The Setting for the Three Parables
Read Luke 15:1-2
Eating with Sinners
Part of Exodus 18:1 reads: “the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt.” The Mekilta, Jewish scriptural interpretation, taught this for the verse: “Let no man associate with the wicked, not even to bring him close to the Law.”
The Pharisees believed they could keep the Old-Covenant Law and still live among “the people of the land.” This demanded much care in following the food laws and maintaining ceremonial purity, which meant they needed to be strict about what they ate and with whom. “Sinner” did not meet the criteria of table fellowship.
Eating with Tax Collectors
The Roman Empire imposed a range of taxes but subcontracted the collecting of them to individuals, who then took a surcharge for their own expenses. This “surcharge” was seldom controlled, which allowed tax collectors an easy, but unpopular, way to become wealthy. So they were much hated for their extortion but also for collaborating with the Romans.
- Discuss the attitude of the Pharisees toward Jesus.
- What two overarching reasons (relating to “tax collectors” and “sinners”) lay behind the Pharisees’ and scribes’ objection to what Jesus was doing?
“grumbled”: diagonguzo, to complain or grumble aloud. An imperfect verb, meaning they are still upset about what Jesus did, which they voiced aloud. To these grumbling Jews, Jesus is at fault for eating with people who have failed by the religious and social (patriotic) standards of their day. For them, Jesus cannot be righteous because He affiliated with the unrighteous.
The Lost Sheep: The 99 and the One
Matthew 18:10-14 and Luke 15:3-7
The Pharisees had a negative view of shepherds. Rabbinic writings describe them as dishonest and untrustworthy. For they had a reputation of deliberately bringing their sheep onto other people’s lands to graze (Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, pgs. 310-11, 313–15).
Rabbis listed “shepherd” as a livelihood that no Law-keeping (the Old-Covenant Law) Jew should teach his son, thinking it impossible to keep the Law as a shepherd (Mishnah: Kiddushin 4:14, Kethuboth 7:10).
One hundred sheep was within the range of a typical flock for a shepherd.
Read Matthew 18:10-14
- In Matthew’s version, who is watching over “one of these little ones [so none] should perish”?
- Is this parable about what you need to do or what God is doing?
Read Luke 15:3-4
“man”: anthropos, singular, can also mean “person.” This means only one man is tending the 100 sheep. A shepherd assumes considerable risk to find a lost sheep on his own. The Judean wilderness was a hostile place known for predators, robbers, and, depending on the location, harsh terrain.
“leave”: The word for leave is leipo, but Jesus used kataleipo, “leave behind.” Jesus is forcing the hearer—if he searches for the 99, to “leave behind,” that is, abandon the 99.
- Does it make sense for one man to leave behind 99 sheep to seek one lost from the flock?
The Old-Testament background for this parable is Ezekiel 34. Though the Pharisees and Scribes looked down on shepherds, they were a metaphor for religious leaders to care for the people.
The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? … because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep … I am against the shepherds, and … ” [Exodus 34:1-3, 9-10]
The scenario Jesus set up is a no-win situation. It would be irresponsible to abandon 99 sheep to search for one. So, those with Ezekiel in their minds would now be conflicted: Scripture says “yes,” but the religious rules of the day and economics say “no.” But Ezekiel 34 also provides the answer, “I [God] will rescue my sheep from their mouths” (vs. 10). God can, and will, do what an earthly shepherd can.
Read Luke 15:5-7
“rejoice”: sugchiro, meaning to share in another’s joy. Here, an imperative passive. The shepherd commands his friends and neighbors to rejoice, but they don’t have the ability to do so (denoted by the passive voice). Thus, their ability to rejoice comes from the shepherd, not themselves.
- What does the shepherd find?
- When he doesn’t return to the flock (the normal expectation), what is Jesus implying about the 99 “left behind” on the hillside?
- What do the shepherd and the neighbors do? Where?
“home”: oikos, house. Rejoicing takes place in the shepherd’s house, with the shepherd giving the people the ability to rejoice. Thus, in the shepherd’s house [Jesus] enables those to share in His joy.
- In verse 7, the context broadens. What is Jesus calling the Pharisees and Scribes to do?
- Who also rejoices when you repent? (vs. 7)
- What does this reveal about what the saints in heaven may know about what takes place in the lives of God’s saints on earth? (see also Hebrews 12:1)
- Whom do the 99 in the parable represent?
