Prodigal Son Distorted by FB Pastor

[Maximilian]

Parables are even more tricky. Probably Jesus' favorite literary technique. A parable is a story with two levels of meaning, where certain details in the story represent something else (eg. parable of the lost son, the father represents God). The difficulty is to know how many details in the story should stand for other things.

Throughout the centuries some Christians have taken great liberty with the parables by making almost every detail in each story stand for something. Perhaps the most famous example of such allegorization is the treatment of the Good Samaritan parable. Augustine among those who are most guilty He had every object and person in that story representative of something else. His writings on this are everywhere online.

We end up with many interpreters have a rather wide variety of interpretations, some clearly contradicting others. Also, by ignoring the context, the interpreters could read into almost any parable a meaning that would have nothing to do with what Jesus intended for his original audience. Augustine, as detailed as he was, completely misses Jesus' point for us to love our neighbor.

Since about the 16th Century, majority of NT scholars have insisted that every parable makes essentially one point, which usually comes at the end. This has been a welcome corrective to the absurdity of unrestrained allegorization. But does the "one point rule" restrict meaning more than Jesus would have intended? Take the parable of the lost son, for example. What is the one point? Does the one point that comes to your mind deal with the rebellious son, the resentful brother, or the forgiving father? Do you really want to pick just one and say that Jesus did not intend to make a point about the other two? The one-point approach appears to be inadequate IMO. After all, not many stories of any kind make only one point. So what is a medium between the two extremes?

I quote Craig Blomberg:
Jesus' parables are not to be allegorized down to the last microscopic detail, but neither are they to be limited to only one point. Following, Blomberg, we can have two principles for interpreting Jesus' parables:

1) Look for one main point for each main character or group of characters. Most parables will make one, perhaps two, but usually not more than three main points. All the other details are there to enhance the story.

Rebellious son: Sinners have hope, they can turn to God and he will receive them, despite the mess they make in their lives.
Forgiving Father: God offers forgiveness for undeserving people.
Resentful brother: Those who claim to be God's people should not be resentful when God extends Grace to the undeserving.

2) In addition, the main points you discover must be ones that Jesus' original audience would have understood! If we come up with a point that Jesus' audience would not grasp, we have probably missed the point. This guidelines is intended to keep us from reading into Jesus' parables what he never intended in the first place.

Those primary meanings have implicit truths.

In the case of the Lost Son, there seems to be a shift from the other stories that Luke puts together. And Luke is careful to tell us the audience (a benefit).

Tax Collectors and Sinners
Pharisees and the teachers of the law

The focus at the end of the Lost Son story is different than the other two. He turns the attention to this character of the elder brother. This should be a red flag that there is more to the meaning of this parable, and who the characters can be identified with. It's all using information provided in the Text.

[Maximilian]

I probably just bored everyone to death. My apologies. It all felt relevant to the thread

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

I probably just bored everyone to death. My apologies. It all felt relevant to the thread

You certainly did not bore anyone! It was just a whole lot of information to decipher and then you wanted us to respond with some semblance of intelligence. Not happenin' LOL!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

I probably just bored everyone to death. My apologies. It all felt relevant to the thread

Don't apologize! You've posted some great stuff on this thread.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

I probably just bored everyone to death. My apologies. It all felt relevant to the thread

Not bored AT ALL. Just a lot to take in at once. But will re-read later.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Parables are even more tricky. Probably Jesus' favorite literary technique. A parable is a story with two levels of meaning, where certain details in the story represent something else (eg. parable of the lost son, the father represents God). The difficulty is to know how many details in the story should stand for other things.

Throughout the centuries some Christians have taken great liberty with the parables by making almost every detail in each story stand for something. Perhaps the most famous example of such allegorization is the treatment of the Good Samaritan parable. Augustine among those who are most guilty He had every object and person in that story representative of something else. His writings on this are everywhere online.

We end up with many interpreters have a rather wide variety of interpretations, some clearly contradicting others. Also, by ignoring the context, the interpreters could read into almost any parable a meaning that would have nothing to do with what Jesus intended for his original audience. Augustine, as detailed as he was, completely misses Jesus' point for us to love our neighbor.

Since about the 16th Century, majority of NT scholars have insisted that every parable makes essentially one point, which usually comes at the end. This has been a welcome corrective to the absurdity of unrestrained allegorization. But does the "one point rule" restrict meaning more than Jesus would have intended? Take the parable of the lost son, for example. What is the one point? Does the one point that comes to your mind deal with the rebellious son, the resentful brother, or the forgiving father? Do you really want to pick just one and say that Jesus did not intend to make a point about the other two? The one-point approach appears to be inadequate IMO. After all, not many stories of any kind make only one point. So what is a medium between the two extremes?

I quote Craig Blomberg:
Jesus' parables are not to be allegorized down to the last microscopic detail, but neither are they to be limited to only one point. Following, Blomberg, we can have two principles for interpreting Jesus' parables:

1) Look for one main point for each main character or group of characters. Most parables will make one, perhaps two, but usually not more than three main points. All the other details are there to enhance the story.

Rebellious son: Sinners have hope, they can turn to God and he will receive them, despite the mess they make in their lives.
Forgiving Father: God offers forgiveness for undeserving people.
Resentful brother: Those who claim to be God's people should not be resentful when God extends Grace to the undeserving.

2) In addition, the main points you discover must be ones that Jesus' original audience would have understood! If we come up with a point that Jesus' audience would not grasp, we have probably missed the point. This guidelines is intended to keep us from reading into Jesus' parables what he never intended in the first place.

Those primary meanings have implicit truths.

In the case of the Lost Son, there seems to be a shift from the other stories that Luke puts together. And Luke is careful to tell us the audience (a benefit).

Tax Collectors and Sinners
Pharisees and the teachers of the law

The focus at the end of the Lost Son story is different than the other two. He turns the attention to this character of the elder brother. This should be a red flag that there is more to the meaning of this parable, and who the characters can be identified with. It's all using information provided in the Text.

Coadie, did you copy and paste this? No wait, you're not Coadie, are you?

Honestly, I don't think I could count the number of ways I've heard Luke 15 presented, which in part, demonstrates the genius of Jesus' teachings. How incredible that he could say one thing and we could get dozens of different things from it. However, some take liberties with the three parables of this chapter and pound it beyond all recognition.

One of my favorites was a Christmas For Christ Film Strip that was sent out back in the day and there was the narrator, JY initials, in a partially weepy voice, trying to convince us that these parables demonstrated that a shepherd would go look for a sheep, a lady would look for a coin....but no one (extra weepy voice now) went to look for the lost son. "We care more about animals and money than we do about the lost!" (Semi-sob mode now) "Who is going to go and look for the lost souls?" as we all collapse in tears, pledging thousands to the latest CFC campaign.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by tstew

Once again, I am not one for reading wild interpretations into scripture. However, back to the original post, I have no problem with what was written by Rob and consider it in keeping with the context of the story. I stated this before I knew who the pastor was or what organization he was affiliated with. (Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, given that this IS AFF I kinda had a hunch )

Quote:
The prodigal didn't leave the father's house because of the provision. He left because of the rules. It took a famine for him to realize that it's "the rules" of the Father's house that create provision...and those rules aren't so bad. (PASTOR'S NAME OMITTED)


He took his provision and the Bible is clear that he immediately engaged in riotous, wild, and lawless living. The son's desire is clear in context. Does that ultimately make it a story about rules and only rules...no. At the end of the day, is it a story about Grace and only Grace?...no. It's a story about grace and forgiveness and repentance and humility and jealousy and false piety and Pharisaical hypocrisy and Agape love and perhaps a few other things.

I don't think that seeing these elements in context is adding anything to this beautiful story.

I'm a little more thick than you Stewie and I assumed the worst at first. Had I known whose name was involved I would have thought, "Wait! There's more to this..." before assuming a Pharisaical motive. The named pastor is hardly a "Pharisee" no matter what hermeneutics are being used.

Sorry about that, RM.

[Socialite]

He left because of the rules. It took a famine for him to realize that it's "the rules" of the Father's house that create provision...and those rules aren't so bad

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I'm a little more thick than you Stewie and I assumed the worst at first. Had I known whose name was involved I would have thought, "Wait! There's more to this..." before assuming a Pharisaical motive. The named pastor is hardly a "Pharisee" no matter what hermeneutics are being used.

Sorry about that, RM.

Nor did I ever call him a "Pharisee."

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Luke 15:1-3



Leading into the Lost Son, we get "To illustrate the point further, Jesus told them this story..."

Jesus then, huddles them together and shares another story with the disciples (shrewd manager), but he's not so secretive, the elder brothers hear him:



What Jesus brought to the Kingdom was something new. It didn't fit the old mold. He came to sinners, before they could ever get right with him. He humiliated himself as God to love those who were disobedient.

This isn't just about "backsliders." That's old-school Apo logic. As a matter of fact, it's not even about "backsliders" --- it's about God's grace to all who were lost but now are found, blind but now see.... who were wrecked but are now salvaged and redeemed. The elders brothers aren't just those who don't "love backsliders." The elder brothers are those who try to please the father by obeying rules, who feel they have twisted the Father's arm, earned salvation by doing what they are told, those who feel like God is the patron, who get mad when things don't go their way, because after all, God owes them for their "sacrifice." The elder brothers are those who attempt to gain the Father's favor by any means that doesn't include just letting him love on you... "this has been yours all along." Their works justify them. The father's house is about rules for them, not about a loving, playful, and yes, frivolous God!

Why can't it be about all three? the wayward son returning home, the gracious, loving father, and the judgemental, jealous son?

I think you are take just as much liberty with the text when you accuse the elder son of not letting the Father love him freely without expect to work for it. I don't see the elder son in that light at all. I see him as being resentful of the love and grace his father showed his wayward brother not so much thinking he was earning his father's love but that his faithfulness to his father should count for something. I'm not saying that was the right attitude for him to have since it rests on envy. Your liberty in making the older brother out to be a pharissee is just as libel as Rob's accusation against the younger brother and his rebellion against rules. And honestly, I really don't see much wrong with either. I bet with MissBrat's help you two could find a middleground.

This is a long, long thread! I only on page 9 but enjoying it!