Luke 15:11-32

Luke 15:1–2 (ESV)

1 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. 2 And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

Context of Luke 15:11-32 is Luke 15:1-2

15:1. Tax gatherers and sinners were excluded from the religious community. Proverbs (1:15; 13:20; 14:7) warns of the danger of spending time with sinners. But it is clear in this text that the moral influence is from Jesus to the sinners, not the reverse. Many religious Jews emphasized talking about the law whenever possible; no one could legitimately complain about Jesus, who here communicates God’s message to his listeners during table fellowship (on lectures at meals, cf. comment on 14:7).

15:2. Pharisees and legal teachers did not consider it proper to eat with those excluded from the religious community; besides such dangers as eating untithed food, intimate table fellowship connoted acceptance. “Grumbling” could remind biblically knowledgeable ancient readers of Israel’s unbelief and murmuring in the wilderness.

all 3 parables make the same point: the joy which is experienced by a person who recovers what he has lost. The applications of the first two parables make it quite explicit that such joy is a reflection of the joy felt by God when he recovers what he has lost (cf. E. Rasco*). The third parable, however, broadens out the theme by investigating the situation of the lost person and by looking at the attitude of the person who was apparently not lost and yet resented the joy felt over the returning prodigal.

Luke 15:11–32 (ESV)

11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons.

12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them.

15:11–12. To ask one’s father for one’s share of the inheritance early was unheard of in antiquity; in effect, one would thereby say, “Father, I wish you were already dead.” Such a statement would not go over well even today, and in a society stressing obedience to one’s father it would be a serious act of rebellion (Deut 21:18–21) for which the father could have beaten him or worse. That the father grants the request means that most of the hearers will not identify with the father in this parable; from the start, they would think of him as stupidly lax to pamper such an immoral son.

The eldest son always received a double portion (Deut 21:17); in this case, he would have received two-thirds of the inheritance and the younger brother one-third.

Although the most natural time of bequeathing or transference occurred at the father’s death (see Num 27:8–11), this request does not amount to a wish that his father were dead. A man could give property to his heirs or distribute it on request while he was still alive (as in this parable). A warning against this practice in Sirach (a Jewish. Deuterocanonical book from the second century bc) suggests that it was a common occurrence (Sirach 33:19–24).

even if a father gave the inheritance early the father would have moral claim on what the son did with his inheritance.

13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living.

15:13. The son gathered or turned into cash all that he had.

15:13. Jewish law did permit a father to determine which assets (especially land) would go to which sons before he died, but they could take possession only on the father’s death: the father was manager and received the land’s profits until then. Thus this son could know what would be his but could not legally sell his assets; he does it anyway.

Many Palestinian Jews migrated, seeking fortune in less economically pressed areas. The younger son is presumably no older than 18 (he was unmarried) and had an older brother; he would thus have had little experience in managing finances. Moralists considered squandering very evil.

This lost son did not leave to make money he left to spend the money.

14 And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need.

15:14. Famine was a common devastating feature of the ancient economy.

15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs.

New Testament 15:11–32—The Lost Son

15:15. At this point, Jesus’ Jewish hearers are ready for the story to end (like a similar second-century Jewish story): the son gets what he deserves—he is reduced to the horrendous level of feeding the most unclean of animals. The son is cut off at this point from the Jewish community and any financial charity it would otherwise offer him.

16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.

New Testament (15:11–32—The Lost Son)

15:16. Some commentators have suggested that the “pods” here are the kind of carob pods that Israel would eat only in famine, which some teachers said drove Israel to repentance. Others argue that these are prickly, wild pods that only swine’s snouts could reach. Neither pod was considered appetizing, and given pigs’ proverbially unclean eating habits, the thought of eating pigs’ food would disgust Jesus’ hearers. That the young man is jealous of pigs’ fare also suggests that he is not receiving fair wages (cf. 15:17).

The Gospel of Luke iv. The Lost Son 15:11–32

Feeding swine was thus about as low as Jews could go. To wish to share their food was the nadir of degradation. The

17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger!

New Testament 15:11–32—The Lost Son

15:17. “Hired men” could be either slaves rented for hire or free servants working for pay; either one suggests that his father is well-to-do.

18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you.

19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.” ’

New Testament (15:11–32—The Lost Son)

15:18–19. Jewish people often used “heaven” as a respectful way of saying “God.” The son here returns simply out of hunger and the belief that his father may feed him as a servant, not because he is genuinely sorry that he disgraced his father. Given the magnitude of his sin and the squandering of one-third of his father’s life’s earnings, Jewish hearers might regard his return as an act of incredible presumption rather than humility.

