cVclw 
 
 STACK 
 ANKHX 
 
 s 
 
 106 
 061 
 
 fL h AM 
 
 1 1^^/
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 ILLUSTRATED BY 
 
 THE PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL SON 
 IN JEWISH & CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 
 
 A STUDY IN COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. GERALD FRIEDLANDER 
 
 MINISTER OF THE WESTERN SYNAGOGUE, ST. JAMES'S, LONDON, S.W. ; SOMETIME 
 
 HEBREW MASTER AT UNIVERSITY COLLEGE SCHOOL, LONDON 
 
 AUTHOR OF "THE LAW OF LOVE IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS' 
 
 LONDON 
 HUGH REES, LTD. 
 
 119, PALL MALL, S.W. 
 1910 
 
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
 
 DEDICATED 
 
 TO 
 
 SOLOMON ULLMANN 
 
 June 7. 1830 1<> liUO. 
 
 2097613
 
 THE GRACE OE GOD 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 THE PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL SOX JN 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Archbishop Trench, in his " Notes on the 
 Parables " (p. 384), calls the parable of the 
 Prodigal Son " the pearl and crown of all the 
 Scriptures." It has often been called the 
 " Gospel within the Gospel." But it offers a 
 remarkable contrast to all the other parables 
 of the Gospels by teaching the glad tidings 
 that God forgives His rebellious child without 
 the intercession of a Saviour. This parable 
 knows nothing of the Cross, of Vicarious Atone- 
 ment, or of Salvation through faith in Jesus. 
 This leads to the question, Is this parable part 
 of that Jewish teaching that has been so 
 largely used by the New Testament writers ? 
 An attempt will be made to show that this 
 parable is Jewish in origin. Fortunately, it 
 
 5
 
 6 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 has been preserved by Luke in its Jewish 
 frame, without the slightest addition of specific 
 Christian or Pauline doctrine. Like the 
 Sermon on the Mount and the so-called 
 Lord's Prayer, the parable of the Prodigal 
 Son is Jewish from beginning to end. If 
 there were no parallels in Jewish literature to 
 this parable, it would not be difficult to 
 recognize in the actual wording of the 
 parable traces of Old Testament ideas and 
 expressions. Moreover, there are several 
 Jewish parallels to the parable. Some 
 scholars believe that a parallel may be found 
 in Buddhist literature. The reference is to 
 the " White Lotus of the Good Law " in the 
 " Saddharmapundarika-Sutra " (see Edmunds 
 and Anesaki, "Buddhist and Christian Gospels," 
 vol. ii., p. 260 ; and Seydel, " Das Evangelium 
 von Jesu in seinen Verhaltnissen zur Buddha- 
 sage " ; also see Jiilicher, " Gleichnisreden 
 Jesu," vol. i., p. 172). Again, there is a similar 
 story, from an Egyptian source, in Deiss- 
 mann's " Licht vom Osten."* 
 
 Our present concern is with Jewish parallels 
 
 * iEsop's fable, "The Prodigal Son/' is said to have 
 been based on Luke's parable (Jiilicher, vol. ii., p. 362).
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 only, and therefore it is unnecessary to discuss 
 the Buddhist or Egyptian versions. We shall 
 begin by considering Luke's parable, pointing 
 out O.T. references ; then we shall deal with 
 the story as part of Jewish literature. 
 
 The Parable of the Prod- Similar Ideas and Expres- 
 igal Son in Luke sions in O. T. 
 
 xv. 11-24. 
 
 11. A certain man had 
 two sons : 
 
 12. And the younger of 
 them said to his father, 
 Father, give me the portion 
 of the substance that falleth 
 to me. And he divided 
 unto them his living. 
 
 13. And not many days 
 after the younger son 
 gathered all together, and 
 took his journey into a far 
 country, and there he wasted 
 his substance with l'iotous 
 living (with harlots). 
 
 14. And when he had 
 spent all, there arose a 
 mighty famine in that 
 country • and he began to be 
 in want. 
 
 15. And he went and 
 joined himself to one of the 
 
 Compare Abraham's divi- 
 sion of his substance amongst 
 his children (Gen. xxv. 6). 
 
 Note the contrast between 
 the wise son and the foolish 
 son in Prov. xxix. 3 — viz., 
 "Whoso loveth wisdom 
 rejoiceth his father : but he 
 that keepeth company with 
 harlots waste th his sub- 
 stance." 
 
 Famine as a Divine judg- 
 ment, followed by migration, 
 occurs in Gen. xli. 56, ff. 
 
 The rare word in N.T. 
 Greek for citizen is to be
 
 8 
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 citizens of that country ; and 
 he sent him into his fields to 
 feed swine. 
 
 16. And he would fain 
 have filled his belly with 
 the husks that the swine 
 did eat : and no man gave 
 unto him. 
 
 17. And when he came 
 to himself, he said, How 
 many hired servants of my 
 father's have bread enough 
 and to spare, and I perish 
 here with hunger. 
 
 18. I will arise and go to 
 my father, and I will say 
 unto him, Father, I have 
 sinned against heaven, and 
 in thy sight. 
 
