Commentary on the Text of Luke 15.11-12
by Lee Magness
15.11
A certain man was having two sons. Ἄνθρωπός τις εἶχεν δύο υἱούς.
The first sentence of the parable of the Prodigal Son introduces us to the three main characters in the story—a certain man and his two sons. The first word in the parable is “man,” obviously a father and referred to as such throughout the rest of the parable. It will be important to remember that this character, mentioned first, is the main character of the parable. This awareness will call into question our tendency to identify the prodigal son as the main character and name the parable for him. The word “certain” suggests an indefiniteness common to the fictional stories we call parables. This indefiniteness invites an application of the parable to any place or time or circumstance. The word also reminds us of the “certain man” of 15.4 and the “certain woman” of 15.8 and thus helps confirm the link among the three “lost” parables.
The verb, “was having,” suggests the concepts of possession and continuous action. The meaning of the verb highlights possession, a strong relationship that is central to the action of the parable. And the tense of the verb—“was having” not “had”— emphasizes continuity. Notice how the father-son relationship holds true throughout the parable, at home, in the far country, out in the fields. The man is never not the father of either son. This verb also reinforces the connection among the three “lost” parables of Luke 15—the man having a hundred sheep, the woman having ten coins, and the man who was having two sons.
What the man has is “sons,” two sons. The term defines the man as a father, it defines the relationship between the man and his sons, and it defines the relationship between the sons. They are brothers, sons of the same father. At this point in the parable there is no distinction between them. Yes, one will stray and the other will stay. Yes, one comes home after being away and the other stays away while being at home. But from the perspective of the parable they are the same, sons. This initial similarity between the two sons should rescue us from the tendency to highlight the differences between the sons to the exclusion of how they are alike.
What have we learned from the first sentence?
1) The story focuses on a man, a certain man. This is the parable of a merciful man, a gracious father.
2) The parable features three main characters who are in the lens of the listener or reader from the first sentence
to the last. This is the parable of a father and his sons.
3) There is no point in the story at which the father does not have two sons. This is the parable of an abiding
relationship.
4) Two of the characters featured by the story have something crucial in common, their shared relationship with
their father and with each other. This is the parable of a common connection which underlies all other
differences.
15.12
And the younger of them said to his father, καὶ εἶπεν ὁ νεώτερος αὐτῶν τῷ πατρί,
The action of the parable is initiated in the very next sentence by the younger of the two sons. In one of the most dialogue-driven of Jesus’ parables, the first act is to speak. The action is bold if not rude. Did he speak only when spoken to? Did he speak out of turn? The very act of speaking, perhaps unbidden, suggests a disrespect confirmed by the contents of the speech. This speech-act is the first of several forceful speeches in the parable.
The phrase “the younger of them” appears to shift the focus immediately to the prominent younger son. It is easy to imagine the family portrait as his. But in its own way (“younger,” “them”) the phrase also keeps the older son, so easily forgotten or ignored until the final scene, firmly in the frame, in the background for now but soon to step to the foreground. The actions of the lost son are always in relation to his relations, in the context of his sonship to the father and brotherliness to the elder.
The phrase also reminds many readers of the younger sons of the Hebrew scriptures—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, the list goes on and on. There is a tradition of younger sons taking action, for better or for worse. Jacob is in some ways the most obvious parallel. He left home under difficult circumstances, having dishonored his father and alienated his older brother. But Joseph’s reunion with his older brothers and elderly father also resonates.
Unlike the lost sheep and the lost coin, the about-to-be lost son effects his own lostness. The shepherd lost the sheep and the woman lost the coin, but in what he is about to say and eventually do the younger son has left his father and is lost. The parallels to the companion parables (“certain,” “having”) have set us up for this significant contrast.
Although we have known from the start that that “certain man” was a father—he did have “sons” after all—the designation must be defined—“to his father.” The fatherliness of the man, his parental roles and relationships, will be highlighted throughout the parable. The word “father” appears twelve times in this relatively short story. Even though the action appears to shift to the younger son, the father is clearly present and prominent in the family portrait as well.
Several more implications have emerged.
1) The action begins with speech. This parable shows us that we have as much to learn from the words of the
characters as from their actions.
2) The actions of the younger son do not and must not obscure the presence and role of the older. This is a parable
not just about one renegade but about multiple, complex relationships.
3) The relationships in this parable echo the relationships in numerous Old Testament narratives. This is a parable
that must be read inter-textually.
4) Unlike the sheep and the coin which are completely at the mercy of the action of others, the younger son acts from
the first and throughout this story. This is a parable about characters all of whom act, for better or worse, in
relation to one another.
5) Although the younger son takes center-stage, the father who began as the subject of the parable remains on the
stage throughout. This is a parable in which the father is, from first to last, the main character.
Father, give me the part of the substance falling to me,
and he divided to them his living.
Πάτερ, δός μοι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας,
ὁ δὲ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον.
Although the content of the younger son’s request is deeply disrespectful, he begins with the respectful vocative, “Father,” calling on him in a way that recognizes his identity and their relationship. In a way the polite address belies the rude request. On the other hand, even in the midst of hurtful words and actions, the son cannot ignore or deny his father’s authority.
“Give me” suggests the self-centered demand of a child, oblivious to all that the father has given and will give his son. The manner of speech is blunt to a fault. It foreshadows a later demand in 15.19—“make me as one of your hired men”—and prepares us to see how disrespectful the younger son remains, even at the point of his seemingly repentant return.
What the son wants is “the part of the substance falling to me.” “Falling” suggests an inheritance expected to be passed along from father to son. Strictly speaking it did not “belong” to him, but it could be reasonably anticipated at the time of the father’s death. The word translated “substance” literally means “being,” which raises interesting possibilities for how personhood is often tied to property. But here the word appears simply to imply the family’s assets, mostly in real estate although possibly including livestock. The portion customarily left to the oldest son was significantly larger that for the rest of the siblings. The older son’s “part” was likely to have been two-thirds with one-third for the younger son, still a sizeable portion.
Perhaps in response to the insistence and impatience of the younger son, the father seems to have apportioned his assets to his two heirs (“to them”) almost immediately, something he ordinarily would not even have thought about doing until he neared death. “Divide” also implies distribution, involving an actual dispensing of assets not just a theoretical assignment of assets. “Living” translates one of the words for “life,” the one that emphasizes one’s livelihood, one’s means of subsistence, the actual material possessions that one’s employment or investments produce. We use the comparable phrase “to make a living.” Students of the New Testament debate whether this distribution conveyed only the right of possession or included the right of disposition, but the next sentence suggests that the younger son was able to dispose of his newly inherited property.
New insights emerge from the son’s request and the father’s response.
1) As a prologue to his disrespectful demand, the younger son still calls upon the father and still calls him “father.”
This parable reminds us that no rebellion or rejection can alter the reality of our relationship with God.
2) The younger son orders his father around at his departure (“give me”) and upon his return (“make me”). This
parable reminds us that we are tempted to expect God to conform to our will rather than us conforming to
God’s will.
3) The younger son wants to define himself on the basis of what he has rather than who he is. This parable
reminds us that we are tempted to claim control over God’s good gifts rather than allowing ourselves to be
possessed, controlled, claimed by God.
4) God not only gives the younger son the right of possession of his inheritance but also the right of disposition.
This parable reminds us that there is something more important than “taking a living” or even “making a
living”—namely, living our lives in relationship with God, the source of every good and perfect gift.
A certain man was having two sons. Ἄνθρωπός τις εἶχεν δύο υἱούς.
The first sentence of the parable of the Prodigal Son introduces us to the three main characters in the story—a certain man and his two sons. The first word in the parable is “man,” obviously a father and referred to as such throughout the rest of the parable. It will be important to remember that this character, mentioned first, is the main character of the parable. This awareness will call into question our tendency to identify the prodigal son as the main character and name the parable for him. The word “certain” suggests an indefiniteness common to the fictional stories we call parables. This indefiniteness invites an application of the parable to any place or time or circumstance. The word also reminds us of the “certain man” of 15.4 and the “certain woman” of 15.8 and thus helps confirm the link among the three “lost” parables.
The verb, “was having,” suggests the concepts of possession and continuous action. The meaning of the verb highlights possession, a strong relationship that is central to the action of the parable. And the tense of the verb—“was having” not “had”— emphasizes continuity. Notice how the father-son relationship holds true throughout the parable, at home, in the far country, out in the fields. The man is never not the father of either son. This verb also reinforces the connection among the three “lost” parables of Luke 15—the man having a hundred sheep, the woman having ten coins, and the man who was having two sons.
What the man has is “sons,” two sons. The term defines the man as a father, it defines the relationship between the man and his sons, and it defines the relationship between the sons. They are brothers, sons of the same father. At this point in the parable there is no distinction between them. Yes, one will stray and the other will stay. Yes, one comes home after being away and the other stays away while being at home. But from the perspective of the parable they are the same, sons. This initial similarity between the two sons should rescue us from the tendency to highlight the differences between the sons to the exclusion of how they are alike.
What have we learned from the first sentence?
1) The story focuses on a man, a certain man. This is the parable of a merciful man, a gracious father.
2) The parable features three main characters who are in the lens of the listener or reader from the first sentence
to the last. This is the parable of a father and his sons.
3) There is no point in the story at which the father does not have two sons. This is the parable of an abiding
relationship.
4) Two of the characters featured by the story have something crucial in common, their shared relationship with
their father and with each other. This is the parable of a common connection which underlies all other
differences.
15.12
And the younger of them said to his father, καὶ εἶπεν ὁ νεώτερος αὐτῶν τῷ πατρί,
The action of the parable is initiated in the very next sentence by the younger of the two sons. In one of the most dialogue-driven of Jesus’ parables, the first act is to speak. The action is bold if not rude. Did he speak only when spoken to? Did he speak out of turn? The very act of speaking, perhaps unbidden, suggests a disrespect confirmed by the contents of the speech. This speech-act is the first of several forceful speeches in the parable.
The phrase “the younger of them” appears to shift the focus immediately to the prominent younger son. It is easy to imagine the family portrait as his. But in its own way (“younger,” “them”) the phrase also keeps the older son, so easily forgotten or ignored until the final scene, firmly in the frame, in the background for now but soon to step to the foreground. The actions of the lost son are always in relation to his relations, in the context of his sonship to the father and brotherliness to the elder.
The phrase also reminds many readers of the younger sons of the Hebrew scriptures—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, the list goes on and on. There is a tradition of younger sons taking action, for better or for worse. Jacob is in some ways the most obvious parallel. He left home under difficult circumstances, having dishonored his father and alienated his older brother. But Joseph’s reunion with his older brothers and elderly father also resonates.
Unlike the lost sheep and the lost coin, the about-to-be lost son effects his own lostness. The shepherd lost the sheep and the woman lost the coin, but in what he is about to say and eventually do the younger son has left his father and is lost. The parallels to the companion parables (“certain,” “having”) have set us up for this significant contrast.
Although we have known from the start that that “certain man” was a father—he did have “sons” after all—the designation must be defined—“to his father.” The fatherliness of the man, his parental roles and relationships, will be highlighted throughout the parable. The word “father” appears twelve times in this relatively short story. Even though the action appears to shift to the younger son, the father is clearly present and prominent in the family portrait as well.
Several more implications have emerged.
1) The action begins with speech. This parable shows us that we have as much to learn from the words of the
characters as from their actions.
2) The actions of the younger son do not and must not obscure the presence and role of the older. This is a parable
not just about one renegade but about multiple, complex relationships.
3) The relationships in this parable echo the relationships in numerous Old Testament narratives. This is a parable
that must be read inter-textually.
4) Unlike the sheep and the coin which are completely at the mercy of the action of others, the younger son acts from
the first and throughout this story. This is a parable about characters all of whom act, for better or worse, in
relation to one another.
5) Although the younger son takes center-stage, the father who began as the subject of the parable remains on the
stage throughout. This is a parable in which the father is, from first to last, the main character.
Father, give me the part of the substance falling to me,
and he divided to them his living.
Πάτερ, δός μοι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας,
ὁ δὲ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον.
Although the content of the younger son’s request is deeply disrespectful, he begins with the respectful vocative, “Father,” calling on him in a way that recognizes his identity and their relationship. In a way the polite address belies the rude request. On the other hand, even in the midst of hurtful words and actions, the son cannot ignore or deny his father’s authority.
“Give me” suggests the self-centered demand of a child, oblivious to all that the father has given and will give his son. The manner of speech is blunt to a fault. It foreshadows a later demand in 15.19—“make me as one of your hired men”—and prepares us to see how disrespectful the younger son remains, even at the point of his seemingly repentant return.
What the son wants is “the part of the substance falling to me.” “Falling” suggests an inheritance expected to be passed along from father to son. Strictly speaking it did not “belong” to him, but it could be reasonably anticipated at the time of the father’s death. The word translated “substance” literally means “being,” which raises interesting possibilities for how personhood is often tied to property. But here the word appears simply to imply the family’s assets, mostly in real estate although possibly including livestock. The portion customarily left to the oldest son was significantly larger that for the rest of the siblings. The older son’s “part” was likely to have been two-thirds with one-third for the younger son, still a sizeable portion.
Perhaps in response to the insistence and impatience of the younger son, the father seems to have apportioned his assets to his two heirs (“to them”) almost immediately, something he ordinarily would not even have thought about doing until he neared death. “Divide” also implies distribution, involving an actual dispensing of assets not just a theoretical assignment of assets. “Living” translates one of the words for “life,” the one that emphasizes one’s livelihood, one’s means of subsistence, the actual material possessions that one’s employment or investments produce. We use the comparable phrase “to make a living.” Students of the New Testament debate whether this distribution conveyed only the right of possession or included the right of disposition, but the next sentence suggests that the younger son was able to dispose of his newly inherited property.
New insights emerge from the son’s request and the father’s response.
1) As a prologue to his disrespectful demand, the younger son still calls upon the father and still calls him “father.”
This parable reminds us that no rebellion or rejection can alter the reality of our relationship with God.
2) The younger son orders his father around at his departure (“give me”) and upon his return (“make me”). This
parable reminds us that we are tempted to expect God to conform to our will rather than us conforming to
God’s will.
3) The younger son wants to define himself on the basis of what he has rather than who he is. This parable
reminds us that we are tempted to claim control over God’s good gifts rather than allowing ourselves to be
possessed, controlled, claimed by God.
4) God not only gives the younger son the right of possession of his inheritance but also the right of disposition.
This parable reminds us that there is something more important than “taking a living” or even “making a
living”—namely, living our lives in relationship with God, the source of every good and perfect gift.
