“Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing hear to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” Lk. 15:1-2, ESV
The Pharisees and scribes grumbled about Jesus receiving sinners and eating with them. How could a religious man hang out with sinners? There was no love lost between the religious leaders(haberim) and the sinners(am ha-arez). Any contact between them defiled the haberim. The Babylonian Talmud taught that a man should sell everything he had to ensure the marriage of his daughter to a scholar. They must avoid at all cost the marriage to a daughter of an “am ha-arez because they are detestable, their wives are vermin and of their daughters it is said, “Cursed be he that leith with any manner of beast.”(1) Feelings were mutual on the other side as well.
Pharisees were very strict, not only about what they ate, but with whom they ate. They could not eat at the same table with an acquaintance if one was eating meat and the other cheese, lest their thoughts should “mix” and that would violate the command against mixing milk and meat. In this culture, eating a meal together was symbolic of a close relationship, almost a covenantal one. So, the Pharisees had strong religious reasons to not eat with sinners.
But, they also had strong political reasons. Tax collectors were seen as collaborating with their oppressors. They were the Benedict Arnolds of ancient Israel. To eat with a tax collector would be like Jews of the mid-20th century inviting Nazis into their homes for fellowship. So the Pharisees object to Jesus fellowship with tax collectors and sinners was both religious and political.
Jesus answered their grumblings with a parable, that was 3 stories in one. The first two begin to reveal to them a view of the Father and themselves that was, in all likelihood, disconcerting. And He presented a view of repentance that required nothing of the sinner. That had to rankle them even further. Then he tells them a powerful story that paints a scandalously beautiful picture of the heart of the Father.
“There was a man who had two sons…” We are introduced to three characters in this story: father, younger son and older son. The younger son makes an outlandish, unheard of request that is dishonoring of his father. There were cultural guidelines on how a father should transfer his property to his son, but he was strongly discouraged from doing so while he was still in good health. But these guidelines were to fathers. The idea that a son would request it was unthinkable. The father would be expected to explode in anger, refuse the request, and most likely beat his son. But, in the story, the father grants the request.
In the previous two stories, the shepherd and the woman did nothing out of the ordinary for someone in their place. But, the action of this father are unique, marvelous, divine actions that have not been done any earthly father in this day. It is out of his rejection of the father’s love that the son makes the request; it is out of this the father’s costly love that he grants the request. He extends the ultimate form of freedom to his son…the freedom to reject the offered relationship.
Dividing the property is one thing….a father can do it, though sons do not request it. But, to dispose of the property is quite another thing. Jewish laws of inheritance were spelled out. If a father assigned his goods before he died, he could not sell them because they were assigned to his son, and the son cannot sell them because they are in the father’s possession. If the father sells them, they are sold only until he dies and then they become the sons. If the son sells them, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The son can only dispose of his inheritance AFTER the father dies. In the meantime, the father can continue to do with his goods as he wishes. For the son to use the inheritance, he must have been able to sell it. It is clear in the story that the son manages, while his father is in good health, to extract the full right to dispose of his inheritance. He did this quickly…”Not many days later,”
Typically, these things take time to settle. The fact that he did is so quickly would have horrified the community because of the son’s actions..and because someone in the community bought it. The son is selling his soul and insulting his father. The hostility of the community dictates his haste. He leaves, but with a sword hanging over his head..the qetsetsah ceremony. The qetsetsah ceremony was a humiliating public event that cut off the person from the family and community. They would put parched corn and nuts into a jar and break the jar in from of the people as they proclaimed, “[This person] is cut off from is inheritance.”
The prodigal has sold the land…his inheritance…the life of his family and goes into a far country with the proceeds of that sale. If he returns, and rebuys his inheritance, all will be forgiven. But how will the village react if he loses all his money and, adding insult to injury, squanders it among the Gentiles? If they didn’t enact this ceremony when he left, they surely will if he dares to return under these conditions. He must succeed.
We were introduced to three characters in the opening verse of the story. The silence of the older son reveals something about him. His relationship with his father is not so good either. The closest male member of both parties was expected to mediate such affairs. The cultural expectation of the older son was to speak up in defense of his father’s honor. The audience is expecting the older son to vehemently refuse the division of the property. But, he is silent. We now know something about each of the three characters. The younger son by what he requests; the father by what he grants; the older son by what he does not do.
The prodigal is on his way and squanders his money. There is no indication of immorality here. The narrator, Jesus, gives no such indication of how the money was squandered. In our culture, it would be somewhat natural for the son to simply return home. But in the Middle Eastern culture, governed by honor and shame, he is taught to avoid shame at all cost. If he returns home, he is subject to dishonor and public shame. First of all, he has failed in the eyes of his father. Secondly, he will be a burden on his older brother. Once the division of property was made, the rest of the estate, and any growth in its value, belonged to the older brother. Thirdly, the quetsetsah ceremony awaits him. Return is NOT an option.
So, he hires himself out to Gentiles to feed pigs. This phrase “hired himself out” actually means he “joined himself.” He glued himself to a Gentile. He found someone who could feed him and stuck to him. He even wished he could eat what the pigs ate! For a Jew, this is ultimate humiliation. Working for a Gentile…feeding pigs…wishing, in effect, that he were a pig!
Let’s think about the audience for a moment. At this point in the story, the audience…Pharisees and scribes…were quite pleased with Jesus’ description of sin. The way they felt about the younger son by now was exactly the way one should feel about one who sinned. Jesus has presented a powerful and repulsive picture of sin.
Back to the story…Though quite destitute, the younger son has one more card in his hand. Playing it will be painful…humiliating…that’s why he left it until a last resort. We are told that “he came to himself”…what does that mean? Is he repenting? When we think about the context of repentance in previous parables, that repentance is the acceptance of being found and the lost did nothing…is Jesus redefining repentance mid-parable to indicate the lost having a part in repentance? This same Hebrew phrase is use one other time in the New Testament in the story of the persistent widow. The judge “came to himself” and gave her justice. Did he have any change of heart? No. He wants to get the widow off his back. The son hasn’t had a change of heart…he’s hungry. So, he devises plan in which he might be able to eat. Why not hire himself out to his father? He will not even attempt to be a son…he knows he’s been cut off. He will return as a worker..hire himself to his father rather than to this Gentile. At least that way, he’ll be well fed. The term “hired servant” could also be rendered “craftsman.”
The younger son’s decision to return is not born of repentance, but of the need to eat. He is not returning as a son, but plans to ask to be trained as a craftsman. He sees himself as a servant/employee. Jesus is raising a powerful issue here…is the primary relationship between the believer and God that of a servant before a master or a child in unbroken fellowship with a compassionate parent. There are three categories into which those who serve will fall: slave who serves out of fear of punishment, a craftsman or employee who expects to be paid for everything he does, or a son who serves in his father’s house w/o needing to be urged and w/o expecting anything in return
The phrase “no longer” can be time(never again) or logic(not now). This leaves open the possibility of the son working and earning money to buy back his inheritance and be restored to the family and community. He knows he will have to face the qetsetsah ceremony, but this is his final option…so he plays this final card, hoping it will be the ace card…he returns home with his planned speech.
We tend to picture the scene as a sprawling farm on hill, or valley, with acres of land surrounding it and the father looks out across his land and sees his son coming. But, people in that day did not live out in the open. It wasn’t safe. They lived in villages and left the village during the day to work in their fields. A typical village was about 6 acres(250yd x 150yds) The streets were very narrow. One Jewish law stated that is was a sin to take food to a neighbor on the Sabbath. To get around that law, they would do one of two things. They could stand on their flat roof and throw food across to their neighbor, or place a board between their roofs and walk across on the board. This is how narrow the street was.
These streets were crowded with people selling goods, camels delivering loads. Another law was that if a load of flax caught fire because it came in contact with the open flame of a lantern, the blame was dependent upon whether or not the lantern hung inside the shop/stall or outside. Inside, it was the fault of the camel driver; outside, it was the fault of the shop owner. There’s also village life happening. Friends sit and talk, news of the day is passed along.(2)
It is through this village the prodigal must make his way tor each his father’s house. This gauntlet is intimidating if not terrifying. This is why the son exhausted all other options before this one, hoping that he would not have to return in humiliation and make his way to his father’s house.
Let’s check in with the audience again. Jesus has now represented their concept of the solution very well. Their view of sin was well represented. The son’s speech presented a view of salvation that was also represented authentically. They are into this story…fully engaged. They are in full agreement with Jesus thus far. They are fairly confident of the ending. The boy returns and is treated badly by the town; the qetsetsah ceremony is enacted. After this unspeakable humiliation, he reaches the family home and delivers his prepared speech. Then, after considerable negotiation, he finally convinces his father to trust him and hire him, or possibly train him as a craftsman. He won’t live there, most likely, but will work on the farm. Years later, he anticipates coming back home after earning enough money to recover his lost inheritance. That will achieve reconciliation and restoration with both the family and the village.
