Another Bible Commentary: New Testament Background and Context

You’re probably looking at a mostly blank sheet of paper that says “NEW TESTAMENT”.

You may have heard of a “last will and testament”. A testament, a biblical covenant, and a will are all different ways to communicate the same concept of an agreement whose conditions are exercised at a death (Hebrews 9:17). Therefore, the New Testament did not begin until Jesus died on the Cross.

There is a strong oral tradition in the Holy Land. Rabbis wandered with followers who left behind worldly cares like jobs until their Torah study had been completed. Rabbis married later in life, did not accept money to preach, lived on hospitality, and preached from hosts’ homes. That sounds a lot like what Jesus and His disciples (Law students) did. Rabbis/teachers were considered even greater than parents because they gave life in the world to come. The gospels were written down a generation after Paul. Paul’s letters are mostly from the 50s AD, most of the apostles were martyred in the 60s AD, the gospels started spreading in written form in the 70s AD, and John lived to the turn of the century. Paul’s oldest letters in the New Testament and the last gospel written down (conveniently, by the best eyewitness) agree that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone and that we have no relationship with the Law (Galatians 3:2, Galatians 5:18, John 3:16, John 5:24, John 6:28-29, John 6:37). The Muratorian canon of 128 AD mostly agrees with our modern Bibles (which were finalized in the fourth century AD by Bishop Athanasius) about which books are inspired. The four gospels (like four compass directions for a complete map) were selected for containing the vital elements of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection (with other matter being considered of secondary/debatable importance) and for being read aloud in churches (that hadn’t turned to heresy, yet) that had been started by apostles.

Please bear with me through some hopefully relevant historical information to help us understand the New Testament:

Seleucid King Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” sought to Hellenize (assimilate to Greek culture) the Jewish people by outlawing their religious practices. In 167 BC, he desecrated the Second Temple in Jerusalem by erecting an altar to Zeus, leading to widespread unrest. In response, Judah Maccabee and his brothers led a revolt against the Seleucid forces, known as the Maccabean Revolt. This rebellion ultimately succeeded, resulting in the cleansing and rededication of the Second Temple, an event celebrated as Hanukkah. Following the Maccabean Revolt, the Hasmonean Dynasty emerged as a ruling power in Judea, and they tried to assert Jewish independence.

The Hasmonean rulers faced political and religious challenges during their rule. This concept will make more sense after the next few paragraphs, so come back to it: the Maccabees were like Zealots that gave the country to Sadducees who immediately became as corrupt as the Hellenized/Herodians. During the time of the Hasmonean Dynasty, there were even instances where men who were not descendants of Zadok were appointed to the high priesthood for political reasons. The Zadokites were the legitimate line of high priests, tracing its lineage back to Zadok, a figure associated with King Solomon's era and the First Temple. The Sadducees (which seems to be derived from Zadokim or Zadokites, whether a given Sadducee actually descended from Zadok or not) were a prominent Jewish sect during the Second Temple period. The Sadducees were conservative in their religious views. They accepted only the written Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) and did not believe in the afterlife or the resurrection of the dead. They were the Temple system aristocracy and often held other positions of power, too. The Sadducees often cooperated with the Hasmonean and later Roman rulers; they were a large part of the Jewish aristocracy. They were very wealthy. They sometimes disagreed with the Pharisees’ populist religious perspective.

The appointment of non-Zadokite priests as high priests created significant religious and political tensions within the Jewish community. Faced with the pressures of Hellenization, the Essenes distanced themselves from the corrupt religious practices of the Jerusalem Temple and the Hasmonean rulers by moving to the desert. (There were other purity issues with the Temple back then, too: the Roman leader Pompey had walked around inside the Holy of Holies in 63 BC.) The Essenes were a Jewish sect that lived in separate, ascetic communities during the Second Temple period, particularly in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. The Essenes were known for their strict observance of religious rituals, communal living, and a strong focus on purity. Think of celibate communists that took no oaths and owned no slaves; they forbade anger, self-defense, use of the sacrificial system, and meat. They practiced daily immersion. In other words, they lived like a distorted Sermon on the Mount. The Dead Sea Scrolls is a collection of religious texts that sheds light on their beliefs; I’m not saying that everything in them is inspired, but they do demonstrate how well-preserved the ideas in our Old Testament are.

