I Don't Have An Empty Love Cup Either

Here is an excerpt from one of Dr. David Powlison's lectures at the Conference for Pastors.

He has great insight in the area of the theology of pastoral counseling, psychology, and the human heart.

I found myself sympathizing with him on core lusts. I believe mine are close to the same.

"The things that typically get called “needs” in our culture, we are on pretty good ground if we translate them “desires”, and if I get someone in trouble call them “lusts.” They are things people typically lust after They are the worldly desires. “I want you to love me.” “Fill my love cup.” “I want to be significant,….successful,…. accomplish something,…..think well of myself,…. more money,… better health, …a safe neighborhood,…life to be easy and comfortable,…..”

One of the interesting things about the way these need theologies tend to work, they are only plausible with a certain slice of humanity that is wired to that particular need, or lust. One of those things that has always struck me as I read Minirth Meier or Larry Crabb, and so forth, they camp out as if the core of the human heart is the desire to be loved, this need for love. These books have never rung my bells because my core lusts are not in those areas. My core lusts are in the areas of “I want an easy life.” I don’t care so much whether you love me, just don’t hassle me. So I don’t walk around with this love cup saying love me, love me, love me. It is more like just don’t bother me, I want peace and quiet. Now does that mean I have a peace and quiet cup and it is empty and I need to look to God to fill my peace and quiet cup? That is not so.

That is why these American pop psychologies, whether they are Christianized or not, are so implausible in other cultural contexts. Sadam Hussein does not have an empty love cup! He has an empty power cup. He wants power. That is another very typical human desire, that is worldly desire. Some people want power, love, accomplish something. That one too, I never wanted to accomplish anything.. I am a child of the 60’s. I was a hippie. I got burned out on achievement by 1969. I was not standing in line when God handed out the ambition genes. But I was standing in line for the other side of the hippie life which is manana, let me get high, feel good, etc.

Worldly desires, the human heart is tempted to be misread as masters, needs, drives, instincts, longings, and things that cannot be changed that are hard wired into our system. In fact, everyone in the major psychologies whether they are humanistic, hierarchy of needs, behavioral psychology, primary and secondary drives, psychodynamic psychology, conflicting instincts. They all view the fundamental desire structure of the human heart is a hard wired given. And that all subsequent counseling and interpretation of change is matter of working with the givens. They try whether or not to meet the needs, or bring insight into the instincts or re-pattern the drives. In the book of Titus, the mind of God, the redeemer, in fact the Holy Spirit rewires what we want. It is not true that the desires of the human heart cannot be changed. That is false. The very center of the structure of our message is the desires of the human heart can be changed. "

Dr. David Powlison
Notes from Lecture Part 2, January 30, 2001, at 18 minutes into message.
Bethlehem Conference for Pastors 2001
God, Psychology, and Christian Care for the Soul
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByConference/6/
http://www.desiringgod.org/
http://www.ccef.org/

Kenneth Bailey on Parables

PARABLES: METHODOLOGY OF KENNETH BAILEY
by Jared Edwards

Introduction

Scholars throughout the church age have been on a quest to determine the proper methodology for interpreting the parables. Augustine interpreted the parables using alegory assigning symbols from the stories of the Christian faith to characters and objects. The method of modernity was to determine the single point of each parable to be a moral platitude or eschatalogical declaration. Postmodernity engages in the aesthetic, structural, and existential dimensions of the parables with the reader response methodology. Other scholars are currently taking a more synthetic approach to the interpretation of the parables and have reacted against the one dimensional way seeking to include the valid insights from each methodology and enjoying the multifaceted information extracted by each approach.

Kenneth Bailey’s Methodology Introduced

Kenneth Bailey’s approach of interpreting the parables is rather creative than other conservative scholars such as Blomberg who posits one, two, or three points to simple, and complex parables. Rather than seeing a set number of themes or points, Bailey advocates a synthetic literary-cultural approach and asserts that “each parable is like a great diamond that sheds light in a variety of directions. At the same time a white diamond cannot legitimately be examined through a blue lens and declared to be blue in color…rather the question for the interpreter becomes – what are the various aspects of truth that Jesus is creating for his first-century Jewish audience?”[1] He continues to state the parable is like a “theological cluster”… a cluster of grapes that forms a unit with its own integrity (and often beauty) and is yet made up of a number of grapes….even so a number of theological themes are often set forth in a single parable.”[2] Bailey’s entire method of interpreting the parables can be summarized in the following steps,

“First, determine the audience. Is Jesus talking to the scribes and Pharisees, to the crowds, or to his disciples?

Second, examine carefully the setting/interpretation provided by the evangelist or his source.

Third, identify the “play within a play” and look at the parable on these two levels.

Fourth, try to discern the cultural presuppositions of the story, keeping in mind that the people in them are Palestinian peasants.

Fifth, see if the parable will break down into a series of scenes, and see if themes within the different scenes repeat in any discernible pattern.

Six, try to discern what symbols the original audience would have instinctively identified in the parable.

Seventh, determine what single decision/response the original audience is pressed to make in the original telling of the parable.

Eighth, discern the cluster of theological motifs that the parable affirms and/or presupposes, and determine what the parable is saying about these motifs.”[3]

The scope of this paper is to examine the fourth and eighth steps and show how incorporating these into the interpretation will help bring out a fuller understanding the parables.

Bailey’s Literary-Cultural Approach

One of Bailey’s main concerns are how the concepts within relate to the metaphor or parable. Bailey aquires this concern from living and teaching New Testament in the traditional Middle Eastern culture for forty years.[4] Bailey states that the “Middle Eastern creators of meaning do not offer a concept and then illustrate with a metaphor or parable. For them the equation is reversed….the Middle Eastern mind creates meaning by use of simile, metaphor, proverb, parable, and dramatic action…..not illustrating a concept but is rather creating meaning by reference to something concrete.”[5] He supports his point by directing our attention to Isaiah who “begins with conceptual language and then breaks into metaphor as a form of language with a higher potential for creation of meaning.” Bailey indicates that “metaphor and concept appear together in the Biblical tradition, but the metaphor is primary.”[6] He supports his statement by quoting Sallie McFague TeSelle that the phrase “God’s love knows no bounds” does not tell us much and “what counts here is not extracting an abstract concept but precisely the opposite, delving into the details of the story itself, letting the metaphor do its job of revealing the new setting for ordinary life. It is the play of the radical images that does the job.”[7] Bailey warns us that “the condensation of the meaning of the metaphor into concept catches a part, but not all, of the metaphor. The metaphor speaks to us on a deeper level.”[8] He encourages the reader that “the metaphor combines a concrete base in the physical world that can be seen and touched and felt with an unseen spiritual reality. Thus the metaphor speaks to the whole person in a way that the concept does not.”[9]

Bailey’s method of extracting meaning from the parable is to discern the cultural presuppositions of the story keeping in mind the people engaged are Palestinian peasants. Bailey declares “the New Testament itself often does not give us enough scope to answer the cultural questions that the text requires us to answer. Yes, we do discover by a simple reading of the New Testament that Pharisees and sinners do not like each other. But no New Testament text describe the depth of feelings on the topic such as are on display in folio 49 from Pesahim in the Babylonian Talmud..”[10] His pursuit to capture the meaning is to study the extensive literature like that of the Jewish law including the Mishnah, the Talmud of Babylon, the Talmud of Jerusalem, the Tosephta, and the Sifras of Genesis and of Leviticus. He also believes the translations of the Old Testament into Aramaic, the Targumim to be helpful. Bailey does not have a problem with finding cultural context in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th centuries because he is convinced as Flusser writes “even if the rabbinic sources are later, they still preserve evidence of an earlier stage which gave birth to the New Testament concepts and motives…even if individual sages can be described as innovators, they still based their achievements upon the oral material which they received from their predecessors.”[11] Bailey also agrees with the distinguished Harvard authority on Judaism, George Foot Moore, whose research concludes that the relationship between the Gospels and the rabbinical sources are “the important instrument” for understanding each other. Bailey continues to explain that though economic, political, conceptual and legal change can happen rapidly, “cultural mores are the slowest to change. This is our concern.” He fills in his statement more fully by illustrating,

“To interpret the parables of Jesus, the interpreter (consciously or unconsciously) will inevitably make decisions about attitudes toward women, men , the family, the family structure, family loyalties and their requirements, children, architectural styles, agricultural methods, leaders, scholars, religious authorities, trades, craftsmen, servants, eating habits, money, loyalty to community, styles of humor, story-telling, methods of communication, use of metaphor, forms of argumentation, forms of reconciliation, attitudes towards time, towards governmental authority, what shocks at what level, reactions to social situations, reasons for anger, attitudes toward animals, emotional and cultural reactions to various colors, dress, sexual codes, the nature of personal and community honor and its importance, and many, many other things.”[12]

Bailey quotes Newbigin’s statement “it is obviously true that we have no way to understand the Bible except through the concepts and categories of thought with which our culture has equipped us through our whole intellectual formation from earliest childhood.”[13] Bailey summarizes his view well by concluding “if cultural condition of language, history, economics, politics, and military influence the way we do our reasoning, how much more does culture influence what we mean when we use metaphors and tell stories to create meaning!”[14] He is critical and disturbed when Western scholars continue to read into the text of the NT their own Western attitudes with little or no apparent awareness that their own “feelings and attitudes on these topics are not universals.”[15]

Bailey also introduces the significance of Arabic translations. He maintains that many first century Christians mother tongue were Arabic and “those whose first language was historically Aramaic, Syriac, Coptic, or Greek, who after the Muslim conquest gradually became Arabic speaking and who, in the process, recorded and translated their spiritual heritage into Arabic.”[16] Bailey notes that “the history of Arabic NT is the longest and perhaps the richest of any of the versions….because all translators stopped translating in all languages but one- Arabic. All during that 900-year period an amazing number of translations into Arabic from Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and Latin were produced.”[17] His goal here is simply to examine all these translations into Arabic and perceive how they interpreted the NT, and “how Semitic Christians living in the Semitic Middle East understood material originating in a Semitic cultural world.”[18]

Bailey’s Interpretation Prodigal Son Part 1


In the second verse of the parable of the prodigal son, the younger son said to his father, “Father, give me the share of the property that is coming to me (Lk 15:12).” Bailey states according to the culture of the day, the shock is in the statement the prodigal makes. In the Middle Eastern culture, to ask for the inheritance while the father is still alive is to wish him to be dead. A Middle Eastern father “is expected to refuse the boy and drive him out of the house with verbal if not physical blows.”[19] He quotes Middle Eastern commentator Ibn al-Tayyib in Tafsir II “this is an illegitimate request! The son has no right to make such a request. There is no evidence that such a gift was even possible under Jewish law. Granted, Abraham divided his inheritance among his sons while he was still alive. But he did this out of his own choosing to keep the family from splitting apart. But this son has made his request for his own physical pleasures.”

This is significant because the parable is showing how the father’s behavior is violating the traditional expectations of a typical Middle Eastern father.[20] While the prodigal is impatient for the father to die, the father acts against his normal Middle Eastern behavior, and instead of driving him out of his home, he graciously grants his son the request. The law is not broken according to Deut 21:17, but certainly the father’s heart is broken. This theologically demonstrates that humankind in their rebellion really wants God to be dead.[21] Bailey writes, “It is out of his rejection of his father’s love that the prodigal makes his request. It is out of the father’s costly love that he grants that same request.”[22]

It is critical to notice in the Jewish law of inheritance in the Mishnah the father cannot sell the goods that are to be his sons, and the son cannot sell them while they are in the father’s possession. If the father sells them, it is only sold until the father dies, and if the son sells them, the buyer has no claim on them until the father dies.[23] Imagine the difficulty this must have been for the prodigal to liquidate his inheritance and the impact it made on the father and the remaining family. This request had a significant consequence on the household since their inheritance was not in stocks, bonds, and savings, but in houses, animals, and land. The inheritance the prodigal garnished was as significant portion of the life of the family.[24] Sale of land, animals, and houses in the Middle East takes months and often years. The smallest transactions in the East have been noted to take days of bargaining.The prodigal must have sold indifferently, foolishly, and cheaply. The community at large is horrified. The prodigal is selling his own soul and insulting his father openly by making public what has happened between them. Bailey quotes that “slander in the whole town (Sir 26:5)” would be a terror worse than death.

Bailey mentions that the Midrash Rabbah, Ruth, and the Jerusalem Talmud records the community would have performed a ceremony called “qetsatsah,” a word in Aramaic signifying judgement. This ceremony is performed when a certain person is cut off from their inheritance. It generally occurs when someone sells their inheritance to a Gentile or marries a Gentile. The relatives would bring a jar of parched corn and nuts and break the jar in front of the community and declare them to be broken off from their inheritance. So when father allows his son to depart, he not only gives away his possessions but his very life and reputation.

Bailey continues to illustrate interesting cultural points about his journey in the far away country, reckless living, spending everything, the famine, hiring himself out, and experience with the pigs, but now I plan to skip down to the reconciliation of the son and the father.
Luke 15:17 states “but when he came to himself,” and Bailey writes the “traditional understanding of ‘he came to himself’ is ‘he repented.’”[25] He backs up his statement with the earlier parables of the lost sheep and lost coins where Jesus redefines repentance as “acceptance of being found.” Lost coins and lost sheep do not find themselves, rather the shepherd and the woman go at great effort and time to find the sheep and the coin. The prodigal comes to himself and realizes the position he gave up as a son. His humiliation is demonstrated in his statement “ I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants (Lk 15:18-19).” The father proclaims “for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found (Lk 15:24).” Bailey interprets repentance in Luke 15 is acceptance of being lost and now found. [26]

Bailey offers a significant interpretation by demonstrating the Arabic translations record “fashion out of me a craftsman” rather than “treat me as one of your hired servants” and “no longer worthy to be called your son” should be translated “I am not currently worthy.” Bailey explains the Old Syriac Peshitta word makil should be used. The meaning should be conveyed “I lost the money, therefore I am not now worthy to be called your son. But, give me a few years working as a skilled craftsman and I will be.”[27] The prodigal plans to earn the inheritance back and restore his status. He believes that it is now impossible to be reinstated as a son and he decides to become a paid craftsman and work for his wages to pay his father back. His coming to himself is to save his face before the family and the community.

Repentance in the view of the rabbis is confession, compensation, and sincerity in keeping the law previously broken.[28] Although this plan is difficult in itself of his father finding him work, the greatest difficulty is facing the community after squandering his inheritance to the Gentiles who raise pigs. The prodigal faces a possible qetsatsah ceremony of rejection. They will circle him with chants, taunts, throwing dried manure and garbage, and ultimately will cut him off from the people.

Bailey well describes the setting when the prodigal returns to the village. He explains that unlike the Western culture, everything that happens in the Middle Eastern culture is everyone’s business. These families are not in isolated individual dwellings. The average size of the ancient Middle Eastern town was about six acres and the streets are only as wide to allow a camel to pass. Rabbinic literature makes clear that everyone lived in the town, even the farmers. They would leave the town each day to work in their own fields and would only sleep in booths during harvest time to protect their crops. The traditional village was very crowded with socializing, business transactions, etc. This is the scene that the prodigal enters and must make his way to his father’s house. This is not a plantation in top of a hill in a rural area.[29] The prodigal believes the relationship between him and his father is that of a servant and a master of a broken law he can restore, while the compassionate father sees the relationship as that of a child in a broken relationship. This is the tension we must understand in reading “while he was still at a great distance, his father saw him and had compassion and ran and fell upon his neck and kissed him (Lk 15:20).”

Bailey depicts that the home is in the middle of the traditional village facing the narrow street.[30] The character of the compassionate father implies that he had been watching down this distant road for months or years, knowing his son will fail, hoping he would come home. The father’s plan is to reach his son before he reaches the village and is humiliated, taunted, and excommunicated. The traditional character of the Middle Eastern father is to exhibit anger and hostility to the boy who has humiliated his father before the whole village. A traditional Middle Eastern father must uphold the honor of the family, but the compassionate father acts contrary to the traditional attitude and shows compassion.

More than that, the father does something way out of character - he runs. Middle Eastern fathers do not run in public as young boys do. Bailey quotes Ben Sirach that “a man’s manner of walking tells you what he is (Sirach 19:30).” He brings up an interesting cultural point that “one of the main reasons why Middle Easterners of rank do not run is that traditionally they have all worn long robs…no one can run in a long rob without taking it in into his hands. When this occurs the legs are exposed which is considered humiliating.”[31] Bailey writes that the Arabic versions avoid the translation that the father ran. They translate “he went” or “presented himself” or “hurried”. For a thousand years a wide range of such phrases where employed to avoid the humiliating truth of the text.[32] What a brilliant illustration of redemption! The father takes upon himself the form of a servant, pulls up his robe and runs to greet his son before he reaches the village!

The compassionate acts of the father are not over. We would expect to see the prodigal son fall on his face at the feet of the father and explain his plan of becoming a craftsman to pay him back, but before he is able to do this the father falls upon his neck and kisses him. The Jewish crowd anticipates this as an echo from Jacob and Esau’s reuniting where Jacob falls before his feet and Esau falls on his neck and kisses him. The kiss on the hand is respect shown by a community to a priest. The Middle Eastern posture of restoring a broken relationship is to fall and kiss the fathers feet. Kissing his hands are not good enough. Rather the compassionate father is he who falls upon the neck of the prodigal and kisses his face.

The father quickly says to his servants “bring quickly the best rob, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and sandals on his feet (Lk 15:22).” The father does this in the open presence of the public because he is sending a message to the community that his son is accepted. After this display of affection and acceptance by the father, there is no possiblity of a qetsatsah ceremony. Bailey interestingly notes the prodigal could not ask the father to “fashion me a craftsman” because the father’s love had overwhelmed him. The prodigal’s view of repentance was transformed from a master slave retribution to a father son acceptance and restored relationship. Bailey describes the confession of “I am not worthy to be called your son” means “I am unworthy of this stunning public costly demonstration of unexpected love which has just unfolded before my eyes!”[33] The relationship is now transformed from a law based relationship to love based and true repentance is present with the broken heart of the prodigal because his eyes were opened to the true situation. The father quickly dresses his son. The prodigal does not even have time to take a shower. The servants quickly bring the best robe because the father does not want him to be seen in the rags anymore. The father has treated the son as if he have never left home and squandered away his inheritance.

The father continues the celebration by stating “and bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate, for this my son was dead and is alive, he was lost and is found. And they began to celebrate (Lk 15:23-24).” Jesus uses resurrection language in the parable even before the resurrection. The big banquet for a single family for fatted calf would feed possibly two hundred people. Bailey interestingly points out that “the father is not just expressing his personal joy, he is formally reconciling the prodigal to the entire family and village. For the sake of the father (after such a grand banquet), no one will stand aloof from the prodigal.”[34] The banquet by the father is a very unusual incident. The Old Testament demonstrates that butchering a calf signals a very special occasion and the lesser person always butchers the calf for someone higher in rank, and in no situation have the guests offended the hosts. Examples he uses to support his statement is when Abraham gives the calf to the three angelic guests (Gen 18:7), and when a calf is butched for Saul and his servants (1 Sam 28:24-35).

Bailey makes an theological assertion,

“in the process Jesus is making a statement about the meaning of his table fellowship with sinners. …The celebration is not in honor of the prodigal. When a great king hosts a banquet for his courtiers, the king is in the central figure at the banquet, not the courtiers….So here the banquet is in honor of the father and the reconciliation he has achieved at such great cost. The father gets congratulated. The son formally, but not warmly, accepted for the sake of what the father has done. The father is assuring this acceptance in the community…The banquet is a celebration of joy in honor of the father and his life-saving costly love.” [35]
Jesus is exalting himself communicating in the parable as someone beyond the compassion of a Middle Eastern father. The father in the story is celebrating the reconciliation with the prodigal son and the celebration is not so much about the prodigal’s return than the father’s compassion and acceptance of the son.

In Luke 15 Bailey argues that the father is showing compassion like a mother. The Middle Eastern father would “sit stern and aloof” in the house when the news of his son reached him, and the “mother of the house might throw caution to the wind, run down the road, and shower the boy with kisses. Mothers are like that (the village would say)….no traditional village father would act in such a publicly disgraceful manner, especially for such a son.”[36] Bailey states that the “single metaphor preserves the unity of God and the finest qualities of father and mother are built into that unity.”[37] Bailey’s theological discovery follows Isaiah 66:13 which illustrates “as a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.”

Theological Motifs

The next aspect of Bailey’s interpretation in this paper is to discern the theological motifs and determine what the parable is saying about these motifs. In the parable of the prodigal son Kenneth Bailey determines that the theological cluster of the parable consists of eleven motifs: sin, freedom, repentance, grace, joy, fatherhood, sonship, Christology, family/community, atonement and eschatology. I will break down a few of these motifs.

Sin. The parable demonstrates two types of sin: the law breaker and law keeper. The younger brother sins breaking the law not fulfilling obligations to family and society. The older brother (contained in part 2)[38] sins by keeping the law. The sin of both comes from breaking the relationship with the father. Both brothers sin breaking the relationship with the father by viewing their familial relationship as a servant – slave, rather than loving father – son relationship. The only difference between the two is the older brother stays at home with his inheritance and the younger brother leaves with his inheritance.

Repentance. The parable exhibits two types of repentance in respect to the younger brother. At first, the younger brother’s view of repentance is earn the inheritance back by becoming a craftsman and restore it to the father. Jesus’ teaching of repentance in the passage is “accept the costly gift of being found as a son.”[39] After all the actions of the compassionate father, the younger brother accepts the costly gift of being found as a son.

Christology. The parable presents Christology in that the father takes upon himself the form of a servant by graciously granting his younger son his inheritance at all costs, embracing him back into the family, and reconciling the boy to himself and the community by throwing a banquet in celebration. The father demonstrates atonement and redemption by publicly restoring the boy’s sonship at all cost. Because of who the father is, the love offered, the atoning power is immeasurable. Bailey advocates “some of the deepest levels of the meaning of the cross are clearly exposed.”[40]

Eschatology. The parable manifests Eschatology declaring that the messianic banquet has begun and all who receive the father’s costly love are welcome in the banquet. “The table fellowship with Jesus is a proleptic celebration of the messianic banquet of the end times…. Luke (or his source) present the reader with the former parable where to eat bread in the kingdom of God finally means to accept table fellowship with Jesus….It is a joyous banquet that prefigures Holy Communion.”[41]

Assessment

Kenneth Bailey has made a tremendous contribution to scholarship with his cultural research in his variation of the litarary-cultural synthetic interpretation of parables. As demonstrated in the this paper, determining the Middle-Eastern social customs, mores, and values are critical in understanding the parables. The Western world of scholarship has been guilty of taking the extravagant metaphors and detailed stories told in the parables and condensing them down to a limited one, two, or three point message. We have also been guilty of reading our own cultural mores, customs, and traditions into the texts and spoiling the beauty and many times the meaning of the parables. Although I do not find myself agreeing with Bailey on every point theologically and I believe he goes a little too far conjecturing some of the conclusions from the culture, I believe we all can learn from the diligence and contribution he has dedicated to the cultural research in which these parables are conceived.

