 |
| Dr. Barbara Billey ARCWP on Ordination Day, Anointing of the Hands with Chrism, Windsor, Canada |
Luke 15 is
a trilogy of parables about the ‘lost’: the shepherd who seeks a lost sheep, a
woman who diligently searches for a lost coin, and a father who goes to great
lengths to restore his lost sons. This essay will consider these parables from literary,
social-historical, psychological and feminist perspectives and how these
various perspectives lend meaning to Jesus’ teachings for us.
Luke 15
begins with tax collectors and sinners gathering near to listen to Jesus. The
Pharisees and the scribes criticize Jesus for welcoming and eating with sinners
(vv. 1-3). Jesus tells them the first parable (vv. 4-7) about a shepherd who
leaves ninety-nine sheep in the wilderness to find one that is lost. When the
sheep is found, the shepherd lays it on his shoulders and rejoices. Upon
arriving home, he invites his friends and neighbors to celebrate the recovery
of his lost sheep. The parable ends with “Just so, I tell you, there will be
more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous
persons who need no repentance” (v. 7).
In the second
parable, Jesus recounts a story about a woman with ten coins but has lost one
of them (vv. 8-9). The woman lights a lamp and sweeps her house carefully in
ardent search for the coin. When found, she gathers her friends and neighbors
to rejoice with her. The parable ends with “Just so, I tell you, there is joy in
the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (v. 10).
Jesus
concludes the trilogy of parables with the story of the prodigal son (vv.
11-32). In this parable, the younger of two sons becomes dissatisfied with his
life on the family estate. He asks and receives from his father his share of
the inheritance, only to squander it recklessly in a foreign land. Hungry and
destitute, the son returns home to be eagerly welcomed by his father who
dresses him in fine clothing and calls upon his servants to prepare a communal
feast.
The elder brother reacts with
indignation, aghast at his father’s joyous embrace of one so undeserving. The
father attempts to reason with his eldest son and to reconcile him with his
younger brother. He tells him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is
mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of
yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found’ (vv. 31, 32).
The parable ends with the matter of the elder son’s attitude unresolved.
Literary Perspective
Textual Unit
The
pericope of Luke 15 begins with Luke 15:1-3, a controversy setting which
establishes the context for the three parables. Sinners and tax collectors have
come to listen to Jesus, thus provoking the Pharisees and the scribes to
complain about Jesus associating and eating with them. The setting of eating a
communal meal carries symbolic meaning for initiating and maintaining
sociability and bonds of common identity, and, in Luke 15, sharpens the
distinction between those who claim to be holy through observance of Jewish
religious laws (the Pharisees) and the impure (the sinners and tax collectors)
(Jeong 62). The pericope ends with the father in Luke 15:32 justifying the need
to celebrate and rejoice because his younger son was lost and found.
Luke 15 is
organized in a narrative sequence of three parables with the first two parables
(sheep and coin) in synonymous parallelism. The third parable about the prodigal
son incorporates parallelism within the narrative; the younger and elder son are
each shown in relationship to their father in verses 11-24b and verses 25a-32,
respectively (Ramsey 41). The entire text of Luke 15 is rendered a coherent
whole by the use of these parallelisms.
An inclusio serves a similar
purpose with the two complaints, first by the Pharisees and the scribes (vv.
1-2), and followed by the righteous indignation of the elder brother in the
story of the prodigal son (vv. 28-30). Each parable ends on the theme of joy
(vv. 7, 10, 32) which further unifies the periscope. Luke’s use of the singular,
“So he told them this parable” (v.3) suggests he wants the reader to consider
the three parables as a single literary unit (Jeong 62).
Overarching Corpus
The overarching corpus establishes
the broader literary environment for Luke 15. Neighboring texts are Luke 14
(Jesus Heals a Man with Dropsy, Humility and Hospitality, The Parable of the
Great Dinner, The Cost of Discipleship, and the About Salt) and Luke 16 (The
Parable of the Dishonest Manager, The Law and the Kingdom of God, and The Rich
Man and Lazarus). These parables are in thematic unity with Luke 15. They
address issues of hospitality to outcasts, the proper use of wealth and
distribution to those in need, detaching from possessions to become a disciple,
and the law as followed by the Pharisees compared to the good news of God’s
kingdom.
The wider corpus of Luke 15 is the
entire Gospel according to Luke often referred to as the “Gospel of the Poor,”
which demonstrates concern for the marginalized and oppressed. Repentance and
salvation are common themes in Luke’s Gospel (Newsom and Ringe 277).
Sources and Parallels
Biblical scholars debate whether
there is a direct parallel between the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:4-7)
and Matt. 18:12-14. Many argue that both passages stem from the Q source and
are independent versions of the parable. There are various interpretations of Matthew’s
version: forgiving those in the faith community who have gone astray (Jeong 64);
instruction to Jesus’ disciples about their obligation as pastors to the Church
(Stuhlmueller 148); and God’s unrelenting love of Israel and for those who are
called to be disciples of Jesus (Hauerwas 164). In contrast, Luke’s message is
to include sinners (Van Eck 2-3) and the joy of finding that which is lost (Stuhlmueller
148).
