Scriptural Discussion - 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11

[RAIDER]

I believe all three were indeed lost. The Pharisees were indignant that Jesus would receive publicans and sinners (lost people). In Jesus' corresponding parable, the "lost" sheep, coin, and son represent the lost people that Jesus seeks to find.

RAIDER, have you ever read "The Prodigal God" by Tim Keller? It is a short book (150ish pages), and an easy read. The book is an exposition of the prodigal son parable. I encourage you to buy it and read it. You won't be sorry!

Of course, we have all heard sermons (and preached/taught them ourselves) using the prodigal son as an example of a backslidder who get's right with God.  I'm not saying that is a wrong interpretation.  When you read all three parables it makes you think a bit.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I do not believe that the prodigal son parable is meant as a definitive teaching on soteriology. Instead, the prodigal son is but the third illustration of one point. What was the point? To understand the point, we must see why Jesus gave the parable. Jesus spoke this parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son because the Pharisees and scribes said this:
    (Luke 15:2) And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

The purpose of the parable was to demonstrate to the Pharisees that their attitude toward sinners was opposed to God's attitude. Jesus used this parable to vindicate His practice of not shunning people who were known sinners. So the point is that God loves these sinners that the Pharisees shun, and that God is seeking to redeem them (find the lost).
    --So God is the Shepherd seeking the one lost sheep.
    --God is the woman seeking the one lost coin.
    --God is the father who receives back the lost son.

In the final illustration of the point (That God seeks the lost and the Pharisees attitude is opposed to Him), Jesus drops the hammer on the Pharisees and reveals the true application of the whole parable. What is that application?
    --The main application is that the Pharisees are like the eldest son. The parable of the "Prodigal Son" is not even about the prodigal son.
        It is about God . . . and the Pharisees. The Lost son is no more important to the point than the lost coin.
    --Jesus said all of those things to say one big thing. He said, "I'll eat with publicans and sinners if I want to, because I'm doing my Father's
        will . . . seeking the lost. You Pharisees hate to see God seek the lost because you think you are righteous and you look down on them."

Now all parables are illustrations, and even Jesus' illustrations have limits. They show the main point, but do not always match every detail of real life perfectly.
      --Example: In the second illustration, the person seeking the lost is a woman.
      --If we try to understand biblical doctrines from the minute details of illustrations Jesus employed, we will be led astray. For instance,
        we could take one minute detail of this parable and say that Jesus taught that God is a woman.
      --Because of this danger, I do not believe that we should seek to understand salvation on the basis of one minute detail of Jesus'
        parable (that detail being the lost son).

You make a fair point, RAIDER. You lean toward the "lifestyle" interpretation, but then this prodigal son nags the back of your mind. I'm simply saying that a minute detail of one of Jesus' illustrations should not overrule the clearer doctrinal teaching of another passage of Scripture.

It is interesting to note that we have a lost sheep and a lost coin.  Jesus immediately goes into the third parable and the popular interpretation is that the prodigal was not lost but rather :"backslidden".  Could it be possible that all three were lost?

This is one of the best books I have ever read on that parable:

Keller points to how it was the father (God) who was reckless and seemingly wasteful in celebration of his son's return, how he was "wasteful" in distributing his grace and forgiveness on one who was altogether unworthy.

Really interesting take on the parable and it is really a small book. Well worth reading.

 

[Boomer]

I'm sorry.

I'm guilty of sidetracking this into what I knew would become a Versions debate.

Since we debate those issues ad nauseam here, I will refrain from dragging this out.
Now back to the O.P.'s intent.

I certainly don't want to get into an argument over translations. But the original word in question here is the same in all manuscript families (I accept the Textus Receptus manuscripts). I had no intention of proving the virtues of one translation over the other. I only referenced those other versions to demonstrate how others have translated the same word.

 

[Boomer]

Of course, we have all heard sermons (and preached/taught them ourselves) using the prodigal son as an example of a backslidder who get's right with God.  I'm not saying that is a wrong interpretation.  When you read all three parables it makes you think a bit.

I'll say it for you.  Preaching/teaching that parable from the standpoint that the lost son is absolutely a wrong interpretation. Jesus' point has to do with the "lost." To speak about backsliding would change his parable from the "Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Lost Son," into the parable of the "Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Backslidden Son."

No preacher or teacher has any authority in what he says when he preaches a message that says something God didn't say. To preach the wrong interpretation of a passage gives your message no more authority than preaching without a Bible altogether.

 

[RAIDER]

Of course, we have all heard sermons (and preached/taught them ourselves) using the prodigal son as an example of a backslidder who get's right with God.  I'm not saying that is a wrong interpretation.  When you read all three parables it makes you think a bit.

I'll say it for you.  Preaching/teaching that parable from the standpoint that the lost son is absolutely a wrong interpretation. Jesus' point has to do with the "lost." To speak about backsliding would change his parable from the "Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Lost Son," into the parable of the "Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Backslidden Son."

No preacher or teacher has any authority in what he says when he preaches a message that says something God didn't say. To preach the wrong interpretation of a passage gives your message no more authority than preaching without a Bible altogether.

Surely you have heard at least one sermon preached this way.  The reason for this interpretation is because the prodigal is a "son" when he leaves the father.

 

[Boomer]

Surely you have heard at least one sermon preached this way.  The reason for this interpretation is because the prodigal is a "son" when he leaves the father.

I'm sure I've heard a few sermons preached this way. I do understand how one could interpret this as backsliding based on the fact that the prodigal was a "son" when he left his father. It makes sense when you ignore the context of the passage. But that is the problem. You have to ignore the context of the passage in order to arrive at that interpretation.

Let's ask ourselves, why do people ignore the context of a passage of Scripture?
    --They do this in order to say something that the passage does not say.

Please remember, this is a parable. It is an illustration . . . actually it is the third part of an illustration concerning the lost that Christ has come to seek. Whenever you read a parable, never lose sight of the main point. Remember, every illustration has its limits (God could not possibly be a woman - per "lost coin"). Always interpret parables according to their main point.
                Ask yourself these questions:
                    (1)  Why did Jesus say this? What prompted Him to tell this story?
                    (2)  What is the main point of this story? (this is always tied to question #1)
                    (3)  How does this story apply to the people it was given to? (original audience)

You have to answer these questions before you can do anything else with the parable (such as preaching and applying it to modern circumstances).

**Always remember - Every parable has only one point!

There really is no parable of the Prodigal Son. There is a parable of "The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin, and The Lost Son."

To preach against backsliding from this text is to read something into it that is not there. Such practice leads to sermons that have no authority from God to back them up.

Having said that, I'm sure that I have preached my fair share of sermons with faulty interpretation involved. We are all but flesh! But every minister of the Gospel must make it his supreme effort in life to interpret God's Word correctly before he steps into a pulpit. I will admit, doing so has been the heaviest burden I have ever carried. The responsibility and accountability to our Lord is terrifying!

 

[Boomer]

I do not believe that the prodigal son parable is meant as a definitive teaching on soteriology. Instead, the prodigal son is but the third illustration of one point. What was the point? To understand the point, we must see why Jesus gave the parable. Jesus spoke this parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son because the Pharisees and scribes said this:
    (Luke 15:2) And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

The purpose of the parable was to demonstrate to the Pharisees that their attitude toward sinners was opposed to God's attitude. Jesus used this parable to vindicate His practice of not shunning people who were known sinners. So the point is that God loves these sinners that the Pharisees shun, and that God is seeking to redeem them (find the lost).
    --So God is the Shepherd seeking the one lost sheep.
    --God is the woman seeking the one lost coin.
    --God is the father who receives back the lost son.

In the final illustration of the point (That God seeks the lost and the Pharisees attitude is opposed to Him), Jesus drops the hammer on the Pharisees and reveals the true application of the whole parable. What is that application?
    --The main application is that the Pharisees are like the eldest son. The parable of the "Prodigal Son" is not even about the prodigal son.
        It is about God . . . and the Pharisees. The Lost son is no more important to the point than the lost coin.
    --Jesus said all of those things to say one big thing. He said, "I'll eat with publicans and sinners if I want to, because I'm doing my Father's
        will . . . seeking the lost. You Pharisees hate to see God seek the lost because you think you are righteous and you look down on them."

Now all parables are illustrations, and even Jesus' illustrations have limits. They show the main point, but do not always match every detail of real life perfectly.
      --Example: In the second illustration, the person seeking the lost is a woman.
      --If we try to understand biblical doctrines from the minute details of illustrations Jesus employed, we will be led astray. For instance,
        we could take one minute detail of this parable and say that Jesus taught that God is a woman.
      --Because of this danger, I do not believe that we should seek to understand salvation on the basis of one minute detail of Jesus'
        parable (that detail being the lost son).

You make a fair point, RAIDER. You lean toward the "lifestyle" interpretation, but then this prodigal son nags the back of your mind. I'm simply saying that a minute detail of one of Jesus' illustrations should not overrule the clearer doctrinal teaching of another passage of Scripture.

It is interesting to note that we have a lost sheep and a lost coin.  Jesus immediately goes into the third parable and the popular interpretation is that the prodigal was not lost but rather :"backslidden".  Could it be possible that all three were lost?

This is one of the best books I have ever read on that parable:

Keller points to how it was the father (God) who was reckless and seemingly wasteful in celebration of his son's return, how he was "wasteful" in distributing his grace and forgiveness on one who was altogether unworthy.

Really interesting take on the parable and it is really a small book. Well worth reading.

This book revolutionized how I view that parable. It is truly insightful and thoroughly biblical in its presentation.

 

[brainisengaged]

I also read "The Prodigal God" by Timothy Keller. It really helped me understand things in such a different light.