 |
Introduction to the Three Parables of Lost Things: Sheep, Coin and Son |
|
|
Luke 15:1-3
1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
Language notes
Verse 2.
The word “receive” has the notion to welcome. Here Jesus gives access of himself and welcomes these outcasts. The message of this and the next parable of the lost coin indicate that not only does He invite them to himself but He also seeks them.
“Eateth” is to dine with, to take food in company with. This was not a practice taken lightly. It signified an acceptance of those who abide at the table and demonstrates a fellowship among those present. Certain social obligations existed between the host and the guest at the meal such as providing for the security and safety of a guestwhile at their home.
Introduction
The parables in Luke chapter 15 merit a note of introduction. This is because the themes and structures of the Lost Sheep, Lost Coin and Lost Son are closely related and have applicable common references. Some authors feel that the entire chapter is but one parable having three pictures. Spurgeon made the statement, “the three parables recorded in this chapter are not repetitions; they all declare the same main truth, but each one reveals a different phase of it.”[1] Although Edersheim did treat them separately he wrote, “These parables bring forth four related connections to the Gospel, they are repentance, restoration, recovery and redemption.”[2]
It is to be noted that the common opening phrase “The Kingdom of Heaven/God is like…” does not appear here. The three parables were given in response of the criticism of the Pharisees and scribes towards Christ for receiving and eating with sinners. Publicans and sinners were drawn to Christ. “Sinner” is defined as one who misses the mark, comes short of the Law of God, one who sins or is sinning. But to fully realize the force of the objections of the Pharisees and scribes it would be in adequate to simply understand the definition of the word “sinner.” Those who are mentioned in verse 1 seemingly are particularly appalling in their wickedness. Within in this group it could be expected that along with the despised tax collectors there might well have been harlots, drunkards and any of low morality or social standing, such as those of certain trades or dishonorable callings. Joachim Jeremias remarked, “Sinners were people who led an immoral life e.g. adulterers, swindlers, and people who followed a dishonorable calling (i.e. an occupation which notoriously involved immorality or dishonesty), and who were on that account deprived of civil rights, such as holding office, or bearing witness in legal proceedings. For example, excise-men, tax collectors, shepherds, donkey-drivers, peddlers, and tanners.”[3] The inclusion of shepherds surprises us today because so much is presented of God, in the Old Testament and Christ in the New Testament as the Good Shepherd. David, a man after God’s own heart was a shepherd boy. The 23rd psalm written by David extols the greatness of God as our Shepherd (the One who is Shepherding me). God’s people are spoken of as His sheep; His Church is His Little Flock. The angels appeared and announce the birth of Christ to shepherds in the fields. We have a cherished image of shepherds. But, “in the first century shepherds were generally despised by the average Jew, due to their reputation for lawlessness and dishonesty.”[4] This fact, while not generally spoken of, is found in several sources. (Gen. 46:34 - every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.)
Pharisees had a very strict code of conduct for themselves when they were in a position to confront sinners. If they see such persons while walking they would cross over the other side, away from them, to utterly avoid any contact or speech with them. This practice by the Pharisees even extended to women walking on the street. Thus they murmured their indignant repulsion to the attitude and action of Christ towards these sinners. He received and welcomed them. Also, they might have had in mind the motive to cause a doubt of confidence in those who regarded Christ in high esteem. Causing His followers to question, “Can I associate with a man who associates with such as these?”
The parables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin both opened with a question, “Which of you . . . would not?” In the case of the sheep the question is “what man of you” as a shepherd, and with the coin, be as this woman. The Pharisees would not have identified with either, but the question still demanded a response and the situations given would force all to acknowledge that this would be the proper way to behave.
Were the parables directed at the Pharisees, the sinners, His disciples, or a universal audience? How this question is answered forges and fashions the interpretation and/or application of the parables. By far, too many times interpreters force the point that Christ’s only spoke scathing rebukes to the Pharisees and the religious leaders. There is a prevailing view that whenever Jesus gave encouraging discourses or teachings of the Kingdom of God, or its Gospel, He only intended them for common folk or His disciples. To have such a view implies that He ignores the necessity these leaders had for the truth and that they were beyond repentance or help. It is certainly true that some of these leaders hated Him, plotted against Him, and as a final rejection, orchestrated His death. But this was not the attitude of all of that company, for some did come to seek the truth and did believe. Christ’s mission was not to provoke the Pharisees to jealousy and sin but to save.
Looking into the messages of these three parables are there any who would not have benefited from them? Was the intent to denounce and reprimand? Or was it to edify, encourage and teach something of the nature and goodness of God? If the question were to be asked of these Pharisees what message of hope they would give to these sinners, their answer would not have been repentance, but to do penitence. But this gives no hope. It denies Divine mercy and puts men under Divine Justice for reward for the penitent. That is all they understood; to do restitution for the wrongs committed. These men desperately needed to understand grace, forgiveness, the real nature of righteousness, and the futility of works. For the sinner, no sweeter words could be heard than that of God seeking, finding and rejoicing over the lost sinner who has repented, and all this apart from any works, but by simple faith! For the disciples also, the message gave clear direction and justification for the Work of Christ and the assurance of dealing with all men in all conditions without prejudice. They all needed to hear these things, but for different reasons. These three parables are clearly meant to be universal in their application and design. All, in each of these three groups (saint, sinner, and scoffer), would have carried away with them a different awareness and insight corresponding to their individual needs.
[1] C.H.Spurgeon, Sermons on the Parables. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1958
[2] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah, Vol. 2, Page 253. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, Sept. 1973
[3] Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, page 132. Charles Scribner’s Sons New York, copyright 1972
[4] Unfortunately the source of this quote is lost It was on my computer software now destroyed (virus).
|
|
Next: Parable of the Lost Sheep |
This page last updated September 14, 2004 at 10:54am
|
|
