Sunday Mar 14th, thoughts going in

The Parable of the Prodigal Son…

The text from Luke chapter 15 is long enough that I’ve opted not to include it here. Besides, it’s one of those stories that is actually quite well known. A brief summary would go as follows:

This parable occurs in a chapter of parables with the common theme of “lost & found.” In each case something of SOME value—a sheep, a coin, a son—had been “lost,” and then “re-found.” As the parables of the lost sheep & coin are relatively short, the parable of the lost/prodigal son significantly dominates the chapter, though when it comes to chapters per se one must remember that Luke’s original gospel did not have chapter headings, it was simply a long rambling story.

So, as I say, the story is fairly well known, and today’s commentators also seem to be mostly on the same page when it comes to the “gotch-yas” found within the story. Here are just a few:

--In this culture ***if*** a son (younger or older) had approached his father and demanded his share of the inheritance NOW, what he would’ve likely received was a beating for his insolence. He perhaps may even have been thrown out of the family house. This was a patriarchal society. That the father GRANTED this demand would’ve been seen as a sign of extreme weakness, and even instability by the locals and extended family. They would literally have thought the father had lost his mind.

--That the younger son ends up in a far off land among the Gentiles, eventually tending pigs when his fortunes are lost, would go down very well with Jesus’ hearers. This would be “getting his just deserts.” He has turned his back on his father, his homeland, and his [Jewish] heritage. At this point, the parable is proverbial. In vs 17 the son “comes to his senses” (NIV). This is *not the same as repentance, At least, Luke appears to be making a distinction. The word “metanoia” is never used. In the Greek the young man literally “comes to himself,” and then he spins the line he’ll say to his father: “I have sinned against heaven and against you.” In other words, just as the young man manipulated his father in the first part of the parable, it appears that he intends to manipulate him again.

--The image of the father *running to greet the son would just be over the top. At this point Jesus’ listeners would be wondering what planet he’s from. The dignified old patriarch in his long flowing robes would NEVER run unless he were being chased by an enemy or something. And *IF he had granted the wayward son an audience, it would merely have been to save some face by passing final judgment on him & throwing him back out on his ear.

--Last is the reaction of the older brother which at one level seems to be justified and even interested in preserving a sense of family honor etc., and yet he is not guiltless when it comes to dishonoring the father, as he displays anger toward his father and forces the father to beg for his attendance and reconciliation.

So much for some of the details about the parable. I accept as a given that the whole purpose of a parable is to teach us something about God that would not otherwise be suspected on our part—based either on our reading of the Old Testament, or our private hunches. Having said that, the God-figure of the father in this parable seems almost gracious to a FAULT. Where is judgment? Where is sovereignty? Where, for that matter, is true repentance? Also, are we supposed to identify ourselves as one of the sons, and if so, which one? The way Luke organizes his material, the story seemed to have been precipitated by the fact that Pharisees were grumbling that Jesus was welcoming of “tax collectors and sinners.” In other words, the religious professionals, the Pharisees *may have been the older brother figure, with society’s outsiders, the tax collectors and prostitutes etc. constituting the younger brother figure. But at the time Luke wrote this (post 70AD) he may also have had the division of developing rabbinic Judaism in mind for the older brother, with the mixed Jewish/Gentile Jesus movement as the younger brother. Regardless, we’re not in first century Palestine or 1st generation church setting, we’re here in 2010, so what does this parable mean for us today?

The bottom line is that it seems to illustrate that God is a lot more gracious than we generally give him credit for being.

TM