To fully comprehend the rich vistas of the Bible documents in their unparalleled truth and beauty is perhaps beyond the range of any single human mind.
Yet they were specifically given for us to understand!

Human understanding is the product of a process. This process incorporates every level of our awareness of the Bible.
   It starts with the gathered text, and leads us within the –

on ultimately into – the perspective and the purpose or intention of the ultimate Author of the sacred text – the Lord of Glory.

This takes time but there is no intellectual task in all human history more deserving than to understand God's Word from God's perspective; that is, as He intended it to be understood. Christianity has been blighted, and lives denied the illumination of God's truth, by simply reading Holy Scripture as a source of doctrine, and/or devotional experience. Our understanding must start with respect for the real historical context given by the Bible itself to every principle it expresses.

The Bible was written for us but it was not written to us. Therefore, a proper understanding of the context of each statement of Scripture is essential to comprehending its spiritual principle expressed, which is applicable to all everywhere.

The allegorical abuse of Holy Scripture beginning with Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo (20BC–50AD) originated from ancient Greeks trying to find some moral meaning in the myths of their pagan gods, but from before the end of the first century AD it began to be used among Greek Christians, mainly in Alexandria, Egypt. This influence originated from the highly respected Jewish philosopher Philo .

Philo's philosophy drew on the dualism of Plato and the Greek Stoics, and so he viewed all matter as eternal and inherently evil (dualism). In particular, he developed a system of allegorising the Hebrew Bible. Philo's method applied to passages such as God making the world in six days twisted it to mean that there are six ages in human history before the millennium or seventh age, and that the Garden of Eden is just a symbol of Divine wisdom in which we were meant to dwell.

This influence then in Christian circles created the formula by perverting 2 Peter 3:8, in contradiction of its context, that one-day=1,000-years for Philo's six age-days which became six-thousand-years for the totality of human history until Christ's return; an idea which has blighted and twisted Christian understanding of Christ's second coming ever since.

If allegorising violates Holy Scripture, it does not mean that Scripture only applies to the people to whom it was initially addressed. God's word applied to those persons is His application of spiritual principles, and these principles are therefore forever, but they will not be understood unless the actual context of the particular situation is fully understood.

An illustration of this vital need to understand the historical context of a passage in Scripture (distressingly deficient among many clergy of all Christian denominations) is shown for instance in the handling of the Gospel of John Chapter Six.

The context is Christ's supernatural multiplication of the loaves and fishes to feed a crowd of many thousands. The impact of this miracle caused many in the crowd to choose to make Him their leader ('by force to make him king', 6:15). They track Him to the other side of the lake (He had walked on water to the disciples during the night after sending them away to avoid the determined crowd).

The following words of Jesus are falsified into a statement of the doctrine of divine election. That doctrine is taught elsewhere in the Bible but it is not the content of the words of Jesus here:

This is Jesus speaking in direct rebuttal of the crowd's intention to become His followers for personal gain. Christ's statement is a correction addressed to a specific group in a special circumstance. The crowd had decided that it was profitable to them to have Him as their leader. He had given them food at no cost. They wanted to follow Him for personal benefit, and were determined to do so. Personal repentance before God was not in their minds. For us then to take these words out of their context and generalize them to mean something else is a falsification of the Word of God. This audience is the same people of whom the Bible had earlier said:

"Perceiving then that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king,
Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by Himself."

The following words of Jesus in the same context as above are used to mean that salvation comes to the believer through the eating and drinking of the sacrament of Holy Communion, the Mass.

"So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on Me, he also will live because of Me'."

In this, Christ describes His own personal human relationship to the Father as the model for a personal spiritual relationship with Him – for all who would follow Him. He purposefully puts it in metaphorical terms that would be highly offensive to Jewish culture – cannibalism. We know this is not a reference to a sacramental ritual, for Christ's example in His relationship of 'feeding on the Father' gives us no sacramental observance whatsoever. It simply describes His personal intimate devotional relationship to God, as had been prophesied concerning Him that thereby He would know how to fulfil His ministry.

"The Lord GOD has given Me the tongue of those who are taught, that I may know how to sustain with a word him who is weary. Morning by morning He awakens; He awakens My ear to hear as those who are taught."

So these two sad examples are a caution to us today to treat the Bible's own given context with great respect in reading His Word. So –

These three specific contextual factors above need to be integrated then into a whole for them to open up a true perspective on the holy text. It is important that this process of understanding develop into a conceptual framework in the mind of the reader/teacher. So then, this framework consists of these three specific perceptual-angles for a full perspective, namely:

As for any written text, there are always other aspects, but these essential three are the necessary elements for a framework of human understanding to do justice to the text.

It is however sadly true that, of every kind of widely studied writing, none is more associated with differing and contradictory interpretations than the Bible. The most significant demonstration of this conflict of interpretations is shown by the New Testament itself, in the difference between Jesus and the rabbinic schools of that time in their understanding of the Jewish Bible.

For instance, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matthew is His refutation of the Scribes and Pharisees interpretation of the Bible, the Old Testament. This is not new teaching from Jesus that goes beyond the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament). It is simply a Spirit-anointed corrective exposition of it in the light of the intention and character of its Author, God, applied at an intensely personal level. It is an exposition that establishes a fundamental distinction to the rabbinical teaching of His day, to which His disciples had been subject.

Unfortunately, Christian history has produced no more unity in understanding than did the first century rabbis of Palestine.

In Alexandria of Egypt, where allegory had long been used to find meaning in Greek myths, allegory unfortunately also became a dominant method of interpreting Holy Scripture. Allegory is more than symbolism. It is the use of one story under guise for another.

The influence of this method spread throughout Christianity and heavily influenced interpretation of the Bible, especially of those parts regarded as difficult or in conflict with the world-view of the time.

Although the Bible does make rich use of symbolism, to read its narratives themselves as allegory or symbolic myths, is often to violate the intention of the Bible text itself. This is in effect dishonesty to the text.

Composed of several languages and dialects reflecting cultures spread from the rivers of Mesopotamia to the valley of Egypt, the Bible manuscripts have their root in the origin and history of ancient Israel – a nation, in whose ups and downs the ways of the Most High God are demonstrated throughout the text.

Too often Bible statements have been simply read as the material with which to construct doctrine. This reduces or even negates an awareness of the historical vitality of the text, and, as a consequence, prevents a proper understanding of the significance of the text itself. This "proof text" mentality is responsible for much error in the thinking of the Christian church and is to blame for many conflicts in understanding.

The Bible is the record of God's self-revelation in human history through the lens of ancient Israel, written and edited by a variety of persons in widely differing circumstances. These persons were not composing theology. They were responding to the real needs of their own time. Through these men and women God has made Himself known, uniquely!

The principles and prophecies of the Holy Scriptures, that stretch across the centuries to affect our own future, arose out of real life historical situations. Without an understanding of the historical circumstance where the roots of these truths were planted, we put ourselves at serious risk of misunderstanding the intention of God's anointed writers.

The Bible text carries an intrinsic sense of the history into which the revelation of God was poured. Personalities and events interact to form an authentic human context, within which God reveals Himself.

Exterior testimony to that history, from archaeology and history, is useful but not essential to a sense of the historical reality within which the vitality of the truth is communicated. The text itself, to the attentive reader, bears testimony to the historical perspective in understanding the Bible.

For instance: the danger of not having an adequate awareness of the historical situation reflected in the text is illustrated by a common misunderstanding of God's "120 years" statement in Genesis 6:3. The 120 years is part of the command to make the Ark. Yet this has too often been understood as a longevity decree of God's judgment on humanity (i.e. from c.900 years to a 120-year-lifespan). But the history within the text shows us that the 120 years is the period of time left from God's announcement of it until the Flood itself would come. This is the period of the Ark's construction, from the command of God until its completion, the period in which Noah was warning the people (see also 1 Pet.3:20). It is not how long people were hereafter meant to live.

But perhaps the most crucial historical perspective that should illuminate our view is the historical change that occurred in Jesus' encounter with Israel, in which He announces the historical consequence of their rejection of Him –

"Therefore ...

The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits".

Grasping this historical discontinuity is crucial to a proper understanding of the newness of the New Covenant, and consequently of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, and how the Old Testament relates to us today. Inadequacy in this regard still continues to hinder the Christian Church.

An inadequate grasp of the history in the text will thus lead to these misunderstandings that remain to rob us of a true and full understanding.

Much has been made of the genre (type) of the various parts of Scripture; sometimes in an effort to deny or avoid dealing with the historical veracity of the text. In this regard it is useful to note the words of respected archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen (Liverpool University) that –

"Literary form has no bearing on the historical worth of a text." (emphasis mine).

