March 14, 2010

Glynn Cardy

Lent 4     Luke 15:1-32

Video available on YouTube, Facebook

The Prodigal Son is, when understood, an insightful parable about the nature of the Christian and Jewish God, whom I respectfully call ‘Love’s Fool’.

It is the quality and actions of costly love, portrayed by the father character in the parable, which informs us about the nature of Jesus’ God. God is not an old man with two sons. God is the love that the fictitious old man exhibits. It is a love that can withstand insult and humiliation. It is a love that includes offenders. It is a love deemed foolish. It is a love that values the relationships between people above society’s and religion’s conventions. 

The parable also, progressively, 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 family. Rather than obey the rules and expectations of 1st century Palestinian society, costly love bursts the boundaries to include the disgraced one and the disgruntled one back into relationship. Relationships are more important than rules. The latter are there to serve the former, not vice versa.

In this parable there are six shameful – some might say ‘sinful’ – acts. They first two happen immediately. The younger 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 usually only passed on to the next generation after death. [i] [ii]

The second shameful act in this story is the father’s. In granting his youngest son’s request the father shows himself to be a fool. He chances losing his honour, his support, and his control. In ceding a third of the estate [what the younger was entitled to] the father also 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 not honour upon the family. 

The restless son came to the loving 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 loving father, like many parents, thought of the consequences of denying the request. Then the father 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, took a deep breath and said yes. Love bore the cost.

The third shameful act was the youngest son’s squandering of the inheritance. It’s portrayed in the story 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 one can go, 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. Love’s gift of freedom can easily be lost.

The 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. Love goes overboard. The father’s behaviour is out of character: 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 indicates that the father is not bound by the legal and paternal roles expected of him but rather by his deep and nurturing love for his children. 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. Love not only wants to forgive and include – regardless of what others think – 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. He 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. Love has gone too far and forgotten its responsibilities. 

The elder brother’s refusal to dine with his father is culturally 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 too violates the 4th commandment.

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 stay-at-home fantasizes about leaving home and projects both his envy and his fear upon his brother.

The sixth shameful act is the father’s response to this jealous sibling. 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 not as a ‘slave’ but 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 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. 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 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.

Likewise the costly love called God is not only for the purpose of bringing individuals into a relationship with the Divine, but ultimately for the purpose of bringing individuals into relationship with each other.

Costly love gives when it does not have to, is generous when it seems foolhardy, and suffers when the beloved is estranged. Costly love forgives even when it isn’t asked to, restores when it is viewed as unwise to, and suffers when others don’t understand. It serves the mending and nourishment of relationships, and will overstep the boundaries of society and religion to do so.

It is a mistake to view this parable through the lens of ‘repentant sinner’. We don’t even know how repentant the prodigal actually was! It is far better, and a far wider lens, to view it as ‘love’s fool’ – namely Love’s fearless commitment to building and restoring relationships, come what may, cost what it will.

[i] 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].