Commentary on the Text of Luke 15.25-32
by Lee Magness
15.25-26
Now his son, the older one, was in the field;
and as he came near the house, he heard music and dancing,
and having called one of the servants he asked what all this was.
Ἦν δὲ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐν ἀγρῷ·
καὶ ὡς ἐρχόμενος ἤγγισεν τῇ οἰκίᾳ, ἤκουσεν συμφωνίας καὶ χορῶν,
καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος ἕνα τῶν παίδων ἐπυνθάνετο τί ἂν εἴη ταῦτα·
In some ways this final part of Jesus' parable rounds off beautifully, returning to where he began, to the man who had two sons. We have seen and heard nothing of the older son since that opening sentence, but he has not been absent from the story or from our minds. Verses 12 and 13 made sure of that, continuing to call the prodigal son the younger. But the older son's prominence in verses 25-32 is of more than literary significance. This is where the theological significance of the parable truly emerges. Remember the context in which this and the other two "lost" parables were originally told in Luke 15.1-3. Remember Jesus' original audience. Remember his original point. This parable has always been to and for and about the older son, the Pharisees and scribes, and their reaction to his ministry among the outcasts. In a sense we have finally arrived at the main point. As hard as it is for us to read this parable and not think that the return of the younger son and the response of the father are the climax of the story, from Jesus' perspective this is the climax.
This new understanding of the main point of the parable as seen here in the climactic section is suggestive for how we designate this parable. The traditional title, The Prodigal Son, is problematic for more that our ignorance of the meaning of "prodigal." A recent alternative, The Lost Son, avoids the definitional problem and ties the parable to its two predecessors, but it also overlooks these last eight verses. Another possibility has emerged. Perhaps we should call it The Parable of the Prodigal Sons or The Parable of the Lost Sons. Not only are these titles more consistent with the plot, with the "rest of the story," but they force us to name the nature of the prodigality of the older son and of his lostness. (Of course many students of this parable have made a case for shifting the focus to the centrality of the father, calling it such things as the Parable of the Compassionate Father or at least A Father and his Sons. The name of this website--ProdigalsAll.com--is partially predicated on the conviction that the parable should be named the Parable of the Prodigal God.)
Now to the text of this final section…. What was the older son doing out in the field? In spite of the many mental and visual depictions of the older son slaving away under they hot Palestinian sun, hoeing the hard ground, wrestling a plow, we need to remember that the older son was the technical owner of the estate ever since the division of the property in verse 12. The older son was probably supervising the laborers, the slaves, the servants, the hired hands that the younger son had imagined having to join. But more importantly why was the older son in the field, still in the field? Was he just being responsible, overseeing the farm for his father? Was he a workaholic? Is this evidence that his relationship with his father was strained? Is he avoiding his brother and his father's feast? Perhaps we should avoid reading too much into the otherwise normal actions of a plantation owner. But there is at least one interesting fact related to the field: the older son and the younger son had shared an experience even while they were separated by so many miles--working in the field (see verse 15). What else did they share? Sonship? Prodigality? Lostness? What else would they share? Compassion? Forgiveness? Reconciliation? Reunion?
In ancient Palestine everyone lived in town, even great landowners. So it makes sense that the older son could not have heard the celebration while he was still supervising work out in the field. We understand how he could hear music, but how do you hear dancing? The two always went together. Besides the dancing would have been accompanied by loud clapping and shouts. In that culture the music would likely have been the sound of wind instruments played by entertainers hastily hired for the occasion.
From whom does the older son learn of the cause of the celebration? The Greek word (pais) is ambiguous. It may mean "boy," one of the village boys attracted by the sounds of the celebration and full of news. Or it can be translated "servant," referring to the one of the household staff sent scurrying by the sudden orders of his master. In either case, the older son "summoned" him, a verb suggesting the authority appropriate to the (co-)owner of the estate. Some readers assume that the older son could not have helped but know already about the return of the younger son, a return that he has been ignoring. But I take his words at face-value--"what might these things be?"--implying that, having been far afield during the return and the reunion and the beginnings of the banquet, he knows nothing of the celebration or its cause until he learns it from the boy/servant.
What do we have to learn from this concluding and climactic part of the parable?
1) This is a parable of two sons, of two sons who wasted and almost ruined their relationship with their father,
of all of us, prodigals all, who put our relationship with God at risk in one way or another.
2) This is the parable of a man whose presence dominates the opening scene and whose words ring out to the very
end. Of all the things we have to learn from this parable, the nature of God may be the foremost.
3) This parable forces us to see ourselves both as the profligate younger son and the pious older son, to see how we
have "all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
4) This is a parable that reminds us that, however different they may seem, the pious and the prodigal have a lot in
common, perhaps more than they or we realize.
