47ȱ
55ȱࠗ༡ᒣ⚄Ꮫ࠘44 ྕ㸦2021 ᖺ 3 ᭶㸧pp.ȱ55Ȭ76. ȱȱ

SocialȱBackgroundȱofȱJesus’ȱParablesȱinȱLkȱ15.ȱ
DoesȱtheȱTheologyȱofȱGod’sȱMercyȱisȱtheȱMainȱTopicȱandȱtheȱ
MainȱPurposeȱofȱLkȱ15?ȱ
ȱȱ JanuszȱKUCICKIȱ
ȱ
1.ȱ ȱ Introductionȱȱ
WithoutȱdoubtȱLkȱ15ȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱcommentedȱandȱfrequentlyȱanalyzed,ȱfromȱmanyȱdifferentȱtheologicalȱperspective,ȱchapterȱofȱtheȱLuke’sȱGospel.ȱTheȱ
chapterȱalmostȱentirelyȱconsistsȱofȱthreeȱcorelateȱparablesȱ(theȱlostȱsheepȱȬȱLkȱ15,ȱ4Ȭ7;ȱ theȱ lostȱ coinȱ Ȭȱ Lkȱ 15,ȱ 8Ȭ10;ȱ theȱ lostȱ sonȱ Ȭȱ Lkȱ 15,ȱ 11Ȭ32),ȱ whereȱ theȱ mostȱ
influentialȱoneȱisȱtheȱparableȱaboutȱtheȱ“lostȱson”.ȱThisȱparableȱinterpretedȱfromȱ
theologicalȱperspectiveȱisȱaȱsampleȱofȱtheȱmostȱwonderfulȱexpositionȱofȱtheȱmainȱtheologicalȱ topicȱ thatȱ considersȱ theȱ God’sȱ mercy.ȱ However,ȱ fromȱ theȱ strictȱ
biblicalȱperspective,ȱtheȱparableȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱconclusiveȱpartȱofȱparanesisȱthatȱisȱ
theȱmainȱpurposeȱofȱLkȱ15.ȱ
Inȱ thisȱ study,ȱ weȱ willȱ argueȱ forȱ thesisȱ thatȱ Lkȱ 15ȱ hasȱ particularȱ socialȱ
background,ȱ whichȱ determinedȱ expositionȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ topicȱ withinȱ theȱ threeȱ
parables,ȱwhereȱtheȱfirstȱparableȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ1Ȭ7)ȱintroducesȱtheȱproblemȱofȱtheȱ“lostȱones”,ȱ thatȱ isȱ developȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ parableȱ whereȱ termȱ “lostȱ ones”ȱ isȱ
significantlyȱ expended,ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ pointȱ outȱ inȱ theȱ thirdȱ parableȱ theȱ mainȱ
problemȱthatȱcausedȱtheȱoppositionȱagainstȱJesus’ȱattitudeȱtowardȱtheȱsinners.ȱ
Inȱorderȱtoȱachieveȱtheȱaimȱofȱtheȱstudy,ȱweȱwillȱuseȱtheȱcriticalȱnarrativeȱmethodȱ
thatȱhopefullyȱableȱusȱtoȱdistinctȱtheologicalȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱparableȱinȱtheȱ

48ȱ
56
ȱChurchȱtraditionȱfromȱprimalȱLuke’sȱmessageȱaddressedȱtoȱtheȱreaders.ȱ
Comparingȱ toȱ alreadyȱ existingȱ studiesȱ onȱ thisȱ topic,ȱ inȱ thisȱ paperȱ weȱ willȱ
presentȱtheȱalternativeȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱsecondȱparableȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ8Ȭ10),ȱwithȱ
assumptionȱthatȱtheȱparableȱofȱtheȱ“lostȱcoin”ȱisȱnotȱmerelyȱtheȱvariantȱofȱtheȱ
firstȱparableȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ4Ȭ7).ȱWeȱhopeȱthatȱthisȱstudyȱhelpsȱtoȱrecognizeȱtheȱproblemȱregardingȱrelationshipȱ
betweenȱJesus,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱside,ȱandȱtheȱPhariseesȱandȱscribes,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱside,ȱthatȱinȱourȱopinionȱisȱnotȱstrangeȱtoȱoursȱtimes,ȱwhereȱunityȱofȱtheȱcongregationȱ
sometimesȱisȱchallengedȱbyȱcomparativeȱattitudeȱofȱoneȱparticularȱgroup.ȱ
ȱ2.ȱ ȱ Theȱparableȱaboutȱtheȱlostȱsheepȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ4Ȭ7)ȱ
ȱTheȱparableȱaboutȱlostȱsheepȱisȱtheȱfirstȱoneȱinȱsetȱofȱthreeȱparablesȱinȱLkȱ15ȱthatȱcreatedȱoneȱcoherentȱunite,ȱwhereȱtheȱoneȱandȱtheȱsameȱtopicȱisȱdevelopedȱ
inȱ eachȱ ofȱ theȱnextȱ parables1.ȱTheȱ expositionȱ ofȱ tisȱ parableȱseemsȱ toȱ beȱ ratherȱ
theoretical,ȱevenȱtheȱtopicȱisȱpracticalȱbecauseȱloosingȱofȱaȱsheepȱisȱoneȱofȱmostȱ
commonȱcasesȱinȱlaborȱofȱaȱshepherd.ȱItȱstartsȱwithȱrhetoricalȱquestionȱaddressedȱ
toȱtheȱPhariseesȱandȱtheȱScribes,ȱwhoȱthemselvesȱmostȱprobablyȱneverȱhaveȱdoneȱ
suchȱaȱworkȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ4)2.ȱTheȱquestionȱassumesȱpositiveȱandȱunequivocalȱanswerȱ
ofȱtheȱhearers,ȱevenȱifȱitȱisȱnotȱnaturalȱtoȱleaveȱ99ȱsheepȱinȱorderȱtoȱfindȱoneȱlostȱ
sheep.ȱInȱcaseȱofȱonlyȱoneȱshepherdȱitȱwouldȱbeȱratherȱsignȱofȱirresponsibilityȱ
thatȱcomesȱfromȱtheȱdesperationȱcausedȱbyȱprobableȱpenalizationȱofȱsuchȱlost.ȱ
Inȱcaseȱofȱtheȱgroupȱofȱtheȱshepherdsȱitȱseemsȱratherȱnaturalȱthatȱoneȱorȱtwoȱofȱ
themȱwouldȱsearchȱforȱtheȱlostȱone,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱavoidȱpotentialȱconsequences.ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
12

ȱ J.ȱR.ȱEdwards,ȱTheȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱLuke,ȱEerdmans,ȱApollosȱ2015,ȱNottingham,ȱp.ȱ431.ȱ ȱȱ ThisȱparableȱisȱaddressedȱdirectlyȱtoȱPhariseesȱandȱtheȱscribes,ȱwhoȱareȱcalledȱbyȱJesusȱtoȱ
identifyȱthemselvesȱwithȱtheȱshepherdȱfromȱtheȱparable.ȱJ.ȱB.ȱGreen,ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱ
Eerdmansȱ1997,ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱpp.ȱ573Ȭ574.ȱ ȱ

49ȱ
57
ȱ
However,ȱtheȱmainȱpointȱdoesȱnotȱconcernȱreliabilityȱtoȱtheȱrealȱsituation,ȱratherȱ
itȱheadsȱtoȱexposeȱthatȱgoodȱshepherdȱdoesȱnotȱeasilyȱabandonȱtheȱlostȱsheep3.ȱ
Theȱveryȱnextȱverseȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ5)ȱcontainsȱtheȱnarrativeȱofȱhappyȱend,ȱwhereȱtheȱ
shepherdȱfountȱtheȱlostȱsheep,ȱandȱthisȱwasȱreasonȱforȱhisȱrejoicingȱconnectingȱ
toȱrealȱhelpȱgivenȱtoȱtheȱlostȱsheep.ȱThereȱisȱnotȱevenȱoneȱharshȱword,ȱoneȱevilȱ
feeling,ȱnoȱreproach,ȱnoȱselfȬpityȱonȱsideȱofȱtheȱshepherd,ȱjustȱunderstandingȱofȱ
currentȱ situationȱ ofȱ theȱ sheep,ȱ (itȱ couldȱ manageȱ toȱ walkȱ back)ȱ compassionȱ
towardȱlostȱsheepȱthatȱwasȱlostȱbutȱnowȱitȱisȱnoȱmore.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱshepherdȱ
wasȱnotȱcontentȱwithȱhisȱownȱjoy,ȱheȱwouldȱlikeȱtheȱothersȱtoȱshareȱhisȱjoyȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ6).ȱItȱtheȱstory,ȱthereȱisȱnotȱinformationȱconcerningȱtheȱfactȱthatȱhisȱwishȱwasȱ
grounded.ȱThisȱinformationȱisȱincludedȱinȱkindȱofȱtheologicalȱstatementȱbasedȱ
onȱtheȱstoryȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ7).ȱTheȱstatementȱitselfȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱquiteȱcontroversialȱifȱitȱ
wouldȱ beȱ approachedȱ fromȱ theȱ comparativeȱ perspective,ȱ thatȱ isȱ stronglyȱ
suggestedȱbyȱtheȱnarrative.ȱTheȱstatementȱthatȱitȱwillȱbeȱmoreȱjoyȱforȱoneȱsinnerȱ
whoȱrepented,ȱthenȱforȱ99ȱjustȱonesȱthatȱdoȱnotȱneedȱtoȱrepent,ȱseemsȱtoȱputȱtheȱ
sinnerȱaheadȱtheȱjustȱones,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱmainȱpointȱdoesȱnotȱconcernȱtheȱsinnerȱ
orȱtheȱjustȱones,ȱitȱconcernsȱtheȱsalvation.ȱTheȱheavenȱrejoicesȱeachȱtimeȱwhenȱ
theȱlostȱoneȱisȱsavedȱbyȱGod.ȱTheȱsalvationȱofȱtheȱjustȱonesȱisȱsomethingȱexpected,ȱbutȱ salvationȱ ofȱ theȱ sinnerȱ isȱ somethingȱ unexpected.ȱ Weȱ joyȱ moreȱ thanȱ
somethingȱgoodȱcomesȱtoȱoursȱwayȱunexpected.ȱ
TheȱtheologicalȱstatementȱthatȱendingȱtheȱparableȱmakesȱitȱtoȱbeȱkindȱofȱJesus’ȱ
answerȱtoȱhisȱopponentsȱcomplainȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ2)4.ȱItȱseemsȱthatȱtheȱsinnersȱareȱnotȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ Theȱphraseȱ“andȱgoȱafterȱtheȱlostȱoneȱuntilȱheȱhasȱfoundȱit”ȱindicatesȱconsiderableȱeffortȱfromȱ
sideȱofȱtheȱshepherd,ȱwhichȱmeansȱthatȱfindingȱtheȱlostȱoneȱisȱnotȱeasyȱtuskȱandȱitȱtakesȱ
time.ȱJ.F.ȱFitzmyer,ȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱLukeȱ(XȬXXIV),ȱDoubledayȱ1985,ȱGardenȱCity,ȱp.ȱ
1077.ȱ
4ȱ TheȱendȱofȱtheȱparableȱservesȱtoȱjustifyȱJesus’ȱattitudeȱtowardȱtheȱsinner,ȱwhichȱwasȱgreatlyȱ
challengingȱbyȱtheȱPhariseesȱandȱtheȱscribes.ȱJesus’ȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱlostȱonesȱwillȱcauseȱtheȱ
joyȱinȱheaven,ȱbutȱrightȱnow,ȱitȱcausesȱdiscontentȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱcountȱthemselvesȱtoȱbeȱjust.ȱ ȱJ.ȱNoland,ȱLukeȱ9,ȱ21Ȭ18,ȱ34,ȱThomasȱNelsonȱ1993,ȱMexicoȱCity,ȱp.ȱ772.ȱ
3

50ȱ
58ȱjustȱ theȱ “lostȱ ones”,ȱ theyȱ areȱ inȱ theȱ eyesȱ ofȱ theȱ Phariseesȱ andȱ theȱ scribesȱ theȱcondemnedȱ ones,ȱ whoȱ doȱ notȱ deserveȱ toȱ hearȱ theȱ goodȱ newsȱ proclaimedȱ byȱJesus.ȱDeȱfacto,ȱtheȱJesus’ȱopponentsȱareȱnotȱinterestingȱinȱconditionȱofȱtheȱ“lostȱones”,ȱ ratherȱ theyȱ useȱ theȱ Jesusȱ associationȱ withȱ theȱ sinnerȱ toȱ accuseȱ andȱdepreciateȱJesus’ȱcredibilityȱasȱtheȱRabbi.ȱTheȱmainȱaimȱofȱLucanȱJesus’ȱparableȱ
concernsȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Godȱ caresȱ aboutȱ everyoneȱ whoȱ belongsȱ toȱ him,ȱ evenȱ ifȱsomeȱofȱthemȱtemporaryȱdepartureȱfromȱHim.ȱTheirȱwrongdoingȱdoesȱchangeȱ
nothingȱinȱGodȇsȱattitudeȱtowardȱthem,ȱandȱthisȱstatementȱisȱproofedȱbyȱconstantȱ
actionȱofȱGodȱtoȱfindȱ“thoseȱwhoȱareȱlost”.ȱJesus’sȱattitudeȱtowardȱtheȱsinnersȱisȱ
justȱ aȱ manifestationȱ ofȱ Godsȱ caresȱ aboutȱ weakerȱ ones.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ context,ȱ Jesus’ȱwordsȱ “Whatȱ manȱ amongȱ you”ȱ whichȱ areȱ addressedȱ toȱ theȱ Phariseesȱ andȱ theȱscribesȱareȱindirectȱmessageȱforȱthem,ȱthatȱtheyȱalsoȱshouldȱlookingȱforȱtheȱ“lostȱones”ȱasȱJesusȱhimselfȱisȱdoing.ȱTheirȱtuskȱasȱtheȱservantȱofȱtheȱLaw,ȱtheȱservantȱ
ofȱGod,ȱinȱsociety’sȱstructure,ȱisȱnotȱrestrictedȱtoȱteachȱandȱleadȱthoseȱ“whoȱareȱnotȱlost”ȱandȱcondemnedȱthoseȱ“whoȱareȱlost”,ȱtheyȱareȱobligatedȱtoȱpreserveȱ
everyoneȱwhoȱbelongsȱtoȱGod,ȱthatȱmeansȱthatȱtheyȱshouldȱapproachȱalsoȱtheȱ
“lostȱ ones”ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ bringȱ themȱ backȱ onȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ rightȱ conduct.ȱ LukeȱpreciselyȱindicatesȱthatȱtheȱsinnersȱwereȱcomingȱtoȱJesusȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ1),ȱbutȱnotȱviceȬ
versa,ȱwhichȱdirectlyȱexposesȱthatȱJesusȱisȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱbringsȱbackȱtheȱ“lostȱones”ȱtoȱGod.ȱTheȱlastȱwordsȱofȱJesusȱinȱthisȱparableȱ“Iȱtellȱyouȱthatȱinȱtheȱsameȱway,ȱthereȱwillȱbeȱmoreȱjoyȱinȱheavenȱoverȱoneȱsinnerȱwhoȱrepents,ȱthanȱoverȱninetyȬnineȱrighteousȱ
personsȱwhoȱneedȱnoȱrepentance”ȱareȱdirectȱsuggestionȱaddressedȱtoȱtheȱPhariseesȱ
andȱtheȱscribesȱthatȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱdeedȱisȱtoȱbeȱinȱserviceȱforȱtheȱ“lostȱones”.ȱ
Thisȱ interpretationȱ makesȱ theȱ parableȱ toȱ beȱ kindȱ ofȱ rebukeȱ towardȱ theȱPhariseesȱandȱscribes,ȱhowever,ȱconsideringȱtheȱnextȱparableȱ(Lkȱ15,8Ȭ10),ȱJesusȱ
teachingȱ inȱ parablesȱ headsȱ ratherȱ forȱ paranesisȱ thenȱ forȱ redirectingȱ ofȱ theȱcomplaining.ȱ

51ȱ
59
ȱ
ȱ
1.ȱTheȱparableȱaboutȱlostȱcoinȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ8Ȭ10)ȱ
Thisȱ parableȱ instantlyȱ followsȱ theȱ parableȱ ofȱ theȱ “lostȱ son”,ȱ whichȱ almostȱ
naturallyȱforcesȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱparableȱasȱanotherȱvariantȱofȱtheȱstoryȱ
presentedȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ parableȱ (Lkȱ 15,ȱ 4Ȭ7)5.ȱ Duringȱ theȱ workȱ onȱ theȱ bookȱ
regardingȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱspeechesȱinȱtheȱActs,ȱwhereȱmanyȱsimilarȱspeechesȱ
areȱ included,ȱ Iȱ cameȱ toȱ conclusionȱ thatȱ Lukeȱ neverȱ repeatedȱ himself,ȱ andȱ allȱpartsȱofȱhisȱnarrativeȱthatȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱkindȱofȱduplicationȱorȱvariant,ȱareȱdeȱfactoȱ
developmentȱofȱtheȱideaȱpresentedȱinȱpreviousȱsection.ȱToȱme,ȱitȱseemsȱthatȱtheȱ
sameȱpattern,ȱLukeȱusedȱwritingȱLkȱ15,ȱwhereȱtheȱfirstȱparableȱisȱintroductiveȱ
(Lkȱ15,ȱ4Ȭ7),ȱtheȱsecondȱisȱprogressiveȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ8Ȭ11)ȱandȱtheȱthirdȱisȱconclusiveȱ
(Lkȱ 15,ȱ 11Ȭ32)6.ȱ Ifȱ itȱ isȱ so,ȱ theȱ ideaȱ presentedȱ inȱ theȱ parableȱ ofȱ theȱ “lostȱ coin”ȱ
shouldȱ developȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ haveȱ beenȱ presentedȱ inȱ theȱ parableȱ ofȱ theȱ “lostȱson”7.ȱ
Theȱparableȱconcernsȱtheȱwomanȱthatȱlostȱoneȱcoinȱinȱherȱownȱhouse,ȱwhichȱ
isȱaȱdirectȱreasonȱforȱsearchingȱforȱtheȱlostȱcoinȱtillȱitȱisȱfounded.ȱTheȱsuccessȱofȱ
theȱsearchȱisȱworthyȱofȱwholeȱneighborhood’sȱcelebration,ȱwhichȱisȱcomparedȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Inȱ bothȱ parablesȱ thereȱ areȱ thingsȱ thatȱ becameȱ lost;ȱ inȱ bothȱ casesȱ theȱ ownerȱ takesȱ
considerableȱeffortȱtoȱsearchȱforȱtheȱlostȱthings;ȱinȱbothȱparableȱtheȱownerȱafterȱfiningȱtheȱ
lostȱthingȱcelebrateȱwithȱneighborhood.ȱHowever,ȱthenȱinȱtheȱparableȱaboutȱtheȱlostȱsheepȱ
theȱstrongȱfocusȱisȱputȱonȱtheȱsearchingȱforȱtheȱlostȱsheep,ȱinȱtheȱparableȱaboutȱlostȱcoinȱtheȱ
focusȱisȱputȱonȱcelebrationȱafterȱfindingȱtheȱcoin.ȱJ.ȱB.ȱGreen,ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱEerdmansȱ
1997,ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱp.ȱ576.ȱ
6ȱ Inȱthisȱcontext,ȱitȱisȱworthyȱtoȱnoticeȱthatȱthisȱparableȱisȱfoundȱonlyȱinȱtheȱGospelȱofȱLuke.ȱ
7ȱ TheȱmostȱscholarsȱrecognizeȱtheȱLuke’sȱpatternȱconcerningȱtheȱdoubleȱparablesȱ(Lkȱ13,ȱ18Ȭ
21;ȱLkȱ14,ȱ28Ȭ32)ȱthatȱwasȱalsoȱusedȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱchaptersȱofȱtheȱGospel.ȱJ.ȱR.ȱEdwards,ȱTheȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱLuke,ȱp.ȱ436.ȱ
5

52ȱ
60
ȱ
toȱtheȱjoyȱinȱheavenȱthenȱjustȱoneȱsinnerȱrepents8.ȱTheȱexpositionȱofȱtheȱparableȱ
isȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱparableȱofȱtheȱlostȱsheep,ȱwithȱexceptionȱtoȱfewȱdetailsȱ(instantȱ
ofȱman,ȱtheȱwomanȱisȱtheȱprotagonist;ȱinstantȱofȱsheep,ȱtheȱcoinȱisȱtheȱsubject)9.ȱ
However,ȱtheȱmainȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱtheseȱtwoȱparableȱconcernsȱdirectionsȱofȱ
actions,ȱwhenȱinȱtheȱfirstȱparableȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ4Ȭ7)ȱtheȱactionȱisȱdirectedȱoutsideȱtheȱ
baseȱgroundȱ(theȱshepherdȱgoesȱoutȱofȱtheȱplaceȱtoȱsearchȱforȱtheȱsheep),ȱinȱtheȱ
second,ȱtheȱactionȱisȱdirectedȱinsideȱtheȱbaseȱgroundȱ(theȱwomanȱisȱsearchingȱinsideȱherȱhouse).ȱToȱme,ȱit’sȱhardlyȱpossibleȱthatȱthisȱsmallȱchangeȱisȱunwittingȱ
coincident,ȱratherȱLukeȱconsciouslyȱredirectedȱtheȱactionȱofȱtheȱprotagonistȱ(theȱwoman)ȱinȱorderȱtoȱexposeȱthatȱtheȱlostȱonesȱareȱnotȱonlyȱthoseȱwhoȱgoȱoutsideȱ
theȱbaseȱgroundȱ(theȱtypeȱofȱthoseȱpeopleȱisȱtheȱsheepȱinȱtheȱfirstȱparable)ȱbutȱ
alsoȱthoseȱwhoȱstayȱonȱtheȱbaseȱgroundȱbutȱtheyȱareȱlostȱ(theȱtypeȱofȱthoseȱpeopleȱisȱcoinȱinȱtheȱsecondȱparable).ȱWhenȱtheȱlostȱsheepȱinȱtheȱfirstȱparableȱrepresentsȱ
theȱsinners,ȱtheȱcoinȱinȱtheȱsecondȱparableȱmayȱnotȱconcernsȱtheȱsinnersȱbutȱitȱmayȱ regardȱ toȱtheȱ Phariseesȱ andȱ theȱ scribes.ȱ Theȱ lostȱ onesȱareȱ notȱ onlyȱ thoseȱ
whoȱdepartureȱfromȱtheȱ“houseȱofȱGod”ȱandȱliterallyȱdisobeyȱtheȱwillȱofȱGod,ȱ
butȱalsoȱthoseȱwhoȱstayȱinȱtheȱ“houseȱofȱGod”ȱwithoutȱdoingȱtheȱwillȱofȱGod.ȱItȱ
makesȱtheȱfirstȱparableȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ4Ȭ7)ȱtoȱbeȱnecessaryȱpreparationȱforȱexpositionȱofȱ
theȱ“lostȱson”ȱinȱtheȱconclusiveȱparableȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ11Ȭ32),ȱandȱtheȱsecondȱparableȱ
(Lkȱ15,ȱ9Ȭ10)ȱisȱtheȱnecessaryȱpreparationȱforȱtheȱexpositionȱofȱtheȱ“dutifulȱson”ȱ
inȱtheȱthirdȱandȱconclusiveȱparableȱofȱLkȱ15.ȱSummingȱup,ȱtheȱparableȱofȱtheȱ
“lostȱcoin”ȱexpendsȱtheȱgroupȱofȱtheȱ“lostȱones”,ȱwhichȱincludesȱnotȱonlyȱsinnersȱ
butȱalsoȱdutifulȱbelievers.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Contraryȱtoȱtheȱpreviousȱparableȱwhereȱtheȱfoundȱsheepȱisȱmostȱimportantȱthanȱotherȱ99ȱ
sheep,ȱ inȱ theȱ parableȱ aboutȱ theȱ lostȱ coinȱ thereȱ isȱ notȱ comparativeȱ expositionȱ ofȱ theȱtheologicalȱreasonȱforȱtheȱcelebration.ȱ ȱ ȱ
9ȱ L.ȱT.ȱJohnson,ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱTheȱLiturgicalȱPress,ȱCollegevilleȱ1991,ȱp.ȱ236.ȱ
8

