A man had two sons...

csuguy

Well-known member
I was reading through a book recommended by a pastor - The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller - and, while I don't agree with everything it says, it does have some good analysis of the so-called parable of the Prodigal Son. In particularly, it points out that while this passage is often refereed to as the parable of the Prodigal Son, the passage actually starts off talking about two sons. Indeed, this parable is directed towards the pharisees and scribes at the beginning of the chapter who condemned him for receiving and eating with sinners (a sign of acceptance).

Luke 15:1-2;11-35 Now all the tax collectors and the [a]sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. 2 Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” ...

[Jesus] said, “A man had two sons. 12 The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.’ So he divided his [d]wealth between them. 13 And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living. 14 Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be impoverished. 15 So he went and [e]hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. 16 And he would have gladly filled his stomach with the [f]pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him. 17 But when he came to [g]his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger! 18 I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and [h]in your sight; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men.”’ 20 So he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and [j]embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; 23 and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; 24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.


The younger son in this passage represents the sinners that the pharisees and scribes are referring to. The Father does not stop this selfish son from leaving, but even gives him what he asks for: his portion of his inheritance right then and there. This son then goes off and lives a selfish life, blowing through his inheritance until he hits rock bottom. Then he recalls his father and so decides to return to him as a hired servant. But upon seeing him return, the father is so overjoyed that he gives him the best of everything and throws a celebration.

This is where a lot of analysis stops when presented in your average service. The above demonstrates God's immense love and forgiveness for us, his lost children. But there is another son that he goes on to talk about.

Luke 15:25-32 “Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things could be. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he became angry and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and began pleading with him. 29 But he answered and said to his father, ‘Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never [k]neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends; 30 but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your [l]wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you [m]have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.’”​

This elder brother represents the pharisees and the scribes - those who live mostly moral lives, who know God's Word, follow his commands, and who are quite self-righteous. They have done everything right, so they say, and so view the younger brother - those sinners - with disdain and jealousy. "I have always done what is right, yet I have never been celebrated like this?!"

The irony is that this elder brother is being as selfish as the younger brother, and as a result has caused a separation between himself and the father. The elder brother protests and refuses to join the celebration, causing the father to have to come and appeal to him to join them.

Unlike the story of the younger son, the question of whether or not the elder son mends his ways and joins the celebration is left open. For they - the pharisees and scribes who are condemning his actions - are the intended audience. He is asking them - what will you do? Can you put look beyond yourself, beyond your own ego, and celebrate the return of one who did not do what was right, one who squandered his blessings and lived for mere sensual pleasures? The elder brother may love the father, but he fails in his love for the younger brother.

The story of the elder brother is very applicable to congregations today. There are many who have a better-than-thou attitude that causes them to refuse to acknowledge and celebrate the repentance of 'mere sinners.' They separate themselves from their 'younger brothers' - and as a result they separate themselves from God.


1 Cor 13:1-3 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body [a]to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.​
 

daqq

Well-known member
What do you do about the fact that the Elder Son never broke any of the commandments of the Father and that the Father says "Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours"? Messiah is the only one who never broke any of the commandments and he is likewise the inheritor of all things from and of the Father. Perhaps it is about sacrifices more than the modern mindset would like to understand, imagine, or admit? The sacrifices do not concern literal physical animals, (and never really did according to quite a few Psalms and most all of the Prophets in their writings). It is the congregation which provides the two goats for the atonement, (Leviticus 16:5). Will therefore the younger son not offer up a goat for his Elder Brother who never broke any of the commandments and is just a little offended? Kiss the son, lest he be just a little angry and you perish from the Way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. And I suggest that according to the parable the Son will not enter into the house of one who not give up the billy goat pride of man. :)
 

csuguy

Well-known member
What do you do about the fact that the Elder Son never broke any of the commandments of the Father and that the Father says "Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours"? Messiah is the only one who never broke any of the commandments and he is likewise the inheritor of all things from and of the Father. Perhaps it is about sacrifices more than the modern mindset would like to understand, imagine, or admit? The sacrifices do not concern literal physical animals, (and never really did according to quite a few Psalms and most all of the Prophets in their writings). It is the congregation which provides the two goats for the atonement, (Leviticus 16:5). Will therefore the younger son not offer up a goat for his Elder Brother who never broke any of the commandments and is just a little offended? Kiss the son, lest he be just a little angry and you perish from the Way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. And I suggest that according to the parable the Son will not enter into the house of one who not give up the billy goat pride of man. :)

I take the elder brothers words as a hyperbole. The pharisees and scribes, represented by the elder bother, were sinners just like anyone else - even if they were generally better at keeping the commandments than others.

Furthermore, it is clear that within the parable the elder brother is sinning. He is being selfish and refusing to accept the younger brother - and thus he is failing to keep the second greatest commandment.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
csuguy,

good post!

Indeed the elder son was not sinless either, he was "prodigal" in his own way, but subtler in his error.

This chapter, Luke 15, has three parables dealing with the same basic subject, spoken to refute the error of Jesus' enemies.

VP Wierwille stated that the parable of "the prodigal son" would be better named, the parable of the forgiving father.

For surely, the parable is not about the degree of "prodigalness" of the two sons, but the nature of the father to forgive and welcome the repenting son back into his household.

The younger son remained the father's son when he was sinning. The standing of the younger as a son of the father did not change as a result of the sins, but the state of the interpersonal relationship was marred by the prodigalness of the younger.

Thanks for starting this thread, it should be educational for many here
 

daqq

Well-known member
I take the elder brothers words as a hyperbole. The pharisees and scribes, represented by the elder bother, were sinners just like anyone else - even if they were generally better at keeping the commandments than others.

Furthermore, it is clear that within the parable the elder brother is sinning. He is being selfish and refusing to accept the younger brother - and thus he is failing to keep the second greatest commandment.

And herein lies the difficulty in truly understanding parables because one must be willing to believe every critical aspect of the parable and incorporate every aspect into his or her understanding or the same will not fully understand what the speaker of the parable is laying forth. The parameters included in this parable clearly state that the Elder Son has never broken any of the commandments of the Father. This is not true of the Chief Priests, Sadducs, Pharisees, and Scribes, or anyone else except the Messiah, the Son of God. Likewise the Father says to the Elder Son that he is always with the Father, (always been with the Father and always will be with the Father) yet this also is not true of anyone else except the Messiah because by sinning we break the covenant relationship with the Father which relationship has been testified from old time, in the Garden, before Adam and his helpmate transgressed the commandment. Messiah, the Son, therefore is the only possibility for one who has always been with the Father and yet never broken any of his commandments. You claim that the Elder Brother was sinning but the Parable says the opposite of what you claim. Here it is again from the KJV which makes the point very clear:

Luke 15:29-31 KJV
29. 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, [goat] 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.


Your alternative understanding implies that the Chief Priests, Sadducs, Pharisees, Scribes, and Jews have never broken any of the commandments of the Father and, therefore, are always with the Father, and likewise have been given all that He has for keeping the commandments perfectly. Sorry, no deal, but to each his own I suppose. :)
 

csuguy

Well-known member
Your alternative understanding implies that the Chief Priests, Sadducs, Pharisees, Scribes, and Jews have never broken any of the commandments of the Father and, therefore, are always with the Father, and likewise have been given all that He has for keeping the commandments perfectly. Sorry, no deal, but to each his own I suppose. :)

You must have misunderstood me - for in my understanding all of these are sinners. The elder brother is also a sinner, and his statement is a hyperbole.
 

RevTestament

New member
And herein lies the difficulty in truly understanding parables because one must be willing to believe every critical aspect of the parable and incorporate every aspect into his or her understanding or the same will not fully understand what the speaker of the parable is laying forth. The parameters included in this parable clearly state that the Elder Son has never broken any of the commandments of the Father. This is not true of the Chief Priests, Sadducs, Pharisees, and Scribes, or anyone else except the Messiah, the Son of God. Likewise the Father says to the Elder Son that he is always with the Father, (always been with the Father and always will be with the Father) yet this also is not true of anyone else except the Messiah because by sinning we break the covenant relationship with the Father which relationship has been testified from old time, in the Garden, before Adam and his helpmate transgressed the commandment. Messiah, the Son, therefore is the only possibility for one who has always been with the Father and yet never broken any of his commandments. You claim that the Elder Brother was sinning but the Parable says the opposite of what you claim. Here it is again from the KJV which makes the point very clear:

Luke 15:29-31 KJV
29. 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, [goat] 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.


Your alternative understanding implies that the Chief Priests, Sadducs, Pharisees, Scribes, and Jews have never broken any of the commandments of the Father and, therefore, are always with the Father, and likewise have been given all that He has for keeping the commandments perfectly. Sorry, no deal, but to each his own I suppose. :)

:thumb:
very good analysis Daqq
And some fool made money off equating the pharisees to Jesus our elder brother of the birthright.
 

ttruscott

Well-known member
The son went astray from the Father into sin city. That is, he was always family, did not stop being family in sin city and was welcomed back as family by the Father. [No mention here of non-family ever being welcomed by the Father...]

Does this fit orthodoxy about being created sinners at conception or birth or being put under Adam's sin rather than taking our leave by our choice to go into sin city???

1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray: but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Well, to return, one must have been there before, at least, according to the normal use of the word. Therefore, in this verse, it would be normal to infer that the sheep that had gone astray, were, at one time part of the Shepherd's flock but had strayed away from HIS care. Since I am sure that the Shepherd was not negligent, the straying away from HIS care must involve some rebellion.

Therefore, it is normally obvious that Peter is writing to some apostatized (gone astray) Christians (people of the flock). It is also normally apparent that what he was writing is intended for every new convert in every age since.

Therefore, it seems normal that the Holy Spirit would have us believe that all of the Church has personally apostatized from Christ prior to their conversion in this life. Since we are conceived as sinners, it is easy to see that we apostatized from Christ before our conception and that is why we are sinners at our birth.

I think that Peter bore added witness to this fact in 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ...which ...hath begotten us AGAIN unto a lively hope...

Just when was the first time you were begotten by GOD unto a lively hope? Can these words really refer to our creation in HIS image or do they only refer to our being saved from sin by a rebirth into the spirit?

So when did you get unbegotten? Well, unless you are one of those earthly backslidden types, the only time such an un-begetting or rebellion could have taken place is prior to your conception. And since Peter is writing to the whole Church rather than to just the backslidden types, he must be referring to a preconception rebellion and straying of HIS elect at that time, which straying or rebellion ends only upon conversion to obedience unto holiness to that Shepherd, that is, upon being born into Christ (begotten) again.
 

csuguy

Well-known member
:thumb:
very good analysis Daqq
And some fool made money off equating the pharisees to Jesus our elder brother of the birthright.

So you think that in response to the pharisees and scribes criticizing him for recieving and eating with sinners - he provides a parable about himself refusing to accept and celebrate the return of a sinner? :noid:
 

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
Sidebar: Tim Keller is back on podcasts. :jump:

“This elder brother represents the Pharisees and the scribes - those who live mostly moral lives…”
Mostly (Mt 5:20).
cartman.gif


“The elder brother protests and refuses to join the celebration…”
He’s a legalist. He has no love for the Father.

“…Can you put look beyond yourself, beyond your own ego, and celebrate the return of one who did not do what was right, one who squandered his blessings and lived for mere sensual pleasures?”
He cannot—anymore than Jonah could (also a legalist). Moses, Elijah, Jonah—backsliders. Each wanted to die. There is a big difference between the backslider and the nominal Christian (no Christian at all [1 Jn 2:19, 2 Ti 4:10]). The filthy brother got up and out of the pig pen. He returned to the Father because he was his child (Lk 15:10).

“The elder brother may love the father…”
He doesn’t (Ps 119:97). He wanted to be out
drunk_walk-2125.gif
living the same life
mousy.gif
that his brother lived. He resents that his brother did all that he, too, wanted to do (Jer 17:9). :Shimei:

“…[H]e fails in his love for the younger brother.”
He is incapable of love (Jn 8:42).

“The story of the elder brother is very applicable to congregations today.”
:listen: You can say it—Catholics (2 Ti 3:5). :eek:linger:

“There are many who have a better-than-thou attitude that causes them to refuse to acknowledge and celebrate the repentance of 'mere sinners.'”
You may as well ask a dog to meow or a cat to bark. They are totally incapable of loving another in that fashion. Their spiritual eyeballs must be turned on (Jn 16:13–16).
“They separate themselves from their 'younger brothers' - and as a result they separate themselves from God.”
You may as well ask a dog to meow or a cat to bark. The are totally incapable of loving another in that fashion (1 Cor. 4:5).

“Some people have sloppy agape.” ~ J. Vernon McGee Matt. 22:39

“They separate themselves from their 'younger brothers' - and as a result they separate themselves from God.”
They separate themselves from God (Is 59:2) because they do not see that they are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked (Re 3:17).

As a reminder Csuguy is number 3 on Satan, Inc. (TOL Heretics list) in "The 'Jesus is not God' people (Non-trinitarians) category. :burnlib:
 
Last edited:
Top