Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Learn the MOST ESSENTIAL truths for following Jesus.

Get FREE articles and audio teachings in my discipleship emails!


  • Join Us!
  • Scripture
  • Theology
  • My Books
  • About
  • Discipleship
  • Courses
    • What is Hell?
    • Skeleton Church
    • The Gospel According to Scripture
    • The Gospel Dictionary
    • The Re-Justification of God
    • What is Prayer?
    • Adventures in Fishing for Men
    • What are the Spiritual Gifts?
    • How to Study the Bible
    • Courses FAQ
  • Forum
    • Introduce Yourself
    • Old Testament
    • New Testament
    • Theology Questions
    • Life & Ministry

[#00] One Verse Podcast Introduction

By Jeremy Myers
11 Comments

[#00] One Verse Podcast Introduction
https://media.blubrry.com/one_verse/traffic.libsyn.com/redeeminggod/One_Verse_Intro.mp3

_One Verse at a TimeWelcome to the One Verse podcast, where we liberate Scripture from religion, one verse at a time.

Episode #00 Highlights

  • The One Verse Podcast will feature verse-by-verse expository teaching of Scripture, with a target goal (that will rarely be accomplished) of one verse per episode in five minutes or less.
  • The Goal of the One Verse Podcast is to liberate Scripture from religion, one verse at a time.
  • Things I will focus on in bringing out from each verse:
    1. Historical/Cultural Context
    2. Scripture as a Grand Narrative
    3. The Crucivision Way of Reading Scripture
    4. Liberty from Religion

Resources Mentioned in this Episode:

  • Logos Bible Software
  • Logos Master Journal Bundle
  • Jesus Told Stories, So Shouldnโ€™t We!
  • Subscribe and Leave a Review on iTunes

God is Redeeming God, Redeeming Scripture Bible & Theology Topics: podcast

Advertisement

Two Men in one Bed (Luke 17:34)

By Jeremy Myers
154 Comments

Two Men in one Bed (Luke 17:34)
Note: This post is part of the July 2015 Synchroblog.

In the past, I have taught that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.

But a few weeks ago, after the Supreme Court of the United Stated ruled that gay couples could get legally married, a guy came up to me and said, “This ruling is a sign of the end of the world! Jesus prophesied in Luke 17:34 that when the rapture happens, there will be two men in a bed!”

I went on to show him that in the Greek, the word “men” is not actually there, so all it really says is “There will be two in one bed …”

And besides, there is some question about whether Luke 17 is even referring to the rapture.

Jesus teaching Luke 17:34But even if the text is referring to a gay couple in bed, and even if the text does teach about the rapture, I pointed out to him that one of the men was taken in the rapture, which means that apparently, God accepted him.

He apparently hadn’t though about this … and so started back-peddling a bit from this text.

But I decided to look into Luke 17:34 a bit more deeply.

Is it just two people in a bed?

As I pointed out to the end-of-the-world alarmist, the word “men” is not in Luke 17:34. The text literally reads:

In that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left.

But then I noticed that in the context, our English translations go on in Luke 17:35 to record Jesus talking about two women grinding at the mill. I looked briefly at the Greek here as well, and noticed that the word “women” was not in Luke 17:35, just as the word “men” was not in Luke 17:34. Note that the word “mill” is not in the text either. Luke 17:35 literally says this:

Two will be grinding together; one will be taken and the other left.

So I asked myself, “What am I missing? Why do many English translators supply the word “men” in Luke 17:34 and “women” in Luke 17:35 when neither word is there? So I looked at the verses a little more carefully, and noticed that other words in Luke 17:34-35 revealed the gender of the people in question.

When Luke 17:34 says, “one will be taken and the other left,” the words “one” and “other” are both masculine. By itself, this might not mean that the two people were men, for Greek (as in most languages) can use male words and pronouns to refer generically to “people” whether they are male or female.

But Luke 17:35 is much more clear. When this verse says, “one will be taken and the other left,” the words “one” and “other” are both feminine. A feminine pronouns are only used of women.

So when you compare Luke 17:34 and Luke 17:35, and Luke 17:35 is clearly referring to two women, then it seems pretty clear that Luke 17:34 is referring to two women. The burden of proof lies on those who want to say that Luke 17:35 refers to women while Luke 17:34 refers generically to “people.”

But so what?

Just because two men are in one bed, this doesn’t mean they’re gay.

This is very true.

While rare, it is not completely unheard of for two straight men to share one bed today. They might share a bed for warmth, or for protection, or simply because there is a lack of bed space.

This is especially true of men in ancient Middle-Eastern cultures. Unlike most modern Western males, I read in various sources that men of the Ancient Near East didn’t feel “weirded out” by sharing a bed with another man.

But then I started studying the context further.

One source that really provided some background details for my study was a series of blog posts by Ron Goetz on gays and lesbians in Luke. What follows below is a brief summary of his arguments.

NOTE: I am not saying I agree with Ron Goetz. All I am doing is summarizing his research. I would like your opinion on what he argues, and would like your thoughts about whether or not Jesus does, in fact, mention homosexual couples in Luke 17:34-35, and what this means (if anything) for the debate today about Same-Sex Marriage.

Gay Sex in Luke 17:34-35

Below is a small sampling of what Ron Goetz argues regarding two same-sex couples in Luke 17. Before you criticize what he says, I strongly urge you to go read through his entire series of posts, as it is likely that he has already responded to your question or criticism.

The summary/extended quote from Ron Goetz begins below…

I tell you, in that night,
there shall be two men in one bed;
the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(Luke 17:34-35, KJV)

The Context of Sodom

Sodom and GomorrahImmediately before the mention of two men in one bed is a lengthy discussion of the destruction of Sodom. Now I donโ€™t believe the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. But there are many today who believe that it was, and I think most of the Jewish believers in Lukeโ€™s audience may have believed it as well.

Jesus knew that by recounting key details of Sodomโ€™s destruction, his audience would have man-on-man sex on its mind. Jesus intended for us to understand that the โ€œtwo men in one bedโ€ were gay.

One key practice for interpreting a passage in the Greek scriptures is to look for its antecedents in the Old Testament.

Iโ€™ve only found two Old Testament references to two men laying together.

“Thou shalt not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

“If a man lie with a man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13).

By clearly alluding to the Levitical prohibitions against male homosexuality, followed immediately with his declaration that โ€œone shall be taken, and the other left,โ€ Jesus declared his own acceptance of gays and lesbians, and that gays and lesbians are not automatically rejected by God.

Whether or not you believe in this final separation, or whether or not you believe the Bible, doesnโ€™t matter with regard to the significance of the passage. What is important is that Luke 17:34-35 teaches that sexually active gays and lesbians are not automatically consigned to perdition.

Two Women Grinding Together

In the Hebrew Bible, โ€œgrindโ€ is used as an acceptable euphemism for sexual intercourse in at least four places: Job 31:10, Judges 16:21, Isaiah 47:2-3, and Lamentations 5:13.

[Yet] It seems shocking that Jesus would use what sounds to us today like gutter language when referring to lesbian love-making. The idea of Jesus uttering the words โ€œwomen grinding togetherโ€ can be very uncomfortable. It certainly was for me. Even though the Old Testament evidence confirmed my hypothesis, it was difficult for me to hear that language coming from the mouth of Christ.

But when you remember that there is earthy language throughout the Bible, in both testaments, we get an understanding that the churchโ€™s demand for regal, solemn, respectable language is not a Biblical demand. Our personal and cultural expectations are not necessarily in sync with the scriptures. What sounds like earthy language today were, generally speaking, acceptable Biblical euphemisms.

Solomonโ€™s love poem, the Song of Songs, is well known for its graphic descriptions of romantic love. First century Israel did not have the clinical, scientific nomenclature for sexual matters that we have today, but they did have acceptable ways to discuss these things among adults.

