Did the Biblical society influence
the collective behavior of people?
Acheived and Ascribed Shame - A case study using the Parable of the Prodigal Son
So let us consider a specific example here of what we are discussing - "Acheived and Ascribed Shame" and to do so, let's use the example of the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Much appreciation to Rev. Kenneth Bailey for his book "Jesus through Mediterranean Eyes" and Dr. Stephen Pfann of The University of the Holy Land (www.uhl.ac) for elucidating this passage.
One thing that I
would urge you to do is to read the story of the Prodigal Son with the view
point of reaching back into the old world and seeing this story in its actual
context.
One modern
example which has some elements which can be useful to help position the story
of the Prodigal Son into its proper context is that well known film titled:
“The Godfather.” I am not advocating or agreeing with everything in that film,
which has some very objectionable aspects, but is there something to learn in
that film that can in fact help us better understand the story of the Prodigal
Son? 100% yes!
What we are
talking about here are roles in an old world context. The father in the story
is a type of a Patriarch and the roles his sons play are very important. Watch
that film and notice the roles and think about the story of the Prodigal Son. Notice
the role of the future Patriarch and notice how important male children are to
him. Notice the role of the firstborn son, who will never be Patriarch. Notice
the role of other younger sons who also will never be Patriarch and are allowed
to do things that the future Patriarch would never be able to do. These (among
many others) are some of the things we need to think about in analyzing the
story of the Prodigal Son. Believe it or not! We’ll be talking about this more
as we try our best to reach back into time and into that elusive Biblical
context to find the truths of Scripture.
A good text to
do this is that familiar story of the Prodigal Son found in Luke 15. When we
put on our historical thinking caps and place this story in its proper context,
what an amazing story it tells. Let’s look at it here and I hope you’ll agree
there is more here than may meet the eye! Taken from that amazing piece of Biblical
scholarly magnificence – the English Standard Version (ESV).
11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons.
Comment: This is very important and it sets
the whole tone for this story. This man had only two sons! By Biblical
standards, not too many! Really to the hearer of this story in a first century
context, right at the very beginning, it sounds like a sad story! Was this a
family that had God’s blessing on it already with so few sons? We don’t need to
do too much research to see that generally speaking, Biblical families were
larger and had more children and boy children ensured the continuity of the
family and the name of the father. Remember how many sons Jacob had? David? How
many brothers and sisters did Jesus himself have? [The Bible indicates six.] If we look closely, we can
see at least four brothers and at least two sisters we know about from
Scripture. [Here we can also see this in an old world kind of context through
the film ‘The Godfather.’] Let’s also fill in some blanks here which we can
understand based upon the cultural context (which is first century Israel) of this
story.
The
story tells us that the father had two sons. These sons according to the story
are grown up enough as is easily in evidence from the story.
The
first born son assumes the role of the leader of the family. He is being
groomed as the future leader of the clan – the future patriarch. He receives a
double portion of his father’s inheritance as the future leader of the family.
He
is being groomed to be the future patriarch, but his assumption of that role is
not assured. Because he is held to a higher standard, he must be unblemished.
He cannot get away with anything. The stakes are too high. He could be very
easily tripped up and lose his place as the potential future patriarch. It is
not only in his community that his father designates him the new Patriarch: that
selection has to be accepted and agreed to by his peers and the community
elders who will validate his father’s selection. Now, he is representing the
father in business, in trade, outside as his father is now at home retired and
needs to see the family affairs continue and he has placed all his trust in his
eldest son.
Note: In this story, it is the eldest son
who is being groomed to be the next patriarch (or Godfather in Sicilian
parlance), but in large families with many sons, it might not be the eldest.
Look at the story of Jacob. It was not his eldest, Reuben, who became the
leader, but rather one of the youngest, Joseph, who became the new Patriarch
after his father.
Now, his father is retired, enjoying the fruits of his
labor. He is sitting under his vine and fig tree. Now, he is the patriarch of
the family. He is as Abraham was “sitting at his tent door.” He does not rise
up to pick his own grapes, they are brought to him by his children.
12 And the younger of them said to his
father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’
Comment: Here is where we in the Western
world just read right over and may miss something here. When the First century
listener of this story heard this statement, here is where the shame on this
family starts to come out. This request is really unheard of. This land is the
ancestral home of the family and this younger boy is telling his father – cash
me out! How can this be? The horror of the thought. In First Century culture,
this was treason, shame, an affront to familiar dignity, would never be
admitted in public, a violation of the highest order of the culture of the
time.
And
he divided his property between them. So the father divided his property
according to the wish of his younger son.
Comment: Sounds fairly innocent still, but this is not the
case. We’ll continue this in the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment