I am giving quotations of the Dean by an interpretative method, which views conference of passages and ideas as greater than mere context. (This, in its highest form, applies to Bible interpretation.) What I have stated is correct, and to take but a few lines is not to omit information (i.e. to neglect the context), but rather an attempt to give the broadest possible view of the Dean's position in the fewest possible or most pertinent of his own words. While this may be said to be making the Dean say something which he did not explicitly say in one place, in fact, it is what the Dean said, when giving the essence of his whole message.
The Scripture is full of examples of how this method may be employed honestly and truthfully. For example, James, in Acts 15:15–17 utalised the words and ideas of various passages of the Old Testament to make one statement concerning a particular doctrine: “And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.”
Upon examining Scripture, it speedily comes to light that there is a great difference between "wrest" and "rightly dividing". As for Burgon, I suspect that some folk may not agree with my view of interpreting him in a prophetic context.
|