14. The Lost Sons (Luke 15)
“The three parables of Luke 15 are treated as one, for introducing them
Luke wrote: ‘He spake this parable (not parables) unto them’ (v. 3).
Each parable adds to the one that went before it, so that they follow one upon
another without specific introduction (vv. 8,11). They illustrate three
different aspects of one subject: The work of redemption. Consider the different
causes of the loss in the three parables. The sheep was lost through its own
action; it strayed from the shepherd through curiosity or desire for better
pasture. The coin was lost, not through its own fault, but that of the woman who
possessed it. The son was lost through deliberately, willfully, and consciously
leaving the house of his generous father, and squandering the inheritance
granted him. The first represented a one per cent loss of the flock; the second,
a ten per cent loss of the woman’s hoard; the third, a fifty per cent loss
of the family. These figures are significant. They suggest that whilst
comparatively few may stray through curiosity or desire for better pasture, the
greater number are lost by the carelessness of others, whilst even more leave
through wilful, fleshly desire. Now consider the three mediums of reconciliation
in each parable. The shepherd represents the Lord Jesus; the woman, the
ecclesia; and the father, Yahweh. The first parable centers attention on the
loss, the second on the search, the third on the restoration, so that the
dominant verbs throughout are ‘lost, seek, find, and rejoice’. If
these principles are kept in mind whilst the parables are studied, many
wonderful points of exhortation will be revealed” (H.P. Mansfield,
“The Parables of the Lost Sheep, Lost Silver, and Lost Son”, The
Story of the Bible, Vol. 10, No. 7 — March 1967 — p.
108).
The reason for Christ’s use of the three related
parables of Luke 15 is given in v. 2, where the Pharisees are heard to murmur,
“This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.”
Here was a question of “fellowship”; this itinerant preacher, this
rabbi who was soliciting their discipleship, was asking them — the
“separated ones” — to follow his example in taking to their
bosom “sinners” of every sort! It was absolutely
unthinkable!
The third of the three parables is usually known as “The
Prodigal Son”. I call it “The Lost Sons” (plural) because, in
actual fact, at the beginning both of the sons were lost. Like the one
hundredth sheep, the younger son was lost outside the fold, away from
home. But, like the tenth coin, the elder was “lost” inside
the house. He never strayed physically from his father, but his mind and his
heart were miles away!
The parable of the lost sons introduces personal factors that
cannot be found in the two preceding parables.
“A sheep might realize it is lost — but it cannot rise to any sense
of folly in having strayed” (John Carter, Parables of the Messiah,
p. 233).
And a coin is completely without thought or feeling. But both
sons are capable of realizing their relative positions in regard to the father;
they are both capable of repentance, and of taking the initiative to bridge the
gap. Whether the elder brother ever succeeded in aligning himself with the mind
of his father is the lingering, unanswered question at the close of the parable.
And it was the question that lingered in the air, from that day forward, for
every one of the proud Pharisees who heard the story.
There is a great urgency of love and reconciliation in
Christ’s picture of the waiting and watching father, as he daily and even
hourly stares down the road, looking for the familiar figure. There is not one
shred of formality or legality in his reception of his returning son. Even while
he is a great way off, his father sees him, and with compassion, runs and falls
upon his neck and kisses him (v. 20).
“He did not stand upon his dignity, or remain coldly aloof demanding proof
of repentance. He did not force an apology. He loved him and he wanted him back
and he was willing to forget the past and hope for the future. He showered every
display of affection and attention upon him, in his intense joy at
reconciliation” (G.V. Growcott, “His Father Ran and Kissed
Him”, The Berean Christadelphian, Vol. 48, No. 5 — May 1960
— pp. 158,159).
Here is the divine example for the ecclesial attitude toward
any sinning brother who makes the first, faltering steps toward repentance. The
members should never question the sincerity of those who seek to return (for
they would not like their own sincerity to be questioned), nor should they make
the barriers to fellowship more difficult for such than for new converts. The
ecclesia should rejoice in that the withdrawal of fellowship collectively
administered has by God’s grace achieved its hoped-for outcome: the
reclamation of the one who has strayed.
In this consideration of the parable we shall concentrate upon
the attitude of the elder son, so that at all costs we will avoid his failings.
When the younger brother had returned and been received by the father, the elder
“was angry, and would not go in” (v. 28). He chose to absent himself
from his brother’s feast with the father. In the spiritual application of
the parable, he not only put his repentant brother “out of
fellowship” but also all those who were “in fellowship” with
his brother! In a “clean sweep” he rejected all that sat down to eat
with him. But in drawing such a rigid line between himself and his brother, he
accomplished one other thing: he unwittingly placed himself outside the
father’s house!
The elder brother rudely voiced his own righteousness in
rather extravagant terms: “Lo, these many years do I serve thee,
neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment” (v. 29). Here
is the extreme Pharisaical attitude that often goes arm in arm with the
“touch not, handle not” school of “fellowship”: “I
thank thee, Lord, that I am not as other men, especially this miserable
sinner.”
“How ungracious the older brother seems in contrast with his
father’s love! But it did not seem so to him. He felt quite justified in
his self-righteous indignation. He had no qualms at distressing his father, or
marring the joy of reconciliation. He could only see one point of view and that
was that he had worked hard and faithfully and here was this returned wastrel
being shown favours that he had never received” (Growcott, ibid.,
p. 159).
How could the elder son claim perfect obedience? It was
impossible. And even as he stood there in his bitterness and jealousy, he was at
that very moment disobeying the father’s will! May it never be our folly
to stand upon our “accomplishments” and blindly overlook, at our
very fingertips, the simple work we have left undone: that is, reconciliation
with our brethren.
“And yet thou never gavest me a kid, that
I might make merry with my friends.” The elder son, just
like the younger, had associates outside the family circle, characters that he
had not brought to his father’s table. This in itself suggests something
less than a perfect obedience. And how true it is, that when we measure
ourselves against our brethren, and say secretly, “I am better than
he”, we are really only saying, “I was smart enough
never to sin openly”! But we have all sinned — of this there
can be no doubt. It is fatal to look upon one’s own sins as not being as
“serious” as another’s.
The elder contemptuously disclaimed kinship with the younger
in v. 30: ‘He may be your son, but he is not my
brother’, he seems to be saying. But the father patiently and gently
responds, “For this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and
was lost, and is found” (v. 32). ‘He is your brother and my
son, whether you disown him or not!” It is certainly not without
significance that the fatted calf (the special sacrifice of communion typifying
Christ) was slain on behalf of the repentant sinner, not the proud
“Pharisee”! How tragic it is that by his own hateful words the elder
son admits that the “fatted calf” is not for him! He could have
shared in it with his brother if only he had swallowed his pride and come into
the house!
So we see in the elder brother some rather unlovely
characteristics. May they never, even subconsciously, be ours! Here is unbridled
jealousy: bitterness at the inclusion of his brother in his own previously
exclusive benefits. Here is also greed, the latent fear: ‘He has already
thrown away (on harlots, a gratuitous assumption — or was it true?)
one-half (or one-third?) of your property, and now he wants
mine!’
All that the elder brother had he had received from the
father. Should he not go out of his way now to welcome his brother (thus
pleasing the father)? There is joy in heaven, with the Father and His
angels, when one sinner repents (vv. 7,10). What might the Father think of us,
if we are angry or jealous or proudly aloof upon an occasion that gives Him
joy?
The theme of the Pharisaic attitude toward repentance and
reconciliation, which begins with Christ’s three parables in Luke 15,
continues through the next two chapters, providing other insights into the mind
and character of the brother who was “lost” while still “at
home”:
16:13: “No servant can serve two masters.”
In his scarcely hidden concern for wealth and privilege, the elder son was
demonstrating that he was not a single-minded servant of the Father. He was
really a clandestine servant of “mammon”, a “hireling”
who sought his own reward (John 10:12,13), not a son who rejoiced above all else
in the work of the Father.
16:15: “And he said unto the Pharisees: ‘Ye
are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for
that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of
God.’ “
17:3-5: “Take heed to yourselves” —
Examine yourselves as severely and more so than you examine others. If your
brother trespasses, then rebuke him; but always stand ready to forgive him
— not just once or twice, but seven times in one day if need be!
And the apostles, recognizing that such an attitude requires faith, pray Jesus
to increase their faith. It is for us from time to time to exercise this kind of
faith — faith that, despite perplexing problems, all things will
work together for the good of Christ’s ecclesias; faith that our
brethren will by God’s mercy stand firm in the faith despite ever present
failings; faith that God will realize His plan without our constant
brooding and worrying, or our presumptuous intervention in matters that do not
directly affect us. Can we not develop such faith that God will do His part?
This is the faith that pleases God, and without which He cannot be
pleased!
17:10: “When ye shall have done all those things
which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants: we have done
that which was our duty to do.’ “ Here is the reason for the command
that we should receive repentant sinners, and for the command that we should
seek reconciliation with our brethren despite their imperfections: we are ALL
unprofitable servants; the most we can possibly do is but our duty. Our
Father has for each of us an inheritance infinitely greater than we could ever
earn. Let us not be found in the position of appearing to deny that inheritance
to others who have, in the last analysis, applied for it upon the same basis as
we: not by works — lest any man should boast — but by the unlimited
mercy of a loving Father.