No! No! No! Ahmed. We are all the Prodigal AND the older brother. The younger son is humbled by his experience and returns home just as he is and admitting he is unworthy; the older son who always experienced his privilege of being the oldest son, is usurping the Father’s role and stands in judgement and in envy of his brother, a deadly sin. Here I am thankful for EKO writing yesterday that “forgiveness is recognizing that separation was always an illusion”. It opened my heart to freedom in God.
Thank you so much EKO. I’ve noticed since reading this that I become the prodigal son many times during the day. Those times I turn away and forget the Father/Friend is always right here and waiting for us to notice again and the joy of my “return” comes unexpectedly each time. Then gratitude.
Since, I’m not shy about criticizing when I think you have introduced ideas not found in scripture, I feel like I should be equally vocal when you present truth clearly. Well done on the Prodigal Son Parable.
MA11 I think there has been a miscommunication. I haven’t offered corrective or critical comments on previous posts from EKO because they present ideas like “asphalt.” My comments have addressed his use of Gnostic ideas in his writing, plus the denial of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and a revisionist history of the formation of the canon, etc. I don’t want to be the guy who only speaks to criticize, therefore I thought I should complement him on a well written theological piece about the Prodigal Son. Hopefully that provides some clarity.
Donahue, I'm not looking to pick a fight with you or anyone else over scripture because I have nothing to prove in that arena, but purely on a logical basis what is the point of, or value in, criticizing any ideas not found in scripture?
Let me give you an example. We extract crude oil out of the ground, and refine it into valuable products such as gasoline, diesel, propane, lubricants etc. But this also leaves behind a lot of waste products, which smart people have figured out how to recycle in a safe and effective manner by turning much of this waste into asphalt which we then use to pave millions of miles of road all over the planet.
Now the production and use of asphalt is, to my knowledge nowhere mentioned in the bible or any other scripture (and I have read a lot of them in my 64 yrs on this rock), but I never hear anyone criticizing the use of asphalt as an idea that is not found in scripture.
So why exactly do you believe that ideas not found in scripture need to be criticized?
What is the purpose or value in slamming the brakes on new ideas?
Like I said, I'm not picking a fight with you, but try as I may I simply cannot wrap my head around your concept of, as you say "criticizing when I think you have introduced ideas not found in scripture".
I'm asking you, as respectfully as I know how, to help me understand the value and purpose of such criticism.
The perfect love of Our Father, not degrading or demoralizing one of his sons or daughters for falling prey to darkened self-delusion communicated by Yeshua in this parable is heart rendering. Father's Love, his perfect love, has been misrepresented and misunderstood throughout time. The sources of the opposition to his Love for us has been promoted by influences at enmity with him, as seen displayed in this parable of the sons... influences that are blinded to Father's Agape love.
I pray the spirit and essence of this parable from Our Father's perspective becomes more widely seen and accepted in a manner that allows each human being to experience in mind, soul, and being the embracing of relationship with Abba Father as He ordained it to be. The horizons that would open before us in the spiritual and natural realm would be indescribably awesome.
I find no kindness in rewarding bad behaviour - forgive of course - of course be happy about the return of the prodigal son safely - welcome his return but I ask at what cost to the faithful son - perhaps the fathers jubilations could be somewhat tempered.
Silvija, I see the cost of separation. The Father wants to share with both his sons equally what is his to give as he pleases. The oldest son thought his behavior was better than his brother’s. In truth, his envy of his brother’s treatment and expectation of his father’s appreciation for his work, he separated himself from his brother as “better than”.
Buckner Fanning, my pastor in San Antonio in the 1990s, said in a sermon that if “you were the only person to sin in the world, the Bible would have been written for you and Jesus would have died just for you”, followed by, “we all alike have sinned, but we don’t all sin alike”.
Sue you seem to have mistaken my reply - to clarify -I have no issue with the father distributing his estate as he wishes - I see no reference to the eldest son making an issue with how the estate was halved and distributed - what I do recognize is the seemingly excessive jubilation of the father when the younger son returns -which would needlessly set the brothers at odds with each other when a more tempered joy would likely have allowed for the elder brother to find some happiness with the return of his brother as well - had the father prompted his elder son to join him in the reunion plans and event it likely would have made it more of a bridge than a show of favouritism - which is how it struck me from this reading. Finding balance is how we all equate as our Lord died for all of us.
We are all highly favored. The two brother's sin is the same, each brother erring in equal but different ways. The elder son could have been just as joyful, had he not engaged in the sins of envy and pride. The Father's example is to be joyous; the elder son chose to be envious and self-righteous. His attitude also reveals a heart that tried to "work" for his father's favor, which he had all along; but his *motivation* had everything to do with deserving and earning, not recognizing already having. An attitude of thinking he had to earn his position instead of recognizing what he already had led to envy. The parable calls us to another truth - that when we embrace anything the Father tells us not to, (i.e disobedience to the ten commandments), we put *ourselves* outside of kingdom living and invite spiritual death. Once you understand the Father, you can stop trying to achieve and just *be* - the captives set free. Jesus teachings in Matthew, The Sermon on the Mount, confirm this. (Sinning in your heart vs actually doing it).
The eartly father's love...a microcosm of Our Father's love given freely...the earthly mother observes the dynamic and understands the forgiveness, but also understands the deep injury, the hurt, wounding the loyal siblings. They continue to serve the father; scars form but remain tender that the father doesn't understand that part. Our Father understands and Jesus comforts the soul of the sibling servants.
The way I see it the parable of the prodigal son was not so much about a man and his literal son. It was more symbolic of the struggle Jesus had been undergoing with his native Jewish religion. It was symbolic of the Jewish religion of that time having gone so far astray that it was dead in the eyes of the divine Father. And the Father wanted nothing more than the wayward Jewish religion to find its way back to Him. It all dates back to the formal covenant between Melchizedek and Abraham at Salem. That great agreement between divinity and humanity through Abraham's descendents, whereby God agrees to do everything; man only agrees to believe God's promises and follow his instructions.
This doesn't touch on the other son and the real reason for his behaviour. I'll leave that in EKOs capable hands.
I've recently studied and preached on this passage. Here are a few additional tings to discover about this passage.
Context: this section in Luke - roughly ch 10-19 are all connected with conjunctions. Like "and he told a parable" or "then he said". So at first glance the connections appear overly glued together. The secret is noticing how Luke introduces the audience. In 15:1-2 the audience is described as the two sides: sinners and tax collectors (which includes the disciples) vs scribes and pharisees. In ch 16 the audience switches: "and he said to his disciples".
So in this context we have 3 linked parables: lost sheep; lost coin; lost son.
Complaint: Jesus is having fellowship with the unclean.
Context Response: Jesus shows the love of God contrasting with the disciples. First they see themselves as willing to find their lost sheep (about 1/2 days wages) and celebrate - note the framing as 1 in 100; then they identify with the lost coin - 1 in 10, worth about1 days wages; then the hammer blow with the lost son.
Conclusion: God has great joy in celebrating the rescue and return of the lost, AND He values people over all, while the pharisees see the unclean people as no value - not even worth the half days wages they would seek in a lost sheep.
Then digging deeper:
The word property in the first scene is an unusual word. It is only used in this way (translated property) in this passage. It is "ousia" which we recognize from the trinitarian doctrine espoused n Nicene. Two persons, ONE ESSENCE (homoousia). So why translate this as property?
If you are familiar with Aquinas he spent a lot of time on the distinction between essence (ousia) and accidens; accidens being the properties of a thing that can change without altering the thing itself. Example: red might be the color property of a tomato b7t if you change it to yellow - it's still a tomato. That's accidens.
This we can see that in this usage the property being requested by the son is much deeper. It is intrinsic to the being of the father. This will become emphasized in a moment.
As you mentioned the sons request for inheritance was like wishing the father dead. But this request was more. It asked for the firstborn rights. He wanted his inheritance, yes, but he also wanted it before the firstborn. Which is not just wishing the father dead, it's like saying "you are all dead to me" to the entire family.
Bookending this is the word property in the discussion between the father and the older son. Here it's a different Greek word, whose root is "Bios" meaning life (Biology=Bios+Logos-> study of life).
So the older son shows he understood the brothers request in context when he says, basically "...he squandered your very life..."
One other thing to bring out that you hinted at. The younger son when he came to hself determined that being a servant in his father's house was better than his experience feeding pigs (talk about unclean!), and determines to EARN THE LOVE OF THE FATHER. This is key to our understanding here. It is our fallen nature to seek life from anything but God. We want life in an of ourselves. Martin Luther explained this as the root principle of idolatry - anything that takes the place of God as a source of life in our lives.
This is then reinforced when we see that the older brother is in a sense as lost as the younger because even though he never rebelled, he still believed that he was earning the father's love!
This gets to the heart of the gospel hiding in the passage. The Father knows this and willingly bears the weight of all of it.
What we need to see as the extra unmentioned person in the story is the prophetic background of the suffering servant who will come. And that of coure is Jesus - the TRUE SON in this story - who seeks the lost on behalf of the father and bears the weight of sin and righteousness SO THAT the righteous father is now free to pursue his overflowing, generous, gracious love for his lost sons, and be glorified in the process.
So now we see that Jesus is offering himself to both audiences as the true son who properly is the firstborn of the father; who never has to or tries to earn the father's love but loves immeasurably the father and all his will; who seeks and saves the lost so that the family and the inheritance of the father will be restored with glory and great joy.
This just hits where the rubber meets the road. One of the things that is pointed out by some theologians (including Dr. Brad Young in his book on the Parables) is that it was *the older brother's responsibility* to go looking for his brother in the culture of that day, not the father's. So the father doesn't remind him of this, it's expected that he knows. And when the father says, all that I have is yours - He's reminding the older brother that since the inheritance has already divided, he could have asked at any time for a party and it would have happened. In the open-ended conversation, we are not told whether the older son listened and heeded his father's words or not... leaves it up to the listener - whether we elder brothers and sisters will listen is the point. (OTOH, there is an Elder Brother, Christ himself, who did come for all of us prodigal younger children -and gave His life to get us back )
From you I learn so much in these comments. I thank each of you for being here and taking the time to express your points of view.
We are helping each other along the path, and what a beautiful path it is
Love this parable and the spiritual mirror it provides to all prodigal Sons of Adam who desire to return to the family of God.
No! No! No! Ahmed. We are all the Prodigal AND the older brother. The younger son is humbled by his experience and returns home just as he is and admitting he is unworthy; the older son who always experienced his privilege of being the oldest son, is usurping the Father’s role and stands in judgement and in envy of his brother, a deadly sin. Here I am thankful for EKO writing yesterday that “forgiveness is recognizing that separation was always an illusion”. It opened my heart to freedom in God.
Grace. Amazing grace. The heart of our Father.
God’s Riches At Christ’s Expense
Thank you so much EKO. I’ve noticed since reading this that I become the prodigal son many times during the day. Those times I turn away and forget the Father/Friend is always right here and waiting for us to notice again and the joy of my “return” comes unexpectedly each time. Then gratitude.
I love the way you made this parable come to life in a way that gives it even more clarity. Thank you EKO.
You can always return. Even if you have never left.
That's love.
Love God.
Love others.
Since, I’m not shy about criticizing when I think you have introduced ideas not found in scripture, I feel like I should be equally vocal when you present truth clearly. Well done on the Prodigal Son Parable.
MA11 I think there has been a miscommunication. I haven’t offered corrective or critical comments on previous posts from EKO because they present ideas like “asphalt.” My comments have addressed his use of Gnostic ideas in his writing, plus the denial of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and a revisionist history of the formation of the canon, etc. I don’t want to be the guy who only speaks to criticize, therefore I thought I should complement him on a well written theological piece about the Prodigal Son. Hopefully that provides some clarity.
Donahue, I'm not looking to pick a fight with you or anyone else over scripture because I have nothing to prove in that arena, but purely on a logical basis what is the point of, or value in, criticizing any ideas not found in scripture?
Let me give you an example. We extract crude oil out of the ground, and refine it into valuable products such as gasoline, diesel, propane, lubricants etc. But this also leaves behind a lot of waste products, which smart people have figured out how to recycle in a safe and effective manner by turning much of this waste into asphalt which we then use to pave millions of miles of road all over the planet.
Now the production and use of asphalt is, to my knowledge nowhere mentioned in the bible or any other scripture (and I have read a lot of them in my 64 yrs on this rock), but I never hear anyone criticizing the use of asphalt as an idea that is not found in scripture.
So why exactly do you believe that ideas not found in scripture need to be criticized?
What is the purpose or value in slamming the brakes on new ideas?
Like I said, I'm not picking a fight with you, but try as I may I simply cannot wrap my head around your concept of, as you say "criticizing when I think you have introduced ideas not found in scripture".
I'm asking you, as respectfully as I know how, to help me understand the value and purpose of such criticism.
Love this one so much that I made a song and music video about it with my kids:
https://youtu.be/WDFUyy7GfvI?si=2ArecSgVhkrXMjZZ
Love it!
That is AWESOME!
The perfect love of Our Father, not degrading or demoralizing one of his sons or daughters for falling prey to darkened self-delusion communicated by Yeshua in this parable is heart rendering. Father's Love, his perfect love, has been misrepresented and misunderstood throughout time. The sources of the opposition to his Love for us has been promoted by influences at enmity with him, as seen displayed in this parable of the sons... influences that are blinded to Father's Agape love.
I pray the spirit and essence of this parable from Our Father's perspective becomes more widely seen and accepted in a manner that allows each human being to experience in mind, soul, and being the embracing of relationship with Abba Father as He ordained it to be. The horizons that would open before us in the spiritual and natural realm would be indescribably awesome.
I find no kindness in rewarding bad behaviour - forgive of course - of course be happy about the return of the prodigal son safely - welcome his return but I ask at what cost to the faithful son - perhaps the fathers jubilations could be somewhat tempered.
Silvija, I see the cost of separation. The Father wants to share with both his sons equally what is his to give as he pleases. The oldest son thought his behavior was better than his brother’s. In truth, his envy of his brother’s treatment and expectation of his father’s appreciation for his work, he separated himself from his brother as “better than”.
Buckner Fanning, my pastor in San Antonio in the 1990s, said in a sermon that if “you were the only person to sin in the world, the Bible would have been written for you and Jesus would have died just for you”, followed by, “we all alike have sinned, but we don’t all sin alike”.
Sue you seem to have mistaken my reply - to clarify -I have no issue with the father distributing his estate as he wishes - I see no reference to the eldest son making an issue with how the estate was halved and distributed - what I do recognize is the seemingly excessive jubilation of the father when the younger son returns -which would needlessly set the brothers at odds with each other when a more tempered joy would likely have allowed for the elder brother to find some happiness with the return of his brother as well - had the father prompted his elder son to join him in the reunion plans and event it likely would have made it more of a bridge than a show of favouritism - which is how it struck me from this reading. Finding balance is how we all equate as our Lord died for all of us.
We are all highly favored. The two brother's sin is the same, each brother erring in equal but different ways. The elder son could have been just as joyful, had he not engaged in the sins of envy and pride. The Father's example is to be joyous; the elder son chose to be envious and self-righteous. His attitude also reveals a heart that tried to "work" for his father's favor, which he had all along; but his *motivation* had everything to do with deserving and earning, not recognizing already having. An attitude of thinking he had to earn his position instead of recognizing what he already had led to envy. The parable calls us to another truth - that when we embrace anything the Father tells us not to, (i.e disobedience to the ten commandments), we put *ourselves* outside of kingdom living and invite spiritual death. Once you understand the Father, you can stop trying to achieve and just *be* - the captives set free. Jesus teachings in Matthew, The Sermon on the Mount, confirm this. (Sinning in your heart vs actually doing it).
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, Sylvija.
The eartly father's love...a microcosm of Our Father's love given freely...the earthly mother observes the dynamic and understands the forgiveness, but also understands the deep injury, the hurt, wounding the loyal siblings. They continue to serve the father; scars form but remain tender that the father doesn't understand that part. Our Father understands and Jesus comforts the soul of the sibling servants.
Love your going into the parables, EKO! Thank you
The way I see it the parable of the prodigal son was not so much about a man and his literal son. It was more symbolic of the struggle Jesus had been undergoing with his native Jewish religion. It was symbolic of the Jewish religion of that time having gone so far astray that it was dead in the eyes of the divine Father. And the Father wanted nothing more than the wayward Jewish religion to find its way back to Him. It all dates back to the formal covenant between Melchizedek and Abraham at Salem. That great agreement between divinity and humanity through Abraham's descendents, whereby God agrees to do everything; man only agrees to believe God's promises and follow his instructions.
This doesn't touch on the other son and the real reason for his behaviour. I'll leave that in EKOs capable hands.
I am the father and there are some who will never know Love, by their own convictions.
I've recently studied and preached on this passage. Here are a few additional tings to discover about this passage.
Context: this section in Luke - roughly ch 10-19 are all connected with conjunctions. Like "and he told a parable" or "then he said". So at first glance the connections appear overly glued together. The secret is noticing how Luke introduces the audience. In 15:1-2 the audience is described as the two sides: sinners and tax collectors (which includes the disciples) vs scribes and pharisees. In ch 16 the audience switches: "and he said to his disciples".
So in this context we have 3 linked parables: lost sheep; lost coin; lost son.
Complaint: Jesus is having fellowship with the unclean.
Context Response: Jesus shows the love of God contrasting with the disciples. First they see themselves as willing to find their lost sheep (about 1/2 days wages) and celebrate - note the framing as 1 in 100; then they identify with the lost coin - 1 in 10, worth about1 days wages; then the hammer blow with the lost son.
Conclusion: God has great joy in celebrating the rescue and return of the lost, AND He values people over all, while the pharisees see the unclean people as no value - not even worth the half days wages they would seek in a lost sheep.
Then digging deeper:
The word property in the first scene is an unusual word. It is only used in this way (translated property) in this passage. It is "ousia" which we recognize from the trinitarian doctrine espoused n Nicene. Two persons, ONE ESSENCE (homoousia). So why translate this as property?
If you are familiar with Aquinas he spent a lot of time on the distinction between essence (ousia) and accidens; accidens being the properties of a thing that can change without altering the thing itself. Example: red might be the color property of a tomato b7t if you change it to yellow - it's still a tomato. That's accidens.
This we can see that in this usage the property being requested by the son is much deeper. It is intrinsic to the being of the father. This will become emphasized in a moment.
As you mentioned the sons request for inheritance was like wishing the father dead. But this request was more. It asked for the firstborn rights. He wanted his inheritance, yes, but he also wanted it before the firstborn. Which is not just wishing the father dead, it's like saying "you are all dead to me" to the entire family.
Bookending this is the word property in the discussion between the father and the older son. Here it's a different Greek word, whose root is "Bios" meaning life (Biology=Bios+Logos-> study of life).
So the older son shows he understood the brothers request in context when he says, basically "...he squandered your very life..."
One other thing to bring out that you hinted at. The younger son when he came to hself determined that being a servant in his father's house was better than his experience feeding pigs (talk about unclean!), and determines to EARN THE LOVE OF THE FATHER. This is key to our understanding here. It is our fallen nature to seek life from anything but God. We want life in an of ourselves. Martin Luther explained this as the root principle of idolatry - anything that takes the place of God as a source of life in our lives.
This is then reinforced when we see that the older brother is in a sense as lost as the younger because even though he never rebelled, he still believed that he was earning the father's love!
This gets to the heart of the gospel hiding in the passage. The Father knows this and willingly bears the weight of all of it.
What we need to see as the extra unmentioned person in the story is the prophetic background of the suffering servant who will come. And that of coure is Jesus - the TRUE SON in this story - who seeks the lost on behalf of the father and bears the weight of sin and righteousness SO THAT the righteous father is now free to pursue his overflowing, generous, gracious love for his lost sons, and be glorified in the process.
So now we see that Jesus is offering himself to both audiences as the true son who properly is the firstborn of the father; who never has to or tries to earn the father's love but loves immeasurably the father and all his will; who seeks and saves the lost so that the family and the inheritance of the father will be restored with glory and great joy.
This just hits where the rubber meets the road. One of the things that is pointed out by some theologians (including Dr. Brad Young in his book on the Parables) is that it was *the older brother's responsibility* to go looking for his brother in the culture of that day, not the father's. So the father doesn't remind him of this, it's expected that he knows. And when the father says, all that I have is yours - He's reminding the older brother that since the inheritance has already divided, he could have asked at any time for a party and it would have happened. In the open-ended conversation, we are not told whether the older son listened and heeded his father's words or not... leaves it up to the listener - whether we elder brothers and sisters will listen is the point. (OTOH, there is an Elder Brother, Christ himself, who did come for all of us prodigal younger children -and gave His life to get us back )