SermonStudio

Commentary


Scholars have pointed out that this is basically one parable with two parts and the second half of the parable (15:25-32) is culturally and stylistically a repetition of the first half. The externals are different but the essential nature of each is the same. Furthermore, the father's response to each of his sons is essentially identical.

Why did Jesus include it? For Jeremias there is only one answer, because of the setting in which the parable took place. "The parable was addressed to men who were like the elder brother, men who were offended by the gospel. It was an appeal to their conscience. Jesus' hearers were in the position of the elder son who had to decide whether they would accept his father's invitation and share his joy" (The Parables of Jesus, p. 104). As Jesus told this parable he was well aware of his critics who were listening to him. They were critical not only of his message but of his social activities as well. Therefore in this second part of the parable he was justifying his socializing and eating with sinners and outcasts. He was hopeful that they would abandon their self-righteous criticism and experience the joy that the good news brings.

In the latter part of the parable the father takes a more prominent role in the dialogue and interaction with the elder son. Young points out that the two sons are quite similar. Both view their father more as a banker than a father. The father is the master who controls the finances and they are the laborers who desire more money. Both sons speak of their relationship with their father from their financial ties and work obligations. They view themselves as hired servants in their father's house. "As heirs, the younger son wants unlimited overdraft -- the elder son desires a fat savings account with the prestige of wealth and position. While they seem so different in the way they go about obtaining what they want, they are really quite similar" (p. 156). The actions of both sons produce the same results -- a broken relationship with the father. The young son is alienated from his father by rebellion, passion, and greed. The elder son is alienated from his father by hatred and resentment.

It appears that the elder son is attacking his brother with definite intent in mind. If he can demonstrate that his younger brother is a rebellious son, then, according to the law in Deuteronomy 21:18-21, he can be put to death. The elder son paints a very black picture indeed regarding his younger brother, because he brings up the charge of prostitutes. This is the first time that any sexual immorality regarding the younger son has been raised against him. One gets the feeling at this point that the elder son is reaching for straws. He was reminding his father that the money his son had spent on prostitutes was money that was to take care of his father in his old age. He is saying to his father, "This son of yours really doesn't care for you. If he did, he would have used his money in a different manner, by showing you respect."

The interaction between the father and the elder son is remarkable. The dialogue between them reveals the father's love and compassion for his resentful son. Where the son sees himself as a faithful slave, the father views him as a companion: "Son, you are always with me." The father considers him as co-owner of the farm, "All that is mine is yours." The son had no need to earn his father's approval, he already had it.

Reflections


The young son bolts defiantly from his father and family and goes off in a huff to a distant land. He blows his entire inheritance on loose living and comes back home in disgrace. The father gets carried away and throws a party for everybody in the whole community. What a great place to stop the story. But Jesus did not stop there. The truth is, he could not omit the latter part of the story because that is the part that deals with most of us. Most of us did not travel to a distant land, we just stayed at home and pouted. Not all prodigals leave; some remain and become strangers in their own house.

Through the years the older brother's behavior appeared as being right, proper, sober, and respectable. The town's people thought of him as "the good boy who stayed at home and cared for his aging father." It was the younger son who had all the problems, made self-evident by his sins of passion. The older brother's sins of disposition and attitude were less obvious -- but potentially more destructive to the family. There was a time when the character of church members was judged by what they did not do. They did not gamble, play cards, dance, go to the theatre, or drink. But many of the those good church members who also served as stewards and deacons were slave owners, slum lords, employers of child labor, and abusive to their wives and children. The fact is there are those who remain in the father's house and decline inwardly.

The elder son is out in the field. When he hears the music coming from the house, he is suspicious. By the beat of the music, he knows that it is a joyous occasion. Living recently in an African village, I have learned that rhythms are specific and known. The older son does not rush in; he is suspicious that this may have something to do with his brother's return. His fear is that the old man is getting carried away with emotion. When one of his servants told him that his brother had returned and that his father had killed the fatted calf -- his suspicions were confirmed. Custom required his presence. In the Hebrew community, at such a celebration and banquet the elder son has special responsibilities. But he is not anxious to assume them. The older son's refusal to come in and be part of the celebration is totally unexpected. It is shocking. Again, the family is the victim of public humiliation and the father has another rebellious son on his hands. It is the public humiliation of the family that captures the attention of any Middle Eastern hearer/reader.

