The Prodigal son = the fall of the angels?

[Epsilon_Omega]

This has been on my mind for a while, since it was said during a mass Gospel reading.

From Luke Chapter 15:
11
Then he said, "A man had two sons,
12
and the younger son said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of your estate that should come to me.’ So the father divided the property between them.
13
After a few days, the younger son collected all his belongings and set off to a distant country where he squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation.
14
When he had freely spent everything, a severe famine struck that country, and he found himself in dire need.
15
So he hired himself out to one of the local citizens who sent him to his farm to tend the swine.
16
And he longed to eat his fill of the pods on which the swine fed, but nobody gave him any.
17
Coming to his senses he thought, ‘How many of my father’s hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger.
18
I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.
19
I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers.”’
20
So he got up and went back to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him.
21
His son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.’
22
But his father ordered his servants, ‘Quickly bring the finest robe and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.
23
Take the fattened calf and slaughter it. Then let us celebrate with a feast,
24
because this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.’ Then the celebration began.
25
Now the older son had been out in the field and, on his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing.
26
He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean.
27
The servant said to him, ‘Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
28
He became angry, and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out and pleaded with him.
29
He said to his father in reply, ‘Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends.
30
But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.’
31
He said to him, 'My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.
32
But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.

I heard that and for some reason I started righting stuff down. We all think that the Prodigal son is about forgiveness. This is what I wrote down: and the younger son said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of your estate that should come to me.’ So the father divided the property between them. Most people interpret the Prodigal son to be man and God is our Father and forgives us when we find life again in Christ. But this is what i learned. The younger son uses his free will to follow his plan, not is Father’s. He still has his father’s grace and love, but Sinning he loses it. Then the son (being like sinful humans) came back and the Father welcomed him back with much joy. However, the elder son was furious about this and refused to enter the home and celebrate the returning of the sinner.

He said to his father in reply, ‘Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends.
30
But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.’
31
He said to him, 'My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.

The way I interpret this (what the holy spirit told me) is that the elder son was Lucifer, the fallen angel. When he gained the knowledge that God was welcoming back man who had turned away from God. He was furious and told him that he was faithful and God never really showed him favor for being so faithful. God then said,"My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours. But lucifer was jealous and turned away from God and fell away, maybe because he thought that God was holding out on him or maybe he didn’t feel appreciated for being so faithful. He was so jealous at the sinful man being forgiven and welcomed back so easy. He turned away from God, and that’s when the falling out was. Also, could Jesus be the slaughtered lamb? Just because Jesus was slaughtered for the sake of men, so that they could be forgiven. I am just wondering what you all think? Is my interpretation correct at all?

 

[CB_Catholic]

One of the problems with the analogy is that Lucifer is forever banished from Heaven, and everything that God has is not now, nor ever will be his. He will never receive an inheritance, unlike the brother of the prodigal. Also, Lucifer and the fallen angels were expelled from Heaven because of rebellion against God, whereas the brother was not expelled from his home, and did not rebel against his father. The brother of the prodigal was understandably surprised and angry at what his father did to welcome home the prodigal, as most of us probably would be, but the story does not imply that he suffered any consequences because of his complaints. He would always be with his father, and everything the father had would be his.
I think the traditional interpretation of the story, which shows us the willingness of the Father to welcome us home, despite our sins, and no matter what shape we are in, is how we should see this parable. This story has been a sign of hope for all of us for over 2000 years now.

 

[Conciliar]

It’s not a matter of “correct” or “incorrect.” Your thoughts are intriguiging. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this is what this parable is about. We know from the preceding verses that Jesus was most directly illustrating for His listeners the degree to which God the Father longs to welcome sinners back into His good graces, so to speak.

That said, there is nothing wrong with seeing in this parable shadows of similarity to the situation that led to the fall of Lucifer and those angels who followed him in rebellion. What we know about the fall of the angels is that they refused to serve God and His plan; a plan that includes the welcoming home of humankind who willfully turned away from Him, as you said. The paralell is interesting.

 

[spauline]

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)”

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I am in agreement that one can’t apply the singular interpretation to the story, as it can be interpreted many ways. The story ends without telling us how the reconciliation with the older son turns out.
He certanly could walk out on the father and be cut off – yet that is inconsistent with the particular father in the story who has welcomed back a mostly unrepentant son.

But – Consider the father’s words carefully – “everything I have is yours”.
The younger son can’t take what belongs to the older son – there is Jewish custom and law here. The father’s comment “I had to celebrate” then reads more fully in terms of the father’s remaining rights over the property while he lives, and the father’s wisdom concerning the neighbors and how they will view the situation. Overall, the father raises the dignity of the son here in a teaching moment of mercy and preserves his own dignity by not having his flesh and blood be mocked as a slave.