Three Insights from James Jeffers' The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era

I regularly teach a 13-week course on hermeneutics (the science and art of interpreting the Bible). The course is generally well received. Most Christians hold the Bible in high esteem and would like to understand it better. It is for this reason, that I receive the most upturned eyebrows when I make the following statement in class: It is impossible to understand the Bible using the Bible alone.

Why does this statement create so much controversy and arouse so much suspicion? The answer is simple. The average person rarely considers that when he reads his Bible he is entering another world altogether. A different world in a different time and place full of people who speak different languages and who find their home in a different culture full of different social customs and concerns.

Entering the World of the Bible

In short, we are distanced from the text, whether we like it or not. We are temporally, culturally, geographically, and linguistically distant from the text of Scripture. To recognize this is the first step to truly understanding the Bible in its historical and cultural context. Oddly enough, the first step in drawing close to the Bible's message is an awareness that we are distanced from the text.

When we read the Bible, we are entering another world - a world we must become familiar with if we are to grasp the significance of the text. Most (if not all) biblical authors presuppose our understanding of their culture. Because of this, it is vital that we do all we can to understand the "times" - the culture, history, language, political and social structures, perspectives, behavioral customs and ethnic concerns of the people to whom any particular book of the Bible is addressed. To fail to do this is to misread the Scriptures. Jeffers states the danger well in the opening pages of his book:

If we try to make sense of the Bible with no knowledge of the people who wrote it, those who read it and the society in which they lived, we will be inclined to read into the Scriptures our own society's values and ideas. [For example, in regard to the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament] [t]his would be a major mistake since our culture is very different from that of the ancient Romans. (p. 11).

One of the tragic realities of contemporary usage of the New Testament is that it is read as if it were written by and for middle-class Americans in a capitalist economy. Too often, we forget that we are entering another world. In light of this James Jeffers' The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity is a helpful tool in better understanding the New Testament world.

The Christian faith originated with Jewish believers who found themselves in a largely Gentile world, a Greco-Roman world, a world viewed largely in negative terms by faithful Jews. As the church grew to embrace greater amounts of Gentiles, the Greco-Roman background becomes even more important in order to understand where Christianity embraced and deviated from standard Greco-Roman social conventions.

Following are three insights (among many) I received from Jeffers' book.

Organizing the Early Church

Prior to reading Jeffers, I had never considered how the early church would have attempted to organize and maintain weekly meetings, especially in an urban culture. Jeffers' thoughts concerning the way Greco-Roman culture influenced early Christian church organization is provocative and helpful.

Dogmatic denominational assertions aside, "the New Testament has little to say about the organization of the church" (p. 70). The New Testament acknowledges the need for leaders, but little more. In light of this, Jeffers suggests that the early "churches borrowed from the society models that they considered compatible with their identity as Christians" (p. 72).

Two societal structures - the voluntary association and the household - were modified and used by Christians in church organization. In order to congregate legally, Jeffers states that the early Christians sought licensing as a Roman voluntary association. Since they could not organize as a religious association, they chose to organize as a burial association (p. 76). Like associations, they hosted regular banquets (p. 77) and probably depended on the donations of one or more wealthy patrons. Unlike associations, the rules for their feasts were unique (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 11) and their patrons were often prevented from automatically having great prominence and control over their meetings (p. 79).

Other differences existed which distanced Christian associations from others. Christian associations "demanded far more loyalty from members" than other associations (p. 79). They were also more inclusive - including men and women, slaves and free - experiencing a great sense of connectedness (rather than competition) with other Christian associations (p. 80).

Christian churches also modeled themselves after the Roman family, with the head of the household (paterfamilias) overseeing everything. Unlike the Roman family, however, the church did not strictly follow the authority structures of Greco-Roman families. Roman families made clear distinctions between male and female, slave and free, with slaves certainly considered "lower class" citizens. Although the church obviously experienced problems with favoritism and poor treatment of the lower classes (for example, James 2:6; 1 Cor. 11:22), the early Christian congregations sought to remove all distinctions, for all were accepted in Christ. Even the leaders were not ultimately paterfamilias, being "under the authority of a single spiritual paterfamilias" (p. 84).

Jeffers concludes by affirming that the "early Christian congregations found value in borrowing from both voluntary associations and Greco-Roman households, but the nature of the churches was not fundamentally changed as a result" (p. 87). They were able to borrow from their society models considered compatible with their Christian identity.

"And Justice for Some" Under Roman Rule

Prior to reading Jeffers, I assumed that Roman rule and law, like American law, sought justice for all under its authority, regardless of one's status in society. Instead, Jeffers makes it clear that Rome did not rule for the welfare of the people, but Roman government "was designed to support the interests of the leaders back in Rome, whether that meant collecting the maximum amount of taxes possible or protecting the Empire from threats to its stability from within or without" (p. 110). In light of this, it is understandable that Jews would resent Roman rule.

This also helps shed light on all the different Roman rulers encountered in the New Testament and their diverse ways of dealing with civil unrest. These new insights will be most helpful when preaching through Acts, especially in regard to Paul's constant run-ins with Roman rulers and their various ways of handling Paul. Jeffers' chapter on citizenship also shed light on why Paul selectively chose to use or not use his Roman citizenship to his advantage. Finally, this sheds light on how Jesus was treated, and why the charges made to Rome were his refusal to pay taxes - a charge of insurrection against Rome - rather than blasphemy. Pilate was threatened that he would not be a "friend of Caesar" (John 19:7), and the possibility of losing his position pushed him to crucify Jesus.

Upsetting the Class System

Prior to reading Jeffers, I understated the reality of class and status in Greco-Roman society. I let my American ideal of "all men are created equal" keep me from seeing the radical discontinuity between American culture and Greco-Roman culture and the unique problems this created for the New Testament church.

Obviously, this feature of Greco-Roman society is noticeably absent from contemporary life. One was born, and one would most likely die in the same class. Though status could possibly change through accumulation of wealth, class rarely did. "The Romans evaluated a person's status based on whether the person was a citizen or a foreigner, patron or client, free or slave, ethnic Roman/Latin or not, voluntary ally or conquered enemy, male or female, and married or unmarried" (p. 182). In light of this, Paul's pronouncement that there is neither slave nor free in Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11) was truly revolutionary.

Not only did class demonstrate relative worth, but to the Roman wealth was "an essential requirement of the virtuous life. In contrast with the popular American idea that the wealthy are less honest because power corrupts, the Roman elite believed that only the rich could afford to be honest. They reasoned that the poor must do whatever is necessary to survive and so are more likely to lie, cheat and steal" (p. 189). As Jeffers notes, Jesus' concept of a "blessed poor" (Matt. 5:3; Luke 6:20) "would have been incomprehensible to Greek and Roman aristocrats" (p.189).

Benefits of class included front seats at shows, entitlement to bigger portions and better quality portions of food or wine than the poor, and greater access to courts and justice. These entitlements were challenged in Christian congregations, where class and status markers were negated (cf. 1 Cor. 11:17-34; James 2:1-6). It appears that the early Christian congregations consisted of all class levels except for the extreme top and bottom of society (p. 194).

Conclusion

I gained numerous other insights from Jeffers' book. I look forward to using it as another resource to help me better understand the world of the Bible. By taking into consideration the unique world of the Bible, I will be better equipped to translate its meaning to a contemporary world in need of biblical truth.

© Richard J. Vincent, 2003