Comparing Shiite narrational interpretations and paying attention to their differences shows that the authors of narrational interpretations, influenced by the contextual conditions, have exercised ijtihad in order to discover the meaning of the verses in the form of selecting narrations. This is contrary to the belief of some Quran scholars that these interpretations are not ijtihad. In this regard, this article, using a descriptive-analytical method, compares early and late Shiite narrative interpretations and applies the concept of context in author-centered hermeneutic theories to examine the differences between these interpretations in the issue of the permissibility or impermissibility of interacting with the Sultan. The aim of this research is to shed light on hidden aspects of this issue and to reveal examples of the ijtihad of the authors of narrative interpretations in formulating their interpretations. The research hypothesis is that the formation of a fully-fledged and independent Shiite Safavid government, as a turning point in the history of Shiite political jurisprudence, has been an influential context that has led to a difference in the approach of later narrative interpretations compared to earlier narrative interpretations. The research results show that Shiite narrational interpretations on the aforementioned issue are distinct from each other in various aspects. The number of narrations that the commentator cites in interpreting the verses, the way the commentator arranges and arranges the narrations, and the selection of sources that the commentator refers to when citing the narrations are some of the ways in which these interpretations differ from each other. But in the issue of the permissibility or impermissibility of interacting with the Sultan, what specifically distinguishes these interpretations from each other is the approach of the later commentators, especially Faiz Kashani, Hawizi, Bahrani, and Qomi Mashhadi, on this issue, in a way that, unlike the earlier commentators of the second to fourth centuries, In addition to mentioning narrations that warn against interacting with the Sultan and the royal court, these commentators have also turned to mentioning narrations that allow interaction with the Sultan, subject to certain restrictions and conditions, and in accordance with certain interests. The reason for this difference in approach can be assessed by considering the contemporaneity of the period of composition of the later narrational interpretations with the rise of the Shiite Safavid government.