Jesus spoke a lot about repentance, and here he makes a story that reflects this teaching. The parable or story is the following: A man had two sons; the young one asked to take his share of the inheritance and leave his parental house, while the other didn’t want his share but wanted to stay in the house. The young son took all his belongings and lived in a far country in profligacy. He spent all his money as a famine happened in the county so he tried to live with some money he makes from his job but his earning wasn’t enough.
He thought about returning to the family house and telling his father that he is his son, which means confessing his sins. When he became close to the house his father saw him. Was he on a balcony or on a high roof at the end of the road? Was he still not hopeless concerning the return of his son? Did he expect that the son will fall into an economical loss since he went to spend and not to make a fortune?
“His father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him”. He did not reprove him, or blame him, or tell him that the good behavior is better than the bad one. He only hugged him and gave him the best robe to wear since his clothes were torn apart like every hungry person as he won’t have money to buy clothes. He butchered the fatted Calf for him and told the servants: “for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found”. He called him his son, i.e. he didn’t cut the relationship between them.
There was in the house dancing and singing, so the son that remained free was surprised and got mad because he considered that his father was unjust, so he separated his self spiritually from the family and did not want to enter, and he started to blame his father and consider himself righteous. How is the bad person treated as the pure one? How could he prefer the son the fell over the one who didn’t? This is what he was thinking about. Is the punishment of the adulterer to be treated just like the one who remained pure?
The Father had another logic: I treat the righteous as the owner of the house. He eats, drinks and enjoys everything in the house. He can enjoy everything to the maximum, but he isn’t allowed to punish his brother. The money belongs to the father and he is free to do what he wants with it. The father didn’t prevent anything from the old son. He didn’t deny anything from him. The fatted Cult is for him, the ring and the sandals also, and he has the right to give these to whoever has deviated or gone away.
The father’s heart wanted to save his rebellious son and tell him that he still loves him. The father felt that his little son was like a dead person and the Gospel did call him dead.
This parable that was named “the prodigal son” in our tradition should be named -taking into consideration both sons- the parable of “the compassionate father” that forgave the son that has rebelled and treated the old son justly. He treated each one in a way but in one love. Jesus came to save sinners, and he distinguished them only for them to feel and repent and return to the face of the heavenly Father.
Translated by Mark Najjar
Original Text: “الابن الشاطر” – 20.02.2011
