Forgiveness: The Unsaved and the Lost

Luke chapter fifteen is a chapter that focuses on three parables. The word that is used at the beginning though is in the singular, which tells us that these three parables interlink and are all designed to teach one particular topic, and that has to do with the topic of forgiveness. So the focus here is on forgiveness and the three parables of lost things—a lost sheep, a lost coin, a lost son.

Something should be said about the context. As we see the beginning we realise that this is another one of those confrontations that take place between the Scribes and the Pharisees and Jesus. At this time in Jesus’ ministry there is an ongoing confrontation that takes place with those representing the leadership in the nation Israel and the corporate religious orientation of the nation. That doesn’t mean that everyone agreed with the Pharisees, it doesn’t even mean that everyone in the nation was religiously observant. In fact, that is at the core of what goes on in this chapter: everyone was not. The Pharisees actually represented only a minority viewpoint in Israel at this time but as the religious leadership in conjunction with the Sadducees they formed the Sanhedrin, and there were the representative leaders of the nation.

The one point that we could make by way of Application is that sometimes the leadership of a nation, a company or any group, does not represent the viewpoint of those who are members of that organisation. Yet they are the leaders, the ones entrusted with that responsibility.

In this situation we are given the occasion in the first two verses. Luke 15:1 ^NASB “Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. [2] Both the Pharisees and the scribes {began} to grumble, saying, ‘This man receives sinners and eats with them.’”

We need to make some important contextual observations here. This is often not done and the result of that is that there are often mistaken applications made from this chapter. We have to always keep in mind that in the study of the Scriptures there are basically three stages. The first stage is observation—we really have to pay attention to what the text says and what it doesn’t say, and sometimes if we don’t pay close attention to the details of the text it often leads to a wrong understanding of what was going on in that event. Our understanding of what Jesus meant initially in the original context of giving these three parables and the way Luke uses this and weaves this into his narrative about the life of Christ are maybe a little different. Luke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is weaving these events together in order to make certain points related to his primary message or theme on the Gospel of Luke. In this particular situation we understand that this is towards the end of Jesus’ ministry, the latter stage when there is more and more opposition coming His way from the Sadducees and the Pharisees. So this is representing the rejection by the nation of His Messiahship.

But in the confrontations that we have seen with Jesus throughout the first two years of His ministry He continues to point out that the Pharisees had misinterpreted the Mosaic Law. By misinterpreting the Mosaic Law they had introduced a false standard of righteousness. It was the focus of the Mosaic Law to call the nation, viewed as the adopted firstborn son of God, to a higher standard of living as a set apart, sanctified nation. So they are viewed corporately as a redeemed group. It has been emphasized that we need to understand how application is made from what goes on in the nation Israel to the spiritual life of the church age believer. The nation of Israel represents as a whole a redeemed group, so when we look at the nation as a whole we are often not looking at them in terms of salvation versus not being saved, not as justified versus not justified, because the nation is viewed as being redeemed in a covenant relationship with God under the Mosaic covenant. So they are viewed as the people of God, as whole people of God, and within that whole people of God there are some that are obedient and some that are disobedient. We might put it another way: those who are in fellowship and those who are out of fellowship. It is not looking at the nation as saved or unsaved because the nation is viewed as a redeemed people and that God redeemed them as a whole as a nation, bringing them out from slavery in Egypt. That doesn’t mean that everyone in the nation was saved or individually justified. We are looking at it corporately versus individually. That is sometimes difficult for people to understand or apply if they’ve never heard that before.

Our first observation as we get into the text is that an interpretation is when we try to understand the meaning that Jesus had in the original context and the meaning that Luke is conveying (these would be the same) in the recording of this event. Interpretation is very important because interpretation then controls application. If we have the wrong interpretation then we are going to have bad application. For example, if we interpret this wrongly as being an issue between saved and unsaved, which is how a vast majority of people look at this passage, then we are going to end up trying to apply this in terms of gospel message impact in terms of lost versus saved. So one of the things we have to address here is what is meant by “lost.”

First of all we have to understand that this context is not the church age, so when we interpret the passage (as opposed to apply the passage) we have to interpret it in terms of the time in which it occurred. It occurs at the end of the age of Israel, during the time that Jesus as the Messiah is offering the kingdom to the nation, and they are under the Mosaic Law. They were viewed as a covenant community where every Jew was an equal member of the covenant community. When we interpret the passage our interpretation is related to the behaviour in Israel under the Mosaic Law, it is not directly related to Christians (because Christianity hasn’t come along yet), to the church age believer in its original context. However, application is related to the church age believer.

As we look at this passage one of the things we have to remember is a key principle in the Mosaic Law. Remember that when Jesus was asked to summarize the Mosaic Law or what the greatest commandment was, He replied by saying that the greatest commandment was to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to love your neighbour as yourself. That is a summary of all of the 613 commandments in the Mosaic Law. But the second part of that comes out of the last part of Leviticus 19. Verse 18 ^NASB “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.” Notice that no one within the covenant community of Israel was to hold a grudge or resentment or seek revenge against someone else in the family. They were all viewed as members of this covenant family. When we look at this particular situation, the historical context where Jesus is confronting the Pharisees, we have to remember the second point of observation and that it that the Pharisees were not applying this law of love from the Mosaic Law to those within the community that they deemed to be spiritually unworthy or spiritually unclean. They did not forgive those who were unacceptable by their interpretation of the Mosaic Law. As far as they were concerned there was no reason to forgive those who had turned their back on God, had violated God, would not observe the Mosaic Law. As we see in this passage they had no joy whenever a sinner sought forgiveness from God. Jesus is going to point out in this through the use of the word “joy” that God, in contrast to the Pharisees, has great joy whenever any sinner turns back to God.

This is emphasized by the use of the word’s related to joy throughout this chapter. chairon [xairwn], the participle for chairo for rejoicing, is found in Luke 15:5; suncharete [sugxarhte], to rejoice with someone in 15:6; and the noun chara [xara], “joy,” is found in 15:7. These words are repeated again in the next parables as well, emphasizing through the repetition of this word that God has great joy when someone who has been in rebellion turns back to Him.

In understanding the whole idea of covenant community all Jews, including both Pharisees and sinners, were equal members of the covenant community of God’s chosen people. However, the Pharisees did not look at it that way. They taught that there is actually joy before God when those who provoked Him perished from the world. Their view of God was one of vindictiveness or revenge towards those who had violated the Law and those who had rebelled against Him. This brings up an important point because as we look at this covenant community they are all viewed as God’s people. A common mistake that is made is to try to apply this to those who are simply unlovable, undesirable or unbelievers. That is not the contrast that is made here. Both the Pharisees and the tax collectors and sinners are viewed as equal members of God’s covenant community and they are not necessarily viewed from God’s perspective as both obedient. They are both disobedient but from different perspectives. The Pharisees are disobedient based on the fact that they are operating on a legalistic arrogance, on an arrogance related to morality, whereas the sinners and the tax collectors are operating on an arrogance that is related to immorality. So in this context Jesus is going to respond to the Pharisees with three parables, each of which focuses on recovering something that is lost. The issue is recovery, not regeneration. So the issue in these parables is not on regeneration or becoming saved or justified, but on recovery: how God’s people are to recover when they have been disobedient or in violation of the Law. Remember we have to understand this in its historical context related to Jews under the Mosaic Law.

The next point of observation that we have here is that in each parable something is lost. The question we are going to have to answer at the beginning is does lost mean unsaved, or does it mean something that is separated from fellowship with God and the covenant community which is Israel. What we will see is that “lost” does not mean unsaved, lost means that who are separated from God, from fellowship because of their disobedience; but they are still viewed as members of the covenant community of Israel.

When we look at these opening verses we see that the text emphasizes that those who are coming to Jesus are the tax collectors and the sinners and there are a couple of things we should understand about these two particular groups. The tax collectors were Jews, not Romans delegated the responsibility of collecting taxes. These were Jews who worked for the Romans, sort of contracted employees who were given a set amount of money to raise by an, in turn, contracted Roman who was given a contracted to raise X amount of money for the Roman empire. Anything that was left over and raised above that amount went into their pockets, and that was true for both the Gentile overseers and tax collectors as well as the Jewish tax collectors. Because there was a lot of greed and graft Jewish tax collectors were viewed as being anti-Jewish, as outcasts, and they were disliked because they were wealthy and had created wealth on the backs of the common person. They were looked down upon especially by the religious community, first of all because they had many contacts with Gentiles—prohibited by the Pharisaical system. The Jews were to remain isolated and separated from the Gentiles and if they came into contact with the Gentiles they would become ritually unclean or impure. The old English word for tax collector was “publican.” Tax collectors were viewed no differently from thieves and robbers and this is one reason that they were viewed as a socially outcast group.

The other term that we see here is the term “sinners.” This is a word that is based on the Greek verb hamartano [a(martanw] which just means to sin, and it can refer to a sinner in many contexts as someone who has violated God’s standard. But in the context of the Gospels and in contexts especially related to Pharisaical views on the Mosaic Law these were viewed as non-observant Jews. But there is a little bit of divinely sanctioned sarcasm at the beginning of this passage as we see that the tax collectors and the sinners were drawing near to Jesus to hear Him. And notice what happened at the end of chapter fourteen. Jesus had been teaching various principles and in verse 34 ^NASB “Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned?” He is talking about the fact that if those in the nation are no longer operating in obedience to God then they don’t have the impact on the culture around them that they should have. [35] “It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Then we are told that these sinners and tax collectors came to hear Jesus.

What Jesus is saying is that those who are positive to the Word will come and hear. It is not the Pharisees that are coming to hear, it is the sinners and the tax collectors that are coming to hear. So there is this statement that has great sarcasm there and it shows why the Pharisees are irritated with Jesus. It is because He is pointing out that they don’t really want to hear Him but these sinners, people who are the social outcasts of Israel, are the ones who want to come and hear Him. And He willingly welcomes them to come and to listen to Him. So they complain and grumble. This is a word that is used many times in the Old Testament (the Greek word translates Old Testament terms) and is always related in a negative sense to people who reject what God says and instead complain and gripe and grumble about God’s provision in their life. So the Pharisees are immediately cast by this word in a very negative light, indicating that they are indeed out of fellowship spiritually with God. They are disobedient because they are grumbling. Their statement is: “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

Eating is a picture in the ancient world and throughout the Scripture of fellowship with God. This is what underlies the idea of the Passover meal as well as the Lord’s supper. We come together in fellowship with God and eat a meal together indicating communion with God. So this man is communing and having fellowship with those who are irreligious and non-observant, and this violated everything that the Pharisees stood for.

The beginnings of the Pharisees are somewhat obscure. Most scholars and historians trace their beginnings back to some time in the inter-testament period. Some people push it all the way back to Ezra and the reforms that took place after the Jews returned from Babylon, and that is probably right. It doesn’t mean that Ezra was a Pharisee, it just means that there was a recommitment to the Law of Moses and starting in that post-exilic period there was a desire among the Jews to reinforce the Law so that they don’t violate it in the way that the generation before the exile had and so that they don’t come under the judgment of God. But by the second century or so BC that had been perverted into a system of legalism and that is when we see the rise of these groups that eventually developed into Pharisees. Many people think that the root word underlying Pharisee is the word for to separate out and that in their desire to be separate and not fall under divine judgment they began to set up numerous traditions that would keep the Jews from disobeying the 613 commandments of Moses. This is often described as a fence. First they built a fence around the Law, which consisted of another thousand or more commandments, so that if these were not violated then one of the 613 would not be violated. Then they came along later and built another fence around that. These were referred to in the Scriptures as the traditions of the fathers. Of course this was superficial in many ways and this is why Jesus comes into conflict with the Pharisees.

But often as Christians we focus on the Pharisees as the bad guys. We look at them in terms of through Jesus’ eyes that these are hypocrites and that they are superficial, and we think only bad things about them. The problem is that that is not how they were viewed in the Jewish community at that time. These were the most religiously observant, the most moral. They would pray seven times a day, they would go to all of the services at the temple or at a synagogue, and they were considered the most moral, the most righteous that any human being possibly could be. They were viewed in a very positive light. You couldn’t get any better than the Pharisees; they were the standard of righteousness. However, Jesus came along and in the Sermon on the Mount He challenged their interpretation of the Law and their interpretation of righteousness. Jesus said to the people: “Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and the Pharisees you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” The people hearing that were thinking nobody is better, nobody is more upright than the Pharisees, and if their righteousness had to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees how could they ever do that? That’s impossible, they have the highest righteousness.

What Jesus was pointing out was that man can’t produce the kind of righteousness that religious legalism produces: that the Pharisees produced. The highest that man can do is as Isaiah said: nothing but dirty rags; it has no value in God’s sight. So we see that the issue of righteousness continued to pervade the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees.

Another point that we can see in the way that they viewed uncleanness is from a passage in the Mishnah where three things are stated about uncleanness. They said that the clothing of ordinary folk is in the status of uncleanness, or those who eat unconsecrated food in a state of cultic uncleanness. What they mean by that is if you were not eating kosher and were eating the wrong kind of food then you were unclean. Second, they said the clothing of abstainers, i.e. those who abstained from obedience to the Law, were in the status of uncleanness for those who eat the heave offering of the priests. Then third, the clothing of those who eat heave offerings was in the status of uncleanness for those who eat holy things. All of this simply emphasized the fact that they viewed anyone who abstained from the Law as being spiritually unclean down to the very core of their being. All this is to point out that the Pharisees viewpoint was that you didn’t even talk to someone viewed as a tax collector or someone spiritually unclean to bring them to the synagogue, to bring them to a point of recovery; you just let them rot in their own sinfulness, and if they wanted to turn you didn’t do anything to help them, teach them or encourage them because in the viewpoint of the Pharisees God had joy when they rotted and died. This is in contrast to the view of God towards the person who turns to Him and so Jesus is going to challenge them with these three parables.

The focal point here that we must understand for all three parables has to do with forgiveness of someone who is a member of the covenant community, not justification for someone who is not saved.

Luke 15:3 ^NASB “So He told them this parable, saying…” But He doesn’t just pull this out of thin air. This is a parable that is really based on a passage that comes out of the Old Testament in Ezekiel chapter thirty-four that contrasts God as the true shepherd versus the false shepherds of Israel at the time of the exile. [4] “What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? [5] When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.” He is drawing a contrast and is emphasizing something that one would think that even the Pharisees would do: that if they were in charge of a flock of sheep and one was lost they wouldn’t just leave the ninety-nine without someone leaving to look for the lost sheep. However, the false shepherds of Israel at the time of Ezekiel were ones who were leaving the lost sheep to go after their own personal desires.

In Ezekiel we have a very interesting challenge from God. Ezekiel 34:11-16 ^NASB “For thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out.’” This pictures God as the one who takes the initiative to restore the lost sheep. It is God’s grace that seeks to restore the believer who is in disobedience to the Law under the Old Testament system, and by application God is the one who has the initiative to restore the believer who is out of fellowship. [12] “As a shepherd cares for his herd in the day when he is among his scattered sheep, so I will care for My sheep and will deliver them from all the places to which they were scattered on a cloudy and gloomy day. [13] “I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries and bring them to their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the streams, and in all the inhabited places of the land. [14] “I will feed them in a good pasture, and their grazing ground will be on the mountain heights of Israel. There they will lie down on good grazing ground and feed in rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. [15] “I will feed My flock and I will lead them to rest,” declares the Lord GOD. [16] “I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with judgment.” In that last verse the word “lost” is not referring to lost in terms of their salvation status, being unsaved, but Jews who were non-religious. They were part of the covenant community of God and are out of the land under divine discipline and in disobedience. God takes the initiative to go out and restore them, and He is the one who will eventually restore them to the land. That is the Old Testament backdrop and is what would be going on in the Pharisees’ mind and another reason they would be a little bit irritated with Jesus.

Luke 15:9 ^NASB “When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost! [10: Application] ‘In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.’” The word “repent” here in the Hebrew is shub, the same word that is used by Moses in Deuteronomy 30:2, 3 talking about when Israel in disobedience returns to God. It is translated by the Greek word metanoia [metanoia] which means to change your mind. It is not talking about salvation. Repentance is not stated as a qualification in Scripture for salvation. If we look at the whole Gospel of John, John never talks about repentance. The issue for salvation is Acts 16:31 ^NASB “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved…” The issue for the believer who is out of fellowship is, are you going to turn back to God, confess your sins and be restored to fellowship. That is what is being pointed out here: there is joy in heaven over the recovery of one rebellious sheep that has been out doing its own thing in rejection of God’s authority. In contrast, the Pharisees thought that God was going to take great joy in the punishment of this particular rebellious sheep. But that again is in contrast to Ezekiel 18:23 ^NASB “Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?” God would rather have the rebellious believer turn from his ways and experience the fullness of life than to punish him and take him out under divine discipline.

So that is the point in the first parable as we see the emphasis is on joy and God’s forgiveness but it also emphasizes God’s initiative to restore the erring believer, and it emphasizes God’s care for the erring believer even though he is out of fellowship and that God still has a plan for him even though that believer is in disobedience and has failed. It also emphasizes the joy in heaven.

In the next parable, the parable of the lost coin, we are going to see some of those themes expanded a little bit. In this parable we are told of a woman who has ten silver coins. It is viewed by some that these ten silver coins represented her dowry. There is debate about that; it is not certain that that is what the situation would be. Often this just emphasizes just the fact that this is probably all that this poor woman had: these ten silver coins. They are drachma which represent about a day’s wage, and there are ten of them. She loses one of those coins and the question that Jesus raises: Luke 15:8 ^NASB “Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?” Notice, she owns the coin at the beginning. That emphasizes the fact that this is talking about believers, those who are already under the possession of God. As such they have intrinsic value because they are regenerate. Under the Mosaic Law every Jew, every Israelite, had intrinsic value, not only because they were created in the image and likeness of God but because they are part of the covenant community; they are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and they are in covenant with God. So God is pictured here by the woman and the one, again, who exercises initiative and a careful search in order to recover the coin that has been lost. Luke 15:9 ^NASB “When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost!’” This is emphasizing joy over the recovery of a lost coin, and by application God’s joy over a sinner who turns back to Him, in contrast to the arrogant attitude of the Pharisees.

Then the application is made: Luke 15:10 ^NASB “In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” Before it was in heaven; now it is more specific—joy in the presence of angels over one sinner who turns back to God in obedience. Sinner doesn’t mean one who is not saved; in that period this is someone who was a non-observant Jew who is in disobedience to the Mosaic Law.

Those first ten verses set the stage for the main parable which is the latter part of this chapter. God’s care for the errant son is pictured in the parable of the prodigal son as well.

Luke 15:11 ^NASB “And He said, ‘A man had two sons. [12] The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.’ So he divided his wealth between them.’” This parable is often referred to as the parable of the prodigal son. The word “son” is only mentioned a few times but the word “father” is mentioned twelve times and, again, the word “joy” is repeated as it was in the first two parables. So the emphasis is on the father’s joy. But there are secondary emphases in this passage, e.g. the failure of the prodigal son as well as the self-righteousness of his older brother.

The younger son wants his inheritance. The father doesn’t at that point divide the inheritance between the sons, he gives the one son his inheritance. What remains will go as the inheritance to the other son. Then we are told what happens to the younger son. He decides to go off on his own to a distant country where he squanders his estate with loose living. The word translated “loose” [NKJV] is the word asotos [a)swtwj] which means wasteful, recklessly extravagant or profligate living. That is what “prodigal” means, by the way.

Results: Luke 15:14 ^NASB “Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be impoverished.” Two categories of divine discipline are actually pictured here. One is the natural consequences of foolish thinking which spends all of its money, and then it is intensified by direct divine discipline. A famine is going to come in this country where this young son has gone and he becomes impoverished. Luke 15:15 ^NASB “So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.” Remember under the Mosaic Law pigs are unclean animals, so anyone who was involved with swine was going to be automatically unclean. This really pictures the category of the sinners and the tax collectors; they are spiritually unclean—in disobedience to the Law and out there living in spiritual uncleanness. They would be glad to eat pork and lobster because they were religiously unobservant.

What we see here is a picture that relates to the nation of Israel. Remember that we have to interpret this in the dispensation in which it occurs. The family represents the nation Israel. The father represents God and the authority of God as expressed through the Mosaic Law. The younger son represents those within the covenant community of Israel who are disobedient to the Mosaic Law and are living in spiritual uncleanness. The older brother is going to represent the Pharisees who have this haughty, arrogant attitude towards the spiritually unclean as if they are just fine and dandy on their own and are doing the right thing. So both sons are represented as being wrong, and both sons if we make application to the church age would represent those who are out of fellowship. One is acting on immoral licentiousness and the other is operating on moral arrogance.

Luke 15:16 ^NASB “And he would have gladly filled his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving {anything} to him. [17] “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 hunger!’” Then there is his mental attitude shift; this is where confession takes place, not when he actually gets home. [18] “I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight.’” It is this admission of sin or guilt that is at the essence of confession. It is to admit or acknowledge sin, not just any sin, there is specificity. We are to identify sins and acknowledge them where we have violated God’s Word.

He expresses his attitude of humility. Luke 15:19 ^NASB “I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men.” For a confession to be legally admissible it does not have to have a certain attitude with it. If he is haughty and arrogant it does not affect the statement of his guilt. However, in the spiritual life for that confession to do anything more than get you into fellowship for a second it has to be acco0mpanied by an attitude of humility. Otherwise you are committing a sin at the same time that you are confessing a sin. The emphasis in Scripture is that we are supposed to remain in fellowship, we are to abide in Christ, we are to walk by the Spirit, and God really isn’t looking at this and saying, Oh good, he had a nanosecond in fellowship. This issue is abiding in Christ and walking by the Spirit. That is how maturity and growth takes place. Getting in fellowship only gets us into a position where we have the potential of spiritual advance; it isn’t the end, it is only the beginning of a process that is important. Too many people put the emphasis on confession. It is great for recovery but the emphasis in Scripture is more on walking in truth, walking by the Spirit, abiding in Christ; it is forward momentum while we are in fellowship. That has to be maintained by an attitude of humility or orientation to God’s authority.

“Make me as one of your hired men.” This would be under the Mosaic Law like one who was a foreigner who was not under the Law. But the father says no, he is not going to do that. Luke 15:20 ^NASB “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.” This shows again the divine initiative, that the father welcomes back the believer who has been in disobedience, out of fellowship, walking according to the sin nature, in violation of the Law, whatever the circumstance may be. He is welcomed back joyfully by the Father.

Luke 15:21 ^NASB “And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ [22] “But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand [restoration of his position as a son, but there is not a restoration of his inheritance; he has squandered that] and sandals on his feet; [23] and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; [24] for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.” That is the joy that God has over the return of the disobedient son.

Under the context of dealing with the Pharisees Jesus has pointed out that God’s attitude is not one of revenge or justice or vindictiveness towards the disobedient member of the Jewish society. But the Pharisees are equally as guilty because of their self-righteousness. That is driven home in the second part of the parable.

Luke 15:25 ^NASB “Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. [26] And he summoned one of the servants and {began} inquiring what these things could be. [27] And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound.’” The response of the older brother, representing the self-righteous Pharisees: [28] “But he became angry and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and {began} pleading with him.” The father’s pleading again shows the initiative of God in trying to get even the arrogant self-righteous to recover. [29] “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; and {yet} you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends; [30] but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.’ [31] And he said to him, ‘Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. [32] ‘But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and {has begun} to live, and {was} lost and has been found.’”

The point of this is that we as believers in the church age by application turn back to God, when we confess our sins, God is seeking to restore us; that is His attitude, an attitude of joy, an attitude that is positive, and that is the attitude that we are to have towards other believers—and others: a family member or a friend or a business associate, etc. who have violated God’s Word, violated our standards. No matter what they have done to us we are to seek restoration, forgive them with joy without holding anything back. Does that mean there are no consequences? No, it doesn’t. The prodigal son lost his inheritance; it wasn’t going to be recovered. There are consequences that come with sin and carnality but there is restoration and forgiveness from God. We are restored in fellowship and then we can move forward and can begin to grow as believers. So as part of the essence of spiritual life we see the emphasis on the importance of loving one another. Loving one another involves forgiving one another, which was demonstrated by Jesus in the upper room when He said as He washed the feet of the disciples—picturing forgiveness—we are to wash the feet of one another. Or, as Paul states it more directly in Ephesians we are to forgive one another as God for Christ’s sake has forgiven us. That is an important element within our spiritual growth. If we are not forgiving other people, as long as we are maintaining that attitude, we can’t be restored to fellowship. That was the attitude of the Pharisees.