No, Jesus Christ was not using gutter language when he mentions โ€œtwo women grinding together.โ€ The Old Testament books of Job, Judges, and Lamentations contain the Biblical use of the metaphorical grind. Jesus used the ordinary, acceptable language of his day to refer to lesbian love-making.

[But it is not just a couple of Old Testament texts that use “grind” in this way.]

In Latin, the word โ€œgrind,โ€ and the related word โ€œmill,โ€ are both euphemisms for things sexual. The Roman poet Horace (65 to 8 BCE) used โ€œgrindโ€ in his endorsement of brothels. Writing in Latin just decades before the birth of Christ, [one author] says that

Once, when a noble left a brothel, โ€œBlessed be thou for thy virtue!โ€ quoth the wisdom of Cato: โ€œfor when their veins are swelling with gross lust, young men should drop in there, rather than grind some husbandโ€™s private mill.โ€

His use of both โ€œgrindโ€ and โ€œmillโ€ shows that even the presence of the word โ€œmillโ€ does not eliminate the possibility of sexual meanings in the word โ€œgrind.โ€ Horaceโ€™s usage is very significant because it is proof of the use of โ€œgrindโ€ as a euphemism for sexual intercourse in the Roman empire just a few decades before the birth of Christ.

[Such euphemisms are also found in Greek.]

Sapphos from LesbosPlutarch (ca A.D. 45 to 120) was born in Greece near Delphi, and was a contemporary of Luke. One of Plutarchโ€™s s, โ€œThe Banquet of Seven Wise Men,โ€ is a fictional conversation among some famous men who lived around 650 BCE. After a brief lull in the conversation, Thales of Miletus speaks:

This remark arrested the attention of the whole company, and Thales said jestinglyโ€ฆ. โ€œwhen I was at Lesbos, I heard my landlady, as she was very busy at her handmill, singing as she used to go at her work:

Grind, mill, grind;
For even Pittacus grinds,
King of great Mytilene.

Plutarch records โ€œgrindโ€ used as a sexual metaphor in the last quarter of the first century A.D., overlapping the probable years when Luke was composed.

The sexual meanings of โ€œgrindโ€ and โ€œmillโ€ were common in Greek society when Luke being composed, and could have been in common usage for as long as 700 years prior to that. There is no room for quibbling over whether or not โ€œgrindโ€ and โ€œmillโ€ were used sexually in the Greek language of the first century, and that this layer of meaning was familiar to literate Greeks.

The Lightning and the Eagle

Zeus and GanymedeA major piece of evidence supporting the thesis of a deliberate gay theme in Lukeโ€™s Small Apocalypse (which I call โ€œLukeโ€™s Gay Apocalypseโ€) is found in the two primary symbols of Zeus, the supreme god in Roman religion. The symbols of Zeus are the lightning bolt and the eagle, and they appear in Luke 17:24, 37.

I subsequently investigated the Luke 17 passage specifically as the โ€œQ Apocalypse,โ€ and was blessed to find a terrific resource, โ€œWhere the Eagles are Gatheredโ€: The Deliverance of the Elect in Lukan Eschatology, by Steven L. Bridge (2003), who connects the lightning and the eagles with Zeus and Ganymede.

The lightning bolt was Zeusโ€™ powerful weapon, and the eagle was sent to retrieve the bolts after Zeus had thrown them. One of the most popular and enduring stories involving the eagle describes the Abduction of Ganymede. According to the story, the King of Troy had a beautiful son named Ganymede, and Zeus found Ganymede irresistibly attractive.

Zeus and GanymedeAccording to the story, the attractive young Ganymede is abducted by an eagle, who in one version is Zeus himself, having transformed himself into an eagle. While the story had several uses (as a paradigm for imperialism and an allegory for Truth), in the Roman era the sexual nature of Ganymedeโ€™s relationship with Zeus was widely recognized.

Zeus had numerous liaisons with mortal women, but only one same-sex relationship, and the eagle is vividly associated with his romantic relationship with Ganymede. Just as the donkey reminds Christians of the Nativity and the Triumphal Entry, so also the eagle reminded Romans and Roman subjects of Zeusโ€™ sexual relationship with his cup bearer and servant, Ganymede. The story of Zeus and Ganymede adds a layer of sexual meaning and interest to the eagleโ€™s image which is missing from its common use as a symbol of power.

Zeus and Ganymede What we have here are the two chief symbols of Zeus, lightning and eagles, one of which is vividly associated with Zeusโ€™ same-sex relationship with Ganymede, located at the beginning and end of a discrete unit of the third gospel, Lukeโ€™s Small Apocalypse. That distance between the verses may seem great, and this distance has obscured their historical and cultural connection. But these were the symbols of Zeus. If we were to read a paragraph that opened with a mention of a โ€œcrown of thornsโ€ and ended with a โ€œcross,โ€ no one would doubt that the crucifixion was a central element in that paragraph.

Anywhere in the Roman Empire, someone reading Luke 17:20-37 would immediately recognize Zeus and Ganymede in Luke 17:24, 37.

So are Gay People Accepted by God or not?

The upshot of all this? Once we recognize the common thread running through the major elements of the passageโ€“Zeus and Ganymede, Sodom, and the gay and lesbian couplesโ€“the entire passage coheres as a unified whole. Not only do the major elements of the passage become related in a single theme, but several unresolved interpretive questions fall into place as well.

The general topic or theme of the passage is indeed judgment, but the examples Jesus uses to illustrate the enactment of judgment donโ€™t tell us what is worthy of judgment, but what is not worthy of judgment.

And this is one very accurate way of describing the purpose of the passage. Weโ€™ve never quite known what the basis of acceptability was for the favored members of these pairs. We have surmised that they have an unspoken relationship with God, that they have faith, that they have remained awake and watchful and kept their lamps trimmed, but the passage has forced us to guess what the difference is between those who are taken and those who are left.

That puzzled guessing is understandable, because the point of the passage never has been to tell us the difference between who is acceptable to God and who is unacceptable. The point has been to tell us that homosexuality is not a factor in a personโ€™s acceptability to God.

Peopleโ€™s sexual orientation is not among the criteria for whether theyโ€™re in or whether theyโ€™re out.

Lukeโ€™s Gay Apocalypse, with the romantically involved gays and lesbians and the gathering of the Eagles around the Body of Christ, tells both Jews and Roman gentiles the โ€œmoral of the story.โ€ It is this:

  • Non-Celibate Gays and Lesbians are not Rejected by God.
  • Homosexuality is Not a Criterion of Acceptability for God.
  • Lesbians and Gays are Present in the Final Eschatological Gathering of Godโ€™s Elect.

Just because the word โ€œhomosexualโ€ doesnโ€™t appear in the gospels doesnโ€™t mean Jesus didnโ€™t talk about it. He did talk about homosexuality, using concrete terms similar to those in the Hebrew scriptures.

I tell you, in that night,
there shall be two men in one bed;
the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(Luke 17:34-35, KJV)

Jesus discussed homosexuals in precisely the way we would expect him to, not in abstract terms, but using concrete examples.

The post above was part of the 2015 Sychroblog on Gay Marriage. Below are posts from other bloggers who also contributed. Go read them all to see what they have to say!

  • Justin Steckbauer โ€“ Gay Marriage, LGBTQ Issues, and the Christian Worldview
  • Leah Sophia โ€“ Marriage Equality Again
  • Tony Ijeh โ€“ Thoughts on Gay Marriage
  • Tim Nichols โ€“ Imago Dei: Loving the Different
  • Carlos Shelton โ€“ About Gay Marriage
  • Wesley Rostoll โ€“ Some Things to Consider Regarding Gay Marriage
  • K. W. Leslie โ€“ Same-sex Marriage
  • Paul W. Meier โ€“ Gay Marriage: Love is the Narrow Gate
  • Tara โ€“ Justice for All
  • Michelle Torigian โ€“ Marriage Equality: The Constantly Expanding Love of God
  • Lifewalk Blog โ€“ Here I am
  • Mary โ€“ A Recovering Evangelical Writes about Homosexuality
  • Liz โ€“ Same Sex Marriage Stuff: Part 1
  • Loveday โ€“ Gay Marriage in Africa, USA, and the World
  • Jea7587 โ€“ Loving Your Gay Neighbor, Part 2
  • D. L. Webster โ€“ Questions of Interacting with Differing Beliefs

God is Redeeming Life, Redeeming Scripture Bible & Theology Topics: Bible Study, gay marriage, homosexual, homosexuality, Jesus, lgbt, Luke 17:34-35

Advertisement

Some Christians will not find this funny. But I did.

By Jeremy Myers
30 Comments

Some Christians will not find this funny. But I did.

Some Christians might not think this is funny, but I do…

The Bible in One Facebook post

God is Redeeming Scripture Bible & Theology Topics: bible, Bible Study, humor, Jesus, sin, Theology of the Bible

Advertisement

Are Christians Supposed to Obey the Mosaic Law?

By Jeremy Myers
15 Comments

Are Christians Supposed to Obey the Mosaic Law?

“

Note: This post on the Mosaic Law is quite long. Some people asked for a PDF download.
Ask and you shall receive!
Click here to download this article as a PDF.

Christians often struggle about the place of the Mosaic Law within our lives as followers of Jesus. There are entire denominations of Christians built around a particular understanding of the Mosaic Law which separates them from others.

Mosaic law from GodOf course, such divisions over the role of the Mosaic Law in the life of the Christian are not new. This was actually one of the first and primary theological issues to create division within the early church. From the very beginning, there were questions about whether or not Gentile Christians had to obey the Mosaic Law (Answer: No. See Acts 15). As Paul went about teaching the Gospel, he constantly faced opposition from a set of Christians who believed that to truly follow Jesus, you had also obey the Mosaic Law. Even the Apostle Peter seemed to side with this group for a while (see Galatians 2).

Sadly, 2000 years later, we still haven’t solved this most basic of Christian dilemmas. The foundation of this argument about the Mosaic Law usually follows this pattern:

  1. God gave us His laws in the Bible.
  2. Jesus fulfilled the law (Matt 5:17)
  3. So now what?

Of these three items, the debate usually centers around Point 2 and Point 3. For example, we argue about what it means for Jesus to have fulfilled the law. Does this mean He did away with it? Or gave it more meaning? Or showed us its true purpose? Or affirmed its validity for all His followers? Etc., etc. Then, based on however we answer Point 2, we go on to apply this answer to Christians today by answering Point 3.

Very few people (within Evangelical circles anyway) debate Point 1. We take that as a given. We assume the truth of it. “Of course God gave us His laws!” we say. “They’re in the Bible, aren’t they? They say they are from God, don’t they?” The idea that God gave His Laws in the Bible is the premise upon which the rest of the problem is built. So nobody challenges it, and we simply move on to try to Point 2, to try and figure out what to do with the laws that are in the Bible.

If we are ever going to solve this dilemma about what to do with the Mosaic Law as Christians, we need to go back and take a careful look at Point 1, and the idea that God gave us His laws in the Bible.

Don’t get nervous. I am not about to challenge the authority or validity of the Mosaic Law as recorded in the Pentateuch. I am still a conservative Christian who believes in the inspiration and inerrancy of all Scripture.

I just think we have not done enough serious thinking about the Mosaic Law, or why God gave the Law to the Israelites. And I think that once we understand this, the question of what to do with the Mosaic Law today will become much more clear.

So let us seek to understand why God gave the Law to the Israelites. But we are not going to begin there. We must begin with the history of lawmaking itself.

The History of Lawmaking

The history of lawmaking is an interesting study. Almost any law in any country from any era has a history behind how the law became a law. In most cases, a particular law was put into effect because there were people who were behaving in a way that made the law necessary.

In a sermon I preached several years back, I list several of the crazy laws that are on the books in various cities and states. There are laws about taking pictures of rabbits in June, bouncing pickles, and underwater whistling. In the sermon, I state that as interesting as these laws are, the stories of how these laws became laws are probably even more interesting.

legal codeBut even when we think about more mundane laws, like the tax code, or campaign finance law, or even the laws about the speed you can drive or the legal drinking age, all of these laws have stories behind how they became laws.

And whatever these stories are, almost all of them will have certain things in common. We can pretty much guarantee that the laws were created in order to stop people from doing certain things or get them to start doing other things that they were not doing (but should have been doing). In most cases, the things that these people should not have been doing (or should have been doing) are matters of common sense, common decency, or the common good.

Since people generally lack common sense, common decency, or the desire for the common good, laws are created to keep us all in line and in check. Laws are created and enacted because some people do not properly behave. Laws often require us to do things that puts other people before ourselves and other goals before our own.

You probably have โ€œhousehold lawsโ€ in your own home which portray this quite well. Maybe you have rules about how much time children can spend on the computer, or who gets to sit where at mealtime, or what sort of chores need to be done before bedtime. If you think about any one of these rules, and they came into existence, you will likely recall the events and situations that led up to making such a law necessary for the happy existence of your family.

You may even have some โ€œcrazy-soundingโ€ laws which would make absolutely no sense to any other family in history, but which make sense to you and your family because of certain situations that arose. For example, my family has a rule we follow which says this: โ€œDishes come before Dataseka.โ€ Nobody else in the entire world knows what that rule means or how to follow it, but if you were to ask my wife or any of my children what it means, they would know. Itโ€™s our rule, and it has a history of how it developed, and it was created to help us live together as a happy family.

It is helpful to think about all biblical โ€œlawsโ€ this way as well. Every law in the Bible is specific to a time and place and people. And every biblical law has a history behind it for why it was enacted and what it accomplished among the people who lived it. Yes, some of these laws, like “Do not murder,” are applicable to other times, people, and places, but that is not because all the laws are timeless decrees, but because people are people everywhere. Even if the Bible did not say, โ€œDo not murder,โ€ all humans everywhere naturally come up with this law against murder in order to maintain peace and stability. So even in the case of the 10 Commandments, all biblical “laws” are specific to a time and place and people, and they have a history behind how these laws were developed so that those people living in that time at that place could maintain peace and stability.

This is partly why it is so hard to understand or put into practice many of the laws we read about in the Bible. Though many of the biblical laws make sense, there are some that do not. I mean, why is it wrong to mix wool and linen (Deut 22:11). What is so terrible about cooking meat in milk (Exod 23:19)? And whatโ€™s this about determining if a woman cheated on her husband by making her drink dirt swept up from the tabernacle floor (Num 5:11-31)?

People come up with all sorts of fancy theories about these laws, but I think we have about as much chance of understanding these laws as you do of understanding what I mean when I say โ€œDishes come before Dataseka.โ€

Furthermore, even if I told you what the “Dishes come before Dataseka” law means, and even if I told you the story behind how this law developed in our family, this still would not mean that it was applicable to you or to your family, let alone applicable to all families everywhere in all places throughout time. It helps keep the peace in our family, but it would do absolutely nothing of the sort for yours.

The Mosaic Law is similar. All the laws in Leviticus, Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy have a history behind them, which is specific to the people who received the laws, in the time that they received the laws, and regarding the circumstances in which they lived. While some of the laws have universal and timeless application (e.g., โ€œDo not murderโ€), many of the laws have no such universal application. We don’t even know what some of these laws mean, let alone the story behind them, and even if we did know, this would not mean that we could apply these laws to our situation today. In fact, knowing what the laws mean and knowing the story behind them might actually make it clear that we could not and should not attempt to apply those laws to our lives today.

Let me say it more bluntly.

When we try to follow laws that were created for a different people, living in different times, from a difficult culture, at a different era, and in a different situation, we may actually end up sinning by following their laws, because doing so might break laws that are part of our own time and culture.

Yes, following biblical laws may actually cause you to sin.

Howโ€™s that for a shocker?

Since you might be getting nervous again about where I am going with this, letโ€™s back up and start over.

I said that the debate about the Mosaic law followed this pattern:

  1. God gave us His laws in the Bible.
  2. Jesus fulfilled the law (Matt 5:17)
  3. So now what?

Then I said that part of the problem is that we usually skip any discussion about Point 1 and go directly to Point 2. In the discussion above, I briefly considered Point 1. But let’s start over and consider the discussion in the normal way. Let’s begin with Point 2 and then move backward from there into Point 1.

What is the fulfillment of the law?

I am not going to get into the debate about Matthew 5:17 or the related texts of Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:23-25, and Ephesians 2:15 about whether Jesus reconfirmed or did away with the Mosaic Law. We’ll save that debate for another time.

What is clear from Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) is that the law is accomplished and fulfilled when we love God and love others (Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Tim 1:5; Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Luke 10:27; Mark 12:30-31). The goal of the law is love. Love is the summation of the law. Love was the defining characteristic of Jesus, who is the only person to have ever fulfilled the law. I think everybody can agree with this.

But we can go further.

Logically and theologically, not only is love the fulfillment of the law, the law is unnecessary where there is love, and the law only came into existence because love was absent.

If loving God and loving others is the fulfillment of the law, then the law is โ€œfollowedโ€ simply by loving God and loving others. If we are guided by love, then we do not need the law to guide us, because love guides us to do the things commanded by the law.

Law instructs us how to live when there is no love. When we live in love, we do not need to live under the law, because love is the purpose of the law. By living in love we naturally fulfill the instructions and guidelines of the law.

Living according to law is living according to the actions of love where there is no love. Living by law is practicing the actions of love without the attitude of love. This does not mean the law is bad! Sometimes the actions of love are needed for a safe and secure society even when there is no attitude of love. But where true love is actually present, the rules and commands for the actions of love are not needed because love performs them naturally.

Again, the story behind almost every law confirms this. Someone was doing something stupid, dangerous, foolish, or selfish that harmed other people. Why was this person doing this? Because they were not acting in love for others, but were acting only in love for self. Or maybe what they were doing was even dangerous to themselves. So a law was created to stop this dangerous behavior. But if true love was present, the law never would have been needed because the bad behavior never would have occurred.

ten commandmentsOf course, when laws are created as a substitute for love, people think that what is important is obedience to the law, rather than learning to love. And then they look for loopholes in the law which allows them to live selfishly and dangerously (not in love) while still obeying the letter of the law. When this happens, more laws are created to top this selfish and dangerous behavior. And pretty soon, 10 laws become 600 laws which become 6000 laws, which become 60,000 pages of laws.

But watch this.

If one culture or group of people looks at the laws of another culture or people, whether it is the 10 laws, the 600, the 6000, or the 60,000, and says, “It sort of worked for them; we’ll do the same thing,” they will end up treating each other more miserably than any other culture. Why? Because they completely bypassed love and went straight to law! Furthermore, the laws of that other people and other culture were created out of an attempt to enforce love in that particular culture for that particular people. Those particular laws only work for them. A different people in a different culture needs to develop different laws if they are going to curb the dangerous and selfish behavior of their own people in their own culture at their own time.

But if we skip this difficult law-making process and simply adopt the laws of another culture and era, and try to follow these laws in our own culture and era, we may actually end up living in ways that are the opposite of love!

Let me provide an example.

In our culture (as in many others throughout time), we have a law that a man should be married to one woman (No, I am not talking about the definition of marriage! Put that debate aside for now. I am talking about the law against polygamy). The law says that a man should not have two or more wives. Why does the law say this? Well, in our culture, the law says this partly because the Bible says this, but even without the Bible, people in our culture believe that in general, a man who has two or more wives cannot properly love them both. To be married to more than one woman is not loving to the women. Furthermore, since our culture is roughly divided 50/50 between men and women, and man who has more than one wife is not acting in love toward all the other men who also desire to have a wife. Why should one man have ten wives while another man has none?

So you see? We have developed a law with the intended purpose of creating an atmosphere of love. Whether this law is successful or not is another question…

But note that this law that a man can only have one wife has not been universally practiced by all people in all times.

A couple years ago, I read in a book by Roland Allen about a Native American Sioux tribe in which the men were expected to have as many wives as they could support. Why? It wasn’t that men wanted to have sex with lots of women. No, due to the death of men through constant warfare with other tribes, these Native Americans always had way more women in the tribe than they had men. So, in an attempt to take care of the women in the tribe (and to replenish the tribal population), it was decided that each man should have as many wives as he could support. He was expected to care for them, provide for them, and protect them. Without such polygamy, most of the women likely would have starved … At least, this is how it was explained to the European missionaries who came to teach the Gospel to this particular Native American tribe.

The missionaries, of course, were appalled to discover that the chieftain of this tribe had many wives! After all, the Bible says that marriage should be between one man and one woman! So when this chieftain became a Christian, the missionaries told him that the first thing he needed to do as a follower of Jesus was put away all of his wives except one.

So what did the Chieftain do? He went home, and, with a heavy heart, chose the one wife he would keep. Then he hanged the rest.

When he told the missionaries what he had done, they were more horrified than before. He explained to them that if he had put away all of his wives, they would have starved to death, and he thought that killing them was more loving than letting them starve. The missionaries informed him that God would have taken care of his other wives, but now that he had murdered them, he could not ever be a Christian. So the Chieftain went back to his Native American beliefs and ways.

Do you see? Laws that are intended to produce loving actions in one culture with one particular people in a particular set of circumstances, may actually produce unloving actions when applied to another group of people in a different set of circumstances.

This account might seem like an extreme case, but is it?

If we were to blindly follow some of the Mosaic laws simply โ€œbecause theyโ€™re in the Bible,โ€ we would be led into some horribly unloving behavior. Like making your wife drink muddy water because you think she cheated on you. Like stoning your children because they’re disrespectful. Like killing a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Like slaughtering bulls and goats and chickens because you feel guilty about something you did.

So we are right back to the same shocking point from before. Following the biblical law may actually cause us to sin!

In fact, this is exactly what Jesus taught as well.

Jesus vs. the Religion of Law

In Jesusโ€™ day, the Pharisees and Sadducees were the most scrupulous of law-keepers. And while nobody could accuse them of breaking the law, few people would have thought of them as overly loving. Oh sure, they loved those who loved them, and loved those who kept the law like they did. But when someone opposed their teaching or broke the law, they would not think twice about breaking fellowship with such a person, bringing them before the courts for condemnation, or seeking to have them stoned to death.

This is why Jesus had so many negative encounters with these religious leaders. He lived in love which often required Him to live outside their law. When faced with love or law, Jesus always chose love. Jesus knew that even if love did not fulfill the letter of the law, it always fulfilled the spirit of the law. If love is the purpose of the law, then love never fails to fulfill the spirit of the law. But following biblical law simply โ€œbecause itโ€™s the lawโ€ may actually cause you to sin if the application of that law today no longer comes from and leads to love.

So even in the life and example of Jesus, we have come back around to the same truth as before: Following biblical laws may actually cause you to sin.

While it is possible to follow the law in an unloving way, it is impossible to love in an unloving way, or even to love in an unlawful way. Remember, the fruit of the spirit is love โ€ฆ and against such things there is no law (Gal 5:23).

Hurtful Mosaic Laws

For those who are still a bit skeptical, there are several examples from the Mosaic Law which reveal loving actions in their day, but which would nevertheless be hateful and hurtful actions in ours. Several of the laws about women and slaves, for example, were huge movements toward love in the days when the law was given and both women and slaves were treated like property. In many ways, the law of Moses gave value and dignity to women and slaves that was unprecedented among other people and cultures of that time.

However, if we were to treat women today as the Mosaic law stipulates they are to be treated, such behavior toward women today would be misogynistic, sexist, cruel, and mean. The law of love as exemplified in Jesus Christ has brought about better treatment of women today than anything that the Mosaic Law could accomplish through law keeping.

The same goes for slavery. The Mosaic law assumes that slavery was a way of life and provided laws based upon this cultural assumption. But today, most people know that slavery is wrong. It is a great evil for one person to own another. But the Bible says nothing of the sort.

In both these cases (and in many others), an attempt to follow the biblical law would not be a step forward in godliness and Christlikeness, but a huge step backward. And not just backward, but back into serious sin.

Any man who exactly follows what the biblical Mosaic law says about women or slaves should be arrested and sent to prison.

In Mosesโ€™ day, the law was a huge step forward for love. But in our day, it would be a giant step backward. It was a step backward even in Jesus’ day, which is why He didn’t exactly follow the law in every case. He didn’t allow the woman caught in adultery to be stoned to death. He let His disciples do “work” on the Sabbath. He Himself performed work on the Sabbath. He touched lepers and dead people. All of these were loving actions that technically “broke” various aspects of the Mosaic Law.

But did Jesus fulfill the Mosaic Law? Of course He did! Because the fulfillment of the law is love.

But if Jesus had focused on the law instead of on love, He would not have been as loving as He was.

To the contrary, if Jesus had focused on the Mosaic law instead of on love, He would have been a religious sinner.

This is partly why any Christian today that uses the Mosaic Law as a foundation for their behavior is often viewed as less loving than their unchristian friends and neighbors. The Mosaic Law is less loving than where the rest of the culture is at today.

This doesnโ€™t mean that the culture has love figured out and we should follow their cues. Of course not.

But we must not begin to think that because the law worked for Moses and the Israelites 3500 years ago as they wandered around a desert that it will work for us today. The Mosaic Law wasnโ€™t meant to be a universal guideline for all people everywhere throughout time on how to behave. When we use it this way, we end up behaving in ways that are less loving than many of those today who live without the law.

So Why Did God Give the Law?

If all of this is true, why didnโ€™t God inspire Moses to just write down โ€œLove one anotherโ€ and leave it at that?

Why did he write all those laws? Why didnโ€™t God appear to Moses and say, โ€œJust tell them to love me and love each other and all will be wellโ€?

If love fulfills the law and if obeying the law can often be less loving than simply loving without the law, why doesnโ€™t the law consist of one word: โ€œLoveโ€?

Why didnโ€™t God appear on Mount Sinai and say, โ€œLove Me. Love each other. Now letโ€™s goโ€?

The truth is that this is exactly what God did say. Or near enough.

To understand the origin of the law, we need to return to the history of lawmaking again, only this time, we must look specifically at the history of the Mosaic Law.

In the beginning, God wanted an intimate one-to-one relationship with each of us (as we live in community with others). He wanted to speak to us, walk with us, and be with us, as a friend. But when Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree, one of the fallouts was the destruction of this intimate relationship that God desired to have with us.

Nevertheless, God continued to work toward the goal of relationship. This is partly why God initiated a relationship with Abraham.

When Moses and the Israelites came to Mount Sinai, before any law was given, God invited all the Israelites to the base of the mountain to speak with Him (Exod 19:11). They were all welcome. He invited them to be a kingdom of priests (Exod 19:6). But when God drew near, the people were afraid (Exod 19:16; 20:18), and asked for Moses to be a mediator between them and God. They did not want to speak with God. They wanted Moses to speak to God for them and then pass on to them whatever it was God said.

As a result of the people’s rejection of love, God instituted a religion of law for the people of Israel (Exodus 21โ€“31). This is not because law is better, but because laws are needed where there is no attitude of love. So God gave them a priesthood to mediate between Himself and His people. He gave them instructions about a tabernacle. And He provided basic instructions for how to get along in community with one another.

This religion of laws was not His ideal plan for them, but He gave it to them because this is what they wanted. They did not want an intimate relationship with God where He spoke to them. They wanted to keep their distance from God. And so, just as God later provided a king to the people because they wanted a human king instead of God as their king, He also provided religion because they wanted a human priesthood and physical tabernacle instead of a daily, intimate, direct relationship with God.

Though God wanted and offered a relationship based on love, the people rejected this offer and asked for a religion based on laws. So God gave it to them, even though it was not best.

But just as God provided a human king in part to show the failure of human kings, so also, God provide a human religion in part to show the failure of human religion. This truth is one of the main truths we learn from the Pentateuch. God provided religion to show that religion does not lead people to God, but away from God. Religion separates and divides. It never restores and heals.

So when the people of Israel reject a relationship of love in favor of a religion of law, it is not surprising that this religion of law exponentially increases in complexity. Laws only give birth to more laws. They never give birth to relationship.

Mosaic LawThis pattern of separation from God which leads to further religion continues throughout the Pentateuch. After the Israelites reject the relationship from God, they are given the 10 commandments. But then they create the golden calf and worship it instead of God, and so they are given more laws with greater degrees of intricacy and duty (Exodus 32ff). Later, however, they are found guilty of making sacrifices to demonic idols (Lev 17:7ff), and so God adds further laws and regulations about the sacrificial system. In the Pentateuch, the 10 laws eventually get amplified into over 600.

God wanted a relationship with the people, but when they refused the relationship, and turned instead to sin and to religion, God was forced to incarnate Himself within the religion so that He could draw them out of it.

The desire was love. But when love was rejected, and this rejection results in sin, laws must be added to create the culture and actions of love, even when there was no attitude of love.

The Law Was Added Because of Sin

So what we see is that the origin of the law is due to sin … which sounds surprisingly similar to what Paul says in Galatians 3:19. He says that โ€œthe law was added because of transgression.โ€ People usually understand Paul as saying that โ€œthe law was given to us so that it could reveal our sin to us.โ€ But that is not at all what Paul is saying, and this explanation doesnโ€™t fit the context, nor does such an understanding fit with why laws are really added.

As we have seen in the Pentateuch, the Mosaic Laws were not added to reveal sin to people, but rather, because the people had sinned. This is exactly what Paul says in Galatians 3:19. The law was added because of transgression, that is, because of sin.

When read from this perspective, the purpose of the Pentateuch is not for God to provide a set of laws which all people everywhere should follow. No! The point of the Pentateuch is to show that complete failure of law and religion to lead to the relationship of love that God wants with His people. John Sailhamer defends this idea in his book The Meaning of the Pentateuch.

Love vs. Law

The point for us today is this: If a person does not truly want a relationship with God, God will not let that fear get in His way of loving them. He will accept their love in any way they can offer it, even if it is through the broken methods of human religion.

Nevertheless, religion is so broken, the only thing it really leads to is greater guilt, condemnation, laws, obligation, and separation from God. God knows this, which is why He allows us to travel down the path of religion for a while. He knows that religion leads only to dead ends. He lets us practice our dead-end religions so that we can discover that the only way to connect with God is to directly connect with God. All the mediators, temples, laws, and rituals only separate us further from God and lead only to frustration and failure.

When we follow God by faith, we discover that He leads us away from religion. And the closer we truly get to God, the less religion we want or need.

But for those who fear to approach God on their own, God is more than willing to call to them from within the confines of religion. If people are like the Israelites at Mount Sinai, and are too afraid to approach God, or do not know if they can trust Him, He is willing to let them approach Him through priestly mediators, written precepts, and holy places, knowing that many will eventually see the emptiness of religion, and will seek Him directly as He has always wanted.

I sometimes view religion as โ€œtraining wheelsโ€ for learning to approach God directly. Of course, the wheels of religion are busted and falling off, but thatโ€™s the point. Eventually, people wise up to the fact that religion isnโ€™t helping them connect with God, and the vast majority of these people start to seek God in alternative ways, usually in a community of other like-minded people, which is what God has always wanted in the first place.

Religion is a Form of Idolatry

But notice that since religion is a substitute for God Himself, religion is a form of idolatry.

If God wants to teach us directly but we prefer to hear from Him from pastors and priests, and if God wants to meet with us personally but we prefer to approach Him through temples and rituals, then we have substituted these things for God Himself. This is idolatry. Nevertheless, God is patient with us and if this is the only way we are comfortable approaching Him, He accepts it as better than nothing.

God never wanted sacrifices and blood offerings, but as the Pentateuch reveals, the Israelite people were intent on giving sacrifices and blood. And they initially did so to golden calves (Exodus 32) and goat demons (Leviticus 17). So God taught them that if they were intent on offering dead animals and blood, they might as well do it to Him, but with certain restrictions and guidelines.

If the people had been in a relationship with God, they would have known that God did not want or need these things. But since the people rejected the relationship in favor of religion, God did what He could with their religion of sacrifices and offerings to redeem it and eventually rescue them from it. The Israelite religion was, in general, more humane than the other religions of that time. No human sacrifice was acceptable at any time for any reason. Though animals were allowed to be killed, they were not allowed to be tortured. Slaves were given certain rights. So were women and children.

God always incarnates Himself into whatever situation people are in so that He can lead them out of their sin and into a relationship with Him. In the case of Israel, God entered into the religion they wanted so that He could lead them out of it and into the loving relationship He wanted for them. Even at the end of the Pentateuch, both God and Moses indicate their knowledge that the religion of law would be a complete failure (Deut 31:16-29). It is because of this impending failure of the religion of law that Moses predicted a better covenant would come which would be based on relationship rather than religious laws and regulations (cf. this article on Deut 30:11-14).

All of this is why Paul in Galatians and the author of Hebrews are so shocked that some of the new Christians are returning once again to the religion of law. Since God has always wanted a relationship of love with us, and all people can now have this relationship through Jesus Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit, why would we want to return to the failed and idolatrous religion of law?

Yes, there are laws, and yes, these laws came from God, and therefore, these laws were good. However, these laws were never the ideal, but were always (and only) a poor substitute for love. They were, at best, a way to lead us toward love. They were a tutor, says Paul, to lead us to Christ (Gal 3:24).

God always wanted a kingdom of priests where we each approach Him directly, and in Jesus Christ, that is exactly what we have become (1 Pet 2:9). But when we relinquish that privilege to some other human being, or to some system of rules and regulations, or only to a sacred space on a holy day, we have backed away from God Himself and have turned once again to religion.

However, much like the Israelites of old, God will use religion if He must. It is not His ideal, but life rarely matches Godโ€™s ideal. God works with us as He finds us to lead us where He wants us.

And where is God leading us? Toward love.

God wants a relationship of love with each of us. But when love is rejected, the only thing left is law. In the absence of love, law guides our actions until we learn to love. Laws exist where love does not. Laws call us to perform the actions that love performs automatically. While it is possible to obey the law and not be loving, it is never possible to love and not fulfill the law.

In fact, if we focus on the law, we often become less loving! But if we focus on loving God and others, we naturally fulfill the law.

So what about the law? Forget about it! Just love and you will fulfill the spirit of the law!

God is Redeeming Scripture, Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: 10 Commandments, Galatians 3:19, law, love, Mosaic law, Moses, Pentateuch, religion

Advertisement

Which son is the true Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-32?

By Jeremy Myers
23 Comments

Which son is the true Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-32?

older son in prodigal son storyI wrote previously about Luke 15 here. This post looks primarily at the Prodigal Son.

Have you ever felt like the “older son” in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)? I have often felt this way, and so has my wife. Earlier this week, I met someone else online who felt the same way.

I think a lot of “good” Christian people relate to the words and feelings of the older son.

Relating to the Older Son

I mean, why is it that people who lived the rowdy life get more praise and glory in the church (and from God too, it seems) when they repent and return than those who lived respectable and responsible lives?

Even when someone doesn’t spend their lives on sex, drugs, and wild living, but simply chases after worldly things like money, success, and fame, it often seems like they are the ones who not only get rich but also get recognized by the church when they decide to “start living for God.” Of course, they still have their millions of dollars in the bank which they earned while chasing mammon …

Those of us who dutifully worked at home for our whole lives look at this and say, “What is going on? I have lived faithfully, worked hard, made wise choices, didn’t squander my money, didn’t chase after success and fame, was faithful to my spouse, sacrificed for my children, faithfully tithed, never drank, smoked, or did drugs, and served God as best as I could for my whole life, and what do I get for it? No parties. No book deals. No invitations to speak at conferences. Instead, we get broken ovens, broken computers, broken windows, broken air-conditioning units, and an ant infestation … all in the same week. (That is exactly what happened to me this past week. Seriously.)

When this happens, we who are the older brother say,

What gives, God?! You throw a party for him? I’ve served you my whole life. Where’s my party? I’m glad he’s home and all, but if this is the way you treat your faithful children, it’s no surprise you don’t have more … I’m just saying.

I have actually known people who have purposefully “gone off the deep end” just so they could get asked to share their testimony in church when they repented and returned. And it worked! If you want to become a Christian celebrity, go sin for a season, and then repent and write a book about how God brought you back from the brink of hell.

Is this what God wants from us? It certainly seems so from Luke 15:11-32.

Let’s take a look.

A Brief Summary of Luke 15:11-32

The younger son effectively slaps his dad in the face when he asks for his share of the inheritance. This is akin to saying, “I wish you were dead.”

If this sort of behavior weren’t shocking enough, the father says, “OK. I’ll die for you. Here’s your share of the inheritance.” That’s outlandish! When someone says, “I wish you were dead,” nobody responds by saying “OK. I’ll die.” But the father did.

Then the son adds insult to injury by leaving family and home and going to a far country (all big no-no’s in Middle Eastern culture), to waste his father’s hard-earned money on drinking, parties, and sex.

Eventually he wakes up in a pig sty and realizes life is terrible. So he returns home to beg for a position among the household servants.

When the father sees his son coming, he runs out to meet him. Again, the father shames himself with such behavior. Middle-eastern landowners did not run. Running was for servants. In running to his son, the father shows once again that he only cares about his son. He does not care about himself. He is willing to act like a servant for his son.

Prodigal Son Luke 15

When the son sees this, he realizes his father will never let him be a servant. So he simply confesses his sin. Note that he is already forgiven before he confesses. Forgiveness doesn’t follow confession, but precedes it. There’s a big theological truth there, but let’s finish the story…

The father is so glad his son is home, he throws a party for this son that has returned.

And now comes the older brother. He (rightfully?!) wonders why a party is being thrown for this wayward son who shamed the family name, insulted their father, and squandered his inheritance.

The father says, “We’ve been together this whole time and everything that is left is yours. But my son, who was dead, is now alive. That deserves a party.”

End of story.

I go round and round on this story (that’s one of the points of Jesus’ stories … to make us think about them for weeks, months, and years). I, too, feel like the older son. So does my wife. You probably do too.

Have we misunderstood the Parable of the Prodigal Son?

At one point in my life, I thought maybe that this was a parable from Jesus which describes how people in this world work, but this is not how it is in heaven. I mean, after the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin, Jesus talks about the angels in heaving rejoicing (Luke 15:7, 10). But there is no such statement after the parable of the lost son. So maybe there isn’t a party in heaven for this son, but these parties only take place on earth where we have a broken sense of who should get glory.

Take church as an example. Who gets the glory, the honor, and the recognition in church? It is always the prodigal sons. The pastor gets some glory if he’s a good preacher, but if the pastor has a shady past AND he’s a good preacher, well, that’s the golden combination right there. Such a pastor will get more book deals and conference speaking invitations than he can deal with.

If this is the way of understanding this parable, then the point would be this: “Honor those who really deserve honor, which is those who are faithful, hard-working, and responsible. Don’t honor the users and abusers until they too have learned to become responsible people.”

This understanding must be rejected however.

First, it appeals to our religious pride (which is a big strike against it). Second, this understanding contradicts the message of the two preceding parables (even though the statement about the angels is not repeated), and Jesus seems to be building up to a point with the 1/100 from the sheep, the 1/10 from the coins, and the 1/2 with the sons, so this third parable is building to a crescendo, not seeking to make a contrast.

And in fact, it was this narrowing of focus from 1/100 to 1/10 to 1/2 that caused me to finally see what this parable is really about (at least, what I currently think it is really about).

The Missing Fourth Parable of Luke 15

The parable of the lost son is not really the last parable in the sequence.

And no, I don’t mean the parable of the shrewd steward in Luke 16, though that parable also fits within the thrust of what Jesus is teaching in these parables. The last parable in the sequence is an unspoken parable which fits between Luke 15:32 and Luke 16:1.

What parable is that?

It’s the parable of the 1.

Since Jesus went from 1/100 to 1/10, to 1/2, the next number in the sequence is 1/1, or simply the number 1. And who is the “1”? It’s the older son.

Note that the parable of the prodigal son ends with the father speaking to the older son, but we do not hear how the older son responds. We do not know if the older son goes into the party, or if he continues to sit outside in the dark throwing a little pity party of his own.

Heck, as the father said, everything now belongs to the older son anyway, so for all we know, maybe the older son threw a party for himself! And why shouldn’t he? When the father said, “Everything I have is yours,” it was almost as if the father was saying, “You want a party? Great! Let’s have one! Since you own everything, go ahead and throw a party!”

We just don’t know what the older son said or did.

Jesus doesn’t tell us.

Why not?

It’s for the same reason that the book of Jonah has no ending. (I am writing about this in my commentary on Jonah … the similarities between Jonah and the older son are striking!)

Why does the third parable in this sequence have no ending? Why do we not hear what the older son says? Why does Jesus leave us hanging as to what happened?

Because the rest of the story is ours. The 1/1, the number 1, is you and me. The parable of the Prodigal Son has no ending because we are invited to end it.

If we identify with the older son in Luke 15, then we are invited into the story to provide it’s ending.

The father is now speaking to us and saying, “I have been with you the whole time. Everything I have is yours. It was right that we should have a party for your brother, for he was dead and is now alive. … But now, the ball is your court. Are you going to come party and play or continue to sit outside?”

And that is not an easy question to answer.

I don’t want to party with those who have abused the grace of God. I don’t want to party with those who have spit in God’s face and wished that He was dead. I don’t want to party with those who live irresponsibly and ask me to pay for it. I don’t want to party with those who spend their days sleeping around, watching TV, doing drugs, smoking, drinking, and collecting their monthly checks, which they can only collect people like me work our butts off every week and mark hard decisions about how to spend our money. They don’t deserve a party; they’ve been partying! I deserve a party. I’ve never had one! Where’s my party! On the other side of the spectrum, how come that rich doctor gets both a million dollar bank account and the big fat book deal? He chased money his whole life, and now that he decides to give a small portion away to children in Africa, he gets the book deal? How about me? I never chased money, and have always given away a large chunk of my income to children in Africa (though it’s still less than what he gave), but I don’t get the book deal, the radio interviews, or the conference speaking invitations!!!

You see how this goes?

Probably, if you feel like the older son in Luke 15, this is the sort of conversations that goes through your head too…

So as one older son to another, let me invite you into what I have been thinking and feeling should be our response to our father about our wayward and returning brothers.

There are four things we older sons can learn from the Parable of the Prodigal Son

1. There is No Older Son

First, the hard and difficult one.

I believe that when all is said and done, we will discover that there is no such thing as an older son.

In other words, you and I think we’re older sons, but we’re not. We are just prodigal sons who have not yet woken up in the pig sty. Oh, we’re in the far country, and our wanton living looks different than it did for our younger brother, but we are lost sons nonetheless. Our particular form of wayward living has a decidedly “religious” bent. We don’t spend our inheritance on sex, drugs, and alcohol. No, we spend our energy and life on self-righteousness, condemnation of others, and feelings of superiority.

One of the main truths of Parable of the Prodigal Son is that everybody is a Lost Son. Some of us just haven’t woken up to it yet.

younger son pigs prodigal sonFurthermore, the “older son” is the worst kind of “lost son” because we think we have stayed with God our Father, when in reality, we have gone into the far country of religion, which allows us to look down our self-righteous noses at everybody else who is not good enough, smart enough, or disciplined enough to truly live for God.

Remember what Jesus said to some of His onlookers? “I have not come to call the righteous, but the unrighteous.” Here’s the translation:

You’re all unrighteous; some of you just don’t know it yet. Those of you who think you are righteous are the worst kind of “unrighteous” because you are only “religiously” righteous.

As I have written elsewhere, while most of us think that Jesus came to rescue us from sin, I think the gospels seem to pretty clearly show that Jesus is more concerned about those of us trapped in religion than He is about those trapped by sin.

Religion is an invisible prison. It makes us think we are okay with God, when we may actually be further from Him than the greatest of sinners. Sinners typically know they are sinning. Religious people never do.

Religion blinds us to the truth of who we really are.

Note that in the Gospels, the “sinners” are little more than a side note. The real focus of Jesus’ interaction is with the Pharisees and other religious leaders. Whenever sinners are mentioned, it is usually in the context of setting up a discussion between Jesus and the religious people. Why is this? Because Jesus came to rescue us from religion! Sin is not that big of a deal for God. But religion? Now there is something He’s concerned with!

I sometimes think God allows people to sin so much so that religious people can have their eyes opened to their own sin!

And that’s the deal with the older son. He thinks he is better than his brother because he stuck around with dad. But he’s not better necessarily, for he is judging and condemning his brother, whom the father has accepted and forgiven! The older son is a lost son as well, and he too has turned away from his father.

So the Parable of the Prodigal Son should be called the Parable of the Prodigal Sons. They’re both prodigal, but in different ways!

2. The First Two Prodigal Sons in History

This leads me to the second point from this parable, which we actually arrive at by going all the way back to the first brothers in history, to Cain and Abel.

In Genesis 4, Cain was older than Abel. Out of anger at God accepting the younger brother’s offering, Cain murdered his brother Abel.

Remember what Jesus taught elsewhere: If we hate our brother, this hate leads to murder (Matt 5:22). If the older son in the parable continues down the path of anger toward the younger son at how the father has accepted him, the older brother could end up in the same position as Cain. That warning is implied here.

Yet there is a warning for the younger son as well. In Genesis 4, after Abel is murdered, God says that the blood of Abel cried out to him from the ground. What did it cry out? We are not told, but we can imagine: It cries out for “Vengeance! Retaliation! Retribution! Justice!” But note that in Genesis 4, there is none of this from God. God does not exact vengeance, retaliation, retribution, or justice. No, he seems to bless Cain. This doesn’t seem very fair either! And now the roles are reversed. Now it is the younger son who feels slighted by God!

One wonders if, after the party was over in Luke 15, as the younger son hung around the house and watched everything go to the older son, if the younger son ever started to feel slighted. Maybe he began to complain that the only reason he left home in the first place is because his older brother always looked down on him, and was better than him at everything. Maybe he began to argue that since he cashed out so early, some of the future profits of the farm should go to him instead of to the older brother if the inheritance between the two was to be truly fair. We don’t know what the younger brother might have said or felt in the future, but we do know human nature. If the younger brother was anything like the rest of us, he probably found reason to be jealous of his older brother, to complain against him, maybe even to blame his older brother for his own poor choices, and maybe even to cry out to his father for equality, fairness, and justice. Just like Abel.

But such a cry for vengeance and justice is not the cry of God. God has His own version of justice, which seems not at all just and fair to humans, because God’s justice is based on forgiveness, mercy, and love. This is why Jesus came and why Jesus died. And this is why the author of Hebrews says that Jesus brought a new covenant, which speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (Hebrews 12:24). Abel’s blood cried out “Vengeance! Justice!” The blood of Jesus cries out “Forgiveness! Grace! Mercy!”

So Jesus, in telling a story about two brothers and alluding to the story of the first two brothers in history, is telling us all that we are both the older brother and the younger brother, and are feelings toward one another have nothing to do with what we have or haven’t done, or how we have been slighted or overlooked, insulted or abused. No, the story is all about forgiveness, grace, and mercy.

Both the older son and the younger son need to see how God has graciously forgiven and accepted each of them, one for his many sins and the other for his religious hypocrisy, and both can thank the father for His love, and then show each other the same love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness in return.

It is only when we come to this recognition that the party begins for us too.

This leads us to the third point about this parable.

3. Parties are only for Screw-Ups

Notice that parties are never thrown for the rebellious sinners or for the religiously self-righteous. Neither one gets a party as long as they are caught these two types of traps.

Prodigal Son RembrandtThe younger son only gets his party when he realizes how much he has screwed up and how much his father loves and forgives him. That’s when the party begins for him.

Logically, then, the older son will get a party too … when he realizes how much he has screwed up and how much his father loves and forgives him too. That’s when the party will begin for him.

As I have written so many other places before: Death always precedes resurrection. Until there is death, there can be no resurrection.

The younger son died and has risen to new life. The older son has yet to recognize he is dead. But when he does, there will be life for him as well.

If, like me, you feel like the older son, then our prayer should be this: “Father, show me how I am the younger son. Let me see the pig sty I am living in.” Only then will the party begin.

However, it is possible that we may never fully come to this realization. We may never get the party. Or, more likely, we may never feel like we get the party. In that case, here is what will happen:

We will reach the end of this life and die. (There’s our death). And we will arrive in heaven and stand before Jesus, and I sort of imagine myself saying something like this: “Jeremy Myers reporting for duty, Sir! I have lived my whole life for you and for your glory, and now I am ready to live my eternal life in your service! What are my responsibilities in the eternal kingdom so that I might begin to serve you forever?”

And, based on what I read in this story, I think Jesus will look at me with a half-smile on his face and a twinkle in his eye and say, “Since you have been faithful in a few things, I will make you faithful in many. Do I ever have an assignment for you! Come with me.”

And he will lead me down the steps of the throne room, and to a secret door behind the throne. He will invite me to open the door, and as I step through, all my friends and family from this life will jump out and shout, “SURPRISE! Welcome home!” Someone will throw a robe on my back, put shoes on my feet, and Jesus Himself will put a glass of wine in my hand and will smile and say, “Duty? Responsibilities? Service? There’s none of that here. Now is the time to party, and this one is your honor, for you were dead and are now alive again.”

So even if you and I don’t get the party in this life, there’s gonna be a party for us too.

In the meantime, we can continue doing what only we can do.

If that’s serving to the best of your ability, and working hard, and living responsibly, and making wise choices, and living on a budget, that is wonderful. Just don’t look down on others who seem to not be able to live up to such standards (for whatever reason).

4. The Father Loves BOTH Sons – But the Older Son Gets Something Special

Here is the fourth point, which in my opinion is and most beautiful of all … note that in the end the only thing the father has for the older son is the only thing he has for the younger son – pure, unconditional love. God does not love you any more or any less than the younger sons who are out there. He loves and accepts you both the same.

Nevertheless, there is something you have with God that the younger son does not. It does not make you better, or more special, or anything of the sort. But there are benefits to living the way you do, and in the parable the father reminds the older son about one of them.

Note that the father says to the older son, “You are always with me.”

When it comes right down to it, why have you lived responsibly? Why do you try to make smart choices with your money, time, and resources? Why do you try to always please God and do what He wants? I think, if you are honest with yourself, it is because you love God and want to be with God.

And what does the father say to the older son? “You are always with me.”

Do you hear the tenderness? The love?

Do you hear the relationship?

The younger son went away to a far country. The younger son lost year upon year upon year of relationship with his father. We don’t know how many years pass between Luke 15:13-15, but for the son to spend all his money and for a severe famine to come upon the land, we are looking at probably at least a decade. Typically, a severe famine takes several years to develop. But during all that time, the father and the older son enjoyed conversation over everyday meals, working side-by-side in the fields, laughing at each other’s jokes, and supporting each other through the trials of life. There was never any party, but ten years of memories with his father are probably worth more than the most splendid party of all time.

People who live large portions of their lives apart from God still get the same love and forgiveness from God that we all get. They still get the party. But they don’t get the memories. They don’t get the history. They don’t get the fellowship that comes only with building a relationship through time and trials. And this fellowship is worth more than any amount of parties.

Think about it. If you could rewrite your life, which would you choose: First, you could go with what you have now, and the relationship with God you have now through years of sticking by Him, and struggling with questions and fears, and fighting off temptation, and making wise decisions (that sometimes turn out to be unwise), and persevering through temptation, and learning what you know about God, Scripture, and theology, but ending up as a relative “nobody” in the Churchianity.

Or, you could take all that and trade it for the story of someone who slept around, did drugs, got divorced four times, murdered somebody, landed in jail, found Jesus, got paroled, and then became an internally known Christian author and conference speaker even though they lived most of their life with no thought for Jesus. Would you trade your life for this one? I wouldn’t.

My life is not glamorous or glorious. It doesn’t have the ups or the downs or the highs and lows of other people’s lives. I often get jealous of the people who “strike it rich” with book deals and conference invitations, who get the parties and the fame because they were bad but now they found Jesus, but then I look back over my life, at how far Jesus and I have walked together, what we have been through together, and how we have suffered, and grieved, and rejoiced, and laughed together, and I realize that no book deal, bank account, or applause from men could ever substitute for what I have with Jesus. And I believe the richness of our friendship will only increase as I continue to walk with Him through the thick and thin of life.

If you feel like the older son in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, I believe the same is true of you. You see things and know things that few other people know, and this is due, in large part, to the fact that you have stuck with Jesus when many others have wandered off to the far country. Keep hanging out at home with your father. It may not be glamorous, but it’s good.


Note: A slightly different version of this post appeared at the All About Eve blog? There is a conference in Portland this October called “All About Eve,” and I am writing a weekly post for the 40 weeks leading up to this conference. The idea is that a modern-day Eve is having correspondence with me and a few other authors about her journey away from “Churchianity.” Click the link above to go read some of our “correspondence.”

God is Redeeming Scripture Bible & Theology Topics: Cain and Abel, death precedes resurrection, Genesis 4, Luke 15:11-32, Matthew 5:22, parables, prodigal son

Advertisement

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • …
  • 59
  • Next Page »
Join the discipleship group
Learn about the gospel and how to share it

Take my new course:

The Gospel According to Scripture
Best Books Every Christian Should Read
Study Scripture with me
Subscribe to my Podcast on iTunes
Subscribe to my Podcast on Amazon

Do you like my blog?
Try one of my books:

Click the image below to see what books are available.

Books by Jeremy Myers

Theological Study Archives

  • Theology – General
  • Theology Introduction
  • Theology of the Bible
  • Theology of God
  • Theology of Man
  • Theology of Sin
  • Theology of Jesus
  • Theology of Salvation
  • Theology of the Holy Spirit
  • Theology of the Church
  • Theology of Angels
  • Theology of the End Times
  • Theology Q&A

Bible Study Archives

  • Bible Studies on Genesis
  • Bible Studies on Esther
  • Bible Studies on Psalms
  • Bible Studies on Jonah
  • Bible Studies on Matthew
  • Bible Studies on Luke
  • Bible Studies on Romans
  • Bible Studies on Ephesians
  • Miscellaneous Bible Studies

Advertise or Donate

  • Advertise on RedeemingGod.com
  • Donate to Jeremy Myers

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

© 2025 Redeeming God · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Knownhost and the Genesis Framework