Over the past 2000 years, the biblical story of the prodigal son has been preached and taught as a great example of both repentance and forgiveness. While I can along with forgiveness part, I'm not so sure that it's a tale about true repentance. An analysis of this story will reveal that the prodigal son seemed to be sorry only because his sins got him into a frightening situation, not because he was remorseful for what he did. This is clearly not an illustration of someone expressing a contrite spirit.
To review, the story is actually parable Jesus told about the younger of two sons of a rich Jewish landowner. Instead of waiting for his father to die before receiving his inheritance, he demands that it be given to him immediately. When his father agrees, he then takes his newfound wealth and travels to a distant land, spending all of his money foolishly. When had wasted it all, he found himself working for a pig farmer, feeding the pigs and actually living with them. He was so poor that he could not buy himself anything to eat -- so even the pods he was feeding to the pigs looked good to him. That's not exactly the kind of situation a young Jewish man would want to find himself in.
This is where we'll pick up the story in the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. Luke 15:17-20 says, "When he [the prodigal son] came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father's hired men have food to spare and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men. ' So he got up and went to his father."
As we can see in these verses, his decision to go back to his father was prompted by the survival instinct, not by any kind of remorse for what he had done. Had he not run out of money, he would likely have continued his extravagant lifestyle would never have returned to his father's house. Sure, he plotted out what he was going to say to his father upon his return. This includes a statement that he had sinned against heaven and against his father and was no longer worthy to be called his son. Accordingly, he planned to ask his father to make him as one of hire men.
However, he obviously planned to say this only because he believed that this is what his father wanted to hear. Additionally, in his mind, it might have been the only way he could have gotten back into the safety and comfort of his father's house. Nowhere does this scripture passage indicate that the prodigal so was sincere and actually believed the things he was planning to tell his father.
Of course, almost anyone whose actions have gotten them into hot water (legal or otherwise) will claim to be sorry for what they did in order to avoid, or at least alleviate, the consequences. Look at all the people these days who claim to be sorry only after they have been caught. They are not sorry for what they did, they are sorry they got caught. It was no different for the prodigal son. He was starving to death and had no choice but to do something to extricate himself from his predicament. Going back to his father to beg forgiveness was his best (if not only) option for survival.
Now my purpose for pointing this out is not to be critical or judgmental of the prodigal son. Instead, it is to repudiate the assertions by many that one must always be truly repentant order to receive forgiveness from God. In the end, the prodigal's father doesn't even afford him the chance to give his planned speech, but forgives him anyway and restores his status as his son, for no other reason that the fact that showed up again. His father loved him and couldn't care less about what might have motivated him to return. Jesus used this parable to demonstrate the fact that God will forgive His children just for returning to him, no questions asked. That's the real message we should get from this story.
Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, amateur political analyst, and blogger from Virginia, USA. He posts a least one article a day to his blog - http://commenterry.blogs.com - on subjects such as current events, politics, technology, society and culture, religion, health and well-being, self improvement, personal finance, trivia, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in mainstream media. His articles here on SearchWarp represent only a small portion of his work. All of it can be found on his blog. If you like his articles, you'll love his blog.
Hi Teryy, interesting perspective and very bold to claim that his repentance was not sincere. Some of the most sincere repenting in the Bible came at a time when the person was at their lowest. A place where the recognized their spiritual poverty.
It's true however, that God doesn't care how you come, as long as you come. But the test of true repentance is if the person stays with God even after they are restored.
In this story, we do not have the outcome so I suppose your thoughts could be true, but nowehere in the story does it imply that his repentance was not sincere, however I think the key phrase is "he came to his senses".
Very good perspective and great food for thought. Thanks for sharing. I will have to chew on this thought for awhile God bless and excellent job! Teresa
Teresa, thanks for your comments. I always appreciate you perspective on issues like this. I totally agree with you that the key phrase is "he came to senses." But what prompted him to come to his senses? Was it really a realization that he had sinned? I think the context of the story clearly shows that it was the dire staits he found himself in that caused him to come to his senses. I'm not saying that he didn't sincerely repent later, but it doesn't seem that is what this story is about. I also agree with you that "the test of true repentence is after the person stays with God even after they are restored."
In this example, we do not know the outcome, as you pointed out. Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that the boy came into some more money after returning to his father's house. If he then continued to remain with his father, I would say he truly repented. If he ran off again, I would say he only came back in the first place because of his circumstances and never got beyond that by truly repenting.
I believe the story is pointing out that he only came home because he was at his low and was hungry. I think the reason we have this story, is like you said--God wants us to come regardless of our initial motives. He doesn't want us to wait until we get our act together--that will never happen.
I guess we can ask Jesus when we get there if it was true repentance :-)
I think we both know that this was not the main point Jesus was trying to make in this story, Still great thoughts and great conversation :-)
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
