Tag Archives: context

Book. Chapter. Verse.

1 Reply

Book. Chapter. Verse.

That’s one of the basic concepts I like to teach to Bible readers. To help them think about context, I encourage them to think book -> chapter -> verse.

I’ll admit upfront that’s an oversimplification. But for new readers, it’s a handy way to be reminded of context, because they see it every time they’re given a verse reference. When I read “John 3:16,” I can immediately see that the book is John, the chapter is 3, and the verse is 16. So I teach new Bible readers that, as they seek to interpret a verse, they should first think about the book and the chapter.

For John 3:16, I want to look at the Gospel of John, and it’s structure. That’s a challenge for new readers, but they need to see the idea. I encourage them to think about what a gospel is, why the gospel of John is different from the others, who John was and who he may have been writing to. Questions of that sort.

Then I encourage them to look at chapter 3, and it’s place in the gospel. What’s going on in chapter 3? How does it tie chapter 2 and chapter 4 together (or does it?). Those questions.

Now they can look at the verse itself and consider it’s place in the chapter. How does verse 16 relate to what comes before and what comes after?

That won’t answer all questions about context. But it will get new readers started on the road to exploring the subject and seeing how it moves us from surface-level reading to a deeper understanding of the text. And it’s a concept that they have illustrated right in front of them, every time they look at a scripture reference.

New Bible readers don’t need a concordance

1 Reply

I’ve mentioned that when I was growing up, I thought the epistles were compilations of proverbs, short sayings basically unconnected to one another. I had always heard a verse quoted from here and another from there; I didn’t realize that the epistles were letters with main themes and logical arguments. In other words, I knew nothing about context.

A lot of new Bible readers are the same way. Maybe they’ve seen Bible verses posted here and there on social media. Possibly someone has studied with them some and has used chains of verses in those studies. However it happens, many people view the Bible as the collected sayings of holy men, rather than an anthology of books written by and for God’s people.

I’ll mention that I have a growing distrust of memory verses. Memory verses rarely lead you to think in context. They get you to focus on individual words stripped of context. They’re a bit like some of the quotations you see from famous people; ripped from their original place in a work of literature or a speech, these quotes are often made to say things that the person they are attributed to never intended.

In Bible times, memorization was not uncommon, but it was typically the memorization of entire books of the Bible, rather than individual verses. That allows the learner to think in terms of sections and paragraphs rather than individual words and sentences.

With new readers, we need to steer them away from island hopping their way through the Bible. Don’t hand a new reader a concordance. Hand them a reading plan, one that reads the Bible book by book.

Context matters

2 Replies

Context is a big deal to me, especially when it comes to Bible study. As the refrain says, “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.”

I recently read an article about Christians and drinking; the article cited this verse from Habakkuk: “Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can gaze on their naked bodies.” (Habakkuk 2:15) The author used it to say that the wine Jesus created in John 2 couldn’t have been alcoholic for Jesus wouldn’t have violated the command to not give alcoholic drink to your neighbor.

Of course, I’d recently been studying Habakkuk, as I mentioned in a post on this site. And I knew that Habakkuk 2 was a condemnation of Babylon, not a listing of sins by individuals. Looking at the context again, I noticed that the very next verse says that what Babylon has done, God is going to do to them! “You will be filled with shame instead of glory. Now it is your turn! Drink and be exposed! The cup from the LORD’S right hand is coming around to you, and disgrace will cover your glory.” (Habakkuk 2:16)

Now, I think we can all agree that getting someone drunk in order to shame them is a bad thing. Few people would condone that, even among nonbelievers. But that’s not what this verse is talking about! The drink that Babylon gave to his neighbors was no more literal than the cup that God was going to give to them.

Or recently I’ve been hearing Romans 13:3 a lot: “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.” This is applied as a universal truth, despite the fact that most of the Bible shows the exact opposite! We have example after example of righteous people suffering unfairly at the hands of the government, from Joseph in the book of Genesis to the thousands of martyrs in the book of Revelation. Or do we think that Jesus was a wrongdoer?

Romans 13 is about a very specific situation in a defined moment in time. It deserves to be studied and interpreted in that context.

