In Luke 15 Luke puts two genres together to make meaning. The first piece of the puzzle, only two verses (vv. 1-2), is narrative; the second piece is a lengthy three-part parable (vv. 3-32). The short, narrative piece and the long, parable piece combine to make meaning.

The subject of the chapter is found in the narrative, the reaction of the religious leaders to Jesus receiving and eating with sinners. Their reaction is clearly wrong in light of God’s mission in the world. Their reaction results in Jesus telling about what happens when something/someone valuable is lost: people who consider the lost thing/person to be valuable search for it/them and when they find it/them they invite others to celebrate.

And the only person not celebrating at the end of the parable is the older brother. He’s the focus of the chapter, not the younger, prodigal son. The older son, as you know, corresponds to the religious leaders who grumbled at Jesus receiving and eating with sinners.

You probably already knew that the parable is misnamed. We’re indebted to the likes of Tim Keller (Prodigal God) for helping us read this parable correctly. I just wanted to help you see, if you hadn’t seen it already, that there is a hermeneutical reason why the parable is misnamed. The opening two verses of narrative force us to focus our attention on the older brother. And when the parable ends we never know whether the older brother joins the celebration.

So, that means that if we’re going to call anyone “home” at the end of the sermon on Luke 15, it’s going to be the older brother-type parishioners. We’re calling home all those good, moral attendees who rarely relate to sinners on faulty theological grounds (quoting verses like, “Abstain from all appearance of evil”, etc.). I suppose there’s a place after that to call all the prodigals home, but, like one of my students said last week, they’re usually not sitting in church.

Preach well for the sake of God’s reputation in the Church and in Christ Jesus.

Randal