A.

The value and danger of direct quotation

Firsthand information is always preferred over secondhand information. This is true in
any field of inquiry. Information directly from the source is more convincing than someone
else's version of that information.
For example, suppose two reporters use different approaches in reporting the news. The
first reporter says, "the President of the Philippines plans to wage all out war against China
tomorrow". The second reporter plays a portion of a video tape in which the president says “I
will wage all out war against China tomorrow”. Many people prefer the second type of reporting
because it uses a direct quotation.
When we need to be sure what someone said, we like to hear it directly, in his/her own
words. When direct quotations are used, we are allowed to interpret the quotation ourselves.
But when a reporter supplies his own summary and interpretations of what was said, we wonder
whether or not the reporter is giving a faithful representation of the original. So, direct
quotations are very valuable and convincing.
However, direct quotations can also be dangerous. Suppose that, in the above example,
the president's full statement was this: “I know that some of you Rambo types would like to hear
me say that I will wage all out war against China tomorrow. But we have ruled out the use of
violent force and will seek a diplomatic solution.” Now the interpretation is quite different, and
it is the context that makes the difference.
Any statement can be ripped from its context and made to mean something different than
what was intended. This is the danger of direct quotations. We need the context in order to
interpret the statement correctly.
The use of context is especially important when we are interpreting the Bible. There is
probably no book that has been misinterpreted more than the Bible, and many (perhaps most) of
those misinterpretations are due to the practice of ignoring the context. This is done both by
people who do not believe the Bible, and by people who do. Your interpretation is not
automatically correct just because you believe that the Bible is true.

B. Types of context
For any particular Bible passage there are several types of context that should be
considered.
Immediate Context
This includes the sentences that come immediately before and after the passage. Very
often, the immediate context is the paragraph containing the passage.
Section Context
This is the next larger portion of context. It includes the paragraphs that come before and
after the passage and make up the section of the book containing material related to the passage.
Book Context and Whole Bible Context
 This includes the entire book in which the passage is found, and the general teachings of
the Bible as a whole.
Parallel Passage Context
This includes passages from other books in the Bible which discuss the same events or
ideas. For example, most of the events recorded in one gospel are also recorded in other gospels.
Many of the events in 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings are also recorded in 1 and 2 Chronicles. And
doctrinal passages on the same topic are often found in two or more of the New Testament
epistles.
Background Passage Context
Certain passages form the background for other passages. For example, the events in
Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers supply the background for Moses' reminders and commands in
Deuteronomy. Some of the historical books of the Old Testament (1 Kings through Nehemiah)
form the background for the prophets (Isaiah through Malachi). And the book of Acts forms the
background for most of Paul's epistles (Romans through Philemon).
Historical and Cultural Context
A wide variety of historical and cultural situations affected the people and events in the
Bible. When we are aware of these situations, we have a much better chance of interpreting the
passage correctly. They include such things as recent historical events, civil government, royal
customs, economic practices, types of dwellings, modes of travel, marriage customs, farming
procedures, metalworking capabilities, prevalent thought patterns, astronomical concepts,
calendar systems, ways of expressing the time of day, clothing, etc.
The serious Bible student will examine all the above types of context that are appropriate
to the passage. However, it is the first type, immediate context, that is violated most often with
the most serious consequences.
The casual Bible student may claim that the last type of context is not readily available to
everyone. Or he may complain that such things as parallel passages and background passages
take a great amount of time to discover and absorb. These rationalizations might be considered
legitimate to a degree. But we can admit no such rationalization about immediate context.
Every Bible student has the immediate context right in front of him whenever he reads any
passage, and has no excuse for ignoring it. It is the immediate context that most determines the
meaning of any given passage. Even the definitions of words within a passage are affected by
the immediate context.

C. Looking for the flow of thought and the main point

What you usually find when you examine a passage’s context is a particular flow of
thought. The author is often developing a particular main point. This is sometimes referred to as
the argument of the passage or the passage’s thought progression. Authors often develop their
argument through the use of certain techniques such as:
Presenting several points in a logical argument
Making contrasts or comparisons
 Citing authorities (quoting Christ or Old Testament passages)
Using historical illustrations
Making up fictional illustrations
Finding the flow of thought is crucial in understanding each part of the passage. When
you understand the argument, you will see how each part of the passage contributes to the central
idea. Many times you have to expand your study into larger sections in order to discover the
flow of thought.

D. Syntax and Grammatical Features

Another tool we can use to obtain the author’s flow of thought or meaning is called
syntax or grammatical structure. This is often difficult because of the idiomatic and structural
differences between the biblical languages and the modern day english we are familiar today.
However, it is a fruitful area in observation and interpretation and need to be dealt with in some
detail. Usually a comparison of modern translations and a basic knowledge of grammar will help
tremendously.

Grammar may not always show us the actual meaning , but it will show us possible
meanings. We cannot accept any meaning that does violence to it. This grammar is important in
understanding the Bible. This is not strange. Essentially it means that we understand the Bible
according to the normal laws of the human language. If God will not use human language as a
tool for us to help us understand his message and what it really means, why did he bother using
human language at all in the first place.

Grammar is something that the common person knows in usage, but not in technical
definition. We learn grammar when we learn to speak. Grammar is forming sentences to
communicate ideas. We do not need to be experts in grammatical relationships in order to
interpret the Bible, however, we do need to try to understand why the author said the way he did.
Often the structure of a sentence will show us what the author is emphasizing. This can be
ascertained in several ways:

a. As you read the passage in several english translations notice the word order. A good
example of this is in Heb. 1:1. In the King James Version the subject of the sentence,
“God”, appears first, but in the Revised Standard Version the descriptive adverbial
prepositional phrase, “in many and various ways”, appears first. This is significant
because it reflects the true intent of the author. Is the major thrust of this text that God has
spoken (revelation) or is it how God has spoken (inspiration)?
b. As you read the passage in several English translations note the translation of the verbs.
Verbs are very important in interpretation. A good example is i John 3:6,9. When one
compares the King James Version with modern translations the difference is obvious.
Modern versions translated the verb using either present tense or present progressive
tense. These verses are not teaching “sinlessness”, nor “sinning less”. These verses
teaches “power over sin”. Which can be reflected in the Aorist tense of the greek verb
hamartano transliterated as “sinneth” or “having a share in sin”.
 c. As you read the passage in several English translations note the thought connectives.
Often these help us know the purpose of a clause or how sentences and contexts are
related:

Temporal or chronological connectives

1. After
2. As
3. Before
4. Now
5. Then
6. Until
7. When
8. While

Local or geographical connectives (where)

Logical connectives

a. Reason
i. Because
ii. For
iii. Since
b. Result
i. So
ii. Then
iii. Therefore
iv. Thus
c. Purpose
i. In order that
ii. So that
d. Contrast
i. Although
ii. Much more
iii. Nevertheless
iv. Otherwise
v. yer
e. Comparison
i. Also
ii. As
iii. As - so
iv. Just as - so
v. Likewise
vi. So akso
f. Series of Facts
i. And
 ii. First of all
iii. Last of all
iv. or
g. Condition (if)

Emphatic connectives (indeed, only, verily, etc.)