CYPRESSWOOD CHURCH OF CHRIST

April 16, 2006

LIFT UP IN PRAYER THE FOLLOWING:

Our congregation                                                                 Our nation, military and leaders

Our students                                                                         Various friends, relatives and co-workers

James and Leon in the Army

COMING UP:

April 30^th we have been invited to the King’s for lunch and a shower/party for Travis and Rose.  It will be at 1:30 and if you are going, please RSVP to the King’s either directly or through me.

SHEEP, COINS AND SONS

Part 3

“There was a man who had two sons” (Luke 15:11).

Jesus was in the company of tax collectors and sinners and the Pharisees and teaches of the Law were muttering, a word that could also be translated murmuring, bringing to mind Israel in the Exodus wilderness.  The Pharisees thought that if Jesus was really a man of God, He would have known the kind of people who had gathered around Him and would have rejected them like they did.  Jesus tells a parable with three parts, each meant to show the God the Pharisees did not know very well, is One who seeks the very people rejected by the religious leaders.  Each of the three parts leads to the conclusion, or challenge, for the religious leaders. 

The third part of the parable is that of a father with two sons.  Each character is mentioned in the first line of the story and each is important; we cannot neglect any of them.  In looking at the cultural aspects of the parable, what would the crowd of people listening hear?  Kenneth Bailey asks such questions in his book, The Cross and the Prodigal, (IVP, 2005).

The youngest son asks his father for his share on the inheritance, which would have been one third of the estate.  What the son was saying was that he was impatient for the death of his father.  The request was basically saying that he wanted his father to die.  Such a request would provoke a father to anger and the denying of the request as well as a severing of the relationship.  He has broken his father’s heart and this is the meat of the matter.  No doubt the younger son is selfish in his desire and has little, if any, concern for the family clan because he has shamed his father.  Remember, in village life families were very close both physically and in relationship.  The wealth of families centered in a cluster of homes, animals and land.  One third of an inheritance would certainly affect the entire clan.  It appears that the younger son settled his affairs quickly, which meant he got cash for his portion of the inheritance indicating  “sale at any price.”  He is ungrateful and irresponsible.  He wants privilege but does not understand all that goes with it. 

There is more however in accepting this inheritance.  The normal word used for inheritance is one that includes the idea of leadership.  Involved in it would be a pledge to increase the clans wealth and to be noble in representing them in daily and special affairs.  The word the younger son uses however simply means property or wealth without any responsibility to anyone, thereby rejecting not just the father but the clan as well.  He is cutting himself off from his roots.  He has deliberately chosen to break both his father’s heart and his relationship with the clan.

This is not something done in secret.  Being the community it was, everyone would quickly learn of the request.  The older son certainly knows.  All doubt is removed when the younger starts to sell his property.  The following text might give us an idea of this community hot line: “Even in your thought, do not curse the king, nor in your bedchamber curse the rich; for a bird of the air will carry your voice, or some winged creature tell the matter” (Ecclesiastes 10:20).  What we begin to see here is the silence of the older brother.  He too has responsibilities in village life, one being a go-between or mediator.  The idea was for this person to work out a solution to the situation, in this case, between the father and the younger son.  Would the Pharisees have caught this?  And is there something that we in the church have missed, the idea of peacemakers finding a solution?  The villagers, and those surrounding Jesus, knew who would be the mediator.  Bailey states that in the Middle East, relationships are supreme.  The silence of the older son indicates something is missing in this relationship as well.  The older son also receives his two thirds portion of the inheritance, yet he has failed to step in and fulfill the responsibility that goes with it.

The surprising one in all of this is the father, for he does something no father would have done in that culture.  He grants his son’s request and gives him his portion.  He does not severe his relationship with either son.  If the father had disowned his son, which would have been the normal reaction in such a case, there would be no possibility of reconciliation, as we will see why later.  But this father does do that; he recognizes that it is the son who has severed the relationship, and he holds out hope that they could be reconciled. 

We can obviously see God in all of this.  From before creation (1 Peter 1:20) to the cross, God is in the process of rebuilding fellowship with His creatures.  Reconciling is an important word in the New Testament, for it is God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.  We were called ungodly, enemies and sinners and yet God came in Christ to save us (see Romans 5:6-10).  The Bible is the story of the shepherd, woman, and father of this parable, that is, God reconciling. 

There is more that we will look at in the culture of village life.  The younger son begins a dangerous journey to a far country.  Will he return?  How will the villagers accept him?  How will the father and older brother accept him?  The father does the unexpected from what is normal in the culture, but isn’t that the way God is?  We will look at what the younger son could expect when he returned, which will help us understand his request.  Keep in mind however, the story isn’t just about lost sheep, a lost coin, or a lost son.  Jesus is leading the Pharisees to make a decision about tax collectors and sinners.  For us, while we like to identify ourselves with the prodigal, we might find ourselves more closely related to the older son.  We’ll see.

                                                                                                                                George B. Mearns

Today, the Christian world celebrates what is called Easter, or the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  This follows a week of various activities such as Palm Sunday and Good Friday.  Churches of Christ have not been very interested in this particular holiday because of our weekly remembrance of the Lord’s Supper, remembering the death of Jesus until He comes.  Yet, many choose to come to an assembly on this day, even in churches of Christ, because others are thinking about it.  The death and resurrection are key factors in our beliefs, the presentation of the gospel, and in how we live.  Hopefully we can encourage people to consider this in our meeting, not just this Sunday (at 10 a.m.) but throughout the week.

As a side note, Easter came from a mistranslation in the King James Version of Acts 12 where it was inserted in place of Passover.  The idea was probably part of church history for many years before as a “church calendar” developed.  Of course, it developed into a more secular idea with bunnies, eggs, and hats, that today, some might not even realize why they observe this day in some way. 

Again, as Christians, we have the responsibility to live Jesus, His death and resurrection, before a lost and struggling world.  May God bless us in our efforts.