Did Paul take scripture out of context?

[Standards]

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.

[Maximilian]

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.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

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.

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

[Standards]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

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.

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

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Standards

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

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.

[SeekingOne]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

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.

[Praxeas]

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

[Standards]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

Excellent point.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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.

[Maximilian]

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.