America; The Beautiful
O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassion'd stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness.
America! America!
God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.
O beautiful for heroes prov'd
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life.
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev'ry gain divine.
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears.
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea.
Step 1.
Cut two fabric pieces that are four inches by 20 inches. Narrow hem one of the long edges as shown.
Step 2.
Measure two inches from edge and mark with a pencil (see the dot jus above the 18). Now measure one inch from that point and mark again (ring finger is pointed at this dot). Again mark two inches from your last mark and then an inch from that point. Repeat this all the way across. (2 inches then dot- 1 inch then dot- 2 inches then dot- 1 inch then dot- Continue in this pattern until you come to the end)
Step 3.
To make pleats take the first mark you made and place it on top of next mark which should be one inch from your first mark. Repeat this all the way across pinning each pleat as you make it.
* This is what it will look like when you have pinned all of your pleats
Step 4.
Stitch across top of pleats as shown.
Step 5.
Pin edges together as shown on each of the short ends and sew across. Turn to outside and press. I like to add in a little spray starch before pressing- but then I starch everything!
* This is what your end pieces will look like after your quick stitch across.
Step 6.
Pin some wide ribbon to top of your fabric as shown below. Sew acoss the ribbon (both at the top of your ribbon piece and at the bottom to secure tightly).
Step 7.
Pin the ribbon side to the bottom of the cuff of your rubber glove. I like to turn under (about an inch or so) the rubber glove as I am pinning- just to give the rubber a little more stability. But this is completely opinional.
Step 8.
Stitch into place.
Tada! All finished and suitable for gift giving. You don't want to be the only one that looks smashing in a pair of rubber gloves. Right?
Ohhh! I almost completely forgot! Remember those pair of red gloves I was talking about earlier with the ghastly yellow cuff?
Not any more ... and it was just so ~sew~ easy!
Simple Home Made Wreaths
You don't need to be a ~super~ crafter to make these decorative door wreaths. All you need is a couple of styrofoam wreaths, a hot glue gun, a few essential materials and loads of patience ~since none of these are the type that can be made quick, fast and in a hurry~ But they are double cute and will save you loads of money by creating them yourself (I priced just the pinecone wreath and they ranged from $69.00 to $110.00 ~gasp~)
Pinecone Wreath
The pictures tell the story of how to create each wreath so no tutorial is really necessary. Just know that you'll be hot gluing either balls or pinecones or fabric strips for hours.
* Before beginning your pinecone wreath: Spray paint the styrofoam brown before gluing your pinecones to help blend in with the pinecones.
* A nice variety of pinecones are essential
Rag Wreath
To make the rag wreath - cut several dozens of fabric strips (approximately 6" strips) and either hot glue to your wreath or wrap around and tie off in a knot. You can do both - tie off into knots and hot glue the fabric - to give it a fuller look and to fill in any gaps that may be noticeable.
* In the orange wreath photo shown- two different size styrofoam wreaths were used. One placed inside of the other and hot glued together to create one piece. Each piece of styrofoam was covered with fabric prior to hot gluing together.
* In the pink wreath photo shown - only one styrofoam wreath was used.
TIP!
This orange wreath will take you from Autumn all the way through Thanksgiving- which will give you plenty of time to locate some festive Winter or Christmas fabric to make another. Then of course you will want to make a pretty Spring one with pastel fabric... ~wink~
Ball Wreath
Simply begin to hot glue your ornaments in no special pattern. I think using both large and small ball ornaments makes it a little more interesting.
Also; use non-tradional Christmas colored balls for a Christmas wreath twist or to use in the spring of the year.
Have fun creating your homemade wreath and when someone asks where you got it you can proudly say "I did it myself"!
Baby Food Jar Crafts
Wondering what to do with baby food jars that keep stacking up in your recycling? Here are creative baby food jar crafts as well as some unexpected uses for baby food jars.
Floral Party Favors Or Bath Treats
Anyone with a baby or a grandbaby knows how quickly those glass baby food jars can fill up the recycling bin. This DIY is a pretty, fast and inexpensive way to decorate – simply by dipping the baby food jars into paint.
Step 1: Pour out some paint into a bowl – you don’t need much, maybe 1/2 cup or so.
Step 2: While holding the bowl on an angle, dip the jar in, and begin slowly turning the jar as it touches the paint.
Step 3: Sit the jars right-side up to dry. I let mine dry overnight. It’s important to let them dry right-side up first so that no paint drips in the wrong direction.
Step 4: Turn the jars over for a few more hours to let the bottom dry.
Bath Treats
Simply spray paint the lids; fill with your favorite bath treat (salts, scrubs, teas or bombs) and give as party favors.
Garden Chandelier
Outdoor entertaining is one of the highlights of summer, so make your evening gatherings even brighter by adding the soft, eco-friendly candlelight of a garden chandelier. This beautiful piece of home made decor is a wonderful way to reuse baby food jars. This is also a great way to reuse a circular cooling rack if you have an extra one.
Materials
Baby Food Jars
Round (or square) cooling rack
S Hooks
Roll of thin wire
Decorative Beaded chain (or ribbon or anything really that you might want to use to suspend your jars)
sand (or pebbles)
Tea light candles
Instructions
Turning over your cooling rack - you will want to tie 4 pieces of wire (1 piece from each corner) and then gather in the middle and twist together at the top to form a small hanging loop. Attach a S hood and crimp closed.
Just at the underside of the lip (I used a piece of wire about 16 inches so that I could wrap around the top of the jar several times for a really nice tight fit) you will want to wrap your wire. Bend the wire in what would be about half and pull around the jar top tightly; cross the wires and bend in the opposite direction around the jar. Next insert whatever you want to use to hang your jars - one end on each side (here I used decorative beads)and continue on bending your wire so that your beads (or ribbon) is trapped securely under the wire. When you come to the end of your wire piece simply twist in a knot and tuck the end anywhere into the wire. At the top center of your beading attach a S hook and crimp closed.
In each jar add a little sand or peddles and sit a small tea light candle.
Suspend each jar from your wire cooling rack in whatever pattern catches your fancy. Hand from a tree or your patio or whereever you would like a little ambient lighting. Very Simple to make but very Chic in it's simplicity.
Spice Storage
One of the most popular options for baby food jars is spice storage. If you are looking for a uniform, compact way to store your spices, you may want to give this a try. Popular methods for labeling the jars include chalk board paint and sticky labels (i.e. address labels). Baby food jars will fit in a variety of spice racks and other kitchen storage areas, such as drawers
Notions Storage
Buttons, Safety Pins, Bobbins, Thread, etc.
Another popular storage option for baby food jars is craft supply storage. You may want to label your jars, but unless they will be in a drawer where you can only see the tops, most likely this is not a necessity.
Desk/Office Supply Storage
Rubber bands, Paper clips, Push Pins, etc. Baby Food jars are a perfect storage suggestion to store your small desk and office supplies.
Treat Jars
Baby food jars are a nice size to fill with little candy treats for just about any occasion. You can customize your jars any way that you like. Use them as a way to serve treats at the party or have guests take home little party favor goodies.
Baby Food Jar Christmas Tree
Supplies:
20 baby food jars, cleaned and dry, with lids
1 tube clear Liquid Nails (make sure it can be used on glass)
Tinsel (may use any color- shown here with blue)
20 count Christmas lights
Hammer and metal punch
Instructions:
Using the hammer and metal punch, make holes in the lids of the jars, big enough for the lights to fit through.
Cut 2-3” pieces of tinsel and put in each jar. Screw on lids.
