The Prodigal Son: Consumption Without Production
Word-Of-The-Day: ‘(11) Jesus continued (providing parables): “There was a man who had two sons. (12) The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them. (13) “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. (14) After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. (15) So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. (16) He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.’ (Luke 15:11-16)
Jesus provides His disciples and perhaps some Pharisees who were with him a series of parables or allegories in Luke chapters 14 though 16 that while fictional has a real-life lesson of Truth embedded within them. The Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32) is one such lesson of Truth. We find a father with two sons, the younger appearing to be someone headstrong and undisciplined. He was likely an adult and wanted to leave home, so he asked his dad for his part of his father’s estate. Usually this would wait to be given as part of an inheritance but the son apparently didn’t want to wait – he wanted it all now! There is no indication he did anything to earn it, only that he wanted what was not yet his.
The father could have said no or not yet, but perhaps he sensed the young man needed to learn a lesson and so he went ahead and divided the property and gave each of his two sons their share. The youngest took off, move to a foreign land where he lived high on the hog until the money was gone. There was a shortage of food, and people stopped giving out handouts, and so he was forced to go to work. The parable paints the picture that the pay wasn’t good, the pigs ate better than he did, and no one helped him. Eventually, the young man returned home, where his dad greeted him and took him back in (much to the chagrin of his oldest brother).
The focus is on the first half of the story and how it relates to the interaction of the son and the father. The son wanted everything immediately and he wanted it without earning it; consumption without production. It does not say whether the father put up a counter argument to stop the young man, but if he did, he caved in and allowed the son to go. The father may have known the outcome was going to be that the son would eventually burn through the money and burn out on the wild lifestyle. Another possibility is that the father thought by acquiescing to his son that this would solve the problem; he would not have to hear his son complain and may have felt he was helping his son (and himself) by giving the son a free handout.
In either case, we see that giving the son money, to consume without production, gave the young man a false expectation that he did not have to have any responsibility for his provisions or his actions. He spent his money wildly and foolishly until he was completely broke. Even then, the indication is that he then relied on the charity of others, receiving free food – until the famine hits and no one could spare the extra food to give him.
When he was desperate enough, he started to realize that he needed to work; he took a menial job feeding pigs. He likely was given a place to sleep and some food to eat, but it was not a lot of food as he was hungry – hungry enough to want to eat the pods given the pigs. Since no one was giving him any more handouts, he eventually went back home. He was fortunate his father was loving and took him back in, and his dad rejoiced at his return.
We know the oldest son wasn’t pleased with his father’s reaction, but the dad knew his youngest had learned his lesson and now willing to work for what he needed. The youngest son realized he shouldn’t have looked at what benefit he could expect to get out of his father, but instead what he could do to help his father that in turn would help him.
We as Christians need to be charitable, and give to those who are less fortunate to help them get back on their feet. There are those we need to feed who are without food, and clothe those without clothing. We must also be aware that we cannot always reward consumption without production; to do so creates what we see happening in the US today; an incentive not to work and an expectation to get something for nothing.
It is a balance for the Christian to give unconditionally, yet be aware that giving without consideration of consequences can hurt more than help. Jesus did feed the multitudes of people freely in Matthew 15, as the people had nothing to eat in over 3 days. However, he also worked with the Apostles in picking food to eat out of the fields and catching fish to eat, instead of simply providing food for them without their effort.
The situation between the crowd and His Apostles were a bit different. The crowd needed to eat; else some would die in their act of following Jesus. There was an immediate need and so Jesus provided for them food. The Apostles had the ability and the skills to obtain their food, and were able to provide for themselves. Jesus worked the fields and caught the fish right along with them. Had Jesus simply gave ‘free food’ to the Apostles, would they have followed Him for being Christ, or would they have followed Him for the free meals? The incentive to follow Jesus should not be what benefit we can get from Him, but what we can do for Him in furthering the cause of Christ in the world today.
