Interpreting the parable of the prodigal son

[MyrtleTrees]

Hi! Last night, after bedtime, i listened to John MacArthur teach about the Prodigal son parable. I hadn't heard that interpretation before - but agree it may be accurate. I hadn't realized that the older son might refer to the Pharisees that Jesus was telling this parable to.

I looked online now to see if other Christians have interpreted the parable that way too. And I found one good one here:
https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-prodigal-son.html

 

[Corban]

Hi! Last night, after bedtime, i listened to John MacArthur teach about the Prodigal son parable. I hadn't heard that interpretation before - but agree it may be accurate. I hadn't realized that the older son might refer to the Pharisees that Jesus was telling this parable to.

I looked online now to see if other Christians have interpreted the parable that way too. And I found one good one here:
https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-prodigal-son.html

The context of the Parable is easily seen (Luke 15:1-10). It is the rejoicing of the Father over the return of one wayward Christian. But what is often missed is that the Parable continues into Chapter 16. But first, the Parable.

The number two is the number of "witness". The "younger" indicates the less mature. The parable is not about the son losing his "Sonship", but of losing his INHERITANCE. He asked for his portion early - while the testator was still alive. The younger son LEFT his Father and his Father's House. He "WASTED" his inheritance and landed as a servant of "that country" - the present world. "Swine" are unclean animals. The "citizent of that country" refused him even the husks of the swine food. He comes to his senses. He plans to return and be an hired servant. He is seen afar off and given the royal welcome. The loyal son is angry and sorrowful that the irreverent son was given such a welcome. He is admonished by his Father that he should have rejoiced at the return of the wayward brother. But the Father also advises the loyal son that (i) he would be forever with the Father and that ALL that the Father owned would be, and already was, under the control of this loyal son. This IMPLIES that the wayward son would not receive an iheritance and would not remain in the presence of the Father.

The context in verses 1-10 is "he", "she" and the "angels of God". "He" would be Christ according to the context. "She" would be the Church. Both our Lord Jesus AND His Bride - the Church, should be looking to restore wayward "sons". The rejoicing is in heaven. The only "Father" in heaven is God. If the Father is God, then the "sons" must be Christians (Jn.1:12-13). The Christian's INHERITANCE is not NOW. It is (i) for him when he is mature, and (ii) when our Lord, the chiefest of Sons, gets His inheritance when He returns to earth. The wayward Christian son wanted his portion in this age, and in this worldly setup. It is TEMPORAL and is used up. He goes downhill until he serves the swine and is unclean and regarded as not alive anymore, having fully gone back to the world. He thinks to come home and SERVE, but his SONSHIP is confirmed by the robe and the sandals (servants in Middle Eastern lands may not wear their shoes in the master's house). His INHERITANCE is gone but his SONSHIP is not.

The loyal son shows his true colors. He is equally fallen, but was a diligent STEWARD. He is NOT overjoyed at his brother's repentance. He is not overjoyed at his brothers odyssey from "death to life". And he is hard towards his Father in two ways. (i) he did not share his Father's joy, and (ii) he wanted to share joy "with his friends" - NOT his Father! He is as fallen as his brother but he was a GOOD STEWARD of his Father's GOODS. Thus, the Parable shows these two points. (i) Neither son cared for his Father, BUT (ii) one was a GOOD STEWARD of his Father's goods in this age.

Now, if you cover the Chapter marking (for the original texts do not have chapter and verse), you will at once realize that Luke Chapter 16 is a CONTINUATION of the narrative. Verse 1 says; "And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods." The word "also" means the narrative continues with the next aspect. The phrase "wasted his master's goods" is almost identical to "and there wasted his substance ... ." That is, the SON of Chapter 15 is the STEWARD of Chapter 16. The result! The prodigal son does not lose his SONSHIP, but he loses his STEWARDSHIP. He may no longer manage his father's goods. Added to this, while he might be welcomed back in his REPENTANCE he must seek his lodgings with the UNBELIEVER. That is, he may not live in the Father's presence. His self-interest is shown in how he further mismanages his Father's goods. Then the sense of the parable is revealed - "the children of the LIGHT" (16:8)! Where do we find an equivalent in scripture?

