Three Lost Objects: Yet Another Look (Part 2 of 2)

By Randy C. Hillmanm [1]

Editor's note: Randy C. Hillman currently pastors Grace Bible Church in San Jose, California after serving churches in Ohio and Arizona. He received his B.A. in Greek and Judaic Studies from the University of Arizona in Tucson and his Master of Arts in Biblical Studies from Talbot School of Theology. His thesis, “The Lamb of God in John 1:29, ” explored the relationship between the Old and New Testaments and Christ’s coming in fulfillment of the Old Testament. He has a strong interest in the use of figurative language, especially parables. His email address is rhillman@concentric.net.

Introduction

In our first part, we noted the basic issues of interpretation in Luke 15 and saw the unity of the chapter. All three parables are consistent and have a common theme that unites them: something is lost (lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son) and when its owner finds it, he rejoices. We noted the Old Testament background of shepherding and God as the shepherd of His people. The Lord God would be the ultimate Shepherd to His people by sending the Messiah (cf. Ezekiel 34). We also examined Luke 19 and the story of Zacchaeus as it relates to Jesus’ mission and the constant grumbling of the religious crowd toward Jesus. In this part, we now address the main issues of Luke 15: who are the righteous and does it refer to believers or unbelievers?

The Righteousness of the Pharisees: A Spiritual Do-It-Yourself Kit

Earlier we noted the issue of those called “righteous” (cf. Luke 15:7), but now address this point directly. Perhaps I am missing something, but as I read the Gospels, the very people who considered themselves “righteous” having no need of repentance were indeed the Pharisees whom Jesus was addressing (Luke 15:1–2; cf. 18:9)! We must examine the concept of “righteousness” in the Gospels and Paul to see how it often reflects self-righteousness. Then we must determine if Luke 15 uses it in an ironical sense. Many passages present a “righteousness” that was (and is) relative (Matthew 5:20), self-evaluated (Luke 16:15), hypocritical (Matthew 23:28), external (Matthew 23:28), and based on superficial works rather than genuine spiritual virtues (Matthew 23:23).

Throughout the Gospels, we see numerous references to the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders, usually identified as the Pharisees and scribes, and they are condemned for their self-righteousness. We also see a number of passages where the text juxtaposes them with the “low-life” of the day, the tax-gathers, harlots, and sinners. Since we are all “sinners,” it makes sense that some contrast is intended, if only from the Pharisees’ perspective. This is exactly what we have because the word “sinner” became a technical term in Judaism to represent those not adhering to the Law of Moses as prescribed by the religious leaders (John 7:49). We see the “tax-collectors” so described, and the religious leaders even called Jesus a “sinner” (John 9:16). Rengstorf remarks in an insightful article as follows:

For the Pharisee, however, a @amartōlos [sinner] is one who does not subject himself to the Pharisaic ordinances, i.e., the so-called ‘am ha-ares [the people of the land]. He is not a sinner because he violates the Law, but because he does not endorse the Pharisaic interpretation. 

… Among those who need the new relationship to God Jesus also and especially numbers the righteous. In so doing He does not dispute their righteousness or call it sin. But He judges it in respect of its nature. In this regard He shares the outlook of the Baptist, who in hard words warns the pious of the impending judgment of God. The reason for this is to be found in the egotistic nature of this righteousness, which is satisfied with the fulfillment of the divine commands and which thus becomes inwardly self-confident, and outwardly proud and pitiless. Such emphasis on oneself and one’s achievements inevitably leads to an attitude in which one does not bow before God but treats with Him, leaving it to human perception to determine what is legitimate and what is sinful before Him. … His ultimate accusation was that there is not here the serious opposition to sin which is meet and proper for the sake of God, so that a true righteousness is achieved, but it is a righteousness which measures up only to human standards and does not satisfy the divine judgment. This insight leads Jesus sharply to call the pious and righteous as well to repentance, not for their sin, but for their righteousness, which prevents them from seeing clearly either the greatness of God or their own situation (italics added). [2]

Even more to the point regarding the “righteous,” Schrenk comments:

A particularly striking fact is that in the Syn[optics] account of the preaching of Jesus the Israelite and Jewish antithesis dikaios/@amartōlos is seriously adopted but given an ironical application (Mk. 2:17 and par., cf. Mt. 5:45; Lk. 5:32; 15:7). The Pharisees are the dikaioi, the publicans etc. the @amartoloi. All are called to conversion, including the righteous; yet the fact that the customary standards are accepted shows that for all the relativity there is an appreciation of the moral distinctions and that the zeal of the righteous finds recognition…. If the usual Jewish distinction is not rejected, there is in the Syn[optics] a stern rejection of the hypocrisy of a righteous appearance and of the confidence of the dikaios in his own piety (Mt. 23:28; Lk. 20:20; 18:9). This repudiation of the nature of dikaios as habit, appearance and self-confidence, and of the associated contempt for others, means that a question-mark is put behind the claim of the righteous (Lk. 18:14; 16:15) (italics added). [3]

Considering all that Paul teaches about true righteousness in Christ, even he, as a former Pharisee, talks about another kind of righteousness, the righteousness in the Law. Paul, recounting his life as a Pharisee, speaks of himself as

… as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, … in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith (Philippians 3:6–9; emphasis added).

Paul also speaks of Israel seeking their own righteousness (Romans 9:30–33; 10:3) and distinguishes between salvation by God’s mercy and the “deeds that we have done in righteousness” (Titus 3:5; italics added).

Speaking more directly to other Gospel texts, the numerous passages that address this issue are overwhelming. Consider the following passages (emphasis added):

For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:20; also see 9:13; cf. Mark 2:17; emphasis added).

Before citing more passages, we should raise a question. How should one interpret the above verses if we view the “righteous” as the truly righteous? How exactly does one exceed true righteousness to enter the kingdom of heaven? Either one has true righteousness or one does not (cf. Romans 3). If the “righteous” are devout believers and the “sinners” apostate or lost believers, then are we to conclude that Jesus directed nothing of His mission and teaching to believers?

“Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The latter.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax-gatherers and harlots will get into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax-gatherers and harlots did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him (Matthew 21:31–32; cf. 23:27–28; emphasis added).

The following passages are even more crucial because they specifically reflect the Lucan context (emphasis added):

And after that He went out, and noticed a tax-gatherer named Levi, sitting in the tax office, and He said to him, “Follow Me.” And he left everything behind, and rose and began to follow Him. And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax-gatherers and other people who were reclining at the table with them. And the Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with the tax-gatherers and sinners?” And Jesus answered and said to them, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:27–32; see also 7:29–50; 11:53; 16:14–15; emphasis added) 

And He also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, ‘God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ ‘But the tax-gatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted” (Luke 18:9–14).

Luke 15

As we now treat the specific passage of our inquiry, we see that the Gospels present a uniform testimony to the self-righteousness of the Pharisees that sparked the constant conflict with Jesus, especially as He associated with “sinners.”

Before continuing, a word about the interpretation of parables is in order. A hermeneutical study of how to interpret parables would be very extensive, going far beyond any scope of this study. However, we find one consistent principle in hermeneutical studies about parables: although parables may have a plethora of details about daily life, the objective in understanding a parable is to find the one main point of comparison between the natural realm and the spiritual realm. [4] There may be other points of comparison, but there is always one central point. A parable may have many vivid details, but we have to be careful about pressing every detail for a spiritual meaning.

Although many useful applications from these three parables arise; unfortunately, sometimes students confuse application with interpretation. What are some of the applications found in the last parable which stand out? It is a vivid picture of the eternal security of believers (a son of God can never lose his sonship in spite of how he fails). It also reveals confession of one’s sin to the Father and a picture of His gracious forgiveness when one confesses sin. Nevertheless, these are applications. We find the interpretation in the context in which Jesus is defending Himself against the Jewish religious leaders. The religious leaders should have responded with joy, but did not.

The main point of these parables is not difficult to discern using exegesis. We have already noted that the concept of joy outnumbers that of repentance in the passage. The first two parables present the sheep and the coin; being non-human, they certainly do not repent in the analogy and yet the point Jesus makes is about the owner rejoicing and inviting others to share that joy (15:5–6, 9). Jesus emphasizes the “joy” in the analogy by using the adverb of comparison, “in the same way (houtos) there is joy” (15:7, 10). Luke uses the word in “pointing [to] the moral after figures of speech, parables, and examples” (Luke 15:7, 10). [5] To be sure, the recovery of the lost item is the basis of this joy, but the joy is the main emphasis to answer the grumbling of the Pharisees. Hodges emphasizes the ninety-nine sheep in the title of his article, but the focus in Luke 15 seems to be on one entity, whether a sheep, a coin, or a son. [6] Jesus as the Shepherd to Israel spared no energy to seek and save even the most neglected and undesirable.

