Originally posted by Eventide,
Here IMO is a good example of a simple biblical mistake.. Taking the word of God out of its proper context.
Do you know what
proper context is?
Jesus said:
John 6:63 "....The WORDS THAT I SPEAK unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT"
Do you even know what the Apostles - the writers of the New Testament -understood as being
"proper context."
Would they pass your
"test" for
proper context?
Do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament out of context?
Let us
(with an open mind) check and see.
Consider
"the context" of the very first Old Testament Scripture quoted in the New Testament. Mary the mother of Jesus is pregnant, and the marriage has not yet been consummated.
Matthew 1:20-21 "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins."
We come now to the first Old Testament scripture quoted in the New Testament:
Matthew 1:23 "Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us."
Was this scripture really written about Christ as Matthew says it was? Is that
"the context" in which we find it?
Let's check
"the context" Eventide. Today's method of scriptural interpretation teaches that the examination of the context is the primary rule for understanding the Word of God. This verse (
Matthew 1:23) is quoted from
Isaiah 7:14. It certainly does not follow today's commonly accepted rules for Scriptural interpretation, does it? It certainly wouldn't pass your test for proper
"context".
The context shows that this statement is addressed to
King Ahaz, the king of Judah!
To the
natural undiscerning eye,
there is nothing here to connect this to the birth of Christ.
Ahaz was concerned about the conspiracy by the northern kingdom of Israel under
King Pekah with
Rezin,
the King of Syria against
Ahaz.
What possible sign would the birth of the Messiah some 480 years later be to Ahaz?
The need (the context) was an immediate urgent concern.
Yet Matthew, without explanation or apology,
applies this verse to the virgin birth of Christ.
The second chapter of Matthew also contains prophecies which appear to be taken completely
out of context, and because the Word of God is to be understood Spiritually, it also would not pass your
"context" scrutiny.
It tells of the
wise men coming from the east to Jerusalem searching for
"the King of the Jews" (
Matthew 2:2).
Herod, after inquiring of the chief priests and scribes, tells the wise men that the prophets say the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem:
Matthew 2:8 "And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also."
The wise men find Christ, worship him, present him with presents:
Matthew 2:12 "...and being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way."
After the wise men depart:
Matthew 2:13 "the angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream saying, Arise, take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt and be you there until I bring you word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him."
Now we come to our next
out-of-context prophecy that would never pass your context test, nor would it pass for proper context with any
self-respecting Preterist:
Matthew 2:14-15 "And when he arose he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."
This was a quote from Hosea 11:1 which reads:
Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a small child, then I loved him and called my son out of Egypt."
In
context,
Hosea is simply saying that as
Israel was being called out of Egypt, they were in the process of departing from God:
Hosea 11:2 "they sacrificed unto Baalim and burned incense to graven images."
Yet Matthew once again, without explanation,
applies this verse to Christ's return from Egypt. Surely we would wonder WHY DOES MATTHEW NOT EXPLAIN HIMSELF?
Let us continue with Eventide's test for passages that are
"totally out of context" and
"you can go anywhere with that" application of scripture.
An even greater violence to the rules of
"proper hermeneutics" is contained in the very next verses:
Matthew 2:16 "Then Herod, when he saw he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time that he had diligently enquired of the wise men."
Notice what Matthew says next:
Matthew 2:17-18 "Then was fulfilled that
which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet saying, In Ramah was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and would not be comforted, because they are not."
Now Ramah, as Matthew very well knew,
is nowhere near Bethlehem. It is not even in Judah, but is in Ephraim. Bethlehem is south and west of Jerusalem, and Ramah is many miles away, north and east of Jerusalem.
Furthermore,
Judah was not born of Rachel but of Leah 
. All of this is very well known by Matthew, yet he once again
WITHOUT EXPLANATION quotes this Scripture from
Jeremiah 31:15 and applies it to the event in and around Bethlehem in the time of Christ:
Jeremiah 31:15 "Thus says the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not."
Mark takes this same rule of scriptural exegesis in the first three verses of his gospel (Mark 1:1-3). Quoting
Malachi 3:1:
Mark 1:1-3 "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face which shall prepare the way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight."
This statement by Mark concerning John the Baptist is actually two separate prophets who prophesied years apart
(uh oh - this is an absolute no-no when it comes to "proper context" - look out :o)
Verse 2 is taken from
Malachi 3:1. Mark only quotes
half of Verse 1. Checking
the context,
Mark left off:
[Last part of Verse 1] "and the Lord WHOM YE SEEK, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger of the covenant, WHOM YE DELIGHT IN: behold he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts."
Verses 2 and
3 say He will purify the sons of Levi when He comes;
"…whom you seek…", "…in whom ye delight…", "…and He shall purify the sons of Levi; and purge them as gold and silver…"
None of this would appear to the natural mind to apply to Christ's coming in the flesh when the
"sons of Levi", the priests,
had Him crucified.
Yet we are told by the Holy Spirit that the
first half of
Verse 1 refers to John the Baptist. Is this just
a whim on God's part? Once again, Mark doesn't bother to explain himself. He, like Matthew, applies scriptures to Christ which we would say are taken
"out of context."
Obviously, none of these New Testament writers would pass your
"context" examination, and there is a reason for this.
"The WORDS I SPEAK UNTO YOU ARE SPIRIT":
1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
You said it yourself;
Spiritualizing Scripture is FOOLISHNESS to you. Yet, this is the ONLY way to understand Christ's Words.
