Luke 15 English Standard Version (ESV)
15 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. 2 And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
The Parable of the Lost Sheep
3 So he told them this parable: 4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? 5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ 7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
The Parable of the Lost Coin
8 “Or what woman, having ten silver coins,[a] if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek diligently until she finds it? 9 And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ 10 Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
The Parable of the Prodigal Son
11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. 14 And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to[b] one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.
17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ 20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’[c] 22 But the father said to his servants,[d] ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.
25 “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends.30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’”
Footnotes:
- Luke 15:8 Greek ten drachmas; a drachma was a Greek coin approximately equal in value to a Roman denarius, worth about a day's wage for a laborer
- Luke 15:15 Greek joined himself to
- Luke 15:21 Some manuscripts add treat me as one of your hired servants
- Luke 15:22 Or bondservants
NETBible
15:1 Now all the tax collectors 1 and sinners were coming 2 to hear him. 15:2But 3 the Pharisees 4 and the experts in the law 5 were complaining, 6 “This man welcomes 7 sinners and eats with them.”
6 tn Or “grumbling”; Grk “were complaining, saying.” The participle λέγοντες (legontes) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.
7 tn Or “accepts,” “receives.” This is not the first time this issue has been raised: Luke 5:27-32; 7:37-50.
15:3 So 8 Jesus 9 told them 10 this parable: 11 15:4 “Which one 12 of you, if he has a hundred 13 sheep and loses one of them, would not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture 14 and go look for 15 the one that is lost until he finds it? 16 15:5 Then 17 when he has found it, he places it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 15:6 Returning 18 home, he calls together 19 his 20 friends and neighbors, telling them, ‘Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost.’ 15:7 I tell you, in the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner 21 who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people 22 who have no need to repent. 23
8 tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “so” to indicate that Jesus’ telling of the parable is in response to the complaints of the Pharisees and experts in the law.
10 sn Them means at the minimum the parable is for the leadership, but probably also for those people Jesus accepted, but the leaders regarded as outcasts.
11 tn Grk “parable, saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.
13 sn This individual with a hundred sheep is a shepherd of modest means, as flocks often had up to two hundred head of sheep.
16 sn Until he finds it. The parable pictures God’s pursuit of the sinner. On the image of Jesus as the Good Shepherd, see John 10:1-18.
17 tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.
18 tn Grk “And coming into his…” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.
19 sn A touch of drama may be present, as the term calls together can mean a formal celebration (1 Kgs 1:9-10).
20 tn Grk “the”; in context the article is used as a possessive pronoun (ExSyn 215). It occurs before “neighbors” as well (“his friends and his neighbors”) but has not been translated the second time because of English style.
21 sn There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents. The pursuit of the sinner is a priority in spite of the presence of others who are doing well (see also Luke 5:32; 19:10). The theme of repentance, a major Lukan theme, is again emphasized.
22 tn Here δικαίοις (dikaioi") is an adjective functioning substantivally and has been translated “righteous people.”
------------------------------------------------------------------
15:8 “Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins 24 and loses 25 one of them, 26 does not light a lamp, sweep 27 the house, and search thoroughly until she finds it? 15:9 Then 28 when she has found it, she calls together her 29 friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice 30 with me, for I have found the coin 31 that I had lost.’ 15:10 In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of God’s angels 32 over one sinner who repents.”
24 sn This silver coin is a drachma, equal to a denarius, that is, a day’s pay for the average laborer.
25 tn Grk “What woman who has ten silver coins, if she loses.” The initial participle ἔχουσα (ecousa) has been translated as a finite verb parallel to ἀπολέσῃ (apolesh) in the conditional clause to improve the English style.
27 tn Grk “and sweep,” but καί (kai) has not been translated since English normally uses a coordinating conjunction only between the last two elements in a series of three or more.
28 tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.
30 sn Rejoice. Besides the theme of pursuing the lost, the other theme of the parable is the joy of finding them.
32 sn The whole of heaven is said to rejoice. Joy in the presence of God’s angels is a way of referring to God’s joy as well without having to name him explicitly. Contemporary Judaism tended to refer to God indirectly where possible out of reverence or respect for the divine name.
15:11 Then 33 Jesus 34 said, “A man had two sons. 15:12 The 35 younger of them said to his 36 father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate 37 that will belong 38 to me.’ So 39 he divided his 40 assets between took place in that country, and he began to be in need. 15:15 So he went and worked for 47 one of the citizens of that country, who 48 sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 49 15:16 He50 was longing to eat 51 the carob pods 52 the pigs were eating, but 53 no one gave him anything. 15:17 But when he came to his senses 54 he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired workers have food 55 enough to spare, but here I am dying from hunger! 15:18 I will get up and go to my father and say to him, “Father, I have sinned 56 against heaven 57 and against 58 you. 15:19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me59 like one of your hired workers.”’ 15:20 So 60 he got up and went to his father. But while he was still a long way from home 61 his father saw him, and his heart went out to him; 62 he ran and hugged 63 his son 64 and kissed him. 15:21 Then 65 his son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven 66 and against you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 67 15:22 But the father said to his slaves, 68 ‘Hurry! Bring the best robe, 69 and put it on him! Put a ring on his finger 70 and sandals 71 on his feet! 15:23 Bring 72 the fattened calf 73 and kill it! Let us eat 74 and celebrate, 15:24 because this son of mine was dead, and is alive again – he was lost and is found!’ 75 So 76 they began to celebrate.
15:25 “Now his older son was in the field. As 77 he came and approached the house, he heard music 78 and dancing. 15:26 So 79 he called one of the slaves 80 and asked what was happening. 15:27 The slave replied,81 ‘Your brother has returned, and your father has killed the fattened calf 82 because he got his son 83 back safe and sound.’ 15:28 But the older son 84 became angry 85 and refused 86 to go in. His father came out and appealed to him, 15:29 but he answered 87 his father, ‘Look! These many years I have worked like a slave 88 for you, and I never disobeyed your commands. Yet 89 you never gave me even a goat 90 so that I could celebrate with my friends! 15:30 But when this son of yours 91 came back, who has devoured 92 your assets with prostitutes, 93 you killed the fattened calf 94 for him!’ 15:31 Then 95 the father 96 said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and everything that belongs to me is yours. 15:32 It was appropriate 97 to celebrate and be glad, for your brother 98 was dead, and is alive; he was lost and is found.’” 99
them. 41 15:13 After 42 a few days, 43 the younger son gathered together all he had and left on a journey to a distant country, and there he squandered 44 his wealth 45 with a wild lifestyle. 15:14 Then 46 after he had spent everything, a severe famine
33 tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.
35 tn Grk “And the.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.
37 tn L&N 57.19 notes that in nonbiblical contexts in which the word οὐσία (ousia) occurs, it refers to considerable possessions or wealth, thus “estate.”
38 tn L&N 57.3, “to belong to or come to belong to, with the possible implication of by right or by inheritance.”
39 tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “so” to indicate the father’s response to the younger son’s request.
41 sn He divided his assets between them. There was advice against doing this in the OT Apocrypha (Sir 33:20). The younger son would get half of what the older son received (Deut 21:17).
42 tn Grk “And after.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.
46 tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “then” to indicate the sequence of events in the parable. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.
48 tn Grk “and he.” Here the conjunction καί (kai) and the personal pronoun have been translated by a relative pronoun to improve the English style.
49 sn To a Jew, being sent to the field to feed pigs would be an insult, since pigs were considered unclean animals (Lev 11:7).
50 tn Grk “And he.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.
52 tn This term refers to the edible pods from a carob tree (BDAG 540 s.v. κεράτιον). They were bean-like in nature and were commonly used for fattening pigs, although they were also used for food by poor people (L&N 3.46).
56 sn In the confession “I have sinned” there is a recognition of wrong that pictures the penitent coming home and “being found.”
58 tn According to BDAG 342 s.v. ἐνωπιον 4.a, “in relation to ἁμαρτάνειν ἐ. τινος sin against someone Lk 15:18, 21 (cf. Jdth 5:17; 1 Km 7:6; 20:1).”
60 tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the result of the son’s decision to return home. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.
sn The major figure of the parable, the forgiving father, represents God the Father and his compassionate response. God is ready with open arms to welcome the sinner who comes back to him.
63 tn Grk “he fell on his neck,” an idiom for showing special affection for someone by throwing one’s arms around them. The picture is of the father hanging on the son’s neck in welcome.
65 tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.
66 sn The phrase against heaven is a circumlocution for God. 1st century Judaism tended to minimize use of the divine name out of reverence.
69 sn With the instructions Hurry! Bring the best robe, there is a total acceptance of the younger son back into the home.
70 tn Grk “hand”; but χείρ (ceir) can refer to either the whole hand or any relevant part of it (L&N 8.30).
