Luke 15:32

But it was meet to make merry and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again, and was lost, and is found.

Thy brother ... In these words, the father brought the elder son back to the basic fact of his oneness with his brother, a unity denied by the contemptuous "thy son" (Luke 15:30), as the elder brother called him. All men are inherently sinful and unworthy of God's blessings; and there is no greater sin than the self-righteousness which denies such a truth.

This marvelous story teaches eternal truth, including: (1) the fact that God is willing to forgive prodigals and self-righteous bigots alike, provided that they will receive his mercies and enter the feast of the kingdom. (2) It is easier to confess to God than to many a man. (3) The great joys of God's kingdom are those of new life in those once dead to sin, and the finding of that which was lost.

Barclay made two observations from this parable which are worthy to be remembered. He said:

It should never have been called the parable of the prodigal son, for the son is not the hero ... It should be called the parable of the loving father, for it tells us rather about a Father's love than a son's sin.[7]

The other comment regards the nature of men.

"When he came to himself ..." Jesus believed that so long as a man was away from God, and against God, he was not truly himself; he was only truly himself when he was on the way home.[8]

The authenticity of this chapter is proclaimed inherently within it. God's love for the lost, from whatever cause, the Father's concern in sending his Son to save men, and the episode of the Father's entreaty of the elder son, terminated while the entreaty was still in progress, together with philosophical and theological overtones of the greatest magnitude - all these things are utterly beyond the art of any forger. The early church, with its rising percentage of Gentile members, would never have concluded this parable (if any of them had invented it) with the father still entreating the elder brother. The issue of whether or not the elder brother would attend the feast was decided very quickly after the resurrection; and, therefore, this parable clearly goes back to the Lord Jesus Christ who spoke it.

[7] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), p. 213.

[8] Ibid., p. 212.