Background As Jesus understood his role was one to "preach the good news to the poor" (Lk 4:18), much of what he had to say was addressed to those who were identified as needing to hear words of consolation and encouragement. Thus when we read the gospels we see that his preaching inevitably provoked a response of acceptance or rejection! On the one hand we have the rich and powerful rejecting the prophet’s call while the tax-collectors and sinners, the outcasts of society, tend to respond positively and accept the message. This whole Gospel passage contains three important parables on the theme of the "lost and found", including today’s Gospel the famous parable of the Prodigal Son. It begins with a complaint by the religious leadership of the day that his preaching is attracting "tax-collectors and (public) sinners" and not acceptable people one usually engages in religious dialogue with. To their complaint Jesus responds not with words of condemnation but with three parables that seek to explain to them the real purpose of his preaching: God reaching out to the lost and gently bringing them home. However, it seems that their desire to engage in dialogue with Jesus has now been replaced with hostile surveillance.
Gospel The parable of the Prodigal Son is unique to Luke’s Gospel and is among his most beloved and interpreted parables. In addition to the theme of lost and found, Luke develops the parable by weaving into it complex family relationships and the pursuit and use of possessions/wealth. While many tend to focus on the younger son as the main character, it is in reality the father who is the main character and it is he who, as with the other parables, experiences loss and then restoration. It is he as we will see who exhibits even handed compassion and concern to both his sons, who allows his younger son to rashly risk his inheritance while his other son, full of alienation and envy remains on the farm. In many ways as the parable unfolds we see a father who has lost both sons, one to distance and extravagant living, the other to coldness of heart and emotional alienation. The family is clearly dysfunctional in modern terms! The use of the word "prodigal" is applied to the son with the meaning of rashly and wastefully extravagant, but it could equally be applied to the father with the meaning of lavishing forgiveness or giving of mercy in abundance.
"A certain man had two sons, and the younger son said to his father, "Father give me the share of the estate that should come to me" So the father divided the property between them." Literally speaking the request of the younger son is for the property that would fall to him on the death of his father. The rules on Jewish inheritance are to be found in the Book of Leviticus (Lev 27: 8-11 and 36:7-9). Note how the request for his inheritance is in the form of a command, emphasizing that this is no mere request but one that is equivalent to a wish that the father be dead, since in Jewish law no distribution of inheritance could take place before the death of the property owner. What the younger son does here is to exercise a right of possession before the right time and then to exercise a right of disposition as he squanders the inheritance given to him.
"After a few days, the younger son collected all his belongings and set of to a distant country where he squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation. When he had freely spent everything, a severe famine struck that country and he found himself in dire need. So he hired himself out to one of the local citizens who sent him to his farm to tend the swine. And he longed to eat his fill of the pods on which the swine fed but nobody gave him any. ". This is a description of a life spent in excess, without any self-control. Having liquidated his inheritance he squanders it on the easy life. While his older brother will later accuse him of sexual excess there is no evidence of this at this stage of the parable, although it could reasonably implied from his life of debauchery.
The description of his excess continues and when famine breaks out he is no position to protect himself as he has nothing to fall back on. Given that pork is forbidden to Jews, the tending of pigs is about as alienated as a Jew can get! Both the Talmud and Mishna forbid the tending of pigs and equate it with being cursed and ritually impure. So great is his decline that he is even willing to eat what has been provided for what Jews believe is a despised animal.
"Coming to his senses he thought, ‘How many of my fathers hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger. I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be called you son, treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers"" In a moment of insight the younger son comes to realize his plight and to see the folly of his ways. He then resolves to return to his father and to admit his folly which he now sees as both a sin against heaven and an insult to his father. Note how he does not specify the nature of his sin? That will be left to the elder son to do. At first one must ask whether this is a genuine contrition (metanoia) or just a moment of realization of one’s need. The reference to his being treated as "hired worker" suggests that his contrition is deeper than just mere need. As a "hired worker" he would have had no expectation of a family relationship.
"So he got up and went back to his father. When he was still a way off, his father caught sight of him and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him" the use of the Greek word "splangnizomai" to be "filled with compassion" suggests an emotion deeper than mere pity. The father is moved to the pit of his very being and responds in the only way such an emotion can: by running to greet him and embracing him. In response to this, the son beings his well prepared and possibly well rehearsed speech but is cut short by the father’s affection and response. In a break with accepted practice and behavior, it is the father who looking out for his return runs to greet his long lost son.
"But his father ordered his servants, ‘Quickly bring the finest robes and put it on him, put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Take the fattened calf and slaughter it. Then let us celebrate wit a feast, because this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found" Unable to complete his speech the father takes the initiative and orders that symbols of restoration and son-ship be placed on the son. The embrace echoes the reunion of Joseph and Benjamin (Gen 45:14-15) and later the reunion of Joseph with his elderly father Jacob (Gen 46:29). These are extravagant gestures of acceptance and restoration. It seems that at the word "Father" the once lost relationship of father/son is restored.
Now the older son had been out in the field and on his way back, as he neared the house he heard the sound of music and dancing. He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean. The servant said to him ‘Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound. Having originally been told that there were two sons, the older son is now introduced to the parable. He is described as returning from the fields implying that he has remained on the family farm. As the elder son it would have expected to inherit the farm and as his younger brother has already received his inheritance he would have expected to receive the whole of the family estate on the death of his father.
He became angry and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out to him and pleaded with him Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends. But when your son returns, who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him, you slaughter the fattened calf! having discovered the return of his brother, he is angry and resentful at the attention being paid to him. Once again in a twist of the unexpected, it is the father who takes the initiative and goes out to his son to plead with him. The refusal of the son to enter is compared with the father’s ability to go out and meet with him. For just as with the younger son, at no time will the father allow protocol or human expectations to break their family relationship. It is clear that the elder son has seen his life on the family farm as a kind of slavery and reveals a high degree of bitterness and even resentment against his father. It is ironic that the younger son wants to be a slave while the elder brother feels like one. Having obeyed his "orders" he has more in common with the righteous who have no need of repentance yet he resents the return of one he describes as "your son" and not his brother. He is clearly alienated even though he has never left home and he deflects this bitterness onto his younger brother whom he deems as unworthy. His resentment is so deep that the allegations he makes against his brother contain lurid details that could never be implied from the little he knew about his brother’s activities.
"My son, you are with me always; everything I have is yours. But
now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has
come to life again, he was lost and has been found" In reiterating
that he too is his son, the father confirms that all he has will pass to
the elder son, this is both his legal right and the sign of the enduring
affection the father holds for him. But now is not a moment for family
disagreement but one of celebration and rejoicing for the son, once seemed
to be lost has returned and is restored.
Introduction to the Gospel Page