 19. I am no moi*e worthy 
 to be called thy son : make 
 me as one of thy hired 
 servants. 
 
 20. And he arose and 
 came to his father. But 
 
 found in LXX (Prov. xi. 9; 
 see note below). 
 
 " The drunkard and the 
 glutton shall come to 
 poverty" (Prov. xxiii. 21; 
 see also Ezek. xxxiv. 29). 
 " Men of this world whose 
 portion is in this life, and 
 whose belly thou fillest" 
 (Ps. xvii. 14; see also Prov. 
 xviii. 20). 
 
 The unusual N.T. term 
 for hired servants occurs in 
 LXX (Lev. xxv. 50 ; Job 
 vii. 1). 
 
 " And it shall come to 
 pass, when all these things 
 are come upon thee . . . 
 and thou shalt call them to 
 mind among all the nations, 
 whither the Lord thy God 
 hath driven thee, and thou 
 shalt return unto the Lord 
 thy God" (Deut. xsx. 1, 2). 
 
 Hos. i. 9. 
 
 For similar wording see 
 the story of Jacob meeting
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 while he was afar off, his 
 father saw him, and was 
 moved with compassion, and 
 ran, and fell on his neck and 
 kissed him. 
 
 21. And the son said unto 
 him, Father, I have sinned 
 against heaven, and in thy 
 sight : I am no more worthy 
 to be called thy son. 
 
 22. But the father said to 
 his servants, Bring forth 
 quickly the best robe, and 
 put it on him ; and put a 
 ring on his hand, and shoes 
 on his feet : 
 
 23. And bring forth the 
 fatted calf, and kill it ; and 
 let us eat, and make merry : 
 
 24. For this my son was 
 dead, and is alive again ; he 
 was lost, and is found. 
 
 Joseph in Gen. xlvi. 29 ; see 
 also Gen. 1. 1. 
 
 For similar expressions see 
 Josh. vii. 20 ; and also ] Sam. 
 xx. I.* 
 
 See Esth. vi. 10 for robe; 
 Esth. iii. 10 and viii. 2 for 
 ring. See also Gen. xli. 42, 
 and Ezek. xxiv. 17. 
 
 "The fatted calf " occurs 
 in 1 Sam. xxviii. 24 (see 
 LXX ; Judg. vi. 25 ; also 
 Jer. xlvi. 21). "Eat and 
 make merry " occurs in 
 Eccles. viii. 15. 
 
 Gen. xlvi. 30. " The dead 
 shall live " see Isa. xxvi. 19. 
 "Lost and found" see 
 1 Sam. ix. 20. 
 
 Several words in the Greek text of the 
 parable are remarkable, inasmuch as they are 
 either peculiar to Luke or only occur in this 
 
 * "To sin against heaven and against man" occurs in 
 the Talmud (Syn., 27a). 
 
 2
 
 10 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 context. Thus in ver. 13 aVwrwc (riotously) is 
 not found again either in the N.T. or in 
 LXX. It occurs in Philo (De Pro v. Mang., 
 ii., p. 364), and was, we venture to suggest, 
 borrowed by Luke from this Jewish writer. 
 The passage in Philo where this word is used 
 is also the source for Luke's parable of the 
 Prodigal Son. Philo wrote somewhere about 
 30 c.e., whereas Luke wrote about 100 c.e. 
 This shows that Philo's story of the love of 
 the Father to His prodigal sons is at least 
 half a century older than the Gospel parable. 
 Stress is laid on this point, because whenever 
 Jewish parallels to the Gospels are quoted, we 
 are always reminded that the Gospels are so 
 much earlier.* In this case we have an im- 
 portant exception. It has escaped the notice 
 of such scholars as Fiebig, Erich Bischoff, 
 Weinel, and Jiilicher. The latter writer 
 maintains (" Die Gleiehnisreden," vol. i., pp. 
 164-168) that the Jewish parallels supply but 
 little of value for the explanation of the 
 parables of the Gospels. Jiilicher (vol. ii.,pp. 172 
 and 314) speaks of "Tanchuma" as the Talmud. 
 
 * See Montefiore, "Synoptic Gospels/' pp. ciii-cv, and 
 " Jowett Lectures," p. 85, for a similar standpoint.
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 11 
 
 This ignorance of Jewish literature settles the 
 question as to his ability to criticize the 
 writings of the Rabbis. Fiebig insists that 
 the result of comparison shows more clearly 
 than ever the uniqueness and absoluteness of 
 Jesus's creations. This standpoint can easily 
 be refuted if we allow plain common-sense to 
 be the foundation of our criticism. We have 
 seen that the origin of the parable of the 
 Prodigal Son is clearly betrayed by the word 
 a'crwrwc (ver. 13). It takes us back to Philo, who 
 first used it in the meaning of a " prodigal " 
 son. We cannot now enter into the question 
 of how much the New Testament owes to 
 Philo. Siegfried's great work on Philo deals 
 with this problem. Luke was no Hebrew 
 scholar, and gladly borrowed from Philo and 
 Josephus, as Max Krenkel has proved in 
 his valuable book, "Josephus und Lucas."* 
 Another word peculiar to Luke's parable of the 
 Prodigal Son is ttoXIt^q (citizen) (xv. 15; xix. 
 14 ; Acts xxi. 39). It is not used by any other 
 writer in the N.T. It has undoubtedly been 
 borrowed by Luke from Philo (see last para- 
 
 * See Enc. Bib., col. .5055, for further proof of Luke's 
 indebtedness to Jewish writers.
 
 12 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 graph of " De Vita Contemplativa "), or from 
 LXX (Prov. xi. 9 and 12). The word obala 
 (substance) in ver. 12 is peculiar to Luke, but 
 also occurs in Philo (see Ji'ilicher,vol. ii., p. 337). 
 Another rare word is uiaOioe (hired servant), in 
 verses 17 and 19. It occurs several times in 
 LXX (Lev. xxv. 50 ; Job vii. 1 ; Mai. hi. 5 ; 
 see also Tob. v. 12, 15, and Sir. xxxi. 27). 
 
 The word for ring, <W™Atoc (ver. 22), is not 
 found again in the N.T. It is used by Philo 
 (" De Migratione Abr.," i., p. 451 ; Wendland, 
 ii., p. 287, § 97) and by LXX (Gen. xli. 42). 
 Most of these words are also used by Josephus ; 
 references are given by Julicher. Surely 
 these peculiarities in Luke's vocabulary point 
 to his sources. They prove that the narrative 
 is not original — at least, as far as phraseology 
 is concerned. But stay. It might be granted 
 that Luke made use of specific words which 
 he found in Josephus, or in Philo, or in LXX, 
 but that is a minor consideration. The real 
 issue is, Did Luke find in these sources the 
 story of the father who lovingly forgives 
 his prodigal son ? We unhesitatingly reply 
 (1) that Luke found the spirit of the story in 
 the Old Testament, and (2) that he knew
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 13 
 
 Philo's " De Providentia," which practically 
 gives the same story and lesson as the parable 
 of the Prodigal Son. The whole story of 
 Israel, the Prodigal Son of God, is a wonderful 
 revelation of the love and grace of God, who 
 is the loving Father. He cannot cast off His 
 children, even when they are rebellious. The 
 Old Testament again and again speaks of the 
 rebellious sons. They are still sons of God, 
 even though they be sinful (Deut. xxxii. 20 ; 
 Isa. i. 2. Cf. Siphre Haazenu, § 308, and 
 Talmud, Kiddushin, 36a). 
 
 The love of God is so great that He invites 
 His prodigal sons to return to Him (Jer. hi. 14, 
 22; Hos. xiv. 1). God even goes to meet 
 His sinful children (Mai. iii. 7 ; Zech. i. 3). 
 The all-loving Father will not even remember 
 the sins of His children (Jer. xxxi. 34). In 
 Lukes parable we find only a part of this 
 sublime teaching. There is nothing new in 
 this excellent parable which Jews cannot find 
 in the O.T. teaching. The Talmud (Bera- 
 chot, 34&) points out that the message of 
 all the prophets was to encourage repentance. 
 It may be interesting to call attention to the 
 fact that most of the prophetic passages just
 
 14 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 quoted have been used, almost word for word, 
 by the writers of the N.T. The lesson of 
 the prodigal son is persistently taught by 
 Jeremiah and Hosea, and has been retold 
 by Philo, Luke, and the Rabbis.* It is only to 
 be regretted that the Church has not absorbed 
 the simple and beautiful lesson of this Hebrew 
 parable. It tells us in simple words that the 
 sinful child needs no Mediator in order to 
 approach his Father in heaven. It seems 
 that the Church rejected, as though by 
 instinct, the teaching of this parable, just 
 because it was so Jewish. The Church, on 
 set purpose, threw off all specific Jewish 
 rites, ceremonies, and doctrines. It rejected 
 the Jewish Sabbath, circumcision, as well as 
 the Jewish principle of monotheism and Divine 
 mercy and grace. This parable did not appeal 
 in the least to Luther, the founder of Pro- 
 testantism. Jiilicher (vol. ii.,p. 334) refers to this 
 curious fact — that the great German reformer 
 entirely ignored this parable in his com- 
 
 * Montefiore in "The Synoptic Gospels," p. 702, is 
 incorrect in saying that the parable in Matthew xx. 1-16 
 supplies a corrective to Rabbinic teaching by emphasizing 
 the principle of grace.
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 15 
 
 mentaries and expositions on the N.T. Instead 
 of adopting the Jewish teaching of the parable 
 that the Heavenly Father ever receives His 
 sin-laden children in love and mercy, the 
 Church has separated God's children from 
 their Father, and teaches, in the spirit of Paul, 
 that men can only approach God — (1) after His 
 anger has been appeased by the sacrifice and 
 death of a Saviour, and (2) through faith in 
 this Saviour. Verily the Cross and the Gospel 
 of Vicarious Atonement are stumbling-blocks, 
 hiding the Father of all. The Jew can readily 
 sympathize with the Unitarian standpoint 
 adopted by scholars like Johannes Weiss, who 
 declares that in this parable we have a 
 miniature Gospel, just because it lacks the 
 specific Christian doctrine of the Cross (" Die 
 Schriften des Neuen Testaments," p. 447). 
 
