If understanding scripture is simply "keeping it in context", then why did Jesus have to "open the eyes" of the disciples in order for them to understand? Peter, in Acts 1:20, takes scripture way out of context! He takes half of two different psalms and paste them together as one. If He kept these in context there is no way he could have got Judas out of it, unless his eyes were opened and taught by the Spirit how to take scripture OUT OF CONTEXT! Context is important to a point, but its not as important as knowing how to take scripture out of context.
Context! Context! Context!
- Thread starter lukethreesix
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Lets get this out in the open up front Luke. Context is absolutely essential and one does not need the (indwelling) Holy Spirit to understand its meaning.lukethreesix said:
"For it is written in the book of Psalms" — Peter here cites Psa. 69:25, to assert that the disciples need not be surprised at the treachery of Judas and the seeming failure of their hopes! All those events had been forecast by David long before ( Psa 69:4, 25; Psa 109:16; Psa 41:6-9).
If the disciples had been looking for it it was discoverable - that's the point Peter is making!
"Let his habitation" — Gr. epaulis, which signifies a farm or country area; thus the field. Inheritance of an individual's land was conferred by divine right - Numbers 33:54.
"be desolate" — Gr. eremos, to be lonesome, by implication, to waste. The field represented his inheritance and future benefit, but that was to be such no longer, for his action had removed his divine privilege.
"and let no man dwell therein" — The field became a cemetery, instead of providing for life.
"and his bishoprick let another take" — The word for "bishoprick" is episcope, the title given to an overseer (cp. Psa. 109:8). Judas had opportunity to reach great responsibilities of administration over a tribe of Israel (Mat. 19:28), but he destroyed his opportunity, and lost his future. His office was therefore to be given to another.
The context of Acts 1:20 along with all those Psalms contained the true meaning of Judas and his position in the twelve.
BTW - Scripture is never out of context because everything is related 1 Cor 2:13 to the one Spirit.
If you doubt what I teach as being false, I am happy to be tested.
In the masters service
Purity
Wormwood
Chaps
lukethreesix,
I think what you are suggesting is troubling. How can contextual understanding be important "to a point." Are you suggesting there are points when the authors intended meaning and the context of the passage suddenly becomes irrelevant and anything goes? What decides when a "point" has been reached? One's gut feeling?
The Pharisees issue with Jesus was much more than merely a "contextual" understanding of Scripture. Not only were there undeniable signs that even the Pharisees had to attribute to "demons" to discount Jesus, but Jesus emphasized the true heart of the Scriptures in their commands which were undeniable. It was often the unwritten man-made codes and pride that acted as stumbling blocks...not debates over scriptural meanings and their contexts.
First, if what you are arguing is true... it is one thing to be an inspired author of Scripture and have divine inspiration to interpret an OT passage, and another thing to suggest every person has the privilege of such "non-contextual" renderings.
However, what you are arguing is not true. I would point you to GK Beale's book on NT use of OT passages. NT authors regularly employ typology in their relationships of David and Israel to Christ.
I think what you are suggesting is troubling. How can contextual understanding be important "to a point." Are you suggesting there are points when the authors intended meaning and the context of the passage suddenly becomes irrelevant and anything goes? What decides when a "point" has been reached? One's gut feeling?
The Pharisees issue with Jesus was much more than merely a "contextual" understanding of Scripture. Not only were there undeniable signs that even the Pharisees had to attribute to "demons" to discount Jesus, but Jesus emphasized the true heart of the Scriptures in their commands which were undeniable. It was often the unwritten man-made codes and pride that acted as stumbling blocks...not debates over scriptural meanings and their contexts.
First, if what you are arguing is true... it is one thing to be an inspired author of Scripture and have divine inspiration to interpret an OT passage, and another thing to suggest every person has the privilege of such "non-contextual" renderings.
However, what you are arguing is not true. I would point you to GK Beale's book on NT use of OT passages. NT authors regularly employ typology in their relationships of David and Israel to Christ.
