 |
Northwest Church of Christ 3904 38th Street NW Canton, Ohio 44718 330-492-5523 Fax: 330-493-7119 |
“The Prodigal - Part I: |
  |
I. Introduction.
A. When you read a short story, you realize that the plot, the
characters, and the resolution of the narrative all must be
introduced, and brought to a climax, quickly. You don’t
have the luxury of time, and space, to let these things be
defined and developed at a more-leisurely pace.
1. In the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus introduces
us to the main characters at the very beginning:
“. . . ‘a certain man had two sons.’ ” (Luke 15:11).2. Then, as the story unfolds, the focus shifts from one
of these characters to another. The younger son, the
prodigal, takes center stage at the parable’s
beginning (verses 12-20). Midway through the
story, the spotlight shifts to the father
(verses 20-24). Then, as the story draws to a
conclusion, the older brother, takes center stage
(verses 25-31).3. Jesus’ story naturally divides into those three
sections and, as He developed the narrative, with
each shift of emphasis, the plot takes a surprising
turn.B. As the story begins, the younger son takes on the
scoundrel’s role, but, by the end of the story, the older
brother is shown to be the real villain of the narrative.
It’s through this brother that we get the lesson of the
parable, from the negative example that he sets.1. Instead of the parable of the “prodigal son,”
maybe we should call this the parable of the
“self-righteous brother” or, the parable of the
“forgiving father.”2. I’m not sure there’s any single title that could do
justice to the messages Jesus brings to us in this
short tale. It highlights, in rapid succession, three
principles, all related to the central theme of the
stories in Luke 15.
a. The prodigal son provides an abject
lesson about true repentance.
b. The father personifies the joy in heaven
when sinners do repent.c. The older brother is seen as a stark contrast
to both those ideas. He embodies self-
righteousness and its natural by-product,
resentment over the grace and goodness of
God toward others.C. The word “prodigal” is not used in the King James Version
of the English Bible. It’s a very old English word that
means reckless wastefulness, or lavish extravagance. It has
fallen out of usage in our modern English, except when
referring to this parable. It’s not a word that refers to
youthful rebellion, but of immoderation, and excess. The
word does appear in the New King James Version, in
Luke 15:13. Here the word, from the original Greek
language, also means “wastefulness,” but with the idea of
promiscuity, and moral decadence, as well.D. The prodigal son represents an illustration of an
undisciplined young person who wastes the best part of his
life through extravagant self-indulgence and becomes a
slave to his own lust and sin. He is the example of the
course of sin, and how it inevitably debases the sinner.II. The Three “D’s.”
A. Just the introduction to Jesus’ story was probably enough
to bring a gasp of surprise from the scribes and Pharisees:
“. . . the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me
the portion of goods that falls to me.’ ” (verse 12). Here
was an impudent, outrageous, and shameless demand that
greatly dishonored the father.1. This young man is, apparently, not yet married,
because he wants to leave home to enjoy the
independence of life on his own. His request for his
inheritance, before his father had died, showed no
respect for the parent.2. In fact, the demand was completely foreign to the
values of the society of Jesus’ time on earth.B. It showed, first, a disregard for his inheritance.
1. From the earliest times in Israel, the laws governing
the passage of family estates from generation to
generation were among the most important, and
most distinctive, of cultural principles in the Mosaic
law. Family lands, and possessions, were not to be
sold, or transferred out of the family’s line of
descent. In extreme cases, where land had to be
sold to avoid bankruptcy, the Law even had a
provision guaranteeing the return of that property
to the family during a year of Jubilee (Lev. 25).2. The duty to keep a legacy intact was understood by
all Jesus’ hearers. But, in addition to this, there was
also the law of primogeniture. This meant the
firstborn son received a double portion of the family
inheritance. This was the older son’s “birthright.”
That birthright included not only an extra measure
of wealth, but also the responsibility of family
leadership over the immediate household when the
father died.3. Younger sons were to get a fair share of the
inheritance. But, it is obvious that the younger son
in Jesus’ story had no gratitude for, nor
consideration for, what generations of his family
had provided for his father, and, one day, for him.
