Sunday Homily, Sept 16, 2007, 24th in Ordinary Time
Readings: Exodus 32, 7-14; Psalm 51; 1 Timothy 1, 12-17; Luke 15, 1-32 (Great Gospel: Prodigal Son).
Exodus: this second book of the Old Testament is a fun read and describes the escape or exit of the Jews from Egypt led by Moses.
How did they get there in the first place. It goes back to the 3 big patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob. Jacob had 12 sons, the youngest and favorite being Joseph. His brothers, who hated him, sold him to some travelers who took him to Egypt where he became a favorite of the Pharaoh because he interpreted dreams.
When he had grown up a famine hit Israel and Jacob sent his 11 sons to Pharaoh to beg help. Guess who is Pharaoh’s chief of staff: Joseph.
As time passes many Jewish people settle in Egypt and prosper. The Egyptians get jealous and enslave the Jews. At one point Pharaoh kills all the first born male Jewish babies. Except one: Moses.
Our selection takes place after the colorful account of Moses’ call and his leading the people out of Egypt and into the desert. The people have been rebellious and Yahweh not too compassionate. Yahweh & Moses are having a little dialog.
The Prodigal Son
Because this story is a work of art I would like to explain the story before we read it. Someone very creative put this masterpiece together and has given us a marvelous insight into the nature of God, especially a God whose love is not conditional, a view that is almost totally different than the view we get in the rest of the bible, both Old & New Testament.
The story has three main segments and a footnote: the son leaves his home and his father, the son lives in a distant land, the son returns home, and the response of the son who stayed home. I will make three observations about each phase of the story. So twelve observations.
First, when the younger son asks for his share of his father’s estate, the people would right away be stunned, because he was due no share. The second son receives nothing normally.
Secondly, for asking for this share, the father could have had him killed for his insolence and absurd presumption of entitlement.
Thirdly, the people listening would have been doubly astounded when the father divided his property with the son. This was turning the father into a nut, a fool.
With the property the son sets off for a distant place, the second part of the story. He squanders all the money, and ends up feeding pigs for a stranger. First, significant is the fact that he goes to a distant country, that is, a foreign place. But more importantly, and this is the first comment, he squanders the property. This is the patrimony. By squandering the money, he is symbolically disrespecting his father.
Secondly, he shows disrespect to the Jewish religion by going to a stranger to get a job. In those days, a person in need would go to the temple, which was set up to help their own. Instead, he goes to a local, meaning a Gentile or non-Jew.
Thirdly, he debases himself by feeding pigs, the animal rejected by Jews. He even longs to eat the pods the pigs were eating. He has become a total outcast.
At this point the son realizes that on his father’s farm even the hired help lived better. So he puts together a little speech that includes three parts: confessing that he has sinned, that he deserves nothing, and could he be treated as one of the father’s workers. Off he goes. And now the story gets even more bizarre.
Obviously the father is watching for him, because he sees him a long way off, runs (the father runs!) to the son, embraces him, and kisses him. The boy begins his speech, but note, the father cuts it off after the first two parts.
Then the father bestows on the horrible son three significant and symbolic gifts, a robe, a ring, and sandals before calling for the fatted calf to be slaughtered. First, the robe. This is a sign of dignity, totally the opposite of what the boy deserved. Secondly, the ring. A sign of wealth. Thirdly, the sandals. Only members of the family wore sandals, not the slaves or hired workers. It signified mobility. The family member could walk away.
To the listeners of this story the father would look like an idiot, crazy, out of his mind. The son was so, so bad he only deserved death.
Then to complicate life for the father, the older son proceeds to pout and complain. First, this boy, too, now deserves to be killed because of his disobedience and anger. But, and this is the second observation, the father pleads. Fathers don’t plead. Thirdly, the father lets him know how much he loves him by saying all he has is equally the son’s.
The point of all this: God is like the father.
How do you resemble the father?
AUDIO http://mysite.verizon.net/reso7rjy/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/2007-09-16.mp3
