In chapter 15, Luke records Jesus’ answer to complaints about the kind of people he was spending time with:

Now all the tax-gatherers and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. And both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” And He told them this parable, saying, “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?”

(Luke 15:1-4, 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?”

(Luke 15:8, NASB)

And He said, “A certain man had two sons; and the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.’ And he divided his wealth between them. “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.”

(Luke 15:11-13, NASB)

As this chapter opens, Jesus has been teaching a large crowd. The Pharisees notice that a bunch of unsavory characters have gotten close to Jesus so they can hear him better. It was common practice in those days for the “scum of the earth” to be shunned. No one reputable was to have anything to do with them, let alone eat with them. The Pharisees were the most “reputable” group of their day; kind of like Congressmen and Senators today.

So they begin to complain. “Look at him! He hangs out with prostitutes, IRS agents, homosexuals, child molesters, terrorist and even spammers! He even goes out to dinner with them! No reputable person would be caught dead even being seen with such reprobates, yet he encourages them! He must be scum too.” Okay, so it wasn’t those exact words or categories, but that’s the modern equivalent of their complaints. Their complaints were basically true. He did spend time with such people. Only their conclusion was wrong.

Jesus responds with a three part parable. Part 1 is the lost sheep. Part 2 is the woman with the lost coin. Part 3 is the story of the prodigal son. All three parts are an example of a fortiori reasoning.

In parts 1 and 2, Jesus begins by asking a question; an example of anthypophora reasoning. In each case, he is asking his listeners what they would do if they lost something which they considered valuable.

First he asked the men what they would do if they discovered that 1 of their 100 sheep was missing. To a shepherd of that time sheep were his livelihood. Without them, he would starve. Shepherds would also commonly watch sheep owned by other families in the region. He pointed out that any shepherd who was missing a sheep would leave the 99 who were safely penned up for the night. They would go out to the open pasture which was very dangerous at night due to wild animals, robbers and hazards such as cliffs and holes which were very difficult to see in the dark. In short, any shepherd would risk his life to find a missing sheep because only a fool would casually dismiss a missing sheep.

Then he asked the women about losing a silver coin. There were two basic reasons why losing such a coin would be disastrous to a woman.

First, a silver coin was the equivalent of one or two days’ wages. Imagine how hard you would search if you misplaced the cash equivalent of two days’ wages!

The second level of value to a woman is that in those days, a woman wasn’t given a ring when they married. Her husband would give her a string of 10 silver coins which she would wear in her hair. Losing one of those coins would be the equivalent of misplacing her wedding ring. Furthermore, it was the custom in those days for a man to temporarily take one or more of those coins from his wife if she displeased him — subject only to the husband’s discretion. (Burning a piece of toast was sufficient cause for some husbands to remove a woman’s marriage coin.) So losing a coin could subject a woman to ridicule and gossip from other women.

As in the first part, the woman in Jesus’s story also goes to a great deal of trouble and expense to find the coin. Houses of the time usually had dirt floors, making such a search very difficult. Furthermore, the oil used for lamps was very expensive, so the lamps would only be lit in an emergency.

Jesus then continues on to tell the story of the prodigal son. The father in this story has two sons. One son demands his inheritance, then wastes it all and puts his life into the toilet. After he realizes how stupid he has been, he returns to his father who promptly throws a huge party. When the faithful son complains, the father replies with:

“And he said to him, ‘My child, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to be merry and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.’”

(Luke 15:31-32, NASB)

The clear a fortiori logic for these three parts is that if a person will make extreme efforts for a lesser item like a sheep or a coin, then lost people certainly deserve extreme efforts to rescue them — including spending extravagant amounts of time with them rather than sending them away. Meanwhile, those who are not lost do not need such efforts.

This entry has been posted to the ‘Jesus the Logician’ Project.