and verse 11 and 12 to identify
it, and then jumping to verse 25. And he said, a certain man
had two sons, and the younger of them said to his father, father,
give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided
unto them his living. Verse 25. Now his elder son was
in the field, and he came and drew night of the house, and
he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants
and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, thy brother
is come, thy father hath killed a fatted calf, because he hath
received him safe and sound. And he was angry and would not
go in. Therefore came his father out
and entreated him. And he answering said to his
father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgress
I at any time thy commandment, yet thou never gavest me a kid. that I might make merry with
my friends. But as soon as this thy son was
come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, and hath
killed thy skill for him, the fatted calf, he said unto him,
Son, thou art ever with me. All that I have is thine. It was me that we should make
merry and be glad for this thy brother was dead and is alive
again and was lost and is found. Now, as I said, it is no secret
that the first part of this parable gets the most attention in the
preaching and the teaching of our day, but has been called
by many the prodigal son. This has been heard often and
again. A wayward people have been called
prodigal. because they have gone away from
the right way. Usually the emphasis, or most
of the emphasis, is put here upon this first or upon this
younger son who took his father's living and substance and went
into a far country and there wasted it and came unto an awful
end. And the sad part about it is
a lot of people portray this young son as a backslider, as
a Christian, a person who knows God, but in the course of time
got away from the Lord. And I tell you, when we compare
his confession to that of David, it is another matter altogether. And I think that view cannot
be true, first because of the context, and because of the purpose
for which the parable was spoken by our Lord. But also from the
words of the Father in verse 24 and again in verse 32. This my son was dead and is alive
again. He was lost and is found. Now this answers to the two things
in the beginning of the parable that were lost and then recover. You remember there was number
one, a lost sheep. He was sought by the shepherd,
he was found, and he was brought back into the fold. That's in
verse four and verse five. Then number two, there was that
lost coin of the woman and she searched diligently all through
the house until she found it and she restored it again under
her purse. And that's in verse 8 and in
verse 9. And then comes the lost son who
also was brought back who also though a great and a wayward
sinner was brought back and reconciled unto the Father, even though
he had wasted his substance in riotous living and wound up in
a far country doing a most degrading thing, and that was he had become
a feeder of swine. But now let's ask ourselves the
obvious question. Why did the Lord speak this parable
in the first place? What is it meant for? What is
the aim? What is the intent? What is the
message of this parable? Now, there is one truth that
runs throughout all of this, and though we're not to make
up doctrines to match every single part of a parable, because a
parable always breaks down at some point in its application. Still, there is a central point
to every parable that we find in the scripture. And I think
here in this chapter, verse 1 and verse 2 supply the answer for
us when we look at Luke 15, 1 and 2. Then drew near unto him all
the publican and the sinners for to hear him, and the Pharisees
and the scribes murmured, saying, This man receives sinners and
eats with them. as the Lord was teaching, a large
number of publicans and sinners gathered in, crowded around,
in order that they might hear Him. These people were people
of bad character, people of bad and pure reputation. They were
the outcasts of society of that day and that time, people known
everywhere by their bad character and immoral life. Also there
came the scribes and the Pharisees who came perhaps as much to criticize
and to catch our Lord as they did to hear and to learn. This
was a large sect of Jewry, and they would be considered the
separatists of our day. In verse 2, the scribes and the
Pharisees were critical when they saw the great teacher allowing
such characters such free and easy access unto him and tolerating
their presence in the audience there of the people. They said,
and they no doubt said it not only to themselves, but perhaps
murmuring and out loud, this man receives sinners and eats
with them. And they intended this. not as
a compliment to our Lord, but to put a stain upon his character
and upon his ministry as a teacher come from the Lord. He not only
welcomes them, but he held the closest communion with this sort
of people. eating with them, sharing meat
with them, a thing they, the Pharisee, would never imagine
to do. There were other times when the
same thing was laid to the charge of our Lord, such as Luke chapter
7, when the Lord sat at meat in the house of a Pharisee, and
when a woman who had lived a very sinful life anointed the feet
of the Lord and wiped His feet with the very hair of her head. And in verse 39, the Pharisee
who had invited our Lord thought unto himself, what manner of
man is this? If this man were a prophet, he
would know that this woman is a very sinful person. You find
it again in Luke 19. The Lord called Zacchaeus, and
he went home with a little weaselly man who had embezzled the taxes
of the people, was the chief of the tax gatherer, and had
made himself wealthy in that vocation. And in verse 7 of that
chapter, the people murmured that Jesus had lured himself
by becoming the guest of a man that was a known sinner, And
that would be Zacchaeus. But then, coming back to our
text and the words in Luke 15 and verse 2, this man receives
sinners and eats with them. And he thinks that J.C. Ryle
probably has a valid point here when he wrote that these words
are the key, the keynote to the whole chapter. The whole chapter
is a reply under that charge, and it is never lost sight of
throughout this entire chapter. The Lord confirms his words from
Luke 5 and verse 32. I came not to call the righteous,
but sinners unto repentance. The parable here in Luke 15 of
the prodigal shows us that great sinners, wicked sinners, ungodly,
vagabond sinners, Depraved sinners can be reconciled unto God, something
the Pharisees did not believe in. Now, we notice in the chapter
that there are two sorts of persons that are present here with the
Lord. There were persons of unsavory character, like the Pharisee
and the sinners, the tax cheats, dishonest men, flagrant sinners
there were in the hearing of our Lord. Also present were self-righteous
men, Jews, Pharisees they were called. They considered themselves
the paragons and the model of virtue and of decency. And these people were trained
in the writing and the skills thereof, they were the copyist
of the Word of God, the scribes were, and they were the one responsible
for so much of the teaching. But we notice another thing in
the chapter and in the parable. That is that it said a certain
man, an unnamed man, had two sons. Not one son, but two sons
for us to focus on. and that the two sons were of
opposite character as we read in the parable. They were nothing
alike. They were as different, we might
say, as night and day. One took his father's inheritance. He went away into a far country. That would be the younger son.
He came to a most notable and prolific man in the course and
practice of his life. The other is the elder son, and
the scripture said he stayed at home with a father. He was
faithful to the command of his father. He worked the field diligently. He did what the father asked
him to do. He served him. He never fell
into extravagance. He was not a party animal like
the younger one. He was not a wild child in any
sense of the word. Now, consider something. That
is that these two sons in this parable are representative of
two classes of people that were there in the presence of the
Lord Jesus as he was speaking parable and teaching them publicly. The younger son symbolized the
publicans and the sinners. They lived wretched lives. They
had been disobedient and rebellious. They had been or become lawless. Now, they were not Gentiles,
but Jews, as some have taught. They were Jews rather than Gentile. The elder son is a symbol of
the Pharisees and of the scribe. Now these people were very, very
religious. You can read about them in the
New Testament. Matthew 23 is a good place to
find out their behavior. They attended the synagogue.
They fasted at set time. They tied the least matter that
came through their hand. They prayed on the street corner
that they might be seen of men. And in their own eyes they were
such, never having transgressed the law of God. They did not
see themselves as a sinner in the sight of God. And they did
these things and many others. in the practice of their religion. Now what a picture we have here
of forgiving mercy to a vile sinner in the younger son as
he returns home under the father. The father receives this deeply
contrite younger son welcomes him with open arms, falls upon
his neck, and kisses him, put the best robe upon him, and a
ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet, and seated him at the
table to be partaker of a great celebration, saying, Let us eat
and be merry, for I have received my son safe and sound. But then, beginning at verse
25, What about the older brother? What about the elder son? How will he react to the father
so freely receiving the younger brother home again from the fields
of sin? Will he rejoice that his brother
at last has come to himself and repented and come to be a moral
man? Will he rejoice that the prodigal
younger brother has returned? Will he be humble and contrite,
given the privilege as a son in the house of the father? And
will the elder embrace the younger and welcome him and rejoice that
he has come? Well, no, not on all accounts. When he heard of it, look at
verse 25 through verse 27, we see his reaction. Verse 28, he
was angry. He refused to enter into the
merriment and the festivity of the house, and he refused to
be a partaker and share the joy of his father. He resented what
he heard. He was indignant. He thought
it was a great injustice unto him. that a great wrong had been
done unto him as a faithful son, and he considered it a waste
to be feeding a son who had been such a prodigal and an immoral
man by slaying in his honor the fatted calf of the stall. He thought his father had erred
and wasted his joy and his merriment, and a prize animal had been taken
away in an unworthy cause. manner now let's see how closely
this attitude and conduct mirrored that of the Pharisees and the
scribes described in the second verse of this chapter they murmured
look at it Luke 15 1 & 2 Another word rendered murmured, as in
Matthew 20 verse 11, Luke 5 and verse 30, John 6 and 41. The word, I understand, means
to grumble, while the word in Luke 15, 2 and Luke 19 and 7
seems stronger in the Greek. It means to greatly murmur and
to complain, and that throughout a crowd, or making the expression
known in the hearing of others. Even so, the elder brother greatly
murmured, and neither the murmuring of the Pharisee nor of the elder
brother was directed toward the ones that they looked down upon. Rather, the Pharisee directed
their murmuring toward the Lord, for he tolerated in his presence
and company that of a sinner. And the elder brother directed
his murmuring against his father in verse 29. He speaks directly
unto the father. Now the Pharisees said, this
man received sinners and each were them. And the elder brother
lays the same charge to his father. If you look in verse 30, he has
come, you have received one which has devoured by living with Harlach. You have received and eaten with
one that is a sinner. You have welcomed him into your
house and table. Now, this is the first time that
we read of the younger son having kept company with Harlitch. And it may be true, as we read
in verse 13, of riotous living. The NIV has it, loose living. My Marshall's interlinear has
it, living prodigally. Barry's interlinear has it, living
dissolutely. In other words, living a very,
very immoral life. And the elder brother means it
by way of heaping contempt upon his younger brother. At the same
time, blaming his father for receiving and honoring and eating
with such a sinner. We see this in no familial contrition
in that elder brother. at all. But let us keep in mind
the confession of the prodigal In verse 18 through verse 21,
goes something like this. I've sinned against heaven and
against you, oh father. I'm not worthy of the title of
son. Send me to the field, make me
like one of the hired servant. Send me out of the house, put
me to menial task in the field. Now contrast the words of the
elder brother, who said to the same father, I have never transgressed
thy commandment, not at any time. I have rendered or given to you
perfect obedience, and yet you have never honored me and my
friend in such a way. So it is time to ask, what was
the spiritual state of the older brother? Would we have to consider
him as a saved man, how be it a proud and a prideful one? Was
he a Christian with an attitude problem and a self-righteousness? Or does the parable expose the
sad state of self-righteous men and women as we meet with them
in the scripture? And I think that the latter is
true. J.C. Ryle and others have pointed
out that this elder brother is an exact type of the scribe and
the Pharisee of our Lord's time living in that day. In that Luke
18 and verse 9, they trusted in themselves that they were
righteous and they despised others. That was their attitude. Paul
wrote of them, Romans 10. And verse 3, being ignorant of
God's righteousness, going about to establish their own righteousness,
have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Consequently, they have no real
righteousness before God, at least not a justifying righteousness,
only their self-righteousness, to present before God, and self-righteousness
our Lord severely condemned. The prophet Isaiah likened them
unto filthy rags who trust their righteousness, Isaiah 64 and
verse 6. Such was the elder brother. But as he comes, he pleads the
merit of his obedience, saying, I've served you all of these
years, Never one time going against or transgressing your commandment
or your orders. Like the Pharisee in Luke 19
and verse 20, all these things have I kept from my youth up,
that man said to the Lord. And the elder brother complained
that he had not been properly rewarded for his obedience. as in verse 29 and the last part. You never gave me so much as
a kid or a young goat so that I could celebrate and make merry
with my friend. And there's something here for
us not to overlook. That favor shown to the younger
brother who had been a great sinner aroused the animosity
of the elder brother who was self-righteous. Soon as this
thy son is come, this son of yours, he says, he disowns him
as a brother. He's wasted your living in riotous
living and in prostitute. And what do you do? You kill
for him the fatted calf, the stall calf, the one kept for
special occasion while I never had so much. as a young kid. And this shows the self-righteous
moralist of that day and of any day, those who believe in their
legal works, who've lived what we might call a moral outward
life, a civil life. They do not take well. They do
not look well upon free favor to undeserving, unrighteous sinner. And the elder staked his claim,
having been a keeper of the commandment of the Father. Like many today,
who do not think themselves as being great sinners. They don't
think of themselves as being lost and undone and wretched
and blind and naked of a saving righteousness. So many there
are today in the churches, they have no sense of being the sinner
that they are or that God likens them. They were raised in church
or they were raised under a moral influence and because they've
never been a prodigal, They've never been drunk, never been
an adulterer, never been a gambler, never been a spin thrift, never
swindled a neighbor or a friend, never been arrested, and some
other thing. On the contrary, they think themselves
righteous in the sight of God, having been brought up in the