The EQUIVALENT is found in the Parable of the Talents in Matthew Chapter 25, and the Parable of the Pounds in Luke Chapter 19. In both cases the man is a "servant", but also a STEWARD of the Master's Goods. In both cases the "goods" are taken away from him. In both cases he is rebuked and may not serve any longer. In both cases he is told to be removed from Christ's presence. In both cases the Parable is NOT ABOUT LOSING "SERVANTHOOD", but losing STEWARDSHIP. In both cases the Parable is about the Kingdom that Jesus will set up WHEN HE RETURNS.

I propose that the two main meanings of the Parable of the Prodigal son are:

1. A repentant Christian is always welcomed back, and causes joy in the House (the Church) and heaven
2. But his ACTIONS have consequences. He is cast out of the Father's presence, has his goods removed and may no longer be a STEWARD - although his sonship is never removed

This shows that a Christian is a son of God and his sins are forgiven, but that how he manages his Father's goods IN THIS AGE, will be met with LOSS or REWARD because of his ACTIONS (or works). In the next age, the age of Christ's Kingdom, the wayward Christian will NOT be allowed to be a co-king with Jesus, and NOT be allowed to be in the presence of Christ for 1,000 years. This is again confirmed in Matthew 24:45-51. His status as a "servant" is not changed, but his REWARD is turned to LOSS for being a bad STEWARD.

 

[garee]

The context of the Parable is easily seen (Luke 15:1-10). It is the rejoicing of the Father over the return of one wayward Christian. But what is often missed is that the Parable continues into Chapter 16. But first, the Parable.

The number two is the number of "witness". The "younger" indicates the less mature. The parable is not about the son losing his "Sonship", but of losing his INHERITANCE. He asked for his portion early - while the testator was still alive. The younger son LEFT his Father and his Father's House. He "WASTED" his inheritance and landed as a servant of "that country" - the present world. "Swine" are unclean animals. The "citizent of that country" refused him even the husks of the swine food. He comes to his senses. He plans to return and be an hired servant. He is seen afar off and given the royal welcome. The loyal son is angry and sorrowful that the irreverent son was given such a welcome. He is admonished by his Father that he should have rejoiced at the return of the wayward brother. But the Father also advises the loyal son that (i) he would be forever with the Father and that ALL that the Father owned would be, and already was, under the control of this loyal son. This IMPLIES that the wayward son would not receive an iheritance and would not remain in the presence of the Father.

The context in verses 1-10 is "he", "she" and the "angels of God". "He" would be Christ according to the context. "She" would be the Church. Both our Lord Jesus AND His Bride - the Church, should be looking to restore wayward "sons". The rejoicing is in heaven. The only "Father" in heaven is God. If the Father is God, then the "sons" must be Christians (Jn.1:12-13). The Christian's INHERITANCE is not NOW. It is (i) for him when he is mature, and (ii) when our Lord, the chiefest of Sons, gets His inheritance when He returns to earth. The wayward Christian son wanted his portion in this age, and in this worldly setup. It is TEMPORAL and is used up. He goes downhill until he serves the swine and is unclean and regarded as not alive anymore, having fully gone back to the world. He thinks to come home and SERVE, but his SONSHIP is confirmed by the robe and the sandals (servants in Middle Eastern lands may not wear their shoes in the master's house). His INHERITANCE is gone but his SONSHIP is not.

The loyal son shows his true colors. He is equally fallen, but was a diligent STEWARD. He is NOT overjoyed at his brother's repentance. He is not overjoyed at his brothers odyssey from "death to life". And he is hard towards his Father in two ways. (i) he did not share his Father's joy, and (ii) he wanted to share joy "with his friends" - NOT his Father! He is as fallen as his brother but he was a GOOD STEWARD of his Father's GOODS. Thus, the Parable shows these two points. (i) Neither son cared for his Father, BUT (ii) one was a GOOD STEWARD of his Father's goods in this age.

Now, if you cover the Chapter marking (for the original texts do not have chapter and verse), you will at once realize that Luke Chapter 16 is a CONTINUATION of the narrative. Verse 1 says; "And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods." The word "also" means the narrative continues with the next aspect. The phrase "wasted his master's goods" is almost identical to "and there wasted his substance ... ." That is, the SON of Chapter 15 is the STEWARD of Chapter 16. The result! The prodigal son does not lose his SONSHIP, but he loses his STEWARDSHIP. He may no longer manage his father's goods. Added to this, while he might be welcomed back in his REPENTANCE he must seek his lodgings with the UNBELIEVER. That is, he may not live in the Father's presence. His self-interest is shown in how he further mismanages his Father's goods. Then the sense of the parable is revealed - "the children of the LIGHT" (16:8)! Where do we find an equivalent in scripture?

The EQUIVALENT is found in the Parable of the Talents in Matthew Chapter 25, and the Parable of the Pounds in Luke Chapter 19. In both cases the man is a "servant", but also a STEWARD of the Master's Goods. In both cases the "goods" are taken away from him. In both cases he is rebuked and may not serve any longer. In both cases he is told to be removed from Christ's presence. In both cases the Parable is NOT ABOUT LOSING "SERVANTHOOD", but losing STEWARDSHIP. In both cases the Parable is about the Kingdom that Jesus will set up WHEN HE RETURNS.

I propose that the two main meanings of the Parable of the Prodigal son are:

1. A repentant Christian is always welcomed back, and causes joy in the House (the Church) and heaven
2. But his ACTIONS have consequences. He is cast out of the Father's presence, has his goods removed and may no longer be a STEWARD - although his sonship is never removed

This shows that a Christian is a son of God and his sins are forgiven, but that how he manages his Father's goods IN THIS AGE, will be met with LOSS or REWARD because of his ACTIONS (or works). In the next age, the age of Christ's Kingdom, the wayward Christian will NOT be allowed to be a co-king with Jesus, and NOT be allowed to be in the presence of Christ for 1,000 years. This is again confirmed in Matthew 24:45-51. His status as a "servant" is not changed, but his REWARD is turned to LOSS for being a bad STEWARD.

I like to refer to it as; "The parable of the waiting Father". The first works of his longsuffering labor of love .

The sons belief and unbelief.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

The context of the Parable is easily seen (Luke 15:1-10). It is the rejoicing of the Father over the return of one wayward Christian. But what is often missed is that the Parable continues into Chapter 16. But first, the Parable.

The number two is the number of "witness". The "younger" indicates the less mature. The parable is not about the son losing his "Sonship", but of losing his INHERITANCE. He asked for his portion early - while the testator was still alive. The younger son LEFT his Father and his Father's House. He "WASTED" his inheritance and landed as a servant of "that country" - the present world. "Swine" are unclean animals. The "citizent of that country" refused him even the husks of the swine food. He comes to his senses. He plans to return and be an hired servant. He is seen afar off and given the royal welcome. The loyal son is angry and sorrowful that the irreverent son was given such a welcome. He is admonished by his Father that he should have rejoiced at the return of the wayward brother. But the Father also advises the loyal son that (i) he would be forever with the Father and that ALL that the Father owned would be, and already was, under the control of this loyal son. This IMPLIES that the wayward son would not receive an iheritance and would not remain in the presence of the Father.

The context in verses 1-10 is "he", "she" and the "angels of God". "He" would be Christ according to the context. "She" would be the Church. Both our Lord Jesus AND His Bride - the Church, should be looking to restore wayward "sons". The rejoicing is in heaven. The only "Father" in heaven is God. If the Father is God, then the "sons" must be Christians (Jn.1:12-13). The Christian's INHERITANCE is not NOW. It is (i) for him when he is mature, and (ii) when our Lord, the chiefest of Sons, gets His inheritance when He returns to earth. The wayward Christian son wanted his portion in this age, and in this worldly setup. It is TEMPORAL and is used up. He goes downhill until he serves the swine and is unclean and regarded as not alive anymore, having fully gone back to the world. He thinks to come home and SERVE, but his SONSHIP is confirmed by the robe and the sandals (servants in Middle Eastern lands may not wear their shoes in the master's house). His INHERITANCE is gone but his SONSHIP is not.

The loyal son shows his true colors. He is equally fallen, but was a diligent STEWARD. He is NOT overjoyed at his brother's repentance. He is not overjoyed at his brothers odyssey from "death to life". And he is hard towards his Father in two ways. (i) he did not share his Father's joy, and (ii) he wanted to share joy "with his friends" - NOT his Father! He is as fallen as his brother but he was a GOOD STEWARD of his Father's GOODS. Thus, the Parable shows these two points. (i) Neither son cared for his Father, BUT (ii) one was a GOOD STEWARD of his Father's goods in this age.

Now, if you cover the Chapter marking (for the original texts do not have chapter and verse), you will at once realize that Luke Chapter 16 is a CONTINUATION of the narrative. Verse 1 says; "And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods." The word "also" means the narrative continues with the next aspect. The phrase "wasted his master's goods" is almost identical to "and there wasted his substance ... ." That is, the SON of Chapter 15 is the STEWARD of Chapter 16. The result! The prodigal son does not lose his SONSHIP, but he loses his STEWARDSHIP. He may no longer manage his father's goods. Added to this, while he might be welcomed back in his REPENTANCE he must seek his lodgings with the UNBELIEVER. That is, he may not live in the Father's presence. His self-interest is shown in how he further mismanages his Father's goods. Then the sense of the parable is revealed - "the children of the LIGHT" (16:8)! Where do we find an equivalent in scripture?

The EQUIVALENT is found in the Parable of the Talents in Matthew Chapter 25, and the Parable of the Pounds in Luke Chapter 19. In both cases the man is a "servant", but also a STEWARD of the Master's Goods. In both cases the "goods" are taken away from him. In both cases he is rebuked and may not serve any longer. In both cases he is told to be removed from Christ's presence. In both cases the Parable is NOT ABOUT LOSING "SERVANTHOOD", but losing STEWARDSHIP. In both cases the Parable is about the Kingdom that Jesus will set up WHEN HE RETURNS.

I propose that the two main meanings of the Parable of the Prodigal son are:

1. A repentant Christian is always welcomed back, and causes joy in the House (the Church) and heaven
2. But his ACTIONS have consequences. He is cast out of the Father's presence, has his goods removed and may no longer be a STEWARD - although his sonship is never removed

This shows that a Christian is a son of God and his sins are forgiven, but that how he manages his Father's goods IN THIS AGE, will be met with LOSS or REWARD because of his ACTIONS (or works). In the next age, the age of Christ's Kingdom, the wayward Christian will NOT be allowed to be a co-king with Jesus, and NOT be allowed to be in the presence of Christ for 1,000 years. This is again confirmed in Matthew 24:45-51. His status as a "servant" is not changed, but his REWARD is turned to LOSS for being a bad STEWARD.

I read through John 15-16 before replying back to you now. It refreshed my mind as to what is in these chapters.

If the prodigal son parable is about the same subject as in the rest of 15 & 16 -then it looks to me that they all (except for those that repent sincerely) refer to lost, unsaved people who need to be saved. And I can agree that the 2 sons, in the beginning of the Prodigal son parable - were regarded as "sons of God." But the term, "son of God" - doesn't always refer to those who are true children of God, in the scriptures. Think of Adam and of all "sheep" as belonging to God - though not immediately or sometimes never - true children of God.

Gen 6:2

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
KJV

Luke 3:38

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
KJV
John 10:16

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
KJV

Also, to me, it looks like God's children when mentioned in the Bible, never are described as "lost." They do need disciplining now and then. But to me, the word, "lost" means 'unsaved."
Matt 18:11-13

11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
KJV

Also, I see nowhere in the Bible - that unbelievers are ever referred to as "stewards of God.' To me, it looks like only true believers can be that. I think the parable, when it mentions the word, "Steward" - is picturing, instead the position of a slave. Which unbelievers are pictured as being. Anyone who becomes a child of God is said to be "free."

Read chapter 4 of Galatians about the figurative children of Hagar, as compared with those of Abraham (figuratively speaking of all of God's true children throughout history).

Gal 4:31

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
KJV

As for the mention of the inheritance - in the parable - this to me - pictures the eternal inheritance of the rich advantage of having been given the right to live eternally with God in heaven after this life. But I see that there are 2 kinds of inheritances pictured in the story. The prodigal son at first chose only the things of this life, as His inheritance. As the bible says, what people put priority towards seeking in this life - reveals what their eternal destination will be, unless they repent and become true children of God by doing so.

John 12:25

25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
KJV

Matt 6:19-21

19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
KJV

So we don't seem to understand these 2 chapters exactly alike. But we are alike in both being able to see that the parable of the prodigal son - demonstrates God's great love towards sinners. His love is great towards all people, whether saved or unsaved, as none of us deserves anything from Him. But His love is so great that He provided the way of salvation to the world, so that people can get saved, and so that believers too - have the continuing benefit of His willingness to forgive sincere repentance, always. Thanks for your reply and comments!

 

[Corban]

We agree on a lot, and we both appreciate the main revelation of this Parable, the rejoicing in heaven for a repentant sinner. I agree with your take on the "sons of God". Where we divided our paths is the status of the son and the steward before, and after, their misbehavior. But I can live with this, although I think it is important. So, the rest of my answer is more to clarify, rather than to oppose your understanding.

If the prodigal son was received back as a "servant", you would be right. But the Prodigal son is still a "son" after his apostasy. You cannot "unbirth" a son. You can chastise him, disown him in a will, put him in jail, blacken his name and put him on another planet. But once a son - always a son. This is what the Parable, among other things, which we agree on, shows. That is, you cannot loose your sonship, but you can loose your inheritance.

In the following narrative of the Steward who had wasted his Master's goods, the Steward is relieved of his priviledged post and made to live with the "debtors" of his Master. But his status of "steward" is not touched. His duties ... YES, for he may no longer manage his Master's goods, but in TITLE he is still belongs to his Master. The Master has simply banned his services and banned him living in the vicinity.

I judge that the two parables don't address salvation. They address SERVICE.

Go well and God bless.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

We agree on a lot, and we both appreciate the main revelation of this Parable, the rejoicing in heaven for a repentant sinner. I agree with your take on the "sons of God". Where we divided our paths is the status of the son and the steward before, and after, their misbehavior. But I can live with this, although I think it is important. So, the rest of my answer is more to clarify, rather than to oppose your understanding.

If the prodigal son was received back as a "servant", you would be right. But the Prodigal son is still a "son" after his apostasy. You cannot "unbirth" a son. You can chastise him, disown him in a will, put him in jail, blacken his name and put him on another planet. But once a son - always a son. This is what the Parable, among other things, which we agree on, shows. That is, you cannot loose your sonship, but you can loose your inheritance.

In the following narrative of the Steward who had wasted his Master's goods, the Steward is relieved of his priviledged post and made to live with the "debtors" of his Master. But his status of "steward" is not touched. His duties ... YES, for he may no longer manage his Master's goods, but in TITLE he is still belongs to his Master. The Master has simply banned his services and banned him living in the vicinity.

I judge that the two parables don't address salvation. They address SERVICE.

Go well and God bless.

Well, thanks for explaining your views - it's always interesting to see what others' views are on spiritual things, that is, if they are sincere. We are both sincere, I see - and that's good! It means we both belong to God and have a home waiting for us up in heaven. Throughout the lives of God's people, they will continue learning more about spiritual truths from the Bible. But the most important learning, I think - is the kind that helps keep our relationships with God doing well - and to be always improving with time. Even Paul, himself, said he was aware of that in himself, too.

