Introducing the Book of Hebrews: Audience, Date and Purpose

     One cannot rightly discern or fully appreciate the message of Hebrews without due consideration to background information and contextual matters. For whom was the document intended, where does it fit in the historical narrative, and why was it written?

Destination and Readership

     There is no consensus among biblical scholars regarding the intended audience of Hebrews.¹ It is apparent that a particular community is in view, since they have a definite history (2:3; 6:10; 10:32-34; 12:4; 13:17; cf. 5:11 ff.; 6:9-10), have obvious links with the writer(s) (13:18, 19, 23), and comprise a section of a larger brotherhood (5:12; 10:25; 13:24). The most prevalent view, which is not without justification, is that Hebrews is addressed to a community of Jewish Christians who are linguistically and culturally Hellenistic.

     While various destinations have been proposed,² the most prevalent views focus on either Jerusalem or Rome. The Jerusalem proposal has in its favor the ancient title of the document (“To Hebrews”), although the ascription is probably secondary. It is unlikely that the document’s style of Greek, along with copious quotations from the LXX (Greek OT), would have been addressed to Aramaic-speaking Jews in Judea. Seeing that Christian martyrdom began at Jerusalem (Acts 7:54–8:3; 9:1; 12:1-4), it would have been incorrect to say to the disciples there, “you have not yet resisted to bloodshed” (Heb. 12:4 NKJV). At least some of the Jerusalem Christians would have personally seen and heard the Lord (Heb. 2:3), and the apparent generosity of the addressees (Heb. 6:10; 10:34; 13:16) is inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem saints (cf. Acts 11:29; Rom. 15:26). The charge of spiritual immaturity (Heb. 5:12-14) would seem out of place if directed to the well-established Jerusalem church.

     Rome as the destination of Hebrews is favored by the majority of modern scholars.³ Hebrews was first attested at Rome, quoted by Clement of Rome in his letter to the Corinthians (ca. AD 95-96).⁴ The statement in Heb. 13:24 (“those from Italy greet you”) may be a reference to Italians away from Italy who are sending greetings home (N.B. apo [‘from’] rather than en [‘in’] Italy). Timothy (Heb. 13:24) was known to the Roman Christians (Rom. 16:21; Phil. 1:1; 2:19; Col. 1:1; Philm. 1; cf. 2 Tim. 4:9, 13). The “great struggle with sufferings” (Heb. 10:32) could be a reference to Claudius’ edict of 49 (cf. Acts 18:2), though less likely to Nero’s persecution that began in 64. The Christian message was confirmed to the readers by eyewitnesses of Christ (Heb. 2:3), and among the first hearers of the gospel on Pentecost were “visitors from Rome” (Acts 2:10), not to mention Peter’s probable work in Rome (cf. 1 Pet. 5:13). The issue of food laws (Heb. 13:9) is comparable to that addressed in Romans 15. If Hebrews was addressed to a smaller group within a larger community (as noted above), this accords well with what appears to have been the situation in Rome (Rom. 16:3-16).

Date of Writing

     Hebrews would have to be dated prior to the mid-90s, since it was quoted by Clement of Rome and had already achieved a status of authority by that time. Factors which point to a date prior to late summer 70 (when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed) include the following. The Levitical ritual system is discussed in the present tense (Heb. 7:8; 8:4; 9:6-7, 9, 13; 13:10), suggesting that it had not yet ceased to function.⁵ If the old Jewish structure had already passed away, it is inexplicable that no mention of this is made when such would have given conclusive proof to the main argument of Hebrews. Seeing that the old system was “ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13), a date relatively near mid-70, but certainly not after, is preferable. The Jewish revolt broke out in 66 (although the attitudes that sparked it were present much earlier), which prompted a wave of patriotic nationalism that tempted many Jewish Christians to revert to Judaism. It seems reasonable to assign a date to the writing of Hebrews to sometime prior to the temple’s destruction in 70, but precisely how much earlier is indeterminable. The year 65 is commonly suggested by conservative commentators.⁶

Occasion and Purpose

     The main theme of Hebrews is the absoluteness of the Christian religion and its superiority over the old system of Judaism.⁷ The recipients had been Christians long enough that they should have been teachers themselves but were still relatively immature in their faith (Heb. 5:11-12). “In the first flush of Christian enthusiasm they had joyfully accepted the loss of all things. But the years had taken their toll. That first enthusiasm had died out. Hope itself was fading from view. Some of them were neglecting the public assembly (Heb. 10:25). There were signs not only of slipping but of complete and irrevocable apostasy (Heb. 6:1-6; 10:26-31)” (N. R. Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today 36).

