Luke 15

CHAPTER XV

This chapter and the next one are Luke’s two immortal parable chapters which are filled (with the exception of one brief section) with parables, none of which have found a place in the other Gospels, the entire group being arranged in an obviously natural order, in the order in which Jesus spoke them.

Luke 15:1

1 Now there kept drawing near to him all the publicans and the open sinners to hear him. And there were murmuring both the Pharisees and the scribes, saying, This fellow keeps receiving open sinners and eating with them!

Luke again offers only enough information to indicate how Jesus was prompted to utter the following parables. The time, the place, and the other circumstances are immaterial. Once before, in 5:30, the same class of men raised the same objection. See 3:12 on the publicans; the ἁμαρτωλοί were classed with them, being notorious sinners of various kinds in a society that was very different from ours, in which the Pharisaic, ostentatious type of holiness dominated the public and by contrast made men like these tax collectors, etc., practically outcasts.

One of the marked features of Jesus’ ministry was the attraction of these outcasts to him. The Pharisees and the scribes only scorned and damned them, but the holy Jesus had a way of salvation open for them, one that, indeed, condemned their sins in no uncertain terms but at the same time opened the divine way of remission for all sins. So they drew near to him in numbers (πάντες) and did this continuously at the present time as the periphrastic imperfect states. They kept drinking in his words eagerly, therefore we have the durative present infinitive.

Luke 15:2

2 As was done in v. 1, the verb is again placed forward for the sake of emphasis, it is again an imperfect to indicate duration (it is not merely ingressive). The two actions, drawing near and murmuring back and forth (διά in the verb), are parallel. As the one class drew near, so the other stood off and found fault. These latter were the Pharisees and the scribes, see 5:17; many were both Pharisees and scribes although the articles distinguish them as being two groups just as the two articles do in v. 1, but τε … καί combine them more closely than a mere καί would (B.-D. 444, 2).

These men were scandalized because Jesus did not treat these disreputables as they did. In their holiness they scrupulously kept their skirts clean of any and all open sinners and thus clashed with Jesus on this point. They thus pointed also to Jesus in holy scorn by derisively using οὗτος, “this fellow,” and thus began the infamous practice of the Jews of never uttering the name “Jesus” if they could help it; they abutted this with ἁμαρτωλούς: “this fellow—open sinners,” etc.—just think! The one word is enough to include also the publicans. The two verbs, both durative presents to indicate customary action, are arranged in the order of a climax—terrible to be receiving such people, unspeakably terrible to eat with them. We learn again incidentally (as we did in 5:30) that Jesus would occasionally dine with one or another of the open sinners just as we have seen him dining with some Pharisees (11:37; 14:1).

Luke 15:3

3 In 5:30 Jesus met this complaint by pointing to himself as being the physician who necessarily treats sick people. In a somewhat similar way he answers with a pair of parables: The Savior finds the lost, and the church does likewise. But he spoke to them this parable, saying: What man of you, having a hundred sheep and having lost one of them, does not leave behind the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go on after the lost till he finds it? And having found, he puts it on his shoulders, rejoicing, and having come to his house, he calls together the friends and the neighbors, saying to them, Rejoice with me, because I found my sheep, the lost one! I tell you that thus joy will be in the heaven over one open sinner repenting more than over ninety-nine righteous, such as do not have need of repentance.

“This parable,” as Luke states, extends to v. 10; Jesus made the whole of it one parable. The fact that the two parts begin with questions does not prevent the whole from being a parable in the fullest sense of the word. Its appeal has always been tremendous; witness the many paintings of the Shepherd bearing home his sheep or being out seeking to find it.

The parable is simplicity itself. Jesus tells the Pharisees and the scribes that they do the same thing that he is doing, they in the case of only a lost sheep, he in the case of a lost soul. The argument is thus ad hominem but as justifying a right deed by one that is equally right in the case of the objector. The argument is at the same time from the less to the greater, from a sheep to a man. If a Pharisee would do for a lost sheep what is sketched here, shall Jesus not do at least the equal for a lost human being?

But the climax of the parable is reached in the joy over the finding of the lost. How natural and self-evident that would be! Jesus places this joy “in the heaven” and “before the angels of God” over against the murmuring of the Pharisees and the scribes. They look sour, in heaven the very angels sing with delight. In so masterly a way is this done that the very parable becomes a seeking and reaching out by the Shepherd Jesus after these Pharisaic lost sheep so that their joy at being found may produce still more joy in heaven among the angels. Thus through the entire parable there run in duplicate: 1) being lost, 2) the great search, 3) the happy finding, 4) the abounding joy.

This parable is sometimes treated superficially. But, on the other hand, beginning with the ancients, those who gave it full attention often went entirely too far and overloaded every statement and even every word with their extravagant fancies. Its pure, chaste simplicity was buried by astounding importations. It was made to reach from eternity to eternity; in addition to the Jews all the Gentiles were brought in; the whole Passion of Jesus was added plus his ascension to heaven; in heaven itself God, the angels, and the saints were treated; and still other things were added—all of which Jesus is to have had in mind, if not for the Pharisees and the scribes, then at least for his disciples and for us. Homiletical works of even more recent times still offer material of this kind to preachers and think that the name of Jesus is signed to it all.

This parable does not stand alone. It presents the first chapter, and three more are to follow. Here there is shown what is done for the sinner; the parable of the Prodigal Son adds the inner change and the new status of the sinner, conversion, justification, sonship; the parable of the Unjust Steward the changed sinner’s new obedience; and the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus the final chapter, the sinner’s transfer to heaven. Each parable becomes clearer when it is viewed in connection with the others. It will then be seen that each treats one central thought, and that we should not introduce more.

