Carey's Bible Study Notes
home |
life of christ |
association with sinners
life of christ: luke 15.1-32
jesus defends his association with sinners
introduction
With this passage we continue to study the last year of Jesus� 3-year ministry. Several times we have pointed out that the common denominator in Jesus� teachings during this year is humility. Jesus declares that He not only is the Messiah but that He is the humble Messiah who willingly submits to a humiliating death at the hands of the Jewish religious leaders. Moreover, He declares that since He is humble, His followers likewise are to be humble by being willing to suffer martyrdom for His sake, by serving others like the Good Samaritan, and by engaging in the Lord�s kind of prayer.
Many times when Christians interpret and apply this text, they dismiss verses 1 and 2 as being important for the overall understanding of the text. Such an approach rips the passages from their context. Now these Christians do mine some wonderful teachings and applications from the text; however, they then miss the main point Jesus has been emphasizing. WE want to hear what JESUS has to say from this text and not just derive some touching devotional thought from it.
The present passage carries on the theme of humility by describing the way Jesus defended His association with the religious outcasts of Jewish society, the tax collectors and sinners. Most Jews believed that when the Messiah came, He would hobnob with the upper crust of society, not the dregs of society. As a result, Jesus associating with these outcasts really rankled the Jewish religious leaders. Whereas they were willing to associate with these outcasts AFTER they had repented and gotten their lives straight, the religious leaders would have thought it completely wrong to associate with them beforehand. They feared that such contact would pollute and defile them.
the parables of the good shepherd and the diligent woman (Luke 15.1-10)
the two parables
As was His custom, Jesus was dining with the tax collectors and sinners. Such an act really rankled the religious leaders (scribes and Pharisees) first because of whom Jesus was associating with and second because of what He was doing while with them. First, they were angry with Jesus because He was associating with Roman collaborators (tax collectors) and also with people the religious leaders considered ceremonially impure (sinners) because they did not strictly observe the 436 laws the religious leaders imposed upon themselves. Second, they were angry with Jesus because He was dining with them. Throughout Matthew, Mark, and Luke you see an emphasis on Jesus dining with people. The Jews compared the kingdom of God to a banquet since a banquet adequately portrayed the joy associated with the coming of the kingdom of God. By dining with these people, Jesus was claiming that He the Messiah was inviting such lowlife to be a part of the kingdom of God. In response to their attitude Jesus relates 3 parables. Keep this context in mind because it really determines the main emphases of this section.
Before we look at the parables, we need to see how this passage applies to us. Today we don�t worry about tax collectors, etc.; however, Christians today can be just as snobbish as the religious leaders of Jesus� day. Look at whom we associate with. Is the only thing which determines whether or not we have a relationship with somebody is their desire or lack of desire to be with Jesus? Sometimes our best friends could not care less about Christ. On the other hand, do we neglect some people not as socially sophisticated as ourselves even though they have a sincere love for Christ? That�s the attitude Jesus is addressing in this chapter.
First, Jesus describes the action of a shepherd who has discovered he has lost one of his sheep. This particular shepherd owned a flock of sheep which numbered 100. During the day the shepherd would take his flock out of an enclosure and then lead them to pasture. Along the way to the pasture, the younger or older sheep might get tired and lag too far behind the rest of the flock. On the other hand, sometimes the flock had to negotiate some treacherous terrain along the way. The sheep could easily fall off a ledge and get separated from the flock. Being separated from the rest of the flock was made even more possible because the shepherd went ahead of the flock and did not see everything happening to the flock. When the shepherd finally got the flock to the pasture, he would count them to see if any were missing. After doing a head count, he discovers that one is missing. He also knew which one was missing because shepherds actually had a healthy relationship with the sheep, knowing each one by the nickname he had given them.
The shepherd then leaves the 99 remaining sheep in the pasture and then heads out to find the one lost sheep. Note that although his leaving the 99 posed a risk to them, he was still willing to risk losing them for the sake of the one lost sheep. The truth is that one sheep was definitely lost and would perish if he did not go try to save it. He might lose the 99; however, that was only a possibility. Losing the one would be a certainty if he did not retrace his steps to find it. What�s the loss of just one sheep though? He is a conscientious shepherd who cares for the entire flock, not just the vast majority of the flock. As such, he is determined to find that one lost sheep.
He searches until he finds that lost sheep. He does not upbraid the sheep for getting lost but instead gently places him upon his shoulders and brings him back to the rest of the flock. (Apparently the sheep is too tired to walk since the shepherd carries it on his shoulders.) When the shepherd returns to the flock, he is so excited he has found the lost sheep that he calls together his fellow shepherds and invites them to join with him in rejoicing over his recovery of the lost sheep.
