by An understanding of the original context of a biblical passage is important for proper interpretation. The world was different during the Old Testament and New Testament on many levels. Knowing the setting and context of the original writer helps with understanding and reading of the biblical text. When not taken into consideration, these differences can create a misunderstanding within the scriptures. It is important to research the historical and cultural settings when trying to understand the passages within the Bible. Elwell states, “Understanding the elements of geography, political and cultural history (Israelite, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, etc.), literature, and various languages is essential to realizing the theological meaning. . .Careful study can help us to avoid misinterpretation and see what God really has to say, rather than stick to what we already think.”[1]
There are different types of distances from the New Testament to today. Time is one example where the Jews understood that a seven-day journey was informing them that it could be done within one Sabbath. This would not mean much to us today but when traveling by foot back then, it determined if an extra day was going to be needed or not.[2] Another type of distance is word definition. Egregious is an example of a word that has changed drastically over time. It originally meant that something was remarkably good versus today’s definition of something outstandingly bad. There are many versions of the Bible and some of them are because the words are no longer understandable when read today.
Elwell states, “Devotional, literary, political, and other interests are valuable in their place, but they are secondary to (because they are dependent on) the divine will and activity that created Scripture to begin with.”[3] 1 Corinthians Chapter 2 explains that most of the Bible can be understood by non-believers, but the Holy Spirit helps the believer to fully understand the scriptures. We also know that the whole Bible is important so we must learn the Biblical setting of the Old Testament and the New Testament. “All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, NASB 2020).
An example: The passage is the message of the Son of Man to the church of Laodicea in which he tells the church that because they are “neither cold nor hot, but lukewarm,” he will spit them out of his mouth. Person A states, “What this passage says to me is that lukewarm believers make God sick! If we’re not going to be on fire for God, then let’s at least not be lukewarm! God would rather we be cold-as-ice pagans than warmed-over, lukewarm Christians.” Person B interrupts, “I’m not at all sure that that was the original meaning of the passage. When John wrote this passage, Laodicea was one of three cities in the Lycus River Valley, Colossae and Hieropolis being the other two. The information I read indicated that there was a rivalry among the three cities for preeminence, each trying to exploit their natural resources to their advantage. Hieropolis was known for its hot springs that were believed to have great healing powers. People would come for miles around to bathe in their hot springs. Colossae was known for its cold, fresh spring water, making it also a destination for travelers and tourists. But poor Laodicea had neither hot baths nor cold springs, and so they were missing out. Not to be outdone, Laodicea came up with the idea of building an aqueduct to channel the hot water from Hieropolis down to Laodicea so that they too could have hot, healing baths. But by the time the hot spring water made it down to Laodicea, a few miles away, it had cooled to the point that it was merely lukewarm, fit neither for bathing nor drinking. When we study the original context of the passage, we see that John is not associating cold with paganism and hot with Christianity, as you suggest. Rather, in the original context, both ‘cold’ and ‘hot’ were good things. I don’t believe that John meant that God would rather we be good pagans than lukewarm Christians.”
Regarding the different perspectives of the message to Laodicea, Sharon’s point of view does explain the geographical context that is needed to understand why Jesus was not spitting out cold water because it was a good thing for drinking, just like hot water was a good thing for baths. Elwell states, “Historical-theological interpretation—grasping the Bible’s redemptive message to people then as a means of receiving and sharing its message now—is perhaps the most elementary and taxing yet ultimately fruitful way to approach the New Testament that we can attempt.”[4] Fortunately a lot of the common scripture misunderstandings do not impact the message of salvation and the gospel. It is also helpful that the Holy Spirit helps us understand the Bible in a way non-believers never will.
Bibliography
Elwell, Walter A. and Robert W. Yarbrough. Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.
Stacy, Robert Wayne. “Negotiating Distances in Biblical Interpretation.” Lecture in NTSB 515 at Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, January 19, 2023.
[1] Walter A. Elwell and Robert W. Yarbrough, Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 14.
[2] Robert Wayne Stacy, “Negotiating Distances in Biblical Interpretation” (video lecture in NTSB 515 at Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, January 19, 2023).
[3] Elwell, Encountering, 16.
[4] Ibid.