Lectionary: Proper 19(C)
Text: Luke 15:1-10
 |
| Lost Coin, 1864 |
Another area where the idea of discovering something is lost
and then searching to find the thing lost occurs in many retail environments.
Periodically, the store’s inventory is counted to determine its value. In the
process, it is not unusual to discover that there are missing items. It might
be due to theft, but (at least in my case) often it is because things have been
shuffled around in storage and placed where they have been overlooked and
forgotten. Again, depending on the value of the item, the person counting might
go to great lengths to try to find it, or write it off as an acceptable loss. A
loss of a few five-dollar magnets is far less concerning than a missing $1000
bracelet. (And frequently during future inventory counts items previously
thought “lost” are discovered!)
Our reading today from Luke 15, has two parables about
losing and finding. There is another immediately following that completes a
trilogy of parables. This third is commonly known as the parable of the
prodigal son. Luke places these three parables together for his literary and
thematic purposes.
When reading and attempting to interpret parables found in
the gospels, there are several layers of reading and interpretation to
consider. All writing, reading, and interpreting are done through filters and colored
by them. It is helpful to recognize and point them out so that we know how our
reading and interpretation might be affected. What briefly follows is a primer
(or review) on reading scripture more responsibly.
The first layer and the most obvious is our present-day
layer. Our social, cultural, economic, religious, and political contexts color
what we read and see in the text.
The next layer is history and tradition. Two millennia of
Christian interpretation color how these parables are interpreted. There are
denominational differences in interpretation and what might be emphasized. From
the early apostles to now, interpretation have changed and what was considered
a good interpretation a thousand years ago might now be seen as inappropriate
and replaced by something else.
The third layer I bring up today is the literary context.
This includes how the gospel writer (or redactor) arranged and edited the
parables, placing them into a narrative context, and adding his own
interpretation to speak to his audience with their immediate contexts.
The final layer is the parable itself and its original
audience. Luke’s parable of the lost sheep finds a very similar one in Matthew
18, but with differences. The literary context of Matthew’s placement is quite
different from the one in Luke. The parable is also found in The Gospel of
Thomas with significant differences in editing and emphasis. From this,
scholars conclude that the original parable was appropriated by each
writer/redactor, changed and arranged to make their own points. But there is
agreement that the core parable can be traced back to a single source. And that
core is what Jesus’ original audience heard.
In our search for the core of the parable, let’s touch on a
few common interpretations. As we do so we will peel away some of the layers
that have been added over the course of Christian history.
One of the most common interpretations treats the parables
of the lost sheep and the lost coin as allegories, where the shepherd and the
woman represent God, who goes to search for the lost sheep and lost coin. The
sheep and coin, within this interpretation, represent those who have gone
astray from God. God offers gracious forgiveness and reconciliation as they are
found and brought back. This is indeed good news and a description of God, but it
does not challenge or provoke. Parables are supposed to be challenging and
provocative.
The writer/redactor of Luke, himself, adds a layer of
allegory by placing an interpretive commentary at the end of each of the
parables.
“In the same way, I tell you, there
will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who changes both heart and life than
over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need to change their hearts and
lives.” (Luke 15:7 CEB)
“In the same way, I tell you, joy
breaks out in the presence of God’s angels over one sinner who changes both
heart and life.” (Luke 15:10 CEB)
By adding these verses, Luke attempts to fit the parables to
his narrative setting. The setting is that the Pharisees and scribes accused Jesus
of welcoming and hosting sinners at his table. In this narrative context the
parables are Jesus’ response to their criticism of him. And Luke constrains the
interpretation to fit into the narrative by making them about repentance and
returning to God. It describes God’s desire. It might even be a critique of
religious leadership. But it does little to challenge or provoke.
There is too, a problem of assigning to God the allegorical
roles of the shepherd and the woman. In the first parable, the shepherd loses
one of his sheep. In the second, the woman loses one of her coins. They each
bear responsibility for their loss. If they represent God, then we have a
problem of God losing things. In fact, in the second parable, the woman admits she
lost the coin.
What about the parable of the sheep? We often end up
conflating multiple similar stories and assume things about them. In the
Matthew version of the parable, the sheep is said to have “gone astray.” While
ambiguous, some interpreters have suggested that this is an allegorical image
of people voluntarily straying. The parable of the Good Shepherd in John is
also often read into the parable of the ninety-nine and one sheep. But when we
take what is found in Luke, and especially when read alongside the parable of
the lost coin, the audience is expected to understand that the shepherd was perhaps
careless and lost a sheep.
Another problem regards the repenting commentary inserted by
Luke. Neither sheep nor coin can repent. It takes a bit of interpretive creativity
beyond what is in the text to allow sheep and coins to repent.
When the parable of the prodigal is also considered, it
might seem that the younger son repents and returns home. We don’t have time
today to consider this parable in detail, but there is a strong case to be made
that the idea of repentance is absent from that parable also.
If these parables initially weren’t about God’s search for
sinners or repentant Christians, what were they about?
In each parable, the owner loses something of value. They
recognize the loss. Something that was whole and complete is now incomplete.
The owner makes great effort to find and recover what was lost. When they do,
what had become incomplete is restored to completeness. They admit
responsibility for their part in causing the loss to occur. And there is joy,
and the community is invited to participate in the rejoicing.
These parables challenge and provoke us in several ways. First,
are we even aware that our community is incomplete? Are we aware of who or what
is missing, who might have been driven out, and who might have drifted away? Have
we made any efforts to search for them and bring them back into community? Have
we examined ourselves and our community to understand why some may have left or
wandered away? Do we bear responsibility for any of the losses? Can we admit
them? And do we genuinely want the messiness of a diverse community with different
viewpoints, approaches, and experiences?
The main characters in each parable simply bring what was
lost back into fellowship with others of its kind. There are no sermons. There
are no altar calls. There are no confessions made. They are simply returned to
community. This too, is a provocation and a challenge. The community that Jesus
founded is larger than any human made boundaries. Can we appreciate and imitate
Jesus’ inclusiveness?
I conclude with words by Amy-Jill Levine from her discussion
of these parables,
Recognize that the one you have
lost may be right in your own household. Do whatever it takes to find the lost
and then celebrate with others, both so that you can share the joy and so that
the others will help prevent the recovered from ever being lost again. Don’t
wait until you receive an apology; you may never get one. Don’t wait until you
can muster the ability to forgive; you may never find it. Don’t stew in your
sense of being ignored, for there is nothing that can be done to retrieve the
past.
Instead, go have lunch. Go
celebrate, and invite others to join you. If the repenting and the forgiving
come later, so much the better. And if not, you still will have done what is
necessary. You will have begun a process that might lead to reconciliation. You
will have opened a second chance for wholeness. Take advantage of
resurrection—it is unlikely to happen twice.
In the name of God who creates,
In the name of God who reconciles,
And in the name of God who challenges us to be reconcilers,
Amen.
Bibliography
Bailey, K. E. (1976, 1980). Poet & Peasant
and Through Peasant Eyes (Combined Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans.
Green, J. B. (1997). New International Commentary
on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans.
Levine, A.-J. (2014). Short Stories by Jesus: The
Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York, NY: HarperCollins
Publishers, Inc.
William B. Eerdmans. (2003). Eerdman's Commentary
on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.
No comments:
Post a Comment