The Elder Brother

“Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours…but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.” – Luke 15.29-30

When it comes to having a relationship with God, we all face different obstacles. Some of us, overwhelmed by our inadequacies, are paralyzed with a sense of need; others of us do not recognize our need at all, and so sit in judgment over those whom we perceive to be our “inferiors.”

Christ addresses these obstacles in the parable which, though it is often referred to as that of the Prodigal Son, is in fact the story of two sons – one younger, one older – both of whom are lost and in need of reconciliation with their father.

Perhaps because we live in a culture which so prizes independence and ‘finding one’s own way,’ more attention has been given to the younger son. He is the quintessential sixties child, a sensualist in every respect, who only learns of his spiritual poverty through experimentation and self-indulgence. But the older son, whose false conception of his own goodness blinds him from the wretchedness of his spiritual condition, is just as guilty as his brother.

Let us, for a moment, imagine the setting in which, according to Luke, the parable is presented. Christ is speaking in some public place, perhaps out of doors, where, we are told, “all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him” (15.1). Observing this, (presumably because they were already present and listening to Jesus), the Pharisees and scribes become disgruntled, saying, “’this fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them’” (15.2). Thus Christ’s hearers, and metaphorically all people, may be divided into two, wholly antagonistic groups: the religious and nonreligious; adherers of the law and non-adherers; ‘sinners’ and ‘Pharisees.’

Christ undoubtedly sees all this and yet – notice how He responds. He does not become impatient or angry. Neither does he overtly accuse the sinners (of rebellion and profligacy) or the Pharisees (of hypocrisy and self-righteousness). Instead, he tells them all a story which dramatizes their behavior and thereby grants each group opportunity for self-revelation and growth.

And so the parable begins: “A man had two sons” (15.11).

If we look at the events of the story from the older brother’s perspective, it is fair to argue that he had a ‘right’ to be angry. First, his younger brother not only has the audacity to ask for his share of his inheritance while his father is still alive, but his father actually grants his son’s request and divides his property between them (15.12). Once he is in receipt of his wealth (a fact which no doubt requires him to sell off a substantial portion of the family land), the younger brother quickly abdicates his responsibilities as a son, and leaves his older brother to labor in the field, while he “squander[s] his estate with loose living” (15.13).

As far as the older brother can discern, his brother is not driven home by conscience, but necessity for “when he had spent everything a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be impoverished…so he got up and came to his father” (15.14, 20).

Moreover, in violation of all the laws of justice and decorum, it is the father who initiates the moment of reconciliation: For seeing his son from “a long way off” the father “ran and embraced him and kissed him” (15.20) – before his son had uttered a word of apology! When he does express remorse, his father makes no acknowledgment of it. Instead he orders the servants to fetch the finest robe, a ring and sandals; and then demands that the fattened calf – undoubtedly a prized possession during time of famine – be killed so that the household may give way to feasting.

Worst of all, perhaps, is the fact that all of this occurs while the older brother is working in the field; no one bothers to inform him of what has transpired; neither is he included in the festivities! Instead, he must make his own inquiries, by summoning a servant, after he returns to the house and hears the sound of celebration. Imagine, first, his heartache – then his shame and outrage!

Despite his father’s pleadings, he will not go into the party.

Was he not right to cast a critical eye toward his father and brother? Wasn’t his father acting just as foolishly now, by pardoning his son, as he had before? And how could he be sure that his brother hadn’t simply come home to take what he could and squander all the rest?

So the older brother grumbles, just as the Pharisees grumbled to Christ: “Look! You never gave me a goat nor let me celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property wiht prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!”

But rather than affirming his son in his grievance, the father attempts to re-orient his perspective by guiding his focus elsewhere - toward what he has been given. He reminds him that he is the privileged of the two. He has always been able to enjoy his father’s presence; and now he has all his wealth besides.

His father’s statement, “...all that is mine is yours” (15.31), is not merely a gesture of goodwill but a statement of fact: for whatever wealth now remains belongs to the older son. Thus the fate of the family lies in his hands: he must decide whether to accept his father’s pardon and be reconciled to his brother or reject them both.

Christ leaves us in suspense as to how the older son responds. One thing remains clear, however: everything depends upon how he comes to view himself. If as a victim, then he will seek vindication; but if a sinner, having been shown mercy, he will be merciful.