Luke 15:11-32 | The Forgiving Father

Luke 15:11–32

Luke 15:1-32 is divided into three separate parables all in response to the complaint (G1234 διαγογγύζω diagŏgguzō) by Pharisees and scribes that “This Man receives sinners and eats with them.” They “complained” about this because “…all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him.” (Luke 15:1–2) The Greek word for “complained” is written in the imperfect which suggests that it was a continuous, normal action by the Pharisees and scribes, which is what they normally did whenever they come in contact with Jesus. So the theme that we have studied in the first two parables, as well as the one this morning is the joy that occurs when the lost is found. Previously we studied in Luke 15:1-7 and we saw that Jesus is The Rejoicing Shepherd who seeks out the lost sheep. In Luke 15:8-10, we saw that Jesus is The Rejoicing Woman who seeks out the lost drachma. An interesting point in the two parables of Luke 15:1-10 is that there was one sheep that was lost, and the one drachma that was lost was the amount of one sheep. Both the The Rejoicing Shepherd and The Rejoicing Woman command others to “Rejoice with me,” (Luke 15:6; Luke 15:9). 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. 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.^[1]

Luke 15:11 As mentioned previously, this parable is usually known as the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and many see it as two stories, where the first recounts the younger son running away and coming back, while the second is usually regarded as the lesser of the two, which focuses on the older son who stays at home. But this thinking can’t be true, as we see how Jesus starts this parable by immediately pointing out the three main characters, “A certain man had two sons.” We see an interesting parallel to the parable Jesus told in Matthew 21:27–32.

Luke 15:12 In Deuteronomy 21:16–17, Moses writes that the firstborn is to receive “a double portion” compared to the rest of the sons so here in this parable the younger son is to receive one third of his father’s property. The younger son here in this parable wanted his inheritance before his father died. He was impatient for the death of his father. His impatience and self-centeredness is displayed in his statement, “Father, [give] me the portion of goods that falls to me.” (Luke 15:12) The younger son wants his father to die so that he can get his inheritance. Notice as well that the younger son doesn’t ask for his inheritance, but instead asks for “the portion of goods that falls to me” (Luke 15:12)?

Inheritance (G2817 klēronomia) is used fourteen times in the New Testament, two times by Luke. But here we have a rare word (ousia) that is used in this story and nowhere else in all of the New Testament. Again traditional Middle Eastern culture gives us the reason. To accept one’s “inheritance” involves acceptance of leadership responsibility in the family clan. The recipient is duty bound to administer property and help solve family quarrels. He must defend the honor of the family against all comers (even with his life if necessary). He pledges himself to increase the clan’s wealth and represent them nobly at village functions (such as weddings, feasts and funerals). He must “build the house of his father.” But this is specifically what the younger son does not want and does not ask for. He wants the money! The word (G3776) ousia can mean “wealth” and “property.” It appears again in Luke 15:13…He did not want or ask for his inheritance with the responsibility involved.^[2]

Luke 15:12 “father” What then can be said of the father, who by granting the request did what no village father is ever going to do. The expected reaction is refusal and punishment. Knowing what the request means, the father grants freedom even to turn away from him…But in addition, the father remains the father. He does not sever his relationship with his son. The relationship is broken because of the son’s act, but the father still holds out his broken end of the rope of relationship hoping that the other end can yet be joined. In so doing he suffers. If the father had disowned the son, there would then be no possibility of reconciliation. The father’s suffering provides the foundation of the possibility of the son’s return. All of this makes abundantly clear that Jesus has not taken an oriental patriarch as a model for God. Rather he breaks all the bounds of patriarchal culture to present this matchless picture of a father who alone should shape our image of God as our heavenly father.^[3]

