• March 31, 2022

The prodigal son and forgiveness

The parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) is one of the most discussed stories told by Jesus. A variety of interpretations have been offered, reflecting the theological perspectives of various historical periods. Amy-Jill Levine, in her 2014 book Short stories of Jesus, revised traditional Christian interpretations by presenting what would have been the response of a Jewish audience in Galilee and Judea at the time of Jesus. In a 2005 book, Kenneth E. Bailey also discussed the prodigal son considering his experience in Middle Eastern cultures. Both authors have challenged previous theological interpretations.

In general, Christian interpretations have said that God’s love is the main theme of the parable. The simple story is presented as an illustration of very theological issues. Augustine is an extreme representative of “theologizing” by presenting an allegorical vision that turns the elder brother into a Judaism of justice that is rejected when the overwhelming love of God is manifested in the father’s embrace of the younger son. Less theological is the opinion of Kenneth E. Bailey, who correlates the details of the parable with the standards of Middle Eastern cultures. He discards the anti-Jewish point of view, but continues to see a God of love as the central theme.

The freshness in Amy-Jill Levine’s approach is to turn many theological approaches on their head. Jewish audiences at the time of Jesus would not have been interested in the theology that came with the dominance of Hellenism (which at the time was found in the Palestinian cities and not in the rural countryside). Parables were stories with a sting. They often took a traditional theme, such as a father showing favoritism to a younger son, and then put a surprising twist on it at the end that upsets normal assumptions. So trying to read heavy theological themes into small details of the story would be alien to the narrator’s intent and the messages understood by the Jewish listeners.

This contrast in views recently came up in a Sunday school discussion after watching a video lecture by Kenneth Bailey. The class, which is studying my book. Talking back to the Biblehe paused to listen to Bailey before studying the chapter on the prodigal son.

Bailey did not make the mistake of presenting God’s love in the story as a disregard for the older brother’s faithfulness. Bailey related details of the story to family dynamics that he had seen in Middle Eastern cultures. I was missing Levine’s point that a loving father was probably being manipulated by a spoiled son used to getting his way with dad, an interpretation that makes God’s love fickle and prone to favoritism rather than generosity. overwhelming that is usually seen in Christian interpretations. .

What is remarkable about this parable and others told by Jesus, as Levine pointed out, is how they can give rise to a variety of interpretations. It’s the nature of the genre to produce this kind of response, and the better the story, the greater the variation in possible interpretations.

The interpretation presented in Talking back to the Bible it is based on my childhood experience of being terrified by judgment sermons. I agree that the father in the story represents God’s love, but it is not the boundless and overly generous love that is often portrayed from Christian pulpits. I think Amy-Jill Levine’s approach helps support the view that it is God’s forgiveness that is presented rather than boundless love, though I suspect she would think my approach is too theological.

I see the parable as a story of forgiveness and celebration when judgment and wrath were expected to be the norm. The youngest son committed a serious crime, as Bailey and many others have pointed out, when he could not wait for his father’s death to receive his inheritance. He then he lost everything. Bailey points out that there is no indication that he wasted it sinfully. He got over it fast and went broke, which means he failed, no matter how it happened. Desperate, he had nowhere to go and he made the painful decision to return home in utter disgrace. His return is often seen as regret because he rehearses words that sound apologetic and he seems to acknowledge that he doesn’t deserve anything from his family. Levine has pointed out what might have been the son’s manipulative intent, but the story clearly shows that the father so wanted to see repentance that he did not wait to hear the son’s message.

The conflict arises from the celebration launched by the father instead of welcoming the lost son. The eldest son finds out about the celebration late because the father evidently forgot to invite him. The suggestion is that the celebration has gone overboard and the eldest son objects.

The same type of celebration occurs in the parable of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-7). The owner leaves ninety-nine sheep behind while he searches for a single lost sheep. He then celebrates and enjoys the restoration of this one more than the security of ninety-nine.

The search for a lost sheep and the joyous welcome home of a spendthrift certainly illustrate love, but it is the celebration that is emphasized more than the love. Although the prodigal insulted his father, he squandered his inheritance and returned a failure, the father lovingly offers forgiveness before he asks. The festival celebrates that forgiveness has occurred so that the restoration of the family has occurred. Likewise, the restoration of the lost sheep is cause for excessive joy without wondering how the loss came about.

The older son’s objection was not that the father would accept the younger son back into the family, but the lack of appreciation shown for his own consistency in discharging family responsibilities. The father’s reply was that he loved this faithful son no less than the spendthrift. He said, in effect, “If you wanted a party, you should have said so!” In other words, those who do not go astray are taken for granted. They do not need forgiveness as they experience the ever-present reality of family love. A moral of the story is: We don’t celebrate the normal, everyday things that are important to us. We shout with joy, not because of the everyday, but when something out of the ordinary happens.

The way I see it, both parables focus on how forgiveness leads to restoration and celebration; however, there is a problem with parables. The details are sketchy and the story ends in the middle. What happened to the prodigal son after the party? I suspect that reality will set in very soon, but we don’t know for sure.

In chapter 13 of Talking Back to the Bible, I argue that forgiveness and celebration do not eliminate natural consequences. This is where my concern about the trial comes into play. The father, representing God, welcomes the son without imposing penalties that suggest divine wrath. But there is no indication that the inheritance will be taken from the eldest son to restore the youngest son. Losing half the family fortune has inevitable consequences.

The kind of forgiveness seen in the prodigal son is not a fairy tale event that completely undoes past mistakes. It is a down-to-earth forgiveness that allows someone to move forward in life while still facing the natural consequences of previous actions. Restoration brings a mountaintop experience as everyone celebrates. But the valleys continue in the days ahead as we must live with the consequences of past mistakes. Still, forgiveness frees us to focus on the future, without the heavy burdens of guilt and regret, because we have faced our problems. The past does not disappear but we can accept it and move towards a better future. This is a realistic forgiveness experience available to all of us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *