Shaming the Honored

Welcome! Today is our fifth of seven messages on shame and honor, both as they exist in many cultures around the world and in the cultures of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments. The previous messages in this series have discussed such topics as the concept of face, community, family and kinship, and patronage.

Before we really get into today’s topic, I want to address a question I frequently see when others talk about the shame-honor perspective of the Bible. The question is, “Who is right – the innocence-guilt people or the shame-honor people?” The answer is that both are in the Bible, so both are right. I would argue, however, that the shame-honor perspective is much more prevalent in the Bible than the innocence-guilt perspective. For example, let’s take the Book of Romans – after all, if any book is going to go solidly innocence-guilt it is this one, right? Well, let’s look at Romans 1:23, 2:23, and 3:23, along with surrounding verses.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. – Romans 1:21-23

Does this sound like lawbreaking or dishonoring? Clearly this about honor and shame. To glorify is to honor. To become like fools is to become shameful. These people did not show God honor and instead did shameful acts. That is what this passage says.

You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” – Romans 2:23-24

The only actual verb in the Greek in that first sentence is dishonor. “You law-boasters dishonor God with law-breaking” is a pretty literal paraphrase. And in the second sentence, the issue is God’s name, not keeping His laws. They are dishonoring God and causing others to do so as well.

… for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. – Romans 3:23

Sinning even here is not described as lawbreaking – the emphasis is on honor and shame. To fall short of the glory of God is to be shameful. Now I’m not saying that guilt and innocence are not also themes of the Bible, but I am saying that the honor-shame motif is absolutely pervasive in the Bible (even in Romans, the book most often viewed as all about lawbreaking).

Let’s move on to today’s topic. Our title today is Shaming the Honored, and the title next week is Honoring the Shamed. These two messages really are tied together, almost a mini-series within the Shame Honor series. Both are addressing something that theologians, literature analysts, and psychologists all call honor-shame reversal. We are almost universally attracted to stories that have these elements in them.

A good example of this kind of story is Cinderella. You all know the story: Cinderella’s sisters are favored and live the good life while Cinderella works as a slave; in honor-shame terms, the sisters are the honored ones and Cinderella is shamed constantly. By the end of the story, however, it is Cinderella who is honored (marrying a prince) and the sisters (and mother) who are shamed (now having to do all the work themselves). In countless stories, heroes come from humble beginnings, while villains lose their wealth, power, and prestige, ending up with nothing except ridicule.   

The Bible is filled with these reversals, in both directions. Examples of moving from shame to honor include Joseph (from being in jail to being second only to Pharaoh) and David (from fleeing from Saul in shame to becoming king of Israel). Examples of moving in the reverse direction include Haman (from being the king’s special advisor to being shamefully hanged on the gallows he had made for the innocent Mordecai) and Nebuchadnezzar (from being king over essentially the entire Bible world to behaving like a wild beast).

In all these stories, both the true stories in the Bible and the made-up stories in literature, the “good guy” is the one who moves from shame to honor, while the “bad guy” is the one who goes from honor to shame. These stories make the world more “as it should be,” and injustice is reduced.

Our God indeed is a god of justice and affirms these ideas. As written in Proverbs:

For the Lord detests the perverse but takes the upright into His confidence. The Lord’s curse is on the house of the wicked, but He blesses the home of the righteous. He mocks proud mockers but shows favor to the humble and oppressed. The wise inherit honor, but fools get only shame. – Prov. 3:32-35

This verse is quoted in James 4:

You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Or do you think Scripture says without reason that He jealously longs for the spirit He has caused to dwell in us? But He gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” – James 4:4-6

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and He will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will lift you up. – James 4:7-10

It is also quoted in I Peter:

All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that He may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on Him because He cares for you. – I Peter 5:5b-7

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings. And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. – I Peter 5:8-10

