And while this is a fairly simple story as far as the amount of details
we have, there is still a lot that can be missed simply because we are of a
different cultural background than the original hearers.
Lately at our church we have been learning more and more about the cultural
surroundings of the first century writings, especially the Hebrew mindset
behind them. This same Hebrew understanding needs to be applied to the parables,
like this one.
There would be points and details that they would have immediately
grasped and story gaps that they would have filled in simply because of their
background and understanding. So, I would like to dig into this story a bit, and examine
this story in light of some of the cultural surroundings and understandings
that may escape us, and to fill in some pieces that we may miss.
Many people typical think this is a nice story about forgiveness, and
leave it at that. And while this is somewhat a true analogy, there is so much
more that never gets considered. I think the most common application of this parable in the modern
church, is to see it as applicable to any repentant sinner coming to God, and
the forgiveness he brings. In the latter part of this message I will explain
why I believe this understanding of the intent of the original parable is a
false one.
For most people I believe, when they think of this story
they think of it as mainly a story dealing with the one rebellious son. However,
there are actually two stories that need focused on. And honestly, the second
one is probably more of the focal point of the story for the audience he is
speaking to.
I will mention though, that this parable is the last part
of a series of three parables that Yeshua has told right in a row in this
section. Some commentators have even shown how all three are interconnected to maintain
a main single thread throughout, but I am not able going to take that route
today. Instead, I wish to focus on just the third story, but first, I would
like to read the opening remarks that start the three story segment.
Now
the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the
Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats
with them.” So he told them this parable. (Luke 15: 1-3 ESV)
So, we see the setting that started this parable trilogy.
It is because Yeshua has been hanging out with tax collectors and sinner that
the Pharisees were grumbling. And due to their grumbling, he spoke to them the
three parables. Now, let us jump to the third one about the father and his
two sons. I will be breaking it down in sections as we go.
And he said,
"There was a man who had two sons. And the younger of them said to his
father, 'Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.' And he
divided his property between them. (Luke 15:11-12 ESV)
What we find here is a request
from the younger son to his father, requesting his portion of the inheritance
basically. However, there are a few things that we may miss here by not
understanding the cultural significance of the request.
First off, he is not actually
asking for his inheritance. Especially in that type of culture, an inheritance
is what one receives when the father passes away, and it means that the son was
then responsible to handle the father’s duties. The son would become the leader
and assumes the care and power over what was left to him.
In our day and age, for most
of us at least, an inheritance is a chunk of money or goods that we possess. In
days of old, if your father’s owned a large farm with lots of servants and/or
employees, then the responsibility of all of that was turned over to the son.
The son could turn around,
close shop and cash it all in, but that rarely happened. To that culture, the
land, the business, and the family were all tied to the place they were
established, and the sons took over to continue enlarging upon what was
previously established.
The Greek word for inheritance
is kleronomia, and it is used elsewhere, like the parable of the vineyard in
Matt. 21, where the owner put tenants in the vineyard, and when it came time to
reap it, he sent servants, and the tenants killed them. So he sent his son to
the tenants:
But when the
tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us
kill him and have his inheritance.' (Matt 21:38 ESV)
They knew that one day the son
would be the boss when he inherited the family business. But in our story, that
word is not used. In our story, the son is not asking for a piece of the family
business. He did not want to assume any responsibility or authority, he simply
wanted to cash out and leave on his own.In the normal course of
events, when the father died, the two sons would own it all and continue
expanding upon it, but in this case, he had no desire to continue with the
family at all.
In our verse, he uses the word
ousia, meaning the son is asking for
the possessions or wealth that is his portion. In doing this, he is asking to
cash out of the whole family. He wants to take what is his and leave, leaving
his position in the family, and all future connections and benefits of it. He
wants to break all ties and relations and go his own way.
On top of that, what he is
asking for something that is not even a consideration that is due to him until
his father passes away. Culturally, to ask such a thing as this is the
equivalent of wishing his father were dead. The Bible Background Commentary
states it this way:
To ask one’s father for one’s share of the inheritance
early was unheard of in antiquity; in effect, one would thereby say, “Father, I
wish you were already dead.” Such a statement would not go over well even
today, and in a society stressing obedience to one’s father it would be a
serious act of rebellion for which the father could have beaten him or worse. (Bible
Background Commentary, pg. 233)
In real life, this request
would be met with a refusal, anger and punishment. And of course, we find that
to be the very case throughout Scripture whenever Yahweh’s people turned their
back on Him, it was met with judgment time and time again. However, in this
story, the father agrees to let the deal be done, and he divides the
possessions and gives him his portion.
One thing to also note is that
according to the laws in Deuteronomy, the first born would receive a double
portion, and so therefore, in this case, the younger son’s portion would only
have been a third. So, after the father has
divided things, he gives the son his portion, and then we are told that:
Not many days
later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far
country… (Luke 15:13a ESV)
Here we find that only a very
little time has passed, and the father has given the son his cut, and the son
has packed and is leaving. Now, according to some scholars, the original
language that is translated as “gathered all” literally means he “turned everything
into cash.”
This makes more sense in the
story, as it would be difficult for the son to have packed up all of the physical
possessions and property that would have been bestowed to him. Plus, the verse goes on to say that he spent
everything, implying that what he had was in the form of money.
Now, in order for the son to
have sold everything, including part of the family land, he most likely would
have sold things at a low price in order to liquidate them as quickly as he
wanted in order to leave. This would take a big toll on
the family overall too, because now, a big chunk of what was family property,
and was most likely tied to the family income, was gone.
Not only would the family have
suffered financially due to this, but the father’s reputation would surely have
been in question. Living in community like they did at the time, the news of
something like this would have quickly spread. Everyone would have heard what
was going on, especially as the father or son was going around liquidating
things.
So for the father, he was not
only losing out financially, but the destructive relationship would have
brought about public humiliation in town and to the father’s name in general.
Now, the son has taken everything and left for a far country, and we are told:
…and there he squandered his property in reckless living. And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. (Luke 15:13b-14 ESV)
Now, after all of that, the
son has left and lost everything. Now all of that money is all gone, there is a
famine, and he has nothing to survive on. You would think at this point, most
kids would run back home with their tail tucked between their legs. But something we may miss here
is that according to Jewish custom, he was almost unable to go home. There was
the ceremony known as the Kezazah – which means literally – “the cutting off.”
If a Jewish boy lost his
family inheritance among the Gentiles and sought to return home, the community
would perform the ceremony by breaking a large pot in front of him and declare
– “so-in-so is cut off from his people.” Once performed, he would be an outcast
and no one would have anything to do with him. So going home would not be
putting himself in a very favorable situation anyway. One of the Dead Sea Scrolls
gives this example of a fatherly warning that relates here:
And now, my sons, be watchful of your inheritance that has
been bequeathed to you, which your fathers gave you. Do not give your
inheritance to the Gentiles…lest you be humiliated in their eyes and foolish,
and they trample upon you…and become your masters.
This is what the son has done;
he has squandered his inheritance among the Gentiles. So, he was now literally
a man without a home, and had no way to return to his family or any of the
rights he previously held as a member of his community. When it says in the
verse that he took a journey, the Greek word used only here by Luke literally
means that he “traveled away from his own people.”
So, he has left his people, cut all ties and rights to
them, took everything he owned and lived recklessly and lost everything. He had
nothing left, nowhere to go and of course could not simply call his parents to
come and pick him up.
So what to do? We'll take a look at that in the next part.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
No comments:
Post a Comment
Think out loud with me, and voice your position in a clean, charitable and well mannered way. Abusive posts will be deleted.