The point you are making wormwood is one should "follow the Spirit" (scripture), adhering to the context and seeking to understand the meaning being applied. Rather than making the gross assumption; "Peter, in Acts 1:20, takes scripture way out of context! " with the truth being totally the opposite, we should ask the question (open mind), "why" did Peter draw on these Psalms...in this way the hidden gems, when found, give us learning and comfort. Luke's (Luke 3:6KJV) admission of being closed minded is not his fault, so to speak, but is systematic of the flesh, (scales) cover the eyes. Without prayer and meditation the one searching can only become frustrated because they cannot find the context / connection. They cannot see.Wormwood said:
What a theme - thanks for your post and thanks to Luke for putting it up - he's struck an important theme for the disciple of Christ.
Purity
These are a couple of slides which may help in better understanding context, its importance and how it can always lead you to truth if followed.
Happy reading
I feel sorry for any christian who is reading/studying their bible and the Holy Spirit speaks truth to them through a passage but they ignore it because it was "not within the context of the story". The Holy Spirit is our teacher, NOT the context.
Good point there lukethreesix, if the conversation is about context, in which case many scripture studies are, then context it is. It is the Holy Spirit, or the Presence of the Lord your God with you that is truly the teacher. Abraham didn’t have bible studies that I ever heard of but he did experience the Presence of the Lord God with him. Which guided him in the fulfillment of God’s Word to him that we read about.
If you have no bible, but you have the Presence of the Lord God with you, then you are delivered even from death. But if you have great bible study skills and do not have the Presence of the Lord God with you, your bible study was for what?
The Lord can teach us anything He would have us know through or by anything within our reach or awareness, but the question is, who is listening? Surly a wise father isn’t going to waist His time with those who refuse to listen. It is the listener that hears.
If you have no bible, but you have the Presence of the Lord God with you, then you are delivered even from death. But if you have great bible study skills and do not have the Presence of the Lord God with you, your bible study was for what?
The Lord can teach us anything He would have us know through or by anything within our reach or awareness, but the question is, who is listening? Surly a wise father isn’t going to waist His time with those who refuse to listen. It is the listener that hears.
On that one point I would agree with you.... there are times the bible (Holy Spirit) can use a line or sentence specifically for you , the reader ... this is actually quite commonlukethreesix said:
And it goes without saying it will be something that you can relate to .... (the context fits your situation ) .... even though the rest of the chapter may be out of context for your particular situation at that time.
Where people go wrong is using something out of context for someone else and expecting them to readily accept it.
Dan57 said:
Hi Dan57,
Do you mean like:
Matt 27:5
5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.
Luke 10:37
37 ... And Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
With Best Regards,
DD
There are certain denominations and sects which use the knight-works-exegesis argument, which is what the OP is defending. They take verses and 1/2 verses completely out of the context of the passage in which they are found, and then stitch them together in a quiltlike fashion. They then use the endresult as 'evidence' of their particular denomination/sect's being the only one which conforms to God's will.
Here are some examples of how this has already been used in order to promote a false doctrine:
1. Romans 3:19-5:10 is reduced to Romans 3:31.
2. Romans 7:14-25 is reduced to Romans 7:16b.
3. Matthew 19:16-29 is reduced to Matthew 19:17b.
Personally, I refuse to recognize any denomination/sect which uses this knight-works-exegesis argument as a religious institution. Instead, I see their leadership as promoting only one agenda, and that is the furtherance of their own temporal wealth and power. And for using Scripture itself in order to attain purely selfish ends they will be forced to pay a truly horrific price.
Here are some examples of how this has already been used in order to promote a false doctrine:
1. Romans 3:19-5:10 is reduced to Romans 3:31.
2. Romans 7:14-25 is reduced to Romans 7:16b.
3. Matthew 19:16-29 is reduced to Matthew 19:17b.
Personally, I refuse to recognize any denomination/sect which uses this knight-works-exegesis argument as a religious institution. Instead, I see their leadership as promoting only one agenda, and that is the furtherance of their own temporal wealth and power. And for using Scripture itself in order to attain purely selfish ends they will be forced to pay a truly horrific price.
