01.02-Learning Context

Chapter 2 Learning Context

Although everyone recognizes the importance of context in theory, most Bible readers selectively ignore it in practice. You may be an exception, but do not be too disturbed if you are one of those readers unfamiliar with the actual context of many of the passages we treat in this chapter. I have offered these passages as samples purposely because I have often heard them taken out of context, and my students are frequently surprised when they actually read them in context. Although we may think we read the Bible in context, too often we read the Bible in light of how we have heard others use those same Scripture texts. Whether those interpretations are new or old, they cannot take priority over what the text itself says in context.

You need not agree with our interpretation of every example cited below, but it is important to think through them and to make sure that your view of the text is based on its context rather than how you have heard it used. These examples should illustrate how context makes a difference in our understanding. In no instance are we challenging specific doctrines people have sometimes based on these verses; we are challenging methods of interpretation. (If some texts in context do not support a doctrine, the doctrine might still be defended if other texts support it.) You will learn context principles best if you actually work through the passages yourself before reading our interpretation of them; this way you will recognize what students in my classrooms usually recognize: when most the students come to the same conclusions independently, they recognize for themselves how clear the point of the text is.

We begin with some brief examples of context within verses, but the emphasis of this chapter will be on broader levels of context.

Context within Verses

Sometimes readers ignore context even within a single verse. Traditional English poetry balances sounds with rhymes, but ancient Hebrew poetry balanced ideas instead. Most translations place the poetry of Psalms and most of the biblical Prophets in verse form. (The King James Version did not do so, but only because translators in 1611 had not yet rediscovered the idea-balancing pattern.) There are different kinds of idea-balancing, or parallelism, in texts; we mention here only two of the most common. In one kind of parallelism, the second line repeats the basic idea of the first (sometimes adding or replacing some details)--for instance, “Happy is the one who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the path traversed by sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers” (Psalms 1:1). (One would not want to preach three points in a sermon based on these three lines; rather, they are three illustrations of a single point.) In another kind of parallelism, the second line is an explicit contrast with the first; for instance, “Ill-gotten gains do not profit, But righteousness delivers from death” (Proverbs 10:2, NASB).

In the U.S., many Christians use the line, “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18), to talk about making a plan. But what does Proverbs mean by “vision”? Does it just mean having a good plan for the future? Does it mean that a driver who needs glasses might run over someone if she drives without her glasses? Because most of the Book of Proverbs is a collection of general principles rather than a sustained argument, the verses around Proverbs 29:18 do not help us interpret the verse very well. The other half of the verse, however, does provide some context. “Where there is no vision, the people perish; but happy is the person who obeys God’s law" (Proverbs 29:18). The second half of the verse parallels the basic idea of the first half: visions and the law are both sources of God’s revelation, sources of hearing from God. In other words, “vision” does not refer to mere natural sight; nor does it merely refer to having a plan for the future; it refers to hearing from God. The Hebrew term translated “vision” here in fact relates to dreams, revelations, or oracles, which confirms the point: God’s people needed the Bible and genuine prophets who had heard from God to guide them in the right way.

Proverbs 11:1 warns that God hates a "false balance." Unfortunately, some people today quote this verse to imply that God wants us to be "balanced" people, not too committed to a particular agenda. The real point of the proverb, however, is to avoid cheating our neighbor: the rest of the verse reads, "but God delights in a correct weight." In the markets of ancient Israel, people would weigh out grain or other items in return for a particular weight of money, but some people cheated their customers by changing the scales. The point is: God hates injustice; he hates people cheating their neighbors. This kind of parallelism is frequent in Israelite poetry (for instance, Mary means basically the same thing when she says that her soul "exalts" the Lord as when she declares that her spirit rejoices in God-- Luke 1:46-47.)

Another example of within-verse context may be Hosea 4:6 : “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” Often we get the meaning of this verse correct even without knowing the context, but this may be more because we value the Bible like Hosea did than because the line we quote is explicit by itself. After all, we could be destroyed for lack of knowledge about driving, test-taking, foreign policy, crime prevention, disease, and so forth. The “knowledge” in this particular verse, however, does not mean all kinds of knowledge. The verse specifically refers to Israel’s rejection of God’s Law: “...Since you forgot my law” (Hosea 4:6). In other words, God’s people are destroyed because they have not paid attention to His Word; they do not know Him because they do not know it.

Helpful as it is to examine the context within a particular verse, in most cases we need a broader circle of context than simply within a verse.

Paragraph Context: Train Yourself

Paragraph context is usually what people mean when they talk about “reading in context.” We cannot stop with paragraph context--a work may make a point in a sentence that functions as part of a larger argument within a paragraph, which in turn functions as part of a larger argument within an entire book of the Bible. Nevertheless, context on the level of paragraphs--the immediately related material around a particular verse--is essential to putting verses in context. If you sit in a church service where someone rattles off verse after verse, you need to be able to check each of those verses in context. In time you may learn the Bible well enough that you immediately know the context as soon as anyone quotes a verse; until then, you need to look the verses up and find the context. For your own Bible study, however, do not even begin with isolated verses; read paragraphs (and preferably books) as a whole. Then you will learn these texts right to begin with, namely, in their context.

Instead of simply reading through the rest of this chapter at this point, I highly recommend that you look up the following verses in context and decide for yourself what they mean. Ask yourself the questions we have attached to each of these texts. After you have finished, you may check your own conclusions with our observations on these and other texts below. If our observations bring issues to your attention that you had not considered, you may want to consider them and reread the text (although in the end you are not obligated to accept all our conclusions). If our observations merely confirm your own reading, you can surmise that your context-reading skills are fairly well-developed. The goal is not simply to hold particular views on the sample texts listed below, but to learn the skill of reading all Scripture in context. (As a young Christian I used most of the following verses out of context until I began systematically studying the Bible book by book, at which time their context gradually became obvious to me.)

Some of the more difficult passages (toward the end of our list) are more debatable in sense than some of the more obvious ones (toward the beginning). Also, in some cases the passages may include a principle that applies to the point for which people often quote them. But the exercise here is to determine what the text specifically means, so that we can apply the principle in all the appropriate ways and not just in the ways we have often heard.

1. John 10:10 : Who is the thief? (Start back at least at John 10:1 or John 10:5)

2. When Jesus says, “If I am lifted up, I will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32), what does He mean by being “lifted up”?

3. Which day is the “day that the Lord has made” (Psalms 118:24)? Does the text refer to every day (the way most people apply it) or to a specific day? (See Psalms 118:22-23; more generally 118:15-29)

4. Is God’s announcement that He owns “the cattle on a thousand hills” (Psalms 50:10) an assurance that He can supply all our needs? Or does it mean something else in context? (Keep in mind that other passages do teach that God supplies our needs; the question here is not whether God will provide, but whether that is what this passage means.)

5. What does the “baptism of fire” refer to in Matthew 3:11? Is it just a purification or empowerment for believers or something else? (Keep in mind that "fire" symbolizes different things in different passages. The question is, what does "fire" mean in this immediate context?)

6. By calling us to "imitate" God (Ephesians 5:1; King James’ "followers" here is literally "imitators"), does Paul want us to speak planets into existence? To be everywhere at once? Check the context (Ephesians 4:32; Ephesians 5:1-2).

7. What does it mean to resist the devil in James 4:7? In 1 Peter 5:8? In Ephesians 4:27? Some people use these verses to support rebuking the devil whenever something goes wrong. Is that the point?

