28<\/strong> .<\/em> he was angry<\/em> ] The feelings of the Jews towards the Gentiles (1Th 2:14-16<\/span>) when they were embracing the offers of the Gospel (“The Jews…were filled with envy and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming,” Act 13:45<\/span>) and the feelings of the Pharisees towards our Lord, when He ate with publicans and sinners, are the earliest historical illustrations of this phase of the parable. It illustrates feelings which refer more directly to such historical phenomena; the earlier part is of more universal application. Yet envy and lovelessness are too marked characteristics of modern religionism to render the warning needless.<\/p>\n would not go in<\/em> ] “For is<\/em> stat Israel,” sed “ Foris stat<\/em> non excluditur<\/em>.” Ambrose.<\/p>\n therefore came his father out and intreated him<\/em> ] “How often would I have gathered thy children together…but ye would not,” Luk 13:34<\/span>; see Act 17:5<\/span>; Act 17:13<\/span>; Act 22:21<\/span>; Act 28:27<\/span>. The yearning chapters addressed to the obstinacy of Israel by St Paul (Rom 10:11<\/span>) furnish another illustration of this picture.<\/p>\n Verse 28. He was angry<\/B><\/I>] This refers to the indignation of the scribes and Pharisees, mentioned Lu 15:1-2<\/span>. In every point of view, the anger of the older son was improper<\/I> and unreasonable<\/I>. He had already received his<\/I> part of the inheritance, see Lu 15:12<\/span>, and his profligate brother had received no more than what was his just dividend. Besides, what the father had acquired since<\/I> that division he had a right to dispose of as he pleased, even to give it all to one son; nor did the ancient customs of the Asiatic countries permit the other<\/I> children to claim any share in such property thus disposed of. The following is an institute of the GENTOO law<\/I> on this subject: (CODE, chap. ii. sect. 9, p. 79:) “If a father gives, by his own choice, land, houses, orchards, and the earning of his own industry, to one of his sons, the other sons shall not receive any share of it.” Besides, whatever property the father had acquired after<\/I> the above division, the son or sons, as the prodigal in the text, could have no claim at all on, according to another institute in the above Asiatic laws, see chap. ii. sect. ii. p. 85, but the father might divide it among those who remained with him: therefore is it said in the text, “Son, thou art ALWAYS with me<\/I>, and ALL that I have is THINE,” Lu 15:31<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n 28. came his father out, andentreated him<\/B>“Like as a father pitieth his children, sothe Lord pitieth them that fear Him” (Ps103:13<\/span>). As it is the elder brother who now errs, so it is thesame paternal compassion<\/I> which had fallen on the neck of theyounger that comes forth and pleads with the elder.<\/P><\/p>\n And he was angry<\/strong>,…. Particularly that the fatted calf was killed, Lu 15:27<\/span> the preaching of a crucified Christ, and of free and full salvation by him, is highly displeasing and provoking to self-righteous persons; they are angry at it, that it should be free, that election to salvation should be of grace, that justification should be freely by the grace of God, and that pardon of sin should be according to the riches of God’s grace, and salvation be by grace, and not by works; and that it should be discriminating, that God should appoint some, and not all unto salvation; that Christ should redeem some, and not all; and that all men are not called unto it, by his Spirit and grace; and that it should be full and complete, so as nothing can be added to it; and that it should be for sinners, and alone by Christ, and by him as crucified: it would be agreeable, was it taught that salvation was by Christ in a doctrinal way, by giving laws and rules to men, whereby to save themselves; or that Christ saves by example, and not by his sacrifice, in a way of satisfaction for sin. Now, though no grievous words were used, nor any thing said that might justly provoke, yet such was the pride of his heart, that he could not bear that his brother should be taken so much notice of, who had acted and lived so scandalously; and besides, his own character as a righteous person, was neglected by this doctrine; and his own righteousness laid aside, in the business of justification and salvation, which was intolerable by him:<\/p>\n and would not go in<\/strong>; into his father’s house, nor to the feast, nor into the kingdom of heaven, or Gospel dispensation; the Scribes and Pharisees shut it up to themselves, and others; would neither go in themselves, nor suffer others; they did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, nor did they receive, but reject him; nor did they give any credit to the doctrines, nor submit to the ordinances of that dispensation:<\/p>\n therefore came his father out<\/strong>; not in a way of wrath and judgment, but in the ministry of the word; for though the Jews rejected it, it was not at once taken away from them, but was continued time after time, and for some considerable time: the Jews of old had the ministry of the word, both by angels and men; God frequently went forth to them by his prophets, and at last by his Son; and though they were angry with him, and rejected him, yet still the ministry of the word, by the disciples of Christ, were continued a good while to them; which shows the condescending goodness and grace of God, and his patience and longsuffering towards them:<\/p>\n and entreated him<\/strong>; the Persic version reads, “and said unto him, why dost thou not go in?” this regards the external call by the ministry of the word, to the outward duties of religion, to means of grace; to give credit to the doctrines, and to attend the ordinances of the Gospel.