The penitence of the faithless vs. the cynicism of the faithful

[Vort]

My Bible reading is currently in the Pauline epistles. Nevertheless, I found myself meditating on the parable that goes by the strange name "the Prodigal Son". I say strange because the name we give the parable appears to have little to do either with the story that the parable narrates or the lessons the parable seeks to teach. In the final analysis, the younger son's prodigality is of little direct importance except as an illustration of his character. And, as Elder Talmage pointed out in Jesus the Christ (I think -- going from old memories here), the parable is not even about the prodigal younger son, but the faithful older son.

The common analysis goes something like this: The older son was jealous of his younger brother, because he (the younger) got all the attention and celebration, despite being manifestly less deserving than the elder. The father's patient, loving rebuke to his older son was therefore along the lines of, "Don't be jealous. Just be glad for your little brother. You haven't lost anything by us celebrating his return." But something about this analysis doesn't really sit right with me. I think on the main that's probably what the Savior was teaching, approximately. But I think it's oversimplified, and the oversimplification dumbs things down enough that some important nuances get missed.

Who was Jesus' target audience for this parable? Luke 15:3 reads, "And he spake this parable unto them..." What is the antecedent to "them"? The first three verses of that chapter read: "Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them..." My guess is that "them" referred to "all the publicans and sinners", rather than "the Pharisees and scribes".

But I may be wrong. What if Jesus' intended audience were in fact the Pharisees and scribes? These same groups were often the target of Jesus's anger. As far as I can tell, Jesus never expressed disdain for another human being, but he seemed to come closest when addressing the immense hypocrisy of the Pharisees and others. Toward this end, he spared no words, calling them children of hell. But in this case, if they were in fact the recipients of his parable, Jesus seems far less condemnatory toward their judgmental attitude ("This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them"). Instead, he appears to view their judgmentalism in this case not as a manifestation of hypocrisy, but as sincere ignorance about the state of the sinner versus the state of the faithful.

In either case, I think we often misunderstand some of the subtleties of this parable. I freely admit I may be overreading the parable, but I think we do not understand it exactly as intended.

First of all, I don't think "jealousy" correctly describes the older brother's attitude toward his recalcitrant-then-penitent baby brother. Rather, the older brother seemed to feel a deep sense of injustice -- magnified because he was on the receiving end. And if you accept the older brother's presuppositions, his sense of injustice was not misplaced. I am reminded of Malachi 3:14-15: "Ye have said, It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the LORD of hosts? And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered." However selfish it may sound -- or even be -- it's a perfectly legitimate question: Why do hard and unpleasant things if there is no greater reward than in not doing them? Why straighten out a bucket of bent nails if you're just going to throw the nails away?

The identification of the principles seems straightforward enough: The wayward younger son represents the prostitutes, the unfaithful, perhaps even the publicans (tax collectors) -- all those among the chosen who did not faithfully follow the precepts given to Israel. The faithful older son would therefore be those who took their religion seriously and tried to live it conscientiously, including the honest Pharisees and scribes -- even the overly judgmental ones. Whoever Jesus's intended audience, this seems the obvious identification.

So the parable becomes, not a call to repentance for the sinner, but instruction to the faithful on how to view their penitent brethren and sisters. Certainly, the Pharisees' and scribes' "he eats with sinners" isn't the appropriate way. Like God, we should rejoice in the repentance of the sinner and his turning away from death to life. We should take a Godly view of others.

As someone pointed out long ago, the Hebrew God Yahweh was unlike every other god of the ancients. Unlike those other gods, Yahweh did not require mere sacrifice to satisfy his hunger or envy or desire before he would mete out a blessing. Rather, Yahweh had the characteristics of a man, and wanted his people to be like him. Molech made no such requirement, nor any of the various Baalim, nor the Greek or Roman gods. Only the Hebrew God Yahweh modeled human characteristics of morality and expected his followers to emulate him. I don't know if this is literally true, but it struck a chord with me. However accurate the history may or may not be, I think it reflects a deep truth.

But the parable goes beyond this. Not only should we appreciate the infinite worth of the sinner and rejoice in his/her repentance, but we should remain confident that obedience to God is rewarded immediately, not only in the eternities. Even when the going is hard and we suffer persecution and deprivation, following God is always -- always -- the joyful road. The wasteful living of the prodigal son left him not only bankrupt but spiritually empty. He sought life in the things of death, and of course found only death there. So his return to life was indeed to be celebrated, but the faithful son avoided the whole ugly mess. It seems implicit that, unlike the younger prodigal son, the older brother had his inheritance intact. Would the younger receive a second inheritance? I don't know; I can't tell if that is a part of the parable or not.

In any case, whatever the merits or faults of my meditations, verse 7 seems to sum up the matter illustrated by all three parables of this chapter: "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance." Before we complain too loudly about the injustice of this stance, we might do well to reflect whether we are just or a sinner before God.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Vort

[Rob Osborn]

I think it reads rather plainly. The main point to the story is that the entirety of Gods work and glory is to save all that is possible to be saved. To even miss one defeates the purpose because we are not truly happy without those we love together with us. Jesus came into the world to rescue the lost, thats his whole work. The whole chapter is about 3 parables all dealing with saving that which was lost and rejoicing when it was found. Jesus isnt speaking of the sons of perdition because they are forever lost, no, he is speaking of all those the Father has given him to save. Thats why in the parable of the lost sheep the lost one fills the entirety of the flock once it is saved. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Good points, Vort, thanks. I agree with you in your interpretation. I imagine that was the main message. But my favorite part of your post was actually the last line.  So true.  Even though we would like to think we are the older brother in the parable I suspect we are really the younger brother.

[Traveler]

 

I also have pondered the parable of the prodigal son.  The word “Prodigal” does not mean evil or sinful (at least not directly) as many try to interpret this parable.  Prodigal actually means recklessly extravagant.   As with all of Jesus’ parables – I believe that he intended all to hear but only by the spirit would the deeper understanding (non literal?)be revealed.   There are 3 main characters – the father and two brothers.  And so, I will ask a question that has already been asked in this thread but I will ask it a little differently.  Who do these characters represent?  And which of the 3 most represents Christ and his disciples?

 

The Traveler

[Fether]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

My Bible reading is currently in the Pauline epistles. Nevertheless, I found myself meditating on the parable that goes by the strange name "the Prodigal Son". I say strange because the name we give the parable appears to have little to do either with the story that the parable narrates or the lessons the parable seeks to teach. In the final analysis, the younger son's prodigality is of little direct importance except as an illustration of his character. And, as Elder Talmage pointed out in Jesus the Christ (I think -- going from old memories here), the parable is not even about the prodigal younger son, but the faithful older son.

Interesting. I seemed to have learned it the opposite way. First learning and loving the bit about Heavenly Father always willing to accept us back even after living sinfully. So I feel like the parable name fits perfectly.

Later in my life I saw the bit about the brother just an appendage of the main story.

I believe knowing the intended audience helps a lot in studying, but in this case, as with almost parables, trying to pin down a single audiences is not wise (which in assure you agree with).

Edited October 2, 2017 by Fether

[laronius]

There is definitely a message for all and I think it is found in the context of the other two parables given.

1. A sheep wanders off and the shepherd goes off and finds it. We don't know where to place the blame. Was the shepherd negligent or was the sheep especially rebellious? We don't know. But the general principles of saving those that are lost are set forth.

2. A woman loses her coin and searches for it. In this instance the blame lays squarely on the woman. She was indeed negligent but upon finding the coin missing she repents and does all she can to restore the coin to its rightful place. Because the fault lay with the women it was within her power to seek out the coin and make things right.

3. A prideful son demands and then wastes his inheritance and then returns. In this case the blame lay squarely with the "lost" son. As such the father could only wait and pray until the son was willing to humble himself and return, at which point the father ran to him and assisted him the rest of the way back. I think the element of the second son was added into this parable to point out to the righteous that whatever the conditions of someone being lost and then being found our response should always be one of joy. I think its a common perception that when we view someone stray and then come back to the fold we think that they somehow "got away" with something. They were able to indulge in the fun that we the "righteous" are denied and then come back and enjoy the blessings of the gospel as well. The reality is that people don't return unless they have found their "going astray" as not worth it.

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

Who do these characters represent?  And which of the 3 most represents Christ and his disciples?

1) The Father = Christ (also can mean the Father (God the Father))

2) The Eldest Son = Elect

3) The Younger Son = Apostates, individuals wasting away the days of their probation (at least these come to my mind)

Another option, depending on how you want to look at this:

1) The Father = The Father (God the Father)

2) The Eldest Son = Christ (although hard to see Christ wondering why a calf would be sacrificed for a returning brother)

3) The Youngest Son = Anyone who kept their first estate (highlights covenants)

Edited October 3, 2017 by Anddenex

[JohnsonJones]

The thing is with the prodigal son, and one that is missed occasionally, is, as per the customs of the time, the prodigal son had already taken his half of the inheritance.  He had wasted it and it would not grow from there.  He had no inheritance left.  So why is the faithful son unhappy.

