Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Lost and Found, Part 25 of 78

TEXT: "Then He said, 'A certain man had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, "Father, give me the portion of goods that falls to me." So he divided to them his livelihood' " (Luke 15:11-12).

IDEA: The father wants us as sons, not as slaves.

Have you seen the motto, “If you have a bird, let him go. If it flies away, you never really had him. If it returns, it is really yours.”

What do you think that motto is saying? Do you agree with it?

Listen to the opening scene in Jesus’ famous parable of the Prodigal Son. It is a quick beginning that sets the stage for all that follows:

Luke 15:11-12 - "Then He said, 'A certain man had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, "Father, give me the portion of goods that falls to me." So he divided to them his livelihood.' "

What do you think of the younger brother’s request?

I. How would the people who heard the story have responded to that young man?

They would have written him off as a juvenile delinquent. In the Middle East the father would be expected to explode and discipline the boy for the cruel implications of his demand.

The boy feels he would be better off if his father were dead.

He wants his father to jeopardize his own “living” to grant his request. He expects his father to sign over his part of the assets so that he can dispose of them for cash.

In the Near East, “the land does not belong to the family; the family belongs to the land.” The home village with its family inheritance is an integral part of their identity, and had great significance to the family. (A million Palestinian refugees in the modern Middle East do not want and will not accept resettlement elsewhere.)

II. The father’s response reveals something about the older brother:

The father divides “to them” his living. The older son also got his share, probably two-thirds (Deuteronomy 21:17).

The older brother makes no protest that he doesn’t want his father to do this.

He doesn’t try to bring the younger brother and father together. That is what you might expect. In the Near East a third party works to bring reconciliation.

Mr. Kissinger in 1973-74 achieved delicate disengagement settlements in the Middle East because he functioned in that role.

Mr. Carter brought Israel and Egypt together for a treaty.

Why do you think the father granted this outlandish request for his two sons? What is the theological significance?