Luke 15, 11-32: From the Title the Parable of ‘The
Prodigal Son’ to the Parable of ‘The Father of Two Lost Sons’
 |
| a rabbi teaching about jesus of nazarene taken from destination yisrael |
After a
systematic study of the Synoptic Gospels
using historical critical method, there is a renewed awakening, among the
scholars of the New Testament,[1]
about the resourcefulness of Gospel parables to understand Jesus the person and
His message in the last century. This recommitment to a closer study of the
Gospel parables followed a nuanced understanding of parables as word-pictures,
rich in imagery, founded on an ethnic background with its theology, cultural
metaphors and historical shadows. Hence the scholars believe that we would miss
what might be known about historical Jesus without the Gospel parables and vice
versa. Gospel parables belong to a larger tradition that has begotten Jesus. A.
M. Hunter, a respected scholar in the subject, affirms “Doubtless it was in the
synagogue that Jesus first heard men talking in parables”.[2]
Jesus was a Jew
and the parables represent a form of Judaism of his time. Jewish historians
place Jesus in the final quarter of the second temple period.[3]
Among the other Jewish sects of the time Pharisees were growing in influence
and power with their development of the ‘Oral
Torah’ used to interpret the written text of Hebrew Scriptures (TANAK).[4]
Parables, which explain the rich theology (God and His relationship), and the principles
of upright life revealed in the scriptures to common folk with simplicity,
directness and full of everyday ordinariness, form part of this tradition. Jewish
historians name this school as Pharisaic Judaism. Those who took upon the study
and interpretation of the scriptures/law to the ordinary people among them were
known as Rabbis. After the destruction of the temple with the course of time c.
2nd – 6th C. CE, the Rabbis developed into a separate
sect called Rabbinic Judaism.[5]
We have
parallels to Gospel parables in the Rabbinic Judaism. Cross textual studies
show that Gospel and Rabbinic parables now belonging to different traditions
share theological outlook, style and motifs with their foundations set in Second
Temple Judaism. Hence scholars like Hunter, A.J. Heschel, Jakob Petuchowski, David
Flusser and Brad H. Young - authorities in the interrelationships of the New
Testament with the Judaism of the first centuries - promote the study of Gospel
parables in the light of Jesus’ Jewish culture and his devotion to Torah. In
the background of Judaism, the text begins to unveil much of the deeper
meanings of parables for us. But too often our faith in Jesus overshadows the
faith of Jesus. We tend to lose sight of the historical-religious setting of
the New Testament texts falling into the trap of literalism or partial exegesis[6] in
our interpretations. In the case of the Gospel parables, this becomes all the
more important to perceive the nuances imbedded in the main line story. Every interpreter
is also limited by time and place as well as by different religion and cultural
orientations, unless one consciously walks past it through the (hermeneutical)
method of self-appropriation. Moreover there is also the important exegetical
work to carefully scrutinize the hand of the redactor in Jesus’ message to
serve his purposes.
The problem we
address here is the tendency to read Gospel parables belonging to a Jewish
tradition in the light of the distanced Christian tradition. As a consequence
our interpretations of these recorded sayings of Jesus remain far-fetched
sometimes opposed to their authentic meaning. Parables remain closely related
to their original context. Our aim in this paper is to demonstrate (1) the
necessity of seeking cross-cultural aid, in this case the assistance of Jewish
traditions to understand the Gospel parables and (2) the ensuing improvement in
our understanding. We achieve it by presenting a Gospel parable, its major
Christian interpretations and their critique; finally, compliment it by a
reinterpretation in the light of Jewish tradition all the while depending
solely on the scholarly work of Brad H. Young The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation (1998)
for our insights and interpretation.[7] We
have chosen the parable of prodigal son, one that is unique and pivotal to
Christian theology.
