Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Paul's Preaching of the Cross in a Shame-Sensitive Culture
70
THE MASTER’S SEMINARY NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL: PAUL’S PREACHING OF THE CROSS IN A SHAME-SENSITIVE CULTURE A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE MASTER’S SEMINARY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF DIVINITY BY MICHAEL SCOTT BASHOOR SUN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA MAY 1998
Transcript of Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Paul's Preaching of the Cross in a Shame-Sensitive Culture
THE MASTER’S SEMINARY
NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL:
PAUL’S PREACHING OF THE CROSS IN A SHAME-SENSITIVE CULTURE
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE MASTER’S SEMINARY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF DIVINITY
BY
MICHAEL SCOTT BASHOOR
SUN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
MAY 1998
Copyright 1998 by Michael Scott Bashoor
All rights reserved
To my parents who first taught me to love Christ’s cross
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation.
—Paul the Apostle, Romans 1:16
v
CONTENTS
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Précis of the Issue
Need for the Study
Cultural Anthropology and Hermeneutics
Helpful Insights but Problematic Models
Presuppositions and Parameters
Statement of the Thesis
2. THE CONCEPT OF SHAME IN THE BIBLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Shame in the Old Testament
Lexicography
Shaming Scenarios
Shame in the New Testament World
Shame in the Greco-Roman World
Shame in New Testament Literature
The Pitfall of Recent New Testament Shame Studies
3. PAUL’S GLORYING IN CHRIST’S SHAMEFUL CROSS. . . . . . . . 31
Romans 1:16
I Corinthians 1:17-31
4. PAUL’S GLORIFICATION OF THE SHAMED CHRIST . . . . . . . . 45
vi
I Corinthians 2:8
Philippians 2:5-11
5. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The closing lines of the American Declaration of Independence read, “And for the
support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we
mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” The last three
words, “our sacred Honor,” will likely stand out as an unusual item to the modern American
reader. Honor is not a high frequency word among Americans today. Modern westerners are
unlikely to really concern themselves with honor, not like their forebears did anyway. What
mature American today would seriously think of challenging someone to a duel?1 Such
societal interaction harks back to old world values, values which made individuals very much
concerned about defending or acquiring honor in the eyes of their peers.
In previous generations American fathers and brothers were concerned about
preserving the integrity of their daughters’ and sisters’ honor. For instance, men considered it
their responsibility to dispel rumors about alleged indiscretions of their female family
members. They might even fight to stop unwanted advances or unwarranted accusations
1The student of American history will recall that such contests were intended more to defend one’s
honor than to wound or kill an adversary. In fact, the killing of Alexander Hamilton by Aaron Burr after
Hamilton purposely missed demonstrated Burr’s lack of honor.
2
against their wives and daughters.2 Such is only one example of the old world values now
largely absent from American culture. American culture and most of the industrialized
western world have shed the values of honor and shame as mechanisms of social interaction.3
The opposite of societal honor is shame, another concept no longer an integral part of
modern western society. Most modern westerners think of shame in terms of guilt feelings,
or deep embarrassment and inferiority feelings. Those outside of the West, however, are
quite likely to conceive of an additional element of shame, a socio-cultural perception of
one’s standing in a group.4
Western evangelicals are particularly prone to think primarily of shame in one of two
ways, ethically or psychologically. In ethical terms, “shame” equals “guilt feelings.” This
thinking reflects a proper understanding of the biblical doctrine of sin. After all, the very first
instance of sin in the Bible references shame as one of its results.5 Sin makes the sinner
ashamed to face God.
2See Bruce J. Malina, “Dealing with Biblical (Mediterranean) Characters: A Guide for U.S.
Consumers,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 19 (1989): 130-31. He cites E. T. Hall who notes, “An American these
days will not normally consider the revenge of the brothers as a price for seeing a woman without her family’s
permission.” See Edward T. Hall, The Silent Language (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co.), 144-45; quoted
in Malina, “Biblical Characters,” 131. Cf., Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural
Anthropology, revised edition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 32.
3Leland J. White notes, “Americans, by way of comparison to Mediterraneans, may speak of honor at
times, but they do not give it the central role it plays in traditional Mediterranean life.” He comments further,
“In mainstream U. S. life, in fact, self-esteem is both more significant than public esteem and weakly linked to
public esteem. The U. S. individual who ignores what others think and charts his or her own course is
considered principled, conscientious.” Leland J. White, “Does the Bible Speak about Gays or Same-Sex
Orientation? A Test Case in Biblical Ethics: Part I,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 25 (Spring 1995): 17. See also
Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, “Introduction: Social Sciences and Biblical Studies,” Semeia: 68
(1994): 10-13; Larry G. Herr, “Retribution and Personal Honor,” Biblical Archeologist 44 (Summer 1981): 135;
Lyn M. Becthel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Condition in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social
Shaming,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49 (1991): 55; Malina, New Testament World, 30-31.
4This paragraph suggests at least three ranges of meaning for the English word “shame”: theological-
ethical, psychological-emotional, and cultural-sociological.
3
With the influx of psychology into evangelical thinking today, western evangelicals
along with their secular counterparts tend also to conceive of shame in psychological terms.6
This non-ethical sense of shame refers to vulnerability feelings or low self-esteem.
Those living outside modern western cultures are more likely to think of shame in
more socio-cultural terms.7 The honor and shame estimations of others determine one’s
ranking in society. Unlike the ethical and psychological nuances of shame, societal shame
does not necessarily gage a lack of ethical righteousness or emotional self-worth but a lack of
societal honor, a failure to meet cultural expectations and norms. Societal honor depends
upon the recognition of others, and this honor reflects itself in relational patterns. For
instance, an honorable man must be treated honorably. To mistreat him is to challenge his
claim to honor, to shame him, and to do that may instigate a contest of some sort wherein the
shamed man defends his honor. In the most extreme case between individuals, the match
turns into a duel! One’s honor is his reputation and his good name, and one must defend it at
all costs.8
The West’s disposal of honor and shame as mechanisms of social interaction colors
the way western evangelicals read their Bibles. The Bible is filled with references to honor
and shame, yet most evangelicals pass over these references without recognizing the cultural
5See Gen. 2-3, especially 2:25; 3:7, and 10.
6See Rodney Clapp, “Shame Crucified,” Christianity Today, 11 March 1991, 26-28.
7Shame does not threaten the common American is his everyday interactions as it does in other
cultures. Contrast this with Asian cultures in which “saving face” is an integral part of societal interaction.
8Malina notes that while Mediterranean personalities are greatly concerned about their honor-ratings,
modern Americans are much more concerned about their credit-ratings. He argues that western society is more
or less driven by economics while Mediterranean society is driven by familial relationships and societal honor.
See New Testament World, 30.
4
significance behind these terms. It is this socio-cultural understanding of shame which is
largely missing from many westerners’ understanding of shame in the Bible.
Précis of the Issue
The Pauline epistles repeatedly refer to a shame associated with Christ’s gospel.
These statements are more discernible when read with an understanding of the cultural
context of Paul’s shame-sensitive, honor-seeking society. In the society of his day, as well as
most Oriental societies throughout history, people were highly concerned about attaining and
preserving honor.9 Shameful things must be avoided lest one endanger one’s honor-rating.
The contents of Paul’s gospel message included shocking elements like the cross, an element
which in his day seemed absolutely ludicrous and shameful. Examining the cultural
significance of shame in the Bible and particularly Paul’s world reveals the cultural
significance behind such phrases as “I am not ashamed of the gospel.”10
Need for the Study
Evangelical scholars have largely overlooked the significance of shame as a
component of the world to which Paul preached the gospel. In fact, they have not really
approached the study of honor and shame in the Bible. Within the last three decades, an
abundance of literature concerning honor and shame in the Bible has appeared, but virtually
none of this material comes from distinctively conservative evangelical sources.11
9Herr comments that the industrialized West’s non-shame orientation is unique even in today’s world
community. Herr, 135.
10
Rom. 1:16.
5
Evangelical scholarship at large (or at least in print) remains either unaware or indifferent to
these recent studies.12
The available literature is both helpful and disturbing. It is helpful in its raising
evangelicals’ awareness of here-to-fore overlooked societal norms in the biblical world.
Such cultural observations are welcome since they facilitate grammatical-historical
interpretation. Regrettably, these studies are often disturbing in their unchecked uses of
cultural anthropological and psychological models.13
This paradox presents the conservative
11
Some of the more significant introductory works include Malina’s New Testament World; idem,
“Dealing with Biblical (Mediterranean) Characters;” Halvor Moxnes, “BTB Readers Guide: Honor and Shame,”
Biblical Theology Bulletin 23 (Winter 1993): 168-76; Matthews and Benjamin, “Introduction,” 7-21.
Three of the most prolific authors on the topic are Bruce Malina, Jerome Neyrey, and Halvor Moxnes.
Authors of this stripe have recently published several New Testament commentaries founded upon social-
science hermeneutics. See Jerome H Neyrey, ed. The World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody,
MS: Hendrickson, 1991); idem, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The
Anchor Bible, vol. 37 C, edited by William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (New York:
Doubleday, 1993); and Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic
Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).
12
With such an abundance of recent articles and books addressing the significance of honor and shame
in the Bible, the dearth of evangelical research and review articles on this topic is disappointing.
Most notably absent from the review sections of evangelical journals is any discussion of the seminal
work by Malina, The New Testament World. Since its first edition in 1981 (Atlanta: John Knox), this work has
elicited over ten reviews. One reviewer says, “no class in New Testament introduction should be offered without
it as a text.” See Graydon F. Snyder, review of The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology,
by Bruce J. Malina, The Chicago Theological Seminary Register 84 (Winter 1994): 36. Authors writing on the
subject of biblical shame repeatedly refer to Malina’s writings. Given the seminal nature of this work and its
high rate of reference, it clearly deserves an evangelical review.
The subtitle to this work, Insights from Cultural Anthropology, is something of a misnomer. This work
leads more to a total re-reading of the New Testament than to a provision of insights for interpretation. Malina
encourages Bible readers to view biblical texts through the “glasses” of cultural anthropology (25, 54). Such an
a priori hermeneutical approach is fundamentally flawed. Not surprisingly, the wearing of these glasses
sometimes leads Malina into notably bad exegesis. For instance, Malina grossly misinterprets Luke 17:12-19.
He approaches the text with the preconception that an honorable person does not thank an equal for services
rendered unless terminating further relations. He explains that the nine lepers did not return to thank Jesus since
they thought they “might need Jesus’ services again.” The last leper, a Samaritan, figures he will not have
further contact with Jesus because he believes he is permanently healed. Moreover, he is a Samaritan and is thus
unlikely to develop an on-going relationship with Jesus, a Jew (99; see also Malina and Rohrbaugh, 379). This
interpretation completely misses the significance of Jesus’ disappointment with the nine ungrateful lepers.
Moreover, Malina’s interpretation falls under its own weight. The lepers address him as “Lord” and do not
consider him their equal. See David A. deSilva, review of The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural
Anthropology, by Bruce J. Malina, Perspectives in Religious Studies 33 (Spring 1995): 81. See also page 19,
note 37 and page 26, note 64 in chapter two of this thesis for further comments on The New Testament World.
13
Typically, these studies are also historical-critical, not historical-grammatical.
6
scholar with a baby-with-the-bath-water scenario wherein he must discern and use the good
elements of this recent scholarship and discard the bad.
Cultural Anthropology and Hermeneutics
The study of honor and shame in the world of the Bible has largely grown out of the
recent integration of cultural anthropology and biblical hermeneutics.14
While cultural
anthropology is not the forte of most biblical scholars, those who have crossed over into that
discipline have uncovered significant cultural data about the biblical world.
The integration of cultural anthropology with hermeneutics raises key issues—most
importantly, whether or not the two should be integrated at all.15
This is a key issue
theological conservatives ought to tackle with scholarly research and writing. Concerns
about this integration immediately confront the evangelical researching the topic of shame in
the Bible.16
14
Earlier biblical scholars have at times brought attention to the significance of shame in the Bible.
One of the more notable discussions on the topic which precedes the full fledged advent of anthropological
hermeneutics is Johannes Pedersen, Israel: It’s Life and Culture, vol. 2, trans. by Aslaug Møller (London:
Oxford University Press, 1926), 213-44. Another study preceding anthropological shame studies is Howard C.
Kee’s “The Linguistic Background of ‘Shame’ in the New Testament,” in On Language, Culture, and Religion:
In Honor of Eugene A. Nida, edited by Matthew Black (The Hague: Mouton, 1974), 133-47. One contemporary
biblical scholar who writes about honor/shame values without any apparent indebtedness to current cultural-
anthropological-hermeneutical writings is Kenneth Bailey. See, for example, his discussion of Luke 11:5-13 in
Poet & Peasant, in Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant and Through Peasants Eyes: A Literary-Cultural
Approach to the Parables in Luke, combined ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 119-33 (especially 129-33).
15
Malina is pointedly clear that the integration of cultural anthropology with hermeneutics results in
much more than a mere informing of grammatical-historical interpretation. See New Testament World, xiii. He
calls the old school of traditional hermeneutics “a fundamentalism that is interested only in what the Bible
says—and not in what it means in terms of the social context in which it emerged.” He castigates this approach
since in his view “it implicitly denies the Incarnation” (184).
16
Matthews and Benjamin imply that a modern biblical anthropology cannot assume that the religion of
Israel is a “revealed religion”. They claim that this supernaturalist (i.e., conservative) presupposition has in the
past greatly hindered the study of biblical culture. See “Introduction,” 7-21. Their assertion may be partly
correct. The evangelical scholar must not ignore the similarities between Israelite and non-Israelite cultures.
7
The exegetical conclusions which integrational authors reach often have significant
ethical and theological ramifications. For instance, on the basis of an anthropological
understanding of homosexual prohibitions in the Bible, Leland White seeks to justify modern
homosexual love.17
On the basis of alleged ancient honor and shame codes, Bruce Malina
questions the Church’s age-old understandings of divorce and remarriage.18
For Malina and
others like him, such anthropological reorganization of Christian thought is good.19
Malina
contends that the more jarring the contrast becomes between one’s understanding of his own
world and that of biblical characters, the more likely one has reached a proper interpretation.
If the differences between their world and ours prove too great, the variance between
their moral judgments and ours too disturbing, the focus between their religious
concerns and ours too distant, the chances are good that our interpretation has a higher
probability of being more accurate.20
Such a hermeneutical approach so overly contextualizes the Scripture as to disarm the
Scripture’s continuing relevance and sufficiency.
However, a disregard for a revealed religion concept is disturbing and unacceptable for a conservative
evangelical.
