Context of Scripture

[jabcat]

They say the 3 main things in real estate are "location, location, and location".  In Christian circles, we hear "context, context, context".  I'll venture we ALL believe context to be important.  I'll venture further though, that often where we begin to differ is how we interpret/understand context.  I don't have all the answers to this, it's something I work on.  I do have a thought and some questions though. 

A thought is that when we take the words of Jesus to the Jews/House of Israel, prior to His death and resurrection; Paul's message primarily to the uncircumcision (the nations/Gentiles);  Peter's message primarily to those of the circumcision (Jewish-Christians);  then pull scriptures from the Revelation (and boy, how many understandings do we have about to whom that was primarily written?  :mshock:);  then, we often put all that together in a sack, shake it up, and start pulling out pieces of all that here and there to make our point(s).  Some would say that's not taking scripture in context, or rightly dividing it.  All important, all for our instruction, but still, a need to be "careful with the context and primary audiance".

On the other hand, I believe there are others who would stand more on the side of pretty much taking all scripture as absolutely being primarily directed at everybody, no distinctions made. 

So, actually a couple of questions... so generally, 1)  how important do you think context is, and 2) what's your understanding of what context of scripture even means?

Bonus observation...seems many even dip into the OT and attempt to apply (sometimes misapply) things from there onto New Covenant believers...ever know anyone who thought it was sin and absolutely would not eat out at a restaurant because they thought they were honoring the sabbath?!  Maybe some of you haven't been as exposed to that as much as me, but growing up in the little country, Pentecostal churches in which I grew up, I'd say thought processes like that was very common...often times perhaps even never taking grace into account!

I believe when taken in context and rightly divided, all scripture reconciles.  And in the final analysis, however we individually see that working, maybe if we all shared what we see as through that glass darkly, include a huge dose of "Jesus is Love and He's our Savior", we'd actually have more unity of spirit despite our differences of understanding.  What do you think?

I have not attained this, but I'm thinkin'....God's blessing, James.

[Paul Hazelwood]

James,  true context is important, and we can go down all kinds of roads with this context and that.

For me,  the scriptures tell only 3 contexts when it comes right down to it.


Love, Love, Love

[Taffy]

Scripture is multi leveled. the shadow being the physical plane RISING to another,

I kinda see it in its duality , both are true.


Fundamently scripture is LIFE, if we see the physical as death portraying LIFE , as is the shadow of the reality, it KNITS

sometime back Fire posted on Heb II, where Paul pulls in scripture from all over,,to illuminate  a Point..Context has its value come Flow , but ALL scripture relates to HE who is Life and the Path to the Father.

See the shadow as the the FORM of the reality it speaks of ,For me theres Nothing in the OLD which is not documented in the NEW, as One bears witness to the other, so how can it contradict.

What contradicts surely is the lack of understanding.

There was a Time  when the Literal was all there was...Tis a wonder I never sat in sackcloth and ashes

so to DIVIDE the Word is to to divide the shadow from the spiritual( ill get TT coming in on here :icon_flower:}

ya could say..DONT see singular, look with duality and then BLEND it, that is, from a Human perspective....from a spiritual one..you see single and then divide


Christ is the Context of Scripture, If your not seeing HIM as The denominator...for me.....its time to question



Amen Paul..LOVE, LOVE , LOVE which surely is LIFE :icon_flower:

[Doc]

I guess one bottom line for me is along the same lines as what Taf said. Jesus is the context.
Jesus blasted the Jews for searching the scriptures thinking that's where they'd find life, but the scriptures point to Him.

Context is obviously important for getting to the gist of what's being said, but there's a whole other (and more important) spiritual level to what's being said that you can entirely miss if you're looking anywhere but Jesus.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Everything, everywhere I look, points to Him or some attribute of Him. The Word is the level, the Spirit is the plumb line, and they both witness of Him. My  :2c: Blessings....

[jabcat]

Yes, yes, yes.  It's all the breath of God, and Jesus is the living Word...the thread through it all, the Lamb slain before...That being given, then there's still the actual context within which folks attempt to make their doctrinal points...Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals...UR'ers that are all about love, UR'ers that are about condemnation and judgment...they/we get those beliefs from somewhere...

Maybe often they're/we're not seeing Jesus, but instead trying to choke our own beliefs into the other guy.  And yes, after I had started the thread, I thought of the spiritual layers...another whole level...and the love piece...man, don't we often miss that one?  To summarize and paraphrase the Apostle Paul, I may know it all and be a really effective fellow...but if I don't love, I'm just making noise.  Boy, have I ever been noisy in my life.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I think it's like the Israelites in the wilderness. Some liked the oasis that grew up from the water from the Rock, not realizing that once the Rock left, the stream would dry up. The rebellious walk thru dry places.

