Luke 15

SOME : LOST SHEEP, LOST COIN, SONLuk_15:1-32 Luk 15:1 —Now all the publicans and sinners—It is thought that these parables were spoken the next day after the dinner with the “ ruler of the Pharisees.” (Luke 14:1.) This was probably in Perea near one of the fords of the Jordan and not far from Jericho, where publicans were numerous on account of trade centers. “ Publicans” were tax gatherers; there were two classes of “ publicans”— the first were Roman knights, who usually lived in Rome; the second class were subordinate collectors, each of whom was required to pay a certain sum to his superior with the privilege of raising as much more as he pleased for his own profit. Publicans were very odious in the sight of many Jews. They are usually classed with “ sinners,” who were depraved characters or open transgressors of the law of Moses. The publicans were infamous among the Jews by their occupation and sinners were notorious offenders against the tradition of the law. They had a noble purpose in coming to Jesus; they came “ to hear him.” They did not come through curiosity, but keenly felt a need of his blessings and had a strong desire to be instructed by him. There is a wide contrast between the purpose of their coming to Jesus and that of the Pharisees and scribes. Luke 15:2 —And both the Pharisees and the scribes murmured,—The Pharisees were a religious party or sect which originated about a hundred and fifty years before Christ; their name means “ separatists”; they separated themselves from traditional impurity. To become a Pharisee one had to agree to set apart all the sacred tithes and refrain from eating anything that had not been tithed; they believed in the resurrection of the dead. “ Scribes” were learned men who preserved, copied, and expounded the law and the traditions. (Ezra 7:12; Nehemiah 8:1; Matthew 15:1-6.) They were called lawyers and doctors, or teachers of the law. (Matthew 22:35; Luke 5:17-21.) Both classes “ murmured” ; the original means that they were mur¬muring among themselves against him; the form of the verb in the original is intensive, implying frequency, or in groups among themselves, with mingled indignation. Their murmur¬ing was because Jesus received and ate with sinners. He received them into his presence, instruction, and favor; he went into their houses and ate with them. The Pharisees separated themselves from such classes and would not even eat with them. Luke 15:3-7 —And he spake unto them this parable,—This parable is also recorded by Matthew (Matthew 18:12-13) ; there are some points of difference in the two records. The parable is addressed to these murmuring scribes and Pharisees and in the presence of publicans and sinners. This parable and the one following it are introduced by questions. “ What man of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?” The interrogative form served to fix attention at once; Jesus appealed directly to that human feel¬ing which leads a man to seek that which is lost, and rejoice when he has found it. This flock consisted of one hundred sheep in round numbers; a flock of this number would show that the man was in very good circumstances. If one of them is lost, the others are left while search is made for the lost one. Very likely there were present some who had had such experience as Jesus here related.

The people were familiar with such incidents in the life of shepherds. (Ezekiel 34:12.) The seeking after the lost sheep shows the eager desire to find it; it does not show that he thinks more of the one sheep than he did of the ninety-nine. The ninety-nine were left and the concern about them was suspended until the lost one was found. The ninety-nine are left “ in the wilderness,” or the rural section of pasture land. The search continues until the lost is found, and then he “ layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.” The shepherds of the east often carried on their backs the lost sheep of the flock; this could be done with less trou¬ble than driving the sheep. When the shepherd returned home with the lost sheep, he and his friends and neighbors gathered in and rejoiced together. say unto you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven— Here Jesus draws his own conclusion and makes the applica¬tion of the parable. There is rejoicing “ in heaven over one sinner that repenteth”; the word “ sinner” here points to verse 1; these sinners were repenting; the lost sheep were being brought to the fold; the joy in heaven is in contrast with the grumbling Pharisees and scribes. There is more rejoicing over that which has been found than over “ ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance.” Jesus does not mean to say that the Pharisees and scribes did not need to repent ; he, for the sake of argument, accepts their claims about themselves and by their own words condemns them for their criticisms of his efforts to save the lost sheep. This is the same point that he made against them when they criticized him and his disciples for being at the feast of Levi. (Luke 5:31 ff.) They posed as “ righteous”; they were not, but on their own claim, Jesus condemns them for murmuring against him in receiving and eating with sinners. Luke 15:8-10 —Or what woman having ten pieces of silver,—This parable is recorded only by Luke; it is introduced by a question, and has the same general meaning as the parable of the lost sheep. This parable advances the thought; the coin was lost and the place where it lay was concealed from the eye. The original word for “ pieces of silver” was “ drachma” and had a value of about sixteen or eighteen cents in our money. The name “ drachma” is a term used in weighing medicines, but here it is applied to the value of the coin. The former parable represented a scene in the country and had to do with sheep; this was especially interesting to men. This parable is a scene in a house; the woman in the house usually kept the small treasury; hence this parable would be interesting to the women who were present.

A woman had lost one of her ten pieces of silver. She lighted her candle, used her broom, and searched diligently until she found the coin. She then re¬joiced and called her friends and neighbors to rejoice with her. Even so, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels—In the former parable there was rejoicing “ in heaven,” but in this there is “ joy in the presence of the an¬gels” ; however, the context shows that the two parables have the same meaning. The first parable is founded upon the affection, manifested by a shepherd toward a lost sheep; the second parable relates to a poor woman who had lost a piece of money, which she could not afford to spare from her scanty treasury. The joy in the presence of the angels is the same as the joy that shall be in heaven. Emphasis is put again upon the “ sinner that repenteth.” This does not mean that God finds more satisfaction in a repentant sinner than in a sinless saint; Jesus was here referring definitely to the penitent publi¬cans and to the self-righteous Pharisees. God did not take de¬light in the sins of the publicans, nor did he regard the state of the Pharisees and scribes as perfect, even taking the Phari¬sees at their best. Luke 15:11-12 —And he said, A certain man had two sons:—This parable is recorded only by Luke. It is said to be the most beautiful of all the parables; it is full of human sympathy and love. Some have objected to calling this a parable; however, it seems that no violence is done in classing it as a parable. By common consent it has been called the “ Parable of the Prodigal Son,” yet the word “ prodigal” is not used in the narrative. The parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin help to introduce this parable. The three parables were spoken in the pres¬ence of “ publicans and sinners” and the “ Pharisees and the scribes” ; the first class had come to Jesus “ to hear him” teach, but the last class had come to spy, criticize, and accuse him.

It is well to keep these two classes in mind as we study the parable. This may be called the “ parable of the lost son” as the other two and called the “ lost sheep” and “ lost coin.” and the younger of them said to his father,— The father had two sons. In the first parable the lost sheep strayed of itself, but a piece of money could not be lost of itself; in the one the attention is fastened upon the condition of the thing lost, while in the second case attention is fastened upon her sor¬row of the one who lost it; but in the parable of the prodigal son there is blame to be attached to the one that is lost. There were two sons, and, according to Jewish law of inheri-tance, the older son would receive two portions; the younger son would receive only one-third of the inheritance. According to the custom, the father might, during his lifetime, dispose of all his property by a gift as he may wish. Luke 15:13—And not many days after, the younger son—The father graciously gave the son his share, and soon this son, after gathering all his possions together, “ took his journey into a far Country.” The father may have divided the estate in such a manner that the younger son could take his property away with him if he desired; or the son may have made such dispo¬sition of it as to convert it into money and other valuables. He “ took his journey,” which shows that he resolved and acted deliberately; he not only went from home, but he went “ into a far country.” He not only wanted to be out of sight, but beyond the influence and control of his father; he was as far away in character as he was in geographical situation. He had taken all of his possessions out of his father’ s hands, and now he is placing himself beyond the reach of his father. We are not told into what country he went. and there he wasted his substance with riotous living.—He “ wasted.” That is, dissipated, squandered; this was the very opposite of “ gathered together.” It means more exactly that he scattered his property like winnowing grain. (Matthew 25:24.) We know how he “ wasted his substance”; it was done “ with riotous living.” This means that he lived dissolutely or profligately; he was a spendthrift, a profligate, a prodigal. He plunged recklessly into extravagance, dissipation, and disso¬lute living. (Proverbs 28:19; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 4:17-19.) This is a very dark picture and shows the depravity to which he had fallen; he was not so much a disturber of the peace, but had wasted his substance in “ riotous living,” and probably as the elder brother accused him later, he had “ devoured” his substance by “ living with harlots.” And when he had spent all,—He soon spent all that he had; one spends recklessly when one lives a dissipated life; he had no income, and all that he spent diminished his capital; he did not use good judgment even in spending what he had. There is an end to be reached and this son soon reached that end. After spending all in his riotous living, “ a mighty famine” arose in that country. Famines were terrible scourges in the east; they were caused by lack of rain in season, wars, and pestilences. In ancient times there were no means of reliev¬ing the wants of a country by the products of another. They did not have railroads, trucks, or other means of transporting products from one country to another, as we now have; the ships could go only along the water courses and caravans would convey the products to the interior; but this was done only on special occasions.

People had to suffer. This son “ began to be in want.” Luke 15:15-16 —-And he went and joined himself to one of the citizens—He moved now from his haunts of vice and dissipation and put himself in the service of some man of that country. He “ joined himself” to “ one of the citizens of that country.” The verb here means to “ glue or cement” ; this implies that he forced himself upon the citizen, who was unwilling to engage him and who took him into service only upon persistent entreaty. This unhappy and miserable young man is now a useless appendage to a stranger who did not care for him. He was sent “ into his fields to feed swine.” Presumably this young man was a Jew; swine were unclean animals with the Jews; this once proud and wealthy Jewish son is now the feeder of unclean animals; it is worse than that, for he associates with the swine and “ would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat.” He had wanted the wrong thing all along, and it was no better now; all he wanted before was to fill his belly, and he now must fill it with that which gives him no satisfaction. “ Husks” generally signifies a covering of grain, a dry and useless substance, which is hardly fit for food for any animal. This means that his food was so scanty that even the pods which the swine were eating were the object of his craving appetite; but these were denied him probably by the overseer. Luke 15:17—But when he came to himself—He had been deaf to all reason; his state was a form of reckless living, devoid of all good reason; he had lost sight of all that was good, reasona¬ble, and just; he had lost sight of his better nature and the virtues of righteous living. His eyes were blind to all that was good, his ears were deaf to wise counsel, and his appreciation of the better things of life was lost. Some describe his state as being a state of insanity. The time came when he “ came to himself”; he comes back to his better self; he re¬gains his good judgment and opens his eyes and unstops his ears and heightens his appreciation of the better things of life; the spell of his youthful infatuation is broken and he begins to take a sensible view of his own situation. When he thus came to himself he remembered that even the servants in his father’ s house had sufficient bread to eat and to spare, while he was perishing with hunger. For the first time in his life he now sees the folly of calling for his portion of the estate, going into a far country, and spending his estate in riotous living.

While the servants in his father’ s house had plenty, he, a born son, was starving; he had no one to blame but him¬self. His mind was soon made up. Luke 15:18-19 —I will arise and go to my father,—When he came to himself and made up his mind, he resolved to play the fool no longer. There was no delay in making up his mind as to what he would do; if he stayed longer, he would be too weak to make the journey, as he was perishing at that time. He had deserted his father, but now he is resolved to return to him. He framed what he would say to his father: “ I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight.” He will make no apology for his sin, but frankly and fully confess his sins; he would blame no one for his sin. No apology, no attempt to deceive, nothing but a frank confession of sins repented of would he say to his father. Sincere and humble confession is connected with repentance. (2 Samuel 12:13; Proverbs 28:13; Hosea 14:2; 1 John 1:9-10.) I am no more worthy to be called thy son:—This expressed a true state of mind; he had not shown the love and respect of a child to his father; he had reasonably forfeited all claim to support as a son; he had been an ungrateful sinner, who had remained among strangers until poverty and hunger had forced him to change his course. He was willing to be taken and treated as one of the hired servants. This shows how deeply penitent he was. Though a son, he would not claim that relationship; he would gladly act and be treated as any one of the hired servants. He will gladly take whatever may be offered him. Luke 15:20 —And he arose, and came to his father.—“ He arose”; that is, immediately put his resolution into action. He “ came”; that is, he went directly to his father. We know not how long it took him to go from this “ far country” to his father’ s home. “ His father” in the original means ‘ his own father.” The picture is emphatic; he left the herd of swine and his association with it and came to his father— what a change in environment ! Though forced by circumstances, yet it was an exercise of his own will power in putting into execution his good resolution; his decision and his execution of it were vol¬untary acts of this son. But while he was yet afar off,—The father seems to have been waiting and expecting his son; though he was at a distance in space, yet his son and the father were together in thought and spirit. We do not know whether the worn and dimmed eyes of his venerable father had been watching for the return, but we do know that at some eminent place his father caught sight of his prodigal son and “ was moved with compassion” to receive his wayward son back into his home. His eagerness is shown in the fact that he “ ran” to greet him. There is an eastern proverb which says: “ Whoever draws near to me (God) an inch, I will draw near to him an ell; and whoso walks to meet me, I will leap to meet him.” This expresses the eagerness with which the father ran to meet his son and the glow of affection with which he greeted him. The father “ fell on his neck, and kissed him.” Old man as his father was, yet he ran and fell on the neck of his son and kissed him. “ Fell on his neck” refers to the act of embrace with which he greeted his son. (Genesis 45:14.) Luke 15:21 —And the son said unto him, Father,—The son as quickly as he could free himself from the affectionate embrace of the father began to recite his oft-repeated confession that he had framed in his resolution to return to the father and had re¬peated over and over as he wearily wended his way back home. His confession was full and open as was the outburst of paternal love at the greeting. The son began his confes¬sion, and with trembling tones and many sad sobs had re¬peated the first part of his confession. He had sinned in the sight of God against his father and against heaven. Every sin is in some sense against God; it may be also against self or others, but always against God. It may be that this was the first awakening of filial love on the part of this prodigal son.

Some ancient authorities add here: “ Make me as one of thy hired servants.” However, it is omitted from the manuscript from which the Revised Version was made. This phrase was in the resolution that he formed (verse 19), but it seems that he did not get to recite it to his father. Luke 15:22-24 —But the father said to his servants,—“ Bondservants” is used here in the original, and there is a fine touch in bring¬ing in the “ bondservants” immediately after “ my son.” He commanded the servants to “ bring forth quickly the best robe” and put it upon his son. There was to be no delay; the “ best robe,” the first and most honorable one, was to be placed upon his son. This was a long flowing robe, a festive garment. (Mark 16:5; Luke 20:46.) The father commanded that “ a ring” be put upon his hand, “ and shoes on his feet.” The “ ring” was a symbol of restored sonship. Pharaoh placed a ring upon Joseph’ s hand to honor him. (Genesis 41:42.) A “ gold ring” on the hand was a distinguished honor. (James 2:2.) Sandals were placed upon his feet. These were to take the place of the ragged garments with which his son was now clad. The son was a changed son and deeply penitent and affectionate, and the honorable dress in which he is now to be clad signifies the changed and forgiven son.

The fatted calf was to be killed. This was the custom; an animal was kept for guests, and a refusal to kill the animal was an insult to the guest. The law of hospitality required the killing of the fatted calf. for this my son was dead,—To the father he was dead, but now is very much alive. Here is an open and explicit ac-knowledgement of “ this my son” ; he was dead to the father, dead to all that was good and righteous, but now is alive in warm affection to the father, and alive to all that is good. He “ was lost” in all that pertains to virtue and happiness; he is now found at home and restored to an honorable station. No wonder the joy of the father was expressed in a feast. “ They began to be merry.” This merrymaking took place at the close of the feast; in this joyful celebration the son himself doubtless took a prominent part, and in this there was a great advance on the preceding parables, the lost sheep and piece of money being insensible of joy which their recovery had in¬spired. Luke 15:25 —Now his elder son was in the field:—We now come to another scene in this most interesting and fruitful study of the parable of the prodigal son. There are several well-arranged scenes that complete the picture— the first scene is in the home with the younger son asking for his portion of the in¬heritance ; the second scene is the prodigal son in a far country living riotously; the third, the prodigal son reduced to poverty, feeding swine, and friendless, and homeless, coming to himself and resolving to return home; the fourth, the meet¬ing and greeting of the father and son, the making merry and rejoicing together; the last scene, the elder brother coming to the house, discovering what was doing on, rebuking the father, and his cool treatment of his brother. Many conflict¬ing interpretations have been given about the elder brother’ s part in the scene. Some have regarded him as a type of the angels in heaven; others have said that he represents the Jew¬ish nation; still others make him represent the proud Phari¬sees. The music which the elder son heard was of that kind which he knew to be accompanied with a dance; hence both music and dancing are joined to the verb “ heard.” At wed¬dings, birthdays, and all other festal gatherings music was their chief entertainment. Luke 15:26-27 —And he called to him one of the servants,—Instead of entering the house, as his position in the family would have justified, upon learning what was going on, he called a servant and inquired as to the particulars. His cool and calculating selfishness betrays itself in this little incident. There are three words in the Greek for servants in the parable; there are “ hired servants,” “ servants,” and “ footboys” or “ lackeys”; the elder brother called one of the “ lackeys.” These three classes of servants may indicate the wealth and high standing of this family. The servant reported: “ Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.” This should have been good news to the elder brother. This servant seems to have thought that the elder brother would receive the announcement with like emotions of the father; hence he says: “ Thy brother” and “ thy father” are rejoicing together, and that the father had “ killed the fatted calf.” No mention is made of the robe, ring, and shoes with which the younger son had been clothed; only “ the fatted calf” was mentioned, which was enough to indicate that great honor was bestowed upon the returned son. He was “ safe and sound,” which was an added reason for the merry¬making ; the returned son was in a healthful condition. Luke 15:28 —But he was angry,—The original means that he was not angry with a mere temporary fit of passion, but with a deep- seated wrath. “ But” puts the elder brother’ s attitude and dis-position in direct contrast with what the environments of the occasion would seem to indicate. He “ would not go in”; that is, he was unwilling to go in the house and celebrate with his father and brother; he refused in his anger to lend himself to the joy of the occasion. While the house was resounding with music and merrymaking, the elder brother stood sullenly out and nursed his anger. He showed not only a lack of brotherly love, but also of sympathy with the joy of his father at the return of the son. When he refused to go in, his father ‘ came out, and entreated him.” The father went forth to meet the prodigal son; now he goes out to entreat the elder son to lay aside his anger and enter the house; his happiness was not complete even on the return of the prodigal, while his other son stood without angry, displeased, and unhappy. The father leaves the company within, in the presence of his long- lost son, and condescends to go forth to plead with the elder brother and to urge him to enter the house. Luke 15:29-30 —But he answered and said to his father,—The elder son was “ in the field” and missed the affection at the scene of the meeting of the aged father and the now penitent son; in his deep anger he does not respect his venerable father when he came out and entreated him to enter the house, but in his reply he reflected upon his father. He said: “ Lo, these many years do I serve thee, and I never transgressed a command¬ment of thine.” This seems a boastful statement, for such an ugly disposition that he now showed would lead one to think that he was not so good and obedient as he claimed. He puts the “ many years” which he had served his father in contrast with “ when this thy son came” that moment the father began to make merry. The elder brother represents his own life in as favorable way as he can, and puts his younger brother’ s conduct in as unfavorable light as is possible; to him the contrast is very wide, and he has some ground to justify him in the contrast. According to his statement, he had not only served many years as a “ slave,” but he had “ never trans¬gressed a commandment” of his father, while his younger brother had “ devoured thy living with harlots.” Again, according to the elder brother, the father had never given him a kid that he, also a son, who had served him so long, might “ make merry with” his friends. But, so soon as the prodigal son returned, the father killed the fatted calf and now was making merry; to the elder brother this seemed to be unfair; it showed that the father did not appreciate the elder brother’ s service, and seemed to put a premium on the dissipation and prodigality of the younger son.

The elder brother thinks that he has made out a clear case of ungratefulness on the part of the father toward himself and convicted him of sanctioning the life that the younger son had lived. The elder brother speaks to his father of his brother as “ thy son,” not “ my brother”; he puts the emphasis upon the dissolute life that the younger son had lived.

In his own heart he thinks that he had been grossly neglected and abused. Again, the elder brother had accused the younger son of devouring “ thy living with harlots.”Luke 15:31 —And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me,—Note the calm and conciliatory address of the father; he speaks tenderly, which is a contrast between his manner and that of his elder son. The elder son did not begin his address by saying “ Father” ; but this did not prevent his father from addressing him affectionately as “ Son.” True, “ a soft answer turneth away wrath; but a grievous word stirreth up anger.” (Proverbs 15:1.) The father not only addressed his son in this affectionate way, but he reminded him of the fact that “ all that is mine is thine.” This was another conciliatory statement; the father is the mediator between the two. He had given the younger son the portion that belonged to him, and as he had only two sons, all that he now possessed belonged to the elder brother; the father did not propose to take the portion that belonged to the elder brother and give it to his younger son. The father was just and fair, tender and affectionate, merciful and forgiving. This was a beautiful example for this elder brother. Luke 15:32 —But it was meet to make merry and be glad:—The last words of the father are at once truthful, temperate, and tender ; they were calculated to destroy the force of the contemp¬tuous and sneering words uttered apparently by the elder son with the express purpose of wounding the feelings of the father. It was fitting to “ make merry and be glad,” said the father. This was a very tactful way of rebuking the elder son’ s attitude. The father gives the reason for the rejoicing. “ For this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” The father tactfully refers to the younger son as “ thy brother”; this was a gentle rebuke and reminder of the close relation of his two sons. It seems that the father has quoted from his son’ s language; the elder son had said: “ This thy son.” But the father says: “ This thy brother.” He was “ dead”; he was as one dead to the father and to the elder brother; vicious persons are represented as dead. (1 Timothy 5:6.) He was not only dead, but now “ is alive again” ; he is represented as being raised to a new life. He was lost to his father and to all that was good, lost to his elder brother, but now he is “ found.” The father said the one long dead to us now lives again; the one long lost to us is now found and restored to us. The parable seems to end abruptly. Verse 1 This, one of the most beloved chapters of the word of God, is an account of what was probably a single discourse of Jesus Christ, the whole theme of which was “The Lost.” First there was the lost sheep (Luke 15:1-7), then the lost coin (Luke 15:8-10), and finally the two lost sons. It was the Saviour who rescued the lost sheep, the church (under the figure of a woman) who sought the lost coin, and the Father who patiently awaited the return of the prodigal, reinstated him with honor, and then went out and entreated the older brother. Since the church is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19), the activity of the entire Godhead appears here as engaged in the redemption of the lost. There are four ways to become lost, and all of them are evident in this remarkable sermon. The sheep was lost by wandering away from the flock, the coin was lost through no fault of its own, but through the inability or carelessness of the woman. The prodigal was lost by overt and willful disobedience; and the elder brother was lost through pride, selfishness, and self-righteousness. Now all the publicans and sinners were drawing near unto him to hear him. And both the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, this man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. (Luke 15:1-2) “Jesus had already expounded the reasons for his moving “into the streets and lanes of the city” (Luke 14:21) to include the sinners and publicans as objects of the divine mercy; and, in this great chapter, the rationale behind his holy actions was revealed. Even a single sheep, or a single coin, was something of eternal value in the eyes of the Father. God loves every man. This man receiveth sinners … Unconsciously, his enemies spoke in these words the Master’s highest praise. Intended by them as a slander, the words have been treasured by the church of all ages as glorious and eternal truth. Set to music, and sung in ten thousand congregations of worshipers, these words have blessed millions. Sinners Jesus will receive; Sound this word of grace to all Who the heavenly pathway leave, All who linger, all who fall. Sing it o’er and o’er again: Christ receiveth sinful men; Make the message clear and plain: Christ receiveth sinful men![1]And eateth with them … See under Luke 9:19 for an extended list of the slanders against Jesus. The attitude of those self-righteous leaders of the people who held themselves to be so far above the common class of sinners was in itself the worst of sins, and Jesus made it the climax of this sermon on the lost, as exemplified by the older brother in the third parable. ENDNOTE: [1] Translated from Neumeister, “Sinners Jesus Will Receive,” Great Songs of the Church (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1937), No. 210.

Verse 3 And he spake unto them this parable, saying, What man of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and his neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you that even so there shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, who need no repentance.THE PARABLE OF THE LOST IN THE PARABLEThe man with one hundred sheep = Christ the Good Shepherd The sheep which wandered away = backsliders from the faith Finding the lost sheep = Christ saving sinners Elevating it to his shoulders = uplifting the fallen The rejoicing of the shepherd = joy in heaven over the saved The fact of there having been only a single sheep is not an indication of how few were lost, but of the Lord’s concern even for a single lost person. As a matter of fact, the lost sheep stands for countless millions of people. Nothing is to be made of the wilderness except that the uninhabited country that surrounded Palestine was the place where the shepherds kept and pastured their flocks. I. This parable may be viewed, first of all, as an argument. Jesus was being criticized by the Pharisees for associating with sinners; and Christ here showed that any of them would leave ninety and nine sheep safe in the fold and go seeking for a single lost sheep, thus demonstrating that they valued an animal more than they valued a man. Far from being critical of Jesus’ efforts to restore lost men, the Pharisees should have fully engaged themselves by cooperating with such efforts. II. The parable also has utility as a warning. The lost sheep, separated from the flock and from the shepherd, is a warning of the state of any child of God who wanders away from the church and away from the Shepherd. Sheep, as used by Jesus, always meant followers of God, goats being the designation for the sinful and rebellious. Therefore, the lost sheep here is a type of the backsliding Christian. But notice the following facts about a lost sheep: (1) it is absolutely defenseless, not even having the gift of swiftness in flight from danger, its very cries being but the signal for the closing in of its enemies. Let the backslider behold here his danger and helplessness. (2) The lost sheep is without any sense of direction. A carrier pigeon would find its way home, and a dog might do so; but a sheep never! (3) The lost sheep is surrounded by dangers. There are beasts of prey, poisonous shrubs and weeds, and even the elemental forces of nature are hostile to a lost sheep. Manifold and insurmountable are the dangers confronting the lost sheep; and it is no less true of the Christian who has forsaken the flock and the shepherd. III. This parable may be looked upon as an outline of the work God expects of his church, the Good Shepherd appearing here as the example to be followed by every Christian. (1) The shepherd’s emotions were aroused with reference to the lost. He did not merely say, “Oh well, I still have ninety-nine left!” It should be the work of every Christian to become aroused over the fate of the lost brother. It is a brother who is lost, a man made in God’s own image; to despise him, or set him at naught, is to despise oneself. (2) The shepherd went himself; he did not merely send another. Men are wrong who suppose that they may merely send their minister or elder to seek out the lost. God has commanded: “Ye that are spiritual restore such a one” (Galatians 6:1). (3) The shepherd stayed with the search until it was successfully concluded. Here is the divine pattern for perseverance in well-doing. The search can have only one desire, that of finding and recovering the lost; not till then did the shepherd give up the search. IV. This parable is also an epitome of salvation. The whole doctrinal spectrum of the Christian religion is briefly but powerfully suggested here. (1) Just as the shepherd left the fold and the ninety and nine to seek the lost sheep, Christ left heaven with its glory to seek the lost of humanity (John 3:16). (2) It will be noted that there was no safety for the lone sheep. Its safety was in the flock and with the shepherd. There is safety for the Christian only in the church and with the Good Shepherd. It may be doubted that there is any such thing as a Christian who does not belong to the church, despite the fact that such a conceit is obviously deceiving millions. Of old, “The Lord added to the church daily such as were being saved,” and he has never stopped doing so (Acts 2:47). (3) Just as the lost sheep was elevated to the shoulders of the shepherd, so the lost soul is elevated to new heights of eminence and rejoicing in Christ Jesus. “He shall exalt you” (James 4:10) is the promise to Christians; and just as the sheep found rest on the shoulders of the shepherd, men find rest in Christ (Matthew 11:29-30). (4) Heaven itself is concerned with the salvation of the lost. “Joy in heaven!” is a pledge that the unseen creation is interested in the rescue of fallen men. There is no one who confesses Christ that angels do not hear it; and there is none who enters the fold of Christ, but there goes forth on his behalf the angels of God, “to do service for them that shall inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14).

Verse 8 Or what woman having ten pieces of silver; if she lose one piece, doth not light a lamp, and sweep the house, and seek diligently until she finds it? And when she hath found it, she calleth together her friends and neighbors, saying, Rejoice with me, for I have found the piece which I had lost. Even so, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.THE PARABLE OF THE LOST IN THE PARABLEThe woman = the church throughout all the ages The lost coin = the “dropout” from church The lighted lamp = the word of God The broom = the church’s concern for true virtues and morality The diligent search = the church’s urgent activity to save souls The rejoicing = the joy in heaven over one who is saved Which I had lost … This is a significant acceptance of blame on the part of the woman for having lost the coin, which inherently is incapable of losing itself. This stands for people in all ages who, in a sense, are lost from God’s service through sin or ineptitude within the church itself. Volumes could be written on the things which churches do or leave undone, causing the loss of precious souls. I. Note the coin as the type of a man. (1) Both are from the earth, silver being refined from earthly ore, and man having been created of the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7). (2) Both are valuable. Silver coins have ever been recognized as items of value, but sometimes men have been accounted as cheap in the eyes of their fellows. Earth’s warlords have ever looked upon men as mere pawns in the struggle for power; and historically, the rich and the powerful have often held human life as cheap indeed (Matthew 10:29-30). (3) Both may be exchanged for something else. Man may exchange himself for eternal life (Luke 16:9). On the other hand, he may sell himself to do evil in God’s sight (1 Kings 21:20). Esau sold his birthright for one mess of pottage (Hebrews 12:16). A man, like a coin, may be exchanged for something else. (4) Both are stamped with the image of the maker, the coin with the likeness of the emperor, and man in the likeness of God who created him (Genesis 1:27). The image of God in every man distinguishes him from the lower creations, and proves that he is not a mere brother to a beast. II. The lost coin is very like a sinner, or backslider. (1) Both were lost through no fault of their own. The woman lost the coin; and all men are in a condition of loss and death through the sin of Adam (Romans 5:14-15). Death reigns over all men, even over those who have not sinned as Adam sinned. We are using the term “lost” in this connection with regard to man’s mortal condition, and not as endorsing the speculation concerning original sin. (2) The lost coin and the lost man are alike fallen. That the coin in the parable was upon a lower level is evident in the use of the broom; and the sinner too is said to be fallen. It is said of Judas that “he fell” (Acts 1:25); and the sinful church was declared to have “fallen” from its first love (Revelation 2:25). (3) Both the lost coin and the lost man suffer increasing damage. The lost coin becomes tarnished, even chemically altered, losing eventually the superscription upon it; and likewise the lost man finds the image of God in his soul progressively effaced and tarnished by sin and shame. (4) Both the lost coin and the lost man become increasingly difficult to recover. The longer each is lost the harder it is to find. Every child should be saved as soon as possible after the age of accountability (Ecclesiastes 12:1). Well does the Spirit of God teach that the earliest possible instant is none too soon to seek salvation in the name of the Lord. III. This parable also reveals valuable lessons on how to find the lost. (1) First, the woman lighted a lamp; and the church would do well to follow that example. Without a lighted lamp, one would never find a lost coin in a dark place; and unless the church shall hold aloft the lighted lamp of the word of God, the lost shall not be recovered. The only light is the Bible. Churches seek in vain to light up this world’s darkness by preaching human philosophies, legends, political convictions, social schemes, or anything else other than the holy word revealed in the New Testament. “Thy word is a lamp … and a light” (Psalms 119:105). (2) The woman searched diligently for the lost coin. The church should be diligent in the program of evangelization, the same being the church’s most urgent business. (3) The woman used a broom to sweep the whole place. Churches which have allowed the whole atmosphere within their fellowship to be polluted with unrebuked sin, open immorality, or any other defection from the path of duty should take a lesson from the broom. Both the lamp and the broom are necessary. The church cannot be effective in the saving of souls until it has lighted the lamp and employed the broom. IV. This parable, like the preceding one, stresses the joy of the angels of heaven over the salvation of the lost. Seeing that the angels of God are interested in the salvation of souls, how diligent all men ought to be in looking after the one thing needful, namely, the soul’s redemption. Nor is the rejoicing over sinners saved restricted to the courts of heaven. The woman with her friends and neighbors rejoiced; and so will the church which works to save men. The saving church is a happy church. THE PARABLE OF THE SONActually, this is the parable of two sons, the elder brother being no less lost than was the prodigal; but, by the consent of all mankind, it is known by the title above. This writer once delivered a sermon before four hundred men in prison; and, upon the announcement of this parable as the subject, a mighty groan went up from the four hundred vigorous masculine throats; and after the sermon, the chaplain revealed that upon four successive Sundays the guest speakers had based their remarks upon this parable! There are two applications of it. First, the prodigal son represents the Gentiles who rebelled against God and departed from the Father’s house. The elder brother represents the Jewish religious establishment who remained, nominally, in the fold of God, but who nevertheless became proud, self-righteous, unfeeling recipients of the Father’s mercy, having lost all contact with the Father. Significantly, the older brother went to the servants, instead of to the Father, with questions about the joyful celebration. The love of God for both Jews and Gentiles is seen in the Father’s reception of both sons, his reinstatement of the prodigal, and his entreating of the older brother. The second, and more general, application of the parable has regard to the men of every generation. That this parable is an unqualified tragedy, first to last, may not be doubted, despite the rejoicing over the return of the prodigal; and, as is the case in many of Jesus’ teachings, the total unworthiness of the human race in the sight of God is plainly taught. To be sure, people are precious in God’s sight; God loves them; God offered His Son upon Calvary for their redemption; and one redeemed soul is valued above the world and everything in it (Mark 8:36-37); but Jesus was careful to use illustrations, such as this parable, in such a manner as to show beyond any shadow of doubt that no man salvation through his own merit. The prodigal son did not merit the honorable reinstatement he received of the father; nor did the hard-hearted elder brother deserve the father’s entreaty at the end of it. In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-6), both those workers who came in the eleventh hour and received reward, and those who worked all day and complained against the householder, proved themselves to be without merit. The same situation is seen in the parable of two sons (Matthew 21:28-32); who would wish to have a son like either one of them? Likewise, in the parable of the marriage of the king’s son (Matthew 22:12-14), neither the nobility who scorned the invitation, nor the rabble that accepted it, had any quality of character that could have merited the invitation. See comment on those parables in my Commentary on Matthew. This most beloved of the Master’s parables is here discussed line by line; and, after Luke 15:24, is a condensed sermon this writer has preached in forty states and several foreign countries.

Verse 11 And he said, A certain man had two sons: and the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of thy substance that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.Jewish law did not require the father to honor such a request, but in keeping with the analogy that God allows men to choose their ways without coercion, this father honored the request. As the younger son received one-third of the estate and the older brother two-thirds, after the custom of the times, the father simplified things by giving to both sons their inheritance.

Verse 13 And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together and took his journey into a far country; and there he wasted his substance with riotous living.The undisciplined life of the younger son quickly resulted in the waste, extravagance, and sinful living recounted here. This scene of irresponsible youth wasting the inheritance assembled at such cost of tears and labor on the part of their ancestors is repeated again and again in every generation, by countless thousands of people.

Verse 14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that country; and he began to be in want.This was the intrusion of the unexpected. Such things as wars, disasters, pestilence, and famine were far away from the prodigal’s thoughts; but, alas, the unforeseen disaster laid him low and reduced him to want. The wisdom of the father which had seen the family through many similar perils was not in him, with the result of his being utterly unable to cope with the situation that came upon him.

Verse 15 And he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.This acceptance by the prodigal of such a despised, menial position in the establishment of one of the citizens of that country shows the extent of his reduction and want. He who had found the benign government of a father so unbearable was reduced to submission as one of the lowest menials under that citizen. A Jewish prince in a swine pen! What a disastrous development that was!

Verse 16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.The husks … These were the pods of the carob bean,[2] a coarse, locust-like bean with a certain sugar content, still used in the East for feeding swine. The seeds of this bean are strangely uniform in size and weight, and they were used as the measure of a “Carat” by gem merchants, weight of one seed equaling one carat, that term being directly derived from “carob."[3] It was only the pod, or husk, of the bean which was edible, the seeds being very hard and worthless as food. This product is still sold in Manhattan, New York City, the flour made of the pods having a sweet, chocolate-like taste, not being in any way very delicious, but it is supposed to be healthful. No man gave unto him … Nothing disappears any more quickly than the friends who have drunk the liquor and helped waste the substance of a man like the prodigal. His plight was altogether pitiful. [2] English Revised Version, margin, en loco. [3] Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.

Verse 17 But when he came to himself he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare and I perish here with hunger. The glory of this prodigal is that he told himself the truth. Instead of a false braggadocio by which he might have screwed up his courage to stick it out, he simply faced up to the facts of his hunger, loneliness, and hopelessness. The “life” which he no doubt expected when he left home had turned into “death” for him.

Verse 18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight: I am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.A good resolution is the beginning of a better life; and all of the ultimate restoration of this prodigal turned upon this resolution and his prompt execution of it. I have sinned against heaven … There is a great depth of perception in this. Sin has a dreadful recoil against the sinner, being against himself, and also against his family, against society and against every good and beautiful thing on earth; but primarily sin is “against God.” It was the perception of Joseph that the suggested sin with the wife of Potiphar was not so much against his master, or against the master’s wife, as it was against God. “How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:10).

Verse 20 And he arose, and came to his father. But while he was yet afar off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight: I am no more worthy to be called thy son.The inimitable Charles Hodge, distinguished preacher and author, has written a book on, “Will God Run?” giving the answer as “Yes! Yes! God will run! To save them who come unto him.” The only one who came to meet the returning prodigal was his father. God did not save him because he repented, nor because he walked all the way back home, but for one reason, and get this, people, He forgave him because he was his son! We are saved by grace, and don’t you forget it![4]ENDNOTE: [4] Charles Hodge, Will God Run? (Dallas: Christian Publishing Company, 1965), p. 45.

Verse 22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: and bring the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat, and make merry: for this my son was dead, and is alive again; and he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.It will be noted that the prodigal never came out with the intended request to be made as one of his father’s hired servants. It would appear that the father interrupted him before that part of his speech to the father could be made. The ring, the robe, the shoes … All these were the signs of the sonship which the father restored to him, the signet ring, in particular, indicating that the father undertook to pay all of his debts. The new clothing and the status at the father’s table are fitting emblems of the salvation which God bestows upon his returning children, And they began to be merry … signifies the joy in God’s house over the salvation of the lost. TRAGEDY IN THE FAR COUNTRY: A SERMONIntroduction: Most of those standing by when this prodigal took passage for the far country would probably have admired him. He was not only young and rich, but he was what many would have called “progressive”! Contrasted with this scene of his leaving home is the dark picture of the tragedy that befell him in the far country. Before moving to view that squalid scene in the swine pen, we should remember that the prodigals are still with us, still enraptured with that mysterious allure that the fire has for the moth. This tragedy is reenacted somewhere on earth every day. I. The extent of this tragedy. The whole episode was tragic. The rebellious son, the father’s grief, the waste of his inheritance, the type of companions he chose, the famine that fell upon that country, and the harsh bargain he made with the citizen - all these were tragic, but to behold the full extent of this tragedy, only one place supplies the proper vantage point, that of the swine pen. Note the following elements of the tragedy: A. The prodigal is alone. Far from being the popular way which Satan always promises travelers who accept his suggestions, the route the prodigal traveled proved to be one of utter loneliness; and many a derelict whose body has been drawn from the river, or discovered under a bridge, has also tasted the loneliness of evil ways. B. The prodigal had a shameful job. Citizens of Satan’s kingdom have swine to feed, and many a hapless prodigal has ended in a disgraceful, humiliating task of tending earth’s swine pens, its brothels, its low places of entertainment, and its saloons. This contrasts with what the prodigal doubtless imagined he would be doing in the far country. Illustration: A man and his wife were in a Western city and stopped for a cup of coffee across the street from a noted gambling center. The place was crowded, and a young man came over from “The Golden Nugget” and sat at the same table. It turned out that he was a Christian; his father was an elder in a Tennessee church; and he was ashamed of his work; but he insisted he could not change it, saying, “I’m in too deep to change now!” He was only another prodigal sent into a task he despised. C. He was hungry. Oddly, there was plenty for swine but nothing for the son of the loving father. For all who contemplate an excursion into the far country, it would be well for them to take into account the inevitable hunger of the soul engaged in employment under Satan. “Our souls, O Christ, were made for thee; and never shall they rest till they rest in thee!"[5]D. He was tortured by burning memories. Memory is not a thing which may be turned off and on like electricity. “How many hired servants of my father have bread enough and to spare.” The swine pen itself was no refuge from the memories of that lost relationship. Many a soul today hardly dares to think of those memories of the days of faith and worship which graced their youth. Hell itself is no refuge from memory (Luke 16:27-28). II. What was the cause of this tragedy? The cause of every accident is investigated with a view to finding its cause and preventing a recurrence. A. One root cause of this tragedy was the “give me” attitude of the prodigal. That soul which makes getting the goal of life is headed for disaster. Note the contrast between his attitude at first and that of the penitent prodigal who said, “Father, make me” instead of “Father, give me”! B. The prodigal’s unwillingness to submit to the benign government of the father’s house was a second cause. Many who wish to lead the good life seem to be unaware that restraints are involved. The plane bound for London must go in that direction. Fellowship with God is possible only for the obedient. His attitude was “Don’t fence me in!” and apparently he did not realize that Esau’s life is the classical example of a life with no fence around it (Hebrews 12:16). C. Then, there was the influence of the prodigal’s companions upon his life. The elder brother alleged that these included “harlots,” and there is nothing in the parable to deny it. Without any doubt, one’s companions have a great deal to do with the life he leads. D. Lack of vision was also a fundamental cause of this tragedy. The prodigal might have taken the privilege of the Psalmist who said, “I thought on my ways and turned unto thy testimonies” (Psalms 119:59); but thinking upon one’s way is difficult for the profligate. Swine pens are nothing new in this world, and a little serious forethought might have spared the hero of this story the tragedy that befell him; but, like many in all generations, he proved to be unaware of the swine pen until he could hear the grunting in both ears! III. The cure of the tragedy. A. The cure began when the prodigal told himself the truth. The unique utility of the Bible is that it reveals what men say to themselves (see more on this under Luke 16:3). Instead of lying to himself about how he would surely make a good recovery, or how something would surely “turn up,” he simply faced up to the shame and disgrace of his life, and to the fact that he was “perishing.” Countless thousands today should face up to the soul’s bankruptcy. B. The second phase of the cure was a good resolution. He said, “I will arise and go to my father.” But it should be noted that a good resolution did nothing except point the way home. He doubtless felt a lot better after such a noble resolve, but he was still in the swine pen. C. He arose and came to his father. Men must come “unto” the Father in order to be saved. This is done by learning the truth (John 6:44), by believing in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:10), by repenting of their sins (Acts 11:18), and by confessing Christ (Romans 10:10). But this prodigal was still separated from the father until he came all the way home. Just so, the sinner is still in his sins even after coming “unto” the father by his learning, believing in Christ, repenting of his sins, and confessing the Lord. There was one more thing the prodigal had to do before he was restored; and there is yet another thing the sinner must do to receive the robes of forgiveness and the ring of sonship. D. He came to the father and submitted to the father’s government which he had once spurned, he accepted the robe, the shoes, and the ring, and took his place once more at the father’s table. All of this corresponds to a sinner’s being baptized into Christ, whereupon he receives the robe of forgiveness, accepts his place at the father’s table by a faithful observance of the Lord’s supper. People who might fancy that the plan of salvation is not in the parables should look again. THE CASE OF THE ELDER BROTHERThis, of course, is the climax of the parable. ENDNOTE: [5] Augustine, from the tomb of William Rockefeller, Tarrytown Cemetery, New York.

Verse 25 Now the elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing. The logical thing for the elder son to have done would have been to go at once to the father; but apparently something was missing from the rapport which he should have had with the father. He was living the life of a slave in the house of his father; and it is to be feared that many a child of God is doing the same thing.

Verse 26 And he called to him one of the servants, and inquired what these things might be. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.And he called to him one of the servants … The elder son was closer to the servants than to his father; and although this is not an outright break with the father, it is a small incident that shows the broken fellowship. Through the passage of time, the elder son had not maintained communication with the father; and, in this, he became a type of the Christian who, while attending to all of the outward duties of faith, nevertheless drifts away from the love of it. The vital prayer line becomes neglected; the heart grows cold, indifferent, and proud; and, at last, such a Christian becomes as much estranged from the heavenly Father as was this elder son from his father in the parable. Thy brother is come, … etc. The servant, of course, anticipated that the older son would welcome the good news; but such was not the case. “The very kindness of the father to the returned prodigal was a wrong to HIM; for he was rightfully, so he thought, entitled to it all."[6]ENDNOTE: [6] J. S. Lamar, New Testament Commentary, Vol. II, Luke (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 206.

Verse 28 But he was angry, and would not go in: and his father came out, and entreated him.The persons primarily in view, as represented by the elder son, were the scribes, Pharisees, and other religious leaders of Israel. It was their anger at the Lord’s inclusion of publicans and sinners as objects of heavenly grace which, in a large degree, motivated their hatred of Jesus. The fierce religious pride and exclusiveness of the leaders were but the metastasis of the cancer of selfishness within them; and their attitude toward others was an inherent contradiction of the purpose of God, whose love of all men Jesus had come to proclaim. The selfishness of the religious leaders manifested itself in their despising the Gentiles, but it did not stop there. Inherent in the nature of selfishness is the constant restriction and withdrawal flowing out of it; and the progression of selfishness in Israel’s leaders had, in the times of Jesus, reached a level in which most of the chosen people themselves were also despised by their leaders. On one pretext or another, they hated everybody but themselves. Even of the multitudes of their own people, the Pharisees said, “This multitude that knoweth not the law are accursed” (John 7:49). And entreated him … This speaks of the tireless efforts of Jesus to persuade the Pharisees to believe in him. All of the gospels are eloquent in detailing the constant preaching of Jesus to this very class.

Verse 29 But he answered and said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, and I never transgressed a commandment of thine; and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends.The distorted views of the selfish soul are evident in this verse. The older brother had received the double portion of the divided estate (Luke 15:12); and he was in fact the owner of the whole estate (Luke 15:31), therefore it was his duty to have given to the father, not the other way around. If this elder brother had wanted to share a banquet with his friends, it was surely within his power to have done so; but as a matter of obvious fact, he did not wish to share anything with anybody, even resenting the slaughter of the fatted calf for the return of his brother.

Verse 30 But when this thy son came, who hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou killest for him the fatted calf.The charge of immorality against the younger son is not denied by anything in the parable, but neither is it affirmed. Selfishness always alleges unworthiness against those who should have been the beneficiaries of charity. The big point in the older brother’s mind had nothing to do with a brother rescued, but with the relative value of a kid vs. that of the fatted calf!

Verse 31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that is mine is thine.See under Luke 15:29. At the time Jesus spoke this parable, the issue of whether or not the Pharisees would give up their selfishness and enter, with the Gentiles, into the banquet prepared for all in the house of the Father, had not yet been determined; and fittingly, the parable closed with the elder son still outside, and the father still entreating. The dramatic scene is one of impending tragedy; for, in the last resolution of the problem, the elder son remained outside the house of joy and feasting.

Verse 32 But it was meet to make merry and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again, and was lost, and is found.Thy brother … In these words, the father brought the elder son back to the basic fact of his oneness with his brother, a unity denied by the contemptuous “thy son” (Luke 15:30), as the elder brother called him. All men are inherently sinful and unworthy of God’s blessings; and there is no greater sin than the self-righteousness which denies such a truth. This marvelous story teaches eternal truth, including: (1) the fact that God is willing to forgive prodigals and self-righteous bigots alike, provided that they will receive his mercies and enter the feast of the kingdom. (2) It is easier to confess to God than to many a man. (3) The great joys of God’s kingdom are those of new life in those once dead to sin, and the finding of that which was lost. Barclay made two observations from this parable which are worthy to be remembered. He said: It should never have been called the parable of the prodigal son, for the son is not the hero … It should be called the parable of the loving father, for it tells us rather about a Father’s love than a son’s sin.[7]The other comment regards the nature of men. “When he came to himself …” Jesus believed that so long as a man was away from God, and against God, he was not truly himself; he was only truly himself when he was on the way home.[8]The authenticity of this chapter is proclaimed inherently within it. God’s love for the lost, from whatever cause, the Father’s concern in sending his Son to save men, and the episode of the Father’s entreaty of the elder son, terminated while the entreaty was still in progress, together with philosophical and theological overtones of the greatest magnitude - all these things are utterly beyond the art of any forger. The early church, with its rising percentage of Gentile members, would never have concluded this parable (if any of them had invented it) with the father still entreating the elder brother. The issue of whether or not the elder brother would attend the feast was decided very quickly after the resurrection; and, therefore, this parable clearly goes back to the Lord Jesus Christ who spoke it. [7] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), p. 213. [8] Ibid., p. 212.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 151. What classes drew near Jesus? 2. Tell their purpose. 3. Why did the Pharisee murmur? 4. What method did Jesus again use in teaching? 5. State subject of the first lesson. 6. How many sheep did the man have? 7. Tell how many went astray. 8. Was it the most or least valuable? 9. How was it recovered? 10. Why neglect the ninety and nine? 11. What caused the rejoicing? 12. Were the 99 discredited by this? 13. State the cause of angelic joy. 14. Is that a disadvantage to the righteous ? 15. State the earnestness of the woman. 16. What caused the rejoicing? 17. Whom do the lost sheep and silver represent? 18. Consulting vs. 1> 2, who are the 2 sons 11th verse? 19. To which did the father give the most ? 20. Which one left home? 21. How did he live? 22. Tell how destitute he became? 23. What.employment did he obtain? 24. Tell what food he was denied. 25. What did he come to? 26. On doing so what did he remember? 27. He resolved to do what ? 28. What confession would he make? 29. And what request would he make? 30. Did he carry out his resolution? 31. Did he have difficulty seeing his father? 32. Where did they meet? 33. Describe the father’ s actions. 34. And the son’ s speech. 35. State the punishment the father gave. 36. What orders were given the servants? 37. Tell of the provisions for feasting. 38. What reason was given for these orders? 39. In what sense was the son dead? 40. What part of the feast did the elder son provide ? 41. Tell what caught his attention. _ 42. Whose joy did they tell him about ? 43. What did they give as the reason for the joy ? 44. Why would the elder son not go in ? 45. Where did he and his father meet ? 46. State the son’ s complaint. 47. Were his statements denied? 48. Did that prove he was undervalued ? 49. What guarantee did the father give him ? 50. State the father’ s explanation for the joy. 51. How many parables in the chapter? 52. How many teach the same lesson?

Luke 15:1

1 Publicans and sinners. See the notes on Matthew 9:10; Matthew 21:28.

Luke 15:2

2 Pharisees and scribes, as well as the publicans and sinners, were all Jews but in different classifications according to the social castes devised by the self-righteous Jewish leaders. On the significance of eating with others, see the quotation from the works of reference at Matthew 9:11.

Luke 15:3

3 This parable and the others in this chapter were occasioned by the complaint of the Pharisees and scribes in verse 2. The reader should bear in mind as he studies these three parables, that the lesson pertains to the two classes of Jews designated above, and not to the Jews and Gentiles. All have the same lesson, that of the Father’s love for his wayward or otherwise unfortunate creatures. It is the same subject as that shown by the physician and the sick in Matthew 9:12. However, since the stories needed to be told to make the point of application clear, I shall comment upon the verses in their order.

Luke 15:4

4 The 99 sheep, like the Pharisees and scribes (according to their pretentions), were not needing any special attention because they were within the care of the shepherd. The one that was lost (as the Pharisees considered the publicans and sinners), was the one that needed and received the attention of the shepherd.

Luke 15:5

5 Layeth it on his shoulders indicates a tender regard for the wandering sheep, also a willingness to help it get back to the flock.

Luke 15:6

6 It is natural for one to wish others to share with him in the event of good fortune. Paul tells Christians to “rejoice with them that do rejoice” (Romans 12:15).

Luke 15:7

7 Joy does not mean love or esteem. God and the angels will always love the righteous with a divine affection. Joy denotes a spirit of active gratitude for some satisfactory event or truth, such as the recovery of an article of value that was lost.

Luke 15:8-10

0 Substitute a lost sheep for the piece of silver, and this parable is identical in thought with the preceding one.

Luke 15:11

1 The remainder of this chapter, beginning with this verse, was spoken for the same purpose as the two preceding parables, and none of the details were intended to teach any special lesson besides. Yet it will be necessary to consider the parts of the story, especially since so much speculative use has been made of it. It is commonly called “the parable of the prodigal son,” but it is not so named in the text. The word “prodigal” means extravagant or wasteful, and that characteristic is given to this younger son in verse 13.

Luke 15:12

2 The younger son did not want to wait until the usual time for settling up of the estate of his father, for he did not intend to remain at home that long.

Luke 15:13

3 True to the indicated plans, the son left home with all of his part of the estate. Riotous is from ASOTOS and this is the only place in the New Testament where the word occurs. Thayer defines it, “dissolutely, profligately,” which has the same meaning as “wastefully.”

Luke 15:14

4 The famine came just after he had spent all his money.

Luke 15:15

5 Employment became scarce as it commonly does in hard times. This young man accepted a very humble job, that of a swineherd.

Luke 15:16

6 His wages evidently proved insufficient for he became hungry in spite of his job. Husks is described by both Thayer and Smith’s Bible Dictionary as the podded fruit of a locust tree. They also say this product was used for fattening swine, and for food among the poor people. This “prodigal son” was so hungry he would gladly have supplemented his own scanty diet with this article, but due to the famine it was denied him because the owner reserved it for his swine.

Luke 15:17

7 Came to himself is rendered “came to his senses” in Moffatt’s translation. The meaning is that he was made to realize his true condition. He recalled that even the servants at home had plenty of the good things of life.

Luke 15:18

8 He knew he could not justly request more of his father’s estate for he had already received his full share. He would have to return and throw himself upon the mercy of his father. Sinned against heaven. When anyone does wrong, the sin is an offense against the Lord regardless of who may be affected among men.

Luke 15:19

9 This is an expression of one who realizes his unworthiness of favors.

Luke 15:20

0 The father observed his son at a great distance before he arrived at the home and ran to meet him. This detail truly represents God’s attitude toward sinners. He is always casting a loving glance toward them. Fell on his neck is an expression that denotes affectionate feelings for another, instead of the formal kiss upon the mouth merely as a salutation that was the custom in old times.

Luke 15:21

1 This act of affection encouraged the repentant son to go on with the confession he had decided upon when he came to himself.

Luke 15:22

2 The father did not assign him to the low position he so humbly suggested. Penitence brings forth forgiveness instead of strict justice from the offended parent. The robe and other articles to be worn would not satisfy the hunger of the famished son, but it indicated the fullness of the father’s forgiveness. The hunger will be cared for in another way.

Luke 15:23

3 It was usual for families to keep a fattened animal in readiness for any occasion of a feast that might arise, and the arrival of the “lost” son furnished one.

Luke 15:24

4 These words may have been used figuratively only, and yet this son had been dead to his father’s home, since death means “separation.”

Luke 15:25

5 The elder son represents the Pharisees and scribes in verse 2, and their envious attitude toward the younger son who represents the publicans and sinners of the same verse. As the elder son was coming in from his work he heard the music and dancing. Some have tried to see a significance in the mention of dancing. It has no moral application in the least since that is not the subject of the parable. It is put into the story only because it indicates the condition of joy being felt in the household.

Luke 15:26

6 When the elder son went to work, the return of the “prodigal” had not occurred, hence he did not understand the cause of the merriment.

Luke 15:27-28

8 This elder son (the Pharisees and scribes) began to pout and refused to go into the house. That was not because he objected to the things being done as though they were wrong, but because of his jealousy against his brother. Ordinary human nature would have prompted the father to be “independent” and just ignore his son’s action. But since this father represents the Father of mercies, the parable shows him manifesting his love for the son by making a move toward pacifying him.

Luke 15:29-30

0. The elder son had no just ground of complaint. His brother had done wrong, but it was against his father and God only. This son was not being deprived of anything that was due him, so his attitude could be explained only on the basis of jealousy. He made two comparisons in his protest; they were between the conduct of himself and that of his brother, and between what his father had done for each son. He had always been at home and faithful, while his brother had been away living a life like that of a spendthrift. Also, his father had never as much as given him a kid (a rather inferior animal), but had given this wasteful son the choice of food animals.

Luke 15:31

1 The favors being shown the returned son did not deprive the elder one of a single possession, hence his objections were the result of his jealousy only.

Luke 15:32

2 It was meet or fitting for the father and his household to be glad. But it was not on the ground of the worthiness of the younger son for he had no just claim to the favors being accorded him. The reason assigned by the father was that a son that was lost had been found. Likewise, the Father in heaven is concerned about the spiritual safety of the lowest of human beings and is always ready to receive them as soon as they repent.