A Contrast in Opinions

March 30, 2025

After all these years and as many times as I’ve heard this story, I never knew what the word “prodigal” meant, I had to look it up.  And it turns out that there are two related meanings for the word “prodigal”.  The first definition is “spending money or resources freely and recklessly; wastefully extravagant.”  And the second definition is “having or giving something on a lavish scale.”  I never knew that.

Today’s story might be familiar to some of us.  A father with two sons had his youngest son come to him and ask him if he could have his inheritance now, while his father was still alive.  In our culture, we might find that request to be a bit unusual, though possibly pragmatic depending on circumstances.  We are accustomed to children leaving home, possibly moving far away, and making a life for themselves, and often, parents do help their children with these initial expenses. 

But having a child leave the home in first century culture was not only unusual, it was an affront to the family.  The youngest son’s actions in our story today were shocking and just incredibly rude.  N. T. Wright explains, “The shame that this would bring on the family would be added to the shame that the son had already brought on the father by asking for his share before the father’s death; it was the equivalent of saying ‘I wish you were dead’.” [1]  Scott Hoezee is a little less charitable when he says, “Please note: the younger son is a jerk.” [2]  Nevertheless, his father bore the insult and agreed to give his son his share of the inheritance.  Our text tells us that the son “got together all he had”, probably meaning that he sold his share and consolidated his earnings and left for a “distant country”. 

In that distant country the son squandered his resources.  While his older brother will later insist that his younger brother spent his money in illicit ways, our text here gives no hint of that.  The two Greek words διασκορπίζω (dia-skor-pee-zo), meaning to scatter or disperse and ἀσώτως (ah-so-tos) meaning recklessly or wastefully give us a picture not of debauchery, but of irresponsibility.  And so, before long the younger son faces the consequences of his carelessness.  There’s a great Billie Holiday song that became Blood Sweat and Tears first big hit, and the chorus of “God Bless the Child” says, “And when you’ve got money, you’ve got lots of friends crowding around your door.  But when the money’s gone, and all your spending ends, they won’t be around anymore.” [3]

Our younger son found this out the hard way.  And with spectacularly lousy timing, his money ran out just as a famine hit the land where he was living.  Now, famines cause recessions, and recessions result in unemployment and a greatly reduced availability of decent jobs.  And so, our son takes what work he can get… a job feeding the pigs of a Gentile farmer.  The wages were so low that the son was starving and wished that he could eat the carob pods that he was feeding to the pigs.  And in his hunger, and in his disgust at feeding these unclean animals, the son reached what the 12 step programs refer to as “rock bottom”. 

Our text tells us that “he came to his senses” and in that process, learned a couple of things about himself.  First, he realized that his father took much better care of his hired hands than the son’s current employer did.  Second, he realized that he had sinned against his father.  When society expected him to stay home, to support and to care for his family, and to Honor his parents, he had done none of these things.  And further in failing to honor his father, he broke one of the commandments and sinned against God as well.  Lastly, he realized that he had abdicated his position of privilege and was no longer worthy of being called his father’s son.  But still, with an empty stomach, he decided to go home in the hopes that his father would allow him to work as one of the hired hands. 

On his long journey home.  I can’t imagine that he didn’t spend days or even weeks walking all day every day.  And I would imagine that a lot of that travel time was spent rehearsing the speech that he was going to give his father, accepting responsibility for his actions, apologizing to his father for having treated him so poorly, and begging for a job as his father’s hired hand.  Garland tells us that, “It would not have been unrealistic for the father to kill the son rather than the fattened calf.  The son fit the category of a rebellious son, a glutton and a drunkard, who [according to Deuteronomy 21:18} could have been stoned.” [4]  And so, there were no assurances that he would be welcomed home.

