1 Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. 2 And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.” 3 So he told them this parable: … 11b “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the wealth that will belong to me.’ So he divided his assets between them. 13 A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and traveled to a distant region, and there he squandered his wealth in dissolute living. 14 When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that region, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that region, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. 16 He would gladly have filled his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, and no one gave him anything. 17 But when he came to his senses he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! 18 I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.”‘ 20 So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. 21 Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly, bring out a robe–the best one–and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate, 24 for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!’ And they began to celebrate. 25 “Now his elder son was in the field, and as he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. 27 He replied, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf because he has got him back safe and sound.’ 28 Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command, yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your assets with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!’ 31 Then the father said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.'”
Luke 15:1-3, 11b-32 (NRSVue)
One of the most overheard and over-read stories in the Bible is ‘the parable of the prodigal and his brother’ (as titled by the NRSV Anglicised version) from Luke’s gospel. One of the fond memories of this parable for me is when we enacted it at our local Sunday School event, where I played the role of a pig whose fodder the ‘lost prodigal son’ comes and eats in the context of famine and hunger. Little did I understand then that this ‘lost prodigal son’ lived a deathly life in hunger as a foreigner, as an outsider in a strange land. Returning to his father’s place, he came back to a lively life of feasting and celebration. But I was too busy getting my act as a pig in a piggery right then to understand these dynamics.
I read this parable from a Dalit theological perspective and recognise the words of the generous father. He mentions twice the reason for celebrating a feast with his younger son on his return. First, the father told his servants to prepare the feast and said, “for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!” (15:24a). The second time the father mentions these words are in persuading the elder son who was angry and was refusing to join the feast, saying, “…because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found” (15:32).
The words ‘being dead and come alive’ in the parable resonate deeply with the Dalit theological understanding of liberation which comes realistically, where coming alive is experienced here and now. Liberation as coming alive comes in material, for when the younger son on his return was received into his father’s house, it is celebrated with material gifts of a best robe, a ring, a pair of sandals and a beef feast for all. Liberation as coming alive is salvific, for the younger son ‘comes to his own senses’ where he is met by the grace of God, recognising an agency in his very broken self.
In the parable, the younger son’s coming alive is a kairos moment of resurrection, where it is celebrated in the feast with family and friends, all in the flesh and blood of the here and now. ‘Being dead and coming alive’ performs a political theological pivot of this parable, for it opens the practical/political/public meaning of resurrection, where new life of an old/dead self is returned, affirmed and celebrated. In such a context, I would title this story ‘the parable of the come alive son’ over ‘the parable of the prodigal son.’ This interpretation emphasizes the experience of new life in the embrace of the divine here and now, offering a decolonial theology of resurrection.
A colonial understanding of resurrection has only associated it with life after death, whereas a decolonial Dalit theology engages with new life experiences by breaking the grounds of death here and now, in life before death. To put in other words, the episteme of coloniality has caused people (particularly Christians) to argue about resurrection of the dead as an after-life event, debating whether it is a bodily resurrection or a spirit resurrection, but making no connections to the realities of life here and now. By such arguments, resurrection becomes a static event, an event of the past with a hope in the future, but with no reference or relevance of it in the present, here and now.
A Dalit theological understanding emphasizes resurrection’s meaning, relevance and purpose in the present and for present living situations. It acknowledges that the God of ‘the parable of the come alive son’ is a God of Dalits who accepts, affirms and celebrates new life here and now. Liberation for Dalit theology is ontological and deeply praxiological.
Jesus’ ‘parable of the come alive son’ is a theological case in point to such a perspective. Jesus was risen from the dead as the first fruit of resurrection here and now, in his own time and context. Similarly, this parable hints at the meaning and relevance of resurrection in the coming alive of this younger son who was lost and found. We also need to recognise that the concept of resurrection was not a new thing in the first century Jewish context—however Jesus decolonises it by emphasizing its meaning for here and now, both in the parable and in his own resurrection. Therefore, through this parable Jesus opens a new understanding of a new life experience right in the present life and offers a political theology of resurrection that offers hope in the flesh and blood of the now and here.
To understand the parable of the coming alive son, the son who was dead and has come alive, allow me to present the death/dying moments of the younger son and then recount the coming alive moments of this son. I recognize the first dying moment when the younger son demanded that his father share the estate that is coming to him. Does the younger son have a right to demand a share of his father’s estate? Such a demand conveys that the younger son is initiating to break a living bond with his father and the family. That disconnect with his father informs the beginning of his dying life. For a connected and a living relationship with the father was life-giving and life-affirming to the sons. The generous, gracious father accepts the demand and divides the property and gives a share to the younger son.
The second dying moment of the younger son was when he squandered his property in reckless living in a foreign land. The dying moments of the younger son were not about his moral living (who are we to judge him?), but in his irresponsible and insensitive living and his spending of the father’s property. An irresponsible and an insensitive living on God’s land with no relation to the other creatures around is indeed a kind of death. In this incident, the dying moment of the younger son is that he is full of “I, me and myself,” so self-centered and living an ‘un-ubuntu’ way of life.
The third dying moment for the younger son was when he had to hire himself out to care for the pigs and eat the fodder of the pigs, as no one gave him anything. This for him was an ultimate death. Suddenly, he became homeless, jobless, foodless, unwanted and unloved. Though he was living, he was also dead. He was dehumanized to the core. His self was battered, his psyche was wounded, and his life was denied. These three moments explain the context of dying and being dead for the younger son.
Having noticed the dying moments of this younger son, allow me to explain the ‘come alive’ moments in the parable, which offer a new perspective of resurrection.
The first marker of the younger son coming alive was when ‘he came to himself’ after those dying moments (15:17). In all the above-mentioned dying moments of the parable, what we gather is that the younger son was not himself. Getting to know oneself, coming back to one’s senses and rediscovering oneself, is the first marker of a new life experience that we notice in the life of the younger son. The moment of Grace is in affirming the agency of the self, for ‘he came to himself,’ without being patronised by any other external agencies. For in the context of oppression the oppressed communities standing up for themselves and beginning to struggle for justice is empowering and life-affirming. Resurrection begins in affirming the self-agency of the crucified communities to know themselves and to rise up for justice.
The second marker for coming alive was when he reconnected in his thought with his father’s house, where there was more than enough bread for all. The younger son in a distant land, when he was dying of hunger, thinks of his father’s house, his memory cannot but think of the plentitude of food the workers enjoyed there (15:17). The house of his father was an inclusive, life-affirming community where there was equal food for all at that house. No matter what the identity of a person is, what the work of a person is, if they are at the father’s house, whether hired ones, temporary workers, permanent workers, day labourers, his own sons and even himself, all had the privilege of enjoying food, which was served equally and justly. Probably whatever the father and his son ate, so was it for those hired hands in that house. No discrimination, no exclusion, no barriers, no boundaries, no gaps and no individualism, the bread was enough and was even to spare for all those working at that house. Resurrection’s journey establishes in reconnecting with the outrageous love of the divine in God’s house for all.
The third marker of the younger son coming alive was in returning to the father’s house (15:20a). The rediscovery of himself and the recollection of the plentitude at his father’s house gave him courage to face his father. The coming alive moment for the younger son came when he came to terms to say to his father that he had sinned against him and against heaven, no longer worthy to be the father’s son. Jesus recounts these words twice (15:18, 21) to emphasise the significance of dying and coming alive, rediscovering one’s self in the light of truth and grace. Rediscovering one’s self, reconnecting to God’s love, and returning to God’s house leads the way for coming alive experience, resurrection here and now.
The real ‘easter’ moment, the practical resurrection moment, comes alive in this parable when the father reaches out to receive and celebrate his return with a feast. The new life experience which is through the reception into the father’s house comes with a robe, a ring, and a pair of shoes to symbolize a renewed covenant of new life. The father, on seeing his younger son coming from a distant country in hunger, addressed his hunger by ordering a grand feast to eat and celebrate (15:23). Even though the son has asked for forgiveness and expressed his unworthiness, there is no record of pronouncing an ‘absolution’ to the younger son. Rather, the father addressed the hunger of his son. Or to put it another way, a reception into a new life experience is expressed in eating together, in celebrating together, which is a true ‘absolution’ in this case.
So, what is the relevance of this reflection for our contexts today? The politics of being dead and coming alive is about receiving the hungry, the poor, the homeless, the foreigner, the stranger, the unwanted, the unloved, and the dying into the embrace of God’s house by offering compassion, care, safety, protection, hospitality, shelter, love, and food. The parable calls us to receive people with no judgements, accept them as they are and get busy in providing clothing, providing safety, and feeding the hungry. By such acts, the meaning of resurrection comes alive. New life experiences are affirmed and celebrated.
In a recent verdict in India on the ‘honour killing’ of a Dalit boy who was murdered by a dominant caste family for falling in love with a girl from their family, the judge pronounced capital punishment and life imprisonment sentences to the accused. In such a context, the relevance of this parable of the coming alive son is about seeking justice for the deceased’s family who have lost a son, a husband, and a father—just because he loved and married a dominant caste girl.
Graham Adams explains that “Resurrection is not the solution, fixing the cracks in the System, restoring order in a world of chaos. Rather, it is a crack in a world of order; it is the fracture in the glass. The tear in the veil, the earth-quake event, destabilizing life as we know it” (207). This is the relevance of the parable of the coming alive son, for it is a crack in the understanding of resurrection as life after death. It is about seeking the meaning of life in the contexts of death all around. This parable destabilizes life as we know it, for there are several dying moments around us. But in the coming to senses of the divine embrace around, within, and amidst us, it shakes our complacency and offers new life experiences.
As John Dominic Crossan has said, “Easter never happened; Easter always happens” (132). Resurrection always happens, and coming alive from situations of death is a possibility and a reality in our lives in our midst. Resurrection happens now and here, let’s celebrate and feast.
