Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus,

To Timothy, my dear son:

Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. (2 Timothy 1:1-2)

We have here a letter from Paul to his junior associate, Timothy. A letter represents only one side of a conversation. Supposedly, the challenge in reading a letter is in the fact that we do not know the precise nature of the issues and situations that the writer pens his letter to address, and it is assumed that we need some understanding of this other side of the conversation in order to have sufficient context to interpret the letter. Since the biblical documents are ancient literature, the distance between the original context and the modern readers is allegedly further extended.

Scholars constantly assume this difficulty and attempt to deal with it as they examine the text. However, the problem is exaggerated, but since it is stubbornly assumed, it is not unusual to see a commentator come up with a false interpretation that ignores or contradicts what is on the face of the text due to his obsession with discovering or speculating about the historical context. Even if one arrives at the correct meaning, it is not unusual to find a commentator base his interpretation on something that pertains to the historical context, when the words on the face of the text offers the same meaning, rendering his arduous investigation superfluous. The historical context, whether or not accurately ascertained, often does not affect the meaning at all.

The difficulty is a mere possibility in each case. Whether there is an actual difficulty depends on what the writer includes in his letter. If Paul writes, “Titus, that thing I told you to do, please do it soon,” then we will have no idea what it is that Paul wants Titus to do, although we will still know that Paul wants him to do something. On the other hand, if Paul writes, “Titus, appoint elders in every town, as I directed you,” and then includes a detailed list of qualifications, as he does in his letter to Titus, then due to the fullness of information included on this side of the conversation, there is no need for us to speculate about the other side.

Scholars might consider this a naïve simplification, but it is not. Rather, the problem is that they have so exaggerated the problem of the lack of historical context, and so underestimated the commonality of human thought and culture across the centuries, that they have complicated clarity itself, and refuse to allow straightforward language to be what it is. Their error is in overestimating and overdoing the detective work in the process of interpretation. The Bible is a reliable, current, and independent revelation from God. But in constantly assuming that external information is needed to provide context for interpretation, they have underestimated the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture.

Another problem related to the obsession with discovering the historical context, or perhaps even one that has arisen from the obsession, is the tendency to think that whatever Paul says, he says it to address a corresponding issue among his readers. Or, whatever he asserts, he does so because at least some among his readers believe the opposite, and whatever he says they are to do, he does so because they are not doing it or are doing the opposite. It seems that Paul would never even mention something unless there is a problem related to it, or unless his readers are believing or practicing the opposite of what is advocated by the apostle.

This ridiculous assumption is extremely common in biblical commentaries. But it is invalid and misleading, and must be discarded. Of course, it is always inconsistently applied, or we would have to think that Paul writes only to anti-Christian atheists, since he mentions God and Christ so often in his letters.