HOW TO USE THIS COMMENTARY
Cultural and historical background can clarify virtually every text in the New Testament, yet much
of this material has been inaccessible to nontechnical readers. Although many helpful commentaries exist,
no single commentary has focused solely on the background material. Yet it is precisely this element-the
background that indicates how the New Testament's writers and first readers would have understood its
message-that the nontechnical reader needs as a resource for Bible study (most other elements, such
as context, can be deduced from the text itself).
Some surveys of the cultural background of the New Testament exist, but none of these
is arranged in a manner that allows the reader to answer all the pertinent questions on a given passage.
This deficiency convinced me twelve years ago to undertake this project, which is long overdue. This
book is written in the hope that all Christians will now be able to read the New Testament much closer
to the way its first readers would have read it.
A CULTURAL COMMENTARY
Cultural context makes a difference in how we read the New Testament. For instance, since there
were plenty of exorcists in the ancient world, ancient readers would not have been surprised that Jesus
cast out demons, but since most exorcists employed magic spells or pain compliance techniques to seek
to expel demons, Jesus' driving them out "by his word" was impressive. Viewing the conflict
concerning head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 in the broader context of tensions over head coverings
between well-to-do and less well-to-do women of first-century Corinth clarifies Paul's teachings in
that passage. Understand ancient views on slavery demonstrates that Paul's teaching, far from supporting
that institution, undermines it. Recognizing what Jewish people meant by "resurrection"
answers the objections of many skeptics today concerning the character of Jesus' resurrection. And so
The sole purpose of this commentary (unlike most commentaries) is to make available
the most relevant cultural, social and historical background for reading the New Testament the way its
first readers would have read it. Although some notes about context or theology have been necessary,
such notes have been kept to a minimum to leave most of the work of interpretation with the reader.
Knowing the ancient culture is critical to understanding the Bible. Our need to
recognize the setting of the biblical writers does not deny that biblical passages are valid for all
time; the point is that they are not valid for all circumstances. Different texts in
the Bible address different situations. For instance, some texts address how to be saved, some address
Christ's call to missions, some address his concern for the poor, and so on. Before we apply those
passages, we need to understand what circumstances they originally addressed.
This is not to play down the importance of other factors in interpreting the Bible.
The most important issue, next to the Spirit's application to our hearts and lives, is always literary
context: reading each book of the Bible the way it was put together under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit. This commentary itself is meant only as a tool to provide readers ready access to the New
Testament background-it is not meant to be the whole story. In my own preaching and teaching, I am
more concerned with literary context than with culture. But readers can ascertain the context on their
own by studying the Bible itself. For ministers and other Bible readers, application of the Bible is
also crucial, but specific applications will differ from culture to culture and from person to person,
and these, again, are readily available to readers of the Bible without outside helps.
For the majority of the users of this commentary, who have not studied Greek and Hebrew,
a good, readable translation is crucial for understanding the Bible. (For instance, both the NASB, which
is more word for word, and the NIV, which is more readable, are very helpful. One might read regularly
from the NIV and study more detailed passages from or compare with the NASB.) In contrast to the half-dozen
mainly medieval manuscripts on which the King James Version was based, we now have over five thousand
New Testament manuscripts, including some from extremely close to the time the New Testament books were
written (by the standards used for ancient texts). These manuscripts make the New Testament by far the
best-documented work of the ancient world and also explain why more accurate translations are available
today than in times past. But the biggest reason for using an up-to-date translation is that it is
written in the current English we speak and thus is easier to understand. Understanding the Bible so
one can obey its teaching is, after all, the main purpose for reading it.
Other methods of getting into the text itself, like outlining and taking notes, are
also useful to many readers. For a more complete guide on how to study the Bible, the reader should
consult the helpful book by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart,
How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1981).
But the one factor in applying the Bible that is not available to most Bible readers
is the cultural background. This commentary is meant to fill that need and should be used in conjunction
with other important elements of Bible study: an accurate and readable translation, context, prayer
and personal application.
