Prodigal Grace
Intro:
Thus far my favorite description of the greatness of God’s love is that given by A. W. Tozer in his book Knowledge of the Holy: “… because God is self-existent, His love had no beginning; because He is eternal, His love can have no end; because He is infinite, it has no limit; because He is holy, it is the quintessence of all spotless purity; because He is immense, His love is an incomprehensibly vast, bottomless, shoreless sea.”
C.S. Lewis wrote, “Joy is the serious business of heaven,”
The sheep was lost because of foolishness.
When a Jewish girl married, she began to wear a headband of ten silver coins to signify that she was now a wife. It was the Jewish version of our modern wedding ring, and it would be considered a calamity for her to lose one of those coins. Palestinian houses were dark, so she had to light a lamp and search until she found the lost coin; and we can imagine her joy at finding it.
We call this story “The Parable of the Prodigal Son” (the word prodigal means “wasteful”), but it could also be called “The Parable of the Loving Father,” for it emphasizes the graciousness of the father more than the sinfulness of the son.
We call this story “The Parable of the Prodigal Son” (the word prodigal means “wasteful”), but it could also be called “The Parable of the Loving Father,” for it emphasizes the graciousness of the father more than the sinfulness of the son.
Lost sinners came to Jesus, not because He catered to them or compromised His message, but because He cared for them. He understood their needs and tried to help them, while the Pharisees criticized them and kept their distance (see Luke 18:9–14).
Other Jewish teachers stressed God’s forgiveness for the repentant, but did not stress God’s seeking sinners out.
The relative value of the lost item increases in each parable: one out of one hundred, one out of ten and finally (15:11) one out of two.
muttered. In the Greek translation of the OT, this Greek word always applies to the grumbling of the Israelites in the exodus account (Exod 15:24; 16:2; 17:3; Num 14:2; 16:11; Deut 1:27; cf. Josh 9:18b). Here the Jewish leaders likewise fail to understand and appreciate God’s mighty acts among them.
NIV appropriately puts “sinners” in quotation marks to show that this was not Luke’s designation but the way others, i.e., the Pharisees, thought of them. For an explanation of the attitude of Pharisees to such “sinners,” see comments on 5:29–30. “All” signifies either all such persons (wherever Jesus was at the time) or, generally speaking, the large proportion of them among the crowds who usually came to hear him. The imperfect periphrastic “were gathering” (cf. comment on 14:1) could indicate either the process of gathering at the time of the story or the habitual coming of “sinners” throughout Jesus’ ministry.
29–30 A banquet (v. 29) in the NT symbolizes joy and often hints at the eschatological banquet, the future celebration of God’s people with the patriarchs in the presence of God. Jesus is the guest of honor; but Levi does not, as might be expected limit the guest list to his new Christian friends, the disciples of Jesus. Instead of immediately cutting off his old associates, Levi invites them into his home, probably to bring them also into contact with Jesus. Luke mentions “others,” who turn out (v. 30) to be “sinners,” as far as the Pharisees are concerned. The joy of the participants is now opposed by the dour criticism of the religious leaders, a contrast we can see running throughout the Gospels.
The complaint of the Pharisees, and particularly of those among them who were also scribes, is more than a superficial attempt to find fault. To join in table fellow ship with irreligious “sinners” is to cast doubt on one of the essential assumptions of Pharisaic teaching. This sect was dedicated to upholding the purity of Jewish faith and life. Implicit in their teachings was strict adherence to both law and tradition, including necessary rites of purification and separation from all whose moral or ritual purity might be in question. The Galilean people had a reputation (not always deserved) for disdaining such scruples and disregarding the traditions.
The Pharisees’ complaint is specifically directed to the act of eating and drinking because in their society table fellowship implied mutual acceptance. No act, apart from participation in the actual sinful deeds of the guests, could have broken the wall of separation more dramatically. Yet the Pharisees are not yet ready to argue with Jesus himself. In the previous incident they did not even express their thoughts openly (v. 21). They direct their question to Jesus’ disciples and also (in Luke only) charge the disciples themselves, not just Jesus, with this unacceptable conduct.
The parable could be called “The Parable of the Prodigal God” because the word prodigal means “extremely generous or lavish,” and the story is primarily about the lavishness of God’s love—that it is “an incomprehensibly vast, bottomless, shoreless sea.”
A well-traveled outline of this parable goes like this: I. Sick of home, II. Sick, III. Homesick, IV. Home. At this point he was homesick.
and literally “threw his arms around him and kissed him” again and again and again (as the Greek tense demands).
Two things are striking. First, in the obvious analogy to the search for the sheep, Jesus takes the initiative in seeking out lost people—a major theme in Luke (cf. 19:10). In contrast were some rabbis in the early centuries who hesitated to seek Gentile converts.
15:1 The tax collectors and “sinners.” These are “the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame” of 14:21. The two groups are found together in 5:30 and 7:34. For “tax collector” see comments on 3:12.
Such people had bid and won the right to collect such tolls for the Romans. The fact that their profit was determined by how much they collected and that their bid had been paid for in advance led to great abuse. They were hated and despised by their fellow Jews. Dishonesty among tax collectors was the rule (Sanh 25b), and their witness was not accepted in a court of law. Thus they were often associated with sinners and prostitutes.
To hear. This connects the following material to the teachings in 14:26–35. The tax collectors and sinners have “ears to hear” (14:35).
True Christianity has always broken down economic, social, ethnic, and racial barriers; for where Christ is truly present, “people will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God” (13:29).
Why do you eat and drink? This shared activity implied acceptance of such people as one’s “brothers and sisters” (cf. Acts 11:3 and the explanation in 11:4–18, esp. 11:18; cf. also Gal 2:12–13). To “break bread” with someone had important consequences. Even as contact with lepers (Luke 5:12–16) brought ritual uncleanness, so in the minds of the Pharisees contact with tax collectors and sinners brought moral (as well as ritual) uncleanness.
Yet Jesus associated with such people to offer them salvation through repentance and faith, not to participate in their sin. Compare the derogatory “this man” with 14:30.
15:20 his father saw him. Clearly, the father had been waiting and looking for his son’s return. ran. The father’s eagerness and joy at his son’s return is unmistakable. This is the magnificent attribute of God that sets Him apart from all the false gods invented by men and demons. He is not indifferent or hostile, but a Savior by nature, longing to see sinners repent and rejoicing when they do. See notes on 1 Tim. 2:4; 4:10. From Gen. 3:8 to Rev. 22:17, from the fall to the consummation, God has been and will be seeking to save sinners, and rejoicing each time one repents and is converted.
15:22 the father said. Without a single word of rebuke, for the past, the father pours out his love for the son, and expresses his joy that what was lost had been found. Each of the father’s gifts said something unique about his acceptance of the son: robe. Reserved for the guest of honor. ring. A symbol of authority. sandals. These were not usually worn by slaves, and therefore signified his full restoration to sonship.
15:23 the fatted calf. Reserved only for the most special of occasions—a sacrifice or a feast of great celebration. All this (vv. 22, 23) symbolizes the lavishness of salvation’s blessings (cf. Eph. 1:3; 2:4–7).
It is important to note that the father runs in welcome to his son before his son has made any confession—grace even precedes the needed repentance.
To ask one’s father for one’s share of the inheritance early was unheard of in antiquity; in effect, one would thereby say, “Father, I wish you were already dead.”
That the father grants the request means that most of the hearers will not identify with the father in this parable; from the start, they would think of him as stupidly lax to pamper such an immoral son.
Some commentators have suggested that the “pods” here are the kind of carob pods that Israel would eat only in famine, which some teachers said drove Israel to repentance. Others argue that these are prickly, wild pods that only swine’s snouts could reach. Neither pod was considered appetizing, and given pigs’ proverbially unclean eating habits, the thought of eating pigs’ food would disgust Jesus’ hearers. That the young man is jealous of pigs’ fare also suggests that he is not receiving fair wages (cf. 15:17).
