The Prodigal's Elder Brother: The History and Ethics of Reading Luke 15:25-32*

Mikeal C. Parsons Baylor 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'd have 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 wish publicly 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, especially our 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 that are 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.
David Lodge, Small World: An Academic Romance (New York: Macmillan, 1984)51-52. I 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). This approach is taken in David Lyle Jeffry, ed., A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992). See especially the entry (pp. 640-44) on "Prodigal Son," by Manfred Siebald and Leland Ryken.
3 2 1

JOURNAL OF THE 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 has survived 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" to include 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 much verbal 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 selfrighteous Christian and the prodigal with "the penitent sinner." Here, at
4 See 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.

For 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).
6 The 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 New Revised 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.

150

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

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 and non-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 historical allegory (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 to questions 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 manyquite

Stephen L. Wailes, Medieval Allegories of Jesus ' Parables (Berkeley: University of California, 1987)238.
8

Ibid.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

151

correctlyrefer 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 am not 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 all his substance living with harlots!

Jerome's conclusion is clear: The angry Elder Brother who refuses to go in is "Israel [who] stands outside." 2. Ambrose Ambrose, 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 selfrighteous 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
Jerome, "Letter 21," in The Letters of St. Jerome, trans. Charles Christopher Mierow (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1963) 123.
10 9

Ibid., 124.

Ibid., 125. Ibid., 126. Wailes, Medieval Allegories, 243.

12

13

14 Ambrose, Trait sur l'vangile de S. Luc, d. Gabriel Tissot, 2 Vols., Sources Chrtiennes 52 (Paris, 1956-58) 97.

152

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

innocent person the lamb."15 The Elder Brother is not a Jew but any Christian who is resentful of a repenting sinner. 3. Augustine Though 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 following the 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 is toiling with reference to earthly things . . . ,"1 Augustine interprets the father's going out to the Elder Brother as an appeal for Jews to enter the Church "so that all Israelto 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 improbablethe Elder Brother/Jews will not join the great feast! Jill Robbins has claimed: "Augustine, in excluding the elder brother, 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
15

Ibid.

16

Augustine, Quaestiones, lines 106-13. Ibid., lines 131-32.

17

18 Jill Robbins, Prodigal Son/Elder Brother (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991)42. 19 See, 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, and the elder the body (Homiliae dominicales, PL 174, no. 31, cols. 202-10; cited by Wailes, Medieval Allegories, 244).

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

153

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 Manuscripts I 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 eleventhcentury 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 a century 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.
The Early English Versions of the Gesta Romanorum, ed. Sidney J. Heritage (London: Trbner, 1879) 444; cited by Young, The English Prodigal Son Plays, 11-12. See Graydon Snyder, Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985). For 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 Fr Anglistik und Amerikanistik Universitt Salzburg, 1979) 290-317. My examination to date is limited to these illuminated manuscripts. I am aware, however, that there is very important evidence to be found in the stained glass of several
23 22 21 2O

154

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

THE ELDER BROTHER IN VERBAL AND VISUAL 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 Calvin John 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 desirous to 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. John 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.
25 Ibid., 350. Calvin (ibid.) did note that in the Lukan context, the discourse was prompted by the "murmuring of the scribes." 24

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

to show that it would be unjust in any man to murmur on account of his brother having been received into favor

155

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 Plays Prodigal 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 retain the 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 forgiveness and 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
26

Ibid.

27

Young, The English Prodigal Son Plays, 318-20. Ibid., 56. 0 n the point, see Young, The English Prodigal Son Plays, 51.

28

29

156

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

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. Shakespeare One writer who stands clearly in the tradition of Prodigal Son plays and who does continue to exert an influence on modern audiences and
33

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. 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. For an assessment of why, see Young, "The Collapse of a Tradition," in The English Prodigal Son Plays, 230-78. 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. 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 unique in paying close attention to the way the Parable was mediated to Shakespeare in the great literary and iconographie traditions beyond the bare biblical text.
34 33 32 31

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

157
35

frequently mentioned Parable of the Gospels in the plays" of Shakespeare, and another has argued that "the Prodigal Son tradition is indeed a shaping force 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 be
38

"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,

35

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

277.
36

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

Critics dispute the exact number of references to the parable with the numbers ranging from nine (Noble) to twenty (Tippens).
38

37

Tippens, "Shakespeare and the Prodigal Son Tradition," 61.

Though Jessica is never depicted literally as "lean, rent, and beggar'd" there are hints 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).

39

158

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

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 punishment for 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.
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.
41 This 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. 42 40

Mahood, "Introduction," 42.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

159

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 (166869), 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's honore, 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 these two 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).
43

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

0 n 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).
45 0 n this scene, see especially the comments by Henri J. M. Nouwen in The Return of the Prodigal Son (New York: Doubleday, 1992).

44

160

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

CREDIT: Giraudon/Art Resource, NY. Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn. Return of the Prodigal Son. Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

161

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 theologythe triumph of grace over works, but unlike Calvin, they paid little or no attention to the Elder Brother. The Prodigal's story inspired 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 these sources.

