Keep sharing good news without ads.
Luke 15 is not three separate parables, it is just one. Why do some complain about salvation and others rejoice? Lost. Found. Rejoice!
Welcome to No Compromise Radio Ministry. Almost missed my cue there, 13 seconds. My name is Mike Gabendroth. Mike at nocompromiseradio .com. I should probably re-amp up. I should probably amp up. I should probably redo my Wednesday shows.
They were interviews with people, interviewed lots of theologians, pastors. A few I had to take down because they did something dumb. And I, more than dumb, but most of those are still up. Lots of shows, 4 ,400 no-co shows.
It was great being in Omaha with my brother in the Pactam. And you can refer to that show, the Pactam Conference 2026. And we sat in a room and laughed at ourselves in our own jokes. Today, I want to talk about a very famous parable, maybe the most famous parable.
And it's found smack dab in the middle of the gospel of Jesus, according to Luke, Luke 15. What we call the parable of the prodigal son. Some have said the parable of the prodigal sons. There are two other parables in that chapter about a coin lost and a sheep lost.
And in Luke chapter 15, the Lord Jesus tells us it's this parable. And then he gives three components to the one parable. They're all teaching the same thing. So sometimes we think there are three parables in that chapter.
It's essentially a three-in-one parable. I think Arken Hughes maybe said that, three-in-one. Well, you know the parable of lost things are found and there should be rejoicing. And the key issue is what precipitated this parable?
What's the setting? What's the purpose? What's the situation? And if you can answer that, most of them you can, figure that out, then you'll understand the meaning of the parable better. And so the key entry point to Luke 15 are the first two verses.
Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near him, or coming, yeah, coming near him to listen to him. Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble saying this man receives sinners and eats with them.
So he told them this parable. And then the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son is one parable, a three-in-one. And so Jesus was teaching a parable and instructing us that no, this is his mission.
What they said, the Pharisees and the scribes was right that Jesus, this man, you know how almost with this name, this man, this guy over here, he didn't even say Jesus, this guy, he received sinners and eats with them.
Now, when we think of the word sinners, we often think about, well, our sin, people sin, and Jesus died for sinners. And Paul says, I'm the foremost of all sinners in 1 Timothy 1, falling short. And that's all true.
And in the epistles, that's how we should think about sin. We are simultaneously just and sinful. We are sinners. There's a difference though, and a nuance in the gospels. And when the Pharisees are using the word sinners, these are people that don't keep any laws.
They're characterized by sin. They're riffraff, they're low life, they're unbelievers. They're not people who are trying to obey Mosaic law, trying to do the right thing. They're not like the Pharisees, they're exact opposite Pharisees.
Pharisees are trying to self-righteously, you know, tithe seeds and mint and cumin and things like that. And these people could care less about anything. You'd summarize their life as they're sinful.
That's what they do. What do you do for a living? I sin. What's your job description? I sin. And so Jesus came to seek and save the lost. And here we have a chapter about lost things. Friend of mine says, this chapter is about, you know, God cares about lost things.
Okay. And that's true. Well, before I get into it anymore, I found, remember last time I was talking about confirmation quizzes. I found, the world do I have here? I found my hermeneutics, April, 1994, parable of the lost son paper.
I got a B on it. 90, 90%. Remember in those days? I mean, remember I liked the 90 as an A, but seminary 93, I believe was an A. Fair, he said, this is Dr. Roscoe, in hermeneutics TH506 class, well-organized except key word study seems needed earlier and context brought in later on belonging A and B.
It appeared generalizing in some parts and evidence God will not more solidly prove your view to the whole such and such. Try to prove it more persuasively. Some of this I couldn't read because of his cursive writing.
But here we have it. Statement of the problem. The problem is to determine whether the lost son, the prodigal was a believer or an unbeliever when he left his father's house. I mean, it is just lordship stuff everywhere you go.
