After Jesus tells the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin, he presents yet another story to his audience in verse 11. He starts off by introducing the main characters in this parable: a man and his two sons. In his commentary, John Nolland notes that it is significant that Jesus mentions both of the father’s sons because each one had a major function in His parable. A reference to both sons would not have been necessary if Jesus’ parable was only about the younger son. In verse 12, the younger of the sons asks for his share of his father’s inheritance. It has been previously mentioned that it was important for a father to give his sons a portion of his possessions. Many commentators, including Robert H. Stein, cite Deuteronomy 21:17 as the guidelines for this specific situation. Stein notes that in the case of the characters in this parable, the older son would receive twice as much as the younger son because he is the firstborn. It was also mentioned earlier that because the younger son asked for his share of the inheritance while his father was still alive, he was essentially rebelling against the restraints placed on him in his family household. Despite the dishonor the younger son brings to him by asking for the inheritance during the father’s life, the father gives the younger son his share and gives him “the freedom to choose his own destiny and live with the implications of his decision.” The father did not try to stop his son from leaving the family’s presence.
Verse 13 begins the downward spiral of the younger son after receiving his share of the estate. This verse notes that once the younger son has what he asks for, he travels to a country foreign to his homeland, gathers all of his newly received possessions, and wastes it all. In his journal article, Robert L. Millet gives a great interpretation of what Luke meant when he said that the younger son “gathered all he had” in verse 13. He says that it is likely that the younger son sold his portion of the father’s land for cash that would be convenient for spending during his journey. This would also bring shame on the younger son’s family from the community because land was not easy to possess, and was passed down from generation to generation. The younger son risks his land that was promised to him, and gives it up due to his irresponsible actions. Luke does not offer clear allegations on what is meant by “reckless living,” but the older brother suggests that the younger brother had prostitutes in verse 30. Although this type of living is not visibly defined, the audience is well-aware that the younger son was up to no good.
Verses 14 through 16 bring further problems for the rebellious son. Not only was the younger son facing bankruptcy, but also dealt with immense hunger as a result of the famine in the area. The son was brought further down in shame because he could not provide for himself financially, and now he could not provide for himself physically. Consequently, the younger son had no other choice but to find someone that could help him with his needs. Verse 15 says that he “hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country.” Millet says that the younger son “glued himself” to the citizen mentioned in this verse. Through the use of this strong, emotional wording, the audience sees that the son was willing to do anything and everything for the man, so that the man would provide for him in return. This plea for help led to the younger son feeding pigs in order to earn the man’s care. According to the Mosaic law found in Leviticus, eating, touching, or even surrounding oneself with pigs deemed that person unclean in the Jewish tradition. Again, this shows that the son was prepared to act in a horrible and shameful manner in order to survive his lack of both food and money. He was placed in a tough situation where a decision had to be made: either allow himself to starve and die or break a rule in the Mosaic law. Verse 16 implies that the younger son was so hungry that he could have eaten from the same pods as the pigs that he was watching over. His struggle to survive the consequences that resulted from both his unwise decisions and the famine forced him to do things that he would have never done before.
In the following verses, the readers see the beginnings of change in the younger son’s way of living. He comes to the realization that even the servants that work for his father were receiving more food than what he was eating now. In his commentary, Leon Morris writes, “Hardship has a wonderful way of bringing people to face facts.” Through the struggles he has faced during his time away from home, the younger son now knows that he is not getting anywhere and that he cannot live life on his own. In verses 18 and 19, readers see that the younger son has made the decision to go back home to his father and admit the sins he has committed. He has prepared the things he wants to say to his father when he goes back home, which includes him asking for the same treatment the father would give to his servants, rather than the treatment he received while he was still under his care as his son. He understands that he has disobeyed both his father and God, and knows that he should be treated fairly for his wrongdoings. There have been some disagreements between commentators on if the younger son’s repentance was genuine or insincere. For example, Malina and Rohrbaugh suggest that the son is “motivated primarily by his stomach.” According to their interpretation, the wayward son did not come home to confess his sins, but to receive food that he has been living without for some time. However, Robert C. Tannehill notes that “the narrator is not interested in separating true repentance from false…it is enough that the lost son has returned.” The only thing that really matters is that the son recognizes that he would be better off if he went back to his family.
In verse 20, the younger son does what he says he is going to do despite the criticism he would receive by his family and community: he begins his journey back home to his father. However, readers see that his father notices him and approaches him while he was not even close to his home. It is implied in this verse that the father has been waiting for his son to come back home, despite the sins he has committed against him and his whole family. In his article, Tim Geddert mentions that he names this parable “The Parable of the Running Father” rather than “The Parable of the Waiting Father.” His reasoning behind this suggestion is that the father was willing to bring shame and dishonor upon himself by running in his old age to his son, comforting him, and welcoming him back home, even though the son has placed shame on both himself and his family. The father gave up the little honor he had left so that the reckless son could understand how much he was loved and how glad the father was to have him back home.
After the father and son meet for the first time since the son left home, the son repeats the statements he arranged prior to coming home. However, he does not tell his father to treat him like a servant. Morris gives a reason for the omission of the servant treatment in that the father was so overjoyed of his son’s return that he would not let him finish what he was going to say. According to Millet, however, another potential reason of this omission is that “the display of pure love on the part of the father has made the boy’s preplanned speech seem inappropriate and out of place.” After seeing the tremendous amount of love the father brings to him, the younger son realizes that he does not have to ask to be treated like a servant: the father will treat him the same way he did before the son left.
In verses 22 through 24, readers notice the things the father does in order to make his wayward son feel welcome at home again. Greg Forbes notes that the robe and the ring were symbols of the younger son being re-instated into the family, and the shoes represented the fact that the younger son would not be treated as a slave because of his inappropriate actions. Because of the son’s repentance, he would no longer be considered shameful to his family. The fattened calf that is mentioned in verse 23 is also of great significance. Tannehill notes that meat was usually only eaten for special occasions, and the father believed that his son returning home would be classified as such. Tannehill goes on to say that “the father is not planning a quiet family gathering but is making a public gesture to proclaim his acceptance of his son so that the whole community will follow suit.” The father wants his son to be accepted back into the society and to regain his social status, not withholding the son’s previous sins against him. The dead-alive and lost-found could be interpreted two different ways according to Stein: either physically or spiritually. The father had no clue of his reckless son’s whereabouts while the son was in rebellion, and could have presumed him dead. Because of his son’s return, however, he knows that he is alive and well. A more spiritual interpretation is that the younger son was dead and lost in his sins, but is found and made alive through the repentance of his behaviors. In any case, celebrating the return of the son was necessary.
The older brother’s reaction to his brother returning home is found in the last section of this passage. In the beginning of this section, the older brother hears music and dancing coming from his home as he continues to work in the fields. Working in the fields was probably a task assigned to him as part of his daily work. Nonetheless, because he was working in the fields all day, he did not know that his brother had returned home and that there was a feast to celebrate his return. In order to receive more information about what is going on at home, the older brother asks one of his servants to tell him the reason behind the occasion. The servant tells him that all of this was a celebration to welcome back his younger brother, who rebelled against the household and acted foolishly with his inheritance. Upon hearing this, jealousy is stirred up in the older brother as he “is angry about the action of the father” in showing his careless son attention, despite the sins brought against him. In complete disagreement with the celebration that is occurring, the older son refuses to celebrate his brother’s return with the family and community. Similar to what he did with the younger son, the father excuses himself from the celebration – “ignoring his own dignity and position” – and meets his older son outside of the celebration walls. Both sons have brought shame to their father now that the older son refuses to enter into the banquet. The older son makes his case as to why he is angry with his father, which stems from jealousy. The younger son did everything wrong and receives the best that the father has to offer, but the older son has done everything right according to the father’s commands and never received any reward for it. Stein mentions that “this son of yours” referring to the younger brother in verse 30 is a derogatory phrase because the older son is so angry with his brother that he is essentially disowning him. Again, the reader sees that the older brother accuses the younger brother of having prostitutes. He cannot understand why the father has welcomed the rebellious, wicked son back into the family. The father reassures his older son that he has not lost anything that has been given and will be given to him. The father also reaffirms that no matter how much the older son disapproves of the younger son’s past, he is still the older son’s brother and should be welcomed back into the family with open arms after repentance.