17
White, 14-23. On the basis that the cultural landscape of the Bible is built upon honor, reproduction,
and holiness codes, White flatly denies that the Bible condemns modern gays, lesbians, and homosexuals. For
White the Bible provides only a history of ethics, not a source of contemporary ethics (14). White hints that
Jesus’ upheaval of his culture’s values prepared the way for the Christian acceptance of homosexual love (15).
18
New Testament World, 143-47. Malina comes short of denying the Catholic Church’s traditional view
of divorce and remarriage, a denial that might not bode well at Creighton University, the Jesuit school where he
teaches.
19
In fairness to Malina, he does not seem interested in justifying homosexuality in The New Testament
World. Nonetheless, he would agree with White that the Bible provides a history of doctrine and ethics instead
of propositional statements for modern theology and ethics. See Bruce J. Malina, “The Social Sciences and
Biblical Interpretation,” Interpretation 37 (July 1982): 242.
20
New Testament World, 25. Elsewhere, Malina lists modern irrelevance as one of the canons of
anthropological hermeneutics. “Social Sciences,” 241. See W. R. Stegner’s criticism about this approach of
Malina’s. William Richard Stegner, review of The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology,
by Bruce J. Malina, Anglican Theological Review 65 (January, 1983): 91.
8
Another criticism of the integration of anthropology and hermeneutics is the
uncertainty as to which models of anthropology to use. There are numerous schools of
thought today in the broader field of cultural anthropology.21
Even those sympathetic to the
integration of the two disciplines admit that biblical scholars often grossly oversimplify
anthropological issues and tend to use outdated anthropological models.22
Cultural
anthropology is a fluid discipline with constantly fluxing models, but traditional
hermeneutics is a more fixed discipline with well-established principles. 23
These disciplines
appear to be incompatible bedfellows.
Useful Insights but Problematic Models
The above criticisms of social-science hermeneutics do not require the conservative’s
utter abandonment of cultural anthropology. The discipline provides valuable insights and
raises awareness to previously ignored social features (such as honor and shame) in the world
of the Bible.24
The wholesale use of anthropological models, however, is highly problematic.
The careful Bible student should consider some of the social dynamics discussed in modern
anthropology, but these considerations cannot override the traditional hermeneutical process.
21
Malina’s own approach is a blending of over eight different models. He credits the works of Mary
Douglas, Donald Black, Paul Bohannan, Robert Merton, Marshall Sahlins, Talcott Parsons, Rene Thom, Hayden
White and nameless others. See Bruce J. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta; John
Knox Press, 1986), iii-v; idem, New Testament World, 23.
22
M. F. C. Bourdillon, review of The New Testament World, by Bruce J. Malina, The Heythrop Journal
27 (April 1986): 191; John K. Chance, “The Anthropology of Honor and Shame: Culture, Values, and Practice,”
Semeia 68 (1994): 141, 143.
23
Chance, 140-41.
24
So ignored have these values been that standard Bible lands and customs reference works do not
discuss the topic. A perusal of indices in such works revealed no entries for honor and shame.
9
David deSilva’s counsel is well worth heeding: works like Malina’s may be “suggestive,” but
they do not furnish “definitive” models of interpretation.25
Presuppositions and Parameters
This study of Paul’s preaching of the cross in a shame-sensitive culture shall attempt a
critical use of some anthropological insights while avoiding integrational hermeneutics.26
Certain theological presuppositions and parameters bind this paper. As the result of previous
training and current theological convictions, this student is:
Reformational—affirming classic Protestant doctrines of Scripture, sin, and
salvation
Evangelical—maintaining the fundamentals of orthodox doctrine and practice
against the detractions of modernistic biblical criticism
Non-integrational—preserving the integrity of theological studies by refusing
the unqualified use of social-science models in exegetical study.27
Due to the moderate size of this project and the limited training of this student, a full-
scale interaction with anthropological models is beyond the scope of this work. This study
shall limit itself to a grammatical-historical study of biblical texts pertaining to the perceived
shamefulness of the gospel in Paul’s world.28
25
deSilva, “Review,” 80. One of the few evangelical resources to utilize a balanced approach is Philip
J. Nel, “vwb,” in The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, edited by Willem A.
VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), s.v. Nel rejects the wholesale use of anthropological models
but nonetheless finds helpful material in anthropological literature.
26
For a fully integrational study related to the topic of this thesis, see Gregory M. Corrigan’s “Paul’s
Shame for the Gospel,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 16 (January 1986): 22-27. Corrigan provides some helpful
insights on the topic, but like Malina’s and other integrational scholars’ works, his a priori commitment to
anthropological models warps his exegesis at times.
27
Viewing passages through reconstructed social grids is dangerous since it can distort the clear
propositional meaning of texts. Contrariwise, studying passages with an awareness of possible socio-cultural
dynamics informs grammatical-historical interpretation without overriding the hermeneutical process. Malina
countenances criticisms of his model-guided hermeneutics and puts up a sophisticated defense in “Social
Sciences,” 237-42. Many of Malina’s responses will not satisfy the conservative evangelical.
The listing above of doctrinal points is, or course, not a complete summarization of this student’s
beliefs. These beliefs are delineated here as an explanation for the modus operendi of this study.
10
Statement of the Thesis
Paul preached the gospel of Christ in a Greco-Roman-Judaean setting wherein shame
and honor were pivotal societal values. His gospel contained elements like the cross which
were considered too shameful for respectable people to mention or even imagine. To Paul’s
shame-sensitive, honor-seeking audiences, his preaching about the divine glories of a
shamefully executed criminal was utterly shocking. This scandalous message contradicted
common expectations about how God should manifest Himself to the world. To suggest that
God, the ultimate Being possessing ultimate glory, would so utterly debase Himself on a
cross was to the ancient mind utter and ultimate folly. It was within this culture wherein
people struggled for honor that Paul shamelessly preached that Jesus, a shamefully crucified
fellow, was in actuality the very Lord of glory, the Son of God worthy of all honor. To
establish the context for studying Paul’s preaching of the gospel in a shame-sensitive culture,
a study of the concept of shame in the Bible follows.
28
By necessity scholarly interaction is limited to English sources though this study does utilize original
language biblical texts. The Greek New Testament, edited by Kurt Aland, et al., 3rd
corrected edition (Stuttgart:
United Bible Societies, 1983); Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977). Unless otherwise indicated the English Bible translation cited in this project
is the New American Standard Bible, The Lockman Foundation (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1977).
11
CHAPTER 2
THE CONCEPT OF SHAME IN THE BIBLE
The world of the Bible, like much of the Orient today, was very much interested in
honor and shame. Honor and shame could in fact be called pivotal values in that world.
Modern western societies, particularly in North America, have largely disposed of honor and
shame as mechanisms of social interaction. Thus, westerners typically overlook these social
features in their reading of the Bible.1 Both the Old and New Testaments contain a
surprisingly large number of direct and indirect references to honor and shame. This chapter
surveys the landscape of the biblical world to note the cultural significance of honor and
shame in both testaments. Since the focus of this thesis is upon shame, it shall receive
greater emphasis in the study below.
1 Biblical scholars alert to this social value repeatedly point out this blind-spot in much traditional
exegesis. Bechtel repeatedly complains about this scholarly oversight. Lyn M. Bechtel, “The Perception of
Shame within the Divine-Human Relationship in Biblical Israel,” in Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in
Memory of H. Neil Richardson, edited by Lewis M. Hopfe (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 79; idem,
“Shame as a Sanction of Social Condition in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming,” Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament 49 (1991): 47-48, 52, 55, 56. Bechtel notes, “Most people [in Israel]
developed a sensitivity to shaming which far exceeds that common to most of modern western society” (55).
Matthews and Benjamin complain, “The world of the Bible has been repeatedly reconstructed as if it were a
European or an industrial world driven by capitalism and individualism. All too often the world of the Bible and
the values and behavior of its people were portrayed as if they were modern Americans or Europeans.” Victor
H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, “Introduction: Social Sciences and Biblical Studies,” Semeia: 68 (1994):
13. Singgih fusses the loudest in his comment on Cain’s face falling (or “losing face” as he sees it) in Genesis 4,
“Look at the commentaries written in the West! Are they paying enough attention to the significance of this
phrase?” E. G. Singgih, “Let Me Not be Put to Shame: Towards an Indonesian Hermeneutics [sic],” The Asia
Journal of Theology 9 (April 1995): 80. Cf. Johannes Pedersen, Israel: It’s Life and Culture, vol. 2, trans. by
Aslaug Møller (London: Oxford University Press, 1926), 227.
12
Shame in the Old Testament
The Old Testament contains a substantial number of examples, words, and
expressions for shame. Shame is no small part of the Old Testament. This study examines
key lexemes denoting shame and select examples of shame and shaming in the Old
Testament.
Lexicography
Charles Muenchow counts 277 occurrences of the four key shame terms vob, <lk,
rpj, and hlq.2 The lexicography of shame below includes a study of these synonyms, the
contrast between words for guilt and shame, and the antonyms for shame.
voB and Its Synonyms
By far the most common Old Testament term for shame is voB with its derivatives.
Muenchow counts 167 Old Testament occurrences of the word.3 With so many occurrences,
voB is clearly a significant term. While scarce in the historical books, the word occurs quite
frequently in the Psalms, Proverbs, and Prophets (particularly Isaiah and Jeremiah).4 Horst
Seebass states that this term “expresses the idea that someone, a person, a city, a people, a
2Charles Muenchow, “Dust and Dirt in Job 42:6,” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 603, n.
27. Bechtel urges that there are other terms such as hllq (“to esteem lightly”), Ekm (“to be low, humiliated”),
and lbn (“fool”) which belong to in the vocabulary of shame. Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction,” 54.
3Muenchow, 603, n. 27. Oswalt’s count is different, however. He counts 155 instances of the term and
its derivatives. John N. Oswalt, “voB,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris,
Gleason Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 97.
4Horst Seebass, “voB,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. Johannes
Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, translated by John T. Willis, vol. 2, revised edition (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1975), 52; Philip J. Nel, “vwb,” in The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology &
Exegesis, vol. 1, edited by Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 622.
13
professional organization, or the like, underwent an experience in which his (or its) former
respected position and importance were overthrown.”5 In other words voB denotes the
objective loss of status. Philip Nel notes that voB often connotes a subjective experience of
embarrassment and inferiority which comes with this loss of status and recognition.6
Moreover, among the Israelites voB often carried ethical-religious connotations. For instance,
when they experienced divine judgment, they felt shamed by God.7
Synonyms for voB include rpj (“to be ashamed”), mlK (“to be humiliated”), hlq (“to
be lightly esteemed”), [rj (“to reproach, verbally shame”), Ekm (“to be low, humiliated”),
and lbn (a noun expressing folly and disgrace). These terms and other less frequent ones
regularly appear in parallel construction with voB and its derivatives.8 Texts using voB and
these synonyms will be sampled below.
Shame and Guilt
A mistake among western readers of the Bible is always to associate shame with
guilt.9 The two ideas overlap, but they are not co-terminal.
10 In fact, Old Testament shame
5Seebass, 52.
6Nel objects to Seebass’ narrow exclusion of the subjective element from voB. Nel, 622. Nel’s helpful
discussion categorizes five uses of voB: subjective, objective, religious, metaphorical, and antithetical.
7So Isa. 1:29, 19:9, 29:22, 45:17; Jer. 17:18, 20:11; Zeph. 3:11. For the psalmists divine separation is
an act of God’s shaming them; see 2:5[6]; 25:3, 20; 31:1[2], 17[18]; 71:1; 109:28. Nel, 624-25.
8Seebass, 52; Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction,” 54; Nel, 625.
9Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel: 1250-587 BCE (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1993): 143-44. For an interesting discussion of how the confusion of shame and guilt can
harm pastoral counseling in shame-oriented cultures, see Singgih, 71-84.
10
Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction,” 47; Nancy R. Bowen, “Damage and Healing: Shame and Honor in
the Old Testament,” Koinonia 3 (Spring 1991): 29.
14
words do not necessarily connote guilt.11
The key lexemes for guilt—mva, uvr, and /ou—
have no lexical connection with words denoting shame.12
Lyn Bechtel distinguishes shame
and guilt this way: “the main difference between shame and guilt lies in the kind of
internalized norm that is violated and the expected consequences.”13
Shame concerns the
sense of failure or inadequacy because one has fallen short of accepted norms/goals/ideals,
while guilt is the transgression of internalized prohibitions and boundaries.14
Shame depends
on external evaluations and pressure and reinforces guilt feelings, while guilt “relies
predominantly on internal pressure from the conscience and is reinforced by the external
pressure from the society.”15
Guilt results in the fear of punishment while shame results in
the fear of status loss.16
Bechtel notes that shame was “slightly more important, than guilt as
11
Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction,” 54. Perhaps the clearest instance of a non-ethical use of shame
terminology is the prophecy of Isa. 24:23— “Then the moon will be abashed (rpj) and the sun ashamed (voB),
For the Lord of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, And [His] glory will be before His elders.”
See Nel, 625.
12
Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction,” 55. He qualifies this distinction. “The difference between shame
and guilt is subtle, but important. Yet despite the subtle differences shame and guilt are often interrelated—they
can overlap, one can lead to the other, one can conceal the other, and both can be a reaction to the same
stimulus” (53-54).
13
Ibid., 48-49. Here Bechtel follows psychoanalyst Gerhart Piers’s study of shame. Bechtel’s study on
shame and guilt is integrational, incorporating both standard psychoanalytical and cultural anthropological
theories (48). Bechtel’s distinctions seem sound, but the non-integrationalist may wish to take them with a
proverbial grain of salt.
14
Ibid., 49, 53.
15
Ibid., 51.
16
Ibid., 53. In this rubric shame is primarily a social term while guilt is primarily an ethical term.
Theologically speaking, one can experience societal shame before God because He is the most significant Other
in one’s social world. One’s shame before God is always admixed with guilt. As documented on page 13, note
7 above, the Israelites reckoned themselves shamed by God when they experienced fearful judgments. See also
pages 23-24 for the discussion of ethical shame in the New Testament.
15
a means of social control” in ancient Israel.17
Nonetheless, the Torah was intended to
produce more guilt than shame for offenses.18
Antonyms of Shame
In the biblical world, the flip side of shame is honor. The key Old Testament
antonym for shame is dbK which most frequently designates glorification.19
DobK, the noun
form, literally means “heavy.” Bowen explains, “Honor increases or fills the self making it
‘heavy’” while “[s]hame decreases or empties it, making it lowly.”20
Other honor words
include the nouns trapT, doh, and rdh.21
Words for “praise” also serve as antonyms for
shame.22
Note particularly Zeph. 3:19—“And I will turn their shame into praise and renown
in all the earth.” The high rate of reference to shame and honor words in the Old Testament
(hundreds of occurrences) clearly demonstrates that these were significant Old Testament
world values.
Shaming Scenarios
Space will permit only a small sampling of the numerous instances of shaming and
shame in the Old Testament. Genesis 2:25 provides the first instance of shame in the Bible—
“And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” The lack of objective
17
Ibid., 48.
18
Ibid., 53.
19
Ibid., 54; Bowen, 30.
20
Bowen, 30. She follows the observations of Pedersen, 213, 235.
21
Pedersen, 237. Cf. Prov. 20:29—“The glory (trapT) of young men is their strength, and the glory
(rdh) of old men their gray hair.
16
reproach and subjective shame feelings experienced by the Edenic pair struck the ancient
reader. To be naked before one’s peers normally symbolized a loss of control to others or
circumstances. This dishonorable state contributed to feelings of deep humiliation and
embarrassment.23
Note the shame experienced by David’s ambassadors sent to Hunan the
Ammonite.24
Hunan suspected them of espionage and shamed them by sending them away
half naked and half shaved. Bechtel elaborates on this shaming:
It was particularly inappropriate for the dignified representatives of the king
and nation to be naked from the waist down, walking through the city streets
before the people of Ammon. The ambassadors “should” have been clad in
flowing garments of respect, but now unexpectantly they had their sexual parts
publicly exposed. And they looked foolish—they were elegantly dressed from
the hips up and naked from the hips down, with one side of their beards
shaven off. It was inappropriate to treat men of honor and status in such a
shameful manner.25
Bechtel categorizes this event as an example of political-warfare shaming. He identifies two
other varieties of shaming: formal judicial shaming and informal social shaming.26
Judicial shaming practices appear repeatedly in Deuteronomy. One of the clearest
examples is in 25:5-10, the law of levirate marriage. If a brother refused to marry his
brother’s widow in order to perpetuate the family name, the widow was to publicly shame the
brother. She was to spit in his face and remove his sandal from his foot. The stigma of this
22
Bowen, 32; Pedersen, 235.
23
Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction,” 63-64. Forced march of captives in the nude was a favorite shaming
technique of conquering armies. See James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old
Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954), 124.
24
II Sam. 10:1-5.
25
Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction,” 68-69. David’s sending of these men to Jericho to wait for their
beards’ re-growth was as much a protection of his own honor as his ambassadors’. Their returning in disgrace to
Jerusalem would have disgraced David as well (70).
26
Ibid., 55-56.
17
shame remained with the brother till death.27
Another clear example of Deuteronomic
judicial shaming is in 25:1-3. Public whippings could not exceed forty strokes lest the person
become overly shamed (hlq). The corporal punishment involved public humiliation, but
neither was to be excessive.28
The most common examples of informal social shaming appear in the Psalms. The
Psalmists were frequently concerned about not being shamed before their enemies who
themselves ought to be ashamed. Psalm 25:1-3 presents a prayer of David for protection
against shame.
To Thee, O Lord, I lift up my soul. O my God, in Thee I trust, Do not let me
be ashamed; Do not let my enemies exult over me. Indeed, none of those who
wait for Thee will be ashamed; Those who deal treacherously without cause
will be ashamed.29
Bechtel explains, “Aside from the external enemies of the nation, there seemed to be a group
of less pious (or possibly impious) people in the community who shamed the orthodox
because of their trusting relationship with YHWH.”30
Psalm 15 prohibits the righteous man from responding to the wicked’s taunts and
reproaches in like manner. For protection from such informal social shaming, the believer
27
Ibid., 57-59. The significance of sandal removal remains uncertain despite the efforts of Bechtel and
others to associate it with phallic symbolism and sexual rejection. Such a postulation seems more Freudian than
Mosaic.
28
Ibid., 61-62. Bechtel explains further, “excessive beating beyond what was appropriate for the crime
stripped people of their dignity and self-esteem and left them thoroughly shamed and degraded in the eyes of
others. In a group-oriented society, preserving the basic dignity and status of an individual was essential for the
basic dignity and status of the group.”
29
Cf. Pss. 4, 22, 25, 31, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 55, 57, 69, 70, 71, 74, 79, 80, 89, 102, 109, 119, and
123.
30
Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction,” 71.
18
must trust YHWH for vindication and revenge.31
The Israelite believed that his covenant
relationship with YHWH would insulate him from shame.32
Psalm 119 is rich with such
shame language.33
Apparently, there were differing moral and theological opinions in Israel
at the time. The opponents wished to shame the Psalmist to change his behavior or beliefs to
be like their own. Against these attacks the Psalmist rested in God.34
This Psalmic attitude
toward informal social shame is continued by Jesus in the New Testament. He urged those
associated with Him not to be ashamed of Him or His teachings. He promised to one day
return and shame the wicked who opposed Him and his people.35
Shame in the New Testament World
The New Testament world was very much concerned with shame and honor. Not
only do Old Testament Israelite attitudes about shame appear in the New Testament but also
those of the larger Greco-Roman world.36
This is not surprising when one considers that the
whole Mediterranean world, including Israel, was very preoccupied with honor and shame.37
31
Ibid. Cf. Ps. 35:4, 26.
32
Bechtel argues that while protection from shame is never expressly mentioned in the Torah as a
benefit of the covenant, the concept expresses itself in passages where Israelites complain of God’s shaming
them through His perceived breaking of covenant (Ps. 89:39-42, 45-47, 50-52) and where Israelites cry to God
for vindication from shame on the basis of their covenant obedience. See Bechtel, “The Perception of Shame,”
82-87.
33
Bechtel, “Perception of Shame,” 85. See verses 6, 22, 31, 38-39, 41, 42, 46, 77-80, and 116.
34
Ibid.
35
Nel, 625. See Matt. 10:33; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 12:9.
36
Moxnes studies how this incorporation of Hebrew and Greco-Roman evaluations of shame emerges in
Romans. See Halvor Moxnes, “Honor, Shame, and the Outside World in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in The
Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism, edited by Jacob Nuesner, et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress
19
Shame in the Greco-Roman World
The literature of the Greco-Roman secular world evidences a high level of interest in
honor and shame. Of particular interest are those ancient authors who commented on the
significance of honor and shame in the ancient social strata. These sources suggest that the
ancient Mediterranean was a highly shame-sensitive, honor-hungry world.38
Cultural Critiques from the Past
In Greco-Roman literature, concern for honor and shame stretched back to Homer’s
era where “the chief good . . . [was] to be well spoken of, the chief ill to be badly spoken of,
by one’s society.”39
Aristotle taught that normally, people ought not to disregard shame from
Press, 1988), 207-18; and idem, “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 32 (February 1988): 61-77. Moxnes flags a large number of honor/shame terminology in Romans: 46
combined occurrences of timhv, dovxa, doxavzw, e*painevw, kauvchsi, kaucavomai, a*schmosuvnh, a*timiva,
a*timavzw, e*paiscuvnomai, and kataiscuvnw (“Honor, Shame, and the Outside World,” 210, 217 n. 15; “Honour
and Righteousness,” 63, 77 n. 15). He argues that many of these terms are used either socially (following
Greco-Roman values) or ethically (following Jewish religious values). Thus, Rom. 13 instructs Christians not to
be governmental revolutionaries but to accept the social strata by showing honor to whom honor is due. The
Greco-Roman world considered the gospel that Christians preached to be shameful (1:16), but the Church need
not feel the shame. God has declared the world to be shameful because of its “shameful acts” (1:27). Here in
1:27 the ethical notion of shame emerges. See 6:19-22 where ethical shame contrasts not with honor but with
righteousness (“Honor, Shame, and the Outside World,” 210-16). Moxnes’ observations are quite insightful but
unfortunately couched in liberal dispositions. For instance, he denies both that chapter 13 is propositional truth
for today (210) and that chapter 1 impacts ethics about modern homosexual love (“Honour and Righteousness,”
66-67).
37
Chance warns against anthropologists’ and particularly biblical scholars’ tendency for “lumping all
parts of the Mediterranean together in one large honor and shame complex.” He quotes anthropologist Michael
Hertzfeld: “Massive generalizations of ‘honour’ and ‘shame’ have become counterproductive.” John K. Chance,
“The Anthropology of Honor and Shame: Culture, Values, and Practice,” Semeia 68 (1994): 141.
Domeris points out that much of Malina’s social reconstruction of 1st century Judaea is based upon the
recently studied social dynamics of a Christian village in Andalusia, Spain—twentieth century Spain no less!
Domeris rightly criticizes Malina for forming elaborate interpretive models upon this basis of a supposed “Pan-
Mediterranean mentality.” See W R [sic] Domeris, “Honor and Shame in the New Testament,” Neotestamentica
27 (1993): 292.
38
For a number of ancient citations, see David deSilva, “Despising Shame: A Cultural-Anthropological
Investigation of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal of Biblical Literature 113 (Fall 1994): 440-48.
20
their peers. Only a “shameless” person would do so.40
Cicero asserted certain employments
to be honorable (e.g. land owning) but others to be dishonorable (e.g. food vending), and thus
he partly defined honor in terms of one’s occupation.41
This concern for societal honor
became so pervasive in Greco-Roman society that Dio Chrysostom urged the abandonment of
these cultural values. He tired of sitting in the court of public opinion where there was no
“regard for either witnesses or evidence.”42
David deSilva summarizes, “For Dio, despising
the opinion of others was the only way to maintain peace of mind in the honor-seeking and
honor-challenging frenzy of Greek society.”43
The Cynics and Stoics also objected to the honor ratings of their day. They
established their own peer groups and dismissed the opinions of the non-philosophical world,
a world of intellectual children who posed no threat to the honor of the wise.44
The Stoics
rejected honor/shame norms more so than the Cynics. Seneca stated this rejection most
forcefully: the philosopher “sets no value . . . on the honours they [the populace] have, he sets
no value on the lack of honour they show.”45
The Shame of the Cross
39
Adkins quoted in deSilva, “Despising Shame,” 440.
40
Ibid., 441.
41
Time-Life Books, What Life Was Like When Rome Ruled the World: The Roman Empire 100 BC -
AD 200 (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1997), 89-97.
42
Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, 66:17-18; deSilva, “Despising Shame,” 442.
43
deSilva, “Despising Shame,” 442.
44
Ibid., 442-43.
45
Seneca, De Constantia Saprientis, 13:2; deSilva, “Despising Shame,” 443.
21
The Stoics might have circumvented most attitudes about social honor and shame, but
no one in the ancient world would likely view a crucifixion stoically. Crucifixion carried an
incredible stigma. Not only was this form of execution extremely torturous, it was utterly
disgraceful and shameful.46
Humiliation added to injury in the worst way. Jerome Neyrey,
following Martin Hengel’s classic study on ancient crucifixion, enumerates a number of the
successively humiliating features of crucifixion, “a process, which at every step entailed
progressive humiliation of the victim and loss of honor”:
1. Crucifixion was considered the appropriate punishment for slaves.
2. Public trials . . . served as status degradation rituals, which labeled the
accused as a shameful person.
3. Flogging and torture, especially the blinding of the eyes and the shedding
of blood, generally accompanied the sentence . . . [and] the victims were
nude; often they befouled themselves with urine and excrement.
4. The condemned were forced to carry the cross beam.
5. The victim’s property, normally clothing, was confiscated; hence they
were further shamed by being denuded.
6. The victim lost power and thus honor through the pinioning of hands and
arms, especially the mutilation of being nailed to the cross.
7. Executions served as crude forms of public entertainment, where the
crowds ridiculed and mocked the victims who were sometimes affixed to
crosses in an odd and whimsical manner, including impalement.
8. Death by crucifixion was often slow and protracted. The powerless victim
suffered bodily distortions, loss of bodily control, and the enlargement of
the penis. Ultimately they were deprived of life and thus the possibility of
gaining satisfaction or vengeance.
9. In many cases, victims were denied honorable burial; corpses were left on
display and devoured by carrion birds and scavenger animals.47
46
So distasteful was the topic of crucifixion that Hengel notes, “We have very few . . . detailed
descriptions, and they come only from Roman times: the passion narratives in the gospels are in fact the most
detailed of all. No ancient author wanted to dwell too long on this cruel procedure.” Martin Hengel,
Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 25.
Crucifixion victims were sometimes killed before being placed on the cross. This action clearly reveals the
shaming function of crucifixion. Roman parlance referred to the cross as “the tree of shame.” See Rodney
Clapp, “Shame Crucified,” Christianity Today, 11 March 1991, 28; Hengel, 24. The formula for execution was,
“Lictor, go bind his hands, veil his head, hang him on the tree of shame!” Hengel, 43-44.
47
Jerome H. Neyrey, “Despising the Shame of the Cross: Honor and Shame in the Johannine Passion
Narrative,” Semeia 68 (1994): 113-14. The listing above is a condensation of Neyrey’s helpful survey of
Hengel’s discussion. The ancient references and Latin phrases in Neyrey are omitted here. See Hengel, 22-32.
22
So despicable and degrading was this form of execution that Cicero argued that an honorable
Roman would do well to never even mention the word “cross.”
How grievous a thing it is to be disgraced by a public court; how grievous to
suffer a fine, how grievous to suffer banishment; and yet in the midst of any
such disaster we retain some degree of liberty. Even if we are threatened to
death, we may die free men. But the executioner, the veiling of the head and
the very word “cross” should be far removed not only from the person of a
Roman citizen but his thoughts, his eyes and his ears. For it is not only the
actual occurrence of these things but the very mention of them, that is
unworthy of a Roman citizen and a free man.48
It was this great stigma of the cross which made the gospel of Christ so scandalous to
the ancient world. The New Testament addresses this scandal most pointedly in Paul’s
writings, some of which shall be examined in the next chapter.
Shame in New Testament Literature
The cross is not the only focal point of shame in the New Testament. A number of
different words and contexts for shame appear therein.
Ai*scuvnw and Its Synonyms
Ai*scuvnw. By far the most common word for shame in the New Testament is ai*scuvnw
and its derivatives. This word group serves as the primary translation of voB in the
Septuagint.49
The root ai*sc “refers originally to that which is ugly and disgraceful.” It
48
Cicero, Pro Rabirio, 16. Cicero was defending a Roman citizen facing crucifixion. This document
should not be confused with Pro C. Rabirio Postumo, another defense for a relative of Rabirio. See Gerald G.
O’Collins, “Crucifixion,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, vol. 1 (New York:
Doubleday, 1992), 1208. Italics in the quote above added by O’Collins. See also Hengel, 42.
49
Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions
of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897), 36; Hans-
Georg Link and Erich Tiedtke, “ai*dw,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology,
edited by Colin Brown, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 562.
23
originally denoted disfiguration.50
Terms with the ai*sc root appear 48 times in the New
Testament.51
Like voB in the Old Testament, ai*scuvnw has objective and subjective, social
and ethical ranges of meaning. Like voB, ai*scuvnw may convey both objective and subjective
aspects of shame in a single occurrence, but one aspect will be dominant. A clear example of
social shame appears in Jesus’ teaching about taking the lowest seat at banquets (Lk. 14:9).
One should not presume to take the seat of honor, for he might find himself moved to make
room for another: “and then in disgrace you proceed to take the last seat.”52
Another instance
of social shame emerges in Lk. 16:3 where the steward released from his employer ponders
what he shall do for a living: “I am not strong enough to dig; I am ashamed to beg.”
Ethical uses of ai*scuvnw words emerge quite often in the New Testament. For
instance, Paul distances himself from the unethical practices of contemporary religious
hucksters: “We have renounced secret and shameful acts” (II Cor. 4:2).53
Jude 13 speaks of
false teachers who are “wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam.” One
should not view these ethical uses as totally devoid of social significance. In ethical contexts
50
Link, 562.
51
John R. Kohlenberger III, Edward W. Goodrick, and James A. Swanson, The Greek English
Concordance to the New Testament with the New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 21,
51, 287, 415. This count includes ai*scrokerdhv (“pursuing dishonest gain”), ai*scrokerdw` (“greedy for
money”) ai*scrologiva (“filthy language”) ai*scrov (“disgrace, disgraceful”), ai*scrovth (“obscenity”),
ai*scunvh (“shame, shameful”), ai*scuvnw (“ashamed”), a*nepaivscunto (“does not need to be ashamed”)
e*paiscuvnw (“ashamed”), and kataiscuvnw (“put to shame, embarrass, ashamed of”). With so many
occurrences, it is unfortunate that Rudolph Bultmann so quickly glosses over the whole word group. Rudolph
Bultmann, “ai*scuvnw,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, translated by
Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), s.v..
52
Domeris notes, “By that stage all the other seats are taken, so that he/she is forced to take the lowest
seat, and is shamed in the process.” Domeris, 284.
53
Holy Bible, New International Version, International Bible Society (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1984).
24
the significant other who makes honor and shame judgments is God Himself. The moral
universe of which God is the head becomes the society wherein honor and shame codes are
properly fixed. “Since God is the ultimate source of honor, God is the ‘significant other’ who
can grant or withhold honor and praise.”54
Synonyms of Ai*scuvnw. Next to ai*scuvnw, the a*timavw word group is the next most
common designation for shame.55
Its cognates appear 18 times in the New Testament. The
term denotes the refusal of honor as in Matthew 13:57—“a prophet is not without honor
except in his home town, and in his own household.” Usually a*timavw words translate more
forcefully as “dishonor,” “disgrace,” or “shame.”56
Another synonym of some frequency is e*ntrevpw. The difference between ai*scuvnw
and e*ntrevpw words seems to be that the latter tend to emphasize the subjective
embarrassment of shame more than the objective state of shame.57
This is pointedly clear in
II Thess. 3:14, “And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of
that man, and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame.”58
At times the
word has a converse meaning of showing respect as in Matt. 21:37, “But afterward he sent
54
Moxnes, “Honor, Shame, and the Outside World,” 216. See also 212-14.
55
Louw and Nida designate several other word groups as part of the “Shame, Disgrace, Humiliation”
semantic range. Oddly, they completely overlook the a*timavw word group in their discussion. Johannes P.
Louw and Eugene A. Nida, editors, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains,
vol. 1, Introduction and Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 310-11.
56
Kohlenberger, 97. These glosses are from the NIV.
57
Louw and Nida, 310, n. 14.
58
The NIV conveys this subjective sense—“in order that he may feel ashamed.”
25
his son to them saying, ‘They will respect my son.’” *Entrevpw words appear 11 times in the
New Testament.59
Less common words for shame include tapeinovw (“to be humiliated,” II Cor. 12:21),
deigmativzw (“to cause public disgrace,” Matt. 1:19, Heb. 6:6), qeatrivzw (“to publicly
exhibit for the sake of ridicule,” Heb. 10:33), and a*schmosuvnh (“shameful condition,” Rev.
16:15).60
Antonyms of Shame
The most common antonyms for shame in the New Testament appear in the doxavzw
word group. The noun dovxa appears 166 times in the New Testament while the verb doxavzw
appears 61 times.61
The word basically means “to grant honor.” The antonymity of this word
with the concept of shame is best seen in passages like Phil. 3:18-19—“enemies of the cross
of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory (dovxa) is in
their shame (ai*scuvnh).” Another antonym, timhv/timavw/tivmio appears 75 times.62
The
kauvchma word group also lies on the other side of shame terminology. These words for
boasting appear 64 times in the New Testament.63
A Wider Semantic Domain?
59
Kohlenberger, 277-78.
60
Louw and Nida, 310-11. They include the enigmatic phrase swreuvw a#nqraka puroV e*piV thVn
kefalhvn (“you will heap coals of fire on the head”) which they translate, “you will make him ashamed.”
61
Kohlenberger, 171-72.
62
Ibid., 724-25. For an excellent study of the timavw word group, see Johannes Schneider, “timhv,
timavw,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Friedrich, translated by Geoffrey
W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), s.v..
63
Ibid., 424. See 187, and 416 for these terms in composition.
26
When considered together the frequency of shame and honor term occurrences
becomes quite striking. There is an abundance of references to honor and shame in the New
Testament. Authors like Bruce Malina, however, do not believe the list of lexemes above are
exhaustive. Malina contends that shame and honor concepts find root in a wide range of
words. He includes in the semantic domain the following English words and concepts:
honor: equivalents include glory, blamelessness, repute, fame, and verbs such
as to honor, glorify, spread the fame;
shame: disgrace, dishonor, and the verbs to shame, be ashamed, feel ashamed;
dishonor: scorn, despise, revile, reproach, rebuke, insult, blaspheme, deride,
mock, and actions such as striking the head, spitting upon, et cetera;
intention to challenge: test, entrap, entangle, questions that are obviously
mocking;
perceptions of being challenged or shamed: vengeance, wrath, anger,
transgression, offense, sin, wrong with a person as object.64
To this list might also be added words for “foolishness” and “fools.” As in the Old
Testament, words for folly and shame often parallel one another.65
Note particularly the
ironic statement of I Cor. 1:27—“God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the
wise.” If all these terms are allowed into the discussion of honor and shame, the prevalence
and pivotal nature of these values in the New Testament world becomes apparent. Certainly
the relationship of these lexemes with words which literally denote honor/shame ideas is
more loose. In some New Testament passages, though, the connection is undeniable.
Picking up on this vast vocabulary, critical biblical scholars have recently produced a
significant number of integrational articles on the topic.66
64
Adapted from Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology,
revised edition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 59. Regrettably, Malina does not include the
Greek underlying these terms. The lack of technical notes and citations is a weakness throughout the book.
65
Malina aptly notes that a fool is (among other things) someone whose claim to honor is ridiculous and
scoffed at out of hand. Ibid., 33. Also, “The fool is one who takes a shameless person seriously” (39, 51).
27
The Pitfall of Recent New Testament Shame Studies
Overkill might adequately summarize much of the literature on New Testament
shame. Like Malina’s seminal work The New Testament World, many of these studies argue
for a thorough re-reading of the New Testament. For instance, Malina and Richard
Rohrbaugh have written the Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, a work
which significantly alters (and distorts in places) standard gospel interpretations.67
On the
interpretation of Romans, Halvor Moxnes argues that the epistle is not primarily about how
God justifies individuals but about what place the Church is to carve out for itself in its
hostile, shame-sensitive world.68
David deSilva argues that the book of Hebrews has a
similar concern for the Church’s position and self-awareness.69
So anxious is K. C. Hanson
to see honor and shame dynamics in the first gospel that he argues that the beatitudes and
woes in Matthews ought to be translated as “how honorable!” and “how shameful!” instead
of “blessed” and “woe.”70
Neyrey argues that John constructed his passion narrative to prove
66
As mentioned above, most of the studies on shame in the testaments have appeared in the last thirty
years.
67
Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).
68
Moxnes, “Honor, Shame, and the Outside World,” 207-09. Malina states that Augustine and Luther
were wrong in their reading of Romans (particularly chapter 7) as a book about personal righteousness. See
Malina, New Testament World, 65.
69
David A. deSilva, “Despising the Shame,” 439-61. In his estimation, Hebrews demonstrates
Christianity to be honorable not by Greco-Roman standards (like the book of Romans) but by Jewish standards.
He contends that Jesus refused the shame status incumbent upon his cross death (Heb. 12:2). He served as an
example to the Church to dismiss the shame that the world, particularly the Hebrew world, pronounced against
it. His approach finds support in the Church Fathers (447). The NRSV follows this line of thought in its
translation of 12:2, “disregarding the shame.” New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Division of Christian
Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson:
1989). Some of deSilva’s observations are helpful, but they do not warrant a dramatic re-reading of Hebrews.
28
that Jesus was an honorable man despite his shameful crucifixion.71
Neyrey also reworks the
interpretations of II Peter and Jude with anthropological models, and with Malina he suggests
a thoroughgoing re-evaluation of Luke and Acts.72
The number of volumes of this new literature keeps increasing. Each of these works
serves the biblical interpreter in bringing awareness to the significant roles that shame and
honor played in the New Testament world. However, each of the works to varying degrees
greatly overplays the role of these values.73
John Chance notices this overplay and astutely
notes, “there is more to Mediterranean culture than honor and shame.”74
The prevalence of honor/shame terminology does not warrant a complete re-reading
of the New Testament. Nonetheless, an awareness of these social dynamics is helpful for
developing a clearer picture of the New Testament and its world. It is with this heightened
70
K. C. Hanson, “‘How Honorable! How Shameful!’ A Cultural Analysis of Matthew’s Makarisms and
Reproaches,” Semeia 68 (1994): 81-111.
71
Neyrey, “Despising the Shame,” 113-38. Neyrey’s work here seems particularly overdone. For
instance, he interprets Peter’s use of the sword in the garden as a defense of Jesus’ honor. Jesus refused this
gesture apparently because He did not sense that His honor was threatened (120). The whole notion lies
thoroughly in the white space of the text. For insightful criticisms of this article, see Chance, 146-47, and
Gideon M. Kressel, “An Anthropologist’s Response to the Use of Social Science Models in Biblical Studies,”
Semeia 68 (1994): 159. Both authors review each of the articles in this intriguing issue of Semeia (though some
of Kressel’s interactions with the essays are confusing and unclear). The whole issue is dedicated to shame in
the world of the Bible.
72
Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The
Anchor Bible, vol. 37 C, edited by William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (New York:
Doubleday, 1993); idem, ed., The World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson,
1991). For an insightful criticism of this work, see Joel B. Green, “The Social Status of Mary in Luke 1,5-2,52:
A Plea for Methodological Integration,” Biblica 73 (1992): 457-72.
73
The honor/shame reading of passages all too often becomes an avenue for liberal theological and
ethical propositions. See pages 6-8 above.
74
Chance, 148. To this statement several exclamation points could be added. Unfortunately, Chance’s
criticisms are not intended to preserve the integrity of evangelical grammatical-historical interpretation. He uses
a socio-grammatical-critical hermeneutic.
29
awareness of the honor/shame values that this thesis focuses its attention on Paul’s preaching
of the gospel in the shame-sensitive Greco-Roman-Judaean world.
Summary
Both Old and New Testaments contain hundreds of references to shame and honor.
Until recently, biblical scholarship has largely overlooked the social significance of these
terms. In the Old Testament, voB and its derivatives comprise the primary word group
designating shame. Terms for glory and honor are antonyms for shame. Shame is closely
related to but distinct from guilt. Shame words may designate status loss, emotional feelings
of inferiority and failure, and the experience of divine disfavor. Three types of societal
shaming emerge: political-warfare, formal judicial, and informal social shaming.
The New Testament’s conception of shame mirrors much of the Old Testament’s but
broadens out to include Greco-Roman values. Ancient sources reveal that the Greco-Roman
world was an honor-seeking, shame-sensitive environment. The New Testament is replete
with references to shame, the ai*scuvnw word group providing the most frequent lexemes.
Words for honor and glory serve as antonyms for shame terms. As in the Old Testament,
shame words may designate objective status loss, emotional inferiority feelings, ethical
estimations, and divine judgments. Crucifixion was the ultimate form of formal judicial
shaming. Anyone crucified was thereby humiliated, shamed, and discredited. This shame-
sensitive society was the historical environment for Paul’s preaching of the cross.
The following chapters shall examine how Paul’s preaching of the gospel fit into the
shame-sensitive cultural context of his day. Paul boastfully preached the shameful cross of
Christ, finding it to be a cause for glorying, not shrinking away in shame. Moreover, Paul in
30
his gospel preaching glorified the shamed Christ. The next two chapters shall examine four
New Testament passages which elucidate the honor/shame ironies of Paul’s preaching.
31
CHAPTER 3
PAUL’S GLORYING IN THE SHAMEFUL CROSS
A number of Pauline texts reveal the paradox of Paul’s glorying in the shameful cross
of Christ. Paul spoke of the cross and the gospel of the cross in glorious terms. He admited,
however, that to the profane ear this message about a God-man shamed on a cross was utterly
reprehensible and foolish. Two key texts revealing this tension are Rom. 1:16 and I Cor.
1:17-31. This chapter will examine these texts focusing specifically on the shame vocabulary
they use.
Romans 1:16
Before writing his proposition statement in Romans, Paul boldly asserts, “I am not
ashamed of the gospel.”1 This phrase has received poor treatment by commentators as they
have generally failed to expose the cultural context of the assertion. A number of
commentators gloss over the statement altogether while others deal with it in such a
superficial manner as not really to have addressed it at all.2 Those commentators who do deal
1While not universally accepted, commentators generally locate the theme of Romans in 1:17-18—God
reveals his righteousness through faith and his justice through wrath. See Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the
Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, edited by Ned. B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce,
and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 63-64.
2See Everett F. Harrison, “Romans,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10, Romans—
Galatians, edited by Frank E. Gæbelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 18; Archibald Thomas Robertson,
Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 4, Epistles of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1931), 326; and John A.
Witmer, “Romans,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary
32
with the passage in any length fail to adequately explain the cultural background of honor and
shame.3
In the immediate context, Paul expresses his intentions to visit the churches of Rome.
Verses 10 and 11 suggest that he had made efforts to do so in the past, but providence
hindered him. Perhaps some doubted his intentions to come to preach in Rome his message
about a Jewish Messiah crucified by Romans.4 In verse 15, Paul reasserts his desire to
minister in the imperial city when he says, “I am eager to preach the gospel to you who are
also in Rome.” In verse 16 he expresses in negative terms the reason for his positive
eagerness. He declares, “for I am not ashamed of the gospel.”5
Faculty, New Testament Edition, edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books,
1983), 441.
3Moo and Cranfield come close to explaining the burden of this thesis, but they fall short. Murray
speaks about an emotional shame which Paul rejected. Unfortunately, Murray fails to connect this with the
cultural values of honor and shame. He can only comment that “the absence of shame is the proof of faith
(Mark 8:38; II Tim. 1:8).” See Moo, 65-66; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1, The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments, edited by J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield and G. N. Stanton (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975), 86-
87; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, vols. 1
and 2, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, edited by F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1959), 26. Moxnes is one of the few writers who explains the phrase within its honor/shame cultural
setting. See Halvor Moxnes’ “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 32 (February 1988): 61-77; idem, “Honor, Shame, and the Outside World in Paul’s Letter to the
Romans,” in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism, edited by Jacob Nuesner, et al.
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 207-18.
4Barth holds that Paul’s assertion of unashamedness has meaning primarily in the context of Paul’s personal
situation. That is, Barth believes Paul is answering the accusation that he was afraid to come face the Roman
Senate and the courts with his message. Markus Barth, “Discussion,” in “I am Not Ashamed of the Gospel,” in
Foi et Salut Selon S. Paul (Épître aux Romains 1,16): Colloque Œcumenique à L’abbaye de S. Paul, Hors les
Murs, 16-21 Avril 1968, Analecta Biblica: Investigationes Scientificae in Res Biblicas, vol. 42 (Rome: Institute
Biblique Pontifical, 1970) 45-46. See also John Peter Lange, Romans, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures:
Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical, translated by Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1869), 73.
Cranfield objects to this narrow understanding of the assertion “[s]ince the presence of this temptation is a
constant feature not just of the life of all Christian preachers but of all Christian life.” Cranfield, 87. Hence, it is
not only with reference to a Roman visit that Paul is unashamed of the gospel.
5This context argues against the suggestion that Paul’s shame is theologically forensic, i.e. that he is not
ashamed before God. Moo, 66. Barrett, reversing his position taken in his commentary, now argues for a
theological, non-social understanding of shame. See C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, Black’s New
Testament Commentary, edited by Henry Chadwick, revised edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 28;
33
R. C. H. Lenski calls this phrase a litosis, Paul’s clever way of affirming his boldness
for the gospel.6 While none should deny Paul’s boldness to proclaim Christ, there seems to
be a real purpose for his use of the negative. The matter is serious, and the potential for
shame is real.7 C. E. B. Cranfield notes that this is “Paul’s sober recognition of the fact that
the gospel is something of which, by the very nature of the case, Christians will in this world
constantly be tempted to be ashamed.”8 Marvin Vincent paraphrases, “I am ready to preach
at Rome, for, though I might seem to be deterred by the contempt in which the Gospel is
held, and the prospect of my own humiliation as its preacher, I am not ashamed of it.”9
What was the gospel of Christ but the story about a publicly shamed man? Jesus’
crucifixion was intended to publicly humiliate Him and discredit all of His claims to honor
and legitimacy.10
For Paul to speak of this shamed criminal in glorious terms as he did was
absolutely scandalous. What a laughable thought it was to the Greco-Roman mind that the
Divine Being should reveal Himself through such a socially despicable creature! Michael
Green notes, “Paul has to admit it is indeed folly to suppose that the universal wisdom is
idem, “I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel,” in Foi et Salut Selon S. Paul, 19-50. See also Hans-Georg Link,
“ai*scuvnh,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, edited by Colin Brown
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 562. Moxnes counters, “Even in their most theological use, ‘shame’ and ‘not
to be ashamed’ do not relinquish their everyday meaning, in which a person stands within a relationship not only
to God but to other people within a community.” See Moxnes, “Honor, Shame, and the Outside World,” 207.
This observation is prudent, for as the discussion below will demonstrate, Paul’s unashamedness before men is
founded upon his forensic confidence before God. The context also clearly militates against the view that Paul
is fending off accusations of antinomianism and anti-Semitism. See Moo, 65-66.
6R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1961), 71.
7Cranfield, 86; Murray, 26; Moo, 66.
8Cranfield, 86.
9Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 3, The Epistles of Paul (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1946), 8-9.
10
See the discussion of crucifixion on pages 21-22 of this thesis.
34
displayed by the sordid particular of a condemned criminal dying on a cross.”11
The notion
of a crucified, shamefully executed savior of the world was insulting both to Roman
intelligence as well as Roman justice.12
The thought was no less troublesome for the Jewish
mind which could not conceive of such a shamed Messiah. Green elucidates this point with
the debates between the Christian apologist Justin Martyr and his Jewish antagonist Trypho.
It was with Scriptures like these [Isa. 53] that Christians argued that the
Messiah had to suffer. And fair-minded Jews would have granted the point.
Thus Trypho, after having had a good dose of such Scripture teaching from
Justin, concedes, “It is quite clear that the Scriptures announce that Christ had
to suffer . . . We know that he should suffer and be led as a sheep.” So much
is agreed. But the point of division comes at the manner of Jesus’s death, the
crucifixion. Trypho was speaking for all Jews when he voiced this objection,
“But prove to us whether he must be crucified and die so disgracefully and so
dishonourably the death accursed in the Law. For we cannot bring ourselves
even to consider this.”13
Given the outside world’s labeling Paul a fool and a shameless man (a man without
honor and thus deserving ill-respect and bad treatment), what gave Paul the rationale for
ignoring the shame?14
Verse 16b answers, “for it is the power of God unto salvation, to the
Jew first and also to the Greek.”
11
Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (Guildford, UK: Eagle, 1970), 144.
12
Murray hints at this offense to Roman justice. Murray, 26; cf. Morna D. Hooker, Not Ashamed of the
Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 13. Pliny the
Younger was quite offended by Christians’ singing worship songs to a man executed by Roman authorities. See
Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1977), 2.
13
Green, 112-113. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 89-90. Green’s endnotes have been deleted here.
14
Cf. I Cor. 4:10. Note the self-description of Paul as foolish, weak, and shameful. According to
deSilva, the most common expression in Greek for the rejection of shame estimations is katafrovnein
ai*scuvnh, “despising the shame.” David deSilva, “Despising Shame: A Cultural-Anthropological Investigation
of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal of Biblical Literature 113 (Fall 1994): 439 passim.
35
Paul’s gospel of the cross reversed the world’s shame codes.15
The gospel was no
cause for shame but rather a cause for glorying. For the present the reversal is paradoxical:
“Power in weakness, confidence in honour while seemingly put to shame—that was the
paradox of Christian existence in a Jewish and Graeco-Roman environment.”16
Paul speaks
of this paradoxical experience throughout his epistles, but perhaps nowhere as clearly as in I
Cor. 4:9-13.17
Morna Hooker comments:
In Paul’s view, Christians cannot truly experience the resurrection-life of
Christ unless they share also in his crucifixion – and that means accepting the
shame and the scandal of the cross. So he goes on to spell out what this
means for himself: ‘God has exhibited us apostles like those condemned to
death in the arena – a spectacle to everyone; we are foolish, weak, disgraced;
we are hungry, thirsty, clothed in rags, roughly-handled, homeless, hard-
working; we are reviled, persecuted, slandered, treated like the scum of the
earth’ (I Cor. 4.9-13). Paul identifies himself with the scandal of the cross:
there is no question of Christ’s death being a substitute for his own.18
Paul lived the paradox of receiving shame from the world but honor from God.
15
Jesus began this reversal of shame codes in His ministry. Domeris writes, “The Gospels do in fact
represent Jesus as re-ordering the norms of his day, promoting a society with upside-down estimations of honour
and shame, and with particular appeal to the misfits of society.” W R [sic] Domeris, “Honor and Shame in the
New Testament,” Neotestamentica 27 (1993): 294-95. Paul’s wording in 1:16 may be reflecting Jesus’ teaching
of Mark 8:38 and Luke 9:26. Cranfield, 86. Christianity is fundamentally paradoxical. Jesus’ teaching was that
the meek would inherit the earth, that he who would be greatest must become servant of all, etc. See Gerald F.
Hawethorne, Philippians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 43, edited by David A. Hubbard and Glenn W.
Barber (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 91; Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the
Greek Text, The New International Greek Commentary, edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 234-35.
16
Moxnes, “Honour and Righteousness,” 73. This tension is not eternal, though. In the eschaton the
honor/shame evaluations of God will be the only ones operative. Paul states in 9:32-33 that none of those who
trust in Christ, the cornerstone, will be put to shame. Paul purposely conflates Isaiah 28:16 with Isaiah 8:14. To
those who disbelieve, the crucified Christ is a stumbling block that they cannot pass over, but to those who
believe, Christ is the foundation stone of God’s great work (72).
17
Also notable is II Cor. 6:8. The entire second epistle to Corinth evidences this same tension. Paul is
a meager man by the world’s standards, but he has reason to boast in Christ.
18
Hooker, 15. Hooker’s conception of substitution may strike the conservative as a bit odd
theologically.
36
Shame vocabulary continues past verse 16. Few scholars have noticed the
continuation of honor/shame terminology in the following verses and chapters.19
One of the
things Paul argues for in the remaining verses (and even the remainder of the book) is that
those in the world are the ones who really live in shame. Their shame is greater, for it is a
theological-ethical shame, a shame more significant than social disgrace.20
Paul writes that though the human race is under obligation to give glory to God, it has
refused God this honor. Moreover, man has “escalated the challenge: Mere human beings
substituted images of self and animals for the glory of God.”21
God’s response is to shame
the race by indirectly dishonoring (a*timavzesqai, v. 24) their bodies through their own
shameful deeds (a*schmosuvnhn, v. 27).22
The world stands in its sin shamed before God!23
Romans 2 continues the sub-theme of shame. The self-righteous Jew boasts
(ksucavomai) of his legal accomplishments and Hebrew lineage (2:17-20). By falsely
honoring himself, he actually dishonors God (2:23). Boasting is only permissible if it be in
the Lord. Chapter 3 continues the sub-theme: Sinful man has fallen short of the target of
19
Cranfield does note the lexical parallel between thVn dovxan in v. 23 and a*timavzesqai in v. 25. His
appreciation of honor/shame values seems unclear, though, since he does not comment at all on the significance
of these parallels. See Cranfield, 106. Moxnes, on the other hand, notes the theme of honor and shame running
throughout the chapter (vv. 16, 21, 23, 24, and 27) as well as the remaining chapters of the epistle. See Moxnes,
“Honour and Righteousness,” 66.
20
Theological and social aspects of shame are not mutually exclusive, though. Theological expressions
of shame are somewhat anthropomorphic. Moxnes comments, “Even in their most theological use, ‘shame’ and
‘not to be ashamed’ do not relinquish their everyday meaning, in which a person stands within a relationship not
only to God but to other people within a community.” See Moxnes, “Honor, Shame, and the Outside World,”
207.
21
Moxnes, “Honour and Righteousness,” 66.
22
Ibid.
23
I Cor. 6:19ff describes believers as having once been a part of the shameful world’s system. Their
past lives were something of which they must now be ashamed. Ibid, 67.
37
God’s glory and is thus in the dishonorable state of sin. Chapter 5 reveals that the believer
can boast in God (kaucwvmeqa, “exult”) because of faith and hope in Christ (vv. 2, 3, 11).
Such hope in Him cannot ultimately leave the believer in shame (5:5).24
Moxnes
summarizes, “Thus, the question of honour and shame is now a question of their relationship
to Christ. Christ now defines what is honour and what is shame.”25
The world’s conceptions
of shame and honor have been reversed by Paul’s gospel.
I Corinthians 1:17-31
The New Testament passage with perhaps the greatest verbal parallel to Rom. 1:16 is
I Cor. 1:17-31. References to the Jews and Greeks, the power of salvation, and the scandal of
the gospel permeate both passages. In I Cor. 1 the stigma and shame of the gospel stand out
more explicitly than in Rom. 1. Again, commentators have failed to flag the cultural
significance of honor and shame as part of the historical context of these verses.
In I Cor. 1, Paul addresses the issue of divisions in the Corinthian assembly. The
Corinthians had divided themselves up into parties, some vowing allegiance to Paul, others to
Peter, others to Apollos, and still others to Christ (apparently with some holier-than-thou
attitude).26
Paul counters that their conceptions of ministry are completely wrong. Some
24
Note the KJV’s translation, “hope maketh unashamed.” The Authorized Version of the Bible
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, n.d.).
25
Moxnes, “Honour and Righteousness,” 72.
26
See v. 12. The Cephas party does not appear to have been a major group. In chapter 3 Paul speaks of
his ministerial camaraderie with Apollos, but Cephas drops out of view. See R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation
of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963), 43. He states, “It
will not do to place Christ into competition with man as the head of a party over against other parties. The fault
of the Christ party is the fact that it allows itself to become only a party and thus is also drawn into the party
wranglings.”
38
estimated the value of their baptism on the basis of who baptized them. Paul responds that it
made no difference who baptized whom. Paul was not so much commissioned by Christ to
baptize as to preach His gospel. Not only did Paul object to this personality-centered
understanding of ministry, he also refused to admix his gospel preaching with philosophy or
oratory. Such “wisdom of words” deflated the gospel.27
In verse 18 Paul calls this heralding of the gospel “the word of the cross.” The
expression stands in contrast to the “words of wisdom” of verse 17. The expression is rather
emphatic: “o& lovgo" o& tou' staurou' (the word which is the cross).” That is, the message
Paul preached was fundamentally and primarily the message about the cross of Jesus Christ.28
A message about a cross was by its very nature unimpressive and actually repulsive. The
Corinthians were to realize that the gospel was incompatible with the highly respected
rhetoric of the day.29
In fact, to those who were on the outside of the Christian community,
this message was utter foolishness (mwriva). How could the Divine Being manifest Himself
through a criminal who died so shamefully? Surely, the Greco-Roman world thought, God
27
This does not mean that Paul had no regard for clarity or artistic expression. Nowhere does Paul
object to Apollos’ more oratorical style. Rather, he affirms Apollos as a fellow-worker in God’s service. Paul
objects to the kind of special oratory with which the Corinthians had become enamored. Paul himself
demonstrates great oratorical skill in I Cor. 13. See C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s
New Testament Commentaries, Henry Chadwick, ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1968), 63; Gordon D. Fee,
The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. F. F. Bruce,
ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 94. Robertson considers I Cor. 13 and Rom. 8 to be the most artistic
passages of the entire New Testament. He states that Paul’s Greek in these passages rivals that of Plato. See
Archibald Thomas Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament Literature in Light of Historical
Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 129.
28
Fee, 68. See also H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(New York: MacMillan, 1927), 148.
29
Hooker notes that the Corinthians had no doubt conveniently forgotten this aspect of the gospel: “it
must be because they have deliberately ‘forgotten’ it, because they have shied away from the foolishness of the
gospel and its scandal and have concentrated instead on the joys and benefits which follow from the
resurrection.” Hooker, 14.
39
would have manifested Himself to the intelligentsia in honorable ways more acceptable to
their philosophical constructs.30
Gerald O’Collins summarizes:
The [sic] nonbelievers it seemed “sheer folly” (I Cor. 1:18) to proclaim the
crucified Jesus as God’s Son, universal Lord, and coming Judge of the world.
The extreme dishonor of his death by crucifixion counted against any such
claims.31
Martin Hengel concurs:
[T]o assert that God himself accepted death in the form of a crucified Jewish
manual worker from Galilee in order to break the power of death and bring
salvation to all men could only seem folly and madness to men of ancient
times.32
In the second century, the stigma of the cross was still very strong. Justin Martyr
found himself defending the gospel against accusations of madness for making out a crucified
man into a divine figure.33
The preacher Melito of Sardis eloquently noted the paradox of
Christ’s heavenly glory and His shame on the cross:
He who hung the earth [in its place] hangs there, he who fixed the heavens is
fixed there, he who made all things fast is made fast upon the tree, the Master
has been insulted, God has been murdered, the King of Israel has been slain by
an Israelite hand. O strange murder, strange crime! The Master has been
treated in unseemly fashion, his body naked, and not even deemed worthy of a
covering that [his nakedness] might not be seen. Therefore the lights [of
heaven] turned away, and the day darkened, that it might hide him who was
stripped upon the cross.34
30
Hengel notes, “The heart of the Christian message, which Paul described as the “word of the cross”
(lovgo tou` staurou`), ran counter not only to Roman political theory, but to the whole ethos of religion in
ancient times and in particular to the ideas of God held by educated people.” Hengel, 5.
31
Gerald G. O’Collins, “Crucifixion,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel
Freedman, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1209-10.
32
Hengel, 89.
33
O’Collins, 1209.
34
Peri Pascha, 96-97. The translation above is from O’Collins, 1209; cf. Hooker, 10.
40
The great Roman critic of Christianity, Celsus, repudiated Christianity since Jesus “had been
‘bound in the most ignominious fashion’ and ‘executed in a shameful way.’”35
The cross was
a symbol of shame, so to ascribe honor and glory to someone on a cross was scandalous.
Paul was not willing to concede that the gospel was utterly dishonorable. He admits
that to the world it is, but he does not regard its opinion. After all, those who comprise the
world are “those who are perishing” under the wrathful disapproval of God. On the other
hand, those who believe the gospel know the cross to be “the power of God.”36
This reversal of shame codes is conducive with previous revelation. Isaiah 29:14,
quoted in verse 19, proves that God characteristically confounds conventional wisdom. Paul
gloats over God’s shaming of the worldly wise. “Where is the wise man? Where is the
scribe? Where is the debater of this age?” None of them could have conceived of God’s
plan. By God’s circumventing their expectations, He has made them out to be the real fools:
“Has not God made foolish (e*mwvravnen) the wisdom of the world?”
Verses 21-25 amplify all the preceding themes of verses 17-20. God delighted in
using the foolish cross, for it demonstrates His avoidance of the world’s wisdom and the
superiority of His own. The world was comprised of both unbelieving Jews and Greeks. For
the Jews, Christ crucified was a stumbling block (though they should have received Him as
their cornerstone).37
For the wisdom loving Greeks, this glory-through-the-cross talk was
sheer madness.
35
Origen, Contra Celsus. 6.10.
36
Throughout the passage Paul contrasts weakness, foolishness, and shamefulness with strength,
wisdom, and honor.
41
Hengel summarizes the cross’s scandal:
Paul’s Greek audience could hardly have approved of the lovgo tou
staurou, much less the Jews who could see the Roman crosses erected in
Palestine, especially when they could hardly forget the saying about the curse
layed upon anyone hanging on a tree (Deut. 21.23). A crucified messiah, son
of God or God must have seemed a contradiction to anyone, Jew, Greek,
Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have
been thought offensive and foolish.38
For Paul and all Christians, however, God’s wisdom and strength far outweighed the world’s.
Not only was the message of the cross shameful, but the recipients of the gospel were
no great badge of honor in the world’s estimation. Paul reminds the Corinthians in verses 26-
31 that the high-powered rhetorical gospel they wanted was incompatible with what God had
chosen to do in salvation. God did not take special care to call only the cultured leaders of
the day. He chose people who by comparison with the elite were foolish, weak, and of low
birth. Verses 27-29 encapsulate the thought:
But God has chosen the foolish things (taV mwraV) of the world to shame the
wise (touV sofouv),
and God has chosen the weak things (taV a*sqenh`) of the world to shame the
things which are strong (taV i*schurav),
and the base things (taV a*genh`) of the world and the despised (taV
e*xouqenhmevna), God has chosen, the things that are not (taV mhV o!nta),
that he might nullify that things that are (taV o!nta), that no man should
boast before God.39
37
See page 35, note 16 above. O’Collins overstates the case when he says, “Nothing in the OT or in
any other Jewish sources suggests that the Messiah could suffer such a fate.” See O’Collins, 1209. The authors
of the New Testament and Jesus Himself would not agree with his comment. See I Pet. 1:11 and Lk. 24:13-32.
38
Hengel, 10.
39
The poetic parallelism reaches a dramatic conclusion with verse 28’s piling up of terms. Verse 28
breaks the strict parallelism of verse 27. The switch from kataiscuvnh/ to katarghvsh/ finalizes the drama. See
Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St.
Paul to the Corinthians, The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments, edited by Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs, second edition
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 26; Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical an Exegetical Hand-book to the
Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, translated by William P. Dickson and William Stewart (n.p.: Funk &
Wagnalls, 1884; reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Alpha Publications, 1979), 36.
42
Interestingly, all the key substantival adjectives (except sofouv) in verses 27-28 are neuter in
gender. Commentators generally point out that the use of the neuter generalizes about the
quality of those whom God has chosen. It places emphasis on the characteristics of these
individuals and not the individuals themselves.40
Paul’s generalization is broad enough,
though, to include more than just the cultural status of the Corinthians. It includes whatever
“foolish” things God uses in His purposes, even the cross. Gordon Fee notes, “Not only did
he choose ‘foolish’ people, but in all his ways he has chosen what the world deems as foolish
(including the cross).”41
God characteristically chooses methods and people which the world rejects.42
In so
doing, God shames (kataiscuvnh/) the world. This shaming is best understood as an
eschatological event since the twice repeated kataiscuvnh/ parallels katarghvsh/, a term with
strong eschatological overtones.43
The future shaming of the world has implications for the
present era. No mere flesh has the right to boast before God.44
The only glorying permissible
40
See for example F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New
International Commentary on the New Testament, F. F. Bruce, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 50; Leon
Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, edited by R.
V. G. Tasker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 48. Unique approaches are presented by Robertson and Barrett.
Robertson notes that the neuter plural designates the collective or general sense of these persons as opposed to
any quality of theirs. Robertson, Grammar, 411. Barrett argues that Paul describes the Corinthians with neuter
terms both to avoid excessive harshness and to maintain parallelism with his discussion of “things which are
not” in verse 28. Barrett, I Corinthians, 58.
41
Fee, 82. See also Lenski, I Corinthians, 75.
42
On the phrase “things which are not,” Lenski suggests that the phrase summarizes the preceding 4
terms. Non-existence is the common thread through them all: taV mwraV = non-existence of wisdom, taV a*sqenh`
= non-existence of strength, taV a*genh = non-existence of nobility. He leaves out discussion of taV
e*xouqenhmevna in this regard. Lenski, I Corinthians, 77.
43
Fee, 83. Contra, see Barrett, I Corinthians, 58.
44
The expression o{pw" mhV kauchvshtai pa'sa saVrx ejnwvpion tou' qeou' is perhaps best rendered
“that every man may abstain from boasting.” See Meyer, 36.
43
is glorying in the person and work of God. All the carnal honor/shame codes man has
contrived crumble before God’s estimations.45
Summary
Commentaries and other biblical resources have generally failed to correlate the
cultural mentality of Paul’s world with the scandal of the cross. Paul ministered in a shame-
sensitive, honor-seeking culture. Contrary to the sensibilities of the day, Paul shamelessly
proclaimed a shameful message about a shamed Individual, the crucified Lord Jesus. Paul
found great joy in the story of the Jew from Galilee who was dispatched by Jewish and
Roman authorities. Despite the shame-ridden association with the crucified Jesus, Paul
shrugged off the shame estimations heaped upon him by his hostile audiences.
Two key passages which reveal Paul’s shameless preaching are Rom. 1:16 and I Cor.
1:17-31. Both passages reveal something of the scandalous nature of his message. To both
the Greco-Roman and Judaean minds of his day, Paul’s message was shameful. Honorable
people simply would not conceive or even consider such things.
Given the offensive nature of the gospel message, the highly shame-sensitive
mentality of the day, and common preconceptions about God, it is truly amazing that anyone
at all believed the gospel that Paul preached. Paul’s explanation for the gospel’s
effectiveness and his confidence in it was simple: the shocking message of Christ’s cross was
actually the vehicle of God’s power.
45
Paul did not teach that all human honor/shame codes were carnal. In Rom. 13:7 Paul commands his
readers to maintain the social order by giving honor to their governmental superiors. Paul retains some existing
honor/shame codes while establishing some new ones for the Christian community. See Bruce J. Malina, The
New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, revised edition (Louisville: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1993), 47; Moxnes, “Honor, Shame, and the Outside World,” 210-12.
44
45
CHAPTER 4
PAUL’S GLORIFICATION OF THE SHAMED CHRIST
Paul was not content merely to disregard the world’s shaming of Christ. He went
further to assert the glory of the crucified Christ. He not only fended off accusations of
Christianity’s shamefulness and shamelessness, but also contended for the supreme glory and
honor of Christ.1 Discussed below are two key New Testament passages in which Paul
contrasts the glory of Christ with the world’s shame estimations of Him. The first text, 1
Cor. 2:8, continues in the line of argument of both the preceding chapter of 1 Corinthians and
this thesis.2 The second text, Phil. 2:5-11, is a hymnic glorification of the shamed Christ.
3
1 Corinthians 2:8
In 1 Cor. 1:23 and 2:6-8, Paul admits that the gospel is foolishness to the Greco-
Roman-Judaean minds of his day. Paul responds that the gospel is not truly foolish, though.
It is actually the ultimate expression of God’s wisdom. In 2:6 Paul affirms that he and his
1To be shameless is to lack any regard for others’ opinions about one’s shameful deeds.
2Fee notes the tight parallel between statements in 1:27-28 and 2:7. “Just as God chose the foolish and
weak for salvation and thereby ‘shamed’ the wise and powerful, who are being brought to nothing (1:26-28), so
now Paul repeats that God ‘destined’ his people for glory (not shame), and has done so in contrast to the rulers
of this age who are ‘coming to nothing.’” Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New
International Commentary on the New Testament, edited by F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 106.
3Obviously, these two texts do not exhaust the references to Paul’s glorification of Christ. He speaks of
Christ’s exaltation in numerous places (for example, Eph. 1:20, 21, and Col. 3:1). The two passages studied
46
apostolic associates do speak words of wisdom even if their message is not couched in
sophisticated rhetoric. The wisdom of which they speak is not one which can be appreciated
by the world. In 2:7-8 Paul makes an astounding hypothetical statement: if the world had
perceived the divine plan of God and nature of Jesus, “they would not have crucified the Lord
of glory.”4
The last five words in the English translation verse 8, “crucified the Lord of glory,”
are pregnant with theological riches. The term “crucified” presupposes the humanity of
Jesus. The phrase “Lord of glory,” found elsewhere in the Bible, is an honorific title which
denotes deity.5 Christians have long cherished this verse as an implicit affirmation of the full
humanity and deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.6
There is more, however, to this verse than a doctrinal lesson about the nature of
Christ’s person. Paul intends his readers to see one of the grand paradoxes of redemption:
the One shamed in crucifixion is actually the Lord of glory.7 The use of the genitive, dovxh,
in this chapter are selected because of their striking contrast between Christ’s shameful humiliation and His
subsequent glory.
4For the opinion that the term “rulers” refers to demonic forces, see, among others, Jerome H. Neyrey,
Paul, In Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letters (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), 162, 169,
196.
5Cf. Pss. 24:7-10; 29:3; Acts 7:2; Eph. 1:17; and Jms. 2:1 for other occurrences and similar titles.
6See Lenski for a brief historical survey of debates over the hypostatic union and this verse. R. C. H.
Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1963), 100-01.
7Lenski, I Corinthians, 99-100; Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, The International Critical Commentary on the
Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, edited by Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles
Augustus Briggs, second edition (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 40. While arguing for the deity of Christ,
Mare’s exposition overlooks this most crucial contrast in the verse. W. Harold Mare, “I Corinthians,” in The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10, Romans—Galatians, edited by Frank E. Gæbelein (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1976), 200.
47
is qualitative.8 The term “glory” here is not a metonym for heaven (i.e., “the Lord from
heaven”) but a descriptive adjective for Christ’s person. The title might better be translated
“the glorious Lord.”9 The title, then, denotes the honorable and exalted nature of Christ.
10
This great title follows immediately after a word which practically belongs to the vocabulary
of shame, “crucified.” Paul creates a tremendous contrast between “crucify” and “the Lord of
glory.”11
“The one represents the deepest disgrace, the other the highest exaltation and
majesty.”12
Such is the paradox of the Christ: despised and rejected of men, beloved and
revered by God and the godly.13
H. A. W. Meyer comments on the irony of this phrase:
Had the a!rconte known that sofiva qeou, then they would also have known
Christ as what He is, the Kuvrio th` dovxh, and would have received and
honoured instead of shamefully crucifying Him. But what was to them
8Robertson, Word Pictures, 85.
9The phrase ton kuvrion th` dovxh is a common expression in 1 Eno. (22:14; 25:3, 7; 27:3, 4; 66:2;
75:3) and “means primarily ‘glorious Lord.’” C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New
Testament Commentaries, edited by Henry Chadwick (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1968), 72; Leon Morris, The
First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, edited by R. V. G. Tasker
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 55.