71 sn The need for sandals underlines the younger son’s previous destitution, because he was barefoot.
72 tn Grk “And bring.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.
73 tn Or “the prize calf” (L&N 65.8). See also L&N 44.2, “grain-fattened.” Such a calf was usually reserved for religious celebrations.
74 tn The participle φαγόντες (fagontes) has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.
76 tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the result of the father’s remarks in the preceding verses.
77 tn Grk “And as.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.
79 tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the result of the older son hearing the noise of the celebration in progress.
80 tn The Greek term here, παῖς (pais), describes a slave, possibly a household servant regarded with some affection (L&N 87.77).
81 tn Grk “And he said to him.” Here δέ (de) has not been translated. The rest of the phrase has been simplified to “the slave replied,” with the referent (the slave) specified in the translation for clarity.
84 tn Grk “he”; the referent (the older son, v. 25) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
85 tn The aorist verb ὠργίσθη (wrgisqh) has been translated as an ingressive aorist, reflecting entry into a state or condition.
87 tn Grk “but answering, he said.” This is somewhat redundant in contemporary English and has been simplified to “but he answered.”
88 tn Or simply, “have served,” but in the emotional context of the older son’s outburst the translation given is closer to the point.
89 tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “yet” to bring out the contrast indicated by the context.
90 sn You never gave me even a goat. The older son’s complaint was that the generous treatment of the younger son was not fair: “I can’t get even a little celebration with a basic food staple like a goat!”
91 sn Note the younger son is not “my brother” but this son of yours (an expression with a distinctly pejorative nuance).
92 sn This is another graphic description. The younger son’s consumption had been like a glutton. He had both figuratively and literally devoured the assets which were given to him.
93 sn The charge concerning the prostitutes is unproven, but essentially the older brother accuses the father of committing an injustice by rewarding his younger son’s unrighteous behavior.
95 tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events in the parable.
98 sn By referring to him as your brother, the father reminded the older brother that the younger brother was part of the family.
99 sn The theme he was lost and is found is repeated from v. 24. The conclusion is open-ended. The reader is left to ponder with the older son (who pictures the scribes and Pharisees) what the response will be. The parable does not reveal the ultimate response of the older brother. Jesus argued that sinners should be pursued and received back warmly when they returned.
15:1–2
Sinful Friends
15:1. Tax gatherers and sinners were excluded from the religious community; cf. comment on 5:29–32. Proverbs (1:15; 13:20; 14:7) warns of the danger of spending time with sinners. But it is clear in this text that the moral influence is from Jesus to the sinners, not the reverse. Many religious Jews emphasized talking about the law whenever possible; no one could legitimately complain about Jesus, who here communicates God’s message to his listeners during table fellowship (on lectures at meals, cf. comment on 14:7).
15:2. Pharisees and legal teachers did not consider it proper to eat with those excluded from the religious community; besides such dangers as eating untithed food, intimate table fellowship connoted acceptance. “Grumbling” could remind biblically knowledgeable ancient readers of Israel’s unbelief and murmuring in the wilderness.
15:3–7
The Lost Sheep
Jesus addresses three parables to his religious accusers (15:1–2), in effect turning the tables on them and demonstrating that they were not truly God’s friends. Pharisees considered shepherds members of an unclean profession and thus would not readily identify with the protagonist of the story (but cf. 2:8–20).
15:3–4. One hundred was probably an average-sized flock. Because shepherds often traveled together, this shepherd could probably leave his flock with his companions without endangering the flock. That they remain in the open pasture at night makes it likely that this is the warm season, not winter. Other Jewish teachers stressed God’s forgiveness for the repentant, but did not stress God’s seeking sinners out.
15:5. The easiest way to carry a lamb was across one’s shoulders, with the legs crossed over one’s chest (cf. God carrying his sheep in Ps 28:9; Is 40:11).
15:6–7. The moral of the story is: As the shepherd’s friends rejoice when he finds that which was lost, so do God’s friends rejoice when he recovers what was lost to him; thus Jesus’ accusers, who resent his fellowship with sinners he seeks to restore, may not really be God’s friends (15:1–2).
15:8–10
The Lost Coin
The relative value of the lost item increases in each parable: one out of one hundred, one out of ten and finally (15:11) one out of two. Pharisees were generally unimpressed with the moral character of women and would not readily identify with the protagonist of this story (but cf. 24:1–11).
15:8. The ten silver coins are most likely the woman’s ketubah, or dowry—the only money she brings into the marriage that is technically hers even if the marriage is dissolved. That she has only ten coins (worth about ten days of a worker’s wages) suggests that her father’s family is not well-to-do; she would presumably have married into a household equally poor.
The lamp here is a small, hand-held oil lamp, which emits little light but is more helpful than the small (if any) window that may be in her wall. The rough stone floors of poor homes had many crevices between the stones, into which coins and fragments of pottery fell so often that archaeologists can now use coins in those crevices to date when people lived in these homes. By sweeping with a broom she might hope to hear the coin rattle against the floor.
15:9–10. See comment on 15:6–7 for the moral. In Jewish tradition the angels in heaven generally took great interest in God’s workings on earth; each person was specifically assigned at least one guardian angel.
15:11–32
The Lost Son
15:11–12. To ask one’s father for one’s share of the inheritance early was unheard of in antiquity; in effect, one would thereby say, “Father, I wish you were already dead.” Such a statement would not go over well even today, and in a society stressing obedience to one’s father it would be a serious act of rebellion (Deut 21:18–21) for which the father could have beaten him or worse. That the father grants the request means that most of the hearers will not identify with the father in this parable; from the start, they would think of him as stupidly lax to pamper such an immoral son.
The eldest son always received a double portion (Deut 21:17); in this case, he would have received two-thirds of the inheritance and the younger brother one-third.
15:13. Jewish law did permit a father to determine which assets (especially land) would go to which sons before he died, but they could take possession only on the father’s death: the father was manager and received the land’s profits until then. Thus this son could know what would be his but could not legally sell his assets; he does it anyway.
Many Palestinian Jews migrated, seeking fortune in less economically pressed areas. The younger son is presumably no older than 18 (he was unmarried) and had an older brother; he would thus have had little experience in managing finances. Moralists considered squandering very evil.
15:14. Famine was a common devastating feature of the ancient economy. (People often viewed famines as divine judgments, but because Jesus’ story does not address the famine area as a whole, it does not apply this perspective to the story line.)
15:15. At this point, Jesus’ Jewish hearers are ready for the story to end (like a similar second-century Jewish story): the son gets what he deserves—he is reduced to the horrendous level of feeding the most unclean of animals. The son is cut off at this point from the Jewish community and any financial charity it would otherwise offer him.
15:16. Some commentators have suggested that the “pods” here are the kind of carob pods that Israel would eat only in famine, which some teachers said drove Israel to repentance. Others argue that these are prickly, wild pods that only swine’s snouts could reach. Neither pod was considered appetizing, and given pigs’ proverbially unclean eating habits, the thought of eating pigs’ food would disgust Jesus’ hearers. That the young man is jealous of pigs’ fare also suggests that he is not receiving fair wages (cf. 15:17).
15:17. “Hired men” could be either slaves rented for hire or free servants working for pay; either one suggests that his father is well-to-do.
15:18–19. Jewish people often used “heaven” as a respectful way of saying “God.” The son here returns simply out of hunger and the belief that his father may feed him as a servant, not because he is genuinely sorry that he disgraced his father. Given the magnitude of his sin and the squandering of one-third of his father’s life’s earnings, Jewish hearers might regard his return as an act of incredible presumption rather than humility.
15:20. It was a breach of an elderly Jewish man’s dignity to run, though familial love could take priority over dignity after a long absence (cf. Tobit 11:9—mother and son). Given the normal garb, the father would have to pull up his skirt to run. Kissing was appropriate for family members or intimate friends.
15:21–22. The best robe in the house would belong to the father himself. The ring would probably be a family signet ring—a symbol of reinstatement to sonship in a well-to-do house. Slaves did not normally wear sandals, though they carried and tied a master’s sandals. The father is saying, “No, I won’t receive you back as a servant. I’ll receive you only as a son.”
15:23. The calf would be enough to feed the whole village; this would be a big party! Aristocratic families often invited the whole town to a banquet when a son attained adulthood (about thirteen years old) or a child married.
15:24. Ancient writers sometimes bracketed off a section of their work by repeating a particular line; this bracketing off is called an inclusio. So far this parable has followed the course of the two that preceded it (15:3–10), but 15:24–32 are bracketed off to address the climactic issue: the elder brother represents Jesus’ religious accusers (15:2).
15:25–28. Dancing was used in both religious and nonreligious celebrations. Elder brothers were to reconcile differences between fathers and younger brothers, but here the elder brother, returning at the end of a long day’s work, refuses even to enter the house. This is also a grievous insult to the father’s dignity and could have warranted a beating (cf. 15:12).
15:29–30. Failing to greet one’s father with a title (e.g., “Father, “Sir”; contrast even 15:12) was a grievous insult to the father’s dignity. The elder brother here is a transparent metaphor for the Pharisees, and the younger brother for the sinners with whom Jesus was eating (15:1–2).
15:31–32. Religious Judaism in this period considered prostitution sinful; both Jewish and non-Jewish sources considered squandering property, especially someone else’s (16:1), sinful.
Because the inheritance had been divided, the elder brother was already assured of his share, effective on the father’s death (15:12); he had nothing to lose by his brother’s return. The final response of the elder brother is never stated, providing the Pharisees with the opportunity to repent if they are willing.[1]
-----------------------------------
JESUS’ SAVING THE LOST
Luke 15:1–32
After a stage-setting that features some grumbling Pharisees and scholars (15:1–2), this chapter divides into three parables: the first about finding a lost sheep (15:3–7); the second about finding a lost coin (15:8–10); and the third about finding a lost son, plus the grumbling of his brother (15:11–32). All three of the lost represent sinners, lost as they are from God and his kingdom.
15:1–2: And all the tax collectors and sinners were drawing near to hear him [Jesus]. 2 And both the Pharisees and the scholars were grumbling, saying, “This [guy] is welcoming sinners and eating with them.” Tax collectors were notorious for their dishonesty, and “sinners” refers also to people notorious for other sins. Because of Jesus’ demand for repentance from sin, we might have expected such people to keep their distance from Jesus. But no, they “were drawing near” to him. How strong his magnetism! And that they were “all” drawing near maximizes it. Their purpose in drawing near? “To hear” Jesus. They of all people are heeding his immediately preceding admonition, “The person having ears to hear [with] had better hear!” (14:35). The Pharisees and the scholars grumble about Jesus’ welcoming such people and eating with them (see 5:30 and 7:39 with comments). This off-putting self-righteousness of theirs makes a dark foil against which his magnetic congeniality shines out brightly.
15:3–7: And he told them [the Pharisees and the scholars] this parable, saying, 4 “What man from among you, if he has a hundred sheep and loses one of them, doesn’t leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness [an unpopulated area where pasture is found] and go after the lost [sheep] till he finds it?” Implied answer: Not one of you would fail to do so. 5 “And on finding [it], he puts [it] on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And on coming into [his] house, he calls together [his] friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, because I’ve found my sheep that was lost.’ 7 I tell you [Jesus isn’t quoting the shepherd any more but speaking himself] that in this way there’ll be joy in heaven over one repenting sinner rather than over ninety-nine righteous people who as such don’t have need of repentance.” The lost sheep represents a sinner, but the ninety-nine don’t represent the self-righteous Pharisees and scholars. They represent truly righteous people who, as Jesus plainly says, “don’t have need of repentance” (see the comments on 5:31–32). That the shepherd leaves the ninety-nine untended in the wilderness, and does so for only one sheep at the expense of so many more, illustrates the depth of Jesus’ concern to save sinners (compare 19:10). The shepherd doesn’t stop searching till he finds the lost sheep. Nor will Jesus stop welcoming sinners and eating with them till he has brought them to repentance. But there’s something of a mismatch between the parable and the circumstance in and for which he tells it. For unlike the shepherd, Jesus doesn’t have to go searching for a sinner. The sinners are drawing near to him—all of them, not just one. He has only to welcome them and eat with them. So given both their drawing near and their large number in contrast with the one sheep that strayed away, how much more reason to rejoice over these sinners when they repent! In addition to rejoicing over finding his lost sheep, the shepherd puts it on his shoulder as a sign of affection. And his rejoicing over the salvation of the lost sheep complements the rejoicing of the saved themselves over their salvation (for which see 2:10; Acts 16:34). So great is the shepherd’s joy that he goes home instead of returning to the ninety-nine, still untended in the wilderness, and calls on his friends and neighbors to rejoice with him. Such is the joy in heaven over even one repentant sinner. Think of the joy over the many repentant sinners coming out of Jesus’ ministry!
“I tell you” emphasizes the joy in heaven. But who is rejoicing there? Jesus waits till 15:10 to answer the question, and then answers it indirectly. Meanwhile, he emphasizes the heavenly joy even further by contrasting it with nonjoy over the much larger number of righteous people who don’t need repentance. Most translations supply “more” with “than” to produce rejoicing over one repenting sinner “more than over ninety-nine righteous [people].” But elsewhere in his Gospel, Luke uses “than” only five times for comparisons, and then always with an accompanying comparative adjective, such as “more” with “than” in 9:13: “We have no more than five loaves and two fish.” There, not as here in 15:7, “more” is expressed and therefore doesn’t need to be supplied (similarly in 10:12, 14; 16:17; 18:25). On the other hand, the word translated “than” occurs in Luke thirty-seven times for alternatives (hence its other translation, “or”) instead of comparisons. Given the absence of a comparative adjective here, then, it’s better to supply “rather” with “than” instead of “more” with “than” (see 17:2 for the closest parallel: “It’s advantageous for him if an upper millstone collars his neck and he’s been hurled into the sea rather than that he snare one of these little ones”). Thus the striking lack of joy in heaven over ninety-nine righteous people highlights the heavenly joy over one repenting sinner.
15:8–10: “Or what woman, having ten drachmas—if she should lose one drachma—doesn’t light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully [for the one lost drachma] till she finds [it]?” Implied answer: No woman would fail to do so. 9 “And on finding [it], she calls together [her] female friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, because I’ve found the drachma that I lost.’ 10 In this way, I tell you [again, Jesus isn’t quoting the woman any more but is speaking himself], joy happens in the sight of God’s angels over one repenting sinner.” There’s no “from among you” after “Or what woman,” because Jesus is addressing an all-male audience of Pharisees and scholars (contrast 15:3: “What man from among you …?”). A drachma was a coin that had the same value as a denarius, the daily wage for a manual laborer. It’s possible but not certain that the woman is to be understood as wearing a headdress adorned with ten drachmas given to her as a dowry at her marriage and that one of them had come loose and fallen to the floor. She lit a lamp, not because it was nighttime, but because her house—a typical one for a peasant—had no windows, only a low door that let in little light. She swept her house to make the lost coin tinkle on the floor so that she could more easily determine its whereabouts, perhaps made harder to determine by its being hidden under straw spread over the floor because of domestic animals. “Carefully” describes her search so as to illustrate Jesus’ care to bring lost sinners to repentance. Again, the mismatch between the woman’s having to search for her one lost coin and all the sinners’drawing near to Jesus without his having to search them out—this mismatch gives more reason for rejoicing over the success of his ministry with sinners. Yet again, the womans joy is too much not to share and be shared. “In this way” draws a comparison once more with the heavenly joy. “I tell you” emphasizes that joy still yet again. And “joy happens in the sight of God’s angels” doesn’t mean that the angels rejoice. It means that God rejoices in their sight. What a sight! So Jesus welcomes tax collectors and sinners and eats with them, not just out of sociability, but for the sake of their salvation through repentance from their sins. This theme suits Luke’s appeal to prospective converts having moral sensibility, people looking for a religion of morality that contrasts with the immorality surrounding them.
15:11–12: And he said, “A certain man had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to the father, ‘Father, give me the portion of the estate devolving [on me].’ And he [the father] distributed to them [the two sons] the assets [literally, ‘the livelihood’ made possible by the assets of the estate].” The request of the younger son to inherit his part of the fathers estate before the father dies makes the respectful address, “Father,” look like a ruse designed to mask the insolence of his request. Though asked to fork over only the younger son’s part, the father distributes to the older son, too, his part. This excess of generosity forms a backdrop that will incriminate the older son’s attitude later on. Jesus doesn’t indicate the proportions in which the estate was divided for distribution to the two sons, so that speculation on the proportions is pointless.
15:13–16: “And after not many days [= ‘After a few days’], having gathered together all [his assets], the younger son journeyed off into a distant region and there dissipated his [part of] the estate by living profligately. 14 And when he’d spent all [his assets], a severe famine came about throughout that region; and he began to be destitute. 15 And he went and attached himself to one of that region’s citizens [to work for a living, since he had no more assets off which to live leisurely]. And he [the citizen] sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was craving to eat his fill of the carob pods that the pigs were eating. And no one was giving him [anything to eat].” Gathering together all his assets for a long journey entailed selling them for cash, which can be carried. The distance of the region to which the younger son journeys represents sinners’ alienation from God and plays into the appearance of pigs on the scene. For pigs wouldn’t be raised in Jewish territory. The Mosaic law declared them unclean and not to be eaten (Leviticus 11:7; Deuteronomy 14:8). The son’s lavish lifestyle has left him cashless. The arrival of a famine “throughout that region” makes it impossible to buy enough food even if he had leftovers of cash. The severity of the famine has driven the price of food out of reach anyway. “Began to be destitute” describes the son’s condition as hopeless when looking down the road—until he goes to work feeding pigs for a local citizen, obviously a Gentile, since a Jew wouldn’t be raising pigs. But what a comedown—working instead of spending freely, working as a Jew for a Gentile, and feeding animals forbidden to be eaten by a Jew! And even this work doesn’t provide enough income for the purchase of food sufficient to alleviate his hunger pangs. They’re so bad that he craves even the barely edible carob pods he has to give the pigs. The pigs’ lives are more important to his employer than his own life is. So he doesn’t even get pig feed. Nobody gives him anything to eat. The famine has destroyed human sympathy and fellow feeling. It’s every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost.
15:17–19: “But on coming to himself, he said, ‘How many employees of my father are getting more than enough loaves of bread [representing food in general], yet here I’m perishing because of hunger! 18 On standing up, I’ll travel to my father and tell him, “Father, I’ve sinned against heaven and in your sight. 19 I’m no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your employees.” ’ ” “Coming to himself” means “coming to his senses” and implies that he has strayed from himself, from his own best interests. His father’s employees were neither members of the family nor household slaves, sure of daily provisions, but laborers hired a day at a time and only as needed. Yet even they have more than enough food to stay alive while in his famine-struck region the younger son is perishing (= dying) for lack of food. The word for “perishing” is the same as the word for “lost” in connection with the coin and the sheep in 15:3–10. Like that coin and that sheep, then, the son is lost from his father and has up till now been lost also from himself. But no longer, because he has come to himself. “On standing up” implies that he’s sitting down as he plans what to do. A determination to confess his sin gives the plan to use the address “Father” a ring of genuine respect (contrast 15:12). “Heaven” is a reverential substitute for “God” (as when someone says, “For heaven’s sake!” rather than “For God’s sake!”), so that “I’ve sinned against heaven” means “I’ve sinned against God.” Since God commanded children to honor their parents (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16), the son recognizes that dishonoring his father counted as a sin against God. “And in your sight” doesn’t mean that the son has sinned against his father, however. It means his father has seen the son’s sin against God and therefore can’t be expected to treat the son as a son. Hence, “I’m no longer worthy [‘in your sight’] to be called your son.” “Make me like one of your employees” implies that though he’s a son he should, because of his sin, be treated as an employee, a day laborer, not even a household slave.
15:20–24: “And on standing up, he went to his own father. But while he was still a long way off from [home], his father saw him and felt sorry [for him] and, running, fell on his neck [= wrapped his arms around the son’s neck] and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I’ve sinned against heaven and in your sight. I’m no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father told his slaves, ‘Quickly bring out the first [= the best, most prestigious] robe and clothe him [with it]. And give [him] a ring for his hand [we’d say “finger”] and sandals for [his] feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf. Slaughter [it]; and eating [it], let’s celebrate, 24 because this my son was dead and has come back to life. He was lost, and has been found.’ And they began celebrating.” The son makes good on his resolve. That he went “to his own father” rather than simply “to his father” foreshadows a restoration of fellowship between father and son. We should resist the temptation to think that the father’s seeing the son while the son “was still a long way off” implies a constant lookout for the son on the part of his father. The point is, rather, that when the father happened to see his son in the distance, he went to him despite the distance. “Felt sorry [for him]” implies that the father saw his son to be in tatters, unadorned, barefoot, and—unlike the coming fattened calf—emaciated. And not only did he go the distance to his son. He ran the distance, a long one. Running is unusual for an elderly oriental man, but this father’s compassion overpowers his sense of decorum, as though to say that even God forgets his dignity with a burst of joy when a sinner turns to him in repentance. Wrapping arms around the son’s neck and kissing him display overwhelming affection.
As planned, the son blurts out his confession. Jesus doesn’t say why “make me like one of your employees” drops off the end of the confession, whether because of the father’s interruption, the son’s deciding the request would insult his father after such an affectionate welcome home, or some other reason. In any case, the story line races to the father’s instructions, addressed to his slaves. As the eldest in the family, the father still wields authority even though he distributed his estate to the two sons. Dramatically, his instructions imply forgiveness of the son, so that the father doesn’t have to pronounce the forgiveness in so many words. “Quickly” implies his eagerness to demonstrate forgiveness. The best robe was long and flowing. The son won’t even have to dress himself in it. The slaves will put it on him. Clothing the son with this most prestigious robe compares with “joy in heaven over one repenting sinner rather than over ninety-nine righteous [people] who as such don’t have need of repentance” (15:7). The ring will adorn his finger. His bare feet will get sandaled. Eating the fattened calf, far better food than the carob pods he’d craved but had to give the pigs instead, will fatten him up; and—since meat seldom appeared on the menu; it wasn’t part of a daily diet—the shared meal of meat will be an occasion of celebration all around, with one possible exception coming up. “Let’s celebrate” includes even the slaves whom the father is instructing.
With “this my son” the father publicly owns the prodigal as his own offspring despite the son’s earlier insolence and recent dissipation. But the father exaggerates when saying that his son “was dead and has come back to life.” Nor is it entirely true that the son “was lost, and has been found.” You could say that he’d been lost in that he’d strayed from his father and home the way the lost sheep had strayed from its shepherd and flock, and also from his own best interests (15:4, 17). But he hadn’t been found, for the father hadn’t gone looking for him as the shepherd did search for his lost sheep and the woman for her lost coin (15:4–5, 8–9). The son had come home of his own accord. But the exaggeration (which is deliberate) of being dead and coming back to life, and the half-truth of being lost and found, testify to the exuberance of the father’s joy over his son’s repentance, an exuberance that represents the exuberant joy of God over one repenting sinner. The festivities “began.” In heaven they’ll never end; for in the larger sense, “com[ing] back to life” represents resurrection to eternal life. Jesus can’t wait to mention the festivities, so that he skips saying that the slaves carried out the instructions of their master, the father.
This parable ends with a tailpiece unparalleled in the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin. 15:25–30: “And his [the father’s] older son was in a field [doubtless working, in contrast with his younger brother’s leisurely squandering in a far country]. And while he, coming [from the field], drew near the house, he heard music [of instruments being played together] and dancing [to the music (compare 15:10)]. 26 And on summoning one of the servants [another word for ‘slaves’], he enquired what these things [the music and the dancing] might be [= mean]. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has had the fattened calf slaughtered because he’s gotten him [your brother] back safe and sound [or as we might say, “all in one piece”].’ 28 But he [the older son] got angry and didn’t want to go into [the house to join in the celebration that was taking place there]. But on coming out [of the house], his father was urging him [to go in]. 29 But he, answering, told his father, ‘Behold, I’ve slaved for you ever so many years and have never neglected [to obey] a command of yours! And you’ve never given me a goat [much less a fattened calf], so that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your assets with prostitutes [by paying them for sex], you’ve had the fattened calf slaughtered for him.’ ”
The older son rudely fails to use the respectful address, “Father.” He avoids calling the prodigal his brother and refers to him instead, and disdainfully, as “this son of yours.” “Behold” calls attention to the many years he has worked like a slave for his father. “Ever so many years” underscores the length of his service; and “slaved for you” indicates that though the father had distributed to him a portion of the estate because he was a son and even though, unlike his brother, he hadn’t asked for it (15:12), he’d worked for his father like a slave, and like a slave hadn’t failed to obey a command of his father. Such voluntary supererogation! Whether rightly or wrongly, he attributes his brother’s destitution to the cost of visiting prostitutes; and the “devour[ing]” of the assets given the brother by their father surely invalidates the celebratory devouring of a fattened calf. Or so the older brother thinks.
But what do those details mean? The older son represents “the Pharisees and the scholars” of 15:2. His anger and not wanting to join in the festivities represent the Pharisees’ and the scholars’ grumbling at Jesus for his welcoming sinners and eating with them (15:2). The father’s urging his older son to go in represents God’s wanting also the Pharisees and the scholars to join in celebrating the repentance and restoration of tax collectors and sinners. Like the older son, the Pharisees and the scholars serve God solely out of a sense of duty, pride themselves on their own merits, and therefore resent the gracious forgiveness of repentant sinners.