Both passages mention the devil, and I purposely want to bring this out. Satan likes to fool the shameful into becoming proud and honored (self-honored and honored by others), because in this state they are diametrically opposed to God. Satan also likes to get those whose standing is good with God, those whom God honors, to believe that they are shameful and to get others to shame them. I should also point out that Satan’s story in the Bible is also one of major reversal – Satan is the ultimate example of one who goes from honor to the most extreme shame. He was a most favored archangel, but his shame began when he led a third of the angels into rebellion. He was further shamed when Jesus refused to worship him during the forty-day fast in the desert, and he was even more shamed when Jesus defeated death and rose from the tomb. His ultimate shame, however, is yet to come and is written about in the Book of Revelation. I suppose that from Satan’s perspective, however, the story is quite different. He would probably say he lived a limited, slave-like life as God’s archangel, but now he is free and powerful and most highly honored. Ultimately, we shall see who is right. I don’t know about you, but I’m not betting on Satan!

Today we are going to focus specifically on the path from honor to shame. In many cultures, including the cultures of the Bible, honor is viewed as a limited quantity; there is only so much honor to go around. To some degree, this belief stems from the idea that there are only so many winners; we see this in America; there is only one active president, and there is only one 2018 National Championship team in football (the Clemson Tigers, of course!). In the Ancient World, not only was honor a limited quantity, it was extremely highly valued. The Athenian Greek philosopher Xenophon wrote that “Athenians exceed all others not so much in singing or stature or strength, but in love of honor.” And the early church father Augustine wrote, “Let it be known that the glory the Romans burn to possess is the favorable judgment of men who think well of other men.”

So how did one increase his honor, specifically in New Testament times? One way was through a lifelong commitment through working hard and treating others appropriately. Another, perhaps quicker way was through the verbal technique we now call challenge and riposte. Now, challenge and riposte are terms used in the sport of fencing. The “challenge” is when one guy makes his first thrust, and the “riposte” is the defender’s offensive action immediately after parrying their opponent’s attack.

What does this have to do with increasing honor? The terms also apply socially; the riposte is a quick clever reply to an insult or criticism that itself criticizes the first person. That is, just as with fencing, the verbal riposte is also an “offensive” action rather than just defending oneself.

There are four steps to the verbal process of challenge and riposte. First, a claim of worth or value is made. This is done in a public setting, typically to multiple people. Second, a challenge is made to that value; this is the initial “attack.” The challenge is equally public. Although the first person is addressed, the real audience is the people who heard the original claim. Third, a riposte or defense is made of the original claim that includes an attack of the challenge. The challenger is addressed, but like the challenge, the real audience is the crowd. Fourth, the public, through verbal or nonverbal clues, makes it clear who they think has won the argument. Note that, like a fencing match, the process can go beyond four steps with riposte after riposte after riposte.  The public only gets involved when it becomes obvious who has won the argument.

The Gospels are filled with examples of challenge and riposte. Here is one example:

A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that He had come home. They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and He preached the word to them. Some men came, bringing to Him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. Since they could not get Him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” – Mark 2:1-5

Now, that is clearly a claim to honor, Step 1. It’s quite a shocking claim, actually… 

Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” – Mark 2:6-7

This is the challenge, Step 2. It is an attack on His honor – who is this fellow to talk like that? Now, technically it isn’t a challenge because it wasn’t said out loud. But that’s not a problem for Jesus, who as God, can hear not only our spoken words but our thoughts.

Immediately Jesus knew in His spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and He said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So He said to the man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. – Mark 2:8-12a

They didn’t have mic drops back then, since they didn’t have mics, but if there was ever a good place for a mic drop, this was it. This is Step 3, the riposte. Indeed, who can forgive sins but God alone? Jesus’ response is not to refute the logic of their argument, but refute the “who is this fellow” part. He does indeed have the power to forgive sins, and as proof, He miraculously heals the man with no effort except His word.

This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!” – Mark 2:12b

This is Step 4. The people expressly acknowledge Jesus as the winner of honor here, which means that the teachers of the law are the losers of honor. Another example:

On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, He called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.” Then He put His hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God. – Luke 13:10-13

Step 1. Claim to honor.

Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.” – Luke 13:14

Step 2. Challenge.

The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?” – Luke 13:15-16

Step 3. Riposte.

When He said this, all His opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things He was doing. – Luke 13:17

Step 4. The verdict. Jesus wins!

