Luke 15:28

15:28 The older brother was angry that his father would forgive such a sinner when he, the faithful son, had worked hard to achieve his position. Like the religious leaders, he refused to rejoice when his brother was found.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk 15:28. Οὐκ ἤθελεν, would not) Great perversity and unkindness on his part.—ἐξελθὼν, having come out) Great leniency and forbearance on the part of the Father.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

came his father out, and entreated him--"Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him" (Psa 103:13). As it is the elder brother who now errs, so it is the same paternal compassion which had fallen on the neck of the younger that comes forth and pleads with the elder.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 28. He was angry] This refers to the indignation of the scribes and Pharisees, mentioned Lu 15:1-2. In every point of view, the anger of the older son was improper and unreasonable. He had already received his part of the inheritance, see Lu 15:12, and his profligate brother had received no more than what was his just dividend. Besides, what the father had acquired since that division he had a right to dispose of as he pleased, even to give it all to one son; nor did the ancient customs of the Asiatic countries permit the other children to claim any share in such property thus disposed of. The following is an institute of the GENTOO law on this subject: (CODE, chap. ii. sect. 9, p. 79:) "If a father gives, by his own choice, land, houses, orchards, and the earning of his own industry, to one of his sons, the other sons shall not receive any share of it." Besides, whatever property the father had acquired after the above division, the son or sons, as the prodigal in the text, could have no claim at all on, according to another institute in the above Asiatic laws, see chap. ii. sect. ii. p. 85, but the father might divide it among those who remained with him: therefore is it said in the text, "Son, thou art ALWAYS with me, and ALL that I have is THINE," Lu 15:31.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(28) And he was angry, and would not go in.—This, then, was the first feeling. He who professed obedience to his father is out of harmony with his father’s mind. He “shuts love out,” and, as by a righteous judgment, is himself “shut out from love.”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28. he was angry] The feelings of the Jews towards the Gentiles (1Th_2:14-16) when they were embracing the offers of the Gospel —(“The Jews...were filled with envy and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming,” Act_13:45)—and the feelings of the Pharisees towards our Lord, when He ate with publicans and sinners, are the earliest historical illustrations of this phase of the parable. It illustrates feelings which refer more directly to such historical phenomena; the earlier part is of more universal application. Yet envy and lovelessness are too marked characteristics of modern religionism to render the warning needless.

would not go in] “For is stat Israel,” sed “Foris stat non excluditur.” Ambrose.

therefore came his father out and intreated him] “How often would I have gathered thy children together...but ye would not,” Luk_13:34; see Act_17:5; Act_17:13; Act_22:21; Act_28:27. The yearning chapters addressed to the obstinacy of Israel by St Paul (Rom_10:11) furnish another illustration of this picture.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And he was angry,.... Particularly that the fatted calf was killed, Luk 15:27 the preaching of a crucified Christ, and of free and full salvation by him, is highly displeasing and provoking to self-righteous persons; they are angry at it, that it should be free, that election to salvation should be of grace, that justification should be freely by the grace of God, and that pardon of sin should be according to the riches of God's grace, and salvation be by grace, and not by works; and that it should be discriminating, that God should appoint some, and not all unto salvation; that Christ should redeem some, and not all; and that all men are not called unto it, by his Spirit and grace; and that it should be full and complete, so as nothing can be added to it; and that it should be for sinners, and alone by Christ, and by him as crucified: it would be agreeable, was it taught that salvation was by Christ in a doctrinal way, by giving laws and rules to men, whereby to save themselves; or that Christ saves by example, and not by his sacrifice, in a way of satisfaction for sin. Now, though no grievous words were used, nor any thing said that might justly provoke, yet such was the pride of his heart, that he could not bear that his brother should be taken so much notice of, who had acted and lived so scandalously; and besides, his own character as a righteous person, was neglected by this doctrine; and his own righteousness laid aside, in the business of justification and salvation, which was intolerable by him:

and would not go in; into his father's house, nor to the feast, nor into the kingdom of heaven, or Gospel dispensation; the Scribes and Pharisees shut it up to themselves, and others; would neither go in themselves, nor suffer others; they did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, nor did they receive, but reject him; nor did they give any credit to the doctrines, nor submit to the ordinances of that dispensation:

