The Prodigal Son: Luke 15:11-32

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So although I see your point that the story is about the father, not the son, I still think the title Prodigal son is appropriate.

I think that the title is appropriate when the focus is on the son. And has merit when on the nature of the father who was watching expectantly.

My beef with the title as a general thing is that it misses the immediate point that Christ was making concerning himself as something different than what the establishment of the time was expecting. The son was not irrelevant. It was for the "son" (the lost, or the sinner) that Jesus came. But in the context, it was the fact that he came for them, not that they needed him to come. It was about him, not the sinner/son.

One thing Lee so often did that I can agree with is show the black background (or as was often said, the blackground). But the background is not the focus. The focus is the thing that is placed on the background so that it stands out. So we have titled this parable as being about the background. So rather than "Mona Lisa" we have "Landscape." There is probably a lot that could be said about the landscape that is behind the woman. But the Mona Lisa is a picture of the woman, not the background. Many of the most significant things about that painting probably remain constant and remarkable if a completely different background had been used. Probably not entirely. But mostly. (And the nature of this particular painting is not a completely even comparison for the parable in question. But I believe that it demonstrates my point fairly well.)