The tale of two sons.

The merciful Father has compassion on and forgives repentant sinners.

The older son represent the pharisees and scribes who grumbled at Jesus for eating with tax collectors and sinners. The younger son represents the tax collectors and sinners who had come to eat with Jesus (Luke 15:1)

peace to youraying:

 

This is the first time I have heard this view, and it make sense. I have heard sermons in which the prodigal son is portrayed as lost, but I had trouble with that. The son was always the son and never stopped being the son.

Thanks canadyjd and James for the insight.

 

I have always heard it as being about the lost and the saved but it never fit the context and there are way to many problems to allow such a rendering contexually. We can definately see an application of the spiritual principle regarding the unsaved coming to salvation here, I will not dispute it can make a good illistration, but in doing so we must also leave out many key issues in the parable to do so.

Like:
1. The person is already a son of the Father.
2. The son also has an inheretance because he is already apart of the family
3. The son chooses to leave the fellowship of his family
...3a. However this does not negate his 'relationship' still TO the family.
4. The Father never disowns him
5. The son knows that because there 'is' a relationship (he still calls him father) still he might at the very least be allowed to be a servant in light of his actions.
6. The Father is looking for his son to return
7. His Father receives him as the same son he was before.
8. Though they were seperated they never ceased to a family (Father & Son to one another)
9. The son is returned to the same position and authority that he forsook when he departed.

Now about the other son, most specifically as supposed to mean the Pharisees.
Unless you believe the pharisees were saved you will have a hard time reconciling "Luk 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. " The othe son declared his faithfulness to his father and wondered why his father never acted in such a way toward him. He is contrasting his continuance of love and service against the conduct of his brother, just like with Job resenting the charge of hypocrisy via his friends. Job (much like this other brother) speaks as if nothing could be laid to his charge (in Job 23:10-12) and in the fact of faithfulness and service, he is right but he does err in his attitude however regarding his brother's repentence and His fathers acceptance. Notice however that the father does not dispute his declaration but agrees that everything he states (regarding his faithfullness and service) is true.

What the son was upset against is the joy that the father had toward and for how left and did not dispay such appreciation with him. But remember again that the Father makes this testimony of and toward that other son. "all that I have is yours". His is the better portion for all that is the Fathers is His as well.

Just some thoughts for you.

 

Here is the trajectory of the story as I have understood it:

First there are 100 sheep. 99 are in the fold and one is lost. The shepherd seeks the lost and finds it.

Next, there are 10 coins. 9 are safe, but one is lost. The woman searches diligently for the lost and finds it.

Finally, there are two sons. One is lost, then is found. The other is....

Jesus leaves the matter of the second son unresolved. The proper response for the reader is to ask himself "Have I ever been lost and have I been found"? If the reader thinks he is not lost, he is deceived and needs to "get lost", that is, he needs to see himself as a lost person. Once a person sees themself this way, they can be sure that God is seeking for them and he will find them.

 

James, thanks for posting this. The storieS are about backsliding and how the various members of the Trinity handle it.

The first principle is that all 3 PRESERVE the saints. Jesus goes out and retreives the one lost -- the Spirit provides the light to allow the backslider to recover his faith -- the Father waits in heaven for the prodigal to repent of his apostacy and his fleshly ways.

But notice the confirming points of the stories: Sheep belong to the Shepherd wherever they find themselves in life. The coins belong to the wife wherever they (their faith) may be lost at. The son belongs to the Father and will always, at some point, come home even though he may be in the sty at this moment.

Now in the parable of the prodigal, there is the element of older brother/younger brother and this refers to the OT saints/NT saints.* God has, indeed, given us their mantel/"robe," their "ring"/authority, their "shoes"/ministry, and the slain of their inheritance became our feast!

In fact, the story even goes into more depth than that! I think you all will enjoy reading this part in Luke 15:25-30 While we feast "inside" (in heaven following the rapture), they will still be "outside" (15:25) and the Father entreating him to come in during the tribulation** (15:28)!!

* Very reminiscent of the Martha/Mary dicotomy in Luke 10:38-42.
** Very reminscent of the parable of the "migrant workers" :laugh: Mt 20:8-14

skypair

 

Both were saved...the younger got into sin and left the protection and blessing of the father while the oldest son did not...however, the oldest son sinned (selfishness) upon the return and repentance of the younger. It is a parable refuting "perseverance of the saints" The parable ends with the return of the younger, and the sin of the older...with his story being left open. Who knows...maybe the older son followed the example of the younger by leaving the fellowship of the father and the prodical son...

 

Not long ago, we had a young boy stand up in Sunday School and say, "the older brother didn't want to share his portion since his brother went and blew his".

 

I can't help but see the Jews and Gentiles in this parable as well as most other parables. The older brother is the Jews and the younger brother is the Gentiles. The older brother is the Pharisees (Jew) that consider themselves as the exclusive citizens of the covenant, while the younger brother is the Law-less Gentiles of foreign lands. How do you think the Jews felt about the Gentiles being saved? They felt like the older brother watching the welcoming of the unfaithful but repentant brother. Think about it.

 

Wow this part of my post needs some fix'in. I was in a hurry this morning cause I my kids were awake and wanting daddy

This might make it more understandable (hopefully).

What the son was upset about relates more to the joy that the father had toward the prodical son and for having never shown this same display of affection toward him. He apparently felt left out and so his attitude toward his brother and the reunion dispayed little appreciation with him or his fathers gracious love and compassion. However we also need to remember still that the Father makes this declaration of testimony regarding the older son. "all that I have is yours".
The older sons is to receive the better portion according to his father because all that is the Fathers has is His as well. This is not said of nor to the younger brother.

 

No. It's a story of "you can backslide even when you think you are staying at home!"

As far as the story being "open" and not about "perserverance...," it merely omits the MK -- it is shortened in time. The older brother still gets his inheritance and is saved per Rom 11:25-26

And y'all --- Don't get to far afield on this one. There is a consistent, doctrinal theme running through these 3 parables that makes thier meaning clear.

skypair

 

I don't count on "proving" anything. If the Spirit doesn't tell you what He told me, He must have some purpose or reason in that.

I will also say that I do not glory in something I received. Dr Rogers preached a sermon covering much, but not all, of this.

skypair

 

What is interesting to me is that he Father loves them both and that the older brother is to receive the greater portion from the Father for "all that he has is his".

Remember the Father does not deny the older brothers claim of service and being faithful and it is for that very reason the father states the above. Another interesting thing is that the Father declares of the older son in that same sentence .. "you are always with me and all that I have is yours"

I am simply asking James - Do you believe the pharisees were saved?

Can the Father state of them "you are always with me and all that I have is yours"?


Maybe I'm taking the parable a little to literal though. As I stated previously I grew understanding the prodical son being about salvation but it just doesn't go with the context represented in the story. It leaves to many question and contradictions, to me.

However JD's point on the Gentiles and Jews might have a more sound application regarding the Jews always being with God (he has always kept himself a remnant) and the Gentiles being the wayward younger brother. Though it is an interesting aspect it would become very complicated in trying to keep this view through the parable due to many conflicting between the two.

Again, probably a good view can be illstrated from it if one sortof picked through it.
But this should only be used as an illistration to give the hearer something to relate to, just as it is with this being about a sinner coming to salvation.

 

No, you're right. The Holy Spirit only talks to you, right? :laugh: So He couldn't possibly have told Dr Rogers nor confirmed His truth to me, right?

That was sort of a "froward" remark, don't you think, James?

skypair

 

Yes sir.

I am interested to hear you version though. I do not necessarly discount it as but in what I have always heard preached the 'salvation' part never made sense regarding the context of the story. Maybe you can put it into better words.