Unfiltered Fridays: Getting Serious—and Being Honest—about Interpreting the Bible in Context

Anyone interested in Bible study, from the new believer to the biblical scholar, has heard (and probably said) that if you want to correctly interpret the Bible, you have to interpret it in context. I’m certainly not going to disagree. But I have a question: What does that mean? Put another way, just what context are we talking about?

There are many contexts to which an interpreter needs to pay attention. Historical context situates a passage in a specific time period against the backdrop of certain events. Cultural context concerns the way people lived and how they thought about their lives and their world. Literary context focuses on how a given piece of biblical literature conforms (or not) to how the same type of literature was written during biblical times. All of these are important—but they only flirt with the heart of the matter. There’s a pretty clear element to this “context talk” that we’re missing. It’s time to get a firm grasp on something obvious. Believe it or not, it took years of study before I had it fixed in my head and my heart.

The Bible’s true context

As Christians, whether consciously or otherwise, we’ve been trained to think that the history of Christianity is the true context for interpreting the Bible. It isn’t.

That might be hard to hear, but Christian history and Christian thought is not the context of the biblical writers, and so it cannot be the correct context for interpreting what they wrote. The proper context for interpreting the Bible is not the church fathers. They lived a thousand years or more after most of the Old Testament was written. Less than a half dozen of them could read Hebrew. The New Testament period was a century or more removed from important early theologians like Tertullian and Irenaeus. Augustine, arguably the most famous early church figure, lived three hundred years after the conversion of Paul. That’s more time than has elapsed since the founding of the United States. Many church fathers worked primarily with a translation (the Latin Vulgate), and so a good bit of their exegesis is translation-driven. They were also responding to the intellectual issues of their own world when they wrote about Scripture, not looking back to the biblical context.

The farther down the timeline of history one moves, the greater the contextual gap becomes. The context for interpreting the biblical text is not the Catholic Church. It is not the rabbinic movements of late antiquity and the Middle Ages. It is not the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or the Anabaptists). It’s not the Puritans. It is not evangelicalism in any of its flavors. It is not the modern world at all.

So what is the proper context for interpreting the Bible? Here’s the transparently obvious truth I was talking about: The proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers—the context that produced the Bible. Every other context is alien or at least secondary.

The biblical writers living in our heads

The biblical text was produced by men who lived in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean between the second millennium BC and the first century AD. To understand how biblical writers thought, we need to tap into that context. We need the biblical writers living in our heads.

As certain as this observation is, there is a pervasive tendency in the believing Church to filter the Bible through creeds, confessions, and denominational preferences. That’s not a bad thing. It’s a human thing. Creeds are useful for distilling important points of theology. But they are far from the whole counsel of God, and even farther from the biblical world. This is something to be aware of at all times.

Lest I be misunderstood, I’m not arguing that we should ignore our Christian forefathers. I’m also not saying that we’re smarter. They were prodigious intellects. The problem isn’t their brain power—it’s that they are simply removed from the world of the biblical writers with little chance of bridging that gap.

Putting context first

It might sound odd, but we’re actually in a better position than any of our spiritual forefathers in that respect. We live at a time when the languages of the major civilizations that flourished during the lifetimes of the biblical writers have been deciphered. We can tap into the intellectual and cultural output of those civilizations. That output is enormous—millions of words. We can recover the worldview context (their “cognitive framework” in scholar-speak) of the biblical writers as never before. The same is true of the New Testament writers because they inherited what had gone before them and were in turn part of a first century world two thousand years removed from us.

Think about it. How would anyone living a thousand years from now understand something you wrote unless they had you inside their head? They’d need your frame of reference. They’d need to know what was going on in the wider world that potentially concerned, angered, encouraged, or depressed you. They’d need to understand the pop culture of your day to be able to parse why you’re using this word and not that one, or to properly process an expression. There’s no way to do that unless they recover your frame of reference.

That is what it means to interpret in context.

I know firsthand this is a hard lesson. It isn’t easy to put the biblical context ahead of our traditions. But if we don’t do that, we ought to stop talking about how important it is to interpret the Bible in context lest we be hypocrites. I can honestly say that the day I decided to commit myself to framing my study of Scripture in the context of the biblical world instead of any modern substitute was a day of liberation. It’s what put me on a path to reading the Bible again—for the first time. You can do that, too. Don’t believe me? Stay tuned.