I have fond memories of family vacations when I was a child.  Once a year we would hop in the station wagon and drive from our home in Columbus, Ohio to my mom’s parents house in Memphis, Tennessee.  This is a journey of almost 600 miles and with today’s highways the drive would take about 9 hours.  But in the late 50’s and early 60’s when the interstate highway system was just beginning to be built, the majority of our drive was on two lane roads and the drive took us almost twice that long.  One of my most vivid memories of those trips was traveling behind trucks that were carrying livestock.  To be stuck behind a truck that was carrying pigs, potentially for miles, is an experience one would not soon forget.  The stench was unbearable, and we often had to wait for miles before we had a chance to pass the truck and escape the smell.  There is a reason that the Jews viewed pigs as unclean animals.  It’s because they are.  Many animals will designate a section of their living area as their bathroom.  Pigs do not.  They eat and sleep in the same place as their waste.  Which would explain why those trucks were so unbearably offensive.

When our prodigal son arrived home, his father saw him coming from a distance and ran to meet him.  In the culture of the ancient east for an adult to run was undignified, and an older man, especially a land owner, would not want to be seen demeaning himself by running, and yet that is exactly what the father did.  He then embraced his son, kissed him, and gave a flurry of orders to his servants to bring the finest robe, a ring, sandals, and to prepare a feast.  But did you notice what he didn’t do?  He didn’t say to his son, “man, you are ripe.  Go take a bath!” 

The prodigal son came home wearing rags that almost certainly bore the stench of the pigs that he had been caring for.  He was filthy from the long journey, he wasn’t wearing shoes, he was exhausted and defeated.  But he wasn’t even able to make the speech to his father that he had been practicing for days.  His father interrupted the beginning of his speech with an avalanche of love and compassion.  His father was so delighted at his son’s return that he didn’t just forgive him, he restored him.  The robe, the ring, the sandals, were all symbols of the fact that the father had fully returned the prodigal to his status as a beloved son.  And then, the father threw a banquet to celebrate his beloved son’s return.

And so, this really isn’t the story of a prodigal son who wasted his resources.  This is the story of a prodigal father lavishing grace and forgiveness on his beloved son.  And that grace and forgiveness, those hugs and kisses were not contingent upon his son taking a bath first.  There was no requirement that he clean himself up before his father would accept him.  His father welcomed him, hugged him, and kissed him in spite of the filth and the stench on his clothes and his person.  Because all that mattered to the father was the fact that his son had returned to him. 

And in our story today, Jesus teaches us something incredibly important about God’s love, because in this story, the father plays the part of God.  And here Jesus is making a powerful statement about the depth of God’s grace and the absolute joy with which God welcomes every one of His beloved children that turns to Him. 

But this is not the end of today’s story. 

The older brother heard the commotion from the banquet and asked one of the servants what was going on.  The servant told the older brother about his younger brother’s return and told him about his father killing the fattened calf to have a banquet to celebrate.  The older brother refused to enter the banquet.  And for the second time in our story, the father shows grace and compassion.  He could have simply directed one of his servants to go and tell his son that his presence was demanded at the banquet, but instead he graciously goes out to meet his older son to talk to him.  And when he does, he gets an ear full.  “Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.  But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!” 

If the father in our story is playing the role of God, then the younger son is the tax collectors and sinners and the older son is the Pharisees.  Morris tells us that the older son, “saw himself as the model son, but his use of the [word ‘slave’] gives him away.  He did not really understand what being a son means.  He could not see why his father should have been so full of joy at the return of the prodigal.  He complains that his father had never given him a [goat] for a feast with his friends.  The proud and the self-righteous always feel that they are not treated as well as they deserve.” [5]

The younger son had had an opportunity to examine his life, to see how his sins of rebelliousness and selfishness had ultimately led to disaster.  The older son had yet to have that opportunity.  The older son’s words reveal his heart.  He was resentful and jealous, but he was the responsible one.  He was the one who was dutifully working for his father, but as it turned out, he didn’t view himself as a partner in his father’s work, he viewed himself as a slave.  There was no joy in his heart over his partnership with his father, there was only a grudging sense of obligation.  And as a slave to his responsibilities he viewed the irresponsibility of his younger brother as unforgivable.  He refused to join in the celebration of his brother’s return; indeed refused to even recognize him as his brother, calling him “this son of yours”.  And while his life seemed to reflect a laudable sense of duty and honor, his lack of love for his brother was clearly and painfully evident. 