Contextually then, Jesus gave these parables to answer the criticism of the scribes and Pharisees (cf. Luke 15:1–2) as He associated with tax collectors and sinners. Twice the text directly states that Jesus spoke “to them” (15:3) and in verse 7 He says, “I say to you” (plural). To be sure, others were around but He directs His words to the Pharisees and scribes. If one argues that there is no direct correlation between the one lost sheep representing any “sinner” who “repents” and the ninety-nine representing the “righteous” Pharisees, then Jesus’ words seem to have no real meaning to answer the specific occasion of the conflict in the context.

Another issue is how Luke 15 relates to chapters 14 and 16. Wilkin directs our attention to the issue:

Have you ever noticed how the passage on the Prodigal son is introduced in Luke’s Gospel? The words that immediately precede it are found in Luke 14:34–35. Jesus has just been giving some basic teaching on discipleship in Luke 14:25–33. [7]

While those verses in Luke 14 clearly speak of discipleship, there are important transitional clues in 15:1–2. The particle de should indicate either a contrast or a transition: the translators take it as a transitional, “now.” In this way, the scene shifts to the audience of the Pharisees and scribes and their “grumbling” about Jesus’ association with tax-gatherers and sinners. As we have noted, this is another instance of a recurring problem (cf. Luke 5:27–32; 16:14–15; 18:9–14; 19:1–10). Luke 15:1–2 is crucial for establishing the setting of the rest of the chapter. That Luke 15 forms a break in the discourse on discipleship is confirmed by the introduction “to the disciples” in Luke 16:1.

Another issue is the fellowship that Jesus was enjoying with the “sinners.” This “fellowship” seems to confirm the idea that Luke 15 is about Christian restoration to fellowship, even though the word “fellowship” does not actually occur. The word “receives” uttered by the Pharisees means exactly that, to “welcome or receive.” [8] Furthermore, even allowing that Jesus was having “fellowship” with the “sinners,” it was primarily social in nature as a path to evangelism, leading ultimately to a spiritual relationship.

The issue of “righteous” has been previously discussed when Schrenk called the word “ironical.” Webster says that irony is the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning. [9] To find irony in a parable should pose no problem. Hermeneutically, the normal, natural interpretation of a passage does not treat figures of speech in a wooden, literalism but includes them. [10] Hodges remarks, “It is a great irony, however, that these three stories are very often misread and misunderstood.” [11] Perhaps the greatest irony is that we miss the irony about the ironical in the passage itself!

One commentator emphasizes that the plain meaning of the text is that the ninety-nine righteous ones have no need of repentance. [12] We should consider some other obvious statements: Luke plainly says that the owner of the sheep lost them. It does not say the sheep wandered away. Therefore, would we be consistent to say, by way of analogy, that God lost a believer? Such a thought is unthinkable. In Luke 15:32, the father plainly says his son was dead. It seems inconsistent to simply say that “the father has felt the absence of his son as deeply as if he had died, because he had totally lost contact with him” (original italics). [13] Is it not just as easy to say that he was dead, spiritually dead, and needed salvation? [14]

A question arises as to how the phrase, “who need no repentance” should be rendered in Luke 15:7. [15] Does it say that the “righteous need no repentance?” [16] In other words, is it the need or the repentance that the negative cancels in Luke 15:7? The Greek text seems to say literally “the righteous who have no need of repentance,” or “who do not have a need of repentance,” which seems to negate the need of repentance, not just repentance itself. This is not simply an argument of semantics, but an attempt to understand the point of emphasis.

