Chapter 15

1 The parable of the lost sheep: 8 of the piece of silver: 11 of the prodigal son.

1. Then drew near. [The Lost Sheep, Luke 15:1–7. Cf. on Matt. 18:12–14; John 10:1–18. On parables see pp. 203-207.] Except for the position of the parables of this chapter in the Gospel of Luke there is no indication of either the time or location in which they were given. Chapters 9:51 to 19:28 record events connected with the Peraean ministry (see on Luke 9:51; Matt. 19:1, 2), probably from the late autumn of a.d. 30 to the early spring of a.d. 31. Apparently at least the first two parables of ch. 15, and possibly the third as well, were given upon one occasion (COL 192) in the pasture lands of Peraea (COL 186). It was now about two months before the crucifixion (see on Matt. 19:1, 2; Luke 10:25; 11:37; 12:1). In these parables Jesus set forth the meaning of that event.

All the publicans and sinners. Literally, “all the publicans and the sinners,” considering the two classes as distinct each from the other. Sometimes they are considered as one group (see on ch. 5:30). Concerning the publicans, or tax collectors, see on ch. 3:12. The “sinners” probably included men and women who made no pretense of seeking righteousness along the lines prescribed by rabbinical tradition, in addition to harlots, adulterers, and others whose lives were in open violation of the law. Strict Pharisees also considered the common people, the Фamme haХares (literally, “the people of the land”), who had not enjoyed the privileges of a rabbinical education, as “sinners” and beyond the pale of respectability. The very name Pharisee (see p. 51) designated the members of this party as superior to the common herd, and presumably more righteous than people generally.

The word “all” may refer to the fact that wherever Jesus went during this part of His ministry the “publicans” and “sinners” of the region flocked to hear Him. This evidence of interest angered the scribes and Pharisees still further, for they held these classes in contempt, and were in turn shunned by them. It irritated the religious leaders that Jesus should treat these despised outcasts of society with friendliness (see on Mark 2:15–17), and that they in turn responded (see COL 186).

2. And the Pharisees and scribes. Literally, “both the Pharisees and the scribes,” here considered as two distinct classes, like the “publicans” and the “sinners” of v. 1. Concerning the scribes and Pharisees see pp. 51, 52, 55. Some of the very critics present upon this occasion later accepted Jesus as their Messiah (COL 192).

Murmured. Gr. diagogguzoµ, an emphatic form of gogguzoµ, also translated “murmured” (see on Luke 5:30; Matt. 20:11). Some were doubtless spies commissioned by the Sanhedrin to follow Jesus wherever He went, to listen and observe, and to report back (see DA 213; see on Luke 11:54). For the motives that led them to complain see COL 186; see on v. 1. It is a paradox that those who considered themselves paragons of righteousness felt so uncomfortable in the presence of Jesus, whereas those who admittedly made no claim to righteousness felt drawn to the Saviour (COL 186). Undoubtedly it was the hypocrisy of the former and the lack of pretense of the latter that made the difference (see Luke 18:9–14). The one class felt no need of the blessings Jesus had to offer, the other class realized its need and made no effort to conceal it (see on Matt. 5:3; Mark 2:5; Luke 4:26; 5:8). The one was content with its own righteousness; the other knew that it had no righteousness of its own to offer. We would do well to ask ourselves how we feel in the presence of Jesus.

This man. Probably an expression used to cast contempt upon Jesus (see on Luke 14:30; cf. Matt. 9:3; 12:24; 26:71; Mark 2:7; Luke 7:39; 14:30; 18:11; 22:56, 59; John 6:52).

Receiveth sinners. The scribes and Pharisees repulsed men whom they considered sinners, but Jesus welcomed them. Upon an earlier occasion Jesus had met this charge with the declaration that He had not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (see on Mark 2:17). It appears that the scribes and Pharisees here insinuated that Jesus chose to associate with such people because their way of life was congenial to Him. Jesus hated sin but loved the sinner, whereas the Pharisees and scribes cherished sin but hated the sinner. Jesus obviously “loved” sinners, and these critics sought to make it appear that He must, accordingly, love the sins that “sinners” committed (see on Luke 15:1). Jesus gave no evidence of feeling socially superior to these outcasts from respectable society. He seemed to prefer to associate with them rather than with the religious leaders. For these “sinners” He had nought but words of encouragement; for the scribes and Pharisees who were self-righteous, He had only words of censure and condemnation (see Luke 14:3–6, 11; see on Mark 3:4; Luke 14:4). For other references to the complaints of Jewish leaders about Jesus’ associating with “publicans” and “sinners” see Luke 7:34, 37.

3. This parable. Another very similar parable (see Matt. 18:12–14) was given by Jesus upon another occasion and for a different purpose. It seems that during His Peraean ministry Jesus paid particular attention to the underprivileged and despised classes of society (see on Luke 14:21), and much of His teaching during this time was either directed to them or given concerning them. The parables of ch. 15 emphasize God’s care for those whom men often despise, His efforts to win their confidence, and His joy when they respond to His appeals.

It is important to note that the three parables present different aspects of the problem of sin and salvation, and that none is complete in itself. In each parable the lost is found and restored, and thus, in each case, Jesus justifies His attitude toward sinners and His efforts on their behalf. The first two are twin parables, and emphasize the trouble men take to recover lost property and their joy upon meeting with success. The first parable emphasizes the care of the shepherd, and hence the intrinsic value of a soul in the sight of God. The second parable illustrates the latter point in a different way. The third parable illustrates and emphasizes the process by which the lost finds his way back to God. Jesus often answered questionings or criticism by telling parables, as upon this occasion. For Jesus’ parable teaching and for principles of interpretation see pp. 203-207.

4. What man of you? In the uplands of Peraea the raising of sheep was a common occupation, and upon this occasion doubtless many in the audience recalled times in which they had gone in search of lost sheep. Most of the parables Jesus told were based upon the personal experience or knowledge of His hearers (see p. 204).

An hundred sheep. In the days of Jesus this would have been considered a large flock.

If he lose one of them. The loss of one might seem a comparatively small matter, but to the owner of the flock the loss of even one occasioned serious concern (cf. John 10:11). The Eastern shepherd commonly knew each sheep personally and cared for it not only as one of the flock but for its own sake. Not only so, but the loss of a single sheep would make an appreciable difference in his income. In the parable the fact that the sheep became lost was evidently due to its own ignorance and folly, and once lost it seemed completely helpless to find its way back. It realized that it was lost, but knew not what to do about it. The one lost sheep represents both the individual sinner and the one world that has been lost (COL 190). This parable teaches that Jesus would have died had there been but one sinner (see on John 3:16), as He did die for the one world that had sinned (see on Luke 15:7).

Wilderness. Gr. ereµmos, “desert,” or “wilderness”; as an adjective ereµmos means “desolate,” “solitary,” or “lonely.” The emphasis of the word is on an uninhabited region (see on ch. 1:80), hence, usually untilled or untillable land, a “waste” Hence, however, reference is made to the usual pasturelands, the hills, upland valleys, and gullies of Peraea. This “wilderness” was probably not a place of particular danger, and leaving the 99 sheep there does not imply any neglect or carelessness. In the parable as given by Matthew, the shepherd left the sheep, literally, “in the hills” (see on ch. 18:12).

Go after that which is lost. According to the parable, unless the shepherd went after the sheep it would probably remain lost. The shepherd must take the initiative if it is to be restored to the flock and the fold. The effectiveness of salvation does not consist in our seeking for God, but in His search for us. Left to ourselves we might seek for Him throughout eternity without finding Him. Any concept that regards Christianity merely as an attempt on the part of man to find God, misses the point entirely that it is God in search of man (see on John 3:16; cf. Matt. 1:21; 2 Chron. 16:9).

5. On his shoulders. Apparently the shepherd carries his sheep around the back of his neck, bearing its weight on both shoulders (see Isa. 40:11; 49:22; 60:4; 66:12). He does not scold the sheep, he does not drive it back, he does not even lead it back; he carries it.

6. Rejoice with me. The joy of the shepherd was infinitely greater than that of the sheep, grateful though that poor creature might be.

7. Joy shall be in heaven. In their endeavor to avoid pronouncing the sacred name of God, the Jews made use of a number of expressions (see on ch. 12:20), the word “heaven” often being used in this manner. The rabbis taught that the sinner must repent before God is willing to love him or pay any attention to him. Their concept of God was all too frequently what Satan wanted them to think about God. They conceived of Him as One who bestowed His affection and blessings upon those who obeyed Him, and who withheld these from men who did not. In the parable of the Lost Son (vs. 11–32) Jesus endeavors to set forth the true nature of the love of God (see on v. 12). In fact, the entire purpose of Jesus’ mission to earth may be summed up in the statement that He came to reveal the Father (see on Matt. 1:23). Compare the expression, “joy in the presence of the angels” (Luke 15:10).

One sinner that repenteth. Divine love would have led Jesus to make His great sacrifice for even one sinner (COL 187, 196; see on John 3:16). Notice the subtle connection between this “sinner” and the “sinners” of v. 1. We do not repent in order that we may receive God’s love; it was ours “while we were yet sinners” (Rom. 5:8). It is God’s “goodness,” manifested in His love and long-suffering, that leads us to repentance (Rom. 2:4; cf. Phil. 2:13).

Just persons. Or, “righteous persons.” The statement is valid as it appears to stand. Be that as it may, it is probably true that Jesus here speaks in irony. The scribes and Pharisees prided themselves on being more righteous than other men (see ch. 18:11, 12), and as Jesus spoke of “just persons” they would naturally consider themselves in that category. They thought that they did not need to repent (see on John 3:4). Here, for point of argument, Jesus takes them at their word, so to speak. Thus, if the Pharisees and scribes are righteous, the “sinners” they so piously despise are, by this very fact, proved to be in need of the love and attention Jesus bestows upon them. Thus the critical attitude of the scribes and Pharisees is revealed as unwarranted. For another reply Jesus gave under similar circumstances see Luke 5:31, 32.

8. Either what woman. [The Lost Coin, Luke 15:8–10. Cf. Matt. 13:44–46. On parables see pp. 203-207.] For circumstances that prompted this parable and for its relationship to the parables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Son see on vs. 3, 4. As the former parable was apparently addressed to men in the audience, this was perhaps directed particularly to the women who listened. Jesus often used illustrations that appealed to women in particular (cf. Matt. 13:33; Luke 17:35).

In the case of the lost sheep, the owner was moved both by pity for the sheep and by his own financial interest in the sheep. Here, the element of pity is lacking. The woman had only her own carelessness to blame for the loss of the coin, and her desire to reclaim it was based exclusively on her personal interest in it. The sheep was to blame, in a sense, for straying; the coin could not be blamed for losing itself. This parable emphasizes the intrinsic value of a soul, and the fact that a lost sinner is of so much value in the sight of God that He will “seek diligently” in order to reclaim it.

Pieces of silver. Gr. drachmai. In the time of Christ the Greek drachmeµ was .1145 oz. troy, or 3.56 g. of silver, and thus was approximately equivalent in value to the Roman denarius (see p. 49), which was a typical wage for a farm laborer (see on Matt. 20:2).

The number ten is of no particular significance; it appears often as a round number (1 Sam. 1:8; Eccl. 7:19; Isa. 5:10; Amos 6:9; etc.). Jesus employed it in various parables (see Matt. 25:1, 28; Luke 19:13, 16, 17). The ten coins may have been part of the woman’s dowry, and thus constituted her savings. Perhaps she had moved them as she cleaned the house, or had been looking at them.

Lose one piece. It was her carelessness that resulted in the loss. The coin did not know that it was lost. Furthermore, it was lost at home, not out in the mountains, like the sheep, nor in a “far country,” like the lost son.

A candle. Better, “a lamp.” The usual Oriental home often consisted of but one room and had no natural light except that admitted through the door or through small latticed windows. For the purpose of finding such an object, the housewife would almost certainly need an artificial source of light even in the daytime.

Sweep the house. Even today most Oriental houses, particularly in the country districts and in the villages, have only dirt floors. On such a “floor” and in a dark room it would be very easy to lose a coin and difficult to find it again. Diligent search would probably be necessary before the woman could expect to find it.

9. Her friends and her neighbours. According to the Greek, her women friends and neighbors.

Rejoice with me. Joy that is shared with others is intensified in the heart of the person who shares it. Whoever has had the experience of finding again some article of value he feared irretrievably lost can understand the joy of this woman (cf. Rom. 12:15). But of all the joys earth has to offer, there is no joy like that of finding a lost sinner and bringing him to Jesus.

10. There is joy. See on v. 7.

11. A certain man. [The Prodigal Son, Luke 15:11–32. On parables see pp. 203-207.] For the circumstances under which this parable was spoken and for its relationship to the two preceding parables see on vs. 3, 4, 8. Though Inspiration has not indicated precisely when and where this parable was spoken, it is reasonable to think that it was given either at the same time as the two that precede it, or very shortly after.

This, perhaps the most famous of all the parables of Jesus, consists of two parts. The first part (vs. 11–24) emphasizes the emotions of the father of the lost son, his love for the boy, and his joy when the prodigal returned. The second part (vs. 25–32) is a rebuke to those who, like the elder son, resented the father’s love and joy. This latter section was probably Christ’s answer to the murmuring of the scribes and Pharisees (see v. 2). Whereas the parables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin stress God’s part in the work of redemption, the parable of the Lost Son emphasizes man’s part in responding to the love of God and acting in harmony with it. The Jews had completely misconstrued the nature of divine love (see on v. 7). In the parable the younger son represents the publicans and the sinners, the older son, the scribes and the Pharisees.

12. The younger. Evidently weary of restraint and probably feeling that his liberty was unduly restricted by a father who had only his own selfish interests at heart, this youth desired above all else to have his own way. He knew very well what he wanted, or at least thought he knew. That he did not, is apparent from the fact that “when he came to himself” (v. 17) his course of action changed completely. But now he understood neither himself nor his father. Most unfortunate of all, he did not understand or appreciate the fact that his father loved him and that all his father’s decisions and requirements were based on what was, in the end, best for the sons.

The narrative makes it clear that the father was a wise and understanding person, that he was both just and merciful, and that he was eminently reasonable. On the other hand, the inexperienced youth seemed to consider it his unquestioned right to take full advantage of all the privileges of sonship without bearing any of its responsibilities. After thinking things over he decided that the only course of action that would solve the problem in the way he thought it ought to be solved was to leave home and set out on his own, to live his life as he pleased. His chosen course of action began with a direct violation of the fifth commandment. For a consideration of the factors that enter into the responsibilities of children to parents and of parents to children see on ch. 2:52.

Portion of goods. That is, his share of the property. Jewish literature of the time discloses that it was not unusual for a father actually to make a division of his inheritance among his sons while he was yet alive rather than let such provisions as he might wish to make take effect upon his death. But the father was by no means obliged to do so. The youth’s demand was, therefore, highly improper. It seems quite evident that it meant nonconfidence on the part of the son toward the father and a complete and final rejection of the father’s authority.

That falleth to me. That is, the share that properly belongs to me. This expression is commonly used in the Greek papyri to refer to a privilege to which one may be entitled or to an obligation he is bound to meet.

He divided. The father, legitimately and properly, might have refused to accede to his son’s unreasonable demand, yet he granted it. The fact that he did so speaks well of his judgment as a parent and provides a clue to the fact that the son’s perverse choice was undoubtedly not due to an unwise attitude on the father’s part. There are times when it seems that the best thing a parent can do is to permit a headstrong youth to have his way in order that he may discover from experience the results of his choice.

According to the Mosaic law, the eldest son was to receive a double portion of his father’s estate, and the younger sons were to receive a single portion each (see on Deut. 21:17). The extra portion granted the eldest son was designed to provide him with the necessary resources for discharging his responsibilities as head of the household. If a father had only two sons, as was the case here (see v. 11), the younger son would receive one third of his father’s estate. Ordinarily, however, when a division of property was made during the father’s lifetime, the property remained intact until the father’s death. The younger son of the parable, however, demanded not only a division of the estate but actual possession of his share of it. From the record of the narrative (see v. 13) it seems likely that he converted his share of the property entirely into cash or other easily carried valuables.

13. Younger son. In his departure from the parental roof the younger son represents the publicans and the sinners (v. 1), who have severed connections with their heavenly Father and make no profession of allegiance to Him.

A far country. He was not content to settle down near home, where he would be reminded from time to time of his father and his father’s counsel. He sought to be free from all the restraints of home. Undoubtedly he wanted to forget. The “far country” thus represents a “far” removed condition of forgetfulness of God.

Wasted his substance. That is, he scattered his property in a wasteful manner. Thus he rapidly spent the treasures he had assiduously “gathered” together (see on v. 12). Apparently his conscience was asleep, and in the “far country” of forgetfulness of his father’s counsel and guidance there was nothing to prevent him from doing precisely as he pleased. According to his own conception of life, he was now living it to the full.

With riotous living. Literally, “in living riotously.” The Gr. asoµtoµs, “wastefully,” “dissolutely,” or “profligately,” is an adverb derived from a, a negative prefix, and sooµ or soµzoµ, “to save.” The “living” of the young man may have been recklessly wasteful, or morally dissolute, or both. The elder son of the parable emphasized the second of these two possible shades of meaning in respect to his younger brother’s “living” (see v. 30). However, this latter way of life generally includes the first also. The way the youth disposed of his financial resources, which appear to have been considerable, reveals his concept of life. According to his way of looking at things, a man comes into this world for the purpose of getting all he can out of it, without contributing anything in return.

14. When he had spent all. To begin with, his fortune appeared of such proportions that apparently he could draw on it indefinitely without replenishing it. Now, suddenly and unexpectedly, it disappeared. To make matters worse than they would otherwise have been, a severe famine arose in the land. Had he been diligent in adding to his resources and frugal in his expenditures, the famine probably would have brought no extreme hardship. But quite evidently he had not anticipated poverty coupled with famine.

He began to be in want. In time of storm the prodigal’s fair-weather friends vanished. They were without doubt much like him, living for self-gratification. But the young man was a stranger, a newcomer, and in times of stress such as these every man no doubt found it more than he could do to supply his own needs. The young man’s improvident spending (see on v. 13) had not gained him even one friend on whom he could rely for help in his time of need.

15. Joined himself. Gr. kollaoµ, “to glue together,” hence “to join,” or “to cleave to.” The prodigal practically sold himself to a man who had little to offer him.

To a citizen. Literally, “to one of the citizens.” This being “a far country,” the “citizen” of that country was probably a Gentile and a heathen.

His fields. The “citizen” was evidently a man of some property.

To feed swine. To a Jew, for whom the swine were unclean, there could scarcely be a more degrading form of employment. In this respect the young man could sink no lower. Possibly he was not qualified for any higher type of employment. Apparently, at home he had not spent his time profitably in acquiring useful skills, and his “riotous living” (v. 13) now left him a derelict of society.

16. He would fain. Literally, “he was desiring [or craving].”

Filled his belly. Apparently he could not earn even enough to eat, and found himself reduced to the place where what the swine ate seemed desirable to him also. Thus, for the moment, his ambitions in life were no higher than those of the swine. In fact, his ambitions had been no higher during his riotous days, but he did not become aware of the fact until he was reduced to actual hunger.

Husks. Gr. keratia, “little horns,” a diminutive form of keras, “a horn.” Keratia is used to describe the pods of the keratea, the carob, or locust, tree, because of the hornlike shape of the pods. The pod of this tree has also been called St.-John’s-bread, on the tradition that this was part of the diet of John the Baptist (see Additional Note on Matt. 3). After the removal of the seeds for human consumption, the pods themselves were commonly used as fodder for domestic animals—as contemporary Jewish literature often observed. The carob tree is still cultivated in Palestine, and has been introduced into the United States.

17. Came to himself. Some people seem to float along on the tide of life without a serious thought until death stares them in the face. For all practical purposes the youth had been out of his head, but the dire need in which he now found himself forced him to come to his senses. Those who live, or rather exist, exclusively on merely the physical level lack the capacity to understand the lessons of life except when these come to them in terms of physical need, desire, or pain. This young man had, as it were, been “away” from himself, but now came back again. He found himself—a new experience, apparently—and began to realize how foolish he had been.

How many hired servants. Note that they were “hired servants,” not “slaves.” Probably the young man had once despised, and possibly even mistreated, his father’s hired servants. Now the lot in life of a “hired servant” in his father’s house appeared highly desirable in his eyes. For all practical purposes he was a “slave,” and starving at that. His boasted liberty had proved to be, in reality, the worst kind of slavery—which it had been all along, though he did not realize the fact. So this was the climax of a life patterned according to his own philosophy of things! His condition was the result of his own folly. The wisdom of his father’s philosophy of life now began to take on meaning for him.