8. Some people quote Joel 2:9 to say that we are God’s mighty army (in a spiritual sense). Other texts may say that, but is that the point of this text?

9. Some people quote Joel 3:10 to say that we should claim God’s strength when we are weak. While that is a biblical principle (2 Corinthians 12:10), is it the point here?

10. More controversially, read Isaiah 14:12-14 in view of the whole of Isaiah 14. To whom does this text refer? (Keep in mind that “Lucifer," found only in the King James Version, is simply a Latin title for the “morning star,” not actually found in the Hebrew. Because some interpreters believed this text referred to Satan, they applied the title to Satan, but the Bible does not use the term anywhere else, so whether or not it is actually Satan’s title depends on the meaning of this passage.)

11. Many people apply Ezekiel 28:12-14 to the devil, just as they apply Is 14 to him. In context, is that really the point of this passage? (Again, we are not questioning whether the devil exists or whether the devil fell. The question is whether this passage discusses it.)

12. When Paul says, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Php 4:13), does he have anything in particular in mind? (I.e., does “all things” mean that he can currently fly, walk through walls, spit fire, and so forth, or does it mean something more specific?)

13. What is the “word of God” (or, “word of Christ” in most translations) in Romans 10:17? Does it specifically refer to the Bible in this case or to something else?

14. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. Some people quote this passage to claim that spiritual gifts have passed away. But according to the context, when will the gifts of the Spirit pass away? For that matter, what is the function of this chapter in the context of the whole letter to the Corinthians (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:31; 1 Corinthians 14:1). What is the function of 1 Corinthians 13:4-6 in the context of the whole letter to the Corinthians? (You may save this question until our study on book-context if you wish.)

15. Some people emphasize “now-faith” in Hebrews 11:1, as if faith must be directed toward what we receive in the present. In context, is the sort of faith that Hebrews 11:1 talks about oriented toward receiving something in the present or toward receiving it in the future? (Start back around Hebrews 10:25 and read through Hebrews 12:4.)

16. Revelation 3:20. When Jesus knocks at the door, is he trying to get someone converted? (To whom is the verse addressed?)

17. One could say that when God "gave" his Son (John 3:16), this refers to giving Jesus at his birth in Bethlehem or giving him to the world when God raised him from the dead. What does "giving" him mean in context?

18. When one seeks first the kingdom, what things are added to one (Matthew 6:33)?

19. Who are Christ’s ambassadors in 2 Corinthians 5:20? Whom are they entreating to be reconciled to God?

20. Some people say that the "witnesses" in Hebrews 12:1 are the dead watching us from heaven. But in the context of Hebrews chapter 11, does "witnesses" refer to those who watch us or to those who testified to the truth of God’s claims? (This one may be harder to see depending on your translation, since some translations do not show the connection of related words in this context.)

21. Some people claim the promise that no weapon formed against them would prosper (Isaiah 54:17). Is this a guarantee for every individual Christian in every circumstance or for God’s people as a whole protected by His plan for them?

22. Does Proverbs 23:7 mean that whatever we think about ourselves will come true? ("As a person thinks in their heart, so they are.") Or does it mean something else? (Read Proverbs 23:6-8.) 23. Does Psalms 18:7-15 refer to Jesus’ second coming? Read Psalms 18:4-6; Psalms 18:16-19.

24. Who is the rose of Sharon, the lily of the valley, in ?Song of Solomon 2:1-225. In Matthew 18:18, what does Jesus mean by “binding and loosing”? Does He refer to how to treat demons here, or does He refer to something else? (Read especially Matthew 18:15-20.)

26. What is the “coming” to which Jesus refers in John 14:1-3? Does He refer here to His second coming or to something else? (Read John 14:4-23, and perhaps John 13:36-38.)

27. This final question may be the most difficult one. Read Isaiah 7:14 in context (especially Isaiah 7:10-16; Isaiah 8:1-4). In the immediate context, to whom does this newborn son refer? (If your conclusions may disturb you, don’t worry; we will clarify them below. But it is important for you to grapple with the text intelligently in its context first, and not simply to interpret the passage according to how you’ve seen it used elsewhere.) Paragraph Context: Checking yourself 1. The Thief in John 10:10

Many people assume that the thief in John 10:10 is the devil, but they assume this because they have heard this view many times, not because they examined the text carefully in context. Of course, the devil does come to steal, to kill, and to destroy; but we often quote the verse this way and miss the text’s direct applications because we have not stopped to read the verse in context. When Jesus speaks of “the thief,” he speaks from a larger context of thieves, robbers, wolves, and strangers who come to harm the sheep (John 10:1; John 10:5; John 10:8; John 10:10; John 10:12). In this context, those who came before Jesus, claiming his authority, were thieves and robbers (John 10:8); these tried to approach the sheep without going through the shepherd (John 10:1). This was because they wanted to exploit the sheep, whereas Jesus was prepared to die defending his sheep from these thieves, robbers, and wolves. The point becomes even clearer if we start further back in the context. In chapter 9, Jesus heals a blind man and the religious officials kick the blind man out of the religious community for following Jesus. Jesus stands up for the formerly blind man and calls the religious leaders spiritually blind (John 9:35-41). Because there were no chapter breaks in the original Bible, Jesus’ words that continue into chapter 10 are still addressed to the religious leaders. He declares that He is the true Shepherd and the true sheep follow His voice, not the voice of strangers (John 10:1-5). Those who came before Him were thieves and robbers, but Jesus was the sheep’s true salvation (John 10:8-9). The thief comes only to destroy, but Jesus came to give life (John 10:10).

In other words, the thief represents the false religious leaders, like the Pharisees who kicked the healed man out of their synagogue. The background of the text clarifies this point further. In Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel 34, God was the shepherd of His scattered people, His sheep; these Old Testament passages also speak of false religious leaders who abused their authority over the sheep like many of the religious leaders of Jesus’ day and not a few religious leaders in our own day.

2. Jesus’ Crucifixion in John 12:32 In my country, Christians often sing, “Lift Jesus higher...He said, ‘If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto Me,’” based on John 12:32. The Bible does talk about “exalting” God and “lifting him up” in praise, but that is not the point of this text. If one reads the next verse (which explicitly says that Jesus was referring to his death), it is clear that “lifting him up” refers to his death on the cross. (The play on words with “lifting up” was already used in both Greek and Hebrew for forms of hanging, such as crucifixion.) Thus, if the song means by lifting Him up what the biblical verse means, we would be singing, “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” Of course God knows our hearts, but one wonders why a song writer would base a song, which millions of people might sing, on a verse yet not take the time to look up the verse on which it is based!

John three times refers to Jesus being “lifted up”: in one case, he compares this event to the serpent being lifted up in the wilderness (John 3:14), to make eternal life available to everyone (John 3:15). In the second, Jesus declares that His adversaries will lift Him up (John 8:28). In other words, John means by “lifting up” what Isaiah meant by it: Jesus would be crucified (Isaiah 52:13 with Isaiah 52:14-15; Isaiah 53:1-12). John includes plays on words in his gospel, and may also indicate that we “exalt” Jesus by preaching the Cross; but leaves no doubt as to the primary sense of the term in this context: crucifixion. To read it any other way is to ignore his explicit, inspired explanation of the “lifting up.”

3. The Day of Christ’s Exaltation in Psalms 118:24

Many churches sing or open services by quoting, “This is the day that the Lord has made.” When we sing this, most of us mean that God has made every day and what comes with it, and that we should therefore rejoice in what happens on that day. This is a true principle, but we would do better to quote a different text to prove it (maybe Ephesians 5:20). The text we are quoting or singing (and there is nothing wrong with quoting or singing it) actually offers us a different, dramatic cause for celebration. In context, Psalms 118:24 refers not to every day, but to a particular, momentous day: the day when the Lord made the rejected stone the cornerstone (Psalms 118:22-23), probably of the Temple (Psalms 118:19-20; Psalms 118:27). It speaks of a special day of triumph for the Davidic king, applicable in principle to many of God’s great triumphs but usually applied in the New Testament in a special way. If Psalms 118:22-23 was fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry as He claimed (Mark 12:10-11), so also was Psalms 118:24 : the great and momentous day the Lord had made, the day the Psalmist calls his hearers to celebrate, is the prophetic day when God exalted Jesus, rejected by the chief priests, as the cornerstone of His new temple (cf. Ephesians 2:20). The verse points to a truth far more significant than merely the common biblical truth that God is with us daily; it points to the greatest act of God on our behalf, when Jesus our Lord died and rose again for us.

4. Cattle in Psalms 50:10

Some people insist that God can supply all our needs because, after all, He “owns the cattle on a thousand hills” (Psalms 50:10); some go beyond God supplying all our needs to suggest that He will supply anything we want. It is in fact true that God can supply all our needs, but there are other texts that explicitly make that point. Psalms 50:10, by contrast, does not address the issue of God supplying our needs (and certainly not all our wants); rather, it declares that God does not need our sacrifices. The figurative setting of Psalm 50 is a courtroom, where God has summoned His people to respond to His charges. He summons heaven and earth as His witnesses (Psalms 50:1-6)--as witnesses of the covenant (see Deuteronomy 32:1; cf. Psalms 50:5), they would be witnesses concerning Israel’s violation of that covenant. Israel has some reason to be nervous; God is not only the offended party in the case, but the Judge (Psalms 50:4; Psalms 50:6), not to mention the accusing witness! Testifying against them, God declares, “I am your God” (Psalms 50:7)--reminding them of the covenant He had made with them. They had not broken faith against Him by failing to offer sacrifices (Psalms 50:8)-in fact, God has little concern about these sacrifices. “I don’t need your animal sacrifices,” he declares, “for all the animals belong to Me, including the cattle on a thousand hills. I don’t eat animal flesh, but if I did, would I tell you if I were hungry? Since I own these creatures, wouldn’t I just take them if I wanted them?” (Psalms 50:9-13). The sacrifice which He really requires is thanksgiving and obedience (Psalms 50:14-15; cf. Psalms 50:23). But He would prosecute (Psalms 50:21) the wicked who broke His covenant (Psalms 50:16-20).

Most ancient near Eastern peoples believed that their gods depended on them for sacrifices, and if their gods were overpowered, their nation would be overpowered as well. The God of Israel reminds them that He is not like the pagan gods around them. Unlike Baal of the Canaanites (whose temples included a bed), Zeus of the Greeks (whom Hera put to sleep so her Greeks could win a battle), and other deities, the God of Israel neither slumbered nor slept (Psalms 121:3-4). God does not mention the cattle on a thousand hills to promise us anything we want (as a song pointed out some years ago, many of us don’t need any cows at the moment anyway); He mentions the cattle to remind us that He is not dependent on us, and we are not doing Him a favor by serving Him.

5. Baptized with Fire in Matthew 3:11

One modern denomination in the U.S. is the “Fire-Baptized Holiness Church”; many other Christians also happily claim to be “baptized in the Holy Ghost and fire.” We know and appreciate, of course, what they mean; they mean holiness, and holiness is essential. But is that what John the Baptist means by “fire baptism” in this passage? Fire is sometimes used as a symbol of God’s consuming holiness or of purifying trials in the Bible; but when fire is conjoined with the image of baptism in the New Testament, it has to do not with mere purification of the individual, but with purifying the whole world by judgment. (Judgment is the most common symbolic application fire in the Bible.) Rather than cross-referencing to other passages that use the image of fire in different ways, we ought to examine what the “baptized in fire” text means in its own context. We ought to use the passage itself before jumping to a concordance. The context is a call to repentance, and much of the audience promised this fire baptism was unwilling to repent. John the Baptist was immersing people in water as a sign of their repentance and preparation for the coming Kingdom of God (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 3:6). (Jewish people used baptism when non-Jews would convert to Judaism, but John demanded that even religious Jewish people come to God on the same terms on which Gentiles should; cf. Matthew 3:9.) John warned the Pharisees about God’s coming wrath (Matthew 3:7), and that unless they bore fruit (Matthew 3:8) God’s ax of judgment would cast them into the fire (Matthew 3:10; cf. Matthew 12:33). Fruitless trees were worthless except for fuel. But chaff was barely even useful as fuel (it burned quickly), yet the chaff of which John spoke would be burned with “unquenchable”-eternal-“fire” (Matthew 3:12). In the verses just before and just after our verse, “fire” is hellfire (Matthew 3:10; Matthew 3:12). When John the Baptist speaks of a baptism in fire, he uses an image of judgment that follows through the whole paragraph. Remember that John’s hearers here are not repentant people (Matthew 3:7). The Messiah is coming to give his audience a twofold baptism, and different members of his audience would experience different parts of it. Some may repent, be gathered into the barn and receive the Spirit. The unrepentant, however, would be chaff, trees cut down, and would receive the fire!

6. Imitating God in Ephesians 5:1 This passage summons us to imitate God the way children imitate a father. The text is also specific, however, in the ways that we should imitate God: we should forgive as God in Christ forgave us (Ephesians 4:32) and love one another, just as Christ sacrificially loved us (Ephesians 5:2). Happily, the text does not require us to imitate God by being all-powerful or everywhere at once!

7. Resisting the Devil in James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8-9; Ephesians 4:27

James contrasts the peaceful wisdom which is from God (James 3:13; James 3:17-18; "from above" was a typical Jewish way of saying, "from God") with the contentious wisdom which is from the devil (James 3:14-15). Then he warns his audience not to try to hold both perspectives as if they were compatible. Those who try to follow both God’s and the world’s wisdom at the same time are spiritual adulteresses (James 4:4).

Submitting to God and resisting the devil (James 4:7), then, is rejecting the world’s evil way of treating one another and preferring the gentle approach that comes from God. To adopt this new way of treating others requires repentance (James 4:8-10).

1 Peter refers to a situation in which Christians are being persecuted (1 Peter 4:12-16); in 1 Peter 5:8-9, the devil apparently seeks to crush believers by seeking to turn them from the faith. Resisting him therefore means withstanding the persecution. In the context of Ephesians 4:27, one resists the devil by refusing to deceive or stay angry with one’s fellow-believers (Ephesians 4:25-26); in the whole context of Ephesians, this is part of "spiritual warfare" (Ephesians 6:11-14; Ephesians 6:18).

8. God’s Locust Army in Joel 2:9

Although the third chapter of Joel seems to describe a future war, chapters one and two depict as an invading army a devastating locust plague (Joel 1:4; Joel 2:25). This text does not depict the church as a spiritual army of evangelists (a truth offered by plenty of other biblical passages); it depicts locusts as an agricultural judgment against the sins of God’s people.

9. The Strength of the Weak in Joel 3:10 This passage is not an invitation to the weary righteous to strengthen themselves; nor is it talking about God’s power perfected in our weakness (central as that biblical message is). God is speaking in judgment to the nations gathered against his people for the final war (Joel 3:9). God mockingly invites the enemies of his people to gather against him, make their weapons and make themselves strong, when in fact they are hopelessly weak before them. Then he promises to destroy them! He is actually mocking the enemies of his people as he invites them to judgment (Joel 3:12-14).

10. Babylon’s Ruler in Isaiah 14 The full context of this passage would let us know that Isaiah is denouncing a ruler, even if he did not tell us so explicitly. Like many other ancient Israelite prophets, Isaiah includes oracles against various nations: Babylon (Isa. 13-14), Moab (Isa. 15-16), Damascus (Isa. 17), the Nubian and Egyptian empires (Isa. 18-20), Babylon again (Isaiah 21:1-10), Edom (Isaiah 21:11-12), Arabia (Isaiah 21:13-17), Jerusalem (Isa. 22), and Tyre (Isa. 23). Isaiah 14:3-4 explicitly tell us that the following oracle is directed against the ruler of Babylon--an oppressor (Isaiah 14:4), a ruler (Isaiah 14:5), who conquered other nations (Isaiah 14:6). As he is defeated, the nations rejoice (Isaiah 14:7); figuratively speaking, even the trees of Lebanon rejoice, for he will no longer be cutting them down for his building projects (Isaiah 14:8). How has the Lord brought this king low, breaking his rod and scepter (Isaiah 14:5)? The text clearly indicates that he is dead: he goes to Sheol, the realm of the dead (Isaiah 14:9), and other rulers there rejoice that the ruler who defeated them has died just like them (Isaiah 14:9-10). His pomp and dignity ruined, his court harpists silenced, he now rots with maggots and worms consuming his flesh (Isaiah 14:11)--i.e., he is a corpse. This description does not fit the devil very well, but it does fit a human ruler who exalted himself hence was brought low for his arrogance.

Like Israel whose glory was cast from heaven to earth (Lamentations 2:1), this ruler has been cast from heaven to earth. At this point some readers think that the subject must change to a literal fall from heaven, in which case, they say, it must be applied to a fallen angel like the devil. But the jubilant outcries of Lebanon’s cedars in Isaiah 14:8 was hardly literal; neither was the image of dead rulers rising from their thrones in the realm of the dead in Isaiah 14:9 (would they still be enthroned)? Hebrew poetry painted pictures with words, just as poetry normally does today; in contrast to non-poetic parts of Isaiah, the poetic portions are consistently full of figurative speech. Other texts also speak of figurative falls from heaven, most of them without applying them to the devil (Amos 9:2; Matthew 11:23; Luke 10:15).

Kings of Babylon, like some other ancient near Eastern kings, actually claimed to be gods (compare, for example, Daniel 3:5; Daniel 6:7). Claiming to be a deity like the morning star or offspring of the sun god or deity of dawn would not be unnatural for an ancient near Eastern ruler, but Isaiah grants the title only in contemptuous mockery: “Poor king of Babylon! You reached for heaven, but have been cast down to earth! You tried to raise yourself above God, but now you have died like a man!” (compare the similar taunt in Psalms 82:6-8). Verses Isaiah 14:12-14 refer to the king of Babylon just like the preceding verses do: he once conquered nations (Isaiah 14:12), wanted to be enthroned on the sacred mountain (perhaps referring to Babylon’s future conquest of Mount Zion in Jerusalem) (Isaiah 14:13), and he was brought down to Sheol, the realm of the dead (Isaiah 14:15). The following context drives home the point still more thoroughly: this is “the man” who struck fear into the hearts of nations (Isaiah 14:16), “the man” whose conquests made lands deserted, destroying cities, carrying peoples off into captivity (Isaiah 14:17). Unlike the other nations’ kings who at least were buried in dignity in royal tombs (a final honor very important to ancient people’s sense of honor), this king’s corpse was thrown out in the open to rot, trampled underfoot in punishment for the violent destruction he had brought upon his own people (Isaiah 14:18-20). His descendants and those of his people, Babylon, would be cut off (Isaiah 14:21-22). The text could not be any plainer in context: this explicit oracle against the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:3-23) would be fulfilled in its time, and God’s oppressed people vindicated.

Despite the clarity of this text, some readers remain so committed to their earlier understanding of the text that they are determined to get around the context. “Well, maybe it does refer to the king of Babylon, but it must refer to the devil, too,” they protest. But why must it refer to the devil? Is there anything here that cannot refer to an earthly ruler exalting himself? Do any of the oracles against other nations (chs. 13-23) contain hidden prophecies against the devil? Was the devil a mere earthly conqueror, brought to the realm of the dead after he was thrust from heaven (Isaiah 14:12; Isaiah 14:15)? “But we all know that Lucifer refers to the devil, and that the devil said he would ascend to heaven,” one student protested to me. “How do we know it?” I replied. The view that “Lucifer” refers to the devil and that the devil promised to ascend to heaven is based on an interpretation of the King James translation of this text. If “Lucifer” appeared here, it would be the only place in the Bible it occurred, but it does not in fact occur here, either. The Hebrew does not speak of “Lucifer” here; that is a Latin title for the “morning star” which the King James Version used in its translation here. Even if we granted that this text “also” refers to the devil, however, why is it that many readers quote it as applying to the devil but not to what it straightforwardly says, namely, a sinning human? Perhaps if we applied the text more as a warning against human pride, many would not want to preach from it any more than they preach from the surrounding chapters (which is little indeed!)

Unable to make their case in Isaiah 14, some students declare that Isaiah 14 must refer to the devil because Ezekiel 28 does. There are two fallacies in this argument. First of all, Ezekiel 28 and other passages could refer to the fall of the devil without Isaiah 14 having to do with that subject; no one is denying that some texts in the Bible refer to fallen angels, only that this is the point of Isaiah 14. The second fallacy of the argument is that Ezekiel 28 is not one of the texts referring to fallen angels, either.

11. Tyre’s Ruler in Ezekiel 28

Like Isaiah, Ezekiel also has oracles against the nations: Ammon (Ezekiel 25:1-7), Moab (Ezekiel 25:8-11), Edom (Ezekiel 25:12-14), Philistia (Ezekiel 25:15-17), Tyre (Ezekiel 26:1-28:19), Sidon (Ezekiel 28:20-26), and Egypt (Ezekiel 29:1-32:32). The passage sometimes applied to the devil, Ezekiel 28:12 b-19, is in the heart of an oracle against the ruler of Tyre; in fact, verse 12 begins, “Son of man, take up this lament against the ruler of Tyre.” No one disputes that the context refers to the ruler of Tyre, but those who apply the text to the devil declare that it also applies to him, because (they claim) some features of the text cannot apply to anyone but the devil. This argument, as we shall see, is not actually accurate. The lament calls this ruler arrogant about his wisdom and perfection of beauty (Ezekiel 28:12; Ezekiel 28:17)--just as Tyre claimed to be perfect in beauty (Ezekiel 27:3-4; Ezekiel 27:11) and full of wisdom that brought wealth (Ezekiel 28:3-4), self-proclaimed wisdom that made the ruler think he was a god (Ezekiel 28:6) though he was but a human being (Ezekiel 28:8-10). This ruler was in Eden, the garden of God (Ezekiel 28:13), which advocates of the devil-interpretation think must be taken literally: only the devil was in Eden, they say. But this claim is not true; Adam and Eve, who did seek equality with God (Genesis 3:5), also lived in Eden, and Ezekiel could compare the Tyrian ruler’s hubris with that of the first people.

Yet another explanation is better than either the devil-interpretation or the Adam-interpretation: Ezekiel explicitly compares the ruler of Babylon to a cherub (Ezekiel 28:14-15). Genesis calls neither Adam nor the serpent a cherub, but does refer explicitly to cherubim in the garden: God’s angels stationed there to keep Adam and Eve out after their fall (Genesis 3:24; cf. Ezekiel 28:14-15 NIV: “guardian cherub”). In other words, this is an image representing great prestige in God’s garden. (The “holy mountain of God”-- Ezekiel 28:14 --might allude to Mount Zion, as often in Scripture, in which case the image of cherubim probably also recalls the cherubim on which God was enthroned on the ark in the Temple. The blamelessness until found wicked-- Ezekiel 28:15 --may also be part of the cherub image.)

Some have objected that the king cannot simply be compared to a glorious cherub in Eden; the text calls him a cherub, and must be interpreted literally. Those who insist that all details of such prophecies should be taken literally, however, are not consistent in how they interpret other references to Eden in surrounding chapters. Ezekiel himself is full of graphic, poetic images and metaphors (comparisons in which one thing is simply called another without “like” or “as”), one of which is a statement that Pharaoh was a tree in Eden, God’s garden (Ezekiel 31:1-18; he is also a sea monster, Ezekiel 29:3-5). Drawing on various images from the account of Adam and Eve’s fall, Ezekiel’s prophecies speak both of the stately cherubim and the greatest trees in Eden (perhaps the tree of life or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?) Perhaps advocates of the devil-interpretation press their case that being in Eden refers to the devil in Ezekiel 28 but not in Ezekiel 31 because they can only fit Ezekiel 28 into their view in some other respects. (Some cite the "pipes" on his body, but this is based on only one translation, which the Hebrew does not appear to support here.) The adornment of precious stones (Ezekiel 28:13) alludes to Tyre’s great wealth, elsewhere described in terms of gorgeous array (Ezekiel 27:4-7; Ezekiel 27:24) and trade in diverse merchandise including precious stones (Ezekiel 27:16; Ezekiel 27:22). The wickedness of Ezekiel 28:15 is the wickedness of Tyre’s merchant interests (Ezekiel 28:16), her “dishonest trade” (Ezekiel 28:18 NIV) elsewhere referred to in the context (Ezekiel 27:2-36; Ezekiel 28:4-5; cf. Ezekiel 26:17). The king’s pride on account of his beauty (Ezekiel 28:17) recalls the pride of the ruler of Tyre who claims to be a god yet is merely a man (Ezekiel 28:2), proud because of the wealth Tyre had amassed through trading (Ezekiel 28:5). That fire would come forth from the ruler of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:18), just as ancient cities were normally destroyed by burning in their midst (cf. e.g., Amos 1:4; Amos 1:7; Amos 1:12; Amos 2:2; Amos 2:5 --especially Amos 1:10, against Tyre).

Ezekiel refers to an arrogant human ruler. The ruler in this passage exalts himself in pride and is cast down; the casting down is more explicit in the oracle earlier in the chapter (Ezekiel 28:2-10). He claimed to be a god, enthroned in the heart of the seas (Ezekiel 28:2; Tyre was off the seacoast of Phoenicia). God has Ezekiel mock this ruler: You think that you are as wise as a god (Ezek Ezekiel 28:6), but God would bring judgment on this ruler by other nations (Ezekiel 28:7); then would he still pretend to be a god in front of those who would kill him (Ezekiel 28:9)? He was a “man,” not a god, and he would die a horrible and violent death (Ezekiel 28:8-10). This is hardly a description of the devil, an immortal spirit; this is an earthly ruler who claimed to be a god, who would learn his mortality at the time of God’s judgment on Tyre.

Yet even if these two passages referred to the devil as well as to earthly rulers-though in context they do not-why do defenders of this view often apply these passages to the devil yet never apply them also to earthly rulers judged by God for their arrogance? Wouldn’t examples of human arrogance make even more useful passages for preaching or teaching matters relevant to our hearers? I suspect that many believers simply assume these passages refer to the devil because that is the way we have always heard them interpreted, but many of us never closely examined them in context. Whatever their views, I do not believe any reader can miss our point: this passage has a broad context in the surrounding chapters, and our short-cuts to learning the Bible have failed to study the books of the Bible the way God inspired them to be written.

12. Strengthened for Contentment in Php 4:13 A football player at a Christian college approached his Bible professor, greatly troubled. His coach had encouraged the team that they could “do all things through Christ who strengthens” them, citing Php 4:13. Yet the team had lost a few games, and the student was unable to fathom why his team was not always winning, since they “could do all things through Christ.” The problem, of course, is not with the text, but with the view that the player and apparently his coach had read into the verse. The football player was assuming that Paul had in view matters like winning football games.

Thanking the Philippians for sending him a love-gift (Php 4:10; Php 4:14), Paul noted that he had learned contentment with both little and with much (Php 4:12); he could do all things through Christ (Php 4:13). In this context, he is saying that by Christ’s strength he could rejoice whether he had much or little. Today we should learn to rejoice in whatever our situation, knowing that Christ strengthens us to endure: whether persecution, ridicule, or even losing a football game.

13. Saving Faith through the Gospel in Romans 10:17

Some people quote Romans 10:17 to support repeating Bible verses to ourselves aloud: “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Of course, repeating the Bible to ourselves is important (if we understand it in context). But those who think that is the point of this particular verse should reexamine the context of Romans 10:17.

Paul argues that no one could be saved unless they heard this word, which is the message of Christ (Romans 10:14-15), the “report” of the witnesses (Romans 10:16). This is also the "word" in their mouths and hearts through which they are saved (Romans 10:8-10). Faith could only come from hearing this word, the gospel of Christ (Romans 10:17). In contrast to Hebrews 11:1, where “faith” in context means persevering faith, this passage refers to saving faith. One cannot be saved until one hears the truth about Jesus.

14. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 in Context

Paul says that spiritual gifts like prophecy, tongues and knowledge will pass away when we no longer need them (1 Corinthians 13:8-10). Some Christians read this passage as if it said, “Spiritual gifts like prophecy, tongues, and knowledge passed away when the last book of the New Testament was written.” This interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13 ignores the entire context of 1 Corinthians, however: it is a letter to the Corinthians in the middle of the first century, and they had never yet heard of a New Testament in the middle of the first century. Had Paul meant the completion of the New Testament, he would have had to have made this point much more clearly--starting by explaining what a New Testament addition to their Bible was. In the context we find instead that Paul means that spiritual gifts will pass away when we know God as He knows us, when we see Him face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12; when we no longer see as through a mirror as in the present-cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18, the only other place where Paul uses the term). In other words, spiritual gifts must continue until our Lord Jesus returns at the end of the age. They should remain a normal part of our Christian experience today. A broader examination of the context reveals even more of Paul’s meaning in this passage. In chapters 12-14, Paul addresses those who are abusing particular spiritual gifts, and argues that God has gifted all members of Christ’s body with gifts for building up God’s people. Those who were using God’s gifts in ways that hurt others were abusing the gifts God had given for helping others. That is why Paul spends three paragraphs in the midst of his discussion of spiritual gifts on the subject of love: gifts without love are useless (1 Corinthians 13:1-3); love seeks to edify (1 Corinthians 13:4-7); the gifts are temporary (for this age only), but love is eternal (13:8-13). We should seek the best gifts (1 Corinthians 12:31; 1 Corinthians 14:1), and love gives us the insight to see which gifts are the best in any given situation--those that build others up. The context of Paul’s entire letter drives this point home further: Paul’s description of what love is in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 contrasts starkly with Paul’s prior descriptions of the Corinthians in his letter: selfish, boastful, and so on (1 Corinthians 3:3; 1 Corinthians 4:6-7; 1 Corinthians 4:18; 1 Corinthians 5:2). The Corinthian Christians, like the later church in Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22), had a lot in their favor, but lacked what mattered most of all: the humility of love.

