36
RESTORED SONSHIP AND INHERITANCE And he said, A certain man had two sons: And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry (Luke 15:11-24).
The parable of the prodigal son involves the economic issue of inheritance. The theocentric issue is God in His office as Father. He owns an estate. Who will inherit this estate? When? On what legal basis?
Premature Inheritance The younger son was unwilling to wait for his inheritance. He wanted it immediately. He had no self-discipline. He did not imagine that he had anything more to learn from his father. He had little future-orientation. He did not understand the power of compound interest to multiply wealth.
His father granted his request. This seems to have been unwise. The son was not ready for this increased responsibility. But the father let him have his way. Some children learn only the hard way. Their parents decide not to protect them from their own folly.
The son left the family estate and went to a far country. In other parables, it is the owner who goes to a far country, leaving the servants behind. But here, the son leaves. The son wasted his inheritance. He did not look to the future. He was intensely present-oriented. He did not budget his money. He did not find employment to replace what he was spending. Then judgment came on the foreign land: famine. He possessed no reserves. He found himself in poverty and great distress.
He took a job feeding swine. For a Jewish audience, the message of the parable was clear: the son could fall no lower on the social scale without becoming a criminal. Caring for swine was a suitable job only for gentiles. He had become a hired hand to a gentile. But it was even worse. The job was poorly paid. He was not given food before he went into the field. He was worse off than the swine.
He was not dead yet. He was facing starvation, but he might still possess sufficient strength to walk home. He was running out of time and strength. He had to make a decision, fast: stay with the pigs or leave for home immediately. He could not be sure he could get home if he waited. They day of decision had arrived. He remembered that his father's servants were well fed. He decided that he would rather be a well-fed servant in his father's household than a hungry one in a foreigner's household.
At long last, he began to think ahead. He came up with a plan. "I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants." Thinking ahead was a new experience for him. So was humility. He recognized that he had been a rebel against God and his father. The text says that he had come to himself (v. 17). That is, he had come to his senses. He now recognized what he had done. He had sinned before God and his father. He was now suffering the consequences of his sin. At home, the consequences would be far less painful. He would have food and a roof over his head.
He made his journey home. His father saw him coming. "But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him" (v. 20). His father took the initiative. He did not wait. He did not play the role of a stern parent. He did not lay down the law. He showed grace to the prodigal. He let him know that he was welcome.
The son followed his original plan of reconciliation. He did not use his father's gracious welcome to negotiate a better deal for himself. He confessed his sin. He said that he was not worthy to be called the man's son (v. 21). But his father acted as though he had not heard this confession, though obviously he had heard it. In fact, this confession made the father's next steps legally valid. He called his servants and had them bring a robe and a ring and shoes. These were tokens of faithful sonship. Then he told them to bring a fatted calf for a feast. It was time to celebrate. There had been a covenantal resurrection. "For this my son was dead, and is alive again" (v. 24). It was not his return that had proven his sonship. It was his confession of repentance. "The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit" (Ps. 34:18).
The Elder Brother The parable's focus then shifts to the elder brother.
Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found (vv. 25-32).
He had been in the field, working. He had not been at home to greet his younger brother. No servant had been sent to invite him to the festivities. His father had been too excited to do this, apparently. The elder brother felt neglected.
He deeply resented the feast on behalf of brother. He refused to go in. So, his father came out to him, taking the initiative once again. The brother complained: "Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf" (vv. 29-30). He was self-righteous. He reminded his father of the obvious: he had remained faithful, while the younger brother had been unfaithful. He had stayed on the job, while his brother spent the money on fast women. Yet the wastrel now has a feast thrown on his behalf. This just wasn't fair!
The elder brother was looking to the past. His father was looking to the future. The former wastrel was a wastrel no longer. What was in the past was gone. The future now offered hope: family restoration. The issue for the father was covenantal.
The elder brother was also looking to the future. The return of the prodigal might threaten his own inheritance: another division of the estate. The issue for him was economic.
His father understood his fears, so he sought to allay them. "And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine" (v. 31). The father had nothing left to give to the younger brother. The rest of the estate belonged to the elder bother, who had legal title to the double portion, according to the Mosaic law. "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his" (Deut. 21:15-17).
Jesus' listeners would have understood the law governing the inheritance of sons. They would have understood that the father in the parable would not defraud the elder brother, for the father was a righteous man. They would have seen that the elder brother was in fact mentally accusing his father of being a lawbreaker who much preferred the younger brother to him and who was contemplating the theft of the elder brother's portion.
