Semi-Proximal Contexual Authority

By Dwight Haas (8/26/13) Semi-Proximal Contextual Authority is that which provides an additional context to a somewhat ambiguous subject from a distance or to something that has gone before under a different context. This is if the immediate context didnt provide enough context for itself. The question becomes how close or far away do you have to be for a contextual proximity to apply or is that even a factor. Until I studied I Cor.11:1-16 I had never heard of this way of looking at the scriptures. I always was led to believe that immediate context was what we should look at. When you use the Contextual Proximity and Retroactive rule, then you change the context or expound upon the context by a context that it is close to it or at least within range or that has come later down the line, even though the thoughts have changed. This method of determining context due to proximity allows for retroactivity as used in I Cor. 11:1-16 in the matter of the praying or prophesying and uses I Cor. 14:13-15 to determine the nature of that praying or prophesying. In this case I Cor.14:13-15 is used to prove that the prayers and prophesy of I Cor. 11:1-16 is inspired in nature. The crux of this is that if praying and prophesying are both inspirational, then this passage on long hair on women and by extension short hair on men are limited to times of inspiration by the Holy Spirit. And since miracles no longer happen, then this passage is moot in application. Part One: I Cor. 14 praying in tongues retroactively provides context for I Cor. 11 prayer as being inspired as well. I Cor. 11:4-5 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. D.H. Ordinarily praying would be non-inspirational and prophesy would definitely be inspired. But that is if you just took this verse at face value. The argument is that this passage is talking about inspirational prayer and/ or prophesying, because of I Cor.14:13-15. I Cor.14:13-15 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. This might be a valid argument if: 1. There was any discussion of spiritual gifts or speaking in tongues in any of I Cor.11. 2. There was any discussion of headship/hair in any of I Cor.13, 14, or 15 3. There wasnt a complete change in thoughts between these chapters: I Cor.11:1-16 (Headship); I Cor.11:17-34 (Abuse of the Lords Supper); I Cor.12-15 (Spiritual Gifts). 4. This is an interesting case where a thing like prayer is defined not at that time in that particular verse, but many verses later. Retroactively. 5. Prayer typically is uninspired in its nature, because we pray to God from our heart. Inspiration means it comes from God. This would mean that the prayer comes from God, goes through God (Jesus, who is the mediator) and is received by God. 6. This praying in tongues in I Cor.14 might be an exception. The whole context of I Cor. 14 is spiritual gifts and in particular speaking in tongues. The prayer appears to be at least in this instance inspired, but it is specifically praying in tongues or praying with the spirit, which had to be accompanied by praying with the understanding. The context of

tongues places the prayer into a different area, than just prayer. Speaking is not inspired, but speaking in tongues is. Singing is not inspired, but singing in tongues is. The praying and singing in question must be in the congregational setting and loud enough for others to hear because vs.16 intimates that one will say amen at the giving of thanks. So what you have is a person praying out loud to God in a tongue and it needing to be interpreted not for God, but for the others in the congregation. The prayer isnt inspired, but the tongues are. 7. Again there is no mention of praying in tongues in I Cor. 11, because it is just prayer. 8. Also I Cor. 12:7-11, which gives a good list of Spiritual gifts doesnt mention prayer or singing or even speaking. Neither does Rom.12:6-8 or Eph.4:11 or I Peter 4:10-11. Why? Because praying, singing or speaking are things that all can do and the mediums themselves arent inspired, but the words are. Part Two: Using this same principle of context being retroactive elsewhere within the book of I Corinthians Paul says in I Cor.7:5, that ye may give yourself to fasting and prayer If in I Cor. 14 they are praying in tongues and this by retroaction makes the praying in I Cor.11 inspired prayer as well, then the prayer in I Cor. 7:5 (fasting and prayer) must be inspired as well and if not then what is to keep it from being so? This occasion of fasting and prayer is undefined and was being done for a particular purpose during separation, so it only makes sense that this particular praying session was inspirational and was also in tongues. The context of I Cor. 7:5 doesnt determine what kind of prayer this was, so according to I Cor. 14 it was praying in tongues. This would also mean that the fasting was also possibly inspired as well. It might be true that I Cor. 7 is not even discussing spiritual gifts, but then again neither was I Cor. 11 (discussion on headship) until it was breached by I Cor.14. Paul says in I Cor. 10:15. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say, which is clearly a reference to the speaking in tongues of I Cor. 14. He is saying judge ye what I say., so obviously there is a lack of communication between them. There must not be anybody there to interpret, which is why he starts talking about Gifts of the Holy Spirit and interpretation in I Cor.14. Now since I Cor.11:17-34 comes in between I Cor.12-14 and I Cor.11:1-16 then the Lords Supper that is being talked about must by association of proximity be an inspired service where the blessings and thanks that are given are in tongues or inspired. Most would argue that it doesnt mention any inspire d gifts within these verses, but that is aside from the point. Proximty of context requires that this be an inspired Lords Supper and makes it unlike most other Lords Suppers that are talked about in the New Testament. Part Three: Applying this same principle elsewhere. Because I believe that if a precedent is set on how to interpret the scriptures, when you have a similar situation you must employ that precedent. If we can say that the praying in I Cor. 11 is inspired because of I Cor.14, then we also have to say that the baptism in Acts 2:38-41 is the same as the baptism in Acts 1:4-5 and Acts 2:4-5. Acts 1:4-5 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, which, He said, you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

And Acts 2: 1-4 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Then we have Acts 2: 38-41 Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call. And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, Be saved from this perverse generation. Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

Note: Initially we would say that the baptism in Acts 2:38 is water baptism since water baptism is
associated with salvation in other places, but it doesnt say water baptism here, it just says baptism. So that leaves us wondering what kind of baptism it really is. Since in Acts 1:4-5 and 2:1-4 there is a specific type of baptism mentioned its context must be transferred to indicate the type of baptism spoken of later in Acts 2:38. The immediate context of Acts 2:38 can only point back to the preceding context of Acts 1:4-5. Admittedly this is a ploy that the Baptist and others use, but if we are going to make I Cor.14 apply to I Cor.11, then how can we deny that Acts 1:4-5 is applying to Acts 2:38? We cant. Conclusion: What I have tried to show is that once you go down the road of ignoring immediate context in favor allowing a proximal context to supersede it, then you are opening up yourself for other problematic issues. The context of I Cor.11:1-16 is headship and applies it to praying or prophesying of men and women and from the immediate context prayer is just prayer, which is an uninspired communication to God and prophesying is just prophesying, which is an inspired communication from God. Since the singing in I Cor.14 was in tongues, it is entirely possible that all of the New Testament singing by the Apostles and Christians was in tongues...but wait we usually depend on the text to say it was or not.