15:11-12. To ask one’s father for one’s share of the inheritance early was unheard of in antiquity; in effect, one would thereby say, “Father, I wish you were already dead.” Such a statement would not go over ell even today, and in a society stressing obedience to one’s father it would be a serious act of rebellion (Deut 21:18-21) for which the father could have beaten him or worse.
That the father grants the request means that most of the hearers will not identify with the father in this parable; from the start, they would think of him as stupidly lax to pamper such an immoral son.
The eldest son always received a double portion (Deut 21:17); in this case, he would have received two thirds of the inheritance and the younger brother one-third.
15:13. Jewish law did permit a father to determine which assets (especially land) would go to which sons before he died, but they could take possession only on the father’s death: the father was manager and received the land’s profits until then. Thus this son could know what would be his but could not legally sell his assets; he does it anyway.
Many Palestinian Jews migrated, seeking fortune in less economically pressed areas. The younger son is presumably no older than 18 (he was unmarried) and had an older brother; he would thus have had little experience in managing finances. Moralists considered squandering very evil.
15:14. Famine was a common devastating feature of the ancient economy. (People often viewed famines as divine judgments, but because Jesus’ story does not address the famine area as a whole, it does not apply this perspective to the story line.)
15:15. At this point, Jesus’ Jewish hearers are ready for the story to end (like a similar second-century Jewish story): the son gets what he deserves- he is reduced to the horrendous level of feeding the most unclean of animals. The son is cut off at this point from the Jewish community and any financial charity it would otherwise offer him.
15:16. Some commentators have suggested that the “pods” here are the kind of carob pods that Israel would eat only in famine, which some teachers said drove Israel to repentance. Others argue that these are prickly, wild pods that only swine’s snouts could reach. Neither pod was considered appetizing, and given pigs’ proverbially unclean eating habits, the thought of eating pigs’ food would disgust Jesus’ hearers. That the young man is jealous of pigs’ fare also suggests that he is not receiving fair wages (cf. 15:17).
15:17. “Hired men” could be either slaves rented for hire or free servants working for pay; either one suggests that his father is well-to-do.
15:18-19. Jewish people often used “heaven” as a respectful way of saying “God.” The son here returns simply out of hunger and the belief that his father may feed him as a servant, not because he is genuinely sorry that he disgraced his father. Given the magnitude of his sin and the squandering of one-third of his father’s life’s earnings, Jewish hearers might regard his return as an act of incredible presumption rather than humility.
15:20. It was a breach of an elderly Jewish man’s dignity to run, though familial love could take priority over dignity after a long absence. Given the normal garb, the father would have to pull up his skirt to run. Kissing was appropriate for family members or intimate friends.
15:21-22. The best robe in the house would belong to the father himself. The ring would probably be a family signet ring- a symbol of reinstatement to sonship in a well-to-do house. Slaves did not normally wear sandals, though they carried and tied a master’s sandals. The father is saying, “No, I won’t receive you back as a servant. I’ll receive you only as a son.”
15:23. The calf would be enough to feed the whole village; this would be a big party! Aristocratic families often invited the whole town to a banquet when a son attained adulthood (about thirteen years old) or a child married.
15:24. Ancient writers sometimes bracketed off a section of their work by repeating a particular line; this bracketing off is called an inclusio. So far this parable has followed the course of the two that preceded it (15:3-10), but 15:24-32 are bracketed off to address the climactic issue: the elder brother represents Jesus’ religious accusers (15:2).
15:25-28. Dancing was used in both religious and nonreligious celebrations. Elder brothers were to reconcile differences between fathers and younger brothers, but here the elder brother, returning at the end of a long day’s work, refuses even to enter the house. This is also a grievous insult to the father’s dignity and could have warranted a beating (cf. 15:12).
15:29-30. Failing to greet one’s father with a title (e.g., “Father, “Sir”; contrast even 15:12) was a grievous insult to the father’s dignity. The elder brother here is a transparent metaphor for the Pharisees, and the younger brother for the sinners with whom Jesus was eating (15:1-2).
15:31-32. Religious Judaism in this period considered prostitution sinful; both Jewish and non-Jewish sources considered squandering property, especially someone else’s (16:1), sinful. Because the inheritance had been divided, the elder brother was already assured of his share, effective on the father’s death (15:12); he had nothing to lose by his brother’s return. The final response of the elder brother is never stated, providing the Pharisees with the opportunity to repent if they are willing.
(Adapted from The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)