Ship of Fools: The story of broken relationships

Thread: The story of broken relationships Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029703

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Luke 15: 11-32

Two simple questions:

1) Did the older son have a legitimate gripe?

2) What do you think would have been the final conclusion to this story?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

1). Yes.
2). The father in the story does not seem long on common sense, does he? This does not bode well for the future. If he had been a better parent, perhaps the younger son wouldn't be such a layabout. Certainly he could have given a little more to the older, and so forestalled this resentment. People do not change, mostly. And therefore I foresee a fall back into drunkenness and dissolution for the younger son, and the father as clueless as ever. With luck the older son will take charge of things, cut off the younger brother before the entire estate is devoured, and administer some tough love all around. The younger brother will wind up either in the gutter or at AA, the father will wind up without control over the business, and the older son will be so devoured by business cares that he will probably neglect his own sons.

The larger response might be, that these parables are not meant to bear any narrative weight, any more than Aesop's fables were. Did the mice ever bell the cat? Probably not...

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

1) I'm not so sure. What exactly is the elder son's gripe? Assume you hire some laborers to work in the field and agree to pay them X. Later in the day, you hire more laborers to work in the field and you agree to pay them X as well even though they will work fewer hours. Have the first workers been ill-used? Do they have a gripe? No. They don't. They can be envious of the second group, but they got the full benefit of their bargain. Nothing has been taken from them. So, too, nothing has been taken from the elder son. He still gets his share of the inheritance (i.e., everything that is left). If anything, the elder son oversteps himself here. While, as the sole remaining heir, he will get all that the father has, he doesn't have it yet. He is complaining about what the father decides to do with the father's own property. He has no right to do that. If the father wants to have a party, for whatever reason--to entertain the father's own friends, for example--that is none of the elder son's business. That the father chooses to celebrate the return of his lost child does not diminish the elder son at all.
Even with this party, it is not like he is excluded. On the contrary, he is invited to join in and celebrate too. It is his own stubbornness that keeps him out. But what is his gripe? He may be a little envious, but he has lost nothing on the deal.

Of course, there is that bit of the father not giving him anything to celebrate with his friends. Brenda, I find your position on this a bit contradictory. You complain that the father was too lax with the young son giving him what he asked for, but then state that he should treat the elder son more generously (i.e., give him what he asks for). If I am the father, I'm thinking "Well, I was generous with my younger son and that turned out to be a tragic error. He became a no-good wastrel and lost to me. With my elder son, I will teach him better discipline which, in the long run, will be better for him." The elder son has no gripe against the father. Rather, if anybody, it is the younger son who could gripe that the father should have been stricter with him because he (the son) obviously did not know how to handle worldly goods. But he doesn't because, growing wise through adversity, the younger has earned the maturity to realize he brought his fate on himself. He may envy the more disciplined life his older brother has had, but he does not complain against the father for not treating him with more discipline. He knows the true fault for his fall lies with himself.

(2) Unfortunately, there are a wide variety of ways the story could continue. Because I like happy endings (i.e., I close my eyes to the real world all the time), I'd like to think that, while the father and elder son are still outside talking, the younger son comes out, too. He, I suspect, will understand the elder's attitude better than the father can, and he will be the means to reconcile the elder son with the father. He will agree he has no claim to the property but, based on his more worldly experience, he will explain to his brother how truly important family is--how family ties are never traded away, never sold, never truly lost. He will pledge his eternal devotion to his brother. Between the father and the younger son's entreaties, the elder son's harsh attitude softens. And they enter the house together, arms linked as one unit, one family--each caring for the other two more than he cares for himself. And they live happily ever after. That's how things work out in Hedgieworld.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Heh, I like your ending.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

A good ending and quite possible were this a novel.

The elder son does quite well, but has yet to sit down and work it out. Yes, the younger got the accelerated benefit of his share of the estate. The elder has to wait, but he in due course, he will get what he would received in any event - but with the added benefit of the capital growth that has come from working the property all those extra years.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

But what of the younger son? Remember that his share of the swag is all gone in loose living. He is now returned home. Is he going to get nothing? Apparently not. Since the pie is of a fixed size, the (extra) slice the younger son is going to get is going to come out of the older son's share. It is possible that by working hard younger son can increase the size of the pie somewhat, but this is optimistic.
I argue that the father has not been balanced.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But what of the younger son? Remember that his share of the swag is all gone in loose living. He is now returned home. Is he going to get nothing? Apparently not. Since the pie is of a fixed size, the (extra) slice the younger son is going to get is going to come out of the older son's share. It is possible that by working hard younger son can increase the size of the pie somewhat, but this is optimistic.

But this is a parable, not a story about a real-life situation, so if it's supposed to teach about heavenly things and blessings from God, then the "pie" would not be of a fixed size.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think it unlikely that the father intends to re-divide the inheritance that is left. First because Jesus said, "He divided the inheritance between them," which sounds like he made formal arrangements at that time affecting BOTH sons, not just the one. Even if the inheritance arrangements were undo-able, for the father to do so would be a major slap in the face to the older son--and the father seems a decent sort, who loves both sons and is unlikely to be unjust to either.

Second, because he says to the elder son out in the field, "All I have is yours," and this is AFTER Son #2 has returned. The father is not contemplating a rearrangement now, although it has to be a question in the minds of everybody from the servants and neighbors upward.

So what do I think happened? I suspect the elder brother's choices determined what happened next. If he opened his heart to his younger brother, he himself had the option of supplying anything from a job to a living allowance to a second division of the property. His father wouldn't be forcing it. If he refused to open his heart--well, I can imagine a sequel where the younger son leaves to find work elsewhere, and Dad sadly goes along with him. (Remember that Dad has put himself in a position where he basically has a life interest in the property, but no ability to alienate it. Ethically, if not legally. And possibly legally as well, a la King Lear.)

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Agree, Lamb Chopped. The younger son gets a robe and a ring to wear, but we don't know how permanent either is - probably just for the dinner. He does get a good serve of fattened calf, and some wine (and one hopes neither of those is returned). Nothing about any redivision of the property and taking v.12 at its face value, the best the father had in what was not given to the younger son was a life estate.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I'm reminded that Jesus of the parables often seemed to use bad examples to make a point - I'm not sure there it much to be gained from trying to imagine ourselves into the detail. I just don't believe the parables are supposed to function like that.

It seems fairly clear to me (maybe I'm alone or off-the-wall here) that the parable is about Jews and Gentiles. The former believing that the latter have walked away from God's favour, the latter believing that they could earn the Father's favour by keeping the law.

The point is presumably that God welcomes the one who turns around and comes home, even given what they've done and to the discomfort of the true inheritors (ie the Jews).

It seems to me that this parallel can legitimately also be extended to other bastions of church and God's attitude to welcoming back the sinner, however much the old farts dislike the way they look.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Sorry I got my latters and formers muddled. Hopefully you can understand what I meant.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

AIUI the customary and legal division of inheritance property was that the eldest son got twice as much as all the others. This means that he would always be better off.

As far as his complaint goes, that the father never gave him anything so he could have a feast with his friends, I wonder if he ever asked. The younger son did ask for his share of the inheritance and was given it. I suspect if the older son had asked for the material for a feast, it would have been given to him.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Moo, I expect you're absolutely right. In fact, I'd be surprised if he couldn't have just given the order himself! One goat or lamb is a pretty minor thing for the adult inheriting son of a wealthy family. I doubt his father would have batted an eye if he had done just like Dad and ordered up music and dancing as well.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems fairly clear to me (maybe I'm alone or off-the-wall here) that the parable is about Jews and Gentiles. The former believing that the latter have walked away from God's favour, the latter believing that they could earn the Father's favour by keeping the law.

That's not an interpretation I've ever encountered or thought of. I always thought the point of the parable was that God accepts repentant sinners with joy. Even if others in the household of faith don't.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

OK, well it doesn't appear to be an unusual interpretation from my brief google search. One of the top listings, interestingly, was from this sermon by an Orthodox priest.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There is a reason why estates were entailed in Britain, and why the eldest son gets most of the assets. If the inheritance is land you don't want to keep on subdividing the property; over the generations you'd get a large family each owning two square feet, insufficient to sustain life.
Since the younger son took his inheritance to another country and blew it, one must assume that his inheritance was not acreage. It must have been other assets, money or something portable (livestock? jewelry? Bitcoin?) easily converted into wine, women and song.
The oldest son must be retaining the land, the house, and (clearly) the serfs/slaves/personnel to till the soil and herd the flocks. His difficulty seems to have been shifting from a son/employee to an owner and master of the property. The father divided the property among both sons; the older son is now an owner.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is a reason why estates were entailed in Britain, and why the eldest son gets most of the assets. If the inheritance is land you don't want to keep on subdividing the property; over the generations you'd get a large family each owning two square feet, insufficient to sustain life.

Or "France" as we call it. [Devil]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Actually, there is no indication that the parable is about Jews and Gentiles. The beginning of Chapter 15 says the religious leaders of the day were grumbling because Jesus was eating with sinners and prostitutes.

I think we err if we try to boil it down to ethnic differences.

Myself, I have been struggling with the broken relationships within the family--you can take it on the personal level (your own family) or at the congregational level, or even at the national level.

In my own family I had a falling out with my youngest brother many years ago. He is still alive but is mentally disabled now. I kind of wish I was able to reconcile before he became disabled

At the congregational level, there have been several instances where the family has been betrayed by disgruntled members and there is an instance of a former pastor being a sexual predator--not of children, but of vulnerable women (which has been dealt with at the local synod level). Personally, I cannot reconcile with the former pastor, but I wonder if I can reconcile with some other people who have attacked the church.

