Luke 15:12

The younger. Evidently weary of restraint and probably feeling that his liberty was unduly restricted by a father who had only his own selfish interests at heart, this youth desired above all else to have his own way. He knew very well what he wanted, or at least thought he knew. That he did not, is apparent from the fact that “when he came to himself” (v. 17) his course of action changed completely. But now he understood neither himself nor his father. Most unfortunate of all, he did not understand or appreciate the fact that his father loved him and that all his father’s decisions and requirements were based on what was, in the end, best for the sons.

The narrative makes it clear that the father was a wise and understanding person, that he was both just and merciful, and that he was eminently reasonable. On the other hand, the inexperienced youth seemed to consider it his unquestioned right to take full advantage of all the privileges of sonship without bearing any of its responsibilities. After thinking things over he decided that the only course of action that would solve the problem in the way he thought it ought to be solved was to leave home and set out on his own, to live his life as he pleased. His chosen course of action began with a direct violation of the fifth commandment. For a consideration of the factors that enter into the responsibilities of children to parents and of parents to children see on ch. 2:52.

Portion of goods. That is, his share of the property. Jewish literature of the time discloses that it was not unusual for a father actually to make a division of his inheritance among his sons while he was yet alive rather than let such provisions as he might wish to make take effect upon his death. But the father was by no means obliged to do so. The youth’s demand was, therefore, highly improper. It seems quite evident that it meant nonconfidence on the part of the son toward the father and a complete and final rejection of the father’s authority.

That falleth to me. That is, the share that properly belongs to me. This expression is commonly used in the Greek papyri to refer to a privilege to which one may be entitled or to an obligation he is bound to meet.

He divided. The father, legitimately and properly, might have refused to accede to his son’s unreasonable demand, yet he granted it. The fact that he did so speaks well of his judgment as a parent and provides a clue to the fact that the son’s perverse choice was undoubtedly not due to an unwise attitude on the father’s part. There are times when it seems that the best thing a parent can do is to permit a headstrong youth to have his way in order that he may discover from experience the results of his choice.

According to the Mosaic law, the eldest son was to receive a double portion of his father’s estate, and the younger sons were to receive a single portion each (see on Deut. 21:17). The extra portion granted the eldest son was designed to provide him with the necessary resources for discharging his responsibilities as head of the household. If a father had only two sons, as was the case here (see v. 11), the younger son would receive one third of his father’s estate. Ordinarily, however, when a division of property was made during the father’s lifetime, the property remained intact until the father’s death.

The younger son of the parable, however, demanded not only a division of the estate but actual possession of his share of it. From the record of the narrative (see v. 13) it seems likely that he converted his share of the property entirely into cash or other easily carried valuables.