<p>15:12<i> And the younger of them said to his father: Father, give me the inheritance of property that is coming to me. And he divided his property between them</i>- The somewhat sad picture of the loving Father dividing between his sons &ldquo;his living&quot;, for them to go off and make what they will of, to either squander in the world or selfishly and self-righteously hoard to themselves, is a picture of the vast and genuine delegation to us by the Father. The Father has given us huge freewill and an amazing amount of self-determination. Divine delegation is one of His great characteristics as a Father. It would have been highly unusual for any father to agree to liquidate part of the family estate ahead of time, just so as to give in to the will of a wayward son who totally rejected him. And yet the father did this; he liquidated part of the family inheritance to give it to a son who wanted to openly quit the family. This is how much the Father is willing to give us the essential desires of our own hearts, how much He is willing to allow us to go our own way, so that we may serve Him of our own freewill.</p><p>For those Palestinian peasants, politeness and respect to your father was paramount. Even if you didn&rsquo;t obey your father, you had to be polite to him. Rudeness to your father or public disobedience to him was the worst thing you could do, and you shamed yourself. The Lord turned that understanding on its head in His parable of the two sons in Mt. 21:28-32. He taught that the <i>better</i> son was the one who rudely refused to do what his father asked, but later relented and did it. The Lord saw this son as better than the one who politely agreed, and yet never fulfilled his promise. Perhaps that parable needs reflection upon today, where &lsquo;nicespeak&rsquo; has become paramount- so long as you say something nicely, what you actually are saying and what you <i>do</i> isn&rsquo;t so important. <i>How</i> we speak <i>is</i> of course important; but it can be exalted to the point where words rather than real action become paramount. But that aside, the point is that both the sons were <i>extremely</i> rude to their Father. And he was the most loving, self-sacrificial dad that two kids ever could&rsquo;ve had. We feel hurt for the lovely old boy. One element of unreality is that he only had two sons- a small family for those days. How tragic that both his sons went so wrong and rebelled against him. And we sense something of his hurt, our heart starts to bleed for him, and we think of <i>our</i> Heavenly Father&rsquo;s hurt. And then the penny drops- those two boys are us. &nbsp;</p><p>The younger son was more than rude in demanding his actual share of the inheritance immediately. He was effectively wishing that his father was dead. He had the neck to treat his lovely father as if he were already dead. There arose in Europe after the second world war the &lsquo;Death of God&rsquo; philosophy and theology. We may distance ourselves from it in disgust, finding even the words grating and inappropriate, but let&rsquo;s remember that the younger son ends up the son who is found in the end abiding in the Father&rsquo;s house and joyful fellowship. This is how <i>we</i> have treated our wonderful Father. We know from the examples of Abraham (Gen. 25:5-8) and Jacob (Gen. 48-49) that the actual division of the inheritance was made <i>by the father</i> as his death approached. For the son to take the initiative was disgusting. Although the sons could have some legal right to what their father gave them before his death, they were strictly denied the right of actually having it in possession i.e. the right of disposition. This awful son was therefore each of us. And the father responds with an unreal grace. He agrees. He did what he surely knew was not really for the spiritual good of the son. And according to Dt. 21:7, the younger son&rsquo;s share was one third. But the father gives him <i>half</i>. The younger son turns it all into cash within a few days the Greek for &ldquo;gathered all&rdquo; definitely means &lsquo;to turn into cash&rsquo;. This would&rsquo;ve meant selling the fields and property quickly- and the father would&rsquo;ve had to give agreement for this and have been involved in the contracts. Buying and selling takes a long time in peasant culture- selling quickly would&rsquo;ve meant selling very cheaply. It would&rsquo;ve been the laughing stock of the whole area. The way the son sells the inheritance would've been a more awful and unreal thing in the ears of the Lord's first hearers than it is to us. Naboth would rather have died than sell his inheritance- even to the King (1 Kings 21:3). The lifetime&rsquo;s hard work of the father and family was wasted. And the father went along with it all. This was more than unusual; it would&rsquo;ve been outrageous in the ears of the Lord&rsquo;s hearers. But this is the outrageous nature of God&rsquo;s grace. He must be so torn by our prayers- as a loving Father, wanting to give us what we ask for materially, whilst knowing it&rsquo;s not for our good&hellip; and sometimes doing so. The father made himself look a fool because of his enormous love for this obnoxious son who wished him dead, this young man who clearly thought solely in terms of &lsquo;Gimme the money and I&rsquo;m outta here for good&rsquo;. And he thought this with no thought to the huge damage he was bringing upon the rest of the family. For they would&rsquo;ve lost so much through losing half the property. We sense the pain of the father, of the family, and the selfishness of the son. And time and again we are breathless at the love and grace of the father. &nbsp;</p><p>Significantly, the son asked for his share of the property- not his inheritance. To receive inheritance carried with it responsibility, of building the house of your father, upholding the family name etc. But this son didn&rsquo;t want that. And the father could quite rightly have said &lsquo;No, you get the inheritance when you take the responsibilities that come with it&rsquo;. But no, this son wants to quit with his lovely father and the whole family name. In that culture, to cut your ties with your home family, your inheritance, your land&hellip; was almost unheard of. It was almost impossible to do. But that&rsquo;s what this angry young man wanted. The incredible thing is, the father allowed him to do this That element of unreality signposts the extent to which God allows us freewill, genuine freedom of determination- and how much it costs Him emotionally and as a person to do so. This is the frightening thing about freewill- how much it hurts and costs God to give it to us. This insight alone should lead to a far more careful and responsible use of our freewill. William Temple said somewhere, something to the effect that God gives us freedom even to reject His love. It&rsquo;s no good reflecting on the younger son and thinking &lsquo;But I&rsquo;m not that kinda guy&rsquo;. The whole point of the parable is that yes, we are. That&rsquo;s us. We&rsquo;re either like that son, or the self-righteous son who is left standing outside of the father&rsquo;s fellowship. Clearly enough, the God whom Jesus was revealing was <i>not</i> based upon some village patriarch. Freud rightly observed that many people&rsquo;s image of God is based upon their experience of human father figures. For the true believer however, the Lord Jesus is revealing a Father-figure radically different to anything they&rsquo;ve ever met.&nbsp;</p>