The Prodigal Son examined

I just wanted to add a question. Do you know the difference between interpreting a text and applying it. After you read Matthew 21:32, which interprets the preceding 4 verses, I will tell you where the disagreement is, which really isn't a disagreement, you just are completely misunderstanding me.

Parable of Two Sons.

a. Setting (Matthew 21:23 Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?”

1. Who the parable is directed to- Chief priests and elders
2. Occasion- Jesus' authority challenged by the chief priests and elders

B. Lead up to parable- (Matthew 21:24-27) Jesus asks them about John's baptism, origin from man or God, they avoid the question.

c. The parable- 28 “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ 29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. 30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.

d. Question and answer- 31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
“The first,” they answered.

e. The parable explained- Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. (religious leaders) 32 For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

Observations-

a. First son- said he would not go work in the field, but afterward repented and went.
Second son, said he would but did not go.

b. Nothing said IN THE PARABLE about prostitures, tax collecters, chief priests and elders. They were two sons, one who first disobeyed, then repented, and one who payed lip service but did not obey. THAT IS ALL THE PARABLE Says about them.

c. Verses 31 and 32 interprets the parable for us. The CONTEXT explains the meaning of the parable.

d. The tax collectors and prostitutes were the first son, the religious leaders were the second. Just as I said all along.

e. The parable is found in verses 28-30. The interpretation of the parable is found in verses 31-32

f. This is the INTERPRETATION OF THE PARABLE. Jesus was speaking of tax collectors, harlots, and religious leaders when he was speaking. That is the interpretation.

But the parable can apply to us. That is called an Application

The parable of the Prodigal son

a. Setting (Luke 15:1-2)

b. One of three parables with the same setting and purpose. (lost sheep, lost coin, lost son)

c. Interpretation. The interpretation of the parables is found in the setting. LUKE 15:1-2 explains the parable. That is how we are to interpret the parable. Just like the context in Matthew 21 explains that parable.

d. Application- 1. Like the prodigal son, God shows mercy to us. 2. we should not be unloving and judgemental like the scribes and pharisees, but should rejoice when a sinner comes to God.

The three parables considered. lost sheep, lost coin, lost son.

Point of first two- (lost sheep, lost coin)

a. Jesus came to seek and save the lost.
b. There is joy in heaven when a lost person is found.

Point of last- (prodigal son)

it is fitting FOR THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS OF JESUS' DAY AND US to rejoice with heaven when a lost person comes home.

Two parables in Matthew 21 considered

a. Two sons- Sinners coming into the Kingdom of God before self righteous religious people do. Religious people going about to establish their own righteousness and not submitting to the righteousness of God.

b. Vinedressers parable- The kingdom of God is being taken away from the people Jesus is speaking (religious leaders) to and given to others. Which includes Gentiles.

OK, that is a full explanation. If you still want to argue about it, I don't have any reason to continue this discussion. If you want to discuss it further, that is fine.

Oh brother.


I’ve heard it all now!




JPT

Who the blazes is Marcelo, and where is this view? I have seen neither a Marcelo nor this view presented here. Is he an imaginary friend? Or a strawman?

Cause no one has that name nor fits that description that I have seen here. Maybe you should write novels.

Who in the world is Marcelo? I have not seen that name here, nor have I seen anyone that even comes close to presenting that view on this thread. Is he an imaginary friend? Or perhaps you're working on a novel.

I hope you're not saying that's what I am arguing for, because if you are you need to either buy glasses or read more carefully.

Marcelo is Absolutely's alter ego? I don't know who this guy is or who holds the view that Absolutely spoke of, do you?

Oh sorry, there is a Marcelo. But I didn't know he posted here. Sorry Absolutely.

DO you think I am Marcelo? That's hilarious, because I don't know if Marcelo believes the things you typed of him believing, but I definitely don't believe that way. SO you've been arguing with me because you thought I was someone else?

