1.0 INTRODUCTION
OF LUKE 15
The opening sentences (15:1-2) of
the three parables set the framework for understanding the three parables by setting
out a scene of controversial arguments of Pharisees and scribes over Jesus’
welcoming of “sinners”
and “eating with them”
(v 1-3). Jesus responses not in accordance with the teachings found in Torah or
halakic but with a powerful verbal defense in the form of a tightly knitted sequence of four Parables (where
three are found in Luke 15): the
Lost Sheep (v4-7), the Lost Coin (v 8-10) and the Lost Son (v11-32).[1]
It is noteworthy that the
beginning and end of the passage constitute an “inclusio”, with the
elder son’s complaint about his father’s hospitality to the
prodigal (v 28-30) echoing the opening complaint of the Pharisees and scribes
about the hospitality
of Jesus to “sinners” (v1-2). Thus, a
contrast was drawn between two paired groups: “all the tax-collectors and
sinners” who drew near to hear Jesus’ teaching and the presence of the Pharisees
and scribes who
were there not to hear but to “murmur”.[2] Their complaints
(15:2) are
repetition of complaints made by them against Jesus at the outset of his
ministry, when he called the tax collector Levi to follow Him (Luke 5:27-30).
The
features
which highlight the essential unity of the three parables, are:[3] (a) Sharing
of common theme: “God’s delight in a sinner’s
repentance (v7,10,24,32); (b) Sharing of same words/phrases, ,
for example, “repentance” (v 7, 10,18), “joy/rejoice/make
merry” (v 5-7, 9-10,23-24, 32), and because of the lost is found (v 6, 9, 24,32); (c) Sharing of similar or common
structure: Lost à found/recovery à celebrate à concluding
lesson.
2.0 THE PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL SON (LUKE 15:11-32)
The parable of the Prodigal Son
in 15:11-32 was depicted by F. Sommer as “The greatest short story ever told”
and, by (J.E. Compton) as “the greatest of
all Jesus’ parables”.[4]
The story starts with “a man has two
sons”, and presents to its readers through two interesting episodes of parallel
but contrasting parts. This session of the paper will look at both these
parallel but contrasting parts of the story in order to draw out some important
truths applied in the story.
2.1 TWO
PARALLEL BUT CONTRASTING PARTS
A brief summary of the two parallel parts:[5] The first
speaks about the lost younger
son (v 11-24) and the second speaks about the elder son who seems equally lost (v 25-32) as his younger brother. The family suffered unnecessary separation
when the younger son left home with his portion of inheritance and when the
elder son refused to come home for reunion feast upon the return of his younger
brother. The father in each
part has the final authoritative word (v 23-24; 31-32), which is concerning the
appropriate response to the recovery of the younger brother.[6]
A. The first contrasting part: the father and the younger son
The younger son wants to strike out on
his own and asks his father to give him his share of inheritance. He then spends
his money in loose living and ends up in poverty. Then he comes to senses and
resolves to return home, hoping to be received as a servant.[7] The father welcomes him, and most surprisingly,
restores his sonship and calls for a feast.
B. The second contrasting part: the father
and the elder son
The
second episode starts with the elder son coming from the field to the house of his father.
The elder son was in the “field” which attributes to a
location of performance. Knowing
that the lost and found younger brother has come home, and a celebration
feast is prepared for him, the elder son refuses to go in to
share in the feast
(v28). The father then attempts to entreat him and uses a message in order
to demonstrate his love for the elder son. However, the elder son concerns only about his obedience and many
years of loyalty to the father which seems to yield him no reward as compared
to his younger brother (v. 29).
2.2 THE CENTRAL HERO OF THE PARABLE
It seems like
each part has its own hero. However, our conviction is that, in each
contrasting and yet parallel episode, the central hero of the parable is the
father.
