The Prodigal Sons and Biblical Interpretation, Part 2

In my last post, I made an attempt to defend my interpretation of the parable of the prodigal sons that were found in two prior posts (here and here).  Following the lead of Tim Keller, I see this as illustrating, among other things, that there are two lost brothers in view in this parable and that this parable places far more emphasis on the status of the elder brother/Pharisees and teachers of the law than we normally think.

My good friend Mike at Eternal Perspectives doesn't think I'm quite getting it, and he offers the following comment:

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.

As promised in my last post I want to use that comment to interact with the whole "singular point - particular purpose idea."

As I mentioned before, Mike's comment reflects conventional hermeneutical wisdom that parables have one meaning or point.  Therefore, we need to be careful about trying too hard to find an antitype for every character or element of a parable. 

This advice is of a piece with the common notion that any given passage of Scripture has one meaning and many applications.  The idea is that, first we must understand what a particular passage means, then we can apply it.

In this case there is a sequence that needs to be followed to go from Scripture to humanity.  We begin by reading the text, step two is to interpret it to find its meaning, and step three is to apply the passage to our lives.  Step two always governs step three. 

I suggest that this is pretty good advice and is generally helpful and rarely harmful, but it shouldn't be an absolute rule of biblical interpretation.  To show this I'll refer to John Frame's interactions with Charles Hodge (the great Princeton Theologian and author of the Systematic Theology that bears his name).  This interaction can be found in Frame's book The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God in chapter 3, God and Our Studies, beginning on page 76 (I've got the old 1987 edition - it's been republished so I don't know if anything's changed).  Frame is dealing with theological method here but I hope you will agree that the comments apply equally to biblical interpretation on any level.

Hodge says that theology:

is the exhibition of the facts of Scripture in their proper order and relation, with the principles or general truths involved in the facts themselves, and which pervade and harmonize the whole.

I don't know about you but for me that is a difficult statement to get a grip on.  I think Hodge is saying that the Scripture itself is its own interpreter and that the principles by which we theologize are found in the Scriptures themselves.  Fair enough.  But there is something in that statement that should raise an immediate red flag. 

Frame has several comments about this statement.  He thinks this definition is far too academic, that Hodge is too infatuated with the scientific method and that he doesn't account for the fact that Scripture is more than just "bare facts." But I'll move directly to the red flag:

Hodge neglects the fact that Scripture is language as well as fact and that therefore Scripture has already exhibited, described and explained the facts in an orderly way (cf. Luke 1:3).  Why, then, do we need another order?  And more seriously, why should the order of theology (as opposed, presumably, to the order of Scripture) be described as the "proper" order?  Is there something "improper" about the order of Scripture itself?

Frame is gracious, acknowledging that this may be a slip of the pen on Hodge's part.  We know that Hodge was a great defender of biblical inerrancy so he would be the last one to say that there is something improper or deficient about the Scripture.  Yet his comment obviously implies that there is some sort of deficiency in the Scripture itself, as it stands alone and uninterpreted.  The impression is that the theologian comes along and perfects the Scripture in some way.

Yet isn't this exactly what everyone does who reads the Scripture and interprets it?  Theologians aren't the only ones who do this?  Every preacher does this, everyone who leads a bible study or backyard bible club does this.  Anytime someone reads a passage of Scripture and then proceeds to explain what it means is, in a sense perfecting the Scripture. 

We tend to read a Scripture and say what it means.  But Frame argues that Scripture already means what it says. 

It may sound like Frame is denigrating theology but nothing could be further from the truth.  He is saying that we need to take a different approach in justifying theology. 

It is not the job of theology to supply such a normative description and analysis; that account has been given to theology by revelation.  Theology then, must be a secondary description, a reinterpretation and reproclamation of Scripture, both of its propositional and of its nonpropositional content.  Why do we need such a reinterpretation?  To meet human needs.  The job of theology is to help people understand the bible better, not to give some sort of abstractly perfect account of the truth as such, regardless of whether anyone understands it or not.  Although Scripture is clear, for various reasons people fail to understand and use it properly.  Theology is justified not merely by its correspondence with the truth - if that were the criterion, theology could do no better than simply to repeat Scripture - but theology is justified by the help it brings to people, by its success in helping people use the truth.

