The Prodigal – A Story of Extremes

[Vine Abider]

In this morning’s weekly brothers breakfast fellowship, someone brought up the parable of the so-called “Prodigal Son”  and we had real good fellowship around some of the meaning of this parable. I had a few realizations and things I’d not seen well before regarding this story, and I thought it would be good to jot these down and share with y-all.

The conversation had basically started around how great a salvation we have been given in Christ, that His all-efficacious blood is constantly available to us, and how there is no condemnation whatsoever for us in Christ --> and this is what the prodigal father demonstrated.  Several discussed what this means to us practically, that is: reject all condemnation,  but say “yes” to the conviction and leading of the Spirit (which always leads us back to our Father).

Accordingly, the definition of “prodigal” was brought up . . . this word has a definition of “wastefully extravagant” or “extreme.”  Well each of the three characters in this story were actually prodigal:  One son wasted his being and inheritance to an extreme; the father had extravagant love; the other son was extremely legal.

The father lavished his love on the returning son, and in no way condemned him.  In fact, to me, this is the biggest part of this story – that the father was over-the-top with his love and longing for his son, and to celebrate his return without a hint of penalty mentioned towards his son.  Just try to grasp the depths of the love shown here, even though this son had dissipated his being in debauchery and squandered all his inheritance!  My my my, such “wastefully extravagant” and incomprehensible love!!!

But something else regarding this son came out too, which I hadn’t really seen well before.  He was humble and crawled back to his father.  He was guilty of so much, and he knew it.  But he was destitute and hungry, and selfishly wanted to be back in his father’s influence so that he didn’t starve. But with all this he had one redeeming attribute – he was humble with his father.  Of course, the father was just so overjoyed to have his son back that none of what he had done mattered . . . the father loved his son unconditionally regardless.

And then there was the other son.  He was the one who had been extremely faithful, stayed with the father and had behaved himself – he did what he thought was expected of him all those years.  But he was furious that his brother, who had misbehaved in such an extreme way, would receive such extreme love from their father.  In much self-centered pride he boastfully exclaimed, “Have I not been faithful all these years and did . . .!?”  But the father wasn’t about to let that spoil the enjoyment of his other son returning and threw an extravagant feast for him.

The Lord hates pride, but gives ear to the humble (regardless if the humble one has been living with swine).  In this story there was one humble son and one full of pride.  God resists the proud.  May we always be humble before Him, realizing we are “but dust” and could never earn the price His love paid to redeem us.

What a story of extremes, but the father’s extreme love wins the day!!! 

(One other thing I saw during the fellowship was this story is also an example of Israel and the gentile nations. Israel could say, “Lord have we not been faithful to You and done this and that to please You?”  Meanwhile the gentiles were out there doing their pagan thing.  But God loves us all, whether Jew or gentile.  In Christ’s reconciling work, the two are made one --> one new man.)

[Dennis1209]

18 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

In this morning’s weekly brothers breakfast fellowship, someone brought up the parable of the so-called “Prodigal Son”  and we had real good fellowship around some of the meaning of this parable. I had a few realizations and things I’d not seen well before regarding this story, and I thought it would be good to jot these down and share with y-all.

The conversation had basically started around how great a salvation we have been given in Christ, that His all-efficacious blood is constantly available to us, and how there is no condemnation whatsoever for us in Christ --> and this is what the prodigal father demonstrated.  Several discussed what this means to us practically, that is: reject all condemnation,  but say “yes” to the conviction and leading of the Spirit (which always leads us back to our Father).

Accordingly, the definition of “prodigal” was brought up . . . this word has a definition of “wastefully extravagant” or “extreme.”  Well each of the three characters in this story were actually prodigal:  One son wasted his being and inheritance to an extreme; the father had extravagant love; the other son was extremely legal.

The father lavished his love on the returning son, and in no way condemned him.  In fact, to me, this is the biggest part of this story – that the father was over-the-top with his love and longing for his son, and to celebrate his return without a hint of penalty mentioned towards his son.  Just try to grasp the depths of the love shown here, even though this son had dissipated his being in debauchery and squandered all his inheritance!  My my my, such “wastefully extravagant” and incomprehensible love!!!