Luke 15:12 “So he divided to them his livelihood.” The text says: “He divided his living between them.” The older son also receives his share at this time. The father is clearly still in authority. He grants the right of possession, but the older son does not press for the right of disposition. Yet from the start each son is assigned his share of the family property. This is crucial for understanding the older brother’s reaction at the end of the story.^[4] By asking for and receiving his portion of the inheritance, the younger son not only was basically saying that he wished his father was dead, but also so much more. He cuts himself off from his roots as he seizes his share of the wealth and in the process breaks fellowship with his father. Thereby he cuts himself off from his real inheritance. The very inheritance he refused to ask for he has now forfeited. A man’s security in the village is his family. This is as precious to him as life itself. His family is his social security, his insurance, his old-age pension, his assurance of marriage, his physical and emotional wellbeing; in short, it is everything. The tie to the land and to the “house of so-and-so” is a profound tie. “Where are you from?” asks one city dweller of another. The answer is not his address. Rather he replies, “I am from such-and-such a village.” He may never have been there, but his roots are there. His family clan is there. The “house” of which he is a part is established there. He belongs there. There he will be accepted totally, regardless. If he is out of work or in need of friends, he will be welcomed, even if they have never seen him. When he says, “I am so-and-so, son of so-and-so, and I am of the house of so-and-so,” they will open their doors to him. All of this the younger son throws away. A man with no such roots is considered a vagabond and is not trusted. To suggest that a man is “without roots” is an unpardonable insult. The richness of Jesus’ imagery is significant. Indeed, God, our divine Father, offers the deepest kind of security to his children within the family clan. The younger son refuses to own his share in partnership with his father. When the boy is at home, all his father possesses is his also. But this is not sufficient for the rebel, who wants sole control over the money. He demands his share in complete separation from this partnership. The biblical understanding of possessions is permeated with this idea of ownership in partnership with the Father. The phrase in the Lord’s Prayer “Give us this day our daily bread” presupposes such a worldview. ^[5]

We are not to think that younger sons had a right to do this, older ones either; no children have a right to divide the parental inheritance until after the parent’s death. But God divides as is here stated, and so the parable is made to illustrate this reality. God gives without demur, even to the sinner, life, health, faculties of mind and body, earthly wealth, a thousand advantages, and among all these blessings ever some that remind the sinner strongly of the heavenly Father and of the Father’s house—“not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” (Romans 2:4; Acts 14:17).^[6]

Now the older son is not mentioned much at the beginning of this parable, but there are a few things that need to be brought to our attention. The older son most likely knows the conversation that occurs here between the father and the youngest son, even if he wasn’t present for it. In a village community everything is known immediately by everyone. The conversation between the father and the younger son would have been overheard by the servants or other members of the family.[7] It is not uncommon for a person in a home to carry on a conversation, and have someone passing by overhear it, and even engage in the conversation! It is highly unlikely that a conversation between the father and the son, and one that was so uncouth like this would not quickly spread throughout that community with great detail to the oldest son, if he wasn’t aware of it already. This is what Solomon wrote about in Ecclesiastes 10:20. In short, everybody in the village knows everything. When the prodigal starts to sell (Luke 15:13), all doubt is removed. The boy has been given his share. The older son refuses to be the mediator. In a village quarrel the two parties never make up directly. To do so, someone would have to lose face, which is unthinkable. The process of reconciliation takes place through a third party, called “the mediator.” This go-between fluctuates between one party and the other until he works out a solution that both sides can accept. There can be no winners or losers. The mediator then arranges a public meeting in which the two antagonists shake hands, embrace and kiss each other in token of reconciliation. The mediator is always selected on the basis of the strength of his relationships with the quarreling parties. In this case the older son would be the unspoken choice as a go-between. In this culture, everyone would agree that the older brother is to be the mediator, and he would be expected to start the mediation immediately, for it is up to him to reconcile his father and brother. The family and the community demand it. But we don’t see any movement from this man to reconcile his father and brother, so the silence is deafening. For some reason he does not want them to be reconciled. For even if he hated his brother, he would still be expected to fulfill this task for the sake of his father.[8]

Luke 15:13 “And >>not<< many days after,” The prodigal, despising his birthright, had to then go around the village trying to sell his birthright like Esau for a morsel of food (Genesis 25:33–34; Hebrews 12:16). The scorn of the entire community would have been considerable, hence the rush to sell and get out of town. He leaves, and the only thing that follows him is the love of his brokenhearted father.^[9] The words “gathered…together” (Luke 15:13) in the Greek (συνάγειν πάντα) literally mean turned everything into cash, with a commercial connotation turn everything into cash.^[10] The prodigal doesn’t seem to care how much others in the family will suffer because of what he demands. Not only will he hurt his father but also the entire family clan. The wealth of a village family is not held in stocks, bonds or savings accounts. Rather it is in a cluster of homes, in animals and in land. To suddenly lose one third of their total wealth would mean a staggering loss to the entire family clan. The parable specifically states that the prodigal settled his affairs in a few days. This means that he liquidated his assets in a hurry, which in turn indicates a “sale at any price.” The accumulated economic gains of generations would be lost in a few days. In the East, where days are sometimes spent in bargaining over the smallest transaction, the man who sells in a hurry sells cheaply. The younger son is indifferent to all of these ramifications.^[11] Obviously trying to quickly sale his inherited property, he couldn’t get full value for his birthright.