15. Persevering Faith in Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 declares that “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Although the verse expresses faith in terms of what we hope for--suggesting a future emphasis--some popular preachers have emphasized the first word of the verse in many translations: “Now.” They read “now” as if it were an adjective describing faith: “Hebrews says ‘now-faith,’ so if it’s not ‘now,’ it’s not ‘faith.’” Thus, they claim, one must have faith for the answer now; if one merely believes that God eventually will answer the prayer, they claim that one does not have faith.

Other passages may stress the importance of believing God in the present (like the woman with the flow of blood touching Jesus’ garment), but that is not the point of this passage. First, the English word “now” is not an adjective but an adverb; thus the English text, if it referred to time at all, would not mean, “the now-kind-of-faith is,” but “faith currently is” (i.e., “now” does not describe faith). But second, the passage was not written in English; it was written in Greek, and the Greek word translated “now” here does not have anything to do with time at all. It simply means “but” or “and”-“And faith is.” (It is “now” only as in “Now once upon a time”-this particular Greek word never has to do with time.) The popular preachers apparently were in such a hurry to get their doctrine out that they never bothered to look the verse up in Greek.

Context makes it clear that this verse addresses reward in the future, not the present. The first readers of Hebrews had endured great sufferings (Hebrews 10:32-34), but some were no longer pursuing Christ with their whole hearts, and some were in danger of falling away (Hebrews 10:19-31). The writer thus exhorts the readers not to abandon their hope, which God would reward if they persevered (Hebrews 10:35-37); he trusted that they would persevere in faith rather than falling back to destruction (Hebrews 10:38-39). That persevering faith was the faith that laid hold on God’s promises for the future, the kind of faith great heroes of faith had exhibited in the past: for instance, we know Enoch had this faith, for the Bible says that he pleased God, and no one can please God without such faith (Hebrews 11:5-6).

Most of Hebrews 11’s examples of faith are examples of persevering faith in hope of future reward: Abraham left his present land seeking a city whose builder and maker was God (Hebrews 11:8-10); Joseph looked ahead to the exodus which would happen long after his death (Hebrews 11:22); Moses rejected Egypt’s present treasures in favor of future reward (Hebrews 11:24-26); and so on. The writer concludes with those heroes of the faith who suffered and died without deliverance in this life (Hebrews 11:35-38). In fact, though history commended the faith of all the heroes of this chapter, the writer declares that none of them received what God had promised them (Hebrews 11:39-40).

Finally the writer points to the ultimate hero of the faith--the author and perfecter of our faith, who endured the cross in hope of his future reward, the joy of His exaltation at God’s right hand (Hebrews 12:1-3). If all these men and women of faith had endured in the past, why did the Hebrews balk at the shedding of their blood (Hebrews 12:4), at the trials which were just the Lord’s temporary discipline (Hebrews 12:5-13)? Instead of falling away (Hebrews 12:14-29) because of their persecution, they were to stand firm in Christ, not being moved away from the hope of their calling. “Faith” in this context means not a momentary burst of conviction, but a perseverance tested by trials and time that endures in light of God’s promises for the future.

16. Knocking at the Door in Revelation 3:20

Here Jesus knocks not at the door of the individual sinner, but rather at the door of a church that was acting like one! Whereas Jesus had set before another church an open door, inviting them into his presence despite the false accusations of their persecutors (Revelation 3:8), he was here locked out of another church. Ancient hospitality required sharing food with a guest, but the Laodicean church had locked Jesus out by their arrogant self-sufficiency (Revelation 3:17-18). He wanted these Christians to repent and express again their need for him (Revelation 3:19). This does not make illegitimate the faith of those led to Christ using this verse; the principle applies, and it is in any case the gospel message, not the interpretation of a verse, that converted them. But the point remains that if we misinterpret the verse, we do not learn what this passage has to say to us. There may be arrogant churches today that have locked Jesus out.

17. God gave his Son in John 3:16 The context indicates that God gave His Son, in the particular sense in which John 3:16 means it, when Jesus was lifted up (John 3:14-15). In the context of the rest of the Gospel of John, this must mean that he was “lifted up” on the cross (see John 8:28; John 12:32-33). God gave His Son when Jesus died for our sins. This is the climactic expression of His love for humanity.

18. Seeking First the Kingdom in Matthew 6:33

Jewish people sometimes used Gentiles--non-Jews, who were usually what they would have regarded as “pagans”-as examples of what upright Jews should avoid. “Pagans” seek food, drink, and clothing, Jesus said, but you should not seek these things (Matthew 6:31-32). Instead, Jesus’ followers should seek his kingdom, and these other things-the basic necessities of life-would be taken care of (Matthew 6:33). It may be no coincidence that Jesus had just taught his disciples to pray first for the agendas of God’s kingdom (Matthew 6:9-10) and only after that for their own basic needs (Matthew 6:11-13).

19. Christ’s Ambassadors in 2 Corinthians 5:20 In every or almost every instance of “we” in the preceding chapters (and probably even in 2 Corinthians 5:21 which follows, though that is debated), Paul refers to himself and his ministry colleagues. Probably in 2 Corinthians 5:20, then, Paul also refers not to all Christians as ambassadors, but only to those who are bringing God’s message of reconciliation. After all, those he is entreating to be reconciled to God are the Christians in Corinth, who are not ambassadors but those who need ambassadors to them (2 Corinthians 6:1-2)!

Perhaps ideally all Christians should be bringing God’s message of reconciliation, but in practice most of the Christians in Corinth weren’t. The Corinthian Christians were acting like non-Christians, so Paul and his colleagues act as representatives for Christ’s righteousness to them, just as Christ represented our sin for us on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21). (Paul may be using hyperbole, a figure of speech that means “rhetorical overstatement to graphically emphasize a point”).

20. Witnesses in Hebrews 12:1 In this case not all translations make equally clear the terms in the context related to the term for "witnesses" in Hebrews 12:1. The concept, however, is evident in at least some of them. In the preceding context, God frequently "testified as a witness" or provided "testimony as a witness" that his servants had proved faithful (Hebrews 11:2; Hebrews 11:4-5; Hebrews 11:39). It is therefore possible that he speaks of the righteous listed in Hebrews 11 as those who also testified what they knew about God. These may be not “witnesses” like those who watch a sports match in a stadium, but rather those who “witness” for or “testify” about the truth they have discovered about God.

21. God’s Vindication in Isaiah 54:17 The context indicates that the passage focuses on God’s people. Israel had sinned, been judged, but now would be restored, and those who had tried to oppose Israel would be crushed. There is a principle here that God vindicates his people; but it is not an ironclad guarantee for every circumstance in the short run for each individual (though he often does provide protection for Christians, he does not do so all the time; many Christians have died as faithful martyrs). It does encourage us, however, that God will ultimately vindicate his servants and his plans for history. So whatever we must face in the short run, in the long run we can be sure of God’s faithfulness and vindication if we remain faithful to him.

22. The Real Heart of a Host in Proverbs 23:7 In the ancient Mediterranean world, sharing food obligated people to loyalty to one another. But Proverbs warns that you cannot trust your host if he is selfish; he may encourage you to eat as much as you like, but you will be sorry if you trust him. What matters is not what he says to you, but what he really thinks in his heart (Proverbs 23:6-8).

23. The Psalmist’s Deliverance in Psalms 18:7-15 The language of Psalms 18:7-15 sounds like a cosmic event that shakes all of creation. But ancient Israelite songs, like some of our songs today, could express praise poetically. In this case, the psalmist describes a time when God delivered him personally (Psalms 18:4-6; Psalms 18:16-19). The deliverance sounds like it affects all creation, but in fact it reflects the dramatic experience of the psalmist, from whose perspective God’s intervention seemed too dramatic to narrate in any less cosmic manner.

24. Married Love in Song of Solomon 2:1-2

Many Christian songs depict Jesus as the “lily of the valley,” the “rose of Sharon,” and the “fairest of ten thousand.” The songs are beautiful, and their point is that Jesus is the greatest beauty and desire of our souls. We should not read the meaning of those beautiful songs back onto the meaning of the Song of Solomon, however; the “rose of Sharon” in this book does not refer to Jesus, directly or indirectly. This book is an ancient love song, which provides wonderful insights into romance, the language of marital desire and appreciation, dealing with conflicts in marriage (the brief conflict is Song of Solomon 5:2-6), the power of jealousy (Song of Solomon 8:6), etc. To the extent that it reflects the beauty of marital love, it may also supply us with words in our passionate pursuit of Christ, but this is not the direct subject of the book; the book is a practical example of romantic, married love. (For instance, the “banquet house” and “banner” in Song of Solomon 2:4 may refer to ancient wedding customs: while guests were banqueting at the wedding feast, bride and groom consummated their marriage and reportedly hung out a banner when they had sealed their union sexually. It is doubtful that we should read such details as a symbol of Christ; it reads much better as a picture of married sexual love in ancient Israel.) But even if Song of Solomon were but a symbol of Christ and His Church, as some have supposed, “rose of Sharon” and “lily of the valley” could not refer to Christ. As in the NIV, it is the bride who declares, “I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valley”-i.e., as beautiful as the most beautiful of flowers; her groom had made her feel loved, despite her own insecurities (Song of Solomon 1:6). The groom also compares her to a lily (Song of Solomon 2:2; Song of Solomon 7:2); she compares his approach to one who moves among the lilies (Song of Solomon 2:16; Song of Solomon 6:2-3; he also applies this image to her in Song of Solomon 4:5). Even if Song of Solomon were an allegory of Christ and the Church (which is very unlikely), “rose of Sharon” would not refer to Christ, but to His Church. More likely, it is an example of the beautiful romantic language that an inspired author could apply to his bride, as an inspired guide emphasizing the importance of romantic affection in our marriages today.

25. Church Discipline in Matthew 18:18

I used to follow a popular misinterpretation of this verse. As a young Christian, I used to use Matthew 18:18 to "bind" and "loose" demons whenever I would pray (as if demons were always standing by listening). Fortunately, God is more concerned with our faith than with our formulas, and graciously answered my prayers whether or not I threw any “binding” in. But one day I read Matthew 18:18 in context, and I realized that I had been misinterpreting the passage. Because my prayers had "worked," I decided to keep "binding" and "loosing"-but now that I knew better, the practice did not work anymore, because I could no longer do it in the integrity of my heart before God! Happily, I found that God still answered my prayers prayed in Jesus’ name without "binding."

What do "binding" and "loosing" mean in this context? In the context, Jesus indicates that if one’s fellow-Christian is living a sinful lifestyle, one must confront that Christian; if he or she refuses to listen, one should bring others so one will have two or three witnesses if one must bring the matter before the church. If despite repeated loving confrontations that person refuses to repent, the church must put that person out of the church to teach the person repentance (Matthew 18:15-17). In this context, Jesus declares that whatever they “bind” or “loose” on earth will have already been “bound” or “loosed” in heaven--i.e., under these circumstances, they clearly act on God’s authority (Matthew 18:18). Because the terms “binding” and “loosing” literally have to do with imprisoning or releasing people, and Jewish teachers used these terms to describe their legal authority, the terms make good sense in this context: the church must discipline its erring members, removing them from participation in the church if they continue in unapologetic sin. The “two or three” who pray in this context (Matthew 18:19) refer to the two or three witnesses (Matthew 18:16). I used to read this passage and worry that my prayers would be less efficacious if I could not find someone to join me in prayer; I did wonder, however, why my own faith would be insufficient. But this verse does not imply that prayer is efficacious only for a minimum of two persons; it promises that even if only two witnesses are available, and even if the prayers or actions on earth involve something as serious as withdrawing a person from the church, God will back up His servants whom He has authorized.

Perhaps the specific prayer in mind is a prayer that God will bring the disfellowshiped person to repentance and restoration; if so, Jesus deliberately contrasts the attitude required of His followers with the two or three witnesses in the Old Testament law, who were to be the first to stone those against whom they testified (Deuteronomy 17:7). Probably alluding to a Jewish saying circulating in the early centuries of this era-“Wherever two or three gather to study God’s law, His presence is among them”-Jesus assures His followers (specifically the witnesses) of His presence even in the difficult situation of church discipline (Matthew 18:20). Of course the principle of answered prayer applies to other prayers as well, but he specifies “two or three” here because he is referring to the “two or three” he just mentioned.

Although we cannot take space here to comment further on the matter, this particular passage does not support the common practice of “binding” demons as it is done today. Whereas “binding demons” in the way it is generally practiced today has no warrant in this text, however, it does appear in some ancient magical texts, which makes this practice even more suspect. When Jesus claims to have “bound the strong man” (Matthew 12:29), he does not first tell Satan, “I bind you” before casting out demons. He had already defeated the strong man by overcoming temptation and obeying the Father’s will; thus He was free to exercise His authority and cast out demons.

26. Jesus’ Post-resurrection Coming in John 14:3

Jesus tells His disciples, “In my Father’s house are many ‘dwelling-places’” (John 14:2; “mansions” comes from the Latin translation--it is not in the original Greek text). Jesus promises that He is going to prepare a place for His disciples, but will return and take them to be with Him where He is (John 14:2-3). Usually readers today assume that Jesus here refers to his future coming to take us to heaven or the new earth. If we had these verses by themselves, that view would make as much sense as any other; after all, Jesus often spoke of His second coming, and we will be with him forever. But the context indicates that Jesus is speaking of an earlier coming here: not just being with Jesus after he comes back in the future, but being with him in our daily lives in the present. How can this be?

Peter wants to follow Jesus wherever He goes, but Jesus tells him that if he wants to follow Jesus where He is going, he must follow Him to the death (John 13:31-38). Nevertheless, Peter and the other disciples should not be afraid; they should trust in Jesus the same way they trusted in the Father (John 14:1). He would prepare a dwelling-place for them in His Father’s house, and would come back afterwards to receive them to Himself (John 14:2-3). “You know where I’m going and how I will get there,” He told them (John 14:4). Perhaps like us, the disciples were confused, and Thomas spoke for all of them: “Lord, we don’t even know where You’re going; how can we know the way you’re getting there?” (John 14:5) So Jesus clarifies His point: Where He is going to the Father (John 14:6), and He is going there by dying on the Cross but would return afterward to give them the Spirit (John 14:18-19; John 16:18-22). How would they get to the Father? By coming through Jesus, who is the way (John 14:6).

