The objective of this lesson: to focus students on the nature of repentance.
Perhaps the most striking Bible example of repentance is seen in today's reading. We commonly refer to this example as Jesus' parable of the prodigal son. Actually, this parable is about two sons, and the contrast is profound. The contrast is between a "lost son" who repents and a "good son" who does not repent. The power of repentance transformed the lost son. The absence of repentance caused the "good son" to resent his father.
Repentance or the absence of repentance reverses "good" and "bad." Through repentance the "bad" turn toward the "good." In the absence of repentance, the "good" are "good" only in outward appearances. Inwardly the unrepentant "good" are "bad."
The power of the parable increases when it is placed in the context of first century Jewish society in Palestine. They adhered to ancient Judaism's inheritance laws. If a father had two sons, his estate [at the time of inheritance] was divided into three parts. The oldest son received a double share. Thus two thirds belonged to the older "good son" and one third belonged to the younger "lost son."
The full force of this parable is grasped only when it is considered in the context of first century Jewish Palestine. As much as possible, we needed to think what they thought when they heard Jesus' lesson.
Jesus spoke to a Jewish society long in tension because of foreign influences in Palestine. The Palestine of Jesus' day contained a serious clash of worlds--the world of foreign influences conflicting with the devout Jewish world. In Israel's early days as a kingdom/nation, they could live in isolation. This option long had passed for many reasons, including Israel's rebellions against God. From the time of Alexander the Great, Greek culture had a growing presence in Palestine. The Seleucid [Syrian] control of Palestine produced a control of foreign influences dedicated to destroying the existence of Jewish religious practices. The domination of Roman forces increased foreign influences in Palestine.
The Jewish society was nervous. They often had significant conflict among themselves [clashes between the perspectives of Sadducee influences, Pharisee influences, Zealot influences, Essene influences, etc.]. However, they had major conflict with the foreign influences that invaded their country and society. Lots of non-Jewish people lived in early first century Palestine. Devout Jews could live and function in isolation, but they could not avoid daily contact with foreign influences. Those influences were everywhere. They provoked devout Jewish people and frustrated their way of life. Jesus gave this parable to people who knew the tensions created by the clash of worlds in their own country.
Some Jews welcomed these influences as opportunity to be part of the world. Some Jews hated these influences because they threatened God's ways. Foreign influences knew the "correct way to live" in the "real world." To Jews who longed to be a part of their "now world" instead of the "ancient past," these foreign influences offered new and wonderful opportunities. Sound familiar? Many devout Jewish families knew the strains of foreign influences on their children. Often, the attraction of foreign influences was more powerful and appealing to young Jews than was the influence of a devout Jewish father.
In some ways their society was like our society. There were some Jews who hated the fact that Jewish society resisted being part of "the real world." To these people, clinging to ancient traditions severely handicapped the Jewish people in Palestine. They did not feel threatened by foreign influences. They saw opportunity. The devout saw threat, not opportunity. As always, those who stood directly in the path of foreign influences on a collision course were the devout's children. For a Jewish child in Palestine from a devout family to be attracted to the pleasures and lifestyle of a "foreign country" was tragedy too big for mere words.
Consider the "lost son." He was of age. His father's Jewish way of life was stifling. He could not tolerate it, and the thought of living under his older brother's direction was too much! Remember, we are peering into an agricultural society. For the young man to stay at home under the leadership of the older brother while working on "the family farm" was too much to consider! The older brother would have control as (1) the family's head and (2) a two thirds property owner! To this young man that was an intolerable possibility!
For the young son, staying at home simply was not an option. He saw problems, not advantages.
First, the young man demanded that his father give him his share of the inheritance [no doubt in funds, not land!]. The father complied with his son's wishes. He knew he had no influence in his younger son's life. Second, shortly after receiving his part of the inheritance, the young man left home.
The point is not whether the father should have given the son his inheritance. [He might have hoped against hope that giving his inheritance might influence the younger son to stay!] Speculation about the father's actions misses the point. The young son was miserable, and he was leaving. At this time he felt no family ties.
Little is said about his life after leaving home but prior to his destitute conditions. Note these things. (1) He went far away from home [he distanced himself from his father's influence and presumably Judaism's influences. (2) He spent his time and his funds in association with the citizens of the foreign country, not with Jewish people. (3) He wasted his inheritance. (4) His focus was "loose living." These were ungodly involvements, unacceptable Jewish behaviors.
Note not much is said about his lifestyle in the "far country." Just enough is said to confirm that he abandoned Jewish values and morality.
Note that he left those "ridiculous circumstances" [that did not know what life was about or what the world was about] in order to find pleasure and security in the "real world." He searched for security, but found insecurity. He pursued pleasure, but found despair. What he considered opportunity was a wasteful misuse of himself and his inheritance. He learned an essential lesson in a hard, disastrous way!
Amazingly, at first he must have thought he found what he longed for. Only after it was too late did he discover he was self-deceived.
He wanted to get far away from godly, Jewish influences, and he succeeded! When he was broke, a famine hit. His need became so severe that he was reduced to an unjewish existence. He fed hogs the cheapest animal food available--the husky carob pod. He was so hungry he would have eaten those pods if they were digestible!
He arrived in the "far country" a prosperous man in charge of himself and his world. He became a broke, destitute man who controlled nothing--not even his present circumstances or his basic needs. The man who deceived himself about "having everything" obviously became [even to himself!] the man who had nothing.
Then we are provided beautiful insights into repentance. It began with the process of coming to himself (his senses). It continued with memory: "Dad's hired servants live better than this." It proceeded with realization: "I do not deserve to be considered a son. I will go home and ask my father if I can come back as a hired servant." It culminated with action: he left the pigs and traveled home to confess his failure. He accepted responsibility. He knew what he was, and he knew he made the decisions.
Much of the value of this parable is grasped in the repentance process occurring in this man. Note that repentance had both internal and external parts. It began internally: he came to himself. It reached fruition externally: he made the journey home. The focus is on both his mind/heart and his behavior. If what occurs is not internal, it is not repentance. If what occurs is not expressed in behavior that responds to the internal, it is not repentance. Repentance is not just a "heart matter." It is much more than sorrow or grief. It is not just a "behavior matter." It is not merely going through the right motions to meet the expectations of other humans. Repentance involves both heart and behavior. It is infinitely personal. It is focused on "the Father."
Much to his shocked and surprise, his father saw him coming, ran in compassion to greet him with joy, and welcomed him as a son! He returned to be a hired servant, but he was welcomed as a son! He was "dead" to the father in the pig pen, but the father received him as "resurrected from the dead!" Why did this happen? How could this happen? It could happen only if he repented! He came to himself, remembered, realized what he permitted to happen, and acted. Was it easy? No! Was it doable? Yes! How did it begin? If he was going to redirect his life, he had to leave the pig pen!
He never expected the greeting he received. We are totally unprepared to encounter God's love and kindness when we are filled with a sense and realization of our own failure. Repentance is hard and demanding, but quite possible.
The older bother confused technically correct service with love for the father. He resented the fact his brother could return. He resented the fact his father would welcome the younger brother. He would not change! Where there is no change, there is no repentance! Contrast the father's reception of the lost son with the brother's reaction! When repentance occurs, there should be rejoicing, not judging or jealousy! The truly "lost" son never left home!
It is far too easy to confuse love with doing what is expected. Repentance and the hardness [producing judging behavior and jealous attitudes] are not and cannot be companions.
Thought questions:
A double portion goes to the oldest son. For example, if there are five sons, the inheritance is divided into six equal parts. Two sixths go to the oldest son.
Influences from non-Jewish societies clashed with the influences of the devout Jewish society. Some of the foreign influences included the Greek culture and the Roman presence.
The young man was confident, self-assured, and deeply desirous to leave all influences from home. The answers to the last question will be as individualistic as the members of your class.
He immersed himself in the influences, pleasures, and lifestyle of the "far country." He abandoned who he had been and tried to become "one of them."
He searched for security and found insecurity. He pursed pleasure and found despair.
He was so hungry he would have eaten the pigs' feed had he been able to digest carob pods.
He came to himself, he remembered, he realized what he had done, and he took action [left the pig pen and went home]. Discuss how difficult it would have been to travel by foot the long journey home to confess failure. Impressions will be those of each individual.
He received the welcome of love. He was treated as a son, not a servant. His father saw his return as a resurrection.
He was judgmental, unforgiving, and jealous.
The responses and reasons will be those of the individuals.
Link to Student Guide
Lesson 7