Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:1-32)

Welcome to Wednesday in the Word with Krisan Marotta. What the Bible means and how we know. For more talks and study materials, visit wednesdayintheword.com. Speaker: Welcome again. It's so good to see all of you. Thank you all for coming and taking time out of your week to be here and sharing God's word and your time with us. We are in Luke chapter 15. We're going to look at um three parables for the price of one today. We're going to do the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost sons. I bet um most all of you could probably name some big feud that took place in your family, you know, at some point in your lives, maybe parents and children, or siblings, or uh family members who go into business together and they end up in a fight over the money or the business, or siblings fighting over the inheritance. I reconnected with one of my high school friends recently, and when we were kids, I was really envious of her family. She had this big, happy uh family with lots of brothers and sisters, and they all were very close. And as we were catching up, I learned that when her parents passed away, the siblings turned against each other fighting over the inheritance, and the plot, you know, kind of rivaled Dickens bleak house. And I really don't know all the details of what happened, but I do know it's tragic. And most of us have that at some point in our lives. Either we're struggling with forgiving someone who's hurt us, or oftentimes struggling with needing to ask for repentance, or struggling with someone who's hurt us who isn't repentance. And that's the theme of our parable today is repentance in all three of these parables. Specifically, the question that Jesus will answer for us is what should our attitude be toward repentant sinners? And by extension, what should our attitude be toward unrepentant sinners? And he's going to challenge the Pharisees' notion of how we answer that question. So, first we're going to go over the context because this is your here's a chair moment, if you remember from the first lecture. There is a context for this, and it's easy to miss. These parables were presented as Jesus' defense for associating with sinners. So look at verses 1 and 2 of Luke 15. Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to him, and the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, This man receives sinners and eats with them. So that's the context. Pardon? Yes. Thank goodness, or we'd all be out in the cold, right? So the first thing we have to understand is why does Jesus need to defend himself? So he's doing something the Pharisees think is wrong, and we have to figure out why and why he's defending his actions. So the Jews were hard on the fallen or the sinners. They pitied them, but they made no effort to restore them because repentance was considered something that you had to do to gain God's favor. So repentance was a work you did in order to prove to God that you were worthy of forgiveness and able to enter the kingdom of God. So those who had repentant, repented already, were held in high honor, but those who hadn't repented was kind of like the attitude toward them was get your act together. Since repentance was a work you did, and the already the already repentant made no effort to win over the non-repentant. So in fact, they held them in quiet and disdain and kept themselves separate. So tax gatherers were considered sinners and hated because not only did they take money from the Jews and give it to the hated Romans, in doing that they had to daily come in contact with Gentiles, and that made them unclean. One commentator wrote, It was bad enough to be ruled by Rome, but to have Jews aiding the Romans was intolerable. And sinners was a word the Pharisees would have used to describe those who didn't keep the law. So those who failed to go through all the measures necessary to maintain ritual cleanliness, to per fulfill all their sacrifices and their religious duties. So they may have been religious in the sense that they were following or trying to follow their religion, but they didn't quite do it enough. They didn't keep it long enough. So the first thing we have to know is the Pharisees thought repentance was something you did to gain God's favor. The second thing you have to know is table fellowship was a sign of friendship and acceptance. So one of the commentators described it this way to understand what Jesus was doing eating with sinners, it is important to realize that in the East, even today, to invite a man to a meal was an honor. It was an offer of peace, trust, brotherhood, and forgiveness. In short, sharing a table meant sharing life. So a nobleman might feed the needy as a sign of his generosity and his benevolence, but he did not sit down at the same table and eat with them. If he did, that was a sign of acceptance and a sign of honor. So for Jesus to sit down at the same table with sinners and tax gatherers is to send the message that he's accepting them and granting them brotherhood. And you can see why the Pharisees grumbled, because these people are not clean, and if Jesus wants to keep himself clean, he should not sit at the same table with them. And then third, hosting the meal was a further sign of acceptance. So in 15.2, when it says this man receives sinners, it implies that Jesus is the host. So not only is he eating at the same table with them, he's inviting them to his table, and that's a more serious offense. So the guest was assumed to bring honor to the house he visited, and for Jesus to so it's one thing for Jesus to accept an invitation to eat with a sinner, but it's another step entirely for him to invite that sinner to eat with him at his own table. So that's a yet another level of acceptance and friendship, and that's offensive