01.05-Other Context Principles
Chapter 5 Other Context Principles
We should briefly survey some other context principles: context of author; anticontext methods to avoid; and the value of outlining Scripture to catch the flow of thought.
Context of Author In some cases, we have additional help in understanding a passage or statement in the Bible because we can look elsewhere at the particular author’s style. Paul says that God inspired the Scriptures "through" people (Romans 1:2), which suggests that the author’s point corresponds with God’s point. It is therefore important to understand the author’s point. Understanding inspiration recognizes that God inspired different writers in their own basic styles. Jeremiah and Isaiah and Ezekiel all heard God’s message, but each has a very different style. God even gives Ezekiel a special nickname, "son of man."
Sometimes the author’s style is relevant within the book. For example, when some people today claim that "abundant life" in John 10:10 refers to material prosperity, we should note that this is not what John means by "life" anywhere else (John 1:4; John 3:15-16; John 3:36; John 4:14; John 4:35; John 5:24; John 5:26; John 5:29; John 5:39-40; John 6:27; etc.) If this were not enough, however, one could also note references to "life" by the same author in 1 John (1 John 1:1-2; 1 John 2:25; 1 John 3:14-15; 1 John 5:11-13; 1 John 5:16; 1 John 5:20). Some argue that Jesus healed everyone on the basis of Matthew 4:23. But does "all" mean every individual in the whole region? Matthew also says that they brought him "all" the sick in the whole province of Syria (which included Galilee and Judea); if he meant that literally, no one would have needed healing after this point (against the testimony of Acts and even the rest of Matthew’s Gospel). Jesus did not heal everyone who was sick near him (Matthew 13:58), although there were reasons for this and the text indicates that Jesus normally healed people. When we read Isaiah and the Psalms, "salvation" has a broader meaning than it usually bears in the New Testament, and we should respect the context of Isaiah’s and the psalmists’ usage and not read other texts into these. Let me take two examples from Paul’s writings. In neither case are we addressing a particular doctrine; a doctrine often may be based on other texts. But it is helpful to pick examples that will underline the point. For example, some say that the Church will not go through the Great Tribulation at the end of the age because Paul declares that we will not experience God’s "wrath" (1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:9). This, however, is a questionable argument for that position. Occasionally Paul speaks of God’s "wrath" in the present era (Romans 1:18), but usually when he uses the term he speaks of future wrath on the day of God’s judgment (Romans 2:5; Romans 2:8; Romans 5:9; Romans 9:22)--nowhere of the Great Tribulation before that day. Some interpreters want to appeal to the use of "wrath" in Revelation, but Revelation had not yet been written, so Paul could not expect the Thessalonians to simply flip over to Revelation to guess what he meant by "wrath." (If one does appeal to Revelation, however, this particular Greek word for "wrath" always refers to judgment at the end of the tribulation; the word which sometimes--not always--refers to the tribulation as God’s anger is not even the same word!) My second example from Paul is the trumpet in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 1 Corinthians 15:52; the latter text calls it the "last trumpet," so some interpreters want to parallel it with the seventh trumpet in Revelation. But again, Paul’s original audience had no access to a book that had not been written yet. They could not simply flip over to Revelation to understand what Paul meant by the trumpet. They could not even flip from 1 Thessalonians to 1 Corinthians, since most of the first audience in Thessalonica would not have a copy of 1 Corinthians. (The early Christians probably had heard Paul share Jesus’ teachings with them, and may have known about the trumpet later recorded in Matthew 24:31. In this sense, we can use Jesus’ teachings as "background" for Paul’s message. But jumping carelessly from one author to another, say from Paul to Revelation, can often yield inaccurate results.) Most of our letters of Paul are relatively short. By contrast, many of his congregations knew him and were familiar with some points he was making; it is therefore helpful for us to get to know him better by familiarizing ourselves with all his extant writings. This helps us whenever we approach any particular writing of Paul’s.
AntiContext methods to avoid
One must be very careful with word-studies, and should entirely avoid the usual sort of word-study sermons: These are equivalent to preaching from a dictionary rather than from the Bible! Thus some ministers preach on the different "kinds" of love in different passages, agapao love versus phileo love. But the distinction between these two "kinds" of love had virtually disappeared by the New Testament period, so they are often (probably even usually) used interchangeably! Tracing all the uses of a particular word in the Bible is helpful for finding out the different ways that word can be used. It should never form a sermon outline, however (the exception might be some passages in Proverbs), because that is preaching from a concordance rather than from a text studied in its context.
One should also avoid determining the meaning of words by their etymologies. That is, you cannot break a word down into its component parts and always come up with its meaning, and you usually cannot determine the meaning a word has by looking at how it was used centuries earlier or how the word originated. For a contemporary example, if one of my students called me a "nice professor," they might intend it as a compliment. But if I were committed to understanding words according to their origins, I could grow very angry. In English, "nice" is a friendly term; but its Latin source means "ignorant" or "foolish." So I could misunderstand someone calling me "nice" as that person calling me "ignorant"! We know that English does not work that way, and we should not expect ancient languages to work that way, either. For example, some take the Greek word for "repent," metanoieo, and divide it into two parts, of which the second, noieo, is related to thinking. Therefore, they say, "repent" simply means a change of mind. The problem with this interpretation is that the meaning of words is determined by their usage, not by their origins! The New Testament generally uses "repent" not in the Greek sense of "changing one’s mind" but in the sense of "turn" in the Old Testament prophets: a radical turning of our lives from sin to God’s righteousness. Another example of this problem occurs when interpreters speak of the Church as the "called-out ones" based on the Greek word for church, ekklesia. We are, to be sure, "called-out," but we know that for other reasons, not because we can determine that from ekklesia. Some divide ekklesia into ek, meaning "out of," and kaleo, which means "call." But ekklesia had already been used by Greeks for centuries to mean an "assembly" or "gathering"; Jewish people who knew Greek spoke of the congregation of Israel in the wilderness as God’s ekklesia. So the New Testament does not make up a new word to call Christians the "called-out-ones"; rather, it uses a standard term for an assembly, and probably the first Christians thought especially of God’s own assembly in the Old Testament, his people. People can twist Greek the way they can twist English, Hausa, or anything else. When Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that John 1:1 calls Jesus "a God" because there is no definite article ("the") in front of "God" there, they neglect several factors, of which I will briefly summarize two. First, "God" does not always have a definite article in John’s Gospel; the God who sent John the Baptist does not have a definite article (John 1:6), but Jehovah’s Witnesses never say he was simply "a god." Second, grammatically "God" is a predicate nominative in "the Word was God," and predicate nominatives usually omit definite articles. Even without moving any further, we can see that the Jehovah’s Witness interpretation here is based on a lack of knowledge of Greek. Some people speak of zoe as the "God-kind-of-life," but zoe refers to human life just as easily. Some misinterpret Greek grammar, claiming that "faith of God" must mean "the God-kind-of-faith"; it could mean that, but in context probably means "faith in God." Some claim that "now" in Hebrews 11:1 means present-tense "now"; but the Greek term there means "but" or "and." Someone once claimed to me that Christians would all become Christ, because he would come with "ten-thousands of himself" in Jude 1:14. The person’s error was simple--"ten-thousands of him" is the appropriate way to say in Greek, "ten-thousands belonging to him"--but it led them into a serious doctrinal error. More often than not (there may be some exceptions), when someone comes up with an interpretation based on Greek or Hebrew that contradicts what one would have thought from reading the rest of the Bible, they may be reading into the Greek or the Hebrew something that is not there. It is helpful to learn Greek and Hebrew for yourself, but if you cannot, sticking with a couple good translations is usually safe. The most common anticontext method is practiced by cults like Jehovah’s Witnesses by also widespread in churches of most denominations. We read into the text what we already expect to find there, because of our doctrine or because of how we have heard a story told! How often have we read a Bible story only to realize that part of the story we always heard is not in that passage? How often have we read our doctrine (maybe even a correct doctrine, supported by other texts) into a text or texts that did not really address the issue? When this happens, Christians from different groups can no longer use the Bible as a common basis for seeking truth, because we are all "sure" of our own interpretations, which we sometimes cannot defend from context! It is important enough to respect the Bible enough to let it speak for itself. If our doctrine is not in a passage, we do not need to read it in; our doctrine is probably in some other passage--or else respect for the Bible’s authority may require us to fix our doctrine. In this way we are open to fresh discoveries in the Bible each time we study it. At the same time, this does not mean that we throw away everything we have already learned and start with nothing each day. We build on what we have already learned, and go back and change particular interpretations only as we study the text as honestly as possible and find a need to change. This way we can also dialogue with other honest Christians around the Scriptures.
