St. Matthew's Church

How should we approach difficult texts where various interpretations are offered by scholars and church history? One strong suggestion is to look to context for clues to properly understanding what an author is saying – the immediate context, the larger context of the book containing the difficult text, and finally the context of Scripture as a whole. We can look at the heavily debated section of Matthew 16 as an example. However, before we begin, we should have in mind some of the themes that are specific to Matthew’s gospel compared to the similar gospels of Mark and Luke.

Jesus’ Origin

From the start, Matthew makes it clear that Jesus is the promised descendant of Abraham and David (Mt 1:1). However, Jesus is not of purely human origin. His conception was not through natural means, but it was brought about by the working of the Holy Spirit. (Mt 1:18, 20). Jesus is Immanuel, “God with us.” (Mt 1:23)

As he interacts with the people of Israel, Jesus speaks with authority that is reserved for God alone as he forgives sin (Mt 9:2-3). He commands the winds and the sea to be calm and they are calm, prompting the question, “What sort of man is this?” (Mt 8:23-27), making clear Jesus is not the sort of man we meet every day.

Jesus’ Relationship to Moses

We find throughout the book of Matthew many parallels between Jesus and Moses, but they often show is that Jesus is superior to Moses and arrives as the prophet that Moses predicted would come.

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ And the LORD said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. (Dt 18:15-18)

An obvious point of comparison between Jesus and Moses involves the circumstances around their births. Perceiving a threat from the Israelite population, Pharaoh set out on a mission to kill all the male children of Israel (Ex 1:8-22). Centuries later, Herod the king perceived a threat from the birth of Jesus and commanded that all the male children in the region of Bethlehem be put to death (Mt 2:16).

Just as Moses led the nation of Israel out of Egypt after they experienced a time of refuge there, Matthew tells us Jesus came out of Egypt as the representative of Israel after he and his family experienced a time of refuge there (Mt 2:13-15, 19-21).

At the start of Jesus’ public ministry, Matthew depicts these words being fulfilled with Jesus on a mountain, providing ethical instruction to his disciples (Mt 5-7), as Moses had done with Israel in conveying the Ten Commandments (Ex 19-20). In fact, Jesus explicitly refers to the Law of Moses by way of comparison (Mt 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43). One key difference between Moses and Jesus, however, is that Moses went up on the mountain alone to receive God’s instruction (Ex 19:12; 20:21) and it was good for the people to remain at the bottom of the mountain, separated from the Lord (Dt 5:24-28). As Immanuel, Jesus does what Moses could not do and conveys the commands of God directly to his disciples. When we come to the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus shares a parable related to both hearing and doing what he has commanded (Mt 7:24-27). When we look back at the book of Deuteronomy, we find this was the same emphasis voiced by the people when receiving the law from Moses (Dt 5:27).

Jesus’ Authority

Although conceived by the Spirit, Jesus’ family lineage is still traced back to King David (Mt 1:1) and he is recognized as a king from the time of his birth (Mt 2:2) to the time of his death (Mt 27:37). As a king, Jesus’ authority is recognized in his teaching (Mt 7:29, 21:23), in his miracles (Mt 8:9; 9:8), and in forgiving sin (Mt 9:6). As a king, he allows others to operate under his authority (Mt 10:1) and ultimately declares authority over both heaven and earth (Mt 28:18) – an authority which notably commissions the teaching of his commands (Mt 28:19-20).

As we look at Matthew 16, we will come back to these themes to see how they shape the context of Matthew’s writing. However, let’s begin by noting how Matthew 16:16-20 differs from the same story as it is recorded by Mark and Luke. In all three accounts, Jesus asks his disciples who the people say he is. The disciples respond with various ideas they have heard from the people, and Jesus asks who they think he is. It is Simon Peter who responds that Jesus is the Christ. The interaction ends with Jesus charging the disciples not to tell anyone he is the Christ, but before doing so Matthew departs from the other two gospels, detailing a further interaction between Jesus and Peter.

The key differences between these passages that we want to keep in mind are highlighted below.

In his three unique verses, Matthew introduces several ideas that have received an immense amount of attention (and debate) over the centuries. “On this rock I will build my church,” “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” and “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Why does Matthew make a point of including these statements, and how are they related to themes that he emphasizes in his gospel? Why do Jesus’ initial question and Simon’s response differ from the shorter forms found in Mark and Luke? We will want to keep in mind the three points above as we dig into the text: Jesus’ origin, Jesus’ relationship to Moses, and Jesus’ authority.