First century Jewish custom dictated that if a Jewish boy lost the family inheritance among the Gentiles and dared to return home, the older men in the community would break a large pot in front of him and cry out “so-in-so is cut off from his people.” This was done to symbolize the broken relationship that now exists between the community and this sinner. This ceremony was called the Kezazah (literally “the cutting off”). After it was performed, the community would have nothing to do with the wayward person.[12] By being cut off from his community, it also meant that he was cut off from his family and his faith. The Ketzatzah ceremony is described in the Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 28b.[13] By selling his inheritance and taking it with him the prodigal takes a huge risk; if he loses that money among the Gentiles, he burns his bridges and has no way to return home. He has no more “rights” to claim and no one will take him in.^[14]

Luke 15:13 “journeyed to a far country,” He travels to a far country. The Greek word for “took his journey” (apedēmēsen) is a colorful term that literally means: “He traveled away from his own people.”…The younger son has indeed left his own people. It is pointless to speculate as to where the “far country” might have been, but we do know that it is among the Gentiles because they ate pork and used pigs as sacrificial animals…remember that the Kezazah ceremony awaits him if he loses the money in such a community.^[15] He burned all his bridges behind him, gathering together all that he had.^[16] When the younger son leaves the house, the older son is again silent. We cannot build too much on this, because the brevity of the story. However, the father, because of his position of estrangement with his younger son, cannot bid him goodbye. Custom would not allow it. The elder son again is responsible. He would be expected to plead with him not to leave and remind him of the father’s love. He would say to him, for example, “My brother, your father is an old man. You may not see him again. Do not leave us. Your mother will go blind weeping. We cannot bear even the thought of your departure.” Then, if the boy is determined to leave, he must tell him that their prayers are with him, invoke God’s protection for the journey and plead with him to return speedily. The terrors of travel in the ancient Middle East were considerable. These terrors remained even until the late nineteenth century, where a son who traveled to a far country was considered traveling perhaps never to return. When he did return, a great feast was held, and guns were fired in salute…The terrors of travel and the heartache of separation are made much keener by the close-knit fellowship of the village family. All of this ritual and background is missing.[17]

Luke 15:13 “wasted” in the Greek (G1287 διασκορπίζω diaskŏrpizō) First aorist active indicative of διασκορπιζω [diaskorpizō], a somewhat rare verb, the very opposite of “gathered together” (συναγογων [sunagogōn]). More exactly he scattered his property. It is the word used of winnowing grain (Matthew 25:24).^[18] Here in Luke 15:13 the word “wasted” carries the hint of squandering (cf. Luke 16:1).^[19] The younger brother wasted or squandered his inheritance,^[20] but we are not told how he did it. If the prodigal is a traditional Middle Eastern villager, his pattern of behavior can be understood and reconstructed. The money is used primarily to establish a reputation for generosity. He holds large banquets and gives out expensive gifts. Generosity is a supreme virtue, coveted by all. The opportunity to gain status in the eyes of new friends through an exercise of this virtue would be the highest kind of pleasure for such an individual. But he eats the fruit of a tree he has left unwatered to die.^[21] The hearers immediately would have begun to understand the point of the story. Jesus had been criticized for associating with sinners (Luke 15:1-2). The sinners were considered people who were far away from God, squandering their lives in riotous living. In contrast with the younger son, the older son continued to remain with the father and did not engage in such practices.^[22]

Luke 15:13 “prodigal living” in the Greek is G811 ἀσώτως asōtōs, as-o´-toce and it literally means one that cannot be saved (from a compound of G1 (as a neg. particle “a”) and G4982 (σώζω sōzō, sode´-zo heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole.). So what it means properly is unsavedness, i.e. by implication in excess, riot, one who does not save, a spendthrift, an abandoned man, a profligate, a prodigal. He went the limit of sinful excesses.^[23] The root word (G810 ἀσωτία asōtia, as-o-tee´-ah) is the same word is rendered “dissipation” or “excess” in Ephesians 5:18.^[24] In the Greek Septuagint it is found in Proverbs 28:7 as “gluttons”

Luke 15:14 The younger son was in a far country, living wildly, and eventually his money ran out. Thus, like Jonah, whom the storm did not overtake until the ship was deep in the sea and at the mercy of the waves (Jonah 1:4), does the sinner feel as if “the stars from their courses fought against” him (Judges 5:20).^[25] The highly poetic language—the stars from their courses fought against Sisera—does not imply a belief that the stars caused rain, but simply affirms divine intervention in the battle. As implied in Judges 5:21, God’s intervention took the form of an unseasonable rain (the Canaanites would never have risked taking their chariots into marshy territory in the rainy season) which turned the dry riverbed of the Kishon into a raging torrent (cf. 1 Kings 18:40).^[26]

Luke 15:15 Evidently his prodigality has not gained him a friend in need.^[27] When the famine struck, he was in desperate need of work, so he found a job feeding pigs, a scandalous job for any Jew since pigs were unclean animals (Leviticus 11:7; Deuteronomy 14:8).

Luke 15:15 “joined” To such a man the prodigal attached himself, ἐκολλήθη (G2853), “glued himself,” the passive being used in the sense of the middle. The thought is that the citizen did not want him, hence the labor to which he assigned him. This is the association that results from separation from God. Sin makes man a companion of swine in more ways than one. To herd and pasture swine (βόσκειν) is not merely degrading as we should regard it today, to the Jew it represented moral defilement and all the shame that this involved. It crushed pride and cut the conscience with one blow.^[28] This was considered one of the most degrading employments, not only by the Jews, but by other nations.^[29] Jesus might have introduced the prodigal’s return at this point. Thank God, some do return more quickly than others. But many go a step farther, and the parable is to include all of them. What hope is there in this far country? Instead of the plenty in his father’s house the prodigal has poverty; instead of the freedom in his father’s house he is now in servitude; in place of the honor of a son he now has degradation and shame. In his extremity the prodigal attaches himself to “one of the citizens of that country.” So there were “citizens” there, men who were completely adjusted to life apart from God. “With all his guilt the prodigal was not a citizen but a stranger in that far land.”^[30]

Luke 15:16 In his hunger he longed for the pods—the food he fed the pigs. As a Jew, he could have stooped no lower. The pods were probably carob pods, from tall evergreen carob trees.^[31] Now the final drop in the bitter cup—not only feeding swine but feeding himself with swine’s food—and lacking even that, the human being thus having sunk to the level of the beast. To this the devil would bring every man whom God intended to be in the divine image. The parable had to take in this utter extreme as already stated. The gelatinous substance in the pods has a sweetish taste. Used as feed for hogs, these pods contain also small, shiny seed kernels. The pods were eaten by the poor but not as regular food. They here symbolize the empty, unsatisfying food that is offered to the starving souls of men by the world.^[32] The neighbours cared nothing about this half-starved foreigner, who even in this vile employment could not earn enough to eat.^[33] The imperfect ἐπεθύμει, “he would gladly have filled his stomach” from this hog feed implied that his desire was not fulfilled, for “no one gave him anything”, another imperfect to express constant denial…If you have never reached such degradation, thank God’s mercy. The parable goes that far in order to hold out the hope of help to men who are even as low as that.^[34] This man was so hungry that he was willing to eat the food that only the poor ate in extreme situations, and that which was food for unclean animals! The pigs were better off than he. Their bellies were full while his was empty.^[35]

Luke 15:17–19 Here we see the turning point of the parable when Jesus mentions that the prodigal “came to himself” (Luke 15:17). Here we see that he has come to a place of repentance. The Greek word for repentance is (G3341) μετάνοια mĕtanŏia, met-an´-oy-ah and it literally means a change of mind.^[36] Repentance is not being sorry that you were caught, that is a false repentance. True repentance, as found throughout Scripture is an active response after one has been confronted with their sin, causing them to become contrite and putting their trust in Jesus (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 12:41; Mark 1:4; Mark 1:15; Luke 3:8; Luke 10:13; Luke 15:10; Luke 17:3; Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31; Acts 11:18; Acts 17:30; Acts 26:20; Romans 2:4; 2 Corinthians 7:9; 2 Timothy 2:25; Hebrews 6:6; 2 Peter 3:9).

