The Sociocultural Context of the New Testament (Part 2): Honor and Shame

Rembrandt’s The Return of the Prodigal Son

The Bible grew out of an ancient Mediterranean cultural environment where the concept of honor vs. shame was embedded as a pivotal value, similar to many present-day eastern- and middle-eastern cultures.¹ “Briefly, the honor/shame complex implies that the maintenance of honor—for one’s self, one’s family, and one’s larger groups—is absolutely vital to life. This entails reputation, status, and sexual identity. The vocabulary of honor and shame is extensive in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin” (K. C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus 4). Particularly in male-dominated societies with a strong collectivist framework, honor and shame are linked to wealth and power, public order and repute, where a person lives for the acclaim of his fellow humans. Indicative of the New Testament world, “the quest for honor and praise was one of the most important forces binding society together ...” (B. Witherington III, Paul Quest 45).

Honor and shame cultures place heavy emphasis on reciprocity. Each social interaction is viewed as an opportunity to increase honor and avoid shame. In the ancient Mediterranean world this included dinner invitations, gift-giving, and special favors. In fact, nearly “every public activity turned out to be some kind of competition for honor and praise” (B. Witherington III, Paul Quest 47).² Concepts like unmerited favor (Gal. 6:1-2; Heb. 12:28), giving without expecting something in return (Luke 6:34-35), and a forgiving attitude (Matt. 6:14-15; Col. 3:13) were practically unheard of in secular society. The Lord’s so-called “golden rule” (Matt. 7:12) stands in stark contrast to the popular ethic of reciprocity. 

W. Mischke suggests that because of the characteristic individualism of the modern Western world, the honor/shame motif of scripture is largely unrecognized and “represents a blind spot for Christians trained in the Western theological tradition” (“Honor-Status Reversal,” Orality Journal 4:1 [2015]: 11). Removing this blind spot, Minschke argues, enables interpreters to see “honor-status reversal” as a major theme throughout the Bible. “One’s honor-status can be high or low or in-between, ranging from the lowest honor-status of a leper or a slave—to the immensely powerful high honor-status of a mighty king,” the reversal of which turns one’s standing “the other way around” (ibid., 12-36).³

Calling upon readers to esteem others “in humility” (Phil. 2:3) runs counter to societal norms of the time. The general populace of the 1st-century Greco-Roman world did not regard humility as a virtue any more than most secular westerners do today.⁴ “The idea that ‘humility’ is a virtue was foreign to the pagan world; the word, in fact, always appeared in Greek literature with the unfavorable sense of ‘humiliation’” (P. E. Harrell, Philippians 92). Nevertheless, a Christ-like spirit looks beyond self to the interests of others (Mark 9:35; Rom. 12:10; 1 Cor. 10:24, 33; 1 Pet. 5:5-6; cp. Phil. 1:15).

The countercultural message of the New Testament is that humility and greater dependence on God are beneficial and should be utilized and esteemed. “Therefore I am well pleased in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, and difficulties for Christ; for when I might be weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor. 12:10, author’s own translation). This strength-out-of-weakness paradox clashes with man’s infatuation with achievement, prosperity, status, notability, and power.

The New Testament consistently challenges society’s status quo and reconfigures the boundaries of honor and shame. All who might be dishonored because of ethnicity, gender, or social standing can now be unashamed in Christ, where no one is considered inferior to anyone else (1 Cor. 12:12-27; Gal. 3:26-29; Col. 3:9-11). In this regard New Testament writers are seen as deviants, radicals, and change agents, swimming against the current of popular culture (B. Witherington III, Paul Quest 46, 50). At the same time, the shame of dissociation was an integral component of church discipline to draw one back to faithfulness (2 Thess. 3:6-15).

Understanding the real world of the early Christians enables us to appreciate Christianity’s “cutting edge” (E. Ferguson,  Backgrounds of Early Christianity [3rd ed.] 4). It is “a kind of looking glass world where everything works on principles opposite to those of the world around us. To be blessed, be a blessing to others. To receive love, give love. To be honored, first be humble. To truly live, die to yourself. To gain the unseen, let go of the seen. To receive, first give. To save your life, lose it. To lead, be a servant. To be first, be last” (K. R. Krell, “Work Your Way Down the Ladder,” <Link>).⁵

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ B. J. Malina, The NT World xii, 27-57; see also B. J. Malina and J. H. Neyrey, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts,” in J. H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts 25-66.
     ² A guest to a dinner party might be expected to reciprocate with a reading, an oral recitation, or other entertainment (E. R. Richards, “Reading, Writing, and Manuscripts,” inThe World of the NT [eds. J. B. Green and L. M. McDonald] 349).