As you know, nationally the US is going through quite a bit of upheaval right now. Will we be able to reconcile?

This is what I think this parable is about. Broken family relationships. Yes, you can widen the family circles further out to include ethnic differences, but in doing so, I think you miss out on the real thrust of the story. Bring it closer in.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mousethief: I always thought the point of the parable was that God accepts repentant sinners with joy. Even if others in the household of faith don't.

I disagree that this parable is about repentance. The younger son hasn't done anything wrong. In fact, I believe that the traditional name for this parable is inaccurate. It isn't about The Prodigal Son. It's about his brother.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

one ancient interpretation saisd that the prodical son was Jesus - leaving his father's home and dwelling amongst humans. His returnis the messanic banquet.

Another is that the fatted calf wass Jesus

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I think that it is a message for the brother who stayed at home - which could also be extended to those Jews who put the law before love, as well as to us today - that the greatest commandments are to love God and each other. Whatever we have done, God offers us unconditional forgiveness and love, and we are charged by God to do the same.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
mousethief: I always thought the point of the parable was that God accepts repentant sinners with joy. Even if others in the household of faith don't.
I disagree that this parable is about repentance. The younger son hasn't done anything wrong.

He seems to think he has.

I've always thought the phrase on which the rest of the story turns is where it says the younger son "came to himself." I wouldn't quite call that repentance—I think there's more to it than what the English "repentance" suggests. He remembers/understands who he really is at the core of his being. He is his father's son, so he returns to his father, who in a most undignified manner runs to welcome his son home.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The younger son hasn't done anything wrong.

I have heard that by the standards of the time, it was outrageous for a son to demand his inheritance while his father was still alive. It was like wishing the father would die. It certainly seems to violate the commandment about honoring one's father.

Moo

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Moo: I have heard that by the standards of the time, it was outrageous for a son to demand his inheritance while his father was still alive.

Outrageous, yes I can imagine that. It would even be rather tacky in our time. But his father did give him his part of the inheritance.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And it was clearly a bad thing to do. It immediately gave the younger son enough rope to thoroughly hang himself. It would have been more prudent to not do that.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Imprudent yes. But he didn't steal from his father. He didn't even disobey his father. He asked for the money, and it was given to him. Neither did it come with a condition, like in the Parable of the Talents.

Yes, he squandered the money on parties and dancing. But when he came back, his father … squandered a lot of money on a party and on dancing. That's a weird way to show that this was wrong.

Another thing is that the younger son was exploited. A famine came, someone forced him to work with the pigs and wouldn't even provide him with food.

When he got back to his father, yes he did apologise, but his father didn't even want to hear it. His repentance certainly wasn't a condition for his father to take him back. His father ran towards him, was filled with tears and compassion, took him into his arms before he even had the chance to apologise. And his father was much too busy organising the party to even pay attention to his apology.

If you interpret this Parable as the Father taking us back as long as we repent, you run into all kinds of trouble.

But there is another person in this Parable: the older brother. He refused the invitation of his father, stood up to him even. He feels that he should be worth more than his younger brother. The younger son was imprudent yes, but the older brother is the only one about whom the Parable says that he was wrong.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Can't help making comparisons between Downton Abbey and this story.

Remember, the original tension of Downton Abbey was who was going to inherit the estate.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

If you interpret this Parable as the Father taking us back as long as we repent, you run into all kinds of trouble.

But there is another person in this Parable: the older brother. He refused the invitation of his father, stood up to him even. He feels that he should be worth more than his younger brother. The younger son was imprudent yes, but the older brother is the only one about whom the Parable says that he was wrong.

I think most of us in the Church are the elder brothers.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
When he got back to his father, yes he did apologise, but his father didn't even want to hear it. His repentance certainly wasn't a condition for his father to take him back. His father ran towards him, was filled with tears and compassion, took him into his arms before he even had the chance to apologise. And his father was much too busy organising the party to even pay attention to his apology.

If you interpret this Parable as the Father taking us back as long as we repent, you run into all kinds of trouble.

But the fact that the father didn't wait to listen to his son's confession does not mean that the son had done nothing to repent of. He had. He had rejected his father. And when he came to himself, he repented of that rejection and returned to his father's house.

The word in the OT usually translated as "repentance" is t'shuvah, which literally means "return." The point is, perhaps, missed if we think in terms of God taking us back if we "repent," at least with the connotations of that word in English. I think for those to whom Jesus was speaking, the point was about God's extravagant joy and welcome when we return.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Missed the edit window before I realized I should have added that the Greek word usually translated "repentance" is metanoia, which means something more along the lines of a change of heart. The parable clearly describes the younger son's offense—his rejection of his father to the point of essentially wishing him dead—his change of heart (metanoia), and his return to the father and his true home (t'shuvah).