<\/p>\n But he was angry <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist (ingressive) passive indicative. But he became angry, he flew into a rage (<\/SPAN><\/span>). This was the explosion as the result of long resentment towards the wayward brother and suspicion of the father’s partiality for the erring son.<\/P> Would not go in <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Imperfect tense (was not willing, refused) and aorist active (ingressive) infinitive.<\/P> Entreated <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Imperfect tense, he kept on beseeching him. <\/P> <\/p>\n He was angry [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Not with a mere temporary fit of passion, but, as the word imports, with a deep – seated wrath.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And he was angry,” <\/strong>(orgisthe de) “Then he was angry,” with the enmity and venom of sin in his unholy, self righteous soul, Rom 8:7<\/span>; Eph 2:1-3<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “And would not go in:” <\/strong>(kai ouk ethelen eiselthein) “And he did not wish or care to enter,” to enter into the merriment, joy, and festivities; He thus became the lost son, Isa 65:5<\/span>; Luk 18:11<\/span>. He would have no part in forgiveness toward an erring brother, therefore had no forgiveness of the seething malice, envy, jealousy, and anger of his own soul, Mat 6:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “Therefore came his father out, and entreated him.” <\/strong>(ho de ‘pater autou ekselthon parekalei auton) “So then his father came out (and) besought, invited, or urged him,” with compassion, longsuffering, and forbearance, after the nature of God, as Jesus had entreated the Jews, Pharisees in particular, Joh 1:11-12<\/span>; Mat 23:37-39<\/span>; Eph 4:1-3<\/span>; 2Co 5:20<\/span>.<\/p>\n 28. Therefore his father went out. By these words he reproaches hypocrites with intolerable pride, which makes it necessary that the Father should entreat them not to envy the compassion manifested to their brethren. Now though God does not entreat, yet by his example he exhorts us to bear with the faults of our brethren. And in order to take away every excuse from wicked severity, he not only introduces hypocrites as speaking, whose false boasting might be confuted, but even affirms that, though any man had discharged, in the most perfect manner, all the duties of piety towards the Father, yet he has no just reason to complain because his brother obtains pardon. It is certain, indeed, that the sincere worshippers of God are always pure and free from this malignant disposition; but the design of Christ is, to show that it would be unjust in any man to murmur on account of his brother having been received into favor, even though he were not inferior in holiness to the angels. <\/p>\n (28) And he was angry, and would not go in.<\/strong>This, then, was the first feeling. He who professed obedience to his father is out of harmony with his fathers mind. He shuts love out, and, as by a righteous judgment, is himself shut out from love.<\/p>\n 28<\/strong>. <\/strong> Angry would not go in<\/em> Our Lord now holds up to the murmuring Pharisees of Luk 15:2<\/span> a likeness of themselves for them to recognize and avoid. As the elder son is angry at the joy which welcomes the prodigal home from his wanderings, so have these men murmured at the mercy with which Jesus has received the publican and the sinner. <\/p>\n Came his father out and entreated<\/em> As God now, by Jesus, entreats these doctors of Israel not to spurn the outcast publicans and sinners who may be induced to forsake their sins.<\/p>\n “But he was angry, and would not go in, and his father came out, and entreated him.”<\/p>\n But the elder son was angry, and we are probably to see that all the resentments of the years rose up within him. He had originally envied his brother’s freedom as the younger brother had gone off to see the world, and then when his brother had squandered the money entrusted to him and had become estranged from the family, it was he who had had to work twice as hard to build up their resources again. And now here was his brother back again, and being treated as though nothing had happened. Possibly he also saw some of his inheritance disappearing with him. Whatever way it was he refused to join the celebrations. Like many such snap assessments it was a wrong assessment, as his father would now attempt to make clear. But it was a natural one. It brought out how unreasonable we can all be at times, especially when we are tired.<\/p>\n And when his father heard that he had arrived back and had not joined the celebrations, he realised that he must be upset, and he went out to him and begged him to come in and join them. Note how the father goes out to both sons, just as God reaches out to all men. He loved them both.