he very nature of scripture demands that the exegete have some skills in investigating the historical-cultural background of NT texts. The NT, after all, does not come in the form of timeless aphorisms; every text was written in a given first-century time/space framework. Indeed, the NT authors felt no need to explain what were for them and their readers common cultural assumptions. Only when provincial customs might not be understood in broader contexts are explanations given (e.g., Mark 7:3-4); but these instances are rare.
The lack of such help within the texts themselves is only to be expected, since most people who communicate with each other do so on the basis of shared assumptions that are seldom articulated. These shared assumptions have to do with common history (family or group stories), sociology (the relationships and social structures that determine everyday life), and culture (the values, often not articu-la ted, that a group shares in order to function). Contemporary readers share very few of these assumptions, but at the same time we bring to the text another whole set of shared assumptions within our own culture(s).
These matters are the more complex for the reading of the New Testament because it is the product of two worlds: Jewish and Greco-Roman. This complexity can be seen simply by looking at its two primary figures, Jesus and Paul. While they shared a common history— the OT story of God and his people—which is assumed in everything they say and do, they were born and raised in quite different sociocultural settings, evidenced first of all by their native tongues (Aramaic for Jesus, Greek for Paul) and then found in a whole variety of other, mostly sociological and cultural, differences.
When one turns to the communities to which the NT documents were written, one finds similar diversity in sociology and culture. The majority of NT documents were addressed to church communities in the Greco-Roman world, most of whose adherents would have been Gentiles. By conversion these people now shared the common history of the people of God—indeed, from Paul's perspective they were integral to the completion of that story, in keeping with the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:2-3) as it had been articulated eschatologically in the prophets, especially Isaiah. But their sociology (government, city/town structures, family structures, etc.) and their cultural assumptions on all sorts of deep-seated values (honor/ shame, sexual morality, patron/client relationships, friendship, etc.) were of a considerably different kind from those shared by Jewish communities in Palestine who followed Jesus (just read James and 1 Corinthians side by side to sense the differences).
The problems that the modern exegete faces here are several. First, we have our own (mostly unrecognized) set of historical-social-cultural assumptions, which cause us unwittingly to read our ideas and customs back into the first century. So one of the difficulties lies in learning to become aware of what needs to be investigated, in overcoming the assumption that we know what the NT writers are saying. The second problem has to do with the immensity of the task of investigation and the paucity of material that is accessible. But even that which is available is mostly beyond the mastery of any one of us; thus we are dependent on others to do some of this work for us, and they will themselves be interpreters of the data. Third, part of the complexity of this issue is that, on the one hand, one needs to read widely on the larger historical-sociological-cultural issues that impact on these early Christian communities, while, on the other hand, there are specific matters that are related to the paragraph you are exegeting that need investigation. This leads to the questions, fourth, of how one goes about the process of investigation and, fifth, of how to evaluate the significance of what has been discovered. This is obviously the (off-and-on) work of a lifetime. Fortunately, the last two decades of the twentieth century saw a spate of studies that are designed to guide one through these matters. My concern in this section is mostly to make you aware of some of this literature—and to remind you that such books continue to appear at a regular pace, so you need to keep alert to what continues to be available after the copyright date of this handbook.
5.1. Be aware of various sources that give you access to the "world" of the New Testament.
5.1.1. General studies
For an overview of the political, religious, and intellectual currents of first-century Judaism and Roman Hellenism, you will want to have access to one or more of the following:
Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993).
James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity (Downers Grove,
111.: InterVarsity Press, 1999).
Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
For an introduction to how these kinds of questions affect NT texts, for the entire NT, see:
Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1993).
5.1.2. Jewish backgrounds
For Jewish backgrounds in particular, the following books should prove helpful:
Emil Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ 175 B.C.-A.D. 135): A New English Version Revised and Edited, ed. Geza Vermes et al., 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973,1979). [JAF 410]
J. Julius Scott, Customs and Controversies: Intertestamental Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995).
Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967). [JAF 534]
The last of these books, like many other works, needs to be used with some caution, since Jeremias at times disregards the date of sources (see II.5.4.2). Another, more popular, work of this kind is:
J. Duncan M. Derrett, Jesus’s Audience: The Social and Psychological Environment in Which He Worked (New York: Seabury Press, 1973).
Among the several books that try to help one get in touch with "Bible times," meaning manners and customs, any of the following will be useful:
Victor H. Matthews, Manners and Customs in the Bible: An Illustrated Guide to Daily Life in Bible Times (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988).
J. A. Thompson, Handbook of Life in Bible Times (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1986).
Madeleine S. Miller and J. Lane Miller, Harper's Encyclopedia of Bible Life, 3d rev. ed. by Boyce M. Bennett and David H. Scott (New York: Harper & Row, 1978).
For background to the interplay between Judaism and Hellenism that set the stage for the Judaism of the first century, consult:
Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974). [JAF 400]
5.1.3. Greco-Roman backgrounds
The very complexity of the Greco-Roman side (Greece, Rome, and the provinces of all kinds) makes it impossible to select adequate bibliography in a book like this. With a little work in libraries one can uncover a wealth of material, both general and very specialized, in
various classical studies. A word of caution: One must be careful not to make sweeping generalizations about the whole pagan world on the basis of evidence from one part of that world.
For an overview that emphasizes this aspect of "backgrounds," see:
Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol 1: History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995).
For a useful bibliography here, one is well served by:
Daniel J. Harrington, The New Testament: A Bibliography (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1985), pp. 197-200.
Two other books of a popular nature that touch on matters of everyday life are:
Max Cary and T. J. Haarhoff, Life and Thought in the Greek and Roman World (London: Methuen & Co., 1940).
Harold Mattingly, The Man in the Roman Street (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1966).
One should also be aware of another massive work (to be well over thirty volumes when completed) dealing with the rise and fall of the Roman world:
Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972-).
Although this work is being published in Germany, it includes articles in several languages. Many of the articles are by English-speaking scholars, in English, and may be useful in specific areas of interest.
5.2. Be alert to specialized sociological-cultural studies.
This burgeoning field of study calls for constant vigilance on the part of the exegete, to see what is available in the literature. For helpful introductions to the various aspects of this field of study, see one or more of the following:
John H. Elliott, What Is Social-Scientific Criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
Carolyn Osiek, What Are They Saying about the Social Setting of the New Testament? rev. and expanded ed. (New York: Paulist Press, 1992).
John E. Stambaugh and David L. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986).
For a splendid introduction to how various social-cultural values influence a wide range of matters for early Christian communities, see:
David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
For an equally useful guide to the interplay between households in the Greco-Roman world and early Christian households and house churches, see:
Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997).
5.3. Be alert to the New Testament use of the Old (including intertexuality).
The most obvious and primary "background" at work in the NT writers is their common assumptions about the OT: that it is the primary "story" that gives meaning to the world and to their lives; that it is the unfolding of God's story as that works out through a people whom he has called, delivered from slavery, bound to himself through a covenant of law, given the promised land as their inheritance, given a king to rule over them as his regent, and among whom he chose to dwell in the temple on Mount Zion. It is simply not possible to read the NT well without being aware of how thoroughly these and other aspects of their primary story affect everything. Indeed, the NT writers think of Christ not so much as instituting something new but rather as "fulfilling"/bringing to consummation the eschatological dimension of the promises God made to his peo-pie in the former covenant.
It is therefore important that, as you engage in the exegesis of the NT, you always pause to ask how your passage is either explicitly or implicitly impacted by the OT. Recent studies have shown that there are few, if any, citations of the OT by the NT writers that do not carry an awareness of the OT context. Thus you would do well to read the entry by Moises Silva on the "Old Testament in Paul" in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (see under 5.4.2, below) and then follow up by reading selectively from Silva's bibliography.
Equally important to the way the NT writers cite the OT is the phenomenon of intertextuality (echoes of the OT story or its language), which occurs throughout the NT and sometimes in the most unexpected ways. Take, for example, Luke's birth narrative in chapters 1-2. It begins (1:5-17) with clear echoes of the Hannah-Samuel story in 1 Samuel 1-3 (Samuel would eventually anoint God's chosen king); then, in the annunciation to Mary (1:26-38), Luke picks up clear echoes of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:14-15) regarding her announced Son. Her song then picks up echoes both from Hannah's song and from various psalms.
Or take the well-known "I am" sayings of Jesus about his being "the true vine" and "the true shepherd." To exegete these passages without awareness of the richness of this imagery for the OT people of God (e.g., Isa. 5:1-7; Ezek. 34:20-31) is to make them generic—and therefore bland horticultural or animal husbandry—images, rather than explicit "fulfillments" of key OT images that Jesus is deliberately thrusting on those who hear him.
Or take Paul's reference in Rom. 8:34 to Christ as "seated at the right hand of God" making intercession for us, an image full of deliberate echoes of the messianism of Ps. 110:1 that came especially to the forefront of the early Christians' understanding of the exalted Christ as Lord.
There are hundreds of such examples throughout the NT, but they climax in the over 250 such echoes in the Revelation, which are very intentional and exegetically determinative for passage after passage. As noted in Chapter I, the place to begin your exegesis here is with the cross-references in the margin of NA27.
The best introduction to the phenomenon of intertextuality may be found in:
Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989).
For a many-faceted critique of Hays and a sampling of a variety of studies on Paul's use of the Old Testament, see:
Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, JSNTSS 83 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).
To see intertextuality at work on biblical texts, you might look at (for the Revelation):
Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), pp. 76-99.
or, for the echoes of the second exodus theme that seem to serve as a pattern for Mark's understanding of Jesus:
Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark, WUNT 2/88 (Ttibin-gen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1997; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000).