Then there’s all the traditional ones. When you use Jeremiah 29:11 to tell someone that God has plans for them, don’t forget to include Jeremiah 29:10 and tell them that God’s plans may include 70 years of captivity. When telling someone that they can do all things through Christ, be sure to point out that the “all things” Paul was talking about ranged from living in abject poverty to enjoying material riches.

Reading verses in context doesn’t always make the Bible say what we want it to say. But it helps us come closer to seeing what the Bible itself is trying to say.

I know the plans I have for you

2 Replies

When it comes to Bible study, I’m a context guy. Annoyingly so. It really bothers me when verses are taken from their context, especially when they are then used to mean something very different than the original meaning.

Jeremiah 29 is a special chapter in the book. Jeremiah, under God’s direction, writes a letter to the exiles in Babylon. Contrary to what other “prophets” had told them, Jeremiah lets them know that their captivity will be a long one. He tells them to settle down, form families and adjust to life in this new land.

Then God gives them a specific timeframe for their captivity and promises for what will happen after that time:

10 This is what the Lord says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back from captivity. I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile.”

For many a Precious Promises calendar and inspirational poster, Jeremiah 29:11 has become a standalone verse, promising for all time that God is going to do good things for whomever reads it. I’ve been known to say, “Well, if you’re enduring 70 years of captivity in Babylon, then these words would certainly apply to you.” Yes, I can be a bit of a smart aleck.

These words do offer hope. There’s a reminder that even when he punishes us, God still loves us. There’s a reminder that I don’t need to be short-sighted about things, that God’s plans for good can often take a generation or two. There’s a reminder that God ultimately wants to bless us, and that my own rebellion can get in the way of that.

Jeremiah 29:11 is not meant to support chess-board theology, that theory that God is moving humans around like pieces on a chessboard. It does remind remind us that he is present and active in our world, even when 70 years of suffering make us think otherwise.

Am I being too harsh with those who want to use this verse as a promise that God is going to do good things for them all through their life? To me, 70 years is a long time. Few of the people that I hear quote this verse seem to be willing to wait 70 years for those good things God has promised. Or am I misreading both them and the biblical passage?

Context and topical teaching

4 Replies

In our discussion on context last week, Scott brought up some interesting questions. He said:

What I wonder is this: when we see the sermons in the Bible (Peter, Stephen, Paul – all in Acts) do we not see topical sermons using scripture from various areas? Is not the very point made – that Paul’s letters have a clear message and should not be broken down into single verses – show that he has a topic, a theme in his writing of that letter? And could not the same imagery be applied in this instance – using certain threads of scripture to knit a complete message?

He also goes on to say that he had been taught that topical preaching was “wrong.” These are issues that I’ve discussed with others over the years of my ministry. Let me offer some observations:

  • I don’t think that topical preaching is wrong. However, I read the other day where a brother said that he typically uses 70 or more verses in every sermon he preaches. It’s hard for me to see how any concept of context can be given around that many verses, though I haven’t actually heard this man preach. Topical preaching has a place, a valid place, in our preaching. In fact, I think churches need a mix of topical and expository preaching. (Apparently expository preaching is playing the bad guy role in contemporary preacher training, much as topical preaching did in my day)
  • I think that topical preaching can be done contextually, sort of a combination of topical and expository. That is, when I’m asked to speak on a topic, I always try to hang that topic on two or three passages that can be looked at in depth.
  • As for the New Testament writers, I believe that they enjoyed a guidance from the Holy Spirit that we don’t. When we start playing cut and paste with what they’ve written, it’s almost like saying that we know better than the Holy Spirit how to address certain topics. To me, an excellent example is Titus chapters 2 and 3. In those chapters, the point is driven home that to spur people on to good works, you need to teach about grace. I don’t know that you arrive at that conclusion by doing a piece by piece study of the text; you’ve got to grab the large chunks.

Before asking for your opinion, I wanted to share one last context story that I happened to remember yesterday. Years ago, I was at a church service where an older brother got up to lead the closing prayer. During the prayer, he said, “As Peter said on the Mount of Transfiguration, ‘It is good that we were here.'” Nothing like quoting something that earned someone a healthy rebuke.

Now I’ll ask. How does topical teaching fit in with the idea of context? Is it legitimate, as Scott says, to take threads from many different places and sew them into one garment?