Note how in ‘a’ the section opens with the tax collectors and sinners drawing near ‘to hear Him’, and ends with Him ‘concluding His words’ before moving on towards His death in Jerusalem. In ‘b’ the shepherd goes into the wilderness, the woman looks after her coins, and a father and his two sons make their choices, while in the parallel a king goes into a far country, he dispenses coins to be looked after, and three servants make their choices. In ‘c’ the steward uses money wisely and in the parallel Zacchaeus uses his money wisely. In ‘d’ The Pharisees are ‘blind’ to the truth about Jesus and cavil at His teaching, while those who see the truth press into the Kingly Rule of God, and in the parallel the disciples are ‘blind’ to Jesus’ teaching, while the blind man presses insistently into seeing Jesus. In ‘e’ we have the rich man who used his wealth wrongly and in the parallel the rich young ruler who refused to use his wealth rightly. In ‘f’ we are told of the danger of putting stumblingblocks in the way of others, especially of children, while in the parallel the Kingly Rule of God must be received as a little child. In ‘g’ the servant who only does his duty does not expect a reward, while in the parallel the Pharisee is confident that he has done his duty and boasts about it, but is seen as lacking. In ‘h’ ten men cry out for deliverance, but one man stands out as seeking Jesus and is commended and his faith alone is emphasised, in the parallel one woman seeks to a judge (God) and His elect are to seek out God for deliverance and are commended but lack of faith on earth is feared. In ‘i’ the Kingly Rule of God does not come with signs, and in the parallel His coming will be unexpected (and thus without signs). In ‘j’, and centrally, the rejected Son of Man is to come in His glory and false Messiahs are to be avoided (17.22-24).

Three Parables Dealing With The Seeking and Saving of the Lost (15.1-32).

It will have been noted how great a concentration there is in this section on preparing for the eternal future, and on the Kingly Rule of God. This will lead on to an emphasis on the heavenly Son of Man, and the revelation of His future appearing in glory.

In this chapter Jesus commences by vividly illuminating His coming statement in 19.10 that ‘the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost.’ He does it by means of the parables of the shepherd going out into the wilderness to seek his lost sheep, the woman being concerned over her coins and seeking the one that was lost, and the three men, a father and his two sons, who are faced with choices. These themes remarkably parallel the descriptions in the parallel parable which immediately follows 19.10, of the king who goes ‘into a far country’ to receive a kingship, dispenses ‘coins to be looked after’, and faces up ‘three men with their choices’ (19.11-27).

The three parables in this present chapter have the one theme, the rejoicing over the finding of what had been lost. In the first two parables that is specifically related to joy in Heaven. In the third it is the rejoicing of the father, but as in that case the father himself represents God, the idea is the same. The first two parables are also parallel to each other in that both depict the seeking of what was lost. They also follow Luke’s man/woman pattern which we find elsewhere (see Introduction), introducing alternately first a man and then a woman, both of who sought what was lost. In the third it is the father who is prominent, the father who compassionately welcomes one son and graciously guides the other, while the aspect of repentance also comes to the fore. Together the parables reveal the reaching out of God towards man, and man’s required response.

Jesus here delineates three types of sinner. The first is like a sheep, he goes astray through foolishness and thoughtlessness, drawn away by the promise of better pasture elsewhere; the second is like the coin, he simply goes astray by accident or as a result of the carelessness of those who should be watching over him; the third goes astray by his own self-will and as a result of a desire for pleasure. But all end up in the same situation and all need to come back to the father in the same way.

The Parables of The Seeking Shepherd and the Lost Coin (15.1-10).

In these twin parables Jesus illustrates Heaven’s concern over all lost persons, whoever they may be, and of whatever class they be, and stresses that His purpose in coming is to reach out to them and find them. He has the love of the shepherd for his wayward sheep. He has concern at the loss of a treasured possession. At the same time it illustrates God’s election of those who are His, and whom He has given to His Son (John 6.37, 44-45; 10.26-29). For Jesus makes clear that there is a certain inevitability about the finding of the sheep because it is His, and about the finding of the coin because it is in the house and is His own treasured possession. Both are sought for until they are found. In this picture of a compassionate God who seeks out those who have sinned against Him in order to have mercy on them we have an idea which is unique in religious history.

We may analyse the passage as follows:

• a All the public servants and sinners were drawing near to Him to hear Him (1).
• b Both the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, “This man receives sinners, and eats with them” (2).
• c He spoke to them this parable, saying, “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, does not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?” (3-4).
• d “And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing”
• e “And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbours, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost’.” (5-6).
• d “I say to you, that even so there will be joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, more than over ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance.” (7).
• c “Or what woman, having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, does not light a lamp, and sweep the house, and seek diligently until she find it?” (8).
• b “And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbours, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the piece which I had lost.’ ” (9).
• a “Even so, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (10).

Note how in ‘a’ the sinners draw near to Him to listen, and in the parallel the sinner repents and causes joy in Heaven. In ‘b’ the Pharisees and Scribes grumble at Jesus receiving sinners (those who have been lost and are now being found) and eating with them, while in the parallel the woman calls her sinner friends together to celebrate with them that what was lost has been found (something at which Heaven rejoices). In ‘c’ the man has lost his sheep, and is not satisfied until he has found it, and in the parallel the woman has lost her coin and is not satisfied until she has found it. In ‘d’ the shepherd rejoices over finding his sheep, and in the parallel Heaven rejoices over the ‘found’ sinner who repents. Central in ‘e’ is the calling of all together to rejoice at finding the lost sheep.

15.1 ‘Now all the public servants and sinners were drawing near to him to hear him.’

Gathered in the crowds around Jesus were large numbers of public servants and ‘sinners’. The ‘public servants were those who served the Romans in one way or another, either under Herod or under Pilate, both of whom represented Rome. They would include a large number of tax and toll collectors, men, often brutal men, who had taken advantage of the system to enrich themselves, and they would be as unwelcome to the sinners as they were to the Pharisees. We must not just ignore the truth about them. The ‘sinners’ were those who did not in Pharisaic eyes sufficiently follow the laws of cleanness and uncleanness, the laws of tithing, and so on. They would include those guilty of all kinds of sins, some mild, others more serious. But all shared one common position. They were despised by the Pharisees. Yet their presence here indicated that in their hearts there was a desire for the truth, and a recognition that their present lives were unsatisfactory. Jesus welcomed them as those who were seeking to change, not as those who would stay as they were. And while to the Pharisees their presence was an offence, to Heaven it was a joy.

‘Were drawing near.’ The verb is used similarly of crowds in Matthew 15.8, and the tense probably indicates their continual drawing near over a period of time. It was during this period of regular association with the crowds that the Pharisees and Scribes began to mouth their criticisms.

‘To hear Him.’ This suggests a certain attentiveness about their listening, (compare 14.35). They were listening, ‘the Pharisees and Scribes’ (for the order compare 5.30; Mark 7.1, 5; Matthew 15.1) were not. This idea of listening is important in Luke, see 5.1, 15; 6.17, 27, 47, 49; 7.29; 8.8-18, 21; 9.35; 10.16, 24, 39; 11.28, 31. He wants us to know that it is important that we genuinely ‘hear’.

15.2 ‘And both the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, “This man receives sinners, and eats with them.’

It is clear that Jesus welcomed these ‘public servants and sinners’ openly (compare 5.30; Mark 2.15-16) and was willing to eat among them, quite probably often in a kind of picnic situation (as when the five thousand were fed), although no doubt sometimes being invited to people’s houses. And this was so much so that the Pharisees muttered among themselves at what they saw to be His ‘irreligious behaviour’. As they do not suggest otherwise, however, it is probable that even when doing so Jesus went to the trouble of proper cleansing in spite of the conditions. He still sought to avoid offence wherever He could. But that did not satisfy them. For even close association with such people was frowned on, and no Pharisee would have mixed with them.

It should be noted that the Pharisees and Scribes must not be seen as all bad. They would have welcomed these people one by one if they had come privately and had ‘repented’ and had been determined to follow their ways, but they would never have sought them out, and such a one would first have had to follow very rigorous procedures in order to be finally welcomed after appropriate cleansing. They therefore totally disapproved of Jesus lax approach.

15.3 ‘And he spoke to them this parable, saying,’

Jesus, as He often did, answered them parabolically in front of the great crowd. The singular noun ‘this parable’ may indicate the opening parable, or it may signify ‘spoke parabolically’. ‘Them’ includes all who are in the crowd. He was being publicly criticised, He now gave a public reply.

