54. Ii. EXAMPLES OF ERROR ARISING FROM A DISREGARD OF THE CONTEXT

1. Isa. lii. 8, "They shall see eye to eye."

The context shows that this means the seeing of one another personally "face to face," and not the agreement with one another in opinion or judgment.

2. Hab. ii. 2, "That he may run that readeth it."

"Write the vision

And make it plain upon tables.

That he may run who readeth it."

The reason given in the next verse (v. 3) shows that the verb רָחַץ (rūtz) is to be taken in its sense of hasten, or flee: viz., that he who reads of the coming troubles may flee from them.

It does not mean that he may be able to run while he reads it; but flee when he reads it.

IV. CONTEXT ALWAYS ESSENTIAL.

3. Ps. ii. 8. "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession."

How often have we heard these words quoted on missionary platforms and in pulpits, as though, by missionary efforts, the reign of Christ here spoken of as the one subject of the psalm is to be brought about.

But this is not to be the way in which that glorious reign is to be inaugurated. Many are the Scriptures which state this unmistakably. Judgment, not grace, is to be the means employed. "Worse and worse" is to be the character of the coming days, until they are like "the days of Noah," which will end up in the Great Tribulation. Then, without any interval or break of any kind, "IMMEDIATELY after the Tribulation of those days . . . then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven . . . and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matt. xxiv. 20, 30).

This exactly accords with Ps. ii. as is shown by the words that immediately follow verse 8:

"Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron:

Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel" (v. 9).

But, these words of verse 9 are never quoted at missionary meetings, because it is all too plain that it is not such means as these that missionary societies use, or profess to use. Their agents proclaim the good news of "the grace of God." They are not sent out to break the "heathen." They are not commissioned to "dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

And so the context of this ninth verse is prudently left out! And the quotation always stops short at the end of the eighth verse!

This is very clever; but is it right? It is one way of "dividing the Word of truth." But, Is it "RIGHTLY dividing" it?

It is dividing it for a purpose; and that purpose is manifest. It is done in order to make the Scripture appear to give a Divine support to the tradition of men, that the work of the Church and the Gospel is to bring about the Millennium; and that, by their means the earth ii. ERRORS FROM ITS DISREGARD: MATT. XXII. 32 is to be "full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea" (Isa. xi. 9).

But here again the context forbids such an application, for verses 3 and 4 state that it is to be by righteous judgment that He will "SMITE the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he SLAY the wicked."

If the context, which is always essential, had been duly noted and considered, it would have been impossible for Ps. ii. 8 ever to have been distorted, and have an interpretation given to it which is contrary to the whole teaching of the Word of truth.

4. Another example of error arising from disregard of the context is seen in Matt. xxii. 32:

"God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Quoted thus, apart from the context, as an independent statement, the words are at once placed, by those who hear them, in the context of their own traditional belief; instead of in the context of God's Word, and in connection with the rest of the words of the Lord Jesus.

Misquoted as above by being taken thus, apart from their context, they are used to teach that the dead are not dead at all, but that they are alive. This is exactly what the Old Serpent said in Gen. iii. 4 when he gave the lie to what God had said (Gen. ii. 17).

But, as in the two cases already cited, not only are the words thus perverted from their meaning, but the logical sequence of the whole context is suddenly broken off, and ends in a bathos. There is no conclusion to the Lord's words. He set out to prove the truth of resurrection, which, among other things, His opponents, the Sadducees, denied:

"Then came the Sadducees which say that there is NO RESURRECTION" (v. 23).

They propound a hypothetical case of the woman with the seven husbands, and ask therefore

"IN THE RESURRECTION whose wife shall she be of the seven?" (v. 28).

The Lord replies by saying:

"Ye do err, not' knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For IN THE RESURRECTION they neither marry nor are given in marriage."

He goes on to refer to Scripture:

"But as TOUCHING THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the god of the dead, but of the living."

Is it not clear that these words are used by the Lord in order to prove the fact and truth of resurrection? How could this argument prove that the dead would rise again if He meant that the dead are alive now?

Surely the logical conclusion is that, If God is "the God of the living," the dead Abraham, and the dead Isaac, and the dead Jacob must live again, in resurrection, in order to have God's promise to them fulfilled. God had promised to each of these three patriarchs, that not only their seed, but that they themselves, should possess the land, and therefore, to do this, they must "live again."

"TO THEE, and to thy seed"

was the promise made to Abraham (Gen. xiii. 15), to Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 3), and to Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 13),

It is a matter of history that neither of them ever possessed the land (Heb. xi. 13), and never had more than a sepulchre there. That sepulchre they purchased and there they were buried (Gen. xlix. 29-33); but it was not the promised gift.

How then can God's promise to these three patriarchs be fulfilled except by resurrection? The argument of the Lord proves, unmistakably, the necessity of resurrection if God is to fulfil His promise to them, and to be faithful to His word to Moses at the Bush.

1 Greek, μή (me), not, used subjectively; i.e., not wishing to know the Scriptures.

2 Compare Rev. xx. 5, "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished," which proves that they cannot be alive during the thousand years, while they remain "dead."

ii. ERRORS FROM ITS DISREGARD: MATT. XXIII. 3

Apart from the context the Lord's argument is shorn of its conclusion and robbed of its point; while God's promise is made to fall to the ground, and the hope of resurrection lost. And all this because a sentence is wrested from the context in which the Holy Spirit of God has placed it.

These are good examples of how a short sentence may be perverted by a violation of this canon.

It will be noticed how these examples point to the fact that it is only traditional beliefs that seem to require such a treatment of Scripture, and that this treatment is practically confined to them. This explains why so many of our examples are connected with these strongholds of tradition. Unable to find Scriptural support for the traditions of men, resort must perforce be had to a few isolated passages which are thus forced apart from their Divine context for this special purpose.

5. "Observe and do."—Another example may be seen in Matt. xxiii. 3, where the context clearly tells us whether the translation should be "observe and do" as a command, or "ye observe and do" as a statement.

In the Greek the second person plural Indicative Mood is exactly the same as the Imperative. There is nothing therefore to guide us, as to which Mood should be read, but the context. Now, the context of the immediate passage, and the context of the whole Gospel, leads us to expect that the Lord cannot possibly be thought of here as enjoining obedience to the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees. On the contrary, He was always uttering the most solemn warnings against them and their teachings. We must, therefore, read them as being in the Indicative Mood; as stating a fact, and not as enjoining a precept. This is still more clear if we observe that the word translated "sit" is not in the Present Tense, but in the Past: "have taken their seat."

With these two notes we must translate the passage as follows:

"The Scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves in Moses' seat: all things, therefore, whatsoever they bid you, ye observe and do: but do not ye according to their works."

The word "therefore" is very significant. It is *because* "they have taken their seat in Moses' seat" that ye observe and do whatever they bid you. But, the injunction is "*Do them not.*" And then in verses 4-33 the most weighty reasons are given why they should *not* do them. How, then, can we go out of our way, gratuitously to create a difficulty, by taking the Mood as being the Imperative, and make the Lord command them to do the very things He was about to condemn?

The Chief Priests and Elders who had thus arrogated to themselves the authority of Moses, shortly after this used it to bid the people "that they should ask Barabbas and destroy Jesus" (Matt. xxvii. 20-23). Are we to suppose, for one moment, that in observing to do this bidding the people were acting in conformity with the Lord's words in ch. xxiii. 3? This consideration by itself is quite sufficient to condemn the "reading" riveted on the Greek by the Revisers' text; quite apart from the Critical evidence which can be adduced in favour of the Received Text.

There is another and overwhelming reason for this understanding of the Lord's words; and that is the concluding reason given why they are not to do the works which the Scribes and Pharisees commanded, "for they say and do not."

Can the argument be: Do the works (which they command) because they do them not?

Surely there is no sense in such an argument. But rather it is: "Do not ye the works (*which they command*), for they do not do them themselves"; which clearly shows how grievous their heavy burdens were.

This is the continuation of the Lord's argument; and it is the only logical conclusion from His words as recorded in the context.

6. John vi. 37, "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out." This verse is indeed divided; but wrongly, not rightly, divided by quoting only a part of it as though it were the whole.

How often do we hear the promise—"Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out." But how seldom do ii. ERRORS FROM ITS DISREGARD: ACTS XVI. 31 we hear the first half, which is an integral part of the sentence. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me: AND him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out."

The reason for the mangling of this verse is the same reason why, when the Lord stated the same truth in verse 65, "No man can come unto me, except it were given him of my Father: FROM THAT TIME many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

Wherever this same truth is proclaimed to day, the same result will follow; and this, in spite of all the talk about "the teaching of Jesus," which is only an excuse for attempting to get rid of the teaching of the Holy Ghost by Paul.

7. Acts xvi. 31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

This is an example of how a special and personal injunction is detached from its context, put forth, and used as a general and universal command.

