Unit: Luke (Part 2)
Theme: Jesus the Storyteller
Lesson Text: Luke 15:11-32
Supplemental Text: Luke 15:1-10; Ephesians 2:1-5; Psalm 32
Aim: Turn back to the Father who’s longing to restore you with joy.
_ _ _
Download a PDF of this week’s lesson material (the Study by Mark Scott, Application by David Faust, and Discovery Questions by Michael C. Mack): LOOKOUT_May22_2022.
Send an email to [email protected] to receive PDFs of the lesson material each month.
_ _ _
By Mark Scott
The fourth parable of this lesson series is the third parable in this famous chapter. Scholars speak of “end stress” in narratives. They mean either that the essential point of a story comes at the end (as in a “punchy ending”) or that when stories occur in a series, the accent of significance falls on the last one. The parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin clearly set up the parable of the lost son(s). And all three parables connect back to the criticism of the religious elite in Luke 15:1-2.
Even today, in several places in the Middle East, men do not run. It is considered undignified. But this compassionate father ran to the prodigal and “went out” to the elder brother. The reason? Because, as the title of a book by Helmut Thielicke implies, The Waiting Father loved both sons.
Lost From Home
Luke 15:11-24
One could argue that all the stories in Luke 15 constitute just one parable—singular (v. 3). So Jesus just “continued” as he told them. A man had two sons—both times Jesus started stories this way it did not end well for the Pharisees (Matthew 21:28-32). The younger (it’s unusual for a Jewish story about two boys not to start with the firstborn) in essence told his dad to drop dead. Dad did not die, but he did grant the younger son’s rebellious request. The inheritance was divided.
Soon the rebellious son got together his assets (meaning he traded his physical inheritance, such as cows and sheep, for cash) and headed to a distant country (Gentile territory?). There he squandered (this is the real meaning of “prodigal”) his inheritance in wild living. After “prodigalizing,” a famine hit the land (Jesus’ way of hinting that someone is outside the will of God; cf. Ruth 1:1). The situation got so dire that the young man hired himself out to a pig farmer who sent the boy into the fields to feed pigs (Leviticus 11:7). A very sad line is, “But no one gave him anything.”
The young son had an “Aha” moment when he came to himself (better than came to his senses). He remembered the home from which he was lost. In particular, he remembered the food that even his father’s hired servants had. He mentally prepared his speech and headed home. He was hopeful his dad would make him a hired servant (so that he could earn the squandered money back?).
The description of the boy’s father in the latter part of verse 20 is one of the most beautiful pictures of God’s love in the Bible. The father saw, ran, felt, hugged, and kissed this boy who had left home. The boy managed to recite only the first part of his speech before he heard his father barking orders to prepare a party. Clothing, jewelry, and sandals were quickly brought out; meanwhile, the smell of steak got stronger and stronger. The running father’s apologetic for the party was that his son had been lost and was dead but that he had been found and was alive.
Lost At Home
Luke 15:25-32
The elder brother who received (or would receive) the lion’s share of the inheritance had been strangely absent from the party. (Tradition in Jesus’ day would have had the elder brother serving as master of ceremonies for any family party.) He had been in the field. He heard the celebration and asked a servant what was going on. The servant brought the elder brother up to speed.
Instead of rejoicing, the older son pouted. He gave full vent to his anger and refused to go in. But the running father (again, because he loved both boys) went out to the son and pleaded with him to join the party. The grumpy son did three things. First, he complained that his father had not regarded his hard work through the years. (It is fascinating that he viewed himself as something like a slave even though he was a son.) Second, he accused his father of not noticing his hard work ethic and complained that he had not been rewarded with as much as a goat. Finally, he lied about his brother. Had his younger sibling squandered his inheritance? Yes. Had he spent the inheritance on prostitutes? Jesus never said that in the original story. The younger son might have done that, but the elder brother would have no way of knowing it.
The running father made his final appeal. He called him son (even though the boy viewed himself as a slave). He told the boy that everything he had was his. But his apologetic remained the same. The younger brother was dead and lost, but now he was alive and found. Did the elder brother finally go to the party? Would you?
0 Comments