Sometimes the best use of scripture is to misquote it. That is what the New Testament apostles teach me. The occasions may be rare but the returns are precious.
If this post has rubbed your hermeneutics the wrong way, please read on. Only the best examples of adapting scriptures are considered and endorsed, one from Paul and one from Matthew.
Paul provides the low hanging fruit, and his critics are the best source of guidance. As one writer puts it:
Almost stealthily, Paul makes the error of misquoting scripture and magically creates theology out of thin air. . . . His methodology with actually quoting scripture is similar to his interpretation of it: he will use or twist any scripture any way he chooses to prove his point!
. . . Paul Twists the Scriptures and Creates Theology out of Thin Air. . .
The writer, James Wood, goes on to illustrate his point, using the King James translation. The choice of translation shows his fairness. Wood refuses to scratch around for an arcane translation to support his point. He plays clean, as the soccer commentator may say.
He first quotes Paul. “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob” (Romans 11:26). Paul’s point is clear: Jesus will come to save his people, “Jacob” being a figure of speech that represents the entire nation of Israel.[1]
Next James Wood quotes the original. “And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 59:20). The difference is clear. Paul assigns redemptive agency to Jesus, while Isaiah assigns agency to Zion who usher in the messiah through their repentance. In Wood’s words, “Paul makes the deliverer turn away ungodliness instead of coming to those who themselves turned from transgression.”[2]
One could dismiss the difference as being two sides of one coin: grace on God’s side must be invited by repentance on the human side. But I prefer to run with Wood on this and agree heartily that Paul deliberately misquoted the scripture. It’s consistent with Paul’s entire mission, to show the Jews that a veil has blinded the people from seeing the grace to which the Old Testament alluded.
As Paul writes elsewhere: “But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when [anyone] shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:15-17). People can repent all day long and live with guilt all their lives. But when they see the perfect and complete forgiveness of Jesus, the veil is removed and the emphasis shifts from what we do to what Christ has already done.
The scribes and pharisees in Christ’s time and many pastors and Bible teachers in our day apparently put the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. Paul never felt bound to the letter for the letter’s sake. His commitment was “not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Corinthians 3:6).
Thus, Paul recognized that words only approximate the truth. He expressed a similar thing elsewhere saying that we see through a mirror only dimly.
Yes, we are treading on thin ice here, knowing that such interpretive license gives rise to cults and contortions of the scriptures. But that’s the cost of revelation. By definition it is not understood from the beginning. It is hinted at, alluded to, and, finally, in the life of Christ, made as visible as humans are capable of seeing. The key isn’t, “does this fit the letter of the law?” but “does this fit the one who forgave, healed, inspired, and commissioned all those who sought his help?”
The question is, “do you want the security of religion or the joy of revelation?” The first path is safe and may or may not lead you to your destination. Remember, Jesus called the Bible scholars of his day “blind guides.” The second path offers us glimpses of a love and goodness that outshines the dark reflections with which we usually live.
The next and final misquotation is from the gospel of Matthew. He’s referring to Isaiah 53, the most striking prophecy about the redemptive suffering of Christ in the Bible. The original passage goes like this:
Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
. . . Isaiah 53:4-5, NIV. . .
The “he” refers to the Jewish “suffering servant” who Christians univocally interpret as Jesus of Nazareth. Matthew focuses on the first two lines, that Jesus took up our pain and bore our suffering. This language, along with words such as “transgressions” and “iniquities” places the emphasis squarely on moral redemption. No one would argue that and no one would doubt that spiritual redemption is the highest good.
However, Matthew who knew the Hebrew text of Isaiah, deliberately changes the words to refer to physical healing:
“He took up our infirmities
and bore our diseases.”
. . . Matthew 8:17. . .
The rewording cannot be assigned to translation error (either on Matthew’s part or on the English translators). The entire passage demonstrates Jesus’ business of healing the physically and mentally ill:
When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him.
When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
“He took up our infirmities
and bore our diseases.”
. . . Matthew 8:14-17. . .
Matthew, then, becomes the support for those who claim that both our salvation and our healing were accomplished by the sufferings of Jesus. The counter-argument is, of course, “I still feel sick,” but that is no different from “I still feel guilty,” or “I still sin.” The battle may be won on the cosmic scale but require tenacious insistence in every local instance. Long after World War 2 was won, outposts of Japanese soldiers were bearing arms and defending their ground, not knowing peace had been declared.
For those of us still reading, we can conclude with the apostle Peter. He does not misquote scripture, but he changes the tense to the past perfect, with the result that the redemption of Jesus is clearly a done deal:
“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” . . . 1 Peter 2:24. . .
The beauty of the past perfect is that “if it is God’s will” falls completely to the wayside. Whether physical or spiritual healing is at hand (if we accept Matthew’s revision), both are clearly God’s will, having been enacted in the suffering servant. No longer is it a matter of pulling out the divining rod to determine if these things are God’s will (the divining rod being a figure of speech for all the rationalizations we make). It is a matter of walking by faith, not by sight. It is a matter of trusting that the same Father who sent Jesus to redeem is the same Father who is completely aware of, and prepared for our current needs. That is true divine provide-ance, also known as providence.
§ Footnotes §
[1] Using the part (Jacob) for the whole (Jewish nation) is synecdoche, a common figure of speech. We use it every time we refer to “Washington” for the United States federal government.
[2] Wood’s quote continues in a disparaging manner, true to his theme: “Such simple changes could fool the Gentiles that Paul was so devoted to saving. Instead of Paul becoming a contemporary Jonah and instructing the sinners to repent, Paul offers deceit and lies. Maybe this explains this verse that came from Paul’s pen.”