Parable
of the Prodigal Son: Christian Interpretation
 |
| prodigal son by Frank Wesley |
Lk. 15, 11-32,
popularly known as the parable of the prodigal son, dramatizes the feud within
a family of father and two sons to explain the crisis of broken relationships
between God and a human being. In the
history of (Christian) interpretation, the parable has often been curbed to
perspectives that highlight the unconditional love of the merciful father for
his wayward son, or the Christological interpretation of identifying Jesus and
his actions with the facets of the parable, or as yet another polemic against
Pharisees/Pharisaism (legalism of Jews/legalistic Judaism) or a sum of these
perspectives.
Tertullian, the
father of the Church, for example highlights the love of the father in the
parable as symbolizing the unconditional love of God. Karl Barth makes a
Christological reading. He parallels the ‘going out’ and ‘coming in’ of the
prodigal son to the humiliation and exaltation of Jesus Christ. He sees in the
narration of the events the symbolic expression of the Christian doctrine of
the atonement: “…the going out and coming in of the lost son, and therefore the
fall and blessing of man, takes place on the horizon of the humiliation [death
on the cross] and exaltation [resurrection on the third day] of Jesus Christ
and therefore of the atonement made in Him.”[8]
Similarly Kenneth E. Bailey, a New Testament scholar, also makes a
Christological interpretation. Unlike Barth, he sees a correspondence between
the father who humbles himself and the incarnation of Jesus to redeem us from
sin. Bailey writes, “When the father leaves the house to come out to his son in
love and humility, he demonstrates at least in a part of the meaning of the
incarnation and the atonement.”[9]
Edward Schweizer, another New Testament scholar, finds correspondence between
the father of the parable and Jesus in their conduct. He states that in
narrating the parable Jesus, in his love for the sinners/tax collectors,
positions himself in par with the God the Father’s unconditional love: “Of
course there must be certain correspondence… he [Jesus] equates God’s own
merciful conduct with his own conduct toward the tax collectors.”[10]
Further Schweizer recognizes in the parable of the prodigal son the blasphemy,
with its illustration of God as the loving father and the indirect comparisons
between Jesus and God, which triggered the conviction and crucifixion of Jesus.
The elder son of the story, on the other hand has no significance for the main
line theme. Later the Christian exegetes adapted the character as a portrait of
the pseudo-righteousness of the Pharisees.
Critique
While the Gospel
parables have a message that transcends time, it is dubious whether such
reinterpretations of the story in a new context retain their authentic meaning.
Biblical scholarship (NT) on the inter-relationships between New Testament
texts and Jewish traditions answers in the negative. It argues that most often
such interpretations betray a total ignorance and insensitivity to the motif,
style and the underlying theology of the Gospel composed in the context of
first century Judaism – the second temple period. For example, in this case –
parable of the Prodigal Son – the Christian interpretations hitherto are
incomplete and partial. This story originally involves three family members. But,
the elder son gets only a roundabout connection to the theme. He forms part of
the family and is as important to the father as the younger one; hence all the
three characters must be kept in view in our interpretations. Apart from the
themes of forgiveness, compassion and reconciliation with God, there is no direct
allusion to cross or resurrection. Such a reading by the later Christian
theological mind into the dramatic story undermines the powerful message of
Jesus in the parable. The parable is about God and his compassion for both the
sons the elder one who pretends to serve him and the younger who abandons him.
Barth and Bailey hence are not justified in making a Christian theological
reading into the parable and attribute its implications to Jesus. Jesus is
teaching about God’s loving nature, our folly and selfishness through this
parable. The interpretations that tend to identify the younger son as the
symbol of fallen humanity though stay, yet do not fully correspond to Jesus’
message. Jesus believed in the goodness of the people. Fallen nature of
humanity, on the other hand belongs to Augustine of Hippo.
Schweizer is
wrong in accusing Jewish theology as hostile to perceiving God as a merciful
father and Jesus’ identification with God in his acts of mercy to sinners.