10
Both Betteridge and Thayer label this use of dovxh as ethical, denoting the utterly pure moral
character of Christ. Walter R. Betteridge, “Glory,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 2,
Clement-Heresh, edited by James Orr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), 1239; Joseph Henry Thayer, “dovxa,” in
A Greek Concordance of the New Testament Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti, translated,
revised, and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, corrected edition (New York: American Book Company, 1889),
156. While Christ is certainly impeccable, the context here seems to be upon outwardly recognized qualities
more than internal qualities. See Ceslas Spicq, “dovxa, doxavzw, sundoxavzw,” in Theological Lexicon of the
New Testament, translated and edited by James D. Ernest (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 1994), 362.
11
Grammarian Edwin Abbot notes that the word order (ou*k a#n ton kuvrion th` dovxh e*stauvrwsan)
places stress upon “the Lord of glory.” He translates the phrase, “Never the Lord of glory would they have
crucified.” Edwin A. Abbot, Johannine Grammar (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1906), 422, n. 2.
12
Lenski, I Corinthians, 99-100. Robertson and Plummer note that although “[t]he genitive is
qualifying, . . . the attributive force is strongly emphatic, bringing out the contrast between the indignity of the
Cross (Heb. xii. 2) and the majesty of the Victim (Luke xxii. 69, xxiii. 43).” Robertson and Plummer, 40.
13
Fee notes that this verse is one among several in the New Testament which point out the irony of
Christ’s death. See, for example, Acts 2:22-25 and 3:15. Fee, I Corinthians, 106, n. 37.
48
wisdom was simply nothing more than selfish worldly prudence and spiritual
foolishness.14
Paul shamelessly affirms the ultimate glory of Christ. With reference to Christ and
His cross, the gospel has inverted the world’s concepts of honor and shame. This
glorification theme of the shamed Christ finds beautiful expansion in another New Testament
passage deserving attention.
Philippians 2:5-11
This passage, frequently called the Kenosis passage, is of extreme theological
importance. It discusses the self-emptying of Christ, His incarnational sacrifice, and His
subsequent glorification. Stylistically, the passage is probably hymnic.15
Theologically, the
passage is controversial. These verses have been a theological battleground for scholars
fighting over the exact nature of Christ’s self-emptying. An examination of this controversy
is beyond the scope of this study.16
14
Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book on Paul’s Epistles to the
Corinthians on the New Testament, translated by D. Douglas Bannerman and William P. Dickson (n.p.: Funk &
Wagnalls, 1884; reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Alpha Publications, 1979), 50.
15
O’Brien notes that the term “hymn” used in this context does not equate with a modern
congregational song. Rather, it refers to a genre similar to creeds or confessions. Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle
to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Commentary, edited by I.
Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 188. While virtually all scholars
agree that the section is hymnic, there is a wide divergence of opinion about the structural design of the section.
Moisés Silva speaks of not less than six interpretive schemes. Moisés Silva, Philippians, Baker Exegetical
Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 105. Fee, however, argues that the passage is
not a hymn but elevated prose. Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, The New International
Commentary on the New Testament, edited by Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 191-97.
16
For an overview of the historical debates over this passage, see the seminal work by Ralph P. Martin,
A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation & in the Setting of Early Christian Worship
(Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997); O’Brien, 216-27; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s
Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians and Philippians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 770-78; and John Peter
Lange, Philippians, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical, translated by
Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1870), 38. On the enormity of literature on this passage, Hawthorne
49
What is clear from even a casual reading of Phil. 2 is that Christ humiliated Himself
(tapeinovw, “abased Himself”) both through and during His incarnation. Verse 8 points to
the climax of his humiliation—death on a cross.17
Crucifixion was considered a fitting
means of execution for slaves, and a slave is what Paul calls Christ in verse 7.18
Martin
Hengel writes,
Anyone who was present at the worship of the churches founded by Paul in
the course of his mission, in which this hymn was sung, and indeed any reader
of Philippians in ancient times, would inevitably have seen a direct connection
between the “emptied himself, taking the form of a slave’ (e&autoVn e*kevnwsen
morfhVn douvlou labwvn) and the disputed end of the first strophe: “he
humbled himself and was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”.
[sic] Death on the cross was the penalty for slaves, as everyone knew; as such
it symbolized extreme humiliation, shame and torture. Thus the qanavtou de
staurou is the last bitter consequence of the morfhVn douvlou labwvn and
stands in the most abrupt contrast possible with the beginning of the hymn
with its description of the divine essence of the pre-existence of the crucified
figure, as with the exaltation surpassing anything that might be conceived (o&
qeoV au*toVn u&peruvywsen). The one who had died the death of a slave was
exalted to be Lord of the whole creation and bearer of the divine name
Kyrios.19
notes, “The number of genuine exegetical problems and the sheer mass of books and articles it has called forth
leaves one wondering where to begin, despairing about adding anything new, and well-nigh stricken with mental
paralysis.” Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 43, edited by David A.
Hubbard and Glenn W. Barber (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 76; see also O’Brien, 188. Exegetical problems in the
passage other than the nature of the emptying include the meaning of the phrase “being in the form of God,” the
meaning of the terms “robbery” and “slave,” the identity of “the name,” and the nature of Christ’s exaltation.
See virtually any critical commentary en loc.
17
Grammatically, the phrase “even the death of a cross” is subordinate to “became obedient,” not
“humbled Himself.” Logically, though, His crucifixion is a component of his humiliation (O’Brien, 227-28).
18
Lenski notes that the term for slave, douvlo, is not the LXX term for the exalted title hwhy-dbu. The
term used there is pai`. Lenski, Philippians, 784. See also Homer A. Kent, Jr., “Philippians,” in The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11, Ephesians—Philemon, edited by Frank E. Gæbelein (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1978), 124.
19
Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 62.
50
The magnitude of Christ’s humiliation was striking. Christ did not subject Himself to
just any kind of death. It was a cross kind of death. Paul accentuates the means of Christ’s
execution by composing the phrase “even the death of a cross.”20
A. T. Robertson comments
that this demise was “[t]he bottom rung in the ladder from the Throne of God. Jesus came all
the way down to the most despised death of all, a condemned criminal on the accursed
tree.”21
Ralph Martin comments on the special significance this phrase would have had for
the Philippians:
The Philippians lived in a Roman city where revulsion against the form of
capital punishment mentioned in the line would be very strong. . . . For the
Philippians at least, the addition of qanavtou deV staurou would emphasize
the abject degradation of Christ’s lowly obedience, and drive home the lesson
that His identification with men reached the lowest rung of the ladder.22
Paul’s chief purpose for speaking of Christ’s self-emptying is not to provide a
theological lesson on the nature of Christ’s incarnation.23
His theological assertions are
20
The conjunction deV is intensive (“even”), marking out the striking manner of Christ’s death.
Hawthorne, 89. Hawthorne elaborates on the scandalous concept of the God-man being so treated. He notes,
“Christ’s death was, therefore, the ultimate in human degradation. Thus in these words the lowest point in the
descent-theme that marks the first section of the hymn is reached—he who was in the form of God, was equal
with God, emptied himself, humbled himself, surrendered himself to a criminal’s death” (90).
O’Brien summarizes, “What kind of death did he die? The most shameful of all, ‘the utterly vile death
of a cross’ (Origen). Here the rock bottom of Jesus’ humiliation was reached.” O’Brien, 230. Silva notes that
the phrase stands out in relief and suggests that if Paul is inscripturating an existing hymn, then this phrase may
be his own dramatic interpolation. Silva, 122-23. O’Brien objects to this, arguing that the stylistic structure of
the passage does not at all indicate some interpolation. O’Brien, 230.
21
Robertson, Word Pictures, 445. This passage reminds Vincent of 1 Cor. 1:23—“To a Greek,
accustomed to clothe his divinities with every outward attribute of grace and beauty, the summons to worship a
crucified malefactor appealed as foolishness, 1 Cor. i.23.” Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New
Testament, vol. 3, The Epistles of Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), 435.
22
Martin, 221.
23
Hawthorne notes, “(A)lthough this hymn is unquestionably a christological gem unparalleled in the
New Testament, although it may be considered soteriological in character . . . , and although it may have
originally been composed for christological or soteriological reasons, Paul’s motive in using it here is not
theological but ethical. His object is not to give instruction in doctrine, but to reinforce Christian living. And he
does this by appealing to the conduct of Christ. The hymn, therefore, presents Christ as the ultimate model for
51
correct, of course. His main intention, though, is to encourage the Philippians to be selfless
as was their Lord. Having accomplished this task in verses 1-8, Paul must go on to announce
that Christ’s great humiliation has ended and that Christ is now in heaven exalted on high.
The shame Christ bore has been replaced with the very glory of God.
The “wherefore” of verse 9 indicates that because Christ shamed Himself, God has
rewarded Him with honor.24
God has “highly exalted” Jesus. The term “highly exalted,”
u&peruvywse, might well be translated “superexalted.”25
This exaltation includes the giving to
Jesus a name above all names. Commentators debate as to exactly what “the name above
every name” refers. Some understand the name to be “Jesus.”26
Others understand the
phrase to refer to the title “Lord” or “God” or “Son of God.”27
Perhaps the best
understanding is that “the name above every name” expresses the absolute and
moral action.” Hawthorne, 79. Silva interacts with critical scholars who reject the traditional ethical
understanding of these verses. In the end Silva arrives at an ethical understanding of the verses, but he argues
for it in a different fashion than most other conservative scholars. Silva, 107-11.
24
Robertson, Word Pictures, 445. Hawthorne translates the phrase, “As a consequence, therefore, God
exalted him to the highest place.” Hawthorne, 75. The Greek conjunction is dioV, a particularly strong
connective. With the adjacent conjunction kaiv, O’Brien suggests the translation “and that is why.” O’Brien,
232-33. He warns against conjoining only “even death on a cross” with the resultant phrase about Christ’s
glorification. Neither the grammar nor the flow of the passage will allow for that narrow of a connection. The
glorification which Christ receives results from his entire humiliation, a humiliation which culminated in His
horrific death (233-34).
25
Kent, 124. The term is a hapaxlegomenon. Hawthorne notes that the LXX uses the term for “YHWH
as the one who is ‘exalted far above all gods’ (Ps 96 (97):9; cf. Dan. 3:52, 54, 57-88).” Hawthorne, 91. For the
argument that the u&per compound here is a superlative term (i.e., Christ is greater than all) rather than a
comparative term (i.e., Christ is greater than He was before His incarnation), see O’Brien, 236.
26
Vincent, 436. He argues, “the name Jesus was bestowed at the beginning of His humiliation, but
prophetically as the One who should save His people from their sins, Matt. i.21.” 27
Kent, 125. See Vincent, 435-36. Lenski understands “the name” to refer to the full revelation of
Christ. Lenski, Philippians, 789, 792, 793.
52
unapproachable dignity and honor of the ascended Christ.28
This understanding coincides
well with the biblical perception of one’s good name being a synonym for respectability and
honor.29
Jesus’ honor exceeds that of all beings in the created universe. So exalted is He that
all creation is under moral obligation to bow the knee as it were in homage to Him.30
Eventually all things in heaven and earth will acknowledge Christ’s absolute glory and
Lordship.31
This one whom the world has rejected and shamed, God has accepted and
granted the place of ultimate glory and honor.32
Summary
This chapter has examined Paul’s estimation of Jesus, the man from Galilee who was
executed in the most shamefully imaginable way. Paul viewed Christ as a man who
undeservedly endured great shame and reproach. Even more striking to the ears of his
28
Robert P. Lightner, “Philippians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the
Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, New Testament Edition, edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck
(Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 654. Vincent agrees that the notion of dignity and honor is wrapped up in
the expression even if only as a secondary implication. Vincent, 436. 29
Hawthorne urges that the concept of “the name” in the ancient world involved more than an honorific
title but also the recognition of honorable character. Hawthorne, 91.
30
Paul quotes the prophecy of Isa. 45:23. By choosing subjunctive verbs instead of simple futures, he
adds a sense of oughtness not as clearly expressed in Isaiah. Hawthorne, 94. Hawthorne regrettably suggests
that because of the freedom of the will, the unredeemed world might never be compelled to acknowledge
Christ’s Lordship, not even at the final judgment. Silva rightly criticizes Hawthorne for placing too much
weight upon the subjunctive terms in the verse. Silva, 130-131. On the theological coordination between Isa.
45 and Phil. 2, see O’Brien, 240-43.
31
See Vincent, 436, and Lenski, Philippians, 792-93. Robertson states that the bowing of the knee
before Christ is “Not perfunctory genuflections whenever the name of Jesus is mentioned, but universal
acknowledgment of the majesty and power of Jesus who carries his human name and nature to heaven.”
Robertson, Word Pictures, 446. O’Brien, wishing to move far away from the view that e*n tw`/ o*navmati *Ihsou`
does not mean “at the mentioning of Jesus’ name,” suggests the interesting gloss “in honor of the name of
Jesus.” O’Brien, 239-40.
32
Christ’s attainment of glory and honor does not at all threaten the glory of the Father. God “receives
even greater glory through the glorification of the Son.” Silva, 133.
53
audience was his assertion that Jesus Christ is worthy of all honor, glory, and praise. To a
shame-sensitive and honor-seeking society like Paul’s, the gospel he preached cut hard across
the grains of popular thought. Far from agreeing with the popular sentiments of his day, Paul
gave Christ the utmost praise and reserved for Him the place of absolute and final honor. He
taught that Christ became exalted high in heaven, God conferring upon Him the ultimate
glory of sitting at His right hand. All men likewise ought to render unto Him the praise due
His name.
The modern hymn writer Philip P. Bliss encapsulates the irony of Christ’s dramatic
humiliation and exaltation in his devotional hymn Hallelujah, What a Savior:
“Man of Sorrows!” what a name
For the Son of God who came
Ruined sinners to reclaim!
Hallelujah, what a Savior!
Bearing shame and scoffing rude
In my place condemned he stood—
Sealed my pardon with his blood:
Hallelujah, what a Savior!
Guilty, vile and helpless we,
Spotless Lamb of God was He;
Full atonement! can it be?
Hallelujah, what a Savior!
Lifted up was He to die,
“It is finished!” was His cry;
Now in heav’n exalted high:
Hallelujah, what a Savior!
When He comes, our glorious King,
All his ransomed home to bring,
Then anew this song we’ll sing:
Hallelujah, what a Savior!
54
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
The concept of shame in the biblical world entails much more than most modern
westerners are prone to recognize. It includes ethical, emotional, and cultural elements.
