CHAPTER XVII.
THE THREE PARABLES OF THE GOSPEL: OF THE RECOVERY OF THE LOST - OF THE LOST SHEEP, THE LOST DRACHM, THE LOST SON.

(St. Luke xv.)

A SIMPLE perusal of the three Parables, grouped together in the fifteenth chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel, will convince us of their connection. Although they treat of ‘repentance,’ we can scarcely call them ‘The Parables of Repentance;’ for, except in the last of them, the aspect of repentance is subordinate to that of restoration, which is the moral effect of repentance. They are rather peculiarly Gospel-Parables ‘of the recovery of the lost:’ in the first instance, through the unwearied labour; in the second, through the anxious care, of the owner; and in the third Parable, through the never-ceasing love of the Father.

Properly to understand these Parables, the circumstance which elicited them must be kept in view. As Jesus preached the Gospel of God’s call, not to those who had, as they imagined, prepared themselves for the Kingdom by study and good works, but as that to a door open, and a welcome free to all, ‘all the publicans and sinners were [constantly] drawing near to Him.’ It has formerly been shown,^44794479    See Book III. ch. xvii. that the Jewish teaching concerning repentance was quite other than, nay, contrary to, that of Christ. Theirs was not a Gospel to the lost: they had nothing to say to sinners. They called upon them to ‘do penitence,’ and then Divine Mercy, or rather Justice, would have its reward for the penitent. Christ’s Gospel was to the lost as such. It told them of forgiveness, of what the Saviour was doing, and the Father purposed and felt for them; and that, not in the future and as reward of their penitence, but now in the immediate present. From what we know of the Pharisees, we can scarcely wonder that ‘they were murmuring at Him, saying, This man receiveth “sinners,” and eateth with them.’ Whether or not Christ had on this, as on other occasions,^44804480    St. Matt. ix. 10, 11. joined at a meal with such persons - which, of course, in the eyes of the Pharisees would have been a great aggravation to His offence - their charge was so far true, that ‘this One,’ in contrariety to the principles and practice of Rabbinism, ‘received sinners’ as such, and consorted with them. Nay, there was even more than they charged Him with: He not only received them when they sought Him, but He sought them, so as to bring them to Him; not, indeed, that they might remain ‘sinners,’ but that, by seeking and finding them, they might be restored to the Kingdom, and there might be joy in heaven over them. And so these are truly Gospel-Parables, although presenting only some aspects of it.

Besides their subject-matter, these three Parables have some other points in common. Two things are here of chief interest. They all proceed on the view that the work of the Father and of Christ, as regards ‘the Kingdom,’ is the same; that Christ was doing the work of the Father, and that they who know Christ know the Father also. That work was the restoration of the lost; Christ had come to do it, and it was the longing of the Father to welcome the lost home again. Further, and this is only second in importance, the lost was still God’s property; and he who had wandered farthest was a child of the Father, and considered as such. And, although this may, in a wider sense, imply the general propriety of Christ in all men, and the universal Fatherhood of God, yet, remembering that this Parable was spoken to Jews, we, to whom these Parables now come, can scarcely be wrong in thinking, as we read them, with special thankfulness of our Christian privileges, as by Baptism numbered among the sheep of His Flock, the treasure of His Possession, and the children of His Home.^44814481    The only other alternative would seem, if one were to narrow the underlying ideas in a strictly Predestinarian sense. But this seems not only incompatible with the third Parable, where all turns on personal resolve, but runs contrary to the whole spirit of these Parables, which is not of the exclusion of any, but of the widest inclusion.

In other particulars there are, however, differences, all the more marked that they are so finely shaded. These concern the lost, their restoration, and its results.

1. The Parable of the Lost Sheep. - At the outset we remark that this Parable and the next, that of the Lost Drachm, are intended as an answer to the Pharisees. Hence they are addressed to them: ‘What man of you?’^44824482    St. Luke xv. 4. ‘or what woman?’^44834483    ver. 8. just as His late rebuke to them on the subject of their Sabbath-cavils had been couched: ‘Which of you shall have a son or an ox fallen into a well?’^44844484    St. Luke xiv. 5. Not so the last Parable, of the Lost Son, in which He passed from defence, or rather explanation, of His conduct, to its higher reason, showing that He was doing the work of the Father. Hence, while the element of comparison (with that which had not been lost) appears in most detailed form in the first Parable, it is generalised in the second, and wholly omitted in the third.

Other differences have to be marked in the Parables themselves. In the first Parable (that of the Lost Sheep) the main interest centres in the lost; in the second (that of the Lost Drachm), in the search; in the third, in the restoration. And although in the third Parable the Pharisees are not addressed, there is the highest personal application to them in the words which the Father speaks to the elder son - an application, not so much of warning, as of loving correction and entreaty, and which seems to imply, what otherwise these Parables convey, that at least these Pharisees had ‘murmured,’ not so much from bitter hostility to Christ, as from spiritual ignorance and misunderstanding.

Again, these Parables, and especially that of the Lost Sheep, are evidently connected with the preceding series, that ‘of warnings.’ The last of these showed how the poor, the blind, lame, and maimed, nay, even the wanderers on the world’s highway, were to be the guests at the heavenly Feast. And this, not only in the future, and after long and laborious preparation, but now, through the agency of the Saviour. As previously stated, Rabbinism placed acceptance at the end of repentance, and made it its wages. And this, because it knew not, nor felt the power of sin, nor yet the free grace of God. The Gospel places acceptance at the beginning of repentance, and as the free gift of God’s love. And this, because it not only knows the power of sin, but points to a Saviour, provided of God.

The Lost Sheep is only one among a hundred: not a very great loss. Yet which among us would not, even from the common motives of ownership, leave the ninety-and-nine, and go after it, all the more that it has strayed into the wilderness? And, to take these Pharisees on their own ground,^44854485    There is to some extent a Rabbinic parallel Parable (Ber. R. 86, ed. Warsh. p. 154 b, about the middle), where one who is driving twelve animals laden with wine, leaves the eleven and follows the twelfth into the shop of a Gentile, for fear that the wine which it bears might be mixed there. should not the Christ have done likewise to the straying and almost lost sheep of His own flock? Nay, quite generally and to all time, is this not the very work of the ‘Good Shepherd,’ and may we not, each of us, thus draw from it precious comfort? As we think of it, we remember that it is natural for the foolish sheep so to wander and stray. And we think not only of those sheep which Jewish pride and superciliousness had left to go astray, but of our own natural tendency to wander. And we recall the saying of St. Peter, which, no doubt, looked back upon this Parable: ‘Ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.’^44864486    1 Pet. ii.25. It is not difficult in imagination to follow the Parabolic picture: how in its folly and ignorance the sheep strayed further and further, and at last was lost in solitude and among stony places; how the shepherd followed and found it, weary and footsore; and then with tender care lifted it on his shoulder, and carried it home, gladsome that he had found the lost. And not only this, but when, after long absence, he returned home with his found sheep, that now nestled close to its Saviour, he called together his friends, and bade them rejoice with him over the erst lost and now found treasure.

It needs not, and would only diminish the pathos of this exquisite Parable, were we to attempt interpreting its details. They apply wherever and to whatever they can be applied. Of these three things we think: of the lost sheep; of the Good Shepherd, seeking, finding, bearing, rejoicing; and of the sympathy of all who are truly friends - like-minded with Him. These, then, are the emblems of heavenly things. In heaven - oh, how different the feeling from that of Pharisaism! View ‘the flock’ as do the Pharisees, and divide them into those who need and who need not repentance, the ‘sinners’ and the ‘righteous,’ as regards man’s application of the Law - does not this Parable teach us that in heaven there shall be joy over the ‘sinner that repenteth’ more than over the ‘ninety-and-nine’ ‘righteous,’ which ‘have not need of repentance’? And to mark the terrible contrast between the teaching of Christ and that of the Pharisees; to mark also, how directly from heaven must have been the message of Jesus, and how poor sinners must have felt it such, we put down in all its nakedness the message which Pharisaism brought to the lost. Christ said to them: ‘There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.’ Pharisaism said - and we quote here literally - ‘There is joy before God when those who provoke Him perish from the world.’^44874487    Siphré, ed. Friedmann, p. 37 a, line 13 from top.