The Bible is one of the richest imaginable writings in the variety of literary devices used to convey its message.

But, while historical truth may be clothed in poetry and metaphor, the literary structure of the Bible as an integrated and balanced whole needs first to be appreciated if the complementarity and consistency of the Bible's teachings are to be understood.

Most writers of Scripture had not only never met each other, they also came from differing social, cultural, and even linguistic backgrounds. The Bible's unity of content, in the face of this wide range of its writers over a period of nearly 1500 years, is incomparable and points directly back to its ultimate Author.

For a summary glimpse of some of this literary structure, see – the  Autonomy of Scripture.

An important aspect of the literary perspective is the use of symbol. Under this I will include personification also, such as Foolishness and Wisdom represented as women in Proverbs. Failure to understand this led to some finding Jesus as only intermediate Creator and as the first act of the Father, in the phrase –

But it is the female Wisdom (an attribute of the Most High) that speaks in this personification of that most desired quality, just as the female prostitute personifies the foolishness of fools.

Again, appearance is sometimes wonderfully symbolic even though the thing itself is real. The obvious example of this is Jesus in the book of Revelation –

In each case, various elements of His appearance carry a message in their symbolism, but the Lord Jesus in Himself is real and is not a symbol. This same principle applies to the four Living Beings (Cherubim, according to Ezekiel) and the twenty-four Elders (Watchers in Daniel 4:17; Thrones in Daniel 7:9).

An example of the first (the Old Testament) is the cubic appearance of the Holy City, the New Jerusalem – the Wife of the Lamb (Rev.21:9).

It is a twelve thousand stadia cube! The shape is to be understood from the cube shape of the Most Holy Place in Moses' Tabernacle (10³) and its cube shape in Solomon's Temple (20³). The cubic shape being the common factor of the place that represents God's immediate presence.

But note: the number twelve does not represent the nation Israel. It represents God's rule/government/supervision! God promised Abraham that Ishmael, his son by the Egyptian Hagar (whose descendants were not to be part of Israel), would have twelve sons/clans (Gen.17:20;25:16). This significance in the number originated from ancient Egypt in whose belief system the Most High was understood to govern the day in twelve parts and govern the night in twelve parts (the origin of our 24-hour-day today). Thus twelve concerning Ishmael simply represented this to Abraham who would have been aware of this at that time without needing an explanation from God of why twelve. He would have understood it as a reassurance of God's care for Ishmael’s descendants (the Arab peoples), his first son and for whom he had prayed for God’s blessing.

Likewise, the number 'twelve thousand' is taken from the full complement of the tribes of the covenant people (whether Simeon and Levi are counted or left out of the counting) then multiplied by the maximum unit size of the time – namely 1,000.

In other words in symbolic speech the Bride of Christ, in fulfillment as the Wife of the Lamb, is the full complement of the Lord's people who – as the place of God's presence (cube) – are the seat/place of His rule over all, forever!

Every Bible listing of Israel's tribes includes Dan, except this presentation in Revelation. Why? Because we are dealing with the elements of Old Testament Israel used as symbols of the New Testament 'Israel of God' – the Christian Church. This is not 'replacement theology'. This is consistent contextual exegesis. And Dan’s absence does not mean that somehow the Antichrist will be a Jew of the tribe of Dan as some foolishly speculate, for Antichrist is ‘anti’, against Christ, not ‘ante’, in the place of Christ, so he does not need a pedigree.

Also drawn from the Old Testament, specifically its prophecies against Babylon, is the metaphor of the sea as a symbol of pagan nations –

"The sea has come up on Babylon; she is covered with its tumultuous waves." (Jer.51:42), for
"the wicked are like the tossing sea; for it cannot be quiet" (Jer.57:20),

just as Isaiah the prophet had previously used:

"the wicked are like the tossing sea; for it cannot be quiet, and its waters toss up mire and dirt." (57:20)

Hence the logical significance of the phrase: that in God's new earth – "the sea was no more" (Rev.21:1) means – the whole world knows the Lord! This has nothing to do with the future of fisheries, but it has everything to do with God's rule fulfilled in all the earth!

An example of the second (the sociopolitical context) is 'Babylon' presented as a woman seated on seven mountains. A knowledge of the history of the time informs us that Emperor Vespasian had struck a coin on which he portrayed the city of Rome as a woman seated on seven hills. The code name "Babylon" was especially necessary as John describes (from inside a Roman prison) the destruction of this woman, the city, at the hands of the Antichrist, the Beast. The dual significance of the hills, as also representing a succession of seven rulers, made it necessary to portray them as mountains.

With regard to this sociopolitical context of the first readers of the Bible, it is also of particular interest to note, concerning the Seven-Sealed Book in the right hand of God (5:1-5), that Roman law at the time of writing required that a Last Will and Testament of a Roman citizen be sealed with seven seals (the testator, five witnesses, and the executor, under the Republic, but later relaxed under Empire to the seals of seven witnesses whatever their function). This gave special importance to the significance of this scroll, and explains John's deep emotional distress that no-one is found worthy to inherit the kingdom of the Most High. But Jesus the Man is found worthy to be King of kings and Lord of lords! Hallelujah!

Another example of this value of taking the sociopolitical circumstance of the first readers into account is the wording of the Bible's absolute assurance that nothing shall separate God's people from His love. The Apostle Paul writes to the Roman Christians:

"For I am sure that neither death nor life, ...nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."  (Rom.8:38-39).

The translation is literally correct, but that doesn't help us, for it was its colloquial use of the terms at that time that carries its meaning. At the time that this was written, the terms 'height' and 'depth' represented a special meaning to the people of Rome –

In other words, Paul is reminding the Roman Christians that no matter what Roman astrologers say, it has no influence what-so-ever upon the life of those who are in Jesus Christ! Thank you Lord!

Well, that's enough to illustrate the importance of –
    (1) Old Testament background to the New; and,
    (2) The socio-cultural circumstance of its first readers in the use of language and terms.

The Bible documents were written by real people whose personal lives are unavoidably a background to the character of the text. This is true even when an editor's hand has completed a document (such as the writings of Moses) or when there is no direct knowledge of the human source of the writing (such as Job).

An empathy with the persons portrayed helps directly to make the historical situation in the text more comprehensible.

However, sometimes the value of this aspect is obscured by scribal errors and tradition reflected in even our oldest copies of holy scripture. An example of this is the treatment of psalm titles by copyists and consequently by translators.

All versions of the Psalms mix what is often the footnote of the preceding psalm with the title of the following psalm. In consequence, often a poetic title is then taken to be an unknown tune of the time, by unfortunately adding the words – "the tune of" before an un-translated word or phrase. (Incidentally, it is more probable that the music associated with a psalm was its background music for recitation or chanting rather than a tune which dictated its rhythm).

This grouping error is exposed when we compare the structure of the psalm given to us in Habakkuk Chapter Three as an example:

When this basic layout is applied to the traditional titles in Psalms the social situation of the writer will often become apparent, with new and enriching understanding for the reader.

An example of this is Psalm 55, which should be read as –

When this principle is applied to Psalm eight, it becomes apparent that 'mutlaben' in the title of Psalm nine (translated sometimes as 'death of the hero', 'death of the son', or 'death of the man between the camps', according to how the later Hebrew vowel-pointing is done) is really the footnote of Psalm eight and refers to the killing of Goliath the blasphemer for which young David is filled with praise toward God, for –

"From the lips of children and infants You have ordained strength
because of Your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger." Psalm 8:2.

Another example of the importance of understanding the social context is Psalm 90. Written by Moses, it will not be properly understood unless it is read with a knowledge of the life of Moses described in the first five books of the Bible, in particular Moses at the age of eighty. The prayer at the close of this psalm is its climax. Moses, at age eighty or less (that is before Israel's exodus from Egypt), prays with passion for God to 'establish' the work of his hands. His sense of frailty and the futility of his life at this age, after having previously been powerful in word and deed at age forty (Ac.7:22), is subsequently answered by God in his commissioning at the burning bush and Moses' extraordinary mission from age 80 to age 120. Glory to God!

Thus, these three angles in our framework of understanding – the Historical, the Literary, and the Social – prepare our way for knowing the Word of God as the all-glorious Author intended it to be understood.

Sadly though, a Roman Catholic Catechism states:

"The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him". [emphasis mine]. Catholic Church 1994, Apostolate for Family Consecration, Bloomingdale, OH, Para. 100, Page 30, emphasis mine.