In the Jewish way of finger counting, numbers up to 99 were done on the left hand. For triple digits (100 or higher), they used the right hand. For the 100th sheep, a hand switch takes place, placing the lost sheep, now found, into in a different category. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus will later point forward to His resurrection after death. “From now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:69). The “lost sheep” was the one belonging to the shepherd’s house. The 99, who thought they were the people of God, are outside, on the left hand, “left behind,” kataleipo-ed.
The Point is Restoration
This parable is also a chiasm, a rhetorical device where an idea or ideas are stated and then stated again in reverse order. The central point of a chiasm is its central idea. Here, is what we find.
- How was the lost sheep restored to the Shepherd and Community in His House?
The Lost Coin
Luke 15:8-9
Jesus opened the first parable with, “What man of you…” This parable, however, is about a woman. Since His audience is all men, Jesus leaves off the final “of you,” starting only with “Or what woman …”
In the Midrash (Jewish oral tradition, later written down), a rabbinic commentary on the Song of Songs, tells of a man who loses a small coin and “lights lamp after lamp, wick after wick, until he finds it” (Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs). Jesus adapts this story, using a woman, whom the Pharisees and Scribes would consider to be of less value than a man. One such prayer exposes this attitude: “Blessed be God that He has not made me a woman” (Elisabeth Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, pg. 217).
Read Luke 15:8-9
In a time when most people grew their food and made their clothes, cash was a rare commodity. Money became security for the future in case of crisis. So, losing one coin (10% of what the woman had) was a huge loss, though probably not to a Scribe or Pharisee.
- In The Parable of the Lost Sheep, what the shepherd needed to do to find the lost sheep was presumed. In this parable, what does the woman do to find the lost coin?
- What does this reveal about the intensity of what God will do you find one of His lost coins?
“rejoice”: sugchiro. As in The Parable of the Lost Sheep, this also is an imperative passive, for sharing in another’s joy. The power to rejoice doesn’t come from the person but the woman (denoted by the passive voice).
Read Luke 15:10
- Who also rejoices when one sinner repents?
- What does this say about to totality of who rejoices in heaven when a sinner repents?
The woman tells her friends she lost her coin, admitting fault. The son in the Midrash does not admit any fault. Many of the hearers (all 1st-century Jewish men) may be thinking, “Well, of course, the woman is to blame for losing the coin.” We’ll see how this impacts the next parable. If the woman is to blame for the lost coin, is the father in the next parable to blame when his son becomes lost?
The Lost (Prodigal) Son
Luke 15:11-32
Though we call this “The Parable of the Prodigal Son,” it is misnamed. First, the parable uses “father” 12 times, but “son” only eight. “Father” appears in all five Greek cases (inflections), including the vocative (15:12, 18, 21), where the father is directly addressed. Both of these would clue the listener to understand the subject of the parable was the father and his love, not the son and his rebellion.
No sane shepherd would risk 99 sheep to save one, which became lost. With the coin, unlike the Midrash, the woman admits fault for losing the coin. The hearers would be smug about the guilt of the woman because she was “a woman.” The first two parables then become a “set up,” disarming the listeners for the “gut punch” at the end of this third parable to hit them with full force.
The first two parables included people considered lower than the listeners: a shepherd and a woman. The objects sought in the stories were “safe”: an animal (sheep) and an inanimate object (coin). Now, the characters are no longer the disdained, but someone the Pharisees would approve of, a prosperous land owner. The object is no longer distant or abstract, but more personal—a son.
Read Luke 15:11-12a
- An inheritance is received as someone dies. What is the son doing by asking for his inheritance before his father dies?
After receiving such a disgraceful request, a father would be expected to beat his son or remove him from the inheritance.
Read Luke 15:12b-13
- What does the father do?
“property”: The son demanded, “Give me the share of property [ousia] that is coming to me.” And the father divided his property [bios, life] between them. The father gave more than what the son asked: “He divided his life [bios] between them.” The primary meaning of bios is not living, but life itself (see Luke 8:14). The son wants things, but the father wants to give life!
- Where does the son go?
- What is implied by “far country”? What feelings would this evoke in the listeners?
Read Luke 15:14-16
“squandered”: diaskorpizo, means “to scatter,” conveying an image of someone throwing his possessions to the wind.
“reckless”: asostos, suggesting both reckless and immoral behavior.
- What situation does the son find himself in after he “squandered” his inheritance?
“The pods that the pigs ate”: The suspected implication of the son going off into Gentile country now is confirmed. Not only does the son live among Gentiles, but egregiously violates the Law, eating what the pigs eat. Pigs were unclean animals for Jews (Leviticus 11:7, Deuteronomy 14:8) and to tend them was viewed as despicable work. The Jewish Talmud reads, “Cursed is the man who raises swine and cursed is the man who teaches his son Greek philosophy.”
Read Luke 15:17-19
- What does the son decide to do?
- Does he have actual contrition?
At this point, the son plans what he will say, which is, in effect, “I’ll go home to dad and sound religious.”
Read Luke 15:20-21
- How can the father see his son when “he was still a long way off”?
A distinguished, wealthy Jewish man wore robes and didn’t run. Running required hiking up your robe, “girding your loins,” which was viewed as degrading for someone wealthy.
- What emotions fill the father?
- Is the son able to ask his father what he planned to say? Why or why not?
- Does the son now repent?
Read Luke 15:22
The father tells his servant to give his son “the best robe.” This was one of his own robes since the father wore the finest robe in the house. He also gives his son a family ring and sandals, for only slaves went barefoot.
- What did the father do regarding the status of his son?
Read Luke 15:23-24
“fattened calf”: A fattened calf was selected and fed for a special occasion, such as a wedding feast. This meant one was already prepared when the son happened to return home.
- For a fattened calf to be ready at a moment’s notice reveals what about the father?
- What insight does the father wanting to give his son life tell us about the cause of his rejoicing?
Read Luke 15:25-27
As the older son makes his way home, he hears celebrating. This reveals the size of the estate: He can only hear the celebrating when he gets closer to home.
Read Luke 15:28-30
By the expected behavioral norms, the older “good” son disrespects his father in several ways.
- He refuses to join the banquet his father is hosting. Others would see as a huge public insult.
- Instead of confronting his father privately later, he dishonors him by arguing while the guests are present.
- He doesn’t use a title, such as “my father” or “sir,” demonstrating a disrespectful attitude.
- What does this tell us about the older son? Is he a “prodigal,” though he stayed home?
- The father came out and entreated the older son, which would be considered demeaning to the father. What does this say about the Father’s attitude toward his older son?
“entreated”: parakaleo, a multifaceted term, containing the sense both of pleading (or urging) but also comforting.
The older sons tell his father, “I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat.” The resentment now comes out, and he is, in effect, saying, “You owe me.”
- Whom does Jesus describe with those words from the older son?
When the older son tells his father, referring to his brother as “this son of yours,” he is estranging himself from both his father and brother.
- What “zinger” does Jesus give to the Pharisees and Scribes by the older son’s words, “I might celebrate with my friends”? What does “my friends” imply?
Read Luke 15:31-32
“son”: The father does not use the normal word for son, huios, but teknon, “child.” This is not a gender issue, but a term of endearment. Joseph and Mary used teknon, after searching desperately for Jesus and finding Him in the Temple: “Child (teknon), … Your father and I have been worried sick looking for you!” (Luke 2.48).
- How does the older son not celebrating with the younger son implicate the Pharisees and Scribes?
- By the parable’s end, who is the lost son, estranged from the Father by his own doing?
The older son rebuffs the father for his generosity when he believes he should have been strict. “This son of yours” dishonors you and our family and now—lacking righteousness yourself—you do the same! This attitude and thinking described the Scribes and Pharisees. God’s salvation was meant for more than the old brother (the “righteous,” whom we learn is the real prodigal), but also the younger brother (repentant sinners and tax collectors).
Conclusion
The Parable of the Lost Sheep restates, but also contrasts, The Parable of the Lost Coin. In the first, the main character was a male; the second, a female. The search area for a lost sheep included a large, expansive area, metaphorically becoming the world. “For this is how God loved the World: He gave His only Son” (John 3:16). With the lost coin, an intense search taking place in a small space, metaphorically becoming the intensity of what God will do to save His people. “For this is how God loved the World: He gave His only Son” (John 3:16). When we include The Parable of the Lost Son, we learn God is, indeed, a loving father for the lost, willing to give life to retrieve what became lost.
