Fourth Sunday in Lent, Year C

Translation, sermon notes, and commentary
Josh 5:9-11
2 Corinthians 5:16-21
Luke 15:1-13, 11b-32

Luke 15:1-3, 11b-32

The Parable of the Lost Sheep

(Mt 18.10—14)

15 Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. ² And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

³ So he told them this parable: 
[⁴ “Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? ⁵ When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders and rejoices. ⁶ And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ ⁷ Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

The Parable of the Lost Coin

⁸ “Or what woman having ten silver coins,^a if she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? ⁹ When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ ¹⁰ Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”]

The Parable of the Prodigal and His Brother
(See endnotes at bottom for tranlsation and exegetical comments)

¹¹ Then Jesus^b said, “There was a man who had two sons. ¹² The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.’ So he divided his property between them. ¹³ A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and traveled to a distant country, and there he squandered[a] his property in dissolute living.[b]

¹⁴ When he had spent everything,[c] a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. ¹⁵ So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. ¹⁶ He would gladly have filled himself with^c the pods[d] that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything.

¹⁷ But when he came to himself[e] he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! ¹⁸ I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; ¹⁹ I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.” ’ ²⁰ So he set off and went to his father.

But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. ²¹ Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’^d

²² But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly, bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. ²³ And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; ²⁴ for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!’ And they began to celebrate.

²⁵ “Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. ²⁶ He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on.

²⁷ He replied, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.’

²⁸ Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. ²⁹ But he answered his father, ‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. ³⁰ But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!’

³¹ Then the father^e said to him, ‘Son,[f] you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. ³² But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.’ ”

Background notes and thoughts

This is one of the world’s most famous stories. Hundreds of movies, plays, operas, novels, paintings and line drawings have been based on it. In the Bible, it’s probably matched only by the parable of the Good Samaritan. It’s one of those stories that is hard to preach on at one level, because a good fifty percent of the people in your congregation will be able to (or think they are able to) recite it from memory. The part that nearly everyone remembers, however, is just the welcoming home of the Prodigal in the arms of the father. The part that nearly everyone leaves out is the dark conclusion with the older son standing outside of the party sulking.

One of the reasons for the emphasis on just the Prodigal in our interpretation of the story is the name. That focusses the mind on only one aspect of it. And interestingly, the word, “Prodigal” never shows up in it. That title was applied to it by a marginal note several hundred years after Jesus and it stuck. And it’s probably not the best choice of title for the story.

Bernard Brandon Scott, in his book Hear Then the Parable (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), renames all of the parables by the first words of their first line, the way the church has named most hymns. So, he calls this parable “A Man Had Two Sons.” It mentions all three actors, and avoids all of the levels of interpretation that have fallen on top of it over the centuries.[g]  It leaves all the doors open to all meanings the interpreter wants to find in it.

Luke’s gospel has been called the “Gospel of the Outcast” for the interest in the marginalized that is shown in it. And certainly the prodigal is one of those, if only by his own deeds. And one of the primary themes in the Gospel is the “divine forgiveness of the Lost sinner.”[h] But one could also make a case for saying that in the end the older brother has become marginalized, and also as a result of his own deeds.

In preaching on this, you might want to highlight at the beginning that the parable is more troubling and unsettling for those of us in the establishment than we like to admit. And in great measure, most of the people in our churches could count themselves as being a part of the upright, moral, law-abiding, establishment. But the story is left at the end unresolved and disturbing and almost demands personal wrestling and discussion. Craddock says, “Grace seems to abrogate justice, and the parable, with the restraint vital to a parable, leaves the reader to struggle with the tension.”[i]

Some who want an alternative title have suggested that the real focus of the story is the older son, who stayed behind and was responsible, but who was shown as pouting outside during the party welcoming home the younger son. But even that it probably not accurate. The real focus is the father who towers over both of them. It’s a “two-peak story” with the father central to both. The Father is a thinly disguised stand-in for God. The real title, according to people like Fitzmyer, should be something like, “The Parable of the Forgiving Father.” Craddock offers “the Parable of the Loving Father.” Both get at the same thing.

