Knowing God through the Prodigal Son

I have been in a pleasant conversation on a social network, with a sunni muslim who is interested on having an authentic discussion about faith. I've decided to post my responses on this blog, rather than saturating the twitter server and the inbox of my muslim friend.

My muslim friend has brought forward the following arguments:

  1. In my Muslim friend's opinion, multiple passages in the Bible indicate that God only requires repentance for forgive one's sins. Passages such as the parable of the Prodigal son (Luke 15) and Isaiah 43 indicate God only requires repentance for forgiveness of sins. This in his/her argument supports the idea that God does not need any sacrifice for forgiveness of sins.
  2. The second brought forward is that doctrine of original sin is unfair in my muslim friend's perspective. I'm quoting here one of the messages I received: "you are giving hell TO EVERYONE, a baby a boy for something they didn't do. 'The inherited sin' you know it, accept it."
I would like to address the points one by one. If my muslim friend is reading this blog entry, I would like to say thank you for being part of this discussion. I hope you could look into my arguments from a rational and sensitive perspective. I want to let you know that the reason why I do all this is simple: I try to love The Lord my God with all my heart, with all my soul and with all my mind, with all my strength. I've been seeking to Him, who says to be the Truth. I'm sure you do so too. I beg you to please consider deeply my arguments, and if you wish, to reply back with arguments. I invite you and I to avoid using as much as possible subjective claims. I'm not saying you cannot state your opinion, but let's avoid replying to each other saying "you know it". Let's focus on the arguments we make. I must say your point of view is interesting. I acknowledge that they have reasonable value. I only want to point where I believe there are issues, misrepresentations or where clarificaty is required.

The Prodigal Son

My good muslim friend has appealed to the fact that the Parable of the Prodigal son does not explicitly present any sacrifice that the father would do to forgive the son. My muslim friend used the following argument:
"see, THE SON IS FORGIVEN. How? Because he repented. No one has to die for ur sins(...)."

Yesterday, I shared with my muslim friend the Seven Principles for Bible Hermeneutics(1). The seventh principle says:
"7) We must realize the variety of perspectives from which the biblical writers approached the explication of God’s truth. We may understand what a passage means only when we approach it from the author’s perspective."

So, honoring this, and the other 6 principles, I'd like to perform a short review about the chapter where the parable of The Prodigal son is presented:

