A PASTORAL LETTER
Dear family,
In our “Finding Father” series I have decided to go straight to Jesus’ parable that we know, for right or wrong, as “The Prodigal Son.” I have long argued that if there is any prodigality in this story it is the outrageously prodigal demonstration of the Father’s love and grace for the son. The prodigality of the Father’s reception of the son far outweighs the prodigality of the son’s rejection of the Father. We didn’t really get into it on Sunday because I was suggesting that there were some background things we needed to know in order to respond responsibly to the story. So I threw out some introductory comments that will help you to orient to it.
1. The history of commentary on this parable tends to get pre-occupied with what the allegorical meanings are, but specifically, who the two sons represent. Much of that discussion is influenced by how this parable was actually used in preaching and teaching in the early centuries of the church. Who were the Older and Younger? Righteous and sinner? Israel and heathen? Legalist and lover? But what cannot be disputed is that the only unifying factor in the story is the Father, and it is the nature of fatherhood in the parable that invites us to understand something about true sonship. Furthermore, the choice we are presented is not simply about which son we are like or want to be like. That is not good enough because frankly, as someone has rightly observed, “this narrative presents neither son as a model uniformly to be followed or avoided.” It is also not good enough, for does not a true son ultimately want to be like the father? So maybe the real choice we are being asked to make here is simply to be like the father. I liked the way one person put it: “Henri Nouwen wrote a book called Return of the Prodigal. The book is about his meditations as he viewed the painting by Rembrandt about this story. He tells how he came to identify with the prodigal son. He shared with a friend about his reflections and the friend questioned whether Nouwen was not actually more like the older brother. As Nouwen reflected more on this story he began to realize that he was indeed all too much like the older son in the story. He began to question which one he more identified with, the prodigal or the older son. He eventually concluded he identified with both.” Then the writer adds this: “At the end of Nouwen’s book he articulates a discovery that I too came to realize. He had been asking which son he was most like. In doing so, he was missing an essential piece to the story. The story is not about the sons. The story is about the father! Furthermore, there is an implicit invitation in the parable. That invitation is to take on the character of the father! We easily identify with the sons, but the call is to be like the father.” What you can take some strength from, is that this story is Jesus talking about HIS Father. It is as incredible a source, an access for insight as any in scripture of what the Father is like – of what his relationship with his sons is like. The key to this story is to watch the Father, not just the sons. Listen to the Father, not just the sons. It’s less about the son who returns to the Father, than the Father who receives the son. No less than twelve times the Father is mentioned – he is the premier character here.
2. Another thing: this story serves to remind us that when we come to deal with the fatherhood-sonship issue here, we cannot confuse a biblical father with a 21st century one. It is presented in a very specific cultural context and fatherhood’s meanings and values and roles are founded on a different set of pre-suppositions than those that govern present attitudes and perceptions. For example: this is not a context of gender equality as we understand it today. One observer has put it like this: "In the patriarchal societies of antiquity, the father figure is endowed with two particular characteristics. On the one hand, the father rules as head of the household and the person to whom most respect is due, having absolute authority over his family. On the other hand, he has the responsibility of guarding, supporting, and helping the other members. Both these characteristics are also present when a deity is described or addressed as father.” We have to know this if we’re to understand the nature of the son’s sin against the father.
3. This is a parable, not an allegory, so the father is not exactly God but certainly functions as an image of God’s fathering and thus there is much similitude. We need to note, by way of introduction, that men spoke of God as a Father before Jesus. God was referred to as “pan-pater” which is essentially the universal father, the ultimate origin. Commentators have pointed out that for Platonists and stoics, human reason was the rational seed that had its origin in the divine, so the idea of God’s fatherhood in this sense became a theme of western philosophy. The problem with this is that though it may be right in at least pointing to the existence of God, it is dead wrong on the fatherhood bit, since God can only be the Father of those who are truly His children. God is not the father of all. Jesus himself said that the devil was the father of some!
4. Jesus’ personal address to “Father” cannot be understood in relation to any precedents in pagan or Greek traditions but only within the OT context of Israel’s faith. However, you are probably thinking, rightly, that there is not that much in the OT about the fatherhood of God. You’d be right. But you would or should probably be puzzled by that, coming from a NT perspective where there are hundreds of references to God as Father. There are probably only about 10 in the OT. (Get CD to hear references and comments.) Why is this? Why does there seem to be a lesser emphasis on fatherhood in the OT? There is a very good reason for it. Other pagan religions surrounding the Israelites employed the “father” idea for their gods because they believed, especially the fertility religions, that their gods were capable of physical generation and conducted natural relationships with people. Obviously, given the temptations to the Israelites, which we know they succumbed to more than once, the prophets were concerned that Israel’s view of God’s fatherhood not be misinterpreted in these pagan terms and for this reason God’s transcendence is clearly established. He is indeed the Creator but He also is the Judge and you cannot have a familiar slap-happy relationship with him, an extension of natural relationships. This is why the distinctions between the true God of Israel and the false gods are established in the way that relationship is based not on natural bonds but on a God-initiated covenant. The emphasis is on election, not generation, on the choice of will, not on natural affinity. But even though the references to fatherhood are few, what we see, as the history of salvation continues to unfold in the OT, is very interesting. You can see it in Isaiah 63:16: "But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name." In other words, God the Father truly emerges in the context of his saving, rescuing, redeeming actions.
5. ‘So what?’ you may ask. Well, it is precisely against this background of God’s covenant love that seeks to redeem, that Jesus uses the word “Abba.” There is no way that this word can be diluted to a sentimental expression of love or an indulgent expression of emotional need. It is utterly rooted in a very costly plan of salvation. Do you remember the context in which Jesus used it most poignantly? Gethsemane. His acknowledgement of God as Abba is integral to his acceptance of the necessity of death on the cross for your redemption and mine.
• The unpacking of knowing God as Abba is done in Gethsemane. Yes, there could have been a sensational power-display, an amazing miracle, twelve legions of angels, but that was not the point. To use the name Abba was not to ask for anything primarily, but to express and demonstrate a willingness to do the will of the Father. As Son of God, there were no exemptions, no special privileges for Jesus. He accepted the obligation of full obedience to the will of the Father. It was not a legal obedience, nor was he forced to surrender. He responded to the character of the Father, a response of love, to love. It was therefore into the Father’s hands that he could commit his spirit. (Lk. 23:46)
• This is so important in our understanding, for as for Jesus, so for us. God’s fatherhood presents us with, to quote a wise saint, “absolute demand and ultimate succor.” In the need for the recovery of the Father’s relationship, we cannot ignore the acceptance of the Father’s requirements. In the need for the Father’s comfort, we cannot avoid the Father’s commands. In the need for the Father’s delight in us, we cannot refuse the Father’s discipline of us. In the need for the Father’s help, we cannot evade his holiness. What can we learn from all this, and why is Jesus’ use of Abba in Gethsemane so important? We can only understand the fatherhood of God truly in the context of the obedience of his Son – the saving, redeeming work of Jesus Christ. Many will want the feelings of succor of the Father without wanting the sanctifying work of Father’s Spirit. Essential to being a son or daughter is to be like the Father.
Hopefully these introductory comments will help to orient you as we come to look at this parable over the next couple of sessions. As I said on Sunday, you don’t have to wait till the messages to come running to Father!
Pastorally yours,
Stuart
http://www.christourshepherd.org/pastlet.htm (and follow links to download MP3 audio of sermon)