24th Sunday in Ordinary Time (C)

Readings:

1. Exodus 32.7-11,13-14
   Psalm 51.3-4, 12-13, 17, 19   Response:  “I will rise and go to my father.”
2. 1 Timothy 1.12-17
3. Luke 15.1-10 (shorter form) or Luke 15.1-32 (longer form)

Reflections on the Gospel Reading

Some consider the three parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and especially the lost son to be the heart of Luke’s Gospel.  Certainly, these stories of God’s active concern in seeking out those whom people consider worthless have left an indelible mark on the Christian imagination.

Luke has woven these three parables into a tight literary whole so that the interpretation of any one of them presumes the others.  Since we have read the parable of the lost son on the fourth Sunday of Lent in Cycle C, I will concentrate on the other two parables that are included in the shorter form of today’s gospel reading.  However, the parable of the lost son always remains in the background and sometimes overwhelms the interpretation of the other two parables.

The Setting

Luke has shaped his narrative by placing all three parables in the same plausible setting – a conflict between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees over his practice of sharing meals with toll collectors and “sinners.”  Luke ends chapter 14 with Jesus’ admonition: “Let anyone with ears to hear listen!” (Lk 14.34 NRSV) Then Luke begins chapter 15 by pointing out two groups, tax collectors and sinners, who responded to Jesus’ challenge.  They draw near to Jesus and listen to him – both signs of conversion, of changing their outlook, of responding to the proclamation of the coming reign of God.

Luke also implies, through the objections of the Pharisees and scribes, that Jesus receives or welcomes sinners.  In other words, he hosts a dinner to which they are invited.  Apart from the Last Supper, none of the gospel writers ever describes a dinner where Jesus is actually the host and not just a guest.  Could it be that Luke shapes the introduction to evoke the Christian liturgy where Jesus is the host of the banquet?  Eugene LaVerdiere comments: “Luke has thus adopted the historical setting to evoke the fellowship of early Christians gathered at the table of the Lord.” (1990, 199)

The objections of the Pharisees and scribes have some merit, especially in a society that is status conscious and rigidly stratified.  “It was axiomatic in the ancient world that table fellowship, like hospitality, symbolized spiritual unity (cf. 2 John 11).” (Johnson 1991, 99) Why would Jesus eat with social outcasts, violators of religious laws, and immoral people?  Luke lines up three parables to answer a question that was relevant to his own audience and continues to be relevant to this day,

Similarities

Luke has paired a parable with a male actor with a parable with a female actor.  However, in almost every other respect the structure of the two parables is the same:  1) a loss, 2) a search, 3) a finding, 4) a gathering of male or female friends and neighbors, and 5) a call to communal rejoicing.  Luke has written an application for each parable that doesn’t really fit but is very pertinent to the parable of the lost son, which curiously does not have an application of its own.

The Lost Sheep

Luke adapts this parable from Q.  A similar parable is found in Matthew 18.12-14 in a much different setting.  It is also found in two ancient but non-canonical gospels, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Truth.  Although the setting in a dispute with the Pharisees and scribes is probably due to Luke’s editing, there is little doubt that the general outlines of the parable go back to Jesus himself.

Saying 107 of the Gospel of Thomas begins: “Jesus said:  The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep . . .” (Schneemelcher 1991, 129; Funk et al. 1993, 529) Very likely, in its original setting the parable of the lost sheep was a kingdom parable that Jesus used to describe the coming reign of God, and by extension God’s own character.  In Luke’s transmission of the parable there is no indication of any fault on the part of the sheep that would require conversion.  The sheep is simply lost.  All the emphasis is on the man’s¹ (Luke never uses the word ‘shepherd.’) relentless search that only ends when the sheep is actually found.

The parable by itself (that is, without Luke’s application in verse 7) reflects the irony characteristic of many of Jesus’ authentic parables.  Jesus’ question “Which man of you . . . does not leave the ninety-nine in the desert [wilderness] . . .” grammatically requires the response:  “Yes, we would do the same.”  In fact, however, the man’s behavior is quite odd.  As Arlen J. Hultgren observes: “[I]t is actually quite surprising that the shepherd should leave the ninety-nine and go looking for [the single lost sheep].” (2000, 52) No sensible or experienced shepherd would leave the 99 in danger of predators without any time limit for his return.  He would have been content to cover his loss.  By contrast, “God is portrayed as remarkably and even recklessly active in pursuit of wayward persons.” (Cousar et al. 1994, 507)

Jesus is saying that God is like that.  For some reason God considers social outcasts and even immoral people to be special.  God seeks them out relentlessly in order to bring them back into the community. It is important to note: “Such searching gives value to those being sought.” (Cousar et al. 1994, 525) Jesus’ practice of eating with “sinners” reflects the very action of God and is a sign that God’s reign is already breaking in.

