by Brian Knowles
|
E |
very paragraph, sentence or pericope in the Bible was written in a context. Before we can sensibly exegete any given passage or section of Scripture, we must first establish the historical context and the circumstances in which it was written.
As Gordon Fee reminds us, we must ask, “Who is the author? Who are the recipients? What is the relationship between them? Where do the recipients live? What are their present circumstances? What historical situation occasioned the writing? What is the author’s purpose? What is the overall theme or concern? Does the argument or narrative have an easily discerned outline?” (New Testament Exegesis by Gordon D. Fee, p. 34).
There is an old saying among skilled exegetes: “Text without context is pretext.” Many modern preachers are all too inclined to rip texts out of their historical context and apply them arbitrarily to modern situations to which they have no bearing whatsoever. The more this is done, the more the real meaning of Scripture is destroyed.
If you intend to expound on a passage, read first in English
the entire document in which it appears. If, for example, you
are going to explain the meaning of Colossians
One of the most egregious sins of unskilled exegetes is to apply arbitrarily to modern audiences messages intended for other audiences in other times and circumstances. Everyone who works in communication – for example Public Relations practitioners – knows that messages are encoded for, and targeted at, specific “publics” or audiences. To achieve the sender’s objectives, the receiver must be able to decode them. When we read Paul’s epistles, we are reading somebody else’s mail. Paul wasn’t writing to American, Canadian or British audiences 2000 years in the future. He was writing to specific congregations or groups in the middle of the first century of our era. He wrote as a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5) to Greek-speaking Jews, gentiles and others. We must first view his writings in the historical settings in which they were written.
The Bible contains messages written to many “publics” or specific target audiences. To ignore the nature of the recipients when analyzing the meaning of a given passage is to do violence to that passage.
It is common in some Christian circles to apply just about any passage of Scripture, written during any time in history, to the Church today. In his excellent book The Universal Bible, Solomon Schonfeld, explains how this error is committed with regard to the Chumash or Pentateuch (Five books of Moses):
“Moreover, it was a mistake
to offer the whole of the Five Books to mankind at large, as if all the
happenings to
The question of audience is critical. Failure to consider it is a common error among amateur exegetes. Says Fee, “Discover everything you can about the recipients. Are they Jews or Gentiles? or a combination? What relation do they have with the author? Are there any hints of their socioeconomic situation?” (Fee, p. 35). To whom was the author writing and under what circumstances?
Understanding the original audience and setting helps us to know whether a given passage is meant to have universal, timeless application, or whether it applied only to the times, and under the circumstances, in which it was given.
What does the author explicitly say about his purpose for writing? Notice for example the introductory words of the Gospel of Luke:
“Many have undertaken to
draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as
they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and
servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated
everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly
account to you, most excellent Theophilis, so that you might know the certainty
of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).
Here we have a wealth of information about Luke’s purpose for writing his Gospel account. We know from these four verses that “many” Gospel accounts had been drawn up. These were handed down from eyewitnesses to the events described – yet clearly Luke was not one of those eyewitnesses. He was working from earlier documents or accounts. He also speaks of creating an “orderly” account – that implies that some of the other accounts were something less than orderly. Of course there is much more information in these verses. We would have to apply the full range of exegetical rules to them to extract their full meaning.
It is interesting to note that Luke’s introduction to his Gospel suggests three stages in the formation of his account: “eyewitnesses and servants of the word,” who “handed down” the story of Jesus – the “many” who had written earlier accounts and Luke himself who had “carefully investigated” these sources and who now composed an “orderly account.” These three stages correspond to the three kinds of scholarly analysis or “criticism” applied to the New Testament documents. They are as follows:
1). Form criticism: focuses on the period of oral transmission (about 20 years).
2). Source criticism: discusses the way the various literary units were put together to make up the Gospel accounts.
3). Redaction criticism: analyzes the literary and theological contributions of the Gospel authors themselves. The word “redact” means “to put into suitable literary form; revise; edit.”
Incidentally, it is common in circles of ignorance to ridicule the use of the words “critic” and “criticism” when applied to the Bible. A critic in this sense is a scholar who is skilled in evaluating the qualities and nature of the Biblical text. He is not there to “tear down” as some suppose, but rather to critique, to evaluate, to understand and explain the nature of the documents with which he is working.
Scholars,
like preachers and lay members of the church, possess varying degrees of
character and intellectual honesty. Their skill levels also vary from person to
person. The fact that some scholars
undermine the authority of the Biblical text is not a commentary on the craft
of criticism itself, but rather it is a matter of their personal skill level,
their biases, politics and opinions. Not all scholars are objective or
intellectually honest. As with everything, we must discern the wheat from the
chaff. A godly scholar learns how to “rightly divide the word of truth” (II
Timothy
“Proof-texting” typically means assembling and stringing together a series of texts which together are said to “prove” a given teaching or doctrine. Typically, these verses are connected with little or no consideration for the historical context of each. This bogus technique is similar to using a concordance or a topical Bible to assemble all, many or even some of the verses on a single subject. In this case, the exegete tells his audience what to conclude from this assemblage of disconnected verses. A particularly egregious example is the “proof” of tithing as an obligation for the modern Church. Denominational leaders who apparently covet the tithe will grasp at any exegetical straw to bring church members under the conviction that if they fail to tithe to the denomination they are “robbing God” (cf. Malachi 3:8). To whom was the prophet speaking here? Under what historical circumstances was he saying it? How did the people to whom God gave his written “oracles” (Romans 3:1-2) understand these verses?
All of the
verses in the Bible that address the subject of tithing must first be
understood in their natural, historical setting before they can be, if
at all, applied to the modern Church. To simply take any verse on tithing and
arbitrarily apply it to the Church is exegetical folly. It is not enough to
find a commandment (mitzvah) somewhere in the Bible and assume that it
automatically applies to the Church today. (That was Schonfeld’s point, as
quoted earlier.) All of the 613 commandments found in the first five books of
the Bible were given in a specific context and applied to a particular group or
kind of person. A commandment that is given to “the children of
This may seem like an obvious point, but it is regularly violated – especially in the fringe or cultic Christian groups in which sound exegetical rules are neither taught nor followed. The bogus exegesis of passages regarding tithing has been practiced even in mainstream denominations. To say that a church member who fails to tithe to his denomination is “robbing God” is a gross distortion and misapplication of Malachi 3:8. These verses need to be viewed in context and against their historical background before possible applications are determined.
There is a major difference between using the Bible to “prove” a teaching when in fact it does not prove it, and setting a church policy apart from what the Word says. Denominational leaders have the right to say, “We require that our members to tithe,” but they do not have the right to say, “The Bible says that our members have to tithe” unless they can clearly demonstrate that it does so.
I use tithing here, not because I have an axe to grind about it, but because it is one of the most egregious examples of pulling texts out of context to support a bogus doctrine. Others examples may be found in teachings on church government, the roles of women in the Church, Dominion, black, feminist, gay and liberation theologies, and in the formalizing of historical events to form liturgies. When it comes to ripping texts out of context, the field of Bible prophecy is also an exegetical disaster area.