Prodigal Son may be Apocalyptic

[spauline]

Some Fathers discuss the two sons as the Jews and Gentiles. I expand as follows:

It's also about the two families or sons of God, the Jews and the Gentiles. The Jews were born first into God's family through Abraham, later the Gentiles were born in Catholic Christendom. So the younger son's departure could be the gradual journey the Gentiles have taken away from the Church since Protestantism. In the last century, the son has been living it up with the material creation. The famine is coming soon (mystics's Minor Chastisement). When this comes, the son will repent and come back to the Father. And so even after the world almost ends but does not because the Gentiles return to their home in the Church, the Jews still will not convert. They will stand outside the house in the great age of peace of Catholicisms renewal and say, "This is not fair. All through the ages, we have been faitful to you, never once did we disobey. and your younger son goes out squanders your inheritance on loose women, and you slaughter the calf." And God shall say, "Everything I have is yours (in the end, the younger son will leave again, never to return, and the inheritance shall truly pass to the elder son in the Jewish conversion at the end of the world), but we had to celebrate, because my son was dead (is now dead), but is alive again (will be alive after the coming chastisement)"

[eschaton]

When you say Catholic Christendom you don't mean the Roman church do you? The gentile church wasn't born in Rome.

[spauline]

When you say Catholic Christendom you don't mean the Roman church do you? The gentile church wasn't born in Rome.

Well, I meant that the Gentiles were first born in a great way into the family of God through Christ's First Coming and the establishment of the Catholic Church. Hence, the first 1500 years of Church history is the Gentiles growing up in the family of God. Protestantism is the first major way in which the boy begins the "i want my share of the inheritance and I'm journeying to a far away land." The son is now in as distant a land as can be from the Church in atheism and relativism. Although, in a certain sense, the boy is already becoming disrespectful with the early heresies and Orthodoxy.

[Bib Lit Major]

Well, I meant that the Gentiles were first born in a great way into the family of God through Christ's First Coming and the establishment of the Catholic Church. Hence, the first 1500 years of Church history is the Gentiles growing up in the family of God. Protestantism is the first major way in which the boy begins the "i want my share of the inheritance and I'm journeying to a far away land." The son is now in as distant a land as can be from the Church in atheism and relativism. Although, in a certain sense, the boy is already becoming disrespectful with the early heresies and Orthodoxy.

So the Prodigal Son is a story which had no relevance to the original listeners of Jesus? That is what you are saying when you take the Reformation as the leaving point for the younger son. It is a story which means nothing for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

This fails on a number of accounts. First, the account does not have the generic markers of an apocalyptic story. Second, the context is about forgiveness for repentance in general, as the parable of the 99 sheep and the parable of the lost coin precede this story. The parable makes no sense in its current setting if its an apocalyptic discussion of the Reformation and the return of Protestant Gentiles back into the Catholic Church. Third, there is no mention about part of the younger son staying and part of it going. the whole son leaves. If your interpretation that this refers to Gentiles, then the Gentile Catholic Church has left too. Fourth, this interpretation, with the Jews being the older brother means that the Jews have never left God, until the refuse to join the celebration, which hasnt happened yet according to your interpretation.

[spauline]

So the Prodigal Son is a story which had no relevance to the original listeners of Jesus? That is what you are saying when you take the Reformation as the leaving point for the younger son. It is a story which means nothing for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

This fails on a number of accounts. First, the account does not have the generic markers of an apocalyptic story. Second, the context is about forgiveness for repentance in general, as the parable of the 99 sheep and the parable of the lost coin precede this story. The parable makes no sense in its current setting if its an apocalyptic discussion of the Reformation and the return of Protestant Gentiles back into the Catholic Church. Third, there is no mention about part of the younger son staying and part of it going. the whole son leaves. If your interpretation that this refers to Gentiles, then the Gentile Catholic Church has left too. Fourth, this interpretation, with the Jews being the older brother means that the Jews have never left God, until the refuse to join the celebration, which hasnt happened yet according to your interpretation.


Dear Bib,

I'm not at all saying this parable has ONLY this meaning I've given. Of course, in the context it is about mercy, the individual ethic.

And I'm not saying the feeding the swine is Protestantism. Protestantism was when the son was in the early stages of journeying away from the Father. The dissipation of the inheritance is the modern minor apostasy, not Protestants. And yet, even when the son shall be a long way off, the Father will already begin to run and meet him. Indeed, if the mystics are right, in the midst of the Minor Trib, the Gentiles will first go back to "There is a God who should be honored, even if he does not Intervene or Reveal." Then it will be, "We need Jesus and the Bible." (Protestantism) Then it will be, "The Bible is not enough, we need Tradition to help us interpret, we need Apostolic Successors, Sacraments, Bishops" Finally, it will be, "Even this is not enough. We need Peter, we need the Rock."

[Lost]

Dear Bib,

I'm not at all saying this parable has ONLY this meaning I've given. Of course, in the context it is about mercy, the individual ethic.

And I'm not saying the feeding the swine is Protestantism. Protestantism was when the son was in the early stages of journeying away from the Father. The dissipation of the inheritance is the modern minor apostasy, not Protestants. And yet, even when the son shall be a long way off, the Father will already begin to run and meet him. Indeed, if the mystics are right, in the midst of the Minor Trib, the Gentiles will first go back to "There is a God who should be honored, even if he does not Intervene or Reveal." Then it will be, "We need Jesus and the Bible." (Protestantism) Then it will be, "The Bible is not enough, we need Tradition to help us interpret, we need Apostolic Successors, Sacraments, Bishops" Finally, it will be, "Even this is not enough. We need Peter, we need the Rock."

The Rock of all ages is Jesus and on that Rock the church is built.
Peter is not the rock on which the whole church is built and he would be dismayed to think that people think so just as Mary would be dismayed to see how she is worshiped.
The bible is written in such a way that people can easily be led astray but God leads those that please Him into the Truth.
God's Word is not the bible but Jesus.

[Ted]

Spauline,

Take a close look at the Fathers. They came up with a number of different views on who is represented by what element. As I noted in another thread, this take the "unanimous consent of the Fathers" and throws it into a cocked hat.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that one son is the Jews and the other the Gentiles. Which is which? The Prodigal nicely fits the historical Jews who became idolatrous and were sent into exile in Babylon, after which God brought them back. But that doesn't fit the story line.

The Prodigal came back on his own. So the Jews must be represented by the other son, who stayed and worked for the Father. But we know that the Jews weren't working for the Father, since their legalism separated them from God. Yes, the older son rejected the Father in the end the way the Jews did, but you have parts of his story that don't fit either.

In short, the idea of making the parable apocalyptic is nonsense. We are far better off to read the parable the way Jesus presented it. It's a story of extravagant grace and forgiveness, offered to everyone. But some will reject it.

God offers forgiveness to all. But in this parable, He's not telling us an end-times story.

I've said this before. You really need to spend some time learning proper methods of interpretation. Every post of yours wanders off into flights of fancy, completely unrestrained by the scriptures. You would do well to get a basic text on hermeneutics are study it. I'd recommend Lee Gugliotto's Handbook for Bible Study that won a Gold Medallion in 1995.

Ted

[spauline]

Spauline,

Take a close look at the Fathers. They came up with a number of different views on who is represented by what element. As I noted in another thread, this take the "unanimous consent of the Fathers" and throws it into a cocked hat.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that one son is the Jews and the other the Gentiles. Which is which? The Prodigal nicely fits the historical Jews who became idolatrous and were sent into exile in Babylon, after which God brought them back. But that doesn't fit the story line.

The Prodigal came back on his own. So the Jews must be represented by the other son, who stayed and worked for the Father. But we know that the Jews weren't working for the Father, since their legalism separated them from God. Yes, the older son rejected the Father in the end the way the Jews did, but you have parts of his story that don't fit either.

In short, the idea of making the parable apocalyptic is nonsense. We are far better off to read the parable the way Jesus presented it. It's a story of extravagant grace and forgiveness, offered to everyone. But some will reject it.

God offers forgiveness to all. But in this parable, He's not telling us an end-times story.

I've said this before. You really need to spend some time learning proper methods of interpretation. Every post of yours wanders off into flights of fancy, completely unrestrained by the scriptures. You would do well to get a basic text on hermeneutics are study it. I'd recommend Lee Gugliotto's Handbook for Bible Study that won a Gold Medallion in 1995.

Ted

Hi, Ted,

I have to take a break from the religious forums stuff for a while because I need to work harder for my dad. Your point about the Jews having done similar to the younger son I agree is a good point on a surface level. But herein is precisely where i would make an argument. In effect, the elder son could be addresssing his father from his own "subjective view", which then implies a deeper meaning: when the Gentiles in fact do the same thing the Jews did in their intermediate history, the statement of the older son is rather the Jews's subjective stance before God, because even when this happens, still the Jews will fail to recognize the parallel. In effect, the Jew is saying to God, this is not fair! It would be an eschatological failure of the Jews to recognize their Savior even in the intermediate stage. that is, only in the final fulfillment, in the times of antichrist, will the Jews finally accept, similar to THomas (Only until I put hands in his fingers, and even in his side....will I believe). And God's response to the elder son is also meeting them where they are at. That is, God, in HIs infinitely soft heart comforts them, "Look, in the end, it will all pass unto you. But behold, we must celebrate...for my son was dead and is alive." IOW, God does not condemn the Jews even after their failure to convert after the intermediate apostasy, for He knows that human nature being what it is, we are all a type of doubting Thomas. Only when everything is laid out and placed before us, only when the full package is blatantly thrown before us, do we then believe.

But, anyway, I have to take a break, must work hard. I pray God bless you, Ted.

scott

[GKC_fan]

Even the fairly straightforward parables of Jesus require some not-common knowledge in order to get their full and correct message

This is because the parables were (a) told in Aramaic, so some key words are not always properly translated; they are stories of (b) mostly village peasant life from (c) a very foreign culture to us (Western) moderns, and (d) because one must also take each parable's literary structure into account when trying to decipher it.

This is why Prof. Kenneth Bailey's masterpieces on the parables, Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes, are must-reads for anyone, Christian or not, who wants to truly and correctly understand the NT parables. When one closely examines the structure of the parables of Jesus, as Prof. Bailey shows how to do (for about 25 parables in these two books), it becomes crystal clear that Jesus's parables are highly, deliberately, and brilliantly structured; some are almost poems. The message(s) and the crux of each parable are made clear through its structure and precise word choice.

For more info see my post at
www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2026867&postcount=103

[jesterbr549]

Some Fathers discuss the two sons as the Jews and Gentiles.


Not to burst anyone's bubble or anything but, ah, you really need to understand the parables in light of 1st century Judaism, not 21th century Christianity.

The point is, in fact, that the two sons are refering to the two separate nations of Israel - Judah and Ephraim.

Judah stayed and was obiediant to his father will and Ephraim went and wasted his inheritance.

Ephraim, during the tribulation will be restored to Israel and he will find that Judah is already there.

Many of the Parables can not be understood today - they are sealed - simply because people reject the ancient Judaic belief in the Lost Tribes of Israel.

You know, like the Lost Coins.

The Treasure Hid in a Field, where the Field is the World.

The Ten Virgins are referring to the Ten Lost Tribes at the end of the tribulation, etc.

Here is some more reading on this :

http://theoferrumii.geocities.master.com/texis/master/search/showmsg.html?id=46c0e8951a&Catid=46e6e9c93#m46c0e8951a

[The Curtmudgeon]

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: 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. 31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

If the Elder Brother represents the Jews, why then does Jesus put this statement into the mouth of the Father (God)?

The (from a Catholic perspective, that is) Curtmudgeon

[jesterbr549]

Because they are blessed "for the fathers sake" i.e. the Patriarchs of Israel and Paul goes on to say that even a remnent of the Jews still with Abba to this day.

[spauline]

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: 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. 31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

If the Elder Brother represents the Jews, why then does Jesus put this statement into the mouth of the Father (God)?

The (from a Catholic perspective, that is) Curtmudgeon

that is a good Q. In effect, I see it as the sense of Catholic phrasing the catechism with, "The Old Cov has never been revoked." In effect, the Old was not abolished but rather fuflilled. And in a certain sense, the Jews are "ever with God" in that they have not stopped searching in sincerity for the Messiah. That is, they are not fully culpable for their rejection, because it is the inevitable consequence of human nature. That is, it would seem impossible that any Creation could unfold in a manner in which the near whole of the Prefigured People would accept the Gospel in full when it comes, for when the fullness is manifested, it is overload, it is too much. The Trinity and Incarnation? No way! Blasphemy!

But God does not condemn them, for when the Gentiles have fully walked the path of the Jew's three ages, that is, when the NT Antichrist fulfills the final Jewish stage, the OT Antichrist, Antiochus, so then they shall see. That is, when the younger son walks out the second time, never to return, then the elder son shall receive the whole inheritance, that is, Catholicism.

You might check out my thread on "Final Jewish Conversion, a hypothesis" for more elaboration.

[The Curtmudgeon]

that is a good Q. In effect, I see it as the sense of Catholic phrasing the catechism with, "The Old Cov has never been revoked." In effect, the Old was not abolished but rather fuflilled. And in a certain sense, the Jews are "ever with God" in that they have not stopped searching in sincerity for the Messiah. That is, they are not fully culpable for their rejection, because it is the inevitable consequence of human nature. That is, it would seem impossible that any Creation could unfold in a manner in which the near whole of the Prefigured People would accept the Gospel in full when it comes, for when the fullness is manifested, it is overload, it is too much. The Trinity and Incarnation? No way! Blasphemy!

But God does not condemn them, for when the Gentiles have fully walked the path of the Jew's three ages, that is, when the NT Antichrist fulfills the final Jewish stage, the OT Antichrist, Antiochus, so then they shall see. That is, when the younger son walks out the second time, never to return, then the elder son shall receive the whole inheritance, that is, Catholicism.

You might check out my thread on "Final Jewish Conversion, a hypothesis" for more elaboration.

Interesting; thanx for the reply. This isn't exactly the Dispensationalist nor the Covenantal teaching of Israel, and I hadn't considered exactly this kind of view before. I'll check out the other thread, too.

The (I had noticed the other thread when you opened it, but haven't been back to see how you've extended it) Curtmudgeon

[carelinks]

I see mention has been made on this thread of Ken Bailey's works and I'd also recommend them. I do recall he makes the point about the prodigal parable that one can take it as having reference to Jews and Arabs. He traces the connections with the Jacob-Esau story of 2 sons. In that sense the prodigal story could be indeed eschatological in partial intent. Although it does end as a cliff hanger- whether the 2 sons reconcile or not is left for us to conclude.

[Fizban]

Interesting suggestion.

I would have to say that the suggestion that the Prodigal Son is apocalyptic or eschatological in nature is off the mark. It lacks all of the trademarks of an apocalyptic work (no visions, no divine mediator, etc.) and neither is it eschatological in the sense that it deals with the final state of things, personal or cosmic. As already pointed out, its situation in the Gospel itself determines its meaning: the joy in heaven over the repentance of one sinner.

[Pilgrim]

I think everyone is missing the point of the parable. We take everything, even the Bible, and in our human way try to make it about us rather than God. This is why the parable would be better titled "The Parable of the Forgiving Father" rather than of the "Prodigal Son." The parable, taken in context of the shepherd and the woman looking for her lost coin (both of which show the lengths which God goes to save his children) should be read as a statment on God's character more than on any human circumstance. The plain reading is always the best.

[Fizban]

I The plain reading is always the best.

Unless its Revelation :tongue:

But I do agree.