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 read, 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 to 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.
altruistico 
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand where you are coming from but the danger of such a detailed approach is to hand over interpretation to the theologians.
Also if the examination of the Bible by learned men for centuries has not resulted in agreement how is the layman expected to root out the truth?
In my opinion the Bible contains many truths both in and out of context.
If you take any holy ancient text you will find the above also applies.
Further more it applies to all the classical texts produced over the years.
Before the reformation the Catholic Church insisted on latin making it inacessable to the common man.
LikeLike
Your comment, in relevant portion: “the danger of such a detailed approach [keeping in context] is to hand over interpretation to the theologians” isn’t accurate.
“Context” refers to the information surrounding something. Data is rarely clear in a vacuum, and is rather influenced by other data surrounding it that gives you, the observer, a sense of perspective by which you can accurately determine meaning from what you are seeing.
Were I too say “my dog is red” one might conclude I am referring to either an actual dog who’s color is red; or, I am referring to something far removed as I am a communist. Unless we have the surrounding data we can not accurately perceive what is meant. Were the surrounding data to refer to my state of which I live as politically conservative then we can safely put in perspective I am referring to where I live (state) as red in a politically sense. By keeping it in perspective or within the context of which I was referring; (i.e.) “my state” then the observer can see clearly I am associating my state with my dog. And, this does not leave any outside perspective by others to take “out of context” my meaning as in the sense of political analyst.
I believe theologians, worthy of their salt, have done a remarkably good job in putting the pieces of the Bible in perspective and within the context of it’s original meaning. Furthermore, the layperson can make heads or tails of the Bible through praying for the gift of Discernment. One truth concerning the Bible is this: “a passage might speak to one brother or sister in one way. Being God inspired makes it readable and as readable it leads us to different meanings for different people. In other words, I can read a passage and it does not jump out at me or appear to have relevancy; while someone else can read the same passage and it leaps towards them and has significant meaning or relevancy. That is the power of God’s Word.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you and yours.
LikeLike
Meaning depends on the observer it is not absolute. Meaning is also changed by time. The same words in a hundred years will have a different meaning.
Religious interpretation changes with progress. Now we have big bang Christianity ; the acceptance of women ministers, same sex marriage. Nothing stands still.
LikeLike
I believe you’re trying to make a cake with too many ingredients here. Firstly: you’re trying to instill the unbelievers humanist philosophy of “human progress” with believers belief in God’s infinite Word. It is true that humans want to change and progress. Many are doing so to allow room for their worldly and fleshly desires and to separate themselves from God’s wrath.
What you see as “Religious interpretation as changing with progress;” I see as “reinterpreting Religious principles as regress”. Whether woman as ministers or homosexuality and same sex marriage it is still sin according to God. Man may change but God doesn’t. What was sin 2,000 years before Christ is still sin 2,000 years after Christ…… In that – something does stand still.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thankyou for a most detailed reply and for making your position crystal clear.
At a guess, and without any offence I would say you are a fundamentalist.
Its not a position that I think is tenable today although it may well have been so for centuries.
Many Christians feel unable to hold that position, yet they wish to maintain their beliefs.
Even the solid world of scientific progress is changing all the time and we do not know where it will lead us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Kap;
You are quite welcome. Although I am not certain as to how detailed or crystal clear my responses were. I suspect that remains in the receivers eye. I thank you just the same for having said so…
Am I a [religious] fundamentalist? Honestly? I have not given it any thought until now.
Liberal society uses the term fundamentalist to identify any Christian whom they consider to be an extremist. Generally, they classify a Christian as a radical fundamentalist if they merely believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, if they hold views against sexual permissiveness, homosexuality, abortion on demand, or any views which are politically incorrect.
But, from the Christian perspective, fundamentalist has traditionally referred to any follower of Christ who believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and who believes in its literal [not liberal] interpretation and fundamental teachings. The fundamental Christian believes in the experience of the “new birth” which occurs when faith is placed in Christ as Savior and Lord. To the world this may be viewed as radical, but is very basic to the Christian faith. To me there is nothing radical or extreme in such a simplistic view and holding of faith.
