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...
I see your point, and maybe "the younger son's 'humility' is false humility" is true. I'm assuming it isn't true, not based on the verses of the parable itself, but on Jesus's lead-in about repentence.
If we assume the younger brother truly repented then that affects the calculation.
Also as far as the "conditioning" to bad behaviour, another consideration: the younger son's experience PRIOR to coming home was not one of positive conditioning. We know that sin is also its own punishment. Sinning boldly results in bold suffering.
In fact, ... if the older brother had any love for his younger brother, ... he should have been thrilled to have him return.
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.
So ... the older brother's love ... should be conditioned upon reward ?
How fortunate is it indeed ... that God's love is unconditional (agape) ?
Indeed ... it is fortunate that our parents displayed a more agape-type love themselves.
Recall that love is the basis of all things christian. Without love, ... nothing else matters ...1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
...
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
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.
Isn't it fortunate that the foolishness of God ... is greater than the wisdom of men.
The parable says "do what you want, it will all be forgiven if you repent (even if the 'repentance' is under duress)."
The parable says that "all that is repented of ... will be forgiven".
It is the basis upon which any of us ... have any hope of God's salvation.Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
As far as D-fendr's comment in 10,339Note 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.
And this absolves the older brother of his debt of love toward his brethren ?
Or is it not true that ... "To whom much is given, ... much is required" ?