We should first clarify what is meant by socio-cultural. We'll take this one element at a time. According to Durkheim, sociology is concerned with social facts. 

"[Social facts] can be defined as patterns of behavior that are capable of exercising some coercive power upon individuals. They are guides and controls of conduct that are external to the individual in the form of group norms, mores and folkways. Through socialization and education these rules become internalized in the consciousness of the individual. These social constraints and guides become moral obligations to obey social rules." ¹

He concludes that "the determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it." ²

For Durkeim, sociology is concerned with historically transmitted patterns of behavior and the social "oughts" that guide them. The interests of the sociologist overlap with those of the anthropologist. As Geertz writes:

"[Culture] denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life." (my emphasis) ³

In other words: Culture is made up of everything that people have, think and do as members of a society. A socio-cultural perspective, a least for the purposes of this paper, is interested in explaining patterns of behavior and thought within the proper system of inherited conceptions. It's thinking inside the box, culture as an integrated whole. Language and other behaviors derive meaning from social systems. As such, to understand the words of Jesus and the early Christian message, we must understand the "social facts" that precede them. Therefore, the meaning of a symbol (e.g., a word, an artifact, a behavior) must be understood by its relationship to other symbols within this historically transmitted framework. In this sense, meaning is culturally relative in that we seek to understand any aspect of a culture within its own context. ⁴

By using this interpretative framework, we hope to avoid anachronisms and ethnocentrism. An ethnocentric view assesses another culture based on the patterns of the observer. In other words, we tend to project ourselves onto others; we take the meaning from our box and put it into someone else's. For example, when we think of the temple in Jerusalem, we may consider its religious, political or economic significance. These categories are familiar to us. It is a convenient for us to identify with ancient people. However, divisions along these lines are anachronistic and ethnocentric in that they do not accurately reflect the time and culture in which the temple existed. The lines between religion, politics and economics are much more distinct in our culture. We need to dig deeper to gain a better appreciation of the temple as viewed by ancient Judaeans by examining patterns of thought that do not parallel our own. We will do this shortly.

We are going to consider a four elements of Mediterranean culture with a view to their impact on the interpretive process, specifically New Testament eschatology. We will highlight some key differences between first century Mediterraneans and twenty-first century readers as noted in the following chart. The reader is encouraged to study these topics as our treatment here will remain somewhat brief.

High Context

"Comic strips and Gospel stories are examples of 'high context' literature. Authors who write for readers of their own culture leave out many details because they can safely and correctly presume that their intended readers can supply what is required to get the point. The author and the readers share a common culture and common understandings..." ⁵

For example, in an old Frank and Ernest cartoon, the two characters are shown walking away from the ticket counter at airport. One says to the other, "How much did the tickets cost?" The response, "Getting there is half the funds."

Most readers will understand the joke as it is a word play on funds and fun. One could discuss the syntax, look up all of the words in a dictionary, even study the history of flight, but without shared shared cultural knowledge, he or she will miss the joke. Since we do not sure this same cultural knowledge with our New Testament writers: "We must go beyond grammars, dictionaries and encyclopedias and seek additional information from ancient history and cultural anthropology. At the same time, we must refrain from inserting our culture and our culturally conditioned imagination into our biblical texts." ⁶

We mentioned the temple earlier, let's see if we can use it as an example of high context cultural knowledge. First, we'll be referring to the Mishnah. It was produced about 210 AD. It contains a collection of rulings and laws which had been passed on orally for a number of generations. The work is divided into six sections known as orders, and these in turn are divided according to subject matter into sections known as tractates.

