 |
Article by Pr. Larry Kirkpatrick published on GreatControversy.org December 12, 2003 (originally prepared January 17, 2003).
“Help! I've Been Taken
Out of Context!”: Dealing with
A Common Fanatical Claim
A danger in the interpretation of the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy writings is that of a statement or statements being taken out of context, pulled out from connection with surrounding writings, and thus falsely painted to say what it does not. But another problem sometimes arises when dealing with certain persons. When one's teachings come under scrutiny and are found wanting, the one responsible for propagating them rises up with the claim, ‘You are wrong. You are taking me out of context!’ The purpose of this short study is to examine the testimony of the Ellen G. White writings on this question. Did she ever speak of a text being taken out of context? If so, what did she mean? What can we learn from her statements? Could the claim of having been taken out of context be misused?
Kinds of Statements
The question of context is the question of connection and representation. That is, does a given statement represent with satisfactory accuracy the information contained in another unit of writings? Particularly, does a smaller unit fairly represent the teaching of a larger unit with which it is connected? Akin to this is the issue of synthetic or summary statements. Does a given synthetic statement correctly represent the larger unit it is intended to represent?
Because some documents may be vast, containing hundreds or thousands of pages, it is often necessary that larger, more detailed units of content be summarized by smaller and less-specific synthesized statements. Such statements are prepared in order that the larger units of content may be conveniently discussed.
There are directly representative statements and indirectly representative statements. A representative statement is extracted word-for-word from a larger unit. It is given as a sample of the content of a larger unit. Synthetic statements are constructed in order to concisely communicate the meaning contained in a cluster of statements or larger units. Just as there are specific uses for each type of statement, specific potential pitfalls also accompany each type.
A representative statement can be taken out of context. It may not say enough of what the larger units says. Or, the representative statement might be insufficiently clear in relation to the larger statement, or, it might be an unrepresentative sample.
Synthetic statements face the same potential problems as the merely representative, but with the added factor that they could say more than what the larger unit says. It must be remembered that each kind of statement has its function; it is not a matter of one being better than another, but of finding the best solution for a given purpose.
Establishing Context
How do we establish context? Some would say we need the entire document. We can, they say, never take a synthetic statement of summary, but everyone must read the whole of the document. Is this what it takes to establish context?
A case from the writings of Ellen White helps us. Here it is:
The work of Sabbath reform to be accomplished in the last days is foretold in the prophecy of Isaiah: ‘Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for My salvation is near to come, and My righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.’ ‘The sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants, everyone that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of My covenant; even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer.’ Isaiah 56:1, 2, 6, 7.
These words apply in the Christian age, as shown by the context: ‘The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.’ Verse 8. Here is foreshadowed the gathering in of the Gentiles by the gospel. And upon those who then honor the Sabbath, a blessing is pronounced. Thus the obligation of the fourth commandment extends past the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, to the time when His servants should preach to all nations the message of glad tidings. (Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, p. 451).
What did it take to establish context in the above case? To the first seven verses of Isaiah 56 was added the eighth verse. In this example, Mrs. White states that this is “showing by context.”
This may seem like a smaller sort of unit than was expected. But must we have larger units to show context? Is this the general direction of the matter taken in the Spirit of Prophecy writings? Can we have too much context?
Difficulties Connected to “Too Much” Context
Scripture may be interpreted so that it appears to present a given teaching. However, under examination it may become evident that Scripture is being misapplied when too much “context” is given. That is, extraneous Scriptures that have no particular bearing on a matter may be used to throw false light upon a passage. Too much material may make precise thinking difficult. That is, what we are really looking at is not “too much” context, but the wresting of Scriptures out of true context. Consider the following remarks of Ellen White.
Having No Bearing
The parable of the call to supper has no bearing on your theories. It is a lesson given by Christ to reach to the close of probation. You dwell on this parable, and call in the Scripture, when you have wholly perverted and misapplied its meaning.
You and your wife and Sister Eastman have said, ‘Show us from the Bible that we are in error, and we will give it up.’ But how can I prove your error by Scripture when you misinterpret and misapply it as you do? (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, pp. 14-15).
Sidetracks
Satan will use his best plans to lead souls to bring in some new theories, some strange, fanciful ideas. These souls will try to substantiate false doctrines, and they will take texts of Scripture and misapply them in order to make their doctrines appear as truth. The theories that Elder Ballenger advocated, which remove the sanctuary truth, are just such as the enemy would bring in as matters of the utmost importance, to shake us from our foundation of faith. (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Release 760, p. 21).
It is the enemy that leads minds off on sidetracks. He is pleased when those who know the truth become engrossed in collecting scriptures to pile around erroneous theories, which have no foundation in truth. The scriptures thus used are misapplied; they were not given to substantiate error, but to strengthen truth. (Ellen G. White, Gospel Workers, p. 303).
Complexity and Confusion
And now again our Brother Ballenger is presenting theories that cannot be substantiated by the Word of God. It will be one of the great evils that will come to our people to have the Scriptures taken out of their true place and so interpreted as to substantiate error that contradicts the light and the testimonies that God has been giving us for the past half century… The word is sure and steadfast, and will stand the test. Human investigations will be brought in, but the Lord lives and He will bring to naught these inventions. We are to proclaim the full truth of the Word of God with decision and unalterable firmness. There is not truth in the explanations of Scripture that Elder Ballenger and those associated with him are presenting. The words are right but misapplied to vindicate error. We must not give countenance to his reasoning. … The time is worse than lost in spinning out theories that are not sustained in the Bible to vindicate such errors. I am instructed to say to Elder Ballenger, Your theories, which have multitudes of fine threads and need so many explanations, are not truth, and are not to be brought to the flock of God. The good that you and your associates might have received at this meeting, you have not received. God forbids your course of action—making the blessed Scriptures, by grouping them in your way, to testify to build up a falsehood. (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Release 760, p. 4).
Your position is such a jumble of inconsistencies that but few will be deceived. (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, p. 15).
Masses of Scripture Piled Up
We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. … Elder G's proofs are not reliable. … We must be decided on this subject; for the points that he is trying to prove by Scripture, are not sound. They do not prove that the past experience of God's people was a fallacy… God never contradicts Himself. Scripture proofs are misapplied if forced to testify to that which is not true. Another and still another will arise and bring in supposedly great light, and make their assertions. (Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 161).
Speculation and Shadows in Place of Truth
We shall meet those who allow their minds to wander into idle speculations about things of which nothing is said in the Word of God. God has spoken in the plainest language upon every subject that affects the salvation of the soul. But He desires us to avoid all day dreaming, and He says, Go work today in my vineyard. The night cometh wherein no man can work. Cease all idle curiosity; watch, and work, and pray. Study the truths that have been revealed. Christ desires to break up all vacant reveries, and He points us to the fields ripe for the harvest. … In the days of the apostles the most foolish heresies were presented as truth. History has been and will be repeated. There will always be those who, though apparently conscientious, will grasp at the shadow, preferring it to the substance. They take error in the place of truth, because error is clothed with a new garment, which they think covers something wonderful. But let the covering be removed, and nothingness appears. Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, Feb. 5, 1901. (Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 162).
The above references show that Scripture may be wrongly divided in any number of ways. These include bringing passages that have no bearing, magnifying ideas that are mere sidetracks from truth, bringing together multitudes of fine threads that only introduce inconsistencies, piling up masses of Scripture, or introducing empty speculations. As Mrs. White suggests, time and time again, “let the covering be removed, and nothingness appears.” It falls on occasion to the servants of the Lord to remove the covering of error and expose its nakedness.
Determining context always includes a judgment call. Yet accurate judgment calls can be consistently achieved, otherwise the human capacity to be benefited by Scripture would be called into question. People must be able, at a fundamental level, to discern sections of Scripture, units of content that go together. The utility of representative or synthetic statements can be neutralized if large percentages of the original are given.
Unfortunately there are those so minded that they insist you have to hear everything they've said, read every line they've written, in order not to be guilty of taking them out of context. But human language, whatever its many deficiencies, does have a satisfactory usefulness for all who are willing to use it responsibly. This stands, irregardless of those who refuse to be responsible.
The fact is that many times we will read matter that has been properly summarized and still not be persuaded to agree with the ideas! Our disagreement is no indication that we have taken meaning out of context. There are ideas in the world that are better in themselves and ideas that are worse. We must be willing to accept the reality that not all ideas are equally persuasive in themselves.
Methods of Misuse
The following passage pinpoints some of the common methods used to take something out of its context.
The vague and fanciful interpretations of Scripture, and the many conflicting theories concerning religious faith, that are found in the Christian world are the work of our great adversary to confuse minds so that they shall not discern the truth. And the discord and division which exist among the churches of Christendom are in a great measure due to the prevailing custom of wresting the Scriptures to support a favorite theory. Instead of carefully studying God's word with humility of heart to obtain a knowledge of His will, many seek only to discover something odd or original.
In order to sustain erroneous doctrines or unchristian practices, some will seize upon passages of Scripture separated from the context, perhaps quoting half of a single verse as proving their point, when the remaining portion would show the meaning to be quite the opposite. With the cunning of the serpent they entrench themselves behind disconnected utterances construed to suit their carnal desires. Thus do many willfully pervert the word of God. Others, who have an active imagination, seize upon the figures and symbols of Holy Writ, interpret them to suit their fancy, with little regard to the testimony of Scripture as its own interpreter, and then they present their vagaries as the teachings of the Bible.
Whenever the study of the Scriptures is entered upon without a prayerful, humble, teachable spirit, the plainest and simplest as well as the most difficult passages will be wrested from their true meaning. The papal leaders select such portions of Scripture as best serve their purpose, interpret to suit themselves, and then present these to the people, while they deny them the privilege of studying the Bible and understanding its sacred truths for themselves. The whole Bible should be given to the people just as it reads. It would be better for them not to have Bible instruction at all than to have the teaching of the Scriptures thus grossly misrepresented. (Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, p. 521).
The first of the above paragraphs in part proposes an answer to the discord and division existing among the churches of Christendom. “Wresting the Scriptures to support a favorite theory” is responsible. It produces conflicting theories and vague and fanciful interpretations.
The second paragraph above expands this to “erroneous doctrines or unchristian practices.” The manner in which the Scriptures are “wrested” is carefully described: “some will seize upon passages of Scripture separated from the context, perhaps quoting half of a single verse as proving their point, when the remaining portion would show the meaning to be quite the opposite.” Striking in this description of the practice of wresting the Scriptures is “passages of Scripture separated from the context.” The example given is “perhaps quoting half of a single verse as proving their point,” yet having the audacity to do so “when the remaining portion would show the meaning to be quite the opposite.”
The striking thing about this is that in such a small space the meaning of the verse is being reversed. The statement taken from the larger unit is too small in relation to the larger unit; it tells a distorted story.
Two Classes of False Expositors Identified
Two classes of expositors are here identified by Mrs. White. The next words speak of one who willfully distorts the meaning of the Bible. He uses “disconnected utterances.” The other class is those having “an active imagination,” who interpret the Bible to suit their fancy. These tend to focus on figures and symbols, venturing so far from the text that in so doing they fail to let Scripture interpret Scripture.
Notable similarities between the two classes are their disconnection of Scripture from itself. The willful perverter seems to have a more concrete approach and focus on the more concrete attainment of specific goals. The imaginative will focus on symbols and figures and on the fact that they are explaining the teachings of the Bible. The goal of such may have more to do with their desire for recognition of their personal value as an explainer. We are not ready to push these descriptions too hard, but they are derived from the clues given in these paragraphs.
The last paragraph points to the need to approach the Bible with the right spirit, with a seeking for divine superintendency in the process. Our tendency to follow the defects of our nature can be overcome if we will seek for divine intervention as we study His Word. The latter portion of the last paragraph seems to mark the leaders of the Papacy as the willful perverter class.
In any case, these three Ellen White paragraphs again, where touching the specifics of context issues, are working in terms of very small units, even halves of verses.
Another example shows the same kind of contextual problem:
He declares that the vilest of sinners—the murderer, the thief, and the adulterer—will after death be prepared to enter into immortal bliss.
And from what does this perverter of the Scriptures draw his conclusions? From a single sentence expressing David's submission to the dispensation of Providence. His soul “longed to go forth unto Absalom; for he was comforted concerning Amnon, seeing he was dead.” The poignancy of his grief having been softened by time, his thoughts turned from the dead to the living son, self-banished through fear of the just punishment of his crime. And this is the evidence that the incestuous, drunken Amnon was at death immediately transported to the abodes of bliss, there to be purified and prepared for the companionship of sinless angels! A pleasing fable indeed, well suited to gratify the carnal heart! This is Satan's own doctrine, and it does his work effectually. Should we be surprised that, with such instruction, wickedness abounds?
