“The Son Who Left Home… and Came Back”
(a sermon based upon Luke 15:11-24, on page 909 in the pew Bible)
by
Rev. Dr. Paul A. Lance, Pastor
First Congregational United Church of Christ
201 South Second Ave., Alpena, Michigan 49707
February 16, 2014
Today’s story from Jesus is traditionally called the Parable of the
Prodigal Son, even though the Bible does not call the son who left
home a “prodigal.” It’s us preachers, embellishing and interpreting the
story, who have attached the pejorative word to the younger son.
The word “prodigal” means “recklessly extravagant; characterized by wasteful expenditure: lavish… luxuriant.” The synonym of
“prodigal” is “profuse” -- its antonym is “frugal.” One who spends
lavishly, or gives things away foolishly, is called “prodigal.”
Handling money wisely isn’t always easy. In fact, it’s easier to
be prodigal -- excessively spending -- in a consumer-based economy
like ours. Our politicians encourage us to shop more (to buy more
stuff) in order to boost our economy. Most folks spend about as fast as
the money comes in -- living from paycheck to paycheck. Too many
of us run up a big bill on our credit-card, and hope to pay it off in
“installments” over time. But finance charges and up to 20% interest
eats it all up!
People who think ahead set up “trusts” for their children and
grandchildren, lest things end up in probate court. And there’s nothing
wrong with that! I hope you all at least have a will. Make your plans
now, while you are alive, while you can decide -- don’t leave it to your
heirs and executors to sort out your financial affairs. Who knows, they
may not share your values! (They may not think to leave 10% to your
church!)
The Boy Scouts have a wise motto: “Be Prepared!” Think
ahead. Don’t spend too recklessly, lavishly, extravagantly. Be frugal.
1
It may well be that the younger son’s “squandering [of] his
property in loose living” could qualify as prodigal, wasteful, reckless
expenditure. But I hope you realize: that’s not what put him in the
predicament of nearly starving to death… That was due to a great
famine that arose in the country to which he had moved. The boy was
not to blame for the famine; he was an unfortunate victim right along
with the others.
The younger brother had gone off into a distant country -- most
likely Babylon or Egypt -- where life was luxurious compared to the
villages of Judea, and the living was easy. The boy expected a better
life than he had at home, but was disappointed. Faced with famine,
his fortune long gone, his friends were nowhere to be found… He
remembers home. The huge Nile River was nothing compared to his
memory of the Jordan; the great Tigris & Euphrates Rivers did not
sing in his heart. They didn’t rest on the Sabbath; they were just water.
Faced with hardship because of the famine conditions, the boy
got a job – menial labor, dirty work – and he begins to long for home.
Home… a powerful but elusive concept. From our childhood, we
have strong feelings that surround the notion of “home.” It’s a deep
desire within us for a place that fits perfectly, where we can be our true
selves. And yet, for most of us, most of the time, no real place nor
actual family can satisfy these yearnings. The younger son had lost
himself in the far country, not because of luxury, but in his poverty!
However, there is another character in the story who could be
called “prodigal” -- namely, the father. Without batting an eye, when
the younger son asked his Dad for his share of the inheritance -- “the
share of the property that falls to me” -- Jesus says that the father
“divided his living between them” (between his two boys).
By Jewish Law (in Deuteronomy 21:17), the first-born son is to
receive “a double portion of all that [his father] has; since he is the
first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his.” That means
the older brother gets 2/3 of the estate, and the younger would get 1/3.
2
Do any of you have siblings? How do you like those odds? It
has long been patriarchal custom to favor the “first-born” son. But
did you know that it was in the Bible that the older brother should
inherit twice as many of the family assets, as the younger? Something
seems unfair about what is being proposed in Deuteronomy -- not
only because it sidelines the women altogether, but by favoring one
child over the others. Would not even-steven, 50-50, split-right-downthe-middle, equality be a better plan for society?
Furthermore, did it strike you that all we hear about in Jesus’
story are the three main characters: two sons and their father. We hear
nothing about the mother… but I guess that is no surprise in a Biblebelieving culture like old Israel. Women in Jesus’ day did not have a
say in matters of inheritance, nor property rights, nor (it seems, if this
family is anything like a typical one) in the decisions laid down by the
“pater familias” (the “Lord of the manor”) the “man of the house.”
(I think things have changed from 1st Century Israel to 21st Century
America, but sometimes when it comes to patriarchal family values,
I wonder! Sexism, racism, economic classism are still with us.)
The point I was making a moment ago is that the father, who
gives 1/3 of his estate to his younger son (apparently with no strings
attached) could be called “Prodigal”. This father was anything but
frugal! I suspect the younger son probably learned reckless spending
habits from his father… who gave away one-third of his fortune and
asked no accounting for it. And when the fortune had been spent, and
the son returned home, this prodigal father threw a big party and
served up the blue-ribbon veal “fatted calf” in celebration. Wastrel!
The father’s decision to divide the family assets prior to his
demise -- to “distribute his estate” we might say today -- wasn’t the
norm, but it wasn’t all that unusual. The Law (as we saw) laid down
precisely how much was to go to each of his heirs. The younger son
just wanted his portion now, not later. He had plans: places to go,
people to see, things to do, stuff to buy. Home was too confining!
3
There’s a lot of that going around these days… wanting things
NOW. People take (for example) some asset-value out of their houses
while they are still living in them -- “home equity,” we call it. That’s
partly what caused the home-mortgage crisis out in California in 2008:
too many people were using the rising prices of their house as a line of
credit, recklessly consuming the higher assessed value as though it
were an ATM. Get a second mortgage to buy a car, take a trip, pay for
college. Then, when the housing market bubble burst, and home
prices dropped, they owed more on their second and third mortgages
than the house was now worth. Foreclosures & bankruptcies followed.
We don’t know why the father agreed to distribute his estate
while he was still alive. It may well be that he was ready to retire from
the day-to-day responsibility & management of the family’s affairs, in
which case giving two-thirds to his elder son, and 1/3 to the younger,
put the older brother officially in charge.
Much has been made of the apparent callousness of the younger
son in demanding his portion of the inheritance while the family was
still intact. Timothy Keller, for example (the pastor of Redeemer
Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, a congregation with 6,000
members), writes in his book “The Prodigal God” (2008, page 21):
For the younger son to ask for his inheritance NOW was a sign
of deep disrespect. To ask this while the father still lived was
the same as to wish him dead! The younger son was saying,
essentially, that he wants his father’s things, but not his father.
But, let’s be honest… we all know young adult sons &
daughters who chafe to get out of the house, away from Mom & Dad;
to get out on their own, sowing their wild oats, following their dream,
getting a start in the real world.
In effect, the younger son was saying: “I’ll get a portion of the
family fortune, once you’re dead, Dad. So, why not give it to me now,
and I’ll be out of all this. You can simplify, simplify, simplify.” The
surprising thing is that the father did not argue. He did it. He gave it.
4
Would you not say that this was “prodigal” on his part? Recklessly
extravagant on the father’s part to give what his son asked for…?
A few years ago, the kids and I in a Vacation Bible School made
the banner beside me -- “The Forgiving Father.” We wanted to highlight the father’s role in this story: first, when he gave away a fortune,
with no strings attached (which we felt was a generous, prodigal thing
to do); and then in welcoming his son back when the boy had hit “rock
bottom” (again a generous, gracious, unexpected act on his part).
Timothy Keller (in allegorical fashion) sees the figure of the
Father in this Parable as representing “The Prodigal God!” … A God
who does not hold us to conventional custom, but gives us unearned -perhaps even unwarranted, and oftentimes extravagant -- good things.
The father’s behavior in this story is not at all what a typical
Palestinian patriarch would have done. In fact, the very next sentence
in Deuteronomy 21 (after the one that gives twice as much inheritance
to the first-born son) says how a father caught in just such a situation
as Jesus has outlined was supposed to act:
“If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not
obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they
discipline him (uh-oh, Scouts… take note!), then his father and
mother shall take hold of him, and bring him out to the elders of
the town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of
his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will
not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men
of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil
from your midst; & all Israel will hear, & be afraid.” (Deut. 21: 18-21)
I guess the Old Testament tried to scare their children into
obeying their parents -- under threat of being stoned to death by the
village elders! So… don’t be stubborn, Child. Don’t talk back. Don’t
be a glutton or a drunkard, Son. You remember what happened to…
Jesus was raised in a “Bible-believing” society. The scribes and
Pharisees and teachers of the Law knew what was to be expected, and
they would never have acted like the Father does in this Parable.
5
But Jesus did not agree with those heartless, unfair Laws! In
fact, the Father’s behavior in this story reversed them. It serves as a
new “case study” by which the Old Testament laws were to be
reconsidered. This Father welcomes his son and celebrates his return,
despite his raggedy appearance and fortune lost.
“While he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had
compassion. And ran! And embraced him! And kissed him!”
The exuberance and emotions displayed by this Father -- his
compassion and his running! -- were not typical for a Jewish elder.
And especially when he does it for someone who did not
deserve it!
This rebellious younger son had taken & wasted one third of the
man’s estate. And then he had deliberately gone into a far country -turning his back not only on his family, but on Israel and God! He
squandered his property in loose living, satisfying his desires. When
he finally got what he deserved -- reduced to poverty and working for
a foreigner -- there was nothing more debased in Jewish attitude than
the thought of slopping the hogs, groveling among swine for pigfood! No longer a young man, he has been reduced to a beast, feeding
upon garbage in an alien world.
If Jesus wanted to tell a “morality tale”, that would be a good
place to leave it. Sons and daughters, beware! Don’t be like that boy
-- yearning to get your hands on a fortune, wanting to sow your wild
oats and give in to your appetites. Oh, no! Look where it will lead:
far from home, penniless and friendless, a dirty animal-like existence.
But Jesus says that the boy “came to himself” and came home.
The boy acknowledged to his father that he had “sinned” against
God and against his family, and that he was no longer worthy to be
called a “son.” But the father didn’t seem to care about that at all.
6
He called to his servants: “Bring quickly the best robe, and put it
on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And fetch
the fatted calf and butcher it for veal. Let us eat and make merry!
For this -- my son! -- was dead, and is alive again! He was lost, and
is found!”
The boy who had rejected his home, been away from home, had
found his way back home. This homecoming was like a resurrection!
It had taken extreme hardship, nearly perishing, for the boy to come to
his senses -- to reflect on who he was and what he really wanted. His
“repentance” began with the return of a sound mind (“he came to
himself”) which was followed by his decision to return home. The
boy did not know what kind of reception awaited him…
Offense may easily have been taken by his father for the rudeness of his leaving, or for reports getting back to them about his
behavior, or for the polluting effect of living in a foreign land &
handling swine. He would not have dared to imagine that his father
would be so excited to see him that the old man would run to meet
him, to hug him, and smother him with kisses! This out-gushing,
unrestrained, overflowing expression of welcome and forgiveness -this manifestation of tenderness and unextinguished love for his lost
son -- is the unexpected picture of how God feels toward each of us!
After all the disillusionment, degradation, and destitution of life
in your far country -- where one’s sense of worth as a “beloved” son
or daughter has long since dried up like a famine -- it is like a dawn of
a new day to be restored, received with love, to feel related once more.
His father says it’s like he had been dead, but has come back to life.
I suspect that he has come back quite another person from what
he was when he left home. Repentance, reconsideration, & return does
that. He had been lost -- lost to heaven & lost to himself -- but now
he’s found his way back home. It’s party-time, says Jesus! Amen.
7