WHAT IS A “BACKSTORY” AND IS IT HELPFUL FOR UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE?

When reading commentaries or books addressing social issues confronting Christianity and the church, one often encounters discussions about the historical contexts of biblical passages. This information is occasionally referred to as a specific passage’s “backstory.” It is often claimed that these backstories are essential for correctly understanding the Bible. Discovering additional relevant historical data can be beneficial when seeking to understand a biblical text, while at other times is can lead to wild speculations. Usually if a backstory is going to be of real value, then the biblical author usually provides ancillary details alluding to it within the passage (e.g., Mark 7.3-4; the maniacal practices of Pharisees concerning ritual cleansings). However, there are times in which extra-biblical research is necessary in order to discover valuable insight concerning the backstory of a biblical text. An example would be the concept of Jewish “betrothal” in Matthew 1.18-19. That Joseph might break up with Mary upon learning of her pregnancy before they were “married” would not be hard to understand for modern audiences. Of course he would break up with her!  However, in first-century Judaism there were significant moral, social, legal, and financial issues at stake. The situation was not the equivalent of a modern day breakup. Joseph and Mary’s situation was equivalent to a divorce, but there again confusion often arises for modern audiences. How can there be a divorce if a couple is not actually married or has not consummated their marriage? Consequently, research into the backstory regarding Jewish betrothal customs is necessary for a precise understanding about this event as found in Matthew’s Gospel.

Another example is Mark 3.6, in which the Pharisees began plotting “with the Herodians” concerning how to kill Jesus. If one simply assumes that the Pharisees got together with another like-minded group for the purposes of destroying Jesus and his ministry, then they would be mislead. The reality is that the Pharisees and Herodians were theological and political opposites. The Pharisees were spiritually minded religious conservatives that were looking for the Messiah that would be of pure Jewish ethnicity and a direct descendent of King David. The Herodians, on the other hand, were Jewish leaders that were the functional equivalent of Greek secularists that were happy for Judah to be ruled by Herodian Dynasty, which originated with Herod the Great. Herod the Great was Edomite by his father and Jewish through his mother. To put it bluntly, the Pharisees viewed the Herodians as a leprous blight on the purity of Judean rulers. The Herodians were not real Jews in their opinion because they did not live like them or believe in their brand of Judaism. Nevertheless, Mark documents that early in his ministry the Pharisees felt so threatened by Jesus that they ignored their differences with the Herodians in order to create an alliance with them. These are a few examples in which knowing relevant historical data can provide greater insight into a passage’s backstory and thus a better understanding of it.

Regrettably, however, there are many other examples in which people “invent” backstories to justify their erroneous interpretations of specific biblical passages. One example is that the apostle Paul was too bound to his “patriarchal culture and worldview”; consequently, he could not imagine women serving as elders in local churches. Or that he had pedophilia or temple prostitution in mind as he wrote about biblical prohibitions concerning homosexual behavior in Romans 1.26-28. Consequently, he would never prohibit monogamous marriages between loving gay couples. In cases such as these, people create incongruent backstories that are based solely upon what they believe was in the mind of the biblical author. In other cases, they create possible scenarios that a biblical text provides no allusion to in order to support their contradictory interpretations. Regrettably, anyone can invent a “backstory” that in their mind justifies their interpretation of a biblical text.

However, the essential question is whether or not a biblical text provides any details that require further investigation into its “backstory.” That being said, the reality is that if a biblical author provided no historical clues with respect to what he wrote, then whatever backstory that one might create has little value for correctly interpreting what has been written. Again, using the passages from Matthew and Mark as examples, even if one is confused about Joseph and Mary’s marital status, one can still understand the meaning of the text; specifically, that Joseph and Mary were somehow viewed as married even though they had not consummated their union until after Jesus’ birth. Similarly, in Mark one learns that the Pharisees began recruiting others for the purposes of assassinating Jesus. That they recruited political opposites only reveals their desperation; nevertheless, it does not change the reality that the Pharisees went on the offensive and began recruiting others in order to form a politically powerful alliance against the Jesus. The bottom line is that one should be mindful that backstories are only relevant if they are based upon historical data actually contained in the biblical text. Generally speaking, relevant information will be found in what the biblical author wrote, while at other times it may be found in what other authors wrote (e.g., Luke’s parable of the “Good Samaritan” and John’s explanation that “Jews had no dealings with Samaritans”; Jn 4.9). In short, we should always rely solely upon the information provided by a biblical author to guide our exposition and application of the scriptures. And we must always reject contrived backstories invented by others for the purpose of undermining what a biblical passage clearly teaches.

Copyright @ 2023 Monte Shanks

Read Full Post »

WHY 2ND PETER DOES NOT RELY UPON JUDE

Scholars often attempt to pinpoint the dates when books within the New Testament were composed. The results of these efforts sometimes produce theoretical chronologies for the entire New Testament. Generally speaking, these chronologies are the results of educated guesses based upon historical data found within the New Testament. Some books contain helpful evidence, others not so much. There are additional techniques that are also used, such as comparing different biblical works to one another (e.g., the Synoptic Gospels; Paul’s epistles and Acts; etc.). Sometimes this type of literary analysis is helpful, while at other times it can be counterproductive. One such case involves the question of whether the Epistle of Jude relies upon 2^nd Peter or vice versa. First, it should be understood that determining their relationship and chronology has little impact upon one’s ability to correctly interpret them. Consequently, being wrong about this question does not adversely affect one’s capacity to accurately grasp their messages. And lest we forget, accuracy is the most important goal when studying scriptures; that is, correctly interpreting and applying what they teach into our daily lives. Nonetheless, these epistles provide helpful clues concerning which was composed first and their possible relationship to each other.