But something else regarding this son came out too, which I hadn’t really seen well before.  He was humble and crawled back to his father.  He was guilty of so much, and he knew it.  But he was destitute and hungry, and selfishly wanted to be back in his father’s influence so that he didn’t starve. But with all this he had one redeeming attribute – he was humble with his father.  Of course, the father was just so overjoyed to have his son back that none of what he had done mattered . . . the father loved his son unconditionally regardless.

And then there was the other son.  He was the one who had been extremely faithful, stayed with the father and had behaved himself – he did what he thought was expected of him all those years.  But he was furious that his brother, who had misbehaved in such an extreme way, would receive such extreme love from their father.  In much self-centered pride he boastfully exclaimed, “Have I not been faithful all these years and did . . .!?”  But the father wasn’t about to let that spoil the enjoyment of his other son returning and threw an extravagant feast for him.

The Lord hates pride, but gives ear to the humble (regardless if the humble one has been living with swine).  In this story there was one humble son and one full of pride.  God resists the proud.  May we always be humble before Him, realizing we are “but dust” and could never earn the price His love paid to redeem us.

What a story of extremes, but the father’s extreme love wins the day!!! 

(One other thing I saw during the fellowship was this story is also an example of Israel and the gentile nations. Israel could say, “Lord have we not been faithful to You and done this and that to please You?”  Meanwhile the gentiles were out there doing their pagan thing.  But God loves us all, whether Jew or gentile.  In Christ’s reconciling work, the two are made one --> one new man.)

Your post reminds me also of the “workers parable” of Matthew 20:1-16, and below.

Matthew 18:13 (KJV) And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

[Vine Abider]

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

Your post reminds me also of the “workers parable” of Matthew 20:1-16, and below.

Matthew 18:13 (KJV) And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

Yes!  It's often hard for our natural mind to wrap itself around the incredibly immense love of God!

[Vine Abider]

When I hear something about the incomprehensible love of God, it resonates and speaks to me.  In the 70s and 80s I was in a quasi-cult Christian group who started turning pretty legalistic about a number of things.  I saw a lot there regarding many of the details concerning God's eternal purpose, and that God would execute His purpose no matter what. But what I took away from there was that God was a pretty cool, calculating character and that if you got in the way of Him fulfilling His purpose, He might squash you like a bug - this distorted view generated fear.

About 10 years after leaving that group, the Lord was finally able to begin showing me that His primary motivation toward us is His great love for us!  When I began to get a clear glimpse of that, is when scripture starting opening in a new and fresh way for me. I saw that yes, He will get His purpose fulfilled, but His purpose is for and because of His love for us!

I think legalism clouds one's view of the love of God, as it tends to make God look overly rigid through those law-colored glasses, and puts us on a foundation of a fear relationship with Him that He doesn't want. Yes, He is light and is righteous, but look what He did to take care of the sin problem and our separation from Him - sent His Son to die for us . . . and then put His very life in us to make us His children!!! 

[AdHoc]

On 9/29/2023 at 9:42 PM, Vine Abider said:

When I hear something about the incomprehensible love of God, it resonates and speaks to me.  In the 70s and 80s I was in a quasi-cult Christian group who started turning pretty legalistic about a number of things.  I saw a lot there regarding many of the details concerning God's eternal purpose, and that God would execute His purpose no matter what. But what I took away from there was that God was a pretty cool, calculating character and that if you got in the way of Him fulfilling His purpose, He might squash you like a bug - this distorted view generated fear.

About 10 years after leaving that group, the Lord was finally able to begin showing me that His primary motivation toward us is His great love for us!  When I began to get a clear glimpse of that, is when scripture starting opening in a new and fresh way for me. I saw that yes, He will get His purpose fulfilled, but His purpose is for and because of His love for us!

I think legalism clouds one's view of the love of God, as it tends to make God look overly rigid through those law-colored glasses, and puts us on a foundation of a fear relationship with Him that He doesn't want. Yes, He is light and is righteous, but look what He did to take care of the sin problem and our separation from Him - sent His Son to die for us . . . and then put His very life in us to make us His children!!! 

It is well that you emphasize the father's love and re-acceptance of the wayward son. God, in His righteousness, is immovable and formidable. But this view does not promote reconciliation. It produces fear, and fear unchecked is destructive to relationships. The Chapter, taken as a unit, proves supreme love by the father and a willingness of our God to forgive the most heinous of crimes. But on closer examination the picture is one of love WITHOUT winking at sin.

