the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel

in some aspect of psychoanalytic theory. Breech believes that the parable exposes the basic
problem of triangular human relationships. For him the return of the younger son comprises a
most tragic story, seeing the father as a pathetic figure and the elder son as seeking a sign of
the father’s love, not things. Seeing the father as a negative figure, he rather speculates about
the danger that the father’s love and forgiveness can lead the younger son to parasitical and
decadent behaviour. 144
Among feminist scholars, Durber argues that the parable is constructed in a patriarchal
legal and inheritance system in which a father divides his property between his sons, since
there are no women in the parable, asking where the mother and sisters are. For her, the lack
of images of women looks like sexism, revealing the fact that they came from a patriarchal
145
culture, and that they have been written by men and for men. Following Rohrbaugh, even
Beavis regards the story as a dysfunctional family in which his son had not only been
sexually molested by his father, but also the father’s emotional reaction, that is to say, the
sight to his son, his embrace and tender kisses can display a nurturing, maternal
upbringing. 146
Obviously misled are those that try to find a feminine emphasis in the father’s
actions or other aspect of the story, those that see a problem on account of the fact that there
is no mother. The parable has nothing to do with feminist concerns.
In economic terms, Metzger observes and concludes that the younger son is portrayed
only as living wastefully, and the father is described as the foolish and incompetent estate
manager and paterfamilias, whereas the elder son’s voice in the parable challenges the
audiences against overconsumption and wealth. The elder son is evaluated highly as one who
147
has dutifulness, prudence, fiscal responsibility and justified anger. On the other hand,
Susan Eastman argues that it is possible to repent, forgive and reconcile only in the
economics of grace that in his father’s house there is enough and to spare, and that the father
gives away his property, and even property that is willed to his elder son according to a
bewildering generosity, not the wisdom in a world as Sirach warning a foolish father against
144. Breech, The Silence of Jesus, 184-212. His contention is followed by R.Q. Ford that thinks of the father
even more negatively as one who hinders two sons’ development. R.Q. Ford, The Parables of Jesus: Recovering
the Art of Listening (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 90-114.
145. Durber, “The Female Reader of the Parables of the Lost,” 70.
146. Beavis, “Making Up Stories: A Feminist Reading of the Parable of the Prodigal Son,” in ed., Mary Ann
Beavis, The Lost Coin: Parables of Women, Work and Wisdom (Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 98-123, here
117.
147. Metzger, Consumption and Wealth in Luke’s Travel Narrative, 106-108.
89