For most of my life I have read this parable through a lens of the younger brother being the rebellious child. I often thought of some of my high school and college buddies when reading it this way. You know who you are...
My thinking went something like this. The rebellious son had a rich father. The rich father gave his son everything he wanted, which the son quickly squandered and/or destroyed. The son then goes off to college, aka "the far country," where he parties hard and fails out of his classes. He then returns to his father with his "tail tucked," to be received with grace and named Vice President of the family business.
Is this a good lens? Is this what Jesus was trying to portray? If not, what have I been missing all these years?
My studies have shown that reading through this lens leaves a major gap in the story. There is no clear picture of an atoning sacrifice. Where is the cross in the above reading? In fact, the above understanding seems to imply that man can be reconciled to God through his own efforts, which is what has led many Muslim commentators to suggest that Jesus is reflecting Islamic theology in this parable.
When it comes to the younger son, the first thing I now see is that he is more than rebellious. Instead, he is mutinous, even murderous, in his actions. To request his inheritance prior to his father's death is to admit that he can't wait for his father to die. He would rather live life on his own than trust his father.
Second, in requesting his inheritance the younger son has not broken any law. There is no prohibition in the law that says a son can not request his inheritance early. What has been broken is a relationship. Remember, Jesus is talking to the Pharisees and the scribes. I think he is telling them that relationship is more important than the law.
Third, in the parable there doesn't seem to be any true repentance in the younger son. Most English translations say that the younger son "came to his senses" or "came to himself." Neither of these suggest repentance. Even in his planned story to his father he doesn't use language that reflects repentance. Instead, he is scheming to deal with his hunger. When he returns to the father he is not expecting to be restored to the family. He has no idea what is coming. He is simply hoping for the best in a terrible situation simply because he was hungry.
So, where is the cross, and thus the gospel in this story? I think we will find more when we look at what we can learn from both the father and the elder son. I hope to post on these soon.
Comments