As regards the application of this chapter to a Christian turned aside. I have often heard it, but I reject it altogether. The fact of God's graciously receiving back a wandered Christian is, of course, true; but such is not the purpose of the parable of the prodigal. The first verses of the Chapter show as distinctly as possible that that is not its purport. The question is between the Pharisees and Jesus eating with sinners and receiving them. he thereon gives the picture of God's love in seeking and in receiving sinners. The two first describe the seeking, (as I believe by Christ and the Spirit) the third the reception. The restoration of a fallen Christian has not its application here. Further, die introduction of the eldest son carries us back evidently to the Jew, or any legally self-righteous person, but literally to the Jew in “all that I have is thine.” The principle is shown in the two first—joy in heaven over a sinner that repents; and the third is the way of original departure and return. Hence, all. that is seen of the elder is not an original estate, but the Jews jealousy of the admission of sinners of the Gentiles. The notion that “son” carries with it the reality of being born of God is all a delusion; because then the eldest ought to be one: whereas, on the footing of grace (which makes sons) “he would not go in.” Adam was the son of God: again, “Israel my first-born.” The first parables show the seeking, active love of God: the last is the reception by the Father of one who returned. I have, myself, no kind of doubt of the true application.—J. N. D.