Context, Context, Context

Contextualization is the process of considering something in its context.

Years ago, we had men’s breakfast on Saturday mornings. I always came loaded with Bible questions. Sometimes I’d ask a question, and I’d get no answer. Fred would look around the table to see if there were any takers. Then he’d say, “Well, brother, let’s look up the verse and read the whole context.” Sometimes he’d read a section of verses. Sometimes he’d read the whole chapter. That never mattered to him. He always read more than what everyone would agree was acceptable context.

The answer was usually in the context or in a good cross-reference.

This article on context is closely tied to another article on comparing spiritual with spiritual, because we often get our answers through contextualization, which is the process of considering verses in their context, which is to, essentially, compare spiritual with spiritual. You’re comparing the spiritual concept in that verse to all the spiritual concepts in the context.

How do we define context?

Webster’s 1828 tells us it’s the passages of scripture near the text, either before it or after it. Sometimes with a difficult passage you can discern the meaning by considering the verses right before that passage. Sometimes, the answers aren’t in the immediate context but in the context of verses earlier in the chapter or book. A difficult passage for me was always Eph. 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. How do you explain the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ? It’s hard to figure out in the immediate context before and after that verse. Pastor Hal loves to point out that the context at the beginning of the chapter is walking worthy of your vocation which means that the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ has to be nothing less than the standard of that worthy walk.

At the beginning of a chapter, sometimes Paul pivots onto a new topic. Sometimes the first verse in a chapter is a concluding thought to what came before it. For example, 2 Tim. 2:1 says, “Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” He first says, “Thou therefore, my son…” That is a concluding thought to what came before it. So what came before it? Is Paul referring back to the story of Onesiphorus at the end of chapter one? Or was he referring back to that verse about all of Asia turning on him? Or maybe he’s referring back to his own imprisonment and the intense spiritual warfare that’s coming? Yes. I’d suggest that everything in chapter 1 led up to that great concluding thought, “Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” Everything in chapter 1 was one thought building upon another thought building upon another thought until you reach the most powerful thought of them all – be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

You might also consider when Paul famously wrote in Rom 12:1, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” I’d argue that everything in the book of Romans has led up to these thoughts in Romans 12:1. In chapters 9-11, we came to understand the basics of right division. In chapters 6-8, we came to reckon our identity, who we are in Christ. Before that, we had the gospel in the first 5 chapters. Those three major sections: the gospel, identification, and right division, have all brought the readers to Rom. 12:1, Paul’s call to action. It’s as if Paul is saying, “Now that you understand the gospel, now that you understand who you are in Christ, now that you understand the basics of right division, it’s time to take action. It’s time for you to offer your life back to God. And you can start by renewing your mind and being transformed in your walk in all humility. You can start living in light of who you are and showing everyone around you the eternal life of God that is now manifest inside you.

Some people assume context only has to do with the verses that precede that verse you’re studying, but context can also be the verses that follow. Sometimes, Paul would say something and then explain what he meant afterwards. Consider Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit. What does that look like? How does someone act when they’re filled with the Spirit? You found out in the next few verses. Eph 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Sometimes, there is a theme woven throughout an epistle, with repeated callbacks to that theme in order to setup a big payoff. For example, one of the most quoted passages out of 2 Cor. is in chapter 12 in which Paul had this thorn in the flesh, this messenger of Satan buffeting him, and he prayed three times to have that thorn in the flesh removed. The Lord responded and said, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.

To me, one of the amazing things about 2 Corinthians is how Paul handled that theme of suffering and grace all throughout the epistle before we even read these famous words in 2 Cor. 12:9. Paul starts the epistle with a doxology of consolation. Then he, over the course of this epistle, slowly builds you up in Christ with sound grace doctrines about suffering and reminders about the sufficiency of His grace before we arrive at the grand payoff in chapter 12 with the Lord Himself saying that His grace is sufficient.

