The parable of the Prodigal Son

[mbh26]

I was kind of dying to ask this question in Sunday School but held my tongue.  I admit I didn't like this parable much at first, especially being the older son in my family.  I can understand that life isn't a competition.  But I've also had a younger sibling take everything with riotous living that my father's family had saved for generations and basically cut the other three of us out of any inheritance in this life.  

So what is the Lord trying to teach us in this parable?  I suppose in Heaven substance and things don't matter anymore since we would inherit all that Heavenly Father has and whatever Jesus spends on another sinners inheritance, I would still get the same reward.  But my question is about forgiveness.  If I were to spend my family savings on harlots, I would not be forgiven and welcomed back into church right away.  I would have seek to pay back and make restitution for my sins.  Only after years of repentance and cleansing would I even be allowed to reenter into my baptismal covenant.  Is this a contradiction in what and when God is willing to forgive?  

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

I was kind of dying to ask this question in Sunday School but held my tongue.  I admit I didn't like this parable much at first, especially being the older son in my family.  I can understand that life isn't a competition.  But I've also had a younger sibling take everything with riotous living that my father's family had saved for generations and basically cut the other three of us out of any inheritance in this life.  

So what is the Lord trying to teach us in this parable?  I suppose in Heaven substance and things don't matter anymore since we would inherit all that Heavenly Father has and whatever Jesus spends on another sinners inheritance, I would still get the same reward.  But my question is about forgiveness.  If I were to spend my family savings on harlots, I would not be forgiven and welcomed back into church right away.  I would have seek to pay back and make restitution for my sins.  Only after years of repentance and cleansing would I even be allowed to reenter into my baptismal covenant.  Is this a contradiction in what and when God is willing to forgive?  

It is a parable with quite a few layers that can be expanded or not as one desires.  
 

One could point to the effort and difficulties a pauper probably had to undergo in traveling back to his father’s home from a “distant country” in the midst of a famine (since famines are likely regional) as symbolic for the years of repentance and cleansing process you mention.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Calm

[mbh26]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is a parable with quite a few layers that can be expanded or not as one desires.  
 

One could point to the effort and difficulties a pauper probably had to undergo in traveling back to his father’s home from a “distant country” in the midst of a famine (since famines are likely regional) as symbolic for the years of repentance and cleansing process you mention.

That helps a little.  But why wasn't there any talk of restitution required of the prodigal son to complete the repentance process?  I will say that the prodigal son obviously seemed willing to pay restitution but I don't see anywhere in the parable where the father demands it, like the Lord/church demands it of people who sin today.  

Edited May 8, 2023 by mbh26

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

That helps a little.  But why wasn't there any talk of restitution required of the prodigal son to complete the repentance process?  

He did not, like in your case, destroy others’ inheritances, but only his own which was his to do with as he chose.  There was no need for restitution of the inheritance anymore than if my grandchild threw away a set of legos I gave them beyond repenting of selfishness and disregard for my affection that gift expressed.  Restitution that is needed would be developing and showing me an appreciation of my love, not restoring the gift I gave.  His loss of his inheritance in the parable is the natural consequence and payment for his sin.  Since there is no indication his place as heir is restored in the parable, there is no need to discuss how that was deserved by him.  The father says everything he has belongs to the other son, most likely in the sense he is his only heir.  The prodigal is celebrated because he has become part of their life again, restored to them, not because he was restored as an heir.
 

The parable does not have him receiving another inheritance later.  It stops at the point of welcoming him back, the celebration for the finding of the lost son.  That stepping back into the role of one of the heirs might have come by the whim of the father or by the father deciding that if in time if he had performed acts of restitution in the sense that he worked hard to increase his father’s estate so the inheritance grew in amount that wouldn’t have otherwise happened he could receive the difference or something else.…but even then, whether or not he became an heir would have depended on his father’s choice or his brother if his being returned into being an heir again hadn’t been addressed by the father.

PS:  since our inheritance from God is not material riches, the parable is limited to express the different sort of relationship that exists between God and those who are his inheritors…we don’t inherit as mortals inherit typically, which is when someone dies.  Rather we become partakers of his divine nature.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Calm

[mbh26]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

How can he give back an inheritance?

In the Church's 90s movie of the modern prodigal son, Tom Howell was making payments on the money he took.  He would never be able to pay them off but he was paying what he could for what looked to be the rest of his life.  

I didn't really get the impression that the prodigal son gets a second earthly inheritance.  It wasn't a case of, all the money you took is now forgiven and now when father dies we divide what's left equally between us.  

Edited May 8, 2023 by mbh26

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

That helps a little.  But why wasn't there any talk of restitution required of the prodigal son to complete the repentance process?  

I think the father mentions this topic in passing in the parable. When he speaking to the older son, he reminds the older son that everything that the father has is his. There is no mention of the younger son receiving a second inheritance. His inheritance is gone.

So, if one wanted to contemplate the idea of restitution using this parable, you could perhaps focus on how some things can’t be restored, and so repentance does not require them to be.

The son could not give back what he had lost and the father did not require him to do so. Likewise, there are things that we can lose when we sin that we cannot restore.  Most of the time it is beyond our ability to do so. So repentance does not always require a restitution. It requires it when it is possible, but often it’s not.

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

In the Church's 90s movie of the modern prodigal son, Tom Howell was making payments on the money he took.  He would never be able to pay them off but he was paying what he could for what looked to be the rest of his life.  

But in that movie was he given the money as part of his inheritance?  I’ve seen that movie a few times but it’s been decades.

[mbh26]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But in that movie was he given the money as part of his inheritance?  I’ve seen that movie a few times but it’s been decades.

I don't know.  I just remember the quote, 

Jim:  What's this for? 

Tom:  It's a check to begin paying back the money I took when I left.  

Jim:  You'll be 105 when this money is paid back.

Tom:  I hope to live a long time.  

[bluebell]

Just now, mbh26 said:

I don't know.  I just remember the quote, 

Jim:  What's this for? 

Tom:  It's a check to begin paying back the money I took when I left.  

Jim:  You'll be 105 when this money is paid back.

Tom:  I hope to live a long time.  

So in the movie he stole the money.

In the parable he was given the money. It was his, part of his inheritance, he just asked for it early.

So he would not need to make restitution for the money that he spent in the parable. It was his to do with as he wanted. He wasted it, and the natural consequence of that was that it was gone and he couldn’t get it back.  

[mbh26]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

I think the father mentions this topic in passing in the parable. When he speaking to the older son, he reminds the older son that everything that the father has is his. There is no mention of the younger son receiving a second inheritance. His inheritance is gone.

 

We're still required to pay back what we can even if we cannot pay all of it.  On earth, the older son still gets a bad deal.  Father probably doesn't have much left to give the older son.  In Heaven we all get everything we need so property, work, saving, are no longer issues.  

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

In the Church's 90s movie of the modern prodigal son, Tom Howell was making payments on the money he took.  He would never be able to pay them off but he was paying what he could for what looked to be the rest of his life.  

I didn't really get the impression that the prodigal son gets a second earthly inheritance.  It wasn't a case of, all the money you took is now forgiven and now when father dies we divide what's left equally between us.  

I rewrote my response to clarify it.  You should reread it as I think I agree with you in the parable itself he had received his inheritance, his portion and would not receive another.

I have not seen the Church’s version, so can’t speak to that, but it wouldn’t be the first time they got stuff wrong.  It wasn’t a loan to be paid off.

[Eschaton]

A recurring theme in Jesus' teachings seem to be the idea of radical forgiveness as the highest moral ideal. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, mbh26 said:

We're still required to pay back what we can even if we cannot pay all of it.  On earth, the older son still gets a bad deal.  Father probably doesn't have much left to give the older son.  In Heaven we all get everything we need so property, work, saving, are no longer issues.  

No, the older son gets the same deal he would have always gotten. He gets his half of the inheritance. The younger son got his half of the inheritance, he just got it early.

Think of it this way, if you inherit something from your mother, you don’t have to pay that back. She gives that to you and it becomes yours. The younger son was given an inheritance by his father. He doesn’t have to pay it back. It’s his. Likewise the older son will get an inheritance. He will get his half of what the father had. Because he stays and helps the father increase what he had, it should be argued that the older son will actually get much more steady her son dead. His heart will be greater. 

(All of this ignores the rules about being the firstborn and inheritance that existed during Christ time, of course. During his time, the older brother always got a double share of the inheritance. This was so he could take care of his younger siblings.  If we take into account the rules of inheritance that existed when Christ gave this parable then we can understand a whole different layer about what the older son was going through, as how unforgiving he was being.)

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

On earth, the older son still gets a bad deal.  Father probably doesn't have much left to give the older son. 

Only if the father’s estate had suffered and there is no sign of that.  The 2/3rds of the estate that would have remained (eldest son gets a double portioned) would have likely kept growing under the apparently wise care of both father and elder son.

[Calm]

didn’t finish reading, lol

Edited May 8, 2023 by Calm

[mbh26]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

No, the older son gets the same deal he would have always gotten. He gets his half of the inheritance. The younger son got his half of the inheritance, he just got it early.

Think of it this way, if you inherit something from your mother, you don’t have to pay that back. She gives that to you and it becomes yours. The younger son was given an inheritance by his father. He doesn’t have to pay it back. It’s his. Likewise the older son will get an inheritance. He will get his half of what the father had. Because he stays and helps the father increase what he had, it should be argued that the older son will actually get much more steady her son dead. His heart will be greater. 

(All of this ignores the rules about being the firstborn and inheritance that existed during Christ time, of course. During his time, the older brother always got a double share of the inheritance. This was so he could take care of his younger siblings.  If we take into account the rules of inheritance that existed when Christ gave this parable then we can understand a whole different layer about what the older son was going through, as how unforgiving he was being.)

Thanks, that does help make some sense of it.

Yeah the doubleshare rule to take care of younger siblings came up in Sunday School as well.  Some postulated that the older son was inheriting a double responsibility with a smaller portion.  Maybe that's off, if the parable is just ignoring the rules that existed when Christ gave the parable.  

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

We're still required to pay back what we can even if we cannot pay all of it.

We are not required to pay back gifts, which in essence inheritances are.***
 

Take the example of someone who receives his inheritance after his parents die and only then does he take his portion and squander it.  Would he need to replace it in that case in your opinion?  To whom would he restore the property since the property was his?

added ***. I am neglecting entailed inheritances where the owner is more the family in total and the eldest is more caretaker than owner to do with the property what they want, but even there the one who inherits that property can take income from it and waste it if they want even if they are not allowed to divide the property among their own heirs.  And there are apparently legal means to game the system.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_recovery

Edited May 8, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

Some postulated that the older son was inheriting a double responsibility with a smaller portion. 

Why would it be a smaller portion?

If the father’s estate when he gave the inheritance was $6000, he would have given the younger son $2000.  Then his estate would be $4000 assuming nothing changed in value till the father died.  

If times were hard and the estate decreased, say to a value of $3000, one could then speculate the value would have been $5000 if the $2000 hadn’t been taken out when the father died, and dividing it would result in $3333 for the older son rather than only $3000….but one could also argue the $2000 would have lost value during that time as well.  Otoh, if the estate increased in value, say to $5000, all the $5000 is the elder son’s inheritance and because the younger son’s is gone, there is nothing to increase in value for him.  One could speculate if the 1/3 had remained as part of the estate, the estate might have grown even more, so the elder son would have received even more….but all that is really irrelevant to what the story is about.  

The father states nothing has changed for the elder son through the younger son’s actions.  I think we should accept the implications of the story as written. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

A recurring theme in Jesus' teachings seem to be the idea of radical forgiveness as the highest moral ideal. 

I know some interpret the robe and ring as restoring the younger son to his former status as heir, which would go along with that.  But the father saying to the older son that all the father has is his seems to contradict that unless one wants to read that as more in line with “you can ask me for anything and if I can, I will give it to you”.  
 

It’s not like there has to be only one way to read it.  I think one needs to be consistent in what rules/greater context of culture, etc one applies and not change them midstory or you can make the story say anything you want, making it pretty meaningless as a teaching of anything.

Figuring out the rules Jesus was applying might be difficult.  The double portion seems quite likely, but what other cultural aspects applied to inheritances back then?