To his own self he admits his folly and the results of that folly. And he thinks back of his father’s house with its many hired men and of the happy state of even these hired men, who are so different from himself, who is hired out to one of these citizens.^[37] Once he hit rock bottom, he has been humbled and he realizes that he sinned against his father and that he wasn’t even worthy of being a servant in his fathers house. His problem is that he had lost the money among the Gentiles and knew that he would be confronted with the Kezazah ceremony on his return home. Restoration to the family and community was only possible, (he assumed) after he paid back the money he had lost.^[38]

Luke 15:20 Things didn’t work out the way the son anticipated. What did happen was radically unorthodox from every perspective. The boy disgraced himself at the beginning of the story by requesting his inheritance and debased himself even further by selling it. As the prodigal returned to the village he expected his father to remain aloof in the house while he made his way through the village. To say the least, he would be “subdued” in the process by the crowd in the street. As soon as they discovered that the money had been lost among the Gentiles the Kezazah ceremony would be enacted. The son would then be obliged to sit for some time outside the gate of the family home before being allowed to even see his father. Finally he would be summoned. With the boy already rejected by the village, the father would be very angry, and the boy would be obliged to apologize for everything as he pleaded for job training in the next village. But this is not what happens…The father, however, reacts in a very countercultural manner. He breaks all the rules of oriental patriarchy as he runs down the road to reconcile his son to himself. The word run in Greek (G5143 dramōn) is the technical term used for the foot-races in the stadium. Paul uses this word a number of times in this sense (1 Corinthians 9:24; 1 Corinthians 9:26; Galatians 2:2; Galatians 5:7; 2 Thessalonians 3:1; Hebrews 12:1). Luke is a well-educated man who chooses his words carefully. Thus we can translate the phrase, “His father saw him and had compassion and raced.” It is not just a slow shuffle or a fast walk—he races! In the Middle East a man of his age and position always walks in a slow, dignified fashion. It is safe to assume that he has not run anywhere for any purpose for forty years. No villager over the age of twenty-five ever runs. But now the father races down the road. To do so, he must take the front edge of his robes in his hand like a teenager. When he does this, his legs show in what is considered a humiliating posture. All of this is painfully shameful for him. The loiterers in the street will be distracted from tormenting the prodigal and will instead run after the father, amazed at seeing this respected village elder shaming himself publicly. It is his “compassion” that leads the father to race out to his son. He knows what his son will face in the village. He takes upon himself the shame and humiliation due the prodigal.^[39]

Luke 15:20 “kissed him.” In the Greek this word kissed (G2705 katephilēsen) means “kissed again and again”.^[40] The action is a sign of forgiveness (2 Samuel 14:33) and of the restoration of the broken relationship, with the initiative being taken by the father^[41]

The father ran because of his love for him and his desire to show that love. But there is something else involved. This wayward son had brought disgrace to his family and village and, according to Deuteronomy 21:18–21, he should have been stoned to death. If the neighbors had started to stone him, they would have hit the father who was embracing him! What a picture of what Jesus did for us on the cross!^[42]

Luke 15:21 Here we see that his inner change is real. So we are shown the contrition in full: “Father, I did sin!” the second aorist acknowledging the whole of the terrible fact as such (the English would use the perfect “I have sinned”). Even in the resolve to go and to make this confession to his father no excuse, no extenuation are offered, nothing but the full, straight admission of guilt. Although contrition is an inward thing of the heart, its presence is always manifested by an open and sincere confession; when this is absent, we cannot be sure that contrition is present. “Against heaven” states the real essence and guilt of sin, for “heaven” includes God and all that is perfectly holy. “And in thy sight” or “before thee” implies more than that the father, as it were, saw this his son’s sins; it involves that the father must adjudge his son guilty because this is his son who has sinned thus.^[43] What the prodigal says here to his father is similar to what David said in Psalm 51:4 after he confessed and repented of his sin with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:1-29).

Luke 15:22 The servants are there on the road with the father. The father turns to them and orders them to dress the boy as a son. He doesn’t say to the boy, “Go, clean up, shave, and get some decent clothes on.” Rather he orders the servants to bring the best robe and dress him. They are to honor him as a son of the house.^[44] Everything the younger son had hoped to find in the far country, he discovered back home: clothes, jewelry, friends, joyful celebration, love, and assurance for the future. What made the difference? Instead of saying, “Father, give me!” he said, “Father, make me!” He was willing to be a servant! Of course, the father did not ask him to “earn” his forgiveness, because no amount of good works can save us from our sins (Ephesians 2:8–10; Titus 3:3–7). In the far country, the prodigal learned the meaning of misery; but back home, he discovered the meaning of mercy. The ring was a sign of sonship, and the “best robe” (no doubt the father’s) was proof of his acceptance back into the family (see Genesis 41:42; Esther 6:1-9; Isaiah 61:10; 2 Corinthians 5:21).^[45] The prodigal will attend the banquet attired in his father’s most elegant robe. The guests that night will recognize the robe and treat him in a respectful manner because of the clothes he is wearing. They will understand that he has been fully restored to sonship. The ring is most likely the signet ring of the house. Joseph was also given robes and a ring by Pharaoh (Genesis 41:41–42)…Villagers today still sign official documents with a family signet ring. Giving the prodigal a signet ring will be particularly galling to his older brother because this means that the prodigal is trusted with this seal. The rest of the estate is promised to the older son. What will the prodigal do with the power of this ring? To have shoes on his feet may also be a symbol of his new rank. Slaves go barefoot. Sons wear shoes.^[46] The father very carefully reestablishes the boy’s broken relationships with each group in turn. Through self-emptying love he restores the prodigal to the family. He orders the servants to “dress him.” Thus the servants know they must treat him with respect as a master. The initial welcome was public. Thus the son is restored to the village at large. At the banquet the prodigal wears his father’s most expensive robe. The village elders will all thereby accept him out of loyalty to the father.^[47] Only the father is able to restore, and restoration is through grace alone. The younger son brings nothing home but a handful of filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). The Pharisees were complaining that Jesus accepted sinners and ate with them (Luke 15:1-2). Jesus doesn’t apologize in a patronizing way and say, “After all, they’re unfortunate people. Isn’t it our duty to show them some kind of fellowship?” Rather, he throws out a challenge. He not only accepts them—he runs to restore them with open arms! He not only eats with them—when they accept his love, he kills the fatted calf in celebration of the success of his costly efforts at reconciliation.^[48] The feast was the father’s way of showing his joy and sharing it with others. Had the boy been dealt with according to the Law, there would have been a funeral, not a feast. What a beautiful illustration of Psalm 103:10–14!^[49]

Luke 15:23 This is the equivalent to the endings of two previous parables in Luke 15:7 and Luke 15:10, The “fatted calf” that is killed for the banquet is really a “prime beef.” The word fatted (G4618 siteuton) is from the word “grain” (G4621sitos). The “fatted calf” is thus a grain-fed animal with high-quality meat. Meat is a rare delicacy in the village. The father is making a public statement about how joyful he is that he has found his lost son and brought him from death to life.^[50]

Luke 15:24 After this scene, no one in the village can reject or despise him.^[51]

Luke 15:25–28a The word translated as “servant” (G3816 pais) can be translated “son,” “young boy” or “servant.” Clearly “son” does not fit. The choice is between “young boy” and “servant.” Pais means “young boy” in a number of key New Testament passages. Herod kills all the male children (paidas) in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16). Jesus cast a demon out of a young boy (pais, Matthew 17:18). The boy (pais) Jesus stayed behind in the temple at the age of twelve (Luke 2:43). “Servant” is possible, but not likely because the servants are all busy with the meal inside the house. However, the crowd of young boys, mentioned above, will be milling around in the courtyard. It is a young boy that the older son naturally approaches. These young boys comprise part of the anticipated crowd the prodigal feared as he made his way home. With no boys’ club, school program or organized sports, any special gathering will attract the gang. If a dramatic event, such as they have already witnessed, is to culminate in a banquet, they most certainly will be there. They are not invited to the banquet itself but will mill around in the courtyard, joining in the laughter, perhaps clapping in rhythm with the drum and gyrating in their own dances. With great excitement they will tell each newcomer about the speeches they heard on the road. They become a conglomerate mass of young humanity that is a part of village life at any focus of excitement. As the older son approaches the house, it would be natural for him to summon a young boy out of this crowd and ask what all this means. He refers to the father as “your father.” Were he a servant, he would have said, “my master.”^[52] This brother at once “became angry” (ingressive aorist) even before the lad and “was not willing to go in,” the imperfect to indicate continued unwillingness. All urging by the lad and by others was in vain. This is the exact picture of the Pharisees and the scribes (Luke 15:2). What is veiled in Luke 15:7 and Luke 15:10 is now fully revealed. Celebrate the return of this prodigal—not for one moment!^[53]

Luke 15:28b Someone must have gone and told the father who hastens out and, as the imperfect conveys, “begins to beseech” this son. Whereas he deserved the severest calling-down the father meets him with gentle entreaty. What a picture, the Father begging the sinner to come in (2 Corinthians 5:20)!^[54] Everything left in the house is legally the property of the older son. Although the father still maintains authority, the remaining wealth is pledged to the older son. At such a banquet the father sits with the guests. The older son often stands and serves the meal as a “head waiter.” The important difference between him and the other servants is that he joins in conversation with the seated company. By stationing the older son as a kind of hovering head waiter, the family is in effect saying, “You, our guests, are so great that our son is your servant.” But can he bring himself to serve his brother? The younger son has been reinstated through costly grace that is in violation of traditional village honor. The older son can easily feel that the father has dishonored the family in the eyes of the community. Reconciliation and restoration without a penalty paid by the offender is too much for him to understand or accept. For certain types of people, grace is not only amazing, it is also infuriating. The older son’s response is crucially significant. He refuses to enter the banquet hall where the guests have already arrived. In any social situation, banquet or no banquet, the male members of the family must come and shake hands with the guests even if they don’t stay and visit. They cannot stay aloof if they are anywhere in the vicinity of the house. Failure to fulfill this courtesy is a personal insult to the guests and to the father, as host. The older son knows this and thereby his action is an intentional public insult to his father. Once again the father demonstrates a willingness to endure shame and self-emptying love in order to reconcile. The parable briefly and succinctly states, “His father came out and entreated him.” It is almost impossible to convey the shock that must have reverberated through the banquet hall when the father deliberately left his guests, humiliated himself before all, and went out in the courtyard to try to reconcile his older son. The father loves both of his sons indiscriminately. He gives of himself equally for both of them irrespective of their actions. The same self-emptying sacrificial love is demonstrated visibly and dramatically on the same day in similar ways for two different sons with different kinds of needs. He goes out to entreat, not to punish or condemn. The Greek word for “call” is kaleō…Instead, in direct contrast to the son who summons an inferior to demand an explanation, the father goes out to “entreat” (para-kaleō), to “appeal to,” to “try to reconcile.” Robertson, in his monumental grammar, gives us the key to the two prepositions used here with the same word. He says that para merely means “beside” or “alongside” (cf. our parallel), and pros suggests “facing one another.” So the son “summons” the youth to stand facing him as an inferior should. But the father tries to “entreat” his son. He calls on him to “stand alongside” his father, to look at the world from the father’s perspective. Paul uses this same word in 2 Corinthians 5:20: “We beseech [para-kaleō] you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” Amazingly this same kind of beseeching is the course of action the father chooses in the face of his angry and rebellious son. The father’s agony of rejected love is more keenly felt with the older son because of the son’s public insult. Earlier in the day the father paid the price of self-emptying love in order to reconcile the prodigal to himself. Now he must pay the same price to try to win the older son. The father must go out to his boy in humiliation if he wants a son. If he is satisfied with a servant, self-emptying suffering is unnecessary. He can have the older son dragged in, tied up and later punished. But this will cause greater bitterness and deeper estrangement. If he overlooks the incident, he is finished as a father. The son’s next move would be even more threatening to the father’s authority. The father does the only thing that can open the door to genuine repentance and restoration. He pays the price of reconciliation. Once again incarnation and atonement meet.^[55]

Luke 15:29–30 In contrast to the shepherd and woman, who were both willing to make the effort to seek that which is lost, the older son refuses to even try.