Given this, Luke’s application of the parable seems to miss the mark.  “I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven [a circumlocution for God?] over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.” (Lk 15:7) This conclusion would be appropriate for the missing application of the parable of the lost son where the younger son clearly turns away from immoral activity, but there is no example of that kind of sin or conversion in the parable of the lost sheep.

However, as Hultgren observes, “[t]he word ‘repentance’ (metanoia) should not be taken in a moralistic sense.  Essentially it means a change of mind, and for Luke it is above all a gift that is granted by God himself (cf. Acts 5:31, 11:18), a concept arising out of Jewish wisdom tradition (cf. Wisdom 11:23, 12:10, 19).” (2000, 60) If that is Luke’s sense of “repentence,” then the application would refer to God’s rejoicing in anyone who gets the point of Jesus’ proclamation of the reign of God and changes her or his outlook – even if they are despised members of the lower classes.

The application also reflects Jesus’ irony, even sarcasm, in the mention of “ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.”  “For Luke, the Pharisees and scribes actually do need repentance (cf. Lk 7:30, 11:39-44, 12:1, 16:14-15).” (Hultgren 2000, 60)

The Lost Coin

The companion parable of the lost coin, found only in Luke, “is quite remarkable, for it portrays a woman as a metaphor for God.  No other parable does so.” (Hultgren 2000, 64) It closely parallels the structure of the parable of the lost sheep but places more emphasis on the search.  The man searches for the lost sheep “until he finds it.”  The woman conducts a thorough search.  She lights a lamp (probably to search in a windowless house), sweeps the house, and searches “carefully” (a word used only here in the New Testament).

The same irony is present in the contrast between the grammatically expected reply to Jesus’ question is at odds with what one would normally expect.  Why all this fuss for a relatively worthless coin?  It would probably turn up eventually anyway.

Numerous attempts have been made to explain the woman’s search.  Some have said that the coin was part of a wedding crown or part of the woman’s dowry.  Others have said that because she was so poor the coin meant a lot to the woman.  Still others have suggested that since some ancient authors equated the Greek drachma with the Roman denarius (equivalent to a day’s wages) the ten drachmas would have represented a tidy sum, and the woman did not want to be accused of stealing the drachma.²  Hence, her relief in finding it and her invitation to all the women in the neighborhood to squelch any rumors that she had stolen the coin.

However, the story really portrays “an exaggerated effort to recover a coin of little value.” (Funk et. al. 1993, 355) The point is that something people consider of no great value is of great value to the woman in the parable.  Thus, the emphasis remains on the woman as a metaphor for God, who searches and finds the “lost,” that is, the worthless members of society, the social and religious outcasts, even more than the upright and honorable people.

Luke’s application of the parable in verse 10 likewise fits better with the parable of the lost son if it is taken in a moralistic sense of turning away from evil deeds.  (The coin is incapable of repentance in that sense.)   However, it fits if repentance is seen as coming to a new awareness or changing one’s mind to acknowledge the preaching of Jesus, even though one belongs to the despised classes of society.

Joy

The three parables are suffused with transcendent joy.  The joy of the finders spreads to everybody in the neighborhood, to the whole village, and even to God and the heavenly court of angels.   There is no escaping it.  As the father tells his elder son, “We had to celebrate and rejoice.”  (Luke 15.32 NRSV Emphasis mine.)

The theme of the joy of discovery was well known to Luke’s Hellenistic audience, especially in the story of Archimedes.  In the baths of Syracuse Archimedes was puzzling over the problem of how to tell if a crown was pure gold or an alloy of gold and baser metals.  While watching bathers of different sizes enter the pool the solution suddenly struck him.  If the crowns weigh the same, weigh them in water!  The one with baser metals will have a greater volume, displace more water, and weigh less in water!  It is said that the insight was so powerful that Archimedes leapt from the baths and ran naked through the streets of Syracuse shouting “eureka,” Greek for “I have found it!”

Luke uses the same “eureka” word in all three parables to describe the experience of finding something precious that had been lost with the accompanying joy that was so great that it had to be shared.  Luke’s message is clear.  God is like that.  God pursues nobodies and experiences delight whenever one gets the point of the gospel message or turns from sin.  In imitation of God the community of believers must seek out all classes of people and rejoice as they welcome them into their company.

