Bible Interpretation: What does "context" mean to you?

[RabbiKnife]

OK, we've had a number of threads where the accusations fly as to whether an interpretation of Scripture is accurate based on the context of Scripture.

So, you tell me. Feel free to answer some or all of the following:

1. What does "context" mean to you?
2. Do cultural considerations have any impact on your interpretation of a passage?
3. How do you deal with passages that are seemingly "contradictory?"
4. Do you believe that the passages in the New Testament are more important that the passages in the Old Testament?
5. Do you believe that the words of Jesus take priority over the rest of the Bible?
6. Do you need to know what the original listener understood the message to be?
7. If your answer to #6 is "yes," how do you go about that?

[HisLeast]

OK, we've had a number of threads where the accusations fly as to whether an interpretation of Scripture is accurate based on the context of Scripture.

So, you tell me. Feel free to answer some or all of the following:

1. What does "context" mean to you?
2. Do cultural considerations have any impact on your interpretation of a passage?
3. How do you deal with passages that are seemingly "contradictory?"
4. Do you believe that the passages in the New Testament are more important that the passages in the Old Testament?
5. Do you believe that the words of Jesus take priority over the rest of the Bible?
6. Do you need to know what the original listener understood the message to be?
7. If your answer to #6 is "yes," how do you go about that?

1. "Context" is a milieu of the subtle meanings found in original language, the culture of the audience, the broader message of the chapter, and the broader message of the book in question. If someone 50 years from now in China reads how I told you to "talk to the hand", they may not understand (i) what the words actually mean literally (ii) what the words actually mean figuratively (iii) the situation in which I would be compelled to tell you to talk to the hand. Context.

2. Yes, but it isn't easy. Its a fine balancing act between "what would this verse mean if it were meant for everyone everywhere" vs. "what would this verse mean if it were ONLY for the Jews / Greeks / Lemurians"

3. Lately, I don't.

4. No, yet clearly there are contradictions between the two that must be reconciled.

5. I'm having a tough time imagining where and when this would occur.

6. Yes.

7. "as best I can" by looking at language, what we know or strongly surmise about the culture and its literature, etc.

EDIT: Do I get bonus points for using the word "milieu"?

[The Mighty Sword]

This is my best answer to all your questions:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And I will not debate this scripture. Thank you.

[teddyv]

OK, we've had a number of threads where the accusations fly as to whether an interpretation of Scripture is accurate based on the context of Scripture.

So, you tell me. Feel free to answer some or all of the following:

More thoughts than anything else...

1. What does "context" mean to you?

HisLeast covered pretty much my thoughts (and I never would have used milieu)

2. Do cultural considerations have any impact on your interpretation of a passage?

Yes.

3. How do you deal with passages that are seemingly "contradictory?"

I would suspect the underlying theological message is not contradictory.

4. Do you believe that the passages in the New Testament are more important that the passages in the Old Testament?

No, but the NT seems more tightly focused.

5. Do you believe that the words of Jesus take priority over the rest of the Bible?

I assume you mean the literal quotes of Jesus in the gospels?

6. Do you need to know what the original listener understood the message to be?

I don't know if it's a critical component in every instance, but it can certainly enrich the understanding of the text. Ideally it can clarify the intent and hopefully allow us to identify what the non-contextual or universal truth is being spoken.

7. If your answer to #6 is "yes," how do you go about that?

Since I have no formal training in this, I must rely on those who have studied these matters.

[BadDog]

OK, we've had a number of threads where the accusations fly as to whether an interpretation of Scripture is accurate based on the context of Scripture.

So, you tell me. Feel free to answer some or all of the following:

1. What does "context" mean to you?
Well, there is the actual reading context... surrounding scripture or other letters by the same author. But there is historical, cultural and other forms of context as well. What were the circumstances of the readers addressed by the original author?


2. Do cultural considerations have any impact on your interpretation of a passage?
Yes, has to. We need to know the original readers, their condition, the history, culture, etc.. Romans 15:4 tells us that whatever was written in the OT was written not just to them, but to us. Yet, IOT properly understand scripture, we need to understand the dynamics of the original readers. For example, when I read the creation account I try to remember the state of the original readers, wandering in the wilderness, having just escaped from Egypt after 400 years of spiritual influence! I don't think God was trying to deal with poor science there, but poor theology. If we keep that in mind, we're less likely to make too much of the details.


3. How do you deal with passages that are seemingly "contradictory?"
Well, we know that scripture does not contradict itself. It has been my experience that most (90% +) apparent contradictions are due to misunderstanding one or the other text and simply not reading a text in context.


