Embedded Files
CHAPTER 1
Come and join the celebration
“I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed,
and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak.”
Ezekiel 34:16
Let me tell you a story.
“There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. 14 And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.
17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ 20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.
25 “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’” (Luke 15:1-31)
This is one of the stories, or parables, Jesus told. I hope it is familiar.
What is it that this story, this parable, is about? What is its key theme? What does it tell us about the nature of God? Why is this story, arguably, the most important story Jesus told?
By what name do you know this story? Traditionally, it has been referred to as the Parable of the Prodigal Son, or sometimes, the Lost Son. However, the story is not only about a prodigal, a son profligate and careless with his money. It is also about an older son. Like his brother, he also has weaknesses. It is also about a father who has great love for his sons. Indeed, as we shall discover, his love is so great that he is willing to contravene many of the social conventions of the time and face the shame that might bring him among the community. We might easily call this story, ‘The parable of the dysfunctional family’, but that would not tell us much since, probably, most families are dysfunctional. N T Wright has suggested[1] the story should be called the Parable of the Running Father. As we explore the parable, I hope the reason for that will become obvious.
Jesus told several wonderful and memorable stories. Each have a deeper meaning cast within them that runs parallel to the story being told. The word parable comes from two words ‘para’ meaning alongside, and ‘ballo’ meaning throw or cast. Jesus used parables to tell us something about God and about his Kingdom. So we need to examine these stories to discover what the stories mean and why Jesus chose to tell them. One effective way to do this is to consider the three ‘C’s of unlocking parables, that is to explore the context, culture, and characters of the parable. This will lead us into a deeper exploration of the reason why Jesus was born and died on a cross.
The Context
Jesus and the disciples were on their way to Jerusalem. Luke tells us that a large crowd was travelling with them.[2] All sorts of people were in the crowd. Luke specifically mentions, tax collectors and sinners[3]. The tax collectors were Jewish agents collecting tolls and other taxes on behalf of the occupying Roman authorities. The sinners were people who deliberately or inadvertently failed to keep the Law given to Moses and which the Pharisees were resolute in striving to uphold and demanded the same of others. No doubt, there were others in the crowd; swindlers, robbers, adulterers, prostitutes, and others the Pharisees would have regarded as undesirable. There were also religious leaders among them, specifically Pharisees and scribes.[4]
The Pharisees were the self-appointed guardians and teachers of the Law. They were well educated and highly regarded within the community. The ordinary people looked up to the Pharisees and gave them deference and respect.
The Pharisees were so determined to keep the Law that they developed a multitude of unwritten rules to clarify the Law and make sure it was not broken. So, for example, whilst the Law stated that no work should be done on the Sabbath, it did not define the term ‘work’. Over hundreds of years what was and was not permitted on the Sabbath became part of the Law and the Pharisees made sure it was kept. Once, they even chastised Jesus and his disciples for picking ears of corn as they walked through a field on the sabbath for this was regarded as harvesting and therefore, work.[5] On another occasion a synagogue leader was angry with Jesus because he healed a woman on the Sabbath.[6]
The Pharisees were often trying to catch Jesus out. They recognized him as a teacher, but were suspicious of his theology, his understanding of God and God’s purpose for the Jews. The Pharisees were keen to try to find fault with Jesus’ behaviour, and error in his teaching. This was because they wanted to uphold what they regarded as orthodoxy, that is, their own interpretation of the scriptures and the Law. Also, they sought to maintain their authority as guardians of the Law and hence their social standing within society. They were probably jealous of Jesus since he clearly had a following among the people, evidenced by the great crowd travelling with him and gathering around him[7] to hear his teaching.
Jesus heard the Pharisees muttering about his willingness to freely welcome and mix with tax collectors and sinners, and even eat with them. We will return to this latter point below. The Pharisees regarded tax collectors and sinners as the lowest of the low, and certainly not the sort of company with which good, law abiding, God loving, people should associate. So they would have been not only critical of Jesus but incensed that to hear his teaching they had to share the same space with the crowd. That would have involved rubbing shoulders with these tax collectors and sinners. This is the catalyst for Jesus telling the parable.
Indeed, Jesus tells not just one, but three parables in succession.[8] All were to do with finding something, or someone, that had been lost. The first was about a shepherd who had lost a sheep, the second about a woman who had lost a coin and the third about a father who had lost a son. The common thread through each of these parables is that there was great rejoicing as a consequence of whatever was lost being found. The conclusion of these stories is that there is great joy in heaven when a lost soul is found and reunited with God.
The Culture
Israel was an agrarian society and in many of his parables Jesus drew heavily on the kinds of activities with which people were familiar. In his book Jacob & the Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel's Story, Kenneth E. Bailey[9] tells us that first century Judean farmhouses were located in villages so as not to take up scarce prime farmland. Villages also provided an element of security and a market for hired labour, (see Matthew 20:1-16.) So, all that was going on in the house and among the family would have been largely in the public domain.
In the parable, the local community have no speaking part yet play an important role as the action is played out in front of them. Paula Gooder also reminds us in her work, The Parables (Biblical Explorations) that, “the society of the era underpinning this parable was so profoundly shaped by the honour/shame culture that we can make no sense of it without recognising this. The prevailing culture was driven by a strong sense of honour.”[10]
The younger son made an outrageous request, that he receive his share of the inheritance immediately, regardless of the fact his father was fit and well, able to run the farm and run up the road, and nowhere near to death. In traditional Middle Eastern culture, such a request would imply that the son wished his father was dead. One might expect such a request to be emphatically refused. However, in contravention of all the traditional customs, the father, amazingly, grants his son’s request.
The Law made provision for a firstborn son to inherit twice that of a younger son. [11] So in the parable the younger son would have expected to inherit a third of a father’s estate. That required the estate to be valued and a third sold to raise the funds to give to the younger son. The community would have been aware of this, and it would have brought humiliation upon the father. The son packed up, took the money, and left. Indeed, we are told he left the country. When the money ran out, he looked after pigs, so presumably he went to a Gentile country. The younger son’s position as a swineherd indicates he was more than desperate. Indeed, we are told, “no-one gave him anything.” The Law lay down rules about which animals might be eaten. We can read about that in Leviticus 11. The Law specifically mentions pigs stating, “the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.”[12] The son had clearly lost everything his father had given him, even his self-respect.
Now, ancient Jewish texts, including one of the Dead Sea Scrolls known as The Testament of Kohath, warn that Jewish boys who lost their family’s inheritance to Gentiles brought shame upon the family. It states, “And now, my sons, be watchful of your inheritance that has been bequeathed to you, which your fathers gave you. Do not give your inheritance to the Gentiles…lest you be humiliated in their eyes and foolish, and they trample upon you…and become your masters.”[13]
Any Jewish boy who lost his inheritance among Gentiles faced the kezazah ceremony if he returned to his home village. The ceremony simply involved members of the community filling a large earthenware pot with burned nuts and burned corn. It would be broken in front of the guilty son whilst they shouted the son’s name and declared that he is “cut off from his people.” Villagers would ostracise the son. As the younger son in the parable left the farm he would have been very aware that he must not lose his money among the Gentiles. No doubt this humiliating custom would have been in his mind as he returned to the village. Bailey[14] suggests that the father ran out to meet his son in an attempt to stop the ceremony before it had started.
Clearly the father is overjoyed at the return of his son. He gives the boy a robe, a ring, shoes, and then a party. We read in Genesis that when Joseph was appointed by Pharaoh to oversee the preparations for the anticipated seven years of famine, he gave Joseph the ring from his own finger and clothed him in fine linen.[15] Joseph was appropriately attired for his new role and status. Traditionally, the robe was seen as a token of honour, the ring as a symbol of authority. The father also gave his son shoes. The inference is that the son was barefoot, having sold his footwear. The father was signaling his son’s status for only slaves went barefoot. Certainly, those first hearing Jesus tell the story would understand that these gifts signified that the father had accepted his youngest back as a son and not as a hired hand or slave.
The Characters
The three main characters in the parable are all members of the same family. The only other speaking part is that of a servant whose role is to inform the older son of the reason for the music and noise of celebration coming from the house.
