Chapter 15 illustrates the two sides of Jesus’ ministry.  On the one side are the sinners and tax collectors – the deplorables of society – who are attracted by Jesus’ compassion and teaching of forgiveness.  On the other are the religious leaders – the elite of society – who are threatened by Jesus and horrified by His willingness to include and fellowship and even eat with the deplorables.

In response to the self-righteous indignation the religious leaders demonstrate toward Him, Jesus tells three parables.  The messages of all three are very similar: God extends mercy and acceptance to the repentant sinner but has no time for the self-righteous who see no need for repentance.  It’s a message Jesus repeats throughout His ministry (most recently during the meal in Chapter 14).  Ultimately, He doesn’t come for those who don’t need Him; He comes for those who understand they need ONLY Him.

1-2
The scene opens with two groups of people coming to hear Jesus teach.  In one corner are the tax-gatherers and sinners.  This is apparently not a small group; note that Luke says all the tax gatherers and the sinners (ESV: Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near…).  It’s interesting that Luke refers to some of the people as sinners.  You wonder if the people labeled themselves as such.  Sinners in the Pharisees’ eyes are people guilty of blatant sin (thieves, prostitutes, etc.) but also anyone who doesn’t strictly observe the Law.  These are the people most attracted to Jesus and who most understand their need of forgiveness.  They need and love a Savior who treats them with mercy and compassion.

In the other corner are the Pharisees and the scribes who grumble amongst themselves about Jesus’ willingness to fellowship and even eat with the first group.  The religious leaders would never lower themselves to interact with those people because of the danger of defilement.  Eating – especially – would be off limits because of the danger of looking like they were endorsing a sinful lifestyle.

It’s this attitude by the religious leaders that causes Jesus to tell three parables, one right after another.  The parables all have to do with seeking and restoring what’s lost.  The message that repeats in each one condemns the self-righteous attitude of the Pharisees.  That Jesus tells three parables instead of one shows how serious and true the message is and how important it is for Jesus’ listeners (and Luke’s readers) to understand it.

3-7
The first parable is about a shepherd who oversees a flock of 100 sheep.  One of the sheep gets lost and the shepherd leaves the 99 and hunts until he finds the one that is lost.  When he finds it, he calls his friends together and rejoices with them over the sheep that was found.

The lost sheep represents the sinners listening to Jesus.  The 99 who don’t need finding represent the religious leaders scorning Jesus.  The Shepherd is Jesus.  It’s interesting to wonder about the safety of the 99 sheep he leaves while he searches for the lost, but that’s not important to the story (we aren’t meant to analyze every detail of the parable).

To a shepherd, every sheep is valuable – he won’t simply write one off because it’s lost.  And don’t miss that the sheep is lost (stated twice in the story).  It can’t find its way to safety on its own.  The shepherd must go and find it.  Jesus goes after sinners; He doesn’t wait for them to find Him.  There’s enormous encouragement in the shepherd metaphor.

The moral of the story is in verse 7.  There’s more joy over the one sheep because it truly repents.  It knew it was lost and had no hope apart from the shepherd.  The 99 other sheep never thought of themselves as lost and thus don’t repent.  The religious leaders don’t want to be defiled by the sinners and tax-gatherers, but they are the ones who make heaven rejoice with their repentance.  The self-righteous religious leaders don’t realize it, but they are the ones who are truly lost.  And it is far worse to be lost and not know it than it is to be lost and crying out for the shepherd.

8-10
The parable of the woman with the ten silver coins has essentially the same message as the lost sheep.  The woman represents God searching and finding sinners and rejoicing when they are found.  Just as in the first parable, there will be more rejoicing in heaven over a repentant sinner than over those who think they need no repentance.  This is the same message stated a second time to the self-righteous religious leaders.  They are not the ones over whom heaven rejoices.

11-32
This is arguably the first or second most well-known parable that Jesus tells during His ministry (neck and neck with The Good Samaritan).  It’s commonly called the parable of The Prodigal Son but that’s a bit of a misnomer (the King James Bible is where it got its name).  Notice that Jesus begins the story in verse 11 with the statement, “A certain man had two sons…”  The parable isn’t just about the younger son.  It’s about both sons and really should be entitled something like “The Two Sons” or “The Two Lost Sons” or “The Prodigal Son, the Grouchy Son, and the Benevolent Father” (which doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue but would be the most accurate).

Another misunderstanding is the definition of the main word in the title.  The word ‘prodigal’ does not mean ‘apostate’ or ‘straying’.  That’s how it’s come to be used but that’s not its meaning.  The word means ‘recklessly or foolishly extravagant’.  In this story it describes how the younger brother manages his wealth.  It doesn’t describe his status as a wayward son.

To understand the parable we must understand who the characters represent.  The father is God; the younger son represents the sinners and tax gatherers; and the elder son represents the religious leaders.

The story begins with two shocking events.  First, the younger son asks his father for his share of the inheritance.  By doing this, he essentially says to his father, “I’m sick of waiting for you to die.  Please divide up the estate NOW so I can get my share.”  As the younger of two sons, he’s entitled to one-third of the estate (the firstborn gets a double-portion) so the father must reduce his wealth and standard of living to accommodate his son’s egregiously selfish request.  Second, the father grants the request.  In middle eastern culture the father rules with absolute authority.  That he goes along with such an inappropriate and impudent request is completely out of character with what would typically occur.  For Jesus’ listeners, this is an outrageous start to the story.

The younger son takes all his belongings and newfound wealth and heads out of town.  He wants nothing to do with his family.  Once in the distant country, he squanders all his wealth living the high life.  He takes one-third of what his father accumulated over a lifetime and wastes it all almost immediately and has nothing to show for it.  At this point in the story, he’s shown himself to be selfish and foolish, and really without any redeeming qualities at all.

Once the money’s gone, a severe famine hits, and the son has no money and no means of support.  He’s forced to work for a gentile who sends him into the fields to feed swine.  As a Jew, this is the worst job possible (as pork is a forbidden food and he must continually defile himself to do the work – his food allotment from the farmer is likely refuse from the butchered pork).  Even worse, he starves.  He doesn’t make enough money to feed himself and it gets so bad that he longs for the husks he feeds to the unclean pigs.

He finally reaches rock bottom and decides to go home.  He figures that he can work for his dad as a hired man since even his father’s employees live better than he does now.  He’ll go back and admit he was wrong and that he’s no longer worthy to be called his father’s son.  He’ll then offer to work as a hired man.

He makes his way home and when he’s still a long way off, his father – who’s clearly watching for him and who apparently has been watching for him since he left – sees him, feels compassion for him, and runs to meet him.  It’s an amazing scene since a man of the father’s station would typically never run – it’s beneath his dignity.  And that his dad has been anxiously watching for him all this time and now has compassion for him and is thrilled to see him is remarkable since there is nothing about the son that’s lovable or worthy of any compassion at all.  This is the same son who told his father he was tired of waiting for him to die and who just squandered a third of the father’s wealth.

The son tells his father the words he’d rehearsed – “I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.”  Note what this is – it’s repentance.  There is no self-justification, no excuses, no spin for what he did.  He fully admits his guilt and fully admits that he has no right to come back into his father’s good graces.

The father seems almost not to notice the repentance.  He instructs his servants to bring out the best robe, put a ring on the son’s finger (thus signifying that he is restored as a son), put sandals on his feet (which could mean the son is so destitute he comes back in bare feet) and prepare a great feast of celebration.  The father’s entire focus is on what’s best for the son.  He’s fully accepted back in the family with all the privileges of sonship and with no questions asked.  The father explains why he wants to celebrate – “…for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.” Note the reference to ‘lost’ – the son has this in common with the lost sheep and the lost coin.

What this scene tells us about God is amazing.  God doesn’t just grudgingly accept repentant sinners; He JOYOUSLY accepts them.  He celebrates and treats them with compassion.  He WATCHES for them and longs for them to come (or come back).  This is hugely encouraging on two fronts.  First, it means that anyone can come to God.  There’s no such thing as someone who’s too evil for the gospel.  Second, it means that God joyously and compassionately accepts His children when they stray, confess, and repentantly return.  Something not to miss about this story: who does the son sin against?  The father.  He sins most directly and severely against his father.  The son himself suffers because of his sin, but his suffering is mitigated as soon as he returns.  The father, on the other hand, suffers permanent loss of wealth.  And yet the father joyously accepts the son and has compassion on one who treated him so poorly.  Our God has COMPASSION on us when we sin against Him (which is ultimately what we do with any sin we commit – Ps 51:4) and repentantly return.  We need to meditate on that and remember it every day of our life with God.  HE HAS COMPASSION ON REPENTANT SINNERS AND CELEBRATES THEIR RETURN.

Once the celebration is in full swing, we’re introduced to the final character in the story.  The older son who’s been in the fields working comes home to find a party going on that confuses him.  What’s happened to cause his father to put on a feast (and a feast that includes a fattened calf is the biggest and most expensive kind of feast)?  Told that it’s the return of his younger brother, he’s disgusted and bitter that his father has treated the straying son so well (and, honestly, it’s pretty easy to sympathize with the older brother at this point in the story).  He refuses to come inside, so his father comes to him and tries to convince him to join the festivities.  What the son says to his father in verse 29 is telling (and how he says it – he doesn’t address his father with respect – he simply says, “Look, these many years…” – he doesn’t address him as ‘father’, he speaks to him with disdain for the father’s behavior).  He essentially says that he’s OWED a celebration in return for his obedience. 

This is a picture of the religious leaders.  They don’t see themselves as sinners in need of forgiveness.  They see themselves as law-abiding children of Abraham who are owed peace and prosperity by a thankful God.  Contrast verse 29 with verse 21.  This is what separates the sinners listening to Jesus from the religious leaders scorning Him.  One group knows it needs Him because it deserves only punishment for its actions; the other has no need of Jesus because it believes it deserves only reward for its righteousness.

Note that the father doesn’t dispute the older son’s characterization of the younger son in verse 30 (and note the reference to “this son of yours”).  The degree of the younger son’s sin is never in question either by him or his father.  It just makes the repentance and acceptance all the greater.

The ending of the parable is interesting.  Jesus leaves it unresolved regarding the older son.  Does he repent of his pride and rejoice with his father that the straying son has returned?  Or does he refuse to come in and continue in his self-righteousness and scorn?  In the same way, Jesus leaves it open-ended with the religious leaders.  They can still understand their need, humble themselves, and repent and join Jesus.  Or they can continue in their pride and end up self-righteously damned.  What’s amazing about the ending is that Jesus leaves the door open to the very men He knows will author His death.  He leaves the way of salvation open to His mortal enemies.

The father’s final words in verse 32 connect this parable with the first two (and note how gently and lovingly the father speaks to the son – he doesn’t become angry at the son’s selfish and disrespectful behavior) – “this brother of yours (he responds to the older son’s designation of ‘this son of yours’) was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.”  God loves found sinners.

Additional Thoughts & Applications
In the third parable, notice who does the acting.  When the younger son returns, the father runs to him and reinstates him.  When the older son comes in from the field and refuses to enter the party, the father goes out to him and tries to convince him to come in.  In both cases, the father goes after the sons, and in both cases, the father’s main concerns are his relationship with the sons and what’s best for the sons.  And he does this despite the disrespectful behavior by both of them.  We have a loving heavenly Father who pursues us and extends grace to us even as we sin against Him.  He pursues us because He loves us and knows how much we give up when we aren’t in good relationship with Him (see Deut 5:29).  That pursuit is why David could say, “Surely goodness and mercy will follow me all the days of my life” (Ps 23:6).

The father’s behavior is remarkable not only because of his sons’ disrespect but also because both sons show they aren’t interested in him nearly as much as they are in his wealth.  The younger son wants his share of the estate now and the older son gets angry about not getting rewarded for his good behavior.  In both cases, the sons don’t care about a relationship with the father, they care about what that relationship does for them.  There is a lesson here for unbelievers but there’s perhaps a bigger one for believers.  Do we want a relationship with our heavenly Father?  Do we long for interaction with Him?  Do we see each day of our lives as a minefield we can’t navigate without His help?  Or do we live as if He’s just a part of our lives to be accessed on an as-needed basis and on Sundays?  What does our prayer life look like?  Are our prayers the prayers of someone in a loving relationship or are they a dry litany of requests made when we can fit them in during our spare time?  How much do we meditate on the gospel and God’s love demonstrated in it?  These are questions every Christian must answer, and we must remember that God is a God of relationship and He ultimately longs to give us Himself, not just the benefits of knowing Him.

Which leads to another thought from this story.  It’s easy to condemn the self-righteous behavior of the older son but it’s also easy to fall into it ourselves.  The older son believes the father owes him because of his obedience.  We may not state things so starkly in our own lives, but if we respond to trials by thinking, “This isn’t fair” or “I don’t deserve this”, we essentially adopt Older Sonism (and yes, we’ve just coined a new term).  The older son is wrong because he sees his belief as transactional.  He does good things and gets good things in return.  If we think trials are unfair, we subtly agree with him.  Ultimately, we’re in a relationship with a Father who saves and loves us, not a religion that keeps score.  When we understand and appreciate that, we can respond to difficulties with, “I don’t like this, but I trust the One who sent it and know it’s born out of His love for me and that He’s with me”, rather than, “Why me?”.

Finally, the parable of the two sons shows us that forgiveness is never free.  As mentioned earlier, the father suffers because of the younger son’s behavior.  He’s forced to slice off one-third of his estate and watch it get liquidated (so it can’t be bought back or restored) so the son can take the money with him to party in a distant land.  When the father accepts the son back, he does so knowing he’s one-third poorer and that restoring his son will be another drain on the estate.  Forgiveness costs the father (and the older son since the estate now belongs to him – see the end of verse 31).  We must never forget that when God welcomes us into His kingdom (and continues to forgive our ongoing sin) that He does so because Jesus paid the ultimate price for our forgiveness.  God doesn’t just choose to ignore our sin.  He PAID for it and redeemed us so He can justly accept us.  Forgiveness isn’t free and that truth should inform our desire for our Savior every day.