ChristiansUnite Forums

I thought I would start a thread for once rather than just respond.  In fact I don't think I will respond to any of the posts in this thread as I really want to know how other people see this parable.

To at least provide some perspective I will say that I think the parable speaks of the possibility of the loss and regaining of salvation.  All the key words are their, father, son, inheritance, repentance, lost found, dead, alive again etc.

I would really like to see your interpretation though.  How does this fit in with the doctrine you espouse.

Here is the scripture so you don't have to look it up.


Luke 15:11-32
11And he said, A certain man had two sons: 12And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. 13And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. 14And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. 15And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. 16And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. 17And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! 18I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, 19And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. 20And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. 21And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. 22But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: 23And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: 24For this my son was dead, and is alive again;  he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. 25Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. 26And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. 27And he said unto him,  Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. 28And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. 29And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: 30But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. 31And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. 32It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Did you ever think the story is about the elder son?

Now see you are making me respond and I didn't intend to.   ;D

Yes there is something in it for him too, but I think it is mostly about the younger son and his relationship with the Father.

Wow – I could write pages about what this parable means, and what it means to me personally.  Let me see if I can sum my feelings (thoughts) into one sentence:

It means the Father will never turn away a repenting heart; that it is ‘never too late’ to come home, and that those of us who have been home a long time should rejoice with the Father for each returning brother.  

To me it is the most comforting parable Jesus spoke.  
Praise the Lord!

It's a parable about the right use of possessions.  It's also about GREED - both sides of the coin, ie. the prodigal and the elder son - both greedy.  It's a parable about selfishness.  It's a parable about inconsideration, anger and meaness.  It's about restoration and the inability to be restored.  It's about disordered thinking and about a liberal, forgiving parent.  It's about life.

michael,

I think, you think wrongly.

You have already lost the meaning of the parable before you even posted it (by your thought), and its not as though you are posting it, to consider it, nor even to be taught by it, but to simply critique it.

This parable is one of a relationship, which endures whether a son, obeys His father or not, the faithful Father granting to the son his request, and then the son who knows he has not done right, leaves to live a life of sin and debauchery out of sight of his father, and after he squanders all, and hits bottom, remembers the good life which he lead under his fathers roof and desires it again.

In recognizing his sin of unfaithfulness to his father he decides to return to his father and ask to be forgiven.
It is not a teaching that buttress's loss of salvation, at all, since if you read the parable carefully, you would see, that inspite of his froward nature and lose living which took its toll on his body, he remained a son of His Father.

Our God never disowns his children, Christians will be justified in the end inspite of many offenses. (Rom 4:25;5:16-18)

You have a distorted sense of understanding concerning Our God, I say it is because you do not know Him, but it doesn't need to be this way.

The teaching one can gather from this parable at its least is this;

Those who are saved are children of God, and regardless of how unfaithful sons are or become, He remains faithful to His Son, who was obedient unto death even death on the cross.

Christians are not saved for what they have done, but because of what God the Son has done for  them.
It is His righteousness which is imputed unto us, who know the truth of what God has done.

We KNOW, and this is why, we are able ministers of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, seeing we have His Spirit.
If you place your  trust in God's Word, and lean not unto your own understanding,  you too,  could understand these things..

Blessings,

Petro

While there are obviously diffrent views here it goes to show that there are and have been many sermons preached over this parable taught by Jesus..but how did Jesus really mean for this to be taken? Focus not on this particular passage but on the other two parables along with this one..each refers to being lost and found again..the lost sheep...a shepard loses one sheep out of many and goes to find it...the woman loses a coin and seraches for it endlessly..then finaly we come to the parable of the prodigal son..who leaves home with his share and spends it all on stuff...later he realizes that he had it better back home with his father...these have a common thread that tie them together..all were once lost and now are found...though diffrent meanings of lost and found...when a person commits thier life to Christ they are not only found they have found God..he has been there the entire time but like the prodigal son who thought he could have more happiness with worldly possesions and money and friends he didnt realize until he had hit rock bottom that his life back home was much better...this can be taken also as a belvier that has backsliden to an old life style realizing that God's way is the only way...and new beilver coming to Christ is just realizing this...sorry if this sounds choppy and out of order...the other parables speak almost the same...God will not give up on a fallen beliver..he is always searching for a way to call them back..to "find" them if you will...once God has found them again he calls them back...by that point it is up to the beliver or non-believer to go back to God..but whether or not they refuse...God will keep calling..even to the point of a dull whisper...

             God Bless.....

Michael:

You have a profound lack of understanding about salvation.  

Salvation is God's unmerited gift to undeserving hell-bound sinners [which includes you and me]. Salvation is JESUS -- the Bread of Life -- to souls that are hungry. Salvation is the HOLY SPIRIT -- the Water of Life -- to souls that are thirsty.

Would you take away bread and water from famished and dehydrated souls after freely offering it to them? Then how could the God of all grace do such a thing?

The three parables of Christ which deal with the lost and the found all illustrate one FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH -- "The Son of Man is come to SEEK AND TO SAVE that which was lost [the human race]" (Luke 19:10).

Because of Adam we are all "lost".  Because of Christ, some of us are "found". However, God is not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.

Right back at you, sower  ::)

I third that one,    

It goes even beyond that................


Petro

Well I guess no one wants to study scripture here, or else no one knows how to do it.

I ask for participation in a scriptural study of a parable and I get three summary responses and the rest are ad hominen attacks (not counting your Tibby).

To study a parable one must identify those mentioned in the parable and find their corresponding groups or individuals in real life.  One must do the same thing with the symbols or symbolic language.  Even Matthew Henry recognized that much though he stopped short of recognizing that the younger son was alive, then dead and then alive again.

Isn't there anyone here who does that type of deep Bible searching or at least someone who can cut and paste something from all the sources you rely upon?

All bible study groups NEED a leader who responds, guides and directs the study.  :)

I have several books on the parables and all (most) discuss coming from the eastern (customs of those times) viewpoint.  

I know what the traditional interpretation is.  The father represents God.  But coming from a western viewpoint my first thought was that the father was very irresponsible.  He obviously knew his son (the son lived with him all his life) and the father had to have known how immature his son was.  Then for the father to cater to his son's wants was just unthinkable.  If you knew YOUR son was disrespectful, etc., would you give him his inheritance knowing he was just going to squander it?  I think not.  I guess no one addresses this point of view because, then, the father would not represent God.
 
Get involved in the study Michael.  Maybe you'll have better luck.




 

I was refraining from getting involved because I wanted to hear others point of view first and not just let them attack mine without ever offering something themselves.  But maybe you are right maybe I was expecting too much.

From ML:

You are right ML.  I’m definitely guilty of a much too short ‘summary’ response.  I should take more time in the future to study the issue and respond thoughtfully, with insight directly from scripture.
Thank you for pointing it out, partner.
Your rebuke is well taken by me.

Proverbs 9:8-9
Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still;
teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning.

God Bless,
JPD

I look forward to your post.  :)

I agree with Petro

Your friend and brother

The Crusader

Is that any reason for you and Petro to hide your opinion of the parable?

A Bible study is to share our opinions, it does not require that we agree.

The fact that you two disagree with my breif summary that I used hoping to get a response, should have urged you to share yours not hide your light under a basket.

As suggested by one of the posters I suspect I may have more luck providing a starting point.  I was hoping to keep this discussion away from merely attacking one persons views, so that we could hear what other had to say on their own, not just when they had a target to aim at.  But it seems some here can attack whether a target is presented or not so it seems my approach ddi not work.

