Actually you are wrong. There are 3 characters involved. So you mental limit of there being only one "moral truth" is rather shabby.
From the beginning, the word "prodigal" isn't even mentioned in the text. So when you get so restrictive and absolutist on a word that isn't even in there, it raises some red flags.
There are things to learn in the parable regarding the father, the son and the brother that never left.
That there is a single moral truth does not contradict that there are three characters. However, the main character of this story is, of course, the Father.
Jews would have viewed the prodigal as the sinners that Jesus was hanging out with. The elder brother, Israel, Pharisees, self-righteous, and the father, well... the Father.
This is more accurately the Parable of the Lost Son. Parables aren't titled by Jesus, they are given names by those who offered their translations of the scripture, and they give the title as an overview. If anything, I'd title the story, "the Prodigal God," as I see the Story mostly about him and His love.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem with discussing this as an element of the parable. I think the fact that the Bible goes on to say that once he received his money he squandered it with riotous or lawless living, makes the issue of boundaries relevant. I would not make that the ultimate interpretation of the parable...and I'm not sure the poster would either. However, the beautiful thing about scripture is that many different valid points can be made and highlighted in context IMHO.
Tstew, I respectfully disagree.
No matter the reason, the lost Son left because he wanted to live for himself, he rebelled against God, etc. That's all of us. We all know (those who are familiar with this FB pastor), his intent has much to do with standards, and that's what he read into this story. That's taking liberty, that he should at least offer that he's speculating. The most harmful thing was not his speculation of why the son left, but why the son came back.
Post-modernism is alive and well in Biblical interpretation
That there is a single moral truth does not contradict that there are three characters. However, the main character of this story is, of course, the Father.
Jews would have viewed the prodigal as the sinners that Jesus was hanging out with. The elder brother, Israel, Pharisees, self-righteous, and the father, well... the Father.
This is more accurately the Parable of the Lost Son. Parables aren't titled by Jesus, they are given names by those who offered their translations of the scripture, and they give the title as an overview. If anything, I'd title the story, "the Prodigal God," as I see the Story mostly about him and His love.
Actually it is a continuation of the two previous stories and it is always about the one finding the lost something. The lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost boy. It is not about the sheep the coin or the boy. It would be absurd to make such a point about the coin. Jesus is trying to get a single point across in every one of His examples.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
No matter the reason, the lost Son left because he wanted to live for himself, he rebelled against God, etc. That's all of us. We all know (those who are familiar with this FB pastor), his intent has much to do with standards, and that's what he read into this story. That's taking liberty, that he should at least offer that he's speculating. The most harmful thing was not his speculation of why the son left, but why the son came back.
Post-modernism is alive and well in Biblical interpretation
I don't see where the post specified the rules. And there are rules, are there not? And rebelling against God is, in effect, rebelling against his rules, is it not?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
I don't see where the post specified the rules. And there are rules, are there not? And rebelling against God is, in effect, rebelling against his rules, is it not?
The FB Pastor is obviously making a connecting to "rules" to "standards."
We don't know the cause of the son's rebellion. But we identify with him, because he is who we are. Living in selfish rebellion, thinking his way is better than the Father's way. Self-indulgent, self-serving, self-pleasing. This is a picture of all of us. To minimize and strip it down to being about the father's rules (aka standards), which isn't even mentioned in the story, is taking great liberty and it means coming away from the story with a meaning that was never intended.
The FB Pastor is obviously making a connecting to "rules" to "standards."
Not sure it's obvious, but OK.
Quote:
We don't know the cause of the son's rebellion. But we identify with him, because he is who we are. Living in selfish rebellion, thinking his way is better than the Father's way. Self-indulgent, self-serving, self-pleasing. This is a picture of all of us. To minimize and strip it down to being about the father's rules (aka standards), which isn't even mentioned in the story, is taking great liberty and it means coming away from the story with a meaning that was never intended.
What else besides God's rules would possibly inspire rebellion? What is "his way" vs the "Father's way", if not a different set of rules that the rebel prefers?
But you could be right about the intended meaning, of course. I'm just sayin'.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
(I promise I won't vote. 
)
Linear Mode
