Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (affiliate link) (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2008. 443 pages.
Kenneth Bailey has written a series of books in which he studies Scripture in light of its Middle Eastern cultural context. Many of the references in Scripture elude or confuse North American or European readers because we have no point of reference for them. This book is a great resource in explaining the context of Scripture. Bailey lived in the Middle East for 60 years. He was born in Egypt and taught in seminaries in Egypt, Jerusalem, Lebanon, and Cyprus. He is widely read and familiar with the way Arabic Christians have traditionally understood many of the Bible stories.
He cautions that “The more familiar we are with a biblical story, the more difficult it is to view it outside of the way it has always been understood” (25). This book examines several major areas in Jesus’ life and ministry, including his birth story, the beatitudes, the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus’ relationship with women, and Jesus’ parables. He brings out many insights from his extensive familiarity with Middle Eastern customs as well as from the writings of Middle Eastern Christians throughout the ages.
I cannot summarize everything he teaches, but the following are examples of insights I found helpful or intriguing.
Bailey challenges the traditional Christmas pageant portrayal of Joseph being turned away by an innkeeper. He notes that Joseph was from the line of David and would have been treated as a special guest. Mary’s relatives lived nearby. They would have had family to take them in. It would have been unthinkable in that culture not to show hospitality to a couple about to have a baby. The word for “inn” does not denote a commercial establishment. Bailey suggests it was a simple two-room dwelling in which the space Joseph and Mary used also housed the animals at night (26-32). This interpretation makes much more sense of the story. He concludes, “The people of Bethlehem offered the best they had and preserved their honor as a community” (36).
Bailey offers a thought-provoking discussion on “righteousness.” He notes that the Mishna devotes 200 pages to it (83). He argues, “It follows that if there is no sacred language, there is no sacred culture” (95). He observes that Islam rarely uses metaphors for God. He suggests that “The dangers Islam speaks of is always present when metaphors are used as titles for God” (99). I also liked his comment: “We can affirm in quiet confidence that the ship of history moves in the direction God intends even when we live in the midst of destruction, horror, and tragedy” (115).
Bailey makes some interesting comments about the Lord’s Prayer. He notes that the word “daily” for bread is used only here, so its meaning is obscure. He offers some intriguing possibilities of what it means (119). He mentions that the steward who owed his master 10,000 talents had borrowed them (125). I am doubtful. That would have been an enormous amount to borrow. It seems more likely that they were stolen, but we cannot be sure.
This book is a compilation of Bailey’s writings over a period of time. As a result, he makes some repetitive statements in different chapters. For example, he mentions more than once that Jesus spoke more about money than prayer (136).
Bailey suggests that the reason the people of Nazareth responded so violently to Jesus was because he reinterpreted Isaiah 61 so that it did not include judgment on Gentiles: “Jesus rejected the narrow nationalism of his day. A text of judgment was transformed into a message of grace, and his listeners were incensed” (167).
Bailey discusses the fact that Jesus had female disciples (192). They were not among the twelve, but there are several references reminding readers that women followed Jesus. He suggests that the reason Martha was so upset with Mary was not because she was not helping but because she was sitting at the Rabbi’s feet just like a disciple (193). Bailey suggests that women are found throughout the Gospels, but they step into the light at the resurrection (191).
Bailey has an interesting perspective on Jesus and the woman at the well. He notes that in village society, a strange man did not make eye contact with a woman (195). He points out that Jesus made himself dependent on a Gentile woman, something unheard of in that day (204). Bailey also offers interesting insights on the woman caught in adultery. He notes that it was considered illegal to write on the Sabbath, but you could write in the dirt (234). Regarding the woman who washed Jesus’ feet at the home of Simon, he suggests that Simon was being intentionally rude to Jesus by not hosting him properly (243). He notes that a woman letting her hair down in public was grounds for divorce (248). The woman completely humiliated herself in order to honor Jesus. Bailey concludes, “The woman does not utter a single word, yet Jesus commends the power of her faith” (258).