Glue jars together for each layer of the tree:
OOO
OO
OOOOO
OOOO
OOO
OO
O
Allow to dry for 24 hours. Then glue each row together making your tree.
Allow to dry laying down for another 24 hours.
Place lights in holes, starting at the top of the tree and working down to the trunk.
~ Manners and Customs Part III. ~
Hospitality
A look at the sacred duty of hospitality
The Christian is instructed to be 'given to hospitality' a task which is all the more daunting when one considers the meaning of hospitality from an Eastern perspective. Within most Western churches we tend to assume we have satisfied the hospitality command by visiting a restaurant with a few of our friend after church. The more adventurous of us may perhaps 'open our homes' for a one hour Bible study and even go so far as to provide coffee and cookies afterwards. From the Eastern perspective hospitality may mean providing food and lodging for an unspecified length of time to a complete stranger with zero notice. Let's look at more committed form of hospitality.
In Biblical times, hospitality was both a sacred and eagerly anticipated duty. In a tent setting the custom of sitting in the tent doorway is to allow for the owner to see a potential guest. As when Abraham saw the three angels he ran to meet them. With this attitude one must believe that all guests are sent to the host (which would be you!) by God.
The duty of hospitality is most strongly revered in cultures which are advanced enough to allow travel but not sufficiently advanced for travel to be common enough for a traveler to be self sufficient. The desire to serve a traveler is motivated primarily by the knowledge that one's own survival may shortly depend upon similar hospitality being shown by someone else. A guest in an Eastern house is considered the master of the house and the host is considered the servant; it is extreme but not unrealistic that some would at times forego the virtue of his wife or daughter in order to be hospitable.
Given the incredible privilege afforded to a guest it is perhaps reasonable to ask whom a guest might be.
The friend as a guest. It was fairly natural to allows ones friends to be guests and on occasion two people would exchange tokens with their names upon them which acted as a permanent invitation between two people. This is the origin of the 'white stone' of Rev 2:17.
Strangers as guests. The Bible is filled with examples of hospitality being shown to previously unknown individuals: Abraham and the three visitors (Gen 18:1-8), Manaoh (Jdg 13:15) and Jethro (Ex 2:20) to name but three. The literal translation of 'given to hospitality' is 'love to strangers'
Enemies as guests. At times the role of a guest would even be extended to an enemy. Given the nature of such a relationship it became important to specify the exact point at which someone became a guest; it is defined as someone having dismounted and touching a tent-peg- which then became a short term truce. Such a 'guest' was to then be honored and not mistreated.
It should be noted that while anyone could become a guest it was expected that having been a guest would render the guest as being harmless toward the host. Thus to harm ones host is considered Biblically to be an horrific sin. Thus Obad 7, Psa 41:9 and John 13:18 all narrate with horror the treachery of one that had been a guest and then had harmed his host.
Given the important and enduring effect of giving or accepting hospitality it is perhaps reasonable to ask: 'what could a guest actually expect'? We know that a guest would be treated 'well' but what does 'well' practically mean?
First and foremost a guest was provided lodging. In a tent that would amount to a sleeping place in the front of the tent. In a one room house it would be a bed in a raised and honored position. In a house with a room on the roof it would often be that room. In a house set in a court-room arrangement it would often be the room furthest from the entrance. In cities it was common to have a room in the city especially designated for travelers.
In terms of sustenance the giving of a drink of water was considered very much the first thing that should be done. In deed the giving of a drink of water outside of a house was often the invitation to becoming a guest.
For example when Eliezer asked for a drink of water (Gen 24:17) he was implicitly requesting to be a guest. This is the significance of Mark 9:41 in which Jesus places great emphasis upon those that give the disciples water for His sake. The giving of food in general and bread and salt in particular is sometimes delayed as it is considered to be the sealing of a contract. For this reason some would refuse to eat until a discussion has been had.
In addition to these practical considerations there were also a number of ritualistic courtesies that a good host would perform. The initial greeting would often be with a bow the depth of which marked the degree of respect shown. For this reason it was not uncommon for a good host to go upon his knees and bow to the ground; this was really an act of letting the other person know how much you esteemed them rather than an act of worship.
Additionally it is common to kiss upon both cheeks; even for men greeting men. Heading towards the slightly more practical a guest would usually remove their shoes and wash their feet. A servant (or even an overly zealous host) would often assist with this foot washing.
An extra act of kindness that could be bestowed was to anoint the head of the guest with fragrant oil. The one thing the guest would not get is privacy. For many the conditions were too cramped for it to be practical anyway; but even when a guest had been afforded their own room it was considered good etiquette to send ones sons to sleep in the room with the guest to provide companionship!
In conclusion, we have seen that Biblically, hospitality really amounts to providing food and shelter to anyone that requires it. We have seen that it is a duty and a privilege that should be exercised at a moment's notice even if it inconveniences us considerably.
Daily Life
What was a day in the life of a Jew really like?
The events recorded in the Bible are, by definition, events and to comprehend them fully it is sometimes useful to set them against the norm, or non-events of daily life. If you were living in Palestine what would your day consist of? If you were travelling through Palestine what would you see?
The first thing to note was that the day would start very early. The heat of the day makes work difficult and therefore it is best to start at or before sunrise. The Bible is filled with examples of this early rising spanning from Abraham (Gen 22:3), Moses (Ex 34:4) and Job (Job 1:5) down to the time of Jesus (Luke 21:38) including the Lord Himself (Mark 1:35). This early start is then broken by a siesta or rest period when the heat was hardest; usually during the middle of the day. Thus Abraham would rest during the heat of the day (Gen 18:1) and Saul's son would lie upon a bed at noon (2 Sam 4:5).
If you arose a little later than your neighbors then you would probably awake to a mild humming sound; this was the sound of the 'daily grind' which literally started with the daily grind! I have noted previously that bread was by far the dominant food group in Palestine. The preparation of bread requires flour and the production of flour requires that the grain be ground. Grinding was so essentially to Israeli life that it was forbidden to take a millstone in pledge (Deu 24:6). For many women the first half of their day would be spent in the process of producing this flour. It would have been extremely uncommon to find a man grinding flour although this indignity was sometimes heaped upon prisoners of war (Lam 5:13)
The traditional view of the grinding process is that the grinding mill consisted of two round stones some two feet in diameter and six inches thick one of which sat upon the other. The lower was called the "nether" stone and the upper was called the "rider". The upper stone had a hole through the center allowing it to sit upon a shaft attached to the nether stone. A handle on the rider stone could then be pushed and pulled, usually by two women, to rotate the stone. Grain was fed into the hole in the center of the stone and would slowly be ground as it moved towards the outer extremities of the disks. The disks would probably be set upon a sheepskin to allow the ground flour to be collected. It should also be noted that to produce fine flour the process has to be repeated twice and then the resulting twice ground flour is sifted.
Once the grinding had been done and perhaps the midday meal produced the women would probably turn their attentions to clothing. Their responsibilities in this area stretched from spinning the yard to make the clothing all the way through to keeping the clothing clean. The spinning would usually be done by the older women who could sit in groups and spin as they talked. The spun yarn would then be woven using a horizontal loom and a needle made from Bronze or bone. Washing is usually achieved in a local stream or river. The principle process is to dip the clothing into the water and then place it onto a flat surface to pound it with a club; this gives a graphic visual to the Psalmist's request to be 'washed of his iniquity' (Psa 51:2). Soaps of the quality we know today did not exist but a vegetable alkali (lye in the KJV) is referred to in the Bible on a number of occasions (Jer 2:22, Mal 3:2).
The wool for weaving was usually culled from a flock of goats; the care of which was often the responsibility of the younger girls. The goats would usually eat the local pasture but drinking water often had to be obtained for them by hand. This could be a difficult task especially as the wells were shared with the men who were watering the camels which could lead to conflict of interest. Moses befriended Jethro's daughters by assisting them during one such altercation. Water also provided the principle evening task for the womenfolk; the fetching of water for the following day. Water was fetched in a pitcher which could be carried upon the head or upon the shoulder. The water was extracted from the well by a portable leather bucket which each woman carried with her. This explains the 'woman at the wells' surprise which the Lord said he could provide water; he was not even carrying a bucket with which to extract it.
Of course, in between the labor there would be extensive social interaction; much as there is in Western society today. That said the detailed contents of the interaction might surprise and even shock a Western observer in the following ways:
The invocation of God: In Western Society God's name is usually used even as a curse or in the making of some theological point. In Eastern society the invocation is a formulaic part of normal speech. Thus 'marshallah' or 'what God has wrought' as an exclamation. The response to 'will you do X' is usually 'if God wills'. A new baby would naturally be referred to as 'the gift of God'. A manager might address employees with 'God be with you' to which the response 'God bless thee' is expected. Of course the genuine spiritual depth of the people using this formula varies; which can often render it blasphemous.
Visual Expression: A Palestinian claiming that he would 'pluck out his right eye if a promise failed' would be expressing the same sentiment as an Englishman stating that he would 'do everything within his power' to ensure something happened.
Crudeness: Again Americans will discuss matters which would have most English people blush; a Middle Easterner could probably place an American into a similar predicament. Particularly in the area of childbirth and other bodily functions. The close physical proximity in which people lived left little room for privacy or discretion. While American and even the English insist on some measure of privacy when they go to the toilet; a Middle Easterner would not expect or require any.
In concluding; I have focused primarily on the daily grind of women. It was the woman's responsibility to weave the fabric of society together in much the same way that she wove her cloth. The sound of her grinding was the reassuring hum that a dwelling place was thriving and that all was well. Her work was monotonous but vital and allowed the men to focus upon agriculture, building, religion, politics or war as needs required.
Clothing
the attire worn during Bible times
One of the more severe problems faced by Bible translators is the instance where the cultural distance between the original and the target is so great that the target language simply does not have the words required to accept an accurate translation. This is the situation they faced when translating matters of clothing into the English language. The result is that on many occasions the clothing described in the Bible may or may not have been transcribed properly. Let's look at what type has the strongest Biblical support of clothing that was worn during that time period.
Starting closest to the skin the first article encountered would be the loin-cloth. This would have been the only undergarment and often was so for many of the prophets (2 Ki 1:8, Mat 3:4, Isa 20:2, Jer 13:1) In later times this was replaced for most people with an under tunic. This was a fairly close fitting 'dress' usually without sleeves that went down to the knees. This is probably the article of clothing without seam that the Roman soldiers took from the Lord. It was still considered 'underwear' and thus to be wearing only the under tunic was considered 'being naked'. In order to show distress or grief it was common to replace this garment with sackcloth.
Outside of the underwear would be the upper tunic; this resembled the inner tunic except that it was longer and for the wealthy it could have long sleeves trailing to the ground and for the priests the sleeves would be tied into the tunic. This is generally believed to be what we would think of as a "coat". This garment was significantly looser than the underwear and for practicality was strapped into place using a girdle. The girdle was three to six inches broad and made either of linen or leather. Between the folds created in the tunic by wrapping and the space under the belt this outfit allowed for storage of food (2 Sam 18:11) or tools (Mark 6:8).
The outer garment was the mantle or cloak. This could simply be a square of cloth or it could be somewhat more shaped. The purpose was to go over the outside of the tunic and to be worn out of doors. It would generally be made of heavy wool or goats' hair and was of a dull brown color.
Somewhat surprisingly it would be worn in hot weather as well as cold; apparently the blocking of direct light from the sun is a reasonable trade for the added weight and heat retention. The mantle was also used as a blanket at night; this was the logic behind the law that a "mantle taken in pledge" had to be returned before sun-down. The mantle was even more flowing than the outer tunic and was thus capable of significant storage. Ruth was able to store six measures of barley in hers (Ruth 3:15). Shoes which were usually a strip of wood or leather strapped onto the feed using leather thongs.
Due, at least in part, to the heat of the sun it would have been common for both men and women to wear a head covering. For the males this would have been a turban; a piece of linen wrapped around a secured to the head using a strap under the chin. In contrast it was customary for a woman of any stature to wear a veil. This was essentially a piece of cloth which would cover the majority of the face and would be worn during most public occasions. Hebrew women did appear to be granted some degree of latitude as Egyptian's saw Sarah's face and Eli was able to see the mouth of Hannah.
The headgear of women from Bethlehem had an additional piece; a cap of coins. The cap was a string of seven to ten coins for a married woman; up to twenty for a single woman. The central coin is designed to be the largest and most valuable. This head cap would be part of the dowry for a woman and that the cap was considered a reflection of her character. Thus the woman of Luke 15:8-10 that had lost a coin had not simply lost an item of money but rather that she had lost part of her head-gear and that she would suffer shame as well as financial loss were it to remain missing.
It was strictly forbidden for men and women to wear each others clothes (Deut 22:5) the differences between the genders were represented more in detail and ornamentation rather than substance. Thus a woman's mantle may be rather more flowing and she may have adorned it with rather more needlework but essentially the articles of her clothing would have been similar to her husband's; with the exception of the veil.
The difference in ornamentation can most easily be characterized by the observation that the men did not ornament themselves. They might carry a walking staff and they might wear a signet ring to act as a legal seal but other than that they did not ornament. In contrast a woman might take time to elaborately braid her hair, she may have earrings usually or a long and dangling variety (somewhat similar to a Christmas tree ornament). We know that Rebekah was presented with bracelets. By the time of Isaiah (Isa 3:16-23) there was a long list of ways that women adorned themselves; although the prophet clearly did not approve of these extravagances.
As with many aspects of Biblical life we see both variety and progression. Starting with a leather loin-cloth and wrapping with a blanket when required the Hebrews progressed to wearing multiple tunics and mantles. The women had their faces covered and over time developed more and more elaborate jewelry with which to bedeck themselves. The attire of the prophets and language of scripture both tended to hark back to older and simpler times. It is notable that the Lord told his disciples that one coat was enough to travel and that people with two should share one; we can therefore state that from a Godly perspective clothing was designed for function and not form. I wonder what Isaiah would state if he turned up at a church today?
The Family
the strength and nature of relationships in Bible times
Despite the vast gulf in wealth and technology that separates Biblical Palestine from modern America, I suspect that the largest disparity actually lies in the simple concept of the family unit. Perhaps more disturbingly the distinction is one which almost certainly leaves the American child on the losing side; despite what American society may think. A Jewish family was a close knit unit with a strong and clear chain of command. Let's see how it worked.
The head of the family was the father; this could be the immediate male ancestor but it could be the grandfather if he were still alive. The father had absolute control over his household. He could arrange the marriages of his offspring, sell his children into slavery and even kill them if he chose. In return he was expected to love, command, instruct, guide, warn, rebuke, chastise and nourish his children. It is common in the Middle East for a child to greet his father by kissing his hand and then standing humbly awaiting instruction. This position of authority was open to abuse and that twice the New Testament urges caution (Eph 6:4, Col 3:21). The term "father" could be used outside of the bloodline to show respect; thus a pupil might call his teacher 'father'. The position of 'father' was clearly an important position and generally it would pass from the father to the eldest son upon the death of the father although there were some exceptions such as Jacob.
