The Question of “Home Wisdom”: A Contextual Study of Luke 15:11–32

Abstract

It has become taboo for a parent today to say “no” to a child. Children grow in this “supposed” freedom and child rights, and then some assume an attitude of always having their own way, a character devoid of “home wisdom”, also called “common sense”. It is only their way that matters; others must bow to them. They become arrogant, proud, selfish, insensitive, irresponsible, and lack initiative; simply put, they mold themselves into “beasts”. It is only when this beast of a child turns on their parents that they realize something went wrong and needs to be corrected, which is often too late. This adage has already applied: “it is easier to bend a tender tree than an old one”. In this sacred text, Luke 15:11–32, a father displayed an attitude, which causes the mind to inquire why he consented. Why did the father allow the son to have his way, knowing quite well that the son’s reasoning was wrong? Unfortunately, this is becoming the norm of the day. In the text, the son returned, but today, many children are so consumed in pride, self-righteousness, and arrogance that even when confronted, they will not agree that they are wrong. Others, who realize their abject situation, fail to make amends for fear of being laughed at, which is pride, and they perish in the process. This paper uses narrative criticism within the context of African biblical hermeneutics to explore the reason behind the father’s attitude and the wisdom behind the son’s final acceptance of his situation that motivates him to return. These reasons, this paper hopes, will help serve as a remedy.

1. Introduction

One of the objectives among the Rights of the Child is to allow the child to develop his or her talents. They must explore, learn, develop and express themselves without external forces.1 The Children’s Act 560 (1998), Ghana based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989, mentions a child’s right to parental property. Such a property right exists in the Bible. In Luke 15:11–32, a man has two sons. The younger son demanded from the father his part of the property after his death. The father divided the property and gave his share to him. It was within the laws of Judaism to do so, but the condition under which it was done was not met by this younger son. That notwithstanding, laws can be exploited for one’s convenience (Fitzmyer 1985, p. 1087). This sacred text is a parable which can be divided into two parts. It consists of three main characters—a father, an elder son and a younger son—with their father as the main character. The uniqueness of the parable gave it varied titles: “prodigal son” of the 16th century English Bible, derived from the Latin vulgate de filio prodigo, traditional German der verlorene sohn, or “the two sons” (Manson 1971, p. 284; Scott 1989, pp. 99–100), “the parable of the Father’s Love” (Jeremias 1963, p. 128), “the Merciful Father”, “the Compassionate Father and the Angry Brother” (Jones 1982, p. 175), “the Father Who Lost His Son(s)” (Levine 2014, p. 26) “The Parable of the Two Lost Sons” (Bailey 2003, p. 95) and “the Forgiving Father”.

Among all the parables of Jesus, Crompton regards this text as “the greatest of all His parables” (Fitzmyer 1985, p. 1083; Jones 1982, p. 175). Snodgrass regards the chapter as “the heart of Luke’s travel narrative, in which he presents the bulk of Jesus’ teaching and, for that matter, the heart of his whole Gospel” (Snodgrass 2018, p. 85). It is unique according to Fitzmyer; it is a gospel passage with more varied discussions and presentations on human conduct than any other (Fitzmyer 1985, p. 1083; Johnson 1991, p. 236). It reveals the personal struggles within families in which the two sons adequately demonstrated their lack of home wisdom. Their father, the main figure in the parable, became a repository of wisdom in taking the risk of losing his property and a son (Johnson 1991, p. 241). He brought the recalcitrant son and the embittered alienated son together through his compassionate love. The text gives concern to personal relationships, evolving themes of life experience, such as freedom and responsibility, adolescent rebellion, estrangement from family, the craze for the new and foreign, the consequences of foolish living, the experience of self-encounter, egoism, longing and return, grace, anguish, reconciliation, forgiveness, bitterness, running of the mouth and the difference between merit and faithful love. All these life experiences are embedded in this sacred text and invite biblical interpretation (Johnson 1991, p. 240) The parable is family-oriented and speaks to most families (Blomberg 2012, p. 201). It presents familial usages of language that can enhance family relationships. The father’s response to each of the sons reveals his insight into life that was hidden from the sons.