Luke 15:4

4 “What man of you?” by addressing a direct question to each and any one of the murmuring Pharisees and scribes, a simple question about themselves and what each of them would unquestionably do under the circumstances described Jesus not only grips their attention but also appeals to whatever good sense they have left and asks them to use it in giving their own answer. Jesus often uses questions in this way. They disarm completely because they turn the whole matter over to the opponent and leave it entirely to him as to what answer he will give.

They, however, disarm in another way, namely by generalizing the point at issue and thus clarifying the entire matter. If Jesus had asked specifically about his treatment of publicans and sinners, these Pharisees and these scribes, blinded by their self-righteous pride, would only have uttered their secret grumbling to his face. The question about a sheep is exactly the same question, but the picture of the sheep gets these men away from their pride and from any false answer it would suggest and gently leads them to the true motive, that of prizing a sheep of theirs and not wanting to let it be lost. Prompted by that right motive, the right answer is bound to be given—Jesus has no fear about it, he freely, smilingly asks: “Which one of you,” etc.?—I care not who of you states the answer. Figures are ordinarily used for literary embellishment. Jesus always uses them for something that is far higher, here for bringing the truth about his work to view and for letting the Pharisees and the scribes correct their own pride and folly. Figures are powerful engines in Jesus’ hands.

Now it is simply a fact that every one of these men, even if he had as many as a hundred sheep, and only one of them got lost by straying away, would never think that the one does not matter, seeing he still has as many as ninety-nine, or that the exertion of seeking and finding that one lost sheep, seeing it is only one, would be too much to undertake, considering also that despite all effort it might even after all not be found. Nothing of the kind! Invariably, as the present tenses state, in every case like that the man leaves his ninety-nine behind in the wilderness and goes after the lost till he finds it.

To be sure, it’s all about sheep which were so common and numerous in the entire country, and that enables even men like these blind Pharisees and scribes to assent to the right thing. But that means that Jesus has already with the first sentence won the case against these objectors to his dealing with sinners. He turns a finger, and down they go under their own verdict. That, too, is the way with Jesus, and yet some men cannot see that it displays a wisdom that is more than human. Οὐ is the interrogative word that expects an affirmative answer. Even if these men do not say “yes,” their thoughts cannot help but do so. That is enough, for the rest follows automatically and is affirmed by that first “yes”; hence the interrogative form is now dropped.

A few things should be noted. In this parable it is one out of a hundred, the value being in proportion; in the next it is one out of ten, the value rising in proportion; finally it is one out of two, the value rising to the limit. There is a tendency among interpreters to make things complex; the mastery of the parables is their simplicity. Jesus says “which man of you?” though those who are addressed were Pharisees and scribes and did not tend sheep. So the question is hypothetical: if anyone of them had a hundred sheep. That, too, makes it easier to give the correct answer as all such theoretical questions are readily answered if they are simple as this one is.

Wisely Jesus does not ask: “If I had so many sheep,” etc. Even the word “shepherd” is not put into the parable; it is only we who use it when we interpret the parable of Jesus. For Jesus is, indeed, doing the very thing of which he speaks here, doing it by receiving sinners and eating with them. The silent “yes” of the Pharisees and the scribes regarding the lost sheep approves his course, unwittingly, indeed, but for that very reason honestly. So all skeptics, who object to God’s and Christ’s ways, must approve them in spite of themselves, for when they are put into clear light they stand out as being right, noble, blessed. The perfect neuter participle τὸἀπολωλός, “has been lost,” implies “is still lost.”

It is pointless to ask about the leaving of the ninety-nine in the wilderness. The ἡἔρημος (χώρα) was open, uninhabited country that was suitable for grazing sheep. The fact that the ninety-nine were left behind in entire safety is so obvious that Jesus did not clutter up his parable by inserting an explanation. Those that have been attempted are uncalled for. The one sheep became lost by straying from the flock. This is the least of it, it somehow got away from the eyes and the care and the control of its owner—that is the real trouble. So the sinner strays from Jesus and is then lost.

“He goes till he finds it” is sometimes exaggerated; goes a great distance over rocks and ravines, through brambles and thorns, weary and spent—all this in order to bring in the Passion and the death of Jesus. There is nothing of this in the parable. Jesus is not depicting his Passion to the Pharisees and the scribes; to do that would require other language. His receiving and eating with publicans and open sinners is what he describes by means of which he seeks to bring them to repentance by the law and the gospel (v. 7).

Luke 15:5

5 “Having found” purposely restricts the parable to this one lost sheep which is found after the search. “Till he finds it” and “having found” are purposely adjoined and repeat this important verb; the same thing is done in the second half of the parable. The two expressions do not read as though the finding took so exceedingly long. Who, too, would say that Jesus is not an expert at this work? The emphasis is on χαίρων, “he places it on his shoulders rejoicing.” The sheep would naturally be carried on the shoulders, the idea being that it was exhausted when found. Some would change αὐτοῦ into ἑαυτοῦ “his” into “his own shoulders,” and make a point of this carrying. As far as Jesus is concerned, humanly speaking, the sinner is heavier when he lies on Jesus’ heart before he is found than when he lies on his shoulders after being found.

But the subject, let us not forget, is still some one of the Pharisees and the scribes. He, too, on having his lost sheep safely on his shoulders, would be “rejoicing.”

Luke 15:6

6 That this participle is the real point comes out in full in the fact of this man’s calling together his friends and neighbors and bidding them to rejoice with him (second aorist passive) because he found his sheep, the lost one (the modifier being added by a second article and thus being made emphatic, R. 776). This brings out the theme of the parable: Joy over Finding the Lost. It stands out squarely in contrast with this murmuring against even seeking the lost. The fact that Jesus is here drawing a picture of himself goes without saying. The view that God is the owner of the sheep will find few who accept it.

