Apr
26
2010
Don’t Ever Read a Bible Verse
I had a talk this past weekend with a couple of members of a heretical Christian sect (“Church of God,” they said), who sought to persuade me of their beliefs. We didn’t get too far. They began by saying that we were all born in heaven. The two verses they used to support it were Prov. 8:23 and Job 38:21. It was a classic case of Scripture twisting.
Thinking later about the encounter, I was grateful for the commonsensical wisdom Greg Koukl has shared numerous times. See, e.g., his piece, “Never Read a Bible Verse.”
Here’s an excerpt:
If there was one bit of wisdom, one rule of thumb, one single skill I could impart, one useful tip I could leave that would serve you well the rest of your life, what would it be? What is the single most important practical skill I’ve ever learned as a Christian?
Here it is: Never read a Bible verse. That’s right, never read a Bible verse. Instead, always read a paragraph at least.
My Radio Trick
When I’m on the radio, I use this simple rule to help me answer the majority of Bible questions I’m asked, even when I’m totally unfamiliar with the verse. It’s an amazingly effective technique you can use, too.
I read the paragraph, not just the verse. I take stock of the relevant material above and below. Since the context frames the verse and gives it specific meaning, I let it tell me what’s going on.
This works because of a basic rule of all communication: Meaning always flows from the top down, from the larger units to the smaller units, not the other way around. The key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words.
Read the whole thing, where he goes into more detail and gives a number of examples.
23 Comments
[...] HT: JT Never read a Bible verse. That’s right, never read a Bible verse. Instead, always read a paragraph at least. [...]
…And here’s a corollary: never short circuit the meaning of scripture with Systematic Theology.
Bruce – can you please clarify your statement? What is your sentiment against Systematic Theology? In what ways does it short circuit the meaning of scripture (if used responsibly, of course!)?
Thank you!
Andy:
Here goes…
Systems of Scripture are easier to digest than Scripture itself. They quickly become the lens by which each verse is interpreted. So people become convinced by various theological systems: Calvinism, Arminianism, Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, whatever, and suddenly each text of Scripture is interpreted with a jealousy toward the cherished system. This can delay the journey to thorough biblical understanding by several decades.
– Bruce
I actually agree with this. I have friends who are more ‘calvinist’ and ‘arminian’ than ‘Biblical’ just because they’ve read books for and against those positions and set themselves against the other. I am not opposed at all to systematic theology – I do plan to purchase a book on systematic theology sometime in the future, but there is a tendency especially for young and enthusiastic Christians to read these books in order to ‘fill up the knowledge’ instead of taking the sometimes tedious (but always worthwhile) effort of studying the Bible for themselves and deriving their own convictions from what they’ve read.
I am a young person and I am always tempted to read books in order to make sense of what I’m reading in the Bible. I own three study Bibles (some were given as gifts) and the temptation’s always there to read the editor’s notes instead of reading through the passages again in order to make sense of the text. Whilst it’s true that the notes I’m reading (ESV study Bible, lots of good stuff) are very helpful and illuminating, they are, at times a very convenient shortcut.
That’s not to say I disagree with the idea of study Bibles and books about systematic theology, but they may not be the most useful to sometimes impatient Christians.
I agree with the principle that we should always look at verses in their context – but the New Testament authors seem to have been flagrant violators of this principle. To take just one example, Matthew 2:15 quotes Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt I called my son,” to show Jesus’ leaving Egypt as fulfillment of this prophecy – when from the context of Hosea 11 anyone can tell that it’s about Israel, not the future Messiah. In fact, this is a case where even quoting a whole VERSE, as opposed to just half of it, would tell the reader that this interpretation doesn’t stand up: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.” (Hosea 11:1). Now, I believe that that WAS a prophecy, even thought it’s not obvious as such, and knowing the context actually gives a more startling assertion, that the stories of the Old Testament are all precursors to the story of Christ. But it seems that quoting verses out of context DOES have some kind of purpose – or is it different for us than for the Gospel writers, since they had a different kind of inspiration?
That they saw those scriptures as foreshadowing Christ doesn’t give us carte blanche to rip verses out of context.
Text: “There is no God.”
Context: “The fool says in his heart…”
@Coleman Glenn
I get what you’re saying, and honestly, i’m not sure that you’re going to disagree with anything I’m about to say. But here’s my first couple thoughts that push back on what you’re saying (I’m going to start with the weakest point first).
1. When we quote Scripture, we do not have the authority to change the meaning of Scripture. In fact, it’s our responsibility to handle Scripture with care by getting as close as possible to the author’s intention for writing that. For example, when the story of David and Goliath was written, the author wasn’t trying to give us a nice story about how we can defeat giants in our life if we rely on God. There’s nothing sinful or wrong about that moral, and certainly isn’t anti-biblical. However, I would say that this interpretation is wrong because it wasn’t the intent.