That was a mouthful, but there is enough in there to keep me meditating for weeks.  Most theology and interpretation proceeds on the assumption that its job is to give "some sort of abstractly perfect account of the truth as such."  Frame is saying that the Scripture already gives its own perfect account of the truth. 

Frame goes on to say that Hodge may have been reacting to the influence of Schleiermacher, who made human needs of utmost importance.  Hodge may have been trying to circumvent a situation where human needs came determine Scriptures structure and authority and thus to replace Scripture as man's ultimate authority.  Of Hodge, Frame says:

. . . he failed to realize that to systematically exclude human need from a structural role in theology is precisely to lose the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.  If theology is a purely "objective" discipline where the scientist determines "the truth as it really is" apart from any human need, then he cannot help but be in competition with Scripture.  He will be seeking a better formulation than Scripture itself contains or at least a better "order."

"Objectivism" continues to be a danger in orthodox Christian circles.  It is all too easy to assume that we have a higher task than merely that of helping people.  Our pride constantly opposes the servant model.

So, after all of this and much more, Frame says:

I would suggest that we define theology as the "application of the Word of God by persons to all areas of life."

Similarly, I would say that all interpretation is application.  Frame says this has several advantages which I will summarize:

1. It gives a clear justification for theology, not to remedy defects in Scripture but to remedy defects in ourselves.
2. It has a clear Scriptural warrant - Scripture itself commands us to teach in this way (cf. Matthew 28:19.
3. It does full justice to the full authority and sufficiency of Scripture.  "Sola Scriptura" does not require that human needs be ignored in theology and interpretation, only that Scripture has the final word about the needs themselves and the propriety of the questions being asked.
4. It frees theology and interpretation from any false intellectualism or academicism.  We are free to use scientific methods and academic knowledge when helpful, but we can also make proper use of the allegories, poems, proverbs and songs of Scripture.
5. It frees us to properly use the insights gained from natural revelation.

Frame goes on to say that it is a false distinction to distinguish between meaning and application.  He uses the 8th commandment as an example of the typical interpretive process.

1. The text would be the Hebrew words.
2. The translation would be - "thou shalt not steal."
3. The interpretation is - don't take something that doesn't belong to you.
4. Applications could be things like "don't embezzle," "don't cheat on your income taxes," "don't rob banks," "don't take doughnuts without paying," etc..
5. Then the practical applications could be the decisions you make to not embezzle or cheat or steal, etc..

He points out that, in steps 2-5, each step contains meaning and each step contains application.  There is no substantial difference between 2 and 3, and are we to say that the words "don't embezzle" are merely application without meaning, or vice versa. 

He goes on to say:

Every request for "meaning" is a request for an application because whenever we ask for a "meaning" of a passage we are expressing a lack in ourselves, an ignorance, an inability to use the passage.  Asking for "meaning" is asking for an application of Scripture to a need; we are asking Scripture to remedy that lack, that inability.  Similarly, every request for an "application" is a request for meaning; the one who asks doesn't understand the passage well enough to use it himself.

To Frame, "meaning is the text, and application is our use of the text."  Thus,

What we must categorically reject, however, is some mysterious intermediary thing called "the meaning" that stands between the text and its application.

I am assuming that most people left me many paragraphs ago, since this is another ponderously long post, but if you are still with me, this has some definite applications to our discussion of the parable of the prodigal sons.

If Frame is correct, and I obviously believe he is, then a particular passage of scripture can have multiple meanings/applications.  The meaning/application of a particular passage is not subject to our whims and we are not free to find something in the text that isn't there.  The "single point - particular purpose" idea can be modified and kept in mind to keep us from wandering into goofy interpretations. 

But there can be several meanings/applications of the parable of the prodigal sons.  One meaning/application to contemporary younger brother types is that you can come home, the Father awaits.  Another meaning/application would be to describe what repentance looks like.  One meaning/application to contemporary older brother types is that they may be serving the Father while missing the heart of the Father.  A person may find from reading this passage that he or she is a genuine believer with remnants of the elder brother attitude that need to be repented of.  Or, a person may find that they aren't really saved, they may find that they've been serving the Father all along in order to manipulate the Father, and they have never trusted in the Father.

Even if Frame is wrong and/or I am misunderstanding him, the "singular point - particular purpose" idea still leaves a few things unanswered.  If the main point is that the nature of the Father is to be welcoming (and btw, I do agree with that), then that doesn't mean that there are some tangential points that can be made.  A tangential point can be made about the nature of repentance from the younger son, and a tangential point can be made about the harmful effects of pride in the case of the older brother. And though, as Tim said earlier, the story ends in a cliffhanger where we don't know if the brother goes in or stays out, even that tells us that it is possible to live your life in the Father's house and find yourself on the outside in the end because you have missed the Father's heart.

And having said all that, the fact that a point is tangential, does not mean it is any less real or pertinent. 

So, if you are still with me, thanks for reading this terribly long post.  I hope there has been something in here for everyone to chew on.  In the end, I hope to convey the idea that all of us can see ourselves in this parable, either as older or younger brothers, or some combination of the two.  And we don't want to shortchange ourselves of the benefits that can come from looking at the many different meanings/applications of the passage.

 

Comments

[jmark]

Craig Blomberg in his book "Interpreting the parables" (IVP) deals with the fact that not all parables are simple one-point parables. He contends that the Prodigal Son parable makes three points, and he divides the rest of Jesus parables out over various ctegories: simple 3-points/complex 3-point/2-point/1-point parables.

[songstress7]

Nothing profound to add here... just an encouragement that 1) I got through the whole post *wink* and 2) what you said makes a lot of sense to me. Carry on, Jollyblogger. You're doing good work.

[Mike]

I don't think your post was "terribly long" or even tediously long: it was necessarily long. Those who do not read it all will be the poorer for it. (I say this in self-defense since this comment is likely to look more like a post.)

I have not read Frame and can only base my perceptions on what you have provided; thus, my observations may be unwarranted or off the mark. At the same time, I am confident that you are far more familiar with Hodge than am I: it's been a decade or two since I've read him. But I’m not sure he’s getting a fair reading. (Once again, I find myself defending now-voiceless Reformed theologians!)

Despite my admitted limitations (ignorance has never stopped me in the past, either), I have some criticisms/comments about Frame's "abuse" of Hodge. First, when he says, "why should the order of theology (as opposed, presumably, to the order of Scripture) be described as the 'proper' order? Is there something 'improper' about the order of Scripture itself?", Frame is using "proper" and "improper" ambiguously, i.e., they have different meanings. Further, Frame switches horses: Hodge is talking about the proper order of theology, but Frame implies that Hodge is making a statement about Scripture. Clearly he is not.

Second, Frame creates a straw man (or so it seems to me) by implying that Hodge elevates theology to the level of Scripture:

"It is not the job of theology to supply such a normative description and analysis; that account has been given to theology by revelation. Theology then, must be a secondary description, a reinterpretation and reproclamation of Scripture, both of its propositional and of its nonpropositional content. Why do we need such a reinterpretation? To meet human needs."

Does anyone really believe that Hodge would disagree? Or that Hodge was not concerned with meeting human needs? Yet this seems to be Frame's justification for his own comments, i.e., to "correct" the mistakes of Hodge:

". . . he failed to realize that to systematically exclude human need from a structural role in theology is precisely to lose the authority and sufficiency of Scripture."

I really doubt that Hodge is guilty of this, but perhaps Frame provides evidence of Hodge's purely intellectual and non-compassionate, impractical approach to systematic theology. If so, let me know (you needn't provide it as your word is good enough for me).

Frame's contention that meaning and application are found in steps 2-5 is a bit broad. It is probably true of imperative statements ("You shall not steal.") but what of the indicative mood ("Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee.” - Jn 7.9)? What is the application of this verse? That I should stay home today? Move to Galilee? There is no inherent application, although there is certainly meaning.

I do not think that the Pharisees were the intended target of this parable. That Jesus was using them, along with the tax collectors and scribes, to make a point is clear. But He also said elsewhere,

"And the disciples came and said to Him, 'Why do You speak to them in parables?' Jesus answered them, 'To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.'" Mt 13.10-13

I am not saying that Jesus was deliberately making cryptic statements to confuse the Pharisees, only that they were not likely to have been His target audience. That audience would have been His followers. The Pharisees, et.al., were convenient - and surprising to many of the followers - object lessons.

Finally - and here I return to beat my dead horse once more - I still maintain that there is a primary meaning and application that is intended by the speaker (in this parable, Jesus) for the audience to grasp. Since most parables - Jesus' and other rabbis - were intended to reveal something about the Person of God, that's what I look for here.

Ever have this happen? You pour yourself into a sermon and pray that the people will grasp the significance of what you're saying, only to have someone come up afterwards with some minor, comparatively irrelevant point and/or application? What they say may be good, but it is clear that they have missed the bigger message.

This, I am suggesting, is why it is important to grasp the primary meaning and application of a parable. Jesus has a principal point that He is seeking to make and to miss that is to miss His message. All the other applications may be valuable and correct, but to miss the primary one is to misunderstand Him. Now, we may disagree on what the primary point is, but we should nevertheless make it our goal to find it.

There: I think my horse is sufficiently dead now.

I hope those that read your posts and my comments do not mistake this for anything other than what it is: iron sharpening iron. I enjoy this kind of interaction a great deal: it makes me think and reflect, as well as consider additional applications and truths that I may have missed.

Thanks for your time and thought that you put into your post.

[Eric]

I had heard (wish I knew my source) that at and just before the time of Jesus, there was a prodigal son story that was part of Jewish folklore. But that story was more in line with more typical Jewish wisdom literature, which took the deuteronomic code seriously: obedience entails blessings, disobedience entails cursings. So in the folktale, when the prodigal returns, he is put to work with the lowest servants in the household. Sort of an ancient version of "tough love." Tell this story to your kids, and they get the message. I am the father, do not cross me, or you will pay and pay and pay.

So Jesus takes this folktale, and gives it the "what is so amazing about grace" twist. Many of his hearers would likely have been shocked. That father, they must have been thinking, is just so wrong, absolutely out of his mind. Hasn't he read the Proverbs? Doesn't he realize how much he is spoiling the child? He is a low-down, no-good enabler, that's what he is. Precisely. Jesus' adaptation of that folktale underscores the sort of Kingdom of God that the unrighteous are called to enter.

Now if it is true that such was the provenance of Jesus' version of the prodigal son story, and I am not in a position to assert this, then I claim that it would carry significant hermeneutical weight it thinking about how to apply the story. Granted, we can speculate and use the story for multiple applications. Yet we have, I think, to be careful about turning parables into allegories, and thus begin looking for the symbolism behind every element of the story. That allegorizing of parables makes for interesting (or at least entertaining) preaching (perhaps). But I, at least, want to distinguish that from Biblical exegesis.

[Mike]

Eric:

I, too, wish you could recall the source of the folklore you cite, for it is not representative of rabbinical teachings of the Second Temple period. Here are two (from "The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation," by Brad Young); I'll do a little editing to shorten them:

(from "The Compassionate Father and His Lost Son") - "You will return to the LORD they God" (Deu 4.30). Rabbi Pragrita said in the name of Rabbi Meir: To what may this matter be compared? To the son of a king who took to evil ways. The king sent a tutor to him who appealed to him saying, "Repent, my son." The son, however, sent him back to his father (saying), "How can I have the effrontery to return? I am ashamed to come before you." Thereupon his father sent back word, "My son, is a son ever ashamed to return to his father? And is it not to your father that will be returning?" Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, sent Jeremiah to Israel when they sinned, and said to him: "Go, say to My children, Return" (Jer 3.12) . . . God sent them word, "My children, if you return, will you not be returning to your Father?"

(from "The Compassionate Father and His Runaway Son") - "Return, O Israel, to the LORD, your God" (Hos 14.2). The matter may be compared to the son of a king who was far away from his father - a hundred days' journey. His friends said to him, "Return to your father!" He replied, "I am not able." His father sent him a message, "Come as far as you are able, according to your own strength and I will come to you the rest of the way!" Thus the Holy One, Blessed be He, said, "Return to me and I will return to you" (Mal 3.7).

Young observes, "The rabbinic parables, like the illustration of the prodigal son, are filled with the great imagery of divine mercy, which is always bestowed on the person who truly repents."

Finally, the audience would have been surprised by the three actors in the parable. They would have been shocked that the younger brother asked for his inheritance, saying in effect that he wished his father were dead; angry with the older brother who, according to tradition, should have served as a mediator from the start of the matter, and surprised by the father, who could have been expected to have been angry and vengeful towards both his sons for their sins.

The attitudes and expectations of the crowd, however, did not reflect the teachings of the rabbis of the time. The rabbis, for the most part, were Pharisees who understood the need for mercy and grace and did not believe in a works salvation. Rabbi Akiva taught, "All is forseen, but freedom of will is given, the world is judged by grace and everything is not according to the excess of works."

[Kyle]

I really like Frame's definition of theology. I'll have to read up on him when I get a chance.

So... according to frame, theology is in many ways a kind of apologetic?

[Jeremy Pierce]

I think this entirely misses the point. The wise man builds his house on the rock, and the foolish man builds his house on the sand. There we go, two points. It's one sentence, and its having two points doesn't mean it has two meanings. I'm not sure why you need to go into all that stuff about multiple meanings of a text. The sentence clearly has two parts, separated by a comma and an 'and'. Each clause in the sentence has a different point. It's one parable with two points, and it doesn't involve any sentence having multiple meanings. That's all a red herring.

I'm not sure I have a problem with a text having two meanings. There's lots of that all through the Bible, e.g. Caiaphas' prophecy that wasn't intended as a prophecy, that Jesus should die for his people. Still, the way parables have more than one points is by making separate points separately.

For the record, Blomberg thinks the parable you're discussing has three points and not just the two. The first is that everyone has the option to repent as the prodigal son did. The second is that God offers lavish forgiveness to those who will repent. The third is that believers should rejoice when sinners repent and not begrudge them their salvation. A good contemporary example that would illustrate this fully would be is Osama bin Laden genuinely became a Christian. How would American Christians treat him?

Another example of a three-point parable is the sower parable. First, God sows his word widely among people. Second, some people will respond negatively (in the end), just like the three bad soils. Third, obedience and perseverance results in salvation, like the good soil.

Part of the problem in separating out numbers of points is how you count something as a distinct point. You could easily separate out two further points, having one for each type of soil. Then it would be a five-point parable. That's one reason the hermeneutical principle of reducing parables to one point is just thoroughly ridiculous.

[Joel Haas]

Jollyblogger,

Thanks for taking the time to write the post, and thank you to all those "sharpening each other" by commenting...we all benefit from it!

[Rey]

I gotta say that part of me enjoys the malleability that Frame offers and part of me kinda really distrusts it. But, that's neither here nor there. One meaning, multiple points and perhaps even multiple application—and Luke’s organization of what’s given (if the three parables happened back to back like that) all attributing to the overall message He was teaching. I’m not sure that this overall message would be described as one point…I mean, we even preach like that: one message, multiple points.

But I really think the parable of the Lost Son has to be seen in conjunction with a Lost Coin and a Lost Sheep, the intense searching in the first two parables and the no-searching in the last parable, and lastly the rejoicing in the first two parables and the no-rejoicing by a person in the last parable. Who sought in the first two? Who should've sought in the last parable? Who rejoiced in the first two parables? Who didn't rejoice in the last parable? Etc.

But I’m a weak theologian, a marginal student and a sub par teacher and a horrid debater so ignore at will. =)

Oh and it's still not letting me insert the Bible Archive's url so I'm starting to wonder...