The Key to Rightly Discerning the Message of Romans

Our modern-day religious environment has been heavily influenced by the 16th-century Calvinistic tenets of Reformed Theology and Martin Luther’s abbreviated gospel of sola fide (“faith alone”), creating an interpretive framework through which Paul’s writings are still widely scrutinized. Romans has thus been exploited over the centuries to address questions it was not designed to answer.

If we examine the text through first-century (pre-denominational) lenses, and seek to comprehend what the inspired author intended to communicate to his original targeted audience and how they would have understood the message in light of their particular background and circumstances, we are better equipped to avoid anachronistic misconceptions and make legitimate present-day application.

The Key to Understanding Romans

The best way to understand Romans is to start at the first verse of the first chapter and read all the way through to the end of the letter, which is how the document was originally designed. Otherwise, we run the risk of missing the point and misunderstanding any given passage, especially when the flow of thought and surrounding context are not considered.

Keys to Misunderstanding Romans

If we start in chapter 3 or 4 and conclude that justification is by faith alone apart from any kind of works or deeds, we have skipped over what was already established at the beginning of the letter (and reiterated at the end of the letter) concerning “obedience of faith” (1:5; 16:26). These bookends define how “faith” is to be understood throughout the book. Saving faith is not an inactive, non-obedient, purely mental assent to a perceived truth. It is clearly a functioning, responsive, obedient faith.¹ We also miss what is laid out in chapter 2 about repentance and divine judgment according to our deeds, with repeated emphasis on active doing (2:4-16).

If we begin in the fifth chapter and dismiss from God’s redemptive plan obedience in general and baptism in particular, not only have we sidestepped the first two chapters, we also haven’t read far enough to appreciate that Paul is writing to penitent baptized believers who have been freed from sin as a result of their obedient faith (6:3-18), with continued righteous living (6:19-23). Likewise, if we start in chapter 6, we fail to fully comprehend the previous chapter’s focus on God’s loving grace and Christ’s atoning sacrifice, without which our faith response would be entirely ineffectual.

If we start in chapter 7, it would be easy to get discouraged by the blunt reminder of the inner struggle and constant battle to overcome sin, unless we are reminded of what the Lord has done in the preceding chapter. And we need to keep reading through chapter 8 to realize that divine help is available to ensure victory. But if we begin in the eighth chapter, we miss the personal effort described in chapter 7 that is necessary to work in cooperation with God to successfully live the Christian life.

If we start in the ninth chapter and isolate selected verses that seem to support certain tenets of Calvinism, we have overlooked the first eight chapters and may not realize that chapter 9 is merely prefatory for the extended three-chapter discourse about Israel’s place in salvation history. Chapters 10–11 clarify and complete the whole argument.

If we begin in the tenth chapter and cite verses 9-13 to argue against the necessity of gospel obedience and the salvific role of baptism, we have ignored the fact that the tenth chapter was written after the first eight chapters and is addressed to penitent baptized believers currently sanctified in Christ. Chapter 10 must therefore be read in light of what is already understood. By starting in chapter 11, we might unnecessarily infer the unconditional salvation of modern-day Israel, but again this misses everything Paul has been saying since the beginning of the letter about the conditional nature of salvation for all who are in Christ, Jews and Gentiles alike (e.g., 2:5-9; 3:23-26; 6:16-19; 10:12-13; 11:20-23).

If we begin in chapter 12, 13, 14, or 15, we skip over the theological foundation upon which the letter’s practical-application section stands. And by starting in the final chapter, we can certainly glean a lot of historical information but miss out on the doctrinal and practical aspects of the letter.

Conclusion

Briefly stated, Romans is about God’s redemptive plan for humanity. Both Jews and Gentiles have sinned, stand before God on equal terms, and are justified together in the same way (chaps. 1–11). Practical directives are then given for how Christians ought to live and relate to one another and to the world (chaps. 12–16).

Understanding Romans doesn’t have to be as daunting as many have made it out to be. It requires integrity, common sense, and conscientiously avoiding hermeneutical fallacies. Surely we can recognize the delusion of proof texting, i.e., selecting isolated verses to form a doctrinal belief without due attention to the original context, ignoring qualifying information, and thereby distorting the actual meaning. This is often accompanied by eisegesis, whereby one’s presuppositions are read into the biblical text, rather than exegesis, which draws out of the text what the inspired writer intended to convey.

Let us be thankful for the knowledge of God’s will as revealed in Romans and the rest of God’s holy word,² and the opportunity and ability he has granted to study, understand, and obey it. May we live up to his expectations.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See “Bookends of Romans,” Moore Perspective (16 Nov. 2023), <Link>. The so-called “Romans Road to Salvation” (popular in a number of denominational tracts) cherry-picks selected verses from Romans to create a seemingly biblical case for salvation by faith alone, but in so doing context is ignored and allusions to obedience and baptism (e.g., Rom. 1:5; 2:8; 6:1-18; 10:16; 16:19, 26) are curiously omitted.

     ² See “What the Scriptures Say About the Scriptures,” Moore Perspective (25 July 2018), <Link>.

Related Posts: Faith and Works: Rom 2-4, Abbreviated Gospel, Paul's Use of the OT in Romans

Related articles:

 

Image credit: https://www.learnreligions.com/how-to-study-the-bible-700238 

Preterism: What’s the Big Deal? (Part 2 of 4) Misinformation

Contextual Dislocation

When context is afforded its rightful place in the study of scripture, a number of preterist proof-texts and interpretations are exposed as forced and misleading. Reading Jerusalem’s AD 70 destruction into almost every prophetic statement in the NT may seem convincing to some, but only if context is ignored. 

Paul called on Athenian pagan philosophers to repent right now because God “has set a day in which he intends to judge the world in righteousness …” (Acts 17:30-31).¹ What motivation would this have given, or what relevance would it have had, if referring to the judgment against nationalistic Judaism, two decades later, hundreds of miles away, on the opposite end of the Mediterranean Sea? 

As Paul stood before the Roman procurator Marcus Antonius Felix in Caesarea, not only did he mention “a resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous,” he spoke more directly about “righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment” (Acts 24:15, 25). Since Felix was on the side of the Romans rather than the Jewish rebels, what was Paul using as an evangelistic incentive that struck fear in this man’s heart? Compare 2 Cor. 5:10-11.

James, in the 5th chapter of his epistle, declares judgment on dishonest, wealthy oppressors (vv. 1-6). He then encourages his readers to persevere “until the parousía of the Lord” (v. 7). Addressed to Jewish Christians “in the diaspora” (1:1), i.e., far away from the land of Judea, the Lord’s approaching judgment against Jerusalem would not particularly apply. 

Whether the fate of these doomed tyrants was to be actualized in their lifetime or in the age to come, James tells his readers, “strengthen your hearts, because the parousía of the Lord has drawn near” (5:8). Rather than surely affirming Christ’s imminent return, however, nearness phraseology emphasizes the certainty of fulfillment and encourages readers to live in a constant state of expectancy of the Lord's parousía always at hand. Even more so, what was needed to reassure their troubled hearts was a reminder of the nearness of his presence. The next verse includes this idea of spatial proximity: “Behold, the judge is standing before the doors” (v. 9b). Compare similar passages with which James’ audience would have been familiar (Deut. 4:7; Psa. 34:18; 85:9; 119:151; 145:18; Isa. 51:5; 55:6; Jer. 23:23).  

When the apostle Paul later writes to the saints at Philippi, a Roman colony nearly a thousand miles away from Jerusalem, he reassures them with these words: “the Lord is near” (Phil. 4:5b). Because of the less-than-precise verse divisions in our English Bible, modern readers might fail to appreciate that this statement readily serves as a motivation for what follows. The apostle is alluding to the fact that the Lord is close, nearby, looking on (cf. vv. 7, 9, 13, 19; Acts 18:9-10; 2 Tim. 4:17). Therefore, “do not be anxious about anything …” (Phil. 4:6a).

Deceptive Argumentation

Paul warns his readers of the deception involved in claiming that the Lord’s parousía has already transpired (2 Thess. 2:1-3). If a preterist argument on the surface sounds compelling to some, like all teaching it needs to be put to the test (1 Thess. 5:21).

The preterist asks when will futurists observe communion with the Lord? Jesus said, “I will not eat thereof until it is fulfilled in God’s kingdom” (Luke 22:16). Yet in the observance of the Lord’s Supper, Paul said to the mid-1st-century Corinthians, “you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). They were not communing with the Lord but anticipating his return (in AD 70). If there is no communion with the Lord until he comes, and if there is no communion after his coming, when will futurists ever commune with the Lord?! 

This flimsy, deceptive argument is created by altering and mixing the terminology of two separate passages in two very different contexts. In Luke 22:16 Jesus speaks of communing with his disciples in the kingdom (fulfilled in his church). Abuses notwithstanding, in 1 Cor. 11:26 Paul is speaking to citizens of the kingdom who regularly commune with the Lord as they observe the Lord’s supper (10:16-17), and by so doing, “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” The preterist argument crafts a false antithesis by alleging the Corinthians were looking for Christ’s return instead of communing with him, but surely this is not an “either-or” scenario! Jesus’ words in Luke 22:16 were fulfilled when the church began (Acts 2:42). Since then Paul’s observation in 1 Cor. 11:26 has been implemented weekly, recurring until the Lord’s parousía.

The Last Days and the End of the Age?

When scripture speaks of “the end of the age,” preterists insert “Jewish.” When scripture speaks of “the last days,” preterists add “of the Jewish dispensation.” They contend that the last days (of old-covenant Judaism), and the end of the (Jewish) age or the (Jewish covenantal) world, point to the summer of AD 70. Thus, there is no end to history. “Our physical world and cosmos are without end.”²

I am reminded, especially when I hear or read the musings of militant preterists, of the apostle Peter’s foreseeing “in the last days scoffers,” who cynically ask, “Where is the promise of his parousía?” (2 Pet. 3:3-4). This is followed by a vivid description of the day of the Lord’s judgment, when the physical world and cosmos will be incinerated (vv. 7-14). Then Peter issues a warning about those who distort the scriptures and lead others astray with error (vv. 16-17). 

There is no question that the violent overthrow of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the deathblow to nationalistic Judaism in the 1st century, and the period leading up to this catastrophic event was in fact its last days (the events of 1948 notwithstanding). But to so narrowly interpret similar terminology in contextually unrelated passages is to lose sight of God’s much broader scheme.

The historical turning point between old-covenant Judaism and the new-covenant messianic age occurred about four decades earlier at the cross. “And through this [Jesus Christ] is mediator of a new covenant, so that, death having occurred for redemption of transgressions of those under the first covenant, those having been called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance. For where there is a will, death of the one having made it is necessary to uphold it. For a will is secure upon death, since it is not enforced at the time when the one having made it is living” (Heb. 9:15-17). The old-covenant system of Judaism had served its purpose and the Lord officially replaced it at Golgatha, “having nailed it to the cross” (Col. 2:14). 

The messianic age was inaugurated at Jesus’ atoning death, soon followed by his resurrection, ascension, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and other extraordinary events at Pentecost. Granted, while traditional Judaism was still alive and well with many unsuccessful attempts to thwart God’s work in his church, this came to an abrupt halt about forty years later (cf. Heb. 8:13b). Nevertheless, the temple’s removal was certainly not at the center of God’s redemptive plan. The atoning death of his Son served this distinctive purpose (cf. John 19:30).³

At Pentecost Peter and his contemporaries were living in “the last days” (Acts 2:16-17), not merely the final days of old-covenant Judaism, which the Lord had already rendered obsolete (Heb. 8:13a), but the final period of biblical history (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:1-2; 9:26; 2 Pet. 3:3-4). Jesus commissioned his followers to make disciples of all nations by baptizing and teaching observance of all his commands, with the assurance of his abiding presence “until the end of the age” (Matt. 28:18-20). The serious Bible student must decide which of these is or is not still applicable.

Appealing to Matt. 24:3 to link the expression, “the end of the age,” to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem might carry more weight if it were not the words of confused, uninformed disciples. Since other passages (e.g. Matt. 13:39, 40, 49; 2 Tim. 3:1; Jas. 5:3) tend to be interpreted according to the interpreter’s eschatological presuppositions, we will not prolong the never-ending debate in the present study.  

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² John Noē, The Perfect Ending of the World (Indianapolis, IN: East2West, 2011): xv. Contra the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

     ³ Psa. 22:16; Isa. 53:8-9; Matt. 16:21; 17:12, 22-23; 20:18-19; 21:37-39; 26:2; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:19-20; John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32-33; Acts 2:23, 36; 3:18; 4:10, 27-28; Rom. 5:6-11; 1 Cor. 1:13, 17-29; 2:2; 15:1-4; 2 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; 3:1, 13; 5:11; 6:12; Eph. 1:7; 2:15-16; 5:25; Phil. 2:8-9, 18; Col. 1:14, 20; 1 Tim. 2:6; Tit. 2:14; Heb. 2:9-17; 6:6; 9:12, 22, 26; 10:4; 12:2; 1 Pet. 2:24; Rev. 5:6, 12; 13:8. See K. L. Moore, “The Christianization of a Pagan Symbol,” Moore Perspective (24 Dec. 2019), <Link>.