     The epistle describes itself as a “word of exhortation” (Heb. 13:22). D. Guthrie observes that the message is “not to be regarded as a theological treatise or an intellectual exercise, but as a burning issue of vital practical importance…. the readers needed to be warned against turning away from Christianity” (NT Introduction 704, 710).

Conclusion

     Hebrews makes a lot more sense when read through the lens of its original audience and historical-cultural setting. By thus discerning what was intended, modern-day Christians are much better equipped to understand and apply the timeless message of Hebrews.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Proposed recipients include Jewish Christians, former Jewish proselytes, Essene priests or former members of the Qumran community, semi-Essene-proto-Ebionites, or Gentile Christians. The title Pros Hebraious (“To Hebrews”), probably appended later for convenient reference, is not a conclusive indicator. W. G. Kümmel comments: “Heb[rews] knows nothing of any hostility between Jews and Gentiles, has not once the words ‘Jew’ and ‘Gentile,’ and the author writes to Christians as Christians” (Introduction 400).

     ² These include Palestine (esp. Jerusalem), Syria (esp. Antioch), Asia Minor (esp. Colosse or Ephesus), Greece (esp. Corinth), North Africa (esp. Alexandria), Italy (esp. Rome), and Caesarea.

     ³ N. R. Lightfoot candidly observes: “the apparent strength of such arguments is due simply to the fact that no better solution to the problem has been offered” (Jesus Christ Today 35). For objections to a Roman destination, see D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 714.

     ⁴ It is possible to date Clement’s letter as early as 68-70 (cf. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the NT 327-35).

     ⁵ While this argument may not in itself be decisive (cf. D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 606-07; B. Lindars, Theology of Hebrews 4-19), it is hard to read passages like Heb. 10:1-2 and not draw this conclusion, where it is said of the law that “it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered…?” How could this statement have been made if the sacrificial system was no longer operable? If the Jewish sacrifices had in fact ceased (at the temple’s destruction), failure to mention this extraordinarily significant detail in the argument of Hebrews is inconceivable.

     ⁶ If Paul is considered to have had a part in the composition of Hebrews (see Authorship of Hebrews Part 1 & Part 2), a date no earlier than 64 or 65 (and not considerably later) would seem reasonable. Paul was anticipating death when 2 Timothy was written, during which time Timothy was free (4:6-9), and no indication is given in any of the Pauline writings that Timothy had ever been imprisoned (in contrast to Heb. 13:23).

     ⁷ Note the frequent use of kreittōn (“better”): Heb. 1:4; 6:9; 7:7, 19, 22; 8:6 [x2]; 9:23; 10:34; 11:16, 35, 40; 12:24 = 13x (in the rest of the NT only 6x). Note also the emphasis on aiōnios (“eternal”): Heb. 5:9; 6:2; 9:12, 14, 15; 13:20 = 6x.

Related Posts: The Plural Authorship of Hebrews Part 1, Part 2

Image credit: http://www.livinghopefm.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/318-Hebrews-PageShots.jpg

John's Audience

      The Gospel of John was written by a Palestinian Jew, exhibiting detailed knowledge of the topography of Palestine (cf. 1:44; 2:1; 4:5-6, 21; 9:7; 11:18; 18:1) and reflecting personal acquaintance with features of conservative Judaism and Jewish tradition (e.g. 1:19-28; 4:9, 20). He was also accustomed to thinking in Aramaic, as few subordinate clauses appear in the text, Aramaic terms are frequently used (1:42; 5:2; 9:7; etc.), and Old Testament quotations are closer in form to the Hebrew than to the Greek (cf. 12:40; 13:18; 19:37).¹