This is another instance in the parables in which the imagery is strained because it is too weak to picture the reality. A man would rejoice upon recovering his lost sheep, be glad that his search was successful, but he would hardly summon friends and neighbors and make such a great event of it, and expect that they, too, would regard it as being great by helping to make a celebration. Read what is said on 14:34 about saltless salt. It is the reality that compels the imagery to be carried beyond what is ordinarily done. The divine is shining out through the human, and the human takes on a new coloring. Jesus is noted also for the way in which he handled his earthly material. It is transmuted into gold under his hands.

Who is meant by “the friends and the neighbors,” and what is the difference between the two? And what is imaged by this man’s house or home? If we see that the sinner who is found is found forever, found by being taken to heaven at death, i. e., that finding takes in the whole work of Jesus upon the sinner, we have our two answers: “in the heaven” (house), v. 7; “before the angels of God” (friends and neighbors in one), v. 10. Then, too, we shall not talk about this man’s leaving the ninety-nine in the wilderness while he takes the one sheep to his house. That is raising difficulties where none exist.

Luke 15:7

7 The parable is complete, and Jesus now states the reality which it illustrates and justifies. The λέγωὑμῖν is therefore no longer a part of the parable as is λέγωγὰρὑμῖν in 14:24. With the voice of authority, “I tell you,” Jesus declares that in the same way (οὔτως) as just pictured “joy shall be in the heaven over one open sinner repenting.” Be he ever so great a sinner, whether in God’s eyes only or also in men’s, his repenting causes joy in the very heavens. The aorist participle would hardly do, for it might mean just coming to repentance (ingressive); the aorist is used to express several types of punctiliar action. This present participle is durative and expresses the fact that repentance goes on and on. We indeed enter heaven repenting, in the repentant state, and in none other.

Luther was right when in the first of his famous ninety-five theses he declared that our entire life must be a continuous repentance. Again he said that our sins are forgiven richly and daily—because of this constant repentance. Μετανοεῖν is discussed in 3:3. The seeking and the finding of Jesus, his receiving and eating with sinners, his great Shepherd work as depicted, is his bringing poor sinners to permanent repentance.

Jesus here says “shall be joy” but “comes to be” in v. 10. Both are true. Heaven knows about us sinners here, for is not Jesus there? Are the angels not sent forth to minister unto those who shall be heirs of salvation? All the mighty works of men cause no jubilation in heaven, but one miserable sinner’s repentant state does. But what if a repentant sinner again falls away? Will the joy over his temporary repentance not be kind of a mistake? Celebrating before the game is finished has often turned to grief. Dismiss the question—since sinners exist, heaven never made a single mistake.

Thus far all is simple. But how can Jesus add: “more than over ninety-nine righteous, such as (οἵτινες, causal: because they are such as) do not have need of repentance”? The key is given in ἤ, “more than” (R. 661: B.-D. 245, 3), with its plain implication that there will be joy in heaven also over the ninety-nine righteous as well as over the sinner. And the man with the hundred sheep certainly has two joys, one over the many that did not stray away, over that fact as it is vividly brought home to him by the straying sheep; and then joy over the one sheep that has been recovered after having strayed.

This corrects those explanations which refer the ninety-nine only to the legally righteous, meaning the scribes and the Pharisees; also those which consider ἤ exclusive: only over the one and not at all over the ninety-nine. These ninety-nine are thought to need no repentance in their own estimation, they are like the self-righteous Pharisees who justify themselves (16:15). But the phrase “in their own estimation” is not in the text, nor is it implied. It is barred out by the fact that there is joy in heaven over the ninety-nine who cannot therefore be self-righteous Pharisees. The view that Jesus speaks as he does of “righteous who do not need repentance” because he wants to raise the question in the minds of the Pharisees whether they are truly righteous before heaven, is misdirected because, if Jesus had meant them, his words would do the very opposite, namely make them think themselves truly righteous, men who actually did not need repentance. Jesus, indeed, wanted to jar these Pharisees in regard to their righteousness before God; and he chose the right way, namely by speaking of men who are actually righteous before God.

Since there is joy over the many as well as over the one, it becomes plain why the one needs repentance and the others do not need it—they already have it! The one needs it because he is “an open sinner”; the many have it because they are truly “righteous.” That alone is why there will be joy over both.

Another point is certain: that repentance is used in the identical sense in the case of both and not in two different or modified senses. Now, too, it is easy to see why the joy over the one is greater than that over the many. There is a constant, steady joy over the many who are righteous and have this long while gone on in repentance; but when this sinner, who has lived a long time without repentance, through Christ now achieves it and joins the ranks of the righteous, he causes a sudden shout of joy in heaven, a great wave of joy such as does not resound for all who are already in the blessed state. Luther understands this rightly when he speaks of the great and sudden joy of a mother to find her sick child restored, a joy that is greater than that for all her other children who are still sound and well. We may add that the very restoration of the one brings to her mind the thought of the others and the joy that they are still well.

Δίκαιος here, as always, is used in the forensic sense, God declaring one righteous; the wrong view, too, is forensic, but according to this view the person either declares himself righteous or trusts in himself that God has declared him so (18:9); C.-K. 309 holds the latter regarding the righteous in this passage. Appeals to the older brother in the next parable as an interpretation of the righteous mentioned in this parable are beside the mark; the father had no joy in that son at all—that son, too, was lost in a different way than the other was, but just as badly lost, and the father went out to find him too, if possible.

Luke 15:8

8 Or what woman having ten drachmas, if she shall lose one drachma, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek carefully till she finds it? And having found, she calls together the women friends and neighbors, saying, Rejoice with me because I found the drachma which I lost! Thus, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one open sinner repenting.

The ἤ at the beginning marks this as being a continuation. So does the question, which is a parallel to the one asked in v. 4, which again has the interrogative word (οὐχί) that expects an affirmative answer. Any normal woman would, of course, do what is asked by Jesus. “What woman” is parallel to “what man” (v. 4) and yet marks a difference. Some decline to interpret “woman,” which is an easy way of disposing of her; some see in her the Holy Spirit, which is against all Scripture analogy which never speaks of the Spirit as being a woman. If the Hebrew feminine ruach be pointed to, what about the Greek Πνεῦμα which is neuter? The gender of words is often merely grammatical. By this “woman” Jesus pictures the church, which is filled with the same spirit as her Lord, seeking the lost and rejoicing over the found.

We now have drachmas, ten, one of which is lost. The Greek drachma=the Roman denarius=about 16c=about a day’s wage for common labor. But whereas the man does not lose the sheep, the woman is said to lose the drachma. A common interpretation is that it is not the Lord’s fault but the sinner’s own fault when he is lost; but that it is to a degree also the fault of the church when she loses a sinner. We question the validity of this interpretation. The sheep is animate and is therefore represented as getting lost; the coin is inanimate, hence if it is to be lost, somebody must be said to lose it.

More than this, the sheep and the drachma picture one and the same sinner, and every lost sinner is lost through a fault of his own. Jesus is speaking of his true church that is moved by his own spirit, and that church is guilty of no fault that loses sinners.

Much has been made of the drachma as compared with the sheep. We find little beyond the changed proportion, one out of ten instead of one out of a hundred. This advance, which is climaxed in the next parable with one out of two, progressively pictures the value that Christ and his church (and the Father) set upon the lost sinner. We fail to see that the motive which prompts the seeking is different in the three illustrations. Any progression in the presentation of the motive is blocked by the figure of the inanimate coin which is placed between the living sheep and the living son. This, too, disposes of all that is made of the image that is stamped upon the drachma.

Jesus does not refer to the image. The drachma bore a pagan image, a crowned head of a pagan emperor, and on the other side this emperor seated and holding his insignia. Does that signify anything of the general divine image that is left in the sinner? Why, then, did Jesus, who is here speaking to Jews (v. 1), not name the Jewish half-shekel or shekel, both of which bore sacred images? So we drop that interpretation.

The church, like her Lord, does her utmost to find the lost. Both seek until they find. As far as the parable goes, both do this in the same way. There is but one way for both: to go after the sinner with the law and the gospel. It is thought that this is made specific in the case of the church, the lamp being the gospel and the sweeping broom the law, these being added to the Passion of Jesus which is found in the first part of the parable. We have dealt with the Passion and have failed to find it in the parable.

Since the law and the gospel are in any case the means for recovering the sinner, be he pictured as a sheep or as a drachma, it really makes little difference how we interpret the lamp and the broom. Yet the law as well as the gospel is a lamp, for by the law is the knowledge of sin, and that rather mars the view: lamp=gospel; broom=law. Here, too, the parable restricts itself to the lost sinner who is found, and we abide by that and say nothing about sinners who are not found. The next parables deal with them; moreover, an inanimate coin is hardly an image that is suitable for this part of the story about sinners.

Luke 15:9

9 On finding the coin the woman does exactly what the man does on finding the sheep, and all that is said regarding v. 6 applies also here. We of course have the propriety that the woman calls her women friends and neighbors, and no one makes anything more of this difference in sex. “Which I did lose” only repeats this point from v. 8 and in the sense indicated.

Luke 15:10

10 In stating the application of this part of the parable Jesus repeats, abbreviates, and interprets. The repetition is obvious, and, like every such repetition, emphasizes strongly: “Thus, I tell you, there is joy!” “Is” or “occurs” (γίνεται) and its present tense add to “shall be,” the future. “Shall be” at once upon the sinner’s repenting and thus “is” when he repents. We may say either. “Before the angels of God” interprets “in the heaven.” The interpretation usually adds also the saints in heaven. Add them; but the greatness of this joy lies in the fact that the heavenly angelic host jubilates, and the greater is named as including the less. “Over one sinner repenting” is repeated unchanged, for this is the vital point and needs emphasis. The addition found in v. 7 is omitted here, one statement of this point being enough.

This double parable, which is addressed to the Pharisees and the scribes, brought us the glaring difference between them and the angels in heaven: they murmured at the very thing that made the angels rejoice. That should have given them pause to search their hearts, where something must have been wrong. Repentance rings out in this parable; it is that which causes this astounding joy. That, too, reached at the hearts of these men. Were heaven and its angels rejoicing over them? Were they furnishing heaven the repentance that would cause such joy? Did their lack of joy over sinners who were drawn to Jesus hang together with a lack of joy over themselves in heaven?

From v. 1 it appears that the publicans and the open sinners also heard this parable and the following. From it they would have to gather that drawing near to Jesus and even dining with him were not enough, that only true repentance was sufficient. Also, that whatever these Pharisees said about them and their repenting at the call of Jesus, the angels of God and their joy were the one essential to be concerned about. Thus in this very parable Jesus was using law and gospel and seeking to save both the Pharisee and the open sinner.

Luke 15:11

11 Moreover, he said: A man had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the part of the property that is falling to me. And he divided the living between them.

See the introductory remarks in v. 3. “Moreover, he said” is inserted in order to separate the parables, and δέ means that Jesus added another that is somewhat different. This is the crown of all parables, an evangelium in evangelio, which has no equal in all literature. The sheep and the drachma are not human, the two sons are; more intense and dramatic is the father in his relation to his sons than are the man and the woman to the sheep and the coin. The first parable brings out the truth that sinners are brought to the kingdom; we now see how they enter. We first see the Lord and the church going out to seek and to save; we now scan the sinner more closely and see the change that is wrought in him as he is saved. Doctrinally this parable presents conversion and justification, and does this in a form that has deep appeal.

The emotions depicted in the parable are deep and strong. So brief the parable, but so stirring in every part.

“A man had two sons.” This simplicity is the soul of beauty. The heavenly Father has always been recognized in this picture of the earthly father. The parable is both historical and universal in one. The older son is a picture of work-righteous Pharisees, the younger of the publicans and the open sinners, v. 1, 2. Yet the younger typifies the sinner who turns from God and runs into open worldliness whereas the older son is the type of the self-righteous sinner who is outwardly in the church, inwardly without faith. Both are lost, both must return. One did; did the other? Although it is called the parable of the Prodigal Son, this is really the parable of the Two Lost Sons.

Luke 15:12

12 The parable as such permits only the younger son to ask for his share of the estate and to leave because the older son was expected to keep the home place and to carry on. Jesus builds his parable on this ancient custom. So the younger son prepares to leave home—what a warning to youth! Inexperience, dislike of restraint, self-will, glamor of independence, all come to mind here. Why do some of the commentators say that there was nothing wrong in this younger son’s demand for his portion of the inheritance? The germ of all that followed in his deplorable career was in and behind his demand. His heart was no longer with his father. “Father,” he says in making his demand; what a different tone and meaning in the same word in v. 21! “Father,” he said only to be rid of his father, his father’s care, guidance, and control.

In Jewish law the oldest son received two-thirds of the inheritance, the rest was divided among the other children, the third would here go to this one younger son (Deut. 21:17). In the parable the father accedes to the younger son’s demand, διεῖλε (second aorist from διαιρέω), he made the division and gave to both their part. Only the fact is stated: this father did so. It is necessary for the parable, that is all. We are not to think that younger sons had a right to do this, older ones either; no children have a right to divide the parental inheritance until after the parent’s death. But God divides as is here stated, and so the parable is made to illustrate this reality. God gives without demur, even to the sinner, life, health, faculties of mind and body, earthly wealth, a thousand advantages, and among all these blessings ever some that remind the sinner strongly of the heavenly Father and of the Father’s house—“not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” Rom. 2:4; Acts 14:17.

Luke 15:13

13 And after not many days, having gathered everything together, the younger son left home for a far country and there squandered his property by living prodigally.

The slight delay is a fine touch; after the inward separation there comes the outward; but only in his case and not in his brother’s. This son turns his back upon his father, ἀπεδήμησεν (absent from his δῆμος), he left home to go elsewhere, away, far away from his people. Thus the sinner quits his Father’s house, the church, the communion of saints. Ask sadhearted parents and pastors for the details. What can the “far country” be but the world with all that the word conveys in Scripture as in 1 John 2:15–17? How its glitter, its pleasure, its promise of great things attract! So the flame ever attracts the moth—only to scorch and to kill it.

Jesus’ statement is brief regarding how this son fared. He now squandered all that he had gathered together at home, scattered it as chaff is made to fly in the wind. Two words suffice to say how he did it: ζῶνἀσώτως, “living prodigally” (the adverb is derived from σῶζω: “unsaving,” active; or “unsaved,” passive). We need no salacious descriptions of the stage and of writers of fiction to expand the picture; they only gild the corruptions to tempt the unwary. The older brother said, “Who devoured thy living with harlots.” The parable describes the limit so as to include also all that is less of this type of life.

Luke 15:14

14 More must be added. But he having spent all, there came a strong famine throughout that land, and he began to be in want. And having gone, he attached himself to one of the citizens of that country; and he sent him into his fields to pasture swine. And he began to desire to be filled from the carob pods which the swine were eating, and no one would give to him.

This is a parable which pictures the sinner after he has squandered God’s gifts, “he having spent all.” Temporal gifts vanish at last. The satisfaction found in the creature without the Creator and the Savior comes to an end. Let us remember that this type of want often comes in the midst of many earthly possessions, namely when the vanity and the emptiness of it all fall like a blight upon the soul.

It is then that the famine sets in, one that that entire country cannot remove because it is so ἰσχυρός, “strong”; κατά with the accusative to express extent, R. 608. The prodigal began to be in want, not only because he had lost his portion, but also because he now had no inner support or stay, nothing spiritual to fall back on, no soul treasure, no comfort for the soul in affliction. When men reach this stage, the devil often reaps his harvest—they commit suicide. After money is gone, pleasures gone, friends gone, they conclude that all is gone and commit the fatal act.

Luke 15:15

15 Jesus might have introduced the prodigal’s return at this point. Thank God, some do return more quickly than others. But many go a step farther, and the parable is to include all of them. What hope is there in this far country? Instead of the plenty in his father’s house the prodigal has poverty; instead of the freedom in his father’s house he is now in servitude; in place of the honor of a son he now has degradation and shame. In his extremity the prodigal attaches himself to “one of the citizens of that country.” So there were “citizens” there, men who were completely adjusted to life apart from God. “With all his guilt the prodigal was not a citizen but a stranger in that far land.” Trench.

He is not wholly and permanently obdurate. There is a stage beyond which even grace cannot reach a man any more. It is a significant part of the picture which paints this citizen as an owner of “swine,” which were unclean according to the law and an abomination to the Jews.

To such a man the prodigal attached himself, ἐκολλήθη, “glued himself,” the passive being used in the sense of the middle, R. 817. The thought is that the citizen did not want him, hence the labor to which he assigned him. This is the association that results from separation from God. Sin makes man a companion of swine in more ways than one. To herd and pasture swine (βόσκειν) is not merely degrading as we should regard it today, to the Jew it represented moral defilement and all the shame that this involved. It crushed pride and cut the conscience with one blow.

So the fancy gilding and deception were gone, the galling disgrace, the deadly heartache alone were left. Still a mercy hides behind such bitter experience for the sinner. It is good once for all to end the deception even if the hour be late. It is good really to see and to feel the consequences of sin while repentance is yet possible, for these may bring the sinner to his knees.

Luke 15:16

16 Now the final drop in the bitter cup—not only feeding swine but feeding himself with swine’s food—and lacking even that, the human being thus having sunk to the level of the beast. To this the devil would bring every man whom God intended to be in the divine image. The parable had to take in this utter extreme as already stated. The κεράτια, “little horns,” are the little, sickle-like pods of the carob tree, the Bockshornbaum, goat’s-horn tree, also called Johannes-brodbaum, which is still common in Palestine and around the Mediterranean. The gelatinous substance in the pods has a sweetish taste. Used as feed for hogs, these pods contain also small, shiny seed kernels.

The pods were eaten by the poor but not as regular food. They here symbolize the empty, unsatisfying food that is offered to the starving souls of men by the world. What are its shows and shams, its carousals and “good times,” its religious lies and fads, its science falsely so-called, but such pods for swine, unfit for the soul?

The imperfect ἐπεθύμει, “he began to desire to be filled” from this hogfeed implied that his desire was not fulfilled, for “no one would give to him,” another imperfect to express constant denial. Some texts read γεμίσαιτὴνκοιλίαναὐτοῦ, “to pack his belly full,” but χορτασθῆναι from χόρτος, “fodder,” is coarse enough. If you have never reached such degradation, thank God’s mercy. The parable goes that far in order to hold out the hope of help to men who are even as low as that.

Luke 15:17

17 But having come to himself, he said: How many hired men of my father are abounding in bread while I myself am perishing here with hunger! Having arisen, I will go to my father and will say to him: Father, I did sin against the heaven and in thy sight. No longer am I worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of thy hired men.

The heart of the parable is stated in this sentence: “He came to himself.” He was converted in that instant. “He came to himself” implies that heretofore, in his whole course of sin, he was beside himself, not in his right mind, suffering from a species of insanity. And it is true, neither sense nor reason exists in sin but the very contrary. It was an insane thing for the prodigal thus to leave his father, thus to plunge into riotous living, to go on till he ended amid the swine and envied them their food.

Conversion means to become rational, right-minded, properly balanced again. It is a sound, rational act to turn from sin, its curse and doom, to God, pardon, and salvation. The real turn occurs in the depth of the soul. It comes, not without preparation, yet in an instant as is shown here in the prodigal. Much about it is mysterious, for it is like a spark of new life that has come into a dead heart, a sudden pulsebeat of vitality where all was lifeless and still before. God alone knows just how this is produced. The further description in the parable reveals the means he uses, namely law and gospel.

“How many hired men of my father are abounding in bread while I myself am perishing here with hunger!” Thus God enlightens the sinner; he begins to see things as they actually are. This is confession to himself: “I (emphatic in contrast with the hired men) am perishing with hunger.” To his own self he admits his folly and the results of that folly. And he thinks back of his father’s house with its many hired men and of the happy state of even these hired men, who are so different from himself, who is hired out to one of these citizens. The law and the gospel thus begin to work in the sinner’s heart.

Luke 15:18

18 The limitations of the parable necessitate drawing apart into a kind of progress what is one in the sinner’s heart. Jesus separates the elements as he sets them before us pictorially; yet in reality they all go together, there is especially no interval of time between conversion and justification. So we are shown the contrition in full: “Father, I did sin!” the second aorist acknowledging the whole of the terrible fact as such (the English would use the perfect “I have sinned”). Even in the resolve to go and to make this confession to his father no excuse, no extenuation are offered, nothing but the full, straight admission of guilt. Although contrition is an inward thing of the heart, its presence is always manifested by an open and sincere confession; when this is absent, we cannot be sure that contrition is present. “Against heaven” states the real essence and guilt of sin, for “heaven” includes God and all that is perfectly holy. “And in thy sight” or “before thee” implies more than that the father, as it were, saw this his son’s sins; it involves that the father must adjudge his son guilty because this is his son who has sinned thus. Ps. 51:4.

Luke 15:19

19 To this full and open confession there is added the humblest kind of plea for pardon. They are laid out side by side here, but they are found together in the heart: no right contrition without faith, no faith except with contrition. Some would add the words: “No longer am I worthy to be called thy son” to the confession, but in the parable they are to be construed with the plea: “make me as one of thy hired men,” and help to characterize this plea in all its humbleness.

This humility gives up every claim of its own righteousness, every hope of being received because of anything good in self, even the past rights of sonship. This humbleness is vital to all true faith and remains in it to the very end, even after the sinner has been pardoned. But the sinner goes to the Father, still calls him “Father,” dares to ask him at least to take him back to the lowest place in his house. That is trust or faith which is inspired by what he knows of his Father, that knowledge being derived from the gospel. Wonderful is this trust, the heart’s confidence that the Father will not turn away because of the great sin. No sinner could achieve such confidence of himself, it is ever kindled only by the true knowledge of his Father, i. e., by the gracious God himself.

Luke 15:20

20 The inner change was genuine, the resolve was carried out. And having arisen, he went to his own father. But he being still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion and, having run, fell upon his neck and covered him with kisses.

In the reality of conversion to resolve to arise and to go to the Father is the same as actually doing it. The change called conversion is inward and instantaneous. The parable spreads this out because parables picture the realities. When we interpret them we should never modify the reality for the sake of the imagery but use the reality for the right understanding of the imagery. It is wrong, then, to say that between the resolve to go and the actual going there lay many hard battles, and that many never get through battling. This parable has no battles and justifies no man in preaching to sinners to produce and to prolong such battles and in keeping the sinners in prolonged agony until they finally get through battling.

This method is a grave, dangerous perversion of the parable and also of the entire gospel. It belongs to the sad pathology of preaching and not to its normal and healthy functioning.

This is normal: the sinner makes an open confession and asks God’s grace and pardon. An example is the malefactor: the change wrought in his heart brought to his lips the admission of his sins and his humble plea to Jesus to be remembered, and then Jesus uttered his wonderful absolution. So sinners still express their contrition and their faith and receive absolution, the sentence of pardon and justification in and through the Word.

Jesus pictures the grace of God in a wonderful manner, as being ever ready to pardon the repentant sinner. As if he were constantly watching the road, the father sees the son while he is yet in the distance—“saw him” is put forward for the sake of emphasis. The first glance fills his father’s heart with compassion—ἐσπλαγχνίσθη is explained in 7:23; this compassion and this alone is the sinner’s hope. This it is that lends wings to the father’s feet; he runs, falls upon his son’s neck, covers his face with kisses—κατεφίλησεν, kuesste ihn ab. The entire action displays the fact that the prodigal is already pardoned before he utters a single word of confession even as the omniscient and ever-present God pardons the sinner the moment he believes.

Jesus pictures the pardoning grace of God in such strong colors because this is highly necessary. The oppressed conscience must not doubt in the least that God really intends to pardon. This picture of the heavenly Father intends to win, to draw, to call mightily to every sinner’s heart. Nothing in God could make us hesitate, only our own blindness and perversions which do injustice to God would cause us to act in that manner. The mediatorial work of Christ and his atoning sacrifice are not introduced in this parable. Only part of the story is told. No deduction is warranted that God ever pardons sinners without Christ.

Luke 15:21

21 And the son said to him, Father, I did sin against the heaven and in thy sight; no longer am I worthy to be called thy son—.

Yes, Jesus lets the sinner make his oral confession even though the pardon is assured in advance. Men may require an investigation, God never does so. But note well that the father interrupts his son’s words before he can complete them. This is one of the tenderest touches in the parable. The son is spared his humiliating petition.

Luke 15:22

22 The father, however, said to his slaves: Quick, bring out a festal robe, the best, and put it on him and give him a ring for his hand and sandals for his feet; and be bringing the calf, the fattened one, slaughter it, and, eating, let us make merry because this my son was dead and came back to life; he was one that has been lost and was found. And they began to make merry.

This is the sinner’s absolution, pardon, justification, adoption (reception to sonship), all rolled into one. Compare the similar act in Zech. 3:3–5. We need not ask who the “hired men” and the “slaves” are in the reality pictured; they are needed only for the human side of the parable. The στολή, Talar, is a long robe that was worn by the nobles on state occasions. The adjective that is added with the article after the noun is like an apposition; compare the case of the calf, R. 776. “The first” means the finest, the one that ranks first. Thus the sinner “puts on Christ,” Gal. 3:27. “He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels,” Isa. 61:10. This is the “wedding garment,” Matt. 22:11, which signifies the imputation to the sinner of the merits and the righteousness of Christ.

The ring is another mark of sonship. The same truth in another form is presented in Hosea 2:19, 20: “I will betroth thee unto me forever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness; and thou shalt know the Lord.” Slaves went barefoot, not so a son. In God’s pardoning reception of the sinner he gives him shoes to honor him as a son and heir but also in the confidence that he will henceforth walk worthily as a son.

Luke 15:23

23 The fatted calf contains no reference to Christ’s sacrifice for us or to the Eucharist. This is the counterpart to the endings of the two halves of the previous parable, v. 7 and 10; the passive εὐφρανθῶμεν is used as a middle: “let us be merry,” the subjunctive being hortative. “Thou preparest a table before me,” Ps. 23:5. This feast and its rejoicing are the absolute opposite of the prodigal’s sitting in rags among swine, longing for and failing to get even swine’s food. Can any earthly contrast be greater? This rich table in the father’s house is the preliminary of the heavenly feast (13:28, 29). In this verse there are pictured all the spiritual gifts, food, joys, and blessings that are found on the table of God’s abounding grace.

Luke 15:24

24 Ὅτι states the great reason for all these jubilant orders: “Because this my son—mark the significant word!—was dead and came back to life.” God’s own joy at the conversion of the sinner is expressed here. “You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins,” Eph. 2:1; 1 John 3:14. The life away from God is spiritual death; conversion is the gaining of the true life, faith is that life. John 11:26.

So great is this reason for the joy in God that it is restated and thus emphasized: “He was one that has been lost” and, as the perfect participle states, was in that terrible condition for a long time. “Lost” refers to God: lost to him. “As sheep going astray,” 1 Pet. 2:25; “all we like sheep have gone astray. Isa. 53:6. This parable here links into the preceding one. “And was found” with its aorist states the fact, and that is enough. “Found” by God is every converted sinner; lost to Satan. What a world of blessedness in these two simple words: “came to life”—“was found”! “And they began to make merry”—with that the scene ends.

Here, as in the other parable, Jesus puts the silent question to the Pharisees and the scribes (v. 1, 2) as to how their murmuring agrees with this rejoicing of God. He at the same time here asks the publicans and the open sinners whether God shall rejoice also over them.

Luke 15:25

25 Now his brother, the older one, was in a field. And as, coming, he drew near to the house he heard music and dances; and having called one of the lads, he began to inquire what these things might be. And he said to him, Thy brother has come; and thy father slaughtered the calf, the fattened one, because he received him back safe and sound. But he became angry and would not go in.

Another son is lost. His story is entirely different from that of his brother since he is lost in his own father’s house. How is that possible? Because of self-righteousness. He is busy in a field with his work—the self-righteous are great workers. As he approaches the house he hears music and dances—συμφονία (our “symphony”) in the sense of several players making their instruments sound together in harmony, an orchestra, a concert; χορός is the choral dance with gestures, clapping of hands, perhaps also steps and is done by chosen performers as a spectacle for the audience. The celebration was grand, indeed.

Luke 15:26

26 We shall excuse this brother for not going right in, seeing that he came from a field and needed to wash and to dress, also that he called one of the lads and began to inquire what was going on, for all must have seemed very unusual to him. The word παῖς is like Bursche, “boy,” in the sense of servant. The imperfect ἐπυνθάνετο is inchoative: “he began to inquire.” The optative with ἄν in the indirect question is left unchanged from the direct, and ἄν indicates perplexity (R. 940), and R. 938 adds even a deliberative element; the indeclinable τί is often used as a predicate with a plural subject which is here ταῦτα.

Luke 15:27

27 The lad is happy to tell the good news and to state the reason the celebration was great enough to include slaughtering the fatted calf. We note “thy brother” and “thy father” as if the lad meant that all that is yet needed is for this older brother to step into the house. In ἥκει we have a present form used in the perfect sense: “has come” and so “is here,” R. 881. In his own homely way the lad states the reason the father ordered the celebration: “because he received him back safe and sound,” ὑγιαίνοντα, present participle: “being healthy.” The lad is discreet. It does not behoove him to repeat the father’s words (v. 24), so he states what is obvious. This, too, is a masterly touch in the painting.

Luke 15:28

28 This brother at once “became angry” (ingressive aorist) even before the lad and “was not willing to go in,” the imperfect to indicate continued unwillingness. All urging by the lad and by others was in vain. This is the exact picture of the Pharisees and the scribes (v. 2). What is veiled in v. 7 and 10 is now fully revealed. Celebrate the return of this prodigal—not for one moment!

But now behold a new mercy which is fully as great as the one we have already seen. The Father comes to seek the lost just as the Son, our Savior, does. Moreover, his father, having come out, began to beseech him. But he answering said (1:19) to his father: Lo, for so many years I am slaving for thee and never yet transgressed thy bidding; and never yet didst thou give me a kid in order that I might make merry with my friends. But when this thy son who devoured thy living with harlots came, thou didst slaughter for him the fatted calf!

Someone must have gone and told the father who hastens out and, as the imperfect conveys, “begins to beseech” this son. Whereas he deserved the severest calling-down the father meets him with gentle entreaty. What a picture, the Father begging the sinner to come in! “As though God did beseech you,” 2 Cor. 5:20.

Luke 15:29

29 But now all the blindness, perversity, and hardness of this selfish and self-righteous brother boil to the surface. As in the case of the younger son we saw a secret alienation of the heart that did not come out at once, so we do also in the case of this older one, but his is an alienation that is of far longer standing. The occasion has come for him to reveal himself as he really is. He does not once say “father” or “my brother” in his outburst, but Jesus significantly says that he answered and said “to his father”—yes, to his, own father he spoke thus.

Hear the proud boast of self-righteousness; In this parable Jesus lets it speak out its real thoughts concerning itself: slaving for the father these many years—never transgressing his bidding during all this time! But see the spirit of this slaving which makes a boast to throw up to the father, to show him how he has never appreciated this wonderful son of his. Paul writes, “Not having mine own righteousness,” Phil. 3:9. Never once transgressing—that is this son’s substitute for his confession of sin; “all these have I kept from my youth up,” 18:21. Yet in this very boast the greatest of God’s commandments is transgressed, that of love. This son knew nothing of such a commandment.

From boast of self he turns to blame of his father. For all of his slaving and perfect obedience—what did the father give him? Not even a kid (some texts: a little kid) to have a celebration with his friends. That is the kind of father this son has, one who is ungrateful to his son.

Luke 15:30

30 Worse than that, he is shamelessly partial and unjust: for this other son he killed the fatted calf which had been especially fattened for some great celebration. All the contrasts are intended to be vicious cuts. He the paragon of sons—this thy son, the wretch who devoured thy living with harlots; I with my good friends—he with a lot of whores; “thy son”—he will not own him as a brother; “thy living”—as if the father had made no partition; he devoured—I wanted to make merry. Could any son have a worse brother and a worse father? The picture is extreme as is that which Jesus paints of the younger son. Both types of sinners may not go so far, but any sinner of either type who goes in the two directions indicated to any degree must be classed with these.

Luke 15:31

31 But he said to him: Child, thou art ever with me, and all mine is thine. Moreover, to make merry and to rejoice was necessary because this thy brother was dead and became alive, and one that has been lost and was found.

Might the father not have turned upon this son in just anger, denounced his wicked words and heart, and used his right of revoking his inheritance? He does the opposite, but with firm and telling words. “Child,” he addressed this son who was acting the opposite of a child. The deeper the tenderness, the more glaring the contrast to the omission since this son never once said, “father.” Thus the power of love reaches out to expel all lovelessness. “Thou art ever with me,” yea “with me”—what “friends” couldst thou have that would require thee to turn from me to make merry with them? He contrasted his friends with his brother’s former harlot friends but failed to see that any friends that might take him from his father were really like his brother’s friends. Who was his best friend but his father? Here is the proof: “All mine is thine”—kid, calf, all the house and the fields; for had it not been divided to him?

More than all, the father and all his love were his into the bargain! So Jesus is here entreating the Pharisees to forsake their self-righteousness. To have the Father in Jesus through whom the Father speaks is to have a very heaven of love, grace, mercy, and goodness. To have all that is his as our own through the adoption of sons is more than all the world.

Luke 15:32

32 Δέ, “moreover,” adds another consideration, that of a moral necessity, the imperfect ἔδει reaches from the past to the present joy, it necessitates joy. To joy no joy would be monstrous, for it means that spiritual death has been turned into everlasting life, that the soul, which was once in the condition of being lost (perfect participle of past condition reaching forward) to God, is now found by God and by grace. Will this older son refuse to rejoice? Will these Pharisees and these scribes go on murmuring? Do they now see what that means?

The parable ends abruptly, and purposely so. All who heard and who now hear and read that ending automatically ask themselves: “What did that brother do in answer to his father’s appeal?” But that is the very question you must ask yourself if there is the least self-righteousness in you. What do you answer?

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.