Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Okay, I have a question for all the scholars on AFF.

Did Paul take scripture out of context? Examine the following:


1 Corinthias 14:

20Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.


Now, here is the text in the Old Testament:


Isaiah 28

5In that day shall the LORD of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,

6And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate.

7But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

8For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.

9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Isaiah is speaking about the coming captivity of his people. So, why did Paul quote this in the middle of a dissertation about speaking in tongues? Did he take scripture out of context?

P.S. I won't promise that this isn't a trap. :)

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Yes, Paul did. His hermeneutic was influenced by Hillel via Gamiliel.

He often took his liberty when making a point. Jesus did this as well.

However, these speak with authority greater than ours. They are not teaching a systematic theology, but using rhetorical devices to make points. They have not based entire teachings/doctrines on a single one of these verses.

There are entire books devoted to this subject.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

And actually, Isaiah throughout has a primary and prophetic meaning.

The primary meaning is a coming captivity. The prophetic meaning is the inclusion of "foreign languages" or Gentiles.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Please explain what passages Jesus took liberty in this manner...

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

The "problem" is only a problem for those who demand that Scripture be read through fundamentalist spectacles. Have you considered Matthew 2:15, along with this?

I'm not trying to change the subject - but this is key to understanding the way the apostles read their Scriptures. In Matthew 2:15, Matthew appears to be claiming that Jesus, Mary and Joseph all fulfilled a "prophecy" from the OT.

This OT "prophecy" is found in Hosea 11:1. But when we read Hosea, we find that the prophet isn't prophesying here, he's telling history! He tells us that God has ALREADY "called His son out of Egypt." This is history and not a prophecy at all. Was Matthew so grossly illiterate that he could not understand that?

No. He understood it well. He just understood it differently than our modern fundamentalists. And more importantly, what God was doing at that moment could not be understood by a fundamentalist reading of the Bible either. To understand what God was doing in the lives of Jesus, Mary and Joseph we have to drop our fundamentalism and adopt an apostolic understanding of Scripture. To understand what God is doing our lives today requires the same effort, but that will quickly lead us away from your question.

One way this might apply to the passages that your Bible is opened to right now is to see that God always "speaks in other tongues" to those who are not following him. The Assyrians coming as the vessels of God's judgment and speaking to the Jews were an immediate fulfillment in Isaiah's day. The apostles on the Day of Pentecost were simply another example of the same thing. Matthew 13:10-17, might be given as another example.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

So the source is greater than the context? I agree.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Good answer. Now my question is, why must we examine scripture differently than the Apostles examined the Old Testament? I know the answer, I just want to get your perspective.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

When I say both Paul and Jesus quoted from the OT, I don't mean in the Proof-Text-like manner that is so common among us. I mean that these guys made allusions to

So many are guilty of bibliolatry - that is, making the Bible an idol.

To confess that the Bible is God's word written does not mean that God wrote the Bible in heaven and dropped it into our laps yesterday; rather, it means that God inspired a number of human authors to write a variety of books to different people in different contexts over a long period of time.

Paul used a "different hermeneutic," that saw the entire Bible/story of God in light of Jesus. For Christians, the ongoing value of the Old Testament is not that it teaches us how to live as disciples (Jesus does that), but that it tells a story--the story of Israel--that helps us to understand the story of our master. New Testament writers quote passages from the Old Testament in order to flesh out the story of Jesus.

Paul took more liberty in his rhetoric than Jesus. Jesus would often point back to a story with "you have heard..." then to relate a truth about the Kingdom in parallel but greater terms.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Go ahead. Hijack the thread and flesh this out more. I was enjoying it.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Huh?

If you are creating an allusion, using stories as rhetorical devices to punctuate a truth, have at it. I think some get carried away with this, and it bleeds into their theology as well. For example, they begin to interpret the meaning of scripture without first acknowledging the author's intent and what the message meant to the original audience. This leads to pure subjective interpretation, which is the post-modern trend among so many.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

My point is: We are mistaken if we do examine Scripture differently than the apostles.

Reading Matthew 2:15, as a "fulfilled prediction from the OT" messes the whole thing up, and it opens Matthew himself to charges of illiteracy. However, if we see the very real cultural differences here and the fact that the apostles were NOT employing some form of linear Western rationalism in their handling of Scripture, then we can at least begin to unravel quite a few puzzles.

