Prodigal son

Here is a great sermon on the other brother. He is rarely the subject of discussion but is an interesting part of the story.

http://www.emmanuel-baptist.org/sermons/Kiss/Kiss30.htm

 

Hi Katie. The prodigal son and his “good guy” brother offer a glimpse into the idea of “law/grace” with a historical angle to it. Mary and Martha also illustrated a similar relationship of "works/grace" (Luke 10: 39-41).

The “well behaved” brother felt slighted by his dad. After all, he was WORKING WORKING WORKING. This “stay at home” brother worked hard, did all that he was asked to do, and was diligent in honoring his dad.

Unlike his “well behaved” brother, the “prodigal” did NOT work hard (except at “loose living”), did NOT honor his dad, and wasted his inheritance. This reminds me a little of Jacob/Esau dynamic (Gen. 25: 30-33).

Yet, the dad embraced his wayward son – seemingly even MORE than his “well behaved” son (similar to the Luke 10:30-41 illustration). All of this is a fantastic picture of how all believers, like the “prodigals” that we all are, were embraced by LORD while we were yet sinners (Rom. 5: 8) and undeserving of such mercy. This is glorious MERCY indeed.

Latterrain77

 

The chapter in Luke in which the story is found is referred to as the "lost chapter" because it also contains the lost sheep and the lost coin. The story has a great plot twist at the end in which Jesus presents an open-ended question to his audience. It is up to them to answer the question. The plot goes like this: First there were 99 sheep + 1 which was lost. The lost one was found and the owner rejoiced. Second, there were 9 coins + 1 which was lost. The lost one was found and the owner rejoiced. Third there were two sons. One was lost and the other...at the end of the story it turns out that he was lost as well! The first was found-he returned home and there was rejoicing. The second...? That is the unanswered question of the story. What was the fate of the older son? The older son represents the listener and the answer is up to the listener. Will you return to a proper relationship with the father or not?

 

One of the aspects of this parable that stands out to me is the awful consequences of sin. I suppose each of us has a mental picture of what the prodigal son must have looked like. I picture him as a college age young man, a rebel, someone who loves pleasure and a good time, perhaps the "life-of-the-party" kind of guy.

It is interesting to me that not one sin that this young man committed is named specifically. The elder brother was probably accurate when he made the statement about him devouring his living with harlots, but the Bible doesn't tell us what he did in the far country except that he wasted his substance with riotous living.

A few thoughts that I have that this parable illustrates concerning the consequences of sin is this:
1. Sin alienates. Sin build a wall between people. In verse 13, the son left and went to the far country.

2. Sin disorients. We know that this young man was confused. Look at what he gave up and where he ended up. The statement "when he came to himself" shows that he was disoriented.

3. Sin causes tremendous loss. This young man spent all, wasted all. He lost his money, his relationship with the elder brother was never the same, he lost because of his sin.

 

Some of the things about this story are particu-
larly interesting to me. First, that our Lord
brought the son in the story to the point of being
so low that he was feeding pigs, of all things--
something no good Jewish boy would do unless
he was totally without choice, and probably not
even then! 8o)

The second thing our Lord had done in the story
was the father running to meet the young man.
This is something no Jewish man of the time
would ever do under normal circumstances.
Jewish men Did Not Run! Not the ones with any
self respect, anyway.

First, their clothing was not condusive to run-
ning. In order to run, they would have had to
lift their clothing up to their thighs, which was
unacceptable in normal circumstances. Second,
if he was where others were, and he lifted his
clothes, people would have thrown rocks at his
ankles and derided him mercilessly for doing it.
This is the action of a thief or someone running
from some misdeed. Third, people of means,
which this man appears to have been, wore
shoes. However, their shoes were not made for
runnning. He would have had to remove them--
another self-deprivation of shame for one of
means.

Then our Lord has the father go to the older
son and plead with him. That just would not
have been done. Rather, the father, if he had
needed to correct the son, would have sent for
the son and had him come to the father; he
would not have sought him out. Orders would
have been stated, without giving the son
choice or reasoning with him--simply stated.
But this father goes to the son and reasons
with him.

The younger son surely comes in to the feast,
because the Scripture says so in verse 24. But
there is no indication of whether or not the
older son ever comes.

Mmy point: how like our God this father was, and
how like each one of us, at times, these sons
were. Our God runs toward us everytime we take
a step toward Him. And He gave up much to run
to us.

[ July 31, 2002, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

This is mainly mere speculation, which is not
really kosher when it comes to the Bible, but
I suspect that had the Savior continued the
story, we would have found the son fully
restored to his place as a son.

However, he had squandered his inheritance.
This is not speculation: a youngest son had no
guaranteed inheritance; anything given to him
was given as a gift. Although this was done
plenty of times by those who had enough, the
inheritance he had received was purely from
the father's generosity, and the son knew it.
There was nothing more he could expect.

Back to speculation, the son would have been
the son, all right, but forever indebted to his
father and to the one who inherited the estate
upon his death.

Not speculation: the only way this could have
changed would have been, once again, by the
father's generosity at the expense of the
elder son!

An unanswered thought on the story: Did the
son really learn his lesson? Tthat can only be
left up to conjecture.

But some have asked, "Was the father too easy
on the son, thus enabling him to squander his
inheritance and come to ruin?" My answer to
that is that the Perfect Story-Teller tells perfect
stories. Since the father represents our God,
he did exactly what he needed to do to give
the young man a chance to come his senses.
What the young man did with his perfect oppor-
tunity was up to him.

 

I like that better.

Signed
--Recovering Arminian

P.S. Arminian theology still gets in the way at
times, but I am getting well! 8o)

[ July 31, 2002, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

pastor Bob,

Thanks for the three points....do you have a poem to go with it?

8oP

SoCM

 

this was the last thing my dad taught on before he was killed in a wreck 3/17/2002

 

Doesn't the ring on his finger signify that he has returned to his stature as heir?

 

Hi, David!

As far as I know, the ring meant only that he had
full authority for the family business as a son,
but he had already spent his inheritance. If he
received anything more as an inheritance, it
would have been at the expense of the other
son, and this was not his right; however, such
an inheritance was totally at the father's discre-
tion.

I like seeing your name; it helps me remember to
pray.

 

OK, I give up!!! Please, take the suspense away, for I am staying awake looking for this answer!

I can just picture the doctor, with his maniacal laughter, knowing we struggle with this question. I'll be this one really got that bow tie spinning.

 

Tyrone, of course.