Words For The Shepherds: Luke 15

By John H. Niemelä

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:

1. God the Father and Israel,
2. God the Son and lost sheep,
3. Christ and the Pharisees. [3]

Careful consideration reveals both a magnificent casting of characters by our Lord and message relevant to those shepherding His flock today.

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:

1. He may not explain who the characters represent (e.g., The Pearl of Great Price, Matthew 13:45–46),
2. 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),
3. He may identify characters in the parable itself (e.g., Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, and Lost Son, Luke 15:4).

The phrase What man of you having a hundred sheep… ? identifies characters. Although the Pharisees did not tend sheep in real life, that is their assigned role in the parable. [5]

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 rather

to 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.

	1. unjust ones w/ need to repent?
Just ones w/o need to repent =
	2. just ones w/o need to repent?

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.

	Character Set A	Character Set B	Character Set C
1	Shepherd	Lost Sheep	Ninety-Nine Sheep [21]
2	Woman	Lost Coin	Nine Coins
3	Father	Lost Son	Elder Son

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.

Venue	Role	Player (Level 1)	Player (Level 2)
1A	Shepherd	Christ	Pharisees
1B	1 sheep	Stray son of God	Stray child of God
1C	99 Sheep	Non-stray sons of God [26]	Non-stray son of God
2A	Woman	Christ	Pharisees
2B	1 coin	Stray son of God	Stray son of God
2C	9 coins	Non-stray sons of God	Non-stray son of God
3A	Father	Christ (or the Father)	Pharisees (or God)
3B	Younger	Stray child of God	Stray child of God
3C	Older [27]	Non-stray son of God	Non-stray son of God

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

1. Unless otherwise noted all Scripture references are from the New King James Version (NKJV), 1982.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The lawyer avoided saying “The Samaritan was neighbor to the one who fell among the thieves.” Even so, he caught the point.
5. It matters not whether Pharisees liked or despised real-life shepherds; Christ assigned that role to them in the parable.
6. 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.
7. Chafer, Spiritual, 79–80, rightly sees Luke 15 as a single parable.
8. Context does not allow the passage to refer to Judah versus Israel.
9. John 8:44 seems to do exactly the opposite of this.
10. 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.
11. See discussion in the section preceding the present one.
12. 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.
13. 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… .”
14. 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.
15. 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).
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. See page 40–42.
21. 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.
22. They should have shepherded Israel. Instead, they resembled the evil shepherds of Ezekiel 34:1–10 who fleeced the flock.
23. 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.
24. Zechariah’s worthless shepherd is eschatological, but the Pharisees resemble him in many ways.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Cf. the immediately preceding footnote.

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!

Three Lost Objects: Yet Another Look (Part 1 of 2)

By Randy C. Hillman [1]

Editor's note: Randy C. Hillman 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 M.A.B.S. from Talbot School of Theology. Randy’s email address is: rhillman@concentric.net.

Introduction

Perhaps no passage in the Gospels better summarizes Jesus’ mission to Israel than this:

I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24; cf. John 1:11). [2]

Jesus Christ did not come as an isolated person in history but as the Messiah to Israel, promised and predicted for hundreds of years before. Although some Gentiles responded to Christ’s ministry (cf. Matthew 8:5–13), Jesus’ primary concern was for God’s chosen people, the Jews, and He presented Himself against the background of the Old Testament and as the fulfillment of those prophecies (cf. Matthew 5:17; Luke 24:27, 44–47; John 5:46; 12:31). [3]

The Old Testament context is especially crucial for a full appreciation of the parables in Luke 15. Christians for centuries have much-admired these three parables in Luke 15, especially the last one about the Prodigal Son, which scholars call the “Evangelium in Evangelio, The Gospel within the Gospel.” [4] Despite the admiration for these parables, they have been and continue to be a subject of debate as to their interpretation. Do they envision unbelievers or believers? How do they relate to the subject of repentance? This article will examine the Old Testament background of Jesus’ mission as seen in Luke 15 and other Synoptic passages that clarify the nature of the conflict that initiated the occasion of these parables.

Statement of the Problem

There is no shortage of interpretations for these parables. Some commentators apply them to unbelievers, others to believers, [5] while others to a combination of both believers and unbelievers, [6] and still others refer them to Jews and Gentiles. [7] Martin directs our attention to the differences of opinion regarding Luke 15:

Much to the disgust of the religious leaders, Jesus associated with those who were thought of: as hopeless and “sinners.” The opposition to Jesus was once again, as almost always in Luke, the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law. Because of this opposition Jesus told three parables. All three speak of things or a person being lost and then found, and of rejoicing when the lost is found. 

Some view these parables as teaching a believer’s restoration to fellowship with God. One cannot lose something he does not own, they reason, so the first two parables must represent children of God who come back to Him. Also, a son is already a son, so the third parable must be teaching that people who are believers can be restored to fellowship with God. 

Others understand the parables to teach that lost people (i.e., people who are not believers) can come to Christ. This view seems preferable for two reasons: (1) Jesus was speaking to Pharisees who were rejecting the message of the kingdom. Their objection was that sinners were coming to Jesus and believing His message. In no way could these two groups be adequately represented in the third parable if the point of the parable is a restoration to fellowship by a believer. (2) Verse 22 indicates that the son who came back received a new position which he did not have before. The Jews were God’s “children” in the sense that they had a special covenant relationship to Him. But each individual still had to become a believer in God. It was their responsibility to accept the message Jesus was preaching—that He was the Messiah and that He would bring in the kingdom for the nation. [8]

Hodges sees the parables referring to believers needing repentance for fellowship with the Lord:

Plainly stated, the Parable of the Lost Sheep is not about eternal salvation at all. It is about a Christian who wanders away from God’s flock and pursues the pathway of sin. His restoration to fellowship with his Savior and Shepherd, as well as to fellowship with the Lord’s people, who have not wandered away, requires repentance. When such recovery of a straying believer occurs, the Great Shepherd is filled with joy and heaven itself rejoices with Him. And so, of course, should God’s people as well (a point to be addressed in the story about the brother of the Prodigal Son: Luke 15:25–32). [9]

Whatever their interpretation, all three parables in Luke 15 are consistent and have a common theme that unites them: something is lost (lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son) and when one finds it, it is a time of rejoicing. While many consider Luke 15 the classic text on repentance, it is interesting to note that the words related to “joy” out-number the uses of “repent” two to one (6×/3×). [10] When something or someone is lost and then recovered, the normal response is (or should be) rejoicing; hence, when anyone came to Jesus, that should have been a cause of rejoicing for the Pharisees, but instead they grumbled and criticized Jesus for associating with sinners. Morgan notes this unity:

Now, mark the unity of the three. They are all concerned with lost things,—lost sheep, lost silver, lost son. In every case the lost is found and restored. In each story the issue is joy, whether it is sheep, or silver, or son. The lost things are found, and they are restored, the sheep to his owner, and the flock; the drachma to circulation, and currency, and value; and the boy to the meaning of life in his father’s home. They are all lost. They are all restored. Joy is the issue in every case. [11]

Recognizing this unity, what then is the interpretation of the parables? Do they refer to unbelievers or believers? To determine this, we need to examine two specific issues of debate. The first is the meaning of the “righteous” not needing repentance. Hodges comments on this issue:

Our Lord’s application of this story is crystal clear: “I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just [Greek, dikaios, “righteous”] persons who need no repentance” (v. 7… .). The words which we have placed in italics are the key to this parable. The ninety-nine sheep represent people who are “righteous” and who therefore do not need to repent. This is what the text plainly states. 

But this is not how it is interpreted by many who read and/or teach it. Instead, “the ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance” are transformed into “ninety-nine unrighteous persons who only think they need no repentance! That this manifestly contradicts the text and turns it upside down is so clear that this rereading of our Lord’s words is self-refuting [original italics]. [12]

We will return to the issue of the righteous but the second problem is that of possession: that all three lost entities actually belonged to the owner/father. This fact is obvious and causes no reason for debate. However, the question arises, how is “losing” and “finding” related to Jesus’ mission? Does it have a background in the Old Testament?

