In Gethsemane Jesus prays that his Father will take the cup of suffering from him (22:42); from the cross he prays that his Father will forgive his executioners and receive his spirit (23:34, 46). The parables of the lost coin and the lost sheep are essentially stories of community celebration: the shepherd and the woman invite friends and neighbours to rejoice with them over the recovery of the thing lost; neither the shepherd nor the woman stands for God in the parable. I still think it reduces a superb literary tour de force, which leaps from its context to other contexts, as described, to something bland and of antiquarian interest only. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham is presumably in heaven in some sense. 3. If they do not produce “fruits in keeping with repentance”, they will not escape the impending wrath of God against Israel (Lk. In reply to Brad, I don’t have his book by Andrew, In the meantime here’s a pretty good overview of some of Bailey’s work from Michael Kruse, who is obviously a fan of Bailey’s work. How to tell the biblical story in a way that makes a difference. John berates the crowds which come out to be baptized for claiming to have Abraham as their father. I’d be interested in your thoughts. Who is the father in the parable of the prodigal son? It’s hard not to see this connection between the Lost sheep of the House of Israel and the Prodigal Son when Jesus says “Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.” [Luke 15:6] sounding very much like ” For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.” [Luke 15:24] especially given Micah’s comments in [Mic 2:12] “I shall surely assemble all of you, O Jacob; I shall gather the remnant of Israel; I shall set them together like sheep in a fold, like a flock in its pasture, a noisy multitude of men.”. Perhaps, but this is a parable, and the details have a natural narrative justification. We take as our text today the parable of the prodigal son. The other third is the father. The message of the Psalm is only that rich and poor, wise and foolish must all die in the end and go down to the grace. Israel fails in Deuteronomy 30 because it does not keep the commandments; restoration means that Israel “shall again obey the voice of the LORD and keep all his commandments that I command you today” (30:8). In the parable of the Prodigal Son, we hear the son demand: “Father, give me the share of … Perhaps the appeal of the rich man in Hades to Abraham reflect the lines “Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice, that he should live on forever and never see the pit” (49:7–9). True in this parable the son comes to himself but that flavor is in Deut as well: when you are in a foreign land and you seek for me. The “little flock” of disciples should not be afraid, for “it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (12:32). In reply to Travis, yes, up to a point: by Andrew. The series centers on Malcolm Bright, whose father, Martin Whitly, is the infamous serial killer known as "The Surgeon". I can’t check the details of the argument at the moment, but I will sketch here my reasons for suspecting that the father is not God but Abraham. Inadmissible? I don’t think Kester Brewin’s re-reading is valueless—it’s just not what the historical Jesus intended. Most people who have been participating in churches for more than a few years, and many for much less than that, would want to identify themselves with the younger son as describing their lives, either spiritually or more literally, before they came to Christ. Thoughts? By Amy Sparkman. I’m quite convinced Deuter 30 lies behind the Lost Son and Psalm 49 is behind the RM & L in ch 16. The distinction appears to be consistently maintained. Key to this echo, I think, is “death and life.” Deut sets for life and prosperity and death and adversity; Yahweh set before them life and death: the son was dead and is now alive. At every turn in the story the father’s response is totally unexpected. He made a change of direction, which is the root meaning of the word repentance. The story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-31) is a familiar one. The narrative-historical reading of the New Testament: what’s in it for me? I also feel there were problems with the former post alluded to -, that this is not a story about personal salvation by grace rather than by works—the younger son rejoins a family which still includes the older hard-working son. Abraham is given an active speaking role on the rich man and Lazarus story. Similarly when Jesus says “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. The son repents of his recklessness and returns. Neither is God. Of course, on another level, you could say that the younger is the church. Jesus is exploding popular ideas about both God and what it meant to serve him. Let’s not be arrogant and say that unsophistciated 1st century minds would not have worked that way. In Deuteronomy 30 God drives Israel into exile, Israel repents, and God gathers the outcasts from the ends of the earth. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,   and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”   This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. Abraham is given an active speaking role on the rich man and Lazarus story. In your reading maybe. The parable of the prodigal son begins by introducing three characters: a father and his two sons. 1. New Testament eschatological texts categorised by horizon, The narrative architecture of Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse in Mark 13, How Paul can proclaim one Lord Jesus Christ and not compromise Jewish monotheism, How the context makes sense of the separation of the “sheep” and “goats” at the parousia. He honors the outrageous request of the younger son and gives him his inheritance. (The Labourers in the Vineyard also appears in Early Medieval works.) Notice the 2 groups are distinct; the House of Judah separate from the House of Israel? Has the body of Christ wandered off? Contributions are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law. Kester Brewin just seems bizarre. A happy disappointing Christmas to everyone! By the way, Nouwen’s reading falls well within the bounds of the exegetically permissible, if reader-response is taken to be the way the parable works — through identification/disapproval. The father represents God the Father for He gladly receives His son as part of His family. Prodigal Son centers on Malcolm Bright (Tom Payne), whose father, Martin Whitly (Martin Sheen), is the infamous serial killer known as "The Surgeon". 16:22-24). Is Jesus anywhere else in the New Testament called or likened to a father? (Luke 15:11-32) First, there is the son who was restless and driven to experience whatever sinful pleasures money could buy. 118: Call Me Ishmael, Part 2  by James B. Jordan   June, 1999, http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-118-call-me-ishmael-part-2/, In reply to Some of you might want to by norman. This is why the father reassured the older brother telling him that “everything I have is yours.” But the younger brother had been restored to fellowship. One third of the story describes the older brother. Then in this triad, the first 2 “lost ones” were sought for. But on a bumpy flight down to the south of France a couple of days ago I began to think there may also be grounds for questioning the traditional attribution of paternity. The force of the story is then, in my opinion, lost, if we cease to consider our own reactions to what is taking place, and the conjectured reactions of Jesus’s audience, and allow the story to criticise us, as well as the original audience. The young son returning is a good picture of what repentance is. I have argued that this is a parable about the reversal of fortunes that will come about with the judgment and restoration of Israel. From an exegetical point of view, however, modern literary sentiments are irrelevant. What struck him “like a thunderbolt,” though, was a friend’s admonition: “Whether you are the younger son or the elder son, you are called to be the father” (page 19 hc/22 sc). He excludes himself. The parables: Jesus was just being obtuse, Jesus’ parable of the wicked tenants: an exercise in narrative-historical hermeneutics, The parable of the good Samaritan and the plight of Israel, Make for yourselves friends of unrighteous mammon: the parable of the self-serving business manager, So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you: the parable of the unforgiving slave, The parable of the wedding feast and the man without a wedding garment, Discipleship and ethics in the New Testament church, How beautiful on the mountains were the feet of Jesus. To summarize, the youngest of the two sons demands his share of his father’s estate which the father gives him. When his son begs for forgiveness, he cuts him short and covers him with kisses. We don’t need to allegorize the father, but in the story he is head of the family to which the son is restored, and I am inclined to think that that position is better occupied by Abraham than by God. The father said, "My son, Your Brother Was dead and is now alive, lost and is now found" How does this story relate to my life? Particularly looking again at the context of the story — in v1-2 it is Jesus’ behaviour which outrages the Pharisees, as the father’s behaviour outrages the elder son. As ever, we have to take into account the probable immediate context, in terms of guessing the identities of those whom Jesus was addressing. Too much might be read into this, I guess, but it fits the Abraham identification well. In my reading of Hebrew literature that indicates that Ishmael is not a spiritually dead lineage concerning the promise. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.” [Matt 13:44] this is very reminiscent of the idea of the Prodigal Son, the treasured possession [Deut 14:2; 26:18] that departed for distant lands, not yet returned. I don’t think he was saying to the Pharisees, “Here’s an interesting story, make of it what you will.”. The setting for this parable is provided in Luke 15:1-2, where we find the Pharisees and scribes deriding Jesus for receiving and eating with sinners. The fatherhood of God in Luke is essentially a discipleship theme—it defines the relationship of the disciples to God, derived from their relationship to Jesus, as they followed the narrow path of suffering that would lead to life in the age to come. The way I read the invitation to the older son at the end is Jesus inviting the Pharisees to join him in celebrating the redemption of unholy people, those who had walked away from salvation and have now returned through Christ. I think we need to be sensitive to the literary force of Jesus’s teaching in this parable, and others, which I think breaks the boundary of simple historical allegory. The Father says to him, “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours” (15:31). It is a wonderful and encouraging story of a father finding what was lost and rejoicing over the return of his son. The tax collector Zacchaeus was one of those who was lost and found again by the Son of Man. In the Gospel the father represents God, the Ultimate Reality in Christianity, while the prodigal son is the individual living in sin who finally repents and returns to a personal relationship with God. 5. The First Two Prodigal Sons in History. But in the parable neither man ransoms his life and escapes death. That doesn’t mean it’s valueless. So the fatherhood of Abraham motif belongs to the dispute with the Pharisees and others over the grounds for participation in the people of God at a time of eschatological crisis. Ezekiel certainly had the same 2 groups in mind when he penned his reunification prophecy “Son of man, take a stick and write on it, “For Judah, and the people of Israel associated with him”; then take another stick and write on it, “For Joseph (the stick of Ephraim) and all the house of Israel associated with him.” And join them one to another into one stick, that they may become one in your hand. Travis, yes, up to a point: they are part of the general background of ideas. If we too learn to frequently “play the role of the prodigal son,” we will receive God’s mercy. For the obsessively inclined, yet another post on the parable from opensourcetheology.net, the progenitor of postost.net, can be found here (23.12.2008). In reply to Andrew, are you familiar with by BradK. It should offend us today, and if it hasn’t, the story has been inadequately understood. As long-time readers of this Journal know, Dr. John used the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a metaphor for the presence of evil on the physical planet Earth. The three stories in Luke 15 are told because the Pharisees and scribes had grumbled (diegonguzon) about the fact that Jesus was receiving tax collectors and sinners and eating with them. Why didn’t Jesus just come out and say it: God is going to punish you with violent destruction? There’s no point in me repeating them. The question of keeping the commandments does not arise in connection with the younger son. In reply to I read The Tale of Two Sons by Hannah James. If necessary, “God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham”. In reply to I still think it reduces a by Andrew. 117: Call Me Ishmael, Part 1  by James B. Jordan  May, 1999, http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-117-call-me-ishmael-part-1/, No. We all sin and move away from God. The son’s attitude does not change, and neither did the Pharisees’. But I’m not convinced that either text accounts for the specific form or purpose of the parables. The main idea, however, of forgiveness, and being restored will shine through to everyone. In this parable, the offence is the younger son’s behaviour, and the reception given to him by the father. I can see the force of the argument. The first, and probably most important, point to make is that there are two theologically significant “fathers” in Luke’s Gospel, occurring in two distinct contexts. It is important to note that nothing is said about forgiveness, though it is often interpreted as a parable of divine forgiveness. Progressive Christianity and the narrative-historical method. Divine Mercy 101: Elements of the Devotion. And in terms of connection to the Zacchaeus story, Jesus says ‘this man, too, is a son of Abraham. Maybe it fits within that framework of understanding. 3. The connection with the Zacchaeus story is obvious: when Jesus entered the house of Zacchaeus, people “grumbled” (diegonguzon) because Jesus had gone to be a guest at the house of a man who was a tax collector and sinner. It also highlights Ishmael in a very prominent Jewish manner that is expected to be noticed significantly. That is as true today as it was in his own time and context. The parable of the prodigal son makes the same point: “It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found” (Lk. 2. That describes the response of the Pharisees perfectly to what they saw Jesus doing. One last point… It really does NOT matter who you think Jesus means to be “the father” as people on either side of this argument will end up in Heaven together and Jesus will give them both the answer. We mostly take it for granted, of course, that the father is God and that the central point of the story is that God forgives the repentant sinner. The contrasting treatment of older and younger in the story form two-thirds of the story’s emphasis. But I have understood it, just in case you were wondering. I’m sorry I’m not contributing to the promotion of the viewpoint. This is all very interesting… although it really does not change the meaning for the reader today. I’m just pleased that, perhaps in ways you had not intended, Rembrandt is being included in the discourse. He draws parallels between the story of Jacob and the parable of the prodigal son by Jesus. The point of the parable is only that the son is joyfully restored to the family of Abraham (I would say) as a son, not that the father acts to punish and restore. Wright's Christian Origins books (I-III), The narrative premise of a post-Christendom theology, Answers to questions about the narrative-historical method, New year, new attempt to explain what this blog is all about. The details of the story are adaptable of course. If the story were simply an allegory, in which the three characters are simply representative figures, the object of the story becomes primarily to work out their identities. That fits wonderfully. His disciples should love their enemies and be merciful, “even as your Father is merciful” (6:35-36). The “tax collectors and sinners” have become alienated from the commonwealth of Israel; they have become like Gentiles. For the information of those who find the references here totally baffling, and the even smaller number who may be interested in finding out, the figures in the loghouse post form part of an internal narrative on the website (opensourcehteology.net), and represent contributors to the site at that time. Dr. John said that evil itself is the “prodigal son,” which has left its father’s house (living in the presence of God). Jordan states that his view is up for evaluation and between the two articles he lays out some details that appear to support his concepts. But a false identification may also take place. I take your point about allegorization, but the parable is told explicitly to address the objections of the Pharisees about Jesus eating with “tax collectors and sinners” (15:1-2). Since “heaven” is an indirect reference to God, it is difficult to understand why the son would express himself in this way if, in Jesus’ mind, the father stood for God. But what was Jesus’s intention for the parable? Norman, thanks for the comments and the links. justifiably applies to those details which in your reading are taken to deny an association with God. Deep down, he knows that by his actions he has thrown away more than good food: he has thrown away a treasured relationship, and he knows as well what that sin justly deserves. But there is enough there I think. Zacchaeus is reckoned as a “son of Abraham” because he gives half of his goods to the poor and offers to recompense those whom he has defrauded (Lk. As a child, Malcolm was responsible for enabling the police to arrest his father, and has not seen his father in ten years after joining Quantico. I still think it reduces a superb literary tour de force, which leaps from its context to other contexts, as described, to something bland and of antiquarian interest only. Healthcare Professionals for Divine Mercy. Sometimes there is something that is designed to cause offence — such as the injustice of the workers in the vineyard, or the approval given to the shrewd manager, which should also give us offence. This is where your interpretation runs aground. The parable of the prodigal son is really a story explaining verse 10. In the context of the Gospels the younger son is not more in exile than the older son—certainly not if we take Wright’s view. That might be true if you’re not a first century Jew or if you lack any sense of connection to the historical conditions under which the Christian movement was formed. They have a way of tripping us up, finding us out, and coming back and biting us. There is a strong element of self-seeking calculation-what Catholicism has traditionally called "imperfect contrition"-in his words, "treat me as one of your hired servants," a speech obviously designed just to get him a few decent meals! I find the charges you bring against alternative readings to your own, which hold yours up to criticism, untrue and insensitive. Similarly, Hosea saw the same two characters (children of a protestitute), and prophecied about them as ‘No Mercy’ in [Hos 1:6] and ‘Not My People’ [Hos 1:9]. I’m of the opinion presently myself that Genesis is a product of exilic Judaism early on and all the stories are messianic themes of the redemption of not only the Jews but of the Gentiles as well. Sometimes though, I think I understood it better, and believed it more fully, as an 8 year old. The wretched Lazarus is carried by angels to the side of “Father Abraham” after his death; the rich man calls out from Hades, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame” (Lk. https://heavy.com/entertainment/2019/09/the-prodigal-son-meaning-plot And how the relationship between the two brothers went from bad to worse. It turns a three dimensional work of art into a rather flat two dimensional allegory. It seems to be built around God Fearing Gentiles whom often have been part of Judaism at one time. You are oversimplifying your response, and assuming uncritically that your point of view is absolute and exclusive. Its three main characters could be the stars of a TV series: The rich patriarch, his elder son, and his youngest—the wild child. …and of course Abraham is never mentioned. Driving him further and further from experiencing his Father’s love. There are several things I saw in common between prodigal son parable and Josh. The parable of the prodigal son has three main characters, the kind and forgiving father who remains the same throughout the parable is a picture of God and Jesus. Sorry Andrew. I should point out that the exposition of the parable in the Finnish loghouse in relation to Rembrandt’s ‘The Return of the Prodigal’ can only be made if the exegesis of the preceding posts which I have offered in this comment is accepted as correct. It’s not a strict one-to-1. The tax collector is exactly in the position of the prodigal son who was lost and needed to be restored to his family. In reply to Norman, thanks for the by Andrew. The issue addressed in the Lazarus story is not the scandal of table fellowship but the fact that the Pharisees are “lovers of money” (Lk. But then your comment: doesn’t the older son’s claim that he has never disobeyed his father’s “command” evoke Pharisaic adherence to the Law of God? But the impact of Jesus’s teaching in the parables is, I think, more than that of retailing pedagogical instruction. We normally associate prodigal with the son, and rightfully so; however, something pretty amazing happens if we associate this word with the father and his grace. I think it much more likely that Jesus spoke prophetically to Israel with a fairly clear communicative intention in mind. How long did Israel stay in Assyria [1 Chr 5:26][2 Kings 17:6]? “Proverb” (mashal) in verse 4 could be a “parable”. 