Introduction
Considered a well-educated physician, detailed historian, and influential writer, Luke — who is attributed to authoring the longest of the four Gospels, as well as the Book of Acts (Brown 225, 226) — fuses his Gospel with parts of Mark and the mysterious source known as “Q” (Brown 225, 265). Luke’s work not only stands out because it contains several well-known parables, intimate stories about Jesus, and a wealth of theological messages; it also portrays Jesus as having profound love and compassion for his audience. Dante even described Luke as the “scribe of the gentleness of Christ.” (Brown 267).
Because Luke’s account of Jesus’ ministry is so richly focused on love, compassion, and redemption, the parables in this Gospel often reflect these themes as well. The three parables –Lost Sheep, Lost Coin and Lost Son — in Luke 15, for example, all ultimately point to the need to repent for one’s sins. Yet it is the Lost Son parable (also known as “The Prodigal Son”), known for its portrayal of rival siblings and their forgiving father, which ties all three parables together: first, by acknowledging the lost; then, forgiving wrongdoings; and then embracing the joy in that forgiveness (Talbert 177, 179).
Along with the themes of love and forgiveness, Jesus indirectly addresses a specific audience as he shares the Lost Son parable: the Pharisees. Namely, because the Pharisees chide Jesus for not rejecting sinners, all while they elevate their own status as religious leaders, Jesus uses part of the Lost Son parable to show that sinners can be just as deserving of God’s love and forgiveness (Osborne “Parables on the Joy…”).
Keeping the above introduction in mind, this paper will examine the Lost Son parable more closely, beginning with an overview of the story’s structure; then, how the lost son, his father, and his older brother each have a role in the overarching theological message; which critical methods can help flesh out the parable’s components; what is the takeaway from this exegesis.
Parable Overview
As with the other two parables in Luke 15, the Lost Son aims to show God’s love, mercy, and compassion for all who stray away. The story itself is separated into three main sections, or acts: 1.) The younger son demands his inheritance, squanders it after leaving his family and seeking out greener pastures, and then falls into despair. 2.) Overwhelmed with regret and the need to repent, he returns home to his father and is welcomed with open arms. 3.) The older son, who has been fiercely loyal to the father, lashes out about the situation and feels shoved to the side (Caroll 315). The following sections will explore each act in more detail and its theological insight.
The Younger Son
During Jesus’ time, young men, generally around age 18, married off and began to learn an occupation. Typically, and as known in ancient Jewish culture, when an estate was divided up among two male siblings, the younger son received one-third of the estate, while the older son received the remaining two-thirds. Usually, sons did not receive their inheritance until after their father’s death (Osborne “Parables on the Joy…”). In the case of the younger son in the Lost Son parable — and because it was not totally out of the question for a father to release his inheritance before his death — the younger son moves forward and gains his inheritance. However, when viewing this story through a Jewish lens and keeping to the 10 Commandments, scholars have pointed out that the son may have broken the commandment to honor his father (and mother). This includes the younger son seeming to have written off his father as if he were already dead (Talbert 179).
In fact, when looking at the word for “inheritance” in the Lost Son parable, “goods” is used in the King James version of the Bible, and “property” is used in the Revised Standard version. Ordinarily, a difference in word usage may not affect the context in a Scripture passage. However, from a scholarship perspective, the term “property” is equated to “life” — meaning, the father gave his “life” (or a big portion of it) to his younger son (Osborne “Parables on the Joy…”).
Whether the younger son fully realizes that taking his inheritance put the entire family’s land and property (or “life”) at risk, he unabashedly dishonors his family and himself (Caroll 315): He has chosen a life of greed and entitlement; he burns through his inheritance, even possibly selling some of it off to gain more wealth; and he doesn’t stop until he is destitute (Osborne “Parables on the Joy…”). In effect, he is a sinner.
Then, when the inheritance runs out, the younger son must find a means to sustain his life. Around this time, a severe, regionally wide famine hits: The son now not only needs gainful employment, but he also has barely anything to eat. He takes on a job as a pig farmer — yet he soon finds out that he must continue to starve. This includes not being allowed to partake in the food that the pigs ate. Therefore, if it were not miserable enough that he has neither money nor food to survive, he is now not even worthy of pig’s food –or so it would seem in a Jewish context (Osborne “Parables on the Joy…”).
As the adage goes, “once you hit bottom, all you can go is up”, the younger son is hit with a major dose of regret, sadness, and extreme hunger. From that, he reflects on the luxuries he enjoyed at home and his fragrant mishandling of an inheritance he should not have demanded in the first place. He then proclaims, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants” (Luke 15:18-19).