The elder son's behavior now grabs the attention of the hearers because he appears so aggravated by all that has happened. The elder son is resistant to his father's plea that he come to the party. Everything has gone against the elder son's plans for his life. This is not what he anticipated; he had different plans. But his plans are now being jeopardized by the return of his wayward brother. Because of his brother's lost inheritance, he is fearful that as the eldest son he will be responsible for the sole support of his aged father and possibly for his younger brother as well. His planned retirement has collapsed. He has that sinking Enron feeling -- that his 401K retirement fund has just disintegrated. His interests have been seriously damaged. He is mad. He is angry. He doesn't care who knows about it. To the father's chagrin, the entire village again has been drawn into the family quarrel. This is the kind of thing that families seek to camouflage and keep from the neighbors.

The question is asked: How could this elder son remain at home, live in the father's house, and become for so many years the recipient of the father's love and goodwill and yet drift so far from his father, to the point that he becomes a stranger? This happened in the same way people can live for a lifetime as members of a Christian church and not have the slightest idea of what takes place there. They have no concept of Christian love or reconciling grace. On the campus of Harvard University, a friend said to Richard Niebuhr, "There goes one of your students." His reply was, "No, he attends my classes, but he is not one of my students." There is a difference. I could imagine someone saying to Jesus, "Lord, there goes one of your disciples." "No," Jesus replies, "he attends one of my churches, but he is not one of my disciples." Is it possible that a person can remain within the church and shrivel and deteriorate inwardly and spiritually? There are those who misconstrue Jesus' comment to remain childlike to mean to become childish -- remaining immature in faith and vision. Judas traveled within the company of the twelve, but something went wrong, something never connected, somehow he never caught what was taking place. He was clueless. It all seemed to go right past him.

The elder brother was ticked-off. He was not ticked-off by his brother's return, but rather he was upset because he felt he had gotten a raw deal. He was willing for his brother to come home, but to penance and not to a party. He said to himself, "What moral instruction is there in such action?'' He felt that the father was saying to his brother that it's all right to mess around and screw up. The elder brother wanted to say to his father, "What about being responsible for one's actions? Doesn't one reap what one sows? What kind of world would this be if we made a practice of rewarding sons for their rebellious actions while God-fearing folks are still out in the fields hard at work?" Robert Capon has suggested that when the elder son hears that the father wants to kill the prized fatted calf he is enraged. He rants, "The fatted calf! Does the old man know that I have been saving that prize calf for next month's sales promotion when we are going to show our new line of turnips? How can I run a business when he blows the entire advertising budget for entertainment on that loser of a son?" (The Parables of Grace, p. 142). To say the least, he was angry and he was not about to go into the party.

Many identify with the elder son. The son's anger and resentment shut him out from the party and the rest of the family. Many have felt this rage. Feeling left out and excluded creates a desire to be alone and in our isolation we cut ourselves off from those whom we so desperately need. The elder son needs to be with the rest of his family. However, he reflects on the state of affairs and quickly decides not to enter the house. In this cultural setting, an elder son has specific responsibilities at such an official banquet. He is supposed to move among the guests, making certain they are comfortable, getting enough to eat and seeing to it that the servants are carrying out their tasks. It was customary in the first-century Middle East for the elder son to stand at the door barefoot to greet the guests, which was a symbolic gesture by which the father is saying to the villagers, "My older son is your servant" (Bailey, p. 194).

The elder son did not go about his protest regarding his younger brother in the proper manner. Culturally, it would have been proper for the son, if he had a disagreement with his father, to first enter the house and fulfill his role as the host. He was expected publicly to embrace and welcome his brother back and to receive the compliments that will be paid to him by his guests who assume that he is glad to have his brother back. He was expected to show recognition to his brother as the honored guest. When the party was over and all had left, then it would have been the proper time for the elder son to share his grievance with his father. Instead, the son decided to quarrel with his father while the guests were present and thereby humiliated the father publicly. Bailey points out that customs in the Middle East with its high regard for the father make the older son's action all that more insulting and out of place. But it is an insult in any culture for a family to host a banquet and at the same time for the elder son to have a public quarrel with his father.

