Prodigal Son and Elder Son

7/31/2019 Prodigal Son and Elder Son

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prodigal-son-and-elder-son 1/29

The Prodigal's Elder Brother: The History and

Ethics of Reading Luke 15:25-32*

Mikeal C. ParsonsBaylor University

Waco, TX 76798

There is a wonderful scene in David Lodge's academic satire, Small World.

It is the social hour of an English literary conference, and the hero of the

book, Persse McGarrigle, is introduced to a book publisher, Felix Skinner.

After the perfunctory introductions, Skinner asks Persse,

"What's your own field, Mr. McGarrigle?"

"Well, I did my research on Shakespeare and T.S. Eliot," said

Persse.

"I could have helped you with that," Dempsey (a colleague) butted

in. . . . It would lend itself nicely to computerization," . . . . "All you'dhave to do would be to put the texts on to tape and you could get the

computer to list every work, phrase and syntactical construction that the

two writers had in common. You could precisely quantify the influence

of Shakespeare on T. S. Eliot."

"But my thesis isn' t about that," said Persse. "It's about the

influence of T.S. Eliot on Shakespeare."

"That sounds rather Irish, if I may say so," said Dempsey, with a

loud guffaw. . . ."Well, what I try to show," said Persse, "is that we can't

avoid reading Shakespeare through the lens of T.S. Eliot's poetry. I

mean, who can read Hamlet today without thinking of 'Prufrock'? Who

An earlier version of this essay was presented on the topic "The Bible As or In

Literature" in the Conrad-Shelby Lecture Series at Brewton-Parker College on 4 April, 1995.

I am delighted to contribute to this Festschrift in honor of Dan O. Via, Jr. We share the same

denominational heritage; and for an entire generation of baptist New Testament scholars, Dan

Via has provided a stellar example of one who combines rigorous and imaginative

scholarship with a deep commitment to the Christian tradition. On a personal note, I wishpublicly to express my appreciation for the gracious hospitality extended to me by Dan and

Margaret during my summer sabbatical at Duke Divinity School in 1988



148 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

can hear the speeches of Ferdinand in The Tempest without being

reminded of The Fire Sermon' section of The Waste Lana*?" 1

Persse's point is one well-taken. Our reading of texts, especiallyour reading of Scripture, is always influenced by the traditions that have

preceded us and shape our own conventions of reading. This is true even of

religious groups who disavow the influence of tradition. Most Protestant

communities claim to read the Bible as sola scriptum, scripture unleashed

from the dogmatic, ecclesiastical stranglehold of the Roman Catholic

church. This attitude is especially true of baptists,2

whose historic posture

of dissent, doctrine of the priesthood of believers, and belief in soul

competency have been interpreted to mean that the individual believer reads

the Bible and, with the help of the Holy Spirit, comes to interpretations thatare untouched by tradition, isolated from community, and liberated from the

hegemony of ecclesiastical hierarchy. And somehow we extol the

uniqueness and idiosyncrasy of this kind of interpretation as a virtue. But

the truth is that even the baptist attitude of being anti-tradition is itself a

tradition of sorts. And baptists, no less than catholics, interpret the

Scripture in ways that have been influenced by a variety of sources and

precedents. We do, indeed, read Shakespeare through the eyes of Eliot!

We most certainly read Scripture through the layers of ecclesiastical,

literary, visual and cultural traditions that lie between us and these texts of antiquity.

This essay attempts to trace how the treatment across time of one

particular biblical character, the Elder Brother in the Parable of the Prodigal

Son (Luke 15), has come to shape our contemporary reading ofthat story

and the role the Elder Brother plays in it. The bulk of the paper treats the

story of the Elder Brother in Literature. In the last part of the article, I

should like to examine how a re-reading of the story itself, that is the story

of the Elder Brother as Literature, might cause us to re-evaluate the Elder

Brother's role. I am especially interested here in the interplay between the

history of reading and the ethics of reading.

1 David Lodge, Small World: An Academic Romance (New York: Macmillan,

1984)51-52.

2I am employing "baptist" (with a lower case "b") in the way James Wm.

McClendon, Jr. develops that notion in his Systematic Theology: Ethics (Nashville:

Abingdon, 1986).

3

This approach is taken in David Lyle Jeffry, ed., A Dictionary of BiblicalTradition in English Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992). See especially the entry

(pp. 640-44) on "Prodigal Son," by Manfred Siebald and Leland Ryken.



JOURNAL OFTHE NABPR 149

Three preliminary comments are in order. First, the literature on

Luke 15 in each of the periods is massive, and my choice of material has

been constrained in each case by the probability that this material hassurvived in some form or another to influence our reading today. To be

sure, I am not arguing that everyone has read Augustine's Confessions, seen

Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, viewed Rembrandt's Return of the

Prodigal, or even heard Garrison Keillor's rendition of the Parable. But I

am suggesting that each of these interpretations has in some way or another

survived to influence our contemporary understanding of the Prodigal's

Elder Brother.

Second, while most of the material I deal with is in the form of

verbal texts, I am expanding the usual understanding of "literature" toinclude visual representations because the parable has been the subject of so

much representational art, and those visual images have shaped our modern

impressions as much as verbal texts. For that same reason, the visual

representation I choose for the modern period will come from cinematic

expression rather than pictorial ait per se.

Finally, let me anticipate my conclusions at the outset. The Elder

Brother in this parable typically receives one of three kinds of treatment in

subsequent verbal and visual representations. First, the Elder Brother is

more often than not either not mentioned or not depicted. Second, in muchverbal and visual art, the Elder Brother is identified with Jews who are

indignant at the emergence of the younger, upstart religion, Christianity.

The Elder Brother is viewed as the Other, an Outsider, obdurate and

incapable himself of repentance, sometimes even identified with the

"Devil"! The third tendency is to identify the Elder Brother with the self-

righteous Christian and the prodigal with "the penitent sinner." Here, at

4See for example the nearly 150 references cited in Robert W. Baldwin, "A

Bibliography of the Prodigal Son Theme in Art and Literature," Bulletin of Bibliography, 44

(1987) 167-71. Note, though, that with only a few exceptions (cited later), the focus is

mostly on the Prodigal not his brother.

5For another example of a literary theorist who has attempted to overcome the

"word-image opposition," see especially the work by Mieke Bal, Reading (( Rembrandt": Beyond the Word-Image Opposition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

6The fact that this parable is best known as "The Parable of the Prodigal Son,"

illustrates the eclipsing of the elder by the younger. Even modern attempts to rehabilitate the

meaning of the story result in titles like "The Parable of the Waiting Father," still excluding

the elder brother. However, the change in title from "The Parable of the Lost Son," in the

Revised Standard Version to "The Parable of the Prodigal and His Brother," in the NewRevised Standard may be a hopeful sign of recovering the significance of the second half of

the story as more than just a foil for the first half.




least, the Elder Brother is exhorted to move beyond feelings of jealousy

to his own repentence.

