John Niemelä received a B.A. (University of Minnesota), and earned the Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees in New Testament Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary. John is Professor of Hebrew and Greek at Chafer Theological Seminary. His email address is languages@chafer.edu.
Introduction
As Christ attended to tax collectors and sinners in Luke 15:1–2, the Pharisees and scribes complained, This man receives sinners and eats with them. [1] Jesus responded with a single parable having three distinct venues: a lost sheep, a lost coin, and a lost son. [2] Few parables are as seemingly transparent, yet so easily misunderstood and needing careful study as Luke 15:4–32. Confusion results from overlooking concerns in three primary areas, the relationships between:
- God the Father and Israel,
- God the Son and lost sheep,
- Christ and the Pharisees. [3]
An Insight into Parables
The hearer of a parable may need help in determining role assignments. In 2 Samuel 12:1–5, David did not recognize himself as the villain, so he unwittingly pronounced judgment on himself.
[Nathan] said to him: “There were two men in one city, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had exceedingly many flocks and herds. But the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb which he had bought and nourished; and it grew up together with him and with his children. It ate of his own food and drank from his own cup and lay in his bosom; and it was like a daughter to him. And a traveler came to the rich man, who refused to take from his own flock and from his own herd to prepare one for the wayfaring man who had come to him; but he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” So David’s anger was greatly aroused against the man… .Then Nathan confronted David, You are the man (verse 7). Similarly, Jesus told The Parable of the Good Samaritan to a lawyer who asked Him to define neighbor. Only the Samaritan treated as neighbor the Jew who fell among thieves (Luke 10:36–37). What a shock! The Samaritan kept the law, unlike the priest and the Levite. Within the confines of the parable, that self-justifying lawyer (cf. verse 29) could almost have wished that he were the Samaritan. [4]
A parable’s role assignment may challenge a commoner to see life as if he were king (Luke 14:31). Still another may transform a Pharisee into a shepherd or a woman (Luke 15). In other words, the one telling the parable has complete autonomy in casting characters. Casting any hearer’s role may (or may not) resemble the person’s actual station in life.
Sometimes the character assignments were obvious to the original hearers; sometimes, they were not. Christ offered three levels of interpretive assistance in His parables:
- He may not explain who the characters represent (e.g., The Pearl of Great Price, Matthew 13:45–46),
- He may not identify the characters in the parable itself, but do so in His explanation (e.g., The Parable of the Soils, Matthew 13:3–9 and 18–23),
- He may identify characters in the parable itself (e.g., Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, and Lost Son, Luke 15:4).
Before looking at Luke 15, consider other passages where Jesus assigns roles through rhetorical questions: In Luke 11:5 the disciples are to imagine asking a friend at midnight for some bread to feed an unexpected houseguest.
Which of you [disciples, cf. verse 1] shall have a friend, and go to him at midnight and say to him, “Friend, lend me three loaves… ?”They needed to understand persistent prayer, so He cast them as a petitioner facing a predicament in the middle of night.
Luke 14:5 poses a dilemma for lawyers and Pharisees by assigning them the role of one owning a donkey or an ox.
Which of you [lawyers and Pharisees, cf. verse 3], having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?Whether any of them actually owned such an animal is not germane. Jesus was about to heal a man with dropsy on the Sabbath (Luke 14:1–3), so He poses a quandary. And they could not answer Him regarding these things (verse 6). He forced the leaders to identify with His role and to see the issue from His standpoint. Just as He healed on the Sabbath, so they would rescue their own animal on the Sabbath. They could not condemn Him without indicting themselves.
Luke 14:28 uses the public humiliation that leaving a tower unfinished to challenge His disciples.
… which of you [disciples, cf. verses 26 and 33], intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost… ?Believers seeking to follow Christ must consider the costs of discipleship: Poor planning will be evident to all.
Jesus wanted the apostles to see themselves from His perspective in Luke 17:7. Therefore, He reversed roles, portraying each disciple as a master owning a servant.
And which of you [apostles], having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, “Come at once and sit down to eat”?They would rightly expect their servant to be at their beck-and-call through the evening, even after he labored all day.
