Years ago some dear Jewish friends tried to save me by sharing a pamphlet that pointed out that most of the scriptures used in the New Testament gospels are proof texts.
(And yes, I still love them).
The truth is that until the last 20-30 years almost all scriptures were used more as proof texts than anything else.
It is a time honored tradition going back to the earliest sources (eg the Bible authors proof text with abandonment as do most religious scholars until recent times).
In the LDS Church we have Boyd K Packer’s often reviled talk on authority where he preached that general authorities should defer to scholars so as to avoid proof texting (the part of the talk everyone misses) but not much else of an official discussion–seems that since Joseph Smith advised reading in context for the real meaning no one has thought much about it.
So. What does it matter? Why did the author of the Gospel of Matthew engage in it? What should we think of the practice?
It matters to the extent we seek the original meaning of things beyond reading the scriptures as a Rorschach ink blot that has meaning beyond that which we bring to them.
On the other hand, scriptures are alive to the extent that they speak to us now, in our context beyond their original time and place (the historical way they have been used for the past few thousand years).
Which means, I think we should look at the practice with caution.
What do you think?
Have you ever found yourself proof texting?
Have you gained from learning original meanings?
Have you ever been taught or inspired to knowledge or insight by applying a scripture to yourself in a new or original way?
What are your thoughts and experiences?
Wheat & Tares 
Oaks talk on a deconstructive reading of scripture ought be included in the discussion as well. He doesn’t call it deconstructive nor does he talk about prooftexting but I think his argument certainly ties into all of that.
Proof texting is usually a huge waste of time. I did it quite a lot in the Navy and it helped me more than anyone.
The hidden benefit of it is that the reader preparing himself for a proof-text battle must not only become thoroughly familiar with scripture, but be prepared to deal with proof-texting against himself. In that preparation he reads the scriptures and MAYBE some of its actual meaning soaks in.
Very nearly every commandment found in scripture is countered by an instance where the exact opposite exists, sometimes commanded but sometimes simply existing without condemnation. Wisdom is figuring out why a thing is wrong here and now but acceptable, or maybe even required, there and then.
I had a roommate in the Navy that was virulently anti-Mormon. So one day I said, “Jesus is come in the flesh”.
I feared he would commit suicide was so strong his reaction. All his life he had been told, and believed, that Mormons were of the devil, and yet scripture is very clear that anyone that says this is of God:
https://biblehub.com/1_john/4-2.htm “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:”
The unstated nuance is that whoever says this (in any language and in various forms!) must also believe it and also believe the implications of it. But to an inerrantist, the enemy of God cannot utter those words; it is impossible. It is a magic TEST capable of detecting the enemies of God.
Anyway, I met him some years later and he was still religious but considerably more relaxed.
What is the often reviled Packer talk you are referring to?
Rockwell, I will need to try searching for it when I have a working computer. On my phone I didn’t have much luck. It is about deference to authority.
However, all of the examples are from his life where he deferred.
Clark—do you have a link?
Mike—I’ve had similar experiences. Interesting isn’t it?
I’ve always loved Ecclesiastes 11:1. “Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.” I’ve always assumed it was a a recommendation to travel. Unfortunately, I was proof-texting. If you read a modern translation and verse 2, the author is giving investment advice. Not exactly the meaning I was looking for. But to hell with it. I like my interpretation better.
Stephen, link is in the original comment. Here is is again: “Scripture Reading and Revelation” I think the key focus of Oaks’ argument is that what matters is what scripture does when someone reads it. That is inherent to scriptural meaning is its role as a catalyst to revelation. As such acontextual scriptural use isn’t a bug and its not even a feature. It’s the main function of scripture.
An other way to look at this is in terms of speech act theory where you have a distinction between the illocutionary force of an utterance and the perlocutionary act. The former is what the utterer does in making a statement. Things like “request” or “promise.” The perlocutionary act is the consequences of the utterance in terms of how the utterance functions on the reader. So to use Oaks’ example, the primary meaning of James 1:5-6 for Joseph isn’t just the contextual or proof-text meaning but that Joseph goes to the woods to pray. For Oaks this perlocutionary act is mediated by the Holy Ghost causing an effect that can’t fully be explained by more narrow senses of meaning.
I think Oaks comments actually go beyond what speech act theory can explain since it gets into the issue of meaning and multiple authorship. More than just that, the proper context for any passage will always be different than the context of the original author(s). That is the quote is cut out of the original context and grafted into a new one that is in part determined by the reader and the Holy Ghost. For Oaks this isn’t just an accidental feature that could in theory apply to any text. Rather there’s actually essential aspects to the form of the original texts that enable this to function better. His example was Jesus’ parables that obviously can’t be captured in a straightforward sense of meaning. He quotes Nibley on this point:
“The Prophets and the Scripture. […] men fool themselves when they think for a moment that they can read the scripture without ever adding something to the text, or omitting something from it. For in the wise words of St. Hilary, … ‘Scripture consists not in what one reads, but in what one understands. […] in the reading of the scripture we must always have an interpreter.”
My last comment appears to have gone into the spam filter. Could someone get it and delete this one? Thanks
On my mission, I feel like all I did was proof text, at least when sharing verses from the Bible. We constantly referred to isolated biblical verses to support our claims: baptism for the dead, the great apostasy, the restoration, tithing, the need for modern prophets, three degrees of glory, etc.
I once was given (still on my mission) a pamphlet about Jehovah’s Witness beliefs and saw they do the same thing. Every one of their beliefs could be supported via a proof texting of some passage or passages: no blood transfusions, no celebration of birthdays, Jesus being crucified on a stake, etc. I somehow didn’t see the double standard when maintaining that the LDS interpretation of these verses was the actual correct one – after all we have modern prophets and revelation to guide us.
I learned the phrase “proof text” from the book “This is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology by Charles Harrell. I also learned from that book that most scholars believe that many of our favorite scriptures are more often than not used as proof texts.
Isaiah 7:14, for example: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Most modern Christians believe this fortells the virgin birth of Jesus. Scholars generally take a different view. Harrell explains the reason scholars take this view, but I don’t remember it well enough to do it justice right now.
My point is that depending on how you determine what is proof texting, every active adult member probably has done it. In fact, according the scholarly work, we probably proof text scriptures more often than not.
Clark, the filter issue is now fixed. Just needed to get home. Liked the comment too.
Ahhh. Beware of here a little and there a little. We gather our littles together and then argue over each other’s collection of littles.
DoubtingTom writes “after all we have modern prophets and revelation to guide us.”
That is indeed the essential difference.