THE ELDER BROTHER IN VERBAL AND VISUAL

REPRESENTATIONS FROM LATE ANTIQUITY

THROUGH THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD 3

Though interpreters often disagreed on whether there were two or

three kinds of meaning beyond Scripture's literal sense, there was general

agreement that the Bible's meanings could be categorized as literal andnon-literal with the latter often being referred to as the "spiritual,"

"mystical," or "allegorical." The allegorical interpretation of Luke 15

dominated the church's understanding throughout the Middle Ages and was

practically set by three nearly contemporary discussions from the end of the

fourth century, C.E.: Jerome's twenty-first letter (c. 383), the Commentary

on Luke by Ambrose (c. 388), and Augustine's Questions on the Gospels (c.

399-400). Both Jerome and Ambrose admit two valid readings, though

they focus their attention more on one than the other: the elder and younger

sons may represent Jews and the gentiles respectively in an historicalallegory (Jerome); or a penitential reading, in which the elder son signifies

the self-righteous Christian, and the prodigal represents the contrite sinner

(Ambrose). Augustine focuses only on the historical allegory of Jews and

gentiles. Thus, three responses to the story of the Elder Brother actually

co-exist from the beginning with first one interpretation and then another

dominating.

1. Jerome

Jerome's interpretation comes in the form of a response toquestions from the Pope. When he turns his attention to the identity of the

Elder Brother, he says, "now the story goes on to the older son, whom

many interpret simply as the person of all the saints, but many—quite

7Stephen L. Wailes, Medieval Allegories of Jesus ' Parables (Berkeley: University

of California, 1987)238.8Ibid.



JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 151

correctly—refer to the Jews."9

Jerome then notes the two prominent

interpretations and points out difficulties with each.

From this point on, Jerome focuses on the Elder Brother as

representative of unrepentant Israel. When Luke says that "the elder son

was in the field," Jerome comments that he is "far from the grace of the

Holy Spirit, banished from his father's counsel." When the Elder Brother

asks what the music and dancing mean, Jerome comments that "now Israel

asks why God rejoices at the adoption of the Gentiles."

Jerome finally rejects the claim of the Elder Brother to "have never

transgressed your commandment" as a lie, similar in effect with the parable

of the Pharisee and the Publican.

it seems to me that the Jew boasts more than he tells the truth,

and after the fashion ofthat Pharisee: O God, I give thee thanks that I amnot as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this

publican. I ask you, does not this man seem to be saying of his brother

what the Pharisee had said about the publican: he who hath devoured allhis substance living with harlots!

Jerome's conclusion is clear: The angry Elder Brother who refuses to go in

is "Israel [who] stands outside."

2. AmbroseAmbrose, like Jerome, admits both readings: the historical allegory

and penitential reading, but he focuses on the penitential interpretation in his

Treatise on the Gospel of Luke. For Ambrose the Elder Brother is the self-

righteous Christian who envies the sinner's reconciliation. Being older is

not the result of his wisdom, but his vice. Ambrose says: "He is called

older because an envious person ages quickly."14 His worldliness is

manifested from his position in the fields; his selfishness is his desire for the

kid: "the envious person wants the kid to be sacrificed for himself, the

9Jerome, "Letter 21," in The Letters of St. Jerome, trans. Charles Christopher

Mierow (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1963) 123.

10Ibid., 124.

nIbid., 125.

12Ibid., 126.

13Wailes, Medieval Allegories, 243.

14Ambrose, Traité sur l'Évangile de S. Luc, éd. Gabriel Tissot, 2 Vols., Sources

Chrétiennes 52 (Paris 1956-58) 97




innocent person the lamb."15

The Elder Brother is not a Jew but any

Christian who is resentful of a repenting sinner.

3. AugustineThough Augustine does not utilize the Elder Brother in his

Confessions, he does make reference to him in Quaestiones Evangeliorum,Questions on the Gospels, a fragmentary collection of replies sent to a pious

reader. Here he ignores the "penitential" interpretation mentioned by

Jerome and followed by Ambrose and establishes the interpretation which

dominates medieval exegesis of the parable for the next millennium. His

text reads: "While meanwhile his elder son, the people of Israel followingthe flesh (my emphasis), has not in fact departed into a distant region, but

nevertheless is not in the house, however he is in the field, namely, he istoiling with reference to earthly things . . . ,"

1Augustine interprets the

father's going out to the Elder Brother as an appeal for Jews to enter the

Church "so that all Israel—to whom to an extent blindness has occurred,17

just as to the one absent in the field may become saved." But it is clear

from Augustine's view of the Jews here and elsewhere that he thinks such

conversion either impossible or highly improbable—the Elder Brother/Jews

will not join the great feast!

Jill Robbins has claimed: "Augustine, in excluding the elderbrother, inaugurates a critical tradition that does not read the elder brother

1 o

or reads him as outside." Confirming this statement is the evidence of the

Gloss (an eleventh-century compilation of passages from sources as early

as Tertullian and as late as authorities contemporary with the compilers)

which was standard for Bible study throughout Latin Christendom and

which follows the Augustinian interpretation of the parable. There were,

however, some interesting and diverse interpretations to emerge in the

medieval period.1 The most disturbing reading of the Elder Brother at this

15Ibid.

16Augustine, Quaestiones, lines 106-13.

17Ibid., lines 131-32.

18Jill Robbins, Prodigal Son/Elder Brother (Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press, 1991)42.

19See, e.g. Gottfried of Admont who suggests that the father is God and the two

sons stand for the human being in its two constituent parts; the younger son is the spirit, andthe elder the body (Homiliae dominicales, PL 174, no. 31, cols. 202-10; cited by Wailes,

Medieval Allegories, 244).




time is allegorical interpretation of the parable in the medieval English

version of the Gesta Romanorum . About the Elder Brother it says:

the other son [i.e. the elder brother in the parable], whiche betokeneth the

deuyll, was euer vnkynde, & grutcheth dayly agaynst oure reconsylynge,

sayenge, that by synne we oughte not to come vnto the herytage of heuen.

Unto the whiche brynge vs our lorde Ihesus! Amen.

In identifying the Elder Brother with the Devil, the final (perversely) logical

step in objectifying the Elder Brother as the personification of Evil and the

Other is complete.

4. Illuminated ManuscriptsI know of no depiction of our Parable in any pre-Constantinian

art.21 In fact, the earliest extant visual depiction of Luke 15:11 -32 of which

I am aware occurs in a ninth-century illuminated manuscript now located

in Paris. Another early depiction of the Prodigal's story is in an eleventh-

century Illuminated Gospel Book (also in Paris). In it, the story of the

Prodigal is briefly told. The prodigal takes leave of his father, comes to

himself while herding swine, returns home to receive a robe, sandals and a

ring from an overjoyous father and his servants. Missing evidently is any

sign of the Elder Brother. In another illuminated manuscript perhaps acentury later (located now in Florence), there is another depiction of the

Prodigal. The last scene may depict a reconciliation not only between

Father and Prodigal but also involving the Elder Brother. The figure in the

middle (the father?) is holding the hand of one (the prodigal?) and

entreating or exhorting the other (the Elder Brother?). I have not seen any

discussions of this particular manuscript, and judgment must be suspended

until further research can be done. Most of these early depictions, at least

those in illuminated manuscripts, focus on the Prodigal with few if any

depictions of the Elder Brother.

2OThe Early English Versions of the Gesta Romanorum, ed. Sidney J. Heritage

(London: Trübner, 1879) 444; cited by Young, The English Prodigal Son Plays, 11-12.

2 1See Graydon Snyder, Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life

Before Constantine (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985).

22For a list of extant pictorial and sculptoral representations of the Parable of the

Prodigal Son before 1700, see Alan Young, "Appendix B," in The English Prodigal Son Plays:A theatrical fashion of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Salzburg, Austria:

Institut Für Anglistik und Amerikanistik Universität Salzburg, 1979) 290-317.

23My examination to date is limited to these illuminated manuscripts I am aware





REPRESENTATIONS FROM THE REFORMATION THROUGH THE

NINETEENTH CENTURY

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the story of the

Prodigal Son enjoyed unprecedented popularity in the homiletic, dramatic,

and iconographie traditions. During the period of the Reformation, though,

the penitential reading of the Elder Brother re-emerged, at least in

ecclesiastical circles. This view was forcefully presented by John Calvin.

Still, the historical allegory continued to be very popular in drama and art,

as well as the tendency to ignore the Elder Brother altogether. What is new

in this period are the interpretations of the parable preserved in the very

popular Prodigal Son Plays in England and Europe.

1. John CalvinJohn Calvin acknowledged those "who think that, under the figure

of the first-born son, the Jewish nation is described, have indeed some

argument on their side," but he maintained, "I do not think that they attend

sufficiently to the whole of the passage." Rather, he argued that the

section of the parable dealing with the Elder Brother, "charges those persons

with cruelty, who would wickedly choose to set limits to the grace of God,

as if they envied the salvation of wretched sinners if we are desirousto be reckoned the children of God, we must forgive in a brotherly manner

of brethren . ..."

When, in the parable, the Father goes out to address the Elder

Brother, Calvin comments:

By these words he reproaches hypocrites with intolerable pride,

which makes it necessary that the Father should entreat them not to envy

the compassion manifested to their brethren. . . . the design of Christ is

twelfth- and thirteenth-century cathedrals, especially the 12 scenes of the Prodigal depicted in

the stained glass of the Sens Cathedral, the 22 scenes in tije Chartres Cathedral, the 17 scenes

in Bourges Cathedral, and the 17 scenes in the St. Jean Chapel of the Clermont-Ferrand

Cathedral.

2 4John Calvin, Commentary on a harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 2 vols., trans. William Pringle (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845)

2:349-50.

25Ibid., 350. Calvin (ibid.) did note that in the Lukan context, the discourse was

prompted by the "murmuring of the scribes."




to show that it would be unjust in any man to murmur on account of his

brother having been received into favor

For Calvin, the Elder Brother reminds the pious believer that it costs nothing

to rejoice when God receives "into favor those who had been at variance

with him." Calvin, then, is picking up on the interpretation earlier

advocated by Ambrose and revived by Bonaventure and Albert the Great in

the thirteenth century.

2. Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century English Prodigal Son PlaysProdigal Son plays, both as academic dramas and also as popular

morality plays, were extraordinarily popular in Germany, the Netherlands,

and England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Alan R. Young

has counted no less than 35 extant Prodigal Son plays composed in England

before 1642.27

Many of these plays were Christian adaptations of the classical

dramatists such as Terence and Plautus.8

These adaptations of the

Prodigal Son story produced some interesting diversions from the plot

structure of the original parable.

When the Elder Brother was not ignored in these morality plays

(which was often), his characterization was radically transformed from its

biblical portrayal. Only in The Glasse Government (1575) does he retainthe attitude of unforgiving self-righteousness so dominant in much of the

homiletic and iconographie traditions up to this point.2 In several other

plays of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the Elder Brother

undergoes a radical transformation. One of the first Prodigal Son plays

written in English, Nice Wanton (first extant edition 1560), was heavily

influenced by Calvinistic predestination. There are three children,

Barnabas, Ismael and Dalilah. Barnabas, the older child, is virtuous and

obedient, while the other two throw away their school books and take to

excessive living, stealing, and playing dice. There is no note of forgivenessand reconciliation in this story, however. At the end, Dalilah is "Dead of

the pox" and Ismael's body is draped in chains after he is hanged.

Barnabas, the Elder Brother, is able to avoid this fate only because of a

"special grace." He tells his mother: "In that God preserved me, small

26Ibid.

27Young, The English Prodigal Son Plays, 318-20.

28Ibid., 56.

2 9 0n the point see Young The English Prodigal Son Plays 51




thank to you: If God had not given me special grace, To avoid evil and do

good, this is true, I had lived and died in as wretched case, As they did, for I

had both suffrance and space." Nice Wanton, then, sets the parable

straight. "Barnabas, like the Elder Brother, remains at home and is always

obedient and entirely virtuous. The whole pattern of the play insists that we

regard him as exemplary in every respect."

For a variety of reasons, the Prodigal Son Plays tradition collapsed

in the early decades of the seventeenth century.2

Despite the fascinating

and diverse presentations of the Elder Brother in the Prodigal Son plays,

their characterizations had little impact on subsequent interpretations. For

that reason, though they are an interesting relic in the history of

interpretation, they play little role in shaping modern understandings of the

Elder Brother.

3. ShakespeareOne writer who stands clearly in the tradition of Prodigal Son plays

and who does continue to exert an influence on modern audiences and33

contemporary literature is Shakespeare. A number of scholars have noted

the influence of the Parable of the Prodigal Son on his writings.34

One

Shakespearean critic has called the story of the Prodigal "the most

^Nice Wanton, ed. J.S. Farmer, Dramatic Writings ofWever and Ingelend, 112;

cf. also 108-11.

3 1 Young, The English Prodigal Plays, 100-01. The conflict between the theology

espoused in the play and the purpose of such prodigal son plays for moral instruction for

parents and children is clearly evident.

32 For an assessment of why, see Young, "The Collapse of a Tradition," in The English Prodigal Son Plays, 230-78.

33 For an examination of Shakespeare's contribution to the Prodigal Son plays

through his Henry IV plays see Young, The English Prodigal Son Plays, 194-225 and also J.

Dover Wilson, The Fortunes of Falstaff (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943;

rept. 1979), 17-35.

34 See in addition to Young and Wilson cited above; Susan Snyder, "King Lear and

the Prodigal Son," SQ 17.4 (1966): 361-69; Peter Mislard, "Shakespeare and the Prodigal

Son," The Bible Today, 51 (1970): 172-79; Darryl Tippens, "Shakespeare and the Prodigal

Son Tradition," Explorations in Renaissance Culture, 14 (1988): 57-77. Tippens is uniquein paying close attention to the way the Parable was mediated to Shakespeare in the great

literary and iconographie traditions beyond the bare biblical text.




35

frequently mentioned Parable of the Gospels in the plays" of Shakespeare,

and another has argued that "the Prodigal Son tradition is indeed a shapingforce in the poet's imagination and central to his deepest concerns."

References to the parable in the Bard's plays have been found in the Henry

IV plays, Timon of Athens, King Lear, Hamlet, Love 's Labour's Lost, and

the Merchant of Venice among others. Despite these wide-ranging

allusions to the Prodigal, Shakespeare rarely refers to the Elder Brother of

the Parable. One notable exception to this point, however, seems to be the

allusions in The Merchant of Venice (c. 1596-1598), claimed by some to be38

"perhaps the most 'prodigal' of all the plays." The theme of prodigality is

evident in the ruminations of Gratiano, friend to Lorenzo and Bassanio:How like a younger [younker] or a prodigal

The scarfed bark puts from her native bay,

Hugged and embraced by the strumpet wind!