     Nevertheless, John’s Gospel appears to have been written with a Gentile audience in mind, seeing that Jewish conventions are explained presumably for the benefit of those who were unfamiliar with them. Certain feasts are particularly identified as Jewish, i.e., "the Passover, the feast of the Jews" (6:4; 11:55), and "the Tabernacles, the feast of the Jews" (7:2). Jewish customs are noted and clarified, i.e., purification (2:6; cf. 11:55), ethnic exclusivism (4:9), and the Sabbath (19:31). Aramaic words are both transliterated and translated into Greek, i.e., Kēphas (1:42), Bēthzatha (5:2), Silōam (9:7), Gabbatha (19:13), Golgotha (19:17), and rabbouni (20:16). Palestinian geographical features are carefully described, i.e., "Bethany . . . across the Jordan" (1:28), "Cana of Galilee" (2:1, 11; 4:46; 21:2), "Aenon near Salim" (3:23), "Bethany near Jerusalem" (11:18), and "Bethsaida of Galilee" (12:21). The Sea of Galilee is identified as "the Sea of Tiberias" (6:1; 21:1), the name used in the latter part of the first century and employed in Greco-Roman texts.
     It has been suggested that something about the destination of the Fourth Gospel may be indicated by the way John the baptizer is depicted – quite different from the Synoptics. He is presented in the role of the Messiah’s forerunner and thus in a subordinate position. He is not the light but bears witness to the light (1:6-8); he is not the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet (1:20-21); he is merely the friend of the bridegroom who must decrease while the bridegroom must increase (3:28-30); and Jesus’ testimony is greater than his (5:33-34). This comparative and humbling presentation has sometimes been explained as an awareness of and/or response to a group of followers whose evaluation of John the baptist was exaggerated and misdirected. Interestingly, long after the death of the baptizer, disciples who were loyal to his teachings were reported in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-3). W. J. Harrington notes further that there were disciples of John the baptist in Ephesus as late as the third century (Explaining the Gospels 131).²
     Early and consistent testimony places the Gospel’s provenance in Asia Minor, particularly at Ephesus. The writing was reportedly at the request of area congregations as a summary of the apostle John’s teaching about the life of Jesus to meet needs that had grown up in the church near the close of the first century.³ Accordingly, the Gospel of John is best read and interpreted through the lense of late-first-century Gentile readers.
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
      ¹ See also Authorship of NT Gospels. Scripture quotations in English are the author’s own translation.
        ² Contra F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts 363 n. 7; Donald Guthrie, NT Introduction 279-80; et al., who dismiss the idea that the Fourth Gospel polemicizes against such a group.
        ³ Sources include Clement of Alexandria (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14), the Muratorian Canon, the Anti-Marcionite Porlogue, Jerome (Comm. Matt. Prol.), Epiphanius of Salamis (Adv. Haer. 41.12), Irenaeus of Lyons (Adv. Haer. 3.1.2), and Eusebius of Caesarea (Eccl. Hist. 3.1.1; 3.24).

Related Posts: Matthew's Audience, Mark's Audience, Luke's Audience

Image credit: http://www.themonastery.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Gospel-of-St-John-300x200.jpg

Luke's Audience

      Luke is the only Gospel writer to have explicitly identified his audience, viz. Theophilus (1:3) to whom the sequel is also addressed (Acts 1:1). The name Theophilus means "lover of God" in Greek, and some have suggested that it may be employed in a fictitious sense, applying to all who love God. However, this is unlikely in view of the appendage kratistos ("most excellent") in Luke 1:3, indicative of one who is an important administrative official, like a magistrate. Luke uses this title on three other occasions (Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25), each in reference to someone governing a Roman province.

      The late F. F. Bruce has noted the uncertainty as to whether the title is meant in a technical sense with reference to rank (representing the Roman equestrian order egregious), or simply by way of courtesy (corresponding to the Latin optimus). Bruce has theorized that Theophilus "was a representative member of the intelligent middle-class public at Rome whom Luke wished to win over to a less prejudiced and more favorable opinion of Christianity than that which was current among them" (The Book of Acts 29). It seems implausible, however, that such a large volume of material (25% of the New Testament!) would have been written for a non-Christian official with a realistic expectation of him actually reading it and thereby being influenced by it. The fact that in Luke 1:4 reference is made to peri hōn katēchēthēs logōn ("things concerning which you were taught") is suggestive of someone already informed about the Christian faith.¹
      It is not without significance that Luke had close connections with Philippi, having worked with the church there for up to seven years (note the "we" references in Acts 16:10–20:6). Philippi was a Roman military colony whose magistrates were stratēgoi (generals or controllers of police and marshals) (cf. Acts 16:20-22, 35-38).² Perhaps Theophilus was one of these high-ranking officials who had been converted during Luke’s extended ministry. It is even within the realm of possibility that he was the keeper of the prison who, along with his family, had been taught and baptized by Paul and Silas (Acts 16:27-40) and had since (twelve years later) been appointed to the "most excellent" position of stratēgos. Having reasonably affluent members like this, including Lydia (Acts 16:14-15, 40), would explain how the Philippi church could afford to be so financially generous (Philippians 4:15; cf. 2 Corinthians 8:1-5; 11:9).
      Aramaic expressions and place-names in the other Gospels are generally omitted in Luke (except Luke 16:9, 11, 13), suggesting a readership with a non-Jewish background. Further, the Aramaic designation Akel Dama in Acts 1:19 (alluded to as "their own language") is translated into Greek. Irenaeus affirms that Luke "published" his Gospel (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.24.5-7), employing the standard Greek term ekdosis that denotes the public dissemination of a literary work. Since Luke-Acts was almost certainly meant to be read by a larger audience, the opening address may then serve as a dedication, a convention not uncommon in ancient literary works. Accordingly, Theophilus could have been the patron who provided financial support for Luke’s travels, research, and writing projects.³
      While the Gospel of Luke has been variously classified, it readily fits into the category of ancient Greco-Roman biographies that often included characteristics of other genres.⁴ Its second volume (Acts) seems to fit best within the genre of Greek historiography. Luke would have been out of place among the Roman historians, who tended to focus on events surrounding a single city or Empire (Rome), or the Jewish historians, who were primarily concerned about the history of one ethno-political group (Israel). Rather, Luke shares much in common with the Greek historians, who often traveled to the places they wrote about, observed the events they recorded, and presented a neutral account of the acts and persons they described (see B. Witherington, Acts of the Apostles 25-36).
      Seeing that the last half of Acts focuses on the ministry of Paul, this might indicate that the intended audience was somehow connected with Paul’s ministry. Acts concludes with a pronouncement that the future of the gospel rests with Gentiles rather than Jews (28:25-28). The account of Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke being sent into the province of Macedonia by way of divine prompting (Acts 16:9-10), coupled with Luke’s apparent extensive stay in Macedonia, particularly in the city of Philippi (Acts 16:10–20:6), and the close relationship these Macedonian Christians had with Paul (cf. Acts 16:9–17:14; 20:4; 2 Corinthians 8:1-5; Philippians 1:1-11; 4:10-20), may suggest something about the original destination of Luke-Acts.
       When read from a first-century Greek perspective within a Greco-Roman environment, the writings of Luke are more clearly apprehended. See also Authorship of Luke-Acts and Dating of Luke-Acts.
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
       ¹ Scripture quotations in English are the author’s own translation. Gregory E. Sterling acknowledges the apologetic nature of Luke-Acts but reasonably contends that it was meant for a Christian audience ("Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography," SBL/SP 28 [1989]: 341-42).
      ² Luke’s employment of the titles of magistrates in various Greek cities is always historically accurate: stratēgoi in Philippi (Acts 16:20-38), politarchai in Thessalonica (Acts 17:6), and asiarchai in Ephesus (Acts 19:31).
      ³ "Publication in this sense means that the work was intentionally produced for wider distribution and adhered to certain literary conventions. In this regard the address to Theophilus again becomes important, since it was normal to dedicate such works to the patron who paid for the publication, meaning the costs of papyrus, ink, secretaries, and copyists and in many cases support for the author" (L. M. White, From Jesus to Christianity 249).
      ⁴ See R. A. Burridge, What are the Gospels? and C. H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? Although scholars like R. K. Bultmann (History of the Synoptic Tradition [1912]) object to this classification, the arguments are principally based on modern concepts of biography.

Related Posts: Matthew's Audience, Mark's Audience, John's Audience

Image credit: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSs0S8sN6f81AOCa7Dg1sD7BokLshFk1WcIuK3TFoZcuqFzf4JVOEZa0RoRPlFzpUAFY9kx3Zz82N-iL1T-z939GwyARwPv9jGPcv8lf0WQ312tf79gF5n8s7gwiAlbH17EKzp_2MfFGPU/s320/Gospel-according-to-Luke.jpg

Mark's Audience

      While John Mark (son of Mary of Jerusalem and cousin of Barnabas) was an ethnic Jew,¹ his Gospel appears to have been written for a non-Jewish audience. Aramaic expressions are translated (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36; 15:22, 34) and Jewish customs explained (7:3-4; 14:12; 15:42). More specifically, Mark had close connections with Rome (cf. Colossians 4:10; Philemon 24). Having been summoned to Rome by Paul (2 Timothy 4:11), he was with Peter (presumably in Rome) when 1 Peter was written (5:13). Irenaeus affirms that Paul and Peter were in Rome at the same time (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1),  corresponding to Paul’s second Roman imprisonment in conjunction with the great fire of Rome in July 64 and Nero’s subsequent persecution of Christians.

     Peter sends greetings from "she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you ..." (1 Peter 5:13). Although some have suggested that "she" is a reference to an actual woman (perhaps Peter's wife), most interpreters understand this to be a metaphoric allusion to the collective members of the church (cf. KJV). It is only natural to interpret "Babylon" symbolically as applicable to Rome.² In late Judaism "Rome began to take on the name and many of the characteristics of Babylon as a world-power hostile to God . . ." (BAGD 129), and the book of Revelation indicates that first-century Christians understood "Babylon" as a symbolic reference to Rome (cf. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21). If Nero’s persecution was looming or in its early stages at the time of writing, Peter’s reluctance to expressly identify the Christian community in Rome is understandable.
     According to Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-140), Mark was "Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord.... [he] followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single points as he remembered them" (as quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15-16; cf. 6.25.5, trans. K. Lake, LCL).³ Simon Peter is the first of the apostles named in Mark's Gospel (1:16) and the last (16:7). It is of further interest that the Gospel of Mark follows a pattern very similar to Peter’s sermon recorded in Acts 10:36-41 (see esp. W. L. Lance, The Gospel According to Mark 10-11; also D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 193).
     Both Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.2) and Clement of Alexandria (Hypotyposeis; cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.5-7) report that Mark’s Gospel was compiled in Rome. In fact, the Gospel has a definite Roman flavoring. It contains a number of Latinisms: e.g. modus (4:21), legion (5:9), speculator (6:27), census (12:14), denarius (12:15), lepta (12:42), quadrans (12:42), flagellare (15:15), praetorium (15:16), and centurion (15:39, 44-45). Mark uses Roman rather than Hebrew time (6:48; 13:35). And seeing that Mark’s readers were acquainted with Simon’s sons Alexander and Rufus (15:21), it is not without significance that there was a Christian named Rufus among the believers at Rome (Romans 16:13).
     Mark portrays Jesus as the suffering servant of God (8:31-32; 9:31; 10:33-34), and his unique focus on suffering (cf. 10:30)⁴ may be the result of Nero’s persecutions in Rome approximating the time of writing. The message and unique features of Mark’s Gospel make more sense when read from a first-century Roman perspective.
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes: 
    ¹ Colossians 4:10-11; Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37. The author of Mark’s Gospel was familiar with the geography of Palestine (5:1; 6:53; 8:10; 11:1; 13:3), knew Aramaic (5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36), and understood Jewish customs (1:21; 7:2-4). Although one of the arguments against Markan authorship is an alleged ignorance of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs, these criticisms are exaggerated and do not stand up to close scrutiny (see D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 175).
     ² There is no evidence that the church was existing in the literal Babylon of Mesopotamia in the mid-first-century AD or that Peter or Mark or Silvanus was associated with the region. Few, if any, would consider Egypt’s Babylon as a possibility either.
     ³ Note that Mark’s Gospel is arranged more geographically than chronologically. On Mark’s association with Peter in the biblical record, see Acts 12:11-12; 13:13; 2 Timothy 4:11; and 1 Peter 5:13. Comparable early testimonies include Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 106.3); the Anti-Marcionite Prologue (ca. 160-180), Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4.5), and Jerome (Ad Hedibiam 120).
    ⁴ Mark does not include teachings of Jesus on discipleship until after the Lord's description of his own suffering (8:31-33). 

Related Posts: Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel, Matthew's Audience,  Luke's Audience, John's Audience

Image credit: http://www.esgetology.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Old_Bibles-1.jpg

Matthew's Audience

      What readership did Matthew have in mind as he composed his Gospel? Matthew himself was a Galilean Jew¹ and evidently shared a background in ethnic Judaism with his audience. The Gospel clearly betrays a strong Jewish orientation (cf. 5:17-18; 10:5; 15:24; 17:24-27; 23:2-3). The terminology employed is decidedly Jewish (2:20-21; 4:5; 5:35, 47; 6:7, 32; 10:6; 15:24; 17:24-27; 18:17; 27:53). A number of Aramaic expressions are found throughout the text, often without translation (5:22; 6:24; 16:17; 27:33, 46). The frequent use of tote ("then"), occurring no less than ninety times (more than anywhere else in the New Testament), reflects Aramaic thinking. Familiarity with Jewish history, politics, ideas, and customs is also assumed (1:18-19; 2:1, 4, 22; 14:1; 17:24; 23:2; 26:3, 57, 59; 27:2, 11, 13).

     The Hebrew Bible has a prominent place in Matthew, with about forty quotations and over 100 allusions, demonstrating a mutual knowledge of and respect for these writings. Jesus is portrayed as the promised Messiah of the Jewish scriptures, and more fulfilled Old Testament prophecies are cited in Matthew than in any of the other Gospels (1:1, 22-23; 2:5-6, 15, 17-18, 23; 3:3; 4:14-16; 5:17; 8:16-17; 12:17-21; 13:14-15, 35; 21:4-5; 26:63-64; 27:9-10). Matthew opens with the genealogy of Jesus Christ, starting with Abraham and tracing the line of decent through David (1:1-16). The only other New Testament record of the Lord’s lineage (Luke 3:23-38) reaches all the way back to "Adam, the son of God," thereby linking him to the entire human race. In contrast, Matthew’s account is primarily concerned with Christ’s Jewish connection.²
     Admittedly the internal evidence does not always confirm whether the heavy Jewish flavoring pertains to the Gospel’s provenance or destination, but if Matthew lived among his audience, it would apply to both. While Palestine, especially Judea (cf. Jerome, De vir. ill. 3), is a plausible location, a more popular suggestion is Syria, particularly Antioch. The earliest clear usage of Matthew’s Gospel comes from Antioch in the early second-century writings of Ignatius (ca. 35-107), who made much use of the text (see Smyrn. 1.1; Eph. 19.1-3; Polc. 2.2). The Gospel fits well into the setting of Syrian Antioch, which had a large Jewish population, a well-established Christian community, and a church committed to the discipleship of all nations (Acts 11:29; 13:1-3; 14:27-28; 15:40; 18:22-23; cf. Matthew 28:18-20). The unique features of Matthew’s Gospel and its overall message make more sense when read from this first-century Jewish perspective.
–Kevin L. Moore 

Endnotes:
      ¹ See, e.g., Acts 2:7. Matthew was intimately familiar with Palestinian geography (2:1, 23; 3:1, 5, 13; 4:12, 13, 23-25; 8:5, 23, 28; 14:34; 15:32, 39; 16:13; 17:1; 19:1; 20:29; 21:1, 17; 26:6).
      ² Both Irenaeus and Origen affirm that Matthew’s Gospel was intended for a Jewish audience (see Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5.8.2; 6.25.4).

Related Posts: Original Form of Matthew's Gospel, Lineage of Jesus in Matthew, Mark's Audience, Luke's Audience, John's Audience

Image credit: http://us.cdn1.123rf.com/168nwm/sorsillo/sorsillo0802/sorsillo080200025/2517887-bible-series-close-up-detail-of-antique-holy-bible-open-to-the-gospel-according-to-saint-matthew-in-.jpg

Biblical Interpretation: Asking the Right Questions

      What does the Bible say to me, and how does it apply to my life? As important as these questions are, the proverbial cart is placed before the horse when they are the first to be asked. Conscientious Bible students should instead begin their investigation of any biblical text by considering what the inspired writer was seeking to convey to his original audience and how they would have understood the message in the context in which it was first communicated. When this is the preliminary focus, one is in a much better position to correctly interpret and apply the sacred writings as they were intended.

     Who is speaking? This is a logical question to ask when examining any form of communication. A statement like, "Curse God and die!" (Job 2:9),¹ although recorded in scripture, was not originally spoken by God or one of his authorized representatives. In addition to what has been revealed from heaven, the biblical record also contains words spoken by the devil (Matthew 4:3-9) and fallible human beings (John 8:48). Even true statements are not always attributable to a divine source (e.g. John 9:31; Acts 5:38-39; 17:28). The fact that the Bible is the inspired word of God simply means that whenever the sayings of uninspired individuals are recorded, an accurate account is given of what was said. As the pages of scripture are evaluated, the information's original source must be ascertained.
     Who is being addressed? If this question is ignored or not answered properly, misunderstanding is the inevitable result. Jesus promised in John 16:13a, "when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all the truth . . ." Would it be legitimate for me to read these words with a realistic expectation of all truth being directly revealed to me by the divine Spirit? By taking the time to examine the surrounding context (chaps. 13–16), it is clear that Christ is not speaking to me at all. In fact, while addressing the very same hearers in the very same setting he also says, "If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet" (13:14). Contextually, Christ’s chosen apostles are the ones whose feet he had just washed and who were to receive the outpouring of God’s Spirit not long after these words were spoken (cf. Acts 1:1-8).
     Who is the author? The sixty-six books of the Bible were penned by over forty separate writers whose forty+ different perspectives were utilized to transmit the biblical message. Bible study is significantly enhanced when the matter of authorship is taken into account. In the parallel Gospel records of the dispute over paying taxes, one might wonder why the common term dēnarion is used in Mark 12:15 and Luke 20:24, while the more precise nomisma (state coin) is employed in Matthew 22:19a. The fact that the author of the latter passage was a tax collector (cf. Matthew 10:3) is a reasonable explanation for this difference. In the synoptic accounts of Jesus’ statement about a camel going through the eye of a "needle," the term hraphis (an ordinary sewing needle) is used in Matthew 19:24 and Mark 10:25, whereas the word belonē (a surgeon’s needle) is found in Luke 18:25. This linguistic variation ought not be surprising, seeing that the latter text was authored by a physician (cf. Colossians 4:14).² Of the three occurrences in the New Testament of the term deleazō (to "entice" or "lure" with bait), two appear in 2 Peter (2:14, 18), the significance of which is appreciated more when the question of authorship is considered (cf. Matthew 17:26-27).
     Who is the intended readership? Before a biblical text says anything to me, it has already spoken to those who first received it. If would-be interpreters have little regard for the immediate audience of any writing, chances are the meaning will be misconstrued and the message misapplied. I recently heard a televangelist quote Matthew 11:12, "the kingdom of heaven suffers violence," making direct application to persecuted believers in modern-day Eastern Europe. The historical context of this passage was completely ignored, including the fierce aggression of Jewish Zealots in the contemporary experience of Jesus’ listeners and Matthew’s readers, and was replaced by current events far removed from the setting of the original message.
     To what do the prophecies of Revelation 6 have reference? Is the first seal (vv. 1-2) an allusion to the present-day United States of America, with the rider of the white horse depicting the U.S. president, and the other seals (vv. 3-17) descriptive of the current war on terrorism and the advent of World War III? Such an interpretation implies that the message of Revelation had absolutely no relevance, meaning or application for the seven churches of the 1st-century province of Asia to whom it was addressed and for whom it was intended (1:4, 11). Moreover, the repeated warnings of "things which must shortly take place" (1:1, 3; 22:6, 10) are thereby rendered misleading. Alternatively, deciphering the complex symbolism is much less daunting when viewed through the lense of John’s contemporary audience. These readers were facing brutal and widespread persecution (1:9; 2:10, 13; 3:10; 6:9; 12:13; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2; 20:4) and desperately needed a message of hope (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 5:5; 12:11; 15:2; 17:14; 21:7). The bottom line is, since the day the sixth chapter of Revelation was penned, historical realities such as war, famine, disease, Christian martyrdom, and the fall of governing powers have not been restricted to modern times.
     Any shallow, irresponsible approach to Bible study not only generates a great deal of religious confusion and division, it provides a superficial boost to the ammunition supplies of biblical critics. But when the right questions are asked and valid answers attained, God’s word is capable of providing a solid basis for religious unity, an effective pattern for spiritual guidance, and a powerful instrument for saving souls.
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
      ¹ All scripture quotations are from the New King James Version (1985).
    ² See Authorship of NT Gospels and Authorship of Luke-Acts.

Related Posts: Biblical Interpretation in Perspective

Related articles: Jack Wilke's 3 Dangerous Ways to Interpret the Bible; Ben Giselbach's Why People Interpret the Bible Differently, M. Riley's Studying Revelation