If I hadn’t majored in English Literature in college, I probably would have chosen to study History. Today, we focused on the historical background of the New Testament world; from the Greeks and the Romans in Palestine, to the revolt of the Maccabees (“the hammer”), the Hasmonean dynasty in Israel, to looking at the major players in Jesus’ time and the development of the early church (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Apocolyptists, and Gnostics).Amidst all of the data and head-knowledge of history, I learned a few things that provoked me to new thinking. The Greek or Hellenistic influence in Palestine was marked by the arrival of Alexander the Great, son of Phillip of Macedonia. In the words of Prof. Drane, Alexander the Great “changed empire-building,” not merely conquering other territories for the land acquisition, but more specifically out of a moral conviction of the ideological superiority of the Greek culture, philosophy & worldview. In a way, Alexander was a cultural evangelists, “converting” conquered territories to Hellenism by instilling Greek philosophy, political structures, Greek games, society, architecture, and most significantly, the Greek language.

The significance of language in the process of conversion struck me from this lecture. While the Romans provided the technological infrastructure to really sustain an empire, the Greeks rightly understood the importance of language in really “converting” people to their whole worldview. While we didn’t address any specific texts, I was reminded of Paul’s contrary teaching on conversion & culture from 1 Corinthians 9: 19-23

“Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible… I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.”

Instead of seeing the imposition of culture & language as central to the conversion process, Paul puts forth the radical viewpoint that it is through engaging with and learning from culture & through others language, that conversion is possible. This is incarnation, the Jesus’ way of “Word become flesh,” God-with-us.

Paul recognizes how costly this is – “that by all possible means” – and even how potentially inefficient this is – “that I might save [only] some.” Yet efficiency must not have been the underlying evaluative factor for Paul. Instead, Paul understood the counter-cultural power of entering into & engaging in the reality & experience of others (instead of imposing my reality & experience on them) was central to communicating about the risen Lord.

The other group we talked about was the mystical worldview of Gnosticism, which emphasizes salvation through a rejection of the material world - and its rules, regulations, limitations & especially its suffering. Gnosticism focused on the sould and world of the spirit, separating our spiritual life from our physical life. Within gnosticism, salvation and redemption comes through “levels” of self-knowledge.

While this sounds appealing - sometimes I’d like to escape from the world we live in - I see the deception of these gnostic roots all around. I see it in the false promises of health & wealth in the ever-popular prosperity gospel (and its many spin-offs. I see it in the new gnosticism of self-medication. And I’m not just talking illicit or illegal drug use, destructive as it may be. I’ve been stunned recently by the overwhelming amount of advertising for medicine - for sleeping, for anxiety, for depression, even for busyness [read=caffeine]. We live in a culture that medicates for everything.

Please, don’t get me wrong. There are some types of suffering & sickness that truly require medical care. But our desire to escape this world and our limitations and “sufferings” is astronomically tempting. And while I haven’t met any self-professed modern (or post-modern) gnostics, I see the roots of this world view all over. In this way, history does repeat itself and continues to offer lessons for our modern experience.