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.