How like the prodigal doth she return

With overweathered ribs and ragged sails,

Lean, rent, and beggared by the strumpet wind! (II.6.13-20)

Gratiano's speech serves as a prelude both to Antonio's prodigal losses and

gains and to the appearance of Jessica, Shy lock's daughter, about to

abscond with her father's wealth. The movement of the speech parallels the

scenes of the parable. First, the prodigal departs as a younker, where both

ship and daughter in "scarfed bark puts from her native bay." Then the

second act of the Prodigal's drama occurs where the prodigal is "embraced

and hugged by the strumpet," an allusion to tavern scenes of riotous living.

In the final scene, the prodigal returns "with over-weather'd ribs and ragged

sails/lean, rent, and beggar'd." What is significant in Gratiano's speech is

the omission of the reunion of prodigal with the forgiving father.39 In fact,

35Richmond Noble, Shakespeare's Biblical Knowledge (London: SPCK, 1935)

277.

36Tippens, "Shakespeare and the Prodigal Son Tradition," 74.

37Critics dispute the exact number of references to the parable with the numbers

ranging from nine (Noble) to twenty (Tippens).


39Though Jessica is never depicted literally as "lean, rent, and beggar'd" there arehints that not all has been or will be well in the allusion to ill-fated lovers in the "in such a

night" exchange between Jessica and Lorenzo in the closing scene (5 1 1 24)




Jessica's father, Shy lock, the rich Jew of Venice, is depicted more as a

resentful Elder Brother than as a forgiving father.40

As we have seen already with Jerome, it was conventional to

identify the Elder Brother with the arrogant Pharisee of Luke 15 and 18.

Shakespeare also identifies Shylock with the indignant Pharisee by means of

Shylock's aside before meeting Antonio for the first time: "How like a

fawning publican he looks!" (1.3.33; see Luke 15:1-2; 18:9-14). Shylock

initially refuses to accept Bassanio's invitation to dine (1.3.27-30) echoing

the Elder Brother's refusal to join in the Prodigal's feast; and when finally

he agrees to join the feast, it is not to celebrate, but rather he says, "I go in

hate, to feed upon/the prodigal Christian" (II.5.14-15). Shylock intends

literally to fulfill this grisly purpose with his quest for a "pound of flesh"

from Antonio (see scene 4; cf. 1.3.158ff). This Elder Brother typology is

strengthened by Shylock's later reference to Antonio as a "prodigal"

(3.1.35).

Like the traditional understanding of the Elder Brother, Shylock is

stereotypically depicted as the obstinate Jew who is resentful of the

Christians' good fortunes at his expense, and, in fact, at least twice in the

play (1.3.90; 2.2.17-20), Shylock is identified with the "devil" in much the

same way as was the Elder Brother in the earlier Gesta Romanorum.Throughout the play, then, Shylock is scapegoated in the conventional

formula "Jewishness plus usury equals villainy." l Shylock's punishmentfor threatening to kill a Christian was to name Lorenzo and Jessica as his

heirs and to convert to Christianity. Shylock, then, is no Loving Father, but

rather the Elder Brother whose resentment of the prodigals, Antonio and

Jessica, leads ultimately to his demise (in the case of Shylock his loss of

property, occupation and forced conversion). That "the Merchant of Venice

shares with Hamlet the distinction of having been more often performed

than any other of Shakespeare's plays" insures its influence at least

indirectly on English speakers' understanding of the prodigal plot.

40 In fact, in the last dialogue between Lorenzo and Jessica, Shylock is not only

notably absent, but he is never referred to as Jessica's father, but rather distanced and

depersonalized as "the wealthy Jew" (5.1.15) from whom Jessica stole and as "the rich Jew"

(5.1.291-92) who was forced to make Lorenzo and Jessica his heirs.

41This despite the fact that, at least in theory, practicing Jews had been excluded

from England for three centuries prior to Elizabethan London and the fact that Shakespeare

himself was unlikely ever to have known an orthodox Jew. See M. M. Mahood, ed., The Merchant of Venice. New Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1987), "Introduction," 22; "Appendix: Shakespeare's use of the Bible," 185.

42Mahood, "Introduction," 42.




4. Rembrandt "No artist has ever depicted the most moving episode from the

parable of the Prodigal Son as often or as effectively as Rembrandt."

Beginning with an etching dating from 1636 until the completion of the

famous Return of the Prodigal in the last years of Rembrandt's life (1668-

69), Rembrandt lovingly worked and reworked various depictions of the

Homecoming episode (See Illustration 1). I have chosen this last and most

profound representation of the Parable by Rembrandt as our example of the

parable in visual representational art. This choice seems appropriate since

Rembrandt's painting is one of the most famous depictions of this scene. It

might also be significant, given the baptist heritage of this Festschrift'shonorée, to point out that not only was Rembrandt one of the few great

Protestant artists during the Renaissance and Baroque periods, but that by

the time of the Return of the Prodigal, he had come profoundly under the

influence of the same anabaptist traditions which had earlier influenced

baptist forebearers, Smyth and Helwys.

Though there is much to ponder about the painting, especially the

powerful pathos of the elderly, presumably nearly blind father embracing

the beggardly prodigal, I will focus my few comments on the two male

characters to the immediate right of the father. Though the identity of thesetwo figures has been the object of much debate among Rembrandt scholars,

a recent dissertation by Barbara Joan Haeger has settled the issue, at least

for me. Haeger demonstrates that in the biblical commentaries and

paintings contemporary with Rembrandt, the parable of the Pharisee and the

tax collector (Luke 18) and the parable of the prodigal were closely linked

(as was true a century earlier with Shakespeare). Rembrandt follows that

tradition in depicting the seated man beating his breast. Here is the

publican or tax collector of the parable beating his breast in repentance,

"God, be merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18:13). The Elder Brother, on the

other hand, stands like the Pharisee in the same parable with hands folded

in judgment, "God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves,

rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector" (Luke 18:11).

43Hidde Hoekstra, Rembrandt and the Bible (Utrecht: Magna Books, 1990) 335.

4 4 0n the anabaptist influence on Rembrandt, see Jacob Rosenberg, Rembrandt, Life & Work (London: Greenwich, 1964), 180ff.; Julius Held, "Rembrandt and the Book of

Tobit," in Rembrandt Studies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991).

4 50n this scene, see especially the comments by Henri J. M. Nouwen in The

Return of the Prodigal Son (New York: Doubleday 1992)




CREDIT: Giraudon/Art Resource, NY. Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn.

Return of the Prodigal Son. Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia.




Rembrandt continues the iconographie and homiletic traditions of

identifying the Elder Brother with judgmental Pharisees. Rembrandt differs

from the biblical scene by placing the Elder Brother as the most prominent

witness to the homecoming scene. So Rembrandt holds in tension a portrait

of the Elder Brother standing in judgment with the possibility that he may in

the end join in the feast. Haeger comments; "Rembrandt does not reveal

whether he [the Elder Brother] sees the light. As he does not clearly

condemn the Elder Brother, Rembrandt holds out the hope that he too will

perceive he is a sinner . . . the interpretation of the elder brother's reaction

is left up to the viewer."46

I will later argue that this open-endedness

toward the Elder Brother's response, so rare in the history of interpretation,

is a faithful rendering of the parable itself.