In Kelim 1.6-9, we read:

The Land of Israel is holier than any other land...
The walled cities [of the land of Israel] are still more holy...
Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is still more holy...
The Temple Mount is still more holy...
The Rampart is still more holy...
The Court of the Women is still more holy...
The Court of the Israelites is still more holy...
The Court of the Priests is still more holy...
Between the Porch and the Altar is still more holy...
The sanctuary is still more holy...
The Holy of Holies is still more holy...⁷

Neyrey writes concerning this text:

"The center of the Temple is the Holy of Holies, God's altar and throne, wherein God is ‘enthroned above the cherubim.’ It is, then, the center of the universe, the navel of the world... holiness (or ‘purity’) is measured in terms of proximity to the Temple, the center of the map. Everything else is classified and rated as ‘holy’ in proximity to that center." (my emphasis) ⁸

We believe Professor Neyrey is correct in this assessment regarding the ancient view of the temple. Let's examine another source. Jewish Historian Josephus writes:

"However, this part of the tabernacle also proved to be a representation of the whole natural order. For the third part of tabernacle (being within the four pillars, which was inaccessible to the priests) was like heaven set apart to God, but an area of twenty cubits, just as earth and sea are accessible to men, so this area was accessible to priests alone." (my emphasis) ⁹

We might say that the temple was the economic, social, political, and cultural nerve center of Jewish life. But it is more than this. Our ancient informants have provided us with another conception of the temple/tabernacle - something that may sound strange to our ears. "The extraordinary nature of [the temple's] design replicated in physical space what was understood to be the holy order of creation." (my emphasis) ¹⁰

How do these insights help in the interpretive process? By understanding the "system of inherited conceptions," we can gain new perspective on the words of Jesus and the NT writers. Specifically, with regard to the temple, we can turn to that oft cited text, Matthew 24:

"Now as Jesus left the temple and was walking away, his disciples approached him to point out the structure of the temple. But he answered and said to them, 'You do see all these things, don't you? I assure you that not two stacked stones here will remain in place. All will be torn down...'"

"'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.'" (my emphasis) ¹¹

In light of the ancient sources, it is clear that Jesus has not abruptly changed subjects. The temple reflects cosmology. It is the center of the world. A culturally sensitive reading must see Jesus' words against this background. Viewing his words as pertaining to the destruction of planet earth, is both anachronistic and ethnocentric. This interpretation lies outside the "shared system of conceptions" of Jesus and his contemporaries.

Collectivist Personality

Kinship is fundamental to social organization and relationships. In the high context literature of the bible, this emphasis may be lost on us due to our society's focus on the individual. Hopefully, we can see the contrast between the individualism pervasive in our culture and the collectivism of Mediterranean culture.

Hebrew kinship organization reflects what anthropologists classify as unilineal descent. "We can cite a number of indicators of the corporate nature of unilineal descent groups. First, such unilineal groups as lineages frequently shape a person's identity in significant ways. When a stranger asks the simple question, 'Who are you?' some lineage members will likely respond, 'I am a member of such and such a lineage,' rather than, 'I am John Smith.' Lineage members, in other words, see themselves first and foremost as members of the kinship group rather than as individuals." (my emphasis) ¹²

We see this feature quite often in the biblical texts, the emphasis on one's tribe and parentage was fundamental to one's standing in the world. David deSilva writes on the importance of understanding kinship organization:

"A person's family of origin is the primary source for his or status and location in the world and an essential reference point for the person's identity. People are not just free-floating individuals out in the world but are located within the larger constellations of 'family' in a very broad sense (like clan). Location in the larger family - an ancestral house - is critical not only for the person's self-perception but also for the perception and expectations others will have of him or her.

In the ancient world, people are not just 'taken on their own merits.' Instead, their merits begin with the merits or (debits) of their lineage, the reputation of their ancestral house. Greek and Romans receive a basic identity from their larger family: from Romans this takes the form of including the clan name in the name of each individual. This is even more pronounced in Jewish culture." ¹³

We see the collectivist element manifested in a number of ways - in the genealogy of Jesus, the priesthood of the Levites (tribe), inheritance, and even names (so-and-so son of so-and-so). Paul rattles off his claim to status, his collective identity, in Philippians 3:

"If someone thinks he has good reasons to put confidence in human credentials, I have more: I was circumcised on the eighth day, from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. I lived according to the law as a Pharisee... But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things--indeed, I regard them as dung! --that I may gain Christ..." (NET)

One cannot understand the full impact of Paul counting these things as "dung" without first understanding the value placed on them in his culture. Likewise, when Jesus says the Pharisees were sons of the devil, it is a direct assault on their fundamental claim to honor, that is, their family name. Against such a background John 1:12 is read: "But to as many as accepted him, to those who believed in his name, he granted them the right to become children of God..." Such kinship terminology reveals the great honor and privilege God has granted to those who love him. However, the trials endured by first century Christians and their rejection of/by the majority culture, would be seen as a source of shame by outsiders. If not checked by the NT authors, it could also become a source of shame as viewed by insiders. (1 PT 4:16, for example)

Honor and Shame

In the introduction, we mentioned the culture is an integrated system. In discussing the collective personality, we have touched on another element of Mediterranean culture, honor and shame. When kinship terminology is used, honor (or the lack of it) is assumed. What do we mean by honor?

"Honor is fundamentally the public recognition of one's social standing. It comes in one of two ways. One's basic honor level, usually termed ascribed honor, is inherited from the family at birth. Each child takes on the general honor status that the family possesses in the eyes of the larger group, and therefore ascribed honor comes directly from family membership. It is not based on something the individual has done.

By contrast, honor conferred on the basis of virtuous deeds is called acquired honor: By its very nature acquired honor may be either gained or lost in the perpetual struggle for public recognition. Since the group is so important for the identity of a Mediterranean person..., it is critical to recognize that honor status comes primarily from group recognition. While honor may sometimes be an inner quality, the value of a person in his or her own eyes, depends ultimately on recognition from significant others in society. It is a public matter. When someone’s claim to honor is recognized by the group, honor is confirmed, and the result is a new social status. With this status follows the expectation of honorable behavior." (my emphasis) ¹⁴

Honor plays a prominent role in the early Christian community. The NT writers spend considerable time redefining what some have called the "court of reputation," the group of significant others the one should look to in determining one's honor. Those who left the gods of their ancestors who be seen, essentially, as atheists, disrupting social concord. Likewise, Judeans were threated by the fact that Christianity altered the customs of Moses. These outsiders were attempting to shame Christians back into conformity. Paul spent much effort reassuring his readers that they had indeed made the right choice and that God would honor them for doing so at Christ's Parousia. They had been shamed by their cognatic kinship groups. Their claim to honor had been cut off. Paul redefines honor on God's terms. You are his offspring. Hence, there is no greater claim to honor. He, and the new fictive kinship group, are the highest court of reputation. This interplay between honor and collectivism will be an important factor in our subsequent discussion.

Source Language

Reading the bible in English is a blessing and a curse. English tends to lead us, and in some cases forces us, to view ancient people on our own terms. Certain characteristics of the source language do not translate into English. Greek, like English, has morphemes we call prefixes and suffixes, as well as infixes. These morphemes have semantic value, just like true when combined with the prefix un- changes the meaning. An awareness of these morphemes and their unaffected meanings may have significant impact on the interpretation of a text. For example:

Consider the following text. The Greek reveals something that is lost in translation.

"The natural body is being sown, the spiritual body is being raised." ¹⁵

σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, εγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν

Here we have a text of some eschatological significance. Does morphology lead us in a certain direction? Do the endings denote material or characteristic / tendency? The latter. Even so, a discussion limited to morphology or individual words is incomplete, and often just plain wrong (e.g., the called out ones). Language is one component of a larger system. With regard to 1 Corinthians, how does the singular body, in light of collectivism, affect our understanding of text? What about being sown in shame, but raised in honor? Does morphology make one interpretation more plausible? Though they are necessary tools, the answers are not found in grammars or dictionaries. And without consideration for these cultural values we have been discussing, the interpretation often ends up going in the wrong direction. How does being aware of these cultural features, which are part of the social world of Jesus and the first Christians, affect our understanding of the ancient texts?

