the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel

In addition to Kilgallen’s view, I think that the lesson about possessions is a coupling ring
between the two chapters, that is, the proper attitude to wealth and a right use of possessions.
This common theme clearly comes to the surface in all three parables. In this respect,
whoever reads the parables can easily take up the common theme from it as well. Each
character in three parables is recklessly prodigal with property for their own self-contentment,
regardless of its ownership. Their covetousness toward possessions eventually causes them to
fall into a predicament. Taking all that into consideration, we can say with little doubt that the
lesson about possessions is a common theme connecting the two chapters.
With respect to the relationship between the three parables in 15:1-32, it is more forceful
to claim that there is a plain unity between these three parables rather than to isolate one from
another one. We can highlight their essential unity by virtue of three features: First, on the
literary level, these three parables are associated with one another not only in the introductory
verses in 1-3, but in an inclusio with two complaints from the beginning and end of ch. 15. In
Luke’s use of the singular, in v.3, he at least understood the three parables as a
single unit and wanted readers to read the three as a literary unit. In addition, an inclusio that
is constituted by the complaint of the Pharisees and scribes (vv. 1-2) and the complaint of the
elder son (vv. 28-30), here functions in the role of tying together the three parables. 4
Second,
the three parables share a common theme and setting: That is to say, God’s joy in response to
a sinner’s repentance is a common theme, and the setting of meals and eating as a common
setting. Third, there is a common structure in the events: A sequence of loss, recovery and
celebration. In view of these reasons, we can say that Luke at least expects ch 15 to be read as
a literary unit in mind.
There have been several claims concerning the relationship between the first and second
parables. While there are common aspects among them in that the Lost Sheep may have been
drawn from Q, the main differences are that the Lost Coin may have been taken from Q, L
5
and a Lukan composition or a composition of the early church. We could of course add a
4. K.E. Bailey, Jacob and the Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel’s Story (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity
Press, 2003), 60; Liebenberg, The Language o f the Kingdom and Jesus: Parable, Aphorism, and Metaphor in
the Sayings Material Common to the Synoptic Tradition and the Gospel of Thomas, 416; Fitzmyer, The Gospel
According to Luke, 1076; Stephen C. Barton, “Parables on God’s Love and Forgiveness (Luke 15:1-32),” in ed.,
R.N. Longenecker, The Challenge of Jesus Parables (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 2000),
199-216, here 201.
5. In regard to the origination of the Lost Coin, for being from Q, see Breech, The Silence of Jesus: The
Authentic Voice of the Historical Man, 80; J. Lambrecht, Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus (New
York: Crossroad, 1981), 38, for being taken from L, see Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 1073, for
being drawn from a Lukan composition and the early church, see Drury, The Parables in the Gospels: History
62