[Propertalk] [Goodsermons] Exegesis and older sermon - Luke 15:1-3, 11b-32

Tue Mar 9 17:41:30 EST 2010

http://www.goodpreacher.com/

Exegesis: Luke 15:1-3, 11b-32

The fifteenth chapter of Luke’s gospel contains three parables focused on things lost and then found, though the lectionary passage omits the first two (vv. 4-7, about a sheep; vv. 8-10, about a coin). The first three verses of the chapter (vv. 1-3) thus serve as the introduction for the very familiar story later in the chapter (vv. 11b-32) about the father and his two sons (often called, with only partial accuracy, "The Parable of the Prodigal Son"). 

The parable in question is unique to Luke, whose narrative repeatedly emphasizes Jesus’ attention to and compassion for the lost, the outsiders, and the marginalized. This pervasive theme is well illustrated beginning in verse 1, when Luke informs readers that "all the tax collectors and sinners"surely reckoned by many first-century Jewish ‘insiders’ as among the most conspicuously ‘lost outsiders’"were drawing near to hear" Jesus. Intriguingly, Luke claims that "all" of them were approaching Jesus to hear what he had to say; by contrast, at the same time, "the Pharisees and scribes"religious ‘insiders’ whom almost no one would have considered "lost""began to grumble" about "this one" who "welcomes sinners and eats with them" (v. 2). The differing reactions to Jesus described in verses 1-2 foreshadow major moments in the upcoming parable: the approach of the tax collectors and sinners (v. 1) is comparable to the approach of the "lost" younger son to his father (v. 20), whereas the complaints of the Pharisees and scribes are paralleled by the older son’s refusal to participate in the party to welcome his brother home (vv. 28-29). Not insignificantly, the story of Zacchaeus is the only other place in the New Testament where this verb "to grumble" appears: "All who saw [Jesus invite himself to dine at the tax collector’s home, and then Zacchaeus quickly descend the sycamore tree, 19:5-6] began to grumble and said, ‘He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner’" (19:7). In Luke’s account, Zacchaeus functions as a real-life prodigal finally come home.

In skipping from verse 3 to verse 11b, the lectionary passage characterizes "The Parable of the Prodigal Son" as Jesus’ response to the scribes’ and Pharisees’ grumbling: "So he told them this parable" (v. 3). In actual fact, of course, Jesus’ statement is followed immediately by stories about the lost sheep and the lost coin [and thus, literally, the reference to "this parable" in verse 3 would seem to refer to the story about the lost sheep]; nevertheless, the similarity of the three parables’ themes, thoughtfully arranged by Luke, would suggest that reading the "Prodigal Son" (vv. 11b-32) along with the lectionary as Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees and scribes (vv. 2-3) does little violence to Luke’s narrative. Indeed, it is probably appropriate to read all three parables in the chapter as responses to the grumbling ‘insiders.’

Culturally speaking, both sons treat their father with stunning disrespect in the lectionary parable. For example, by demanding his portion of the inheritance ("Father, give me…") while his father remains alive (v. 12), the younger son essentially tells his father that he wishes he were dead. The older son acts disrespectfully by refusing to accept his father’s entreaties to join the party upon his brother’s return (vv. 28-30),1 not to mention the way he apparently accepts his own inheritance prematurely (see v. 12b: "And he divided [his] property among them"; cf. v. 31 ["all that belongs to me is yours"]).2 Ironically, the "life" (the literal term here in Greek for "property") that the father willingly gives his sons ahead of timeprior to his own death, when such "life" would serve its normal and necessary functionallows for premature ‘death’ to occur (i.e., the younger son goes off and ‘dies’ [vv. 17, 24, 32]; likewise, familial [especially fraternal] and communal3 relationships ‘die’ in the process [vv. 28-30]). Notably, the father continually pursues and offers ‘life’by welcoming his son home (v. 20), by calling for celebration (vv. 22-24), and by seeking to reconcile broken relationships (e.g., vv. 31-32).

As often noted, there is rich irony in the younger brother’s adventures. A young man with all of his needs for love and nourishment abundantly met rejects his family and ends up without anything to eat. His freedom leads to tremendous poverty and thus un-freedom. Ultimately, his way of life leads this young Jew to a point where he must feed a group of foreign and decidedly non-kosher pigspigs that are thus more important and more gastrically satisfied than he is. He cannot even eat what the pigs eathow low can one go?

