“This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
Jesus responds to this charge of the Pharisees and scribes with three parables: first, the Parable of the Lost Sheep, in which the shepherd leaves the ninety-nine in order to bring back the one lost sheep; and then the Parable of the lost coin, in which a woman with ten silver coins loses one and searches diligently until she finds it. Both cases are causes for calling together friends and neighbors to rejoice and celebrate, for what they once had lost but has been found and restored to them. Jesus concludes the parable of the lost sheep by saying, “Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” And at the end of the Parable of the Lost Coin: “Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents. He concludes with the Parable of the Prodigal Son, which we have just heard.
Today, Laetare Sunday, the Church asks us to take a pause in this penitential season and rejoice, Laetare. As we sang in today’s Introit from Isaiah: “Rejoice, Jerusalem, you who have known sorrow. Soon shall Zion be found filled with consolation.” Today, the liturgy calls us to anticipate the Easter joy that we will celebrate in a few weeks. The parable of the prodigal son has much to say to us about genuine joy, festivity and celebration, as well as its false forms and the obstacles we place in its way.
Earlier in Luke’s Gospel, when Jesus says of John the Baptist, “I tell you among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he”, Luke comments: “When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected to purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.” Here, too, the tax collectors and sinners who have drawn near to hear Jesus are open to the purposes of God, whereas the Pharisees are not, because their focus on ritual purity and , therefore, on who is therefore worthy to be a table companion with the righteous has rendered them incapable of rejoicing and celebrating the restoration of the lost.
Jesus wants to bring them around, so let us look at how he does so through the three main characters of this parable.
First, the Father. The first trait of the father that I see is that he lets go. The younger of the sons said to his father, “Father, give me the share of the property that falls to me.” Followed immediately by, “And [the father] divided his living between them.” No discussion, no argument, no sign of displeasure or shock on the side of the father, only the laconic statement, “And he divided his living among them.” Request for the patrimony, gift of the patrimony, no more is said. The father is one who lets go.
The father loves his two sons. He loves by letting go. His letting go is not neglect, but an expression of love and intimacy within the familial bonds of paternal and filial love. As he says later to the elder son, “You are always with me. And all that is mine is yours.”
The younger son senses the radical generosity of the father and the freedom that accompanies it. It had been part of his relationship with his father for his entire life; but now he disregards the laws of kinship and the familial bonds in which the letting go has its origin and becomes fruitful.
The freedom he has already is not sufficient for him and is not of the right kind. It’s too tied to the restrictions of familial bonds. The younger son longs for a freedom of his own making, of which he may regard himself as the origin, not his father. He also longs for a different kind of “letting go”, also of his own making, in which he can make use of his father’s wealth as he sees fit, without reference to the father. In this way, separate from his family, he believes he will find the happiness that the longs for, in an autonomous life of self-gratification. And so he makes the presumptuous request, outrageous in the culture of his time, that the father hand over to him now the patrimony that is to come to him. It is given to him, and he goes off to pursue his ideal life.
The elder son also senses this “letting go” that is so characteristic of his father. But to him, all this letting go is too much: too messy, too unpredictable, too many unknowns, too much uncertainty. So he reconfigures this disposition of his father into a life of discipline, hard work, duty and obligation. A self-made, well-ordered life which appears to him much more responsible and directed to a better outcome. He sets boundaries and limits where there were none.
But in doing so, he too shows himself to have chosen a life of autonomy from the father and his ways. He, too, has separated himself from familial bonds. He, too, is estranged from the father.
The second trait of the love of the father I would like to call “letting be.” He leaves the sons to their choice. He does not abandon them, he accompanies them with his love, but he does not compel them either. They remain free in their choices.
Meanwhile, the younger son, humiliated by the results of his choices, comes to his senses, and, ready to repent, returns home.
The father, consistent with his understanding of love as letting go, without any concern for his honor as a man of his position in society, or how outlandish his behavior might appear to his fellow first century Jews, upon seeing his son, while he was still at a distance (this detail tells us that he always on the watch for his son’s return), consistent with tendency to excess, ran to meet him, embraced him, kissed him, clothed him in a robe, gave him a ring for his finger and sandals for his feet, restored him to his place in the family he had snubbed and abandoned, and ordered the killing of a fatted calf and threw a big feast.
Here we see the third character trait of the father: compassion.
The response of the elder son, on the other hand was anger. He had long ago distanced himself from his father’s way, which was the order of Charity, love as agape. The elder son’s order of duty and obligation made no room for such surprises as the return of the wayward younger son and the father’s joyful celebration at the restoration of the lost.
We could say that both sons needed to learn true festivity, one that should have undergirded every aspect of their lives as they had been given, as they had received it from the start. A spirit of joyful celebration, at the most primal level, at the sheer givenness of their own existence and that of one another as other. As a fitting response of gratitude to the father’s fundamental affirmation in love: “It is good that you exist.”
A readiness to celebrate at the signs of the father’s goodness that had manifested itself again and again in their lives. Signs of this father who, from his abundance, is shamelessly prodigal in his generosity, who is ready to let go of his substance on behalf of his sons, who is ready to let be and accompany them amidst all the vicissitudes of life, with all their strengths and weakness, ups and downs and so on. Who even when they have rejected him is ready to receive them with joyful compassion when they return to him. What he asks of them is that they accept the familial bond in which all of this is nurtured and becomes fruitful, to accept the intimacy that is offered.
If they had done this, they would have been more likely to pass by any temptation to the paltry substitutes they had contrived. Choices that reduced one son to the precarious existence of a day laborer and the other to a kind of slave.
As Christians, we know that we have such a father. We know that he is always with us and that everything he has is ours. Let us be open today to the inbreaking of his love that is going on all around us. Let us rejoice because, although we were lost, we have been found and restored to life as sons and daughters in Christ.