"Parable of the Lost" sounds like it is hanging there, waiting for a noun--"lost--what?". I suggest "Parable of the Lost Sheep" (or Wandering Sheep).
I know you want to tie theme together, but comparing Luke with Matthew, it seems that the Lost Sheep parable is the seed for the other two. I compared the two accounts and I found that after the Transfiguration Jesus heals a boy of a demon and then the question concerning who is the greatest among them arises. In Luke, Jesus then sends his out the seventy-two and tells seven (or 5, for one is multiple) before this passage. Matthew, though, follows with the parable of the unforgiving servant. The difference is clearly that Jesus "recycled" the parable after telling it to his disciples. In multiplying examples, Jesus leaves his opponents with little choice to understand his point (even with their hardened hearts).
The content of the page might be divided like this
'''Parable of the Lost Sheep''' Synopsis of the main parable. ==To the Disciples== ===Context=== ===Follow-through=== ==To the Pharisees== ===Context=== ===Follow-through=== ==General Application== Something both contexts have in common
--SouthWriter (talk) 20:37, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the article could be renamed "parables of the lost", in order to group them but still recognize them as individual parables (then change the wording accordingly).
Nevertheless, I think the format could be kept with the wandering sheep considering both contexts. The wandering sheep parable could be treated in another article again in its appropriate context. The question that has to be considered: is the wandering sheep parable more independent of the other parables in the Matthew paralel (it is important to understand it in Matthew alongside the other parables, or could that be explained in a context heading).
When I mentioned that the lecture I watch, his point was the unity within the context of the parable. I think the professor (Dr. Mark Bailey, President of DTS)'s point was in that specific instance, the term parable is used once to imply one application for all three allegories. "When you come to Luke 15...He told them this parable: but I have three stories. And there's unity in the fact of the singular use of the term parable"  (he explains the idea of unity in more detail, try searching the transcript for parable).
All in all, I think the parables should be treated in context; the question is how to handle an article when the same parable is used multiple times for different meanings.
Superdadsuper, Bible Wiki Administrator and Bureaucrat 22:44, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
The Main Point
When it comes to parables, one must not miss "the main point". Each of these parables concern things or persons that are missing, as you say, but to say they have to do with "Salvation" misses the point. In all three situations the things lost "belonged" to the ones that were looking for them.
The Jewish leadership had the wrong idea about who "deserved" to be saved. The context has Jesus eating with the worst folk in the neighborhood. It was embarassing to them that Jesus would assosiate with such folks and still come around them. Though these "low life" folks had their problems, Jesus embraced them because they were repentant of their sins.
In the parables, that which was lost from among the possession of the shepherd, the woman and the father, had wandered, rolled or ran away. Each lost thing was of great value, be it one in a hundred, one in ten or one of two. Jesus asked questions of the opposition to check their hearts. Were they so cold as to disregard the value of a sheep or a coin? What about a wayward child? The parables ended in rejoicing that what was lost had been found. The lost things increased in "value" but it wasn't about what was lost, but who had lost the things.
The shepherd did not "abandon" the sheep, but rather "left" them undercare of a hired shepherd. The woman was in the house where the nine coins were secure, and the father came running when the son returned. I don't agree that the shepherd was despised (think Psalm 23, and Ezekiel's prophecies), nor was the woman shunned. The father was a rich man rejoicing at the return "from the dead" of his son. The addition of the second son, who did not want to party, but only complained, hit home.
The Jewish leaders had a problem. They didn't want the "undesirables" around. Jesus taught them that "sinners" were special in the eys of God (the Shepherd, Woman, and the Father). They did not realize that they weren't in the sheepfold, the house or the family. They were like the "good son" that wanted to disown the brother. Such an attitude showed that they did not love God OR their neighbor, breaking the "first commandment" on both counts.
SouthWriter (talk) 03:32, June 25, 2018 (UTC)
From the article (Application):
Jesus' point was when just one sinner (or item) is unrepentant, he would go out of his way to lead them to bring them back to repentance (or belonging); whereas those who did not need to repent where not as important. This may not be referring to those already saved, but is probably talking about "religious" people (such as the Pharisees and Jewish scribes) who did not feel they needed to repent from any sin.
The "unrepentant" sinner in the stories is the older brother in the "narrative". The Pharisees are "unrepentant". Repentance is a turning back to the right way. The ones who don't think they need to repent are the ones that need to be listening. The problem is, in this case, they scoff at the message. There is no hope for them, as their hearts are hardened. The Pharisees don't consider the "sinners" as part of their "fold", nor do they think they are valuable as a coin. They don't even want to accept family members that become followers of Jesus.
In the three stories, the safe sheep, coins and son, were every bit as important in the eyes of the shepherd, woman and especially the father.
--SouthWriter (talk) 02:23, June 28, 2018 (UTC)