The original texts had neither Chapter nor verse divisions. I hereby present the original text; 

13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

...

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.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.

Now, the sentence construction, and meaning of the red print is the same. The Bible says that in order to inherit the Testator must die (Heb.9:16-17). The prodigal, in taking his inheritance while the father was alive, took his father's goods. That means that it was in his care. He is not relieved from being a steward. The word "and" in 16:1 is a conjunction. The word "and" is cumulative (it adds a second thing to the first - bread AND butter), it is copulative (it joins two components - the car moves because of engine AND gearbox), and it is sequential (one thing added to another in sequence has a reaction - the plunger ignited first the detonator AND then the dynamite). The word "and " in verse 1 JOINS what was said before to what is said after. There is NO BREAK of thought. THE PRODIGAL SON IS THE UNJUST STEWARD, AND THE FATHER IS THE RICH MAN.

This constellation, if you agree, shows that our SONSHIP is never called into question. But it also shows that there are consequences. The Prodigal may enjoy the garment and fatted calf, but very soon he will have only his old clothes and NOWHERE to sleep. The father guarantees the sons sonship, BUT the son has used up his inheritance. The remainder of the father's goods now belong to the first son. Thus, he says, "ALL I have is yours." For the father to give one penny to the unfaithful son would mean UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Even giving a bed to the unfaithful squanderer would infringe on the faithful son.

And so it is among us Christians. Your forgiveness, rebirth and position as son are all established. But if the Lord is to give us stewardship ver His goods, we have to be WORTHY! Sonship is by nature - stewardship must be earned.

 

[FreeGrace]

On 9/28/2023 at 2:42 PM, Vine Abider said:

In this morning’s weekly brothers breakfast fellowship, someone brought up the parable of the so-called “Prodigal Son”  and we had real good fellowship around some of the meaning of this parable. I had a few realizations and things I’d not seen well before regarding this story, and I thought it would be good to jot these down and share with y-all.

The conversation had basically started around how great a salvation we have been given in Christ, that His all-efficacious blood is constantly available to us, and how there is no condemnation whatsoever for us in Christ --> and this is what the prodigal father demonstrated.  Several discussed what this means to us practically, that is: reject all condemnation,  but say “yes” to the conviction and leading of the Spirit (which always leads us back to our Father).

Accordingly, the definition of “prodigal” was brought up . . . this word has a definition of “wastefully extravagant” or “extreme.”  Well each of the three characters in this story were actually prodigal:  One son wasted his being and inheritance to an extreme; the father had extravagant love; the other son was extremely legal.

The father lavished his love on the returning son, and in no way condemned him.  In fact, to me, this is the biggest part of this story – that the father was over-the-top with his love and longing for his son, and to celebrate his return without a hint of penalty mentioned towards his son.  Just try to grasp the depths of the love shown here, even though this son had dissipated his being in debauchery and squandered all his inheritance!  My my my, such “wastefully extravagant” and incomprehensible love!!!

But something else regarding this son came out too, which I hadn’t really seen well before.  He was humble and crawled back to his father.  He was guilty of so much, and he knew it.  But he was destitute and hungry, and selfishly wanted to be back in his father’s influence so that he didn’t starve. But with all this he had one redeeming attribute – he was humble with his father.  Of course, the father was just so overjoyed to have his son back that none of what he had done mattered . . . the father loved his son unconditionally regardless.

And then there was the other son.  He was the one who had been extremely faithful, stayed with the father and had behaved himself – he did what he thought was expected of him all those years.  But he was furious that his brother, who had misbehaved in such an extreme way, would receive such extreme love from their father.  In much self-centered pride he boastfully exclaimed, “Have I not been faithful all these years and did . . .!?”  But the father wasn’t about to let that spoil the enjoyment of his other son returning and threw an extravagant feast for him.

The Lord hates pride, but gives ear to the humble (regardless if the humble one has been living with swine).  In this story there was one humble son and one full of pride.  God resists the proud.  May we always be humble before Him, realizing we are “but dust” and could never earn the price His love paid to redeem us.

What a story of extremes, but the father’s extreme love wins the day!!! 

(One other thing I saw during the fellowship was this story is also an example of Israel and the gentile nations. Israel could say, “Lord have we not been faithful to You and done this and that to please You?”  Meanwhile the gentiles were out there doing their pagan thing.  But God loves us all, whether Jew or gentile.  In Christ’s reconciling work, the two are made one --> one new man.)