Before continuing, we should add a word about methodology. Before one can apply the Scriptural text to a modern audience, he must understand what the text meant to the original audience. The interpreter must answer two crucial questions: What does the passage mean in its context, and how did the recipients understand it?

It is significant that Jesus began His three parables with one about a man finding his sheep. Herding was offensive to the Pharisees, and had shock value. It is this writer’s opinion that this “shock” was a conscious technique by Jesus to awaken the minds of the Pharisees and Israel to the Old Testament context and His coming in fulfillment of its prophecies. Trench notes:

The first parable had a peculiar fitness to the spiritual rulers of the Jewish people. They were warned, rebuked, and charged continually under this very title of shepherds (Ezek. xxxiv.; Zech. xi. 14); yet now they were finding fault with Christ for doing that very thing which they ought to have done. There is in sin a centrifugal tendency, and of necessity the wanderings of the sheep would be farther and farther away. Therefore, without the shepherd’s going forth to seek it, it must be lost forever [original italics]. [13]

Donahue also remarks:

The introductory verse of the Lost Sheep carries a special force. From the introduction we know that the parable is addressed to the Pharisees and scribes. In the parable the word “shepherd” is not used but implied. The introductory question, “What man of you, having a hundred sheep… ?” (v. 4), would shock those to whom the parable is directed and amuse the audience. Tending sheep was one of the occupations avoided by observant Jews, as was tax collecting; it was also of a considerably lower social class than a scribe. By saying “Which of you?” the parable “orients by disorienting” (Paul Ricoeur, see above, pp. 15–16 [in Donahue’s book]). [14] Subtly it jolts the Pharisees and scribes out of their accustomed roles and piety and opens them to the parable. The image of the shepherd would also evoke Ezekiel 34, where religious leaders were criticized because God’s sheep “were scattered” and “wandered over all the mountains” and “my shepherds have not searched for my sheep” (34:6–8). Since in Ezekiel and in other places in the OT, God seeks and cares for straying sheep, readers are to see in the parable an allusion to God’s action made present in the ministry of Jesus to the marginal. [15]

Both Trench and Donahue call attention to Ezekiel 34. Moreover, this article began with Jesus’ answer to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:24, I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [16] Other gospel passages demonstrate that the shepherd motif is present in Jesus’ coming to Israel when He told His disciples to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:5–7; cf. 9:35–36; 10:16; 18:12; 25:32–33; 26:31; John 10).

Shepherds and Lost Sheep

In the New Testament, as the Chief Shepherd, Christ delegates shepherds to care for His Church (cf. Acts 20:28–30; 1 Peter 5:1–4; cf. Hebrews 13:20). Peter especially warns against being self-serving and exploiting God’s flock for one’s own advantage (1 Peter 5:3). Unfortunately, Israel suffered a long history of abuse by its political and spiritual shepherds.

Sheep were a major part of Jewish society. The Jews of the Bible were first shepherds and then farmers, but they never abandoned entirely their shepherd life. Sheep provided many valuable products such as wool, meat, milk, and were the primary animal of sacrifice. [17] With this background, it is not hard to imagine the rich metaphors available to Jewish society. Many passages speak of God as the Shepherd to Israel, the leaders as shepherds to the people, and the people as God’s flock. [18] Moses, David, and Amos all tended flocks before God promoted them to lead and serve Israel. [19]

A number of passages speak of the Messiah coming to Israel as its Shepherd. Jeremias explains:

The application of the shepherd image to Yahweh is embedded in the living piety of Israel. This may be seen from the great number of passages which use the rich shepherd vocabulary for Yahweh and depict God in new and vivid developments of the metaphor as the Shepherd who goes before His flock, who guides it, who leads it to pastures and to places where it may rest by the waters, who protects it with His staff, who whistles to the dispersed and gathers them, who carries the lambs in His bosom and leads the mother-sheep (Is. 40:11)….…………………Because the shepherds have refused and become unfaithful, Yahweh will visit them; He Himself will take over the office of shepherd and gather and feed the scattered flock…[20]

To be sure, these passages ultimately anticipate the Second Advent. However, they must have influenced messianic expectations in Israel and, furthermore, Jesus presented Himself against the Old Testament background. While we have the benefit of theological hindsight today, distinct views of two advents were not clear-cut to the Jews of Jesus’ time. It appears that the people expected only a victorious king to deliver them from Rome (cf. Luke 1:68–71; John 6:15). Yet, many Old Testament passages show the Lord as the Shepherd who cares about His flock, Israel, and rebukes those human shepherds who do not.

Behold, the LORD God will come with might, With His arm ruling for Him. Behold, His reward is with Him, And His recompense before Him. Like a shepherd He will tend His flock, In His arm He will gather the lambs, And carry [them] in His bosom; He will gently lead the nursing [ewes] (Isaiah 40:10–11). [21] 

For thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. I will feed My flock and I will lead them to rest,” declares the Lord God. “I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken, and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with judgment” (Ezekiel 34:11, 15–16, cf. verse 31). [22]

While commentators see the “shepherds” here as political leaders, they also refer this passage to Luke 15. [23] Allen notes that:

It is not surprising that the New Testament took up this shepherd motif and echoed chap. 34 together with other texts that give expression to it. Jesus’ self-proclaimed purpose “to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10) attests the understanding of a divine mission. [24]

These Old Testament passages should help clarify the problem of possession in the parables in Luke 15. Should we not consider that the nation of Israel belonged to God? Moreover, was not God calling them back to His covenant relationship, that is, to repent? Whether believing or unbelieving Jews, they had a special national relationship with God. This is why Jesus can speak in terms of ownership and repentance to the nation. Many seem to distinguish between national repentance and individual repentance; but since a nation consists of individuals, how can there be national repentance without individual repentance?

Following the Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist, Jesus calls on Jews to repent, a repentance, which ultimately centers on faith in Him. Israel always anticipated a messiah (even though not all anticipated the Messiah). Now they needed to understand and accept Jesus as their Messiah (cf. Matthew 3:2; John 20:31). In this way, then, Jesus called for Jews to repent and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15).25 If one objects that ‘possession’ and ‘unbelief’ cannot coexist, then John 1:11–13 presents a difficulty. Jesus came to His own,26 but His own did not receive Him. Nevertheless, some of His own did receive Him, that is, believe in Him. In this way those Jews who believed became children of God, not from human descent as racial Jews related to Abraham, but by being born again (cf. John 1:13; 3:3; 8:33–59).

Luke 19

This passage is critical because it has many parallels with Luke 15. The question arises, is it possible to speak of a lost person needing salvation? In view of Luke 19, it seems so. Chafer makes a point about Luke 15 using the word found, rather than the word “saved.” [27] However, the story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19 shows that the word lost can describe the unbeliever who needs salvation and whom the Lord indeed saves.28 Marshall notes the important background of this encounter between Jesus and Zacchaeus:

The final story in the long account of Jesus on his journey to Jerusalem is meant to be a climax in the ministry of Jesus, and it brings out several notable features which Luke considered important. It is a supreme example of the universality of the gospel offer to tax-collectors and sinners, with Jesus taking the initiative and inviting himself to the house of Zacchaeus … Jesus affirms that, tax-collector though he is, Zacchaeus is entitled to salvation, for he too is a Jew, a member of the people to whom salvation was promised by God in the coming of the Messiah. But salvation comes even to Jews only when Jesus goes after them and brings them home. So the narrative concludes with the great declaration of the task of the Son of man as a shepherd, which may fittingly be regarded as the epitome of the message of this Gospel. [29]

Luke 19:1–10 is another instance of a recurring problem in which a tax-gatherer responds to Jesus and the religious crowd criticizes him (cf. Luke 5:27–32; 15:1–32; 16:14–15; 18:9–14). The legalists grumble about Jesus’ contact with this sinner, but Jesus answers the criticism by stating: Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:9–10).

A number of direct verbal and topical links exist between this chapter and Luke 15. Zacchaeus was also a tax collector, here a chief tax-gatherer (cf. Luke 19:2; 15:1). [30] That he was rich is noteworthy in comparison to the previous incident with the rich young ruler (18:23, cf. 16:4). Zacchaeus was a sinner (19:7, cf. 15:1), but when he showed a positive interest in Jesus, the crowd grumbled against him (19:7, cf. 15:2, the only two uses of this verb in the New Testament). [31] As in Luke 15, Zacchaeus received Jesus rejoicing (19:6, cf. 15:5, 32). [32] Despite his unpopularity, Zacchaeus believed in Jesus and immediately repented of his greedy lifestyle. The story of Zacchaeus, which shows new-found integrity in his money-handling, illustrates what John the Baptist preached to Israel about bringing forth fruits of repentance (Luke 3:8). Moreover, it lines-up with John’s specific exhortation to the tax-gatherers (Luke 3:12–13).

We might pause to consider that the words for “believe” or “repent” do not occur in the text even though I just used them. That “salvation” came to Zacchaeus that day the Lord clearly states and yet passages do not always fit into the tidy theological grids we may desire.

Before leaving Luke 19, an important issue must be resolved related to Jesus’ statement: Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. Disagreement exists as to how Zacchaeus, too, is a son of Abraham. Some take it in a spiritual sense, in that all who believe are sons (huio[s) of Abraham (cf. Romans 4:11; Galatians 3:7). [33] On closer examination such a view is untenable for two reasons. First, the word “… 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….” [34] In other words, to support the spiritual sonship view, a reversal of the phrases is needed. It would require something like “because today salvation has come to his house, he, too, is a son of Abraham”—but this is not the wording. Second, elsewhere, Luke clearly used the same or similar terms to describe unbelieving Jews who are physical descendents of Abraham (cf. Luke 3:8; 13:16; 16:24–25, 27, 30; Acts 3:25; 5:21; 7:2; 9:15; 13:26). In view of these things, we can conclude, “this [son] denotes membership of the people of Israel.” [35]

Zacchaeus, a physical descendant of Abraham scorned by the religious establishment of his day, had just as much right to the opportunity of eternal salvation as any Jew. While the Pharisees thought they had a monopoly on God, Jesus demonstrated that He came to all Jews. Jesus came to His own and while many did not receive Him, Zacchaeus and others responded and received eternal life. May that continue to be our hope and prayer for Abraham’s descendants.

--To be continued--

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. Part 2 of this article will appear in the next issue of the CTS Journal, along with a rejoinder article.
2. Unless otherwise noted all Scripture references are from the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977).
3. Note that even the clear evangelistic purpose of the Gospel of John (20:31), the apostle presents in Jewish terms that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, that is, the Anointed One, the Messiah. Israel anointed kings (1 Samuel 15:1), priests (Exodus 30:30), and prophets (1 Kings 19:16). Only the Messiah would unite all three functions in one person, ruling as a king with mercy and justice (Isaiah 9:6–7), appointed as a priest (Psalms 110:4), and designated a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15–19). John is the only book that uses the term Messiah (1:41; 4:25). Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Leicester, England: Apollos; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 284, shows convincingly that “Christ” is “an ascription which could have its fullest relevance only to Jewish people.” Also see the author’s thesis, “The Lamb of God in John 1:29, ” (M.A.B.S. Thesis, Talbot School of Theology, 1988), 8–20, for how John demonstrates that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
4. Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (1861; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1948), 141.
5. Lewis Sperry Chafer, He That Is Spiritual: A Classic Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Spirituality, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), 81. Ibid., 79-80, considered Luke 15 one parable in three parts.
6. R. B. Thieme, Jr., The Prodigal Son, 2d ed. (Houston, TX: Berachah, 1974), 3–4.
7. Trench, Parables, 141.
8. John A. Martin, “Luke,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 244.
9. Zane C. Hodges, “The Ninety-Nine Righteous Sheep: Repentance in Luke 15:1–10, ” Grace in Focus 12 (September-October 1998), 3. Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Dallas, TX: Redención Viva; Grand Rapids: Academie, 1989), 151, had previously allowed the possibility of reference to the unsaved, stating, “to be sure, the prodigal son can represent an unsaved man whose repentance gets him turned in the right direction.”
10. Nestle-Aland27, 210–13. Verbal links between the three parables include having (e[chō; vv. 4, 8, 11); lost (apo[llumi; vv. 4 (2×), 6, 8, 9, 24, 32); found (heuri[skō; vv. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 (2×), 24, 32); and joy or rejoicing (chara[; vv. 7, 10), chai[rō; vv. 5, 32), (sugchai[rō; vv. 6, 9), cf. (euphrai[nō; vv. 24, 32).
11. G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel According to Luke (New York: Revell, 1931), 181. For a recent treatment, see Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 142–45.
12. Hodges, “Ninety-Nine,” 3. While Christian restoration and its subsequent joy are very desirable, the question still remains, is Luke 15 addressing the Church? Most dispensationalists see the Church beginning in Acts 2. From this viewpoint, since the Church had not even come into existence in Luke 15, would any Jew listening to the parables have understood them in a Church/Christian mindset?
13. Trench, Parables, 135.
14. John R. Donahue, The Gospel in Parable: Metaphor, Narrative, and Theology in the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988; paperback reprint, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990), 15–16, nn. 31 and 33–34, refers to pages 118–26 of Paul Ricoeur, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” Semeia 4 (1975), without citing him directly.
15. Donahue, Gospel in Parable, 148–49.
16. The Greek is ouk … ei mē[. Note the context in which Jesus retreated from His pharisaic enemies into Gentile territory (15:21) and the other references to their friction (15:1–3, 12).
17. Hillman, “Lamb of God,” 33.
18. Genesis 48:15; 49:24; Numbers 27:17; 2 Samuel 5:2; 7:8; 1 Kings 22:17; Psalms 23:1; 74:1; 78:52; 79:13; 80:1; 95:7; 100:3; 107:41; Isaiah 40:10–11; 53:6; Jeremiah 3:12–15; 10:21; 12:10; 13:17, 20; 17:16; 23:1–4; 25:34–36; 31:10; 50:6, 17; Ezekiel 34; Micah 2:12; 5:4; 7:14; Zechariah 9:16; 10:2–3; 11:4–17; 13:7; etc.
19. Exodus 3:1; 2 Samuel 7:8; Amos 7:15.
20. Joachim Jeremias, “poimē[n, archipoimē[n, poimai]nō, poi`mēn, poi`mnion,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–74), 6:487–88.
21. Emphasis added; also see Psalm 100:3; Jeremiah 3:12–15; 23:1–4; 31:9–10; 50:6–7.
22. Emphasis added; Hebrew: LORD God (ʾăd̠ōnāy yhwh); shepherds (rāʿâ); I Myself (ʾānî); seek, vv. 6, 8, 10–11 (dāraš) Cf. Ezekiel 34:1–10.
23. Paul P. Enns, Ezekiel: Bible Study Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Lamplighter, 1986), 153–54; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, ed. Paul D. Hanson and Leonard J. Greenspoon, trans. James D. Martin, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 203–23.
24. Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, ed. John D. W. Watts, WBC, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 29 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 165. Ibid., 147, cites Luke 15:11-32 in discussing Ezekiel 33:1-20.
25. One must make a careful analysis of every repentance passage, observing the implications of repent and believe as they apply to the doctrines of repentance and salvation—which is beyond the scope of this article. Faith is the only condition for salvation, but one must account for all the other evidence as well. Mark 1:15 states repent and believe in the gospel, thus showing that the two terms are distinct, yet co-existent. It is hard to comprehend how one would repent for fellowship before he believes to have a relationship in which to enjoy that fellowship.
26. The Greek neuter plural of idios is literally, “His own things.”
27. Chafer, Spiritual, 81.
28. I may be open to the criticism of imposing a later passage on an earlier one; however, I note this passage only to call attention to a parallel passage and a consistent pattern throughout the Gospels.
29. 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), 694–95.
30. BDAG, 139, “architelōnēs,” only here in the NT.
31. Ibid., 227, “diagoggu[zō,” defines it as “to complain, grumble (aloud).” Note the imperfect tense.
32. The Greek is chai[rō.
33. E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, rev. ed., New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Matthew Black (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974; paperback reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1981), 220–21; John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 95.
34. Marshall, Luke, 698; cf. BDAG, 493, “katho[ti,” “in view of the fact that.”
35. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, “huio[s, huiothesi[a,” TDNT, 8:365.

Ray Comfort Interviews a Satanist | Way of the Master: Season 2, Ep. 19