to the Pharisees, because these people are not clean. So Jesus is doing something that's offending their religious sensibilities, and from their point of view, he's showing honor to those who who do not deserve it, and he's making himself unclean. So that's the situation, and this is how Jesus answers that. So he's we keep in mind that the context of this is answering the question, what should your attitude be towards sinners or unrepentant sinners? So let's look at the parable of the lost sheep first. This is 15, 3 through 7. So he told them this parable. What man of you having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he came when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost. Just so I tell you there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. Okay, one the first background we have to know about this is that shepherding was a despised profession. So we're so used to thinking of shepherding as this rich religious symbol that we miss the fact that at the time this was a lower class job. This was like garbage collecting. This was not the one you the job you wanted to have if you wanted to maintain a high social status. And there were sharp distinctions made between jobs and their social status, and shepherding was near the bottom of the list. In fact, we have two separate lists of kind of despised professions according to the Pharisees, and shepherding makes both lists. So they were considered unclean because they had to trail after sheep all day, and they came into contact with all manner of unclean things in the process. So Jesus picks a despised profession, and then he turns around and he dresses the Pharisees as if they were shepherds. So when he opens and he says, What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep, it has the idea of which of you shepherds. So it'd be like me starting this talk and saying, Well, which of you prostitutes? You go, whoa, what are you calling me? It's offensive. It's just not the way you start polite conversation. So he's kind of starting up pushing their buttons. So he's addressing them as someone who's in an unclean profession, and then he's telling a story in which this unclean, despised person is the positive role model. Now, the setting for the story then, you'd have to know that his audience would assume that a hundred sheep is a community flock. So at the time, very few families were wealthy enough to own a hundred sheep. Typically, a well-off family might own five to fifteen sheep. And but what they would do is they would pull all their sheep into one flock and mingle their herds, and then they'd hire one shepherd to watch over all of them. And for a herd of a hundred sheep, it would be typical to hire two shepherds. So his audience would assume that there were two shepherds and one has is guarding the other ninety-nine and one is off seeking the lost sheep. So any loss to the of the from this herd would be a loss to the community, and that explains the rejoicing. You'll notice the rejoicing is mentioned twice, once when the sheep is found in verse 5, and again in verse 6 when it's restored to the herd. So if one family lost the sheep, the community would see it as a community loss and mourn with them, and when the sheep was found, they would rejoice as a community. And what the shepherd would do is carry the sheep on his shoulders, because usually a confused sheep would lie down and refuse to budge. So to get him to it's not just going to willingly follow him home, he'd be forced to pick up the sheep and put him on his shoulders for probably what could be several miles. So when an act and notice too that um the Jesus assigns blame here. There's a there's a difference between active and passive. So, you know, we would say it broke rather than I broke it, if you don't want to take responsibility. And Jesus uses the active in verse 4. He says, The shepherd has lost one of them. He doesn't use the passage, a sheep was lost. He's assigning blame to the to the shepherd. So he's calling on the Pharisees to identify with the shepherds by saying, Who from among you? Then he's calling on them to see themselves as responsible for this wandering sheep. And that's going to push their buttons because they don't think they're responsible for lost sinners. Sinners have to uh to take that step of repentance on their own, and then we can welcome them back. So his point is just as the shepherds sought the one lost sheep the one sheep that was lost and rejoiced when it was found, so I seek the lost, those who are lost from God, and rejoice when they are found, and I think implied is, and so should you, Pharisees. So his story is calling on the Pharisees to seek the lost and rejoice when they're found. And the last statement in verse 7, I tell you, in the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over the 99 righteous who need new rep no repentance. I don't think Jesus is saying there are 99 righteous people around who don't need repentance. I think this is irony. He's speaking to the Pharisees, because the Pharisees think they need no repentance. They're keeping the law, they're doing it all right, and they're following uh, you know, the letter down to the tithing their mint garden. So I think he's speaking ironically, and he's saying, You think you need no repentance, but there's more joy over the one who truly comes back. Now, repentance was debated. Um, some rabbis felt that there were completely righteous people and that God loved them in a special way. But other rabbis said no, that God's greatest love was for repentant sinners, but both camps saw that repentance was something you did. You had to repent, and then you would gain God's blessing. So, at least indirectly, Jesus is challenging this view. Notice the lost sheep does nothing to prompt his being found other than being lost. And he's