Prodigal Son Distorted by FB Pastor

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Socialite

The "WHY" isn't the subject of the story. Period.

We can speculate, but really, you and I are both the Prodigal. We are Adam. We are sinners. The point is, the Prodigal was a sinner. He tried living life his own way. Reading "rules" into this story molests the picture and distorts it into a completely different picture.

The only "rule abider" in the story is the elder brother. Coincidentally, I believe this is who the story was primarily directed to, the elder brother Pharisees and "righteous" Jews who hated that Jesus was hanging with sinners.

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.

Gill: Luk 15:12 And the younger of them said to his father,.... God's chosen ones among the publicans and sinners, are fitly signified by the younger son, since man, as a sinner, is younger than man as righteous; and since there are instances of God's choice of the younger, before the elder, as Jacob before Esau, &c. and the characters and conduct of young men agree with God's elect, in a state of nature; who are imprudent and ignorant, without any knowledge of divine and spiritual things, and of themselves, their state and condition, and of Christ, and salvation by him; and yet are conceited of themselves, and fancy themselves very wise and knowing, and capable of acting for themselves, independent, and without any assistance or advice; do not care to be under restraints, withdraw from all yokes, and break all bands asunder; and so become children of disobedience, prone to every vice, and servants and slaves to every lust; by which they are deceived, and in which they take a great deal of imaginary pleasure; and are often envious and spiteful, and live in malice, hateful, and hating one another: the request made by this younger son, is "to his Father"; to God, who was his Father by creation, by providential care, and by national adoption, and by special grace; though as yet he knew it not, nor could he call him so in faith: many call God Father, who should not, and many that should, do not: the request follows;

[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]

The prodigal son left the Father's house in rebellion against "the rules" and the "rule maker". The prodigal is you and I, he is Adam. He left for the same reason we all do. Either way, that's not in the story. Stick to the story.
That's why the older brother (who also had problems...but not that he was a Pharisee...lol...that was funny) What's funny is your post-modern biblical hermeneutics.

claimed to keep them. "I've labored...I've served...I've obeyed...unlike JR. Why did he come home? The "rules" didn't change...neither did the "rule maker" You've made rules a central part of a story where they weren't. NICE!

He decided that he could handle living with the Father's rules as long as he could enjoy Daddy's fried chicken. What's so "distorted" and "twisted" about this application of the story? How about the fact that this is never what it was about?? The focus wasn't Daddy's rules. It was firstly about a Prodigal God who loves us despite our failings, and secondly, if see anything in "JR" it's our rebellion against God PERIOD --

Finally...someone stated that the message of the parable is simple...one dimensional...simply stating one truth or couldn't be applied to more than one thing. That's completely ridiculous. Even Jesus referred to it at least 38 Old Testament Characters on more than one occasion to illustrate different lessons of spiritual truths. One scripture in the Bible can teach 100 lessons. As long as it does not contradict and supports other scripture. And you, sir, are a post-modern interpreter. You don't believe his words meant something in particular to the audience that heard it, but that it's some prose we chew on, and write on it like a great chalkboard, reading how WE perceive it, and what it means to US.

I understand some see separation differently than I do...I accept that. I have no ax to grind with those that do. We all believe in Biblical separation at some level...hopefully. Yeah, we believe it on a biblical level. Called out from being selfish, self-indulgent, liars, thieves... you know, the popular stuff. It's simply a matter of where that line is drawn.

Christianity was never supposed to be a list of rules...neither was it supposed to be absent of all of them. That's funny, you just turned one of the most beautiful parables into an entire commentary about rulesIt's funny to me when I'm referred to as an ultra-conservative. If I am...we are in major trouble...ha.In light of all your other Christian brothers and sisters, You most definitely are.

Bottom line is... Just like the story of the Prodigal...When you reject God's rules...you're headed for famine. (Yet another application of twisting text to mean something different than...yada yada...) At least you're aware of what you're doing. That's popular preaching that day... "That was soooooo good beau. You just raped the mess out of that Text, but man it was sooooooooooo creative. Who cares what the words meant, we care what you think it means... talk about tithing in the Prodigal.Talk about giving to the poor. Any topic you want. Why don't you guys quit using biblical texts and just make up your stories?



Have a wonderful evening...

May yours be just as wonderful.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Socialite View Post
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

MB SAID:
Unless he specified that, it isn't a fair assumption to make [that he's referencing manmade rules]. He could just as easily be talking about God's commandments.

Sorry, MB... his rant about the few, the proud, the Apostolics actually fortified what I suspected. But technically, you are correct.

[Socialite]

Quote:
Finally...someone stated that the message of the parable is simple...one dimensional...simply stating one truth or couldn't be applied to more than one thing. That's completely ridiculous. Even Jesus referred to it at least 38 Old Testament Characters on more than one occasion to illustrate different lessons of spiritual truths. One scripture in the Bible can teach 100 lessons. As long as it does not contradict and supports other scripture.
I absolutely agree. There are layers and layers of lessons to be uncovered in every Bible story and parable. It would be short sighted to say that we can only pull out the most generic truth from each one and apply that one to our lives.

Well, that's you "pot o' gold Apostolics." Dig out a new treasure each time.

Fact is, in application, there are a myriad of ways we apply a story. In discovering authorial intent, what was originally heard to the audience, this is not always the case. Jesus had a specific purpose, intent and mission. He wasn't saying 5,000 things. He was declaring one thing: the Kingdom of God.

To suggest the story of the lost son is about how family relationships deter people from faith, about obeying rules, about anything outside of the father's prodigal, extravagant love to sinners --- contrasted with those who consider themselves righteous --- is to miss his point entirely.

In most parables, Jesus actually tells us what they mean.

I've bought-in to the "layers" fluff for many years. There are loopholes in that a mile long that destroy the value, and leave behind few checks and balances in biblical interpretation.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Well, that's you "pot o' gold Apostolics." Dig out a new treasure each time.

Fact is, in application, there are a myriad of ways we apply a story. In discovering authorial intent, what was originally heard to the audience, this is not always the case. Jesus had a specific purpose, intent and mission. He wasn't saying 5,000 things. He was declaring one thing: the Kingdom of God.

To suggest the story of the lost son is about how family relationships deter people from faith, about obeying rules, about anything outside of the father's prodigal, extravagant love to sinners --- contrasted with those who consider themselves righteous --- is to miss his point entirely.

In most parables, Jesus actually tells us what they mean.

I've bought-in to the "layers" fluff for many years. There are loopholes in that a mile long that destroy the value, and leave behind few checks and balances in biblical interpretation.

I'm opposed to proof texting, so if that's what you're referring to then we're in agreement. However, I think the Bible is much more complex than what you propose, and I think it is highly likely that God did weave many layers of wisdom into every little verse. But hey, if you have all those "simple truths" figured out, then by all means--write a commentary and the rest of us can just stop studying and go by your interpretation. (Lest we be guilty of the "fluff" approach.)

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm opposed to proof texting, so if that's what you're referring to then we're in agreement. However, I think the Bible is much more complex than what you propose, and I think it is highly likely that God did weave many layers of wisdom into every little verse. But hey, if you have all those "simple truths" figured out, then by all means--write a commentary and the rest of us can just stop studying and go by your interpretation. (Lest we be guilty of the "fluff" approach.)

The Bible is stories written down by an author who was trying to convey a truth. In this case, it's a Gospel writer (Luke, the only one who records this story) talking about the Kingdom of God. He had a specific purpose in writing what he did. He was not possessed and his hand taken over by the Almighty -- nor is that was "inspired of God" means.

My original pastor was the King of "multiple layers." He could be more creative than anyone. Personally, I think if we could understand and accept the single layer of wisdom, we'd do pretty well.

I don't doubt the Bible has multiple applications from simple principles. I also don't doubt the Bible doesn't speak to us individually in different ways in different seasons of our life. But interpreting the Bible like an easter egg hunt of goodies is not responsible exegesis and can be quite dangerous. It turns the reliance of what a Text means on us, not on the writer. The writer loses his pen.

I didn't say I had all the answers, so let's not be silly.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Socialite

The Bible is stories written down by an author who was trying to convey a truth. In this case, it's a Gospel writer (Luke, the only one who records this story) talking about the Kingdom of God. He had a specific purpose in writing what he did. He was not possessed and his hand taken over by the Almighty -- nor is that was "inspired of God" means.

My original pastor was the King of "multiple layers." He could be more creative than anyone. Personally, I think if we could understand and accept the single layer of wisdom, we'd do pretty well.

I don't doubt the Bible has multiple applications from simple principles. I also don't doubt the Bible doesn't speak to us individually in different ways in different seasons of our life. But interpreting the Bible like an easter egg hunt of goodies is not responsible exegesis and can be quite dangerous. It turns the reliance of what a Text means on us, not on the writer. The writer loses his pen.

I didn't say I had all the answers, so let's not be silly.

Well put; I agree. In this case, the story teller/author was Jesus-not Luke. Luke only transcribed it.

The problem is, even when we closely examine such stories using responsible exegesis and try to figure out the author's intent, we still come up with as many interpretations as belly buttons.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Well put; I agree. In this case, the story teller/author was Jesus-not Luke. Luke only transcribed it.

The problem is, even when we closely examine such stories using responsible exegesis and try to figure out the author's intent, we still come up with as many interpretations as belly buttons.

True, Luke quoted Jesus, but like the other Gospels (John getting the most praise), the writers are framing a story using clips from the Master. Like a video editing project. Luke is trying to convey something about Jesus by providing even his own words.

What you said in the bold is true: we still come up with many interpretations and sometimes murky waters of disagreement (1 Cor 11, for example). But we must be honest when that happens. Also, many times this happens because of a disregard of authorial intent. I don't pretend to suggest that exegesis is easy, or that I'm the master. But going through great pains and disciplines to make sure we are striving to preserve the words and meaning once given, is critical.

Creativity is good, but it should never override exegesis.

[OldPathsII]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Well put; I agree. In this case, the story teller/author was Jesus-not Luke. Luke only transcribed it.

The problem is, even when we closely examine such stories using responsible exegesis and try to figure out the author's intent, we still come up with as many interpretations as belly buttons.

I see that your an Administrator here. I'm a little new, but I've heard a lot of things about this forum that aren't so good. But if your viewpoints that I've read are the kind that are leading this forum, it's in safe hands! Thank God for people who aren't afraid to realize the rules are not there to hurt us but to help us.

Some people view the fence as something that holds us in. But in reality, it's something that keeps out the things that can destroy us!