Relationships are not always good in families. Sometimes what parents ask of their children, for what the parent considers a good reason, is interpreted as controlling and oppressive. Sometimes parents are just that. It is interesting to note both the responses of the younger and older son in the parable. We might conclude not all was well with the family relationships.
Nevertheless, we can only infer the nature of those relationships from the sons’ words and behaviours.
The younger son
The younger son was keen to leave the family home. As we saw above, asking for his share of the inheritance was tantamount to saying that he wished his father dead. We can only speculate as to the real reasons. Perhaps his relationship with his brother was not good and he feared his life would be spent working the farm for his brother. Regardless, his request is callous and heartless. He has no empathy with the father, nor concern for his feelings. The son is not great at money management. His friends were bought with his profligacy, and they desert him when the money runs out. He sought employment in order to eat, but the best he can get is a job tending pigs.
Mark Powell[16] observes that people from different backgrounds and cultures interpret the causes of the son’s depravity differently. Powell read the parable to people from the USA, Russia, and Tanzania. The American audience were critical of the son. They blamed him for squandering the money. The Russian audience associated the son’s hunger as an unfortunate result of an untimely famine. The Tanzania audience emphasized that no one had helped him. No doubt, each of these factors contributed to the son’s hunger.
Nevertheless, the son had sufficient sense to realise that even his father’s hired hands had a better life than he did eating the pig feed. So, he rehearsed a speech and returned home. Better to face shame, even the kezazah ceremony, than a squalid existence among pigs. Perhaps he hoped his contrite words would placate both father and the villagers.
Some, such as Bailey, have been cynical of the younger son’s apparent repentance.[17] He suggests that the son does what is expedient to fill his stomach. There is no sense of remorse or shame for what he had done nor any consideration of the impact his behaviour had on his father, his brother, the farm, or the whole village. His goals were as self-serving as his demand for his inheritance at the beginning of the story. Bailey argues, “the prodigal thinks the problem is the lost money. His anticipated solution trivializes the problem, which is not merely a matter of a broken law but about a broken relationship.”[18] The son does not want to go back home as a son, but as a hired hand. Perhaps living as a hired hand might have been easier than resuming life as a son with all the baggage of his past and his brother’s scorn.
A more traditional view is that the son is repentant. His speech in verses 17-19 is regarded as a confession, “How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! 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.” The son recognised he was without hope. He acknowledged his sin against God and his family and his unworthiness as a son; consequently, he no longer seeks to be regarded as one. When he meets his father, he blurts out his confession, but the father’s intervention prevents the son expressing his willingness to be treated as a hired hand.
In the context of the preceding two parables, of the lost coin and lost sheep, with their conclusions of repentance and rejoicing,[19] it is easier to accept the son’s words and actions as repentance.
We must each come to our own judgment about the son’s motives for returning home. We will explore the nature of repentance in chapter two, but as you ponder whether the son was repentant or continued in his self-serving ways ask yourself whether or not it mattered, particularly whether it mattered to the father. Were the actions of the father dependent upon the son’s repentance or not? Indeed, reflect upon whether the father would have acted differently even if the son had not managed to say that he had sinned.
The older son
On the surface the older son appears to be a perfect son. He has stayed home to help on the family farm. He has done all the father has asked of him. However, he is not very different from his brother. He is devoid of love for his brother and his father, and all he says reveals his self-centred focus.
As he returned home from the fields, the older son heard the noise of celebration. A servant informs him that his brother is home and that his father has killed the calf they were fattening. The older son refused to join the party. The father went out to persuade him to join in. It is then, through an emotional outburst, that the older son expressed his jealousy, anger, and real feelings for his father. He regarded his years of obedience to his father as fulfilling a duty rather than a loving service. Indeed, he saw the relationship with his father akin to that between slave and master, referring to having slaved for his father and never having disobeyed him. He is jealous that the father has never thrown a party for him despite his faithful obedience. He cannot bring himself to utter the name of his brother but refers to him as ‘your son’. He maligns his younger brother saying that he squandered the family’s wealth on prostitutes, although he has no evidence for this, nor is it mentioned earlier in the story.