Part and Counterpart

Following Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ, Jesus answers, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” There is a clear play on words in the Greek language of the New Testament as Peter (Πέτρος, Petros) and rock (πέτρα. petra) sound similar. Noting the word play, Roman Catholic theology identifies Peter as the rock upon which Jesus will build his church, while Protestant theology often identifies Peter’s confession as the rock upon which Jesus builds his church. However, both understandings fail to account for the similarities in the rest of the passage.

Jesus begins by asking, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” While the meaning of Jesus’ question is the same in Mark and Luke, Matthew is introducing the interaction with language that evokes at least some concept of human lineage. In Matthew’s gospel, Simon Peter’s answer is also unique among the parallel passages in not only recognizing that Jesus is the Christ, but he is “the Son of the living God.” Peter recognizes Jesus as not only the Son of Man but also the Son of God - having some type of human origin, but also a divine origin. When Jesus blesses Peter because of his answer, he does not simply address him as Simon or Peter (or even Simon Peter), but Simon Bar-Jonah – that is Simon the son of Jonah (or “son of John” as in John 1:42). So, there are parallel conceptions around both Jesus’ identity and Peter’s identity related to their lineage.

If we look further into the text and some of the Greek terminology, there are more parallels to be discovered in the interchange between Jesus and Peter. We might think of all the parallels as part and counterpart.

When we come to verse 18, the part and counterpart are obvious. “Peter” and “rock” are the linguistically associated terms. On the one hand we have Peter and on the other we have “this rock,” which, in keeping with Matthew’s parallel associations, refers to Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God. While Simon may have received a name that means “rock,” Jesus is a rock that is strong enough to serve as the everlasting foundation of his church.²

Expanding the context to all of Matthew’s gospel, we can look back to where Jesus uses another “rock” analogy. “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.” (Mt 7:24) We might conclude that Jesus’ teaching provides a sure foundation, but is the teaching greater or more sure than the teacher himself? Surely the one who hears and does the words of Jesus is not building on Jesus’ teaching as much as he is building on Jesus himself. It is not so much “these words” found in Matthew 5-7 that provide stability and support as it is “these words of mine.” It is the person who stands behind the words that ensures the blessings in them and not the words themselves.

Is there other evidence in Scripture that would lead us to identify Jesus as “this rock?” In fact, we can look at the writings of Peter himself. In 1 Peter 2:4-7, Peter refers to Jesus as “a living stone” upon which a spiritual house is built. Citing Psalm 118, Peter writes, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.” The astute reader will observe that “stone” in 1 Peter is translated from the Greek word λίθος (lithos), not πέτρα (petra) as we have in Matthew 16. However, Peter also cites Isaiah 8:14, referring to Jesus as “a stone (λίθος, lithos) of stumbling, and a rock (πέτρα, petra) of offense.” Whatever distinction is to be found between the two words, it is not strong enough to make them conceptually incongruent. What should be clear from 1 Peter is that Jesus is the foundation upon which the church is built. It would make little sense for the one to whom Jesus spoke these words in Matthew 16 (that is, Peter) to conclude that Jesus is the church’s cornerstone, but there is some greater rock which lies beneath him.

Why is it helpful to see Jesus as the rock upon which he builds his church? A little knowledge of Peter’s story should make it clear why he is not an appropriate rock on which to build. In Matthew 26:69-75, Peter’s confession will crumble as he denies Jesus three times, swearing he does not even know, not “the Son of the living God”, but “the man.” Even later in life, Paul opposes Peter because his “conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel.” (Gal 2:11-14) Although Peter was a pillar within the early church, neither he nor his confession are proven to be a solid foundation for the church.

But what if we say it is not Peter nor his personal confession that serves as the rock undergirding the church, but the truth found in his confession? To answer simply, is the truth in our confession more sure and steady than the one whom we confess? Is it more solid than the one who is Truth? The church of Jesus Christ is not built on a proposition but on a person. It is a person who loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph 5:25). It is a person who sanctifies and cleanses her (Eph 5:26). It is a person who presents the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Eph 5:27). As members of his church, we are not rooted and established by our work or even our confession, but by the one we confess. He holds us fast and the enemy cannot snatch us out of his hand (Jn 10:28).

The immediate context of Matthew 16 tells us Jesus is “this rock.” The broader teaching of Matthew’s gospel tells us Jesus is “this rock.” Other writings in the New Testament and references to the Old Testament tell us Jesus is “this rock.” Simple logic tells us that Jesus must be “this rock,” for what foundation could be greater?

New Assembly Required

Having concluded that Jesus will build his church upon himself, what does Jesus even mean by “church?” Going back to Peter’s confession of Jesus as “the Son of the living God,” at least part of the Jewish understanding in recognizing someone as God’s son goes back to covenantal promises made to David concerning one of his descendants: “I will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son.” (2 Sam 7:14) Those promises are spoken of further in Psalm 89: “He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him.” We can see why Jesus is a suitable rock upon which to build, for Jesus, as the promised Son of God, is far greater than David. But as we mentioned above, Matthew also wants us to understand that Jesus is far greater than Moses.

The Greek word that we often translate as “church” is ἐκκλησία (ekklesia). While most frequently translated as “church,” it is also translated as “assembly” (Ac 19:32, 39, 41; Heb 12:23) and “congregation” (Ac 7:38; Heb 2:12). The word refers to a gathering of people. As seen in Acts 19:39, it was typical to have civic assemblies for legislative purposes in the Greco-Roman world. Some use this association to build an understanding of the church’s operation as a deliberative body that establishes doctrine and admits and dismisses members. However, when the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew to Greek, ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) was often used to refer to the assembly of God’s people. It was used to refer to the assembly of Israel in general (Dt 23:2, 3, 4, 9), but it also referred to the assembly of God’s people at Horeb when Moses was given the law for Israel (Dt 4:10; 9:10; 18:16) and again when Moses charges the people to keep the law as they enter the promised land (Dt 31:30). We also see Solomon blessing the “assembly” of Israel in 1 Kings 8:14, 22, 55 when the temple is dedicated to the Lord. This Old Testament assembly is the covenant people of God, brought out of slavery and promised God’s glory.

Knowing Matthew’s interest in exposing Jesus as the promised prophet to come after Moses and the promised king to come after David, it is appropriate to read in Jesus’ words that he intends to build an assembly upon himself that is far superior to the assembly that came together under Moses or Solomon. Far from speaking about ecclesiastical structures or processes, Jesus is declaring himself, as the Son of the living God, to be doing something that Moses, David, and Solomon could not do. He will build his own assembly with himself as its firm foundation. The author of Hebrews notes the connection between Moses’ assembly at Horeb and Jesus’ assembly today:

For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Heb 12:18-24)

Far from addressing ecclesiastical structure or practices, Jesus sets himself apart from all who came before him. The former assembly is fading away; a new assembly is being formed that far surpasses the old one - because its mediator far supasses any previous mediators. How superior is this new mediator? We can go all the way back to the first righteous son of man, Abel. The blood of this new mediator is better than the blood of Abel and every man since.

Pharoah is to Moses as the Grave is to Jesus

Before Moses was able to gather an assembly at Horeb, he had to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, which was no easy feat. When Moses first approached Pharaoh with the idea of letting the Israelites assemble in the desert for worship, the idea was resoundingly rejected.

Afterward Moses and Aaron went and said to Pharaoh, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Let my people go, that they may hold a feast to me in the wilderness.’” But Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and moreover, I will not let Israel go.” (Ex 5:1-2)

Israel needed to get out of Egypt, but they were effectively locked in. We might say the gates of Egypt were overcoming Moses and the Israelites. After many trials, Pharaoh let the people go and Moses led them out of Egypt. Though Jesus’ adversary is greater than Moses’ adversary, Jesus is also greater than Moses.

What is to stop Jesus from building an assembly upon himself? Unfortunately, some English translations have Jesus saying, “the gates of hell will not overcome it.” First, we want to understand what is meant by “the gates of hell.” The Greek word translated as “hell” is ᾅδης (Hades). While we often think of hell as the place of eternal punishment, Hades can be thought of more generally as the place of the dead. The gates of Hades are the portal through which men pass from death to life, as Hezekiah speaks of being “consigned to the gates of Sheol” when he expected to die from illness (Isa 38:10). Hezekiah was a good king. We should not expect that he was consigned to hell, but he was consigned to the grave. While not all men are subject to the torments of hell, all men are subject to death and the grave - even Jesus. However, Jesus declares that death and the grave to not have ultimate power.