4. The prodigal son felt entitled to his father’s belongings and felt that his father owed him something, when in reality he owed him nothing. The main theme of the parable deals more with the father than the son, although we may often view the parable from perspective of the son. Again though this gets into a subtlety of who comprised Gentiles from the vantage point of the Apostles. It would have been wrong not to celebrate. So I would suggest that the parable of the prodigal son is essentially of the same type as the parable of the rich man and Lazarus: it is a story about what it means to belong to the family of Abraham at a time of eschatological crisis. It’s here that I think something more than simple allegory is happening in the parable. :-), http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2006/01/luke_15_kenneth…, Notice was Jeremiah says in [Jer 31:31] “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah …”. People don’t want to believe what is otherwise plain. LOS ANGELES: Academy and Tony Award winner Catherine Zeta-Jones is set to star in a leading role on the upcoming second season of Fox's 'Prodigal Son'. I’d have thought that the ‘father/son’ motif, especially in the life of Jesus, is as much, if not more, to do with divine privilege and messianic promise (from 2 Samuel 7 — v13, and Psalm 2 — v7 especially) than protection of the weak and vulnerable. Biblically at least, who the father is, and who the sons are is clear enough — but still subject to rejection. He wanted his share of the inheritance, and he wanted it immediately. Andrew, are you familiar with Kenneth Bailey’s work on Luke 15? In his reading, the older brother is dealt with tenderly, even sympathetically, because it is himself. 2. 15:32). Does the argument work today? It was just a few weeks after my own father died. The connection to Abraham is clear enough — God promised Abraham two things, a nation (Judah) and a company of nations (Joseph or the House of Israel) [Gen 35:11]. I can see that the Psalm may be part of the general Wisdom background to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. In Middle Eastern culture, running was considered shameful. If you are going to argue for a reader-response understanding of the parable within its original setting, you should really provide some evidence that this is an appropriate hermeneutic for such literature under such cultural conditions. Perhaps, but this is a parable, and the details have a natural narrative justification. The father grieved the loss of the Prodigal Son during his absence. 2:49). Up until this point in the parable, the prodigal son's repentance does not appear to be very genuine. How long did Judah stay in Babylon [2 Kings 20:17]? Thanks for the reply. The father has devoted his life to his family, but the prodigal son’s departure forms an unmistakable response to his father: it’s not good enough. A Modern-day Prodigal Son. And as the reward for his great magnanimity, the father recovers his beloved son. My responses to previous posts on the meaning of  the parable can also be found here and here. I took another look at this, and of course, your argument, Andrew, is more subtle than I have given credit for. Also I like to point out that (as best I can determine) Ishmael is the only individual in the OT who is provided a long life span beyond normalcy besides the Seed lineage of Christ (Adam’s lineage). The Prodigal Son was lost and found his way back home as a different person; that was an event to celebrate. There doesn’t need to be a condemnation of the older son, and he is certainly not commended for his hard work. Older and younger contain more than a hint of the old (historic national Israel), and the new (the people whom Jesus was gathering around himself as the reconstituted people of God). Marian.orgTheDivineMercy.orgAllHeartsAfire.orgDivineMercyArt.orgShopMercy.orgMarianPlus.org, Send us an email1-800-462-7426FacebookTwitterInstagramYouTube, Official promoters of the authentic Divine Mercy message since 1941. In my estimation Andrew is spot on in reading this from the perspective of the intended audience. I do see comletely what you are wishing to demonstrate about the parable, viewing it through the lens of the ‘coming eschatological crisis’ which you describe. 3:7-9). 1. Registered as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Prodigal Son sees a fresh case each week (Image: SKY) Dr. Martin Whitly - Michael Sheen Fellow British actor Michael Sheen takes on the dark role of Malcolm’s serial killer father Dr Martin Whitly. 19:8-10). Not only that, but we are talking exile, last days, resurrection. “He became angry, and refused to go in”. The father does nothing to bring the son home—other than to run out to welcome him. When Jesus gets in trouble with the ruler of a synagogue for healing a woman who had suffered from a “disabling spirit for eighteen years”, he argues, “ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” (Lk. Why did Jesus instruct his disciples not to preach the kingdom of God to Gentiles and Samaritans? The parable of the prodigal son clearly fits the first category of “father” sayings much better than the second—it is a story not about discipleship but about, Theological terms in narrative-historical perspective, Synopsis of N.T.