So, what provoked the older son’s anger? The father tells him, “everything I have is yours”. Dividing the farm to provide the younger son with his third would have given the older son his two thirds share, yet it seems clear that the father remained in control. He is the one who gave the order for the fatted calf to be killed, and tells the older son, everything I have is yours. Was the older son fearful that what should rightly be coming to him (or more correctly what was now already his) is being eroded, or perhaps, even divided a second time, with the return of his brother, the slaughter of the fatted calf and the gifts of a ring, cloak, shoes, and a party? Did he feel his position as second in the family was being usurped? Or was his anger about his brother’s lack of respect for his father and the family? True inheritance is more than money and property. It is about custom and tradition. Often it is about adopting the social standing of the father and the family, recognising their place in the community with its obligations and responsibilities. For first century Jews it would also have been about respect for Jewish Law and the place of the nation of Israel within the world. Was the older son angered that much, if not all of this, was being diminish, even lost? Of course, all this is speculation. The parable doesn’t explain the reasons for the older son’s anger.
However, the parable does reveal that in many ways the older son is very much like the Pharisees to whom it was addressed. The phrase that connects them is in verse 29, “I’ve never disobeyed your command.” The son said this to his father and the Pharisees would have said this to God. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day trusted in a works-based religion, (i.e., do what is required by the Law) rather than experiencing salvation by God’s grace through their faith. Like the older brother in the parable, they viewed themselves as worthy “sons.” Similarly, the Pharisees were keen to highlight the sinfulness of others and keep their distance and purity. Accepting tax collectors and sinners into God’s Kingdom was an abhorrence to them, just like the older son cannot welcome home his sinful brother.
The father
Relationships within the family were strained, but it is clear the father loved both his boys despite their faults. The fact he agreed to the younger son’s request for his inheritance might appear as weakness. Custom would have required the father to refuse. However, this may have created more tension in the family increasing the son’s resentment and risking his leaving with nothing, vulnerable to the world.
The father looked out for his son’s return, ran down the road to greet him and lavished gifts upon him. However, he didn’t simply stay with his younger son enjoying the party but wanted the family to be together and for the older son to be included. The father also went out to the older son and sought to persuade him to join the party by reminding him that they had thought his brother dead, but he was actually alive, and that was something they should all celebrate. All these behaviours breached the traditional expectations of a first century Middle Eastern patriarch.
Traditionally, the relationship of God to his people is seen as being modelled in that of the relationship between the father and his sons. However, some commentators point to the unwise behaviour of the father. He granted the younger son’s inheritance request, used the older son’s portion to lavish gifts on the younger, and whilst the father goes out to bring the older son into the party, he didn’t specifically send a servant to invite him to the celebration party.
Nevertheless, the father does demonstrate some God-like characteristics. Although he believed his son dead, he mentions this twice, in verses 24 and 32, he continued to look out for him, verse 20. There was no recrimination, no inquisition, no questions seeking an explanation, no half-hearted, reluctant, or shameful resignation to fulfil an obligation to take back a son just because he was the father’s own flesh and blood. The father also ran out to meet his son. Whether that was to prevent the hezazah ceremony or whether it was simply out of joy, he ran. Running is not something middle-aged men clothed in long Middle Eastern robes do. In love for his son, and as a means of reconciliation, he adopted the form of a servant and ran up the road. The younger son’s shame at losing his money, and losing it to Gentiles, was transformed into honour because of the willingness of the father to sacrifice his own honour. The father’s expression of costly love was not a response to his son’s confession but a gift of grace. It is important to note here that the son would not have benefitted from his father’s grace if he had not turned around and gone back home.
The parallel
What is it that this story, this parable, is about? What is its key theme? The story is not simply about a prodigal, a son profligate and careless with his money. It is also about an older son, and a loving father who contravenes many of the social conventions of the time.
Neither son truly honoured their father. Both sinned against their father,
However, the father clearly loved both sons and demonstrated the kind of love that God has for his family. The father’s actions were those of never giving up on the lost son. They are expressions of welcome and acceptance, and his generosity with gifts, are all symbols of restoration as a member of the family. The father’s actions towards his older son also express acceptance and generosity. Above all he wants the family to be together and reunited in every way. The father also demonstrates that his love for his older son is not diminished by his love for his younger son. There are connections here with another parable Jesus told, that of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16.) All the workers, regardless of the time of the day they were employed received the same reward. Love is not finite, something that is used up, or needing to be rationed. True love is infinite.
The parable tells us that God is a loving God, who welcomes home those who are lost. God accepts us for who we are. God’s generosity reaches out to those who we might consider undeserving, even outcasts and sinners.
It tells us that God cares about all, those who are lost and those who never left. It tells us that God’s love is unlimited, that what is given to one does not limit that which is available to others.
It tells us God is a forgiving God. The prodigal is reinstated as a son not as a hired hand. God offers us forgiveness not because we have worked for it, but because it’s been freely given to us by God’s grace, because he loves us.
The parable tells us that God is a God of resurrection, of new life, for the son who was dead is alive.
It tells us that there is a new way to live. Sinners and outcast are welcomed into fellowship with Jesus. Indeed, the community came to celebrate the younger son’s return home. In this we see the wider community accepting the father’s judgment and actions. With him they share in rejection of the old traditions and demonstrate a willingness to adopt a new way of living which involves both offering forgiveness and accepting forgiveness. This new way of living is transformative of the whole community, its impact for broader than influencing an individual’s personal relationship with their heavenly Father.
Most importantly, that new relationship is instigated by the father, not by the son or anything he has done to win the father’s renewed affection. As Paul wrote to the Ephesians, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”[20]
We will continue with that thought as we turn to chapter two and reflect on the nature of forgiveness. However, let us first identify five key themes of this parable that will repeat through the chapters ahead:
Repentance – as expressed by the younger son and his returning home.
Forgiveness – as demonstrated by the father.
Sacrifice – as shown by the father in his willingness to give up the esteem with which he is held among the community.
Renewal - as conveyed in the welcome given by the father, the robe, ring and shoes.
Rejoicing – as shown in the party indicating both father and the community were overjoyed at the son’s return.
Points for reflection
1. Why do you think N T Wright suggests the parable should be called the Parable of the Running Father?
2. What title would you give this story and why?
3. With whom do you most empathise with in the story? Why?
4. Readers of this parable often relate to one or other of the sons, but put yourself in the position of the father. How might you have reacted to each of your boys?
5. How do you think the Pharisees might have responded when, away from Jesus and the crowd, they discussed Jesus’ teaching through the parable?
6. What do you think the parable teaches us?
Prayer
Father God, we give you thanks and praise, that when we were still far off you met us in your Son and brought us home.
Enfold in your love all who are lost because they do not know your Fatherly care or have turned away from you. Help us all to know that you love us, and that you will welcome us, regardless of what we have said or done, despite our faults and weaknesses, and irrespective of who we are.
Help us never to be judgemental or begrudging but join in the party and rejoice with you when the lost come home.
Unite all your people into one great fellowship of love.
Amen.
[1] Wright, N T. Luke for Everyone. SPCK. London. (2002) p187
[2] Luke 14:25
[3] Luke 15:1
[4] Luke 15:2
[5] Mark 2:23-28
[6] Luke 13:10-17
[7] Luke 15:1
[8] Luke 15:3-10
[9] Bailey, Kenneth E. Jacob & the Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel's Story. IVP. Illinois (2011) p99
[10] Gooder, Paula. The Parables (Biblical Explorations). Canterbury Press. Norwich (2020) p174
[11] Deuteronomy 21:17
[12] Leviticus 11:7-8
[13] 4Q542, fragment 1 column 1 (lines 4-7). Cf R. H. Eisenmann and M Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (1993) p 149-50
[14] Bailey, Kenneth E. Jacob & the Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel's Story. IVP. Illinois (2011) p99
[15] Genesis 41:42
[16] Powell, Mark Alan. What Do They Hear?: Bridging the Gap Between Pulpit and Pew. Abingdon Press. Nashville. (2007)
[17] Bailey, ibid p105
[18] Op cit, p106
[19] Luke 15:7 & 10
[20] Ephesians 2:8-9
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse