Monday-Context
Objective:
To place the passage in its historical and literary context.
Goal (mile-marker 1):
To have a few paragraphs written that help you explain the contribution the passage makes to the argument of the book as a whole, along with its relationship to the portions that precede and follow it in the text.
If we have done our Advance Preparation well, we are now in an excellent spot to begin working on a specific passage. The task before us is to make sure that the text to be studied and taught is at the same logical coordinates in our minds, so to speak, as it was when the biblical author left it when he finished writing it.
Under divine inspiration, the biblical author wrote the portion under consideration to fulfill a particular function in the course of his writing. Therefore, the passage we will be studying is in the book for a reason – a reason that contributes to the whole message. Our job, as exegetes, is to make sure that we understand that reason «perfectly». In fact, we will preach the text poorly if we do not know why this particular passage is in the book and why it is located at this point in the book.
Faithfulness is a contextual matter. And it is so at all levels. Faithfulness at the level of words requires taking into account the phrase in which it is found. Faithfulness at the phrase level depends on the sentence in which it is found. Faithfulness at the sentence level requires understanding the paragraph in which it is found. And faithfulness at the paragraph level is based on understanding the message of the section and the book.
This is a somewhat curious dynamic because there must always be a kind of ongoing dialogue between our understanding of the smaller parts of a text and our understanding of the larger parts. Hence, one could even argue about where best to start this process, whether with individual words or with the paragraphs that call forth the selection of certain words in order to develop their argument.
This last statement is extremely important, and I believe definitively tips the scale in a particular direction. Individual words, on their own, have no absolute meaning. When one speaks or writes, one chooses a word precisely because the phrase, sentence, or paragraph requires it. Ultimately, what you want to convey is an idea. A thought. Therefore, the word is the servant of the idea. And usually, more than one word and more than one way of organizing words can be employed to communicate the thought.
Unfortunately, individual words in isolation have often been emphasized too much in certain kinds of biblical study, as if they have a life of their own independent of the context in which they appear. Words are always contextually constrained. This is why we begin with the larger units of thought: moving from the book to the passage, to the structure, to the words.
That said, word meanings are not infinitely plastic. Particular words are chosen to convey particular meanings. But those choices and those meanings are always made in service of the message being conveyed.
Just think about your own communication. There is generally a natural progression.
Imagine you have to write an important email about some matter that is weighing heavily on your mind. You have a subject, and you perhaps have several things you need to say about it. Likely the subject will go in the title of the email, and each thing you need to say will be a separate paragraph. You will likely set about drafting each paragraph, then fine-tuning the sentences, perhaps rearranging their order, and finally thinking through specific word choices in order to best reflect the nuances that will best support your argument.
This process – even under divine inspiration – would be largely similar for a biblical author. Thus, our overall approach to understanding a passage in some measure needs to mirror this thought process. They were working with normal human language, just as we are working with normal human language.
Monday’s Tasks
For «today’s» work, I am going to give priority to context.
I have two main reasons for recommending we start with this contextual approach.
- First, it gives us the big picture. To use a recent – albeit overused – metaphor, we will do what we do when we use Google Earth. We will start up high so that we can see everything completely. Then, as we move closer and closer to the spot on the planet we are interested in, we do so with a precise knowledge of where we are. We arrive at our destination in a contextual way.
- Second, as I have just argued, it protects us from focusing too early on the «micro-details,» prioritizing individual words, especially if this were to involve word studies in the original languages. The time for that will come, but only after we gain a better sense of the bigger picture.
I recommend the following 5 tasks for Monday’s work.
Well, I also recommend a «Task 0» which is nothing more than to continue with the panoramic reading of the entire book. Although this may seem very repetitive, I am fully convinced that there are few things that will help us keep the entire message in front of us better than continuing to soak in the message of the book as a whole.
- Task 0. Continue your panoramic reading of the book.
- Task 1. Describe the immediate context of your portion.
- Task 2. Read the portion repeatedly, noting observations.
- Task 3. Determine the contribution of the portion to the immediate context and the overall argument.
- Task 4. Investigate important contextual issues.
The final article is a brief conclusion along with some additional ideas for the brave.
If you are already familiar with the process, download a Quick Start Summary Guide for Monday-Context here.