+- Radix Fidem (https://radixfidem.org)
+-- Forum: About Radix Fidem (https://radixfidem.org/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Sermons, Teachings, Blog Posts (https://radixfidem.org/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: NT Doctrine -- Luke 15:11-32 (/thread-1038.html)
NT Doctrine -- Luke 15:11-32 - Ed Hurst - 03-26-2022
We continue with the narrative of Jesus spending his last months of life in Judea. Luke recounts how Jesus would welcome those who were ostracized by the Pharisees. Those who engaged in gambling, prostitution and other vices were rejected as "sinners" and could not participate in synagogue or Temple worship. They were just one step from being Gentiles. The same goes with tax collectors.
Note in passing: There were two types of tax collectors. The Roman-style tax-farming (publicanus) was restricted mostly to Roman citizens, but they could hire local Jews to handle the actual daily business of collections. Pharisees regarded this as treason. There were also customs agents who collected import taxes and fees for the local Jewish rulers. In Judea at the time of Jesus, the taxing authority was Roman, since the Herodian heir who had received the throne for Judea and Samaria was deposed by Rome and replaced with a Roman procurator, Pilate. While the bulk of what he collected went back to Rome, he was obliged to maintain Jewish royal legacies, such as the palace and troops, etc., as another legitimate king might be recognized by Rome later.
Jesus had no qualms about socializing with these folks, whereas the Pharisees typically treated them with contempt; it was a life sentence. Jesus told parables about His Father's attitude on the matter. First He mentions again the parables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin, which we've already covered. Jesus notes that Heaven rejoices when sinners repent, never mind whether their repentance is recognized by the Pharisees and Scribes.
Then He talks about the Prodigal Son, or Lost Son. Under the Covenant of Moses, the firstborn son inherited two shares of estate. The man with two sons would divide his estate into thirds, and the younger son got one share. It was legitimate that a younger son would ask for an early bequest so as to go off on his own and not compete against the elder brother. In this case the father granted the request. The younger son sold as much as he could of his share, packed up and left. Chances are he went off to Egypt or some other place with a large Jewish colony.
The younger son lived like a spoiled rich boy without any kind of investment to maintain his wealth. Eventually he was broke. When famine struck, he was at risk of starving to death. So he took a job with a native Gentile there feeding pigs. In the minds of Jewish listeners, the image is someone who has sunk as low as Jew could, completely defiled in every way, bereft of any trace of shalom. At the point where he envied the pigs of their carob husks, it finally dawned on him that he would have been better off as a Gentile servant in his own father's household.
He was ready to crawl back home and rehearsed his speech over in his mind all the way. As soon as he recognized the ragged young man approaching, the father could not resist running to meet him. After his prepared speech, the father insisted this fellow was still his son. He had him clothed properly and ordered a feast to celebrate his return. While his inheritance was gone, nothing prevented the father from treating him as an honored guest.
The elder son came home from his dutiful labors and was wondering just what the commotion was all about. Standing outside, he asked a nearby servant, and was advised his younger brother had returned. He wanted no part of welcoming someone who had bailed out on the rightful duty of sons. But the father came out to him and begged him to join the celebration. The elder insisted that this whole thing was unjust, since he had been so relentlessly circumspect and never wasted anything. How could his father reward sinful dissipation like that?
The father reminded him it had nothing to do with stuff. Everything the man had belonged to the elder already. He needed no special permission to enjoy it reasonably. But they had given up on the younger son as effectively dead, and here he was, back in their lives again. There is nothing now the younger could do to harm what the elder would inherit. If he was going to be so bitter toward his own blood kin, why was he still living? Had he lost sight of the purpose for material prosperity? The elder forgot that, in Hebrew society, a man's greatest treasure was his people, not stuff.
It should be obvious the sinners were like the prodigal son, and Pharisees were captured in the attitude of the elder. The former knew they needed to repent and were quite humble about it, but the Pharisees took themselves too seriously, focused entirely on the mechanics of life without understanding life itself.
As portrayed here, the father figure represents the attitude of God the Father going all the way back to the Garden of Eden. Was it so hard to see the mercy and compassion written into the Covenant of Moses?
RE: NT Doctrine -- Luke 15:11-32 - jaybreak - 04-02-2022
I've read in a few places, too, that the father rushing out to meet the son coming home was likely unbecoming of the head of household. It was seen as undignified, especially since it wasn't seen as an emergency that would require quick action. Don't know if that's true or not, but it shows how much the son was valued.
I also read, I think from you, that asking for the actual inheritance early, before the head of house was dead or incapacitated, was something of a snub to the father...akin to saying "I'm through with all of this."
RE: NT Doctrine -- Luke 15:11-32 - Ed Hurst - 04-02-2022
Both of those are certainly possibilities. It's like anything else in Hebrew intellectual traditions: It's meant to raise more questions than answers. It beckons you to explore.