Honor and Shame in the Zion Legacy Series

So, before moving on, I wanted to address something else I found so fascinating in the Zion Legacy Series by Bodie and Brock Thoene.

Throughout the first 3 books, there's a sub-story that is so significant in terms of culture and honor/shame in the Middle East (again, spoilers ahead... but this series was published in the early 2000s, so it's not like it's new).

Basically, there are two Arab brothers, orphan boys, Dauod and Gaman, who are fighting against the Jews. They hate the Jews as a people group, but they are friends with Yacov and Shaul (Yacov's dog).

When Gaman is seriously injured, the boys go to the only safe place: a convent where the hurt and dying are being treated. Gaman undergoes surgery by a Jewish doctor, who saves his life. Before Dauod knows that Doctor Baruch is actually a Jew, he says that he shall be Dr. Baruch's son and will honor him as such for what he did for Gaman.

Then, Dauod discovers that Dr. Baruch is a Jew. But it doesn't matter—Dauod has already made his vow.

For the rest of the series, you see his struggle as he thinks of himself as and introduces himself as Dauod, the son of Baruch. He finds himself fighting on behalf of the Jews to honor to his father and his vow.

I LOVED this sub-story because it is so different from Western culture. We'd say, "well, I didn't have all the facts, so I don't have to keep this". But Dauod didn't do this. Even as a young boy, he knew the seriousness of his vow that it meant leaving his band of rebel boys/teens and acting on behalf of the people group that he had been fighting against (even in light of his friendship with Yacov).

What do you think of this example of honor/shame and the importance of family in the Middle East? How does it differ from your culture? How can it shed light on things we read in the Bible?

The Zion Legacy Series by Bodie and Brock Thoene

So, I just finished reading the next series in the ongoing story written by Bodie and Brock Thoene: the Zion Legacy Series. (Caution- spoilers ahead if you haven't read the first 2 series fully)

Zion Legacy picks up where the Zion Covenant Series and the Zion Chronicles Series leave off, except a few weeks later—3 weeks after Israel's Independence day in 1948. You see the same characters from Zion Chronicles: Moshe and Rachel Sachar, Rabbi Lebowitz, Yacov, and Shaul, David and Ellie Meyer, Ehud Schiff and others.

But, they are joined from some familiar faces from Zion Covenant: Jacob and Lori Kalner, Alfie Hadler, and more.

I will say, that through all 3 of these series', there are times that it's difficult to follow the action because there's so much fighting; so much war—which is realistic. It's just easy to get lost in it all because there are times, especially in Zion Chronicles, where it seems just like battle after battle after battle.

But this 3rd series, Zion Legacy, is very different (especially the last 3 books). And there's a FASCINATING sub-story that I wanted more and more off. Rabbi Lebowitz takes Moshe Sachar down into the tunnels to a secret room that is INCREDIBLE and is filled with scrolls that have been kept in hiding since the beginning of Jerusalem. Basically, only 1 man knew at a time that this room existed throughout history, passing the knowledge on to a younger man when they were near death.

Oh man- read this series so that you can go through the tunnels along with these men and spend time in this secret chamber!

Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Get This Book!

That's it for our series on Kenneth E. Bailey's Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes! I hope you enjoyed this brief glimpse of the depth of these cultural studies available to us from the time of the Early Church.

As always, I only am featuring just part of it because I so strongly believe that if someone went to the trouble to write a book, then it should be purchased and enjoyed by each reader. So, please, check it out!

I wish there were a book by Bailey for each book of the New Testament, but unfortunately (for us!) he passed away in 2016. He did write some other books, however, and they are definitely on my list to check out!

Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: 1 Corinthians 13

In the first 2 posts of this series of Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, I mentioned that Corinth was a town known for its brass works, dating back to 4th century B.C. In fact, earlier in the book, author Kenneth E. Bailey says that many of the craftsmen likely escaped Corinth during its destruction in 146 B.C. and returned to restart the guilds when the city was reborn.

Bailey cites a source that says the bronze work was performed in the center of the city and then tells a personal story of visitor's brass-maker's market in Aleppo, Syria, in the 1980s. Bailey says that at first, he asked for directions, but soon he didn't need them anymore—the hammering and clanging of more than 200 craftsman led him there. "Even though all of this craftsmanship was taking place in open air, the noise was deafening," Bailey remembers, "To talk to any of the skilled workmen, I was obliged to bend down, place my lips within 2 inches of the artisan's ear, and show at the top of my voice. The noise levels were ear-splitting."

In the next paragraph, Bailey points out that "as tentmakers, Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla would have needed to be present in the marketplace in order to pursue their trade and contact customers. Enduring the high-pitched racket of banging brass would have been a common experience for all Corinthians every time they entered the market" (pages 360-361).

After reading this and imaging the clanging, hammering, and shouting going on, how does the imagery in this verse ring even louder? 

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am banging brass or a clanging cymbal" 1 Corinthians 13:2 (NIV)

WOW! I can hear it now, the difference, the cacophony of noise, in a way I couldn't before!

Paul continues the brass metaphor in verse 7, with the list that begins with love covers all things (the NIV says "always protects", but the verb used here is stego, which has to do with the connection of keeping water in (or out). In fact, the noun form of this verb means "roof", because of its meaning of being waterproof. "As brass manufacturers, the Corinthian metal workers would have been careful to make pitchers, bowls, and drinking cups that did not leak (page 376).

Finally, in verse 12, there's another brass-work metaphor, this time having to do with mirrors—which, in the ancient world, were made of brass. They had an interesting practice in that when someone ordered a mirror, the artist would offer to etch the face (or back) of the mirror along the lines of the customer's interests. Discovering that the buy worshipped Poseidon (for instance), the brass worker would obligingly lightly etch the face of Poseidon (and perhaps other gods) on the mirror. Then, upon rising in the morning and looking into the mirror, you would have the pleasure of 'seeing yourself among the gods.... But alas, the mirror soon tarnished and the mind games quickly grew old. The person was not really among the gods, and they did not talk to him or her" (page 381).

So, how does knowing the above custom, shed new light on the setting of this verse?

"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:12 (ESV)

I love how Paul used contextual examples in each of his letters that his readers would have immediately picked up on and recognized. It would have shown his intimate knowledge of their world (and struggles) as well as made it so understandable in a time when it all seemed like uncharted waters.

I don't know about you, but now I can't stop hearing the clanging brass when I think of this chapter. What a powerful image of how not to live!

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!

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?