The Prodigal Son: Luke 15:11-32

[TLFisher]

The Prodigal Son
11 And He said, "A man had two sons.
12 "The younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me ' So he divided his wealth between them.

13 "And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living.

14 "Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be impoverished.

15 "So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.

16 "And he would have gladly filled his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him.

17 "But when he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger!

18 'I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight;

19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men."'

20 "So he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and (G)embraced him and kissed him.

21 "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

22 "But the father said to his slaves, 'Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet;

23 and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate;

24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.' And they began to celebrate.

25 "Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing.

26 "And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things could be.

27 "And he said to him, 'Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound.'

28 "But he became angry and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and began pleading with him.

29 "But he answered and said to his father, 'Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends;

30 but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.'

31 "And he said to him, 'Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours.

32 'But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.'"

[TLFisher]

This parable is a picture of our relationship with God. It can also be seen as real life examples.
What if we're the father as depicted in the prodigal son?
What if you're the son that chose a backslidding path?
Just because you've backslidden, are you a person with no hope?
If you're the father of a backslidden son, would you welcome your son home with open arms? Would you kill the fattened calf to celebrate your son arriving home?
These are serious questions needing serious answers.

[OBW]

BTW. This has bothered me for years. The "prodigal" is the father, not the son. A prodigal is one who is exceptional, as was this father who was probably "the" patriarch among patriarchs in the area. The son was not exceptional. The father was exceptional in many ways.

And in the end it was not the return of the son that caught the attention of the listeners, it was the actions of the father to look for him, and to run and meet him, and to welcome him back with open arms. That was contrary to the customs of the times. The son was disinherited. Considered dead to the family.

But actually just as important as the rest of the story is the thing we treat as a tack-on concerning the refusal of the older son to join the festivities. This is almost the more important point of the parable when taken in light of the Pharisees' complaints about Jesus eating with sinners.

In any case, it is the Prodigal's Son, or the Prodigal's Sons.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

And in the end it was not the return of the son that caught the attention of the listeners, it was the actions of the father to look for him, and to run and meet him, and to welcome him back with open arms. That was contrary to the customs of the times. The son was disinherited. Considered dead to the family.

Of the last 8-9 months this has been my observation of a brother I was once acquainted with. This brother I had known when he was a high school/college student. When my family and I stopped meeting with the local churches, I did think of him from time to time. Over the last four years, I learned he had backslidden. Certainly this brother is regenerated and even with his demons, he is still a child of God. Just as in the parable the son is disinherited and considered dead to his family. What would it take to welcome him back with open arms? Turning back to the Lord, going on, and assembling with brothers and sisters is not enough. Not until he turns back to the Lord and comes back to the local church will he be welcomed back with open arms. It is a conditional welcoming back.
That is not what we read in the parable. The son wanted to go home. In verses 21-24, "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' "But the father said to his slaves, 'Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.' And they began to celebrate.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by OBW

BTW. This has bothered me for years. The "prodigal" is the father, not the son. A prodigal is one who is exceptional, as was this father who was probably "the" patriarch among patriarchs in the area. The son was not exceptional. The father was exceptional in many ways.

And in the end it was not the return of the son that caught the attention of the listeners, it was the actions of the father to look for him, and to run and meet him, and to welcome him back with open arms. That was contrary to the customs of the times. The son was disinherited. Considered dead to the family.

But actually just as important as the rest of the story is the thing we treat as a tack-on concerning the refusal of the older son to join the festivities. This is almost the more important point of the parable when taken in light of the Pharisees' complaints about Jesus eating with sinners.

In any case, it is the Prodigal's Son, or the Prodigal's Sons.

No brother, a "prodigal" means "One who spends money recklessly". You are thinking of "prodigy".

Ray

[OBW]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

No brother, a "prodigal" means "One who spends money recklessly". You are thinking of "prodigy".

Actually, I believe that you will find that the meaning you supply is the result of years of misuse of the term. The meanings of words change with sufficient use in a certain way over an extended period of time.

In any case, the story is not really about the son, but the father who was exceptional in every way. It was not the actions of the son that were worthy of note, but of the father.

[OBW]

And I sit corrected. Prodigal is actually what everyone thinks it is. However, in the context of this parable, the title that we have given it for purposes of a header in our scripture is not part of the actual text. It is a story about a man with two sons.

And the focus of the story is the actions of the father toward the wayward son (paralleling the publicans and sinners that Jesus was accused of eating with) and his attempts to be inclusive of the other son (paralleling the pharisees who were busy complaining about Jesus eating with the publicans and sinners). It was part of Jesus' response to the Pharisees concerning their complaint. So it was more about how a loving father was caring for his sons than how the younger one went astray. I do note that some have retitled the parable to something like "The Expectant Father" or "The Loving Father."

And in this light, while I do not disagree with the ability to be instructive toward wayward ones, self-righteous ones, and fathers (leaders, elders, or whatever), it does not appear that any of these are the purpose of the parable. Rather, it was primarily a different kind of declaration that Jesus came to seek the lost, not the self-righteous (although he did give them a reasonable heads-up that they weren't so righteous). And he was busy living that declaration in, among other things, eating with sinners.

And as I am supposedly a follower of Christ . . . .

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And I sit corrected...

Suppose I wrote a book "be ye perfect as your heavenly father is perfect", surely one of the chapters could be titled "the prodigal son" because the chapter shows how a perfect father would respond, it gives me a pattern to imitate.

The Lord said "blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God", it is incredibly difficult to reconcile those who are at war. Surely, learning how to do this would be part of "be ye perfect as your heavenly father is".

So although I see your point that the story is about the father, not the son, I still think the title Prodigal son is appropriate.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So although I see your point that the story is about the father, not the son, I still think the title Prodigal son is appropriate.

I think that the title is appropriate when the focus is on the son. And has merit when on the nature of the father who was watching expectantly.

My beef with the title as a general thing is that it misses the immediate point that Christ was making concerning himself as something different than what the establishment of the time was expecting. The son was not irrelevant. It was for the "son" (the lost, or the sinner) that Jesus came. But in the context, it was the fact that he came for them, not that they needed him to come. It was about him, not the sinner/son.

One thing Lee so often did that I can agree with is show the black background (or as was often said, the blackground). But the background is not the focus. The focus is the thing that is placed on the background so that it stands out. So we have titled this parable as being about the background. So rather than "Mona Lisa" we have "Landscape." There is probably a lot that could be said about the landscape that is behind the woman. But the Mona Lisa is a picture of the woman, not the background. Many of the most significant things about that painting probably remain constant and remarkable if a completely different background had been used. Probably not entirely. But mostly. (And the nature of this particular painting is not a completely even comparison for the parable in question. But I believe that it demonstrates my point fairly well.)