15.27
And he said to him, Your brother has come,
and your father slaughtered the grain-fed calf,
because he has received him back healthy.
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὅτι Ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἥκει,
καὶ ἔθυσεν ὁ πατήρ σου τὸν μόσχον τὸν σιτευτόν,
ὅτι ὑγιαίνοντα αὐτὸν ἀπέλαβεν.
The information passed on by the curious village boy or harried household servant is interesting for what it emphasizes about the community celebration. First, "Your brother has come." This statement highlights the fact of the return of the younger son which is, from the perspective of a townsperson, the immediate cause of the celebration. But even more important is the way the informant innocently calls the younger son "your brother." It is of course an accurate description, but it foregrounds the relationship of the two brothers in a way that makes his angry words in verses 29-30 all the more significant, including his insistence on referring to him as "this son of yours." There are three relationships at play here--father and younger son, father and older son, and son/brother with son/brother. And if there are three relationships, there is the potential for three breakdowns in relationship.
Second, "your father slaughtered the grain-fed calf." There is no mention of the personal gifts the father gave his son--the robe, the ring, and the sandals. The butchering of the calf that was being fattened for a significant occasion would have been the action of the father most noticeable to the general public. It was the main course after all. But there is also something more significant behind this matter-of-fact remark. Sacrifice, symbolized by the slaying of the calf, has been a theme since the beginning of the parable where we see the father giving up his estate, giving up his honor, and giving up his son.
Third, "because he has received him back healthy." Once again the statement is true on the simplest level. The villagers had no way to know what had become of the younger son. Would he ever come back? Had he died? Well, he had come back and he was alive and well--"healthy" is the boy/servant's word. Underlying this innocent observation is a reality that only the father could fully feel and put into words. He was more than "back"--he had been lost and now was found. He was more than "healthy"--he had been dead and was now alive. If the boy/servant had heard these words on the father's lips, he had no way of comprehending their full significance. And the older son will need to hear them from the father's lips in order to (hopefully) comprehend them.
Fourth, we dare not be so interested in the word "healthy" and its implications that we overlook the word "received." This word speaks to the welcome of the father, a welcome born out of grace and compassion, a welcome that the villages may well not really have understood or even agreed with, a welcome that angers the older son even more than its evidences--a feast and a fattened calf. He "took him back" are the astoundingly simple, astoundingly mercy-filled words of this casual reporter.
What is the significance of this seemingly innocent answer?
1) This parable forces us always to view our relationship with God in connection to our relationship with one
another. As Jesus said elsewhere, the greatest commandment may be "Love the Lord your God," but the
second commandment, near it in rank and like it in nature, is "Love your neighbor as yourself."
2) This is a parable that features, again and again, the sacrificial nature of God, who not only sent his son to sacrifice
himself on our behalf but himself sacrificed his son in the sending. This is the pain-love of God.
3) This parable teaches us that to be healthy, to be whole, to be sound, safe and sound, means to be in a restored and
reconciled relationship with God.
4) This is a parable that reveals God as a welcoming God, a receiving God. The God who "lets us go" as a function
of his grace "takes us back," also as a function of his grace.
15.28
And he was enraged and was not willing to enter [the house].
And his father, having gone out, encouraged him.
ὠργίσθη δὲ καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν εἰσελθεῖν.
ὁ δὲ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἐξελθὼν παρεκάλει αὐτόν.
Parallel to an earlier scene in which the younger son, in spite of his shame, wills to return to the father and the father goes out to greet him, here the older son, because of his rage, wills not to return to the father but the father goes our to greet him anyway. The son's rage flows from a deep-seated wrath, the seeds of which were planted long ago and fostered over the years. Against whom was this rage directed? The younger son, toward whom his brother had nourished jealousy and sibling rivalry? The villagers for acquiescing to his father's foolish and shamefully extravagant welcome of his sinful brother? It is surely directed toward the father. The older son had planted the seeds of rage when the father liquidated much of the estate and allowed the younger son not only to abandon the family farm but squander the assets. And the older son had plowed the furrows of his rage each time he kept accounts and watered the undergrowth of his wrath with each drop of sweat.
But there is something worse than rage here. It is the willful refusal to cooperate with this father's compassion, to share in his father's celebration. The verb "was (not) willing" implies repeated action, not just a one time refusal. Ironically enough, he who had done everything right refuses to do the one thing the younger son got right--returning to the father. This is where the prodigality, the wastefulness of the older son emerges. He completely wastes the opportunity to affirm his father's welcome, to confirm his father's compassion, to restore his relationship with his brother, and to model mercy to the villagers. What willfulness! What wastefulness!
