FIRST CENTURY NEW TESTAMENT CULTURE

By

Robert Gonzalez

030118086

A Collateral Reading Assignment

Submitted to the Faculty

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

LIT1313

The New Testament as Literature

PN 01.16.01

COLLATERAL READING ASSIGNMENT TEXTBOOK

Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity

By David A. DeSilva

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000

Global University

April 2017
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
2
Cultural Awareness in Literature

Any literature that is written outside of the culture and/or era of the reader requires what

is commonly called cross-cultural interpretation. For instance, if a twenty-first century

American reader is to appropriately understand the discussions and idioms that take place in

Anna Pavlovna’s drawing room in part one of Tolstoy’s War and Peace, it would be important to

have an appropriate grasp of 19th century aristocratic culture in Russia during Napoleon’s reign.

Without this, some of the subtleties and innuendos within the discussions will be lost on the

reader. When any literature is taken out of context due to a lack of understand of the culture of

both the author and intended recipients, true meaning is lost. Regarding culture in the context of

literature, David A. DeSilva (2000) writes, “Culture includes those values, ways of relating and

ways of looking at the world that its members share and that provide a framework for all

communication” (17 and 18).

The question regarding how and why literature can be misrepresented without a grasp of

the author’s cultural context has several answers. DeSilva (2000) writes regarding the New

Testament, “We should not import into the text what is not there” (18). Regarding the Bible, in

my years as a Christian and minister, I have seen the practice of eisegesis all too often in the

Church and in Christian literature. Many times, certain presuppositions and biases color the

interpretation of Biblical texts. At other times, it is a lack of appropriate study in hermeneutics,

historical and cultural investigation, and syntopical research. Why this happens ranges from

simple ignorance with good intentions to blatant manipulation to reach a desired end. As

Socrates put it in Plato’s Apology, “Let the speaker speak truly and the judge decide justly” (Five

Great Dialogues, 34). Unless this is the case, truth and true meaning suffer greatly. In the case of

misrepresenting Biblical literature, the results within the church are dangerous erosive.
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
3
Honor/Shame and Group Values

The customs and cultural idiosyncrasies that separate groups of people by geographical

region, common heritage, or system of belief is understood by cultural anthropologists as group

dynamics. Though this dynamic can be reflected in the modern western world, the social

infrastructure existing within groups in ancient societies and those of first century eastern

Mediterranean culture, reflects this model more prominently. Regarding group dynamics, Dr.

Randy J. Hedlun (2016) writes, “Individuals were valued as members of society only as they

functioned as members of some group” (63). Certain components existed as rules of conduct and

engagement within and between groups. Of these components, the dynamic that maintained

cohesion within this infrastructure is best described as the honor/shame model. Quoting Dr.

David Gilmore’s 1987 publication in the American Anthropological Association, Dr. Andrew

Mbuvi of Shawn University writes, “Scholars of Mediterranean culture(s) have recognized that

elements of ‘honour’ and ‘shame' form a category that defines central cultural values that have

been identified with the cultures of the Bible”. DeSilva (2000) writes, “The culture of the first

century world was built on the foundational social values of honor and shame” (1). Honor and

shame values were ingrained in these ancient cultures and most teachers and philosophers

focused on this as the primary currency of value within their groups and in society in general. A

child was taught formally and through day-to-day living to understand that honor was to be had

above all else. Its necessity became almost as intrinsic as the need for food and water and as

natural and inescapable as ambient air. DeSilva (2000) writes, “Honor and dishonor plays a

dominant part in moral instruction” (24).

The means by which this social model was maintained in this ancient culture is found in

relatively every facet of life, from bloodline and heritage, to gender roles, to feats of bravery or
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
4
benevolence, to one’s role or position in society. Most of this however, is defined within the

social construct of the group one belonged to. As such, what may have been deemed honorable

in one group, may not have been valued the same way in another. For example, within the

dominant culture of the ancient eastern Mediterranean, paganism in its various forms was part of

every social and professional event. Therefore, to attend and be involved in these events would

be considered honorable. For the Jew however, abstaining from such activities was viewed as

honorable within their group. In other words, those customs, practices, and ways of life that

one’s group viewed as honorable were pursued even if that meant running cross-grain with

another group. Within this social model. virtually everything had the potential of bringing honor

or shame to an individual and thus, to that individual’s group. DeSilva (2000) writes, “The focus

of ancient people on honor and dishonor or shame means that they were particularly oriented

toward the approval and disapproval of others” (35). It was incumbent upon the individual to

avoid those things that brought shame to their group, and just as important, to pursue those things

that brought honor. Whereas in modern culture, one’s actions are thought of as a reflection of the

character of the individual, in 1st century culture, the concern was mainly on how one’s actions

reflected on their group and thus, the effects of their standing within that group. It is noteworthy

to point out that in both modern and ancient culture, one’s view of self, differed significantly.

The former focuses on self-worth and the latter on acceptance within a group for the preservation

of that particular group’s honor for mutual survival.

Such dynamics created an interesting set of rules for social transactions between

members of different groups. Occurring perpetually within the in-group/out-group dynamic,

there existed the challenge-riposte model; a Hellenistic custom that was weaved into the whole

of society. DeSilva (2000) explains that this dynamic “has caused cultural anthropologists to
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
5
label the culture as ‘agonistic’” (29). Dr. Halvor Moxnes, professor of theology at the University

of Oslo, writes as follows:

In Mediterranean societies interaction between people is always characterized by

competition with others for recognition. Everyone must be constantly alert to defend
individual or family honor. Such social interaction often takes the form of challenge and
riposte, most often verbally, but also with symbolic gestures and even with the use of
physical force. (20)

This dynamic can be translated as one of reciprocity, or a response in kind. Such a

dynamic can be negative or positive, but in either case the aim was in defense of honor, at times

at the expense of another. For instance, a challenge can be presented in the form of a verbal duel,

a gift, a physical challenge, and so forth. It is the aim of the challenger to obtain honor at the

expense of the challenged. Shaming or besting one’s opponent would elevate the challenger’s

honor. As such, it becomes necessary for the receiver of such a challenge to respond in kind if

honor is to be defended. Within the context of the New Testament, one can easily identify the

challenge-riposte model in the various exchanges between Jesus and Jewish leaders. Luke gives

an account of this sort of exchange as follows:

So, they asked him, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no
partiality, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or
not?” But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, “Show me a denarius. Whose
likeness and inscription does it have?” They said, “Caesar's.” He said to them, “Then
render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And
they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him in what he said, but
marveling at his answer they became silent. (Luke 20:21-26, ESV)

Regarding honor/shame values within the nascent Christian community, this new group

existing within the social construct of the first century Roman Empire, faced a few unique

challenges. The believers that made up the church came from different social statuses, races,

levels of education, professions, age-groups, and genders. In addition, in many cases, because of

the social construct of in-group/out-group dynamics, these new members found it necessary to
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
6
abandon their former groups. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul spends a great deal of time

addressing the issue of separation from the pagan lifestyle that permeated every facet of one’s

life; created a line of demarcation between the old group and the new believer’s new group:

Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for
yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the
blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one
bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in
the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is
anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I
do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord
and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of
demons. (1st Corinthians 14-21)

As a result of such a separation from not only pagan, but also Jewish groups, these new

believers faced a tremendous amount of persecution. This particular subject conjures up thoughts

of torture and even sentences of death pronounced upon those members of this new group. The

persecution under Nero’s reign in the late AD 60’s is likely the first thing that comes to mind

when considering the persecution faced by the early church. However, DeSilva (2000) notes an

interesting perspective in his book regarding the persecution of first century believers, pointing

out that “non-Christian neighbors… subjected the early Christians to censure and other shaming

techniques, designed to bring these deviant people back in line with the values and behaviors

held by the surrounding culture” (43). The primary aim of both the Greco-Roman and Jewish

cultures was not to torture or murder these Christians, but to draw these wayward members back

into their groups. As such, these early Christians were subjected to the pressures of their former

group’s shaming techniques while attempting to exemplify the honor values within their new

group. DeSilva (2000) previously writes, “The early Christians proclaimed a message that stood

for values that differed from, and indeed contradicted, core values within the dominant Greco-

Roman culture as well as the Jewish subculture within which the church arose” (43).
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
7
Not only was there a change in lifestyle and practice, but also in response to the assaults

faced by these new believers in an agonistic society where challenge-riposte was the order of the

day in every scenario. To defend one’s honor and the honor of one’s group was expected from

every member. The Christian response to this social dynamic was unique. Regarding response to

assaults, DeSilva (2000) writes that one was “culturally conditioned to retaliate, to offer riposte

… that will counter the challenge and preserve honor in the public eye intact” (70). However,

even before the birth of the Church, Jesus taught His followers; those who would eventually lead

the Church, a different type of response; “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your

neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who

persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:43-45).

The pursuit of honor within the first century Christian community had a few purposes

including the preservation and protection of the group and its members, guarding its reputation

among the pagan and Jewish communities, and to receive honor from God. In order to maintain

group solidarity and continuity, the dynamics of pursuit and avoidance were prominent. Called

upon to pursue those things that brought honor to God and to the church, the Christian was also

called upon to avoid those things that had a contrary effect. Highlighting characteristics that were

present in the former lives of the believers, Paul admonishes the Corinthian church to avoid this

former shameful conduct within their interpersonal relationship in the Church:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who
practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were
washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and
by the Spirit of our God. (1st Corinthians 6:9-11)

The aim of pursuing that which was honorable and avoiding those things that were

shameful drove the conduct of every member, not only inside but outside of the church. Peter
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
8
writes in his first letter, “Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they

speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of

visitation” (1st Peter 2:12). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown (1997) point out, “Because as

Christians they could not conform to heathenistic customs, they were accused of disobedience to

legal authority” (606). The avoidance of these practices by members of this Christian community

was considered shameful by the dominant pagan culture. As such, it was incumbent upon this

group that was labeled as deviant, to conduct themselves with the utmost honor in the presence

of those outside of their group. Guilty only of faith and not of any actual crime or act of

immorality, the Christian and the Church would stand as truly honorable, thus guarding the

testimony of Jesus Christ before the pagan community and bringing some of these unbelievers to

such a revelation that they might glorify God.

Regarding pursuit and avoidance within the Christian community, one similarity that the

church had with groups outside of itself was the strategy of censuring and even expelling those

who exhibited deviant behavior. Paul addresses the Corinthians regarding immoral practices

being perpetrated by one of its member and instructs the church to “deliver this man to Satan for

the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1st

Corinthians 5:5). In keeping with the social model of group dynamics, the aim of such a practice

was the restoration of the aberrant to good standing within the group.

Finally, there was the aim of what one may call future honor. Unlike other groups whose

focus was temporal, the Christian’s ultimate reward was the honor bestowed upon them by God

in eternity. As such, though the church and the individual believer may face persecution in the

present, the honor bestowed upon them by God for eternity outweighed any current tribulations.

In light of this, the Apostle Peter writes, “In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
9
necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith

more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire may be found to result in praise

and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1st Peter 1:6-7).

The Western Church exists in, and in many cases, has fallen into the trap of adopting a

culture where individuality is intrinsic and the temporal seems the ends to every means. This

stands in stark contrast to the first century eastern Mediterranean church, where the group was

the smallest unit and eternity was the ultimate goal. What can the church today learn from these

early Christians? Having been a pastor in Silicon Valley for twenty years, I was frequently faced

with the challenge from Christians who felt their personal relationship with Jesus Christ was

more important than their relationship to the church. Though one’s personal relationship with

Jesus is paramount, I found myself having to explain on many occasions that the Christian

experience is as much a public one as it is private. In other words, one’s relationship with Jesus

Christ and one's relationship to His church are interdependent. It is incumbent then, upon the

pastor and church leaders to emphasize this important truth in a society that is significantly more

averse to the dynamics of collectivism than those believers in the first century world.

However individualistic today’s Western society has become, it should be understood that

regardless of how independent one thinks themselves to be, human beings have always displayed

an intrinsic desire for interpersonal relationships, thus finding themselves in some form,

identifying with one group or another regardless of the culture they are living in. In an article on

his blog, Life and Psychology, Dr. Saif Farooqi (2013) writes, “One of the reasons why human

beings prefer to socialize and be in groups is the need for belongingness or the need to belong.

The need to belong is an innate need. It is a fundamental human motivation to have meaningful

and satisfying relationships” (under, “One of the reasons”). As such, though it may be more
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
10
challenging teaching the modern church the importance of group dynamics from the perspective

of their relationship with Jesus Christ and His church, it is not impossible.

One of the major reasons for this challenge is the difference in honor/shame values

between the culture the early church existed in and today’s twenty-first century western culture.

In ancient cultures, because the group one belonged to dictated that which was honorable and

that which was shameful, there was clear guidance. The individual was guided by the values of

the smallest unit in society; the group. As the world has become more and more connected over

the last hundred years, the social model of in-group/out-group dynamics has changed

significantly in the Western world. Working as a recruiter in Silicon Valley, I have had the

opportunity to see the speed at which this has happened over the last twenty years. As the

internet has become the vehicle for the dissemination of ideas, philosophies, and opinions,

humanity is slowly becoming singular in some senses. Tech companies that focus on connecting

the world make it easier for cultural differences to be shared. From religion, to language, to

music, to ideas and lifestyles, one is able to experience these things from the comfort of their

smart-phones. The underlying message is that we are all the same and that our diversity should

be celebrated. In many senses, much good has come out of this. There is a greater level of

awareness regarding the needs of one’s fellow man, the global community is more easily

involved in responding to injustices taking place around the world, the ability to collaborate and

make things happen has reached a level of fluidity never seen in human history, and the

availability of knowledge has become easily accessible. However, this has also given birth; at

least within my culture, the idea that every conviction, every opinion, belief, lifestyle, etc., is of

equal value. As such, though the internet age is slowly developing philosophies of oneness and

inclusion, it also seems to reinforce the individual as the smallest unit in society as opposed to
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
11
the group. It has created a generation that believes their opinion, however irrational, uninformed,

or aberrant, should be respected and considered. If the individual is the smallest unit of society,

ultimate honor and ascribed shame is for the individual and not their group. One makes decisions

then, not on how it will affect their group, but on how they will be viewed or perceived as an

individual. Within modern Western culture, one’s feelings, significance and individual value are

paramount. One’s group then must accept and conform to that individual just as he or she is, as

opposed to the contrary. As a result, honor and shame in twenty-first century Western culture is

turned on its head, as it is defined by how a group or society accepts the individual, as opposed

to the individual conforming to the ideals of the group he or she belongs to.

Friendship and Patronage

The infrastructure that likely gave birth to the honor/shame models and the resulting

challenge-riposte dynamic within that model can arguably be the social phenomenon of

patronage and reciprocity. This phenomenon became the backbone for the economic stability of

ancient Greek and Roman culture. Found in the various flavors of interpersonal relationships, the

patronage model was essential for mutual survival. 17th century English philosopher, Thomas

Hobbes (1651) wrote, “For no man giveth but with intention of good to himself” (93). Through

proper conduct, reciprocal relationships created an economic cohesion in society. Commonly

called the Dance of Grace by the philosophers of these ancient cultures, this dynamic of

reciprocity existed in every relationship and was necessary for the survival of society and local

economies. Grace then, is the currency by which exchanges are made within relationships.

Regarding this necessary Dance of Grace, DeSilva (2000) quotes Seneca, who wrote, “The

beauty of the whole is destroyed if the course is anywhere broken” (106). In the case of the

patron/client relationship, the benefactor pours out grace on the recipient through material
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
12
means, helps, or protection, and the recipient responds with gratitude in its various forms. The

recipient, or client, would do “everything in his or her power to enhance the fame and honor of

the patron, … remaining loyal to the patron, and providing services whenever the opportunity

arose” (DeSilva 2000, 97). As it pertained to relationships among equals, commonly called

friendship, reciprocity is delivered in kind.

Friendship in ancient Greek and Roman cultures had a completely different definition

than that of today’s Western society. Dr. Koenraad Verbhoven of Ghent University, writes,

“Epicurus argued that all friendship could be traced back to the universal human need for others:

‘All philia is a virtue in itself, but draws its origin from assistance’” (Peachin 2011, 404).

Regarding friendship, Hedlun (2016) adds the following:

Within this ancient world that was so severely stratified by social class and unequal
status, there existed at least the concept of an idealized relationship called friendship. It
was the highest ideal of a relationship and was discussed often by poets and philosophers
in the ancient literature that has survived…. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the
ideal called friendship was ever actually practiced in real-life experience in the first-
century Mediterranean world. (73-74)

Though friendship in its ideal form may have never truly been realized within ancient

Greek and Roman cultures, the reciprocal relationship among equals is the closest example we

have. DeSilva (2000) explains, “Relationships of reciprocity also occur between social equals,

people of like means who can exchange like resources, neither one being seen by the other or by

society as the inferior of the other” (99). As such, though a status of equality was realized by

either party, the relationship of friendship was, from a practical perspective, no different than

that of patron-client; each relationship was reciprocal.

Though also reciprocal in nature, patronage within Christianity surpassed the ideals and

expectations of the outside world. Whether acting as a benefactor or beneficiary, the Christians

focus was singular. Peter writes, “Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
13
when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the

day of visitation” (1st Peter 2:12). As with the aim of the client as it pertains to the patron, the

focus of the believer was to increase the honor and glory of God because of His many blessings.

In all things, whether in blessing, receiving blessings, or conduct, the believer’s focus was the

honor of the ultimate Patron. God. Scripture teaches that the gifts received from God, primarily

the gift of salvation and eternal life, is given freely. Paul writes to the church at Ephesus, “For by

grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). However, though receiving

the gifts and blessing of God freely, it is the duty of the believer to respond with grace, as it was

expected in any ancient reciprocal relationship. DeSilva (2000) writes, “One of the more

important contributions an awareness of the ethos of grace in the first-century world can make is

implanting in our minds the necessary connection between giving and responding, between favor

and gratitude in the fullest sense” (141). In other words, as it was with every first-century client-

patron relationship, it was the duty of the client to increase the honor of the patron; to show faith

in, and fidelity towards, their benefactor. The following texts from the book of Hebrews best

describes the sort of reciprocation expected by the believer towards the Lord:

Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us
offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe… So Jesus also suffered
outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go
to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. For here we have no lasting
city, but we seek the city that is to come. Through him then let us continually offer up a
sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not
neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
(Hebrews 12:28 and 13:12-16)

In a response of gratitude towards God for his many blessings, the first century believer is

called upon respond, through worship, service and lifestyle, in such a way the both emulates and
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
14
pleases the Master. Though having received the gifts of God because of His benevolence and not

because one has earned it, the believer is expected to return grace for grace.

Though not as prevalent, patronage remains alive and well in twenty-first century western

culture. Terms such as quid pro quo, and it’s not what you know, but who you know, are

relatively commonplace. From business relationships, to political strategies, to networking

events, the intangibles of patronage continue to exist within modern day relationships. As a

corporate recruiter having lead or been a key player on international talent acquisition teams, I

have learned that not only is it highly crucial to maintain healthy relationships within the

business world, it is also necessary for one to have an eye towards the benefit and development

of those he or she has relationships with. The importance of building strong networks that carry

with it flavors or patronage is necessary for growth and success within the business world. Joao

Alhanati, writer for Investopedia.com and founder of findlifesuccess.com, writes the following

regarding the importance of building a strong network:

Everyone seems to put a lot of emphasis on the importance of building "what we know,"
but many fail to mention how important building "who we know" is. In some cases, "who
we know" can be even more important than "what we know." Even though many of us
aren't taught how to properly build our network of connections from our peers, there are a
variety of ways we can do so. Whether it is online or in person, we have the opportunity
to build "who we know." I suggest you start building "who you know" just as much as
"what you know." "It's not what you know, but who you know,” and you never know
who you'll meet next. (under “The bottom line)

Kinship and Household

As mentioned previously, in first-century eastern Mediterranean culture, the smallest unit

in society was the group, and that group generally existed as the household. The thought of

personal identity in terms of the individual was a foreign concept; one that would not have

entered the thinking of the average person. One’s identity was connected directly to the

household. DeSilva (2000) states, “A person’s family of origin is the primary source of his or her
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
15
status and location in the world and an essential reference point for the person’s identity” (158).

Lineage determined in large part, one’s place in society in addition to society's expectation of the

individual within the context of their kinship group. Honor or shame are ascribed based not only

on the actions, reputation, and standing of one’s ancestors, but of one’s immediate kin. As within

the greater context of group dynamics, where honor or shame experienced by the individual

through action or position is ascribed to the entire group, individual honor or shame is ascribed

through what DeSilva (2000) call's “The horizontal dimension” or “The living kinship group”

(164).

As a result of these dynamics, the overall convenience of the individual in the various

facets of society were either advantages or challenges; and sometimes condemnations. Coming

from a family of notable lineage, having a current relative in a position of honor and even one’s

ethnic group or tribe, provided access to privilege and opportunity. Most times, the reputation of

one’s ancestors was more than sufficient to establish society’s estimation of the individual;

whether bad or good. In addition to one’s ability to navigate within the greater culture based on

these and other kinship factors, security was generally found within the ethos of kinship.

Necessary for the survival of kinship groups, in-group/out-group dynamics dictated that

harmony, care, protection, and consideration be given to one’s kin over and above those outside

of the group.

In terms of group dynamics, the household was of central importance within society.

Though in some cases a woman, as with the mother of John Mark in the Book of Acts, most

heads of households were male and held different titles based on relationships within the

household. From husband, to father, to master, and even elder brother, the head of the household

is “placed at the hub of the family unit … in relation to whom the other members of the family
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
16
take their bearings” (DeSilva 2000, 173). In terms of the household, a broader meaning of

kinship is seen, as blood-relatives, marriage, and slaves are only part of equation. Fictive kinship

is seen more clearly in this environment with the circle of membership extended to guests and

even clients who may not live under the same roof.

As it is in most twenty-first western cultures, marriage was a central relationship within

most first-century households. Regarding this relationship, DeSilva (2000) writes, “The purpose

of marriage was chiefly for the future … both in terms of progeny and inheritance. It was not the

result of a process of dating, falling in love, talking about compatibilities and the like” (177).

Though true, DeSilva’s comments create in the mind of the reader an image of marriage being

only a business arrangement, never truly moving into other dynamics. Though marriage in first-

century culture and earlier existed for practical purposes, there is evidence within ancient

Hellenistic literature of the idea of love and romance existing within the relationship. Robert

Fitzgerald’s (1998) translation of Homer’s Odyssey gives us a side of the marriage relationship

that though not common, is at least idealized in terms of sentiments of love and devotion

between Odysseus and his wife, Penelope:

Now from his breast into the eyes the ache of longing mounted, and he wept at last, his
dear wife, clear and faithful, in his arms, longed for as the sunwarmed earth is longed for
by a swimmer spent in rough water where his ship went down under Poseidon's blows,
gale winds and tons of sea. Few men can keep alive through a big serf to crawl, clotted
with brine, on kindly beaches in joy, in joy, knowing the abyss behind: and so she too
rejoiced, her gaze upon her husband, white arms round him pressed as though forever.
(Book Twenty-Three, Location 4876)

One may also read the Song of Solomon as an example of early Jewish literature that

expresses love and passion existing between spouses: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his

mouth—For your love is better than wine. Because of the fragrance of your good ointments,

Your name is ointment poured forth; Therefore the virgins love you” (Song of Solomon 1:2-3,

NKJV). Regardless of the various pieces of literature that point to love and romance, marriage
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
17
was primarily for the preservation and propagation of one’s ethnic group, household, and name.

Hellenistic and Jewish culture were strategic in terms of the marriage union. DeSilva (2000)

states, “Marriage among Jews in the Greco-Roman era tended still to follow an endogamous

strategy” (174). For the Jew, the primary purpose of marriage was for the preservation of Jewish

culture and lineage, as well as guarding against paganism. Within the greater first century Roman

society, “Most historians agree that marriages within village or ethnic units and, above all, within

social classes and status groups, were common in the communities that constituted Roman

society of the first three centuries of our era” (Shaw and Staller 1984, 432). These survival

tactics focused on the continued preservation of households, clans, and cultures, and maintained

a cohesion within society for mutual preservation and progress. Marriage within one’s kinship

group preserved a singular loyalty and subsequently guaranteed the survival of the group.

DeSilva (2000) points out, an exception to this rule existed as sort of a power-play strategy

within first century Roman culture: “The Roman marriage practiced of exogamy, marrying

outside of one’s kinship group … was based more on interest in creating strategic alliances

between families” (177).

As strategic the process of marriage was, its dissolution was easy and practically

uneventful. With no more than a word, the first century Roman marriage could be dissolved.

Regarding the facility by which divorce occurred, DeSilva (2000) adds, “The woman would

return to her father’s family … along with her dowry” (178). Within Jewish culture, only the

man could initiate this process. Jesus’ challenge of divorce among the Jews leads us to

understand the process was as relatively easy for them as for their host culture: “Furthermore it

has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to

you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
18
commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew

5:31-32, NKJV).

Hedlun (2014) states, “Divorce was common and did not carry a social stigma similar to

that in many modern societies” (66). In terms of its effects on the household, it would be

reasonable to conclude that the dissolution of marriage would likely be more devastating than

even today. One would simply consider the business arrangement associated with coming to a

marriage arrangement, the subsequent development of a household, and the involvement of

various kinship relationships that would become dependent on the household, to have a sense of

the immense breakdown that had the potential of occurring in the event of a divorce. Under such

circumstances, it boggles the mind how easily a marriage could be dissolved. In twenty-first

century western culture, divorce carries emotional, psychological, and economic ramifications

that could be discussed within the paper ad infinitum. The effects within first century Rome

however, not only affected a family unit, but had the potential of shaking the stability of kinship

groups in their various forms. The household was the center of commerce in local communities

and the wife was generally the administrator; operating as the junior partner within the marriage.

Such a dissolution of partnership may have had the potential of shaking the lives and stabilities

of a local community.

As one considers the term household in the first century Roman Empire in its various

forms, it is easy to understand how the idea of household was incorporated into the early church.

In a patriarchal society where kinship groups were ultimately centralized around the household

and generally presided over by a male, this new kinship groups would by default incorporate the

dynamics of household with God as its head. In his course study on the Books of Ephesians and

Colossians, Dr. Hedlun (2014) points out, “Paul uses the household to define the formation of the
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
19
church and to draw his readers into a full understanding of the glorious blessings available as

members of God’s household” (244). This new kinship group, which one becomes a member of

through adoption, including all of the privileges and promises associated with being members of

God’s household, is best summarized by Paul in the following passage:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ
with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he
predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the
purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the
Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses,
according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth
in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and
things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined
according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him
you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in
him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance
until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:3-14)

Within this new household, the lines of kinship are redrawn. The household of God takes

the place of previous households and kinship groups, redefining conduct within interpersonal

relationships. Previously based on one’s natural lineage, race, or nationality, this conduct is now

ascribed to one’s relationship with God’s people as brothers and sisters through Jesus Christ. In

writing to Timothy, Paul uses the language of kinship relationship to emphasize this new

household: “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay,

you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the

living God” (1 Timothy 3:15, ESV).

In twenty-first century western culture, the idea of household and kinship has changed

significantly. Though the dynamics of family loyalty still hold sway, the intrinsic impulses of the

first century eastern Mediterranean mind to identify themselves with their kinship group and
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
20
navigate through life in terms of the greater good, is considerably less intense in today’s western

society. As stated in another section of this paper, a key reason for this shift is the shift into

individualism as opposed to the group dynamic. In most cases, family and kin remain an

influential, though not a central component, insofar as the group remains aligned with one’s

emotions and individual well-being.

In an article in the Objective Standard, political and philosophical writer, Craig Biddle

(2017), writes, “The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a

century, individualism vs. collectivism. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it

belong to the group, the community, society, or the state?” (under, The fundamental political

conflict). In the first century Roman Empire, this argument would easily be answered by stating

that as the individual is nothing on his or her own. It is the group that takes precedence over the

individual. How this gradual shift occurred is a subject that requires much thought and study

outside of the context of this paper. It is noteworthy however, to consider that one does not need

to be part of a kinship group to survive and succeed in today’s modern western society. As such,

it is easier identify oneself individually as opposed to a particular group, household, or lineage.

Purity and Pollution

Woven into the constructs of group dynamics within the honor/shame culture of first-

century society lies the concepts of purity and pollution. Though perhaps not as intrinsic as the

behaviors and conduct that existed in terms of honor and shame, maintaining the lines of purity

were just as important for the preservation of the group. In quoting the Stoic philosopher

Epictetus, DeSilva (2000) writes, “Greek and Latin philosophers take up the language of

pollution to dissuade people from vice, as when Epictetus urges his students not to defile the

indwelling deity ‘with unclean thoughts and filthy actions’” (250). From daily conduct, to the
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
21
cognizance of holy verses common places, ancient societies functioned within purity and

pollution rules that formed much of the undergirding of public and private life.

As with much of the pagan rules of purity, Jewish systems of conduct revolved around

deity; although monotheistic. Unlike other ancient cultural laws of purity whose ends were to

avoid wrath or incur favor from a deity or deities, Jewish cultural laws in most cases, focused on

separateness. More than appeasing gods whose characters are at times depicted as no more than

that of a sensual adolescent or vain egocentric narcissist, the purity codes within Judaism focused

on emulating their God. In the book of Leviticus, God conveys through Moses, dietary laws they

were to follow; making a distinction “between the clean and the unclean” (Leviticus 11:47,

KJV). The main idea was to identify with God as His own special possession amid pagan

cultures. It is here that the phrase, “Ye shall be holy; for I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44) is first

used. Exodus gives us the first reference to holiness as it relates to God’s people: “Now

therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar

treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom

of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of

Israel (Exodus 19:5-6). These texts allow for the conclusion that the laws of purity within the

ancient Jewish culture was primarily for emulating the character of God in order that they might

have relationship with Him. The importance of purity laws for the Jews, was not to appease or

simply gain the favor of a plethora of deities, nor to simply maintain a national or cultural

identity because of who they were as a people; but who they were as a people in relation to their

God.

Regarding the relationship between holiness and purity, one may reach the conclusion

that in some cases, the terms may be interchangeable at least in terms of sentiment. In reference
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
22
to the scriptures quoted in the preceding paragraph, there is the idea of separateness conveyed in

the statements of holiness that are evidenced in the pursuit of purity; the lifestyle that is

distinctive from the unclean. DeSilva (2000) writes, “Holiness and distinctiveness go hand in

hand … the pursuit of holiness must be worked out in the practicalities of everyday life” (270).

In other words, there is an interrelationship that cannot be unbound between the two terms. To be

holy, one must pursue purity and the pursuit of holiness requires purity. The dilemma lies in the

interpretation of the pursuit.

Beginning with the Mosaic laws and concluding with the traditions that evolved as a

result of Israel’s challenges during the intertestamental period, Judaism’s pursuit of purity

eventually became a stumbling block for true holiness. In Luke chapter eleven, Jesus confronts

this dichotomy when the disciples failed to perform the ritual washing prior to dinner: “And

when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner. And the Lord

said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your

inward part is full of ravening and wickedness” (Luke 11:38-39). The Wycliffe Bible

Commentary states, “The Pharisees were the Puritans of Judaism, who were exceedingly strict

about the external observance of the Law. Jesus criticized them drastically for their hypocrisy,

for they harbored all kinds of covetousness and cruelty in their hearts” (Pfeiffer and Harrison

1978, 1049). As Jesus’ message focused in large part on the condition of the heart, much of the

purity laws from the Torah and tradition were challenged, thereby affecting the purity map of the

old Jewish system. In contrast to the externals of purity rituals, the New Testament Scriptures

contain phrases such as, “Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you …” (1

Corinthians 6:19), and, “The Kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21). Although the purity

maps of external laws and practices of everyday life and the temple system of worship were
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
23
challenged and done away with in Christianity, the pursuit of purity and holiness were not. In

reference to this shift and addressing the challenge of the teaching of Judaizers, Paul writes to

Timothy, “Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good

conscience, and of faith unfeigned” (1 Timothy 1:5).

No longer were the practices of the old Jewish system of purity considered indicators of

distinctiveness as God’s possession, but rather one’s allegiance to the person of Jesus Christ, the

work accomplished at Calvary, and the subsequent inner-working of the heart through this

relationship. Paul writes in Romans, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to

everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4). Of the epistles, the Book of Hebrews provides a

masterful defense of the viability and superiority of Christ and His Gospel, and the doing away

with the old Jewish system:

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more
perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the
blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place,
having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the
ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How
much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself
without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
(Hebrews 9:11-14)

As such, what was clean and unclean in terms of the Jewish purity maps were

reevaluated. Christ is given authority by God to “redefine the sacred purity regulations of

Judaism, even to rewrite the very maps laid out in the Torah itself” (DeSilva 2000, 280). Internal

purity of a heart that pursues a relationship with Jesus manifested in one’s everyday life becomes

the impetus of the Church and the individual. “Let us draw near with a true heart in full

assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed

with pure water” (Hebrews 10:22).

Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
24
For the twenty-first century western mind, the concepts of purity and pollution are subtle

and not particularly following a religious system. In contrast with the purity codes existing

within Judaism that separated a race of people from their surrounding cultures and focused on an

identity in relation to their God, today’s lines are based more on social and personal preference,

as opposed to formally defined guidelines. As such, those concepts that created safeguards for

the preservation of the Jewish culture in the first century are foreign and archaic to the twenty-

first century mind in an individualistic society.

With the continued development and spread of the internet and media, the purity lines of

race, culture, and group have blurred significantly in many cases. The modern western person is

more socially and globally aware than generations before. Terms such as diversity and inclusion

have become watch-words in today’s western society. Interracial marriage and the mingling of

relationships that cross socio-economic and cultural lines are encouraged by the greater

populace. There is a greater effort to understand cultures, belief systems, and life-styles that are

foreign to one’s own. The convergence of systems of belief, thought, and philosophy have given

rise to a post-truth culture where objectivity and moral absolutes are in many cases considered to

be the antithesis of purity, as event the most irrelevant opinions are given relevance.

Emotionalism and opinion have become the new purity codes and objectivism the unclean. That

said, today’s society has provided tremendous opportunities for the Church of Jesus Christ to

reach diverse cultures with a greater level of understanding. As with Paul’s Areopagus

experience in Acts chapter seventeen, the modern Christian has the opportunity not only to reach

other cultures, but to understand how to do so at a deeper and more informed level.

Kinship and Patronage: Philippians 2:1-13

Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
25
Widely held by most scholars as being founded during his second missionary journey,

Paul writes this brief letter to the Philippian church from prison. With great expressions of

gratitude for their partnership in supporting his evangelistic efforts, Paul covers a few areas of

interest, including the importance of Christian unity. Paul addresses the subject of unity within

the context of the greatest examples of group relationships in a collectivist culture; kinship and

patronage. Using language to be understood within the context of sibling relationship, Paul

writes, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more

significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the

interests of others” (Philippians 2:3-4, ESV). Paul refers to Jesus as the deepest example of

patronage, “who … emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness

of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point

of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6-8). Hedlun (2015) writes, “Jesus is presented as

the ultimate patron, God himself, who empties himself of everything related to status, honor,

power, and privilege. The self-emptied patron then becomes the lowest client” (248). Jesus as

patron, humbles himself and becomes the client, that He might become the greatest of

benefactors. As such, Paul encourages the Philippian church as beneficiaries of God’s gift of

salvation, to reciprocate with the expression of kinship unity that is the ultimate expression of

grace; obedience: “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good

pleasure” (Philippians 2:13).

Christ’s self-emptying raises a few thoughts in terms of His example. From the duties of

older brother, servant, and benefactor, who emptied himself, “to the point of death, even death on

a cross” (Philippians 2:8), gratitude for His sacrifice in the form of obedience to Him and His

Word is the only logical response that comes to mind. Paul defines this response as one of unity
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
26
and self-sacrifice in terms of one’s relationships within the Church. Less an issue of official

ministerial roles within the body, this passage speaks to me of a sacrifice of love and unity; of

service in relationship, as it pertains to one’s brothers and sisters within the church as the

ultimate expression of gratitude toward God.

Kinship and the Household, Ephesians 2:11-22

Kinship and the household in ancient culture had both broad and narrow meanings. From

Caesar as the head of the household of Rome, to local natural and fictive kinship relationships

within communities, the household was meant to serve as a cohesive group with members

working together for the mutual care, protection, and preservation of that group. In terms of

kinship, DeSilva (2000) writes, “A person’s family of origin is the primary source for his or her

status and location in the world and an essential reference point for the person’s identity” (158).

Delving further into the ethos of the household, Professor Elna Mouton of Stellenbosch

University states, “Already in the classical period of the Greeks, the household (oikos) formed an

important constituent structure in the polis, where relationships of power, protection, submission,

honour and duty were to be properly shaped if a city was to flourish morally” (1).

Utilizing the significance of the household, Paul paints a picture for the Ephesian church

in rhetorical fashion, emphasizing their former and present status in relation to the household of

God. The passage begins with Paul pointing out their former nature as “children of wrath”

(Ephesians 2:3), upon whom God as the greatest of benefactors, provides the gift of salvation

through Jesus Christ. Continuing with this emphasis, recalling their previous state as “Gentiles in

the flesh…. Separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to

the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:11-12),

Paul then highlights their new status as members of a new household:

Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
27
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood
of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in
his flesh the dividing wall of hostility… For through him we both have access in one
Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow
citizens with the saints and members of the household of God. (Ephesians 2:13-14 & 18-
19)

The lines of delineation between Jew and Gentile are removed. Paul highlights a new

household formed from two previous groups with God the Father as its head and Christ as the

binding component; “the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20). This passage is a sense of security for

those Gentiles who, having left former households in a society where pagan and sinful practices

were common and encouraged behaviors, are now faced with uncertainty. DeSilva (2000) states,

People were not just free-floating individuals out in the world but are located within the larger

constellations of ‘family’ in a very broad sense (158). As the household was the bulwark against

poverty and danger in a collectivist society, Paul emphasizes for these new and perhaps insecure

believers, a new household with new kinship relationships. Many scholars believe that the letter

to the Ephesians was in fact encyclical, making the purpose of this letter one of encouragement

for Gentile believers who faced these similar challenges throughout the churches.

For the modern Western Christian, the idea of depending on kinship groups and

households holds a different significance. Though no longer for survival, relationships and moral

support continue to be of great importance for the average person. Having been created as social

creatures within the context of societies, there is an intrinsic need within most people to feel as

they are part of something. For today’s Western believer, this text carries with it, not the

assurance of survival and protection, but one of moral support, acceptance, encouragement, and

forgiveness; of equality and standing before their brethren and God as members of His family.

Honor / Shame Values and the Crucifixion, Matthew 26:47-27:61

Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
28
In terms of honor and shame, two areas of interest come to mind when reading this

passage; the strategies adopted by the Jewish leadership to assault Jesus’ honor in the estimation

of the people, and the honor values displayed in Jesus response to these assaults. When assessing

the events that led up to Jesus’ arrest, one sees an interesting shift in the people’s response to,

and support of Jesus within a matter of days. During the passion week, Mark and Luke record the

Jewish leadership’s desire to arrest or put Jesus to death; but they “feared the people” (Mark

12:12, cf. Luke 20:19, Luke 22:2). These passages allude to a level of support and popularity that

still existed among the populace. However, by the time of the crucifixion, Jesus went from

prophet to pariah in the space of a few hours.

The manner in which the Jewish leadership handled the planning, arrest, trial, and

crucifixion of Jesus shows a strategic effort to assault His honor and as a result, attack His

popularity. Though the Jewish leadership was able to control some public support of Jesus (cf.

John 7:13, John 9:22, John 12:42), the Gospels record divisions created over who Jesus was,

what He taught, and the miracles He performed, showing level of open popularity. However, by

the time of the crucifixion, aside from the seemingly quiet support shown from just a few of His

followers, there seems to be a silent consensus among the Jewish people at all levels. Not a

single dissenting voice is heard. There is no more mention of divisions among the people in

terms of who Jesus was. To align with Jesus now was to endanger one’s reputation where honor

and shame determined not only one’s standing within their group, but that of the group one

represented in society. The leadership managed to take a drawn out judicial process, begin it in

the middle of the night and have Jesus charged with treason against Rome in the space of a few

hours. By morning, Jesus was standing before the people in the presence of Pilate; chained and

flogged; treated as a common criminal and eventually executed as one: “ There they crucified
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
29
him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them” (John 19:18). The

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown (1997) state that the act of placing Jesus at the center of these two

criminals was, “a hellish expedient to hold him up as the worst of the three” (470). Though

unknowingly fulfilling prophecy (cf. Isaiah 53), the strategy used by the Jewish leadership to

lower the people’s estimation of Jesus was effective: “And those who passed by derided him,

wagging their heads and saying, ‘You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days,

save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross’” (Matthew 27:39-40).

Jesus’ conduct through the entire process however, displayed honor values that the early

church would espouse; values that Jesus Himself taught and that ran cross-grain with common

challenge-riposte scenarios. DeSilva (2000) wrote, “Beginning with Jesus … Christian leaders

sought to cultivate a specifically Christian riposte” (70). Paul reiterates this form of riposte in His

letter to the Romans: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them” (Romans

12:14). Luke’s record of the Sermon on the Mount provides an excellent example of Jesus

teaching on this matter as follows:

But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless
those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek,
offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic
either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods
do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. If
you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those
who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to
you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to
receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same
amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and
your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the
ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:27-36)

In addition, Jesus provides believers with the honor values that are to be adopted in the

Church in the hours leading up to and including the crucifixion. His response to Judas when

arriving with a crowd to arrest Him; “friend, do what you came to do” (Matthew 26:50), gives us
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
30
a clear demonstration of the type of honor a believer is to emulate when faced with injustice.

Jesus uses the term friend; a term signifying the rarest of intimate relationships during this

period. His conduct before Caiaphas and the Great Sanhedrin Council also exemplifies His

teaching at the Sermon on the Mount. And finally, though not recorded in Matthew, His prayer

for those who were persecuting Him provides the greatest display of mercy beyond His actual

death on the Cross: “And Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”’

(Luke 23:34).

When considering the honor/shame dynamics of the culture into which our Lord

determined to demonstrate the greatest sacrifice in human history, considering the shame He

endured and for whom He endured it, the phrase Jesus loves you carries with it an impact that no

other love can compare to. Only Isaiah’s prophecy comes close enough in describing the

ineffable love that God showed the world on that day:

He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low
esteem. Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him
punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our
transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace
was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each
of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He
was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the
slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By
oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he
was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was
punished. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though
he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the Lord’s will to
crush him and cause him to suffer. (Isaiah 53: 3-10)
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
31
REFERENCE LIST

Alhanati, Joao. Who You Know Might Matter More. Investopedia.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/12/who-we-know.asp (accessed March 15,
2017).

Biddle, Craig. Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice. The Objective Standard.
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/
(accessed February 20, 2017).

DeSilva, David A. 2000. Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press.

Farooqi, Saif. 2013. Interpersonal Relationships: An Integral Aspect of Human Beings. Life and
Psychology. “Blog”.
http://www.lifeandpsychology.com/2013/05/interpersonal-relationships-integral.html
(accessed March 1, 2017).

Fitzgerald, Robert. 1998. Homer The Odyssey. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, Inc.
Kindle ebook.

Hedlun, Randy J. 2016. New Testament as Literature. 1 ed. Springfield, MO: Global
st

University.

Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan. McMaster University Archive of the History of Economic
Thought. PDF. http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hobbes/Leviathan.pdf
(accessed March 3, 2017).

Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown. 1997. A Commentary on the Old and
New Testaments. Volume Three. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

Mbuvi, Andrew. The Ancient Mediterranean Values of “Honour and Shame” as a

Hermeneutical Lens of Reading the Book of Job. Academia.edu. PDF.
https://www.academia.edu/21524695/The_Ancient_Mediterranean_Values_of_Honour_a
nd_Shame_as_a_Hermeneutical_Lens_of_Reading_the_Book_of_Job?auto=download
(accessed March 3, 2017).

Mouton, Elna. Faithful Discipleship and Responsible Citizenship? Reimagining Household

Ethos in View of Ephesians 5:21-33. PDF. https://communitas.co.za/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/Prof-E-Mouton_Eph-5-Household-code_FIN.pdf (accessed
March 3, 2017)

Moxnes, Halvor. Honor and Shame. Christianbook.com. PDF.

http://g.christianbook.com/g/pdf/hp/1565634101-ch01.pdf (accessed March 3, 2017).
Robert Gonzalez, 030118086-USA LIT1313 The New Testament as Literature, PN 01.16.01
32

Peachin, Michael. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Google Play ebook.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., and Everett F. Harrison. 1978. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary.
Chicago: Moody Press.

Shaw, Brent D., and Richard P. Saller. 1984. Close-Kin Marriage in Roman Society. Man 19 No.
3): 432-444.