The Prodigal – A Story of Extremes

[Marilyn C]

5 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

I like a quiz, so I'd answer - The Garment. But immediately a difficulty arises. The son receives the garment AFTER the Father received him and it was brought by servants. I would like to propose that the son did not approach the father on the basis of holiness. He approached with intent to join the servant's quarters. The garment was ordered by the father, not to satisfy the father's holiness, but to distinguish the son from the servants. So also the sandals and ring.

Just thinking, once a son - always a son.

Hi Ad Hoc,

I like that thought, very good. I wondered if the `fatted calf` (prepared before hand) could be why they could rejoice together. 

Perhaps, both thoughts are subtly in the story.

Just musing.

[Dennis1209]

12 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi Ad Hoc,

I like that thought, very good. I wondered if the `fatted calf` (prepared before hand) could be why they could rejoice together. 

Perhaps, both thoughts are subtly in the story.

Just musing.

Reading some of these threads recently, a thought popped up in my pea-sized brain. Of all the best secular minds and books written, none are layered where the more you dig into them, the more there is to learn and discover. We see books and movies inspired by this or that.

We have a layered book inspired by the Holy Spirit so deep even the best academic minds only scratch the surface. Discoveries are still being made (Chuck Missler-Ten Generations, Adam to Noah).

[AdHoc]

50 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi Ad Hoc,

I like that thought, very good. I wondered if the `fatted calf` (prepared before hand) could be why they could rejoice together. 

Perhaps, both thoughts are subtly in the story.

Just musing.

I thought about that ... and then got lead in my veins. The reason - when it came to the Heavenly Father there was no substitute. It was the real thing. His beloved was not like Isaac or the prodigal.. He Himself bore our sins ...

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree (1 Pe 2:22–24a)

Who has a God like that? And who has a Son of God like that?

[Marilyn C]

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

Reading some of these threads recently, a thought popped up in my pea-sized brain. Of all the best secular minds and books written, none are layered where the more you dig into them, the more there is to learn and discover. We see books and movies inspired by this or that.

We have a layered book inspired by the Holy Spirit so deep even the best academic minds only scratch the surface. Discoveries are still being made (Chuck Missler-Ten Generations, Adam to Noah).

But you also have the Holy Spirit who gives you wisdom which I have read from you bro.

[Marilyn C]

45 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

I thought about that ... and then got lead in my veins. The reason - when it came to the Heavenly Father there was no substitute. It was the real thing. His beloved was not like Isaac or the prodigal.. He Himself bore our sins ...

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree (1 Pe 2:22–24a)

Who has a God like that? And who has a Son of God like that?

But then it is a parable and people and things are only representative. We know the Lord is represented as a `calf,` and a Lamb etc. Also, it is the Lord Himself who is telling the parable and He had not died then. 

God the Father THROUGH the Son bore our sins. It is the Son who is called like a calf, Lamb etc. 

[AdHoc]

12 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

But then it is a parable and people and things are only representative. We know the Lord is represented as a `calf,` and a Lamb etc. Also, it is the Lord Himself who is telling the parable and He had not died then. 

God the Father THROUGH the Son bore our sins. It is the Son who is called like a calf, Lamb etc. 

Yes. A Parable is a limited picture. We should not go too far. But the Prodigal has implications. This; On what basis may the father receive a wayward son? The son has taken what is not his (for the testator still lives) and wasted it. The servant with the one Talent in Matthew 25 did not go so far as to waste it. He only hid it - and look what happens. Surely a righteous father must demand retribution? And he may demand restitution. He does neither. Does God wink at sin? Perish the thought! Something profound had happened along the way. And I do believe the answer lies in the word "SON".

What is required that a man may be a son of God? John 1:12-13 tells all. He who RECEIVES Jesus! We tend to look at the longsuffering and mercy of the father. But the son did not get the title "son" for nothing. This is shown in the CONTRAST between SON and SERVANT. The servanthood of such a renown rich man is a matter of prestige. But the sonship to the rich man is a matter of inheritance and thus fame. The servants typically went barefoot inside. But the son MUST wear sandals. Does he need protection from the sandals? Is the rich man's floor uneven? By no means. He wears the sandals to DISTINGUISH his ORIGIN - a SON!

And now the reason for all this. The son has RECEIVED an-other - the man who paid for his sins that the father may extend mercy. Half the story of this parable is missing. The father could not just forgive, kiss and slaughter the calf. The other son was right. On what basis does the father HONOR the prodigal with garment, ring, sandals and fatted calf? On the basis of AN-OTHER! The one who laid the foundation for the father's mercy.

The parable is about rejoicing in heaven for a sinner who has backslidden and who returns. But righteousness demands at least restitution - if not retribution. There is AN-OTHER Son hidden in this parable - One who paid and did not complain. One who took the wrath of the father so that tender mercies could be extended to the prodigal.

Perhaps I go too far. The parable is limited to what it explains. But it is a story within another story - the story of a righteous God demanding righteous retribution so that others many be received. What a story!

[FJK]

1 hour ago, AdHoc said:

The son has taken what is not his (for the testator still lives) and wasted it. The servant with the one Talent in Matthew 25 did not go so far as to waste it. He only hid it

Well, why did that servant do wrong?

A deeper question that appears on the surface of it, one if fully answered could spark many different discussion of how to apply it to the situations of our lives.

[AdHoc]

1 hour ago, FJK said:

Well, why did that servant do wrong?

A deeper question that appears on the surface of it, one if fully answered could spark many different discussion of how to apply it to the situations of our lives.

Hello FJK, I'm afraid I've lost the context. If you are asking why the servant with one Talent did wrong, I can only take what the Lord said about him. He was "wicked and slothful" (Matt.25:26). But I only used him as a comparison to the prodigal who "wasted his inheritance on riotous living", but was not chastised. I hope not to derail the thread by trying to delve into Matthew 25.

[FJK]

42 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

Hello FJK, I'm afraid I've lost the context. If you are asking why the servant with one Talent did wrong, I can only take what the Lord said about him. He was "wicked and slothful"

OK, but what made him wicked and slothful?  Why was simply protecting his masters money to keep it safe a wicked thing to do?

[farouk]

2 hours ago, FJK said:

Well, why did that servant do wrong?

A deeper question that appears on the surface of it, one if fully answered could spark many different discussion of how to apply it to the situations of our lives.

Perhaps the deeper application is that we are all expected to work in testimony for the Lord.

The servant's master here evidently expected him to use the money in business.