The parable isn't about "do likewise and God will forgive you." It's about "this is how much God longs for your return, how joyfully God will welcome you home."

As for the older brother, I think Jesus's immediate intent was for his audience—those who criticized his cavorting with the wrong crowd—to see themselves in the older brother. But as cliffdweller suggests, most of us are the older brother at times.

[ 05. March 2016, 02:58: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Henri Nouwen's lovely book Return of the Prodigal (really en extended lectio on the Rembrandt painting) challenges us to see ourselves in each of the three figures: we are, of course, the younger brother-- needing to repent, to have a change of heart, to come home. And we are all too often the elder brother-- self-righteous, self-pitying, ungracious and unwelcoming. But we are also sometimes called to imitate the Father-- to say words of welcome, to prepare the fatted calf, to celebrate those who are coming home.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Nick Tamen: The point is, perhaps, missed if we think in terms of God taking us back if we "repent," at least with the connotations of that word in English.

I have the same feeling. The terms 'returning to God' and 'repenting' are often conflated, as if they mean the same thing. I'm not convinced that they do.

The text doesn't say that the younger son repented for wishing his father dead, or something like that. In fact, he returned for reasons that are still rather self-centered: he figured he'd have a better life as the servant of his father than of this pig farmer.

quote:
Nick Tamen: The parable isn't about "do likewise and God will forgive you." It's about "this is how much God longs for your return, how joyfully God will welcome you home."

Agreed so far. Nothing about repentance here.

quote:
Nick Tamen: As for the older brother, I think Jesus's immediate intent was for his audience—those who criticized his cavorting with the wrong crowd—to see themselves in the older brother.

To me, this is what the parable is about. "If your Father invites you, don't look down on other people He has invited. Just join the party and dance."

quote:
Nick Tamen: But as cliffdweller suggests, most of us are the older brother at times.

Indeed.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The text doesn't say that the younger son repented for wishing his father dead, or something like that. In fact, he returned for reasons that are still rather self-centered: he figured he'd have a better life as the servant of his father than of this pig farmer.

Well it does say that he was determined to tell his father "I have sinned against heaven and you; I'm not worthy to be called your son."

Again, I think English connotations of "repentance" are coming into play. Some self-centered motivation and repentance are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The desire to be whole again can certainly be borne in some cell-centeredness.

The text (Luke 15:17–20) says:

quote:
“But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.” ’ So he set off and went to his father.”

Jesus's (and Luke's) original audience would have heard "he came to himself," "l will get up and go to my father" and "so he set off and went to his father" and recognized those things as t'shuvah/metanoia/repentance. The surprise ending for that part of the story was the extravagant welcome.

quote:
To me, this is what the parable is about. "If your Father invites you, don't look down on other people He has invited. Just join the party and dance."

It is definitely about that; no doubt, that is very much what Jesus wanted the Pharisees and scribes to hear. (I think it's interesting that the NRSV labels this "The Parable of the Prodigal and his Brother.") But I think Jesus also wanted them and everyone else to hear just how much God longs for us all to "come to ourselves" and return. (Which is why I tend to agree with those who note that the father is the real prodigal in the story.)

Sometimes (all to often, I'm afraid), we need to hear the admonition to the older son. But sometimes, we need to hear the words of welcome and encouragement with which the younger son was embraced. Note what the father said to his older son: "Your brother was dead and has come to life." Sometimes, we need to hear that we can live again.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Mark Powell, a U S Lutheran theologian wrote a book called Bridging the Gap: The Gospel between Pulpit and Pew. In it, he uses this parable to illustrate how different audiences will hear the Gospel.

In Russia the younger son decides to return home because a famine hit the land.

In Africa the younger son decides to return home because no body would help him.

In America the younger son decides to return home because he squandered all he had.

Thing of it is if we take the story out of its context within Luke, we can get all sort of interpretations. As I said, Luke 15 begins with the comment that the religious leaders were grumbling about Jesus welcoming sinners. To which Jesus replies with three parable: the parable of the lost sheep; the parable of the lost coin; and the parable of broken relationships.

The thrust of all three parables is actually about welcoming the sinner, not about repentance. Even in Jesus day the idea of a shepherd leaving his herd to find a lost sheep would have been preposterous--there are more where that one came from, as we say. The parable of the lost coin is a little more believable--how many of us have lost our glasses or our keys or something that is significant. Then comes the zinger--the story of broken relationships.

Taken in the context of welcoming the sinner the story is not about the younger son. It very well could be about the father being overjoyed about having his son return, but I think the focus is on the reaction of the older son---the one who slaved over the property, the one who thought he was entitled.

To answer my own questions. Yes, from the older son's perspective, he had a legitimate gripe. Legally everything left was his (even the father recognizes that). If we go by the law, then to hell with the younger son. The younger son dug his own hole, as it were, let him live in it.

Still the father takes an unexpected route--being overjoyed he welcomes the younger son back.

Now the older son has a choice. Should he give up what is his right if only for just a little while (the fatted calf, after all, ultimately belongs to the older son)? Or should he continue to remain out in the cold?

We have all experienced broken relationships for many reasons. How does the story apply to you in the context of welcoming your antagonist back into the family?

[ 05. March 2016, 15:15: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Gramps49: Mark Powell, a U S Lutheran theologian wrote a book called Bridging the Gap: The Gospel between Pulpit and Pew. In it, he uses this parable to illustrate how different audiences will hear the Gospel.

In Russia the younger son decides to return home because a famine hit the land.

In Africa the younger son decides to return home because no body would help him.

In America the younger son decides to return home because he squandered all he had.

I understand that an experiment was done, where people from different countries where asked to name things they remembered from the Parable. There was a big difference between people from Tanzania and for example the US in how many people mentioned the famine as one of the first things.

And I want to mention it again: the younger brother was exploited. He was put to work under worse living conditions than his employer's pigs. I'm sure this would have resonated with Jesus' audience.

I agree with the other things you said here too. To me, the focus of this Parable is on welcoming people we feel that are below God's standards, not on repentance. Repentance is not a condition for this. The father didn't say to the older son: "your brother repented, and that's why you should join our welcoming party." He was just happy to see him back.

[ 05. March 2016, 16:37: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Taken in the context of welcoming the sinner the story is not about the younger son. It very well could be about the father being overjoyed about having his son return, but I think the focus is on the reaction of the older son---the one who slaved over the property, the one who thought he was entitled.

To answer my own questions. Yes, from the older son's perspective, he had a legitimate gripe.

I would fall into the group of those who think the story, like the two that precede it, is about the father and his overwhelming desire to find and welcome home the lost. And I would agree that the older son thinks he has a legitimate gripe. But I think Jesus's point is that his gripe really isn't legitimate at all. At the end of the three stories, it's Jesus's pointed answer to the disdain of the scribes and Pharisees that he welcomes sinners.

So I have a hard time reading the story as being about the older brother choosing whether to maintain his legitimate grudge or to relinquish his legitimate rights so as to be reconciled to his brother. I think the older brother's choice is between his misplaced sense of superiority and entitlement as "the good son" on one hand, and his father's all-inclusive love on the other.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

LaRoc

I can see how a liberation theologian could see how the younger son's decision to return to the father is because he was being exploited by others.

Nick--I can agree it is about the older son's resistance to the father's overwhelming response to the return of the younger brother.

The tension is in "what happens next."

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
At the end of the three stories, it's Jesus's pointed answer to the disdain of the scribes and Pharisees that he welcomes sinners.

Yes - my guess is that they would have found the younger son's behavior to be absolutely scandalous and the father's welcome to be unwarranted.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Gramps49: I can see how a liberation theologian could see how the younger son's decision to return to the father is because he was being exploited by others.

Busted

I do think the famine and the exploitation are relevant to the story though, and perhaps given less attention in the Western world.

Could I ask something: quite a lot of us are going to hear (or deliver) a sermon on this Parable tomorrow. I'd find it interesting if some of us could report back on whether something was said about the famine or the exploitation.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I don't have much to add to what's been said, other than my appreciation/ agreement that the parable is really The Parable of the Welcoming Father. Several of you have said it so much better than I ever could. In particular I'm struck with LeRoc's remark: "when the father invites you to a party, you dance."

To the discussion of the meaning of repentance, I would add this definition I like very much:

quote:
“To repent is to come to your senses. It is not so much something you do as something that happens. True repentance spends less time looking at the past and saying, ‘I’m sorry,’ than to the future and saying, ‘Wow!’” -Frederick Buechner

[ 05. March 2016, 22:00: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Two points to ponder:

1) the father's welcoming love is (seemingly) boundless and unconditional. In contrast to the elder son's saying 'this your son' thus not even claiming kinship, the father reiterates 'this YOIUR brother.'

2) instruction can be had from artistic treatments: fr'instance, the Gregorian communion antiphon 'Oportet te' segments into almost dance-like bits quoting the father, becoming increasingly excited until the final 'now he is found.'

And again, George Balanchine made a tremendous ballet of this story with music IIRC by Prokofiev. In his treatment, after the younger son leaves, the father continues to stand at the door of his tent, watching for him, until he finally returns. The son is crawling the whole width of the stage very slowly, and the father is increasing in agitation until he finally swoops down and scoops him into his arms. (The older son is completely left out of this treatment!)

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

There are 'post-colonial' interpretations which see the younger son's return as a sad defeat. He has tried to escape the junior role handed to him and become his own man. When it all goes wrong for him he feels forced to kowtow and return. The older brother characterises the younger's failed bid for independence as wasting his inheritance on fast cars and women, or something.

