Parable: Prodigal Son

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crumpy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Crumpy

Guest
I was given a book for a birthday gift: A Tale of Two Sons, by John MacArthur (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._MacArthur)), c 210 pages.

This is a great exposition of the parable in the tradition of the Reformed Church.

MacArthur analyzes the parable from the point of view of all the personages in Luke 15: Jesus, Pharisees and Scribes, audience of listeners, the younger “prodigal” son, the elder son, their father.

Each of the two sons is deep in sin (universal depravity showing its ugly head here). According to Deut 21:18-21, such rebellious sons could be taken to the edge of town and stoned.

The love, forgiveness, and mercy of the father teaches the main lesson, about the joy in heaven over the sinner who repents (the point of all three parables in Lk 15).

MacArthur offers background on just about everything in the parable, down to the internal disposition of the prodigal son. He applies the term “moral insanity” to that son’s entire frame of mind, a term not inappropriate widely in society today.

The elder son displays the sinful, hypocritical righteousness that is really a picture of the Pharisees and Scribes. After hearing this series of three parables, they are determined to kill Jesus.

The book is easy to read and offers insights generally on Jesus’ parables in an epilogue. Says MacArthur, each of the parables is meant to teach a single moral lesson. Post-modern analysts who find multiple meanings, if they can find any at all, are sorely midlead by their own man-made philosophies and not in the mind of Christ.
 
Crumpy said:
The book is easy to read and offers insights generally on Jesus’ parables in an epilogue. Says MacArthur, each of the parables is meant to teach a single moral lesson. Post-modern analysts who find multiple meanings, if they can find any at all, are sorely midlead by their own man-made philosophies and not in the mind of Christ.
Click to expand...
I find that statement rather “from the mountaintop” wouldn’t you say?

Isn’t MacArthur rather anti-catholic in some of his writings - sometimes more obvious than others?
 
I put in the link to an article on MacArthur, to give some background to who he is. I also qualified my post by saying that he was speaking from the Reformed Tradition.

Nevertheless, MacArthur’s is a point of view, and it’s one worth considering. If scripture can have multiple meanings, then it is perhaps drained of its original intent, meaning, and overall purpose. After all, the parables were preached, and MacArthur looks at how they were received.

In this case, the meaning of the three parables was certainly not ambiguous to the Pharisees or to the gospel writer, as the gospels record that after this preaching, the Pharisees were determined to kill Jesus.

In greater detail of his book, MacArthur explores the meanings of how radical Jesus was. Almost everything in the parable upset the preconceptions of the listeners.

For example, the father ran to greet the returning prodigal son. This would have been very unseemly to a rich man, to behave in this way. It was also quite surprising that the father offered forgiveness for the son’s prior conduct. People in general, and the Pharisees in particular, had an expectation that the younger son would work off his debt for years, perhaps a lifetime. But, as Jesus taught elsewhere, the father offered immediate and unconditional forgiveness and love for the son.

The elder son, MacArthur says, is as guilty as the younger son of offenses against his father. Note in the parable, the elder son even chastizes his father for not having ever given him a party with a fatted calf. To MacArthur, the last part of the parable about the elder son, is a condemnation of the Pharisees. The elder son personifies the Pharisees. The elder son, like the P., are self-centered and lacking in the attitude of God’s mercy and forgiveness of repentent sinners.

Surely, my posts are just thumbnails of the exposition in this book which runs around 200 pages. I have tried to provide some tantalizing details, for the sake of conversation.

Again, the big picture of the 3 parables in Lk 15 revolve around joy about finding what was lost, etc. the son that was “dead” has come back to life. Joy in heaven over repentence, reflecting the attitude of God towards sinners that repent, not vengeful as the Pharisees would judge the matter.
 
In his book, Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict makes a brilliant dissection of this parable.
 
NotWorthy said:
I find that statement rather “from the mountaintop” wouldn’t you say?

Isn’t MacArthur rather anti-catholic in some of his writings - sometimes more obvious than others?
Click to expand...
My aunt, who sent me MacArthur’s book, notes that he took ten years to preach on every verse in the gospel of John. I’m sure his viewpoint of chapter 6 was not Catholic (and I say this from just knowing that he is a Reformed Church minister).

I’m not an academic person, and I don’t know where the Catholic expositions of this parable are. I was hoping to find out, by starting this thread.

I’m not as studious as I may sound, but I just read “Deep Conversion / Deep Prayer” by Fr. Thomas Dubay. He gave about two sentences to this parable, noting what a great literary work it is, in the first place. And, although the conversion of the prodigal son is an issue that is central to his book, he says little to nothing about it further in his 110 page book.

I have an open mind to receiving any charitable correction from a Catholic viewpoint about what MacArthur has written. My goal is to learn even more.
 
Crumpy said:
For example, the father ran to greet the returning prodigal son. This would have been very unseemly to a rich man, to behave in this way.
Click to expand...
I heard just today that the father would have had to have raised his robe to run, which was unseeming in Jewish tradition. Hence, the father had to humble himself in order to reach out to his son.
Crumpy said:
The elder son, MacArthur says, is as guilty as the younger son of offenses against his father. Note in the parable, the elder son even chastizes his father for not having ever given him a party with a fatted calf. To MacArthur, the last part of the parable about the elder son, is a condemnation of the Pharisees. The elder son personifies the Pharisees. The elder son, like the P., are self-centered and lacking in the attitude of God’s mercy and forgiveness of repentent sinners.
Click to expand...
Also, the elder son represents the Pharisees for just as the elder son is being invited in to join the celebration and refusing, the Pharisees are being invited in to join Jesus’ celebration. That’s why Jesus leaves the question to the son hanging - the Pharisees action gets to determine whether the older son joins in or not.

Of course, we all know the answer to that one!
Crumpy said:
Again, the big picture of the 3 parables in Lk 15 revolve around joy about finding what was lost, etc. the son that was “dead” has come back to life. Joy in heaven over repentence, reflecting the attitude of God towards sinners that repent, not vengeful as the Pharisees would judge the matter.
Click to expand...
Amen! The Three parables are all linked, and they all reflect the massive joy which occurs when a lamb is returned to the flock!
 
Crumpy said:
My aunt, who sent me MacArthur’s book, notes that he took ten years to preach on every verse in the gospel of John. I’m sure his viewpoint of chapter 6 was not Catholic (and I say this from just knowing that he is a Reformed Church minister).

I’m not an academic person, and I don’t know where the Catholic expositions of this parable are. I was hoping to find out, by starting this thread.

I’m not as studious as I may sound, but I just read “Deep Conversion / Deep Prayer” by Fr. Thomas Dubay. He gave about two sentences to this parable, noting what a great literary work it is, in the first place. And, although the conversion of the prodigal son is an issue that is central to his book, he says little to nothing about it further in his 110 page book.

I have an open mind to receiving any charitable correction from a Catholic viewpoint about what MacArthur has written. My goal is to learn even more.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why I would caution reading his book. You and I may not know enough to sense that he is inserting his own “anti-catholic bias” into his description of a parable.

Notice I said “caution”. I don’t know enough to downright deny him.

But, I reiterate, the phrase that “there is only lesson to be learned, and anyone coming up with multiple lessons” sounds rather autonomous, wouldn’t you say? That’s for us Catholics to do!!! 😉
 
As JFM really is not Catholic, and some of his answers border on exclusionary on matters Calvanistic, I think I would stay away from his writings in general.

Before I converted to RC I used to listen to his radio program and held views on TULIP like his, but also held So Baptist type views. I am glad I have a teaching Magesterium now. Everything makes so much more sense.

As for the Prodigal Son story. I always thought the elder son got a raw deal. He hung around and did DOUBLE the work and the younger son just skates when he gets back.
 
MacArthur devotes a couple short chapters to the elder son.

He looks at the details carefully. He says that the part about the elder son is the part of the parable that is most pointed at condemning the Pharisees.