The second parable Jesus gives concerns a woman who possesses 10 silver coins (drachmas) of which one of them is missing. This coin would have been equivalent to one day�s worth of wages ($100-300). Moreover, this silver coin very well could have formed part of her dowry. Women in the first century would wear these silver coins as a necklace around their necks so that they could prance around the community and demonstrate their value.
When the woman discovers that one of the coins is missing, she gets down to business to discover the lost coin. Since a door provided the only outside light into the house, she lit a lamp. Moreover, she took a broom and swept the floor, hoping that the broom brushing up against the coin would create some clinkling sound. Finally, when she recovers the coin, she calls in her neighbors and invites them to rejoice with her in her discovery.
the meaning of the two parables
First, remember that this is addressed to the scribes and religious leaders who are angry at Jesus for associating with the lowlife of society; therefore, Jesus is addressing those in the church (or society) who criticize other Christians for associating with the outcasts of society and of the church. I remember that when Nancy and I moved to a new city we became good friends with a certain couple which unbeknownst to us raised a few eyebrows. People wondered why of all the great couples in the church we would associate with this particular couple. I don�t know about you, but I feel that if a person is a Christian, there is no limit to that person�s potential because of Jesus Christ living in them. If that person is not a Christian, that person still has the potential to become a Christian and reach their potential. If we Christians exclude such persons, they will either never be saved or else never reach their full potential if they are Christians. Moreover, I of all people don�t feel like I should ever look down on anybody. When I was 20 years old, I hit rock bottom. I was not necessarily the kind of person people would want to associate with. Well, if God was willing to reach down to somebody like me, who am I to refuse to reach down to others the society and Christians consider less desirable? I don�t know how many times I�ve seen parents of youth get upset because a youth minister invited a "less than desirable" young person to become a part of a youth group. Those parents want the youth ministers to minister primarily to their children. Jesus is addressing that very parent.
Second, Jesus is arguing from the lesser to greater. If a shepherd should rightfully rejoice over the recovery of a sheep and a woman over the recovery of a piece of metal, how much more should the Father (and we) rejoice over the reclaiming of a human being. Sheep and coins are important but their importance pales in comparison to the importance of a human being, one for whom Christ died.
Moreover, one of the main symbols of God (and the Messiah) in the OT is the shepherd (Ps. 23). Well, if a human shepherd is commended for being conscientious (notice that the text does not criticize him for being conscientious; it assumes we would laud him for such behavior), then how much more so should the Father be a conscientious shepherd? What a sad commentary about God would it be if human shepherds were more conscientious about their tasks than Him. The fact that the religious leaders would commend the human shepherd but not the divine one for showing compassion to people shows they value animals more than human beings. By associating with the religious outcasts, Jesus is reflecting the attitude of His Father.
the parable of the gracious father (Luke 15.11-32)
After giving these first two parables, Jesus relates what is probably the most beloved parable in the NT, the parable of the Prodigal Son. Two things before we look at the parable. First, we need to remember to look at it in light of its context. Jesus is addressing the Jewish religious leaders and their attitude towards religious outcasts. Any interpretation which neglects this context will come up short. Second, whereas most of us call this parable the parable of the Prodigal Son, a more appropriate title would probably be the Parable of the Gracious Father because He is the central figure in not just part one of the parable but in both parts of the parable.
The Father has 2 sons. The younger one approaches his Dad and demands that he give him his share of the inheritance. Although the Father was not required to comply with the request, this Father complies most likely because he knows that forcing the son to stay at home will only make matters worse. In accordance with Jewish custom which mandated that the elder son receive twice as much as the younger son, the Father gives the younger son one third of his possessions. Since these possessions would take the form of land and cattle, the son sells all he has just inherited and leaves the home place. He does not simply leave the home place but actually gets as far away as possible from his tyrannical Father by going to a distant country.
While the younger son is in the distant country, he engages in what Luke calls "unsaveable" behavior. By "unsaveable," Luke means that there is nothing redeemable about the younger son�s behavior. All his actions are wicked. Just exactly what the younger son did does not matter. All that matters is that he is living a life which contradicts everything his Father has taught him.
Since the younger son has been engaged in unproductive behavior, a day comes when the money runs out. Now as luck would have it, the moment the money runs out a famine hits the land where he is living. Now if that famine had hit while he still had money, he probably would have wised up and saved enough for such an occasion; however, that�s not the way God operates. When we are living in sin, He is not interested in helping us wise up so that we can continue to live in sin. He is not interested in our comfort but in saving our lives.
With no money in his pockets, the younger son now looks for work. The only work he can find is feeding some man�s pigs. He has gone from living high on the hog to feeding hogs. Such work would be detestable to any person but much more so to a Jew who considered swine to be unclean animals. Furthermore, he still can�t find anything to eat and is therefore reduced to eating the slop (seeds from carob trees) meant for the hogs. At this point the Father does not rush in to save him. He wants His son to repent, and to step in at this point would short-circuit what He is trying to accomplish in his life. Feeding pigs is not the worst thing that can happen to you. Living far away from the Father is.
The younger son has now reached the end of his rope. He can�t go any lower, and he knows it. Luke says at this point that he comes to his senses. Literally he says he comes back home to his own head. For the past several months he has been acting like he is out of his mind. Now he returns home to that mind. He does not lament the fact that he lived an irredeemable life for the past several months. He focuses on the main problem, that is, he left his Father�s home. Too many times people think, "If I had only done such and such, this terrible thing would have never happened," when all along the main problem was that the person had left God. Moreover, he reasons that the life his Father�s hired hands live is far better than the life he is experiencing right now. He realizes that he no longer has the right to claim to be his Father�s son. Look at how differently he is acting now. Earlier he had demanded his inheritance from his Father. Now he feels that he has no right even to claim Him as his Father. This is genuine repentance. He will go home and ask his Father to let him serve only as his hired hand.
Luke next shifts the scene to the Father. Apparently the Father is going about his daily business, running the family homestead. Yet even while he goes about the business, he constantly looks down the road out of the corner of his eye. That is the direction his son took when he left home, and that will be the direction his son will return if he ever comes back home.
At a distance the Father sees the frame of a man coming up the road to the house. His heart starts to race within him because�could it possibly be his son? It is him! The Father does not rush into the house, close the doors, and demand that this recalcitrant young man stay with some neighbors until he has had time to process the son�s coming home. The Father tears down the road as fast as he can because his son is coming home. As soon as he meets the son, he begins to kiss him repeatedly. The younger son tries to get out the speech he has made up for this occasion, "Father, I have sinned against you and heaven! Let me . . ." Apparently the Father does not even give him time to finish. Instead, he commands his servants to drape his son with the best robe, the robe of honor reserved for guests; to put sandals on his feet because he was a son and not a slave; and finally, to put a ring on his finger in order to show that he wields the Father�s authority. Next, the father commands that the servants kill the fatted calf which was being saved for such a joyous occasion as this. "No squash tonight! We�re having rib-eye!"
While all this commotion is going on, the elder son has been working in the fields. When he approaches the house, he asks some of the hired hands what all the racket is about. The hired hand informs him that his younger brother has just returned home and that the Father is preparing a banquet in his honor. The older brother cannot believe his ears. He is furious that the Father would honor the son in light of what he had done. He refuses to come up to the house and attend the feast.
The Father�s response? He rushes out to the older son just like he had rushed out to the younger son. He loves the older son as much as he loves the younger. He invites the older son to come and join in the feast he has prepared in honor of his son�s return. The older son lashes out at the Father. "For lo these many years, I have slaved for you (note how he did not have a love relationship with his Father but one of servitude and slavery), and yet what have you done for me in return? You�ve never even as much prepared a kid for my friends and me. Yet when this degenerate son of yours returns home (see how he refuses to acknowledge him as his brother but instead calls him your son), this son who has consorted with prostitutes (How did he know this? Was he projecting what he would have done upon his younger brother?), you prepare a feast for him. I will not join the feast." The Father though pleads with the older son. He assures him that everything he has belongs to the older son. Yet now that the younger son has returned home, it is only right, it is morally necessary that they all celebrate his homecoming because once this son was as good as dead, and yet he lives; once this son was as good as lost, and yet now he has been found." If this Father had not acted this way, what kind of Father would He have been?
At this point Jesus breaks off the parable. He does not tell us how the older son responded because He is leaving it up to each individual hearer to complete the story for himself. The audience (the scribes and religious leaders, you and I) are like the older son. Are we going to respond positively to the Father�s invitation and join Him in celebrating the return of any and all of His prodigal children, or are we going to harden our hearts and refuse to join in on the celebration? The decision is up to each and every one of us. Attending the feast though is not academic. Attending is important because the feast represents fellowship with the Father, the very essence of eternal life and heaven. To refuse to participate in the feast means that I miss out on eternal life.