Judges 19 v 20 used as gospel offer?

[LoneBerean]

20 And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.

Can Judges 19 v 20 be used as a text to offer the gospel to a congregation? Our minister has 'discovered' this text and has been quoting it extensively over the last year to illustrate the gospel call. A few of us are uncomfortable with it, partly because the words were uttered by a man who then offered a woman to gang rapist, the context of the verse is pretty harrowing and there are plenty other similar verses in Scripture which are so much more suitable.
But is there also an issue with taking a text entirely out of context and using it beyond it's purpose?

 

[Joshua]

Distinctions must be made between interpretation, vs analogy-of-faith applications and/or meditations. Also to be considered are the hearers/audience, their pedigree of piety/bible knowledge, etc. With such a text as mentioned, it might not be unlawful for this use (would need more context), but it may be "more trouble than it's worth." I have found the general Puritan use of Scriptures in this manner thoughtful and helpful, but we want to be wary of just throwing things around, presuming everybody immediately appreciates the difference between interpretation & application/meditation.

 

[iainduguid]

A minister once preached on "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word", and then discoursed on the benefits of good conversation. Hopefully none of us would do that, but it demonstrates the danger of taking a text out of context and using it to say something that was never intended.

Part of our problem with OT texts, when we are seeking to find a gospel connection, is that the only tool in our toolbox is comparison: this OT person/event/story is like Jesus. That often presses people into trying to turn everyone in the OT into a hero, who positively foreshadows Christ, and provokes pushback (rightly) from people who feel like the original text is being turned on its head. Often, it would be helpful if we thought about the tool of contrast: the differences between this OT person/event/story and Christ that shows us why the OT could never be the answer to our problems but Jesus is. This will be particularly true in a book like Judges, where the whole point of the text is the downward spiral of leadership in Israel that ends up with an Israelite town reenacting the sins of Sodom. To say, "But here's a good example of hospitality" doesn't seem to match the focus of the text. Better to point out the insufficiency of Lot/the man's hospitality; they couldn't protect their guests and in fact ended up making unthinkable choices because of where they had settled: they needed rescued. In the same way, we are all living in a desperately lost world and need rescued - not by a "better than his surroundings" human, but a divine savior.

However, that's a lot of work to do to fill in the background, as Josh has pointed out. It's fitting if you are preaching on Judges 19, but I don't think it would be worth it simply for an illustrative point - there are easier Biblical analogies out there.

 

[Ed Walsh]

20 And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.

Can Judges 19 v 20 be used as a text to offer the gospel to a congregation? Our minister has 'discovered' this text and has been quoting it extensively over the last year to illustrate the gospel call. A few of us are uncomfortable with it, partly because the words were uttered by a man who then offered a woman to gang rapist, the context of the verse is pretty harrowing and there are plenty other similar verses in Scripture which are so much more suitable.
But is there also an issue with taking a text entirely out of context and using it beyond it's purpose?

As a possible application, maybe, but I don't see it as the one interpretation spoken of in the Confession – nope – not there.

The above is my take only, as I am not trained in Bible language matters, so I hold what I say as just my opinion.

 

[LoneBerean]

He doesn't preach on the text as such, he just quotes it extensively in prayer and when he preaches. When he wants to illustrate how ready Christ is to bear our burden of sin, he quotes this without mentioning the context. He said in a sermon that the words perfectly encapsulate the gospel message. It's as if he discovered it one day as "a jewel in a swine's trough" and can't let go of it. Although he acknowledges that they aren't the words of Jesus, he is consistently using them as words that Jesus in effect said to sinners.

 

[TheInquirer]

The key question is this - Did God intend for this verse to be understood by His people as a gospel call to salvation? At first glance, I would say no but as mentioned above, more exegetical work would be needed.

Unless your minister has made a strong exegetical case that God has intended the verse to be used as such (and has sufficient support from commentators), he may be using the verse in a very unhelpful way and modeling sloppy use of Scripture to the congregation.

 

[py3ak]

Of course the phrase is being divorced from its narrative context and its place in the mouth of the original speaker. This often happens when Scripture is appropriated devotionally. Unless there is confusion about the fact that this is a devotional (mis)appropriation, it seems to me the question for evaluation is: do the abstracted words remind us of the Gospel call, or not? "I take responsibility for all your needs; [therefore] be in peace." That seems close enough to me that I wouldn't object to it as an illustration of the Gospel offer, as long as the Gospel offer is not being retrojected into the mouth of the old man.