therefore came his father out; not in a way of wrath and judgment, but in the ministry of the word; for though the Jews rejected it, it was not at once taken away from them, but was continued time after time, and for some considerable time: the Jews of old had the ministry of the word, both by angels and men; God frequently went forth to them by his prophets, and at last by his Son; and though they were angry with him, and rejected him, yet still the ministry of the word, by the disciples of Christ, were continued a good while to them; which shows the condescending goodness and grace of God, and his patience and longsuffering towards them:

and entreated him; the Persic version reads, "and said unto him, why dost thou not go in?" this regards the external call by the ministry of the word, to the outward duties of religion, to means of grace; to give credit to the doctrines, and to attend the ordinances of the Gospel.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.

Ver. 28. And he was angry] Christi consilium est ostendere, iniquum esse qui fratri in gratiam recepto obtrectat, etiamsi sanctitate Angelis non cedat. Calvin.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28. Angry… would not go in—Our Lord now holds up to the murmuring Pharisees of Luk_15:2 a likeness of themselves for them to recognize and avoid. As the elder son is angry at the joy which welcomes the prodigal home from his wanderings, so have these men murmured at the mercy with which Jesus has received the publican and the sinner.

Came his father out and entreated—As God now, by Jesus, entreats these doctors of Israel not to spurn the outcast publicans and sinners who may be induced to forsake their sins.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Therefore came his father out, and entreated him. The disapprobation of Jesus for Pharisee opinions was very marked, yet here and elsewhere his treatment of them, with a few exceptional cases, was generally very gentle and loving. There was something in their excessive devotion to the letter of the Divine Law, to the holy temple, to the proud traditions of their race, that was admirable. It was a love to God, but a love all marred and blurred. It was a patriotism, but a patriotism utterly mistaken. The elder brother here was a representative of the great and famous sect, both in its fair and repulsive aspect, in its moral severity and correctness, in its harshness and exclusive pride. The father condescended to entreat this angry elder son; and Jesus longed to win these proud mistaken Pharisees.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He was angry, and would not go in - How natural to us is this kind of resentment!

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

these many years

"for many years"

I slaved for you

"I worked extremely hard for you" or "I worked as hard as a slave for you"

never broke a rule of yours

"never disobeyed any of your commands" or "always obeyed everything you told me to do"

a young goat

A young goat was smaller and less expensive than a fatted calf. AT: "even a young goat" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

your son

"that son of yours." The older son refers to his brother this way in order to show how angry he is.

devoured your living

Food is a metaphor for money. After one eats food, the food is no longer there and there is nothing to eat. The money that the brother had received was no longer there and there was no more to spend. AT: "wasted all your wealth" or "thrown away all your money" (See: Metaphor)

with prostitutes

Possible meanings are 1) he assumed this is how his brother spent the money or 2) he speaks of prostitutes to exaggerate the sinfulness of his brother's actions in the "country far away" (Luke 15:13). (See: Hyperbole and Generalization)

fattened calf

A calf is a young cow. People would give one of their calves special food so that it would grow well, and then when they wanted to have a special feast, they would eat that calf. See how you translated this phrase in Luke 15:23. AT: "the best calf" or "the young animal we have been making fat" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

anger

beg

goat

devour

prostitute

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

28. ὠργίσθη. The feelings of the Jews towards the Gentiles (1Th 2:14-16) when they were embracing the offers of the Gospel—(“The Jews … were filled with envy and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming,” Act 13:45)—and the feelings of the Pharisees towards our Lord, when He ate with publicans and sinners, are the earliest historical illustrations of this phase of the parable. It illustrates feelings which refer more directly to such historical phenomena; the earlier part is of more universal application. Yet envy and lovelessness are too marked characteristics of modern religionism to render the warning needless.

οὐκ ἤθελεν εἰσελθεῖν. “Foris stat Israel,” sed “Foris stat non excluditur.” Ambrose.

ἐξελθὼν παρεκάλει αὐτόν. “How often would I have gathered thy children together … but ye would not,” Luk 13:34; see Act 17:5; Act 17:13; Act 22:21; Act 28:27. The yearning chapters addressed to the obstinacy of Israel by St Paul (Rom 10:11) furnish another illustration of this picture.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28-32.] Stier well remarks (iii. 255, edn. 2) that this elder is now the lost son: he has lost all childlike filial feeling; he betrays the hypocrite within. The love and forbearance of the father are eminently shewn—the utter want of love and humility in the son strongly contrasted with them.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28. ὠπγίσθη δὲ καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν. Note the characteristic δὲ καί here and ver. 32 (see on 3:9), and the change of tense: the unwillingness to go in was a state which continued. Hence the father’s entreaties continue also (παρεκάλει). He treats both sons with equal tenderness: the ἐξελθών here is parallel to δραμών in ver. 20.

The reading ἠθέλησεν (A L P Q R X) arose from a wish to harmonize the tenses. The reading οὖν (P Q Γ Δ) instead of δέ (א A B D L R X) is followed in Vulg. (pater ergo illius) and AV. (“therefore came his father out”): but it is a correction to the sake of smoothness. Lat. Vet either vero or autem.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He was angry [ωργισθη] . Not with a mere temporary fit of passion, but, as the word imports, with a deep - seated wrath.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 28b-32. This interview contains the full revelation of pharisaic feeling, and brings into view the contrast between it and the fatherly heart of God. The procedure of the father, who steps out to his son and invites him to enter, is realized in the very conversation which Jesus, come from God, holds with them at the moment. The answer of the son (Luk 15:29-30) includes two accusations against his father: the one bears on his way of acting toward himself (Luk 15:29), the other on his conduct in respect of his other son (Luk 15:30). The contrast is meant to bring out the partiality of the father. The blind and innocent self-satisfaction which forms the heart of pharisaism could not be better depicted than in the words: “neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment;” and the servile and mercenary position of the legal Jew in the theocracy, than thus: “Lo! these many years do I serve thee.” Bengel makes the simple observation on these words: servus erat. What in reality was his father to him? A master! He even counts the years of his hard servitude: There are so many years!...Such is man’s view of accomplishing good under the law: a labour painfully carried through, and which consequently merits payment. But by its very nature it is totally deprived of the delights which belong only to the sphere of free love; it has no other idea of them than that which it gets by seeing those joys of the reconciled sinner, by which it is scandalized. The joy which is wanting to it is this kid to make merry with its friends, which has never been granted to it.

With the hard and ill-paid labour of legal obedience he contrasts (Luk 15:30) the life of his brother, merry in sin, happier still, if possible, in the hour of his return and pardon. The meaning is, that in the eyes of pharisaism, as virtue is a task, sin is a pleasure; and hence there ought to be a payment for the first, an equivalent of pain for the second. The father, by refusing to the one his just reward, by adding in the case of the other joy to joy, the enjoyments of the paternal home to those of debauchery, has shown his preference for the sinner and his sympathy with sin. Thy son, says the elder son, instead of: my brother. He would express at once the partiality of his father and his own dislike to the sinner. Do not those sayings which Jesus puts into the mouth of the righteous legalist, contain the keenest criticism of a state of soul wherein men discharge duty all the while abhorring it, and wherein, while avoiding sin, they thirst after it? The particular μετὰ πορνῶν is a stroke of the pencil added to the picture of Luk 15:13 by the charitable hand of the elder brother.

The father’s answer meets perfectly the two accusations of his son. Luk 15:31 replies to Luk 15:29; Luk 15:32 to Luk 15:30. The father first clears himself from the charge of injustice to the son who is speaking to him; and with what condescension! “My child (τέκνον).” This form of address has in it something more loving even than υἷε, son. Then he reminds him that his life with him might have been a feast all along. There was no occasion, therefore, to make a special feast for him. And what good would a particular gift serve, when everything in the house was continually at his disposal? The meaning of this remarkable saying is, that nothing prevented the believing Israelite from already enjoying the sweets of divine communion,—a fact proved by the Psalms; comp. e.g., Psalms 23, 63. St. Paul himself, who ordinarily presents the law as the instrument of condemnation, nevertheless derives the formula of grace from a saying of Moses (Rom 10:6-8), proving that in his eyes grace is already in the law, through the pardon which accompanies sacrifice and the Holy Spirit granted to him who asks Him (Psa 51:9-14); and that when he speaks of the law as he ordinarily does, it is after the manner of his adversaries, isolating the commandment from grace. In the same way as Luk 15:31 presents theocratic fidelity as a happiness, and not a task, so Luk 15:32 reveals sin as a misery, and not as an advantage. There was therefore ground for celebrating a feast on the return of one who had just escaped from so great a misery, and by its arrival had restored the life of the family in its completeness. Thy brother, says the father; it is the answer to the thy son of Luk 15:30. He reminds him of the claims of fraternal love. Here Jesus stops; He does not say what part the elder son took. It lay with the Pharisees themselves, by the conduct which they would adopt, to decide this question and finish the narrative.

The Tübingen school (Zeller, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, not Köstlin) agree in regarding the elder son, not as the pharisaic party, but as the Jewish people in general; the younger son, not as the publicans, but Gentile nations. “The elder son is unmistakeably the image of Judaism, which deems that it possesses special merit because of its fidelity to the one true God. The younger son...is the not less easily recognised portrait of Gentile humanity given up to polytheism and immorality. The discontent of the first, on seeing the reception granted to his brother, represents the jealousy of the Jews on account of the entrance of the Gentiles into the Church” (Hilgenfeld, die Evangel. p. 198). It would follow, then: 1. that this parable had been invented and put into the mouth of Jesus by Luke, with the view of supporting the system of his master, Paul; 2. that to this invention he had added a second, intended to accredit the former, that of the historical situation described Luk 15:1-2. But, 1. Is it conceivable that the evangelist, who marked out his own programme for himself, Luk 1:1-4, should take the liberty of treating his materials in so free and easy a style? 2. Have we not found in this description a multitude of delicate allusions to the historical surroundings amid which the parable is reputed to have been uttered, and which would not be applicable in the sense proposed (Luk 15:15; Luk 15:17, etc.)? 3. How from this parable St. Paul might have extracted the doctrine of justification by faith, is easy to understand. But that this order was inverted, that the parable was invented as an after-thought to give a body to the Pauline doctrine, is incompatible with the absence of every dogmatic element in the exposition. Would not the names of repentance, faith, justification, and the idea of expiation, have been infallibly introduced, if it had been the result of a dogmatic study contemporary with the ministry of Paul? 4. We have seen that the description finds its perfect explanation, that there remains not a single obscure point in the light in which it is placed by Luke. It is therefore arbitrary to seek another setting for it. The prejudice which has led the Tübingen school to this contra-textual interpretation is evident.

Keim, while discovering, like this school, Paulinism as the basis of the parable (p. 80), thinks that here we have one of the passages wherein the author, with the view of conciliating, more or less abjures his master, St. Paul. The evangelist dares not wholly disapprove the Judeo-Christianity which holds by the commandments; he praises it even (Luk 15:31). He only demands that it shall authorize the entrance of the Gentiles into the Church; and on this condition he lets its legal spirit pass. We should thus have simply the juxtaposition of the two principles which conflicted with one another in the apostolic churches. But, 1. In this attempt at conciliation, the elder son would be completely sacrificed to the younger; for the latter is seated at table in the house, the former is without, and we remain in ignorance as to whether he will re-enter. And this last would represent the apostolic Christianity which founded the Church! 2. Adopting biblical premises, Luk 15:31 can easily be applied to the Mosaic system faithfully observed, and that, as we have seen, according to the view of St. Paul himself. 3. It belonged to the method of progressive transition, which Jesus always observed, to seek to develope within the bosom of the Mosaic dispensation, and without ever attacking it, the new principle which was to succeed it, and the germ of which was already deposited in it. Jesus did not wish to suppress anything which He had not completely replaced and surpassed. He therefore accepted the ancient system, while attaching to it the new. The facts pointed out by Keim are fully explained by this situation.

Holtzmann thinks that our parable, which is not found in Matthew, may really be only an amplification of that of the two sons, which is found in that evangelist (Mat 21:28-30). Does not this supposition do too much honour to the alleged amplifier, whether Luke or any other?

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.