15:31–32: “But he [the father] said to him, ‘Child [a more affectionate address than “Son” would have been], you’re always with me [in contrast with your younger brother’s having been absent for as many years as you, according to your own statement, have slaved for me]. And all my things are yours [because without exception I distributed to you all the estate left to me after your brother got his portion (which distribution may partly explain why the older son got angry at the father’s having had the fattened calf slaughtered, for at bottom the calf belonged to the older son)]. 32 But it was necessary to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come back to life, and [was] lost and has been found.’ ” The father’s affectionate address, “Child,” contrasts with this son’s having rudely failed to use the respectful address, “Father.” And over against that failure, the father points to his older son’s privileges of having been “always” with him and possessing “all” the father’s belongings. “Always” contradicts the son’s “never” and along with “all” provides a twofold emphasis. Possessing all his father’s belongings exposes the pretense of the son in saying the father hadn’t “given” him even a goat. The son owned all the farm animals. He didn’t need to be given any of them. Notably, the father doesn’t acknowledge his son’s self-righteous appeal to working as a slave for him. By replacing the older son’s disdainful reference to “this son of yours,” the father’s reference to “this brother of yours” appeals to an affection that the older brother should feel for his younger brother. The exuberance of the father’s joy comes out again in a second exaggerated statement about coming out of death back to life and in a second partial mismatch of lost and found (see the comments on 15:24). It’s these happy reversals that make a celebration necessary. Not just appropriate, but necessary—because it’s in the very nature of a father to rejoice over the return of his repentant son just as it’s in the very nature of God to rejoice over a repentant sinner. Of necessity, nature will out.
What is the older brother’s response? Jesus doesn’t say, but leaves the parable open-ended because the Pharisees and the scholars and all others who trust in their own merits finish the parable themselves, either by renouncing their self-righteousness to join in the messianic feast of salvation or by shutting themselves out through maintaining their self-righteousness (18:9–14). Finally, the older brother shows that a person doesn’t have to feel lost to be lost. You can be estranged from God right on home territory. But he invites everybody—flagrant sinner and decent older brother alike—on the same terms: forgiving grace.[2]
-----------------------------------
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
Luke 15:1–32
The unit of three parables in chapter 15—the Lost Sheep (15:4–7), the Lost Coin (15:8–10), and the Lost Son (15:11–32)—has been explained as an allusion to Jer. 31:10–20, a text in which Yahweh is a shepherd who gathers his flock (31:10–14), Rachel weeps for her children (31:15–17), and Ephraim is the son of Joseph who repents and receives God’s mercy (31:18–20) (Kossen 1956; for a critique, see Marshall 1978: 598; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1072). Although this suggestion is plausible for the parable of the Lost Son, there are no clearly discernible echoes of Jer. 31 in the first two parables, which makes rather unlikely the view that Jer. 31 explains or dictates the composition of Luke 15.
The view that interprets Luke’s central section against the background of Deut. 1–26 links chapter 15, particularly the parable of the Lost Son, with Deut. 21:15–22:4 (C. F. Evans 1955: 48; C. A. Evans 1990: 234). The parallels are as follows. Deuteronomy 21:15–17 deals with the status of a firstborn son, who will be honored over a second son even if the father loves the second son more than the firstborn; the firstborn son will receive a “double portion” of the father’s inheritance (21:17). Deuteronomy 21:18–21 deals with an obstinate son who does not obey his father and is “a glutton and a drunkard”; such a son will be taken out of the city and stoned. Jesus’ parable stands in stark contrast to this part of Deuteronomistic legislation: the wayward son is not expelled and stoned; rather, the father receives him back into the family (C. A. Evans [1990: 234] points out that Deut. 21 formulates civil law and does not intend to exclude the possibility of repentance, forgiveness, and restoration).
15:4
In the parable of the Lost Sheep (15:4–7) the description of the shepherd who goes after the one lost sheep (15:4) echoes Ezek. 34:11–12, 16:
For thus says the Lord God: I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. As shepherds seek out their flocks when they are among their scattered sheep, so I will seek out my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places to which they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness.… I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak.
Jesus asserts that he does the work of God, whose love and mercy for sinful and weak people is reflected in Jesus’ calling tax collectors and sinners (15:1) to repentance. As Jesus’ audience consists of the Pharisees and scribes who complain about Jesus welcoming and eating with sinners (15:2), he challenges them to understand themselves as shepherds. The Pharisees’ and scribes’ lack of concern and mercy for sinners echoes Ezek. 34, in which Yahweh directs the prophet to speak against the leaders of the nation who neglect their duties and leave Israel scattered “like sheep without a shepherd,” announcing that Yahweh himself will seek out, rescue, and care for the sheep. Jesus’ parable indicts the scribes and Pharisees for their failure to be the faithful shepherds of Yahweh’s flock and implies that Jesus’ love and mercy for the sinners is consistent with Yahweh’s mercy and care for his sheep (Green 1997: 574–75). The emphasis on joy in heaven over the repentance of one sinner in 15:7 may echo Ezek. 18:23: “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?” (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1078).
15:11–32
In the parable of the Lost Son (15:11–32) the younger son asks the father to give him the share of the property that will fall to him (dos moi to epiballon meros tēs ousias [15:12]). Since, according to Deut. 21:17, the firstborn son was to receive twice the amount that a father would give to each of the other sons, the younger of the two sons in Jesus’ parable would receive one-third of the property on his father’s death. The legal situation presupposed by the father’s actions in the parable raises several problems.
(1) A father could dispose of his property in two ways: either by a will (Gk. diathēkē) that is executed after his death or as a gift during his lifetime (Gk. dōrēma; Lat. donatio inter vivos). In OT law the disposal of property upon the death of a father is regulated in Num. 27:8–11; 36:7–9. The possibility of a father disposing of part of his estate by gift during his lifetime is not addressed in OT law, although it is possible that Abraham’s behavior reported in Gen. 25:5–6 (“Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, while he was still living”) survived in Jewish society and “allowed for a settlement upon younger sons, leaving the main estate intact for the eldest son” (Nolland 1989–1993: 782; Daube 1955: 330–33). Sirach 33:20–24 warns fathers against passing on their property to their children during their lifetime:
To son or wife, to brother or friend, do not give power over yourself, as long as you live; and do not give your property to another, in case you change your mind and must ask for it. While you are still alive and have breath in you, do not let anyone take your place. For it is better that your children should ask from you than that you should look to the hand of your children. Excel in all that you do; bring no stain upon your honor. At the time when you end the days of your life, in the hour of death, distribute your inheritance.
Sirach’s warning confirms that this custom existed in Jewish society of the Second Temple period (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1087; see also Tob. 8:21; b. B. Meṣiʿa 75b, which is also critical). It seems plausible to assume that a Jewish father who (partially) disposes of his estate in his lifetime would follow the stipulation of Deut. 21:17 and give a double share to the firstborn son. Some scholars suggest that the younger son would have received less than one-third, possibly two-ninths (Derrett 1970: 100–125).
(2) It was presumably highly irregular, and certainly strikingly presumptuous, for the younger son to initiate the settlement of his father’s estate and to request his father to dispose of (at least part of) his property. Nothing in the parable hints at plausible reasons for the younger son’s action, such as the prospect of an imminent marriage (cf. m. B. Bat. 8:7) or plans to emigrate with the goal of improving his life situation (see Jeremias 1971: 129). The parable does not explain why the father acquiesced to the wishes of his younger son, whose request signifies his rejection of his family (Green 1997: 580). The father characterizes the son, at the end of the story, as dead and lost (15:24, 32).
(3) The disposition of the father’s property during his lifetime, giving his younger son the portion that was his due, would not have required the father to dispose of his entire estate and give two-thirds to his elder son. However, this apparently is what happened: 15:12 asserts that the father “divided his property between them,” and in 15:31 the father emphasizes in his conversation with the elder son that “all that is mine is yours.” The continuation of the parable suggests, on the other hand, that the elder son does not exercise the main control over the estate: in 15:22–24 it is the father who commands the servants, slaughters the fatted calf, and organizes the feast (Nolland 1989–1993: 782). Perhaps the father had merely assigned capital goods to the elder son rather than the claim of their produce during his lifetime, thus allowing him to retain an interest in the property until his death (cf. m. B. Bat. 8:7; see Nolland 1989–1993: 782).
(4) On the assumption that the father had given property to his younger son, 15:13, “after not many days the younger son gathered together all he had,” seems to imply that the latter liquidated his portion of the inheritance and turned it into cash. The available evidence concerning the legal situation suggests that “if the son sold the property, the purchaser would take possession of it only at the death of the father. In doing so, the younger son would have no further claim on the property, either capital or usufruct” (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1087). The younger son acknowledges this when he repents and returns to the father (15:19). If this is indeed the legal scenario, then the father would not have been in a position to reinstate the younger son without infringing on the property rights that he had signed over to the elder son.
(5) Thus the scope of the younger son’s reinstatement is disputed (see below on 15:20–24). If the son is restored to the status of son, then the emphasis may be solely on the father’s surprising forgiveness and compassion, which fly in the face of accepted social custom, and on the honor that the undeserving but repentant son receives (Nolland 1989–1993; Green 1997). If the son is indeed reinstated “with full privileges” (Bock 1994–1996: 1314), then the emphasis is on the authority, possessions, and freedom that the repentant son is given by his compassionate father. In this case, the dramatic setting of the parable simply does not raise the question of the legal status and the further inheritance of the restored son (Marshall 1978: 607).
The reference to “pigs” (Gk. choiros) in 15:15–16 echoes the OT legislation that declared pigs as “unclean” and forbidden as food for Israel (Lev. 11:7; Deut. 14:8; cf. Isa. 65:4). Rabbinic tradition formulates the dictum “Cursed is the man who rears swine” (b. B. Qam. 82b; cf. y. Ter. 8:46b [62]; Gen. Rab. 63:8; see Lachs 1987: 308).
The scene of reconciliation of father and prodigal son in 15:20–24—the embrace, the kiss, and the gifts of robe, ring, and sandals—underlines the restoration of the son to the father and to the family that he had rebuffed. The gift of a robe and of a ring is interpreted by some scholars in the light of Gen. 41:42, where Pharaoh makes Joseph his plenipotentiary, and Esther 8:2, where Mordecai is honored with a ring (see Jeremias 1971: 130; Marshall 1978: 610–11). Others argue that there is no clear evidence in the text that the younger son is invested with his father’s authority: the ring is not identified as a signet ring, and the robe might simply have been a basic necessity, given the destitute state of the son (15:15–16), rather than a dress code symbolizing social status. If the latter interpretation is followed, then the symbolic actions in 15:20–24 simply “signify the restoration of the younger son’s honor as son” (C. A. Evans 1990: 583; cf. Nolland 1989–1993: 785, with reference to Esther 6:11 for a comparable concern with honor).[3]
-----------------------------------
The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures,
d. Jesus’ teaching about the hopeless and sinners in the kingdom (chap. 15)
Jesus combated the religious leaders by teaching again that some who were considered to be hopeless and sinners will be in the kingdom. Here are perhaps the best known of Jesus’ parables—The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin, and The Prodigal Son. All three parables teach the same message—that God is vitally concerned with the repentance of sinners. But the third story goes beyond the others, applying that truth to the situation in which Jesus found Himself—being accepted by the outcasts of society while being rejected by the religious leaders.
15:1–2. Much to the disgust of the religious leaders, Jesus associated with those who were thought of as hopeless and “sinners.” The opposition to Jesus was once again, as almost always in Luke, the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law. Because of this opposition Jesus told three parables. All three speak of things or a person being lost and then found, and of rejoicing when the lost is found.
Some view these parables as teaching a believer’s restoration to fellowship with God. One cannot lose something he does not own, they reason, so the first two parables must represent children of God who come back to Him. Also, a son is already a son, so the third parable must be teaching that people who are believers can be restored to fellowship with God.
Others understand the parables to teach that lost people (i.e., people who are not believers) can come to Christ. This view seems preferable for two reasons: (1) Jesus was speaking to Pharisees who were rejecting the message of the kingdom. Their objection was that sinners were coming to Jesus and believing His message. In no way could these two groups be adequately represented in the third parable if the point of the parable is a restoration to fellowship by a believer. (2) Verse 22 indicates that the son who came back received a new position which he did not have before. The Jews were God’s “children” in the sense that they had a special covenant relationship to Him. But each individual still had to become a believer in God. It was their responsibility to accept the message Jesus was preaching—that He was the Messiah and that He would bring in the kingdom for the nation.
15:3–7. The Parable of the Lost Sheep teaches that there is … rejoicing in heaven when a sinner … repents. Jesus was not saying the other 99 sheep were not important. Instead, He was emphasizing that the one sheep not in the fold corresponded with the sinners with whom Jesus was eating (vv. 1–2). The 99 righteous persons refer to the Pharisees who thought themselves righteous and therefore in no need to repent.
15:8–10. The Parable of the Lost Coin teaches that there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels when a sinner … repents. This is the same message as the first but it emphasizes the thoroughness of the search. The woman continued to sweep the house and search carefully until she found the coin which was a thing of great value. A drachma, a Greek silver coin referred to only here in the New Testament, equaled about a day’s wages. The point would have been clear to Jesus’ listeners: the sinners with whom He was associating were extremely valuable to God. (Cf. similar wording in vv. 6, 9.)
Jesus then told the Parable of the Lost Son and His Older Brother to explain that God is inviting all people to enter the kingdom.
15:11. A man … had two sons; the contrast between his sons is the point of the parable.
15:12–20a. This section of the parable describes the actions of the younger son. He requested an unusual thing when he asked his father to give him his share of the estate. Normally an estate was not divided and given to the heirs until the father could no longer manage it well. This father acquiesced to his son’s demand and gave him his share of the inheritance. The younger son took that wealth, went far away, and squandered it in wild living, involving himself presumably, as his older brother said, with prostitutes (v. 30). The hearers immediately would have begun to understand the point of the story. Jesus had been criticized for associating with sinners. The sinners were considered people who were far away from God, squandering their lives in riotous living. In contrast with the younger son, the older son continued to remain with the father and did not engage in such practices.
A famine occurred and the second son ran out of money so that he had to work for a foreigner feeding pigs, something detestable to a Jew. Perhaps the far country was east of the Sea of Galilee where Gentiles tended pigs (cf. 8:26–37). In his hunger he longed for the pods—the food he fed the pigs. As a Jew, he could have stooped no lower. The pods were probably carob pods, from tall evergreen carob trees.
In this low condition, he came to his senses (15:17). He decided to go back to his father and work for him. Surely he would be better off to work for his father than for a foreigner. He fully expected to be hired by his father as a servant, not to be taken back as his son.
15:20b–24. The third section of the parable describes the father’s response. He had been waiting for his son to return, for while he was still a long way off the father saw him. The father, full of compassion for his son, ran to him, and hugged and kissed him. The father would not even listen to all of the young son’s rehearsed speech. Instead the father had his servants prepare a banquet to celebrate the son’s return. He gave the son a new position with a robe … a ring … and sandals. Jesus intentionally used the banquet motif again. He had previously spoken of a banquet to symbolize the coming kingdom (13:29; cf. 14:15–24). Jesus’ hearers would have easily realized the significance of this feast. Sinners (whom the young son symbolized) were entering into the kingdom because they were coming to God. They believed they needed to return to Him and be forgiven by Him.
15:25–32. The parable’s final section describes the attitude of the older brother, who symbolized the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law. They had the same attitude toward the sinners as the older son had toward the younger son. The older brother, coming home from working in the field and hearing what was happening, got angry. Similarly the Pharisees and teachers of the Law were angry with the message Jesus was proclaiming. They did not like the idea that people from outside their nation as well as outcasts and sinners in the nation were to be a part of the kingdom. Like the older son who refused to go to the feast, the Pharisees refused to enter the kingdom Jesus offered to the nation.
Interestingly the father went out and pleaded with the older brother to go to the feast. Likewise, Jesus ate with Pharisees as well as sinners. He did not desire to exclude the Pharisees and teachers of the Law from the kingdom. The message was an invitation to everyone.
The older brother was angry because he had never been honored with a feast even though, as he said, All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders (v. 29). Those words betrayed the fact that the older brother thought he had a relationship with his father because of his work. He served his father not out of love but out of a desire for reward. He even thought of himself as being in bondage to his father.
The father pointed out that the older son had had the joy of being in the house all the time, and now he should rejoice with the father in his brother’s return. The words, You are always with me and everything I have is yours, suggest the religious leaders’ privileged position as members of God’s Chosen People. They were the recipients and guardians of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:1–2; 9:4). Rather than feeling angry, they should rejoice that others were joining them and would be a part of the kingdom.[4]
-----------------------------------
W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary,
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
THE JOYS OF SALVATION
Luke 15
When D.L. Moody was directing his Sunday School in Chicago, one boy walked several miles to attend; and somebody asked him, “Why don’t you go to a Sunday School closer to home?”
His reply might have been used by the publicans and sinners in Jesus’ day: “Because they love a feller over there.”
It is significant that Jesus attracted sinners while the Pharisees repelled them. (What does this say about some of our churches today?) Lost sinners came to Jesus, not because He catered to them or compromised His message, but because He cared for them. He understood their needs and tried to help them, while the Pharisees criticized them and kept their distance (see Luke 18:9–14). The Pharisees had a knowledge of the Old Testament Law and a desire for personal purity, yet they had no love for lost souls.
Three words summarize the message of this chapter: lost, found, and rejoice. Jesus spoke these parables to answer the accusations of the Pharisees and scribes who were scandalized at His behavior. It was bad enough that Jesus welcomed these outcasts and taught them, but He went so far as to eat with them! The Jewish religious leaders did not yet understand that the Son of man had “come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). Even more, they were still blind to the fact that they themselves were among the lost.
This chapter makes it clear that there is one message of salvation: God welcomes and forgives repentant sinners. But these parables also reveal that there are two aspects to this salvation. There is God’s part: the shepherd seeks the lost sheep, and the woman searches for the lost coin. But there is also man’s part in salvation, for the wayward son willingly repented and returned home. To emphasize but one aspect is to give a false view of salvation, for both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man must be considered (see John 6:37; 2 Thes. 2:13–14).
Since one of the major themes of this chapter is joy, let’s consider the three different joys that are involved in salvation. C.S. Lewis wrote, “Joy is the serious business of heaven,” and it is a joy in which you and I can share.
The Joy of Finding (Luke 15:1–10)
The story about the lost sheep would touch the hearts of the men and boys in the crowd, and the women and girls would appreciate the story about the coin that was lost from the wedding necklace. Jesus sought to reach everybody’s heart.
The lost sheep (vv. 3–7). The sheep was lost because of foolishness. Sheep have a tendency to go astray, and that is why they need a shepherd (Isa. 53:6; 1 Peter 2:25). The scribes and Pharisees had no problem seeing the publicans and sinners as “lost sheep,” but they would not apply that image to themselves! And yet the prophet made it clear that all of us have sinned and gone astray, and that includes religious people.
The shepherd was responsible for each sheep; if one was missing, the shepherd had to pay for it unless he could prove that it was killed by a predator (see Gen. 31:38–39; Ex. 22:10–13; Amos 3:12). This explains why he would leave the flock with the other shepherds, go and search for the missing animal, and then rejoice when he found it. Not to find the lost sheep meant money out of his own pocket, plus the disgrace of being known as a careless shepherd.
By leaving the ninety-nine sheep, the shepherd was not saying they were unimportant to him. They were safe but the lost sheep was in danger. The fact that the shepherd would go after one sheep is proof that each animal was dear to him. Jesus was not suggesting that the scribes and Pharisees were not in need of salvation, for they certainly were. We must not make every part of the parable mean something, otherwise we will turn it into an allegory and distort the message.
There is a fourfold joy expressed when a lost sinner comes to the Saviour. Though nothing is said in the story about how the sheep felt, there is certainly joy in the heart of the person found. Both Scripture (Acts 3:8; 8:39) and our own personal experience verify the joy of salvation.
But there is also the joy of the person who does the finding. Whenever you assist in leading a lost soul to faith in Christ, you experience a wonderful joy within. Others join with us in rejoicing as we share the good news of a new child of God in the family, and there is also joy in heaven (Luke 15:7, 10). The angels know better than we do what we are saved from and to, and they rejoice with us.
The lost coin (vv. 8–10). The sheep was lost because of its foolishness, but the coin was lost because of the carelessness of another. It is a sobering thought that our carelessness at home could result in a soul being lost.
When a Jewish girl married, she began to wear a headband of ten silver coins to signify that she was now a wife. It was the Jewish version of our modern wedding ring, and it would be considered a calamity for her to lose one of those coins. Palestinian houses were dark, so she had to light a lamp and search until she found the lost coin; and we can imagine her joy at finding it.
We must not press parabolic images too far, but it is worth noting that the coin would have on it the image of the ruler (Luke 20:19–25). The lost sinner bears the image of God, even though that image has been marred by sin. When a lost sinner is “found,” God begins to restore that divine image through the power of the Spirit; and one day, the believer will be like Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10; 1 John 3:1–2).
These two parables help us understand something of what it means to be lost. To begin with, it means being out of place. Sheep belong with the flock, coins belong on the chain, and lost sinners belong in fellowship with God. But to be lost also means being out of service. A lost sheep is of no value to the shepherd, a lost coin has no value to the owner, and a lost sinner cannot experience the enriching fulfillment God has for him in Jesus Christ.
But to turn this around, to be “found” (saved) means that you are back in place (reconciled to God), back in service (life has a purpose), and out of danger. No wonder the shepherd and the woman rejoiced and invited their friends to rejoice with them!
It is easy for us today to read these two parables and take their message for granted, but the people who first heard them must have been shocked. Jesus was saying that God actually searches for lost sinners! No wonder the scribes and Pharisees were offended, for there was no place in their legalistic theology for a God like that. They had forgotten that God had sought out Adam and Eve when they had sinned and hidden from God (Gen. 3:8–9). In spite of their supposed knowledge of Scripture, the scribes and Pharisees forgot that God was like a father who pitied his wayward children (Ps. 103:8–14).
There are few joys that match the joy of finding the lost and bringing them to the Saviour. “The church has nothing to do but to save souls,” said John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. “Therefore, spend and be spent in this work.”
The Joy of Returning (Luke 15:11–24)
We call this story “The Parable of the Prodigal Son” (the word prodigal means “wasteful”), but it could also be called “The Parable of the Loving Father,” for it emphasizes the graciousness of the father more than the sinfulness of the son. Unlike the shepherd and the woman in the previous parables, the father did not go out to seek the son, but it was the memory of his father’s goodness that brought the boy to repentance and forgiveness (see Rom. 2:4). Note in the story the three experiences of the younger son.
Rebellion—he went to the far country (vv. 11–16). According to Jewish law, an elder son received twice as much as the other sons (Deut. 21:17), and a father could distribute his wealth during his lifetime if he wished. It was perfectly legal for the younger son to ask for his share of the estate and even to sell it, but it was certainly not a very loving thing on his part. It was as though he were saying to his father, “I wish you were dead!” Thomas Huxley said, “A man’s worst difficulties begin when he is able to do just as he likes.” How true!
We are always heading for trouble whenever we value things more than people, pleasure more than duty, and distant scenes more than the blessings we have right at home. Jesus once warned two disputing brothers, “Take heed and beware of covetousness!” (Luke 12:15) Why? Because the covetous person can never be satisfied, no matter how much he acquires, and a dissatisfied heart leads to a disappointed life. The prodigal learned the hard way that you cannot enjoy the things money can buy if you ignore the things money cannot buy.
“The far country” is not necessarily a distant place to which we must travel, because “the far country” exists first of all in our hearts. The younger son dreamed of “enjoying” his freedom far from home and away from his father and older brother. If the sheep was lost through foolishness and the coin through carelessness, then the son was lost because of willfulness. He wanted to have his own way so he rebelled against his own father and broke his father’s heart.
But life in the far country was not what he expected. His resources ran out, his friends left him, a famine came, and the boy was forced to do for a stranger what he would not do for his own father—go to work! This scene in the drama is our Lord’s way of emphasizing what sin really does in the lives of those who reject the Father’s will. Sin promises freedom, but it only brings slavery (John 8:34); it promises success, but brings failure; it promises life, but “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). The boy thought he would “find himself,” but he only lost himself! When God is left out of our lives, enjoyment becomes enslavement.
Repentance—he came to himself (vv. 17–19). To “repent” means “to change one’s mind,” and that is exactly what the young man did as he cared for the pigs. (What a job for a Jewish boy!) He “came to himself,” which suggests that up to this point he had not really “been himself.” There is an “insanity” in sin that seems to paralyze the image of God within us and liberate the “animal” inside. Students of Shakespeare like to contrast two quotations that describe this contradiction in man’s nature.
What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!
(Hamlet, II, ii)
When he is best, he is a little worse than a man; and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
(The Merchant of Venice, I, ii)
The young man changed his mind about himself and his situation, and he admitted that he was a sinner. He confessed that his father was a generous man and that service at home was far better than “freedom” in the far country. It is God’s goodness, not just man’s badness, that leads us to repentance (Rom. 2:4). If the boy had thought only about himself—his hunger, his homesickness, his loneliness—he would have despaired. But his painful circumstances helped him to see his father in a new way, and this brought him hope. If his father was so good to servants, maybe he would be willing to forgive a son.
Had he stopped there, the boy would have experienced only regret or remorse (2 Cor. 7:10), but true repentance involves the will as well as the mind and the emotions—“I will arise … I will go … I will say …” Our resolutions may be noble, but unless we act on them, they can never of themselves bring about any permanent good. If repentance is truly the work of God (Acts 11:18), then the sinner will obey God and put saving faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21).
Rejoicing—he came to the father (vv. 20–24). Here Jesus answered the accusations of the scribes and Pharisees (Luke 15:2), for the father not only ran to welcome his son, but he honored the boy’s homecoming by preparing a great feast and inviting the village to attend. The father never did permit the younger son to finish his confession; he interrupted him, forgave him, and ordered the celebration to begin!
Of course, the father pictures to us the attitude of our Heavenly Father toward sinners who repent: He is rich in His mercy and grace, and great in His love toward them (Eph. 2:1–10). All of this is possible because of the sacrifice of His Son on the cross. No matter what some preachers (and singers) claim, we are not saved by God’s love; God loves the whole world, and the whole world is not saved. We are saved by God’s grace, and grace is love that pays a price.
In the East, old men do not run; yet the father ran to meet his son. Why? One obvious reason was his love for him and his desire to show that love. But there is something else involved. This wayward son had brought disgrace to his family and village and, according to Deuteronomy 21:18–21, he should have been stoned to death. If the neighbors had started to stone him, they would have hit the father who was embracing him! What a picture of what Jesus did for us on the cross!
Everything the younger son had hoped to find in the far country, he discovered back home: clothes, jewelry, friends, joyful celebration, love, and assurance for the future. What made the difference? Instead of saying, “Father, give me!” he said, “Father, make me!” He was willing to be a servant! Of course, the father did not ask him to “earn” his forgiveness, because no amount of good works can save us from our sins (Eph. 2:8–10; Titus 3:3–7). In the far country, the prodigal learned the meaning of misery; but back home, he discovered the meaning of mercy.
The ring was a sign of sonship, and the “best robe” (no doubt the father’s) was proof of his acceptance back into the family (see Gen. 41:42; Isa. 61:10; 2 Cor. 5:21). Servants did not wear rings, shoes, or expensive garments. The feast was the father’s way of showing his joy and sharing it with others. Had the boy been dealt with according to the Law, there would have been a funeral, not a feast. What a beautiful illustration of Psalm 103:10–14!
It is interesting to consider the father’s description of his son’s experience: he was dead, and was now alive; he was lost, and now was found. This is the spiritual experience of every lost sinner who comes to the Father through faith in Jesus Christ (John 5:24; Eph. 2:1–10). Note the parallels between the prodigal’s coming to the father and our coming to the Father through Christ (John 14:6):
|
The Prodigal
|
Jesus Christ
|
|
He was lost (v.24)
|
“I am the way”
|
|
He was ignorant (v.17)
|
“I am the truth”
|
|
He was dead (v.24)
|
“I am the life”
|
There is only one way to come to the Father, and that is through faith in Jesus Christ. Have you come home?
The Joy of Forgiving (Luke 15:25–32)
At this point in the parable, the scribes and Pharisees felt confident that they had escaped our Lord’s judgment, for He had centered His attention on the publicans and sinners, pictured by the prodigal son. But Jesus continued the story and introduced the elder brother, who is a clear illustration of the scribes and Pharisees. The publicans and sinners were guilty of the obvious sins of the flesh, but the Pharisees and scribes were guilty of sins of the spirit (2 Cor. 7:1). Their outward actions may have been blameless, but their inward attitudes were abominable (see Matt. 23:25–28).
We must admit that the elder brother had some virtues that are commendable. He worked hard and always obeyed his father. He never brought disgrace either to the home or to the village, and apparently he had enough friends so that he could have planned an enjoyable party (Luke 15:29). He seems like a good solid citizen and, compared to his younger brother, almost a saint.
However, important as obedience and diligence are, they are not the only tests of character. Jesus taught that the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love others (Luke 10:25–28), but the elder brother broke both of these divine commandments. He did not love God (represented in the story by the father), and he did not love his brother. The elder brother would not forgive his brother who wasted the family inheritance and disgraced the family name. But neither would he forgive his father who had graciously forgiven the young man those very sins!
When you examine the sins of the elder brother, you can easily understand why he pictures the scribes and Pharisees. To begin with, he was self-righteous. He openly announced the sins of his brother, but he could not see his own sins (see Luke 18:9–14). The Pharisees defined sin primarily in terms of outward actions, not inward attitudes. They completely missed the message of the Sermon on the Mount and its emphasis on inward attitudes and holiness of heart (Matt. 5–7).
Pride was another one of his failings. Just think, he had served his father all those years and had never disobeyed his will! What a testimony! But his heart was not in his work, and he was always dreaming of throwing a big party at which he and his friends could enjoy themselves. He was only a drudge. Like the Prophet Jonah, the elder brother did God’s will but not from the heart (Jonah 4; Eph. 6:6). He was a hard worker and a faithful worker—qualities to be commended—but his work was not a “labor of love” that would please his father.
You cannot help but notice his unconcern for his missing brother. Imagine having to be told that his brother had come home! The father watched for the younger son day after day and finally saw him afar off, but the elder brother did not know his brother was home until one of the servants told him.
Even though he knew it would make his father happy, the elder brother did not want his younger brother to come home. Why should he share his estate with somebody who had wasted his own inheritance? Why should he even share the father’s love with somebody who had brought shame to the family and the village? Reports of the prodigal’s lifestyle only made the elder brother look good, and perhaps this would make the father love his obedient son even more. No doubt about it—the arrival of the younger son was a threat to the older son.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the elder son was his fierce anger. He was angry at both his father and his brother and would not go into the house and share in the joyful celebration.
Anger is a normal emotion and it need not be sinful. “Be ye angry, and sin not” (Eph. 4:26, quoting Ps. 4:4). Moses, David, the prophets, and our Lord Jesus displayed holy anger at sin, and so should we today. The Puritan preacher Thomas Fuller said that anger was one of the “sinews of the soul.” Aristotle gave good advice when he wrote: “Anybody can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose and in the right way—that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.”
The elder brother was angry with his father because his father had given the younger son the feast that the elder brother had always wanted. “You never gave me so much as a goat,” he said to his father, “but you killed for him the valuable fatted calf!” The elder brother’s dreams were all shattered because the father had forgiven the prodigal.
Of course the elder brother was angry at his younger brother for getting all that attention and receiving the father’s special gifts. As far as the elder brother was concerned, the younger brother deserved none of it. Had he been faithful? No! Had he obeyed the father? No! Then why should he be treated with such kindness and love?
The Pharisees had a religion of good works. By their fasting, studying, praying, and giving, they hoped to earn blessings from God and merit eternal life. They knew little or nothing about the grace of God. However, it was not what they did, but what they did not do, that alienated them from God (see Matt. 23:23–24). When they saw Jesus receiving and forgiving irreligious people, they rebelled against it. Even more, they failed to see that they themselves also needed the Saviour.
The same father who ran to meet the prodigal came out of the house of feasting to plead with the older son. How gracious and condescending our Father is, and how patient He is with our weaknesses! The father explained that he would have been willing to host a feast for the older boy and his friends, but the boy had never asked him. Furthermore, ever since the division of the estate, the elder brother owned everything, and he could use it as he pleased.
The elder brother refused to go in; he stayed outside and pouted. He missed the joy of forgiving his brother and restoring the broken fellowship, the joy of pleasing his father and uniting the family again. How strange that the elder brother could speak peaceably to a servant boy, but he could not speak peaceably to his brother or father!
If we are out of fellowship with God, we cannot be in fellowship with our brothers and sisters and, conversely, if we harbor an unforgiving attitude toward others, we cannot be in communion with God (see Matt. 5:21–26; 1 John 4:18–21). When they show true repentance, we must forgive those who sin, and we should seek to restore them in grace and humility (Matt. 18:15–35; Gal. 6:1–5; Eph. 4:32).
The father had the last word, so we do not know how the story ended. (See Jonah 4 for a parallel narrative.) We do know that the scribes and Pharisees continued to oppose Jesus and separate themselves from His followers, and that their leaders eventually brought about our Lord’s arrest and death. In spite of the Father’s pleading, they would not come in.
Everybody in this chapter experienced joy except the elder brother. The shepherd, the woman, and their friends all experienced the joy of finding. The younger son experienced the joy of returning and being received by a loving, gracious father. The father experienced the joy of receiving his son back safe and sound. But the elder brother would not forgive his brother, so he had no joy. He could have repented and attended the feast, but he refused; so he stayed outside and suffered.
In my years of preaching and pastoral ministry, I have met elder brothers (and sisters!) who have preferred nursing their anger to enjoying the fellowship of God and God’s people. Because they will not forgive, they have alienated themselves from the church and even from their family; they are sure that everyone else is wrong and they alone are right. They can talk loudly about the sins of others, but they are blind to their own sins.
“I never forgive!” General Oglethorpe said to John Wesley, to which Wesley replied, “Then, sir, I hope you never sin.”
Don’t stand outside! Come in and enjoy the feast![5]
[1] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Lk 15:1–32.
[2] Robert H. Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010), 299–302.
b. Babylonian Talmud
m. Mishnah
m. Mishnah
b. Babylonian Talmud
B. Qam. Baba Qamma
y. Jerusalem Talmud
Ter. Terumot
Rab. (biblical book +) Rabbah
[5] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 233–238.
No comments:
Post a Comment