Defining Honor-Shame Cultures
Western Christianity (this includes the American brand) has largely existed wholly ignorant of Eastern cultures, which includes understanding the world from the position of collecting honor or shame. As a result, defining honor-shame cultures can be challenging. Therefore, the opening part of this section will attempt to define honor-shame cultures from a contrasting position of the typical Western-based culture (guilt-innocence). The remainder of this section will define honor-shame based upon characteristics that are held in common within most Eastern people groups.
Honor-Shame Culture Contrasted with Western Culture
Westerners are, by nature, individualistic and are much more concerned with themselves than others. We tend to view our actions in light of law and logic.[1] When we violate either internal or external laws, moral or legal laws, we may experience guilt. This guilt is an internal experience and does not require another person to ascribe it.[2] In these instances, the violations of the law typically affect only those who violate the law. Thus, the American, when he knows that he is guilty of a violation, will seek to be justified via repentance or restitution. If this is achieved and recognized by the giver or the keeper of the law, then the American has been forgiven and experiences another individualistic and internal phenomenon—innocence.[3] This type of culture does not require any cooperating group to assign guilt or innocence. The primary goal of this type of view is to ensure that the rules are followed. If one knows the rules, then he knows how he should or should not behave.
In contrast to the typical Western guilt-innocence culture are the dyadistic-Eastern cultures that are much more focused on the group. There is an inherent dependence upon communal relationships that determine the right course of actions and thoughts within the East.[4] Violators of the group, instead of building up an internal experience or realization of guilt, are ascribed shame by those within a person’s group or community. Thus, honor-shame cultures have social interrelationships that are necessary in life.[5] What makes them necessary is that whenever an individual has been ascribed shame, there is very little that this person can do, on their own, to abate this. It is incumbent upon the group to not only ascribe shame for actions and attitudes that go against the group but also to ascribe honor.[6]
What is not completely clear, at this point of the discussion, is that honor and shame are not given, necessarily, because of what someone does. For those in the East, your actions reveal your character or person. Therefore, honor and shame are doled out, in their thinking, because of who one is. This is because of the perception within in the East that “we” is much more important than “me”. To this end, one’s identity is tied directly to the group.[7] The closest analogy that one might draw from the West is that of being part of a team that participates in a sport. The best basketball teams might have one or two players who are more talented than the rest of the team. However, if this team hopes to succeed, each person must take on a new identity, as assigned by the team, and live it out while they are part of the team.
Many Eastern cultures will have a complex social system of etiquette that maintain harmony within the community.[8] In Japan, one of the prevalent social systems is that of wa. Under wa, the Japanese people recognize that it is best for each person within the community to want the same basic things. For the Japanese, this social expectation is held to be best even though they also recognize that each person has their own wants, desires, and personal tastes.[9] One of the motivators for living under wa is found within a secondary but equally important system—uchi-soto (literately, “in or out”). Its purpose is to display to the group who truly belongs and who does not. Those who do not desire to save or build-up “face” (to build-up honor), either out of ignorance (a Western visitor) or out of social apathy, are branded by the group as, soto. This is analogous to the group assigning shame.[10] The coupling of these two social features helps to explain why, in Japan, students rarely ask questions of their teachers and workers often agree to standards or requirements from their bosses that they know are impossible. Subordinates, in Eastern cultures, tend to go out of their way to prevent shaming their superiors—to do so is considered unthinkable.[11] In China, those who seem to have no desire to save face are branded as being dangerous and highly immoral; likely because these types of people are viewed to be sources of social destruction.[12]
Shared Features within Honor-Shame Cultures
Jackson Wu, a missiologist and theologian within a seminary that trains Chinese pastors, provides a list of three features that he believes to be universal from one honor-shame culture to the next. First, individuals within these cultures typically exhibit a great desire to maintain their reputation, which is often referred to as, “saving face”. Second, is the emphasis on maintaining relationships within the social collective. These relationships help to determine who, as the Japanese say, is uchi or soto. Those who are in can be trusted and looked to for the fulfillment of certain duties of honor. Third, is honoring those who have rank or authority over you. Hence, it is a grave move for someone to insult or attempt to shame an elder within the community.[13]
Tennent uses the Korean perspective to inform us about these features. To this regard, we can build onto Wu’s contribution. One’s reputation, while established at birth, is improved or damaged by maintaining group and community harmony. One of the ways this is accomplished is via reciprocity; which is a “give and take,” pay your debts to those to whom you owe, system. Regarding relationships, Tennent emphasizes the family construct, in that the children look to their older siblings, parents, and grandparents for guidance and they are expected to act accordingly.[14]
Honor and Shame
By now, it should be clear that both honor and shame are intimately linked to the group and to one’s identity, as a person. However, unlike Western cultures, whose people tend to feel good about themselves prior to having accomplished anything and contributing in a positive way toward society, these two features (honor and shame) cannot be claimed by an individual. To those within Eastern cultures, accumulating and maintaining honor is of higher importance than truth, money, or goods. Those who have accumulated a high amount of honor will have a good reputation in the eyes of the community.[15] The ability to acquire a high degree of honor helps to ensure that a person is able to do well financially, etc. Furthermore, these people are believed to be trustable, viewed as successful, and they are able to make decisions with a certain degree of wisdom. Those who are viewed as honorable are viewed as valuable to the group. Thus, to be viewed in this way gains one access to good relationships; if one acquires enough honor, he may gain relationships with those of the elite.[16]
On the opposite end of the spectrum is shame. Shame, like honor, is assigned by the public. Those who act in such a way to take themselves out of their social context will, most likely, be shamed. Within an Eastern context, this is the worst possible fate of a mortal man, as it is reflective of your character and your value as a person. Thus, shame is to be avoided, in some cultures, to the point of death. In Japan, the concept of committing suicide to save your family from being shamed due to your actions is still practiced.[17] In the ancient Near East, as well as 1st Century Palestinian cultures, those who were of low value found themselves in a precarious situation; while they were not completely excluded from society-at-large, they were excluded from anything important or prestigious.[18] Therefore, as one accumulated shame, they were excluded from even more events; this would have made it quite challenging to acquire any honor, whatsoever.
Maintaining Honor
A person begins his life with a measure of honor. This deposit is wholly dependent upon the communities’ perception of one’s family. Some things that may affect one’s initial deposit of honor, include: your father’s job or career path; the condition of your parents’ marriage; the situation of your birth (within or without wedlock). From this point, your honor can be improved or defaced, depending upon how one carries himself in the social dynamics of the community.
The prevalent perspective of this discussion, thus far, has been from an individual’s responsibility to his community. However, within an honor-shame culture, the community also has a responsibility to the individual. This responsibility takes two basic forms: recognizing a person’s honor and acting in kind; and, to investigate all personal claims of honor. Whenever a person makes a claim for honor, aside from the investigation, there are a set of affirmations and/or agreements that will likely occur. First, a reciprocal affirmation occurs between the group and the individual. The group, by the mere act of investigating the claim, is affirming that this person is seeking an elevation in status. By the act of making an honor claim, the individual is also affirming that he has attempted to act in accord with the standards of the group. Second, after investigating the claim, the group will either, agree that this person is due honor, or deny that this person’s actions are deserving of any extra honor. This is the dangerous part, as an attempt to achieve honor that is viewed as being “out of bounds” by the group will, most likely, result in being shamed. Third, the acquisition of honor (or shame) occurs in public, thus social elevation is ensured.[19]
At this point, it is important for us to understand that not everyone within a group is counted as worthy of making decisions or acts that would affect others in a positive or negative way. What is meant, here, is that someone from the lowest order of a society’s strata would not be able to attribute honor to those above him. These people simply do not have the recognized authority within the group to act in a significant way in this regard. Therefore, any attempt by them to bestow honor upon those above them will not be recognized in any positive way. However, if those in a superior social position are viewed to be permissive of one who is lower acting in this way, the result would be anything but desirable. The groups would, most likely, attribute to both people shame; however, this would have a greater negative worth on he who accepted this person’s honor.[20] In other words, their shame would be greater because of who they were in the eyes of the public.
