There is an old saying, “A text without context is a pretext.” R. Scott Clark, writing in an article for Heideblog, says, “One way to be sure to handle the text of Scripture well and accurately is to place it in its original context. Failure to read Scripture against its original background will have unhappy consequences.” Over my decades in ministry, I have seen many “unhappy consequences” of failing to interpret a passage in its historical context. This is where many errors of interpretation are grounded.
Duval and Hays, in their books Journey into God’s Word and Grasping God’s Word, discuss this. They use the illustration of a chasm or river. On this side of the chasm lies my time, my culture, my worldview, my language, and so on. People on the same side of the river have the same background knowledge, or at least enough to understand each other with little effort. However, on the other side is a different culture, language, worldview, political context, economic system, and so on. Communication can be difficult. And the larger the differences, the greater the chasm between us. As these differences expand, the work necessary to be understood and to understand increases.
Now imagine our day and that of Jesus. In our area, we speak English. They used a variety of languages, including Greek and Aramaic, with Latin also being employed, as well as Hebrew in liturgical contexts. Besides these, as the gospel spread, even more languages came into play. As it moved South, Coptic and Amharic became important. The eastward expanse led to Syriac gaining influence.
In our day, we in the US live in a Constitutional Republic with democratic processes. We have a written Constitution which enshrines rights recognized as coming from our creator. They had an assortment of governments, with the most influential being Roman imperial rule. Only Roman citizens had rights on that level, but not in the sense of what we understand as rights today. Then, in each city, there was an assembly of citizens who made legal decisions through the democratic process. Women had no say in these affairs. Children were mostly under the total command of their fathers, even subject to being sold into slavery to pay off debts or killed for certain offenses.
For us, a family consists of a mother, a father, and their children. This is the nuclear family. Other family members include grandparents, aunts, and uncles, but these are not considered part of the family household. In their time, the family household included the patriarch, his wife (or wives), their children, their slaves, and people closely tied to the patriarch through covenantal relationships (patron/client). Grown children commonly continued to live with their parents even after marriage. Even those who did not live under the same roof were still considered part of the household. These clients could include close business partners, former slaves, and those who required the patriarch’s assistance (as patron).
In our day, secularism is the order of society. You are free to practice whatever religion, or no religion. You can change religion. You can be public about your faith or keep it private. In their day, religion was a community affair. You were expected to worship the gods of your city or ethnic group. You were required to honor the emperor with incense. The only exceptions to this were for certain legal religious minorities, such as Jews, for example. This was what brought persecution to many Christians. They were accused of being atheists because they refused to worship local deities and the emperor.
Finally, consider lifestyle. Think of how different their houses were from ours today. Years ago, I saw a state trying to remove a family’s children because they were raising them in a home without electricity, running water, or plumbing. They used an outhouse and lanterns. They heated with wood. They drew their water with a hand pump. That state tried to claim this was child abuse. I bring this up because most of us would not want to live in biblical homes. We don’t even have to go back that far. My Great-Grandfather first settled in Texas in a sod house. I can only imagine trying to convince my wife to live in one of these.
The cultural differences make it hard to understand their times. This causes problems with interpretation. If I look at a passage through modern eyes, I may misunderstand. If I do not adequately understand, then how can I apply the teaching? First, we need to cross the bridge to examine the context. That is why I incorporate a great deal of history and background into my messages and teachings. Jesus and the apostles did not need to do this. They were already on the same side of the chasm. They understood the world the same way. Speaker and hearer shared these contextual details; thus, they could go unspoken.
There is another reason I include so many of these details. I am called to preach the Word of God, not the word of grandma, grandpa, or your beloved former pastor. I have heard some awful preaching and teaching. I encounter people every day who have adopted these incorrect interpretations. This means there is a good chance that I will teach something differently than you have heard in the past. On several occasions, I have had people tell me, “I have never heard that passage interpreted that way,” or “I have never heard anyone teach that.” But we are to be Bereans and examine the Word. Don’t just take my word for what I say it means. Look into it. Because of this, I owe it to you to show why I interpret a passage in a certain way.
Allow me to provide an example that I often use to illustrate a bad interpretation. Jesus turned water into wine. However, I was taught that it was not wine because wine was considered evil, and Jesus would never have made wine. He made grape juice. That is blatantly wrong. However, imagine I come in and teach that he did not make grape juice, but relatively high-quality wine? If you are convinced of that alternative view, then my teaching will not be acceptable to you. You might think that I am saying Jesus did something evil (notice the way I was taught it). This is how I was taught it as a kid. If I am going to get you to understand what I am teaching, then I need to go into the background and cultural context. Failing to do this would be failing to communicate.
There is another reason I do this. Jesus often taught with word pictures that his listeners would understand, using phrases like, “There was a man who…” These images are powerful and effective. I try to do the same. However, I don’t just want to build the modern picture, which might lead to a bad interpretation, so I use a picture from the historical context.
You should hold all teachers to this standard—providing proper context for all teachings.