There is now a break in the relationship between the father and the elder son. The elder son's path to the banquet hall is step by step a parallel to the road just traveled by the younger son. The father seems to be going from crisis to crisis. For the second time in the same day the father goes down and out of his house, presenting in public humiliation unexpected love. The father is no less anxious for the elder son to return, not to scold or rebuke, as one may expect, but to entreat him just as he had his younger son. One would expect that such a demonstration of unexpected love for the older son would have the same effect as it did on the younger son. Unfortunately, we never get to know the final outcome.

By now most of the guests at the party know that the family is having a serious problem. Instead of the father being with his guests and newly-found son celebrating the most joyous time in his life, he is out in the backyard having a heated discussion with his elder son. By the elder son's speech we can deduct a great deal about the son and his feelings toward his father and his brother. By saying to his father, "I have slaved for you," he is revealing that he has been living in the house with an attitude of a slave, not with the familiarity of a son. His whole perception has been warped by his attitude. He has just publicly humiliated his father and yet he is able to say to his father with a straight face, "I have never disobeyed you." Notice that the elder son addresses his father without title. Up to this point titles are used in the parable in direct speech. The sudden absence of any title is an obvious lack of respect on the elder son's part.

At this point the difference between the two sons was that the younger son was estranged and rebellious while leaving home, and the older son was estranged and rebellious in his heart while he remained at home. The rebellion in the heart of the younger was evident in his desire to leave his father and brother. The elder son's estrangement and rebellion were evident in his anger and his refusal to enter into the celebration. Both rebel. Both break the father's heart. Both end up in a far country -- one physically and one spiritually. And the father, embarrassed by the actions of both sons, in acts of humiliation and love comes out to both of them.

The older son accuses his father of favoritism by saying, "He gets a fatted calf and I don't even get a goat." He is convinced that by these actions the father has revealed how much more he cares for his younger son. The younger son revealed his feelings to his father and left. The older son remained in the house all the time hating his father. When he says, "This son of yours," instead of, "My brother," he is in essence removing himself from the family. The distance between himself and his family is further seen when the brother declares that his friends do not include his brother, his father, or any of the family's guests. Bailey's conclusion is correct, "His community is somewhere else" (p. 199).

For the second time the father is challenged as to how he is going to respond to one of his children. This time the father's integrity has been attacked. Bailey has pointed out that the father could have ordered the older son to enter the house. And he would have obeyed. But what would he gain? He did not want another servant; he wanted a son. It has been pointed out that the father bypasses the bitterness, the arrogance, the insult, the distortion of facts, and the unjust accusations. There is no judgment, no criticism, no rejection, but only an outpouring of love.

Notice, in contrast to his younger son, the father begins his speech with a title: "Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come from life, he was lost and has been found" (vv. 31-32). The father addresses him as "Son." Scholars have noted by using the word teknon -- meaning literally child -- that he is using a term of love and endearment. Just as the father was compassionate toward the younger son, so is he here toward the elder. In this speech the father is telling his son what the content of his joy should be in contrast to what it is. The return of his younger brother in no way would affect his rights in any manner whatsoever. He made a clear statement to his son: "You are my heir. You own everything already. All that is mine is yours. How can I possibly give you more?" This is a remarkable scene indeed. The elder son fails to recognize that the father is always on his side and that he has no need to earn his father's approval. He already has it. Scott states that "he has made himself a slave for something that was already his" (Hear Then The Parables, p. 121).

Note, the audience views the elder son as selfish and self-righteous, but the father addresses him with compassion by saying, "Son." This is the difference between how the world sees a person and how God views him/her. The world's response is one of contempt and disregard, but God's response is one of love and acceptance. Shillington points out that in the Middle East old men do not entreat their sons. They order them. To beg is demeaning and indicates a lack of shame. The father's behavior to both of his sons was a shock to the village (Jesus And His Parables, p. 160). But he is not your ordinary father, because the father's number one priority in this whole affair is family reconciliation. Notice that the father's speech is neither an apology for the banquet nor a reproach directed against the older brother, but primarily a cry from the heart for an understanding of grace. Gently, but forcefully the father reminds his son, "This is your brother who was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found." In regard to both sons, the father did not do what many would have considered the just thing -- punish the sons for their rebellious acts and attitudes. Rather he offers each of them love and grace. The result of the father's love is that the younger son who was dead is now alive. The older son is likewise dead, but the question is will he come to life?

The elder son's weakness is that he saw his relationship with his father as one of duty. Therefore, his life became burdensome, dull, and without joy. The sins of the saints are usually the sins of disposition, but nonetheless destructive, especially in regard to relationships. Such stay-at-home prodigals become critical when they should be supportive, censorious when they should be compassionate. They become arguably the church's greatest liability. It is this attitude that undermines the life and vitality of many churches. I can sympathize with the pastor who feels that his church is just one or two funerals from breaking loose into new life. Moses had the same problem. He had to wander in the wilderness until some of the "nay-sayers" died off and then he made his way to the promised land. A critical negative attitude can kill a church and rob it of its spirit.

The story ends abruptly. It does so with good reason. Jeremias has pointed out that the issue is still open. In this way we may recognize the reality of the situation which confronted Jesus. Those who were listening to the parable were in the position of the elder brother who had to decide whether he would accept his father's invitation and share in his joy. The Pharisees who had raised the question about Jesus eating with sinners, which was the reason for Jesus telling this narrative in the first place, were left to ponder their question in light of the story that they had just heard. Jesus ends his story with hope. He hopes that those who hear it, those who were so critical of his table companions, of his befriending sinners and outcasts, would turn from their critical and loveless attitude and come to experience the great joy that the gospel seeks to bring to them.

The curtain drops on the drama and the son is still outside. Did the father succeed in convincing him or did he remain outside? Also the Pharisees now had to give their answer to the question as well. Therefore the end of parable is determined by the listener's/reader's response. We have all wandered from our heavenly father's house. We are all prodigals. We have spurned God's law, we have ignored God's love, and we have polluted God's creation. Everyone must decide how he or she will respond to God's love. Our response will determine the nature of the parable's conclusion.


Discussion Questions

1.
Identity. Why did Jesus include the story of the elder son in the parable? Do you agree that Jesus included the section on the elder son because most of us identify with it? Isn't it true that most prodigals stay home and pout rather than running off in a huff to a distant land? Where do you see yourself in this parable?

2.
Attitude. Do you agree that the older brother's sins of disposition and attitude were less obvious but potentially more destructive to the family? If you were to describe the elder son today what characteristics would he have? Would he be highly respected in your community?

3.
Stranger. The question has been asked, how could this elder son remain at home, live in his father's house and become the recipient of his father's love, yet drift so far, from his father that he became a stranger in his own house? Is it possible for people to be lifetime members of the church and not have the slightest idea of what is going on? Do they undermine the cause of the gospel, as well as, the task of the church?

4.
Resentment. The elder son seemed to be jealous of his younger brother, resenting the treatment he was receiving from his father. Do you find yourself resenting the good fortune which comes to another by sheer grace?

5.
Criticism. Jesus told this parable to those who criticized him for eating and associating with sinners and publicans. Does the church risk any criticism by embracing the disreputable in God's name today? Why did Jesus end this parable as he did?

Prayer
I confess, O God,
that often I let my mind wander down unclean and forbidden ways;
that often I deceive myself as to where my plain duty lies;
that often, by concealing my motives, I pretend to be better than I am;
that often my honesty is only a matter of policy;
that often my affection for my friends is only a refined form of caring for myself;
that often my sparing of my enemy is only a refined form of caring for myself;
that often I do good deeds only to be seen by others, and shun evil ones only because I fear they may be found out.
O holy One, let the fire of thy love enter my heart, and
burn up this coil of meanness and hypocrisy, and
make my heart as a heart of a child. Amen.
-- From A Diary of Private Prayer, John Baillie