Did Paul take scripture out of context?

Standards · #1 07-07-2010, 02:29 PM

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 · #2 07-07-2010, 03:11 PM

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.

Maximilian · #3 07-07-2010, 03:12 PM

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.

TheLegalist · #4 07-07-2010, 03:16 PM

Quote:

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...

pelathais · #5 07-07-2010, 03:17 PM

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.

Standards · #6 07-07-2010, 03:18 PM

Quote:

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.

Standards · #7 07-07-2010, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

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 were an immediate fulfillment in Isaiah's day. The apostles on the Day of Pentecost were simply another example. Matthew 13:10-17, might be given as another example.

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.

Maximilian · #8 07-07-2010, 03:37 PM

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.

Maximilian · #9 07-07-2010, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

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

Maximilian · #10 07-07-2010, 03:41 PM

Quote:

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.