The plan was that we change from glory to glory, streams of living water coming out of the Rock within, instead man camped out at their favorite watering hole, unaware that after awhile they were choking on the dust of where He WAS, not where He IS now. Blessings...

[reFORMer]

Cardinal,  There's a whole generation that's been removed from me by that process.

I was going to say that context is useful if it helps you win an argument; but, I'm afraid that's too close to the truth so I won't say it.

I like making a definitive argument over the missing "s."  What kind of context is that?!  Paul makes very important the non-existence of one letter.  "Seed" is not plural.

There's really no context to get all the stuff about Jesus out of the 110th POsalm.

The word is the sword of the spirit.  You can claim to have received from God, but when you are truly anointed there is an obviousness to those born of the Spirit.  Divine illumination!  It seems that is the way the apostle's used Hebrew texts rather than the elevation given context by the consensus of those practising historio/critical methodology. 

Through what secular historians called "the Dark Ages" the keys to Scripture were held by people wearing a wizards hat.  Few, even those wearing the hats, ever read the actual texts.  They even burned copies of it in the language of the people, as well as the people themselves who had such copies.  After the Reformation the interpreters were dressed as professors.  Doctor So-and-so shook his keys in your face.  Now it's a rock star.  A guy with little study in the actual texts gets access to millions via video cameras.  He loudly chants his simplistic lyrics and is rewarded with the fleeces of entertained sheep.

I'm convinced so many variously titled religious cheerleaders reassure themselves of their own prevailing rightness of understanding and practise because they have so many millions of dollars from millions of people.  Little do they know what is at hand.

God is preparing an "underground" church, even in their midst.  A people of moral integrity and spiritual power, who have been taught of the living God in their midst.  They will rise speedily up, like the dew appearing.  Their doctine will correct lies that have held men in bondage for centuries.  Their practises will be normal, simple and so practical that nations will be adjusted thereby.

What kind of word?  "IT'S ALIVE!".

[Cardinal]

God is preparing an "underground" church, even in their midst.  A people of moral integrity and spiritual power, who have been taught of the living God in their midst.  They will rise speedily up, like the dew appearing.  Their doctrine will correct lies that have held men in bondage for centuries.  Their practices will be normal, simple and so practical that nations will be adjusted thereby.

What kind of word?  "IT'S ALIVE!".

:cloud9: Amen, He is. I've only had a taste of what's coming, but it was profound enough to rock my world. Blessings....

[Nathan]

This is a great subject . .and an important one.  I do have a fairly strong opinion when it comes to context and Jab, as you eluded to in your first post . . .how often do we see people enforcing things that really aren't the true message that their belief embraces.  All the rules . . .you can't have long hair, women you can't wear makeup and you have to be quiet in church . . .you could go on all day with examples where we experience someone enforcing the wrong message.

For me, it lies in what dimension you are coming from.  If you are a fundamentalist . .then context is everything . . .unfortunately, it's not everything to the fundamentalist . . .I used to be one.  "If the Bible doesn't list it, then I won't acknowledge it either . ."  Or, perhaps a little more popular . . "If it's not in the Bible (make sure you capitalize "Bible") then it's not of God . . ."  Those who live in the letter of what's written can easily pull stuff out of context and mislead their listeners . . just my opinion.

If you're looking at it corporately . .then there is some relaxation in the context, all though it is still the intent of the one sharing to maintain the context.  For me, corporately means you see yourself as part of the bigger picture . .you are the "bride of Christ".  You are the "sons of God".  We all are the "body of Christ".  You are a small piece of a bigger picture. 

The third way is seeing it Spiritually, and for me, this is where Taffy's remarks come in.  Hebrews is very much a message taking natural events, people and things, and applying them with a spiritual picture.  The highpriest of the tabernacle of Moses . . .picture of Christ . . .Melchezedek . . .another picture of Christ . . . a mountain that can't be touched . . .mt. Siani  . . .but we have come to Mt. Zion . . .on and on . . .  Even Peter's mentioning of "this is that".  Well, "that" was a spiritual picture that was proclaimed to manifest naturally . . .and when the upper room experience transpired . . .Peter saw that "this" was "that" which the prophet Joel spoke of.  It didn't have context until it actually happened.

