A matter of context

[ParanoidAndroid]

I'm not sure if this thread is in the right section, but it seems as good as anywhere.

I was wondering what people thought about context - in particular, when the conclusions drawn from a passage are true and provide biblical insight, but do not fit in with what the passage is actually saying. Is it ok to draw a non-contextual biblical truth from a passage, even if that passage is taken out of context to do so?

I went to a friend's church last night for a Bible study. I was overall shocked and appalled at the level of non-contextual study. It was a topical study (on evangelism) and not a passage study, which may have led to it, but still....... we looked at 5 Bible passages, each one verse long. Of these 5, 3 were out of context, in my opinion.

-------------------------------------------

The first passage - The first verse was from 1 Peter 3, which read - But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (3:15). I boldened the relevant section because this was the focus of what he was saying. The study leader asked why we should present our case in a gentle and respectful manner. I was about to answer until I realised it was a rhetorical question - he started to go on about our former lives as non-Christians. He said that because we were and are sinful beings who lived according to our own will and not God's, that we have no reason to boast and therefore when telling the gospel, we should say it with gentleness and respect.

That's not what the passage is saying. If you read the very next verse of this passage, it reads: "But do this with gentleness and respect, (v16) keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." Biblically speaking, the reason we are to speak with gentleness and respect is so that when (or if) people try to accuse us, they have no reason to and end up just being ashamed of their slander.

The second passage - The second verse comes from Acts 8. The leader of the study was discussing the role of the Holy Spirit in evangelism. He quoted this passage, which reads: Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there (8:5). He then asked a question to the group - "So why did Philip preach the gospel in Samaria"? I had a quick look at the Bible and was about to answer that he was preaching in Samaria because chapter 7 reveals that the church was being scattered by Saul, who was persecuting them. As he fled, he ended up in Samaria, where he preached. But before I could say this, the answer was given. The leader said "Yes, he preached because the Holy Spirit led him to preach there".

Hang on. Wait a minute. Hold up and pull back. The Bible doesn't say that. While what he said may very well be true, there is no biblical basis to make the assertion that Philip preached because the Spirit guided him to preach. Scripturally speaking, he was there because he was fleeing persecution. Anything else is conjecture only.

The third passage - also from Acts 8 and on a similar topic. It states that - Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." (8:26). The leader made a big deal about the comment "on the desert road". He said that Philip probably didn't want to travel on a desert road, which would be hot and sticky and uncomfortable, and that Philip probably wanted to go to Jerusalem to preach in the city, with all the comforts provided therein. He then made the link that likewise, we today may want God to send us to the big city with all the comforts of Western society, we may want to be sent to Hawaii to preach, or to America, or England, or to Australia. But it's just as possible that God might call us to preach in Africa, or to Indonesia or Malaysia or Rwanda, or somewhere else in the Third World.

Hang on a minute. This passage isn't saying this. He's reading too much into it. Just because it mentioned a desert road is not an indication that God might be calling us to places we might not want to go.

------------------------------------------------------------

What the Bible Study leader is saying in all three instances is probably correct -

• 1 - we should not boast about ourselves, because we are sinful and imperfect, and instead we should seek to proffer ourselves with humility and gentleness and respect.
  
  2 - The Holy Spirit does often lead us to tell others about the hope that we have in Jesus.
  
  3 - We may be called by God to go to places where we didn't think we were going to go
  

These are all theological truths that are important to understand in our Christian lives. But it is not what the passages were talking about. The passages had other truths to impart.

Soooooooo........

As i asked at the start - does it matter if one gains theological Truths through non-contextual study? Or is such to be discouraged. As you may have guessed, I already have my opinion on the matter (I don't think one should read beyond what the passage is actually saying), but I was hoping for your opinion on this passage, the way it was used, and how you would think of it in your church or Bible study.

Thank you for your input in this. Happy discussions

~ Paranoid Android

Edited July 28, 2007 by ParanoidAndroid

[st. Worm]

I'm not sure if this thread is in the right section, but it seems as good as anywhere.

I was wondering what people thought about context - in particular, when the conclusions drawn from a passage are true and provide biblical insight, but do not fit in with what the passage is actually saying. Is it ok to draw a non-contextual biblical truth from a passage, even if that passage is taken out of context to do so?

I went to a friend's church last night for a Bible study. I was overall shocked and appalled at the level of non-contextual study. It was a topical study (on evangelism) and not a passage study, which may have led to it, but still....... we looked at 5 Bible passages, each one verse long. Of these 5, 3 were out of context, in my opinion.

-------------------------------------------

The first passage - The first verse was from 1 Peter 3, which read - But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (3:15). I boldened the relevant section because this was the focus of what he was saying. The study leader asked why we should present our case in a gentle and respectful manner. I was about to answer until I realised it was a rhetorical question - he started to go on about our former lives as non-Christians. He said that because we were and are sinful beings who lived according to our own will and not God's, that we have no reason to boast and therefore when telling the gospel, we should say it with gentleness and respect.

That's not what the passage is saying. If you read the very next verse of this passage, it reads: "But do this with gentleness and respect, (v16) keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." Biblically speaking, the reason we are to speak with gentleness and respect is so that when (or if) people try to accuse us, they have no reason to and end up just being ashamed of their slander.

The second passage - The second verse comes from Acts 8. The leader of the study was discussing the role of the Holy Spirit in evangelism. He quoted this passage, which reads: Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there (8:5). He then asked a question to the group - "So why did Philip preach the gospel in Samaria"? I had a quick look at the Bible and was about to answer that he was preaching in Samaria because chapter 7 reveals that the church was being scattered by Saul, who was persecuting them. As he fled, he ended up in Samaria, where he preached. But before I could say this, the answer was given. The leader said "Yes, he preached because the Holy Spirit led him to preach there".

Hang on. Wait a minute. Hold up and pull back. The Bible doesn't say that. While what he said may very well be true, there is no biblical basis to make the assertion that Philip preached because the Spirit guided him to preach. Scripturally speaking, he was there because he was fleeing persecution. Anything else is conjecture only.

The third passage - also from Acts 8 and on a similar topic. It states that - Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." (8:26). The leader made a big deal about the comment "on the desert road". He said that Philip probably didn't want to travel on a desert road, which would be hot and sticky and uncomfortable, and that Philip probably wanted to go to Jerusalem to preach in the city, with all the comforts provided therein. He then made the link that likewise, we today may want God to send us to the big city with all the comforts of Western society, we may want to be sent to Hawaii to preach, or to America, or England, or to Australia. But it's just as possible that God might call us to preach in Africa, or to Indonesia or Malaysia or Rwanda, or somewhere else in the Third World.

Hang on a minute. This passage isn't saying this. He's reading too much into it. Just because it mentioned a desert road is not an indication that God might be calling us to places we might not want to go.

------------------------------------------------------------

What the Bible Study leader is saying in all three instances is probably correct -

• 1 - we should not boast about ourselves, because we are sinful and imperfect, and instead we should seek to proffer ourselves with humility and gentleness and respect.
  
  2 - The Holy Spirit does often lead us to tell others about the hope that we have in Jesus.
  
  3 - We may be called by God to go to places where we didn't think we were going to go
  

These are all theological truths that are important to understand in our Christian lives. But it is not what the passages were talking about. The passages had other truths to impart.

Soooooooo........

As i asked at the start - does it matter if one gains theological Truths through non-contextual study? Or is such to be discouraged. As you may have guessed, I already have my opinion on the matter (I don't think one should read beyond what the passage is actually saying), but I was hoping for your opinion on this passage, the way it was used, and how you would think of it in your church or Bible study.

Thank you for your input in this. Happy discussions

~ Paranoid Android

I don't know that I see the conflicts in what you are wondering about. For example, I believe you can safely assume that the preaching of God's word in expanding areas because of persecution was the work of God and that was the way he chose to bring the gospel to others. Persecution drove leaders out of their comfort zones and moved them to other geographical regions. Also, any preaching of God's word described in the Bible certainly involved the work of the Holy Spirit since without that not only can the Word not be truly preached it can't even be believed.

sw

[peaches]

you are pretty quick to have caught all of that during the study. i certainly wouldnt have at the time, maybe like hours or days later!

but yea, i get what u are saying and to a degree, i agree.

[Scarletprayers]

I see nothing wrong if you find something meaningful for yourself, but I don't think it should be taught as the meaning of a verse out of context no.

[shepherdsgrace]

Thoroughly enjoyed your comments. And I agree totally that the teacher must be very careful to stay within context. And he certainly should not surmise about a Bible character's feelings unless they are stated or at least implied. I find that often the teacher will put his own feelings into a situation if he does not stay within context. For instance there are many who would rather go to a desert road than a great city! There are enough scriptures within text to support truths without having to force issues.

[Iryssa]

I agree: in teaching circumstances, context should ALWAYS be considered. In St. Worm's example, the conclusions WERE correct despite being taken out of context...but why didn't the teacher just take a few extra minutes to find passages that showed the same truth IN context? (they do exist, after all) The teacher may feel confident that HE won't abuse his ability to find Biblically-accurate truths despite context, but who's to say his students won't abuse it because of his example?

[larryt]

I'm not sure if this thread is in the right section, but it seems as good as anywhere.

I was wondering what people thought about context - in particular, when the conclusions drawn from a passage are true and provide biblical insight, but do not fit in with what the passage is actually saying. Is it ok to draw a non-contextual biblical truth from a passage, even if that passage is taken out of context to do so?

I went to a friend's church last night for a Bible study. I was overall shocked and appalled at the level of non-contextual study. It was a topical study (on evangelism) and not a passage study, which may have led to it, but still....... we looked at 5 Bible passages, each one verse long. Of these 5, 3 were out of context, in my opinion.

-------------------------------------------

The first passage - The first verse was from 1 Peter 3, which read - But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (3:15). I boldened the relevant section because this was the focus of what he was saying. The study leader asked why we should present our case in a gentle and respectful manner. I was about to answer until I realised it was a rhetorical question - he started to go on about our former lives as non-Christians. He said that because we were and are sinful beings who lived according to our own will and not God's, that we have no reason to boast and therefore when telling the gospel, we should say it with gentleness and respect.

That's not what the passage is saying. If you read the very next verse of this passage, it reads: "But do this with gentleness and respect, (v16) keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." Biblically speaking, the reason we are to speak with gentleness and respect is so that when (or if) people try to accuse us, they have no reason to and end up just being ashamed of their slander.

The second passage - The second verse comes from Acts 8. The leader of the study was discussing the role of the Holy Spirit in evangelism. He quoted this passage, which reads: Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there (8:5). He then asked a question to the group - "So why did Philip preach the gospel in Samaria"? I had a quick look at the Bible and was about to answer that he was preaching in Samaria because chapter 7 reveals that the church was being scattered by Saul, who was persecuting them. As he fled, he ended up in Samaria, where he preached. But before I could say this, the answer was given. The leader said "Yes, he preached because the Holy Spirit led him to preach there".

Hang on. Wait a minute. Hold up and pull back. The Bible doesn't say that. While what he said may very well be true, there is no biblical basis to make the assertion that Philip preached because the Spirit guided him to preach. Scripturally speaking, he was there because he was fleeing persecution. Anything else is conjecture only.

The third passage - also from Acts 8 and on a similar topic. It states that - Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road

[OopsMartin]

yes, one needs to correctly contextually, historically, and grammatically interpret a section of Scripture before it can be properly applied in principle and before we can compare our interpretations to the rest of the whole of Scripture for confirmation. Sometimes people can be so confusing because they've taken several verses out of context and put them together in seeming agreement to create a whole new understanding that has no place anywhere in the truths of Scripture.

[EricH]

I'm not sure if this thread is in the right section, but it seems as good as anywhere.

I was wondering what people thought about context - in particular, when the conclusions drawn from a passage are true and provide biblical insight, but do not fit in with what the passage is actually saying. Is it ok to draw a non-contextual biblical truth from a passage, even if that passage is taken out of context to do so?

I went to a friend's church last night for a Bible study. I was overall shocked and appalled at the level of non-contextual study. It was a topical study (on evangelism) and not a passage study, which may have led to it, but still....... we looked at 5 Bible passages, each one verse long. Of these 5, 3 were out of context, in my opinion.

-------------------------------------------

The first passage - The first verse was from 1 Peter 3, which read - But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (3:15). I boldened the relevant section because this was the focus of what he was saying. The study leader asked why we should present our case in a gentle and respectful manner. I was about to answer until I realised it was a rhetorical question - he started to go on about our former lives as non-Christians. He said that because we were and are sinful beings who lived according to our own will and not God's, that we have no reason to boast and therefore when telling the gospel, we should say it with gentleness and respect.

That's not what the passage is saying. If you read the very next verse of this passage, it reads: "But do this with gentleness and respect, (v16) keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." Biblically speaking, the reason we are to speak with gentleness and respect is so that when (or if) people try to accuse us, they have no reason to and end up just being ashamed of their slander.

The second passage - The second verse comes from Acts 8. The leader of the study was discussing the role of the Holy Spirit in evangelism. He quoted this passage, which reads: Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there (8:5). He then asked a question to the group - "So why did Philip preach the gospel in Samaria"? I had a quick look at the Bible and was about to answer that he was preaching in Samaria because chapter 7 reveals that the church was being scattered by Saul, who was persecuting them. As he fled, he ended up in Samaria, where he preached. But before I could say this, the answer was given. The leader said "Yes, he preached because the Holy Spirit led him to preach there".

Hang on. Wait a minute. Hold up and pull back. The Bible doesn't say that. While what he said may very well be true, there is no biblical basis to make the assertion that Philip preached because the Spirit guided him to preach. Scripturally speaking, he was there because he was fleeing persecution. Anything else is conjecture only.

The third passage - also from Acts 8 and on a similar topic. It states that - Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road

[ParanoidAndroid]

Ok, thanks for all the replies, guys. I've looked over them and had time to think about it. I'm glad that most people seem to agree with what I mentioned. The way I see it, there's only a small step from deriving a Truth from an incorrectly applied passage to deriving falsehood from an incorrectly applied passage.

From a quick view of the replies, it appears only one person does not have an issue with the quotes (though he only examined one of them in his dissertation). I think though it would be better to stick to what the passage says only, and not rely on our own extra interpretations of what the passage is saying, based on our own understanding.

~ Paranoid Android

Edited July 31, 2007 by ParanoidAndroid