Of course you know the story of the Prodigal Son. A man had two sons. The younger one selfishly demanded his inheritance, went to a distant land, squandered it all having a great time, hit rock bottom, and then returned to be welcomed back with a party by his father (to which the disgruntled, ever-loyal older brother refused to attend).
The parable popped up in the Anglican daily cycle of readings recently, and on re-connecting with it, (and dipping into the original Greek text) I found myself pondering the question of against whom the Prodigal Son sinned.
It might sound like an obvious question, and my clear recollection was that in his prepared speech to his father on his return the son says “I have sinned against heaven and against you”. Looking up this verse in the New International Version (NIV) of the text this is indeed the translation of Luke 15:21 (and also his rehearsal of this speech a few verses earlier in Luke 15:18)…
“The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’”
It’s no surprise that this is my recollection of the passage as that’s the translation of the text used in the kind of church that I attended in my earlier days.
The clear meaning of the text is that the prodigality of the son – demanding & squandering his inheritance – is directed against both his heavenly and earthly fathers.
But returning again to the story, and this time referring to the Greek, gives a different sense (as is so often the case). A more literal rendering of the Greek would be…
“I have sinned against heaven and in your eyes (ἐνώπιόν σου) enopion sou”
The King James Version captures this nuance by translating this as “in thy sight” whilst another alternative version (the Berean Literal Bible) offers “I have sinned against heaven and before you”.
(The BibleHub website has a variety of English translations, as well as the Greek text of this passage).
So the Greek seems to suggest that the father might in some sense be more of a witness than the intended direct target. This is also supported by the Greek original of the passage in which the son’s prodigality is set out (Luke 15:13).
Whilst the English translation of the NIV renders that passage as…
“Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living.”
… the son simply taking his material inheritance and wasting it all on having a good time, the Greek text actually says…
“He dispersed (διεσκόρπισεν) his essence (οὐσίαν) living unsalvifically (ἀσώτως).”
… which admits quite a different meaning.
The word translated as “squandered” in the NIV derives from the root skorpizo, meaning “to scatter” or “to disperse” suggesting disarray and dissolution not just a wasting.
The word translated as “wealth” (ousian) can refer to physical property (and clearly that’s the implication here with regard to inheritance), but at a more fundamental level it also means substance or essence – his very “isness”.
And finally the word translated as “wild living” (asotos) is derived from the word (sozo) – to save. (An “a” added to the start of a Greek word negates the word, as in “atheist” – not-a-theist).
So rather than just having a good time and wild living, this kind of living is destructive and unsalvific. (The same word sozo is used throughout the New Testament to speak of salvation in religious/spiritual terms as well as of healing and restoration in general).
So, according to this more literal translation, the emphasis of the parable shifts away from a moral reading (the selfish external acts of the Prodigal and their impact on others).
Rather than the focus of the offence residing (solely) in the son’s careless and hedonistic wasting of the father’s hard earned physical & material assets, this reading also suggests that it can be seen as an offence (perhaps primarily) against himself.
The unwise choice of an unsalvific way of life (naturally) led to a dispersal, a scattering, of his own fundamental essence. The implication being of course that he should amend his ways for his own sake & well-being.
This parable is therefore transformed from a finger-wagging story from Jesus about the need to simply lead a morally good life. And instead it becomes a message about the need to make choices that are healthy, life-giving, restorative and not damaging for yourself.
The usual interpretation of this parable aligns with Google’s understanding of sin as “an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law” – the focus being external. The interpretation offered above suggests an internal focus and aligns with the definition of sin given by theologian Paul Tillich as “separation, estrangement from one’s essential being” (Theology of Culture, ed. Robert C. Kimball (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), p.123).
The turning point of the story is the Prodigal’s decision to amend his way of life and return home. In Luke 15:17 (NIV) we read that the Prodigal “came to his senses” but in the Greek, (and the King James Version), it will come as no surprise to find that actually, and simply, he “came to himself” (heauton).