A Metacognitive Perspective on Internal Dialogues and Rhetoric: Derived from the Prodigal Son's Parable:

This article explores the reading of the Prodigal Son's self-talk though the lenses of a metacognitive-dialogical paradigm. The main thrust of the parable is provided and followed by a hypothetical reading of the succinct excerpts of the Prodigal's internal dialogues and rhetoric, recognizing their ancillary character, illustrative meaning, and contextual purpose. Such processes appear to be involved in metanoia--a change of mind: (a) the son's attention, perception, and recognition of his negative predicament; (b) his kairotic "aha" experience charged with regret, remorse, and repentance; (c) his inner dialogues--deliberating with self; (d) his mindful detachment, allowing for a purposeful shift to take place, so as to do the right thing; (e) his angst--arising in view of the consequences of his actions--prompting his anticipatory dialogues with the father (a sort of "stress inoculation training" to prepare for the eventual encounter); and (f) his actual decision to enact a purposeful response. The musings derived from such analysis may provide valuable insights into human nature in need of change. The article seeks to integrate biblical-theological insights with psychological principles that can be applied to theoretical and therapeutic endeavors in both disciplines. Contextual Background The parables of Jesus are figurative narratives expressed in terms of life events, employing similes and metaphors designed to analogically convey the mysteries of God's kingdom. The parable known as the "Prodigal Son" (Lk. 15:11-31, New English Translation) is the last of three consecutive stories (i.e., the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son) narrated in Luke 15, which emphasize the redemptive theme of God's grace, mercy, and love toward the underserving lost. Most scholars emphasize the notion that parables convey central ideas regarding the kingdom of God (e.g., Bailey, 1998; Barclay, 1999; Dodd, 1961; Jeremiahs, 1954; Pentecost, 1998). In order to understand these central ideas and follow the movement of the plot, the context, structure, and details of each parable must be analyzed. The intended audience. Jesus directed his story at the Pharisees. The religious leaders listening to Jesus were familiar with the teachings of the Hebrew Tanakh, which included five parables (see 2 Sam 12:1-4; 14:6-8; 1 Kings 20:39-40; Isa. 5:1-6; 28:24-28). Boyarin (2003) pointed out that comparisons and analogies, such as those found in parables, were a common method of rabbinical teaching. Some scholars have compared the use of such parables (or mashalim) to the style of teaching employed by Jesus (Meier, 1994). The upright Pharisees had accused Jesus of welcoming and eating with "sinners." In their eyes, God owed them a place in the kingdom. They counted themselves as being "in" with the Father and regarded Gentiles, Jewish tax collectors, and sinners, as outcast prodigals, who did not follow the Torah, were departed from God's domain, and were estranged from the blessings of Israel. They, like the older son in the parable, were the upright children who, by virtue of their punctilious keeping of commands and strict adhesion the Law, had adopted a self-righteous, judgmental, and despising attitude toward their fallen, estranged brothers. These prodigals, in their judgment, were unworthy of the Father's favor. The Pharisees had also defined Jesus in their own judgmental and derogatory terms, calling him "a friend of sinners" because he addressed the concerns of those who were prodigals. His attentive care and ministry to "sinners" was highly offensive to the Pharisees, who despised, judged, and rejected Jesus and his messianic claims because of his association. The parable pierced through their hypocritical, judgmental, and demeaning attitudes. The main thrust of the parable. Most interpreters agree that the well-known parable stands as a superb example of God's boundless mercy, unilateral love, and exuberant joy manifested toward his undeserving, lost children (Bailey, 1998; Dodd, 1961; Jeremiahs, 1954; Longnecker, 2000; Pentecost, 1998; Stein, 1994). …