It is easy to identify with the older son’s anger at his brother. His brother’s conduct was preposterous and shameful (to himself and to his family). The potential size of the elder brother’s inheritance would have been diminished given that it had been prematurely divided (and much of the original capital wasted). Presumably, the resources to pay for his brother’s party would come from his remaining portion of the estate (see v. 31). He has been wronged. But his lack of mercy toward his brother indicates that even though he may not have formally disobeyed his father (v. 29), he has nonetheless failed to learn from his father’s compassionate example. Indeed, neither son has learned to treat others with the generosity, compassion, and mercy their father obviously manifests in his own life (see, e.g., vv. 12, 17, 20, 22-24, 27, 30-32).

It is worth noting that the father is blissfullyindeed, foolishlygenerous with his financial resources. Today we might even accuse him of living wastefully (cf. v. 13). He gives away his estate to his sons prematurely. He throws a huge party when there should be repayments and recriminations. The father appears quite fiscally irresponsibleand so disinterested in the kind of materialistic calculations that occupy his two sons (see, e.g., 29-30). He is only concerned about relationships; by contrast, his sons are focused on money and what they are going to get. The theme of greed in 15:11-32 should not be overlooked since it links these verses to the subsequent parable (16:1-13), after which Luke characterizes the Pharisees as "lovers of money" (at odds with God’s value system; 16:15) who, having "heard all this" (15:1–16:13), "ridiculed" Jesus (16:14). Both of the sons in our parable, each in their own way, succumb to serving wealth (16:13).

The younger son is the picture of foolishness, self-centeredness, and greedand ultimately the older son is not much better. Both expect their father to do what they say (vv. 12, 21, 29-30). Despite his egregious behavior, the younger son still seeks to dictate the terms of his relationship with his father upon his return in verse 21; the older son is demanding and presumptuous toward his father in verses 29-30 ("Look [here]!"; "this son of yours"). 

Notably, the father always determines his own actions. He is never constrained by his sons’ demands: he gives the inheritance away of his own volition (v. 12), ignores his youngest son’s misguided attempts to define reality (vv. 21-24; he runs [a major cultural faux pas!]4 to the son, showering him with hugs and kisses, before the son can recite a single word of his prepared speech [vv. 20-21]), and entreats his oldest son to join the celebration (brushing off his rude refusal to enter the house, vv. 28, 31-32). The father remains deeply concerned about his sons’ needs and feelings, and yet he always makes his own choices about how to respond to their often-audacious behavior (precisely because he is concerned for their overall well being).

Particularly striking is the way that the father gently but firmly redirects the older son’s attempt to distance himself from his brother: in verse 30, his elder son describes his brother as "this son of yours"; the father, however, seeking to restore damaged relationships, calls the youngest son "this brother of yours" (v. 32; cf. Moses’ ‘discussion’ with the LORD, in which they both refer to those wandering in the wilderness following the exodus as "your people," Ex 32:7-14). To the extent that 15:11b-32 is understood as a response (v. 3) to the grumbling of the Pharisees and scribes in verse 2 (in the presence of "tax collectors and sinners," v. 1), the parable underscores the fact that whatever may come between them, the sinner and the scribe are brothers. In fact, according to the parable, it is not scandalous that Jesus "welcomes sinners and eats with them" (v. 2); rather, the scandal is that the younger son would not be getting a welcome home party if it were up to the older son! (Readers are surely encouraged to see the elder son as a stand-in for the Pharisees and scribes [v. 3] at this point.) Whatever we call the parable, it is important to recognize that the title "Prodigal Son" does not fully capture the wide array of issues and dynamics in this rich and poignant drama. 

Michael Barram

Saint Mary’s College of California

Notes

1. Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 291.

2. Ibid., 290: "The village would have expected loud cries of protest from him and an honorable refusal to take his share while his father was still alive."

3. Malina and Rohrbaugh stress that relationships within the village would have suffered as a result of the family’s upheavals and conduct; they suggest that the feast offered by the father was at least partly intended to restore these relationships (Social-Science Commentary, 290-91).

4. Malina and Rohrbaugh argue that the father is above all seeking to protect his son from vengeful neighbors (Social-Science Commentary, 190-91).

Pastoral Implications: Luke 15:1-3, 11b-32

This familiar parable from Luke is, perhaps, best known by a negative title"the prodigal son." This description immediately puts our focus on the younger son who was reckless with his inheritance. One temptation here would be to suggest that the losses on Wall Street are exemplary of the younger son’s behavior and create a contemporary allegory. There are other ways we might choose to describe the text including the parable of the loving father, the parable of two sons, or the parable of two sons and a loving father. The loving father is the real focus of the parable. Fred Craddock suggests that most who embrace this parable because of its familiarity, do so without appreciating "the full impact of the offense of grace that it dramatically conveys."1 Craddock also advises against over-explaining the parable because the result for the listeners is analogous to explaining a joke. In some manner the parable needs to speak for itself, but those of us called to preach don’t generally have the option or the luxury of simply reading the gospel and continuing on in worship without first delivering a sermon. So how is the preacher to avoid the dilemma of explaining away the power of the parable?

