Who is the Prodigal Son?

It is one of the most famous stories in the entire Bible, right up there with Noah and Moses, and only second to the Garden of Eden and the Cross. The Prodigal Son has been borrowed by a number of English authors, and re-told for a number of purposes. But who is the “son” in this account? There are two main interpretations of the parable that Jesus tells: 1) The Prodigal Son is a believer who has for a period of time hardened his heart and runaway from God; and 2) The Prodigal Son is an un-believer who is coming to faith within the story. The differences here are significant and will certainly have implications for ones view of salvation and sanctification. So, which is it? That is the aim of this paper.

Arguments for the Son as a Believer
The story of the Prodigal Son has great sentimental value to many Christians. For in the story they see a God who forgives sins, even when Christians themselves have wandered far from God. There is the notion that God always welcomes them back, no matter what. Such an interpretation is based, primarily, on a view of sanctification that does not assert the necessity of fruit in the Christian life. In this view, anyone who professes salvation in Christ is saved regardless of whether his or her life ever evidences a change. There are others, however, who do not hold to this understanding of sanctification and yet still support this interpretation of the Prodigal Son. Let’s look at the textual evidence they offer.

The first defense offered for this theory is that the Prodigal is the son of the Father. We are not speaking of a stranger, or a hired hand, or a distant relative, but of the immediate son of the Father. This connection would necessitate that the Prodigal is part of the family. If the Father is God, and no one debates this, then it seems that the Prodigal is in the Father’s family, as a son. Furthermore the two previous parables that Jesus tells indicate that the lost sheep is of the flock, and the lost coin belongs to the widow. There is present, in the stories, a relationship of possession: The Father’s Son, the Shepherd’s Sheep, and the Widow’s Coin. Such an interpretation is the one held by the editors and commentators of The New Oxford Annotated Bible. They write, “The parable illustrates God’s grace towards those who rebel and return.”[1] But the interpretation has a few holes.

For starters, the concept of the carnal Christian is not found in scripture. Lewis Sperry Chafer asserts that “the added demand that the unsaved must dedicate themselves to do God’s will in their daily life, as well as to believe upon Christ [is a] confusing intrusion into the doctrine that salvation is conditioned alone upon believing.”[2] His assertion, however, misses the point. It is not simply that the regenerate heart must dedicate itself to do God’s will daily, but, in fact, the regenerate heart will desire to dedicate itself to do God’s will daily. This is confirmed by Paul’s words to the Colossians, who were once “hostile in mind” (1: 21) towards God, but now have “faith in Christ Jesus” (1:3). The heart longs for God once it has been awakened. It is not an issue of placing the burden of obedience on man; obedience is the rightful response to the God whom the redeemed man loves.[3] There are a multitude of other passages that add weight to the argument that good works and obedience are the fruit of genuine conversion (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 2:20; Rom. 6:6; 1 John 3:9-10; John 14:15, 23; 1 John 2:3-4; 1 John 2:19).[4]

Secondly, however, is the issue of the textual argument. At first glance this defense seems reasonable. The Prodigal Son may be viewed as a Christian since he is admittedly referred to as the son of the Father, who represents God. This is a viable interpretation of the passage. Provided that one is not simply trying to assert a doctrine of Carnal Christianity, which is elsewhere refuted, this interpretation can be accepted. But, as I aim to show in the next part, it does not follow the best hermeneutic and fails to explain two key phrases in the passage.

Arguments for the Prodigal Son as Unbeliever
Both sides of the argument agree that the main point of the parable is the merciful forgiveness of God. The divergent views arise, however, over the details of the parable. The difficult task in interpreting parables is not to press the analogy too far. In the early church the common practice was to interpret parables allegorically. So Robert Stein writes, “Tertullian… allegorized the parable of the prodigal son…as follows: The elder son represented the Jew who is envious of God’s offer of salvation to the Gentile; the father is God; the younger son is the Christian; the property is the wisdom and natural ability to know God which man possesses as his birthright; the citizen in the far country is the devil; the pigs are demons; the robe is the sonship lost by Adam through his transgression; the ring is Christian baptism; the celebration is the Lord’s Supper; and the fatted calf slain for the celebration is the Savior at the Lord’s Supper.”[5] This is obviously over the top, for none of these connections are made elsewhere in Scripture, nor does the text indicate them.

