Parable of the Prodigal Son

[michael_legna]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.  

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.

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.

[michael_legna]

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.

[rightdivider]

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.

[michael_legna]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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,

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?

[ollie]

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.

[rightdivider]

Hello Michael,

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?

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.

 

[Fewarechosen7F]

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,

[ebia]

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.

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 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?

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

Sometimes the simplest answers are the best.

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

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

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

[rightdivider]

"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."
 
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.

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.

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

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.

"As for early church writers, I personally put almost zero stock in anything they say. But that's me."
 
Why would you not respect the writings of the people who chose and collated the books of the bible?

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.

[ebia]

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.

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?  

[rightdivider]

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.  

[michael_legna]

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.

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.

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

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

[rightdivider]

okeedoke!

[ollie]

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.

[ebia]

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?