Their approach was one of idealism. An "ideal" existed and events tended to follow the pattern of the ideal. In this world there were, of course, many opportunities for the "ideal" to be corrupted or profaned. There were also times when the "ideal" was realized with irony and the predictable outcome was replaced by something "new."

But the ancient method was that events would unfold according to an "ideal." Moses lead the children of Israel through the Sea and into a wilderness where God and ministering angels were their provider as they faced a series of temptations. Jesus passed through the waters of Jordan in John's baptism and went into a wilderness where he was tempted and angels ministered to him.

God spoke to the people at Babel - through the confusion of their own tongues. He spoke to the Jews in the days of Isaiah through the tongues of the Assyrians. He spoke to those who had crucified Christ through the tongues of the apostles. He speaks to the "unbelievers" in the Corinthian assembly as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 14.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

:thumbsup

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

I know that this is slightly off topic (and I agree that the NT writers use a different hermeneutic. This does also make me very uncomfortable in reflecting on it's implications.),

But of the I Corinthians 14 verse quoted....

I am of the belief that Paul is not using that verse in Is. 28 himself.

Rather I Corinthians 14 is one of the most difficult chapters to interpret because I believe he is quoting from the letter of the church addressed to him and then he rebuts their points made in the letter (see I Cor. 7:1).

And one of the points being made in favor of tongues being broadcast freely in the church of Corinthians is them citing Is. 28.

So Paul quotes their usage. And then repeats the point in simplified terms according to the Corinthians (v. 22): "Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers."

And then he proceeds to tear this logic down, by common sense (v. 23)-

"So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?"

Thus this trumped up point that Church of Corinthians was using about the utility of tongues in church (citing Is. 28) is stated, and then rebutted. This is not uncommon to within Greek rhetoric within letters.

It's Gordon Fee's commentary on Corinthians that really sheds light on this interpretation of I Cor. 14.

If it is not the case that Paul is quoting the church of Corinthians at times in His letter (also happens in I Cor. 8,9,10), then we have Paul contradicting himself many points over.....

For he states one thing and then argues against himself?

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Preachers today quote a verse in the OT "Out of context" to use it as an illustration

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Excellent points riley! Fee's exposition does remedy the apparent discontinuity in this passage.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

In regards to highlighted .... I believe the same is true with the hair passage in Chapter 11 ... will elaborate later.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Excellent point.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Very curious. I have not heard this one

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

That is a classic case of arguing from silence, though.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Now, this is a thread I am really enjoying. While Prax and Mike have not yet contributed a great deal of their knowledge and insight to the discussion, I expect them to follow along in the footsteps of Maximilian, pelathais and rabbiriley. I wish more folks on this forum would follow along with this discussion, they would learn much in correctly understanding the Bible form the worldview of its authors.

I would only add the following notes for consideration and then step aside:

First, to paraphrase some old class notes: Even though we have the N.T. translated from several different Greek manuscripts, the style and grammar in the Greek form reflects a Hebrew worldview and approach to communication and instruction. That is,

(1) We are working with a conceptual form of communication (Hebraic verb-based language) vs. the Greek (and English) noun-based, abstract languages. To understand the complexity of the subject, note the extended use of Greek words required to convey (translate) the Hebrew Tanakh into the Greek Septuagint. Also, each contributor to the N.T. writings had to add (create) or modify (including combining) a great number of Greek words to ‘translate’ the Hebrew thought patterns and expressions (including Hebrew idioms) into the Greek language form(s). Reference: See any late addition Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon and the included reference section for Greek words and terms unique to each N.T. writer.

(2) In the Hebrew language and though pattern (required understanding to correctly interpret biblical Hebrew communications), there are technically only two tenses in the Hebrew language, perfect and imperfect.

While each word in the Hebrew can have up to seven different ‘tenses’ or grammatical values (bin yan), what we are stuck with is, within the Hebrew mindset, two expressions: future tense or past tense. Something will happen or it has already happened (this is one major reason why it can be so difficult to understand biblical prophecy in both the Old and New Testaments). While the specific bin yan of a word within a particular passage will determine if the word is passive, intensive, a command, or reflective. It will also identify the word’s associated usage according to gender, numeric value and establish whether if it is to be used in its singular or plural form. This conceptual approach was carried over into writing in the N.T. By translating the Greek text back into Hebrew, both the grammar and Hebrew idioms make ‘perfect’ sense.