Today, most parents find it difficult to say “no” to their children. Children grow in this “supposed” freedom and child rights, and then some assume an attitude of always having their own way, a character devoid of “home wisdom”, also called “common sense”. It is only their way that matters; others must bow to them. They become arrogant, proud, selfish, insensitive, irresponsible, and lack initiative; simply put, they mold themselves into “beasts”. It is only when this beast of a child turns on their parents that they realize something went wrong and needs to be corrected, which often comes too late. This adage has already applied: “it is easier to bend a tender tree than an old one”. In the sacred text Luke 15:11–32, the attitude that is displayed by the father causes the mind to inquire why he consented. Why did the father allow the son to have his way, knowing quite well that the son’s reasoning was wrong? There could be two answers: either the father loves him so much that he always gives him what he wants, or the father is just too tired to argue anymore. As stupid as it may look, Eastman says Jesus has a lesson about his father for his audience, namely that “his foolish actions reveal an economy of grace that opens the door to repentance and reconciliation by forgiving debts and exercising unaccountable generosity” (Eastman 2006, p. 402). This is what is expected of Jesus’ listeners: to always open the door of repentance. Fortunately, the attitude of the father in the text is becoming the norm of the day. In the text, the son returned, but today, many children are so consumed in pride, self-righteousness, and arrogance that even when confronted, they will not agree that they are wrong. Others, who realize their abject situation, fail to make amends for fear of being laughed at, which is pride, and they perish in the process. These lost children must be found; the two preceding parables have “lost and found” (Luke 15:1–7 and 8–10) as a title (Culpepper 1995, p. 300; Johnson 1991, p. 236) or “loss and recovery” as a theme (Snodgrass 2018, p. 85), and this text of study amplifies and continues the same theme of “lost and found” or “loss and recovery” in the chapter. This paper uses narrative criticism within the context of African biblical hermeneutics to explore the reason behind the father’s attitude and the wisdom behind the son’s final acceptance of his situation that motivated him to return. For these reasons, this paper hopes to help serve as a remedy.

2. Method and Theory

This paper employs literary narrative criticism within the context of African biblical hermeneutics. Narrative criticism dates to the mid-20th century, where biblical scholars began to apply narrative theories to analyze biblical texts. It recalls the understanding that the Bible is not exclusively a religious or sacred document but also narrative accounts which have literary qualities. The work of Robert Alter became the benchmark for the development of narrative criticism (Alter 1981). It highlights the merits of narrative techniques, structure of plot, and character development in biblical texts. Its adaptation in theological interpretation helps to understand the literary creativity present in biblical narratives. In principle, narrative criticism engages the implied author, the implied reader and the normative process of reading. With personal knowledge, experiences and opinions, the meaning of a text is conceptualized.

The Bible as a sacred text has normative values that are highly essential to Christian life (Loba-Mkole 2008, p. 3; Osborne 2006). Schökel and Bravo defined hermeneutics as “the theory of the activity of understanding and interpreting texts” (Schökel and Bravo 1998, p. 13). African biblical hermaneutics is African inculturation of the Bible that seeks to establish a meaningful connection between the Bible and the everyday lives of people. This inculturation exegesis deals with normative values, thus becoming useful because it stems from inculturation hermeneutics (Ukpong 1996, pp. 189–210). As a theological discipline, it incorporates and harmonizes all aspects of theology indicating a hermeneutical process, which includes biblical exegesis. In fact, it is an inculturation paradigm of Biblical interpretation and, in this paper, narrative criticism. Adamo described it as a methodological resource that appraises ancient biblical tradition and African worldviews, cultures and life experiences (Adamo 2015b, p. 59). The goal is to transform the African reader and the Biblical world (Meenan 2014).

This paper uses the distinctive interest approach of African biblical hermeneutics. This approach takes into consideration the narrative techniques, the structure of the plot, the character development of the texts and the theological interpretation (in short, the literary creativity present in the text). This approach helps the life interest of the researcher to relate the interpretive interests of the text and the reality to dialogue (that is, the biblical text and the socio-religious, psycho-cultural, and eco-political concerns of contemporary society) (Adamo 2015a, pp. 45–46). The approach fundamentally involves an exegesis of the biblical text, an analysis of the contemporary African context, which is the reality, and engagement between the text and the reality. This approach is suited to studying the parental role in the family. In addition, there are qualitative interviews and a review of the scholarly literature.

3. Analysis of the Text (Luke 15:11–32)

This analysis includes the structure and the literary style, morphology, figures of speech, familiar language and other aspects.

3.1. Structure of the Text (Luke 15:11–32)

The text is divided into two parts: vv. 11–12 and vv. 25–32. The first part, vv. 11–24, involves the younger son and the father. A further division for clarity presents youthful exuberance (vv. 12–13), subdivided into the son’s request (v. 12a), father’s consent (v. 12b), son’s departure (v. 13); the result of ruthless living (vv. 14–16); the interior monologue (vv. 17–19); the reunion of father and son (v. 20); the son’s confession (v. 21) and the father’s response (vv. 22–24). In the second part (vv. 25–32), the servant, the elder son and the father are present. A further division for clarity includes the servant and the elder son (vv. 25–27); the reunion of the father and the elder son (vv. 28–30) and the father’s response (vv. 31–32).

