Humanity Left The Father

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

newnature

Member
Mar 24, 2011
581
99
28
Luke 15:11-32, there is one more layer that ties this entire parable to the biggest story in the Bible, the parable has three characters, a father and two sons, one son who left and came back, one son who stayed, but was lost. The Bible has the same structure, humanity left the father, walked into the far country of sin, squandered everything, ended up in the pigsty and God the father, instead of waiting on the porch with his arms crossed, ran, he sent his own son, not to condemn the world, but to save it. Here is the part that makes the gospel more shocking than the parable, in the parable, the father ran to the returning son. In reality, God ran to you while you were still in the far country, while you were still feeding pigs, while you had not yet turned around, while you were still sinners, Paul wrote, Christ died for us.

The father in the parable waited for the son to come home, God did not wait, he came to you, he entered the pigsty, he put on human flesh and walked into the far country himself and it killed him. The fattened calf in the parable was killed for a feast, the lamb of God was killed on a cross. The robe the father placed on the younger son’s shoulders, that is the righteousness of Christ placed on you. The ring, that is your restore identity as sons and daughters of God. The sandals, that is the dignity of no longer being slaves, but heirs. Everything in the parable points to the cross, the father’s willingness to spend everything on a son who deserved nothing, the willingness to be shamed publicly for the sake of love.

The refusal to let the village, the law, the culture, the system of justice have the final word, the father overruled everything. Grace overruled shame, love overruled justice, life overruled death, that is the gospel and it is as offensive today, as it was when Jesus first told it. It offends the younger brother, because the younger brother thinks he needs to earn his way back and the father says no. It offends the older brother, because the older brother thinks he already earned his place and the father says that was never the point. It offends everyone, that is how you know it is true, because the gospel is not designed to flatter anyone, it is designed to save everyone.
 

Bob

Well-Known Member
Sep 23, 2023
846
805
93
Tucson, AZ
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thank you for the post.

Help me understand how a plain reading of the parable points to the cross.

The son returns to the father, fully admitting his error, and the father restores him unconditionally. This action is consistent with the Lord’s Prayer . . . “Forgive us our trespasses (sins/debts) . . . “. There is nothing said about a sacrifice or shedding of blood.

Note that in Luke, during the last supper, Jesus says, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you;”
In contrast, Matthew says, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.“

So, why does Luke omit “. . . for the forgiveness of sins”?

(Not trying to start a theological argument: seeking an understanding of Luke vs Paul vs Matthew . . . .)
 

newnature

Member
Mar 24, 2011
581
99
28
Thank you for the post.

Help me understand how a plain reading of the parable points to the cross.

The son returns to the father, fully admitting his error, and the father restores him unconditionally. This action is consistent with the Lord’s Prayer . . . “Forgive us our trespasses (sins/debts) . . . “. There is nothing said about a sacrifice or shedding of blood.

Note that in Luke, during the last supper, Jesus says, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you;”
In contrast, Matthew says, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.“

So, why does Luke omit “. . . for the forgiveness of sins”?

(Not trying to start a theological argument: seeking an understanding of Luke vs Paul vs Matthew . . . .)
Matthew 15:24, I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. You cannot avoid this, it is too important, because it is not just a test script line that Jesus is running through before revealing his real position, it is, or at least it appears to be, a genuine statement about the scope of his mission and it sits in direct tension with the last words of Matthew’s gospel, Matthew 28:18-20, which are explicitly universal. How do you get from one to the other, theologians have worked on this question for 2,000 years. Consider the full map of where the serious thinking has landed, because this is not a settled question and the way you answer it, shapes how you understand not just this story, but the entire gospel.