The primary issue was not inheritance. That had been settled when the younger brother received his portion. The primary issue was the covenantal restoration of the family. The younger brother had returned. His admission of guilt constituted his restoration into the family. This called for a celebration, his father told the elder brother. "It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found" (v. 32).
Nevertheless, the issue of inheritance remained an open question. There was still the possibility of a legal disinheritance of the elder brother. This, in fact, is what this parable is all about.
A Warning to the Jews The elder brother represented Israel. The younger brother represented the gentiles. The younger brother had become a gentile covenantally by abandoning his father's household and living among gentiles, wasting his inheritance inside their economy. He had transferred his share of the family inheritance to gentiles. He had decapitalized the family's future, a grave evil in Israel: an assault on the family name.(1) By adopting the gentiles' ways, he had broken covenant with his father and his father's God.
Now the young man had returned. He had abandoned the covenant-breaking gentile world. He had come to his senses. He recognized what he had done. He had sinned against God and his father. He was ready to humble himself and live as a servant in the household of faith.
The elder brother was being asked by his father to welcome a recent convert into family. This gentile was asking to serve in the household of covenant-keepers. He was ready to become the judicial equivalent of a Gibeonite (Josh. 9). He was not requesting full inheritance. He was requesting merely servantship status. He was not asking to be adopted back into the family. He was asking only to have a place to live and work and eat.
The father made it clear that the younger brother's act of repentance had re-established the ex-wastrel's sonship in his eyes. But sonship had not re-established his inheritance, which had been collected in advance and spent. The younger son had no legal claim on his brother's inheritance.
If the elder brother recognized this, and publicly rejoiced at the restoration of the family, he would remain a faithful son. But there was an implied warning: rebellion against the father could take other forms. It was not necessary to go into a far country to abandon the family name. A son could become a spiritual prodigal while staying on the job. He could refuse to welcome his brother back into the household, thereby breaking up the now-restored family. He could break his father's heart by refusing to rejoice at the restoration of his brother.
This parable reinforced Jesus' story of the lost sheep. "What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?" (Luke 15:4). That story also ended with a feast. "And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost" (Luke 15:6). If a man rejoices at the return of a lost sheep, how much more at the return of a lost son!
The Jews would inherit the double portion, but only if they remained faithful sons. If they went into spiritual rebellion -- a stay-at-home rebellion -- then they would forfeit title to their inheritance. They would be disinherited. The younger brother would then inherit the rebellious brother's estate. This was what Jesus prophesied to the Jews: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matt. 21:43).
In the parable of the lost sheep, the owner represents God. So does the father of the prodigal. Jesus was saying that God takes the initiative in searching for the one lost sheep. He also takes the initiative in restoring the now-humble son to visible sonship. The Jews were being told not to overestimate the importance in God's eyes of sheep that do not wander or sons who do not wander. The recovery of lost sheep and lost sons is high in God's priorities. The party begins when the lost are found.
Conclusion The parable of the prodigal son pointed to the future: the restoration of all gentiles who will humble themselves before God. It also warned of a coming disinheritance: self-righteous Israel, who would resent the re-entry of gentiles into the status of sons. To maintain their inheritance -- the double portion -- Israelites would have to acknowledge that they, too, had once been gentiles, and abandoned gentiles at that. Without God's gracious adoption of the nation, it would have perished (Ezek. 16). What God had done with Israel, He would do again: adopt gentiles. What God had done to the gentiles through Adam, He would do to Israel if Israel continued to rebel: disinherit.
The deciding issue of final inheritance is one's willingness to be present at the feast (Matt. 22:1-15). "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God" (Rev. 19:7-9). This would be the deciding issue for Old Covenant Israel's inheritance in history: to celebrate the arrival of gentiles into the family of faith. God said, "Let's party!" Old Covenant Israel refused. It would have been Israel's party (Acts 2) to which gentiles were invited (Acts 10). That party's invitation ended in A.D. 70.(2) Israel still has a standing invitation to a party, but it is now a gentile party to which Israel is invited (Rom. 11). RSVP.
Footnotes:
1. Gary North, Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy, electronic edition (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1999), ch. 62.
2. David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987).
If you are interested in receiving Dr. North's FREE monthly e-mail newsletter send an e-mail to:
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out.