My study has yielded a deeper understanding and has encouraged me to share these discoveries with those interested. The depth of our father’s love is overwhelming. The conversations I’ve had do not only include church leadership, but also those now reading, those I’ve counseled, and the ears I’ve been able to hold captive for a few moments while I share what I’ve found to be so valuable.

   I am convinced that this parable is absolutely versatile and can be used to compare a range of circumstances in our daily lives with the ultimate message of the gospel. The overall theme seems to fit perfectly where Luke has placed it: between the parables of the Lost Sheep and Coins, and the Shrewd Manager. N.T. Wright stated that the theme of this parable is centered on the exile and restoration of God’s people.[2] There doesn’t seem to be overwhelming evidence that one view is superior to another as some may have suggested.[3] No wonder it has been the subject of such extensive thought and exposition.

   Due to the parable’s versatility, it also has the dangerous potential for details to be taken far too literally; however, The Prodigal Son is a beautiful, big picture view of Christ’s message of the grace of God, the cost of discipleship, the totality of redemption, and the depth of a father’s love. This paper will visit the intentions of a parable, the focus of this parable, my interpretation of it, and the views of several commentaries and articles written in response to its riches before I conclude with a summary.

The Intentions of a Parable

   A parable is a comparison of an earthly event to a spiritual truth. This comparison can come in many different styles such as similitude, simple metaphor, simile story, metaphor story, or an example story.[4] The Prodigal Son parable fits an example story design. This type of story has a plot, but does not begin as an obvious and naked comparison like stating “is like” or “is.”[5] There is no direct symbolism in an example story, but there is symbolism in the way this parable of The Prodigal Son is constructed.

   I looked at three more sources that stood in agreement with this intention of a parable. The Catholic Encyclopedia stated that parables contain “earthly incidents” that demonstrate “heavenly meaning.”[6] Vine’s Dictionary stated that a parable “denotes a placing beside…to compare.”[7] Vine’s also agreed with the terminology that parables deal “with earthly things with a spiritual meaning.”[8] Jesus’ parables added a “vision of life” to the hearers, according to the Holman Illustrated Dictionary.[9] Parables create a picture or some version of an example of a universal truth found in life.

   Parables were used in the Old Testament as well; however, Holman mentioned that Jesus was the one who mastered the art of the parable for the “purposes of comparison and new understanding.”[10] Jesus’ parables have some similarities with riddles in that they encourage and challenge thought, are representative of an underlying truth, and require a keen ear. Jesus spoke in parables specifically for this reason.[11] Parables were intended for those who will put forth effort to look into the meaning of them and seek understanding.

   Jesus presented the kingdom of God as a prize for those who would seek after it, but those without interest in it find themselves on the outside. Inability to understand a parable made the Pharisees furious on several occasions.[12] These were leaders who spent countless hours studying The Law and scripture; yet failed to grasp the faith portion of godliness. This makes what has been given to believers a true treasure to cherish. A precious relationship with our God is not given to those who would abuse it or hold it in contempt. It’s like those who know God are only those who also reverence God. I thank God that he has hidden these things from the uncaring and that he has given it liberally to those will become lovers of the kingdom.[13]

   In a recent experience I attempted to dispel some myths from a story that was shared in an email exchanged with a couple friends. One met the information I gave with hostility and rejection. He indicated that he “was not in the market for what we were selling.”[14] It was a story about how the absence of God brings the reality of evil. I made a couple of statements of how it’s true, but also that one doesn’t need the absence of God for evil to be afoot. It can transpire in any place. The gentleman held the belief that truth couldn’t be known and viewed that my surety was arrogance.

   Not seeking to do him one better or to have the last word, I decided to give an example I thought may help him, if not now then maybe down the road. Then I left the circumstance alone. I said that the ancient Hebrews viewed of the earth as a dome similar to a snow globe. The discoveries of adventurers like Magellan demonstrated a different reality: the truth of its round shape. The effort fell on a hardened heart. He was not ready for and was not receptive to the message of Christ. I instantly thought of the parables. Jesus didn’t attempt to explain or validate them. Jesus didn’t struggle to defend them.

The Focus of the Parable

   The Parable of the Prodigal Son is sandwiched between the parables of the Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin, and The Shrewd Manager. Jesus was clearly demonstrating events where joy was experienced over the return of something considered lost and unrecoverable. The sheep, coin, and job were as good as perished until a little elbow grease and some faith produced fruit.

   Some believe a parable has one central focus while others allow for parables to have more than one. Tim Geddert indicated in an article that “Julicher and Dodd and many followers…aimed to find the one right meaning” of parables.[15] Dr. Huffman stated that “G.B. Caird is one who says otherwise.” [16] Some scholars have even “given up on the idea of any right meanings.”[17] “It’s not about what exactly the parable was specifically indicating, but what it was aiming to do to us.”[18] Parables challenge our current view of life to look more intently at what is transpiring spiritually. Therefore, different conclusions can be reached, “but the central focus is to respond properly.”[19] Geddert doesn’t believe the focus is to turn to the Holy Ghost for what is being said beyond the text, but that the text itself should be the main focus.[20] I would have to disagree on the basis of how God reveals his mind, which is through the Holy Ghost.[21] The Spirit is essential, though not solitaire, in interpretation.

My Interpretation

   Using some guidelines to interpret parables, I will offer my own perspective. The interpretive measuring guides will be italicized.

   The occasion for the parable is in response to Pharisees and scribes who disapproved of Jesus receiving sinners by supping with them. Jesus shared a few stories after those leaders commented to show that it is dangerous to be found working against the work God is doing in restoring the lost. I enjoy the way N. T. Wright stated that “those who oppose it are the enemies of the true people of God.”[22] This is the third parable after the disapproval of those who couldn’t accept what God was doing in restoring sinners; following the parables of the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin.

   There are no direct contextual explanations included in Luke’s telling of this parable. I believe that is partly the reason why this parable has generated so much thought and response from many scholars, pastors, and students. N. T. Wright was one scholar that pointed out the repetition of the father stating how the son was dead and now was found or alive again.[23] These two verses could support the overall theme Luke is touching on regarding the resurrection or finding of the lost.[24]

   There also appears to be some contextual explanation by means of where Luke places his recount of this parable. Being that they accompany the same themes of the lost coin and sheep following the comments of the Pharisees and scribes, it is a good indication that the resurrection at least is being pointed to in part. If Luke is in fact telling the parables chronologically, the evidence is even stronger to the resurrection them by how Jesus communicated these parables to demonstrate deeper meaning: life from the dead.

   The meaning is in how Luke placed The Lost Sheep parable preceding The Prodigal Son; reminding us of sheep gone astray, the requirement of a sacrificial lamb, and how the great shepherd will not leave his sheep on the outside. Immediately after the sheep discussion, Luke introduces The Lost Coin parable to remind us of the association of value and purity in something that has been lost.

   A denarius was worth about an entire day’s wage. The lost coin was of a set that showed a woman had kept her virginity. When the coin was lost it indicated loss of that virtue, and the woman was very interested in regaining it. This compares to regaining our right-standing with God and our need for restored purity. We need to be found. We need to be kept. We need to be reminded of our value and to have that value reinstated.

   The intended response seems obvious to be a focus on how we treat those we consider on the outside of God’s kingdom who have been redeemed. In the parables surrounding the Prodigal Son the subjects are regarding things lost. Jesus’ response also addresses the disapproval of those being accepted into the kingdom. It is true that God is welcoming those “beyond the boundaries of normal acceptability” like in the undeserving case of the prodigal son; and me, I might add.[25] In order for the older brother to remain in the family he had to acknowledge and accept the fact that it pleases the father to have the dead, lost, undeserving, resurrected parts of the family reunited.

   God is joyous regarding the salvation of his people. Jesus was shedding light on the fact that the “Pharisees would not accept that God could be joyful over sinners coming to him.”[26] They are represented by the older brother in the parable. The general response seems to be for us to take a close look at our requirements for how we accept what God is doing within the kingdom. Is it more important to follow what we believe the proper protocol should be or is it more important to focus on what brings joy to the father? The joy of the father is what makes the rest of the family joyous; we can see this exemplified through the party that was thrown.[27] The father is joyful about what Christ has done. The father does not need approval regarding the welcoming back of lost things or the pleasure he experiences for those lost items to be regained. However, he does desire the approval of the older brother so that the family can remain complete.

   There are many points of reference in this parable. The younger son is a characterization of Christ. I will explain further in just a moment. This parable communicates not only the joy of the father over the return of the lost son, but also reveals Jesus’ mission. We have already been told earlier in Luke that Jesus is the messiah. The messiah was known to be the one to redeem lost Israel. Many were not expecting this mighty messiah to be a friend of sinners. Those who felt they had remained faithful like the older son, we not at ease with what was transpiring.[28] This doesn’t lessen the fact that Jesus does not approve of sin, but instead focuses on forgiveness demonstrated by the father’s mercy in the parable.[29] In Luke 14, Jesus detailed the cost of discipleship: that one would have to deny self and former understanding. In order to complete Jesus’ mission, and our commission, there would be a high cost.

   The high cost is that one must lose his or her life in order to truly gain it.[30] To fulfill this Jesus took “the consequences of our sins on himself.”[31] Jesus didn’t squander his living, as he knew no sin, but became sin for us. Jesus voluntarily became the prodigal son to restore the lost to the father. Before we were found by Christ we were prodigal sons and daughters: without hope, without light, and without membership in the family of God. Like sheep in the Lost Sheep parable, we had gone astray. “In Jesus, God searches us out when we are lost and incapable of redeeming ourselves.”[32] Someone had to come looking for us.

   The characterization of the father’s attitude is similar to that of a mature Christian. Heaven rejoices over one sinner who repents.[33] The father in the parable recognized the value and importance of what was happening. This is a type of the person of God as he rejoices over those who return to him, and thus his angels celebrate with him.[34] T. Guthrie agrees with this characterization.[35] Guthrie concentrates on the two figures of the younger son and the father. He compares the younger son to fallen sinners who attempt to escape the confines of life or his father’s house in an attempt to experience something more satisfying. I take the concept further by attributing sinners to Christ who took our stead. Guthrie wonders if it would be like “the restrains of a pious home” that can cause some to seek happiness away from home, but then “find misery” instead.[36]

   I believe that to be accurate of the strange reasons we walk away from God and find we wish we hadn’t done so. The father desires that no soul perish.[37] He is continually concerned with the return of all the souls that belong to him.[38] For the mature, or one who understands the work of God and Christ’s mission, he or she understands that God is currently in the business of restoration, revival, and the return of those who are lost.

   The older son reference is one of approval and acceptance. This can be viewed as a characterization of the Spirit of God. John the Baptist said that if a person will accept the message of Christ, he will have gained the seal that testified the God is true in these workings.[39] To foreshadow the Spirit being the seal, it descended upon Jesus before the father spoke from heaven that his Jesus is his approved son.[40] A seal of approval was attained by Abraham before he has ever been circumcised, which was a sign of God’s approval and a sign of membership in the family of God.[41] With this approval, all under Abraham received membership in the family of God.

   The Lord knows they that are his because they are sealed by that knowledge.[42] For the older brother to disapprove of what was happening, it meant a rejection of that younger son’s seal, which the father was again commissioning. Since Israel rejected this seal, they themselves were rejected until they could be restored after the time of the Gentiles is complete. Paul makes the identification of the seal plain by stating it is the Holy Spirit.[43] The Holy Ghost is a person of God who is sensitive and easily grieved.[44]

   The Spirit is holy and would never transgress any of God’s laws just as the older son claimed. This would is grievous for a person so devoted to the father. Luke even alludes to this by stating how the brother, or Spirit, is always with the father and that everything the father has belongs to the Spirit. I like the idea brought up by William Kelly when he stated that the older son may have been a “stranger to grace, so he had no part in all this joy.”[45] If the Holy Spirit is a real, deeply feeling personality of God he could very well have been affected by this situation having been always with God; never in transgression.

