jpete79:
Next we look at the two sons. First, we see one who asked for his share of the estate only to squander it later. This is representative of sinners of the world. Christ is talking to sinners who have walked away with the father’s inheritance and squandered it. This is the first group he is talking to. Just as God created us and gave us certain grace, we have walked away disobedient squandering everything he gave us.
Verse 17 is the key part of this because it shows the transformation of the younger son. He realizes that he has sinned against his father and heaven. He realizes that he is no longer worthy to be called his father’s child. Again this is pointed towards the sinners telling them that repentence is needed for the reunion between father and son, between God and us.
After this we see Christ tell of the father celebrating his reunion with his son. They have a feast, they drape him with robes, they kill the best calves for food; why? Because his son was lost and now is found.
Remember at this point, sinners and tax-collectors were still learning about Christ (the crowd he is talking to). This parable is talking about the original reunion between us and God. Our original inheritance which was squandered in the Garden of Eden. Christ is saying if we repent, God will welcome us back and celebrate us. We were dead to sin but we can be reborn through repentence because Christ knew he would be dying so that our inheritance can be regained.
Now we come to the older brother. He is bitter and angry and refused to go in to the banquet in celebration of his younger brother. The older brother is representative of the second group Christ was talking to which is the Pharisees. They don’t understand the concept of grace because to them life was about laws and obeying orders. Finally we see again why there is celebration for the lost son. Because he was dead and is now found.
JPete, I appreciate the effort. And while I agree that you did use a lot of Scripture to prove your point (albeit, it is impossible to do this apart from a lens, because we all approach Scripture with a lens), it does not take a canonical approach to this Scripture. JPete, when you understand that justification equals divine sonship, as Jesus and Paul did, then you understand that your explanation is simply not plausible.
For starters, we only become “sons” AFTER our initial justification. We become sons through becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). Through becoming partakers of the divine nature, we are “adopted” (Rom 8, Gal 4). This is not speculation. This is Biblical fact. Thus, when Jesus is talking about two sons, IF He is indeed paralleling it to His Father in Heaven, then we MUST be talking about two people that are already justified.
C.S. Lewis talks about this in Mere Christianity when he makes the distinction between being created and begotten. When one is begotten, he shares the same nature as his begetter. When one is created, he does not. In the same way I could not adopt my dog as my son, because we do not share natures, neither could God adopt us without sharing his nature. Thus, it is metaphysically impossible and thus a legal fiction, to state that the two “sons” are anything other than already justified. That was a valiant effort, but poor exegesis.
Now follow me. Since these two must already be justified to be called his sons in the parable, this MUST reflect that one can squander their inheritance. Paul deals with this in Galatians 4. He states,
“7So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.” So, we become “heirs” or gain our “inheritance” through becoming a son. It makes no sense for you to assert that someone who is not justified has squandered his inheritance. No slave has an inheritance to squander. He ONLY gains this inheritance through becoming a son. This is the only way of interpreting this parable in being true to the text.
Finally, what you say about the brother is also flawed. Again, the brother was called a “son”. Then comes the part that you conveniently left out. It states, **“31” ‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. **32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ " Thus, the father makes it very clear that HIS SON, SHARES IN EVERYTHING of his. It would be improper to make the comparison to the older son and the pharisees and leave it at that, because the pharisees are not “sons”, and they do not share “everything” with the Father. Now, you did a good job coming up with a plausible explanation. However, to be honest to the WHOLE of the text, you are going to have to revisit that explanation.
I don’t see any proof about OSAS in this parable that the son couldn’t walk away again, (although having once lived with pigs he probably wouldn’t want to.) And yes, a rebellious son is still a son; but when he was rebellious, he walked away from his father and his father let him.
Kendy:
.