3.2. The Text (Luke 15:11–32)

The text was analyzed according to the structure of the text. Each of the sons experienced the unconditional love of a human father filled with wisdom who exercised intuition, discernment, patience, compassion and reconciliation. No matter what, a child of a home is always the child of a home (Culpepper 1995, p. 305).

3.2.1. Introduction (v.11)

A certain man, presumably a Palestinian, wealthy Jewish man (Fitzmyer 1985, p. 1087), had two sons, which already indicates a two-part parable with a thematic but unparallel resemblance with the two sons in Matt. 21:28–31 (Johnson 1991, p. 236).

3.2.2. The Father and the Younger Son (vv. 12–24)

Youthful Exuberance (vv. 12–13)

The younger son’s request (v. 12) for early distribution of his father’s ousia (property; see 12:13) is the result of youthful exuberance. The father, in his knowledge, did not argue with him, as it is within Jewish law to will a property in one’s lifetime, but the condition under which that is done was not met here. His son’s attitude was inappropriate and a sign of gross disrespect to the father. He treated the father as if he was already dead (Bailey 2003, p. 99; Culpepper 1995, p. 301). Although quite unhappy (v. 20) because the father knew the consequences of his son’s request, he gave in to his demand and divided his life (bios, living) between the two sons.2 Customarily, a Jewish father in Palestine has a right to enact a will; to requit ousia to a child is within basic Jewish inheritance law (Lev. 27:8–11; 36:7–9). Usually, the eldest son receives double the portion of what is given to the other sons (Deut. 21:17). The will is executed after his death (Num. 36:7–9; 27:8–11). There is a provision for a father to will his property as a gift to his children during his lifetime, such as in marriage (Tob. 8:21), to which Sirach objected (Sir. 33:19–23). But taking full possession of the property only occurs when the father dies. Thus, even though it may be shared among the children, any interest that accrues on the property goes to the father, and even if the child sold the property to someone else, the person could only take full possession after the father was dead (Fitzmyer 1985, p. 1087). The father apparently divided the property among the two sons, and it should be understood that the elder son took his property as well, but the father was still in control of his property (vv. 22–23, 29, 31), which confirms the law (Num. 36:7–9; 27:8–11).

In v. 13, “Not long afterward”, a favorite Lukan phrase that he used almost 17 times, revealed the aftermath.3 He gathered together (synagein) his property, probably converted them into cash and left for a distant region (19:12; Fitzmyer 1985, p. 1087; Culpepper 1995, p. 301; Bailey 2003, p. 101). He then squandered—that is, scattered (diaskorpizein)—his property in a dissolute and debauched living (v. 13; Levine 2014, p. 43; Johnson 1991, p. 236). The noun form of “debauched living” ασώτως (asōtōs, dissolute life) occurs three more times in the New Testament: in Eph. 5:18 as drunkenness, Titus 1:6 as rebelliousness, and 1 Pet. 4:3 as licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revels, carousing and lawless idolatry, which Culpepper referred to as “Gentile debauchery” (Culpepper 1995, p. 301). Nothing is said specifically about ασώτως except for the elder son to allude to it in v. 30 as “devouring your estate with prostitute”. The author also plays on words as the son gathers (synagō) in v. 12 so he can scatter (diaskorpizō) in loose life in v. 13 (Blomberg 2012, pp. 205–6).

The Reality of Life (vv. 14–16)

Youthful exuberance paved the way to ruthless living, in which he spent all his gathered fortune. A severe famine dislodged him from his expected life, the reality of life set in, and he began to be in need (hustereō, v. 14). He hired (kollaō, cleaved, v. 15) himself out to one of the citizens, possibly a gentile, who sent him off to feed his pigs (v. 15). A Jew has nothing to do with pigs (Lev. 11:7; Deut. 14:8); pigs are unclean, cloven-hoofed animals that do not chew cud and abhorred by Jews (Luke 8:32), who neither eat pork (1 Macc. 1:47; 2 Macc. 6:18; 7:1) nor dream of becoming a swineherd. For him to become a swineherd suggests the abject degradation into which he had plunged himself. Jews are forbidden by the Mishnah to raise pigs (m. Bab. Qam, 7:7; Scott 1989, p. 114) On swineherds, a rabbi stated “Cursed be the man who raises pigs” (Fitzmyer 1985, p. 1088), and here he has taken that curse on himself (Johnson 1991, p. 237). He longed to have his fill (6:21; 9:17) of the pigs’ food, which would be disgusting, but nobody gave him that (v. 16). His dire need for the food (pod) is expressed by the imperfect epithymeō (desire, wish), but that was not fulfilled.

The Awakening (vv. 17–19)

In the swine pen, he came to his senses (v. 17); the interior monologue gave way to remorse and regret for his misconduct (Culpepper 1995, p. 302). Wisdom set in; he realized that his self-esteem was lower with regard to his father’s servants and hired hands (Lev. 25:50; Job 7:1; Tob. 5:14). He said to himself (v. 18), “I shall arise and set out to my father” (Gen. 22:3, 19; 24:10; 43:8; Tob. 8:10). His going to the father is to acknowledge his fault not only against his father but also against “heaven”, a surrogate for “God” (Fitzmyer 1985, p. 1089; Dan. 4:26; 1 Macc. 3:18), a symbol of a sincere confession (Exod. 10:16; Deut. 1:41; 1 Sam. 7:6; 24:12) of one who has come to his or her real self. He condemned himself (v. 19) as a son and an heir to property, being one who did not deserve his father’s love anymore and should be treated as a hired worker (Lev. 19:13) with no permanence. Despite his self-condemnation, he used the word “father” in his greetings (v. 21), which suggests filial sentiments; he still saw him as the father (Johnson 1991, p. 237). Although the text does not provide the reason for his request, he perceived his conduct to be repulsive, a gross disrespect and unacceptable to be forgiven; this step was self-initiative without any external cohesion.

The Reunion of Father and Son (vv. 20–21)

The statement “while he was still a long way off” in v. 20 implies that the father had been on watch, thinking, peering and wishing for his return, a sign that his son’s action displeased him. That deep desire for his return was the reason for the expressions—seeing, running, feeling, embracing, throwing his arms around his neck (Gen. 45:14–15; 46:49; Acts 20:37) and kissing him (2 Sam. 14:33)—which manifested his received forgiveness (Fitzmyer 1985, p. 1089) as a manifestation of a father’s love (v. 20; Levine 2014, pp. 47–48).

Unconditional Love of a Father (vv. 22–24)

In v. 21, before the son could finish his formulated words of repentance (vv. 18–19), the father interjected (v. 22), calling on the servants to dress him in the best robe (Amos 6:6; Songs 4:14), put a ring on his finger (1 Macc. 6:15) and sandals on his feet and slaughter the fatted calf. The fatted calf in v. 23 is literally “the grain-fed” (siteutos) calf. According to Johnson, it is one that is destined for a special feast and is stuffed with grain to put on extra weight and become tender, in contrast to the cattle left to graze on the grass (Johnson 1991, p. 238). The slaughtering of it is a sign of a special occasion (Judg. 6:25, 28; Jer. 26:21; Matt. 46:21). To eat meat was not a daily Palestinian occurrence; meat was reserved for special occasions (Culpepper 1995, p. 303). The father called for a feast (12:19; v. 32a) because he was dead and had come back to life (vv. 24, 32b), which is interpreted as “morally” dead to the family, but he was now alive in the family; he was lost to the family but then found in the family, which mimics the two preceding parables. The above august reception was a mark of the father’s welcome to an honored son of the family (Gen. 41:42), which was contrary to his desire to become a hired hand (Blomberg 2012, p. 207). The importance of “the return” was the august reception, which Johnson testifies “it is a mark of great esteem to spend this valuable possession for a celebration” (Johnson 1991, p. 238). This is because the father felt fulfilled to have his son back.

3.2.3. The Father and the Elder Son (vv. 25–32)

The Resentful Attitude of the Elder Son (vv. 25–27)

The elder son is now introduced for the first time. He was working in the field for the father, which presumably belonged to him (vv. 12, 31). The ongoing celebration sets the tone for this conversation. As he drew near the house, he heard music and possibly the sound of dancing and shouting. He asked one of the servants about this (v. 26). The servant informed him “your brother” is home and “your father” slaughtered the fatted calf because he returned in good health (v. 27). One can observe the familial language “your brother” and “your father”. Such usage breeds unity and encourages belongingness, which is part of familial wisdom. The elder son became furious and, in his anger, would not enter the house; this was made known to the father and, in his wits, he came out to meet him, just as he did for the younger son. The servant also compounded the problem with mentioning the fatted calf. He talked too much. Virtue prudence teaches knowing what to say and when to talk.