Phil 3:13-14

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus
KJV

All sincere spiritual thoughts and reading and study of the BIble are spiritually beneficial, the Bible says. Also, keeping one's mind full of such things, helps to keep out better - unwholesome types of thinking, too, I've noticed. I also find God's Word to be perennially entertaining to me too. No doubt, it's the same way for you. Have a good day!

 

[mailmandan]

CONTEXT - All three parables in Luke 15 were in rebuke to the Pharisees and scribes who complained, saying, “This Man receives sinners and eats with them." (vs. 2) Eternal IN-securists will try to use the parable of the prodigal son to prove that believers can lose their salvation by arguing that the prodigal son was spiritually alive, then spiritually died (lost his salvation) and was spiritually alive again (regained his salvation) from Luke 15:32 based on certain translations which read: ..thy brother was dead, and is alive AGAIN (KJV) ..for your brother was dead and is alive AGAIN (NKJV) ..this brother of yours was dead and is alive AGAIN (NIV)

Yet others will argue that in this parable, being made "alive AGAIN" foreshadows the "born AGAIN" experience that Jesus spoke of in John 3:3. Of course Jesus wasn't talking about being born again spiritually again and again. We are born once physically and born "again" once spiritually.

I find it interesting that certain translations of Luke 15:32 simply say your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found (ESV); your brother was dead, but now he is alive. He was lost, but now he is found (NCV); this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found (NRS); this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found (NAS).

 

[Runningman]

Hi! Last night, after bedtime, i listened to John MacArthur teach about the Prodigal son parable. I hadn't heard that interpretation before - but agree it may be accurate. I hadn't realized that the older son might refer to the Pharisees that Jesus was telling this parable to.

I looked online now to see if other Christians have interpreted the parable that way too. And I found one good one here:
https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-prodigal-son.html

In plain terms I think it means that it's possible to turn your back on God, live a life apart from Him, and then come back to God in sincere repentance. There's a lot to draw from this like the nature and character of God, too.

 

[garee]

We agree on a lot, and we both appreciate the main revelation of this Parable, the rejoicing in heaven for a repentant sinner. I agree with your take on the "sons of God". Where we divided our paths is the status of the son and the steward before, and after, their misbehavior. But I can live with this, although I think it is important. So, the rest of my answer is more to clarify, rather than to oppose your understanding.

If the prodigal son was received back as a "servant", you would be right. But the Prodigal son is still a "son" after his apostasy. You cannot "unbirth" a son. You can chastise him, disown him in a will, put him in jail, blacken his name and put him on another planet. But once a son - always a son. This is what the Parable, among other things, which we agree on, shows. That is, you cannot loose your sonship, but you can loose your inheritance.

In the following narrative of the Steward who had wasted his Master's goods, the Steward is relieved of his priviledged post and made to live with the "debtors" of his Master. But his status of "steward" is not touched. His duties ... YES, for he may no longer manage his Master's goods, but in TITLE he is still belongs to his Master. The Master has simply banned his services and banned him living in the vicinity.

I judge that the two parables don't address salvation. They address SERVICE.

Go well and God bless.

The inheritance is eternal life. The parable of the waiting father sent him out the Son to try the faith, the inheritance . He turned to do the father will as the kind of servant that did not live on the grounds not regarded as one of the family members who could participate in religious ceremonies. The father forgave him again and again and they celebrated the love of the waiting father .

 

[garee]

We agree on a lot, and we both appreciate the main revelation of this Parable, the rejoicing in heaven for a repentant sinner. I agree with your take on the "sons of God". Where we divided our paths is the status of the son and the steward before, and after, their misbehavior. But I can live with this, although I think it is important. So, the rest of my answer is more to clarify, rather than to oppose your understanding.

If the prodigal son was received back as a "servant", you would be right. But the Prodigal son is still a "son" after his apostasy. You cannot "unbirth" a son. You can chastise him, disown him in a will, put him in jail, blacken his name and put him on another planet. But once a son - always a son. This is what the Parable, among other things, which we agree on, shows. That is, you cannot loose your sonship, but you can loose your inheritance.