The quotation generally stops here, because the words "thou and thy house" would show the special nature of the command. The context shows that it was given to one who was under deep conviction of sin. The jailor had seen himself in the presence of God. His one thought was that the prisoners had fled. His one act was that "he drew out his sword and would have killed himself:" for he knew what his fate would be in the morning (Acts xii. 19).

But there was One who knew what he thought, and the voice said, "We are all here." There was One who could see in that darkness what he was going to do, and the voice said, "Do thyself no harm." "THEN he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling and fell down," and asked, "What must I do to be saved?"

To all such in similar circumstances: to all who thus fall down and ask such a question, this is the right answer. But it is no command at all to those who are not under conviction of sin. Such have first to believe God as to their lost and ruined condition.

There are other passages, however, which are not so serious, where mistakes are made and errors are fallen into through partial quotations, where a part of a verse is used to upset the teaching of the other part, or of the immediate context.

8. Rom. viii. 28, "All things work together for good."

These words are often taken by themselves, as though they were an independent statement; a statement moreover which is contrary to fact.

Sometimes the words that follow are added, "to them that love God."

But very seldom do we hear the next sentence: "to them that are the called according to his purpose."

9. 1 Cor. iii. 17, "Him shall God destroy."

"If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

It is well for us first to note the fact that the words "defile" and "destroy" represent but one and the same word in the Greek. In both clauses the word is ἄξειρ (phtheirō), to spoil or corrupt. That this is the meaning may be seen from 1 Cor. xv. 33. 2 Cor. vii. 2; xi. 3, etc.

But, the pronoun rendered "him" is τοῦτον (touton), this. To what noun does the pronoun "this" refer? The context alone can help us.

It cannot be "this" man, or "him" as in A.V.; because verse 15 distinctly states that "he himself shall be saved."

It can be, therefore, only "this" thing that the man builds on the one foundation as stated in verse 12. Whatever man's building-work may be—good, bad, or indifferent; "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;" grand, imposing, insignificant, or mean, whatever it may be, it will be burnt up (vv. 13—15).

"Ye are God's building" (v. 9).

"Ye are the temple of God" (v. 16).

"Which temple ye are" (v. 17).

That temple is God's building (Eph. ii. 21). It is "one body" (Eph. iv. 16). It is a spiritual unity (Eph. iv. 3, 4).

If any man builds any other "temple," or makes any other "body," or creates any other "unity," it is ii. ERRORS FROM ITS DISREGARD: 2 COR. v. 8 corporals; and it "defiles God's building"; and "this" it is that God will destroy.¹

10. 2 Cor. v. 8. "Absent from the body."

In this case a few words are taken out of their context and used as a motto or proverbial expression; and are quoted as conclusively settling a disputed question. We have already considered this illustration under Canon II. (pp. 223-226), where we showed the Scope of the Passage from its Structure. We wish to show now, how these words can be explained by simply heeding the context.

Again and again we hear:

"Absent from the body,

Present with the Lord"

quoted as though it asserted that the moment a believer is "absent from the body" he is "present with the Lord."

But this is what it does not say. Many will be surprised to hear that no such collocation of words occurs in Scripture: and that 2 Cor. v. 8 reads

"We are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord,"

which is quite a different thing; because the whole context from 2 Cor. iv. 14 down to this verse, is wholly occupied with the subject of Resurrection, and a longing and desire not to die, or to be unclothed (v. 4), but "to be clothed upon" with our heavenly and glorious resurrection body.

While we are in this body we are "absent from the Lord." That is why we so earnestly desire to be alive and remain till His coming, that we may be clothed upon with our house² which is from heaven.

¹ See a separate pamphlet entitled God's Building, by the same author and publisher.

² The word here rendered "house" is οἰκτήρι v (οἰκέτειον), which is used of the spirit-body which we shall have in resurrection. The word occurs only here and in Jude 6, where it is rendered "habitation," and is used here of whatever that word may mean when used of angels or angelic beings in Jude 6. The word οἶκος (οἶκος) is used of our present human body or house (2 Cor. v. 1). It is also used of our resurrection body in the same verse, but there it is specially distinguished as being "not made with hands." This shows that the meaning of οἰκέτειον in verse 2, is a spirit-body, because it is not made with human hands, but "a building of God," "which is from heaven."

S

We ourselves are very willing to be thus "absent from the body"; nay, we are desirous of it, because, when we are, we shall then have our oikētērion in which we shall be "at home with the Lord."

We have precisely the same teaching in the word "SO" in 1 Thess. iv. 17. "SO shall we ever be with the Lord." The Greek is ὄτως (houtōs), thus, in this manner: viz. by Resurrection, and Ascension; raised and "caught up to meet the Lord in the air, SO shall we ever be with the Lord."

It will be noticed again that it is tradition which thus requires such perverted misquotations. This is because the errors of tradition are produced by ignoring the context. We have another:

11. "To die is gain," (Phil. i. 21), constantly cited as though it were a separate, independent, and dogmatic categorical statement of Divine truth; whereas it is nothing of the kind. It is not even a complete sentence. The verse says:

"For to me to live is Christ,

And to die is gain."

The very word "For" should be sufficient to show that the statement is not independent; but that it depends on what has been before said, and is added as a reason for it.

What has been said before? What is the context all about?

A very cursory reader will at once see that it is all about the "gain" of the Gospel. That is what the Apostle was so deeply concerned about. He was in prison, and yet he wanted them to "understand that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the Gospel." And he goes on to show that the one effect of his bonds on many of the brethren had been to make their confidence to increase, so that they were "much more bold to speak the Word without fear."

Paul rejoiced at this, notwithstanding that some did it of contention and others from love.

It made him bold also, and bold enough to say that he did not care what happened to himself; he did not mind whether he lived or died. Christ would be magnified ii. ERRORS FROM ITS DISREGARD: PHIL. II. 12 in his body (v. 20) in either case. "The furtherance of the Gospel" was the one thing he cared about; not his own personal "gain." He never thought of that. It ruins the whole scope of the chapter to introduce the thought, yea, the slanderous thought, and charge him with such selfishness, as though he were thinking only of his own personal gain. It is a gross injustice to the Apostle, as well as a perversion of his words, thus to bring against him a charge of which he was not only innocent, but which is foreign to the context.

It also mars and breaks up the logical sequence of the Context, considered merely as literary matter. The argument is this; If my bonds have resulted in the furtherance of the Gospel, what might not my death produce? Christ is preached through my bonds; so He may be magnified through my body, whether by my living or dying. "For to me to live will be Christ; and to die [will be His] gain." In either case He will be magnified. The gain will be His.

But though his death might result in Christ's gain, it might not be their gain; for to abide in the flesh would be more needful for those to whom he wrote.¹

12. Phil. ii. 12. We have a similar example in the next chapter: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

These words are quoted as a general instruction applying to everyone universally. Whereas the preceding context shows that they are part of an exhortation for these Philippian saints to do this working in the Apostle's absence as they had always done in his presence.

Moreover the context which follows gives the reason why they should, and why they could, do this working out; "FOR it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

What that work is, is added in verse 14. "Do all things without murmurings and disputings." That is how they would work out that salvation which they had in Christ, during the Apostle's absence.

We must not dismiss this negative branch of our subject without a reference to the two pernicious practices

¹ See above, under Canon III., Section v. 8; the word "Depart.

s 2 which may be termed *Text-mangling* on the one hand, and *Text-garbling* on the other.

13. *Text-mangling* is common on illuminated wall-texts, motto-cards, birth-day books, and almanacs.

The practice is to take a few words (for the space is often very limited) regardless of the context in which they may be found; regardless also of their proper interpretation. Hence, passages are often selected which may give false peace to those who stand in need of conviction of sin; or they may disturb the peace of those who need assurance; or they may remove others from the ground of grace to the ground of works. Sometimes also this practice causes the words of God to be treated as Shakespeare is often treated by advertisers, comic artists, and others, who are thus able to show at once their intimate knowledge of Shakespeare and their cleverness in twisting his words to an end and for a purpose which Shakespeare never dreamed of. This is done in order to attract attention by showing the absurdity of making Shakespeare recommend some "buttons," "pills," or "soap" of which he never heard.

This practice may be innocent and amusing when it is confined to a human author; but, when it is brought into use in dealing with the words of God, the practice cannot be too strongly reprobated as being an insult to God, and pernicious to man.

Just in this same way we might quote, or rather misquote, the words of Truth:

"There is no God" (Ps. xiv. 1).

"Hang all the law and the prophets" (Matt. xxii. 40).

"Woe unto you lawyers" (Luke xi. 52).

All these are true, if taken in connection with the context in which they stand; but not otherwise. Apart from their context these and others may form complete sentences, but they may make either nonsense or false sense.

We have actually seen the following short sentence as a wall-text:—

"Thou shalt not drink wine"

as though this was a general command demanding universal obedience.