When reading Luke 15, any reader most likely encountered the parable of the Prodigal Son slightly differently. Unlike many of the other stories and parables in the New Testament, the initial meaning of this story is hard to trace as the morality of the two main characters is somewhat in question. The Father seems to be the only resolute character, leaving the prodigal son with sin that most Christians do not care to align with and the eldest brother, who seems to be entirely out of place. However, this story is a purposeful inclusion by the author as, when broken down, it echoes Christian sentiments of forgiveness, but more importantly, it highlights an overarching theme of wealth’s immortality in the Gospel of Luke. In searching for meaning in this story, one must define what each aspect of the story represents. Therefore, by breaking down the story through a continual nuanced critique of wealth in the Book of Luke, and understanding its proximity and similarity to explicit libels of the Pharisees, the parable of the Prodigal Son serves to effectively scorn the Pharisees by drawing a parallel between them and the prodigal son’s brother.
፠ ፠ ፠
When deciphering Luke’s position on wealth, it is crucial to take a step back and understand the economic norms permeating both religion and state in the Ancient Mediterranean. In many ways, this area is synonymous with the Roman Empire; it is simply impossible to mention one without the other. Further, It makes sense that prevailing sentiments surrounding personal wealth were cemented within the parameters of the Roman Empire and whatever faith(s) they believed in. Today, the term wealth can best be described as a sum of all nonfinancial and financial assets owned by both private and public entities. Reconstructing the economic landscape of the Roman empire is an imperfect art, one which historian Walter Scheidel and Biblical Studies professor Stephen Friesen took on in their Journal titled “The Size and Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire.” Below are two images that represent a portion of their findings, giving a general sense of income disparity between the elites and people in the lower percentage of the economy, where one would most likely find Christians.
Two crucial notes must be made following this graph. The first note is a warning to the reader to not measure this against any modern income disparity graph, as so many macroeconomic and microeconomic changes have occurred over time that it is impossible to isolate differences enough to make a fair comparison, including the effect of globalization on unrealized markets and economies. The second is that if Piketty was reading this, he would be ashamed because one central idea of his book goes against the very notion of equating wealth to income. They are different. That being said, when looking at ancient texts, this income distribution is sufficient evidence to validate a perceived difference between the social classes in the time period. Prevailing religious sentiments of wealth in the empire can be demonstrated in the pay-to-play nature of Mystery cults and other pagan communities of the time, whose popularity effectively enforced the idea that wealth was the key to religion. Though these cults were more prevalent in wealthier cities, their beliefs were most definitely reflected across the Roman Empire, including Judea. These beliefs most likely radiated down from Roman governors and other wealthy passersby. This notion is justified by several early Christian practices, including the weekly gathering, which can be traced to pagan beginnings.
Though Judaism was not as popular as the pagan religions across the Empire, their similarly monotheistic views and the evident overlap between its congregation and those who followed Christ make Judaism the most obvious competitor to early Christianity. The natural geographic proximity of the two religions also adds to this dynamic. However, historian Steve Mason points out that the Pharisees became dominant not in the time of Christ, but rather in about 70CE when they began to have many of the distasteful interactions with the church of Matthew. This hostility is important as it most likely was what led to their immortalization in the New Testament. Additionally, Jewish scripture carries no malice towards the wealthy, as seen numerous times including in Genesis 30:43. The group being depicted is hostile, reasonably affluent, and proximate to early Christian congregations is important when moving forward.
፠ ፠ ፠
Understanding the prevailing opinion of wealth across the religious landscape of Roman Judea is important when understanding the context in which the Gospel of Luke was written (around 85CE). A substantial portion of the writing in this book can be linked to Matthew, Mark, and “Q” via the 4-source hypothesis, which means that the few liberties taken by the author more than likely inform a reader of the author’s viewpoint. This makes sense when stepping back to look at the New Testament as a whole, where there is a consistent group libeled and shamed for their subscription to the prevailing notions of wealth found in Roman Antiquity. Beginning with Mark, there is a point where he critiques a “they” who are in opposition to Jesus. It can be inferred Mark is referencing the Pharisees, but some argue that Mark was not as direct in his arguments towards the Pharisees as Matthew and Luke were. However, modern sources acknowledge that Mark’s vague criticisms act as a springboard for the authors of Matthew and Luke to lay the lumber against the Pharisees in their Gospels. The Gospel of Matthew takes one route, describing the many woes of the Pharisees to cast them in a negative light. In comparison, the Gospel of Luke does broadly chastise the Pharisees but focuses its defamation on a continued critique of their misuse of wealth.
፠ ፠ ፠
This criticism of wealth (or the vindication and praise of the poor) can be seen from nearly the beginning of Jesus’s described ministry in the Gospel of Luke, where he names those who are less fortunate to be heirs of God’s Kingdom, saying, “… bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim the release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s Favor.” This is a unique position in the religious landscape of that time, as neither Judaism nor Pagan groups had an emphasis on the salvation of the oppressed. This motif is continued in Luke 6:20-21, saying “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours in the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.” He continues this speech, going from the defense of the poor to an attack on the rich, “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.” This argument sounds much like the recent left-wing mantra “Eat the rich,” a familiar slogan to anti-capitalist groups, unions, and journalists.
Moving to the section directly preceding and following the Prodigal Son in Luke, there is evidence of a refined argument against wealth, as shown by the stories of Lazarus and Zacchaeus. Beginning with Zacchaeus, The Gospel introduces the nuance to its wealth argument: rich individuals are not inherently barred from entering God’s kingdom. This is explained when the affluent tax collector, Zacchaeus is asked to provide lodging for Christ. After agreeing to provide Jesus housing, Zacchaeus states that he willingly pledges half of his possessions to the poor. This willingness is demonstrated in the use of the Greek word didōmi. This can be taken as a customary action, as opposed to one following a rule, meaning he is doing this of his own will. It is also can be interpreted as something he is actively doing, suggesting a continuous and repeated practice as opposed to a single act of generosity.
Continuing with the narrative, Jesus quickly states that Zacchaeus will be welcomed into the land of Abraham and that God blesses him. In short, he is just as entitled to the blessings of God because of his eager initiative to help those in need. He made the decision of his own accord. This is not to say he has no past injustices, but it is to say that he has returned to the righteous path in the eyes of God.
The rich man (in the Gospel of Luke) is a character of a similar disposition to Zacchaeus, but, as illustrated later, his eventual plea to help those who are plagued by mortal desires is half-hearted, selfish, and entirely motivated by his lack of initiative when he was alive. In the story, the rich man failed to give notice to Lazarus who lay dying on his doorstep. After calling for help from the depths of hell and being chastised for not helping Lazarus in the land of the living, the rich man begs to warn his five brothers, who still live, of their fate if they continue living the same way. A small back-and-forth ensues with Abraham ending with the curt line, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” God is criticizing the man both for his past actions and his current lack of perspective. Analyzing his request, it is almost as selfish and misguided as his actions, because even as he burns in hell, the rich man requests to warn only his five brothers. He is still tethered to his old life, thus he lacks the perspective necessary to be welcomed into God’s judgment per the Gospel. As it pertains to his past actions, we see the flip side of Jesus’s judgment of Zacchaeus. Because of the rich man and his brothers’ lack of willingness to save the lost on their own, God scoffs in the face of his request, for if they were truly worthy of God’s kingdom they would be actively doing something to help those who are suffering. This latter criticism can be looked at through the Gospel’s lens of wealth’s immorality: When the scales are balanced and every individual is reckoned, has a given wealthy individual used their wealth for the good of the church, the good of the people, and the benefit of God?
And this is the root of Luke’s argument and criticism of wealth. Luke is stating that seeking wealth (or if already wealthy, misusing one’s wealth), is an easy way to get on God’s naughty list. Through the aforementioned stories of Zacchaeus and Lazarus, Luke continually references the apocalyptic notion of God’s kingdom, and how each individual will face their own reckoning when they pass. Though there are many instances of Luke criticizing groups for non-economic sins, these can be seen as a measured use of occurring themes across the Gospels. The Gospel of Luke, however, consistently highlights wealth’s role in determining the fate of men in the stories throughout Jesus’s ministry.
Armed with this critique and turning to the perspective of the Gospel of Luke, chapter 15 represents a good starting point when referencing the condensed “L” material (the material only found in Luke, suggesting he felt this material added to his ‘thesis’) present. The Gospel depicts the Pharisees questioning Jesus, first shaming him and questioning why he would ever eat with “sinners and tax collectors.” After Jesus preaches, criticizing a crooked manager and pointing out that an individual cannot serve both God and money, the narrative turns back to the ridicule of Jesus by the Pharisees. Their disinterest in an explication of their hypocrisy and their own salvation is supported by their depiction as “lovers of money.” In this way, the Pharisees became the spearhead of the economically charged rhetoric against those who doubted the risen Christ.
This nuance forces the reader to return to the lines of Luke 6, redefining the supposed attack on all rich, to those who squander their wealth because of their misconstrued values. Simply, the burden of wealth’s immorality lies directly on the individual who possesses it. This critique, though aimed at the rich man, can be superposed onto the establishment of the time. Though this borders on theological ideology, in context with the wealth disparity previously defined in this text this notion acts as a manifesto, challenging ancient cornerstone values and the morality of both the Roman presence in Judea and the Pharisees. However, with the consistent anti-wealth discussion of the Pharisees and their continued relevance and demonization in Luke, they become the obvious favorite when picking the target of this critique.
፠ ፠ ፠
So how does the context of this Gospel’s critique of the Pharisees’ values inform an interpretation of the unique parable of the Prodigal Son? The reader must first look to define the characters of the story in order to understand the lesson Jesus is preaching. In most stories, such as Lazarus or Zacchaeus, the ‘morally justified’ character is outlined clearly within Jesus’s narrative. In the case of the Prodigal Son, this critique of wealth can be used to determine a morally wrong party within the confines of the story. The story begins with the younger of two sons who asks his father for inheritance that will belong to him. He ends up squandering the fortune, returning, and stating “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.” The Father quickly gives the prodigal son a fine robe, a ring, and sandals, calling for a fatted calf to be butchered in celebration. The first part of the story ends here, with the father and the son united once again. Many Christians might have a hard time identifying with the prodigal son, but in the act of welcoming the brother home with these fineries, this relationship is meant to echo the act of Christians repenting for their sins to God. If one is to believe that the Father represents God, then the riches he gives his son become more of a metaphor for the wealth and fulfillment that God will bring at the end of life, as he does for Lazarus. However, given that this story centers itself in the human world, it is imperative to acknowledge the undeniable symbols of wealth being name-dropped. It is important because it shows once more that wealth is only justified when used to save those in need. This tie back to the human world also suggests that Christians may find themselves in the role of the father (or Zacchaeus) and have a responsibility to bring lost sheep back into the flock.
When continuing to the second half of the story, however, a Christian might be confused. The narrative begins describing a brother who had never disobeyed his father and worked tirelessly in hopes that he would be given the spoils he deserved. Does he not represent an ideal Christian? However, his next remarks which simultaneously question the father, reflect the older brother’s misperception of what is important, and demonstrate his greed, most assuredly would change any self-respecting Christian’s mind. He explains that he does not understand the value of slaughtering the fatted calf for his brother, as he has never even been given a goat. He continues to angrily question the father in regard to his seemingly unjust treatment, shaming his younger brother for ‘devouring [the Father’s] property’ with prostitutes. Additionally, Jesus does not show the eldest brother to repent in any way, which further replicates the many criticisms thrown against the Pharisees. These comments and his lack of forgiveness, like the rich man in the parable of Lazarus, show that the older brother’s valuation of wealth is grounded in the prevailing notions that wealth brings inherent value to an individual, not as a means to help those in need. This sentiment also represents his misperception of what is important in society, as the brother becomes jealous he has to share with his newly forgiven brother.
The similar nature of the criticisms leveled against the Prodigal son’s brother and Pharisees throughout the Gospel of Luke, in conjunction with the underlying macro-critique of the wealthy, it can be reasoned that the older brother in this story is meant to not just represent any doubter of Christianity, but specifically the Pharisees. When traversing the meandering path of this accusation, one must start at the roots. The prevailing notions encouraging (or being indifferent towards) wealth create a culture that feeds top-down. The socio-economic demographic of most Judeo-Christians would have been poor. By creating this downward pressure at the time the Gospel of Luke is written, we see this presupposed notion of wealth flipped on its head and pointed at the nearest oppressor, the Pharisees. Throughout Luke’s unique “L” material, there is a constant echo of both of these themes, through stories such as Lazarus and Zacchaeus. Therefore, when it comes time to break down the story of the Prodigal Son and the reader encounters the character of the elder brother, the reader is left with no option except to understand that Luke is yet again pointing the barrel of his shotgun at The Pharisees.
፠ ፠ ፠
In all that is happening today, antisemitism is more common and pervasive than it has been in a long time. It is for these reasons I want to personally say that this essay has no intentions of libeling the morality of Jewish people in the time of Christ or today, but rather was looking through the lens of the gospel of Luke to attempt to understand the figure of the elder brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
I have also placed the link the the Google Doc version below, as it contains several informational footnotes as well as several diagrams that a reader might find interesting, as well as proper citation in Chicago Formatting.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z5y6qZXXGr5dHwWKp2WsU418KrT9RxmZPmdFak0M8EE/edit
Podcast: Play in new window | Download