Again, this commentary will not be helpful for those who neglect context, a rule of
interpretation more basic than culture. It is best to read through each book of the Bible as a whole,
rather than skipping from one part of the Bible to another, so one can get the whole message of a
particular biblical book. These books were written one at a time to different groups of readers,
who read them one book at a time and applied them to their specific situations. One must keep this
point in mind when reading, teaching or preaching from the Bible. (Many alleged contradictions in
the Bible arise from ignoring context and the way books were written in the ancient world. Ancient
writers, like modern preachers, often applied and updated the language, while being faithful to the
meaning, by arranging their materials; so the context is usually inspired guidance on how to apply
a teaching in the Bible.) It is always important to check the context of a passage in the biblical
book in which it occurs before using this commentary.
But once one has examined a passage in context, this commentary will be an invaluable
tool. One may use it while reading through the Bible for daily devotions; one may use it for Bible
studies or for sermon preparation. The one book orthodox Christians accept as God's Word is the most
important book for us to study, and it is hoped that this commentary will aid all believers in their
study of God's Word.
Although the format of this book has been tested in the classroom, in Bible studies,
from the pulpit and in personal devotions, it may fail to answer some social-cultural questions
related to the passages of the New Testament. Despite efforts to answer the right questions, it is
impossible to anticipate every question; for this reason, some helpful books on ancient culture are
listed in the brief bibliography at the end of the introduction.
The reader may also find background relevant to a particular passage under other
passages where I had felt it was most important to include it. Because the New Testament itself is
composed of books aimed at different audiences (Mark was meant to be read quickly, whereas Matthew
was meant to be studied and memorized), my treatment of some books is more detailed than that of
others. As the book most foreign to modern readers, Revelation receives the most detailed treatment.
HOW TO USE THIS BOOK
This commentary may be used either for reference or in conjunction with one's regular Bible reading.
In reading the Bible devotionally or in preparing sermons or Bible studies, one has two of the most
crucial tools for interpretation in the Bible itself: the text and its context. The third most crucial
tool, which was already known and assumed by the ancient readers but is unavailable to most modern
readers, is the background of the text. This commentary is written to supply that need to the fullest
extent possible in a one-volume work.
The most important ancient background for the New Testament's ideas is the Old
Testament, especially in its Greek translation. This commentary includes Old Testament background,
but because that background is available to all reader so the Bible, the emphasis of the commentary
is on other Jewish and Greco-Roman culture of the first century. Early Christian writers naturally
also drew on other early Christian traditions, many of which are available to us in the New Testament;
but because that material directly available to the reader, it has been omitted for the most part
here. Similarly omitted are notes on background that are transcultural, because readers in all cultures
assume this information.
Those who use this commentary in conjunction with personal Bible study should read
the biblical passage first and examine its context. Then they may most profitably examine the notes
in this commentary; the notes on related passages may also be helpful. Having established what the
text was saying to the ancient readers, one has a real feel for the issues being addressed and is
ready to move to the stage of personal application.
The situation behind Paul's letter to the Romans provides one example of how one
could apply what one learns in this commentary. In that letter, Paul argues that Jews and Gentiles
are saved on the same terms and urges reconciliation between them within the body of Christ. In the
United States, where many churches are still segregated along lines of race and white Christians
have often not taken the time to hear the hurts that black Christians and other minority peoples
have faced here, Paul's message of racial reconciliation is painfully relevant. Once we grasp the
point of the text in its original historical setting, we are in a position to apply that text to
both our personal lives and our culture today.
Because the Bible's original message, once understood, speaks to human issues today
in a variety of situations and cultures, the way we apply it will vary from person to person and
culture to culture. (For instance, if Paul urges the Corinthians to deal seriously with sin, the
principle is clear; but different people will have to deal with different sins.) For that reason, most
application is left to the reader's common sense and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.
This point usually applies even where I strongly felt that guidance should be given
concerning application. For instance, in my treatment of Matthew 24:15-22 I emphasize those details
that were fulfilled in A.D. 66-70. Some people think that certain prophecies in that passage will
be fulfilled again; but because that is a theological rather than a cultural-historical issue, I
leave that matter to the reader's discretion. In the same way, I am convinced that the background
provided for passages on women's ministry should lead modern readers to recognize that Paul does
indeed accept the teaching ministry of women. But due to the nature of this work, someone who does
not share the conviction can nevertheless profitably use the commentary on those passages without
feeling constrained to accept my view. I dare to hope that all sincere believers, grappling with
the same context and the same background, are likely to come to similar conclusions in the end.
Most readers will be familiar with words like priest and Palestine,
but terms whose cultural significance may be unfamiliar to the reader are found in the glossary at
the end of this book and are marked at least once in a given context with an asterisk. Some recurrent
theological terms (like Spirit, apocalyptic, Diaspora, Pharisee and kingdom had specific
meanings in the ancient world that cannot be mentioned in each text; the regular reader of this
commentary should thus become familiar with these terms in the glossary.
HOW NOT TO USE THIS BOOK
Not all background in this commentary is equally helpful for understanding the Bible. some background
is almost self-evident, especially where ancient culture and modern readers' culture overlap. Likewise,
not all sources are of equal merit for our purposes. Some sources, particularly rabbinic sources, are
later than the New Testament; some of the information from these sources is more helpful whereas other
material is less helpful, and I weighed these factors as carefully as possible in writing this
commentary. Usually only Old Testament and Apocrypha citations and occasionally citations from the
Jewish Pseudepigrapha are explicitly given in this commentary; citing all the rabbinic, Greek and
Roman sources would weigh it down too heavily for the general reader.
Some background is included because it appears in standard scholarly commentaries,
and readers must judge for themselves how relevant it is for their interpretation. This is a background
commentary; it does not dictate how readers must understand or apply the text, and readers who disagree
with some interpretations I suggest will nevertheless find the commentary useful.
More importantly, the general reader should be aware that parallels between an idea
in the New Testament and an idea in the ancient world need not mean that one copied the other-both
may have drawn on a familiar saying or concept in the culture. Thus I cite the parallels simply to
illustrate how many people in that culture would have heard what the New Testament was saying. For
instance, Paul's use of the kinds of arguments used by rhetoricians (professional public speakers)
indicates that he was relating to his culture, not that he wrote without the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit. Further, people and sources from wholly unrelated cultures (e.g., Stoics and the Old Testament)
may share some concepts simply because those concepts make sense in those cultures (or even most
cultures), even if they do not make sense in ours; our own culture often unconsciously limits our
understanding of Paul and his contemporaries. Because ancient peoples did not think as we do does
not mean that they were wrong; we can still learn much from their insights in areas like rhetoric
and human relationship.
Similarly, when I comment that Paul used the language of Stoic philosophers, I do
not mean that Paul had adopted Stoicism; public philosophical discourse had been commonly affected
by Stoic ideas and terminology. In other cases, the adoption of philosophical language is intentional;
outsides sometimes viewed Christianity as a philosophical school, and Christians were able to use
this outside perception as a means to communicate the gospel. Like other writers, Paul could appeal
to his culture in the popular language of his day by give that language a new twist.
When I cite a later Jewish tradition that amplifies the Old Testament, I do not
mean to imply that the tradition is necessarily true. These citations are to help us feel how the
first readers and hearers of the New Testament felt about the Old Testament characters; sometimes
New Testament writers also allude to these extrabiblical traditions (Jude 14-15). (One need not
assume that New Testament writers always simply recycled earlier Jewish imagery to relate to their
culture, however; often a variety of Jewish views existed, and the New Testament writers picked a
particular one. Although the New Testament writers had to accommodate the language of their day to
communicate their point, neither they nor we need see all that language as inaccurate. Some modern
readers assume glibly that ancient worldviews are wrong, but phenomena sometimes attributed to "primitive"
worldviews, such as possession by harmful spirits, can now be corroborated by crosscultural evidence;
they need not be explained away by modern Western rationalism.)
Finally, we should always be cautious in application; it is important that we
apply biblical texts only to genuinely analogous situations. For instance, it is not accurate to
read Jesus' attacks on the religious leaders of his day as attacks against all Jewish people, as
some anti-Semites have. Jesus and his disciples were themselves Jewish, and such an abuse of the text
makes no more sense than using the book of Exodus against Egyptians today (later Old Testament prophets
did not, e.g., Is 19:23-25). Jesus' challenges against the piety of religious authorities in his
day have nothing to do with their ethnicity; these challenges are meant to confront us as religious
people today and warn us not to act as those religious leaders did. The issue was a religious one,
not an ethnic one. In other words, we must apply the principles of the text in the light of
the real issues the biblical authors were addressing and not ignore the passages' historical context.
