Context is Everything

In our current Christianity – especially in the Western World – we have learned to quote Bible verses and make Scripture references to prove our points of view. We should indeed use the Bible when considering our beliefs. But I’ve found that often the verses are pulled out of context. (By often, I don’t mean the majority of the time, but instead that it happens more than it should.) We’ll use verses like 2 Timothy 3:15-17 to ‘prove’ that the Bible is the inspired word of God, yet neglect entirely what the point of the verses were: the conclusion to the first part of the chapter, which was about those who would rise up and promote heresy and ungodly living. Yes, the verse says that the Scripture is the inspired word of God, but no, that isn’t the point of the verse.

In the New Testament times, the Jewish scholars – called rabbis – would debate the Scripture with one another. When they debated, they would quote a verse or a passage. But, when they quoted the verse or passage, they didn’t mean just that verse or passage. They knew that their opponent would know the verse, and know the context of the verse. So, they would quote the verse – sometimes part of the verse – and the other rabbi would then pull it up in their mind as to what the context is, what the chapter is about, what the book is about, and where it is located in the whole schema of the Scriptures. Out of that context, the rabbi would then know that the point being made is not simply about that one verse, but rather the whole context gives a more full and complete argument. Therefore, to respond simply to that verse would completely miss the brunt of the argument.

I try to do this in ALL of my writings. I’ll admit, I am unsuccessful. Yet, especially when I’m trying to make a point, I will use a verse or passage knowing that the context supports the argument being made. I think this is so necessary for our time. We need to be willing to dig into the texts of the Bible for multiple reasons.

First, we need to see that when Scripture is being referenced or quoted in other parts of the Bible, that reference is not simply there because they want to quote one part of a verse. The reference is there because they expect if you don’t know the verse you will look it up and see the context and get the bigger picture and the fuller argument being made.

Second, we need to dig into the Scripture so that we too can make these sorts of arguments. When we’re debating, when we’re discussing, when we’re teaching, when we’re learning, when we’re apologetic-ing – ANY time that we quote the Bible we need to use the context of that verse and make sure that it is the context making the argument and not one specific verse. It has taken me years to overcome the many verses pulled out of context (like John 3:16) that we have this “understanding” of what this verse means, and when we come to it, we read this understanding into it, but when we read up to it or after it, we understand that is the context. How many times have I seen it in myself? I’ll be tracking, and then suddenly a verse that I have quoted and known and put to memory will come up, and I’ll say, “What?!? That’s what that verse means?”

How about I give a couple of examples and then end.

“Wives, submit to your husbands…” Ephesians 5:22. I’m expecting that you know the verse, and you know the following couple verses. What comes before this verse? Do you know? Paul just finished speaking about how we’ve come out of darkness and into light. Darkness and light are metaphors for two different kingdoms. The way that Paul concludes this introductory thought is by saying, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”. This is the verse directly before, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” What is the context telling us? Just like everyone submits to everyone else, so too should the marriage relationship be one of submission one to another. What comes after this verse/passage? “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” This plays in perfectly with what I just said: the point is that the relationship is one of submission unto one another – the husband even submitting himself unto death on behalf of his wife! What comes after that? We find Paul giving advice to children and parents, to slaves and masters, and finally to bear the full armor of God. This passage is the commencement of Paul explaining what it means to be children of the light, who have come out of darkness. He concludes the whole thought with the “put on the full armor of God” passage.

Let us try another. “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” Matthew 7:1. What is the context? We are in the sermon on the mount, where Jesus begins with these beatitudes, basically clarifying what it means to typify the kingdom of God. Then, he gives two examples of what these traits look like: salt and light. From there, Christ tells us that He fulfills the Law (a rabbinical way of saying that He is teaching it in its purest form), and that our righteousness needs to exceed the Pharisees’. How does that happen? Jesus spends the next 13 ‘teachings’ explaining what it means. The first six are in relation to the Law and the way that we understand and obey it. The next seven are in relation to our daily lives and attitudes. At the beginning and at the end of these teachings we find the phrase “the Law and the Prophets”. This teaching on judging others is the second to last of these teachings on what it means that our righteousness should exceed that of the Pharisees. From there, Jesus explains that the gate is small, and the path is narrow that leads to life. How do we get onto this path? We live in righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees’. How do we know we are indeed on that path? Jesus explains that we will know by our fruit. Then He ends by giving the parable of two builders: one wise and one foolish. So, when we come to judging others, this is the context. We find verse 7:5 saying, “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Jesus is actually telling us to judge! He is distinguishing between the unrighteous judgment and the righteous judgment, though. So, 7:1 fits in with the whole context – a comparison of the two “righteousnesses” (one true, and one false) – and also stands as an introduction to what it means to righteously judge your brother.

So, in conclusion, I would highly recommend that we start seeking to understand the context of these verses and passages we quote as “proof texts”. Many false doctrines have entered the mind of believers simply because they haven’t gone and looked at the context of the verses quoted. This will save you from falling for much deception – not all – and will give you such a firm foundation in your faith. Hopefully this helped someone. God bless you all!

What is Divine Inspiration?

I've been challenged to provide a definition of inspiration. Words have meaning. Therefore, it behooves us to come to terms seeking to understand what that term means. To place upon a word our own interpretation of that word is both disservice and dangerous. The most extreme case to point to would be Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Both Hitler and Stalin redefined what it meant to be a person. Because they redefined what it means to be a person anyone who does not add up to that definition is then less than human - subhuman. Subhumanity is dispensable, so can we truly say that the annihilation of 6,000,000 Jewish people is really that terrible? You get my point.

When we come to the idea of inspiration, we use phrases that are very fuzzy. I've heard that Divine inspiration means that the Bible says the words that God had intended the Bible to say. Well, who gets to determine what exactly that means? Or the classic example of what I've heard Divine inspiration would mean would be to say that the words are "God breathed." Yet, once again, we don't have a very specific idea as to what that means. These are general definitions, but I'm afraid that our definitions are intentionally fuzzy so that we are not required to take a stand.

Then there are the King James only-ers. These are people that aren't necessarily wrong in criticizing English translations of the Bible - many times quite accurately. Yet, the problem that I have is that they use unequal weights and measures. For example, the Hebrew is poetic. Words are not simply translated because "ruach" means spirit. Ruach has three "translations": spirit, breath, and wind. Which of those three translations do we choose? Oh, well you choose whichever fits the best. But the problem really lies in that Hebrew paints pictures with its words. Ruach is the Divine energy that stirs up the creation. So, if we're going to translate it as wind, we would be correct. In fact, it is equally as correct as breath and spirit. So how do we translate it? That's the difficulty.

I'm not going to say that any one translation is better than another. I think that all English translations have their shortcomings, and the different manuscripts that we have of both Hebrew and Greek show slight variations. They are very slight, but they exist. So, if we're going to say that Divine inspiration means that God had literally breathed this version of the Bible, and every other version must line up to this plumb line, we're left with a difficulty. Which one do we pick? If we say that the King James Version is the ultimate, then what about the later versions that had better technique and understanding in how to translate the biblical Greek?

But then this also goes with all the other versions. If we say that the New International Version of the Bible is the absolute authority, then we end up having to ask about those pesky verses that are omitted from the Bible. But what if we're actually going about this all wrong? I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, and therefore I believe in a literal creation of the world exactly as it is stated in Genesis 1-11 (or so). I believe that when the prophet spoke, they spoke the very words of God.

So how would I define inspiration if not by saying that these are the very words of God in textual form? In order to answer that, we only need to ask why it is important to have an inspired text? What is the point of Divine inspiration?

When I engage, or I hear of others engaging, in dialogue about the Bible, the most common criticism is that the manuscripts aren't exactly the same, and we really can't be sure that they were written when we say they were written, and how do we know that this wasn't added years later? The attack isn't so much about what is said, but instead on when it is said. The attack isn't so much on whether what was said is true or not, but instead on whether it was ever said, or if we just made the whole thing up. Why? It is easier to attack the manuscripts and say that we can't be certain of their validity than it is to disprove the statements. If the texts that make the statements can be proven fallacious, then the whole of the text is fallacious.

So Divine inspiration is really getting at the heart of, "Yea, hast God said?" This isn't an issue of whether the Bible is correct when it uses this word rather than that, but instead an issue of the revelation of God. So when we're trying to define what Divine inspiration is, we need to stand it up against the understanding that this reveals God as He is. Divine inspiration, then, is not found in the original texts, nor in the modern English versions. It is found solely in the person of Jesus Christ. From that revelation, we come to a further questioning of the texts. Does what is written here in my English version align with the person of Christ Jesus and who He has revealed God to be?

The debate is not over textual analysis and whether we translated the words correctly. The debate is over whether this reveals the heart of God, or whether it instead reveals something contrary to God. So debates on whether this or that passage/verse is supposed to be in here, should we go with the Texas Receptus, or the Latin Vulgate, or the Massoretic, or the Septuagint, etc are really only a little higher than nonissue. What is first and foremost to be presented is Christ and the character of God. Once we have that established, lets then go into the texts and decide as to which one seems to fit the best. Slight copyist errors and other minor variations in the original manuscripts can be trifled about later. First and foremost, we need to ask whether this is truly revealing God, or if it is a perversion.

Divine inspiration is the idea that God has breathed the whole of Scripture to reveal Himself. That is slightly different than saying that this or that version is the word of God. It is taking up the whole counsel and then wrestling from that revelation of Christ with the smaller details. Lets first and foremost get the foundation laid. When we're debating with atheists or Muslims or our Jewish brethren over whether the New Testament documents are valid, the best thing to do is not to quarrel over various texts and we believe the King James, but instead to display the glory of Christ and how the whole of the Bible displays the progressive revelation of God.

I don't believe the Bible is the word of God because I read "All Scripture is inspired..." I believe the Bible is the word of God because God has revealed Himself to me through the eternal Spirit giving illumination. God took out my heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh. Now when I read the Bible, whether I'm reading the NIV, NASB, NKJV, KJV, or the Message, I have something greater than the words on the page to line up to. Sometimes things just aren't worded correctly, and when we go back to original language we ask, "Why did they translate it like that?" Sometimes we need to read a cumulative and broad range of English versions to understand the point being made. But the reason I read the Bible the first place was because of the Spirit bearing witness in me. It was not until later, after I had learned a bit more about the whole of the Bible, that I started even asking such questions.

Ultimately, I think that when we simplify too much we lose a lot of doctrinal reality. God is Triune, therefore I believe that He has and does communicate with Himself. He has also communicated and revealed Himself to His creation through speaking. Because He has communicated Himself, I have every reason to believe that He has given us an inspired Word that reveals Him perfectly - not because such and such text is 100% accurately speaking the very inclinations and thoughts of God, but rather because God has given a revelation of Himself through those texts.

There are sometimes where I would say, yes, God is speaking directly through this text the very words out of His mouth. There are other times, like in the book of Job, where there is a revelation of God being expressed. God was upset with Job's friends because they did not accurately depict Him. That is the beauty of inspiration. It shows us God as He in fact is, so that when we read His word we can better understand His heart through the revelation that He continues to express through the Spirit. We don't read it as undiscerning nincompoops. We have been given every tool necessary to discern the text for what it is truly saying. That is the Divine inspiration: the Spirit bearing witness.