Contemporary Application

Like any writer, Luke wrote for a certain audience and with a certain purpose in mind.  Eugene LaVerdiere thinks that Luke was writing for the early Christian community where the openness and universality of fellowship at the table of the Lord “was being challenged by the self-righteous who protested the presence of sinners.”  (1990, 199) The parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin combat this tendency by providing the grounds for Jesus’ openness to “sinners.”  If that is the case, the two parables can be read as a rebuke to the Christian community and an attempt to call Luke’s readers back to the ideal of the Christian meal as a joyful, inclusive banquet of salvation. (See LaVerdiere 1990, 2002.)

Separated from the parable of the lost son and Luke’s applications in verses 7 and 10, these two stories are metaphors for God’s strange action of reaching out to social and religious outcasts as well as immoral people. One could describe it as God’s “preferential option for the poor.” (Latin American Bishops’ Conference, Puebla, Mexico, 1979) It should come as no surprise that the most rapid expansion of Christianity is taking place in the poorest countries of the world, among those Franz Fanon called “the wretched of the earth.”  Their eager response to the proclamation of God’s coming reign of justice and peace should be an example to all of us.

Perhaps, joy says it best.  Read in conjunction with the parable of the lost son, these two parables epitomize a theme that is so characteristic of Luke’s Gospel.  Whenever anyone, immoral or not, catches on to the message of Jesus it is a cause for rejoicing.  Who are we to be silent when God is glad?

________________________________

Explanatory Note:

Q   “Q” (from the German “Quelle” or “source”) stands for a lost written document made up almost entirely of sayings of Jesus which scholars have reconstructed from an analysis of passages in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke which are very similar to each other but generally not found in the Gospel of Mark.  Examples would be the Sermon on the Mount or the Lord’s Prayer.  These scholars hold that Matthew and Luke were written independently. However, each of the authors had access to written copies of Mark and Q.

­­­­­­__________________________________

An Additional Question:  Why three parables instead of just one?

Luke has crafted the parable of the lost son so artfully that one would think that it could have stood alone.  Why did he add the other two parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin?  One can’t read Luke’s mind, but the following are some possibilities:

1. Emphasis on divine initiative

Any comparison limps.  Read alone, the parable of the lost son could lead to the impression that God is passive with regard to sinners.  The father does look for the younger son and run out to meet him – but only after the son comes to his senses and takes action.  The other two parables are powerful metaphors for God’s initiative and persistence in actively searching out the lost. Thus, these two short parables complement and fill out Jesus’ teaching about God in the longer parable.

2. Authentication of the parable of the lost son with an acknowledged parable of Jesus

Although he thoroughly reworked the parable of the lost son, Luke seems to have taken it from his own special source, which was not well known.  On the other hand, Luke took the parable of the lost sheep from Q, which seems to have circulated more widely.  Matthew also takes the parable of the lost sheep from Q (18.12-14), but he places it in a much different setting.  Other versions of the parable of the lost sheep have been found in two ancient but non-canonical gospels, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Truth.  Among other things, by adding the parable of the lost sheep Luke seems to have been trying to confirm the authenticity of the parable of the lost son that would be new to many of his readers.

Although they don’t stress the element of loss, the authentic parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl of great value (Matthew 13.44-46; Thomas 109 & 76) could well have served this purpose with their themes of search, discovery, and joy.  However, Luke seems to have been unaware of Matthew’s Gospel in its final form.

3. Ambiguity of “sinner”

At the time of Luke’s writing the word “sinner” was ambiguous.  Obviously, it referred to a person who committed immoral acts.  The parable of the lost son illustrates the violation of the commandment to honor one’s father and mother by both of the sons.  Clearly, the two sons engage in immoral activity and stand in need of moral conversion.

However, in the class conscious and extremely stratified society of the first century, “sinner” had another meaning.  It referred to people who violated religious laws and customs.  The label of sinner fell heavily upon the poorer classes.  Many, if not most, of them could not afford to pay the annual temple tax or observe various rituals that the upper classes considered essential.  Out of desperation to feed their families some of them engaged in occupations that were despised either because they involved ritual impurity or because they were too closely associated with the Roman occupation.  These people were also considered sinners and social outcasts.

Unlike the parable of the lost son, the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin do not involve any immoral action on the part of what was lost.  The implication is that God’s mercy extends to social outcasts as well as to immoral people.

4. Ambiguity of “repentance”

The Greek word metánoia is also ambiguous.  In English we usually translate it as “repentance” or “conversion.”  However, as noted above, the word “repentance” (metánoia) should not always be taken in a moralistic sense.  Basically, the Greek word means “a change of mind.” Thus, in the parable of the lost son the moment of conversion or repentance is when the younger son “comes to his senses” and realizes the absurdity of his situation as well as a way out.  Although it leads to moral action, repentance itself is a moment of insight or discovery in which one adopts a whole new perspective on the world.

The parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin are important complements to the parable of the lost son because they illustrate repentance in a non-moralistic sense.  The man and the woman in the parables are each a metaphor for God.  However, they also model the very repentance they speak of.  The conversion experience itself is very much like finding a precious thing that was lost.  Contrary to what the dominant social and religious classes would expect, it is the social outcasts who get the point that Jesus is making and joyfully flock to the kingdom community.

5. To give the parable of the lost son a setting

Prior to the writing of the Gospels it seems that many sayings of Jesus circulated in written form within the nascent Christian communities without any particular setting or application.  Very likely, most of the sayings began with: “Jesus said . . .”  To complicate matters, Jesus himself may have told a given parable on more than one occasion, to different audiences, and for different purposes. (See Hultgren 2000, 49.)  In organizing these sayings Luke and the other Gospel writers created plausible settings and applications either from oral traditions associated with the written sayings or for their own theological purposes.

For example, both Matthew and Luke take the parable of the lost sheep from Q, but they provide different settings and applications.  In Matthew the parable is addressed to the disciples, not the Pharisees.  It is set in a chapter that emphasizes the proper use of authority, care for “the little ones” of the community, reconciliation, and forgiveness. (See Hultgren 2000, 54.) The application of the parable is: “So it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost.” (Matthew 18.14 NRSV) Instead of bringing the lost back into the fold, the emphasis is on retaining each of the sheep, no matter how small.

In the text of Luke’s Gospel the parable of the lost son has neither a setting nor an application.  It just starts out: “Then he said .  . .”  Luke has shaped his narrative by placing all three parables in the same plausible setting – a conflict between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees over his practice of sharing meals with toll collectors and “sinners.”

The parables of the lost sheep and lost coin respond to that setting. In addition, they reflect the honor-driven culture of Jesus’ time where men defended their honor in public by the practice of insult and riposte.  The two parables accentuate that element of conflict and even sarcasm.  Jesus insults his opponents by making a despised shepherd and (of all things) a woman not only the protagonists of his parables but also images of God. (See Cousar et al. 1994, 516.)

6. To give the parable of the lost son an application

The conclusions to the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin (Lk 15:7, 10) actually fit better with the parable of the lost son.  Neither the sheep nor the coin is capable of conversion or repentance in either the moralistic or non-moralistic sense of the terms, but the two sons are.

---

In preparing these reflections, in addition to the biblical texts, I consulted the following works:

Cousar et al. 1994 – Charles B. Cousar, Beverly R. Gaventa, J. Clinton McCann, Jr., James D. Newsome, Texts for Preaching:  A Lectionary Commentary Based on the NRSV, Year C.  (Louisville, KY:  Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), pp. 507, 514-516.

Fitzmyer 1985 – Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV : Introduction, Translation, and Notes.  Anchor Bible Volume 28A.  (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1985), pp. 1071-1082.

Funk et al. 1993 –  Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels:  The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus  (New York:  Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993), pp. 353-354.

Hultgren 2000 – Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus:  A Commentary (Grand Rapids [MI]: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 137-145.

Johnson 1991 – Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke , Sacra Pagina Series Volume 3, A Michael Glazier Book (Collegeville [MN]:  Liturgical Press, 1991), pp. 228-233.

LaVerdiere 1990 – Eugene, LaVerdiere, S.S.S., Luke.  New Testament Message, Volume 5.  A Michael Glazier Book  (Collegeville [MN]:  Liturgical Press, 1990), pp. 196-197.

Malina & Rohrbaugh 2003 – Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Second Edition  (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), p. 287.

NRSV = NRSV 1994 – New Revised Standard Version – Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy, Editors, The New Oxford Annotated Bible containing the Old and New Testaments.  New Revised Standard Version.  (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1994)

Pilch 1997 – John J. Pilch, The Cultural World of Jesus, Sunday by Sunday,  Cycle  C .  A Liturgical Press Book (Collegeville [MN]:  Liturgical Press, 1997), pp. 133-135.

Schneemelcher 1991 – Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Ed., New Testament Apocrypha,  Revised Edition, English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson, Volume I, Gospels and Related Writings (Louisville [KY]:  Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), pp. 110-133.

---