J. Neglect of the Elder Brother Despite the relative prominence which Calvin, Rembrandt, and

Shakespeare gave the Elder Brother, many clerics, artists, and dramatists

continued to neglect him altogether in this period.

(a) Homiletic Traditions. Other Protestants, following Augustine

and Calvin, interpreted the prodigal's son story as a perfect distillation of

Reformed theology—the triumph of grace over works, but unlike Calvin,

they paid little or no attention to the Elder Brother. The Prodigal's storyinspired book-length interpretations like Samuel Gardiner's 1599 devotional

study, The Portraitur of the Prodigali Sonne, in which Gardiner referred to

the story as "the Epitome of the Gospell, the abstract and compendium of

the whole worke of our redemption." The gloss on the Prodigal Son story

in the Geneva Bible makes a similar point: "And Luke makes this a pattern

for us to imitate." Likewise John Donne remarks on the parable as

emblematic of everyday life: "As we gave away ourselves, so [God]

restores us to our selves again. It is well expressed in the parable of the

prodigali; and his case is ours."48 Despite this attention paid to the Prodigal

Son in the homiletic tradition, the other brother is simply ignored by thesesources.

46Cited by ibid., 77-78.

4 7Samuel Gardiner, The Portraitur of the Prodigali Sonne (London: Nicholas Ling,

1599).

48

77Î£ Sermons of John Donne, eds. George R. Potter and Evelyn Simpson(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953-62) 1:62. All the texts cited above are

quoted also by Darryl Tippens "Shakespeare and the Prodigal Son Tradition " 59




By the nineteenth century, this neglect had even touched

"evangelical communities." In his autobiography, the English divine, John

Ruskin, relates a visit he made with a friend around 1860 to a "fashionable

séance of evangelical doctrine conducted by a Mr. Molyneux." Mr.

Molyneux "discoursed in tones of consummate assurance and satisfaction . . .

on the beautiful parable of the Prodigal Son." Finally, Ruskin narrates:

I ventured, from a back seat, to enquire of Mr. Molyneux

what we were to learn from the example of the other son,

not prodigal, who was, his father said of him, 'ever with me,

and all that I have thine?' A sudden horror, and unanimous

feeling of the serpent having, somehow, got over the wall

into their Garden of Eden, fell on the whole company; andsome of them, I thought, looked at the candles as if they

expected them to burn blue. After a pause of a minute,

gathering himself into an expression of pity and indulgence,

withholding latent thunder, Mr. Molyneux explained to me

that the home-staying son was merely a picturesque figure

introduced to fill the background of the parable agreeably,

and contained no instruction or example for the well-49

disposed scriptural student....(b) Iconographie Traditions. The parable of the Prodigal Son was

visually represented nearly everywhere, "on the walls of houses, taverns

and churches, in stained glass windows, among collections of woodcuts and

engravings, on cushions, bed-hangings and coverlets, and on stoneware

jugs, goblet lids and painted cabinets."5

It has been called "one of the

most prominent subjects for Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque art."

The popularity of the prodigal son in all types of artistic media serves in

sharp contrast to the neglect of the Elder Brother by artists during the

periods of the Reformation through the Enlightenment or in art-historicalterms, the Renaissance through Baroque and Rococo. The work of Albrecht

Dürer {The Contemplation of the Prodigal Son, 1496) represents those who

4 9 John Ruskin, "'Praeter ita'': Outline of Scenes and Thoughts, Perhaps Worthy of Memory in My Past Life (Boston: Dana Estes & Company, 1885) 396-97.

50

Young, The English Prodigal Son Plays, 281.

Tippens, "Shakespeare and the Prodigal Son Tradition," 58.




depict scenes from the life of the Prodigal prior to his homecoming. Even

when the scene depicted is that of the prodigal's homecoming, the Elder

Brother is often missing from the scene (perhaps reflecting a literal

rendering of the biblical passage).53

When he is depicted, it is most often

standing on the very margins of the homecoming scene, as in the scene by

Beham (1540), where the Elder Brother continues to plow, oblivious of his

brother's return.

The same is true of visual representations of the parable in

eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century England and America. Scenes

from the life of the Prodigal Son were extremely popular prints in both

England and colonial America, often adorning the homes of middle class

citizens everywhere. In what is believed to be the earliest depiction made incolonial America, the prodigal (attired in garb appropriate to late eighteenth

century America!) returns home and kneels before an affectionate father and

servants who are bearing shoes and coat. There is no sign of the Elder

Brother. Likewise in an even earlier British print set of six scenes which

depict the prodigal's story in stereotypical fashion: 1) receiving the

patrimony; 2) the departure; 3) the riotous living (almost always depicted as

here in a tavern); 4) the prodigal "coming to himself amidst the swine; 5)

the homecoming; and 6) the celebration. In the sixth scene, the Elder

Brother can be seen standing outside the party with a look of disbelief on hisface and a hoe thrown across his shoulder.

(c) Dramatic Traditions. Finally, as noted earlier, the neglect of the

Elder Brother is even more obvious in the dramatic versions of the Prodigal.

As with the homiletic tradition, the Elder Brother played little or no role in

most of these extremely popular plays. One drama, Acolastus ("wastrel," or

"prodigal") is particularly noteworthy in this regard. A bilingual version of

it, translated by John Palsgrave, chaplain and pedagogue of Henry VIII, was

used as "an essential text in the new humanist educational system of

52See inter alia Bosch (The Prodigal Son, 1516), Holbein (Scheibenriss, 1520) and

the earlier etchings and paintings by Rembrandt (The Departure of the Prodigal Son, 1632-

33; The Prodigal Son as a Swineherd, 1647-48; The Prodigal Son Squanders his Inheritance,1636).

53See, e.g., van Leyden (The Homecoming of the Prodigal Son, 1510); Massari

(The Return of the Lost Son, 1620); and van Dyck (The Lost Son with the Penitents beforethe Madonna, 1620)

54

See the discussion of these prints by Edwin Wolf in "The Prodigal Son inEngland and America: A Century of Change," in Eighteenth Century Prints in Colonial America: To Educate and Decorate, Joan D. Dolmetsch, ed. (Williamsburg, VA: The




England." Acolastus was translated into English in 1540, making it almost

the first Prodigal Son play to appear in English. Its popularity is proven by

the fact that the original Latin version went through 48 editions in sixty

years. It is noteworthy for completely omitting the episode of the Elder

Brother, even though twice Acolastus is referred to as a younger son. Alan

Young has noted that there is "no particular evidence that the visual

representations of this episode [of the elder brother] influenced the plays in5?56

any way.


REPRESENTATIONS OF THE MODERN PERIOD

The Parable of the Prodigal Son has continued its popularity in

twentieth-century homiletic, dramatic, and visual traditions. Since I am

concerned to argue that our contemporary interpretations of the Elder

Brother are influenced by the traditions of interpretation that lay between us

and the text, I must pay close attention to the interpretations which have the

most pervasive influence in our culture. So when I look at the homiletic

traditions, I will attend to the interpretation of the Parable in American

Protestant preaching. Likewise, though I will mention some of the prodigal

themes in contemporary literature and art, I will concentrate on depictions

of the Elder Brother in popular culture.

1. Homiletic TraditionSome earlier scholars have argued on form-critical grounds that the

story of Elder Brother was never a part of the original parable and was

added later by the church,57

and others have accepted the authenticity of the

story but argued that "the parable is aesthetically satisfactory without it."

Both these moves are analogous to earlier attempts simply to ignore the

Elder Brother. Still other commentators continue the identification of the


56Young, The English Prodigal Plays, 51. The Disobedient Child is another

important prodigal play which omits reference to the Elder Brother.

57See J. M. Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke (London: Macmillan, 1930)

197.

58Dan O. Via, Jr., The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967) 164.




Elder Brother with the Pharisees of the Parable, or with the "self-

righteous" believer.60

George Buttrick in the "Exposition" section of the

Interpreter's Bible does both. Early in his exposition, he claims: "The younger son is the publicans and sinners; the elder brother is the Pharisees

and scribes."61

Later, he identifies the attitude of the Elder Brother with

that of the church. This commentary is especially important since it is part

of a series, The Interpreter } s Bible, which for the last forty years has been

an indispensable aid to most preachers in mainline American Protestant

denominations.

What exactly have American preachers been saying about the Elder

Brother to their congregations? While it would be impossible to generalize

on this point without distortion, we are fortunate to have access to a recent work by Marsha Witten, All is Forgiven, a study based on forty-seven

sermons preached on Luke 15:11-32 between 1986 and 1988 by pastors

within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Southern Baptist

Convention. These sermons tend to treat the Elder Brother in ways similar

to those we have seen already with certain interesting variations.

On the basis of her analysis, Witten argues that for Southern

Baptists the younger brother is the emblem of sin.

The younger brother's behavior, then, is so dramatic an emblem of sin toSouthern Baptists not only because it symbolizes violation of the key

relationship of authority—that between child and parent, and by extension,

people and God—but also because it leads the son down the slippery slope

of sin culminating in the degradation of the human personality. To begin

the slide through an act of rebellion is eventually to find the muck of the

swine at one's feet.63

Because of this focus on the Prodigal Son, most of the Southern Baptist

sermons Witten examined simply ignore the episode of the Elder Brother.

59See, e.g., J. Bradley Chance, "Luke," in Mercer Commentary on the Bible, eds.

Watson Mills, et al (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995) 1028.

60See, e.g., John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, WBC 35 Β (Dallas: Word Books,

1993) 791; Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke's

Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988)278-79.

6George Buttrick, "Exposition," Luke in the Interpreter's Bible, Vol. VIII (New

York: Abingdon, 1952)279.

62Marsha G. Witten, All Is Forgiven: The Secular Message in American

Protestantism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).

63Ibid 85




When Southern Baptists did mention the Elder Brother it was usually to

identify his attitude with that of the Jews:

I believe the two sons represent the prideful Israel and the gentile world

out there and that the world could come back to God no matter what

they'd done yet the prideful Jewish people did not like it that He was

receiving sinners and He was reminding them through these two sons that

God received anybody who has a repentant heart.

[The older brother] never saw the significance in the empty chairs at his

Father's table—chairs for publicans and sinners . . . I often wonder why

the brother didn't ask about the empty chair; maybe he didn't ask because

he didn't want to look for him; maybe because he didn't want to share the

limelight, or the wealth, or the position, or anything else. Israel, God's

chosen people, responded in just a fashion!

For Presbyterians, Witten argues, the symbol of sin is the joyless older

brother: "This man has two major strikes against him: He is full of self-

righteousness about his own dutiful behavior, and he lacks sufficient charity

to welcome his errant brother home." The following excerpts demonstrate

Witten's conclusion:

I believe that the parable is saying that being self-centered, righteous, and

unforgivingis

just as sinful as waywardness and rebellion.The older son comes home, finds a feast going on, he begins to pout and

refuses to come in. . . . you might ask whether we conceal beneath

respectable, moral exteriors, the spirit of the older brother, the sulky, self-

righteousness of a rotten temperament.

Here we see the life-size portrait of a dull saint. He was self-righteous.

The holier-than-thou is always jealous. He was even jealous of his

brother's repentance . . . he pretended to worship . . . in actuality, he is his

own god worshipping himself. This dull saint was 100 percent synthetic.66

These contemporary Presbyterian sermons parallel earlier attempts to

identify the Elder Brother with the self-righteous believer, with onesignificant twist. In these sermons, "the portraits [of the elder brother] are

internalized and psychologized . . . . these depictions highlight the

64Ibid., 93, 94. To be sure, as Witten points out (93) the second of these quotations

is "more ambiguous about limiting the identification of sinners to the ancient Jews." Even

more troubling is the example cited by Witten (94-95) where the sin of the elder brother is

identified by a Presbyterian preacher with that of amodern Jew, Simon Wiesenthal.

65

Ibid., 85-86.

66Ibid., 86.




personality of the older brother instead of the result of his behavior. Here,

sin is a matter of temperament and personality, of having the wrong attitude,

of not feeling the appropriate emotions in one's heart and acting on thefeelings. . . ."

67The Elder Brother is understood by these Presbyterian

pastors in tones reminiscent of a practiced psychological discourse.

2. Literary/Dramatic TraditionThe Prodigal Son parable has been traced in various contemporary

American writers and playwrights, such as Herman Melville, Mark Twain,

Stephen Crane, Eugene O'Neill, and Henry Miller. A brief description of

these references is found in the excellent resource edited by David Jeffrey

entitled, A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature. Thisliterature tends to focus on the theme of prodigality and there is little or no

attention given to the character of the Elder Brother.

Since our search is for those traditions which may most directly

influence contemporary understanding of the parable, I turn my attention to

one possible filter which represents the kind of contemporary traditions

likely to influence the modern mind. In a radio broadcast from several years

ago, Garrison Keillor gave his own version of the Prodigal Son. Keillor's

narrator tells us the performance is sponsored by "the American Council of

Remorse—a nonprofit organization working for greater contrition on the70

part of people who do terrible things." The story is set in Judea, or at least

Keillor's imaginary construal of Judea, where a father and his two sons,

Wally, the prodigal, and Dwight, the older, run a feed-lot operation. Foolish

virgins, a publican, and a Samaritan expand Keillor's cast for the play

(which also includes a little ditty, "Hey Judea" sung to the tune of "Hey,

Jude").

Following the plot of the parable, the prodigal, Wally, returns home

and is warmly received by his father who orders clothes and a ring and

shoes ("not those running shoes! The dress shoes!"). Dwight returns andcomplains that his father has never given a party complete with fatted calf

for him and his friends. The play closes with this dialogue:

DWIGHT: I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying, Dad. You never

ran up to me and hugged me—I'd just like to point that out.

67Ibid., 87.

68Cited above in footnote 3.

^The play was subsequently published in the journal, Antaeus 66 (1991), 242-47.

70Ibid 242




DAD: I'm not a hugger, I guess.

WALLY (Enters mouthfull).

Have some calf, you guys. That fat won'tkeep, you know. Sure is good fatted calf, Dad. Sure beats husks. (Off.)Care for another piece, you virgins?

DWIGHT: Ever stop to think who fatted that calf, Wally? That was our

best calf, Dad. The best one. (The others slowly leave, talking among

themselves.) Try to think how I feel. I'm hoeing corn all day, come in

bone-tired, there's my brother smelling of pig manure, and they got the

beer on ice and my calf on the barbecue! And MY RING on his hand! My

ring\ You promised it to me, but oh no—can't give it to the son who's

worked his tail off for thirty years, oh no, gotta give it to the weasel who

comes dragging his butt in the door—Oh great—wonderful, Dad. Terrific.

Maybe I'll go sleep with the pigs, seeing as you go for that. See

ya later, Wally. Help yourself to the rest of my stuff—clothes, jewels,

shekels, just take what you want. Take my room. Don't worry about me.

I'll be in the pigpen.

(He leaves. Offstage sounds: A stove being kicked, muttered curses, potsand pans being thrown, dishes broken.)

Although Keillor depicts the Elder Brother as a sympathetic character, the

"play" ends with Dwight leaving the scene with no hint that he will return.

Like the self-righteous believer in other interpretations, the Elder Brother isexcluded (or excludes himself) from joining in the banquet. His departure

seems absolute—he actually departs the stage in a fit of rage, according to

the narrator—a much more final exit than in the Parable itself, a point to be

pursued a bit later.

3. Contemporary Visual TraditionsDepictions of the Prodigal Son in modern American art have had

little influence in shaping contemporary popular culture.7 Instead, I wish

to argue that the homiletic, literary, and visual traditions have coalescedwith a powerful American myth or world view which profoundly shapes our

typical understanding of the parable. The myth is the savior-hero myth in

7 1 Ibid., 246-47.

72For a catalogue of some modern American depictions, see Jerry Evenrud, "Visual

Exegesis: The Prodigal Son,'" ARTS: The Arts in Religious and Theological Studies 4/3

(1992): 4-9.

731 am dependent in what follows on Bernard Brandon Scott, Hollywood Dreams &




which a hero figure saves the good, defeats the evil, and resolves the

conflict.74

In these stories, good and evil are absolutized, so there is no

gray area. This myth has especially been embodied in our culture in

popular films, dating back at least to the classic Western movie, Shane.Surely no film has been more successful in recent times than the first of the

Star Wars trilogy in perpetuating the savior/hero myth in our culture. A

"high-tech" Western, Star Wars depicts the rescue of the Good Princess

Leah (dressed in white) and her subjects from the Evil Empire and Darth

Vader (dressed in black) by hero Luke Skywalker (would-be jedi knight)

and his companions Hans Solo, Chewbacca, et al. The myth is so perfectly

enacted that at the climactic moment at the end when Luke Skywalker

makes a "one-in-a-million" shot to destroy the Death Star, there is little orno remorse at the apocalyptic image of countless human beings

disintegrating in a spectacular explosion that would rival any nuclear blast.

There is no remorse because the Hero has defeated the absolute evil (though

not absolutely since Darth Vader escapes) and saved the oppressed good.

I am not suggesting that the parable is consciously inscribed in the

movie (as in previous verbal and visual examples), but rather that this myth

of the hero coalesces with the history of interpretation of the parable and

produces a contemporary reading in which the hero Father (a stand-in for

God) saves the younger repentant son and rejects the self-righteousbrother. We see this interpretation in a number of the Southern Baptist

sermons mentioned above. The hero myth contributes to contemporary

readings that reject the Elder Brother as an obdurate Jew or evil Outsider.

As we arrive at the end of our survey, I would like to suggest that

the exclusion of the Elder Brother, either by ignoring him or marginalizing

him as an Outsider, has dominated Christian interpretation since Augustine;

and it is still, I think, the dominant interpretation at the level of popular

culture. Even those who see the Elder Brother as a jealous believer inside

the Christian community, rarely suggest the possibility for change.Alongside this dominant interpretation, however, runs a countertheme—the

Elder Brother as a resentful believer who is exhorted to rejoice at the

prodigal's homecoming and repent himself. This is the penitential reading

of Ambrose, Calvin, and, in a way, Rembrandt.

74

The distinctive American contribution to this myth is that violence provides thesolution to this conflict.




THE ELDER BROTHER AS LITERATURE:

RE-READING THE PARABLE

I would finally like to offer a re-reading of the story of the Elder

Brother, that is rooted in both aesthetics and ethics, which might give some

guidance to a contemporary understanding of the Parable. By focusing on

the Elder Brother in this parable, I wish to retrieve him from those

traditions, whether literary, visual, or homiletic, which simply ignore him. I

am making no attempt, however, to displace the Prodigal Son in the story.

His is a moving story which does narrate with strength and beauty the

Gospel's power to transform the life of an individual or the structures of a

society. But the Prodigal's redemption need not take place at the expense

of the Elder Brother.

1. The Rejected Elder Son Theme in Biblical and Post-Biblical TraditionsA common strategy in most of the verbal and visual interpretations,

whether influenced by the historical allegory or the penitential reading of

the Elder Brother, is that they either state or imply that the Elder Brother is

permanently and absolutely an outsider to the story. Ignoring the Elder

Brother likewise achieves the same goal of exclusion. I am arguing that a

close reading of the story reveals that the parable is open-ended and that the

fate of the Elder Brother is by no means decided by either the parable itself or its literary framework in Luke.

It is not simply the American myth of the hero that has caused so

many readers to view the Prodigal Son as blessed with redemption and the

Elder Brother as condemned for his jealousy. Noted literary critic,

Northrop Frye, among others, once pointed out that "there is one theme that

recurs frequently in the early books of the Bible: the passing over of the

firstborn son, who normally has the legal right of primogeniture, in favor of

a younger son."76 For Frye, "the theme of the passed-over firstborn seems

to have something to do with the insufficiency of the human desire forcontinuity which underlies the custom of passing the inheritance on to the

eldest son. . . . Hence the deliberate choice of a younger son represents a

divine intervention in human affairs, a vertical descent into the continuity

that breaks its pattern, but gives human life a new dimension by doing

76Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982) 180; for examples see 180-81. See also Roger Syrén,The Forsaken First-Born: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives,

JSOTSup 133 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993).




This theme was also significant in post-biblical Judaism. In the Midrash onPsalm 9 is the following story:

R. Berechiah said in the name of R. Jonathan: . . . The verse means

therefore that God has set love of little children in their father's hearts.

For example, there was a king who had two sons, one grown up, the other

a little one. The grown-up one was scrubbed clean, and the little one was

covered with dirt, but the king loved the little one more than he loved the78

grown-up one.

Many commentators have been influenced by this "passed-over

firstborn" theme in their reading of the parable. Walter Brueggemann, for

example, equates the parable with the story of Cain and Abel:

In Jesus' story of the prodigal, the older brother is not quite a murderer.

