Contents of this page:
This page mentions the reason that context is not a valid method of interpretation, of knowing what was meant by what was said and done.

Context:

A portion of the essential testimony reads, "And he said, Whereunto shall the kingdom of God liken? Is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." This portion consists of two clauses. As it is written, the two clauses are interspersed.

One way to reduce the interspersion would be to rewrite the two clauses. To begin the rewrite, we discover by inspection that the subject of one clause is leaven and the subject of the other clause is meal. By inspection, we discover that there are three measures of meal. By inspection, we discover that the leaven was hidden in the three measure of meal. By inspection, we discover that the leaven was hidden in the three measures of meal to the extent that the whole three measures of meal were leavened. That is, the leaven was not hidden in merely one or two of the three measures of meal. The leaven was instead hidden in all three measures of meal.

We furthermore discover that the leaven was not confined to merely a portion of each measure. We instead discover that the leaven was hidden in all portions of each measure. We discover that leaven was hidden in all portions of each measure because the statement is made that "the whole was leavened" which means that "the whole [three measures] was leavened". Therefore, not only was leaven hidden in each measure, leaven was hidden in all portions of each measure.

The meaning of the word meal is that seed is broken into fragments. Because the seed has been broken, the portions of the seed which were adjacent to other portions of the seed might or might not be now adjacent to those portions of the seed to which they were formerly adjacent. We therefore discover that we cannot now interpret the meaning of words and phrases on the basis of the context in which we now find them because they may or may not be now adjacent to the words and phrases to which they were originally adjacent.

This situation therefore means that any and all interpretations which have been made on the basis of the context might or might not be correct. This situation therefore causes the question: if the context is not always a valid basis for determining what was meant by what was said and done, then what is always a valid basis for determining what was meant by what was said and done?

The answer to this question is provided by the portion of the essential testimony which reads, "All things spake Jesus unto the multitude with parables, and without a parable spake he not unto them." Another portion of the essential testimony reads, "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock. " One of the discoveries which we can make from these two portions is that the word "parables" is similar to the word "sayings". Another of the discoveries which we can make from this two portions is the discovery that we should do the parables, the sayings of Jesus.

Of course, a person could not correctly do the sayings, the parables, of Jesus unless and until they correctly understood the parables. In this regard, a portion of the essential testimony reads, "And his disciples asked him this parable. And Jesus said, Are ye also without understanding?" One of the discoveries which we can make from this portion is that the multitudes did not understand the sayings, the parables, of Jesus. This discovery is confirmed by the portion of the essential testimony which reads, "They understood not that he spake to them." When we consider that another portion established that Jesus spake to the multitudes only by parables, then we realize that this portion confirms our discovery that the multitudes did not understand the parables of Jesus.

A portion of the essential testimony which reads, "And his disciples asked him this parable. And Jesus said, Are ye also without understanding?" One of the discoveries which we could make from this portion is the discovery that his disciples were initially also without understanding. This discovery is confirmed to be correct by the portion of the essential testimony which reads, "And they understood not that saying, but [they] feared to ask him." One of the possible reasons that they feared to ask him about the saying, the parable, was that Jesus had previously reprimanded them because they had not understood his parable, his saying. So we discover that they either remained ignorant of the meanings of his sayings, his parables, or they discovered a way to understand his parables.

When we consider that Jesus would not have reprimanded his disciples, because they had not understood a parable of his, unless there was a method to understand his parables, and that the method was already known to his disciples, or the method could have been discovered by his disciples, then we realize that we either already know the method to understand his parables, or we could discover the method to understand his parables.

This page was last updated on 2011-04-28.