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.

Church of God Cleveland TN is just about equal to the Assemblies of God, they are good.

I like that.

Good point. In regards to your second paragraph, I think that’s pretty close to the point that I was trying to make.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

Context: “The fool says in his heart…”

Thank you!