  1. Jesus is the one talking in Luke 15. The audience, as mentioned in Luke 15:1, are publicans (tax collectors who were considered thieves) and sinners. Verse 2 says The Pharisees and Scribes were standying by, murmuring against Jesus because He spoke and eat with sinners.
  2. Jesus does not speak only one parable in this occasion, He tells 3 parables. The first one is the one of the lost sheep. The first parable illustrates the attitude of God as that of  a shepherd; and us are said to be like one of His sheeps. Sheeps are not really good finding their way around. So the first parable shows us that God is concerned for each one of us. In verse 7 we see one of the keys: repentance; "there is more joy in heaven over one lost sinner who repents and returns to God than over ninety-nine others who are righteous and haven’t strayed away! Lk 15:7 NLT" Here, I want to clarify. Repentance is key in the forgiveness of sins. I do agree with that repentance takes part in order to receive forgiveness of God. However, this doesn't mean that repentance alone "settles the tab", according to The Scriptures. My dear muslim friend was very adamant yesterday saying that I misrepresented the Scriptures. I did say that repentance does not pay for a trespass, and I still hold unto this. I make this affirmation after taking a wholistic view at what the Scriptures say. It's different saying that repentance is required on the process for forgiveness of sin, than saying that repentance pays for the sins. That would contradict the scriptures which say that  the wages of sin is death and that it requires shedding blood for the remission of sins (see Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22(2).) So since in one part of the Bible it is said that repentance is required for forgiveness of sins, and also in other verses is required that shedding blood is the requirement for atonement (payment) of sins, one has to grant that the Scriptures as a whole proclaim that both repentance and blood shedding are required for forgiveness of sins. Repentance does not pay for the wages of sin, though it's necessary for the sinner to receive forgiveness. 
  3. The second parable it's about a woman who lost one of 10 pieces of silver. The parable tells us that the woman makes all efforts to find the lost coin: lights a candle, sweeps the house and looks diligently. So in this parable the superior being (in this illustration, the woman) is the one who seeks the lost. What could possibly do a silver coin to make itself more visible? Is this indicating that repentance is not needed? No. One needs to see that this parable focuses on the value of the one who is lost, the efforts that God does to seek the one who is lost, and how He rejoices when He finally gets back His beloved one.
  4. The third parable is the one of the prodigal son. Since Jesus was talking to 1st century people in Judaea, one must take this into consideration. For example, when one person asked for his inheritance on the first century, it was viewed as if that child desired his father to be death. This was legally acceptable, but not a lovable act. There are more details to look at. I will paraphrase some comments exposed by Matt Williams (Dr Theology) in the Biola Univesity magazine (3). :
  • The story goes into saying that the son wasted all his money, went to work for a foreigner feeding animals which were ritually unclean. He goes to desire even the food those ritually unclean animals ate. He then decides in his mind to ask for mercy from his Father, who perhaps could receive him as a servant. 
  • When heading back and when he was still away, the father saw the son coming. It is said that the father ran towards the son. Just imagine, that the one who is to be offended in this story, before hearing the apologies from his spoiled son (who before wished his dad was dead), decides to approach him. Now, for us in this century is not an issue thinking of our fathers running, even if they are already in old age. My dad uses trousers or shorts commonly, and even some time jogging shoes. However, in the first century men used to wear robes. In order to run without tripping, a man needed to pick up his robe and show his legs. This was a second act of humiliation. It was humiliating going towards the son who previously offended him, and it was humiliating exposing his legs. So the father did do a lot to forgive his son, He humiliated himself before even hearing what the prodigal son had to say. 
  • Also, it's interesting to see that the father did not treat his son as a servant (like the son expected) but he restablished him to status of son. He gave him back his clothing and put a new ring on him. The ring showed he was still part of his family. The father didn't ask the son to work out payment of what he wasted, He just arranged a party. 
  • Last but not least, I want to point to something interesting I found on my own study is the Scriptures. In greek is said that the father asked to sacrifice "The fattened calf". In the koine greek manuscripts, the word used is "τὸν μόσχον - ton moschon". At the time of Jesus there was a greek translation of the old testament, known as the septuagint. In The Septuagint Leviticus 9, the word "μοσχάριον - moscharion" is the word used when talking about the sin offering God asked Aaron to present for remision of his sins. The two words come from the same root word. The suffix "+-ion" in "moscharion" is a diminutive affixation (4). We see as well that this is the same word used by the author of the book of Hebrews on chapter 9:19: "For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,". My point here is that what was used on the celebration for the return of the prodigal son, was also what was used for sin offerings. This should have "rang the bell" in the heads of the Pharisees and Scribes who were deeply familiar with the scriptures.
So in summary, the 3 parables present the following theological statements:
  1. God makes efforts to seek every lost soul. 
  2. Repentance is part of the process of forgiveness of sins, but not the payment of sins. I explained yesterday that in a court of law, a perfectly just judge cannot simply dismiss a trespass. This can be done on earth because human judges are not perfect. However a perfect judge needs to demand a penalty, to bring balance to justice.
  3. The Scriptures say that both repentance and atonement are required on the forgiveness of sins. However, the atonement is achieved by paying a penalty. According to the scriptures, blood is demanded by God as atonement. 
  4. The second parable shows that God looks for us as something valuable. He may still have other valuables with Him, but He seeks diligently for the one lost. That shows the infinitely loving dimension of God, who loves us first before we love Him.
  5. The prodigal son parable shows that the son repented, but before the son could express his repentance, the father humiliated himself to reach him. 
So there is no contradiction. If we take passages in isolation, each one could take multiple meanings. That's the reason why "When contradictions seem to exist, it is the task of the interpreter to explain the seeming contradiction. He must never seek to do so by ignoring or denying any part of the truth that is revealed in Scripture"(1).


Original Sin and Babies

My Muslim friend asked how can one reconcile passages like Deuteronomy 23:2 with the doctrine of original sin. The first I would like to say is that Original Sin is a theological term, used primarily by theologians. When one reviews history, you find that there have existed different views on the intricacies of Original Sin. In my personal view, I let the Scriptures speak. I believe the Scriptures are authoritative. The speech of theologians may provide enlightment on it, but the authority is laid upon the scriptures. In general, original sin:
"(...)also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden."(5)
 Though I'm not catholic, I will quote the catholic encyclopedia to illustrate their view:

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first manis the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis. (...)  Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e. all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19)." (6)

Original sin doctrine doesn't state we carry the punishment that Adam deserved. Instead, the concept of original sin attempts to convey that after Adam we are accountable for our sins, and we carry the tendency to sin. It is said in Genesis that the fruit of the tree which was forbidden to Adam, was the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17). Before Adam disobeying, he did not have knowledge of good and evil. After eating from its fruit, we all carry that capability to know what is good and evil. And when we reach awareness of good and evil (at a certain age), it becomes a problem for us. Because It's a transgression doing something evil when you know that it is evil. Adam's disobedience introduced this, according to The Scriptures. So the Scripture tells us that we live with the consequence of the disobedience of Adam. The Word doesn't tells us that God judges us on the basis of what Adam did, but on the basis of what each of one does. Again, this is only seen when one looks at different verses in the Bible, and not just one in isolation.

I've provided some input on original sin in previous discussions with my muslim friend. I'd like to summarize them here:
  • I don't believe God punishes people for others' sins. This is not same as innocent people having to live with the consequences of the sins of other ones.
  • Many things may seem unfair to us, for example children born with HIV, because of his parents irresponsible sexual life. The child didn't do anything wrong, his parents did. I think is unfair for that child to live his life with HIV.
  • Even though the child lives with the consequence of the sin of his parent(s), God is still graceful to that child. God still loves the child. He offes the same present of salvation that he offers to all humanity. When it comes to the final judgement, that child will be judged based on his acts and not on his parents, even though he had to live with HIV unfairly.


In addition, I'd like to quote other apologists who have explained this issue (7):

"Few doctrines come under more consistent and heavy fire than that of man’s sin. This is hardly to surprise us, as man does not like to be reminded of his sin, nor of his responsibilities before God. So we can see the basis for such a question about original sin.
First, we are not being “punished" for Adam’s sin. Instead, we are living with the consequences of Adam’s sin. There is a big difference between them. God does not punish someone else for Adam’s sin, and if someone thinks he does, that person is mistaken. First, we must remember that in the Eastern culture of the peoples of the Bible, we do not encounter the fierce individualism that marks the Western mindset. Rather, we see much more of a communal system. The individual is subserviated to the good of the whole. So, when Achan sinned (Joshua 7:20) he was punished by death and his whole family perished with him. They were not punished, but they experienced the results of Achan’s sin. They were not said to be guilty, but Achan, as the head of his house, was their representative, and what he did was considered to be their responsibility as well.The same goes for Adam. As our representative, Adam fell, and (according to Paul in Romans 5) we fell with him. We are not punished for his one act - rather, we live in a world that is completely affected by that act. Now, the Christian message is that God, in his mercy, is willing to do the same again - this time with our representative as Jesus Christ. We can have the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ when we are united with him (Romans 5:12-19).Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that we are punished in Adam’s place or for Adam’s sin. Of course, the anti-theist may reply, but that’s not fair! Why should I live in a messed-up world because of what someone else did?” That is true - it’s not fair. It is not fair that an innocent person dies when a drunk crosses the line and collides with the innocent person’s car. But it happens. It is also not fair that God would allow anyone salvation in Jesus Christ. Mercy is not fair. So, if we want only justice, we are in big trouble, for there is none righteous, no not one. I’m glad God shows mercy, fair or not!

 With regards to babies and their judgement, I think the following answer presents well the view of the Scriptures. This answer is also aligned with my article "Didn't Jesus preach the Gospel of Grace?" (8) published on 2014.

The question above also asked about infants and mentally incompetent individuals. The Bible does mention an “age of accountability as we call it, where a youth knows the difference between good and evil and is responsible for that decision (Isaiah 7:15- 16). Little is said other than this. Therefore, we have little to go on in discussing the condition of the infant or the mentally incompetent. Since they have made no conscious decisions against God, it is inconceivable that they undergo any kind of punishment. Rather, it is clear that they are ushered into the presence of the Lord. Huldreich Zwingli felt that all who died in infancy or who were mentally incompetent were of the elect of God, and I feel comfortable with that idea. Now, of course, anyone who asks you this question is neither an infant, nor mentally incompetent, nor someone who has never heard the Gospel, so they cannot hide from the clear implications of the Gospel in their lives.
As a closing note, I'd like to say, this is my humble opinion after meditating on and reviewing The Scriptures. I'm open for cordial and constructive argumentation. Thank you for reading my post. 

Footnotes

(1) Randy Seiver, In These Last Days , (New Covenant Media, 1998), p71-72
(2) Bible references:
  • Leviticus 17:11(NLT) 11 for the life of the body is in its blood. I have given you the blood on the altar to purify you, making you right with the Lord.[a] It is the blood, given in exchange for a life, that makes purification possible (a. Or to make atonement for you.
  • Hebrews 9:22 (NLT) 22 In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.
(4) http://bagl.org/files/volume2/BAGL2-2_Watt.pdf "DIMINUTIVE SUFFIXES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, A CROSS-LINGUISTIC STUDY Jonathan M. Watt Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PA, USA

Comments

Post a Comment