Luke 15 starts out with 3 parables, the Prodigal son the third.
First, he imagines a shepherd who leaves his flock in order to find one errant sheep ("Lost Sheep"). Second, he describes a woman who loses a coin ("Lost Coin"). These parables are about being lost and now found. The first two have three common threads running through each. 1) Something or someone is lost. 2) The lost is sought for. 3) Great joy is shared at the recovery of the thing (person) found. The third parable, the Prodigal son, is slightly different. In it, the one who is lost returns to where he came from.
The prodigal son is Luke’s best known parable and also the longest. The word "prodigal" basic meaning is "wasteful"–particularly with regard to money.
There are many levels of the story. It is a story of the consequences of sin both in terms of what happens to us but also the promise of the return from separation from God. It is a story of welcome and reconciliation. This story is found only in the Gospel of Luke
We see a progression through the three parables from the relationship of one in a hundred (Luke 15:1-7), to one in ten (Luke 15:8-10), to one in one (Luke 15:11-32), demonstrating God’s love for each individual and his personal attentiveness towards all humanity.
The parable is Jesus response to the Pharisees and Scribes since they believe his behavior is an affront to the community. Jesus is associating with the’ wrong people." He is welcoming those who have been cast out; and honoring those who have been shamed by sharing a meal . To invite a person to a meal was an honor that implied acceptance, trust and peace. Jesus response is not to rebuke the Pharisees and scribes but to teach through parables.
The parable has 3 scenes with the first part focusing on the younger son and the last two parts on the father
(1) the negotiations of the younger son with his father and his subsequent departure to a foreign country where he is wasteful and becomes impoverished (15:11-19);
(2) the homecoming of that son and the welcome by his father (15:20-24); and
(3) the interchange between the father and his older son (15:25-32).
We can associate the father with Jesus, the older son the Pharisees and scribes, the younger son the lost (the tax collectors and sinners of that day)
The Pharisees and scribes would focus on the behavior of the family. Not only is Jesus hanging around with the wrong set but the characters actions violate community norms. Honor and shame were big parts of the culture. Honor was connected to how one was perceived in the community.
Here are the issues that would have irritated the Pharisees and scribes about this parable:
– Father and old son should have refused the request of the younger son to divide the father’s estate. In a sense the younger son is wishing his father’s death! The granting of the request soils the honor of the family and they can’t be trusted. If anything, the youngest son should have been disinherited immediately.
– The younger son not only endangers the family in the distant country but also the community. He goes to a distant country, squanders his property so foreigners have possession. Community survival requires trust and carefully guarded balancing of all obligations and debts
– Without knowing why the younger son is returning, when the father sees him in the distance, he runs to greet him. Family is shamed again by the father welcoming him back and honoring the son who has been shamed. The younger son is no longer worthy to be a member of the community. At best, he can be treated like one the daily wage laborers who survive on the edge of the community. Furthermore, fathers did not run to their children – that’s more of the mother’s behavior.
There are symbols of the reconciliation which would have increased the blood pressure of the pharisees and scribes. The robe is a sign of dignity and honor, the ring a sign of authority. The shoes are the sign of not being a servant. Servants did not wear shoes.
Everyone in the story is foolish. The younger son’s foolishness is evident.
No doubt, the father’s actions can also be seen as foolish through the story. Jesus emphasis is that God’s love is beyond our current mores and practices as currently practiced. It surpasses everything we know. The sin is not only forgiven but the son restored. Jesus recognized that the father exposes himself to humiliation to prevent his son from being humiliated.
The older son does not rejoice in the son being welcomed and is also foolish and does not properly respresent his responsibility as the eldest son. He now is the lost one. Like the Pharisees, the older has lived a good life but inwardly their attitudes are questionable. One of the duties of the eldest son would have included reconciliation between the father and his son. He would have been the host at the feast to celebrate his brother’s return. Yet he remains in the field instead of in the house where he should have been. He focuses only on himself and provides no joy on his brother’s return. He is mad at both his brother and father.
However, the community accepts the father’s actions. They accept the offer of reconciliation and attend the feast.
The Kingdom is not complete when one is missing, in the case of the youn ger son. God will never stop reaching for the one because God’s love is too wide, God’s grace too rich to cease looking for the lost, for those whom we deem unredeemable.
As David Lose writes “Jesus is introducing people to the relational logic of the kingdom of God that runs contrary to and way beyond the legal logic of the world”
There are several things we do not know. Was the younger son’s repentance sincere or was he just motivated by hunger? Dr. George Hermanson makes the following conclusion of the parable – "The story ends without telling us how the eldest brother responds. And without Luke telling us how Jesus’ listeners respond. In other words, the story ends with only our responses to it. We are the end of the story."