Reason # 6: Problem Stated: A Failure to Carefully Study the Historical Context
Very often people fail to ascertain the proper meaning of a particular text because they do not gather enough of the contextual information surrounding the passage. Each text of Scripture is written in both its own narrative context as well as in the historical context of the culture. Therefore, to properly arrive at the biblical conclusions that the writer of Scripture had in mind the interpreter of the Bible must be careful not to read modern day ideology back into the text of Scripture. Part of the literal methodology of biblical interpretation is the historical portion of study. The precise hermeneutic of faithful expositors of Scripture has often been called the historical grammatical method. By that it means we must interpret the words of Scripture as they were penned within their own historical context as well as in their exact grammatical forms. What a word or phrase meant to the original audience has to be what the word or phrase means today to modern readers. In other words, the words of Scripture cannot mean today what it did not mean when originally written. As the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics properly said, "We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. We deny the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture which attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support." That position articulated by a host of Evangelical Scholars holds forth the high standard for all faithful Bible interpreters. The literal meaning of the text must align with the contextual reality in which it was originally written if one is to truly possess the right understanding of any portion of Scripture.
Solution? The failure to study the context of a portion of Scripture can lead to all kinds of erroneous ideas that when embraced and taught can spread through the churches of the Lord while it undermines the true message of the Bible. In regard to the doctrine of a biblical union it is of paramount importance to trace the doctrine through the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation while examining each text in its own historical context. Let us take for example one claim that people make on a regular basis concerning polygyny among the NT era. Many will claim that there were no laws or teachings on it in the NT because the practice was unheard of in the NT and especially in the NT churches. But the historical data and cultural context proves the exact opposite. Even the Reformed Presbyterian scholar Dr. Jay Adams from Westminster Theological Seminary has said that "many of the early converts of every church that Paul began were Jews of the dispersion" and that polygyny "continued among the Jews, but also among the Greeks and Romans" (Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible, p. 81). Thus, with that information in hand we must examine biblical texts, especially ones like 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, with the right cultural context in mind. Those who do not know the cultural context often say this verse was not about polygyny because that type of life was not even allowed into the membership of the churches. But that is reading a monogamy only doctrine, which developed many centuries later among the Roman Catholic church culture and spread into Western countries, back into the cultural context of Paul which did not have a monogamy only culture. For Paul and all of the apostles men with multiple women was a daily reality because many men from the OT times, where polygyny was common, converted into the NT era as Christ followers. So when reading verses like 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 one has to consider that as a cultural condition. Does the verse then mean the elder was to have "only one wife" because polygyny was common and thus Paul wanted men appointed as elders who had more time for the cause of ministry? Or did it mean the elder was to have "one wife" in the sense of being a joined man because a man who had at least one woman who he guided was a sign of a person who was able to shepherd and lead people? Cultural context is important when one approaches the text. The solution to gaining a proper understanding of Scripture is to do your homework on what was going on in the culture at the time in which the portion of Scripture you are reading was written. This requires that a person examine the political, religious, economic, legal, agricultural, architectural, domestic, geographical, and/or social customs of that time period around any portion of Scripture in order to gain a historical perspective instead of a modern perspective that is read back into the text.
Very often people fail to ascertain the proper meaning of a particular text because they do not gather enough of the contextual information surrounding the passage. Each text of Scripture is written in both its own narrative context as well as in the historical context of the culture. Therefore, to properly arrive at the biblical conclusions that the writer of Scripture had in mind the interpreter of the Bible must be careful not to read modern day ideology back into the text of Scripture. Part of the literal methodology of biblical interpretation is the historical portion of study. The precise hermeneutic of faithful expositors of Scripture has often been called the historical grammatical method. By that it means we must interpret the words of Scripture as they were penned within their own historical context as well as in their exact grammatical forms. What a word or phrase meant to the original audience has to be what the word or phrase means today to modern readers. In other words, the words of Scripture cannot mean today what it did not mean when originally written. As the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics properly said, "We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. We deny the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture which attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support." That position articulated by a host of Evangelical Scholars holds forth the high standard for all faithful Bible interpreters. The literal meaning of the text must align with the contextual reality in which it was originally written if one is to truly possess the right understanding of any portion of Scripture.
Solution? The failure to study the context of a portion of Scripture can lead to all kinds of erroneous ideas that when embraced and taught can spread through the churches of the Lord while it undermines the true message of the Bible. In regard to the doctrine of a biblical union it is of paramount importance to trace the doctrine through the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation while examining each text in its own historical context. Let us take for example one claim that people make on a regular basis concerning polygyny among the NT era. Many will claim that there were no laws or teachings on it in the NT because the practice was unheard of in the NT and especially in the NT churches. But the historical data and cultural context proves the exact opposite. Even the Reformed Presbyterian scholar Dr. Jay Adams from Westminster Theological Seminary has said that "many of the early converts of every church that Paul began were Jews of the dispersion" and that polygyny "continued among the Jews, but also among the Greeks and Romans" (Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible, p. 81). Thus, with that information in hand we must examine biblical texts, especially ones like 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, with the right cultural context in mind. Those who do not know the cultural context often say this verse was not about polygyny because that type of life was not even allowed into the membership of the churches. But that is reading a monogamy only doctrine, which developed many centuries later among the Roman Catholic church culture and spread into Western countries, back into the cultural context of Paul which did not have a monogamy only culture. For Paul and all of the apostles men with multiple women was a daily reality because many men from the OT times, where polygyny was common, converted into the NT era as Christ followers. So when reading verses like 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 one has to consider that as a cultural condition. Does the verse then mean the elder was to have "only one wife" because polygyny was common and thus Paul wanted men appointed as elders who had more time for the cause of ministry? Or did it mean the elder was to have "one wife" in the sense of being a joined man because a man who had at least one woman who he guided was a sign of a person who was able to shepherd and lead people? Cultural context is important when one approaches the text. The solution to gaining a proper understanding of Scripture is to do your homework on what was going on in the culture at the time in which the portion of Scripture you are reading was written. This requires that a person examine the political, religious, economic, legal, agricultural, architectural, domestic, geographical, and/or social customs of that time period around any portion of Scripture in order to gain a historical perspective instead of a modern perspective that is read back into the text.