Today we're going to be looking at the idea of context. It is a topic discussed frequently from this pulpit, so much of this may be a refresher to most, but maybe some pieces will help in new ways of approaching the Scripture.
Back in March, in my little message on vampires and the like, I briefly touched upon this topic. Today we'll be going a little deeper into the topic of taking Bible context seriously. Let's start by quoting one of the points from that previous talk:
Just as with every text there is a context, so with every context there is a worldview. Actually, in any context there are several worldviews, the prophet's, the hearer's, and the one progressively unveiled through revelation, to which the first two must conform. Much of the labor of Bible study for the late twentieth century believer is the reconstruction of those worldviews, in order that the revelation may be more fully understood. Unfortunately for today however, the reconstruction of the prophet's worldview is replaced by the imposition of the modern reader's worldview. (Terry Morin, The Forgotten Heavens: Celestials & Thronophanies)
Sadly, most approach the Bible from just a remedial, surface level view. Not only do they only read and understand it based on the words of the English translation that they choose to read, and then apply it as if it were written to them for this time frame.
If we are to fully understand the intent of a Scripture message, our job is to seek to understand the writer's intent with his words, what was he was saying to his audience, and how would they have understood and applied it in their time and culture. Only then that we can properly understand and apply it to our lives.
Our job is to keep studying and reading of the Scripture within its context in order to glean from it an application. At the same time, by context, there are different levels of context that need examined, as the opening quote referenced.
In general, the average reader tends to stop at the opening phrase of our quote – they acknowledge that every text has a context. That is where we're going to start today, and then we will move in to the importance of the rest of this quote. So, what are the various types of "contexts" we mean by saying the Bible must be interpreted within its own context?
I will be focusing on four main types of contexts. First, there is the immediate context of the text itself in relation to the words around it, but also here, we must consider other writings by the same author, if available; secondly, there is the cultural influences on the text at the time of writing; and thirdly, there is understanding the style of writing being used, and fourthly, there is the interpretive context we find elsewhere within Scripture as well as other similar writings.
The Immediate Context
Most should already understand this first one. By the immediate context in relation to the text around it, we should not take a verse, or parts of a verse, and remove it from its surrounding context, doing so is a sure-fire way to make a verse end up saying something it was never intended to.
It is as if many see and use the Scriptures as if it is a large book of disjointed, individual sayings of wisdom that can be taken and applied to life however it seems fit for use. There are many such single line statements of virtue and wisdom books out there for sure, but the Bible is not one of them. The sayings of Yeshua are not to be read as one would read the sayings of Confucius.
Sadly, I see this all of the time. I work in a large Christian ministry, so I am around a large number of fellow believers from differing backgrounds, so it is more commonly seen. People throw out trite, memorized favorite portions of verses, applying them in ways never intended.
As the quote above says, the individual verse has a context – meaning it must be read and understood within the verses that precede as well as follow it. Only then can we seek to find application for us. In my opinion, the modern church as a whole would change overnight if they understood and took this seriously, applying this simple, step one, entry-level approach to context.
But, not only is that single verse only understood within the full paragraph where it exists; it also must be understood within the immediate paragraphs that surround the paragraph where it exists. And even further, those paragraphs must be considered within the whole chapter where these paragraphs all exists. But wait! There is MORE!
Hopefully most everyone is aware that the chapter and verse breaking were added much later, and that the original writers did not write them in. The chapter divisions were added around 1227, and the individual verse numberings came about around 1551. So, the verse within the verses, the paragraph within the paragraphs of the chapter, but ignore the chapters and realize that context must be considered even out to the entire book where the chapters and paragraphs exist.
It is not uncommon for people to teach through a whole single chapter of a Scripture book, yet get it wrong simply because they fail to understand the chapter's terms, arguments, etc. in light of the entire usage throughout the book wherein it appears. That can lead to twisting one chapter to say something that ends up contradicting something taught elsewhere in the same book by the same author.