The Reunion of Father and Son (vv. 28–30)

The elder son refused to enter the house. The father came out to plead and to comfort him (v. 28; Levine 2014, p. 53). He retorted (v. 29) because he served the father loyally for several years (Gen. 31:41) like a slave without a wage as a hired hand would, keeping faithfully his commitment (Fitzmyer 1985, p. 1091). He never ignored a single command; he stressed his conscious fidelity, which he now found unrewarding. The father never gave him a kid (Gen. 31:41), which was less than the price of a calf, to celebrate with his friends for his long years of faithful service. Here, the elder son estranged himself; the language “his friends” and not his father and family, as the father did for the family when his brother returned, left a question. He now fumed at his father (v. 30), but when “that son of yours” (v. 2; 18:11; Acts 17:18) who devoured his own ousia with prostitutes came back, he was celebrating. Watch the familial language of “that son of yours” and not “my brother”, which demonstrates his utter resentment and his distance from the brother and his scorn and bitterness at his father’s reception of the younger son.

A Father’s Affectionate Love (vv. 31–32)

The father said “my son”, meaning “my child”, along with the familial language of “you are always with me”, with no sign of anger. He did not fault him or yell at him, which demonstrates the father’s “home wisdom”. He never died; he was never lost; all that belonged to the father was his (v. 31). However, it is necessary (dei, see 13:16) to be merry and celebrate human life. Accordingly, Johnson notes that “for Luke, the recognition of human need and circumstances places an obligation superior to that of the law” (Johnson 1991, p. 239). Now, the father with familial language refers to his younger brother as “this brother of yours” as opposed to “this son of yours” in v. 30, bridging that gap of familiar distance and reminding him that it is “his brother who has returned”, injecting some wisdom into him. “That brother of yours” was dead and came back to life, and this gave cause to rejoice and celebrate. The rejoicing links with the earlier parables (vv. 5, 10), but in this celebration, the elder brother’s participation becomes necessary to make it whole (Culpepper 1995, p. 300). The elder son is lost and must be found (Levine 2014, pp. 39–40).

4. To Grow with Home Wisdom Is a Necessity

To let a child grow with “home wisdom” is for the child to grow into a human being. To achieve home wisdom means one must critique what is seen and comprehended as humanly good. What is humanly good must enhance human life in terms of human integration and interaction. Today, there is a child’s rights policy, but that alone is not enough. The road of life is full of traffic that must be obeyed for survival. By understanding and using wisely a child’s rights, the policy equips the child to traverse the road of life with wisdom, closing the gap of life relationships for a fulfilled life. Children are vulnerable and suffer various forms of physical or mental violence, abuse, exploitation, neglect, lack of healthcare and educational and well-being interference. With 40 percent of Ghana’s population being under 15 years, it is appropriate to promote, protect and enforce child rights.4 Ghana has national legislation, policies and programs, and it was recognized as the first United Nations member state to ratify the CRC on 5 February 1990. Available records indicate that Ghana has signed 12 and ratified at least 10 United Nations treaties and 8 international labor organizations’ fundamental conventions that hold relevance toward protecting and supporting children’s civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights (Teng-Zeng and Nsubuga 2025, pp. 57, 64). This is all to ensure that children are well educated and wholistically formed to engage in humane relationships. In this paper, since it is about parental inheritance, a child is understood as one who is still under a parent and awaiting his or her property rights. To gain “home wisdom”, this paper considers the following essentials: human rights, the road of life and bridging the gaps of relationships.

4.1. A “Right” Devoid of Human Relationship

The rights of a person depend on the circumstance of the person. A right must veer toward the wellbeing of the person. Unfortunately, today, a right is invoked whether it hurts others or has no value to human relationships (Culpepper 1995, p. 304). The younger son acted within his rights but destroyed his closest relationship. According to Johari, a “right is a claim of an individual recognized by the society and state” (Johari 2011, p. 226). Thus, a right becomes a moral declaration when it receives the protection of the state (Johari 2011, p. 227). From a broader perspective, Yeboah defined a right as “a claim, privilege, power or immunity that can only be interfered with or denied in the name of the similar rights of other persons or the public interest understood as the common well-being or general welfare of the people” (Yeboah 2012, p. 31). The definitions reveal that a right is not selfish; the younger son does not fall within the defined rule of a right.