15:20. It was a breach of an elderly Jewish man’s dignity to run, though familial love could take priority over dignity after a long absence (cf. Tobit 11:9—mother and son). Given the normal garb, the father would have to pull up his skirt to run. Kissing was appropriate for family members or intimate friends.
15:21–22. The best robe in the house would belong to the father himself. The ring would probably be a family signet ring—a symbol of reinstatement to sonship in a well-to-do house. Slaves did not normally wear sandals, though they carried and tied a master’s sandals. The father is saying, “No, I won’t receive you back as a servant. I’ll receive you only as a son.”
15:23. The calf would be enough to feed the whole village; this would be a big party! Aristocratic families often invited the whole town to a banquet when a son attained adulthood (about thirteen years old) or a child married.
(1) Unlike sheep and coins, a son can take the initiative to return to his father (vv. 17–20a). Thus, this parable focuses not just on God’s mercy but also on the need to repent (cf. vv. 7, 10). (2) A significant portion of this parable is devoted to how the older son reacts (vv. 25–32) after his younger brother returns.
How one uses wealth reflects the object of one’s worship (cf. 16:1–15, 19–31).
15:22 robe … ring. The father restores him to his position as a son (cf. Gen 41:42; Esth 3:10; 8:2).
Jesus intentionally used the banquet motif again. He had previously spoken of a banquet to symbolize the coming kingdom (13:29; cf. 14:15–24). Jesus’ hearers would have easily realized the significance of this feast.
The “share of the estate” (v. 12) that a younger son would receive on the death of the father would be one-third, because the older (or oldest) son received two-thirds, a “double portion”—i.e., twice as much as all other sons (Deut 21:17).
17–20 “Came to his senses” (eis eauton elthōn, lit., “came to himself,” v. 17) was a common idiom, which in this Jewish story may carry the Semitic idea of repentance (Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, p. 130; cf. Bailey, Poet and Peasant, pp. 171–73). Certainly repentance lies at the heart of the words the son prepared to tell his father. The motivation for his return was hunger, but it was specifically to his “father” (v. 18) that he wanted to return. The words “against heaven” (eis ton ouranon) can mean “to heaven,” meaning that his sins were so many as to reach to heaven; more probably the meaning is that his sins were ultimately against God—veiled in the word “heaven” (cf. Ps 51:4). Assuming this latter meaning, we see that the parable is far more than an allegory, with the father representing God, for the father and God have distinct roles. The father in the story does, of course, portray the characteristics and attitudes of a loving heavenly Father.
Some have pointed out that a father in that culture would not normally run as he did, which, along with his warm embrace and kissing, adds to the impact of the story. Clearly Jesus used every literary means to heighten the contrast between the father’s attitude and that of the elder brother (and of the Pharisees, cf. vv. 1–2).
The robe, ring, and sandals (v. 22) signified more than sonship (Jeremiah Parables of Jesus, p. 130); the robe was a ceremonial one such as a guest of honor would be given, the ring signified authority, and the sandals were those only a free man would wear.
The calf was apparently being “fattened” for some special occasion (v. 23); people in first-century Palestine did not regularly eat meat.
“The far country” is not necessarily a distant place to which we must travel, because “the far country” exists first of all in our hearts. The younger son dreamed of “enjoying” his freedom far from home and away from his father and older brother. If the sheep was lost through foolishness and the coin through carelessness, then the son was lost because of willfulness. He wanted to have his own way so he rebelled against his own father and broke his father’s heart.
service at home was far better than “freedom” in the far country. It is God’s goodness, not just man’s badness, that leads us to repentance (Rom. 2:4).
Everything the younger son had hoped to find in the far country, he discovered back home: clothes, jewelry, friends, joyful celebration, love, and assurance for the future. What made the difference? Instead of saying, “Father, give me!” he said, “Father, make me!” He was willing to be a servant! Of course, the father did not ask him to “earn” his forgiveness, because no amount of good works can save us from our sins (Eph. 2:8–10; Titus 3:3–7). In the far country, the prodigal learned the meaning of misery; but back home, he discovered the meaning of mercy.