Luke 15:31–32 If the father is an oriental patriarch, he will cry out, “Enough! Lock him up! I will deal with him later!” By contrast, this father bypasses the omission of a title and overlooks the bitterness, the arrogance, the distortion of fact and the accusation of favoritism. There is no judgment, no criticism and no rejection. He opens his reply with teknon, which is not the ordinary word for “son” (huios). Huios is used for son in verses 11, 13, 19, 21, 24, 25 and 30. The new word (teknon) introduced here is a special word for “son” indicating love and affection. It is the word Mary uses when Jesus is found in the temple and she says, “Son, why have you treated us so?” (Luke 2:48). The father did not use this especially affectionate title when telling the servants to dress the younger son, but he uses it here. It can be translated “My dear son!” Very gently he corrects only one point of the son’s speech as he reminds him that the prodigal is “your brother.” The rest of the speech is a defense of joy. The shepherd felt no need to explain to his neighbors why he was happy when he found his sheep, and the women did not have to argue to convince her friends that they should rejoice with her over finding her coin. Yet this is what the father is forced to do! How sad and unnatural the Pharisees’ complaint in Luke 15:1 becomes when it appears in this story of stories!^[56] This parable is left unfinished...Jesus’ reason for this omission is obvious in that he is addressing the group of religious sinners who stand in opposition to his message. There is still a chance for them to be reconciled to the Father, present among them in Jesus’ person. In hardness of heart they can also reject his love and increase his suffering. The story unfolds in history with, “Then the older son in great anger took his stick and struck his father.” Is not the end of the story the cross? But another option is still open. By this point in the story Jesus is on stage in the person of the father. The Pharisees are on stage in the person of the older son. Jesus is telling them, “This is my explanation of why I sit and eat with sinners. What now are you going to do with me?” Each reader or listener is pressed to ponder the same question.^[57]

Luke 19:10

---

^[1] Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 597). Exeter: Paternoster Press.

^[2] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, pp. 42–44). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[3] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 47). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[4] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 47). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[5] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, pp. 42–44). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[6] Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (pp. 808–809). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

[7] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, pp. 44–46). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

[8] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, pp. 44–46). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[9] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 52). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[10] Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 962). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

^[11] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, pp. 42–44). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

[12] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jacob and the Prodigal (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), p. 102 n. 8.

[13] https://halakhah.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_28.html

^[14] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, pp. 52–53). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[15] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 53). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[16] Robertson, A. T. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (Lk 15:13). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.

[17] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, pp. 44–46). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[18] Robertson, A. T. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (Lk 15:13). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.

^[19] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 1049). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

^[20] Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 236). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

^[21] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 54). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[22] Martin, J. A. (1985). Luke. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 245). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

^[23] Robertson, A. T. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (Lk 15:13). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.

^[24] Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. (1996). Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Vol. 2, p. 536). Nashville, TN: T. Nelson.

^[25] Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 2, p. 115). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

^[26] Lindsey, F. D. (1985). Judges. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 390). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

^[27] Plummer, A. (1896). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke (p. 373). London: T&T Clark International.

^[28] Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (p. 811). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

^[29] Freeman, J. M., & Chadwick, H. J. (1998). Manners & customs of the Bible (p. 509). North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers.

^[30] Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (p. 810). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

^[31] Martin, J. A. (1985). Luke. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 245). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

^[32] Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (pp. 811–812). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

^[33] Plummer, A. (1896). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke (p. 374). London: T&T Clark International.

^[34] Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (p. 812). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

^[35] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 58). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[36] Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 640). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

^[37] Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (p. 813). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

^[38] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 59). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[39] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, pp. 66–67). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[40] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 68). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[41] Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 610). Exeter: Paternoster Press.

^[42] Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). The Bible exposition commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 235–236). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

^[43] Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (p. 813). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

^[44] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 71). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[45] Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). The Bible exposition commentary (Vol. 1, p. 236). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

^[46] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 71). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[47] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, pp. 71–72). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[48] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 72). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[49] Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). The Bible exposition commentary (Vol. 1, p. 236). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

^[50] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 72). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[51] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 68). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[52] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 79-80). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[53] Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (p. 819). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

^[54] Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (p. 820). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

^[55] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, pp. 81–84). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[56] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, pp. 86–87). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

^[57] Bailey, K. E. (2005). The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants (Second Edition, p. 87). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.