2. In proceeding to the second Parable, that of the Lost Drachm, we must keep in mind that in the first the danger of being lost arose from the natural tendency of the sheep to wander.^44884488    In St. Matt. xviii. 12-14, the same Parable is used, but with different application - not as here to the loss, but to what men might deem the smallness of the loss, with special reference to the command in ver. 10 (ver. 11 in the text of our A.V. is spurious). In the second Parable it is no longer our natural tendency to which our loss is attributable. The drachm (about 7 ½d. of our money) has been lost, as the woman, its owner, was using or counting her money. The loss is the more sensible, as it is one out of only ten, which constitute the owner’s property. But it is still in the house - not like the sheep that had gone astray - only covered by the dust that is continually accumulating from the work and accidents around. And so it is more and more likely to be buried under it, or swept into chinks and corners, and less and less likely to be found as time passes. But the woman lights a lamp, sweeps the house, and seeks diligently, till she has found it. And then she calleth together those around, and bids them rejoice with her over the finding of the lost part of her possessions. And so there is joy in the presence of the Angels over one sinner that repenteth. The comparison with others that need not such is now dropped, because, whereas formerly the sheep had strayed - though from the frowardness of its nature - here the money had simply been lost, fallen among the dust that accumulates - practically, was no longer money, or of use; became covered, hidden, and was in danger of being for ever out of sight, not serviceable, as it was intended to be and might have been.

We repeat, the interest of this Parable centres in the search, and the loss is caused, not by natural tendency, but by surrounding circumstances, which cover up the bright silver, hide it, and render it useless as regards its purpose, and lost to its owner.

3. If it has already appeared that the two first Parables are not merely a repetition, in different form, of the same thought, but represent two different aspects and causes of the ‘being lost’ - the essential difference between them appears even more clearly in the third Parable, that of the Lost Son. Before indicating it in detail, we may mark the similarity in form, and the contrast in spirit, of analogous Rabbinic Parables. The thoughtful reader will have noted this even in the Jewish parallel to the first Parable,^44894489    See Note on p. 255 of this chapter. where the reason of the man following the straying animal is Pharisaic fear and distrust, lest the Jewish wine which it carried should become mingled with that of the Gentiles. Perhaps, however, this is a more apt parallel, when the Midrash^44904490    on Ex. iii. 1. relates how, when Moses fed the sheep of Jethro in the wilderness, and a kid had gone astray, he went after it, and found it drinking at a spring. As he thought it might be weary, he laid it on his shoulder and brought it back, when God said that, because he had shown pity on the sheep of a man, He would give him His own sheep, Israel, to feed.^44914491    Shem. R. 2, ed. Warsh, p. 7 b, about the middle. As a parallel to the second Parable, this may be quoted as similar in form, though very different in spirit, when a Rabbi notes,^44924492    on Prov. ii. 4. that, if a man had lost a Sela (drachm) or anything else of value in his house, he would light ever so many lights ({hebrew}) till he had found what provides for only one hour in this world. How much more, then, should he search, as for hidden treasures, for the words of the Law, on which depends the life of this and of the world to come!^44934493    Midr. on Cant. i. 1, ed. Warsh p. 3 a, about the middle. And in regard to the high place which Christ assigned to the repenting sinner, we may note that, according to the leading Rabbis, the penitents would stand nearer to God than the ‘perfectly righteous’ ({hebrew}), since, in Is. lvii. 19, peace was first bidden to those who had been afar off, and then only to those near. This opinion was, however, not shared by all, and one Rabbi maintained,^44944494    Ber. 34 b about the middle. that, while all the prophets had only prophesied with reference to penitents (this had been the sole object of their mission), yet, as regarded the ‘perfectly righteous,’ ‘eye hath not seen’ O God, beside Thee, what ‘He hath prepared’ for them.^44954495    Is. lxiv. 4. Lastly, it may, perhaps, be noted, that the expression ‘there is joy before Him’ ({hebrew}) is not uncommon in Jewish writings with reference to events which take place on earth.

To complete these notes, it may be added that, besides illustrations, to which reference will be made in the sequel, Rabbinic tradition supplies a parallel to at least part of the third Parable, that of the Lost Son. It tells us that, while prayer may sometimes find the gate of access closed, it is never shut against repentance, and it introduces a Parable in which a king sends a tutor after his son, who, in his wickedness, had left the palace, with this message: ‘Return, my son!’ to which the latter replied: ‘With what face can I return? I am ashamed!’ On which the father sends this message: ‘My son, is there a son who is ashamed to return to his father - and shalt thou not return to thy father? Thou shalt return.’ So, continues the Midrash, had God sent Jeremiah after Israel in the hour of their sin with the call to return, ^44964496    Jer. iii. 12. and the comforting reminder that it was to their Father.^44974497    Debar. R. 2, on Deut. iii. 25, which, in general, contains several references to repentance, ed. Warsh. p. 7 b, about the middle.

