The prodigal son

In the liturgy for 4^th Sunday of Lent Lk 15:1-3; 11-32

In SS 15:1-32

Context

Luke sets this parable in the context of tax collectors and sinners coming to Jesus and the Pharisees grumbling that ‘this man welcomes sinners and eats with them’. Which may well indicate that ‘sinners and tax collectors’ were unrepentantly still plying their trades.

The stories of the Gospels would have been shared by travelling evangelists at the meal of the Lord’s supper which was shared by the receiving community.

So, the primary context for the story is one of meal sharing which indicates it is telling us something about who Luke’s hearers accept into the sharing of the communal meal and how they welcome them.

The lectionary leaves out two parables in order to highlight this meal context.  However, in the Gospel, the two parables preceding are important.  They tell the stories of the lost coin and the lost sheep.  Now, neither coins nor sheep can repent despite vs. 10.  These parables are about seeking out the lost and the joy of finding.

So, context is important.  It directs us towards the way Luke wants us to understand the stories. Luke is inviting his listeners/readers to keep this in mind.

Parable and Allegory

Allegory is a story form of the Greco-Roman world and one western though has inherited.  Parable is a Jewish form of storytelling.  This is not an exclusive distinction as there are times when the two overlap.  However, Jesus’ first century Jewish listeners would have heard this story as a parable not an allegory. 

The Gospels show a tendency to allegorise the parables e.g., Mark 4 where the original parable to the Sower is given an allegorical interpretation by Mark.  According to scholars, this indicates a shift in the spread of the movement from Jewish communities to the gentiles.

Allegories tend to be for initiates.  They hide meaning which can only be understood by those initiated into the group.  Each character is assigned a particular meaning.  There tends to be one main message.

Parables are stories which are open ended.  There is not one resolution. They must be thought about, played with, looked at from many different angles.  They invite us to think about what is happening in the story, apply it to what is happening in our lives and our world, shake us out of our own perceptions.  They call for conversion. 

In parables, often the characters and events are exaggerated in order to make a point.

For the Jews, the hallmark of a good Rabbi’s preaching was could he tell a good parable that would hold the listeners enthralled, get conversation going and open their minds.

First century listeners

Christian hearers/listeners understand this story allegorically i.e. the father is God, the younger son the forgiven penitent.  Jesus’ Jewish first century audience would have heard this story as a parable with roots in their tradition.  So, let’s look at the protagonists.

The younger son: ‘There was a man who had two sons.’ Think of all the great stories of the Hebrew Scriptures beginning with Cain and Abel, Isaac, Jacob and Ephraim.  The younger son in all these stories is either the hero (even if a bit devious) or to be sympathised with.

Suddenly the audience is horrified, because this younger son does a terrible thing – he wants his inheritance.  He is asking his father to dissipate the family’s (and possibly, clan’s) wealth and security so he can leave the family. 

Which he does, replete with his share of the family’s fortune.  He promptly spends it all on debauchery and ends up looking after pigs.  Pigs!  Unclean animals of the gentiles.  He has compounded the offence.

Now the audience has to readjust their sympathies which in their traditional stories would be with the younger son.  However, this younger son is not a hero.  In fact, he irresponsibly ignores his role in the family.

The listeners may just have to sympathise with the elder son.

When he ‘came to his senses’ and saw that the bright lights of dissolute living and pig herding weren’t doing him much good, his reasons for his return are far from altruistic – the servants (slaves) in his father’s house live better than he does.  He formulates a return plan.

The father:  To give away half of the family’s inheritance would be considered foolhardy.  The role of the father in any large extended family of the time was to ensure the security, both financial and physical of the members of the family.  No one listening of Jesus tell this parable would have been impressed by this generosity.  They would have been shocked.

The Jewish father loved his children, cared for them and mourned their loss.   Children, especially sons were God’s gift to them. There is no question about that.  There is much in the tradition that sets rules/guidelines for the care of children. 

The listener would have seen the father’s acquiescence to the son’s request as weakness and indulgence, not love.

On the younger son’s return, his father is ‘filled with compassion’.  He calls to his servants to bring the robe, the ring and the sandals.  In this way this younger son is welcomed back and fully reinstated into the family. 

The slaughter of the fatted calf is no small thing.  Meat was not generally part of the diet as animals were part of the family’s capital.  This family were obviously wealthy. 

Did all this mean that the younger son would have another share of inheritance?

Would the listeners have perceived this as weakness on the father’s part? 

Will this younger son change his ways?

The elder son:  The elder son is ‘in the field’ i.e., attending to the family duties. It is interesting in this parable that the son’s return is celebrated by his father and servants.  The mother, the elder son and other siblings and family members are not informed of his return.

The elder son has to ask the servants what is going on.  He is angry.  He refuses to go inside and join the celebration meal.  His lifelong fidelity has not been appreciated.  Hurt and anger boil over. This son has been the faithful child and has never been acknowledged or celebrated as that by his father.

The parable ends with the father’s explanation – ‘everything I have is yours’ and this son ‘was lost and been found’.   

We leave the father and elder son standing outside the festival looking at each other. We are invited to consider what might be happening between them.

Has the father learned anything about his elder son?

Can this son trust his father not to jeopardise the family security again?

It is left to us, the listeners, to savour this story.  Parables leave many questions. 

Is this story about family/community relationships?  After all, when we look at the story as being about ordinary people, they are as good and as dysfunctional as any family whether it was first century or today.

Luke sets it directly after the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin, stories about the mission of these small faith communities and their joy when the lost are found.  Is this a parable of how to welcome very different people who have been evangelised by the community?

Given the fact that Luke situates these stories in the context of eating with tax collectors and sinners, is this saying something about the community’s welcome of people who are ‘different’. 

Is the party for the younger son a mirror of the community’s relationships? 

Who should be admitted to the table fellowship?

So, the questions are evoked and the listener/reader is invited to examine their own attitudes, beliefs and actions.

Enjoy playing with this parable.

 

*I am indebted to Amy Jill Levine for her work on the parables in her book Short Stories by Jesus.  This book and work done on the Christian parables by contemporary Jewish scholars transformed how I understood these literary jewels, the parables.