The Apostles Quote the Old Testament out of context

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

In the gospels - especially Matthew - there are many times where they declare that something from the Old Testament prophets was "fulfilled."

But in every case, either (a) the prophecy was already fulfilled in the prophet's lifetime, or (b) the prophet was not foretelling anything.

Here's an example of a prophecy that was already fulfilled once:

Matthew 1:23  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us

Matthew is quoting Isaiah:

Isaiah 7:14  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

If one were to read Isaiah chapters 7-9, they would find that one of the temple virgins did indeed become pregnant and give birth to a child, who was so named. Afterwards, she is re-named from "virgin" to "prophetess" - the conception is not a case of parthenogenesis.

Here's an example where the prophet wasn't foretelling anything:

Matthew 2:15
And [Jesus] was there [in Egypt] until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."

Matthew is quoting Hosea:

Hosea 11:1
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Hosea IS a prophet, but right here he's talking about something that already happened. And he's talking about Israel, not Jesus.

I've provided these examples to demonstrate that this happens, the intent here is not really to argue about them.

This way of using Scripture would NOT be considered sound hermeneutic principles in today's seminaries. They didn't give each verse a single meaning, limited by audience and historical relevance. The apostles don't appear to have cared at all what the original author's intent was!

I am NOT trying to suggest that the apostles should have done it "our way."  Actually, the opposite - shouldn't we be using Scripture more like the apostles did?  Don't we think THEY had it right... that Jesus had it right? Jesus also "misquotes" Scripture out-of-context like this.

So then the real question is HOW DID THE APOSTLES HANDLE SCRIPTURE?  I want to do it their way.

-Jarrod

[Amo]

Many prophecies have a dual nature. Some of a local and literal nature and fulfillment during the old covenant, and a spiritual and universal nature during this new covenant. Or shall we say, a literal fulfillment regarding literal historic Israel of the old covenant, and a spiritual new covenant fulfillment for the new covenant Israel of God.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Many prophecies have a dual nature. Some of a local and literal nature and fulfillment during the old covenant, and a spiritual and universal nature during this new covenant. Or shall we say, a literal fulfillment regarding literal historic Israel of the old covenant, and a spiritual new covenant fulfillment for the new covenant Israel of God.

You can't limit it to just prophecy.  The New Testament authors quote passages where NOTHING is foretold, and say that they were fulfilled.  They even talk about "fulfilling" the Law.

[Jaime]

They are talking about filling the law full, which is the primary meaning of what the Greek word Pleroo means, ESPECIALLY with the context of the Pharisees, as Jesus points out, having themselves emptied or abolished the Law with their faulty interpretation. "You have heard it said, BJT I say to you ......

A word is largely defined by the context of a passage. The word "fulfill" in Mathew 5:17 is such a word, just as "abolish" is. It's not necessarily just how English  words are used in other scriptural contexts.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

They are talking about filling the law full, which is the primary meaning of what the Greek word Pleroo means, ESPECIALLY with the context of the Pharisees, as Jesus points out, having themselves emptied or abolished the Law with their faulty interpretation. "You have heard it said, BJT I say to you ......

A word is largely defined by the context of a passage. The word "fulfill" in Mathew 5:17 is such a word, just as "abolish" is. It's not necessarily just how English  words are used in other scriptural contexts.

And what do you do with the places where nothing is predicted, but it is still "fulfilled?"

[Jaime]

I said context governs what aspect of fulfill is proper. Fill full is the proper definition  for Mathew 5:17. Abolish or empty by interpretation is set opposite against fulfill defined as fill full by Jesus' words in my opinion. Jesus explains what the Pharisees had emptied out of the Law, the Spirit of the Law leaving only the LETTER in a lot of cases. Jesus said he did come to do that but to fulfill it, filfull by definition.

The number one or primary definition of the Greek word translated fulfill is FILL FULL. Again, the choice of the right definition of fullfill or the Greek word pleroo is CONTEXT.

https://biblehub.com/greek/4137.htm

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I said context governs what aspect of fulfill is proper. Fill full is the proper definition  for Mathew 5:17. Abolish or empty by interpretation is set opposite against fulfill defined as fill full by Jesus' words in my opinion. Jesus explains what the Pharisees had emptied out of the Law, the Spirit of the Law leaving only the LETTER in a lot of cases. Jesus said he did come to do that but to fulfill it, filfull by definition.

The number one or orimary definition of the Greek ord translated fulfill is FILL FULL. Again, the choice of the right definition of fullfill or the Greek word pleroo is CONTEXT.

How can it be context, when the verses have been ripped OUT OF CONTEXT?

See the example above of Matthew quoting Hosea.

