Prodigals and Parables: A (Short) Analysis of Luke 15:11-32

This is short, and I was not allowed to consult commentaries. One thousand words for the win.

The story of the prodigal son is a staple in my evangelical story. People referenced it constantly when I returned to the faith, and I read it that way for a long time: until now. Reading this text within its canonical context and co-text has pushed me to reflect on the nature of the overall narrative in relation to the first-century readers.

Within the larger context of ch14-15, our text sits comfortably after 15:1-7 and 15:8-10, and both sections refer to lost items (coin, sheep). Both pieces are significant as they are parables, but the subject of the younger son in the third unit (v.11-32) indicates that we’ve progressed beyond items into personhood. 14:1 tells us that Jesus “was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the Sabbath.” It seems that the entirety of 15:11-32 can be aspectivally located within 14:1. All of these stories are being told over a meal, where social privilege is evident (14:7) and situated within that specific residence. Jesus’ address to his host (14:12) indicates that there were no poor at this event (14:13-14), thus indicating a social hierarchy. Crowds, having followed Jesus (14:25), are outside. The meal within the dwelling of the Pharisee illustrates that some were open to Jesus.

15:1-2 indicate that the tax collectors, sinners, Pharisees, and scribes were all near Jesus, placing implicit mixed social, political and religious pressure. Themes of eschatological reversal play quite heavily here as Jesus emphasizes the ones who would be discarded (15:3-7), and the one who seeks them out. Each parable has an audience of the haves and the have-nots, with the focus on reversal and repentance. Now, Jesus can launch into the parable of the prodigal son, which concerns each listener at this meal.

The story begins (v.11) with a father and his two sons. The younger demands his share of the father’s property. Is it implied that the older son is given his dowry as well (“… he divided his property between them”, v.12)? After leaving for a distant land, the younger son lost everything; the adverb ἀσώτως is used here and only here in the New Testament to describe his life (which is the present active participle ζῶν). BDAG 148 defines ἀσώτως as “wastefully, prodigally.”

The younger son goes to a foreign land (v.14). Perhaps this is rhetorical irony by Jesus, as the one with excess is caught in a land that is now barren; the younger son (Joseph from Genesis 37-50) is not in Kansas anymore. In v.15-16, the younger son’s duty is to feed the owner’s pigs, which are seen as “unclean” animals in Leviticus 11:7-8. There is nothing there for the younger son to “fill himself”; the verb “γεμίζω” indicates a perverse reversal of being “filled.”

V.17-19 tells of the plot point concerning the younger son’s return to his father. He remembers his former status as a well-fed younger son. The people outside the Pharisees’ house identify with this son at this point, as they are perhaps hungry outsiders. The younger son remembers his father’s wealth and how even hired workers had enough bread to eat (v.17). Staple foods like bread are gold in light of starvation. Simply, the younger son wants nothing more than to be a hired hand, a keeping of his current status.

In v.20, the father sees him from far off, indicating that he was looking for him, and knew where he would come from. The father was filled with compassion, and he runs out to him and weeps. A possible intertext for this passage may be Gen. 45:14, where Joseph weeps with his brothers after a long time apart because of horrific actions on the part of his brothers. Here, the roles are reversed: the older embraces the younger this time.

Despite this display, the son blurts out his failures. How often do we still feel the need to remind those who forgive us that we still sinned? The father ignores this and has the slaves (δούλους, not μισθίων); this change may emphasize the status of the slaves in the younger son’s stead. The father does not have his son’s body washed, and instead places rings and robes on him (v.22); a father’s happiness covers a multitude of customs. V.23-24 utilizes the fatted calf, showing us that a grand feast is to commence (a reference to Lev. 9:3 as a “burnt offering?”). What makes this interesting is that the imagery of fresh meat is not lost upon those who are outside and hungry during the telling of this parable. When the older son hears this celebration one can imagine his annoyance at not being invited. Indicating the possible shift of social status regarding “δούλους” and “μισθίων” in v.22, here in v.26 the older son asks the “παίδων” (child, servant) about the celebration.

We are not told the father’s words when he emerges from the celebration, but the response from the older son reveals that he views himself as a “δουλεύω” (one who slaves) to his father, thus viewing himself lower than the “παίδων.” The father is shocked, as he believes “all” (πάντα) that he has belongs to his older son. This reveals the selfishness of the older son: his status was never under dispute, and was never at odds with the father’s character and love for his younger son. Thus, when someone lost repents (v.32), we celebrate and rejoice.

The fact that the older brother—now likely representing a Pharisee who is already a part of the kingdom—reacts negatively when the dirty and repentant return to the family of God reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a part of God’s kingdom. This is all over a meal, an intimate setting. Pharisees are already included in God’s kingdom, but to some of their chagrin, so are the outsiders who repent and return. 

NQ

Greg Boyd's "Godless Sermon"

Greg Boyd:

We’re not called to be big. We’re not called to be mass-marketing Jesus. We’re not called to have fancy churches. We’re not called to have high steeples. We’re not called to have soft pews. We’re not called to have great programs…

What we’re called to do is love.

Love is by definition, sacrificial.

It’s got to grieve the Lord to the core of his being when he sees… the American church… that is so up in other things. We’re to be followers of the Lord who said “If you don’t give up all your possessions, you can’t be my disciples”…

[Christians say they can't help because they have their own problems.] But what are the problems that so many American Christians think they have? Well, you look at what they do with their resources, that’s how you tell what their problems are. It’s the problems of upgrading your curtains! It’s the problem of upgrading your car! It’s the problem of finding bigger closet space because you’ve got too many clothes! It’s the problem of “I gotta get a job promotion; I want the best for my kids, and I gotta have this and I gotta have that and I’ve got my own problems. I gotta make house payments!”

…I think the Lord would say, “You’ve got the wrong set of problems! You’ve got the wrong set of problems.”

…But you say, “Greg, you can’t solve the world’s problems!”…

That’s true. You can’t.

But the Good Samaritan wasn’t trying to curb the crime rate in Jericho. There’s this one guy here in need, and he met that need.

You can’t solve the world’s problems, but maybe this person over here could use your friendship, and this person over here could be helped out by you…

Have you seen the movie Schindler’s List? Schindler was a man who bought about 6,000 Jews out of destruction by putting together a phony business… At the end of the war, when the Jews were freed, they came and thanked him and said, “Thank you, you’ve done so much.”

And Schindler began to cry. He says, “It wasn’t enough. It wasn’t enough!”

They said, “But you did so much!”

And he says, “But I could have done more! This watch – I could have bought three lives with this watch! … And this tie clasp – this would have been a life! And these shoes, how many lives are these shoes worth? And this car! How many lives was this car worth? Why didn’t I sell the car? I could have bought more lives! It wasn’t enough!”
And the question that the gospel… would put right in my face is this: “Who is paying a price for my curtains?”

This cuts right to the heart of the American dream. What else could I be doing with what I’ve got?

To listen to the entire sermon (17 minutes is roughly where the quote is), click HERE. 

It is well worth your time. 

--Nick

TCM, "Active Inaction"

This is quite interesting.

Modern-day activism is a double edge sword. Thanks to the internet, we are aware of far more than previous generations. We are able to discover more than what the evening news chooses to cover that night. Not only can we hear about massive, life-changing events in other countries, we can see videos made by the people who are living it. We can read their twitter feed. We can chat with them one-on-one and get their story. However, what do we do with that information? 

For most of us, activism shows itself in what we “like” and repost on our Facebook news feed. We tweet and blog about how “up in arms” we are about current issues, but, at the end of the day, who are we really helping?

For the rest, click HERE.


--Nick

Jonathan Merritt, "Millennials Are More Independent, Divided on Culture Wars"

I like Merritt, even if I'm not convinced by some of his theological opinions. As I'm known, I love respectful perspective. 

A new study produced by Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) confirms what we already knew to be true. A majority of Millennials believe that abortion is “morally wrong,” are torn on same sex issues, and a plurality consider themselves independent.

The study reports that 51% of Millennials believe that having an abortion is “morally wrong.” This falls in line with other studies in years past, which assert that rising generations are as pro-life, or perhaps more so, than their parents’ generation. Most young people, it seems, will seek to protect of unborn life as did many of their parents. Only 37% said they considered abortion “morally acceptable.”

But young people differ substantially from their parents on same sex issues. According to the study, Millennials are divided on same sex issues, with 59% favoring gays and lesbians to legally marry. Christians of similar age are also moving this direction according to a study conducted by PRRI in 2007, which showed 52% of young evangelicals favor some form of same sex union. I've written on why I think this is happening in many outlets, including this article in The Huffington Post.

Perhaps the most interesting finding in this study, however, is Millennials affinity for “independent” affiliation. A plurality (45%) self-identify as such. Young Christians seem to align with this trend as well. A 2001 study of young evangelicals by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press uncovered 55% were self-described Republicans. When the study was repeated in 2007, only 40% remained in that category. Interestingly, the 15% didn’t migrate to the Democratic party; only 5% did. The remaining 10% now describe themselves as “independents” or “unaffiliated.”

Last week at the Q conference—a prestigious gathering of more than 750 young Christian leaders in Washington DC—a participant survey found that 61% of participants claim they don’t affiliate with either the right or left.

So PRRI has uncovered what we already knew to be true. Young people—including those who claim the Christian faith are eschewing the American culture wars in significant ways. They remain conservative on issues such as abortion, but are rethinking or altogether shifting on other issues previously considered progressive. It seems Millennials are indeed less concerned about involvement in the partisan culture wars than some of their parents were.

If you’re like me—tired of the culture wars with it’s sour tone, divisive tactics, and blind partisanship—you welcome such data. It’s time we move beyond the framework of the religious right (and the religious left, for that matter). This generation will not perfect a model for political engagement, but we can make strides toward more Christ-like engagement in the American public square.


Merritt/Millennials


--Nick

McKnight, "Christians, Politics and the Poor"

I found this on McKnight's blog and thought it was a good beginning to the previous post by NPR.

As you may know, there’s a “serious” discussion about how best to care for the poor. Some in the GOP think it’s not the government’s business; some in the Democrat party think it is.

What would Jesus do with the U.S. economy?

That’s a matter of fierce debate among Christians — with conservatives promoting a small-government Jesus and liberals seeing Jesus as an advocate for the poor.

After the House passed its budget last month, liberal religious leaders said the Republican plan, which lowered taxes and cut services to the poor, was an affront to the Gospel — and particularly Jesus’ command to care for the poor.

Not so, says Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee. He told Christian Broadcasting Network last week that it was his Catholic faith that helped shape the budget plan. In his view, the Catholic principle of subsidiarity suggests the government should have little role in helping the poor.

“Through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities — through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community — that’s how we advance the common good,” Ryan said.

The best thing that government can do, he said, is get out of the way.

There’s enough simplicity-it is in this whole discussion that one wonders whether or not these folks really do care to dig both into Scripture and into the Christian tradition enough to be challenged by Christian truth.

1. Some folks are poor. They deserve, in most cases, our empathy and our compassion and our help — both as relief and as a path to employment.

2. Scriptures teach God’s people to care for the poor, and when God’s people ignores the poor, God makes it known that he is on the side of the poor. (Let’s not debate the specifics of the “preferential option for the poor.”)

3. Scriptures don’t emerge from either socialism or from free market enterprise, and those who think they do are making a gross historical error. It requires historical finesse and hermeneutical nuance to move from that world into our world. Turning the Bible’s laws into eternal laws is great example of biblicism and will land you in trouble most of the time.