Other pious people, rather than leaving society altogether, moved north to Galilee. Think of the stereotypes of the Bible Belt as culturally backward to understand Jerusalem’s and the Temple Establishment’s notions about Galilee. These Hasidim (“set-apart ones”) were further divided into the Pharisees and the Zealots.

The Pharisees were a religious and political group that emerged during the Second Temple period. Think of the most “holy roller” laymen you can. They tried to deal with Roman occupation through personal holiness similar to how the Zealots approached the same problem with stabbing. Pharisees saw sinners as the reason God (2 Chronicles 7:14) hadn’t kicked the Romans out of their land yet, which made forgetting parts of Leviticus 19:17-18 easier. Pharisees were known for their strict adherence to the written Law and additional oral traditions. They were fans of putting a “fence” around the Law with additional rules as guardrails against breaking the real rules. They believed in the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels, and the importance of individual piety. Pharisees played a role in teaching and interpreting Jewish law, which helped preserve Jewish religious and cultural identity. The Pharisees were often at odds with the Hasmonean rulers due to their concerns about religious purity and the Hasmoneans' political motivations. However, they were not as radical as the Zealots; they sought a peaceful coexistence with the ruling powers. Jesus spent much time debating Pharisees apparently because they were discussing the same ethical issues He was. The proper responses to the Law of Moses are despair or hypocrisy. The comedic “Seven Types of Pharisee” included the one wearing his good deeds on his shoulder for all to see, the one great at finding excuses to delay doing a good deed, the one hurting himself bumping into walls to avoid women, the one whose head was constantly bowed in false humility like a pestle sitting in a mortar, the one calculating how many good deeds would balance their sins, the fearful one like Job, and the one who loved God like Abe. The “Job” and “Abe” phenotypes seemed to be decent fellows; Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were Pharisees who came to follow Jesus.

For our purposes, two notable Pharisees deserve special mention. Shammai and Hillel were two influential Jewish scholars and Torah interpreters a few decades before Christ. Shammai was known for his strict and rigorous approach to religious matters, while Hillel was thought to be more lenient or compassionate. The Talmud is a book documenting the oral teachings of Pharisees/rabbis as well as many commentaries on the oral teachings and on the written Torah. The debates between Shammai and Hillel on various legal and ethical issues recorded in the Talmud demonstrate the diversity of thought in the days of the Old Covenant. Their teachings continue to shape Jewish scholarship and thought. If you asked them which rules in the Law were weightiest (remember our discussions of what to obey when, pikuach nefesh, etc.) they would have both picked Deuteronomy 6:4 (Love of/Loyalty to God) as paramount. Using the word “love” to “string pearls” (connect verses), Hillel chose Leviticus 19:18 (Love of/Loyal actions toward neighbor) for the next greatest commandment. (For his next pick Shammai went with obedience: Sabbath observance, etc.) Hillel even said a version of the Golden Rule: “That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” Jesus’ innovation regarding the greatest commandment was including everyone (even the Samaritans – gasp!) in the concept of “neighbor” instead of limiting it to fellow Jews. Paul’s teacher Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) was Hillel’s grandson. Sometimes, when the Pharisees asked Jesus questions, they were asking him to pick a side among debating Pharisee schools.

Over time, internal strife, external threats, and territorial conflicts with neighboring kingdoms weakened the Hasmonean rule. When Aristobulus II and his brother Hyrcanus II were vying for the throne, they both sought the support of external powers. When the Roman general Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, commonly known as Pompey the Great, entered Judea ostensibly to act as a mediator and restore order, the conflict quickly escalated. In 63 BC, Pompey captured Jerusalem, ending Jewish sovereignty and establishing Roman control over Judea. The Romans installed a procurator to govern the province. Political and religious problems compounded. For example, the Jewish High Priest was a lifetime role, but the Romans favored appointing and firing High Priests at their whim for political reasons, resulting in Annas and Caiaphas both being regarded as having that authority at the same time.

The Zealots were characterized by their extreme opposition to Roman rule and by their readiness to use violence to achieve Jewish independence. They were extreme nationalists, and they were a driving force behind the rebellion against the Romans. While the Zealots shared a desire for Jewish independence, they were more radical than the Hasmoneans. After fighting off the Seleucids, the Hasmoneans had sought to establish a Jewish state through diplomacy, while the Zealots were willing to wage all-out war against the Roman Empire. The Sicarii, or “dagger men” (derived from the Latin word sica meaning dagger or short sword), were a distinct and often more radical subset within the Zealots. They shared the broader goals of the Zealot movement, including resistance to Roman rule and the desire for Jewish independence, but the Sicarii were known for their guerrilla warfare tactics including targeted assassinations of Roman officials and Jewish collaborators whom they viewed as traitors. When you read “Zealot” in the New Testament, think “terrorist”. There were plenty of people who did not align with the viewpoints of any of the aforementioned sects. Many moderate Jews wanted to avoid direct conflict with the Roman authorities and preferred peaceful coexistence or compromise to maintain stability. The perceived benefits of Hellenization in education, health, entertainment, etc., as well as Greco-Roman infrastructure were attractive. The extremely wealthy Herod the Great, an Idumean (aka Edomite) appointed by the Romans, became King of Judea in 37 BC. While he undertook grand construction projects, such as the expansion and renovation of the Second Temple, his rule was marked by authoritarianism and brutality. The Herodians mentioned in the New Testament were supporters of Herod’s reign because of fear, greed, etc., and they were thoroughly Hellenized.

John the Baptist, Jesus, James the Just, etc., warned everyone what was coming.

The First Jewish-Roman War began in 66 AD, during the twelfth year of the reign of Nero because of oppression by Roman governors, the anger of the poor masses toward the wealthy aristocracy, religious disagreements, anti-taxation protests, etc. The Roman governor, Gessius Florus, seized money from the Second Temple's treasury and arrested numerous senior Jewish figures. This prompted widespread rebellion in Jerusalem that culminated in the capture of the Roman garrison by rebels. To quell the unrest, Cestius Gallus, the legate of Syria, brought in the Roman Legion XII Fulminata (“Thunderbolt Twelfth Legion”) and auxiliary troops. They were ambushed and defeated by Jewish rebels at the Battle of Beth Horon. Six thousand Roman soldiers died, and the Legion's aquila (metal eagle standard) was lost. A Judean provisional government was formed in Jerusalem. One of the leaders was former High Priest Ananus ben Ananus who had ordered the execution of James the Just, a brother of Jesus. Josephus, future turncoat and historian, was appointed as the rebel commander in Galilee. Eventually, Jerusalem was controlled by factional warlords fighting amongst themselves. For example, Simon bar Giora had been a war hero at the Battle of Beth Horon and was scary enough to intimidate the Zealots who had kidnapped his wife.

The Roman general Vespasian was given four legions and tasked by Nero with crushing the rebellion. Vespasian invaded Galilee in 67 AD. Driven from Galilee, Zealot rebels and thousands of refugees arrived in Jerusalem, resulting in bitter infighting with the mainly Sadducee-aligned Jerusalemites. In 69 AD, Vespasian was called to Rome and made emperor, leaving Titus to besiege Jerusalem in 70 AD. Following a brutal seven-month siege, during which Zealots fighting among themselves burned the entire food supplies of the city, the Romans finally succeeded in breaching the defenses in the summer of 70 AD (one biblical generation after Jesus’ Olivet Discourse). After the destruction of the Second Temple, a group of Jewish rebels took refuge in the mountaintop fortress of Masada. The siege of Masada, which lasted several months, ended in 73 AD with the mass suicide of the Jewish defenders, who chose death over capture by the Romans. Josephus, who had joined the Romans, recorded the history for us.

Thank you for reading this.

Now, please bear with me through some hopefully relevant conjecture to help us understand the New Testament:

Mark, Luke, and Matthew are called the Synoptic Gospels because they share a viewpoint. I’m about to say some controversial things that are still actively debated, and my views aren’t shared by a lot of scholars, but this conceptual framework helps things make sense to me. A first century church father named Papias said that Mark wrote down stories he heard from Peter without a strict regard for chronology; such concerns matter more to modern so-called “weird” people (Western, educated/empiricist, industrialized/individualistic, rich, democratic) anyway than to the original audience or to others sharing the planet with us now. Mark wrote for a Roman audience; the strong oral tradition in Judaism would account for the other gospels being written down later. In my opinion, Luke and Matthew used Mark’s structure. I think Luke kept 50% of Mark and added teachings. I think Luke made Jesus seem less emotional (more in line with Greek philosophical ideals) than Mark did with the exceptions of weeping for the predicted fate of Jerusalem and the sweating in the Garden of Gethsemane. I think Matthew looked at Mark and Luke. I think Matthew kept 90% of Mark. Matthew has more of everything (healings and other miracles, end times discussion, teachings, etc.), but also pared down the word count to less than Luke’s and left out parables that he found to be redundant. I think Matthew de-emphasized things that could be misconstrued as potentially embarrassing or doctrinally odd while emphasizing Rome-friendly details about tax collectors, centurions, etc. Seeing Matthew as a compilation explains things like the “Messianic Secret” theme from Mark being absent in Matthew 3:17 but present in Matthew 12:16. John had been with Jesus longer than most disciples. John lived long enough to proofread the gospel recorded in his name. John spent longer on this planet being instructed by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13) than the writers of the other Jesus biographies; John’s gospel has the most historically plausible chronology and details that most disciples didn’t understand or remember. After all, they had trouble remembering that Jesus was to die and rise again despite hearing it repeatedly. This doesn’t mean that the gospels are in conflict; I just tend to consider John home base and view the Synoptics through a John-and-the-Epistles lens. The “Matthew was written first” crowd is loud. Matthew may have indeed written some sayings down in Hebrew first (but again, remember the oral tradition), and later scribes may have translated it (along with some stories that were circulating orally) into Greek. Samuel died in 1 Samuel 25 (which is before 2 Samuel); naming a book in honor of someone is nothing new. I can see the argument of Mark summarizing Matthew for Gentile eyes, but the “Matthew was written first” people are still left with the teachings they consider so great (I grew up in a legalistic denomination that put parts of Matthew and James above other Scripture) to be of secondary importance to the Cross and Resurrection and the resulting grace that Paul wrote about because of Mark’s standalone acceptance as inspired Scripture. If the behavior instructions of Jesus’ Sermon were the point of His earthly mission, He wouldn’t have had to die (Galatians 2:21). There are modern equivalents of the Judaizers that Paul dealt with that are unsatisfied with the simple grace of “Sunday School Jesus” (as they dismiss Him) and instead look to their own works, the Law of Moses, and Hebrew tradition for ways to feel “more authentic”/classier than the goyim in the next pew, making books like this commentary and better ones necessary. The “Luke was written after Mark and Matthew” crowd is loud. However, I can’t see Luke, who read earlier gospels to prepare an orderly account (Luke 1:1-4), consciously reducing the amount of supernatural events, end times discussion, ethics, and Christology while making the “Lord’s Prayer” and the Sermon more primitive while also writing a longer book. Saying that Matthew was written first would be saying, per Luke 1:3, that Luke thought that some of what Matthew wrote was too fantastical to repeat. The Gospel of Mark being written down first, then Luke’s, and then Matthew’s just makes sense to me. It does not matter whether you agree with me or not about who wrote what when; it does matter that you agree with me that Jesus is God made flesh, and that He died and rose again to save us. I’m probably going to make comments about the writing chronology throughout our trip that you can feel free to take or leave. Any gospel (“good news” or evangelion) was subversive to Rome as an evangelion was an announcement of a new King and a new Kingdom; some of the titles rightly belonging to Jesus had been used previously by Roman emperors.

Again, thank you for reading this.

Previous Post

Next Post