This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

RBL 03/2010

Bailey, Kenneth E.

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

Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2005. 151. Pp. Paper. $15.00. ISBN 9780830832811.

Robert O’Toole Gregorian University Foundation

New York, New York

After almost forty years, this revised and expanded second edition has seen the light of day. Bailey has spent forty years living and teaching New Testament in the Middle East and has written many books in English and Arabic, including Poet and Peasant, Through Peasant Eyes, and Jacob and the Prodigal. The present volume has an introduction; preface; part 1: “Commentary on Luke 15”; part 2: “Two Sons Have I Not,” a play; “Productions Notes; and a bibliography. Each of the chapters of part 1 and part 2 are introduced with Arabic calligraphy with its translation and very brief commentary. Bailey wants to emphasize new insights, not interact with the history of the interpretation of Luke 15 or with contemporary commentators.

Bailey notes that the modern missionary movement has launched new academic disciplines such as anthropology, linguistics, and Asian and African studies and suggests that another discipline needs to be added: Middle Eastern New Testament studies. For roughly 1,500 years we in the West have been interpreting the New Testament with virtually no contact with the Christians of the Eastern Mediterranean, who uniquely are the heirs of the traditional culture of the Middle East and thereby the culture of the Bible. Moreover, Jesus participated in this culture and milieu.

This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

If theology is presented in story form, its meaning can be fairly ascertained only by adapting as much as possible to the culture of the storyteller and his or her listeners. So, the culture of the Middle East, applied to the interpretation of the Bible, can uncover levels of meaning, and Bailey sees Luke 15 as a primary example of this. Certainly one cannot naively assume that the contemporary Middle East is identical to that of the first-century culture; however, even with its limits, Bailey views it as a better lens through which to examine the parables of Jesus than our inherited temporary American culture.

Pastoral considerations in dialogue and confrontation with Islam have stimulated Bailey’s study of Luke 15. Islam continues to read the parable of the prodigal son as a denial of both the incarnation and the atonement. The prodigal appears to be reconciled with his father by his own unaided efforts; if this be true, in the parable Jesus reflects Islamic theology.

The first chapter of part 1, “Rejoice with Me,” treats Luke 15:1–10. The issue for the Pharisees is that Jesus welcomes sinners. For Bailey, the three stories of Luke 15 are a single unit and were most likely composed by Jesus himself, and the story of the lost sheep is best understood as a reshaping of Ps 23. This possibility makes the parable an introduction to all three stories, and Jesus claims to be the divine presence among the people searching for the lost and thus fulfilling the promises of Ps 23; Jer 13:1–8; and Ezek 34:1–31. When the lost sheep is found, the shepherd put this heavy burden on his shoulders rejoicing and happily accepts this backbreaking task. Accepting this burden foreshadows Jesus’ passion, and repentance is defined as “acceptance of being lost.”

The woman rightly accepts responsibility for losing her coin. There is a double progression; in the first story, the lost is one in a hundred; in the second, one in ten; in the prodigal son story, one in two. The first loss occurred in wide pasture lands, the second in a home, and the last the circle of the father’s love.

In the second chapter, “The Death Wish,” the request of the younger son is a form of mutiny, an impatience for his father to die. The prodigal is self-centered and has broken the relationship, not a law, with his father and does not seem to care about other members of the family. He is ungrateful and no longer trusts his father. He demands privilege without responsibility, yet he is totally responsible for his actions. The elder son surely knows the whole story but will not mediate between his father and his brother. He might even be the reason why his brother is leaving. He does not try to convince his brother to stay nor promise prayers or plead for a speedy return. The father grants the prodigal freedom to leave but is open to his return; certainly he suffers. So, we know the younger son by what he asks, the father by what he does, and the older son by what he does not do.

This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

According to chapter 3, “The Face-Saving Plan,” if a Jewish boy lost the family inheritance among Gentiles and dared to return home, he would have had to endure the Kezazah ceremony: the community would break a large pot in front of him and cry out that he is cut off from his people. The prodigal does lose his inheritance, and Bailey sees a negative side to his planned confession. He will not live in the family home but in a nearby village with other blue-collar craftsmen and through this job “make up” for what he has lost. His relationship with his father will now be servant-master. He does not realize that he has broken a relationship, and reconciliation is not part of his plan.

In chapter 4, “The Shattering Confrontation (Luke 15:20–24), things work out quite differently than the son had anticipated. The father set the tone for everyone and demonstrates self-emptying humility; his coming down and going out to his son are a parable of the incarnation. The son is astounded and completely surrenders and offers no alternative for their ongoing relationship. He confesses his unworthiness, and the father offers reconciliation and sonship. The son humbly realizes that all is a gift of pure grace. He also accepts the responsibility of being a son, for he knows, accepts, and can return his father’s love. This, along with his thanks, will be expressed in service. He returns to the family and to living with and loving his brother.

In chapter 5, “The Missing Climax” (Luke 15:25–32), Bailey contends that the figure of the father has evolved into a symbol for Jesus and receives his son “with peace”; therefore, the two of them are reconciled. The elder son’s refusal to join the banquet is public and so more serious than the earlier rebellion of his brother. The elder son has broken his relationship with his father, read himself out of the family, acts as a servant, and refused partnership with his father, whom he accuses of favoritism. He despises his brother and denies that the prodigal’s portion was his to do with as he wished. Finally, he falsifies the meaning of the banquet and is consumed with self-centeredness and all its associated negative characteristics. He needs to be forgiven by his father and his brother.

Bailey sees in this parable of the two lost sons the following theological topics: freedom; repentance; grace; joy; fatherhood; sonship; Christology; family-community; incarnation and atonement; Eucharist and eschatology.

In part 2, “Two Sons Have I Not,” his play, Bailey wants to portray the emotional impact in dramatic form of some of these theological ideas. He was determined to unite serious exegesis and serious drama. The play is written both to be read (privately or publicly) and acted.

Bailey has written an interesting book, and I enjoyed reading it. However, it strikes me as more an extrapolation of the original parables; this extrapolation certainly proves

This review was published by RBL 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

spiritually nourishing and worth reading for that reason and for the suggestions it makes about the contexts of the parables. Only time and further research will determine as accurately as desired what the extent of the validity of Middle Eastern New Testament studies will be. My main concern with Bailey’s book can be stated as a principle of interpretation: any understanding that Middle Eastern New Testament studies claims about the three parables must correspond with the actual text that we have. Also, I fear that there is a tendentious aspect to the book, since Bailey is eager to address the Muslim interpretation of the parable as a denial of both the incarnation and the atonement and asserts that the prodigal behaves like a Muslim, since he needs no help to return home. This misunderstanding could be answered easily enough by the text of the parable itself, for the son admits that he has sinned (Luke 15:18), and if his father did not come out to welcome him, he would have needed considerable further assistance. However, Bailey corrects this Muslim interpretation by finding in (reading into) the parables the cross, the incarnation, community, Eucharist, and eschatology. Also, Bailey’s contention that the prodigal was not thinking of reconciliation appears gratuitous.

If the three stories of Luke 15 are a single unit and were most likely composed by Jesus himself, Bailey must explain why Luke 15:8–32 is not in Matthew. Is the Kezazah ceremony now applicable? Nonetheless, Bailey’s book is interesting reading and provides appealing suggestions.