jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (39 posts)

Why is context relevant to some verses of the Bible and not others?

  1. jlpark profile image86
    jlparkposted 2 years ago

    Why is context relevant to some verses of the Bible and not others?

    For some reason, my previous question was deleted by HP - I apologise if I caused offense - I'm actually curious (and would actually like to write a hub...). Here goes: It was suggested to me that the Biblical verses condoning slavery make sense when considered in their historical context - that it was bartering, not the 'slavery' we consider today. However, I'm curious as to why it applies to these verses, but it often gets over looked in relation to those verses pulled out to support anti-gay sentiment as well as other things. Is it because slavery is now frowned upon or something else?

  2. creativearts2009 profile image82
    creativearts2009posted 2 years ago

    I believe one argument I heard for considering slavery in context was that slavery was a way of life in Asia Minor at that time. Slaves were housed, clothed and fed by their "owners". Some slaves were educated and well treated. (Some would be mis-treated of course.) However, the owner provided protection. If the slaves ran from their owners, they could be hunted down and killed by the Roman legions. They would be breaking the "law" of the time by being alone unless their owners had given them papers outlining their errand or granting them freedom. I am not sure which verses you refer to as being pulled out to support anti-gay sentiment, but I am sure those verses had a context too. You would have to consider each text on a text by text basis and bear in mind that this topic is very emotional for people on both sides of the argument.

    1. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thats what I was getting at - it seems better in context, rather than modern view of slavery. The anti-gay verses make sense in the context of their time of writing - that no longer exists now, but are often used out of context. I was jst wondering y

    2. creativearts2009 profile image82
      creativearts2009posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      if you want to follow that line you need to research the attitudes of the time. Are you referring to OT or NT times? Our word for homosexual comes from the Greek word for man, as I believe Greco-Roman society was quite liberal.

    3. profile image57
      Norine Williamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      J: As I said previously, Homosexuality was "CARRIED OVER"  under New Covenant! Rm 1:21-32! Read it!

    4. creativearts2009 profile image82
      creativearts2009posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I expect I should stay out of this...the text quoted by Norrine does indeed seem harsh. I would suggest reading it in context with Rom 3:23: " for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". God also wishes to save all.

    5. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Norine - CONTEXT. Lev made sense for the time. Romans was written by Paul. Not God. And why only homosexuality?
      Creative - attitudes are included in "context". It makes sense at the time of writing, but no longer.

    6. creativearts2009 profile image82
      creativearts2009posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      My concern is  hub might fail on assumptions? The Romans continued Greek adulation of the primarily male body in art. Why  would Paul go with society on slavery and against it on sexuality? I'm not an expert on practice & don't want to be explici

    7. profile image57
      Norine Williamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Crete: Don't "Cherry Pick" read on!  Rm 3:23-25:"..for the remission of sins that are PAST..." Yes, save all.

      Jac: If mentioned under New Covenant=WORD! Jesus spake thru Paul (vessel) via Holy Spirit (Jer 31:33;Heb 8:10:1016). Rd Gal 3:28. Not only

    8. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Norine - Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. Pagans of the time of Paul had sexual nature to their rituals, so to turn people away from Pagan + towards Christianity - best to denouce the fun bits.
      Create - not just 2 things - covering all.

    9. profile image57
      Norine Williamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Jacq: What u fail to realize is Paul was "in Christ's Stead!" Did u read Jer 31:33;Heb 8:10 & 10:16 (put laws in heart & mind)? Acts 9:15 "Chosen Vessel!" Paul speaking for JESUS via Holy Spirit! If Paul said it was JESUS! Jesus=Sodom & G

    10. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Jesus speaks of Sodoms sin in Ezekiel. It was not homosexuality (also the word doesn't exist in ancient Hebrew or Greek - if it exists in yr bible it's a mistranslation)

    11. profile image57
      Norine Williamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Jacq: Sodomy="anal sex" which is in my Bible!  Whether hetero or homo="an abomination!" Why justify? It's in Bible!
      I love the sinner but hate the sin!

    12. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Sodomy is anal sex which is enjoyed by heterosexual couples as well. Paul spoke of Arsenokoitai and Malakoi - neither of which are "homo" - they are 'soft' and "effeminate". Not specifically homosexuals in either sodomy or Romans/Cor. Context, Nor.

    13. profile image57
      Norine Williamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Jacq: Homosexuals enjoy "anal sex" (sodomy)! Therefore, homosexuality mentioned in Sodom & Gomorah!

    14. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Norine - so do many heterosexuals. Also many lesbians do not enjoy anla sex, yet they are homosexuals too...don't generalise. Some gay men also do not enjoy it, nor do they partake it in. Please try again with yr reasoning, cause it's not working.

    15. profile image57
      Norine Williamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Jacq: U said "sodomy!" Whatever still "unnatural!"  I Cor 6:9! Why argue? IT IS WRITTEN!  Do u have doubt of your belief? Stand firm in what u blv (free will)! I'm just saying AGAINST GOD by giving Scripture of what He's said!

  3. profile image57
    Norine Williamsposted 2 years ago

    Listen guys!  I know some believe one is born with homosexual tendencies, but research has not found one gene to substantiate that theory.  "Challenged research conducted by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD, published the first of these studies, suggesting that a specific stretch of the X chromosome called Xq28 holds a gene or genes that predispose man to being gay. Many researchers were skeptical that an analysis ...was reliable, and several other groups failed to replicate the results" (news.sciencemag.org).  Therefore, this lifestyle is one of "choice" and not innate!

    With that being said, from a "Biblical" standpoint, you mentioned "...Bible verses (concerning slavery) are applied (Galatians 3:28, "...neither bond nor free...) but often over looked in relation to verses pulled out to support anti-gay sentiment as well as other things." 

    Jacqui, the first thing you need to look at is that we are currently under a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10; 10:16). (Please read these for understanding.)  If stated in Old Covenant and "Carried Over" under New Covenant - WORD!  Scripture regarding homosexuality in Old Covenant is found in Leviticus 20:13 and under New Covenant in Romans 1:24-32 ("Carried Over")!

    As the world contends, Paul was not Jesus!  However, did you notice in Jeremiah and Hebrews above, under New Covenant God said {paraphrasing} He would "...put his laws in their mind, and write them in their hearts..?"  Which is precisely what He did under the New Covenant via the Holy Spirit!  In Acts 9:15 Jesus said (of Paul) "...he is a "Chosen Vessel unto me..."  When a "Chosen Vessel" of GOD, you speak in His Stead (as with Moses)!  Therefore, the Words written by Paul were "directly" from GOD (II Timothy 3:16)! 

    We all have "free will" to do as we please but not all actions are condoned by GOD!  GOD sees homosexuality as "an abomination" (Leviticus). Scriptures say in I Corinthians 6:9 "...nor abusers of themselves with mankind..will inherit the kingdom of God," but we "struggle" (not only in the area of "homosexuality") for "...evil is present with me..." (Romans 7:21-25) and we must "...keep under my body, and bring it into subjection..." (I Corinthians 9:27).

    No, it is not "because slavery is now frowned upon," rather we are under a New Covenant in which Galatians 3:28 ("...neither bond nor free..") was enacted under the New Covenant.           

    Hope this helps!

    1. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Context, Norine. Not just scriptural context, but social, historical and cultural context. Sure, you could use "new covenant" for everything - but it doesn't replace the other contexts that existed at the time of writing that no longer apply.

    2. profile image57
      Norine Williamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Jacq: Point: As creator of robot, you're god. As Creator of us, He's God & can do as please as u if creator of robot!  GOD will ALWAYS prove He's God! (Dan 4:35-Read for understanding!)

      Again, if ANYTHING impeded Christ coming, MOVE!

    3. lawrence01 profile image80
      lawrence01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Norine
      Even if we create a robot we do not become its 'god' because we can envisage greater than ourselves (Anselm ontological argument) God is that which 'no greater can be envisaged'

    4. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Norine - in response to yr linking sodomy to Gen 19 - te term is 'yada' - 'to know' which every other 'yada' is trans to. Judges has a similar scene, yet you don't seem to have a problem with hetero rape, or Lot offering his daughters in Gen 19 4 sex

    5. lawrence01 profile image80
      lawrence01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Jaqui
      Personally I do have a problem with that. Just because the Bible mentions it doesn't mean it condones it! If you take the whole thing in context of the whole Bible you see it has a major problem with it!

    6. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yet, if it's something that people seem 2 disagree with, it's ok 2 use verses out of context (social/cultural/historical + scriptural)? Becuz u talk 2 me abt the context, yet Gen, Lev, Romans etc are always used out of context. Hence, my original ?

    7. lawrence01 profile image80
      lawrence01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You'll have to be more specific about what's being quoted 'out of context' as those books are pretty broad in what they talk about! Regrading the historical I say again, just the Bible records it doesn't mean it condones it!

    8. profile image57
      Norine Williamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Law: U have PWR to do anything to thg u create!  So does GOD! Written what He wil/will not do!

      Jacq: I don't do anything!  GOD says! I Cor 6:9-10! U can't compare man's study to bible, i.e. social, historical, etc! MAN LIES! What's "out of context?"

    9. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      All of the 'Clobber verses" - Lev 18:20, The "unnatural lusts" in Romans + Cor, Gen 19, etc are used out of cultural, historical + often scriptural context - plucked out of the chapter they're in, s0 they fit the cause.So ok 4 u bt not 4 us to do?

    10. lawrence01 profile image80
      lawrence01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Jaqui
      Those verses have a historical context and cultural ones too, but they are not taken out of context just because we don't like them! In fact the reason they're there is because the culture itself was faulty and as such some things still app

    11. profile image57
      Norine Williamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Law: Thks for speaking TRUTH!  God sees! 

      Jacq: There r thgs in bible I don't like either but WRITTEN!  Some thgs cramp the way "I WANT" to live but had to "HUMBLE" myself & blv in his WORD for "Benefits!" GOD'S no respector of person! Rm2:11

    12. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Lawrence - the clobber verses make complete sense in the context of that time, context that no longer exists modern day, yet r removed from historical etc context + attempted 2 b applied modern day + no prob. Slavery etc do the same + big issue..y?

    13. profile image57
      Norine Williamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Jacq: Why do u thk GOD is going to chg for U,i.e, "modern day?"  We're talking G O D not "the times!" There's "NOTHING "new" under the sun!" (Ecc 1:9)

    14. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yet, the slavery verse don't apply in the modern days, or the rapist must marry his victim verses don't apply - because the context no longer applies....funny that.

    15. profile image57
      Norine Williamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Jacq: Again, "If "CARRIED OVER" under the New Covenant, WORD!  Marriage=As Christ is to the Church (Eph 5:22-23). "What "GOD" joins..." Slavery=Gal 3:28!  New Day=New Covenant!

      Old Testament Laws no longer valid (Gal 3:24-25) UNLESS "carried over"

    16. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Those clobber verses from the 'New Cov' are also used out of context - historical, cultural, social. So, New Cov + "carried over" doesn't work for them. What now? And a New Cov means that times HAVE changed before, whats to say they haven't now?

    17. profile image57
      Norine Williamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Jac: What u fail to realize, "clobber verses" r His Word when "carried over" whether u or I like them! I can't related to "social, historical context!"  God doesn't care about NOTHING but HIS WORD!

      NEW COV REMAINS UNTIL HIS RETURN!

  4. lawrence01 profile image80
    lawrence01posted 2 years ago

    The answer is that 'context' should always be applied to all verses of the Bible, in fact it should be applied to every written document!
    It's true that many of us don't apply the rule evenly (as you pointed out) but that's our 'fallen human nature' coming through! By the way skeptics and Atheists are just as guilty of this as believers!
    By the way the 'slavery' of the New Testament was different in that many of the 'professions' of today were the positions of 'servants' or slaves!
    Are you a teacher? Or accountant? What about a doctor? Or engineer? All those were 'servant' or 'slave' positions!
    The traditional 'slave' position we think of was mainly reserved for the Prisoner of War or worst criminals that didn't quite make 'Death row' so there is some truth to it!
    Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all fit this category of 'servant/slave' and Aristotle was a 'servant' to Alexander the Great!
    With regard to homosexuality, the best reaction is what Jesus said to the prostitute "go your way and sin no more" pretty clear really! Just like sex outside Marriage gets the same from him!
    Hope this helps
    Lawrence

    1. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for your answer, and your comment on Norine's - It's the point I'm trying to make - people always take the verses out of context, so they fit the use they are giving them, but don't like it if it's done back. Thanks for understanding that!

    2. profile image57
      Norine Williamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Law: Yes "Go & SIN no more." U see Jacq, it's a SIN per Scripture! It's only "out of context" bcuz it conflicts w/ur belief and/or lifestyle!  U appear to have doubt w/uneasiness deep inside? Pray & ask the Lord for guidance thru His Word!

    3. jlpark profile image86
      jlparkposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Nor- I'm an atheist, nor am I uneasy with anything. The clobber verses have context, as do the ones u try 2 insist I c the context of - yet, u ignore the historical, cultural context of the 1's I mention even the 'New Cov" 1s have context u ignore.

 
working