Another context to consider is the context of a book in light of other books or writings that are identified as being by the same author. Each writer of Scripture is unique in that they all have different personalities, different upbringings and cultural approaches at times, different language usages at times, and other things that need considered.
Just like it is not uncommon to find two modern authors today who may write using different nuances and different cultural meanings behind a word or phrase, it is likewise not uncommon to find different Biblical authors in similar periods of time, also using terms in a slightly different way or with different nuances from each other.
Considering also that each author of Scripture tended to write to different audiences, who themselves came from different backgrounds and may have different terminology applications, it's not always an apples-to-apples comparison of context or word usage between authors.
That is why it can be a recipe for disaster for someone going out, finding a word in Scripture, deciding on a wooden, literal, single definition for it, and then applying that across all of Scripture where is appears.
On top of that, we find that word definitions and usage can change and morph in their application and understandings over the centuries of the various Scripture books. There are many topics of Scripture where we find a growth in knowledge and revelation on subjects over the centuries.
Do a study on topics like resurrection or the afterlife, starting in Genesis and working thru the whole Bible, and you'll find an ever expanding and morphing of ideas by the writers of Scripture over time.
You cannot simply grab a tool like Strong's or Thayer's dictionary, look up a Greek or Hebrew word, find a single definition you like, and then apply it globally throughout Scripture. That is not a valid way of word study, as so much more plays a factor in the situation.
If you stop to really think about it, words themselves really have little to no meaning. For instance, think of the word RUN. What does it mean? If I asked you for a definitive meaning for the word, what would you say?
Hopefully, giving it a moment of thought, you would agree that it doesn't really mean anything, because it could mean practically anything. Even if you looked it up in a dictionary, you would be presented with multiple options.
First off, is this word a noun or a verb? You do not know. It could be a noun, referring to:
· Way of keeping score in a baseball game
· After painting, those drips you find
· A continued series – like a book or magazine
· An animal path – a dog run
But what if it were a verb, it could be:
· Something faster than a walk
· Someone trying to win a political office
· A machine that is on and functioning
· A liquid that has spilled and spread out
In a good dictionary, the word could mean as many as 70 different things. So, the word in and of itself, means nothing. Meaning is determined by context and usage. It must also be determined if the author is using the word in a literal sense, or metaphorically, or even sarcastically. Is it possibly part of a cultural idiom for instance?
Most all cultures have idioms. We may write a letter where we say so-and-so "kicked the bucket" – but what would someone a thousand years from now make of that statement? A dictionary would tell us all of the possible meanings for kicked as well as bucket, but would that help someone understand what is being said here in any way?
Was there a literal bucket being kicked? No, it is part of the cultural context of the writer, it is an idiom, and likewise the Bible contains idioms we won't understand if we do not understand their cultural use and application.
So, when looking at context, we start simple. We cannot take part of a verse out of its context and build a belief on it. An extreme example would be for someone to say that the Bible does indeed state that God does not really exist. Right there in Psalm 14, we are told, **quote "There is no God."
Kind of a silly example, but sadly, I have seen verses used in similar fashion. Of course, we should all know that what Psalm 14 actually says is:
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." (Ps 14:1 ESV)
Again, taking a short series of words out of their context is not a valid way to understand the text. But the most common misuse, is the full-verse contextual abuse. Over the past forty years, in various avenues of print and blogging, I have written against this rampant practice in Christendom.
One of my favorites, and one that even Dave has frequently used, is the on Jeremiah 29:11, which is a favorite one of many Christians. It is on mugs, calendars, embroideries, you name it. I am sure you are likewise familiar with it, it states:
For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. (Jeremiah 29:11 ESV)
What an encouraging and gracious saying to comfort everyone around you with, but is that what this verse is written to tell us? I brought this up years ago at work. We had an annual organizational calendar each year. One year I found this verse used. I called the designer over and asked her "So, who comes up with the verses used in these designs?"
I went on to point out the verse being used, and explained what it means in context. I got kind of a deer in the headlights look in response, though she admitted seeing my point, but stating something along the lines of … "You're up against the majority of Christianity on this one." Sad, but true. Things have been misused so much, that to question them is an offense to some.
Let's stop to examine this one in detail, in case you are unaware. But first, it must be pointed out that, when we read Scripture, which consists of words written down, we do good to follow the five Ws of grammar that most of us were probably taught in school – the Who - What - When - Where - Why?
So, when we examine a verse like this one, we can ask "who is speaking, and who was he speaking to?" Well, we simply back up one verse to find out who was speaking:
For thus says the LORD… (Jer. 29:10 ESV)
Next, exactly who was he speaking to? For that we back up to verse four and we'll discover:
"Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: (Jer. 29:4 ESV)
So, we have Yahweh speaking to those sent into exile from Jerusalem into Babylon. They are in captivity. So, we move on to the next W and ask WHAT is he speaking of. We find that out by again looking one verse earlier at verse 10:
"For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. (Jer. 29:10 ESV)
So, we have Yahweh speaking, he is speaking to those who were exiled and in captivity in Babylon, and he tells them he will visit them to fulfill His promise to bring them back into their land. I'm sure they could easily be fearful of being left there in captivity forever.
So, when was this written? It was written around the 6th century BC when Jerusalem was destroyed and the people taken captive in Babylon as we saw in verse four. And when were these promises to take place? He says when the seventy years were complete, as we also see here in verse ten.
Where was this written? Well, we see in verse three how it was written and sent to the people held in Babylon:
The letter was sent by the hand of Elasah the son of Shaphan and Gemariah the son of Hilkiah, whom Zedekiah king of Judah sent to Babylon to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. (Jer. 29:3 ESV)
Who spoke? – Yahweh spoke. Spoke to who? – the exiles from Jerusalem. When did he speak? – when they were in exile. Where did He speak? – the area of Babylon. What was He speaking of? – His promise to His people in exile.
So finally – why did He say this? We have partially seen the answer – it was to state that Yahweh was going to keep his promise to those exiled people. But why was he going to fulfil the promise? That is what our verse in question tells us:
"For thus says the LORD (WHO): When seventy years are completed for Babylon (WHEN/WHERE), I will visit you (WHO/EXILES), and I will fulfill to you (WHO) my promise (WHAT) and bring you (WHO) back to this place. (WHY) For I know the plans I have for you (PEOPLE from Jerusalem), declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you (exiles) a future and a hope.
Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the LORD, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile. (Jer. 29:10-14 ESV)
So, hopefully you see that in its proper context this verse is not, in any way, a general promise of comfort to be pronounced unto all Christians today. I've had people respond to me on this point by saying "Yeah, but doesn't God know the plans he has for us?" Well, of course he does. But that does not mean that those plans are necessarily the same "plans for welfare and not for evil" or a promise to "give you a future and a hope" in the fashion described here.
This chapter was a promise from Yahweh given for a specific people in history, in a specific set of circumstances, a specific time in history past, with a specific promise being fulfilled. This is so so clearly evident by simply reading the few surrounding verses, but people just don't care it seems.
Now, like I mentioned before, if considered at all, this is the type of context application where most at least give lip service to understanding, and they stop here. But as touched upon, usage and meaning are also greatly affected by the author's writing style, their cultural understandings, and general worldview concepts of their time period.
So, point two, we must also account for how that word was used culturally and historically at the time the book was written?
The Cultural Context
Going back to the initial quote we opened with, it states:
Just as with every text there is a context, so with every context there is a worldview. Actually, in any context there are several worldviews, the prophet's, the hearers, and the one progressively unveiled through revelation, to which the first two must conform. (Terry Morin, The Forgotten Heavens: Celestials & Thronophanies)
This is one of the contexts that most people miss, that of the worldview and culture from which the text was produced. Readers today want to impose their modern worldview on the text, and that causes many diverse issues with interpretations. So, what do we mean by the worldview of the writer? We have already hinted at it a moment ago.
This means we need to understand, for instance, how words, phrases, idioms, and theological beliefs were understood and used during the time period in history in which the text in question was written. Worldviews change over time and differ between different cultures often.
Therefore, we must seek to understand, during the time of the writing, how were certain spiritual concepts understood, and how was the surrounding culture influential on the text being examined? What were the issues of the day that were influential on why the writer wrote what they did? What was the common train of thought on these topics in general?
Sadly, the Bible, which is grammar as I said earlier, is nevertheless rarely given the same treatment as we give other grammar of our time. When we read a book written say two hundred years ago, we know we're going to run into words, phrases, and terms that we do not use or understand in today's culture.
We therefore stop and examine what those words meant to the writer at their time. This is often what is missed when examining the Scripture. Instead, Scripture is viewed as a book that was given supernaturally, having had zero influence within it by the worldview or culture of the writer producing it.
Instead of the writers being actual people writing with divine inspiration, many have this understanding of biblical inspiration that would make the writers out to be more like just vessels channeling divine words to paper.
It is probably safe to say that the majority of evangelicals would view the idea of inspiration as if it were a series of paranormal events. The prophet or writers gets up in the morning, is brushing his teeth, and ZAP BANG POW – Yahweh hits them with a vision, or puts them into a trance and feeds their hand the scientifically and spiritually perfect words of truth, directly from on high.
It is viewed as if Yahweh takes over man's functions and writes the words himself, without influence from the writer. Then the writer awakes from his trance and looks down to see these words from on high and marvels at the truth that came through him yet has zero influence from him.
That idea is a myth and not the way inspiration works. The writers of biblical texts were people – and they wrote during a specific time in history, they had a set of beliefs and understandings connected to their time and culture, and those understandings were in fact influential to their writings.
Did some of these writers write things they did not understand? Of course they did, but that is not what I mean here. Those tend to be prophetic times when the spirit moved the writer to say something they did not understand how they would come about.
A more proper way to look at this idea is to think instead of Yahweh's use of certain writers. While it may be thought that He randomly chose this person over here, and then put them in this trance and wrote this book, and then randomly picked this person over there to do the same, there is a better way to view the process.
Instead of it being this series of paranormal experiences at a later date in their life, think bigger picture, longer time process. Instead, think of how Yahweh picked this person to be the writer because of their existing understanding, theology and general worldview.
Think instead that Yahweh would have been instrumental throughout all of their life, leading them into places, thought and understanding to shape and form them into the person they are – and THEN he had them write this particular book which would be presented from their worldview.
Then, that real person does not need some paranormal experience to cause them to produce the text, when instead, they as real people could be prompted and led by the Spirit from God to write using their own language and manner that gets the truth across.
Yahweh takes real people and uses them in real time to produce a text with real human influence, to get across the truth He has for them to produce. So, that being the case, we therefore must understand that the writing produced has a context – an influence from the writer's worldview and the worldview of those being addressed.
The biblical text produced is therefore only fully understood if the writer's worldview is understood. We must not try to force our worldview, culture and context upon it as so many often do, or we stray into territory quite alien to the initial audience. Audience relevance is a key hermeneutical point that must always be considered when trying to understand any text.
We must understand that the biblical context is not my context – it is not your context. It is not the context of your pastor… or your church leadership … or your denomination. It is not the context of the popular modern-day evangelists and preachers – insert your favorite preacher or author name here.
It is likewise not the context of great thinkers in the past. It is not the context of C.I. Scofield, or Charles Ryrie, or John Walvoord, or Dwight Moody, or Charles Spurgeon, or John Wesley, or John Calvin, or Martin Luther. It is not the context of Augustine, or Tertullian, or Acquinas.
Biblical theology is not oriented towards any of the worldviews that any of those people had – biblical context is not their context. The context of the early church fathers, the medieval writers, the Reformers, the modern teachers, etc. is a context that is alien to the biblical context of the original writers.
If we seek to truly keep things in context, we must understand that the context we must take seriously, is that of those original biblical writers. Their context is the one that needs to be guiding our thoughts on interpreting Scripture properly. Therefore, we must seek to know and understand what that context was.
That context goes much farther and much wider than simply looking at keeping the words and paragraphs in their context. Instead of doing this work of finding the writer's context, most Bible readers instead filter the Scriptures through many of the various contexts mentioned — whatever their preferred filter tends to be.
They believe this or that idea, strictly because their pastor or favorite author teaches it, or because their creed or church teach it. Obviously, this is a major problem.
This is one of the central issues that have caused so, so many different odd interpretations of the text, and often leads to debates, church splits, or new denominations totally.
It is the context and worldview of the writers that has been mentioned from this pulpit often, so know many of you hearing this are probably already familiar. When David speaks about things like the Ugaritic texts and other ancient near Eastern material, it is writings like those that assist in understanding the context of the writers of the Tanakh.
And then when you hear us speak of the 2nd Temple material, like the Pseudepigrapha, Deuterocanonical, and Apocryphal works, as well as some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other works from historians of the day, those are also tools that can assist in building the context of the New Testament worldview.
Of course, this means more work than the average Christian is willing to spend in Bible Study. Instead, they'd rather pick up the Bible and just read it, and then misapply it to their own life, their own context, their own worldview, and twist it to mean a number of things beyond what it was ever written to mean.
Aside from just misunderstanding portions of the text, there is often much that is missed. The original writer may be making a very profound point, but it is really only profound to those original hearers who knew what localized or contemporary event was being referenced, or to those who have studied the context as we are speaking of.
One example which has been given already from this pulpit many times in the past, is the cloud rider scenario. In Ugaritic and Old Testament Hebrew, Baal's epithet as the storm god was, "He Who Rides on the Clouds." In Phoenician, he was called, "Baal Shamen, Lord of the Heavens." So, when the Hebrews come along and take that title and apply it to Yahweh, they are in essence mocking, or belittling Baal. They call Yahweh the cloud rider as we see in Isaiah 19:
An oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them. (Isa 19:1 ESV)
But that emphasis is totally missed by someone unaware of the context it is written in, because the full Baal story is not contained within the Tanakh. So, if someone is clueless on the Baal story, then the biblical story is just read at face value as a new statement about Yahweh, and that totally misses the deeper profoundness of the intent of the statement by the writer.
Then there are things, as touched upon earlier, like the use of idioms of the time. These may go right over our head. Sometimes, those idioms do not even translate well from the original language, so we'd never grasp them.
Another example would be when people get introduced to the idea of the divine council, the multiple number of Elohim that exist. Many would be quick to deny such a teaching, and quote:
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god [elohim] beside me; (Deut. 32:39 ESV)
Seems pretty clear cut – it obviously seems to be teaching that there is only one singular god – or Elohim. So, the divine council idea is obviously a myth and must be thrown out it seems. Just reading the words and defining them simply, could lead one to such a conclusion. But that only holds true if there is this ignorance of context.
Understanding the historical context and use of words would lead someone to see that the phrase "I am, and there is none beside me" was an ancient Biblical slogan of incomparability or sovereignty, and not a statement meaning exclusivity of existence.
In their worldview context, this would have been their way of stating that a certain authority was the absolute most powerful when compared to any other authority. It did not mean there were not any other authorities at all, but that of them all, this one was the highest or most important.
This same phraseology is used elsewhere in Scripture in Isaiah 47:8 and Zephaniah 2:15 referring to Babylon and Nineveh respectively, and yet I doubt anyone would claim them to be using it to mean exclusivity, so it only gets brought up when it is suitable for the current argument.
So, in closing this point, there are many examples in Scripture where these types of role-reversal or idiomatic statements are made, and unless the reader knows the worldview context of the writing, they will most likely miss the emphasis being made, or totally twist the original meaning.
In scholarly circles, it is called "comparative studies" when someone is using other writings of the same era of time in order to help establish a context for whatever the writing is that is in question. It is used often in the real world, but most evangelicals ignore the practice when considering Scripture.