The first episode
starts with a father with two sons. With the departure of the younger son, he
leaves with only one son. The first episode ends with the younger
son coming back to his father’s house, yet seeing himself not as a son but rather as a servant. The father welcomes him by reestablishing his position as the son and calls for
the preparation of a feast of rejoicing. The father is therefore the “hero” or “central” character in this first
setting.[8]
In the case of the second episode, the hero is clearly the father who goes out
to try to convince the elder son to come in to join the feast. We do not know if he is successful in
persuading his elder son, but he sees the elder son as always with him and
having all that he has.
2.3 THE CENTRAL MESSAGE OF THE PARABLE
The
parable contrasts two seemingly different sons who indeed share
the same distorted view about their sonship position. Both need a meaningful
relationship with their father. The obedient elder son is just as lost as his
younger brother, but in different ways.[9]
We found at
least 3 common approaches which suggest different emphases in interpreting this
parable:
A. Focusing on
the role of the younger son
The parable’s traditional title “The Prodigal Son” suggests that the main purpose of the narrative is to encourage all sinners to repent[10], regardless of the extent to which they may have degraded themselves.[11] True repentance brings about spiritual or physical resurrection, restoration and reconciliation, through an awareness of one’s actual condition and confession of one’s sins.
The
awareness of sin and
accepting of his personal responsibility marks the beginning of the return of prodigal
son to his father.[12] First there is an awakening of one’s true
condition, with a recognition and repudiation of the lie and an awakening to reality.[13] Then comes an honest confession of one’s sin.
Finally, is an actual return to the father[14].
His original plan is
to return home as a servant yet his father runs out to him, welcomes him warmly
and restores his sonship.
From
the parable of the prodigal son, we learn that repentance means
learning to say “Abba[15]” again, putting one’s whole trust in the father, returning to the father’s house and the father’s arms.
Among the prophets repentance often meant “to go back again” or “to return”.
This parable shows not only the kind of repentance our heavenly Father responds to but also the way our heavenly Father responds
to repentance.[16] Since a straying sheep
would often lie down helpless and refuse to stand up, it was necessary for the
overjoyed shepherd to lift him to his strong shoulders for the return. Repentance hence is not merely a human
agency but is itself aided by divine involvement.[17]
The
very essence of Jesus’ ministry and mission can be seen
in his determined association with sinners from his baptism to his crucifixion
between thieves.[18] The parable
explains Jesus’ ministry to
sinners and exposes the legalistic hardness of his critics, but more it is a proclamation to
his entire audience that the God the
Father opens his heart to even the greatest sinners.[19]
B. Focusing
on the role of the elder son
A. M.
Hunter once said: “If the younger
son was lost in the “far country”; the elder was equally lost behind a
barricade of self-righteousness.[20]
The
word elder in Greek (presbyteros) is
the same word used as a title for the elders of the people, mentioned usually
in connection with the scribes.[21] The
self-righteousness, the pride, the jealousy of the elder brother represents, in
its most distinctive features, the character of the Jewish people and their
leaders in the beginning of the Gospel.[22] The
elder son comes not as a humble prospective hired hand but as an arrogant elder
brother who
willfully remains outside, and refuses to eat and rejoice
with his father and brother.[23] Thus the elder son represents the scribes, the Pharisees and the
self-righteous leaders, as this parable grew out of an attack the
self-righteous leaders of the day made on Jesus’ ministry.[24]
Just like the elder son fails his role of
taking care of the household’s business which includes the welfare of his
younger brother, the Pharisees failed to relate their
role to the nature and purpose of God and could even attack Jesus as
irreligious for caring for
the lost.[25] If
the emphasis of the parable is to rebuke the hardhearted older brother, it is
also to rebuke those who are self-righteous in God’s kingdom and to invite them
to rejoice in the salvation of others.[26]
The original audience (the Pharisees and scribes) would
have known the
character much well, as it resembles them in some ways.
However, Dan Otto suggests
that the older son’s resentment over the fact that his wayward brother has been
royally welcomed home while his own consistent obedience has not been rewarded
with merrymaking is due to his misunderstanding about the idea of obedience.
For him,
the younger brother is
depraved, whereas he is
a faithful servant (master-servant
relationship) to his father without
breaking any commandment. His relationship with his father was based on merit and reward rather
of a deeply personal relationship (father-son relationship).
While
the elder son sees
himself as a faithful servant, the father sees him as a
companion and co-owner of the field and the son is having everything the father has.[27] Thus, Jesus refers to the people in God’s
kingdom, who observe a holy
living and are committed to the house and things of the Father yet they have ministered out of a “servant’s heart” instead of a
son’s heart.
C. Focusing on
the role of the father
One of the most
common approaches as suggested by scholars is
concentrating on the role of the father as one who unites both episodes of
the parable.
If the father is the
central character of the narrative, then the theme of
the parable is revealed in the father’s amazing
grace and
extraordinary love for his two sons.[28]
In
both episodes,
we see the father as the one who goes out to his “lost sons”. Thus it portrays the
love of God as a loving father, the One who draws near to the lost or sinners.
Those who repent will be reconciled to him and received by him unconditionally.
God’s forgiveness
is grounded on His divine
grace and love and sustained by ongoing
practices of repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation”.
3.0 CONCLUSION
There
is a close correlation between the prodigal and the tax collectors
and sinners, with whom Jesus was criticized for associating with, and
between the elder brother and the Pharisees and scribes who leveled that criticism, and between the father of the two sons and
our heavenly Father, who is compassionate, forgiving and loving.[29]
The
metaphor for the kingdom is signified by the father’s coming out, both for the
younger son and for the elder son. The parable radically rejects Israel’s
self-understanding of himself as the favoured, elder son.[30] All the excesses of the
prodigal son will not shut him out of heaven when he comes repenting to the
father; and all the virtues of the elder brother will not let him into heaven,
for he cherishes pride in his heart, and taunted his father for overvaluing his
worth.[31]
The parable functions
as metaphor of God’s love. Jesus used an extraordinary story to
illustrate God’s amazing patience and love for his ungrateful children. Therefore the
parable reflects God’s divine grace and love. In His compassion He
forgives sinners.
He
delights
in the repentance of the prodigals and He cherishes the faithfulness of those
who obey his will without despising the rebellious who have repented.[32]
This
paper hence concludes the parable with its thematic meaning expressed by the
father both at the end of the prodigal’s and the elder brother’s episode: the
lost has been found; he who is dead is alive. The invitation
remains open for all who hear or read this parable and are willing to respond to and rejoice over the loving grace of God.
(Script By Elizabeth Yik)
BIBLOGRAPHY
Arnot, William. The Parables of Our Lord. Dodo Press, 1874.
Bailey, Kenneth E. The Cross & the Produgal: Luke 15 Through
the Eyes of Middle Eastern
Peasants. Illinois:
InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Barclay, William. And Jesus Said: A Handbook on the Parables of Jesus. Philadelphia:
The
Westminster
Press, 1970.
Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Leicester: Apollos, 1990.
Blomberg, Craig L. Preaching the Parables.Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004.
Boice, James Montgomery, The Parables of Jesus. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.
Capon, Robert Farrar. The Parables of Grace. Grand Rapids: William & Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1988.
Ford, Richard Q. The
Parables of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
Jones, Peter Rhea. The
Teaching of the Parables. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1982.
Longenecker, Richard
N. The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables. Grand Rapids:William B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.
Patte, Daniel. Structural
analysis of the parable of the prodigal son: Toward a method.
Oregon: Pickwick
Publications, 1976.
Scott, Bernard Brandon, Hear Then the Parable. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
S. J, John & Donahre. The Gospel in Parable. Fortress Press, 1990.
Thielicke, Helmut. The Waiting Father. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1959.
Via, Dan Otto, Jr. The Parables: Their Literary and Existential
Dimension,
Oregon: Pickwick
Publications, 2006.
Wenham, David. The
Parables of Jesus. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989.
Young, Brad H.
The Parables: Jewish Tradition
and Christian Interpretation. Massachusetts:
Hendrickson
Publishers, 2002.
No comments:
Post a Comment