In His parable (‘this parable’) He demonstrated that He was merely behaving like the shepherds of Israel should have behaved (compare Is 40.11; 49.22; Psalm 23.1-6; Jeremiah 31.10-14; Ezekiel 34.11-16; Micah 5.2-4). He was watching over God’s sheep and seeking out those who had strayed. And as the parables advance He wants them to recognise that Heaven itself was involved, and that it was more concerned with moral purity than with ritual cleanness and was very open to sinners who repented, far more in some ways than to the self-righteous who were self-satisfied and did not recognise their need to repent.

15.4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, does not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness (the semi-desert pasture-land), and go after that which is lost, until he find it?”

Jesus deliberately addresses the ‘sinners’ among the crowd by saying, ‘Which man of you’, indicating by this that He is classing His listeners with shepherds, who were seen as almost permanently unclean, and as rogues into the bargain. (It probably made the Pharisees cringe to think that they were being included with shepherds). The question would awaken their interest. Note the emphasis on ‘man’. This is partly as a contrast to ‘woman’ in verse 8.

The one hundred sheep represents a complete flock (an intensifying of ten). There is a perfect number, and of them not one must be lost (compare John 17.12). Each shepherd would know each of his sheep by name (John 10.3) and would not need to count them. He would see almost immediately which one was missing. (Most shepherds probably could not count to a hundred). Distressed at the realisation this shepherd leaves his remaining sheep with his fellow-shepherds and goes out to seek the one that is lost. And he does not cease in his search until he has found it. All faithful shepherds would immediately respond to the picture, recognising in it their common experience. But behind the parable is the theme of the care of God and His Messiah over His flock. ‘I, I Myself will search for My sheep and will seek them out’ (see Ezekiel 34.11-12, 23-24).

‘Lost.’ The verb is used in all three parables in this chapter. The verb stem means to perish, but it extended to include what was lost, for such things had perished as far as the speaker was concerned.

15.5 “And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.”

Note that in this narrating of the parable success is assumed. It is not ‘if’ He finds it, but ‘when’ He finds it (contrast Matthew 18.13, which demonstrates that the parable there was given on a different occasion. The emphasis of the parable would vary depending on the emphasis Jesus wished to lay). This carrying of the sheep on his shoulders would be normal practise for a shepherd. The sheep would be exhausted, and the shepherd triumphant and rejoicing (compare Isaiah 40.11).

15.6 “And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbours, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost’.”

Arriving home the shepherd calls together his friends and neighbours, announcing that he has found his lost sheep. Such a celebration might at first seem a little excessive, but we must remember that the shepherd would know the sheep by name and would not just be thinking commercially. He had found a beloved sheep. Then these ‘sinners’ (unlike the Pharisees) would all gather together to rejoice over the finding of the lost sheep. We need not necessarily assume that the rejoicing resulted in a costly meal, although no doubt some refreshment was available.

15.7 “I say to you, that even so there will be joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, more than over ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance.”

Jesus then completes the parable with a comparison. Not only do sinners gather together to rejoice in the finding of what is lost, but when it is a lost sinner so also does Heaven. God Himself rejoices, and all who are with Him, for thereby is fulfilled 5.32; 13.3, 5. The only ones left out are the religious cynics who have no time or inclination for such behaviour. The Rabbis in contrast preferred to speak of God’s joy over the downfall of the godless.

Those ‘who need no repentance’ may refer to the godly in Israel who are walking in God’s ways making use of the appropriate means of forgiveness (people such as Zacharias, Elizabeth, Simeon and Anna), but the Pharisees would certainly have included themselves in the total.

‘There will be joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, more than over ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance.’ This is not to disparage the ninety and nine, or to suggest that they were loved the less. The latter, if genuinely righteous, are fully appreciated in Heaven. However, they are not a surprise. But to find something valuable that is lost is an especially delightful surprise.

It is noteworthy in all this how confidently Jesus can speak of goings on in Heaven. For Him it was not ‘beyond the veil’. It was home.

Further Thoughts on the Parable.

The first emphasis in the parable is on the fact that the shepherd sought the sheep. It is a reminder that it is God in Jesus Christ Who in His graciousness seeks us, not we who tend to seek God. The second is on the fact that He sought until He found it. When Jesus Christ sets out after someone He does not cease until they have become His. There is behind both these ideas the concept of election, the concept that we are ‘chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy and without blame before him in love’ (Ephesians 1.4). The perfect number is fixed. Not one must be lost. (The same idea is present in Revelation 7.1-8). The third is the joy in Heaven once a sinner turns to God. It brings out that God is more concerned about such things than we are. The fourth is in a sense hidden behind the simplicity of the story, and that is the cost to the shepherd. Seeking a lost sheep could mean going into inhospitable territory, and the way could be hard. It can best be put in the words of the hymnwriter,

And He knew the cost even as He taught this parable. He knew that ‘The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day’ (9.22). And yet He still sought the sheep, whatever the cost, until He found it.

And the fifth lesson that we must not lose sight of is that the one which was lost represents the outcast, and the despised. It represents those who while not precious in man’s sight, are precious in God’s sight.

The Woman And The Lost Coin (15.8-10).

As the analysis above shows this is in continuity with the previous parable and brings out Luke’s tendency to combine parables together and to refer to both men and women. For similar pairs of parables compare 5.36-37; 11.31-32; 12.24-27; 13.18-21; 14.28-32, the centre three of which also include the man/woman element. (We say Luke’s tendency, but of course the tendency must be traced back to Jesus). The stress in this parable is on the recovery of a treasured possession. For God’s people are His own treasured possession (Exodus 19.5-6), and He does not like to lose one of them.

15.8 “Or what woman, having ten pieces of silver (ten drachmae), if she lose one piece (drachma), does not light a lamp, and sweep the house, and seek diligently until she find it?”

In this case the woman has ten drachmae, again the number signifying completeness. The drachma was a Greek coin, often found in Palestine, which was about the equivalent of a denarius, thus representing a day’s wage. This was possibly her dowry money, saved up for the future, and it may have formed part of a necklace or other ornament. To her it was very valuable, a treasured possession, and the loss of any part of it would be heartbreaking. And that is what this parable is about. The seeking of a treasured possession which has been lost (Exodus 19.5; Titus 2.14; 1 Peter 2.4, 9).

Unfortunately, however, one of the coins is lost in the house and the completeness of her dowry is broken. The woman would experience a great sense of loss. She had watched over it for years and now this had happened. This situation would be made worse by the fact that the house was dark, for it would have had few if any windows, and the floor was probably of beaten earth and covered with rushes. The lost coin would thus not be easy to find. So what does she do? She lights her lamp, she sweeps the house, and she seeks and seeks and seeks with great diligence until finally she finds it. And she does it because of how precious it is to her.

The lighting of her lamp reminds us of the parable in 12.35. It is an indication that all is in darkness and that without the lamp of witness the coin will not be found. She is seeking to bring it out of darkness into light (Acts 26.18). Light is necessary if darkness is to be dispelled. Her diligence in seeking the coin parallels the durability of the shepherd as he sought the sheep. She will not rest until she has it.

15.9 “And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbours, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the piece which I had lost.’ ”

And when she has found the coin she calls her friends and neighbours in to celebrate, and to rejoice with her. For she has found what was precious to her. Most of us know what it is to lose something, and the joy we have on finding it, but in our case it will not usually be quite so important to us as this coin was to the woman.

15.10 “Even so, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

But a greater joy than both is found in Heaven when a sinner repents. Here the rejoicing of the lost sinner who repents is in ‘the presence of the angels’ (compare verse 7). All Heaven is involved in the rejoicing. The one who is found is precious to Heaven. And we have in this parable the lesson that both men and women are to be involved in seeking the lost. It is not a ‘men only’ preserve. Each seeks within their own sphere.

The Rabbis would later tell the story of a man who searched for what was lost, but they represented it in terms of a man seeking the Law of God. They had no equivalent of a loving God seeking man.

The Parable of The Loving Father, The Prodigal Son and the Dissatisfied Brother (15.11-32).

When we come to the third parable there is a different emphasis in that the emphasis is laid, not on the seeking out of the person involved, (that has already been made clear in the previous two parables), but on his repentance, and on the father who is longing for his son’s return, and on the contrast with the elder brother who is angry when his younger wastrel brother is rapturously received. But it has in common with the others the finding of what was lost and the same emphasis on the rejoicing at the return of the one who was lost. It is a vivid picture of human psychology and emotions.

When considering the parable we need to have in mind the contents of the crowd. There were first of all the common people, the ‘public servants and sinners’, whose religious life was a little haphazard, and then there were the ‘righteous’ people, those who were good living, responsive to God, and who genuinely looked to the sacrificial system to keep them in fellowship with God. And finally there were the hypercritical among the Pharisees and Scribes, men who struggled hard to build up a special level of righteousness and to ensure that they kept every letter of the covenant, but who thereby missed its most important underlying basis, the principle of mercy. The younger son represents the first. The elder son the second and third, both of whom needed to learn more of the grace of God.

