In my last post, I commented that the issue in Second Temple Judaism was not whether a Jew would Hellenize or not, but the degree to which any given Jewish person might Hellenize. John Barclay created something of a scale for evaluating the literature of the Diaspora concerning how “Greek” the writer thought of himself.
In Barclay’s Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), he develops the following three criteria. For each, there is a spectrum from the more “conservative” Jews who resisted Hellenization to the more “liberal” Jews who became a part of their culture:
Assimilation. How successfully has a Jew become integrated into the dominant culture? At the low end, someone who stays within a Jewish neighborhood and has no contact with Gentiles; in the middle, someone who has daily business contact with Gentiles but maintains the “boundary markers;” at the high end, Jews who have abandoned those markers. There are relatively few Jews at the high end, although some reversed circumcision or became a part of a pagan cult.
Acculturation. To what degree does a Jew internalize the dominant culture? At the low end, a Jew might not know Greek, while in the middle of the scale, there is a use of Greek and basic familiarity with Greco-Roman ethics and culture. At the high end, a Jew who understands and uses the literature and rhetoric of the Greco-Roman world and has a mastery of the Greek language.
Accommodation. This measures the extent to which a Jew puts to use their acculturation. At the low end, a Jew might reject Gentile culture entirely, while in the middle of the scale, a Jew might use the culture to express their own tradition, still maintaining the core values of Judaism. At the high end, the Greco-Roman culture asserts itself over the Jewish way of life.
With these broad categories in mind, we might evaluate some of the groups we encounter in the world of the Gospels. The Essenes, for example, might be considered at the “low end” of assimilation and accommodation, especially if there is a connection with Qumran. At least some Essenes seem to have separated from other Jews (the Temple establishment). On the other end of the scale, we can confidently place Herod and his family and the “Herodian” party. Clearly a Jew like Agrippa I had no trouble being “Roman” and yet seems to have considered himself fully Jewish.
It is the middle range of the spectrum, which is more complicated. Typically, the Sadducee is thought to be “more liberal” and the Pharisee “more conservative.” Still, it is possible on this scale that the Sadducee were rather conservative concerning assimilation since they were based in Jerusalem and maintained the traditions of Temple and purity. On the other hand, Pharisees are found throughout the land, and some (like Paul) traveled to Hellenistic Synagogues in Damascus and Antioch. While concerned with purity, they likely engaged in commerce with Gentiles.
Barclay’s scale is also helpful for looking ahead to some problems that appear very early in the church, especially as Gentiles begin to come to faith. A Gentile, by default, has some level of Hellenization, especially if he was a converted pagan! How the early Christians assimilated, acculturated, or accommodated was a real problem in Paul’s churches, especially in Galatia and Corinth.
Finally — can these categories be applied to the present Church? Can we learn from the past concerning absorbing and using culture? Is it always a good thing to be separate from the world? Or, like the Jews we meet in the Gospels, is it the case that we cannot avoid some level of assimilation?
Obviously there is always going to be some assimilation! If you do not think so then look at the different cultures we have today. There is going to be no way for us, as Christians, to be completely separate from our world and culture. Furthermore, God never intended us to leave our world and become completely separate from society. In John 17:15 Jesus says: “My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.” If Jesus did not want God to take his followers out of the world then we should not strive to be completely separate of the world. Paul never wanted us to withdraw from the world, but he wanted us to be lights in this world.
Also, if there was a way to be completely separate from the world, then we would see some communities that lived in different nations come to behave and believe and worship in the same way. They would be extreme, but they would fall into the same manner of worship. This simply does not happen. That is why when missionaries go to other cultures they have to get into the lives of that culture and find bridges that will speak to them.
So the question is, how much do we assimilate and adapt to the culture around us? Crystal and Mat have made good points on the mentality that Paul had when dealing with the world around us. Paul equips us with a good arsenal of weapons to know how to behave in this world. In Galatians 5 Paul describes the acts of lawlessness and the fruit of the Spirit. In Ephesians 6 Paul gives us the Armor of God to put on in defense against the enemy. God wants us to be salt and light to this world (Matt. 5:13-16). We must uphold the standard that God has given us, but the way that it is seen in this world may vary from culture to culture and person to person. As long as we obey God, the way that we assimilate to our culture will vary.
I am surprised no one else made the “Mennonite or an Amish family” connection before this. There are some differences, of course, since Jews in the Diaspora could live in self-supporting communities where they could provide for their own food services. But in a modern, Christian context, these groups tend to be on the far in of the assimilation scale.
If a Jew lived near Jerusalem, however, it was easy to keep the traditions because you were in a place where that was more or less accepted. Yet among the Temple administration we find people on the left of the scale, the power associated with the High Priesthood brought the leadership into contact with the Romans. I doubt they shared meals, but there was certainly a working relationship.
I was eating with a Mennonite yesterday, and he shared something interesting with me. He knew an Amish girl living with a Mennonite family for just one reason – only the German bible was allowed in her former household, which she could not understand very well. Whatever the rationale was behind this family’s reluctance to acculturate, I can’t imagine had much to do with an intimate relationship with God, at least from my worldview.
Hearing this story raised a question to me – What is the intent behind our degree of assimilation/acculturation, and if this intent is anything other than following God – or the Law for Second Temple Jews – is it worthy to even lend consideration? From the Blomberg reading, I felt the intent behind the Jews reluctance to Hellenize was clear. If I was Second Temple Jew under Greek rule, Hellenistic customs contrary to my daily lifestyle could and often meant disobeying my God – Greek attire, Greek entertainment, Greek athletics and where and how they took place. Many of these Hellenistic elements could not be followed without direct conflict with my culture’s teachings on the right way to live.
With an open-minded posture, the connections I feel toward contemporary application of the hellenization dilemma are minimal. As a West Michigan resident, if I wanted to adopt the culture of Barcelona, Spain, I predict there would not be many areas of spiritual/theological conviction or conflict to my humble CRC beginnings here in GR. My forest hills upbringing and subsequent lifestyle did not closely reflect , for better or for worse, my religious worldview like the Second Temple Jews. I feel like it is difficult to compare my personal assimilation/acculturation to the religious predicament described during the Second Temple Period.
Hellenization is very similar to the situation that Daniel found himself in in Babylon. God instructs the exiles to make a life in Babylon to live out their exile. He says in Jeremiah 29:11 he says, “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” With Daniel, he can draw a line when the Babylonians ask him to contradict his faith. Israel once again finds themselves under the rule of a large empire, the Greek empire and Alexander the Great. The same went for the Jewish people at the time of Hellenization. It was ok to adapt to a new culture and make a life for themselves. There were even positives to Greek culture such as a common language (Strauss, 124). However, the Jewish people needed to draw their line for when it was too much. This happened eventually with the Maccabean Revolt. Today, we find ourselves in a very similar scenario. The dominant culture is not a Christian culture. Christians can still participate in the modern culture and technology; however, each person must make their own “line” for when culture contradicts faith. It is amazing how history continuously repeats itself and we can still learn from people who lived over 2000 years ago that went through the same experiences.
Barclay’s scale is incredibly helpful for understanding Jewish ideas about the culture in Roman Palestine, and I think the same could be said for modern Christians. Modern Christians live in a time of constant change and upheaval of traditional values and sentiments in every aspect of culture. Most importantly, I think, is that we live in a time that is almost hostile to organized religion, preferring to combine the beliefs of many different religions together to form a spirituality that the individual respects and values, rather than the collective society. This is not even to mention the ideas around political climate, gender ideas, universal truth, or even education and history.
Can Christians assimilate in any way to this society that seems outright against it? what about acculturation or accommodation? Is it even possible anymore for us to be a part of the culture around us when the culture around us is so hostile to our ideas? My answer is yes, we can, and to some degree, we are even called to in scripture. There have been many scriptural quotes that have been running through my head while I type this out, Jesus’s famous prayer in the garden where he asks God not to “take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one” because “they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.” (John 17:15-16, ESV) being one of the main ones in my mind. However, I think the best illustration of what Christians need to understand when it comes to ministry to the culture. That scripture comes from Paul in 1st Corinthians, where he says this:
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To
those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might
win those under the law. To those outside of the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside
the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became
weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all thing to all people, that by all means I might save
some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
(1st Corinthians 9:19-23)
I believe that Paul, in this beautiful section of scripture, outlines where we are to land on Barclays scale. Simply put, our place on Barclay’s scale according to Paul and Jesus, is this: nowhere. We belong nowhere on the scale. See, we are supposed to be in the world and not of it, as Jesus says, and willing to be anything to anyone (While not stepping out of the law of God) that we might win some, as Paul states. To me, our position in regard to Barclay’s scale is simple: we are to be off the scale, while at the same time, being able to be at any point on the scale at any given time, for the sake of the gospel.
During the time of the second temple period, the Jews were met with a conflict like today. They were living in a world where their culture was unique, and their way of life conflicted with the Hellenistic culture that they lived in. While this adaptation of culture is going on, there is simultaneously a struggle for survival as a people group. As the New Testament continues, the reader sees the progression of conflict between the Hellenistic culture and the birth and spread of Christianity. “A Gentile, by default, has some level of Hellenization, especially if he was a converted pagan! How the early Christians assimilated, acculturated, or accommodated was a real problem in Paul’s churches, especially in Galatia and Corinth” (Long,2010). The integration of culture between people dedicated to the plan of God and cultures around them has been a tension since Genesis. Christianity today is faced with the same conflict. The Hellenization of the second temple period shows a clear connection to America today. Paul gives the encouragement in Romans 12:2 to not be conformed to this world but to be transformed by what Christ is offering. “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will” (Romans 12:2 ESV). God’s Plan for His people and His church are in a world surrounded by deep worldly influences. We are called to be a blessing to the world around us while also staying separate. This tension seems to be high in our current culture. However, I believe that we must follow the example of the first century church and be lights and examples to a dark world around us.
I certainly feel that these categories of Assimilation, Acculturation, and Accommodation can be applied to the church today. Although in the world today it is not necessarily those same beliefs, and religions, Jewish, and Greek primarily mixing in with Christianity today. There are certainly other worldly ideas creeping into churches today. The world especially in the last few years has started to adopt many new ideas, culturally, and Politically that have started keeping into Christianity, and even some of those ideas going directly against what the bible tells us. It is super important as Christians today to be studying God’s word, as new ideas and cultural beliefs continue to change, it is important that we know what God’s word truly tells us, so that we can make those hard decisions of whether to allow those new ideas into what we believe or to fight against them altogether.