Still so that I might still keep the attacks to a minimum I thought rather than post my own interpretation I would present those of scholars who I have learned alot from.

The following is the first of my posts of commentary on the Parable from the Catena Aurea, a compendium of quotes from the early church theologians on the Gospels.

++++++++

We start out by looking at the context which includes three parables

Ambrose of Milan sees Christ himself as the shepherd who carries the lost sheep "on his own body"; the Church, he says, "like the woman seeks for you, God, like the father, receives you." He sees the three parables as showing us "the first, pity, the second. intercession, the third, reconciliation."

Chrysostom sees a significant contrast between the sheep brought back on the shepherd’s shoulders, an image of the foolish person led astray by others "like an irrational animal", and the wastrel son who realises his own wrong-doing and returns, "exercising the freedom of his will", to be received as a penitent by his father. The foolish sheep wanders astray "and does not know how to get back" until the shepherd comes searching for it and carries it home.

+++++

Parable of the Prodigal Son

Luke 15:11  And he said, A certain man had two sons:

Chrysostom tells us that some people saw the elder son of the parable as an image of the angels and the younger as an image of fallen humanity. he questions this, however, since the younger son comes to a recognition of his wrong-doing "of his own accord, remembering the past plenty of his father’s house", but the Lord came to call the human race to repentance "because he saw that it had never been in their thoughts to return of their own accord." He also points out a serious inconsistence that would be raised by identifying the elder son with the angels: the elder son in the parable "is vexed at the return and safety of his brother, whereas the Lord says, ‘there is joy in Heaven over one sinner repenting.’"

Saint Cyril offers a more plausible interpretation, seeing the elder son as a figure of Israel and the younger as an image of the gentiles.

Augustine proposes a similar interpretation, but makes the distinction one between those who have always remained in the worship of the one God and those who have fallen into polytheism. "This man who has two sons is, then", says Augustine, "to be understood as god having two nations, as if they were the roots of the human race; and the one composed of those who have remained in the worship of God, the other of those who have deserted God to worship idols."

++++++

Luke 15:12  And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.

Ambrose draws our attention to an important detail of the story, all too easily overlooked: "the divine patrimony is given to those who seek". He also warns us not to see the father as in error in giving in to the young man’s demands; it is not his age that is the problem, "no age is weak in the kingdom of God".

The younger claiming his inheritance is seen by Augustine as an image of the human soul "delighted with its own power" and seeking what belongs to it, "to live, to understand, to remember, to excel in quickness of intellect, which are all gifts of God..." The problem is that the wayward soul chooses to take these gifts "in its own power".

Chrysostom has a similar view: "the father divided equally between the two sons his wealth, that is the knowledge of good and evil which is a true and everlasting possession to the soul that uses it well. The wealth of reason, which flows from God to human beings at their earliest birth is given equally to all who come into this world, but after the intercourse that follows, each is found to possess more or less of this wealth; since one, believing it to be from his father, preserves it as his patrimony, another abuses it as something to be wasted away, by the liberty of his own possession."  But in abusing the divine inheritance the individual person begins to uproot himself from the divine ground in which we are planted, and sets off alone to a distant country, "not departing locally from God, who is present everywhere", says Chrysostom, "but in heart, for the sinner flees from God to stand afar off."

The catena aurea quotes from Augustine’s commentary on the Psalms; "but if he wants in a perverse way to imitate God, in that, just as God has no one by whom he is governed, he too desires to exercise his own power so as to live under no rules, what then is left for him, now that he has lost all warmth, but to grow cold and insensible, and, departing from truth, to vanish away."

++++++

Luke 15:13  And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

Augustine sees the departure of the younger son to a far country as "forgetfulness of God." He sees this departure as signifying that "not longer after the institution of the human race, the human soul chose of its own free will to take with it a certain power of its nature, and to desert him by whom it was created, trusting in its own strength, which it wastes more rapidly since it has abandoned him who gave it." The choice to live in complete autonomy is folly and an invitation to disaster: we come into being as dependent beings, we owe our lives to our parents, our home, our clothing our nourishment our education, all we owe to others. Our being and all we have received that meets our needs and serves our flourishing come to us as a gift: to claim as an autonomous possession what has been given to us is to live a dangerous and damaging lie.  Forgetting its home in God, the soul sets out on its adventure in truthless, ungrateful autonomy, and soon spends all its spiritual capital in "riotous living", in a life, says Augustine, "that loves to spend and lavish itself with outward show, while exhausting itself within..."

I will post more as time allows and if there is any interest.

None of the above commentaries, can be applied to the parable since, the son regardless of what occurs is stil a son, whether wayward, or lost.




These commentaries, do not address the relationship, they ignore it.

Simply speaking, they are nothing more than ideas of what this parable might represent, this is clear from the words;

"Chrysostom tells us that some people saw the elder son of the parable as an image of the angels and the younger as an image of fallen humanity......."

"Saint Cyril offers a more plausible interpretation,....."

and,  

"Augustine proposes a similar interpretation,...."

When one begins spiritualizing a biblical teaching, it can mean anything the commentator wants it to mean, so ussually it simply is applied to a particular meaning of a doctrine they desire to advance as thou it is taught biblically.


Since the words "divine patrimony" are not found in scripture, one must turn to the user for the definition of such a term to understand it.

The word "patrimony" was coined by the Roman Catholic church in early times in refering to the revenues and landed possessions of the Holy See (the father)

From the point where this term is given in Ambrose's comment above onward, there is no biblical basis for any teaching to "those who seek", in fact to continue seeing Ambrose's comments in the light of the son's debauchery and lifestyle lived after obtaining his inheritance, is simply nonsense.


So these teachings of Crysostom and Agustine, would have us believe men who are being drawn to Christ by the Father, become more base in his living, because of the parable where the son is set at liberty being given an set free by the receiving the inheritance.

It makes no sense that the recieivng of the "divine patrimony" would cause the sinners heart to "flee from God to stand afar off".





Thanks but no thanks.......



Petro

Thanks but no thanks.......



Petro

Then offer your own interpretation, stop hiding behind the security of vaguries of your position and actually come out for something instead of always being against something.  

Identify the individuals and the symbolism of this parable if you can without completely abandoning your doctrine of free will and forced grace and salvation.

True he remains a son but that is only part of the story.  He starts out a son and an heir, he then takes in inheritance so he is no longer an heir, just a son, then as his father sees him he is dead, then he comes back and once again becomes a son and an heir because he repents and is completely forgiven.  Salvation depends on more than just being His son, we must also be an heir with Christ.


Well we are just getting started aren't we Petro if you were not afraid to see the rest of the commentaries you would see that they do address the relationship.


Yes they are just ideas, even the great theologians did not put forward their opinions as facts, they unlike you had a modicum of humility.

Hello,

The father is God.
The younger son is the one we know as the mediocre Christian.
The older son is the one we know as the very faithful Chirstian.

That covers the first verse.  What about all the following symbols in the parable what do they mean?

Alive Again
Arose and came to father
Best Robe
Bread
Come safe and sound
Compassion
Dead
Eating husks
Ever with me
Famine
Far Country
Fathers Field
Fatted Calf
Fell on neck
Found
Gathered
Great way off
Harlots
Hired servants
Hunger
Husks
Inheritance
Joined citizens
Kid
Kisses
Lost
Merriness
Music and Dancing
No man gives him anything
Not worthy to be called son
Older Sons anger
Ring
Riotous living
Servants
Shoes
Sinned against heaven
Sinned against the Father
Swine
Swine Fields
Transgress Commandments
Want
Wasted

Do you know what I find most interesting about this parable?  He never loses his sonship.  He never stops being a son.  What's more...he loses no inheritance.  He simply cashes in to early.  When he comes back, all that was his father's was once again his to enjoy and partake of.  Do you wonder why the older brother was upset?  He was coming back for seconds!  

But to more important matters.  To be a son, is to be an heir.  One does not lose that inheritance, anymore than one loses his sonship.  The parable teaches this.  Not that salvation is dependent upon inheritance.  The parable isn't about the inheritance afterall.  It's about the wayward son, who is graciously accepted home by his father.

Actually you are wrong.  He does stop being both a son and loses his inheritance.  

First the son himself admits that he is no longer worthy to be called the father's son, then the father graciously accepts him back putting a robe on him and giving him a ring welcoming him back into the family, to show that he is once again his son.

Secondly he does lose his inheritance, not just by wasting it away but by dying.  There is no inheritance in death all you have passes to another, you can't take it with you.  But he is reborn, he is made alive again by the father's proclamation, so he regains his portion, his inheritance.

See it is just this type of superficial analysis, ignoring all the symbols within a story, that leads people to miss the true meaning of the scriptures.  

I don't blame the individuals.  It is a huge job interpreting all of scripture in light of all others scripture.  Too big for one person alone.  The fault lies with sola scripture that most Protestants handcuff themselves with.

From ML

No – not “wrong” – simply a different interpretation from yours.  I find it sad you are able to make such judgments.  The correct response should have been “I have been taught differently”.

From ML

Not really worth commenting on, however most of us refrain from bashing Catholicism – it would be nice if the courtesy was extended both ways.

From ML

Maybe you should practice what you preach???  :)

That is saying exactly the same thing.  If we have two different interpretations, one of us must be wrong, I am simply contending that it is the other guy.  If I disagree with someone it is expected that neither of us think we are infallible so when I say they are wrong that means in every language or debate style known to man that I contend they are wrong.  It may not be as polite as your form or turn of phrase but it says the same thing and at the same time displays a courage of conviction that I felt needed to be expressed.


Expressing a logical argument against an theory is not bashing, otherwise all disagreements would be such.  I don't have a problem with those here who give reasons backed up by independent sources and or logic why they feel the Catholic Church is wrong about an issue.  If someone has a logical argument against Tradition I will address it, debate against it and probably not agree with it, but I don't consider it Catholic bashing.

That is what I was doing with regards to sola scripture, arguing that being left to ones own devices in the effort to interpret any work as large as scripture is going to result in a superficial result just based on shear time constraints alone.  

Bashing is when people attack a position or group just because they don't like them, or making up points of weakness or relying on biased representations of fact rather than addressing the reality of the situation.  That I have not done.


Initially, I was refusing to comment on this thread until I was encourage to take the lead by another posted in an effort to get anyone to participate.  So yes, I have attacked personal views on this thread, but only to point out errors I see in them.  I didn't want this to be a debate, I had hoped to hear a real analysis of the parable from someone on the otherside of the issue.  But that was not forth coming so I have decided to treat this as any other thread and open it up to debate.  

In retrospect maybe I should have made that clearer when I took the advice of the other poster, but hind sight is twenty twenty they say.  I am sorry if I offended you by debating the points of any of the posters but I am certainly not guilty of any of the charges you would lay at my door.

ML - I was not offended at all - In fact I enjoy your posts.
Sometimes I just have to get my 4 cents-worth in.  (Maybe my opinion is only worth 3 cents - but with inflation the way it is...)

I didn't mean to offend either - keep your good posts flowing!

(If you haven't noticed - I also come to the defense of my Catholic brothers when I feel the occasion is right.)  ;D

PS - I've been a member on a lot of forums over the years - but I find this one better than ALL the others - it is so much fun!!!

I was not offended, I just didn't want to think I ignored the criticism.  Even when I (or anyone for that matter) argues against a complaint it does not mean they didn't hear some of the truth deep down.  That is why I continue on site like this even though there are some you just bet you aren't reaching.  So believ me I heard what you said.


I thought you had but it is so hard to keep track of who is on one side or the other of issues.  I try to keep everyone straight but I have never been good with names even in real life.  I guess I am not the warm and cuddly type.   ;)  Still working on it through.


I agree, so far this board has been the best in my experience.  I have been blocked from posting on more forums than I care to mention; just because I would dare to defend the Catholic Church or straighten out misconceptions of the beliefs held by the Church.  

So far at least the board seems to allow free exchange, even if some members aren't as accomodating; but you get those types all over.

No longer being worthy does not negate relationship.  Are you ever worthy to be God's child?  Not according to scripture.  None of us are.  It is God's gift.  Yet you focus on the son.  The focus of this parable my friend is not the son.  It is the father, his patient waiting and sorrowing for his son - not his punishment of his son by denying familial relation.  That simply is not in the story, and to be honest, requires a great stretch to even imply.  The son left his family and his father, but his father never left him.


Where in the parable does it say that the son died?  He only says that he's perishing with hunger, not that he died.  And his father didn't enliven him, he accepted him home!


What you call superficial analysis I call grammatical, literal and contextual interpretation.  It's far from superficial.  The symbols you search for lead people to miss the meaning clearly given.

His admission of lack of worthiness is just part of my point.  You missed the dressing in the robe and ring are all symbolic indicators within the Jewish culture of him being accepted as a son into the family, prior to this he did not have the robe or ring.  He must have left the house with them, though admittedly the parable doesn't say so, and he returns without them.


The father says my son was dead now he is alive again.  It is the fathers reacceptance of the son into the family that enlivens him.  He did not die a true physical death but he was dead to the family.


What I call superficial is the ignoring of the vast majority of the symbols in a story that is specifically told to be a parable.  You accuse me of focusing on the son while you focus on 3 symbols to the exclusion of at least 43 others.  That is what I call superficial.

Next section of commentary from the Catena Aurea

Luke 15:14  And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
Luke 15:15  And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.

With terrible swiftness the young wastrel is reduced to poverty and want. There is a great famine in the land, a famine Augustine sees in spiritual terms as the dearth of truth.

Ambrose sees it as "a famine not of food but of good works and virtues, which is the more wretched fast. .... since nothing satisfies a wastrel mind." And in this sad place and this sad state the young wastrel enters the service of a citizen of the foreign land and is put to work feeding pigs.

To be sent to the farm, says Bede, " is to be enthralled by the desire for worldly wealth." To Jesus’s Jewish hearers tending pigs would have sounded like a foul and vile fate, the very depths of degradation. The Venerable Bede sees feeding swine as doing "those things in which the unclean spirits delight".

"He is feeding the swine", says Ambrose, "into which the devil sought to enter, living in filth and pollution."

Chrysostom sees the wastrel as "destitute of spiritual riches", he is said to feed swine, that is, "to nourish in his soul sordid and unclean thoughts, and he devours the material food of evil conversation, sweet indeed to the one who lacks good deeds, since every act of carnal pleasure seems sweet to the depraved, while inwardly it unnerves and destroys the powers of the soul.

Luke 15:16  And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

Food of this kind, being the food of swine and hurtfully sweet, that is the allurements of fleshly delights, the scripture calls ‘husks’." In his misery and degradation, the young wastrel is finally reduced to begging for the husks on which pigs are fed, only to find himself refused even this. Refused – why?

Theophylact suggests it is because the devils "do their best to ensure that a satiety of evil should never happen". The wastrel hungers for evil things, and the devils keep him hungering. [A grimmer suggestion is offered by the Glossa; "when the devil knows someone is his, he procures no further abundance for him, knowing him to be dead."]

