Prooftexting

Do you know what prooftexting is? It's when you take a verse or a short passage in Scripture to prove a particular doctrinal point you're trying to make. It's popular because Christians want to be biblical, right? But it can be dangerous because so often you can get a nice sounding piece that, in context, doesn't say what you hoped it would say at all.

Have you ever wondered how it is that authors of biblical passages could get this so wrong? Take, for instance, Paul's use of Malachi 1:2-3. He quotes it in Romans 9:13 -- "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Now, he quotes it right, but he applies it wrong. You see, the entire context of the passage is about individuals. There is Abraham, Isaac, Sarah, Rebekah, Jacob, Esau, Moses, Pharaoh ... all individuals. He says "It depends not on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God", referencing individuals. Paul, here, gets it all wrong. He's wrong, of course, because the text he quotes in Malachi is clearly about Israel as a nation versus the nation from Esau. The text he quotes is about groups, but he uses it here in reference to individuals. Clearly wrong. So, obviously, despite all the clear language about individuals in the Romans 9 passage, Paul must be talking about groups because the context of his quote was about groups. There! Cleared that up.

A clearer example of this flagrant abuse of biblical, mistaken prooftexting would be in Matthew. In chapter 2 we read that God warned Joseph in a dream to flee to Egypt. The family lived in Egypt until Herod died. Then they returned to Israel which was, according to Matthew, "to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I called my son'" (Matt 2:15). And that all seems okay ... until you examine what the prophet actually said. "The prophet" here is Hosea. In Hosea 11:1 we find "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." There, see? Matthew quotes it correctly like Paul did, but, like Paul, he quotes it out of context ... and misses the original meaning. There is no question that Hosea was talking about Israel, not Jesus. It isn't a prophecy, but a statement by God that He called His people, Israel, out of Egypt ... you know ... way back when. And so we have Matthew trying to score prophecy points and quoting stuff out of context to make them. Bad! Bad Matthew!

But ... hold on there. If you believe that the Bible is the God-breathed Word of God and if, as an unavoidable logical conclusion based on that belief you further conclude that the Bible must be correct, then you must reconsider. And what you would conclude, then, is that Matthew, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, interpreted that Hosea passage in a different light than the original context gave it and understood it to have a double meaning. It certainly meant that God called Israel out of Egypt, but it also meant that He literally would call His Son (Jesus) out of Egypt. That is, while Matthew did not adhere to context, he still accurately represented the truth.

Now, in our time, this would be a mistake. We must retain context to properly understand Scripture. We don't get to ignore it. The only reason Matthew got away with it was that he was under divine oversight; he had genuine, divine inspiration. We don't get that today, so we don't get that option. He did. So, while we don't get to do that, he did and it was fine.

So, if we must retain context to properly understand Scripture and it is perfectly acceptable for a biblical writer under Holy Spirit Inspiration to not account for context, what does that say about the first passage I mentioned? We have, you see, a conflict there. The quoted Malachi passage is about groups, but the context of the Romans passage makes it about individuals. What do we do? Well, we can either say that Paul was exceedingly unclear -- you know, using a whole context of individuals when he really meant groups -- or we can keep Paul in context and, assuming inspiration, conclude that he rightly uses that quote in this instance as a reference to individuals like the rest of his passage here. In other words, since the entire context of Romans 9 points to individual election, are you going to ignore that context and apply the context of a quote used in the passage, or are you going to accept the context and assume that God told Paul to use it that way?

It's your call, of course. I wouldn't want to limit you to using the context of a passage to interpret it. And we should let Scripture interpret Scripture, by all means. Of course, if you're going to be consistent with that, then you're going to have to rebuke Matthew for his misuse of Hosea, right? Tell ya what ... I'll leave that to you.