     ³ Along with OT references, the following NT passages are submitted as examples: Matt. 5:3-11; Luke 1:51-53; 2:32-38; 9:48; 13:30; 15:11-32; Rom. 1:14-16; 1 Cor. 1:27-29; Eph. 2:1-7, 11-22; Phil. 2:5-11; Rev. 3:18, 21; 5:6-7; 6:11; 18:2; 21:22-26. Having heard Minschke’s oral presentations (Teachers of Missions Workshop [23 Feb. 2018], Hurst, TX), I get the impression that his passion for the subject may be driving him to discover honor/shame allusions in passages where it is less than apparent. He emphasizes the greater attention in scripture to the honor/shame motif above the more westernized concern for innocence/ guilt, although the latter is sufficiently addressed in biblical terms of forgiveness, justification, moral purity, et al. Guilt pertains to one’s actions, while shame concerns one’s worth. For a helpful discussion of this theme, see Jackson Wu, “Have Theologians No Sense of Shame?” Themelios 43:2 (Aug. 2018) 205-219.

     ⁴ W. Grundmann, TDNT 8:11-12. The Greek noun tapeinophrosúnē (“humility”) occurs in the NT in Acts 2:19; Eph. 4:2; Phil. 2:3; Col. 2:18, 23; 3:12; 1 Pet. 3:8; 5:5. 

     ⁵ The “looking glass world” reference alludes to Lewis Carroll’s novel Through the Looking-Glass, where Alice steps through a mirror into a world where everything is backwards.

Related Posts: The Bible's Radical View on Women; Sociocultural Context Part 1: Introduction, Part 3: Patronage, Part 4: Individualism vs Collectivism, Part 5: Households & Slavery, Part 7: Hospitality

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_the_Prodigal_Son_(Rembrandt)

Hebrews 11: Faith’s Hall of Shame

     The eleventh chapter of Hebrews is widely recognized as one of the Bible’s most informative discourses about faith. It recounts numerous examples of men and women through history whose lives exemplify the kind of faith the Lord expects us all to have. Nevertheless, not everyone mentioned in this chapter is a person of notable faith or worthy of emulation. A number of individuals are included who would necessarily be placed on the opposite end of the spectrum. Who are they and what can we learn from them?

A Faithless Worshiper

     The second person named in this biblical hall of faith is Cain (v. 4), and not in a favorable way. He is mentioned in contrast to his brother Abel, who “offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice” (ESV). Seeing that Abel’s offering was “by faith,” and faith is fostered by listening to and heeding God’s word (Rom. 10:17), the implication is that Cain either blatantly or carelessly disregarded the revealed will of God. An offering of mere convenience, innovation, or outright rebellion is unacceptable. We learn from Cain that worship must never be dictated by human preference and ingenuity. Acceptable worship is by faith, and true faith can only be established on what the Lord has communicated through his word.

A Faithless Majority

     The general populace of Noah’s day is alluded to in Hebrews 11:7, condemned because of their failure to exhibit the kind of faith and righteousness that characterized the lives of Noah and his family. Noah’s contemporaries, alienated from God due to their wickedness, were afforded ample opportunity to heed the preaching of Noah (2 Peter 2:5). Sadly, all but eight persistently rejected the invitation to get on board the divine plan until it was too late. We learn from these foolish souls that God’s longsuffering has its limits, and refusing or postponing submissive faith is disastrous.

A Faithless Temperament

     In verse 20 of Hebrews 11 Esau is named in conjunction with his father Isaac and twin brother Jacob. While neither Isaac nor Jacob were faultless, their priority of faith afforded them a special place in God’s redemptive scheme. Esau, on the other hand, was an “unholy” (ESV) or “profane” (NKJV) person because his spiritual apathy made immediate and temporal gratification his priority (Heb. 12:16; cf. Gen. 25:34). We learn from Esau that to live with little regard for heavenly things is to lead a disappointing and wasted life.

A Faithless Resolve

     Pharaoh and the worldly Egyptians are alluded to in Hebrews 11:23-29, opposing the divine will and oppressing the people of God. When the LORD made demands of Pharaoh that he didn’t like, Pharaoh reacted with stubbornness and pride. While God’s words and actions softened the hearts of Moses and the Israelites, Pharaoh’s heart was hardened. One was stimulated to faith, while the other retorted with anger and rebellion. We learn from Pharaoh and his cohorts that you can’t fight against God with a realistic expectation of victory. Resisting the Lord always ends in defeat.

A Faithless Response

     In verse 31 of Hebrews 11 we read of the ancient inhabitants of Jericho. Rahab is portrayed as a heroine of faith, whereas her neighbors are described as “disobedient.” In contrast to Rahab’s receptivity and compliance, her fellow-citizens were resistant and defiant. By faith Rahab and her family were spared and added to God’s family, while all others in the city were destroyed. We learn from the Jericho residents that obedient faith is the necessary response to God, without which sure destruction awaits.

Conclusion

     There are many lessons to learn from Hebrews 11 about faith, including negative ones. Since we cannot please God without it (v. 6), let us be motivated by both the good and bad examples to be counted among the faithful, “of whom the world was not worthy” (v. 38).

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Parents of Faith, What Great Faith Looks Like 

Image credit: Robyn Nevison’s Anger, https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a9/6a/b8/a96ab853e5ee9df2865a42d2e4dad872.jpg