Now, most of the time in the Gospels where we have conversations like this, Step 4 is not included. I believe this is because the Gospels would become very cumbersome and boring if it just kept saying over and over again that the people were impressed or amazed with Jesus. From the answers Jesus gives, it is obvious to the reader (who should himself be amazed) that Jesus has won the “contest.”

Now one difference between fencing and real sword fighting is that fencing stops whenever someone touches the person with their weapon and then restarts. In real fighting, once you have the tactical advantage, you just keep attacking. We see this with Jesus in the following example.

The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of His disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.) – Mark 7:1-4

Here, Step 1 is not verbal, but an action, Jesus’ disciples skipping the ritual hand washing tradition.

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” – Mark 7:5

This is Step 2, the challenge.

He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. They worship Me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” – Mark 7:6-8

This is Step 3, the riposte. This is a strong message; Jesus is not pulling any punches! Honoring God is really the first of the Ten Commandments; Jesus is saying here that their honor of God is fake, pretend, in words only.

And He continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.” But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)—then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” – Mark 7:9-13

This is more riposte from Jesus. He is expanding upon His claim in verse 8 that the people make too much of their traditions and don’t keep the actual commands of God. Not only that, but their traditions even can be in direct conflict with God’s commands, causing and forcing others to stumble. Here, objects symbolically and publicly devoted to God (a manmade tradition that simply made people look honorable out in public) was enforced as being binding even to the point that they kept the people from helping their parents if a dire situation came up where using the Corban to help their parents would have “honored” them as the Law requires.

Again Jesus called the crowd to Him and said, “Listen to Me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” – Mark 7:14-15

I include these verses to remind you that Jesus has been addressing the Pharisees and teachers of the Law but His real audience is the crowd of “regular” people. I would consider this even more of Jesus’ “attack.” He is thoroughly refuting and dishonoring the Pharisees and teachers.

There are dozens of such passages in the Gospels. I want to give you one more from Mark. This one is very interesting because it seems to break all the rules.

They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to Him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?” – Mark 11:27-28

Now, this is really an unfair question, out in public. It is designed solely to get Jesus arrested as a zealot, a revolutionary, or to get Him to stop. If He says He is under the authority of the Jewish leaders, then they can order Him to stop. If He says He is His own authority, they can get the Romans to arrest Him. This challenge (Step 2) is unfair; it doesn’t play by the rules. How does Jesus respond?

Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer Me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell Me!” – Mark 11:29-30

Riposte! He is using the same “rules” that they are using! Let’s read on so that this becomes clear:

They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin’ …” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.) – Mark 11:31-32

It really is the same kind of unfair attack. Only in Jesus, it is entirely fair because they just tried to do the same thing! How does it end?

So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.” – Mark 11:33

Now, I have focused on these verbal swordfights, but Jesus shames the honored in other ways. A little earlier in Mark 11:

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as He taught them, He said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’” The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill Him, for they feared Him, because the whole crowd was amazed at His teaching. – Mark 11:15-18

Again, the crowd was amazed. Note that priests and teachers are getting tired of the “honor-shame game” as they are tired of losing. There is more to this; they are beginning to fall so far down in honor that the crowds are ready to no longer even listen to what they have to say! This is because the honor-shame game is only played among relative equals. It isn’t played among those of significantly unequal honor status; if the one who starts the challenge is higher in honor, he is seen as an ugly bully, whereas if he is lower in honor, he is seen as a fool that doesn’t know his place. Here, the leaders know they are beaten, so they move towards violence, first indirectly – note the exchange we just looked at where they didn’t ask a fair question and Jesus responded in kind, but then they resort to outright betrayal through Judas and the use of false witnesses and trumped up charges. In the honor-shame game, whoever resorts to violence is the ultimate loser.

