Telescope (1)

The words of the Prophets agree with this, just as it is written:  Acts  15:15 NASB

Agree – When you read this statement from the Jerusalem Council, what do you think it means?  Do you think that the Council members claimed that what they determined to be the proper action toward Gentiles was already found in the prophets of Israel?  Do you think James interprets Amos correctly?  Or Isaiah?  Do you think it’s proper to squeeze together something from Deuteronomy with a verse from Amos and another from Isaiah?  Is that how we would exegete these verses today?  No, probably not.  James ignores the historical period of the prophets.  He ignores their audience, their political situation and even, to some degree, their language in order to bolster his case, i.e., the biblical justification for the Council’s decision.  In other words, James comes to the text with an agenda—and he finds just what he is looking for.

But we shouldn’t be surprised.  We do the same thing!  We have always done the same thing.  For example, Copernicus based his heliocentric calculations of the planet’s orbits on his religious view of the Trinity, not on scientific observation. In fact, even though we consider Copernicus a model of breaking free from fixed tradition, his science would be soundly rejected today.

“Much has been written on the utility of Copernicus’ geometrical constructions.  It is generally conceded that his representations are scarcely less complex or more economical than Ptolemy’s, or their predictive accuracy greater.”[1]

“For Copernicus, the organistic affirmation that the universe is symmetrical functions as a presupposition, an a prioriframework that orients research and defines the ‘principal’ quality that a true representation of the universe must possess. It is not part of the empirical or analytical content.  It belongs rather to the global framework in which the recording and analytical processing of empirical data takes place.”[2]

“Copernicus’ God creates like a Renaissance artist.”[3]

Copernicus imports his Trinitarian view into his science, claiming that God is perfectly represented in the cosmos as the center (the sun) while the planets model the role of Jesus and the space (the “ether”) between the planets is a symbol of the Holy Spirit.  His conviction is so strong that he actually ignores or discards physical evidence that doesn’t fit his model.  James does the same.  So do we.  We find what we are looking for in the Bible because we are looking for only what we have already decided is there.  Our presuppositions govern the search and the exegesis, just as they did for Copernicus and James.  And, by the way, for all of us, religious or scientific.  Everything depends on the lens in our mental telescopes.  And that’s why it is so difficult, so incredibly difficult, to convince someone who isn’t using the same telescope that your view is the “correct” view.

When you interpret a biblical text, you must recognize that you are looking at the text with your own lens.  If you don’t acknowledge this, you will unconsciously use the lens anyway, only now you’ll be convinced that your way is the “right” way.  The first, and perhaps most important, step in exegesis and interpretation isn’t knowing the original language.  It’s knowing yourself—your assumptions, your built-in religious beliefs, your cultural paradigms.  James had them.  Copernicus had them.  So do we.

Do you know what they are?

Topical Index:  agree, symphōnéō, assumptions, Copernicus, James, Acts 15:15

[1] Fernand Hallyn, The Poetic Structure of the World: Copernicus and Kepler, p. 91.

[2] Fernand Hallyn, The Poetic Structure of the World: Copernicus and Kepler, p. 92.

[3] Fernand Hallyn, The Poetic Structure of the World: Copernicus and Kepler, p. 93.