5.4. Some guidelines for application to your specific passage.
5.4.1. Determine whether the cultural milieu of your passage is
basically Jewish, Greco-Roman, or some combination of both.
The purpose of this guideline is to serve as a constant reminder that the cultural milieu of the first century is very complex. For the most part, the Gospel materials will reflect Jewish backgrounds. But all the Gospels in their present form have a Gentile church or the Gentile mission as their ultimate audience. One can already see some cultural shifts at work in the Gospel materials themselves (e.g., Mark's comment on the food laws in 7:19 or the topographical shift in the parable of the wise and foolish builders from the limestone hills and chalk valleys of Judea and Galilee in Matt. 7:24-27 to a topography of plains and rivers in Luke 6:47-49). Thus, when Jesus speaks about almsgiving, divorce, oaths, and so forth, it is imperative to know Jewish culture on these points. But it would also be helpful to know the Greco-Roman culture on such matters, in order to be sensitive to the similarities or differences.
Likewise, with the Pauline Epistles, it is especially important to have a feeling for Paul's own essentially Jewish thought world. But because all his letters were written to basically Gentile churches situated in Greco-Roman culture, one must look for ways to understand that culture as well.
5.4.2. Determine the meaning and significance of persons, places, events, institutions, concepts, or customs.
This is what most people mean when they speak of "backgrounds." They want to know how and why people did things. Indeed, such information is crucial to the understanding of many texts. The secret to this step is to have access to a wide range of secondary literature, with the special caution that one learn regularly to check the references given in this literature against the primary sources. Some of this information can be found in some of the sources listed in 5.1, above.
For very specific matters in your text, you should first of all have access to one of the multivolumed Bible dictionaries. Pride of place now goes to:
David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Although this is by far the best and most up-to-date of the Bible die-tionaries, one will still find considerable usefulness either in the older standard:
George A. Buttrick et al. (eds.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), with its supplement:
Keith Crim et al. (eds.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976). [JAF 240]
or in the recent revision of a previous older standard:
Geoffrey W. Bromiley et al. (eds.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979-1988).
You should also be aware of the three InterVarsity dictionaries (besides the one mentioned at 5.1.1, above). These cover a much broader range of topics than the more traditional dictionaries, but they are full of top-rate articles and good bibliographies:
Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (eds.), Dietionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1992).
Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1993).
Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (eds.), Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 1997).
These and many others of InterVarsity's excellent resources are now available on a single CD-ROM.
5.4.3. Gather parallel or counterparallel texts from Jewish or Greco-Roman sources that may aid in understanding the cultural milieu of the author of your passage.
This is a step beyond 5.1 in that it gets you into some of the primary sources themselves (often by way of translation, of course). The purpose of such a collection of texts varies. Sometimes, as in the divorce passages, the purpose is to expose oneself to the various options in first-century culture; sometimes, as with a passage such as 1 Tim. 6:10, it is to recognize that the author is quoting a common proverb. But in each case, the point is for you to get in touch with the first-century world for yourself.
As you collect texts, be aware not only of direct parallels but also of counterparallels (antithetical ideas or customs), as well as those texts that reflect a common milieu of ideas. To get at this material, you should do the following:
5.4.3.1. Be aware of the wide range of literature that makes up Jewish backgrounds.
This material may be conveniently grouped into the following categories:
a. The Old Testament and Septuagint. For editions, see JAF 97-112.
b. The Apocrypha. For editions, see JAF 104-12. Good English translations may be found in the NRSV or the GNB.
106 New Testament Exegesis
c. The Pseudepigrapha. The standard English translation now is:
J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1982). [JAF 446]
d. The Dead Sea Scrolls. The standard translation is:
Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerd-mans Publishing Co., 1996).
For an invaluable collection of Qumran parallels (themes and subjects) to the New Testament, see:
H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament, 1 vols. (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966), vol. 2.
In addition, a new commentary series, the Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ECDSS), was instituted in 2000 under the editorship of Martin G. Abegg and Peter W. Flint. The first volume is:
James R. Davila, Liturgical Works (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000).
e. The Hellenistic Jewish writers Philo and Josephus. The standard editions and translations are in the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press).
f. The rabbinic literature. For texts and translations, see JAF, pp. 126-28. The standard edition of the Mishnah is by Danby (JAF 477), the Talmud by Epstein (JAF 478), and the midrashim by Freedman and Simon (JAF 479).
g. The targumic literature. For bibliography, see:
Daniel J. Harrington, The New Testament: A Bibliography (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1985), pp. 218-20.
If you are not acquainted with the date or significance of any of this literature, you should consult the two following introductions:
George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).
R. C. Musaph-Andriesse, From Torah to Kabbalah: A Basic Introduction to the Writings of Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).
5.4.3.2. Be aware of the range of literature that is available on the Greco-Roman side.
The largest and best collection of these authors is the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press), which has both the Greek and Latin texts, along with an English translation—in over 450 volumes.
A project that has been going on for many years, called the Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, has been collecting and publishing both parallels and counterparallels to the NT from many of these authors. Some of the more important of these that are now available are:
Dio Chrysostom (40-112 c.e.?)
G. Mussies, Dio Chrysostom and the New Testament: Parallels Collected (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971).
Lucian (ca. 120-180 c.e.)
Hans Dieter Betz, Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament. Reli-gionsgeschichtliche und pardnetische Parallelen, Texte und Unter-suchungen 76 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961).
Musonius Rufus (30-100 C.E.?)
P. W. van der Horst, "Musonius Rufus and the New Testament: A Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum," Novum Testamen-turn 16 (1974): 306-15.
Philostratus (ca. 170-245 c.e.)
G. Petzke, Die Traditionen iiber Apollonius von Tyana und das Neue Testament, Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, 1 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970).
Plutarch (ca. 49-120 C.E.)
H. Almquist, Plutarch und das Neue Testament: Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, Acta Seminarii Neotestamen-tici Upsaliensis, 15 (Uppsala: Appelbergs Boktryckeri, 1946).
Hans Dieter Betz, Plutarch's Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature, Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, 3 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975).
-, Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature,
Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, 4 (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1978).
Hans Dieter Betz and E. W. Smith Jr., "Contributions to the Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti; I: Plutarch, De E apud Delphos," Novum Testamentum 13 (1971): 217-35.
Seneca (ca. 4 b.c-65c.e.)
J. N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, Supplements to Novum Testamen-turn, 4 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961).
Much of this material has now been conveniently gathered and put into canonical order in:
M. Eugene Boring, Klaus Berger, and Carsten Colpe (eds.), Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995).
5.4.3.3. For specific texts, use key secondary sources as the point of departure.
Again, there are no "rules" to follow here. One of the places to begin would be with some of the better commentaries (the Her-meneia series in English, Etudes Bibliques in French, or the Meyer or Herder series in German). Very often, pertinent references will appear either in parentheses in the text or in notes. A beginning point is available in the books by Keener and by Boring, Berger, and Colpe, noted above in 5.1.1 and 5.4.3.2, respectively.
For the rabbinic materials, there are two excellent sources:
Hermann L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 vols. (Munich: Beck, 19221961). [JAF 496]
This is a collection of texts from the rabbinic literature as they may reflect on background to the NT, arranged in NT canonical order. Although the texts are in German, an English-speaking student can
collect their references and go to the English translations (for their reference abbreviations, see vol. 1, pp. vii-viii). One must use caution here (see II.5.4.2), because this collection is not always discriminating. But it is nonetheless an invaluable tool.
J. Bonsirven, Textes rabbiniques des deux premiers siecles chretiens pour servir a l'intelligence du Nouveau Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1955). [JAF 489]
This collection is by tractate in the Talmud. One can, however, use the indexes in the back to locate material for specific passages. Despite the title, not all the references date from the first two Christian centuries. Nonetheless, this also is a useful tool.
5.5. Evaluate the significance of the background data for the understanding of your text.
This is easily the most crucial step for exegesis; it is at the same time the most difficult to "teach" or to give "rules" for. What follows, therefore, are some suggestions and cautions as to the kinds of things you need to be alert to.
5.5.1. Be aware of the kind of background information with which you are dealing.
This guideline merely restates what was noted in II.5.3. Does your "background" passage offer a direct parallel to your NT passage? Is it a counterparallel or antithesis? Or does it reflect the larger cultural milieu against which your passage must be understood?
5.5.2. As much as possible, determine the date of the background information.
You must learn to develop a broad sensitivity here, for the "date" of the author of your parallel text may or may not make it irrelevant to your NT passage. For example, a writer of the second century c.E. may reflect the cultural or intellectual current of a much earlier time. Nonetheless, one must be wary, for example, of reading later Gnostic ideas back into the first century without corresponding contemporary evidence.
The problem of date is particularly acute for the rabbinic materials. Too often in NT scholarship there has been an indiscriminate use
of talmudic materials, without a proper concern for date. Of great help here will be:
Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 A.D. 3 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971). [JAF 493]
5.5.3. Be extremely cautious about the concept of "borrowing."
For this plague on our house Samuel Sandmel coined the term par-allelomania. NT scholarship has all too often been prone to turn "common language" into "influence," and "influence" into "borrowing." The point here is simply to raise a caution. Don't say, "Paul got this idea fromunless you have good reason to believe it and can reasonably support it. By contrast, you can very often legitimately state: "In saying this, Paul reflects a tradition (or idea) that can be found elsewhere in ...".
