The Prodigal
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
"A certain man had two sons" (Luke 15:11). Do the two sons represent larger categories? It may be that the older son represents the Pharisees and the younger son the wayward and immoral Jews. Certainly it would explain the self-righteous attitude of the older brother that surfaces at the end of the parable, and it would harmonize with the overall answer that Jesus gave His critics as to why He ate with "sinners." While this analysis may be correct, it does not alter the facts that relate to what happened to the prodigal son.
The younger son said, "Father, give me the portion of goods that falls to me," referring to his inheritance, and the Father complied (v. 12). There is no evidence that the son said, "Please." There is no indication that the Father fought with him over this issue or attempted to talk him out of it. However, the Father is probably not a dolt, and he knows that his son has something in mind that will not result in anything good. Why does he not stop him? Does he realize that all such attempts would be useless?
"And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together, journeyed to a far country, and there wasted his possessions with prodigal living" (v. 13). Why? Why did the son choose this course of action? The text does not state outright why the younger son reached this decision, but it provides clues as to the reason it did and did not occur.
1. The younger son did not leave because his father was an unjust, dictatorial, demanding, autocratic, impossible-to-live-with, mean old man. Everything that is recorded of him in the text shows that he was a righteous man and a loving father. In fact, he represents the heavenly Father. The younger son offers no complaint whatsoever that he has been mistreated and deprived of anything. The fault lies not with the father but with the son. Nothing the father did differently would have changed the son's intent.
2. The younger son did not have any noble purpose in mind when he left home. This was not a matter of saying, "I need to get out from behind my father's shadow; I want to see if I can make it on my own." No, he did not take his inheritance and invest it into a business or anything that would have given him a good return on his money. He "wasted his possessions with prodigal living." Sometimes, children feel like they need to leave the nest; they feel compelled to achieve independence, but this situation was not related to that concept.
3. The younger son did not decide on this course of action because he had not been taught better. What kind of man was his father? He does not appear to be a spendthrift since he had accumulated an inheritance for both of his sons. No immoral actions are recorded in connection with him; neither is anything implied. The son did not say, "I want to be on my own so I can live way you've been doing." We have no indication other than that the Father had always set a good positive example for his sons.
4. In leaving home, the younger son was not thinking logically, neither did he act logically. This was an emotional decision—the kind that usually gets anyone in trouble. Cain made an irrational, emotional decision when he decided to kill his brother. That cruel act benefited no one. Abel was deprived of his life; Adam and Eve mourned the loss of their son, and Cain became marked for life. No one profited except, perhaps, the devil who rejoices in evil. Israel demanding a king was another emotional decision that the godly Samuel could not talk them out of. They had decided what they wanted to do and were committed to it no matter what. The prophet did use logic to show them why it was a bad decision, but logic did not prevail. The younger brother knew what he wanted to do; logic could not prevail against such stubbornness.
Why?
All people have motives for the decisions they make or the actions they pursue; the problem is that those who observe these things cannot often figure it out. Although human beings can be complex and even self-contradictory at times, the reason for certain types of behavior is not always complicated. Why did the prodigal son do what he did? He had a good example to follow that he could have walked in his father's footsteps, but he chose not to. His actions reveal his motivation. He "wasted his possessions with prodigal living." What does the word translated "prodigal" mean?
The Greek word asotus [Strong's number 811], an adjective, appears only in this passage; it is found three times, however, as a noun, asotia [810]: Ephesians 5:18, Titus 1:6, and 1 Peter 4:4. The first word enjoins Christians: "And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation…." The King James uses "excess"; the NIV, RSV, and ESV translate it "debauchery"; the ASV uses "riot." Titus 1:6 lists qualifications for elders, one of which is that he should not be accused of "dissipation" (others use "debauchery," "wild," and "profligate"). 1 Peter 4:4 cautions Christians that their former friends will think it strange that the child of God refuses to run with them "in the same flood of dissipation" (others have "debauchery" and "profligacy").
Interestingly, asotia is made up of two words: a [1], which negates what follows it, and sozo [4981], which appears 111 times in the New Testament, and is usually translated "save" or "saved," depending upon the tense. Three well-known passages in which sozo appears are Mark 16:16, Acts 2:47, and 1 Peter 3:21. But it can also be translated to be "made whole" (Matt. 9:21-22) or "preserved" (2 Tim. 4:18). More than 90% of the time, however, the concept of salvation is meant. Its opposite, therefore, is "unsaved" or "not whole." The careless wasteful behavior that the younger son engaged in was such that he would have been lost had he died in that condition.
What did he waste his money on? The older brother accused him of spending it on harlots (v. 30), which may be true. He could have wasted his inheritance on wine, women, and entertainment; he might have gambled portions of it away. Whatever he spent it on, it was wasted. When it was gone, he had nothing to show for it. What he did was sinful, which he later confessed of his own free will to his father: "I have sinned against heaven and before you" (v. 18). Why would anyone do such a foolish thing?
The only answer that makes sense is that he wanted to partake of the things of the world. His father is a spiritual person with great insight. His home was undoubtedly one that honored God. This was all that he had ever known. And it should have been enough! But apparently it was not. He had heard stories—possibly from neighbors, having been in town, or from travelers. There was another way to live, which he found exciting and was determined to try.
It was the kind of life that had no boundaries. He may have mistaken the new life for freedom. He would have the liberty to do anything he wanted to do. Once on his own, he would not have to meditate on the Word of God every day, which might have been required at home. He would not have to be frugal. If he wanted to buy something, he could just pay for it. If he wanted to be sexually involved with a woman, he would not be required to marry her first. If he wanted to get drunk, no one would stop him. If he chose not to work for several months, that was an option. He could be spontaneous and free. He embraced this new life wholeheartedly but was too short-sighted to see that it could not last—and that such "freedom" results in bondage. One becomes a slave to his own desires.
Then the day came when he ran out of money. His ability to do whatever he wanted to do came to an end. He still had no obligations to anyone else, but now he found that he had one huge obligation—to take care of himself. Did he have any friends while he had money? If so, they deserted him now. Did any of the harlots whom he had bought have any compassion on him now? No, they could not profit from him anymore. Had he rented a room somewhere? If so, the fact that he had been a good customer for a while meant nothing. His wealth had run out; he had no shelter now. Those who love a person when he is rich just as easily spurn him when he becomes poor.
"Ah, well, no problem, really," he may have thought. "I'll just get a job. It will cut down on my free time a little, but it's necessary to continue to do some of the other things I like." The only problem was that no really good-paying jobs were available. Unfortunately for him, the economy happened to be bad at that moment. "But when he had spent all, there arose a severe famine in that land, and he began to be in want" (v. 14). He finally found someone who gave him work, but he probably only receive a place to stay as his wages (v. 15). The swine were being fed better than he was, "and no one gave him anything" (v. 16). Behold, the free man!
He was actually very fortunate. He could have been robbed, even murdered, at some previous point by a band of thugs, who saw him as a loner. He might have been killed by a harlot's husband if he had found out had occurred. He might have impregnated a woman and ended up with a lot more responsibility than he had bargained for. He might have contracted a painful sexually-transmitted disease. Sin is great at enticing people and also quite good at blinding them to the possible effects of their actions. Fortunately, the younger brother's only problem was starvation.
The devil had been happy to help him waste his money. Every vice he was willing to engage in, Satan was there to give a shout of approval, "Amen to that idea." But when the devil has squeezed every ounce of usefulness out of his victim, he tosses him aside like a rag doll. He has no love or compassion for his servants: "…and no one gave him anything."
At last, he began to think logically. "But when he came to himself, he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!'" (v. 17). He realized there was one who still loved him and would give him a decent job. He knew there was one individual who would actually forgive him (v. 18). He would acknowledge that he had sinned and was unworthy to be called his son (v. 19). He did not misjudge his father, who had compassion on him (v. 20) and ordered a celebration, recognizing that his dead son was now alive (vv. 22-24).
The prodigal son, in returning home, did nothing more than act on information that he possessed all along. The love and compassion of his father were always in evidence, but his selfish desires pushed them into the background until his rebelliousness left him desolate. Then he remembered and could think logically again. He made the right decision. While he may have regretted the way he wasted his inheritance for the rest of his life, he would never regret the decision to return home. The father was elated at receiving him again "safe and sound," for he recognized that he could have been lost forever (v. 27). Would that all parents might be fortunate enough to receive back their wayward children! Would that all prodigals might have parents to rejoice in their return!