I believe that in understanding the meaning of a story, context is everything. Nowhere is this insight more crucial than in our understanding of Scripture. Just as one would not be able to pick a paragraph out of a novel such as To Kill a Mockingbird and understand the meaning of the story, its comments on the rapant racism of the South in thr 1930s, so one cannot read a verse in Philippians and understand what Paul is saying in the letter, much less the entirety of Scripture.
This truth might seem self evident. Unfortunately, however, many current practices in reading Scripture encourage just this practice. We often read a verse or two for our quiet times, in no particular sequence, and think we understand without giving any thought to the context in which it is set. The context than becomes whatever we bring to the verse resulting in an interpretation that best fits what we need, but may or may not have anything to do with the actual biblical narrative. Pastors, unfortunately, often model this practice, by reading one or two verses (sometimes even a half of a verse) and then making a 40 minute sermon on some topic that evidences little resemblance to the Scripture. While we may here a nice message, we are nowhere closer to understanding Scripture, which is, afterall, the primary duty of preaching.
The following blog was written by Chuck Gutenson, a former professor of mine at Asbury. It is one of the best pieces I have read on the importance of understanding the context for understanding Scripture: Gutenson's Blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Great point dad on the fact that one could use the bible to back up anything. In fact, it has throughout time been used to justifuy a lot of things that go against the general "tenure" of Scripture and certainly the character of God, slavery comes to mind. Fred Phelp's agenda is a great modern example. The point is that we must make sure we aren't doing the same thing for whatever we believe in.
I have a thousand thoughts about context in reading/memorizing Scripture, but I won't share them all here. My thoughts can really be narrowed down to one over-arching thought: Scripture reading/memory should center less around defending our faith and more around defining our faith. Instead of asking ourselves how this or that passage can be used to defend our thoughts, we should be asking ourselves how it defines our daily thoughts and actions.
I saw this practice all the time when I taught at Lexington Christian - many of the male students would constantly use the passages in some of Paul's letters that instruct women to be silent to tell their fellow female peers that they have no authority or that they couldn't teach them anything - this without an understanding of the context of Paul's ministry, in which he was actually a supporter of women and had many serving as ministers with them, and without an appropriate historical understanding of the vast differences in the education afforded to men and women of those days.
I also see it a lot when people quote verses from the OT as some kind of biblical justification for the war in Iraq. Without taking a stance on the war one way or the other, I think it is impossible to support quoting a verse from the OT.
You also see OT Scriptures used to suggest that America is now the chosen nation of God, that is people use verses in context addressed to Israel as if they were addressed to the United States of America. But there is no more justification from Scripture that America is the new chosen nation of God than there is that Iraq is the chosen nation.
These are just a few observations of many others I have seen. Does anyone else have some observations of Scripture being horribly abused out of context?
how about "an eye for an eye"
people love to throw that one around, and may or may not even know the context.
I'm not sure I do either . . .
Excellent example- the context of "eye for an eye" is in the midst of the OT law given on Sinai. This verse is often used to support capital punishment. But there is no understanding of the fact that this is an OT proclamation that was significantly altered in Jesus' teachings.
Recall that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus actually changes this law: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also." -Matthew 5.38-39
Therefore, anyone who argues for the legitimacy of the death penalty using the "an eye for an eye" verse has not understood this verse in its greater context, particularly in relation to the incarnation.
Post a Comment