“When we study Scripture, it’s important to look at the full picture—who’s speaking, who they’re speaking to, what’s happening, and how it fits into the rest of the Bible. Pulling verses from different places without considering their context can lead to misunderstandings. It’s like quoting someone out of a conversation—they might sound like they’re saying something they never meant.”
What Is "Context" in Bible Study?
In biblical study, context refers to the circumstances surrounding a passage that help determine its meaning. This includes:
Literary Context – The verses before and after, the chapter, and the book as a whole.
Historical Context – The cultural, political, and social setting of the time.
Grammatical Context – The original language, sentence structure, and word meanings.
Theological Context – How the passage fits into the broader message of Scripture.
Canonical Context – How it relates to the rest of the Bible, especially the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
Example of Good Context Use
Passage: Philippians 4:13 – “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”
Good Contextual Understanding:
Paul is writing from prison.
He’s talking about enduring hardship and being content in all circumstances.
The “all things” refers to enduring both abundance and need—not winning a football game or becoming rich.
Why It’s Good: It respects the literary and situational context, leading to a spiritually mature understanding of reliance on Christ.
Example of Bad Context Use
Passages Used Together:
Matthew 7:1 – “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”
1 Corinthians 2:15 – “He that is spiritual judgeth all things…”
Misuse: Someone might use these two verses to argue that Christians can judge others freely because they are “spiritual,” while also claiming that no one should judge them in return.
Why It’s Bad:
Matthew 7:1 is part of a teaching on hypocrisy and self-examination.
1 Corinthians 2:15 is about spiritual discernment, not moral judgment of others.
These verses are from different contexts and address different issues.
Combining them ignores the broader teachings on humility, accountability, and love.
“The Bible faithfully records what people said, but not everything said is God’s truth. We have to ask: Who is speaking? Are they speaking by the Spirit of God? Just because something is in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s doctrine—it might be there to show us what not to believe.”
Should We Take Every Quote in the Bible as Doctrine?
No, not every quote in the Bible is meant to be taken as doctrine. The Bible contains:
God’s words
Words of prophets and apostles
Words of righteous people
Words of sinners, skeptics, and even Satan
All of these are recorded accurately, but not all are endorsed.
Examples of Misused Quotes
These men speak at length, offering what sounds like spiritual wisdom. But at the end of the book, God rebukes them:
“You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” (Job 42:7)
So while their speeches are recorded, they are not doctrinally reliable. Quoting them to build theology is dangerous unless their words are affirmed elsewhere in Scripture.
Gamaliel gives a wise-sounding speech about letting movements die out if they’re not from God. But:
He’s a Pharisee, not a follower of Jesus.
His advice is pragmatic, not prophetic.
The early church didn’t adopt this as a principle for discernment.
It’s a historical account, not a theological endorsement.
“The Bible sometimes quotes or refers to other writings, but that doesn’t mean those writings are inspired or doctrinal. Just like a pastor might quote a history book or a poem in a sermon, the biblical authors could use familiar sources to make a point. But our doctrine has to come from the books that are part of the inspired canon.”
Should We Use Non-Canonical Books Like Enoch or Jashar to Support Doctrine?
Short answer: No, we should not use them to establish doctrine, though they can sometimes be used to illustrate or provide historical background—with caution.
Why Books Like Enoch or Jashar Are Mentioned
Jude 1:14–15 quotes from the Book of Enoch.
Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18 mention the Book of Jashar.
These references show that:
These books were known and respected in ancient times.
They may have contained historical or poetic material that was useful or familiar to the audience.
But they were not considered inspired Scripture by the Jewish or early Christian communities.
Key Distinction: Quoting vs. Endorsing
Just because a biblical writer quotes a source doesn’t mean they are endorsing the entire book as authoritative. For example:
Paul quotes pagan poets (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12).
That doesn’t mean those poets were inspired by God.
The Holy Spirit can use a true statement from a non-inspired source to make a point—but that doesn’t elevate the source to the level of Scripture.
Why We Don’t Build Doctrine on These Books
They’re not part of the canon—they weren’t recognized as inspired by the early church or by Jesus Himself.
They contain theological errors—for example, 1 Enoch includes speculative angelology and cosmology not supported elsewhere in Scripture.
They lack apostolic authority—doctrine must be rooted in the teachings of Christ and His apostles (Ephesians 2:20).
Be careful who people attribute a quote to. I recently saw something like this...
Dan 9:27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."
"He" will put a stop to sacrifice....
Who is the "He" here? It was inferred that it was Jesus who stopped this. But in the context of the verses around it... is that true?
The Case Against Jesus Being the “Prince”
However, the majority of futurist and dispensational interpreters argue that the “prince who is to come” is not Jesus, but a future Antichrist figure, and here’s why:
The grammar of Daniel 9:26–27 points to “the people of the prince who is to come” as the destroyers of Jerusalem—historically, the Romans.
The “he” in verse 27 most naturally refers to this prince, not the Messiah who was “cut off” in the previous verse.
The actions in verse 27—breaking a covenant, causing abominations, and bringing desolation—are more consistent with the Antichrist, not Christ.
Jesus never made a 7-year covenant or broke one—He fulfilled the eternal covenant.
Daniel 11:31–36 (Key Highlights)
“Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation.” (v. 31)
“Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will speak monstrous things against the God of gods…” (v. 36)
Desecrates the temple – He stops sacrifices and sets up the abomination.
Exalts himself above all gods – This is a direct challenge to divine authority.
Speaks blasphemies – He opposes the true God.
Acts with apparent success for a time – Until judgment comes.
This description mirrors what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4:
“The man of lawlessness… who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.”
