The Prodigal Son and biblical inerrancy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Penny_Plain
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Penny_Plain

Guest
From the mouths of babes…

My 9-year-old son asked me today if there really was a Prodigal Son.

I don’t think it matters very much – the important thing is to learn the lesson from the tale Our Lord told. But, for those of you who believe the Bible to be completely and literally true, was there a Prodigal Son?

Were there really five wise virgins and five foolish ones?

Was there really a good Samaritan?
 
Penny Plain:
From the mouths of babes…

My 9-year-old son asked me today if there really was a Prodigal Son.

I don’t think it matters very much – the important thing is to learn the lesson from the tale Our Lord told. But, for those of you who believe the Bible to be completely and literally true, was there a Prodigal Son?

Were there really five wise virgins and five foolish ones?

Was there really a good Samaritan?
Click to expand...
The Catholic view of Scripture is that it is literally true, but that does not mean it is literalistically true. In other words, a parable is a style of storytelling that Jesus and his contemporaries used to illustrate their points. They don’t have to be literalistically true, in that there had to be a real prodigal son or real virgins, etc. but they are to be taken as real in the sense that they would have been real types of people living at the time, if you see what I mean.

There are many types of literature in the Bible from theological treatises, such as Hebrews, to poetry and song to history and mythology (in the proper sense of the word, not meaning an untruth), etc. Each should be read understanding what literary form they are. This does not mean that the creation myths in Genesis aren’t true, for example, because they are written mythological literary style, but simply that what is literal in them is the overall theme/point of the stories, not necessarily every little detail taken literalistically.

In historical writings the history is true, but it is written, too, to demonstrate some aspect of God’s dealings with Israel and the promise of the Messiah and not to be an exact chronology of historical events, as we would think of them today. This too doesn’t mean we can’t believe in the flood or in the fall of walls of Jericho–they are real events, but what is more important about them is what God was doing or teaching not how and when and every detail of them. Does that make any sense?
 
40.png
Della:
The Catholic view of Scripture is that it is literally true, but that does not mean it is literalistically true. In other words, a parable is a style of storytelling that Jesus and his contemporaries used to illustrate their points. They don’t have to be literalistically true, in that there had to be a real prodigal son or real virgins, etc. but they are to be taken as real in the sense that they would have been real types of people living at the time, if you see what I mean.

There are many types of literature in the Bible from theological treatises, such as Hebrews, to poetry and song to history and mythology (in the proper sense of the word, not meaning an untruth), etc. Each should be read understanding what literary form they are. This does not mean that the creation myths in Genesis aren’t true, for example, because they are written mythological literary style, but simply that what is literal in them is the overall theme/point of the stories, not necessarily every little detail taken literalistically.

In historical writings the history is true, but it is written, too, to demonstrate some aspect of God’s dealings with Israel and the promise of the Messiah and not to be an exact chronology of historical events, as we would think of them today. This too doesn’t mean we can’t believe in the flood or in the fall of walls of Jericho–they are real events, but what is more important about them is what God was doing or teaching not how and when and every detail of them. Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
It makes a lot of sense to me, yes, but I think you might not be my target audience.

I’m looking for someone who believes that Methuselah lived to 969 (which I assume you don’t, and neither do I). I want to know whether that person believes the parables are literally true.

I should clarify – I’m not trying to start any sort of fight here. My view tends towards Della’s, and I’ve never thought the parables to be anything more than stories told to illustrate a point.
 
There’s a difference between parables and the other stories told in the Bible. I don’t know whether parables are true or not, but I do believe that the world was made in six days, Methuselah lived to be 969 years old (or however long the Bible says he lived), that Jonah was actually swalled by a big fish, Noah built the arc, etc.

Scout :tiphat:
 
Penny Plain:
It makes a lot of sense to me, yes, but I think you might not be my target audience.

I’m looking for someone who believes that Methuselah lived to 969 (which I assume you don’t, and neither do I). I want to know whether that person believes the parables are literally true.

I should clarify – I’m not trying to start any sort of fight here. My view tends towards Della’s, and I’ve never thought the parables to be anything more than stories told to illustrate a point.
Click to expand...
Well, I wouldn’t say that Methuselah didn’t live to be 969 years old–I don’t think it impossible. After all, the Bible tells us that others lived centuries, too, but they were the very early people who lived at a time when the earth was young and soon after the fall of man. Adam and Eve would not have died if they had not fallen, which means they would have been immortal beings, so it’s not a stretch to think they and those of their immediate descendants lived extremely long lives. We simply don’t have any outside data to prove it, and I doubt we ever will. And I can see no harm in believing it true. Still, the accounts may not have been meant to be taken literalistically. I don’t think it really matters in the overall scheme of things, do you?

But, if you want to find Catholics who believe the parables were literalistically true, that might be harder because Catholics understand that a parable is a story and that Jesus wasn’t necessarily talking about real people. He may have been, but we don’t have to believe he was because we know his intention in telling parables and the intention of the writers of the Gospels.
 
Penny Plain:
From the mouths of babes…

My 9-year-old son asked me today if there really was a Prodigal Son.

I don’t think it matters very much – the important thing is to learn the lesson from the tale Our Lord told. But, for those of you who believe the Bible to be completely and literally true, was there a Prodigal Son?

Were there really five wise virgins and five foolish ones?

Was there really a good Samaritan?
Click to expand...
Hi Penny.

I believe the scripture literally with the exception of obviously figurative speech, and I do that from Gen 1:1.

The parable is “figurative,” if you will, and it usually illustrates a moral, or religious teaching, or principle.

The characters in the parable are representative of people, and their moral, and religious attitudes.

As you say, the importance is understanding the teaching of the parable.
 
40.png
sandusky:
Hi Penny.

I believe the scripture literally with the exception of obviously figurative speech, and I do that from Gen 1:1.

The parable is “figurative,” if you will, and it usually illustrates a moral, or religious teaching, or principle.

The characters in the parable are representative of people, and their moral, and religious attitudes.

As you say, the importance is understanding the teaching of the parable.
Click to expand...
I took a Bible timeline Seminar, and without going back to my notes I’m gonna say we were told that the prodigal son represented the Jews and the other son the Gentiles, but then again that could be vica versa.
 
Penny Plain:
From the mouths of babes…

My 9-year-old son asked me today if there really was a Prodigal Son.

I don’t think it matters very much – the important thing is to learn the lesson from the tale Our Lord told. But, for those of you who believe the Bible to be completely and literally true, was there a Prodigal Son?

Were there really five wise virgins and five foolish ones?

Was there really a good Samaritan?
Click to expand...
I would say that there have been countless prodigal sons, wise virgins, foolish virgins, and good Samaritans. But I believe when Jesus was telling these stories he was using caricatures and stereotypes that his listeners would understand to illustrate various point. I don’t think he had any one person in mind when he told them but I think he did have all of them in mind.

I believe that is a perfectly valid way to teach

Jim
 
40.png
maryj:
I took a Bible timeline Seminar, and without going back to my notes I’m gonna say we were told that the prodigal son represented the Jews and the other son the Gentiles, but then again that could be vica versa.
Click to expand...
There are different takes, here’s my understanding:

Christ tells three parables here, and all three are related, so they must all be read to understand what Jesus is teaching.

The context for the identity of the prodigal and the older son is in the first two verses:

V1 has tax collectors and sinners coming to listen to Jesus.

V2 has Pharisees and scribes listening, and grumbling, “this man receives sinners and eats with them.” Notice the attitude of these scribes and Pharisees; it is the same as that of the older son at the end of the story.

Without going into an expostion of the whole parable, the prodigal son represents the Jewish nation as a whole (tax collectors, and sinners), and ultimately those of that nation who put their faith in Christ.

The “older son,” represents the scribes and Pharisees, who were not happy with those Jews who followed Christ; in fact, they persecuted them, and put them out of the synogogues.

The father represents God.

The prodigal recognized that he was a sinner, and that he had rebelled against his father, and squandered all of the inheritance his father had given him; he also was brought to the realization that he had no righteousness in himself, and so threw himself on the mercy of the his father, and was willing to be the least of his father’s servants.

The older son, who had done the will of his father, and had been faithful and obedient to his father’s house and all of his father’s laws, was angry when he saw the love of the father lavished on the prodigal, who had been so disobedient to his father, and so sinful.

The point of the teaching of all three parables is found in vv7, 10, 32; that is, the joy in heaven over the repentance of one sinner; the great mercy of God is seen as well in the attitude of the father toward the prodigal, as well as toward the older the son; God has not forsaken Israel; there final salvation is yet future. There are many other tidbits in the text, but I’ll stop here.

For a similar parable with a different point, read Lk 18:9-14.
 
40.png
trogiah:
I would say that there have been countless prodigal sons, wise virgins, foolish virgins, and good Samaritans. But I believe when Jesus was telling these stories he was using caricatures and stereotypes that his listeners would understand to illustrate various point. I don’t think he had any one person in mind when he told them but I think he did have all of them in mind.

I believe that is a perfectly valid way to teach

Jim
Click to expand...
Jesus was using caricatures and stereotypes, but He was talking to Jews. What we need to realize is that the Jews of that time were waiting for the Messiah. They were listening for certain things to be said, something that would set off an alarm with them that would say, Yup that’s Him. We have been told by the Prophets what to listen for. Say for instance when Moses tells the Jews in Egypt, when asked what his god’s name is, and he reply’s "This god told me his name is I AM. They knew immediately that it was God, since Joseph had told them that was God’s name. (this name was never to be spoken in public)They (of course not all of them) knew what to be listening for, they knew the Messiah was coming. So in my round about way of saying this, I know for certain Jesus knew exactly “who” He was talking to, and about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top