What did I say that made you think I hold those views? If you think the things I said add up to those views, then I'm worried, because I didn't say anything the Bible didn't say.

Tell me one thing I said that I did not back up with scripture. You can't

If you think the prodigal was saved before he left the Father, then you believe in multiple regenerations. Because the Father said "my son who was dead is now alive." So He was alive, died, and then is alive again. That's multiple regenerations.

Saved, died, saved again...that is what your interpretation says when you take it to it;s logical conclusion

Mine does not do so...Because I do not hold that the prodigal, ie the publicans and sinners, were alive (saved). then died, then were alive again. That is multiple regeneration

When was the gospel to the Jew only? My goodness, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Rahab, Ruth, and others must be REALLY disappointed!

No, the Gospel has always been the same...justification by faith. In the OT, looking forward to the cross in faith, in the NT looking to Christ's finished work on the cross in faith. You are confusing the Law with the Gospel. See John 1:17

the only looking glass I use is CONTEXT. Are you saying we should UTTERLY IGNORE context when reading the scriptures?

If you think using the rules of interpretation like context, setting, occasion, purpose, etc is one dimensional I wonder how you come up with your interpretations. Do you make up your mind before you read and then interpret the scriptures thusly?

So in other words, the parable had absolutely NOTHING to do with the setting or who Jesus was talking to or what was happening at the time when He told the parable. Really interesting interpretation you have going, Absolutely.

There is and has always been ONLY ONE GOSPEL.

Jesus and the apostles used exegesis

The father of the produgal represents the heavenly father and his operational household with his family of sons.

If you need the starting place to be something/somewhere else than we will just have to let you make it into that .
My job is to report from the bible. Not make it fit my beliefs

My battery was going dead and i had the screen illuminated super low .
Been debating with marcello,and transposed the names.
But it was my bad.
At least some others got some fodder to do what their gifting is. Playing the put down card.
Lol
They do have their place on every forum it seems.

The 2 sons were equal before the produgal left.
The produgal HAD AN INHERITANCE ,a good one that he squandered.
The lost have no starting place with the father,brethren,inheritance.

So your position is rediculous.
You are staring with doctrine,then cunningly transposing it onto scripture.

My starting point is the first verse of the chapter. IN other words, context.

So do you think I hold to that ridiculous stuff you posted about me them? If anyone ever demonstrated that they were not reading another's posts, you did, when you put all those absurdities on me.

Luke 15: Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

1. Let's see...the prodigal was lost and dead and returning to his father...

The publicans and sinners were lost and dead, and were coming to Jesus, and were now alive and found

The elder son was complaining about the prodigal coming home.

The scribes and Pharisees were complaining about the publicans coming home.

2. The Kingdom of God was about to be taken from the scribes and Pharisees and given to others in Matthew 21, SO IT HADNT BEEN TAKEN FROM THEM YET?

Matthew 21:Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

The scribes and Pharisees were still in the vineyard. They had not yet crucified the Son of the king

Matthew 21:38-39
But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

who saw the son and cast him out and slew him. THE HUSBABNDMEN. Where were the husbandmen? In the VINEYARD.
What happened to the husbandmen that slew the son of the king?

Matthew 21:They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

Who is this talking about?

Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Matthew 21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

3. Not to mention, the two sons in Matthew 21:28-32, they were both sons. SO you don't think that as sons they had an inheritance too?

Were the Jews sons?

Romans 9:4- 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

does adoption make one a legal son? You bet your macaroni and cheese it does.

So the publicans and sinners had been sons, but they left God and died. But they came back and lived.

and the scribes and Pharisees thought they were with God, but forsook God in unbelief and perished, the kingdom of God being taken from them and given to sinners of Jew and Gentiles

The Publicans and sinners had been dead but now lived. The scribes and Pharisees thought that they were alive, but were dead as coffins.

What was the difference between the two? What they did with Jesus.