In our world of biblical studies, to apply comparative studies would be to use the ancient near eastern writings of the same era of time that the Tanakh was written, in order to better understand the history, culture and terminology we find in the Tanakh.
Most Christians would shy away from such an idea, because again they feel the Scriptures came from a series of paranormal experiences, and the words have come down directly from God in a manner that is not influenced by any such outward things.
This has been a long time evangelical attitude, but fortunately has been losing ground for the last few decades in the scholarly world. Of course, it may be centuries more before those ideas actually get leaked from the scholarly world into the real world, and even longer before typical Christian leaders study and read on the subject.
In the end, for the average person to get the full thrust of what Scripture is saying, it will require some work in order to start thinking like an ancient writer. Fortunately, a lot of the work has been accomplished by the scholars and written about, it just requires getting into it and becoming familiar with the ancient worldview.
Writing Styles
Another element of understanding context, is the importance of reading with an understanding of the type of literature before us, and understand the grammatical laws that apply to that. The Bible, as we know, is made up of different genres of writing, and we must approach each properly when interpreting them.
This is something we do daily without even giving it much thought, yet most fail to do the same when it comes to Scripture. For instance, if during the day you read a personal letter, a legal brief, a comic book, a blog post, a bill, or a post on social media, your approach each differently because you know they contain different types of styles and content. You take them in their proper context usually.
The same thing may be said about reading a book. If you read a fiction novel, you won't approach an understanding of it the same as you would a nonfiction biography, science or history book. Well, we find such divisions within Scripture, but people do not always adjust their thoughts appropriately.
Within the Bible we find various literary types that are not always approached properly, and so understandings can easily be taken out of context. One of the more common literary types found in Scripture is that of the narrative – story telling.
The bigger portion of Scripture would fit into the narrative type. We have almost everything from Genesis through 2nd Chronicles, the better part of the prophets, the gospels and Acts, all being mostly of the narrative genre.
So, the best approach to reading these portions, is to approach them like you would a fiction novel. Obviously, this is not to say you approach them thinking they are fiction, but simply read them with the same mindedness as you would a fiction novel.
If you read narrative like it is a novel, your mind will be tuned in such a way as to aid you in observing things within the text in an intelligent manner. For instance, while reading a novel, there is usually this intuitive sense that the writer of the story is trying to do something to you.
At times they may be trying to misdirect you, or they may be planting some scene, word or character into your mind that you know will bear some importance later on. We tend to pick up on these things, and know to expect it to show up or play significance at some later point.
A lot of times, and to some extent, we may store these things away subconsciously, but chances are you are doing it because you know when reading fiction, things are there because the writer has placed these things in the story for some purpose you have yet to discover.
Similarly, if you watch much TV, you probably practice the same type of paying attention to detail when things are brought up that seem somewhat insignificant. In TV episodes, you are aware that the director has a limited amount of time, and so therefore anything that is put in front of you taking up that time, must have some significance.
So, as you read or watch such narrative styled things, you may start asking yourself questions about how this or that fits in with the storyline. You engage your mind and pay closer attention to the story, watching for how themes and pieces come around to fitting together.
Well, that is the approach needed when reading narrative biblical portions. Read them as you would fictional narratives. Instead, most people approach the bible as a textbook, and it not only kills our typical inquisitiveness, but we lose the context in which they were purposefully writing.
Read the biblical narratives realizing that just like fictional material, the writer had an agenda and a plan for what was written and how it was worded, because he did. As you read, just like with fiction, watch for things that could be cases of symbolism.
Look for repeating words or ideas that jump out as important. Look for words and phrases that could be written to be purposefully interpreted in more than one way. Watch for figurative language, and pay attention to the roles that the characters play within the story.
Again, these types of things you're most likely already doing with fiction, but failing to do with Scripture. Try to change gears when reading narrative portions of Scripture, and approach things with a fictional reading frame of mind.
Moving on, I wish to briefly look at another quick couple of circumstances in Scripture that kind of lose their power due to ignorance of the worldview and context of the writers. Let's touch on the ancient view of ghosts as we look at this familiar story from the gospels, about the walking on the water of Yeshua. I did an entire message on this whole concept back in June 2024, so go back and check that out for more depth, but I wish to briefly look at the key points as an example here today.
And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out, for they all saw him and were terrified. (Mar 6:47-50 ESV)
Now there is significance here that is not always picked up on. In brief, in the ancient world of which the apostle wrote, there were indeed stories of ghosts and apparitions, and there were stories of walking on the water. But one thing there was not, is the idea that a ghost could walk on water. However, as one author references:
Adela Yarbro Collins has written a thorough treatment of the Greco-Roman texts that parallel Jesus' walking on the sea and has quite convincingly demonstrated the wealth of evidence for gods, god-gifted rulers, and divine men walking on the sea. (Combs, A Ghost on the Water?)
What they conclude is that we have this story in the gospels, and it includes all of the elements and follows the typical storyline of a ghost story of their day, but with one twist. This perceived ghost is walking on water, something that ghosts cannot do according to their worldview. However, a divine man could do based on other Greco-Roman texts.
Here is the problem. In the ancient world in which this was written, Collins writes that is would have been a fairly common understanding that walking on the water was something for divinity, not ghosts.
Yet here is this man Yeshua, walking on the water, and instead of understanding the historical significance of this being tied to his divinity, the apostles instead believe in the absurd, that it is instead a ghost doing something they cannot do. Combs puts it this way:
Yarbro Collins, as noted previously, reviews a wealth of Greco-Roman sources that describe divine men and gods walking on water. With so many prominent accounts, Mark's audience would certainly have understood Jesus' water-walk in terms of divine manifestation, yet the disciples in Mark do not. (Combs, A Ghost on the Water?)
Why would the apostles miss the obvious and believe such an absurdity? If you recall from the opening reading, Mark tells us just two verses later, that it was because "their hearts were hardened."
When we read this same story in Matthew, we do get a glimpse at the idea that after the fact it might have become more evident that they understood the issue of divinity being portray here, for we are told:
And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." (Mat 14:32-33 ESV)
In the end, unlike the original first century audience who read Mark, modern readers will most likely have missed the nuances and emphasis of this divine manifestation that is portrayed here in Mark's "ghost story" if they are unaware of the pieces of historical context this story is drawing from and built upon.
This is only touching upon a few of the possible literary contexts, as we could have looked into things like how to approach Parable, Proverbs, comedy, prophecy, apocalyptic, military and historic annals genres for instance. Hopefully we have covered enough to give you a peek at the depth of study that can and should be done when approaching Scripture.
The Scripture Interpretation
Our fourth and last part is that of how the Scripture interprets itself at times. What I mean by this is sort of related to the analogy of faith that we hear mentioned often. While it is essentially a part of saying Scripture interprets Scripture, my point is a little different that typically considered.
I am looking at how other verses within the canon of Scripture have discussed or interpreted the stories of previous verses. The emphasis of my thought here is mainly regarding dealing with some fringe interpretations that some groups hold in the church, and how those hold up against understanding shown by other writers in Scripture.
There are mainly just a few examples for this that I wish to look at, both from Genesis. One is the idea of Adam and Eve being the first created humans. There are many fringe and cultic views out there on this topic. Some say they were the first in a recreated planet where there had been life and people prior to the earth becoming void and reset.
There are also those that teach Genesis is simply an analogy of temple structure, and some teach that Adam and Eve were not even literal people. Or that they were literal people, but not the first created, just the first covenanted people. There are so many variant views, but in general, they question the validity of these being literal people or literally the first created.
This is often done by employing the exact kind of bad interpretive approaches mentioned earlier. Taking a literal wooden mean of certain terms and using it to question the meaning of the verses here. But, did that word have different nuances of meaning over time? Did it mean and was it used by the author in just that fashion of the meaning being employed?
My point is, if this non-literal view in indeed true, then we would expect that when others in the Hebrew line of writers reference them, they would reveal they understood it the same way. But what do we find the biblical authors saying on this matter? He is listed in genealogies as being real. The end of the lineage of Luke 3 tells us:
…the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luk 3:38 ESV)
No mentioned of any people prior to Adam, he was first created by God, and no mention of him being metaphoric or not a literal person. In 1 Cor. 15, we are told:
Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1Co 15:45 ESV)
Paul doesn't seem to understand that Adam wasn't literal or the first when he quotes Gen 2. Why would he propagate a lie, and not tell us "well, he wasn't really first, you know what I mean." He goes on to continue propagating this literal person view when he states in Titus:
For Adam was formed first, then Eve; (1Ti 2:13 ESV)
Again, he makes no clarification of them not being literal people. And again, he seems real when used as a starting point for another genealogy in Jude:
It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones… (Jud 1:14 ESV)
So, if other Scripture writers do not promote a view differently than it is stated in Scripture, why would we think we can reinterpret them to say or mean something to the contrary. The next one, also from Genesis, is the worldwide flood vs a localized flood view.
I understand the language use in Genesis, and how it can mean land, and how land appears elsewhere in a limited fashion, and the symbolism and type and anti-type idea. Again, you have to ask, does that language always and only mean that literal usage employed to come to that notion of a local flood? But for today, we ask, what saith the Scripture…about itself? In Hebrews we're told:
By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. (Heb 11:7 ESV)
Why wouldn't this be stated more clearly now, explaining how it wasn't a world event, but a local event? No hint to a limited extent here. The world was condemned, and only his household was saved. Also more clearly taught in 1 Peter 3:
because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (1Pe 3:20 ESV)
If this was a local and not worldwide event, why wouldn't these authors have not stated it more clearly now? I guess they were unaware, and so gave no hint to a limited extent here. The world was condemned, and only his household was saved. Also more clearly taught in 1 Peter 3:
if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2Pe 2:5 ESV)
My point is, if this even was known by the Hebrews to be metaphor, or symbolic, or small and local, then you would expect to find these later references to it to reveal some hint of that understanding. Likewise, you'd expect to find other Hebrew and ancient writings hinting to the idea.
Maybe I have just not run across them yet, but I have not seen any other ancient Hebrew writings, whether pseudepigraphal, apocryphal, or 2nd Temple, that give a hint of evidence for them understanding this as a localized flood idea, or for them believing in a non-literal or other view of Adam we hear come up.
Add to that, the large amount of historical writing evidence from many nations spread out across the world, revealing a great worldwide flood story affecting their lands. That just adds to the fact that, not only did the ancient biblical writers of the NT not understand it to be limited, but so much of the world around us still have historical records revealing the wide-spread extent of it.
It just seems to me that, at some time over the centuries of the Hebrew people and the various writings and teachings, that someone would have given a hint of the different than standard view on these types of historical based topics.
I'm sure there are other fringe teachings out there that would fall into this same type of scenario, but just wanted to touch on this topic which is rarely considered when discussing context of this nature.
In closing, hopefully you see how easy a lot of theology and doctrine gets messed up and misunderstood simply because so many people take things out of their context in many different ways. Doing this has caused much confusion, multiple odd interpretations, divisions, cults, and other harm to the church and it's witness to the world around it.
And without correcting the course in this area, each generation that gets further from the original, each new worldview change over time, will lead to more and more interpretations that are further from the intended message of the original writer.
Sadly, most seem ignorant of this whole topic or approach. People have to understand that what we have in Scripture is not some purely supernatural set of heavenly text that was handed down from heaven in a force field protected bubble through paranormal activities by Yahweh, which has zero human or cultural influences.
Once it is understood for what it is, and what it contains, and how the writer's worldview would have played a part, and what that worldview was, it is then that we can begin truly digging into Scripture. It is then that we can begin looking not at what the Scriptures can be made to mean to us, but what did they actually mean to them and their audience at that time. Once that is understood, only then can we better grasp how it can be properly applies to us in the modern age.
Amen