But, that isn’t what happens. The audience is in for a shocking finale! The father sees him from a distance. This picture is not a father whose lives atop a hill and happens to look out the window, or even is standing on his porch scanning the hillside. It’s a father who is in the middle of a busy village, looking down crowded narrow streets. Imagine difficulty of seeing someone in such a crowd. He has been watching the distant road for years. He knows his son well. He’s fairly certain he will fail. He knows the boy is arrogant and won’t return unless every other option is gone. So when he does return, he will be in rags. He also knows that he will not be received well by the villagers. In fact, he will be treated badly. So he has a plan. He is determined to reach the boy before the boy reaches the village! He alone can protect him from the hostility of the town.
A traditional Middle Eastern patriarch is expected to uphold the honor of the family. He must exhibit indignation and anger once he realizes the money is gone. He has full right to have nothing to do with the boy. MIddle Eastern patriarchs do not run in public. It is undignified and it necessities the lifting of one’s robes thereby exposing the legs…a shameful thing in Middle Eastern culture. Arab translators had such a difficult time translating this verse to show the father running. For over 1000 years, they rendered it every way possible…he went…he hastened…he presented himself…to avoid the humiliating truth that the father ran! This was way too humiliating for a Middle Eastern translator to attribute a person who symbolizes God. It wasn’t until the mid 1800s that Arabic translators used the verb running.(3)
But God is not like a Middle Eastern patriarch. Jesus reveals to the Pharisees a picture of God that is shocking. He did not exhibit indignation and anger…He had compassion! He did not wait until his son reached him…but ran to him! It’s daylight as evidenced by the father seeing his son from a distance. Streets are crowded. The father has been watching, expecting his son to return some day. He now takes his robe in his hands and in a humiliating public demonstration takes upon himself the form of a servant and runs down the village streets to the boy. He must reach him before he reaches the village!
Not only did he show compassion…not only did he run…but he threw his arms around his son and kissed him. The son would be expected to kneel and kiss his father’s feet…but the father kissed him…a Middle Eastern means of showing acceptance and friendship.
Now, put yourself in the shoes of the younger son. Imagine approaching the village, knowing the qetsatseh ceremony that awaits him. Can you feel the shame descending as he steels himself for the harsh treatment he knows awaits him in the village? He mentally prepares his speech for his father. He has no idea whether or not the father will agree to his request this time. Suddenly, he sees his father running the gauntlet for him! Again, the father is offering a costly demonstration of unexpected love. Oh, the so begins his rehearsed speech…but cannot continue. His father’s humiliating display of costly love undoes him! The compassion of the father leads the son to true repentance!
This is scandalous!! Beyond what we could ever imagine. It has forever changed the song, “Grace, you’ve shown me grace by leaving Your throne…Jesus you have won me! You have broken every chain with love and mercy!” Every time I sing this song now, I can picture the father running through crowded streets, bumping into people, running through camel dung, so he can reach his son so his son doesn’t have to walk the shameful gauntlet through the village. This is a picture of God leaving His throne. In full view of the principalities and powers of the heavenly realms, He made a spectacle of Himself in a powerful display of self-emptying(kenotic) love to reach us. He endured humiliation and shame so His children don’t have to.
The father did not go out in search of his son, but allowed him to come to the end of himself. And when he did, like he knew he would, the father initiated restoration in his self-emptying display of love. He didn’t wait to show grace and compassion until the son started his speech. His run through the crowded streets was the most powerful display of self-emptying love ever displayed.
“The cruciform God will not and cannot, by love’s nature, coerce us to obey. God grants us the dignity(and discomfort) of “finding our own bottom,” the end of which is willing surrender to the arms of grace.” -Brad Jersak,
The father restores his son to the family…robe, ring and a banquet fit for a king. He intends, through the banquet, to restore him to the community as well.
The Pharisees’ complaint was “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them. And Jesus’ response is, “You accuse me of eating with sinners. You’re right. I do. But, I don’t simply allow them to eat with me…I don’t only invite them…like a good shepherd searching for a lost sheep and a good woman looking for a lost coin and like this father running through the streets to welcome his son, I go out with costly love seeking these whom you so despise. I am willing to pay any price to win them and bring them home to eat with me.” They have just had the rug pulled out from under them. The means of restoration they had expected didn’t happen. This view of God’s love…they had no grid for it. But, Jesus isn’t done yet. The story has not yet climaxed.
There are quite a few parallels between the older son and younger son that become clearer as we look into the story from a historical cultural context. In every religious culture, there are insiders and outsiders…those who break the rules, and those who keep them but whose hearts are just the same.
The older son returns from the fields, hears the party, and learns from a servant that his younger brother had been restored in peace. The culturally expected response was for the son to enter the party, greet the guests, then excuse himself to clean up before returning. But, the older son publicly humiliates his father by refusing to come in to the party. The father has full rights to punish the older son for such a humiliation. But, he doesn’t. In another display of self-emptying love, the father leaves the party in search of his older son.
As you imagine this exchange, think what it would be like if President Trump threw a party, invited dignitaries and influential people from all over the country and the world. It’s a celebration like no other. His son arrives late, without shirt and shoes, unshaved, unkempt, and verbally attacks his father in the presence of the seated guests. Even in our casual culture, that would be seen as extremely dishonoring, disrespectful and painful for the father. Both brothers put their father through humiliation and dishonor. The father has every right, even the cultural expectation, to display indignation and anger, and beat his son.
In the parable of the lost sheep, the Pharisees were represented by the 99 sheep that remained; in the parable of the lost coin, they were represented by the coins that weren’t lost. Now, sheep and coins become humans. Thus far in this 3rd parable, the audience’s views of both sin and salvation were authentically represented(though the father’s response was a shock) But, this authentic representation of their views has drawn them into the story. “What now is Jesus going to say?” must be going through their minds.
Here at the climax of the story, a person in the story represents the audience AND that person is now at center stage and talking. So…both the storyteller(Jesus) and the audience(scribes and Pharisees) are now both on the stage in the story when the father, in an act of self-emptying love and as a suffering servant, pleads with the older son. The playwright enters the play and argues directly with the audience.
“These many years I have served you…” Wait a minute…everything the son does increases the value of the estate that will be in his possession when his father dies. He is really working for himself.
“…and I never disobeyed your command…” He says this in the middle of a public humiliation of his father.
“yet you never gave me a young goat that I might celebrate with my friends.” Woah, hold on a moment…is the older son ALSO wishing he could dispose of his father’s assets as he wishes? The estate has been signed over the son, but remains in the father’s possession until he dies. Is he also wishing his father dead so he could throw a party with the assets? A party for HIS friends. These people were his father’s friends, not his.
“But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes…” He can’t even bring himself to claim his brother and attempts to slander his brother further by accusing him of immorality. Thus far, the narrator made no mention of immorality and the two sons haven’t talked about anything. This is pure conjecture on the part of the older son to slander his brother. If he was so concerned about the father’s property, why didn’t he speak up in the beginning, but rather accepted his portion without comment?!
“…you killed the fattened calf for him!” The older son doesn’t recognize that the party is in honor of the father who has found his lost son.
“Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.” In the original, he says, “Beloved son…” The son didn’t even have enough respect to address his father, but the father responds with love to a son who has publicly humiliated and dishonor him. Again the father absorbs the anger of his son, and processes into grace…at great cost. He understand the “lostness’ and distance of his older son just as he did with the younger son. He assures him that all is still his…he can relax and enter the celebration confident that all his rights and privileges are not threatened but are still intact.
Jesus has painted a picture of the distortions of perception that he faces from those opposed to his ministry among the lost. The parable allows the audience an objective view of themselves. Jesus offers a brilliant analysis of how a self-righteous spirit can dominate and poison a person.
Every community has insider and outsiders. Insiders appear to keep the accepted patterns of faith and life…the outsiders break them. For the insiders, the very keeping of the rules can create an ultra orthodox mentality that fosters a sense of superiority and a judgmental attitude toward all others.
The end of the telling has come, but not the end of the story. The poetic, or chiastic, structure of the parable is unfinished. The audience must finish the story. What will be their response? The father has revealed a costly display of love and offered to them a costly display of love. The outsiders are accepted and in fellowship with him…will the insiders accept?
Oh, the scandalous love the Father has for each one of us that compels Him to run to us, take on our shame and humiliation, to restore us to Himself!
Endnotes:
1. Bailey, Kenneth E. 1992. Finding the Lost Cultural Keys to Luke 15. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, pp. 23-26
2. Ibid. pp. 138-140
3. Ibid. pp. 143-146