53ȱ
61
ȱ
ȱ
1.ȱTheȱparableȱaboutȱtheȱlostȱsonȱandȱtheȱdutifulȱsonȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ11Ȭ32)ȱ
Theȱ parableȱ ofȱ theȱ lostȱ sonȱ andȱ theȱ dutifulȱ sonȱ isȱ theȱ lastȱ partȱ ofȱ aȱ sectionȱ
containingȱtheȱthreeȱparablesȱconcerningȱtheȱtopicȱofȱGod’sȱmercyȱ(Lkȱ15)10.ȱTheȱ
traditionalȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱparableȱconsidersȱGod’sȱmercyȱtowardȱtheȱlostȱ
son,ȱwhoȱrecognizedȱhisȱwrongȬdoing,ȱrepentedȱandȱreturnedȱtoȱtheȱfatherȱinȱ
orderȱtoȱbeȱacceptedȱagainȱasȱaȱbelovedȱson.ȱThisȱparableȱobviouslyȱshowsȱGod’sȱloveȱand,ȱrelatedȱtoȱit,ȱGod’sȱmercy11.ȱPuttingȱtheȱfocus,ȱhowever,ȱmostlyȱonȱtheȱ
lostȱsonȱresultsȱinȱtheȱomissionȱofȱtheȱsecondȱpartȱofȱtheȱstoryȱwhichȱconcernsȱ
theȱ dutifulȱ son.ȱ Inȱ theȱ eyesȱ ofȱ theȱ readerȱ theȱ dutifulȱ sonȱ lostȱ favorȱ whenȱ heȱ
refusedȱtoȱacceptȱhisȱyoungerȱbrother,ȱdespiteȱtheȱfactȱthatȱhisȱfatherȱacceptedȱhim.ȱIȱhaveȱalwaysȱfoundȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱparableȱtoȱbeȱsomewhatȱenigmatic,ȱandȱ
hardlyȱsuitedȱtoȱaȱparableȱconcerningȱGod’sȱmercy.ȱHavingȱhadȱtheȱprivilegeȱofȱhearingȱ theȱ lectureȱ onȱ theȱ “Happinessȱ ofȱ Abraham”ȱ atȱ theȱ meetingȱ ofȱ ESBSȱ inȱWarsaw,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ authorȱ approachedȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ Abrahamȱ fromȱ theȱemotionalȱ pointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ Iȱ startedȱ toȱ exploreȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ usingȱ thisȱapproachȱ toȱ solveȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ thisȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ parableȱ thatȱ considersȱ theȱdutifulȱson.ȱInȱthisȱpartȱofȱtheȱstudy,ȱIȱwillȱinterpretȱtheȱparableȱofȱtheȱlostȱsonȱ
andȱtheȱdutifulȱsonȱbyȱputtingȱtheȱfocusȱonȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱemotion,ȱwhichȱinȱ
myȱopinionȱwillȱshowȱmoreȱcoherentlyȱtheȱmessageȱincludedȱinȱtheȱparable.ȱ
ȱ3.1.ȱ ȱ Structureȱandȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱparableȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Theȱparableȱofȱtheȱlostȱsonȱandȱdutifulȱsonȱtogetherȱwithȱtheȱparableȱofȱlostȱcoinȱareȱuniqueȱ
toȱLuke.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱparableȱofȱlostȱseepȱisȱalsoȱincludedȱinȱtheȱGospelȱofȱMathewȱ(Mtȱ18,ȱ10Ȭ14).ȱ ȱ ȱ
11ȱ P.T.ȱGadenz,ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱBakerȱAcademicȱ2018,ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱp.ȱ275.ȱ
10

54ȱ
62
ȱ
Concerningȱtheȱstructureȱofȱtheȱparable:ȱitȱconsistsȱofȱfourȱunits:ȱLkȱ15,ȱ11Ȭ20ȱ(A)ȱconcernsȱtheȱstoryȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱafterȱhisȱdepartureȱfromȱhome;ȱLkȱ15,ȱ
21Ȭ24ȱ(B)ȱgivesȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱreunionȱbetweenȱtheȱfatherȱandȱhisȱyoungerȱ
son;ȱLkȱ15,ȱ25Ȭ30ȱ(A1)ȱpresentsȱtheȱangerȱofȱtheȱelderȱbrother;ȱandȱfinally,ȱLkȱ15,ȱ
31Ȭ32ȱ (B1)ȱ concernsȱ theȱ arguingȱ ofȱ theȱ elderȱ brotherȱ withȱ hisȱ father 12ȱ.ȱ Thisȱ
structuralȱanalysisȱitselfȱshowsȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtwoȱstoriesȱinȱtheȱparable,ȱwhereȱ
theȱprotagonistȱofȱtheȱfirstȱstoryȱisȱtheȱyoungerȱbrother,ȱandȱthatȱofȱtheȱsecondȱ
storyȱisȱtheȱelderȱbrother.ȱHowever,ȱbothȱstoriesȱareȱbuiltȱaroundȱoneȱandȱtheȱ
sameȱnarrativeȱprotagonist,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱfather13.ȱInȱtheȱstoryȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱson,ȱtheȱfatherȱallowsȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱtoȱleaveȱtheȱhouse,ȱandȱthenȱtheȱyoungerȱson’sȱlifeȱ turnedȱ intoȱ theȱ disaster,ȱ theȱ fatherȱ isȱ aȱ veryȱ firstȱ oneȱ whoȱ acceptedȱ himȱdespiteȱtheȱobviousȱoffenceȱofȱtheȱson.ȱInȱstoryȱofȱtheȱelderȱbrother,ȱtheȱfatherȱ
againȱisȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱfirstȱtakesȱtheȱactionȱinȱorderȱtoȱsolveȱtheȱproblem,ȱdespiteȱ
theȱobviousȱevilȱwillȱofȱtheȱelderȱson.ȱ
Theȱ storyȱ ofȱ theȱ lostȱsonȱ (Lkȱ15,ȱ 11Ȭ21)ȱ beginsȱ withȱ aȱ conclusionȱ thatȱ isȱ theȱresultȱ ofȱ someȱ eventsȱ thatȱ areȱ notȱ explainedȱ directlyȱ byȱ theȱ narrative 14ȱ.ȱ Theȱyoungerȱsonȱsimplyȱaskedȱtheȱfatherȱforȱhisȱshareȱofȱtheȱfamilyȱwealth,ȱandȱtheȱ
justificationȱofȱhisȱrequestȱwasȱgivenȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ12)15.ȱInȱpraxis,ȱitȱmeansȱthatȱtheȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Concerningȱ aȱ basicȱ discussionȱ regardingȱ theȱ redactionalȱ issueȱ ofȱ thisȱ parable,ȱ cf.ȱ J.F.ȱ
Fitzmyer,ȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱLukeȱ(XȬXXIV),ȱpp.ȱ1083Ȭ108.ȱ
13ȱ Nolandȱisȱscepticȱaboutȱpossibilityȱtoȱstraightforwardȱdeterminationȱofȱaȱmainȱfocusȱofȱtheȱ
parable.ȱJ.ȱNoland,ȱLukeȱ9,ȱ21Ȭ18,ȱ34,ȱpp.ȱ780Ȭ781.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtwoȱpartȱofȱtheȱ
parableȱ(storyȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱandȱtheȱstoryȱofȱtheȱelderȱson)ȱhaveȱoneȱandȱtheȱsameȱ
connectingȱelement,ȱwhomȱisȱtheȱfather,ȱmakesȱhimȱtoȱbeȱcenterȱpointȱofȱtheȱstory,ȱbutȱnotȱ
necessaryȱtheȱmainȱaimȱofȱtheȱstory.ȱ ȱ
14ȱ Despiteȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱreadersȱareȱnotȱprovidedȱwithȱreasonȱforȱtheȱyoungerȱson’sȱaction,ȱ
however,ȱ hisȱ attitude,ȱ withȱ considerableȱ confidence,ȱ mayȱ beȱ evaluatedȱ asȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ
rejectionȱtheȱfamilyȱorȱatȱleastȱsomeȱmemberȱofȱtheȱfamily.ȱJ.ȱB.ȱGreen,ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱp.ȱ
580.ȱ
15ȱ Thereȱisȱnotȱexpositionȱofȱreasonȱforȱtheȱfather’sȱdecision,ȱwhichȱmustȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱ
peculiarȱbecauseȱusuallyȱduringȱtheȱlifetimeȱofȱtheȱfatherȱsuchȱaȱrequestȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱmadeȱ12

55ȱ
63ȱfamily’sȱ estateȱ wasȱ dividedȱ atȱ leastȱ intoȱ theȱ twoȱ parts,ȱ whichȱ sufficientlyȱ
decreasedȱtheȱpowerȱofȱtheȱfamily16.ȱTheȱyoungerȱsonȱthenȱleftȱtheȱfamilyȱhouse,ȱ
traveledȱtoȱforeignȱcountriesȱwhereȱheȱspentȱallȱtheȱmoneyȱheȱpossessed,ȱwhichȱ
forcedȱhimȱinȱaȱtimeȱofȱeconomicȱcrisisȱtoȱacceptȱworkȱthatȱwasȱshameful,ȱasȱwell,ȱheȱ sufferedȱ aȱ greatȱ humiliationȱ (Lkȱ 15,ȱ 15Ȭ19).ȱ Inȱ oneȱ singleȱ sentence,ȱ Lukeȱ
skillfullyȱ exposesȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ youngȱ son’sȱ ruin,ȱ whereȱ theȱ firstȱ stepȱ wasȱ hisȱdepartureȱfromȱfamily,ȱtheȱsecond,ȱwasȱhisȱimmigrationȱtoȱtheȱdistantȱforeignȱ
country,ȱtheȱthird,ȱwasȱhisȱlifestyleȱdescribedȱasȱΊЗΑȱΦΗЏΘΝΖȱ–ȱwildȱlivingȱwhichȱ
hereȱmeansȱ“wastefulȱandȱdissoluteȱpleasure”17.ȱLukeȱpreciseȱexposesȱtheȱreasonȱ
forȱtheȱyoungerȱson’sȱproblemsȱwritingȱthatȱ“heȱsquanderedȱhisȱmoneyȱonȱaȱlifeȱofȱdebauchery”,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱshowȱdirectlyȱthatȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱisȱresponsibilityȱforȱ
theȱ situation,ȱ inȱ whichȱ heȱ foundȱ himself.ȱ Theȱ humiliationȱ wasȱ theȱ immediateȱ
reasonȱforȱhisȱdecisionȱtoȱreturnȱtoȱhisȱfather’sȱhouse,ȱwithȱhopeȱforȱaȱlifeȱbetterȱ
thanȱhisȱpresentȱsituationȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ17Ȭ19)18.ȱTheȱreasonȱforȱhisȱhumiliationȱwereȱ
factsȱthatȱheȱdepartureȱfromȱtheȱfamily,ȱthenȱheȱwasȱlivingȱinȱtheȱforeignȱcountry,ȱ
whereȱheȱspentȱinȱfoolishȱwayȱhisȱportionȱofȱestate,ȱandȱinȱtimeȱofȱcrisisȱheȱfoundȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
byȱhisȱsons.ȱJ.ȱNoland,ȱLukeȱ9,ȱ21Ȭ18,ȱ34,ȱpp.ȱ782Ȭ783.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱlackȱofȱaccuracyȱisȱhereȱ
notȱtheȱissueȱifȱconsideringȱthatȱitȱisȱtheȱparable.ȱ ȱ16ȱ Thisȱisȱtheȱfirstȱexpositionȱofȱ“theȱkingshipȱissue”ȱthatȱis,ȱinȱourȱopinion,ȱtheȱmainȱaimȱnotȱ
onlyȱofȱthisȱparableȱbutȱalsoȱforȱtheȱwholeȱLkȱ15.ȱThisȱissueȱisȱexposedȱinȱpartialȱmannerȱ
(relationȱbetweenȱtheȱfatherȱandȱtheȱyoungerȱson;ȱrelationȱbetweenȱtheȱfatherȱandȱtheȱelderȱson;ȱ relationȱ betweenȱ theȱ elderȱ sonȱ andȱ theȱ youngerȱ son),ȱ however,ȱ itȱ isȱ designedȱ toȱ
presentsȱemotionalȱtensionsȱwithinȱtheȱfamily.ȱ ȱ ȱ
17ȱ J.ȱR.ȱEdwards,ȱTheȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱLuke,ȱp.ȱ439.ȱJohnsonȱthingsȱthatȱtheȱtermȱΦΗЏΘΝΖȱbyȱitselfȱdoesȱnotȱsuggestsȱsexualȱaffairs,ȱandȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱthisȱtermȱinȱthisȱwayȱisȱ
influencedȱbyȱtheȱelderȱson’sȱaccusationȱpresentedȱinȱLkȱ15,ȱ30.ȱL.ȱT.ȱJohnson,ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱ
Luke,ȱp.ȱ236.ȱ
18 ȱ Theȱ changingȱ ofȱ irresponsibleȱ lifestyleȱ underȱ theȱ presserȱ ofȱ unfavorableȱ circumstancesȱseemsȱ toȱ beȱ quitȱ commentȱ inȱ antientȱ world,ȱ andȱ theȱ Lukanȱ Jesusȱ parable,ȱ despiteȱ itsȱreligiousȱ andȱ allegoricalȱ purposes,ȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ itsȱ sourceȱ inȱ societyȱ practice.ȱ ThisȱsuppositionȱisȱattestedȱbyȱtheȱletterȱofȱcertainȱAntoniousȱLongus,ȱwhoseȱlifeȬstoryȱisȱveryȱ
similarȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ youngerȱ sonȱ fromȱ theȱ Luke’sȱ parable.ȱ D.ȱ E.ȱ Garland,ȱ ExegeticalȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱNewȱTestament.ȱLuke,ȱZondervanȱ2011,ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱpp.ȱ624Ȭ625.ȱ ȱ56ȱ
64ȱnoȱhelpfulȱhandȱfromȱsideȱofȱtheȱforeigners.ȱIfȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱleftȱtheȱfather’sȱhomeȱinȱorderȱtoȱbeȱfree,ȱthisȱdreamȱturnȱinȱtoȱdisaster,ȱandȱheȱbecameȱtheȱsalve,ȱaboutȱwhomȱnoȱoneȱcaresȱandȱwhomȱnoȱoneȱrespect19.ȱTheȱfactȱthatȱheȱthoughtȱ
aboutȱbecameȱtheȱservantȱinȱtheȱhouseȱofȱhisȱownȱfather,ȱexposesȱhisȱrecognitionȱ
ofȱhisȱwrongdoingȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱhisȱreadinessȱtoȱacceptȱtheȱconsequencesȱ
ofȱhisȱownȱactions,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand.ȱNamely,ȱheȱrecognizedȱandȱconfessedȱthatȱ
heȱsinnedȱagainstȱGodȱandȱtheȱfatherȱ(noteȱaȱlackȱofȱmentionȱaboutȱsinȱagainstȱtheȱelderȱbrother),ȱwhichȱledȱhimȱtoȱconclusionȱthatȱbecauseȱofȱtheseȱsinesȱheȱ
lostȱ privilegesȱ andȱ favorsȱ relatedȱ toȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ father’sȱ sonȱ orȱ God’sȱ son.ȱ
Surprisingly,ȱ hisȱ returnȱ toȱ homeȱ wasȱ warmlyȱ welcomedȱ byȱ theȱ fatherȱ inȱ aȱmannerȱthatȱfarȱexceededȱhisȱexpectationȱ(Lkȱ20Ȭ24).ȱLukeȱexposesȱthatȱfatherȱ
wasȱlookingȱforȱtheȱreturnȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱson,ȱandȱevenȱtheȱsonȱwasȱ“stillȱaȱlongȱwayȱ off”ȱ heȱ ranȱ toȱ himȱ exposingȱ hisȱ affectionȱ andȱ pityȱ towardȱ theȱ son.ȱ Thisȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱfather’sȱactionȱcorrelatesȱwithȱmassageȱexposedȱinȱtheȱparableȱ
aboutȱtheȱlostȱsheepȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ4Ȭ7),ȱwhereȱtheȱshepherdȱactsȱinȱorderȱtoȱfindȱtheȱ
lostȱsheep.ȱAlthough,ȱtheȱsonȱdidȱonlyȱpartȱofȱhisȱplanȱ(goȱbackȱtoȱtheȱfather),ȱtheȱ restȱ wasȱ doneȱ byȱ theȱ fatherȱ (afterȱ theȱ sonȱ confessedȱ hisȱ wrongȱ doing),ȱ inȱmeasureȱshowingȱfullȱforgivenessȱofȱtheȱson’sȱevilȱdeedsȱ(fullȱrestorationȱofȱhisȱprivilegesȱandȱfavors).ȱThereȱareȱnotȱharshȱwords,ȱpunishmentȱorȱhardȱfillingȱonȱ
theȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ father,ȱ contraryȱ theȱ returnȱ ofȱ theȱ youngerȱ sonȱ wasȱ aȱ sufficientȱ
reasonȱforȱcelebrationȱ(Acȱ15,ȱ23Ȭ24).ȱThisȱexpositionȱofȱtheȱfather’sȱjoyȱcorrelatesȱ
withȱtheȱparableȱofȱtheȱlostȱcoinȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ8Ȭ10),ȱwhereȱtheȱfoundȱofȱtheȱlostȱcoinȱisȱ
theȱreasonȱforȱcelebrationȱofȱallȱneighbors.ȱIfȱtheȱparableȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ11Ȭ32)ȱendedȱatȱ
thisȱpointȱinȱtheȱnarrative,ȱtheȱmoreȱcommonȱnameȱforȱthisȱparable,ȱ“theȱparableȱofȱ theȱ lostȱ son”,ȱ wouldȱ beȱ justified.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ narrativeȱ continuesȱ withȱ aȱ
considerationȱofȱtheȱdutifulȱsonȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ25Ȭ32),ȱwhichȱmakesȱtheȱinterpretationȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ19ȱ N.ȱGeldenhuys,ȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱEerdmansȱ1956,ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱp.ȱ407.ȱ

57ȱ
65ȱ
ofȱ theȱ parableȱ asȱ referringȱ onlyȱ toȱ God’sȱ mercyȱ towardȱ “theȱ lostȱ ones”ȱ toȱ beȱquestionable20.ȱ
Theȱstoryȱofȱtheȱdutifulȱsonȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ25Ȭ32)ȱbeginsȱwithȱaȱpresentationȱofȱtheȱ
protagonistȱasȱaȱmanȱreturningȱhomeȱafterȱfinishingȱhisȱdailyȱdutyȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ25).ȱThisȱ exposesȱ theȱ elderȱ sonȱ asȱ theȱ oneȱ faithfulȱ toȱ theȱ father,ȱ responsibleȱ andȱhardworkingȱ man,ȱ whichȱ makesȱ thisȱ firstȱ generalȱ evaluationȱ ofȱ himȱ toȱ beȱ
positive21.ȱTheȱunusualȱsituationȱthatȱheȱfoundȱthereȱwasȱtheȱdirectȱreasonȱforȱ
hisȱrefusingȱtoȱenterȱtheȱhouseȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ26Ȭ28),ȱandȱthisȱforcedȱtheȱfatherȱtoȱargueȱ
withȱtheȱelderȱson’sȱcomplaintsȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ28Ȭ30).ȱTheȱreturnȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱbrotherȱ
toȱtheȱhouse,ȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱsomethingȱheȱdidȱnotȱexpectedȱorȱevenȱsupposableȱheȱ
didȱnotȱwish22.ȱThisȱexposeȱtheȱelderȱson’sȱprejudiceȱtowardȱtheȱyoungerȱbrother,ȱ
whichȱdirectlyȱcorrespondentȱtoȱtheȱPhariseesȱattitudeȱtowardȱtheȱsocialȱoutcastȱ
Jewsȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ1Ȭ2).ȱTheȱdirectȱreasonȱforȱtheȱelderȱson’sȱcomplaintsȱwasȱtheȱwayȱ
inȱwhichȱtheȱfatherȱacceptedȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱintoȱtheȱhouse,ȱafterȱallȱevilȱdeedsȱ
thatȱ heȱ hadȱ doneȱ toȱ theȱ family.ȱ Probably,ȱ moreȱ thanȱ theȱ actȱ ofȱ theȱ fatherȱ
acceptationȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱbrotherȱintoȱtheȱhouse,ȱtheȱcelebrationȱforȱhisȱreturnȱ
wasȱsomethingȱimproperȱinȱopinionȱofȱtheȱelderȱson.ȱThis,ȱunacceptableȱforȱtheȱ
elderȱson,ȱactionȱofȱtheȱfatherȱwasȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱunjustȱtowardȱhimȱ(thoughȱnotȱtoȱtheȱyoungerȱbrother).ȱInȱhisȱargumentationȱtheȱelderȱbrotherȱdisplaysȱhisȱ
bitterȱ feelingsȱ towardsȱ theȱ father,ȱ whichȱ suggestsȱ anȱ accusationȱ towardȱ theȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Concerningȱtheȱdiscussionȱaboutȱproperȱnameȱforȱthisȱparable,ȱconfirmȱlittleȱbitȱoldȱbutȱ
veryȱusefulȱexpositionȱofȱFitzmyer.ȱJ.F.ȱFitzmyer,ȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱLukeȱ(XȬXXIV),ȱpp.ȱ
1083Ȭ1086.ȱ
21ȱ EspeciallyȱifȱconsiderȱLkȱ15,ȱ12ȱwhichȱindicatesȱthatȱhe,ȱafterȱtheȱyounger’sȱbrotherȱdecision,ȱhadȱ toȱ workȱ forȱ theȱ familyȱ onlyȱ onȱ theȱ twoȬthirdȱ ofȱ theȱ familyȱ estate.ȱ Despiteȱ thisȱ
disadvantage,ȱheȱstaysȱinȱtheȱhouseȱofȱtheȱfatherȱandȱservesȱtheȱfamily.ȱInȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱ
youngerȱbrotherȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ13Ȭ16),ȱtheȱelderȱbrotherȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱsimpleȱgoodȱman.ȱConcerningȱ
theȱinheritȱinȱJewishȱsociety,ȱcf.ȱJ.ȱR.ȱEdwards,ȱTheȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱLuke,ȱp.ȱ438Ȭ439.ȱ
22ȱ ThisȱsuppositionȱisȱbasedȱonȱLuȱ15,ȱ30ȱthatȱsuggestsȱtheȱeldersȱbrotherȱknowledgeȱaboutȱ
theȱyoungerȱbrother’sȱattitudeȱinȱtheȱforeignȱcounty.ȱ ȱ20