If you will permit me one rabbit trail that is slightly political: I need to first mention that 40 days is a big deal in the Bible; surviving something 40 days is seen as a sign of honor. Jesus’ 40 days in the desert without food being tempted by the devil is a good example. Now, in the days before the First Gulf War, the Middle East viewed the conflict as an honor-shame confrontation between George Bush and Saddam Hussein. The conflict was verbal, in the challenge-riposte style (especially if you look at the press conferences). Iraq had quite a character delivering outlandish statement after outlandish statement. These were outlandish to us, but not to their intended audience, the people of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Bush eventually moved on to bombing. To many in the Middle East, this was seen as a sign of failure on the part of the US, because whoever resorts to violence is the ultimate loser. In fact, on the first day of the bombing, Saddam pronounced, “Today we have won the war.” People in the US took this as simply a ridiculous statement, but in the Middle East people understood completely what he meant; it didn’t matter to them that Iraq was hopelessly outgunned and didn’t stand a chance against the US; to them, Iraq had already won decisively in the world of honor and shame. Now, despite incurring tremendous losses, Iraq held on for 40 days, after which they no longer put up any fight at all but simply retreated with Bush declaring a ceasefire on Day 42. Saddam was not ousted from power but simply accepted America’s terms of surrender. The US did not understand this, but from an honor-shame perspective, and throughout much of the Middle East, Saddam was seen as triumphant over the United States!

Now, why does Jesus get involved in challenge and riposte? It is because the self-proclaimed honored, the Pharisees and scribes and teachers of the law, have in fact been very dishonorable. They have dishonored God, they have swindled people, they have placed manmade traditions over the real laws of God, causing others to sin, and they have placed onerous requirements on people that God never intended. Jesus has come not only to reveal Himself as God and Savior, but to shame these people and put an end to their positions of honor. God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. And God defends those who are defenseless!

Now, let’s talk about application. Are we supposed to do this? I am reminded of the bracelet years back that said WWJD – what would Jesus do? I’ve never much liked the thought of this bracelet, because there are lots of things Jesus did that we either cannot or should not do. For example, Jesus received worship from His disciples. Should we do the same? Certainly not!

So are we supposed to shame the honored? I believe the answer is yes, at times. One instance is that of an elder or other authority gently rebuking believers for actions far out of line of who they are in Christ. Paul does this twice against the Corinthians, once over lawsuits between believers, and once regarding heated arguments over the resurrection:

I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? – I Cor. 6:5

Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame. – I Cor. 15:34

The last could be equally translated as I say this to shame you. In general, I think the principle here is that when a believer acts in a way far from their new identity, it is appropriate to point this out even if it causes the person to feel ashamed.

A second example involves sharing the gospel. As explained by Peter,

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. – I Peter 3:15-16

Now, this is clearly different, in that the shaming is not through our words, but through our gentleness. But it is a way to shame the honored who are undeserving of their honor.

But what about the argumentative style employed by Jesus in the examples we have looked at today? I do think when discussing the Christian faith with unbelievers, there are times that some of these principles can be used. For example, when someone (a college student perhaps) claims to be an expert in something that they say disputes Christianity, I like to ask them deeper and deeper questions about how what they claim to be an expert about (usually a science topic) really works until they realize, with shame, that they don’t really know what they are talking about. Sometimes these conversations go quickly, such as the guy I met at a Georgia Tech outreach who said he didn’t believe in Christianity because he believed in the Big Bang. All I did was ask him who made the big bang, well, bang, and after a very long pause, he simply said, “Oh.” Usually, it takes more questions than this. There are additional techniques that can be very effective. The books Tactics by Greg Koukl and Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Conversation by Os Guiness. One example that Os gives is called “turning the tables.” This involves taking someone seriously at what they believe or disbelieve and then showing them the consequences of that belief. For example, many people say they believe in only relative, not absolute truth. Yet most such people actually believe many absolute truths, especially in the area of morality. Most believe it is wrong to torture babies or commit genocide, for example. They even often can be caught because they believe that tolerance is an absolute truth! Pointing this out to them (ideally through questions so they discover their error themselves) does lead to a feeling of shame, and in a public setting, to their audience essentially pronouncing them as losers in the honor-shame game. I think using such methods is not only permissible for the Christian but highly valuable, provided that it is remembered that the goal is not to bring honor to oneself, but to Christ, whom we serve. Note that in the group setting, the audience is the greater target – convincing them to repent and turn to Christ is the greater goal.