The Prodigal Son

[tinytherese]

In my world religions class we had to read chapter 15 of Luke and answer some questions about it. There's one that's really eating at me. It asks when the prodigal son truly repents of his ways and why. There's that part where he is so desperate that he eats the pigs' food and then realizes that his own father's servants have more than enough food to eat that he decideds to go back to his father's house to work as a servant. One could be tempted to think that he came back for the reason of getting food. Or maybe I'm just reading into it wrong. Or maybe he truly repented when he came face to face with his father.

Phamily?

[LouisvilleFan]

Repent means "to turn back," so when he turned back to his father, he was repenting.

Of course, there are two prodigal sons in that story, and there is no mention of the other one repenting.

[picchick]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1704715' date='Nov 19 2008, 11:41 AM']Of course, there are two prodigal sons in that story, and there is no mention of the other one repenting.[/quote]

I don't understand this comment...what did the other son have to repent of?

[CatherineM]

I think he came to his senses when he hit rock bottom. Eating pig food would certainly have done it for me.

The other son had to repent of jealousy, anger, envy.

[picchick]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1704749' date='Nov 19 2008, 12:35 PM']I think he came to his senses when he hit rock bottom. Eating pig food would certainly have done it for me.

The other son had to repent of jealousy, anger, envy.[/quote]

But was it really jealousy or envy? Couldn't his anger be justifiable?

[CatherineM]

I think there was some jealousy. You see that in families where the youngest gets spoiled. I think he also had the pride of being the "good kid." I think his anger was justifiable on this brother wasting away half his father's assets, or upsetting his dad, but when he starts talking about how his dad never throws parties for him and his friends, that shows the green eyed monster.

[picchick]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1704756' date='Nov 19 2008, 12:41 PM']I think there was some jealousy. You see that in families where the youngest gets spoiled. I think he also had the pride of being the "good kid." I think his anger was justifiable on this brother wasting away half his father's assets, or upsetting his dad, but when he starts talking about how his dad never throws parties for him and his friends, that shows the green eyed monster.[/quote]

or could it be that when he mentioned that he was pointing out an inconsistency?

[Paddington]

He told the other brother "all that I have is yours." That ain't bad.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='picchick' post='1704751' date='Nov 19 2008, 01:37 PM']But was it really jealousy or envy? Couldn't his anger be justifiable?[/quote]

Depends on the motivation behind them. The "faithful" brother never ran away from home, but he only knew his father as a master and he worked for him like a slave. He wasn't happy to see his brother return home, which calls into question whether he truly loved his father and brother, or if he's really just looking out for himself.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1704839' date='Nov 19 2008, 02:28 PM']Depends on the motivation behind them. The "faithful" brother never ran away from home, but he only knew his father as a master and he worked for him like a slave. He wasn't happy to see his brother return home, which calls into question whether he truly loved his father and brother, or if he's really just looking out for himself.[/quote]

That's a good point, why wasn't he happy to see his brother. Maybe they had different moms.

[picchick]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1704839' date='Nov 19 2008, 03:28 PM']Depends on the motivation behind them. The "faithful" brother never ran away from home, but he only knew his father as a master and he worked for him like a slave. He wasn't happy to see his brother return home, which calls into question whether he truly loved his father and brother, or if he's really just looking out for himself.[/quote]


I disagree. Was he upset that his brother came home or because his father showered gifts and a party over him. Just because someone questions injustice does not mean that they do not love the person that they are questioning.

[kafka]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1704581' date='Nov 19 2008, 03:22 AM']In my world religions class we had to read chapter 15 of Luke and answer some questions about it. There's one that's really eating at me. It asks when the prodigal son truly repents of his ways and why. There's that part where he is so desperate that he eats the pigs' food and then realizes that his own father's servants have more than enough food to eat that he decideds to go back to his father's house to work as a servant. One could be tempted to think that he came back for the reason of getting food. Or maybe I'm just reading into it wrong. Or maybe he truly repented when he came face to face with his father.

Phamily?[/quote]
Good points I will expand below . . . For now, the food mentioned in this passage is the Holy Eucharist, and communion with the Catholic Church.

It is the fact that the Prodigal Son (represented by fallen away Catholics and Protestants) is not recieving Holy Communion, and is not in communion with the Church.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1704715' date='Nov 19 2008, 11:41 AM']Repent means "to turn back," so when he turned back to his father, he was repenting.

Of course, there are two prodigal sons in that story, and there is no mention of the other one repenting.[/quote]
partially a good insight, you are a bit wrong, yet definitely on to something.

[quote name='picchick' post='1704741' date='Nov 19 2008, 12:23 PM']I don't understand this comment...what did the other son have to repent of?[/quote]
you will see below.

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1704749' date='Nov 19 2008, 12:35 PM']I think he came to his senses when he hit rock bottom. Eating pig food would certainly have done it for me.

The other son had to repent of jealousy, anger, envy.[/quote]
I agree.

[quote name='picchick' post='1704751' date='Nov 19 2008, 12:37 PM']But was it really jealousy or envy? Couldn't his anger be justifiable?[/quote]
this may have been the case, if the Father was not God the Father and some pagan god.

[quote name='picchick' post='1704764' date='Nov 19 2008, 12:51 PM']or could it be that when he mentioned that he was pointing out an inconsistency?[/quote]
yes, inconsistency, yet see:
Luke
{15:4} “What man among you, who has one hundred sheep, and if he will have lost one of them, would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after the one whom he had lost, until he finds it?
{15:5} And when he has found it, he places it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
{15:6} And returning home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them: ‘Congratulate me! For I have found my sheep, which had been lost.’
{15:7} I say to you, that there will be so much more joy in heaven over one sinner repenting, than over the ninety-nine just, who do not need to repent. . .
{15:10} So I say to you, there will be joy before the Angels of God over even one sinner who is repentant.”

[quote name='picchick' post='1705358' date='Nov 20 2008, 01:34 AM']I disagree. Was he upset that his brother came home or because his father showered gifts and a party over him. Just because someone questions injustice does not mean that they do not love the person that they are questioning.[/quote]
both are wrong,

in the end, the older brother (Catholic Church) may be more wrong. He should have rejoiced as his Father did. This is a prophetic passage of Christ, in a lesser way for individuals who return to God and the Catholic Church and Holy Communion, yet in a grand and greater way it refers to the Protestant Churches who reunite with the true Catholic Church of Christ:

{15:11} And he said: “A certain man had two sons.

~the two sons are the Catholic Church and the fallen away Protestant Churches.

{15:12} And the younger of them said to the father, ‘Father, give me the portion of your estate which would go to me.’ And he divided the estate between them.
{15:13} And after not many days, the younger son, gathering it all together, set out on a long journey to a distant region. And there, he dissipated his substance, living in luxury.

~ In this passage the Protestant Church is the younger son. He takes his inheretance, meaning the true teachings of Jesus Christ and his Church, and he squanders them, meaning he no longer follows the teachings of God fully.

{15:14} And after he had consumed it all, a great famine occurred in that region, and he began to be in need.

~ The great famine is a world-wide famine which in my opinion is the same as the third seal of Revelation and which will occur sometime in the future. This is meant for the repentance and conversion of the Protestants, whom the Catholics love (or should love) as a brother.

{15:15} And he went and attached himself to one of the citizens of that region. And he sent him to his farm, in order to feed the swine.
{15:16} And he wanted to fill his belly with the scraps that the swine ate. But no one would give it to him.
{15:17} And returning to his senses, he said: ‘How many hired hands in my father’s house have abundant bread, while I perish here in famine!
{15:18} I shall rise up and go to my father, and I will say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you.
{15:19} I am not worthy to be called your son. Make me one of your hired hands.’

~this sequence refers to the repentance and conversion of the Protestants. During the great famine they begin to realize, they have lost their true food, namely the Eucharist, and communion with the Catholic Church which is the "abundant bread" of the Father's house, and so they (incredibly) will begin to return to the Catholic Church.

{15:20} And rising up, he went to his father. But while he was still at a distance, his father saw him, and he was moved with compassion, and running to him, he fell upon his neck and kissed him.

~notice he is still at a distance and still his father is moved to compassion. The Protestant Churches will be blessed with special gifts of grace before they reach the home in full communion with the holy Catholic Church.

{15:21} And the son said to him: ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. Now I am not worthy to be called your son.’
{15:22} But the father said to his servants: ‘Quickly! Bring out the best robe, and clothe him with it. And put a ring on his hand and shoes on his feet.
{15:23} And bring the fatted calf here, and kill it. And let us eat and hold a feast.
{15:24} For this son of mine was dead, and has revived; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to feast.

~ the best robe represents the best priestly vestments, namely the office of the pope. The ring and the shoes also represent the Papacy. A former Protestant will be chosen by God the Father as the Pope at that time. And as it says in verse 23 there will be feasting. The great famine will end!

{15:25} But his elder son was in the field. And when he returned and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing.
{15:26} And he called one of the servants, and he questioned him as to what these things meant.
{15:27} And he said to him: ‘Your brother has returned, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safely.’

~Some Catholics of those times represented by the elder son, will wrongly resent the reunification and the newly elected Protestant Pope. They wrongly refuse to join in the feasts and celebrations. Catholics who resent the reunification of the Protestants are wrong. It is God's will, and it will happen, though there will be a period of refining to take place.

{15:28} Then he became indignant, and he was unwilling to enter. Therefore, his father, going out, began to plead with him.
{15:29} And in response, he said to his father: ‘Behold, I have been serving you for so many years. And I have never transgressed your commandment. And yet, you have never given me even a young goat, so that I might feast with my friends.
{15:30} Yet after this son of yours returned, who has devoured his substance with loose women, you have killed the fatted calf for him.’
{15:31} But he said to him: ‘Son, you are with me always, and all that I have is yours.
{15:32} But it was necessary to feast and to rejoice. For this brother of yours was dead, and has revived; he was lost, and is found.’ ”

~ Eventually, all true Christians on earth will be members of the Catholic Church.

Edited November 20, 2008 by kafka

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='picchick' post='1705358' date='Nov 20 2008, 02:34 AM']I disagree. Was he upset that his brother came home or because his father showered gifts and a party over him. Just because someone questions injustice does not mean that they do not love the person that they are questioning.[/quote]

For sure, the elder brother had every right to be upset. Keep in mind that requesting his inheritance was like saying to his father, "You are dead to me." By paying the inheritance, the father effectively disowned his son. When the father joyfully proclaims, "this son of mine was dead and is alive again," he isn't using hyperbole. They were as good as dead to each other.

So he goes off, bears the sour fruit of his foolish behavior, repents, and confesses his sins, desiring to be treated like a hired hand. We know that part of the story, and it doesn't seem fair, he doesn't deserve it... the same responses are heard to the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Mt 20) who worked for different lengths of time, yet received the same wage. Clearly, Jesus isn't worried about what's fair in our eyes. God wants humble and repentant hearts. When his younger son repented, he received his heart. As for his elder son, the father is still waiting, as this son had just pleaded, "I have been working [i]like a slave[/i] for you." Do we work like slaves or hired hands for those we love?

The parable closes with the father's words to his elder son. I think it ends this way because those words are for every faithful, obedient Christian (or Jew, especially in Jesus' day) and each of us decides how the parable ends with the way we live out the elder brother's response.

Edited November 20, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1705600' date='Nov 20 2008, 10:55 AM']For sure, the elder brother had every right to be upset. Keep in mind that requesting his inheritance was like saying to his father, "You are dead to me." By paying the inheritance, the father effectively disowned his son. When the father joyfully proclaims, "this son of mine was dead and is alive again," he isn't using hyperbole. They were as good as dead to each other.

So he goes off, bears the sour fruit of his foolish behavior, repents, and confesses his sins, desiring to be treated like a hired hand. We know that part of the story, and it doesn't seem fair, he doesn't deserve it... the same responses are heard to the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Mt 20) who worked for different lengths of time, yet received the same wage. Clearly, Jesus isn't worried about what's fair in our eyes. God wants humble and repentant hearts. When his younger son repented, he received his heart. As for his elder son, the father is still waiting, as this son had just pleaded, "I have been working [i]like a slave[/i] for you." Do we work like slaves or hired hands for those we love?

The parable closes with the father's words to his elder son. I think it ends this way because those words are for every faithful, obedient Christian (or Jew, especially in Jesus' day) and each of us decides how the parable ends with the way we live out the elder brother's response.[/quote]


It may SEEM as if he had a right to be upset, but no one has a right to be upset when the Father rejoices. He had no REAL right to be angry. He may have felt personally wronged by the Father (God), but God does not wrong people. The older brother is most definitely in the wrong.

[Didacus]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1704715' date='Nov 19 2008, 12:41 PM']Repent means "to turn back," so when he turned back to his father, he was repenting.

Of course, there are two prodigal sons in that story, and there is no mention of the other one repenting.[/quote]

The second son repenting did not add to the point of the story.

Is it said that the first son repented specifically? 'cause if he went back to his father just so he can get a decent job; that's tough to say it was repentance.

[Didacus]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1705603' date='Nov 20 2008, 12:01 PM']It may SEEM as if he had a right to be upset, but no one has a right to be upset when the Father rejoices. He had no REAL right to be angry. He may have felt personally wronged by the Father (God), but God does not wrong people. The older brother is most definitely in the wrong.[/quote]

I agree with the above. The second son was going against the will of his fathr point blank!

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1705603' date='Nov 20 2008, 12:01 PM']It may SEEM as if he had a right to be upset, but no one has a right to be upset when the Father rejoices. He had no REAL right to be angry. He may have felt personally wronged by the Father (God), but God does not wrong people. The older brother is most definitely in the wrong.[/quote]

Well, it would be natural to get upset. We have a right to our emotions, and we can freely share them with God. We also need to own our emotions and desires, so that when we find ourselves in conflict with our Father's will, we can obey rather than remain a slave. That part is left out of the parable. We don't know if he chooses to repent of his anger and embrace his brother or if he allows that bitterness to consume him and become a prodigal son at heart, which is a far worse condition.

[quote name='Didacus' post='1705706' date='Nov 20 2008, 03:09 PM']The second son repenting did not add to the point of the story.

Is it said that the first son repented specifically? 'cause if he went back to his father just so he can get a decent job; that's tough to say it was repentance.[/quote]

I'm getting a little confused... from the context, it sounds like you're referring to the younger son when you say "first son." He is the first one Jesus talks about in the parable, but he would be the second son in order of birth. Of course, he was motivated to return to his father in order to improve his living situation, but he did not return in order to re-gain the father-son relationship that he forfeited. The son's confession is, "I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands." It was his father's desire to embrace him as his son.

Plus, he did call him "Father," even though they were dead to each other. That shows that it was coming from his heart and not merely a financial or business (i.e. works-based) relationship, as it seems his elder brother had with his father.

Of course, we don't know if the elder son repents. I'm sure it was left out for a reason.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1705851' date='Nov 20 2008, 03:35 PM']Well, it would be natural to get upset. We have a right to our emotions, and we can freely share them with God. We also need to own our emotions and desires, so that when we find ourselves in conflict with our Father's will, we can obey rather than remain a slave. That part is left out of the parable. We don't know if he chooses to repent of his anger and embrace his brother or if he allows that bitterness to consume him and become a prodigal son at heart, which is a far worse condition.[/quote]


It is "natural" on this earth to have emotions contrary to the Will of God, but that is only our concupiscence shining through. We do not really have a "right" to emotions which are in conflict with our Father's will and should work to purify our desires, and conform them to what IS right.

That doesn't mean we are culpable for feeling anger, I don't mean that at all. I only mean that these emotions are disordered and will be purified one way or the other- here on earth or in purgatory- before we can enter the Kingdom.

By this I mean emotions against God. Jesus was obviously not happy about his upcoming Passion, but his feelings were never manifested as anger at the Father. His will was perfectly in tune with the Father's, and he never "left the feast" as the older brother in the parable did. The brother was wrong in that he fostered his disordered anger at the Father, and he was wrong in his departure from the feast.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1705877' date='Nov 20 2008, 04:46 PM']By this I mean emotions against God. Jesus was obviously not happy about his upcoming Passion, but his feelings were never manifested as anger at the Father. His will was perfectly in tune with the Father's, and he never "left the feast" as the older brother in the parable did. The brother was wrong in that he fostered his disordered anger at the Father, and he was wrong in his departure from the feast.[/quote]

The older brother was never at the feast. He had been out in the fields and was approaching the house when he saw there was a huge feast and celebration.

At any rate, focusing on the older brother's sin misses the point. Both brothers sinned. We know younger one repents, but we don't know about the older one, and I find that to be a notable detail for Jesus to withhold from us.

Edited November 20, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[tinytherese]

So far this thread is getting interesting. Our professor gave us notes on the story from this christian theologian named Kenneth Bailey who moved to the middle east. He said that he learned a lot from living in eastern culture and commented on how different their interpretation of scripture is from our western one. By looking at the eastern culture which Our Lord lived in we gather even more from scripture.

When the second son asked for his inheritance, according to the culture of that time, the father should have slapped him because he was saying that he wanted his own father to be dead. Keep in mind that this was (and still is) a very strong patriarchal part of the world where the father is highly respected. What the son did was shameful. The father reacted completely different from what the norm of handling such a situation would be: he actually gave in to his son's request!

"And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together, journeyed to a far country, and there wasted his possessions with prodigal living" (Lk 15:13 NKJV).

The phrase "gathered all together" meant that he sold what was part of his father's property that has now been given to him. Since such wealthy estates were in the town and not set apart from everyone else like a plantation or viniard, the community knew about the shameful things that this son had done. The very idea of selling what had been his father's property and the asking for inheritance thing before his father's death thing was outrageous. Community is very stressed in the east and so no one in the community would have bought the property. So an outsider (grrr) purchased the land.

The prodigal son went as low as feeding pigs for a living, which meant that he had a Gentile boss because no respectable Jew would associate with pigs because of the dietary laws written in the book of Leviticus. This was even more shameful. A Jew working at such a job and with a Gentile. Under Jewish law he had sunk lower than low.

Then when he thought about how his father's hired servants were treated better than him and seeks to go back to his father to be a hired servant, this shows that he really hadn't repented yet. Why? Because a hired servant wasn't a slave or household servant, but a craftsman, a skilled worker who would be treated rather well actually. He was going to go back to request that his father help him out again. Send him to be an apprentice to someone so that he could work his way in the world successfully again.

"Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants" (Lk 15:18-19 NKJV). According to what my professor said, he is paraphrasing pharoah from the book of Exodus who when tormented by each of the plagues would apologize and ask Moses to ask God to make them stop but who is not sincerely sorry for anything, just to get himself out of trouble.

When he goes to meet his father, the fact that his father ran to meet him is very significant. A wealthy powerful patriarch would not have done such a thing. He again defied the norm. He wasn't majestically walking out to him nobly in his glorious robe, but in lifted up his robe, showing his legs and ran out to him like a mother would but not as a father ever would.

"Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son" (LK 15:21 NKJV). The son really does repent when he goes to his father because notice that the business deal that he was originally going to strike with his father is not included in what he says.

He ran to him in order to protect him from the community, because in such a culture, a son who had done what he had and who returned home should have been stoned to death. Then giving him not "the prettiest robe" as what one might think from reading "the best robe" but in reality it means "MY robe." The father orders that his own robe and only his robe which symbolises his position as a mighty patriarch. A ring and sandals are given to him too. He is not to be a servant because servants do not wear sandals. So he is in full reconciliation with him. By giving him these items, particularly his own robe, the community had to go with the father. If the patriarch wanted to do this then they had to. The father even took it as far as throwing a celebration for his return and everybody in the town had to come since he ordered that the fattened calf (which could feed a lot of people) be slaugtered.

When the first and older son speaks to his father, he is really being prideful since he points out that after all of the years that he obeyed him that he was not even given a young goat to share with his friends. Now a goat will only feed a select few, so he only wants to "make merry" with his own people, set apart from the rest of the unworthy community, unlike if what would happen with the slaughter of a fattened calf.

When the whole fifteenth chapter of Luke is read, we see the context of this parable. At the beginning the Pharisees and scribes complain about Jesus receiving sinners and eating with them and he then tells the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and then the prodigal son. So Our Lord is addressing the Pharisees and scribes that considered themselves to be the select holy few, so the elder son is meant to symbolize them and the prodigal son to symbolize the tax collectors and other sinners. Jesus of course identifies with the father and also is pointing him out to be Our Heavenly Father.

Oh all of the things we can get from what may seem like such a simple parable. I liked kafka's analysis too.