The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants

Alan writes – I have dipped into the writings of Kenneth Bailey – The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (PDF excerpt here) – as part of my sermon preparation, but never really thoroughly read his books before. Recently I bought three and am finding them incredibly helpful in terms of getting behind the text and understanding them through the Middle Eastern mindset.

The Prodigal Father has always been a favourite parable. It is, as Bailey states, ‘the gospel in the gospel’. In Luke 15 Jesus responds to a direct question of the Pharisees by telling three stories the last and longest is the parable of the prodigal son. Bailey’s experience of Middle Eastern culture enables him to shed new light on this old story. For example:

From a Middle Eastern perspective, the younger son wishes his father dead; leaves with his inheritance; spends it in wild living; and later is left starving. We would expect the Father on seeing his son to slap him in anger in the face with “the left-hand back-side of his hand. (This is more degrading in the Middle East than the right-hand or open palm.)”

But when the son is a long way of and before the son says anything to his father, the father is already running to the son. When he reaches him he kisses him and hugs him. He then very publically restores his son in the eyes of the community (placing the robe on him), and re-establishes his authority (putting his own ring on his finger). It is only after all this that the Son sees; is aware of and recognises the love of the father for him, perhaps for the first time. Had the father not been willing to run to the son—to show a costly demonstration of unexpected love, the son would not know the father's heart. And there would be no right-relationship:

Through this parable Jesus explains why he needed to die on the cross: “The father’s suffering at the beginning of the story has no effect on the prodigal son. The son isn't even aware of it. The son must first witness a demonstration of the father's suffering. WITHOUT WITNESSING this demonstration, the callous son will NEVER understand that he is the cause of the broken relationship. Without the father's visible demonstration of suffering, the prodigal will return to the house as a servant. He will—quite likely—take on more and more of the characteristics of his older brother. Without this visible demonstration of costly love, there can be no reconciliation. Isn’t this the story of the way God deals with us all on the cross?

Bailey’s book opens up new insight after new insight as he unfolds these three parables through the eyes of Middle Eastern culture.

Comments

[Michael W. Kruse]

Bailey has absolutely amazing stuff. His book "Jacob and the Prodigal" argues that Jesus was using this parable to recast the story of Israel.

Bailey also just released "Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes." There he focuses on the parables but expands well beyond them. He opens up vistas in scripture like know one I know by adopting the cultural framework of the biblical authors and hearers.

[Gareth Williams]

Hi Alan
Thanks for these thoughts. I posted an idea on my blog and a friend referred me here.
My thought is this and I'd appreciate your feedback.
The prodigal son was already part of the family and was received back into the family. The other stories Jesus told involved things that belonged to the owner/carer and were brought back/found.
Often we hear the story about someone coming to faith, yet could it really be about those coming back to God who previously had walked away from him?

[Andrew]

I haven't read Bailey's most recent book but loved "Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes" when I first discovered it. I also love Henri Nouwen's "The Return of the Prodigal". George Wieland also introduced a group of us to Mark Allan Powell's chapter on "Social Location: A Matter of Perspective" in regard to the prodigal son in his book "What Do They Hear? Bridging the Gap Between Pulpit and Pew" - it is masterful at showing how much our social location effects our exegesis. He compares Western interpretations with Eastern and African interpretations and shows how much Westerners overlook in the passage - it's brilliant.

[Alan Jamieson]

Thanks for your comments Gareth. Yes the three parables in Luke 15 are focused on the sheep, the coin and the son that had previously belonged to the flock, the woman and the family as you point out. these parables are about the one who previously belonged being found. Luke 14 on the other hand includes the parable of the Great Banquet where the servants go out in all directions to invite in people who would not previously have been part of israel or even God-fearers. this parable picks up the emphasis of Jesus in Luke 4 where he intentionaly includes those beyond the community of faith and is almost thrown off the cliff for doing so.

my best answer would be- 'yes these three parables focus on those who previously belonged and have wandered away but that is not the only focus of the gospel of Luke.'