4. God’s people responded to the poor in a variety of ways, including distribution — ever read about Moses in Egypt? And Jubilee? And the laws of gleaning? These are divinely-commanded and governmentally-administered required donations designed to help the poor.

Sometimes God’s people responds individually and locally to care for the poor. Ever read about Paul ad his collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem? (Which, by the way, was a Christian concern for fellow Christians, was an offering and not a tax, and which is not a good set of texts for how democratic societies care for their poor.)

5. The Church’s teaching traditions are worthy of serious exploration, including how Christians have helped shape public policy in a variety of countries in order to make sure the poor are cared for.

McKnight

NPR, "Was Jesus for Small Government?"

What would Jesus do with the U.S. economy?

That's a matter of fierce debate among Christians — with conservatives promoting a small-government Jesus and liberals seeing Jesus as an advocate for the poor.

After the House passed its budget last month, liberal religious leaders said the Republican plan, which lowered taxes and cut services to the poor, was an affront to the Gospel — and particularly Jesus' command to care for the poor.

Not so, says Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee. He told Christian Broadcasting Network last week that it was his Catholic faith that helped shape the budget plan. In his view, the Catholic principle of subsidiarity suggests the government should have little role in helping the poor.

"Through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities — through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community — that's how we advance the common good," Ryan said.

Through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities — through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community — that's how we advance the common good.

- Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

The best thing that government can do, he said, is get out of the way.

But Stephen Schneck, a political scientist at Catholic University, says he thinks Ryan is "completely missing the boat and not understanding the real heart, the real core, of Catholic social teaching."

Schneck says Catholicism sees everyone as part of a mystical body, serving one another. True, the New Testament does not specifically speak to the government's role. "But charities and individuals and churches can't do it all," Schneck says. "When charities are already stretched to their limit, Catholic social teaching expects the state to step up and to fill that gap."

God And Government

Peter Montgomery at People for the American Way says conservative evangelicals have been arguing for years that the Bible favors a free-market system. But since President Obama was elected, he says, they have shifted into high gear.

"They are finding biblical justification for opposition to progressive taxation, opposition to unions and collective bargaining, opposition to the minimum wage, opposition even to social welfare spending and Social Security," he says.

Because, in their view, he says, God intends the government to have a minimal role in society. You hear echoes of that from megachurch pastor Rick Warren, who was asked about the budget recently on ABC's This Week.

They are finding biblical justification for opposition to progressive taxation, opposition to unions and collective bargaining, opposition to the minimum wage, opposition even to social welfare spending and Social Security.

- Peter Montgomery, People for the American Way

"The primary purpose of government is to keep the peace, protect the citizens, provide opportunity," Warren said. "And when we start getting into all kinds of other things, I think we invite greater control. And I'm fundamentally about freedom."

Evangelicals cite the book of Romans, which is one of only a few places in the New Testament that refer to civil government. Then there's the conservative resistance to taxation, which some say violates the Eighth Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal."

Richard Land at the Southern Baptist Convention says of course Jesus paid his taxes and advised followers to do the same. But, he says, "the Bible tells us that socialism and neosocialism never worked. Confiscatory tax rates never work."

The Bible never mentions socialism, obviously, but Land says the whole of Scripture says that people are sinful and selfish and, therefore, "people aren't going to work very hard and very productively unless they get to keep a substantial portion of that which they make for them and for their families."

Does The Bible Promote Capitalism?

For other religious conservatives, the Bible is a blueprint for robust capitalism. Recently, on his radio program WallBuilders, David Barton and a guest discussed Jesus' parable of the vineyard owner. In it, the owner pays the worker he hires at the end of the day the same wage as he pays the one who begins work in the morning. Many theologians have long interpreted this as God's grace being available right up to the last minute, but Barton sees the parable as a bar to collective bargaining.

"Where were unions in all this? The contract is between an employer and an employee. It's not between a group," Barton said. "He went out and hired individually the guys he wanted to work."

Schneck says many Christians would not recognize this Gospel — and he says there are more biblical verses about feeding the hungry and taking care of the least fortunate. Schneck agrees that the Bible encourages initiative and hard work. But he says theologians through the ages have said there must be a balance.

"Pope after pope after pope argued that we're called to be more than market creatures. We're called, in fact, to always bear in mind the common good and our responsibilities to others," he says.

But we can probably expect both parties to claim Jesus as their favorite economist in the months to come.

NPR

Peter Rollins, "The Violence of Christianity"

Its not what you think. Its actually quite powerful. Its roughly 6 and a half minutes. Worth your time.

Peter Rollins/Violence

--Nick

Peter Rollins & Rob Bell Interview, "Returning to the New"

Rob Bell and Peter Rollins engaging in a dialogue. If you have an hour, its pretty interesting. Fairy tales, Kierkegaard, Societal Values are covered in the first few minutes; in conversation about "dreams" and their "fulfillment."

The concept of iKon apparently germinated in a pub. Sounds like a good beginning.

Rollins/Bell

--Nick

ThinkChristian, "The Curious Evangelical Silence over Trayvon Martin"

A very interesting question, and in the comments section C E'Jon Moore (my boss over at The Christian Manifesto) offers a great critique and some questions as well. A wise dude and a decent article over a disturbing situation.

According to ThinkChristian:

What is a young black man’s life worth in the United States of America? In 2012? 

These are the questions that continue to haunt me as I lament the killing of Trayvon Martin. On Feb. 26, the 17-year-old was walking from a convenience store to the Sanford, Fla., home he was visiting when he met up with 28-year-old “neighborhood watch captain” George Zimmerman. According to media accounts and Sanford police officials, Zimmerman, who is Hispanic and white, admitted that he shot and killed Martin, who is black. The Sanford police made no arrests. They allowed Zimmerman to walk away following his claim of self defense. 

For more and to read Moore's comment/questions, ThinkChristian

--Nick

Scot McKnight, "Evangelicalism's Political Sin"

It happened under Reagan, and it is American evangelicalism’s political sin. When evangelicalism aligns itself with a political party, which happened under Reagan (I call it “Reaganology”), it seals its doom as a credible gospel witness. We are beginning to reap what we sowed.

From Reuters:

(Reuters) – Americans are increasingly uneasy with the mingling of religion and politics, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center, in the midst of a campaign season punctuated by tussles over the role of faith in the public square.

Back in 2001, when Pew first asked the question, just 12 percent of Americans complained that their politicians talked too much about religion.

That number has risen steadily ever since and hit a record high in the new poll: 38 percent of Americans, including 24 percent of Republicans, now say their political leaders are overdoing it with their expressions of faith and prayer.

And more Americans than ever, 54 percent, believe churches should keep out of politics. That’s up from 43 percent in 1996, according to the Pew Research Center.

The national poll of 1,503 adults, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, was conducted in early March, as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was ramping up its vigorous campaign against a new federal mandate requiring all insurance companies to provide free birth control.

The bishops continue to press that fight. Just last week, they issued a statement declaring they were “strongly unified and intensely focused” on battling the contraception mandate.

A leading voice in that campaign, Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, this week was promoted to Archbishop of Baltimore by Pope Benedict XVI.

Peter Steinfels, co-director of the Center on Religion and Culture at Fordham University, said Americans have generally tolerated and even encouraged religious leaders to speak out on broad political issues, including capital punishment, immigration and poverty.

MORE SKEPTICAL

But Americans have long been uncomfortable with religious leaders directly involved in partisan campaigns, he said.

In recent years, most notably in the birth control battle, that line has been blurred, Steinfels said – which may account for the growing unease on display in the Pew poll.

“Religious leaders ought to be worried,” Steinfels said. “We’re seeing Americans becoming more skeptical” about the propriety of religious involvement in politics.

