In Orthodoxy, we call this parable "The Parable of The Two Sons". And you are very right about the Pharisees. What the older brother represents is a lack of love and mercy and compassion, but mostly a lack of love. He "did" everything right, played by all the rules, but condemned himself by his jealousy as one who had learned nothing except arrogance and a sense of entitlement which lead not to experiencing the love his father showed, not to becoming like his father, but rather the opposite, consumed with hatred.
That is certainly true, Kolo, but it is also true that the parable advocates rewards for those who disobey and who repent when all else has been lost. Their disobedience is without consequences. Yet the older brother, who was driven to arrogance and envy out of sense of injustice, is the villain.
In some ways, our society does this too, namely reward the negative and suppress the positive. No wonder the negative wins. The younger brother had a good time and when everything dried up and he was starving he all of a sudden 'repented.' He had no choice, but to 'repenet' or die. When he returned to his father and asked to be taken as a servant, he didn't do that out of 'humility' but out of knowing that he squandered his fortune and dignity willingly and knowingly and had no right whatsoever to demand anything. The older brother felt like a fool.
This is one of those homilies that always leaves me with my head shaking.
I believe that the message of the parable is this ... God's love, ... when received, ... triumphs over all.
Consider the fact that the older son's life ... was not negatively impacted by his brother's return ... or by his father's celebration of that fact.
In fact, ... if the older brother had any love for his younger brother, ... he should have been thrilled to have him return.
His brother's return should have been seen as a positive for all. Everyone's life should have been positively impacted ... unless love was lacking (which it was in the older brother's case).
Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them."
The son felt envy and pride, he was better than his brother.
I think Jesus makes it clear also that repentence is involved: "…there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."
Note also that he is not less rewarded for his faithfulness than his brother is for his repentence: "you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours."
The brother's anger was because he thought he was given less than his brother: "you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends.."
Pride, anger, envy. If anything he "deserved" less than his repentent brother who realized he "deserved" to be the lowest of the low in his father's house.
And he might well have been — until he realized that as much as good behavior does not warrant a reward, bad behavior does not suffer consequences.
In a Pavlovian/Skinnerian psychology model, you could very well make a case that the father was conditioning his younger son to do it again.
The parable says "do what you want, it will all be forgiven if you repent (even if the 'repentance' is under duress)."
As far as D-fendr's comment in 10,339 Note also that he is not less rewarded for his faithfulness than his brother is for his repentance: "you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours.", I believe you are forgetting that in the Judaic society the older brother gets everything anyway unless he sells his birthright.
So, there is no reward in it. The problem with the parable is that human emotion is condemned as pride and arrogance, and yet the self-love of the younger son is erased when he 'repents' because everything he had was spent and dried up.
Also, the younger son's 'humility' is false humility; he realized his transgression, and he realized that getting a servant's job would be a reward compared to what he has done.
This goes hand-in-hand with Luther's pecca fortiter...