He lacked both patience and discipline. But, above
all, he lacked any real love for his father.C. This was the most disturbing aspect of the prodigal son’s
behavior. In that culture, to request an inheritance before it
was due, was equal to saying: “Father, I wish you were
dead. You stand in the way of my plans. You’re a barrier
to my freedom. I want fulfillment, and I want out of here,
now.” What dishonor this was to the father!1. In a culture where honor was so important, and
where the Law addressed directly honor to a father
and mother (Exodus 20:12), this young person’s
demand was worse than shameful. It was not even
his right to demand his inheritance early. Any son
who made such a demand could expect to be seen
as “dead” by his father (that’s why he knew he
could not go home as a “son” anymore).2. A son guilty of dishonoring his father to this extent
could expect to be not only publicly shamed, but
removed from the family. He would be seen as
“dead” himself (verse 24: “for this my son was
dead. . .”). The father repeats this thought to the
older brother, in verse 32: (“. . . for your brother
was dead . . .”).3. Once disowned by a father, there was almost no
way for a rebellious child to come back and regain
his place in the family. If he wanted to be in the
family at all, he’d have to make restitution for
whatever dishonor he’d brought to the family name,
and for whatever possessions he might have taken
when he left. Even so, he still could expect to
forfeit many of the rights he previously enjoyed as
a family member. And, he certainly could forget
about receiving any further inheritance.4. Here was a young person who did not really care
about the dishonor to his father and his family.
He planned to go to a “far country” where no one
knew him anyway. There, he’d be free.D. The demand itself was reflective of this lack of concern.
In any two-son family, following the law of primogeniture,
one-third of all family assets would go to the younger son,
when the father died. But, to demand a third of the
household goods while the father still lived was both
absurd and unreasonable.1. The prodigal son was offering to sell his birthright
cheaply, for whatever money his father had on
hand. He didn’t want property or livestock, that
would tie him down. He was asking for cash.2. As this was a prosperous family, that could have
been a considerable amount. They had hired
servants (verses 19; 22), the father could afford to
hire musicians and dancers for the celebration of
his son’s return (verse 25), and they owned
livestock, including a “fatted calf” available
quickly for their use (verse 23). Only a wealthy family could have these kinds of luxuries.3. The prodigal wanted whatever he could get – now!
He didn’t want any of the responsibility that came
with the inheritance. Like every unruly child, he
was clearly miserable and he thought he knew what
he needed to make him happy – more freedom. So,
he decided to run away from obligations, to cast off
all restraint, and to remove himself from his father’s
authority.III. The Father’s Response.
A. In village life at that time, everyone knew everyone else’s
business. The prodigal’s plan to leave home would quickly
become public knowledge. The family’s honor, and his
own reputation, would be ruined. The only thing the father
could do to remove the shame would be to publicly disown
the boy. That’s just what others would expect him to do –
giving the son a figurative, or even literal, slap across the
face, a public denunciation, a formal dismissal from the
family, and possibly even a funeral.B. What did this father do? He “. . . divided to them his
livelihood.” (verse 12). Here’s where Jesus’ story would
have prompted a second surprised reaction from the scribes
and Pharisees. To honor a shameless request from a defiant
youth was unheard of, especially since this would deprive
the father of everything he had.1. By the standards of that culture, this was a
pathetically weak response. Did the father have no
backbone? Did he lack any concern whatsoever for
his own honor and reputation? Would he yield to
the demand of a rebellious child?2. The word for “livelihood” in verse 12 is the Greek
“bios”, meaning “life.” The father gave his sons
(“them”) his whole life, everything the family had
accumulated for generations. And, because the
younger boy was free to go to that “far country,”
suggests that the father gave the sons the family
estate with no strings attached.C. Jesus’ point was that the father’s actions demonstrated that
he was truly a loving father, not a tyrant, and that he was
willing to endure the pain of ingratitude and humiliation
rather than to disown a son.1. Jesus was giving an illustration of His Father’s,
and His Own, love for sinners. God is absolutely
sovereign and has the power – and the right – to
destroy every sinner whenever He chooses to do
so. But, He extends to every person generous
measures of mercy, loving kindness, and patience.2. Like the father in the parable, rather than
disowning, and destroying, sinners, God shows
extreme patience, and gives us all the freedom to
pursue our own will, even though it, at times,
clearly is against His will.D. Among the outstanding truths of this great story are that
Christ bore our shame on the cross of salvation, and that
the eternal joy He saw before Him was our redemption as
repentant sinners.IV. Conclusion.
A. There were two distinct stages in the prodigal’s rebellion.
One was the reprehensible way he treated his own father.
But, the second was worse yet, and begins with the boy’s
departure from the household and his journey into the
world.B. The second stage results in the absolute collapse of the
prodigal’s life.1. His own lusts prove uncontrollable.
2. He finds himself enslaved in a bondage from which
he is powerless to free himself. This bondage of
sin turns out to be far worse than his father’s
authority.3. He is pulled progressively downward, until he finds
himself in the most hopeless and terrible
circumstances.C. This young man’s life became a nightmare. He’d made
many bad decisions, left a good home and a bright future
with a loving and generous father. Now, no friends, no
family, no hope, in a strange land, with nowhere else to go.