A POPULAR, NOT A SCHOLARLY, COMMENTARY
Scholars may be disappointed that the text of this work is not documented or nuanced the way a
scholarly work would be, but should keep in mind that this book is not written primarily for scholars,
who already have access to much of this information elsewhere. But pastors and other Bible readers
who have fewer resources and less time available need a concise and handy reference work in one volume
at their disposal.
Scholars like to document and investigate all angles of a question, nuancing their
language carefully and guarding against attacks by those holding other interpretations of the same
texts. This is not possible in a work of this length. Scholars also like to include all available
data, which the same limitation also prohibits here. To be useful for most pastors' preaching and
most other Christians' Bible study, this work's language needs to be plain and concise.
I have generally ignored scholarly questions that do not deal directly with the
issue central to this book, the ancient context of the New Testament. It is important for the purpose
of this book to ask what the text as it stands means; it is not important to ask about the sources
behind the text and their editing, and I have dealt with those issues only where absolutely necessary.
When I have addressed those issues, however, I have done so from orthodox Christian assumptions about
Scripture, assumptions which I could amply defend were that my purpose in this book.
The purpose of this book is likewise limited not only to cultural-historical context
in general, but also to that which actually sheds light on the New Testament. For instance, to claim
that some emphasis of early Christianity is distinctive to Christianity is not to claim that other
groups did not have their own distinctive characteristics; but this is a commentary of the New Testament,
not a commentary on those other groups.
I have, however, tried to be as fair as possible to the major different views of the
background of the New Testament. My own research divides fairly evenly between the Jewish and Greco-Roman
contexts of the New Testament, with an emphasis on ancient Judaism as part of the larger Mediterranean
culture. I have often labored over a variety of interpretations of the evidence before selecting which
interpretation or interpretations I felt were most accurate or most relevant to the text. Not every
scholar will agree on every point, but I have endeavored to make the book as accurate and helpful as
possible. I hope that this book will both stimulate other students to pursue more detailed scholarship
and provide easy access to the world of the New Testament for those whose call in life does not permit
them the opportunity to pursue it in more detail.
My comments are based on more than a decade of work especially on the primary literature
of the ancient world but also on recent scholarly research in ancient Judaism and Greco-Roman antiquity,
as well as on other commentaries. Were I to cite all the sources to which I am indebted, this commentary
would run to an unmanageable length, but I acknowledge here that they are many. (One source I have
meticulously avoided, due to current scholarly criticism, is Strack-Billerbeck's commentary on the New
Testament from rabbinic sources. Most of my beginning work in ancient Judaism was in rabbinic sources,
and I trust that the reader will have lost nothing from this omission. Besides being out of date,
Strack-Billerbeck suffers from a lack of discrimination between early and late sources, those most
and least likely to be representative of early Judaism as a whole, and worst of all, from an unfair
portrayal of the spirit of the sources. I have tried to avoid these mistakes insofar as possible in
my own work.)
To keep the commentary to manageable length, I have made painful decisions about
what material to omit. I have not adduced the many parallels available to turns of phrases or mentioned
remote parallels that would not illumine a passage for the minister or general reader. I have often
chosen to delete material of uncertain value, even if it is used by many other scholars. (For instance,
given the uncertainty of the date of the document called the Similitudes of Enoch, I have not used
it as background for Jesus' title "Son of Man," although many scholars do.) I have also
tried to avoid duplicating the information available in other commonly used reference works. Because
word studies are elsewhere available, I have generally omitted discussions of Greek words except where
the meaning of the text depends on the broader cultural context of these words.
Readers may detect some points where my own theology has influenced my reading of
a text in a manner that disagrees with their own. I genuinely try to derive my theology and applications
only from my study of the biblical text, but if the reverse has occasionally happened, I ask the
reader's pardon. This book is meant to be useful, not controversial, and if readers disagree on some
points, I hope they will find most of the rest of the commentary helpful nonetheless.