The actions of the father stand in stark contrast to the actions of the older son. The father "went out" to the son who refused to "go in." It is reminiscent of the father running out to the son who had run away. These parallels and contrasts are revealing in two ways: 1) the sons are more like each other than they ( or we) would have realized. They both act willfully and contrary to the will of the father; and 2) the father responds in the same way to each of his sons, knowing that as different as their journeys have been they have chosen one common path--rejection of him and his will.
The verb which describes the other action of the father mentioned in this verse is hard to pin down. Literally it means to "call to one's side." It can mean encourage, comfort, console, advocate, urge, beg, admonish, and the list goes on. I chose encourage for my translation because I imagine the father encouraging the older son to forego his anger, to be polite to the guest, to be compassionate toward his brother, and to be respectful toward him. But I can see shades of all those translations in the action of the father, can't you? Clearly the older son has been hurt and needs to be consoled and comforted. Clearly he is hanging back and needs to be urged, begged to do the right thing. And clearly he has shamed himself, his brother, the community, and his father and needs to be admonished. What a rich word! What a perfect word to describe all the complex psychological needs of the older son and all the merciful ministries of the father toward him.
Do we have anything to learn from the reaction of the older son and the father's response?
1) This is a parable that reveals the debilitating effects of rage, of wrath, of anger, an anger directed against sinners
who are the objects of God's grace and worse--an anger directed against God for his grace toward sinners.
2) This is the parable that not only defines prodigality but reveals that there is a pious prodigality, wasting the
opportunity to love others extravagantly like God does.
3) This is a parable that reminds us that God responds in parallel ways toward all his children--those of us whose sin
is obvious and overt and those of us whose sins are concealed under a veneer of obedience and piety.
4) This is the parable that shows us, in one rich word, the multiple ministries of God--comfort, consolation,
encouragement, admonition, etc.--to our varied spiritual needs.
15.29-30
And he answered and said to his father,
Look here, all these years I'm slaving for you and I never disobeyed your command,
for me you never gave a goat so that I could celebrate with my friends;
But when this son of yours, the one who devoured your livelihood with prostitutes came,
you slaughtered the grain-fed calf for him.
ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ·
Ἰδοὺ τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω σοι καὶ οὐδέποτε ἐντολήν σου παρῆλθον,
καὶ ἐμοὶ οὐδέποτε ἔδωκας ἔριφον ἵνα μετὰ τῶν φίλων μου εὐφρανθῶ·
ὅτε δὲ ὁ υἱός σου οὗτος ὁ καταφαγών σου τὸν βίον μετὰ πορνῶν ἦλθεν,
ἔθυσας αὐτῷ τὸν σιτευτὸν μόσχον.
These words constitute an answer to a question or statement unknown to the reader. But we have good grounds for an educated guess. First, there is the verb from verse 28, "encouraged." The word may suggest that the father 1) consoled the older son, recognizing his years of faithfulness, 2) begged (maybe admonished) him to join the celebration, and 3) encouraged, even urged him to extend compassion to his brother. The father's statement may have come in the form of questions--Don't you know I love you and always have? Won't you join me in welcoming your brother home? Can't you find it in your heart to forgive your brother? Our second clue to what the father said is how the older son responds. He first resentfully throws his years of faithful service in his father's face. Second, he complains that he has never been given any such banquet, let alone with a grain-fed calf. And third, he rejects any suggestion of compassion for his brother. The two clues--the meanings of the verb and the response of the son--are consistent.
Notice that the older son does not address his father respectfully; even the younger son called him father whenever he spoke to him or imagined speaking to him. Instead he introduces his remarks with an abrupt and in this context disrespectful "Look here!" First, rather than express his gratitude for the close relationship they have had over the years, living together, working together, the older son casts their relationship in terms of slavery and highlights his obedience, as if his father were no more than his master. Ever since the division of the assets when the younger son left home, the older son has been the legal if not functional owner and master of the estate. Had the father really treated the son like a slave? Or had the son's resentment clouded, colored, corrupted their relationship? Clearly his relationship with his father is as broken, perhaps more broken if there is such a thing, as the younger son's relationship.
Next, the older son complains that the father has not rewarded his service with a celebration. This statement contradicts his first point--no master would reward a slave for the service which he is indebted to perform. But he is speaking emotionally, angrily, not logically. Sadly enough, he can only imagine a relationship based on rewards. His father has never even tossed him a bone, the son charges. A goat would not have been as grand a gift as the fatted calf. Ironically, the "obedient" son blames his father for not funding his feasting with his friends, one of the things he condemns in his brother's behavior. But more telling than this accusation is the hint that the older son can only imagine a feast with his friends, not with his father or his family or the community. Another indication that the relationship is seriously broken.
Third, the older son refuses to express any compassion toward his younger brother. He not only casts him as a blatant sinner, he refuses to identify him as his brother. It is true that the younger son had "devoured," "gobbled up" his livelihood, although the older son could only have assumed this based on the fact of this brother's return. The reference to prostitutes is, so far as we know, complete fabrication. Maybe the older brother is imagining the worst of his brother, or projecting some of his own sinful desires. In any case, as we observed earlier, all we know of the younger son's life in the far country is that he wastefully expended his financial resources. There is no clear evidence that his expenditures were on sinful pursuits like prostitution, gambling, or the like. More telling yet is his refusal to acknowledge the younger son as his brother--"this son of yours!" The phrase openly rejects their sibling relationship, and more insidiously blames the father for the supposed sinful behavior of the son.
What do these insights into the older son's comments suggest?
1) This is the parable that illustrates Jesus' conviction that "tax collectors and sinners" were closer to God in their
repentance than Pharisees and scribes were in their self-righteousness.
2) This is the parable that most clearly reveals that sin manifests itself in three ways: 1) a skewed understanding of
God (You never threw me a party! You never gave me so much as a goat! No wonder your son turned out so
bad, look at how you babied him!); 2) a skewed understanding of one another (Look at how prodigal he was!
Look how sexually immoral he was! Look how disobedient he was!); and 3) a skewed understanding of
ourselves (I'm nothing but a slave! I've never done anything wrong! I deserve more! I deserve better!)
3) This parable confirms that proximity to God does not ensure quality of relationship with God. Pharisees
were "close" to God--they were obedient to the law and meticulous in keeping ritual requirements--but their
hearts were far from God.
4) This parable reminds us that loving God and loving our brothers and sisters are two sides of the same
kingdom coin.
15.31-32
And he said to him, Child, you are always with me, and all my things are yours;
it was necessary to celebrate and rejoice,
because this your brother was dead and is alive, and was lost and was found.
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Τέκνον, σὺ πάντοτε μετ’ ἐμοῦ εἶ, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐμὰ σά ἐστιν·
εὐφρανθῆναι δὲ καὶ χαρῆναι ἔδει,
ὅτι ὁ ἀδελφός σου οὗτος νεκρὸς ἦν καὶ ἔζησεν, καὶ ἀπολωλὼς καὶ εὑρέθη.
The father let the older son rant, just as he once let the younger son run, but eventually he speaks. The first word out of his mouth reaffirms his relationship with the older son, a relationship the older son could not even speak of let alone live out. But why does he call him "child"? Why not "son"? Because "son" was the legal term, the word which designated him as his heir, but "child" is the more personal, relational, affectionate term--"offspring" not just "heir."
Next, the father reaffirms joy he has experienced from living and working in close proximity with the older son. "You are always with me." Yes, close proximity does not ensure a close relationship, but the father values their proximity as a blessing, a blessing that he missed with the son who left home for so long. Third, the father affirms that the return of the younger son, the celebration for the younger son, the gifts and restoration of status for the younger son, nothing will undermine the older son's inheritance, authority, status, and relationship with the father. "And all that is mine is yours."
The father's final affirmation, the final statement in the parable, is a statement of necessity. "It was necessary to celebrate and rejoice." Necessary for whom? Does the father mean that it was sociologically necessary for the villagers to gather and welcome the younger son back into the community? Does he mean it was legally necessary for the father to reestablish the younger son's status in the family? In this context it may make more sense for the father to have meant that it was personally necessary for them all, including the older son to restore their relationship with the younger son.
To justify this statement of necessity, the father reiterates the transformation effected by the son's return--lost now found, dead now alive. But there is more than mere repetition here. The new subject of transformation is "this brother of yours." The father reverses the phrasing of the older son--"this son of yours"--and insists that it is in fact the restoration of relationship, not just a return. A personal reconciliation that is at stake now and it all rides on the willingness of the older son to act like a son toward his father and act like a brother toward his father's son.
How did the older son respond to his father's explanation and request? The parable does not tell us. But neither does it tell us how the younger son responded to his father's compassion and generosity? How did the tax collectors and sinners respond to the respect Jesus gave them? How did the Pharisees and scribes respond to the teaching of Jesus in this parable? The open ending(s) of this parable force upon us, prodigals all, the same question--how will we respond to Jesus?
What lessons might we learn from the conclusion of Jesus' parable?
1) This parable declares that God loves us as his children even when we don't act like him, like his children.
2) This is the parable that reminds us that, although God welcomes the repentance of sinners who have been
alienated from him for a long time, God deeply desires an ongoing and close personal relationship with us.
3) This parable assures us that we need never fear that God's closeness to another person will jeopardize
our relationship with God. Since there is no parental favoritism with God, we need not succumb to sibling
rivalry.
4) This is a parable of necessity, establishing the necessity of reconciliation with God and with God's other children.
5) This is a parable of open endings, ultimately, always, leaving the answer regarding relationship to us.
Now his son, the older one, was in the field;
and as he came near the house, he heard music and dancing,
and having called one of the servants he asked what all this was.
Ἦν δὲ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐν ἀγρῷ·
καὶ ὡς ἐρχόμενος ἤγγισεν τῇ οἰκίᾳ, ἤκουσεν συμφωνίας καὶ χορῶν,
καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος ἕνα τῶν παίδων ἐπυνθάνετο τί ἂν εἴη ταῦτα·
In some ways this final part of Jesus' parable rounds off beautifully, returning to where he began, to the man who had two sons. We have seen and heard nothing of the older son since that opening sentence, but he has not been absent from the story or from our minds. Verses 12 and 13 made sure of that, continuing to call the prodigal son the younger. But the older son's prominence in verses 25-32 is of more than literary significance. This is where the theological significance of the parable truly emerges. Remember the context in which this and the other two "lost" parables were originally told in Luke 15.1-3. Remember Jesus' original audience. Remember his original point. This parable has always been to and for and about the older son, the Pharisees and scribes, and their reaction to his ministry among the outcasts. In a sense we have finally arrived at the main point. As hard as it is for us to read this parable and not think that the return of the younger son and the response of the father are the climax of the story, from Jesus' perspective this is the climax.
This new understanding of the main point of the parable as seen here in the climactic section is suggestive for how we designate this parable. The traditional title, The Prodigal Son, is problematic for more that our ignorance of the meaning of "prodigal." A recent alternative, The Lost Son, avoids the definitional problem and ties the parable to its two predecessors, but it also overlooks these last eight verses. Another possibility has emerged. Perhaps we should call it The Parable of the Prodigal Sons or The Parable of the Lost Sons. Not only are these titles more consistent with the plot, with the "rest of the story," but they force us to name the nature of the prodigality of the older son and of his lostness. (Of course many students of this parable have made a case for shifting the focus to the centrality of the father, calling it such things as the Parable of the Compassionate Father or at least A Father and his Sons. The name of this website--ProdigalsAll.com--is partially predicated on the conviction that the parable should be named the Parable of the Prodigal God.)
Now to the text of this final section…. What was the older son doing out in the field? In spite of the many mental and visual depictions of the older son slaving away under they hot Palestinian sun, hoeing the hard ground, wrestling a plow, we need to remember that the older son was the technical owner of the estate ever since the division of the property in verse 12. The older son was probably supervising the laborers, the slaves, the servants, the hired hands that the younger son had imagined having to join. But more importantly why was the older son in the field, still in the field? Was he just being responsible, overseeing the farm for his father? Was he a workaholic? Is this evidence that his relationship with his father was strained? Is he avoiding his brother and his father's feast? Perhaps we should avoid reading too much into the otherwise normal actions of a plantation owner. But there is at least one interesting fact related to the field: the older son and the younger son had shared an experience even while they were separated by so many miles--working in the field (see verse 15). What else did they share? Sonship? Prodigality? Lostness? What else would they share? Compassion? Forgiveness? Reconciliation? Reunion?
In ancient Palestine everyone lived in town, even great landowners. So it makes sense that the older son could not have heard the celebration while he was still supervising work out in the field. We understand how he could hear music, but how do you hear dancing? The two always went together. Besides the dancing would have been accompanied by loud clapping and shouts. In that culture the music would likely have been the sound of wind instruments played by entertainers hastily hired for the occasion.
From whom does the older son learn of the cause of the celebration? The Greek word (pais) is ambiguous. It may mean "boy," one of the village boys attracted by the sounds of the celebration and full of news. Or it can be translated "servant," referring to the one of the household staff sent scurrying by the sudden orders of his master. In either case, the older son "summoned" him, a verb suggesting the authority appropriate to the (co-)owner of the estate. Some readers assume that the older son could not have helped but know already about the return of the younger son, a return that he has been ignoring. But I take his words at face-value--"what might these things be?"--implying that, having been far afield during the return and the reunion and the beginnings of the banquet, he knows nothing of the celebration or its cause until he learns it from the boy/servant.
What do we have to learn from this concluding and climactic part of the parable?
1) This is a parable of two sons, of two sons who wasted and almost ruined their relationship with their father,
of all of us, prodigals all, who put our relationship with God at risk in one way or another.
2) This is the parable of a man whose presence dominates the opening scene and whose words ring out to the very
end. Of all the things we have to learn from this parable, the nature of God may be the foremost.
3) This parable forces us to see ourselves both as the profligate younger son and the pious older son, to see how we
have "all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
4) This is a parable that reminds us that, however different they may seem, the pious and the prodigal have a lot in
common, perhaps more than they or we realize.
15.27
And he said to him, Your brother has come,
and your father slaughtered the grain-fed calf,
because he has received him back healthy.
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὅτι Ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἥκει,
καὶ ἔθυσεν ὁ πατήρ σου τὸν μόσχον τὸν σιτευτόν,
ὅτι ὑγιαίνοντα αὐτὸν ἀπέλαβεν.
The information passed on by the curious village boy or harried household servant is interesting for what it emphasizes about the community celebration. First, "Your brother has come." This statement highlights the fact of the return of the younger son which is, from the perspective of a townsperson, the immediate cause of the celebration. But even more important is the way the informant innocently calls the younger son "your brother." It is of course an accurate description, but it foregrounds the relationship of the two brothers in a way that makes his angry words in verses 29-30 all the more significant, including his insistence on referring to him as "this son of yours." There are three relationships at play here--father and younger son, father and older son, and son/brother with son/brother. And if there are three relationships, there is the potential for three breakdowns in relationship.
Second, "your father slaughtered the grain-fed calf." There is no mention of the personal gifts the father gave his son--the robe, the ring, and the sandals. The butchering of the calf that was being fattened for a significant occasion would have been the action of the father most noticeable to the general public. It was the main course after all. But there is also something more significant behind this matter-of-fact remark. Sacrifice, symbolized by the slaying of the calf, has been a theme since the beginning of the parable where we see the father giving up his estate, giving up his honor, and giving up his son.
Third, "because he has received him back healthy." Once again the statement is true on the simplest level. The villagers had no way to know what had become of the younger son. Would he ever come back? Had he died? Well, he had come back and he was alive and well--"healthy" is the boy/servant's word. Underlying this innocent observation is a reality that only the father could fully feel and put into words. He was more than "back"--he had been lost and now was found. He was more than "healthy"--he had been dead and was now alive. If the boy/servant had heard these words on the father's lips, he had no way of comprehending their full significance. And the older son will need to hear them from the father's lips in order to (hopefully) comprehend them.
Fourth, we dare not be so interested in the word "healthy" and its implications that we overlook the word "received." This word speaks to the welcome of the father, a welcome born out of grace and compassion, a welcome that the villages may well not really have understood or even agreed with, a welcome that angers the older son even more than its evidences--a feast and a fattened calf. He "took him back" are the astoundingly simple, astoundingly mercy-filled words of this casual reporter.
What is the significance of this seemingly innocent answer?
1) This parable forces us always to view our relationship with God in connection to our relationship with one
another. As Jesus said elsewhere, the greatest commandment may be "Love the Lord your God," but the
second commandment, near it in rank and like it in nature, is "Love your neighbor as yourself."
2) This is a parable that features, again and again, the sacrificial nature of God, who not only sent his son to sacrifice
himself on our behalf but himself sacrificed his son in the sending. This is the pain-love of God.
3) This parable teaches us that to be healthy, to be whole, to be sound, safe and sound, means to be in a restored and
reconciled relationship with God.
4) This is a parable that reveals God as a welcoming God, a receiving God. The God who "lets us go" as a function
of his grace "takes us back," also as a function of his grace.
15.28
And he was enraged and was not willing to enter [the house].
And his father, having gone out, encouraged him.
ὠργίσθη δὲ καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν εἰσελθεῖν.
ὁ δὲ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἐξελθὼν παρεκάλει αὐτόν.
Parallel to an earlier scene in which the younger son, in spite of his shame, wills to return to the father and the father goes out to greet him, here the older son, because of his rage, wills not to return to the father but the father goes our to greet him anyway. The son's rage flows from a deep-seated wrath, the seeds of which were planted long ago and fostered over the years. Against whom was this rage directed? The younger son, toward whom his brother had nourished jealousy and sibling rivalry? The villagers for acquiescing to his father's foolish and shamefully extravagant welcome of his sinful brother? It is surely directed toward the father. The older son had planted the seeds of rage when the father liquidated much of the estate and allowed the younger son not only to abandon the family farm but squander the assets. And the older son had plowed the furrows of his rage each time he kept accounts and watered the undergrowth of his wrath with each drop of sweat.
But there is something worse than rage here. It is the willful refusal to cooperate with this father's compassion, to share in his father's celebration. The verb "was (not) willing" implies repeated action, not just a one time refusal. Ironically enough, he who had done everything right refuses to do the one thing the younger son got right--returning to the father. This is where the prodigality, the wastefulness of the older son emerges. He completely wastes the opportunity to affirm his father's welcome, to confirm his father's compassion, to restore his relationship with his brother, and to model mercy to the villagers. What willfulness! What wastefulness!
The actions of the father stand in stark contrast to the actions of the older son. The father "went out" to the son who refused to "go in." It is reminiscent of the father running out to the son who had run away. These parallels and contrasts are revealing in two ways: 1) the sons are more like each other than they ( or we) would have realized. They both act willfully and contrary to the will of the father; and 2) the father responds in the same way to each of his sons, knowing that as different as their journeys have been they have chosen one common path--rejection of him and his will.
The verb which describes the other action of the father mentioned in this verse is hard to pin down. Literally it means to "call to one's side." It can mean encourage, comfort, console, advocate, urge, beg, admonish, and the list goes on. I chose encourage for my translation because I imagine the father encouraging the older son to forego his anger, to be polite to the guest, to be compassionate toward his brother, and to be respectful toward him. But I can see shades of all those translations in the action of the father, can't you? Clearly the older son has been hurt and needs to be consoled and comforted. Clearly he is hanging back and needs to be urged, begged to do the right thing. And clearly he has shamed himself, his brother, the community, and his father and needs to be admonished. What a rich word! What a perfect word to describe all the complex psychological needs of the older son and all the merciful ministries of the father toward him.
Do we have anything to learn from the reaction of the older son and the father's response?
1) This is a parable that reveals the debilitating effects of rage, of wrath, of anger, an anger directed against sinners
who are the objects of God's grace and worse--an anger directed against God for his grace toward sinners.
2) This is the parable that not only defines prodigality but reveals that there is a pious prodigality, wasting the
opportunity to love others extravagantly like God does.
3) This is a parable that reminds us that God responds in parallel ways toward all his children--those of us whose sin
is obvious and overt and those of us whose sins are concealed under a veneer of obedience and piety.
4) This is the parable that shows us, in one rich word, the multiple ministries of God--comfort, consolation,
encouragement, admonition, etc.--to our varied spiritual needs.
15.29-30
And he answered and said to his father,
Look here, all these years I'm slaving for you and I never disobeyed your command,
for me you never gave a goat so that I could celebrate with my friends;
But when this son of yours, the one who devoured your livelihood with prostitutes came,
you slaughtered the grain-fed calf for him.
ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ·
Ἰδοὺ τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω σοι καὶ οὐδέποτε ἐντολήν σου παρῆλθον,
καὶ ἐμοὶ οὐδέποτε ἔδωκας ἔριφον ἵνα μετὰ τῶν φίλων μου εὐφρανθῶ·
ὅτε δὲ ὁ υἱός σου οὗτος ὁ καταφαγών σου τὸν βίον μετὰ πορνῶν ἦλθεν,
ἔθυσας αὐτῷ τὸν σιτευτὸν μόσχον.
These words constitute an answer to a question or statement unknown to the reader. But we have good grounds for an educated guess. First, there is the verb from verse 28, "encouraged." The word may suggest that the father 1) consoled the older son, recognizing his years of faithfulness, 2) begged (maybe admonished) him to join the celebration, and 3) encouraged, even urged him to extend compassion to his brother. The father's statement may have come in the form of questions--Don't you know I love you and always have? Won't you join me in welcoming your brother home? Can't you find it in your heart to forgive your brother? Our second clue to what the father said is how the older son responds. He first resentfully throws his years of faithful service in his father's face. Second, he complains that he has never been given any such banquet, let alone with a grain-fed calf. And third, he rejects any suggestion of compassion for his brother. The two clues--the meanings of the verb and the response of the son--are consistent.
Notice that the older son does not address his father respectfully; even the younger son called him father whenever he spoke to him or imagined speaking to him. Instead he introduces his remarks with an abrupt and in this context disrespectful "Look here!" First, rather than express his gratitude for the close relationship they have had over the years, living together, working together, the older son casts their relationship in terms of slavery and highlights his obedience, as if his father were no more than his master. Ever since the division of the assets when the younger son left home, the older son has been the legal if not functional owner and master of the estate. Had the father really treated the son like a slave? Or had the son's resentment clouded, colored, corrupted their relationship? Clearly his relationship with his father is as broken, perhaps more broken if there is such a thing, as the younger son's relationship.
Next, the older son complains that the father has not rewarded his service with a celebration. This statement contradicts his first point--no master would reward a slave for the service which he is indebted to perform. But he is speaking emotionally, angrily, not logically. Sadly enough, he can only imagine a relationship based on rewards. His father has never even tossed him a bone, the son charges. A goat would not have been as grand a gift as the fatted calf. Ironically, the "obedient" son blames his father for not funding his feasting with his friends, one of the things he condemns in his brother's behavior. But more telling than this accusation is the hint that the older son can only imagine a feast with his friends, not with his father or his family or the community. Another indication that the relationship is seriously broken.
