The Father And The Two Sons
(Luke 15:14-32)
This parable is usually known as The Prodigal Son. This is due to a Christiological commentary but misses the main interpretation, that which would have been understood by the original audience.
This commentary will take into account the immediate context and a future fulfilment of this parable as a prophecy. In doing so, the focus will be upon the three main characters: the Younger Son, the Elder Son and the Father.
As with several of the Master Yahusha’s parables (cf The Good Samaritan Luke 10:30-37), He uses shock tactics to highlight His point. Upon introducing the characters, He then goes on to turn upside down the popularist view. When the audience hears Younger Son, Elder Son or Father, a typical picture begins to form in their minds. The Master Yahusha then goes on to shatter these views.
So, who are the main constituents that make up the audience? “Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming close to him to hear him. The Pharisees and the Torah-teachers murmured, saying, ‘This man welcomes sinners, and eats with them.’ He told them this parable.” (Luke 15:1-3).
The Master Yahusha uses a wonderful example of the teaching tool, called in Hebrew kal v`khomer – from light to heavy. It is as if the Master Yahusha says, ‘If you strived so hard to restore a lost sheep…if you strived so hard to restore a lost coin…how much more should you strive to restore the lost relationship between you and Yahuah?’ “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? Or if he asks for an egg, he will give him a scorpion, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Ruakh HaQodesh to those who ask him?” (Luke 11:11-13). The Master Yahusha thus sets up a deep teaching by the introduction of two short parables that are easy to understand, leaving His audience with nowhere to turn.
So now, let us take a closer look at the main characters.
Younger Son
The Younger Son asks the Father to give him his share of the Father’s estate, even before the Father dies. This is tantamount to the rebellious Younger Son dishonouring his Father, saying, ‘I wish you were dead.’ This behaviour would have been scandalous to all the listeners. The sin of the Younger Son is that he does not respect his father as a parent, but as a banker, looking to him to bankroll his future profligate lifestyle.
Once the Father gives the Younger Son his third of the estate, the Younger Son liquidates his assets. However, under Judaic law, the Father can retain the right to use these assets, under Usufruct, the right to enjoy the use and advantages of another’s property, provided that there is no destruction or wasting involved (Young p. 138). As the Younger Son’s purchaser would not have these advantages until the death of the Father, there would have been a substantial discount upon the full market value.
-1-
Once in possession of his liquidated funds, the Younger Son travels to a distant land, squandering his money on riotous living. However, as his funds disappear, so does all his fair-weather friends. As the famine bites deep in the land, because the Younger Son has no family network to fall back upon, he must seek a living as best as he can. Pigs were the least form of agriculture that was susceptible to famine as they are foragers and capable of living off poor quality food. The carob cobs that the Younger Son fed to the pigs were considered as a poor man’s food but also the food of a repentant man (Young p. 145) wishing to afflict himself by donning sackcloth and eating carob husks. Therefore, the Younger Son is thrice humiliated: having to work for a Gentile, having to tend his pigs and not even having what they eat, the poorest of food.
“‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ says Yahuah: ‘Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If you are willing and obedient, You shall eat the good of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured with the sword; For the mouth of Yahuah has spoken it.’” (Isa. 1:18-20). The Mishnah comments on this passage by comparing sword (hareb te`ukelu) and carob (harubin tokhelu) (Vay. Rab. 35:6). The consequences of rebellion are the sword and/or abject poverty resulting in having to eat carob husks, bringing the rebel to repentance.
Thus, the Younger Son hits rock bottom and realises his error. He then cries out to Yahuah.
Luke uses the circumlocution ‘heaven’ to replace Yahuah, signifying the Hebrew origin of this passage. This is unusual in that Luke usually uses θεός theos as he is writing to a Greek audience (cf Luke 1:1; 8:11).
