The
Triple Meaning Behind the Story of the Lost Son
[Luke
chapter 15, verses 11-32]
Hard to
read this? Click
here! :-)
Last
week when we completed the first part of Luke 15, we found ourselves
with our Lord and Savior as he was teaching a large crowd of
followers and those in need of healing, together with his apostles.
When the Pharisees saw all this they started muttering to each other
about the Jesus' clientele and how they felt that all 'those people'
didn't measure up from their religious points of view. So Jesus cites
three different examples of why he preached and taught the common,
everyday people that the Pharisees shunned. The first is that of a
lost sheep, and the second is that of a lost coin, as you recall from
last week's study. This week we'll discuss the last example of our
Lord, that of a lost and wayward son or daughter. So let's begin our
study starting at verse 11.
“Jesus
continued. 'There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to
his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate'. So he divided
his property between them. Not long after that, the younger son got
together all he had, set off for a distant country and there
squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything,
there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be
in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that
country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill
his stomach with the pods the pigs were eating, but no one gave him
anything. When he came to his senses he said, 'How many of my
father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to
death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him:
'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer
worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' So
he got up and went to his father.'” (Luke 15, verses 11-19)
Although
I have no doubt that most, if not nearly all, of those reading this
have heard this story taught in church, or they read it as part of
their school curriculum or maybe they heard it colloquially, I'm
going to give this parable of the Lord's a progressive interpretation
that explores this old story from a more relevant perspective. To
condense this story, this guy gets his inheritance ahead of time,
probably after extensive pleadings with his father and just as many
'no's to his son. Instead of following his father's example by
turning his part of the estate into a profitable enterprise, this
young man, probably in his teens or twenties, liquidates everything
he can and sets off to the big city to seek fame and fortune.
Everything goes great for a while, but when the economy turns sour,
so do the young man's fortunes and he winds up broke and hungry. The
financial and religious aspects of this story have already been
discussed a thousand different ways, so I decline to be redundant as
far as that goes. But I'm seeing other angles that you seldom hear
taught in mainstream churches.
Every
preacher I've ever heard, right up to Rev. Billy Graham himself,
emphasizes the moral of the story as being that of the mercy of the
young man's father when he allowed his wayward son to come back home.
While this is a good and correct teaching, I'm also seeing that the
young man had enough humility and a good enough conscience to be man
enough to admit that he had erred, that he was wrong to do what he
had done, and that he had made a bad decision by deciding to leave
home in the first place. But he did not arrive at his decision to
return home until after he had exhausted all his resources. It was
the shock of falling from being the son of a prosperous farmer to
that of a migrant farm worker in what must have been a relatively
short period of time, perhaps only months or even weeks. The young
man's drastic change of scenery and great reversal of fortune are
what forced him to make his decision to make his way home. Let me
also say that it is only the stubborn and the ornery who refuse to
learn from their mistakes. Unfortunately, they are also the ones who
end up homeless most frequently – not simply from bad addictions
but also because of a poor attitude. Bearing that in mind, let's move
on to the 2nd
half of our study starting at verse 20.
“But
while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled
with compassion for him; he ran to his son, put his arms around him
and kissed him. Then the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned
against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy of being called
your son.' But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the
best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on
his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and
celebrate. For this son of mine was dead but is alive again; he was
lost but is found.' So they began to celebrate. Meanwhile, the older
son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard the sound
of music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him
what was going on. 'Your brother has come', he replied, 'and your
father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and
sound.'” (Luke 15, verses 20-27)
The
young man's father could have reacted to his wayward son's return in
any one of a number of different ways. 'I told you so', and, 'OK wise
guy, have you finally learned your lesson?', are only 2 examples. His
dad could also have been hard and mean, exercising his authority as
head of his household and the family business to punish his son. Or
he could have been smug and condescending in his rebuke, making his
words hurt worse than a slap across the face. He could have acted
like a drill sergeant and got up in his son's face and yelled
sarcastic obscenities for being so disobedient and using such
miserable judgment. Or, he could have refused to forgive his son and
sent him away empty handed, and maybe with an empty stomach too. But
the young man's father did none of those things. He embraced him
though he did not have to. He welcomed him unconditionally without
judging him. He had already forgiven him so judgment wasn't necessary
as far as the father was concerned. Next, he is brought back home
where the older brother learns of the younger sibling's return,
starting at verse 28.
“The
older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went
out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, 'Look! All
these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your
orders. Yet you never even gave me a young goat so I could celebrate
with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your
property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for
him!' 'My son', the father said, 'you are always with me, and
everything that I have is yours. But we have to celebrate and be
glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he
was lost but is found.'” (Luke 15, verses 28-32)
The
older brother in this parable of our Lord's reminds me of modern-day
capitalists, especially those whose politics and economics are far to
the political right. 'Hey, I've worked hard for what I've got! Let
him get his own like I did!' I can practically hear the derision in
the older brother's voice. It reminds me of how the rich
conservatives view the poor; as lazy bums, freaking' mooches,
freeloaders, plus a lot of other stuff I won't print here. 'I've got
mine', they are saying by their actions and their words. 'How are you
doing? Oh gee, that's too bad.'
But
it is the father of that household who corrects the older son while
sparing the younger any form of judgment. Notice now God's ways are
very different than ours! Instead of focusing on all the things the
younger son had done wrong, the father used this as a teaching moment
for both sons. In much the same way, Jesus used this as a teachable
moment for the crowd of listeners, followers and the Twelve. So
that's one aspect of this teaching that stands out to me, and this is
not something commonly heard in many contemporary churches. The most
common aspect of this parable taught is that of the father forgiving
the son the way Jesus forgives those who turn away from sinful and
evil ways, and give the rest of their lives to him. The word often
used here is 'repentance', but a modern way would be to say, “I've
turned and walked away from that”, whatever 'that' might be. This
act of turning and walking away from our old selves and our old
natures is the very essence of repentance.
But
the third and final aspect of this parable is prophetic in nature,
and is seldom discussed in most theological circles. When the younger
son was returning home, the father saw him while he was still very
far away and he ran to him. He met his lost son while he was still a
long way off, being unable to wait until his return. Then, after
meeting him on the final leg of his journey, he accompanies his son
the rest of the way back home. In the end times that we are currently
living in, there will be many who will realize that they have lost
their way and will begin making their way 'back home' to Jesus
Christ. While it is true that many, many more will turn away forever,
the Bible – the Word of Almighty God (see John 1: 1-5) – says
that many will turn to him and have their names added to “the
Lamb's Book of Life” (see Rev. 20: 11-15) during these end times.
Those that do still won't be able to make it all the way to heaven
(home) on our own. Only the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross
can get us the rest of the way there, like a bridge. So the father
running out to meet the son in the middle of the 'bridge' and walking
him the rest of the way home symbolizes the Blood of Jesus, and the
home with many fields and vineyards represents heaven. Jesus was
speaking prophetically, and there's no way to tell for sure if any of
the apostles picked up on the triple meaning of the Parable of the
Lost Son back then, but now you know! And next week we'll start on
Luke chapter 16.
No comments:
Post a Comment