> For which son was the fatted calf slain?
Excellent point, and thankyou for making it. The fatted calf was slain for the Prodigal Son. AFTER he had seen the error of his ways and AFTER he had repented and returned to his Father.
It wasn’t slain whilst he was being Prodigal.
And what happened as a result of his repentance? Did he get his inheritance back, as if nothing had happened and as if no sin had been committed? Did his brother have to divide what remained of the Estate to share with the Prodigal Son?
No — we know what happened because Christ goes to great pains to spell it out. His Father was overjoyed to have him home again. And his brother would still inherit his full inheritance upon the Father’s death — all that remained of his Father’s wealth — it says so.
(Now, it would have been extra-Christian for the brother to share with the Prodigal son anyway fifty-fifty, but that is not a part of the parable as presented).
Lesson learned from this: we can be forgiven for our sins if we repent, but that does not exempt us from the consequences of our sins. Sin has happened, and we wear whatever consequences accrue as a result — even after forgiveness.
Saying “sorry” does not turn back the clock. It doesn’t make us victims and it doesn’t un-Sin the Sin. But it does help to atone for the offense.
(Which raises another interesting point: Forgiveness is scriptural. Forgive-and-forget is not.)
I think it’s interesting to consider Christ’s response to the woman taken in adultry. She was to be executed by stoning — fair enough, that was the just penalty. The Pharisees tried to get Christ into a trap by asking Him what should be done.
If He said “Stone her” then they would have Him on “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” And if He said “Let her go” then they would have Him on “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultry”. A very clever trap — exactly the sort of thing you’d expect from clever lawyers which is what the Pharisees were.
His response as we know was “Let him who is sinless cast the first stone.” Her accusers left, one by one.
And the only Sinless person that remained with the woman was Him.
Now all of that is really dramatic, but isn’t overly interesting. Because the climax to the story is His instruction to that woman.
“Neither do I accuse thee. GO AND SIN NO MORE.”
He didn’t say “you are innocent, you are a victim, you did no wrong”. With this instruction He told her three things:
1) She had sinned and was a Sinner
2) Her sins were forgiven
3) Don’t sin again.
Consequences of her sin? Well, she had been taken in Adultry. She could probably expect her marriage to end. She may have been impregnated as a result of her Adultry: that wasn’t going to un-happen either. Her reputation was in tatters: that would not be easily repaired either.
The only outcome was that she had been Forgiven of the sin of Adultry, that would otherwise have cost her life.
All other consequences remained in situ.
And this is entirely consistent with the lesson taught by the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Thanks for raising that example.
Incidentally, by my reading: Father's house before departure: EDEN. Father's house after return: HEAVEN.
Some other notes (all MHO): Adam and Eve sinned not because they were evil, but because they were human. God could easily have made them into perfect sinless little robots, but He didn't. He wanted his people to freely come to him on right right path. The only way for them to freely go to him would be if they could also stray from the path. And being human, that's what they did.
I'd like to offer analogy I've not seen elsewhere, but which I find very useful. If a person takes a deck of cards and decides to play Klondike Solitaire, the person playing the game is not allowed to play a Jack of Spades on a Six of Clubs. When using real cards (as opposed to a computer), the cards won't physically refuse to be played in such fashion, nor would a person who played in such fashion be invaded by the Solitaire Police. Nonetheless, a person playing Klondike would be unable to play the SJ on the C6 without ceasing to play Klondike Solitaire.
I've often read questions asked about the nature of God's omnipotence and omniscience, and how they can coexist with free will. I would suggest the answer is given in my previous paragraph. God decided, when He created the universe and mankind, that He would let them mostly run freely and limit His interference with them according to certain pre-established rules. Were mankind to deviate too far from His plan, He would be physically capable of rearranging things to His liking, but were he to do even the slightest thing beyond the rules He had initially selected, those rules would become completely meaningless. Either they apply or they don't.
God wants His people to find the right path and choose it freely. He gave people free will, knowing full well that people would stray. His hope is that people find their way back.
Interesting you should talk about the prodigal son prable. Our pastor talked about it recently, and had a somewhat different emphasis. Everyone knows the prodigal son represents lost sinners, and the father represents God, but who does the other son represent?
The loyal son had live a good and proper life. He was loyal and obedient to his father. But what was his reaction when his brother returned asking for forgiveness? He was angry, self-righteous, and unforgiving. He acted as though he was the one that had been sinned against, instead of the father. And even though the father had forgiven the prodigal son, the loyal son refused to do so and instead continued to point out the prodigal’s sins.
I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of “loyal sons” in the church. I know I have (and I admit I have felt that way myself at times.) People who have a condeming, self-righteous nature. Who can’t reach out in love to someone that has sinned, but rather feel the need to make sure the sinner is roundly condemed as though they were the ones sinned against and not God.
Jesus condemed sin, but he reached out in love and compassion to sinners. That is the model we are to follow.
His condemnation of people was almost exclusivly directed at the religious hierarchy of his day. Often accusing them of being unforgiving and hypocritical. As in the following passage (the Pharisee, like the loyal son, is model we should NOT follow.)
Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God.
I don't know that the prodigal son ended up with nothing after his return. If he was accepted back, he would presumably be expected to work the fields and would be entitled to his share of the harvest from thenceforth. I don't know that rewards in heaven are quantified such that the prodigal son would end up with less than his brother, but for one thing: the prodigal son would know that he had betrayed his father, and know forever more that the he had a place in his father's house not because of his deserving, but purely because of his father's grace. See my next post as well.