We should notice that it is the parable of the two sons, as well as that of the loving father. It can therefore be divided into two or three parts, the first mainly dealing with the activities of the younger son, the last mainly dealing with the response to his return of the elder son, and the middle section mainly having in mind the loving father (although the father’s love shines out all the way through). The fall, and especially the repentance of the younger son, is vividly described, reminding us that it was not just any public servants and sinners, but repentant public servants and sinners that Jesus welcomed. But equally important in its significance is the resultant reaction of the elder son, for this vividly portrays the reaction of the Pharisees and ‘the righteous’ (those who wholeheartedly sought to live their lives before God) to His welcoming of public servants and sinners. It is not only hypocrites who sometimes find it difficult to understand how a man can live a long life of open sin and then be welcomed back at the end as though he had never sinned. Here Jesus will give something of an explanation.

Thus while the initial part of the parable deals with the welcoming of sinners, the final lesson arising from the parable deals with the harsh attitude that the ‘righteous’ might have towards the reception of repentant sinners. The question is not finally dealt with but is left open for all to consider. (And we must never forget that a number of Pharisees did become Christians).

But the overall importance of the parable is found in the compassion and wisdom of the father who was able to cope with both and sought to understand and be reconciled with both. He is the figure who unifies the parable and is its central theme. For central to its significance is the love of the Father, Who yet in His love requires repentance from both. Without that there can be no restored relationships.

Analysis.

• a And he said, “A certain man had two sons” (11).
• b “And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the portion of your substance which falls to me.’ And he divided to them his living” (12).
• c “And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together and took his journey into a far country, and there he wasted his substance with riotous living” (13).
• d “And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that country, and he began to be in want, and he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine, and he would willingly have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat, and no man gave to him” (14-16).
• e “But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight, I am no more worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your hired servants”.’ ” (17-19).
• f “And he arose, and came to his father. But while he was yet afar off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him” (20)
• g “And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight, I am no more worthy to be called your son’ ” (21)
• f “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet, and bring the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat, and make merry, for this my son was dead, and is alive again, he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to be merry” (22-24).
• e “Now his elder son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called to him one of the servants, and enquired what these things might be. And he said to him, ‘Your brother is come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safe and sound.’ And he was angry, and would not go in, and his father came out, and entreated him” (25-27).
• d “But he answered and said to his father, ‘Lo, these many years do I serve you, and I never transgressed a commandment of yours, and yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends’ ” (28).
• c “But when this your son came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you kill for him the fatted calf.’ ” (29).
• b “And he said to him, ‘Son, you are ever with me, and all that is mine is yours’ ” (31).
• a “But it was right to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive again, and was lost, and is found” (32).

Note that in ‘a’ there are two sons and in the parallel there are again two sons. This brings out the pathos of the remainder of the story. Ever since the younger son had left there had been an emptiness in the heart of his father. He had only had the one son. But now his other son has been restored. In ‘b’ the younger son claimed his inheritance, and in the parallel all that is left now belongs to the elder son. In ‘c’ the young man lives riotously, and in the parallel this is precisely the elder brother’s grumble. In ‘d’ the descent of the younger son into abject poverty is described, from partying (spending all) to swine husks, and in the parallel is the contrast of the hardworking elder brother, keeping on an even keel and always well fed but never partied. In ‘e’ we have the young man’s repentance and recognition of his folly, and in the parallel the elder son’s reaction and hardening. In ‘f’ we have the father’s joyous reaction to his son’s return, and in the parallel this is emphasised and expanded on. And centrally in ‘g’ we have the depiction of and stress on the young man’s repentance.

The story is partly based on Old Testament ideas where God said, ‘Sons have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against Me’ (Isaiah 1.2). And the consequence was, ‘A voice on the bare heights is heard, the weeping and pleading of Israel’s sons, because they have perverted their way, they have forgotten the Lord their God. Return O faithless sons, I will heal your faithlessness’ (Jeremiah 3.21-22a). And the reply then comes, ‘Behold we come to you, for you are the Lord our God’ (Jeremiah 3.22b). And who can fail to see the yearning of the father for his lost son in Jeremiah 31.20, ‘Is Ephraim (Israel) My dear son? Is he My darling child? For as often as I speak against him, I remember him still, therefore My heart yearns for him. I will surely have mercy on him, says the Lord’. So the Old Testament is firm in its teaching concerning the Father Who yearns for His sons to return to Him, and is ready to receive them with mercy.

It will also be noted that, as we also find in Old Testament chiastic parallels (see our commentaries on Numbers 18.4, 7; 23, 24 and Exodus 18.21, 22 and 25, 26), there are here in Luke repetitions of phrases within the chiasmus. Both ‘Father I have sinned against Heaven and in your sight, I am no more worthy to be called your son’, and ‘this my son (your brother) was dead and is alive again, was lost and is found’ are repeated. It will be noted that both are central emphases in the story.

15.11 ‘And he said, “A certain man had two sons,” ’

The parable is about two sons. But it is so easy to lose sight of the elder son (partly due to the vividness of the story, and partly because in our sinfulness we relate most closely to the younger son). Yet to Jesus the elder son was important, for he represented many of those to whom He spoke. He wanted them to come to repentance too.

However, it is the younger son who dominates the first part of the parable, and he is therefore the one whom we have to consider first.

15.12 “And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the portion of your substance which falls to me.’ And he divided to them his living.”

The younger son come to his father with the request that he might have his share of what he would in the future inherit. In a case where there were two sons this would normally be one third of the whole (the elder brother who would take over responsibility for dependants would receive a double portion), although in a situation like this where it was received early it may have been a lesser proportion (for the whole see Deuteronomy 21.17). Such an apportioning of an inheritance before death did happen regularly, and the principle behind it was that the sons would then have financial responsibility towards their father who retained a right to receive the income, and utilise the capital. But that a son would actually request it while his father was in good health would be an unusual case, and is probably intended to emphasise the waywardness of the son and the goodheartedness of the father. There was probably no thought at this stage of the younger son leaving home, except for business reasons, nor of him having the capital simply to do what he liked with. The younger son was probably only in his late teens, for he was unmarried, and had seemingly no thoughts of marriage.

15.13 “And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together (or ‘turned it all into cash’) and took his journey into a far country, and there he wasted his substance with riotous living.”

After a period, we may assume with the agreement of his father, the son turned his portion into cash and went to a far country (far from the father). The idea was probably that there he would establish himself in business, and increase their fortune. It was quite a regular occurrence for Jews to go to the great cities for this purpose, and in doing so he would require capital, which explains the father’s willingness to allow him it.

But the son, once released from home, went to the bad. Instead of concentrating on business he gave himself up to a good time and the bright lights. He forgot his obligation to his father (who still had a right to the use and protection of the capital and to any income from it) and used the money to live extravagantly and immorally. It is very probable that the elder brother’s summary of his behaviour was very near to the truth (verse 30).

This young man is a vivid representation of how large numbers live today. Like him they forget that it is God Who has given them their prosperity, and ignore His rights, and live totally to please themselves. They do not see themselves as having any responsibility towards the Father.

15.14-16 “And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that country, and he began to be in want, and he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine, and he would willingly have filled his belly with the husks (carob pods) that the swine did eat, and no man gave to him.”

Like many a foolish person who receives a fortune he felt that he could ‘spend, spend, spend’. And that was fine until the money ran out. But unless the fortune is huge the money does eventually run out. And the problem in this case was that it happened at a time of famine. Thus he found himself in great need. The result was that he had to hire himself out to a foreigner to look after his pigs. To a Jew nothing could have been more degrading. Pigs were ritually ‘unclean’, and to associate with them was heavily frowned on and despised by all Jews (Leviticus 11.7; Deuteronomy 14.8; Isaiah 65.4; 66.17; 1 Maccabees 1.47; 2 Peter 2.22). And yet this young Jew not only had to live among the pigs, he had to eat the food that they ate. It was the opposite of all that he had ever known. He was homeless and friendless and lacking in even the basic amenities. He had reached rock bottom. We do not have to assume dishonesty. Eating the pig food may well, in a time of famine, have been part of the agreement. And he may well also have received a small wage. But there was no charity for him. He was an outcast. His ‘good time’ friends had forgotten him. No one wanted to know him. The pig food was probably carob pods, of which the Rabbis would say, ‘when the Israelites are reduced to carob pods, then they repent’. For carob pods were the worst possible type of food.

We must remember that Jesus is here describing the ‘public servants and sinners’, people who had wandered away from God and had lived for themselves. They had lived their lives as though God did not exist and by it they had lost everything that was truly worthwhile. Even the wealthy ones were spiritually ‘living among the pigs’.

15.17 “But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish here with hunger!’ ”

But while feeding and looking after the pigs he had plenty of time to think, and eventually he ‘woke up’. He ‘came to himself’. He recognised what a fool he had been, and what a fool he now was, and how he had sinned against his father, and against God. These latter were the marks of genuine repentance. And he also recognised how well off his father’s servants were compared with his own position. He had not only forfeited his sonship (in Jewish eyes he had forfeited it the moment that he began to use his inheritance recklessly and disobediently instead of for the family honour) but he had even fallen to a level below his father’s lowest servant. At least they were properly clothed and well fed, while he starved and was in rags.

What a difference there now was from the arrogant young man who had so loudly demanded his inheritance. Now he was humbled and willing to be a servant. There was a lesson here even for the disciples. For Jesus was constantly telling His own disciples that they must learn to desire to be servants (22.24-27). And it had all been brought about by adversity. The fire that Jesus had kindled (12.49) was working on his life.

15.18-19 “I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight, I am no more worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your hired servants.’ ”

So he vowed to himself that what he would do was humble himself, and seek a position in his father’s house as a day-servant. He was well aware that he had lost his rights and forfeited his sonship. Nor would he try to claim any differently. He would not go back claiming sonship. Nor would he ask to be a favoured servant. He would only plead to be allowed to be a ‘hired servant’, a ‘day labourer’, to be fed and paid a decent wage while not being accepted back into the household. Perhaps his father would have pity on him and at least allow him this. It was certainly better than what he had.

Note his recognition that he had firstly sinned ‘against Heaven’, that is, against God. And then secondly that he had grievously sinned in his father’s eyes. His father had trusted him, and had provided him with capital so that he could establish himself in business, and he had ‘disappeared’ and squandered it all. He was well aware of the social situation. He no longer had a right to claim sonship. All then that he would ask was employment in whatever capacity his father chose.

He was the perfect picture of the repentant sinner, coming with no pretensions, and with no claims to special treatment, admitting grave fault, and simply trusting in a merciful God to have compassion on him and forgive him and accept him just as he is. He is like the public servant in the parable of the Pharisee and the Public Servant who stood afar off and would not even lift up his eyes to Heaven (18.13). He is already on his way home.

15.20 “And he arose, and came to his father. But while he was yet afar off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.”

So he rose and came to his father. That was all that was needed, a turning of the back on the old life and a response to his father in order to beg forgiveness. For even while he was some good distance away his father saw him. He knew his son immediately in spite of his rags and his bare feet. And moved with compassion he ran, and flung his arms round him, dirty as he was, and kissed him (compare Acts 20.37). This was a sign of acceptance and forgiveness (2 Samuel 14.33; Genesis 45.14-15). It was his son. He could do no other.

By this Jesus was openly saying that when we turn from our old ways and seek Him, God is like this. He welcomes us with open arms just as we are, and takes us as His own.

15.21 “And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight, I am no more worthy to be called your son.’ ”

No doubt very moved the son began to explain why he had come. He acknowledged that he had sinned against both God and his father, and that in such a way that he could not expect to be received as a son. That much he had to say in the parable lest the impression be gained that his sin did not matter. But not more, in order to demonstrate the father’s unconditional love.

15.22-24 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet, and bring the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat, and make merry, for this my son was dead, and is alive again, he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to be merry.”

But the father had forgiven his son, and he called to the servants to reinstate him in his former position. He was to be clothed with the very best robe available, a sign of status; a ring was to be put on his finger, a sign of his reinstatement to a position of authority in the household; and shoes were to be put on his poor bare feet. Shoes were worn only by free men, and in the house only by the owners. This was thus a repudiation of the suggestion that he be a servant and an acknowledgement that he was once more to be seen as one of the ‘masters’. And then the partying was to begin.

We are reminded by this picture of another who stood before God in filthy garments, one who as the High Priest was bearing in himself the sin of Israel, and how God in His grace had received him and reclothed him in glorious apparel (Zechariah 3.1-5) ready for his future service. And so does He offer the robe of Christ’s righteousness to all who repent and believe.

And once the son was clothed and freshened up the fatted calf was to be killed. This was the calf which in well-to-do households was kept aside and especially fattened up, and was then reserved for when important guests came. And in the killing and shedding of the blood of the calf every Jew would see an offering of gratitude and thanksgiving to God, and of atonement, for its blood would be poured out on the ground as an offering to God (Deuteronomy 12.24). And then all were to eat and make merry because it was as though his son ‘had been dead and had come alive again, he had been lost, and now he was found’.

The powerful wording brings out that the father had never expected to see his son again. Probably we are to see that when no word had come back the father had sent men to look for his son, but had discovered that he had covered his tracks too well. He had not wanted to be found. And the father had then reluctantly given him up for dead. He had become a ‘missing person’.

But now all was changed. He was back. It was as though he had risen from the dead. He was alive (compare Romans 7.9 for the use of the verb). He was no longer a ‘missing person’. He was here in front of their eyes! Like the sheep he was alive and home, like the coin he was found and restored as a treasured possession.

There were no doubt a number in the crowds around Jesus who were also missing persons, young men who had abandoned their homes. Perhaps now they would be made to think again. And there were others who would recognise that they had deserted God’s ways, and could now recognise that He was ready to welcome them back on their turning from sin and coming to Him.

15.25 “Now his elder son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing.”

But then a new figure comes into the picture. It is the elder brother. He had been at work, ‘in the field’. He was the quiet hard worker, the faithful son, who had worked hard all these years and had enjoyed few luxuries. And as he approached his home from his day of honest toil he was astonished to hear the sound of music and dancing. The fact that he had not already been immediately informed of the situation may well have been simply because no one knew precisely where he was. Or it may simply be because it is a necessity for the story. The music and the dancing would puzzle him. He would be able to think of no reason for it.

15.26 “And he called to him one of the servants, and enquired what these things might be.”

So he called to him one of the servants and asked what the reason was for all this music and dancing. It was a complete enigma.

15.27 “And he said to him, ‘Your brother is come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safe and sound.’ ”

And the servant told him what had happened. His brother had arrived back unexpectedly, and his father had killed the fatted calf because he had received him safe and sound. It is salutary to consider that the servants were apparently seen as more delighted than the elder brother. They were fond of their master and delighted because he was delighted.

15.28 “But he was angry, and would not go in, and his father came out, and entreated him.”

But the elder son was angry, and we are probably to see that all the resentments of the years rose up within him. He had originally envied his brother’s freedom as the younger brother had gone off to see the world, and then when his brother had squandered the money entrusted to him and had become estranged from the family, it was he who had had to work twice as hard to build up their resources again. And now here was his brother back again, and being treated as though nothing had happened. Possibly he also saw some of his inheritance disappearing with him. Whatever way it was he refused to join the celebrations. Like many such snap assessments it was a wrong assessment, as his father would now attempt to make clear. But it was a natural one. It brought out how unreasonable we can all be at times, especially when we are tired.

And when his father heard that he had arrived back and had not joined the celebrations, he realised that he must be upset, and he went out to him and begged him to come in and join them. Note how the father goes out to both sons, just as God reaches out to all men. He loved them both.

15.29 “But he answered and said to his father, ‘Lo, these many years do I slave for you, and I never transgressed a commandment of yours, and yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends, but when this your son came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you kill for him the fatted calf.’ ”

The elder brother could not hold back his fury. He pointed out belligerently how for years he had slaved, and had never transgressed against any of his father’s orders, and yet when had his father ever thrown a party for him, or given him a kid so that he could invite his friends for a meal? But now that this worthless and dishonest son (note ‘this your son’, not ‘my brother’) had arrived back, who had cheated them and wasted so much of the family’s wealth on prostitutes (the worst thing he could think of at the time) what happened? The fatted calf was killed in order to celebrate his return. It did not seem fair.

We note how extravagant his argument is. For in fact the younger son’s friends had not been invited to the present celebration, and the probability is that if he himself had at some time wanted to invite his friends round he could have done so. He has patently manufactured a case in his own mind in order to make it seem as bad as possible. And we see how he saw his life, not as a joyful day by day life lived with his father as they worked together and enjoyed their privileges, but as a burden and a care and a trial, as something to be endured, the way in fact in which many religious people see it, especially those like the Pharisees. But before we criticise him too much we must remember that Jesus has drawn him like this in order that he might illustrate the Pharisees. It was probably one of the Pharisees’ strongest arguments, both to themselves and to others, that all their slaving to keep the commandments and to ‘do what God wanted’ would bring its own reward, a reward lost to those who did not live as they did. And that may well have been part of the reason for their antagonism against Jesus. He appeared to overlook all their hard efforts, and yet freely forgave those who had done nothing to deserve it. Like the elder brother they were unable to rejoice in the free grace of God to sinners. It did not seem fair. And it was in order to bring about a change in this attitude that Jesus was telling the parable. For He was as much concerned with bringing the Pharisees round to a new way of thinking, and to a sense of compassion, as He was to bringing the public servants and sinners to repentance.

