Why is it important to study the Bible in context?

[reba]

Bummer, I was hoping to see that spin off into another thread.

You are very BAD evil


totopic

 

[Alabaster]

Alabaster if you want to gain the maximum benefit from study in any field then I think its always best to read around the subject and so looking at verses in context is really the only valid basis for serious study.

Yes! Amen!

The bible is unique though in that it is Gods unfolding 'letter' to us and especially if we claim faith then it is of paramount importance that we give scripture our full attention as how else are we to guard from being misled into erronous doctrine. you mentioned that it was wriiten by many different people but also bearing in mind that those authors penned 66 books across many different genres - its amazing that it is so harmonious. I never really grasped how harmonious it was until I read it in its entirety from Genesis to Revelation. Not only that I have found that scripture never grows old as I always see something new - it thrills me to realise that I can read a verse a hundred times and then for any number of reasons my understanding of that verse is transformed. For example I remember as a young Christian reading the beautitudes and trying to identify which verse I could most identify with and then one day I realised that its the beautitudes in their entirety that point to the character of the mature Christian.

Praise God--that is so true!

So when I read I like to look at it against the backdrop of the whole canon of scripture, consider the genre of the book, its historical and cultural setting, to think about how it was received by the original hearers and to think about its relevance to the present audience.

That is wise.

Alabaster having said all that I still find much in scripture that I feel I dont yet fully understand - actually I think thats what keeps me going back as those are the verses that I pore over and strive to understand and generally I find that with time, prayer, and discussion with my husband and others most things become clearer.

Amen...we sometimes need to just wait on God to drop in the meaning of those difficult to understand passages, but if we ask Him for understanding and clarity, He will give it in time---never too soon and never too late!

Well its almost time for the school run so I guess I will leave with my thought that more often than not its not the parts of scripture that I dont understand that cause me trouble but those that I do understand.

Thanks

TGs Lady

Thank you so much for your thoughtful post.

 

[Theofilus]

Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

In this verse, "El" is the pantheon God of a divine council. Here it is stated each memer of the divine council recieved a nation for their own; El is the head of the divine family, and each member of the divine family receives a nation of their own: Israel is the portion of

Didn't someone say something about context earlier in this thread? If you read those verses in context, you will see that El and YHWH are one and the same. YHWH is a name, while El is a title. Saying that one is subservient to the other is like saying Obama is subservient to the president of the United States or that Elizabeth Windsor II is subservient to the queen of England.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

False.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 NASB

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
When He separated the sons of man,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.
For the LORD'S portion is His people;
Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.

It would help if one explains exactly what is false.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 NASB

When the Most High ('elyown) gave the nations their inheritance,
When He separated the sons of man,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.
For the LORD'S (Yĕhovah) portion is His people;
Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.

Elyon and Yahweh are not the same entities, and it's Elyon who portioned up the people to Yahweh.

What a load. Yahweh is eternal and has been forever. There is none like Him, and He has certainly none before Him.

That is a faith claim, and I am talking Bibilical literary statements, as as historical archaeology discoveries.

From existing Ugarit texts:

El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:

sm . bny . yw . ilt

“The name of the son of god, Yahweh.”

This text shows Yahweh was known at Ugarit, although known not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Question: "Why is it important to study the Bible in context? What is wrong with taking verses out of context?"

Answer: It's important to study Bible passages and stories within their context. Taking verses out of context leads to all kinds of error and misunderstanding. Understanding context begins with four principles: literal meaning (what it says), historical setting (the events of the story, to whom is it addressed, and how it was understood at that time), grammar (the immediate sentence and paragraph within which a word or phrase is found) and synthesis (comparing it with other parts of Scripture for a fuller meaning). Context is crucial to biblical exegesis in that it is one of its most important fundamentals. After we account for the literal, historical, and grammatical nature of a passage, we must then focus on the outline and structure of the book, then the chapter, then the paragraph. All of these things refer to "context." To illustrate, it is like looking at Google Maps and zooming in on one house.

Taking phrases and verses out of context always leads to misunderstanding. For instance, taking the phrase "God is love" (1 John 4:7-16) out of its context, we might come away thinking that our God loves everything and everyone at all times with a gushing, romantic love. But in its literal and grammatical context, “love†here refers to agape love, the essence of which is sacrifice for the benefit of another, not a sentimental, romantic love. The historical context is also crucial, because John was addressing believers in the first century church and instructing them not on God’s love per se, but on how to identify true believers from false professors. True love—the sacrificial, beneficial kind—is the mark of the true believer (v. 7), those who do not love do not belong to God (v. 8), God loved us before we loved Him (vv. 9-10), and all of this is why we should love one another and thereby prove that we are His (v. 11-12).

Furthermore, considering the phrase "God is love" in the context of all of Scripture (synthesis) will keep us from coming to the false, and all-too-common, conclusion that God is only love or that His love is greater than all His other attributes, which is simply not the case. We know from many other passages that God is also holy and righteous, faithful and trustworthy, graceful and merciful, kind and compassionate, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, and many, many other things. We also know from other passages that God not only loves, but He also hates.

The Bible is the Word of God, literally "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16), and we are commanded to ready, study, and understand it through the use of good Bible study methods and always with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to guide us (1 Corinthians 2:14). Our study is greatly enhanced by maintaining diligence in the use of context because it is quite easy come to wrong conclusions by taking phrases and verses out of context. It is not difficult to point out places that seemingly contradict other portions of Scripture, but if we carefully look at their context and use the entirety of Scripture as a reference, we can understand the meaning of a passage. “Context is king†means that the context often drives the meaning of a phrase. To ignore context is to put ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage.

Recommended Resource: Basic Bible Interpretation by Roy Zuck.

Source: GotQuestions.org

I could not agree more with the need for the literal, historical, grammatical and synthesis combination that the pasted article calls for. Yet, I feel GotQuestions.org undercuts the true message of love in the New Testament. St. Paul clearly elevates "love" above everything else in 1 Corinthians 13. I'd be interested if anybody knows the grammar behind the Greek phrase "God is Love." When the Bible says something like "God is Holy," I assume that "holy" in the context is an adjective. Is "love" a noun, in this context, since it is always translated "God is Love," not "God is loving," as if it means to say more than just ascribing an attribute to God. Maybe God actually is Love itself.

 

[Harvest]

Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

In this verse, "El" is the pantheon God of a divine council. Here it is stated each memer of the divine council recieved a nation for their own; El is the head of the divine family, and each member of the divine family receives a nation of their own: Israel is the portion of Yahweh.

In addition there are ANE Ugarit Steles that point blank state Yahweh as being a son of the ANE "El."

Thankyou Tabasco for the interesting if misleading twist in the thread. I believe that El is a generic title attributed to several false gods and so yes it is true that El is named as the head of a pantheon of Caananite gods which include among others Asherah, Baal, Moloch and I will concede Yahweh - I even hate to group Yahweh with such company but bear with me here. Remember that Yahweh of the bible is the Yahweh of Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Yahweh is a jealous God who wont share His Glory with another, He is the Most High who demands we worship only Him. Yahweh is the Almighty God who is Lord of all the earth and so is it surprising to find references to Yahweh outside of the bible. Infact does the bible itself not testify to this very phenomenon in the account of Baalam in Numbers 22-24. Baalam was a non Israelite prophet who was sent to proclaim curses over Israel but as Yahweh was his source could only bless Yahwehs people.

The complete revelation of Yahweh to us comes through Gods chosen nation - through Israel and so we need not speak of a pantheon as Yahweh is the one and only true God and all others are simply rocks and kindling nothing more.

On a side note though I do love the richness of the revelation which comes to us through scripture of the Names of God which illustrate beautifully the myriad character who is the essence of Yahweh.

 

[Scotth1960]

Question: "Why is it important to study the Bible in context? What is wrong with taking verses out of context?"

