In this admonition from Paul, the apostle indicates that there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with what God has revealed, and that the right way is not necessarily easy. In fact, it may require considerable effort—"Be diligent"—to grasp the meaning of a passage.
At first, the task of interpreting Scripture may seem daunting. We live hundreds of years after the people who originally received these documents. We come from a different culture and speak a different language. Perhaps we have had little or no religious training and find the Bible a maze of confusing stories that talk about people with unpronounceable names.
How can we even begin to make sense of what we read in these ancient documents?
Despite the obstacles, understanding Scripture may not be as difficult as it sometimes seems. While there are, indeed, challenges that arise with the passage of time as well as with changes in culture and language, it is possible to overcome many of those hindrances.
The most important skill to develop is simply the ability to read carefully—to pay attention to detail and to be alert for potential problems or for areas that need further study.
Picture the text as a flower with several petals, each of which connects to the center and contributes to the flower as a whole. These petals represent various aspects of the context that influence meaning.
Unlike a flower, though, in which all the petals are equally important to its beauty, some aspects of context may be more important for understanding the meaning of a passage than other aspects. To make that determination, we must ask a question for each petal.
What follows is a sampling of those questions as well as suggestions for additional tools that can help in understanding the context and in exposing the meaning of a passage.
- The VERBAL context: What words did the author choose to make his point?
This is a difficult aspect for most people, since they depend upon a translation of God's Word, and no transition from one language to another is word-for-word. Moreover, some English versions attempt to simplify what the original author wrote for the modern reader to understand. They are more concerned with readability than with accuracy. Consequently, they may gloss over difficulties or interpret a passage in a way that is not correct.
The New Living Translation (1996) introduces a potentially misleading change in 1 Cor. 16:2:
On every Lord's Day [Greek: every first day of the week], each of you should put aside some amount of money in relation to what you have earned and save it for this offering. Don't wait until I get there and then try to collect it all at once.
By translating "the first day" as "the Lord's day," the NLT implies that the Corinthians were meeting for worship, but there is no evidence the early Church met regularly on that day. Quite the contrary, the evidence we have indicates that the first believers met on the Sabbath (e.g., Acts 15:21).
To avoid such problems, it is best to use a translation that does not take such liberties. The New American Standard (NASB, 1995) offers a good balance between the literal and the literate. Its rendering of this passage—and the rest in this article—is far more accurate.
On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.
Rather than a weekly collection, Paul is recommending private savings ("each one.. is to put aside"). Even without the ability to read Greek or Hebrew, a good translation can help the modern reader understand the verbal context of a passage.
- The GRAMMATICAL context: How do the words relate to each other?
Sometimes even those who have studied the original languages have difficulty understanding precisely what the biblical author was trying to convey. In such cases, the best solution may simply be to recognize the different possibilities that are present.
As with the previous aspect of context, a good English translation can alert the reader to potential ambiguity. Paul writes in Rom. 8:9,
...you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
Even if "the Spirit of God" is the same as "the Spirit of Christ," it is possible to interpret the English phrase "Spirit of" in different ways: as the Spirit who belongs to them, who acts with them, who comes from them, or who is them (i.e., God or Christ). Paul probably had one of these in mind but which one?
This passage may not have been ambiguous to the Roman Christians, but the uncertainty for us means that we must not be dogmatic and insist upon a particular meaning, at least not without also considering other aspects of context.
- The CULTURAL context: How do the traditions or practices of the day illuminate the passage?
In obedience to Jesus' command (Matt. 28:19), most Baptists—including SDBs—mark the beginning of a person's commitment to God by immersion in water.
...make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Some Christian denominations practice other modes of baptism, such as effusion (pouring) or aspersion (sprinkling). Does the Bible enjoin a particular form, or is it up to the individual?
Baptists, to support their position, typically appeal to the verbal context, stating that the Greek verb (baptizo) means "to dip," not to pour or sprinkle. What many do not consider, yet which offers even stronger support, is the place of this custom in Judaism.
A good Bible dictionary or encyclopedia will often treat cultural issues. On this matter, the Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992) notes, "[r]ites of immersion [were used for] proselyte baptism."
Jesus did not invent baptism. Rather, he advocated this common means of ceremonial cleansing for his followers, the first of which were all Jews. (Other modes were probably introduced later by Gentile Christians.) Understanding the cultural context of Jesus' command clarifies that what he intended and what we should practice is immersion, not pouring or sprinkling.
- 'The HISTORICAL context: What events were on people's minds at the time?
When Babylon fell to the Medo-Persian Empire, the new ruler, King Cyrus, permitted the Jewish exiles to return to Canaan. Ezra records the decree in the opening verses of his book (Ezra 1:2-3).
"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and He has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all His people, may his God be with him! Let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel..."
From this account, it seems that Cyrus believed in Israel's God, and that is why he allowed Jews to resettle their ancestral home. The Lord, through the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 45:4), presents a different picture of the Gentile monarch.
"For the sake of Jacob My servant, and Israel My chosen [one], I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor though you have not known Me."
If Cyrus did not believe in the true God, why did he let God's people go back to their land?
In an article on Cyrus, the Anchor Bible Dictionary states that this generous act was part of a larger "policy of remarkable tolerance based on a respect for individual people, ethnic groups, [and] religions," which generated broad public support for the king. In other words, Jews were only some of many that he freed.
This incident illustrates God's sovereignty, that He controls the course of history whether those who make history acknowledge Him or not. Cyrus acted politically for his own interest, which God used providentially for His own interest.
- The THEOLOGICAL context: How did existing beliefs shape people's thinking?
In Peter's speech at Pentecost, he notes that many Jews in Jesus' day did not recognize him as their messiah, even having witnessed the miracles he performed. Acts 2:22-23—
Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through him in your midst... you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put [him] to death.
How could so many people have missed what was so obvious? The answer lies, in part, in what they expected the Messiah to be, the way earlier portions of Scripture described him.
A topical Bible organizes verses thematically and is a good source for such information. The standard is Nave's Topical Bible, which lists many OT prophecies in the entry for Jesus. Of the seven passages most clearly and directly referring to the person of the Messiah, six describe him as a conquering king (Psa. 2:11; Isa. 9:3-7; 11:1-4; Dan. 7:13-14; Mic. 5:2), but only one describes him as a suffering servant (Isa 53:3-6).
These are the passages that excited people in the first century, yet as the majority of them predict a monarch and not a martyr, it is understandable why many rejected Jesus' messianic claims. He did not meet their expectations.
- The CANONICAL context: What does related material elsewhere in Scripture say?
Because some passages contain only a partial transcript of an event, or because an author may not repeat material his audience already knows, the modern reader will often need to consult other passages in the canon of Scripture to get a complete picture.
This means that it is inadvisable to base our understanding, especially of doctrinal matters, on a single verse. Rather, we should formulate an opinion after considering what God has said in other places.
In John's gospel, Jesus seems to give his disciples a "blank check" for their petitions (John 16:23).
Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you.
Some Christians take this to mean that whether there is a need for a particular thing or simply a desire to possess it, they have only to "name it-and-claim-it," and God will grant their request. Is this assumption consistent with what God has revealed elsewhere?
As with the earlier section on cultural context, Nave's Topical Bible is a good tool to locate other passages on the same subject. In the section on prayer, two verses in John's first epistle indicate that God is quite particular about the petitions He answers. According to the apostle, who was present for Jesus' instruction and would certainly have understood Jesus' intention, the source of the request must be a person who respects God's will (1 John 3:22), and the substance of the request must itself reflect God's will (1 John 5:14).
...whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.
This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
The purpose of prayer is not to gratify us but to glorify God.
Conclusion
These six aspects of context—Verbal, Grammatical, Cultural, Historical, Theological, and Canonical—are not the only ones that can help explain the meaning of a passage, but they are among the most important.
Along with diligent effort, a few good tools, and dependence on the leading of God's Spirit, a Christian (even with little or no formal training) can be one who is "accurately handling the word of truth" and who, thereby, meets with God's approval.
Originally appearing in the Sabbath Recorder, March, 2002
