Restoration Ministries | home
A Pick and Choose Hermeneutic?
by Jon Zens
_______________________________________________________________
Since the mid-1800s the science of “higher criticism” has appeared. In fact, it is destructive criticism. Beginning in Germany, it spread to America and infected many seminaries. “Higher criticism” posited that the Bible contained many errors, was informed by an outmoded world view, and must undergo textual reconstruction according to its principles.
The “arbitrary way in which critical biblical science sets up itself and its assumptions as absolute”[1] is not hard to document. The impression is often given that higher critical methods are “objective,” but in fact they are shaped by “humanistic assumptions,” [2] becoming a means of denying the supernatural in Scripture, and are used to assert the “mythical, contradictory” nature of the Bible. Higher critics are very biased. “Presupposition-less exegesis is simply not possible, and it is naive to think that it is.‘‘[3]
One big problem with such a methodology is that it allows the interpreter to judge what is ‘‘right” and what is “contradictory” in the Bible. Unfortunately, this method has crept in even among those who profess to have more regard for the Scripture*s inspiration.
For example, Virginia Mollenkott suggests that Paul*s view of women reflects “wrong” rabbinical influence and “right” gospel influence. At bottom, Paul*s view involves “contradictions.“[4] I wrote Virginia about this hermeneutic approach.
“As to the 1979 article, I certainly agree that (male) hermeneutics becomes arbitrary when it comes to ‘women*s issues.’ However, it seems arbitrary for you (and others) to say that (mistaken) first-century assumptions are part of the biblical text. So, then, when we come to the Bible, we are faced with sorting out (1) what is mistaken so that we can (2) retain what is valid. This kind of subjective interpretation is on par with literalists who stomp on minorities in the name of ‘proof-texts.’
A hermeneutic which posits that there is an “accurate” Paul (Galatians 3:28), and a Paul “ill-affected by Gamaliel” (1 Timothy 2:11-15) is a ‘way out,’ but it introduces a dangerous subjective element into the interpretive process whereby the onlooker discovers what is true and false — and that by discrediting the text itself (in some cases). I do not agree that women must be absolutely silent in services, but neither do I agree that Paul is self-contradictory in his writings.” (9/3/82)
She replied in part:
“I have pondered the concerns you raise for many years already. Believing as I do in a clear overall theme of male/female equality in Scripture, l cannot then interpret a single passage or two in a way that contradicts that theme. Otherwise I engage in irresponsible prooftexting.” (9/9/82)
Ephesians 5:2l ff.
I believe Mollenkott*s emphasis on “mutual submission” is healthy and Biblical. [5] However, in asserting that female submission is rooted in culture, and is therefore not God*s will “for all time,” she utterly fails to consider Paul*s analogy. Marriage is a picture (a ‘‘type”) of Christ*s relationship to the church, and this is transcultural. A wife is not to submit because of the culture she is in, but because the church submits to Christ.
Likewise, the “headship” of the husband is not linked to culture, but to Christ being the “Head” of the church. The point of analogy in both cases has nothing to do with culture, and is thereby applicable in any culture. Mollenkott never mentions the Christ/church relationship in her discussion of Genesis 2, whereas Paul does (Ephesians 5:31).
It seems to me that once “contradictions” are allowed in Scripture, the interpreter and his method become supreme. In all fairness, it must be noted that those who affirm that the Bible is without contradiction are often just as selective and arbitrary in their hermeneutical methodology.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Notes for “Finding Contradictions”
[1] Peter Stuhlmacher quoted by Gerhard Maier, “Concrete Alternatives to the Historical-Critical Method,” Evangelical Review of Theology, 6:1,1982, p. 30.
[2] Clark Pinnock, ‘‘This Treasure in Earthen Vessels,” Sojourners, Oct. 1980, p. 18.
[3] Royce Gruenler, New Approaches to Jesus, Baker, 1982, p 235
[4] V. R. Mollenkott, “Pauline Contradictions & Biblical Inspiration,”Women, Men & the Bible, Abingdon, 1977, pp. 90-106, cf. “Interpreting Difficult Scriptures,” Daughters of Sarah, March/April, 1979, pp 16-17.
[5] “The Christian Way of Relating,” Woman, Man & the Bible, pp 9-33
________________________________________________________