Luke 15
BolesLuke 15:1-32
- SOME : LOST SHEEP,
LOST COIN, SON
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.
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 murmuring 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 murmuring 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.
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 feeling 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 trouble than driving the sheep. When the shepherd returned home with the lost sheep, he and his friends and neighbors gathered in and rejoiced together.
I say unto you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven— Here Jesus draws his own conclusion and makes the application 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.
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 rejoiced 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 angels”; 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 he 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 publicans and to the self-righteous Pharisees. God did not take delight in the sins of the publicans, nor did he regard the state of the Pharisees and scribes as perfect, even taking the Pharisees at their best.
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 presence 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 sorrow 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 inheritance, 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.
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 disposition 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 dissolute living. (Prow. 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.”
14 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 relieving 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.”
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.
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, reasonable, 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 regains 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 himself. His mind was soon made up.
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; lie would gladly act and be treated as any one of the hired servants. He will gladly take whatever may be offered him.
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 voluntary 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.)
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 repeated 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 confession, and with trembling tones and many sad sobs had repeated 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.
22-24 But the father said to his servants,—“Bondservants” is used here in the original, and there is a fine touch in bringing 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 acknowledgement 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 inspired.
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 inheritance; 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 meeting 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 conflicting 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 Jewish nation; still others make him represent the proud Pharisees. 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 weddings, birthdays, and all other festal gatherings music was their chief entertainment.
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 merrymaking; the returned son was in a healthful condition.
28 But he was angry,—The original means that he was not angry with a mere temporary fit of passion, but with a deepseated wrath. “But” puts the elder brother’s attitude and disposition 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.
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 commandment 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 transgressed 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.”
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.
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 contemptuous 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.