We often cite John 14:2-3 as a proof-text for Jesus’ future coming; conversely, we cite John 14:6 as a proof-text for salvation. But if we follow the flow of conversation, we have to be wrong about one of them. John 14:2-3 declares that Jesus will bring them where He is going, but John 14:6 tells us where He’s going and how we His followers will get there: He is going to the Father, and we come to the Father when we get saved through Jesus (John 14:6). Do we come to the Father through Jesus only when He returns in the future, or have we come to Him already through faith? The entire context makes this point clear. We enter the Father’s house when we become followers of Jesus Christ! In the context of John’s entire Gospel, there is no reason to assume that the “Father’s house” refers to heaven, though it might be an allusion to the Temple (John 2:16) or to the Father’s household (John 8:35; and we are His new temple and His household). More helpfully, Jesus goes on to explain the “dwelling-places” (NIV: “rooms”) explicitly in the following context. The Greek word for “dwelling-place” used in John 14:2 occurs in only one other verse in the New Testament-in this very context, in John 14:23, part of Jesus’ continuing explanation of John 14:2-4. “The one who loves Me will obey Me, and My Father will love that one and we will come make our ‘dwelling-place’ with that person” (John 14:23). The related verb appears throughout John 15:1-10 : “Dwell [abide]” in Christ, and let Christ “dwell” in you. We all know that Jesus will return someday in the future, but if we read the rest of John we learn that Jesus also returned to them from the Father after His resurrection, when He gave the disciples the Spirit, peace and joy (John 20:19-23), just as He had promised (John 14:16-17; John 14:26-27; John 16:20-22). This is in fact the only coming the context addresses (John 14:18 in the context of John 14:15-27; John 16:12-24).

What is the real point of John 14:2-3? It is not that Jesus will return and we will be with Him someday-true as that teaching is from other texts. It is that Jesus returned after His resurrection so Christians could have life with Him (14:18-19), that He has already brought us into His presence and that we can experience the reality of His presence this very moment and at all times. This means that the same Jesus who washed his disciples feet in the preceding chapter, who taught and healed and suffered for us, is with us at this very moment. He invites us to trust His presence with us.

27. A Newborn Son in Isaiah 7:14

We are familiar with the New Testament use of the virgin-born son passage as a reference to Jesus in Matthew 1:23, but most of us have never considered how Matthew came to this conclusion. Matthew does not use all his Old Testament prophecies the same way. Some of Matthew’s other Scripture texts refer in the Old Testament not to Jesus but to Israel; for instance, “out of Egypt I called My son” clearly refers to Israel’s exodus from Egypt in Hosea 11:1, but Matthew applies it to Jesus’ exodus from Egypt (Matthew 2:15). Matthew is not saying that Hosea had Jesus in mind; he is saying that Jesus as the ultimate son of Abraham (Matthew 1:1) recapitulates Israel’s experiences (for instance, his forty days in the wilderness and His quotations from Deuteronomy in Matthew 4:1-11). That very chapter of Hosea goes on to speak of a new exodus, a new era of salvation comparable to the old one. Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 because he knows that Hosea himself pointed to a future salvation. So before we read Matthew’s application of Isaiah 7:14 into Isaiah, we must carefully examine what Isaiah 7:14 means in context. (If this exercise makes you nervous, you can skip to our conclusion, but make sure you come back and follow our discussion the whole way through.) Although Matthew 1:23 clearly refers to Jesus being born of a virgin (the Greek term is clear), scholars dispute whether the Hebrew words in Isaiah also refer necessarily to a “virgin” or, more generally, to a “young woman.” For the sake of argument, we will avoid this point and examine the context only. The king of Assyria was encroaching on the boundaries of Israel (the kingdom of Samaria) and Syria (Aram, the kingdom of Damascus). Realizing that they were in trouble, they tried to get the king of Judah (the kingdom of Jerusalem) to join them in fighting the Assyrians. When he proved uncooperative, they sought to force him to join their coalition. At this time, God sent the prophet Isaiah to Ahaz, king of Judah, to warn him not to join the coalition of Israel and Syria. (Keep in mind that Judah and Israel were two separate countries by this point in their history.) Syria or Aram (represented by its capital Damascus) and Israel or Ephraim (represented by Samaria) would be crushed shortly (Isaiah 7:4-9).

Isaiah even offered the Judean king Ahaz a sign to confirm that Aram and Israel would quickly fall (Isaiah 7:10-13). The sign was one that would get Ahaz’s attention: a woman would bear a son and name him Immanuel, “God is with us” (Isaiah 7:14). Before the son would know right from wrong, while still eating curds (Isaiah 7:15; this was in Isaiah’s day, Isaiah 7:21-25), the Assyrian king would devastate Aram and Israel (7:16-20). In other words, the child would be born in Ahaz’s generation! But then, why was the son named, “God is with us”? Perhaps for the same reason that all Isaiah’s children bore symbolic names (Isaiah 8:18), just as Hosea’s children were prophetic signs to the northern kingdom of Israel in roughly the same period (Hosea 2:4-9). We will come back to this point later in our discussion.

After offering this prophecy to Ahaz, Isaiah was sent in to “the prophetess” (presumably his young, new wife, who may have also had the gift of prophecy) and she got pregnant. They named the son “Mahershalalhashbaz”-“Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey.” God said to name the child this as a sign to Judah that God would quickly give Judah’s enemies into the hands of the Assyrian army. Before the boy was old enough to utter the most childish form of, “Mother” or “Father,” Assyria would plunder Aram and Israel (Isaiah 8:1-10). In other words, Isaiah’s own son would be the sign to Ahaz: his birth would be quickly followed by the devastation of the lands to the north that had sought to force Judah into their coalition. Judah needed to know that “God is with us,” and that Aram’s and Israel’s “booty” would be carried away “speedily,” and its “prey...swiftly” (Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 8:3). So why did Matthew think Isaiah 7:14 could be applied to Jesus? Probably not for the same reason we often do. We apply Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus because we never read its immediate context; Matthew probably applied it to Jesus because he read past the immediate context to the broader context of surrounding passages. As we mentioned before, Isaiah’s children were for “signs,” each teaching Judah of what God would do (Isaiah 8:18). The immediate sign of God being with Judah would be the conquest of their enemies to the north; but the ultimate act of God being with them would be when God Himself actually came to be with them. In the very next passage, Isaiah announces a hope that would extend beyond Judah even to the northern kingdom of Israel (Isaiah 9:1-2), a conquering king, a child who would be born to the house of Judah (Isaiah 9:3-7). Not only would He be called “God is with us”; like his other titles, which appropriately apply to Him, “Mighty God” would apply to Him (Isaiah 9:6, a title of God also found in the context, Isaiah 10:21). This Davidic King (Isaiah 9:7) would be God in the flesh (Isaiah 9:6); in the ancient near East, where Israel may have been unusual for not turning its kings into gods, Isaiah certainly would not have risked calling this king “Mighty God” if he had not meant that God Himself was coming to reign as one of David’s descendants. Matthew was right, but not for the reason we would have assumed!

Some critics of Matthew, who believe that he simply did not know the context, are skeptical. It is fair to point out to them that Matthew demonstrates his knowledge of the context just three chapters later. There he applies to Jesus a passage from Isaiah 9:1-2 (Matthew 4:15-16), showing that the context of Isaiah 7:14 remains fresh in his mind!

Conclusion to Chapter 2 As we have seen, context dramatically affects the way we interpret each passage. But in most cases context must go beyond the surrounding paragraph to surrounding chapters or even the entire book in which a passage occurs. Thus we turn in the next chapter to a discussion of a larger level of context in which many readers are not yet skilled.