The Challenge
Within honor-shame societies, honor is like money, it is limited. The only person who is generally recognized as being able to increase a society’s quantity of honor is the person from whom it originated—God. Thus, when someone acquires more honor, more often than not, it was taken from someone else. To this regard, the challenge is the typical forum that is used to accomplish this. A challenge is a public confrontation (social contest) that is used to acquire honor and/or to attribute shame.[21]
Challenges are never private affairs, as they take advantage of the group’s responsibility to be the arbiter of honor claims. These challenges are not arbitrary affairs; they have rules. The most important rule has to do with social position. As in the case with being honored (see: Maintaining Honor), only those within equal social statuses may make challenges on one another. Those on a lower rung of the social ladder do not have the authority to make challenges toward those above their position. Also, challenges took many different forms; they could be verbal insults, physical attacks, the taking of property, or public charges of misbehavior.[22]
Whenever someone was challenged, one of the following responses were expected. First, the person challenged could respond with a public display of disrespect toward the challenger. This served to repel the “honor-grab” and was typically employed when the challenge was minor and not worthy of attention. Second, the challenge could be accepted. This was reserved for worthy challenges and resulted in a counter-challenge, which was given over to the group to judge. Third, the challenged person could accept defeat and accept injury to his reputation and a loss of honor. Honor lost would then be transferred to the account of the challenger. These three responses, however, were only employed when the challenger was judged to be socially equal. Whenever an illegitimate challenger appeared, it was the duty of the challenged person to ignore it. Any attempt to rebut illegitimate challengers would be viewed in a negative light by the group.[23] This would lead to a loss of honor on the part of the challenged person.
Honor-Shame Perspectives within Select Old Testament Texts
The biblical world of the ancient Near East (the world of the patriarchs and prophets), as well as first century Palestine (the world of Jesus Christ and the Apostles), was permeated with honor-shame cultures.[24] Our understanding of many of the narratives within the Old and New Testaments would be greatly enhanced if we understood honor-shame cultures and honor-shame language better. However, to save space, this section will be devoted to discussing one often misunderstood piece Old Testament narrative, Genesis 16 and 21 (Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, and Ishmael) within an honor-shame context.
Genesis 16 and 21 (Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, and Ishmael)
The focus of this discussion has to do with Sarah dealing harshly with her servant, Hagar, after Hagar is brought in to her husband, Abram, to serve as a fill-in for Sarai, in order for Abram to have children, by-proxy, through Sarai. After this, Hagar “looked with contempt on her mistress” (Gen. 16:4b) after she had conceived by Abram. Sarai’s response was to “deal harshly” with Hagar, to the point that Hagar, who was pregnant, fled from the camp. She was encouraged by an angel to return and to obey Sarai. Years later, Sarai (now Sarah) conceived and bore Isaac to Abram (now Abraham). When Isaac was a weaned infant, Sarah witnessed Ishmael making fun of Isaac. Sarah immediately demanded that Abraham was to send Hagar and Ishmael out of the community, which he did (Gen. 21:8-14).
Most Westerners have likely read these scriptures and wondered why Sarah acted so harshly toward Hagar and Ishmael. It is easy to read this historical narrative and completely miss out on what was actually happening unless one attempts to read it from an honor-shame perspective. Before we begin this discussion, it is important to remember that Abraham fulfilled the role as the progenitor of the blessing to all nations, as such, he was viewed to be highly honored.
Sarah, as Abraham’s wife, would have been in a higher social group than most everyone else in her community. Thus, she would have had much honored conferred upon her as Abraham’s wife and sexual partner. However, perhaps in an act of frustration, Sarah attempted to use Hagar to advance the progress of the blessing via Abraham. This act had monumental social consequences, because Hagar, by conceiving Abraham’s child, was now the recipient of much honor. At this point, Hagar gained access to the same social level as Sarah.[25] In a likely attempt to usurp Sarah’s position within the community, Hagar attempted to challenge Sarah by openly looking upon her with contempt.
Sarah’s response was in keeping with an appropriate response to this type of challenge. Furthermore, if Sarah refused to act in an appropriate and shift way, the community would have judged Sarah to be less honorable than she was and would have shamed her. This could have severed her relationship with Abraham. We must be reminded that the promise given to Abraham was to occur via Sarah. Thus, if Hagar was allowed to usurp Sarah, what effect would this have had on the covenant promise between God and Abraham? Thus, Sarah felt compelled to repel this challenge by driving Hagar out of Abraham’s camp.[26]
A number of years later, Sarah finally conceives and gives birth to Isaac; by this time, Ishmael would have been a teenager and old enough to understand the social rules of an honor-shame culture. Thus, when Sarah saw Ishmael making fun of Isaac (Gen. 21:9), she responded, again, in an appropriate way. She recognized that Ishmael was attempting to shame Isaac, who was the object of the promise. She rightly recognized that Ishmael was attempting to usurp Isaac’s place in the covenant. Thus, she had Abraham drive Hagar and Ishmael out of the camp, in order to protect Isaac.[27]
A Contextualized Version of the Gospel in an Honor-Shame Perspective
Prior to the Fall, Adam and his wife had no shame, “the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25). As God’s image bearers, they enjoyed a special relationship with the Creator. Out of God’s own character, He crowned Adam and his wife with honor—He gave them His identity and authority to rule over the earth. However, in their disobedience, they exchanged the honor given to them by God for shame (sin). At this moment, they were no longer “unashamed”, they would now wrestle with shame (sin); thus, they attempted to cover themselves, in order to hide their shame (sin). However, as members of God’s family and as divine image-bearers, they also brought shame upon God. Therefore, in the very first community, Adam attempted to challenge God’s honor. However, following the rules of the challenge, Adam was banished from God’s presence and was cursed by God (a great shame). Thus, God maintained his reputation, preserved His face, and deposed Adam’s challenge. Because of this, everyone who is descended from Adam begins their life with a low measure of honor, as man is in the family of a group of God-challengers. Therefore, all those in Adam, because of the curse, are as spiritually dead as Adam was after the curse of the Fall. However, the serpent was also guilty of attempting to challenge God’s honor. Therefore, the serpent was also cursed (shamed).[28]
However, out of His great love, God devised a way to restore man to their rightful place of honor. He blessed (honored) Abram, and blessed him further with a promise, “And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless [honor] you and make you name great [honor], so that you will be a blessing [can confer honor]. I will bless [honor] those who bless [honor] you, and him who dishonors [shames] you I will curse [double-shame], and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed [honored]” (Gen. 12:2-3).[29]
God made a covenant with Abraham’s descendants (Israel), promising to protect and bless (honor) them if they honored and obeyed God. However, like Adam, Israel also disobeyed, however their disobedience was much more chronic than Adam’s. God was patient with their challenge to His honor. However, following the rules of the challenge, God forced the Israelites into exile and brought shame upon them. Israel’s repeated turning away from God and their spiritual adultery was a literal “slap-in-the-face” in the eyes of the Lord. They brought shame upon God and upon themselves. In other words, Israel was a virtual repeat of Adam. Both Adam and Israel were intended for honor. However, because they challenged God and disobeyed, they only brought shame upon themselves and their people.[30]
God, however, still had not given up attempting to restore his crowning achievement to their place of honor. Therefore, He sent His Son, Jesus Christ via the Incarnation. Within an honor-shame context, this was the ultimate volitional lowering of a person. He left His place of honor with the Father in His kingdom to live amongst those who brought shame upon God and themselves. Truly, Christ stood as an example of humility. However, in the plan of God, for His Son to return to His place of honor, he took it upon Himself to lay down His honor. The crucifixion scene and the days leading up to it (Jesus’ trial) were all designed to maximize the shame that was hung upon the Son of God. Each trial was a mockery of justice designed to convict Jesus and bring shame upon Him. The scourging of Jesus was a public beating that would have been viewed to bring shame upon Him. The flogging with the cane, crown of thorns, and purple sash serve as instruments of mockery, which were designed to shame Jesus. Of course, the ultimate source of shame and scorn was the cross. The purpose of having Jesus carrying His own cross to the crucifixion site was to maximize His shame, prior to execution.[31] This brings a whole new significance to Simon of Cyrene, who was forced to carry Jesus’ cross—he was, literately bearing some of the shame that was intended for the Son of God!
Of course, the greatest source of shame conferred to Jesus was being crucified. Furthermore, in the eyes of those in the Roman world, Jesus was executed like a common slave. In the first century, the most common method to execute slaves was via crucifixion.[32] It was on a prominent position on a busy road going into Jerusalem so that all could see Him upon the cross and shame Him. Although Jesus’ earthly life honored God, the Father saw fit to hang the shame of man upon Him. Hence, Jesus cried out, “’Eli, Eli; lama sabachthani?’ that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46b).
