The Language of Honor
SHAME AND HONOR Honor and shame were values that shaped everyday life in biblical times. Honor, the primary measure of social status, was based upon ascribed honor and acquired honor. Inherited or ascribed honor was social standing due to being part of a social unit, principally the family. Those born to rulers and leaders were held in high esteem due to family honor. Jewish preoccupation with genealogies ensured inherited honor was secure. Matthew (Matt. 1:1–17) and Luke (Luke 3:23–38) give genealogies for Jesus that highlight the high status claimed for Him. In Matthew, Jesus’ pedigree is right both as to Jewishness (direct link to Abraham) and His right to be king of the Jews (descended from David). Luke traces Jesus’ lineage through Adam to God, claiming Jesus’ right to be Savior of all of mankind.
Acquired honor was gained through meritorious deeds or public performance. Family social position provided the honor base from which males launched out with hope of increasing family and personal honor. The public forum provided challenges for gaining or losing honor. A challenge might show the superiority of one person or group over another. A challenge could be ignored if not worthy of response due to social distance between the parties, but a true honor challenge required response. The party recognized as winning gained honor and the other lost honor or social standing. For example, when the Pharisees and Herodians observed Jesus to see if He would heal the man with the withered hand (Mark 3:1–6), an honor challenge took place. If Jesus violated Sabbath law, He would lose honor. If He did not heal the man, He also would lose honor. The trap looked perfect. In response to this unethical challenge, Jesus clarified the Sabbath’s intent so He could lawfully heal the man. When the trap failed, they decided to collaborate to destroy Jesus and His rising social status (which came at their expense).
Constant competition in public for honor infected even religion. In both Testaments the tendency to use religion for gaining personal honor based upon a show of piety is denounced. In Matt. 6:1–18 Jesus decried misuse of religious acts (almsgiving, prayer, and fasting) for gaining personal honor.
Shame was not simply the opposite of honor, both positive and negative shame existed. Shame could be handled positively by knowing how to keep matters out of public awareness. For example, a woman could bear shame well by remaining covered in public and by avoiding male dominated arenas. Shame could also designate dishonor or loss of honor. When people claimed an undeserved place of honor, shame resulted (Luke 14:7–11).
Perhaps the most vivid honor/shame text is Phil. 2:5–11. Jesus had unquestionable inherited, ascribed honor; yet He gave it all up and took the most humble of all honor bases (a slave) and died the most shaming of all deaths, crucifixion. However, God gave Him the highest of all honor positions and a name above all names on the honor scale, causing all to bow before Him. The honor code is thus defined by God instead of men.
Women especially bore shame and were expected to do so in a positive manner. Women were also seen as threats to honor. An immoral woman tainted the honor of the entire family, and so women generally were kept away from things tending to dishonorable behavior. The veiling of women related to this concern.
“Shamelessness” described one who refused to abide by honor and shame codes. Such people did not respect social norms nor care about public opinion of their social status. In Luke 18:1–8 the unjust judge is a classic example of a shameless person, one who “didn’t fear God or respect man” (HCSB). In the OT the “fool” is a “shameless” person who likewise neither feared God or respected social wisdom and norms.