In the Parable of ‘the Lost Son,’ the main interest centres in his restoration. It is not now to the innate tendency of his nature, nor yet to the work and dust in the house that the loss is attributable, but to the personal, free choice of the individual. He does not stray; he does not fall aside - he wilfully departs, and under aggravated circumstances. It is the younger of two sons of a father, who is equally loving to both, and kind even to his hired servants, whose home, moreover, is one not only of sufficiency, but of superabundance and wealth. The demand which he makes for the ‘portion of property falling’ to him is founded on the Jewish Law of Inheritance.^44984498    See ch. xvi. Note 1. Presumably, the father had only these two sons. The eldest would receive two portions, the younger the third of all movable property. The father could not have disinherited the younger son, although, if there had been several younger sons, he might have divided the property falling to them as he wished, provided he expressed only his disposition, and did not add that such or such of the children were to have a less share or none at all. On the other hand, a man might, during his lifetime, dispose of all his property by gift, as he chose, to the disadvantage, or even the total loss, of the first-born, or of any other children; nay, he might give all to strangers.^44994499    But in regard to such disinheriting of children, even if they were bad, it was said, that the Spirit of Wisdom did not rest on them who made such disposition (Baba B. viii. 5). In such cases, as, indeed, in regard to all such dispositions, greater latitude was allowed if the donor was regarded as dangerously ill, than if he was in good health. In the latter case a legal formality of actual seizure required to be gone through. With reference to the two eventualities just mentioned - that of diminishing or taking away the portion of younger children, and the right of gift - the Talmud speaks of Testaments,^45004500    It may be interesting here to quote, in connection with the interpretation of Heb. vii. 18, viii. 7-13, this Rabbinic principle: ‘A testament makes void a [previous] testament,’ Jer. Baba B. 16 b, below. which bear the name Diyatiqi, as in the New Testament.^45014501    Baba B. viii. 6; Moed K. iii. 3. These dispositions might be made either in writing or orally. But if the share of younger children was to be diminished or taken away, the disposition must be made by a person presumably near death (Shekhibh mera). But no one in good health (Bari) could diminish (except by gift) the legal portion of a younger son.^45024502    The present Jewish Law of Inheritance is fully given in Fassel, Mos. Rabb. Civil-Recht, vol. i. pp. 274-412.

It thus appears that the younger son was, by law, fully entitled to his share of the possessions, although, of course, he had no right to claim it during the lifetime of his father. That he did so, might have been due to the feeling that, after all, he must make his own way in the world; to dislike of the order and discipline of his home; to estrangement from his elder brother; or, most likely, to a desire for liberty and enjoyment, with the latent belief that he would succeed well enough if left to himself. At any rate, his conduct, whatever his motives, was most heartless as regarded his father, and sinful as before God. Such a disposition could not prosper. The father had yielded to his demand, and, to be as free as possible from control and restraint, the younger son had gone into a far country. There the natural sequences soon appeared, and his property was wasted in riotous living. Regarding the demand for his inheritance as only a secondary trait in the Parable, designed, on the one hand, more forcibly to bring out the guilt of the son, and, on the other, the goodness, and afterwards the forgiveness, of the Father, we can scarcely doubt that by the younger son we are to understand those ‘publicans and sinners’ against whose reception by, and fellowship with, Christ the Pharisees had murmured.

