Most Christians believe they read Scripture in context.

They look at surrounding verses. They consider the chapter. Maybe they check what book they're reading and who wrote it.

They think this is contextual interpretation.

It's not even close.

True contextual reading means recovering the ancient frame of reference. It means interpreting the Bible as the original authors and their first audiences would have understood it, within their own historical, cultural, religious, and linguistic worlds.

This requires multiple layers of context that most readers never touch. Historical context captures the time period and events. Cultural context includes customs, social norms, and worldview assumptions. Religious context encompasses belief systems and supernatural frameworks. Literary context considers genre, authorial intent, and structure. Linguistic context examines original language grammar and semantics.

Reading a few verses before and after doesn't come close to this depth.

The real problem is subtler. Most Christians read Scripture through modern assumptions, denominational traditions, and personal preferences rather than the original setting. They impose contemporary cognitive frameworks onto ancient texts. The result is misinterpretation dressed up as faithful reading.

The Cost of Ignoring Ancient Worldview

For nearly two millennia, the Christian church has systematically downplayed the supernatural elements in the Bible.

Angels, demons, spiritual warfare, divine intervention. These realities appear throughout Scripture. Yet many Christians today read them allegorically or symbolically rather than literally.

This didn't happen by accident.

Influential figures like Augustine, shaped by anti-Manichean biases, contributed to an interpretive tradition that minimized supernatural realities. Over centuries, this became theological framework. The church filtered Scripture through later historical contexts rather than the original ancient Near Eastern and Second Temple Jewish contexts that produced it.

Modern Christians inherit this tradition. They read the Bible through a naturalistic lens that finds supernatural elements uncomfortable. The text gets stripped of its original intent and the worldview of its authors.

The consequences run deep. Key biblical themes involving spiritual realities get misunderstood or ignored. The richness and power of the biblical narrative concerning the unseen realm diminishes. The church becomes cut off from what the biblical authors actually meant and what ancient readers naturally understood.

John Walton describes this as losing the "cognitive environment." Ancient Israelites shared a worldview, assumptions, and symbolic frameworks they understood intuitively. Modern readers have lost this cognitive environment entirely.

Without recovering it, interpretation becomes guesswork filtered through modern biases.

How Meaning Actually Works

Words don't have meaning in isolation. They only mean something within specific contexts.

The interpretive process must begin by deriving the literal meaning. Take words and phrases at their most basic, explicit sense. This is the first meaning that naturally comes to mind when reading the text.

But that's just step one.

Step two tests the literal meaning against context. Does it fit the immediate literary context? Does it align with the genre? Does it make sense within the historical and cultural setting of the original audience? Does it cohere with the theological and worldview framework of the biblical authors?

If the literal meaning fits coherently within these contexts, accept it as the intended meaning.

If not, move to step three. Seek a metaphorical or symbolic meaning that better fits the text's context and purpose. This is especially critical in biblical texts where metaphor becomes necessary to communicate spiritual realities that transcend physical description.

Consider Jesus saying "I am the bread of life." The metaphor works because bread has literal reality as essential sustenance. The spiritual truth builds on that literal foundation.

Similarly, spiritual beings described as "holy ones" or "Elohim" are literal beings in the biblical worldview. They're not mere symbols. The divine council refers to the assembly of heavenly beings created to serve God in the spiritual realm and administer the cosmos under His direction.

Ancient readers knew this intuitively. They shared a supernatural worldview where spiritual beings and divine councils were simply part of reality. They understood literary genres and conventions. Words carried semantic layers shaped by theology and tradition that guided interpretation.

The oral and communal nature of their culture provided additional cues. Liturgical use, teaching, and shared stories clarified meaning in ways modern individual readers miss entirely.

Modern readers have lost this intuition. They lack the supernatural worldview that made literal belief in spiritual beings natural. Without fluency in original languages and cultural background, they miss nuanced meanings and metaphorical cues. They expect clear-cut distinctions between literal and figurative language, while ancient texts blend these fluidly.

Many modern Christians practice selective supernaturalism. They accept some supernatural doctrines but dismiss others as strange. This leads to inconsistent interpretations that would have baffled ancient readers.

Recovering What Was Lost

Reconstructing ancient intuition requires immersion in the ancient world.

This means reading extensively in ancient Near Eastern and Second Temple Jewish texts. Egyptian, Babylonian, Hittite, Mesopotamian literature. Jewish writings from the Second Temple period. This exposure helps internalize the worldview, vocabulary, and cultural assumptions of biblical authors and their audiences.

It means engaging with original languages. Even basic knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek helps avoid relying solely on English translations that obscure nuances. Bible software tools allow analysis of word meanings in original contexts and tracking usage across Scripture.

It means identifying literary genre and authorial techniques. Narrative works differently than poetry. Prophecy employs different conventions than apocalyptic literature. Recognizing these distinctions prevents category mistakes in interpretation.

It means applying the three-stage interpretive process consistently. Derive literal meaning. Test against context. Seek metaphorical meaning only when necessary.

It means consulting scholarly resources that incorporate ancient Near Eastern background and Second Temple literature. But this creates a tension.

The Accessibility Challenge

This level of study sounds specialized. Years of dedicated work. Mastery of ancient languages and literature.

Does faithful interpretation require expertise most Christians will never have?

The answer is both yes and no.

Deep scholarly expertise enhances interpretation. It enables nuanced, precise understanding. But faithful and meaningful engagement with Scripture remains possible for average Christians through quality study Bibles and commentaries that incorporate ancient context insights. Through reputable resources that summarize key cultural and historical background in accessible language. Through basic hermeneutical principles like considering literary genre, immediate context, and avoiding anachronistic readings.

Context functions as a virtue, not a barrier. Even partial engagement with context enriches comprehension and faith. Christians can progressively deepen understanding over time, starting with foundational concepts and gradually exploring more complex background material.

Learning in community through trusted teachers and study groups makes ancient context more accessible and less intimidating.

But here's the real challenge. When using study Bibles and commentaries, readers trust someone else's interpretation of ancient context. This risks swapping denominational traditions for scholarly traditions. Creating a new interpretive filter rather than recovering original biblical context.

The solution requires maintaining awareness of the distinction between context and tradition.

The proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context that produced it. The ancient historical, cultural, linguistic, and religious setting of the biblical authors. Traditions, whether denominational or scholarly, are foreign contexts that shouldn't function as primary interpretive lenses.

Commentaries and study Bibles are tools to help recover ancient context. They're not authoritative final arbiters of meaning.

This means consulting multiple resources from different theological traditions and scholarly perspectives. Comparing interpretations critically. Noting where they agree and differ. Understanding the reasons behind those differences.

It means engaging directly with biblical text and original languages as much as possible. Even without full mastery, tools exist that show original words and their usage across Scripture. This grounds interpretation in the text itself rather than solely in secondary sources.

It means prioritizing the biblical writer's intent and audience. Always asking: What did the original author intend to communicate to their original audience? This focus keeps interpretation anchored in biblical context rather than later theological or scholarly agendas.

When Context Challenges Doctrine

Recovering ancient context sometimes produces theological discomfort.

Take the divine council. God surrounded by spiritual beings who have real authority and agency. This is clearly part of the ancient biblical worldview, especially in passages like Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32.

But it challenges how many Christians understand God's sovereignty today.

When recovering ancient context seems to contradict cherished doctrines, how do you know you're being faithful to Scripture rather than just being provocative?

Faithfulness begins with letting the Bible speak on its own terms, even when it challenges modern theological assumptions. The divine council is a clear feature of the ancient biblical worldview. Avoiding it means avoiding what the text actually says.

Many cherished doctrines developed over centuries and may not fully reflect the worldview of biblical authors. Recovering ancient context helps clarify what original authors intended, not what later theology assumed.

Theological discomfort often signals honest engagement with the text's original strangeness and depth. The goal isn't provocation. It's truthfulness to the biblical witness, even when that means reexamining long-held assumptions.

The divine council doesn't diminish God's ultimate authority. It depicts a heavenly administration under His rule. Council members have delegated authority but remain subordinate to God. Jesus' quotation of Psalm 82 in John 10:34 confirms the divine council worldview without undermining monotheism or divine sovereignty.

Ancient Israelite monotheism includes divine plurality in function and personhood without compromising God's uniqueness and sovereignty. This theological nuance challenges simplistic categories but reflects what the text actually presents.

Some biblical realities transcend human categories and require humility in interpretation. The church's understanding of doctrines can grow as it wrestles with Scripture's full witness, including its ancient context.

The Pastoral Reality

Discovering that cherished interpretations are actually later traditions creates disorientation.

Someone taught their whole life that certain readings are "biblical" suddenly realizes those interpretations are filtered through centuries of tradition. The ground shifts beneath their feet.

This requires pastoral sensitivity.

All readers, including pastors and scholars, interpret Scripture through some set of traditions or frameworks. This is normal. Acknowledging it openly helps.

Realizing that cherished interpretations may be later traditions can be unsettling and painful. Pastors should affirm these feelings as part of a faithful journey toward deeper understanding.

But Scripture itself remains authoritative and true, even if human interpretations have been flawed or incomplete. The problem isn't with the Bible. It's with the filters through which it's been read. This distinction protects faith in Scripture.

The goal becomes guiding people toward resources and methods that help recover ancient context and original meaning. Pastors should demonstrate willingness to question assumptions and grow in understanding alongside their congregations.

Creating safe spaces for questions and doubts matters. Encouraging honest dialogue about difficult issues without fear of judgment. Providing ongoing education that integrates biblical scholarship with pastoral sensitivity.

Moving beyond inherited traditions toward the biblical text itself marks spiritual maturity and faithfulness. God's Spirit guides the faithful into truth, even when it challenges prior understandings.

The Balance Point

Recovering ancient context invites reexamination. But does this mean everything is perpetually up for debate?

Interpretive boundaries remain necessary. They maintain coherence and avoid endless relativism. These boundaries are grounded in core doctrines and theological convictions that define orthodox Christian faith. The Trinity. The deity of Christ. Salvation by grace.

While contextual approach invites reexamination, it doesn't imply all interpretations are equally valid or that foundational truths are negotiable.

Intellectual humility means acknowledging limitations in fully grasping the divine message and remaining open to correction and growth. It involves willingness to revisit interpretations in light of new evidence or better understanding of ancient context.

But humility doesn't require abandoning core theological commitments tested and affirmed throughout church history.

Theological convictions provide a framework for evaluating interpretations. They help discern which readings are faithful to the biblical witness. They act as guardrails preventing drift into interpretations that contradict essential Christian truths.

Convictions aren't static. They can be refined as understanding deepens. But changes occur within the bounds of orthodoxy.

The practical balance looks like this: Recover ancient context diligently to understand what the text meant. Test interpretations against the whole biblical canon and core doctrines. Be willing to revise non-essential interpretations when warranted by evidence. Hold firmly to essential doctrines while maintaining openness in secondary matters.

This balance fosters dynamic yet stable faith. It respects both the mystery of God and the clarity of Scripture.

The Limits of Context

Context is king. But does the contextual method have limits when addressing contemporary issues biblical authors couldn't have anticipated?

The contextual method's first task is recovering what biblical authors intended to communicate to their original audiences within their ancient contexts. This ensures interpretation is faithful to the text's original meaning rather than shaped by modern assumptions or agendas.

But contextual interpretation doesn't automatically provide direct answers to every modern question. Ancient authors wrote within their own cultural, social, and historical frameworks. They didn't anticipate contemporary challenges or technologies.

Some modern applications require careful extrapolation and discernment beyond the explicit original meaning.

Interpretation and application are distinct but connected steps. After recovering original meaning, interpreters must discern how underlying principles or theological truths apply today without distorting the text.

This involves identifying timeless principles embedded in the text. Considering the broader biblical narrative and theology. Engaging in prayerful reflection and community dialogue to test applications.

The contextual method guards against eisegesis by grounding interpretation in original context first. Application to new issues is done carefully and transparently, acknowledging when the Bible doesn't speak directly but principles can be extended.

This approach respects both the authority of Scripture and the complexity of modern life.

While the contextual approach may not answer every modern question explicitly, it provides a solid foundation for faithful application that honors the biblical text and avoids imposing modern ideas onto Scripture.

Context as King

The essential principle tying everything together is simple.

Context is king in biblical interpretation.

Words have meaning only within their historical, cultural, linguistic, and literary contexts. Recovering the ancient worldview and authorial intent is foundational to understanding Scripture faithfully. Literal and metaphorical language must be discerned through context. Interpretation must be humble, rigorous, and open to correction. Application flows from sound interpretation but requires additional discernment.

Bible study is a lifelong pursuit requiring patience, humility, and perseverance. Even imperfect but diligent study beats none. Engaging Scripture on its own terms deepens faith and enriches understanding.

The goal isn't just knowledge. It's transformation through encountering God's Word as it was meant to be heard.

Most Christians think they read contextually because they glance at surrounding verses. But true contextual reading means stepping into the ancient world of biblical authors and their audiences. It means recognizing how modern assumptions and centuries of tradition have filtered the text.

It means doing the hard work of recovery.

The supernatural worldview ancient readers took for granted needs to be rebuilt in modern minds. The three-stage interpretive process needs to become instinct. The balance between scholarly depth and accessible engagement needs to be maintained. The tension between intellectual humility and theological conviction needs to be held.

When recovering context challenges cherished beliefs, faithful interpretation gets uncomfortable. That discomfort often signals honest engagement with what the text actually says rather than what tradition says it says.

Your Bible has been filtered for centuries. Recovering what was lost takes work. But the reward is encountering Scripture as the original authors intended.

Context changes everything.