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.
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."
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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!
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!
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 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!
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!
Thought questions:
Link to Teacher's Guide
Lesson 7