§39 God’s Attitude toward the Lost (Luke 15:1–32)
This section contains three parables that return to the theme of the inclusion of the lowly and the outcast in the kingdom of God: (1) the Parable of the Lost Sheep (vv. 1–7); (2) the Parable of the Lost Coin (vv. 8–10); and (3) the Parable of the Lost Son (vv. 11–32). These parables more or less pick up where the Parable of the Great Banquet (14:15–24) left off. The Parable of the Great Banquet taught that the least expected people would be included in the kingdom, while the three parables of Luke 15 reveal God’s attitude toward the lost and, in the case of the Lost Son, the unworthy. Other than the Parable of the Lost Sheep, which is found in Matt. 18:12–14, the passage is unique to Luke.
15:1–2 / Luke establishes the context for the following three parables by noting that tax collectors and “sinners” were all gathering around to hear Jesus. Their interest in hearing him links this passage to the preceding passage which contains the injunction to hear (Luke 14:35; Tiede, p. 273). Because of Jesus’ association with “rabble,” the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered their disapproval. In their thinking Jesus’ association (as seen in such phrases as welcomes … eats with) with such people suggests that Jesus himself is no better than they. If Jesus is truly a teacher of proper Jewish piety and theology (much less Messiah or Son of God), he should not associate with such people. It is in response to this attitude, therefore, that Jesus tells the three parables.
15:3–7 / The first parable tells of a man who has a hundred sheep. If one of the sheep becomes lost, what will the man do? By asking the question, Jesus forces his hearers to answer it. Undoubtedly all will answer: “I shall look for it until it is found.” This is the natural human response when something of value is lost. In this case the shepherd is even willing to leave the other ninety-nine in the open country (at some slight risk to them) in order to search for the lost sheep. When he finds it, he is overjoyed and ready to celebrate. The point of the parable is that if one values something, when it is lost, one will seek it out diligently, and when it is found one will rejoice. Jesus applies the parable to God’s attitude toward the lost who repent. There will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
15:8–10 / The Parable of the Lost Coin makes the same point. When the woman lost one of her ten silver coins, she turns the house upside down in search of it. When she finds it, she is delighted. As in the case of the Parable of the Lost Sheep, there is joy in heaven whenever one who is lost (sinful) is found (repents). Both of these parables drive home the point that it is natural to respond with joy when something (or someone) is recovered. This joy stands in sharp contrast to the Pharisees and other “respectable” religious people who grumbled because Jesus spent time with those whom the Pharisees would regard as “lost.”
15:11–32 / The section reaches its climax in the Parable of the Lost (or Prodigal) Son. This time it is not a lost sheep or coin but a lost son. Unlike the lost sheep and the lost coin, which were not responsible in any way for being lost, the lost son is lost because of his own wayward actions. If anyone deserved what he got, it would have to be this ungrateful, selfish, and wasteful young man. Jesus graphically portrays the ingratitude, sin, and degradation of this person. He requests his share of the estate. He apparently has no concern for the well-being of his father (or family). He has not chosen to stay nearby; rather, he liquidates his inheritance and leaves home. He then went to a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. In the minds of respectable first-century Jewish people the behavior of this son would be considered disloyal and outrageous. But the parable advances from the son’s selfishness to his degradation. He ends up working for a Gentile (as implied by the reference to the “distant country”) for whom he feeds the pigs. Not only does he feed swine, he even eats the very pods that the pigs were eating. From a Jewish point of view his disgrace and degradation have reached their lowest level. (Fitzmyer [p. 1088] cites b. Baba Qamma 82b: “Cursed be the man who raises pigs.”) Eventually he came to his senses. As the context suggests, the younger son has finally come to a true understanding of himself and of his situation. He recognizes that he has fallen to a low estate (indeed, one lower than that of his father’s servants) and recognizes that he has sinned against heaven and against his father. He knows that he is no longer worthy to be called his son. Having thus repented, he returns to his father.
The parable reaches its dramatic conclusion when the father sees his son, hears his confession of sin, and receives him with joy. Rather than being angry with his wasteful, wayward son, the father is filled with joy and commands that he be dressed in the best robe and that a feast be held. The father cries out, as did the shepherd (v. 6) and the woman (v. 9), “Let’s … celebrate” (v. 23).
Had the parable ended with v. 24 it would have been complete. However, with v. 25 a new issue emerges. The older son, who apparently was at work in the field, hears the celebration and so inquires about what is going on. (To ask why the older son was not invited to the feast misses the point of this part of the parable. The point here is to provide contrast. Unlike his irresponsible younger brother, the older brother has remained at home faithfully going about his work.) When he discovers the cause for the celebration he is indignant and refuses to be a part of it. He feels cheated, for no feast has even been given in his honor, and yet he has always been faithful. He reminds his father of his brother’s wasteful and sinful adventures and protests against what he regards as an unwarranted and undeserved celebration. The father explains to his older son that all the blessings and rewards for his faithfulness and loyalty are undiminished: “You are always with me, and everything I have is yours” (v. 31). The joyous celebration illustrates the joy of recovering what was lost (as in the preceding parables). The older son must understand this. He too should share in the father’s joy.