46

Cited by ibid., 77-78. Samuel Gardiner, The Portraitur of the Prodigali Sonne (London: Nicholas Ling,

47

1599).
48 77 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.

162

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

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 sance 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; and some 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 well49

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-historical terms, the Renaissance through Baroque and Rococo. The work of Albrecht Drer {The Contemplation of the Prodigal Son, 1496) represents those who

49 John Ruskin, "'Praeterita'': 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.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

163

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 in colonial 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 his face 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
52

See inter alia Bosch (The Prodigal Son, 1516), Holbein (Scheibenriss, 1520) and the earlier etchings and paintings by Rembrandt (The Departure of the Prodigal Son, 163233; The Prodigal Son as a Swineherd, 1647-48; The Prodigal Son Squanders his Inheritance, 1636). See, 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 before the Madonna, 1620) See the discussion of these prints by Edwin Wolf in "The Prodigal Son in England and America: A Century of Change," in Eighteenth Century Prints in Colonial America: To Educate and Decorate, Joan D. Dolmetsch, ed. (Williamsburg, VA: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1979).
54 53

164

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

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 in
5?56

any way. THE ELDER BROTHER IN VERBAL AND VISUAL 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 Tradition Some 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

55

Tippens, "Shakespeare and the Prodigal Son Tradition," 59.

56 Young, The English Prodigal Plays, 51. The Disobedient Child is another important prodigal play which omits reference to the Elder Brother. 57

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

197. Dan O. Via, Jr., The Parables: (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967) 164.
58

Their Literary and Existential Dimension

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

165

Elder Brother with the Pharisees of the Parable, or with the "selfrighteous" 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 to Southern Baptists not only because it symbolizes violation of the key relationship of authoritythat between child and parent, and by extension, people and Godbut 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.
59 See, e.g., J. Bradley Chance, "Luke," in Mercer Commentary on the Bible, eds. Watson Mills, et al (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995) 1028.

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

G e o r g e Buttrick, "Exposition," Luke in the Interpreter's Bible, Vol. VIII (New York: Abingdon, 1952)279. Marsha G. Witten, All Is Forgiven: The Secular Message in American Protestantism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
63 62

Ibid., 85.

166

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

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 tablechairs 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 selfrighteousness 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 unforgiving is 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, selfrighteousness 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 one significant twist. In these sermons, "the portraits [of the elder brother] are internalized and psychologized . . . . these depictions highlight the
64 Ibid., 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 a modern Jew, Simon Wiesenthal. 65

Ibid., 85-86. Ibid., 86.

66

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

167

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 the feelings. . . ."67 The Elder Brother is understood by these Presbyterian pastors in tones reminiscent of a practiced psychological discourse. 2. Literary/Dramatic Tradition The 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. This literature 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 Remorsea nonprofit organization working for greater contrition on the
70

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 and complains 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 meI'd just like to point that out.
67

Ibid., 87. Cited above in footnote 3.

68

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

70

Ibid., 242.

168

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

DAD: I'm not a hugger, I guess. WALLY (Enters mouth full). Have some calf, you guys. That fat won't keep, 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 nocan'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 doorOh greatwonderful, 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 stuffclothes, 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, pots and 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 is excluded (or excludes himself) from joining in the banquet. His departure seems absolutehe actually departs the stage in a fit of rage, according to the narratora much more final exit than in the Parable itself, a point to be pursued a bit later. 3. Contemporary Visual Traditions Depictions 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 coalesced with a powerful American myth or world view which profoundly shapes our typical understanding of the parable. The myth is the savior-hero myth in

71

Ibid., 246-47.

For 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.
73 1 am dependent in what follows on Bernard Brandon Scott, Hollywood Dreams & Biblical Stories (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994), esp. chapter 3, "The Hero."

72

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

169

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 or no 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-righteous brother. 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 counterthemethe 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 the solution to this conflict.

See Scott, Hollywood Dreams, 62-63.

170

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

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 Traditions A 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 for continuity 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

76 Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982) 180; for examples see 180-81. See also Roger Syrn, The Forsaken First-Born: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives, JSOTSup 133 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993).

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

171

This theme was also significant in post-biblical Judaism. In the Midrash on Psalm 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 the
78

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" (Luke 15:31). 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.

78 Cited by Scott, Here then the Parable, 112. younger/elder mytheme, see Scott, 123-24. 79

For a description of the

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

In what follows I am indebted to the analysis of Brandon Scott, Hear then the Parable, 122-25.

80

172

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

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 Luke Some 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 rejection of 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 absolutely rejected 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, like they, 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.

82

Scott, "Heroes From on High," Anglican Theological Review, 69 (1987): 143. Scott, Hear then the Parable, 103.

83

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.

84

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

173

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 other famous parable in Luke, the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:2537). 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 openendedness 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, "All these 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). The possibility 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
Robert Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986, 1990)2:178.
85

174

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

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 learnand one misses the point to askabout 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?

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XX1V, AB 28A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985) 1092.

86

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 permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically 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 specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright 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 American Theological Library Association.