5 Types of Sons — And What the Heart Reveals by Josimar Salum

The question is not simply who is near or far from the house, but what the condition of the heart is toward the father. Someone may leave the house and later return broken; another may remain in the house and never share the father’s heart. These biblical accounts show us that physical proximity, service, position, or length of relationship are not, in themselves, guarantees of true sonship in the heart.

1. *THE PRODIGAL SON — THE SON WHO REBELS, BUT RETURNS*

In Luke 15:11–24, the younger son does not hide his rebellion. He wants his father’s possessions, but he does not want to remain under his authority. He receives his share, leaves for a distant country, and wastes everything. His sin is visible, and his break with his father is evident. Yet there is something extraordinary about him: “But when he came to himself…” (Luke 15:17). He recognizes his condition. He does not blame his father, his brother, his circumstances, or the people he encountered along the way. He takes responsibility and says, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight” (Luke 15:21).

This is the decisive point. The “prodigal” represents the son who failed terribly but can still be reached through repentance. He does not return demanding position, rights, or restitution. He returns willing even to lose his privileges, but he finds a father running toward him. His great problem was rebellion; his great virtue, once he came to himself, was repentance. He failed deeply, but he was able to acknowledge, “I have sinned.” Therefore, his story does not end in the distant country, but in the arms of his father.

2. *THE OLDER SON — THE RIGHTEOUS-BEHAVING SON WHO BECOMES RIGHTEOUS IN HIS OWN EYES*

In Luke 15:25–32, we find a son whose problem may be more difficult to discern. He did not leave the house. He worked, obeyed, and fulfilled his responsibilities. Yet therein lay his danger: he turned his faithfulness into a claim against his father. When his brother returns, he declares, “Lo, these many years I have been serving you; I never transgressed your commandment at any time…” (Luke 15:29). His argument is clear: I served, I obeyed, I never did what he did; therefore, I deserve more. Obedience became the basis for superiority.

He cannot celebrate his brother’s restoration because he measures his brother by his failures and measures himself by his own accomplishments. Even more strikingly, he does not say to his father, “my brother,” but “this son of yours.” The father, however, responds, “this brother of yours was dead and is alive again.” The older son represents a serious danger for those who have served for many years: being right about many things and, precisely because of that, becoming incapable of recognizing the condition of their own heart.

It is possible to obey and still harbor resentment. It is possible to serve and develop a sense of entitlement. It is possible to remain in the house and not celebrate what brings joy to the father’s heart. It is possible to do everything apparently right and use one’s own accomplishments as the standard by which to condemn those who have failed. His problem was not a lack of service. It was self-righteousness without mercy.

3. *HAM — THE SON WHO EXPOSES HIS FATHER’S WEAKNESS*

In Genesis 9:20–27, we must be biblically careful. Noah became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. The text does not present Noah’s behavior at that moment as an example to follow. The father was in a shameful condition. Ham saw his father’s nakedness and told his brothers. Shem and Japheth did exactly the opposite: they walked backward and covered their father’s nakedness.

This account offers a powerful principle concerning honor. Honoring someone does not mean calling wrong right, concealing abuse, preventing accountability, or covering up crimes. The Bible does not teach complicity with sin. There is, however, a profound difference between correcting a weakness and exploiting it, between dealing with wrongdoing and turning it into an instrument of humiliation.

There are people who, when they discover a weakness in someone who has led, taught, or helped them, begin to use it to diminish that person before others. Shem and Japheth knew exactly what had happened, but they did not turn their father’s shame into a spectacle. The principle is that love does not need to deny the truth in order to preserve honor. It is possible to deal with what is wrong without taking pleasure in exposing the one who failed. And an important point of biblical precision must be maintained: the text says that Noah cursed Canaan, not Ham, according to Genesis 9:25.

4. *ABSALOM — THE SON WHO DOES NOT MERELY WANT TO LEAVE THE HOUSE; HE WANTS HIS FATHER’S PLACE*

In 2 Samuel 13–18, Absalom represents a much more serious stage. His story begins in the context of profound family injustice. Amnon raped Tamar, Absalom’s sister, and David failed to deal adequately with that crisis. Therefore, Absalom’s initial indignation did not arise out of nothing. There was a genuine wound. Yet a legitimate wound can give rise to illegitimate responses.

Absalom allows resentment to mature. Then he begins to do something extremely significant: “So Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel” (2 Samuel 15:6). He positions himself beside the road where people would come seeking the king, listens to their complaints, and communicates, in essence: Your case is good and right, but the king is not taking care of it; if I were in his place, you would receive justice.

This is the mechanism of division. Absalom does not begin by saying, “I am going to overthrow my father.” He begins by presenting himself as someone who understands the people better than his father does. He wins relationships before he seeks to win the throne. He wins hearts before attempting to take the position.

For this reason, Absalom is a particularly important figure when we speak of leadership and discipleship. The attitude of Absalom manifests itself when someone turns the real or perceived failures of a leader into a platform for building a parallel personal loyalty. He no longer seeks merely to correct; he seeks followers. He no longer simply wants a particular situation to improve; he begins to imagine, “If I were in his place…” The wound becomes resentment, resentment becomes criticism, criticism becomes parallel influence, influence becomes conspiracy, and conspiracy finally becomes open rebellion.

5. *SAUL — THE MAN WHO OBEYS ONLY AS FAR AS IT SUITS HIM AND SEES ANOTHER AS A COMPETITOR*

Saul presents a different picture from the previous ones. He is not David’s biological father, although David becomes his son-in-law and is deeply connected to his household. Therefore, we should not literally classify him among the sons described above. Nevertheless, Saul is indispensable to this reflection because he reveals both the danger of selective obedience before God and the sin of insecure authority that begins to interpret another person’s growth as a threat.

In 1 Samuel 15, we find in Saul a very dangerous manifestation of the heart: partial obedience presented as though it were complete obedience. God had given a specific command through Samuel concerning the Amalekites. Saul went into battle, won, and carried out much of what he had been commanded to do. However, he spared Agag, king of the Amalekites, and preserved the best of the sheep, oxen, and livestock. He did many things God had commanded, but he decided for himself which part of the Word he would obey and which part he would modify.

Most strikingly, when Samuel arrived, Saul declared, “Blessed are you of the LORD! I have performed the commandment of the LORD” (1 Samuel 15:13). Saul was convinced—or at least sought to convince Samuel—that he had obeyed. Samuel, however, answered, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” (1 Samuel 15:14). What Saul had preserved testified against his own claim of obedience.

Here we find a serious principle: it is not obedience when we do almost everything God has commanded but reserve for ourselves the right to decide which part we do not want to fulfill. Obedience does not consist of doing what we agree with and altering what contradicts our will. Saul fulfilled many things, but precisely in what he chose to preserve, he revealed who was truly governing his decision.

When confronted, he attempted to justify his actions by saying that the best of the animals had been preserved to sacrifice to the LORD. Then Samuel pronounced one of Scripture’s most important declarations concerning obedience: “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22).

The question is deeply revealing: In what does God delight? Not primarily in what we choose to do for Him according to our own preference, but in hearing His voice and heeding it. Saul wanted to offer God a sacrifice that God had not requested, using precisely what God had commanded not to be preserved. He wanted to substitute religious activity for obedience. But no offering made to God can compensate for disobedience to what He has spoken.

Samuel continues: “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry” (1 Samuel 15:23). The issue, therefore, goes