Answer: It's important to study Bible passages and stories within their context. Taking verses out of context leads to all kinds of error and misunderstanding. Understanding context begins with four principles: literal meaning (what it says), historical setting (the events of the story, to whom is it addressed, and how it was understood at that time), grammar (the immediate sentence and paragraph within which a word or phrase is found) and synthesis (comparing it with other parts of Scripture for a fuller meaning). Context is crucial to biblical exegesis in that it is one of its most important fundamentals. After we account for the literal, historical, and grammatical nature of a passage, we must then focus on the outline and structure of the book, then the chapter, then the paragraph. All of these things refer to "context." To illustrate, it is like looking at Google Maps and zooming in on one house.

Taking phrases and verses out of context always leads to misunderstanding. For instance, taking the phrase "God is love" (1 John 4:7-16) out of its context, we might come away thinking that our God loves everything and everyone at all times with a gushing, romantic love. But in its literal and grammatical context, “love†here refers to agape love, the essence of which is sacrifice for the benefit of another, not a sentimental, romantic love. The historical context is also crucial, because John was addressing believers in the first century church and instructing them not on God’s love per se, but on how to identify true believers from false professors. True love—the sacrificial, beneficial kind—is the mark of the true believer (v. 7), those who do not love do not belong to God (v. 8), God loved us before we loved Him (vv. 9-10), and all of this is why we should love one another and thereby prove that we are His (v. 11-12).

Furthermore, considering the phrase "God is love" in the context of all of Scripture (synthesis) will keep us from coming to the false, and all-too-common, conclusion that God is only love or that His love is greater than all His other attributes, which is simply not the case. We know from many other passages that God is also holy and righteous, faithful and trustworthy, graceful and merciful, kind and compassionate, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, and many, many other things. We also know from other passages that God not only loves, but He also hates.

The Bible is the Word of God, literally "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16), and we are commanded to ready, study, and understand it through the use of good Bible study methods and always with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to guide us (1 Corinthians 2:14). Our study is greatly enhanced by maintaining diligence in the use of context because it is quite easy come to wrong conclusions by taking phrases and verses out of context. It is not difficult to point out places that seemingly contradict other portions of Scripture, but if we carefully look at their context and use the entirety of Scripture as a reference, we can understand the meaning of a passage. “Context is king†means that the context often drives the meaning of a phrase. To ignore context is to put ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage.

Recommended Resource: Basic Bible Interpretation by Roy Zuck.

Source: GotQuestions.org

Dear Alabaster, It is sufficient to study the Bible in the context of a good translation. Some translations are better than others. The ONT (Orthodox New Testament) and OSB (Orthodox Study Bible) are better translations than many of the others. But for most purposes, the KJV, the NKJV, the ESV with Apocrypha,
the RSV with Apocrypha, the NIV and the NASB are good versions of the Bible.
Only Hebrews 6:6 in the KJV, NKJV and ESV needs to be approached with caution; it doesn't have the word "if" in a good translation, so the NASB is better in this verse. As for the RSV, only Isaiah 7:14 in the RSV is a bad translation. It should be "virgin" rather than "young woman". We should avoid relying on less than literal versions like the TLB, NLT, the TEV and the CEV. The AMP is okay for some study, but much of this amounts to questionable commentary on Scripture rather than Scripture itself. Use with caution. Of course the lectionary of the Church is a good way of reading Scripture. It is better to hear Scripture being read in Church than to read it by oneself all of the time. We need help from trained men of God to know what the NT (and OT) mean by any difficult passages. Not everything in the Bible is easy to understand. In Erie PA Scott H.