The Gospel
of Thomas also includes a passage about the lost sheep. Thomas emphasizes the
lost sheep as the ‘largest’ in the flock, the one the shepherd loves more than
the ninety-nine. This is consistent with the Gnostic Christians use of the
motif of the largest, which is associated with their perceived superior status
compared to ordinary Christians (Van Eck 2). In Luke, there is no distinction
between the lost sheep and the ninety-nine sheep.
Since the parable
of the lost sheep is found in Q and Thomas, scholars conclude that Luke 15:4-6
was promulgated through the oral tradition and was likely the original form of
the parable told by Jesus. Jesus’ tendency toward hyperbole in many of his
sayings and parables (i.e. ninety-nine sheep left to become potential victims
of predators) provides further justification (Funk, Hoover and the Jesus
Seminar 355, Van Eck 3). The introduction to the parable (Luke 15:1-3) and the
conclusion (Luke 15:7) is believed to be written by Luke as it reflects his
pastoral interests regarding repentance and sinners, and concurs with remarks
made by him elsewhere (Luke 12:21; 14:33; 17:10) (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus
Seminar 355).
There is scholarly consensus that
the parable of the lost sheep has a relationship to frequent imagery of the
shepherd tradition found in the Old Testament, including Gen. 48:15, 49:24;
Psalms 23, 77:20, 80:1, 119:176; Ezekiel 34; Isaiah 40:10, 53:6, 60:4; Jer
23:1-4,50:6; Zechariah 11:4-17 (Snodgrass 105-107, Van Eck 6).
Thematic parallels for the parable
of the lost coin (Luke 15:8-10) are the Woman with the Hemorrhage (Luke
8:43-47), The Parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge (Luke 18:1-8), and the
Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith (Mark 7:24-30). Each of these parables involves
women recovering that which is lost.
Luke likely created the parable of
the lost coin to unify the preceding and following parables. The concluding
remark about sinners (v.10) is considered Luke’s addition. However, the
exaggerated effort to recover a coin reflects “Jesus’ style and his
unconventional estimate of worth” which leads some scholars to believe that the
parable may have originated with Jesus (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar
355). Jeong posits that the parable of the lost coin may have been taken from
Q, L and a Lukan composition or a composition of the early Church (Jeong 62).
The parable of the prodigal son
(Luke 15:11-32) has no direct parallels in the New Testament. One possible
thematic parallel is found in Matt. 20:11-12 (The Laborers in the Vineyard),
wherein the laborers gripe about the generosity shown by the owner of the
vineyard, which mimics the complaints of the elder son (Jeong 61). In Matt.
22:4 Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven with a wedding feast offered by the
king to his son (Nouwen 113). The common message is that celebration belongs to
God’s Kingdom.
There are a few thematic parallels
in the Old Testament such as the Joseph story (Gen. 37-50) with images of the
far country, jealousy of the elder brother, a ring, fine clothing, a banquet,
famine, and reconciliation with the father. The loving acceptance of the father
for the prodigal son recalls the mercy of God shown for a repentant Ephraim
(Jer 31:18-20; cf. 1 Kgs 8:47-51; Hos 11:1-9; Psalms 103:13) (Forbes 212).
Nouwen proposes a similarity of
this parable with Zechariah’s fourth vision (Zech. 3:1-10). Joshua stands
before the angel of Yahweh dressed in dirty clothes, then is instructed by the
angel to dress in splendid robes and to put a turban on his head as a sign of
being removed of guilt and of coming into his priesthood (Nouwen 112).
Forbes argues that the parable of
the prodigal son “embodies a mosaic of Old Testament reminiscences” and drew
from oral folktale of Semitic origin (Forbes 211-213). He and many scholars,
agree that most of the parable is authentic because it imitates the general
teachings of Jesus elsewhere, especially verses 11-17, 20, 22-23, 24c. The
parable may have been a Lukan adaptation which was intended as an indictment of
the Pharisees and to form a link with Luke 16 (Forbes 211). Others attribute
the entire parable to Luke or a later redactor (Hultgren 72).
Several features of the parable can
be traced to Jesus. Jesus associated with sinners in Mark and Q and the
vocabulary mixes Lukan and non-Lukan terms. In addition, the parable diverges
from Luke’s theology. At the end of the parable, the elder brother (intended to
represent the Pharisees) is invited to join the celebration, thus suggesting a
reconciliation of Judean with Judean. In contrast, Luke portrays the Judeans as
rejecting the Gospel and then offering it to the Gentiles (Funk, Hoover and the
Jesus Seminar 357).
Rhetorical Style
According to Gorman, rhetorical
style and related literary devices help the reader to be affectively engaged
with a parable, to identify with key characters, to extract meaning from the
narrative, and to experience a change of attitudes and behaviors (Gorman 63).
Luke 15 is rife with examples of this.
All three parables in Luke 15 share
a common scheme and language including being lost, searching, being found,
rejoicing, and communal celebration (Forbes 221; Funk, Hoover and the Jesus
Seminar 357; Jancoski 55; Jeong 62, 73; Van Eck 3).
Many scholars maintain that the use
of allegory in Luke 15 is intended to reflect both the character of God and the
activity of God (Snodgrass 105, 107). They propose a number of metaphors: the
shepherd as God or Jesus who tends his sheep; the sheep as sinners; the father
in the prodigal son as God; the younger son as the Gentiles or as the sinners;
and the elder son as Judeans or Pharisees (Funk, Hoover and the Jesus Seminar
355, Reid 240, Van Eck 6). The feminine expression of God or Sophia Wisdom is
represented by the woman who searches for the lost coin (Beavis 22). Forbes
argues that there is not a complete allegory between the elder son and the
Pharisees, rather “the parable is addressed to every religious community, for
all have their insiders and outsiders” (Forbes 229).
In Luke 15:4-7, when the shepherd
is seen as a metaphor for God and the sheep as the sinner, most contemporary
scholars conclude that the parable of the lost sheep is about God’s forgiveness
(Hultgren 59, Jeremias 40, Snodgrass 93), God’s grace and mercy (Capon 31-39,
Westerman 135,184), love and compassion for the lost and marginalized (Bailey
142, Boice 50, Lambrecht 43-44, Perkins 31, Reid 249, Snodgrass 93), salvation
(Hultgren 54), the importance of repentance (Bailey 142, Hultgren 61, Perkins
31, Schottroff 152), God’s joy when a sinner is found (Boucher 96, Hendrickx
149, Jones 275), and seeking the lost (Stein 52). Van Eck contends that by
excluding shepherd/God and sheep/sinner metaphors and by examining the parable from
a social-historical perspective these themes are not present; rather, in a 30
C.E. context told by the historical Jesus, the parable becomes one of Jesus’
Kingdom parables (Van Eck 1-2).
Several literary devices are found
in Luke 15 including hyperbole (“devoured your property with prostitutes,” 30),
sandwiching technique (the lost coin positioned between sheep and prodigal son
parables) (Miller 163), and repetition (the behavior of the prodigal son in the
far country repeated in an exaggerated manner by the psychological distance of the
elder son) (Ramsey 36). Repetition is used in the prodigal son to emphasize the
nature of being lost and found and is presented in poetic parallelism in vv. 24
and 32 as a comparison of death and life. Suspense that heightens tension is
also used. The shepherd leaving ninety-nine sheep unattended in the wilderness
evokes a sense of danger (Jeong 67).
Luke 15 also integrates movement that
quickens the pace of the plot while portraying the true nature of the characters
(the father running, kissing, music and dancing demonstrates compassion and joy).
Affectively-laden words increase our identification with the characters: “grumbling”
(v.2), “rejoicing” (vv. 5, 9, 32), and in the prodigal son, “angry,” “refused,”
and “plead” (v. 28).
Each parable demonstrates a play of
numbers: one sheep in a hundred, one coin in ten, and one son of two (Van Eck
3). Groupings of two as with the younger and elder brothers also represents a
dyadic (2-fold) narrative structure (Gorman 76).
Rhetorical questions at the
beginning of the parables of the sheep and coin (vv. 3, 4, 8) serve to capture our
attention and to evoke contemplation. Withholding information from the reader
and creating ambiguity can also inspire reflection. The reader is left to
ponder possibilities about the choices that are made by the elder son in the parable
of the prodigal son and shapes the impact of the story on the reader (Ramsey
33). The open-ended nature of the story forces us to identify with each
character in the parable and generates additional questions: What is my
capacity to love and show compassion as the father did? Am I more like the prodigal son who repents
or the critical and self-righteous elder son? When am I like both?
Descriptive words found in Luke 15 evoke
imagery that both draws the reader into the narrative and intensifies the theme
of lost and searching: the shepherd laying the lost sheep on his shoulders, the
woman searching carefully for her coin, and in the prodigal son, “severe
famine,” “dissolute living,” “dying of hunger.” Alienation resulting from the
younger son’s actions is highlighted by imagery of “the far country,” “feeding
pigs,” “lost” and “dead” (Forbes 226). Feasting imagery, along with the finery
of robe, ring, and sandals contrasts with feeding on carob pods and helps to underline
the extremities of lost-found, sin-repentance, and alienation-restoration,
while carrying overtones of the messianic banquet (Forbes 221).
Social-Historical
Perspective
In
interpreting Luke 15, consideration must be given to the social and historical
contexts in which this text was written in order to guard against an
“ethnocentristic and anachronistic reading” (Van Eck 4). With regards to Luke
15:4-7, Van Eck posits that the portrayal of the shepherd in this passage was
related to Old Testament imagery rather than the social and economic realities
of the advanced agrarian society under the control of the Roman Empire and
centered in the Temple in Jerusalem of first century Palestine. He states that
most interpreters of the parable assume the shepherd owned the flock of sheep
or the shepherd was hired as part of an extended family who owned the flock.
Thus, the loss of one sheep is a loss to the entire clan and the whole family
rejoices when the sheep is found. However, the common practice was for owners
to employ shepherds who were often strangers, a trade stigmatized by Jews as
unclean, impure and dishonest (Van Eck 5).
Shepherds were poor, forced into
pasturing due to heavy taxation by the Roman Empire and the Temple and due to oppression
by the elite. They were considered like tax collectors and robbers for bringing
their herds onto other peoples’ land and becoming involved in criminality
because of their mobility and being armed (Van Eck 5).