There are two types of Christian. Those who follow their tenet of faith and those who are Christian in name only. For the one holds to the statement of Christ that “we are in this world and not of it” [They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world]. John 17:16. They hear the Word of God and adhere to it. While the other, Christ says; “But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.” Matthew 7:26.
You say it is “not a position that I think is tenable today.” I disagree and use my definition of a “fundamentalist Christian” above as evidence and I add simply this: From a Bible conference of Conservative Protestants meeting in Niagara in 1895, a statement was issued containing what came to be known as the five points of fundamentalism:
[1] The verbal inerrancy of Scripture,
[2] the divinity of Jesus Christ,
[3] the virgin birth,
[4] a substitutionary theory of the atonement,
[5] and the physical resurrection and bodily return of Christ.
In the broad sense, fundamentalism may be used to describe Christians who are uncompromising, conservative and who take their beliefs to the maximum — exactly how every believer should live. But because of recent, increased activism by those identified as fundamentalists [both in Christianity and Islam], who have promoted unethical actions such as bringing violence against abortion clinics, doctors etc., some academic circles believe that fundamentalism has been redefined by our society. They believe that the philosophy of fundamentalism (at least in the world’s eyes) has evolved into a legitimate form of extremism, with views too radical for the balanced, evangelical Christian. For this reason, fundamentalism may no longer be a term which accurately conveys what orthodox Christians really believe.
A true Christian will not compromise his/her tenet of faith [see: compromise in a search on altruistico]. If, in the eyes of liberal Christian’s, this makes us extremist then so be it. Yet, the Liberal Christian is as being equal to an unbeliever or atheist. To accept the world and what it offers is as being the fool who builds his house upon (shifting) sands. They have lost what is the meaning of “one true church”. Liberal Christianity has lost it’s perspective on what it means to be a Christian. They are both in the world and of it. They will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you.
LikeLike
You were very clear and I must be clear in return; I’m a live and let live agnostic.
I read your take on fundamentalism
with interest .
Religious belief has no problem for me except when it goes against human conscience.
When a believer performs an act generally seen as inhuman by the majority that is a radical action.
The logic of such an act is it is God’s will but I feel it must be condemned.
When we follow holy books or documents this can happen for the free will and judgement of the person is removed.
General humanity often ignores its conscience for selfish desires and this also results in inhumanity but the difference is they know they are contradicting their consciences and feel guilt.
Freud explains this in great detail.
As for building houses on shifting sands I have not built one ; the religious and scientific bricks are slippery and the philosophers dwellings are not built to last.
Thanks for your reply.
LikeLike
Dear Kaptonok;
What I took from your previous message is that you had wrongly assumed I was a “fundamentalist Christian”. Or, some how radicalized or extremist in my “religious [Christian]” views. Am I adamant and/or sincere about my Christian Faith? Certainly. Being sincere about something and becoming radicalized or an extremist is worlds apart.
When you say “Religious belief has no problem for me except when it goes against human conscience” I couldn’t agree with you more. Whether it is a “professing in name only” Christian, a Muslim or any religion or world view and the act is so heinous as to “shock human conscience” it needs to be addressed and condemned.
I do, however, have a problem with your next line which states “When a believer performs an act generally seen as inhuman by the majority that is a radical action.” A “believer” is most often associated with Christianity. It comes from our Christian belief in, and following of, Jesus Christ. As I have said early “Liberal society uses the term fundamentalist to identify ‘any Christian’ [emphasis added] whom they consider to be an extremist. Generally, ‘they classify a Christian as a radical fundamentalist’ if they merely believe in the “literal interpretation of the Bible”, “if they hold views against sexual permissiveness”, “homosexuality”, “abortion on demand”, or “any views which are politically incorrect”.”