First no one crucifies rabbis for telling parables. Second ‘the compassion of
God towards a sinner’ does not constitute a blasphemy in the first century
Judaism. The concept of God’s mercy to a repentant sinner had become a major
doctrine of Jewish theology in the second temple period. There are parallels in
the rabbinic parables. Moreover forgiving one’s neighbour (as God would do) is
also a major tenet in Jewish thought; it is a prerequisite for seeking
forgiveness from God. There are evidences in Hebrew Scriptures and in Mishnah. Hence Schweizer is unfounded in
his interpretations of this parable as a ‘blasphemy’ in Judaism. Finally the tendency to interpret the parable
as a polemic against Pharisees is incorrect. Though Jesus criticized the
hypocrisy of some Pharisees, he would not go against Pharisaism as a religious
movement; the worldview of God as a merciful father, the shift from fear to
love of the first century Judaism in the second temple period is a legacy of
Pharisaic thought. Rabbinic Judaism is an offshoot of Pharisaic Judaism. The
story deals with two types of people, the rebellious who abandon God and the
others who want to belong for selfish reasons. Hence it is authentic to
interpret the parable universally referring to the two types of people present
everywhere.
Parable
of ‘The Father of Two Lost Sons’: Christian Interpretation in the Light of
Jewish Tradition
All the three
actors of the Gospel parable receive equal attention in the sight of the
original audience of Jesus’ time. It therefore narrates a story of family
crisis between a father and his two lost sons. The sons want to break their
relationship with the father. The younger one makes it explicit by demanding
his share of family inheritance; the elder desires it in silence. We should
also listen to the silence of the elder brother. The Oral Torah permits the father to divide his inheritance before his
death. Usually, this is done in times of the danger of death. The original
audience of Jesus would have known this for certain as it was directly related
to their normal living. But for them it is indigestible to know that the sons
called for a division of the inheritance; because, younger’s request for his
rightful share in the property implied a wish for the (earlier) death of his
father.[11] The
younger brother wants desperately to be totally cut off from the father. The
audience could perceive it from his hurried travel to a distant land. The father, helpless, divides the property between
his sons.
In the Jewish
tradition, such crisis’ in the family obliges the elder brother to be the
mediator to preserve the unity in the family. Hence all the more shocking for
the original audience should have been the inaction of the elder brother about
the division. Indirectly it implies then that he shares with his younger
brother the death wish of their father; all this when their father is good,
unconditionally loving and full of compassion. The goodness and compassion of
the father becomes evident in the narration of his reception and his patient
persuasion of the younger and elder sons respectively. The parable thus
presents the wickedness of the sons in their intention to desert their father.
Further it gets illustrated in the nature of relationship they shared with
their father. Invariably both perceived their father as a banker. The younger
brother therefore wants to grab his dew and run away. He returns to him with a
contract; he is yet to understand the goodness and the love of his father. The
case of the elder brother is much worse. Though he apparently projects to be
obedient, his heart is far away from the love of his father. Neither is he
sincerely interested in the welfare of the family. He seeks wealth. He desires
to possess his double portion of the wealth which is due to the elder son in a
Jewish family. The idea is threatened by the return of his younger brother and
joyful acceptance in the family by the father. He fumes in anger at the father.
The father persuades him to join the celebration, he fails to consent. He is
yet to understand the love of his father and reconcile with his brother.
The Gospel
parable picturesquely personifies: first, God as the compassionate father,
unconditionally loving and accepting every repentant sinner into his kingdom;
and second the need to reconcile with one another. The theological view of this
Gospel parable is also shared by Rabbinic Judaism. There are Rabbinic parables in
the same line like The Compassionate
Father and His Lost Son[12], The
Compassionate Father and His Runaway Son,[13]
and The Compassionate Father and His
Obstinate Son[14]
explaining the Written Torah in the
context of their life. Hence a quick glance of these similar texts help us
grasp better feel the mind of Jesus in his parable. However revolutionary one’s
ideas are the message freely unveils in the context of one’s time – religion,
culture and socio-political situation. The message of Jesus is no exception.
His idea of God as the Compassion Father and the instance of two lost sons has
deep roots in the rich tradition of Written
Torah and socio-political climate of the time.
The description
of the departure of the wayward son to a distant country, low morality and
poverty evoked strong emotions of resentment among the original audience, given
the situation of the first century Judaism. There is also note that the
depiction of the poverty of younger brother gives a picture of the anti-Semitic
biases amidst the Gentiles during the time of Jesus.
Conclusion
Our aim in this
paper was to explain the uncompromising need to interpret Gospel parables in
the light of the larger tradition where it rightfully belongs. For that matter,
everything Christian in as much as Jesus’ message is concerned should be viewed
in the context of the first century Judaism and the sects that developed
thereafter. Apart from identifying the original message minus the redactors
hand to serve his purpose and analyzing the literary form of parables; Gospel
parables begin to open up placing them in the background of the Judaism of
Jesus’ time. Hence we have driven home the importance of Jewish tradition to
understand the Gospel parables. We have demonstrated it through a sample
hermeneutical study of Lk. 15, 11-32. Our intention is not to deny the
originality of Jesus and his message instead to affirm our relatedness to His
faith and the possibility of mutual enrichment with our parent religion.
[1] For a detail list of the names
of the scholars with bibliography on the subject see Brad H. Young, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian
Interpretation, paper back edn. (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008)
299-300.
[2] A.M Hunter, Interpreting the Parables (London: SCM, 1972) 8 as cited in Young, 4.
He contends this in the context of theories that project Jesus as the inventor
of parabolic teaching see J.Jeremias, Parables
of Jesus, trans. S.H. Hooke (London: SCM, 1972).
[3] The second temple period (c. 5th
C. BCE to 4th C. CE) can be
broadly divided into four quarters from the perspective of the different groups
that ruled over the land: Persians (583-333 BCE), Hellenists (332 – 142 BCE),
Hasmonians (142-63 BCE) and Romans (63 BCE-313 CE). See “History: Second Temple
Period – Return to Zion,” accessed from < http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/History/HISTORY-+The+Second+Temple.htm> on 01.10.2012; “Timeline of
Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity,” accessed from < http://www.annettereed.com/westciv/timeline-jchr.pdf> on 01.10.2012; and “Timeline
of Judaism after the Babylonian Exile,” accessed from <http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/exile2.html> on 01.10.2012.
[4] Charles Ess, “Timeline: The Development of Israelite
Religion / Judaism,
the Emergence of the
Hebrew Bible and the Oral Torah,” accessed from <http://www.drury.edu/ess/values/hebrewscriptures.html> on
01.10.2012.
[5] The information is gathered from
a collective reading of the resources from Wikipedia. “Rabbinic Judaism”,
“Origins of Rabbinic Judaism” and “Pharisees,” accessed from
<http://en.wikipedia.org > on 01.10.2012.
[6] Partial exegesis refers to the
historical-critical study with prejudices that blind the interpreter to the
facts quintessential to understand the text. In our case of the Gospel
parables, a Christian interpreter sidelines the importance of the original
context of the message of Jesus to reduce them as a background to His message,
due to his/her Christian prejudice against Judaism.
[7] Young, 130-157. Our interest is
two of the four disciplines of research offered by Young in this book. Other
than examining the parallel sources and theology of Jesus’ time, he invites to
do: 1) textual analysis between the synoptic texts to identify the redactors
hand and 2) Linguistic examination of the Gospel parables from Greek to their
Hebrew translation - the original language. Young, 28-29.
[8] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936-1962) 4/2: 23 as cited in Young, 131.
[9] Kenneth E. Baily, Poet and Peasant (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1976) 190 as cited in Young, 132.
[10] E. Schweizer, Jesus (London: SCM, 1971) 28 as cited in
Young, 133.
[11] To understand
the grave offense of such a request to a healthy father we should read texts
that expound the middle eastern culture. See Baily, Poet and Peasant and Through
Peasant Eyes (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980). Baily has an incident similar
to the one discussed here. See, Poet and
Peasant, 162 n. 73 as cited in Young, 144.
[12] For the text see Young, 148-149.
[13] For the text see Young, 151.
[14] For the text see Young, 152.
No comments:
Post a Comment