
"Both read the Bible day and night, but thou read black where I read white."
-William Blake
There is a pernicious idea abound that the correct interpretation of Scripture can be found if only the correct scholarship is applied: a scholarly understanding of Hebrew (or Greek), an understanding of ancient Jewish culture, of the history of the 1st century Holy Lands, or even what St. John might have been eating while on Patamos. With a good grasp of these background details, the correct, orthodox, meaning of a passage can be teased out - the truth can be discovered.
It's called exegesis and it must stop! This is not what the faith of our fathers is built upon!
The opposite of exegesis, is eisegesis, a word so derogatory that it is used as an insult all on its own in certain academic circles. Eisegesis is reading into scripture presuppositions; not coming to the Bible with an "open mind."
But consider this:
In the second chapter of his gospel, St. Matthew tells us with confidence that Jesus flight into Egypt as a boy (and his eventual return to Galilee) fulfilled Hosea 11:1, "Out of Egypt I called my son." But Hosea 11:1 is simply describing the Exodus; it is a passage that is not predictive of Christ's coming but retrospective of Israel's disobedience. Or so would say any half-decent Biblical scholar.
Or consider Paul's use of Isaiah 59:20 in his letter to the Romans, where he finishes an argument by announcing, "And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: 'The deliverer will come from Zion.' " But Isaiah says something quite different: "The Redeemer will come to Zion." This is how a scholar would read the verse, painstakingly examining every word of the original text.
So who do we believe? Apostle or scholar?
Many of the Church Fathers have been, throughout history, responsible for the grossest of eisegesis. Quite right too. Matthew ate with, lived with, touched, Jesus Christ, God made flesh. Paul was physically blinded by the revelation he received, and then healed by the love of one of Christ's disciples.
You don't just put that experience aside and get out your interlinear for a long, hard, study session. Even Thomas Aquinas, who wrote the favourite "theological proof" of all Western scholastics (even many Protestants) put down his pen before it was finished after receiving a revelation, declaring the whole thing "of little value" compared to what God directly imparted to him. So this is how I take the Church to be infallible in matters of faith. Not because she has the best scholars, but because her members pray, and pray, and pray, until spiritually they are caught up in heaven, just as St Paul described. From these people miracles flowed, healings flowed, prophesies, visions, and for some their own blood.
These are the saints of the Church I listen to, and trust. This is my proof.
These are the saints of the Church I listen to, and trust. This is my proof.
--
The time for looking at things in a calm, reasonable, manner is long gone. It's later than you think!
+