2. Hosea likely didn’t know that he was writing prophecy about the Messiah, but is it out of context? I think that’s fair. Israel was called God’s son. The son emulates the father, and Israel should have watched the Father at work and then take over and extend the kingdom to the entire world. To be a “kingdom of priests.” Jesus, single handedly lived the life and did what the entire nation and history of Israel didn’t do. It seems that Jesus is called God’s son, and even in instances where parallel references to Jesus and Israel are used, it is trying to show that Jesus is living the life that Israel did not.
With this said, the large scale context (of the redemptive story) is helpful. I agree with Justin that paragraphs are certainly the “bare minimum” of what we should read. But I would argue that the best ideal is to know the big picture context: God’s redemptive story. Then I would even argue that it’s more important to memorize the big picture themes and purposes of books over memorizing small “stand-alone” verses. These things have been helpful to me because when someone reads a single verse, you already know what the verse is in reference to.
What are your thoughts?
@James:
I like your thoughts on looking at things not just in the immediate context, but in the larger context as well – although the broader the context you look at, the more open to interpretation (e.g. to one reader the overarching theme of the Bible is salvation by faith, to another it’s the keeping of covenants, to another it’s God’s sovereignty, etc – none of which are mutually exclusive, but which colour your reading of scripture depending on which you focus on).
I had a few more thoughts on the difference between Matthew’s “out of context” quoting and the out-of-context quoting of someone using proof passages to show, e.g., that people are born in heaven. I think the big difference is that the proof-passagers are using one or two passages that do not reflect a major theme found elsewhere. The evangelists’ purpose is different. There are plenty of in-context prophecies that point toward Jesus being the Messiah. With quoting the “out of context” passages, their purpose (it seems) is not simply to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. It’s to show something about the scriptures themselves – that every part of them, even the seemingly unrelated ones, point toward Christ. Christ FULFILLED the scriptures – and by quoting the passages that seem to be talking about Israel or David, the New Testament authors are simply providing more demonstration of HOW Jesus fulfilled the scriptures.
@Coleman
Good point. In regards to your second paragraph, I think that’s pretty close to the point that I was trying to make.
James,
I have addressed this issue recently. Perhaps you’d be interested in reading it here. http://pastoralmusings.com/2010/04/the-new-testament-use-of-the-old-testament-2/
All heresies, in some measure, select single verses as a way to prooftext a pretext. I think we should read at least a chapter for context is always essential to good interpretation. Evangelicals have been just as bad in many ways with this love of single shot verse theology.
Hey Justin, my understanding was that the “Church of God” was delivered out of cultism a long time ago. I am not up to date with their current teachings, but my understanding was that they could be considered brothers and would embrace orthodox teachings. I would be interested in learning if they have shifted again…Thanks, Mike
I think the Restoration wing of the Church of God is still heretical (modalist understanding of the Trinity, e.g.). I’m not certain. I do know the folks claimed to be Church of God and they were obviously heretical.
I always kind of feel bad for cultists who don’t know what they’re getting into when they talk to Christians who know their stuff.
My history prof in seminary had a great story about an unfortunate JW who explained to him that the Trinity was invented by men in the 4th century. The guy was just knocking on doors; he didn’t know he was about to talk to a seminary professor– a history prof at that.
Is this the pentecostal Church of God? (Cleveland TN, I think)
No, I think he is refereing to World Missions Society Church of God.
Church of God Cleveland TN is just about equal to the Assemblies of God, they are good.
When D. A. Carson spoke at our church for PCRT, he said something to the effect of “A text without context is a pretext for a prooftext.”
I like that.
I have also found a good general knowledge of the whole of Scripture (though not based on a preconceived viewpoint)is helpful. Scripture often interprets Scripture and I am convinced the emphasis as well as the words of Scripture is inspired. Much cultic teaching is an inverted pyramid and is builds a huge point on a few verses. A good general knowledge of Scripture is a safeguard against it.
Coleman Glenn,
That is not the only text that the gospel writers quote that refers to Israel in its context. Even if we look at Isaiah 53 it is in the context of Isaiah 40-55 which is all about Israel in exile and God’s promised rescue. I think there is something going on that is important to the biblical writers. Jesus is ‘Israel’ in person. He takes the nations destiny upon himself and is faithful to God’s commission. He is God’s beloved son with whom God is pleased. He even goes down into the ‘exile’ of Israel under the weight of the world’s sin. He, however, rises from the dead inaugurating the great day of God’s promises salvation.
N.T. Wright is very helpful on this stuff. But the writers weren’t just quoting random texts to support their arguments. They say the climax of Israel’s history coming true in Jesus.
[...] tip to justin taylor) [...]
[...] Justin Taylor summarizes an article all believers should give attention to by Gregory Koukl called “Never Read a Bible Verse“. Trust me — read Justin’s summary then click through and read the original article. I’ll be glad you did. Click here to follow me on Twitter to get updates and more articles like this one. Tweet this • Posted in The Pastor • April 28th, 2010 « Jesus: the Christ, John 1:19-28 Search for: [...]