4. Do you believe that the passages in the New Testament are more important that the passages in the Old Testament?
In what way? If you mean regarding theology-doctrine, then most definitely "yes." Paul's writings have the greatest theological value for us. But God uses all of scripture to cause us to grow spiritually. Good question, BTW. I don't imagine many will agree with me.


5. Do you believe that the words of Jesus take priority over the rest of the Bible?
No. The Holy Spirit inspired them all. Now regarding doctrine, we need to start with not narrative literature, such as the gospels, but didactic ("teaching") literature, because that was its purpose. Narrative scripture was not intended so much for "teaching" as edifying. And I would start first with Paul, as God's chosen instrument for this. For example, IMO John MacArthur made serious error when he tried to start with the words of Jesus to establish NT doctrine on the gospel. I know, sounds blasphemous, but it is sound hermeneutics. John specifically says that his gospel was written so that people would get saved. So regarding the "gospel," I'd start with the gospel of John. That may be an exception, in general. MacArthur essentially ignored John's gospel... not the right way to go about it.


6. Do you need to know what the original listener understood the message to be?
If we want to best interpret, then "yes." We do our best to do so. Some people translate scripture so that it will be truly impactful... having the same impact on the modern reader as the original Greek or Hebrew texts did upon the readers at the time. I do not think it is possible to fully duplicate that... but we should try. A good question to ask ourselves is what the plain reading of a text, by the original readers, would be. How would a Jewish reader have understood Hebrews 6:1-8?, for example.


7. If your answer to #6 is "yes," how do you go about that?
Well one thing that helps IMO is a more dynamic equivalent, more free, translation style. If one compares the OT with quotes of it in the NT, one finds that it was, in general, done freely. But we can also help ourselves, as readers of the English Bible, by educating ourselves and researching when reading a book of the Bible. Who wrote it? When was it written? What was the occasion? Who were the readers? (Jews, Gentiles, or a mixture, for example) What is the overall theme of the book? How does that relate to the text under consideration?

Very nice questions. This would make a great poll.

BD

[inn]

If we want to best interpret, Who wrote it? When was it written? What was the occasion? Who were the readers? (Jews, gentiles, or a mixture, for example) What is the overall theme of the book?

I think this above is the most important part of context.
Along with this a warning issued from Rev22:19 'And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. '
There are many that add and take instruction that is no where in the bible, it's called adding to the context.

[crawfish]

This is my best answer to all your questions:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And I will not debate this scripture. Thank you.

If you don't want to debate, then don't post it in a message board. Twitter it. Preach it. But have enough respect for the people on a discussion board to be willing to discuss what you post, or just keep it to yourself. It does no good to just leave things hanging like that.

[newinchrist4now]

1. What does "context" mean to you?

It means trying to understand the history and the culture that the Scriptures were written to.

2. Do cultural considerations have any impact on your interpretation of a passage?

Hmm, it can but more the considerations I take are who it was written to.

3. How do you deal with passages that are seemingly "contradictory?"

I know of none

4. Do you believe that the passages in the New Testament are more important that the passages in the Old Testament?

No

5. Do you believe that the words of Jesus take priority over the rest of the Bible?

Not really

6. Do you need to know what the original listener understood the message to be?

No

[crawfish]

OK, we've had a number of threads where the accusations fly as to whether an interpretation of Scripture is accurate based on the context of Scripture.

So, you tell me. Feel free to answer some or all of the following:

1. What does "context" mean to you?
2. Do cultural considerations have any impact on your interpretation of a passage?
3. How do you deal with passages that are seemingly "contradictory?"
4. Do you believe that the passages in the New Testament are more important that the passages in the Old Testament?
5. Do you believe that the words of Jesus take priority over the rest of the Bible?
6. Do you need to know what the original listener understood the message to be?
7. If your answer to #6 is "yes," how do you go about that?

I like the answer by HisLeast, and I completely agree with him. That won't stop me from putting it all in my own words.

1) Context is what gives verses meaning. Think about it - what does "Jesus wept" mean? A million different things on its own, but only one thing when taken in the context of the story it's in. You need some heavy justification to ever take a verse out of its immediate context and apply it in a way that it could not have been intended (ears off, TMS - 2 Tim 3:16 is an example, in context it can only be referring to the OT scriptures, as the new canon had not yet been finalized - it takes some hermeneutical work to apply it to the NT as well). You work from the inside out when evaluating context; the verse, the surrounding paragraphs, the chapter, the book, the testament, and the bible as a whole.

2) Yes. For instance, hair coverings on women. Every Christian accepts this concept to some point. In the book "Grasping God's Word', they put it very well - we need to grasp the concept in the author's town, cross a principlizing bridge, and then apply it to "our town".

3) I read them as literary constructs instead of literal accounts, typically. This absolves the conflict.

4) No, but I believe they are more directly relevant. We are under the new covenant, the old coventant is not there to bind us but to reveal the nature of God and man and the relationship between the two.

5) I believe the words of Jesus give meaning to the rest of the bible, but they aren't the only mechanism God used to speak to us.

6) I'm going to say not necessarily, but if you do you will have a much clearer grasp of scripture. Thankfully, we're not being judged based on our understanding.

7) Study, study study.

[Firefighter]

I do not remember where I found these because I found them YEARS ago on the net somewhere, but this is the basic rules I use when interpreting scripture. 80% or more of our debates about certain scriptures around here would cease if we all followed these general, basic rules...

1.) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both are usually translated as "another" in English - yet "allos" literally means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a different type."

2.) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them - just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one's interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.

3.) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: "...for there be gods many and lords many..." as a "proof text" of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods "so-called"), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.

4.) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote - without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter's own culture or society - then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present."

5.) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason - it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said:

"What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence... interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic...may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence." (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)

6.) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge's chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called "noble" because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.

7.) The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).

8.) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.

[BadDog]

I think this above is the most important part of context.
Along with this a warning issued from Rev22:19 'And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. '
There are many that add and take instruction that is no where in the bible, it's called adding to the context.

Well, Inn, first of all, you have to get the NT quote correct. You see, not your fault... the KJV translators didn't have a Greek text to use which was accurate. Erasmus' Greek text of Revelation was missing the last few verses, so most textual critics believe that he back-translated from the Latin to the Greek... did a pretty good job too. Only he mistranslated as you won't find "book of life" in a single Greek manuscript. It is not "book of life" but "tree of life." Let me include vs. 18 as well... Context, you know.

Revelation 22:18, 19 I testify to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this prophetic book, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the holy city, written in this book.

OK, now let's look at what John wrote. First-of-all, he was speaking specifically regarding the book he just wrote - "The Apokolypse" ("Revelation" in English). Notice that John was writing about anyone who heard all the prophecy in Revelation and tries to add to or take away from those words (such as Erasmus did? ) that God will add the plagues spoken of in the 7 trumpets, 7 bowls, etc.. It is hyperbolic language. I don't think that happened to Erasmus; of course, he certainly did not intend to add to or take from the words of the prophecies.

Now, you seem to be implying that we should ignore context, other than the small section from my post that you quoted. If you do have a problem with what I've written, you should share what is invalid in your opinion, rather than just using such language as you did in this post. "Just the facts, ma'am."

This is an excellent idea for a thread. We can just bury our heads in the sand, or attempt to discuss such questions respectfully. I'd like to hear your thoughts, if you can do so in a respectful manner.

Thx,

BD

[Firefighter]

OK, now let's look at what John wrote. First-of-all, he was speaking specifically regarding the book he just wrote - "The Apokolypse." ("Revelation" in English) Notice that John was writing about anyone who heard all the prophecy in Revelation and tries to add to or take away from those words (such as Erasmus did? ) that God will add the plagues spoken of in the 7 trumpets, 7 bowls, etc.. It is hyperbolic language. I don't think that happened to Erasmus; of course, he certainly did not intend to add to or take from the words of the prophecies.

Thanks for providing context to a scripture quoted in a thread about context.

Next we can point out that MS' scripture from Timothy was speaking specifically about the OT.

[BadDog]

Thanks for providing context to a scripture quoted in a thread about context.

Next we can point out that MS' scripture from Timothy was speaking specifically about the OT.

UM,

Well, while it would appear to be referring to the OT, I am not so sure we should be too quick to assume that Paul was excluding NT scripture, some of which had been written by that time:

2 Peter 3:15, 16 Also, regard the patience of our Lord as [an opportunity for] salvation, just as our dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you. He speaks about these things in all his letters, in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter here makes it clear that Paul's writings, which had been written only a few years earlier, were already regarded as scripture. Personally, I would not at all be surprised if Paul was including his own writings as scripture here in 2 Timothy. He certainly knew that what he was writing had been given to him directly from God. (Galatians 2)

In retrospect, I think that we can certainly "apply" 2 Timothy 3:14-17 to the NT writings.

BD

[andrew_no_one]

I do not remember where I found these because I found them YEARS ago on the net somewhere, but this is the basic rules I use when interpreting scripture. 80% or more of our debates about certain scriptures around here would cease if we all followed these general, basic rules...

Thank you for posting those. I think I'll be able to make much use of them.

[inn]

If you don't want to debate, then don't post it in a message board. Twitter it. Preach it. But have enough respect for the people on a discussion board to be willing to discuss what you post, or just keep it to yourself. It does no good to just leave things hanging like that.

Very direct, but I think you make a good point!