Craddock says that emphasizing the younger son “says more about its use in the preaching of the church than it does of its own message.” Ironically, he notes, all three of the parables in this chapter are usually called by a negative title: the Parable of the lost Coin,” the parable of the lost sheep, and the parable of the prodigal son. [j]

The second half  of the story is so different that some interpreters have suggested that it comes from a different source and that the parable as we have it was built by Luke into just one. But I doubt that. The two parts are different, but unified by the father in the center and by the opening line, “A father had two sons.” Rudolph Bultmann argues that the contrasting halves of the parable are consistent with other contrasting parables. The parable follows a style, in which two types of something or other are contrasted with each other. Other examples would be the parable of the two debtors (7:41-42), the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:9-14), the two sons (Matthew 21:28-31), and the Wise and Foolish Virgins (Matt 25:1-13). The beauty of the second half (vv. 25-32) is that it “makes plain by contrast the paradoxical character of divine forgiveness.”[k]

Also, the first lines of the chapter as a whole seem to set up the two parts of the coming parable.

¹“Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. ² And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

There are three characters: the establishment (scribes and Pharisees), the sinners, and Jesus. All three of those (especially the first two) are (roughly) represented in the parable. “While the younger son represents tax collectors and sinners, the older son represents the Pharisees. Both groups were listening to the parables of this chapter (see vv. 1–3), but the Pharisees were probably the primary intended audience of this parable.”^[l]

All of the parables in chapter 15 should be seen as a rebuttal to the Pharisees and scribes who were grumbling about the fact that Jesus attracted and was attracted to unsavory people. “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them” (v. 2). All, in a sense, are an explanation as to why God (or Jesus) would want to spend time with “tax collectors and sinners.”

Verse-by-verse Commentary

¹¹ Then Jesus said, “There was a man who had two sons. ¹² The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.’ So he divided his property between them. ¹³ A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and traveled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living.

15:11–12. To ask one’s father for one’s share of the inheritance early was unheard of in antiquity; in effect, one would thereby say, “Father, I wish you were already dead.” Such a statement would not go over well even today, and in a society stressing obedience to one’s father it would be a serious act of rebellion (Deut. 21:18–21, see below) for which the father could have beaten him or worse. That the father grants the request means that most of the hearers will not identify with the father in this parable; from the start, they would think of him as stupidly lax to pamper such an immoral son.^[m]

Deut. 21:18–21

¹⁸ If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, ¹⁹ then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. ²⁰ They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” ²¹ Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.

The eldest son in a family always received a “double portion” (Deut. 21:17, see below); in this case, he would have received two-thirds of the inheritance and the younger brother one-third.

Note that at the end of the parable, the father says to the oldest son, “Everything I have is yours.” That is actually true, because one third of what the father had had been given to the younger son, and the two thirds that were left were targeted towards the older son after the father had died.

Deut. 21:17

¹⁷ He must acknowledge as firstborn the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion of all that he has; since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his.^[n]

TW Manson (quoted in Fitzmyer, p. 1086):

In Luke’s setting, the purpose is to “justify the attitude of Jesus to sinners by showing them that his way is the fulfillment of God’s will concerning them, and that the way of the scribes and Pharisees is the wrong way….”

“God loves the sinner while he is still a sinner before he repents; and that somehow it is this Divine love that makes the sinner’s repentance possible.”

According to the law at the time, the younger son could take his one-third inheritance while the father was still alive, but only with the promise that he would remain on the land and work it and supply for the parents’ well-being until they died. So, his act of taking the inherited property, selling it and leaving with the profits, was tantamount to saying that his father was dead. He chose freedom over relationships. He wanted the money without the responsibility.

What was happening in the request of the younger son? He wanted his rights without responsibility. Upon the father’s death, the younger son would have a “right” to one-third of his father’s estate, and the older son to two-thirds (Deut. 21:17). If the father chose, he could divide the inheritance while he was still alive, but if he did so, the heirs would also inherit the responsibility to care for the family until the father’s death. But the younger son wanted his inheritance without the responsibility it would entail.^[o]

It seems that there were two big things happening here that would have been shocking to the legal experts of Jesus’ day. First was that the young son would have the nerve to demand such a thing. It just wasn’t done. And the second was that the father would agree to it. That also was just not done.

¹³A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and traveled to a distant country,[p] and there he squandered his property in dissolute living.

Jewish law did permit a father to determine which assets (especially land) would go to which sons before he died, but they could take possession only on the father’s death: the father was manager and received the land’s profits until then. Thus this son could know what would be his but could not legally sell his assets. However, he does it anyway.