Realize, everything left is now his when his father passes away.  IT will be ALL HIS (the faithful sons).  Thus, any expenditures are coming from his end of the inheritance.  As the one who inherits what his father has, it will be on him to support those that serve his father and to keep his father's estate in good order so he can improve his own inheritance.  Hence, his discomfiture is probably twofold.  AS per the customs of the time...

1) Any expenses spent may reduce his own inheritance, as all that his father has and loses is what is his and is lost at this point.

2) As the Father has accepted the prodigal brother back with full arms, and in rejoicing has taken responsibility for that brother's welfare, the prodigal brother is now, once again, part of the household.  Though the faithful brother will inherit all his father has, he will now also be responsible for his brother's welfare. 

The Father on the otherhand is trying to impart some ideas back...

1) First, this is FAMILY (and in Roman custom and the Jewish Custom of the time is family is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT).  They should rejoice at the return of his brother.  In this, in some ways, in direct answer to a question asked in Genesis...yes...he IS his brother's keeper.  He should want the best for his brother and rejoice that his brother is safe and returned...the same as the Father.  The older son still has his inheritance, but now can rejoice that he has his brother now returned.

This parable can probably be seen in many different angles, depending on who we ascribe as the Father, the faithful son and the prodigal son.

[Rob Osborn]

I still think we might be trying to read too much into it. The whole point is made in telling parables so that we can relate to having great joy in the salvation of a soul- that it is what truly brings us joy. The flip side is that a soul that stays lost brings great agony to not only the lost but even moreso to those whom love that person. The parable reminds me of Alma and the sons of Mosiah who are separated for many years. When they finally meet up again their greatest joy is that they are still one in the Lord and in each other, they arent lost. In my own stewardships, my callings, my greatest joy comes when someone who has been absent for a long time comes to an activity wanting to be a part of the group. Its also what I worry most about and exercise most time and resources on.

Its like watching a great movie and we all think the hero has died, perhaps it was too late, all is lost...and then suddenly, a flicker of movement, hes alive! We all shout for joy, not over the world of people he has just saved so much as the fact that one individual is still with us.

Thats the point of the parable, the feeling of joy and eternal bliss over the salvation of one soul that was lost but now redeemed. Is that not the greatest joy?

[Traveler]

13 hours ago, Anddenex said:

1) The Father = Christ (also can mean the Father (God the Father))

2) The Eldest Son = Elect

3) The Younger Son = Apostates, individuals wasting away the days of their probation (at least these come to my mind)

Another option, depending on how you want to look at this:

1) The Father = The Father (God the Father)

2) The Eldest Son = Christ (although hard to see Christ wondering why a calf would be sacrificed for a returning brother)

3) The Youngest Son = Anyone who kept their first estate (highlights covenants)

 

Another option:

   1) The Father = G-d the Father

   2) The Eldest Son = Satan, Pharisees, those that think themselves as better or the Elect.

   3) The Youngest Son = Jesus, his disciples and those willing to humble themselves, repent and be servants – completely devoted to the Father.

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Another option:

   1) The Father = G-d the Father

   2) The Eldest Son = Satan, Pharisees, those that think themselves as better or the Elect.

   3) The Youngest Son = Jesus, his disciples and those willing to humble themselves, repent and be servants – completely devoted to the Father.

 

The Traveler

I have heard of this option from another friend of mine; however, I have a hard time with this due to two elements of the parable: 1) The statement from the Father (paraphrased), "You have all that I have," toward the eldest son. Satan doesn't have all the Father has,  quite the opposite. 2) Jesus never spent his Father's inheritance in frivolous living.

So, I have wondered how one reconciles this option with the above mentioned elements?

 

 

[zil]

22 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

2) Jesus never spent his Father's inheritance in frivolous living.

IMO, this can only be reconciled by the vicarious experience of the Atonement.  But yeah, it doesn't quite fly.  Bits of the parable have to be tweaked or set aside for this combo to work.

[Anddenex]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

IMO, this can only be reconciled by the vicarious experience of the Atonement.  But yeah, it doesn't quite fly.  Bits of the parable have to be tweaked or set aside for this combo to work.

Intriguing, my friend who also shared this option, if I am remembering our conversation believes the "frivolous" living represents his Atonement. His love, grace, and mercy that overcame the frivolous living of others.

And if this were true, how then would one reconcile the Eldest as Satan? I can't see anyway possible.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Anddenex

[zil]

1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

And if this were true, how then would one reconcile the Eldest as Satan? I can't see anyway possible.

Yeah, me either.  That's what I meant by " it doesn't quite fly.  Bits of the parable have to be tweaked or set aside for this combo to work".

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

Another option:

   1) The Father = G-d the Father

   2) The Eldest Son = Satan, Pharisees, those that think themselves as better or the Elect.

   3) The Youngest Son = Jesus, his disciples and those willing to humble themselves, repent and be servants – completely devoted to the Father.

 

The Traveler

Another option:

1. The father: God the Father (Jesus even identifies him as such)
2. The eldest son: sinners in the church (household)
3. The youngest son: sinners outside the church (household)

[mordorbund]

Just now, mordorbund said:

Another option:

1. The father: God the Father (Jesus even identifies him as such)
2. The eldest son: sinners in the church (household)
3. The youngest son: sinners outside the church (household)

Yet another option:

1. The father: God the Father
2. The eldest son: a literary contrast to the father
3. The youngest son: that which was lost (compared/contrasted with the lost sheep and the lost coin)

[Rob Osborn]

Or we can read the story exactly how it says

1. The father: Some random Jewish father of at least two boys

2. The eldest son: the older son of the random Jewish father.

3. The youngest son: the younger son of the random Jewish father.

The parable isnt meant to convey the works of the Father and Son within the plan 9f salvation. The parable is meant to convey the joy of something found after it became lost.

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I have heard of this option from another friend of mine; however, I have a hard time with this due to two elements of the parable: 1) The statement from the Father (paraphrased), "You have all that I have," toward the eldest son. Satan doesn't have all the Father has,  quite the opposite. 2) Jesus never spent his Father's inheritance in frivolous living.

So, I have wondered how one reconciles this option with the above mentioned elements?

 

 

 

First I want to convey the concept of symbolism.  For example, there is no “iron” rode.  Not all the characteristics of iron can be applied directly to the word of G-d.

But to answers your questions of symbolism:

The symbolism of the Father to the older brother is a statement that regardless of the blessings or inheritance restored to the younger son – nothing was changed for the older son.  What was rightfully his did not change.  There was no reason to be jealous of the younger son.  This is the symbolism – something a righteous person would have known and never raised as an issue.

We know precious little about Jesus in the pre-existence.  Never-the-less there is a tendency to judge a person’s righteousness or perfectness based in some fault we think we can find in their past.  How many times are we told that through repentance it is the same as though no sin (flaw) ever existed.  But the most important part is that the younger son became greater than he ever was before – including being greater than the older son who remained focused on his own inheritance and his right to such – which is a greater flaw and perhaps a flaw overcome by the younger son.  Scripture tells us that Jesus has overcome all.  Overcoming the pride of a great inheritance is no trivial task.  The question is not the difficulty or lack of difficulty Jesus faced to become what he has become but that he faced the difficulty and overcame and having overcome; desires to be the servant – willing to do whatever the Father asks.

In short I believe Jesus in providing his parables wanted to change the standard default thinking we often think of to justify ourselves and our thinking – I believe Jesus wants us to see things in a “different” light.

 

I will add one other thought – whenever brothers have been in dispute of inheritance in scripture – the greater inheritance has always gone to the younger.

 

The Traveler

Edited October 3, 2017 by Traveler

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Or we can read the story exactly how it says

1. The father: Some random Jewish father of at least two boys

2. The eldest son: the older son of the random Jewish father.

3. The youngest son: the younger son of the random Jewish father.

The parable isnt meant to convey the works of the Father and Son within the plan 9f salvation. The parable is meant to convey the joy of something found after it became lost.

 

Have you ever considered the possibility that all scripture testifies of Christ?

 

The Traveler

[skalenfehl]

There are three parables in this scene relating to the two groups of people: 1. The publicans and sinners and 2. The Scribes and Pharisees. In the first parable, the ratio is 100 to 1, the second parable the ratio is 10 to 1, but in the final parable, the ratio is 1 to 1. The Scribes and Pharisees, like the older brother were jealous of the attention given to the publicans and sinners and as the elder brother did not acknowledge his long lost returning brother, the Scribes and Pharisees do not acknowledge the publicans and sinners except with condescension. They consider themselves worthy of heavenly rewards, not considering the need to be reconciled with their sinful and then penitent counterparts and so Jesus addresses their preconceived notions by focusing on the joy of heaven when one of the least of their lost brothers is found. Jesus also once said that unless anyone's righteousness exceeds that of a Scribe or Pharisee, they will in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. So the final parable does not serve to illustrate that the Scribes and Pharisees would indeed inherit all, but rather the focus was on their preconceived notions about publicans and sinners. Those are my thoughts, anyway, for what it's worth.

[Rob Osborn]

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Have you ever considered the possibility that all scripture testifies of Christ?

 

The Traveler

Yeah, the parable testifies of the incredable joy of even saving one lost soul.

[Guest]

Three Explanations:

The Living Scriptures: 

Quote

I would give all that I have if I could have my sons grow up in wisdom.  It has taken much for your brother to learn wisdom.  But you have always been wise.  And you have always had the comfort and peace of being at my side.  So, rejoice that your brother now has been able to see the light and come be with us.

The Prodigal Son (video by the Church)

Quote

Wife to husband: What does that mean that "you're the good guy?"  Does that mean that you're really that much better than him?

Husband: There sure is a big difference between what he's done and what I have.

Wife: All I see is one man who is trying very hard to repent, and another who is not.

Husband: Since when have I been the great sinner?

Wife: The bottom line is that none of us can return to our Father without the Atonement.  We all have need of repentance.

Elder Holland's talk on the parable:

Quote

...but that is not the end of the story.  Notice that the story began with "a man had TWO sons".  Both were fallen and lost.  Both needed guidance back to our Heavenly Father.

I often wonder about what the jealousy is based on.  Is it the reward?  Or is it the idea that someone else "got to sin" and "got away with it"?

Of all sins, the one I have complete disgust without even a shred of desire for is smoking.  It is completely revolting -- even the thought.  What if we thought of all sins that way?

If I see someone smoking, I don't feel jealousy.  I feel revulsion.  If they eventually are able to quit, I simply think,"Thank Heaven!"  I don't think,"Well, he should have gotten lung cancer just to give him proper punishment."

What if someone lives a life of hedonism?  Do some of us secretly envy him his life and still "got a chance"?  Do we secretly want to sin and "get away with it"?  As the older brother in the story, we are supposed to simply rejoice that our brother is alive again.  And we feel the peace in knowing that we never got involved in all that -- EVER.

[Traveler]

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, the parable testifies of the incredable joy of even saving one lost soul.

Perhaps - but the lost soul was not so much "saved" as that they came to their senses (changed themselves or remembered who they were) and returned, a better person, on their own without anyone’s help. 

My thought is that symbolism is employed by Jesus not just to portray one particular singular meaning but to resonate with many according to their experience and spiritual endowments (See Moroni chapter 10).   I thank you for your input and enjoy seeing this through with you your insight.   Hopefully you will find the insights of others as additions to your spiritual understanding and not as troublesome distractions.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Three Explanations:

The Living Scriptures: 

The Prodigal Son (video by the Church)

Elder Holland's talk on the parable:

I often wonder about what the jealousy is based on.  Is it the reward?  Or is it the idea that someone else "got to sin" and "got away with it"?

Of all sins, the one I have complete disgust without even a shred of desire for is smoking.  It is completely revolting -- even the thought.  What if we thought of all sins that way?

If I see someone smoking, I don't feel jealousy.  I feel revulsion.  If they eventually are able to quit, I simply think,"Thank Heaven!"  I don't think,"Well, he should have gotten lung cancer just to give him proper punishment."

What if someone lives a life of hedonism?  Do some of us secretly envy him his life and still "got a chance"?  Do we secretly want to sin and "get away with it"?  As the older brother in the story, we are supposed to simply rejoice that our brother is alive again.  And we feel the peace in knowing that we never got involved in all that -- EVER.

 

I am thinking the jealousy is more, that a sinner got a reward they did not deserve plus they were loved as much or more even though they had not been loyal and faithful.  Vengeance is not so much that a person is restored when they are hurt but the idea that the perpetrator needs to be punished and then denied something for their folly.   

Maybe a quick story will help – One time driving to work I was cut off by a driver that caused me to break hard to avoid an accident.  I decided I would communicate with the other driver that they should be more mindful of what they are doing.  But it was difficult to catch up to them – they were driving so carelessly.  But I managed it and pulled up alongside of them to make a gustier that they be a little more intelligent.  Then, when I made eye contact I realized that not only was the driver a good friend but my stake president.  Suddenly I no longer wanted revenge and ended up just extending a friendly smile and wave (feeling myself to be the stupid and foolish one).  I have come to believe that revenge is always a greater sin than whatever our enemy did in the first place (to us or someone else) to upset us so.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps - but the lost soul was not so much "saved" as that they came to their senses (changed themselves or remembered who they were) and returned, a better person, on their own without anyone’s help. 

My thought is that symbolism is employed by Jesus not just to portray one particular singular meaning but to resonate with many according to their experience and spiritual endowments (See Moroni chapter 10).   I thank you for your input and enjoy seeing this through with you your insight.   Hopefully you will find the insights of others as additions to your spiritual understanding and not as troublesome distractions.

 

The Traveler

I think mostly we are seeing well beyond the mark on this issue.