The Prodigal Sons and Biblical Interpretation, Part 1

My prior posts on the parable of the prodigal sons (here and here) have stirred up a good bit of discussion.  To some it has been convicting and encouraging.  To others, it seems that I have missed the point of the passage, or at least massaged the passage in a direction that is not really apparent from the text.

I started this post as a defense of the way that I, and Tim Keller, and Jeremy Pierce and others have interpreted and it expanded to the point that I think it better to turn this into two posts. 

So, in this one I'll state my interpretation again and give a minimal defense of why I agree with Keller and these others.  Then, in the next post I'll share some thoughts on the interpretive process itself which I hope will show that these debates about the true meaning of this particular parable are unnecessary.  How's that for foreshadowing?  Is your appetite whet?

I'm going to use a comment from Mike at Eternal Perspectives as a jumping off point.

Certainly there are lessons in the parable about the lack of forgiveness on the part of the older brother, but since parables have a singular point it seems that the purpose here is to reveal the nature of God: He is receptive to both the younger and older brother, running to the former when he returns and seeking out the latter when he refuses to join the party. This is what God is like, Jesus is saying, and our problem is that we do not understand or know God correctly.

I pretty much agree with everything he has said here, but I want to go ahead and defend what I have said previously in this post.  In the next post I'll interact with this comment a little more in-depth.

First of all, let me put Mike's comments in context.  He and others are reacting to my statement that the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15 illustrates two kinds of lostness - elder brother lostness and younger brother lostness.  I don't think Mike would be too offended with this per se, he just thinks its not the main point.  Having said that I have moved on and said this passage illustrates that it is harder for the elder brother to get saved than for the younger brother to get saved.

I think it is as this point where some think I've missed the point.  They think that the eternal state of the elder brother is not in view here - any application to the elder brother has to do with his lack of forgiveness, which (if I may put words in their mouths), is an obedience issue not a salvation issue.

I will counter that by saying that we need to remember that context is king.  We have to keep in mind that the parable of the prodigal sons is the third part of a triad, including the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin.  The parable of the prodigal sons is exactly parallel to the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin up until the point that Jesus starts talking about the elder brother.  If He hadn't done that, the idea would stand that the main point of the parable is to reveal the nature of God as one who seeks out His erring children.  In fact, there is a sense in which the mention of the elder brother strengthens this idea.  The father leaves the house to seek the elder brother just as he did the younger.   He seeks all erring children, whether they be elder or younger.

But you also have to "hear" this parable through the ears of the Pharisees to whom the parable was directed.  It is clear that the story of the elder brother was an addition for their benefit.  The point is that just as the younger brother had left the house, so the elder brother refused to enter the house.  In both cases the Father had to leave the house to seek the son.  Neither son was in the house.  Both were equally lost. 

In a prior post, Tim Keller dialogued with a commenter named DLE on whether or not the parable illustrated that the elder brother was lost.  DLE doesn't think so, Tim thinks it does.  Because I can't help identifying the elder brother with the Pharisees and because I think the symbolism of being outside the house is very signifcant, I can't help but believe that Jesus is teaching the lostness of the elder brother. 

Certainly, if we take the book of Luke as a whole and the gospels as a whole, it is clear that the Jewish leaders of the day, the Pharisees, chief priests and teachers of the law were to be excluded from the kingdom because of their pride and obstinance.  True, any individual Pharisee could repent and be saved, but the Pharisees as a whole illustrated the kinds of people who would not enter the kingdom.  In Luke 19:11-27, the parable of the ten minas, the Pharisees and teachers of the law are in view as the enemies who didn't want the King to be their king and so he had them killed.  In Luke 20:9-19, the parable of the tenants has a group of servants who kill the son of the vineyard owner and are later killed by the owner himself.  Verse 19 says that the teachers of the law and the chief priests understood very clearly that this was directed against them.

So, when reading the individual parables in the book of Luke I interpret the parts in light of the whole.  The message of the book as a whole is that the Jewish leaders of the day stand condemned. The individual references to Pharisees, teachers of the law and others give reasons for their condemnation, whether those references are parables, dialogue or teaching.  So, this overall message of Luke, as it relates to the Pharisees and teachers of the law, gives a trajectory for understanding the individual parables.  In this case, the "elder brother attitude" gives one more reason for their condemnation.

Taking this even further, it was the proud, obstinate, bitter attitude of the elder brother that kept him out of the house.  Similarly, the Pharisees were not entering the kingdom because they had proud, obstinate and bitter attitudes.  Thus it is harder for the elder brother to enter the kingdom of heaven than a younger brother simply because of his pride and the hardness of his heart.  The younger brother was humbled and thus willingly came into the house and shared his father's joy. The elder brother was proud, he didn't want to have anything to do with the owner of a house who would welcome a whoremonger like his younger brother.  Thus, he could not share the father's joy because he had not the father's heart.

Having said all of that, Mike's comment could still apply.  I still may be reading too much into this.  The particular comment he made is that "parables have a singular point."  And thus they have a particular purpose. 

This is a good principle of interpretation and is a standard principle in any hermeneutics class or textbook on interpreting parables.  When people don't keep that "single point - particular purpose" point in mind in interpreting parables they can go crazy.  Some people go nuts interpreting the parable of the Good Samaritan, trying to figure out exactly who the Samaritan represents, who the innkeeper represents, what the inn represents, what the donkey and the food represent, and all sorts of nonsense.  The caution we give in such situations is that, in parables there are often many characters who are incidental, they function as tools or plot devices to move the larger story along.  It's not important that you identify a specific one to one correlation for each character or element of a parable to something else.

So, I may be wrong, I may be overinterpreting this whole thing.  I think I'm right and you can see by my wordiness that I've convinced myself that this interpretation is right, even if I haven't convinced anyone else.

But I want to shift gears now and look more intently at the whole "singular point - particular purpose," idea.  I will suggest that this is a good principle which can help us avoid nuttiness in interpretation, but it is not an absolute principle.  There are some other factors that go into interpretation that can help us deal with these disagreements.  But that's for my next post.  Stay tuned.

Comments

[Mark Olson]

N.T. Wright, in "Jesus and the Victory of God" interprets this parable in a very different way. He interprets it as a story of Israel, exile, and return, but told in such a way as to subvert the expectations of the listener, who would have thought he knew how the story was going to come out. I made a stab at summarizing his interpretation several months back (http://www.pseudopolymath.com/archives/2005/01/as_stated_in_my.html).

[David Wayne]

Thanks Mark - I'll check it out

[Mike]

David:

I don't really disagree with anything you have said and, rather than say that you "may be overinterpretting this whole thing," would suggest that you have only stopped too soon.

The next step is that, given the nature of the sons - and the Pharisees, if you believe them to be the target of the parable - what is God like? He is like a father who seeks out all people in spite of the nature of their sin and separation from Him. His love is relentless and longsuffering.

BTW, I don't think it is any harder for the elder brother to enter the kingdom than the younger, since entrance ultimately depends on God. (I am shocked! absolutely shocked! that I would have to remind a Reformed believer of this!) :) Our obstinance or obtuseness is no obstacle for Him (how's that for alliteration?).

[David Wayne]

Oh man you nailed me here Mike - please don't tell the folks at Presbytery about my little calvinistic malfunction here.
I think you would agree with me though, wouldn't you, that the pride of the elder brother stands in stark contrast to the humility of the younger brother? Of course, neither our pride nor our licentiousness are obstacles to God's call on our lives, but speaking purely on a human scale, there is a deceptiveness to pride that is particularly harmful in coming to Christ.

[Mike]

David:

Your secret is safe with me - as long as you don't tell any dispensationalists that I interact with Reformed brethren!

I do agree with your assessment of the older brother: his pride got in the way of forgiveness for his brother as well as a relationship with his father. The younger brother's brokenness, in contrast, made the establishment (not really a restoration, since no relationship existed previously) of a bond with his father possible.

[Dave Rattigan]

Hi, JB,

It seems to me part of the confusion could be avoided by not importing into the parable concepts that I think are really foreign to the text. "Getting saved"? "Eternal state"? Ugh, I think if we could ditch that rather anachronistic frame-of-reference and try and concentrate on the parable itself in its original context, we might do better.

You're definitely right about restoring the elder brother to a state of prominence, especially in terms of his "lostness". He was just as culpable as his brother, and culturally, accepting his half of the inheritance before his father had died was just as dishonouring and disgraceful as what the younger son did by demanding his share in the first place.

[Dave Rattigan]

Just something else I forgot to mention... :)

If we're looking for a single point to the parable, I would certainly say the point is the elder brother. As I think someone (probably you, JB) already pointed out, the audience were the Pharisees, and they would no doubt have recognized that the elder brother in the story was them. The story was for them and about them.

[Dave Rattigan]

I'm reading Joel B Green's Luke commentary here, and I think he sums up the parable very well:

"Within its co-text [sic], then, this parable serves in two ways. First, Jesus thus responds to those who question his choice of table companions (vv1-2). As persons who respond positively to his message, toll collectors and sinners are represented in the parable as those whose (re)turn to God constitutes a restoration that calls for celebration. In welcoming such persons to the table Jesus is only giving expression to the magnitude and consistency of the grace of God. Second, Jesus thus issues an invitation to the Pharisees and legal experts who have responded to such a celebration, like the elder brother, with indignation. Will they align themselves with the divine economy and, having done so, join the celebration at the table with the lost who have been restored?"

I think Green's summary here takes in most of the important elements to bear in mind in interpreting the parable.

[David Wayne]

Dave - thanks for all the great comments - very helpful

[Jeremy Pierce]

The old view that parables have just one point has been decisively refuted by Craig Blomberg's _Interpreting the Parables_, an excellent book for many purposes. One of the things he spends a lot of time arguing is that such a view is overly reductionistic. There are a number of two-point parables and even a good deal of three-point parables.

Jesus does talk about its being harder for some to enter the kingdom than it is for others.

N.T. Wright's view is unusual in what it says about the younger son, but it's pretty much the same on the older son, who in the immediate context would be the religious leaders Jesus often criticized.

[Graham]

The fatted calf has been killed. (A type of the sacrifice of Christ.) The elder brother refuses to go into the feast and therefore excludes himself from Heaven. The people who judged Christ were Elder Brothers. They sentenced him to death. Elder brothers don't like God's mercy. Jonah was an Elder brother who preached one helluva sermon. 120000+ people converted in 3 days. The sermon was one of hellfire and destruction and the results were exactly what God was looking for. That's why he chose Jonah for the job. Jonah even says himself that he had a problem with God's mercy. He felt that everybody in Nineveh should die for their sins and he was very angry when it didn't happen. Elder brothers cannot understand God's mercy because they think they don't need it themselves. Also the Elder brother in the parable mentioned how he had spent his whole life slaving away and he had ended up getting nothing. Salvation by works, if you please. The younger brother knew all about grace. What if the elder brother had seen the younger brother instead of the father? He would have sent him packing, wouldn't he. Elder brothers need to change.