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'.
The concept of a "rule relationship" was the elder brother's folly. Depending on, relying on, enjoying the providence of the father is what the Father wants. It's not rule adherence the Father wants. It's gracious receiving that matches his gracious offering.
Yes, "his way" vs. "the Father's way" could be minimized at "rules." But it's more than that. It's an entire way of living life that isn't working out for any of us. When we live our way, we end up in death.
IMO, the lost son was not even coming home, except to scheme a way he could have a little better of a life. He schemed a way he could work himself in, rehearsed his offer countless offers -- but before he could get a word out, the Father was running for Him, throwing himself on Him with lavish --and yes, prodigal, love. When he did go into his rehearsed lines, the love intensified. He was given authority back in the home, completely restored. This was not what the son expected.
As Baron said, the point has more to do Jesus telling the crowd that he came to "seek and save that which was lost." He's not interested in those who think they have it all together, those who are righteous on their own and not in need of a Savior. He didn't come to "save the righteous." Each of the three stories centers, and focuses, on the father's extraordinary love.
The story ends with an open dark ending... the rule-abiding elder brother finds himself on the outside looking in. Lost inside the Father's house.
Another apt title for the Story: "Parable of the Two Lost Sons"
Like others, I've often wondered why the father didn't go after the wayward son. My opinion into the story (admitting this isn't entirely supported) is because it was the elder brother's job. In other parts of the Gospel stories, the theme of fellowship, and that we are our "brother's keeper" is a mainstay principle. The elder brothers are responsible for seeking out those who are wandering from morality, not to browbeat them, but to communicate the love of the Father.
Making people moral, just means a cold, elder brother. Communicating love gives another reason to live at peace in the Way of the Father.
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
With all due respect Socialite, it appears that you may be far more guilty of reading into his text than he is of the scriptural text.
Whenever somebody is far out of bounds in regards to interpretation, I'll not defend it. However, based on what I read here, you may be extrapolating more than he is.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
With all due respect Socialite, it appears that you may be far more guilty of reading into his text than he is of the scriptural text.
Whenever somebody is far out of bounds in regards to interpretation, I'll not defend it. However, based on what I read here, you may be extrapolating more than he is.
You have your opinion. But let's be clear, I'm reading into "his" text, not the Text. I don't think I'm "reading in" to far, to come to the conclusion that he has in mind standards. Do you?
Context: This FB Pastor is known for coming up with creative ways to defend unbiblical standards. He pastors a church where standards are a big deal. He's come on here and even commented about them before! Maybe I'll ask him to come on and post what he defines as "the rules" and where he was going with what he said anyway. But is it really that difficult? I mean, really?
Quote:
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 is most definitely far outside the bounds of what this story meant to the "elder brother" Jews and "younger brother" sinners that were there. It's a shame he's made the story about "how good rules are" and not about the Father's extravagant (and Prodigal) love. The Father's rules don't create provision. The Father gives provision. That's precisely the elder brother mentality Jesus was rebuking!
The prodigal left because of the RULES? No sirrree.
When we think of the prodigal son, we often forget the elder brother who never left home. But that elder brother had a problem as well. RULES. The elder brother complained about the younger one who was given such a welcome home with the fatted calf, because the elder never left home and never got anything! It was as though the elder was looking at RULES and WHO DESERVES WHAT due to their goodness. The prodigal's treatment by the father certainly blew apart that idea. And the elder thought that everything was haywire. HE LIVED BY RULES.
The father informed the elder son that the fatted calf was his at any given time and all he had was at the son's disposal. "You mean to tell me that you did not realize you could have taken anything you wanted all this time?"
Living by rules was far from the reason the son left. The elder son stayed and it was a rule-type mentality that kept him from enjoying the father's house! A Behavioural mentality. Do good and get things. The prodigal son blew that theory to pieces! It did not support it!
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
1st. I posted the text...big surprise since I'm the one is frequently referenced by whoever this person is who calls themselves a "Socialite". Does anyone know this person's real name?
Socialite: Please don't re-post again without giving me credit.
I would respond to your silly argument...but it would violate Prov 26:5...and it's another one of those rules I obey.
The prodigal left because of the RULES? No sirrree.
When we think of the prodigal son, we often forget the elder brother who never left home. But that elder brother had a problem as well. RULES. The elder brother complained about the younger one who was given such a welcome home with the fatted calf, because the elder never left home and never got anything! It was as though the elder was looking at RULES and WHO DESERVES WHAT due to their goodness. The prodigal's treatment by the father certainly blew apart that idea. And the elder thought that everything was haywire. HE LIVED BY RULES.
The father informed the elder son that the fatted calf was his at any given time and all he had was at the son's disposal. "You mean to tell me that you did not realize you could have taken anything you wanted all this time?"
Living by rules was far from the reason the son left. The elder son stayed and it was a rule-type mentality that kept him from enjoying the father's house! A Behavioural mentality. Do good and get things. The prodigal son blew that theory to pieces! It did not support it!
The elder brother thought he deserved the lavish grace because he earned it. He did was he was told. He obeyed the rules. And here, the younger son, who did nothing to earn it, was so lavishly celebrated and welcomed, even after he 1) humiliated and denounced his father (a severe social stigma) 2) wasted all the Father had given him. This ticks elder brothers off. "God's gracious gifts should only come to those who deserve and earn it," they thought. The truth was, the elder brother was the second lost son in the Story. And Jesus ends the story with the verdict on the elder brother open.
1st. I posted the text...big surprise since I'm the one is frequently referenced by whoever this person is who calls themselves a "Socialite". Does anyone know this person's real name?
Socialite: Please don't re-post again without giving me credit.
I would respond to your silly argument...but it would violate Prov 26:5...and it's another one of those rules I obey.
Rob McKee
I didn't include your name this time. You chose to come here and make it personal.
As far as including your name, just because you sign your name after every pithy statement doesn't mean we have to do it I don't legally have to give you credit to post something you've said for the sake of discussion. Your voice represents countless others, so it's definitely not an RM bash fest. I thank you for being so vocal for your generation. I would hope you take the criticism in a way other than personal.
My silly argument??? I don't even deserve an explanation, just a dismissive, arrogant jab? You won't interact because of some rule? Rob, frankly, that's a bunch of poo. There's absolutely no reason why you couldn't interact on the topic.
I post here anonymously (with the exception of a few I trust who know me). I prefer it that way for now. I don't find myself defending my status, taking everything personal, etc. It allows me the opportunity to examine and poke holes at ideas. Iron sharpening iron. Though I wouldn't be fearful of taking the time to discuss many of the topics that have come up on here, person-to-person. Really, I prefer more to talk about the topics than you. I don't know you too well, and though you've always seemed like a gracious guy, the chance that our paths every cross is slim to none. We walk in different circles. If you feel you are quoted here too often, it's probably because you are the most active FB pastor I know. You say a lot. That's not a bad thing. Much of what you say is opinionated and some, like your Prodigal Son post, is a little incredible. So I shared it for discussion. Does that offend you?
1st. I posted the text...big surprise since I'm the one is frequently referenced by whoever this person is who calls themselves a "Socialite". Does anyone know this person's real name?
Socialite: Please don't re-post again without giving me credit.
I would respond to your silly argument...but it would violate Prov 26:5...and it's another one of those rules I obey.
OK, you're probably right about those. 
Linear Mode