The course pursued by this one false teacher illustrates that of many others. A few words of Scripture are separated from the context, which would in many cases show their meaning to be exactly opposite to the interpretation put upon them; and such disjointed passages are perverted and used in proof of doctrines that have no foundation in the word of God. The testimony cited as evidence that the drunken Amnon is in heaven is a mere inference directly contradicted by the plain and positive statement of the Scriptures that no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:10. It is thus that doubters, unbelievers, and skeptics turn the truth into a lie. And multitudes have been deceived by their sophistry and rocked to sleep in the cradle of carnal security. (Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, p. 538-539).
Key point? “A few words of Scripture are separated from the context, which would in many cases show their meaning to be exactly opposite to the interpretation put upon them.” Here is the “exact opposite” aspect again, as also the removal of just a few words, i.e., a very small representative statement from the larger unit of content.
In another place, Mrs. White is dealing with one Eli Curtis, who had changed and then republished her writings, and claimed it was his prerogative to do so! (See Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 61). He takes a quotation from her that is one sentence long. In explanation, Mrs. White writes, “I will give the context, that the full force of the expressions may be clearly seen” (Ibid.). She then repeats a paragraph of about a dozen sentences (Ibid., p. 62) and follows this with another page and a half of explanation.
Thus we see that part of the situation of language is such that a few minor changes can utterly pervert the intended meaning, and may require several lines of explanation to untangle from the twisted weavings of deceivers. At the same time, but a small portion of context will often suffice to fairly show the whole. Much of this boils down to the intent of the one arranging the quotations.
Sophistry and Re-Engineered Meaning
Taking something out of context limits its meaning. It removes the specificity included in the original and then in the absence of that specificity enables a very different construction to be placed upon the statement or the passage. Mrs. White's warnings help us to realize an additional point of some importance. We must heed other biblical counsels, including that of Ephesians 4:14: “Be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” We must be wary of what we assume.
While we are to think the best of others and grant them the benefit of the doubt, we are not called to naivete. There is danger in blindly assuming the good will of a speaker or writer, or even the normalcy of his mental thought processes. The world is a dark place that grows ever darker. The fallenness of man increases with each generation. Men grow worse, not better. The gospel counteracts this, but the weight of the fall continually increases in its tonnage. We are warned to watch and pray.
Because our language has meaning, there will be occasions when persons will make statements or engage in such behavior that when they are called to accountability for it they are anxious to escape that for which they have made themselves responsible.
We are warned of an increased problem on these lines which in her day was yet to reach its full development:[It is] after men have done their work in weakening the confidence of our churches in the testimonies, they have torn away the barrier, that unbelief in the truth shall become widespread, and there is no voice to be lifted up to stay the force of error. This is just as Satan designed it should be, and those who have been preparing the way for the people to pay no heed to the warnings and reproofs of the testimonies of the Spirit of God will see that a tide of errors of all kinds will spring into life. They will claim Scripture as their evidence, and deceptions of Satan in every form will prevail. (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 9, p. 198).
Now, when the swirling winds of doctrine have picked up considerably, being wrought to greater intensity by the increased promotion of both truth and error in our midst, we should be watchful in how we receive every notion asserted to derive from God.
Summary and Conclusion
While there is danger of matters being taken out of context, there is also the danger of Scriptures being placed in false connection with one another. While Scripture interprets Scripture, this does not mean that all Scripture has direct bearing on all other Scripture. Through misapplication of Scripture, passages may be presented as evidence for teachings which are unsound.
When called on the carpet for their erroneous teachings, the fanatically minded person may claim he is being taken out of context. He may insist that you have to go through everything he has written. He may claim that statements, whether representative or synthetic, are being taken out of context.
The facts are that often it takes but few lines to present something properly in its context. An added mass of material may confuse the issue, which is especially handy if one's teachings are unfriendly to light. Passages are brought that have no bearing on another, or ideas that are wild sidetracks are pressed home, or convoluted and complex views are spun out, or may be hidden behind masses of Scripture. Speculative teachings must be uncovered to reveal their nothingness.
Mrs. White highlights two classes of false interpreters, the willful perverter and the overly imaginative. Not everyone who comes to you with a teaching has pure motives. Unfortunately, at the end of time our neglect of the Testimonies leads to the arising of “a tide of errors of all kinds.” There will be numerous false teachings, and “they will claim Scripture as their evidence.” In such a setting, it behooves us to learn rightly to divide God's Word, and work yet more carefully with the issue of context. When the claim goes up, “Help! I am being taken out of context!” check it carefully. Perhaps, after all, they are not.