***

Be sure to check back every Friday for another unfiltered insight from Dr. Michael Heiser.

Get a thorough introduction to interpreting the Bible in context with Dr. Heiser’s Mobile Ed course: BI 101 Introducing Biblical Interpretation: Contexts and Resources.

Share
Written by
Michael S. Heiser
View all articles
10 comments
  • Hi Dr. Heiser, Greatly appreciate all you write and share! This introduction brought to mind the movie “Back to the Future.” There are several instances of not understanding historical and future context of the characters. Several of these are used for simple laughs but definitely an easy way to show the importance of context to our congregations.

  • Thank You.

    Very encouraging, it is time for me to read the Bible again, with a breath of fresh air.

  • Another great idea put into action. Hopefully more and more people will finally come to see that it is pointless to argue that “their churche’s” doctrine is more accurate than others. That their traditions, no matter how long are not a proof of correctness.
    Thank you for all the work you’re doing.
    All the blessings
    Janina

  • Mike – (If I may presume to address you with your first name.)

    I always enjoy your contributions to my education and attitude. I am reminded of the admonition of one of my Florida College professors from 1967 to 1969: The task of every student of the Bible is to get into one’s own mind the thoughts, understanding and intentions of the original author as he wrote to the recipients in the setting in which they all lived.

    Years later I heard this gem from another wise teacher: Any one who is honestly seeking Biblical truth will study themselves out of whatever denomination they are in.

    I’m not sure whether my college professor would appreciate it today, but his teaching led me to do what the second teacher predicted.

    Thank you for trying to keep us honest.

  • Good morning, God bless you all:

    Nice explanation, and I respect Dr. Heiser’s point of view. I am no expert, and probably what I am going to suggest is actually not very scholarly.

    I hear and read much about context. But to tell you the truth, there is one context that so far no one talks about: The Holy Spirit’s.

    I would like to think that most Christians agree that the Holy Spirit has been actively involved (including witnessing events) from the beginning of creation, and will be with us to the end, when new heaven and Earth are set.

    The Holy Spirit to me is a Substantive reality that has a context unique to Himself, and that transcends any context any particular Author of the Bible could have ever had.

    The Holy Spirit to me is the one that bears witness to Jesus, as He was there in every instance, and to me is the one that the verse that follows applies to:

    John 5:3 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,

    Why do the Scriptures bear witness of Jesus? (notice it implies all Scriptures, not just certain passages), because as the Holy Spirit knew the whole story from the beginning, He could communicate to the different writers what it was all about:

    Was Isaiah with his particular historical, cultural, literary, worldview context saying something particular to his particular case and circumstance, or was the Holy Spirit communicating something way higher? Let’s see:

    Acts28: 25-27
    25 And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet:
    26 “Go to this people, and say,
    You will indeed hear but never understand,
    and you will indeed see but never perceive.
    27 For this people’s heart has grown dull,
    and with their ears they can barely hear,
    and their eyes they have closed;
    lest they should see with their eyes
    and hear with their ears
    and understand with their heart
    and turn, and I would heal them.

    Like I have stated before: a Prophet saw a vision near a river, He actually saw a Being and heard an intelligible message.
    The people near by heard a loud noise, and were scared and ran away.

    Who had the right interpretation of the event? the prophet or the bystanders?

    The prophet who had the Holy Spirit of course, his perceptual channels were fine tuned to properly interpret the supernatural event: a Being appearing and communicating important facts.

    That is why the Bible tells us that no one without the Holy Spirit can interpret right the messages.

    With the assumption that the Holy Spirit is not bound by time, He can be present with the believers (at any time in history) to make sure that they get the right interpretation of the whole thing:

    I Corinthians 6:19
    Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,

    II Peter 1:21
    For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

    So let’s look at a concept that the Holy Spirit (in HIs context) has been trying to convey through different men of God in different historical times:

    Isaiah 9:6
    6 For to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given;
    and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
    and his name shall be called
    Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    It would seem that the Holy Spirit communicated to Isaiah that the Messiah was going to be “Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” all at the same time… strange.

    But Zechariah, by the Holy Spirit seems to get the same message:

    Zechariah 14:9
    9 And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; on that day Yahweh will be one and his name one

    Harris, W. H., III, Ritzema, E., Brannan, R., Mangum, D., Dunham, J., Reimer, J. A., & Wierenga, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Lexham English Bible (Zec 14:9). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

    John then sees at Patmos a vision that seems to be the fulfilment of Zechariah 14:9:
    Revelation 1:12-18

    So to me the context of the Holy Spirit is higher, all encompassing, transcending all time and space, and is key for proper interpretation.

    Irenaeus, Tertullian and others knew it, because they had that same Holy Spirit dwelling in them.

    Now notice that there are certain kind of people that deny the context and action of the Holy Spirit:

    Acts 7:51
    You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

    True believers have to operate in the context and action of the Holy Spirit to be witness:

    Acts 1:8
    But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.

    So important is the Holy Spirit that the unpardonable sin relates to Him:

    Luke 12:10
    And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

    I am impressed and grateful to God, with all the experts that through L6, have shared so kindly with us all the wisdom gained from a lifetime of study and reflection.

    But I am appalled, by the lack of in depth study of the context created by the Holy Spirit in the Bible that transcends, all other Biblical reality of particular authors, in particular times, that have particular tools to get the job done.

    To me the context of the Holy Spirit is the most important of them all. And I consider it to be the guiding principle for correct interpretation of the story of Redemption.

    Blessings.

    • As i was reading the insights regarding biblical interpretation on this page, indignation towards the pride of men began to come over me. I wish that I could say i am 100% cleansed of such pride, but I cannot (i just wanted to get that out first, so that what i write may be taken in love and not judgement).

      I went to read the handful of comments, and began to become discouraged until I read the one message that was actually giving the Glory to God (and supported by Scripture) in correctly pointing to the Holy Spirit as Divine Expositor (and Writer) of Scripture. I would consider myself one who enjoys academic exercises, and 100% condone learning the Biblical Languages, History, etc. That said, the languages should be learned in my humble opinion to ensure we understand to the greatest degree possible the nuances of the original languages as a means of filtering our present day presuppositions related to language, semantics, etc (rather than simply relying on another man’s interpretation of the original meaning). If we want to understand Abraham as a man better, then historical context will certainly help one to understand ABRAHAM THE MAN. To understand Abraham the man is something quite different than understanding the WORD OF GOD. I love history, and find historical figures and settings fascinating, but let’s not limit the the ability of the Holy Spirit to speak to us by our scholarly pursuits. To say it as smoothly as I can, i think we are on DANGEROUS grounds of presumption when we exalt our abilities as learners rather than GOD’s ability as teacher. The Scriptures are universal and the inspired cohesion found within them is found from Abraham to Joseph to Joshua to David …….to Paul, John….to all men in modernity.

      Jesus says

      John 7:17
      “If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.”

      John 10:27
      My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;

      One may justifiably ask how we may know whether it is the Holy Spirit guiding our understanding (versus the spirit of another). Peter exclaims with much simplicity the answer to that question (Luke is quoting Peter here):

      Acts 5:32
      And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who OBEY Him.”

      I would like to challenge all who are Christs to be very conscious in how we are leading/influencing the Lord’s flock, and what we convey regarding things such as the source for our understanding. I commend the writer who laid out very beautifully the fact that it is the Holy Spirit (God) that gives understanding of Eternal Truths. The understanding of historical context can be quite fascinating and is certainly a worthy pursuit, but man’s academic exercises take the backseat in a mile long bus when compared to the One truly driving our understanding and the exposition of Scripture in Truth.

      Psalm 24:3–10
      3 Who may ascend into the hill of the LORD? Or who may stand in His holy place?
      4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted up his soul to an idol, Nor sworn deceitfully.
      5 He shall receive blessing from the LORD, And righteousness from the God of his salvation.
      6 This is Jacob, the generation of those who seek Him, Who seek Your face. Selah
      7 Lift up your heads, O you gates! And be lifted up, you everlasting doors! And the King of glory shall come in.
      8 Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, The LORD mighty in battle.
      9 Lift up your heads, O you gates! Lift up, you everlasting doors! And the King of glory shall come in.
      10 Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, He is the King of glory. Selah

    • You really aren’t willing to try to understand what Mike is saying! You are filtering scripture through your personal theology. Keep an open mind and you might learn something.

  • I haven’t heard the issue of “context” put so clearly, succinctly, and forthrightly, Michael. Most stimulating. Appreciate all the thought you put into the post. With this being the first ‘taste’ of your new Academic Blog feature, I’m looking forward to more from you.

Written by Michael S. Heiser
theLAB