Sermon Tone Analysis

Our text this morning is often called “the gospel within the gospel”.

The gospel’s are filled with radical stories but none as radical as this one.

Jesus means for his parable to correct the human misconception of how one connects to God.

His parable finds the entire human race guilty of knowing how to connect with God.

Jesus is saying here that every thought the human race has ever had about how to connect to God, whether East or West, whether in the ancient, modern, or post-modern era, in every religion, in all secular thought, has been wrong.

Every human idea of how to connect with God is wrong.

Jesus is here to shatter all existing human categories.

A historian once said (it’s hard for us to grasp this) when Christianity first arose in the world, nobody called it a religion.

It wasn’t seen as another religion.

It was called the anti-religion.

It was seen as anti-religion.

As American’s we have additional connectivity problems.

We possess a western mindset while our text was written about those who lived in the east.

Though some have misinterpreted our text most have missed the fullness of its meaning.

Let’s first look at the parable as whole.

For 200 years, the Romans called the Christians atheists!

The reason was the Romans understood that what Christianity was saying about God was so different than what any other religion said it really shouldn’t be given the same kind of name; it was in a whole other category altogether.

They were right, and this passage tells us why they were right.

PARABLE

Luke 15:1-

Its one parable not three.

PARTICIPANTS

PARTS

PARTS

There are four parts to this parable.

Part 1 (lost sheep) is a parallel to part 3 (younger son).

They are both lost in the far country.

Part 2 (lost coin) is a parallel to part 4 (elder son).

They are both lost at home.

The story is in two acts, actually.

The title of is “The Lost Younger Brother.”

The title of is “The Lost Elder Brother.”

begins with a speech.

The younger brother comes to the father and says, “Father, give me my share of the estate.”

When the original hearers heard this, they would have been absolutely astounded.

If you had two sons, then when you died, the estate would be divided with two-thirds to the elder and one-third to the younger.

The rule of thumb was the oldest got a double portion of what all the other children got.

So if there were only two, the eldest got two-thirds and the youngest got one-third.

That happened when the father died.

When the son came and asked the father for his share of the estate now, the original hearers would have been astounded.

One of the commentators, a scholar who knows something about the history and culture of the time, said that to ask for the inheritance while the father was still alive was to wish him dead.

the younger son is saying is, “I want your stuff, but I don’t want you.

I want the father’s things, but I don’t want the father.

My relationship with you has just been a means to an end.”

Such behavior was unheard of and demanded swift punishment.

The father should have struck his son with the back of his hand until he had driven him out of the home.

However, our text tells us something all together different,

This same commentator who knows something about the history and culture of the time says a traditional Middle Eastern father could only respond in one way.

He would be expected to drive the boy out of the house with verbal if not physical and violent blows, but this father doesn’t do that.

The translation uses the word property, but the Greek word used here is bios, from which we get our word biology.

It really says, “The father divided his life between them.”

Why would he say that?

We do not understand the relationship people in the past had to their land.

This father’s estate was his land.

His wealth was his land.

He would have had to sell off one-third of his land to give his son that part of the estate.

Their very identity was bound up with the land.

To lose your land was to lose yourself, and to lose part of your land was to lose your standing in the community, which was tied to how much land you had.

It says, “So he divided his property between them.”

The translation uses the word property, but the Greek word used here is bios, from which we get our word biology.

It really says, “The father divided his life between them.”

Why would he say that?

We do not understand the relationship people in the past had to their land.

This son is asking his father to tear his life apart, to tear apart his standing in the community, to tear himself apart, and he does!

The hearers had never seen a Middle Eastern patriarch respond to such an insult like this.

What this father is doing is enduring the worst thing a human being can endure … rejected love.

How do we often respond in such situations?

We get mad, retaliate, and reject.

We do everything we possibly can to diminish our affection for the person so we don’t hurt so much.

However, this father maintains his love for his son and endures the agony of rejected love.

So the son goes off, and he squanders everything he has.

When he is literally down in the mud, down in the pig sty, and he realizes how stupid he’s been, he comes up with a plan.

The rabbis taught if you had violated the community mores, the only way back into the community was not just an apology; you had to make restitution.

These are not the words of repentance but restitution.

There is one more indicator in our text to support our claim of restitution not repentance.

In verse 18 he says “I will arise”.

If repentance had been his motive he would have used the Scriptural language of “I will return”.

He says, “I will go back and say, ‘Father, I have sinned … I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.’

That’s not the same thing as asking to be a slave.

A slave or a servant worked in the estate and lived on the estate, but the hired man was a craftsman and lived in town, and had to be apprenticed to learn a skill, and therefore, made a wage.

Most commentators think what the young man was doing was very simple.

The rabbis taught if you had violated the community mores, the only way back into the community was not just an apology; you had to make restitution.

What the son is probably doing is coming back with a plan and saying, “Father, if you will apprentice me to one of your hired men and teach me a craft … I know I can’t be your son.

I know I can’t come back into the family, but this way at least I could begin to pay you off, to pay you back a little bit for what I’ve done to you.”

LukeSo he has a plan.

He comes back, and the father sees him far off, and he runs.

Middle Eastern patriarchs did not run.

Children ran.

Youth ran.

Women would run, but not fathers, not owners of estates.

You would have to pick up your robes and bare your legs, and you didn’t do that sort of thing.

But this one does.

The father sees him far off, and he runs.

Middle Eastern patriarchs did not run.

Many commentators have said this father doesn’t act like a father; he acts like a mother here.

Middle Eastern fathers did not act like this; mothers did.

He runs to his son.

He shows absolute emotional abandonment and kisses him.

The son tries to roll out his restitution plan.

So he has a plan.