Second, the gates of Hades will not overcome “it.” The pronoun has two possible referents: “the gates of Hades will not overcome this rock,” or “the gates of Hades will not overcome my church.” Neither of these understandings is wrong, however, knowing “this rock” refers to Jesus, we can look to other texts in the New Testament to see that “it” refers to “this rock” (i.e. Jesus).

When Peter preached at Pentecost, he applied the text of Psalm 16 to Jesus’ resurrection: “’For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption.’…he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.” (Ac 2:27, 31) Consider what Jesus is saying to Peter in Matthew 16. Moses may have gathered an assembly of people who escaped the gates of Egypt as Pharoah was defeated in the sea. However, Jesus is going to gather an assembly of people and not even death will be able to stop him. The disciples will see Jesus delivered over to death, but, as Peter says at Pentecost, “God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.” (Ac 2:24) It should not escape our attention that it is Peter who hears these words in Matthew 16, and it is Peter who speaks these words in Acts 2 concerning death and Hades. He understands that the gates of Hades could not overcome Jesus, the rock of our salvation. As John records in the book of Revelation, “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.’” (Rev 1:17-18)

It is not wrong to say the gates of Hades will not overcome the church, but it is only because the church is in Jesus. As we saw in Hebrews, we have come to the assembly of the firstborn. If the firstborn has passed from death to life because the grave could not hold him, those who follow after him will experience victory over the grave as well. The gates of Hades have been unlocked and Jesus welcomes us into his assembly where death no longer reigns.

Kingdom Authority Over Ethics and Ethinicity

Finally, we come to the last of Jesus’ words to Peter:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

If you mistakenly read ecclesiastical polity and membership into Jesus’ statement about building his “church,” you will likely associate binding and loosing with believers being admitted into and released from church membership. Unfortunately, Jesus tells Peter that the keys to the kingdom of heaven bind things (whatever), not people (whomever), making such an understanding dubious at best.

Recognizing Matthew’s theme of Jesus’ authority (and giving someone the keys of the kingdom of heaven certainly sounds like it has to do with authority), a better approach is to understand binding and loosing in relation to forbidding and permitting certain actions or behaviors within the kingdom of heaven.³ When we consider that Jesus is speaking directly to Peter and not the other disciples (for “you” is singular rather than plural in this verse), we can see how this understanding of binding and loosing plays out in Peter’s life as the gospel advances in the book of Acts.

In Acts chapter 2, the kingdom of heaven is made available to all the Jews and god-fearing Greeks who have gathered in Jerusalem as Peter preaches the gospel (Ac 2:14-41) and declares, “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Ac 2:39) When Samaria receives the gospel, Peter and John become eyewitnesses of the Spirit’s outpouring upon them (Ac 8:14-17). Peter is again an eyewitness when the Spirit is poured out on the Gentiles, and Peter commands that the Gentiles be baptized in the name of Jesus (Ac 10:44-48). In Acts 11:17, Peter explains his reasoning, “If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” God had already permitted the Gentiles into the kingdom of heaven, and Peter was simply declaring that reality in commanding baptism.

When we come to Acts 15, the leaders in Jerusalem are faced with the question of whether Gentile believers should be made to adhere to the Law of Moses. It is Peter who stands up to release (or loose) the Gentiles from obeying the Mosaic law (Ac 15:7, 10-11). The matter is finally concluded as James suggests a minimal set of behaviors that should be forbidden (or bound) among Gentile believers (Ac 15:19-20).

Within the book of Acts, we see the keys of the kingdom being used and Peter is always a central figure as the apostles conclude what ethnic and ethical boundaries mark the kingdom of heaven and declare them to the church. In every case, Peter’s actions reflect what God in heaven has already declared, which interestingly follows the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” As R.T. France explains, “Shall be bound and shall be loosed are literally future perfects (‘shall have been bound’ and ‘shall have been loosed’), and as the future perfect sounds as stilted in Greek as in English, the tense is apparently deliberate. In that case it is not that heaven will ratify Peter’s independent decisions, but that Peter will pass on decisions that have already been made in heaven.”⁴ This is exactly Peter’s reasoning in Acts 11:17 and James reasoning in Acts 15:12-14. If the God of heaven has made his decision plain, what can the apostles do but agree with it?

When we consider further the theme of authority in Matthew’s gospel, it is often related to teaching. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, which we mentioned earlier, it is noted that Jesus “was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.” (Mt 7:29) When Jesus is later confronted by the chief priests and elders, he is asked, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” What things was Jesus doing? He was teaching. (Mt 21:23) When Jesus is given all authority in heaven and earth, what does he charge his disciples to do? “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Mt 28:19-20) In Matthew 16, Jesus passes on to Peter the the authority to teach what he has commanded, and that teaching will establish appropriate boundary markers for the church - both ethnically and ethically.

Having received the keys of the kingdom, the church continues to have the authority to declare as true what God has already declared as true. As doctrinal debates arise within the church regarding the person of Christ or the authority of Scripture, it is appropriate for the church to reason through issues in light of Scripture and church history, and speak what is right. When we are challenged with regard to ethical issues, it is good for the church to establish moral boundaries regarding issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and human sexuality. Jesus has placed this authority within his church and expects us to exercise it, and having exercised it, he expects us to teach it to the nations as we make disciples.

Yes. Yes. Matthew 18.

What are we to make of these words about binding and loosing when we see them again in Matthew 18?

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Mt 18:15-20)

There is a shift from Matthew 16 to Matthew 18, as the “you” becomes plural. In Matthew 18, it is no longer Peter alone who has authority to bind and loose but the disciples more generally. We should understand from this that the role given to Peter will transition to the church broadly. This should come as no surprise as Peter will not live forever, and we even see in Acts that though Peter is taking a leading role in significant binding and loosing decisions, the church is always closely involved.

A conclusion often taken from this passage is that binding and loosing must be related to admission to and dismissal from the church as the obstinate brother becomes “as a Gentile and a tax collector.” To be sure, church discipline as spoken of here is tangentially related to the exercise of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but we should be careful to understand the church’s role in this passage is fundamentally to uphold the ethical boundaries of the kingdom. The church is to hear evidence presented by witnesses regarding behavior of a brother. Since the keys are symbolic of making judgments regarding behavior, binding and loosing are again mentioned here. Binding and loosing have necessary implications on who is welcomed into and remains within the church, but acts of admission and dismissal are not in themselves a direct exercise of the keys. When the church establishes a statement of faith or speaks out regarding issues of morality (as in Acts 15), it exercises the keys of the kingdom of heaven initially given to Peter. Once the keys have been exercised, there are implications regarding who may be admitted into the church and who must be dismissed from it. Of course, any act of admission or dismissal reiterates agreement with the previous exercise of the keys of the kingdom, but acts of admission or dismissal are distinct from it.

Comparing the language of Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 with the language of Matthew 6, we see further evidence that binding and loosing should be understood as the revealing of moral clarity around the ethical boundaries of the kingdom of heaven.

In teaching his disciples to pray for the kingdom of heaven to come to earth, Jesus parallels the coming of the kingdom of heaven with obedience to God’s will. Sitting within the context of the Sermon on the Mount, obedience to God’s will can be understood as obedience to Jesus’ ethical teaching. For after clarifying the Law and providing a myriad of ethical teachings that make clear the will of their heavenly Father⁵, he concludes by stating the importance of obedience to his teaching because it is the will of our Father in heaven.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Mt 7:21)

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” (Mt 7:24-27)

As we saw in Matthew 28, there is consistent association in Matthew’s gospel between the exercise of authority and establishing ethical boundaries for Jesus’ disciples based on his teaching. Jesus’ teaching on binding and loosing should be understood in this context as the establishing of ethnic and ethical boundaries for the church as it encounters situations that are not directly addressed in Jesus’ teachings.

As with Matthew 16, difficult passages can often find greater clarity as we keep them in context, observing the style and language of the author, repeated themes within a book, and related passages and ideas from other portions of Scripture. The more we integrate context into our understanding, the more we will see the consistency and beauty of Scripture as God’s consistent and beautiful words to us.