The parable is thus practical in its aim — teaching men not only how they ought to treat their repent- ant brethren, but chiefly what is necessary to en- able them to do so. For what was it that led the father to act as he did? Was it not just the love he bore his son, foolish and erring though he had been ? The elder son reasoned on the lines of cold and rigid law, whereas the heart of the father spoke, and the voice of love was obeyed. And was it not just the want of this affectionate heart that allowed the elder brother to act so ungener- ously ? Had he loved his brother, he would have vied with his father in the warmth of his welcome ; had he even loved his father, he would have ac- quiesced in his father's wish for his father's sake. It was poverty of affection that led him to display a selfishness tliat was offensive, and a temper that was childish and rude. What could the father do ? — a son he loved and had lost was home again safe and sound — a son who had gone forth to a rude world had returned disillusioned and chastened by his bitter experience.
In the first instance, no doubt, the parable was meant to point out the defect in the Jewish way of dealing with those who had sinned. What was clearly lacking there Avas a brotherly spirit. Those who had erred were treated with unrelenting sever- ity ; the sinner looked in vain for mercy and hoped in vain for restoration, no matter how painful and prolonged his period of repentance had been. But what was true for the Jews is true for all. Love alone is capable of rendering the conscience sensi- tive to the finest shades of justice. Law rigidly applied does not scrutinize the motive, does not measure the force of temptation, does not take into account the fact of repentance, and is there- fore often unjust when in appearance it is most just. The father showed mercy because he loved his son, and in showing mercy dispensed the truer justice ; for mercy is but justice perfectly applied. The elder brother failed in his duty to brother and father alike, because he lacked the affection that would have swept away his shallow notions of justice, and pointed out a better way. The parable thus emphasizes one aspect of the
great conmiandment of our Lord, that men should love one another ; and in this respect shows a close resemblance to several of His otlier parables. In that of the Good Samaritan, the Priest and the Levite saw no duty they owed to the wounded Jew, whereas the heart of the Samaritan — a mem- ber of a despised race — responded at once to the demands of the situation. And in that of the Labourers in the Vineyard, is it not the mean and grudging spirit of the whole - day labourers that is condemned, since their rights were not infringed nor their interests invaded by the gener- ous treatment accorded to the late-comers ?
What men require in their dealings with one another is the loving heart, and in dealing with our erring and repentant brethren nothing else will give the insight and tenderness needed to fulfil the ends of real justice. In the sympathy of Christ lay the secret of His power. No one who had paid the penalty of his transgression in bitter repentance was refused His countenance or His help ; and the moral sense of mankind, quickened by a genuine brotherly love, will ever admit that His way is the right way — will ever say to the harsh and unforgiving, It is ' meet that we should make merry and be glad : for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again ; and was lost, and is found.'
Literature. — Goebel, Parables of Jesus ; A. B. Bruce, Para- bolic Teaching of Christ ; M. Dods, Parables of Our Lord ; Trench, Notes on the Parables ; Arnot, Parables of Our Lord ; W. M. Taylor, Parables of Our Saviour ; also F. W. Robertson's Sermons, ill. 253 ; Dale, Ep. of James and Other Discourses, 160 ; Ballard, The Penitent Prodigal ; Hancock, The Return to the Father ; Willcox, The Prodigal Son ; Expositor, i. ix. [1879] 137, III. viii. [1888] 268, 388, x. [1889] 122 ; ExpT vii. [1896] 325 ; Parker, People's Bible. D. G. YoUNG.
PROFANING, PROFANITY.— 1. The terms.—
The word ' profane' occurs only once in EV of the Gospels, and then in the verbal form (Gr. f^e^rjXdw), viz. in Mt 12', where Jesus says, in defending His disciples and Himself from the charge of Sabbath- breaking, ' Have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple pro- fane the sabbath, and are guiltless?' Elsewhere in NT the vb. (Gr. and Eng.) is found only in Ac 24**, where the Jews accuse St Paul of profaning the Temple. The meaning of ^e^Tfkbw must be considered in connexion with the adj. ^ifirfKoi from which it comes, and which is found 5 times in NT (1 Ti 1" 4'' 62», 2 Ti 2i», He 12^8), ' profane ' being in each case the rendering of EV. /S^^t/Xos is the almost exact equivalent of Lat. profanus, whencie Eng. ' profane.' Profanus (fr. pro = ' before,' and /awwm = * temple ') means 'without the temple,' and so 'unconsecrated,' as opposed to sacer. /3e/37;Xos (fr. /3au'Cj='to go,' whence /377Xds= ' thres- hold') denotes that whicii is 'trodden,' 'open to access,' and so again ' unconsecrated,' in contrast to ifpos. Originally /3^/3i?Xos (like its opposites, iepds, ayios, etc. ) had a purely ritual meaning, but out of this there gradually arose ethical and spiritual connotations. The LXX affords plenti- ful illustration of these various uses of the word. In Lv 10'", e.g., ^i^rfKo^ means no more than ciKddapTos, as the context shows, i.e. ritually unclean. In 19^" RV 'Profane [AV 'Prostitute'] not thy daughter,' the ethical meaning is apparent. In Ezk 22-", with its clear distinction between ^e^rjXos and ayios, together witii its conception of a profaning of God Himself, Ave pass from the moral into the still higher realm of spiritual religion. Similarly, in the Gospels we find a lower and a higher conception of what is meant by pro- fanation. There is a profaneness of the law and the letter, eagerly pounced upon by scribes and Pharisees. There is a profaneness of the soul and the spirit, which stands revealed to the eyes of Jesus.