But he senses the same realities. He smells the blood. And the father

knows. Like Cain, the older brother is "in the field" (Luke 15:25), an

exile away from the house, from security and joy, away from the father,

unprotected. . . . The story of Gen. 4 is reenacted in Luke 1. Only the

father deals differently. But the older brother is nonetheless left in

exile.79

Attending to the literary details of the parable, however, demonstrates that

the rejected elder son theme is actually not perpetuated by the parable but

subverted by it. To be sure, the fact that the Elder Brother is "in the field"

is a spatial metaphor indicating distance from the Father and perhaps failure.

The brother's indignation at the Father's treatment of the returning Prodigal

also places him in a bad light and sets up the reader/hearer to expect the

performance of another "scrubbed clean" older son being rejected in favor

of the younger. But the parable takes a surprising turn. The father does not

shun the Elder Brother as the "rejected elder son" theme would demand.

There is no "Jacob, I loved, but Esau, I hated" (Mai 1:2-3) note here.

Rather, the Father reassures the Elder Son, "All that is mine is yours" (Luke15:31). Nor is the Elder Brother banished or exiled: "You are always with

me." The parable subverts the rejected elder son theme that demands one be

chosen and the other rejected. Both are chosen.

78Cited by Scott, Here then the Parable, 112. For a description of the

younger/elder mytheme, see Scott, 123-24.

79Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982) 62.

80In what follows I am indebted to the analysis of Brandon Scott, Hear then the




Both sons have sinned; yet both sons are rewarded: "The younger

son violates the moral code and gets a feast; the elder rejects the father but

gets all. The father is interested neither in morality nor in inheritance. He

is concerned with the unity of his sons."81 The Father is not the God of

Israel who redeems the just and punishes the unjust nor the American hero

who rewards and avenges. Rather, the Father abandons his honorable role

as patriarch and shamelessly embraces both sons: "You want my property

before I die? Take it. You want to come back? Here, come back, let's

have a party. You don't want to come in to the party? I'll come out. You

feel abandoned and unwanted? You're always with me."82

In the parable,

Jesus rejects any apocalyptic notion of some group's being rejected at the

expense of another.

2. The Open-Ended Story in LukeSome might object that though a subversion of the rejected elder

son theme might be the meaning of the parable when interpreted apart from

its narrative context, its Lukan framework forces the reader to identify the

Elder Brother with the grumbling Pharisees, who are in fact judged and

banished. In Luke's framing of the story, readers are invited, perhaps even

compelled, to identify the Elder Brother with the Pharisees of 15:1-2.

Brandon Scott argues: "Since the . . . narrative identifies the elder son with

the rejected Pharisees of the primary narrative, there is an implied rejectionof the elder son."

83

I do not disagree with Scott's contention that at the primary

narrative level the Elder Brother is identified with the Pharisees; certainly

our brief history of interpretation would confirm that a large number of

readers have responded to the clues of the text in just that way. The

question is whether there are religious leaders who are not absolutelyrejected on the primary level of Luke's Gospel. Is the Elder Brother, like

the Pharisees he represents, banished from the party forever? Or does the

Elder Brother stand, like the Pharisees, at the crossroads where he, likethey, must make a decision about whether to join the feast or not? I

certainly do not have the space to enter into a dialogue with those who

81 Scott, 125.

82Scott, "Heroes From on High," Anglican Theological Review, 69 (1987): 143.

83Scott, Hear then the Parable, 103.

84

Scott's analysis {Hear then the Parable, 101-04) of the primary, intermediate,and third-level stories and his distinction between fictional and implied audiences are

tremendously helpful.




have examined the issue of Luke's views on Israel, but I will argue that,

even on the level of the primary narrative, this story is an open-ended one.

The story ends with the father's words ringing in the Elder Brother's ears,

"Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It is fitting to

make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was

lost, and is found." And the Elder Brother stands at the threshold to choose

whether or not to join the banquet.

The open-endedness of this story points to the openness of the

narrator to individuals among the religious leaders who, as a group, are

opposed to Jesus. Despite some sharply negative comments directed at the

leaders as a group, as Robert Tannehill notes, "in some cases the possibility

of change . . . is clearly left open." 5 This openness is seen in the otherfamous parable in Luke, the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-

37). The story in Luke ends with Jesus telling the teacher of the law, "Go

and do likewise" (10:37). The response of the lawyer at this point is not

indicated. Did he go and do likewise? We do not know, but the open-

endedness of the story leaves open the possibility for change.

An even more striking example of this open-endedness is in the

story of the rich ruler in Luke 18. The ruler asks the same question as the

lawyer, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus then

rehearses parts of the decalogue from the Torah, and the ruler asserts, "Allthese I have observed from my youth." Jesus responds, "One thing you still

lack. Sell all you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure

in heaven; and come, follow me" (18:22). The narrator then reports, "When

he [the ruler] heard this, he became sorrowful, for he was very rich"

(18:23). Though saddened by Jesus' remarks about selling his possessions,

the ruler in Luke's account does not leave. In fact, when Jesus follows up

with his aphorism about the difficulty (but not the impossibility!) of rich

people getting into heaven and camels passing through a needle's eye, the

narrator reports that Jesus was looking at the rich ruler (18:24). Thepossibility for change still exists.

The same story in Mark and Matthew has a very different

conclusion. In both Mark (10:22) and Matthew (19:22), the rich ruler not

only becomes sorrowful at Jesus' words, he goes away, bringing a closure

to the story (and forcing Jesus to tell his needle's eye story only to his

disciples) that is missing in Luke. In each of these instances, the Lukan

narrative frame of the Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan, and the Rich

Ruler leaves open the possibility that the character may respond favorably

85Robert Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 2 vols. (Philadelphia:




to Jesus' invitation to join the banquet, to perform acts of charily, or to

redistribute possessions to care for the poor. These unfinished stories will

not be finished finally by the Elder Brother, the Pharisees, the legal expert,

or the rich ruler. The literary function and theological purpose of these

narrative gaps is to invite readers to finish the story for themselves. Will

you give to the poor, the story asks. Will you go and do likewise? Will you

join the great banquet?

CONCLUSION

In his massive and magisterial two-volume commentary on Luke,

Joseph Fitzmyer has remarked: "We never learn—and one misses the point

to ask—about the subsequent reaction of the elder son (Did he yield to his

father's persuasion? Did he go in and greet his younger brother? Did he

join in the feasting?)"86 While I would agree that it is impossible to know

the Elder Brother's response, I would strongly disagree that to ask that

question is to miss the point. In fact, I would argue that to ask how the

Elder Brother responds is exactly one of the major points of the parable.

We can no longer ignore the Elder Brother in the parable nor is it

feasible, given the post-Holocaust world in which we live and the troubled

history of Jewish/Christian relations, to allegorize the parable in terms of

Jews and Gentiles. We may still follow the lead of Ambrose, Calvin and

others and read the Elder Brother as the resentful, self-righteous believer

who is called to join the feast. To do so is dangerous, however, for the

open-endedness of the parable inscribes us into the story. We must finish

the story of the Elder Brother. And so we stand, like Rembrandt's Elder

Son, resentful, hands folded in judgment over a wastrel prodigal who comes

home to unconditional grace. But we do not leave, we realize that grace

could also be ours—"all I have is yours . . . You are with me always."

What will he do? What will we do?

86Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XX1V, AB 28A (Garden

City NY: Doubleday 1985) 1092



Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

Prodigal Son and Elder Son