I liked Bailey’s commentary on the parable of the Good Samaritan. He notes that robbers usually only beat victims who resisted them (291). He includes an interesting analysis of why the priest may not have stopped to check on the wounded man (293). He also discusses why the Levite might have been hesitant to intervene after the priest chose not to do so. He makes the insightful comment, “Another difficulty is that the person who fights for a just cause usually thinks he or she is thereby a just person” (301).
Bailey offers some interesting insights into the feast that people are too busy to attend. He claims that the implausible excuses are deliberate public insults (315). He claims, “The servant knows and the master quickly discovers that the guests’ intent is to humiliate the host and prevent the banquet from taking place” (316). Of course, being a parable, there is no way to know their motivation for sure, but he offers compelling insight as to what Jesus was trying to convey.
Bailey explains the parable of the two foundations as well (321). He suggests that it is often reduced to a children’s story even though it is deeply significant (321). He also offers some interesting insights into the parable of the unjust steward (332). He notes that whenever Jesus tells a story that involves an evil person, the other person in the story is always good (334). He suggests that the unjust steward “. . . builds his ruse on the basis of his unshakable awareness of the generous nature of his master” (340). Bailey suggests that “The more familiar the parable, the more it cries out to be rescued from the barnacles that have attached themselves to it over the centuries” (342).
I enjoyed Bailey’s insights into the story of the vineyard owner who paid the late-arriving laborers the same wage as those who worked all day (358). Bailey suggests that it was not merely that he needed more workers to get the job done but that he felt compassion for the unemployed who could not find work. He concludes, “No one is underpaid in the parable. The complaint is from the justly paid who cannot tolerate grace” (361).
He also offers interesting insights into the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (378). He suggests that “Those who have been unfaithful before God with material possessions cannot expect God to reveal his great treasures to them, which is the truth of God” (379). Bailey points out that Lazarus is the only person named in any of Jesus’ parables (382). His name means, “The one whom God helps” (382). The name is interesting, because it does not appear that God helped him in his earthly life. Bailey points out that the community helped Lazarus by bringing him to the gate of the rich man each morning (388). He argues that the dogs who licked Lazarus’ sores were not evil but were helping him by nursing his wounds (385). He observes, “The rich man will do nothing for Lazarus, but these wild guard dogs, who attack all strangers, know that Lazarus is their friend and do what they can—they lick his sores” (385). He notes that the rich man “. . . saw Lazarus with his eyes but never with his heart” (388). He points out how rude and proud the rich man is even in Hades and concludes, “If the fires did not change the rich man, on what basis is there any hope that a vision or visitations would change his brothers?” (393).
I enjoyed Bailey’s discussion of the parable of the minas (398). He suggests that when the nobleman goes away to a far country, he is not merely looking for his servants to earn him money. He knows that there are many in the nation who hate him and do not want him to be their king. It would take boldness and loyalty to identify with him openly and strive to advance his interests. Bailey suggests that what the wicked servant fears is not losing his mina but the adverse reactions of his fellow citizens if he openly identifies with his master. Bailey notes from the owner’s perspective: “Once I return, having received kingly power, it will be easy to declare yourself publicly to be my loyal servants. I am more interested in how you conduct yourselves when I am absent and you have to pay a high price to openly identify yourself with me” (401). Bailey concludes that “. . . he is seeking to discover the extent to which they have openly and publicly declared their loyalty to him during the risky period of his absence” (402). The master’s reward is not more privileges but more responsibility (403).
I enjoyed this book. It certainly offers fresh insights into Scriptures I have read all my life. At times Bailey can only speculate, yet his knowledge of Middle Eastern customs and perspectives certainly offers valuable insights into understanding well-read passages. I always enjoy hearing preachers, teachers, or writers who offer a fresh perspective on Scripture, especially when based on extensive research and experience. I think most people could gain many valuable insights from this book. I encourage you to read it!
Rating: 3