Paul begins his epistle with this doxology of consolation from the God of all comfort. In chapter 2, we have our triumph in Christ. 2Co 2:14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. 2Co 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish. In chapter 3, Paul again defends his apostleship and writes that 2Co 3:2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men… In chapter 4, we have the light of the gospel. 2Co 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2Co 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. And then we’re given model Godly behavior in Paul in terms of the power of that light inside of us as we go through suffering. He writes in 2Co 4:8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; 2Co 4:9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; 2Co 4:10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. And then he tells us in 2Co 4:17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. In chapter 5, Paul speaks of our heavenly dwelling in that house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. He speaks of the constraining love of Christ. He speaks of our appointment as ambassadors for Christ and the ministry of reconciliation that has been committed to us. In chapter 6, Paul speaks of how they approved themselves as the ministers of God through all their suffering. And what were they focused upon when they were suffering? 2Co 6:6 By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, 2Co 6:7 By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness… That section is brilliant. That wasn’t simply about Paul just trying to get through the suffering. It wasn’t the suffering itself that tested him. Paul tested himself when he went through the suffering – and he tested himself by excelling at those aspects of his walk while he suffered. Then he reminds us later in the chapter how we are all temples of the living God. In chapter 9, we have that first mention of the sufficiency of God’s grace. He writes, 2Co 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work… In chapter 10, Paul begins a long discourse defending his apostleship evidenced by all the hatred directed at him and all the suffering he endured in chapter 11, and that is followed in chapter 12 by the Lord Himself telling Paul about the sufficiency of His grace.

Everything you read in 2 Corinthians builds you up to until you can appreciate the significance and impact of the big payoff with the Lord’s words to Paul in chapter 12. 2 Corinthians is many things, but it is certainly an epistle designed to help and build up a saint who is suffering and to rest in the perfection of His workmanship and the sufficiency of His grace.

The Rule of Context

The rule of context is that the meaning of a verse is gathered from its context. All the words you read are to be understood in light of the words that come before and after it. The spiritual concepts you read in a verse are to be compared to the spiritual concepts before and after that verse. Sometimes, it can be a callback to something earlier in the chapter or in the epistle.

All the books I read on hermeneutics loved to say that “context” can refer to the historical or the literary context. This quote is taken from “Interpreting the Bible: An Overview of Hermeneutics” by Ernst R. Wendland in 2017. He wrote, “The literary context includes the words, sentences, and paragraphs preceding and following a passage. The literary context locates a passage within the larger purposes of a book. Readers should ask why a particular passage is here and not elsewhere, how it builds upon prior passages, and how it prepares for the next… The historical context includes knowledge of the culture, economy, geography, climate, agriculture, architecture, family life, morals, and social structure of the Bible’s actors, authors, and readers… Background studies permit more accurate study of a text’s line of thought. The genre of the passage must be noted, since narrative, law, prophecy, visions, wisdom literature, and epistles all have distinct modes of operation, with subtypes within each genre. To simplify, however, the most basic distinction in terms of genre is between narrative and discourse.”

By narrative vs. discourse, he means a book that tells stories vs. an epistle that teaches doctrine. And there are different modes between those two styles. I liked a lot of those thoughts, and I would agree up to a point about the historical context, but the more important point is that he should’ve been advocating what 2 Tim. 2:15 says to do, rightly dividing the Word of truth, making dispensational distinctions, by recognizing before you even read those passages the uniqueness of Paul’s ministry, which is distinct from everything else in the Bible.

The Contextual Principle

Here’s a quote from D.A. Carson: “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.”

A text, a verse, shared without its context, can often be used as a pretext, a pretense, a false appearance, to be a proof text, a text that definitely proves a particular point of view.

And sometimes that point of view can be very wrong.

This problem can sometimes lead to what is called

Over-Contextualizing.

The idea here is that contextualization can be taken to the other extreme in which you try to define something from one context and one context only to the exclusion of all the other references to that same thing in the Bible.

