- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have really enjoyed Rob Bell’s podcast series on Jesus. To be edgy and provocative, he has chosen a title that may be offensive to some. The latest one was all about grace https://robbell.podbean.com/e/jesus-h-christ-part-7-you-are-already-at-the-party/ I also listened to a devotional talk by President Oaks at BYU-Idaho.
https://byui-media.ldscdn.org/byui_ft/devo_audio/30_10_2018_Devo.mp3?fbclid=IwAR0lUxhp6xISF2AMWsIit0owJrfcnE0OW9k-3uNo-4WDNQyFIAZoj-d2oUw President Oaks explores and wrestles with the contradiction of reconciling the loved-based messages of Jesus in the New Testament with an obedience-focused model and concludes that love and law are two sides of the same coin. I would say that Jesus totally dismantled the obedience-based model and was all about radical inclusion and acceptance. For him, keeping the commandments meant loving God and loving your neighbor and he made people very uncomfortable with how much he disrupted the purity system of the time. I guess these are just two very different interpretations and I find the grace one much more compelling.
Quote:President Oaks explores and wrestles with the contradiction of reconciling the loved-based messages of Jesus in the New Testament with an obedience-focused model and concludes that love and law are two sides of the same coin.
Elder Oaks has never been high on my list of teachers, but the love and law description fits him. He is a lawyer. He see’s the world that way. He also came from a generation where rules, of all kinds, were the structure of life. Kids were grounded, spanked, disciplined in ways we don’t do anymore. All of this sets his view point. My dad is very similar. I was at one of my first church dances. I had taken my shoes. So had every other girl at the dance. But the dance card specified “all clothes stay on”. My dad found me, as he was in the Bishopric and chaperoning the dance, and asked me to get my shoes on. No amount of pointing out the absurdity of his interpretation would help. I had an item of clothing off and that was a violation. (My dad is a very loving person, too. This is just a generational example.) It’s part of their era.
Rob Bell is younger. Rob Bell comes from a faith that interprets most of the bible differently from us.
On the Oaks arena, I try to compare Holland’s interpretation of the prodigal son with Oaks. I prefer Hollands.
Hi Felix, I believe you would be interested in the following thread:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2288&hilit=love+wins+rob+bell I would especially draw your attention to page three and beyond where I had the conflict between the grace based approach of Rob Bell and the current more works based approach of the LDS church. Mercy&Grace had some very thought provoking responses.
I only want to point out that Elder Oaks’ view of the Prodigal Son and the “faithful son” is consistent with a strict reading of the actual wording of the parable. The father celebrated his younger son and his return, but he said nothing about giving him a second inheritance. He also said nothing about taking anything from the older son to provide for the younger son’s inheritance. He simply rejoiced that his lost son returned to the family. I like Bell’s interpretation for a lot of reasons, and I am totally fine with reimagining Biblical stories and taking nontraditional messages from them, but Oaks is correct, technically, about what the parable actually says.
Old Timer wrote:
I only want to point out that Elder Oaks’ view of the Prodigal Son and the “faithful son” is consistent with a strict reading of the actual wording of the parable. The father celebrated his younger son and his return, but he said nothing about giving him a second inheritance. He also said nothing about taking anything from the older son to provide for the younger son’s inheritance. He simply rejoiced that his lost son returned to the family.I like Bell’s interpretation for a lot of reasons, and I am totally fine with reimagining Biblical stories and taking nontraditional messages from them, but Oaks is correct, technically, about what the parable actually says.
If I remember right, the older son would have had a double inheritance because he would also inherit his father’s responsibilities as the new family head. Presumably, his new responsibilities would include taking care of his previously wayward brother. I can only imagine that the ideal would be for him to be just as generous as his father.
I’m making a few leaps here, but I think a strict reading in context implies that the older son was meant to share his inheritance – at least in living space, opportunities, and fellowship. It says something about extending the same grace that has been extended to us, and dovetails nicely with President Oaks’s shift to more inclusion.
Technically, in that time period, the older son could provide continued financial support for his brother, but it would not be any kind of inheritance. The younger son received and spent his inheritance. There was no expectation whatsoever to provide any additional inheritance outside of his brother’s possible charity. That charity was his right to give, but it was not expected as a default. Many younger sons left home to try to create their own wealth, and none of them could expect or demand anything extra if they failed. Again, that was up to the birthright son. As I said, I like Bell’s article for a lot of reasons and agree with what you just wrote completely – except for the inheritance issue and any requirement for the older son to be generous. I agree the father kind of implied generosity – at least of openness and acceptance. All I am saying is that Oaks was not wrong in his interpretation of the parable, based on Jewish tradition and a strict reading of the parable itself.
I think an important question is who the characters in the story represent. Suppose that the father represents God, the prodigal son represents the wayward sinner, and the older son represents the self righteous Pharisees and Sadducees. God forgives the repentant sinner and is more gracious in his reception than anyone could expect.
God is also patient and kind to the older brother that imagines that it is his right to despise his brother and turn him away. Such is not his right. The son sinned against the father. It is the father’s right to condemn or forgive and he choose forgiveness. The father is patient with the older brother in helping him to soften towards his younger brother.
Jesus spoke forcefully against the self righteous of his day but perhaps this parable implies that God will work with them patiently to help them be more compassionate and empathetic to those that they might consider sinners or “others”.
Specifically regarding inheritance, Curt is technically correct based on Jewish tradition and a strict reading. However, I would be cautious against drawing too many conclusions from this parable in isolation regarding the distribution of an earthly inheritance and how it compares to a heavenly one. In the parrable of the laborer all of the laborers are paid the same amount – even those that arrive at the 11th hour. In the parable of the prodigal son if the younger son were to receive a second inheritance it would decrease the size of the older son’s inheritance and that would not be fair. In the parable of the laborer each individual receives a fair and good wage. The Lord of the vineyard is able to pay these later laborers (that may have spent the fist part of the day being slothful and lazy) without taking anything away from the former laborers.
Elder Holland said the following:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-laborers-in-the-vineyard?lang=eng Quote:It is with that reading of the story that I feel the grumbling of the first laborers must be seen. As the householder in the parable tells them (and I paraphrase only slightly):
“My friends, I am not being unfair to you. You agreed on the wage for the day, a good wage. You were very happy to get the work, and I am very happy with the way you served. You are paid in full. Take your pay and enjoy the blessing. As for the others, surely I am free to do what I like with my own money.”Then this piercing question to anyone then or now who needs to hear it: “Why should you be jealous because I choose to be kind?”Brothers and sisters, there are going to be times in our lives when someone else gets an unexpected blessing or receives some special recognition. May I plead with us not to be hurt—and certainly not to feel envious—when good fortune comes to another person? We are not diminished when someone else is added upon. We are not in a race against each other to see who is the wealthiest or the most talented or the most beautiful or even the most blessed. The race we are really in is the race against sin, and surely envy is one of the most universal of those.
Furthermore, envy is a mistake that just keeps on giving. Obviously we suffer a little when some misfortune befalls us, but envy requires us to suffer all good fortune that befalls everyone we know! What a bright prospect that is—downing another quart of pickle juice every time anyone around you has a happy moment! To say nothing of the chagrin in the end, when we find that God really is both just and merciful, giving to all who stand with Him “all that he hath,” as the scripture says. So lesson number one from the Lord’s vineyard: coveting, pouting, or tearing others down does not elevate your standing, nor does demeaning someone else improve your self-image. So be kind, and be grateful that God is kind. It is a happy way to live.
“All that he hath”? What an interesting concept. Do you suppose that the heavenly inheritance is diminished by dividing it the billions of children of our Heavenly Parents?
As I said, I like alternate interpretations, and I like that one – a lot. All I am saying is that there are multiple ways to interpret almost all parables, so it is hard to say Elder Oaks’ statement is wrong – especially given how it would have been interpreted at the time it was given. I like other interpretations of this one, but that doesn’t mean ones that don’t work for me are wrong.
Recent BCC post on the intersection of the prodigal son and laborer parables.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.