Prodigal Explanations

Controversial is a title many people associate with me and the teaching ministry God has called me to.

And it is not because I seek controversy anywhere.

I just seek to make us understand scripture in their natural context, not in our hyperpersonal context many seek to drive.

That is why I ask those ‘controversial’ questions that make many ‘successful’ ministers wince.

Let us look at Luke 15 for instance

The popular teaching (the only teaching I have heard) is that the shepherd left the ninety and nine to look for the one lost sheep.

The assumption driven is that he left them to themselves because the lost one was way more valuable than the ninety-nine.

To imagine such would be absurd.

How can a sane man, leave alone the owner of the sheep, desert the bulk of his flock to seek for the lost one that may already have been consumed by wild animals?

The shepherd did not leave the ninety-nine alone. He could not leave the ninety-nine alone.

The first reason being that sheep cannot survive without a shepherd.

If he left them without another shepherd, chances are that by the time he returned with that lone sheep he would find that ten have wandered away and become lost.

The second scenario is that wild animals would have enjoyed a feast because sheep not only do not know how to fight, they also do not know how to run.

The third scenario is that they would see an enemy, probably a simple dog, and scatter.

And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. (Mark 14:27)

The shepherd therefore did not leave the ninety-nine alone. He either left them with hired shepherds.

Why did he not send the said shepherds to seek for the lone sheep? I know someone is wondering.

Sheep have a connection to their shepherd.

John 10 explains that.

They only know his voice and would therefore respond when he called.

Second is that he is the one who knew them each by name.

The hireling would know that he was in charge of a hundred sheep whereas the shepherd knew each of them by name.

The hiring would count, one, two, ... ninety-nine, one is missing. The shepherd would know the particular sheep that was missing

He also knew their bleat and so would be able to hear it when it responded to his calls or when it was screaming for attention or rescue.

Compare that with a nursery full of children yet a mother would without fail know when it was her child crying.

The hiring would be at a loss in his search because he did not possess the relationship required for that rescue. He wouldn’t have been able to know whether it had joined another flock because not only would he not have been able to identify it, the same sheep would not recognise him or his intentions.

The shepherd would be on his seeking sing the sheep’s favourite songs and call out nicely to the lost sheep by name.

That would have made it possible for it to extricate itself from a new flock it had joined because of the shepherd’s appeals. It could also have bleated if it had been hidden or ensnared in a bush where the shepherd could not see.

The point of what I am saying is that the shepherd did not neglect the ninety-nine to seek the lost sheep.

Why is this important?

Elevating the one lost against the ninety-nine obedient sheep makes the shepherd stupid, to say the least.

He did not go to seek the lost sheep because it was better or of greater worth than the rest. He did not go to seek it because his sheep desperately needed the lost sheep, because I doubt that they had even noticed the lost.

He sought the lost sheep because it was a member of his flock. He sought it because his flock was incomplete without that one sheep.

Taking a coin from a million makes it stop being a million. And nobody would feel that void more than a shepherd who knew each one of them by name.

The parable’s focus was more on the shepherd than it was for the sheep.

It was about the love a shepherd has for each and every one of his sheep.

Look also at the parable of the prodigal son.

I have never heard any preaching saying anything positive about the son who stayed (though I have preached). Many seek to paint him very stupid.

To all the preachers I have heard preaching on this, it is the prodigal son who knew the way, chose right, etc.

But the father is very categorical about the value of his elder son, the one who stayed. I have never heard any preacher mentioning the fact, leave alone explaining why the father was pleading with the elder son

You are always with me. everything I have is yours.

The father was not rebuking his faithful son.

When the prodigal took his inheritance, everything else belonged to the son, even the fatted calf that was slaughtered for the prodigal.

The father was explaining grace and mercy to his faithful son.

The prodigal was not the show stopper. He was someone needing forgiveness and mercy.

But is that the way it is preached?

Yet the problem goes beyond preaching.

That error in understanding; that doctrinal error, has huge implications on how we do religion; on how we practice ministry.

A gangster becomes a believer. A wizard becomes a believer. A Muslim or Hindu becomes a believer. A fraudster becomes a believer.

His testimony is so flowery that before a year is over he becomes a pastor.

This despite the fact that there are many in the congregation who have faithfully served that congregation for decades, some who have even executed the role of pastor over the years and whose pastoral calling is not in question.

Yet they are overlooked when the church needs to employ a pastor just because the prodigal has come back home.

All the rules are broken to accommodate the prodigal son.

In short, the prodigal is given the inheritance the elder son had painstakingly maintained and which legally belonged to him and the elder son is kicked out of his inheritance.

On coming back, the prodigal owned nothing, deserved nothing.

He was clothed with his elder brother’s clothes and fed with his elder brother’s fatted calf.

The father’s concern was that the elder son extends grace to his brother and not to share his inheritance with him.

The prodigal had recovered his sonship. But he did not have any inheritance since he had wasted his.

Only his brother’s grace and mercy could have made that possible.

And even then, it could not have been restoration but mercy because he left nothing.

The reversal of that is the reason there is so much disillusionment in many churches.

A congregation has been giving faithfully for the longest time, running the church’s programs without complaining.

Yet a newbie comes with a single cheque and he suddenly becomes the only example worth emulating, even being entrusted with the finances of the church.

A songster who has sung for the devil all their life joins the church and all of a sudden he becomes the portrait of the church’s ‘praise and worship’ even before being discipled or taking membership.

It appears as if the church had never sung before that moment.

I hope you understand me.