The next scene in the history is misunderstood when the objection is raised, that the young man’s misery is there represented as the result of Providential circumstances rather than of his own misdoing. To begin with, he would not have been driven to such straits in the famine, if he had not wasted his substance with riotous living. Again, the main object is to show, that absolute liberty and indulgence of sinful desires and passions ended in anything but happiness. The Providence of God had an important part in this. Far more frequently are folly and sin punished in the ordinary course of Providence than by special judgments. Indeed, it is contrary to the teaching of Christ,^45034503    St. Luke xiii. 2, 3. and it would lead to an unmoral view of life, to regard such direct interpositions as necessary, or to substitute them for the ordinary government of God. Similarly, for our awakening also we are frequently indebted to what is called the Providence, but what is really the manifold working together of the grace, of God. And so we find special meaning in the occurrence of this famine. That, in his want, ‘he clave^45044504    More literally, ‘was glued.’ The LXX. translate thus the Hebrew {hebrew}, ‘to cleave.’ (ͺκολλͺθη) to one of the citizens of that country,’ seems to indicate that the man had been unwilling to engage the dissipated young stranger, and only yielded to his desperate importunity. This also explains how he employed him in the lowest menial service, that of feeding swine. To a Jew, there was more than degradation in this, since the keeping of swine (although perhaps the ownership rather than the feeding) was prohibited to Israelites under a curse.^45054505    Baba K. 82 b, and the reference to it in the Midrash on Eccles. viii. 1. ^45064506    This prohibition is connected by tradition with Maccabean times. And even in this demeaning service he was so evil entreated, that for very hunger he would fain have ‘filled his belly with the carob-pods that the swine did eat.’ But here the same harshness, which had sent him to such employment, met him on the part of all the people of that country: ‘and no man gave unto him,’ even sufficient of such food. What perhaps gives additional meaning to this description is the Jewish saying: ‘When Israel is reduced to the carob-tree, they become repentant.’^45074507    Vayyik. R. 35 ed. Warsh., pp. 53 b, 54 a. ^45084508    The fruit of the carob-tree is regarded in Jewish and heathen literature as the poorest, and, indeed, only fit for animals. See Wetstein ad loc. According to Jewish ideas, it took seventy years before the carob-tree bore fruit (Bekhor. 8 a). It is at least doubtful whether the tree is mentioned in the Old Testament (the {hebrew} of 2 Sam. v. 23, 24). In the Mishnah it is frequently referred to (Peah i. 5; Shabb. xxiv. 2; Baba B. ii. 7). Its fruit seems to have been the food of ascetics, such as Chanina b. Dosa, &c. (Ber. 17 b), and Simeon b. Jochai (Shabb. 33 b), even as it had been that of John the Baptist. Its leaves seem on occasions to have been used as writing-material (Tos. Gitt. 2).

It was this pressure of extreme want which first showed to the younger son the contrast between the country and the circumstances to which his sin had brought him, and the plentiful provision of the home he had left, and the kindness which provided bread enough and to spare for even the hired servants. There was only a step between what he said, ‘having come into himself,’ and his resolve to return, though its felt difficulty seems implied in the expression: ‘I will arise.’ Nor would he go back with the hope of being reinstated in his position as son, seeing he had already received, and wasted in sin, his portion of the patrimony. All he sought was to be made as one of the hired servants. And, alike from true feeling, and to show that this was all his pretence, he would preface his request by the confession, that he had sinned ‘against heaven’ - a frequent Hebraism for ‘against God’^45094509    Other terms were also substituted (such as ‘Might,’ ‘Mercy,’ &c.) - with the view of avoiding needless mention of the Deity. - and in the sight of his father, and hence could no longer lay claim to the name of son. The provision of the son he had, as stated, already spent, the name he no longer deserved. This favour only would he seek, to be as a hired servant in his father’s house, instead of in that terrible, strange land of famine and harshness.

But the result was far other than he could have expected. When we read that, ‘while he was yet afar off, his father saw him,’ we must evidently understand it in the sense, that his father had been always on the outlook for him, an impression which is strengthened by the later command to the servants to ‘bring the calf, the fatted one,’^45104510    St. Luke xv. 23. as if it had been specially fattened against his return. As he now saw him, ‘he was moved with compassion, and he ran, and he fell on his neck, and covered him with kisses.’^45114511    Or ‘kissed him much,’ κατεφͺλησεν αͺτͺν. Such a reception rendered the purposed request, to be made as one of the hired servants, impossible - and its spurious insertion in the text of some important manuscripts^45124512    ver. 21. See marg. of R. V. affords sad evidence of the want of spiritual tact and insight of early copyists. The father’s love had anticipated his confession, and rendered its self-spoken sentence of condemnation impossible. ‘Perfect love casteth out fear,’ and the hard thoughts concerning himself and his deserts on the part of the returning sinner were banished by the love of the father. And so he only made confession of his sin and wrong - not now as preface to the request to be taken in as a servant, but as the outgoing of a humbled, grateful, truly penitent heart. Him whom want had humbled, thought had brought to himself, and mingled need and hope led a suppliant servant - the love of a father, which anticipated his confession, and did not even speak the words of pardon, conquered, and so morally begat him a second time as his son. Here it deserves special notice, as marking the absolute contrast between the teaching of Christ and Rabbinism, that we have in one of the oldest Rabbinic works^45134513    Siphré, ed. Friedm. p. 35 a. a Parable exactly the reverse of this, when the son of a friend is redeemed from bondage, not as a son, but to be a slave, that so obedience might be demanded of him. The inference drawn is, that the obedience of the redeemed is not that of filial love of pardoned, but the enforcement of the claim of a master. How otherwise in the Parable and teaching of Christ!

But even so the story of love has not come to an end. They have reached the house. And now the father would not only restore the son, but convey to him the evidence of it, and he would do so before, and by the servants. The three tokens of wealth and position are to be furnished him. ‘Quickly’ the servants are to bring forth the ‘stola,’ the upper garment of the higher classes, and that ‘the first’ - the best, and this instead of the tattered, coarse raiment of the foreign swineherd. Similarly, the finger-ring for his hand, and the sandals for his unshod feet, would indicate the son of the house. And to mark this still further, the servants were not only to bring these articles, but themselves to ‘put them on’ the son, so as thereby to own his mastership. And yet further, the calf, ‘the fatted one’ for this very occasion, was to be killed, and there was to be a joyous feast, for ‘this’ his son ‘was dead, and is come to life again; was lost, and is found.’^45144514    Thus the text correctly. As it seems to me, the words do not, in the first place, point to a moral change. Dogmatically, the inference is no doubt correct, but, as Goebel remarks, they would scarcely have, in that sense, been addressed to the servants.

Thus far for the reception of ‘publicans and sinners,’ and all in every time whom it may concern. Now for the other aspect of the history. While this was going on, so continues the Parable, the elder brother was still in the field. On his return home, he inquired of a servant the reason of the festivities which he heard within the house. Informed that his younger brother had come, and the calf long prepared against a feast had been killed, because his father had recovered him ‘safe and sound,’ he was angry, would not go in, and even refused the request to that effect of the father, who had come out for the purpose. The harsh words of reproach with which he set forth his own apparent wrongs could have only one meaning: his father had never rewarded him for his services. On the other hand, as soon as ‘this’ his ‘son’ - whom he will not even call his brother - had come back, notwithstanding all his disservice, he had made a feast of joy!

But in this very thing lay the error of the elder son, and - to apply it - the fatal mistake of Pharisaism. The elder son regarded all as of merit and reward, as work and return. But it is not so. We mark, first, that the same tenderness which had welcomed the returning son, now met the elder brother. He spoke to the angry man, not in the language of merited reproof, but addressed him lovingly as ‘son,’ and reasoned with him. And then, when he had shown him his wrong, he would fain recall him to better feeling by telling him of the other as his ‘brother.’^45154515    St. Luke xv. 32. But the main point is this. There can be here no question of desert. So long as the son is in His Father’s house He gives in His great goodness to His child all that is the Father’s. But this poor lost one - still a son and a brother - he has not got any reward, only been taken back again by a Father’s love, when he had come back to Him in the deep misery of his felt need. This son, or rather, as the other should view him, this ‘brother,’ had been dead, and was come to life again; lost, and was found. And over this ‘it was meet to make merry and be glad,’ not to murmur. Such murmuring came from thoughts of work and pay - wrong in themselves, and foreign to the proper idea of Father and son; such joy, from a Father’s heart. The elder brother’s were the thoughts of a servant:^45164516    It may be worth mentioning a somewhat similar parable in Bemidb. R. 15 (ed. Warsh. p. 62 b, near beginning). Reference is made to the fact, that, according to Numb. vii., all the twelve tribes brought gifts, except Levi. Upon that follows in Numb. viii. the consecration of the Levites to the service of the Lord. The Midrash likens it to a feast which a king had made for all the people, but to which he does not bid his special friend. And while the latter seems to fear that this exclusion may imply disfavour, the king has a special feast for his friend only, and shows him that while the common meal was for all, the special feast is for those he specially loves. of service and return; the younger brother’s was the welcome of a son in the mercy and everlasting love of a Father. And this to us, and to all time!