Home

Lk. 15:11-32 - The prodigal son



My translation
Submitted by andrew on Tue, 20/09/2005 - 21:37.

Tom Wright’s argument that the main theme of the parable of the prodigal son is the exile and subsequent restoration of Israel (Jesus and the Victory of God, 126-127) is fascinating but remains problematic.

1. The stories in Luke 15 are Jesus’ defence against the charge by the Pharisees and scribes that he ’receives sinners and eats with them’ (Lk. 15:2). The two shorter stories are explicitly about the repentance of a sinner as a cause for rejoicing (7, 10). The forgiveness of sinners can be seen as belonging to the larger theme of the restoration of Israel, but the narrative itself does not bring this aspect into view.

2. The younger son leaves voluntarily, not, as in the case of Israel, as a consequence of punishment. Likewise, he returns voluntarily, whereas the return from exile in Babylon is seen as a matter of divine initiative.

3. The elder son did not oppose the return of his brother, as the Samaritans had opposed the return of the Jews from Babylon. He only objected to the fact that the Father had celebrated his return. It is also difficult to understand why the Pharisees and scribes would be characterized as those who did not go into exile.

4. The suggestion that Jer. 31:18-20 is in the background is interesting (Jesus and the Victory of God, 127 n.9), and there may be some background resonance with the Old Testament story of exile and the return from exile, but it seems contrary to Luke’s intentions to make this the central theme of the parable.

See also:

Well, Wright may rightly write, right?

Submitted by ninjaaron on Tue, 21/08/2007 - 05:51.

While you are correct that some of the particulars don’t line up with the particulars of the traditional story of exile, I still think Wright is onto something here. Nobody would deny, I think, that there are at the very least echoes of the story of Israel’s exile, but Jesus is re-defining it in a very shocking way.

First of all, I’ve elsewhere (to some degree in my commentary on the parable of the Sower) that Jesus defined the true People of God as those who correctly applied the Torah (especially as interpreted by the Prophets). For Jesus, as well as the author of Deuteronomy (Moses?), fidelity to had-debarim, the words, the Torah were the only difference between blessing and curse. In Jesus’ parable, the exile doesn’t begin with a stroke of divine judgment. The exile began, apparently, when the son abandoned the house of his father, and began to misuse that which his father gave him. Though the Israelites had not yet left the land, they were already cut off from that which truly defined them as the people of God. This part of the story sounds a lot the parable of the adulterous bride in Ezekiel 16, who was given all manner of fine things by her husband, but chose instead to waste them in... ahem... ’wild living,’ to say the least!

They were still in the land, but they had walked out as far as God was concerned.

Though this, perhaps, was not the traditional way the pharisees might have articulated the story of exile, it would have met, likely, with their approval. It reinforced the idea that Torah was the key to harmony with God, which was foremost on their agenda (particularly their agenda for everyone else).

The real shocker is that the older brother even exists. Where did this guy come from? Well, as Jesus celebratory meals, as well as the parables preceding this one indicate, a huge part of the way Jesus envisioned the end of the exile was in the restoration of individuals. This idea was totally off the pharisees’ radar. Unfortunatly, evangelical Christianity has over-emphasized this point, sometimes creating a very isolating form of faith. But Jesus was teaching the restoration of the individual back into the household. I could go off on a tangent about that, but never mind, for the moment.

Jesus is essentially defining the exile and restoration as an event which was not only to be corporately experienced by Israel, but continues to be experienced by those not living according to the words. This parable stands as an offer to these people, an offer to return to the covenant family

Jesus’ point, I think, to his primary audience, the Pharisee’s, is that by refusing their brother’s fellowship, they have become those who are cut off from the household.

Jesus’ story ends here with a choice left to these pious brothers. However, Luke will go on to finish the story. The older brother cannot, apparently, accept restoration on the fathers terms, and apparently prefers the comfort of the darkness outside, in a famine ridden land, soon to be devoured by the sword.

I wonder, for which son does the father grieve more?

Aaron Christianson

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.