People in modern, individualistic western societies are somewhat conscious of the ethical and
emotional nuances of shame (i.e. guilt and embarrassment). However, such people are
typically unaccustomed to thinking of shame in societal terms. Their societies typically do
not employ shaming techniques to publicly humiliate and discredit offenders. It is this
societal aspect of shame which is often overlooked in westerners’ reading of the Bible.
In the world of the Bible, shame was a significant societal value. Both testaments
include a significantly high number of direct and indirect references to shame. The Bible also
includes a tremendous amount of references to honor, the flip-side of shame. Honor and
shame were pivotal values in the biblical world.
It was within the context of an honor-seeking, shame-sensitive society that Paul went
about proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many in Paul’s audiences saw the gospel as a
departure into extreme folly. Paul’s message centered around the thought that God had
revealed His glory through an officially executed Man. The means of this execution was
crucifixion, an utterly shameful death. Anyone who experienced such a fate was publicly
humiliated and discredited, ill-deserving of any public praise or honor.
55
Despite the secular and religious opinions of his day, Paul preached his message
throughout the Roman empire. Such preaching on Paul’s part made him a fool for Christ’s
sake. Paul became a man largely without honor in the eyes of the world. Though he had
possessed honor as a Roman citizen and as a strict observer of Judaism’s rights and rituals, he
largely negated this honor through his foolish talk. Despite being placed in the category of
shameful fellows, Paul disregarded the world’s estimation. Though he was shamed, he did
not live like one ashamed. Like Jesus he despised, rejected, and ignored the shame directed
at him from the outside world.
Paul recognized that the gospel was the very power of God, the revelation of Divine
wisdom. God purposely chose foolish things to shame the world. God’s weakness and
foolishness were stronger and wiser than man’s, but such wisdom was only spiritually
discerned. The world could never have conceived of a gospel like that which Paul preached.
The burden of this thesis has been to connect the New Testament’s teaching about the
scandal of the gospel with a clearer understanding of shame values. Modern commentaries
from the West have probed the nature of the gospel’s scandal, but they have generally failed
to link this scandal with the pivotal Greco-Roman-Judaean values of honor and shame.
Paul was not ashamed of the gospel though by all outward considerations he should
have felt deep shame. American society does not share the same cultural values as that of
Paul. Shame is not totally absent from the American landscape, but it is no longer a pivotal
value in American culture. Nonetheless, the gospel has not lost all sense of scandal in
America. The cross may no longer be a symbol of shame and reproach. Even a variety of
56
generic Christendom, a civic religion, may find wide acceptance in the secularized modern
world. Biblical Christianity, however, retains its unpopular status.1
The gospel of Christ is an exclusive gospel. It claims to be the only means of
entrance into right relationship with God. Such a claim flies in the face of the modern
bandwagons of multiculturalism and ecumenism. The world still shames those who hold to
such narrow-minded, bigoted views as sola Christi. Like Paul modern American believers
need to stand firm, unashamed of Christ’s gospel. The tendency to shy away in shame from
the gospel was strong in Paul’s day. He had to urge Timothy not to be ashamed of the
testimony of Christ.2 So he would urge the American church. Only the firm conviction that
the gospel is truly God’s power and wisdom will enable the Christian to stand unashamed
before the world, to believe that God has turned the tables on the world’s shame codes.
1Martin Hengel writes, “Even now, any genuine theology will have to be measured against the test of
this scandal.” Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 89.
2II Tim. 1:8; cf. vv. 12 and 16.
57
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
All entries in the bibliography fall under the following headings: commentaries, journal and
periodical articles, essays, topical works, reference works and language aids, and ancient
sources.
Commentaries
Barrett, C. K. The Epistle to the Romans. Black’s New Testament Commentary. Henry
Chadwick, Editor. Revised edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.
________. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s New Testament Commentaries.
Henry Chadwick, Editor. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1968.
Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.
Vol. 1. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton, Editors.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on
the New Testament. F. F. Bruce, Editor. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
________. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee, Editors. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Grosheide, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New
International Commentary on the New Testament. F. F. Bruce, Editor. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.
Harrison, Everett F. “Romans.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 10, Romans—
Galatians. Frank E. Gæbelein, Editor. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
Hawthorne, Gerald F. Philippians. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 43. David A.
Hubbard and Glenn W. Barber, Editors. Waco, TX: Word, 1983.
Kent, Homer A., Jr. “Philippians.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 11,
Ephesians—Philemon. Frank E. Gæbelein, Editor. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
58
Lange, John Peter. Romans. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and
Homiletical. Philip Schaff, Translator. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1869.
________. Philippians. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and
Homiletical. Philip Schaff, Translator. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1870.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1961.
________. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians.
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963.
________. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians and
Philippians. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961.
Lightner, Robert P. “Philippians.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of
the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty. New Testament Edition. John F.
Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Editors. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983.
Malina, Bruce J. and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic
Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Mare, W. Harold. “I Corinthians.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 10,
Romans—Galatians. Frank E. Gæbeline, Editor. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Hand-book on Paul’s Epistles to
the Corinthians on the New Testament. D. Douglas Bannerman and William P.
Dickson, Translators. N.p.: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; Reprint, Winona Lake, IN:
Alpha Publications, 1979.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the
New Testament. Ned. B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee, Editors.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Morris, Leon. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. The Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries. R. V. G. Tasker, Editor. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition,
and Notes. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Vols. 1 and
2. F. F. Bruce, Editor. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.
Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
The Anchor Bible. Vol. 37 C. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman,
Editors. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
59
O’Brien, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The
New International Greek Commentary. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque,
Editors. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Robertson, Archibald and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. The International Critical Commentary
on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred
Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Editors. Second edition. Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1986.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol. 4, Epistles of
Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1931.
Silva, Moisés. Philippians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 3, The Epistles of Paul.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946.
Witmer, John A. “Romans.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the
Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty. New Testament Edition. John F. Walvoord
and Roy B. Zuck, Editors. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983.
Journal and Periodical Articles
Bechtel, Lyn M. “Shame as a Sanction of Social Condition in Biblical Israel: Judicial,
Political, and Social Shaming.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49
(1991): 47-76.
Bourdillon, M. F. C. Review of The New Testament World, by Bruce J. Malina. The
Heythrop Journal 27 (April 1986): 191.
Bowen, Nancy R. “Damage and Healing: Shame and Honor in the Old Testament.” Koinonia
3 (Spring 1991): 29-36.
Chance, John K. “The Anthropology of Honor and Shame: Culture, Values, and Practice.”
Semeia 68 (1994): 139-51.
Clapp, Rodney. “Shame Crucified.” Christianity Today, 11 March 1991, 26-28.
Corrigan, Gregory M. “Paul’s Shame for the Gospel.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 16 (January
1986): 22-27.
60
deSilva, David A. “Despising Shame: A Cultural-Anthropological Investigation of the
Epistle to the Hebrews.” Journal of Biblical Literature 113 (Fall 1994): 439-61.
________. Review of The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, by
Bruce J. Malina. Perspectives in Religious Studies 33 (Spring 1995): 81.
Domeris, W R [sic]. “Honor and Shame in the New Testament.” Neotestamentica 27
(1993): 283-97.
Graydon F. Snyder. Review of The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural
Anthropology, by Bruce J. Malina. The Chicago Theological Seminary Register 84
(Winter 1994): 36.
Green, Joel B. “The Social Status of Mary in Luke 1,5-2,52: A Plea for Methodological
Integration.” Biblica 73 (1992): 457-72.
Hanson, K. C. “‘How Honorable! How Shameful!’ A Cultural Analysis of Matthew’s
Makarisms and Reproaches.” Semeia 68 (1994): 81-111.
Herr, Larry G. “Retribution and Personal Honor.” Biblical Archeologist 44 (Summer, 1981):
134-35.
Kressel, Gideon M. “An Anthropologist’s Response to the Use of Social Science Models in
Biblical Studies.” Semeia 68 (1994): 153-60.
Malina, Bruce J. “Dealing with Biblical (Mediterranean) Characters: A Guide for U.S.
Consumers.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 19 (1989): 127-41.
________. “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation.” Interpretation 37 (July 1982):
229-42.
Matthews, Victor H. and Don C. Benjamin. “Introduction: Social Sciences and Biblical
Studies.” Semeia 68 (1994): 7-21.
Moxnes, Halvor. “BTB Readers Guide: Honor and Shame.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 23
(Winter 1993): 168-76.
________. “Honour and Righteousness in Romans.” Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 32 (February 1988): 61-77.
Muenchow, Charles. “Dust and Dirt in Job 42:6.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989):
597-611.
Neyrey, Jerome H. “Despising the Shame of the Cross: Honor and Shame in the Johannine
Passion Narrative.” Semeia 68 (1994): 113-38.
61
Singgih, E. G. “Let Me Not be Put to Shame: Towards an Indonesian Hermeneutics [sic].”
The Asia Journal of Theology 9 (April 1995): 71-85.
Stegner, William Richard. Review of The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural
Anthropology, by Bruce J. Malina. Anglican Theological Review 65 (January 1983):
91.
White, Leland J. “Does the Bible Speak about Gays or Same-Sex Orientation? A Test Case
in Biblical Ethics: Part I.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 25 (Spring 1995): 14-23.
Essays
Barrett, C. K. “I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel.” In Foi et Salut Selon S. Paul (Épître aux
Romains 1,16): Colloque Œcumenique à L’abbaye de S. Paul, Hors les Murs, 16-21
Avril 1968. Analecta Biblica: Investigationes Scientificae in Res Biblicas. Vol. 42.
19-50. Rome: Institute Biblique Pontifical, 1970.
Barth, Markus, “Discussion.” In “I am Not Ashamed of the Gospel.” In Foi et Salut Selon S.
Paul (Épître aux Romains 1,16): Colloque Œcumenique à L’abbaye de S. Paul, Hors
les Murs, 16-21 Avril 1968. Analecta Biblica: Investigationes Scientificae in Res
Biblicas. Vol. 42. 45-46. Rome: Institute Biblique Pontifical, 1970.
Bechtel, Lyn M. “The Perception of Shame within the Divine-Human Relationship in
Biblical Israel.” In Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil
Richardson. Lewis M. Hopfe, Editor. 72-92. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.
Kee, H. C. “The Linguistic Background of ‘Shame’ in the New Testament.” In On
Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida. M. Black and W. A.
Smalley, Editors. 133-47. The Hague: Mouton, 1974.
Moxnes, Halvor. “Honor, Shame, and the Outside World in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” In
The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism. Jacob Nuesner, Editor, et
al. 207-18. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.
Topical Works
Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet & Peasant. In Poet & Peasant and Through Peasants Eyes: A
Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Combined edition. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Green, Michael. Evangelism in the Early Church. Guildford, UK: Eagle, 1970.
62
Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Hooker, Morna D. Not Ashamed of the Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death
of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Matthews, Victor H. and Don C. Benjamin. Social World of Ancient Israel: 1250-587 BCE.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.
Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Revised
edition. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
________. Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986.
Martin, Ralph P. A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation & in the
Setting of Early Christian Worship. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997.
Neyrey, Jerome H. Paul, In Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letters. Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox, 1990.
________. The World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation. Peabody, MS: Hendrickson,
1991.
Pedersen, Johannes. Israel: It’s Life and Culture. Vol. 2. Aslaug Møller, Translator.
London: Oxford University Press, 1926.
Pritchard, James B. The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954.
Time-Life Books. What Life Was Like When Rome Ruled the World: The Roman Empire 100
BC - AD 200. Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1997.
Reference Works and Language Aids
Abbot, Edwin A. Johannine Grammar. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1906.
Bultmann, Rudolph. “ai*scuvnw.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Gerhard
Kittel, Editor. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Translator. S.v. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1964.
Betteridge, Walter R. “Glory.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. James
Orr, Editor. S.v. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939.
63
Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New
York: MacMillan, 1927.
Hatch, Edwin and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek
Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1897.
Kohlenberger, John R., III, Edward W. Goodrick, and James A. Swanson. The Greek English
Concordance to the New Testament with the New International Version. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.
Link, Hans-Georg. “ai*scuvnh.” In The New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology. Vol. 3. Colin Brown, Editor. 562-564. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Link, Hans-Georg and Erich Tiedtke. “ai*dw.” In The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology. Vol. 3. Colin Brown, Editor. 561-562. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978.
Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, Editors. Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Vol. 1, Introduction and Domains. New
York: United Bible Societies, 1988.
Nel, Philip J. “vwb.” In The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology &
Exegesis. Willem A. VanGemeren, Editor. S.v. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.
O’Collins, Gerald G. “Crucifixion.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary. David Noel
Freedman, Editor. S.v. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Oswalt, John N. “voB.” In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. R. Laird Harris,
Gleason Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Editors. S.v. Chicago: Moody, 1980.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament Literature in Light
of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.
Schneider, Johannes. “timhv, timavw.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
Gerhard Friedrich, Editor. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Translator. S.v. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972.
Seebass, Horst. “voB.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Revised edition.
G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, Editors. John T. Willis, Translator.
S.v. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Spicq, Ceslas. “dovxa, doxavzw, sundoxavzw.” In Theological Lexicon of the New Testament.
S.v. James D. Ernest, Translator and Editor. Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 1994.
64
Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek Concordance of the New Testament Being Grimm’s Wilke’s
Clavis Novi Testamenti. Translated, revised, and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer.
Corrected edition. New York: American Book Company, 1889.
Ancient Sources
Cicero. Pro Rabirio. In Cicero: The Speeches. H. Grose Hodge, Translator. The Loeb
Classical Library. E. Capps, T. E. Page, and W. H. D. Rouse, Editors. New York: G.
P. Putman’s Sons, 1927.
Dio Chrysostom. Discourses. In Dio Chrysostom. Vol. 5. H. Lamar Crosby, Translator.
The Loeb Classical Library. T. E. Page, Editor, et al. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1951.
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. In The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and
Irenæus. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down
to A.D. 325. Vol. 1. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Editors. Revised by
A. Cleveland Coxe. American Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.
Melito of Sardis. Peri Pascha. In On Pascha and Fragments. Stuart George Hall,
Translator. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Vol. 6. Henry Chadwick, Editor. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1979.
Origen. Contra Celsus. In Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Four; Minucius
Felix; Commodian; Orgen, Parts First and Second. The Ante-Nicene Fathers:
Translations of the Writings Down to A.D. 325. Vol. 4. Alexander Roberts and
James Donaldson, Editors. Revised by A. Clevelend Coxe. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1976.
Seneca. De Constantia Sapientis. In Seneca: Moral Essays. Vol. 1. John W. Basore,
Translator. The Loeb Classical Library. T. E. Page, Editor, et al. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1958.
