Luke 15:1-32
“The three parables in Luke 15
are told because Jesus was making a habit of having celebration parties with
all the ‘wrong’ people, and some others thought it was a nightmare. All three
stories are ways of saying: ‘This is why we’re celebrating! Wouldn’t you have a
party if it was you? How could we not?’ In and through them all we get a wide
open window on what Jesus thought He was doing – and, perhaps, on what we
ourselves should be doing.”[1]
The setting of these parables is
found in the first three verses. Jesus was being criticized for not only associating with tax collectors and
notorious sinners, but for actually
eating with them! In the Ancient Near-East, table fellowship was a sign of
acceptance and a great honour and while the upper classes might have provided
meals for the less privileged, they would never eat with them. Jesus’ action as
fellow guest or as host revealed at once the nature of the Kingdom as well as
the King. This is a Kingdom founded upon grace and mercy, as the King is
gracious and merciful.
Ken Bailey tells us that when Jesus
addressed the parables to Pharisees comparing them in the first to shepherds that
this would have been a shock to their sensitivities. “Moses was accepted as a
shepherd. A Midrash on Exodus records a story of Moses searching out a lost kid
and being told by God that he will lead Israel. Kings were referred to by
Ezekiel as shepherds (Ez. 34), and God Himself was thought of as a shepherd
(Ps. 23). Thus the figure of the shepherd was a noble symbol. By contrast,
flesh-and-blood shepherds who in the first century wandered around after sheep
were clearly ‘am ha’ ares and
unclean. For the Pharisee, a “sinner” was either an immoral person who did not
keep the law or a person engaged in one of the proscribed trades, among which
was herding sheep.”[2] In
other words, in the very first sentence, Jesus was attacking their arrogant
attitude and contrasting their pride with His humility.
There are a number of interesting
details in this parable, the first being the number of sheep. Only a very
affluent person would have owned such a large amount of sheep and, as such,
would not have herded the sheep himself but would have hired someone to do so
on his behalf…unless the sheep were owned by a large family, clan, or village and
were herded by members of that family, clan, or village. This makes sense when
later in the parable we are told the shepherd returned home to rejoice with the
whole community. The lost sheep was
thus portrayed as a community loss.
Another interesting detail is
that joy is expressed twice, the first time in the finding of the sheep and the
second time in its restoration with the rest of the flock. The act of
restoration involved risk and effort…the shepherd had to leave the others to
find the one and to bring it back to the fold and we are told that he actually
carried it on his shoulders.
The last interesting detail is
that while the shepherd left the 99 in the wilderness, they were at home on his
return. This indicates that there was more than one shepherd: one who sought
out and restored the lost sheep and another (or others) who stayed with the
flock and made sure they got home safely.
What Jesus was attempting to
point out to His critical audience was there was joy in the restoration of the
lost regardless of the risk and burden such an act involved. Those who owned
the sheep considered it precious and therefore they rejoiced together in it
being found and restored to the flock. In application, Jesus was saying that
the lost are precious to the King and it is His desire to have them found and
restored, not written off as lost causes.
The parable of the lost coin
intensifies the point. The coins owned by a peasant woman were no doubt part of
her jewellery or her dowry and thus its loss doubly sad. Not only was money
scarce, but also this coin had sentimental value, and thus the loss was greater
than the value of the coin.
Again it seems as if Jesus was
rejecting the Pharisaic class distinction in His use of a lowly woman as an
illustration. And again, there was a communal celebration when the lost was
found and restored after the owner made a concerted effort to do so.
But there are two differences
between these parables worth noting. The first is the limited area in which the
loss took place. This is a house, not a wilderness. The woman knew that the
coin could be found if she kept
sweeping and searching. The second is the relative value of the item lost. Here
we have one in ten, not one in a hundred. To have lost this coin was
catastrophic for a peasant woman especially if it was an irreplaceable part of
her dowry.
Then the sting in the tail, so to
speak, comes in verse 10. “In the same way, there is joy in the presence of
God’s angels when even one sinner repents.” With this one statement Jesus
showed that the attitude of heaven was in stark contrast with the attitude of
the Pharisees. In other words, division into acceptable and non-acceptable
classes (or ethnic groups) ought not to be part of a Christian’s attitude as it
does not reflect the person and practice of the King.
And then finally, we come to the
parable of the lost son. While the content of this parable is, in many ways,
inexhaustible, it is important to note that, as Pryor says: “This great parable,
usually called the Parable of the Prodigal Son, actually is focused on a father
who at every point surprises us by his grace.”[3]
There are a number of shocking details in this parable, the first being the
fact that in asking for his inheritance, the younger son expresses a wish for
his father’s death…clearly contrary to the close familial ties and attitudes of
Ancient Near-Eastern people! But equally shocking is the unconditional love of
the father. Jesus seemed to indicate in verse 20, that this father was watching
for his son daily in hope of his return. But not only was his love shown in his
watching and waiting and longing, but also in his immediate forgiveness and
lavish celebration at the restoration of his son.
However, it is the older son who
revealed what most of Jesus’ audience would have been thinking…and this is
important as the manner of the older son was equally shocking as it was
insulting to the father and demeaning to himself. There was no respectful title
in his address and his statement indicated that in his relationship with the
father he saw himself as a slave and not as an heir.
As Bailey says, “The listening
Pharisee is pressed to see himself in the older son and to respond by accepting
reconciliation.”[4]
But, as we well know, they did not respond positively…instead they felt exposed
and ridiculed and as a result plotted to kill Jesus…who ironically was the King
of the Kingdom they thought was theirs exclusively.
There are many things one can say
at this point as far as the making of disciples is concerned. There is the
value of the lost from God’s perspective, a value that makes the effort and
burden of finding and restoring the lost item more than worth the while. Then
there is the attitude of the one searching and restoring the lost item. To them
it is not a case of a lost cause…they search and keep searching until the item
in safely back where it belongs. But the overarching lesson is the futility in
any form of human distinction…the “holy” is no better than the “unholy”…it is
the one who makes holy who is better and greater. And He associates with those
generally considered lost…the unlovely, the unlikely, the ostracized, and the
marginalised.
Surely we ought to do likewise.
[2] Bailey,
Kenneth, Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural
Approach to the Parable in Luke (combined edition), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI,
1983, 147.
[3] Pryor,
Dwight A., Unveiling the Kingdom of Heaven: The Origins and Dimensions of the
Kingdom Concept as Taught by the Rabbi Jesus, Center for Judaic-Christian
Studies, Dayton, OH, 2008, 104.