Outlining to Get the Flow of Context
Outlining a passage’s or a book’s structure can often help a person follow the flow of thought. Some texts break down easily into an obvious structure. For example:
1. Ephesians 5:21-33; Ephesians 6:1-9 Ephesians 5:21 (thesis statement): Submitting to one another in the fear of Christ 1. Ephesians 5:22-33 : Wives and husbands 2. Ephesians 6:1-4 : Children and fathers 3. Ephesians 6:5-9 : Slaves and slaveholders 2. Matthew 5:21-48 1. Angry enough to kill (Matthew 5:21-26) 2. Coveting others sexually (Matthew 5:27-30) 3. Unfaithfulness by divorce (Matthew 5:31-32) 4. Integrity better than oaths (Matthew 5:33-37) 5. Avoiding resistance (Matthew 5:38-42) 6. Loving your enemy (Matthew 5:43-47) Conclusion: Be perfect like God (Matthew 5:48) 3. Matthew 6:1-18 Thesis statement: Matthew 6:1 : Do righteousness only for God to see, or you lose your reward with him.
1. Do charity secretly (Matthew 6:2-4) 2. Pray secretly (Matthew 6:5-15) a. Instructions for prayer (Matthew 6:5-8) b. Sample prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) c. Elaboration on forgiveness (Matthew 6:14-15) 3. Fast secretly (Matthew 6:16-18) One could also subdivide Matthew 6:5-13 as follows:
ADon’t pray like (hypocrites, Matthew 6:5) BPray like this (secretly, Matthew 6:6) A’Don’t pray like (pagans, Matthew 6:7-8) B’Pray like this (Lord’s prayer, Matthew 6:9-13)
4. Psalm 150 1. Where to praise God (everywhere, Psalms 150:1) 2. What to praise God for (his works and character, Psalms 150:2) 3. How to praise God (with all available instruments, Psalms 150:3-5) 4. Who should praise God (everyone, Psalms 150:6)
5. Psalm 1 1. The way and blessing of the righteous (Psalms 1:1-3) a. They do not enjoy sinful company (Psalms 1:1) b. They think on God’s law (1:2) c. God will bless them with success (Psalms 1:3) 2. The way and judgment of the wicked (Psalms 1:4-5) a. The wicked will face judgment (Psalms 1:4) b. The wicked will not enjoy righteous company (Psalms 1:5)
3. Summary Not all outlines come so simply, however; some outlines of thought may be more complicated. Thus, for example, one can divide Romans 1:18-32 into a simple outline: God judges the world for preferring idols to his truth (Romans 1:18-23); they fall into sexual sin (Romans 1:24-27); and ultimately every kind of sin (Romans 1:28-32). But a more detailed outline might also reveal Paul’s line of thought in more detail (I adapt the NASB below):
Romans 1:10 always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you.
[why?--reason for Romans 1:10]
Romans 1:11 For I long to see you in order that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established;
[=] Romans 1:12 that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine.
Romans 1:13 And I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented thus far) [why? purpose for planning to come] in order that I might obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles.
[grammatically new point (though logically continues explanation for what precedes] Romans 1:14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.
[Romans 1:14 provides the reason for Romans 1:15] Romans 1:15 Thus, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
[Romans 1:16 a also provides the reason for Romans 1:15]
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, [Romans 1:16 b provides the reason for Romans 1:16 a] for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
[Why is it God’s salvific power for both Jew and Greek? Romans 1:17 provides the reason for Romans 1:16 b (both Jew and Gentile come to God on equal terms through faith)
Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith;
[basis for knowing this:] as it is written, “But the righteous person shall live by faith.”
[Why must the righteous come by faith? Romans 1:17 is predicated on the entire section that follows in Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:1-29 and beyond--all are equally lost]
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people=who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [why is God so angry? wrath (v. 18) because they should’ve known better (v. 19)] Romans 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them;
[why?] for God made it evident to them.
[how?]
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made [with the result that--the closing line shows the result of the preceding one] so that they are without excuse.
[why? basis for the result in the last line of Romans 1:20, hence rehearsing the reason of the earlier lines of Romans 1:20]
Romans 1:21-23 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
[Romans 1:24 happens because of Romans 1:23 --sexual sin (perverting God’s image in humanity) stems from idolatry (perverting God’s image directly)] Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.
[Romans 1:25 is the basis for Romans 1:24 --rehearses the thought of Romans 1:21-23]
Romans 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
[Romans 1:26 happens because of Romans 1:25, and rehearses and develops the thought of Romans 1:24] Romans 1:26-28 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, {followed by vice list}
Outlining passages can prove very useful in seeking to convey biblical truths. Larger outlines of passages often can provide the main points for a sermon or an outline for an inductive Bible study. In this case the structure of the text becomes the structure of your sermon--making you depend still more on the Bible for what you will teach! One can also list various lessons in a passage and make them one’s main points; or one can simply tell the story in the text, and mention the lessons as they arise. In any case, we discipline ourselves and our hearers to understand the Bible better when we treat it passage by passage rather than skipping indiscriminately from one to another.