18. I will arise. Perhaps as much morally as physically. He arose from the lethargy and despair that had spread over the skies of his life with the ominous threat of disaster and desolation. As yet he had no concept of the nature of his father’s love. But a sense of his father’s justice gave birth to the desperate hope that his father would treat him as he treated his hired help.

I have sinned. It seems not to have entered his thoughts to contrive some excuse for his course of action, much less to blame his father for it. His present state testified to the fact that his father had been right all along, and that he had been in the wrong. His confession was to be honest and unqualified.

Against heaven. The religious instruction he had received in his father’s home had not been entirely forgotten. He realized that any wrong act toward his fellow men was construed in heaven as if it had been done to God (see Gen. 39:9). All along he had been openly violating the principles of the fifth commandment, if not the others as well.

19. No more worthy. He had no worthiness of his own to offer as a reason for being given a job on the family estate. He could not pretend that there was, for it was altogether too obvious that he had no claim of any kind on his father.

As one of thy hired servants. He would apply for a job as a favor, not as a right. He had no rights. Formerly he had not been willing to submit to paternal discipline as a son; now he was ready to submit to the discipline that his father, as master of the estate, administered to his servants. He had, for all practical purposes, disowned his father, and in strict justice his father might be expected to disown him as a son. But perhaps he would accept him as a servant.

20. He arose, and came. Apparently the prodigal acted without delay. No sooner had he made his decision than he carried it out. In the parable it is the son who takes the initiative in returning to the father. It appears to be the son’s choice rather than the father’s love that effects reconciliation. From this some have drawn the unwarranted conclusion that Jesus here teaches that the first step in reconciliation is that the individual must return to God of his own volition—that it is not the love of God that first draws him. Such a conclusion, however, violates more than one fundamental principle of the interpretation of Christ’s parables (see pp. 203-207). Furthermore, in the parables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin, Jesus has clearly set forth the truth here called into question, that the initiative in effecting salvation and reconciliation is of God. Also, no parable based on ordinary human relationships can perfectly reflect all aspects of the love and mercy of God. God’s gift of His Son to the world was before men’s belief in that Gift (John 3:16), and the Scriptures specifically teach that even the desire to do right is implanted in the human heart by God (see Phil. 2:13).

His father saw him. Jesus implies that the father was looking for his son to return, even expecting him. The father seems to have known the boy’s character and disposition well enough to realize—even when bestowing upon the youth his share of the family fortune and when bidding him farewell—that he lacked those essential traits of character that would enable him to make a success of his venture. Apparently he reasoned that sooner or later the boy would come to himself (see on v. 17). He recognized his son, even in his tattered garments, and at a distance. In vs. 20–24 Jesus unfolds to His hearers the character of the father, even as in vs. 11–19 He dwells upon that of the younger son.

Ran. He might have waited for the boy to come up to where he stood. Instead, he made evident the eagerness and joy of his own heart by going forth to meet him.

Fell on his neck. That is, in an embrace. The son had not yet spoken, but his return in so sorry a state spoke more eloquently than any words he may have contrived to say. Nor is there any record of what the father may have said to his son, but his orders to the servants, together with his own manifestation of fatherly love, were likewise more eloquent than words could possibly have been.

21. I have sinned. See on v. 18.

Called thy son. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for adding “treat me as one of your hired servants.” The father had other plans for him—as a son and not as a servant.

22. Bring forth. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the reading “bring forth quickly.”

Robe. Gr. stoleµ, a loose outer garment for men, which extended to the feet; usually worn by persons of rank. From the very first the father received him as a son and not as a servant. To begin with, the father had cast his own mantle about the youth, for the purpose of hiding his rags (see COL 203, 204) and sparing him the embarrassment of being seen in his tattered garments even by the servants of the household. It is unlikely that the servants accompanied their master as he ran forth to greet his son, and therefore the command to “bring forth the best robe” was given as father and son approached the house.

A ring. Another token that the father still owned him as a son. This was probably a signet ring (see on Esther 3:10; 8:2), and if so, the placing of it on his finger indicated even more clearly his restored status as a member of the family. No doubt the young man had long since sold or pawned the signet ring he formerly wore.

Shoes. Literally, “sandals” (see on Matt. 3:11). Servants commonly went barefoot. “Shoes” were a further indication that the father received the repentant prodigal as a son and not as a servant. The best robe, the ring, and the shoes were not necessities, but special tokens of favor. The father not only provided for the needs of his son, but honored him, and in so doing gave evidence of the love and joy that filled his own heart. By the use of this parable Jesus justifies the welcome He accorded the sinners who pressed about Him (see on v. 1) and reproved the scribes and Pharisees for their critical attitude toward Him for doing so (see on v. 2).

24. My son was dead. That is, “dead” for all the father knew, literally and figuratively so because of the nature of their separation from each other. For the figurative use of the word “dead” see on ch. 9:60.

Began to be merry. The young man found himself, not a servant as he had hoped, but an honored guest at a banquet held to celebrate his return. An Oriental banquet commonly lasts for a number of hours.

25. His elder son. In the parable nothing more is said directly concerning the younger son. His restoration is now complete, and the lesson of the parable in so far as he is concerned—the gracious welcome Heaven accords the returning and repentant sinner—is clear. Thus far Jesus has justified His friendly attitude toward “publicans and sinners” (see on v. 2). The remainder of the parable (vs. 25–32) deals with the attitude of the Pharisees and scribes toward “sinners” (see on v. 2), as represented by the attitude of the elder brother toward the younger. This part of the parable was set forth as a rebuke to these self-righteous hypocrites for their “murmuring” at the way Jesus treated the outcasts of society (v. 2).

In the field. He was at work, as a dutiful son should be (see Matt. 21:28–31). Similarly, the scribes and Pharisees were hard at work in the hope of earning the inheritance the heavenly Father bestows upon faithful sons. But they were serving God, not from love (see on Matt. 22:37), but from a sense of duty and of earning righteousness by works. This same attitude had been true of their fathers in the days of Isaiah (see Isa. 1:11–15) and of Malachi (see Mal. 1:12–14). In place of true obedience they offered God the counterfeit of meticulous adherence to the traditions of men (see on Mark 7:6–13), blissfully ignoring the words of Samuel that “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22; cf. on Matt. 7:21–27).

Musick. Gr. sumphoµnia, literally, “unison of sound,” from which comes our English word “symphony.” Sumphoµnia may designate either a number of instruments or voices in unison or an instrument or voices in unison or an instrument resembling bagpipes (see on Dan. 3:5). The feast was probably provided with paid entertainers. Evidently the father spared no efforts to make the return of his long-lost son the occasion for a grand celebration, news of which would certify to all in the town the restored status of the son.

28. He was angry. As were the scribes and Pharisees toward Jesus (v. 2). The anger of the son stands forth in supreme contrast with the utter joy of the father (see on vs. 20, 22).

Would not go in. According to the Greek, he persistently refused to do so even after repeated urging by his father in person.

29. I serve thee. The trouble was that the older brother labored in the mood of a servant, rather than as a son. He claimed his father’s property by right, because he had earned it, and felt angry (v. 28) toward his father for not recognizing what he considered his rights as the elder son.

Neither transgressed. He rigorously observed all the outward requirements made of dutiful sons, but knew nothing of the true spirit of obedience. His service was nothing more than servile compliance with the forms of filial piety.

Thou never gavest me a kid. The Greek stresses “me” as though he said, “You never gave a kid to me.” Whether the older brother realized it or not, he was jealous of the attention being shown his brother, and probably felt that all this attention should have been his instead. He complained about never having been rewarded with so much as a “kid,” to say nothing of a “fatted calf.” No doubt there also lurked in his heart the fear that the reinstatement of his younger brother might also mean that the father would bestow a portion of the estate—which was now legally the property of the older son (see on v. 12)—upon this wastrel brother. Perhaps the older brother here implied that even the fatted calf was legally his, and that his father had no right to use it or any other part of the property without his personal consent.

Make merry with my friends. Here he seems to imply, further, that his lot in life had been a gloomy one and that he had more or less envied his brother the riotous time he had enjoyed. He had not been “merry” in serving his father; in fact, apparently he did not enjoy his father’s company, but preferred that of his “friends.”

30. This thy son. An expression revealing contempt and sarcasm (see on chs. 14:30; 15:2). The older son disdains to own the younger son as his brother. Coldly he taunts his father by referring to his brother as “thy son.” Perhaps at heart he feels himself to be more righteous than either his father or his brother.

Hath devoured thy living. See v. 12.

With harlots. Whether the older brother knew this to be a fact concerning his younger brother or merely surmised that this had been the case is not stated.

31. Son. Gr. teknon, “a child,” or “a son.” Here the father does not use the usual word for “son,” huios, but addresses the older brother with the more affectionate term, teknon. It is as if he had said, “my dear boy.”

Thou art ever with me. The younger son had not been “ever” with him, and herein lay the difference for the immediate celebration. Compare the rejoicing of the shepherd over the one lost sheep as compared with that which he feels for the ones that had not strayed from the fold (see on vs. 4, 7). However, the father goes on to point out his equal love for the older son, even if there had been no occasion for showing it by means of a celebration.

All that I have is thine. At the time the father had “divided” his “living” and assigned to the younger son his portion, he had also turned over to the older son the double portion that fell to him by birthright (see on v. 12). The contention that the father had been stingy (v. 29) is proved false. The property was now the elder son’s, and he might have “made merry” with his friends had he chosen to do so. The father herein also assures him that his rights will in no way be impaired by the return of his brother. If it is this that troubles him, he may put away his fears and join in the celebration. One by one the father proves all the arguments advanced by the older son invalid and invites him to join in welcoming his brother (see on v. 28).

32. It was meet. True, the younger son did not deserve the reception he had received, yet the father protests that it is fitting and proper to give boy a joyous welcome. The feast is not being given on the basis of merit; it is simply an expression of the father’s joy, and in this joy it was also “meet” that the older brother should participate. This, Jesus says, should be the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees toward sinners. The father’s affection for his long-lost younger son in no way diminished his love for the older son. His love included both of them in spite of their obvious failings. Fortunately the love of our heavenly Father is not based on how deserving we may be of it.

This thy brother. In answer to the expression of contempt used by the older brother, “this thy son” (v. 30), the father uses an expression of tender entreaty, “thy brother.” In the pleading of the father with the older boy, Jesus represents His own pleading with the scribes and the Pharisees. He loves them fully as well as He does the “publicans and sinners” (vs. 1, 2). They need not take offense at His attitude toward these unfortunate outcasts of society. They need not fear for their own rights and privileges. But it is “meet” that they should change their attitude toward God and their fellow men. Compare the parable of the Good Samaritan (ch. 10:25–37) and the experience of the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:16–22).

No hint is given as to whether the elder son amended his ways, or whether the younger son henceforth conducted himself honorably. Neither point was relevant to the lessons Jesus intended the parable to teach. In fact, the parable was still being enacted and the outcome rested on the hearers (see COL 209).

Ellen G. White comments

1, 2 COL 185, 186

1–72T 21

1–10COL 185–197

2 COL 189; GW 170

4 COL 187; GW 181; 2T 21

4, 5 Ev 16

4–6CT 198; FE 273; 2T 218; 6T 124

4–73T 99; 5T 604

4–104T 264; 7T 241

5–72T 22

6, 7 COL 189; GW 182; 6T 125

7 AA 154; COL 47, 237; FE 274; LS 188, 363; ML 122, 238, 307; TM 153; 2T 219; 3T 381; 5T 629; 6T 462; 8T 73

8 COL 192; 3T 99

8–10MH 163; 5T 604

9, 10 COL 193; 3T 100

10 CS 348; FE 210; MH 494; MYP 23; 7T 265; WM 93

11–13COL 198

11–24Ev 56

11–32COL 198–211; MYP 408

12 3T 100

13–203T 101

17–19COL 202

18, 19 SC 53

19, 20 5T 632

20 COL 203; MYP 97; SC 54

20–243T 102

21 TM 153

21–23COL 204

24 DA 496

24–3COL 207

25–323T 103

30, 31 COL 208, 209

32 COL 209, 211; DA 495