Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | John 7:18 "He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | John 7:18 "He who speaks on his own accord seeks glory and honor for himself. But He who seeks the glory and the honor of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness or deception in Him. |
Bible Question:
Yes, let's dig into the Word. I have a question about how scripture is to be used -- especially about "proof texting." The authors of the New Testament frequently quote the Old -- celebrating Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecies, and using Old Testament texts to develop and bolster their New Covenant understanding. Often, however, they employ these texts in a way that gives little weight to the original context. It seems they are just seeking phrases that prefigure Christ, even if the quote's setting is incongruous. What do you make of these strange readings? Is this a special knowledge (that Christ imparted on the road to Emmaus)? Or does this show a different mode of reading the Bible -- one that we no longer find acceptable? OK: it's late, and I'm going to bed. So I can't find the examples I was looking for. Some of the texts in Hebrews seem weird. How about, for instance, Hebrews 1:5b? This passage points back to 2 Samuel 7:14. The context seems to point to Christ "The King" --- until it mentions "When he does wrong...." Not "if," .... This is just one example - not the best example. So what do we make of apostolic prooftexting? |
Bible Answer: Just Read Mark I see Tim has already answered you and I agree with what he said. However let me add, there is another trap we can fall into when handling scripture. That trap is dismissing scripture or explaining it away, as addressing a situation that doesn’t exist today. Today many take great pleasure in explaining what the writer was "really" saying. Verses that I believe should be read and understood for what they say, many times are discounted by those that say, "the author was addressing a certain situation that existed at that time. This admonishment doesn't pertain to the church today." To that I say, "baloney!!!" I think anytime you say, “what God really meant was …” Your corrupting scripture. The Bible is timeless if there was a reason to address the situation then, I believe the admonishment still pertains to us today. To say this admonishment only pertained to them because of a certain situation is modifying scripture not explaining it. To the situation of what you call “strange readings” where a verse is used to point to Jesus, but within context addresses something entirely different. Within the Bible there often times a duplicity of meaning, there is a word for it that slips my mind. However in every case of this duplicity of meaning the alternate or less obvious meaning always pointed to the coming Messiah and not doctrine or used as proof of a new teaching. I agree with Tim that the Holy spirit then enlightened the mind to reveal this alternate reading. Once again man has tried to find these passages, and many have profited handsomely (writing books/giving lectures) from inventing or suggesting such occurrences. However I think all the important ones had already been quoted in the Bible, as you mentioned, accomplished, as Tim mentioned, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. What man tries to do today is find or suggest “MYSTERY” rather than LIVE THE LIFE. EdB |