Observation of children reveals their quest for their rights; it takes them time to maintain relationships. This parable is an emotional piece of parent-child conflict. It mentions “sons” with a direct link to their father. The mother and daughter(s) were not mentioned. Difficulties among siblings are a familial experience, and it is not stated why the younger son decided to take his ousia. The Bible shares familial conflicts between sons, which ruin relationships: Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:1–16), Ishmael and Isaac (Gen. 16:1–16; 21:1–21; Gal. 4:21–30), Esau and Jacob (Gen. 25:19–34; Mal. 1:2–3) and Joseph and his brothers (Gen. 37:1–50:26). In all these Biblical cases, the younger sons were the favorites, as in this text (Culpepper 1995, p. 300). In those examples where fathers were involved, they acted in their sense of the rights due to blood sons, but it turned out badly. In this parable, it is good to question the attitude of the father, who knew the consequences of his son’s request but heeded to it. Today, such attitudes are still expressed by parents which put the lives of both parents and the child on the edge. Parents and children have various reasons for their actions today. Among them, three will be studied: the child’s rights, capacity building and only child syndrome.

4.1.1. Child’s Right

Children have become a target group in this paper because most of the adult behaviors were inculcated in childhood. They are accorded many rights and privileges. Children are to be protected and supported against discrimination, with their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights asserted (Dugard et al. 2019). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a widely ratified international human rights treaty with 196 members, states in Article 1 that “a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier” (United Nations General Assembly 1989). In Ghana, the 1992 Constitution under the Fourth Republic’s Article 28 (5) defines a child as “a person below the age of eighteen years”. Since the subject matter is parental inheritance, as mentioned earlier, a child is understood in this paper as one who is still under a parent and awaiting his or her property right. According to the CRC, child rights are minimum entitlements and freedoms that should be afforded to everyone below 18 regardless of race, gender, language, religion, origin, wealth, birth status or ability (Articles 1 and 2). Simply put, child rights are a set of legally binding norms and standards for the care and protection of children in all situations. This convention’s provisions are similarly echoed in Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child by the member states of the Organization of African Unity (O.A.U) in 1990, now the African Union.

The 1992 Constitution of Ghana has several enshrined provisions for the protection of fundamental human rights in general and children’s rights in particular. For instance, Chapter Five covers fundamental human rights and freedoms, and Article 28 specifically deals with children’s rights. The promulgation of the Children’s Act of 1998 (Act 560), which is divided into six parts, mentioned among many things a child’s right to parental property. Most things hinge on how to relate with a child, which includes talking, teaching, touching, training, sending and asking them for help. The tone with which one speaks with a child and the way one looks at or touches a child could be turned into abuse. The children themselves also take advantage of such laws, as some are believed to be ambiguous and could be interpreted in diverse ways to have their parents or teachers prosecuted (Gyan et al. 2015). Parents and teachers have been victimized with such abuses to the point that some have decided to stay aloof and allow their children and students to have their “freedom”.5 Some children build their “freedom” into pride and arrogance such that they exploit those opportunities to do whatever they like, become selfish and do not mind if they hurt others, like the heedless younger son who sought only his own right without thinking of the hurt feelings of his father, elder brother and family. He sought his freedom, forgetting that when one’s freedom ends, another person’s freedom begins. “It is the law” and “it is my right” do not always end in human fulfilment. The pursuit of one’s right to the neglect of human relationships signifies a void in human reasoning that is only provided for after a true discernment of one’s past actions through interior contemplation. Such was the case with the younger son for the desire to return home and for the elder son to accept that the younger son was his brother. Earthly material property should not separate their familial bond (Johnson 1991, p. 241).

The elder son felt unprovided for and abandoned for many years by the father’s attitude toward the younger son’s return; he felt used and abused. He slaved for the father for several years, being loyal and faithful, and he never transgressed against any of his commands, yet he went unrewarded. He considered his loving service as a merit that should be rewarded. He resented the father’s reception for his brother; his rage was expressed in his every word and gesture: the questioning of the servant, the refusal to enter the house and his response to his father’s words of comfort. He regarded his brother as privileged and unworthy (Johnson 1991, p. 241). He failed to recognize his constant position with his father and could not see that the father always extended to him the same constant care and concern.

4.1.2. Capacity Building

It is good to allow children to experience and learn, thus enhancing their capacity. Common sense is not common, and in the same way, they will build up bad traits. Experience makes a full human being, and children will become experienced in what they have learnt. The father agreed to the son’s request but was always waiting to hear from or see him; he did not feel good after allowing him to go (v. 20). It is good for parents to want their children to be adventurous and choose for themselves, but unfortunately, some parents overdo this to the point that the children cross the line and get out of hand. Some parents, because of their busy schedules, do not observe their children to know how they are building their capacity (Salakpi 2023, pp. 139–44).

4.1.3. Only Child Syndrome

It is heartbreaking to hear parents say “this is my only child, leave him or her alone” when the child is in the wrong. This causes some parents to pick quarrels with teachers and outsiders who attempt to contribute to the upbringing of their child in the right manner. Some parents lavish their children with excessive money, free space and undue comfort to the point that they think life is rosy until they are on their own or when their parents are no longer available. Then, they start experiencing the real state of life. At this point, it sometimes becomes too late for some to adjust and learn.

4.2. The Road of Life

The road of life is both smooth and rough, being filled with human traffic that must be obeyed. It is good to watch the three colors—red, amber and green—to make a move. No human being is an island, and every human being depends on the other to make life bearable, but some individuals take advantage of others. Life should be sustained, and it is only other human beings who can help endure and sustain life. Good relationships with other human beings are essential, and one must look for human beings who vouch for the sustenance of life. Two categories of people emerged from the text, and they are to be avoided in life.

4.2.1. Fair Weather Friend

There are friends who exist only in good times and disappear when times are bad. The younger son had friends who helped him squander his money and disappeared when they exhausted the money. All relationships must be weighed to see if they enhance and sustain life. People who always sing praises must be avoided, but those who are critical of life issues are to be sustained.

4.2.2. Garrulous Friends

Prudence is a virtue that enhances human relationships and makes human interaction cordial. The servant who spoke to the elder brother after his enquiry needed not mention the fatted calf. That fueled the anger in the elder brother. Human beings need to learn when and how to speak and act accordingly. It is not everything that needs to be said or acted upon.

4.3. Closing the Gap: The Awakening

The awakening from an abuse of a right is to close the gap between the idealness of legality and the reality of life. This gap is created in human relationships due to missing links in communication. Sometimes a child may not understand the parents or the parents may not understand the child. In some situations, the child may not even know that he or she has done anything wrong. In the text, there are missing links that call for “home wisdom”; those gaps must be filled. The parable has two lessons: the joy over finding what was lost, which is the theme of the preceding two parables—the lost sheep (15:1–7) and the lost coin (15:8–10)—and the now lost “home wisdom” (15:11–32). That gives reason for the two conclusions (vv. 24 and 32) of “he was lost and has been found” (Culpepper 1995, p. 300). The second lesson is the lack of interest in the welfare of others and the sense of uprightness demonstrated by the two sons, as well as the unforgiving human nature, that was exhibited by the elder son. “Home wisdom” insists on becoming conscious of others, because life becomes meaningful with human interaction. Therefore, in a strict sense, based on these two lessons, this paper concludes that both sons were “lost and found” by their father, the theme of the chapter, which will be contextualized for contemporary usage (Snodgrass 2018, p. 85).

4.3.1. Contextual Analysis

The context used in this paper is home, but this attitude of human relationships is applicable in schools, workplaces and churches; the individual is encouraged to use “home wisdom” to enhance life in those settings. The father is the central figure in the parable (Fitzmyer 1985, p. 1084); his responses to his sons’ actions led them to acquire wisdom.

The Younger Son

• Request for property: without squabbling, the father distributed the property.
• “I will arise and go to my father” has three bold steps: he comes to himself, he arises, and he goes to his father.
• “Father, I have sinned” has four eminent parts: an address, “father” (cf. v. 12), a confession, “I have sinned” (cf. Exod. 10:16), a contrition, “I am no longer worthy”, and a petition, “treat me like one of your hired hands” (Culpepper 1995, p. 302).

The lesson from the father is patient waiting, which is demonstrated in pacing the floor, peering down the road and his impassive attitude, which is demonstrated in springing to his feet, running to meet him and embracing and kissing him, which interrupted the son’s rehearsed repentance speech (vv. 18–19), honoring him as a son with sandals, a robe, a ring and a fatted calf. All of this suggests the father’s forgiveness, goodwill and public acceptance of a lost son who found himself.6

The Elder Son

• His anger and refusal to enter the house; the father came to plead with him (v. 28).
• His venom centered on the father (vv. 29–30).

As a lesson, the father made him recognize his constant position with him in the family and for him to realize that he always extended to him the same constant care and concern (Johnson 1991, p. 241). It is good to celebrate this because it is one’s own blood who has come back. This brother of yours, the father calmly explained to him, has a life that must be respected and be glad for. Life matters before material things that are left behind after death. Above all, the father established, “everything I have belonged to you” (v. 31).

The parable probes the human psyche and touches the root of life. The joy of finding the younger son is demonstrated by slaughtering the fatted calf, eating, drinking, dancing and rejoicing. The younger son was reinstated with a robe to clothe him as a family member, with sandals on his feet and a ring on his finger. Outside the family, he was naked and vulnerable, but now, he has regained the protection and care of the family. A child of a home is always a child of a home. There are parents who do not know where their children are. Some drive them away because they disrespect them, but a child is always a child (Culpepper 1995, p. 305). The younger son, having understood himself, addressed the father respectfully as “father” (vv. 12, 18, 21), being extremely obedient, but for the elder son, the father had to plead with him to understand (v. 28). The elder son, with arrogance, used no familial language in relation to either his father or his brother. He used the word “listen” (v. 29) rather than “father”, and then he likened his role to a servant (v. 29), which is ironic given the younger son’s demand (v. 19; Culpepper 1995, p. 303). The language of the two sons to their father was rude; after the younger son came into himself, he became submissive. Nothing is said about the elder son, but at the end, the father justified his call for the celebration and his “supposed” insensitivity toward the elder son’s faithful service. The father did this to restore the family relationship. The father reminded the elder brother of his relationship with the younger brother. He needed to forgive the brother.

To restore and remedy wrongs begin with self-awareness. Pride can keep us from admitting mistakes; self-esteem may require decisive action to set right the things wronged. The younger son did not consider pride and shame but pursued what mattered to him, that being to restore the relationship and not his status, privileges, forgiveness and other matters (Culpepper 1995, p. 304). Sometimes, people who realize themselves to be in error are rejected, which is unfortunate. In other cases, those who wrong others will not make any effort to atone for their wrong deeds. Children are not free from the law either. CRC Article 40 (1) states the following:

States parties recognise the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s integration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society.

This calls for a child judicial system guided by the principles of the rule of law as it applies to children.7

The father’s attitude to receive the younger son is an eye-opener for parents who have vowed not to forgive their children. Here, Fitzmyer comments on the excellent attitude of the father:

On the lips of Jesus it may well have stressed the boundless, unconditioned love of the father who not only welcomes back with love his (repentant) son who has wronged him, but will not even allow the attitude of the ever-faithful elder son to deter him from expressing that love and acceptance of the younger son, who was dead and has come back to life.

(Fitzmyer 1985, p. 1085)

The father was not deterred from speaking to the elder son to accept the brother, despite his anger at joining in the celebration. Siblings must love one another, and parents have a responsibility to see to good relationships among them. This is a lesson for parents to bridge gaps between siblings. There are siblings today who do not talk to one another or are in court over their parents’ property. The initial attitude of the sons to their father represents all who think they are self-sufficient and need no one; they are proud of the kind of lives they live. That is the attitude of those who live on justice and merit but not on grace. The younger son, having become aware of himself, asked for grace. According to Culpepper, those who live by merits never receive the grace of God because they demand that they are dealt with as they deserve (Culpepper 1995, p. 305). To share in grace is to celebrate others who also receive and share in the same grace from God. Each member of a family is equally important, and no one should be excluded from familial love. The text does not say whether the elder son enters to welcome the brother and join in the celebration. This is a message left to individual hearts to decide.

5. Conclusions

Indeed, both sons were lost and found; they both had their missing home wisdom restored. The text, Luke 15:11–32, is a gem of “home wisdom” that employs family tenets which, when adhered to, will enhance the family relationship and its wellbeing (Culpepper 1995, p. 304). The father in the parable imparts “home wisdom” unto his sons, a lesson for parents and children of today. He has become the epitome of ready comprehension, patient enduring, unconditioned and unstinted love and mercy, a monarch of discernment and the power of persuasion, which are the bedrock of “home wisdom”. For the father, love requires no confession and no restitution; to have seen his son is enough (Culpepper 1995, p. 305). The question is to what extent a parent must allow the child to build his or her capacity. Children should be allowed to develop their talents; the father took a risked and did so, and the son learned, coming back and realizing that life is not what he thought. Now, how many of today’s children will have the wisdom to come back? This paper encourages the shedding off pride and arrogance and making up for wrongdoings.

Familial rights need to be defended by parents and the government just as the government and law courts defend civil rights. The family is an institution within society with norms and values that must be enforced for the good of society (North 1989, p. 1321). Youthful times are filled with exuberance that needs a check; youths cannot see far off, and the “far country” (v. 13) can be incredibly appealing. Life is presumed to be rosy and affordable until reality sets in (vv. 14–16). It is always a desire to live by oneself. The younger son in the text experienced it. It is certain that young people will one day leave and move far from home to a “far country” for a better life, but they must not forget to equip themselves with “home wisdom”, unlike the younger son. Newly married couples are expected to leave their parental homes with their relationship to live their lives as spouses in a new relationship. They must do so without damaging their relationships with their parents, family and friends because they still need the old relationship again in life. The glow that surrounds the “far country” is always a mirage. If it is not readily informed by “home wisdom”, then it is when “home wisdom” is acquired about how home looks good, and the “far country” becomes nearer to home when remembered.