From the perspective of the child respect and even reverence for both parents was commanded (Exo 20:12, Lev 19:3). A child that repeatedly refused to do his parents' bidding could be taken before the elders and ultimately stoned to death; to strike or curse a parent was also punishable by death. Until the age of twelve the parents, and particularly the father, were acting as a proxy for God to the child, this may well explain the severity of these laws. The point the Bible makes most clear is substantiated by the frequent commands given to the parent to raise the children in the law of God. This explains why the Lord was twelve when he stayed behind in the temple; until that point it was Joseph that represented His ultimate authority.
There can be no doubt that the Bible states that the husband is the head of the wife. In contrast a Jewish child (male or female) was to honor their father and their mother. From this we see that women as a class were certainly not inferior to men as a class; however, we also see that within the all-important family unit the father held the place of absolute control. Whilst Sarah was in a position of great honor (Gen 16:6) with firm control over the household she still referred to Abraham as Lord. The book of Proverbs tells us that a husband will trust in a Godly wife (Prov 31:11), that she will be wise (Prov 31:26) and greatly appreciated (Prov 31:28).
The Bible shows that Hebrew women were not so constrained. The Law prevented them being used for pure sexuality and did not require them to be confined to the darkness of the tent. Therefore many Hebrew women rose to positions of prominence within Israel.
In closing; the facts are that in Biblical thought a child would be raised in a home in which everyone was subject to the rule of the head of the house; the father. The children would also be subject to the mother. The eldest son would be subject to his father until his father passed away at which point the eldest son would be the head. Hebrew women were not simply sex-slaves or work-horses but neither were they emancipated independent women. Still; women were quite willing to sacrifice some of their own desires and interests in order to make the family unit work; and generally it worked very well.
I often think of modern women today and it sadens me greatly that somewhere between being able to vote and burning our bras we lost something important about being a woman. In our quest to (at least appear) to be strong and independent we have made ourselves slaves to a type of daily grind that simply was not meant for us to have.
We have the responsibility of being homemakers and mother as did the Biblical women but now we have the additional responsibility of holding down a job. As a result we are stressed out, tired, overly emotional and often just plain miserable and our family is paying the price. Children spend far too much time alone and unsupervised. Our homes are not up to par in the cleaning department. And fast foods are the main staple of most every meal. Ceral has replaced a wholesome breakfast, lunch is just whatever and the dinner meal is whatever is quickest to throw together.
I challenge you to take a good look at your life, your family, your home and see if there aren't some serious adjustments that need to be made and then make them. It isn't to late to repair and even reverse "family" life back to something that actually works for every one.
~ Manners & Customs Part II. ~
Food
A look at the food of Bible times (mainly bread!)
Without an understanding of Middle-Eastern cuisine it is almost impossible to understand the significance of the Lord calling Himself the 'Bread of Life'. It is estimated that three quarters of the Middle Eastern population live entirely upon bread or other grain derivatives. This is clearly different from the highly omnivorous American diet; particularly with our inclination to eat carbohydrate as a main food source. I will attempt to give an overview of the food of Palestine and its' preparation; particularly noting how this should alter our thinking when reading Biblical passages mentioning food.
The preeminence of Bread in the East is so strong that the term 'bread' is often used to include all food stuff. As early as Genesis 3:19 the production of 'bread' is seen as one of the principle activities of man. Part of the reason for the centrality of bread within Eastern thought is that even when other articles are combined with the bread they are usually placed within the bread; either to eat or to carry. Thus when the Lord told us to pray for our daily bread; or called Himself the 'Bread of Life' he was describing all food not just a single item.
As one might expect Biblical 'Bread' came in a number of different forms:
The 'loaves' that Jesus fed to the 5,000 are similar to an American biscuit. Described as similar to a flat stone a hand's span across and a fingers breadth in depth. Or to better give you a visual they are about seven inches in diameter and half an inch thick. The 'wafers' of Exodus 16:31, 29:23 are also this form of bread. Luke 11:5 shows that three loaves was considered a good meal. The thinness of this bread tended to make it crisp and prone to dryness and not very edible after a 24 hour period; thus leading to the requirement for 'daily bread'.
The thinner form of this bread is and often used for scooping sauces and stews (not unlike a taco today). Often the was glazed with oil and perhaps sprinkled with spices to provide a treat for festive occasions.
Also a larger form of bread was made. Similar to a Western loaf but rounded. Describes an eight inch disc that is about one inch in thickness.
The method of preparation of the bread: first the flour, water and milk are mixed, then it is kneaded with the hands (or feet in Egypt!) in a kneading trough until it became dough. Then, if there was time, leaven was added and the dough left for a period prior to baking - if no time was available then the dough was baked without adding leaven. Exodus 12:34 shows in one verse how important the kneading trough was, that leaven was added late in the process, and also that the kneading trough was highly portable:
Exo 12:34 "So the people took their dough before the yeast was added, with their kneading troughs bound up in their clothing on their shoulders."
The final step in bread preparation was the baking and again we see a great variety of methods reflecting the 'needs driven' nature of the situation. Here are some examples of what is described:
Simply laying the dough upon hot stones - the method used by Elijah in 1 Kings 19:6. In addition to being laid upon the fire-stones ashes were laid on top of the dough to 'cook both sides'; or the bread was flipped halfway through the cooking process.
1. Creating a fire-pit five foot deep and three foot in diameter. One the pit is very hot bread will bake almost instantly when attached to the sides of the pit.
2. A great stone pitcher had flint placed within it and a fire kindled within it. Once the fire had abated cakes of fine flour could be baked inside the pitcher and loaves baked on the outside. The outside baking method was sometimes achieved using an earthenware jar rather than a stone pitcher.
3. Some towns had a public oven; an earthenware tube some three feet in diameter and five feet in length sunk into the ground. Often this is situated inside a hut. The tube is then filled with fuel to create a fire and once hot enough the women can bake their bread on the sides of the tube. Malachi was thinking of this scene when he described: 'the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven'
4. An alternate public oven was a half-cylinder of stone laid horizontally with a fire kindled within the cylinder. This had the advantage of making the cleaning (or taking!) of the embers much easier.
* The Bible mentions that there were public bakers (Hos 7:4) and that Jerusalem had an entire street devoted to the profession (Jer 37:21). Even post-exile the 'Tower of the Ovens' was a notable landmark (Neh 3:11,12:38)
5. The 'bowl-oven' - a set of stones are placed upon the ground and the dough placed upon the stones. A large bowl is then placed over the stones and dried dung is placed upon the bowl which is then ignited to provide heat.
6. Layers of dung were built one upon another and between the layers the dough was placed. The dung was then ignited and when it had finished burning the bread was cooked.
Once cooked the bread remained to be eaten. A guest arriving at a house would not be greeted if bread was being broken at the time. The habit of breaking bread arose because it was viewed that taking a knife to bread would be 'absolutely wicked'. And of course 'breaking' suited the texture and shape of the food.
While bread is the commonest and probably preferred method of consuming grain in the East it is certainly not the only method. By far the simplest was simply to consume the grain raw. There was specific provision in the Law for someone walking through a field of grain to eat as they went and we read of the disciples doing the same thing. Grain which was still unripe could be rendered palatable by parching; the process involved roasting the grain in a skillet. It was food of this type that David took to his brothers and that Abigail later gave to David.
The type of grain used would again be needs driven. Those with the resources would use wheat and the poorer, (which were the majority) would use barley. When time permitted this would be ground into meal; for special occasions 'fine flour' could be rendered. At the other end of the scale 'beaten corn' was the result of having ground the grain using pestle and mortar.
Having devoted much space to the Palestinian view of Bread it is perhaps useful to remember that whilst Bread was the most important and prevalent form of food it was not necessarily the most palatable or the most popular. We know that during the wilderness years the Jews ate bread made from manna; but this did not stop them fondly remembering leeks, onions and garlic. It is also noteworthy that the 'Promised Land' was described as a land flowing with milk and honey; not one that was particularly good for growing grain!
Naturally, as one would expect, the Israelites would supplement their diet as they were able. Lentils are used to form a wholesome stew; it was such a dish that Esau sold his birthright for. Isaiah mentions a garden of cucumbers (Isa 1:8) and we know of at least two occasions when Gourds are mentioned (Jonah 4:6-10 & 2 Kings 4:39). Palestine is also famous for certain fruit including Olives and Olive oil, figs, grapes and pomegranates.
It is probably in the use of animal products that the Israelites differed most markedly from American practice. For instance the domestic fowl was not introduced until after the time of Elijah; so egg based products and white-meat would not have been common.
Milk from sheep, goats and cows is drunk; but rather than our pre-occupation with freshness they rather prefer to warm the milk with yeast to create 'curds' which are then referred to as 'leben'. Left even longer suspended in a sack and regularly beaten it forms a thicker, oil substance similar to our butter. The diary product we are most likely to recognized and appreciate is cheese which is very similar to our own.
Beyond the preceding it is almost certainly the absence of meat which would strike the westerner as odd. Between poverty, the severe problems of keeping meat fresh and the strict code of the Law of Moses it is entirely impractical to eat meat on anything other than special festive occasions. Even then slaughtering an entire ox would be deemed highly wasteful. Rather it was the 'kid of the goats' that was generally turned to; the sheep being reserved to display the highest possible levels of hospitality.
To a Westerner, the forgoing presented as an overview of Palestinian food may be viewed as unbalanced. As someone used to entering a supermarket with over two dozen isles every one of which presents at least a hundred items from a different food-group it seems strange to me too. This is, however, the effect I was aiming to achieve. Middle Eastern food means bread and 'bread' in the Bible very often means 'food'. Other additions were welcome and sought after but essentially the Jews were the 'bread they ate'.
Thus when Jesus declared Himself the Bread of Life he was not asking to be treated as a 'wrapping' to layer over the 'meat' of everyday life. Rather He was asking to be the root and basis of our existence; may we not be like the Jews hankering after the leeks and onions of Egypt.
Meal Customs
Middle Eastern behavior at meal times
Many of the meals we see narrated in Scripture took place at religious events or in the presence of royalty; as such they are probably not representative of the eating practices of the general populace on a normal working day. Let's attempt to glean some information regarding the general meal-time habits of Biblical times.
The reality was, then as now, that the luxury available at a given meal varied as much with the era and means of the eater as it did with the nature of the occasion. This is seen most clearly in the setting in which the meal took place.
The common eating position in the Middle East prevalent to modern times was sitting or crouching on the floor surrounding a table that was at most slightly raised from the ground. There is some disagreement as to the exact nature of the table but that probably reflects that fact the means and fashions change. In some maunscripts mentions a round low table. Others state that the 'Shool-khawn' generally translated 'table' really means a mat spread upon the ground. This would explain king David's wish that 'their table should become a snare for them'; envisaging someone with the foot caught in the cloth.
A step up from sitting upon the ground would be having a chair; this innovation would be seen with the more settled lifestyle possible once the Jews were living in Canaan citing 1 Sa 20:25. It should be noted though that it was a king seated at that point and even by the time of Solomon having servants seated at a table was considered unsurpassable luxury (1 Ki 10:5). It is interesting to note however that shortly thereafter (1 Ki 13:20) an elderly prophet had chairs and was eating from a table.
By the time of Amos the fashion had become that one should lay on a couch to eat; and the more sumptuous the couch the better!
Amo 6:4 "Who lie on beds of ivory, Stretch out on your couches, Eat lambs from the flock And calves from the midst of the stall"
The tenor of Amos' message suggests however that the innovation was still fairly recent and the words of Amos scarcely hide the contempt he had for those indulging in such luxury. It is perhaps all the more poignant therefore that by the time our Lord walked upon the earth reclining had become the almost universal custom. The shape of the couches and the arrangement of the occupants thereof is also of interest and we'll get to that in a little bit.
While the setting of the Jewish meal varied greatly over time the daily timing of it remained fairly consistent. Around nine or ten in the morning a morsel would be eaten alongside some dainty such as olives. This was considered enough the 'break the fast' but was not considered a meal; eating a full meal that early was considered reprehensible. The first of two full meals would occur around noon; examples are Joseph's feast with his brothers in Egypt (Gen 43:16), Ruth's rest from her labors in the field (Ruth 2:14) and Peter's interrupted meal in Joppa (Acts 10:9). The main meal of the day occurred around sunset. This pattern was possibly created during the wilderness wanderings my God's provision of bread in the morning and meat in the evening (Ex 16:8).
It is probable that the serving and consumption of the food also remained fairly consistent over time. As discussed; bread is the major food stuff of Biblical times and a meal consisted principally of that; anything extra provided was usually set in a shared pot in the center of the table. If a meat was provided with sauce (or grease) then the sauce would be in a pot separate from the meat. The bread was dipped into this sauce to soften it; this is the derivation of the 'sop' of Scripture. Indeed the bread was the only utensil provided at a table other than the human hand. An Arab proverb: 'why does man want a spoon when God has given him so many fingers'.
Given the shared pot and the use of the hand as a utensil it is good to note that hand hygiene is an essential part of the Biblical dining practice. The need for hygiene extends to the point where they will not wash their hands in static water; rather they expect someone to pour water whilst they wash their hands in the running stream. This task was often delegated to a servant; thus Elisha is noted as 'one who poured water on the hands of Elijah' (2 Kings 3:11). The washing process is usually repeated at the end of the meal to remove any foodstuffs which may have accrued. By the time of the Lord this reasonable physical cleansing had become an elaborate religious ritual which the Lord's disciples where attacked by the Pharisee's for not following (Mark 7:1-5). Still it should be clearly understood that it was the elaborate ritual that the Lord rejected - not the need for hygiene.
Much as in a Christian household today a grace is said before meals. In the absence of anyone of particular religious status the host says a grace at the start of the meal; this would often be simple and formulaic such as 'In the name of God'. This would either be fully or partially repeated by each individual in turn. At the time of Christ the blessing said was: 'Blessed art Thou, Jehovah our God, King of the world, who causes to come forth bread from the earth.' If a prophet or teacher was present it would be normal to defer the blessing of the food to them. 1 Sa 9:13 gives an early example of this; the blessing that Christ pronounced upon the bread before the feeding of the five thousand is a more famous instance.
In distinction to modern practice it was also customary to give thanks at the end of a meal. Interestingly this behavior has at least as much Biblical mandate as praying before the meal. Deu 8:10 specifically instructs that when you have eaten and are full you should give thanks for the food that has been provided for you. Once again a participant in the meal would give thanks out loud and then the remainder would either say an 'Amen' or recite some fragment of the prayer.
As we have seen the setting of the Biblical meal changed over time from a simple seated circle around a mat to sumptuous couches that people could lounge upon. The timing of the meal was more consistent; essentially corresponding to a noon lunch and an early evening main meal. The food itself was served without utensils in a shared bowl or bowls; individuals would eat by dipping their bread or hand into the food. Such communal eating required hand hygiene before and after meals although not the elaboration that sometimes occurred. Thankfulness to God for provision was expected before and after eating.
Banquets
The grand feast of the Middle East
While a simple meal of bread was the centerpiece for the average person's day it was the special supper or banquet which is the centerpiece in many Biblical narratives. This is perhaps because, almost by definition, an occasion worthy of being recorded in scripture is a special occasion. Certainly one can easily justify that any meal at which the Lord was a guest should be deemed a banquet. Therefore the purpose of this is to discuss some of the custom and behavior that surrounded a Biblical Banquet.
We will start, as would the banquet, with the invitation. The custom in the East was to double the invitation. The first invitation would announce the future event and the second would be sent when the food was ready. Examples of this in scripture include Esther's invitation to Ahasuerus and Haman (Est 5:8, 6:14) and perhaps more importantly the parable of the Wedding of the King's Son (Mat 22:2,3) and the parable of the Great Supper (Luke 14:16,17). ISBE suggests that the double invitation was of practical necessity given the scarcity of time pieces.
The banquet was a sufficiently important part of Eastern life that an invitation to it, or exclusion from it, was an important hallmark of someone's status. This is manifested in a number of ways.
First the invitation is given, it is then rejected and then the invitation is given again to compel the subject to attend. Examples are Luke 14:23 and Lydia's invitation to Paul in Acts 16:15
It was the host of the feast that himself shut the door on the gathering; to define those that could attend and those that couldn't. Luke 13:25 is an example where it is the Lord Jesus closing the door
The Parable of the Guests in Luke 14:12-15; the parable suggests both a tendency towards cliques and attempts at social climbing; the invitation of the 'in' crowd and those you wish to influence. Christ councils rather the invitation of the weaker in society.
Part of the pain of exclusion from a feast rest upon the fact that feasts were brilliantly lit and that to be un-invited thus corresponded to being 'cast into outer darkness'.
The status derived from attending a feast did not, however, stop when the door was shut; if anything it became more visible and focused. The coveted status symbol became the seating position. Gen 43:33 shows that initially this would have been a fairly simple line with the most senior closest to the head of the table. The seating arrangements become more elaborate over time: some guests might be seated in a lower part of the house and those with greater status in a higher part. The ultimate seating position was at the right hand of the host with the left as a close second. Greater honor could be implied by serving the guest an extra portion (Gen 43:34) or filling their cup until in overflow (Psa 23:5). Closeness to the host and extra portions were combined into the honor of the sop. The sop was a particularly choice morsel of food which was fed by the hand of the host to some particularly honored guest. It is thus particularly poignant that the Lord should have given such a sop to Judas.
The 'extra elaboration' was set around the triclinium. The triclinium consisted of three couches set into the shape of a U; the fourth side was left open allowing those serving to get to each of the guests. The triclinium was not a Hebrew invention and we see the prophet Amos railing contemptuously against those that lay on couches to eat (Amos 6:4); nonetheless this had clearly become standard practice by New Testament times. The three couches would hold three people able to lie down comfortably as they desired; the host being the one at the base of the U shape. This latter arrangement would explain the expression of John having his head upon Jesus' bosom (John 13:23).
Naturally the banquet would be set with better or more plentiful food than a normal meal; it was also common for a banquet to have lavish amounts of wine. It is for this reason that starting a banquet early in the day, when there was still work to be done, was considered a sign of excess (Isa 5:11). Meat, often scarce in normal life, would usually be provided at a banquet and if it were possible to find the most tender and juicy stall-fed calf then so much the better. The revelry could include garlands upon the head (Isa 28:1), music (Isa 5:12) and dancing (Luke 15:25).
It is perhaps fair to conclude that while everyday meals reflected the necessities of a harsh reality the banquet was an attempt to escape, at least for a moment, from that reality. Food and entertainment was plentiful and a dose of alcohol often further distanced the real world from experience. Viewed more positively it was an occasion where people could be together in extremely close quarters to socialize and where relationships could be forged and cemented. For better or worse this was all wrapped in an elaborate and well understood ritualistic ranking system which allowed the host to express in very clear terms the favor or otherwise he felt towards everyone that he knew.
~ Manners and Customs ~
This week I have been reading on the Manners and Customs of Bible Times and thought I would share a few of the ones that I thought were quite interesting- especially the one about the broken tile.
"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men".
1 Corinthians 12:4-6
Removing the Shoes
Exodus 3:5. When one entered a house it was the usual practice to take off one's shoes, because otherwise the dirt from the unpaved streets and pathways would defile the house. If the floors were carpeted by canvas, the canves would be ruined. Removal of shoes was therefore a mark of consideration and respect, and since God can be given no less respect, the removal of shoes is a mark of respect toward God. This practice continues in contemporary society- or at least in my house it does. If your shoes are dirty then take them off please before entering!
This custom of removing your footwear before entering a home has many benefits. Let's look at a few:
First, it makes for a much quieter environment, one without all kinds of footgear clanging around.
Second, it makes for a much cleaner home because you leave the dirt of the outside world where it belongs - outside.
Third, it puts everybody at their real height and does away with all this three-inch-heel intimidation.
Fourth, it provides a sensuality in walking about that the hard soles of a shoe deny you. There is something that is just so completely awesome about digging your toes in a rich thick carpet.
Fifth, it lets your feet breathe. Some may not really appreciate this if your feet smell really horrid but there is a simple solution that everyone can live with. Simply wash your feet. Know what I mean?
Sixth, it gives you a chance to show off your socks, a part of our dresswear that seldom gets seen otherwise. Not to mention that over priced nail polish you sprang for that looks completely divine on your toenails.
Seventh, you can tell who is already in the house by giving the shoes outside a quick once-over, thereby avoiding contact with a person(s) you may want to avoid. I could continue, but I think you get the point.
Entering Women's Quarters
Judges 4:17-22. The story is normally told as an example of Joel's treachery, for when a person was at rest in a tent, he/she was supposed to be completely safe. But there may be more to the story than meets the eye. A guest in a tent slept in the porch area- kind of a entrance area of the tent that had a canvas floor and a small piece of canvas suspended overhead to keep the sun or rain off of you but! it was Not actually part of the tent itself. The actual tent was sheltered by a heavy hanging canvas door. A man was never allowed behind the canvas door, which were the women's quarters. Invasion of women's quarters was punishable by immediate death or at the very least the eyes were gouged out of the one unwise enough to peek behind the canvas door- rather he actually ever entered inside or not.
The Drink of Water
Mark 9:41. One of the first things done for a guest was to give him a drink of cool water. It was a pledge of friendship (Abraham's servant Eliezer looked for a welcome by waiting for a drink of water. (Genesis 24:17-18). When Jesus said, "Whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ" he was saying that if we pledge a person our friendship for Christ's sake we shall not lose our reward- give him/her a glass of water!
The Broken Tile
Revelation 2:17. Christ tells the angel of the church at Pergamum that to him who overcomes.. I will give... a white stone, and a new name written the stone which no one knows but him who receives it."
A tile was taken and broken in half. One friend wrote his name on one of the halves, and the other friend wrote his name on the other. The two halves were then exchanged. Often the pieces were handed down from generation to generation. To be able to produce the counterpart of a piece of tile, was to guarantee friendship and hospitality for life between the two parties.
Tent Dwelling
A look inside the Tents of the ancient Israelites
From the very earliest of Bible times up to the present day the tent has been a major feature of the Palestinian landscape. Today it is the Bedouin Arabs that dwell in the black goat's hair tents that dot the barren desert; yet the Bible shows us that for hundreds of years tent dwelling was a regular part of Hebrew life. Thus if one wishes to visualize and comprehend the living conditions in which much of the Old Testament it set it is wise to understand the extent to which tent-dwelling pervaded Hebrew life.
There can be no doubt that tent dwelling was prevalent during the earliest stages of the Bible. In Genesis 4:20 Jabal is described as the father of those that live in tents. Post flood we read of Noah retiring to his tent (Gen 9:21) and then of Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem (Gen 9:27). We are told repeatedly of Abraham pitching his tent (Gen 12:8, 13:18, 18:1) and that Lot had one too (Gen 13:5).
A rather more interesting question is: when did Israel stop dwelling in tents?
The stay of Israel in Egypt weaned them from tent life and trained them for their fixed home in Canaan. Tent dwelling diminished steadily as the Israelites took up residence in Canaan although it remained a part of life when viewing the society as a whole. For example tents were a feature of all the recorded Israelite wars. The last reference he gives is 1 Kings 16:15-16 which documents the reign of Zimri: showing tents used during war well into the divided kingdom. Tents were still used East of Gilead during Saul's reign (1 Chr 5:10) and that in the time of Isaiah shepherds' tents were still a common site (Isa 38:12).
It is the reign of David however that gives us the keenest insight into the tipping point between tent and house dwelling. David was a shepherd and a soldier and thus he would have been a tent dweller on many occasions. It was David though that felt that as he was now dwelling in a building it was time for God to move out of a tent too (2 Sa 7:1-10).
It was also during David's reign that Uriah made the statement:
2 Sa 11:11 "And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing".
It would appear that by the reign of David camping in tents, or even under the stars, was still a common condition amongst the Jewish population. In contrast the rich and elite had largely transitioned to buildings and this was considered the preferable alternative for those that could do it.
Most of the information we have regarding the construction of tents comes from observation of the ones that are being used today. The Arab bait shaer (house of hair) is made from black goat's hair which has been woven into strips about twenty seven inches across which are then sewn together and laid parallel to the length of the tent. This goats hair roof is then suspended from a number of poles which may be as few as one but which generally number nine clustered into three groups of three.
When first woven these roofs are not waterproof, but once sodden and shrunk they offer good protection against the elements. The sides of the tents, used mainly in winter, are made either from 'old' pieces of roofing material or from woven rushes. The partitions within the tent are also made from matting material. The tent is secured to the ground by ropes which are attached to pins which are driven into the ground using a mallet. It is probably just such a fastening that Jael used in Judges 4:21 to kill Sisera.
Tents were not generally 'made new' and then 'replaced'. Rather a new strip is made from a year's worth of goat clippings; this strip then replaces the oldest and most worn strip of the existing tent. Thus at any given time a given tent will be from one to about seven years old. For this reason expansion is achieved not by buying a bigger tent but by adding strips to the existing one. This is almost certainly the process alluded to in Isa 54:2. These tents are essentially a family heirloom: in Gen 24:67 we a see a tent passing from Sarah to her daughter-in-law.
For a small family a single tent could provide accommodation for the whole family unit. In such a situation the tent would be divided into three sections. The outer section nearest the door contained the men's quarters. This would also double as the reception area for sharing hospitality with guests. The second compartment, screened from the first, is the women's quarters. The third compartment, if it existed, contained the servants or livestock and sometimes both. This arrangement explains how Sarah was able to overhear the conversation between Abraham and the Lord even though she was not a part of it (Gen 18:10-17).
As a family grew in size, wealth or stature it was possible that one family would own multiple tents. As we have already seen Rebecca took the tent of Sarah. By the time of Jacob his two wives each had their own tents and the two maidservants had a tent too (Gen 31:33).
Second Chronicles 14:15 even details a case where livestock were allocated a tent to themselves. Today when multiple tents form an encampment they are generally encircled to construct a safe enclosure for livestock. It is possible the patriarchs followed a similar pattern. In contrast we know that the Israelite encampment in the wilderness was aligned in orderly rows and is compared to lines of trees in a formal garden. (Num 24:5-6)
As any hiker will attest it is vital to keep weight to a minimum; for this reason the furnishings inside a tent are typically Spartan. The ground may be covered with rugs or matting during the day with softer matting brought out at night. The clothes worn during the day typically function as the bed-spread during the night. Foodstuffs are stored near the center of the tent with a few cooking utensils and pots and pans available to cook food and some leather skins for storage of liquid. Light is provided by an oil lamp and potentially by the light of the fire. There would generally be two of the latter: one inside the men's quarters and the other outside close to the women's area. The closest one might approach luxury would be having a camel saddle to double as a chair; a situation Rachel found herself in in Genesis 31:34.
As can be seen tent life was a hard life with much work and few luxuries. It was the norm for the patriarchs and for the Israelites that left Egypt. It was probably the norm for most people right up until the time of David. From then it appears that those that could forsook the nomadic tent for a more permanent lifestyle. However the simplicity and pilgrim mentality that allowed man to move from place to place at a moment's notice held a charm and honor in Israeli thought that kept tent imagery prominent even amongst the later prophets (Zec 12:7).
One Room Houses
The peasant dwelling of the Israelites
For the poorer people, moving from tents to houses did not significantly increase the degree of comfort available from their living quarters - it did however raise the feeling of permanence and the sense of community. By modern standards it would almost be incorrect to describe these dwellings as houses; they were closer to what we would today term a 'hut'.
Nonetheless they were significant within Jewish society and the Bible is filled with references to them.
The opinions regarding the 'standard' floor plan of a peasant dwelling during early Biblical times are as diverse as the authorities consulted. Though most agree that the lowest classes had houses of one room with the living quarters raised within that room and that the livestock would sleep in the lower areas.
Additions were made as well as could be arranged on the cramped site, and in consequence, plans often became such a meaningless jumble that it was nearly impossible to identify the bounderies of adjoining houses.
In other words people probably started with a single bare room and then partitioned for privacy or extended to provide more space as and when the situation required and resources permitted. Ultimately; the result was just a mess of oddly shaped houses.
The commonest building material was mud which explains Job's comment that men live in houses made of clay. There were two principle ways for this mud to be used: either it was turned into a sun-burned brick or it was used as a form of mortar to bind together walls of irregular stones. Some had the resources to plaster their walls those that didn't faced the prospect of serpents inhabiting them! All faced the reality that mud walls could be dug through by robbers and that without constant maintenance they dissolve into heaps. Indeed Ezekiel 13:10-16 shows that a building might dissolve into heaps even with constant attention if the mud does not have the correct composition and has not been adequately tempered.
Given the potentially hazardous condition of the walls it was vitally important to build upon a strong foundation. As our Lord tells us the wisest built their houses upon rock. While not recorded in scripture the more industrious would dig down until they did reach rock and then build stone arches so that their walls could be built upon rock. A slightly easier and very common practice was to lay a great stone at the corner of the house that was at the lowest part of an incline. This 'corner-stone' was responsible for much of the stability of the structure and received great reverence. The floor of the building was rather less vital and compacted soil was generally deemed to suffice.
The roof itself would be made by stretching a main beam from the center of one wall to the center of an opposing wall. Rafters (smaller beams) would then be stretched at right angles across the main mean; again running from wall to wall. Upon this matrix of wood was then laid a carpet of rushes or brushwood. On top of that was spread a thick layer of dirt and straw which was then compacted down using a roller. The compaction phase was sufficiently important that many houses would have a smaller 'roller' which remained upon the roof for effecting running repairs as required.
The true nature of the Eastern roof is revealed by a Mosaic law which appears strange to Western eyes. In Deuteronomy 22:8 it states that when a new house is built a battlement (or low wall) has to be built around the end of the roof - to prevent bloodshed. The reason is that it was extremely common for people to go upon the roof of a house. For example Samuel met Saul upon the roof, David walked upon his roof and saw Bathsheba, and Peter went onto the roof to pray. The religious usage of the roof was indeed strong: Jeremiah and Zephaniah both record roofs being used to build altars. The roof was also a meeting place in time of calamity (Isa 15:3), fear (Isa 22:1) or even rejoicing. For this reason roofs were easily reached; access being granted by a staircase which ran up the outside of the house.
In many ways the 'dirt floor' which existed on the roof resembled the floor that would have existed at ground level; it could even grow a layer of grass from time to time (Psa 129:6). It is therefore not surprising that it should be a place that people would pitch booths (Neh 8:16). This probably led quite naturally to people building extra rooms or lofts onto the roof (or walls) of the house.
As stated earlier the interior of these houses would not be a significant advance, if any, upon a tent dwelling. The windows would be small and protected by wooden latticework. The door would probably be a wooden board that could be strapped to the doorway. Hinges, when they existed, would have been rudimentary and locks would almost certainly not have been available at all. The furnishings would have consisted of a series of cushions and mats. Perhaps the one 'luxury' that housing may have afforded was in the area of storage. The increased space and reduced requirement for 'lightness' allowed for storage chests, drying room for foodstuffs and a slightly wider array of pots and cooking utensils.
The Eastern house generally did not have a chimney; any smoke from inside having to vent through the small windows or through the other crooks and crevices afforded by the poor construction of the dwelling. While most houses would have had a small hearth in the center of the room cooking was done outside whenever possible. The fire would be made from kindling, sticks, dung, thorns or any other flammable material that came to hand.
I believe the general lesson of these one room homes is that the poor simply assembled what was around them to give themselves shelter and a sense of permanence as best as they could under the circumstances. Dirt was the principle ingredient in many homes; supplemented by vegetation and hard work as required. The ground floor was the 'business area' providing shelter from the elements and handling cooking, storage and even livestock. The roof was the area of relative peace and relaxation; recreating at least some of the freedom of living under the stars and yet also providing some peace and quiet from the activity going on below.
Houses of More than One Room
Larger houses and palaces
For those with the means, the house could move beyond the purely functional and could become a place of luxury and status. Rather than simply growing organically as necessity demanded and resources permitted these homes were designed to cater to the needs of the inhabitants. Of course even within this group the result would differ significantly between that of a prosperous craftsman and that of a king. For want of better classification these expanded dwellings are going to be discussed as the 'houses of more than one room'.
Quite literally the center of a grander eastern home is the courtyard. A two roomed home would be built with a room's width between the two rooms with an adjoining wall connecting the two rooms. The space left became the courtyard. A three room house would have the adjoining wall replaced with the front of the third room. Further ground-floor rooms would be added to the first and second away from the third room. The effect would thus be a U shape with the arms extending with the overall number of rooms. The very grandest houses would have 'courtyards of courtyards' each surround by their own cluster of rooms. When this was the case the women often had their own courtyard.
Across the 'open' end of the U is the door and gateway. These are essentially one and the same. The entranceway is fairly large yet blocked by an equally large and heavy gate which was opened only when need dictated. Set into the gateway was thus a smaller door which could be opened and closed rather more easily to permit the entrance of individuals. Privacy was usually enhanced further by building a small wall just in front of the door to prevent people in the street viewing the courtyard. If resources permitted then an individual would be nominated as the 'porter'; their job was to stand by the doorway and only permit entrance to those whose voice was recognized. In addition to vocal recognition it was not uncommon to have a projecting latticed window positioned above the gateway to allow for the inhabitants to see who was outside. It is quite possibly one of these from which Jezebel looked in 2 Kings 9:30.
To the inhabitant of the house the courtyard served as an idealized 'outside world' onto which the house fronted. Thus while the outside of the buildings which fronted on to the street might be of a mean and lowly appearance the decoration inside the courtyard would be as much as the occupants could achieve. In times of festivity they may even be carpeted. The courtyard could also contain trees, shrubs and flowers. This oasis naturally became the center of activity and would often be used for cooking and eating meals; in colder weather the hearth provided heat. It would have been such a hearth that Peter huddled around when denying the Lord.
One essential component of the courtyard was the cistern. These were essentially a bath set into the ground some four feet by two feet and maybe two feet in depth. Their purpose was to hold rainwater channeled from the surrounding buildings. It is probably one of these which hid David in 2 Samuel 17:18,19. The close proximity of water and fire and provision of privacy also explains why the courtyard could be used for bathing. Thus when Bathsheba bathed in her courtyard (2 Samuel 11:2) she would probably have been screened from anyone that didn't own a much taller building (but of course as we know King David did which is why he saw her).
The second and subsequent stories of the house served as a type of 'veranda' stretching out nine feet from the second and subsequent floors; the 'deck' covering a good portion of the courtyard. The upper rooms were one half of the width of the lower and that the remaining 'half' roof acted as a pathway between the higher rooms. Stone steps lead from the internal courtyard to the roof; though some had wooden ladders. Given that we know of at least two people falling from windows and we know of at least one collection of people supported on a verandah (Judges 16:27) Eutychus falling from the 'third loft' and David's ability to see Bathsheba strongly suggests that houses of three stories were not uncommon by the prosperious. Interestingly there is agreement that upper rooms had projecting windows; which may explain their somewhat lethal tendencies to fall!
It is likely that if a second story or even a third story existed then it would almost certainly be home to the 'guest chamber'. Considered the foremost chamber in the house the room would often have an open front and have a divan around the edge for people to sit. This would essentially allow the guest to 'hold court' from the center of the room with the assembled gathered around the outside. A room on the second floor may also be designated the 'summer house'; with the 'winter house' being more protected from the elements on the ground floor.
As may be expected the furnishings of a more affluent home would be plusher than those of a more modest one. We know that carpets and draperies were used widely; some even draped a shade-curtain over portions of the courtyard. Esther tells us with walls hanging with rich tapestries; in a Persian court. We know walls could be plastered and Jeremiah 22:14 tells us they could be painted; Ezekiel 8:10-12 shows that these paintings could sometimes be idolatrous. Amos 3:15 tells us the houses could be paneled with ivory. Jeremiah 22:14 again tells us that ceilings of wood were hung below the roof; presumably to improve the appearance and to prevent leakage and the droppings of dirt to lower floors. Some of the very wealthiest were actually able to switch to hewn stone as a construction material of the walls: something which would improve the appearance but also structural integrity of the building.
I think we can safe say that there was a class of buildings where the owners had the means to build for what they wanted rather than what they needed. Typically this resulted in a collection of rooms surrounding a well maintained and important courtyard. This courtyard was considered part of the house and the privacy and entrance to it were guarded. The second floor provided much of the higher quality living accommodation when weather conditions permitted it to be used. Much as today, houses tempted people to indulge in creature comforts, something that some of them did very willingly. Just as we do today.
