Self-Fulfilling Biblical Interpretation

You can find almost anything in the Bible if you look hard enough for it. And you can create almost anything you want out of the stories of the Bible. Two instances stand out in my mind. First, somebody had posed a question to a seminary professor of philosophy on whether or not Jesus could be considered a philosopher. Thus, the professor went to the gospel stories in order to give this person a good answer. Lo and behold, as the professor read the gospels, he found himself enamored by the philosophy of Jesus and how he articulated it in the face of opposition. The professor went back to the student and told him that Jesus was not only a philosopher, but the greatest philosopher in human history. The second story comes from a “Christian” counseling textbook. Apparently, this book has turned to the gospels for case studies in counseling, which of course are applied today because if we want to counsel, we might as well counsel like the greatest counselor who ever lived on the face of the earth. One specific example from the book was in regards to Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well, saying that this was an excellent example of counseling somebody with a messed-up life.

Has the Bible developed into a handbook for every profession? It sounds like Jesus is becoming painted in whatever light we wish. Oh, I wonder if Jesus is a philosopher? Well, of course when we begin scouring the Bible like a Where’s Waldo book, we are going to find what we set out to find. That is unless you want to see Jesus as a car salesman or an engineer. The process goes like this . . . we come up with a hypothesis, then go back to Scripture to see if we can verify it. Because the Bible is large and expansive, we usually only look to one or two sections. And because we have to have a set of criteria to test our hypothesis against, we get to set up our own boundaries when making a decision on interpretation. So on verses or passages where it may or may not be referring to Jesus as a philosopher, we may stretch our boundaries a bit in order to fit it into our criteria. This may not even be a conscious decision. We just do it. The whole problem with this type of interpretation is that we decide not only the hypothesis but also the criteria, and thus, only the parts of the Bible that verify our hypothesis and fit within our criteria are what we cling to. Thus, we naturally pass over what the Bible says in order to find what we want the Bible to say. We can draw up a number of hypotheses and try to garner support for them from the Bible, but it the process, we may miss what the Bible is actually trying to communicate.

Published in:  on October 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM Comments (1)

Hiding Behind the Bible

comeout

Jon Birch posts short cartoons on his blog. The one shown above was posted recently and I very much resonated with it. I have come across a number of people in my seminary experience who cling to one or two specific verses of Scripture (at one point, I was tallying up the number of times I heard John 14:6 quoted in all of my classes combined . . . after week 2, my count was at 36 . . . I have since stopped because it was getting far too depressing). Also, there are those who quote Scripture as an alternative to actually thinking about a topic. We use the Bible as an excuse for not thinking critically or faithfully because we are able to quote a verse here and a verse there without even understanding the context in which it was said.

Published in:  on October 20, 2009 at 2:54 PM Leave a Comment

Eisegesis and the Gospel Writers

I have been preparing for some pre-seminary exams and one of them will be on the Gospels and Acts. As I have been reading and thinking about the writing of the Gospels, especially in light of my hermeneutics training, I have come to think at length about the human-ness of the Gospels. We have four Gospels, all of which are different, and all of which have different emphases. And yet, all of them had essentially the same starting place – the kerygma, the early proclamation of Christians, namely the good news of Jesus Christ. None of them wrote during the life of Jesus. They all wrote after the fact, after Jesus had risen from the dead. After Jesus proved himself to be the Messiah. And knowing this, knowing the kerygma that Jesus is Lord and Savior, how much of the Gospels are affected by this kerygma? Or is this even a worthwhile question? Yes, they may be playing with different literary tools, but wouldn’t this also allow them to read more into the actual events of Christ’s life? If they would have written during the life of Jesus rather than after the life of Jesus, would Jesus appear to be more human?

Which leads me to eisegesis. Eisegesis is something, as I have been taught, to be avoided. Eisegesis is when we interpret something into the text that isn’t there. We bring something to the text and interpret in light of that something. Were the Gospel writers guilty of this? Were they not all trying to get their agenda across all the while giving the theological biography of Jesus? They all brought something to the text, their own backgrounds, their own theological leanings . . . these must have had some effect on the Gospels themselves. Is eisegesis as bad as we make it to be? Is there some relationship between eisegesis and subjectivism in comparison to exegesis and objectivism? Whenever we try to interpret the Bible to preach on something, we are bringing something to the text. We can interpret as objectively as possible, but we also bring the lives of the parishioners into a collision course. And the result is a subjective interpretation that speaks into people’s lives.

Published in:  on August 7, 2009 at 8:25 AM Leave a Comment