32. Another Parable ~ The Prodical Son with Implications

The parables of the Savior were given having various levels of understanding, from the rudimentry surface level of the mere story of the parable and its moral application to deep hiden meanings applied to the particulars of the gospel and the gospel plan. On the surface the parable of the Prodical Son is but one of a son gone astray who has come back and the father's wellingness to forgive him. In relation to God and man, it illustrates the Love of God for his children and his willingness to receive them back into the fold in they will but return and repent. Yet Nephi has taught another principle in respect to the scriptures which will aid in discovering even another meaning in the parable of the Prodical Son. And that is that we are to liken all scriptures unto ourselves. And as we apply them particularly unto ourselves there is still more meaning to be found. In Nephi's case, he was of the tribe of Joseph and he likend particularly the scripture of Isaiah to he and his people, especially in that they were the 'promised remnant' or the tribe of Joseph to whom many blessings had been given. Thus in Nephi's applying the scriptures particularly to his people as a remnant of the tribe of Joseph, Nephi was able to find great meanings of application.

This we will now do with the parable of the Prodical Son. We will particularly apply it to ourselves and in particular to that tribe of Israel to which we belong, the tribe of Ephraim, which is the representative tribe of the Kingdom of Israel as opposed to the Kingdom of Judah. Thus when the parable of the Prodical Son is likened unto the history of the Hebrews, the two sons of this 'certain man' become Judah as the elder son and Ephraim as the younger son.

Now it is not for parables to be applied in every detail but in general. It a parable it taken too literal then the various applications of it is lost to the attempting to satisfy every detail. It is therefore here but in general applied that the tribe of Ephraim, representing Israel, did depart from God, being the Father, taking his inheritance. And he did squander it in worshipping false gods and thus in riotous living, until he had wasted his inheritance away until there became a famine in the land for the want of the word of God (v14). And indeed Ephraim did travel to a far country, Assyria, to who, once his inheritance was so squandered, Ephraim did effect an aliance, joining himself to a citizen of that country (v15), that is with Asyria, and he so became associated with swine or that which in the view of the Hebrews that which was unclean.

Now the degenerate conditions of the prodical can will be compared to the various fates of position which scatered Israel, the is Ephraim, did experience no longer having the richness of the blessings of the bread of the Father upon which to trive. And it is also significant that the desire of the prodical son became that of wanting to become a servant unto his Father, that he might so come again and partake of the fulness of the Father. And when the prodical did return to the Father, repenting and to again become of the household of the Father, even as a servant of the Father, the reception of the Father was to welcome him with open arms and with great love (v. 17-20).

The Father accepted the his prodical's repentance and accepted him fully into his household to the extent of granting unto him the full blessing of the house, dressing him in the clothing of the house which we may infer to be the robes of the temple and did place his signant, his ring, upon the hand of the prodical which can be interpreted as the Covenant of God. And not next comes that which ties it together in respect to the topic of this text. The killing of teh fatted calf is but the symbolism of the sacrifice of the Son of God by which the prodical will be restored to the table of the Father.

And that which also becomes particularly applicable is that which is stated in verse 24. It states, 'this my son was dead, and is alive again'. This in itself has a dualistic application. In ancient times, the covenant line had become dead. Elimelech had died and his two sons, Chilion and Mahlon as well without seed. The covenant line of Ephraim was literally dead. And it was through the performance of their distance relative Boaz, that that seed was restored. This was an ancient inference. And of course there is the more near applicable application that Ephraim in being scattered had become dead in respect to the things of God, and he was again to be made live by the killing of the fatted calf, the atonement of the Lord, unto become alive again in Christ.

Also it states 'he was lost, and is found'. Cerainly the tribe or tribes of Ephraim as Israel were lost. And here in lies a great tie-in. In the ministry of Jesus Christ he so stated to his Apostles that he was sent to none but the 'Lost Tribes of Israel'. This implies that Jesus Christ WAS NOT sent unto the Jews for they were not lost as to their identity though perhaps they were then lost as to righteousness. But in relationship to the parable, Judah was NOT lost. Judah was the elder son which had stayed at home and was the heir apparant to the Father's house. This is precisely the supposed position that Judah was in. They supposed that they had prevailed in God and were indeed the heir to the covenant. And this even though the Lord had said by the prophet Jeremiah that Ephraim was his 'firstborn' of the covenant (Jeremiah 31:9).

Now the 'the lost sheep of the house' of this Certain Man, the Father, was Ephraim not Judah. And as the Lord also taught, 'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.' (Luke 5:32). Not that the Jewish were 'righteous' but they supposed themselves to be and they would find fault with the Lord when he would eat with and associate sinners, and publicans, and those with whom was not lawful for a 'Jew' to so associate with. This would have been the situation of the 'lost son'. It is further significant that the same chapter of Luke 15 in which the parable of the Prodical Son follows is includes 'The Parable of the Lost Sheep', the Lost Sheep which would be presented as the 'Prodical Ephraim'. And also in the chapter is that parable of Lost Piece of Silver. Of the 10 pieces, that which would have been the tribe of Ephraim, was lost, and the women, the church, labored hard to find it.

So here now is the tie-in to the topic of Ephraim being the ancestor of Christ. Jesus Christ WAS NOT sent but unto 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel'. Judah was NOT lost, Ephraim was. Jesus' purpose of his mission was to bring his gospel to the 'lost sheep of Israel', and that was Ephraim and his companions. Why was Jesus NOT SENT unto the Jews? Simply stated, 'They were NOT the 'Covenant Seed' in whom the promises remained (D&C 27:10). Those covenant promises did but remain and were preserved in and through Joseph and his seed, the covenant seed. Jesus was not sent unto the Jews. Quite the opposite. He was sent to condemn the Jews and to be crucified of them, the only nation of people wicked enough to so crucify their Lord. Though they had usurped to the position and claimed him, they rejected him and crucified him. And it would be to Ephraim that the gospel would be taken, that is the world in which Ephraim, as the Lost Sheep of Israel', had been scattered. In deed, He is the 'good shepherd' and he knows his sheep and he is known of his own, and it is his own for whom he did lie down his life' John 10:14-15. And in the case of the parable of the Prodical Son, it was for the restoring of that son which was 'lost' for which the life of the fatted calf was given, the fatted calf representing Jesus Christ.

Again, alone, this parable proves nothing but interesting coincidence. But coupled with all the other evidences concerning the ties between Jesus Christ and Ephraim, it is one more nail in the completed design that Jesus is the same as Messiah ben Joseph.