The wages paid to a shepherd were
meager, thus the loss of one sheep was significant: a male sheep equivalent to
a month’s wage; a female more than this. If the herd were leased, the loss of
an animal would mean replacement cost and reduced income from the flock. Given
these realities, the shepherd in Luke 15 had no other option than to recover
the lost sheep and risk the loss of the ninety-nine others. His economic survival
and that of his family depended on it (Van Eck 4-8).
Van Eck proposes that the parable
of the lost sheep is not a story about God, Jesus and sinners. The story is
about a despised shepherd and a lost sheep intended to illuminate the truth
about the Kingdom of God that becomes visible through the unexpected behavior
of a shepherd. The shepherd could have solved the problem of the lost sheep by
resorting to banditry. Instead, he takes a risk to provide for his family
through non-violence. The Kingdom of God, therefore, is a place where there
will be enough and all are accepted – shepherds, the poor and women, for anyone
identified as despised, unclean and impure. A place that is distinctly
different from the Kingdom of Rome or the temple (Van Eck 9). Clearly there was
reason to rejoice.
The parable of the woman and the
lost coin illustrates the extent of poverty experienced by women in first
century Palestine. The lost coin (one drachma) is equivalent to one days’ wage
for a male laborer and two days’ wage for a female laborer (Beavis 36).
Diligently searching for the one lost coin of ten was a necessity for survival,
as well as a cultural expectation: a woman’s role was to guard the money earned
by men and to maintain order in the home (LaHurd 67). Her power and value in
relation to men was as the central figure in the central institution of society
– the home. Women controlled sex, honor, children and a happy well-organized
household (LaHurd 71). Finding the lost coin was essential to maintain her
image and self-worth.
Maloney contends that the woman in
this parable is poor. She may have been single or responsible for the
safekeeping of ten coins given to her by her husband. The woman lives in a
house with few windows that is dark which requires her to light a lamp to find
the lost coin (a further sign of her economic status since owners of homes with
fewer windows paid fewer taxes and were less wealthy). Having to light a lamp
would have intensified the woman’s anxiety because of the expense associated
with lamp oil. Even with the lamp, the
darkness requires that she constantly sweep while listening for the tinkle of
the coin on the dirt floor. As custom would dictate, when the woman finds the
coin she gathers her women friends for a celebration. Her value and self-worth are
restored (Maloney 36).
In first century Palestine, Mosaic Law
dictated a number of rules for religious practice including those involving the
use of property and inheritance. The first son had rights to a double share of
his inheritance and the youngest son a third (Deut. 21:17). This inheritance
was effective upon the death of the father, or by a gift during his lifetime.
If it was given as a gift, any interest on the property was payable after the
father’s death. If the son disposed of the property, the buyer could not take
possession until the death of the father. Allocating the inheritance while the
father is alive is a matter of dishonoring the father (Sir. 33:19-23) (Forbes
214-215).
In the parable of the prodigal son,
the younger son’s request for his inheritance was tantamount to wishing his
father dead. Typically, the father would be enraged with such a request and
give his son a solid beating. Likewise, the elder son would have intervened
(Nouwen 35). The father in this parable freely gives the son his share of the inheritance
and the son converts the property to cash (to a Gentile nonetheless), thus
ignoring any moral claim that the father had in property. He also violates
Jewish law by failing to honor his parents and to sustain them in their old age
(cf. Mark 7:11-13). Adding further injury, the younger son leaves for a distant
country only to squander his inheritance with reckless abandon, a further betrayal
of the treasured values of family and community (Forbes 216, Nouwen 36). Severe
famine compounds the son’s problem, forcing him to violate religious custom in
order to eat: he works for a Gentile feeding pigs (unclean animals), degrading
for a Jew. The son decides to return home with the intention of asking his
father to hire him as one of his slaves.
The parable demonstrates another break
with tradition. As the son arrives on the outskirts of his village his father runs
toward him, thus protecting his son from attacks by other villagers. He then
kisses his son repeatedly in an enthusiastic embrace of welcome. This is the
opposite of what would be expected. Running, especially toward a son who has
shamed his father, would be considered humiliating behavior for an elder.
The father has also aborted risk of
his son being dishonored by the villagers; in fact, the father has taken on his
son’s shame (Forbes 216-220, Lahurd 70-71). He has reinstated his son into the
family and into the community with loving acceptance, requiring no explanation
of his son’s behavior or any repentance from him. The father orders his
servants to bring his son a robe, ring and sandals, and to kill the fattened
the calf for a festive celebration. The father demonstrates the height of
hospitality and the breadth of compassion. This behavior is more of the
unexpected.
When his elder son reacts
negatively to the return of his brother, the father once again defies
stereotypes. The elder son’s refusal to join the celebration is met with his
father’s patient reasoning and an invitation for him to reconcile with his
brother. Typically a Middle Eastern father would respond to such a refusal by
locking up his son and after the banquet beating him for his defiance.
Ironically, the elder son puts his father’s honor at stake by failing to use a
title of respect for him, but the father sustains his compassionate stance by
replying “my child,” a more familiar address than “son.” Thus, the father subverts
the elder son’s attempt to reduce his honor and that of his younger sibling. Neither
son is given an opportunity to score a victory over the other (Forbes 220,
LaHurd 70).
Finally, Maloney contends that the
purpose for money in the parables of Luke 15 is not to be hoarded, rather to be
shared among friends in a celebration. Rejoicing related to the thing lost, be
it sheep, coin or son, is not complete unless it is shared by a community. People
of faith are lost without community, including the communion of saints of which
the rejoicing angels are a part (Maloney 36-38).
Psychological
Perspective
Psychology
examines emotions, attitudes, motivations and behaviors that are operative
within individuals and how these contribute to a person’s functioning in society
and capacity for transformation and wholeness. As previously mentioned, the
shepherd and woman in the first two parables of Luke 15 were motivated to find
the lost sheep and coin in order to maintain their identity and self-worth in
relationship to their expected roles within their family and community.
Langer invites us to focus less on
the lost coin and more on the ten coins the woman possesses. She sees this
claiming as essential because most women have been conditioned to suppress
their inner wealth – abilities, gifts, talents, capacities, possessions and
property (Langer 24). However, searching to rediscover this inner wealth
usually requires a descent into darkness and pain by acknowledging one’s life
situations and circumstances, and often bringing light to that which has been
lost. What are the precious things that have been lost? Children, parents,
husband, friend, health, career, or zest for life are among the many coins
which might be named. Langer suggests that such an inward process evokes the
“deep and directing wisdom of our intuition” (Langer 25-26). New coins as new
potentials and fresh goals are frequently found thus adding to the inner wealth
that is already our inheritance in God.
Psychologist Carl Jung proposes
that personality is shaped by dimensions of the psyche that are conscious (in
awareness) and unconscious (not in awareness). He identifies the collective
unconscious as the repository of archetypes: ideas and experiences inherited
from the ancestral heritage of humanity that are expressed through images and
symbols of cultural myths and personal dreams. The Self is the mid-point of the
personality which brings the psyche into the union of the opposites of the
conscious and unconscious, a process necessary for individuation or wholeness
(Jung 275, Veliyannoor 339).
Veliyannoor
draws a parallel between the characters in the parable of the prodigal son and
aspects of the psyche. He suggests that the father represents the Self,
inviting both the younger and elder sons to realize their destiny of
individuation. The younger son is symbolic of the unconscious or inferior
function of the psyche, the dark and unbridled instinctual energies associated
with play, carelessness, and seeking delight for the senses. His journey to a
“distant country” and “dissolute living” are symbolic of the state of his
unconscious. However, there is a crisis point when he encounters near
starvation which forces him to come to his senses and to take stock of his
life.
Crisis is an opportunity for
awakening and transformation. Although the younger son is ruled by inferior
motives of hunger and need for shelter, these are enough to erode the mask of his
false persona and set him upon his return home. He engages an interior
monologue which is a rehearsal of the speech that he intends to recite to his
father to beg forgiveness for his actions. The reader is given insight into the
younger son’s motives (Veliyannoor 340-341).
Scholars are suspicious about the
authenticity of the younger son’s repentance. Most consider him as acting out
of selfish motives rather than being truly repentant. The reader is placed in a
predicament because they expect repentance to be a central theme based on this
emphasis in the preceding two parables. However, the younger son’s scripted
speech (lacking any evidence of metanoia) suggests that his motivation is to
manipulate the situation to his advantage by offering to be his father’s slave.
He will do anything to end his suffering.
The son’s planned speech is in stark
contrast to the father’s genuine and spontaneous flow of compassion with his
son’s return (Forbes 217, Ramsey 37-38).
The reader is given a clue to suspend an overly hasty generalization
about repentance, as well as an opportunity to reflect on the motivations
underlying their own attempts at repentance. Is repentance motivated by a truly
remorseful heart, one that has experienced a conversion? Or is repentance
marred by ulterior motives driven by personal gain? In this parable, the need
to repent seems trumped by acceptance of being found and having made the choice
to return to God (Forbes 216).
In his
wisdom the father appeals to the dominate aspect of his younger son’s psyche by
celebrating his return with a reception that is eros-filled – fine clothes, a
ring, music, and a banquet. This is not a direction of destructiveness
associated with the unconscious as previously engaged by the son’s departure;
it is sanctified and redemptive. The father, as the symbol of the Self, is in
essence inviting the younger son into greater integration (Veliyannoor 341). He
does the same with the elder son who represents the conscious, dominant,
extraverted function of the psyche. The father responds to the rational, social
and culturally appropriate side of his elder son by patiently explaining the
reason for the elaborate welcome of the younger son.
The elder son is unable to accept
the invitation to join in the celebration, or the potential integration offered
by his father; he is “deeply dissociated into his own meanness emanating from
his unproductive frugality” (Holgate 230). The elder son has a typical reaction
of fear and refusal that often occurs when the gateway for equanimity of the
Self is opened. He is unable to break free to embrace his shadow due to the
compulsion of his persona and is left to continue a life devoid of eros,
choosing instead his socially demanded roles. As a result, the elder son projects
his dark desires onto his brother and rejects him by first releasing his
harbored frustrations upon his father. He shames his father in public by
addressing him without title, a gesture equal, if not worse, than his younger
brother’s actions. From this morally and socially superior stance, he cuts
himself off from his father, brother, and from his own potential for wholeness
(Veliyannoor 342).
The father, on the other hand, is
the ultimate symbol of individuation and wholeness. He is able to love with
abandon for a higher purpose – the reconciliation between his sons and within
themselves. The father is inwardly free from the constraints of Mosaic Law,
religious mores, and social expectations. He demonstrates this through sharing
his property with his younger son before his death, giving him the freedom to
choose the direction of his destiny and to experience the consequences, and by
his lack of concern for his dignity by running to embrace his returning son.
His ability to gently counter his elder son’s anger and righteousness with love
is an additional example of how the Self acts as the central authority within
the father (Veliyannor 343-343).
The father’s behaviors are steeped
in unconditional love. He asks no questions, and expects no apologies, change
or anything in return. He protects and takes upon himself his son’s shame by
meeting him outside the village, thus preempting an attack of retribution by
the villagers. This must have confounded the Pharisees and scribes who
surrounded Jesus on the day he told this parable. They, and we the reader of
this parable, are naturally inclined to side with the elder son by judging those
who have done wrong and expecting repentance from the younger son, sinners and
tax collectors.
Veliyannor writes:
“The father shows his younger son
how to transform his weakness into strength, how to redeem his eros from its
destructiveness and use it constructively. And the father gently reminds the
elder son how his strength, the logos, can be a weakness when used for divisive
and alienating purposes and how it can be used for constructive purposes at the
service of communion” (Veliyannor 344).
Jancoski believes the parable of
the prodigal son is about relationships and our inheritance as Christians. She
concludes that both sons failed to claim their real inheritance because they
were unable to release themselves from their identity as servants to their
father, even when the father invites them into freedom. Jesus asks the same of
us: “to be what I am, what I became at Baptism, his disciple” (Jancoski 56).
In his book
The Return of the Prodigal Son, Henri
Nouwen offers additional perspective on the psychological and spiritual
dimensions that are active within the characters of this parable. He reflects
on the vulnerability associated with being held in an eternal embrace by a
forgiving God and the degree of surrender and trust this requires: “I would
never be able to live the great commandment of love without allowing myself to
be loved without conditions or prerequisites” (Nouwen 14). Nouwen acknowledges that the prodigal son could
only rediscover his deepest self through the realization of and confidence in
his father’s love.
For Nouwen, leaving home is
forgetting the voice of God’s love and seeking love in the allurements of the
world. He also identifies with the elder son who is filled with paralyzing
resentment, complaint, and anger, a darkness that ultimately engulfs the elder
son. Joy becomes unreachable. However, the father wants both his sons to return
to the house of joy, but sadly as many of us, the elder son refuses the
merciful gesture. Nouwen indicates that this is the nature of God who does not
force; we are always free to choose between darkness and light (Nouwen 74-77).
He proposes that the real sin is to deny God’s love for us and to ignore our
original goodness. God offers us forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing. We
are invited to rejoice with God as these gifts are a source of joy.
God is always seeking us rather
than us needing to find God: “God wants to find me, if not more than I want to
find God” (Nouwen 106). According to Nouwen, the central message of the parable
of the prodigal son is to be compassionate as our God is compassionate (Luke
6:36) (Nouwen 107-116).
Feminist Perspective
In her book
The Lost Coin: Parables of Women, Work
and Wisdom, Mary Ann Beavis writes that as a feminist she seeks to “uncover
ways in which the parables critique the patriarchal social structures of
antiquity (e.g., slavery, absentee landlords) and which open up vistas of new,
non-oppressive social relations” (Beavis 17).
Jan Schaberg, in the Women’s Bible Commentary, deems
Luke-Acts “extremely dangerous.” While Luke’s Gospel includes female
characters, they are often portrayed in conventional female Roman roles as
prayerful, quiet, grateful women who are supportive of male leadership rather
than engaging in their own prophetic ministry (Schaberg 275).
Several feminist scholars criticize
the superior position attributed to the shepherd in the parable of the lost
sheep. Pastors are often given the status of shepherd (representing God or
Jesus), which brings an inherent danger because the lone external hierarchical
authority can potentially control, cajole, and cavort with their sheep, the
parishioners. Women are most vulnerable to abuse under these circumstances. For
women, pastoral care needs to focus on transforming oppressive social institutions.
Authority that is centralized in a male pastor who excludes women from ministry
only exacerbates the experience of oppression already present in the wider
social systems of society (Dykstra 739, Moessner 201, Ramsey 14, Wise 2). An
alternative approach in interpreting the lost sheep is to identify both
shepherd and sheep as equal in their unenviable plight as lost – both as marginalized
and ignored (Dykstra 742).
Beavis views the parable of the
woman and the lost coin as a metaphor for Divine Wisdom (Wisdom incarnate) who
seeks those who have ‘fallen through the cracks,’ referring to the marginalized
and oppressed – women, the poor, and outcasts (Beavis 22). Shcussler Fiorenza believes
the joy of the women and her female neighbors on finding the coin brings to
mind “the lost emancipatory Christian traditions of reclaiming wo/men’s
theologies and histories of their own heritage” (Schussler Fiorenza 181). Maloney proposes that the parable of the lost
coin says that “God is like that
woman, just as God is like that
shepherd” (Maloney 37). This is an equal opportunity parable alongside the
parable of the prodigal son where God is like
the father.
Beavis takes
issue with Luke 15: 10: “Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of
the angels of God over one repenting sinner.” She believes it gives comfort to
abusers while providing nothing to those who have been abused. Women who have
been abused may be doubly victimized by the Church that teaches that she is
sinning by withholding forgiveness (Beavis 43).
In the instance of the parable of
the woman and the lost coin, the woman is righteous, not sinful, and is not in
need of repentance. Women reading this passage and other passages that include
women may be led to believe their virtues are vices: curiosity is hubris, freedom
is licentiousness, and coping with misfortune is punishment. They may be forced
to forgive in favor of betraying their innocence and need for justice. According
to Beavis, men in the Bible, “are overwhelmingly sinful, and yet have been
elevated through centuries of patriarchal interpretation into towering heroes
of faith” their shortcomings overlooked by a misappropriated principle that God
loves and forgives sinners (Beavis 43). The true lost are the innocent victims
of sin and injustice, as well as those who sin against them. She proposes an
alternative to Luke 15:10: “Likewise, I tell you, the angels of Godde rejoice
more over one innocent person who is vindicated than over the repentance of
sinners who have abused them” (Beavis 45).
LaHurd points to the disparity in
the allegory of God-as-shepherd and God-as-housekeeper as presented by Luke
15:7 (“more joy in heaven”) compared to Luke 15:10 (“joy in the presence of the
angels of God”). She claims these passages demonstrate that women are less likely
to be compared to God. The comparison of the woman and the lost coin with God
is less obvious than the shepherd with God. In addition, women’s work is
presented as lower status (Durber 59-78). LaHurd concedes on two points: all
three characters – shepherd, woman, and father – possess the power to go in
search of the lost and all are able to celebrate (LaHurd 72).
Reid adds that the parable of the
woman in search of the lost coin often results in sexist interpretations. The
woman is judged for being miserly or her actions as trivial. On the contrary, she is an image of God’s
divine work of salvation, God as Wisdom Sophia who is willing to expend
tremendous effort to bring back any who are lost, as powerful as the shepherd
and the father in the parable of the prodigal son (Reid 288). All that is
required is the willingness by the one who is lost to be found, to be embraced
by God’s tender mercy. The parable of the lost coin demonstrates that a woman’s
actions, however inconsequential they may seem, have the potential to transform
not only her own situation but that of others, thus leading to a fuller
manifestation of the reign of God (Reid 289-294).
Although Luke 15 gives images of
God that are male and female, Jancoski contends “I have been programmed, like
most Christians, to overlook the female images because they are not valued in
society” (Jancoski 56). She asks, How
long has it been since you thought of God as a homemaker? In the parable of the
prodigal son, the only women who are identified are the harlots who led the
younger son astray and aided him in squandering his inheritance. A woman who
reads this parable is given one option: to identify with a sinful woman who
seduces. The father is also a patriarch who rules over his property and directs
his slaves. Where are the mothers and female slaves in this parable? Where are
the women in the Roman Catholic Church? Jancoski maintains that the absence of
role models for women makes it difficult for women to fully claim their
personal and Christian inheritance (Jancoski 56).
Schottroff contends that there is
no compelling contextual justification for the allegory of God as the father
and the two sons as religious groups in the parable of the prodigal son. She
cautions that this traditional interpretation “divinizes the patriarchal father
and fosters a romantic understanding of the patriarchal household” (Schottroff
139).
LaHurd cautions us about cultural
biases when interpreting Luke 15 or any scripture. In her interviews of a group
of Christian Arab women in modern day Northern Temen, she found that many of
these women were empowered by the images of God in the three parables and
viewed their current circumstances as less oppressive than judged by women in
Western cultures (LaHurd 67).
Conclusion
In the trilogy of parables in Luke
15 about the lost sheep, coin, and sons, Jesus offers us many teachings about
acceptance, repentance, unconditional love, mercy and transformation. He
encourages us to avoid judging others to the point of exclusion because this
leads to separating ourselves from others and from our God. Worse yet, is when
we harshly judge ourselves. Both instances are a violent departure from the
love of God as Christ in us. God’s love comes through the tangible experience
of loving others and others loving us.
How often have we been transformed
by the loving acceptance of ourselves by another? In the ‘lost’ parables, Jesus
promotes loving one another unconditionally as the preferred path to
transformation and wholeness, which often requires us to surrender prevailing
ideologies and to question external authorities. He shows us that repentance is
not a prerequisite for reconciliation with God.
God does not need us to get
everything right nor do we need to be God’s servants. We are all loved equally just
as we are, when righteous and not so. God makes no distinction among Pharisees,
scribes, sinners, tax collectors, women and the poor. Jesus’ ministry to
outcasts and sinners is a concrete expression of God’s compassion, patient
love, and unconditional acceptance. Any gesture of repentance, therefore, has
value for our own sake when done with sincerity. We come into right
relationship with ourselves and our God delights in that return.
The “Three Parable of God’s Mercy”
are about returning home to God. They underline God’s endless and ardent search
for us when we are lost. The shepherd and the woman seek, while the father
seeks through patiently waiting. We are always welcomed back by the eternal
embrace of God as Father/Wisdom Sophia who does not judge, but rejoices and
celebrates with us. Will we surrender and trust this love? Allow ourselves to
be loved this fully and to feel this much joy?
As the two sons in the story of the
prodigal, we are free to choose whether we will return, whether to come to the communal
banquet and partake of the food that will transform us into the wholeness of
Christ and God’s great compassion. No matter what we choose, God’s boundless
love and limitless mercy await us there.
Works
Cited
Bailey, K.E. Poet and Peasant: A Literary-cultural Approach to the Parables of Jesus
in Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976. Print.
Beavis, Mary Ann. “Like Yeast That
a Woman Took: Feminist Interpretations of the Parables.” Review and Expositor. 109 (2012): 219-231.
Beavis, Mary Ann. The Lost Coin: Parables of Women, Work and
Wisdom. New York, NY: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd, 2002. Print.
Boice, J.M. The Parables of Jesus. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1983. Print.
Boucher, M.J. The Parables. Wilmington, NC: Michael Glazier, 1981. Print.
Capon, R.F. The Parables of Grace. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1989. Print.
Durber, Susan. “The Female Reader
of the Parables of the Lost.” Journal of
the Study of the New Testament. 45 (1992): 59-78.
Dykstra, Robert. “Finding Ourselves
Lost.” Pastoral Psychology. 59
(2010): 737-746.
Forbes, Greg. “Repentance and
Conflict In the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32)” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 42.2 (1999):
211-229.
Funk, Robert, Hoover, R.W. and the
Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: What did
Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York, NY:
Harper One, 1997. Print.
Gorman, Micheal. Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide
for Students and Ministers. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2009.
Print.
LaHurd, Carol. “Rediscovering the
Lost Women in Luke 15.” Biblical
Theological Bulletin. 24.2 (1994): 66-76.
Holgate, D.A. Prodigality, Liberality and Meanness in the Parable of the Prodigal
Son: A Greco-Roman Perspective in Luke 15: 11-32. Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Print.
Hultgreen, A.J. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. Print.
Jeong, Jea Yeol. “The Role of the
Lukan Parables in Terms of the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel.” Diss. University of
the Free State, 2011. Web.
Jeremais, I.J. The Parables of Jesus. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1972.
Print.
Jones, I.H. The Matthean Parables: A Literary and Historical Commentary.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. Print.
Lambrecht, J. Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus. New York, NY:
Crossroads, 1983. Print.
Langer, Heidemarie. “Letting
Ourselves Be Found.” Ecumenical Review.
38.1 (1986): 23-28.
Perkins, P. Hearing the Parables of Jesus. New York: Paulist Press, 1981.
Print.
Maloney, Linda. “Swept Under the
Rug: Feminist Homiletical Reflections on the Parable of the Lost Coin (Lk.
15:8-9).” The Lost Coin: Parables of
Women, Work and Wisdom. Ed. Mary Ann Beavis, New York, NY: Sheffield
Academic Press Ltd. 34-49. Print.
Miller, Robert. The Complete Gospels: The Scholars Version.
Salem, Oregon: Polebridge Press, 2010. Print.
Nouwen, Henri. The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming. New York, NY:
Doubleday, 1992. Print.
Jancoski, Loretta. “Empowering
Women to Claim Their Inheritance.” Religious
Education. 82.1 (1987): 53-66.
Ramsey, George. “Plots, Gaps,
Repetitions, and Ambiguity in Luke 15.” Perspectives
in Religious Studies. 17.1 (1990): 33-42.
Reid, Barbara. “ Beyond Petty
Pursuits and Wearisome Widows.” Interpretation. 56.3 (2002): 284-294.
Schaberg, Jane. “Luke.” The Women’s Bible Commentary. Eds. Carol
Newsom and Sharon Ringe. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminister/John Knox Press,
1992. 275-292. Print.
Schottroff, L. The Parables of Jesus. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006.
Print.
Schussler Fiorenza, E. Searching Her Word: Feminist Biblical
Interpretation in Context. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon, 1998. Print.
Snodgrass, K.R. Stories of Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to
the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.
Print.
Stein, R.H. An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus. Philadelphia, PA: The
Westminister Press, 1981. Print.
Stuhlmueller, Caroll. “The Gospel
According to Luke.” The Jerome Biblical
Commentary. Eds. R. Brown, J. Fitzmyer, and R.R. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 148-149. Print.
Van Eck, Ernest. “In the Kingdom
Everybody Has Enough: A Social and Realistic Reading of the Parable of the Lost
Sheep (Lk 14:4-6).” Theological Studies.
67.3 (2011): 1-10.
Veliyannor, Paulson. “The Parable
of a Father and Two Sons: Jungian Hermeneutics and Therapeutic Applications.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity.
28.4 (2009): 338-349.
Westerman, C. The Parables of Jesus in the Light of the Old Testament. Edinburgh,
England: Golka and Logan, 1990. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment