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

[BadDog]

I think that regarding the inspiration of scripture, 2 Peter 1 has much to say... and based on 2 Peter 3:15, 16 (see an earlier post - # 13) Peter was clearly here including NT writings as scripture as well:

2 Peter 1:16-21 For we did not follow cleverly contrived myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; instead, we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, a voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory:

This is My beloved Son. I take delight in Him!

And we heard this voice when it came from heaven while we were with Him on the holy mountain. [the transfiguration] So we have the prophetic word strongly confirmed. You will do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dismal place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. First of all, you should know this: no prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, moved by the Holy Spirit, men spoke from God.

1. The apostles were eyewitnesses of what they wrote. (See Luke 1:1-3)
2. They did not make anything up.
3. There is only one correct interpretation of scripture.
4. Man did not provide the impetus for inspired writings.
5. The human authors were "moved" or "carried along" by the Holy Spirit.
6. The human authors "spoke from God." So God was the source and originator.
7. 2 Timothy 3 expresses inspiration as being "God-breathed-out."
8. 2 Timothy 3 also tells us that all scripture is inspired by God.

BD

[Bandit]

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?

Hey, I like your questions.

Context covers lots of stuff: the particular book or letter within which the passage in question is contained, the historical context at the time of writing, the intent of the author (if stated), the whole of biblical revelation (assuming God is the overall Author with a single, ultimate purpose), etc.

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

Yes. Both the author and his assumed reader were in a certain (common) culture. To ignore that common culture would be both unwise and wreckless.

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

It is only our limited understanding which leads to contradictions. We should all assume that God does not conflict with Himself. Now we might not be able to understand it all, but we should assume that Jesus (who is God in the flesh) could explain each and every passage without contradiction. If I find enough passages which clearly state something, I then wrestle with the few which seem to be in contradiction. God is not the Author of confusion.

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

Definitely. Jesus is God in the flesh. How can what God came to earth to say in person not be more important than what was relayed through human spokesmen? And not to say that what was relayed should be ignored, but for God Himself to come down and live and speak among us, how could we not give His words the weight they alone are due?

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

Yes. Need I say any more? Is Jesus God during the New Testament only?

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

Yes. If we don’t understand how the original listener might have understood what was said, we have probably missed the point. But that still brings up the question of how might the original listener have understood what was written.

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

That is more difficult. In the gospels, sometimes you can get a glimpse of the crowds reaction. I have always liked what was recorded at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, after Jesus finished speaking. To me, the crowd’s reaction speaks volumes, so much so that it impressed Matthew to mention it. But in other books, like Paul’s letters, it is like we are listening in on one side of a conversation. We have to assume certain things as to the other side of that conversation. I think what we have to do in broaden our scope and include all of scripture (and ask God to help us understand). If we focus too narrowly on any one passage, we can miss the big picture. And we must also not ignore the internal voice which speaks to each person and is evident in the world. God speaks also speaks through nature and through our life experiences.

[Butch5]

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?

The context is the surrounding information used to determine what the writer is saying

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

Absolutely

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

Reconcile both of them. Many words and phrases can be understood in more that one way.

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

Not necessarily, the OT passages are very beneficial for understanding the NT passages, especially books like Revelation.

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

I don't know if priority is the right word. I believe the rest of the Bible should be interpreted according to Jesus' words. Many Christians interpret Jesus' words according to Paul's words. It should be the other way around.

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

Absolutely

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

I read their writings

[BroRog]

1. What does "context" mean to you?
There are at least two types of context: 1)literary context, the discourse that surrounds a word, sentence, verse or paragraph and helps determine its intepreation and 2)historical context, the set of circumstances and events that are contemporaneous with the passage. When someone asks me what a verse means, I tend to read two or three paragraphs ahead and after the verse in question to get the general flow of thought and how the other ideas and concepts work together with the verse to form a complete thought. Sometimes it's also helpful to imagine what the author's contemporaries might have understood and so it's helpful to know the historical background.

2. Do cultural considerations have any impact on your interpretation of a passage?
Yes, they do, especially if an author is attempting to critique his own culture or he is using ideas and concepts taken from his own culture as metaphors, examples or illustrations. For instance, in Romans 12:20 Paul says,

20 "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head."

Perhaps if we knew what his culture meant by "heap burning coals on the head" we might understand this passage better.

3. How do you deal with passages that are seemingly "contradictory?"
I assume the apparent contradictions are due to my misunderstanding of one or both passages. I try to understand each passage on its own terms and then compare the two. Usually I find that the apparent contradiction arose from an assumption I made that wasn't explict or even implied in the text. Once I drop that assumption the passage usually isn't contradictory anymore.

4. Do you believe that the passages in the New Testament are more important that the passages in the Old Testament?
No, I assume that the entire Bible speaks with one voice and that each passage is important in its own right.

5. Do you believe that the words of Jesus take priority over the rest of the Bible?
Yes and no. I always assume that Jesus is a better exegete than I. And so if he interprets a passage for me, I assume that his interpretation is correct. So in that sence, his interpretations take priority over my interpretations. And since Jesus is my teacher, I will listen to him first. So in that way, yes, his words take priority. But since the rest of the Bible sets the context for what Jesus says later, and since Jesus is making commentary on the rest of the Bible, and since the more I know the rest of the Bible the better chance I have of understanding what Jesus is saying, then the rest of the Bible can't be ignored if I want to understand Jesus.

6. Do you need to know what the original listener understood the message to be?
I would say that the goal of interpretation is to ascertain what the author meant to say. I'm not sure it's possible to know how the original reader would have understood. Having said that, I believe that the author was speaking to his contemporaries in a language that they understood, deciding what to include and what to leave out according to his preconceived understanding of what his audience already knew. The author shares a set of facts, beliefs, metaphors, circumstances, cultural conventions, with his readers that we might not share. If we are not sensitive to this, we will have a difficult time coming to understand what the author intended to say.

7. If your answer to #6 is "yes," how do you go about that?
Many times the author will reiterate the understanding he shares with his audience. For instance, the author might say something like, "We all know 'x'. Given 'x' is true, then 'y'."

At other times a text will sound "funny" taken at face value, which leads us to question whether there might be a cultural idiom at play. For instance, take 1Timothy 2:8

8 Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.

The question arises, was Paul introducing a new practice, i.e. lifting up the hands during prayer? Or was lifting the hands during prayer an well established cultural practice, which became the context from which he wanted to suggest that the men who prayed should be "holy" i.e. without wrath and dissension. In cases like these I look for clues in the text in which the author has placed an emphasis somewhere, which helps me sort things like this out. More could be said about this.

[-SEEKING-]

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

1. What does "context" mean to you? To me I understand it to mean that you must look at what was said in light of the circumstances in which it was written. In other words, what did it mean to those who it was originally addressed to.

2. Do cultural considerations have any impact on your interpretation of a passage? That's a tough one. There is a part of me that says yes, but I'm not sure if I can just use a wide brush and apply it to everything.


3. How do you deal with passages that are seemingly "contradictory?" I see how they fit overall with everything the bible has to say. I make myself as open minded as possible.

4. Do you believe that the passages in the New Testament are more important that the passages in the Old Testament? No. But I believe the NT is a fulfillment of the OT.

5. Do you believe that the words of Jesus take priority over the rest of the Bible? I don't think Jesus could contradict what the bible says. Against man's traditions yes, but not the word.

6. Do you need to know what the original listener understood the message to be? I think that would help a great deal. But I don't think it's a prerequisite.


7. If your answer to #6 is "yes," how do you go about that? Study history and commentaries about the times in which scripture was written.

[ThyWordIsTruth]

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?

a) We have to first understand why the letter (if it is an epistle) was written. Why was it written? What was going on that prompted it to be written? What was the problem? Wrt Jesus, if Jesus told a parable, it is often in response to something someone did or said. What was the event that triggered the telling of the parable? In summary, what was the background story?

b) Who were the words spoken or written in an epistle addressed to?

c) How did the recepients understand what was being said? What was happening culturally/politically/socially/historically during that time when this was said? How did their knowledge of what was going on around them, in terms of the socio-economic-political atmosphere affect how they understood what was said, from which we can deciper what the person talking is trying to say?