One may want to be mindful of the tensions that are often viewed as either/or propositions instead of both/and proclamations. The father’s love for the younger son does not include a rejection of the older son who is often portrayed as resentful and jealous; rather the father loves both sons. The father’s love for the younger son does not excuse nor condone the son’s waywardness but rather invites the younger son back into relationship and community. The older brother’s offense at the party given by his father doesn’t mean he rejects his brother. We, however, for socio-cultural reasons primarily, tend to view the story in terms of winners and losers.2 If the younger brother is welcomed back heartily, then the older brother loses his status in the family and this tears at our notions of what is fair and just. What are the consequences for the younger son’s behavior? 

In some ways, the parable from Luke continues the critique from Second Isaiah for the Third Sunday in Lent by calling into question our need to be in control and to keep privilege for ourselves. The banquet table is already set and the invitations have been extended to all who are willing to confess their inadequacy even if it means giving up the status of being a "winner." Those who are not Christian look from the outside in toward the center of our faith communities and wonder about our moral performance. The former Los Angeles Times religion reporter, William Lobdell raises this very question in his recent memoir on how he came to lose his faith by reporting on religion noting that "[i]t was discouragingly easythough incredibly surprisingto find out that Christians, as a group, acted no differently than anyone else, including atheists."3 Lobdell finally admits that the "leap of faith" required is not one he is able to make in light of the many scandals he uncovered during his stint as a religion reporter. He claims that this is because it is a gift he does not possess, but I would suggest that he is unable to distinguish between the immoral actions of particular Christians and the beliefs espoused by Christianity.4 His friends’ names are "legion." Since Lent is a season which draws our attention toward repentance, renewal, and preparation for baptism, the preacher would do well to listen to the voices of critics such as Lobdell. Their critiques may offer wisdom for the path toward renewal in more poignant ways than we could dare to imagine. These voices will not likely ease the suffering experienced by members of our congregations who are still recovering from losses caused by the economic recession because they are still captivated by their losses and their grief, but these voices may assist us to grow in faith if we can hear the critiques without becoming defensive.

One last point raised by Craddock is worthy of note for pastoral consideration: "There is a condition worse than death, to be lost; there is a condition better than life, to be found."5 This point may speak to the hearts of those continuing to struggle with losseven if it is not of their own creation. A prevailing sense of loss (job, retirement earnings, house, or reduced income, just to name some of the many losses the faithful are coping with) may be lightened for some if they are able to hear the positive message of the parable as spoken for them. The "loving father" offers forgiveness for them too. The condition they are experiencing is painful, a pain or absence that may seem worse than death. I suggest that many individuals yearn for the proclamation of love and forgiveness but not hearing it or finding it in church, they seek it elsewhere. I read a lot of memoirsmany of them bestsellersto determine if they will make suitable case study material for pastoral care class conversation. As I read through the pages of someone else’s life, I often find myself becoming frustrated by what seems to me to be an interminable whine about the difficulties many of the authors have experienced. (Yes, the reader may wonder about my ability to extend empathy!) I wonder to myself what makes these memoirs bestsellers and am inclined to believe that they provide what we as preachers often fail to proclaimhope. I came to this realization while reading Elizabeth Gilbert’s Eat, Pray, Love as she described her own ritual process of forgiveness after an ugly divorce process.6 It is an offense to preach the kind of grace and forgiveness that Jesus proclaimed, and I expect that this is also the reason that we are so often tentative in our own attempts to proclaim that God’s love and forgiveness is free for all those willing to repent. The journey of renewal during Lent is also one the preacher needs to be on.

Carol L. Schnabl Schweitzer

Notes

1. Fred B. Craddock, Luke (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 187.

2. The reader may find Parker Palmer’s insights on winners and losers helpful. See Parker J. Palmer, The Active Life: A Spirituality of Work, Creativity, and Caring (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990), 23-24.

3. William Lobdell, Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in Americaand Found Unexpected Peace (New York: Collins, 2009), 204.

4. Ibid., 244. 

5. Craddock, 187. 

6. Elizabeth Gilbert, Eat, Pray, Love: One Woman’s Search for Everything Across Italy, India and Indonesia (New York: Penguin, 2007), 184-89.

<>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stsams.org/pipermail/propertalk_stsams.org/attachments/20100309/a65099ae/attachment.htm>