   This significance of the resurrection, which is only possible through the approval of the Spirit, is “the story that Israel’s scriptures had been telling all along.”[46] Wardlaw showed how there is a “quieter grace” for these who are not the prodigal screw-ups, but remain more faithful.[47] Wardlaw continued that it’s still “grace all the same.” It is grace that allows any and all into the family of God, no matter how fallen or how righteous. It would be crucial for the Spirit to approve of what Jesus was doing and subsequently our return to the father as well. And those who receive Jesus’ work do receive the seal of the Spirit.

   In considering the historical-cultural context of this parable, there are a few very enlightening pieces of information I’ve read. Ryan Keating shares some observations from his Turkish families while he preached on the Prodigal Son passage.[48] Birthright holds great value in this Middle-Eastern context. For the younger son to have asked for his inheritance early was against tradition and “prematurely wrong.”[49] The father had not yet passed. It was as if the younger son wished the father was dead to get his inheritance.

   This request usurped the birthright of the first-born, the older son. That “added to the offense.”[50] The older son would have had the first right of inheritance. Keating also mentioned how important responsibility was for this context in taking care of the family and its livelihood. It was risky for the father to have given his inheritance to the younger son and “risk falling into another’s care.”[51] It was the children who traditionally took care of the elder parents at this historical timing. The Turkish people Keating preached to understood this well. The Turkish people saw that the father must have “waited every day for his son’s return” because of his lost boy.[52]

   When the boy returned, it was a ceremonial sign to give him a robe, a sign of family distinction to have given him the ring, and an expression of devotion and thankfulness to have killed the fatted calf.[53] Though researching this context, it gives light to how this literary work can allow “the world of the parable to overcome our reality and fit us into its structure of meaning.”[54] I noticed how symbolic these kinds of things would have been to people in this cultural context and even more so during the times of Jesus’ hearers.

   There is further cultural significance discussed in Geddert’s article. He quotes from a book from Professor Kenneth Bailey titled, The Cross and the Prodigal.[55] When sharing the parable to Arabs, questions didn’t surround legalities. Their questions were related to family responsibilities, respect, and obligations. The one thing in addition to those things noticed from the Turkish people is that concerning the robe. When the father ran to meet the boy, he had to raise his robe. That was considered to “bring shame on himself.”[56] The Arab’s said that an old man wouldn’t run due to having to lift up the robe and expose himself: a shameful act.

   To explain the parable I discussed I’d like to summarize. The prodigal son left the head being the father, a representation of God, and left the body of protection that was his family. He thought he could take the inheritance outside the family, but the younger son came to ruin. The younger son, a representation of sinners, couldn’t be successful separated from his family members. So we sinners came to ruin, heartache, confusion, shame, and sadness. Christ took our place as the prodigal, younger son, by being separated from the father in death and taking on the sins of the world. The father anxiously awaited the return of the son who also represented all sinners who were lost and would return to him. The older brother, a representation of the Holy Spirit, had been faithful to the father and didn’t understand the celebration. The Pharisees and scribes could make similar claims; having followed The Law faithfully. Apostle Paul made this same claim.[57] The father went out to the older son to appeal on the fact that it made the father joyous, and he acknowledged that the older brother had always been with him. 

   The parable is not concluded because the time has not yet reached fulfillment. The older son has not yet set his approval and seal on all those who have been lost. The fields are ready to be harvested. The laborers are going out and bringing in those catches that are breaking the nets. The harvest will be plentiful. But the return of the prodigal has not yet come to a close. More prodigals are making their way back home. Once finished, there will be a magnificent feast! The older brother will pronounce his approval and enter into the feast. Then all will be in all. The family of God will again be reunited.

   Isaiah 53 asked, who would believe this sort of report? Who could understand the process that the Lord went through for us? Who will get close enough to God for him to reveal it? It doesn’t make sense to many. The Pharisees and scribes simply had a hard time. John the Baptist’s message that turned the heart of a father’s love toward the children, and the children toward the father, was brought to shed light on this resurrecting family reunion being implemented through Jesus Christ.[58]