The Parable of the Repentant Son and the Older Son

[tulsa 2011]

Luke 15: 11-32, the Parable of the Repentant Son and the Older Son Who Rejects Him


In Luke 15: 11-32, one son went away from the Father into a foreign place and ended up living and eating with the pigs, which is all metaphoric. But he repented and came back to the Father. The other son did not go off to a foreign land and squander his inheritance like the repentant son did. Nevertheless, the older son demonstrated his position by not being glad the younger son repented and returned to the father. The older son does not represent the elect in this parable. The younger son does represent the elect.

The elect do not reject those who were in sin and in false beliefs but who repented and came to the Father in Truth. They rejoice.

But those in the churches who have been taught dispensationalism and/or some other form of Jewish supremacy cannot interpret this parable to mean that the older brother in rejecting his repentant younger brother represents physical Israel.

"...he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit..." Galatians 4: 29

Some will claim that Galatians 4: 29 is just about anyone who remains in the flesh opposing those who are in the Spirit. But here Paul is talking about two Israels. In Galatians 4: 25-26 he contrasts the Israel, called Jerusalem, which now is and is in bondage with her children, that is physical Israel, to that Israel, called Jerusalem, which is above, is free and is the mother of us all, that is, the mother of all the elect of God. In verse 29 he is talking about physical Israel persecuting those who are born again after the Spirit.

There is no mention of the church in Galatians 4: 29. Physical Israel is not said to persecute the church. It persecutes that Israel born again in Christ, after the Holy Spirit

 

[Bambi]

So are you saying this is Replacement theology? Or are you saying that any Jew or Gentile who accepts Christ is Israel born again (younger brother). And any Jew or Gentile who reject Christ are the older brother?

 

[james g]

Luke 15: 11-32, the Parable of the Repentant Son and the Older Son Who Rejects Him


In Luke 15: 11-32, one son went away from the Father into a foreign place and ended up living and eating with the pigs, which is all metaphoric. But he repented and came back to the Father. The other son did not go off to a foreign land and squander his inheritance like the repentant son did. Nevertheless, the older son demonstrated his position by not being glad the younger son repented and returned to the father. The older son does not represent the elect in this parable. The younger son does represent the elect.

The elect do not reject those who were in sin and in false beliefs but who repented and came to the Father in Truth. They rejoice.

But those in the churches who have been taught dispensationalism and/or some other form of Jewish supremacy cannot interpret this parable to mean that the older brother in rejecting his repentant younger brother represents physical Israel.

"...he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit..." Galatians 4: 29

Some will claim that Galatians 4: 29 is just about anyone who remains in the flesh opposing those who are in the Spirit. But here Paul is talking about two Israels. In Galatians 4: 25-26 he contrasts the Israel, called Jerusalem, which now is and is in bondage with her children, that is physical Israel, to that Israel, called Jerusalem, which is above, is free and is the mother of us all, that is, the mother of all the elect of God. In verse 29 he is talking about physical Israel persecuting those who are born again after the Spirit.

There is no mention of the church in Galatians 4: 29. Physical Israel is not said to persecute the church. It persecutes that Israel born again in Christ, after the Holy Spirit

what???????????????

 

[DHC]

Luke 15: 11-32, the Parable of the Repentant Son and the Older Son Who Rejects Him


In Luke 15: 11-32, one son went away from the Father into a foreign place and ended up living and eating with the pigs, which is all metaphoric. But he repented and came back to the Father. The other son did not go off to a foreign land and squander his inheritance like the repentant son did. Nevertheless, the older son demonstrated his position by not being glad the younger son repented and returned to the father. The older son does not represent the elect in this parable. The younger son does represent the elect.

The elect do not reject those who were in sin and in false beliefs but who repented and came to the Father in Truth. They rejoice.

But those in the churches who have been taught dispensationalism and/or some other form of Jewish supremacy cannot interpret this parable to mean that the older brother in rejecting his repentant younger brother represents physical Israel.

"...he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit..." Galatians 4: 29

Some will claim that Galatians 4: 29 is just about anyone who remains in the flesh opposing those who are in the Spirit. But here Paul is talking about two Israels. In Galatians 4: 25-26 he contrasts the Israel, called Jerusalem, which now is and is in bondage with her children, that is physical Israel, to that Israel, called Jerusalem, which is above, is free and is the mother of us all, that is, the mother of all the elect of God. In verse 29 he is talking about physical Israel persecuting those who are born again after the Spirit.

There is no mention of the church in Galatians 4: 29. Physical Israel is not said to persecute the church. It persecutes that Israel born again in Christ, after the Holy Spirit

Hello Tulsa.

I agree with your interpretation of (Luke 15:11-32), a simple parable of forgiveness.

I also am not aware of any theological magnification of these verses.

Then you quoted the following;

"...he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit..." Galatians 4:29

If you really wish to understand what Paul is saying in Galatians chapter four then read on.

Through the fourth chapter of Galatians, the apostle Paul is describing two different
covenants. Paul is explaining the difference between these two covenants.

24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants (Galatians 4).

This is actually the subject of Paul's letter to the Galatians. It appears that the Galatians
who had previously known Christ, were now seeking to perfect their flesh in Christ.
They had been told to obey 'the law' or more precisely the Covenant of Moses.
Which the following verse brings to light.

Galatians 4
21 Tell me, you who want to be under law... (old covenant, Law of Moses)

Someone had told the Galatian church that they had to be under 'the law'. In other
words the Galatian church had been told they had to obey the covenant law. Paul states
in no uncertain terms that to obey the law is an agreement to the former covenant
of Moses. And I emphasize the word 'covenant'.

In this letter to the Galatians, Paul in chapter four describes these two covenants:

The first covenant is the covenant of the law, a covenant of the flesh. Paul refers to
this covenant as Hagar, from Mt Sinai. (Galatians 4:24-25)

The second covenant is the covenant of the spirit, i.e., Jesus Christ. She is the
Jerusalem above, she is free, this is the true promise. (Galatians 4:26-28)

Paul is telling the Galatians that they cannot be members of two different
covenants at the same time, that is not allowed. Membership of one disqualifies
membership of the other.

21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?

The law specifies legal obedience to the whole law not just a few select
laws. Legal obedience to 'the law' is a 'covenant' and physical circumcision
is the legal requirement for admission. Slavery to the law is in fact the
slavery to the old covenant, which was instituted at Mt Sinai. Please read
the verses below.

Galatians 5
2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision (old covenant law),
Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who
receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law;
you have fallen from grace.

Not one single law of the covenant of Moses may be obeyed without following
the whole law of Moses. Because that is what the covenant of Moses dictates.
Not one commandment from the covenant of Moses may be obeyed unless one
enters into the legal contract of the old covenant itself.

3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under
obligation to keep the whole Law.

It is not the physical act of circumcision but what the circumcision really means.
That is, obedience to the Mosaic covenant which includes all 613 laws.

Galatians chapter four explains the difference between theses two covenants.
That is what the text is concerned with rather than an identification of two
types of Israel. Understanding what Paul is discussing is the primary responsibility.

 

[james1523]

You who want to argue about dispensationalism, I will give you the right intent of this parable:
The purpose of the parable is to address the hard heartedness of the Pharisees who said previously in verse 2:
Luke 15:2 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

To these Jews He says:
31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

This parable is mostly about the older brother, and was an attempt by Jesus to correct the Jews, namely, the religionists.
The younger brother represents all genuine followers of Christ. The older brother represents any religionists. In Jesus day they were pharisee and sadducee, in our day they are evangelicals, pentecostals, baptists, and Roman Catholics. That is, they could be anyone in your local church who is into religion but not into Jesus. Religion is man's attempt to reach God and be justified by human effort. Religious baptists seek to be justified by God and reach God through proper method of baptism. Religious Catholics through their sacraments, religious pentecostals through their speaking in tongues, and nice worship music, and little religious Johnny tries to please God by doing all the right things and praying every day, he's such a good upstanding person, he is a religionist too. If you have Christ you have all you need, but if you don't, even the little human merit and goodness you think you have, is counted as nothing. Those who try to lift themselves up to heaven, to be justified by God apart from Christ, will be thrown down, but those who humble themselves will be exalted.

 

[tulsa 2011]

In the parable of Luke 15,the parable of the the repentant son and the older son, why is the other son the older son? Dispensationalists, and followers of Sacred Name Theology, Hebrew Roots and Messianic Judaism cannot see that the other son, being the older, is a clue to the identity of the older son who rejects the repentant son and in verse 28 is angry that the repentant son is being treated so well by the Father.