The Gospel of Luke iv. The Lost Son 15:11–32

(18) ἀναστὰς πορεύσομαι represents an Aramaic phrase (ʾaqum weʾezel) meaning ‘I will go at once’ (Jeremias, Parables, 130). The youth is determined to act swiftly and decisively. He is prepared to accept the lot of a servant—at home—in preference to his present misery. He knows that he does not deserve anything higher. He has sinned by squandering his money and ignoring whatever obligation, legal or moral, that he had to his father; he has acted as a bad steward

20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.

15:20. It was a breach of an elderly Jewish man’s dignity to run, though familial love could take priority over dignity after a long absence (cf. Tobit 11:9—mother and son). Given the normal garb, the father would have to pull up his skirt to run. Kissing was appropriate for family members or intimate friends.

The Gospel of Luke iv. The Lost Son 15:11–32

The action is a sign of forgiveness (2 Sa. 14:33) and of the restoration of the broken relationship, with the initiative being taken by the father

21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.

15:21–22. The best robe in the house would belong to the father himself. The ring would probably be a family signet ring—a symbol of reinstatement to sonship in a well-to-do house. Slaves did not normally wear sandals, though they carried and tied a master’s sandals. The father is saying, “No, I won’t receive you back as a servant. I’ll receive you only as a son.”

Best robe—says “this is my son”

Ring—says “this son has authority” as my son

Shoes—says “my son is free”

23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate.

15:23. The calf would be enough to feed the whole village; this would be a big party! Aristocratic families often invited the whole town to a banquet when a son attained adulthood (about thirteen years old) or a child married.

Calf—celebration

24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.

New Testament 15:11–32—The Lost Son

15:24. Ancient writers sometimes bracketed off a section of their work by repeating a particular line; this bracketing off is called an inclusio. So far this parable has followed the course of the two that preceded it (15:3–10), but 15:24–32 are bracketed off to address the climactic issue: the elder brother represents Jesus’ religious accusers (15:2).

25 “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing.

Older son does his duty to the father workin in the field

26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant.

27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’

28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him,

New Testament (15:11–32—The Lost Son)

15:25–28. Dancing was used in both religious and nonreligious celebrations. Elder brothers were to reconcile differences between fathers and younger brothers, but here the elder brother, returning at the end of a long day’s work, refuses even to enter the house. This is also a grievous insult to the father’s dignity and could have warranted a beating (cf. 15:12).

Angry with the father

Refuses the way of the father

The father also take the initiative

Luke: An Introduction and Commentary (4. The Lost Son (15:11–32))

He was completely self-righteous. He saw himself as the model son, but his use of the verb douleuō, ‘to serve as a slave’ (cf. NEB, ‘I have slaved for you all these years’), gives him away. He did not really understand what being a son means. That is perhaps why he did not understand what being a father means.

The proud and the self-righteous always feel that they are not treated as well as they deserve.

29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends.

Older son—does not address the father but commands the father.

Older son—feels like a slave

he obeys

30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’

New Testament (15:11–32—The Lost Son)

15:29–30. Failing to greet one’s father with a title (e.g., “Father, “Sir”; contrast even 15:12) was a grievous insult to the father’s dignity. The elder brother here is a transparent metaphor for the Pharisees, and the younger brother for the sinners with whom Jesus was eating (15:1–2).

Older son has contempt for the father’s son

31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.

The father address his older son with affectionately.

The Gospel of Luke iv. The Lost Son 15:11–32

The saying must be interpreted to mean that legally the son will inherit the farm, since it has already been promised to him. If the son has not already enjoyed the fruits of it, it is because he has not asked rather than because the father was unwilling to give it

32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’ ”

New Testament (15:11–32—The Lost Son)

15:31–32. Religious Judaism in this period considered prostitution sinful; both Jewish and non-Jewish sources considered squandering property, especially someone else’s (16:1), sinful.Because the inheritance had been divided, the elder brother was already assured of his share, effective on the father’s death (15:12); he had nothing to lose by his brother’s return. The final response of the elder brother is never stated, providing the Pharisees with the opportunity to repent if they are willing.

Luke: An Introduction and Commentary 4. The Lost Son (15:11–32)

The welcome to the younger son was not simply a good thing which might or might not have occurred. It was the right thing. The father had to do it. Joy was the only proper reaction in such a situation. Notice that he does not speak of ‘my son’ but of your brother. The older boy might try to overlook the relationship, but it was still there.