Where is the focus of the story? Is it the younger of the two sons? Afterall the parable is known as the prodigal son (by the way “prodigal” means wasteful.) Perhaps the focus should be on the father? Or perhaps it is a family story given the opening verse of the parable is: “A man had two sons.” (v.11). Again, Joel Green [578] offers valuable insight:

“Whose parable is it? The traditional answer, that it concerns a father with two sons, has much to commend it. Most importantly, the parable begins by naming ‘a man (who had two sons),’ and goes on to underscore his conciliatory responses to the insulting behavior of both sons. Three telling observations suggest that this is not the case, however. First, the narrative has two primary segments, each allowing the same story to be recounted—fully by Jesus (vv 11–24), then in summary fashion by ‘one of the slaves’ (vv 26–27). In the first, the emphasis falls on the younger son’s ‘loss’ and his father’s celebrative response to his return, while in the latter the emphasis falls on the younger son’s loss and his brother’s indignant reaction to his return.

Second, indeed, the turning point of both narrative segments comes in Jesus’ description of an affective response to the return of the younger son: The father has ‘compassion’ (v 20), while the elder son is ‘angry’ (v 28). Although it is true that the consistency of the father’s love toward both sons is crucial to the parable, with the younger son this love is expressed in acceptance and jubilation and in relationship to the latter it is expressed in an invitation for the elder son to practice reconciliation toward his brother (and, thus, join in the gala). Finally, the larger context of this well-crafted parable in ch. 15 highlights the critical motif of ‘celebration,’ the joyous repast at the recovery of what was lost (cf. vv 6, 9, 23–24, 27). In fact, the father in this third parable elevates such celebration to the level of divine necessity, just as the previous parables had associated analogous expressions of joy to heavenly dispositions (vv 7, 10). Hence, as important as the father is to this parable, center stage belongs to the younger son—and especially to the contrasting patterns of response occasioned by his recovery.”

While there is no consensus on what should be the focus, we need to remember that a primary image of God in Luke has been God as Father (e.g., 11:1–13; 12:22–34), a portrait continued in this parable. This brings into comparison the image of father as authority with legal rights in the Roman world as compared to the Lucan emphasis on care and compassion.

As mentioned above, remember that Jesus is responding to those who question his choice of table companions (vv 1–2). While the scribes and Pharisees cast them as sinners, the dinner companions are the one who have responded positively to Jesus’ message. They represent those whose turn to God and that calls for celebration. At the same time, Jesus thus issues an invitation to the Pharisees and scribes who, like the elder brother of the parable, respond with indignation. Will they align themselves with the grace of God and join the celebration at the table with the lost who have been restored? Like the parable, it is an open ended question.