comparing the sinner who repents with the sheep that is found, and that's a radically new concept for the Pharisees, because how could repentance simply be compared to being found by God and not doing anything on your own? Okay, so let's look at the lost coin. We're going to kind of fly through these because I want to spend most of our time on the prodigal son. So eight through ten, or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek diligently until she finds it. And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost. Just so I tell you there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents. Now, women were also not mentioned in public debate. So again, Jesus is pushing the religious buttons because he's mentioning the woman in a as a positive role model. The social position of women was just right around that of shepherds. They were pretty low on the totem pole, and for the most part they were excluded from public life. Um, daughters were considered below sons in ranking, their education was limited, they didn't have a right to own property, everything they had belonged to their fathers, and up to about twelve and a half, a woman had no right to refuse a marriage arranged by her father. He could even sell her into indentured servitude if he wanted. But after twelve and a half, she came of age and gained some independence. She couldn't be married against her will, but once married, her husband basically had the same authority over her as her father. Now, given that background, consider how Jesus treats women in the gospels. He was downright scandalous. He talked to them in public, he let them follow him, he encouraged them to listen and learn, and uh uses them in positive as positive examples. So this would be offensive. The Pharisees would be like, oh, you can't bring a woman as a positive example. Now, cash was also a scarce commodity. Peasant communities at the time were largely self-supporting, so they made their cloth, grew their food, and whatever, and they traded and bartered. Cash was kind of rare. For a woman to have ten silver coins was unusual, and they would probab most likely have been part of her dowry, and they would have been irreplaceable. She couldn't go out and just earn another one. And most likely they were part of a jewelry, because typically that's how they would would keep their dowry. So it would have been a necklace or a headdress of some kind. So losing one is a great loss for her. She lights the lamp because houses were dark, windows were small and high on the walls, if they had windows at all, and she's sweeping with the broom to dislodge the coin so it would roll across the floor or make a sound when it hit the stone. So she's expending a lot of effort to find this coin and rejoices when it's found. And he's Jesus is repeating essentially the same point as the shepherd. Just as the woman searched for her lost coin, so Jesus searches for lost sinners and rejoices when he finds them, and implied to the Pharisees is so should you. So the first thing he's challenging to them is this idea that you shouldn't seek the lost. He's saying, actually, you should seek the lost. I seek the lost. I there there is, and we're gonna see what he goes on to build with the prodigal son, is repentance is not something you do to gain God's favor. Okay, so let's with that as kind of the opening to the prodigal son. Let's we're gonna step through it verse or section by section, and there's a lot of background to give you for this. And I I just hope this opens up your eyes to this. Think of this as a like you're watching a movie filling in the background. So let's look at 15, 11, and 12. And he said, A man had two sons. The younger of them said to his father, Father, give me my share of the estate that falls to me. So he divided his wealth between them. So the prodigal's request is an unbelievable and extraordinary insult. Because what he's saying is, Dad, I can't wait for you to die. I want my inheritance now. He's essentially saying, I wish you were dead. And it was unheard of. Um this is an outrageous display of disrespect, and it signifies a profound break with his father. So what would happen at his father's death is the property would be divided between the two sons. The older son would get two-thirds and the younger son one-third, from Deuteronomy 21. But property was never ever divided while the father was in good health. So what he's saying is, I can't wait for you to die. And if that's not bad enough, he wants to convert his inheritance to cash so he can dispose of it. So a father could transfer the property to his children while he lived, but it was seen as kind of a trust or an estate, and the father had the right to live off the proceeds until he as long as he lived. So for a son to sell it is denying his father basically his security or his retirement in his old age. He's saying, Not only give me legal possess possession of my inheritance, but let me sell it or dispose of it as well. So he's saying, gee, Dad, I can't wait for you to die, and I'm not even going to provide for you until you do. I want my inheritance now, and I don't care if it means I'm depriving you of your livelihood. So both those requests are profoundly insulting. For the father to grant it is also unheard of. It's an unbelievable act of love. And that day the father would be expected to explode into rage, to discipline the boy severely for the implication of his demand, and um, you know, maybe beat him with an inch of his life or something, but he would never ever grant it. So that facts that he granted, Jesus' audience would have been going, What, why would he ever do this? He's saying essentially, not only will I give you all that I have, I give it freely with no strings attached. There's n you have the right to do with it whatever you want, and I'm releasing you from all obligation toward me. So he could have retained legal rights to the land, but he doesn't. He's jeopardizing his own livelihood as he approaches old age, and it's a profound show of love. Now, the older son is silent. Notice he's mentioned twice. He's mentioned in verse 11 and 12 that there are two sons, and that's significant because the older son is expected to come in and heal the breach. So he's expected to loudly refuse to accept his share of the inheritance, to protest his brother's arrogance, reaffirm his deepest respect for his father, and then try to heal the relationship. Instead, he says nothing, which means he wishes his dad was dead too. He is just as lost. So he's expected to protest and he's expected to act as a mediator between father and prodigal and attempt to restore the relationship. Because breaks in relationships were usually healed by a third party, and there were kind of rules of the next closest male relative was expected to step in and play that role. So his silence is a refusal to meet that responsibility. He should know the request is wrong, he knows he's expected to protest, he should at least refuse his share, but he doesn't. Verse 12 tells us the father divides his living between the two sons, so the older son gets a profit out of this deal. He's just as lost. Okay, so let's look at 13 through 17. And not many days later the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living. Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be impoverished. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into the his fields to feed swine. And he would gladly he would have gladly filled his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, but no one was giving anything to him. But when he came to his senses he said, How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hungry with hunger? Okay, so family property lost to the Gentiles was a big offense. So not only does he turn his portion of the inheritance into cash, but he sells it, turns it into cash, then he leaves the country and he spends it among the Gentiles. And that's even more insulting. So the family estate was a significant part of your identity. The land was part of your inheritance, it was part of who you were, your family tribe, your identity. They belonged to the land to so to sell your land for cash was offensive. But then to turn around and spend that cash in a foreign country is even worse. So this is now a break with the community as well as the family. And he sinks to an unbelievable low. A lone Jew in a foreign country without money or friends would be especially vulnerable during a famine. And the the word that they use, he hired himself out to one of the citizens of the country, literally means he glued himself to one of the citizens of the country. It's like he was hanging on to his leg begging. So the polite way to get rid of someone you didn't want to be around was to assign them a task you know they'd refuse. So he's assigned the task of herding pigs, and Jews did not herd pigs. Pigs were unclean animals, they weren't allowed to raise them. So for him to herd pigs, this is like below the bottom of the barrel of the barrel. He couldn't participate in any aspect of religious of his religion because he would be so unclean for being in regular contact with these animals. Furthermore, the per owner presumably ate the pigs, and when they were butchered, typically he would offer the less desirable portions to the herder, but in this case a Jew couldn't eat them even if he was starving. So he has really hit bottom. So now he has a plan. Look at 15, 18, and 19. I will get up and go to my father and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your hired men. So this looks like repentance, but it is not yet repentance. He's reached the end of his rope, but he hasn't quite. Fully acknowledged everything he's done wrong. So he says, I've sinned against heaven, and in your sight he's acknowledging his failure to be responsible for his inheritance and provide for his father's old age. But in addition to his financial responsibility, he had a moral responsibility, and that he hasn't acknowledged yet. And let me show you why we know that. At this point, I think if he he thinks if he hadn't lost the money, he wouldn't have sinned. So his motivation is hunger, and he repents for losing the money and getting himself in this fix, but not his moral failure. And we know that because of the plan he devises. He devises a plan that will allow him to return to his father and save all his still save faith. So there were three um three types of servants in Jewish life. There were bondsmen who were slaves and they were part of the estate, and they were held in pretty high regard and considered part of the family. There were slaves, these are three different Greek words. I could tell you what they are if you're interested. There were slaves proper who were of a lower class and they were considered subordinate to the bondsmen, and then there were hired servants, which is the word the prodigal uses. And hired servants were free men who could come and go as they wished, and they were outside the estate. So they were essentially independent. And the key here is that hired men were of the same social status as the owners, because they had they had this working job and work was considered highly valuable. So the worker was highly regarded. And as a hired worker, the prodigal would be free to come and go, he would earn his own income and living, he could live independently in the local village, and his social status would not be inferior to his father or his brother. So he could maintain his pride and independence and maybe, if he's really careful, repay what he's lost. But it does nothing to restore the break with his father. So he's offering a solution that will allow him to come back on the same terms he left. He's got a plan to save himself, but he's not really asking for forgiveness yet. Now, remember that rabbis of the day thought that repentance was a work you did to gain God's acceptance. So the prodigal's plan fits right into their understanding because now he's doing something, he's taking steps, he's taking an action to kind of repair what he's lost, to make restitution, and that's that would be the rabbis would go, yeah, that's okay. You have to repent, you have to show yourself righteous as a way to gain forgiveness, and so that's what he's doing. He's he's got this plan to make himself acceptable. So rabbis thought, you know, you had you started there and then God did the rest. So you took that first step and then and then God would come along, and now that you've proven yourself worthy, grant you favor. How are we doing on time? Okay, so what Jesus is going to show us is that's not true repentance. So look at 1520. So he got up and came to his father, but while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him and ran and embraced him and kissed him. So this is another unbelievable act of love and compassion. And what we get is a series of dramatic actions in this brief sentence that Jesus' audience would have marveled at. Because the situation here is that farmers typically lived in a village. So all the houses were clustered together in the village, and then the fields surrounded the village. So it's not like we think of today where the family farm is off in the middle of nowhere and the houses are miles and miles apart. Typically, at this time, the houses would have been clustered together with the fields surrounding them. And the original audience would assume assume the father lived in the village, not out in isolation somewhere. Everyone in the village is most likely aware of what happened and feels the prodigal shouldn't have been granted his inheritance in the first place. They would be offended by how he spent the money among the Gentiles. And so as the prodigal approaches the village, you can imagine the crowd's going to start to gather, going, Oh my gosh, look his back, probably react with anger and hostility, maybe spit on him or mock him or jeer him as he makes his way through the village to his dad, where they expect fireworks to break out. Instead, what you see is his father run through that crowd to the prodigal. So taking the humiliation on himself. And a Jewish nobleman never ran anywhere. So for him to hike up his robes and run through the crowd or run through the village is humiliating. He is expected to walk at a slow, dignified pace. Running would have been unheard of. In fact, we have modern cases of European pastors who are unable to gain acceptance in Eastern communities because they walk too fast. It's just seen as undignified, you just don't do it. So the father, while he's still a long way off, so the prodigal is a long way off, the father saw him and runs to him and embraces him. He runs the gauntlet for his son instead of his son walking through that gauntlet of a jeering, mocking crowd. So not only does he save his son the humiliation, he humiliates himself in the process. And if that's not enough, he publicly welcomes him back. So he kisses him and embraces him, which was a sign that he is back, that he is reconciled, that he is entering the village under his father's protection. So the kiss on the cheek was a sign of reconciliation and forgiveness. And whenever there was a serious breach in the in the village, part of the reconciliation ceremony would have been a public kiss by the people involved, kind of like we, you know, shake hands on the deal. They would have this kiss on the cheek. So the prodigal, instead of walking through this ruthless steering crowd and facing his father's wrath or indifference if he's lucky, instead his father runs through the crowd for him, publicly embracing him with no strings attached, no explanations, no justifications, no, I told you so. And now look what how the father or what the son says in 21. And the son said to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight I'm no longer worthy to be called your son. Now he truly repents, because notice what's missing. His plan. His plan is missing. All that part about make me the hired servant, gone. I think what's happening here is now he's truly repented. Now he says, I have done nothing to deserve this. I am completely at fault. I am no longer worthy. Um and now he truly repents. So for him to come back as a son has disadvantages because he has nothing. Everything now belongs to his brother. He's going to have to live off his brother's good graces, if his brother's willing. He will be fully under his father's authority as a son, so there would be no independence, no living in the town, and he will have no way to make reparations because he won't be earning anything. So to come back as a son is not an ideal solution if he wants to maintain his pride. But I think what's happened is his pride has been shattered by his father's unbelievable display of love. Because how can he ever, I mean, he might be able to pay back the money eventually, but how can he ever say to his dad, you know, that part about me wishing you were dad, no hard feelings. Good luck with that. Having been that untrustworthy and selfish, how can he expect to have his father's love and trust again? He can't, and yet he's just gotten it with ne without even asking. There's nothing he did to gain it. And that's true repentance. But his father, oh say let's go on twenty-two to twenty-four, his father said to his slaves, quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet, and bring the fatted cap, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and has come to life again. He was lost and has been found, and they begin to celebrate. So he welcomes him back with this demonstration of grace, and then he further restores the relationship again by grace. Um he goes out of his way, and all the things he mentions are signs of reconciliation. So telling the servants to dress his son is saying to the servants, You will show him the proper respect due to a son. So he's he's bringing him back in at the social satisfaction of a son, putting the best robe on him, a robe which most certainly had belonged to the father, is telling the community, I expect you to treat him as my son as well. The ring is most likely a signet ring, which was a sign that the son is trusted and given his father's authority. So it's the a ring that he would have used to sign his father's name and wax, you know, to seal something. The shoes are a sign of being a free man because servants and slaves did not wear shoes, but free men did. So shoes were a luxury and they were only worn by free men, and so he's being granted back free uh the status of a free man, not indentured service or servitude. And then the selection of a calf for the feast means that he's gonna invite the whole village. So he doesn't select a goat, a small animal, which wouldn't feed as many people. He accepts uh uh sacrifices a larger animal, which means we're gonna have a large feast, we're gonna invite the whole village. To further make it known to everyone, this son is back and he's a son. You aren't to hold this against him. So, what's he saying here with this parable? That repentance is not a work that we do to gain God's favor, but a confession of unworthiness and accepting God's grace. So God loves us before we repent. And in the prodigal, we have this picture of a servant who plans to confess and compensate, but the father demonstrates this incredible love, humiliating himself, and then the son, the prodigal is overwhelmed and says, Take me back as a son, not a servant. And that's the picture of repentance. Repentance is not something we do to gain God's favor, for there's nothing we can do. But instead it's a recognition of our complete and total failure before God, our total unworthiness, the I'm no longer worthy to be called your son, and then accepting the grace and the unmerited love that God gives us. And God offers it all as a gift. Now we would expect the parable to end there because that's a pretty amazing point. But notice Jesus goes on. He wants to teach his audience what true repentance is, and the idea that God would love a sinner before he repents would have been unheard of to the Pharisees. It was radical. But he's going to make a further point, and that is the older son is still lost. So let's look at what happens with the older son in twenty-five through twenty-eight. Now the older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house he heard music and dancing, and he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things could be. And he said to him, Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him back safe and sound. But he became angry and not willing to go in, and his father came out and began pleading with him. Okay, now at a banquet, the older son is expected to stand at the door and greet all the guests. So he's expected to play host and make sure everyone has enough to eat, you know, offer compliments, direct the servants, and it was a way for the father to say, My oldest son is your servant. It was a sign of hospitality and respect. So the fact that the older son won't even go in the door is a breach of etiquette. Because if he wants to fight with his father about the way his father his brothers received, he should at least enter the house, fulfill all his duties as host, and then talk to his father after the guests have left. Instead, he stays outside, and that's an insult. That refusing to participate in the banquet his father is giving and publicly exposing their quarrels was an insult. Remember what happened to Queen Vashti when she refused to appear at the banquet that King Ahazarus was holding for the Book of Esther? It's the same kind of situation. He is not supposed to refuse to enter the feast. It's a breach of authority. And Vashti was deposed for it. So the older son still has a serious break in his relationship with his father. For the father to go outside to the son is to humiliate himself again. He's expected to ignore the older son, proceed with the banquet, or maybe fly into rage and have the son punished, as you know, we saw King Ahazarus do to Queen Vashti. And instead he leaves the feast, leaves his guests, and goes outside to his older cu son, and when he comes out, he doesn't scold him or rage, it says he entreats him, he begs him. He shows the same compassionate love to the older son that the prodigal had. Now look at the son's response, twenty-nine and thirty. But he answered and said to his father, Look, for so many years I have been serving you, and I have never neglected a command of yours, yet you have never given me a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. But when the son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him. So the older son is not responding well to the grace he's been shown. He addresses his father without a title, which he just says look instead of father or any other kind of respect, and titles have been used in every address so far and the story. So this is the first time where we don't have a title. Neither does he call his brother brother and says he calls him your son, again, demonstrating no respect. And he shows the attitude of a slave, not a son. He says literally, I have slaved for you, that I have been serving you as I have slaved for you. And he's publicly insulted his father and then says, But I've never disobeyed when he just insulted his father here, and also insulted him when he refused to mediate in the first place. He accuses his father of favoritism, says, To me, you never even gave a kid. His attitude is, I've earned this, where is my due? So he's asking for what he thinks is his fair share, his right, what he has earned from his father. And essentially he wants to dispose of his inheritance in a feast with his friends almost the way the prodigal did. So he says he's a hypocritical saint, if you will, or in that sense he's like the Pharisees. He's estranged and rebellious, but he's still present. Well, the prodigal was estranged and rebellious while absent. But the older son is estranged and rebellious while still present, and he's clearly saying, Look, I've done it. I've kept my part of the bargain. I want what now you to keep your part. And it's it was surprising to me to see how many commentators accept his reactions as as kind of natural and reasonable. And I guess they are natural and reasonable in the sense of they make sense because we're selfish and we have hard hearts, but this is not the response that we ought to have. This is the response of a heart that says, I am good enough. I can earn this, I can do this, I have done my share. Why would you give the same grace to those prostitutes and sinners when I'm over here keeping my part of the bargain? And that is the problem. It's not the it may be a natural response, but it's not the right response. So look at 31 and 32. And he said to him, Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead, and he has begun to live and was lost and has been found. So the father should be furious at his son's disrespect, his insult. Instead, again, he shows love. He begins with a title, unlike the older son who left off the title. He uses the term wios, which is of it's a beloved term for son. And he says, Everything I have is yours. I have given you all. I can't give you any more because I've given you everything. All that is mine is yours. There's not going to be a further dividing of the property. And he's saying, I want you to be a son, not a slave or a servant. So he's saying, I've the son says, I've served you all these years. Where's my due? Where's my recompense? My reward. The father says, But you're the heir, you have everything already. You're not working for recompense. It's all yours to begin with. How could I possibly give you more? And he appeals for that understanding of grace. He doesn't apologize for the banquet, and he doesn't reproach the older son as selfishness. Instead, he appeals to him to understand grace. Now, what's missing from the parable? The older son's response. That's what we expect next. So we have two types of sons here: one that's lawless without the law, that's the prodigal, and one who's lawless with the law, the older son. They're both rebellious, they both break their father's heart, they both break their relationship, they both receive the same outpouring of grace. The father humiliates himself for both of them, he entreats both of them, he loves both of them, and one responds with repentance. He says, I am unworthy, and accepts the grace, and the other so far is self-righteous. Says, no, I've earned it. So what's missing is how will you respond? And I remember this is addressed to the Pharisees. We begin this chapter with the Pharisees grumbling about Jesus eating with the sinners and tax gathers, and I think it ends with them an invitation for them to join the banquet. So they are led to identify with the older son, not the father, so they're left standing outside murmuring against the sinners who are now at the banquet, or like the prodigal who's now at the banquet, and Jesus is inviting them to respond. He's saying, Look, are you going to cling to your servant status? Are you going to insist on trying to earn your way in into the kingdom? Or are you going to accept sonship, accept grace, and join the feast? So repentance is not just being found. The father goes out and finds the sons, the woman finds the coins, the shepherd finds the sheep, but one remains lost, one son and the other is found. So the next step is to acknowledge the finding, to accept the grace. So did the older son remain outside, or did he did he remain lost, or did he acknowledge his unworthiness and join the feast? That's the missing piece. And that's the question I think Jesus is leaving them with. And what he wants to teach them is that repentance is not something you do to gain God's favor, it's recognizing that you are unworthy, that you there's nothing you can do to gain God's favor, and humbly accepting the grace that he offers. So the question Jesus is posing to the Pharisees is, which are you? Which will you accept that grace or will you insist on law? Do you do you think you can save yourself or you can earn your way and that you're good enough? Or have you realized that you can't make it and that God's love is freely offered? Let's stop there since it's ten fifteen. Let me pray for us and uh you can ask some questions after that. Lord, we thank you that you invite us to the feast and we come before you as sinners unworthy of the love and grace you offer, knowing that the standard of your holiness and righteousness is far above us. And I just pray that we would understand that in the depths of our souls, that we would recognize not only how far and deep our sin is, but how far and deep and wide your love is, and that you are willing to do what it takes to save us, to do for us what we could never do for ourselves, to send your son to die in our place, such that our debt to sin could be repaid, and we could freely be restored to your kingdom and your love and your grace. In Jesus' name. Amen. Thank you for listening to Wednesday in the Word with Krisan Marotta. What the Bible means and how we know. For notes and study questions, visit wednesdayintheword.com. We hope you'll join us again, and may God richly bless you.