In
Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity
(2000) David A. deSilva gives us a look at first-century cultural values and
explains how understanding them will allow for a greater understanding of the
world which produced the New Testament. To hear and understand scripture
correctly, one must correctly understand the world in which it was written.
DeSilva’s goal, as he puts it, “is to introduce the reader to another dimension
of the context within which the New Testament texts were composed and within
which they effected the purposes of God for their readers” (19). When we are
better readers of scripture, we are better disciples, and can actively
influence the communities into which God has called to live.
The
text is divided neatly into the four titular categories: honor and shame,
patronage and reciprocity, kinship, and purity and pollution. For each cultural
value there are two chapters: one chapter expounding on its role in the
Greco-Roman world of the 1st century, and a subsequent chapter
integrating that exposition with our understanding of the New Testament. This
book posits an enlightening set of ideas into discussions on contextualization,
historicity of scripture, and even basic New Testament hermeneutics by
situating the bible firmly in its 1st century Mediterranean culture.
DeSilva’s text would appeal to Biblical scholars and curious Christians alike.
DeSilva begins with honor and shame. The notion of honor was one of the
foundational values for the first century world. Their world was “every bit as
socially sophisticated as ours and, in some ways, far clearer and more
articulate about the values that defined and guided each group” (27). A person
had honor based on the family into which they were born, but honor could also
be achieved through virtuous dealings and building an estimable reputation
(like a solider who demonstrates extreme bravery and loyalty). The quest for
honor kept all members of a group in check. If one deviated from the honorable
path, that person would bring shame upon themselves and the group(s) with which
they were affiliated. While the Jews were once the dominant group, they had for
generations been subject to the laws of other groups and struggled to maintain
their identity. This meant a Jew decide between Torah adherence, which gained
them honor within their Jewish circles (but contempt from everyone else), or
acquiescing to the dominant cultural values and the consequent shame from their
own kind. The early Christians, like their Jewish peers, promoted cultural
values that were fundamentally at odds with those of the dominant Greco-Roman
culture (like ultimate loyalty to God instead of Caesar). Christians
experienced everything from shunning to execution as resistance in their
commitment to Christ, and so neighbors and friends attempted to dissuade them
from their path. New Testament writers frequently encouraged their audience to
remember that God’s ultimate code of honor and shame was more important than
the temporary, worldly one. While Christians today are certainly familiar with
the notion of earning a certain group’s approval, we are generally
uncomfortable with conflict and shame, and so avoid discussing or rebuking it
in others. However, if we can become more sensitive to the cultural text of
honor and realize what a core cultural value it was for New Testament
audiences, we will become attuned to clearly hearing what the New Testament has
to tell us about our own personal value (self-respect and validation) and what
gives us our worth (86).
The
next value deSilva deals with is patronage and reciprocity. The first-century
Greco-Roman world was one “in which personal patronage was an essential means
of acquiring access to goods, protection or opportunities for employment and
advancement” (96). Patronage was not only allowed but promoted, and it is tied
to honor in the sense that the honorable thing to do was remain loyal in one’s
relationships. Patronage even crossed socioeconomic boundaries; the term
“grace” (for New Testament audiences) would have had connotations of
reciprocity among the rich, poor, and even among humans and gods. Grace meant
showing favor that was selflessly interested in the benefit of another. It was
not mandated to repay someone; the cultural shame of failing to reciprocate
grace or favor was enough. Grace was like a dance in which honor or favor was
freely given to a client, patron, or friend, and was freely repaid in kind. The
New Testament authors reframed this discussion in terms of God being the
ultimate benefactor for us. He[1]
seeks us out to give us life; this formation of a grace relationship “runs
contrary to the normal stream of lower-echelon people seeking out brokers who
can connect them with higher patrons” (130). As the ultimate mediator of God’s
favor, Jesus voluntarily gave his own life to grant deliverance from sin and
death. Not only that, but Christ continues to intercede on our behalf before
the Father. In the face of such incredible grace, our only response must be
more grace, in the form of the words we speak and actions we live out. This
attitude rightfully re-orients our worldly pursuits around those that bring
honor not to ourselves, but to God. Failure to promote the kingdom of God, who
is our supreme benefactor, results in disloyalty to the one we should only
please (156).
Kinship
was vital to first century life. One’s identity, like their honor, was tied to
the reputation of their lineage. Jewish culture placed even more value on one’s
parents and family. Harmonious living with one’s family involved cooperation in
maintaining their honor, hiding the shame of kin, and mutual trust in the
pursuit of honor and preserving the family lineage and reputation. Divorce
brought complications, but in general the man had dominion over the woman, who
was expected to stay at home to raise and educate the children to carry on
their family’s trade. With family ties so strong, it becomes more radical to
think of how many disciples left their families to follow Jesus. “It is now
attachment to this Jesus that determines whether or not a person is in the
family, rather than the person’s bloodline or natural lineage” (200). Christ
redefined the “descendents” of Abraham to allow for anyone to be adopted into
the new family of God. As members of God’s household, we are now bound to its
code of honor and values. As the church, we have a great opportunity to
re-imagine what it means to treat each other as those joined by the blood of
the Lamb.
Purity
is something of a foreign notion for modern evangelicals. We have made a holy
God available to everyone and have done away with the need for professional
mediation. However, we do understand what when food falls from a plate to the
ground (or dirt is brought inside the house) that an unhealthy boundary has
been crossed and contamination has occurred. This contamination disqualifies us
from entering in to the presence of a holy God. To avoid pollution and boundary
crossing, maps of people (and their bodies), locations, and times must be made
known, and sacrificial systems developed to atone for a transgression of the
sacred. “Only as we come to appreciate the revulsion of sin (and feel revulsion
ourselves) will Scripture have done its work building the all-important barrier
between our desires and forbidden things…” (269) Jesus essentially re-wrote the
maps of who, what, where, and when was permissible. Ritual moments are
important for helping us remember boundaries and retain holiness.
I
found deSilva’s text to be enormously informative. We have grown accustomed to
reading, understanding, and applying scripture within our own contemporary
cultural context; it is incredible how rarely we stop to think about what, say,
Paul’s letter to the Ephesians might have sounded like to the Ephesians themselves. DeSilva’s methodology is effective. By
breaking down cultural values into four manageable, finite (though dynamic)
concepts, it becomes possible to isolate specific intersections and
applications of concrete first century ideals with New Testament passages. This results in a richer understanding
and appreciation for the New Testament, the world into which its texts were
written, and even possible implications for discipleship in today’s world.
This
is particularly relevant for churches that are trying to live out the Gospel
amidst a generation of people whose identities are fragmented, individualistic,
and dynamic. How can someone who lives alone understand the value of kin? How
can a kid who sees people get famous for whoring themselves out possibly
understand the value of honor? As deSilva notes:
Studies of Generation X have shown
relationship to be the way of reaching those born into a postmodern worldview,
the way to show the reality of our faith. A church can no longer afford to be
mainly a group of people who agree on propositional truths…but must become a
group of people committed to one another in love, loyalty, and mutual support
(239).
We live in a culture that celebrates the “now”[2]
and the “me”[3].
When we read the New Testament we cannot help but bring these presuppositions with
us to the text. DeSilva is trying to help us understand what the New Testament
might have actually sounded like to those it was originally intended for; this
will help us be more self-aware of our baggage and at least attempt to come to
the text without an agenda, willing to be shaped by it.
Discussing
the established cultural norm is a great way to understand how powerful Jesus’
words and deeds actually were. For example, understanding how powerful
individual and group honor was in the first century sheds light on the constant
New Testament reminders to hold one another accountable in discipleship of
Christ (82). Also, understanding that violation of purity required a three-phase ritual process of
restoration in some groups underscores the radical dynamics implied in
statements like “everything is now permissible” or when Peter had a vision that
all food was now acceptable (266). Modern readers typically gloss over
pollution mandates, but deSilva shows how this would have meant a complete
break of traditional ways of living for first century readers!
I
found this text to be a quick and engaging read. It reminds us that we have
systematized our theology based on a few letters of advice and encouragement
written to real people two thousand years ago. Only once we understand their
world can we understood how it would have shaped their reading of the letters
and documents that became our New Testament. By attempting to understand the
original context of the New Testament, we can become more adept in living it
out (as disciples of Jesus) in our own.
DeSilva, D. A. (2000). Honor, patronage, kinship & purity: Unlocking New Testament culture. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment