Does Paul quote scripture out of context?

[doubtingmerle]

You will continue to prefer "mind" over Spiritual insight until you receive Jesus as Savior.

Actually I did that years ago. But I now find the insight I receive through my senses and logical thinking to be better.

I pointed that out in my previous post. The Holy Spirit provides Spiritual interpretation and application of Scripture.

OK, we are dealing with the interpretation and application of OT scriptures. It seems to me that the OT verses mentioned in the OP refer to specific people that the writers thought were bad, not that all people everywhere were bad. Do you agree with this interpretation?

All authentic Christian Believers hear from God. The blessing of that is that He (the Holy Spirit) guides us in all things.

OK, but they all seem to hear something different. For instance, some people hear God say to campaign for Trump. Some hear God say that Trump would be a horrible President and to campaign against him. How can the same God be telling both groups opposite things? It seems to me that when Christians "hear" the Spirit, they are only hearing what their preconceived ideas are telling them. Else, how do you explain that everybody seems to be hearing different things, and there is a strange correlation between what people are "hearing" and their preconceived ideas?

 

[Tree of Life]

In another thread the question came up as to whether Paul quotes the OT honestly. I think he does not.

This is a good question and it doesn't just apply to Paul. Nearly every NT author quotes from the OT but their use of OT quotes is often surprising and can seem illegitimate. In my experience I've found that close examination reveals that these quotes really are a legitimate use of the OT text and open up profound new dimensions of the OT text.

There's a whole book that's been written about this that's pretty standard in academic circles - Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.

Only an in-depth study of the issue will truly answer your question. The question is so complicated and nuanced that a forum thread will hardly do the trick. If you're truly interested in the subject I would recommend the above work.

 

[Steve Petersen]

My point is that Paul is quote mining, that he is finding verses in the Old Testament to make it look like they support his views when they do not.

I would not be too dismayed by this. It is a common feature or Jewish hermeneutics and has been for a couple of millenia at least. This fact at least demonstrates that Paul was arguing in a mode known to Jewish people already.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I would not be too dismayed by this. It is a common feature or Jewish hermeneutics and has been for a couple of millenia at least. This fact at least demonstrates that Paul was arguing in a mode known to Jewish people already.

It may have been common but that hardly makes it right. Paul says the scripture has concluded that all are under sin. The OT scriptures he quoted did not conclude that. That is misrepresentation of what is written.

 

[doubtingmerle]

In my experience I've found that close examination reveals that these quotes really are a legitimate use of the OT text and open up profound new dimensions of the OT text.

Ah, so when Steve wrote that Paul was just following a common feature of hermeneutics, that wasn't quite the straight scoop that he gave me? Now we find out, in close examination, the OT actually says what Paul claims?

That's odd. Because I certainly don't see that the OT verses that Paul quotes in Romans 3 really do conclude that all have sinned and that none is righteous.

 

[Winken]

Actually I did that years ago. But I now find the insight I receive through my senses and logical thinking to be better.

Then you have strayed from hearing the Holy Spirit. You are relying upon your own mind-will-emotions. You are producing thoughts, beliefs, from the old sinful nature, not the Spiritual Nature imparted to you when you confessed Romans 10:8-13.

OK, we are dealing with the interpretation and application of OT scriptures. It seems to me that the OT verses mentioned in the OP refer to specific people that the writers thought were bad, not that all people everywhere were bad. Do you agree with this interpretation?

OT scripture, the Hebrew Bible, is directed to the Hebrew folk. Paul grieves for them in Romans 10:9-11.

All people, everywhere, are "bad," based upon the doctrine of original sin. God offered Grace to those of the Hebrew flock, including the fact that Grace is available to all people, to the Jew first, also to the Greek.

OK, but they all seem to hear something different. For instance, some people hear God say to campaign for Trump. Some hear God say that Trump would be a horrible President and to campaign against him. How can the same God be telling both groups opposite things? It seems to me that when Christians "hear" the Spirit, they are only hearing what their preconceived ideas are telling them. Else, how do you explain that everybody seems to be hearing different things, and there is a strange correlation between what people are "hearing" and their preconceived ideas?

Sadly, that is what has happened to you, a Christian. They (and you) permit the old sinful nature to control in far too many ways. The Holy Spirit never proclaims, nor is He the author of, confusion. When the old sinful nature rules, there is overwhelming static in what the Holy Spirit desires to proclaim. You have sinful thoughts, not thoughts about eternity.

One confesses Romans 10:8-13, reads Romans 8:1, and goes before a Christian assembly rejoicing. Sunday School (Bible training), worship services, and meetings for congregational prayer, are intensely inspirational. The "Babe in Christ" daily studies scripture, reaches out with tithes and offerings, sings in the choir, feeds the hungry, witnesses to family, friends, and others about the joy that is taking place in his or her life.