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

Absolutely.

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

Read them with an open mind and an honest heart, willing to accept the answer wherever the evidence fell, and pray for the Holy Spirit to teach me. I suspect you are looking for an answer to do with context in which case I don't know how to answer.

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

Yes and no. Yes in the way that the NT affects us now as new-covenant believers and it relates directly to us. No in the way that all Scripture is God breathed, so all are true.

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

No. Not if we truly believe that all Scripture is God breathed, and every single word recorded comes out directly from the mouth of God himself.

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

Definitely.

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

By spending many years studying history, ancient middle-eastern culture, and extra-bilibical writings from that era to understand the thinking and practices of the people of that time, etc.

[BadDog]

I was thinking about the questions asking if the words of Jesus take priority over the rest of the Bible and if passages in the NT are "more important" than those in the OT.

I think since we view all scripture as inspired we hesitate to say that God can use one text more than another in a certain area. It's kinda like saying that all sin causes us to be punished by death. Yet all sins are not equal. Similarly, the didactic texts, whose express purpose for being written had to do with teaching us, will be more effective in clarifying doctrinal questions. Poetic texts, such as the Psalms or Proverbs, will be used by God more effectively in a devotional sense as we say echo the words of David to his God.

Similarly, the narrative scriptures, such as the gospels, Acts, or the historical books in the OT such as Genesis, for example, are not intended for doctrine, in general, though they do touch on it, of course. But the purpose of the gospels are in general to show us Jesus. Now while this is vitally important, yet when searching out, for example, about the theology of giving, though the gospels do speak on it, Paul covers it in detail in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. That would be the place to start. Of course we need to reconcile all scripture, so if a conclusion we drew about giving, for example, seems to contradict something Jesus said about giving, then we'd have to go back and re-read the texts carefully and in context. But we should START in didactic scripture. It's the safe and wise way to go about it, and we're more likely to come up with sound principles for giving, for example. Also, the gospels are essentially an extension of the OT, since they were still under the Law until Christ's death and resurrection. Hence, if we start there in trying to develop doctrines, we can have doctrinal error. More doctrinal error has arisen from starting in the gospels than anything else.

That's why I answered that the words of Jesus do not take priority over the rest of scripture. Whether Jesus spoke them, or the Spirit inspired them, as it says in 2 Peter 1, "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." They're not the words of Jesus... but they are words from the Spirit. And when it comes to doctrine, I place priority on Paul's words... as a place to start, over the words of our Lord.

Similarly I voted that the NT has priority (is more important) over the OT since we are no longer under the Law. And where do we find theology in the OT? Not much there... though it is certainly intended to build us up. The OT is great for showing us the face of God... what is God like? When doing a study on the attributes of God, for example, and looking for verses to memorize on that, I started in the OT. So I guess it depends upon what you're looking for at the time. But it's OK to say that the NT has priority over the OT.


Does anyone dare to agree with me here? IMO one of my strengths is recognizing sound or unsound doctrine. I think a key reason is what I outlined above. It's not just our knowledge of the scriptures, but how we go about evaluating them.


Take care,

BD

[BadDog]

The following is a humorous story, you may have heard before, regarding reading scripture in context:

A guy was praying, and really wanted to trust God in any decisions he made. So he decided to just open up the Bible, let it fall where it may, and poke his finger down on a verse. Whatever it said, was God's will.

So he did that, and opening his Bible read, "And Judas went out and hung himself."

Now he was really flustered. "What should I do?" he wondered. Ah, perhaps if I try a different passage, it will be more clear what the Spirit is telling me to do.

So he opened his Bible and turning the page, he read, "Go thou and do likewise."

Yikes! Now what? He was really beginning to panic now. Should he really? ... Then he decided to give it one more shot.

So with shaking fingers, he nervously flipped a couple more pages over. Then with a finger that just wouldn't quit shaking he plopped it down on a verse...

"What thou doest, do quickly."



Context. Sometimes there are threads here where someone is trying to understand a passage. The first thing I do is simply read it in context... sometimes the entire chapter or more is needed. But that solves things 95% of the time.

BD