Third, the older son refuses to express any compassion toward his younger brother. He not only casts him as a blatant sinner, he refuses to identify him as his brother. It is true that the younger son had "devoured," "gobbled up" his livelihood, although the older son could only have assumed this based on the fact of this brother's return. The reference to prostitutes is, so far as we know, complete fabrication. Maybe the older brother is imagining the worst of his brother, or projecting some of his own sinful desires. In any case, as we observed earlier, all we know of the younger son's life in the far country is that he wastefully expended his financial resources. There is no clear evidence that his expenditures were on sinful pursuits like prostitution, gambling, or the like. More telling yet is his refusal to acknowledge the younger son as his brother--"this son of yours!" The phrase openly rejects their sibling relationship, and more insidiously blames the father for the supposed sinful behavior of the son.
What do these insights into the older son's comments suggest?
1) This is the parable that illustrates Jesus' conviction that "tax collectors and sinners" were closer to God in their
repentance than Pharisees and scribes were in their self-righteousness.
2) This is the parable that most clearly reveals that sin manifests itself in three ways: 1) a skewed understanding of
God (You never threw me a party! You never gave me so much as a goat! No wonder your son turned out so
bad, look at how you babied him!); 2) a skewed understanding of one another (Look at how prodigal he was!
Look how sexually immoral he was! Look how disobedient he was!); and 3) a skewed understanding of
ourselves (I'm nothing but a slave! I've never done anything wrong! I deserve more! I deserve better!)
3) This parable confirms that proximity to God does not ensure quality of relationship with God. Pharisees
were "close" to God--they were obedient to the law and meticulous in keeping ritual requirements--but their
hearts were far from God.
4) This parable reminds us that loving God and loving our brothers and sisters are two sides of the same
kingdom coin.
15.31-32
And he said to him, Child, you are always with me, and all my things are yours;
it was necessary to celebrate and rejoice,
because this your brother was dead and is alive, and was lost and was found.
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Τέκνον, σὺ πάντοτε μετ’ ἐμοῦ εἶ, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐμὰ σά ἐστιν·
εὐφρανθῆναι δὲ καὶ χαρῆναι ἔδει,
ὅτι ὁ ἀδελφός σου οὗτος νεκρὸς ἦν καὶ ἔζησεν, καὶ ἀπολωλὼς καὶ εὑρέθη.
The father let the older son rant, just as he once let the younger son run, but eventually he speaks. The first word out of his mouth reaffirms his relationship with the older son, a relationship the older son could not even speak of let alone live out. But why does he call him "child"? Why not "son"? Because "son" was the legal term, the word which designated him as his heir, but "child" is the more personal, relational, affectionate term--"offspring" not just "heir."
Next, the father reaffirms joy he has experienced from living and working in close proximity with the older son. "You are always with me." Yes, close proximity does not ensure a close relationship, but the father values their proximity as a blessing, a blessing that he missed with the son who left home for so long. Third, the father affirms that the return of the younger son, the celebration for the younger son, the gifts and restoration of status for the younger son, nothing will undermine the older son's inheritance, authority, status, and relationship with the father. "And all that is mine is yours."
The father's final affirmation, the final statement in the parable, is a statement of necessity. "It was necessary to celebrate and rejoice." Necessary for whom? Does the father mean that it was sociologically necessary for the villagers to gather and welcome the younger son back into the community? Does he mean it was legally necessary for the father to reestablish the younger son's status in the family? In this context it may make more sense for the father to have meant that it was personally necessary for them all, including the older son to restore their relationship with the younger son.
To justify this statement of necessity, the father reiterates the transformation effected by the son's return--lost now found, dead now alive. But there is more than mere repetition here. The new subject of transformation is "this brother of yours." The father reverses the phrasing of the older son--"this son of yours"--and insists that it is in fact the restoration of relationship, not just a return. A personal reconciliation that is at stake now and it all rides on the willingness of the older son to act like a son toward his father and act like a brother toward his father's son.
How did the older son respond to his father's explanation and request? The parable does not tell us. But neither does it tell us how the younger son responded to his father's compassion and generosity? How did the tax collectors and sinners respond to the respect Jesus gave them? How did the Pharisees and scribes respond to the teaching of Jesus in this parable? The open ending(s) of this parable force upon us, prodigals all, the same question--how will we respond to Jesus?
What lessons might we learn from the conclusion of Jesus' parable?
1) This parable declares that God loves us as his children even when we don't act like him, like his children.
2) This is the parable that reminds us that, although God welcomes the repentance of sinners who have been
alienated from him for a long time, God deeply desires an ongoing and close personal relationship with us.
3) This parable assures us that we need never fear that God's closeness to another person will jeopardize
our relationship with God. Since there is no parental favoritism with God, we need not succumb to sibling
rivalry.
4) This is a parable of necessity, establishing the necessity of reconciliation with God and with God's other children.
5) This is a parable of open endings, ultimately, always, leaving the answer regarding relationship to us.