Bottom line, for me, the importance of context varies between which dimension you are applying it to.

[peacemaker]

"Context is that which surrounds; giving meaning to something else as in light."

An interpretation of the thing, past, present, and future.

peacemaker

[chuckt]

Isa 28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:

[Nathan]

Isa 28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:

Time out . . . . if ya'll aren't crazy about soap boxes, ya may just want to skip this post . .. cuz I'd like to take a shot at shedding a different light on this . . .preachers use this all the time  . .and interestingly enough . ..it's a perfect example of how they take this passage out of context.  The verse is a popular one, but the context is not.

Read the verses leading up to and beyond this one and you'll find this is not an instruction of how God choose to communicate . . .but it's what he's forced to do due to the immaturity of those he's trying to talk to.  He "wants" to reveal his nature, but because of their blindness . . .he has to instead, lead them in baby steps . . a line here, a line there . . .here a little, there a little . . .but that's not his actual desire.

That's not what Christ uses as his cornerstone with which he built his house upon.  What he uses is what Peter experienced . .and it wasn't here a little there a little . . .it was a flood of realization of who Christ is . .that came directly from the Father to man.

Okay . . .I'm hopping of the box now . . .carry on!! :soap:

[chuckt]

Isa 28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:

Time out . . . . if ya'll aren't crazy about soap boxes, ya may just want to skip this post . .. cuz I'd like to take a shot at shedding a different light on this . . .preachers use this all the time  . .and interestingly enough . ..it's a perfect example of how they take this passage out of context.  The verse is a popular one, but the context is not.

Read the verses leading up to and beyond this one and you'll find this is not an instruction of how God choose to communicate . . .but it's what he's forced to do due to the immaturity of those he's trying to talk to.  He "wants" to reveal his nature, but because of their blindness . . .he has to instead, lead them in baby steps . . a line here, a line there . . .here a little, there a little . . .but that's not his actual desire.

That's not what Christ uses as his cornerstone with which he built his house upon.  What he uses is what Peter experienced . .and it wasn't here a little there a little . . .it was a flood of realization of who Christ is . .that came directly from the Father to man.

Okay . . .I'm hopping of the box now . . .carry on!! :soap:

woohooo, i knew someone would get a kick out of that text. :bgdance:

yeah, it seems to me in those passages we see two types.

well im having a discussion with someone on another forum, and he definatly is not weened from milk.

the two types i see are those that get REST from the Christ and his words or those that  fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.


God bless
chuckt

[Nathan]

AMEN TO THAT BRO . . . ya set me up!! :laughing7:

[chuckt]

Jhn 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Nome None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
nom-ay'    Noun Feminine 

Definition
pasturage, fodder, food fig. he shall not want the needful supplies for the true life growth, increase   :boogie: :boydance:


for sure though its always the ""other"" guy who need to check the context  :laughhand: :rolllol:

peas

chuckt

[Nathan]

Notice also in your passage that it's not just as we are "in" but as we go "out" we still find that pasture . . .I think . .for me . . the going in him, is what enables him to enter into us . .so that when we go out, we still find that pasture because when we were in . .we took him in . .so when we go out . .he's still within.

Startin to sound like WW.

[chuckt]

Notice also in your passage that it's not just as we are "in" but as we go "out" we still find that pasture . . .I think . .for me . . the going in him, is what enables him to enter into us . .so that when we go out, we still find that pasture because when we were in . .we took him in . .so when we go out . .he's still within.

Startin to sound like WW.

yes excellent and i did notice that, the ""going in and out""  :Yesss:

our sisters chrissie and fire i beleive had some good words on this topic.

ok good stuff.

God blesss and safe weekend.

chuckt

[Nathan]

Notice also in your passage that it's not just as we are "in" but as we go "out" we still find that pasture . . .I think . .for me . . the going in him, is what enables him to enter into us . .so that when we go out, we still find that pasture because when we were in . .we took him in . .so when we go out . .he's still within.

Startin to sound like WW.

yes excellent and i did notice that, the ""going in and out""  :Yesss:

our sisters chrissie and fire i beleive had some good words on this topic.

ok good stuff.

God blesss and safe weekend.

chuckt

Yeah, I wish they'd come back . .I was just gettin to know them.

[Doc]

Good words, all.

And that was just an awesome post, reformer!

[MacPherson]

This discussion helping me with what's been gauling me to no end:

Pesronal note:
I'm having trouble coming to terms with the mishmash of conflicting interpretations of teachers/theologians, who are all supposed to be getting their insights from the Holy Spirit – but are all getting mixed messages. The authors of the Bible were supposed to be inspired by The Holy Spirit, that the Bible was written by God through them. So, way aren't teachers/theologians receiving the same infallible guidance from the Holy Spirit that the authors of the Bible were supposed to have received? And why is it that the Bible is so ambiguous; vague, unclear, uncertain, indefinite, confusing, indistinct, hazy - esoteric: obscure, mysterious, abstruse, impenetrable, cryptic, arcane in so many places? Such a riddle: puzzle, conundrum, mystery, enigma, brainteaser, challenge?
Whereas most teachers/theologians are: Dogmatic, rigid, inflexible, unbending, strict, assertive, fixed, doctrinaire... Narrow. The Narrow Path. I'm so confused.

[WhiteWings]

IMO the vagueness of the Bible for a large part come from:
- It's (almost) impossible to 100% corectly translate between languages.
- To fully understand the 'feeling' of a text you have to know the culture during the time it's written.
- Translators have given their of twist to the texts.
- etc etc

Why not all visions are the same:
- Many are just lies.
- Things get added. For example when the HS says "sinners get punished" it just means that. But people starts adding to that message and quickly it turns into "sinners get punished in an eternal fire"

The readers:
- Reading things in context is good. Until.... you start inventing your own context.
- Read with an open mind. That doesn't include force fitting what you read into the last sermon you heard.

[claypot]

Brian and WW. Good stuff! Brian I am with ya Brother.

cp

[jabcat]

Really like your points, WW  :thumbsup:

Dear Brian.  I believe a lot of it is because we often refuse to take things in context.  I would refer you to things Tony has presented on this, as I agree very much with his view of correctly cutting scripture.  As I understand, Peter's ministry was PRIMARILY to the Christian Jews, so many things he said pertained to their issues and standing with God.  Paul was PRIMARILY to us, the nations, the gentiles graciously grafted in, forgiven and accepted by the blood of Jesus...apart from the Law, except that Jesus fulfills it in our heart as we pursue Him and He is in us.  Jesus' words are obviously for us as well, BUT not every word primarily directed at us at the time...He often was talking to specific groups of people, preparing to usher in our age of grace.  In fact, His own words, "I came not except for the lost sheep of the House of Israel".  I don't purport to know exactly what He meant by that.  But shouldn't those types of things be taken into cosideration as context before we start espousing particular doctrines as if we know it all and God has chosen us to straighten out the world with our knowledge?  I believe MOST of Christendom mixes all that together and tries to somehow come out with a clear doctrine and statements of faith?!!  And IMO, it's most often done, not by those who are themselves seeking with a pure heart, but particularly by those who present things as fact rather than their opinion or understanding, or what they believe God has revealed to them...those that presume to "teach" rather than discuss and search together.

An example;  I was just thinking this morning how Peter said "confess your sins" (which I do)...however, Paul said "it is no longer I that sin, but sin that dwells in me"...I admit, I don't fully understand it nor have it reconciled, but do you see the difference I'm talking about?  Peter talked primarily to those of the circumcision, Paul primarily to the uncircumcision.  I think there is a lot in scripture difficult to understand...but IMO, unless someone is willing to take these types of contexts into consideration before they start trying to teach others how to live, then they're often going to just be making a confusing mess of things...30,000 denominations, anyone  :laughing7:?  I just think we have to very careful, take those things into consideration...because if not, we can unwittingly lay a yoke of bondage on those that have been freed by the blood of Jesus.

So, my brother, know that you are accepted, loved, and these things are said;  He is the author AND finisher of our salvation;  For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus Phi 1:6.

God's blessing, James.

[MacPherson]

IMO the vagueness of the Bible for a large part come from:
- It's (almost) impossible to 100% corectly translate between languages.
- To fully understand the 'feeling' of a text you have to know the culture during the time it's written.
- Translators have given their of twist to the texts.
- etc etc

Why not all visions are the same:
- Many are just lies.
- Things get added. For example when the HS says "sinners get punished" it just means that. But people starts adding to that message and quickly it turns into "sinners get punished in an eternal fire"

The readers:
- Reading things in context is good. Until.... you start inventing your own context.
- Read with an open mind. That doesn't include force fitting what you read into the last sermon you heard.

But here's the thing; isn't the Holy Spirit supposed to cut through all that? I mean even with armchair Bible scholars, like a lot of us , with no agenda, who get mixed messages. It makes me worry about what I can rely on. Especially myself. What I think the HS is telling me, what I think the Bible is telling me...