We’re considering Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible
In summarizing the chapter, the authors explain,
In the meantime, pay attention to where stories take place in Scripture. If an event or conversation is taking place publicly, there’s a good chance that honor/shame is at stake, such as in the story of Ruth and Boaz. As we mentioned above, the key difference between the questions Nicodemus and Jesus’ disciples asked and those asked by Jerusalem’s Jewish leaders was context: Nicodemus and the disciples questioned Jesus privately (see, for example, Jn 3:2 and Mt 17:19). The Jewish leaders questioned him publicly. You might object that the primary difference was motive: Nicodemus and the disciples were asking sincere questions, while the religious leaders were trying to trap Jesus. That’s true. But context indicates motive. Private questions were not honor challenges. Public questions were.
(Kindle Locations 1472-1476).
We see in the Gospels that the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders often confronted Jesus in public with questions. There were honor challenges. The goal was to shame him. They certainly weren’t interested in learning Jesus’ opinion.
When Jesus repeatedly turned the tables on them and left them shamed, the culture of the day required vengeance.
Consider John 9. Jesus healed a man born blind. The Jewish leaders challenged his story, but over and over, the miracle was shown to be authentic and the leaders could offer no explanation. They were shamed in public.
The formerly blind man said,
(John 9:32-34 ESV) 32 “Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”
34 They answered him, “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” And they cast him out.
Why did the Pharisees expel the man from his synagogue? It was Jesus’ decision to heal him. He committed no sin. But he was cast out — disfellowshipped. You see, he’d brought dishonor to the Pharisees. He’d shamed them in public. And that required vengeance for a man who did nothing but find himself healed and then speak the truth on the subject.
After Jesus responds to a series of publicly asked questions, Matthew writes,
(Mat 22:46 ESV) 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.
What were they afraid of? Learning from the great rabbi? Sound biblical exegesis? No, they were afraid of being shamed because the questions they asked were designed to trip Jesus up, to shame him. These were verbal honor contests, and Jesus always won.
To wrap up, here are some more quick examples of honor culture in the Bible, from the patriarchs —
* God’s call of Abram was couched in terms of honor —
(Gen 12:1-3 ESV) Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
* After Abraham raised a small army to rescue Lot as well as the king of Sodom, the king offered Abraham all the goods of his city that had been captured.
(Gen 14:21-23 ESV) 21 And the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself.” 22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have lifted my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth, 23 that I would not take a thread or a sandal strap or anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’
Why not take the booty? Why care that the king would gain honor by having made Abram rich? Well, remember that someone’s honor can be raised only by a superior of higher standing. And Abram was unwilling to concede that the king of Sodom had higher social standing — more honor — than Abram. After all, Abram rescued the king’s citizens, not the other way around.
Moreover, we see in the preceding verses that Abram submitted to Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God. Thus, Abram submits to God and his ministers, but not to earthly kings. That is, Abram gives honor to God and his ministers but refuses to give honor to the king of Sodom.
It seems backwards that accepting a gift from the king would give the king honor, but that’s the nature of an honor culture. Of course, the king would also gain honor by appearing generous and grateful by his treatment of Abram. In this instance, the giving of a gift would symbolize the superior estate of the king — who wanted to be generous to a man of lesser estate.
* When Abraham allowed Sarah to be taken into the harem of Abimelech, God came to Abimelech and warned him not to have sexual relations with another man’s wife. The king did as he was told, but he feared for Sarah’s reputation —
(Gen 20:16 ESV) 16 To Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver. It is a sign of your innocence in the eyes of all who are with you, and before everyone you are vindicated.”
The king did nothing wrong, but he appeared to have had sex with another man’s wife, the wife of a prophet of God. Therefore, he gave her a gift to take away both his and her dishonor. She was to be vindicated — shown not to have been dishonored — by the large amount of the gift.
* Jacob cheated Isaac out of Esau’s blessing. He felt no shame because he didn’t get caught.
Some conclusions
When the missions experts say that a missionary must learn the local culture, we think that means “taste in music.” But we now see that cultural differences can be profound — and far more challenging than song selection and order of worship.
We begin to understand why we have so little missionary success in Islamic and other Eastern lands, such as Japan and China. It’s not just that they have little Christian heritage. The fact is that our missionaries often go utterly unprepared to live in a collectivist, honor culture. They preach the gospel in terms that are incomprehensible to their listeners.
But Jesus was sent to the Jews, and he taught the gospel in terms calculated to be understood by them. And I’m sure this is one reason that we often have trouble reconciling the Gospels with Paul’s Epistles. Paul wrote to Greeks as well as Jews, and often wrote in guilt-culture terms, because the Greeks and Romans had developed a guilt culture as a result of the work of Plato centuries earlier.
It would be an interesting and helpful study to consider how the gospel might be better taught in an honor culture, but that’s beyond my very limited expertise on the matter. I’ve just ordered Roland Muller’s Honor and Shame: Unlocking the Door
And if nothing else, I hope this study demonstrates that our perspective on the world is not the only perspective — and we must truly learn to become all things to all men, as Paul did — bridging his own honor culture roots to preach gospel to us living in a guilt culture.
In fact, one of the other cultural divides we often ignore — to our shame — is the divide between parents and children, Baby Boomers and Millennials. We older adults (who control the elderships) often assume that our way of doing church and seeing Christianity is the only way that there is. Obviously, this is not so, and our children will happily explain to us some critical elements we miss.
It’s the same question. Whether we’re teaching gospel to Muslims or our own children, there’s a cultural gap that must be bridged — and we’re the ones called to do it. We are the ones who must submit and sacrifice and pay the price to learn to see the world as others do so that we may teach the unchanging gospel in words and ways that those from a different culture can hear and appreciate.
But if we won’t do that for our own children, I despair of our willingness to do it for the rest of the world.
How much of our teaching methodology came from the idea of the lecture? I think back into history when students were taught by doing, working under the skilled as an apprentice, and by asking questions of the learned. Jesus was a carpenter. Someone, presumably Joseph, taught him carpentry. Mixed in with the carpentry were his questioning and discussion of the Torah and prophets with the rabbis. Unfortunately, in modern times learning has somehow it morphed into sitting still and being given a lecture with few opportunities to question, much less, do.
Jay likely convinces a jury or judge more with answers offered by the witnesses than with statements, although they still have their place. I think some in the cofC would rather put more effort into teaching the foreigner than the children of a congregation. It sometimes seems that the children are taught with a lecture and expected to believe and be baptized without really knowing what they are doing. On other sites you can read about the ones whose questions were never (sufficiently) answered and who later rebelled
I am a little surprised that the honor discussion did not delve into the practice of dueling in America and how the Gospel ended it after many attempts of ending it via new laws failed.