Elder Son
In a family dispute of this kind and at this time, the Elder Son would have been duty-bound to act as mediator between the Father and the Younger Son. He should have demanded that the Younger Son apologise. However, the Elder Son remains quiet. He is also the beneficiary of the Younger Son’s outburst, as the Father divides up his estate. The Elder Son does not liquidate his assets, but remains in the service of his Father. This highlights the Elder Son’s sin. He does not respect his father as his parent, but as his employer, working for reward. He is obedient for financial considerations and not out of love.
The Elder Son accuses his Father of not giving him even a small animal to share with his friends. However, this may be because he did not receive as he did not ask. He looked upon himself as not having earned the right to a young goat, but throws this accusation upon his Father.
Another of the Elder Son’s characteristics is that he lacks any form of compassion. When his brother returns, he does not go to greet him, and his disrespect towards his Father is exacerbated when the Elder Son refuses to celebrate his brother’s safe return.
-2-
Father
Of what can the Father be accused?
The Master Yahusha’s audience would have expected the Father to react harshly. At least, the Younger Son surely should have been beaten soundly and possibly disinherited and thrown out of the family. In doing so, the Younger Son would have been a pariah and thrown out of the community (cf rebellion of the spies Num. 14:26-38). He has sinned against Yahuah and his earthly father by dishonouring his parent (Exod. 20:12). Such is Yahuah’s abhorrence of a rebellious son, and the potential to spread, it was considered a capital offence, “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son…and bring him out to the Elders of his city, and to the gate of his place…All the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones…and all Yisra`el shall hear, and fear.” (Deut. 21:18-21). Therefore, not only was the Father well within his parental rights, but it would have been his civic duty to do so (cf rebellion of Korakh Num. 16:1-40).
However, against all the expectations of the audience, the Master Yahusha tells that the Father acquiesced to the Younger Son’s demands, displaying a compassion not normally shown, certainly by the Pharisees and Torah-teachers (cf the Adulterous Woman John 8:3-11).
It would appear from the Younger Son’s outburst and the Elder Son’s failure to attend his brother’s home-coming celebration, that the Father had given his sons the freedom to express free-will. The Father allowed the sons to go their own way, but also to suffer the consequences of their actions. As such, when the Younger Son left home, the Father never forgot about him, and was on a constant watch for him to return, either from a change of heart or lack of funds. The latter was drastically the case with this parable. Likewise, Yahuah is always looking to the return of wayward sinners.
When the Younger Son returns home and is fully repentant, the Father greets him as though he had not left. The Father gave him the best robe: although the Younger Son was prepared to return but only as a hired-help, the Father welcomed him back as a son. The Father gave him a ring: not only was the Younger Son welcomed back, but he was restored to a position of authority. The Father gave him sandals: the Younger Son was prepared to accept any conditions imposed by the Father, in order to return, even that of an indentured slave. However, this was not in the heart of the compassionate Father.
Immediate context – one possible interpretation
This is a parable of lost family relations: Younger Son to the Father; Elder Son to the Father; Elder Son to Younger Son.
The Younger Son can be considered as representing the unrighteous sinners of the audience, the tax-collectors and sinners. He did not love the Father, against whom he rebelled, as these sinners had turned their backs upon Yahuah and His Torah. Their lifestyles were contrary to everything Torah commands. As such, they have forfeited the Covenant promise of Eretz Yisra`el, and so seek after both material gain (cf Luke 16:13) and the pleasures of the flesh. The Younger Son tried to get as far away from his filial duty as possible. It may be possible to run away from his earthly father, but impossible to escape the Heavenly Father (cf Jonah 1:1-2:10).
-3-
The tax-collectors, in particular, earn their living by collaborating with the Gentile Roman authorities. Their lifestyles were at the expense of their Jewish brethren whom they extorted funds over and above that what Roman authorities sought. However, even these were not beyond Yahuah’s grace (cf Zakkai Luke 19:1-10). The self-righteous would declare such Tanakh passages as Psa. 26:5 and Prov. 1:10-19 in order to shun any association with the unrighteous sinners. Yahuah does not see any difference between the action and deeds of Pharisees and tax-collectors for all have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and all are in need of a Saviour.
However, due to the abject poverty the Younger Son repents, first to Yahuah and then to his Father, both of whom he had wronged. It is only when a sinner acknowledges his spiritual destitution and cries out to Yahuah, that forgiveness can be found.
תְּשׁוּבָה te-shu-vah this is usually referred to as repentance or turning back. However, there is a much deeper meaning that is more apt for this parable. It can be considered as a spiritual home-coming or the return to the land of your soul (Repentance: Teshuvah Chabad.org).
The Master Yahusha warns all these sinners of the dire consequences of rebellion, and so implores them, through this parable, to repent and turn back to Yahuah while they still can. When the Father gives the Younger Son the robe, the Master Yahusha is stating that even the worst of sins will be covered over by the love of the Father, providing they truly and whole-heartedly turn away from their sin and back to Yahuah and His Torah.
The Elder Son may be considered as representing the self-righteous sinners of the audience, the Pharisees and Torah-Teachers. He has a very harsh, legalistic view of what a father should be. Not only does he look down upon his brother with scorn (Luke 15:1, 2), his heart is so cold that, even after the Father has forgiven the Younger Son, the Elder Son will not share a meal with him.
By not agreeing with the Father to come in and eat with him and the Younger Son, the Elder Son looks down upon the father with contempt. The Pharisees and Torah-Teachers’ way of thinking is that the tax-collectors and unrighteous sinners deserve the full weight of the consequences of breaking Torah to fall down upon them. By not carrying out the full sanctions available to him through Torah,the Elder Son considers that the Father is, as much to blame of breaking Torah as was his brother.
The Master Yahusha is warning the Pharisees and Torah-Teachers not to exclude themselves from the coming Heavenly banquet because of their own form of rebellion. He would later go on to explain Himself in no uncertain terms as to the extent of their sin, “Woe to you, Torah-Teachers and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith. But you ought to have done these, and not to have left the other undone… For you clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and unrighteousness… For you are like whitened tombs… you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” (Matt. 23:23-28).
All that the Pharisees and Torah-Teachers did was borne out from a sense of reward and punishment. If they were obedient, they would receive a reward and if they were disobedient, they would be punished. Since they governed their lives so legalistically, there was no room for mitigation. The Elder Son’s harsh attitude to his brother’s fall from grace should have made it almost impossible for the Younger Son to return, if it was not for the Father’s compassion. Similarly, the hardness of the hearts of the authorities make it difficult for the tax-collectors to ‘return home’ repent.
-4-
In the immediate thought of the Pharisees and Torah-teachers, the Father would have been considered as representing Yahuah. However, as the parable unfolds, it becomes clear that the Father is represented by the Master Yahusha. It is He that loves both the righteous and unrighteous and had come to act as Mediator between Yahuah and the people. The people were already thinking that the Master Yahusha was at least a prophet, if not the Prophet and would soon declare Him as such (Matt. 21:11). However, as represented by the Father in the parable, the Master Yahusha applied grace over the strict letter of Torah. To the Jewish authorities, this alone was the prerogative of Yahuah, and that the Master Yahusha was, once again, blaspheming (cf Mark 2:1-12). How could a mere mortal ameliorate Torah? But this was no mere mortal.
Upon, true repentance, the ex-sinner is clothed with the garment of righteousness (Isa. 61:10), given authority (Matt. 10:1) and decaled a son not a slave (Phm. 1:16), all down to the love and grace of our Heavenly Father through His Son, the Messiah Yahusha.
Yahuah bless you and keep you,
Yahuah make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you,
Yahuah lift up His face toward you and give you peace.
All glory be to Yahuah,
Ameyn.
References and Credits
In using these references, it is in no way agreeing to or condoning the theological viewpoint of the authors.
Young B.H. (2008) The Parables, Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation,
Hendrickson, Peabody, Mass.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5808387/jewish/repentance-
teshuvah.htm
https://www.sefaria.org/vayikra_rabbah.35.6?lang=bi
-5-
17 U.S. Code § 107 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
-6-
First Generation Assembly 