I suppose, from the “Liberal society” point of view I am a “radical fundamentalist” since I oppose those things. But this in no way makes me a radical or extremist. I do not go out and harm homosexuals, I do not go out and blow up abortion clinics, nor do I advocate any such ideal or practice. You must understand that the Liberal society opposes Christians and Christianity at every turn. When is the last time you have heard of anyone from the Liberal Society condemn Radical Muslims for killing Christians worldwide?
The world view of Christians’ is one of love and peace. Are there “supposed Christians”, or Christians in name only (and not of practice) who do acts of violence and destruction in the name of Christendom? There has been, yes. But again I emphasis to you that these are not “true believers” and they act outside of what Christianity teaches.
Now, if what you mean by a “believer” is “anyone who practices a religion or faith;” [and they] “perform an act generally seen as inhuman[e] by the majority that is a radical action” then I again agree whole heartedly. I point here to the acts or actions of Muslim fundamentalist and Islamic Jihadist as ISIS and other radical extremist of Islam. Most all of their actions are cruel, inhumane and [should] shock the human conscience. Whether it is the beheading of innocent people whose only crime is disagreeing with them and their philosophies, or the raping of men, women and children, or selling women into slavery (sexual or otherwise), or mass murder; these shock the human conscience and are atrocities’ of which need to be addressed and condemned.
There are over a billion Muslims and over a billion Christians worldwide. You can not, however, lump the actions of a few, into the greater sum of all, by placing them under the one umbrella of “religion”. No more than a person of faith can place all “agnostics” under the same umbrella as “atheists” by calling them all “unbelievers”. To do so is to generalize [a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases] and such generalizations can be just as offensive, hurtful or inhumane.
One last thought. If I had offended you in any of my previous statements then I ask you to forgive me. I assure you it was not my intension to do so.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you, and yours, always.
Love through Christ;
Michael
LikeLike
Once again you have made your position clear and I thankyou for the long detailed explanation.
You certainly have not offended me in any way. An exchange of ideas is not an offence it is essential for the smooth running of the world.
Radical Muslims are to be condemned and I would have no hesitation in shooting them myself.
Men and women of good will must condemn all inhuman acts by anyone whatever label they wear.
Liberal society is afraid of Christianity in general since they fear Christians may take over society as they have in the past and enforce unfair rules.
Liberal see Biblical restictions as a backward step for an increasingly.enlightened society.
I think we must learn to accept the beliefs and life-style of others and try to live in harmony with all our neighbors. The story of the good sumaritan says it all to my mind and my knowledge of scripture is very limited. My late Father (I’m 74) often quoted the Bible athough he was agnostic like me.
I had no higher education but like him I tried to make up for my lack by teaching myself.
Thanks again for your reply.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael what a great post as well as the one on taking the Bible literally.
The Bible is accessible to all, as I am proof of that. It simply requires study and discipline. We do have to apply some guidelines in our interpretation, or we all end up in many different directions. In other words, we end up where we want to be, rather than what God meant.
The Word means the same now as it did 2000 years ago, and has not changed due to changes in the world or changes in how people feel, and I take great comfort in that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally, thank you so much for your kind and supportive words. They are greatly appreciated.
I know you are correct, Wally. Many believers (professing believers that is) and unbelievers seek “justification”. They seek to justify their own actions, beliefs and to feel good about themselves. Little do they realize “justification” comes as a result of “salvation”. And salvation through both Grace and the Blood of Jesus Christ (atonement). A homosexual might say: “Christians always say to me ‘God doesn’t make any junk’ and since I was created by God I am ‘justified’ in being a homosexual”. Truth is ‘man makes junk’ and that’s why we have landfills and a throw away society…. that’s why we have a society of materialist or idolaters and why God has a landfill named “Hell”.
In the end no man will be able to justify his twisting of God’s Word to soot himself. He can not justify taking God’s word out of context.
Once again, Wally, thank you for the comment and for your kindest of words. Both are, truly, greatly appreciated. and always, May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and yours.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person