Lesson 4: Understanding the Context
Two Cautions
The Bible expects us to interpret it within its historical-cultural context. Yet we offer two cautions to ensure biblical balance in this interpretive principle:
Caution #1: Content Over Context
What we suppose about the context should never negate what the text plainly says.
Many scholars and pastors get so enthralled with the supposed historical backgrounds that they fail to highlight what the text actually says in the foreground. —DeRouchie, How to Understand and Apply the Old Testament, 306.
Some use background information too speculatively, sometimes twisting the text to contradict what it transparently says. But the historical context does not eliminate the text; it illuminates it. —Naselli, How to Understand and Apply the New Testament, 163.¹
One example, called the New Perspectives on Paul, concerns a view of first-century Judaism, and its impact on the theological framework of New Testament authors. Some of the scholars who espouse this view have contributed significantly to our understanding of the cultural setting of Jesus and the early church. However, against the plain evidence of Scripture, the New Perspectives on Paul claims that first-century Jews had virtually no conception of a works-righteousness (or salvation by works). The result is that these scholars go back to the New Testament, particularly Paul’s writings, and reinterpret—sometimes, radically reinterpret—those passages where Paul argues against justification by works (the whole book of Galatians, for example). They say that because the Jews of Paul’s day never believed salvation came by works, Paul must have meant something totally different when he refers to “justification by works” (Gal 2:15-16; 3:10-12). The end result is that the term justification takes on a whole new meaning, not only with reference to justification by works, but also justification by faith, a central biblical doctrine. A reconstructed historical context ends up muting the clear and plain teaching of the Scriptures.²
What we suppose about the context should never negate what the text plainly says.
Caution #2: The Bible’s Sufficiency
The Bible itself is sufficient to provide us with all that we need to interpret it rightly. We must not look for ultimate interpretive keys outside the Bible.
The keyword here is ultimate. The Bible is sufficient, and yet historical and cultural details from outside sources can enhance our understanding.
As an example, let’s consider the words of Jesus to the Laodicean church:
I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. —Revelation 3:15-16
Many have interpreted the metaphor in this text as a reference to one’s “spiritual temperature.” This interpretation assumes that there are those whose hearts are “on fire for Jesus,” and by contrast, those whose hearts are cold have no spiritual interest at all. Thus they interpret this text to mean that Jesus would prefer this church to be either “hot” or “cold” for him rather than merely “lukewarm” or ambivalent.
However, careful study casts serious doubt on this interpretation. If we consider the whole scope of biblical instruction, it seems ridiculous that Jesus would actually prefer someone to be spiritually cold towards him and actually exhort them to choose that option. Moreover, in context, both hot and cold can be considered positively. This actually fits very well with almost universal practical experience. Hot water has its value in washing (both people and things) and for soothing weary bodies. Cold water is refreshing to drink. Nothing is worse—whether one is expecting to step into a hot bath or drink a glass of cold water—than to find tepid water instead. It is useless and unsatisfying. Thus, we can interpret Jesus’ words rightly in their context simply by considering the broader sweep of biblical instruction.
Further historical and geographical study confirms this interpretation. The New Bible Commentary states,
Nearby Hierapolis was famed for its hot springs; Colosse, also near at hand, was noted for a cold, clear stream of excellent drinking water. Since, however, the River Lycus dried up in summer, Laodicea had to use a long viaduct for its water, which was not only tepid but impure and sometimes foul, making people sick. The church of that city had that effect on Christ—a vivid and horrifying picture of judgment. —From page 1432 of the The New Bible Commentary
This additional information confirms and enhances an already discernible interpretation. The Bible itself is sufficient to provide us with all that we need to interpret it rightly. We must not look for ultimate interpretive keys outside the Bible.