Let's see how language is used in a high context, collectivist, honor and shame sensitive culture. Against the background of this "system of inherited conceptions," we're going to look at one text and see how these features can impact interpretation.

Putting It Together

The study of language is not limited to grammar and vocabulary. One can learn Greek and still think like an English speaker living in the twenty-first century. It's just adding an extra step to get to the wrong place. Language and other behaviors derive meaning from social systems. This means that language study is a lot broader than grammar and vocabulary - or morphology. Let's look at one example of how language was used in the ancient world. We're going to discuss what linguists call metaphorical extension.

"In their attempts to demonstrate the ‘natural’ origin of language, the Greeks introduced a number of principles to account for the extension of a word’s range of meaning beyond its ‘true’, or ‘original’, meaning (cf. 1.2.2). The most important of these principles was metaphor (‘transfer’), based on the ‘natural’ connexion between the primary referent and the secondary referent to which the word was applied. Examples of ‘metaphorical’ extension might be found in the application of such words as mouth, eye, head, foot and leg to rivers, needles, persons in authority, mountains, and tables, respectively. In each instance there is discernible some similarity of shape or function between the referents. Various types of ‘extension’ or ‘transference’ of meaning were recognized by the Greek grammarians, and have passed into traditional works on rhetoric, logic and semantics." ¹⁶

We have numerous examples of metaphorical extension. One particular usage concerns us here. Solon (c. 638-558 B.C.) was the law-giver of Athens who is often credited with being the founder of the Athenian democracy. Plutarch wrote an account of his life in 75 A.D. He writes:

"...[Solon] trained the citizens to feel and suffer in unison with each other like members of one body." (Plutarch 18. 5) ¹⁷

Notice that body is referring to citizens. "The word σῶμα often rendered simply as body, has a number of meanings. One of which is 'a corporate entity consisting of various persons.'" ¹⁸ This is metaphorical extension... and consistent will the collectivist personality. The body polis is one example of metaphorical extension that shows up quite often in rhetoric. How was body used in rhetoric? What other features did these speeches contain?

"Within 'deliberative' rhetoric - that is, rhetoric urging a political body toward some course of action- a popular topic was concord, or unity. Indeed, homonoia ('concord') speeches, as they were known in Greek... became practically a genre unto themselves, with predictable patterns, set clichés and examples, and an identifiable ideology.

...homonoia speeches regularly took the polis, which could stand for any social group, to be a body, and rebellion, factionalism, or discord (stasis) to be a disease." ¹⁹

The usage of this metaphor was quite adaptable depending on the situation. It shows in various speeches in times of crisis, entertainment, historical narratives and even letters. Dio Chrysostom, writing near the beginning of the second century:

"If one were to run through the entire list of citizens, I believe he would not discover even two men in Tarsus who think alike, but on the contrary, just as with certain incurable and distressing diseases which are accustomed to pervade the whole body, exempting no member of it from their inroads, so this state of discord, this almost complete estrangement from one another, has invaded our entire body politic." (my emphasis)²⁰

One of the goals of this speech was to resolve a conflict between Tarsus and the smaller neighboring towns. He goes on:

"It may be true that, if Mallus because of the dunes and pasturage on the sands were likely to become greater than Tarsus, you ought possibly show so much concern; but as it is, disgrace and mockery are all you stand to gain from the objects of your quarrel." ²¹

Honor, collective honor, was very much a concern here. In fact, competition for honor is the cause of discord. However, the metaphor was not limited to the "secular" world. St. Basil (c. A.D. 330-379) writes:

" ...plainly the discipline of the Church of Antioch depends upon your reverence's being able to control some, to reduce others to silence, and to restore strength to the Church by concord. No one knows better than you do, that, like all wise physicians, you ought to begin your treatment in the most vital parts, and what part is more vital to the Churches throughout the world than Antioch? Only let Antioch be restored to harmony, and nothing will stand in the way of her supplying, as a healthy head, soundness to all the body. Truly the diseases of that city, which has not only been cut asunder by heretics, but is torn in pieces by men who say that they are of one mind with one another, stand in need of your wisdom and evangelic sympathy. To unite the sundered parts again, and bring about the harmony of one body, belongs to Him alone Who by His ineffable power grants even to the dry bones to come back again to sinews and flesh." (my emphasis) ²²

One will notice the theme of concord and the use of the "schisms (or ruptures) in the body" metaphor. This probably sounds familiar. It was a frequent element in Paul's letters, however, as can be seen from our previous examples, he is not the inventor of the metaphor. He was communicating with his readers using historically transmitted patterns of meaning. The particular metaphor had a long history:

"Echoing Plato and Aristotle, Seneca says that as it is unnatural for the hands to destroy the feet, so the need for harmony, love, and mutual protection causes mankind to protect individuals (De Ira II, 31). Such statements are the source ²³ of one of the most influential uses of the analogy, Saint Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians: 'For as the body is one, and hath many members... so also is Christ.... And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.... Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular...' (I Corinthians 12:12-27). Love (agapē) between the members unifies the body (I Corinthians 6:15-16). Though some of Paul's language is traditional, the application of the analogy to the followers of Christ is a significant departure, which contains the radical implication that faith determines the body of which a man is a part." ²⁴

Martin also notes, "Many of the terms Paul employs are borrowed directly from Greek homonoia speeches, and his rhetorical strategy of urging the Corinthians to do what is beneficial and what will make for the common advantage, rather than exercising their complete autonomy, is that of homonoia speeches...

'Now, I implore you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that you allow no schisms (ruptures, σχίσμα) among you, but that you all be mended together in the same mind and the same opinion. ...God has blended together the body, giving greater honor to the lesser member, so that there may be no schisms (ruptures, σχίσμα) in the body, but members may have mutual concern for one another.'" (my emphasis) ²⁵

Paul did not have to explain his use of the metaphor. He assumed they shared common cultural knowledge (high context). Notice the vocabulary. He appeals to them as brothers. Behind this vocative is the value placed on kinship and one's relationship to significant others. Kinship assumes honor. Honor is, again, the central focus of this "rupture." The plea is for concord in the body. The language of this text reflects all the elements we have discussed. Again, the metaphor had a long history. It is their culture. Though we may not be sensitive to these cultural cues, Paul assumes his audience is well acquainted with them. However, now that we are a more sensitive to these themes, we can take a fresh look as another text. First, a little background:

In Acts 16:12-18, Paul and his companions are traveling. Luke records, "[ from Neopolis we went] to Philippi, which is a leading city of that district of Macedonia, a Roman colony...

Now as we were going to the place of prayer, a slave girl met us who had a spirit that enabled her to foretell the future by supernatural means. She brought her owners a great profit by fortune-telling. She followed behind Paul and us and kept crying out, 'These men are servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.' She continued to do this for many days. But Paul became greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, 'I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!' And it came out of her at once.

But when her owners saw their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the authorities. When they had brought them before the magistrates, they said, 'These men are throwing our city into confusion. They are Jews and are advocating customs that are not lawful for us to accept or practice, since we are Romans.' The crowd joined the attack against them, and the magistrates tore the clothes off Paul and Silas and ordered them to be beaten with rods. After they had beaten them severely, they threw them into prison and commanded the jailer to guard them securely." (my emphasis, NET)

Paul and his companions would be seen as a source of rebellion, factionalism and discord. Their teaching undermined the social harmony. As such, they would be treated as a disease in the body politic. The idea is implicit in the "high context" text. Beatings and prison attest to this. Some time later, the Christians in Philippi would suffer the same treatment. Strife can come from within or without. Internal conflict is often the result of external forces. When Paul writes his letter to the Philippians, we might expect to find him using words to encourage concord and unity, just as he did in the Corinthian letter. We do.

Paul writes in Philippians 1:27-30, "Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ so that--whether I come and see you or whether I remain absent--I should hear that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind, by contending side by side for the faith of the gospel, and by not being intimidated in any way by your opponents. This is a sign of their destruction, but of your salvation--a sign which is from God. For it has been granted to you not only to believe in Christ but also to suffer for him, since you are encountering the same conflict that you saw me face ( cf. Acts 16 ) and now hear that I am facing." (NET)

"Be imitators of me, brothers, and watch for those living this way, as you have us as an example: For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ (about whom I often told you, and even now I mention in tears), whose end is destruction, whose god is the belly, whose 'honor' is their shame, being concerned with earthly things. For our commonwealth (πολίτευμα) exists in the heavens, from which we also eagerly await a savior (σωτῆρα), namely, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself, will change the body of our humiliation (ταπεινώσεως) to be like the body of his glory (δόξης)." ²⁶

Paul admonishes his readers to imitate him. What example had he set? He regarded his claim to honor based on the social world of Israel (kinship and accomplishments) as "dung" - suffering for Christ was honorable, though a source of shame and humiliation in the eyes of the world. This section is very much about honor and group association. The you, our and we are in stark contrast with those, many, whose and their – the antecedents being the Philippians and their tormentors, respectively. Philippi was made in the image of Rome and this section is filled with what we might call social and political vocabulary - commonwealth, savior, shame (the Greek term refers to status) and honor.

When we read this text, our minds usually pick up one element which shapes and constrains the discussion. That term of course is "body." Of course, many are comfortable with changing the collective body to be more in line our individualistic culture, i.e., bodies, which is ethnocentric in my opinion. Not to mention the trouble with attempting to "glorify" (in some other worldly sense) Jesus' physical body. Nevermind the problems with defining glory/honor in such a way - he still hand holes in his hand and side, ate fish and was made up of flesh and bone. The body that went in, is the body that came out so it would seem. (The phrase "...neither did his flesh suffer decay" is important in light of beliefs surrounding secondary burial practices. This also ties in with how God honored Jesus by raising him from the dead.) If we can set aside our "system of inherited conceptions" about the resurrection body and step into the cultural world of the NT, we may find another way to look at this text.

It was a time of crisis in Philippi.

• The Philippians, like Paul, are seen as a source of strife in the city. (Acts 16, Phil. 1)

• Paul is concerned that external pressure may result in discord among the brethren. As such, he uses the language of "concord."

• Using himself as an example, Paul contends that the opinions of outsiders do not matter. Honor comes from a new source the fictive kinship group and, ultimately, God. (Phil. 3:1f)

• Though ostracized and humiliated by the fellow "earthly" citizens, their true status would be revealed as honorable - just as God had honored Christ.

Considering Paul's words in the preceding verses, and in light the things we have been discussing, it seems those at Philippi would view soma (body) in a different way - one that was in line with their culture and milieu. Words such as "commonwealth," "savior," "humiliation," and "honor" limit the semantic range of "soma." These words assume cultural values that are social and political. Together these "words" reflect the "historically transmitted pattern of meanings" shared by Paul and his readers - the rhetoric of homonoia. Simply stated, Philippians 3:21 is not discussing the body of resurrection as we have traditionally understood it. Physical substance is nowhere under consideration. We have similar statements elsewhere that have nothing to do with the substance of biology. ²⁷

"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory (honor) which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons (kinship and honor) of God. ²⁸ ...we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption (kinship and honor), the redemption of our body (collectivism)."

As Pilch noted, "...we must refrain from inserting our culture and our culturally conditioned imagination into our biblical texts."

In conclusion, a culturally sensitive reading of Philippians 3 must consider the high context nature of Paul's letter, the collective personality shared by the writer and his recipients, the value placed on honor and shame, the historic use of the body metaphor and how these elements are integrated. In doing so, we can conclude the use of body in Philippians 3 is a metaphor consistent with the "historically transmitted pattern of meanings" appropriate for the social context of first century Philippi.

Footnotes