I can certainly see why a post-colonial society would read it in this way. Many British attitudes to former colonies and their trials are very elder brotherish.

Its complexity makes it so different from most parables that I think it needs a new category.

I often hear members of churches served by different preachers week by week say that they can get three Prodigal Son sermons in a row. I'm not sure they are necessarily complaining, though.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Wish I could see the ballet.

One theologian I know talked about how unseemly the father's response was when he saw his son coming over the hill. The father literally picks up his robes and runs to the younger son and scoops him up, kissing him, telling his servants to get the finest robe....

As if Jesus is saying to the religious leaders "You think it is offensive for me to welcome the sinner--you should see how the father reacts to the sinner's return."

Good point.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
[QUOTE]Could I ask something: quite a lot of us are going to hear (or deliver) a sermon on this Parable tomorrow.

It coincides with Mother's Day (at least in the UK); it would be interesting to see how that's combined.

So the Father runs out and welcomes the Son back to the house, calling out to all who would hear: "My Son, whom I love, is restored to me from a pig farm!"

And the Mother says, "Wipe your boots before coming in here."

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Our sermon this morning followed what Madame and I had always thought of as the traditional interpretation of the parable - the father waiting for the son's return, the repentance of the son (and despite what was said above, the younger sone believed that he had sinned) the father's forgiveness etc.

Mothering Sunday for us, rather than Mothers' Day. Simnel cake!

[ 06. March 2016, 06:05: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
georgiaboy: And again, George Balanchine made a tremendous ballet of this story with music IIRC by Prokofiev. In his treatment, after the younger son leaves, the father continues to stand at the door of his tent, watching for him, until he finally returns. The son is crawling the whole width of the stage very slowly, and the father is increasing in agitation until he finally swoops down and scoops him into his arms.

That sounds brilliant. I'd love to see that.

quote:
hatless: There are 'post-colonial' interpretations which see the younger son's return as a sad defeat.

Yes, I can see that. I've also heard non-Western writers saying: "by spiritualising this Parable, concentrating just on repentance, you're passing over the famine and the exploitation that are in this story".

quote:
Nigel M: And the Mother says, "Wipe your boots before coming in here."

Haha! My mother would undoubtedly say "LeRoc! Go shave yourself first!!" [Smile]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
George Balanchine made a tremendous ballet of this story with music IIRC by Prokofiev. In his treatment, after the younger son leaves, the father continues to stand at the door of his tent, watching for him, until he finally returns. The son is crawling the whole width of the stage very slowly, and the father is increasing in agitation until he finally swoops down and scoops him into his arms. (The older son is completely left out of this treatment!)

Follow this video link to the ballet - you will see that further parts are available. I think this performance is c.1979 but the ballet goes back to 1929. I thought it looked terribly dated but it is "of its period" and must be judged as such.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
As I said, Luke 15 begins with the comment that the religious leaders were grumbling about Jesus welcoming sinners. To which Jesus replies with three parable: the parable of the lost sheep; the parable of the lost coin; and the parable of broken relationships.

The thrust of all three parables is actually about welcoming the sinner?

Perhaps the correct title, then - keeping with the theme of lost sheep and lost coin - is: The Parable of the Lost Son.

The lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Baptist Trainfan: Follow this video link to the ballet

Thank you, I've managed to watch the first 1.5 parts now. It's interesting: after leaving his father (and his sisters!), the younger son encounters a group of drunk people. What he wants is their attention. They reject him at first, and only become his friends after he's given them his father's money.

In our church this morning, we read 2 Cor 1: 3–7, and Luke 2: 33–35, tied together with a motherly theme.

BTW Thank you Gramps49 for opening these topics from time to time; I find it interesting to think about a reading together before we hear it in church.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The thrust of all three parables is actually about welcoming the sinner, not about repentance.

While I think you're right that the point of three parables is joy at the return of the lost, I did note this morning when the third parable was put in context with the first two that Jesus ended both of the first two with words along the lines of "there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents." (In the parable of the lost sheep, he adds "than over 99 righteous who need no repentance.")

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Perhaps the correct title, then - keeping with the theme of lost sheep and lost coin - is: The Parable of the Lost Son.

The lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son.

Well, according to the sermon we heard this morning, perhaps it should be the Parable of the Lost Sons.

We heard that both of the sons were, in some sense, lost. The younger perhaps more obviously in his rejection of his family whom he didn't need and in the troubles that befell him in a cruel world. (That was the closest we got to exploitation.) He did not expect to be received at home, and the best he could hope for was to be treated as a slave. The surprise for him was the welcome he received from his father.

The older brother was also lost, but in a different way. He was trapped in a crippling and distorted sense of duty to family, a resentment (and perhaps envy?) toward his brother and the burden of believing he had to earn his father's favor. The surprise for him was that his father's love, and everything else his father had, was a freely given gift.

What both brothers discovered was grace.

As an aside, the reading was acted out by children. They had spent a few weeks studying the parable. They picked out what they thought were the most important parts of the story and moved from tableaux of one to the next as the story was read. They created those tableaux themselves. One thing I found interesting was that they made sure the mother was included. They also had the father maintain a stance of open arms throughout.

And they agreed that what the younger brother did "wasn't fair at all." [Smile]

I was glad to have been "prepped" for the sermon by this thread. Thanks all.

[ 06. March 2016, 19:07: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

One detail that has not been mentioned.

In the story as Jesus told it, the younger son spent his money on "riotous living". When he returns, his older brother accuses him of spending his money on prostitutes. In fact, the older brother had no way of knowing exactly how the money had been wasted.

Moo

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

pillow talk? [Snigger]

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One detail that has not been mentioned.

In the story as Jesus told it, the younger son spent his money on "riotous living". When he returns, his older brother accuses him of spending his money on prostitutes. In fact, the older brother had no way of knowing exactly how the money had been wasted.

My pastor was discussing that in his sermon. His take is that, while the father had no idea what had happened to the younger son (even thinking him dead), the older brother knew all along where his brother was and what had happened to him (presumably having been told by his friends or whatever) and he took no steps to help or tell his grieving father. Just before the parables began, the scribes and pharisees were criticizing Jesus for hanging out and dining with sinners. The "sinner" in the parable is the elder son, and yet the father begs him to join the party.

The scribes etc. did not want to associate with sinners--but Jesus shows us that is the wrong approach. The question to ponder for ourselves is: who do we not want to associate with?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It could be, I suppose. But it's also possible that the elder son was making assumptions (in which case it's interesting to note his ideas of what constitutes a wild life. Some personal wishes of his own, perhaps?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It could be, I suppose. But it's also possible that the elder son was making assumptions (in which case it's interesting to note his ideas of what constitutes a wild life. Some personal wishes of his own, perhaps?

Now you're gettin' nasty.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I find the idea of the elder son accusing his younger brother without basis interesting. I hadn't thought of that.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I don't know Greek - but according to my favourite English-Greek study bible, the phrase "with a wild lifestyle" is from the Greek word ζῶν.

Strongs seems to imply this just means "life". I wonder if this suggests translators are stretching the meaning of Luke 15:13 to take account of the brother's accusation of using prostitutes in 15:30.

The Dean at my gaff yesterday was talking about God's motherly nature, keeping a special look-out for those who wander away, welcoming them back into the fold.

Thanks to LeRoc, I noted the part of the reading referring to famine and I was reflecting on our tendency to blame victims and suggest that they should more-or-less "make their bed and lie in it" with reference to the current refugee crisis in Europe.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

It's not appropriate to speculate too much about who knew what or what the truth was, because it's just a story. It has the information supplied by the story teller and that's it. The only back story we are entitled to come up with is that which would have been obvious to the teller and the audience.

The older son's verdict looks to me like the sort of thing an unsympathetic person would say. We cannot assume he has sources of information we the audience do not have.

The word used in the narrator's description on the younger son's lifestyle is asotos, long 'o's. Zoe, life, asotos - translated as loose, prodigal or riotous.

My Greek is very weak, but I think asotos is an adjective formed by negating sozo (long 'o's again). Sozo means to save, heal or make whole, and shares the root of soter, saviour. An interesting word given the importance of salvation or soteriology for Christianity.

Its negative might mean loose or uncontrolled, which is sort of the opposite of whole. It might mean risky or reckless - unsafe in English. Or it could imply very open-handed, or spendthrift. Prodigal is quite a neutral word today, and could just imply spending or even investing a lot, though our grandparents might have been alarmed by it.

Henri Nouwen said that we are both the younger son and the older son, but that we are called to become the father. I really like that.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It could be, I suppose. But it's also possible that the elder son was making assumptions (in which case it's interesting to note his ideas of what constitutes a wild life. Some personal wishes of his own, perhaps?

That's what I was thinking when I said "pillow talk" (altho I guess I was implying a bit more than "wishes")

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It could be, I suppose. But it's also possible that the elder son was making assumptions (in which case it's interesting to note his ideas of what constitutes a wild life. Some personal wishes of his own, perhaps?

I think the latter is more likely than the older brother getting reports from friends, especially since the text says the younger brother was in a "distant country." I have little trouble imagining the older brother thinking something along the lines of "Really?! You mean instead of working my @@$ off here and always being 'the good son,' I could have gone off and enjoyed life, doing anything I wanted to do, and still come home to this kind of welcome?!" That's what I was referring to above when I mentioned the older brother's envy.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Which also fits with the Father's response: "Really? Life here with me-- life with the Father, in the Kingdom-- is so onerous that you're envious of some other life???"

Which I think is a powerful statement re the Kingdom a la the parable of the great banquet, and a challenge to the way we often think of our life in Christ.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Jesus is encapsulating the gospel in a story.

"Father give me." -- that is the essence of 'sin'.

"He went into a far country" -- that is the consequence of sin. It separates us from God,

"He came to his sesnes". -- that is the first step in repentance.

"I have sinned" -- the recognition of wrongdoing in essential.

"I will arise and go to my Father" - repentance involves turning our back on one way of life and heading towards God.

"While he was yet a long way off......) God waits and welcomes us with forgiveness. He doesn't read the Riot Act to the returning Prodigal but orders a Celebration.

No Cross in this story? An Indian preacher saw it. He told the story and said that the Prodigal son noticed that, in the intervening years, his Father's hair had turned white -- with anxiety and suffering for a wayward son.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
shamwari: "Father give me." -- that is the essence of 'sin'.

Give us this day our daily bread.

You're giving us the 'traditional' interpretation of this text. You're entitled to it of course but as discussed, I don't interpret it this way, and there are some good textual arguments that Jesus didn't intend this emphasis on sin and repentance.

[ 07. March 2016, 20:32: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
hatless: My Greek is very weak, but I think asotos is an adjective formed by negating sozo (long 'o's again). Sozo means to save, heal or make whole, and shares the root of soter, saviour. [...] It might mean risky or reckless - unsafe in English.

What if Jesus simply meant 'unsafe'? A neutral statement that far away from his father's house the youngest son was exposed to more dangers, without a moral evaluation such as 'reckless'?

Suppose for a moment that Jesus didn't mean that the younger brother lived a life of drunkenness and whorery (how do you say this in English?). He was just travelling a lot, met a lot of interesting people, did artistic things, spent his money in a lot of places (διεσκόρπισεν: 'scattered') … This pretty much describes my life, so you can see why I'm rooting a bit for the younger brother here [Smile]

He would have been OK if it wasn't for the famine. His destitution wasn't entirely his fault.

quote:
cliffdweller: Which also fits with the Father's response: "Really? Life here with me-- life with the Father, in the Kingdom-- is so onerous that you're envious of some other life???"

A rather free interpretation of verse 31 [Biased]

I'm tending towards the 'pillow talk' interpretation also. The older brother just assumed that the other one hung out with prostitutes. It is interesting that the Pharisees accused Jesus of hanging out with bad folk. Maybe we are getting the sanitised version, and they made false accusations that went even further? And Jesus lets the older brother make the same false accusation, turning it back on them.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
shamwari: "Father give me." -- that is the essence of 'sin'.
Give us this day our daily bread.

You're giving us the 'traditional' interpretation of this text. You're entitled to it of course but as discussed, I don't interpret it this way, and there are some good textual arguments that Jesus didn't intend this emphasis on sin and repentance.

Yeah, I can't see how "Father, give me" is the essence of sin—especially since the (or at least a) logical conclusion to the Father's "everything that is mine is yours" is "all you ever had to do was ask."

And, as you say, there's Jesus's instruction on how to pray.

If anything, it seems to me that the essence of sin is "Father? What Father? Neighbor? What neighbor? All I care about is Me."

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Suppose for a moment that Jesus didn't mean that the younger brother lived a life of drunkenness and whorery (how do you say this in English?).

Debauchery?

quote:
I'm tending towards the 'pillow talk' interpretation also. The older brother just assumed that the other one hung out with prostitutes. It is interesting that the Pharisees accused Jesus of hanging out with bad folk. Maybe we are getting the sanitised version, and they made false accusations that went even further? And Jesus lets the older brother make the same false accusation, turning it back on them.

Yes, I think there is a strong case to be made that the older brother is meant to represent the Pharisees. "I did everything you asked" being the parable equivalent of the Pharisees following all the prescribed rituals carefully (and proud of themselves for doing so). But they did not welcome sinners in their presence (hence their complaints about Jesus associating with such trash). Compare that with the older brother refusing to associate with his own brother. And doing so on what, in his mind, is quite righteous grounds. But we are meant to see that he was wrong to do so, just as the Pharisees were wrong in their attitude towards sinners as well.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

a life of drunkenness and whorery (how do you say this in English?).

Whoring might be the word you're looking for.

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :

Echoing the thoughts of others on this thread, I think it's important to keep the context in view with interpreting this parable.

Jesus is responding to the grumblings of the Pharisees and Scribes that he "receives sinners and eats with them". He then proceeds to tell three parables (the lost sheep, the lost coin, the prodigal son).

The first two emphasise joy in heaven at the sinner who repents (and the lengths God will go to to save the lost).
The third parable recounts a lost and found son, but instead climaxes with the interaction with the older son. The story ends with the older son OUTSIDE the feast...what will he do?

The open-ended story is an invitation for the Pharisees to literally finish the story for themselves. Will they 'enter the feast'? or will their disdain for the gracious welcome of sinners keep them out of the feast of the kingdom?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0