The third obstacle to understanding the Bible is reading it without respecting its context. Context refers to the surrounding circumstances in which a Biblical text was written.
No writer writes in a vacuum. Understanding WHY he wrote will help you understand WHAT he wrote.
The context in which the Bible was written is VERY different from today’s. In studying the Bible, you must find out the following:
1) What is the historical context of what I’m reading?
For example, when reading the Book of Jonah, one might ask:
• Why did Jonah refuse to preach at Nineveh?
• Why did he despise the Ninevites so much?
The answer to these questions would be found in understanding the historical context of that day.
Nineveh was the ancient capital of Assyria, and was an exceedingly sinful & ungodly nation. In Nahum 3:1, this city is referred to as “…the BLOODY CITY! It is all FULL OF LIES and ROBBERY. Its victim NEVER DEPARTS.” Thus, the Jews hated the people of Nineveh.
Now, observe that the Bible (in Nahum 3:1) gives us insight into the characteristics of Nineveh, in Bible days. Sometimes, the Bible does this—it reveals the historical context to you. Other times, such information is not readily found in the Bible.
In such cases, YOU would have to engage Bible study tools to find out the history of what you are reading.
For example, take Luke 7. Vv. 36-39 record Jesus’ encounter with with a woman called “a sinner,” at the house of a Pharisee called Simon.
Luke 7:36-39 (NKJV)
36 Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat. 37 And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, 38 and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.”
Upon reading this text, some questions are necessary to ask. For example: Why did the Pharisee make that statement in vs. 39? He sounded upset at Jesus.
Now, the text does not supply all the answers. Thus, the reader would have to look elsewhere for the same, namely, at the history of that day.
Here are some historical facts to help foster a better understanding of the context of this text:
• First, the Pharisee had invited Jesus to eat:
Vs. 36
36 Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat.
Eating was a big deal for the Jews. It was a show of fellowship. The Pharisee was also a religious leader, so this would have been seen as an honor, in that day.
• Secondly, the alabaster box is mentioned, in vs. 37:
37 And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil,
The alabaster box/flask was a very fragile and beautiful piece of pottery in ancient times. Therein was a fragrant oil.
The olive oil or balm was used to anoint the dead. This woman’s act thus foreshadowed Jesus’ death. She was “prophesying,” as it were, that these same Pharisees Jesus was eating with, would hand Him over to be killed.
• Then thirdly, she wiped His feet with her hair:
Vs. 38
38 and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the HAIR OF HER HEAD; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil.
This means her hair was uncovered. No wonder vs. 37 calls her “a woman in the city who was a sinner.” Prostitutes in Bible days moved with their heads uncovered. This differentiated them from married women. An uncovered hair was an indication that a woman was “available” (i.e. promiscuous, not under the authority of any man). So by leaving her hair uncovered, this woman revealed her line of work.
Now, THIS was the reason for the Pharisee’s statement in vs. 39:
39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and WHAT MANNER OF WOMAN this is who is touching Him, for she is a SINNER .”
The Pharisees believed that they were better and more righteous than everyone else, and acted accordingly (see Matt 12:1-2, 15:1-2, 23:5, 14). They also thought the coming Messiah would act likewise. Hence, if Jesus were truly who He claimed to be (the promised Messiah), He would not have allowed this woman touch Him.
But Jesus responds with a parable, “And Jesus answered and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” So he said, “Teacher, say it.” “There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed FIVE HUNDRED DENARII, and the other FIFTY. And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?” Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more…” (Vv. 40-43).
500 denarii is roughly 1000 dollars today, while 50 denarii equates 100 dollars. So there was a difference of about 900 dollars between the two debts.
Jesus response to Simon’s opinion of who would love more (among the two cleared debtors) is, “You have rightly judged” (vs.43). That’s logical. The one who was forgiven of 1000 dollars will be more appreciative.
Now, every parable has a corpus (imageries, illustrations) and an anima (the interpretation or meaning of those illustrations).
Having told the parable, Jesus then gives its interpretaion:
Luke 7:44 (NKJV)
44 Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me NO WATER FOR MY FEET, but SHE HAS WASHED MY FEET with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head.
Again, it was a Jewish custom to wash the feet of guests. The roads in the Middle East were quite dusty, and this led to an accumulation of sand particles on the ankles, as the people walked. Water was therefore required to cleanse the feet, upon entering the house. It was a show of honour to others, to wash their feet.
In vs. 45, Jesus also mentions receiving no kiss, “You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in.”
The “holy kiss” (or “kiss of peace”) was another display of affection in ancient Israel. The Jews would kiss to show relationship. It was a form of greeting in Bible days (see Gen 33:4, Exo 18:7, Matt 26:49-50), tantamount to an handshake or hug in today’s world.
In vs. 46, Jesus expresses how His head was not anointed, “YOU DID NOT ANOINT MY HEAD WITH OIL, but THIS WOMAN HAS ANOINTED MY FEET with fragrant oil.”
Anointing the head with oil was also a friendly gesture in the Jewish culture. This was done, especially during feasts or banquets, although it wasn’t as common as the holy kiss or washing of the feet (examples of its usage may be found in Psalm 23:5, Psalm 45:7 and Ecclesiastes 9:8).
Jesus’ point is this—this Pharisee (Simon) showed Him NO kind gestures, none whatsoever! This woman, on the other hand, showed honour to Jesus by anointing His feet. She also prophesied of His death, so doing.
The interpretation climaxes in vs. 47, “Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”
The woman (who is called a “sinner”) is more grateful because she KNOWS how much she has been forgiven. The Pharisees think they have no sin (self-righteousness), thus they presume they’ve been forgiven of little. Hence, their attitude. (Both were actually forgiven much!)
Their hearts are yet unchanged by Jesus’ parable. Vv. 48-50 proves this, ‘Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “WHO IS THIS WHO EVEN FORGIVES SINS?” Then He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.’”
Note that we could only fully understand what happened in this text (Luke 7), by first of all understanding its historical background. This is why ascertaining the historical context of a Biblical text is mandatory.
The Bible interpreter must ask the following questions, in his study of Scripture:
• Who wrote this? (The author)
• To whom was it written? (Was it written to Israel, the Church, an individual etc)
• Why was it written? (Also known as authorial intent: What did the author intend to pass across?)
• When was it written? (The time period of a given writing is important. No one writes in a vacuum. His writings will be influenced by the happenings of the day).
• Where was it written? (The location determines what is written many times).
• How was it written? (In what way(s) did the author chose to convey his thoughts. Observe the writer’s use of figures of speech, his emphasis, tone etc)
© Josh Banks Ministries. 2022.