The first clue is found in 2 Peter 2:1-3, in which Peter wrote “there will also be false teachers among you” (see also 3:3, NASB). In other words, these verses warn that in the future false teachers and mockers would infiltrate the church. Jude’s epistle, however, regrettably announces their arrival (cf. Jude 4). This observation alone supports the conclusion that Jude wrote after 2^nd Peter. Additionally, and more importantly, Jude explicitly confessed his reliance upon the teachings of the “apostles” (17) and then in the very next verse he virtually quotes 2 Peter 3:3.[1]  Does this observation prove that Jude relied upon 2^nd Peter? Well, actually it does not. It is possible that Jude often heard Peter warn about future dangers that the church would face while in Jerusalem during the early days of its existence. One might wonder why Peter warned about this issue when the church was so young. He did so because Jesus had discipled him to do so (e.g., Matt. 7:15-20; 24:11, 23-25). A fact that Peter himself explained 2 Peter 3:2, stating “. . . remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior . . . .” Therefore, Peter understood that the Lord had commissioned him to protect the flock from internal dangers such as false prophets and teachers. Consequently, it should not be surprising that the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to write an epistle warning believers about the future arrival of these malicious counterfeits.

Another possibility is that Jude heard other apostles provide similar warnings. This assertion is defensible because the word “apostles” is plural (cf. 17). That being said, guesses about if, when, where, and what Jude may have heard is entirely speculative; therefore, they worthless for proving anything. Moreover, none of these conjectures overcomes the fact that 2^nd Peter predicted the coming of false teachers while the Epistle of Jude declares their arrival. Thus, it is more likely that Jude relied upon 2^nd Peter rather than the reverse.

Another reason for this conclusion is observable by identifying the recipients of both epistles. Peter never identified his audience in 2^nd Peter.  However, in 2 Peter 3:1 he wrote “This is now, beloved, my second letter I am writing to you.” Most Evangelicals recognize that this verse refers to 1^st Peter. Consequently, one must look to 1^st Peter in order to identify the audience for Peter’s second epistle. Peter’s first epistle was addressed to the following recipients: “To those . . . scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia . . .” (1 Pt. 1:1). This observation is significant because it reveals that 1^st and 2^nd Peter were circular letters that were intended for distribution over a wide geographical area in order to be read in churches throughout those areas. The Epistle of Jude, however, appears to have been written to a specific church (cf. vs. 3). Consequently, one is left to wonder which scenario is more likely: (a) that Peter would find a brief letter to a specific church and then depend upon it in order to warn churches concerning a future that demonstrably had already happened; or (b) that Jude would rely upon a widely read epistle written by a recognized apostolic leader in order to support his assertion that the warnings of the Lord and apostles had come to fruition? The more defensible conclusion is obvious.

There are 2 reasons why many secular scholars assert that 2^nd Peter was written after the Epistle of Jude. The first is that they reject Peter’s authorship of 2^nd Peter; as a result, they assert that it is much later than Jude’s epistle (composed well after Peter was martyred). Another reason is that Jude is the shorter letter; consequently, they argue that “the author” of 2^nd Peter depended upon Jude’s epistle. They arrive at this conclusion because often when an author depends upon an earlier work, then the latter composition tends to expand upon contents found in the earlier work (e.g., Luke’s dependence upon Mark’s Gospel). Consequently, latter compositions tend to be longer. While this observation may be helpful with cases involving more complex types of literature (e.g., histories; treatises; Gospels; etc.), it is not a hard rule. The fact is that when it comes to letter writing authors may have more practical concerns that impact a letter’s length, such as the amount of material available, the time available for composition, and a letter’s actual purpose and occasion, etc. Therefore, that Jude is shorter than 2^nd Peter is insufficient evidence for determining their order of composition, not to mention concluding that 2^nd Peter depended upon Jude—especially since evidence found within them leads in the opposite direction. Consequently, while at times literary analysis can be helpful, it appears more probably that Jude depended upon 2^nd Peter while composing his letter.

That being said, the most important take away from these epistles is what they model for today’s church leadership. More specifically, and out of faithfulness to the Lord, Peter and Jude warned churches about the reality of false teachers, false prophets, and demonic mockers. And having done so, they emphatically directed believers not to tolerate them under any circumstances. Consequently, pastors and elders are called to identify and warn believers of their presence, and then to educate their flocks about their immoral natures and destructive doctrines. Regrettably, this essential ministry is sorely lacking in today’s modern and progressive churches.

_{Copyright, © Monte Shanks 2023}  

---

[1]It is recognized that some assert that Peter has quoted Jude 18.

Read Full Post »