Poor Theology - Who needs context anyway?

[tango]

This one is an interesting quirk I found on the web site of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City. Thankfully a lot of people haven't heard of IHOP in any context other than pancakes because a lot of what goes on at IHOP is odd to say the least.

When looking at their web site I found something rather interesting, called the Israel Mandate. Apparently we as Christians have a mandate to reach out to the Jewish people. On IHOP's own FAQ on the Israel Mandate (found at http://www.ihopkc.org/israelmandate/faq/) they start out talking about a few things regarding Jews and Gentiles, and then in the last paragraph slip in a total curve ball where the flagrant misuse of Scripture is concerned.

The page says that we Gentiles are supposed to provoke the Jewish people in a number of ways including "moving in the supernatural". Curiously they cite 1Co 1:22 as "evidence" that we should move in the supernatural to provoke the Jews. Let's look at what the verse says:

1Co 1:22 NKJV For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;

So far so good, the Jews request a sign, so we should give them a sign. But hold on a minute. What about the context of the verse?

1Co 1:21-25 NKJV For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (22) For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; (23) but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, (24) but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (25) Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

So the Jews request a sign but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block. In other words the Jews seek a sign and we're not giving them one - we're giving them something else, something better. It's not even as if this context alone queries the whole "seeking a sign" approach - Jesus himself said that "a wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign" (Matt 16:4).

So when Jesus was unimpressed by the Pharisees seeking a sign, when the context of 1Co 1:22 doesn't support providing the Jewish people with supernatural signs at all, I wonder why IHOP states that we must move in the supernatural to provide a sign after all. Do they know something we don't, or are teaching the opposite of what Scripture teaches? It's worth serious thought for anyone thinking of getting involved with them.

 

[onlyme]

Someone has said that context is co-text.

The 'promise box', context-free approach to interpretation is far different. "And Judas went and hanged himself." "Go thou, and do likewise." (Really??)

 

[psalms 91]

Inn scripture we are told to pray for the peace of Jerusalem and we are commanded to go forth so in this sense I would say that we are called to go to the Jews and present Christ. and keep them in prayer

 

[tango]

Inn scripture we are told to pray for the peace of Jerusalem and we are commanded to go forth so in this sense I would say that we are called to go to the Jews and present Christ. and keep them in prayer

That's a very different statement than what IHOP say about how we should "move in the supernatural", plucking a verse totally out of context to make it appear to say the exact opposite of what it actually says.

 

[onlyme]

That's a very different statement than what IHOP say about how we should "move in the supernatural", plucking a verse totally out of context to make it appear to say the exact opposite of what it actually says.

It's a pity when politics seems to be the driving force around hermeneutics.

 

[tango]

It's a pity when politics seems to be the driving force around hermeneutics.

Yes indeed. It varies from inappropriate to really very sad when people misuse Scripture to create promises that weren't there. I just posted another thread - "Poor Theology - Declare a thing!" with another example.

 

[onlyme]

Yes indeed. It varies from inappropriate to really very sad when people misuse Scripture to create promises that weren't there. I just posted another thread - "Poor Theology - Declare a thing!" with another example.

"Wonderful things in the Bible I see, Especially what's put there by you and by me."

 

[tango]

Someone has said that context is co-text.

The 'promise box', context-free approach to interpretation is far different. "And Judas went and hanged himself." "Go thou, and do likewise." (Really??)

John 13:27b ESV, "What you are going to do, do quickly"

It's remarkable what you can pull out of Scripture if you're willing to cut-n-paste it like a ransom note?

 

[onlyme]

John 13:27b ESV, "What you are going to do, do quickly"

It's remarkable what you can pull out of Scripture if you're willing to cut-n-paste it like a ransom note?

Another one is, Who is the passage talking about? the church or Israel?

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's interesting how verses get lifted out of context and whole theologies are built on the out of context misuse of them. The paragraph in which the original post's key verse occurs (in the ASV) is this:

Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them [that are of the household] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptised into the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptised none of you, save Crispus and Gaius; lest any man should say that ye were baptised into my name. And I baptised also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptised any other. For Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written,​

I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nought.​

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe. Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

(1 Corinthians 1:10-25 ASV-1901)
​

It's worth noticing that saint Paul is concerned with people looking for something to make the faith sound credible to Greeks or to Jews but saint Paul will have none of it. The gospel is true because it is true and not because it is full of fancy philosophical concepts eloquently assembled as proofs for the sceptic and stoic philosophers of his day nor is it filled with miracle powers to prove to Jewish opponents that it is a message from God. Today's miracle mongers and masters of apologetic-philosophy try to dress the gospel in fancy clothes to prove it is credible and they fail because the fancy clothes they dress it in are like the emperor's new clothes in the morality-tale and saint Paul calls the gospel (the saving truth which truly is the power of God) foolishness to them that seek after wisdom. And the gospel is weakness to them that seek a sign. So as the original poster pointed out the idea expressed by IHOP is contrary to the preaching of Christ crucified because it seeks a sign to clothe the gospel in. How sad it is to see whole denominations seeking signs to bolster the faith when all that is needed is the truth of the gospel.

 

[hedrick]

I agree about the need for context. But the most serious modern controversies within Christianity are about how to do that properly.

Remember that gay-friendly exegesis is basically about context, that Paul was speaking of a specific approach to sexuality in the culture around him, and not necessarily modern gays. After all, this kind of interpretation is already used to deny that modern tax collectors are covered by Jesus' repeated references to "sinners and tax collectors." That one is so obvious that people probably think it's silly to bring it up, but it is an example of the same action having difficult implications depending upon culture context. There was more controversy historically over banks charging interest (that literal interpretation seems to have been abandoned around the 16th Cent) and the acceptance of slavery. Those both resulted in very serious controversies.

Similarly, modern Christology is based on looking at the context of passages such as John 1. What did 1st Cent Jewish writers think the Logos was? Was it anything like a separate, eternal Person in God?

Then we have the broader contextual issue: Just what kind of work is the Bible anyway? Are Paul's letters God's eternal law, or Paul's advice to congregations in specific situations? Are the historical books human works that show us God's working in history, or God's own message directly to us? The modern Protestant view certainly isn't obvious. During much of the medieval period much of the Bible was understood allegorically. Calvin used current critical methods, though they were quite limited compared with today's study. The current conservative Protestant approach seems to have been invented in the 17th Cent as a response to Catholic objections to sola scriptura.

Most people who advocate paying attention to context seem to have an implicit restriction “as long as it doesn’t result in anything my tradition can’t accept.”

 

[tango]

I agree about the need for context. But the most serious modern controversies within Christianity are about how to do that properly.

Remember that gay-friendly exegesis is basically about context, that Paul was speaking of a specific approach to sexuality in the culture around him, and not necessarily modern gays. After all, this kind of interpretation is already used to deny that modern tax collectors are covered by Jesus' repeated references to "sinners and tax collectors." That one is so obvious that people probably think it's silly to bring it up, but it is an example of the same action having difficult implications depending upon culture context. There was more controversy historically over banks charging interest (that literal interpretation seems to have been abandoned around the 16th Cent) and the acceptance of slavery. Those both resulted in very serious controversies.

Sure, there do seem to be people who look at the one verse in Leviticus that prohibits homosexual activity and ignore other verses in Leviticus. The most ironic example of that was the picture circulating a while back of the guy who had Lev 18:22 tattooed on his arm, apparently ignorant of Lev 19:28.

Similarly, modern Christology is based on looking at the context of passages such as John 1. What did 1st Cent Jewish writers think the Logos was? Was it anything like a separate, eternal Person in God?

Then we have the broader contextual issue: Just what kind of work is the Bible anyway? Are Paul's letters God's eternal law, or Paul's advice to congregations in specific situations? Are the historical books human works that show us God's working in history, or God's own message directly to us? The modern Protestant view certainly isn't obvious. During much of the medieval period much of the Bible was understood allegorically. Calvin used current critical methods, though they were quite limited compared with today's study. The current conservative Protestant approach seems to have been invented in the 17th Cent as a response to Catholic objections to sola scriptura.

All these are good questions, and also relate to the questions of who decided which books were considered "scripture" and on what basis. It's clear that some of what Paul wrote is culturally relevant and of no modern relevance (e.g. 2Ti 4:13), but there certainly is a case to be made to determine what is relevant today and what is not.

Most people who advocate paying attention to context seem to have an implicit restriction “as long as it doesn’t result in anything my tradition can’t accept.”

That's also true, which is why my signature says what it does. If we just want to find some verses from the Bible to support what we wanted to do in the first place we might as well be intellectually honest enough to chuck it in the trash and fall back on "do what thou will shall be the whole of the law". If we're picking and choosing which parts of the Bible we want to accept, whether it's because our tradition doesn't like the other bits or because we find them too inconvenient or whatever else, we're not actually following Jesus at all.