If we agree that the two sons in Matthew 21:28-32 were

a. chief priests and elders
b. Publicans and harlots.

and since under the law, sons had an inheritance from the father.

How is it wrong to interpret the two sons in Luke 15 as

a. scribes and pharisees
b. publicans and sinners.

When verses 1-2 give us the setting, occasion, and purpose of the parables.

a. setting, Jesus eating with publicans and sinners
b. Occasion, scribes and Pharisees murmering that He is eating with sinners
c. purpose, an answer to the murmering of the scribes and Pharisees.

iu
Under the law, would the two sons in Matthew 21:28-32 have had an inheritance and a starting place?

and didn't you say that the two sons in that parable represented.

one son unbelieving religious leaders and

second son harlots and publicans.

How would these two sons be different from a legal perspective from the sons in Luke 15

your arguments are not well thought out and all over the map

For the sake of argument, I'm going to see where your interpretation leads...

So I assume from your comments that this parable only fits a born again Christian context. Ok, so the prodigal is a backslider who returns to Jesus and the older brother is a Christian who has been faithful to God through and through, and complains and is upset about the backslider being forgiven.

OK, so this is not directed at the Scribes, Pharisees, publicans, and sinners at all. It is a lesson to the disciples on how to treat a penitent. Not as the Pharisees treated the penitent publicans and sinners, but to receive them joyfully.

But it's apples and oranges then, because the publicans and sinners, as you say, are children of the devil, and the parable does not fit them.

But they are not children of the devil anymore, because they have come to Jesus in faith.

OK, but still, you say, the prodigal represents Christians who have an inheritance, squander it, and repent and come back. Ok.

So now you have a Christian who backslides, dies, no longer has a ring ( I wonder if you know what the ring represents), is lost, and then comes back and is found, made alive, given a ring, and restored to his place in the family. Sounds like repeated regeneration to me.

But then you can say that the words "lost" and "dead" and "found" and "alive again" ae not literal. OK, so what parts are literal? Maybe the parts are non literal symbols that illustrate a literal truth.

And the truth that they illustrate is known by referring to context, ie the PRECEDING VERSES, including and especially the verses that give setting, occasion, purpose, who is being addressed, etc.

BTW, I am not saying that the backslidden Christian is not a valid APPLICATION. It is a valid application. I am not talking about applications here, I am talking about interpretation. You must interpret a text before you apply it, because if you apply it without interpreting it, it is you who is making the text say what you want it to say.

Unless you have something of substance to say, I will reply no further.

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

The prodigal was a sons that had fully departed from God. The elder brother was a son who thought he was near God, and locally was near, but in heart was just as far away from God as the Prodigal.

They both were lost. Just because the elder was in the Father's house, doesnt mean his heart was right. The fact that his heart was not right was demonstrated that he did not show love for his brother.

Just like a "christian" can be in church every sunday, and do all the Christian things, and be lost as a goose.

The Jews were Israelites, and Israel was called God's son. Jesus came to call them to return. The publicans and sinners came, the religious people didnt. JUST LIKE IN THE PARABLE OF THE TWO SONS IN MATTHEW 21:29-32

So the kingdom of God was taken away from the religious leaders and given to others.

Jesus was referring to Israel and Judah as the two sons. (Two kingdoms) both loved by the Father. One wayward, one stayed at home (Judah- Jeruslalem), one knew they were sinners, the other refused to acknowledge the other brother and was resentful.

Jesus told this parable and the Pharisees recongnised they were the first son in the parable. Remember Saul was a pHarisee who came to Jesus so its possible he was like the first son. The second son was like the publicans and sinners the Pharisees despised...anyone who wasnt as religious and faithful as they were. Yet the publicans and sinners came back to the Father.

Yes christians can interpret the parable to mean the born again reality of knowing our Father but that isnt really the context of the parable. It does speak of a spiritual reality though...Ultimately all of us who were drawn to the Father will be at some stage adopted into Gods family and become his sons/daughters.