The bishops have sought to portray the contraceptive mandate as one prong of a broad attack on religion by state and federal authorities. The leading Republican presidential candidates have echoed that rhetoric on the campaign trail, accusing the Obama Administration of declaring war on religious freedom.

The Pew poll found evidence that argument is resonating with Catholics. Roughly one in four U.S. voters is Catholic and they are a crucial swing vote in several states pivotal to the 2012 presidential election, like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

The poll found 25 percent of Catholics perceive the Obama administration as unfriendly to religion, up from 15 percent in a Pew poll taken in August of 2009.

The increase is even sharper among white Catholics, jumping to 31 percent from 17 percent, Pew found.

Among the public overall, 23 percent describe the Obama administration as unfriendly to religion, up from 17 percent in 2009. But another recent poll suggests the “war on religion” argument isn’t gaining traction with most adults.

A national survey conducted this month by the Public Religion Research Institute found a majority of Americans, 56 percent, do not believe religious liberty is under siege.

Republicans, senior citizens and white evangelicals were most likely to see a looming threat to religious freedom.

(Reporting By Stephanie Simon; editing by Marilyn W. Thompson and Todd Eastham)

McKnight/Jesus Creed

--Nick

Kony and the Pursuit of Justice

Check this out!

Kony

--Nick

Scot McKnight, "Looking forward to Judgment"

As always, Jesus Creed forces me to think about profound concepts in the very early morning with the door open and the snow blowing onto my bed.

One of the most common responses to anything preached or taught about the Last Judgment, the Great Judgment, or the Last Assize is fear or even terror. The topic alone creates anxiety in many. Perhaps this tells us more about the history of how this topic has been preached than what the Bible actually says. In other words, the last judgment has been undeniably used to “put the fear of God” into people … yet….

Is the last judgment preached or taught in your church as something to anticipate with joy or something used rhetorically to put the fear of God in people?

The most common response to judgment in the Old Testament, and one could say the same of the New Testament, according to A.C. Thiselton (in Life after Death) is that God’s people anticipates the judgment with joy because they see it as vindication and the revelation of ultimate truth.

Why? (1) All deception is put to an end; (2) God will vindicate publicly the oppressed (Psalm 98:2, 4, 9); and (3) God will reveal himself as King of all creation, and will put all things right. This is something not to fear but to long for.

Thiselton observes how the “judge” of the Book of Judges is a “savior” so that “judgment” morphs into “vindication” and “salvation.” The righteous God then is the saving God. He sketches then NT texts to conclude that the NT sees the last judgment as “an event to which Christians may look forward with joyful anticipation, although never with complacency or presumption” (173).

This entails what “justification by faith” means – and Thiselton argues God’s judgment is verdictive (he renders something into reality) and that we enjoy in the now that verdictive word God will pronounce over us, in Christ alone, on that day. Faith is the acceptance of that already-verdicted word of God. (Justification creates faith; faith doesn’t create justification.) So we are justified now because God “looks on” us in light of Christ and that final verdict.

Then he wanders — no better word for it — into whether or not there is retribution in God’s judgment or whether it is only restorative. He sides with Stephen Travis (who thinks there are some retribution verses in the NT) while basically agreeing with Chris Marshall (for whom restorative justice is the point).

McKnight & Judgment

--Nick

Jim Wallis; "God is personal, never private"

"God is personal, but never private." --Wallis

For an interesting and informative debate, check out Jim Wallis and Al Mohler on the topic of social justice.

For the first half, Mohler seemed like he was going to win by default of Wallis' storytelling. But, Wallis came through in the Q&A and effectively won. Mohler got flustered and emotional, completely eroding much of his case. Though Wallis wasn't strong from the beginning, he pulled ahead.

Wallis 1, Mohler 0.

But give it a listen for yourself. Enjoy.

Wallis/Mohler

--Nick