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? 

Exalting Christ in Philippians: The Church at Philippi

Last week, we started talking about the context behind Paul's letter to the Philippian church in AD 62, better known as "Philippians" to us. This week, we're going to look at the actual church, based on information given in Exalting Christ in Philippians by Tony Merida and Francis Chan.

Philippi, a Roman colony since 1st century B.C., has the distinction of being the 1st church on European soil, founded in Acts 16.

The story of how this church was founded is fascinating to me, actually. Paul was on his 2nd missionary journey and saw in a vision, a man saying, "Come to Macedonia and help us" (Acts 16:9). Now, that's pretty cool! Paul had no plans of going to Philippi at first. He wanted to go to Asia and Bithynia (verses 6-7), but those doors closed. So he chose to be obedient to the Lord and went to Macedonia. When Paul, Timothy, and Luke got there, they found no believers, so they began to share the Gospel.

So, it's AD 51, and Paul, Timothy, and Luke are in Philippi, which looks exactly like Rome. They goes looking for a synagogue and finds none, and ends up by the river where they sees a women's prayer meeting and approached them humbly (verses 24-25). "Here, in this quiet, non-spectacular event, the first church on European soil came together! The kingdom of God breaks in like this—small, quiet, lowly—but then expands" (page 8).

Lydia was one of these women. The authors note that she was a businesswoman who sold purple cloth, and likely a God-fearer. "But when Paul began teaching, God opened her heart and mind to believe the gospel. She and her household (who apparently also believed) were baptized. After this, she showed hospitality by inviting Paul's team to stay with her. God opened her heart; she opened her home" (page 8).

Then, Paul cast a spirit out from a tormented girl "and she was presumably converted". Her masters were not happy with this (she made them a profit through fortune-telling), so they took Paul and Silas before the magistrates, where they were flogged and imprisoned (2 Corinthians 10:3-4). 

In that prison, Paul and Silas began praying and singing, when God sent an earthquake and the bonds of everyone in the jail broken open. The jailer was terrified he'd be killed if the prisoners escaped. He drew his own sword to kill himself, before Paul said, "Don't do it! We're all still here!" To which, the jailer said, "What must I do to be saved?" And this guy and his family believed and were baptized. Paul and Silas were officially released and asked to leave the city, and the jailer decided to take Paul and Silas to his house to eat and have their wounds cleaned. But on the way, they stopped at Lydia's house to encourage the church meeting there—then they went to the jailer's house.

So, the church at Philippi was made up of Lydia and her friends (who were upper class), a jailer and his family, and a formerly demon-possessed slave girl. Talk about a difference in station! Yet it didn't matter, because at the foot of the cross, all are equal in their sin, and the depth of God's love for them.

This is the context of the church at Philippi that Paul writes to. How cool! How does knowing this add to our understanding of this letter?



That's it for our study on the culture and context of Philippians! I hope you enjoyed it. See you next week!

Bread of Angels by Tessa Afshar

This study of Philippi we just finished reminded me of the novel Bread of Angels by Tessa Afschar, so I wanted to feature it this week.

This beautiful cover makes it pretty clear who this book is about: Lydia at Philippi, the merchant of purple.

A quick summation:
Originally of Thyatira, tragedy and injustice forces Lydia to flee the home that had been in her family for 3 generations and start over in the Roman settlement of Philippi in Macedonia. Because she is an unmarried woman, and not a Roman citizen, it is difficult for her to open her shop and begin to make headway in selling her purple linen. But God begins to slowly make a way (without her realizing that it is Him), until one day, while gathering with her Jewish friend, Rebekah, and others down at the river, they meet four mysterious men named Paul, Silas, Marcus, and Luke. Suddenly... everything changes.

I enjoyed this book, as it was very clearly written and interesting to follow. That time period is particularly interesting to me, as I love reading about the Early Church and the Roman Empire. So if you love Biblical fiction, I definitely recommend this book.

Click here to find it on Amazon!

Exalting Christ in Philippians: Cultural Context of Philippians

Guess what? This week we're going to talk about another New Testament church!

In Exalting Jesus in the Philippians, which is another book in the series of Christ-centered Exposition, authors Tony Merida and Francis Chan begin by providing the reader with a lot of insight into the context of this letter. 

Paul wrote this letter in AD 62, about 10 years after he established the church in Philippi (we'll talk about this in the next post). Just like Ephesians, Paul was in jail in Rome at the time of the writing of this letter, literally chained to Roman guards day and night (can you imagine being chained to Paul? the thought makes me giggle a lot).

This letter to the Philippians was a thank you letter to the church, who had sent a gift with a guy named Epaphroditus to Paul. He writes back to thank them, but also encourage them. The authors  note that "Paul deeply loves this church. But Philippians is more than a mere thank-you letter. Paul also uses the occasion to encourage the believers to persevere together with joy in spite of opposition. Drawing on known military language of the time, Paul exhorts the Christians to advance the Gospel bravely, as fellow servants of the true King, in the face of terrifying opponents. One must not miss this theme of partnership for the advance of the Gospel. It's not just an epistle of joy. It's about fearlessly advancing the Gospel with joy, working together in hardship" (page 4). In fact, the authors state that the word "Gospel" appears in this letter more than any of Paul's others.

The contrast between Paul's situation (in chains in Rome) and the theme of this letter (working together in joy in advancing the Gospel) is unmistakeable and a lesson in and of itself.

photo from here.

Paul, a Roman citizen, is writing to a church that understands what is at stake for the sake of the Gospel, because Philippi was under Roman rule. Founded by Alexander the Great's father, King Philip II, it became a Roman colony in 1st century B.C.

The city itself was like a mini-Rome:

• its streets were set out in a similar pattern
• they used the same architecture and style as Rome
• they used Latin-inscripted Roman coins and spoke Latin
• they dressed in the Roman style.

The city itself also sat on a very important military road that connected the Adriatic Sea to Byzantium, which means the citizens of Philippi would have deeply understood the context of Paul's use of military language (page 7).

Philippi today, photo from here

Now that we've talked about Philippi itself, next week we'll talk about the Philippian church! 

Exalting Jesus in Ephesians: What happened to the Ephesian Church?

This is the final post in the series on Tony Merida's Exalting Jesus in Ephesians. I hope the explanation for the context of the book of Ephesians gives all of us greater perspectives on what Paul is saying in this powerful letter.

Before I go, there is one more thing I'd like to share that Merida pointed out on page 17:

• As stated before, Paul was in Ephesus for 3 years, from AD 50-52. It was his longest stay in one place on a missionary journey.
• He wrote Ephesians in AD 62 from Rome, about 7-8 years after he left.
• And in AD 90ish, when John wrote the book of Revelation, Ephesus is mentioned as one of the 7 churches: the one that lost its first love. 

"What is interesting about the church in Ephesus is that even though it had an amazing history, the final mention in Revelation 2:1-7 about this great church is that they 'abandoned the love [they] had at first. Think about it: Priscilla and Aquila, Apollos, Paul, Timothy, and later, John, ministered to this church. What a heritage! Yet about 40 years after the first generation of believers, they had lost their love.... They had a cold orthodoxy. We must ask ourselves: Is our service to Jesus mechanical? Do we love Him, or are we just using Him for our own ambitions?" (page 17). 

What happened to the church in Ephesus? Could that happen in our own lives and churches?

That's it for our study on the context of Ephesians! Go buy this book! Also, if you love historical fiction, check out Francine Rivers' Mark of the Lion series. Book 2 is set in Ephesus... and you even catch glimpses of John!