More to follow.

Some things I try to keep in mind:

1. Parables are parabolic truths - the natural is set parallel to the spiritual, in order to illustrate and explain spiritual truths.

2. Christ said that if one understands the parable of the sower, he will understand all the parables, which would include the parable of the Prodigal Son. Since the parables are all associated, then, the reaping, gathering, buying treasure in the field, the pearl of great price, separating good fish from bad, foolish and wise virgins, etc, are all related to the preaching of the Kingdom Gospel to the nation of Israel, and God's judgment of her for rejecting it.

3. Notice Israel was already in the process of rejecting Messiah when Christ began to use parables. Israel, represented by her leaders, had rejected light already given (see Mark 13:10-11; cf Matt. 21:45), so Christ began to speak in veiled language.

4. This is one of three connected parables, the context of all three having to do with the finding of something that had been lost.

5. These parables were sparked by the Pharisees' complaint that Christ "receives sinners, and eats with them."

6. The parable should not be pressed further than the context and symbols of the parable warrant; such is the case with any illustration. This one is no exception.

Given all that, the parable of the Prodigal Son is likely not a parable of salvation as we know it - to apply the parable to salvation today, one would have to make some changes in the story to fit the facts (particularly regarding the older son). Instead, here is a possible interpretation of the parable which seeks to take all the above into account:

The father = God (that's obvious).

The sons = the nation of Israel as a whole; the children of the covenants, be they degraded sinners (publicans, prostitutes, etc), upright and righteous (Mary and Joseph, or the parents of John the baptizer), or the self-righteous religious ones (the Pharisees).

The older son, specifically, pictures the self-righteous, holier-than-thou Pharisees.

The younger brother represents those "publicans and sinners" to whom Christ ministered, and whom the Pharisees despised even though they were all "brothers" under the covenants.

That's how I sees it, anyway,

o.

I agree that the points you made must be kept in mind and I included a small discussion at the first post that mentions this is part of a group of three related parables.


Notice though that the commentaries I am offering are not my own or from modern times but from early Church Fathers who knew the teachings of the Apostles through a very close passage of teachers.  They are interpreting it as it relates to salvation in their time which was Biblical times for all intents and purposes from our perspective.  And yet there commentary looks very much like ours today would discussing this as a salvation parable.


Thanks for your input.  I still wonder what you make of all the other symbols in the parable are they just superfulous window dressing or do they have significance and if so what is it?

All that the Father has belongs to the one that heart and soul belongs to the Father. When one strays from the father and then repents and comes back there is great rejoicing by the Father and his household. This one will also have all the things of the Father.

Man strayed from his heavenly Father and is lost in his sins and when he comes to the heavenly Father in repentence and obedience there is great rejoicing in heaven by God the Father and His heavenly hosts. These will have all the things of the Heavenly Father.

Hello Michael,


Not sure they have any significance. The lesson of all three parables, imho, is how fervently God, in Christ, was seeking after those who were lost even when the Pharisees - who should have been shepherds - had written them off as unapproachable. Sometimes the simplest answers are the best.

As for early church writers, I personally put almost zero stock in anything they say. But that's me.

Continued grace to you,

o.

 

Hello,

Luke 15:11-32
11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:
The father is God.
The younger son is the one we know as the mediocre Christian.
The older son is the one we know as the very faithful Chirstian.

12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
Inheritance - that portion that will be left to this son
(in this case "Give to me my share of wisdom and truth")

13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
Gathered - led himself, without advice from God
Far Country - distanced way of existance
Wasted - sowed no seed for future use
Riotous living - overindulgent in a life of pleasures

14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
Famine - a very scarce spiritually sound harvest of souls
Want - a failure, spiritual death producing natural death

15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
Joined citizens - embrace a carnal society
Fathers Field - The harvest field in the far country belongs to the adversary.
                      The harvest field at the Father's house belongs to the Father.
                      Both fields are seeded with souls.
Swine - contemptable and disgusting people
Swine Fields - spiritual pig sty
No man gives him anything - the spiritually blind and deaf can not lead those who are beginning to see.

16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
Eating husks - mentally digesting the spiritual food of the lower class
                      Doing so together with "swine" implies learning from people who
                      will put all manner of wickedness in their mouths, together with righteousness.
Husks - the natural grain of sustanence for the lower class
Swine - contemptable and disgusting people

17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
Hired servants - unwilling to serve except for financial gain
Hunger - starve for fellowship of spiritually sound souls
Bread - knowledge and understanding, wisdom and truth

18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
Sinned against heaven - ignored and rebelled against God
Sinned against the Father - broken the father's heart, and made the father ashamed of the son's behavior

19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
Not worthy to be called son - not worthy to bear your name

20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and
kissed him.
Arose and came to father - awake from spiritual sleep and prepare self
                                        and bring self back under the influence of the Father
Great way off - still mentally distancing himself from the Father
Compassion - moved with sympathy for the sufferings of another
Fell on neck - reclaim ownership, take possession
Kisses - show mercy, show tender love and forgiveness

21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
Sinned against heaven - ignored and rebelled against God
Sinned against the Father - broken the father's heart, and made the father ashamed of the son's behavior
Not worthy to be called son - not worthy to bear your name

22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
Servants - not only willing, but also desiring, slave
Best Robe - anointed with wisdom and undertsanding, council, spirit of knowledge,
                  and reverence for God
Ring - signet, seal, mark of the father
Shoes - new walk, fresh new life

23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
Fatted Calf - One who is well fed of wisdom and truth, but has mentally digested it very poorly.
Merriness - joyful celebration, delight

24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again;  he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
Dead - spiritually destitute
Alive Again - recovered from a dead and dying ife
Lost - destroyed, eternally miserable
Found - has abased himself for the purpose of self examination, so that he might
            perceive and lament any moral guilt he might find within himself
Merriness - delighted, joyful

25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
Fathers Field - The harvest field in the far country belongs to the adversary.
                      The harvest field at the Father's house belongs to the Father.
                      Both fields are seeded with souls.
Music and Dancing - celebration

26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
Servants - not only willing, but also desiring, slave

27 And he said unto him,  Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
Come safe and sound - seeking intimacy with the Father while no longer in error

28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
Older Sons anger - jealousy

29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
Transgress Commandments - neglect responsibilities
Kid - a young goat, (goats will eat anything, the same way a pig will eat anything)
Merriness - delighted joyful

30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
Harlots - confusion, varience of doctrines, blasphemers

31And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
Ever with me - has been there all the time, has never died spiritually, has never abased himself in any manner

32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.    
Merriness - delighted, joyful
dead - spiritually destitute
Alive Again - recovered from a dead and dying ife
Lost - destroyed, eternally miserable
Found - has abased himself for the purpose of self examination, so that he might perceive and lament any moral guilt he might find within himself

Yours in Christ,

I'm not entirely sure I'd agree with this - certainly one could take the illustration too far, but on the other hand part of the difference between a parable and a metaphor or illustration is surely that the parables each contains many different messages and truths in one simple story.  We also need to be very careful not to miss symbolisms that would have been obvious to the original listeners, but with out degree of historical knowledge are easily missed in our modern culture.

I don't think anything in a parable is window dressing - it's all there for a reason.

To think you've exhausted all the meanings in a parable, simple because you've found one (however good) is huge mistake.


Why would you not respect the writings of the people who chose and collated the books of the bible?  ???

It is possible this parable is rich in symbolic meaning that I've not seen. I freely admit that possibility, nor did I exclude it in my previous post.

The problem is: sometimes it's very hard if not impossible for people *today* to know exactly what would have been understood as a symbol 2,000 years ago in an entirely different culture. Hence the tons of subjective and contradictory interpretations of parables (as well as the rest of Scripture) floating around today, as can be seen on this thread alone.

In any case, you are correct that no one here is an authority on what Jews 2,000 years ago would have understood to be symbolism, or what they would have understood those symbols to mean. So I believe I am correct in saying a parable - which is simply an illustration picturing literal truths in representative terms - should not be pushed further than was meant according to the context. It's better to err on the side of caution, taking the simplest, contextual meaning as the correct one, than to run the risk of reading into an illustration more than Christ intended in the pursuit of some clever, novel interpretation.


I neither said nor implied I had exhausted all the potential meanings of that or any parable. Please do not put words in my mouth.


I look to them for practically nothing because the early church (the "fathers" included) fell into a deep doctrinal apostasy within 100 years of Paul's death. They contradicted Scripture on some major points, so I stick to the Bible alone. If the Lord wanted me to cite these early writers as authorities He would have seen to it they were included in Scipture. They weren't. You are free to view them however you like, but don't bother trying to change my mind on this. in case you're so inclined. You won't.

Grace to you,

o.

These are the same people who decided which books are scripture.   How can you trust them to have got that right, and everything else wrong?   ???

First, don't put words in my mouth. I did not say they got "everything else wrong." They didn't get EVERYTHING wrong, but there's many things they DID get wrong.

Second: They didn't "decide which books are Scripture." The believers before them already had apostolic Scripture circulating among them (copies of Paul's letters, for example). The earliest post-apostolic writers attest to that fact.

And even the earliest post-apostolic 'fathers' DID differ drastically with the Bible on certain points of doctrine.

So again, you do whatever you want. But I go to early Christian writers for pretty much nothing.

I have no interest in discussing this issue further, thanks.

o.  

Yeah and about 10 dozen other texts as well which were all read avidly by the Christians of the era.  And all of them were considered for inclusion in the Canon, so the average Christian had no idea which were inspired and which were not.  

The actual canon though was not decided until the Council of Rome in 382 AD.  It was during this Council that the first list that agrees with the one we use to day showed up.  This was later approved and confirmed at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage among others.  So no the Canon was not decided enmass based on some loose circulation of letters.


Of course you don't not when your errors are so obvious.

okeedoke!

Perhaps the Holy Spirit should not be forgotten in the responsibility of putting God's word together in what is refered to as the Bible.

Don't worry, no-one is - I took that as read.

If you prefer it reworded:
These are the same people who, guided by the Holy Ghost, decided which books are scripture.  How can you trust that the Holy Spirit guided them in getting that right, but in nothing else?  ???

umm

Good post that was what I was looking for.  If you want to continue I would ask that you explain some of your descriptions more precisely some are sort of vague to me and since I don't want to assume we mean the same thing by issues like spiritually dead and reclaiming ownership it would help if you explained them.

Thanks

He hadn't known that he was asking for wisdom and truth when he went on his own. Obviously he hadn't taken the good advice of those who cared about him, because he very swiftly wasted everything he had. Sometimes great knowledge and wisdom comes from learning things "the hard way."


'Fair weather friends" will help you spend everything that you have, and when your money is gone, you find out who your friends really are. Real friends do not leave you in want, especially if you have footed their bill until you ran out of money.

Many times it is when your "fair weather friends" have left your side that you realize just how spiritually dead you have become. What real life is there for the person whom everyone he knows only uses?


Reclaim ownership is really meant in a higher spiritual concept.  When the Lord's own have repented to the point that their every thought is being baptized in the name of the Savior, God sends the Holy Ghost to "reclaim God's ownership."  But in a manner of speaking, it is not ownership, because it is willingly given by the baptized son of God.

Yours in Christ,

Next section of commentary from the Catena Aurea

Luke 15:17
And in this dreadful state of want and deprivation, the wastrel at last remembers his father’s house. "And when he came to himself he said, how many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!" (Luke 15, 17)"He rightly returns to himself", says Ambrose, "since he departed from himself. For whoever returns to god restores himself to himself, and the one who departs from Christ rejects himself from himself." he came back to himself, says Augustine, when "he brought his mind from those things that unprofitably entice and seduce, back to the inner recesses of his conscience." he thinks of the servants who live comfortably as his fathers employees. He resolves to return, but judges himself unworthy to be called "son", "I shall arise and go to my father, and will say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against Heaven and before you, and am no longer worthy to be called your son: make me like one of your hired servants. And he arose and came to his father." (Luke 15, 18-20).

Luke 15:18
Augustine asks how a soul abandoned to idolatry could return to the remembrance of God. It must be, he surmises, by hearing the Gospel preached. Chrysostom, with his customary psychological insight, sees the humiliating wretchedness of his life as what makes the young wastrel remember the comfort of his parental home: "constrained by the necessity of his misfortunes, by hunger, that is, and want, he realises his ruined state, cast, - and his own choice was responsible for it – from his father to strangers, from home to exile, from riches to want, from abundance and luxury to famine; and he significantly adds ‘but I am perishing from hunger’. Just as if he said: I am not a stranger, but the son of a good father, and the brother of an obedient son; i who am free and noble have become more wretched than the hired servants, sunk from the highest eminence of exalted rank to the depths of degradation."

Saint Gregory of Nyssa points out that the wastrel does not simply return at once to his former state of happiness. In the moment of his remembering his home and recognising his present state he experiences "the presence of an overwhelming bitterness, and resolved the words of repentance, which are added, ‘I will arise.’ The Mystical Father takes us deep into the experience of true repentance; it involves the bitter and afflicting recognition of the wrong I have done and the pitiful state to which I have, by my own choice, reduced my life, and then, and crucially and essentially it involves the determined resolution to get up out of the squalor in which I am lying, and, with God’s help, to return home. I will arise. This is the turning point of the story. The wastrel’s hunger and wretchedness would not of itself have brought him home. Not even the remembrance of home would have brought him home. The turning point comes when the wastrel resolves to return, when he says "I will arise". "I will arise", says Augustine, "because he was lying down. And I will go, for he was far away. To my father, since he was subject to a swine-master". These, Augustine points out, are the words of one meditating repentance: as yet he is resolving to go to his father, he is thinking about him, not yet speaking to him. Developing his interpretation of the detail of the parable, Augustine sees the return to the father as "by faith being established in the Church, where there may yet be a lawful and effectual confession of sins." The turning point of the story comes when the wastrel resolves to repent, but that resolve has still to be actualised by his returning home as a penitent.

And the wastrel returns. "Father", he says. "How merciful", says Ambrose, "although he was offended he does not disdain to hear the name of father. ‘I have sinned’ – this is the first confession of sin to the Author of nature, the Ruler of mercy, the Judge of faith. God knows everything, but he still waits for the voice of confession." Ambrose urges us to confess our sin "so that Christ may intercede for you, the Church plead for you, the people weep over you. And do not fear you will not obtain – your Advocate promises you, your Patron favours you, your Deliverer promises you the reconciliation of your Father’s affection".

Luke 15:19
The wastrel, all too clearly aware of his fault and folly, does not aspire to return to his former condition, "make me", he says "like one of your hired servants". He does not lay claim, Bede tells us, to "the affection of a son, who knows that whatever is his father’s is his", in his repentance he asks no more than to be treated like one of the servants who works for pay, but "admits that he could not deserve even this except by his father’s approbation."
Chrysostom calls us to notice how, "once he had said ‘I will go to my father’ (which brought all good things,) did not delay, but undertook the entire journey; for it follows, ‘and he arose and came to his father’. Let us do likewise, and not be wearied by the length of the journey, since if we are willing the return will become swift and easy, so long as we abandon sin, which led us out of our father’s house".
"His meditating confession so won his father to him", says Gregory of Nyssa, assuming the customary identification of the father in the story with the all-knowing God, "that he went out to meet him, ..." "... Our sins are such an obstacle that we cannot reach God by our own power. But since god is able to come to the weak, he ‘fell on his neck’. His mouth is kissed as that from which the penitent’s confession came forth, springing from his heart, and the father received it gladly."

Luke 15:20
"He runs then to meet you", says Augustine, "because he hears you inwardly meditating your heart’s secrets, and while you were far away, he runs so that no-one can stop him. He embraces too, for in the running there is foreknowledge, in the embrace mercy,) and ... falls upon your neck, to raise up the one cast down, and bring back to Heaven the one loaded with sins and bent to the earth. I would rather be a son than a sheep! For the sheep is found by the shepherd, the son honoured by the father."

Luke 15:21
And now the son makes his confession directly to his father: "Father, I have sinned against Heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son." (Luke 15, 21) "His father", Chrysostom points out, "does not direct words to his son, but speaks to the steward, for the one who repents certainly prays, but receives no answer in words, but sees mercy effectual in operation." "But the father said to his servants, bring the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and shoes on his feet. And bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and be merry. For this son of mine was dead, and he is alive again, he was lost and he is found."

Luke 15:22
What is the robe? "The cloak of wisdom", says Ambrose, "by which the Apostle covers the body’s nakedness." Augustine suggests it is "the dignity which Adam lost." Theophylact sees the robe as Christ himself. The ring, Ambrose says, clearly seeing it as a signet ring, is "the seal of our unfeigned faith, and the impression of truth." Augustine sees the ring as "a pledge of the Holy Spirit." Chrysostom sees it as "the symbol or seal of salvation, or rather the badge of betrothal and pledge of the marriage by which Christ espouses his Church. Since the soul that recovers is united to Christ by this ring of faith."
"But the shoes on the feet", Augustine says, "are the preparation for preaching the Gospel, so as not to touch earthly things." Or, Chrysostom suggests, "he bids them put shoes on his feet to walk firm along the world’s slippery path..."

More to follow

The continuation of how the early Church Fathers understood this parable of salvation

23. And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:

CHRYS. He adds also, that the fatted calf must be frilled for the celebration of the feast. For it follows, And bring the fatted calf, that is, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom he calls a calf, because of the sacrifice of a body without spot; but he called it fatted, because it is rich and costly, inasmuch as it is sufficient for the salvation of the whole world. But the Father did not Himself sacrifice the calf, but gave it to be sacrificed to others. For the Father permitting, the Son consenting thereto by men was crucified.

AUG. Or, the fatted calf is our Lord Himself in the flesh loaded with insults. But in that the Father commands them to bring it, what else is this but that they preach Him, and by declaring Him cause to revive, yet unconsumed by hunger, the bowels of the hungry son? He also bids them kill Him, alluding to His death. For He is then killed to each man who believes Him slain. It follows, And let us eat.

AMBROSE; Rightly the flesh of the calf, because it is the priestly victim which was offered for sin. But he introduces him feasting, when he says, Be merry; to show that the food of the Father is our salvation; the joy of the Father the redemption of our sins.

24. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

CHRYS. For the father himself rejoices in the return of his son, and feasts on the calf, because the Creator, rejoicing in the acquisition of a believing people, feasts on the fruit of His mercy by the sacrifice of His Son. Hence it follows, For this my son was dead, and is alive again.

AMBROSE; He is dead who was. Therefore the Gentiles are not, the Christian is. Here however might be understood one individual of the human race; Adam was, and in him we all were. Adam perished, and in him we all have perished. Man shell is restored in that Man who has died. It might also seem to be spoken of one working repentance, because he dies not who has not at one time lived. And the Gentiles indeed when they have believed are made alive again by grace. But he who has fallen recovers by repentance.

THEOPHYL. As then with respect to the condition of his sins, he had been despaired of; so in regard to human nature, which is changeable and can be turned from vice to virtue, he is said to be lost. For it is less to be lost than to die. But every one who is recalled and turned from sin, partaking of the fatted calf, becomes an occasion of joy to his father and his servants, that is, the angels and priests. Hence it follows, And they all began to be merry.

AUG. Those banquets are now celebrated, the Church being enlarged and extended throughout the whole world. For that calf in our Lord's body and blood is both offered up to the Father, and feeds the whole house.


More to come

Perhaps this parable is, among other things, about God's justice.

I believe that there will be justice at judgment. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that many of us (all of us, to one degree or another) are going to be as caught off guard, taken aback and disillusioned by what God's justice looks like (as compared to our self-righteous impressions of what it ought to look like), as was the elder brother of the Prodigal Son (What???!!!? The little punk gets a PARTY?!????!!!!!!!?!#*?). How many of us, like the elder brother, will refuse to join the celebration because the Father's justice is not what we expect it should be? The kid was covered in filth, probably reeked to high heaven, and had been feeding pigs for a living- by Jewish standards, NOT honest and respectable work- and can you say ritually unclean? How could the Father throw His arms around the ragamuffin, much less kiss him? But He hugged and kissed him filth and all before he was even cleaned up, and celebrated his return.

-Grace

Certainly that is a part of it but what do you make of the 540 or so symbols contained in the parable?  

If you need a list of them see one of the earlier posts where I list them.

This has been interesting reading. Although I could offer my two cents here as to the parable's meaning, since there are numerous other posts which already encompass my opinion, I'll happily refrain.

The point, I think, in a "bible study" is to learn. That, hopefully, is what is happening here. I can honestly say I have learned a few things just from reading, not even really participating.

But, I must say that when I stand in front of the throne the Father probably won't ask me what I make of the 540 or symbols [you say exist] in the parable.

may His blessings fall on you

Oh I agree that the significance of each individual symbol will not be at issue, but what will be at issue is how well you understood the meaning of the message of the scriptures and how well you took that message and internalized it in your life.  (By the way that 540 was a finger slip it should be 40 - I am not the worlds greatest typist  ;D ).

I believe in parable especially (since they were told in code form to hide their meaning from those who had hardened their hearts) it is important to dig into the symbolism to get at the meat of the lesson.  Thanks for participating though, you did more than most here.  

And the thread is not quite done as I have more to post from the Early Chjurch Fathers commentary on it.  So keep watching.

The next section of the Early Church Fathers commentary on the Parable of the Prodigal Son from the Catena Aurea.

25. Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing.

26. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.

27. And he said to him, your brother is come; and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safe and sound.

28. And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and entreated him.

29. And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve you, neither transgressed I at any time your commandment: and yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

30. But as soon as this your son was come, which has devoured your living with harlots, you have killed for him the fatted calf.

BEDE; While the Scribes and Pharisees were murmuring about His receiving sinners, our Savior put three parables to them successively. In the two first He hints at the joy He has with the angels in the salvation of penitents. But in the third He not only declares His own joy and that of His angels, but He also blames the murmurings of those who were envious. For He says, Now his elder son was in the field.

AUG. The elder son is the people of Israel, not indeed gone into a distant country, yet not in the house, but in the field, that is, in the paternal wealth of the Law and the Prophets, choosing to work earthly things. But coming from the field he began to draw nigh to the house, that is, the labor of his servile works being condemned by the same Scriptures, he was looking upon the liberty of the Church. Whence it follows; And as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing; that is, men filled with the Holy Spirit, with harmonious voices preaching the Gospel. It follows, And he called one of the servants, &c. that is, he takes one of the prophets to read, and as he searches in it, asks in a manner, why are those feasts celebrated in the Church at which he finds himself present? His Father's servant, the prophet, answers him. For it follows; And he said to him, your brother is come, &c. As if he should say, your brother was in the farthest parts of the earth, but hence the greater rejoicing of those who sing a new song, because His praise is from the end of the earth; and for his sake who was afar off, was slain the Man who knows how to bear our infirmities, for they who have not been told of Him have seen Him.

AMBROSE; But the younger son, that is the Gentile people, is envied by Israel as the elder brother, the privilege of his father's blessing. Which the Jews did because Christ sat down to meat with the Gentiles, as it follows; And he was angry, and would not go in, &c.
   
AUG. He is angry even also now, and still is unwilling to enter. When then the fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in, His father will go out at the fit time that all Israel also may be saved, as it follows, therefore came his father out and entreated him. For there shall be at some time an open calling of the Jews to the salvation of the Gospel. Which manifestation of calling he calls the going out of the father to entreat the elder son. Next the answer of the elder son involves two questions; for it follows, And he answering said to his father, Lo these many years do I serve you, either transgressed I at any time your commandment. With respect to the commandment not transgressed, it at once occurs, that it was not spoken of every command, but of that most essential one, that is, that he was seen to worship no other God but one, the Creator of all. Nor is that son to be understood to represent all Israelites, but those who have never turned from God to idols. For although he might desire earthly things, yet sought he them from God alone, though in common with sinners. Hence it is said, I was as a beast before you, and I am always with you. But who is the kid which he never received to make merry upon? for it follows, You never gave me a kid, &c. Under the name of a kid the sinner may be signified.

AMBROSE; The Jew requires a kid, the Christian a lamb, and therefore is Barabbas released to them, to us a lamb is sacrificed. Which thing also is seen in the kid, because the Jews have lost the ancient rite of sacrifice. Or they who seek for a kid wait for Antichrist.

AUG. But I do not see the object of this interpretation, for it is very absurd for him to whom it is afterwards said, You are ever with me, to have wished for this from his father, i.e. to believe in Antichrist. Nor altogether can we rightly understand any of the Jews who are to believe in Antichrist to be that son.

And how could he feast upon that kid which is Antichrist who did not believe in him? But if to feast upon the slain kid, is the same as to rejoice at the destruction of Antichrist, how does the son whom the father did not entertain say that this was never given him, seeing that all the sons will rejoice at his destruction? His complaint then is, that the Lord Himself was denied him to feast upon, because he deems Him a sinner. For since He is a kid to that nation which regards Him as a violator and profaner of the Sabbath, it was not meet that they should be made merry at his banquet. But his words with my friends are understood according to the relation of the chiefs with the people, or of the people of Jerusalem with the other nations of Judea.

JEROME; Or he says, You never gave me a kid, that is, no blood of prophet or priest has delivered us from the Roman power.
   
AMBROSE; Now the shameless son is like to the Pharisee justifying himself. Because he had kept the law in the letter, he wickedly accused his brother for having wasted his father's substance with harlots. For it follows, But as soon as this your son is come, who has devoured your living, &c.

AUG. The harlots are the superstitions of the Gentiles, with whom he wastes his substance, who having left the true marriage of the true God, goes a whoring after evil spirits from foul desire.

JEROME; Now in that which he says, You have killed for him the fatted calf, he confesses that Christ has come, but envy has no wish to be saved.

AUG. But the father does not rebuke him as a liar, but commending his steadfastness with him invites him to the perfection of a better and happier rejoicing. Hence it follows, But he said to him, Son, you are ever with me.

JEROME; Or after having said, "This is boasting, not truth," the father does not agree with him, but restrains him in another way, saying, You are with me, by the law under which you are bound; not as though he had not sinned, but because God continually drew him back by chastening. Nor is it wonderful that he lies to his father who hates his brother.

31. And he said to him, Son, you are ever with me, and all that I have is yours.

32. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this your brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

AMBROSE; But the kind father was still desirous to save him, saying, You are ever with me, either as a Jew in the law, or as the righteous man in communion with Him.
   
AUG. But what means he that he adds, And all that I have is yours, as if they were not his brother's also? But it is thus that all things are looked at by perfect and immortal children, that each is the possession of all, and all of each. For as desire obtains nothing without want, so charity nothing with w ant. But how all things? Must then God be supposed to have subjected the angels also to the possession of such a son? If you so take possession as that the possessor of a thing is its lord, certainly not all things. For we shall not be the lords, but the companions of angels. Again, if possession is thus understood, how do we rightly say that our souls possess truth? I see no reason why we may not truly and properly say so. For we do not so speak as to call our souls the mistresses of truth. Or if by the term possession we are hindered from this sense, let that also be set aside. For the father says not, "You possess all things," but All that I have is yours, still not as if you were its lord. For that which is our property may be either food for our families, or ornament, or something of the kind. And surely, when he can rightly call his father his own, I do not see why he may not also rightly call his own what belongs to his father, only in different ways. For when we shall have obtained that blessedness, the higher things will be ours to look upon, equal things ours to have fellowship with, the lower things ours to rule. Let then the elder brother join most safely in the rejoicing. AMBROSE; For if he ceases to envy, he will feel all things to be his, either as the Jew possessing the sacraments of the Old Testament, or as a baptized person those of the New also.

THEOPHYL. Or to take the whole differently; the character of the son who seems to complain is put for all those who are offended at the sudden advances and salvation of the perfect, as David introduces one who took offense at the peace of sinners.

TIT. BOST. The elder son then as a husbandmen was engaged in husbandry, digging not the land, but the field of the soul, and planting trees of salvation, that is to say, the virtues.

THEOPHYL. Or he was in the field, that is, in the world, pampering his own flesh, that he might be filled with bread, and sowing in tears that he might reap in joy, but when he found what was being done, he was unwilling to enter into the common joy.

CHRYS. But it is asked, whether one who grieves at the prosperity of others is affected by the passion of envy. We must answer, that no Saint grieves at such things; but rather looks upon the good things of others as his own. Now we must not take every thing contained in the parable literally, but bringing out the weaning which the author had in view, search for nothing farther. This parable then was written to the end that sinners should not despair of returning, knowing that they shall obtain great things. Therefore he introduces others so troubled at these good things as to be consumed with envy, but those who return, treated with such great honor as to become themselves an object of envy to others.

THEOPHYL. Or by this parable our Lord reproves the will of the Pharisees, whom according to the argument he terms just, as if to say, Let it be that you are truly just, having transgressed none of the commandments, must we then for this reason refuse to admit those who turn away from their iniquities?

JEROME; Or, in another way, all justice in comparison of the justice of God is injustice. Therefore Paul says, Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? and hence were the Apostles moved with anger at the request of the sons of Zebedee.

CYRIL; We also ourselves sometimes; for some live a most excellent and perfect life, another ofttime even in his old age is converted to God, or perhaps when just about to close his last day, through God's mercy washes away his guilt. But this mercy some men reject from restless timidity of mind, not counting upon the will of our Savior, who rejoices in the salvation of those who are perishing.

THEOPHYL. The son then says to the father, For nothing I left a life of sorrow, ever harassed by sinners who were my enemies, and never have you for my sake ordered a kid to be slain, (that is, a sinner who persecuted me,) that I might enjoy myself for a little. Such a kid was Ahab to Elijah, who said, Lord, they have killed your prophets.

AMBROSE; Or else, This brother is described so as to be said to come from the farm, that is, engaged in worldly occupations, so ignorant of the things of the Spirit of God, as at last to complain that a kid had never been slain for him. For not for envy, but for the pardon of the world, was the Lamb sacrificed. The envious seeks a kid, the innocent a lamb, to be sacrificed for it. Therefore also is he called the elder, because a man soon grows old through envy. Therefore too he stands without, because his malice excludes him; therefore could he not hear the dancing and music, that is, not the wanton fascinations of the stage, but the harmonious song of a people, resounding with the sweet pleasantness of joy for a sinner saved. For they who seem to themselves righteous are angry when pardon is granted to one confessing his sins. Who are you that speak against your Lord, that he should not, for example, forgive a fault, when you pardon whom you will? But we ought to favor forgiving sin after repentance, lest while grudging pardon to another, we ourselves obtain it not from our Lord. Let us not envy those who return from a distant country, seeing that we ourselves also were afar off.

I've always felt the hired servants were overlooked as an influential factor in the son's return. To me they represent Christian brethren setting the example by their actions and words, reminding the son of what he's lost. It's a challenge to all of us to be examples and not seek the reward or outcome of setting that example, but simply be content that God is working through us in ways we might never realize.

Bible Study, Luke 15:11

The word "parable" in this account could cause confusion.

Lk 15:11 And he said, "A certain man had two sons." This is a real case Jesus knew about.

Jesus uses this real case to address, in his day, who are sinners?

Lk 15:1 And all the tax-gatherers and the sinners were coming nigh to him, to hear him, Sinners?
Who are sinners? This is not about Christians!

Lk 15:12 and the younger of them said to the father, "Father, give me the portion of the substance falling to me," and he divided to them[both sons] their livelihood.

Once the father gave both sons their livelihood they were free to do with their own as they chose.

Lk 15:32 "Yet we must be merry and rejoice, seeing that this your brother was dead and revives, and was lost and was found." said the father.

Mt 8:22 Yet Jesus is saying to him,  "Be following Me, and leave the dead to entomb their own dead."
One good example of "dead."

Rom 7:9 Now I  lived, apart from law, once, yet at the coming of the precept Sin revives. Yet I  died,
One good example of "alive", "sin."

Mt 8:25 And, approaching, they rouse Him, saying,  "Lord! Save us! We are perishing!"
One good example of "save", "perish."

Mt 7:14 "Yet what a cramped gate and narrowed way is the one leading away into life, and few are who are finding it." One good example of "find."

The obvious is that the older brother is the sinner!

A real life story that Jesus knew, indeed.

Wait a minute there, hold on one moment............

The obvious is that the older brother is the sinner!


But, but, but........... but what about the 540 symbols........??

And the secret hand shake?  

Petro...fused????

Petro is always confused.

You need to read the whole thread Petro (as you are always accusing others of not doing whenever you want to duck an issue.  The 540 was a typo but then you would know that if you read the post.

Of course the older brother is the sinner, so it the younger, they were both sinners.  That is not the question or the point of the parable though.  The younger is one who did more than sin he actually left the Father, died to him as the father puts it, (lost his salvation) but repent of that error and came back to Him, so he was alive again (regained his salvation).

hats a good one..........

The prodigal son,

Now...........that is a typo..


For those reading michaels dumb logical exegesis of this parable, note;

The son was never disowned by his father.

Neither of them were...

Why get involved in discussions, with some who has a diferent gospel, based on error.

ducking out..........Petro

Petro trying reading slower next time and read the whole parable - the son wasn't disowned but the Father considered him dead.  He had his inheritance (was an heir - was saved), he wasn't thrown out (as God will never abandon us) but he left the Father willingly (he tossed aside the free gift), it was then that his Father considered him dead (lost his salvation), he lived a life of sin but finally repented (repentance), and was accepted back into the home with the Father and the other son, the Father declared him alive again (regained his salvation).

Simple if you read the whole parable or if you followed along through the whole thread.

The father never declared him dead at all, this is a presumption, this son only died to him, yet physically he lived, at his return to his father's home, becoming alive to the father merely reintated him as an heir, once again.

Only problem is he never died, of course someone that fails to see the real teaching of this parable, ...............

(that of the ungratefull son, who had served the father faithfully and never transgressed his commandments according to him, to his way of thinking had never been properly rewarded for all this, which made him,  nothing more than a hypocrite and guilty sinner, of course this was directed at the Pharisees and scribes who murmured)

Because Jesus received sinners and ate with them

.........would go on to teach, see, this prodigal son lost His salvation and now has regained it, missing the entire point of what Jesus was teaching....

Must ex roman catholics return to the pope, to be resaved??

The son was never dis inherited ( he received it), and therefore never lost  his salvation at all.

Wrong concusions, will always end in wrong teachings..........


Petro

The Father says in Luke 15:24  "For this my son was dead, and is alive again;"  Sounds to me that the Father declared him dead.


Yes but that is all it means to have no salvation - to be dead to the Father.  We can be physically alive, our spirit can be alive (having not yet been condemned to hell) and yet we are dead to the Father (not saved).  Really Petro this is one of the most fundamental issues of salvation and you miss it completely!


Yes he is alive again to the Father and is one again an heir - he regains his salvation.  Obvious and simple.


No and they didn't have to go to the Pope to be saved in the first place.  More of your strawmen Petro?  Tsk Tsk


He received it - wasted it - returned and recieved it again.  Or do you think he lived in the house with his brother but didn't get any of the advantages of being a son, since he had used his all up?  That would be completely missing the point of the parable but based on what you have said so far I have to ask.

It doesn't matter if the father thought him dead, the son never died, he still possessed the father name, and would have passed on his name to his offsrping, which would have been grandchildren to the father of this man, the son never died physically nor spiritually......and thats the truth...


Petro

Its a parable Petro.  The happenings in the story are symbolic.  The son died to the father and wasted his inheritance.  What does it mean for you if were to you die to the Father and waste away your inheritance?  It means loss of salvation - that simple.

Sorry, but the son never died..............


Petro

Michael_legna,
 the words  "considered him dead." sound a whole lot different then the Dad "thought he was dead".  Considered him sounds like the the dad has rejected the son. When i read the story i read the dad thought he was dead. How are you meaning the phrase?

When anyone starts allegorizing a parable, it can mean whatever that person wants it to mean.

The fact is this young man never did die, that is an indisputable fact...........

I would have to say, that if the father looked for his return (which is obvious, since the Jesus tells us; when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him,
, it is clear the father didn't believe he was dead at all.

There is no reason to spin this parable...

The son never died and therefore never ceased being a son, pure and simple...


Petro

That is exactly what you have to do with a parable, since it is written specifically to be interpreted allegorically.

But know you can't make it say anything you want anymore than you can interpret any scripture anyway you want.  You have to make sure your interpretation is consistent with all of scripture that is why your simplistic literal interpretation of this parable and the rest of scripture for that matter is wrong and why your doctrine is wrong it is inconsistent with the rest of scripture as I have shown repeatedly.


This is symbolic as well to show that God (the Father in case you missed that symbol too) never gives up on us and is always more ready to take us back then we are to come back.  His love for us exceeds our love for Him.  Additionally, though the Father clearly declares that indeed He did see the son as dead (Luk 15:24  For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. ) the Father new it was in His power to bring Him back to life.

Tell me Petro if your interpretation is correct how do you interpret verse 24 without allegorizing it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATqJ1azhr_A

Wow....Necropost.  Nothing like reviving a 7 year old post :)