A matter of context

[OopsMartin]

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

Exactly. While one may use words improperly hoisted out of a verse, and apply it to a preconceived agenda and still be correct in what one is saying in general, the problem then becomes who will build what on TOP of the incorrect conclusion. A new foundation and intent contrary to the authors has been established. And now that person lays out a new thing for others to build upon that was never meant to be. This is one of the ways that wrong doctrines develop and can end up the focal points of years of warring.

This example, BTW, is what bothers me about the Rick Warren home group curriculum.

[patricia1]

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

whoa there, Even if a answer is given are you not allowed to give another answer? Pray for your teacher, okay...The Lord is showing you something not always to make a point. I enjoy when my past students thought for themselves and challenges were made..got us thinking. no arguments though but got us researching. There are assumptions that come from man that we may imagine a reason for something...doesn't make it true!!! patricia

[Phil.2:12]

To take Scripture out of context and thereby prove a point allows false teaching (i.e. not supported by Scripture) to creep into the proof. May not be immediately seen, but after the teaching is repeated once or twice by the learners, the false teaching starts to come to light. In this way, false doctrine that sounds good is introduced into the teaching and you wind up with false doctrine being taught as true doctrine. And that is where all the divisions within the Body of Christ first began to develop, by putting a personal twist to the interpretation of just what the Scriptures actually say.

For example, In Matthew 27:5, Judas returnes the blood money; leaves and then hanges himself. In Luke 10:37 Jesus is telling the story of the Good Samaritan and winds up by asking which man of the three who passed by the robbed man showed him mercy. When the man answered, Jesus said "Go thou and do likewise". Then, at the last supper, when Jesus had given the sop to Judas, He told Judas (in John 13:27) "That thou doest, do quickly". So we now have three Scriptures to string together like so many kernels of popcorn; Matt. 27:5 "Went and hanged himself", Luke 10:37 "Go and do thou likewise", John 13:27 "That thou doest do quickly". By stringing these three out-of-context verses of Scripture together, we have just proved that suicide is Scriptural, even encouraged by Jesus.

It is indeed a dangerous thing to take Scripture out of context in order to prove anything as this is the very time that false teaching can easily creep into play. Your study leader doesn't seem to have the spiritual maturity necessary to rightly divide the Word of God.

[OopsMartin]

To take Scripture out of context and thereby prove a point allows false teaching (i.e. not supported by Scripture) to creep into the proof. May not be immediately seen, but after the teaching is repeated once or twice by the learners, the false teaching starts to come to light. In this way, false doctrine that sounds good is introduced into the teaching and you wind up with false doctrine being taught as true doctrine. And that is where all the divisions within the Body of Christ first began to develop, by putting a personal twist to the interpretation of just what the Scriptures actually say.

For example, In Matthew 27:5, Judas returnes the blood money; leaves and then hanges himself. In Luke 10:37 Jesus is telling the story of the Good Samaritan and winds up by asking which man of the three who passed by the robbed man showed him mercy. When the man answered, Jesus said "Go thou and do likewise". Then, at the last supper, when Jesus had given the sop to Judas, He told Judas (in John 13:27) "That thou doest, do quickly". So we now have three Scriptures to string together like so many kernels of popcorn; Matt. 27:5 "Went and hanged himself", Luke 10:37 "Go and do thou likewise", John 13:27 "That thou doest do quickly". By stringing these three out-of-context verses of Scripture together, we have just proved that suicide is Scriptural, even encouraged by Jesus.

It is indeed a dangerous thing to take Scripture out of context in order to prove anything as this is the very time that false teaching can easily creep into play. Your study leader doesn't seem to have the spiritual maturity necessary to rightly divide the Word of God.

Excellent example. I think about the one example, but forgot there were three similar usages. I call that snip and paste. I want to do an example of that in a class by snipping pieces of newspaper sentences together to create a new sentence. On occasion people even use Scripture in circular sort of confusion. IOW ...... one individual thinks another is adding to their accepted doctrine , so they quote the Scripture that says not to add unto Scripture (which is directly relating only to the epistle of Revelations) and that individual acts as if they've just proved someone is adding to Scripture, when all they've really done is disagree on your interpretation.

Bottom line is that the teachers of Scripture really need to start teaching the body of Christ how to study and exegete Scripture.

[MeCajunboy]

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

[MeCajunboy]

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