[Jaime]

Which passage in Mathew are you referring to?  If you are talking Hosea 11:1, yes. Fulfill DOES mean complete in reference to a stated prophecy, but not in Mathew 5:17, because of context, in my opinion. I would assume in the sense of prophecy being fulfilled, it pretty much ALWAYS means complete. In a passage like Mathew 5:17 where the verse after verse context describes how the Pharisees have literally emptied the Law of its spirit in defference for the Letter, and then describes Jesus proper interpretation or filling full WITH the spirit  as God originally intended, It doesn't seem a stretch to me to assign one of the meanings of pleroo as fill full to this ocurrence. IF pleroo had only one flavor or iteration in Strongs, i could agree with you. English is a much narrower language than Greek. Look at all the flavors of the English word "love" in Greek. When we see the English word love it isn't even the same Greek word sometimes. In the case of the Greek word "pleroo" it has multiple iterations in definition DEPENDING on something, and I contend that something is the context.

Jarrod I appreciate your questions. I REALLY DO! Good questions cause me to study fiirther and deeper as I "audit" some of my long held beliefs. I was always taught that in effect Jesus' statement in Mathew 5:17 should have been, i did not come to abolish the Law, but in effect I did just that.  I have always scratched my head with that thought, but now I am outwardly challenging it. Regardless of what happened to the Law eventually, Mathew 5:17 doesn't end or abolish it in my opinion. ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING WHAT VERSES 18 and 19 say. Jesus absolutely and overtly re-interprettrd the Law here, in my opinion to its original state including the LETTER of the Law from the state the Pharisees had it - emptied of the spirit of the Law.

[DaveW]

How can it be context, when the verses have been ripped OUT OF CONTEXT?

You need to take into account a lot more when you say "context."  You need to understand PaRDeS - the 4 levels of meaning inherent in all Hebrew Scripture.  You also have to understand gematria -  the numeric values of the Hebrew letters.  (Hebrew had no distinct number symbols) And the use of common words/phrases.  That is how our Lord came up with the greatest command and the second -  both started with the word v'ahavta - and you shall love.

[Jaime]

AND the two greatest commandments were NOT New Testament concepts but quoted out of the Torah.

See Deuteronomy 6:5:
And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

and Leviticus 19:18:
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD

Jesus' summary in Mathew 22:40:
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

It is my understanding that "hang" implies summed up by. Anyone else have a different understanding? My understanding in my earlier life was that these two REPLACED at least the law.

[Amo]

The book of Isaiah is filled with prophetic references to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. All of the events and prophecies of Isaiah in reference to Israel, God's professed people on earth, have a significance and prophetic meaning and or application to God's people on earth to the very end. They reveal how God Himself deals with our backsliding and apostate tendencies, culminating of course in the revelation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (the Jewish Messiah) through and in whom justice and mercy meet perfectly. Nothing is out of context which was written under the inspiration of God in and of the holy scriptures.

Only our limited understanding may make it seem so. If our minds could or would grasp the big picture in the completeness of Holy Spirit filled revelation, we would and will see one harmonious and prophetic testimony from one end of holy scripture to the other.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The entirety of holy scripture is the unfolding of the above prophecy within humanity until the end. Between the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent. The former being the children of God by faith, and the latter the children of the serpent by any other faith.

Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. 12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. 13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

You need to take into account a lot more when you say "context."  You need to understand PaRDeS - the 4 levels of meaning inherent in all Hebrew Scripture.  You also have to understand gematria -  the numeric values of the Hebrew letters.  (Hebrew had no distinct number symbols) And the use of common words/phrases.  That is how our Lord came up with the greatest command and the second -  both started with the word v'ahavta - and you shall love.

I have studied this, and while there is value there... I don't fully agree with the methodology.

First, because NOT all passages have all 4 components.  Trying to assign a mystical meaning to passages has resulted in a lot of bad theology.

Second, because modern Judaism doesn't Pesher the same way the Jews did in the 1st century.  May I recommend that you read the Pesher on Habakkuk from the Dead Sea Scrolls?  The methodology there is quite different than what the rabbis today teach.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

AND the two greatest commandments were NOT New Testament concepts but quoted out of the Torah.

See Deuteronomy 6:5:
And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

and Leviticus 19:18:
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD

Jesus' summary in Mathew 22:40:
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

It is my understanding that "hang" implies summed up by. Anyone else have a different understanding? My understanding in my earlier life was that these two REPLACED at least the law.

Hang seems to be literal.  I understand it to mean that if you were to remove one of these two commandments, all the other commandments would become of none effect.  They would metaphorically fall to the floor.

That's basically what was happening in Judaism at the time - a strict legal adherence to the Law wasn't resulting in justice, because the Law was being kept without love or compassion.

[Jaime]

Mathew 22:40 in the ESV:

"On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

All the Law and the prophets DEPEND on loving  God and loving our neighbor as ourselves. I'm good with that. IF someone doesn't love God and his neighbor, the Law and then prohetsi will have no avail to that individual. Even the 10 commandments boil down to loving God and loving your neighbor, not much else really.

In the New Living Translation:

The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments."

I'm OK with that also.

[Jaime]

I still am compelled to look at the two greatest commands as a summary of the entire law, because i can't think of anything in the Law that is not about loving God and loving other people as yourself. And Jesus didn't abolish or end that. He properly interpretted it as God intended - the subject of the entire Sermon on the Mount by filling full the Law back to the interpretation God intended. Why? Because the Pharisees had effectively anolkshed the Law as God intended by stripping it or emptying it of its spirit.