 

[Alabaster]

Dear Alabaster, It is sufficient to study the Bible in the context of a good translation. Some translations are better than others. The ONT (Orthodox New Testament) and OSB (Orthodox Study Bible) are better translations than many of the others. But for most purposes, the KJV, the NKJV, the ESV with Apocrypha,
the RSV with Apocrypha, the NIV and the NASB are good versions of the Bible.
Only Hebrews 6:6 in the KJV, NKJV and ESV needs to be approached with caution; it doesn't have the word "if" in a good translation, so the NASB is better in this verse. As for the RSV, only Isaiah 7:14 in the RSV is a bad translation. It should be "virgin" rather than "young woman". We should avoid relying on less than literal versions like the TLB, NLT, the TEV and the CEV. The AMP is okay for some study, but much of this amounts to questionable commentary on Scripture rather than Scripture itself. Use with caution. Of course the lectionary of the Church is a good way of reading Scripture. It is better to hear Scripture being read in Church than to read it by oneself all of the time. We need help from trained men of God to know what the NT (and OT) mean by any difficult passages. Not everything in the Bible is easy to understand. In Erie PA Scott H.

The Apocrypha is not scripture. We are not discussing opinions on bible versions here.

 

[farouk]

I always think this example is a great way to show how NOT to do Bible study:

"And Judas went and hanged himself."

"Go thou, and do likewise."

The moral: context is very important (!)

 

[Tailgunner]

I always think this example is a great way to show how NOT to do Bible study:

"And Judas went and hanged himself."

"Go thou, and do likewise."

The moral: context is very important (!)

This is priceless!

 

[Harvest]

Dear Alabaster, It is sufficient to study the Bible in the context of a good translation. Some translations are better than others.

Of course the lectionary of the Church is a good way of reading Scripture.

It is better to hear Scripture being read in Church than to read it by oneself all of the time. We need help from trained men of God to know what the NT (and OT) mean by any difficult passages. Not everything in the Bible is easy to understand. In Erie PA Scott H.

Hi Scott I would agree with you that a good translation is important but I would take it even further and suggest that there are virtues in using several translations simultaneous simply because no translation is capable of catching the true essence of the original verse all of the time. For example when Jesus reinstates Peter after his denial Jesus uses a different word for love each time - the brotherly love conveyed by the word filio doesnt have the same impact as the all consuming love conveyed by agape. Its also essential to consider whether the translation is literal or paraphrase.

Scott we are lucky in this day to have the thoughts of many wise theologians and so yes I agree that we should take what they say on board. Having said that we must always do as the Bereans did and compare what learned theologians say with scripture.

 

[farouk]

This is priceless!

Tailgunner:

Yes, well it's amusing, certainly.

But it works as a serious point too...

 

[Tailgunner]

Yes, Farouk, I know it does, and it's probably the most stark comparison I've ever read concerning reading Scripture in context. My apologies for making light of it, but when I read it, I couldn't help but laugh aloud at your blunt example.

TG

 

[Tabasco Breath]

Didn't someone say something about context earlier in this thread? If you read those verses in context, you will see that El and YHWH are one and the same. YHWH is a name, while El is a title. Saying that one is subservient to the other is like saying Obama is subservient to the president of the United States or that Elizabeth Windsor II is subservient to the queen of England.

Actually, with archaeological discoveries we know that is not quite true, as well as those discorveries sheding light on the implications of Deut 32:8-9.

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts

The Bible and Interpretation

(One of many academic works by folks who archaeology and ANE history for a living)

 

[Tabasco Breath]

Thankyou Tabasco for the interesting if misleading twist in the thread. I believe that El is a generic title attributed to several false gods and so yes it is true that El is named as the head of a pantheon of Caananite gods which include among others Asherah, Baal, Moloch and I will concede Yahweh - I even hate to group Yahweh with such company but bear with me here. Remember that Yahweh of the bible is the Yahweh of Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Yahweh is a jealous God who wont share His Glory with another, He is the Most High who demands we worship only Him. Yahweh is the Almighty God who is Lord of all the earth and so is it surprising to find references to Yahweh outside of the bible. Infact does the bible itself not testify to this very phenomenon in the account of Baalam in Numbers 22-24. Baalam was a non Israelite prophet who was sent to proclaim curses over Israel but as Yahweh was his source could only bless Yahwehs people.

The complete revelation of Yahweh to us comes through Gods chosen nation - through Israel and so we need not speak of a pantheon as Yahweh is the one and only true God and all others are simply rocks and kindling nothing more.

On a side note though I do love the richness of the revelation which comes to us through scripture of the Names of God which illustrate beautifully the myriad character who is the essence of Yahweh.

Hi Harvest and thanks for your post. Yes, I do understand that Yahweh thus becomes the God of their own as they transition from the Polytheist culture they derived from to the monontheist culture they became.

My point here is yes, one can study the Bible in context within itself, but if one really wants to understand the Bible, one must open that window alot wider and understand what influenced them, as again, it was not created in a divine vaccum.

Take care.

 

[Harvest]

Hi Harvest and thanks for your post. Yes, I do understand that Yahweh thus becomes the God of their own as they transition from the Polytheist culture they derived from to the monontheist culture they became.

My point here is yes, one can study the Bible in context within itself, but if one really wants to understand the Bible, one must open that window alot wider and understand what influenced them, as again, it was not created in a divine vaccum.

Take care.

Hi Tabasco I agree with you that it is wise to study beyond the bible as a complement to what should be our main focus - scripture (at least to Christians anyway) and so yes we need to look at outside inflences. For example upon reading Exodus I found it incredulous that after witnessing such miracles as the parting of the Red Sea that many would so quickly turn away and erect an idol (the golden calf). In order to reconcile this I had to cast the net wider and realise that the Israelites were still influenced greatly by the poltheistic culture of Egypt that they had just left. Simply many did not grasp the Sovereignty of Almighty God and misguidingly saw Yahweh as perhaps a God who was good at organising escape from Egypt but not so good at sustaining them in the desert. Never the less peoples perception may be warped but this doesnt alter the absolute truth that Yahweh is the one and only true God. Infact Isaiah pointed out the fallacy of idol worship practiced by some in the following verses

No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, "Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten. And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?" Isaiah 44:19 (ESV)



Further I havent come across any compelling evidence in either the bible or elsewhere that Judaism had its roots in polytheism. What is evidenced though is that Israel continually lost its way and practiced Polytheism, - infact it was this fact that brought Gods judgement on Israel time and time again and led to both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms being taken into captivity


Thanks

 

[Alabaster]

We do not need to go to extra-biblical texts to study the bible and remain in context.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

Further I havent come across any compelling evidence in either the bible or elsewhere that Judaism had its roots in polytheism. What is evidenced though is that Israel continually lost its way and practiced Polytheism, - infact it was this fact that brought Gods judgement on Israel time and time again and led to both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms being taken into captivity


Thanks

Hi Harvest,

History is replete with the evidence, and the Bible with indicators as their trouble being tranistioning from the polytheists they were to monontheist of Yahweh, one of the sons of the ANE El. It goes back to that never ending isue of how people don't embrace change well.


The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts.

Review of Biblical Literature

 

[Tabasco Breath]

We do not need to go to extra-biblical texts to study the bible and remain in context.

Hi Alabaster

Yes..in fact you do.

Take for example the misunderstanding of the intent and Beast of Revelations with the numbering of 666 or 616 depending on NT text. The reason why it is so misunderstood and mischaracterized by Christianity is because they deem literature that would clear it up in a hurry irrelevant because it is not part of the Bible.

I think it is one those things where the faith view is taught so long that its discomforting to look outside.

 

[Alabaster]

Yes..in fact you do.

Take for example the misunderstanding of the intent and Beast of Revelations with the numbering of 666 or 616 depending on NT text. The reason why it is so misunderstood and mischaracterized by Christianity is because they deem literature that would clear it up in a hurry irrelevant because it is not part of the Bible.

I think it is one those things where the faith view is taught so long that its discomforting to look outside.

No, absolutely not. God's word is complete. We need nothing to make it more authoritative than itself.