The Bible was written in a specific historical setting. The meaning of its words relates directly to the people who first received it, as they understood the words in their cultural setting. We must try to find what part of its original historical context is also applicable for us today.
Try this with Deuteronomy 22:5, 8-12. How many of us today believe it is sinful for a woman to wear pants, or for a Scotsman to wear a skirt, a kilt? Who among us owns a house with a "parapet on the roof"? Do any of you Christian gardeners hesitate to sow your gardens with different kinds of seed? Should a Christian farmer be careful not to hitch his ox and donkey together? How many sinners do we have among us because of mixing "wool and linen together”? How many Christians have obeyed the command to make tassels on the four corners of our garment? Why do we not attempt to obey these commands? Moreover, if we refuse to take these Divine commands personally, on what basis do we take other commands personally? What makes the difference? Are we able to know which commands are obligatory and which are not?
How many churches reject the requirements of OT law regarding animal sacrifice? How many of those same churches observe the OT laws requiring tithing? How do we know when it is appropriate to reject one command but to obey another? Is tithing still binding on us?
This human, historical, cultural aspect of the Bible is the reason we must "interpret" it. Even though we may know what is the "plain meaning" of certain Scriptures, that "plain meaning" may not be applicable to us. If we successfully answer the beginning question, "what was the actual word written by the author?" and if we discover what that word actually meant to those original recipients, then we must decide if and how the meaning of that exact word might have relevance to us. In many instances, it has no relevance to us at all!
Part of our answer comes as we try to answer, "why did God say this to them?” Was there a purely local situation addressed that required only local application? Does the same situation exist for us? When removed from its historical and cultural setting, will it retain that same meaning/application? For example, does 1 Corinthians 7:26 mean that if we are single, we should remain unmarried? This is obviously what it meant to the original recipients. What was there about their specific historical/cultural circumstance that made that advice appropriate for them but inappropriate for us? Even though we may clearly see a command relating to specific people in specific circumstances, we must not assume that the command is binding on all men for all time, regardless of their circumstances.
Every Scripture originated in a geographical, historical, cultural setting, reflecting the language, customs and social mores of the time. In many instances, it is crucial to know something about this background in order to make sense of what we read. If we interpret according to our own culture, we will frequently misunderstand.
Sometimes identical words and statements have different meanings. In England, if a man says a woman is homely, he means she is home loving and unpretentious. In American, she is unattractive. In India, saying a man is like an owl is an insult because Indian culture interprets this to mean the man is stupid. However, in America saying a man is like an owl is to praise him for his wisdom. These are the same words yet with opposite meanings.
"Double portion”, (2 Kings 2:9), most probably refers to inheritance of the firstborn, rather than "twice as much.” The cultural background of this phrase, (e.g. Deuteronomy 21:17) indicates Elisha wanted to inherit Elijah’s ministry as a "first-born" son. Thus in our culture this phrase does not mean the same as it did in the culture which coined it.
The first and primary meaning of any scripture is what it meant to the people who originally received it. Although it may not have the same meaning or application to us as it did to them. Remember this basic rule about Biblical interpretation:
A text cannot mean now,
what it never could have meant to its author or his readers.
As an example, what is the meaning of "that which is perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13:10? Does Paul have in mind "the completed New Testament" as many modern interpreters say? Though this is a widely adopted interpretation of these words, we must reject it, because neither Paul nor his readers knew a "New Testament" was in the works. When the Corinthians received this epistle and read this verse, they could not have thought, "Oh, when the New Testament is completed, then prophecy and tongues will cease.” Such an interpretation would make zero sense to them. For that reason, as well as others, "that which is perfect" cannot refer to "the completed New Testament”.
What does it mean to "take up our cross daily" and follow Jesus, Luke 9:23? What did it mean to the people who first heard it? They were familiar with the practice of requiring a condemned criminal to carry his own cross to the place of execution. Those people understood Jesus was saying that those who follow Him must die to their personal agendas and preferences every day. In some cases, they would face actual physical death for His sake. We are obligated to interpret according to this original meaning. Therefore, it is a misuse of this Scripture for us to refer to enduring difficult situations and difficult people, as "this is just my cross to bear.” Such an idea would not and could not have occurred to the people who first received this saying. Therefore, it cannot mean that.
Understand the cultural, historical setting of the words of Scripture, and you will be able to understand both their original meaning and their application to us, if any.