Whenever Jesus assigns roles to listeners, it is to drive home His point through identification with a particular character and his dilemma. No parable assigns vacillating roles, because Jesus is not fickle. [6]
One Parable with Three Venues
Luke 15 is a single parable, which rebukes the Pharisees and scribes. [7] This one parable has three distinct venues.
First Venue—Shepherd with His Sheep: So He spoke this parable to them, saying: What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them (Luke 15:3–4)…. The first venue invites the Pharisees and scribes to understand themselves in the role that God has assigned to the nation’s leaders, under-shepherds to His flock. Thus, Jesus initially let His critics see themselves under the scriptural mandate of shepherding the flock. They needed to see what Christ already knew: a shepherd cannot ignore a lost sheep.
Second Venue—Woman with Her Coins: Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin (Luke 15:8)…. The parable applies a second venue, the ordinary features of a household, to correct the Pharisees. Would Christ be faithful to His Father’s household, if He failed to seek out the lost coin? The Pharisees failed, but He did not.
Third Venue—A Father and His Two Sons: Then He said: A certain man had two sons (Luke 15:11)…. This venue actually invites the Pharisees and scribes to understand the point more intimately by telling a story of a father with two sons. Lest He offend them unnecessarily, the Lord does not single-out any individual among His critics. Even so, everyone (both Christ’s friends and His foes) could intimately relate this venue to their own lives as fathers having their own sons. In regard to Christ Himself, He made attending to God’s children in need of repentance a priority.
Regardless of venue the parable does not change, nor does the indictment against Christ’s would-be accusers. Christ remains the standard of judgment for weighing the Pharisees and scribes.
They were shepherds who failed to seek out lost sheep; householders who squandered God’s resources; and fathers who had disowned their own sons.
God the Father
The first two venues depict the Father possessing national Israel through owning the sheep and the coins. Ministry to God’s people takes place under this umbrella.
God is the Shepherd and Owner of National Israel
According to Deuteronomy, Israel is God’s own unique possession (Deuteronomy 7:6–8; 14:2; 26:18). If God owns all of Israel, then it follows logically that He owns every part of it (both believers and unbelievers). Furthermore, Ezekiel 34 uses the shepherd and sheep analogy to depict not only God’s ownership of national Israel, but also how miserably the leadership of the nation failed.
Although the Old Testament does not depict God as a woman possessing coins, the parallelism is unmistakable. Believers have always been the Lord’s special property. Not only does God redeem individual Church Age believers (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23), but John 17:9–10 teaches divine ownership of believers prior to the Church Age.
I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.The imagery of divine ownership could refer to the nation Israel (including unbelievers) or to believers alone. Thus, the fact that the shepherd in Luke 15 owns the hundred sheep and that the woman owns the ten coins does not, by itself, determine that sheep and coins automatically represent believers.
God Is Father to National Israel
Regarding the relationship between a father and sons in the third venue, several passages present God as Israel’s Father: Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 32:6; Isaiah 64:8; Jeremiah 3:4. Even unbelieving Israelites could derive benefit from this corporate (non-individualized) Fatherhood.
On the other hand, John 1:11–12 speaks of a sonship that does not depend on physical descent from Abraham.
He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.Furthermore, John 3 speaks of regeneration (being born again). God is Father to each person who believes in Jesus Christ for eternal life. The two concepts of sonship join to yield three theoretical combinations for Luke 15.
Possibility one, that one son is national Israel and the other represents Gentiles, fails, because Luke 15 does not present two national sons. Israel is God’s only national son.
Possibility two, that each son represents corporate entities within Israel, imposes a novel form of sonship onto the passage. Does the fact that God has one national son constitute a precedent for Him having two national sons (representing segments of Israel)? No. [8] Furthermore, where is the precedent for speaking of individual Jewish unbelievers as sons of God? The only way Jewish unbelievers can call God their Father is as part of the single national-son, Israel. Individual unbelievers are not sons of God. The concept of Israel as a national son of God (singular) is purely corporate.