<\/p>\n Luk 15:28<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Therefore came his father out,<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> This act of condescension gives a great heightening to the character of the father, and adds an inexpressible beauty and elegance to the parable; and when we consider it as referring to the love and condescension of our Almighty Father, it must certainly diffuse the highest consolation through our souls, if we have a real desire to be reconciled to him. <\/p>\n DISCOURSE: 1546 Luk 15:28<\/span>. And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and entreated him<\/em>.<\/p>\n IT is an undeniable fact, that many who have lived a profligate life are received afterwards to Gods favour; and that many who have been externally moral are excluded from it. But this ought not to be a stumbling-block to us, since there will always be found a corresponding difference of character in the persons rejected or received. The Prodigal had been abandoned; but was renewed in the spirit of his mind: the elder brother had been moral; but was proud, envious, discontented, querulous. The character of the latter well deserves a distinct consideration. We shall notice,<\/p>\n I.<\/p>\n The disposition of the elder brother<\/p>\n Some think that he was intended to represent a pious character; and doubtless there have been good men, who too nearly resembled him [Note: Jon 3:10<\/span>; Jon 4:1<\/span>; Jon 4:9<\/span>. Act 11:2-3<\/span>.]: and, on this supposition, his fathers address to him will have no difficulty [Note: ver. 31.]. But the parable in this case would not have been suitable to the occasion [Note: ver. 13.]: yea, it would rather have tended to mislead the Pharisees, and to foster the conceit they had of their own piety. His character rather represents that of the murmuring Pharisees, as that of the Prodigal does of the repenting Publicans. It might indeed have some further reference to the Jews and Gentiles [Note: Act 13:42<\/span>; Act 13:44-45<\/span>; Act 22:21-23<\/span>.]: but it admirably portrays the character of Pharisees in every age. The two things noticed in the text especially demand our attention:<\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n His displeasure at the reception of the Prodigal<\/p>\n [On being informed of his brothers reception, he was angry. When entreated by his father to join in the festivity, he began to boast of his own blameless and meritorious conduct. He complained that sufficient respect had not been paid to his services; he rehearsed with envious triumph and malicious exaggeration the misconduct of the Prodigal; and disdained to acknowledge him as a brother, whom his father had received and entertained as a son. How strongly does this exhibit the disposition and conduct of modern Pharisees! It affords them pain rather than pleasure to hear of the conversion of notorious sinners. When urged to embrace the salvation offered in the Gospel, they deny that they are in danger of perishing, or that they have ever merited the wrath of God: when told that their own righteousness can never justify them before God, they complain that their works are undervalued, and that all inducement to perform them is taken away. The recital of a penitents joy fills them with envious rage and malignant jealousy: they take occasion from his former misconduct to represent his change as mere hypocrisy; and, instead of regarding him with brotherly affection, they pour contempt upon him as a weak deluded enthusiast [Note: With what bitter contempt and sarcastic virulence, will they sometimes exclaim, That is one of your saints!].]<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n His unwillingness to participate in the happiness provided for him<\/p>\n [The invitations given to him by his father were rejected with disdain. As the feast was not made in honour of him<\/em>, he could find no pleasure in partaking of it. Thus it is with Pharisees in every age. When we invite them to come to the feast provided in the Gospel, they put us off with excuses. However rich the feast, or sublime the joy, they have no appetite for it, no desire after it. If we were to tell them that their own good works should be the objects of admiration and applause, they would be delighted with the idea, and eagerly embrace the honour offered them: but when they find that all the praise is to be given to God and to the Lamb, they have no ear for such music, no taste for such employment.]<\/p>\n Having seen the disposition of the elder brother, let us notice,<\/p>\n II.<\/p>\n The conduct of the father as contrasted with it<\/p>\n Nothing can be more odious than the character we have seen; or more amiable than that which we are going to contemplate. Behold,<\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n His forbearance<\/p>\n [How justly might the father have closed the conference on the first refusal, and given orders for the final exclusion of this insolent complainant! But, as he had borne with the Prodigal in his departure, so now he bears with the pride and obstinacy of his envious brother. And how long has he exercised his patience towards us!<\/em> Times without number has he entreated us to accept of mercy; yet his invitations have, in many instances, excited nothing but disgust: still however, with much long-suffering, he continues to strive with us by his word and Spirit.]<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n His condescension<\/p>\n [He did not send a servant, but went out himself to entreat his son; and, instead of controverting, as he might well have done, the statement of his son, he argued with him on his own principles<\/em> [Note: This gives the proper clew to the difficulties in ver. 31. The Pharisees had access to God at all times; and all the privileges they could desire were enjoyed by them (see Rom 9:4<\/span>.) so that, whatever favour might be shewn to others, they could lose nothing, nor could have any reason to complain.]. He affectionately reminded him, that if no such feast had been made for him<\/em>, there had not been any thing withheld from him that he had desired: that the favour shewn to the Prodigal did not proceed from any undue partiality, but from the peculiar circumstances of his return; and that nothing would be more gratifying to him, than to have both his sons partakers of the same happiness. He shewed him further, that there was a meetness and propriety in the joy manifested on that occasion; and that he<\/em>, as a brother<\/em> ought to join in it with his whole heart. Such is the condescension which we also have experienced at Gods hands. How has he argued with us to overcome our reluctance, and laboured to convince us, when he might justly have left us to our own obstinate resolves!]<\/p>\n 3.<\/p>\n His love<\/p>\n [The love shewn by him to the returning Prodigal excites our admiration; but that was no less which was manifested to his ungracious brother: the solicitude expressed was not at all inferior to the joy. And is he not shewing to us<\/em> also the same parental tenderness? Is he not as unwilling to give us<\/em> up to our own delusions? Yes, his language to us is precisely that which he used to Israel of old [Note: Hos 11:8<\/span>.]]<\/p>\n Surely then this subject may teach us, The evil and danger of self-righteousness<\/p>\n [Self-righteousness is a more complicated evil than is generally imagined. It not unfrequently is accompanied with pride, envy, discontent, and a thousand other evil tempers reigning in the bosom; and it always involves in it a high conceit of ourselves, a supercilious contempt of others, and a rooted aversion to the Gospel method of salvation [Note: Luk 18:11<\/span>.]: moreover, if persevered in, it will infallibly leave us self-excluded<\/em> from the kingdom of heaven. Let us pause then, and solemnly examine whether we<\/em> be not under its dominion? Let us inquire whether we more resemble this elder brother or the repenting Prodigal? and, instead of justifying ourselves before God, let us thankfully accept his proferred mercy.]<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n The blessedness of true penitents<\/p>\n [While the elder brother was agitated with evil tempers, the Prodigal was filled with peace: and while the elder brother was self-excluded from the scenes of bliss, the Prodigal had meat to eat which the world knows not of,and joy with which the stranger intermeddleth not. Such is the harvest which all shall reap who sow in tears. Who that compares the state of the two brothers would not prefer that of the penitent, even in this life? And how much more will its superiority appear, when the happiness of admission to the Fathers house, and the misery of exclusion from it, will be consummated! Let us then, if we determine (as we must) in favour of the Prodigal, go instantly, and prostrate ourselves before our offended God.]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 28. And he was angry<\/strong> ] Christi consilium est ostendere, iniquum esse qui fratri in gratiam recepto obtrectat, etiamsi sanctitate Angelis non cedat.<\/em> Calvin. <\/p>\n 28 32.<\/strong> ] Stier well remarks (iii. 255, edn. 2) that this elder is now the lost son:<\/em> he has lost all childlike filial feeling; he betrays the hypocrite within. The love and forbearance of the father are eminently shewn the utter want of love and humility in the son strongly contrasted with them.<\/p>\n he was angry. Referring to the deep-seated feeling of the Pharisees against Messiah and those who followed Him. This increased steadily (and is seen to-day). Compare Act 11:2, Act 11:3, Act 11:17, Act 11:18; Act 13:45, Act 13:50; Act 14:5, Act 14:19; Act 17:5, Act 17:6, Act 17:13; Act 18:12, Act 18:13; Act 19:9; Act 21:27-31; Act 22:18-22. Gal 5:11. 1Th 2:14-16, <\/p>\n would not go in = was not willing (App-102.) to go in. <\/p>\n intreated. Greek. parakaleo. App-134. <\/p>\n 28-32.] Stier well remarks (iii. 255, edn. 2) that this elder is now the lost son: he has lost all childlike filial feeling; he betrays the hypocrite within. The love and forbearance of the father are eminently shewn-the utter want of love and humility in the son strongly contrasted with them.<\/p>\n Luk 15:28. , would not) Great perversity and unkindness on his part.-, having come out) Great leniency and forbearance on the part of the Father.<\/p>\n he: Luk 15:2, Luk 5:30, Luk 7:39, 1Sa 17:28, 1Sa 18:8, Isa 65:5, Isa 66:5, Jon 4:1-3, Mat 20:11, Act 13:45, Act 13:50, Act 14:2, Act 14:19, Act 22:21, Act 22:22, Rom 10:19, 1Th 2:16 <\/p>\n therefore: Luk 13:34, Luk 24:47, Gen 4:5-7, Jon 4:4, Jon 4:9, 2Co 5:20 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Jer 35:16 – General Eze 16:56 – was not Jon 4:11 – should Mat 22:3 – and they would not Mat 23:37 – and ye<\/p>\n Luk 15:28. But he was angry. The occasion of the anger was the answer given by the servant; the reason of the anger is found in Luk 15:29-30.<\/p>\n Came out and entreated him. The father left the feast of joy to kindly urge the elder brother. This represents the long-suffering of God toward the self-righteous, the efforts to bring them to a better mind. The parable itself, spoken to the Pharisees (Luk 15:3), was an entreaty to the elder brother.<\/p>\n Vers. 28b-32. This interview contains the full revelation of pharisaic feeling, and brings into view the contrast between it and the fatherly heart of God. The procedure of the father, who steps out to his son and invites him to enter, is realized in the very conversation which Jesus, come from God, holds with them at the moment. The answer of the son (Luk 15:29-30) includes two accusations against his father: the one bears on his way of acting toward himself (Luk 15:29), the other on his conduct in respect of his other son (Luk 15:30). The contrast is meant to bring out the partiality of the father. The blind and innocent self-satisfaction which forms the heart of pharisaism could not be better depicted than in the words: neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment; and the servile and mercenary position of the legal Jew in the theocracy, than thus: Lo! these many years do I serve thee. Bengel makes the simple observation on these words: servus erat. What in reality was his father to him? A master! He even counts the years of his hard servitude: There are so many years!…Such is man’s view of accomplishing good under the law: a labour painfully carried through, and which consequently merits payment. But by its very nature it is totally deprived of the delights which belong only to the sphere of free love; it has no other idea of them than that which it gets by seeing those joys of the reconciled sinner, by which it is scandalized. The joy which is wanting to it is this kid to make merry with its friends, which has never been granted to it. <\/p>\n With the hard and ill-paid labour of legal obedience he contrasts (Luk 15:30) the life of his brother, merry in sin, happier still, if possible, in the hour of his return and pardon. The meaning is, that in the eyes of pharisaism, as virtue is a task, sin is a pleasure; and hence there ought to be a payment for the first, an equivalent of pain for the second. The father, by refusing to the one his just reward, by adding in the case of the other joy to joy, the enjoyments of the paternal home to those of debauchery, has shown his preference for the sinner and his sympathy with sin. Thy son, says the elder son, instead of: my brother. He would express at once the partiality of his father and his own dislike to the sinner. Do not those sayings which Jesus puts into the mouth of the righteous legalist, contain the keenest criticism of a state of soul wherein men discharge duty all the while abhorring it, and wherein, while avoiding sin, they thirst after it? The particular is a stroke of the pencil added to the picture of Luk 15:13 by the charitable hand of the elder brother. <\/p>\n The father’s answer meets perfectly the two accusations of his son. Luk 15:31 replies to Luk 15:29; Luk 15:32 to Luk 15:30. The father first clears himself from the charge of injustice to the son who is speaking to him; and with what condescension! My child (). This form of address has in it something more loving even than , son. Then he reminds him that his life with him might have been a feast all along. There was no occasion, therefore, to make a special feast for him. And what good would a particular gift serve, when everything in the house was continually at his disposal? The meaning of this remarkable saying is, that nothing prevented the believing Israelite from already enjoying the sweets of divine communion,a fact proved by the Psalms; comp. e.g., Psalms 23, 63. St. Paul himself, who ordinarily presents the law as the instrument of condemnation, nevertheless derives the formula of grace from a saying of Moses (Rom 10:6-8), proving that in his eyes grace is already in the law, through the pardon which accompanies sacrifice and the Holy Spirit granted to him who asks Him (Psa 51:9-14); and that when he speaks of the law as he ordinarily does, it is after the manner of his adversaries, isolating the commandment from grace. In the same way as Luk 15:31 presents theocratic fidelity as a happiness, and not a task, so Luk 15:32 reveals sin as a misery, and not as an advantage. There was therefore ground for celebrating a feast on the return of one who had just escaped from so great a misery, and by its arrival had restored the life of the family in its completeness. Thy brother, says the father; it is the answer to the thy son of Luk 15:30. He reminds him of the claims of fraternal love. Here Jesus stops; He does not say what part the elder son took. It lay with the Pharisees themselves, by the conduct which they would adopt, to decide this question and finish the narrative. <\/p>\n The Tbingen school (Zeller, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, not Kstlin) agree in regarding the elder son, not as the pharisaic party, but as the Jewish people in general; the younger son, not as the publicans, but Gentile nations. The elder son is unmistakeably the image of Judaism, which deems that it possesses special merit because of its fidelity to the one true God. The younger son…is the not less easily recognised portrait of Gentile humanity given up to polytheism and immorality. The discontent of the first, on seeing the reception granted to his brother, represents the jealousy of the Jews on account of the entrance of the Gentiles into the Church (Hilgenfeld, die Evangel. p. 198). It would follow, then: 1. that this parable had been invented and put into the mouth of Jesus by Luke, with the view of supporting the system of his master, Paul; 2. that to this invention he had added a second, intended to accredit the former, that of the historical situation described Luk 15:1-2. But, 1. Is it conceivable that the evangelist, who marked out his own programme for himself, Luk 1:1-4, should take the liberty of treating his materials in so free and easy a style? 2. Have we not found in this description a multitude of delicate allusions to the historical surroundings amid which the parable is reputed to have been uttered, and which would not be applicable in the sense proposed (Luk 15:15; Luk 15:17, etc.)? 3. How from this parable St. Paul might have extracted the doctrine of justification by faith, is easy to understand. But that this order was inverted, that the parable was invented as an after-thought to give a body to the Pauline doctrine, is incompatible with the absence of every dogmatic element in the exposition. Would not the names of repentance, faith, justification, and the idea of expiation, have been infallibly introduced, if it had been the result of a dogmatic study contemporary with the ministry of Paul? 4. We have seen that the description finds its perfect explanation, that there remains not a single obscure point in the light in which it is placed by Luke. It is therefore arbitrary to seek another setting for it. The prejudice which has led the Tbingen school to this contra-textual interpretation is evident.<\/p>\n Keim, while discovering, like this school, Paulinism as the basis of the parable (p. 80), thinks that here we have one of the passages wherein the author, with the view of conciliating, more or less abjures his master, St. Paul. The evangelist dares not wholly disapprove the Judeo-Christianity which holds by the commandments; he praises it even (Luk 15:31). He only demands that it shall authorize the entrance of the Gentiles into the Church; and on this condition he lets its legal spirit pass. We should thus have simply the juxtaposition of the two principles which conflicted with one another in the apostolic churches. But, 1. In this attempt at conciliation, the elder son would be completely sacrificed to the younger; for the latter is seated at table in the house, the former is without, and we remain in ignorance as to whether he will re-enter. And this last would represent the apostolic Christianity which founded the Church! 2. Adopting biblical premises, Luk 15:31 can easily be applied to the Mosaic system faithfully observed, and that, as we have seen, according to the view of St. Paul himself. 3. It belonged to the method of progressive transition, which Jesus always observed, to seek to develope within the bosom of the Mosaic dispensation, and without ever attacking it, the new principle which was to succeed it, and the germ of which was already deposited in it. Jesus did not wish to suppress anything which He had not completely replaced and surpassed. He therefore accepted the ancient system, while attaching to it the new. The facts pointed out by Keim are fully explained by this situation. <\/p>\n Holtzmann thinks that our parable, which is not found in Matthew, may really be only an amplification of that of the two sons, which is found in that evangelist (Mat 21:28-30). Does not this supposition do too much honour to the alleged amplifier, whether Luke or any other? <\/p>\n The older son’s anger at the father’s forgiveness and acceptance of his brother contrasts with the father’s loving compassion demonstrated by his coming out and entreating him. Similarly the Pharisees grumbled because God received sinners and welcomed them into his kingdom (Luk 15:2). Nevertheless God reached out to them through Jesus as the father reached out to his older son. The same tenderness marked the father’s dealings with the elder brother as marked his dealings with the younger brother.<\/p>\n And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and entreated him. 28 . he was angry ] The feelings of the Jews towards the Gentiles (1Th 2:14-16) when they were embracing the offers of the Gospel (“The Jews…were filled with envy and spake against those things which were spoken … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 15:28”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25598","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25598","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25598"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25598\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25598"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25598"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25598"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
THE PRODIGALS ELDER BROTHER<\/strong><\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/p>\nFuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"