Garland tells us that, “Repentance may be most difficult for the righteous, who seemingly need no repentance. Prodigal sinners leave the filth of the pigsty behind.  Righteous sinners, however, must leave their imagined righteousness behind.  It requires abandoning self-assured boasts about obedience and a preoccupation with rewards.  It requires giving up their disdain for others who seem, less obedient and their expectations that these deserve to be rejected by God.” [6]

The older brother’s statement that he, “never disobeyed [his father’s] orders” mirrors the attitude of the Pharisees who believed that they were blameless.  In both cases their blind obedience to the law caused them to believe that they were righteous and yet their hearts were filled with resentment.  Neither the older brother nor the Pharisees were willing to enter the banquet, but it is at the banquet where God’s love blossoms. 

After his son’s tirade the father answers tenderly.  Instead of addressing his son with the standard Greek word for “son”, υιός (wee-os) he uses the word Τέκνον (tek-nohn) which would best be translated as “beloved child”.  “You are always with me, and everything I have is yours.” The father said, “But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.”  And hidden in the translation is a profound truth, because the word that we translate as “had to” is the Greek word ἔδει  (ee-die) which gives the sense of a God-ordained imperative.  The celebration isn’t optional because the heart that is aligned with God’s heart cannot help but join in the celebration and the joy over a repentant sinner.

            Again, Garland says, “Joy is the only option.  Grumbling cuts one off from the salvation that comes in Jesus.  The older son represents those who resent heaven’s joy and resist it on earth.  He must do more than keep commands but must join the party and learn that forgiveness is greater than justice.” [7]

            My dear friends, there’s a party going on, and everyone is invited.  And all that is required for entrance is hearts that are filled with love.

---

[1]  N. T. Wright, Luke for Everyone, Pg. 139

[2] Scott Hoezee, Center for Excellence in Preaching, Commentary 2019, 03, 25

[3]  “God Bless the Child” by Arthur Herzog Jr. & Billie Holiday, Edward B. Marks Music, 1939

[4] David E. Garland, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke, Pg. 628

[5] Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Luke (Revised Edition), Pg. 267

[6] David E. Garland, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke, Pg. 634-635

[7] David E. Garland, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke, Pg.633

I Thought He Was with You

Homily: December 29, 2024

            There is a very famous movie that was released in 1990.  In the movie, the McAllister family is preparing for a Christmas trip to Paris.  The night before they are to depart, they all sit down to dinner, and their youngest son Kevin disrupts the meal.  He is subsequently sent to the attic as punishment.  During the night, they have a power outage and the next morning the family oversleeps, leading to a mad rush to make it to the airport on time.  Somehow, in the rush, Kevin is left “Home Alone”.  The family only discovers the fact that Kevin is missing when their flight is halfway across the Atlantic.  The rest of the movie divides its time between Kevin’s story of thwarting a home invasion and his mom, Kate’s story of frantically trying to book a flight and return home to find her son.

            Those who have seen the movie can understand Kate’s absolute panic when she realizes that she doesn’t know where Kevin is.  This panic is where Mary and Joseph found themselves when, on the way home after their Passover trip to Jerusalem, they discovered the fact that Jesus wasn’t with them. 

In today’s story, our English translation softens the language, telling us that Mary and Joseph were “anxiously searching”, but the word that Luke uses in the Greek is ὀδυνάω (odounow), and to give us a better sense of what Mary and Joseph were actually feeling, in the Biblical story of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus, after they had both died and the rich man was begging Abraham to have Lazarus put a drop of water on his tongue because he was in agony in the flames of hell, that word “agony” is translated from our word ὀδυνάω.

Yeah, Mary and Joseph were pretty upset, but I think that we need to know a little bit more about how this happened, because we can’t entirely blame Mary and Joseph.  During a typical Passover, the population of Jerusalem would increase from about 50,000 people to about 150,000 people.  Entire communities would travel to Jerusalem together in caravans because of the safety provided in numbers.  In those caravans, the women and children would travel in front with the men and young men following behind.  With Jesus being 12 years old, he was quite literally a tween.  Young enough to travel with his mother and the children, but also old enough to travel with his father and the young men.  So, it’s not hard to see how Mary may have thought that He was with Joseph and vice versa. 

