Volumes have been written and (probably) tons of ink used on the exegesis and exposition of Luke 15. It contains three of the most popular parables of Jesus: the lost sheep, the lost coin, the the lost child.
Here, I’m not attempting a critical discussion of the chapter, but some general topics and questions I might consider if I were to use this chapter in a sermon or study.
The Opening
15:1 Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him.2 And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.” (NRSV, and all that follows)
This sets the stage and forms the crux of interpretation. The three parables are Jesus’ response to the religious establishment of their criticism of his behavior.
“Sinner” is a term that is used, not by Jesus, but by the religious establishment. It was certainly a legal term for them in that the “sinners” were in violation of what they considered laws defining ritual purity, which in turn defined who was a “true Jew.” But we should be careful about extending “sinner” to mean “people who violate the law.” It is much more a social violation when brought into the 21st century.
Thus it appears that the primary issue is that Jesus, as a rabbi, as one who is supposed to be teaching the meaning of the Law, is including among his group and associating with those that the Law defines as “outside.”
The Lost Sheep
3 So he told them this parable: 4 “Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? 5 When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders and rejoices. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ 7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
The crux of this pericope is “joy.” When something that is lost is found, there ought to be rejoicing.
It’s interesting that Jesus uses the term “losing” and “lost.” One does not lose something that he or she never had. Could it be that Jesus is saying that all the people the religious establishment considers “outside” really belongs together with them? And who is doing the “losing” in this parable? The common interpretation is that the shepherd is Jesus or God, but is it really? Should the shepherd of this parable more properly be seen as the “insiders”? How would that change the perspective and meaning of this parable? Maybe this parable is Jesus saying to his critics, “This is how you ought to be acting.”
Given the defining of “sinner” in the introduction, maybe Jesus’ use of “sinner” here needs to be reconsidered. Maybe Jesus is using it and “repent” in an ironic sense. Maybe Jesus is using these terms as it would look from the perspective of the religious establishment.
The traditional interpretation that I’ve heard over and over in regards to the “ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” is that this is talking about the self-righteous people who think they don’t need to repent. But maybe the problem is once again, we are projecting our legal and moral ideas of repentance onto the parable. Maybe Jesus is continuing his ironic usage.
The point of this parable seems to be that when those who were outside are brought in, by whatever means, instead of criticism, there ought to be joy and celebration.
The Lost Coin
8 “Or what woman having ten silver coins, if she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? 9 When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ 10 Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
Joy is again the crux of this second parable.
Once more the coin is “lost” meaning the coin belonged to the owner, the woman, originally.
A coin has even less self-determination than sheep. In fact, a coin has none. So how was the coin “lost”? Maybe someone else came in the house, played with it, and lost it. Or more likely, it was the woman herself that lost it. Like the previous parable, is the woman a representation of Jesus, or is she a representation of Jesus’ critics?
I think these parables follow in the pattern of “how much more” motifs found in many other parables of Jesus. If a shepherd goes looking for a single sheep out of a hundred, and if a woman will turn the house upside down to look for a single coin (and maybe they bear some responsibility for the loss), and upon finding their lost belongings they call the entire village to celebrate, how much more should the religious community go seeking after those they have alienated and rejoice and celebrate when they return?
Once more, the main focus should be on the joy and rejoicing. I think the repentance aspect is partially ironically used, and is not the focus.
The Lost Child
The Prodigal parable, in particular, has been the subject of thousands and perhaps millions of books, commentaries, sermons, lectures, etc. But what happens if it is seen as the climax of the earlier two parables and the definitive response to Jesus’ critics? How does this third parable retain, yet expand on the themes and messages from the two earlier parables? How the preacher works through this thematic unity is key.
The younger son, unlike the sheep and the coin, has volition. He ought to be responsible for taking himself out of the community, for violating ritual purity, for turning himself into an outsider. He was very much an insider, but for whatever reasons he intentionally made himself an outsider. Now he returns. He doesn’t think he can be accepted back fully into the community. He just wants the scraps of being on the edge. But the father demands that he be fully reinstated as an insider.
The parable speaks directly to the criticism that the religious establishment made of Jesus. These “tax collectors and sinners” were born Jews, but due to their choice (maybe they had a choice, maybe not) of occupation or their disregard for purity, have taken themselves out of the circle of Jewish purity.
How should the community respond when they decide to return? The younger son’s assumption that he would be fine on the margins is one possible response. The tax collectors and sinners who want to come back may do so, but they will always be second-class. The older son’s response may be another possible response: they cannot return; they will forever be outside because they have voluntarily given up being a Jew.
The father’s response is a third possibility: full acceptance. And what ties all three parables together is the joy and celebration upon recovering what was lost.
Traditionally the father has been interpreted to be Jesus and/or God. I don’t see anything wrong with that. But perhaps it is broader. Perhaps in this third parable, Jesus is including everyone among the three characters. Perhaps Jesus is asking with which each hearer will choose to identify.
I think it is interesting that no reason is given for the younger son’s initial demand to leave. For some reason he does not like being home and does not like the father. Perhaps it is rebellion, but the initial character of the father is not given. Perhaps it isn’t a stretch to give an interpretation that the father and the home initially represents collectively the religious leaders and the environment of Jesus’ time (of which Jesus is a part and a leader, we must remember). Maybe the father is responsible for losing the son (as is the case with the previous two parables). How might this change how this parable is read? Or maybe the father is the same throughout the parable, but the younger son is receiving his impressions of the father from his older brother and his relationship to the father.
Perhaps as the story progresses, the father does become more of a representation of Jesus. Or perhaps Jesus is asking a question directed toward the religious leaders:
You are the fathers of this community. You are seeing prodigals returning home. You see them coming to you way off in the distance. What is your response?
Jesus is telling them, “As a rabbi, a teacher within this community, as a ‘father’ figure, this is how I am responding to the lost children of my community.”
I think it is important to keep in mind that this is a parable and not an allegory. Meanings are not clear-cut, one-to-one correspondence is not necessary, and symbols may change within a single parable.
By the end of the parable, when the older son enters the stage, the father is a symbol for Jesus and the older son a symbol for those who would deny the returnees a welcome. I think the parable is about the artificial constructs of “insider” and “outsider.” For Jesus there is no distinction. The only “repentance” Jesus recognizes is the simple desire to belong. There are no rituals or purity codes that one must conform to in order to belong.
What Are These Parables About?
It’s not about salvation. Or at least not about how people are saved or what God does in order to save.
And yet, it’s about salvation. If salvation is understood as belonging in God’s family, then it’s about welcoming everyone who wants to come in.
It’s not about sacrifice. The sheep, nor the coin, nor the son demanded their owners/father to do something to find and restore them. The shepherd did not take the place of the lost sheep; they came home together. The woman did not have to give something up in order to recover the coin. The father did not pay for his son’s return, nor did he send the older brother in his place.
And yet, it’s about sacrifice. The shepherd chose to risk his time and possibly his life, depending on where the sheep was and what threats might have been encountered. But these were not things that were demanded. The woman chose to give up her time and get dirty because the possibility of finding her lost coin was worth so much more. However, time and filth weren’t demanded of the woman as a prerequisite for finding her coin. The father chose to give up his dignity and incur the wrath of his older son (and quite likely that of the entire village) to restore his younger son to full belonging. These were consequential costs, but they were not required costs for the restoration.
It’s not about evangelism. If by evangelism it is meant as going out and preaching about sin and repentance.
And yet, it’s about evangelism. At least in these parables, the kind of evangelism the shepherd, the woman, and the father does is to correct past errors, whether they be of one’s own doing or of someone else’s.
It’s about our distaste for God’s inclusiveness. All religions draw and create boundaries. Or maybe it is the drawing of boundaries that is the first step toward creation of a religion. We want to control who’s in and who’s out. And in the process I wonder if we draw God out.
It’s about celebration. The one common theme that runs through all three parables is celebration. God’s family ought to be known as one that is always celebrating.
No comments:
Post a Comment