Week 3, Chapter 3 – The Cultural and Social World of the Early Church –

De Silva presents an analysis of societies governed by conventions of behaviour – social customs and beliefs that were the glue that held the Greco-Roman and Judaic worlds together and were subsequently reflected in the writings of the early Church.

Firstly, de Silva discusses notions of purity and pollution. I am not an anthropologist, but when I read about purity and pollution, I think of “taboo,” and I think the concepts of purity and pollution in the Jewish religion operated in the same way.

Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on “Taboo” –
A taboo is a strong social prohibition (or ban) relating to any area of human activity or social custom that is sacred and forbidden. Breaking the taboo is usually considered objectionable or abhorrent by society. The term comes from the Tongan language, and appears in many Polynesian cultures. In those cultures, a tabu (or tapu or kapu) often has specific religious associations. Captain James Cook introduced the word into English in 1777 after returning from the South Seas.
The article mentions a number of examples of taboos, including ones from Judaism, such as the maintenance of a kosher diet and circumcision of males.

These concepts were one way for Jews to maintain social cohesion in a world where they were in a minority and non-Jews held most of the political and economic power. Thus there was a powerful temptation to assimilate with the larger populations in order to “get along,” but the strict belief systems including the notions of purity and pollution – for example, the fact that a person maintaining a strict kosher diet could not even eat with those who did not follow the same regime – encouraged the sense of group solidarity against the hordes of non-believers. And this was reinforced by the belief that these practices were commandments from God.

I recall two sayings of Jesus relating to Jewish tradition of purity and pollution – when his disciples were chided by picking some corn to eat on the Sabbath, Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” And regarding the necessity of maintaining of a kosher diet, Jesus said (I am paraphrasing), that defilement occurs not from what a man eats but from every word that proceeds out of his mouth.

In the New Testament, Jesus frequently denounces hypocrites, defined in Wikipedia: “The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means
"play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling.”” Hypocrisy is an almost natural consequence, in my view, of beliefs which emphasize the propriety of external behaviour, rather than the sincerity of one’s internal feelings. Jesus frequently denounced, for example, people who made a great show of fasting or praying or praying in public.

De Silva moves on to a discussion of honour and shame in the ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish societies. At pg. 125 he states, “Honor comes from the affirmation of a person’s worth by peers and society, awarded on the basis of the individual’s ability to embody the virtues and attributes his or her society values.” He makes it clear that one could be in a position of great honour by virtue of one’s family origins, and that one could give honor or dishonor to one’s family through one’s behavior. I believe this is a belief system which is centered on an aristocracy, like the Roman Senatorial class, in which one must keep up appearances.

Although de Silva mentions that the use of appeals to honor were used by the authors of the New Testament as well as Greco-Roman rhetoriticians, this is another area in which Jesus’s teachings bucked the trend. For one thing, I suppose he himself, having originated from humble earthly roots, did not have the automatic aura of great family and position that many of the Pharisees and Sadducees would have had. For another thing, Jesus preached more of the importance of building up treasure in Heaven, rather than on Earth. Many of his preachments would have resulted in the visible externals here on Earth being modest in the extreme. So his exhortations were more on the line of “being right with God” rather than doing the proper thing so as to bring honor to oneself or one’s earthly family.

It should perhaps be noted that many Muslim societies today have a continuing strong belief in honour and the shame that may be brought – for example, if a woman of the family is raped, she may be killed. These are known as “honor killings.”

The next theme of this chapter is the discussion of “patronage and reciprocity.” Like the notions of purity and defilement, the relationship of patrons and their clients was central in the ancient Mediterranean world. This is a fascinating discussion, in which it is obvious that many of the terms which came to describe the mutual relationship between man and God were derived from client-patron relations. God is the “benefactor,” who gives to man by means of “grace,” despite the fact that men are often ungrateful for his gifts. Having been benefitted, man owed God a duty of “gratitude,” including loyalty to the benefactor, which would enhance the prestige of the benefactor. In this system there might also be a “broker” or “mediator,” who was himself a patron but arranged for his own client(s) to be benefitted by a patron greater than himself. In the Christian Church it is clear that Jesus was the mediator between the early Christians and God.

De Silva writes at pg. 135:

We gain access to God only through the Son, and apart from Jesus there is none who can secure for us God’s favor (Lk 9:48; 10:22; Jn 13:20; 14:6). Paul, in his formulation of “salvation by grace,” uses this background to articulate the gospel.

Perhaps most tellingly, de Silva continues at pages 135-136:

Paul reacts so strongly against requiring circumcision and observance of dietary laws for Gentile converts because this displaces the favor of God (Gal 2:21), evidenced in the benefaction of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:1-5), which Jesus has gained has gained for his faithful clients (Gal 2:21; 5:2-4). It casts doubt on Jesus’ ability to secure God’s favor by his own mediation and thus shows distrust toward Jesus.

He also discusses the fact that among friends and family (who were equals) the relationship was one where all property was held in common. This became the model for relations between individual church members and between churches. Therefore, although the language of client and patron and mediator was used to describe the relationship with God and Jesus, the concept of stewardship came to displace the notion of patronage for the earthly members.

Lastly, de Silva considers the significance of the family in the ancient world. I already alluded to this in considering the concepts of honor and shame. de Silva states that family reputation was “the starting point for an individual’s own reputation.” (pg. 137) This was true throughout the Mediterranean world. Interestingly this is another area where, in a close reading of Jesus’s own words, the “family” of believers seems to be more significant for him than who one happened to be related to by blood. I think it’s fair to say this would have been almost heretical in the context of Judaism, especially as it was manifested in later days with the rise of Rabbinic Judaism. And, as the Church grew, de Silva makes it clear that the Christian community became a new family to the members, providing support and sometimes shaming actions toward those who did not live up to the standards of the community. These often replaced the traditional notions of family in cases where one’s blood relations (especially the father, head of the household) did not share the faith of the more junior family member(s), thus in some cases resulting in the junior member being cast out or disowned from his blood kin.

In summary, the concepts of purity and pollution, patronage, honor and shame, and family were the bedrock concepts on which Greco-Roman and Jewish society were based. These concepts held full sway in the world that Jesus was born into and grew up in, as well as that in which the early Church developed. I believe that Jesus, who preached to his fellows outside the context of a church or priests, seemed to be preaching the importance of the individual’s relationship with God and the individual choices which one makes rather than externals which in many cases are beyond one’s control. The beliefs and behavior which he espouses he says will give one eternal life. Jesus could almost be seen as being a First Century anarchist – just the relationship of the individual with God, going through Jesus, was of ultimate importance. And he even denigrates some of the traditional notions of purity and impurity and honor and shame and family relationships.

Recall the case of the woman taken in adultery. Jesus says to the crowd who are going to stone her, “Let those of you who is without sin cast the first stone.” He’s not saying that the woman’s behavior is proper – he says to her, “Go and sin no more.” But he is rejecting punishment based on traditional notions of honor and shame. Likewise, he says that people pay more attention to the “mote” (a small speck) in their neighbor’s eye than they do to the beam (huge piece of wood) in their own eye. It’s much easier for people to be judgmental about others, and they tend to rationalize their own failings.

The history of the Church, as it developed, to a certain degree, is a history of the development of equivalent institutions in a Christian context – different but analogous to the tradutional pagan and Jewish concepts of purity and pollution, honor and shame, patronage, and family. These things, in other words, enabled the Christian community to become established and to develop traditions which also bound the members to one another in solidarity against non-believers and heretics in the centuries to come..