Upon discovering the fact that Jesus was missing, Mary and Joseph returned to Jerusalem, looking for Jesus, and eventually finding Him in the temple.  Mary chides Jesus for staying behind in Jerusalem, saying “Your father and I have been searching for you”.  Jesus answers “Why were you searching for me?”  In the Greek, this is actually posed as a rhetorical question, a question with the assumption that they absolutely should have known where He was, even though they didn’t. 

So, what do we see when we look at this passage?  Do we see irresponsible parents?  Do we see some kind of adolescent rebellion, or maybe a combination of both?  No, I don’t think that we see any of that.  As a parent, I suppose it may be a little difficult to reconcile Jesus’ actions with the fact of His absolute sinlessness, but the answer to all of this lies within the text itself where Jesus says, “Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?”

William Barclay says, “See how very gently but very definitely Jesus takes the name father from Joseph and gives it to God”[1].  Jesus’ here identifying God as His Father was something that was unique in Jewish literature.  The Bible often refers to God as “our Father” or as “The Father of Israel”, but never had God ever been referred to as Father in such a personal way.  At the tender age of 12 Jesus has already begun to develop an understanding of His singular and special relationship with the Father. 

We need to realize that this understanding is something that Jesus wasn’t born with.  His awareness of His relationship to the Father, His knowledge of the nature and scope of His mission, His understanding of His role as Lord and Savior, these are all things that developed as He grew.  This is why Luke will later tell us that “Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature”.  Though divine, Jesus was still fully human.  And just like any other human, Jesus had to grow into an understanding of who He was and what He was called to do with His life. 

And the time that Jesus spent with the rabbis in Jerusalem was an important part of that discovery process.  Jesus was never going to receive a world class Jewish education in Nazareth but in Jerusalem He could sit and learn from the best and the brightest.  Jesus had come to a point where He had realized that He needed to prioritize His relationship with the Father.  This is why He stayed in Jerusalem to study, and this is why He was surprised when His parents didn’t know where He was.  Jesus was making His first steps towards adulthood, and a part of that was taking advantage of the opportunity to stay and learn while He had the chance.  But Jesus had one more year to go before He turned 13 and according to Jewish law, that is when He would become responsible for His own actions and could decide for Himself how He would practice His faith.  And so, Luke tells us that Jesus returned with His parents to Nazareth and was obedient to them. 

I believe that this story, the one and only story in the Bible about Jesus’ childhood, was included due to the importance of what happened in Jerusalem that year.  It was a year that Jesus took a major step forward into adulthood, a year that His understanding of His unique and special relationship with the Father was refined, and a year that he recognized His mandate to prioritize His mission, even over His responsibilities to His own family.  It was this attitude that would one day prompt Him to ask the question “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?”  It was a year that Jesus would take a large step on the journey that would lead Him to fulfilling His calling.

Why we study the life of Jesus?  What do we hope to gain in our studies?  We study because we, as believers, are called to be like Jesus, and understanding His life and teaching is a critical part of the process of seeking Christ-likeness.  And so, I’d like to close with a thought from Clinton E. Arnold.  “What is important from Luke’s summary statement is that the life of Jesus reveals what a human life full of God’s Spirit and wisdom looks like.”[2]  The recognition of a special relationship with the Father, the desire to expand on the knowledge of one’s faith, the prioritizing of God’s mission in one’s life, all of these things that we see in 12 year old Jesus are qualities that we, as God’s children, also would do well to nurture in our own lives. 

My friend, Greg Monroe once said to me that prayer is not us asking God to do our will.  Prayer is us asking God to incorporate us into His will.  As we seek to follow Jesus and His example, may we also learn to grow into God’s will for us.

---

[1] William Barclay, “The Gospel of Luke” (Revised Edition), Pg. 30

[2] Clinton E. Arnold, “Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke”, Pg. 147