 It seems that Pfleiderer is justified in 
 considering Luke xv. 25-32 as an addition by 
 Luke. The parable closed with the feast 
 of welcome given to the returned prodigal. 
 The parable shows how the sinner comes to 
 his senses. His repentance is really remorse 
 for the consequences of his folly. He feels 
 sorry for the punishment and degradation
 
 16 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 inflicted upon him. He does not experience 
 any genuine contrition for his offences. He is 
 not ashamed of his inner state ; he only feels 
 ashamed of his poverty. The pinch of hunger 
 is the sting that touches his pride. Neverthe- 
 less, he is forgiven because the Father's mercy 
 is infinite. Luke alone gives this parable, which 
 Holtzmann thinks is a duplicate of the parable 
 in Matt. xxi. 28-32. Ji'ilicher disagrees, and 
 prefers to find a parallel in Matt. xx. 1-16 
 (vol. ii., p. 362). 
 
 Luke's parable is part of the single tradition, 
 and the question arises, Why was this parable 
 passed over by the other Evangelists ? If we 
 were to assume that the parable is part of the 
 genuine teaching of Jesus, we can only suggest 
 a probable reason why Matthew omitted it. 
 This reason would be because it was so utterly 
 unlike the spirit of the other parables attributed 
 to Jesus. Mark did not include it in his 
 narrative because, in all probability, he did not 
 know it. He gives only a very few parables 
 compared with Luke. The other parables of 
 Luke and Matthew had not in Mark's time 
 grown up from single sayings into fully de- 
 veloped parables. Another possible reason why
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 17 
 
 Matthew ignored this parable may be due 
 to the fact that he lays more stress on the 
 exclusion from the Kingdom of God of those 
 who might have been expected to be fit 
 (i.e., the Jewish nation) ; whereas Luke, 
 writing for the larger world of Gentiles, 
 lays more emphasis on the inclusion of all 
 those who might have been expected to be 
 unfit (sinners, harlots, and publicans). Mat- 
 thew had no tradition that Jesus had ever 
 taught that the Gentiles or sinners, harlots, 
 and publicans would be received by their 
 Father with more honour and deeper joy 
 than their Pharisaic brethren who kept the 
 Law (see "Encyclopaedia Biblica," cols. 1842, 
 1843). 
 
 Some of the great German critics, such as 
 B. Weiss and Holtzmann, see in the parable 
 of the Prodigal Son the apology for the conduct 
 of Jesus for being found in the company of 
 tax-collectors and sinners. This seems justified 
 by the opening verses of Luke xv. : " And all 
 the tax-collectors and sinners came near to 
 him to hear him. And the Pharisees and 
 scribes murmured, saying, This man receives 
 sinners, and eats with them." The parable 
 
 3
 
 18 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 clearly illustrates the profound interest which 
 God takes in the sinner who returns to his 
 Father — i. e. , the repentant sinner. Montefiore, 
 in his recent commentary on the Synoptic 
 Gospels (pp. 86, 985), finds " one of the specific 
 characteristics of Jesus and one of the new 
 excellences of the Gospel " summed up in 
 Luke xv. 1 : " The sinners drew near to hear 
 him." Let us ask, Who are the " sinners " ? 
 The Greek word for sinner (a^ajorwAo'c) is found 
 in all the Synoptics (Mark ii. 17 ; Luke v. 32 ; 
 and Matt. ix. 13). In these passages we find 
 the word opposed to Bwceuoe, the righteous. 
 What did these terms, the " righteous " and 
 the " sinners," mean in the first century ? 
 There are various answers to this question. 
 Preusehen, in his " Handworterbuch zum 
 Griechischen Neuen Testament," p. 65, points 
 out that when the word " sinner " is coupled 
 with " tax-collector," it means heathen. Even 
 when standing by itself, "sinner " may also mean 
 heathen, as in Luke vi. 32 : " And if ye love 
 them that love you, what thank have ye ? for 
 even heathens [not 'sinners,' as in R.V.] love 
 those that love them." In the parallel passage 
 in Matt. v. 46 " heathen " is replaced by " tax-
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 19 
 
 collector."* Again, sinner, contrasted with the 
 righteous, means one who is a transgressor of 
 the Law. It is noteworthy that Matthew, who 
 writes" from the Jewish standpoint for Jews, 
 frequently uses avofiia, lawlessness, while Luke 
 (xiii. 27) has " iniquity " or " injustice " (a&Kta), 
 which represents the Gentile point of view. Un- 
 doubtedly the Jew termed all, who flagrantly 
 disobeyed the Law, sinners. The loyal observers 
 were the righteous. 
 
 The next question is, Is Montefiore right in 
 saying that Jesus " did not avoid sinners, but 
 sought them out " (p. 86) ? Montefiore adds : 
 " For him sinners were the subject, not of 
 condemnation and disdain, but of pity. They 
 were still children of God. This was a new 
 and sublime contribution to the development 
 of religion and morality." Is all this historic- 
 ally correct ? Do the Synoptic Gospels give 
 a single instance to support Montefiore's view ? 
 In the whole of the N.T. we have no evidence 
 showing that Jesus sought out sinners. It is 
 beside the question to say that sinners were in 
 
 * Paul also seems to identify "sinner" with "heathen." 
 " We who are by nature (birth) Jews, and not sinners of 
 the Gentiles" (Gal. ii. 15).
 
 20 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 his company. The fact that Jesus sat at table 
 in Levi's house (Mark ii. 13-17), and that 
 " many tax-collectors and sinners sat also with 
 Jesus," does not prove that he sought them 
 out. The same criticism applies to the story 
 in Luke vii. 36-50. The harlot was not sought 
 out by Jesus, but was a visitor in the Pharisee's 
 house. We are not told that the Pharisee raised 
 the least objection to her presence. His 
 house was open to the poor, the hungry, and 
 the sinners. It is quite incorrect, from 
 the historical standpoint, to speak of active 
 sympathy with the sinners as a characteristic 
 of Jesus. This is certainly not the opinion of 
 Mark or Matthew. Pfleiderer (" Urchristen- 
 tum," vol. i., pp. 543, 544) rightly notices 
 that Luke, having special sympathy for the 
 poor, gave special prominence to those features 
 in Jesus's character and teaching which weie, 
 for this reason, peculiarly sympathetic to him. 
 This explains the special stress laid by Luke 
 on Jesus's sympathy with the sinners, as Luke 
 prefers to designate the Gentiles. The G entiles 
 were sinners because they did not observe the 
 Law. Luke is the missionary to convert these 
 Gentiles, and repeatedly tells them that Jesus
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 21 
 
 consorted with sinners such as they were. 
 These sinners, or lawless people, are the new 
 chosen ones. This is one of the Pauline 
 aspects' in Luke that differentiates the third 
 Gospel from the other Synoptic Gospels. 
 
 We have referred generally to the Synoptic 
 Gospels, but additional support for our view is 
 given by the fourth Gospel. The Gospel of 
 John lies outside that large province, peculiar 
 to Luke, which deals with the welcome of 
 repentant sinners ; and some of the words 
 most in use with Luke — " repentance," 
 "publican," and, in the words of Jesus, 
 "sinner" — are altogether absent from John. 
 It seems that this marked sympathy for sinners 
 is really the creation of Luke. * If it had been 
 a feature in Jesus's teaching, why do we hear 
 so much of the woes, the eternal punishment, 
 the gnashing of teeth, and bitter wailing ? 
 According to Mark hi. 29, Jesus taught that 
 disbelief in himself was a sin for which there 
 was no forgiveness. Where, then, is the 
 sympathy for all sinners ? Did not Jesus say, 
 
 * Pfleiderer, " Urchristentum," vol. i., p. 544, notes the 
 fact that Luke's friendly attitude towards the Gentiles is 
 accentuated by his marked hostility against the Jews.
 
 22 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 " Few enter the gate " ? Did he not predict 
 the damnation of the hostile Pharisees with 
 complacency and satisfaction ? 
 
 The rule " Give not that which is holy unto 
 the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the 
 swine" (Matt. vii. 6), is the answer of Matthew to 
 the question, Did Jesus show sympathy for the 
 sinners (i.e., Gentiles) ? The four Gospels go 
 so far as to assert that Jesus taught in parables 
 in order that the sinners who came to him 
 for sympathy should not understand, and were 
 to remain in ignorance and sin (Matt. xiii. 13 ; 
 Mark iv. 12 ; Luke viii. 10 ; John xii. 40). If, 
 then, as we believe, there is no historical proof 
 that Jesus felt profound sympathy for sinners, 
 is it not a fact that Luke was the first to sound 
 this new note in the history of religion ? Our 
 review of the facts of history compels us to 
 answer this question in the negative. As we 
 shall see, Philo is full of genuine sympathy for 
 the sinners, even going so far as to hold out a 
 larger share of Divine pity for the unfortunate 
 ones who, by reason of their sin, had lost all 
 hope of God's pardon. 
 
 There is no occasion to offer any further 
 criticism on the parable as a whole or in detail.
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 23 
 
 The excellent commentaries of Plummer, 
 Weiss, Holtzmann, and Jiilicher, deal exhaus- 
 tively with the text. They are all agreed that 
 the parable teaches the universal grace of 
 God. This valuable doctrine, we shall see, is 
 also insisted on by Philo. Windisch, in his 
 delightful book, " Die Frommigkeit Philos," 
 p. 69, refers to this important aspect of Philo's 
 theology. He does not, however, enter into 
 any discussion as to a parallel between Luke 
 and Philo. There can be no doubt that 
 Luke used Philo (see "Encyclopaedia Biblica," 
 col. 1790). Siegfried sees the influence of 
 Philo in Luke xiii. 28 and 29, also in chapters 
 xvi. 9; xvii. 33; xix. 13^!; and xxiv. 51. The 
 debt that Christianity owes to Philo will one 
 day be recognized. Conybeare, in his " Myth, 
 Magic, and Morals," pp. 353, 355, deals with 
 this question, and shows that the ideas, as well 
 as the names, of the Trinity, the Logos, 
 Ransom, have all been derived from Philo.
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 THE PRODIGAL SON IN JEWISH LITERATURE 
 
 The earliest form of the parable is to be 
 found in Philo. In a fragment of Philo's 
 work "On Providence" (Mang., vol. ii., 
 p. 634), we read : " God is not a tyrant * who 
 practises cruelty and violence, and all the 
 other acts of insolent authority, like an in- 
 exorable master ; but He is rather a King 
 invested with a human and lawful authority, 
 and as such He governs the whole world in 
 accordance with justice. And there is no 
 title more appropriate to a King than the 
 name of father : lor what, in human relation- 
 ships, parents are to their children, that also a 
 King is to his country and God towards the 
 world, having adapted these two most beautiful 
 things by the immutable laws of Nature — 
 
 * The Talmud (Aboda Zara, 3a) has a similar expi-ession. 
 God does not act like a tyrant towards His creatures. 
 
 24
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 25 
 
 namely, (1) the authority of the leader, with 
 (2) the anxious carejof a relative. Parents 
 are not wholly indifferent to even 'prodigal 
 sons, but, having compassion on their un- 
 fortunate dispositions, they are careful and 
 anxious for their welfare, looking upon it as 
 the act of relentless enemies to increase their 
 misfortunes, but as the part of friends and 
 relatives to lighten their disasters. Moreover, 
 in the excess of their liberality, they even 
 give more to such children than to those who 
 have always been well behaved, knowing well 
 that to the latter their own moderation is at 
 all times an abundant resource and means of 
 riches, but that the prodigal so?is have no 
 other hope except in their parents, and that 
 if they are disappointed in that, they will be 
 destitute of even the bare necessities of life. 
 
 So in the same manner God, who is the 
 Father of all rational beings, takes care of all 
 endowed with reason, and exercises a provi- 
 dential power for the protection even of those 
 who are living in a sinful manner, giving 
 them at the same time opportunity of 
 correcting their errors. Nevertheless, He 
 does not violate the dictates of His own
 
 26 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 merciful nature, of which virtue and philan- 
 thropy are the regular attendants, being willing 
 to have their dwelling in the God-created 
 world. This story now do thou, O my soul, 
 take to thyself, and store up within thyself as 
 a sacred treasure." 
 
 This version is again found in Eusebius 
 ("Praep. Evang.," viii., c. 14). (See Philo, 
 Tauchnitz edition, vol. vi., p. 210, and vol. viii., 
 pp. 60 and 61 ; see also Bohn's Philo, vol. iv., 
 p. 223.) In another fragment of Philo (Tauch- 
 nitz edition, pp. 269, 270) we read : " Where 
 there are two sons, one good and one wicked, 
 the father says he will bless (EuXo-yE^*) the latter, 
 not because he prefers him to his brother who 
 is better, but because he knows that the good 
 son can, by his own merit, follow the right 
 path ; whereas the wicked son has no hope of 
 salvation without the prayer of the father, and 
 if this be withheld, then his fate would be 
 sealed." Thus far Philo. Now, in these two 
 pre-Christian passages we have the source of 
 Luke's famous parable. We have already 
 
 * This verb, in sense of blessing someone, is only found 
 in Luke xxiv. 50 and Acts iii. 26 — another instance, perhaps, 
 of Luke's indebtedness to Philo.
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 27 
 
 shown that words peculiar to Luke, and not 
 found elsewhere in the Gospels, are to be 
 found in Philo. Philo lays stress on the 
 universal love of God, who showers his benefits 
 upon all men, even on the unworthy. God's 
 love cannot be less than that of a human 
 father who does not cast off his erring child. 
 This is the lesson that Philo teaches in both 
 passages. But he is merely re-echoing the 
 old prophetic message : " Is Ephraim my dear 
 son ? is he a pleasant child ? for as often as 
 I speak against him, I do earnestly remember 
 him still ; therefore my bowels are troubled 
 for him. I will surely have mercy upon 
 him, saith the Lord" (Jer. xxxi. 20). (See 
 also Isa. xii. 1-6, xlix. 14-16, and Ezek. 
 xviii. 23.) 
 
 We have said that Luke was written about 
 100 c.e. : our reason for this is the fact that 
 he used Josephus, whose work was issued about 
 97 c.e. (The " Encyclopaedia Biblica," col. 
 1893, assigns the year 100 c.e. as the superior, 
 and somewhere about 110 c.e. as the inferior, 
 limit of the date of Luke's Gospel.)* Among 
 
 * This agrees with the view of Pfleiderer, " Urchristen- 
 tum," vol. i., p. 547.
 
 28 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 the Jewish writings belonging to the same 
 period as Luke's Gospel scholars have included 
 the Apocryphal book known as Esdras II. 
 The splendid edition of Gunkel (" Das 4 
 Buch Esra "), in Kautzsch's " Die Apokryphen 
 und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments," 
 is in German. A good English edition is to 
 be had in the Temple Bible, published by Dent 
 and Co. The book is well worth reading. Its 
 chief problem is sin. Above all, Esdras shows 
 a wonderful compassion for sinners that is not 
 excelled by Luke's Gospel. If one speaks of 
 finding a new note in the history of religion in 
 Jesus's interest in sinners as recorded by Luke, 
 it would be more correct to say this new note 
 was another form of the old prophetic note 
 that God desires the sinner to live and to 
 return to his Heavenly Father. This note 
 was never forgotten by the teachers of Israel. 
 Philo in Egypt, and the Hebrew writer of 
 Esdras II. (Gunkel fixes the date of its com- 
 position between 81 c.e. and 96 c.e., certainly 
 earlier than Luke) were followed by Luke in 
 teaching men to feel pity for the lost. We 
 ask, Do the Gospels teach a higher morality 
 than that taught by Philo and Esdras II. ?
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 29 
 
 Let us illustrate the attitude of the writer of 
 Esdras II. by a few quotations : 
 
 " We pass away out of the world as grasshoppers, and 
 our life- is astonishment and fear, and we are not worthy to 
 obtain mercy. Yet what will He do for His name's sake ?" 
 (iv. 24, 25). 
 
