Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: The Woman Caught in Adultery

In Chapter 7 of Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Kenneth E. Bailey focuses on the story of the woman caught in adultery.

The basis of this story from John 7:53-8:11 is that the Pharisees bring a woman caught in the act of adultery (I'm not a feminist, but where was the man she was with?) to Jesus who was at the temple. Forget the violation of so many things here that the Pharisees did (brought her in a half-dressed, unkempt state, her ceremonial uncleanliness, etc.)...they want to catch Jesus in a quandary in order to invalidate Him. 

Jesus is sitting in the Temple, teaching (because teachers sat in Jewish culture, and listeners stood when speaking to them- see page 286 for more on this practice). This is the day after a major feast, which according to Jewish law, had to be observed as a sabbath. 

Bailey states, "The fact that they brought the woman but not her male partner clearly indicates that their concern was not preservation of the law but rather the public humiliation of Jesus" (page 232). Additionally, this is done in clear view of Roman soldiers who were observing from the military fort near the north end of the Temple.

The Pharisees think Jesus has 2 options: 1) to agree to stoning her, which would lead to His arrest in the midst of a public outcry or 2) say something that would let her go and show Him a coward/law breaker.

Here's the cultural stuff I didn't know before reading this chapter (in addition to it being in the view of the Roman soldiers): 

What Jesus does next (writes in the dust with His finger) shows direct knowledge of Jewish law and culture, because while writing was considered work, writing in the dust was permissible, since it wasn't permanent. "By doing this, He made it clear to His accusers that He was not only familiar with the written law but also well-versed in the developing oral interpretation of that law" (page 234).

When Jesus says, "Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone", that coupled with whatever He wrote (we don't know), is a direct challenge where "He asks each individual to acknowledge responsibility for participation in the act....[He is basically saying], 'Gentlemen, you clearly want me to go to jail for the law of Moses. I am willing to do so. I have ordered that she be killed. But I want to know which one of you is willing to volunteer to accompany me into that cell?" (page 235). Bailey also points out that in this honor/shame culture, for someone to declare Himself sinless (other than Christ) would bring shame, because since they know the law, they know it says that all have sinned. 

Wow! Later in the chapter, Bailey says Jesus walked a razor's edge between condemning her (following the law) and overlooking her sin (violating the law). I don't think I fully caught all the ramifications of this until reading this chapter. 

What about you? What do you think?

(Edit July 7, 2019: in What if it's True?, Charles Martin also has a very powerful chapter about this story). 

Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: The Lord's Prayer

Last week, we started a series on Kenneth E. Bailey's book, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes.

One of the first passages that really struck me in this book was the chapter on the language of the Lord's prayer. I remember learning long ago that the word He used for Father was "Abba", but I didn't realize just how deeply personal Jesus' language really was in this prayer. Not only that, but I didn't realize that Jesus switched languages there!

On page 95, Bailey says, "Jesus lived in a world where the public reading of the Bible was only in Hebrew, and prayers had to be offered in that language. When Jesus took the giant step of endorsing Aramaic as an acceptable language for prayer and worship [by using the Aramaic term 'Abba' for 'Father], he opened the door for the New Testament to be written in Greek (not Hebrew) and then translated into other languages."

I don't think the significance of this can be overstated... until this point, prayers were only spoken in Hebrew, which means a follower needed to speak Hebrew in order to talk with God. But by doing what He did, "the long-term result is a global church of more than 2 billion people, almost all of whom have the Bible available in their own language. Believers are thereby able to break into God's presence using the language of the heart. We are so accustomed to this heritage that we scarcely notice its beginning, which was Jesus' choice of Aramaic as the language of the Lord's Prayer. Jesus affirmed the translatability of the message when He began this prayer with the great word, 'Abba'" (pages 95-96).

Bailey goes on to state that in many countries in the Middle East, "Abba" was (and still is) the first word a child learns. This word "affirms both respect in addressing a superior and a profound personal relationship between the one who uses it and the one addressed" (page 98).

How cool! What about you? Did you know that Jesus changed languages there—and the significance of it? As Westerners, we often look at the Gutenberg press as the invention that opened the world for the Bible to be available to everyone. But it looks like it goes back farther than that... without Jesus' lingual switch here, would everyone have had to read and pray in Hebrew?

Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Zacchaeus

Last year, I heard a teaching where the speaker, who was talking about the story of Zacchaeus, mentioned how it was unheard of for a Middle Eastern man to run. 

After his talk, I asked this speaker where I could learn cultural information like this about Bible culture. He replied with two words: Kenneth Bailey.

So I went home, ordered the below book on Amazon, and began to study. 

Bailey has a really interesting perspective, because he lived in the Middle East for 40 years. As a Bible scholar, he is able to explain cultural practices in the Bible so that a modern Westerner (is that term redundant? I think so...) can understand. In Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Bailey focuses primarily on the Gospels, looking not only at the actions and the words, but their styling, syntax and symbolism as well.

We're going to look at some cool examples from this book in the coming weeks, but for now, here's what Bailey has to say about the Zacchaeus story. First, let's recap the story from the song we learned in Sunday School as kids:

Zacchaeus was a wee little man

and a wee little man was he. 

He climbed up in a sycamore tree; 

the Lord he wanted to see. 

And as the Savior passed that way, 

he looked up in the tree, and said, 

"Zacchaeus! You come down! 

For I'm going to your house today (repeat).

Interesting, the song says nothing about him running... but that's what the Bible says he did. "Luke 19:4 records Zacchaeus' first action with the words, 'So he ran on ahead.' Middle Eastern adults do not run in public if they wish to avoid public shame. Furthermore, powerful, rich men do not climb trees at public parades anywhere in the world. Zacchaeus knew this only too well. So he ran ahead of the crowd and, trying to hide, climbed into a tree with dense foliage hoping no one would see him..... Sycamore fig trees have large leaves and low branches. One can climb into them easily and just as easily hide among their thickly clustered broad leaves.... Additionally, such trees were only allowed some distance from town. Zaccahaeus chose to climb a tree growing outside Jericho, assuming the crowd would have dispersed by the time Jesus reached the tree" (page 177).

The tree itself is also interesting. It was grown for its branches, which could be used in buildings. But there was an interesting Middle Eastern practice that came with trees—the idea that they were kind of a "tent" and any ceremonial uncleanliness that happened beneath them transferred to anyone under the tree. For this reason, branches that hung over property lines were always cut. So, because sycamores have such wide-spreading branches, they were only allowed to grow outside of town, not within the boundaries. This is how we know Zacchaeus' location during this story (page 178) and that Zacchaeus broke with his strong cultural practices 2x in order to see Jesus. 

So, the crowd is still with Jesus, and they see Zacchaeus too. The Jews hated tax collectors (Zacchaeus' profession), because they were seen as the worst form of traitors. They collected the taxes to give to Rome, but also kept large cuts for themselves. So, we can imagine Jesus standing there, looking up into the tree, and everyone around Him yelling insults at Zacchaeus. 

Jesus could have admonished Zacchaeus. Instead, He says He's going to spend the night at Zacchaeus' house, which is a BIG deal. Since Jesus was seen as a rabbi (for more on this topic, see posts about Lois Tverberg's books here), hosting Him was a BIG deal for the host. And that fact that Jesus was choosing to eat with him and be hosted by him was shocking. 

But Bailey points out something else significant. Jesus walked all the way through the town (we know this from the beginning of the story, which I didn't cover in this post) and was leaving it behind. He was going somewhere else for the night. But, "having signaled that He does not intend to spend the night in their town, Jesus changes His mind and invites Himself into the house of the town collaborator. This is both unthinkable and unprecedented.... For more than 40 years, I [the author] was entertained in countless Middle Eastern towns and homes. As is typical anywhere, the community selects the form of hospitality, not the guest....No guest selects his own host, nor does any guest (especially in a situation of oppression) invite himself in public into the house of a despised collaborator!" (page 180).

This explanation really struck me—from the description of the cultural practices to the location of the sycamore tree signifying their location as being outside of town. How does knowing that Jesus was quite a ways from the town change or enhance your understanding of this story?

Bailey continues on for the rest of the story, but I'm going to leave this here—for the rest, make sure to check out this book!

The Church of Laodicea: Why Both Hot and Cold Water are Okay

Since we've been talking about the Early Church in the last few posts, I wanted to return to a book I talked about last year, Misreading Scripture through Western Eyes, by E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O'Brien, because in the first chapter they use an example of the church at Laodicea that gave me a deeper understanding of the context.

(y'all know I love this book!)

Laodicea, the location for the Church of Laodicea as mentioned in Colossians 4:13 is the church famously known for the verses: 

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth" Revelation 3:15-16.

Wow, that's some pretty vivid imagery.

So, when the authors opened this book with this example, I paid attention.

O'Brien describes standing in the ruins of Laodicea and looking to the northwest, seeing Hierapolis, a city with a natural hot springs all around the city. These mineral baths still exist today, and are a claim to fame for the city.

photo from modern-day Hierapolis from here

Over the centuries, these subterranean springs created calcium deposits on the springs that look like ice. The word for it is Pamukkale (page 10). They are still visible to this day from Laodicea.

the hot springs, photo from here

Then, in the other direction, about the same distance as Hierapolis, lie the ruins of Colossae. O'Brien says that while the city hadn't been excavated before his trip, it was very likely that in the time of Paul, you could have seen Colossae from Laodicea. And in Colossae, they had a cold, freshwater spring. Can you picture how refreshing that would be on a hot day?

photo of modern-day Colossae from here.

Laodicea, however, had neither of these things. You could go one direction and relax in the hot, mineral springs of Hierapolis, or go to Colossae and drink the coldest, freshwater, but they didn't have a water source. In fact, they needed to import it to their city so their citizens could drink. The problem was, that no matter the direction they brought the water, it would be lukewarm by the time it arrived. It was neither cold nor hot; it was just the temperature of the world. "The Laodiceans were left with all the lukewarm water they could drink. Surely they wish their water was one or the other—either hot or cold. There isn't much use for lukewarm water.

"I suspect that the meaning of the Lord's warning was clear to the Laodiceans. He wish his people were hot (like the salubrious water of Hierapolis) or cold (like the refreshing waters of Colossae). Instead, their discipleship was unremarkable" (pages 9-10).

photo of modern-day Laodicea by Carol E. Mage.

I always read the above verses with a perspective of: 

• cold= bad because it means you don't know Jesus
• lukewarm = bad because you're a fake, and 
• hot = good because you love Jesus with all of you... but it was better to be either cold or hot because at least you were all one way and not weren't half-faking your faith. 

But O'Brien points out that "from the streets of Laodicea, hot and cold were equally acceptable" (page 11).

It's not a huge, mind-bending thing, but knowing more about the geography and setting of this church helped give me a better understanding of possibly what the 1st century Church would have heard and understood for themselves.

What do you think? Did you know this about the settings of Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae?