The Parable of the Prodigal Son

There is no parable or saying of Jesus which is quite as well known and as familiar as the parable of the prodigal son. No parable is quite so frequently quoted in religious discussions, or made use of in order to support various theories and contentions with respect to these matters. All schools of thought seem to claim a right to it; it is held to prove which are mutually destructive and which exclude one another. It is quite clear, therefore, that the parable can be easily and readily mishandled and misinterpreted. How can we avoid that danger? What are the principles that should guide us as we come to interpret it? It seems to me that there are two fundamental principles which must be observed and which, if observed, will guarantee a correct interpretation.

The first is that we must always be aware of interpreting any portion of Scripture in such a manner as to come into conflict with the general teaching of scripture elsewhere. The NT must be approached as a whole. It is a complete and entire revelation given by God through His servants; a revelation which has been revealed in parts and sections, all of which go together to make a complete whole. There are obviously, therefore, no contradictions between these various parts, no clashes, no irreconcilable passages and statements. The is not to say that we an understand every single statement. What we should say is that there are NO contradictions in Scripture. To suggest that the teachings of Christ Jesus and Paul, or the teachings of Paul and the other apostles, do not agree is subversive of the entire claim of the New Testament itself and of the claim of the church for it throughout the centuries, until the rise of the so-called higher-critical school some hundred years ago. I don’t want to get into that this morning. Let it suffice to say that it is only the more superficial critics, who are by now many years behind the times, who still try to make and force an antithesis between what they call “the religion of Jesus” and the “faith of St. Paul.” Scripture is to be compared to Scripture. Every theory we evolve must be tested by the solid body of doctrine and dogma which is to be found in the entire Bible and which has been defined by the church. Were this simple rule remembered, the vast majority of the heresies would never have arisen.

The second rule is a little more particular. It is that we should always avoid the danger of drawing any negative conclusions from the teaching of a parable. This applies not only to this particular parable, but to all parables. A parable is never meant to be a full outline of truth. Its business is to convey one great lesson, to present one big aspect of positive truth. That being its object and purpose, nothing is so foolish as to draw negative conclusions from it. That certain things are not said in the parable means nothing. A parable is important, and matters only, not from the point of view of what it does not say, but from the point of view of what it does say. Its value is entirely and exclusively positive and in no respect negative. Now I suggest to you that the failure to remember that simple rule has been responsible for most of the strange and fantastic theories and ideas which have been propounded supposedly on the basis of the parable of the prodigal son. That this should have been possible at all is surely astonishing for if those who have done this had only looked at the two other parables which are in the same chapter, they would have seen at once how unjustifiable was their procedure. Why not draw negative conclusions from those also? And so with ALL parables?

But apart from that, how utterly ridiculous and illogical it is to base and found your system of doctrine upon what is not said. How dishonest it is! For it does away with all authority and leaves you with no standard except your own desire and your own imagination. Now that, I say, i what has been done so frequently with this parables. Let me illustrate that by reminding you of some of the false conclusions that have been drawn from it. Is this not the parable to which they constantly refer who try to prove that ideas of justice and judgment and wrath are utterly and entirely foreign to God’s nature and to Jesus’ teaching concerning Him? “There is nothing here,” they say, ‘of the father’s wrath, nor the father’s demands for certain actions on the part of the son—just love, pure love, nothing but love.” This is a typical example of a negative conclusion drawn from the parable. Because it does not positively teach the justice and the wrath of God, we are told that such qualities do not belong to God at all. That Christ Jesus, elsewhere emphasizes these qualities is of course also completely and entirely ignored.

Another example is the way in which we are told that this parable does away with the absolute necessity for repentance. I’ve heard preachers who tried to prove that the prodigal was a humbug even when he returned home. He stated something like this… “the prodigal had decided to say something which sounded right, though he did not believe it at all, and in order to impress his father—that his exact repetition of the words proves the case. The ultimate point is that in spite of this, in spite of a sham repetition, in spite of all, the father forgave. The final clinching argument of this preacher was that the father said nothing about repentance. Therefore, because he said nothing, it doesn’t matter; because repentance is not taught and impressed upon the son by the father, repentance toward God does not matter!?!?!?

But perhaps the most serious of all the false conclusions is that which tells us that no mediator between God and man is necessary, and that the idea of atonement is foreign to the Gospel and is to bet attributed to the legalistic mind of Paul. “There is no mention in the parable,” they say, “of anyone coming between the father and the son. There is no talk at all about another paying a ransom, r making an atonement; just the direct dealing between father and son conditioned solely upon the son’s return from the far country.” Because those things are not specifically mentioned and stressed in the parable, it is agreed that they do not count at all and really do not matter. As if our Lord’s object in the parable was to give a complete outline of the whole of the Christian truth and not just to teach one aspect of the truth. Surely, it must be obvious to your that if a similar procedure were adopted in the case of all parables, the position would be utterly chaotic and we should be faced with a mass of contradictions

The business of a parable then is to present to us and to teach us one great positive truth. And if ever that should be clear and self-evident, it is in this particular case. It is no mere accident that this parable is one of three parables. Jesus seems to have gone out of His way to protect us against the very danger to which I have been referring. But apart even from that, the key to the whole situation is provided in the first two verses of the chapter which provide us with the essential background and context. “Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured saying “This man receives sinners, and eats with them.” then follow these three parables, obviously dealing with that precise situation and obviously meant to reply to the murmurings of the Pharisees and Scribes. And, as if to reinforce it still further, Jesus draws a certain moral or conclusion at the end of each parables. The great point, surely, is that there is hope for all, that God’s love extends even to the publicans and sinners. The glorious truth that shines out in these parables, and which is meant to be impressed upon us, is that amazing love of God, its scope and its reach, and especially by way of contrast to the ideas of the Pharisees and scribes on that subject.

The first two parables are designed to impress upon us the love of God as an activity which seeks out the sinner that takes infinite trouble in order to find him and rescue him, and to show the joy of God and all the host of heaven when even one soul is saved. An then comes this parable of the prodigal son. Why this addition? Why the greater elaboration? Why a man, rather than a sheep or a lost coin? Surely there can be but one answer. As the first two parables have stressed God’s activity alone without telling us anything about the actions or reactions or condition of the sinner, so this parable is spoken to impress that aspect and that side of the matter, lest anyone should be so foolish as to think that we should all be automatically saved by God’s love even as the sheep and the lost coin were found. The great outstanding point is still the same, but its application is made more direct and more personal. What, then, is the teaching of this parable? What is its message to us this morning? Let us look at it along the following lines.

The Possibility of a New Beginning

The first truth it proclaims is the possibility of a new beginning, the possibility of a new start, a new opportunity, another chance. The very context and setting of the parable, as we’ve already looked at, show this perfectly. It was because they had sensed and seen this in His teaching that the publicans and sinners drew “nigh unto Him for to hear Him.” They felt that there was a chance even for them, that in this man’s teaching there was a new and a fresh hope. And even the Pharisees and Scribes saw precisely the same thing.

What annoyed them was that Jesus should have had anything at all to do with publicans and sinners. They had regarded such people as being utterly and entirely beyond If you have any ideas about what passages of Scripture or topics would be good to preach, let me know as I begin to finalize next year’s sermon plan.