By Angus Harley

Luke 15 contains parables that are familiar to us all. But are they understood as thoroughly and accurately as we think? Let’s have a look!

Vv1-3: the setting for the parables: the ‘lost’ vs the ‘at home’

“1 Now all the tax collectors and the [sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. 2 Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” 3So He told them this parable, saying….”

The audience and scenario are vital components to Jesus’ parables in Luke 15. There is a deliberate painting of two contrasting groups: the tax collectors and sinners belong to the Messianic ‘hearing’ group; the Pharisees and scribes are the anti-Messianic ‘grumbling’ group. Another form of this division is, the ‘lost’ (tax-collectors and sinners) vs the ‘at home’ (Pharisees and scribes). I like this latter description because of the context of the parables. Yet, see who is not stated- the disciples, the inner circle. Were they there? Absolutely, but they are not mentioned. Why not? For they had already received and heard the kingdom message and were not the direct recipients of these particular kingdom parables. These parables were not directly ‘for’ the inner-circle disciples, therefore, as they were addressing the two contrasting groups. This is not to suggest for a moment that the disciples could not learn from these particular parables- far from it- but they were not participants in the two very precisely detailed parties. The disciples become the focus in Luke 16:1.

I want to suggest a possible reason why they are not mentioned in Luke 15. Jesus is representing the Messianic community as the king of the heavenly kingdom. His disciples are assumed to be in his entourage. If this is so- and it is merely a hypothesis- this might explain a certain comment in one of the parables (see ahead).

Vv4-7: the parable of the lost sheep

“4 “What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? 5 When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ 7 I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” ”

This parable is often taught to say that the ninety-nine sheep are Christians and the one missing is a lost sinner being brought into the fold through repentance. Should the parable be read that way?

Certainly, the one lost sheep is the equivalent of the tax-collectors and sinners who came to hear Jesus. He is the shepherd who goes after the one sheep. There is the vast number of the majority contrasted to the one. Thus, Jesus concludes that “there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” The ninety-nine represent, therefore, the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus had, indeed, left behind the majority of the Jews to go after a tiny minority who listened to him and repented. See how joy characterizes the shepherd and heaven’s reaction to the lost sheep being found: “Rejoice…joy…”. Jesus’ “friends and neighbors” who rejoice with him are heavenly in nature, “more joy in heaven”.

The one, heaven, heavenly friends, the true shepherd, the repentant, joy

Vs

The ninety-nine, no repentance, no joy, no seeking

shepherd, no heaven and no heavenly friends

Vv8-10: the parable of the lost coin

“8 “Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost!’ 10In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” “

As the previous parable, this one is often read to say that Jesus goes searching for sinners, finds them, and adds them to the many that he has already saved.

And as before, this reading is wrong. The parable is highlighting the same principle as before: the one is found and there is rejoicing before heaven. This time, Jesus depicts his role as a woman looking for a lost coin. God and the angels are the heavenly audience before whom there is rejoicing. That one rejoicing is Jesus, along with his heavenly friends.

At this juncture, I wish to return to a speculative consideration that I alluded to in my comments on vv1-3. Some maintain that those rejoicing with Jesus are God and his angels. However, “in the presence of” does not suggest this. I think the neighbors and friends might be Jesus’ disciples, the true Messianic community. They are the unidentified Messianic-ones rejoicing tangibly in the presence of God and his angels.

Vv11-32: the parable of the lost son

This is by far and away the biggest parable, so we will spend most time on it.

11 And He said, “A man had two sons. 12 The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.’ So he divided his wealth between them. 13 And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living. 14 Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be impoverished. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. 16 And he would have gladly filled his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him. 17 But when he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger! 18 I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men.”’ 20 So he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; 23 and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; 24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.

25 “Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things could be. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he became angry and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and began pleading with him. 29 But he answered and said to his father, ‘Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends; 30 but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.’”

Commonalities

Same main theme. Jesus does not lose a stroke, and as a great conductor he moves seamlessly into his third movement on the theme of rejoicing over that which was lost and then found. Jesus has the same two groups in mind as in the previous two parables: the tax-collectors and sinners over against the grumbling group of the Pharisees and scribes.

It is for that reason I prefer the older approach that does name the parable as the parable of the prodigal son, for the goal of the parable is to magnify the salvific mercy of Jesus and the joy that accompanies salvation. I understand the modern view that wants to talk about the parable of the two sons. This is a perfectly reasonable approach. For, there was no joy in the other son’s life, no banqueting and feasting in the largesse of the love of the father. Repentance was not in that son’s vocabulary. The Pharisees spent their entire time grumbling against Jesus for receiving sinners. Yet, because these three parables themselves push us toward the same central theme of rejoicing over ‘found’ sinners, I prefer the old-school labels. What do you think?

Jesus is the ‘father’. Some say the father is Jesus, others it is the Father, yet others the Godhead. Anyone of these might work, but I think it more consistent to the chapter and all its parables to maintain that the father is Jesus: shepherd, woman, father. There have always been three parties: the Pharisees; the sinners; and Jesus. The grumbling of the Pharisees and scribes was over Jesus receiving sinners (v3). The parable of the prodigal magnifies the father’s welcome of his repentant son. So Jesus!

Contrasting the same motifs. Sheep vs sheep; coin vs coins; son vs son.

Contrasting numbers. In the first parable there was a contrast in the number of the sheep: ninety-nine over against one. In the second parable, there was the contrast of coins: one vs nine. Is there such commonality in the last parable? It seems not. Yet, the parable deliberately contrasts the one son, the prodigal, to everyone else, even the Gentiles. In fact, the prodigal son is contrasted to pigs and the hired servants of his own father! The prodigal son is a Jewish son, who wastes his inheritance in a Gentile town, and ends up working for a Gentile pig-farmer! How many more levels of contrast do we need?

Kingdom transition

Transitional period. These factors of commonality are set within the wider, historical, setting of the real-time, real-life, transition of God’s kingdom from an earthly, Jewish, Old Covenant, kingdom to a heavenly, Messianic, New Covenant, one. The kingdom was actively, in real-time, through Jesus’ parables, being torn from the Jews and given to the repentant.

Parables abstracted. It is because we do not recognize this historical context and the transitional nature of the kingdom of God according to the Gospels, that we sometimes press the parables too abstractly. How many times have you heard an explanation of these parables that does not take into account the transition of the kingdom during Jesus’ ministry from the Jews to the Messianically repentant? I have heard this time without number!

Therefore, the parables were not spoken directly for today’s assembly. They were spoken into the then circumstances of the real transition of the kingdom of God from the Jewish nation under an Old Covenant to a Messianic people serving in a spiritual kingdom under a New Covenant. The one sheep vs the ninety-nine, the one coin vs the nine, underscore this point. The new way of the kingdom of Jesus was heavenly, not Jewish. To the Jews, why would God incorporate ‘the lost’ into his kingdom? Were not the ‘lost’ the ‘unclean’, historically speaking? Were not the Jews the stable, ‘at home’, sons of the kingdom, the heirs of God? The Gentiles were ‘out there’, apart, lost to God. Oh, and by the way, so were the ‘lower caste’ Jews, the untouchables of the tax-collectors and sinners. Untouchables vs sons- no competition! Or, at least, so the Jew thought.

Application

Generic application. Still, we are perfectly right to apply these parables to today. The same general kingdom message pertains: salvation is given to the repentant, and the Messiah and his followers rejoice over them. There are today the ‘establishment’, ‘at home’, sons of the kingdom, who have, in their own eyes, a right to the kingdom because they ‘labor in the things of God’.

New Covenant? Is there a New Covenant application of the parables? Absolutely! Isn’t that what the transitional perspective of the parables is aiming at? Unfortunately, the majority of Evangelicals do not read the Gospels as transitional writings, for whatever reason. Every parable is a testament to the fact that God was moving the kingdom to a New Covenant people: those who were repentant sinners.

Can we extend the parables to say more New Covenant things? It depends on the parable. Someone might think that Matthew 20:1-16 implies that there were Old Testament/Old Covenant saints who had tastes of the New Covenant. This group was part of the early laborers, “the first”. Yet, I do not see how this can work. The group called “the first” are contrasted to the last. It is the same general contrast as we find here in Luke 15 between Messianic followers and indignant and grumbling Jews. Even though it is theologically true that there were saints of old whose spiritual labor tasted of the New Covenant vintage, this is not applicable to the parable itself. OT saints are not the focus; it is the ‘at home’ Jews vs the Messianic posse. Goats vs sheep. Etc. Having said this, what could be more New Covenant than to talk about the other-worldly love of the good Samaritan? For how is a mere Samaritan meant to pull of such love for his Jewish ‘enemy’? He cannot! It is other-worldly, heavenly, love, New Covenant love, a love that cannot be found in the Old Covenant order, as demonstrated in the religiously conscientious priest’s and Levite’s merciless actions.