This parable is not useful in discussing theories of the cross because it is inaccurate at several points and is therefore too dissimilar from the stories most Christians tell themselves to be at all penetrating.

1. The father in the parable is emotionally unstable and given to fits of rage. His acting out is motivated by this rage. The god revealed in Scripture (and Jesus) is the one who is consumed with love for his creation and who seeks to undo the effects of the corruption that has entered.

2. The parable proposes that the son steps up for the beating by the unwitting father. The testimony of Jesus himself is that YHWH, the creator and covenant god, is the one stepping up, paradoxically in Jesus. Thus, it is, in some sense, the father who selflessly acts. (Perhaps the parable lacks primarily as it is unable to see paradox.)

3. The ‘stern’ father in the parable is simply not the image of the creator in the Scriptures. Those who read it that way are missing the major themes the writers are emphasizing about the faithfulness and awesome love of a god who remains involved in his creation, even after it persistently rejects him.

I look forward to the upcoming discussion on Atonement, and am not opposed to relativizing the understanding of cross as propitiation on the grounds that it is ONE aspect of the ultimately indescribable (not fully, at least) event of the cross. However, I don’t believe this parable is helpful to the discussion.