Yet, from a reader’s perspective, is the younger son being genuine about his repentance? Or is it just that he is so hungry and in dire straits, that he is a spoiled kid who gets his way no matter what the situation? (Caroll 316). The problem with this view is that the son does not he see himself as a son anymore; he is now less than that, for all intents and purposes. Therefore, and as Jesus emphasizes, the son’s realization, and then next actions, show that he is seeking reconciliation, that he wishes to confess his sins, and that he has sinned both against his father and against God (Osborne “Parables on the Joy…”).
The Father
When again considering Jewish tradition, the younger son’s reckless actions could have led to severe punishments, including being stoned to death or banished from the community. This was not necessarily common place in the ancient world — although because the son did in fact waste his inheritance, it makes the father’s actual reaction that much more incredible (Osborne “Parables on the Joy…”): As soon as the son arrives at his father’s home, his father immediately rushes out to greet him — he is more than ready to welcome his son back. And his next actions speak at an even higher volume: As embracing and kissing were signs of reconciliation in Near Eastern cultures, the father does just that when he sees his younger son (Osborne “Parables on the Joy…”).
Meanwhile, the younger son, who had been reflecting on the confession he wanted to give to his father, recites it just as he did when he had hit bottom. The father, apparently moved by his son’s confession and desire to repent, does not punish or all-out disown his son. Instead, the father commands his servants to clothe his son in the best robe they can find, along with a ring and shoes. In addition, they are to kill a fatted calf as part of the celebration (Caroll 316).
Yet why would the father adorn his son with fine clothes and give a royalty-like welcome? Symbolically, the clothing itself may mean a way of making restitution: The robe restores the authority between the father and the son, the ring reinstates sonship, and the sandals represent returning to wealth and prosperity. After all, as the son had returned with no value, he was once again made whole and valuable with the family. This leads to his father’s next words: “for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found” (Luke 15:24).
Still, the physical gifts that the father gives the younger son are not the only signs of the restored relationship between them. Staying with verse 24, Jesus’ teaching of the Gospel comes fully to light: The son had been spiritually dead during his time away; he allowed his sins to sweep him down a dark path of self-indulgence. He was then so far gone, he had completely lost himself in sin. But in repenting of his sins to the father, he is raised from spiritual death and is no longer lost (Osborne “Parables on the Joy…”).
The Older Son
The celebration, however, takes an awkward turn when the older son enters the picture.
First, he makes no bones about being visibly upset about the situation, starting with leaving out a title when addressing the father (Talbert 180), and then shares some strong words about his role in the family versus the younger son’s return: “…Lo, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command…But then this son of yours came, who has devoured your living with harlots…” (Luke 15:29-30).
Reflecting on those words, is the older son justified in being angry? After all, the younger son had blatantly disrespected the family and spent at least a third of their livelihood; therefore, the older son is merely pointing out the facts of the situation. On the contrary, a first century audience may not have agreed with the older son’s actions; Jews at that time would probably have seen him as equally self-absorbed and disrespectful. In other words, his jealousy and overall petty behavior overshadows any righteousness he may deserve (Osborne “Parables on the Joy…”).
But the father’s love and compassion is not just for the younger son’s return. Moreover, the father is not vindictive or defensive — rather, he shows honor by beginning his reply with the word, “Son.” Then, continuing with caring words, he reassures the older son that their property still belongs to him, that he will still receive all that has been promised to him (Osborne “Parables on the Joy…”).
This creates an ironic, role-reversal kind of situation between the younger son and older son: On one end, the younger son offers to be a hired servant, that he does not at all deserve to be a son, yet the father reembraces him as a son. On the other end, the older son, who has been loyal to his father since the beginning, now already sees himself as a hired servant or less deserving of the father’s love (Caroll 318).
If this sibling rivalry sounds at all like other sibling rivalries in Scripture, it may very well be deliberate: The theme of one brother taking away another brother’s privileges has helped bolster the theological message in several Biblical accounts regarding sibling rivalry — whether it be Cain and Abel in Genesis 4, Jacob and Esau in Gen 25:19-34 or David and his brothers in 1 Samuel 16:13 (Caroll 317), this kind of struggle reinforces why jealousy is shown for its true colors, and why repentance and forgiveness are key to restoring a healthy relationship with each other – and with God.
This struggle also relates to the push-pull relationship that Jesus had with the Pharisees. That is, while Jesus proclaims in his ministry that he “has not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32), the Pharisees see Jesus as crossing the lines of Jewish law and acceptable behaviors. For instance, Jesus’s willingness to dine with sinners would have been seen as a serious offense — not just because the Pharisees see themselves as above sinners, but also they are wondering how Jesus has the authority in the first place to mingle with sinners, and even forgive their sins as well (Talbert 178, 181).
Thus, Jesus uses parables, such as the Lost Son, to call out the Pharisees’ own jealousy and lack of compassion and forgiveness. But now it is up to them to accept that Jesus is who he claims to be, that love and forgiveness are central is central to a spiritual relationship with God, and that they are like the older son when they are belligerent towards sinners and the chance for them to find real redemption (Talbert 181).
Critical Methods
Now, when more closely examining the Lost Son parable, which critical methods may help better understand the story flow and its style, when compared other parts of Luke’s Gospel of Scripture in general? Two methods, in particular, can proverbially help shed light on this: Narrative criticism (with some elements of rhetorical criticism) and form/genre criticism.
Beginning with a mixed blend of narrative and rhetorical criticism, scholars have debated whether the Lost Son parable is more of a life/family story with a generally relatable message, or whether it is purposely allegorical. Some scholars — although considered fringe in their views — have even suggested that Jesus was a fellow Pharisee calling out his people, or that the parable has parallels with the first century story of Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus (Pearson 3).
Regardless of which view more is more accurate, the Lost Son parable — including Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees before he shares all three parables in Luke 15 — has literary devices that bring out how the story flows. The words joy, rejoice, lost, and found connect the common themes among all three parables in Luke 15, and especially within the Lost Son parable. These connecting words also help explain why the parable is organized as such, and how Jesus directs this to the Pharisees (Pearson 3, 4).
In addition, the setting prior to Jesus sharing the parable helps set up how he tells it: Jesus is sitting with a group of sinners; the Pharisees see this and criticize Jesus; Jesus eventually shares the Lost Son parable and intentionally relates the older brother’s jealousy to how the Pharisees treated sinners. This link to the parable is not only a necessary way for Jesus to educate the Pharisees; it is also a running theme throughout Jesus’ ministry, as demonstrated throughout Luke’s Gospel (Pearson 7).
Overall, the combination of connecting words and intentional rhetoric in the Lost Son parable illustrates the Pharisees’ resentful attitude towards Jesus and their missing out on the joy wrought from repentance and forgiveness (Pearson 8, 9). What’s more, this further establishes the purpose of narrative criticism: to determine the real audience; to see a parable, such as the Lost Son, as serious literature; and to discover which methods the author used to deliver the message and appeal to the audience’s values and emotions (Brown 25, 27).
Along with narrative criticism, form/genre criticism further explores how the writer intended to share a specific story and message. In the case of Luke’s Gospel, the genre could be one of three types: a literary genre using elements of Mark’s Gospel, or that resembles Hellenistic literature, or that fits with Jewish sacred writings. Of these three types, a strong case can be made for Luke imitating Hellenistic works, which have elements similar to those used in the Lost Son Parable. For example, like the Lost Son parable, Hellenistic works often have a dramatic story with heightened conflict, a unified plot, and specific points of view (Frein 5).
One way of determining how points of view are expressed in the Lost Son parable (and the entire Gospel of Luke) is to work through its key components: its ideology, based on the events in the story; its phraseology, according to the linguistic features used; its space and time and how that relates to the narrative; and its psychological approach to the characters’ actions and behaviors. (Frein 7). Collectively, and similar to narrative criticism, all elements help sort out how Luke approached storytelling and may have used Hellenistic influence as a guide.
Conclusion
Having more closely investigated the Lost Son parable, this story still stands as a necessary tale of repentance and forgiveness. It shows a man who learns what it means to hit an all-time low in his life journey, comes to grips with the grave sins he has committed, pours out his guilt to his father, and then receives full grace and forgiveness (Osborne “Parables on the Joy…”). Further, while the older son lashes out about this — and the story ends with the him apparently remaining this way — it is Jesus’ way of throwing down the gauntlet with the Pharisees to see if they too will recognize their own jealousy and self-indulgence (Caroll 319). And above all, they are always welcome to receive God’s grace, should they choose to repent.
Works Cited
Brown, Raymond. An Introduction to the New Testament. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.
Caroll, John T. Luke: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.
Frein, Brigid Curtin. “Genre and Point of View in Luke’s Gospel.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 38, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 4-13.
Ignatius Press. Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. Ignatius Pr, 2016.
Osborne, Grant R. Luke Verse by Verse. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018.
Pearson, Tony Alan. “The Prodigal Son: A Narrative Critical Interpretation.” Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa, vol 12, no. 2, Fall 1988, pp. 2-11.
Talbert, Charles H. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2002.