church, having memorized the books of the Bible, having been
taught the creeds of the faith, given all their children Bible
names and such like. Such people, my friend, are very
hard to convince that they are a sinner in need of the saving
grace of God. They trust in themselves that
they are well and that they are righteous. I came across this
quote of a certain commentator. He, that is the elder brother,
is a type of the self-righteous, ignorant moralist who cannot
bear the doctrine of salvation by grace or endure the idea of
great sinners being completely pardoned and put on a level above
himself, unquote. We have another fault to point
out. in the elder brother, in that he disavowed his own brother,
not glad that he had found grace and come to repentance, referring
to him, this thy son. The father said, this thy brother
is come. And the elder disowned him. But
also notice, the pouting elder brother does not confine his
discontent to the younger brother alone. He faults the father as
if to say, you have received a sinner. you have eaten with
him, as they said in verse 2, as soon as he is come, as soon
as he is arrived. Gil said of this, the elder thought
such rejoicing and celebrating was unbecoming on the part of
the father, even as the self-righteous legalist. believe that only law-abiding
people, upright and decent people, can be considered the children
of God, that there is no easy forgiveness for great sinners. Gil said the elder brother would
prefer another method to be taken with the younger. Send him away,
disown him. Send him to the slave, be a slave
as it were. Let him be beaten with many stripes. Let him work and obey until he
merited the right of the father's table and of the father's house. What a contrast, therefore, between
the view of themselves by the two brothers. The elder saw himself
as being in perfect obedience to the commandment and worthy
of the blessing of the father. The younger, though at first
indifferent and rebellious, came to see himself as a great sinner. unworthy of the father's name,
home, kiss, kindness, or whatever, humbling himself, Father, I've
sinned, willing to be a servant rather than a son in the house. An old Puritan wrote of the difficulty
of convincing such as the older brother of the fact that they
are sinners in the sight of God. To which I might add, they remove
themselves from the church where the depravity of the race is
strongly emphasized. They don't like to hear the doctrine
of human depravity. They don't like to hear about
original sin and that we are sinners and that from the womb. They, self-righteous people,
stop their ears at hearing of the wrath of God and of a burning
hell, and they close their eyes. to the truth of the gospel that
great sinners may come and be saved. I say they are self-deceived
and perhaps deceived by God as well, given over to a self-righteous
spirit whereby they think all is well with their soul. They're
likened to the deaf adder. in Isaiah, or is it Psalm chapter
58 verse 4 and 5, that has stopped its ears, will not respond, will
not heed the tune of the charmer, though he charm ever so wisely
and ever so beautiful. God hates self-righteousness. It is a stench in the nostrils
of a holy God. It is contrary to His Word, for
He has said, there is none righteous, no, not one. Not one of the family
of man is righteous in themselves. None will ever sue come to God
for mercy and pardon through Christ until they are shown and
recognize what a great sinner they are. Those who see themselves
as righteous will likely perish in their delusion, except God
does a sovereign work of grace in them, and intervene in their
life, pull away the scale, and show them their depravity in
the sight of God. For it is an insult to all like
the elder brother, to be told that they are sinners worthy
of everlasting damnation. They will not hear it. They will
not tolerate it. Now, in closing, the scene in
Luke 18, 9 through 14, when the holy Lord Jesus spake this parable
unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous. a publican, a Pharisee. The first
confessed his sin and unworthiness and asked for mercy. The Pharisee
praised himself and extolled his works there in the court
of the temple. But the question is, which one
went away justified? Was it that old publican who
smote on his breast and said, God, be merciful to me, the sinner,
the sinner? Be perpetuous, I think, is what
the Greek says, some say. Be perpetuous to me, the sinner,
while the old Pharisee raised up his eyes and said, God, I
thank you that I'm not like other men are. I'm not like this old
Pharisee here standing here in the courtyard. Who went away
justified? Not the Pharisee, but the publican. For God resists the proud and
he gives grace Unto the unborn there's a statement by our Lord.
I'll close with it publicans and sinners Go into the kingdom
of God before you The worst before the best. Consider that. Some
of the worst sinners, called by God's grace, enter into the
kingdom of God, while some of the most religious and civil
and upright go on their blind, ignorant way, self-deceived and
thinking themselves well in the sight of God, and finding at
last in the end bitter damnation and judgment. So this parable
teaches us the difference between self-righteousness and those
who see themselves as great sinners and come before God and beg for
his mercy. Thank God for this picture and
a second lost son we have in this parable by our Lord. Not
only the first prodigal, but the second one by his blinded
self-deceit and self-righteousness.