REPENTANCE – WORKING HARD AT BEING GOOD (Part 8)

We concluded our last blog with an understanding of the Father’s reason for the celebration given in honor of His lost son who had returned home. Remember, the younger son had “come to his senses” and confessed his sin and unworthiness to his father. The Father accepted his confession and declared, “My son was once dead, but had now come to life,” and “My son was once lost, but now has been found.” Repentance (“coming to one’s senses,” or “changing one’s mind”) leads to confession, which, if genuine, results in “lost” people being “found,” and those who are spiritually “dead” coming to “life.”

Before we take a closer look at the older son, Luke tells us that Jesus told these three parables (the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son) to two distinct groups of people who had gathered to hear Him teach. First, there were the “tax collectors and sinners,” and second, the “Pharisees and the teachers of the Law” (Luke 15:1-2). In each story, it was the “tax collectors and sinners” who had metaphorically become the “lost sheep,” the “lost coin,” and the “lost son.” They had repented and sought forgiveness for their sins. But also in the crowd were the “religious elite.” Earlier in His ministry, these judgmental religious leaders called Jesus “A drunkard, a glutton, and a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Mt. 11:19). In our story of the two sons, Jesus masterfully joins the two groups, the tax collectors and sinners, represented by the “prodigal” son who had returned home, and the Pharisees and teachers of the Law who are revealed in the older son. In reality, these parables were not told for the benefit of the “prodigals” who were already “coming home,” but for the religious leaders, who needed to have a relationship with their Father, but who stood at a distance, judging others, and aloof of their own need for repentance. Jesus hoped they would “get the point” of these three stories.

Now let’s return to our story. As the celebration began in the Father’s house, the older son, who had been working hard all day in the field, heard the music in the distance and quickly headed toward home. Curious about the cause for the celebration, he called to one of the servants (who was likely keeping an eye on the children playing outside), who revealed that his brother had returned and that his Father had decided to celebrate his safe return. Angry about this shocking revelation, the older son refused to go into the house, which was expected of him, being the oldest son and the “heir” to all of his Father’s property.

Hearing of His son’s anger, the Father left the celebration and went outside and “pleaded” with him to come inside and join the party. But the boy defiantly responded, “Look, all these years I have been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders.” Speaking to his Father with disrespect and contempt, it is interesting to note that the text clearly says that the older son considered his work to be that of a “slave,” not a son. This is because he had no relationship with his Father. In the first century context, instead of working “in the field,” this older son had been working hard at keeping all of the religious precepts that had become part of the Hebrew nation since the time of Moses (about 1,500 years prior). He had meticulously kept all of the moral laws (the Ten Commandments), all of the civil laws (overseeing social issues), and all of the ceremonial laws (governing the entire sacrificial system). Sadly, all of his religious devotion never brought him one inch closer to loving or respecting his Father or for forgiving his brother. He was getting all of the “perks” of social recognition for being faithful to his religious duties, but inside, he was filled with pride, bitterness, and resentment.

The son continued in his tirade, “….You have never given me even a young goat so that I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you killed the fattened calf for him.” Notice that the older son said, “this son of yours” (as opposed to “this brother of mine”), as he did not want to have anything to do with him. His reference to spending money on “prostitutes” was added to the story by the older son in order to enhance the “shameful” actions of his younger brother. And, of course, a “young goat” would feed fewer people than a “fattened calf,” which could feed an entire village. Interestingly, Jesus considered the fact that faithfully “keeping the Law” was not a cause for celebration, especially if the heart remained unchanged. And the circle of friends that the religious leaders had was a small group of like-minded people who were quick to judge and condemn others without recognizing their own serious, and even fatal, flaws. In short, the older son had no relationship with his Father or his brother. The Father wanted both. He did not want a “religious” son, but a “repentant” son, a son who would face himself and his own sin, and find “new life” as his younger brother had found.

The Father finally responded, “My son, you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.” Notice that the Father still calls him “My son,” and reminded him of the fact that he is “…always with me,” simply meaning that he had never left home, but had remained faithful to his duties around the property (for the Pharisees, it was their religious duties). The Father continued, “We had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.” Again, the Father provides the reason for the celebration, and points out to the older son that the prodigal was “his brother,” not just the Father’s son.

Interestingly, this is the end of the story. Jesus did not provide a conclusion, because the invitation to repent and join the celebration was still open. In the historical context of the story, Israel was divided between two groups of people: the respected and dutiful religious leaders and the wayward “sinners.” And God (the Father in the story) wanted these two groups to find both repentance and reconciliation, not only with Himself, but also with each other. In the end, it was the “tax gathers and sinners” who had recognized their sin and need for repentance, and in so doing, they found “new life.” And this provided the cause for celebration, not only for the angels in heaven, but also for all those who had already come to the point of repentance.

But as mentioned before, the story was told for the benefit of the religious elite, whom Jesus would often refer to as “hypocrites.” In the end, only a few of the Pharisees and other religious leaders ever repented. All four Gospels give the account of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion, and in them you find that it was the religious leaders who made sure that Pilate crucified Jesus. Throughout His ministry, Jesus pleaded with them to repent, but in the end, they condemned Him. The invitation was always open for them to “come into the house” and join the celebration of “new life,” but few of them ever did.

On two occasions in the story, the Father “came out of the house,” first to run to the younger son as he returned home, and then again, to “plead” with His older son to join the celebration. By using this metaphor, Jesus was pointing to the theological truth that the Father (who dwells in heaven), sent his Son “out of the Father’s house” and into the world “to save sinners,” and this includes “prodigals” as well as those who pride themselves in being “good,” whether they are religious or not. As opposed to popular thinking, we need to be mindful of the fact that it is never “goodness” that brings a person into a relationship with the Father, but only repentance (“coming to one’s senses”) followed by genuine confession of sin. There is simply no other way to come “into the house” and join the celebration.