I always enjoy your viewpoints on verses, and this is no exception!  Thanks for sharing.  

It seems quite a number of pastors teach this parable being about salvation.  However, since we see the "prodigal" being called a son at the beginning of the parable and all the way through, that can hardly be about salvation.  Unbelievers are not called sons.  They become sons through faith in the Savior.

Then, a few years ago I heard a very interesting fact about the story that is lost on our current society.  In Jesus' day, sons received their cut of their father's inheritance ONLY after the father died.  So, the son asking for his cut was tantamount to telling his father that he wished he was dead!!  To the Jews who were listenening to Jesus tell the parable must have been an "extreme" shock!!  What an insolent and irresponsible son!  Yet, the father gives the son his cut, and the kid takes off, only to squander all of it on wild living,

I think this fact enhances the GRACE of the father on the son's return.  We see the father patiently looking for his son all that time and when the son returned, rather than a chewing out, the father gives that son his ring, which was equivalent to a checkbook!!  

While in the pig sty, the son "came to his senses".  I love that phrase.  We all should be doing that.  Having done that, he acknowledged his sin (confession - 1 John 1:9) towards his father, and got up to return to his father (repented).  

What I love the most is the fact that the son was prepared to be "demoted" to a servant from sonship, when he got back, after confessing to his father, the father cut him off so he couldn't repeat the stupid part about demotion, which cannot happen to any children of God.  Good old eternal security!!

So, what does this parable teach?  That when God's children sin, confession and repentance restores fellowship with the father, just as it does in the spiritual life.  We all sin.  There's no denying that.  So we must 'keep short accounts' and confess the sins we are aware of, so we will be cleansed/purified and fellowship restored.

Edited October 2, 2023 by FreeGrace
misspelling

[Vine Abider]

9 hours ago, AdHoc said:

It is well that you emphasize the father's love and re-acceptance of the wayward son. God, in His righteousness, is immovable and formidable. But this view does not promote reconciliation. It produces fear, and fear unchecked is destructive to relationships. The Chapter, taken as a unit, proves supreme love by the father and a willingness of our God to forgive the most heinous of crimes. But on closer examination the picture is one of love WITHOUT winking at sin.

The original texts had neither Chapter nor verse divisions. I hereby present the original text; 

13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

...

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.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.

Now, the sentence construction, and meaning of the red print is the same. The Bible says that in order to inherit the Testator must die (Heb.9:16-17). The prodigal, in taking his inheritance while the father was alive, took his father's goods. That means that it was in his care. He is not relieved from being a steward. The word "and" in 16:1 is a conjunction. The word "and" is cumulative (it adds a second thing to the first - bread AND butter), it is copulative (it joins two components - the car moves because of engine AND gearbox), and it is sequential (one thing added to another in sequence has a reaction - the plunger ignited first the detonator AND then the dynamite). The word "and " in verse 1 JOINS what was said before to what is said after. There is NO BREAK of thought. THE PRODIGAL SON IS THE UNJUST STEWARD, AND THE FATHER IS THE RICH MAN.

This constellation, if you agree, shows that our SONSHIP is never called into question. But it also shows that there are consequences. The Prodigal may enjoy the garment and fatted calf, but very soon he will have only his old clothes and NOWHERE to sleep. The father guarantees the sons sonship, BUT the son has used up his inheritance. The remainder of the father's goods now belong to the first son. Thus, he says, "ALL I have is yours." For the father to give one penny to the unfaithful son would mean UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Even giving a bed to the unfaithful squanderer would infringe on the faithful son.

And so it is among us Christians. Your forgiveness, rebirth and position as son are all established. But if the Lord is to give us stewardship ver His goods, we have to be WORTHY! Sonship is by nature - stewardship must be earned.

 

Wow - that's a very interesting take on those two passages!  I've never considered the two of them together, and always mentally separated the two parables according to the two chapters. (you mean when Jesus spoke it didn't come with chapter delineations?  LOL)

If this is the case in these two parables, to me it is yet another example of these two foundational truths in the Christian's life:

1) the amazing love of God who enthusiastically accepts all His children (because of the sacrifice of Christ)

2) yet there are also serious consequences for children who misbehave and squander the responsibility they've been given!

