Prooftexting

I received a request to post something on prooftexting, and I’m not sure I have much to add beyond what has already been said in the recent post from Jeremy Smith arguing against memorizing verses from the Bible (in turn inspired by a post by Matt Cleaver).

The principle is well known: “A text taken out of context becomes a pretext.” But few of us think that we are guilty of doing that when we quote a verse – we assume that our understanding of this or that verse is based on a broad and deep understanding of the Scriptures. But often that is simply because our knowledge is nowhere near as broad or deep as we have convinced ourselves that it is.

If one wants a classic example of how prooftexting gets us nowhere, just imagine a dialogue between a proponent of and a detractor from classic Nicene orthodoxy that proceeds as follows:

Athanasius: Jesus said “I and the Father are one”.

Arius: Jesus said “The Father is greater than I.”

Athanasius: Jesus said “I and the Father are one”.

Arius: Jesus said “The Father is greater than I.”

Athanasius: Jesus said “I and the Father are one”.

Arius: Jesus said “The Father is greater than I.”

Athanasius: Jesus said “I and the Father are one”.

Arius: Jesus said “The Father is greater than I.”

The reason this is fruitless is precisely because, if there were no ambiguity to the meaning of the Gospel of John as a whole, then it is unlikely that such prooftexting would be practiced, or be felt necessary. It is precisely because there are conflicting interpretations that we sometimes feel the need to have verses as “ammunition”, sound bytes to fling at opponents. In other words, proof texts are only used in those instances where their use is futile anyway. If the example above doesn’t illustrate this, try imaging a Catholic and Protestant throwing prooftexts from James and paul back and forth at one another.