Food For Thought: Prodigal Son
February 1st, 2010 by Christopher McCulloh
This has always bothered me. If instead of, or in addition to, going out and telling the son who’s feelings were hurt to go inside and be happy the father had (also) told the prodigal son to go out and speak to his brother, would the two brothers have been reconciled?
I think, yes.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
But that wasn’t the point. This was a parrable not a historical retelling of an event. In the spirit of a parrable the story was kept simple and to the point. It’s not about being reconciled to your brother or sister, etc. , it’s about the love of a father and is intended to illustrate that God the father will accept you back no matter what you’ve done… that’s it. One point, easily understood. If we add in anything else we lose the impact of the point of the parrable.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Oh, I agree that that was the main point of the parable. But if that was the only point, why would the other brother even be in the parable? Why not just leave the other brother out entirely? One interpretation is that the other brother represented the people in the church who ‘never stray’, or the pharisees, who although they themselves have never lost their way in such a dramatic way and in need of ‘coming back to the fold’ are unwilling to accept those who do leave the church and come back. Point being that I think the parable is even MORE perfect because it CAN be more complex, or it CAN be simple. Once you grasp the basic concept, it still is rich and deep and has more complexities that you can consider. I like that this parable isn’t just for those who stray mightily from the church, but also those who feel they have not strayed in such a way and have worked hard all their lives to ‘do the right thing’. It speaks to them, chastising them for resenting those they see as ‘the prodigals’. At least, thats part of what I gather from the fact that the father never asks the prodigal to go out and try and reconcile with the brother… Meaning that the Prodigal didn’t sin against the other brother at all and is in no way obligated to go out and get him, but it seems if the prodigal loved his brother, he would go and try to find him. But the brother never went to try and find the prodigal and if he had, perhaps the prodigal wouldn’t have come to the state of repentance that he did and therefor maybe it’s best the prodigal not go out to talk to the brother, or even if he did, maybe the brother would in the end learn more if he was left to discover forgiveness for his brother on his own with or without the prodigal asking for it.
Again, I really like this parable because I think there is a lot there that can be thought about. Yes, I recognize you should grasp the main concept first, but it’s so much deeper and complex than just the main concept. For instance, why did the father not track down the prodigal and find him in the slop and invite him back home? See, so many questions with so many good answers we can learn to help us understand the way God works in our lives.
I’m not the first (or the last) to analyze this parable, or this part of this parable. Archbishop Dimitri does in his “The Parables: Biblical, Patristic and Liturgical Interpretation” from St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press (which I believe you have a copy of in your bookstore).
So, yes, definitely agree with your comment that the main point of the parable is returning to God no matter how much we feel we have sinned, but I think there is more we can learn here than that one very important thing.