From the Pastor, Dennis Plourde
|
Sunday, August 12, 2007
A House Divided
Psalm 133; Luke 15:11-31 |
| (I am indebted to Kenneth Bailey who taught for years at the University of Beirut and who spent many years traveling in the Middle East trying to understand the parables of Jesus through the eyes of the Easterner. As we hear again these stories through the ears of the first listeners may God give us new insights into these wonderful stories of Jesus. We will be looking at these through Eastern ears/eyes for the rest of August.)
|
Do you remember the musical The Music Man? If you do, is there a song in it that could be the theme of this parable? (One correct guess!) – "There is trouble, trouble right here in River city." It would be an appropriate theme song for this parable.
However before we get to this parable we need to look at the setting and the reason why Jesus is sharing it in the first place. If we go back to the first two verses of the 15th Chapter we find the Pharisees and Scribes "grumbling" at the people Jesus associates with. They are not happy with his circle of relationships. Their disappointment is open: "This man eats with tax-collectors and sinners." In other words, Jesus is eating with the wrong people. Now, a nobleman would feed many poor and hungry people. This would be part of his responsibility as a nobleman, but he would never eat with them! There were rules.
Rules. Protocol. These were as important in the day this parable was told as they are in some societies today. You would never accept an invitation to dine with someone of a higher social status than you were. You would probably never invite someone of a higher social standing to eat with you in your home. This just was not done. Status, though, does not seem to mean anything to Jesus. He is tossing out all the accepted social norms of the day. And to complicate things further, an Easterner would understand that Jesus was not only eating with "tax-collectors and sinners", but he was the host of some of the meals. He not only eats with them but he has invited them!!! This is a serious breaking of the social order in the minds of these Pharisees and Scribes. He should know better. Rabbi's are to set an example of what is right and proper. Thus, they openly grumble against him.
Jesus' response to the grumbling is to tell three parables. The first two are fairly normal. There are not too many unexpected twists and turns. A person would be expected to go and seek a lost sheep. Now in most cases it may not be the "owner" of the sheep who would be seeking the lost sheep. If you owned 100 sheep you were probably fairly wealthy and would hire a shepherd to look after the sheep. It would be the responsibility of the shepherd to seek the lost one, not the owner of the sheep! And, everyone looks for important things when they have lost them. There may be a little neglect on the part of the woman to lose this important coin (it may be all she in terms of "wealth"), but for her to look for it would be a normal thing to do. Yes, there would be celebrations when the sheep and coin are found. This would be a normal activity. There are no real surprises in these two parables.
However, this third one is problematic on so many levels for the ears of those early listeners. This is the story of the rebellious sons, and what is asked for and what happens is so unexpected and dramatic on every level that we, hearing it through Western ears, do not fully comprehend the drama of the story as it was told to its first hearers. The demand, "Give me" is like saying, "Dad, drop dead so I can have my inheritance." This is unheard of even in many Middle Eastern societies today. To demand your inheritance is to want your father dead. Now dad may write a will to make sure there are no misunderstandings when he dies, but for as long as he lives he has control over what is his. (Remember the young man who asks Jesus to settle a dispute he and his brother have over their father's estate – a will would prevent such disputes without a third party being involved (Luke 12:13ff)).
What is the first commandment with a promise? "Honor your father and your mother." There is no way this request should even be voiced. This is not how you honor your parents. The younger son openly dishonors his father by demanding his inheritance. He wants dad dead now!
Ken Bailey says that as he has traveled the Middle East he has asked audience after audience what the father should/would do in such circumstances. He says their responses are always basically the same: the father should take the son out and beat some sense into him. The crowd is expecting dad to take the son to the woodshed for a lesson in respect of parents. This is how this should/must be handled.
The crowd would be stunned with the twist, dad gives the boys their inheritance. This is never heard of in the Middle East – audiences cannot imagine this ever happening. The father has given in to the request of the son. (Note: it should not be lost that the father gives to both sons their inheritance. The elder would get 2/3's and the younger 1/3.) Now every son in the village will be demanding his inheritance. Can you imagine the conversations in almost every home, "But dad, Isaiah's father gave him his inheritance." The crowd would be in stunned silence or loud protests… this is not the way things are done.
Matters get even worse. The younger son exercises his authority over the inheritance and sells the land (it proves he was given full inheritance rights). Not only does he sell the land but he sells it to the first one with "cash in hand." Now, land deals are not normally done quickly even today in the Middle East. The land is researched. All owners are known, the boundary lines are walked and then walked again to make sure they have not been moved. The actual selling of the land, usually done only in the most dire of circumstances, takes months, maybe years. Here, the younger son immediately sells the land and heads off – he can't wait to get away from dad and the village. The father has failed. This is no way to raise sons.
Now, we can't let the older son off the hook. Many who hear this story feel sorry for him and are sympathetic to his plight. However, those hearing the story would understand that he had not behaved as the eldest son should. For one thing, he should have refused to accept the inheritance. He should have protested loudly against his father giving his brother his inheritance and not accepted his portion. He will wait until his father dies before he receives what is his. He remains silent, there is no protest. Does he too want dad dead?
And, he has a responsibility as the eldest son to serve as reconciler between his father and his brother. It would be expected that in his role as the eldest son he should try to patch up the broken relationship between his father and brother. His duty is that of a reconciler and he refuses to take on this responsibility. Here again he is silent. Some wonder if he may be one of the reasons why the younger son wants to leave home. Is the elder son glad to see his brother go?
The house is divided. A father's love is too much. The crowd is shaking their heads. "This is not how it is done." "This is not how it is done."
The image of the father is the image of our God. God gives us the right to be free. We are not compelled to stay in our father's house. There is no pressure for us to stay home. We have been set free. The choice is ours. Love must be genuine, not coerced or forced. The decisions are our to make. The father has given his sons a choice and they both choose to be set free from the father. The older son does not seem to be quite as rebellious, but he takes what the father has offered. Their rebellion is just played out differently. They have both been set free.
We have a hard time setting people free. We want to keep and control children and others in our lives. I remember when our eldest son went off to school – the first grade – and how hard it was for his mother to see him board the big yellow bus stopped outside our home. Also, when we dropped him off at Springfield College and began the journey home alone without him. It was difficult at best to let our son go free. However, if our love is genuine, then we know that letting go and setting free is a part of life. The depth of God's love is that God has set us free… what we do with that freedom is up to us.
The father in this parable has done what no one in the crowd could believe or understand…he has set his sons free. (The son was bound to his father as long as the father lived, in the society of the day.) The crowd shakes their heads in disbelief; no father would do this. But God says yes – I do. I love enough to set you free. This parable has turned their world upside-down in their understanding of God – God has set us free – whether we return to God or not is up to us. What are you doing with your inheritance?
|
|