Therefore, because of His obedience and His bringing honor to the Father, Jesus has been restored to His place of honor—at the right-hand of the Father. Now, those who align themselves with Jesus are given a new name—beloved (honored). Jesus’ blood covers over their shame and they are now restored into a right relationship with Father, in the community and family of God.[33]
The Value of Contextualizing the Gospel to Fit Honor-Shame Cultures
Unfortunately, much of Western theology is written within a Western perspective. The issue is the bulk of the unreached people groups reside in a Majority World that is other than Western. The language of our theology and understanding of scripture is not well suited to these cultures. In other words, if we are to hope to reach peoples within an Eastern culture, we need to be prepared to contextualize our message in such a way that speaks to them and their perspective of life.
For example, Jackson Wu maintains that the traditional evangelistic tool, “the plan of salvation,” is prepared for a Western mind. The “plan of salvation” is addressed to the individual and is concerned about how to get an individual to come to Christ. Within Eastern cultures, that are collectively-focused, individual conversions are very difficult to occur. The “plan of salvation” also employs language that is legal. God is a judge and we stand guilty before Him because of our sins. This is a very impersonal relationship. However, peoples of the East are oriented toward relationships. Sometimes, the language of the “plan of salvation” can emphasize what sinners have done—sinned. However, honor-shame cultures are more concerned with a person’s identity within a relationship(s). The “plan of salvation” focuses less on how the gospel will impact someone’s life; while the language is more geared toward avoidance of punishment(s). [34] In short, someone originally from an honor-shame culture is going to have a difficult time “hearing” our words if we choose to employ this format to present the gospel.
Therefore, contextualizing our gospel presentations within an honor-shame framework will help us with presenting the gospel to Majority World peoples, in four ways. First, it dispenses with the overtly individualistic perspective of Christianity that so pervades the West. Eastern people need to see the community of God in action in our presentation of the gospel and in how we live out our faith. Second, it is an unfortunate fact, that can be substantiated via casual observation, that the churches in America struggle with esteeming to be a Christian version of the world. However, within an honor-shame culture, because they esteem the elder in the group, they will be much more inclined to honor God as the rightful object of glory and honor. Third (this is related to the previous point), the American church has a problem with getting its people to conform their whole lives to God. However, Eastern peoples within honor-shame cultures have spent their entire lives conforming their whole person to their group. Once they see Jesus as the true person of honor, it is likely that they will conform their whole lives to Him. Finally, the fact that those within honor-shame cultures are used to living a life attached to the local community, in a public way, correlates well to the notion that Christianity has always been intended to be a public faith. It is not a coincidence that Jesus told His disciples to pick up their cross and follow Him—crucifixion is a public and visible death.[35]
Conclusion
This post has defended the position that honor-shame cultures within the East are much more group-oriented than are guilt-innocence cultures within the West. This cultural context was described and defined in contrast to the typical individualistic-Western culture that is typical of the American churches. It was maintained that Westerners experience an inner sense of guilt whenever we violate a law. However, this inner experience need not be related to any other person; a Westerner can experience this feeling of guilt on their own. However, in an honor-shame culture, the group assigns shame on those who violate the social norms to compel compliance with the group.
A number of shared features within most honor-shame cultures (maintaining face/reputation; maintaining community relationships; respecting those in higher positions) were also discussed. The expected ways in which honor was maintained and the purpose/significance of challenges were also discussed. Genesis 16 and 21 were exegeted from an honor-shame perspective. Finally, a presentation of the gospel within an honor-shame perspective was also performed. It was maintained that, because the world of the ancient Near East and first century Palestine were steeped in an honor-shame culture, to fail to understand this culture leads to a misunderstanding of much scripture. Finally, the necessity and value of contextualizing the gospel within an honor-shame context were defended.
Bibliography
Chay, Fred. “The Bema Seat: It’s Background Of Shame And Honor,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal (Fall 2009): 38-68.
Georges, Jayson. The 3D Gospel: Ministry in Guilt, Shame, and Fear Cultures. Edinburgh, Scotland: Time Press, 2014.
Hellerman, Joseph H. “Challenging the Authority Of Jesus: Mark 11:27-33 And Mediterranean Notions Of Honor And Shame,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:2 (Jun 2000): 213-228.
—. “The Humiliation of Christ in the Social World of Roman Philippi, Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 160:640 (Oct 2003): 421-433.
Lee, Samuel. The Japanese and Christianity: Why Is Christianity Not Widely Believed in Japan? Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Foundation University Press, 2014.
Maruyama, Tadataka. “The Cross and The Cherry Blossom: The Gospel And Japanese Culture At A Crossroads,” Trinity Journal 21:1 (Spring 2000): 45-60.
Newell, Marvin J. Crossing Cultures in Scripture: Biblical Principles for Mission Practice. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2016.
Richards, E. Randolph. “An Honor/Shame Argument For Two Temple Clearings,” Trinity Journal 29:1 (Spring 2008): 19-43.
Stetzer, Ed. “4 Keys to Evangelism in Honor-Shame Cultures: Jackson Wu shares about how evangelism can happen in honor-shame cultures throughout the world,” Christianity Today (March 2015), http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/march/4-keys-to-evangelism-in-honor-shame-cultures.html (accessed March 6, 2017).
Tennent, Timothy C. Theology in the Context of World Christianity: how the global church is influencing the way we think about and discuss theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.
Wu, Jackson. “Why has the Church Lost ‘Face’? Examining Our Blindspot About Honor and Shame.” Mission Frontiers (Jan-Feb 2015), http://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/article/why-has-the-church-lost-face (accessed March 6, 2017).
—. “Does the ‘Plan of Salvation’ Make Disciples? Why Honor and Shame are Essential for Christian Ministry.” Asian Missions Advance (Jan. 2016): 11-21.
Endnotes
[1] Tadataka Maruyama, “The Cross and the Cherry Blossom: The Gospel and Japanese Culture at a Crossroads.” Trinity Journal 21:1 (Spring 2000): 51.
[2] Timothy C. Tennent, Theology in the Context of World Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 79.
[3] Jayson Georges, The 3D Gospel: Ministry in Guilt, Shame, and Fear Cultures (Edinburgh, Scotland: Time Press, 2014), Kindle electronic edition, location 276.
[6] Georges, Ibid., location 263.
[7] Ed Stetzer, “4 Keys to Evangelism in Honor-Shame Cultures: Jackson Wu shares about how evangelism can happen in honor-shame cultures throughout the world,” Christianity Today (March 2015), http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/march/4-keys-to-evangelism-in-honor-shame-cultures.html (accessed March 6, 2017).
[9] Samuel Lee, The Japanese and Christianity: Why Is Christianity Not Widely Believed in Japan? (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Foundation University Press, 2014), Kindle electronic edition, location 465-492.
[10] Lee, Ibid., location 492-513.
[12] Jackson Wu, “Why has the Church Lost ‘Face’? Examining Our Blindspot About Honor and Shame.” Mission Frontiers (Jan-Feb 2015), http://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/article/why-has-the-church-lost-face (accessed March 6, 2017).
[13] Jackson Wu, “Does the ‘Plan of Salvation’ Make Disciples? Why Honor and Shame are Essential for Christian Ministry.” Asian Missions Advance (Jan. 2016): 13.
[15] Joseph H. Hellerman, “Challenging the Authority of Jesus: Mark 11:27-33 and Mediterranean Notions of Honor and Shame.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:2 (Jun 2000): 214.
[16] Fred Chay, “The Bema Seat: Its Background of Shame and Honor.” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 14:2 (Fall 2009): 52.
[17] Lee, Ibid., location 2213.
[21] E. Randolph Richards, “An Honor/Shame Argument for Two Temple Clearings.” Trinity Journal 29:1 (Spring 2008): 30-1.
[24] Marvin J. Newell, Crossing Cultures in Scripture: Biblical Principles for Mission Practice (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2016), Kindle electronic edition, location 674.
[25] Newell., Ibid., location 695.
[26] Newell, Ibid., location700.
[28] Georges, Ibid., location 454.
[32] Joseph H. Hellerman, “The Humiliation of Christ in the Social World of Roman Phillipi, Part 2.” Bibliotheca Sacra 160:640 (Oct 2003): 426-9.