 Esdras entreats mercy for God's creatures. 
 The Divine reply is : 
 
 " For thou comest far short that thou shouldst be able to 
 love My creature more than I " (viii. 47). 
 
 "For it was not God's will that we should come to 
 nought " (viii. 60). 
 
 " But because of us sinners, Thou shalt be called 
 merciful. For if Thou hast a desire to have mercy upon 
 us, Thou shalt be called merciful, to us, namely, that have 
 no works of righteousness. . . . For in this, O Lord, Thy 
 righteousness and Thy goodness shall be declared, if Thou 
 wilt be merciful unto them which have not the confidence 
 of good works" (viii. 31, 32, 36). 
 
 The seventh chapter is full of the deepest 
 compassion for the destiny of the sinners. 
 Esdras cannot bear to think that human beings 
 should suffer eternal torments hereafter. It 
 pains him to think that " many have been 
 created, but few will be saved" (viii. 3). This 
 is a good parallel to Jesus's doom, " Many 
 be called, but few chosen" (Matt. xxii. 14). 
 The Gospel does not plead with God for the
 
 30 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 outcasts. Esdras again and again entreats for 
 them, even as Abraham prayed for mercy to 
 be shown to the men of Sodom. " Shall not the 
 Judge of all the earth do right ?" (Gen. xviii. 25). 
 Another exquisite passage in Esdras is vii. 132- 
 139 ; it proves that God ever pardoneth — " For 
 if He did not do so of His goodness, that they 
 which have committed iniquities might be 
 eased of them, the ten-thousandth part of men 
 should not remain living." The love of God 
 is the assurance that He will help and save the 
 souls of the sinners. 
 
 Long ago Schottgen drew attention to a 
 Midrashic parallel to the parable of the Prodigal 
 Son. The Midrash (Ex. rab., § 46), in explain- 
 ing the text Isa. lxiv. 8, says : " A parable about 
 the son of an eminent physician who, meeting 
 an impostor, greets him by saying, ' My lord, 
 my master, my father !' When the physician 
 heard of this, he was vexed with his son, and 
 said : ' Let him not see me again, because he 
 called this impostor his father.' After some 
 days had elapsed the son became very ill, and 
 begged that his father might be asked to see 
 him.* When the father was informed of this 
 
 * See also Siphre Vaetchanan, § 32, for idea of recon- 
 ciliation through affliction.
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 31 
 
 request, his heart was touched (cf. Luke xv. 17), 
 and he went to his son, who cried out : ' O 
 my father, look again on me !' Then the 
 father' said : ' Now verily am 1 thy father. In 
 former days thou didst call the impostor thy 
 father, but now, in thy distress, thou callest on 
 me, saying, " O my father." ' Even so God 
 said to Israel : " Now ye call me Father, but in 
 former days ye worshipped idols, saying to 
 them, My father." Thus it is written in 
 Jer. ii. 27 of the house of Israel : " Who say to 
 a stock, Thou art my father." Later on, in the 
 hour of distress, they cry : " But now, O Lord, 
 thou art our Father" (Isa. lxiv. 8). The 
 parallel seems to hold good with reference to 
 the son's attitude to his father, as well as vice 
 versa. The reconciliation in both parables is 
 due to the distress of the son. In Luke it is 
 hunger, in the Midrash it is illness, that is 
 the driving force. The Midrash parable is 
 anonymous, and it is impossible to fix its 
 date or origin.* In the following Rabbinic 
 parable we have as its author Rabbi Meir, a 
 
 * Schechter, in "Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology," 
 p. 327, gives several illustrations of God's grace in becoming 
 reconciled with sinners.
 
 32 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 possible contemporary of Luke. Rabbi Meir 
 {circa 130 c.e.) preached a parable on the text, 
 " And thou shalt return to the Lord thy God " 
 (Deut. iv. 30). How is this to be compared ? 
 With a son of a King who leads an immoral life. 
 Then the King sends a tutor to his son with 
 the message : " Repent and reform, O my son !" 
 Thereupon the son sends back the tutor to say 
 to the King : " How is it possible for me to 
 repent and reform, for I am ashamed of myself 
 in thy presence ?" Then once again the father 
 sends the tutor with a message : " O my son, it 
 is right for a son who has felt ashamed of his 
 misdeeds to return home to his father. If 
 thou wilt return home, is it not to thy father 
 that thou comest ?" In likewise God sent 
 Jeremiah to Israel when they sinned. God 
 said to the prophet : " Go and tell My sons to 
 repent," as it is written, " Go and proclaim 
 these words, saying, Return, thou backsliding 
 Israel, saith the Lord ; I will not look in 
 anger upon you, for I am merciful, saith the 
 Lord. I will not keep anger for ever. Only 
 acknowledge thine iniquity, that . . . thou 
 hast scattered thy ways to the strangers ' 
 (Jer. iii. 12, 13). Israel's reply was : " How is
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 33 
 