MacArthur uses some writer’s license to argue that the elder son was indignant about several things: He wasn’t summoned for the celebration; he just stumbled on it when he came back from the field. He feels left out, mistreated by the father. He does not share the father’s attitude of unconditional forgiveness towards the prodigal son. He argues with his father. He is interested only in himself.

Culturally, the eldest son was given special rights in inheritance. The Jewish law was on his side, you might say. The father was welcoming the prodigal son back with things that rightly belonged to the elder son. But, MacArthur cites this as typical of the legalistic mentality of the Pharisees.

We don’t know how, but the prodigal son had a conversion, in the story. It took a lot of suffering to make him “come to his senses.”
We only get a glimpse of the prodigal son’s conversion, when he confesses that he has sinned against heaven and against his father.

MacArthur doesn’t emphasize that point, that conversion often comes at such a time when someone is forced to confront the truth. In his book Deep Conversion/Deep Prayer, Fr. Thomas Dubay cites this parable as one of the greatest pieces of literature in the Bible, And, he makes that very point, that conversion sometimes occurs, even in a moment, when someone confronts the truth, in all its beauty.

I would agree with the previous post of notworthy that one should be careful with the writings of non-catholics. But, many Catholic scholars such as Benedict XVI, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, and Dr. Scott Hahn are familiar with and cite writings of Jewish and non-Catholic writers. The question is, can any individual Catholic trust himself to read something from outside the Church? They have to decide for themself, if they will even bother.

This week on Crossing the Threshold of Truth, Fr. Mitch Pacwa cited a book (2 volumes) by an anglican minister, called the History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist. It is apparently reliable enough for citation. His point was, this history is objective enough to persuade anybody, that the doctrine of the Real Presence wasn’t totally rejected until John Wyclif came along. Yes, there was a French deacon who wrote against the doctrine in the 11th century, but he later recanted; someone explained the doctrine to him and he later accepted the correction and the authentic teaching of the Church. It turns out that, or so it seems, that Wyclif read and latched on to the earlier writing of that deacon.

Anyway, the point of my starting this thread was to say that this book by MacArthur is a pretty easy-reading book and that it brings out many of the details that Jesus taught in this parable.
 
Crumpy said:
MacArthur devotes a couple short chapters to the elder son.

He looks at the details carefully. He says that the part about the elder son is the part of the parable that is most pointed at condemning the Pharisees. …
Culturally, the eldest son was given special rights in inheritance. The Jewish law was on his side, you might say. The father was welcoming the prodigal son back with things that rightly belonged to the elder son. But, MacArthur cites this as typical of the legalistic mentality of the Pharisees.
Click to expand...
One other thing I noticed was, wasn’t the younger son only supposed to get 1/3 of the inheritance and NOT 1/2? As the First Born, the older son was supposed to get a double portion of the inheritance, leaving him w/ 2/3rds and the younger w/ 1/3rd. I find it interesting that Jesus points out that he got 1/2. Of course, it’s indicative of the fact that we all receive the same rewards, sort of like the Parable of the Workers in the Field.
Crumpy said:
I would agree with the previous post of notworthy that one should be careful with the writings of non-catholics. But, many Catholic scholars such as Benedict XVI, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, and Dr. Scott Hahn are familiar with and cite writings of Jewish and non-Catholic writers. The question is, can any individual Catholic trust himself to read something from outside the Church? They have to decide for themself, if they will even bother.
Click to expand...
My concern is less that he is non-Catholic and more that I’ve heard he is anti-Catholic.
Crumpy said:
This week on Crossing the Threshold of Truth, Fr. Mitch Pacwa cited a book (2 volumes) by an anglican minister, called the History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist. It is apparently reliable enough for citation. His point was, this history is objective enough to persuade anybody, that the doctrine of the Real Presence wasn’t totally rejected until John Wyclif came along. Yes, there was a French deacon who wrote against the doctrine in the 11th century, but he later recanted; someone explained the doctrine to him and he later accepted the correction and the authentic teaching of the Church. It turns out that, or so it seems, that Wyclif read and latched on to the earlier writing of that deacon.
Click to expand...
And this goes to show my point. I would be willing to wager that even after discovering the French deacon’s recanting, Mr. Wyclif didn’t include that in his writings. Just the part that fit his “theology”. Anti-Catholics tend to do that. Anti-“anythings” tend to do that. But Non-Catholics don’t always do that.
 
This is my favorite parable because all three of the characters get it wrong. The father gives away his livelihood while he is still alive in contravention of Sirach (33:19-23); the younger son is disrespectful of his father by saying, in effect, “Die, old man;” the older son complains that the father never gave him anything while holding the double portion of the inheritance. None of them has done it right. Great lesson.

Matthew
 
Crumpy said:
Says MacArthur, each of the parables is meant to teach a single moral lesson. Post-modern analysts who find multiple meanings, if they can find any at all, are sorely midlead by their own man-made philosophies and not in the mind of Christ.
Click to expand...
I’ve recently been loaned the book, “The Gospel in Parable” by John R. Donahue and he brings up two points that seem to echo my original thoughts when I first read this:

Parables are polyvalent, that is, they are open to multiple interpretations. For instance, is the “point” of the parable of the Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46) the search, the joy of finding, or the willingness to risk all?

This evidence of multiple meanings is displayed by the Gospel authors themselves. For Matthew (18:12-14), the Lost Sheep functions to exhort church leaders to care for the weak in the community. But in Luke, it justifies Jesus’ mission to the lost (15:4-7).
 
drafdog said:
This is my favorite parable because all three of the characters get it wrong. The father gives away his livelihood while he is still alive in contravention of Sirach (33:19-23); the younger son is disrespectful of his father by saying, in effect, “Die, old man;” the older son complains that the father never gave him anything while holding the double portion of the inheritance. None of them has done it right. Great lesson.

Matthew
Click to expand...
Since the Father in the parable is an allusion to God the Father, I’d hesitate to say that he “gets it wrong”. What I think he is demonstrating is that God gives us our inheritance in Baptism, even though we don’t deserve it.

I like your take on the young son, however. First the boy tells the old man to die. Then it’s the boy who dies and returns. “This son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found”.
 
There’s also this book about the Prodigal Son by a Catholic, Fr Henri Nouwen:

amazon.com/Return-Prodigal-Son-Story-Homecoming/dp/0385473079

As far as there being only one meaning (MacArthur’s, I’m sure) to this parable, I don’t agree with that. Did you read Mark Shea’s book, Making Senses Out of Scripture? He explains that scripture has 4 levels of understanding: literal, allegorical , moral, and anagogical.

I really recommend this book to help you understand Scripture. An excerpt of it can be found here:
mark-shea.com/books.html

I’m sure there are some good and true things in Protestant books on Christianity, but I prefer spending my limited time reading Catholic authors. Protestant authors will always fall short since their understanding of the Church and the Bible is different from ours.
 
In the shadows, (riddles)this is the story of Christ:

It is the same image and story as the rich man and Lazarus.

Here is a rough of the beginning:

12 And the younger said, Father give me the portion of your being that is cast out.
And he divided unto them his life.
13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all things together and went into a far country (became incarnate)
And there he gathered wheat, his property, with an abandoned life.
14 And when he had incurred the expense of every man, there arose a mighty famine in the land (God had removed himself from the son and the son had been made to be sin) and in that land he rehearsed from the beginning to be destitute.
15 And he departed and cleaved to an inhabitant of heaven and sent him into the world to give the word to those who do not discern what they “eat”.
16. He would desire to “eat” the Messiah that the swine did eat. No man gave to him.
17. And when he came to himself he said, How many of my Father’s servants deserving punishment have the word of God in abundance? And I am destitute.
18. I will arise…

In the imagery that follows this “death” scene it is easy to see the Father welcoming the risen Christ back in glory. And the Father even mentions that he was dead and is now alive.

Now the elder son represents the law just as the rich man in the story of Lazarus and also like the servant that was getting fired.
In this case, the law refuses to enter into the banquet. The imagery of separation of the law from the kingdom of God is here.

This does not negate the literal application to the Pharisees. It is contained in the double entendre.

Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle <02420>, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top