“And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.” Like 15:13
Reading the parable of the prodigal son again today, this passage jumped out at me, particularly the “wasted his substance on riotous living” portion. My on-line dictionary defines “riotous living” as “given to or marked by unrestrained revelry; loose; wanton.” Jesus could have, instead, said that the younger son “made some bad decisions” or “ran into a streak of bad luck” or “was taken advantage of by some unscrupulous conduct.” With the use of those words it would have been much more difficult to be judgmental as to the younger son. As it is, we can all roundly condemn the younger son for his “riotous living” and, as the older son puts it later, devouring his father’s money with harlots. We can feel righteous and smug in thinking that the younger son “got what he deserved.”
But then it occurs to me that this all misses the point. I am reminded of something C. S. Lewis wrote to the effect that before we toss out the life preserver, we shouldn’t ask the drowning man how it is he came to be in the water. The manner in which the younger son “wasted his substance” is merely a footnote, an ancillary fact in this parable. The point to the story is that ultimately, he came to his senses, recognized his errors, swallowed his pride, and headed back home, where his father joyously greeted him. But of course, the father would have taken him back had he only made some bad decisions or run into a streak of bad luck or been taken advantage of by some unscrupulous conduct. No riotous living required. The father was and is there waiting on the return, no matter how or why the younger son screwed up.
It occurs to me... 