Many Palestinian Jews migrated, seeking fortune in less economically pressed areas. The younger son is presumably no older than 18 (he was unmarried) and had an older brother; he would thus have had little experience in managing finances. Moralists considered squandering very evil.[q]

¹⁴ When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. ¹⁵ So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs.

“To eat swine was to become as a Gentile and to live outside of the covenant (Lev. 11:7; Isa. 65:4; 66:17).”[r]

    

At this point, Jesus’ Jewish hearers are ready for the story to end: the son gets what he deserves—he is reduced to the horrendous level of feeding the most unclean of animals. The son is cut off at this point from the Jewish community and any financial charity it would otherwise offer him.

So far, five things have happened to him (from Van Horn, Lectionary Commentary)

1. He wasted his “being” (ousia, translated “property,” is from eimi, “to be.” This is similar to his father dividing his bion, translated “property,” meaning “life.” The father divided his life between them; the son squandered his being).
2. He spent everything he owned; he was undoubtedly broke before he was poor.
3. A great famine left him destitute.
4. Joining himself to a citizen (Gentile) and feeding swine (cf. Lev. 11:7 and Deut. 14:8) burned his last bridges back to his family and village; his break with his past was complete.
5. He asked for mercy, “and no one gave him anything” (v. 16). The younger son has lost his rights, his freedom, and his future.^[s]

¹⁶ He would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything. ¹⁷ But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger!

Some commentators have suggested that the “pods” here are the kind of carob pods that Israel would eat only in famine, which some teachers said drove Israel to repentance. Others argue that these are prickly, wild pods that only swine’s snouts could reach. Neither pod was considered appetizing, and given that pigs’ were proverbially unclean in their eating habits, the thought of eating their food would disgust Jesus’ hearers. That the young man is jealous of pigs’ fare also suggests that he is not receiving fair wages (cf. 15:17).[t]

Craddock says that they were eaten only during famine or by the very, very poor (and this young man qualifies for both).[u]

¹⁸ I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; ¹⁹ I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.” ’

The son here returns simply out of hunger and the belief that his father may feed him as a servant, not because he is genuinely sorry that he disgraced his father. Given the magnitude of his sin and the squandering of one-third of his father’s life’s earnings, Jewish hearers might regard his return as an act of incredible presumption rather than humility.

²⁰ So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him.

It was a breach of an elderly Jewish man’s dignity to run, though familial love could take priority over dignity after a long absence (cf. Tobit 11:9—mother and son). Given the normal garb, the father would have to pull up his skirt to run. Kissing was appropriate for family members or intimate friends.

Kenneth Bailey, (Poet and Peasant [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], p. 181) suggests that the neighbors would probably be laughing and taunting and attempting to humiliate the young man when they saw him coming home, so to spare him of that, the father humiliates himself instead by running out to him. It was considered terribly improper for an old man to run (and difficult given the robes they wore).^[v]

²¹ Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’^{d 22} But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly, bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. ²³ And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate;

The best robe in the house would belong to the father himself. The ring would probably be a family signet ring—a symbol of reinstatement to sonship in a well-to-do house. Slaves did not normally wear sandals, though they carried and tied a master’s sandals. The father is saying, “No, I won’t receive you back as a servant. I’ll receive you only as a son.”[w]

The ring may have contained a seal, indicating that he has been reconciled and welcomed back as a full member of the family.^[x]

The killing of the fatted calf was a sign that the whole community was invited to celebrate the restoration of the relationship.^[y]

²⁵ “Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. ²⁶ He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. ²⁷ He replied, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.’ ²⁸ Then he became angry and refused to go in.

Dancing was used in both religious and nonreligious celebrations. Elder brothers were to reconcile differences between fathers and younger brothers, but here the elder brother, returning at the end of a long day’s work, refuses even to enter the house. This is also a grievous insult to the father’s dignity and could have warranted a beating (cf. 15:12).

“He was angry” mirrors the grumbling of the Pharisees and scribes (v. 2).^[z] “The parable has now come full circle. We are back to the beginning of the chapter: ‘Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, ‘‘This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them’’ (15:1–2)””^[aa]

^28b His father came out and began to plead with him [the older son]. ²⁹ But he answered his father, ‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends.

15:29–30. Failing to greet one’s father with a title (e.g., “Father, “Sir”; contrast even 15:12) was a grievous insult to the father’s dignity. The elder brother here is a transparent metaphor for the Pharisees, and the younger brother for the sinners with whom Jesus was eating (15:1–2).

³⁰ But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!’ ³¹ Then the father said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.

“Son” here is τέκνον, teknon, which means not just “child,” or “son,” but a tender form of “Son.” Illustrating that in spite of the anger of his son, he still has affection for him.

 

³² But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.’ ”

Because the inheritance had been divided, the elder brother was already assured of his share, effective on the father’s death (15:12); he had nothing to lose by his brother’s return. The final response of the elder brother is never stated, providing the Pharisees with the opportunity to repent if they are willing.^[bb]

---

^a Gk drachmas, each worth about a day’s wage for a laborer

^b Gk he

[a] “Squandered” (διασκορπίζω, diaskorpizo). First aorist active indicative of diaskorpizō, scattered, the opposite of “gathered together” (sunagogōn). He scattered his property. It is the word used of winnowing grain (Matt. 25:24).(from Robertson).

[b] “dissolute living” (zōn asōtōs). “Wild Lifestyle” (NET), “riotous living” (ASV, KJV, and others), Reckless living” (ESV, GNB).

[c] “Everything” (οὐσία, ousia). It’s a derivative of εἰμί “to exist,” therefore Van horn (below) has suggested that it has to do with a person’s being, not wealth. That is, he spent his self, his being. It’s an evocative thought, but I don’t think so. Louw Nida says that the meaning of “existence” in the word indicates the existence of property, therefore wealth. “In most contexts in which οὐσία occurs in non-biblical Greek, the reference is to considerable possessions or wealth, and accordingly it would be appropriate in Lk 15:12 to speak of ‘estate’” (Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), p. 558.).

^c Other ancient authorities read filled his stomach with

[d] “Pods” (κεράτιον, keration). “The pod of the carob tree (which closely resembles a small horn)—‘carob pod.’…Carob pods were commonly used for fattening swine and were employed as an article of food by poor people” (Louw Nida, p. 33.). It’s a term “used especially of the leguminous fruit of the carob tree, often called St. John’s bread. The tree is found all over the Mediterranean area. Its long pods contain a sweet pulp and indigestible seeds and were used for food for animals, sometimes even for humans” (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, Vol. 28A, Anchor Bible Series, p. 1088).

[e] “Came to himself” (eis heauton de elthōn, εἰς ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἐλθὼν). “V. 17a has sometimes been claimed as a Semitism which carries the meaning ‘to repent’. This, however, is by no means clear. The Greek can rather mean ‘starting to think straight’, that is to stop being in despair and to be logical” (Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. John Barton and John Muddiman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)).

^d Other ancient authorities add Treat me like one of your hired servants

^e Gk he

[f] “Son” here is τέκνον, teknon, which means not just “child,” or “son,” but a tender form of “Son.” Illustrating that in spite of the anger of his son, he still has affection for him.

[g] Roger E. Van Harn, "Fourth Sunday in Lent, Year C," in The Lectionary Commentary: Theological Exegesis for Sunday's Texts, Volume Three, ed. Roger E. Van Harn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 407.

[h] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, Vol. 28A, Anchor Bible Series, p. 1084.

[i] Fred B. Craddock, Luke: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2009), p. 187.

[j] Craddock, Luke, p, 186.

[k] Fitzmyer, pp. 1084-5

^[l] Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 1989.

^[m] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Lk 15:11–12.

^[n] Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary.

^[o] Van Harn, p. 407.

[p] Presumably a gentile country because of the distance. And that would make his subservience to them all the more disgusting. But it’s just a story, so that may be more of a subtlety than Jesus intended.

[q] Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary

[r] Craddock, p. 187

^[s] Van Harn, pp. 408-09.

[t] Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary

[u] P. 187.

^[v] Van Harn, p. 409.

^d Other ancient authorities add Treat me like one of your hired servants

[w] Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary

^[x] Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 1989.

^[y] Van Harn, p. 410.

^[z] ESV Study Bible.

^[aa] Van Harn, p. 410.

^[bb] Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary.