1

Does the New Testament Quote the Old Testament Out of Context?
Craig S. Keener
Some claim that the apostles took Scripture out of context in the New Testament, and that their
example authorizes us to do the same. We could respond that, no matter how led by the Spirit we
may be, we are not writing Scripture.
But the fact is that claims about New Testament writers taking the Old Testament out of context
are mostly overrated. Some passages are fairly straightforward, including some that announce the
future reign of a Davidic descendant; these texts, however, are not the issue to be addressed here.
Many times New Testament writers do not give a straightforward interpretation of Old Testament
texts. What we need to keep in mind is that this is not always what the writers were trying to do.
Most of the examples critics give fall into one of three categories, none of which authorize us to
discover a texts meaning by ignoring its context. First, when responding to opponents who used
proof-texts, the biblical writers sometimes responded accordingly (answering a fool according
to his folly, as Proverbs 26:5 suggests). Some of Pauls uses in Galatians might fall into this
category (e.g., Gal 3:12). Writers could also use the sorts of arguments popular in their day to
make their point, without assuming that this was what a text actually meant. (Thus, for example,
Paul emphasizes that seed or offspring in Gal 3:16 is singular, but he knows very well that it
can be a collective singular. He uses the same Greek term for many people in Gal 3:29. If one
reads how ancient rabbis often handled Scripture, however, Paul is usually tame by comparison.)
Second, and much more often, the writers simply drew analogies from the Old Testament, using
them to illustrate a principle found in those texts or the lives they present. To apply a principle
genuinely illustrated in a figure or a text is not to take it out of context; without this method,
preaching would become next to impossible for most texts. For example, if a psalm describes the
anguish of a righteous sufferer, the principle could apply to Jesus as the righteous sufferer par
excellence. (At least with particular psalms, the early Christians probably did also believe that
God intended some descriptions that matched this ultimate righteous sufferer more specifically.
Nevertheless, that belief would not invalidate a more general application to those who suffer
unjustly from others enmity.)
Third, and perhaps most often, the texts we think are out-of-context sometimes reflect our own
failure to recognize the complex way the writer has used the context. Readers often accuse

Matthew of quoting Hosea 11:1 (Out of Egypt have I called my son) out of context; they often
present this as the one of the most blatant cases of the New Testament writers misunderstanding
context. They make this claim because Hosea in context is talking about God delivering Israel
from Egypt, whereas Matthew applies the text to Jesus.
But Matthew knows the verse quite well: indeed, instead of depending on the standard Greek
translation of Hosea here, he even makes his own more correct translation from the Hebrew. If
we read Matthews context, we see that this is not the only place where he compares Jesus with
Israel: as Israel was tested in the wilderness for forty years, Jesus was tested there forty days
(Matt 4:1-2). Matthew also expects his target audience to know Hoseas context: as God once
called Israel from Egypt (Hosea 11:1), he would bring about a new exodus and salvation for his
people (Hosea 11:10-11). Jesus is the harbinger, the pioneer, of this new era of salvation for his
people.
In the same context, Matthew applies Jeremiah 31:15 (where Rachel weeps over Israels exile) to
the slaughter of infants in Bethlehem (Matt 2:17-18), near which Rachel was buried (Gen 35:19).
But Matthew knows Jeremiahs context: after announcing Israels tragedy, God promises
restoration (Jer 31:16-17) and a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34). Matthew compares this tragedy in
Jesus childhood to one in Israels history because he expects his first, biblically knowledgeable
audience to recognize that such tragedy formed the prelude to messianic salvation.
Matthew also knows the context of Isaiah 7:14, which he quotes in Matthew 1:23; the context
remains fresh in Matthews mind when he quotes Isaiah 9:1-2 in Matthew 4:15-16. Matthew is
not ignoring context: he is comparing Jesus ministry with Israels history and the promises those
very contexts evoke. He may extend analogies further than we generally do today, but he read the
context better than most of his critics have!
These observations are not meant to deny that people can sometimes teach us true principles
using texts taken out of context. The point is that we cannot guarantee that the principles we find
will be truly biblical if we get them from texts never meant to say those things. If we want to
hear what God inspired the first authors to communicate, we need to read their texts in their
context. Otherwise we can (and some today do) make texts say anything we wantthings that
will often run counter to the biblical message and sometimes prove very harmful to others.