58ȱ
66ȱfatherȱ that,ȱ despiteȱ hisȱ faithfulȱ service,ȱ heȱ (theȱ elderȱ brother)ȱ isȱ beingȱ underȬ
ratedȱ byȱ hisȱ father.ȱ Theȱ angerȱ causedȱ byȱ theȱ youngerȱ brotherȱ returnȱ andȱ theȱfather’sȱ veryȱ generouslyȱ acceptanceȱ ofȱ theȱ lostȱ son,ȱ wasȱ directlyȱ andȱ openlyȱaddressedȱtoȱtheȱfather,ȱwhichȱmayȱsuggestȱexplosionȱofȱlongȱhiddenȱnegativeȱ
emotionȱ towardȱ theȱ father,ȱ whichȱ finallyȱ wentȱ toȱ theȱ surfaceȱ duringȱ theȱunexpectedȱ circumstances.ȱ Thisȱ angerȱ exposesȱ theȱ elderȱ brothersȱ feelingȱ andȱthoughts.ȱFirstȱatȱall,ȱheȱcountsȱhimselfȱasȱtheȱfaithfulȱservantȱofȱhisȱownȱfather23.ȱ
Second,ȱheȱfeelsȱnotȱtoȱbeȱrewardedȱbyȱtheȱfatherȱinȱwayȱsatisfiedȱtoȱhim24.ȱThird,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱrecognizeȱtheȱyoungerȱbrotherȱasȱhisȱbrother25.ȱTheȱforth,ȱheȱputsȱtheȱ
fatherȱandȱtheȱyoungerȱbrotherȱonȱtheȱsameȱlevel,ȱnamelyȱtheȱkindȱofȱenemyȱofȱ
him26.ȱTheȱfather’sȱanswerȱtoȱtheȱson’sȱaccusationȱcontainsȱtwoȱdeclarations:ȱtheȱ
firstȱconcernsȱtheȱfather’sȱloveȱtowardȱtheȱelderȱson,ȱandȱtheȱsecond,ȱindirectly,ȱ
regardsȱtheȱfather’sȱloveȱtowardsȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱ(Acȱ15,ȱ31Ȭ32).ȱTheȱnarrativeȱ
doesȱ notȱ giveȱ answersȱ toȱ questionsȱ regardingȱ aȱ possibleȱ reconciliationȱ ofȱ theȱelderȱsonȱwithȱtheȱfather,ȱorȱaboutȱreconciliationȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱbrothers.ȱThisȱ
kindȱofȱendingȱtoȱtheȱstoryȱshowsȱtheȱauthor’sȱnarrativeȱstrategyȱthatȱisȱaimedȱ
atȱ presentingȱ theȱ problemȱ ratherȱ thanȱ offeringȱ aȱ simpleȱ solution.ȱ Theȱ realȱ
problemȱinȱthisȱstoryȱisȱnotȱtheȱlostȱson,ȱbutȱtheȱrelationȱbetweenȱtheȱbrothersȱ–ȱaȱrelationȱthatȱisȱtoxic,ȱdespiteȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱfatherȱshowsȱequalȱloveȱtowardsȱ
bothȱofȱthem.ȱ
Inȱorderȱtoȱjustifyȱthisȱconclusion,ȱIȱwillȱexamineȱtheȱemotionsȱofȱeachȱofȱtheȱ
threeȱfiguresȱasȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱparable.ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ However,ȱcontraryȱtoȱhisȱownȱwords,ȱheȱdisobeysȱtheȱfather’sȱrequestȱtoȱenterȱtheȱhouse.ȱ
ȱ Indirectly,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱrecognizeȱtheȱfactȱofȱlivingȱinȱtheȱfather’sȱhouseȱasȱtheȱtrueȱreward.ȱ ȱ25ȱ Inȱfact,ȱheȱseparatedȱhimselfȱfromȱhisȱyoungerȱbrother,ȱwhichȱsuggestsȱtheȱrejectionȱofȱhim.ȱ
26ȱ TheȱelderȱbrotherȱblamesȱtheȱfatherȱforȱacceptingȱtheȱevilȬdeedsȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱbrother,ȱ
whichȱisȱsignȱofȱmisunderstandingȱofȱtheȱfather’sȱfeelingsȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ31)ȱandȱhisȱargumentationȱ
forȱacceptingȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱandȱtheȱcelebrationȱofȱhisȱreturnȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ33).ȱ ȱ2324

59ȱ
67
ȱ
3.2.ȱ ȱ Theȱemotionalȱcharacteristicȱofȱtheȱpersonsȱinȱtheȱparable.ȱȱAsȱallȱgodȱstoriesȱalso,ȱthisȱparableȱcontainsȱconsiderableȱportionȱofȱemotions,ȱ
whichȱinȱthisȱparticularȱcaseȱnotȱonlyȱservesȱtoȱearnȱtheȱattentionȱofȱtheȱreaders,ȱbutȱdeȱfactoȱemotionsȱareȱtheȱmainȱconcernȱofȱtheȱparable27.ȱInȱLuke’sȱnarrativeȱ
eachȱofȱheroesȱexposesȱdifferentȱkindȱofȱemotions,ȱwhichȱdirectlyȱinfluenceȱtheirȱ
evaluationȱbyȱtheȱreader,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱconclusionȱ
ofȱtheȱparableȱexposesȱtheȱnegativeȱemotionȱasȱtheȱdirectȱreasonȱforȱtheȱproblem,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand28.ȱAmongȱtheȱthreeȱheroesȱofȱtheȱparable,ȱonlyȱoneȱofȱthemȱ
exposesȱtheȱdirectȱnegativeȱemotion,ȱandȱaccordingȱtoȱLuke’sȱnarrativeȱaim,ȱthisȱ
personȱisȱtheȱrealȱproblemȱinȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱfamilyȱmembers.ȱ
ȱ
3.2.1.ȱ ȱ Theȱemotionsȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱson.ȱ
ȱThereȱisȱnoȱdirectȱpresentationȱofȱtheȱreasonȱforȱtheȱyoungerȱson’sȱdecisionȱtoȱ
leaveȱhome,ȱdespiteȱtheȱfactȱthatȱitȱisȱhighlyȱunusualȱforȱJewishȱsocialȱcontextȱ
thatȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱisȱdoingȱsuchȱaȱclaim29.ȱTheȱbasisȱforȱthisȱdecision,ȱhowever,ȱmayȱlieȱinȱsomeȱkindȱofȱnegativeȱfeelingȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱelderȱbrotherȱratherȱthanȱ
toȱtheȱfatherȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ30),ȱbecauseȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱparableȱtheȱelderȱbrotherȱrefersȱ
toȱ“thisȱsonȱofȱyours”ȱinsteadȱofȱ“myȱyoungerȱbrother”.ȱEvenȱthoughȱtheȱauthorȱ
ofȱtheȱnarrativeȱseesȱinȱtheȱyoungerȱson’sȱdecisionȱsomeȱkindȱofȱoffenceȱtowardsȱ
theȱfatherȱ(asȱtheȱheadȱofȱtheȱwholeȱfamily),ȱtheȱfatherȱhimselfȱdoesȱnotȱshowȱ
anyȱ hardȱ feelingsȱ towardsȱ theȱ youngerȱ son,ȱ whoȱ actedȱ accordingȱ toȱ hisȱ freeȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Theȱparableȱdefinitelyȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱproblemȱindicatedȱatȱtheȱbeggingȱofȱtheȱparableȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ1Ȭ2),ȱ whichȱ withoutȱ doubtȱ concernsȱ negativeȱ feelingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Phariseesȱ againstȱ Jesus,ȱ
becauseȱofȱhisȱattitudeȱtowardȱsociallyȱoutcasted.ȱ ȱ
28ȱ Inȱthisȱparable,ȱtheȱpersonȱofȱyoungerȱsonȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱtaxȱcollectorsȱandȱsinners;ȱtheȱ
personȱofȱtheȱelderȱsonȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱPharisees,ȱandȱtheȱpersonȱofȱtheȱfatherȱrelatesȱtoȱJesus.ȱ ȱ
29ȱ J.ȱR.ȱEdwards,ȱTheȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱLuke,ȱp.ȱ438.ȱ
27

60ȱ
68
ȱ
decision,ȱevenȱifȱthingsȱgoȱwrongȱforȱtheȱsonȱlater.ȱHowever,ȱitȱdoesȱnotȱchangeȱ
theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ reasonȱ forȱ hisȱ decisionȱ toȱ someȱ extensionsȱ wasȱ builtȱ onȱ theȱnegativeȱ emotionȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ withinȱ familyȱ relationship,ȱ whichȱ madeȱ himȱthinksȱthatȱoutsideȱtheȱfamily,ȱhisȱlifeȱwillȱbeȱbetter.ȱTheȱinformationȱconcerningȱ
theȱ lifeȬstyleȱ ofȱ theȱ youngerȱ sonȱ inȱ theȱ foreignȱ countryȱ (Lkȱ 15,ȱ 13)ȱ suggestsȱconsiderableȱ freedomȱ inȱ action,ȱ whichȱ allowedȱ anȱ uncontrolledȱ explosionȱ ofȱemotionsȱ andȱ desiresȱ thatȱ probablyȱ wereȱ heldȱ backȱ duringȱ hisȱ timeȱ withȱ theȱfamily.ȱThisȱexpositionȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱhadȱgoodȱtimeȱwithȱlotsȱ
ofȱ worldlyȱ happiness.ȱ Thisȱ excitementȱ wasȱ drasticallyȱ changedȱ whenȱ theȱeconomicȱ conditionsȱ turnedȱ intoȱ disaster,ȱ andȱ resultedȱ directlyȱ inȱ hisȱhumiliationȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ14Ȭ16).ȱTheȱyoungerȱsonȱwasȱnotȱonlyȱforcedȱtoȱdoȱmanualȱ
work,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ workȱ thatȱ wasȱ prohibitedȱ forȱ him,ȱ andȱ evenȱ notȱsufficientlyȱreworded.ȱAtȱthisȱstageȱofȱtheȱnarrative,ȱheȱwasȱstillȱdeterminedȱtoȱ
provideȱonȱhisȱown,ȱeventȱitȱcostsȱhisȱhumiliation.ȱItȱmayȱinȱindirectȱwayȱexposeȱ
hisȱhardȱfeelingȱtowardȱtheȱfamily,ȱandȱhisȱdeterminationȱtoȱstayȱfarȱawayȱfromȱ
theȱ home.ȱ However,ȱ hopelessȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ situationȱ forcedȱ himȱ toȱ lookȱ forȱ aȱsolution,ȱwhichȱinȱthisȱparticularȱcaseȱlaysȱinȱonlyȱoneȱpossibleȱoption,ȱnamelyȱ
hisȱ returningȱ home.ȱ Unfavorableȱ situationȱ ledȱ himȱ toȱ selfȬevaluation,ȱ whichȱ
exposesȱthatȱhisȱpresentȱsituationȱisȱworseȱthanȱsituationȱofȱhisȱfather’sȱservants30.ȱ
Hisȱ decisionȱ toȱ becomeȱ hisȱ ownȱ father’sȱ servant,ȱ wasȱ resultȱ ofȱ hisȱ honestȱrecognitionȱ ofȱ allȱ undertakenȱ actionsȱ afterȱ leavingȱ theȱ father’sȱ house 31ȱ.ȱ Heȱrecognizedȱnotȱonlyȱtheȱobviousȱfactȱthatȱhisȱactionsȱwereȱoffensiveȱtowardȱtheȱ
lawȱofȱtheȱJewishȱnation,ȱandȱagainstȱhisȱownȱfather,ȱbutȱalso,ȱhisȱdeedsȱdeprivedȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Thereȱareȱdiscussionsȱamongȱscholarsȱregardingȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱson’ȱactionȱasȱ
theȱrealȱrepentanceȱorȱratherȱasȱtheȱcleverȱmoveȱthatȱsaveȱhisȱlife.ȱThenȱLkȱ15,ȱ17ȱsuggestsȱ
theȱsecondȱpossibilities,ȱtheȱfollowingȱcontextȱofȱtheȱverseȱandȱtheȱtheologicalȱpurposeȱofȱ
Lkȱ15ȱstronglyȱsupportedȱtheȱfirstȱpossibility.ȱConcerningȱthisȱproblem,ȱcf.ȱD.ȱE.ȱGarland,ȱ
ExegeticalȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱNewȱTestament.ȱLuke,ȱpp.ȱ626Ȭ627.ȱ
31ȱ J.ȱR.ȱEdwards,ȱTheȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱLuke,ȱpp.ȱ440Ȭ441.ȱ
30

61ȱ
69
ȱ
himȱ ofȱ theȱ rightsȱ toȱ considerȱ himselfȱ hisȱ father’sȱ son.ȱ Despiteȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ
desperationȱwasȱtheȱstrongestȱreasonȱforȱhisȱawaking,ȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱputsȱhisȱ
hopeȱinȱhisȱfather’sȱgoodȱwill,ȱwhichȱshowsȱonȱhisȱpartȱaȱpositiveȱevaluationȱofȱ
theȱfather.ȱTheȱnarrativeȱproofsȱhisȱhopeȱinȱtheȱfather’sȱgoodȱwillȱbeȱrational,ȱandȱ itȱ broughtȱ forȱ himȱ aȱ resultȱ thatȱ highlyȱ exceedsȱ hisȱ expectations 32ȱ.ȱ
Recognitionȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ wrongȬdoingȱ towardsȱ theȱ father,ȱ andȱ consequentlyȱ
towardsȱ God’sȱ commandments,ȱ completesȱ thisȱ processȱ ofȱ hisȱ selfȬevaluation,ȱ
becauseȱotherȱthingsȱwereȱdoneȱtoȱhimȱbyȱhisȱfather,ȱwithȱnoȱeffortȱonȱsideȱofȱ
him.ȱTheȱpartȱofȱstoryȱconcerningȱtheȱlifeȱandȱemotionȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱendsȱ
withȱhappyȬendȱandȱitȱhasȱbeenȱcompleted.ȱ
ȱ
3.2.2.ȱ ȱ Theȱemotionsȱofȱtheȱfather.ȱ
ȱ
Although,ȱinȱtheȱnarrative,ȱtheȱfatherȱappearsȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱparableȱ
(Lkȱ 15,ȱ 12),ȱ nothingȱ certainȱ canȱ beȱ saidȱ aboutȱ hisȱ emotions,ȱ becauseȱ theȱinformationȱthatȱisȱpresentedȱmerelyȱconcernsȱhisȱagreeingȱtoȱtheȱyoungerȱson’sȱ
request33.ȱConsiderationȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱson’sȱrequestȱmayȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱfatherȱ
recognizedȱtheȱneedsȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱson,ȱandȱpossibleȱheȱwasȱawareȱalsoȱaboutȱ
someȱtensionsȱbetweenȱhisȱtwoȱsons,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱfactorȱthatȱmayȱinfluenceȱhisȱ
decision.ȱ Luke,ȱ forȱ theȱ veryȱ firstȱ timeȱ exposesȱ emotionsȱ ofȱ theȱ fatherȱ inȱ theȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Humiliationȱ thatȱ heȱ sufferedȱ fromȱ handsȱ ofȱ theȱ foreigners,ȱ andȱ hisȱ selfȬhumiliationȱ byȱ
degradedȱhisȱsocialȱstatuesȱtoȱtheȱservant,ȱprobablyȱwereȱaȱdirectȱreasonȱforȱhisȱrespectȱ
towardȱtheȱfatherȱrightsȱandȱtheȱLawȱofȱtheȱnation.ȱJ.ȱB.ȱGreen,ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱpp.ȱ580Ȭ
581.ȱ
33ȱ Inȱtheȱparable,ȱalthough,ȱtheȱfatherȱisȱtheȱcentralȱfigureȱdirectlyȱconnectedȱtheȱtwoȱpratsȱofȱ
theȱstory,ȱhowever,ȱheȱactsȱinȱveryȱpassiveȱway,ȱalmostȱallowingȱhisȱsonsȱtoȱactȱatȱwill,ȱ
withoutȱexecutingȱhisȱfather’sȱpower.ȱHeȱisȱpassiveȱthenȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱaskedȱforȱhisȱ
share,ȱ evenȱ itȱ wasȱ againstȱ socialȱ costume.ȱ Heȱ alsoȱ compromisedȱ thenȱ theȱ elderȱ brotherȱ
refusedȱtoȱenterȱtheȱhouse,ȱalthoughȱtheȱbehaviorȱofȱtheȱelderȱsonȱwasȱaȱdirectȱdisobedienceȱ
toȱtheȱfather.ȱL.ȱT.ȱJohnson,ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱp.ȱ236.ȱ
32

62ȱ
70
ȱ
narrativeȱ regardingȱ theȱ returnȱ ofȱ hisȱ youngerȱ son.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ father’sȱ
severalȱactionsȱcontainȱhighȱlevelȱofȱemotionsȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ22Ȭ23)34.ȱForȱinstance,ȱLukeȱ
exposeȱthatȱtheȱfatherȱwasȱwaitingȱforȱtheȱreturnȱofȱhisȱyoungerȱson,ȱwhichȱisȱ
informationȱ suggestingȱ considerableȱ levelȱ ofȱ hopeȱ thatȱ indirectlyȱ exposesȱ theȱfather’sȱinterestȱinȱtheȱson’sȱfade,ȱasȱwellȱasȱfather’sȱunchangedȱloveȱtowardȱtheȱ
son.ȱWhenȱtheȱfather’sȱhopeȱfinallyȱwasȱfulfilled,ȱheȱinsteadȱofȱwaitingȱforȱtheȱ
sonȱandȱhisȱapology,ȱgoesȱoutȱtoȱmeetȱtheȱsonȱdespiteȱtheȱfactȱthatȱheȱwasȱstillȱ
farȱfromȱtheȱhouse.ȱTheȱfather’sȱactionȱwasȱcausedȱbyȱtheȱpityȱtowardȱtheȱson,ȱ
whichȱexposesȱtheȱfather’sȱinterestsȱinȱtheȱlostȱsonȱratherȱthanȱinȱwrongdoingȱofȱ
theȱyoungerȱson.ȱThisȱisȱattestedȱbyȱLukeȱdescriptionȱofȱtheirȱmeeting,ȱwhichȱ
informedȱthatȱtheȱfatherȱ“claspedȱhimȱinȱhisȱarmsȱandȱkissȱhimȱtenderly”.ȱThisȱveryȱ
expressiveȱ narrativeȱ indicatesȱ father’sȱ loveȱ toȱ theȱ youngerȱ son,ȱ andȱ hisȱunconditionalȱ acceptance,ȱ whichȱ howeverȱ isȱ mostȱ probablyȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱknowledgeȱaboutȱtheȱson’sȱ“conversion”ȱunderstandȱhereȱasȱ“changingȱofȱhisȱownȱ mind”.ȱ Theȱ sonȱ finallyȱ recognizedȱ hisȱ wrongdoingȱ thatȱ madeȱ himȱ notȱworthyȱtoȱbeȱanymoreȱtheȱsonȱofȱhisȱfather,ȱandȱthisȱrecognitionȱwasȱaȱbaseȱforȱ
anotherȱrequestȱaddressingȱtoȱfather,ȱwhichȱconsiderȱtoȱbeȱacceptedȱasȱhisȱownȱ
father’sȱ servant.ȱ Thisȱ timeȱ theȱ youngerȱ sonȱ apology,ȱ confessionȱ wasȱ acceptedȱ
withoutȱevenȱoneȱwordȱofȱrebuke,ȱorȱoneȱmomentȱofȱhesitation,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱ
youngerȱsonȱrequestȱwasȱnotȱgroundedȱbyȱtheȱfather,ȱwhoȱhasȱnoȱintentionȱtoȱ
lowerȱ theȱ socialȱ statuesȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ son,ȱ evenȱ ifȱitȱseemsȱ toȱ beȱ justifiedȱ byȱ theȱson’sȱ deeds35.ȱ Instead,ȱ theȱ fatherȱ restoredȱ allȱ privilegesȱ ofȱ hisȱ son,ȱ andȱ inȱ hisȱopinionȱ theȱ son’sȱ returnȱ isȱ worthyȱ ofȱ celebration.ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ reasonȱ forȱ suchȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ Contraryȱtoȱtheȱdepartureȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱson,ȱduringȱtheȱreturnȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱtheȱfatherȱ
actsȱveryȱactively,ȱdeȱfactoȱheȱdominatesȱtheȱwholeȱsectionȱbecomingȱtheȱmainȱprotagonist.ȱ
N.ȱGeldenhuys,ȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱpp.ȱ408Ȭ409.ȱ
35ȱ NotȱthatȱinȱLkȱ15,ȱ21ȱtheȱrequestȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱisȱnotȱdirectlyȱexplicated.ȱA.ȱPlumer,ȱ
Criticalȱ andȱ Exegeticalȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Gospelȱ Accordingȱ toȱ S.ȱ Luke,ȱ T&Tȱ Clarkȱ 1981,ȱ
Edinburgh,ȱp.376.ȱ
34

63ȱ
71
ȱ
generousȱattitudeȱofȱtheȱfatherȱisȱtheȱfactȱthatȱhisȱsonȱ“wasȱdeadȱandȱhasȱcomeȱbackȱtoȱlife;ȱheȱwasȱlostȱandȱisȱfound”36.ȱThisȱargumentationȱofȱtheȱfatherȱagainȱexposesȱ
thatȱ theȱ mainȱ focusȱ ofȱ theȱ fatherȱ concernsȱ hisȱ son,ȱ andȱ evenȱ theȱ shadowȱ ofȱselfishnessȱhasȱnoȱplaceȱinȱhisȱattitude.ȱExtremelyȱemotionalȱactionsȱofȱtheȱfatherȱ
areȱexcusedȱbyȱtheȱradicalȱchangeȱofȱtheȱfamilyȱfortune,ȱwhereȱtheȱyoungerȱsonȱ
countedȱasȱtheȱlostȱorȱdeadȱforȱtheȱfamily,ȱagainȱbecameȱtheȱjoyȱforȱtheȱfamily37.ȱ
Theȱ secondȱ timeȱ whenȱ theȱ father’sȱ emotionsȱ areȱ exposesȱ concernsȱ theȱnarrativeȱ regardingȱ theȱ reactionȱ ofȱ theȱ elderȱ sonȱ toȱ theȱ attitudeȱ ofȱ theȱ fatherȱ
towardsȱ hisȱ youngerȱ sonȱ (Lkȱ 15,ȱ 25Ȭ31).ȱ Theȱ elderȱ sonȱ wasȱ absentȱ whenȱ hisȱyoungerȱ brotherȱ returnedȱ toȱ theȱ father,ȱ whichȱ makesȱ allȱ situationȱ toȱ beȱ greatȱsurpriseȱforȱhim.ȱTheȱsimpleȱinformationȱthatȱtheȱreasonȱforȱcelebrationȱofȱtheȱ
familyȱ isȱ hisȱ youngerȱ brotherȱ returner,ȱ wasȱ sufficientȱ plaintiffȱ forȱ refusingȱ toȱenterȱ theȱ father’sȱ house.ȱTheȱbasicȱ emotionȱforȱ hisȱ decisionȱ wasȱ anger,ȱwhichȱ
althoughȱwasȱaddressedȱtowardȱhisȱfather,ȱhowever,ȱwasȱcausedȱbyȱunmercifulȱ
judgmentȱofȱhisȱyoungerȱbrother,ȱwhoȱaccordingȱtoȱhimȱwasȱtreatedȱbetterȱbyȱ
theȱ fatherȱ thanȱ him38.ȱ Theȱ elderȱ sonȱ findsȱ theȱ father’sȱ attitudeȱ toȱ beȱ offensiveȱtowardsȱhimself,ȱbecauseȱaccordingȱtoȱhimȱtheȱfatherȱneverȱshowed,ȱexpectedȱbyȱhim,ȱgratitudeȱtowardsȱhisȱlongȱandȱfaithfulȱserviceȱthatȱwasȱmarkedȱwithȱ
unconditionalȱ obedience.ȱ However,ȱ thisȱ complainingȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ onlyȱ
emotionalȱ outcome,ȱ whichȱ doesȱ notȱ exposeȱ theȱ reallyȱ problemȱ betweenȱ theȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Concerningȱ theȱ argumentationȱ ofȱ theȱ father,ȱ itȱ isȱ worthyȱ toȱ considerȱ similarȱ Paul’sȱ
expositionȱinȱEphȱ2,ȱ1.4Ȭ5.ȱP.B.ȱGadenz,ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱBakerȱAcademicȱ2018,ȱGrandȱ
Rapids,ȱp.ȱ277.ȱ
37ȱ J.F.ȱFitzmyer,ȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱLukeȱ(XȬXXIV),ȱp.ȱ1090.ȱ
38ȱ Note,ȱthatȱtheȱelderȱbrotherȱdoesȱnotȱreferȱtoȱhisȱfatherȱbyȱtermȱ“father”ȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱhisȱ
youngerȱbrotherȱbyȱtheȱtermȱ“brother”.ȱJ.ȱNoland,ȱLukeȱ9,ȱ21Ȭ18,ȱ34,ȱp.ȱ787.ȱ
36

64ȱ
72
ȱ
fatherȱ andȱ theȱ elderȱ son 39ȱ.ȱ Thisȱ problem,ȱ deȱ facto,ȱ doesȱ notȱ exist 40ȱ.ȱ Theȱ realȱ
problemȱisȱtheȱfactȱthatȱfatherȱforgiveȱtheȱyoungerȱson,ȱwhichȱisȱsomethingȱthatȱ
theȱelderȱbrotherȱneverȱwillȱbeȱcapableȱtoȱdo,ȱorȱmaybeȱneverȱwillȱwantȱtoȱdo41.ȱ
Theȱelderȱbrotherȱisȱnotȱcapableȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱfather’sȱdelightȱinȱtheȱreturnȱ
ofȱhisȱyoungerȱson,ȱbecauseȱheȱhadȱalreadyȱjudgedȱhisȱyoungerȱbrother42.ȱToȱthisȱ
attitudeȱofȱtheȱelderȱson,ȱtheȱfatherȱansweredȱwithȱreconciliationȱattitude,ȱwhereȱ
theȱ factȱ ofȱ sheeringȱ byȱ theȱ elderȱ sonȱ allȱ thingsȱ thatȱ belongsȱ toȱ theȱ fatherȱ isȱ
stronglyȱexposed.ȱInȱthisȱway,ȱtheȱfatherȱexposesȱhisȱaffectionȱtowardȱtheȱelderȱson,ȱhowever,ȱthisȱexpositionȱisȱmoreȱrationalȱthanȱemotional.ȱTheȱfatherȱassuresȱ
theȱ elderȱ brotherȱ (asȱ theȱ typeȱ ofȱ theȱ Pharisees)ȱ thatȱ heȱ alwaysȱ belongsȱ toȱ hisȱhouse,ȱandȱthereȱwasȱnotȱtimeȱofȱhisȱseparationȱfromȱtheȱfather,ȱwhichȱmakesȱ
himȱ toȱ beȱ faithfulȱ sonȱ alwaysȱ bellowedȱ andȱ alwaysȱ respectedȱ (Lkȱ 15,ȱ 31)ȱ 43ȱ.ȱ
Basedȱonȱthisȱassurance,ȱtheȱfatherȱmakesȱanotherȱstep,ȱattemptingȱtoȱredirectȱ
theȱelderȱson’sȱfocusȱfromȱhisȱnegativeȱfeelingȱtowardȱtheȱyoungerȱson,ȱandȱputsȱ
itȱonȱtheȱfathersȱrejoinȱbecauseȱheȱhasȱhisȱtwoȱbellowedȱsonsȱagainȱunderȱtheȱoneȱ
andȱtheȱsameȱroofȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ32).ȱTheȱaimȱthatȱtheȱfatherȱwantsȱtoȱachieveȱisȱenteringȱ
byȱ theȱ elderȱ sonȱ theȱ father’sȱ houseȱ andȱ joyingȱ theȱ celebration,ȱ whichȱ meansȱ
recognitionȱ ofȱ theȱ father’sȱ will,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ reconciliationȱ withȱ hisȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Greenȱthinksȱthatȱtheȱconversationȱofȱtheȱelderȱsonȱwithȱtheȱfatherȱexposesȱhisȱalienationȱ
fromȱtheȱfather.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱreasonȱforȱtheȱelderȱbrother’sȱangerȱisȱnotȱtheȱfatherȱ(andȱheȱneverȱwas),ȱbutȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱyoungerȱbrotherȱinȱtheȱhouseȱofȱtheȱfather.ȱJ.ȱB.ȱGreen,ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱpp.ȱ585.ȱ ȱ40 ȱ Note,ȱ thatȱ theȱ elderȱ brotherȱ doesȱ notȱ complainȱ toȱ theȱ fatherȱ toȱ beȱ treatedȱ bad,ȱ butȱ heȱcomplainsȱthatȱfatherȱtreatsȱtheȱyoungerȱbrotherȱinȱwayȱheȱ(theȱelderȱson)ȱrecognizedȱasȱ
unjustified.ȱTheȱsameȱproblemȱisȱaȱreasonȱforȱPhariseesȱcomplainingȱtoȱJesus,ȱwhoȱseemsȱ
toȱapproachȱtheȱsinnersȱinȱwayȱnotȱacceptableȱforȱtheȱPharisees.ȱ ȱ41ȱ Edwardsȱrightlyȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱlanguageȱusedȱbyȱtheȱelderȱbrotherȱthenȱtalkingȱ
aboutȱtheȱyoungerȱbrotherȱ“thisȱsonȱofȱyours”ȱexposesȱtheȱelderȱbrother’sȱjudgmentȱuponȱ
theȱyoungerȱbrotherȱbutȱnotȱuponȱtheȱfather.ȱJ.ȱR.ȱEdwards,ȱTheȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱLuke,ȱpp.ȱ445Ȭ446.ȱ
42ȱ L.ȱT.ȱJohnson,ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱp.ȱ241.ȱ
43ȱ A.ȱPlumer,ȱCriticalȱandȱExegeticalȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱGospelȱAccordingȱtoȱS.ȱLuke,ȱp.ȱ377.ȱ
39

65ȱ
73
ȱ
youngerȱ brother,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand.ȱ Unfortunately,ȱ theȱ narrativeȱ doesȱ notȱprovideȱtheȱinformationȱifȱtheȱfather’sȱattemptȱwasȱsuccessfulȱorȱnot,ȱwhichȱleftȱ
theȱ problemȱ ofȱ theȱ elderȱ brotherȱ toȱ stayȱ unsolved.ȱ Concerningȱ theȱ fathers’ȱattitudeȱtowardȱbothȱsons,ȱdespiteȱsomeȱdifferencesȱinȱbothȱcases,ȱtheȱfather’sȱ
basicȱattitudeȱtowardsȱthemȱisȱequal:ȱheȱisȱalwaysȱgoingȱoutȱtoȱmeetȱeachȱofȱthem.ȱ
ȱ
3.2.3.ȱ ȱ Theȱemotionsȱofȱtheȱelderȱson.ȱȱTheȱelderȱbrotherȱisȱtheȱprotagonistȱofȱtheȱlastȱpartȱofȱtheȱparable’sȱnarrative,ȱandȱfromȱtheȱveryȱbeginningȱtillȱtheȱendȱheȱisȱpresentedȱinȱaȱsomewhatȱnegativeȱlight.ȱFirst,ȱheȱrefusesȱtoȱenterȱtheȱfather’sȱhouseȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱpresenceȱthereȱ
ofȱtheȱyoungerȱbrotherȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ27).ȱConsideringȱthatȱtheȱhouseȱwasȱalsoȱaȱplaceȱ
whereȱheȱwasȱliving,ȱhisȱactionȱisȱindirectȱwayȱtoȱindicateȱthatȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱ
theȱyoungerȱbrotherȱinȱtheȱhouseȱisȱnotȱacceptedȱbyȱhim.ȱThisȱattitudeȱexposesȱ
hisȱ uncompromisedȱ prejudiceȱ towardȱ hisȱ youngerȱ brother,ȱ whichȱ deeplyȱ
influencedȱhisȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱcelebrationȱeventȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ27).ȱTheȱsituationȱ
madeȱhimȱangry,ȱandȱtheȱangerȱmadeȱhimȱsuburbȱandȱunkindȱtowardȱhisȱfamily,ȱ
whichȱresultedȱinȱputtingȱtheȱcaseȱonȱtheȱedgeȱofȱtheȱknife,ȱwhenȱheȱputsȱpresserȱ
onȱhisȱfatherȱbyȱrefusingȱtoȱenterȱtheȱhouseȱonlyȱbecauseȱtheȱyoungerȱbrotherȱ
wasȱthere.ȱDeȱfacto,ȱtheȱelderȱbrotherȱindirectlyȱforcedȱtheȱfatherȱtoȱmakeȱaȱchoseȱ
betweenȱtheȱyoungerȱbrotherȱandȱhimself.ȱProbably,ȱforȱthisȱreason,ȱtheȱconciliarȱ
attemptȱofȱhisȱfatherȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ28)ȱwasȱusedȱbyȱhimȱasȱtheȱoccasionȱtoȱexposeȱhisȱ
negativeȱ emotionȱ towardȱ hisȱ father,ȱ whomȱ heȱ accusesȱ aboutȱ unjustȱ attitudeȱ
towardȱhimselfȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ29).ȱItȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱhisȱaccusationȱtowardȱtheȱfatherȱ
wasȱanȱoutcomeȱofȱlongȱsuppressedȱhardȱfeelingȱtowardȱtheȱfather,ȱhowever,ȱhisȱharshȱwordȱtowardȱtheȱfatherȱareȱratherȱrootedȱinȱdeepȱantipathyȱtowardȱtheȱ
youngerȱbrother,ȱthenȱinȱaȱrealȱstateȱofȱfactsȱrelatedȱtoȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱhimȱ
andȱhisȱfather.ȱItȱseems,ȱthatȱheȱwasȱlessȱdisappointedȱbyȱtheȱfactȱthatȱhisȱfatherȱ

66ȱ
74
ȱ
didȱ notȱ showȱ himȱ appreciationȱ forȱ hisȱ service,ȱ rather,ȱ heȱ wasȱ greatlyȱ
disappointed,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ fatherȱ showsȱ theȱ appreciationȱ forȱ theȱ youngerȱbrother’sȱreturn.ȱThisȱactionȱofȱtheȱfatherȱwasȱaȱdirectȱreasonȱforȱtheȱelderȱbrotherȱ
arguingȱ withȱ theȱ father,ȱ whichȱ headedȱ toȱ convinceȱ theȱ fatherȱ thatȱ hisȱ actionȱ(acceptanceȱ andȱcelebration)ȱisȱimpropriate,ȱifȱconsideringȱtheȱ wrongdoingȱ ofȱtheȱyoungerȱbrother.ȱTheȱarguingȱwithȱtheȱfatherȱsharplyȱexposesȱthatȱtheȱelderȱ
brotherȱradicallyȱdistinguishesȱhimselfȱfromȱhisȱyoungerȱbrotherȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ30)ȱbyȱ
callingȱ himȱ “theȱ sonȱ ofȱ yours”ȱ butȱ notȱ “theȱ brotherȱ ofȱ my”.ȱ Thisȱ distinguishȱ
stronglyȱ suggestȱ theȱ condemnationȱ ofȱ theȱ youngerȱ brotherȱ (directly)ȱ andȱpotentialȱ selfȬseparationȱ fromȱ theȱ familyȱ ifȱ theȱ youngerȱ brotherȱ isȱ acceptedȱ(indirectly).ȱ Although,ȱ Lukeȱ almostȱ nothingȱ aboutȱ theȱ conflictȱ betweenȱ theȱbrothers,ȱtheȱhardȱfeelingȱonȱtheȱsideȱofȱtheȱelderȱbrotherȱtowardȱtheȱyoungerȱ
brotherȱcanȱbeȱeasilyȱdetected.ȱTheȱelderȱbrotherȱhasȱstrongȱreasonsȱforȱnegativeȱ
attitudeȱtowardȱtheȱyoungerȱbrother,ȱwhoȱlostȱhalfȱofȱtheȱfamilyȱestate,ȱleftȱtheȱ
elderȱbrotherȱtoȱworkȱforȱtheȱfamilyȱalone,ȱandȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱfatherȱonlyȱinȱorderȱ
toȱsaveȱhisȱlife.ȱTheȱyoungerȱsonȱlostȱhisȱrightsȱtoȱbeȱcalledȱ“hisȱfatherȱson”ȱwhichȱ
isȱtheȱstatementȱdirectlyȱexplicatedȱtwiceȱbyȱhimȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ19.ȱ21),ȱwhichȱindirectlyȱ
mayȱmeanȱthatȱheȱhasȱnotȱalsoȱrightsȱtoȱcallȱhimselfȱ“theȱbrother”ȱofȱtheȱelderȱ
sonȱ ofȱ hisȱ father44.ȱInȱ thisȱcontext,ȱ itȱisȱ clearȱ theȱ inȱcontrastȱtoȱ hisȱ father,ȱwhoȱrestoredȱtheȱprivilegeȱofȱthisȱyoungerȱson,ȱtheȱelderȱbrotherȱhasȱnoȱintentionȱtoȱ
doȱtheȱsame.ȱ
Theȱelderȱson’sȱreasonȱforȱcriticalȱapproachȱtowardȱtheȱfatherȱisȱhisȱgoodȱattitudeȱ
shownȱtowardsȱhisȱyoungerȱ sonȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ30),ȱwhichȱexposeȱtheȱelderȱbrother’sȱ
egocentricȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱissue,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱlittleȱrespectȱtowardȱtheȱfather’sȱ will,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand.ȱ Theȱ elderȱ sonȱ seemsȱ toȱ exposeȱ hisȱdisappointmentȱforȱmercifulȱattitudeȱofȱtheȱfatherȱtowardȱthoseȱwhoȱdidȱwrongȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ44ȱ ItȱisȱstronglyȱsuggestedȱbyȱLkȱ15,ȱ30.ȱ

67ȱ
75
ȱ
butȱfinallyȱrepentanceȱandȱchangeȱforȱgood.ȱDeȱfacto,ȱtheȱelderȱsonȱjudgesȱnotȱ
onlyȱhisȱyoungerȱbrotherȱbutȱalsoȱhisȱfather’sȱdecision.ȱAllȱtheseȱshowȱthatȱtheȱ
elderȱbrotherȱisȱnotȱunitedȱwithȱhisȱyoungerȱbrother,ȱandȱheȱseesȱhimȱnotȱasȱtheȱ
youngerȱbrother.ȱTheȱelderȱsonȱisȱnotȱalsoȱentireȱunitedȱwithȱhisȱfather,ȱbecauseȱ
hisȱconcentrationȱonȱhimself,ȱmakesȱhimȱblindȱtoȱtheȱfather’sȱrightsȱandȱfeelings,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱtheȱyoungerȱbrother’sȱreconciliation.ȱTheȱambivalentȱendingȱofȱtheȱ
narrative,ȱ thatȱ doesȱ notȱ presentȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ theȱ father’sȱ consolationȱ mission,ȱ
suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ elderȱ brotherȱ showsȱ noȱ goodȱ willȱ eitherȱ inȱ forgivingȱ toȱ theȱyoungerȱbrother’sȱoffence,ȱorȱevenȱinȱacceptingȱtheȱfather’sȱforgivenessȱtoȱtheȱ
youngerȱbrother.ȱItȱmakesȱhimȱdeȱfactoȱtoȱbeȱtheȱmainȱproblemȱwithinȱtheȱfamily.ȱ
ȱConclusionȱ
ȱTheȱfactȱthatȱLkȱ15ȱcontainsȱthreeȱparablesȱregardingȱ“lost”ȱ(theȱlostȱsheepȱȬȱ
Lkȱ15,ȱ4Ȭ7;ȱtheȱlostȱdrachmaȱȬȱLkȱ15,ȱ8Ȭ10;ȱtheȱlostȱsonȱȬȱLkȱ15,ȱ11Ȭ32),ȱandȱthatȱtheȱ
introductionȱ toȱ theȱ parablesȱ containsȱ theȱ informationȱ thatȱ theȱ Phariseesȱ
complainedȱaboutȱJesus’sȱattitudeȱtowardȱ“theȱlost”ȱ(Lkȱ15,ȱ1Ȭ2),ȱmakesȱclearȱthatȱ
LukeȱinȱhisȱpresentationȱofȱtheȱelderȱsonȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱattitudeȱofȱtheȱPhariseesȱ
andȱtheirȱrejectionȱofȱtheȱ“lostȱones”ȱorȱthoseȱwhoȱwereȱoutsideȱtheȱcovenant45.ȱ
Lukeȱmakesȱeachȱofȱpersonȱinȱtheȱparableȱreferringȱtoȱeachȱofȱtheȱsidesȱinvolvedȱinȱrealȱsocialȱconflict.ȱTheȱfatherȱofȱtheȱparableȱisȱtypeȱofȱJesusȱratherȱthanȱGodȱ
ifȱ theȱ particularȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ parablesȱ isȱ takenȱ toȱ consideration46ȱ.ȱ Heȱ isȱ theȱfather,ȱwhoȱlovesȱbothȱofȱhisȱsons,ȱdespiteȱtheȱfactȱifȱtheyȱdoȱgoodȱorȱwrong,ȱheȱ
alwaysȱlooksȱforȱtheȱunityȱwithȱthem.ȱTheȱdutifulȱsonȱisȱtheȱtypeȱofȱtheȱPharisees,ȱwhoȱ alwaysȱ followingȱ theȱ Mosaicȱ Lawȱ andȱ condemningȱ thoseȱ whoȱ doȱ notȱfollowȱtheȱLaw.ȱTheyȱcountȱthemselvesȱtoȱbeȱjust,ȱwithȱnoȱreflectionȱthatȱtheyȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ4546

ȱ L.ȱT.ȱJohnson,ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱp.ȱ239.ȱ
ȱ H.ȱM.ȱMarshall,ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱLuke,ȱEerdmansȱ1978,ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱp.ȱ605.ȱ ȱ

68ȱ
76
ȱ
areȱalsoȱcanȱbeȱ“lostȱones”ȱevenȱtheyȱdidȱnotȱdepartureȱfromȱfatherȱ(however,ȱtheyȱmayȱdepartureȱfromȱtheȱfather’sȱwill),ȱbecauseȱtheyȱdepartureȱfromȱtheirȱ
brothers.ȱ Theȱyoungerȱ sonȱ isȱ theȱ typeȱofȱ thoseȱ whoȱ doȱ notȱ followȱ theȱ MosaicȱLawȱ orȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ Judaism,ȱ andȱ forȱ thisȱ theyȱ areȱ marginalizedȱ byȱ those,ȱwhoȱdoȱit.ȱTheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱLukeȱendsȱtheȱparable,ȱclearlyȱindicatesȱhisȱpurposeȱ
thatȱconcernsȱexpositionȱofȱtheȱelderȱsonȱasȱtheȱrealȱproblemȱwithinȱtheȱfamily,ȱ
whichȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱPhariseesȱopposingȱJesus’ȱattitudeȱtowardȱ“theȱlostȱones”.ȱ
ReadingȱLkȱ15,ȱtheȱreaderȱisȱconvincedȱthatȱtheȱ“lostȱson”ȱisȱfoundȱandȱreunionȱ
withȱtheȱfamily,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱcaseȱofȱtheȱelderȱsonȱstillȱstaysȱambivalent,ȱwhichȱ
mayȱbeȱtakenȱasȱkindȱofȱwarring.ȱ
Readingȱthisȱparableȱwithȱthisȱhistoricalȱbackgroundȱmayȱhelpȱcontemporaryȱreadersȱtoȱrecognizeȱexistenceȱofȱthisȱproblemȱinȱtoday’sȱChristianȱcommunities.ȱ
Ifȱ theȱ lostȱ sonȱ isȱ aȱ typeȱ ofȱ thoseȱ believersȱ whoȱ doȱ notȱ fitȱ exactlyȱ intoȱ theȱregulationsȱofȱtheȱparticularȱcongregation,ȱandȱtheȱelderȱsonȱisȱaȱtypeȱofȱfaithfulȱbelieversȱ whoȱ followȱ theȱ congregation’sȱ regulationȱ butȱ doȱ notȱ findȱ joyȱ inȱrealizingȱ theirȱ faith,ȱ theȱ messageȱ ofȱ theȱ parableȱ isȱ notȱ somethingȱ thatȱ relatesȱmerelyȱ toȱ someȱ pastȱ historicalȱ issue.ȱ Godȱ acceptsȱ bothȱ theȱ “lostȱson”ȱ andȱ theȱ“dutifulȱ son”,ȱ Heȱ acceptedȱ thenȱ inȱ theȱ past,ȱ andȱ Heȱ acceptsȱ themȱ alsoȱ now.ȱ
However,ȱtheȱrealȱproblemȱthatȱisȱpresentedȱbyȱtheȱparablesȱinȱLkȱ15ȱconcernsȱ
whetherȱtheȱ“dutifulȱson”ȱacceptsȱorȱheȱdoesȱnotȱacceptȱhisȱlostȱyoungerȱbrother.ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱᗎ