Thanda
Well-Known Member
I was reading something on the net and I came across something I found a bit odd. The prodigal son's (Luke 15) older brother was interpreted by a particular author to be "representing the Pharisees, was self-righteous and claimed to have always obeyed but wouldn’t “come in” to the party".
I then did a search on the net and found these three articles
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/february/prodigal-son.html
http://www.christianpost.com/news/prodigal-son-story-its-not-about-the-prodigal-116523/
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/grace-to-you/read/articles/an-unforgettable-tale-11031.html
I was surprised to find that they all had a similar tone: despite the evil the prodigal son did, they all agreed that the real bad guy of the story was the older son.
I find this most odd. Of course I understand that we all have a soft spot for the prodigal son - so do I - but does that really justify us in vilifying the (understandably) upset older brother? Why is it that we are so quick to forgive and be understanding of the younger brother (whose sins were far worse than not attending a party) but are so harsh on the older brother?
Here's my take on the matter. The elder brother was not upset because his brother had returned (at least one cannot conclude that from the passage) neither was he upset that he had been welcomed back. What he was upset about was that someone who had made less of an effort than him was being reward more than he was.
This was, of course, an error in his thinking. The father made it clear that he was not rewarding the younger son for his rebellion - has was rejoicing for his return. After the feast was over though, the younger son would still be without an inheritance (having spent it all - it may be that he could work to earn another inheritance in the process of time). Meanwhile the older son's inheritance was still intact ("all that I have is thine"). Surely if the older son was as guilty of sin (rather than just being guilty of misunderstanding) as some believe he is the father would have disinherited him. But instead of being disinherited he was kindly reassured.
From this I learn that while God is merciful, he is also just. As we live his commandments we gain a godly nature. As we break his commandments we lose whatever godly nature we had. When we repent and turn from our sins and begin again to keep his commandments, though God is very happy, we don't suddenly gain all the godly attributes we lost through sin. We have to work in faith to receive that godly nature again - and it takes time.
I then did a search on the net and found these three articles
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/february/prodigal-son.html
http://www.christianpost.com/news/prodigal-son-story-its-not-about-the-prodigal-116523/
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/grace-to-you/read/articles/an-unforgettable-tale-11031.html
I was surprised to find that they all had a similar tone: despite the evil the prodigal son did, they all agreed that the real bad guy of the story was the older son.
I find this most odd. Of course I understand that we all have a soft spot for the prodigal son - so do I - but does that really justify us in vilifying the (understandably) upset older brother? Why is it that we are so quick to forgive and be understanding of the younger brother (whose sins were far worse than not attending a party) but are so harsh on the older brother?
Here's my take on the matter. The elder brother was not upset because his brother had returned (at least one cannot conclude that from the passage) neither was he upset that he had been welcomed back. What he was upset about was that someone who had made less of an effort than him was being reward more than he was.
This was, of course, an error in his thinking. The father made it clear that he was not rewarding the younger son for his rebellion - has was rejoicing for his return. After the feast was over though, the younger son would still be without an inheritance (having spent it all - it may be that he could work to earn another inheritance in the process of time). Meanwhile the older son's inheritance was still intact ("all that I have is thine"). Surely if the older son was as guilty of sin (rather than just being guilty of misunderstanding) as some believe he is the father would have disinherited him. But instead of being disinherited he was kindly reassured.
From this I learn that while God is merciful, he is also just. As we live his commandments we gain a godly nature. As we break his commandments we lose whatever godly nature we had. When we repent and turn from our sins and begin again to keep his commandments, though God is very happy, we don't suddenly gain all the godly attributes we lost through sin. We have to work in faith to receive that godly nature again - and it takes time.