Prodical Son Question

[The Mean Farmer]

In reading these verses in Luke 15 I just have a question about the end of the story.  The more obedient son is upset that his riotous brother has come home and that is father is happy about it.  The words from the KJV are as follows:

 

And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

³⁰ But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

³¹ And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

³² It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

 

In Verse 31 he says that "Thou aren't ever with me, and all that I have is thine".  I'm curious if we can extrapolate the details on this.

The LOST and FOUND nature of the parable suggests that the younger son isn't a lost cause forever.  The Old Testament itself is LOADED with instances where the Lord says return to me and I will heal you and make you mine.  So I assume it is possible that the younger son CAN still be with the Father, and/or partake of all he has,  but needs a whole lot of work to get there is what he is saying.   Is he saying AT THIS POINT, the rebellious son isn't qualified to be 'ever with me'.  Thoughts?    

The Father stating that 'ALL that I have is thine' to his more obedient son.  Is this just in a worldly aspect relating to the earthly inheritance and not eternal glory?  Despite the humbled son returning, is he officially out of the family will so-to-speak?  Is this a statement that is true at the time but is able to be amended?  Is it time for this rebellious son to go make his own way because he has used up the capital his family allotted him?  While still his son, would he be allowed to become a leader in the family business and affairs, or has he blown his shot?   

Should I just understand how precious we are to God in spite of our sins, transgressions, misdeeds, and willful rebellion and let it go at that?   Am I looking beyond the mark?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, The Mean Farmer said:

The Father stating that 'ALL that I have is thine' to his more obedient son.  Is this just in a worldly aspect relating to the earthly inheritance and not eternal glory?  Despite the humbled son returning, is he officially out of the family will so-to-speak?  Is this a statement that is true at the time but is able to be amended?  Is it time for this rebellious son to go make his own way because he has used up the capital his family allotted him?  While still his son, would he be allowed to become a leader in the family business and affairs, or has he blown his shot?  

Romans 8:17

and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.
 

It really can’t be a perfect analogy because (in their culture) the first son always received a double portion of the inheritance and yet Paul tells us that we can become equal heirs with Christ. So this parable is definitely open to interpretation. Maybe the younger son would not be granted another earthly inheritance, but he could certainly qualify for an eternal one. 

[CV75]

@The Mean Farmer I think parables are open to all kinds of interpretation, but the most valuable are those that lead us into a more Christlike character. The father was like Christ, the faithful son was still learning to be like Christ, and the prodigal also, for that matter. The parable doesn't speak so much to be about earthly and eternal consequences of good and bad choices, but of the need to be or become loving, and having joy in obtaining charity and its fruits.

[strappinglad]

One might tie this parable to the one about the workers and their equal payments no matter when they start work. 

[InCognitus]

26 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

One might tie this parable to the one about the workers and their equal payments no matter when they start work. 

I'm trying to understand this too, but I'm not sure if it's that simple.  Because of this:

Quote

And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.  And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.  (Luke 15:12–13)

There is the problem of lost opportunity and squandering away the inheritance, which would likely diminish his capability to serve in his father's household, but he would be accepted even so.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Romans 8:17

and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.
 

It really can’t be a perfect analogy because (in their culture) the first son always received a double portion of the inheritance and yet Paul tells us that we can become equal heirs with Christ. So this parable is definitely open to interpretation. Maybe the younger son would not be granted another earthly inheritance, but he could certainly qualify for an eternal one. 

Yes, the parable doesn't work if it's taken too far.  For example, the younger son had already received his inheritance and had spent it.  There was nothing left for him to inherit without taking something away from the older son.  But it doesn't work that way when we are talking about eternal things and eternal inheritances.  

[theplains]

3 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Romans 8:17

and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

The real identity of who the sons and daughters are is revealed by a few verses before the one you quoted

Rom 8:14  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 
Rom 8:15  For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 
Rom 8:16  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 
Rom 8:17  And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

From what I have read of LDS teachings, the joint-heirs are exalted beings.  But according to the Bible,
only those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.  If children, then joint-heirs with Christ.

Thanks,
Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

One might tie this parable to the one about the workers and their equal payments no matter when they start work. 

Exactly:  The Parable of the Vineyard Workers (Matt 20), in which those who worked the last hour rec'd the same pay as those who worked the whole day.  Totally unfair, right?  Certainly by human reckoning.  God reckons by a very different standard.  Is God a universalist?