(3) Frequently, scriptural interpretation of the N.T. also falls victim the Western abstract approach to language, i.e., we have little to no problem of taking a single sentence out of the scriptures, or, for that matter just a portion of a sentence, and expounding upon it for ‘hours’, i.e. we often take a few words out of the Bible as study them as if they had little or no relationship to the rest of scripture, e.g. Act 2:38. When we do connect ‘stand alone’ verses together, we often will take bit and pieces of other scriptures that contain the same English word in them and tie them together into whatever fashion that seems to make sense to us, and wonder why some of our doctrines then conflict with one another.

(4) The entire Bible is a semi-sequential ‘unveiling’ of God to His creation. As a result, the Hebrew approach to understanding the scriptures is ‘find the conceptual thread’ and follow it to its conclusion. Then, this has to be understood from the knowledge that not all biblical threads were concluded until the advent of Jesus Christ.

What makes all of this so difficult is that we attempt to catch the ‘thread’ of a biblical concept by using the English language in our own cultural and historical context, rather than in the original language, and understanding its context within the author’s history, religion, and culture.

While all of this seems to be an impossible task, unless one is an original biblical language scholar, it is doable! However, casual reading of scripture, or the committed study of the word in order to ‘prove’ a doctrine or theological position will usually lead one into error (a false or incomplete understanding of scripture).


Second. While there is much more that could be added to this, I submit but one example of the challenge to those who would be teachers:

Up until the late 1800’s almost every Western religious leader/teacher was knowledgeable in the Greek, Latin and even in Hebrew. This allowed them to translate, when necessary, original writings in order to pull out the relevant interpretation and applications from scripture. Preaching from a few notes was unheard of. Sermons were written down, in order to be read from the pulpit, not to be presented as an expository performance.

This allowed the preacher to ‘explain’ (present, interpret, apply) scripture in a way so as to teach the congregation the word of God, rather than just preaching ‘about’ the word.

Consider what the term ‘perfect’ means to you. What pictures do you conjure up in your mind as to what that term means, and how it should be applied in any communication (written or oral) concerning an event, idea, or situation.

The following is one of my favorite examples.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

The word ‘perfect’.

Of the 109 occurrences of the word “perfect” (as rendered in KJV English Bible), they reflect a dazzling array of original language words. There are fourteen different Hebrew words translated as “perfect” and ten different Greek words translated as “perfect”. Each of the original words has different meanings as well as carrying a wide range of possible individual tones, shadings and understandings. Even in one verse, such as Ps 101:2, we find the word perfect used twice in our KJV Bibles. However, the first perfect means “whole, sound, healthful”, while the second perfect means “integrity”, which renders Ps 101:2 differently than:

“I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.” KJV
This translation would frequently be interpreted as: I will behave in a way that is without error or flaw, so when will you (God) come to me? My heart will also be without defect, error or flaw. Or, some such rendering.

My translation of this same text:

“I will give heed to and follow the path (the way) of complete wholesomeness; Oh when will You come unto me? Inside my own house I will walk (live) my life in the integrity of my heart.” AWB

The interpretation could be something like this:

I will give heed to (take not of) and walk (live) in the precepts of your (God's) instructions for righteous living (Torah), requiring nothing else beyond your instructions. Therefore, tell me, when will you come unto me in true relationship? Even as I live out my life, within myself, I shall maintain my integrity (moral soundness, a life devoid of sin) before you.

See:

Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan: ‘Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a whole-hearted and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil? and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou didst move Me against him, to destroy him without cause.’

Job 2:9 Then said his wife unto him: ‘Dost thou still hold fast thine integrity? blaspheme God, and die.’

Job 27:5 Far be it from me that I should justify you; till I die I will not put away mine integrity from me.

In these passages, the English word, integrity is translated correctly from the Hebrew (H8538)תֻּמָּה : integrity
In Job 4:6 "Is not this thy fear, thy confidence, thy hope, and the uprightness of thy ways?"

In this case the word 'uprightness' is used; from H8537, meaning
1) integrity, completeness
2) 1a) completeness, fullness
3) 1b) innocence, simplicity
4) 1c) integrity
5) The more correct translation should have been #1.
6) "Is not this thy fear, thy confidence, thy hope, and the integrity of thy ways?"

Note that the English term, uprightness, as used in the KJV translation also means, "Righteousness as a consequence of being honorable and honest". So, while the English translators of the KJV of the Bible did not use the 'correct' English word in this case, they found a suitable substitute, that if properly understood, conveys the correct sense of the passage.