And there I was, there you have it. It's like, okay, what am I gonna try to figure out? I have to do a parable paper. And what I'm gonna try to figure out is, was the person really a Christian or not?
I'm not saying you can't ask that question. I'm just saying my visceral, my gut reaction to this is why would I pick that? Shouldn't I say something like, well, what about the hundred sheep and 99 of them?
They don't think they need any repentance. Aren't the 99 the Pharisees and the scribes? Isn't that what we're after? They don't think they need any repentance. So what about that? Are the 99 the Pharisees and the scribes?
That probably would have been better. Was this person a believer or an unbeliever? And how does that relate to Jesus receive sinners and eats with them? What in the world? What are we doing there? And by the way, these tax collectors and sinners were coming near to Jesus to listen to him.
And by the way, it's the word to hear. And the verse before that, he who has ears to hear, let him what? Hear. And by the way, Jesus is saying, there are some people coming to hear me, the tax collectors and the sinners.
And that is bugging the Pharisees, bugging the tax collectors. I believe back in Luke chapter five when the same type of thing was happening, the Pharisees and the scribes, they're like, well, you know, your disciples eat with those kinds of people.
Now it's directly aimed at Jesus. Was this guy a believer or an unbeliever when he left the father's house? Proposed solutions. There are a variety of opinions and interpretations given for this parable.
Three significant explanations. All right, so here we go. Let's learn together. The lost son was already a believer. Then he strayed away, but he ultimately comes back to intimacy with the father. This interpretation would show God's work of restoration rather than regeneration.
C, Lewis Barry Chafer, Systematic Theology. Why is this chair doing this? That's what I want to know. B, the lost son was initially a rebellious unbeliever. Then he turned from his ways and became a believer, showing that God joyfully received repentant sinners.
Simon Kistemacher. By the way, I like that parables book by Kistemacher a lot. C, the lost son was always a believer, but he lost his salvation. Then he returns to receive back his salvation. C, Robert, shank, shank you.
Oh yeah, he wrote that book, Life in the Son. You don't need to read that book. So you're an unbeliever. You come back. God joyfully receives him. Or you're a believer and you stray and you come back.
So I can see where I was going with this. And it's almost as if we have the Dallas Seminary anti-non-lordship folks. There's two separate categories. And then you have a TMS lordship category. And so I don't think Simon Kistemacher, being a Presbyterian Reformed, was necessarily a lordship person.
But I think this is a fair question to ask. Preferred view, any guesses on what I might have said? B, God demonstrates joyful reception of repentant sinners. This view appears to be correct based on the following hermeneutical principles applied to this parable.
Whoa, this is, do you know what? I typed this. This is typed out with, I don't know, did I pay somebody to type this? What did, who typed it? I mean, there's enough spelling errors here that I see. Um, he wrote on one comment, seems weak.
And by the way, Dr. Roskapp was one of the kindest men you'll ever meet. And so if he says something's weak sauce, it's very weak. The principle of determining the specific problem, occasion, need, or situation in the context that led this parable.
Okay, well, for us, we just talked about that. It is very, very important when you have a parable that you figure out why Jesus gave that parable. I mean, Jesus just isn't some kind of rando. He's not randomly speaking.
I've never said the word rando in podcasts. I think if you add up the 4 ,500 half hour shows, I did that on chat and said something like nonstop talking for 91 days or something like that. Or maybe I'm thinking about Psalm 91.
I have no idea, but that's an important thing. So we will figure out what the lost sheep, lost coin, lost son slash sons are if we understand the situation, right? And the situation is he who has ears to hear, let him hear.
And the tax collectors and sinners were coming to listen to him. And it's one thing to welcome sinners. It's another thing to eat with them. This man receives, welcomes sinners and eats with them. And of course, for us, if we're thinking about eating on the go and I think of my wife and I will go out to eat.
Sometimes that's a hard thing to do because she doesn't really want cold food for lunch or dinner. She wants hot food. And so there are certain places if I want sushi or if I want a sandwich, I guess some sandwiches you can get heated, but that's always an interesting thing.