[AdHoc]

3 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Wow - that's a very interesting take on those two passages!  I've never considered the two of them together, and I'm sure always mentally separated the two parables according to the two chapters. (you mean when Jesus spoke it didn't come with chapter delineations?  LOL)

If this is the case in these two parables, to me it is yet another example of these two foundational truths in the Christian's life:

1) the amazing love of God who enthusiastically accepts all His children (because of the sacrifice of Christ)

2) yet there are also serious consequences for children who misbehave and squander the responsibility they've been given!

Beautifully put ...

[Marilyn C]

On 9/29/2023 at 4:42 AM, Vine Abider said:

In this morning’s weekly brothers breakfast fellowship, someone brought up the parable of the so-called “Prodigal Son”  and we had real good fellowship around some of the meaning of this parable. I had a few realizations and things I’d not seen well before regarding this story, and I thought it would be good to jot these down and share with y-all.

The conversation had basically started around how great a salvation we have been given in Christ, that His all-efficacious blood is constantly available to us, and how there is no condemnation whatsoever for us in Christ --> and this is what the prodigal father demonstrated.  Several discussed what this means to us practically, that is: reject all condemnation,  but say “yes” to the conviction and leading of the Spirit (which always leads us back to our Father).

Accordingly, the definition of “prodigal” was brought up . . . this word has a definition of “wastefully extravagant” or “extreme.”  Well each of the three characters in this story were actually prodigal:  One son wasted his being and inheritance to an extreme; the father had extravagant love; the other son was extremely legal.

The father lavished his love on the returning son, and in no way condemned him.  In fact, to me, this is the biggest part of this story – that the father was over-the-top with his love and longing for his son, and to celebrate his return without a hint of penalty mentioned towards his son.  Just try to grasp the depths of the love shown here, even though this son had dissipated his being in debauchery and squandered all his inheritance!  My my my, such “wastefully extravagant” and incomprehensible love!!!

But something else regarding this son came out too, which I hadn’t really seen well before.  He was humble and crawled back to his father.  He was guilty of so much, and he knew it.  But he was destitute and hungry, and selfishly wanted to be back in his father’s influence so that he didn’t starve. But with all this he had one redeeming attribute – he was humble with his father.  Of course, the father was just so overjoyed to have his son back that none of what he had done mattered . . . the father loved his son unconditionally regardless.

And then there was the other son.  He was the one who had been extremely faithful, stayed with the father and had behaved himself – he did what he thought was expected of him all those years.  But he was furious that his brother, who had misbehaved in such an extreme way, would receive such extreme love from their father.  In much self-centered pride he boastfully exclaimed, “Have I not been faithful all these years and did . . .!?”  But the father wasn’t about to let that spoil the enjoyment of his other son returning and threw an extravagant feast for him.

The Lord hates pride, but gives ear to the humble (regardless if the humble one has been living with swine).  In this story there was one humble son and one full of pride.  God resists the proud.  May we always be humble before Him, realizing we are “but dust” and could never earn the price His love paid to redeem us.

What a story of extremes, but the father’s extreme love wins the day!!! 

(One other thing I saw during the fellowship was this story is also an example of Israel and the gentile nations. Israel could say, “Lord have we not been faithful to You and done this and that to please You?”  Meanwhile the gentiles were out there doing their pagan thing.  But God loves us all, whether Jew or gentile.  In Christ’s reconciling work, the two are made one --> one new man.)

Great thoughts there. Now, I did wonder where is the Lord`s sacrifice in all of that, for we need to come to the Father through the Son. But then Jesus was speaking to the children of Israel who had rebelled and needed to come back to God. Jesus was showing that the Father was waiting patiently for their return.

Still, there was need to show the Lord`s sacrifice. Then I did see it in the parable. Can you see it too? (represented) 

 

[AdHoc]

On 10/3/2023 at 12:34 AM, Marilyn C said:

Great thoughts there. Now, I did wonder where is the Lord`s sacrifice in all of that, for we need to come to the Father through the Son. But then Jesus was speaking to the children of Israel who had rebelled and needed to come back to God. Jesus was showing that the Father was waiting patiently for their return.

Still, there was need to show the Lord`s sacrifice. Then I did see it in the parable. Can you see it too? (represented) 

 

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.