Then, after several months, the joy begins to fade. The old sinful nature calls to him or her: "hey, come on.....let's go sin together. You can skip Bible readings today.....there's a great x-rated site on the computer.....have you heard about the "adults only" theatre downtown? Lots of folks sip a little wine once in a while....vodka isn't that bad.....break out of that obligation to be a "great" Christian. Tell your Pastor's wife that she is a great looker, "hot." Give the Bible teacher a big hug, tell him how cute he looks.........come on, guys, get with the program, be happy.....let's go to the bar, shoot some pool....."

The Christian assembly must take notice, and reach out, knowing that struggles such as this are all too frequent. It is time for prayer, alone, in groups, at prayer meetings, reaching out to God in the Name above all names, Jesus, to bring the wounded Christian home.

Praying for you.

 

[RDKirk]

With an open mind, you could find either. With an open heart you would find God.

"Open heart," maybe, but more specifically:

Jesus went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

 

[Tree of Life]

Ah, so when Steve wrote that Paul was just following a common feature of hermeneutics, that wasn't quite the straight scoop that he gave me? Now we find out, in close examination, the OT actually says what Paul claims?

Paul's sporadic quoting of OT material was common for Jewish writings, but this does not mean that his use of these texts was illegitimate. I would argue that his use of the texts turns out to be legitimate upon close examination. By "legitimate" I mean that Paul's intended meaning fits within the intended meaning of the OT author or is organically related to the OT author's intended meaning.

That's odd. Because I certainly don't see that the OT verses that Paul quotes in Romans 3 really do conclude that all have sinned and that none is righteous.

Considering that you're probably dealing with it at face value and haven't done any in depth study I don't find it odd at all. It makes perfect sense to me that these passages would be confusing to you.

 

[Greg J.]

"Open heart," maybe, but more specifically:

Jesus went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

However he enables anyone that genuinely wants to find him with humility and willing to yield to his Lordship (i.e., do whatever he says).

for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:13, NIV)

 

[doubtingmerle]

I wthe meaniould argue that his use of the texts turns out to be legitimate upon close examination. By "legitimate" I mean that Paul's intended meaning fits within the intended meaning of the OT author or is organically related to the OT author's intended meaning.

Sure, one can always make one's meaning fit with the meaning of any other passage. But Paul does not say his view that none is righteous can be made to fit with what Old Testament writers say. He says those scriptures have concluded that there is none righteous. Those scripture did not conclude that. Paul was wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

"Open heart," maybe, but more specifically:

Jesus went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

If the Father enables one to come to him, what opinion will he have of the verses Paul quotes? Will he conclude that those OT verses teach none is righteous, or will he reach the conclusion that these OT verses are condemning only certain people?

 

[RDKirk]

However he enables anyone that genuinely wants to find him with humility and willing to yield to his Lordship (i.e., do whatever he says).

for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:13, NIV)

I think the two are really the same (my loophole for the closed door of Calvinism). The evidence I see in scripture is that God gives you what you really want.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I think the two are really the same (my loophole for the closed door of Calvinism). The evidence I see in scripture is that God gives you what you really want.

What I really want is an answer to my question. Do the Old Testament verses Paul quotes in Romans 3 mean what Paul says they mean?

 

[danny ski]

I wondered about Paul's intent and what kind of man he was. Did he do it out of ignorance or the end justifies the means philosophy. When he says "it is written" in Romans 11 26-27 and says, pretty much the opposite, did he not have a copy of Isaiah to consult? Some people claim that Paul was a learned Jewish Rabbi. Well, if that is the case , his motives are questionable at best.

 

[Vicomte13]

And if I approach the evidence with an open mind, which will I find? Abundant evidence of error or abundant evidence of inerrancy?

You will find what you have found. In fact, if you make the close comparison, you will find that both Paul and James say things that contradict what Jesus said. Then you have to make a choice as to who trumps whom.

 

[Vicomte13]

It may have been common but that hardly makes it right. Paul says the scripture has concluded that all are under sin. The OT scriptures he quoted did not conclude that. That is misrepresentation of what is written.

Jesus makes it clear that little children are not. So, here is an example of a direct and violent contradiction between Paul's absolutist "all", and Jesus' clear "not all". Little children make up about a fifth of the population, much moreso back then, when child mortality before the age of 7 was very, very high.

Paul's "ALL" does not mean all. Because little children, babies, are certainly human, certainly part of all, but they have not sinned at all. So immediately, if we're going to give Paul's writings merit, we have to understand that there is a hyperbole in it, and we cannot pretend that "all" really means ALL - because if we do that, we run out on Jesus.

Lots of people prefer Paul, because Paul has a somewhat systematized and appealing theology, a theology mainly of the mind, while Jesus demands that people DO things, and in particularly, do things with their MONEY. People REALLY don't like that, and want to limit it, which Jesus says means that they serve money.

Jesus' path is narrow and constricting. Paul's is broader and easier, money-wise, so people glom onto it.

This doesn't mean that Paul was leading people astray. It DOES mean that we cannot read his letters strictly literally, because he exaggerates. Example: He says ALL when the truth is MOST, but not all.

 

[Vicomte13]

What I really want is an answer to my question. Do the Old Testament verses Paul quotes in Romans 3 mean what Paul says they mean?

No, they don't. They provide a type, a reference point. All ADULTS, or nearly all (I can thing of severe cripples and quasi-vegetables to whom it may not apply) have committed sins under the Jewish law - but all adults are not UNDER the Jewish law. All adults, or nearly all, have also sinned under the law of Jesus.

Paul, and his followers, suggest that believing that Jesus was the Son of God is sufficient to be forgiven sins. But Jesus, the Son of God, said that to be forgiven one's sins, one had to forgive the sins of others against one's self.

Who is right? People who follow Paul are the ones who will say that by believing in Jesus they are saved, period. By this, I suppose they mean that they will pass final judgment and be sent into the City of God. They also believe that whoever does not believe in Jesus will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

By contrast, those who think that Jesus has to be taken seriously will point to Jesus saying that he will say "I never knew you" to many who cry out "Lord! Lord!" to him, because "What good does it do you to say you follow me if you do not keep my commandments?"

Jesus said that each man will be judged by the standards of judgment by which he judged others. The forgiving man will be forgiven also, but the unforgiving man will be likewise not forgiven.

These are really two different religions, requiring two different things.
In general, the Catholic religion is one focused on Jesus, and noting that Jesus demanded that people DO things, and NOT DO other things. The Protestant religion, in general, is Pauline, in that it focuses on what a man believes, and says that if one believes in Jesus, everything is cool with God - indeed, they even say that Catholics saying that you have to DO the things that Jesus said you have to do is itself a sin, because it elevates "works", and "works" are unavailing.

That Protestant belief comes from Paul, and it is at the very heart of the difference between Protestants and the Catholic belief regarding deeds and acts - which are works. Catholics get their view from Jesus.

It is obvious to me that, given the conflict between Paul and Jesus, Jesus was God and Paul was not, so Jesus Trumps.

Protestants retort, relying on inerrant Sola Scriptura, that the entire Bible is of equal force, so what is written in Paul is of equal authority to whatever is written that Jesus said.

When someone like me replies that Paul and Jesus conflict, the Protestants reply "there is no conflict in the Bible" - and then they read it in a way that subordinates what Jesus said to what Paul said.

This is THE crux of the difference between Catholics and Protestants, theologically, though most don't realize it. Scripture is handled differently: to Catholics, the Gospels are the highest authority (that's why Catholics sit when the OT and NT epistles are read, but stand for the Gospel reading), because they contain the words of Jesus, and he was God Incarnate and Lord. To Protestants, there is no "highest authority" in Scripture: it's ALL God's word, ALL inerrant, and ALL of equal authority.

The net result is that Catholic doctrine quotes Jesus whenever there is a conflict in Scripture. Protestant doctrine says there is no conflict and quotes Paul for essentially everything.

These are two different religions, really, and you have put your finger, with your question, on THE Scriptural point of contention between the two.

Obviously I think the Catholics are right on the matter. I say Jesus trumps and that what a man must do is laid out as law by Jesus.

Protestants strongly disagree with this, because of the emphasis on DOING, which is "works", and they quote Paul.

Of course, I think Paul was talking about "mitzvot" under the Torah, specific ritual "works" under the Jewish law, and that "works" as HE meant the word is not the same thing as "deeds", "acts" and "works" in the context of the wider world. But I recognize that when I say this I am trying to save Paul from just being wrong.

I have also learned over the years that all discussions of this nature between Catholics and Protestants end in rancor and are for the most part useless. The Reformation was fought over this issue, and neither side persuaded the other, even by force, which is why there are two sides, and really, two separate religions - one based on doing what Jesus said, and the other based on believing who Jesus was.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You will find what you have found. In fact, if you make the close comparison, you will find that both Paul and James say things that contradict what Jesus said. Then you have to make a choice as to who trumps whom.

Yes, that is how I interpret scripture. Just like anything I read, I find conflicting advice, and I need to decide who trumps whom.

 

[Vicomte13]

Yes, that is how I interpret scripture. Just like anything I read, I find conflicting advice, and I need to decide who trumps whom.

The correct answer to your question of who trumps whom is Jesus. Jesus is Lord, and the Father spoke from heaven and said "Follow HIM", and "Listen to HIM".
So, where there is conflict, you always follow Jesus, you always listen to him, 100% of the time, and you either "reinterpret", or disregard, that which is contrary.

 

[food4thought]

When you understand Paul's overarching theme in Romans of justification by faith, you can look back at the OT passages and see that the righteous being spoken of were those righteous by faith, not perfect works (David, for instance, was a terrible sinner, yet he stood righteous before God)... thus the interpretation that none is righteous (by the works of the Law) stands in perfect harmony with the OT passages, and also with Paul's intended meaning.

I challenge you to read the OT passages over with this understanding in mind.