Anyway, this is the kind of exercise required in order to perform an acceptable translation and interpretation of the original language passages into a coherent English rendering. When the task includes taking the Greek and working backwards through the Hebrew to identify the original world view being presented (represented) and the religious context of a particular passage, the job becomes a little more difficult.

While I love working these kinds of problems, I do have a difficult time with Hebrew grammar, which is not surprising for me, as I have yet to master my second language grammar, English. Yes, English is not my native language, infantile gibberish is, and I didn't need any grammar to speak it - still don't!

Okay, I'm done.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

I've found they do more than create an illustration to an otherwise Biblical point, but they create truth statements from it. We must be careful to distinguish between a biblical analogy (they were used to the Jews because these were stories -- quite often -- that they were familiar with) and making implications that because it's scripture, then all applications you make with this illustration is truth.

We must approach the Bible as a Story. Not in a Dispensationalist time-table, but as a Story. A Story that has changes, climaxes, reveals God's character as he interacts with people, and it shows the beauty of the coming Messiah.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

I'd urge you to read Fee's comments on this first.

It's classic exegesis.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

:ursofunny

Thanks Bro. B. I appreciated both posts and the summation was sheer grandeur in my eyes.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

If I have explicit statements of truth, then I use a bible story for an illustration Im not necessarily using a verse or story out of context to prove doctrine but to illustrate a bible truth.

I'll give a slightly different example. We are going through the temple in a bible study. Most of the "study" revolves around types and shadows. For example the board used to make the walls are acacia wood overlayed with gold. It is claimed by the authors that this is a type of Christ...the wood represents his humanity and the gold His Deity. We find this as a bible truth..that Jesus is both God and man, yet we never find that the board was made this way as a type. I can find types and shadows all through out the bible that the bible never actually says is a type or shadow. This too is sort of using the bible as an illustration to teach a bible truth.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

That's a good example. And while I think it's acceptable (in a homiletic sense) to point to an analogy to establish a biblical truth independent of that analogy, I think we should be careful. Particularly with types and shadows, which have a completely different hermeneutic grid for usage.

The thing is, when we lean heavily on this sort of usage of scripture, we make the Bible appears as some mystic code with hidden meanings and magical powers. While there is definitely a mystical element to poring over its pages, the Bible has a message that meant something to its authors and its original audiences. We need to discover that and learn what it means to us. This is why I lean more toward Exegetical teaching.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

So, was Paul using this verse as an illustration or was he giving a whole new meaning to it that the context does not support?

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

I agree.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

And furthemore, if it be the case, should today's ministers take the same license, liberty and authority as Paul?

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Absolutely not, but I don't think Paul was giving new meaning to it. I think he was using the old meaning to make a point on a new topic

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

VERY VERY GOOD WORDS!

Types cannot relate something to us that the bible, itself, does not explicitly teach somewhere. So many go hog-wild with types. They concoct ideas that are never laid out plainly in the Bible and validate it as though the Spirit told them to do it.

When I exegeted certain passages, after time I became increasingly more and more amazed at the true divine inspiration of the scriptures. Man's mind simply cannot come up with the thoughts the apostles presented in the New Testament when we come to learn what they taught and appreciate how it relates to the rest of scripture.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

As is my want, after posting something I'll go back later and discover some glaring error/omission or some other such problem with my submission. Such is the case here.This sentence should have read:

"Of the 98 occurrences (as rendered in KJV English Bible) of the word “perfect” (115 when the words perfected, perfection and perfecting are included), they reflect a dazzling array of original language words."

Just another example of nimble fingers being just too nimble quick. -- Sorry --

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Wonderful post. Very well put.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

I can see the point, and I don't necessarily disagree.

But I Cor. 7:1 does lead us the fact that he is responding to a letter from the church.

So it would not be surprising to see him quote their points. (So it's not completely silent).

Secondly, there are several other places that Paul seems to be quoting the counter point that is more widely accepted ("So that grace may now abound?," "Everything is permissible to me." "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food.")

WHile it is not explicit in the text that he is quoting the Corinthians, I lean to this verdict by probabilty. What makes more sense? Paul says one thing and immediately contradicts it within the next sentence (and thus we have a postmodern Paul!), or that he is quoting a counter argument (or a perceived rebuttal) and then rebuts the point.

While it may be from silent, how else are we to explain these verses as well as many more?

*i realize you may have been saying that this is a classic argument from silence with no negative implications, and if this is so, disregard everything I wrote.

Re: Did Paul take scripture out of context?
 

Yes, why not as long as Christ is the center and it doesn't contradict other clear passages of scripture.