|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/251
Fulcrum Subjects: Theology, Biblical Studies / Spirituality Other articles by Graham Kings are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 3 comments on this article Don’t Throw Stones:Deuteronomy and the Prodigal Son by Graham Kings,vicar of St Mary Islington and theological secretary of FulcrumIntroduction
During a week’s retreat in 1995, I read through the whole of the book of Deuteronomy. It was clearly a key book of the Hebrew Scriptures for Jesus. Not only did it include the Ten Commandments (chapter 5), the Passover (chapter 16), and the prophet who was to come who would be like Moses (chapter 18), but also in chapter 6:4-6 we read the foundational verses for Jews, which they recite each day, the Shema: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord alone’. Jesus quoted this in his summary of the Law (Mark 12:29-30). He also drew on Deuteronomy three times when he was up against violent temptations in the wilderness (Luke 4: 4 cp Deut 8:3; Luke 4:8 cp Deut 6:13; Luke 4:12 cp Deut 6:16).
Yet the book has many hard sayings and curses. Jesus’ radical call to love our enemies (Luke 6:35) surely involved his reinterpreting this book in some way. In Mark 10:2-9, he reinterpreted Moses’ law of divorce by going behind Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, and thus protecting women from being divorced too easily. In Matthew 5:38-48, he reinterpreted radically – in clear terms of non-retaliation - the ‘equality in vengeance commands’ of Deuteronomy 19:21, ‘Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot’.
A pattern of reusing and reinterpreting earlier biblical material may be found in the legal and narrative sections of the book of Deuteronomy itself. An example of this is the insistence that the same law applies to both male and female slaves in Deuteronomy 15:12-18 (v 12 ‘whether a man or a woman’) which reinterprets Exodus 21:2-6, (concerning only male slaves) and 7-11 (concerning only female slaves).
On my retreat I wanted to attempt to read the book of Deuteronomy as Jesus may have done, ‘through his eyes’. Very dangerous and presumptuous and, of course, impossible: but at least I had a go.
One of my surprises was to discover what I believe to be the seed of the parable of the prodigal son in Deuteronomy chapter 21. This indeed may be quite a claim, but stay with me as we explore it together.
1. Deuteronomy 21:15-17 Protection against a Capricious Father
First, the context. In the verses just prior to our main passage of Deuteronomy 21:18-21, we read here of two sons and an inheritance. This Deuteronomic law insists that the legal norm of the right of the first born, in this case the son of the less-loved wife, to have two-thirds of the inheritance, should not be ignored. Thus the less favoured wife is protected.
Ironically, this law about two-thirds and one third inheritance does not match the Genesis stories about Isaac, Jacob and Joseph (Genesis 17:15-22, 21:8-14, 27:1-40 and 48:8-22).
2. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 The Dreadful Stoning of the Son at the Town Gate
We turn now to our passage:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you purge the evil in your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.
This refers to a very serious situation. The fifth commandment (Deut 5:16) is ‘Honour your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.’ This honouring was to be the bedrock of Israelite family and society relationships. This case envisages an extreme crisis where a son is ‘stubborn and rebellious’, who does not heed nor obey his parents. They, then, are to go to a higher authority, ‘elders at the gate’, who were the judges in family law (see also Deut 22:15; 25:7; Job 29:7; Ruth 4:1-2, 11; Lam 5:14). The parents are to articulate the charge, and, in this case, use the phrase, ‘He is a glutton and a drunkard’.
Now, where have we heard that phrase before? This was the first clue for me. It was the accusation against Jesus by the Pharisees and lawyers, which he himself (‘the Son of Man’) quoted ironically, in contrast with their charge against his cousin:
For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon’; so the Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Nevertheless, wisdom is vindicated by all her children.
(Luke 7:33-35)
Have a look at the first words of Luke chapter 15, which introduce the three parables of being lost and found - the lost sheep (vv 3-7), the lost coin (vv 8-10) and the lost son (vv 11-32):
Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.” (Luke 15:1-2)
So the first link between Deuteronomy 21 and Luke 15, via Luke 7, is the phrase ‘glutton and drunkard’ and ‘friend of tax collectors and sinners.’
On my retreat, I was not using the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible but the Revised English Bible translation (REB). This translated the phrase ‘glutton and drunkard’ as ‘wastrel and drunkard’ (as does its earlier version, the New English Bible). This was my second clue. ‘Wastrel’. Where had we heard that before? Prodigal, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), means ‘recklessly wasteful of one’s property’. The parable of the wastrel son? The REB for Luke 15:13 reads, ‘A few days later the younger son turned the whole of his share into cash and left home for a distant country, where he squandered it in dissolute living.’ Later the elder son says to his father, ‘But now that this son of yours turns up, after running through your money with his women, you kill the fatted calf for him.’ (Luke 15:30). It is interesting that the elder son, rather than saying ‘my brother’, disowns him by using the phrase ‘this son of yours’ – which in turn may have echoes of Deuteronomy 21:20, ‘This son of ours…’
According to the OED, ‘wastrel’ means ‘a good-for-nothing, idle, worthless, disreputable person’ or ‘a neglected child of the streets’. Dr Barnado, in his book Taken out of the Gutter (1880), mentioned “The juvenile ‘wastrels’ of London streets are, alas! still to be reckoned by their thousands.”
The Hebrew for ‘wastrel’ or ‘glutton’ is zalal ‘to be gluttonous, vile, lightly esteemed.’ It is used in Proverbs 23:21, though the NEB and REB and NRSV all translate it as ‘glutton’ there. ‘For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe them with rags’. The prodigal son did come to poverty, and the father, on his return, immediately gave orders, ‘Quickly, bring out a robe – the best one – and put it on him.’ (Luke 15:22).
3. An Honourable Father and Son Relationship in Modern Hebrew Scholarship
At Oxford in the early 20th century, there was an interestingly illustrious father and son relationship concerning Hebrew scholarship. Samuel Driver (1846-1914), was Professor of Hebrew and wrote a The International Critical Commentary on Deuteronomy. His son, Godfrey Driver (1892-1975) followed his father ‘honourably’ as a Hebrew scholar at the same university and became the Convener of the Old Testament panel of the NEB. He is likely to have been the one who suggested the word ‘wastrel’ for the more usual ‘glutton’ in the NEB. His father, in his commentary on Deuteronomy (p. 247), translated Proverbs 23:20 as ‘be not among those that drink wine, that squander flesh among themselves’ and continued that the word zalal is properly translated ‘a squanderer’ and refers to the same word in Proverbs 28:7. In the NEB, this is translated as, ‘A discerning son observes the law, but one who keeps riotous company wounds his father’. In REB it is revised as ‘…but one who keeps profligate company brings disgrace on his father.’
4. The Awful Sentence
So we have a sense of a glutton as a squanderer, a profligate – in fact, a prodigal. We now return to the awful sentence, of Deut 21:21, ‘Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you purge the evil in your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.’ This is frightening capital punishment and clearly shows the seriousness of the case – but, having made allowances for the fact that there is no recorded instance in the Old Testament of this occurring, it is still surely abhorrent.
How would Jesus have meditated on this passage? How would he have interpreted it? My suggestion is that he turned this law, which is full of dread, into his most poignant parable of all, the prodigal son.
5. Luke 15:11-32 Welcome Home for a Lost Son
Luke’s introduction, mentioned above, gives the context for Jesus’ three parables: after the lost sheep and the lost coin (Luke 15:2-10) comes the lost son. This parable deals with the inheritance problems of two sons (echoes of Deut 21:15-17). The wastrel son would have brought shame not just on the family, but on the whole village, for in effect wishing his father was dead and wanting his inheritance there and then. The father, amazingly, graciously and scandalously shows his love by agreeing. When all goes wrong the son ‘comes to himself’ and starts his journey home. His father, who was on the look out for him and knowing nothing of his repentance, ran to meet him. At the time of Jesus, and as today in the Middle East, it would have been very unusual and shameful for an older man to run in this way. It has been suggested by Kenneth Bailey, a scholar of Luke’s parables and of both ancient and current Aramaic culture, that he did this to reach his son before the villagers or the ‘elders at the gate’ did so, and attacked him for the shame he had brought on the whole village. His running was to prevent the stoning.
If Bailey is correct then, instead of following the law of Deuteronomy for a disobedient son who was a wastrel and a drunkard, the father protected him from the very judges that law stipulated.
Ironically, the ultimate reinterpreter of the Law - the one the Law pointed towards in Deuteronomy 18:15-22, who was like Moses but greater than him - Jesus himself, died ‘outside the city gate’ (Hebrews 13:12). This was not by stoning but by being handed over by the equivalent of the ‘elders at the gate’, the Sanhedrin Council of his day, to the Romans for their equivalent of stoning - crucifixion.
This brings us to the last verses of this chapter, which may also sound familiar.
6. Deuteronomy 21:22-23 and Galatians 3:13 Paul’s Reinterpretation
When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse. You must not defile the land that the Lord your God is giving you for possession.
Now this makes eminent sense in terms for public health issues. The intriguing point is that Paul reinterprets this passage powerfully in Galatians 3:13, ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us – for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” – in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.’ For Paul, this cross reference points to the cross of Christ.
Now it is clear from Galatians 3 that Paul meditated on the last verses of Deuteronomy 21. If the suggestion above is valid, then we have the possibility that as well as Paul, Jesus himself meditated on this passage. It is nowhere mentioned in the gospels, but if Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is reinterpreted radically by Jesus into the parable of the prodigal son, then it may suggest he also pondered the meaning of the last verses of that chapter too.
Conclusion
So, in the light of the above considerations, I believe that Jesus did indeed reinterpret the law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 with his parable of the prodigal son. The elder son responds as the Pharisees did, but even he is still loved and the father goes out a second time, to persuade him of that faithful love. In effect he was saying concerning ‘the tax collectors and sinners,’ “Don’t throw stones.”
Where have we heard that before? I am reminded of the event of the woman who had been caught in adultery being saved from stoning (John 8:1-12). Again Jesus reinterpreted a law of Deuteronomy, this time in the chapter immediately following the one we have been studying (Deut 22:22). He did not reply to the persistent questions of the scribes and Pharisees at first, but wrote with his finger on the ground. We do not know what we wrote, but the significance of his action may well be found in Deuteronomy itself. There Moses related, “And the Lord gave me the two stone tablets written with the finger of God.” (Deut 9:10). It seems to me that Jesus was acting out a new version of this, and thereby subtly making a claim concerning his own identity and right to reinterpret the Law in this case.
Jesus then asked a pertinent question of his own, ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her’ and wrote again with his finger on the ground. Eventually, they turned away in shame and did not throw stones. It is not clear whether they really ‘came to themselves’ – to use the language of the prodigal son – or just felt furiously tricked into leaving. It may be that some repented (the elders literally ‘turned back’ first) and others did not. Twice Jesus wrote on the ground and twice he asked questions – first of the scribes and the Pharisees and then of the woman. Then he declared to her, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.’ Jesus does not condemn nor condone.
Now, we do not have the authority that Jesus had to reinterpret the Law. He was and is unique. Yet, in our various contexts today, I believe he speaks to us through the parable of the prodigal son and through the event of the woman caught in adultery, saying “Don’t throw stones.”
Canon Dr Graham Kings is vicar of St Mary Islington and theological secretary of Fulcrum
Having completed this article in September 2007, the following month I was leafing through back copies of The Scottish Journal of Theology in a library looking for a particular article, when, to both my consternation and joy, I found one by Colin Brown entitled, ‘The Parable of the Rebellious Sons’ Scottish Journal of Theology 1998, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 391-405. Brown covers some of the points I raise in my article, including the link between Deuteronomy 21 and Luke 15, and the ‘glutton and drunkard’ references in Proverbs. However, he does not draw out the implications of Christ reinterpreting the awful law of Deuteronomy. He calls it a ‘parable of reversal of values with a vengeance’. But it would have been better, surely, to have called it a ‘parable of reversal of values without vengeance.’
Brown does wonderfully point out what may be two key hidden jokes in the parable. First, the father, in giving the command to kill the fatted calf and make merry, backs up the reputation of Jesus to be a glutton and a drunkard! Second, he asks the question: whose fatted calf was it anyway? He answers that it belonged to the elder son, since the father had already divided his living between the two sons. The father, it seems, was celebrating the return of the prodigal at the expense of the elder brother.
Brown also mentions Christopher Evans’s ideas of Luke’s gospel as a sort of Christian Deuteronomy: ‘C. F. Evans notes the links between the parable and Deut. 21:18-21, but the burden of his discussion is to see the central section of Luke as ‘Christian Deuteronomy’ (‘The Central Section of St Luke’s Gospel’ in D.E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Blackwell, 1957), 37-53, especially 42 and 48.
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Phil Almond Saturday 2 August 2008 - 04:10pm Graham Your question to me was: ‘what do you make of the interpretation of Deuteronomy 21 in my article, 'Don't Throw Stones: Deuteronomy and the Prodigal Son'? This is a serious question for you’. This is my response. I am not quite sure what the point or points are which your article is making. This uncertainty arises from the fact that I am not quite sure what exactly you mean by ‘reinterpret’ and what the import of your use of ‘abhorrent’ really is. However I will make a reasoned assumption about your main line of thought and respond accordingly. No doubt you will set me right if my assumption is wrong. I take it that you are saying that the punishment (Deut 21:21) is abhorrent and not that the sin is abhorrent and so deserves an abhorrent punishment. This, the general tone of your article, and the parallels you invoke from the Sermon on the Mount lead me to suppose that you are saying that in the Parable of the Prodigal Son Jesus is in some sense improving on or correcting (you may have a better word) the command given in Deuteronomy 21. One of your key assertions is: ‘Jesus’ radical call to love our enemies (Luke 6:35) surely involved his reinterpreting this book (Deuteronomy) in some way’. In that passage Jesus also (Luke 6:31) says: ‘And as ye wish that may do to you men, do ye to them likewise’ which echoes Matthew 7:12 which concludes ‘…for this is the law and the prophets’. So in the middle of what you call a ‘radical call’ (Luke 6:27-36) Jesus is saying that ‘….do ye to them likewise’ is (following Matthew7:12) ‘the law and the prophets’. This is significant in assessing whether this ‘radical call’ ‘surely involved his reinterpreting this book (Deuteronomy) in some way’. Another significant fact is that in Matthew 15:4, in criticizing the Pharisees, Jesus says ‘For God said: Honour the father and the mother, and: The [one] speaking evil of father or mother by death let him die’ (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9). This latter command is similar to Deuteronomy 21:21 and there is no hint that Jesus would have wanted to reinterpret it. There is also the distinction to be considered between judicial sentences and how we should behave to one another on a personal level. Also in Luke 6:35-36, ‘….and will be the reward of you much, and ye will be sons of [the] Most High, because he kind is to the unthankful and evil. Be ye compassionate as the Father of you compassionate is’. And there is a similar link between loving enemies and being children of your Father in Matthew 5:43-48. So behind the ‘radical call’ lies Jesus statement about what God is like. I take it that part of your thought is that this statement about what God is like contrasts with the God who utters the command (Deuteronomy 6:1) of Deuteronomy 21:18-21. If so, then we are on territory similar to that debated between Clare and me. As I see it we have to seek to understand Deuteronomy 21, and all the other parts of the OT which have to do with wrath, judgment, punishment, cursing, and all the hard sayings, in the light of all that the Bible says, including what the Bible asserts Jesus Christ said and did and will say and will do. Obviously, among those OT instances, besides Deuteronomy 21 and all the punishments in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there are such things as (this is not a comprehensive list) the destruction of all human and air breathing life except Noah and his family and the creatures in the ark, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the judgment on the Egyptians, the judgment on Achan and his family and livestock, God’s command to totally destroy the nations across the Jordan because of their wickedness, including all the children, God’s command to take vengeance on the Midianites, God’s command to blot out Amalek from under heaven, the cursing psalms. My case against Clare and possibly (if my assumptions as to your meaning are right) against you is that the language that Jesus uses or is used about Jesus, and Jesus' actions, in such passages as (in no particular order): Rev 6:12-17 Rev 14: 4-20 Rev 19:11-21 Luke 17: 20-37 (The OT portrays these events as acts of God’s judgment. I agree that Jesus does not explicitly confirm that they are. But he does not deny that they are either. The position that Jesus’ said these words but in Jesus’ view they were not the acts of God, or in Jesus’ view they were the acts of God but were immoral, is incredible to me. It is a reasonable assumption, although I agree we are not explicitly told, that children were among those destroyed by the flood and among those destroyed in the overthrow of Sodom). Luke 13:1-5 Luke 19:27 Matthew 13:36-43 Matthew 7:21-23 Matthew 25:40-46 Matthew 15:4 are very terrible. And this language and these actions refer mostly to final judgment. Clearly sin is dreadful in Christ’s eyes and deserves dreadful judgment. Is this judgment any less dreadful than the judgment on Achan, the Canaanites, Midian, Amalek, the unruly son in Deuteronomy 21:21, the nations of Israel and Judah? Paul in Romans helps us to understand how God can be simultaneously kind to the unthankful and evil and the God whose wrath is revealed from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of men: ‘And reckonest thou this, O man the[one] judging the[ones] practicing such things and doing them, that thou wilt escape the judgment of God? Or the riches of the kindness of him and the forbearance and the longsuffering despisest thou, not knowing that the kindness of God leads thee to repentance? But according to the hardness of thee and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in a day of wrath and of revelation of a righteous judgment of God’ On your surmise that ‘Jesus did indeed reinterpret the law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 with his parable of the prodigal son’. as I see it, as I said in a reply to Clare: ‘In both Testaments God and Christ are revealed as angry towards sinners and merciful and seeking to save while the day of grace lasts. Both pictures are simultaneously true. The Bible interweaves throughout the painting of both pictures. Some passages emphasize one picture, some the other. We should not look for any one passage to necessarily give us the whole truth. So the main point of the parable of the Prodigal Son is the tremendous truth, as someone has said, that there is no state of sin, rebellion and degradation from which a penitent return will not be welcomed by God’. Furthermore, as Warfield pointed out somewhere, there is a danger (I am not saying you are unaware of the danger!) that the parable is viewed as the whole gospel. But it isn’t the whole gospel because, among other things, there is no atonement in it. All the penalties set out in the OT, which we deserve, were about to fall on Christ, as you point out, ‘becoming a curse on behalf of us’. Looked at like that it may be that Jesus had Deuteronomy 21:21 in mind when he told the parable. But the link is not to reinterpret (if by reinterpret is meant ‘correct’), but to die for, and in that death make possible the welcome of God of which, as you say, the parable so poignantly speaks. Phil Almond Posted by: Roger Harper Friday 4 January 2008 - 07:11pm Many thanks, Graham, for elucidating the Prodigal Son and the links with Leviticus. I know I am not the only one who has also seen a root of the same parable in the reconciliation of Jacob and Esau – the miraculous embrace. Esau had come with four hundred men, maybe equivalent to the elders in Leviticus. Esau’s plan, it seems, was to punish Jacob. Jacob understood it that way, for when he heard about the men with Esau he was afraid and couldn’t / wouldn’t sleep. Yet when Jacob, limping, met Esau, Esau wept and embraced him – even before Jacob had time to give the gifts he had prepared. So the prodigal son was embraced before he had had time to give the (self-serving) confession he had prepared. Perhaps here too we have Jesus reinterpreting Leviticus with Genesis in mind? You write, Graham, that Jesus was free to reinterpret and change the emphasis of Scripture in this way, but we are not similarly free. That is clear and obvious. We cannot claim for ourselves the same authority that Jesus had. BUT is the Holy Spirit free today to reinterpret Scripture in a way similar to Jesus’ reinterpretations? I would argue that the Holy Spirit, as Lord, does have the same authority today, speaking on behalf of Jesus to us, as Jesus spoke to his first disciples. The Holy Spirit takes the words and recorded actions of Jesus and speaks to us afresh about and through them, sometimes in ways that Jesus’ contemporaries could not bear. The Holy Spirit does precisely this in Acts with regard to conversion of Gentiles. He takes a saying of Jesus about the priority of the heart over the stomach, and reinterprets it to mean that all foods are clean. He shows to Cornelius and co. the same acceptance and welcome of Jesus to Gentiles, but even more so, in giving Himself to Cornelius exactly as he gave Himself to the disciples at Pentecost. Through these and other ways, the Holy Spirit changes the interpretation and emphasis of Scripture away from strict and universal adherence to the Mosaic Law for all God’s people. (We could even maybe discern the Holy Spirit prioritising God’s love for all nations, as in Genesis, over His specific parental care for the people of Israel.) The apostles themselves make plain that it is the Holy Spirit who has brought about this reinterpretation, to which they give their more or less reluctant cooperation, announcing memorably, ‘It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us…’ Once we recognise that the Holy Spirit today does have the same authority that Jesus had in His earthly ministry, we are in difficult waters. For how can we know what the Holy Spirit is saying? Here too the book of Acts gives us some answers, including that He speaks through a council of the whole Church – which we have not been able to hold for many many years. But just because the open waters of recognising and looking for the Holy Spirit’s distinctive voice today are difficult, we should not instead stay in the calm harbour walls of Biblical doctrine. For the Holy Spirit is quite capable of moving the shore line, and we could find our nice secure harbour no longer connects with the sea at all. Am I implying that welcome of ‘gay marriage’ is a reinterpretation that the Holy Spirit is leading us to today? No, I am not. I am not at all convinced that the evidence, not least the necessary unanimity, is there. But nor am I saying that this cannot possibly be of the Holy Spirit. Yes it does go against Leviticus by appealing to the principle of love and faithfulness over sexual specifics – ie the loving commitment of two people for life is more important than the gender of these people - but Jesus reinterpreted Leviticus in something like this way and the Holy Spirit COULD be doing something similar in our day. I, and many others, need to see more evidence, but we cannot rule out the possibility. Yes it makes it all more difficult, less certain. But this is a Biblical openness, open especially to the Holy Spirit of Jesus. It stops us from throwing stones. 
Posted by: Webmaster
Sunday 2 December 2007 - 09:47pm
This thread may be used to comment on Graham Kings' article "Don't Throw Stones: Deuteronomy and the Prodigal Son" |
LATEST
|