 it possible for us to return to God ?" — as it is 
 written, " Let us lie down in our shame, and 
 let our confusion cover us, for we have sinned '* 
 (Jer. iii. 25). Then again God sent Jeremiah 
 to His children, saying : " O my sons, if ye 
 return, will it not be to your Father ?" So it 
 is written, " I am a Father to Israel ' 
 (Jer. xxxi. 9). In this parable a deep religious 
 note is struck. Neither in the previous 
 Midrashic parable nor in Luke do we find the 
 genuine contrition that makes one thoroughly 
 ashamed of one's sinful self, which is so beauti- 
 fully and touchingly expressed in R. Meir's 
 parable (Deut., rab., § 2). (A variant of this 
 parable is also given in the ' Pesikta,' p. 165a.) 
 Our last quotation, dealing with the lesson 
 taught in the parable of the Prodigal Son, 
 will be a parable of unknown date found 
 in the " Mechilta," which dates back to 
 the second century c.e. It illustrates God's 
 forgiveness, which belongs to all His children. 
 Rabbi Absalom the Elder said in a parable : 
 " Say unto what is this matter likened ? Unto 
 a man who was angry with his son, and drove 
 him out of his house. Thereupon a friend of 
 the father went to him to intercede on behalf
 
 34 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 of the exiled son. The father said : ' Dost 
 thou ask for any other favour besides the desire 
 that I should forgive my son ? Know, indeed, 
 that long, long ago have I forgiven him.' So 
 spake God to Moses : ' Why criest thou unto 
 Me?' (Exod. xiv. 15). Long ago have I 
 become reconciled with My children ' " ("Me- 
 chilta," p. 35b, ed. Weiss). 
 
 The following parable, quoted anonymously 
 in Midrash Jalkut, illustrates the lesson of 
 repentance — a parable about a Prince who 
 was living an evil life. His friends said to 
 him : " Thy father will in days to come 
 punish thee ; he will imprison thee — nay, he 
 will deliver thee into the hands of his servants, 
 who will seek to starve thee. At last thou 
 wilt come to thy senses and repent, asking thy 
 father for his forgiveness. He will surely 
 receive thee and forgive thee, and all thy mis- 
 deeds will be forgotten." In this wise Hosea 
 warned Israel, for he knew that in the days to 
 come God would smite His people, as it is 
 written, " I will pour out My wrath upon them 
 like water " (Hos. v. 10). God also threatened 
 to deliver them into the hands of the Princes 
 of this world (Hos. vii. 16), and to withhold
 
 THE GRACE OF GOD 35 
 
 the corn in its due season (Hos. ii. 9). Hosea 
 urged his people to reverse the usual process, 
 and, instead of suffering and learning the lesson 
 of adversity that causes repentance, he cried to 
 them, " Repent, O Israel " (Hos. xiv. 1), 
 (Jalkut on Hosea xiv., § 531.) 
 
 If the parable of the Prodigal Son is the 
 " pearl and crown " of the N.T. Scriptures, then 
 the quoted parables of the Midrash, as well as 
 of Philo, have an abiding message, not only for 
 Jews, but for all men. Scant justice has been 
 done to Philo by his co-religionists. He was 
 not a Christian, as early legends assert, but a 
 confirmed and devout Jew. His influence has 
 been more widely felt in Christianity than in 
 Judaism. Moreover, it has been left chiefly to 
 Christian scholars, such as Siegfried, Bossuet, 
 Bertholet, and Windisch, to deal with some of 
 the most important aspects of Philo 's theology. 
 The last- mentioned writer goes so far as to say 
 that Philo stands in "the courtyard of the Chris- 
 tian sanctuary " (" Die Frommigkeit Philo's," 
 p. 130). It is surely time to claim him as one 
 of Israel's best teachers and missionaries. 
 Through Philo and LXX Christianity learnt 
 to know the Bible and religion of Israel.
 
 36 THE GRACE OF GOD 
 
 The reader will probably ask, What is the 
 aim of the writer in discussing the parable of 
 the Prodigal Son ? The answer to this ques- 
 tion is threefold : 
 
 1. To show that Jews have no need to go 
 to the New Testament in order to learn the 
 supreme lesson that our Father in heaven is a 
 gracious God. This is the message of the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 2. To show that the parable was not un- 
 known in Jewish literature long before the 
 Gospels were written. 
 
 3. To emphasize the abiding mission of 
 Israel, chosen by God to reveal the Divine 
 to humanity, and to bring all men nearer and 
 nearer to our Heavenly Father, "that Thy 
 way may be known upon the earth, Thy 
 salvation among all nations " (Ps. lxvii. 2). 
 
 PRINTED BY HUGH BEES, LTD., LONDON
 
 REGION-' 
 
 A OOO 109 543 9