[Traela]

56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly:  The Parable of the Vineyard Workers (Matt 20), in which those who worked the last hour rec'd the same pay as those who worked the whole day.  Totally unfair, right?  Certainly by human reckoning.  God reckons by a very different standard.  Is God a universalist?

But the workers who were hired in the morning had the assurance all day that they would obtain wages.  Also, IIRC, custom dictated that they would be given a mid-day meal, so they received more tangible blessings as well.

 

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

The real identity of who the sons and daughters are is revealed by a few verses before the one you quoted

Rom 8:14  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 
Rom 8:15  For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 
Rom 8:16  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 
Rom 8:17  And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

From what I have read of LDS teachings, the joint-heirs are exalted beings.  But according to the Bible,
only those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.  If children, then joint-heirs with Christ.

What is the difference in your view between those who are led by the Spirit of God and the LDS teaching about those who are exalted beings?  

We need to see how the Bible defines what it means to be "led by the Spirit of God".  In the same chapter, Paul explains the difference between those who are led by the Spirit of God and those who are not:

Quote

Rom 8:4  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5  For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

And right before the verses you quoted above, Paul includes this important context on what it means to be led by the Spirit:

Quote

Rom 8:12  Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
Rom 8:13  For IF ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but IF ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

It's a conditional statement, conditioned upon behavior.  We are to "walk" in the Spirit and not walk after the flesh. 

Do a search on how Paul uses the word "walk" in his epistles.   He talks about how we should "walk in newness of life" after baptism (Rom 6:4), how we should "walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind" (Eph 4:17), but we should "walk as children of the light" (Eph 5:9).  He also taught that we should "walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God" (Col 1:10), and that we ought to "walk and to please God" by keeping his commandments (and he lists many of them 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12).  "Walk" is an action word, it denotes obedience in following the Spirit.

My all time favorite example of what it means to walk in the Spirit in contrast to the works of the flesh is from an awesome chiasmus that Paul uses in Galatians 5:12 through 6:2:

Quote

Notice that the center of this chiasmus is the warning that those who continue to practice certain sins will not inherit the kingdom of God.  And walking in the Spirit is associated with the fruit of the Spirit, which include the attributes listed above.  In doing those things it is fulfilling the "law of Christ".

John 1:12 teaches us that receiving and believing in Jesus gives us the "power to become the sons of God".  We "become" his sons by "walking" in his commandments, and by doing such we take on his attributes, the fruit of the Spirit.

Edited January 27, 2020 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

One might tie this parable to the one about the workers and their equal payments no matter when they start work. 

Exactly:  The Parable of the Vineyard Workers (Matt 20), in which those who worked the last hour rec'd the same pay as those who worked the whole day.  Totally unfair, right?  Certainly by human reckoning.  God reckons by a very different standard.  Is God a universalist?

But isn't there a big difference between the parable of the vineyard workers and the story of the prodigal son, in that the prodigal son knew his father and received goods from him from the beginning, but went off and squandered away his inheritance, and then ultimately came back with the desire to merely be one of his father's servants?  But the vineyard workers were hired on at different times of the day because they didn't know any better, they were standing around idle "because no man hath hired us" (Matt 20:7). 

Edit:  Ultimately the wayward son was given a robe and had his father's ring put on his hand, signifying that he was accepted back fully as one of the family.  But to the son that remained with him, he said, "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine".  (Luke 15:31)   I'm just trying to figure out if there is a distinction to be made here.

Edited January 27, 2020 by InCognitus

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

But isn't there a big difference between the parable of the vineyard workers and the story of the prodigal son, in that the prodigal son knew his father and received goods from him from the beginning, but went off and squandered away his inheritance, and then ultimately came back with the desire to merely be one of his father's servants?  But the vineyard workers were hired on at different times of the day because they didn't know any better, they were standing around idle "because no man hath hired us" (Matt 20:7). 

Edit:  Ultimately the wayward son was given a robe and had his father's ring put on his hand, signifying that he was accepted back fully as one of the family.  But to the son that remained with him, he said, "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine".  (Luke 15:31)   I'm just trying to figure out if there is a distinction to be made here.

Both of your observations are valid before the Law, but that is not the point.

Both the Good Son and the longstanding workers immediately perceived unfairness in each case.  The Father in the one case and the Lord of Vineyard  in the other are too kind.  Would a strict, legalistic Father be so kind to the Prodigal?  Isn't it poor business practice, even foolish, to pay all workers the same, even though some worked longer hours?  To err is human, to forgive divine.  How do we escape justice in each case?  Only because we have a Father who can exercise grace.  How is he able to do so?  The unstated way is via an infinite Atonement.  Payment had to have been made, and redemption provided.  That is the unstated element in the syllogism.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Traela said:

But the workers who were hired in the morning had the assurance all day that they would obtain wages.  Also, IIRC, custom dictated that they would be given a mid-day meal, so they received more tangible blessings as well.

Clever point, but the parables should not be pushed so far as to require a forensic examination.  The parables are like Aesopian Fables in which simple facts lead to simple moral teachings.  We must not read more into them than is actually there.  On the other hand, there is the unstated presence of Deity in each story.

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, The Mean Farmer said:

In reading these verses in Luke 15 I just have a question about the end of the story.  The more obedient son is upset that his riotous brother has come home and that is father is happy about it.  The words from the KJV are as follows:

 

And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

³⁰ But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

³¹ And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

³² It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

 

In Verse 31 he says that "Thou aren't ever with me, and all that I have is thine".  I'm curious if we can extrapolate the details on this.

The LOST and FOUND nature of the parable suggests that the younger son isn't a lost cause forever.  The Old Testament itself is LOADED with instances where the Lord says return to me and I will heal you and make you mine.  So I assume it is possible that the younger son CAN still be with the Father, and/or partake of all he has,  but needs a whole lot of work to get there is what he is saying.   Is he saying AT THIS POINT, the rebellious son isn't qualified to be 'ever with me'.  Thoughts?    

I believe Protestant Christians typically get this parable wrong. They feel the first begotten son of the parable is in the wrong for feeling the way he does. They don't seem to stop to consider that the first son is in the position of Christ who had continually proven that He had done all His Father asked, and yet is perplexed at the sudden joy expressed at the returning of the younger son who had been lost down forbidden paths. I have taught before that many, if not all, members of the Church are in the position of the 2nd son. We are all sinners who have squandered our inheritance through sinful things of the world. This is not always met with enthusiasm, but is true. Maybe not all have abandoned the truth and fed with the pigs, but we are all sinners, nonetheless and are therefore not entitled to absolution. 

11 hours ago, The Mean Farmer said:

The Father stating that 'ALL that I have is thine' to his more obedient son.  Is this just in a worldly aspect relating to the earthly inheritance and not eternal glory?  Despite the humbled son returning, is he officially out of the family will so-to-speak?  Is this a statement that is true at the time but is able to be amended?  Is it time for this rebellious son to go make his own way because he has used up the capital his family allotted him?  While still his son, would he be allowed to become a leader in the family business and affairs, or has he blown his shot?   

Should I just understand how precious we are to God in spite of our sins, transgressions, misdeeds, and willful rebellion and let it go at that?   Am I looking beyond the mark?

I think you are seeing more to this parable than is typically acknowledged for reasons I have already stated. We are not all as lost as this 2nd who took His inheritance and squandered it. Is it wrong for the first perfect son to ask for a little proof of our devotion before he will enter the party? Christ seems to ask us to follow Him. Is that wrong to do? Being our mediator, He asks us to live perfectly. Hmm. Is that being a party pooper the first righteous son is accused of being? No. I think not. I think Christ continues to try our faith while we are here on this earth. We are asked to be obedient till the end. So I don't think your points are looking too far at all. There is more to this parable than first meets the eye imho. Since the first son kept His inheritance, and has life in Himself, he can bring others to inherit that with Him.... That is an older brother par excellence...

[Maestrophil]

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But isn't there a big difference between the parable of the vineyard workers and the story of the prodigal son, in that the prodigal son knew his father and received goods from him from the beginning, but went off and squandered away his inheritance, and then ultimately came back with the desire to merely be one of his father's servants?  But the vineyard workers were hired on at different times of the day because they didn't know any better, they were standing around idle "because no man hath hired us" (Matt 20:7). 

Edit:  Ultimately the wayward son was given a robe and had his father's ring put on his hand, signifying that he was accepted back fully as one of the family.  But to the son that remained with him, he said, "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine".  (Luke 15:31)   I'm just trying to figure out if there is a distinction to be made here.

I used to have a BIG problem with this parable - largely because I identified with the obedient son, snd had several life experiences that seemed patently unfair - leading me to question my reasons for being faithful.  

One of the helpful insights the spirit gave me, that helped me a lot, is to read "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine" in part, to mean something like "Son, while your brother spent (possibly years) time suffering and eating with swing and suffering a physical, emotional, and spiritual agony because of his choices, you have had everything I could give you during that same period.  You had access to all the family weather, property, and power, as well as peace of mind and conscience."  I learned to see the blessings the obedient brother had as not only in the future - but he had been receiving those blessings all along, that his brother would never have - and his brother would always live with that - whereas the obedient brother could always hold his head high.  I think I take those blessings for granted - talking to my friends who have strayed/been the prodigal son (or daughter) they say they would give anything to be able to say they chose obedience.

 

Just a thought for you.  🙂

 

[Ahab]

On 1/26/2020 at 8:01 AM, The Mean Farmer said:

In reading these verses in Luke 15 I just have a question about the end of the story.  The more obedient son is upset that his riotous brother has come home and that is father is happy about it.  The words from the KJV are as follows:

 

And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

³⁰ But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

³¹ And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

³² It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

 

In Verse 31 he says that "Thou aren't ever with me, and all that I have is thine".  I'm curious if we can extrapolate the details on this.

The LOST and FOUND nature of the parable suggests that the younger son isn't a lost cause forever.  The Old Testament itself is LOADED with instances where the Lord says return to me and I will heal you and make you mine.  So I assume it is possible that the younger son CAN still be with the Father, and/or partake of all he has,  but needs a whole lot of work to get there is what he is saying.   Is he saying AT THIS POINT, the rebellious son isn't qualified to be 'ever with me'.  Thoughts?    

The Father stating that 'ALL that I have is thine' to his more obedient son.  Is this just in a worldly aspect relating to the earthly inheritance and not eternal glory?  Despite the humbled son returning, is he officially out of the family will so-to-speak?  Is this a statement that is true at the time but is able to be amended?  Is it time for this rebellious son to go make his own way because he has used up the capital his family allotted him?  While still his son, would he be allowed to become a leader in the family business and affairs, or has he blown his shot?   

Should I just understand how precious we are to God in spite of our sins, transgressions, misdeeds, and willful rebellion and let it go at that?   Am I looking beyond the mark?

I think of the farm as a money making enterprise, so when the Father divided all that he had with his 2 sons, in terms of money but not his farm, the son who spent all of his portion of money then had none left while the more loyal son kept all of his money.

When the prodigal son came back the farm was still making money, though, I believe, so while the more loyal son then had more money than the son who returned the son who returned could still receive a portion of the money from the farm as it produced more money.

In an eternal sense, as i see it, all of us are going to be behind others in some ways.  Some children of our Father have already gone on to receive celestial glory while some of us are still here as mortals, and some of us haven't even been born as mortals,yet.

So while there is no way to catch up on everything with those who have gone on ahead of us, we can still work toward receiving all that our Father has, and our Father will continue to gain things that he doesn't have yet, including more children to share everything with.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Ahab

[Sunslight]

The main point of the parable is showing that one can repent and be completely forgiven and again become an heir. The secondary point is that we shouldn't place ourselves above another in thinking we should deserve more than another because we were obedient longer or born into a different circumstance (such as having the birthright being the firstborn). Our reward in heaven really is all about the joy of giving and bringing others to the same joyous outcomes as ourselves. It's like going to a party and all the food is set out and you know your spouse will be late so you grab a plate for her so that she can enjoy the same. That's what heaven really is where all are "equal" in power, might and dominion. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Sunslight said:

The main point of the parable is showing that one can repent and be completely forgiven and again become an heir. The secondary point is that we shouldn't place ourselves above another in thinking we should deserve more than another because we were obedient longer or born into a different circumstance (such as having the birthright being the firstborn). Our reward in heaven really is all about the joy of giving and bringing others to the same joyous outcomes as ourselves. It's like going to a party and all the food is set out and you know your spouse will be late so you grab a plate for her so that she can enjoy the same. That's what heaven really is where all are "equal" in power, might and dominion. 

I agree but that doesn't rule out the idea that some of us will get there before others of us do.  Our Lord is already enjoying more than we do, and there are others who are enjoying all that he has with him, while some of us are just looking forward to being able to get there someday.

[Sunslight]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I agree but that doesn't rule out the idea that some of us will get there before others of us do.  Our Lord is already enjoying more than we do, and there are others who are enjoying all that he has with him, while some of us are just looking forward to being able to get there someday.

It won't matter really. A thousand years during the millennium will have a great effect on evening out the saints.

[Kevin Christensen]

Joseph Smith said that his key to understanding a parable is to look at the question that drew it out.  And in this case, the question is, "Why is Jesus hanging out with sinners?"

So he tells three parables together.  The lost sheep, the lost coin, and the parable of the Father with Two sons.  The parable is directed to those who think that because they are righteous and therefore, ought to be given exclusive attention.  The first two parables are invitations to rejoice in finding that which is lost.  And the third parable shows a father rejoicing that his lost son, a bit more important than a coin or a sheep.  The father runs to the penitent son, discarding convention and propriety in doing so.  He doesn't wait for the son to be brought to him for judgment.  He doesn't say, "So.. you've come crawling back... perhaps I could use a pig swiller."  Rather the shoes, the robe and the ring, the embrace, and the feast indicate exactly how he feels, and they all have temple and familial resonance.  And in the third parable, the Father is clearly the protagonist.  The wandering son is not the protagonist, but rather, a plot element equivalent to the coin or lost sheep.  The Faithful son represents the people Pharisees and scribes who asked the question in the first place, and apparently, they didn't "get" how the first two parables answered the initial question.  So the third parable is directed pointedly at them.  Structurally, the faithful son is the antagonist. And in the third parable, we are left dangling as to whether the Faithful son is ever going to get it.  The faithful son uses language of distance, rather than intimacy.  "thy son" not, "my brother."  He sees himself as having worked as an employee ("these many years do I serve thee"), rather than as a loving son.   And his concern is entirely resentful "thou never gavest me a kid... thy son has devoured thy living with harlots..."  He is angry, resentful, self-righteous, and the Father has to come and entreat him. 

Concern over shares entirely misses the point.  Will God not have enough?  "It is meet that we should make merry and be glad..."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited January 27, 2020 by Kevin Christensen

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think of the farm as a money making enterprise, so when the Father divided all that he had with his 2 sons, in terms of money but not his farm, the son who spent all of his portion of money then had none left while the more loyal son kept all of his money.

When the prodigal son came back the farm was still making money, though, I believe, so while the more loyal son then had more money than the son who returned the son who returned could still receive a portion of the money from the farm as it produced more money.

In an eternal sense, as i see it, all of us are going to be behind others in some ways.  Some children of our Father have already gone on to receive celestial glory while some of us are still here as mortals, and some of us haven't even been born as mortals,yet.

So while there is no way to catch up on everything with those who have gone on ahead of us, we can still work toward receiving all that our Father has, and our Father will continue to gain things that he doesn't have yet, including more children to share everything with.

The oldest son wasn't getting any money so he did not come out ahead. He lamented he never even got a lamb so he could have a party with his friends remember? They aren't salaried employees.

[The Mean Farmer]

I have been edified by all of your comments and feelings.  Thank you for sharing them.

 

I don't think the parable covers the earthly details of this scenario, but we can extrapolate that there is a price or consequence for the humbled son to pay.  He has lost so much time that could have been devoted to becoming who God intended him to be, and now there are habits, memories, emotions, and experiences that likely plague him for the rest of his life and very well could stunt his ability to develop while he is on earth.

The fun thing is we could say the same thing about the dutiful son as well, but in a much different way.

 

If I could further extrapolate, I can see the dutiful son changing his mind and taking his Fathers stance toward his brother in a FAR shorter amount of time it will take the returned brother to put his life back together.

 

I think it matters, at least in the short/earth-life term.

 

 

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, The Mean Farmer said:

I have been edified by all of your comments and feelings.  Thank you for sharing them.

 

I don't think the parable covers the earthly details of this scenario, but we can extrapolate that there is a price or consequence for the humbled son to pay.  He has lost so much time that could have been devoted to becoming who God intended him to be, and now there are habits, memories, emotions, and experiences that likely plague him for the rest of his life and very well could stunt his ability to develop while he is on earth.

The fun thing is we could say the same thing about the dutiful son as well, but in a much different way.

 

If I could further extrapolate, I can see the dutiful son changing his mind and taking his Fathers stance toward his brother in a FAR shorter amount of time it will take the returned brother to put his life back together.

 

I think it matters, at least in the short/earth-life term.

 

 

I agree.  It all matters.  All of the things we do and experience help us to learn in one way or another, either easily by simply accepting good counsel or by what I refer to as the hard way to learn.  To learn from our own mistakes, which can be emotionally painful sometimes.

I have learned a lot of things the hard way, by my mistakes, and I sometimes regret having to go through what I did to learn what I did.  I wish I had been able or willing to learn in some easier way, without having made so many mistakes, but at least I learned those lessons.

Who knows how much further I might be in life If I hadn't made so many mistakes, if I had done the right thing more often and not been hindered or slowed down in my progress from my mistakes.  But, still, I learned some lessons, and now I am living by what I have learned while hoping in the future I can learn without having to make so many mistakes.

[mfbukowski]

On 1/26/2020 at 8:01 AM, The Mean Farmer said:

In reading these verses in Luke 15 I just have a question about the end of the story.  The more obedient son is upset that his riotous brother has come home and that is father is happy about it.  The words from the KJV are as follows:

 

And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

³⁰ But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

³¹ And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

³² It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

 

In Verse 31 he says that "Thou aren't ever with me, and all that I have is thine".  I'm curious if we can extrapolate the details on this.

The LOST and FOUND nature of the parable suggests that the younger son isn't a lost cause forever.  The Old Testament itself is LOADED with instances where the Lord says return to me and I will heal you and make you mine.  So I assume it is possible that the younger son CAN still be with the Father, and/or partake of all he has,  but needs a whole lot of work to get there is what he is saying.   Is he saying AT THIS POINT, the rebellious son isn't qualified to be 'ever with me'.  Thoughts?    

The Father stating that 'ALL that I have is thine' to his more obedient son.  Is this just in a worldly aspect relating to the earthly inheritance and not eternal glory?  Despite the humbled son returning, is he officially out of the family will so-to-speak?  Is this a statement that is true at the time but is able to be amended?  Is it time for this rebellious son to go make his own way because he has used up the capital his family allotted him?  While still his son, would he be allowed to become a leader in the family business and affairs, or has he blown his shot?   

Should I just understand how precious we are to God in spite of our sins, transgressions, misdeeds, and willful rebellion and let it go at that?   Am I looking beyond the mark?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like a quid pro quo to me

 

[Islander]

On 1/26/2020 at 9:48 PM, RevTestament said:

I believe Protestant Christians typically get this parable wrong. They feel the first begotten son of the parable is in the wrong for feeling the way he does. They don't seem to stop to consider that the first son is in the position of Christ who had continually proven that He had done all His Father asked, and yet is perplexed at the sudden joy expressed at the returning of the younger son who had been lost down forbidden paths. I have taught before that many, if not all, members of the Church are in the position of the 2nd son. We are all sinners who have squandered our inheritance through sinful things of the world. This is not always met with enthusiasm, but is true. Maybe not all have abandoned the truth and fed with the pigs, but we are all sinners, nonetheless and are therefore not entitled to absolution. 

I think you are seeing more to this parable than is typically acknowledged for reasons I have already stated. We are not all as lost as this 2nd who took His inheritance and squandered it. Is it wrong for the first perfect son to ask for a little proof of our devotion before he will enter the party? Christ seems to ask us to follow Him. Is that wrong to do? Being our mediator, He asks us to live perfectly. Hmm. Is that being a party pooper the first righteous son is accused of being? No. I think not. I think Christ continues to try our faith while we are here on this earth. We are asked to be obedient till the end. So I don't think your points are looking too far at all. There is more to this parable than first meets the eye imho. Since the first son kept His inheritance, and has life in Himself, he can bring others to inherit that with Him.... That is an older brother par excellence...

We can not forget that the scriptures are here for us but they were not written to us. We can not read meaning into them. They mean what they really mean in the context in which it was offered. So, we have to get 1st century "glassses", as it were, in order to see into the literary figures. The central figure of the parable is the Father, not the prodigal or the "responsible"son. The message in the parable relates to the mercy, grace and lovingkindness of the Father for his wayward son. "...But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him." v.20. The father has been waiting and looking out for is lost son. The father rejoiced that his son has returned. The lost son has repented and confessed his sins before his father and a celebration was in order. "In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." Luke 15:10. That is the central message of the parable. There are some peripheral issues that we can glean from the story line but we can inject other meaning that was not intended by the Savior nor perceived by the audience. Something is clear; the "steady" son did not have the heart of the father, there is no mercy or forgiveness in him. He seems to lack understanding of what repentance and grace are offered to the repentant soul. But that is not the central issue of the ,parable.