The wording and the prominence of the self-righteousness among the Jewish religious leaders is what probably leads many of us to take its meaning, as one man put it, [17] “who only think they need no repentance,” because that sums up the Pharisees exactly. That the Pharisees needed “repentance” was obvious to everyone except the Pharisees! In addition, can one ever say that any of us reach such Christian “maturity” we do not need repentance? Jesus is not dealing here with percentages, but if we as pastors ever had 99% of our congregations ‘needing no repentance’, we would conclude the Millennium had arrived! Finally, it seems that to see the “righteous” as devout believers and the “sinner” as the apostate actually turns the analogy backwards. Specifically, if the sinner is the wayward believer lacking fellowship and the righteous is the faithful believer needing no repentance, then Jesus was actually enjoying “fellowship” with the sinners and the righteous (Pharisees!) were the ones avoiding Jesus and criticizing Him.

Now a few comments about specific verses are appropriate. The introduction of the first parable with the shepherding motif is not only significant because of its Old Testament background (previously noted in Part 1 [18]), but because the Pharisees considered shepherding a despicable occupation, characterizing it as comprised of notorious robbers and cheats in the same league as “sinners.” [19]

In the second parable of the woman searching for her coin, some commentators see the woman as representing the Church. [20] Morgan takes it to yet another level by considering the woman to be the Spirit of God representing the Motherhood of God! [21] However, why would the woman represent the Church when the Church had not yet come into existence? Would any of the Jewish audience have understood it that way? Perhaps the woman represents, well, a woman! We must always go back to the principle of parabolic interpretation. The point of the analogy is not making the woman something, but to understand the point of comparison introduced by the words “in the same way” (Luke 15:10).

In the third parable, which contains many more colorful details, it is still possible to see the father forgiving the son from an Old Testament point of view. While recognizing that we are individually children of God only by faith, Israel could consider God as Father of the nation under the Jewish covenants. For example:

For Thou art our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not recognize us. Thou, O lord, art our Father, our Redeemer from of old is Thy name but now, O LORD, Thou art our Father, we are the clay, and Thou our potter; And all of us are the work of Thy hand (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; See also Deuteronomy 32:6; Psalm 103:10–13; Jeremiah 31:9).

Finally, with respect to the third parable, consider that Jesus in Luke 15:24 did not end with the son being lost and found and the subsequent merriment. If He had, the third parable would be just like the first two. We would have had someone who was lost with rejoicing when he was found. Yet, Jesus as the master storyteller chose not just one, but two sons, to drive His point home to the Pharisees. In Luke 15:26–32, we see the older son filled with bitterness, anger, and jealous—the very antithesis of rejoicing. He was very upset that his father gave so much attention to his wayward brother. His attitude stands in sharp contrast to the forgiveness of the father. The brother should have been happy that his brother had come back under the principle of rejoicing with those who rejoice. Instead, he wanted his happiness based on the unhappiness of others. As long as the brother had been gone, he would have had all the attention of his father, but it did not matter to him that his father would be unhappy while missing a son.

In Luke 15:29, the abrupt use of the word “look” to his father shows that he was contemptuous and disrespectful. Much like the Pharisees who hid behind their self-righteousness and yet were contemptuous of God and grace. The brother says, “I have been serving you,” which means serving as a slave for so many years. This indicates bitter discontent on the part of the older brother. He appeared happy and yet his discontent smoldered inside all those years. This corresponds exactly to the Pharisees—after all, they served God all those years, they supposed. They were working for favor with God. Then the older brother says that he never neglected a command. This should remind us of the Pharisees, especially the rich young ruler (Luke 18:21). It is impossible that he kept all the commands, and thus is filled with self-righteousness.

In Luke 15:30 the older brother revealed his continued contempt when he does not say “my brother came” but “this son of yours came.” He should love his brother and be glad that he has come home. His anger also induces slanderous gossip. This is the only mention of harlots in the story; and we do not know that the younger brother associated with harlots. It is possible, but not certain. Nevertheless, his brother assumes the worst and gossips about him. Again we see his jealousy: his brother got the fattened calf, a rare delicacy, while he never even got a kid, a baby goat.

In Luke 15:31–32, the father still responds in tenderness and affection. Just as the son had always been with the father, so the religious leaders had been made guardians of God’s laws and covenants with the people, but they abused these things and shut out the common people from life with God. The father says “we had to be merry,” which means it was a necessity or obligation to celebrate the son’s return. The father tries to remind the older son that the prodigal is his own brother.

Jesus came to Israel. From the Pharisees’ point of view, Israel largely consisted, on the one hand, of sinners (those who had departed from the Mosaic Law and the interpretation of the Pharisees) and, on the other hand, the religious leaders who “had kept the commandments from their youth.” Jesus came to all of Israel, but it was predominately the sinners, the lost—just like the lost son—who sought Jesus. The sinners were unclean and immoral like the younger son. On the other hand, the Pharisees, like the older son, were righteous in their own eyes and not only rejected God’s forgiveness through Jesus, but resented the fact that the sinners came to Him. The story fits the religious leaders so well; it almost becomes a prediction of their attitude toward Jesus. Like the older son who became angry and jealous, so the Pharisees were jealous of Jesus and this motivated them to ultimately crucify Him (cf. Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10).

Conclusion

In summary, the Old Testament background regarding the Messiah seeking His people matches well with the first two parables in Luke 15. As mentioned previously, neither sheep nor coins repent and so the emphasis seems to be on the initiation and thoroughness of the search by the owner. Nevertheless, just as God’s actions demand a human response, so the third parable focuses not on a search, for there is none, but on the human response as shown by the younger son coming to his senses and confessing to his father. The confession of sins can just as easily refer to Israel’s need to acknowledge their sins, which the ministry of John the Baptist seems to confirm (cf. Matthew 3:6 and Jeremiah 3:12–15).

In view of the continual friction between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders and the passages that clearly speak of the self-righteous nature of those religious leaders, it seems that Jesus is condemning their self-righteousness and their grumbling against him for saving the “sinners.”

For many years, I believed that Luke 15 was addressing the believer and then about five years ago I switched my view and now firmly believe that Luke 15 refers to the salvation of Jewish unbelievers. I did so because of the Old Testament background, Jesus’ mission to Israel, the condemnation of the self-righteous Pharisees in the Gospels, and other contextual keys in Luke itself. My commitment to salvation by grace alone through faith alone is just as strong, if not stronger, than twenty-five years ago. Nevertheless, just because a passage does not fit the theological paradigm we might desire, does not mean we should redefine it apart from a careful exegetical analysis. What effect, if any, this paper will have on our theological understanding of repentance remains to be seen, as it is discussed and examined by others in the future.

—End—

Notes

1. Editor’s note: This article is a revision of a paper the author presented in January 1999, at the National Teaching Pastors’ Conference (NTPC) in San Juan Capistrano, CA. This is a continuation of Randy C. Hillman, “Three Lost Objects: Yet Another Look,” CTS Journal 7 (July-September 2001): 21-33.
2. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “@amartōlos, anamartētos,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–74), 1:328–32.
3. Gottlob Schrenk, “dikē, dikaios, dikaiosunē, dikaioō, dikaiōma, dikaiōsis, dikaiokrisia,” TDNT, 2:189–90.
4. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), 283; A. Berkeley Mickelson, Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 213–14, 224.
5. BDAG, 597, 1b, @outos.
6. Zane C. Hodges, “The Ninety-Nine Righteous Sheep: Repentance in Luke 15:1–10, ” Grace in Focus 12 (September-October 1998): 1.
7. Bob Wilkin, “Repentance in Luke-Acts,” Conference Paper, 6, presented at the Grace Evangelical Society’s conference about repentance, March 30-April 1, 1998, in Grapevine, Texas.
8. BDAG, 712, prosdechomai. The verb can mean “to welcome someone in the Lord,” when used with those words. Cf. 1 John 1:7, an actual passage about fellowship; see koinōnia.
9. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.
10. Ramm, Interpretation, 122f.
11. Hodges, “The Ninety-Nine,” 1.
12. Ibid., 3.
13. Zane C. Hodges, “Lost Son, Not Lost Sonship: Repentance in Luke 15:11–24, ” Grace in Focus (November-December 1998): 4
14. At the risk of being accused of imposing a later text on an earlier one, cf. nekros (Luke 15:32; Ephesians 2:1).
15. Greek ou chreian echousin metanoias.
16. Hodges, “The Ninety-Nine,” 3.
17. Ibid.
18. Hillman, “Three Lost Objects,” 21–33.
19. Joachim Jeremias, “poimēn, archipoimēn, poimainō, poimnē, poimnion,” TDNT, 6:488–89.
20. Hodges, “The Ninety-Nine,” 3.
21. G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1931), 182. Such an idea might appeal to the inclusive movement today, but hardly seems appealing to an Evangelical!