The Gospel of Luke records a group of parables in which Jesus gave three examples of the concept of lost and found: the story of the lost sheep, the parable of the lost coin, and the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:1-31).  

​We know these are not just three similar stories that were grouped together thematically as Luke specifically shows they were given at the same time (vss. 3, 8, 11) in response to the Pharisees’ criticism that Jesus ate with “sinners” (vss. 1-2). 

In the first parable, Jesus said: “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?” (vs. 4). In the second, he continued: “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?” (vs. 8). And in the third and best known parable we are told that Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them. Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had and set off for a distant country (vss. 11-13). This parable also tells us that when the prodigal son finally returned:  “…while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him” (vs. 20), showing the father had been waiting and looking for his son.

In all three of these parables we are told that when that which was lost was found there was great rejoicing (vss. 6, 9, 32), and the moral of each is clearly that God rejoices in “finding” the lost soul. But these are not just a group of similar parables.  Not only were they given at the same time in response to the same situation, with a clear connection between the stories, but also if we look closely, there is another important  aspect of what is said.
 
In the first parable we are told specifically that the sheep that was lost was one in a hundred; in the second parable the coin that was lost was one in ten; in the third parable the son who was lost was one of two.   Although each parable makes the same point, there is an additional message in the complete sequence – in all three taken together. 
 
Jesus began by showing that even one of many (one in a hundred) has great value.  One hundred  sheep would have been a very large flock in ancient Palestine, and one missing sheep might hardly be noticed.  Spiritually, the message is clear: God values everyone who is lost –  even if they are “only one” of the vast number of humans who have lived.  The sequence continues, however, in showing the relative worth of the one of ten coins that was lost. The fact that the woman called on her friends to rejoice with her when the coin was found shows that its value must have been significant to her – probably a tenth of all her savings. In the final parable, the sequence concludes by showing the tremendous value to his father of the one of two sons who had been “lost.”  The father in the story is shown as perhaps having been searching the distant road continually, hoping for his son’s return.
 
In this parable we often concentrate on the uncharitable reluctance of the elder of the two sons to rejoice when the younger one returned.  Although that is an important part of the story, we should not forget that the discussion between the father and the elder brother also serves another purpose – to show the great value of the lost brother who was found.  The elder brother’s argument is essentially that the father was placing as much value on the young brother as on the one who had stayed faithful –  and that argument was in fact accurate. 

The parable makes it clear that the elder brother would receive his due reward (vs. 31), but the father replies to him that: “… we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (vs. 32).
​
The three “lost and found” parables Jesus gave were not just repetition for effect. The interlinked stories show successively  the value to God of the one who is lost. The sequence demonstrates at its beginning God’s personal attentiveness towards all of humanity and at its end his deeply focused love for each individual. Together, the parables show that no one is too small or insignificant to be viewed as of great value to God, and that every individual who returns to God, whatever their sins of the past, is of immense value – as valuable in God’s sight as any other.  The three parables show as clearly as anything in the New Testament not only the joy of the lost being found, but also the loving acceptance with which God views the one who is found.
 
* For more about the parables of Jesus, download our free e-book The City on a Hill.

And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, “You will not come in here, but the blind and the lame will ward you off”—thinking, “David cannot come in here.” Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David.  And David said on that day, “Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack ‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hated by David's soul” (2 Samuel 5:6-8 ESV).

This passage in the book of 2 Samuel is puzzling at first sight. Did David really hate the lame and the blind?  Some translations attempt to smooth out the statement – the NIV, for example, renders the verse “those ‘lame and blind’ who are David’s enemies,” but the translation “‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hated by David's soul” found in the ESV is an accurate and a quite literal one.

First, we need to ascertain who “the lame and the blind” were.  Most modern commentaries presume that the Jebusites believed that the fortifications of Jerusalem were so strong that even those who were mobility- or visually-impaired would be able to ward off David and his army.  While this interpretation might seem very reasonable, it leaves unanswered why David would say his soul hated the lame and the blind.  We also see that “the lame and the blind” could not have simply been a verbal taunt as David told his men that because of the situation they should secretly enter the city by way of a hidden watershaft. Finally, we see that David offered a large incentive – the rank of “chief and captain” (1 Chronicles 11:6) – to anyone who would lead the way in attacking “the lame and the blind.”

Archaeology may perhaps help us to better understand the situation. There is some evidence that the ancient Jebusites were connected to, and perhaps associated with the Syro-Hittite peoples of the Near East.  As a result, in 1963, the renowned Israeli soldier, archaeologist, and scholar, Yigael Yadin (1917–1984), noted that ancient clay tablets that have been found with texts written by these people include instances of a ritual known as the “Soldier’s Oath” that may be relevant to what David said (Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands: In the Light of Archaeological Study Volume 2, pages 268-269). These “oaths” were magical rituals made against enemies in which blind and deaf individuals were paraded before them and it was then said:

“Whoever …. turns his eyes in hostile fashion upon [our] land, let these oaths seize him! Let them blind this man’s army and make it deaf! Let them not see each other, let them not hear each other! Let them make a cruel fate their lot! … Let them make him blind! Let them make him deaf! Let them blind him like a blind man! Let them deafen him like a deaf man! Let them annihilate him, the man himself together with his wife, his children and his kin!”  (quoted from James B. Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pages 353-354.)

This kind of sympathetic magic appears to be exactly what the ancient Jebusites were doing – placing a terrible curse on anyone who attacked their city.  If this is the case, as Yadin suggested, the biblical text is certainly more understandable.  This would perhaps explain why David told his men that because of the situation they should secretly enter the city by way of a hidden watershaft – perhaps to avoid the lame and blind “curse carriers,”  and why he needed to offer a large incentive to anyone who would lead the attack under these circumstances.  As for “hating” the lame and blind, David’s comments would most likely apply to the lame and blind curse carriers rather than to all people with these disabilities.

This certainly makes sense as the Bible clearly shows David did not hate such people – it documents in detail his love for and help of Saul’s lame son Mephibosheth whom he restored and invited to eat regularly at his table (2 Samuel 9:10-13).

Whatever the precise meaning of David’s words in 2 Samuel 5:6–8, it is clear that the king did not hate the disabled – and Yadin’s suggestion as to the king’s actual meaning is as good as any. In this case, as in many others, passages that seem to contradict what we know of plain biblical teaching are often better understood with historical background to illuminate them.