Could the father of the “Prodigal son” be an Elder in the Lord’s church today?

Of course we have to remember that the father lived under the Mosaic Law but he apparently was faithful to it. What about the two sons? The older brother apparently was a Jew in good standing and certainly faithful to the rule of his father but he had some problems… he lacked compassion. Still, no problem with him as far as his father’s Elder qualifications.

What about the younger son? He too was apparently a Jew in good standing and was faithful to his father’s rule. However like his older brother he too had a problem… he was enamored by what the world had to offer… drunkenness, sex, etc. And given the first opportunity acted upon those desires… although still in a manner respectful (superficially) of his father. He asked for his inheritance and left the country before acting upon his desires.

Get this… the only difference in the two sons was the “visibility” of their chosen sins and the “opportunity” to come up short of God’s word.

So based upon what we know of the father’s leadership in his family he could have qualified to be an Elder in the Lord’s church.

So… based upon the subsequent actions (drunkenness, fornication) of his younger son could he have continued as an Elder in the Lord’s church or would he have to step down?

Many would say he would have to step down because he has to “maintain” the qualifications and when the younger son went wild he was no longer qualified. In my opinion this concept is short sighted. The father exhibited the exact qualities one would want to find in an Elder of the Lord’s church… patience and compassion and the temporary failures of his two sons did not make him less of a servant in the eyes of God.

The father addressed both of his son’s sins as the opportunities presented.