In the following narrative of the Steward who had wasted his Master's goods, the Steward is relieved of his priviledged post and made to live with the "debtors" of his Master. But his status of "steward" is not touched. His duties ... YES, for he may no longer manage his Master's goods, but in TITLE he is still belongs to his Master. The Master has simply banned his services and banned him living in the vicinity.

I judge that the two parables don't address salvation. They address SERVICE.

Go well and God bless.

I would think both as one work .The service of salvation. Christ' working in the wayward Son to both will and perform the good pleasure of the waiting father .

The inheritance he was sent off with is eternal life.

The waiting father sent him out to try the faith the inheritance .(trial of faith) By that faith he turned to do the father will as the kind of servant that did not live on the grounds. one not privileged to share family religions tradition . The waiting father forgave him and started the ceremonial party .Having been turned by the waiting father he could in turn repent and eat the fattened beef steak. His self righteous brother could not enter.

 

[Corban]

CONTEXT - All three parables in Luke 15 were in rebuke to the Pharisees and scribes who complained, saying, “This Man receives sinners and eats with them." (vs. 2) Eternal IN-securists will try to use the parable of the prodigal son to prove that believers can lose their salvation by arguing that the prodigal son was spiritually alive, then spiritually died (lost his salvation) and was spiritually alive again (regained his salvation) from Luke 15:32 based on certain translations which read: ..thy brother was dead, and is alive AGAIN (KJV) ..for your brother was dead and is alive AGAIN (NKJV) ..this brother of yours was dead and is alive AGAIN (NIV)

Yet others will argue that in this parable, being made "alive AGAIN" foreshadows the "born AGAIN" experience that Jesus spoke of in John 3:3. Of course Jesus wasn't talking about being born again spiritually again and again. We are born once physically and born "again" once spiritually.

I find it interesting that certain translations of Luke 15:32 simply say your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found (ESV); your brother was dead, but now he is alive. He was lost, but now he is found (NCV); this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found (NRS); this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found (NAS).

Nice contribution. Thought provoking. Here are the facts that we have to deal with.

• The prodigal son was SON BEFORE he messed up
• The prodigal son was SON WHILE he messed about. He says; "MY father ... " (v.17)
• The prodigal son was a SON as he was embraced by the Father
• The prodigal son was a SON AFTER he messed up, returned to His father AND during the banquet in honor of his return

So, with that dispensed of, we must find a meaning for the aspect of him being "dead" and then "alive". Two things give us evidence.

1. He was lost and he was found
2. He sinned against heaven and his father

In the phrase "he was lost" is the implication that he was formerly NOT lost. And in the phrase "he is found" is the one single fact that he was "found" in his father's house. And the Greek word "lost" is "apollymi", which means to be "destroyed" but not in the sense of annihilation. It means "lack of well-being" and is used in the sense of a ship that has sunk. It is still a ship, but instead of doing what it is was made for - sailing ON water, it now lies sunken UNDER water and useless for the intended purpose. The star football player got drunk and broke his ankle. He is (i) still a football player, (ii) has salary loss because he cannot play, (iii) has loss of fame because he cannot play, (iv) has physical pain and is mentally disappointed. He is a football player with acute "lack of well-being"

As to the word "dead", scripture deals with death in two ways; (i) the physical condition of lack of life, or, (ii) a POSITION that will end in death. In Ephesians 2:1 and 5 we read severally:
1 "And you hath he quickened, who were dead IN trespasses and sins"
5 "Even when we were dead IN sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)"

In these verses, Paul is addressing LIVING men. But scripture views them as dead. Why? Because the wages of sin is death. That is, they were alive but IN sins. Their POSITION would definitely end in death, so they are regarded POSITIONALLY as dead. We even use this daily in English. At the airshow the aeroplane that is flying past at high speed loses a wing. The aircraft tumbles through the air, but before it hits the ground we spectators say, "they're dead"! Their POSITION will definitely end in death.

It is in this sense that I judge the Lord meant that he was dead. He has SINNED against BOTH heaven and father, and in this POSITION he was as good as dead. However, the death would equal to "lack of well-being" - the death of the soul, not the body.