In its original context the two sons very likely would have been understood as referring to irreligious Jews (the “sinners,” tax collectors, harlots), symbolized by the younger son, and religiously strict Jews (priests, Pharisees, teachers of the law), symbolized by the older son. The attitude of the Pharisees in 15:2 is quite similar to the attitude of the older son. Rather than celebrating Jesus’ successful ministry among the outcasts of Jewish religious society, the Pharisees “mutter.” The Third Evangelist, however, may have regarded the parable as applying to the resentment expressed over the entry of Gentiles into the church. It is possible also that, whereas the younger son symbolized the Gentiles and the disenfranchised of Jewish society, the older son represented religious Jews (perhaps even Christians) whose stricter standards made it difficult to accept Gentiles as part of the new community (see Acts 11), or at least difficult to have fellowship with them (see Acts 15).
Evans (p. 48) suggests that Deut. 21:15–22:4 corresponds to Luke 15, especially vv. 11–32, which make up the Parable of the Lost Son. The parallels are remarkable and are worthy of brief comment. Deuteronomy 21:15–17 is concerned with the status of the firstborn son. He is to be regarded as firstborn and honored over a second-born son, even if the father loves the second-born son more. The firstborn son is to retain his proper place in the family and receive a “double portion” of the inheritance. Deut. 21:18–21 is concerned with what to do with a wayward and disobedient son. A son who does “not obey his father” and who is “a glutton and a drunkard” is to be taken out of the city and stoned. Jesus’ parable stands in stark contrast to this legislation. The wayward young son, who squandered his inheritance on prostitutes and riotous living, is not expelled and stoned when he returns (as his older brother might have expected, and perhaps even hoped) but is lovingly received into his father’s house. Whereas the emphasis falls on severity in Deuteronomy 21, in Luke 15 the emphasis falls on mercy and forgiveness. Jesus is not contradicting the law of Moses; he is only correcting a false ethic, possibly derived from such a passage as Deuteronomy 21. By laying down civil law, Deuteronomy 21 does not intend to exclude the possibility of repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. Such legislation, however, could be appealed to as grounds for viewing in a very judgmental and unforgiving way those regarded as unrighteous and disobedient. Such thinking lies behind the grumbling of the Pharisees: How could Jesus, supposedly a man of God, have fellowship with those who by all rights should be excluded from Jewish society, perhaps even stoned?
Jack T. Sanders (“Tradition and Redaction in Luke xv. 11–32,” NTS 15 [1969], pp. 433–38) has argued on form-critical grounds that vv. 25–32 were not part of the original parable, but that Luke composed the second part of the parable in order to direct polemic against the Pharisees and so provide for a smoother transition into the next chapter. Other scholars disagree (for example, see John J. O‘Rourke, “Some Notes on Luke xv. 11–32,” NTS 18 [1972], pp. 431–33). The main objection to J. T. Sanders’s proposal is that it is not at all clear why polemic against the Pharisees should not be traced back to Jesus himself in this instance. Indeed, the parable actually places the Pharisees (assuming that they are alluded to in the character of the older son) in a rather surprisingly positive light. It is true that the older son expresses dismay over the joyous reception of his younger brother, but the consoling words of his father in vv. 31–32 imply that the older son has a place in his father’s heart. If Luke freely composed the second part of this parable (vv. 25–32), as Sanders claims, and did so as a polemic against the Pharisees of his day (who were bitterly opposed to Christianity), it seems strange that the evangelist did not take the opportunity to paint a much more unambiguously negative picture of the older son. The same point may be raised against Luise Schottroff’s view that Luke himself wrote the entire parable (vv. 11–32), not just the second part, as polemic against Pharisaism (“Das Gleichnis vom erlorenen Sohn,” ZTK 68 [1971], pp. 27–52). A major problem with Sanders’s interpretation is that it is based on and is part of his view that Luke’s theology is essentially anti-Semitic (see Jack T. Sanders, pp. 197–98; idem, “The Salvation of the Jews in Luke–Acts,” 1982 SBL Seminar Papers [Chico: Scholars Press, 1982], pp. 467–83; idem, “The Parable of the Pounds and Lucan Anti-Semitism,” TS 42 [1981], pp. 660–68), a view which I regard as totally erroneous. Luke’s Parable of the Lost Son extends an offer of reconciliation to the Jews, the “older sons” of the Father (see Tiede, p. 280). They are invited to accept their new siblings and to rejoice in their reclamation. In no sense is this parable anti-Semitic.
15:1 / On tax collectors and “sinners” see note on 5:30 above. For more on tax collectors see notes on 3:12 and 19:2. Talbert (p. 148) cites several scriptures to which the Pharisees could have appealed in justifying their displeasure over the company which Jesus kept (Prov. 1:15; 2:11–15; Psalm 1; Isa. 52:11). Lachs (p. 306) quotes from Mekilta on Exod. 18:1: “Let not a man associate with the wicked, not even to bring him nigh to the Law.” Even if this statement represents an extreme view on this matter, it does help us to understand the misgivings the Pharisees had with respect to Jesus’ habit of associating with people Jewish society regarded as sinful.
15:2 / On Pharisees see note on 5:17; on teachers of the law see note on 5:21.
15:3–6 / Jesus’ Parable of the Lost Sheep may have been inspired by Ezek. 34:11–16: “For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. As a shepherd seeks out his flock when some his sheep have been scattered abroad, so will I seek out my sheep.… I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed” (RSV). See also Isa. 40:11; Tiede, p. 274.
15:4 / A shepherd who has one hundred sheep would be relatively well off in first-century Palestine. Fitzmyer (p. 1077) notes that it was in search of a stray goat that an Arab goatherd discovered the first cave in the Dead Sea area, containing the now-famous Dead Sea Scrolls. Although the shepherd has ninety-nine, his concern for the one lost sheep impels him to search.
15:6–7 / These verses reflect the greatest variation with the Matthean version. Whereas the Lucan context has the parable illustrate God’s joy over receiving a repentant sinner into his kingdom, the Matthean version (18:12–14) illustrates reconciliation within the church itself (see Gundry, pp. 364–67).
15:8 / ten silver coins: Lit. “ten drachmas,” only a modest sum. Although the woman has nine other coins, she values the one lost coin enough to search for it diligently. Lachs (p. 306) cites an interesting rabbinic parallel: “If a man loses a coin in his house he kindles many lights, and seeks till he finds it. If for something which affords only an hour’s life in this world, a man kindles many lights, and searches till he finds it, how much more should you dig as for hidden treasure after the words of the Law, which gives life both in this world and in the world-to-come” (Song of Songs Rabbah 1.9).
15:12 / Since Deut. 21:17 requires the firstborn son to receive a “double portion” of his father’s inheritance, we may assume that the younger son’s share of the estate was about one third. Income from this property, however, was due the father as long as he lived.
15:13 / the younger son got together all he had: Jewish law permitted property to be sold, but the income of the land was still due the father (the original owner) as long as he lived. To liquidate his portion of the estate and then to leave his family amounted to an act of the grossest disregard and disloyalty.
squandered his wealth in wild living: Lit. “scattered his substance living loosely.” Thus, “loose living” is described by his older brother as wasting money on prostitutes (v. 30). The noun form of “loosely” occurs in Eph. 5:18, “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.”
15:15–16 / Pigs were “unclean” and forbidden as food for Jews (Lev. 11:7; Deut. 14:8). No occupation would have been more disgraceful for a Jewish man of respectable family.
pods: According to Lachs (p. 308) these are the pods of the carob tree, and they were traditionally regarded as the food of the poor. He cites an interesting rabbinic parallel: “When Israelites are reduced to eating carob-pods, they repent” (Leviticus Rabbah 13.3; Song of Songs Rabbah 1.4).
15:17 / When he came to his senses: “When a son [abroad] goes barefoot [through poverty] he remembers the comfort of his father’s house” (Lamentations Rabbah 1.7; from Lachs p. 308).
15:18, 21 / I have sinned against heaven: “Heaven” is a substitute for “God,” out of pious reluctance to name God directly.
15:20 / He ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him: Compare Gen. 29:13: “He [Laban] ran to meet him [Jacob], and embraced him and kissed him, and brought him to his house” (RSV). The kiss is a sign of reconciliation and forgiveness (Talbert, p. 150).
15:22 / The best robe, ring, and sandals signify the younger son’s treatment as an honored guest. All the son had asked for was to be taken on as one of the hired men (v. 19). Talbert (p. 150) states that the best robe was a sign of honor, the ring a sign of authority, and the sandals a sign of a free man (for servants went barefoot).
15:23 / The fattened calf would provide a banquet table with the very best feast possible in first-century Palestine.
15:24, 32 / The references to being lost and found links the Parable of the Lost Son quite closely to the two preceding parables.
15:29 / The older son grumbles that not even a young goat has ever been prepared in his honor. A goat would be considered quite inferior to the “fattened calf” of v. 23.
15:30 / this son of yours: By calling his brother “this son of yours,” instead of “my brother,” the older son reveals his contempt for his brother. Likely it reflects the idea that such a disloyal son had been regarded as “dead” to the family (see vv. 24, 32) and so the older brother would have said that he had no brother. See Leaney, p. 218.
15:32 / we had to celebrate: The refrain of “celebration” (or rejoice) is heard at the conclusion of all three parables of the lost (see vv. 6, 9, 23, 32).