Monday, July 29, 2019

Michael Ovey on The Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15



The parable of the lost son at first glance appears slightly different [to other parables of Jesus]. It is longer and more complex, having three central characters rather than simply one or two. It is also clearly very closely tied with the setting described in 15:2, where there is murmuring against Jesus on two counts: that he receives sinners and that he eats with them. Terminologically, one might add, diegongyzon in 15:2 recalls the ‘murmurs’ in the wilderness.

Both these elements of criticism, receiving and eating, are picked up in the parable. Thus the father does indeed receive his son, with both compassion (esplanchnisthē; 15:20) and joy. Joy is exhorted in 15:23 (euphranthōmen) and a necessity in 15:32 (euphranthēnai de kai charēnai edei). This emphasis on joy links this parable with the two preceding it, and the repeated exhortation and note of obligation intensifies the challenge to the Pharisees and scribes to join in rejoicing over the repentant. As for eating, the father also sets a feast for his lost son, which the elder son refuses to join. The feast itself features the fatted calf, implying ‘a meal of sumptuous and abundant nourishment’, thereby emphasizing both the satisfaction of the younger son’s craving but also the intensity of the father’s joy at his son’s restoration.

Relationally this creates a triangle of roles like this:


                                             Father = host and (implied) Jesus
 










younger son =                                                                           elder son =
guest + other                                                                             third party and critic

The father seems identified with Jesus since the issue of 15:2 is Jesus’ reception of and eating with sinners, which is the elder son’s objection to the father. (Michael J. Ovey, The Feasts of Repentance: From Luke-Acts to Systematic and Pastoral Theology [New Studies in Biblical Theology 49; London: Apollos, 2019], 26-27; comment in square brackets added for clarification)