|
Tuesday, 07 November 2006 16:36 |
 | | Marc Mullinax |
"If Scripture is in fact God-breathed and if God speaks in the entirety of the Bible then eisegesis would involve silencing that divine voice and replacing it with the thoughts, intents and traditions of the one doing the interpretation."
ÇƒÏ James White
ï
MARS HILL ÇƒÓ While a college student in the 1970s, I had many Christian friends. Some smoked marijuana or drank alcohol. I was not overly concerned with their practices, but I wanted to know how and why they ÇƒÏ Christians ÇƒÏ justified the use of these substances.
"Psalm 104. Read it," they said.
And
there it was, in verses 14 and 15: "Thou dost cause the grass to grow
for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring
forth food from the earth, and wine to gladden the heart of man...."
"Grass" and
"wine to gladden the heart." OK, I got it. My Christian friends used
the Bible for their habits. Whatever they were doing already, they went
and found support for it in the Bible. Other friends used the Bible to
help them advance their view of the world: Separation of the races? See
Ezra 9:2. No inter-marriage between races or religions? See I Kings
11:8 or Ezra 10:11-14. Multiple wives? Happens as early as Genesis
4:19. Vegetarianism as the God-intended cuisine? See Genesis 3:18. Is
socialism Godës favored economic system? See Acts 2:44-46 and 4:32-35.
Soon I realized
that I had joined in their ways of Bible interpretation. I used the
Bible to justify what I wanted, making it say what I wanted it to mean.
The Bible was my little pet, able to perform all kinds of hermeneutical
tricks whenever I wanted. No make-up or fancy ornaments for women? See
1 Timothy 2:9. I could proof-text my every neurosis.
In social
science this is known as "confirmation bias." We come to our beliefs
for reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical
reasoning. Rather, the nature-nurture matrix shapes personality
preferences that lead us to our beliefs. We then sort through the body
of data that bombards our lives and filter out those most conforming
with what we already believe and ignore or rationalize away those that
do not.
Thomas
Jefferson, so disturbed at the miraculous in the Bible, literally cut
out all references to miracle and the supernatural from his Bible. He
felt that only thus could he could find the real Jesus: "We must reduce
our volume to the ... very words of Jesus.... There will be remaining
the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been
offered to man." He did not care about what the first human experiences
of Jesus were; only his agenda was paramount.
I have grown
uncomfortable with this intramural, liberal method of interpretation,
for one can use the Bible as a happy hunting ground for whatever belief
you want. Two words not in the Bible include "abortion" and
"homosexuality." Anti-abortionists use Psalm 139:13, Isaiah 49:1 &
5, and Jeremiah 1:5, but seem to ignore a pro-life agenda for everyone,
including enemies.
Anti-homosexual
readers of the Bible lead out with verses in Genesis, Leviticus and
Romans. Why donët Christians trouble themselves that they donët use ALL
the Leviticus codes any more, and ignore the 13 warnings against usury
to concentrate on the more isolated "anti-homosexual" verses?
What Iëve
described is the liberal way of interpreting an ancient text. Just
ignore what the writers and first hearers had in mind and merely read
the texts with axes and filters ground by 21st-century forces. A true
conservative will understand the original languages and culture that
produced an ancient text, let the texts speak across the centuries to
our own, while silencing our own neurotic voices.
Whatës at stake?
How much of what I see in the Bible is actually not there? If I already
know the answer before I open the Bible, why open the Bible at all?
More, next week.
ï
Dr. Marc S.
Mullinax, chairman of the philosophy and religion departments at Mars
Hill College, can be reached at mmullinax-at-mhc.edu.
|
