Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 15:12
And the younger of them said to [his] father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth [to me.] And he divided unto them [his] living.
12. the portion of goods that falleth to me ] This would be one third (Deu 21:17). The granting of this portion corresponds to the natural gifts and blessings which God bestows on all alike, together with the light of conscience, and the rich elements of natural religion. Here we have the history of a sinful soul. Its sin (Luk 15:12-13); its misery (Luk 15:14-16); its penitence (Luk 15:17-20); its forgiveness (Luk 15:20-24).
he divided unto them his living ] See Luk 6:35. “The Lord is good to all,” Psa 145:9. “God is no respecter of persons,” Act 10:34. “He maketh His sun to rise on the evil, and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust,” Mat 5:45.
“God answers sharp and sudden on some prayers;
And flings the thing we have asked for in our face,
A gauntlet with a gift in it.”
E. B. Browning.
And the younger of them said – By this younger son we are to understand the publicans and sinners to be represented. By the older, the Pharisees and scribes. Give me the portion – The part. Of goods – Of property. That falleth to me – That is properly my share. There is no impropriety in supposing that he was of age; and, as he chose to leave his fathers house, it was proper that his father should, if he chose, give him the part of the estate which would be his. He divided unto them his living – His property, or means of living. The division of property among the Jews gave the older son twice as much as the younger. In this case it seems the younger son received only money or movable property, and the older chose to remain with his father and dwell on the paternal estate. The lands and fixed property remained in their possession. Among the ancient Romans and Syrophoenicians, it was customary, when a son came to the years of maturity, if he demanded his part of the inheritance, for the father to give it to him. This the son might claim by law. It is possible that such a custom may have prevailed among the Jews, and that our Saviour refers to some such demand made by the young man. Verse 12. Give me the portion of goods] It may seem strange that such a demand should be made, and that the parent should have acceded to it, when he knew that it was to minister to his debauches that his profligate son made the demand here specified. But the matter will appear plain, when it is considered, that it has been an immemorial custom in the east for sons to demand and receive their portion of the inheritance during their father’s lifetime; and the parent, however aware of the dissipated inclinations of the child, could not legally refuse to comply with the application. It appears indeed that the spirit of this law was to provide for the child in case of ill treatment by the father: yet the demand must first be acceded to, before the matter could be legally inquired into; and then, “if it was found that the father was irreproachable in his character, and had given no just cause for the son to separate from him, in that case, the civil magistrate fined the son in two hundred puns of cowries.” See Code of Gentoo laws, pr. disc. p. 56; see also do. chap. 2: sec. 9, p. 81, 82; xxi. sec. 10, p. 301. 12. the youngeras the morethoughtless. said, c.weary ofrestraint, panting for independence, unable longer to abide the checkof a father’s eye. This is man impatient of divine control,desiring to be independent of God, seeking to be his own master that”sin of sins, in which all subsequent sins are included as intheir germ, for they are but the unfolding of this one”[TRENCH]. he divided, c.Thus”God, when His service no longer appears a perfect freedom, andman promises himself something far better elsewhere, allows him tomake the trial and he shall discover, if need be by saddest proof,that to depart from Him is not to throw off the yoke, but to exchangea light yoke for a heavy one, and one gracious Master for a thousandimperious tyrants and lords” [TRENCH]. And the younger of them said to his father,…. God’s chosen ones among the publicans and sinners, are fitly signified by the younger son, since man, as a sinner, is younger than man as righteous; and since there are instances of God’s choice of the younger, before the elder, as Jacob before Esau, c. and the characters and conduct of young men agree with God’s elect, in a state of nature who are imprudent and ignorant, without any knowledge of divine and spiritual things, and of themselves, their state and condition, and of Christ, and salvation by him; and yet are conceited of themselves, and fancy themselves very wise and knowing, and capable of acting for themselves, independent, and without any assistance or advice; do not care to be under restraints, withdraw from all yokes, and break all bands asunder; and so become children of disobedience, prone to every vice, and servants and slaves to every lust; by which they are deceived, and in which they take a great deal of imaginary pleasure; and are often envious and spiteful, and live in malice, hateful, and hating one another: the request made by this younger son, is “to his Father”; to God, who was his Father by creation, by providential care, and by national adoption, and by special grace; though as yet he knew it not, nor could he call him so in faith: many call God Father, who should not, and many that should, do not: the request follows;
father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me: this portion may be considered, as internal or external; as internal, and such who think the Gentiles are meant by the younger son understand it of the light of nature, and of natural gifts and talents. The ancients generally interpret it, of man’s free will: it may intend natural knowledge in general, to which there is in man a natural desire, and in which he is self-sufficient: or rather as external, such as the outward blessings of food, raiment, health, c. the honours, pleasures, and riches of the world: the good things of this world belonged to men by right of creation, and according the laws and dues of it, but have been all forfeited by the sin of man and yet this is a portion, which in the apprehension of men, of right belongs to them; and which suits their nature, which is carnal and worldly:
and he divided unto them his living; natural gifts, external privileges, and worldly good things; which of all men in the earth, the Jewish nation shared; see Ps 115:16.