Possibility three, that each son is an individual Israelite believer, fits Luke 15 best, because it draws upon Christ’s teaching about an individual (non-corporate) sonship (for believers). The fact that the parable mentions two sons constitutes strong evidence that it refers to individual, non-corporate, sonship. Unless Jesus abandons all biblical precedent, He must speak about a pair of believers.
The mention of two sons weighs heavily against a corporate sonship here. Does the Bible apply the term son of God to an individual Jewish unbeliever? [9] The simplest option is to see these sons as two individuals. If He speaks of a pair of individuals, how could they be unbelievers?
God the Son
Understanding the role of Jesus within the parable and within Israel is crucial to grasping the character assignments and the meaning of the parable.
Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
The Pharisees and scribes complained about Christ keeping company with tax collectors and sinners in Luke 15:1–2. Elsewhere, Jesus commanded His disciples to seek out just such people, the scattered sheep of Israel.
[W]hen He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd…. And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease…. These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go ratherto the lost sheep [the weary and scattered ones] of the house of Israel” (Matthew 9:36–10:6).
Jesus ministered to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and expected His disciples to do so also.
Although many define lost sheep as unbelievers, this term has a different focus. Lost sheep speaks of the lack of godly shepherds in Israel: Matthew 9–10 defines the multitudes as scattered, like sheep having no shepherd or as lost sheep [note bold font]. [10] Accordingly, if lost and sheep refer to believers and unbelievers alike, how would lost sheep become a technical term for unbelievers only? Lost sheep refers to scattered Israelites, both believers and unbelievers.
Imagine that an archaeologist living in A.D. 2100 discovered a forgotten type of document from early twenty-first century America. He found three tattered “Lost Child” posters. Each pictures a boy; none depicts a girl. He then published a paper that concludes that “Lost Child” was a technical term for boys only, arguing that the term never applied to girls.
The archaeologist’s word study has two problems. He assumes (1) that extant data is representative and (2) that “Lost Child” is gender-specific. Such pitfalls urge caution in defining lost sheep: It is an umbrella for people lacking a shepherd (both believers and unbelievers).
Sadly, the Pharisees’ negligent shepherding of Israel, including lost sheep, formed the basis of their condemnation. Though the Pharisees and scribes scrutinized Jesus, most blindly failed to perceive Him as the Good Shepherd.
Zacchaeus and Lost Sheep
Few examples of lost sheep leave such a lasting impression as Zacchaeus, who met Christ as an unbeliever. (Lost sheep is generic, encompassing believers and unbelievers). [11] What does Jesus mean when He calls him a son of Abraham?
Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham; for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:9).No one doubts that Zacchaeus was Jewish. Thus, he was always a physical son of Abraham, because Jews descended from Abraham. However, Abraham is the father of many nations, including the Samaritans and the Edomites. [12]
An important question arises: What kind of salvation comes from having Abraham as a physical ancestor? None. In fact, no kind of salvation automatically derives even from being Jewish. The Pharisees and scribes were also Jewish, but Jesus never said, “Today, salvation has come to you (Pharisees), because you are Jewish.” The physical son-of-Abraham view does not fit Jesus’ teaching.
As an alternative, a son of Abraham can refer to Zacchaeus becoming a spiritual child of Abraham through believing in Christ (Romans 4:11; Galatians 3:7). Might an exegete conjecture that this spiritual son-of-Abraham view faces a grammatical difficulty? Specifically, the timing of a because phrase must precede the timing of the main verb. [13] Though the grammatical point is true, the objection is a red herring. Jesus said, Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham: Did salvation come (1) because Zacchaeus was Jewish? or (2) because he believed?
The following shows that both alternatives have exactly the same chronological flow. The verse explicitly reveals time zones 2–3, but implies time zone 1. Thus, both views affirm the following sequence:
Time Zone 1
|
Time Zone 2
|
Time Zone 3
|
Zacchaeus became a son of Abraham
|
Today, salvation came to his house
|
Zacchaeus is a son of Abraham
|
Zacchaeus was a son of Abraham throughout time zones 1–3
|
||
The same sequence applies whether being a son of Abraham refers to Zacchaeus’ physical birth or regeneration. Neither view faces a grammatical difficulty, because Zacchaeus became a son of Abraham prior to receiving salvation. [14] Thus, the grammatical issue is nothing more than a red herring.
However, the physical-son-of-Abraham view has a problem. What kind of salvation would the Jewishness of Zacchaeus produce? If Jewishness yielded salvation, the Pharisees would also possess it. [15] Rather, Zacchaeus was one of the lost sheep for whom Jesus came to seek and save.
The Pharisees
Christ urged the Pharisees to identify with the shepherd in Luke 15:4, whether or not they regarded themselves as righteous. Luke 15:7 does not (just three verses later) confuse things by re-assigning their role as the ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance. Neither does He identify the nine coins or the elder son with the Pharisees. [16]
A Question of Doublespeak
Those who identify the Pharisees as the ninety-nine sheep do so because of the phrase who need no repentance, not because He calls them just persons. They perceive that the Bible does call believers just persons. Even so, they choke on the phrase need no repentance. However, at any moment a believer may (or may not) need repentance: This truth underlies Christ’s message to the seven churches in Revelation 2–3. Jesus told five churches to repent and simultaneously commended those of Smyrna and Philadelphia. Surely, He could also tell a parable in which ninety-nine individuals need no repentance.17 It is quite clear that believers exist like those of Smyrna and Philadelphia, even if the Pharisees thought they were above repentance. [18]
Does the fact that the Pharisees were self-righteous equate them with the ninety-nine sheep? No. Although it would not have been inappropriate for Christ to say, “ninety-nine self-righteous persons who think they need no repentance,” He said nothing of the sort. If Jesus referred to those who need to repent as people who do not need to repent, He would engage in doublespeak. But, if He speaks of people who do not need to repent as those who do not need to repent, He means what He says and says what He means.
Sadly, many expositors have given up all hope that Jesus might just say exactly what He means here. Whether or not the Pharisees and scribes think they need repentance has no bearing on the roles our Lord intentionally assigned to them: If a straightforward meaning is possible, why would anyone prefer to consign Christ’s words to doublespeak?
Matthew 18:12–14 understands the parallel statement positively. Verse 6 identifies little ones as believers: these little ones who believe in Me. Ninety-nine of the sheep or little ones do not go astray, but one does. Verse 14 repeats the phrase little ones, showing that Jesus still refers to believers.
What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.The ninety-nine sheep in Matthew are believers who do not stray. Similarly, Luke 15:7 calls them just ones, not Pharisees or scribes. Though Jesus spoke the Matthew and Luke passages on different occasions, they have parallel meaning. He does not engage in doublespeak: The just ones of Luke 15:7 are believers who genuinely do not need repentance.
One Sheep, One Coin, One Son
Christ speaks of one shepherd with one lost sheep, one woman with one lost coin, one father with one lost son. Each lost one and each finder are singular. On the other hand, the ninety-nine sheep and the nine coins are plural. The careful juxtaposition of singulars and plurals weighs against understanding the singulars corporately. [19] Why is this important?
One sheep, one coin, and one son each represent a single person. One person does not stand for a group. This erases any need to assume that every sinner and every tax collector eating with Jesus in Luke 15 was a believer. In all probability, the group contained both believers and unbelievers. The parable selects and portrays one person within the group, a believer, not the group as a whole.
Similarly, the one shepherd, one woman, and one father represent one person at a time (whether Christ or an individual Pharisee). Jesus makes each under-shepherd responsible for the sheep (plural) in his care; the woman for the coins in her care; and the father for the sons in his care. Christ’s use of singulars and plurals is not haphazard. It reflects His careful casting of the characters in the parable.
The Casting of Characters
Parables, like theatrical plays, often have many characters. In an effort to give credit where credit is due, both plays and movies list every actor. Although parables do not hire actors, it is often necessary to define the characters, so that listeners properly understand their own role in the parable. [20]
The Bigger Question
Expositors recognize that Jesus directed the parable against the Pharisees. This knowledge does not always lead them to a correct identification of characters in the parable.
The bigger question is: Which character set contains the Pharisees? Character-set B must exclude the Pharisees and scribes because each lost item signifies one who subsequently repented. The Pharisees and scribes may or may not have understood their need to repent, let alone that they should have actually repented. Ruling out Character-set B, the Pharisees and scribes must either be in set A or set C.
Christ and/or God the Father must be within Set A. Knowing this, would it be reasonable for character-set A to represent the Pharisees? Yes, indeed. This subtle twist has eluded many. As incredible as it may seem at first glance, Jesus wanted His critics to identify with a shepherd to allow repentance of their wicked shepherding. He said, What man of you [Pharisees and scribes] having a hundred sheep… ?
Now, if the Pharisees play the role of the shepherd in the parable, surely they cannot also be the ninety-nine sheep. When Christ directs the parable against the Pharisees and scribes, He does so by addressing individuals who should have sought to shepherd Israel as good under-shepherds. [22] The parable continues using another venue (a woman and her coins) to allow these same critics to gain understanding from ordinary occurrences of a household. If our Lord admonishes His critics to identify with the woman diligently seeking the lost coin, how can the Pharisees and scribes be the coins? In the third venue Christ invites His critics to perceive ministry to the tax collectors and sinners as fathers having sons of their own. Christ knew His Father’s love for His children, so how could He ignore sons of God who needed repentance? Indeed, the Lord went a step further by attending to the needs of even the unbelieving Pharisees and scribes as He rebuked them. How could the Pharisees and scribes possibly be the elder son? [23]
Joy over finding the lost items (character-set B) receives more attention than either set A or set C. This does not necessarily decide whether set A includes the Pharisees or whether set C does. Even the fact that the Pharisees grumbled is not sufficient to equate them with the elder son. Note that Jesus’ own disciples grumbled, rather than rejoiced, when parents wanted Jesus to minister to their children (Luke 18:15–17).
On the other hand, Pharisees, as shepherds, diligently made religious people into their proselytes and disciples:
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves (Matthew 23:15).The Pharisees easily imagined a heavenly cheering section as they spread their doctrine and practice. However, if they had been good under-shepherds, they would have cheered Christ’s ministry (as did the angels). Instead, they hissed.
Ironically, Matthew 23:15 shows the pharisaic shepherds taking great pains to make proselytes from among non-outcasts. In effect, ignoring the tax collectors and sinners squanders the household of God coin-by-coin. They had no concern for the broken, the downcast. They had no interest in sinners and tax collectors. They resemble the foolish and worthless shepherd of Zechariah 11:15–17, 24
And the LORD said to me, “Next, take for yourself the implements of a foolish shepherd. For indeed I will raise up a shepherd in the land who will not care for those who are cut off, nor seek the young, nor heal those that are broken, nor feed those that still stand. But he will eat the flesh of the fat and tear their hooves in pieces. Woe to the worthless shepherd, Who leaves the flock! A sword shall be against his arm And against his right eye; His arm shall completely wither, And his right eye shall be totally blinded.”The first venue reflects the truth of Zechariah. Then, Jesus carries the indictment a step further in the second venue: Pharisees or scribes are no better than a woman who squanders her household one coin at a time. Those criticizing Jesus were so blinded in their wicked ways that they could not see the Messiah standing before them.
God’s indictment against wicked shepherds in Ezekiel 34:7–9 was also appropriate in Christ’s day.
Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: “as I live,” says the Lord GOD, “surely because My flock became a prey, and My flock became food for every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, nor did My shepherds search for My flock, but the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock”—therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the LORD!Ezekiel 34 does not indict the flock, but the wicked shepherds. Likewise Jesus casts His indictment against the wicked under-shepherds, not the scattered flock. As He concludes His parable on an intimate note, a Pharisee or scribe is like a father who disowns his own son who desires to repent and draw close in fellowship.
Paired Interpretations
The parable of Luke 15 operates with two sets of characters simultaneously. Christ is the Good Shepherd, the Pharisees are also shepherds (though wicked ones). Jesus challenges the Pharisees with What man of you, having a hundred sheep… ? They understood His rebuke. A shepherd who allows the flock to dwindle soon faces financial ruin. Christ did not neglect lost sheep.
With regard to the attractive people, the Pharisees would go to any length to win disciples, as Matthew 23:15 indicates. Good under-shepherds would also have devoted energies to ministering to lost sheep, including the sinners and tax collectors.25 However, wicked shepherds would find such people beneath their dignity and unprofitable. Christ shows Himself to be the Good Shepherd.
Does not this understanding undergird God’s indictment against the wicked shepherds in Ezekiel 34:10?
Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no longer be food for them.”The careful juxtaposition found in Luke 15 appears in Ezekiel 34:11–12 also.
For thus says the Lord GOD: “Indeed I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. As a shepherd seeks out his flock on the day he is among his scattered sheep, so will I seek out My sheep and deliver them from all the places where they were scattered on a cloudy and dark day.”The message is clear: Shepherds face a higher standard (cf. James 3:1), established by the way the Good Shepherd tends His flock. The Pharisees failed to meet what the Lord required of them as shepherds. They did not grasp that the Lord who stood before them shepherds His flock as diligently as the woman tends her household and the father his sons.
Summary
A chart summarizes how our Lord cast His characters for these three venues.
While the venues change, the parable and the indictment against Christ’s would-be accusers remain the same. The One the Pharisees and scribes sought to criticize is the very standard of judgment by which they were weighed. As shepherds they failed to seek out lost sheep; as householders they squandered God’s resources; and as fathers they neglected their own sons.
Conclusions
The parable of Luke 15 is seemingly transparent, yet all too often misunderstood. Carefully relating God the Father, Christ, and the Pharisees to each other here uncovers how our Lord cast His characters for the parable. Jesus’ words for the shepherds of His day still apply today. Under-shepherds should reflect on our Lord’s example and know the measure of His standard for shepherding His flock. This ought to sober the minds of many pastors and church leaders. The Good Shepherd desires good under-shepherds for believers, His sheep. A good under-shepherd tends to the flock, including any believer who strays.
The key to interpreting this passage is recognizing where the Pharisees fit into the rebuke. Christ cast them in the role of shepherds, not sheep. The traditional interpretation converts this man into ninety-nine sheep. That is, Pharisee initially equals shepherd, but then Pharisee becomes the ninety-nine sheep. Furthermore, the traditional interpretation must interpret not needing repentance as “needing repentance.” It is far simpler to regard shepherd as a leader of the nation. That was the role that the Pharisees assumed for themselves, but Christ shows that they failed miserably in comparison with the Good Shepherd. Even today, the challenge is for God’s under-shepherds to have God’s heart for the flock. This requires the Spirit working in the man of God through the word of God.
—End—
Notes
- Unless otherwise noted all Scripture references are from the New King James Version (NKJV), 1982.
- Lewis Sperry Chafer, He that is Spiritual: A Classic Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Spirituality, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), 79–80, correctly sees Luke 15 as one parable, not three.
- Randy C. Hillman, “Three Lost Objects: Yet Another Look at Luke 15, ” CTS Journal 7 (July-September 2001): 21-33; and CTS Journal 7 (October-December 2001): 25-38. Hillman urges relaxing assumptions about lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son being believers. This article relaxes these assumptions, but observes evidence for concluding that they are believers, nonetheless. Despite concluding differently, Niemelä and Hillman approach the passage more similarly than many would expect. Readers need to examine both cases closely.
- The lawyer avoided saying “The Samaritan was neighbor to the one who fell among the thieves.” Even so, he caught the point.
- It matters not whether Pharisees liked or despised real-life shepherds; Christ assigned that role to them in the parable.
- At the end of the Luke 17:7–9 parable, Jesus used likewise to return them to their real-life role, unworthy servants. Even so, throughout the whole parable, the disciples were to see themselves as the master, not the servant. Roles remain fixed for the whole parable. Roles do not switch in the middle of a play or a parable.
- Chafer, Spiritual, 79–80, rightly sees Luke 15 as a single parable.
- Context does not allow the passage to refer to Judah versus Israel.
- John 8:44 seems to do exactly the opposite of this.
- Hillman, “Lost Items: Part 2,” p. 32, says, “Luke says the owner of the sheep lost them. It does not say the sheep wandered away.” The idea that God discarded the sheep pushes the active voice too far. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 411, defines the simple active voice, “The subject performs or experiences the action [italics in original].” A reasonable view of the active voice in Luke 15:4 allows for the sheep wandering off. If a sheep wanders, the shepherd experiences loss.
- See discussion in the section preceding the present one.
- The fact that Esau was Jacob’s brother led Moses to request passage through Edom in Numbers 20:14–15. That brotherhood was also the basis for Amos 1:11 and Obadiah 11 indicting Edom. Genesis 17:5 regards Abraham as the father of many nations, not just Israel. The Edomites were sons of Abraham and Isaac.
- According to I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, ed. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque (Exeter, UK: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 698, “katho[ti [because, Luke 19:9b] is used to introduce an antecedent reason rather than a subsequent proof, so that the point of the saying is that a Jew, even though he has become one of the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel,’ is still a part of Israel; the good Shepherd must seek for such… .”
- In the physical sonship view, he was a son of Abraham for many years before receiving salvation. In the spiritual sonship view, he became a spiritual son through faith. Upon believing, he received salvation. Soon afterwards, Jesus said that he, who had just become a (spiritual) son of Abraham, now possesses salvation.
- The Son of Man came to seek and save that which was lost and focused on the lost sheep of the House of Israel. However, neither lost nor lost sheep refer to unbelief, but to the fact that the sheep were scattered (both believers and unbelievers).
- This article will give specific exegetical reasons for not identifying the Pharisees with the ninety-nine sheep, the nine coins, or the elder son. For the moment, however, it is sufficient to note that Jesus did not identify any of them with the Pharisees.
- John’s epistles never use the word repent, while Revelation 2–3 does so repeatedly. Although confession of sin is a corrective, 1 John 1:9 is not a repentance passage. If (after confession) the believer finds himself again drawn back to the sin, repentance then becomes appropriate. The five churches had problems that required not only confession, but also repentance. Two did not need repentance. Neither do the ninety-nine. Not needing repentance does not imply sinless perfection. Those not needing repentance still must keep their sins confessed and still must walk with the Lord.
- The message which gives eternal life is to believe in Christ, not to repent. See John H. Niemelä, “The Message of Life in the Gospel of John,” CTS Journal 7 (July-September 2001): 2-20.
- That is, the plurality of ninety-nine sheep or nine coins would only mean anything, if (in turn) the singular sheep and singular coin refers to a singular entity. In other words, one sheep, one coin, and one son each refers to an individual, not to a group.
- See page 40–42.
- Two types of righteous people (e.g., eternally-secure believers) exist: those not needing repentance (the ninety-nine), and those needing repentance (the elder son). This view takes the relative clause, who have no need of repentance, adjectivally. More heavenly rejoicing occurs for one repentant sinning believer than over ninety-nine who need no repentance. Would not the angels also rejoice more over a repentant believer than a believer who needed to repent, but did not? Thus, the verse makes sense under this view.
- They should have shepherded Israel. Instead, they resembled the evil shepherds of Ezekiel 34:1–10 who fleeced the flock.
- Under an adjectival view of who have no need of repentance (Luke 15:7), the elder son is just, but needs to repent. Three logical combinations exist: (1) just ones not needing to repent, (2) just ones needing to repent, and (3) unjust ones needing to repent. Similarly, “females who are mothers” implies the following: (1) female mothers, (2) female non-mothers, and (3) non-female non-mothers.
- Zechariah’s worthless shepherd is eschatological, but the Pharisees resemble him in many ways.
- The soteriological message of the Pharisees would be a false works-based one. Christ does not advocate that they proclaim their false message, but indicts them as wicked shepherds. Jesus answered the Scribes and Pharisees according to the charge that they raised against Him in Luke 15:2, This Man receives sinners and eats with them. They attacked His practice, not His doctrine. In turn, He indicts them for their practice. Worthless shepherds only seek to fleece the flock.
- The ninety-nine sheep are loyal children of God, who do not need repentance. They differ from the older son, who did not journey into a far country, but lacks the heart of God toward his brother who returned to the Lord after straying.
- Cf. the immediately preceding footnote.
No comments:
Post a Comment