Most of Jesus’ teachings are steeped in a response to the time and culture in which He found himself. Coming to set a revolution in the heart of men, Jesus confronted those traditions, religious thoughts, and mind-sets that were embedded in Jewish life. Though over two thousand years later, such confrontation is also necessary in today’s western society. Contrary to the beliefs of many today, what Jesus taught is just as relevant as it was in first-century Palestine. Tradition, geography, and time – context that make up a society of people – may differ; but the heart that remains the same.

Solomon appropriately writes in Ecclesiastes 1:9, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (NIV).[1] Therefore, what was written over two millennia ago, still holds true today. However, such a cross-cultural interpretation is only possible when one appropriately contextualizes Jesus’ teachings through understanding first century Jewish culture and socioeconomic structure. The dilemma lies in how to correctly apply Jesus’ teachings to the modern heart and mind.

Though the primary focus of his earthly ministry was on reaching the children of Israel, Jesus found himself confronted with diverse cultural settings; although, there were those characteristics of culture that were common across regions. One of these common characters was what is called by experts today as the honor/shame culture. Within this structure, one comes into contact with the commonly used strategy of challenge-riposte, a practice of sharp public debate that was embedded in first-century Palestine. Dr. David DeSilva writes that the members of that society were “culturally conditioned to retaliate, to offer riposte ... that will counter the challenge and preserve honor in the public eye intact.”[2] As such, this practice was also part of Jesus’ teaching strategy. DeSilva continues; “Beginning with Jesus ... Christian leaders sought to cultivate a specifically Christian riposte.”[3]

In understanding this cultural characteristic, one is able to identify throughout the Gospels, where Jesus is confronted with this strategy. For example, the twelfth chapter of Mark’s Gospel records Jesus responding to public challenges on issues from taxation to the resurrection in order to stump him, thereby shaming him into silence; negatively affecting his credibility. Such strategies were effective on most cases, as “the focus of ancient people on honor and dishonor or shame means that they were particularly oriented toward the approval and disapproval of others.”[4]

            Within the context of group dynamics in a patriarchal society, Jesus response to the matter of his waiting relatives creates, in the minds of the people, a new kind of household where horizontal and vertical identification is based on one’s obedience to God, the Father. An additional component to keep in mind when attempting to understand Jesus’ teachings, is that of the socioeconomic structures of the regions where he spent most of his time.

Traveling between Jerusalem and Galilee, and going through Samaria, Jesus was confronted with groups of people who were, at times, significantly different to one another. Regarding Galilee, there has been debate among historians as to its socioeconomic structure in the first century from being an area steeped in poverty, to one that enjoyed prosperity and equality. Knowing the true nature of this region during the time in which Jesus grew up will deeply aid in understanding its influence on His message and ministry.[5] Galilee, being a land of rich soil that was easy for cultivation, was culturally diverse and produced a friendlier and more open people.

The Judean region, on the other hand, with its dry unforgiving land and cultural isolation, was inhabited by a generally reclusive, prideful, and unwelcoming people.[6] Though both regions were generally Jewish, its influences developed a kind of people who, in some significant ways, were polar opposites in terms of social interactions, both internally and with its gentile neighbors.

The comparison of these two regions regarding their socioeconomic structures and how the differences in interpersonal relationships is not necessarily an ancient cultural phenomenon. When one considers the differing social dynamics that occur within a modern-day rural community verses a large metropolitan area, there are easily observable differences in these environments. Agrarian culture creates a sense of community and inter-dependence, regardless of what millennia it finds itself in. As such, there is an evident hospitality and desire to help one’s fellow man, as the good of the community is based on mutual cooperation. In larger metropolitan areas, there is a deeper level of individuality and self-reliance that creates more impersonal and superficial interactions. In a very comparable, yet deeper sense, this is the contrast between the Jew that existed in Galilee with those in Jerusalem. 

Taxation also affected the socioeconomic cultures of these regions in different ways.

Fiensy and Hawkins point out that “Taxation seems to have been a greater burden in Judea than in Galilee. Whether it was so much greater as to lower the standard of living in Judea vis-a’-vis Galilee, is the question. We know that is 17 C.E. Judea appealed to Tiberius for tax relief (Tacitus, Annales 2.42). This direct taxation from Rome seems to have contributed to a lower standard of living.”[7] As such, one witnesses Jesus discussing the issue of taxation among the people of Judea as opposed to Galilee; not because Galilee did not experience taxation under Roman rule, but because it was a greater point of contention in the heart of the Jew living in Judea. Due to this deeper oppression in Judea, there existed a greater animosity among the Jews against Rome and any outsiders than existed in the Galilean region.[8]

Though the above-mentioned components played a strong role in how the Lord conveyed the Gospel in these varying geographies, one specific dynamic that is found across regions is that of health and mortality. From the story of the woman with the flow of blood who “… spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any …” (Luke 8:43), to the paraplegic at the Bethesda pool in Jerusalem in the fifth chapter of John’s Gospel, the desperate need for healing, and the lack of any appropriate healthcare system, was indeed an issue.”[9] When understanding this dynamic, it stands to reason that Jesus’ reaction when the disciples forbade parents from bringing their children to him for prayer in Mark chapter ten, the impact of his rebuke gives one a sense of his displeasure toward the disciples for their evident lack of compassion; thereby adding a greater depth to the impact of this passage.  

As one continues to grasp Jesus’ message and actions in the settings of first-century eastern Mediterranean culture, there is a greater chance of understanding the depth and impact of His message for today’s twenty-first-century Western mind. To further emphasize the importance of proper cross-cultural interpretation of scripture, Joseph Parker’s work, Servant of All, explains Jesus’ use of a cultural practice of His time in the Sermon on the Mount:

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” This refers to the symbol of forced courierships. … If you were lost upon a mountain or in a valley, it was your right to insist upon any person who was in the neighborhood to go with you part of the road, to help you out of your difficulty. … The Savior said, “If a man compel you to go a mile with him to show him the road, go two miles rather than not go at all. Show a cheerful disposition under the pressure, let your philanthropy absorb your convenience[10]

 

Taking the social dynamic of this practice into consideration, Jesus’ use of this example takes one into a deeper challenge of the heart. For the twenty-first-century western mind, where such social demands are not common, the question of how to interpret this in terms of today’s interpersonal interactions is important for understanding and execution. In today’s western culture, the social demand to travel with a stranger on foot for one mile is not a reality. However, pulling over to provide assistance to a stranded motorist, or taking time to sit with a homeless person and minister the love of God to them, may actually be a more appropriate second mile application for today. The lesson Jesus provides lies in doing more than is culturally acceptable; doing more than just enough to quell one’s sense of responsibility. Having a grasp of the audience and setting of Jesus’ messages deepens the impact of His words and allows application.

Contextualizing Jesus’ teachings makes it easier to understand the depth and impact in its meanings. However, contextualization is difficult without understanding socioeconomic culture and chronology. Without this, a cross-cultural interpretation and application is challenging, and can even lead one to the false conclusion that the archaic teachings of the Bible are not relevant for the modern and enlightened mind.

Inappropriate literal first-century application of the words of Jesus in a twenty-first century setting and culture can also occur. For example, the washing of the feet as a common religious practice today does not fulfill the impact of what it meant when Jesus knelt down to wash Peter’s feet. This was a role that was taken on by the lowliest of servants in a house. This act signifies the attitude and depth of service the Lord expects his church to extend. An example in understanding Scripture’s relevance for today lies in the Last Supper.

Regarding the role of presupposition in a historical study of the life of Jesus, Robert Stein wrote, “Where a person starts powerfully shapes where he or she finishes.”[11] This is just as true when it comes to an appropriate cross-cultural interpretation of what Jesus taught. Failure to do this robs the believer of experiencing the richness and clarity of scripture in a significantly deeper way. Additionally, ignoring this important aspect of Bible study and application can mislead a believer, and even a church, in understanding what Jesus said to the culture he was addressing, and how He is conveying it today. What Jesus said over two-thousand years ago is still relevant. Context may change, and so may the form of application; however, the heart remains just as it did in first-century Palestine. Understanding this will greatly influence ones’ response to Jesus’ teachings today.              

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] All biblical text will be NIV New International Version unless otherwise noted.

[2] David A. DeSilvia, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 70.

[3] DeSilvia, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity, 70.

[4] DeSilvia, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity, 35.

[5] David A. Fiensy & Ralph K. Hawkins, The Galilean Economy in the Time of Jesus. (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013), 1-4.

[6] Lawrence M. Wills, "Jew, Judean, Judaism in the ancient period: An alternative argument." Journal of Ancient Judaism 7, no. 2 (2016): 169-176.

[7] Fiensy & Hawkins, The Galilean Economy in the Time of Jesus, 169.

[8] Sarit Cofman-Simhon, "Talmudic Animosity towards Roman Public Entertainment in Ancient Judea: Against Acculturation, Mimesis, and Catharsis." Journal of Jewish Studies 34 (2021): 5-11.

[9] Fiensy & Hawkins, The Galilean Economy in the Time of Jesus, 169.

[10] Joseph Parker, Servant of All. (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1998), 157.

[11] Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 17.