Let’s take angel of the Lord as an example. Someone might try to say, “Well, the first reference to the angel of the Lord is in Gen. 16 when the Lord had clearly come to this Earth in some pre-incarnate form to speak to Hagar at that fountain of water in the wilderness. Therefore, the angel of the Lord can only be a pre-incarnate form of Jesus and nothing else.

How can that be when Luke tells us in Luke 2 that the angel of the Lord appeared to those shepherds keeping watch over their flock by night to tell them about the birth of their Savior in the city of David? How can Jesus appear to those shepherds as an angel when He was just born in a manger in Bethlehem? Or how about the angel of the Lord in Matt. 28:2 who descended from heaven, rolled back the stone in front of the Lord’s tomb, and then he sat on it?

No, the angel of the Lord is a Pastor Hal question. Is the angel of the Lord an angel sent by God or a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ? YES. To figure out which one it is, you have to pay attention to the context. You cannot define terms to the exclusion of all the other usages of those same terms. Context can include comparisons with other usages of the same expressions in the Bible. The Bible should be interpreted within the framework of the whole Bible, and as is often said, the Bible interprets itself, in the context or somewhere in the Bible.

That’s not to say that everything in the Bible is to us and about us. This brings us to our next thought, the famous quote by Miles Coverdale. Coverdale was the second person to translate and print the Bible in English. He was the first one to print the Bible in its entirety. Coverdale was the second in a series of seven translations of the Textus Receptus into English. Unlike Tyndale who was focused on linguistic faithfulness to the original languages, Coverdale was more focused on smooth readings in English. But one good thing we got from Miles Coverdale was this wonderful quote:

“It shall greatly help ye to understand the Scriptures if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth after.”

I have a collection of 23 digital books on hermeneutics. Not one of those books quotes Miles Coverdale, which illustrates the disastrous state of hermeneutics in Christianity today. Of course, we know many of them are thinking, “Why would we need to consider all that stuff when we read the Bible? Why do we care of whom and to whom is something said? If everything in the Bible is about us, to us, for us, it’s all one big gospel, and one big package of promises to me and me only, what difference does it make who’s talking? Or to whom they’re speaking? Or what they’re saying? At the end of the day, it’s all about me anyway, isn’t it?”

No, it isn’t. Rom. 11 teaches us that we’re living in an interruption of the prophetic program, that Israel has been set aside for a reason and for a season, that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (Rom. 11:29), that there are no take-backs when it comes to God’s promises. He doesn’t take away promises and give them to someone else. And the day will come when God shall fulfill every promise He made to Israel (Rom. 11:25-27).

All of this is to say that generally context has probably three basic principles:

1. Literary meaning (the immediate sentence and paragraph within which a word or phrase is found),
2. Historical setting (the events of the story, to whom is it addressed, and how it was understood at that time. We might prefer to say dispensational distinctions),
3. And comparing spiritual with spiritual in the book and entire Bible.

Nehemiah 8:1-8

Nehemiah was the cupbearer in the palace of Shushan, serving Artaxerxes the King. When he learned about the deplorable condition of his people in the land of his fathers, he wept and prayed. The king learned of Nehemiah’s sorrow and permitted him to go. He gave him full authority to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. (In Ezra, the remnant returned to Israel and rebuilt the temple. In Nehemiah, we have the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem.)

Nehemiah was, for twelve years, actively engaged in the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the walls. The city wall was finished. All the work was done despite the many hindrances and obstacles his enemies put in the way. Nehemiah’s chief enemies were allied with the Arabians, the Ammonites, and the Ashdodites. They tried to hinder the work by mocking the workmen, then by threatening them with violence. When their attempts failed to stop the restoration of the wall, then they tried all kinds of dirty tricks. Plus, there were internal troubles among the people, threatening disruption. Nehemiah with God’s help came out victorious.

Thus, just as Daniel had prophesied, the wall was rebuilt and the work finished in troublous times (Dan. 9:25). So what we’re about to read is the celebration that followed.

Neh 8:1 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel. Neh 8:2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. Neh 8:3 And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law. Neh 8:4 And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam. Neh 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up: Neh 8:6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground. Neh 8:7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place. Neh 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

In vs. 1, Ezra the scribe appears. He was by that point officially retired. He brought the book of the law of Moses, which I think is a reference to the Pentateuch, the first five books of Moses. One commentary said that the public reading of the Scriptures was required by the law to be made every seventh year (Deut. 31:10). However, during the long period of the captivity this practice had fallen into neglect, until it had been revived on this occasion.

In vs. 4, we learn that Ezra stood upon the pulpit of wood. Apparently, part of the pulpit itself was the platform upon which Ezra had stood, and this was an elevated platform.

We learn in vs. 5 that Ezra was above all the people. When Ezra opened the book, all the people stood up. But before Ezra read from the book, in vs. 6, he praised God, and the people responded Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground. This is one of the rare occasions in which we see in the people an excitement about hearing the Word, a reverence for the Word, and they show true deferential respect for both God and His Word.

We also encounter two lists of priests in these passages. We read of the priests standing with Ezra upon the platform near the pulpit in vs. 4, and we read a second list of Levites standing amongst the people in vs. 7.

Did you notice that they caused the people to understand the law? They were present among the people to answer questions about the text. One commentary pointed out Mal. 2:7, that one of the responsibilities of the priests was to be extremely knowledgeable about the Word of God. Mal 2:7 said, “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.” I’d argue that’s a timeless principle.

Read Distinctly, Gave the Sense, and Caused them to Understand

Neh 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

At the beginning of that verse, we read, So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly. Who are they? Some books suggested that some of the priests standing near Ezra jumped in to help with the reading. But vs. 3 was very specific. Ezra was the one who did all the reading. He read from the morning until midday. I’d suggest that they were the priests in the previous verse who were amongst the people. We have two similar expressions in vs. 7 and vs. 8. In vs. 7, the priests who were among the people caused the people to understand the law. In vs. 8, we’re given a similar but different expression, caused them to understand the reading.

It would seem that all Ezra did was read the text. But after the reading, the priests who were among the people helped the people to understand the reading, to understand the law and the writings of Moses. Vs. 7 tells us what they did and vs. 8 tells us how they did it. Neh 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Let’s dissect this passage even further. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly. What did he mean by distinctly? Distinctly means they read those words with distinction, with absolute clarity, without any confusion. They articulated those words loudly and in Hebrew in such a manner that every word was heard and clearly understood. Some suggested that Israel had spent so many years in captivity speaking Aramaic some were still getting readjusted to speaking in their native Hebrew tongue, which may be possible. Thus, when the Word was read, there was an emphasis on the clear articulation of those words so there would be absolute clarity about what was said. No doubt Ezra spoke with clarity as did the priests with the people.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense… What does that mean exactly? If you look up sense in Webster’s 1828, there are many definitions. I’d suggest only one definition fits and that was “6. Reason; reasonable or rational meaning.”

They understood the meaning of those passages in their context. One of the hermeneutical books tried to explain sense in this passage was that the priests were helping the people understand all the many ways in which those expressions in the text could be interpreted. That’s not what the verses say. Those priests caused the people to understand the law. They caused them to understand the reading. They came to understand the meaning.

Pastor Jordan in his Manuscript Evidence class talking about Neh. 8:8, said, “They read it clearly, and they gave the sense (they told them what it was talking about), and made them understand.”

I love that. Jordan gave the sense of what it meant to give the sense.

When I hear Neh. 8:9 and that phrase they gave the sense, I cannot help but think of that golden rule of interpretation: “When the plain sense of the scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” When the straightforward, clear, simplicity that is in Christ is easily grasped, don’t go looking for unnecessary complications. That, to me, is the perfect definition of what the priests did. God often operates on the power of simplicity.

I was reminded of what the Lord told Habakkuk, “And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it” (Hab 2:2). Plain, simple clarity when writing about the Lord’s vision would provoke the people to respond, to hopefully run away from sin and/or run toward the refuge of God Himself.

I can’t talk about Neh. 8 without also mentioning Hal’s article called No Words Stand Alone, which was all about Neh. 8. He wrote, “Each word was read ‘distinctly’ to demonstrate accuracy. We can see that the reading, in and of itself, was insufficient, however, for afterwards the ‘sense’ (the depth of meaning) was also given. The priests were among the people teaching them the full meaning of the Word of God. Even when reading strictly from the Hebrew it was necessary to carefully demonstrate the meaning. Rare is the word, though perfectly chosen, that can be said to reflect the total ‘depth of meaning’ by itself. The issue of ‘accuracy’ is distinct from the issue of ‘depth of meaning.’ A word can be completely accurate and yet at the same time have its ‘total depth’ incompletely realized. This is why preachers (good ones) define and expand the thought and meaning of every word. This was true when the Word was available only in the ‘original’, and it is true today.”

I also suspect that after Ezra’s reading, they went to the book and looked at certain passages in order to discuss them. That book was a copy and treated just as authoritative as the originals. They taught out of the copy. Gave the sense was taking the people to the Scriptures, showing them verses, reasoning out of the Scriptures – how? – by comparing the verses to their context, by explaining words, by comparing spiritual with spiritual to bring people to understand truth, to understand the meaning of what is said.

This point brings us full circle to the Freddie Bear story at the beginning of the message about men’s breakfast. When the people had questions about the Bible, the priests did what Fred did. They opened the Word of God. They read the passages in their context and then explained the meaning of those passages in the context.

Horizontal and Vertical Narratives

Every once in a blue moon, you might hear a grace pastor talk about this, although I suspect my take may be different. I can’t view horizontal and vertical narratives any other way. I used to be in writing groups. I wrote for a writing magazine. I used to give detailed feedback on amateur stories. I very often talked about horizontal and vertical narratives. And especially if you’re giving people the sense of, say, an OT story, you are going to be helping people to understand both the horizontal and vertical views of that narrative.

It’s like an opera. You have a plot. That plot is usually pretty flimsy because the plot’s just an excuse for all those arias and songs. The plot is a horizontal plane. So the plot quickly moves along that horizontal plane until you get to a song. Then the plot stops so someone can sing that song. That song is a vertical investigation into the meaning of that moment in time. An investigation into the emotions, the inner conflicts, the desperation, the love, whatever it is, expressed through song. The plot stops so we can hear those songs and experience together the investigation into the meaning of those moments. That’s the reason for going to an opera.

Every genre has vertical moments like that. In action movies, it’s the action. The plot stops so we can have an action sequence. In comedies, the plot stops so we can have a big comedic event that’s designed to make us laugh. In thrillers, the plot stops so we can have those drawn Hitchcockian scenes filled with tension.

So when these priests are talking to the people and giving the sense of, say, a story in Genesis, they’re helping people understand the story itself, the horizontal plane, but then there are vertical moments, investigations into the meaning of those moments, spiritual lessons to be learned. So they’re helping people to understand fully the entire narrative while also helping them to see the vertical, to understand the meaning of these spiritual stories of faith.

Conclusion

I share all of this about Neh. 8 to make the big picture point that what the priests did for the people of Israel at this celebration, we do for ourselves when we sit down to study the Scriptures. We help ourselves by learning the sense of every passage. We understand the literary context, the meaning of words and their relation to the other words. What does that expression mean? How does that expression relate to the expressions around it? How does that verse fit into the context? Are there similar expressions elsewhere in Scripture? We are careful to make dispensational distinctions when necessary. And we also compare spiritual concepts with spiritual concepts. We consider that spiritual thought in its context. We compare it to the other spiritual thoughts around it, and we may also compare that spiritual thought to other similar or different thoughts elsewhere in the Bible. And we’re careful to not limit our thinking by over-contextualizing while excluding the rest of the Bible.