15.31 “And he said to him, ‘Son, you are ever with me, and all that is mine is yours.’ ”

His father then gently explained the situation. ‘Son.’ This was a tender and loving way of addressing him. He wanted his son to know how much he appreciated him. ‘You are ever with me.’ He also wanted him to know how much he appreciated his loyalty. He acknowledged that all his life he had been faithful, never going astray. ‘And all that is mine is yours.’ Far from begrudging him a kid he wanted him to know that everything that the family owned was his. Whether we are to see this as signifying that this had been made officially so at the time when the younger son received his portion, which seems probable, or whether it was to be seen as tacitly understood, it was as the father saw it. Thus he would lose nothing by his brother’s return. It was his right and it would not be taken from him.

It was also an assurance to all who heard Jesus that no one who had genuinely served God would lose out by it. If their hearts were right towards God then God would take account of all that they had done (Romans 14.10). Jesus recognised that there were at this stage genuine people among the Pharisees and Scribes and He was appealing to them. They would not lose their reward. God would reward faithful service. But let them not therefore be lacking in compassion and mercy. And He was putting up a case that no one could destroy. If any did lose out it would be as a result of their own fault.

15.32 “But it was right to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive again, and was lost, and is found.”

And then He pointed out how right it was to rejoice in the conversion of sinners. It was right for the elder brother to rejoice because his younger brother had come back repentant and would escape the dreadful life that had recently been his (note his emphasis on ‘your brother’). He could lose nothing, and gain much, by rejoicing with him. For let him recognise what had happened. One who had been dead had found life again. One who had been lost was now found. Was that not good reason to celebrate from an honest and unselfish heart?

By these strong phrases Jesus was also assuring all who heard Him that any of them who turned in repentance towards God, seeking forgiveness, would also find life and would be ‘found’. So His message was to both, to those who were far off, and to those who were near while not being near enough.

We are deliberately not told what decision the elder brother came to. For the intention was that every one among His listeners who saw themselves as like the elder brother had to decide for themselves. That was a major point of the parable.

The Parable of The Astute Steward (16.1-13).

Jesus now tells a parable about an astute but careless estate manager who is failing to do his job properly. It is reported that he is ‘wasting’ his lord’s goods by his carelessness, not misappropriating them. When he is told that he is to be replaced, and must render up his stewardship accounts, he hits on a scheme which will put him in a good light in the eyes of others who might employ him, and at the same time will impress his lord. He will clear off some of the longstanding debts by means of what in modern times we call a Deed of Voluntary Arrangement. This will please the debtors and at the same time bring the money flowing in.

Under such a scheme both parties benefit. It is achieved by giving the equivalent of a large discount on condition of immediate payment. By giving the large discounts he will win the favour of possible future employers, and at the same time persuade them to pay up, and by clearing the debts, which might possibly never otherwise have been paid, he will at the same time please his lord, for it will reduce amounts owing to him in his balance sheet to reasonable proportions and will mean that he does actually receive some of what was due. To the debtors the manager and his lord will appear generous (although they will recognise to whom they really owe the benefit), to the lord he will appear efficient because unexpectedly the money is rolling in. It was a skilful piece of financial management, but at the same time may only have been necessary because of his previous failure to be efficient. That is partly why he is called an ‘unrighteous’ steward, not because of blatant dishonesty, but because of the margins he charges, the penalties he imposes and because of his carelessness and laziness in collecting debts. It is true that outwardly this has caused his lord ‘a loss’, that is a lower profit than he would otherwise have received. But it would ensure that the cash was rolling in and the lord would not be aware of the whole situation. Indeed he was rather impressed by his estate manager’s efficiency. (But not sufficiently to retain him in his job).

Coming to such an arrangement may well have been easier because of the margins the estate manager was making on the sale of the produce, especially if payment was being made late and large penalties were being imposed in lieu of ‘interest’. Such large penalties were a feature of ancient trade. He is thus cutting his lord’s profits, not actually making a loss. The lord may not even have been aware of this. All he would know was what was ‘in stock’, what in general had been owed last time accounts had been rendered, and how much money was rolling in. And the sudden increase in the latter had clearly impressed him. Another alternative suggested is that the estate manager had built a commission into the prices and was foregoing his commission.

One of these explanations is required because of the unlikelihood of the lord commending someone who had blatantly swindled him.

Analysis.

• a He said also to the disciples, “There was a certain rich man, who had a steward, and the same was accused to him that he was wasting his goods” (1).
• b He called him, and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Render the account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward’ (2).
• c The steward said within himself, What shall I do, seeing that my lord is taking away the stewardship from me? I do not have the strength to dig, to beg I am ashamed” (3).
• d “I am resolved what to do, so that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses” (4).
• e Calling to him each one of his lord’s debtors, he said to the first, “How much do you owe to my lord?” And he said, “A hundred measures of oil.” And he said to him, “Take your bond, and sit down quickly and write fifty” (5-6).
• e Then he said to another, “And how much do you owe?” And he said, “A hundred measures of wheat.” He says to him, Take your bond, and write fourscore” (7).
• d And his lord commended the unrighteous steward because he had done wisely, for the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light (8).
• c And I say to you, “Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal dwellings ( tabernacles)” (9).
• b “He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much, And he who is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much. If therefore you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, Who will commit to your trust the true riches, And if you have not been faithful in that which is another’s, Who will give you that which is your own?”(10-12).
  a “No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (13).

In ‘a’ the steward professed to be serving his master but was serving mammon, and in the parallel Jesus declares that it is not possible to serve two masters. In ‘b’ the steward is called to render his account, and in the parallel it is by his account that a man’s faithfulness will be tested. In ‘c’ the steward asks himself what he should do, and in the parallel a good steward should use his wealth to make friends in the right place, in the eternal dwellings/tabernacles. In ‘d’ the steward decides what course he will take and in the parallel his lord commends him for it. In ‘e’ we have the steward’s solution, get the debts in by giving big discounts which will please everyone.

16.1 ‘And he said also to the disciples, “There was a certain rich man, who had a steward, and the same was accused to him that he was wasting his goods.” ’

Note that the direct recipients of the parable are the disciples. The message it contains is therefore primarily for them. The story opens with the case of an absentee landlord whose steward or estate manager has been reported for mismanagement which has been to the lord’s financial disadvantage.

16.2 “And he called him, and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Render the account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’ ”

The landlord thus calls for him to come to see him and explains what he has heard about him. Then he tells him that he is intending to replace him and that he should therefore prepare accounts revealing the details of his stewardship. The impression given is that he is simply being replaced for mismanagement, not for open dishonesty. There is no suggestion of any action being taken against him, but the estate manager’s silence indicates that he is aware that there is truth in the charges.

16.3 “And the steward said within himself, What shall I do, seeing that my lord is taking away the stewardship from me? I do not have the strength to dig, to beg I am ashamed.”

This makes the estate manager consider his position. He realises that he is not capable of manual work, and he certainly does not like the idea of begging. Thus he engages in deep thought. The question is, how can he find compatible employment elsewhere?

16.4 “I am resolved what to do, so that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.”

And then the brainwave hits him. He feels that he has discovered a way out of his dilemma. We should note that the circumstances are very much against what follows being seen as actually dishonest. Dishonesty would hardly make him a likely contender for a job, however pleased the customers were, it would rather render him liable to prosecution, and it would certainly not earn him commendation from his lord. Nor is there any reason for seeing it in that way, for what he is following is in fact good business practise, even though the circumstances are a little unfortunate. The only dishonesty is in the reasons for the discounts, and, however much suspected, that would be difficult to prove

16.5 “And calling to him each one of his lord’s debtors, he said to the first, ‘How much do you owe to my lord?’ And he said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bond, and sit down quickly and write fifty’.”

The first debtor he approaches admits to owing a hundred measures of oil. The measure would be between five and ten gallons. Thus the debt is considerable. So he suggests a fifty percent discount on condition he pays immediately. To the debtor such an opportunity appears too good to miss, so he agrees. Both appear to be satisfied, the one because of his discount, and the other because he has obtained immediate payment. And the estate manager no doubt makes it clear as to whom he really owes this generosity. It should be noted that as the estate manager he would almost certainly have the right to allow such discounts, especially if large late payment penalties had been added to the amount due, and it is clear that there was a large mark up on oil.

The listening crowds might not know much about business, but they would know enough to recognise that this was an astute bit of business which indicated exceptionally high margins which had been reduced, and the cancellation of large penalties, not the making of a huge loss. The rogue had simply become more reasonable. (We can almost see them looking at each other and nodding knowingly. All would have suffered under such treatment, or have known someone who had).

16.7 “Then said he to another, And how much do you owe? And he said, A hundred baths of wheat. He says to him, Take your bond, and write fourscore.”

The next debtor admits to owing a hundred kors of wheat, another large quantity, so the estate manager takes the same tack and on this occasion only offers a twenty per cent discount. The margins on oil were probably a lot larger than the margins on wheat, or it may be that in this case there had not been such large penalties. The debtor is equally pleased at the idea and also pays up immediately.

So now the steward is able to present his accounts demonstrating that all payments are up to date, and is able at the same time to give his lord a substantial amount of cash or goods which he had not been expecting. It gives him every impression of efficiency, and everyone is pleased. The lord because he has received payment, the debtors because they have had big discounts, and the estate manager because he knows that he has impressed everyone by his efficiency and that he has made friends in the right places.

16.8 “And the lord commended the unrighteous steward because he had done wisely, for the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light.”

It is impossible to be certain whether ‘the lord’ refers to his master (as it does in verse 3), or to Jesus (see 18.6 for support for it meaning Jesus, and 14.23 ff. for support for it being the lord in the parable). The fact that in verses 3 & 5 ‘the lord of me’ means his master must be seen as confirming the probability that ‘the lord’ means the same here. It does, however make little difference, for certainly the second part must be referred to Jesus, and the point is simply that the steward’s action, involved as he is in the murky world of business, has demonstrated his efficiency and has thus shown how men of the world are wiser in business matters than the people of God.

‘The unrighteous steward.’ The estate manager has probably done nothing that could land him up in court. What he has done is make large margins, charge high penalties for late payment, and then make reductions to suit his own purposes. His lord may well still be looking at fat profits (even if not as fat as they might have been), and is certainly looking at a good deal more in terms of real cash than he was expecting. He may well not have seen him as unrighteous (that is Jesus’ description). He may rather have been impressed by his manager’s explanation of how he had got the debtors to pay up. (The estate manager was no doubt as slick in his explanations as in his dealings, as such people usually are).

‘Unrighteous’ is Jesus’ term for him because of his harsh and unscrupulous business methods, methods probably very familiar to some in the crowds who had suffered under them. From the world’s point of view they were not necessarily dishonest. He overcharged (although had in fact charge the right to charge what he liked, as long as it was compatible with market prices generally, or even more if he had cornered the market), added on large penalties, and gave large discounts, the last not in order to benefit the business but for his own benefit. But what cannot be disputed is his shrewdness and ability, and probably the large profits obtained for his master. From the world’s point of view he was the picture of success. Thus Jesus commends his application of business astuteness to the task in hand, but not his morals. Indeed ‘unrighteous’ is deliberately put in for the very purpose of deprecating his morals.

By it Jesus is also quite probably saying that such slick business methods are not really compatible with being a Christian even though they are not dishonest and have achieved their purpose. Christians should neither overcharge, nor charge heavy penalties (in the case of Jews it was contrary to the law against usury), even if such tactics are seen by other businessmen as legitimate, nor should they offer discounts which were mainly to obtain favours for themselves rather than for the estate’s advantage. But He is also saying that it does demonstrate how shrewd non-Christian businessmen can be, and that Christians should strive to be equally as shrewd in dealing with heavenly affairs, while of course avoiding the sharp practises.

‘The sons of this world (age).’ ‘Sons of’ is normal Jewish phraseology for depicting people of a particular class (compare 10.6), and ‘sons of the age to come’ and ‘sons of the age’ are both found in Jewish literature. While ‘sons of this age’ is not found, it is the comparative equivalent of ‘sons of the age to come’ in terms of this age. It is thus typically Jewish, and very much emphasises the worldly nature of those so described. The point is that they are totally taken up with this age and have no thought for the future. ‘The sons of light’ is a phrase found at Qumran, where it indicates initiated believers. Compare John 12.36 where ‘sons of light’ (without the article) are those who have believed in the One Who is the Light. Compare also Paul’s ‘children of light’ (Ephesians 5.8) and ‘sons of light’ (1 Thessalonians 5.5).

‘For their own generation.’ This compares the sons of this world with the present generation of worldly people to which they belong.

16.9 “And I say to you, Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.”

Jesus then presses home the point that like the estate manager they should use wealth at their disposal to make friends, but in their case it should be friends whom they will one day meet in ‘Heaven’, that is, ‘in eternal dwellings’. They can do this by providing funds for the spreading of the Good News, and by benefiting the Christian poor, both of which will earn eternal gratitude. Then when they reach Heaven they will be rapturously received by those whom they have helped. (This might serve to confirm the idea of recognition of each other in Heaven). It should be noted that it would hardly achieve this if it was obtained or used dishonestly.

Alternately ‘they’ might refer to God and the angelic court (as with ‘we’ in Genesis 1.26), but, as it parallels the estate manager making friends by his efforts, we are probably intended to see the same idea here.

‘The mammon of unrighteousness.’ This simply means the money normally used by an unrighteous world, indicating that it is what the world in its sinfulness holds as of most importance. It might be seen as confirming that the ‘unrighteous steward’ was described as such mainly because he mingled with and traded in an unrighteous world, using that world’s methods. It does not mean money obtained by dishonest methods. It is rather worldly money sought for in a sinful world, in contrast with heavenly treasure which those whose hearts are pure seek after.

‘When it shall fail.’ One day it will come to an end and it will be useless. Indeed no one can take it with them through death. There are no pockets in a shroud. Thus all its benefits can only apply to this life and for the individual cease as soon as this life is over, as the rich man discovers in the next parable.

16.10-12

Jesus then adds a general comment, applying the lesson. His statement is made on the basis of the facts that have previously been presented, that of someone looking after someone else’s possessions, and His point is that how we deal with such will determine whether we can be trusted with what is most important.

Note the slightly complicated pattern here which emphasises the unity of these verses. It commences with a positive initial statement about being faithful, which is clearly true, that someone who proves faithful in a smallish thing will be likely to prove faithful in something bigger. This is then followed by a negative initial statement about being unrighteous which contrasts with that, and makes the point that someone who fails to be faithful (is unrighteous) in a smallish thing will most like prove faithless in bigger things. This is then applied to the situation in hand. Someone who has not been faithful in dealing with unrighteous mammon can hardly be trusted with heavenly things, wit the true riches. And the further point is then made that someone who has not been faithful with someone else’s possessions can clearly not be trusted with being given things for themselves. They have proved both their untrustworthiness and their lack of capableness.

So on the basis of the parable it is made clear that the using of wealth wisely and honestly is an evidence of faithfulness and trustworthiness, but with the warning of what using it unrighteously will result in. Those who are faithful in what is accounted little (the use of worldly wealth), will be faithful in what is much (dealings with heavenly things). They will have proved their reliability and that they can be trusted with greater things. In contrast those who, like the estate manager, are unrighteous when dealing with what is little (worldly wealth), will also be unrighteous in what counts most (dealing with heavenly things). Thus how we treat our ‘unrighteous wealth’ is an indicator of whether we can be trusted with more important things. It is a barometer which shows whether we can be trusted in God’s service.

And that is where the estate manager had failed. He had not been faithful in the use of the wealth entrusted to him. Thus he had proved unworthy to be trusted with anything else. And the point is that the same applies to disciples of Jesus. If they cannot be trusted with ‘worldly wealth’, which is false riches, how can they possibly be trusted with more important things, with the true riches, with heavenly responsibilities? We should all take note of this as a warning. If we fail to cope properly and wisely with the wealth with which God has entrusted us, we will prove our unfitness to enjoy and have control over heavenly blessings. The widow at the Temple could be trusted with it (21.1-4), but the rich young ruler (18.18-25) and the rich man in the next parable (16.19-31) could not. The rich young ruler departed sorrowfully for this very reason. He had proved himself unable to cope wisely with worldly possessions, how then could he be considered sufficiently trustworthy to cope with heavenly things? The Apostles, however, apart from Judas (John 12.6), had learned well to avoid and disdain worldly wealth, keeping it in its proper place. They were fitted therefore to deal with heavenly things as long as they maintained that attitude. The unrighteous mammon had not got them down and rendered them unfaithful and unrighteous.

“And if you have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own?” This idea arises directly from the parable, and demonstrates that these principles equally apply to having responsibility for the wealth of others. If we cannot be trusted to look well and honestly after another’s wealth, who will trust us with any of our own? (Perhaps Jesus is already here giving Judas something to think about).

The main idea is surely that all wealth is finally God’s, and that any wealth that we may possess for a time is not ours, but Another’s. So if we do not prove faithful in handling the wealth that God gives us control over, how can we be trusted with greater wealth given by God to those who prove faithful, the true benefits of a genuine spiritual life and the responsibility of powerfully declaring the Kingly Rule of God.

16.13 “No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

Jesus then caps His arguments with a final statement. All this is true because no one can serve two masters. Anyone who has two masters will not be able to serve them in balance. Always one must take precedence. Thus every man must choose Who or what will be his real master. It is not possible to serve God and Wealth at the same time. One will always be loved more than the other. One will be clung to and the other despised. Thus how we use the wealth entrusted to us actually brings out who is in control. It brings out whom or what we serve, just as the estate manager had served his own interests and not his lord’s.

Thus if we only use our worldly wealth under the direction of God, with no regard for it but as a tool to be used as God wills, then well. But if we allow it to deflect us from doing and being the very best for God, then it will have taken over the mastership, and our commitment will necessarily suffer. Whatever our protestations we are declaring that wealth is our master. We are treating God as though He were less important than possessions. We are thus despising God. That is what Jesus observed in the rich young ruler and why He made such a total demand on him. He knew that wealth had too much of a hold on him, as indeed his final decision proved. He loved wealth rather than God. He was exactly like the estate manager!

Jesus Replies to The Mockery of the Pharisees Directed At His Ideas About Wealth (16.14-18).

The Pharisees had been listening in to his advice to His disciples and they derided Him. For in their eyes having wealth was a good thing. Some of them were wealthy, and others of them coveted wealth. But both were agreed that being wealthy and prospering was an evidence of being pleasing to God (compare 20.47; Matthew 23.14, 16; Romans 7.7-8). They thus did not see mammon as ‘unrighteous’, for they failed to look at the motives that lay behind wealth gathering, and failed to see how selfish it made people.

In reply Jesus does not specifically argue about wealth. He goes deeper down to consider the more basic problem of their whole attitude to life, and replies by pointing out how many are the ways in which they are lacking because of the sin in their hearts. His point is that they hold most of the views that they do because their hearts are not genuinely pure. This is not only demonstrated by their views about wealth, but also by the fact that they have not recognised that the new age is present. Unlike His disciples, they are not pressing into the Kingly Rule of God and responding to Jesus’ teaching. They are blind to heavenly realities. Furthermore they are also not observing the genuine details of the God-given written Law in which they boast, and this is evidenced by the fact that some of them even have their eyes on other people’s wives, and are justifying their behaviour by manipulating the Law so as to be able to marry them. They may deride Him, but if they would but look into their hearts they would scoff at themselves.

In the chiasmus for the whole section this passage is paralleled with the blind man at Jericho who insistently pressed himself on Jesus until his eyes had been opened. Here it is the Pharisees who are spiritually blind, while the disciples (who had been spiritually blind) are pressing into the Kingly Rule of God.

Analysis.

• a The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him (14).
• b And he said to them, “You are they who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts, for that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God” (15).
• c “The law and the prophets were until John, from that time the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God is preached, and every man enters violently into it” (16).
• b “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fall” (17).
• a “Every one who puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery, and he who marries one who is put away from a husband commits adultery” (18).

Note that in ‘a’ the Pharisees are seen as lovers of money and in the parallel they are seen as lovers of other men’s wives. In ‘b’ we are told of what is exalted among men and is an abomination to God (their own interpretation of the Law), and in the parallel we have what is exalted by God, the genuine written words of the Law. And in ‘c’ and centrally we have what has even surpassed what is exalted by God, the Kingly Rule of God itself which all whose hearts are right (which sadly excludes the Pharisees who are dedicated to their own teaching) press violently into.

16.14 ‘And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him.’

The Pharisees scoffed at His ideas (literally ‘turned up their noses at Him’). When Luke says that it was because they were ‘lovers of money’ he does not necessarily mean that they were greedy, although no doubt some of them were. He means more that their view of money was very different from that of Jesus. They honoured and revered it. It was true that they did consider that wealth was one test of a man’s righteousness, but for the opposite reason to Jesus. In their case it was because they saw its possession in abundance as being a measure of God’s approval. Taking the opposite view to Jesus they saw prosperity as the reward for godliness. They thus gave possession of it a high place in their thinking, not recognising the harm that it did men. They would certainly have approved of charitable giving, but what they did not approve of was Jesus’ idea that money should be held on to lightly and not seen as good for its own sake. That was why they mocked. Jesus’ view went against all that men believed.

They would certainly have theoretically agreed that God was more important than money, but they fell into the trap of not recognising (as most people fail to recognise) that they actually allowed it to influence them more than they allowed God to do. They were not true ‘lovers of God’, they were ‘lovers of money’. In their practical lives they actually loved Mammon more than they loved God. They exemplified all the wrong aspects of verse 13.

That this is true comes out in their history. Alexander Jannaeus in the previous century had warned his wife against the greediness and wickedness of men who ‘pretended to be Pharisees’ (i.e. were hypocritical Pharisees), and there is other evidence that proves that they were on occasions open to accepting bribes. While Jesus Himself spoke of the Scribes as ‘devouring widow’s houses’ (20.47), which probably refers to a tendency to sponge on them. So their reputation from this angle was certainly not blameless.

Jesus’ point is that what we love is demonstrated by how we behave. Those who truly love God hold lightly to the things of this world. But the very theology of the Pharisees made them take up the opposite viewpoint and see possession of wealth as highly desirable. And the result was that it then became loved for its own sake. They became lovers of Mammon even while they thought that they were lovers of God (see verse 13).

16.15 ‘And he said to them, “You are they who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts, for that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.”

Jesus recognises that their derision goes to the very heart of what is wrong with them. They have built up a theology to which they can point to demonstrate the ‘rightness’ of their behaviour, much of which is actually an abomination to God, for it makes idols of their ‘laws’ which in fact themselves fail to make them righteous. He wants them to recognise that God does not smile on their posturing, it makes Him sick. All their emphases are in the wrong place.

It is true they can thus justify themselves in men’s eyes. Indeed men, who have similar wrong ideas, actually admire them for it. They parade their asceticism (Matthew 6.16), they parade their phylacteries (Matthew 23.5), they parade their almsgiving (Matthew 6.2), they parade their praying (Matthew 6.5), they parade their excessive ‘cleanness’ (Matthew 23.25; Mark 7.3-5), they tithe more than is necessary so as to make a good impression (Matthew 23.23-24), they make a great fuss about the Sabbath (while at the same time providing ways of avoiding the strictness that they profess), and it makes them proud, and arrogant. And people think they are wonderful and exalt them (compare 14.11; Romans 11.20; 12.16) because it is far more than they do themselves, and accords with man’s false view of God as someone to be manipulated by such methods.

Yet they are at the same time cold, and heartless, and supercritical and lacking in compassion when dealing with people. They are missing out on ‘the weightier matters of the Law’, justice, faith and mercy (Matthew 23.23). Their whole way of life is thus an abomination in the sight of God because of their pride (compare Proverbs 16.5), their religious posturing (Isaiah 1.13), and their unjust dealings (Proverbs 11.1). This is because it all stems from the wrong motives, from the idea of bargaining with God to obtain His favour (if we obey the covenant you will give us eternal life and establish Israel), the desire to be approved of and admired by men, and an over-readiness to criticise anyone who fails to agree with and fit into their ideas. Men may esteem such ideas, but God abhors them. For while the first statement, that a satisfying life comes about through keeping the Law, is, if correctly stated, theoretically in accordance with Scripture (Leviticus 18.5), none of them can achieve it because they have already sinned, and sin constantly. Thus if it is seen as a bargaining counter they are seeking to achieve the impossible.

But what the Scripture was promising (Leviticus 18.5) was not some arduous way into Heaven, it was that by living in accordance with His Law they would enjoy a full life in fellowship with God. So God was not there speaking of achieving eternal life through it. That could only be through God’s gift (Romans 6.23). That could only be obtained through God’s mercy alone. Thus in doing what they were doing, they were striving to fulfil a goal that they had laid out for themselves, and were missing what was most important, the fact that the new age with its Good News was here, so that eternal life was being offered through faith in Him. Furthermore they had also by their methods distorted the written and infallible Law of God, which they had transformed into something unrecognisable.

‘That which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.’ We have seen above some of the things that men exalt in, but which God hates, but there are two actually mentioned in the passage. The first is their love of wealth. Most men agree with them and exalt in it, but how much God abominates it comes out in the parable that follows. For it stands between men and true goodness. In the parable Abraham, (surely an authority whom the Pharisees will recognise), is pictured as informing the rich man that ‘remember that you in your lifetime received your good things ---but now --- you are in anguish’. Here then is a warning of the danger of riches. Those who bask in good things now are in danger for the future unless they ensure that others more needy can bask in the good things too. But the second will be mentioned rather unexpectedly in verse 18, for we must ask why does He in context bring up the question of divorce? We have already seen that the verse parallels verse 14 in the chiasmus, which suggests that it speaks of something else which the Pharisees love. This suggests that while they were too chaste to engage in open adultery or involvement with prostitutes, they did not mind, or object to, indulging in adultery through marriage with divorced persons. (Perhaps some recent case was especially in Jesus’ mind). That too was esteemed among men, but was abomination in the sight of God.

16.16 “The law and the prophets were until John, from that time the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God is preached, and every man enters violently into it (or ‘every man is overpowered by it’).”

Their next major failure lay in their having failed to recognise God’s intervention in history. They professed to honour the Law and the Prophets, and that was good in so far as it was true, but they had failed to recognise that with the coming of John the Baptiser, and especially in His own coming, these were in process of fulfilment. Now as promised by Isaiah 61.1-2 the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God (4.43; 8.1; Acts 8.12) was being proclaimed, and men were ‘pressing into it with great violence’. They were ‘striving to enter in at the narrow door’ (13.24). They were ‘taking up their crosses and following Him’ (14.27; 9.23). A great work of revival was taking place. The Pharisees themselves, on the other hand, having failed to recognise it, were failing to enter. That was their problem. They were so bound by their own teaching that they failed to recognise heavenly realities. And in the same way they also failed to recognise the dangers of wealth and divorce, which hit at the very root of men’s lives.

Alternately the verb can be translated as in the passive voice in which case it means ‘every man is overpowered by it’. Then we may see it as signifying that the fire of His word, which He has cast on the earth, has possessed them (12.49), the Kingly Rule of God has overpowered them and taken them captive.

Whichever is the case the ‘all’ refers to the disciples to whom He had spoken the previous parable. In contrast with the Pharisees they have revealed their determination to be under the Kingly Rule of God.

16.17 “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fall.”

But all this does not mean that the Instruction of God (the Law) has been superseded, for nothing in that Instruction can fail. Heaven and earth will pass away before that can happen. Every last letter or part of letter is sacrosanct. The tittle (or ‘horn’) was the addition made to some Hebrew letters in order to differentiate them (compare Matthew 5.18 which has ‘not one iota or tittle’). We should note Jesus’ high view of Scripture.

And it is the Kingly Rule of God under which that true Instruction will be fulfilled. But the problem here is that the Pharisees, far from honouring God’s Instruction in this way, have woven it into a pattern of their own choosing. The result is that it means that they are failing to recognise its true meaning and its fulfilment in Him. For while it is their claim that they honour that Instruction, and would even die for it, they have in fact transformed it into something unrecognisable, as He will now evidence from one example, their teaching on divorce.

16.18 “Every one who puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery, and he who marries one who is put away from a husband commits adultery.”

For God’s Instruction says that every man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. And that anyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery. This is because, as Genesis 2.23-24 makes clear, when a man and a woman marry they become ‘one flesh’. That is why Jesus elsewhere declares, ‘what God has joined together let not man put asunder’ (Mark 10.9; Matthew 19.6). So having become one flesh they are inseparable, and to break that oneness in any way can only bring them under the displeasure of God. This means that when a man puts away his wife and marries another he commits adultery. He falsely breaks the tie that binds him to his first wife.

The particular addition of the second part of the verse, ‘he who marries one who is put away from a husband commits adultery’, may indicate a propensity on the part of Pharisees to marry wives who have been divorced. Perhaps they saw themselves as obtaining merit through it, or perhaps there were particularly outstanding cases that Jesus has in mind.

This particular example was a good one to use as easy divorce caused such clear and open distress to innocent women. It very much revealed the worst side of the Pharisees who had a contempt for women. All listening would recognise the point, for on the whole the Rabbis had watered this Law down so much that divorce was allowed for the most trivial of reasons. By a misuse of Deuteronomy 24.1-4 they had made void the Law through their traditions. Hillel allowed a man to divorce his wife if she burned the dinner, or if she talked to a strange man, or if she talked disrespectfully about his relations in his presence, and Akiba allowed it if a man found someone prettier than his wife. Thus was the sacredness of marriage, established at creation (Genesis 2.24), treated with mockery. On the other hand a woman was not allowed to initiate divorce for any reason whatsoever. All this was a scandalous treatment of the Law and made a mockery of it. But it epitomised the whole Pharisaic attitude to the Law and to women. In one sense they treated the Law very reverently, but by their manipulation of it they often made a fool of it.

So the Pharisees, having mocked Jesus because of His teaching on riches, have suddenly had the tables turned on them. He has demonstrated not only that they cannot ‘see the Kingly Rule of God’ (compare John 3.2), but also how they misuse the Law in even what is most basic to a satisfactory family life. They are seen as totally unreliable guides, and as destroying what lies at the very root of a stable society. Rather than simply argue with them about riches He has totally laid bare the bankruptcy of their whole lives and teaching.

The dual thoughts of the use of riches, and the validity of the Law and the prophets now lead into the story of the rich man and Lazarus. This commences with the false behaviour of a rich man and ends with an appeal to the Law and the prophets, that Law which, if given its Scriptural interpretation (‘the prophets’) rather than its Pharisaic interpretation, will, if men heed it, prevent them taking the downward path. But, as he has already stressed, the Pharisees have manipulated that Law to suit their own ideas, and it has therefore for them lost its effectiveness. And He will now also make clear that it is precisely because the rich man, like the Pharisees, has manipulated the Law of Moses and the prophets, and has in his case withheld help from the poor, that he ends up as he does.

The Rich Man and Lazarus (16.19-31).

This story deals with two aspects of what has gone before, the danger of possessing riches and not using them rightly, and the danger of ignoring God’s true Instruction. Jesus will point out that if only the rich man had heeded the Instruction given by Moses and the prophets he would not have ended up in Hades, and it is equally open to his brothers (and by implication the Pharisees) to hear it too. If they do not then the fault lies with them. It illustrates the fact the one who is highly exalted among men may well be an abomination in the sight of God (verse 15).

The story is closely connected with what has gone before. Had the rich man recognised that his wealth was entrusted to him by God for the purpose of using it in God’s service, and had he sought friends in eternal dwellings by having a heart right towards God, so that he used his wealth properly, he would not have ended up where he did (verse 9). But his attitude was like that of the Pharisees (verses 14-15). He considered that his wealth demonstrated how good he was, and did not realise what it had turned him into. It was a warning to the Pharisees, who had jeered at His teaching about wealth, of what their attitude to wealth could result in. In contrast Lazarus did have friends in eternal dwellings, because by being named he is revealed as one whose name was written in Heaven (10.20). It was further a warning to the Pharisees that they should listen to Moses and the prophets (verses 16, 29, 31), and not to traditions that were not genuinely the word of God (Mark 7.13).

Some claim that this is not a parable but a true story, partly on the grounds that the idea of it being a parable is not mentioned, and partly because Jesus does not usually include names in parables. However there are certainly other parables where they are clearly parables and yet are not so described, and it may be argued that the name is given to the beggar in order specifically to indicate his relationship with God. For it is by naming him that Jesus is able to convey the fact that he is a godly man. This is revealed by the fact that his name means ‘God has helped’. Jesus did not want to give the impression that all poor men automatically went to ‘Heaven’, but it was only those with a relationship with God. (Lazarus, or Eleazar, was a highly popular name at this period and there is absolutely no reason why we should connect this Lazarus with the one described in John 11). In fact fictional stories of people going into the afterworld and returning to give details of the afterworld were popular in the ancient world, and the characters were regularly named. So thus it was here. (However, it should be recognised that Jesus actually makes clear here that returning from the afterlife is something that is not allowed to happen).

Furthermore we must recognise that most of the details in the story must be metaphorical whether it is a parable or not. They cannot be taken as a genuinely physical description of what lies beyond the grave if for no other reason than that this is before the resurrection so that those in question have no bodies. The vivid detail is in order to convey ideas, not in order to give us the geography of the afterworld, and of the state of those who had passed on, except in the most general terms.

Analysis.

• There was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, faring sumptuously every day (19a).
• b And a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores (20-21).
• c And it came about that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s bosom, and the rich man also died, and was buried, and in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom (22-23).
• d And he cried and said, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame” (24).
• e But Abraham said, “Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in the same way evil things, but now here he is comforted, and you are in anguish, and besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us” (25-26).
• d And he said, “I pray you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torment” (27-28).
• c But Abraham says, “They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them” (29).
• b And he said, “No, father Abraham, but if one go to them from the dead, they will repent” (30).
• a And he said to him, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead” (31).