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

[other one]

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.

I am not sure I'd agree. there would be no purpose in even mentioning it if it were not important, and I personally don't think there is fluff in parables

[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.

I am not sure I'd agree. there would be no purpose in even mentioning it if it were not important, and I personally don't think there is fluff in parables

"Mentioning it" - what "it" do you refer to?

[other one]

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.

I am not sure I'd agree. there would be no purpose in even mentioning it if it were not important, and I personally don't think there is fluff in parables

"Mentioning it" - what "it" do you refer to?

that all that the father has will be the eldest son's

[GoldenEagle]

Check this song out - When God Ran (Younger Prodigal Son)

[enoob57]

My dear friend, GoldenEagle, I have neither clout nor power on this board,

You mean all this time I've been terrified for nothing????

[nebula]

"Mentioning it" - what "it" do you refer to?

that all that the father has will be the eldest son's

Interpreting the words of the parable within the parable, the father was telling his eldest son he has nothing to be envious of towards his younger brother.

The message to the Pharisees et al is likewise - you have nothing to hold against these sinners. Their offense was against God, not you. If God receives them, why can you not rejoice with God?

[enoob57]

"Mentioning it" - what "it" do you refer to?

that all that the father has will be the eldest son's

Interpreting the words of the parable within the parable, the father was telling his eldest son he has nothing to be envious of towards his younger brother.

The message to the Pharisees et al is likewise - you have nothing to hold against these sinners. Their offense was against God, not you. If God receives them, why can you not rejoice with God?

[GoldenEagle]

"Mentioning it" - what "it" do you refer to?

that all that the father has will be the eldest son's

Interpreting the words of the parable within the parable, the father was telling his eldest son he has nothing to be envious of towards his younger brother.

The message to the Pharisees et al is likewise - you have nothing to hold against these sinners. Their offense was against God, not you. If God receives them, why can you not rejoice with God?

x 2

[GoldenEagle]

1. Younger Brother Characteristics:

Lives a self-indulgent, dissolute life

Tries to get the father's things by being bad

Tries to get control by disobeying

Breaks the rules

Self-discovery

2. Older Brother Characteristics:

Live a fastidiously obedient life

Tries to get the father's things by being good

Tries to get control by obeying

Keeps the rules

Moral conformity

3. Both Brothers Shared Characterisitcs:

Lost

Wants control

Alienated from the father

Does not love the father

Wants happiness and to become master of his own fate

Father has to go to him

Father has to invite him into the feast

Loved by the father

[GoldenEagle]

1. Younger Brother Characteristics:

Lives a self-indulgent, dissolute life

Tries to get the father's things by being bad

Tries to get control by disobeying

Breaks the rules

Self-discovery

2. Older Brother Characteristics:

Live a fastidiously obedient life

Tries to get the father's things by being good

Tries to get control by obeying

Keeps the rules

Moral conformity

3. Both Brothers Shared Characterisitcs:

Lost

Wants control

Alienated from the father

Does not love the father

Wants happiness and to become master of his own fate

Father has to go to him

Father has to invite him into the feast

Loved by the father

For more on this read The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller.

The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller $11.20 I'm reading this one now. Wife read it a while back. The Bible Study DVD is fantastic!