Sermon for 3/30/25

Sermon 3-30-25 4 Lent Luke 15: 1-3; 11-32

Things do not always turn out the way we expect them to. Last fall was my 55th year as a deer hunter. I've learned to be very successful at that endeavor. Very few of you folks who are hearing or reading this sermon know anything about the sport. I call it a sport because that is what it is, just like baseball or basketball.

There is a world wide recognized method of scoring the size of a buck deer's antlers. The competition revolves around harvesting bucks with the highest scoring set of antlers. The points are counted, measurements are taken and discrepancies in symmetrics are deducted from the total.

Years ago I told myself if I ever harvested a buck that scored 200 I was going to retire from hunting and just be a guide. Then, last November as I looked at a buck lying on the other hilltop in front of me, and telling myself I had just shot my last buck, with my hands in my pockets, he stood up, stepped over the edge of the hill, and I never saw him again.

Our Gospel reading from Luke is a textbook example of things and people, not turning out as his readers think they should. With the exception of the tax collectors and sinners mentioned in the first line. They seem to be making out like a bandit.

Jesus, or any devout Jew of that time, should not be associating with tax collectors or sinners, let alone eating with them. The Pharisees and the scribes were not happy and they're vocal about it. So, Jesus justifies His actions with a parable, imagine that.

But, this is not just a run-of-the-mill parable about vines, trees, sheep or goats. It's about people and none of those people act in the way they are supposed to, none. The younger of the two sons wants his inheritance while his father is still alive. That's just not the way things were done then and there.

Jewish law was strict about divisions of inheritance. A father would have been discouraged from handing over his property before death. The only exception would be if the father should decide to retire from the daily management of the properties due to an illness of some kind.

Land owners then didn't just retire and move to Florida.

Even distributing the inheritance, the father would retain control and ownership. It was the lawful duty of the sons to support and care for the father until his death.

When the younger son requested his portion he is in essence saying, “I wish you were dead”.

In this particular case the older son would receive 2/3 and the younger 1/3 of the family estate. The younger son is acting contrary to the religious laws and cultural rules. But, so is the father. According to custom he should have never given the boy a share of the property. It gets worse, you may need a note pad.

The older son is out of line here as well. Verse 12b, “So he divided his property between them”. This means the older son took possession of his part as well. He is not showing any more social grace than his brother. Mediterranean culture would have expected the elder son to admonish both the father and the younger son, protest the division and refuse to take part in it. He didn't.

The younger son sinks even lower. Jewish law forbids the selling of an inheritance. The land of Cana was considered a direct gift from God to each family. It was important that the property remain in the family.

He would have had to turn his inheritance into pocket money by selling it in order to travel to a distant country. He sold, a direct gift from God! Jesus' listeners would think of a “far country” as Italy, Egypt, Babylon or someplace like that. A land of Gentiles not Hebrews. Where he lost everything he had.

Our reading today says “He hired himself out”. That's probably not a good interpretation of the original Greek. It leads modern Americans to believe he got a job. A job would mean wages. The boy probably just attached himself to a wealthy acquaintance who put him to feeding hogs. The patron would have known full well the job would have been abhorrent to a Jew.

Here the young man starts to see the light. He would have been entitled to a share of the slaughtered pork, but he refuses, and thinks about eating the bitter pods of the carob tree they used for feed.

The young man has hit rock bottom.

He has no money, no food, he has accepted a position that would be the most degrading a Jew could have, and he's nearly naked. It is time to go home.

He would have known what to expect when he gets there. He has not only squandered his inheritance, but to Gentiles. His family, extended family and all the towns people will disown, reject and physically abuse him when he returns.

They will have what is called a “qetsatsah ceremony”. They will break a crock of burned corn or nuts on the ground in front of him and all shout, “Jim Bob is cut off from his people”. As far as they are concerned he is shunned. At this point Jim Bob is willing to take the risk. He starts walking.

But, as I said, no one in this parable acts how they would have been expected and nothing follows the social norms.

The father sees the wayward son coming from far off, which means he has been looking for his return all along. The father runs to him, kisses him on the cheek, gives him the best robe in the house, has the servants put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.

Every one of those things are symbolic and totally out of social character. Even more so than giving up the property. An elderly man would never run, it would be unbecoming. The kiss is a sign of forgiveness, the robe is saved for a guest of honor. The ring means an enormous amount of trust and the sandals are the sign of a free man of the household.

These actions are totally opposite of what anyone living there would have expected or done themselves.

The older son also reacts 180 degrees from what he should have done and what would have been culturally accepted. Instead of honoring his father he publicly insults him by not accepting the father's decision for the brother. The elder throws salt in the wound three more times by not using a respectful title when he speaks, by his words “this son of yours” and accusing the father of favoritism.

The father's reaction to the elder is not even close to what it should have been.

He says, “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come back to life; he was lost and has been found.” This not how any Mediterranean man hearing this story would have answered his own son.

Here the parable abruptly ends. We do not know what the elder brother did. The scribes and Pharisees would have been left speechless.

In the parable the father is symbolic for God. God is not man, He does not think like men. Thanks to God things do not always turn out the way we expect them to. Jesus justifies His relationships with sinners and tax collectors as He always does, unexpectedly.

Amen.