The Scripture is the work of the Holy Spirit; I assume you understand this to be true. There are divine principles within the context of any passage which applied to those hearers then, but also to us today . The Bible wasn't a divine library written to us, but it has been given to us for our learning. Rom 15:4 is a demonstration of this truth. The Bible was written for our learning. It is basic New Testament teaching that the Old Testament Scriptures were written by divine inspiration for the benefit of Christians (1 Cor 10:11; 2 Tim 3:15-17 & 1 Peter 1:10-12.)
So then, we know faith comes by hearing (but hearing what?) by hearing to the Word of God.
The Holy Spirit teaches through the Word of God and it is that which speaks to us.
How do we know this is true?
Well the overwhelming lesson of scripture being fulfilled should ring in our ears as truth.
The scriptures must be fulfilled (Matt. 26:54; Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:49; Luke 18:31; Acts 1:16);
what is written about me must be fulfilled (Luke 22:37; Luke 24:44);
I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfil them (Matt. 5:17);
not a jot or tittle will pass from the law till all is fulfilled (Matt. 5:18);
I will not eat it until it is fulfilled (Luke 22:16);
that the scripture may be fulfilled (John 13:18);
today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing (Luke 4:21);
to fulfil the word that is written in their law (John 15:25);
that the scripture might be fulfilled (John 17:12; John 19:24; John 19:28; John 19:36);
that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled (Matt. 1:22; Matt. 2:15; Matt. 2:17; Matt. 2:23; Matt. 4:14; Matt. 12:17; Matt. 21:4; Matt. 27:9);
to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah (Matt. 8:17);
that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled (John 12:38); [the scripture was fulfilled] (Mark 15:28);
John is the one spoken of by Isaiah (Matt. 3:3);
God fulfilled the words of the prophets (Acts 3:18);
the people fulfilled the words of the prophets (Acts 13:27);
days of vengeance, that everything written might be fulfilled (Luke 21:22);
with them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah (Matt. 13:14);
this had been written of him and had been done to him (John 12:16);
when they had fulfilled all that was written of him (Acts 13:29);
then will come to pass the saying that is written (1 Cor. 15:54);
the scripture was fulfilled (Jas. 2:23);
he who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the law (Rom. 13:8);
love is the fulfilment of the law (Rom. 13:10);
that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us (Rom. 8:4).
We could explore each context of these above passages and all of them would confirm Gods Word never fails to teach and lead His people into all truth. Context helps the Bible reader to establish truth - actually its the very basis of our learning. Rom 15:4
Enjoy
Purity
Wormwood
Chaps
Are you suggesting that the Spirit-inspired Word is incongruent with the way the Spirit teaches us? Surely not. The Holy Spirit does not contradict himself. To suggest that the Bible must be taken out of context at times in order to understand what the Holy Spirit is teaching is akin to suggesting that the Bible has two authors and one has to regularly correct the other. This is simply not true.lukethreesix said:
Not sure if I am following this correctly but it appears as if you are saying that at points the Bible can be taken out of context for personal application? Certainly application varies, but the meaning of the message is consistent. For instance, Jesus commands us to love our neighbors. This may be expressed on the Jericho road, in my neighborhood or as I reply to this forum. There are many ways to apply the principle. However, the principles do not shift based on individuals. You said, "Where people go wrong is using something out of context for someone else and expecting them to readily accept it." Again, this makes it sound like taking the Bible out of context is perfectly acceptable for my personal desires so long as I don't try to impose this unwieldy hermeneutic on others. I simply do not agree. The Spirit brings God's people together; not create chaos by giving everyone their own individualistic interpretations.Arnie Manitoba said:
Paul told Timothy to "watch his life and doctrine closely. If you do you will save both yourself and your hearers." He is also told to study to show himself approved. How can this be if Timothy's personal interpretations may only be viable for himself and not for others? Why study if all we need is a slap of Spirit-revelation to unveil something that goes out of bounds of what the words actually say? Peter said that people were twisting Paul's writings as they do the other Scriptures. How can we determine this? Maybe they each had there own personal Spirit-rendered interpretation!
Obviously this is not the case. The Spirit inspired the Word when it was written. That means the message that was communicated was reliable and carried the very intentions of God. So why do we think the Bible is some sort of code-book that is only unlocked by supernatural means which looks differently for each individual who peers into its pages? This thinking is far more influenced by Western postmodernism than anything the Bible actually teaches about its interpretation.
To All,
Ok. Many people presume Daniel's context of "Greece" to refer to the Grecian empire:
Daniel 8:20
As for the ram which you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the he-goat is the king of Greece; and the great horn between his eyes is the first king.
Daniel 11:2
“And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia; and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them; and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.
I would vehemently argue that the term "Greece" has absolutely NO inference to the Grecian empire, (and Scripture and I agree). So exactly WHAT is the correct "context" for the "Greece" reference?!?
(This is not an easy thing to resolve, so I really don't expect anyone to have the correct perspective, -- but Scripture says to teach, and for others to "judge", which presumes having heard the evidence and making a CORRECT assessment.)
With Best Regards,
DD
Ok. Many people presume Daniel's context of "Greece" to refer to the Grecian empire:
Daniel 8:20
As for the ram which you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the he-goat is the king of Greece; and the great horn between his eyes is the first king.
Daniel 11:2
“And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia; and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them; and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.
I would vehemently argue that the term "Greece" has absolutely NO inference to the Grecian empire, (and Scripture and I agree). So exactly WHAT is the correct "context" for the "Greece" reference?!?
(This is not an easy thing to resolve, so I really don't expect anyone to have the correct perspective, -- but Scripture says to teach, and for others to "judge", which presumes having heard the evidence and making a CORRECT assessment.)
With Best Regards,
DD
Purity said:
Hi Purity,
There are many aspects of Scripture (i.e., the Book of Daniel) which the church doesn't like. They don't like the fact that Daniel DIED in the first year of King Cyrus, (Dan. 1:21), but was alive in the third year of Cyrus, King of Persia (Dan. 10:1); they don't like the sequence 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE (Dan. 2:45), when they prefer a 1,2,3,4a/4b; they don't like the impossibility of an ancient fulfillment for Dan. 9, and the fact there are TWO anointed ones (Dan. 9:25 & Dan. 9:26); and they don't like the fact that these prophecies are "shut up and sealed until the time of the end" (Dan. 12:4 & Dan. 12:9); ... among many, many, many others.
So the question is, are you willing to investigate exactly why the church butchers these prophecies, or are you content with the bloody mess that a butcher would be embarrassed over?
With Best Regards,
DD
DaDad,DaDad said:Hi Purity,
There are many aspects of Scripture (i.e., the Book of Daniel) which the church doesn't like. They don't like the fact that Daniel DIED in the first year of King Cyrus, (Dan. 1:21), but was alive in the third year of Cyrus, King of Persia (Dan. 10:1); they don't like the sequence 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE (Dan. 2:45), when they prefer a 1,2,3,4a/4b; they don't like the impossibility of an ancient fulfillment for Dan. 9, and the fact there are TWO anointed ones (Dan. 9:25 & Dan. 9:26); and they don't like the fact that these prophecies are "shut up and sealed until the time of the end" (Dan. 12:4 & Dan. 12:9); ... among many, many, many others.
So the question is, are you willing to investigate exactly why the church butchers these prophecies, or are you content with the bloody mess that a butcher would be embarrassed over?
With Best Regards,
DD
History and its unfolding has and will reveal the Will of God always.
The 11th chapter of Daniel without any doubt describes the wars and intrigues of the Greek monarchs of Syria and Egypt (so far as they bore on the Holy Land), from the third year of Cyrus, down to the absorption of Syria by the Roman Empire. Had the writer been a historian with knowledge of the events and their times, he would have given us the names of the various actors in the drama, such as Xerxes, Alexander, Ptolemy, Philometer, Philadelphus, Antigonus, Antiochus Theos, Antiochus Epiphanes, etc., as such names always loom largely with human narrators. Instead of that, the prophet describes these individualities by the colourless designation, 'King of the north, King of the south,' etc., befitting the exalted nature of the Divine point of view, from which the greatest of kings are seen but as insignificant officials of the moment.
Below I have provided a guide to the content of Daniel 11 which I believe fits beautifully into the overall prophetic framework.
The events outlined by Gabriel reveal the following progression:
1. Dan 11:2: The ram (Persia) pushes westward against the he-goat (Greece) BC539-336.
2. Dan 11:3-4 The rise, demise and successors of Alexander the Great.
3. Dan 11:5-30: The development of the Kings of North and South; their rivalries, diplomacies, and internecine warfare.
a) Dan 11:5-9: Division of the Greek Kingdom into North and South;
b] Dan 11:10-19: Excursions, victories and defeats of Antiochus the Great;
c) Dan 11:2 The rise and fall of Seleucus Philopator;
d) Dan 11:21-30: Antiochus Epiphanes in conflict with Ptolemy Philometer and Ptolemy Euergetes;
4. Dan 11:31-35: The revolt under the Maccabees.
5. Dan 11:36-39: The Little-Horn power controls the north, south and the Holy Land, and the rise of the Papacy, being a development from, and associate of, the Little Horn Power of Rome.
6. Dan 11:41-45: Re-emergence of, and continuation of, the enmity between the kings of north and south; the ascendancy and final overthrow of the king of the north.
Now should you have another overview of Daniel 11 please by all means present it as I am always willing to look into a matter.
Purity
Wormwood
Chaps
The point of these forums is to have discussion. You know, give and take. I present my ideas and your present yours. Hopefully we learn from each other, but even if we disagree, as Christians we humbly hear the other person out from the perspective that we do not possess the omniscience of God. Your comments make it very clear that you have no intent in hearing what anyone else has to say and that you have absolutely nothing to glean or learn from anyone else. Even if you are as wise as you claim, you should try a different approach than to announce that you have all the answers, everyone else is pretty dumb on all these things but you would be happy to clean up all our messes if we simply want to sit at your feet and learn how to be correct. Speaking for myself, your attitude makes me want nothing to do with this conversation. Your best regards seem very insincere.DaDad said:
Hi Wormwood,Wormwood said:
How about if the scholars speak:
[SIZE=12pt]The history of the exegesis of the 70 Weeks is the Dismal Swamp of O. T. criticism. The difficulties that beset any "rationalistic" treatment of the figures are great enough, but the critics on this side of the fence do not agree among themselves; but the trackless wilderness of assumptions and theories and efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology. ... "[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]“This prophesy of the seventy sevens is one of the most difficult in the entire OT, and although the interpretations are almost legion, we shall confine ourselves to the discussion of three which may be regarded as of particular importance."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]We avoid also the doing violence to the language of Daniel, by taking the seven weeks and sixty two weeks for one number. Had that been Daniel’s meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty two weeks, a way of numbering used by no nation.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt](sources available, upon request)[/SIZE]
Each of these views are concealed from the believers by people who are willing to distort the TRUTH for convenience. Yep, we can trust the church to teach us, we don't need to check their teachings. And so what is one more discontinuity among friends.
The fact is, Daniel 2:39 provides the "figurative" type which is "Greece"/"all the earth":
39 ...and yet a third kingdom of bronze [Greece], which shall rule over all the earth.
And so I would observe that where Dan 11:2 provides the sequence of world empires, we arrive to the end-times (per the Dan. 12:4 & Dan. 12:9 Angelic instructions):
2 “And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia; and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them; and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece [all the earth].
... which is to say, -- World War I. And if one were sufficiently curious, one could arrive to WWII:
3 Then a mighty king [Hitler] shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will. 4 And when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these. -- [41,824 sq. miles to Russia ("East Germany), & 96,011 sq. miles to the Western Allies (West Germany)]
And of course where our historical roots (England) entered the war pre-eminent, the U.S. came out above England and the others, (Canada, Australia, etc.):
5 “Then the king of the south shall be strong, but one of his princes [the U.S.] shall be stronger than he and his dominion shall be a great dominion.
Or so history and prophecy would suggest.
With Best Regards,
DD
Purity said:...
Now should you have another overview of Daniel 11 please by all means present it as I am always willing to look into a matter.
Purity
Hi Purity,
Thanks for the history lesson, -- except you can't get there from here!
1. We SHOULD start at Daniel 10:1 to discover that Darius the Mede is the LAST Babylonian king, in agreement with Dan. 9:1, Dan. 1:21, Dan. 5:31, and Dan. 6:28.
2. We could then research history to discover the impossibility of a Medo/Persian General (Gubaru/Gobryas) fulfilling the pseudonym of a Medo/Persian Darius the Mede.
3. Next we could validate the sequence of Medo/Persian rulers to arrive to the three more and fourth, for which history accounts (in various accruals) 10 of 13, -- NOT FOUR.
4. And of course we could consider whether Alexander conquered the four winds of heaven, or simply two (east, south, and east).
All this is a simple process, but wouldn't be much easier if we first complied with the Angel's instructions?
Dan 12:4
Dan 12:9
And if you'll permit me, I'd like to provide evidence for the above to discount the flawed assignment, as Newton arrived at, and then come to a modern fulfillment, which Newton couldn't, -- as the early 1700s was not "the time of the end" and he was left with his own flawed research which he REFUSED TO PUBLISH. And thus Newton deserved his "SIR".
With Best Regards, (and yes these are SINCERE!),
DD
Ok, I started this thread talking about Acts 1.20, claiming Peter took Psalms 69 OUT OF CONTEXT and going back and reading it again there is no doubt!
Psalm 69 (in context) is obviously David crying out to Yahweh for help against his enemies. But, as we all know this psalm is prophesying about Christ. In verse 3+4 we see it clearly describing Christs' suffering, but in verse 5 says God knew his folly and wrong-doings? Did Christ have folly and wrong-doings? NO! So can we just remove this verse from which is now the context of Christ? Verse 9, again we have Christ and his "zeal for his fathers house".
and now verse 25 that Peter quotes in Acts 1:20, IN CONTEXT it is CLEARLY the enemies encampment that is to become desolate, NOT the followers of the Annointed? So not only does Peter take this out of context once but twice!
YES, the Holy Spirit reveals the true meaning of scripture many times OUT OF CONTEXT. If we keep scripture only within context we could not find the hidden treasures.
Psalm 69 (in context) is obviously David crying out to Yahweh for help against his enemies. But, as we all know this psalm is prophesying about Christ. In verse 3+4 we see it clearly describing Christs' suffering, but in verse 5 says God knew his folly and wrong-doings? Did Christ have folly and wrong-doings? NO! So can we just remove this verse from which is now the context of Christ? Verse 9, again we have Christ and his "zeal for his fathers house".
and now verse 25 that Peter quotes in Acts 1:20, IN CONTEXT it is CLEARLY the enemies encampment that is to become desolate, NOT the followers of the Annointed? So not only does Peter take this out of context once but twice!
YES, the Holy Spirit reveals the true meaning of scripture many times OUT OF CONTEXT. If we keep scripture only within context we could not find the hidden treasures.