The portion ( ). The Jewish law alloted one-half as much to the younger son as to the elder, that is to say one-third of the estate (De 21:17) at the death of the father. The father did not have to abdicate in favour of the sons, but “this very human parable here depicts the impatience of home restraints and the optimistic ambition of youth” (Ragg). And he divided ( ). The second aorist active indicative of , an old and common verb to part in two, cut asunder, divide, but in the N.T. only here and 1Co 12:11. The elder son got his share also of the “substance” or property or estate ( ), “the living” ( ) as in Mr 12:44, not “life” as in Lu 8:14. The portion. According to the Jewish law of inheritance, if there were but two sons, the elder would receive two portions, the younger the third of all movable property. A man might, during his lifetime, dispose of all his property by gift as he chose. If the share of younger children was to be diminished by gift or taken away, the disposition must be made by a person presumably near death. No one in good health could diminish, except by gift, the legal portion of a younger son. The younger son thus was entitled by law to his share, though he had not right to claim it during his father ‘s lifetime. The request must be regarded as asking a favor (Edersheim). Unto them. Even to the elder, who did not ask it.
1) “And the younger of them said to his father,” (kai eipen ho neoteros auton to patri) “And the younger of them said to the father,” The younger representing the Gentile or the publican. The younger was the more impulsive, wild in estate demands, covetous to be his own master, impatient, expressing what was forbidden, “Thou shalt not covet,” Exo 20:17; and a love for the world, 1Jn 2:17.
2) “Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me.” (pater dos moi to epiballon meros tes ousias) “Father dole to me the share of the property falling to me,” because the son wanted to be independent of his father and his father’s God, a thing the Jewish father did, sometimes before his death, as Abraham did, Gen 25:6. The law prescribed that the elder son should receive a double portion, two-thirds in this instance, of the property, Deu 21:17. In this instance the father reserved this to himself during his life, Luk 15:31; 1Ch 5:11.
3) “And he divided unto them his living.” (ho de dieeles autois ton bion) “Then he divided to them the living,” the heir-share of the estate, had a clear understanding what should be the portion from which he cared for the sisters and mother, and from which he offered sacrifices on their behalf. The mother had perhaps recently died.
