The Prodigal Son... Sons... Or Father?

[GoldenEagle]

neb, I don't think the scribes and pharasees are the older brother, but the younger. The father isn't going to give them diddly squat....

Has always been my take on it

OK, I'm not sure I understand what you think the message of the parable was then, considering Jesus spoke this in response to them criticizing Him for His associating with "the sinners"?

²⁹ So he answered and said to his father, ‘Lo, these many years I have been serving you; I never transgressed your commandment at any time; and yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might make merry with my friends. ³⁰ But as soon as this son of yours came, who has devoured your livelihood with harlots, you killed the fatted calf for him.’

First, the older son was rude to his father. The word “Lo” (vs 29) today could be translated “LOOK!” and was very disrespectful.

The older son was trying to earn his father’s favor, respect, and love through hard work. (vs 29 "these many years I have been serving you...")

Obeying the law does not result in salvation. (Rom. 8:3, Gal 2:16)The older brother clearly represented the Scribes and Pharisees who were trying to earn their way to reconceliation to God. We cannot earn God's love through works or obedience. (Eph. 2:9) We always fall short. (Rom. 3:23)

He believed he had obeyed his father in all things. ( vs. 29 “I never transgressed your commandment at ANY time.”).Yet when his father was celebrating probably one of the most important days left in his life (the return of his younger son) the older son did not want to participate. He basically was saying what his father valued didn’t matter to him.

The older son was jealous and selfish. (vs 29 “you never gave ME”)

He was upset and didn’t even recognize his brother but instead called his brother his father's son. (vs 30 “This son of YOURS came”)

The older son was judgmental towards his younger brother without even trying to understand or get the facts. ( “{he – the younger brother} has devoured your livelihood with HARLOTS")

The older brother was saying “while you, Dad, think my younger brother may be worth it I do not. (vs 30 – “you killed the fatted calf for HIM.”)

[GoldenEagle]

I don't understand what you mean by "Prodigal God."

They mean, just as the younger boy was squanderous of his inheritance, so God is squanderous, or lavish, of his mercy, grace, and forgiveness - ergo, prodigal God.

I see. I don't think I would call God "prodigal". He is All Merciful, but He is not reckless and squanderous in giving mercy. The prodigal son was reckless and squanderous because he spent his inheritance even on things that are frivilous and trivial....things not worth spending on. The Holy Bible says that God will have mercy on whomever He wants.....meaning that mercy is not for everyone (See Romans 9:15). The Holy Bible also says that God will not forgive those who did not show any mercy (See Matthew 6:14-15).

I don't understand what you mean by "Prodigal God."

Prodigal

1. Recklessly extravagant

2. Having spent everything

Prodigal may be understood as wasteful in our modern societies. But one of the working definitions is having spent everything. Whether we believe that the father restored the younger son or not, clearly the father had spent everything by the end of the story – his wealth, his love, his honor. This was in an effort to reconcile with his two sons who wanted him dead. Did God not do the very same for us through Jesus Christ?

According to Dictionary.com, the origin and history of the word "prodigal" is understood to mean "wasteful" or "to drive away." Because of the word's origin and history, I can see why it is applied to the younger son and not to God.

prodigal

mid-15c., back formation from prodigiality (mid-14c.), from O.Fr. prodigalite (13c.), from L.L. prodigalitatem (nom. prodigalitas) "wastefulness," from L. prodigus "wasteful," from prodigere "drive away, waste," from pro- "forth" + agere "to drive" (see act). First ref. is to

http://dictionary.re...se/prodigal?s=t

I think I understand what you’re saying regarding the origin. But What you are referring to is one (1) of three (3) meanings of the word.

From Dictionary.com

prod·i·gal

adjective

1. wastefully or recklessly extravagant: prodigal expenditure.

2. giving or yielding profusely; lavish (usually followed by of or with ): prodigal of smiles; prodigal with money.

3. lavishly abundant; profuse: nature's prodigal resources.

The second and third definition can be applied to God. Therefore, one could call it the story of the “Prodigal God.”

[Sevenseas]

IMO, there is not a case to call God prodigal. Reading the posts, that seems to be the general consensus.

Words have meaning.

The attempt to present the word prodigal here as applicable to God, is just silly IMO.

In that case, I guess I can say, "I made a prodigal cake and my husband enjoyed it." meaning it was wasteful, he didn't need it (although

you can't pinch on inch on the guy) and it was extravagant for me to make it.

Not buying it.

My kia is prodigal. It has leather seats. No ~ really!

Then again, bad became good when Michael Jackson sang it, so perhaps modern churched society wants a new word

to describe just how 'bad' their God is.

[enoob57]

Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees and scribes, not to the "sinners".

I see Jesus thinking they were the greatest of sinners... by the New Testament? Love, Steven

[GoldenEagle]

IMO, there is not a case to call God prodigal. Reading the posts, that seems to be the general consensus.

Words have meaning.

The attempt to present the word prodigal here as applicable to God, is just silly IMO.

In that case, I guess I can say, "I made a prodigal cake and my husband enjoyed it." meaning it was wasteful, he didn't need it (although

you can't pinch on inch on the guy) and it was extravagant for me to make it.

Not buying it.

My kia is prodigal. It has leather seats. No ~ really!

Then again, bad became good when Michael Jackson sang it, so perhaps modern churched society wants a new word

to describe just how 'bad' their God is.

Seriously? Lavishly abundant... Giving profusely... What's so hard to understand? Lol.

[He giveth more grace]

My dear friend, GoldenEagle, I have neither clout nor power on this board, but IMO we should put this thread to bed. The term "Prodigal Son" is a term that the printers of the Bible added to help categorize a particular, and all the book in the Bible, It is not part of the Bible itself. I just think that we are beating a dead mule here. No offense intended.

[GoldenEagle]

My dear friend, GoldenEagle, I have neither clout nor power on this board, but IMO we should put this thread to bed. The term "Prodigal Son" is a term that the printers of the Bible added to help categorize a particular, and all the book in the Bible, It is not part of the Bible itself. I just think that we are beating a dead mule here. No offense intended.

No offense taken brother. I hear you. "Prodigal Son" is what this has been commonly reffered too. I'd really like to move onto the text and continue the discussion about the younger and older son. People are getting hung up on semantics though.

[Sevenseas]

Seriously? Lavishly abundant... Giving profusely... What's so hard to understand? Lol.

You actually mean why don't I agree, don't you? Seriously, I don't. LOL!

Moving on.......no offense...we agree on many things

[gdemoss]

why doesn't the poll have 'the father' or none of the above as a choices?

Gary

[nebula]

It seems obvious to me that the elder brother would have just turned out the young brother and let him die on the streets not taking in the lessons that the younger brother had learned.

Problem is that we don't really know the rest of the story as Paul Harvey says... but I'm guessing that the young son will make the best hired hand the elder brother will ever have. And in time a real relationship as family.

As you stated the father probably new his sons. So perhaps that is why he restored his younger son by giving him the ring.

Perhaps the reason the older brother was mad was because he was going to have to share the remaining 2/3 of the inheritance he thought his father owed him?

However, like you said though we don’t know the rest of the story. Interesting thoughts though and I like the perspective.

Isn't that over-thinking the parable? I mean, how does this effect the meaning Jesus was portraying with the parable?

Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees and Scribes about how they should regard the "sinners" - contrasting reaction of the father (God) to that of the elder brother (Pharisees and Scribes) - both rebuking and exhorting them to be like God rather than the way they've been reacting.

Worrying about what would happen to the younger son after the father died distracts from this meaning, doesn't it?

Wouldn't that be like trying to figure out how the townsmen dealt with the death of the sheep in the story of The Boy that Cried Wolf?

neb, I don't think the scribes and pharasees are the older brother, but the younger. The father isn't going to give them diddly squat....

Has always been my take on it

I've been thinking on this some more since my last post.

I go back to thinking that you are over-thinking the parable.

As someone put it, parables aren't meant to stand on all fours - meaning they are stories that teach a lesson, but they are not meant to be perfect pictures of a given situation.

The point is found in the responses of the father and the elder brother, not in the fate of the remaining inheritance.