How are we going to go out and get hot food? And so you go out and you get hot food and then you stand at the counter and eat, but she does not like that. She does not want to stand at the counter at all.
She wants to sit and have some ambiance. And if you're going to go out and pay for food, then don't you want to be having a server and somebody to pick up and clean up? And for me, it's kind of New York City.
I just, give me a counter. I do not really want to eat in the car because I did that for years as a sales rep. And I don't want to spill. I'd rather eat standing and putting the food on the hood of the car.
She would never do. Well, I shouldn't say never. Maybe there was an occasion. I don't know, the zombie apocalypse or something. I'm not sure. But anyway, when we think of eating with people, it's like that standing there eating.
This was a big deal. If you said to someone, you're eating with a person, this is fellowship, camaraderie, closeness, kind of an intimacy. You're eating with them, with. You're not just scarfing your food down and then excusing yourself from the table.
No, this is completely different. So Jesus, he welcomes them, receives. He eats with them. And actually we're going to learn that he seeks for them and that he has joy when they come to repentance. He seeks and saves the loss.
I mean, you could ignore these people. You could have a disdain for them. I think about certain types of sinners. Are there other kinds of people that are unbelievers that have done such horrible things that you're so repulsed by them that if you met them, you would, what?
Call the cops, go sit on the other side of the room. So I have some of those tables, and this happened to us when we went up to Lowell Auditorium. I took my wife to go see Morrissey of all people. And she just went because I wanted to go.
She could care less about Morrissey. And we sat down at this burger place, kind of Slider's smash burger style. So smaller smash burgers. And you have tables where there's like two can sit or four can sit.
And then it was crowded and people like, do you mind if I sit there? Because it's city life. What if you knew that person sitting next to you was whatever you think is the worst kind of sin to ever commit.
I can think of some that are the worst and child trafficking, let's say, or something like that. And sex work and everything. You just like, what would you do? And of course, what we have to realize is that of course, Jesus is not condoning people's sin.
He's not saying tax collectors and sinners, as they sin, as they defile God's holy law, as they turn their nose up at God's commands, they could care less about God as the creator and they're the creature and bound to do God's law that's written on their heart, that's proclaimed to them from Sinai.
Of course, Jesus comes to save sinners and then he redeems them and makes them new creation and eventually glorifies them and hands them back to the father. And he's not condoning. It says in Luke 15, seven, there's more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous persons who in their mind, I added that part, who need no repentance.
That's the idea though. I don't need repentance. I didn't do anything wrong. I don't need to change my mind and I don't need to have fruit of repentance. So of course, Jesus is not condoning sin. No one could ever look at Jesus on the cross, somehow seeing the wrath of God poured out.
I mean, I know we could see, you know, the wrath of man as he, man crucifies someone. We could see that wrath. I can't see the wrath that Jesus was quenching, absorbing, propitiating is of course the best word.
We can't see that. But if anybody could see it, no one would say Jesus is light on sin. Jesus is just going to brush it under the table. No, no, but he came to seek sinners. And so he welcomes them. Aren't you glad that he welcomed you?
Aren't you glad that he received you? Aren't you glad that even with the Lord's supper, there's a communion and you could eat with him. The table is served and you're still welcome. And he came and sought you and the father drew you.
The spirit of God regenerated you. Aren't you glad for that? What if Jesus doesn't associate with sinners? What if Jesus avoids them? Like the Pharisees, that's the contrast here. The Pharisees are completely ungodly because the God-man associates with sinners.
And to say it over and over and over, I haven't been accused of antinomianism lately. So I guess today's good day as ever. I'm not saying the sin is condoned. I'm not saying that Jesus is like, whatever.
The whole context here is lost, found, rejoicing. And the rejoicing, God doesn't rejoice over sin. He hates sin. But he rejoices that the person's been found and that they respond with repentance, right?
Which is the fruit of faith. So here, I'm not so concerned about, well, is somebody saved and then they're lost? Shanks for you. Somebody wasn't saved and now they got saved. Someone was saved, but they were sinning and now they're coming back.
That's not what I'm after. I'm not after that so much. I'm after Jesus eats with sinners. That's what I'm after. Jesus seeks sinners. They come to listen to him. They come because they have ears to hear.
Unlike the Pharisees who began to grumble, complain, it's where we get the word gungusmus. I mean, gungusmus is a root word. Jesus fully comprehended the problem of the Pharisees and scribes' incorrect disposition and with surgeon's skill delivered the perfect parable to display God's love in gladly receiving repentant sinners of any status.
Therefore, this parable was not teaching that God hardly welcomes back backsliding believers, but rather he welcomes the lost back to himself, emphasizing the great significance and worth of every repentant sinner.
Repentance of anyone is an opportunity to have a jubilant festival and a party, not to grumble and complain. There might seem to be room to interpret more in this parable, but it is spurious since the only proper way to interpret parables is to remember that they show us one aspect of the kingdom.
See Walter Liefeld, expository commentary. A lot of times there's just one point, but that's not true. What I just said there, quoting Liefeld, is not true. We want to match the problem and the situation to what's going on, but sometimes there's more of an allegorical kind of parabolic interpretation because we have seen that in the parable of the soils, for instance, the parable of the sower.
Principle of wide context. Okay, that's good. So when you think about studying the Bible, what's immediate context before and after? What's the context a little bit wider? Luke talks about Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem, Luke 9, 51.
That would help us. What's going on in the book of Luke in general? What's going on in the New Testament in general? What's going on in all the Bible in general? That's the way you interpret the Bible.
The three parables in Luke 15 are the parable of the lost sheep, the parable of the lost coin, and the parable of the lost son. And again, they're not three parables. It's a three-in-one parable, see Luke 15, three.
Both of the first two parables that our Lord taught discuss salvation, finding by great joy after finding what was lost. In fact, the parable of the lost sheep and the parable of the lost coin were culminated by the words over one sinner who repents.
How much more joy would be experienced when a person is found? Specifically, this is seen when the sinning prodigal is found to be repentant. This ending portion of Luke 15 serves as a great zenith or a culmination of Christ's teaching.
Many times, parables are set up in such a fashion to demonstrate climax. So here's what we want to say. I don't mind if you say the unbelievers come to Jesus and they listen to him and he receives them and he eats with them and he's gonna save them, save many of them, and grant them repentance.
So there are unbelievers coming. And if you have a sheep that's lost and now it's found, you're excited because this righteous person realized that they're self-righteous, that they're unrighteous, this righteous person in their own eyes, this unrighteous person, they repent and they believe.
I'm all for that. And so my kind of snarky comments at the beginning about is this believer, unbeliever? I'm pulling back a little bit from that because I don't mind that as we talk about it. But the point isn't on the person.
The point isn't on the objects. The point's on the subject. And the subject is Jesus comes to receive sinners and eats with them. What they said is actually right, but they said it with wrong motives.
So there's a real irony here. There's a real, I think one commentator I had read called it the gospel of the Pharisees was a good gospel. That is to say, what was good? That Jesus received sinners and eats with them.
And so if you're gonna come and save people, you've gotta be around them. You've gotta teach them. You gotta proclaim the truth to them. And so therefore he uses the three in one parable that there's a hundred sheep, 99, they don't think they need any repentance.
He's gonna go after the one. Okay, I get it. And there should be rejoicing. Woman, she lost, loses a coin. And I tell you, there's joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.
But it's the seeking. It's the love of the triune God that's seeking. The father sending the son and the son going. And so that's the point that these people are getting saved. They need to come to Jesus.
They need to eat with him. They need to be received by him. Do they not? And same thing with the parable of the prodigal son, three in one portion. See, I called a parable and I have to correct myself right away.
The reception of the unworthy unbelievers or salvation is the focus of this immediate context. Roscoe said, assertion, but no proof? Question mark. I've got a principle of word study. That's gonna be bad.
I don't wanna do that. Word study exegesis. How about, you know, what's a principle of cross-reference I have here, principle of checking. Let's talk about that for a minute. The principle of checking.
What do I mean by that? What was meant by that? That after you do your study, you should check to see if other people said what you are saying because you could possibly be right. And William Perkins, Turretin, Luther, Lloyd-Jones, whoever your heroes are, they could all be wrong and you could be right if you take a view that's different than theirs.
But if you check, you're thinking, well, you know what? Probably in church history, somebody else has already come up with a solution to this problem. And I don't think I'm quite as smart as Calvin or anyone else.
It's not to say everything that they said was right, but that's the principle of checking. And I think that the principle of checking shouldn't be the last thing. I think we should be checking throughout and checking things like what's church history have been saying about this?
Have those that have written documents of ecumenical statements, that is to say, like Westminster Confession of Faith, what do they say about certain topics? How can I fit this within a systematic theology that I know to be true?
I'm not going to come to this text blindly and then at the very end say, well, does anybody else take my view? No, no, that needs to be more upfront. That needs to be, if I read Genesis 1, In the Beginning God, can I not think of anything later as I understand this?
So somebody like Kaiser, and Barcelos is really good as he talks about this, somebody like Kaiser is going to say, you can't look at any later references in the Bible to have any truth antecedently or before.
You can't, I guess you can't call Adam's sin sin since it's not called sin until later. I guess you can't call Satan, Satan in Genesis 3 because he not called that until later. No, no, there's this ebb and flow of hermeneutical principles that are coming and going and we're doing word studies, but we're thinking about systematic theology.
We're thinking about church history. It's just all kind of coming together. And so here I read the principle of checking in my paper. This interpretation is held by very scholarly men, I'm just such a poor writer back then, even now maybe, in evangelical circles, both Reformed and Dispensational.
Some of these include Kistemacher, Godet, Pentecost, Lenski, Hendrickson, didn't spell it properly, Geldenheis. These men all interpret the parable by looking for the main point in the passage that matches the problem.
This method must be used in this parable if the proper interpretation is to be uncovered. All other interpretations stem from certain theological presuppositions that are injected into the parable. It is interesting to note, it was very difficult to find documentation what corresponded to the opposing views.
What a savior we have to stoop down and be interested in our salvation. Well, more than interested. I would have given myself less than a 90, without reading too much information into the peripheral elements of this parable, it is interesting to note the corresponding words that reveal the spiritual nature of the prodigal.
Oh, brother. Anyway, Mike Ebenroth, No Compromise Radio Ministry. I want you to know that Jesus receives sinners and eats with them. What the Pharisees said was actually true and we praise God for it.
And when things are lost and then they're found, there should be rejoicing and there should be rejoicing over the salvation of sinners. And I think we could even expand this into your attitude, dear Christian, around people that are awful and sinful.
And certainly, but for the grace of God, we would be doing those things. And maybe some of us have even done some of those bad things, but have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, the justifying work of God.
God cleanses, God washes, God redeems, God regenerates, and God with great joy, as the scripture says, joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents. And I'm sure you as parents, when your children believe in the Lord Jesus, you are so, so happy.
And so whether they're self-righteous or unrighteous, you're happy. How much more is God? My name is Mike Ebenroth, this is No Compromise Radio Ministry. If you want to write me, it's mike at nocompromiseradio .com.
Don't forget American Gospel Television. You can see series like Law Gospel, Assurance, Sanctification, Cancer Series. And I just recorded for Brandon Kimber a six-part series on how to teach the Bible that'll eventually be up after all his American Gospel Three stuff is up.
God bless you, see you soon.