Subtitle: An indispensable resource, now revised and expanded, accessibly providing the cultural background of every verse in the New Testament
Author: Craig S. Keener, PhD, is a professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary and the author of many books and Bible commentaries.
Publisher: IVP Academic, Second Edition January 3, 2014, 816 pages
Genre: non-fiction, New Testament Commentaries, Christian Bible Exegesis & Hermeneutics, New Testament Bible Study
Pros
clear layout and subtitles, making it easy to reference the passage of interest
line-by-line explanations of each passage in the New Testament
maps, charts, family tree, chronology
provides insights into Jewish, Greek, and Roman culture
Cons
This commentary is not as egalitarian as expected, since Craig Keener is known as a supporter of mutual submission. Sometimes he provides notes on gender equality and sometimes he states the New Testament letters were progressive for their day. He seems to skim or skip over egalitarian interpretations of controversial passages
I will continue to use this commentary, but because it lacks egalitarian and LGBTQ+ affirming scholarship, I will use this commentary in combination with other scholarship.
Examples
Ephesians 5
Pro: Craig Keener notes that usual conventions would address only the male, Paul addresses both those with power in that culture and those without it. He states the submission of a wife to a husband is an example of the mutual submission of all Christians. All believers are required to mutually submit to one another in the same way as wives in Roman culture submitted to their husbands. Keener says the reason Paul discusses the husband and a wife is to demonstrate mutual submission.
Con: Keener passes over the fact that Paul tells us that the reason he discusses the union of a husband and wife is to explain the Great Mystery of the union of Christ and the church (5:32). The logical conclusion of mutual submission is that a husband should love his wife in the same way, and with the same respect, as he loves himself (5:33). However, Keener states the summary and main point is that the wife should respect her husband. Actually, the Greek language does not say a wife must or should respect her husband; it uses a conditional phrase meaning "so that" or "in order that". Paul told husbands to love their wives in order that his wife might respect him. Paul does not order a wife to respect her husband. Respect is not unconditional; it must be earned.
1 Timothy 2
Pro: Keener notes that the writer addresses errors by both men and women. The reason for writing this letter was to address false teachers (1 Timothy 1:3). I appreciate that Keener acknowledges the reason women are addressed in more detail is because the false teachers were specifically targeting women.
1 Timothy 2:15 "saved in childbirth": Keener offers:
Option A: women being spiritually saved (eternal salvation) by living godly lives, following cultural propriety for the sake of the church's reputation and witness.
Option B: A woman is physically saved or delivered through the risks of childbirth, implying women are not cursed because of Eve.
Con:
Keener suggests that since the women are addressed in more detail, they are erring more severely. He suggests that the women's dress and hairstyles were causing men to lust, as well as showing off their wealth. This seems to reinforce the false idea that women are responsible for controlling men's lust.
1 Timothy 2:15 "saved in childbirth":
Keener does not discount Option A for being in direct opposition to multiple passages about all people being saved by grace, through faith.
Keener seems to support the idea that the fall of Eve resulted in God cursing Eve and giving all women pain and risk of death in childbrith.
Keener does not offer Option C that "saved by childbirth" might refer to being saved by the birth of Jesus.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
The topic of this passage is what women and men should wear when they pray or prophesy in public worship. Paul has no problem with the women speaking and teaching in public setting.
Keener notes Paul's wordplay, using the word head literally for the part of the body to be covered, and figuratively. Keener has space to present the Complementarian or patriarchal view that the head means the leader or authority figure. Keener states that there is no space to present the Egalitarian view that the head means source, origin, foundation, or most honoured part.
Keener explains that in ancient times, women's hair was an object of lust and married women were expected to cover their hair to avoid inviting male lust. He suggests that women not covering their hair provoked lust (like wearing a bikini today). As an egalitarian, I would suggest that women not covering their hair signalled availability (like not wearing a wedding ring). Keener says that Paul addressed a cultural conflict between Judean women covering their heads for modesty and wealthy Roman women uncovered their heads to show their fashionable hairstyles. Keener says Paul addresses this conflict between modesty and fashion by telling women to cover their heads. Keener says that Paul is persuading women in the first-century women to cover their heads, not women today. Keener also states that Greeks typically uncovered their heads for worship while Romans covered their heads for worship: regardless of gender.
Keener repeats Paul's words that "she ought to have authority on/over her own head"
911:10) and states that "some think" this means a woman should exercise her judgement on whether to cover her head. This idea has credence since Paul says women and men will judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3). Alternatively, it could mean a woman should have a head covering as a symbol of her married status. Complementarians would say that Paul means she ought to have a symbol on her head of being under a man's authority.
Keener refers to the creation story, saying that God made woman as a suitable helper. Helper is often a term used to describe God, and the woman is a strong helper, a source of strength and help corresponding to the man. Keener says that it is wrong to interpret Genesis to say that woman was created as a servant helper. Seeing the woman as a servant to the man reinforces the idea that women are under a man's authority.
Paul refers to creation, perhaps quoting the Corinthians saying that since Eve came from Adam, she reflects man's image. However, Paul states that both male and female are made in God's image, and that just as the first woman came from the first man, men are born of women: everything comes from God (11:12). Keener notes this underlines that women and men are mutually interdependent.
Keener concludes (11:16) with the Complementarian view that uncovering heads is not the way it is done. The Egalitarian view of this passage concludes that having a rule or law about covering heads is not the way it is done; no churches have a practice requiring heads to be covered or uncovered.
1 Corinthians 14
Prophesying is speaking publicly to believers to share a revelation from God. Paul wishes that all might prophesy, women and men, to build up the church (14:4). Paul tells them to be orderly and take turns speaking (14:29-31).
Keener notes that the statement about women being silent in churches (14:34) cannot be universal because Paul has already stated that normally women may pray and prophesy in church (11:5). This interruption to Paul's train of thought about prophecy and tongues can be explained by:
Option A: an interpolation by a later scribe
Option B: Paul briefly digresses to address the women interupting the prophecies
Option C: Paul's statement about women's silence in church addresses only the specific challenges of uneducated women loudly interrupting worship by asking inappropriate questions.
As to the statement about women being subordinate, as the law says (11:34), Keener also notes that there is no law or biblical texzt that tells women to be subordinate.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
He seems to affirm that salvation can be lost by human actions (6:9) without reference to salvation by grace alone. Paul's list of vices includes sexual immorality, and the sexual immorality that prompts the discussion is a man living with his father's wife (5:1). Some translations actually place homosexuals on this list (6:9 NASB). Other translations list male prostitutes and men who engage in illicit sex (6:9 NRSVUE). Keener mentions in passing that some scholars dispute the meaning of the terms some translate as homosexual in 1 Corinthians 6 but he does not explain the word homosexual was added to the text in the 1940s or that there is evidence that the original terms related to exploitive or dominating behaviours. While he admits homosexuality was common among first-century Roman males, and Romans considered it natural, he states that Roman Christians would consider homosexual behaviour a sin.
Romans 16
Keener notes that Paul greets eleven women out of roughly twenty-eight individuals in Rome (not counting Phoebe, who is coming from Cenchrae to deliver the letter to Rome). Keener explains that while the list is under half women, Paul commends the work of over half of them, and suggests it's because the women needed more affirmation of their ministry. Marg Mowczko states that of the twenty-nine people, ten are women, and that seven of the ten women are described in terms of their ministry. She suggests it's because women were active in significant ministries and Paul affirmed them in their leadership.
Junia is a main character in my next novel, and all we know of her is from Romans 16:7:
a woman travelling with Andronicus
Paul's kindred
outstanding among the apostles
Paul's fellow prisoners
were in Christ before Paul
Perhaps the details I was looking for are too much for a commentary on the New Testament.
Keener confirms Junia was indeed a woman, despite attempts to give her a masculine version of the name. Keener confirms Junia and Andronicus were a husband and wife team, though that is not specified in the text. If Junia (Latin name) was the same woman as Joanna (Hebrew name), she was an upper-class Jew, formerly married to Chuza, the chief steward for the Tetrarch Herod Antipas, with wealth and means to travel. Andronicus was a Greek name and probably a freedman or former slave. Though Jesus broke the barrier between Greek and Jew, it would be highly unusual for Junia to marry Andronicus. Unfortunately, Keener compares the husband-wife team to a doctor and a lower-class merchant, inferring a male hierarchy.
Paul's kindred can be understood as Paul's countrymen or fellow Israelites. Nijay Gupta considers them to be fellow Israelites in his book Tell Her Story. However, since Paul does not refer to the other Israelites in this passage as his kindred, I hoped the commentary might reveal a possible familial or tribal connection. My own research shows Saul (Hebrew name)/Paul (Latin name) was a wealthy and well-educated Roman citizen. Paul was likely a Herodian, the grandson of Costobarus and Salome I (the sister of Herod the Great). Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1). If Andronicus was a former slave, I doubt he was related to Paul. If Junia was Joanna, then she may have been the granddaughter of Theophilus (the audience for Luke and Acts). There is an ossuary near Jerusalem bearing the inscription 'Joanna, daughter of John, son of Theophilus, the high priest". Theophilus ben Ananus was a high priest from AD 37-41 and that would have meant he was a Sadducee. Most High Priests were of the tribe of Levi.
Scholars agree that both Junia and Andronicus were apostles. Keener supports the egalitarian view that Junia was outstanding among the apostles. He does not mention that this is the view of early church fathers. The fifth-century theologian Chrysostom supports the view that Junia was a female apostle who was outstanding on the basis of her work. He does not mention the Complementarian view Junia was simply well-known by the apostles.
Keener does not hypothesize about when Junia was a fellow prisoner with Paul. Nijay Gupta suggests they were not literally in prison together but had each been imprisoned in the same spiritual battle. For my novel of Junia, I looked at when they may have been jointly imprisoned based on the record of persecutions against Paul in Acts: Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13), Iconium or Lystra, (Acts 14), Philippi (Acts 16), Thessalonica and Berea (Acts 17), Corinth (Acts 18), Ephesians (Acts 19), or in Jerusalem (Acts 21).
Keener does not discuss the impact of Junia being in Christ before Paul, who was converted on the road to Damascus not long after Stephen's stoning. To be in Christ before Paul quite likely means she followed Christ before his death and resurrection. She may have been one of the "many women" from Galilee who followed Jesus to the cross. If Junia is the same woman as Joanna, she may have been a patron and disciple (Luke 8:2-3) and present at Jesus's tomb (Luke 24:10). Junia may have been considered an elder or senior leader.
Galatians 2
Jewish tradition warns not to reprove or shame a person publicly, but instead to approach them privately. Jesus supports this view (Matthew 18:15-22). Paul defends his public reproof of Peter in Syrian Antioch because Peter's public behaviour was teaching that Gentiles and Jews had to eat separately. Peter taught that Gentiles and Jews could eat together (Acts 10-11). Keener explains that Peter probably saw his actions as being like the Judaizers to keep the peace, appealing to everyone just as Paul changed to appeal to everyone (1 Corinthians 9:19-22). Keener explains that Paul's public correction of Peter suggests Paul saw Peter's offense as very serious. I was disappointed that Keener did not try to place this confrontation in Antioch in the timeline of Acts. Other commentaries explain the confrontation had to occur either in Acts 12 or Acts 14. It makes sense to me to place the event in my novel in the timeline of Acts 12, just after Peter is miraculously freed after being imprisoned by Herod who wants to please the Judaizers who oppose what Peter has taught about Gentiles not needing to follow Jewish laws.
Galatians 5
Keener notes that Paul's elimination of differences for those in Christ is in striking contrast to cultural norms. Early Christians were distinctive in surmounting divisions between slave and master, Jew and Gentile, male and female. Under ancient law, sons were heirs; slaves, children, and wives were inherited property. Keener notes that Jews were called Abraham's seed or offspring, heirs of God's promise to Abraham. Paul argues that Abraham's seed includes all believers. Regardless of gender, we become equal heirs in God's family.
Comments