[mbh26]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, the older son gets the same deal he would have always gotten. He gets his half of the inheritance. The younger son got his half of the inheritance, he just got it early.

Think of it this way, if you inherit something from your mother, you don’t have to pay that back. She gives that to you and it becomes yours. The younger son was given an inheritance by his father. He doesn’t have to pay it back. It’s his. Likewise the older son will get an inheritance. He will get his half of what the father had. Because he stays and helps the father increase what he had, it should be argued that the older son will actually get much more steady her son dead. His heart will be greater. 

(All of this ignores the rules about being the firstborn and inheritance that existed during Christ time, of course. During his time, the older brother always got a double share of the inheritance. This was so he could take care of his younger siblings.  If we take into account the rules of inheritance that existed when Christ gave this parable then we can understand a whole different layer about what the older son was going through, as how unforgiving he was being.)

Makes sense.  Thanks

[Eschaton]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know some interpret the robe and ring as restoring the younger son to his former status as heir, which would go along with that.  But the father saying to the older son that all the father has is his seems to contradict that unless one wants to read that as more in line with “you can ask me for anything and if I can, I will give it to you”.  
 

It’s not like there has to be only one way to read it.  I think one needs to be consistent in what rules/greater context of culture, etc one applies and not change them midstory or you can make the story say anything you want, making it pretty meaningless as a teaching of anything.

Figuring out the rules Jesus was applying might be difficult.  The double portion seems quite likely, but what other cultural aspects applied to inheritances back then?

Well, I think the Jewish Annotated New Testament provides some helpful context:

Quote

The juxtaposed parables of the lost sheep and lost coin that immediately precede this parable suggest that it is about something more or other than repenting (despite the assertion in 15.10), for neither sheep nor coins repent. The focus of the first two is on the search for the lost and the joy of the finding. Jews would likely identify with the younger son (recalling Abel, Isaac, Jacob, and Ephraim). However, this younger son makes a rude, presumptuous request (see Sir 33.20–24) and then shames himself by dissolute practices. Listeners are thus shocked into the possibility of identifying with the elder son. Although many interpreters see the younger son as repenting, the text does not make this point. The prodigal’s motive for returning to his father may be economic need rather than theological recognition. Other interpreters see the father as symbolizing God, the son’s comment in 15.18 suggests rather a distinction. Incorrect is the common view that the father’s generous response to the prodigal—whether the father is seen loving parent or representative of God—would be surprising to Jesus’ Jewish audience. Jewish tradition sees fathers as loving their children (see 8.42n.), and God as always reaching out to bring the sinner home.

A third common reading is the identification of the older brother as the recalcitrant Pharisee, who refuses to welcome sinners. However, if the father is seen as God and the elder as the Pharisee, then the parable necessarily sees the Pharisees as heirs to God’s promises (15.31)

I don't believe there was such a thing as taking early inheritance, so I don't know that following closely the technicalities of inheritance laws is the point. Like the parable of the Good Samaritan, there is more than a little shock value, seemingly to try to wake people up from their preconceptions about who might be worthy of God's favor. The younger son in this story and the Samaritan in the parable of the Good Samaritan would be hard characters sympathize with, at least for his first century rural Galilean audience.  

[Navidad]

Perhaps the story is incorrectly named. I think it is better thought of as the Parable of the Father of the Prodigal Son. It is a story of forgiveness, grace, and mercy rather than a story of riotous living. I learn more from the father and the brother than the son. Just my two cents.

[manol]

In my opinion we need not fear God will be unfair to us, nor that the highest laws are set up such that some unfairness is inevitable. In my opinion God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons, and any line of thinking which leads to a different conclusion is either based on incomplete or incorrect information or has a misconception in it somewhere.

Looking through a telestial-world lens, it is quite possible to see unfairness in the Parable of the Prodigal Son.  Likewise in the parable of the workers in the field, some of whom worked all through the heat of the day, and some only for a short time in the cool of the day, yet all received the same wage.  Or in the commandment to give freely or lend freely without thought of repayment. Or in the many teachings and commandments about practicing radical forgiveness.  It seems that God does not keep score like we are inclined to. 

The Kingdom of Heaven is not built upon the laws of scarcity, wherein our ownership of that which is valuable is diminished when we give some of it to another. That which is valuable in the Kingdom of Heaven (such as love and forgiveness and oneness) increases rather than decreases when we give it away.  

So now let's revisit the Parable of the Prodigal Son, seeing through a lens which ignores telestial-world concepts of scarcity: This son of a loving father thought he had squandered his father's treasure. But what he did not understand was, he was his father's treasure. And if God is good and fair and no respecter of persons, then this concept applies to all.

Edited May 8, 2023 by manol

[Vanguard]

7 minutes ago, manol said:

In my opinion we need not fear God will be unfair to us, nor that the highest laws are set up such that some unfairness inevitable. In my opinion God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons, and any line of thinking which leads to a different conclusion is either based on incomplete or incorrect information or has a misconception in it somewhere.

Looking through a telestial-world lens, it is quite possible to see unfairness in the Parable of the Prodigal Son.  Likewise in the parable of the workers in the field, some of whom worked all through the heat of the day, and some for only for a short time in the cool of the day, yet all received the same wage.  Or in the commandment to give freely or lend freely without thought of repayment. Or in the many teachings and commandments about practicing radical forgiveness.  It seems that God does not keep score like we are inclined to. 

The Kingdom of Heaven is not built upon the laws of scarcity, wherein our ownership of that which is valuable is diminished when we give some of it to another. That which is valuable in the Kingdom of Heaven (such as love and forgiveness and oneness) increases rather than decreases when we give it away.  

So now let's revisit the Parable of the Prodigal Son, seeing through a lens which ignores telestial-world concepts of scarcity: This son of a loving father thought he had squandered his father's treasure. But what he did not understand was, he was his father's treasure. And if God is good and fair and no respecter of persons, then this concept applies to all.

Wow. That is beautifully said and I completely concur. If we are to embrace the notion of a loving God, then we would do well to free ourselves from believing we know what is fair and what is not. It never was about fairness according to our own reasoning but rather what our Father has in store for us - period.  Now, this can be a bitter pill to take. It's easier for me to believe it when I also have had a life of relative comfort. The 'pedal hits the metal' when recurrent, extended trials hit me between the eyes and I can still accept God's will in my life and even rejoice in it. Yikes.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, mbh26 said:

I was kind of dying to ask this question in Sunday School but held my tongue.  I admit I didn't like this parable much at first, especially being the older son in my family.  I can understand that life isn't a competition.  But I've also had a younger sibling take everything with riotous living that my father's family had saved for generations and basically cut the other three of us out of any inheritance in this life.  

So what is the Lord trying to teach us in this parable?  I suppose in Heaven substance and things don't matter anymore since we would inherit all that Heavenly Father has and whatever Jesus spends on another sinners inheritance, I would still get the same reward.  But my question is about forgiveness.  If I were to spend my family savings on harlots, I would not be forgiven and welcomed back into church right away.  I would have seek to pay back and make restitution for my sins.  Only after years of repentance and cleansing would I even be allowed to reenter into my baptismal covenant.  Is this a contradiction in what and when God is willing to forgive?  

I think the symbolism of the parable is, like all parables, allows many lessons. 1) The father is happy because the son was dead but now alive (alluding to the resurrection) and was lost but now found (alluding to life in God's presence). 2) He counsels the obedient son to rejoice in the resurrection alone, for it is truly a magnificent blessing; but added to that, he will also have greater joy in eternal life and exaltation. 3) He who is faithful/rejoices in small things (repentance and resurrection) will be given greater things (forgiveness and exaltation). 4) Related to this, obedience alone is not a substitute for all the other godly attributes necessary to obtain through the merits of Christ. 5) Also, all the laborers in another parable received the same heavenly reward no matter how long they worked alongside the Lord, which work is a blessing in itself when recognized and not performed out of obedience alone.

The other parables in this chapter have to do with rejoicing for the sinner that repents; doing so takes nothing away from the rejoicing of already being with the Lord, which is obtained when obedience is accompanied by the right Spirit.

I think the prodigal's long journey home represents the full repentance process.