Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Feet

In Chapter 4.3 of Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, Kenneth E. Bailey talks about "Gifts and the Nature of the Body" as portrayed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:1-30.

In verse 15, Paul starts talking about feet in His picture of the body of Christ, saying, "If the foot should say, 'because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body...."

Bailey points out here in Middle Eastern traditional culture, feet and all shows were considered to be unspeakably unclean. This is why God commands Moses to remove his shoes when at the burning bush, and why the Psalmist insulted Edom by saying "upon Edom I will cast my shoe" (Psalm 60:8; 108:9). This continues in the Gospels as well, when John the Baptist says he is unworthy to untie Jesus' sandals in Mark 1:7. In fact, it was considered rude to show the sole of a shoe at home or in public. "Across the Arabic-speaking Middle East, the very words foot and shoes are four-letter words. A speaker must apologize to an audience before pronouncing them" (page 341)!

So, it's not an accident that Paul opens with the foot as an image of lowliness. What's interesting to me here is just how shocking the word foot is here in this culture. I knew it was considered dirty and unclean, because with walking everywhere, feet were always dirty. But it's easy to forget that when reading the text as a Westerner. I didn't know, however, the shocking nature of it, that a speaker would apologize for saying the word in public!

How does this affect how we read this passage about the body of Christ (and other mentions of feet in the Bible)? 

Right now I'm thinking of "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of them who bring good news" (Isaiah 52:7) and how Satan will be crushed under Jesus' feet (Genesis 3:15). Or what about when Boaz' relative gave the responsibility of redeeming the land (and Ruth as a wife) to Boaz by handing over his shoe? How does that fit in? Commentaries say it's an ancient custom symbolizing the casting off of responsibility, but I don't get where the uncleanliness might fit in.

Any thoughts?

He is Risen!

“He is not here; He is risen, just as He said. Come see the place where He lay.” Matthew 28:6

Have a wonderful Easter!


📷from the Garden Tomb, 2017 #bestdayever

Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Jesus as the Cornerstone of the Third Temple

This is the second post in a series on Kenneth E. Bailey's Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes.

In chapter 1.4, Bailey talks about Paul's focus of Christian unity in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4:16. The Church in Corinth was beginning to split into factions as to followers of Paul Peter (Cephas), or Apollos. Paul uses the picture of farming imagery (being planted and watered) to show that they were equal servants of God who He chose to use to give growth to the Church through the ministry He gave each of them.

The climax of this picture is where Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:9b: "You are God's field, God's building." We, as Christians are both God's field and God's Temple. But then he says in 3:11: "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already, laid, which is Jesus Christ."

This is where Bailey's commentary lent me some great insight. He says, "when the Jewish authorities cleared the rubble on the temple mount to rebuild the sanctuary of the second temple, they found an elevated stone in the middle of the old holy of holies". It was given the name "Shetiyah", which means "foundation". The text Bailey is citing in the Mishnah says that on the Day of Atonement, the most sacred day of the year, "the high priest would take a fire pan (full of charcoal and incense), enter the Holy of Holies, and place the pan on a raised stone in the center of the room.... Paul must have known of this stone and that it's name was 'the foundation'... Paul sees Jesus as the center of the holy of holies of the new temple he describes in [1 Corinthians 3]" (page 129).

Then, he talks about how important it is that Jesus is the foundation, and that if anyone builds on this foundation using straw, wood, hay, or even expensive stones (jewels), they will all burn up. The Corinthians knew this imagery well, because when the Romans destroyed the city in 146 B.C., they did it with fire—and left it in ruin until it was rebuilt in 44 B.C. The precious metals and gems didn't burn, obviously. But because Corinth was known for both its its bronze work and work with precious metals, this was used in its reconstruction. In fact, Bailey states in page 134 that expensive building materials were associated with the city of Corinth, so Paul's picture here of the temple being built with all of these different materials spoke directly to the context and understanding of the Corinthians in a way that we might not understand instinctively.

Finally, it is important to note that while Paul wrote this chapter, the Second Temple hadn't been destroyed yet. There were still twice-daily sacrifices offered for the sin of the people. So while all this is going on, and his readers are very aware of it, "Paul announced dramatically to his Jewish and Gentile readers that 'you (plural!*) are God's holy temple' and God's Spirit dwells in you (plural)' (page 132). The "you plural" here is for all Christian readers, not just Corinthians, as he points out in Chapter 1:2.

Basically, he is declaring Christians the "Third Temple"—before the Second Temple has been destroyed! 

I'd literally never thought about that before, but it's so true that God's Word isn't written in a vacuum, and to me, is another example of why it's so important to know the historical and cultural contexts of the Bible.

What do you think? Is there anything in this post that is new to you and adds to your understanding of this section of 1 Corinthians?



*see this post for the significance of "you plural" (or, y'all) being used in the Bible

Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Corinth

This week, we're going to be a series on another book by Kenneth E. Bailey: Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes. This book focuses specifically on the book of 1 Corinthians, and how the Early Church would have viewed His words to them through their cultural lenses.

First, like with Ephesus, Philippi, and Laodicea, it's important to know the setting of Corinth itself. A Roman colony, "Corinth was the largest international commercial city in the Eastern Mediterranean. The faith could move out across the region from Corinth in ways that could not have been possible from Athens" (page 105), even though Athens was technically the intellectual center of the Mediterranean world. 

Destroyed in 146 B.C. by the Romans for having opposed them, Corinth became a Roman colony in 44 B.C. to facilitate the movement of goods across the isthmus of Corinth and as a center of trade. As a commercial town composed of various ethnic communities, it was thriving in the first century, and the 3 groups that would have naturally dominated the young Christian community would have been the Romans, the Greeks, and the Jews" (page 69). 

photo of Corinth today by viator.com

Bailey points out that Paul uses language language of a tent-maker, or a brass-maker, which is interesting because Corinth was famous for its brass work. In Chapter 1, verse 2, the word 'agree' literally means 'fit together'. Bailey points out, "Pieces of canvas must 'fit together' or the tent will leak. If the canvas 'splits', the tent is worthless.... and no one will buy a brass pot with a handle that does not fit tightly to the pot" (pages 68-69). 

This letter is 1 of 3, the first one being lost (mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9), and was written between AD 53-55. Paul was towards the end of his 3rd missionary journey, based in Ephesus, which was also a major port city.

We'll take more about this in a future post (hello, 1 Corinthians 13!) but for now, how does knowing the setting of Corinth help place you in the mindset of the Corinthians and other Early Church readers?

Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Jesus' Parable of the Banquet

In Chapter 24 of Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Kenneth E. Bailey explores cultural themes in the Jesus' parable of the banquet in Luke 14:15-24.

So, the setting is that Jesus is at a banquet when telling this story. It's about a man who is throwing a banquet, and when it comes time for the actual banquet to happen, suddenly people have all these excuses as to why they can't come. As a Westerner reading this, I was thinking, "Well, maybe people didn't know about it until it was too late. Did he send an invitation? Or maybe people then were FOMO like now, hedging their bets on waiting to see all that is available to do that day before making a commitment" (you can probably guess what I think of this last practice, haha). 

But on page 313, Bailey breaks down the cultural practice of banquets: "In a traditional Middle Eastern village, the host of a banquet invites a group of his friends. On the basis of the number of people who accept the invitation, he decides how much and what kind of meat he will serve. On the day of the banquet, animals or fowl are butchered and the banquet prepared. When everything is ready, the master will send his servant around the village with the classical phrase, 'Please come, everything is ready.'" If someone can't come, then they need to give a plausible excuse. Not giving one is "a deliberate public insult to the host" (a very serious offense).

So, the first excuse given by a guess is that he's just bought a field and has to inspect it, which may seem like a real excuse to us. But Bailey says that back in Jesus' time, the process of buying a field took months, because the buyer needed to know about its quality of the soil, drainage, rainfall, etc, in different seasons. You don't "just" buy a field; you inspect it for months before buying it!

The second excuse is just as bad—that he just bought 5 yoke of oxen and needs to go test them. Like the purchasing of a field in the ancient Middle East, the purchase of oxen is just as serious. Because oxen must pull together and tire at the same speed, they would also have been observed very closely before purchasing. 

The third excuse is the worst: that the man just got married and cannot come. Bailey points out that "Middle Eastern chivalry produces a dignified and respectful manner of talking about one's wife" (page 315). The way this guest speaks (and the subject matter) and its use as an excuse is the most disrespectful excuse of all. 

When the servant tells his master, he's angry, because culturally, he knows these guests are working together to shut down the banquet. So he sends his servant out into the streets of the city to bring in the poor, the blind, the lame, and even strangers who are passing by on the highways.

Interpretation of this parable leads to the understanding that the banquet is the Kingdom of God. The first round of guests represent the leaders of the law, or those considered the most righteous. The second round represents the common people of the land, and the third, Gentiles. 

How does the expansion of the context of the excuses given heighten the seriousness of the refusal and rejection of the original guests?

**That's it for our study of Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes! I hope you enjoyed it... and that it interested you enough to possibly go out and buy the book for yourself! We're going to take a break for next week (Easter!) and start back with another Kenneth E. Bailey book on Paul on April 29!