Prodigal Son Distorted by FB Pastor

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Rob came back here and proceeded with what he was saying. Didn't take much more "reading into."

I may have advanced it and suspected Rob had in mind what many people refer to as "rules" -- man-made standards (like his FB Rules), but my general critique had to do with making the Story about rules -- "he left because of rules, came home because rules brought good stuff."

Now that I re-type that... I actually believe the younger son was scheming when he came back, knowing he could get "better stuff" and this is the climax of the Story. The Father, not waiting to here his rehearsed speech throws himself on him, loves on him, orders a party up --- all before the younger son can even get his scheming story of how he will earn his way out of his mouth.

Love that story...

I don't believe that. The fact that the Word says that his father saw him from a great way off and ran to him with compassion allows me to know that the son knew his father well and that he would not reject him and would help him make things right. That is what people need in order to come home. They must know you will take them back. I believe, with everything within me, the son knew this of his father.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You said the only "rule abiber" was the elder brother. That means that there was someone present who had to be the non-rule abider. Do you see that? You were emphatic saying that Rob was wrong on using "rule", but you used it in reference to the elder brother.

The prodigal son was taken care of, loved and safe, but he chose to walk away.

I used the word "rule abider" with intention -- Rob was referring to rules. My point being, the only person absorbed into rules and "I earned it and deserve it" was the older brother.

The story wasn't even told asking the question of "why" he walked away. The point is that he left. He wasted an inheritance that God had for Him. He threw it all away. He cursed his father out (the more I read cultural mores in that time, the more I see how vivid and explicit this story was to the original audience), he lived his life outside the Father. Rules are not the topic. They aren't even in the story. Implicitly we could deduce anything we want. But let's work with what is there.

And even if he left "because of rules" (sounds so silly --- and God's way of living wouldn't even be written as "rules"), to suggest the reason he came home was because he thought it over that "those rules weren't so bad" is taking liberty that's just not there.

Again, the story is one of the most beautiful in the NT. Trying to find an illustration to prove that we should be concerned with God's commands and be obedient can be taken from countless other teachings in scripture, but projecting into this story is a disservice. It also speaks to the larger idea of biblical interpretation.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't believe that. The fact that the Word says that his father saw him from a great way off and ran to him with compassion allows me to know that the son knew his father well and that he would not reject him and would help him make things right. That is what people need in order to come home. They must know you will take them back. I believe, with everything within me, the son knew this of his father.

Rob does. Read his post.

Either way, I can't prove, and I even said I was speculating. I suppose it was a long walk back home, and the story tells us he thought of how he could work for one of his father's servants, and "work himself back in." Sounds scheming to me. And it's just what we do when we approach God. "I'll stop doing this. I'll get rid of this. I'll quit this. Then God will love me, or at least I'll get by in the Father's house." It's all of our stories.

The way the Father responds here is so vulgar and explicit. So shameful and vivid. It's the entire focus of this story. The side stories are the announcement of the Kingdom, the implicit rebuke to the elder brothers listening (mentioned in the opening of the chapter, and in the 16th chapter), etc...

The post wasn't a persuasion for younger brothers to come home. It was an announcement of the Kingdom of God. This is what it looks like! This message ticked the Pharisees and religious off.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

If I may agree with several of the posters on this thread and post some citations that I feel address the heart of the matter:

Quote:
The Wizard of Oz, a story written by L. Frank Baum, later became a movie. To Danny's young children (the made-up reader of the story) this delightful tale was about a young girl named Dorothy and her cute dog, Toto, who overcome the odds and defeated the powerful and scary bad guys with some help from Dorothy's nice new friends. To the young children the story had this simple meaning.

If we observe the story closely, however, and if we start to poke around into the historical background of the time Baum wrote the book, a different meaning surfaces. One of the hottest political debates going on in America when Baum wrote this story was over the issue of whether American should continue to use the gold standard as the basis for the U.S. dollar or whether she should switch to silver. This historical context suggests that the main line of the book ("follow the yellow brick road") may be a reference to the central political issue of the day. Remember that although the yellow brick road led to the great wizard of Oz, once Dorothy arrived there, she discovered he was a fraud. Dorothy's real hope lay in her shoes. In Baum's book the shoes are silver. Hollywood changed them to ruby so they would how up better in color for the movie. So, perhaps the book falls into the classification of political satire. Note, also that that gold is measured by the ounce, abbreviated by oz.

According to this line of interpretation, the characters in the story then probably represent different segments of American society. The Scarecrow represents the farmers (supposedly no brains). Who would the Tin Man represent? The factory workers (no heart). The cowardly lion perhaps represent the political leadership of the country. We also meet the wicked witch of the east (East Coast establishment?) and of the west (West Coast establishment?) -- and who is the heroine? Middle America 00 Dorothy from Kansas.

So who is right? Are Danny's kids wrong to interpret the story as a simple tale of good triumphing over evil? Did not the author intend it to be read as political satire? Are we wrong if we understand it otherwise? What is the meaning of the story? And who determines that meaning?

Wanting to hear more

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't believe that. The fact that the Word says that his father saw him from a great way off and ran to him with compassion allows me to know that the son knew his father well and that he would not reject him and would help him make things right. That is what people need in order to come home. They must know you will take them back. I believe, with everything within me, the son knew this of his father.

I think what Socialite was pointing out was that the Prodigal rehearsed a speech but received his father's forgiveness and compassion before he ever spoke it. The father was watching for a return, and his love and compassion didn't have to be earned. Apparently the Prodigal thought he would have to make some concessions in order to be received back into the house.

Luke 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
Luke 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
Luke 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

Then we read that the Prodigal gave his prepared speech, but the father practically brushed it off and started planning a party.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I think what Socialite was pointing out was that the Prodigal rehearsed a speech but received his father's forgiveness and compassion before he ever spoke it. The father was watching for a return, and his love and compassion didn't have to be earned. Apparently the Prodigal thought he would have to make some concessions in order to be received back into the house.

Luke 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
Luke 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
Luke 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

Then we read that the Prodigal gave his prepared speech, but the father practically brushed it off and started planning a party.

MB, thank you, that's what I was saying. Even then, it was a tad speculative on my part, but it's how I see the story unfolding. And it's me that I see in that story. But I think of the audience Jesus had -- sinners and Pharisees. I can't help but think that each of them played a part in the story... and through their characters, Jesus was again proclaiming the Kingdom of God, and describing what it's like.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Socialite

MB, thank you, that's what I was saying. Even then, it was a tad speculative on my part, but it's how I see the story unfolding. And it's me that I see in that story. But I think of the audience Jesus had -- sinners and Pharisees. I can't help but think that each of them played a part in the story... and through their characters, Jesus was again proclaiming the Kingdom of God, and describing what it's like.

I think "scheming" is a stretch for the passage. It implies a very, perverse and negative connotation, IMO. Anyway, that is how I view the term.

Yes, he rehearsed what he was going to say, but you give the impression by saying, "I actually believe the younger son was scheming when he came back, knowing he could get "better stuff" and this is the climax of the Story.", as though he had no remorse for what he had done and had plans to waltz back into the good graces of his home because, after all, it's better than a pig pen.

I see him preparing a speech whilst wrestling with the issue of how he would obtain the "trust" he felt he had lost between himself and his father. He had to, somehow, find a way to prove to his father that he was truly mindful of what he had done - fully realized it and wanted to never go that route again.

His father did receive him before his "speech", but he still felt compelled to show his remorse. His father must know it! That doesn't seem like "scheming" as I took your post.

I rather view it as trying to obtain "trust" that was lost. How did his father know he wouldn't do it again?

By him saying, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son", he is pointing out that he is fully aware that he has, first of all, sinned against God and broken commandment/covenant/rules [] - Exodus 20:12 "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."

And by this, he allows that he is not worthy to be called his son. He understands that what he has done can only be undone IF his father truly and, implicitly, understands he meant what he said from his heart.

[OneAccord]

Hello, Pressing On. Haven't talked to you since the last time I talked to you. How ya been?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yes, he rehearsed what he was going to say, but you give the impression by saying, "I actually believe the younger son was scheming when he came back, knowing he could get "better stuff" and this is the climax of the Story.", as though he had no remorse for what he had done and had plans to waltz back into the good graces of his home because, after all, it's better than a pig pen.

compared with Rob's words:

Why did he come home?
He decided that he could handle living with the Father's rules as long as he could enjoy Daddy's fried chicken.

And I also added that I was speculating into the story. But based on his rehearsal, it all focused on getting back into a place of security -- it wasn't consumed with affection to his father. His line about "I've sinned against you" was his olive branch.

[OldPathsII]

Originally Posted by Socialite

compared with Rob's words:





And I also added that I was speculating into the story. But based on his rehearsal, it all focused on getting back into a place of security -- it wasn't consumed with affection to his father. His line about "I've sinned against you" was his olive branch.

From what you said about baptism, I have to wonder if your entire theology is speculative.