The keys to good interpretation of parables is multi-faceted, but one important principle is to maintain the distinction between the two types of details in the story. “The task is to distinguish between ‘local color’ (details not meant to carry spiritual meaning) and theologically loaded details (those which do have allegorical significance).”[6] In the parable of the Prodigal Son the relationship between the father and the son is part of the local color. To focus on the Father/Son relationship as the basis for the interpretation of the parable is to over emphasize it. There are a number of alternative arguments that may be derived from this same focus, such as: 1) Jesus is the Son and God is the Father. The Son’s leaving the Father and going into the far county refers to the Cross. The return the celebration represent Christ’s ascension, while the robe, the ring, and the other gifts given to the returned son symbolize His restored position at the right hand of God and the redeemed saints.[7] 2) That the son is all people, since we are all God’s children, and the return to God, and the Father’s forgiveness, are simply evidence of God’s unconditional love for all of humanity, whether they are Christian or not. Needless to say not all the interpretations are right. There is a way, however, to challenge them based on a reading of the two other noteworthy phrases in the text.

The interpretation of the Son as a backslid believer fails to grapple with two key expressions in the text: “‘For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.” The two key expressions here “dead and alive” and “lost and found” are of great significance. Here we have two phrases that Jesus has used elsewhere to identify the spiritual state, not of believers, but of non-believers.

The beginning of the chapter, v. 1-2, identifies the context of the parable. Tax collectors and sinners are drawing near and the Pharisees and scribes are annoyed by this, they “grumble” about it. In light of their grumbling Jesus tells three parables, according to Luke. First, the Parable of the Lost Sheep, second the Parable of the Lost Coin, and then the Parable of the Prodigal Son. In light of the context there is reason to assume certain correlations between the parable and reality, such as: Father = God, Son = sinners coming to God, and the Older Brother = The Pharisees. It also seems logical to conclude that Jesus is referring to spiritual matters in the parable, not simply physical relation. Thus, when we apply a good hermeneutic to the parable we conclude that the Prodigal Son is, not a Christian who was spiritually dead and is now alive (or spiritually lost and now found), but a non-believer coming to God, whom the Father willing forgives and loves. This hermeneutic identifies the obvious connections in the text, maintains the focus of the parable, and adequately applies it to reality (i.e. God welcomes all sinners who repent and turn to Him).

Conclusion
The Prodigal Son is indeed the most beloved parable of the Bible. Yet love for this parable is most commonly connected to the wrong interpretation mentioned above. It seems to me, however, that the correct interpretation amplifies the attractiveness of this parable. It is not simply the Christian, the one who has repented and placed faith in Christ, whom God loves. It is also the wretch, the sinner, the vile “tax collector,” who comes covered in mud and pig filth that the Father loves. It is a testimony to the truth that the Father gladly welcomes all sinners who come to Him, no matter how “dirty” they are. The passage is not meant to tell us anything specific about salvation, but it clearly identifies the love and forgiveness of God in the event of conversion, and this is a truth that we can certainly love.


[1] The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 127, n. 15.
[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology. vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993). 384.
[3] This is not to say that the redeemed man never sins, nor that he always desires God and obeys Him. There is a distinction which the Bible makes between being Unregenerate, and still struggling with sin. Cf. Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986). 106-111.
[4] For further reading see John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005); The Gospel According to Jesus. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994); Ernest C. Reisinger, Lord & Christ: The Implications of Lordship for Faith and Life. (Philipsburg: P&R, 1994).
[5] Robert H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings. (Louisville: WJK, 1994). 45.
[6] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1991). 237.
[7] This is an actual interpretation I read from one pastor. There are a number of theological difficulties with this interpretation, however, that go far beyond mere hermeneutics.