10 commandments done away

[hola]

I was thinking about this thread again today...and I also thought about the parable of the prodigal son. This may also help explain some of what I meant in my previous post.

We can see that in order to live in sin, the prodigal son had to leave his Father. ("Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3...I also think of Enoch walking with God when I think about this). This son dwelt in a place where his Father would not. And if we don't have a right relationship with God (the Father), if we don't have him...we are lost, because to have God is to have salvation...because God IS our salvation.

Now this Father didn't come and get this son out of his pit...no, he waited until his son himself got up and came to him. This son came to his senses. At that moment he wasn't thinking..."Well, since I can't change myself...I'll just keep doing what I'm doing until God comes and does something in my life." Nope...although it is still true that only God can change us. But this son wasn't changed by simply getting himself up. Nope, he decided to leave his sin and go to God (the Father)...repentance.

It's like the Isrealites in the wilderness (and when I've explained this in the past I wasn't complete in what I had said). When they were bitten by serpents, it's because they had broken God's "hedge"...which meant that they had sinned. Just as a proverb says: (paraphrased from memory) "He who breaks a hedge, a serpent shall bite". That's exactly what happened to these Isrealites. But there answer was to turn to God, and look to that which depicted his sacrifice, and they would live. Now...how many times would we want to get bit by those fiery serpents before we learn our lesson? Should we play with God's grace...because we know that everytime that we sin and get bit, that all we need to do is just to look to Jesus, and live? I don't think so...I wouldn't think that would be true repentance. (I've been partial on this statement before...I was a little to extreme on faith). Back to the prodigal son...he left that place of sin to go back to his Father, to be where he was...and to be changed (I think of Jacob wrestling with the Angel of the Lord...and then he was changed. Many think that that Angel was the Lord himself. And Jacob leaned on a "staff/rod" the rest of the days of his life...and many would think that this staff/rod represents the cross of Christ, and Jacob resting in the grace of God...a grace that not only covers our sin, but has the ability to mightily work in one's life, changing them, and empowering them.)

Now this prodigal son also received this grace and power. He received a robe (of righteousness...God's righteousness), and a ring symbolizing power. Now we can even look to the book of Esther to understand more about rings and their significance in eastern cultures in times past (even from the movie Ben-Hur... ). We see that Haman was given the king's ring...and this meant that he had power to do whatever he wanted to do in the king's name, as if the king himself had made the decree. All Haman had to do was seal the decree with the signet of his ring (as Judah Ben-Hur also did in the movie... ...well, I'll try to stay more focused on the Bible now, sorry), and the decree was carried out. Just as this son, or any believer who comes to the Father receives this ring and power. IN HIS NAME...we can cast out demons, etc. It's like we make the decree, and with the ring God has given us, we stamp it IN HIS NAME. And the decree is simply taken care of. Not by [our] might, nor by [our] power, but by His [God's] Spirit. Just as the children of Isreal stood still and saw the salvation of the Lord time and time again. But the important thing is...do we have this ring. Or we can end up like the seven sons of Sceva. If we have this power, we can say to trees (inherited nature) or mountains (Satan's kingdom) to be uprooted and cast into the sea (Red Sea, sea of forgetfulness)...even from our own lives. Agree? Remember those pigs in the gospels that received the legion of demons that were cast out of the demon possessed man...they also were cast into a sea. I have heard it preached or taught in the past that the Isrealites should not have even had those pigs to begin with (maybe from an OT law...which I'm sure symbolizes some kind of uncleaness).

Alright...I just wanted to expound a little more on what I had previously posted...to clear up anything that could have appeared questionable.

God bless you all!!!

hola

 

[DanielRB]

Hi Hola, thanks for the post.

I approach parables in general differently. I think there is a danger by looking too much at each individual detail in each parable as if it has a special significance; we might read too much into it. A parable is different than an allegory; an allegory is full of symbols, with each detail having a seperate meaning; a parable is a story with generally a single purpose and emphasis. These lines of course are somewhat blurred at times.

I remember years ago reading about a midieval interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan. Everything was a symbol of salvation. For example, the donkey on which the injured man was placed was supposedly a symbol of the Church. Yet the lesson to be learned from the parable of the good Samaritan was not the way of salvation, but rather it was to answer the question: "who is my neighbor?"

The parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) is not so much about repentance so much as it is about God's attitude to the sinner and God's attitude to the "righteous"--the elder brother.

Consider the context of the parable. First, the Phraisees grumbled against Jesus for fellowshipping with the tax collectors and 'sinners' (Luke 15:1-2). Jesus then tells a series of parables. The first parable is about the lost sheep (15:3-7) and emphasizes heaven's rejoicing when a sinner repents. The sheep didn't look for the shepherd, the shepherd looked for (and found) the sheep; but that isn't the point, the point is the rejoicing when the sheep was found--as opposed to the Pharisees' distain for the sinners who came to repentance when Jesus spoke to them.

The second parable is that of the lost coin (15:8-10). Again, the coin didn't seek the woman, but the woman sought the coin--and again, this isn't the main point. The point was about heaven's joy over a sinner's repentance, again, in contrast to the Pharisees' attitude.

The third parable is that of the prodigal son (15:11-32). The emphasis is the contrast between the father's joyful attitude on his son's return and the elder brother's attitude of resentment for this joy. It's obvious (at least to me) that the elder brother is like the Pharisees and the younger brother is like the tax collectors and 'sinners' who listen to Jesus. Again, considering the context, I believe that the meaning for us is that God rejoices over repentance and doesn't hold a person's sinful past against them--and we should have this same attitude, and not the attitude of the elder brother (or Pharisees.)

I don't think any of these parables can be used as an analogy of how we repent, or the actions we must take before God will receive us (after all, the first two parables talked about a sheep repenting or a coin repenting if we force the analogy too much); rather, it's about God's attitude when someone does repent.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[hola]

Good post DanielRB...thanks for reminding me of those other parables and showing me the error of my position. I agree with what you say about the elder brother and the sinners that Jesus ate with...I agree.

I just know that sometimes an over emphasis of grace can cause many to live lascivous lives. When we truly hear the gospel, it's not hard to ask those questions: "should we now continue in sin because his grace only shows us how good God really is"...(just trying to paraphrase my best from memory as what some may ask). I just read in the Scriptures that we are not to let sin reign in our mortal body, and for us not to yield the members of our body as instruments of unrighteousness. I also know that we only understand what sin is by the law. (I really don't want to preach the law...unlawfully). I know it's by God's Spirit that the deeds of our body are to be mortified...but they still need to be mortified.

Thanks for correcting me...honestly. I need it. I shouldn't be too proud to admit my faults or to not accept correction.

Thanks again, and God bless you.

hola

 

[hola]

To add...thanks for pointing out the focus of the parables, in that being more of one rejoicing over the repentant sinner.

Yes, I can see how people can over-analyze parables...I'm just trying to understand repentance in this case. I do think that part of the repentance had to do with this prodigal getting up out of the pig pen and going to his Father. I would call the elder brother "self-righteous"...as the "self-righteous" Jews of whom Jesus spake: "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5:40). That's the same attitude as the elder brother, right? The prodigal actually came to the Father and received this life, but the "self-righteous" elder brother rejected it...rejecting the robe of "righteousness" that the prodigal son had received, and would not go in with the Father.

Now about the return and repentance of the prodigal, I can agree with the Spirit drawing us to God (if this were to cross your mind, along with the coin's "repentance" or however to interpret that)...but as an old saying goes: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink", which we can see in the elder brother's attitude. Everything that the Father had (which would include righteousness, power, salvation) belonged to this elder brother as well (Luke 15:31)...but as the "self-righteous" Pharisees and Jews, he rejected the Father's offer.

Now, this last paragraph I spoke of is some of the reason why I disagree with some views of Calvinism. The "self-righteous" reject this offer to them (whether it's salvation, righteousness, etc.)...an offer that already belongs to them.

I'm not really intending on debating Calvinism, etc. I still appreciate you pointing out my interpretation of the parable without considering the other parables first. But this is how and why I understand things to be so.