Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

I agree with you that context is important, but the question remains- how far do you take it? To me the context is the whole Bible. Does the verse or the passage contradict the rest of biblical teaching.

A verse cannot contradict another verse elsewhere in the Scriptures, however the context can’t be the whole Bible as the Bible is not one book. It was written over a period of thousands of years and with many human authors. The context then has to be limited by the book it was written in at the most. Usually the complete chapter would be the immediate context but the context can spill over to the surrounding chapters since chapter division is not inspired. That should be sufficient but there are times when the entire book needs to be the context. I do agree with you that one passage will not contradict another passage in the Scripture, but defining the entire Bible as the “context” is overstating the definition of context.

context: discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation

the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

You said:

None the less i look forward to engaging with John 6- it’s a great chapter.

Me too!!

I have to disagree that you don’t proof text. For example you have often cited Hosea 6:7 without ever relating to it’s context in the book of Hosea.

Again, you seem to clearly misunderstand what proof texting is. Here is a definition:

the use of individual scripture texts to produce apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may indicate differences and nuances.

To charge me with “proof texting” you would have to show that my exegesis of the verse is opposed by the text surrounding the verse. In my explanation of Hosea 6:7 I have not claimed that it said anything that can be refuted by the verses surrounding the text. This is very important to understand, for if you cannot understand what is being claimed and you do not understand what qualifies as a “proof text” that is contrary to the surrounding text, then how can we even communicate?

You have just used it as a ‘proof’ text to support your notion of only Adam being in rebellion and not Eve.

Hold the bus on this one, buddy. I have not used Hosea 6:7 to prove that Eve was not in rebellion. Eve is not even mentioned in the passage. I have used Hosea 6:7 to prove that Adam was in rebellion. I have used other passages to prove that Eve was not in rebellion. Therefore there can be no charge of “proof texting” unless you can prove from the Hosea passage that Adam’s rebellion is not found in Hosea 6:7. Is this what you are claiming?

In fact even in this post you quote stand alone verse not addressing the context in which they lay.

Oh really? Where is your proof? It is not illegal to quote a stand alone verse. It is only illegal if what one quotes a verse to say something when the passage refutes the application of the verse.

So let me say again- we all proof text.

Well, my friend, I would hope not. Are you saying that you take a verse out of its context by applying a meaning to the verse that is contrary to the meaning of the passage? Is you do, why do you do that? Is that the way that God wants His Scripture used? Proof texting is bad. Again – quoting a single verse that is quoted accurately and interpreted accurately from the passage is not bad. Quoting a single verse is only bad when one is misusing the quote.