have a frustration. It’s something that I am guilty of myself, so I am not just pointing fingers at others. But lately, I’m becoming more and more sensitive to it.
It’s the issue of “proof-texting”. That is, pulling a verse of Scripture out as a defense of something without consideration to the context surrounding it.
Now, some have argued in the past that this method of interpretation is not inconsistent with how the writers of the New Testament quoted writers of the Old Testament. It would appear from time to time that, indeed, the writers of the New Testament do play fast and loose with the Old Testament.
For example, in Matthew 1:23, Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 about a virgin bearing a son. Ironically, Matthew states that Mary’s pregnancy is a fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy, even while the following two points are true:
- Isaiah records a prophecy given to a certain person at a certain time about a certain event, seemingly unrelated to the birth of Jesus centuries later
- Isaiah’s prophecy says that the baby will be named “Immanuel”, meaning “God with us”, yet Joseph was instructed (in what Matthew says is the fulfillment) to name the baby “Jesus”, which means “God saves”.
But the point of this post is not to question Matthew’s use of Isaiah. The point is to question our modern usage of some Scripture verses.
Let me throw one out that has bothered me for a long time.
How many times have you heard criticism of a leader squelched with the phrase, “Don’t touch the Lord’s anointed”? Depending on what circles you run in, you may have heard that one a lot. I sure have.
Recently in our cover-to-cover reading of the Bible during our homeschool morning routine, we came across that phrase in 1 Chronicles 16:22. This is later echoed in the parallel passage in Psalm 105:15.
But I was amazed to find out that David was not referring to God’s people questioning their leaders. Let’s look at this phrase in context (1 Chronicles 16:19-22, NASB):
When [the Israelites] were only a few in number,
Very few, and strangers in [the Promised Land],
And they wandered about from nation to nation,
And from one kingdom to another people,
He permitted no man to oppress them,
And He reproved kings for their sakes, saying,
“Do not touch My anointed ones,
And do My prophets no harm.”
Notice who he’s talking about. He’s talking about the whole nation of Israel when he says “my anointed ones”. And he’s rebuking ungodly kings who sought to do them harm by saying, “Don’t touch them!”
What a difference context makes.
There are other passages that I would like to set the record straight on, but I will leave it at this for now. Maybe I’ll turn it into a series. Who knows? But rest assured that I am learning to watch my own use of Scripture and making sure I’m not wresting verses out of their context to support my point.
Until next time,
steve 
Well, I’ve heard that one used out of context too. Isn’t it something how we wrap the Scriptures around our ideas instead of wrapping our ideas around the Scriptures. Maybe what’s even crazier is that we call the practice “biblical”.
Proof Texting = Bad
Proof Reading = Good
Thanks for catching my $300,000 blunder.
And then you read through the book of Hebrews, and see how verses are used waaaay out of context from the OT. Even Jesus did it (“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me . . .). And they’re quoting the LXX which isn’t a very literal translation.
Is there a hermeneutic that is consistent with the way that scripture interprets itself? I’m not asking cynically, even though I know that every group says that they have one.
Scripture seems to be bigger than we make it out to be.
Steve, more and more we see this happening. Every time one wants to add punch to his/her line, they break out a verse. I’ve been reading more and more of the surrounding text when someone tosses that into the comment streams lately. What an enlightening experience. good post. great thoughts. selahV
P.S. I have one pet peeve of my own that I’d been thinking about posting on in the future.
Having come out from a Pentescostal church before, I know – in my circles then – that proof texting is a way of life! How I agree with you. Context changes everything!
One of my pet peeves is having Hebrews 10:25 (“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.”) quoted to those who have decided not to attend church services. I’ve lost count of the time that I tell them that the only thing I may have forsaken is the Sunday meeting, not the meeting of other believers nor have we stopped encouraging one another. How did “gathering together” became “Sunday services” anyway?
Steve,
Do you have a verse to back this up?
-Alan
Sometime in the last year I saw an item in the Next Wave e-zine about the damage done when verse markings were inserted in the NT text in the 1500s (supposedly worked out by a printer while riding horseback from Lyons to Paris–helps understand why some of the divisions are in funky places). And people have been proof-texting and pulling things out of context ever since. (The oldest Greek NT manuscripts not only lack the verse markings, as well as the chapters, which are only slightly older than the verses; they don’t have punctuation or spaces between words. Makes you really appreciate the work of the translators. But even the punctuation in our English Bibles is at times an interpretation.)
The Septuagint, by the way, may not be as literal a translation as we expect today, but it also may represent a different Hebrew text; the Masoretic text that became the base for all the OT translations since the Reformation was actually produced after Christianity began–100-150 years after. And there were a couple of attempts by the Jews around that time to replace the Septuagint with new Greek translations that didn’t play up the Messianic elements as much. Because of the Jewish custom of destroying worn-out manuscripts, we have very few Hebrew OTs earlier than the Middle Ages.
Anyway, if Jesus or Paul said a certain passage means such-and-such, I’ll take their word for it. Ditto for the rest of the apostles. Just about anybody else, especially from 1800-2000, and I’ll try to go back and look at the context, and maybe do some thinking about what axes this person wants to grind.
Taking Scripture out of context is probably the #1 complaint of all Bible teachers. The “anointed” scripture you referred to does relate as you said to the people, however, we have the idea of not touching “God’s anointed” relating to leadership in the actions of David in reference to Saul, so I do not think the concept is out of context. We just should not use that passage to support all.
Also, I do believe in inspiration, therefore the writers of Scripture could,under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, relate a verse or portion of Scripture to something that to us seems completely out of context. I do not believe we have the same freedom today. They could use as led. We need to be full of integrity and use only when the context supports the usage.
There are some “concepts” that are supported by the complete Scripture package, but it is rare to find a teacher who has read the entire package enough to know what these are and when they occur. Let those with ears, hear, read…whatever.
Blessings.
Good post. I’d be interested in hearing more of these verses. A series sounds great to me. I relate to the one you mentioned in this post (it was a favourite of the Shepherding Movement, and its controlling tendencies). I also relate to the complaint about Heb 10:25 being used against those who opt out of Sunday morning Christianity and fellowship in different ways. I think the common thread is not just that these scriptures are taken out of context (which they most definately are), but that they are being used to ensure conformity (and control). They become “the party line” as it were, and are used to justify and maintain cultural practices (of institutional culture). This is common of religiousity which seeks to maintain the status quo rather than to grow, mature or expand. We are on a journey with God in which He is revealing Himself to us in process, and His kingdom is expanding in our lives. This is not a static thing. It’s a dynamic thing. That’s why I don’t like it when people deal with the scriptures in a static way. Martin Luther didn’t deal with them in a static way, and didn’t “submit to authority” and maintain the status quo. Thank God! The Church is always growing in it’s understanding. But it takes humility to admit we don’t fully understand yet. It takes humility to ask God what HE was and is trying to say to us through His Word.
This is another one of those times where we selectively “dip” into the OT to back up a certain claim without weighing it against the claims of Christ. Caution is in order, IMO, but I know of one preacher in our local association who does this, and I would say that this would surprise you, Steve, but I think by now, nothing does.
This is the verse my brother pastor runs to if someone rises up against him and questions him and “his” “authority” in “his” church.
“Touch not thine anointed!” A few years ago, before I knew better, I asked his advice on something that was troubling me and how to courteously and gently address a church member who had challenged me. My name was being dragged through the mud, or so I thought (funny how that works), and he offered those sage words of wisdom and that I should preach a sermon on 1 Chronicles 16:22.
I didn’t.
Nevertheless, he gave me a tape of the sermon he preached on the verse. WOW. I think it qualifies as dictatorial spiritual abuse, if there is such a thing. I will just leave it at that.
Also, some of my pet peeve verses that get dragged out of context kicking and screaming quite often are Matthew 18:20 and Galatians 3:28.
Steve,
Phil and David bring up some interesting ideas about the loss of original documents and the writers of the NT and Jesus taking things out of context. Anymore, it seems hard to find the hope or good within the message of Christ or God himself.
What am I supposed to believe at this point if seeds of doubt are planted about even Christ twisting scripture to fit his agenda?
How do I offer hope? Do I offer up a minimum of information only to hope the person blindly follows some pastor who will spoon-feed them until kingdom come? Or do I sit them down and tell them every brutal and twisted and greedy thing man has done to the message of Christ and hope they don’t become jaded like I?
The idea of child-like faith seems so distant and foreign while cynicism and jaded thoughts about God and his creation (us) rule the day.
It seems, at least for me, much easier to get mired in the critiquing of humans than actually going out and doing what it is God has commanded us to do. I’m not sure, however, what it is exactly I’m supposed to be doing.
Do I dig through centuries of man to get to God to find truth? Do I find truth along the way? What is truth if man has had his hand in recipe for so long?
Why is so much stock put into the scriptures when they have obviously been tainted? If chapters and verses are man’s addition, why do we still rely on that format? And if the writers of the NT took things out of context, why do we lean more heavily on the NT instead of the OT? And if the NT was put together by men of questionable motives (Council of Nicaea), why do we still read that compilation?
It’s no wonder people have turned away from Christ in western culture. Life is hard enough without opting in to this mess. Its no wonder ‘church’ has become a consumer based organization; what with the only way of keeping people seated and giving is to make it as easy and entertaining as possible.
WOW! Do I ever agree with you about context. So much seems to be done today in the name of Jesus. I think it is paramount that we look at scripture with our preconceived ideas on the back burner and let the Lord speak through His word. God bless you.
I’m sorry that I didn’t engage with some of the great comments on this post. Some of you have made some excellent points, and I hope to follow up on them sometime in another post.