Note the parallels between the prodigal’s coming to the father and our coming to the Father through Christ (John 14:6):
The Prodigal
Jesus Christ
He was lost (v.24)
“I am the way”
He was ignorant (v.17)
“I am the truth”
He was dead (v.24)
“I am the life”
There is only one way to come to the Father, and that is through faith in Jesus Christ. Have you come home?
He is a consuming fire! But when we turn to him, he is a God who comes running—to lavish his love upon us! This is the gospel—the good news of a prodigal God who rushes to meet sinners with his love!
There are only two qualifications for this forgiveness. First, we must see ourselves before we can see God. We must recognize that we are wayward sons if we are to see his love. If we know what we are, we can know his love. We must see ourselves in the lost son, and then we must come home.
The joy of the party described here is no exaggeration. But like all earthly illustrations of spiritual realities, it falls short. Jesus said, “There is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent” (Luke 15:7). Tears of repentance are the wine of angels. This is uproarious heavenly joy, and it is real.
Got together all he had. “Got together all he had” means converted to cash his inheritance. The question of how this was done, whether a sale of land was involved and so forth, is unstated and therefore irrelevant.
Squandered his wealth. The next phrase explains how this took place. It was not due to a business failure.
In wild living. “In wild living” is literally living recklessly. Luke described this more fully in 15:30.
Sent him … to feed pigs. These were “unclean” animals (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8; cf. 1 Macc 1:47). This part of the parable gives a poignant picture of a Jewish man on “skid row.” Compare Baba Qammma 82b, “Cursed be the man who would breed swine.”
but what is clear is that the younger son has fallen as far as he can. He is working for a Gentile, feeding pigs, and is in some way or other contemplating “breaking bread” with them. “Pods” are carob pods used to feed animals, and at times the poor were forced to eat them.
15:17 Came to his senses. This is a Hebrew/Aramaic expression for “repented.” This refers not only to a mental process that causes him to think more clearly about his situation but also to a moral renewal involving repentance. This is evident from Luke 15:7, 10 and the younger son’s confession in 15:18, 21.
15:20 While … a long way off, his father saw him. The question of how the father could have seen his son a long way off can be answered easily. Jesus, the teller of the parable, wanted him to.
Ran to his son. Throwing aside Oriental behavioral conventions, Jesus has the father run to his son in order to show God’s love, joy, and eagerness to receive outcasts.
Best robe. The best, not the former robe he left behind. This refers to the robe reserved for notable guests.
Ring. Through the ring the father bestows his authority upon his son. Compare 1 Macc 6:15.
Sandals. Sandals were a luxury, and servants did not wear them. The son is not, however, to be treated as a servant. He is to wear sandals. These individual details in the parable are not to be allegorized in order to have them correspond to some spiritual reality but are only meant to reveal the father’s full acceptance of his son. Compare Gen 41:42.
15:29 slaving … never disobeyed. The older son’s claims stand for the Jewish religious leaders in v. 2 who claim to be righteous in God’s presence (cf. 18:11–12). a young goat. Of less value than a fattened calf (v. 23).
15:30 this son of yours. The older son refuses to recognize the younger son as his brother. squandered your property with prostitutes. The older son may intend to evoke the Mosaic regulation against “a stubborn and rebellious son” (Deut 21:18) who deserves to be stoned to death (Deut 21:21).
Because the inheritance had been divided, the elder brother was already assured of his share, effective on the father’s death (15:12); he had nothing to lose by his brother’s return. The final response of the elder brother is never stated, providing the Pharisees with the opportunity to repent if they are willing.
The older brother was angry because he had never been honored with a feast even though, as he said, All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders (v. 29). Those words betrayed the fact that the older brother thought he had a relationship with his father because of his work. He served his father not out of love but out of a desire for reward. He even thought of himself as being in bondage to his father.
The father’s response is nevertheless tender: “My son” (or “child,” teknon) is followed by words of affirmation, not weakness (v. 31). “We had to celebrate” (euphranthenai … edei) is literally “It was necessary to celebrate”; no personal subject is mentioned. This allows the implication that the elder brother should have joined in the celebration. The words “had to” (edei) introduce once more the necessity and urgency so prominent in Luke (see comment on 4:43).
15:29 I never transgressed your commandment at any time. Unlikely, given the boy’s obvious contempt for his father, shown by his refusal to participate in the father’s great joy. This statement reveals the telltale problem with all religious hypocrites. They will not recognize their sin and repent (see notes on Matt. 9:12, 13; 19:16–20). The elder son’s comment reeks of the same spirit as the words of the Pharisee in 18:11. you never gave me a young goat. All those years of service to the father appear to have been motivated too much by concern what he could get for himself. This son’s self-righteous behavior was more socially acceptable than the younger brother’s debauchery, but it was equally dishonoring to the father—and called for repentance.
15:30 this son of yours. An expression of deep contempt (cf. “this tax collector” in 18:11). He could not bring himself to refer to him as “my brother.”
Their outward actions may have been blameless, but their inward attitudes were abominable (see Matt. 23:25–28).
The publicans and sinners were guilty of the obvious sins of the flesh, but the Pharisees and scribes were guilty of sins of the spirit (2 Cor. 7:1). Their outward actions may have been blameless, but their inward attitudes were abominable (see Matt. 23:25–28).
Pride was another one of his failings. Just think, he had served his father all those years and had never disobeyed his will! What a testimony! But his heart was not in his work, and he was always dreaming of throwing a big party at which he and his friends could enjoy themselves. He was only a drudge. Like the Prophet Jonah, the elder brother did God’s will but not from the heart (Jonah 4; Eph. 6:6). He was a hard worker and a faithful worker—qualities to be commended—but his work was not a “labor of love” that would please his father.
The same father who ran to meet the prodigal came out of the house of feasting to plead with the older son. How gracious and condescending our Father is, and how patient He is with our weaknesses!
The father explained that he would have been willing to host a feast for the older boy and his friends, but the boy had never asked him. Furthermore, ever since the division of the estate, the elder brother owned everything, and he could use it as he pleased.
“I never forgive!” General Oglethorpe said to John Wesley, to which Wesley replied, “Then, sir, I hope you never sin.”
His father came out to him and encouraged him again and again to share the celebration, but the older son finally exploded.
“Look!
St. Augustine put it this way: “For it is not by our feet, nor by change of place, that we either turn from Thee or to Thee … in darkened affections, lies (the) distance from Thy face” (Confessions, I.28).
Now, the older son was not all bad. He was a good man in his community. He was a respectable, correct, exemplary, obedient, dutiful son. He was steady, dependable, industrious, and thrifty. He also had a high sense of moral rightness.
None of these things could be said about his younger brother. The older brother was good on the outside, but something was missing.
“Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders” (v. 29). Never? He was convinced of his own goodness, and this assurance made improvement impossible.
Elder brothers are lethal. Imagine what would have happened if he had encountered his returning brother first. “So you’ve come back? Things didn’t work out like you thought? Too bad! Listen, little brother, you aren’t welcome here. You broke your poor father’s heart. You’ve disgraced us all. You’ve only come back because your money has run out. If you still had some cash, you’d still be gone. At least have enough self-respect to come back when you have a job and get yourself cleaned up.”
Jesus used these parables both as a defense of his ministry to the outcasts and as an invitation to grumbling older brothers, such as the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Luke 15:2), to share in the joyous participation of outcasts in the kingdom (cf. also Matt 21:28–32). Thus this parable continues the same theme, God’s love for the lost, found in Luke 15:4–10.
15:32 We had to celebrate. Literally it was necessary (edei). The word indicates a divine necessary. See Introduction 8 (1). God requires his people to rejoice that salvation is coming to the outcasts.