Related Posts: Preterism: Part 1, Part 3, Part 4

Image credit: adapted from https://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/272698/the-most-frustrated-people-in-finance

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Deciphering Meaning Through Layers of Context (Part 5 of 5)

Biblical Typology

Employing tangible symbols of the past to represent analogous yet loftier divine truths is the function of biblical typology. An OT type (Greek túpos, a “figure” or “image”), which is material and temporary, foreshadows a NT antitype (antítupos, “corresponding to”) of much greater spiritual import.¹

The Lord Jesus Christ is typified in Adam (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45), in Moses (Acts 3:22; 7:37), and in Melchizedek (Heb. 5:5-10). The Passover and the raising of the serpent in the wilderness each prefigures Jesus’ sacrificial death (John 3:14; 12:32-33; 1 Cor. 5:7). The old-covenant-tabernacle ritual corresponds to Christ’s superior new-covenant arrangement (Heb. 9:1-28). The flood of Noah’s day and the Red Sea crossing are analogous to Christian baptism (1 Cor. 10:1-2; 1 Pet. 3:20-21). The Jewish temple is a meager representation of the Lord’s church (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:16), as is the ancient city where the temple stood (Heb. 12:22-23; Rev. 3:12).² Abraham’s physical descendants foreshadow the omniracial Christian community, the true Israel of God (Rom. 9:6-8; Gal. 3:29; 6:16). The literal “heavens and earth,” the typical word-pair describing humanity’s physical habitat, serves as a figure of a completely “new” subsistence (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1; cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-54; 2 Cor. 5:1-8).³

In Matthew’s record of Christ’s teaching, the prophet Jonah’s ordeal typifies the burial and resurrection of Jesus (12:39-40; 16:4); the receptivity of those to whom Jonah and Solomon preached illustrates how much more Jesus ought to be heard (12:41-42); John the baptizer is the antitype of Elijah (17:10-13). When Jesus quotes the saying, “Blessed are the meek, for ‘they shall inherit the land’” (5:5) – its only occurrence in the NT – this sounds like a physical type of the spiritual antitype that follows, “for your reward is great in heaven …” (v. 12b). However, considering the backdrop of Psalm 37, this blessing is not limited to the future but includes God’s provision, comfort, and peace in the present. The literal land inheritance of Abraham’s biological descendants (Acts 7:2-5, 17, 45; Heb. 11:8) serves as a physical type of the spiritual inheritance of Abraham’s spiritual heirs in Christ, realized in the present (Gal. 3:6-29; Eph. 1:13-14, 18; 5:5), future (Col. 3:24; 1 Pet. 1:4), and forevermore (Heb. 9:15).

The Fulfillment

The promised blessings of Matthew 5:3-10, rather than being withheld for millennia into the future, are most certainly accessible to God’s people in the here and now. For the poor in spirit and the unjustly persecuted, heavenly citizenship is now available.⁴ Comfort is provided to those who are mourning.⁵ To be filled with righteousness is assured to all who are eagerly seeking it.⁶ The merciful obtain mercy.⁷ Through his revelation God is seen (understood) with purity of heart.⁸ Peaceable followers of Christ are currently acknowledged as God’s children.⁹ So what about the meek? 

To interpret the promise of Matt. 5:5b as something unavailable until the distant future in a yet-to-be-established earthly kingdom is to ignore the surrounding context and other contextual layers, thereby missing the point. The spiritual blessings of God’s kingdom are not limited to persons living within the ancient borders of Israel. If a literal “land” (or “earth”) inheritance is meant, surely we would expect it to be reaffirmed elsewhere in the NT. Instead, notwithstanding the Apocalypse’s highly symbolic imagery, we find promises like, “he will inherit life everlasting” (Matt. 19:29); “flesh and blood is not able to inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit incorruptibility” (1 Cor. 15:50); “those who are to inherit salvation” (Heb. 1:14); “to an inheritance imperishable, untainted, and enduring, reserved in heaven for you” (1 Pet. 1:4).¹⁰ The fulfillment of these promises did in fact begin in “the land” – in Jerusalem, all Judea, and Samaria – extending to the ends of the earth and to the end of the age (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; Col. 1:3-6, 13, 23). 

Conclusion

Our study through multiple layers of context has concentrated on the words of a Hebrew poet, quoted by the messianic Lord, and reiterated by an inspired historian. The first contextual layer is Psalm 37, earthly-focused and directed to Israelites living in the land of promise under the old-covenant system of Moses: a mere shadow of things to come (cf. Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). The second contextual layer is Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, wherein attention is redirected to the heavenly and spiritual blessings of God’s approaching kingdom: a time of transitioning from the old and preparing for the new (cf. Matt. 9:16-17; Heb. 8:6-13). The third contextual layer is the Gospel of Matthew, written fairly early in Christ’s new-covenant age to Jewish believers presently living the antitypical substance of these truths in God’s heavenly kingdom come to earth (cf. Eph. 1:3; Col. 1:12-13). The fourth contextual layer is the application of these teachings to our current time and circumstances. 

“Blessed are the meek, for ‘they shall inherit the land’” (Matt. 5:5). For ancient Israelites this meant the assurance of God’s favor, provision, security, and hope. For early-1st-century Jews and latter-1st-century Jewish Christians, it had the same connotation. The Lord still expects humility of spirit, emotional sensitivity, meekness, pursuit of righteousness, mercy, purity of heart, peacemaking, and steadfast endurance. The accompanying blessings are still assured to his faithful followers, both now in this time and in the age to come (Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:30; 1 Cor. 3:21-23).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ G. K. Beale defines typology as “the study of analogical correspondences between persons, events, institutions, and other things within the historical framework of God’s special revelation, which, from a retrospective view, are of a prophetic nature” (“Finding Christ in the Old Testament,” JETS 93.1 [2020]: 29). See also Beale’s Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012): 13-15. In the genre of Hebrew poetry, the language of the psalms is a copy, mirror, or representation of what it imitates. “How well the image represents the reality becomes the mode of valuation, whether the representation is of a transcendent reality or a mundane beauty” (David Petersen and Kent Harold Richards, Interpreting Hebrew Poetry [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992]: 10). Accordingly, the historical-religious background of the psalms provides yet another layer of context.

     ² See K. L. Moore, The New Jerusalem: Heaven or the Church?.

     ³ See K. L. Moore, New Heavens and a New Earth.

     ⁴ Phil. 3:20; Col. 1:5, 12-13; 3:1-2. There is a rest spoken of that is yet in the future—something promised that remains to be fully realized (Heb. 3:7–4:11). When Jesus journeyed ahead to prepare a place for his disciples (John 14:2-3), he went beyond the “veil” and penetrated the holiest place to dwell in the presence of God (Heb. 6:19-20; 9:12). This is none other than “heaven itself” (Heb. 9:24). The righteous now have the confident expectation of entering the very same place (Heb. 6:18-19; 10:19-20, 34), wherein their names are registered (Heb. 12:23).

     ⁵ 2 Cor. 1:3-7; 2:7; 7:6-7, 13; 13:11; Col. 2:2; 1 Thess. 4:18; 5:11; 2 Thess. 2:16-17.

     ⁶ Rom. 1:16-17; 5:17; 2 Cor. 5:21; 9:10; Eph. 4:20-24; 5:8-10; Phil. 1:11; 3:9; Heb. 12:11.

     ⁷ Rom. 9:16, 18; 11:30-32; 2 Cor. 4:1; Phil. 2:27; 1 Tim. 1:13, 16; 1 Pet. 2:10.

     ⁸ John 1:18; 14:7-9; Eph. 1:17-18; Col. 1:9-10; 2:2-3; 1 John 5:20.

     ⁹ Rom. 8:14; Gal. 3:26; 4:6; cf. John 1:12; Rom. 9:8; 12:18; Phil. 2:15; Jas. 3:18; 1 John 3:1, 10.

     ¹⁰ See also Matt. 25:34; Acts 20:32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 2 Cor. 5:1-2; Gal. 3:26-29; 5:21; Eph. 1:13-14, 18; 5:5; Col. 3:24; Heb. 6:12; 9:15; 1 Pet. 3:9; Rev. 21:6-7. That Abraham was to be “heir of [the] kósmos [world]” (Rom. 4:13) would contextually be in reference to succeeding generations of faith. See Everett F. Harrison, “Romans,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gæbelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976): 10:50-51.

Related Posts: The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Related articles:

Image credit: https://recruiterpoet.com/2015/04/17/i-thank-the-lord-original-poem-2/

The Sociocultural Context of the New Testament (Part 5): Households and Slavery

Households

In the New Testament we read about the households of a nobleman of Cana (John 4:53), Cornelius (Acts 10:2; 11:14), Lydia (Acts 16:15), the jailer at Philippi (Acts 16:31-34), Crispus (Acts 18:8), Aristobulus (Rom. 16:10), Narcissus (Rom. 16:11), Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15-17), Onesiphorus (2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19), and even Caesar (Phil. 4:22). Specific instructions are given for Christian households,¹ a number of which would have formed the nucleus of local congregations.

In the ancient Mediterranean world a “household” [oîkos] “was essentially a patriarchal institution, with other members of the household, not least wives, children, and slaves, subject to the authority of its male head” (J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul 591 n. 128). This generalized description, however, does not consider households (without a male head) managed by women (e.g. Acts 12:12; 16:14-15; cf. Rom. 16:1-2; 1 Cor. 1:11). Certain household communities would have also included “not only immediate relatives but also slaves, freedmen, hired workers, and sometimes tenants and partners in trade or craft” (W. A. Meeks, First Urban Christians 75-76). 

Slavery

Christianity entered a world where slavery was already an established element of society and regarded as an economic necessity, though not necessarily comparable to the harsher forms in other times and societies. It has been estimated that 1 in 5 of the Empire’s population and 1 in 3 of Italy’s population were slaves.² The condition of slavery was the result of prisoners of war, criminal conviction, debt, abandoned children, or birth to a slave mother. A more sinister means involved the so-called  andrapodistēs (1 Tim. 1:10), i.e., enslaver, slave-dealer, kidnapper, or one who steals and sells another’s slaves.

Different kinds of slavery co-existed, and one must be careful not to make sweeping generalizations. Ethnicity and race were not determinative factors.³ Domestic house slaves were much better off than those (usually condemned criminals) working in the fields or mines. Educated slaves were valued. A slave middle class consisted of skilled craftsmen, secretaries, educators, and medical practitioners. Slaves could earn and save money and own property. Influential positions held by a number of slaves afforded benefits and power over free persons of lower social standing.⁴

M. Barth and H. Blanke observe: “The dividing line between slaves and free persons was not always sharply drawn or easily recognized …. Often a reasonably rich man’s slave was better off than a poor citizen in possession of all civil rights …. Among ancient slaves there were highly intelligent and well-trained people who did qualified work and had — especially in Paul’s day — a fair chance of being eventually manumitted and/or of marrying into the owner’s or another free person’s family …. in many respects an ancient slave’s treatment was better and his life conditions more secure than those of a nineteenth-century factory worker” (Letter to Philemon 3-4).

Being a Roman slave was not necessarily a permanent plight, as indicated by the plethoric former slaves throughout the Empire. Antonius Felix, procurator of Judea (Acts 23:26–24:27), was a freed slave (cf. Tacitus, Histories 5.9). In Jerusalem there was a “synagogue of freedmen” (Acts 6:9), apparently founded by Jewish ex-slaves. However, manumission was no guarantee that one’s social and economic circumstances would improve, and in many cases would have resulted in destitution. Depending on the wealth, status, and temperament of the owner, emancipation might not be the desirable option.

The New Testament does not enjoin, endorse, or condone slavery but simply gives regulatory instructions within the existing social structure. In his letter to Philemon (a Christian slave-owner), Paul urges a new relationship between Philemon and Onesimus but stops short of demanding emancipation. Elsewhere Paul encourages Christian slaves who could legally obtain freedom to take advantage of this opportunity, but otherwise their situation in life was to be accepted and used to the glory of God (1 Cor. 7:17-24). A Christian slave was still free in Christ (cf. Gal. 5:1), just as a free Christian was Christ’s slave (1 Cor. 7:22). Even though Paul taught compliance for slaves and fairness for masters (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22–4:1), the principles of Christianity were to mitigate the harshness of slavery and eventually lead to its demise.⁵

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Tim. 3:4; 5:4, 8; 6:1-2; Tit. 2:1-10; 1 Pet. 2:18-20; 3:1-7. 

     ² M. Cartwright, “Slavery in the Roman World,” Ancient History Encyclopedia (1 Nov. 2013), <Web>. During the 1st century approximately 16-20 percent were reportedly slaves within a population of about 60 million (W. V. Harris, “Towards a Study of the Roman Slave Trade” MAAR 36:117-40); some estimates are as high as 33-40 percent (K. R. Bradley, Slavery and Society 33). 

     ³ “Many of these slaves were natives of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Later, as the Roman Empire expanded westward, the peoples of Britain, Germany, and Gaul (modern-day France) became new sources for slave labor” (R. E. Van Voorst, Reading the NT Today 93-94).

     ⁴ S. S. Bartchy, “Slaves and Slavery,” in The World of the NT [eds. J. B. Green and L. M. McDonald] 172-73.

     ⁵ Cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; Tit. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 2:18-21. When a 1st-century slave owner obeyed the gospel, the master-slave relationship was turned on its head. He was taught to treat his slaves like he wished to be treated (Matt. 7:12), to love them as himself (Matt. 22:39), to put their interests before his own (Phil. 2:3-4), and instead of threatening, to serve them out of respect for Christ (Eph. 6:9). “Slavery is turned upside down, so that the master becomes the servant of his servant…. The gospel changed a master and a slave into family and that is one of the miracles of Christianity” (W. McAdams, “Does the Bible Condone Slavery?” Radically Christian [6 Sept. 2017], <Web>). See also B. M. Metzger, The New Testament: Background, Growth, Content (3rd ed.) 268-69.

Related Posts: Paul's Letter to Philemon, Sociocultural Context Part 1: Introduction, Part 4: Individualism vs Collectivism, Part 6: House Churches, Part 7: Hospitality

Related Articles: Kyle Butt, The Bible and Slavery

Image credit: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/item.php?item=36658

The Sociocultural Context of the New Testament (Part 3): Patronage

An extension of the honor/shame/reciprocity mentality (see previous post) is the patron-client social structure, which generally involves relationships between superiors and inferiors. It emerges within “a social stratification based on wealth, occupation, and/or status,” producing an environment “in which one group of people has something that another does not and initiates a supply and demand system” (B. K. Gold, Literary Patronage in Greece and Rome 1). 

During the New Testament era there was an understood code of etiquette. Rather than a legal or contractual arrangement, “the social conventions were stronger than any regulations of law…. Everyone from slave to aristocrat felt bound to display respect to someone more powerful than himself, up to the emperor” (E. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity [3rd ed.] 67). This was “a pervasive system that operated in all segments of that society …” (B. K. Gold, op cit. 5). 

To accept a gift or favor meant the recipient was in the inferior position, and to refuse a gift or favor was to embarrass or shame the giver. “Favors accepted without appropriate responses called the client’s character into question, bringing shame rather than honor not just to the individual but also to the tightly knit social group with whom he or she was associated. The quest to maintain honorable character was placed far above economic prosperity or success ...” (C. L. Blomberg, Handbook of NT Exegesis 87). Although the patron-client relationship might seem to have been voluntary, those regarded as social inferiors generally had no choice if they wanted to survive socially and economically (B. Witherington III, Paul Quest 48-49). 

There was no such thing in the world of the New Testament as a government-generated welfare system or any kind of wealth distribution. Instead there was the societal expectation that the wealthy would serve as benefactors or patrons for those of the lower class. “In return, the client supported his patron in elections, did odd jobs for him, and escorted him through the streets, giving the patron’s social standing a healthy boost” (A. A. Bell, Jr., Exploring the NT World 191-92). Alliances between benefactors and recipients were often hereditary, passed down from one generation to the next. Because the client was expected to be available whenever the patron demanded, there was little time, interest, or even need for physical work. 

In such an environment the problems in mid-1st-century Thessalonica are more readily understood. Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy had to direct this young church to discipline “every brother idly walking … not working at all” (2 Thess. 3:6-15, author’s own translation). While manual labor, particularly among the socially elite, was considered demeaning and indicative of a slave rather than a person of prestige (cf. 1 Cor. 4:12-13; 9:19; 2 Thess. 3:7-10), it is also plausible that “converts included those of the urban poor who had formed client relationships with wealthy members in the Thessalonian church, but who exploited the generosity of their new Christian patrons” (J. Weima, Thessalonians 601). 

Literary patronage was also a well-established tradition in Greek and Roman society, seeing that literary work in antiquity was not intended as a money-making enterprise. Writers “were often the near social equals of their patrons; the differences between writer and patron were far more subtle than those between a patron and a lower-class dependent” (B. K. Gold, op cit. 1-6, 173).

The prologues of Luke’s two-volume work (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1) potentially serve as a dedication to Theophilus as the patron who provided financial support for Luke’s travels, research, and writing projects. Accordingly, Luke-Acts “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).¹

Within the 1st-century church, Phoebe is described as a “benefactor” [prostátis] of Paul and many others (Rom. 16:2).² The widowed patroness was not uncommon in the ancient world.³ Other Christian patrons may have included Lydia (Acts 16:14-15), Jason (Acts 17:3-9), Gaius and Erastus (Rom. 16:23), and Onesiphorus (2 Tim. 1:16-18). Paul praises the Philippians for their generosity but does not directly thank them (Phil. 4:10-17), presumably aware of the culture of reciprocity whereby he avoids an unhealthy patron-client perception. Instead, he offers thanks to God (1:3-11) and frames their generosity as giving to God, the ultimate patron (4:18-20), rather than to Paul himself as a duty-bound client.⁴  

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

    ¹ “The presence of a patron in a work of literature ensured that the work would be public in its nature. This was perhaps the ultimate value of the patron: he forced a writer to focus his thoughts outward and thus to create a work worthy of immortality” (B. K. Gold, op cit. 176).
     ² The feminine noun prostátis, signifying “protectress, patroness, helper” (BAGD 718), occurs in the NT only in Rom. 16:2. D. J. Moo argues that the sense of “benefactor” or “patroness,” common in secular Greek, is the probable usage here (Romans 915-16). 
    ³ E. R. Richards, “Reading, Writing, and Manuscripts,” in The World of the NT (eds. J. B. Green and L. M. McDonald) 349.
    ⁴ C. L. Blomberg, A Handbook of NT Exegesis 88.

Related Posts: Sociocultural Context Part 1: Introduction, Part 2: Honor & Shame, Part 5: Households & Slavery, Part 7: Hospitality

Image credit: https://theromanexperience.weebly.com/social-classes.html

The Sociocultural Context of the New Testament (Part 1): Introduction

“The message of the Bible may be timeless, but the form of that message is not. In order to accomplish his self-revelation in history, God necessarily had to embed that revelation in the historical and cultural context of its original readers” (G. M. Burge, et al., NT in Antiquity 16-17). The challenge for Bible students is to distinguish between situation-specific information and the enduring principles God conveys through these writings.

As modern-day westerners, we approach the scriptures as foreigners engaged in a cross-cultural exchange. Ancient documents make only indirect reference to contemporary social conventions, naturally assuming that readers live in the same world and know what is meant. B. J. Malina reminds us that “meaning, then as well as now, ultimately resides in the social system shared by persons who regularly interact with each other. The problems bound up with understanding another group’s social system so as to interact meaningfully with members of that group are at the root of the problems that surround New Testament interpretation” (Social World of Jesus and the Gospels xi). 

Bible students unconsciously bring to the interpretive enterprise any number of preconceptions shaped by their own experiences, historical backgrounds, traditional values, and personal agendas. It is not realistic to view a 1st-century middle-eastern or Greco-Roman composition through 21st-century westernized lenses with a reasonable expectation of apprehension. The social and cultural environment of New Testament authors and their targeted audiences is far removed from ours. To be unaware and uninformed and lax in our investigation is to almost guarantee that biblical texts are misconstrued. “The further one stands from the original situation of a document, the more discipline one needs to bridge the gaps” (K. C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus 2). At the same time, we must avoid broad generalizations and not assume that understanding the social context of a biblical author is “a substitute for examining the direct evidence about that life itself” (B. Witherington III, Paul Quest 50).

Over the next few weeks posts will be focusing on various aspects of the New Testament’s sociocultural context to supplement our studies and teaching. We want to understand God’s revelation in its original setting so we can be in a better position to interpret it correctly and make application to our own environment.

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Part 2: Honor & Shame, Part 3: Patronage, Part 4: Individualism vs Collectivism, Part 5: Households & Slavery, Part 6: House Churches, Part 7: Hospitality, Part 8: Public Reading, Part 8: Kiss Greeting & Feet Washing

Image credit: https://escapeallthesethings.com/ending-disconnection-from-god/