacks. It will only be a matter of time before paedophiles and zoophiles will be welcomed as new comrades to the party.27 Oddly enough, included with these are young middle and upper-class university students. Yet, what do they all have in common? They see themselves as victims. Or better, they have been told that they are victims. Marxism leads to the treating of all members of the group as acting as the group acts. So, if women are the victimised group, all women must be innocent. If homosexuals are the victims, then all homosexuals must be innocent. If American Blacks are the victims, then all American Blacks must be innocent. Thus, to be against the proclaimed new victims is automatically to be guilty and, therefore, must be silenced. In other words, replace the bourgeois in the Old Marxism with "white male supremacy" in the New, and we find ourselves where we do today.
Noel could articulate this so much better than I, but that's the gist of what he taught us. 28Neo-Marxism is what is behind the mess and madness we see most days now on television. The revolution has begun! Certainly, Noel would say that there are spiritual forces behind all of this as well. The spirit of anti-Christ drives Marxism without a doubt. Rebellion is in the heart of man. In fact, Noel would say that in the end, we are reaping the consequences of rejecting the doctrine of total depravity.29
Conclusion
I trust enough has been offered as testimony to the wide-range of gifts and wisdom of Noel Weeks to leave you impressed. No doubt, it was his commitment to the sufficiency and application of the Word of God that placed Noel as "one of a thousand" (Job 33:23).
I mentioned in the beginning that the man who is ʾašrê = the "blessed man" in Psalm 1 can not only mean the "wise man," but also the "enviable man". Noel was certainly all three. Yet, there is a striking irony that needs to be noted. Over in 1 Kings 10, when the Queen of Sheba visits Solomon and observes all his wealth and wisdom, she declares that Solomon's servants were those who were truly ʾašrê:
Happy are your men and Happy are these your servants,
who stand continually before you and hear your wisdom! (verse 8)
In other words, the most enviable people on the planet were Solomon's servants. They were able to tune in to the wisest man who ever lived every day!
For those of us who knew Noel personally, we would say that was equally true of us. We were privileged and more blessed, even happier, because of him.
Comments
Post a Comment