I agree with Bailey that there may not be a set number of points or concepts and “each parable is like a great diamond that sheds light in a variety of directions.” There are so many valuable discoveries we can glean from the parables if we interpret them exegetically, biblically, theologically, and culturally. On the other hand, I do believe it is right to say there are a set number of main points Jesus is conveying, and using a literary-cultural step defines the background to bring out the beauty and color of these main points. Incorporating the cultural synthetic exegetical method, we may be able to see clusters of other truths beautifully combined and intertwined with these main points and the cultural meaning will bring out the intensity, force, and depth of these main points.


WORKS CITED
Bailey, Kenneth E. Finding the Lost Cultural Keys to Luke 15. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1992.

Bailey, Kenneth E. Jacob & the Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel’s Story. Dover’s
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to
the Parables in Luke. Combined Edition. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1983.

Bailey, Kenneth E. The Cross & the Prodigal: Luke 15 Through the Eyes of Middle Eastern
Peasants. Dover’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.



[1] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost: Cultural Keys to Luke 15 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992), 50.
[2] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 50.
[3] Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Combined Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983) xxii.
[4] Kenneth E. Bailey, The Cross & the Prodigal: Luke 15 Through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Dover’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 11.
[5] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 16.
[6] Ibid., 18.
[7] Ibid., 18.
[8] Ibid., 19.
[9] Ibid., 19.
[10] Ibid., 33.
[11] Ibid., 31.
[12] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 32.
[13] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jacob & the Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel’s Story (Dover’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 37.
[14] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jacob & the Prodigal, 37.
[15] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 33.
[16] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 34.
[17] Ibid., 36.
[18] Ibid., 36.
[19] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 112. Bailey mentions in the Poet & Peasant page 162 that one case is contemporary life was that of a Syrian farm’s son who asked for his inheritance. The father drove him out of the house. The second was the story of a medical doctor whose son asked for the inheritance. The shock of the request brought on a heart attack.
[20] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 114.
[21] Kenneth E. Bailey, The Cross & the Prodigal, 42.
[22] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 116.
[23] Ibid., 117.
[24] Kenneth E. Bailey, The Cross & the Prodigal, 42.
[25] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 129.
[26] At this point, I would disagree with Bailey. The prodigal’s acceptance of being found was not when he came to himself, but rather after the reconciliation of the father. His true repentance is complete at the banquet when he relinquishes his idea of repentance “fashioning him out a craftsman” to accepting that he is a true son and being his son. Bailey might mean that the prodigal’s coming to himself is the beginning of repentance. With that statement, I would agree.
[27] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 135.
[28] Ibid., 138.
[29] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 140.
[30] Ibid., 143.
[31] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 144.
[32] Ibid., 146.
[33] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 153.
[34] Ibid., 155.
[35] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 156.
[36] Ibid., 159.
[37] Ibid., 159.
[38] The length of the paper would not be able to contain the second part of Bailey’s interpretation of the prodigal son.
[39] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 191.
[40] Kenneth E. Bailey, Finding the Lost, 192.
[41] Ibid., 192.

Live For Ease?

We who pursue our indulgent desires and love luxury and ease should listen to the following story:

" There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"(Luke 16:19-31)


This rich man spent all his time clothing himself in the fine things of this world, enjoying every day splendour and luxury, living a life amidst gourmet delicacies, excess and overabundance, grandour, pomp, and vainglory. Does not this represent even the middle class American who pursues his career vigorously for a life of wealth and ease? How much more the upper class also. We are all rich in this country. Even if you barely paid your bills this month. How many pairs of shoes do you have? The man who is consumed in the desire for fine dress will steadily increase his bounty by multiple accessories and embellishments. This man will find himself indulging deeper into extravagant and well garnished feasts falling into greed and debauchery. The problem was that he was so indulgent and consumed in his own lust and desires that he neglected the care of the poor, forsaking the second greatest commandment “to love your neighbor as yourself.” He had the means of producing an impact with his abundant resources on those who suffer well beyond the good Samaritan. Even though we are not all this rich, does this not represent us all who spend all our time on individual success and pursuit saying we have no time be involved in the things of God? A man who is indulgent in his own desires with neglect of the distressed and miserable has no heart capable of faith and repentance required for the justification of the ungodly. This man has neglected God’s Word in unbelief and has no room for repentance.

He should have learned pity even from the dogs who showed mercy on Lazarus. “There can be no doubt that those dogs were guided by the secret purpose of God, to condemn that man by their example …. When strangers, or even brute animals, supply our place, by performing an office which ought rather to have been discharged by ourselves, let us conclude that there are so many witnesses and judges appointed by God, to make our criminality the more manifest (Calvin on Luke p. 185).”

It is even those who are “wicked despisers of God, engrossed in pleasures of the flesh, and by mental intoxication, drown every feeling of piety,” despise the humble appearance of the Bible. So thoroughly infected is the mind of man with a depraved curiosity, that the greater part of men are always gaping afer new revelations (Calvin).” Despising the Scriptures as God’s sufficient revelation the rich man asked Abraham to allow Lazarus to appear to his family members and warn him. How was this man still engulfed in his lust for something other what God has appointed as means for repentance. Abraham stated, “'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" This is a convicting statement. How many of us are in neglect of God’s word and desire soemthing more for guidance than what he has clearly set forth the way of salvation. God has spoken in a book. Some of us have several copies on every shelf but they sit there and collect dust!

I encourage us all to open the Scriptures and allow it to search our hearts. Let it speak to our overindulgent desires we are all guilty of. Let us love our neighbors as ourselves providing aid for their needs. We should not confuse our act of charity will earn God’s favor. Only a humble, meek, pure heart toward God in faith will result in our salvation. We can never add to Christ’s work on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. We perform charity out of faith towards God, that which overflows in mercy towards others.

Weeds and Wheaties

Do you like weeds in your yard? Do you like living in a world with evil people? What if although you are not one who is despised as a menace to society, are still not counted in with the righteous?

He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn (Mt 13:24-30).'"

Just as the weeds and the wheat grew together, sometimes indistinguishable, in the same field, so also the righteous and the wicked dwell together in the world until the end of the age. Professing Christians caught up in the cares and habits of this world represent the apparent confusion of the weed or wheat. They should take heed to this teaching lest their fruitless profession be equal to a scorched weed. The wicked should realize that although the Christian may appear less righteous, like categorizing the weed and wheat, the difference is apparent to God, and like the weed and wheat, both will be consigned to two different destinations. Like the weed, the wicked will be separated out, judged, and destroyed. Like the wheat, the righteous will be gathered together and brought into Christ’s kingdom.

The world is searching for the answer to world peace. Christ gives the answer in a single parable but no one accepts it. Ultimately, there will be no world peace until Christ has gathered all his wheat into one barn. The kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness is at war until the final day. We must live together with those who are in wicked rebellion against God until he sorts us out. Just as the farmer instructed his servants to leave the weeds in the field, so also we may not separate the righteous from the unrighteous, lest we root up the righteous with them. Christ is the only one with the two edge sword who is able to make the cut without damaging his people. Therefore we must dwell with them. We must spread the good news of the kingdom until the harvest has come.

Wanna Go To A Wedding?

Is it too late to enter the kingdom of God? Do you think you have done too much evil to be forgiven? Do you think you have prepared enough to enter his kingdom when Christ comes again to judge the world? Do you think you would be ready if he came in the next 10 minutes? Read on.

"Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. But at midnight there was a cry, 'Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.' Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.' But the wise answered, saying, 'Since there will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.' And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut. Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.' But he answered, 'Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.' Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.(MT 25:1-13)

When expectation of the second coming is near, Christ may delay longer than people realize. Like the arrival of the bridegroom, no one will know when Christ will return. How many people think that Christ is going to return in their lifetime or even this decade? It is not a bad thing to think that he is going to return soon and watch for him. That is exactly what he expects of us. But many will grow weary tired of waiting and ill prepared like the foolish virgins.

One who is a follower of Christ, must be extensively prepared like the wise virgins. Like the foolish virgins there will be many who are surprised at the cost of following Christ. This accompanies both true faith and true repentance leading to good works. Many will think that only believing there is a God, or believing Christ is the Son of God is enough. But these have never experienced saving faith, because their faith was a false belief, and did not lead to repentance and good works. Genuine belief will eventually result in action. Partial believers are like the foolish virgins who did believe in the bridegroom’s arrival, but were not fully prepared.

It may be too late for those who find themselves ill prepared, for the second coming is at hand, and they will stand before God without the requirements met to enter. Like the foolish virgins they did not prepare adequately and will discover a point of no return. What a terrible thing to hear the phrase, “I never knew you.” They were not allowed to come in even though they stood at the door willing. These virgins wanted to be at the wedding but did not want anything to do with the bridegroom. If they did they would have had oil for their lamps so they could see him. The virgins will represent all the people who want to go to heaven but do not want God any where around when they get there. They only want God for what he can give them.

Good news, today there is enough time to be prepared. God has set forth the requirements in his word to enter the kingdom. Open up the Bible and find out before it is too late…

"A Righteous Man" May Be In Worse Shape Than A Sinner

Do you view yourself as a good person content in your standing as a person? Do you view yourself as someone who makes mistakes but is not as bad as certain people you see on the news? You have done some wrong things in your life but you have been pretty much clean all your life.

Or are you someone who feel like you have done more wickedness than you could have ever imagine doing, you are sick of your life, in total despair, and want to be delivered from your past ways never to see them again?

Read below to see why the latter is in a better position than the former.

And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" Jesus answered them, "I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?" And they discussed it among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' But if we say, 'From man,' we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet." So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." And he said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

“What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work in the vineyard today.' And he answered, 'I will not,' but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, 'I go, sir,' but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him (Mt 21:28-32).

Like the father sending his sons to labor in the vineyard, God demands submission of all creation to his will. There are no exceptions. Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc are all under obligation to submit to the will of Christ. There are not many ways to God but one through Christ. All men are going to be judged on the principle that only God defines man’s reconciliation to God not man. The elders and chief priests thought they were obeying the God of the Jews but they rejected his messiah. They wanted a messiah from their own definition not the one God gave them. These represent the people today who say that Jesus was a great person or teacher but not the only way to God. That will not do because he claimed to be God in the flesh. Either he is a lunatic, a liar, or Lord.

Like the son who said he would obey but disobeyed, many people say that they will obey but never do and suffer the eternal judgment of God. These are the self righteous individuals who think they are on the right track. They think they have their act together but are not ready to fully dedicate themselves to God as he has defined in his word. They think they will have time to repent before it is too late. Little do they know they are like the fool whose life was demanded of them that night. God determines the span of life, not us. Our life could be demanded of us at this moment. If this is you, repent while you can.

Like the son who changed his mind and obeyed, some initially rebel, but before it is too late, they repent and are forgiven. The self righteous individuals are at the bottom of the totem pole, not the criminals, thieves, prostitutes, scoundrels, swindlers, and murderers. It is the self righteous who say, “I keep the 10 commandments” or who say “I don’t do bad things such as these.” No, it is the people who beat their chest with their head down crying out to God saying, “have mercy on me a sinner” who will be the first in the kingdom of God. If you are of Adam, your heart is as evil as the criminal, thief, prostitute, and murderer. If you do not believe so, your sin remains and you are putting yourself above God in the judgment seat claiming what God says is not true about you.

We are all God’s servants whether you choose to be one or not. Did God not create you? We are either wicked servants or obedient servants. One obtaining eternal judgment the other eternal life. May God give us the grace to be the latter.

Forgiven Much?

What would it be like hanging out with a prostitute, a drug addict, or an ex-convict? What would it be like serving Christ alongside someone who has wasted half their life, all worn out, 30 years old but looks like they are 60? They cannot keep a job because they are not all there mentally. They need help constantly paying for their rent, bills, groceries, and cannot afford to eat more than a meal at McDonalds. But you have been blessed and are reaping the consequences of your clean life and have an abundance of possessions. Your mental state is sharpened and trained by college and work experience. You are reaping exactly what you have sown with diligent pursuit of education and hard work. But you love your possessions more than Christ, while your brother or sister in the pathetic state they are in has laid all that he or she has at Christ’s feet.

Listen to the story:

One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner." And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "Say it, Teacher."

"A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?" Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly." Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little." And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace (Lk 7:36-49)."

Just like the man owing only 50 denarii, those who take their salvation for granted not being aware of the infinite debt their percieved sins deserve should not despise those who have been redeemed from a more pathetic life of sin. Is this not true of most of us? Most of us grew up in the morality of this nation espousing “christian” values. Most of us were not delivered from prostitution, prison, drug addiction, etc. We basically had “clean” lives but were convicted of our transgressions of disobedience to parents, gossip, lying, cheating, excessive drinking, smoked a few joints, fornication, etc. These things that our society do not deem as so bad. It is we who profess to be saved by grace alone and profess to have been desperately wicked, do not really believe that confession deep down in our hearts. If so we would be more dedicated to Christ, than addicted to idleness. We still spend more time and thought on our jobs, movies, TV shows, sports, food, drink, vacations, clothes, praise of others, ease, etc, those gifts that God has given the world that we have turned to idols. We profess to be Christians but our lives have very little room for Christ. When it is time to serve, it is out of a heart of obligation and chore rather than joyful love and gratitude for what Christ has done and delivered us from. That is why we despise those who are redeemed from a more pathetic state. We tend to look at their love for Christ with jealously and challenge or judge their love as not being as real as it looks.

Like the debtor owing five hundred denarii, those who realize they have been forgiven much will respond in exuberant thankfulness and love for Christ. To get a rough estimate 500 denarii was a year and a half wage for a common man. Let’s say a common man makes $40,000 per year in Dallas. So we are comparing $60,000 of debt forgiven to $6,000. That is quite a difference: a college loan type debt to a credit card a little out of control. Is it not obvious that this person gives all of their energy, time, money, dedication over to Christ?

Like a creditor, God forgives both categories of sinners and allows them to begin again with a clean slate. Is it not marvelous grace that we can now take our eyes off of ourselves comparing the magnitude of our dedication to Christ? It is really not about our dedication and work anyway. It is about Christ’s work and love for us. We who were condemned even at conception being part of sinful humanity have been forgiven an infinite debt that even one sin deserves.

Let us search our hearts and spend all of our time looking outward of what Christ has done for us and how much he loves us. Then we will be able to repent of our lack of dedication and give all that we have to his service.