March 10, 2013

Glynn Cardy

Lent 4     
Luke 15:1-3, 11b-32

Video available on YouTube, Facebook

The Prodigal Son is an insightful parable about the nature of God, revealed through the character of the Father. It is the Father’s desire for loving and forgiving relationships that drives his actions. 

The elder son is representative of those who consider themselves faithful, keeping the commandments of God, like Jesus’ pharisaic critics. The younger son is representative of those who are considered outside the boundaries of faith categorized as ‘sinners’, like prostitutes and tax collectors in Jesus’ day.

In this story God is portrayed as valuing the relationships between people above society’s and religion’s beliefs and conventions. Indeed the parable takes the emphasis off beliefs and puts it on behaviour. Beliefs around family, inheritance, conformity, and penalties are deemed secondary to the restoration of the relationships in the human family. Rather than obey the rules and expectations, forgiving godly love bypasses the boundaries to bring the disgraced one and the disgruntled one back into relationship. Relationships are more important than rules. 

In this parable there are six shameful – some might say ‘sinful’ – acts. They first two happen immediately. The younger son, maybe a 17 year old[i], asks for his share of the property, and the father gives it. 

The primary act of wrongdoing by the younger son was not misusing his inheritance but asking for it. When he asks for his share of the property it is tantamount to wishing his father dead, for property only passed on to the next generation after death.[ii]

The second shameful act in this story is the father’s. In granting his youngest son’s request he shows himself to be a fool. In ceding a third of the estate [what the younger was entitled to] the father put in jeopardy the financial well-being of the whole family unit. As events unfolded, with the younger son frittering his finances away, the father’s wanton generosity would have been seen as bringing shame upon the family. 

The restless son came to the father and insulted him by demanding the resources to be free. The son did not want to be caged by family responsibility and duty. The father, like many parents, thought of the consequences of denying the request. Then knowing that his other dependents and neighbours would think him foolhardy and irresponsible, yet also knowing that satisfying relationships can never flourish where there is coercion, the father took a deep breath and said yes. 

The third shameful act was the youngest son’s squandering of the inheritance. It’s portrayed as self-destructive. Working for a profane foreigner and feeding profane pigs are signals to the Jewish audience that he not only has sunk as low as he can go, but he has also lost his faith. His squandering also loses him his family - for he would in future have no means to fulfill his duties and provide support to his kin. 

The young prodigal ‘comes to himself’ and decides to return to the ancestral home in order to work as a hired hand. The parable does not portray this as a cynical calculation to escape poverty, although the audience may have wondered. Rather he is portrayed as desperate. He has no expectation that he will be restored to the privilege of being a son. Indeed he can no longer be a son for he has forfeited those rights.

The fourth shameful act was the manner of the father’s forgiveness. He goes overboard. He seems to have been looking out for this reprobate. He runs – not the seemly thing for a patriarch to do – kisses and hugs him. He confers forgiveness when there is no evidence of the son’s sincerity, or even the request for such forgiveness. 

This display of emotion by the father character indicates that God’s nature is not bound by the expected legal and hierarchical roles but rather by a deep and nurturing love for all, especially for the ones that are suffering. The father’s disregard of legalities is evident when he asks his slaves to carry out orders that have the appearance of restoring the son to his former status, not inducting him into the duties of a hired hand. Forgiving godly love not only wants to welcome and include but it also wants to restore.

The father has received the son back and as was normal is still in control of the property. The welcome means that the younger son can be supported from the property as long as the father lives. In a limited-goods society however the youngest son has not only wasted one third of their communal resources but by being received back will ultimately be a financial burden to the detriment of his elder brother.

The fifth shameful act is that of the elder brother, who you will recall from v2 is a characterization of the Pharisees and Scribes who do not like Jesus welcoming and dining with ‘sinners’. The elder brother feels the reception of his wayward sibling is unjust. He does not want to join in the feast given on the return of the prodigal. He is angry. 

The elder brother’s refusal to dine with his father is culturally also a very shameful act. Just as the younger boy shamed the patriarch in asking for his inheritance so the elder shames his father by not eating with them. He violates the 4th commandment.[iii]

The elder son sees the father as having brought dishonour on the family by ceding to his brother’s request and then welcoming him back. His sees his younger sibling as having brought dishonour in both his request for inheritance and his squandering of it. The prodigal has further shamed the family, according to the eldest, by consorting with prostitutes, therefore compromising the family’s bloodline. 

The story cleverly at this point shows how with the reference to non-existent prostitutes, the pious, like the elder brother, can fantasize about leaving the strictures of their faith, and project both their envy and his fear upon those who have.

The sixth shameful act is the father’s response to this jealous elder brother. As in his dealings with the younger, the father refuses to assert the authority and discipline of the patriarchal entitlement. He comes out to him and affirms him as a companion and co-owner of the farm. The father’s response however goes beyond a simple legal affirmation that the elder is the one true heir and addresses him with the affectionate term teknon: ‘child’. 

The father is stepping away from dealing with this family crisis by technical legal means. Addressing the elder brother as child serves the same function as the kissing and embracing of the younger son. It is relationality not legality that is paramount. It is the finding and loving of his children that concerns him, not his honour as represented by the inheritance. Forgiving godly love seeks not to defend its own honour and importance but to reach out to heal and embrace.

The father rejects neither of his sons. Upon his death the estate will go to the eldest who will assume the responsibilities of the patriarch. Yet the father is interested in the end not in morality or inheritance but the ongoing relationship between the two boys. The purpose of doing the dishonorable thing and allowing the younger his inheritance; doing the dishonorable thing and unconditionally forgiving this son; doing the dishonorable thing and coming out to the elder son who has shamed him… the purpose of doing all this is for relationship, and ultimately for relationship not with him but between the two sons.

Similarly the power of forgiving love that we call God is primarily interested in reconciliation between insiders and outsiders in society, rather than legalities and moralities. Such love wants to find ways to affirm and include all, no matter what we’ve done or believe. 

Maybe the most powerful message of the parable is the most obvious: the tax collector and sinner are brothers to the Pharisee and Scribe. Likewise we are all connected to each other. So let us treat each other like the story’s father treats his sons: with respect, kindness, tolerance, and lots of forgiveness where asked for or not.

[i] Dr Chris Marshall suggests this as a likely age when the son is old enough to leave home but has not married.

[ii] Occasionally in this 1st century culture a deed of gift could happen during a patriarch’s lifetime, but the beneficiary [in this case the younger son] still had responsibilities to use the gift to support the benefactor [his father].

[iii] ‘Honour your father and mother’ Exodus 20:12