5.5.4. Be aware of diverse traditions in your background materials, and weigh their value for your passage accordingly.
Does your biblical passage reflect conformity or antithesis to any of these traditions? Or does your passage reflect ambiguity? Again, one must use proper caution here. For example, 1 Tim. 2:14 says that Eve, because she was deceived, became a sinner. It is common to argue, in the light of some of the language in vv. 9-10 and 15, that this refers to a rabbinic and apocalyptic tradition that Satan seduced Eve sexually. But there is an equally strong contemporary tradition that implies she was deceived because she was the weaker sex. Furthermore, several other sources speak of her deception without attributing it to either cause. Caution is urged in the light of such diversity, especially when the author offers no hint as to his belief system on this matter.
5.5.5. Be aware of the possibility of local peculiarities to your sources.
This caution is especially true of Greco-Roman authors. In alluding to customs or concepts, does the author reflect what is a common, universal practice? or a local, provincial practice? Is he suggesting a norm or an exception to what is normal? For example, when Dio Chrysostom laments the decay of the custom of veiling (Orationes 33.48L), is he reflecting his own tastes, the peculiar circumstances of Tarsus, or a more universal custom?
Finally, it should be noted by way of caution that much of our background literature has come down to us by chance circumstances, and that much of our information is pieced together from a variety of extant sources that reflect but a small percentage of what was written in antiquity While it is proper to draw conclusions from what we have, such conclusions often need to be presented a bit more tentatively than NT scholarship is wont to do.
Despite these cautions, this is a rich treasure of material that will usually aid the exegetical task immeasurably. Therefore, let it be urged on you to read regularly and widely from the primary sources of antiquity. Such reading will often give you a feel for the period and will enable you to glean much in a general way, even when it does not necessarily yield immediate direct parallels.
Section 11.6
s noted in Chapter 1, the analysis of any saying or narrative in a given Gospel consists of three basic questions: (1) Selectivity—is there any significance to the fact that this saying or narrative is found in the Gospel you are exegeting? (2) Adaptation—do any of the differences in language or word order between your Gospel and the others have significance for the meaning of your pericope in the Gospel you are exegeting? (3) Arrangement—is there any significance to its inclusion right at this point (the question of immediate literary context)?
The key to answering these questions lies in your learning to use a Gospel synopsis—on a regular basis. The steps in this section, therefore, are in two parts: 6.1 through 6.3 have to do with learning to use the synopsis itself; 6.4 through 6.7 have to do with the analysis of a pericope in light of the three basic questions noted above, based on what one may discover through a careful following of the procedure outlined in 6.3.
Note well: As pointed out in Chapter I, and again the end of this section, all this analysis is basically a preparatory step for the ultimate exegetical question: the hearing of the pericope in the narrative of a given Gospel.
6.1. Select a synopsis.
At the present time, there are four synopses you need to be aware of. The following discussion is based primarily on the first one. Since many students find the second to be useful, references to that synopsis are in brackets.
1. The most important synopsis for the serious study of the Gospels is:
Kurt Aland (ed.), Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 9th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1976). [JAF 125]
As the title indicates, this is a comprehensive synopsis of all four Gospels. It reproduces the NA26/UBS3 Greek text, with the NA26 textual apparatus. It also includes the full Greek text of noncanonical parallels (that is, parallels found in Jewish or Christian literature outside the NT) and a full translation of the Gospel of Thomas.
2. For students and pastors, the above synopsis has been edited a second time with an English translation (RSV) on the facing page:
Kurt Aland (ed.), Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 3d ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1979). [JAF 124]
Many of the features of the complete synopsis are kept here, except that the apparatus is considerably condensed; the secondary parallels (other parallels within the Gospels but found in different sequence) are not given (which is an unfortunate reduction); and the noncanonical parallels are omitted.
3. A synopsis with a long history of usefulness (Huck-Lietzmann; see JAF 126) has been totally revised by Heinrich Greeven:
Albert Huck, Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, 13th ed., rev. Heinrich Greeven (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1981).
This synopsis has several interesting features. First, Greeven has produced an entirely new Greek text, which has considerable differences from NA26/UBS3 (and now NA27/UBS4). Second, the textual apparatus is limited to two kinds of variants: those that have been regarded by other textual critics as original, and those that in some degree or other reflect assimilation between (among) the Gospels. Third, passages from John's Gospel are now included, but only those that are parallel to one or more of the Synoptics. Fourth, italic type is used for all parallels that are found in a different sequence in the second or third Gospel. Professor Greeven has also made a concerted effort to have all parallel wordings appear in precise parallel columns and spacing; but to do so, he has allowed the lines between the Gospels to do a considerable amount of zigzagging, which at times makes it difficult to follow the sequence in a given Gospel.
4. A synopsis of a quite different kind is:
Reuben J. Swanson, The Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels, Greek Edition (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1984).
For certain kinds of work this is a most useful tool. Instead of printing the parallels in columns, Swanson has lined up the parallels across the page, one under the other. In the first volume (Matthew), for example, all agreements of any of the Gospels with Matthew are underlined. Also included is a full apparatus of textual variation, showing how any of the major manuscripts read—also in horizontal parallels, one under the other.
The discussion that follows will be based on the comprehensive Aland Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. You should at least learn how to use this tool, even if eventually you work with one of the others.
6.2. Locate your passage in the synopsis.
After you have become familiar with your synopsis, this step will become second nature and you will start with 6.3. But at the outset you need to learn how to "read" the Aland synopsis. The following discussion uses the collection of sayings in Matt. 7:1-5 and Mark 4:21-25 (see the facsimile on pp. 116-17), as well as the parable in Matt. 7:24-27, as examples. (Bracketed references are to the Greek-English synopsis.)
There are two ways to locate these pericopes. One is to look at Index II, pp. 576-83 [356-61], in which you are given both the peri-cope number (nr. = German for "number") and the page number. Thus Matt. 7:1-5, for example, appears on p. 92 [60] and Mark 4:21-25 on p. 179 [117]. The second and more common way is to look at the references at the top of each page. In each case you will find a reference to each of the four Gospels. These references are in most cases a mixture of regular and bold type. To understand these references, you need to understand how the synopsis has been put together.
The synopsis itself reproduces each Gospel in its own sequence (or order) from beginning to end (that is, from Matt. 1:1 to 28:20, etc.). Thus passages found in all three Gospels, all in the same sequence, will appear once in the synopsis. But parallel passages that appear in different sequence in one or more of the other Gospels will appear two or three times, depending on the number of different sequences. The easiest way to visualize this is to familiarize yourself with Index I, pp. 551-75 [341-55]. Here you will notice that for each Gospel the boldface references simply follow the order of that Gospel. You will also note that the regular-type references interspersed among the bold are always out of sequence for that Gospel but are parallel to a boldface reference in at least one other Gospel. Thus, at any point where both or all the Gospels have the same pericope in the same order (e.g., nos. 7,11,13,14,16,18), the references are all in bold print and the pericope is found in the synopsis that one time. Whenever one or more of the Gospels has a peri-cope reference in regular type, however, that means that another Gospel (or two) has this pericope in a different sequence. The synopsis will thus give that pericope twice (or more), once each in the sequence of each Gospel (see, e.g., nos. 6 and 19, 33 and 139, or 68 and 81).
Now back to the references as they appear at the top of any page. The boldface references here indicate two things: (a) "where you are" in that Gospel's sequence and (b) that the material in that (those) Gospel(s) is found on this page. The regular-type references simply indicate "where you are" in that Gospel's sequence; that is, it gives you the last pericope listed in sequence in that Gospel but has nothing to do with the page in hand.
Thus, if you are looking for Mark 4:21-25, you may open the synopsis anywhere and follow the Markan references forward or back until you find 4:21-25 in bold print on p. 179 [117], There you will see that Mark 4:21-25 and Luke 8:16-18 are boldface and are, in fact,
reproduced on the page below. The Matthew passage referred to here (13:18-23) is not on this page, but if you look back one page you will find this reference in boldface, along with Mark and Luke. This means that Mark and Luke are in sequence for both pericopes, but Matthew omits at this point in his Gospel what Mark includes as 4:21-25.
The little "nr. 125" in brackets in the top left corner indicates that the pericope numbered 125 in Aland's system (see his Index II) is located on this page.
On each page you will find four columns, with Greek text in one to all four of the columns, always in the canonical order of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. John has no parallels to Mark 4:21-25; hence that column is narrow and blank. You will notice that neither Mark nor John has parallels to Matt. 7:24-27; thus the columns with text are wider here, and Mark and John both have the blank narrow columns.
A few other features need to be noted. You will notice that Matthew's column on p. 179 [117] has four different texts listed in the heading (5:15; 10:26; 7:2; 13:12), with one reference in smaller type (25:29) listed underneath (the latter, which is a "secondary parallel," is not reproduced in the Greek-English synopsis). Then, in the column of text itself, each of the four passages is reproduced in the sequence of its corresponding parallel to Mark. The parenthesis following each reference is to the pericope and page numbers where that text can be found in its Matthean sequence. Thus, if you turn to p. 77 [51], pericope no. 53, you will find Mark 4:21 in out-of-sequence parallel to Matt. 5:15.
The small numbered references under the Matthew and Luke references, found in the Greek synopsis only, are to further parallels (called secondary parallels) to one or more of these sayings found elsewhere in Matthew and Luke. You will notice that these parallels are reproduced at the bottom of the Lukan and Matthean columns (continued on p. 180). It is extremely important that you take the time to look at these references, for very often they will add significant information to your exegesis (see especially 6.4, below).
Finally, still on p. 179 [118], you should note the entry at the bottom of the Lukan column (nr. 135 8,19-21 p. 184 [121]). This means that the next item in sequence in Luke's Gospel (8:19-21) will be found in pericope no. 135 on p. 184 [121].
6.3. Isolate the correspondences and differences in wording between your pericope and its Synoptic parallel(s).
This step is the key to the analytical steps that follow. Therefore, it is especially important that you take the time regularly to work out this procedure. At first you may wish to practice with copied pages. Eventually, much of the information you are looking for in the analytical steps will be discovered in the actual process of working through your pericope at this step.
The procedure itself is basically very simple and requires only two colored pens or pencils. One might use blue for triple-tradition materials and red for the double tradition (see 6.4, below). At a more sophisticated level you may wish to add three more colors, one for each Gospel as its unique linguistic/stylistic features are discovered (e.g., Mark's use of και ευθύς [and immediately] or και έλεγεν αύτοΐς [and he was saying to them], or Matthew's use of δικαιοσύνη [righteousness] or "kingdom of heaven," etc.).
The procedure is, with the use of a straightedge, to underline all verbal correspondences in the following manner (for Markan parallels):
1. Draw a solid (blue) line under all identical verbal correspondences (= identical wordings) between Mark and either one or both of the parallels (even if the words are in a different word order or are transposed to a place either earlier or later in the passage).
2. Draw a broken line under all verbal correspondences that have the same words but different forms (case, number, tense, voice, mood, etc.).
3. Draw a dotted line under either of the above where Matthew or Luke has a different word order or has transposed something earlier or later in the pericope.
By this procedure you will have isolated (a) the actual amount of Mark's text reproduced by Matthew and/or Luke and (b) the amount and kinds of variation from Mark's text in either of the other Gospels. The steps that follow are basically an analysis of these correspondences and variations.
For the double tradition one follows the same procedure, but now one is working only with correspondences and differences between Matthew and Luke.
On the pages that follow, one can see how this will appear for Mark 4:21-25 and Matt. 7:1-5 and their parallels.
5.15 (no. 53, p. 51)
15“Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel,
but on a
stand, and it gives light to all in the house.
10.26 (no. 101, p. 94)
26“So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.
7.2 (no. 68, p. 60)
2For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
13.12 (no. 123, p. 115)
12For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
Mark 4.21-25
21And
he said to them, “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a bushel, or under a bed, and not on a
stand?
22For there
is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light. 23If any man has ears to hear, let him hear.”
24And he said to them, “Take heed what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you.
25For to him who has will more be given;
and from Turn
who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”
16“No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a vessel, or puts it under a bed, but puts it on a stand, that those who enter may see the light.
17For nothing
is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.
18Take heed then how you hear;
for to him who has will more be given,
and from him
who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.”
(no. 135 8.19-21 p. 121)
1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged,
and the measure you give will be the
measure you get.
3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother,
‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when
there is the log in your own eye?
s You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. ' 37 “Judge not, and you will not be judged;
' condemn not, and
you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back.”39 He also told them a parable:
“Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher. 41 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 42 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye?
You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is m your brother’s eye.
6.4. Determine the kind of tradition(s) your pericope appears in.
(See 1.10.1 [G])
This is another way of putting the question of selectivity, which is ultimately a matter of determining whether such selection is in itself exegetically significant. But the first step here is to describe what one finds in the text, especially by determining the traditions your peri-cope appears in.
The materials in the Gospels are basically of five kinds (some might suggest four or three):
a. The Markan tradition, which appears in four ways: the triple tradition; Mark with Luke (= a Matthean omission); Mark with Matthew (= a Lukan omission); or Mark alone;
b. The double tradition = Matthew and Luke have material in common not found in Mark. This is commonly known as Q, but it is less likely a single source or a single tradition than several kinds of materials available to both in common;
c. The Matthean tradition = material peculiar to Matthew, some of which could have belonged to Q but was omitted by Luke;
d. The Lukan tradition = material peculiar to Luke; and
e. The Johannine tradition = material peculiar to John.
It should be noted further that occasionally there is an overlap between the Markan and double traditions, which in part accounts for some of the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, as well as for some of the doublets in Matthew and Luke.
For the most part, "determining the tradition" is simply a matter of noting to which of these five your pericope belongs. Sometimes for Matthew and Luke, however, this becomes a bit more complex, precisely because one must determine whether the "parallel" with Mark is following Mark or belongs to Q. For example, in pericope no. 125 (Mark 4:21-25 and parallels [see previous pages]) Mark has a collection of five different sayings (we will note at 6.5 how this may be determined), conveniently set out in this instance by the verse division. You will note that Luke alone follows Mark's sequence here, and that he reproduces three of the sayings, plus the "take heed therefore how you hear" from v. 24. You might also note from the underlining in 6.3 that he reproduces vv. 22 and 25 much more closely than he does v. 21.
You should note that Matthew has four of the five sayings, but all at different places in his Gospel. It should also be recognized, however, that his wording is very little like Mark's in the first two instances but very close to Mark in the last. By looking at the "secondary" parallels in Luke's column, one can now make some judgments about the Matthean parallels, as well as about Luke 8:16 (the verse in Luke that is less like Mark). If you were to red-underline Matt. 10:26 in parallel with Luke 12:2 (see pericope no. 101, where 10:26 appears in its Matthean sequence, for the reasons for doing this), you would discover that Matt. 10:26 is not a true parallel to Mark 4:22 but is a Q version of the same saying. Similarly, a comparison of Matt. 5:15 with Luke 11:33 suggests that there is a Q version of this saying as well (see pericope no. 192, p. 275 [175]), and that Luke, even when following Mark, tends to prefer that version— although the Markan parallel has supplied the imagery of "placing the lamp under a bed."
Thus one may reasonably conclude about this pericope (1) that Luke has generally reproduced Mark but omits two short sayings and rewrites the first under the influence of another version of it, and (2) that Matthew omits the whole lot, except for v. 25, which he has inserted a few verses earlier in the "reason for speaking in parables" (as a further explanation of why the disciples have been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom).
The question of the significance of selectivity will vary from Gospel writer to Gospel writer. For John's Gospel, one should take seriously the author's summary remark that everything is included to meet the aim stated in 20:30-31. The recurring question, then, should always be: How does this narrative fit into John's purpose of demonstrating Jesus to be Messiah, the Son of God?
For Mark's Gospel one may also assume that the inclusion of a saying or pericope has significance. This is especially true if it also can be shown to fit his arrangement (see 6.5, below). But one must also be open to the possibility that some things are included simply because they were available to him.
For Matthew and Luke, inclusion of something from Mark may or may not be significant. Nevertheless, the fact that they both at times choose not to include something, and that they generally adapt what they do include, suggests that selectivity has significance. For the double and single tradition, of course, the question is the same as for Mark and John: Is the inclusion of this saying or narrative related to the known special interests of the evangelist? In most instances the answer is clearly yes.
6.5. Analyze the sequence of the pericope in the Gospel you are exegeting. (See 1.10.2 [G])
This part of the analysis has to do with the Gospel writer's arrangement of his materials and therefore with the question of literary context. It asks the question, Why is it included here, in this sequence?
6.5.1. The Gospel of Mark
The clues to the significance of arrangement for Mark are mostly internal. That is, one simply has to read and reread a large section of text and ask over and again, Why has Mark included this here? In many instances that will become quite clear as you read. For example, the collection of narratives in Mark 1:21-44 has a singular motif throughout: Jesus' mighty deeds that generate great enthusiasm and popularity, so that he could no longer "enter a town openly" (v. 44).
Likewise, the collection of conflict stories in Mark 2:l-3:6, with their recurrent theme of "Why?" (2:7,16,18,24) and conclusion in 3:6 of the entrenchment of enmity, has its own easily discernible clues.
Sometimes this help comes from the exercise at 6.3, above (through the underlinings). As one observes what Matthew or Luke does with Mark's account, this often highlights Mark's own arrangement. This would especially be true of Mark 4:21-25, noted above. Two things suggest that this is a Markan arrangement: (1) the fact that most of the sayings exist independently of this arrangement in the double tradition; (2) the use of καί ελεγεν αύτοίς, which Mark frequently uses to attach an additional saying to a pericope (see Mark 4:21 and 24, where this phrase stands out in Mark because it is not underlined).
Given that this is a Markan arrangement and that it appears in a section on parables and the mystery of the kingdom, which is "given" to the disciples but not to those outside, one's exegesis here must ask how these sayings are to be understood in this context.
6.5.2. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke
The question of sequence, or literary context, for these Gospels depends primarily on whether the pericope comes from Mark or belongs to the double or single tradition. If their sequence is the same as Mark's, that ordinarily simply means they are following his order. Usually their unique presentation of such material will be found at step 6.6, below. But the fact that they didn't change Mark's order also implies that this order functions well for their own narrative. By contrast, when they differ from Mark's sequence, which they do not do often, one may argue that they have good reason to do so and exegesis must include seeking that reason (see the illustration in 6.6.1b).
For the double or single tradition, one must ask questions similar to those for Mark's Gospel, above. For the double tradition, however, it is almost always relevant to note carefully where and how the other Gospel writer places the same pericope. Note especially the pericopes in Matt. 7:1-5 [| Luke 6:37-42. You will observe that Luke has two major insertions into material that is otherwise verbally very close to Matthew. In Matthew's sequence, which very likely belongs to Q, the whole collection is instruction on not judging a brother. In Luke's sequence, however, there are now two packages of teaching, one on "response in kind," with both negative and positive items, and one that is a little more difficult to apprehend but seems to point to one's need to be taught as grounds for not judging a brother or sister.
Similarly with the single tradition in Matthew or Luke, the ability to see the evangelist's interest in arrangement is usually related to analyzing where he has inserted it into the Markan framework.
6.5.3. The Gospel of John
Here the question of arrangement is similar to that of Mark but is in this case especially related to one's overall understanding of the Johannine structure. If the Jewish feasts are the clues to understanding the material in John 2:12-12:50, as many think, then this becomes something of a clue to the questions of literary context. In any case, John's independence of the Synoptic tradition (for the most part) means that clues of arrangement are basically internal—although the placement of some things that he has in common with the Synoptics (e.g., the cleansing of the Temple, the anointing at Bethany) do offer some help in seeing the Johannine perspective.
6.6. Determine whether your evangelist’s adaptation of the pericope is significant for your interpretation of the text. (See 1.10.3 [G])
The key to this step is to go back to 6.3, above, and analyze carefully the differences between (among) the Gospels. Such an analysis should be looking for four things: (1) rearrangements of material (step 6.5), (2) additions or omissions of material, (3) stylistic changes, (4) actual differences in wording. A combination of these items will usually lead you to a fairly accurate appraisal of the author's interests. But note well: You must learn to distinguish between your description of what an author has done, which should be somewhat objective, and your interpretation as to why he has done it, which can become rather subjective. While it is true that the task of interpretation here is to discover the author's intent, one must exercise proper caution against a full identification of one's own discoveries with that actual intent.
6.6.1. The Triple Tradition (Mark-Matthew-Luke)
a. Mark. Because Mark was almost certainly working with primarily oral materials, which we in turn must reconstruct from his Gospel, there is always a certain amount of speculation about his adaptation of the material. It is much easier to see his hand at work in the arranging process. Nonetheless, certain linguistic and stylistic features of his Gospel have been isolated as clearly Markan. On this matter you will find much help in:
E. J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel, SNTSMS 33 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).
b. Matthew and Luke. Here one is on much firmer ground because of their use of Mark. In this case we will illustrate the whole process by looking at Luke's redaction of Mark in Luke 8:16-18 || Mark 4:21-25.
Pirst it must be emphasized that such an analysis must look at the larger unit (Luke 8:4-21) and see how vv. 16-18 fit in. Between a careful look at Index I in your synopsis (pp. 558-59 [345-46]) and a careful analysis of your blue underlinings, the following descriptive observations can be made (note well: To make sense of what follows, you will need to keep your synopsis handy!):
1. Luke has last followed Mark at Luke 6:12-16 (Mark 3:13-19). He has in the meantime included a large block of non-Markan material (Luke 6:17-7:50). When he returns to Mark, he (a) omits Mark 3:20-21 (where Jesus' family go to rescue him because many people think he is mad), (b) follows Q versions of Mark 3:22-27 and 28-30 and inserts them at different places in his Gospel, and (c) inverts the order of Mark 3:31-35 by placing it at the conclusion of this section (Luke 8:4-21) having to do with teaching in parables. At the end of the section he also omits Mark 4:26-34.
2. Luke introduces the section (8:1-3) by noting that Jesus is again involved in itinerant ministry of preaching, accompanied by the Twelve and several women.
3. In Luke 8:4 the context for the parable of the sower is not the sea with Jesus in a boat (thus, in 8:22, Luke must adapt by having Jesus "one day" getting into a boat) but "people from town after town" coming to him.
4. In the parable itself (Luke 8:5-8) there are several interesting adaptations: (a) the addition of "his seed" (v. 5); (b) the addition of "was trodden under foot" (v. 5); (c) the change from "no root" to "no moisture" in v. 6, with the omission of "no depth of soil" and the scorching sun; (d) the omission of "it yielded no grain" (v. 7); (e) in v. 8, the omission of "growing up and increasing" and the limiting of the yield to a hundredfold. The net result is a condensed version of Mark's parable, with many of the details omitted.
5. In the section on the reason for speaking in parables (Luke 8:9-101| Mark 4:10-12), Luke omits the reference to their being alone, changes the disciples' question to refer to this parable in particular, changes "the mystery" of the kingdom to "the mysteries," changes "those outside" to "the rest," and considerably abbreviates the quotation from Isaiah.
6. In the interpretation of the parable (Luke 8:11-15) the emphasis shifts from the sower to the seed, which is "the word of God," and its effects on people. Thus the first have the word taken away by the devil, lest "they believe and be saved." The second group "believe" (instead of "endure") for a while and fall away in a time of "temptation" (instead of "tribulation or persecution on account of the word"). The third hear, but their fruit "does not mature," while the fourth are those who hear the word, "hold it fast with a noble and good heart and bear fruit with patience."
7. In our section of interest (Luke 8:16-18), Luke (a) omits the two occurrences of και ελεγεν αύτοΐς (and he was saying to them), thus linking v. 16 directly to the interpretation of the parable of the sown seed; (b) uses the Q version of the first saying, which is interested in the fact that those who enter will see the light; (c) in v. 17 adds "that shall not be known"; (d) omits Mark 4:24b altogether so that v. 25 in Mark is joined directly, as an explanation, to "take heed then how you hear."
8. Finally, Mark 3:31-35 has been rearranged to serve as a conclusion to this section (Luke 8:19-21), and considerably adapted so that emphasis is on the final pronouncement: "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”
If you have followed this collection of observations in your synopsis, the results should have become clear: The section as a whole, which begins with Jesus' itinerant preaching and "evangelizing" about the kingdom of God, is concerned with him as a teacher of the word of God and with how people hear the word. Precisely how vv. 16-18 fit into that scheme may not be quite so clear, but it is certainly arguable that Luke's concern here is with the future ministry of the disciples, who had the parables explained to them and who were to "bear fruit with patience," by taking what was "hidden" and making it known so that people might "see the light."
Note again that the task of exegesis at this point is first of all to describe what the author did and then to offer an interpretation of the intent.
6.6.2. The Double Tradition (Matthew-Luke)
Here the descriptive concerns are threefold:
1. Since almost none of these materials is in the same sequence in the two Gospels, begin with a description of the larger section into which each evangelist has fitted the saying.
2. Determine by an analysis of the linguistic correspondences whether the two authors had access to a common source (most highly probable with Matt. 7:1-5 || Luke 6:37-42) or whether they reflect two different traditions of the same pericope (e.g., Matt. 25:14-30 || Luke 19:11-27, parable of the talents/pounds).
3. By an analysis of Matthean and Lukan linguistic and stylistic habits, try to determine which evangelist has the more primitive expression of the saying and how each has adapted it to his interests.
Thus, by careful analysis of the parable of the wise and foolish builders, one can show that much of the noncommon language in Luke's version is unique to him in the NT. Furthermore, the differences between digging deep and laying a foundation on rock (Luke) and building on the rock (Matthew), between a flood arising (Luke) and rains causing the flooding (Matthew), and between building on the ground with no foundation (Luke) and building on "sand" (Matthew) reflect the differences between Jesus' own native Palestine, with its limestone hills and chalk valleys, and Luke's (or his readers') more common experience of floods by rising rivers.
In this case, however, the parable, which seems most likely already to have been at the conclusion of a prior collection of sayings (much like Luke's version), functions in a similar way for both evangelists. For a considerably different perspective, based on arrangement and adaptation, try doing this for yourself with the parable of the lost/ straying sheep (Matt. 18:10-14 \\ Luke 15:3-7).
6.7. Rethink the location of your pericope in its present literary context in your Gospel.
This final step is but to repeat a part of the descriptive process outlined above. It needs to be repeated as a final word, because there is always the great danger that one may analyze a saying or pericope in great detail but lose its function in the overall literary context of the author. The evangelists, after all, did not intend us to read their Gospels side by side but rather as separate documents, each with its own literary integrity. Thus, although for interpreting purposes you must learn to go through the steps outlined in this section, you must also remember that the Gospels come to us in canonical order and finally are to be understood as wholes, one following the other.
ortunately, exegesis for the preparation of a sermon does not involve the writing of one or two exegesis papers per week. Unfortunately, however, most theologically trained pastors, who learned to write exegesis papers for a course, were not likewise trained to apply those skills to the more common task of preparing a sermon. This chapter seeks to fill that void, by providing a handy format to follow for the exegesis of a NT passage, in order to preach confidently and competently from it.
Exegesis for a sermon is not different in kind from that required to write a paper, but it is different in its time requirements and its goal. This chapter, therefore, is a blended version of the full guide used for exegesis papers, outlined in Chapters I and II. (If for some reason some of those skills were never learned—or have become rusty—you may wish to block out some time during a week or two to go through those two chapters to "brush up" a bit.)
Although the process of exegesis itself cannot be redefined, the fashion in which it is done can be adjusted considerably. In the case of sermon preparation, exegesis cannot and, fortunately, need not be as exhaustive as that of the term paper. The fact that it cannot be exhaustive does not mean that it cannot be adequate. The goal of the shorter guide is to help the pastor extract from the passage the essentials pertaining to sound interpretation and exposition (explanation and application). The final product, the sermon, can and must be based on research that is reverent and sound in scholarship. The sermon, as an act of obedience and worship, ought not to wrap shoddy scholarship in a cloak of fervency. Let your sermon be exciting, but let it be in every way faithful to God's revelation.
The chapter is divided into two parts: (1) a guide through the exegetical process itself; (2) some brief suggestions about moving from text to sermon, that is, the actual preparation of the sermon. The guide is geared to the pastor who has ten hours or more per week for sermon preparation (approximately five for the exegesis and five or more for the sermon). Each section of the exegetical part of the guide contains a suggestion of the approximate time one might wish to devote to the issues raised in that section. Although the five hours was allotted somewhat arbitrarily, that would seem to be the minimum that a pastor ought to give to the research aspect of sermon preparation. Depending on the particular passage, the time available to you in a given week, and the nature of your familiarity with the text and the exegetical resources, you will find that you can make considerable adjustments in the time allotments. The actual time it takes beyond the exegesis for the writing of the sermon is such an individual matter that no times are given. The point here is that good, exeget-ically sound sermons can be produced in ten hours, and this guide hopes to help to that end.
As you become increasingly familiar with the steps and methods, you may arrive at a point where you can dispense with reference to the guide itself. That is the goal of this primer—that it should get you started, not that it should always be used.
Biblical preaching from the NT is, by definition, the task of bringing about an encounter between people of the present century and the Word of God—first spoken in the first century. The task of exegesis is to discover that Word and its meaning in the first-century church; the task of preaching is to know well both the exegesis of the text and the people to whom that Word is now to be spoken again, as a living Word for them.
The question is, where to begin. The obvious starting place, of course, is with the choice of text. But what guides that choice? Two things, basically. Either (1) you are working your way through the biblical text and recognize the need to apply a given passage to your congregation, or (2) you recognize a certain need among the people and come to the Bible looking for a word that will address that need. The outline that follows assumes the former approach, namely, that the biblical text itself determines the direction of the sermon.
But note well: The great danger in preaching through a biblical book, or in letting the text determine the sermon, is that the sermon itself may become an exercise in exegesis. Such a "sermon" is exposition without aim, information without focus. That may be all right in the Sunday school class setting, where one simply goes through a passage, expounding and applying as one sees fit, but it is not preaching. Preaching must be based on solid exegesis, but it is not a display of exegesis. Rather, it is applied exegesis, and it must have aim if it is to function properly.
Throughout the exegetical task, therefore, you must constantly be working toward two ends: (1) to learn as much as you can about your text, its overall point and how all the details go together to make that point (recognizing all along that not everything you learn will necessarily be included verbally in the sermon); (2) to think about the application of the text, which especially in this case includes the discriminating use of all that you have learned in the exegetical process. Let it be said now and repeated throughout: You must overcome the urge to include everything in your sermon that you have learned in your exegesis; likewise, you must overcome the urge to parade your exegesis and thus appear as the local guru.
The following steps will be regularly illustrated from two texts, one from the Epistles (1 Pet. 2:18-25) and one from the Gospels (Mark 9:49-50). The former was chosen because of the hermeneutical issues involved (How do words to slaves in the first century speak to us today?); the latter because these are particularly difficult sayings of Jesus. It is hoped that one will not always neglect, or preach around, such texts as these.
1. Getting Started (Allow approximately one hour and twenty minutes)
It is imperative at the outset that you have a good preliminary sense of the context and content of your passage. To do this well, you will need to do the following:
1.1. Read the larger context.
Do not be so anxious to get at the meaning of your text that you fail to take the time to have a good general sense as to where it fits in the biblical book you are preaching from. Always remember that your text is only one small part of a whole and was never intended by the biblical author to be looked at or thought of independently from the rest of what he says.
You should therefore make it a regular practice to read your passage in its larger context. Then read it again—perhaps in a different translation the second time through. If you are dealing with one of the shorter epistles, take the time to read the whole epistle through, thinking carefully about the author's argument and how your passage fits in. If it is a longer epistle, read and reread the section in which it is found (e.g., 1 Pet. 1:1-3:12 or 22). If you are in the Gospels, select a logical larger section as your context (e.g., Mark 8:27-10:16— let the commentaries guide you here, if you must) and read and reread, so that you can easily retrace in your mind what goes before and what follows after your text.
Note: If you are setting out to preach your way through a biblical book, then you need to block out extra time at the beginning and work your way through Step 1 in Chapter I. Knowledge of the whole book must precede work on any of its parts.
1.2. Read the passage repeatedly.
Now do the same thing with your specific passage—only this time you are reading and rereading for its basic content. Go over the passage out loud. Try to get a feel for it as a unit conveying God's Word to you and your congregation. Try to become sufficiently familiar with the passage that you can keep its essentials in your head as you carry on through the next five steps. Perhaps you could read it through in a number of different translations—those that your congregation would know and use—and make a list of the significant differences (see Step 3.3 in Chapter I). This would especially be helpful in situations where some in the congregation still revere the King James Version. Knowing beforehand where the KJV will differ from your translation can help you anticipate some people's anxieties here.
Also be on the lookout for the possibility that you will need to adjust the limits of your passage, since the chapter and verse divisions as we have them are secondary to the composition of the original and are not always reliable. Check by starting a few verses before the beginning of the passage and going a few verses past the end. Adjust the limits if necessary (shrink or expand the passage to coincide with more natural boundaries if your sense of the passage so requires). It will be clear by this test, for example, that 1 Pet. 2:18-25 is the unit one must work with. In the case of Mark 9:49-50, it will also become clear that this is something of a self-contained unit, held together by the word salt. But the γάρ (for) in v. 49 also ties it directly to what has preceded, so in this case one would do well to include vv. 42-48 in the exegetical work—even though one may limit the sermon to vv. 49-50. Once satisfied that the passage is properly delimited and that you have a preliminary feel for its content and the way its words and thoughts flow, proceed to Step 1.3, below.
1.3. Make your own translation.
Try this even if your Greek is dormant or weak. For this task, use one of the aids noted in IV.3. You can easily check yourself by referring whenever necessary to one or two of the better modern versions.
Making your own translation has several benefits. One is that it will help you notice things about the passage that you would not notice in reading, even in the original. Much of what you begin to notice will anticipate Steps 2.1 through 2.6, below. For example, you should begin to become alert to any textual questions that will affect the meaning of the text, to the special vocabulary of the passage, its grammatical features, and any historical-cultural issues, since all these matters are drawn naturally to your attention in the course of translating the words of the passage. Moreover, you are the expert on your congregation. You know its members' vocabulary and educational level(s), the extent of their biblical and theological awareness, and so forth. Indeed, you are the very person who is uniquely capable of producing a meaningful translation that you can draw upon in whole or in part during your sermon, to ensure that the congregation is really understanding the true force of the Word of God as the passage presents it.
[English Bible readers can substitute Step 3.3 in Chapter I.]
1.4. Compile a list of alternatives.
In the process of making your own translation, you need to keep a list of translational alternatives that are textual, grammatical, or lin-guistic/stylistic in nature. The list need not be long; only significant items should be included. This list may then serve as a reference point for the items in Step 2, below. For example, the list for Mark 9:42-50 should include the textual matters in vv. 42,44,46, and 49; the words σκανδαλίζω (offend, sin, stumble, undoing), γέεννα (hell), άλας (salt), ζωή = βασιλεία τοΰ θεού (life = kingdom of God) in vv. 43,45, 47; and the grammatical question related to γάρ (for) in v. 49. If you used the Good News Bible as one of your translations (Step 1.3, above), you should also note on your list how that translation has interpreted the first and third of the salt sayings.
How many of these alternatives should be mentioned in the sermon will be a matter of personal judgment. In any case, err on the side of restraint, lest the sermon become cluttered. Some suggestions on textual items are given in 2.1, below. On other data it is a matter of the significance for understanding the passage. Sometimes you can simply choose your alternative as it appears in one of the translations and say, "As the NRSV has it . . ." or "In my view the Good News Bible has the better of it here by translating ..." If it is a more crucial issue, related to the meaning of the text or especially related to the point you want to drive home, then it would be appropriate to give a brief summary of why you feel the evidence leads to your choice (or why you feel the evidence is not decisive).
1.5. Analyze the structure.
One further way of looking at the text in a preliminary fashion can also prove to be of immense value. It is important not only that you be aware of what details will need investigating but also that you have a good sense of the structures of your passage and the flow of the argument. The best way to do this is to transcribe the Greek text into a sentence-flow schematic as described in II.1.1. The great advantage of this exercise is that it helps you visualize the structures of the paragraph, as well as forces you to make up your mind on several syntactical issues. In fact, almost always it will help you pick up items you missed even in translating.
Thus a sentence flow of 1 Pet. 2:18-25 will help you see not only that in vv. 18-20 the main point of the exhortation is to leave one's case with God when suffering unjustly but also that the example of Christ given in vv. 21-25, which reinforces the exhortation, has two parts to it: the fact that (1) "Christ suffered for you" (v. 21) and at the same time (2) "left an example for you to follow" (v. 21). The four relative clauses that follow (which might be missed otherwise) then pick up these two themes: The first two (vv. 22-23) elaborate on his exam-pie; the second two (vv. 24a-b, 24c) expound on his suffering for them—and both of these in terms of Isaiah 53. To be sure, all this could be seen simply by translating, but the sentence flow, especially when color-coded, makes all this readily visible.
1.6 Start a sermon use list.
In the same manner as you compiled the list of alternatives mentioned in 1.4, above (and perhaps including that list), keep nearby a sheet of paper on which you record those observations from your exegetical work on the passage that you feel may be worth mentioning in your sermon. This list should include points discovered from all of Steps 1-5 in this chapter and will provide an easy reference as you construct the sermon itself.
What to include? Include the very things that you would feel cheated about if you did not know them. They need not be limited to genuine life-changing observations, but they should not be insignificant or arcane either. If something actually helps you appreciate and understand the text in a way that would not otherwise be obvious, then put it down on the mention list.
Maximize at first. Include anything that you feel deserves to be mentioned because your congregation might profit from knowing it.
Later, when you actually write or outline your sermon, you may have to exclude some or most of the items on the mention list because of the press of time. This will especially be the case if your sermon is not from a more rigidly expository format. Moreover, in perspective you will undoubtedly see that certain items originally included for mention are not as crucial as you first thought. Or, conversely, you may find that you have so much of significance to draw to your congregation's attention that you need to schedule two sermons on the passage to expound it properly.
Remember: Your mention list is not a sermon outline, any more than a stack of lumber is a house. The mention list is simply a tentative record of those exegetically derived observations that your congregation deserves to hear and may benefit from knowing.
2. Matters of Content (Allow approximately one hour)
The steps in this section are related to the various kinds of details that make up the content of your passage, the what of the text. Basically, these questions are fourfold for any NT passage: textual, grammatical, linguistic, historical-cultural.
2.1. Check for significant textual issues.
Refer to the textual apparatus in your NA27. Look specifically for textual variations that would affect the meaning of the text for your congregation in the English translation. These are the major textual variants. There is not much point in concerning yourself with the minor variants—those that would not make much difference in the English translations. Here it will have been especially helpful to have read your passage through in the several English translations, as suggested in 1.2, above. Whenever the textual variation itself has been responsible for the differences, be sure this has been included in your list of alternatives (1.4, above). You will need to evaluate the major variations for yourself as to which is most likely the original and why (see II.2), especially when there are differences among the translations people might be using.
The question of how much, if any, of these things one includes in the sermon is a tricky one, for this is an area that can sometimes be upsetting to believers (it touches on the area of the reliability of Scripture for many). The rule is this: Seldom (almost never) do textual criticism per se in the pulpit; that is, seldom, if ever, explain to the congregation how you arrived at a particular decision. You should include your reasoning only in the following situations: (1) when there are major textual decisions, and these are reflected in translations you know the people will be using (e.g., the NRSV, KJV, and NIV on 1 Cor. 11:29); (2) when your own choice differs from the "pew Bible" of your congregation (this is especially so for those whose churches still generally use the KJV—but be careful of criticizing someone else's Bible!); (3) when a textual note will help the people see how the text was understood, or misunderstood, in the early church. For example, one can show how in Mark 9:49 the Western text was trying to alleviate what is otherwise a very difficult saying but at the same time, by conforming it to Lev. 2:13, has given considerable insight into the possible background for the original saying itself (the point picked up in the translation of the Good News Bible). This could be a part of your explanation of the text as you expound its meaning to the congregation.
In contrast, the interchange between ύμών (you) and ήμών (us) in 1 Pet. 2:21 may or may not be mentioned, depending on whether you want to stress the point of Christ's having suffered for these Christian slaves. In that case one could say something like: "In order to reinforce his point that these slaves should follow Christ's example, Peter also reminds them of the effect of Christ's suffering, namely, that it was for them. In some translations you will find v. 21 translated 'Christ suffered for us'—and while that is true and is picked up in v. 24, it misses Peter's point in v. 21. Here the older and more reliable evidence, which is picked up in most newer translations, is to be pre-f erred as having the original text...."
2.2. Note any grammar that is unusual, ambiguous, or otherwise important.
Your primary interest is to isolate grammatical features that might have some effect on the interpretation of the passage. Here in particular you will learn more than you will have occasion to relate. For example, as you work with the ambiguous διά συνείδησιν θεοΰ (because he is conscious of God [TNIV]; for the sake of conscience toward God [NASB]) in 1 Pet. 2:19, you will need to make up your own mind as to the force of the genitive (cf. the commentaries of Peter Davids, Ramsey Michaels, and Paul Achtemeier), but you will scarcely need to give any of the grammatical data to the congregation.
Sometimes, of course, an explanatory grammatical word can be especially helpful. The γάρ (for) in 1 Pet. 2:25, for example, can be defined as being clearly explanatory, so that the "healing" of v. 24 must be a metaphor for salvation in this instance, not a reference to physical healing. Likewise, the difference between an objective and a subjective genitive might be explained at times so that the force of your exegesis can be more clearly seen (see II.3.3.1). How one treats the γάρ in Mark 9:49 may vary. It would probably be appropriate to point out (perhaps in the sermon introduction) that by using this word Mark certainly intended to tie these sayings to what has preceded, but that it is not altogether clear what that connection is; later in the sermon, after you have given your interpretation of the text, you may wish to comment again on how these sayings can now be seen to relate to the sayings that have preceded them.
2.3. Make a list of key terms.
At this point you will want to go back to your list in 1.4, above, and reflect on it again, now in terms of key words that may need explanation at some point in the sermon. You may now wish to revise that list with these concerns in mind. For example, your preliminary list for 1 Pet. 2:18-25 should probably include the following (from the NRSV): slaves, harsh, suffer, approval, called, example, wounds, healed, shepherd, guardian. Again, you will want to satisfy yourself as to the special nuances of all these words for the meaning of the passage, but you must not feel compelled to explain everything in the sermon. It would probably be of some importance, for example, to point out that even though οίκέτης means "household servant," such servants were almost invariably slaves; and it would surely be of some interest for the people to learn that the μώλωψ (wound) that Christ suffered for the salvation of these slaves is a word that referred to the black-and-blue welt one received through whipping—which some of the slaves had surely experienced (cf. v. 20).
2.4. Do a mini-word study for any crucial terms.
Sometimes one or more of the words are of enough significance for your sermon that you will want to investigate them beyond the confines of the passage itself, in order better to understand what they mean in your passage. "Salt" in Mark 9:49-50 is an obvious example; but because its meaning has ultimately to do with historical-cultural matters, we will hold it until 2.5, below. In 1 Pet. 2:19-20, Peter's use of χάρις would be such a word. It is obviously being used in a sense considerably different from Paul's ordinary, and for most Christians the common, meaning. But does it mean "glory" (KJV), "credit" (NRSV), "commendable" (TNIV), or "God will bless you" (GNB)?
For such a word study, use the techniques described in II.4, but use your time wisely. By checking with BDAG and your Greek concordance, you will be able quickly to discern a word's possible range of meanings. You will want to note the usage in 1 Peter especially and how that usage differs considerably from Paul's. Here you will do your hearers a service by sharing with them a condensed form of some of the pertinent data. Paul's use of χάρις, after all, is not the only biblical one, and people need to be aware of that.
2.5. Investigate important historical-cultural matters.
Most people in a congregation are usually helped when you explain some of the historical-cultural matters that are truly significant to the meaning of the text. For the kinds of concerns that need to be investigated here and some bibliographic suggestions, see II.5.
In the two example passages, at least two such items in each deserve some attention on your part. In Mark 9:42-50, it will probably be helpful for you to do a brief investigation of the term γέεννα (Gehenna = hell) and the forcefulness of the metaphor for these sayings. The term salt is of course the crucial one. Here your investigation of the use of salt in Jewish antiquity will probably be the key to your interpretation of all three sayings. Apparently three different uses are being metaphorically referred to in the three sayings: salt on sacrifices, salt for taste or preservative, and salt as a covenant bond.
In 1 Pet. 2:18-25, you will want to spend a brief time reading about slaves—and their treatment—in the Greco-Roman world. Again, you will need a good sense of time as to how much you relate, but if the sermon is going to move adequately from the first to the present century, your congregation deserves to know something about the nature of first-century slavery—and how radical these words of exhortation would have been. Also, it is of crucial importance to your exegesis to trace carefully the use of Isaiah 53 in vv. 22-25. In this regard, you may wish to consult one of the better studies on Christian midrashic techniques as they appear in the NT (see Bailey and Vander Broek, pp. 42-49 [IV.9.1]).
A caution here: Because this kind of information can be so fascinating, one can sometimes yield to the temptation to give it an inordinate amount of time in the sermon. Don't let such matters get in the way of the preaching so as to become all-absorbing. Let these, as with other matters, be useful servants for the proclamation of the Word, but don't let them rule.
3. Contextual Questions (Allow approximately one hour)
To work out the matters of content is only half the exegetical task. Now you must give close attention to the questions of historical and literary context. Historical context has to do with the general historical milieu as well as with the specific occasion of the document. Literary context has to do with how your passage fits in specifically at its place in the argument or narrative.
Since the nature of the Gospels (see p. 20, above) requires one to look at these questions differently from the other genres, this section, as with Chapter I, will be divided into two parts, one for the Epistles (including Acts and Revelation) and one for the Gospels.
3 (E). Epistles (Acts, Revelation)
For the exegesis of a passage from the Epistles you should familiarize yourself with the discussion at 1.9-11 (E). For Acts, see 1.10-11 (A), and for Revelation, see 1.9-11 (R).
3.1 (E). Examine the historical context.
This investigation has three parts to it. First, you need to learn something about the general situation of the recipients. If your passage is in one of the Pauline letters, spend a little time becoming familiar with the city and its people. For this you should consult either one of the better Bible dictionaries (see II.5.2.1) or the introduction to one of the better commentaries (see IV.13.3); if you have time, interest, and available resources (a good library nearby), you may pursue some of these matters further through the bibliography provided in the dictionary article.
Beyond that, you also need to familiarize yourself with the nature and composition of the church(es) to which the epistle was written. Are they chiefly Jewish Christians, Gentiles, or some mixture? Is there any inkling as to their socioeconomic status? Here again, con-suit the introductions to the commentaries. But here also keep your eyes open as you read the biblical text for yourself. For example, as you read 1 Pet. 1-3 through a couple of times (1.1, above), you should have noted that the recipients are Gentile believers (1:18; 2:10; cf. 4:3) and that at least some of them are slaves and women (2:18-3:7).
Finally, and most important, you need to reconstruct for yourself, with the aid of your resources if necessary, the specific historical situation that occasioned this section within the epistle. This is one of the absolutely crucial steps in the exegetical process, for your letter, after all, is a response to something. It is an immeasurable aid to understanding to have worked out as carefully as possible what situation your epistle addresses. You may get at this on your own—if time allows—by listening carefully to the epistle as you read it through. But again, if necessary, consult the better commentaries; and since some of this work borders on speculation, you would do well to compare two or three sources on this matter. Thus for 1 Peter, although some of the details will differ from scholar to scholar, it can be easily recognized that hostility from pagan sources is the basic cause of the letter, and our passage is a part of an exhortation on how to respond as a Christian to a specific expression of that hostility.
It is almost always appropriate to include this material in the sermon. This, above all else, will give your interpretation credibility— when the text is seen as a response to a given situation.
3.2 (E). Examine the literary content.
For your specific text, you have now come to the absolutely essential exegetical question. What is the point of this passage? How does it fit into the overall scheme of the letter? And, more important, how does it fit right at this point in the author's argument or exhortation? To do this well, you need to take the time to write out on your sermon use list (see 1.6, above) the two brief statements suggested in 1.11 (E), namely: (1) the logic and content of your passage; (2) an explanation as to how this content contributes to the argument. This is the place where a lot of interpretation goes aground. Make a habit of fore-ing yourself always to do this—even if the commentaries do not always do so (this is also the place where many commentaries fail). Never be satisfied that you have done your exegesis until you have a measure of confidence that you can answer the question why, as well as the question what. There will be times, of course, when this is less clear (e.g., 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1), and you must be properly hesitant. But even in such cases, this question must always be wrestled with. For the sermon to have integrity as a proclamation of the intent of Scripture, it should focus on this question, and all its parts should serve that focus.
Thus a sermon on 1 Pet. 2:18-25 should focus on the main point of the exhortation—leaving one's case with God in the face of hostility and cruelty—although the ways in which one may go about making that point and bringing in Peter's supporting arguments will vary from preacher to preacher. You may, of course, wish to preach only from vv. 21-25, on Christ as example and savior, but even here you will want to set such a sermon in its literary context of vv. 18-25.
3 (G). Gospels
For the exegesis of a passage from the Gospels, you should familiarize yourself with the discussion at 1.9-11 (G) and II.6.
3.1 (G). Identify the form.
Do not spend a lot of time here. The important thing to note is that in the Gospels you have genres within the genre. Parables, for exam-pie, function in a certain way, as do proverbs or hyperbole (Mark 9:43M8) or the narratives. For the literature on identifying the forms, see IV.9 (G). Again, this is not something one makes much of in the sermon itself, except perhaps to remind the people, for example, that a saying is proverbial and that proverbs function in a certain way (e.g., Mark 9:50a).
3.2 (G). Use a synopsis.
To get at the historical-literary context of a passage from the Gospels, it is of greatest benefit for you to learn to study your passage from a Greek synopsis (from the Greek-English synopsis [II.6.1] if your Greek is rusty). If you are not familiar with working with a synopsis, you will do yourself a lifetime favor if you will take the time to learn carefully the procedures outlined in II.6, especially II.6.3. What you are basically trying to discover here is how your evangelist has put his Gospel together in the immediate area of your text; and very often this can be greatly helped by seeing how the other evangelists treat the same material (whether dependent or independent).
Thus, for example, it should not be surprising that neither Matthew nor Luke totally follows Mark from 9:37 to 9:50 (there are some inherently difficult items here, as you will have sensed for yourself when reading it through). That neither Matthew nor Luke picks up the three salt sayings should surprise no one. You will, however, receive some help in your interpretation of Mark 9:50a by recognizing that another version of that same (or a similar) saying existed in the double tradition. At least some of this kind of information, without long, dry treatises on the Synoptic problem and its solution, may well be a part of the sermon, both as helpful information and to reinforce your point about the inherent difficulty in understanding.
3.3 (G). Investigate possible life settings where appropriate.
If it will be of some use to the sermon, one may spend some time thinking about the possible original life setting of the passage in the ministry of Jesus (see 11.11 [G] and IV.ll [G]). This will be especially true for many of the parables. In our present passage, however, very little is to be gained here, since it would be rather speculative at best, and since the real contextual question here is the present literary one.
It is always appropriate to consider whether your passage contributes to the understanding of the evangelist's life setting or the other way about—whether that life setting (allowing for its hypothetical nature) adds to your understanding of the passage. If, as most believe, Mark's Gospel appeared in Rome during a time of suffering for the church, and discipleship for him entails following a suffering-servant Messiah (cf., e.g., Mark 8:27-38), then at least the first of these salt sayings fits nicely into this motif (following the second passion prediction) as a call to discipleship tried by fire.
3.4 (G). Describe the present arrangement or adaptation.
Basically this step flows out of 3.2 (G), above. The procedure may be found in II.6.5-6. Here especially you will do far more learning for your own understanding of the text than you will find necessary to include in the sermon. What you are looking for are those items that will give you insight into the author's emphases and his point in including the passage right here. Thus you are here going about answering the questions of literary context.
As it was relatively easy to determine the literary context of 1 Pet. 2:18-25, so it is difficult to do so with Mark 9:49-50. It is always appropriate to be cautious at such points. Nonetheless, if you feel you can make good sense of the text in its context, then don't hesitate to say so, provided it is clear to all that you also have some reservations. Here especially you will want to seek the aid of the better commentaries.
4. Secondary Literature (Allow approximately fifty minutes)
You have now come to the conclusion of your basic work on the text itself. With the help of several exegetical aids, you should feel that you have a good understanding of the text, in both its particulars and its place in the biblical book. At this point you should take a little time to consult some secondary literature.
4.1. Consult commentaries.
Do not avoid commentaries; just be sure you do not read them through as the first order of business. If you do, you will always be preaching from someone else's work on the text, however good that may be, and never have confidence that the text is your own because you have come to grips with it. But now is the time to look at some commentaries. You should secure for your own library at least two or three of the very best available commentaries for each NT book (see IV.13.3). There are three reasons for reading the commentaries
at this point: (1) To look at the options of scholars for some of the difficulties you had at various points in your exegesis. At times, of course, you will consult the commentaries when you meet the difficulty as you exegete the text. (2) To listen to at least three other interpretations of the text, with which you can compare your own and make adjustments if another turns out to be more convincing. (3) To be alerted to issues or options that you overlooked in your exegesis that may prove crucial for your sermon. Thus, for example, reading through the commentaries of Achtemeier, Michaels, and Davids on 1 Pet. 2:18-25 should not only increase your confidence in your own work but also aid your understanding of the text.
4.2. Read other literature.
This is the step that is conditioned by time, resources, and geography. There are times, such as when studying Mark 9:49-50, that you would like to spend some time reading what others have written about those sayings. If such an opportunity arises, you need to con-suit the bibliographic aids in IV.13.1-2.
5. Biblical-Theological Context
(Allow approximately thirty minutes)
Before you move on to the concerns of application, you need to think your way through how this passage relates to other Scripture and Christian theology.
5.1. Analyze the passage's relation to the rest of Scripture.
What is this passage similar or dissimilar to? Is it one of many similar types, or is it fairly unique? What gaps does it fill? Does anything hinge on it elsewhere? Do other Scriptures help make it comprehensible? How? Where does it fit in the overall structure of biblical revelation? What value does it have for the student of the Bible? In what ways is it important for your congregation?
Thus, for example, for 1 Pet. 2:18-25 you will want to analyze briefly the similar passages in Paul (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10). It may be instructive to note that the Ephesians
and Colossians passages assume Christian masters, while the others (including 1 Peter) assume Christian slaves and pagan masters.
5.2. Analyze the passage's use in and relation to theology.
To what theological doctrines does the passage add light? What are its theological concerns? Might the passage raise any questions or difficulties about some theological issue or stance that needs an explanation? How major or minor are the theological issues on which the passage touches? Where does the passage seem to fit within the full system of truth contained in Christian theology? How is the passage to be harmonized with the greater theological whole? Are its theological concerns more or less explicit (or implicit)? How can you use the passage to help make your congregation more theologically consistent or, at least, more theologically alert?
6. Application (Allow approximately forty minutes)
You should have been thinking right along about how your passage and its various parts might apply to your own life and to that of the congregation. But now you should focus directly on application.
6.1. List the life issues in the passage.
Make a list of the possible life issues that are mentioned explicitly, referred to implicitly, or logically to be inferred from the passage. There may be only one or two of these, or there may be several. Be inclusive at first. Later you can eliminate those which, on reflection, you judge to be less significant or irrelevant.
6.2. Clarify the possible nature and area of application.
Arrange your tentative list (mental or written) according to whether the passage or parts of it are in nature informative or directive, and then according to whether they deal with the area of faith or the area of action. While these distinctions are both artificial and arbitrary to some degree, they are often helpful. They may lead to more precise and specific applications of the Scripture's teaching for your congregation, and they will help you avoid the vague, general applications that are sometimes no applications at all.
III. Short Guide for Sermon Exegesis
6.3. Identify the audience and categories of application.
Are the life issues of the passage instructive primarily to individuals or primarily to corporate entities, or is there no differentiation? If to individuals, which? Christian or non-Christian? clergy or lay? parent or child? strong or weak? haughty or humble? If to corporate entities, which? church? nation? clergy? laity? a profession? a societal structure?
Are the life issues related to or confined to certain categories such as interpersonal relationships, piety, finances, spirituality, social behavior, family life?