Which Context Comes First?

In a previous article, I argued that context is a faithful servant but a terrible master. That naturally raises an important question. If context matters, and it certainly does, which context should govern our interpretation of Scripture?

The answer, I believe, is that not all contexts possess equal authority.

One of the great strengths of the Reformed tradition is that it has never ignored context. Quite the opposite. The Reformers were among the greatest students of language, history, grammar, and literary structure the church has ever known. Yet they also understood that not every context stands on the same level.

Some contexts illuminate the text, while others govern our understanding of it. Still others help us apply it, and confusing those categories inevitably leads to confusion in interpretation.

I have found it helpful to think of four contexts that every faithful reader and preacher should consider.

Every passage belongs to a paragraph. Every paragraph belongs to a chapter. Every chapter belongs to a book.

The first question we should ask is,“What is the author arguing?”

This is the closest context, and it is almost always the most important. Too many interpretive errors begin by isolating a single verse from the argument surrounding it.

Some of the most common examples are verses like quoting Philippians 4:13 without reading Paul’s discussion of contentment and detaching Jeremiah 29:11 from God’s promises to exiles. In our Presbyterian circles, Matthew 18:20 is commonly used as a statement about small church gatherings rather than church discipline.

The immediate literary context usually corrects these mistakes before we ever consult a history book.

This is why faithful exposition moves paragraph by paragraph rather than verse by verse. Something that I have regularly reminded many of my congregants of, when they ask me about a specific verse, is that the biblical authors wrote arguments, narratives, poems, prophecies, letters, and not collections of inspirational sayings.

Before asking what a passage means for us, we must first ask what the author was saying to his original readers.

Only after understanding the literary flow should we begin asking historical questions.

Who wrote this? Who did he write it to? When did he write it? Why did he write it What political circumstances surrounded the event? What customs or cultural practices help explain the passage?

Historical study is a tremendous gift to the church.

Knowing something about first-century Corinth explains many of Paul’s pastoral concerns. Understanding the Babylonian exile enriches our reading of Ezekiel. Learning about shepherding, agriculture, or temple worship often makes the biblical text come alive.

The church should never despise careful historical study, but historical context has an important limitation.

It is used to illuminate the text’s meaning, not to create the text’s meaning.

Historical context helps us understand what Paul meant, but it does not give us permission to decide that Paul no longer means it.

The historical setting serves the inspired text, and never governs it.

Here we arrive at something uniquely Reformed.

The Westminster Confession states,

“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” (WCF 1.9)

That remarkable sentence expresses what we commonly call the analogy of faith.

Because God is the ultimate Author of Scripture, the Bible possesses a profound unity. One passage helps explain another. Clear passages illuminate more difficult ones. The whole of the Scripture provides the highest interpretive context for every individual text.

This means the most important context for Romans is not merely first-century Rome. There is much to be learned in Romans when we consider Genesis, Isaiah, the Psalms, and the Gospels.

Likewise, Hebrews cannot be understood apart from Leviticus. Revelation constantly draws from Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah. The New Testament repeatedly interprets the Old Testament because God Himself authored both.

This is why the Reformers instinctively moved from one passage to another rather than allowing uncertain contextualizations to determine meaning.

Scripture interprets Scripture.

The Bible is not sixty-six disconnected books; it is one unfolding story of redemption centered upon Jesus Christ.

Only now do we arrive at applying to our own culture. Notice how late this question appears. That is intentional. The text’s meaning must always precede relevance and application.

Once we have understood the author’s argument, appreciated the historical setting, and located the passage within the whole counsel of God, we are finally prepared to ask, “What does this require of us today?”

We cannot begin to apply the scriptures to our lives, families, homes, and churches until we know what the Holy Spirt-inspired author meant.

Our culture presents many questions, issues, and burdens. Our culture is presently wrestling with our understanding of technology, choatic politics, and wild-eyed sexuality. This doesn’t even take into account our questions regarding marriage, parenting, work, and what it means to be a faithful citizen in our communities.

This is where faithful contextualization actually belongs. It is not a tool for discovering meaning, but a tool for applying meaning.

Every faithful preacher should strive to speak clearly into the questions of his own generation, but he must never allow those questions to determine what Scripture is permitted to say.

Our culture provides the audience. Scripture provides the message.

Notice the progression. We begin with the text. Then we consider its history. Then we read it within the whole Bible. Only then do we apply it to our own age. The direction always moves from Scripture to culture; never from culture back to Scripture.

Much contemporary discussion begins with the fourth context, asking, “What questions is our culture asking?”

The Reformers instinctively began with the third, asking, “What has God already said?”

Those starting points produce very different habits of mind. The first trains us to read Scripture through the questions of our age. The second trains us to let Scripture question our age.

That difference is theological, and reflects where we believe authority ultimately resides.

Yes, faithful handling the Word of Truth requires every one of these contexts. Ignore literary context, and we become proof-texters. Forget historical context, and we flatten the Bible into timeless abstractions. Neglect canonical context, and we lose the unity of God’s revelation. Refuse to acknowledge contemporary context, and we fail to bring God’s Word to bear upon the people before us.

The solution is not to choose one context over another, but to place each one in its proper order.

When literary, historical, canonical, and contemporary contexts each serve their proper purpose, the Bible reader and preacher is free to understand the whole counsel of God with confidence.

The church has never been called to reinterpret God’s Word for every generation. She has been called to proclaim the same Word to every generation, trusting that the living voice of God is sufficient to expose every idol, answer every question, and bring every age and culture into joyful submission to Jesus Christ.