 |
Parable of The Lost Son |
|
|
Luke 15:11-32
11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:
12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
13 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.
14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Notes on Customs
According to Jewish law the division of inheritance would give a double portion to the eldest son and the remainder to the younger son (Deut. 21:17). However, the inheritance would not pass on until the death of the testator, the father. So the actions of the father to comply with the younger son’s request would have been unheard of. As long as he was alive all his goods were his property and not that of his sons. Presuming that there were only the two sons, the younger son’s portion would have been one third of all movable property. The younger son was entitled by law to his share of the possessions, although of course, he had no right to claim them during the lifetime of his father. This demand was heartless toward his father, for it meant to take away a third of the father’s living.
It must be noticed the fallen plight of the wasteful son was most terrible for any Jew to be subjected to. Swine are unclean animals and are to be avoided at all times. The ownership of swine was prohibited to Israelites under a curse. Yet in order for him to live he had the humiliating task to feed and tend these animals. For a Jew this is an unspeakable degradation.
The husks are the fruit of the carob tree. There is a Jewish saying: “ When Israel is reduced to the carob tress, they become repentant.” The fruit of the carob tree is regarded in Jewish and heathen literature as the poorest, and only fit for animals. It took seventy years before the tree bore fruit. Its fruit seems to have been the food of ascetics, and is believed that John the Baptist had eaten it in the wilderness. On occasion its leaves may have been used as writing materials.
The three orders of the father to the servants commanded them to bring the best robe, a ring and shoes. The bestowal of the best robe signifies a great honoring of the son. This custom was presented when a mark of significant distinction was given to those in high esteem. The ring was most likely to be a signet ring bearing the mark of the family and signifying family authority by the wearer (Gen 41:42). It would show to all that the owner of such a ring was in some way a part of that family. Evidently the son was barefoot. It was the custom for slaves to go about barefoot and as such the son would have had the appearance of a slave. Shoes were a luxury.
The fatted calf was a grain fed calf kept for special occasions of feasts. The calf was held in small stall, just large enough to contain it without its ability to move about. The purpose was that the calf being feed richly could not burn off its weight nor toughen its meat by exercise. Hence it is the fatted calf with its meat tender. This calf would only be killed and eaten for special feasts or for a highly honored guest. Abraham prepared such a meal when the Lord appeared unto him in Gen. 18:1-8. Also see 1 Sam. 28:24,25.
Language Notes
Verse 17, “he came to himself” is a term meaning he came to his right mind. Literally he regained his sanity.
Verses 17, and 24 use the words “perish” and “lost.” It is the same word and might be better translated as destroyed. Verse 17 he was being destroyed by hunger and verse 24 he had been destroyed. This young man’s life was destroyed by circumstances of his own making and the famine that followed.
Points of the Parable
Verse 13 pictures the young man as throwing his money away. When he had squandered all his substance he began to be destitute. He was perishing with hunger and no one had the kindness to give him food. Then he came to himself and began to see things as they really were. He regained his sanity and began to think clearly. This led to his change of mind. He had initially made his choice to take the path of ruin and destruction, which caused his loss to his father. Now by that same freedom of choice he decides to return. His point now is to confess his sin and give his repentance. He does not have it in him to claim food or clothing but humbly request to be allowed to earn them as a hired servant.
The actions of the father are the most remarkable feature of the entire parable. The very thought of giving into the request of the younger son is unbefitting, and yet he did it. The father was watching and looking for his son for he saw him when he was a great way off. His compassion caused him to run to him. This also would have been very undignified act and against all propriety. The proper conduct would have been for the father to stand and let the son come to him. In that way the respect of the elder and the proper posture is maintained. The father’s running, hugging and kissing him is a breach of tradition and unbecoming a man of his age and position. As one author observed, “No older, self-respecting Middle Eastern male head of an estate would have disgraced himself by this undignified action.” But, he was compelled to do so because of his extreme love and joy. The love of this man is seen in all that he does. The order to the servants to bring the best robe, the ring and shoes shows how the father has received him back into the family and as a son, alive once again. The prized fatted calf was sacrificed and a feast of celebration was made with dancing and music. The last demonstration of the father’s love is seen in his meeting with the elder son. Once again he goes out to meet a son. Would it not have been more proper for him to let the sulking elder son alone until he was ready to come to the house when his pouting was over? But, he did not. He went out to reason with him. What he had to say were not words of rebuke but words of reason and they were spoken very tenderly. He calls him my child. He reassures him that his love for him is always with him. He also reminds him that all that he has now belongs to him. The father puts the question to him, “Is this not the right thing for us to do?” He is saying to him that his brother was dead and now alive, was lost and now found, should we not celebrate this joy of recovery? The manner in which it is put to him is meant to cause him to see how wrong he is in only thinking about himself and his cruelly condemning both his brother and father.
The elder brother is a hard working, obedient and faithful son. But, he just could not condone the actions of his wayward brother or the fact that his father was so quick and overwhelmingly eager to receive him back. When he hears the music from the house he does not investigate but asks a servant what was the reason. Learning of what his father had done he became angry. The remark of addressing his brother as his father’s son shows no pity. He could not see the joy of the occasion. No doubt from his point of view he was justly hurt. His father had never provided him with making merry, and he believed he was deserving of this attention more than his brother. It is true that it is a selfish point of view but it is understandable given man’s nature. But the extent of his bitterness is unjustified. The father explains to him that this is a befitting celebration for the moment, and goes on to reassure his love and appreciation for him.
A key point of the story is that Jesus did not finish it. He left it in suspense. Did the elder son ever join the celebration? Did he soften his attitude toward his brother? This must have played on the thoughts of the hearers. We would think that the lesson of the parable lingered in their minds.
Various Interpretations
The parable of the two sons is generally interpreted in one of two ways. These are presented as others have interpreted them.
| |
1) Some say it represents the sinner who turns from the Savior at the age of accountability, goes out into the world to live for some indefinite period of time, returns to the Father, and by repentance and faith receives salvation. The father represents God and what would be His typical response. The elder son represents the scribes and Pharisees mentioned in verse 2 of this chapter. The point of the parable is to further justify Christ’s actions of receiving sinners and to condemn the attitude of His critics.
| |
(A reply to this view. Those who disagree with this opinion expose the problem of the relation of the younger son and the father. The younger son had been a part of the father’s house and even in his wanton rioting he was still his son. This hardly pictures a lost sinner.)
| |
2) The parable is interpreted in another manner in which it is said that the prodigal son is a backslidden saved person who awakes from his self-alienated and degraded condition and returns to the Father.
| |
(This sounds somewhat better than the first application, but the elder son still gives problems with this interpretation. Who does he represent? Who has ever heard of church folk becoming offended at the return of a backslidden church member to the fold of God and fellowship with other saints? There is usually rejoicing with exceeding joy.)
| |
3) The elder son, unquestionably, represents the Jewish nation. Of this there need be no doubt with God’s word before us. Israel, as the first-born nation, is the elder son, begotten by God when he made the covenant with Abraham, and called Israel out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses. The elder brother is the nation of Israel, and as Jesus told him, “thou art ever with me,” (verse 31) and as his peculiar people and chosen nation, he could truly say, “all that I have is thine,” (verse 31) for to the Jews pertain the privileges of God as his chosen People. This makes the younger son to be Gentiles.
| |
4) By far the most common of the allegories made are as follows. The lost son depicts those in verse 1, the publicans and sinners, and as such all who are lost. The Father is God. The elder son the scribes and Pharisees. In this we have the wretched condition of the lost, the great love of God in receiving them and the condemnation of the hard hearted self-righteous.
|
| | | | |
The Interpretation
Some say it is impossible to explain this parable without resorting to allegories. Which is saying the three main charters must each have a counterpart representation. But is this true? I realize that to say the action of a character in a story is typical of the actions of another may be viewed as allegorizing. But this is not saying that the character stands in place of or represents another. In this parable there are problems in trying to allegorize the three.
| |
1) If the younger son represents the lost, how can it be then that he previously had a son-father relation with God? This son lived in his father house and enjoyed all the benefits of “sonship.” But, before salvation there is no intimate relation between the lost and God, only enmity. The lost coming to God are meeting God for the first time in their life. When a repentant sinner turns to God, he is not returning to God. We, who are now saved, all came to God as to the Savior and afterward enter into a child-Father relation. Further the lost have no inheritance from God
| |
2) If the younger son stands for backslidden children of God then he could have an inheritance to squander. He also does enjoy a child-Father relation with God. But this interpretation does not fit the sense of the parable considering the cruel attitude of the other child of God, his older brother.
| |
3) The allegory of the father standing for “God the Father” has the strongest argument of representation. The reason is because of his actions. But if this natural father’s relation with his sons cannot be brought into line with that of God the Father’s then he cannot be an accurate counterpart of God. What is vividly picture by the father in the story are his actions of tender love, his yearning and readiness to forgive. The father’s love and patience is seen in his dealing with both his sons.
| |
4) The elder son is said to represent either one of two groups people.
|
| | |
| |
a. 1st is that he represents the scribes and Pharisees, who can hardly be considered as saved. Yet the elder son is indeed a son. The father reminds him that all that he possesses belongs to him. But if the scribes and Pharisees are lost they have no child-Father relation or any heavenly inheritance. Certainly it could not be said of them that they faithfully served God and have not transgressed His commandments. In the story the father did not dispute the elder son’s claim of faithfulness. So it is apparent that his claim is true.
| |
b. 2nd is that he represents; some at least, saved people. If the allegories are used, this view has the most justification of being true and would be forced. But is it true to fact? It could be supposed that there are saved people who are repulsed by the idea of God giving lavish honor to the backslidden while their own faithfulness seems to be ignored by Him. But this kind of bitterness on the part of a fellow brother is an extreme example. His actions are not typical of the conduct of God’s children who have faithfully served Him many years. Can anyone serve God and hate his brother (see 1 John 3:15).
|
|
| |
5) It is interesting how those who love the allegory seem to totally ignore the servants of the household, the foreign citizen, and even the fatted calf.
|
The whole point of the parable is that of love. God can be seen through the actions and conduct of the father of the two sons. God loves without limit. He loves tenderly and patiently. The welcome of the Father is coupled with great joy, even to the point of celebration. There is no recrimination of the past life squandered but the simple open reception. It matters not if in this story the younger son was lost or backslidden, the point is the establishment or reestablishment of fellowship and relationship. God gives far beyond what is expected. The parable describes with touching simplicity what God is like, His goodness, His grace, His boundless mercy, and His abounding love.
The Application
By the fact that Jesus did not bring the parable to a conclusion causes us to ponder how we relate to the story. How do we see ourselves in the story, how do we compare ourselves to the characters? Those who heard must have thought about this. Apparently Christ had this in mind as He told the story. He wants them (and us) to think! He is challenging all of us! He wants us to question ourselves! Am I as the lost son? Are my actions typical of the elder son? Neither son gives a perfect model to be followed. With whom then should I relate? Of course, it is the father. If we are God’s children then we should behave in the same manner as He. We cannot love to the same extent as God but we should have the same quality of love. But, if we do see ourselves as one of the sons, even if only partially, we should then rush to our Lord in full repentance. This is a story that needs to told and retold and shared with all.
|
|
Next: Parable of The Rich Fool |
This page last updated October 4, 2004 at 2:43pm
|
|
