THE PRODIGAL SON: PART 1 (LUKE 15:11-24)

Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) 

Trench in his book on the parables calls this “the pearl and crown of all the parables of Scripture...The Gospel within the Gospel.” Robert Bridges calls it “an absolutely flawless piece of work,” and others label it as the most beautiful short story ever told. Snodgrass says, “The parable itself is relatively straightforward. What scholars often do to the parable is not.” So let's start by rejecting some proposed approaches to this parable:

1. Since this is the longest of Jesus' parables, even modern commentators can't resist the temptation to allegorize it. For example, Osborne (Spiral 310) cites the example of N. T. Wright who says that it is the story of Israel going into exile in a foreign land. Israel must repent and return to God. But the older brother (the Samaritans) are standing in their way. By contrast, others actually feel that Jesus is the younger son who leaves the Father (The Incarnation) and then returns to him (The Resurrection).
2. Islamic scholars make another crucial mistake by saying that since there is no atoning sacrifice mentioned in the story, that teaches that God merely requires of a person that he repent. The problem, of course, is that parables do not pretend to present a complete theological teaching on any subject. (DOJ)
3. Augustine took the younger son to stand for the Gentiles and the older son to represent the Jews.
4. One psychological approach views the father in a negative light and feels that the return of the younger son is a tragic conclusion since it retards the son's development.
5. A Freudian interpretation treats the three major characters in the parable as standing for the id, superego, and the ego.
6. Sociological approaches deal with issues of honor, shame, and reconciliation with the whole community rather than issues of right and wrong. As Snodgrass says, “those who take this approach, “become more intrigued with the culture than with the parable, more with what is not there than with what is.”
7. Feminist scholars complain that there is no mother in this parable. And one even accuses the father of sexually abusing his sons.

And in interpreting parables, sometimes we beg the question by the (non-biblical) title we give them.

Prodigal Son (one who spends his money lavishly and foolishly, a spendthrift.) This title leads one to concentrate on foolish behavior of the younger son, how we should be wiser with our money or we will have a miserable life. This is the interpretation I had heard the most in growing up.

Some more appropriate titles might lead better lead us to the real emphasis in the story:

1. Parable of the Lost Son does better justice to the context of the rest of the chapter: three stories involving lost items.

2. Parable of the Two Sons recognizes that, unlike the first two parables in the series, there is equal emphasis on the non-lost item.

3. Parable of the Loving Father gets to the heart of the matter and best addresses the concern of the Pharisees in verses 1-2.

4. The three “lost” parables or the three parables of joy are also appropriate titles due to the similar refrains that end each one: “Rejoice with me because X was lost and has been found.”

“Which of the three characters is the central figure is an unnecessary question, for the parable needs all three to accomplish its goals.” (Snodgrass)

Kenneth E. Bailey ( Finding the Lost: Cultural Keys to Luke 15) says that there are fourteen points we need to take into account in reading it. I will reference his somewhat unusual ideas as we go through the story and compare them to what other commentators have to say. Bailey was a missionary who served in poor villages in the Near East for some years and based many of his ideas on customs he observed there. The problem with some of his suggestions is that he assumes that customs still going on in this region have been basically unchanged over the last 2,000 years.

Verses 11-12: The son's request is really the equivalent of saying to the father, “I am eager for you to die.”

Verse 12: The son was not married so he was probably about 20 years old. As a younger son, he would have received 1/3 of the estate at the father's death, but some scholars feel that he forfeited much of it by settling early, getting only about 1/5 of the estate instead (like taking Social Security at age 62.)

What was the root of the younger son's problem? The desire to be free of the restraints of his father and be self-sufficient. What do you think of the father's decision to give in to the son's request? Wasn't it unwise? What does this say about God? See Romans 1:22-24 about God "giving them up." God's act was not necessarily an act of hatred and judgment since it might eventually lead to their repentance. This might be similar to excommunication of an unbeliever from the congregation so that their soul might be saved. (I Corinthians 15:5; I Timothy 1:20).

In contrast to Bailey's contention, others note about this son's behavior that he was at least polite to his father, unlike the older son's attitude later in the story. Notice that the father bent over backward to be fair in that he appears to have given the older son his share also at this time. However, this appears not to be the case since he is still clearly in charge of the farm at the end of the story.

Verse 13a-b: Bailey assumes that the prodigal is obligated to sell quickly (“A few days later”) and get out of town due to the probable anger in the village that would have resulted.  Allowing the son to actually sell his part of the property (“he turned it into cash” – NEB) before the father's death went against the Jewish law of the first century for the division of an inheritance. It would have meant public disgrace for the whole family.

Verse 13c: Most translations falsely accuse him of engaging in some sort of sinful living. The text just says that he was a spendthrift despite the older son's later, and perhaps groundless, accusation that he spent the money on prostitutes. Note the contrast between gathering and scattering.

From the Jerusalem Talmud of the time, there was a method of punishing any boy who lost the family inheritance to Gentiles. It was called the qetsatsah ceremony. If he returned to the village, the villagers would bring a large jar of burned nuts and corn and break it in front of him while shouting “So-and-so is cut off from his people.” This was a ban against any contact with him whatsoever.

Verse 14: One hundred North American students were given this parable to read and then asked to retell it from memory. Only six mentioned the famine. By contrast, 42 of 50 Russian readers mentioned the famine. Why don't we interpret catastrophe in our circumstances as God's grace rather than His retribution?

In the OT, famines were looked on as a direct action of God to effect a desired result. Think of the famine that begins events in the Book of Ruth that will eventually lead to the line of the Messiah. Also, the famine that brought Joseph to power in Egypt and moved his family there. The only difference in this case is that the famine triggers a movement toward home, not away from it as in the other cases.

Verse 15: The Talmud teaches: “Cursed is the man who raises swine or who teaches his son Greek philosophy.” Trench points out that those who begin by treating the world as their servant end up being its slave. Another way of putting it is that those who attempt to be free by throwing off all restraints, end up being slaves.

Verse 16: Pods of the carob tree, also called St. John's Bread since he was believed to have eaten them, were actually eaten by the poorer people of the time if they couldn't get anything else. C. S. Lewis says that physical sins make one closer to an animal than a human, but “spiritual” sins (as we will see with the older son) make one closer to a demon. His “friends” had deserted him. It says in Proverbs 14:20: “The poor man is an offense even to his neighbors, but the rich man has many friends.” This is not the way it should be, but often is.

Verse 17a: “He came to himself” (other translations?) Trench – “Coming to oneself is equivalent to coming to God.” F. Dale Bruner – “On the whole, the self does not get a good press in the New Testament. We are told to deny ourselves; the person who seeks his self will lose it; the person who loses his self will find it. But this is one of those few texts indicating that when we consult our self, we are only one step from God.” Often a low point in our life has to be reached before we turn to God. The sone did not even compare himself to his father's servants, but to his part-time hired helpers. There were three classes of servants. First bondmen, next servants, and the lowest class was hired servants given work for special occasions, somewhat like day laborers or migrant workers. How many of us would have been held back by pride and refuse to admit our failure in front of our father and brother?

Then there is Bailey's rather controversial take on this statement. He notes that this phrase is translated in various Arabic versions as “He got smart,” “He took an interest in himself,” or “He thought to himself.” None of these indicate any repentance on his part. And his planned “confession” is actually a quote from Pharaoh when he was trying to manipulate Moses: “I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you.” (Exodus 10:16) In Bailey's mind, this indicates that the son wasn't at all sincere. 

Snodgrass feels that this point would have been way too subtle for the audience to have grasped. However, in Bailey's defense, looking at the few other times in the OT that anyone admitted sinning against another person, they only include Saul apologizing to Samuel (I Samuel 15:24) and then to David (I Samuel 26:21), and Shimei apologizing to David (II Samuel 15:24). Saul immediately went back on his word in both cases, and Shimei obviously had a change of heart only out of fear because David was back in power.

Verse 17b: This leads to Bailey's equally controversial point: The younger son's need for cash is to avoid the ceremony described above. However, swineherds are only paid with food, not money. His second option is to use his father's backing to get training as a servant to eventually earn his money back by working for another farmer. Augustine and Pelagius debated this text. Pelagius said it was the son's actions that triggered his salvation while Augustine said that it was the son's good memories of his father's behavior that initiated it. Notice that neither one mentions repentance on the son's part.

Verse 18: Back to the majority interpretation: I have sinned against heaven (i.e., God) and before you (Different words in the Greek; NIV is not the best translation here). He was not merely guilty of a victimless crime; he came to the realization that one's unthinking and selfish actions affect those around you and God. Trench points out that, like David, we may injure others but it is only God that we can sin against. Discuss?

Verse 19: “When we confess our sins, he is faithful, he is just, he will forgive us our sins, cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (I John 1:9)

Verse 20a: Bailey says that the father anticipates the son's failure and that the only way he can prevent the qetsatsah ceremony is if he heads off the son before the villagers see him and then publicly reconciles with him. After that, the villagers would be reluctant to shame him.

The father sees him when he is far off. “The 'great distance' is more spiritual than it is physical. If the Prodigal thinks he can earn money and with it solve the problem of their relationship, he is yet very far away! The language is borrowed from Isaiah 57:19, where God affirms peace to those who are 'far off.'” The Greek word for “a long way off” is the same one used earlier as a “far” country. God seeks us out no matter how far we have strayed.

Verse 20b: Repentance only comes at this point when his father runs to him in an undignified manner, which would have been considered disgraceful for a respected man in the community. And then the father takes on the form of a servant before the son has a chance to finish his rehearsed speech. In his actions, the father actually behaves more like a mother of the time was expected to behave in similar circumstances. God the Father is also described in the OT as one who acts with the tender compassion of a mother. At this point, the father becomes Jesus himself who not only eats with sinners (Luke 15:2) but gets down on his knees and showers kisses on them.

Verse 21: One interpretation is that the father doesn't interrupt the speech before the son has finished, but the speech now means something real to the son. He gives the first two-thirds of it but stops before going into his scheme for working his way back into the father's good graces.

Verses 22-24: “But,” not “thus.” The father's acceptance is not dependent on son's repentance. Contrast this with the OT law regarding publicly renouncing and then stoning a rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). “ I am no longer worthy”—the son spoke the truth, but father responded in mercy not judgment. Notice that the father did not say anything to his son at all, but he demonstrated his love by his actions alone.

A robe was for feast days, not worn when working (contrast the older brother who was out working in the field). The ring was a symbol of authority, and sandals were not worn by servants (Even guests in a house took off their sandals while only the master wore his.) —All of this indicates that father was restoring him to full status in the family. The robe could be construed as the clothing of righteousness covering his sins, as in Garden of Eden. God's people are promised new robes in heaven (Revelation 6:11).