Luk 15:12
. And the younger of them said to his father. The parable opens by describing a mark of wicked arrogance in the youth, which appears in his being desirous to leave his father, and in thinking that he cannot be right without being permitted to indulge in debauchery, free from his father’s control. There is also ingratitude in leaving the old man, (524) and not only withholding the performance of the duties which be owed to him, but crippling and diminishing the wealth of his house. (525) This is at length followed by wasteful luxury and wicked extravagance, by which he squanders all that he had. (526) After so many offenses he deserved to find his father implacable. (527)
Under this image our Lord unquestionably depicts to us the boundless goodness and inestimable forbearance of God, that no crimes, however aggravated, may deter us from the hope of obtaining pardon, There would be some foundation for the analogy, if we were to say that this foolish and insolent youth resembles those persons who, enjoying at the hand of God a great abundance of good things, are moved by a blind and mad ambition to be separated from Him, that they may enjoy perfect freedom; as if it were not more desirable than all the kingdoms of the world to live under the fatherly care and government of God. But as I am afraid that this allusion may be thought overstrained, I shall satisfy myself with the literal meaning; not that I disapprove of the opinion, that under this figure is reproved the madness of those who imagine that it will be advantageous for them to have something of their own, and to be rich apart from the heavenly Father; but that I now confine myself within the limits of a Commentator. (528)
Christ here describes what usually happens with young men, when they are carried away by their natural disposition. Destitute of sound judgment, and maddened by passion, they are ill fitted for governing themselves, and are not restrained by fear or shame. It is therefore impossible but that they shall abandon themselves to every thing to which their sinful inclination prompts them, and rush on in a disgraceful course, till they are involved in shameful poverty. He afterwards describes the punishment which, in the righteous judgment of God, generally overtakes spendthrifts and prodigals. After having wickedly squandered their means, they are left to pine in hunger, and not having known how to use in moderation an abundant supply of the best bread, they are reduced to eat acorns and husks. In short, they become the companions of swine, and are made to feel that they are unworthy to partake of human food; for it is swinish gluttony (529) to squander wickedly what was given for the support of life. (530) As to the ingenious exposition which some have brought forward, that it is the just punishment of wicked scorn, when those who have rejected delicious bread in the house of our heavenly Father are driven by hunger to eat husks, it is a true and useful doctrine; but in the meantime, we must bear in mind the difference that exists between allegories and the natural meaning. (531)
And was desirous to fill his belly. This means that, in consequence of hunger, he no longer thought of his former luxuries, but greedily devoured husks; for of that kind of food he could not be in want, when he was giving it to the swine There is a well-known saying of Cyrus who, having for a long time suffered hunger during a flight, and having been slightly refreshed by eating coarse black bread, declared that he had never tasted savory bread till now; so the young man who is here mentioned was compelled by necessity to betake himself with appetite to husks The reason is added, because no man gave to him; for the copulative conjunction and ( καὶ) must, in my opinion, signify because, (532) and what is here said does not refer to husks, which he had at hand, but I understand the meaning to be, that no man pitied his poverty; for prodigals who throw away the whole of their property are persons whom no man thinks himself bound to relieve, — nay more, as they have been accustomed to squander every thing, men think that nothing ought to be given to them. (533)
(524) “ Delaissant le bon vieil hemme de pere;” — “leaving the good old man his father.”
(525) “ Mais aussi diminue le bien de la maison, et en emporte une bonne partie;” — “but also diminishes the wealth of the house, and carries off a good part of it.”
(526) “ Tout ce qu’il avoit eu du pere;” — “all that he had got from his father.”
(527) “ Il avoit bien merite de trouver puis apres un pere rigoreux, et qui teint son coeur contre luy iusqu’au bout;” — “he had well deserved to find afterwards a father who was severe, and who kept his heart shut against him to the end.”
(528) “ Pource que ie me tien maintenant dans mes limites, et ne veux point passer l’office d’expositeur;” — “because I now keep myself within my limits, and do not wish to go beyond the duty of an expositor.”
(529) “ C’est une gourmandise plustost convenable a des porceaux qu’a des hommes;” — “it is a gluttony more suitable to swine than to men.”
(530) “ Pour subvenir aux necessitez de ceste vie;” — “to supply the necessities of this life.”
(531) “ Mais cependant il faut tousiours aviser quelle difference il y a entre les allegories et le vray sens naturel d’un passage;” — “but yet we must always consider what difference there is between allegories and the true natural meaning of a passage.”
(532) “ Car selon mon avis ce mot et se doit resoudre en Car, ou Pource que;” — “for in my opinion this word and must mean For, or Because. ”
(533) “ Il semble que ce qu’on leur donne soit autant de perdu;” — “what is given to them appears to be as good as thrown away.”
(12) The younger of them said to his father.In its bearing on the individual life, the younger son represents the temper that is eager for independence, self-asserting, energetic; the elder that which is contemplative, devout, ceremonial, quiescent. As the latter pre-eminently characterises, as noticed above, the sons of Shem as distinguished from those of Japheth, the Semitic as distinct from the Aryan race, the younger son represents primarily the Jew who has yielded to non-Jewish tendencies; and on the wider scale of interpretation, stands for the whole Gentile world. The contrast between the Esau and Jacob types of character is reproduced (Gen. 25:27), only here the elder brother answers to Jacob and the younger to Esau, the variation indicating that the former is with all its short-comings the natural heir of the double portion of the first-born in the spiritual inheritance of Gods kingdom. Israel remains within comparatively narrow limits of thought and habitation. Japheth is enlarged (Gen. 9:27) and goes forth with all his marvellous gifts of speech and thought, and fancy and invention.
Divided unto them his living.In the normal scale of distribution, the elder son would have as his portion two-thirds of the personal, and possibly also of the real, property, the younger the remainder. In the framework of the story, the father and the elder son become, as it were, tenants in common (Luk. 15:31), the former still retaining the general direction of affairs. The state of things so described represents roughly the life of Israel under its theocracy, acknowledging God as its true King and Father.
12. The younger According to a narrower view of genealogy the Jew is the older, and the Gentile the younger. But extending our view further back, we shall find that Abraham was the first Jew and that Adam was Gentile. Thence tracing the genealogy of Jesus back, according to Luke, he was the son of man, (and the word Adam in the Hebrew signifies man,) and not merely the son of Abraham.
Younger of them As being least experienced and wise.
His living Rather , the substance, the property. It is said by some that both sons had by Jewish law the right to make this demand; and a law of this nature is quoted as existing among the Hindoos. It is difficult to suppose that such a law would exist anywhere. But it is plain, at any rate, that in this case, though the parent divided the estate to them, yet he gave the half but to the younger; for the elder complains that he had not been allowed to own a kid; while the father pacifies him by the assurance that the still existing mine is in promise, at least, a thine.
“And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the portion of your substance which falls to me.’ And he divided to them his living.”
The younger son come to his father with the request that he might have his share of what he would in the future inherit. In a case where there were two sons this would normally be one third of the whole (the elder brother who would take over responsibility for dependants would receive a double portion), although in a situation like this where it was received early it may have been a lesser proportion (for the whole see Deu 21:17). Such an apportioning of an inheritance before death did happen regularly, and the principle behind it was that the sons would then have financial responsibility towards their father who retained a right to receive the income, and utilise the capital. But that a son would actually request it while his father was in good health would be an unusual case, and is probably intended to emphasise the waywardness of the son and the goodheartedness of the father. There was probably no thought at this stage of the younger son leaving home, except for business reasons, nor of him having the capital simply to do what he liked with. The younger son was probably only in his late teens, for he was unmarried, and had seemingly no thoughts of marriage.
Luk 15:12. And the younger of them, &c. Our Lord with great propriety makes use of the youngest son as an example of a depraved mind, youth being naturally impotent in self-government, not only through natural depravity, but through want of experience; hurried away by the impetuosity of the passions; not only deaf, but even too often rude, to the interpositions of advice, and too frequently totally abandoned to the pleasures of sense. It had been usual, in commercial states, to assign some portion to children when of age; and as the proportion was generally settled by law, the propriety of this circumstance, and of the expression, Give me that portion which falls to me, will appear in a strong and beautiful light. It seems to me, that no significant sense can be put upon the last circumstance mentioned in this verse, as referring to the dispensations of God to his creatures: it is one of those ornamental circumstances, which are frequently found in parables, and which it would be frivolous to endeavour to accommodate too scrupulously to the general design.
Luk 15:12-13 . ] , Euthymius Zigabenus.
] the portion falling to my share , that which belongs to me, Herod. iv. 115; Dem. 312. 2, 317. 1; Diod. Sic. xiv. 17; Polyb. xviii. 24. 1, vi. 34. 1, and elsewhere. See also Wetstein and Kypke, I. p. 289. According to the Hebrew law of inheritance, there fell to the younger son only half as much as the first-born received (Deu 21:17 ; Michaelis, Mos. R . 79; Saalschtz, p. 820 f.). The son asks that this his future portion of inheritance be given to him in advance. The father grants “non quod oportebat, sed quod licebat facere,” Maldonatus. An agreement, according to an approximate estimate, must be presupposed. But the granting of his request is a necessary part of the parable, on account of human freedom . “Discedentes a se non prohibet, redeuntes amplectitur,” Maldonatus.
] to both the sons, in such wise, however, as to reserve to himself until his death the right of usufruct over the portion of the eldest, and the latter remained in his service, Luk 15:29-31 .
] Mar 12:44 ; Luk 8:43 : that whereon the family lived, i.e. nothing else than their means . Hesiod. Op . 230. 575; Herod. i. 31, viii. 51, and frequently. Paulus (comp. Michaelis) makes, without reason, a distinction between this and , which, according to him, is the whole means, saying that the father, however, divided merely his stock of provisions , not his capital. See, on the other hand, Luk 15:31 .
Luk 15:13 . . .] The greediness for unlimited pleasure urged him to haste.
] what, namely, he had received as his portion of the inheritance, partly in natura , partly in money in settlement of what could not be taken with him.
] recklessly , Dem. 1025. 19; Josephus, Antt . xii. 4. 8. Comp. on Eph 5:18 . The sinful nature is developed from an independence which, under the influence of sinful longing, shakes itself loose from God (comp. Psa 73:27 ) by the satisfaction of immoral pleasure .
12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me . And he divided unto them his living.
Ver. 12. He divided unto them his living ] Gr. , his life. Our life is called the “life of our hands,” Isa 57:10 , because it is upheld by the labour of our hands.
12 20. ] The part of the parable relating to the prodigal himself divides itself into three parts 1. his sin: 2. his misery: 3. his penitence . In Luk 15:12-13 his sin is described. It consists in a desire to depart from his Father’s house and control, and to set up for himself, to live a life of what the carnal man calls liberty .
12. ] is classical Greek , Herod. iv. 115.
Such a request as this is shewn by Orientalists to have been known in the East, though not among the Jews.
= : no distinction is implied, as some (Paulus, Stier) have thought. The first-born had two-thirds of the property, see Deu 21:17 . The father, as implied in the parable, reserves to himself the power during his life over the portion of the first-born, see Luk 15:31 .
The parable sets before us very strikingly the permission of free will to man.
Luk 15:12 . , the younger, with a certain fitness made to play the foolish part. The position of an elder son presents more motives to steadiness. , the portion falling or belonging to , the verb occurs in this sense in late authors (here only in N.T.). The portion of the younger when there were two sons would be one third, the right of the first-born being two portions (Deu 21:17 ). : the father complies, not as bound, but he must do it in the parable that the story may go on. = , as in Mar 12:44 , Luk 8:43 .
Luke
THE PRODIGAL AND HIS FATHER
Luk 15:11 – Luk 15:24 The purpose of the three parables in this chapter has to be kept in mind. Christ is vindicating His action in receiving sinners, which had evoked the murmurings of the Pharisees. The first two parables, those of the lost sheep and the lost drachma, appeal to the common feeling which attaches more importance to lost property just because it is lost than to that which is possessed safely. This parable rises to a higher level. It appeals to the universal emotion of fatherhood, which yearns over a wandering child just because he has wandered.
We note a further advance, in the proportion of one stray sheep to the ninety-nine, and of one lost coin to the nine, contrasted with the sad equality of obedience and disobedience in the two sons. One per cent., ten per cent., are bearable losses, but fifty per cent. is tragic.
I. The first part Luk 15:11 – Luk 15:16 tells of the son’s wish to be his own master, and what came of it.
That is the essential absurdity in our attempts to do without God and to shake off His control. We can only get power to seem to do it by misusing His gifts. When we say, ‘Who is Lord over us?’ the tongues which say it were given us by Him. The next step soon followed. ‘Not many days after,’ of course, for the sense of ownership could not be kept up while near the father. A man who wishes to enjoy worldly good without reference to God is obliged, in self-defence, to hustle God out of his thoughts as soon and as completely as possible.
The ‘far country’ is easily reached; and it is far, though a step can land us in it. A narrow bay may compel a long journey round its head before those on its opposite shores can meet. Sin takes us far away from God, and the root of all sin is that desire of living to one’s self which began the prodigal’s evil course.
The third step in his downward career, wasting his substance in riotous living, comes naturally after the two others; for all self-centred life is in deepest truth waste, and the special forms of gross dissipation to which youth is tempted are only too apt to follow the first sense of being their own masters, and removed from the safeguards of their earthly father’s home. Many a lad in our great cities goes through the very stages of the parable, and, when a mother’s eye is no longer on him, plunges into filthy debauchery. But living which does not outrage the proprieties may be riotous all the same; for all conduct which ignores God and asserts self as supreme is flagrantly against the very nature of man, and is reckless waste.
Such a ‘merry’ life is sure to be ‘short.’ There is always famine in the land of forgetfulness of God, and when the first gloss is off its enjoyments, and one’s substance is spent, its pinch is felt. The unsatisfied hunger of heart, which dogs godless living, too often leads but to deeper degradation and closer entanglement with low satisfactions. Men madly plunge deeper into the mud in hope of finding the pearl which has thus far eluded their search.
A miserable thing this young fool had made of his venture, having spent his capital, and now being forced to become a slave, and being set to nothing better than to feed swine. The godless world is a hard master, and has very odious tasks for its bondsmen. The unclean animals are fit companions for one who made himself lower than they, since filth is natural to them and shameful for him. They are better off than he is, for husks do nourish them, and they get their fill, but he who has sunk to longing for swine’s food cannot get even that. The dark picture is only too often verified in the experience of godless men.
II. The wastrel’s returning sanity is described in Luk 15:17 – Luk 15:20 .
There is no sign that his conscience smote him, or that his heart woke in love to his father. His stomach, and it only, urged him to go home. He did, indeed, feel that he had been wrong, and had forfeited the right to be called a son, but he did not care much for losing that name, or even for losing the love to which it had the right, if only he could get as much to eat as one of the hired servants, whose relation to the master was less close, and, in patriarchal times, less happy, than that of slaves born in the house.
One good thing about the lad was that he did not let the grass grow under his feet, but, as soon as he had made the resolution, began to carry it into effect. The bane of many a resolve to go back to God is that it is ‘sicklied o’er’ by procrastination. The ragged prodigal has not much to leave which need hold him, but many such a one says, ‘I will arise and go to my father to-morrow,’ and lets all the to-morrows become yesterdays, and is sitting among the swine still.
Low as the prodigal’s motive for return was, the fact of his return was enough. So is it in regard to our attitude to the gospel. Men may be drawn to give heed to its invitations from the instinct of self-preservation, or from their sense of hungry need, and the belief that in it they will find the food they crave for, while there may be little consciousness of longing for more from the Father than the satisfaction of felt wants. The longing for a place in the Father’s heart will spring up later, but the beginning of most men’s taking refuge in God as revealed in Christ is the gnawing of a hungry heart. The call to all is, ‘Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat.’
III. The climax of the parable, for which all the rest is but as scaffolding, is the father’s welcome vs. 20 b -24.
No doubt he hesitated when the old home came in sight, and perhaps his resolution would have oozed out at his finger ends if he had had to march up alone in his rags, and run the gauntlet of servants before he came to speech with his father. So his father’s seeing him far off and running to meet him is exquisitely in keeping, as well as movingly setting forth how God’s love goes out to meet His returning prodigals. That divine insight which discerns the first motions towards return, that divine pity which we dare venture to associate with His infinite love, that eager meeting the shamefaced and slow-stepping boy half-way, and that kiss of welcome before one word of penitence or request had been spoken, are all revelations of the heart of God, and its outgoings to every wanderer who sets his face to return.
Beautifully does the father’s welcome make the son’s completion of his rehearsed speech impossible. It does not prevent his expression of penitence, for the more God’s love is poured over us, the more we feel our sin. But he had already been treated as a son, and could not ask to be taken as a servant. Beautifully, too, the father gives no verbal answer to the lad’s confession, for his kiss had answered it already; but he issues instructions to the servants which show that the pair have now reached the home and entered it together.
The gifts to the prodigal are probably significant. They not only express in general the cordiality of the welcome, but seem to be capable of specific interpretations, as representing various aspects of the blessed results of return to God. The robe is the familiar emblem of character. The prodigal son is treated like the high-priest in Zechariah’s vision; his rags are stripped off, and he is clothed anew in a dress of honour. ‘Them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also sanctified.’ The ring is a token of wealth, position, and honour. It is also a sign of delegated authority, and is an ornament to the hand. So God gives His prodigals, when they come back, an elevation which unforgiven beings do not reach, and sets them to represent Him, and arrays them in strange beauty. No doubt the lad had come back footsore and bleeding, and the shoes may simply serve to keep up the naturalness of the story. But probably they suggest equipment for the journey of life. That is one of the gifts that accompany forgiveness. Our feet are shod with the preparedness of the gospel of peace.
Last of all comes the feast. Heaven keeps holiday when some poor waif comes shrinking back to the Father. The prodigal had been content to sink his sonship for the sake of a loaf, but he could not get bread on such terms. He had to be forgiven and bathed in the outflow of his father’s love before he could be fed; and, being thus received, he could not but be fed. The feast is for those who come back penitently, and are received forgivingly, and endowed richly by the Father in heaven.
give me. Contrast “make me” (Luk 15:19).
the portion. According to Jewish law, in the case of two sons the elder took two-thirds, and the younger one-third of movable property, at the father’s death.
goods = movable property. Greek. ousia. Only here and Luk 15:13.
falleth to me. This is the technical term in the Papyri, in such cases. See Deissmann’s Light, &c., p. 152, and Bib. Stud., p. 230.
them. Including the elder, who did not ask it.
living. Greek. bios, life. App-170. Put by Figure of speech Metonomy (of Effect), App-6, for his means or property which supported his life.
12-20.] The part of the parable relating to the prodigal himself divides itself into three parts-1. his sin: 2. his misery: 3. his penitence. In Luk 15:12-13 his sin is described. It consists in a desire to depart from his Fathers house and control, and to set up for himself,-to live a life of what the carnal man calls liberty.
Luk 15:12. ) ) is the expression in Mat 21:30. There is hereby signified a pair of sons different in character.- ) So , 1Ma 10:29 (30).-, the portion) Each man receives his portion from God.-, to them) even to his elder son [as well as to the younger], though he was not asking for it; not giving up to him, however, as yet, the full actual enjoyment,[161] as appears from Luk 15:31.
[161] Usufructus, which is both the usus and fructus; whereas usus is only the use, without the full enjoyment. In both usus and usufructus the ownership is not given, but still remains in the hands of another.-E. and T.
give: Deu 21:16, Deu 21:17, Psa 16:5, Psa 16:6, Psa 17:14
And he: Mar 12:44
Reciprocal: Exo 17:2 – Give us Pro 19:26 – wasteth Pro 28:19 – but Ecc 11:9 – Rejoice Luk 15:25 – his Luk 21:4 – all
2
The younger son did not want to wait until the usual time for settling up of the estate of his father, for he did not intend to remain at home that long.
Luk 15:12. The younger. Thus represented, because the more light-minded, the more easily led astray.
Give me the portion of thy substance, etc. The request could not have been an unheard of one. The beginning and essence of sin are here set forth: Self-seeking, turning away from God to the creature. The sons heart was alienated from his father, or the request would not have been made. Self-sufficiency develops in this way in this son, but in another way in the elder one (see below). Men call this form of it love of liberty, God calls it pride.
And he divided unto them his living. The younger sons portion would be one third, that of the elder two thirds (Deu 21:17). This compliance sets forth our free will as allowed by God. The father still administered for the elder son. The self-righteous are nominally with the father, under His direction, but not yielding a hearty obedience.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament