The rest of the book is devoted to parables. The subject is introduced with a historical note from the likes of Galen around 140 AD commenting that Christians were capable of holding a high moral standard without using clear and precise logic, instead using parables to great effect. Bailey refers to Jesus as a “metaphorical theologian” versus a conceptual one, because of the ancient Hebrew tradition of using parables. It wasn’t logic, but drama and poetry.
As readers should already know, this blog has always been contra the western traditions of intellect and reason, and very much in favor of the Ancient Near Eastern pattern of parables, because moral truth, and revelation itself, addresses the human heart, not the brain. Intellect can get in the way. The more intelligent the theologian, the more abstract and difficult their writing is to understand by common folks. Bailey almost manages to say it like that, but still gets a few elements wrong.
He comes close to explaining that parables speak to knowing God as a person, not as ideas. We strive to see the world through God’s eyes by getting to know Him. Bailey settles for saying that it’s like entering a house and seeing the world through the windows of a different viewpoint.
He correctly cites the false assumption that Jesus’ parables are somewhat obvious across all cultures. What’s missing in most cases is the cultural context that is really quite different. When the Prodigal Son asked for his inheritance, it was like telling his father to drop dead. A sensible man would discipline his son for impudence, but Jesus left that out. He assumed you would know that, since it was obvious to everyone in His world. Instead, we need a lot of background to give the story its proper flavor.
Even something so historically recent as the US Constitution requires historical context. The very words used don’t always have the same common meaning today as they did to those who gathered in the first congress. They could not foresee how the language would shift in meaning over the following two centuries.
Bailey also notes that parables are not allegories; the difference is substantial. Church history is loaded with people playing at allegorical analysis and finding meaning that was frankly alien, and at times quite contrary, to what Jesus was thinking. At the same time, we cannot simply assume that a parable has only one point, as is popularly taught in western theology schools. It’s a whole way of life, not simply an idea.
It’s too easy to read your own culture back into the parables. In some Pacific Islander cultures, Judas comes off as a clever hero. People can find all sorts of favorite “isms” in the words of Jesus. Translation of words is not worth much if we lose all the vast wealth of cultural background that stands behind the Scriptures.