Once again we are at that Sunday in the year when we have the parable of the Prodigal Son as our Gospel lection. Again this is a story we have known, most of us, from our childhood. We know that the younger son asked for his share of the inheritance, then squandered it in a far country. We know that he then decided to return home.
For a short while let us look at what was going on behind the story.
To have asked for his share of his father's estate while the father was still alive was the height of scandalous greed. The son was saying, in effect, "You are as good as dead as far as I am concerned."
But the scandal was increased by the father agreeing! We should remember that it was not only the father who increased the scandal. Even the elder son accepted his share of the estate. It is easy for us to forget that the text does not say the father gave the younger son his share. Rather, the text says, "he divided his property between them.” He shared it between his two sons, and thereby went along with the scandalous thing the younger son had done.
The father and the elder son both had the duty to protect the honour of their family by refusing the request of the younger son. If anything, what should have happened was that the younger son should have been disinherited immediately.
Those listening to Jesus would have been stunned by the scenario he has just painted. For them the behaviour of this family would have been beyond belief. It would have been completely shocking. Totally unacceptable. This whole family would have been shunned for their dangerous, unpredictable behaviour. They behaved completely against their culture. Who would ever have trusted such a family again?
But just in case they were thinking that the sons would at least settle down and be responsible - though disgraced - members of the community, Jesus ups the ante even more.
In verse 13 he develops the story. A few days later the younger son takes his personal belongings and leaves home. Can you hear the gasp of shock that rippled through the crowd? He then went to a distant, by which would be understood foreign, unclean, alien, or suspect, country. The crowd is shocked! There he squanders his property so that foreigners now have possession of it. How outrageous!
It is this last act of squandering the property so that foreigners come to own it that transforms the story from one of merely individual reckless behaviour to a story showing that individual reckless behaviour endangers the whole community. This is precisely why communities set standards and enforce them. Community survival requires trust and carefully guarded balancing of all obligations and debts.
Jesus has set such an outrageous scene that even the tax collectors and sinners would be thinking, "This son has gone too far!" Which is precisely the place where Jesus next takes the story.
In verses 14 to 19 things go from bad to worse for the younger son. This would have raised in the listeners of Jesus the conflicting emotions of, "Just as he deserves!" And, "How could he possibly bring even more shame to us all by behaving like that, and in front of foreigners?"
But the young man "comes to himself" - comes to the opinion about himself that all of Jesus' listeners would have of him. He realised he had sinned against heaven. That is, he had broken the standards of heaven, which the community also happened to believe were their standards.
He was indeed no longer worthy to be a member of the community. At best, he could have been treated like one of the daily wage labourers who survived on the edge of the community.
The young man is seen coming home. Without knowing why his younger son is returning, when the father saw him in the distance, he ran to greet him. He did that so that the villagers wouldn't get to him first and drive him off.
However, the action of running was undignified for an elder and would have only further confirmed the public shame and dishonour of this dysfunctional family.
The really important question in this story is: How will the community and elder son respond?
The father killed the fatted calf and invited the community. But what if they hadn't come? That would have signalled their disapproval and refusal to accept the younger son back into the community. It was to be remembered, after all, that the property he squandered was still in the hands of foreigners. But the community accepted the offer of reconciliation and attended the feast.
What about the elder son? By accepting his share of the estate, he had become responsible for supporting his father and his father's household. He would now have to provide for his younger brother as well.
The father affirmed the elder son's position with him, and gave him the grounds for joining the party. It is worth noting that the father referred to the younger son as "this brother of yours," thereby emphasizing their relationship, not his.
The story ends without telling us how the elder brother responded. And without Luke telling us how Jesus' listeners responded. In other words, the story ends with only our responses to it. How would we have responded? Would we have gone to the party? We are the end of the story.
Imagine that after church today, you are at home preparing lunch for your family, when you are interrupted by a homeless person ringing your bell. You are all flustered and say you are running late because you have been at church. The homeless person asks you what was talked about at church today. You tell him. He asks, "And how did the story end?" What will you say?
What is the end of this story?
May God bless you in your relationships with others.
