Luke 12:13

We have in these verses,

I. The application that was made to Christ, very unseasonably, by one of his hearers, desiring him to interpose between him and his brother in a matter that concerned the estate of the family (Luk 12:13): "Master, speak to my brother; speak as a prophet, speak as a king, speak with authority; he is one that will have regard to what thou sayest; speak to him, that he divide the inheritance with me." Now, 1. Some think that his brother did him wrong, and that he appealed to Christ to right him, because he knew the law was costly. His brother was such a one as the Jews called Ben-hamesen - a son of violence, that took not only his own part of the estate, but his brother's too, and forcibly detained it from him. Such brethren there are in the world, who have no sense at all either of natural equity or natural affection, who make a prey of those whom they ought to patronize and protect. They who are so wronged have God to go to, who will execute judgment and justice for those that are oppressed. 2. Others think that he had a mind to do his brother wrong, and would have Christ to assist him; that, whereas the law gave the elder brother a double portion of the estate, and the father himself could not dispose of what he had but by that rule (Deu 21:16, Deu 21:17), he would have Christ to alter that law, and oblige his brother, who perhaps was a follower of Christ at large, to divide the inheritance equally with him, in gavel-kind, share and share alike, and to allot him as much as his elder brother. I suspect that this was the case, because Christ takes occasion from it to warn against covetousness, pleonexia - a desire of having more, more than God in his providence has allotted us. It was not a lawful desire of getting his own, but a sinful desire of getting more than his own.

II. Christ's refusal to interpose in this matter (Luk 12:14): Man, who made me a judge or divider over you? In matters of this nature, Christ will not assume either a legislative power to alter the settled rule of inheritances, or a judicial power to determine controversies concerning them. He could have done the judge's part, and the lawyer's, as well as he did the physician's, and have ended suits at law as happily as he did diseases; but he would not, for it was not in his commission: Who made me a judge? Probably he refers to the indignity done to Moses by his brethren in Egypt, with which Stephen upbraided the Jews, Act 7:27, Act 7:35. "If I should offer to do this, you would taunt me as you did Moses, Who made thee a judge or a divider?" He corrects the man's mistake, will not admit his appeal (it was coram non judice - not before the proper judge), and so dismisses his bill. If he had come to him to desire him to assist his pursuit of the heavenly inheritance, Christ would have given him his best help; but as to this matter he has nothing to do: Who made me a judge? Note, Jesus Christ was no usurper; he took no honour, no power, to himself, but what was given him, Heb 5:5. Whatever he did, he could tell by what authority he did it, and who gave him that authority. Now this shows us what is the nature and constitution of Christ's kingdom. It is a spiritual kingdom, and not of this world. 1. It does not interfere with civil powers, nor take the authority of princes out of their hands. Christianity leaves the matter as it found it, as to civil power. 2. It does not intermeddle with civil rights; it obliges all to do justly, according to the settled rules of equity, but dominion is not founded in grace. 3. It does not encourage our expectations of worldly advantages by our religion. If this man will be a disciple of Christ, and expects that in consideration of this Christ should give him his brother's estate, he is mistaken; the rewards of Christ's disciples are of another nature. 4. It does not encourage our contests with our brethren, and our being rigorous and high in our demands, but rather, for peace' sake, to recede from our right. 5. It does not allow ministers to entangle themselves in the affairs of this life (Ti2 2:4), to leave the word of God to serve tables. There are those whose business it is, let it be left to them, Tractent fabrilia fabri - Each workman to his proper craft.

III. The necessary caution which Christ took occasion from this to give to his hearers. Though he came not to be a divider of men's estates, he came to be a director of their consciences about them, and would have all take heed of harbouring that corrupt principle which they saw to be in others the root of so much evil. Here is,

1. The caution itself (Luk 12:15): Take heed and beware of covetousness; horate - "Observe yourselves, keep a jealous eye upon your own hearts, lest covetous principles steal into them; and phulassesthe - preserve yourselves, keep a strict band upon your own hearts, lest covetous principles rule and give law in them." Covetousness is a sin which we have need constantly to watch against, and therefore frequently to be warned against.

2. The reason of it, or an argument to enforce this caution: For a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth; that is, "our happiness and comfort do not depend upon our having a great deal of the wealth of this world." (1.) The life of the soul, undoubtedly, does not depend upon it, and the soul is the man. The things of the world will not suit the nature of a soul, nor supply its needs, nor satisfy its desires, nor last so long as it will last. Nay, (2.) Even the life of the body and the happiness of that do not consist in an abundance of these things; for many live very contentedly and easily, and get through the world very comfortably, who have but a little of the wealth of it (a dinner of herbs with holy love is better than a feast of fat things); and, on the other hand, many live very miserably who have a great deal of the things of this world; they possess abundance, and yet have no comfort of it; they bereave their souls of good, Ecc 4:8. Many who have abundance are discontented and fretful, as Ahab and Haman; and then what good does their abundance do them?

3. The illustration of this by a parable, the sum of which is to show the folly of carnal worldlings while they live, and their misery when they die, which is intended not only for a check to that man who came to Christ with an address about his estate, while he was in no care about his soul and another world, but for the enforcing of that necessary caution to us all, to take heed of covetousness. The parable gives us the life and death of a rich man, and leaves us to judge whether he was a happy man.

(1.) Here is an account of his worldly wealth and abundance (Luk 12:16): The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully, chōra - regio - the country. He had a whole country to himself, a lordship of his own; he was a little prince. Observe, His wealth lay much in the fruits of the earth, for the king himself is served by the field, Ecc 5:9. He had a great deal of ground, and his ground was fruitful; much would have more, and he had more. Note, The fruitfulness of the earth is a great blessing, but it is a blessing which God often gives plentifully to wicked men, to whom it is a snare, that we may not think to judge of his love or hatred by what is before us.

(2.) Here are the workings of his heart, in the midst of this abundance. We are here told what he thought within himself, Luk 12:17. Note, The God of heaven knows and observes whatever we think within ourselves, and we are accountable to him for it. He is both a discerner and judge of the thoughts and intents of the heart. We mistake if we imagine that thoughts are hid and thoughts are free. Let us here observe,

[1.] What his cares and concerns were. When he saw an extraordinary crop upon his ground, instead of thanking God for it, or rejoicing in the opportunity it would give him of doing the more good, he afflicts himself with this thought, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? He speaks as one at a loss, and full of perplexity. What shall I do now? The poorest beggar in the country, that did not know where to get a meal's meat, could not have said a more anxious word. Disquieting care is the common fruit of an abundance of this world, and the common fault of those that have abundance. The more men have, the more perplexity they have with it, and the more solicitous they are to keep what they have and to add to it, how to spare and how to spend; so that even the abundance of the rich will not suffer them to sleep, for thinking what they shall do with what they have and how they shall dispose of it. The rich man seems to speak it with a sigh, What shall I do? And if you ask, Why, what is the matter? Truly he had abundance of wealth, and wants a place to put it in, that is all.

[2.] What his projects and purposes were, which were the result of his cares, and were indeed absurd and foolish like them (Luk 12:18): "This will I do, and it is the wisest course I can take, I will pull down my barns, for they are too little, and I will build greater, and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods, and then I shall be at ease." Now here, First, It was folly for him to call the fruits of the ground his fruits and his goods. He seems to lay a pleasing emphasis upon that, my fruits and my goods; whereas what we have is but lent us for our use, the property is still in God; we are but stewards of our Lord's goods, tenants at will of our Lord's land. It is my corn (saith God) and my wine, Hos 2:8, Hos 2:9. Secondly, It was folly for him to hoard up what he had, and then to think it well bestowed. There will I bestow it all; as if none must be bestowed upon the poor, none upon his family, none upon the Levite and the stranger, the fatherless and the widow, but all in the great barn. Thirdly, It was folly for him to let his mind rise with his condition; when his ground brought forth more plentifully than usual, then to talk of bigger barns, as if the next year must needs be as fruitful as this, and much more abundant, whereas the barn might be as much too big the next year as it was too little this. Years of famine commonly follow years of plenty, as they did in Egypt; and therefore it were better to stack some of his corn for this once. Fourthly, It was folly for him to think to ease his care by building new barns, for the building of them would but increase his care; those know this who know any thing of the spirit of building. The way that God prescribes for the cure of inordinate care is certainly successful, but the way of the world does but increase it. Besides, when he had done this, there were other cares that would still attend him; the greater the barns, still the greater the cares, Ecc 5:10. Fifthly, It was folly for him to contrive and resolve all this absolutely and without reserve. This I will do: I will pull down my barns and will build greater, yea, that I will; without so much as that necessary proviso, If the Lord will, I shall live, Jam 4:13-15. Peremptory projects are foolish projects; for our times are in God's hand, and not in our own, and we do not so much as know what shall be on the morrow.

[3.] What his pleasing hopes and expectations were, when he should have made good these projects. "Then I will say to my soul, upon the credit of this security, whether God say it or no, Soul, mark what I say, thou hast much goods laid up for many years in these barns; now take thine ease, enjoy thyself, eat, drink, and be merry," Luk 12:19. Here also appears his folly, as much in the enjoyment of his wealth as in the pursuit of it. First, It was folly for him to put off his comfort in his abundance till he had compassed his projects concerning it. When he has built bigger barns, and filled them (which will be a work of time), then he will take his ease; and might he not as well have done that now? Grotius here quotes the story of Pyrrhus, who was projecting to make himself master of Sicily, Africa, and other places, in the prosecution of his victories. Well, says his friend Cyneas, and what must we do then? Postea vivemus, says he, Then we will live; At hoc jam licet, says Cyneas, We may live now if we please. Secondly, It was folly for him to be confident that his goods were laid up for many years, as if his bigger barns would be safer than those he had; whereas in an hour's time they might be burnt to the ground and all that was laid up in them, perhaps by lightning, against which there is no defence. A few years may make a great change; moth and rust may corrupt, or thieves break through and steal. Thirdly, It was folly for him to count upon certain ease, when he had laid up abundance of the wealth of this world, whereas there are many things that may make people uneasy in the midst of their greatest abundance. One dead fly may spoil a whole pot of precious ointment; and one thorn a whole bed of down. Pain and sickness of body, disagreeableness of relations, and especially a guilty conscience, may rob a man of his ease, who has ever so much of the wealth of this world. Fourthly, It was folly for him to think of making no other use of his plenty than to eat and drink, and to be merry; to indulge the flesh, and gratify the sensual appetite, without any thought of doing good to others, and being put thereby into a better capacity of serving God and his generation: as if we lived to eat, and did not eat to live, and the happiness of man consisted in nothing else but in having all the gratifications of sense wound up to the height of pleasurableness. Fifthly, It was the greatest folly of all to say all this to his soul. if he had said, Body, take thine ease, for thou hast goods laid up for many years, there had been sense in it; but the soul, considered as an immortal spirit, separable from the body, was no way interested in a barn full of corn or a bag full of gold. If he had had the soul of a swine, he might have blessed it with the satisfaction of eating and drinking; but what is this to the soul of a man, that has exigencies and desires which these things will be no ways suited to? It is the great absurdity which the children of this world are guilty of that they portion their souls in the wealth of the world and the pleasures of sense.

(3.) Here is God's sentence upon all this; and we are sure that his judgment is according to truth. He said to himself, said to his soul, Take thine ease. If God had said so too, the man had been happy, as his Spirit witnesses with the spirit of believers to make them easy. But God said quite otherwise; and by his judgment of us we must stand or fall, not by ours of ourselves, Co1 4:3, Co1 4:4. His neighbours blessed him (Psa 10:3), praised him as doing well for himself (Psa 49:18); but God said he did ill for himself: Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee, Luk 12:20. God said to him, that is, decreed this concerning him, and let him know it, either by his conscience or by some awakening providence, or rather by both together. This was said when he was in the fulness of his sufficiency (Job 20:22), when his eyes were held waking upon his bed with his cares and contrivances about enlarging his barns, not by adding a bay or two more of building to them, which might serve to answer the end, but by pulling them down and building greater, which was requisite to please his fancy. When he was forecasting this, and had brought it to an issue, and then lulled himself asleep again with a pleasing dream of many years' enjoyment of his present improvements, then God said this to him. Thus Belshazzar was struck with terror by the hand-writing on the wall, in the midst of his jollity. Now observe what God said,

[1.] The character he gave him: Thou fool, thou Nabal, alluding to the story of Nabal, that fool (Nabal is his name, and folly is with him) whose heart was struck dead as a stone while he was regaling himself in the abundance of his provision for his sheep-shearers. Note, Carnal worldlings are fools, and the day is coming when God will call them by their own name, Thou fool, and they will call themselves so.

[2.] The sentence he passed upon him, a sentence of death: This night thy soul shall be required of thee; they shall require thy soul (so the words are), and then whose shall those things be which thou hast provided? He thought he had goods that should be his for many years, but he must part from them this night; he thought he should enjoy them himself, but he must leave them to he knows not who. Note, The death of carnal worldlings is miserable in itself and terrible to them.

First, It is a force, an arrest; it is the requiring of the soul, that soul that thou art making such a fool of; what hast thou to do with a soul, who canst use it no better? Thy soul shall be required; this intimates that he is loth to part with it. A good man, who has taken his heart off from this world, cheerfully resigns his soul at death, and gives it up; but a worldly man has it torn from him with violence; it is a terror to him to think of leaving this world. They shall require thy soul. God shall require it; he shall require an account of it. "Man, woman, what hast thou done with thy soul. Give an account of that stewardship." They shall; that is, evil angels as the messengers of God's justice. As good angels receive gracious souls to carry them to their joy, so evil angels receive wicked souls to carry them to the place of torment; they shall require it as a guilty soul to be punished. The devil requires thy soul as his own, for it did, in effect, give itself to him.

Secondly, It is a surprise, an unexpected force. It is in the night, and terrors in the night are most terrible. The time of death is day-time to a good man; it is his morning. But it is night to a worldling, a dark night; he lies down in sorrow. It is this night, this present night, without delay; there is no giving bail, or begging a day. This pleasant night, when thou art promising thyself many years to come, now thou must die, and go to judgment. Thou art entertaining thyself with the fancy of many a merry day, and merry night, and merry feast; but, in the midst of all, here is an end of all, Isa 21:4.

Thirdly, It is the leaving of all those things behind which they have provided, which they have laboured for, and prepared for hereafter, with abundance of toil and care. All that which they have placed their happiness in, and built their hope upon, and raised their expectations fRom. they must leave behind. Their pomp shall not descend after them (Psa 49:17), but they shall go as naked out of the world as they came into it, and they shall have no benefit at all by what they have hoarded up either in death, in judgment, or in their everlasting state.

Fourthly, It is leaving them to they know not who: "Then whose shall those things be? Not thine to be sure, and thou knowest not what they will prove for whom thou didst design them, thy children and relations, whether they will be wise or fools (Ecc 2:18, Ecc 2:19), whether such as will bless thy memory or curse it, be a credit to thy family or a blemish, do good or hurt with what thou leavest them, keep it or spend it; nay, thou knowest not but those for whom thou dost design it may be prevented from the enjoyment of it, and it may be turned to somebody else thou little thinkest of; nay, though thou knowest to whom thou leavest it, thou knowest not to whom they will leave it, or into whose hand it will come at last." If many a man could have foreseen to whom his house would have come after his death, he would rather have burned it than beautified it.

Fifthly, It is a demonstration of his folly. Carnal worldlings are fools while they live: this their way is their folly (Psa 49:13); but their folly is made most evident when they die: at his end he shall be a fool (Jer 17:11); for then it will appear that he took pains to lay up treasure in a world he was hastening fRom. but took no care to lay it up in the world he was hastening to.

Lastly, Here is the application of this parable (Luk 12:21): So is he, such a fool, a fool in God's judgment, a fool upon record, that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich towards God. This is the way and this is the end of such a man. Observe here,

1. The description of a worldly man: He lays up treasure for himself, for the body, for the world, for himself in opposition to God, for that self that is to be denied. (1.) It is his error that he counts his flesh himself, as if the body were the man. If self be rightly stated and understood, it is only the true Christian that lays up treasure for himself, and is wise for himself, Pro 9:12. (2.) It is his error that he makes it his business to lay up for the flesh, which he calls laying up for himself. All his labour is for his mouth (Ecc 6:7), making provision for the flesh. (3.) It is his error that he counts those things his treasure which are thus laid up for the world, and the body, and the life that now is; they are the wealth he trusts to, and spends upon, and lets out his affections toward. (4.) The greatest error of all is that he is in no care to be rich towards God, rich in the account of God, whose accounting us rich makes us so (Rev 2:9), rich in the things of God, rich in faith (Jam 2:5), rich in good works, in the fruits of righteousness (Ti1 6:18), rich in graces, and comforts, and spiritual gifts. Many who have abundance of this world are wholly destitute of that which will enrich their souls, which will make them rich towards God, rich for eternity.

2. The folly and misery of a worldly man: So is he. Our Lord Jesus Christ, who knows what the end of things will be, has here told us what his end will be. Note, It is the unspeakable folly of the most of men to mind and pursue the wealth of this world more than the wealth of the other world, that which is merely for the body and for time, more than that which is for the soul and eternity.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

COVETOUSNESS--WATCHFULNESS--SUPERIORITY TO EARTHLY TIES. (Luke 12:13-53)

Master, &c.--that is, "Great Preacher of righteousness, help; there is need of Thee in this rapacious world; here am I the victim of injustice, and that from my own brother, who withholds from me my rightful share of the inheritance that has fallen to us." In this most inopportune intrusion upon the solemnities of our Lord's teaching, there is a mixture of the absurd and the irreverent, the one, however, occasioning the other. The man had not the least idea that his case was not of as urgent a nature, and as worthy the attention of our Lord, as anything else He could deal with.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk_12:13-14

Who made Me a Judge era divider over you?

--

Christ not a civil judge, but a Redeemer;

At first sight, Christs refusal to interfere between these brothers seems astonishing. Is there not a question of justice to be decided? And who is so competent to deal with it as the Holy and Just One?

I. THE REASON OF THIS STRANGE REFUSAL. It is sometimes said that Jesus Christ only seeks the eternal salvation of the soul, and does not concern Himself about other human interests. This explanation is specious, and is eagerly accepted by infidelity. But we cannot leave such a weapon in the hands of unbelief. Our Lord assigns the highest importance to the souls redemption from sin, and yet sympathizes with human nature in its entirety. Why, then, does Christ refuse to interfere in this dispute? There are two ways of reforming men--an external one and an internal one. The first method pronounces decisions, formulates laws, changes governments, and thus settles all moral and political questions. The second seeks, before every thing else, to renovate the heart and the will. Jesus Christ chose the latter plan. He remained steadfast to it, and this alone evinces the divinity of His mission and the permanent value of His work. Observe here one or two results. Christs refusal determines the relation of Christianity--

1. To political questions. I believe in the profound influence of Christianity on the political destiny of nations--it can help them to become free, great, and prosperous. But on what condition can it elevate them? Like Jesus Christ, it must act in a purely spiritual manner; it must free souls; it must preach justice, holiness, love.

2. To social problems. Christs work consists in uniting in common respect and affection those who are divided by their interests. This mission should be ours. Let us oppose selfish pride and levelling envy; let us summon all men to prayer, to humiliation and to mutual pardon and love--to that sanctuary of spiritual equality where rich and poor meet together, remembering that God has made them both.

II. THE PRINCIPLE WHICH CHRIST ENUNCIATED, (E. Bersier, D. D.)

Christian socialism

There is no doubt that the greatest question of the day in Europe and even in America is Socialism. Socialism ought to be carefully distinguished from Communism; but the two words are often indiscriminately used, and this confusion renders Socialism odious to many, for--

What is a Communist? One who hath yearnings,

For equal divisions of unequal earnings.

Idler or bungler, or both, he is willing

To fork out his penny and pocket your shilling.

The magic of property, says Arthur Young, turns sand into gold. It has done more in this country to produce a spirit of self-help than State aid for the whole planet ever could do. In thus teaching the duty and necessity of self-help, the Church proves herself to be the chief friend of the poor. Not so Communism. By destroying the right of personal ownership in the means of production, and by fostering dependence on State-help, it undermines the energy and self-help of all classes, and is the enemy of the poor quite as much as of the rich. But was there not, many ask, a community of goods, and were not all things in common, in the primitive Church at Jerusalem. Certainly, but this community of goods was not compulsory, but purely voluntary. It did not come about by any sort of confiscation. While it remained, was it not thine own? were the words addressed to Ananias; and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? It was a voluntary act of love rather than a duty. Still less was it a right which the majority might assert against individuals. The estimate of comparative needs recognized when these Jerusalem Christians parted their possessions to all men, as every man had need, shows clearly that property was not alienated beyond control. This, then, was very different from the Communism taught at the present day, which demands an equality enforced by a central authority, and which, so far from inculcating a spirit of self-denial, looks for the self-indulgence of all. Modern Communists affirm that Communism was the natural outcome of the Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity implied in Christs teaching. That the principle did not hold its ground is ascribed by them to the ambition and worldliness of the Church as she increased in power, especially after her official recognition as the State religion of the Roman Empire. On the other hand the defenders of the principle of individual property as opposed to Communism (which in their opinion is a mutiny against society) deny that the Church ever sanctioned officially, or that her Founder ever recommended, such a custom as that of having all things in common. As a matter of fact, we may say with an able Church historian, that the community in Jerusalem growing out of the society of the apostles, who were accustomed already to the common purse system, hit upon the daring plan of establishing a community of goods. And this was fostered by the first outburst of enthusiastic brotherly love, being all the more readily accepted in consequence of the prevailing expectation among the disciples of the approaching subversion of all things. Nowhere out of Jerusalem do we find any other early Christian community of goods. The arrangement at Jerusalem was not intended to be permanent, and perhaps those political economists are not far wrong who assert that it did more harm than good, and produced the chronic state of poverty that existed among the poor saints at Jerusalem. The Master Himself had left no definite instructions as to the future social organization of His little flock. It had been His plan all along to lay down general principles, leaving them to be worked out in the course of time, rather than to prescribe definite lines of conduct under given circumstances. The ideal of a perfect society was ever held up by Him to His most intimate disciples, he formed no plan, however, for realizing this ideal in a political polity. The working out of His principles was left to the new leaven which was to reform character, and thus indirectly society. The patrimony of the poor is not to be restored by means of violent social changes, but by moral influences working upon rich and poor alike. Christs sympathy was with all classes, and He applied remedies to individuals in preference to propounding revolutionary theories for the construction of society. Happily the rich are beginning to recognize this truth. There is obviously an immense outgrowth in the generous distribution of wealth. But the rich have difficulties as well as the poor, and one of these lies in determining how to expend their money in a way that will prove beneficial to society. The question, To whom or to what cause shall I contribute money? must be a very anxious one to conscientious men of wealth. How are we to measure, we may suppose rich men to ask, the relative utility of charities? The fact is, riches must now be considered by all good men as a distinct profession, with responsibilities no less onerous than those of other professions. And this very difficult profession of wealth ought to be learned by studying social science and otherwise with as much care as the professions of divinity, law, and medicine are learned. When in this way the rich accept and prepare themselves for the duties of their high calling, it will cease to be a cause of complaint that in the nature of things money tends continually to fall into the hands of a few large capitalists. The spirit of brotherly love which underlies Christian Socialism is being more and more understood in the present day. The great communistic principle, All for each and each for all, is practically gaining ground. (E. J. Hardy, M. A.)

Worldliness vitiating spiritual teaching

A camp-meeting incident taught us what manner of spirit was in this man. An honoured preacher was closing a moving sermon; his appeals to sinners were full of spiritual power; his voice was husky with deep feeling; the tears were streaming down his face as he urged sinners to repent and penitents to believe. A slight movement near by attracted our attention. Just outside the railing around the communion-place were two men deeply engaged. A life insurance agent, on one knee, ciphering out his arguments to his victim, who leaned toward him. The scene brought up the man who interrupted the sermon of Jesus. What would people think of a man who should, from his pew, cry out to the preacher in the midst of a mighty discourse, What is the price of cotton to-day? What is gold worth? He would perhaps be put out. Certainly he would deserve it. Such a man was he who broke in upon the sermon of Jesus with his request for the Masters intervention in the matter of a contested inheritance. How humiliating a thing it is that a mans mind could be so filled and saturated with business that the most solemn and awful words of even Jesus were heard as an idle, meaningless voice--heard and not feared. Mark our Lords answer. He dismissed the man with one sharp word: Man, who made Me a judge or a divider over you? But the lesson must not be lost. This wickedness of utter worldliness is instructive. Turning to His disciples, Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of covetousness. See what covetousness can do to the heart of man; see what it does in this man! It has consumed him! (Christian Age.)

Missionaries and litigants

Mr. Richards, missionary in India, on his journey to Meerut, halted under the shade of a tree, in the outskirts of a large village, by the roadside. As he sat there two of the Zemindars of the neighbourhood came up, and respectfully saluting him, entreated him to act as an umpire between them, and settle a dispute in which they had been long involved about the boundaries of their respective lands. Mr. Richards declined interfering in the matter, but intimated his readiness to give them information respecting the important concerns of salvation. Having read and explained the Scriptures, they listened with attention and delight. The disputants embraced each other with apparent cordiality, and avowed that they would dispute no more about their lands, but love each other, and strive to seek and serve God. (W. H. Baxendale.)

Christs refusal to interfere

It may seem strange that to so natural a request Christ should return so discouraging an answer, and, withal, apply it with such a parable. But there are two things to be considered.

1. That it was not Christs mission to reorganize society immediately, nor by a demonstrative act, but that He undertook to reorganize society by implanting those principles which should work in us reorganific wisdom. Certain great influences were to be infused into the heart, which gradually but surely would work out all needed changes, and work them out in the order of their proper succession and growth. It was for Christ to prepare the great influences and principles that the world needed, but for us to carry them out into practical execution. It is for God to bring forth the spring, and all its genial influences, upon the earth; but men must avail themselves of these influences, and by the plough, and by the seed, and by the ready hand of tillage, prepare the harvests that they are to reap. And so, in the New Testament, there are authoritatively established principles of love and justice, which, if practised, would evolve the worlds harmony. And it is our business, each in his own place, and with reference to the age in which he lives, to apply these principles, and to change the face of society, and the administration of affairs in the world. This was the reason why our Saviour did not undertake that which He was asked to do.

2. But, in the case in hand, although there might be a matter of great injustice in the partition of the estate, the elder and stronger and shrewder, perhaps, getting advantage of the younger, and defrauding him; yet it was quite possible that both of these brothers might be alike under the influence of corroding and hateful avarice. A man may demand his dues with a spirit just as selfish as that which withholds them. A man may be just as selfish in seeking his rights as another man is in withholding them from him. Both the despot and his victim--the evil-doer and the evil-sufferer--may be in a like selfishness, in a common bitterness, and in a common guilt. Human life is full of such eases and scenes. Every day, men that are hard, coarse, selfish, avaricious, envious, contentious, are striving together, and in full conflict, each sometimes wronged and sometimes wronging; but either way, and always, actor or recipient, of a worldly spirit, of a corrupt nature, of an intense selfishness, of a despotic pride, unjust and unlovely. While Christ refused, then, to assume the office of civil justice, or to interfere even by advice, He gave to both of these men, and to all upon that occasion, the instruction which the motive of the petitioner seemed to suggest. (H. W. Beecher.)

Christs judgment respecting inheritance

I. THE SAVIOURS REFUSAL TO INTERFERE.

1. He implied that it was not His part to interfere. Who made Me a Judge or a Divider? He stands aloof, sublime and dignified. It was no part of His to take from the oppressor and give to the oppressed, much less to encourage the oppressed to take from the oppresser himself. It was His part to forbid oppression. It was a Judges part to decide what oppression was. It was not His office to determine the boundaries of civil right, nor to lay down the rules of the descent of property. Of course there was a spiritual and moral principle involved in this question. But He would not suffer His sublime mission to degenerate into the mere task of deciding casuistry. He asserted principles of love, unselfishness, order, which would decide all questions; but the questions themselves He would not decide. He would lay down the great political principle, Render unto Caesar the things that be Caesars, and unto God the things which are Gods. But He would not determine whether this particular tax was due to Caesar or not. So, too, He would say, justice, like mercy and truth, is one of the weightier matters of the law; but He would not decide whether in this definite case this or that brother had justice on his side. It was for themselves to determine that, and in that determination lay their responsibility. And thus religion deals with men, not cases; with human hearts, not casuistry.

2. In this refusal, again, it was implied that His kingdom was one founded on spiritual disposition, not one of outward law and jurisprudence. That this lawsuit should have been decided by the brothers themselves, in love, with mutual fairness, would have been much; that it should be determined by authoritative arbitration was, spiritually speaking, nothing. The right disposition of their hearts, and the right division of their property thence resulting, was Christs kingdom. The apportionment of their property by anothers division had nothing to do with His kingdom. Suppose that both were wrong--one oppressive, the other covetous. Then, that the oppressor should become generous, and the covetous liberal, were a great gain. But to take from one selfish brother in order to give to another selfish brother, what spiritual gain would there have been in this? Suppose again, that the retainer of the inheritance was in the wrong, and that the petitioner had justice on his side--that he was a humble, meek man, and his petition only one of right. Well, to take the property from the unjust and give it to Christs servant, might be, and was, the duty of a judge. But it was not Christs part, nor any gain to the cause of Christ. He does not reward His servants with inheritances, with lands, houses, gold. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Christ triumphs by wrongs meekly borne, even more than by wrongs legally righted.

3. He refused to be the friend of one, because He was the friend of both. He never was the champion of a class, because He was the champion of humanity. We may take for granted that the petitioner was an injured man--one at all events who thought himself injured; and Christ had often taught the spirit which would have made his brother right him; but He refused to take his part against his brother, just because he was his brother--Christs servant, and one of Gods family, as well as he. And this wasHis spirit always. The Pharisees thought to commit Him to a side when they asked whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not. But He would take no side as the Christ--neither the part of the government against the taxpayers, nor the part of the taxpayers against the government,

II. THE SOURCE TO WHICH HE TRACED THIS APPEAL FOR A DIVISION. He went to the very root of the matter. Take heed and beware of covetousness. It was covetousness which caused the unjust brother to withhold; it was covetousness which made the defrauded brother indignantly complain to a stranger. It is covetousness which is at the bottom of all lawsuits, all social grievances, all political factions. The true remedy for this covetousness He then proceeds to give. A mans life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesses. Now observe the distinction between His view and the worlds view of humanity. To the question, What is a man worth? the world replies by enumerating what he has. In reply to the same question, the Son of Man replies by estimating what he is. Not what he has, but what he is, that, through time and through eternity, is his real and proper life. He declared the presence of the soul; He announced the dignity of the spiritual man; He revealed the being that we are. Not that which is supported by meat and drink, but that whose very life is in truth, integrity, honour, purity. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

The bearing of the gospel on every-day life

The Word of God, my friends, affords men direction in all the circumstances of life, inasmuch, at least, as it contains general rules which may be applied to particular cases.

I. INJUSTICE AND QUARRELS BETWEEN NEAR CONNECTIONS REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF DECEASED RELATIONS ARE VERY UNSEEMLY AND UNCHRISTIAN. It sometimes happens that the head of a family, or a very near relation, is no sooner laid in the grave, than the survivors, who expect to benefit in their substance by his decease, begin to strive about what he leaves behind him. How unbecoming, in the very face of such a memento of the vanity of earthly things, to be carried away by the desire of having, and that in such a way as to overlook the ordinary proprieties of life! Common feeling, not to speak of any higher principle, should at least teach them to keep such disputes to themselves (if they do at all arise), and not to outrage decency by making them public.

II. We may remark, from this passage, that those WHO HAVE ANY PROPERTY TO LEAVE BEHIND THEM SHOULD BE CAREFUL TIMEOUSLY TO SETTLE THEIR AFFAIRS BY A LATTER WILL, SO THAT JUSTICE MAY BE DONE AND DISPUTES PREVENTED AFTER THEY ARE GONE. In some cases the law of the land may be sufficient to divide an inheritance as justice and a mans own reasonable inclination might desire. In most cases, however, there would be room for litigation; and in many cases, especially where there is much property, something that equity or mercy requires will be neglected if there be no distinct testament. How far a man is at liberty to consult his own particular wishes on such an occasion, independently on the general principles of nearness of kindred, which are usually observed, is a very difficult question. No particular rules can be laid down to meet every case. The Christian should consult conscience, the Word of God, and, perhaps, also a judicious friend or two.

III. THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS OR HUMAN LAWS. NO doubt it is intended and fitted to influence them indirectly, for everything ought to be managed in a way consistent with its holy precepts; but it gives no countenance to its adherents to disregard existing institutions or to usurp the places assigned to others. Dominion is not founded on grace. The provinces of civil and ecclesiastical government are quite distinct. Not but that they may, and should, be so managed as mutually to assist each other; but still, their office is distinct, and relates to quite different things.

IV. Once more here, THIS PASSAGE IS UNFAVOURABLE TO MINISTERS ENGAGING IN SECULAR BUSINESS, ANN ESPECIALLY IN PUBLIC CIVIL OFFICES. (Jas. Foote, M.A.)

A warning against worldliness and covetousness

I. A RUDE INTERRUPTION.

1. This suggests a sad but common occurrence. Worldly thoughts obtruding themselves at unseasonable times.

2. This suggests a constantly-needed but oft-neglected duty. To take heed how we hear.

II. A FITTING REBUKE.

1. It rebuked the man for his gross view of our Lords mission.

2. It rebuked the man for the worldliness of his spirit.

III. A MORAL LESSON.

1. The subject--covetousness.

(1) Covetousness is an inordinate desire for gain; an avaricious disposition; a disposition to have more than others.

(2) Covetousness is foolishness.

(a) For after it has attained its object there is no satisfaction.

(b) It unfits the soul to enjoy spiritual things.

2. The elucidation of the subject.

(1) A parable.

(2) A very instructive parable.

(a) It shows Gods goodness to the wicked (Luk_12:16).

(b) It shows the inadequacy of worldly prosperity to inspire gratitude (Luk_12:18).

(c) It shows the degrading influence of worldly thoughts:

(d) It shows the shortsightedness of worldliness.

(e) It shows that Gods eye is on all.

(f) It shows the uncertainty of life.

(g) It shows the relation of time to eternity.

3. The Divine application.

(1) Selfishness and godliness incompatible (Luk_12:21).

(2) Anxiety a sin (Luk_12:22).

(3) The great duty. To be rich toward God. (D. C. Hughes, M. A.)

Covetousness

I. COVETOUSNESS IN ITS BEARING UPON THE RECEPTION OF TRUTH.

1. Consider for a moment the truths which Jesus had just been uttering.

(1) The sin of hypocrisy.

(2) The sin of the man-fearing spirit.

(3) The comprehensiveness of Gods care.

(4) The blessed consequences of confessing Christ, and the dreadful consequences of denying Christ.

(5) The appalling sin--the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

(6) The Divine help promised in times of persecution.

2. In the midst of utterances such as these, this man, filled with worldly thoughts, interrupted our Lord in His address.

(1) Of how many in our day is this man a representative!

(2) The most solemn truths uttered in the sanctuary, or spoken by friends, often fall as seed upon a hard-beaten road.

II. COVETOUSNESS IN ITS BEARING UPON THE SOULS TRUE JOY. Two things are here stated.

1. That our Lords mission was not to interfere in secular affairs.

2. That a mans life, in the sense of true joy, does not arise from wealth or position or fame.

III. COVETOUSNESS IN ITS BEARING ON OUR FINAL DESTINY.

1. The parable shows that the most selfish of men may be prospered in worldly affairs.

2. The parable shows that the most abundant prosperity of the worldly-minded only intensifies their selfishness and blinds their spiritual vision.

3. This parable shows that, however farsighted and shrewd worldly-minded men may be in their business affairs, it is by their spiritual condition that God judges them.

4. This parable shows that the uncertainty of the time of death should have its legitimate weight with them.

Lessons:

1. The sin to which our attention is here called is the crying sin of our age.

2. This is one of the most subtle and unconscious of all classes of sins to which we may be exposed.

3. It is a sin the most difficult to be reached by truth.

4. It is no less heinous and damning, because it is so subtle and unconscious. (D. C. Hughes, M. A.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 12:13-15. One said, Master, speak to my brother, &c. — While Jesus was discoursing, as above related, to his disciple, one of the crowd, that was then collected about Jesus, requested that he would speak to his brother, and persuade him to divide their paternal inheritance, and give him his share. But, because judging in civil matters was the province of the magistrates, and foreign to the end of our Lord’s coming, he refused to meddle in their quarrel. It is not said which of these brothers was in the wrong; only, because the disposition which they discovered afforded a fit opportunity for religious advice, our Lord embraced it, and cautioned his hearers in the most solemn manner against covetousness, declaring that neither the length nor the happiness of a man’s life depends upon the greatness of his possessions. He said, Take heed and beware — Greek, ορατε και φυλασσεσθε απο της πλεονεξιας, see to it, and be on your guard, against covetousness. The phrase is lively and full of force. Some old versions and good copies read, from all covetousness, in which extent, doubtless, our Lord intended his caution to be understood, whether he did or did not so particularly express it. “Properly speaking, covetousness is an immoderate love of money. Now of this passion there are two kinds: one which, in the pursuit of its purpose, does not scruple at fraud, falsehood, and oppression, and which is commonly accompanied with want of kindness and charity. This is the most odious and criminal species of covetousness. The other form of the vice consists in a high esteem of riches as the chief good, in seeking one’s happiness from the enjoyments which they procure, and in substituting them in the place of the providence and grace of God. This love of riches is, in Scripture, emphatically termed a trusting in them, and is a sort of covetousness that is abundantly compatible with a regard to justice, being often found in persons no way remarkable for the want of that virtue.” Thus Dr. Macknight; to which we may add, with Dr. Whitby, that the desire of having more than we really need, and that, not to supply the necessities of others, or to promote God’s glory, but that we may keep and treasure it up and enjoy it ourselves, is one species of covetousness; for these words are certainly produced as dissuasive from that sin, which they could not be, were not the desire of having more one species or symptom of it. And from the words following we learn, that to be more solicitous concerning temporal than spiritual things, and to be anxious about them, when we are not yet rich toward God, is another sign of covetousness. This may be concluded from the concern of this person for the dividing of his inheritance, rather than that our Lord should instruct him in the way of life, it being this which gave occasion to Christ’s admonition, to beware of covetousness; and it more clearly follows still from the example of the rich fool, mentioned in the following verses, who was so much concerned to hoard up his goods, but not at all concerned to be rich toward God; that is, to have his treasure with God in the heavens, and to esteem it his chief riches to be an heir of the kingdom of God, Luk 12:32, and to employ his property in a way that would be acceptable to God, and tend to his own future felicity; for this is a plain indication of a heart that values these temporal concernments more than God’s favour, or celestial riches, which, in St. Paul’s judgment, renders the covetous person guilty of idolatry. For a man’s life — That is, the comfort and happiness of it; consisteth not in the abundance that he possesseth — Nor can the continuance of his life, even for the shortest period of time, be secured by that abundance.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Luk_12:13. One of the company.—Rather, “one out of the multitude” (R.V.). Perhaps the mention of magistrates and powers suggested to him Christ’s acting as a judge and giving a decision in his favour. Divide the inheritance.—See Deu_21:15-17. Whether the claim were just or not cannot be inferred from the narrative.

Luk_12:14. Man.—Apparently in reproof. Cf. Rom_2:1; Rom_9:20. A judge or a divider.—The one may mean an ordinary judge, the other an arbitrator specially chosen to decide conflicting claims. There is no doubt an allusion to Exo_2:14.

Luk_12:15. Beware of covetousness.—A better reading and translation is: “keep yourselves from all covetousness” (R.V.), i.e., from every kind: the unlawful desire, the selfish enjoyment, of earthly goods. For a man’s life, etc.—The passage is a peculiar one, and might be rendered, “for not because one has abundance does his life therefore depend on the things which he hath.” “The meaning is, that abundance is not a necessary condition of existence: a man lives on what he possesses; all that is needed is a mere sufficiency” (Speaker’s Commentary).

Luk_12:16. The ground, etc.—This is not a case of riches acquired in any unlawful manner, but of riches derived from industrious labours and the bounty of heaven. Mere multiplication of his wealth, and selfish enjoyment of it, take up all his thoughts. My fruits.—Notice also in Luk_12:18 “my barns,” “my fruits,” “my goods,” and in Luk_12:19 “my soul”; as though this last were a possession of which he was equally sure.

Luk_12:18. All my fruits.—“Not a word of the poor” (Bengel). The word in the original is a different one from that in Luk_12:17, and may be rendered “my produce” or “my corn” (R.V.).

Luk_12:19. Take thine ease.—The gathering together of his wealth, and his schemes for hoarding it (Luk_12:17), had disquieted him; he would now make his wealth the basis of rest and enjoyment. In the original there are simply four words, four verbs in the imperative, for the second half of this verse. The conciseness of style gives additional vividness to the picture.

Luk_12:20. Thou fool.—Lit. “senseless”—wise though he was in worldly wisdom and in management of his property (Luk_12:18). This night.—As contrasted with “many years.” Shall be required of thee.—As contrasted with “I will say to my soul.” Lit., “they require thy soul; i.e., either the angels of God as ministers of death, or, it may be, robbers who deprive him of life and carry off his wealth. No great stress need be laid on this, as the “they” is not emphatic: the verb is impersonal. Whose shall those things be?—“Not that it matters to him into whose hands they pass: it is only an emphatic way of saying that they will not be his” (Bloomfield).

Luk_12:21. For himself.—I.e., for himself only. Rich toward God.—Elsewhere described as “laying up treasures in heaven,” by almsgiving and benevolence. “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord” (Pro_19:17).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Luk_12:13-21

The Rich Fool.—Christ’s unusually stern and cold answer disclaims a commission, either from God or man, to decide squabbles about property, or to put such decisions in force. He lays down principles and supplies motives which dominate and purify the sphere of conduct connected with wealth; but He will not narrow Himself into a mere arbitrator of family feuds. If the man and his brother would lay to heart His next words, the feud would arbitrate itself. It is for others to trim the branches; he proceeds to dig up the root. The request is made the occasion of the general warning against covetousness—against all forms of undue desire after, and delight in, worldly good. Mark the only reason here assigned for the warning (Luk_12:15). “Life” simply means physical life, and the one reason our Lord gives for His warning is that worldly goods cannot keep alive. The abundance of the things which he possesseth can do much for a man; but one thing they cannot do, on which all the rest of their power depends—they cannot keep the breath in him, and, if it is out, they are of no more use. “Threadbare morality,” it may be said—“scarcely worth coming from heaven to tell us;” but Jesus did not disdain to repeat familiar truths, and no commonplaces of morals are too threadbare to be reiterated, until they are practised. There are but two stages in the parable:

I. What the foreseeing rich man said to himself; and

(II.) What God said to the blind rich man. There is something very grim and terrible in the juxtaposition of these two elements of the picture, enhanced, as it is, by the long-drawn-out statement of the man’s projects, and the brevity of the Divine word which smites them to dust.

I. What the foreseeing rich man said to himself.—He has made his money honestly in the innocent occupation of a farmer. God’s sun has shone on the fields of the unthankful, and his abundant harvest—what has it done for him? It has only added to his cares. He has no gratitude and no enjoyment yet. How clear and deep an insight Jesus had into the misery of wealth when He made the first effect of prosperity on this man to be reasoning within himself and perplexity as to what he was to do! How many rich men cannot sleep for wondering how they are to invest their money! This man is provident and enterprising. He sees quickly and clearly, and makes up his mind promptly to face the necessary expenditure entailed by prosperity. He has many of the virtues which commercial communities adore. Perhaps if the farmer had looked about him he could have found some empty barns not far off and some bare cupboards that would have taken the surplus and saved the new buildings. But that does not occur to him. “All my corn and my goods” are to be housed as “mine.” Looked at from the world’s point of view, he is a model man of business. He adds to all his other claims on the world’s esteem, that he is just about to retire, on a well-earned competence, to enjoy well-deserved leisure. His ideal of enjoyment is somewhat low. But how unconsciously he acknowledges that wealth has hitherto failed to bring peace! “Take thine ease” confesses that there has been no ease yet in his life, and unless he has really “many years” to live, there will have been none. His case is that of many prosperous men nowadays, who have no tastes but the coarsest, and who, when they go out of business, are miserable. They cannot eat and drink all day, and they have killed so much in themselves, by their course of life, that they care nothing for books, or thought, or nature, or God, and so live empty lives, and try to fancy they like it.

II. What God said to the blind rich man.—How awfully “God said unto him” breaks the thin tissue of the man’s dreams! The important points, in brief speech, are the Divine designation of every such life as folly, the swift snatching away of the soul, and the unanswerable question as to the ownership of the wealth. God addresses men in their true characters. When He does, the man knows himself for what he is, and others know him. The end of every self-deceiving life will tear down the veils, and the conscience will echo the Divine voice, and feel, “I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly.” All lives greedily gripping to earthly good, and making it the be-all and end-all, are folly, and so is the presumption that reckons on many years. The soul which he had called “my soul” is demanded from him. He called it his, but he cannot keep it. A good man, dying, commits his soul into the Father’s hands, but this “fool” would fain cling to life, and has reluctantly to surrender it to the stern voice which demands and will not be put off. The grim reality of death, set by the side of the shattered projects of self-indulgent life, shows what a fool he is. And the last touch which perfects the picture of his folly is the question which he cannot answer, “Whose shall they be?” and the bitter irony of “thou hast prepared.” What foresight, which did not foresee the possibility of leaving them! What preparation, which got the things ready for a moment which never came! The parable is finally pointed to a specific application. “So is he” refers both to the folly and the fate of the man. The same absurdity is committed and the same end is certain, though not always with the same startling suddenness and completeness. Come how it may, the separation of the worldly soul from all its “goods” is sure to come, and “he that getteth riches,” or sets his heart on them, “shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool.” The sin and folly lie, not only in amassing, but in doing so for self; and the only way to escape the snares of worldly wealth is to be “rich toward God.” “Toward God” is the antithesis to “for himself,” and the whole clause describes the only wise use of earthly good as being its consecration to the service of God.—Maclaren.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luk_12:13-21

Luk_12:13-21. The Rich Fool.—“Man does not live by bread alone.” Christ tells the history of a man who forgot that—

1. His history is a parable; but how real! and how often has it applied! In the Bible alone we have Balaam, Achan, Nabal, Gehazi, Judas, Ananias, These men were fools, utterly being overwhelmed in their covetousness.

2. But, again, to how many does it apply—to how few does it not apply, though in a less overwhelming manner, in our daily life! The very phrases that are current in men’s mouths testify to this. “What is he worth?” they say.

3. “Every good gift cometh down from above.” To learn that, and never forget it, is the way to rise above covetousness. This rich fool said, “my fruits” and “my barns,” and “my soul.” And so it came to pass that there was no way by which God could teach him that none of it was his, except the one way, that last and terrible way—by taking away his life. Paul said to the Corinthians, “All things are yours,” and he named “the world” and “life” among them. But then he added, “Ye are Christ’s.”—Hastings.

Luk_12:13-15.

I. The Saviour’s refusal to interfere.—

1. He implied that it was not His part to interfere.

2. It was implied that His kingdom was one founded on spiritual disposition, not one of outward law and jurisprudence.

3. He refused to be the friend of one, because He was the friend of both.

II. The source to which He traced this appeal for a division.—Covetousness.

III. He proceeds to give the true remedy for covetousness.—“A man’s life,” etc.; a true consolation and compensation for the oppressed and the defrauded.—Robertson.

Luk_12:13. A Type of the Wayside Hearer.—

1. This man who interrupted Christ while preaching on this occasion had just heard Him utter the words, “Magistrates and powers,” and these suggested to him the topics on which his thoughts were habitually fixed—his dispute with his brother about their patrimony.

2. And so it happened to him according to the parable of the sower. The truth he had heard did not get into his mind, hardened as it was, like a beaten path, by the constant passage through it of current thoughts about money; it was very soon forgotten altogether, caught away by the god of this world, who ruled over him through his covetous disposition.—Bruce.

Misplaced Discontent.—Men misplace their discontent. They are very well satisfied with what they are; they are only dissatisfied with what they have: whereas the very reverse ought generally to take place; and the only desire which we ought to set no bounds to is that of increasing in godliness.

Use of the Passing Incident.—This incident becomes a text for a sermon on covetousness. And thus the Holy Spirit teaches us to consider every event of our lives as an occasion for applying to ourselves the words of Christ. He instructs us to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the holy gospel in such a manner that we may be able to bring its precepts to bear on the principal occurrences, public and private, of our own lives and of the world’s history.—Wordsworth.

Luk_12:14. “Who made Me a judge?”—Reasons why Christ refused to interfere—

I. His interference would have encouraged the delusion that the Messiah would be an earthly ruler.

II. He wished to draw a distinction between the kingdoms of this world and the government of His Church.

III. Because he saw that this man was neglecting graver matters than the inheritance which he wished to be shared with him.

A Higher Office than Arbitrator of Property.—With great propriety He declines interference with matters of this world who came not down on their account; nor does He, who was Judge of quick and dead, to whom belonged the final disposal of the souls of men, condescend to be an arbitrator in men’s contentions about their property.—St. Ambrose.

The Error of Moses not Repeated.—Christ will not repeat the error of Moses (Exo_2:14), and thrust Himself into matters that do not concern Him. His work was from the inward to the outward, and so He kept within the limits of that moral and spiritual world from which alone an effectual renovation of the outer life of man could proceed.—Trench.

A Lesson to All Religious Teachers.

I. Their influence in the external relations of life is great, but only when it is indirectly exercised.

II. It is broken when they interfere directly with secular and political matters.—When ministers of religion keep within their proper sphere, all parties look up to them, and they are often the means of mollifying the bitterest feelings and reconciling the most conflicting interests.—Brown.

Luk_12:15. Covetousness.

I. This is one of the red flags our Lord hung out which most people nowadays do not seem much to regard.—Christ said a great deal about the danger of riches; but not many persons are afraid of riches. Covetousness is not practically considered a sin in these times. A man may break the tenth commandment, and be only regarded as enterprising. The Bible says the love of money is the root of all evil; but every man who quotes the saying puts a terrific emphasis on the word “love,” explaining that it is not money, but the love of it, that is such a terrific root.

II. To look about one, one would think that a man’s life did consist in the abundance of the things he possesses.—Men think they become great just in proportion as they gather wealth. So it seems, too; for the world measures men by their bank account. Yet there never was a more fatal error. A man is really measured by what he is, and not by what He HAS. You may find a shrivelled soul in the midst of a great fortune, and a grand, noble soul in the barest poverty.

III. The chief thing is to gather into our life all the truly great and noble things of character.—Here are two texts which settle the question: “Whatsoever things are true, honest, … think on these things”; “Add to your faith virtue,” etc.”—Miller.

The Fool’s Fourfold Mistake.

I. As to the true gauge of the worth of life.—He valued his days by the money he could make in them. Men like him sell their soul for money—abandon heart culture, the amenities of life, the choice delights of home life, for money. Now, worth means, not wealth, but quality of character, purity, sweetnees, nobility, truth. If a millionaire is of worthless character, he dies a pauper.

II. As to the true use of his superfluity.—He had more than he needed. This made him think of building bigger barns. It is well to have an overplus, but to what use are we to put it? To make provision for sickness, old age, death? Yes, and after that is done to be a trustee for the orphan, the widow, the poor.

III. As to the true way of being merry.—This man talks in a strange way to his soul. What does his soul say in response? “I am ill at ease. I cannot be merry. I cannot eat gold or corn.” It is a profound mistake that one can be made happier by a bigger house, or a “place in the country.” More likely to be at “ease” with a daily wage than as an anxious, speculating business man. “Ease!” Yes! get it from a clean conscience and a pure heart. Money, rank, and power, cannot give it.

IV. As to the tenure of his life.—He thought of “many years.” He had only one day left. He had a good title for earth, but no lease, and he had no title for heaven. The soul that night crept out from it all—all its wealth—a poor beggar, into God’s presence. How full of warning is the record of this man’s mistakes!—F. B. Meyer.

A Warning Against Avarice.—So far as the request had to do with secular matters Christ refused to accede to it; but so far as it revealed a faulty moral condition it entered within the Saviour’s province to deal with it. Though not a judge of civil questions, He was a Redeemer from sin—from avarice no less than from hypocrisy. Nor are his followers in slight need of the warning He gives: for avarice is a sin which may attack those who have triumphed over lusts of the flesh, and who are in many other respects exemplary in spirit and life.

“Covetousness.” “All covetousness” (R.V.); both

(1) that which leads a man to desire the possessions which rightly belong to another, and

(2) that which sets an exaggerated value upon earthly goods. Whether the petitioner were in the right or the wrong, he was evidently in danger of one form or other of this sin.

“A Man’s Life.”—There is a contrast here between the earthly natural life and the true life—between his “living” and his “life”: the one is sustained by what he has, the other depends upon what he is. Possession of worldly goods may

(1) for a time secure a measure of ease and comfort, but

(2) it may overlay, hinder, and strangle the higher nature.

Money a Test of Character.—The philosophy which affects to teach us a contempt of money does not run very deep; for, indeed, it is clear that there are few things in the world of greater importance. And so manifold are the bearings of money upon the lives and characters of mankind, that an insight which should search out the life of a man in his pecuniary relations would penetrate into almost every cranny of his nature. He who knows, like St. Paul, both how to spare and how to abound, has a great knowledge; for if we take account of all the virtues with which money is mixed up—honesty, justice, generosity, charity, frugality, forethought, self-sacrifice—and of their correlative vices—it is a knowledge which goes near to cover the length and breadth of humanity: and a right measure of manner in getting, saving, spending, giving, taking, lending, borrowing, and bequeathing, would almost argue a perfect man.—H. Taylor.

Possessions and Life.—Not from the possession of many goods, but from the will of God, who lengthens or shortens the thread of life, does it depend whether one remains long and quietly here in life or not. One may be preserved in life without possessing goods, and also remain in the possession of goods and unexpectedly lose life.—Van Oosterzee.

Luk_12:16-21. This Parable Teaches—

I. That God maketh His sun to shine and His rain to fall on the just and on the unjust.

II. That the increase of riches increaseth care.

III. That worldly men’s possessions are their “good things”—such they esteem them, and such is their whole portion from God.

IV. Great estates and enjoyments of this life have a very enticing quality in them:

1. They make us loth to die, and willing to think we shall live many years.

2. They lull the soul to sleep.

3. They entice us to sinful mirth and luxury.

V. He that hath most may have his soul taken from him in a night.

VI. A man is no longer owner of the goods of this life than he can keep an earthly possession of them.

VII. When he dies he knoweth not where these things shall be.

VIII. That it is the greatest folly imaginable to spend all one’s time and strength in getting and laying up treasure upon earth, and in the meantime neglecting to be rich towards God.—Pool.

Luk_12:16. “A parable.”—To teach

(1) how short and transitory life is;

(2) that riches are of no avail for prolonging it; and

(3) that the great duty of all, both rich and poor, is to be rich toward God.

A Fault often Condemned in the New Testament.—There are more parables, I believe, in the New Testament against taking no thought about heavenly things, and taking too much thought about earthly things, than against any other fault whatsoever.—Hare.

“The Ground,” etc.—Christ selects the most innocent method of acquiring riches, that which most obviously tended to lead the mind constantly to thankful acknowledgment of God, and thus makes this wretched harvest-joy all the more frightful and all the more impressive a warning to every man.—Stier.

“A Certain Rich Man.”—The character here drawn is exactly that of a prudent worldly man, who rises from inferior circumstances to great affluence by assiduous industry and good management, and then retires from business, to spend the latter part of his life according to his own inclinations. His is the sort of life which is often held up as a model to young men. He figures here as a warning. All who desire to be successful in business, as he was, should keep in mind the words of the Psalmist: “He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul.”

Luk_12:17-20. The Miseries of the Worldly Rich Man:—

I. Discontent.

II. Anxieties and cares.

III. False hope.

IV. The terror of losing all his goods.

Luk_12:17-19. The Worldly Character.—

1. Activity in promoting his own temporal interest.

2. Selfish love of ease and pleasure. The “soul” which he addresses is the seat of the emotions and of the power of enjoyment—not the spiritual element in man.

Luk_12:17. “What shall I do?”—Not what should I do? Scarcely any other words could more vividly depict his utter and unconscious selfishness. That all he has is to be secured for himself and for his own exclusive benefit is assumed as a matter of course—the only difficulty is as to the precise method of doing this.

“I have no room.”—Thou hast barns—the bosoms of the needy, the houses of the widows, the mouths of orphans and of infants.—St. Ambrose.

“My fruits.”—Compare the speech of Nabal (1Sa_25:11), who says, “Shall I take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers?” And on the very next day his heart died within him, and he became as a stone; and in ten days after he died. Contrast the words in Deu_8:10-18, and David’s language, 1Ch_29:12-14.

Luk_12:18. “This will I do.”—Man proposes.

I. How boastful!—He speaks of his barns and fruits as though he, and he only, had any share in producing them, any right of ownership in them.

II. How shortsighted!—He speaks of the “many years” as a matter of certainty, when he must have known the uncertainty of life.

III. How selfish!—His aims are all selfish. There is no provision made for others. His life is entirely self-centred.

IV. How unworthy!—His idea of life is a low one. Indolent ease, eating, drinking, and merrymaking. Pity for the sorrows of others; charity for the aged and poor; provision for those who had helped to make him rich;—all these are forgotten.—W. Taylor.

Luk_12:19. “I will say to my soul.”—What folly! Had thy soul been a sty, what else couldst thou have promised to it? Art thou so bestial, so ignorant of the soul’s goods, that thou pledgest it the foods of the flesh? And dost thou convey to thy soul the things which the draught receiveth?—St. Basil.

“Thou hast many goods.”—The devil does not now endeavour to deceive us by saying, “Ye shall not surely die.” He knows that so notorious a cheat would never pass upon us; but yet for fear, lest we should undervalue the allurements of the world, he whispers in our ears, “Ye shall not die so soon.” And “Although thou hast not all that thou canst wish for, thou hast many goods”; and “Though thou canst not enjoy them always, yet they are laid up for many years”; and what hast thou to do but “take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry,” as if thou wert to live for ever? Behold the best that we can make of the most happy state we hope for here.

Little Satisfaction Yielded by Wealth.—He unconsciously confesses how little satisfaction his wealth has brought him; he looks for rest, but it is only in the distant future, when the intended work shall have been completed, that he can hope to obtain it.

This Parable found in Germ in Ecclesiasticus.—Cf. Sir_11:17-19 : “The gift of the Lord remaineth with the godly, and His favour bringeth prosperity for ever. There is that waxeth rich by his wariness and pinching, and this is the portion of his reward: whereas he saith, I have found rest, and now will eat continually of my goods; and yet he knoweth not what time will come upon him, and that he must leave those things to others, and die.”

Luk_12:20. “Thou fool.”—Why is this man called a fool?

I. Because he deemed a life of secure and abundant earthly enjoyment the summit of human felicity.

II. Because, having acquired the means of realising this, through prosperity in his calling, he flattered himself that he had a long lease of such enjoyment, and nothing to do but to give himself up to it. Nothing else is laid to his charge.—Brown.

Loss.—He comes before the judge with a lost name, for God calls him “Thou fool”; with a lost soul, for it is taken away from him by force; with a lost world, for it he has to leave behind him; and with a lost heaven, for in heaven he has laid up no treasure.

Contrasts.—Note the contrasts:

1. “Thou fool,” though he has manifested worldly prudence.

2. “This night,” as opposed to “many years.”

3. The “soul” in the one case, at its ease, eating, drinking, and making merry; in the other, demanded, rendered up, judged.

Vain Preparation.—“Prepared”—“made ready;” “but not for thyself.”

Fourfold Folly.—His folly is fourfold:

1. He forgets God, the giver of his wealth.

2. He appropriates all he receives for himself.

3. He counts these things the food of his soul.

4. He does not think of the daily possibility of death.

Moderation.—A wise man will desire no more than what he can get justly, use soberly, distribute cheerfully, and leave contentedly.—Bacon.

Riches Without Godliness.—The gloom of barrenness has besieged your mind; and while the light of truth hath departed thence, the deep and profound darkness of avarice has blinded your carnal heart. You are the captive and slave of your money; you keep your money, which, when kept, does not keep you; you heap up a patrimony which burdens you with its weight; and you do not remember what God answered to the rich man, who boasted, with a foolish exultation, of the abundance of his exuberant harvest. Why do you watch in loneliness over your riches? Why, for your punishment, do you heap up the burden of your patrimony, that, in proportion as you are rich in this world, you may become poor to God?—Cyprian.

“Shall be required.”—From the righteous his soul is not required, but he commits it to God and the Father of spirits, pleased and rejoicing, nor finds it hard to lay it down, for the body lies upon it as a light burden. But the sinner who has enfleshed his soul, and embodied it, and made it earthy, has prepared to render its divulsion from the body most hard; wherefore it is said to be required of him, as a disobedient debtor that is delivered to pitiless exactors.—Theophylact.

The Parable brings vividly before us Four Considerations:—

I. The embarrassment which wealth, and especially a sudden accession of wealth, may bring to a man who is not under the guidance of high and true principles.

II. Here is an example of the love of property, as such, and apart from anything that can be done with it.

III. There is that in the human soul, even when most forgetful of its true destiny, which refuses to take pleasure for ever in the mere handling money or any sort of matter, as a thing to be rejoiced in for its own sake.

IV. The whole scheme of definite enjoyment may collapse: no man has a right to presume upon the future.—Liddon.

Luk_12:21. False and True Riches.—The contrast between the false and the true riches is implied in the two phrases, “to lay up treasure” and “to be rich.”

I. The one is to hoard up laboriously things which are outside one’s self.

II. The other is an actual condition of wealth and happiness.

Rich Towards God.—There is a contrast between “laying up treasure for oneself” and being “rich towards God.” God cannot be enriched or impoverished. That man is rich toward God who lays up treasure in heaven, and so he is rich indeed (cf. 1Ti_6:17). By being rich towards God he becomes rich for ever.

“He who is rich for himself, laying up treasures for himself, is by so much robbing his real inward life, his life in and toward God, of its resources; he is laying up store for, providing for, the flesh; but the spirit, that which God looketh into and searcheth, is stripped of all its riches” (Alford).

The evil is not in the treasure, nor in laying up treasure, but in laying up treasure for oneself. A case like this, where the sinner is respectable, honest, and prosperous, shows the true nature of sin—it is a devotion to self, not to God; and laying up solely for self is, therefore, a sin, according to the judgment of Christ.

Change the Place of Riches.—God desires not that thou shouldst lose thy riches, but that thou shouldst change their place. He has given thee a counsel, which do thou understand. Suppose a friend should enter thy house, and should find that thou hadst lodged thy fruits on a damp floor, and he, knowing by chance the tendency of those fruits to spoil, whereof thou wert ignorant, should give thee counsel of this sort, saying, “Brother, thou losest the things which with great labour thou hast gathered; thou hast placed them in a damp place; in a few days they will corrupt.”—“And what, brother, shall I do?”—“Raise them to a higher room”—thou wouldst listen to thy brother, suggesting that thou shouldst raise thy fruits from a lower to a higher floor; and thou wilt not listen to Christ, advising that thou raise thy treasure from earth to heaven, where that will not, indeed, be restored to thee which thou layest up—for He bids thee lay up earth, that thou mayest receive heaven, lay up perishable things, that thou mayest receive eternal.—Augustine.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luke

HOW TO PRAY

THE RICH FOOL

Luk 12:13 - Luk 12:23.

What a gulf between the thoughts of Jesus and those of this unmannerly interrupter! Our Lord had been speaking solemnly as to confessing Him before men, the divine help to be given, and the blessed reward to follow, and this hearer had all the while been thinking only of the share in his father’s inheritance, out of which he considered that his brother had cheated him. Such indifference must have struck a chill into Christ’s heart, and how keenly he felt it is traceable in the curt and stern brushing aside of the man’s request. The very form of addressing him puts him at a distance. ‘Man’ is about as frigid as can be. Our Lord knew the discouragement of seeing that His words never came near some of His hearers, and had no power to turn their thoughts even for a minute from low objects. ‘What do I care about being confessed before the angels, or about the Holy Spirit to teach me? What I want is my share of the paternal acres. A rabbi who will help me to these is the rabbi for me.’ John Bunyan’s ‘man with the muck-rake’ had his eyes so glued to the ground and the muck that he did not see the crown hanging above him. How many of us find the sermon time a good opportunity for thinking about investments and business!

Christ’s answer is intentionally abrupt and short. It deals with part only of the man’s error, the rest of which, being an error to which we are all exposed, and which was the root of the part special to him, is dealt with in the parable that follows. Because the man was covetous, he could see in Jesus nothing more than a rabbi who might influence his brother. Our sense of want largely shapes our conception of Christ. Many to-day see in Him mainly a social {and economical} reformer, because our notion of what we and the world need most is something to set social conditions right, and so to secure earthly well-being. They who take Jesus to be first and foremost ‘a judge or a divider’ fail to see His deepest work or their own deepest need. He will be all that they wish Him to be, if they will take Him for something else first. He will ‘bid’ men ‘divide the inheritance’ with their brethren after men have gone to Him for salvation.

But covetousness, or the greedy clutching at more and more of earthly good, has its roots in us all, and unless there is the most assiduous weeding, it will overrun our whole nature. So Jesus puts great emphasis into the command, ‘Take heed, and keep yourselves,’ which implies that without much ‘heed’ and diligent inspection of ourselves {for the original word is ‘see’}, there will be no guarding against the subtle entrance and swift growth of the vice. We may be enslaved by it, and never suspect that we are. Further, the correct reading is ‘from all covetousness,’ for it has many shapes, besides the grossest one of greed for money. The reason for the exhortation is somewhat obscure in construction, but plain in its general meaning, and sufficiently represented by the Authorised and Revised Versions. The Revised Version margin gives the literal translation, ‘Not in a man’s abundance consisteth his life, from the things which he possesseth,’ on which we may note that the second clause is obviously to be completed from the first, and that the difference between the two seems to lie mainly in the difference of prepositions, ‘from’ or ‘out of in the second clause standing instead of ‘in’ in the first, while there may be also a distinction between ‘abundance’ and ‘possessions’ the former being a superfluous amount of the latter. The whole will then mean that life does not consist in possessions, however abundant, nor does it come out of anything that simply belongs to us in outward fashion. Not what we possess, but what we are, is the important matter.

But what does ‘life’ mean? The parable shows that we cannot leave out the notion of physical life. No possessions keep a man alive. Death knocks at palaces and poor men’s hovels. Millionaires and paupers are huddled together in his net. But we must not leave out the higher meaning of life, for it is eminently true that the real life of a man has little relation to what he possesses. Neither nobleness nor peace nor satisfaction, nor anything in which man lives a nobler life than a dog, has much dependence on property of any sort. Wealth often chokes the channels by which true life would flow into us. ‘We live by admiration, hope, and love,’ and these may be ours abundantly, whatever our portion of earth’s riches. Covetousness is folly, because it grasps at worldly good, under the false belief that thereby it will secure the true good of life, but when it has made its pile, it finds that it is no nearer peace of heart, rest, nobleness, or joy than before, and has probably lost much of both in the process of making it. The mad race after wealth, which is the sin of this luxurious, greedy, commercial age, is the consequence of a lie-that life does consist in the abundance of possessions. It consists in knowing ‘Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.’ Is there any saying of Jesus Christ’s more revolutionary, or less believed by His professed followers, than this?

The story of the rich fool is not a parable in the narrower meaning of that word-that is, a description of some event or thing in the natural sphere, transferred by analogy to the spiritual-but an imaginary narrative exemplifying in a concrete instance the characteristics of the class of covetous men. The first point noted is that accumulated wealth breeds anxiety rather than satisfaction. The man is embarrassed by his abundance. The trouble of knowing how to keep it is as great as the labour of acquiring it, and the enjoyment of it is still in the future. Many a rich man is more worried about his securities than he was in making his money. There are so many ‘bags with holes’ that he is at his wits’ end for investments, and the first thing he looks at in his morning’s paper is the share list, the sight of which often spoils his breakfast.

The next point is the selfish and arrogant sense of possession, as betrayed by the repetition of ‘my’-my fruits, my barns, my corn, and my goods. He has no thought of God, nor of his own stewardship. He recognises no claim on his wealth. If he had looked a little beyond himself, he would have seen many places where he could have bestowed his fruits. Were there no poor at his gates? He had better have poured some riches into the laps of these than have built a new barn. Corn laid up would breed weevils; dispersed, it would bring blessings.

Again, this type of covetous men is a fool because he reckons on ‘many years.’ The goods may last, but will he? He can make sure that they will suffice for a long time, but he cannot make sure of the long time. Again, he blunders tragically in his estimate of the power of worldly goods to satisfy. ‘Eat, drink,’ might be said to his body, but to say it to his soul, and to fancy that these pleasures of sense would put it at ease, is the fatal error which gnaws like a worm at the root of every worldly life. The word here rendered ‘take thine ease’ is cognate with Christ’s in His great promise, ‘Ye shall find rest unto your souls.’ Not in abundance of worldly goods, but in union with Him, is that rest to be found which the covetous man vainly promises himself in filled barns and luxurious idleness.

There is a grim contrast between what the rich man said and what God said. The man’s words were empty breath; God’s are powers, and what He says is a deed. The divine decree comes crashing into the abortive human plans like a thunder-clap into a wood full of singing birds, and they are all stricken silent. So little does life consist in possessions that all the abundance cannot keep the breath in a man for one moment. His life is ‘required of him,’ not only in the sense that he has to give it up, but also inasmuch as he has to answer for it. In that requirement the selfishly used wealth will be ‘a swift witness against’ him, and instead of ministering to life or ease, will ‘eat his flesh as fire.’ Molten gold dropping on flesh burns badly. Wealth, trusted in and selfishly clutched, without recognition of God the giver or of others’ claims to share it, will burn still worse.

The ‘parable’ is declared to be of universal application. Examples of it are found wherever there are men who selfishly lay up treasures for their own delectation, and ‘are not rich toward God.’ That expression is best understood in this connection to mean, not rich in spiritual wealth, but in worldly goods used with reference to God, or for His glory and service. So understood, the two phrases, laying up treasure for oneself and being rich towards God, are in full antithesis.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12:13-21 This parable shows the danger of trusting in riches instead of in God.

12:13 tell my brother to divide our father’s estate: In Judaism, the oldest son received a double portion of the inheritance (Deut 21:17) and was responsible for dividing up the rest after his father’s death. This younger brother wanted his share of the estate (cp. Luke 15:11-32).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk 12:13. Τὶς) some one, who had become sensible that Jesus is “the Just One.”—ἀδελφῷ, to my brother) who perhaps had begun to hold Jesus in high estimation. Readily those who admire a spiritual teacher sink down to that point, that they wish to convert him into an umpire for the settlement of domestic and civil matters in dispute.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk_12:13-21. Peculiar to Luke; from his source containing the account of the journey.

Luk_12:13 f. τὶς] certainly no attendant of Jesus (Lightfoot, Kuinoel, and others), as Luke himself points out by ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου; besides, such a one would have known Jesus better than is betrayed by this uncongenial request. It was a Jew on whom the endowments and authority of Jesus produced such an impression that he thought he might be able to make use of Him in the matter of his inheritance. Whether he was a younger brother who grudged to the first-born his double share of the inheritance (Ewald), must be left in doubt.

ἐκ τ. ὄχλ.] belongs to εἶπε, as is shown by the order. The mode of address, ἄνθρωπε, has a tone of disapproval, Rom_2:1; Rom_9:20; Plat. Protag. p. 350 D; Soph. Aj. 778, 1132. Observe that Jesus instantly rejects the application that concerns a purely worldly matter; on the other hand, He elsewhere gives a decision on the question of divorce.[155]

[155] This is worthy of consideration also in respect of the question: whether matters of marriage belong to the competency of the spiritual or the temporal tribunal?

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 12:13-21 . An interlude leading to a change of theme , in Lk. only.

Luk 12:13 . τις ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου : the crowd now comes to the front, and becomes the audience for at least a few moments. εἰπὲ here takes after it the infinitive, instead of ἵνα with subjunctive. μερίσασθαι , to divide, presumably according to law, one-third to the younger, two-thirds to the elder (Deu 21:17 ). The references to tribunals in Luk 12:11 may have suggested this application to Jesus.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1 st. The Occasion: Luk 12:13-14.

A man in the crowd profits by a moment of silence to submit a matter to Jesus which lies heavily on his heart, and which probably brought him to the Lord’s presence. According to the civil law of the Jews, the eldest brother received a double portion of the inheritance, burdened with the obligation of supporting his mother and unmarried sisters. As to the younger members, it would appear from the parable of the prodigal son that the single share of the property which accrued to them was sometimes paid in money. This man was perhaps one of those younger members, who was not satisfied with the sum allotted to him, or who, after having spent it, still claimed, under some pretext or other, a part of the patrimony. As on other similar occasions (the woman taken in adultery), Jesus absolutely refuses to go out of His purely spiritual domain, or to do anything which might give Him the appearance of wishing to put Himself in the place of the powers that be. The answer to the τίς, who? is this: neither God nor men.

The difference between the judge and the μεριστής, him who divides, is that the first decides the point of law, and the second sees the sentence executed.

The object of Jesus in this journey being to take advantage of all the providential circumstances which could not fail to arise, in order to instruct the people and His disciples, He immediately uses this to bring before the different classes of His hearers those solemn truths which are called forth in His mind by the unexpected event.

Holtzmann is obliged to acknowledge the reality of the fact mentioned in the introduction. He therefore alleges, that in this special case the common source of Matthew and Luke contained a historical preface, and that the latter has preserved it to us, such as it was. We accept for Luke the homage rendered in this case to his fidelity. But, 1 st. With what right can it be pretended that we have here something exceptional? 2 d. How can it be alleged that the occasion of the following discourse was expressly indicated in the Logia, and that, nevertheless, in the face of this precise datum, the author of the first Gospel allowed himself to distribute the discourse as follows: two fragments (Luk 12:22-31; Luk 12:33-34) in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 6:25-33; Mat 6:19-21); another fragment (Luk 12:51-53) in the installation discourse to the Twelve (Mat 10:34-36); finally, various passages in the great eschatological discourse (Matthew 24, 25)? Weizsäcker feels the impossibility of such a procedure. According to him, Matthew has preserved to us the form of the discourse exactly as it appeared in the Logia. But what does Luke in his turn do? Drawing from those great discourses of the Logia the materials which suit him, he forms a new one, purely fanciful, at the head of which he sets as the origin a historical anecdote of his own invention! In what respect is this procedure better than that which Holtzmann ascribes to Matthew? Such are the psychological monstrosities in opposite directions to which men are reduced by the hypothesis of a common document.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Christ would not for three causes be a judge to divide an inheritance. First, for that he would not foster up and cherish the fleshly opinion that the Jews had of Messiah: Secondly for that he would distinguish the civil governance, from the Ecclesiastical: Thirdly, to teach us to beware of them which abuse the show of the gospel, and also the name of ministers, to their own private commodities.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 13. Speak to my brother, that he divide] Among the Jews, the children had the inheritance of their fathers divided among them; the eldest had a double portion, but all the rest had equal parts. It is likely the person complained of in the text was the elder brother; and he wished to keep the whole to himself-a case which is far from being uncommon. The spirit of covetousness cancels all bonds and obligations, makes wrong right, and cares nothing for father or brother.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(13) And one of the company.—Better, one of the multitude. The request implied a recognition of our Lord’s character as a scribe or Rabbi, but it was for the purpose of asking Him to assume that office in its purely secular aspect. As interpreters of the Law, the scribes were appealed to as advocates and arbitrators in questions of property or marriage. The precise nature of the case is not stated here, but the words of the petitioner suggest that he was a younger son, who, on his father’s death, claimed from his elder brother more than the share which, according to the usual practice of a double portion for the first-born (2Ki_2:9), of right belonged to him, and expected apparently a full moiety.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13-21. Egotism rebuked. The Rich Fool.

13. Master, speak to my brother] This was the most foolish and unwarrantable interpellation ever made to our Lord. The few words at once reveal to us an egotist incapable of caring for anything but his own selfishness.

that he divide the inheritance with me] Deu_21:15-17.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And one of the company said unto him,.... Not one of the disciples of Christ, but one of the multitude, or crowd, about him, Luk 12:1

Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me: the firstborn, according to the law, in Deu 21:17 had a double portion: but the eider brother here, it seems, was for keeping all, and would not divide any part to his younger brother; wherefore he applies to Christ, to interpose his authority, which he imagined would have great weight with his brother, who might be a hearer of Christ, and favourer of him: or however, such was the fame of Christ, and such credit he obtained by his ministry and miracles, that he concluded a word from him, would go a great way with his brother, to engage him to make a right and proper division, as he ought; and especially, if he looked upon him, as the king Messiah the Jews expected, he might take this to be part of his work and office, to settle such civil affairs as these: we often read in the Jewish writings, of brethren dividing their substance, left by their parents; so it is said (f),

, "brethren that divide", (a field,) give two corners (to the poor); if they return and become partners, they give but one.''

Where there were but two brethren, as here, the one was called "the firstborn"; and the other, "simple"; having no title or character: and concerning dividing inheritances, there are the following rules (g):

"the firstborn takes a double portion of his father's goods, as is said, Deu 21:17 how? a man leaves five children, and one of them is the firstborn: the firstborn takes the third part of the substance, and every one of the four simple ones, takes a sixth part: if he leaves nine children, and one of them is the firstborn, he takes the fifth part, and every one of the eight simple ones, takes a tenth part; and so according to this division, they divided for ever----he that has two sons, a firstborn and a simple one, and they both die in his lifetime, the firstborn leaves a daughter, and the simple one leaves a son; lo, the son of the simple one inherits the third part of the old man's goods, which is his father's part; and the daughter of the firstborn, inherits the two thirds, which is the part of her father.''

And again (h),

"two brethren that "divide", and a brother comes to them from the province of the sea: and so three brethren that "divide", and a creditor comes and takes the part of one of them, though the one takes land, and the other money, the division is void, and they return and divide the rest equally: if any one orders at the time of death, that there should be given to such an one a palm tree, or a field out of his substance, and the brethren "divide", and do not give such an one any thing, lo, the division is void; and how do they do? they give what he ordered the heirs, and after that they return and divide as at the beginning: brethren that divide, value what is upon them; but what is upon their sons and their daughters, which they have in possession, they do not value--he that leaves fatherless children, some that are grown up, and others little ones, and they are willing to divide their father's goods, so that those that are grown up may take their part, the sanhedrim appoint a guardian for the little ones, and he chooses a good part for them: and when they are grown up, they cannot make it void, for lo, by the decree of the sanhedrim, they divided for them; but if the sanhedrim err in computation, and give them less, they may make it void, and make another division when, they are grown up.''

But it would be tedious to transcribe all the rules, relating to such cases.

(f) Misn. Peah, c. 3. sect. 5. (g) Maimon. Hilchot Nechalot, c. 2. sect. 1. 7. (h) Maimon. Hilchot Nechalot, c. 10. sect. 1, 2, 3, 4.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.

13 And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.

Ver. 13. Master, speak to my brother] While Christ was busily discoursing about the best things, this importunate fellow interrupts him with this unpleasing, and, therefore, unreasonable request, το ακαιρον πανταχου λυπηρον (Isoc.). But our Saviour soon rejects it, as out of the compass of his calling, and so cuts off from his adversaries all occasion of cavilling at him as a usurper of the magistrate’s office.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

One of the company - One of the multitude. This man had probably had a dispute with his brother, supposing that his brother had refused to do him justice. Conceiving that Jesus had power over the people - that what he said must be performed - he endeavored to secure him on his side of the dispute and gain his point. From the parable which follows, it would appear that he had no “just” claim on the inheritance, but was influenced by covetousness. Besides, if he “had” any just claim, it might have been secured by the laws of the land,

Speak to my brother - Command my brother.

Divide the inheritance - An inheritance is the property which is left by a father to his children. Among the Jews the older brother had two shares, or twice as much as any other child, Deu 21:17. The remainder was then equally divided among all the children.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The inheritance. This man might think, that Jesus being the Messias, would act like a king and a judge. (Witham) --- Speak to my brother, &c. See in this the spirit of this world, at the very time Jesus is teaching disinterestedness, and the contempt of riches, he is interrupted by a man, who begs him to interfere in a temporal concern: deaf to every thing else, this man can think of his temporal interest only. (Calmet) --- He begged half an inheritance on earth; the Lord offered him a whole one in heaven: he gave him more than he asked for. (St. Augustine)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

This passage certainly is not recorded for nothing; if it teacheth us any thing, it is this, That matters of civil justice belong not to those whom Christ sends to preach his gospel: that work is enough for them. Christ here refuseth the office so much as of an arbitrator. A very learned author tells us, that the practice of bringing civil matters before ecclesiastical men, as judges, began in the captivity of Babylon, the Jews by that means avoiding the bringing their differences before pagan judges, which the apostle also persuadeth at large to the primitive Christians, in 1Co 6:1,2, &c. But that the ministers of the gospel should be employed, or might be employed, in them, doth not appear by the apostle; nay, he speaks the contrary, 1Co 6:4, Set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church: these surely were not the elders in it. Under the Romans, the Jews had more liberty, having civil courts made up of persons of their own religion, to whom our Saviour turns over this man; being not willing to move out of his calling, as a minister of the gospel. As Christ’s commissioners, it is most certain that no ministers of the gospel can intermeddle in civil judgments; whether those who are such commissioners of Christ may yet as men’s commissioners act, it stands those in hand who are ambitious of such an employment, and can find leisure enough for it, and are called to it, to inquire: I shall not intermeddle in that controversy. To me, the proper work of the gospel is work enough.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

III. The worldling’s ill-timed interruption brings out the parable of the Rich Fool.

13. One of the company—From the vast and crowded congregation a voice now comes interrupting the words of Jesus, who pauses to hear and then answer. The interruption slightly deflects the train of Jesus’s remarks; but they still pursue the same general current, namely, the little importance of earthly suffering in comparison with our account at the day of judgment. Master—The man is not probably a follower of Jesus. He has not much if any religious interest; but he looks upon Jesus as a great Rabbi who has a solemn sense of responsibility and justice. He will, therefore, be a good and impartial arbiter in the contested case.

Divide the inheritance—It is said to have been the custom for the older brother to divide, and the younger take his choice; but this brother had taken all and refused to divide.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. Apparently there was a pause here in the Lord"s teaching. The Master was about to enter on a new subject, and at this juncture one of the crowd, waiting for such a break in the Master"s discourse, came forward with a question. It was purely connected with his own selfish interests, He seems to have been a younger brother, discontented with the distribution of the family property, of which, most likely, in accordance with the usual Jewish practice, a double portion had been taken by the elder brother. This was likely enough the point which he submitted to the Lord. Such a reference to a scribe and rabbi of eminence was then not uncommon. Jesus, however, here, as on other occasions, (see Joh_8:3-11) firmly refuses to interfere in secular matters. His work was of another and higher kind. The word he addresses to the questioner has in it a tinge of rebuke. The utter selfish worldliness of the man, who, after hearing the solemn and impressive words just spoken, could intrude such a question, comes strongly into view. Was not this poor unimpressionable Jew, so wrapped up in his own paltry concerns that he had no thought or care for loftier things, perhaps a specimen of most of the material upon whom the Lord had to work? Is he an unknown figure in our day and time?

Vers. 13-31. Worldliness.

To the earnest teacher nothing can be more irritating than a half-attentive attitude or a remark which indicates preoccupation of mind with other and inferior things. Think of Christ, towards the close of a day of controversy with the Pharisees, and in the midst of solemn speech as to the duty of a true man, invited on a sudden to decide in a family quarrel, to settle a dispute about some money or some acres of soil. We know nothing about the person who appealed to him (ver. 13) out of the multitude." But it is evident that, while the discourse proceeded, he had been engrossed with the consideration of his own rights and interests; like many who may be in the multitude thronging around Jesus, but are secretly busied with their own concerns earth-grubs, intent only on getting all they can get from others for themselves. The abrupt reply (ver. 14) shows the displeasure of the Lord. It is a reply of reproof; it is a reply of instruction also. God has a great variety of spheres and ministries for men, and the Son of God will not contravene his Father"s ordering. The judge, the measurer, the arbiter as to property, is a Divine calling. Those who are entrusted with it are God"s servants. The State is no less sacred than the Church. Let each realize its own place, and each respect the other the State looking to the Church as the expounder of the eternal principles, the Church looking to the State as charged with government and the settlement of the issues between man and man. "My kingdom," says the Christ, "is not of this world." The incident gives a new direction to the teaching of Jesus. It is a disclosure of the mind against which he must warn his followers. And then follows one of the most solemn and beautiful of expositions that in which the Lord conveys his great lesson as to worldliness. Observe

(1) the more public instruction between vers. 15 and 21; and

(2) the more private instruction,

specially addressed to the disciples, between vers. 21 and 32. The more public is the admonition concerning covetousness; the more private is the admonition concerning carefulness. The two types of the one spirit worldliness.

I The former instruction is enforced by a parable, by observing the point of which we discern THE MEANING WHICH CHRIST GIVES TO THE WORD "COVETOUSNESS," AND THE PRINCIPLE IN RELATION TO IT WHICH HE LAYS DOWN. Notice, it is the most insinuating, therefore the most dangerous, form of the temptation which is presented. The ground (ver. 16) of a man already rich brings forth plentifully. There is no dishonesty charged; there is no financial finesse suggested; it is in the natural course of things. The money makes money, and good soil and good harvests aid, The covetousness is the greed of having rather than getting; it is manifest in the thought as to that which has been already got. The anxiety is to treasure up for self. Existing barns are insufficient (vers. 17, 18). What is to be done? There never enters the thought of any stewardship of the substance with which the man is enriched; never the feeling, "What I have God has given me. The labor of others, too, has helped me to acquire it. I am the custodian of so much of a commonwealth. God wills that I enjoy richly, but not that I keep all to myself. I enjoy in the measure in which the use of the gifts unites me to the will of him who is the Giver." Bengel remarks, "Not a word of the poor in all his self-communion." It is simply a hard, selfish "greater barns." Covetousness is not the desire to enjoy so much as the desire to have. First, the having of a great store; then, not until then (ver. 19), "Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry." Very delicate is the Master"s touch. The happiness in the wealth is a thing future, and the future never comes. Do we not often see abundance going about with a load of care on its back fear about losses, anxiety about investments, etc.? The wealthy are often prevented from getting the full good of their wealth. They are possessed by their money more than they are possessors of their money. "The increase serves not as water to quench, but as fuel to feed the fire; he that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver." Christ is not condemning wealth or denouncing abundance of things. "The filling of the barns with plenty, and the bursting out of the vats with new wine," is represented (Pro_3:9, Pro_3:10) as the blessing prepared for those who honor the Lord with their substance. What he condemns is the vice which specially threatens the rich the tendency to identify the life with the possessions (ver. 15), to love the money, to hoard it, and regard it all as a treasure to be devoted to self. And truly the words of the Truth are most needful for our time. "The desire to accumulate is the source of all our greatness and of an our baseness." The baseness begins when the barn, with its "much goods" is regarded as the soul"s portion; when that is the man"s main interest; and, looking on to some day when the pile will be complete, he says in himself, "Then eat, drink, and be merry." Very striking the sentence (ver. 20). "God says, Thou fool!" Folly indeed! Thomas Adams quaintly says, "The competency of earthly things is a blessing; but what is this to abundance? Is not he as warm that goes in russet as another that rustles in silk? Has not the poor laborer as sound a sleep in his flock bed as the epicure on his down bed? Doth not quiet lie oftener in cottages than in glorious mansions? And, for a good appetite, we see the toiling servant feed savourly of one homely dish when his surfeited master looks loathingly on his far-fetched and dearly bought dainties. This gentleman envies the happiness of his poor hind, and would be content to change states with him on condition he might change stomachs. It is not the plenitude, but the competency of these things that affords even content; so that a man"s estate should be like his garment, rather fit than long." Folly indeed! What stupidity to contemplate the many years! "This night thy soul shall be required." Thy soul, thyself, without all the goods. "When I die, let my hands be outside my shroud," said the emperor, "that all may see they are empty." And what is to become of the "much goods"? Pass into the hands of others, possibly only to do them harm, neither the accumulator nor his kind made the better for all the gathering. "Fool, fool! this thou art, O man, who, without generosity of heart or liberality of hand, day by day scrapest the dust of earth to thy store, oblivious of the celestial crown above thy head, rich in man"s estimation, but (ver. 21) a pauper, a bankrupt towards God.

II THE MORE GENERAL INSTRUCTION SOUNDS THE WARNING, "Take heed, and keep yourselves.. from all covetousness." The more special and private instruction to the disciples is joined to the preceding parable by a "therefore" (ver. 22). It, too, is an admonition against worldliness. It presents that aspect of the worldly spirit which more immediately tempted the disciples of Jesus; it gives also the key-note for that higher life which, as those joined to the Lord, they are called to live. The two parts of the discourse illustrate the meaning of St. Paul"s saying as to "the new man created after God, in righteousness and true holiness or, "holiness of truth". (Eph_4:24) The righteousness which is incumbent on all, from the very nature of their existence and their relation to God and men, is represented in the part already considered; "the holiness of truth that plus which is because of our place in the body of Christ, and our relation to him as the Head of the body is represented in the beautiful words which are prefaced by the injunction, "Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on." With some variations, a part of the sermon from the mount is repeated (see homiletics on the sermon). One or two remarks will here suffice.

1. The life which marks the holiness of the new man created in Christ Jesus consists in a supreme preference (ver. 31). What distinguishes this life is that it has a "rather" or a "howbeit" at its heart. Its first concern is the kingdom of the Father; its second is (ver. 30) the things which the nations of the world seek after. "These things eating, drinking, clothing, etc., have their value. But the mind is not in search of them. They are not its good or portion. Its sympathies and craving are towards the eternally right and true. To realize that in self, and aid its fulfillment everywhere, is the highest aim and object of the being. The property of the soul rich towards God is, indeed, a vast property; but it has heights as well as lengths; it is the threefold estate things are yours, and ye are Christ"s, and Christ is God"s." The things which the nations of the world seek after are given into the bargain, so to speak, as far as they are necessities, to all who seek the Father"s kingdom.

2. For those in whom this life is formed, a rule is laid down (ver. 22), "Be not anxious as to these things." The rendering of the Greek word in the Authorized Version might mislead. Christ himself has taught us to take thought for our life to provide for the morrow. He bade his disciples gather up the fragments, that nothing might be lost. He had a bag, of which Judas was the bearer, from which things needful were purchased. It is a sign of the savage, not the civilized man, to live only for the present hour, wasting what he does not immediately consume. The teaching is that, living the true life, and preferring what is right to what is merely politic, we may reckon on God for the supply of all our need. As to eating and drinking, we will not ask the satiety of abundance, we will ask only sufficiency; and on this we may rely. He who feeds the ravens will not forget those who faithfully serve him (vers. 23, 30). We are to labor constantly and diligently whilst we have strength, to sow and reap, to "provide things honest; "for labor is God"s appointed means of feeding and clothing as even the raven witnesses, which God feeds, but which yet is ever picking what it can find; as even the lily witnesses, which is faithful to the conditions of its growth. But we are to toil with a free heart, delivered from carking and worrying care, turning ever trustfully to the love of our Father in heaven. Matthew Henry puts it thus: As in our stature, so in our state, it is our wisdom to take it as it is, and make the best of it; for fretting and vexing, carking and caring, will not mend it." "Do not live in suspense; do not cherish the doubting, doubtful mind," says the Lord to his followers. "Do not fear. A little flock you may seem; but the shepherding is perfect. Live generously, self-denyingly, self-sacrificingly (ver. 31). The purses which hold good deeds never wax old. The treasure bestowed on that which is out of sight is laid up in the heavens (ver. 33), and no thief can abstract it, and no moth can destroy it. Living in the unseen, in God"s kingdom of grace as its subjects, your heart (ver. 34) will settle towards its treasure; you will be prepared and fitted to be the princes of your Father"s kingdom of glory.

Vers. 13-21. A warning against covetousness.

Amid the important teaching of our Lord there comes an interlude by reason of a brother, who had been wronged out of his share of the inheritance, appealing for redress to Christ. He wanted our Lord to play the part of a small attorney and get conveyed to him some share. This our Lord deliberately declines to do, indicating that he has come into the world for higher work than worldly arbitration. This aspect of the subject has been well handled by Robertson of Brighton, and, following him, by Bersier of Paris. But our Lord does far better for the poor brother than if he had become arbitrator for him. He warns him against covetousness, and indicates that "a man"s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." To back up the lesson, he relates a parable about a certain rich man whose whole concern was to multiply his possessions, but who is surprised by death while doing so. He leaves his wealth behind him, and enters the other world utterly poor. If by this timely warning our Lord succeeds in leading the claimant to the possession of better riches, then all will be well. And here we notice

I A MAN CAN FEVER BE SATISFIED WITH THINGS. (Ver. 15) This is the great mistake men are making. They imagine that things can satisfy their hearts; whereas we are so constituted, with our affections and emotions, that fellowship with persons is indispensable to any measure of satisfaction, and to full satisfaction with no less a Being than God himself. All the effort, consequently, to be satisfied with things, with gifts, when the Giver is left out, proves vain. No abundance can satisfy the craving of the heart. And the feverish desire for more and more wealth on the part of worldly men demonstrates simply that they are on the wrong track altogether, and that satisfaction can never be found in things. Covetousness, consequently, as the idolatry of things, is a total mistake. It misinterprets human nature, and is doomed to terrible disappointment.

II SUCCESS MAY DOOM MEN TO LIFELONG WRONG. (Vers. 16-18) The rich fool, as the man in the parable has been generally called, is overwhelmed by success. It outgrows his calculations. His barns are too small; they must be pulled down to allow of bigger barns being built, so that years of anxious labor are provided out of his inordinate success. He gets steeped to the lips in care. His life becomes a ceaseless worry. His grasping only secures his misery. It is truly lamentable to witness the self-inflicted wrong which worldly minds experience as they try to garner more and more of this world"s goods to the neglect of better things. How well our great dramatist understood this! In his poems Shakespeare says "The profit of excess Is but to surfeit, and such griefs sustain, That they prove bankrupt in this poor-rich gain. The aim of all is but to nurse the life With honor, wealth, and ease, in waning age; And in this aim there is such thwarting strife, That one for all, or all for one, we gage, As life for honor in fell battle"s rage, Honour for wealth; and oft that wealth doth cost The death of all, and altogether lost.

III IN THE CAREER OF SUCCESS THERE IS ONLY A VAIN DESIRE FOR REST. (Ver. 19) The soliloquy betrays the utter weariness of the man. After his bigger barns are built, away down the fretful years he will reach, he hopes, a time when he will be in a position to say to his soul, "Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry." He longs for rest, but it will be years yet before he can think of it. All the worry and the fret of the interval must be passed before rest can come. His idea is to win rest by wealth; to buy it up by a certain measure of success. And the experience of all men is that rest is never got on this line at all. It is something that cannot be purchased, but must be God-given. How often do we see men who have retired with a competency at a loss how to kill time, and as weary and restless as ever!

IV DEATH CUTS THE SOUL OFF AT ONCE FROM HIS WORLDLY POSSESSIONS. (Vers. 20, 21) We never hear of millionaires carrying their money-bags with them. A moment after death Croesus is no richer than the beggar. The things which were so anxiously amassed remain to be divided among the heirs, while the owner goes out into another world absolutely penniless. The state to which death reduces him is pitiful indeed. Having forgotten God the Giver through occupation with his gifts, he faces his Judge without a single feeling or aspiration which, in God"s sight, is valuable at all. A miserable and wretched soul receives dismissal from the gracious God whose bounty was ignored and whose Being was despised.

V HOW ALL-IMPORTANT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES TO ACCEPT OF CONTENTMENT AND REST AS THE SAVIOUR"S OFFERED GIFT. If the young man had accepted of contentment in place of cherishing covetousness, he would have been at ease at once. Rest of spirit and growth of spirit would thus have been secured, and he would have been on not only equal terms with, but most probably superior terms to, his more grasping brother. It is thus that Jesus deals with us. He can give us a present rest from sin, from worry, from care of all kinds, and make us rich in the sight of God. With the riches of the soul in graces and gifts, we may hope to pass into the Divine presence and enjoy the Divine society and escape being castaways. R.M.E.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Warning against avarice:

v. 13. And one of the company said unto Him, Master, speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me.

v. 14. And He said unto him, Man, who made Me a judge or a divider over you?

v. 15. And He said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness; for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.

While Jesus was addressing the multitude, there came an interruption. A man in the crowd asked Him to speak to his brother about dividing the inheritance with him, the brother apparently having found a way to evade the law, Deu 21:17. But Jesus, true to the principle that spiritual and temporal affairs should be kept strictly asunder, immediately shows that He was not in the least in sympathy with the man’s object. He is neither a judge, to decide the case on its merits, nor is He an arbiter, to carry out any decision which He might be inclined to make. But the interruption gave Jesus occasion to draw a lesson for His entire audience and to warn them against covetousness. This is an insidious, a dangerous vice, coming upon a person with subtle wariness, and therefore to be guarded against with double care. And it is a foolish vice, for a man’s life and happiness do not depend upon the great abundance of goods which he may call his own. A certain amount of food, clothing to protect against the inclemencies of the weather, and a roof against the elements, that is all that may be considered necessary for life. Whatever is beyond that entails additional care and responsibility, and will have to be accounted for most carefully on the day of the great reckoning.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

While our Saviour was thus instructing his disciples and the rest of his auditors, in things appertaining to the kingdom of heaven; one of the company being more intent, as it seems, upon his temporal that his eternal concerns, desired him to speak to his brother to divide the inheritance with him. Christ tells him, he would neither be judge nor arbitrator in any civil affairs, or secular concerns. This work, as if Christ had said, belongs to the civil magistrate, to divide inheritance, and decide controversies between man and man; but my work is of another nature, namely, to preach the gospel to a lost world, and to direct men how to secure an inheritance in heaven, not to divide inheritances here on earth.

Teaching us, that matters of civil justice do not belong to those whom Christ sends forth to preach the gospel; that work alone is sufficient for them: the proper work of a minister is work enough; one branch of which is to manage a persuading task between neighbor and neighbor, to prevent differences, and to compose them: but as Christ’s commissioners and ministers of the gospel, they have no authority to intermeddle in civil judgments: Who made me a judge over you? asked our great Master; that is, a judge in civil affairs.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13, 14. One of the company said. This question concerning the inheritance, and the parable of the Rich Fool that follows, are only found in Luke. Speak to my brother. The man wished to enlist Christ's moral power for his pecuniary advantage. Whether his brother had wronged him or not is not stated, but the Lord's business was not to gain acres of land and money for men, and hence he replies:

Who made me a judge or a divider over you? It was not his mission to look after temporal gains, but to save the souls of men.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

This is a break in Jesus' teachings. A man asks Jesus to do something and Jesus responds to him.

divide the inheritance with me

In that culture, inheritances came from the father, usually after the father had died. You may need to make explicit that the speaker's father had probably died. AT: "share my father's property with me now that our father is dead" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

Man

Possible meanings are 1) this is simply a way to address a stranger or 2) Jesus is rebuking the man. Your language might have a way of addressing people in either of these ways. Some people do not translate this word at all.

who made me a judge or a mediator over you?

Jesus uses a question to rebuke the man. Some languages would use the plural form for "you" or "your." AT: "I am not your judge or mediator." (See: Rhetorical Question)

He said to them

The word "them" here probably refers to the whole crowd of people. AT: "And Jesus said to the crowd"

keep yourselves from all greedy desires

"guard yourself from every form of greed." AT: "do not allow yourself to love having things" or "do not let the urge to have more things control you"

a person's life

This is a general statement of fact. It does not refer to any specific person. Some languages have a way of expressing that.

the abundance of his possessions

"how many things he owns" or "how much wealth he has"

translationWords

teacher

inherit

judge, judges

mediator

possess

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

13–21. EGOTISM REBUKED. THE RICH FOOL

13. τις ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου. AD La[253]

[253] La. Lachmann.

13. διδάσκαλε, εἰπὲ τῷ ἀδελφῷ μου. This was the most foolish and unwarrantable interpellation ever made to our Lord. The few words at once reveal to us an egotist incapable of caring for anything but his own selfishness.

μερίσασθαι μετ’ ἐμοῦ τὴν κληρονομίαν. Deu 21:15-17.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13-21.] Answer to one who sought a division of his inheritance. Peculiar to Luke.

13.] The man was evidently not a disciple, nor preparing to be one (as Schleierm. thinks), but some hearer in the crowd, whose mind had been working in him during our Lord’s last sayings about the care of Providence for His friends, and he thought this was just the care his circumstances wanted; being, as appears, oppressed by his brother in the matter of his patrimony. Possibly too he had an idea that the Messias, or the great Rabbi to whom he was listening, was come to set all things right;—and with that feeling which we all have of the surpassing injustice of our own wrongs, broke out with this inopportune request.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13-15. § The Avaricious Brother rebuked. This incident forms historical introduction to the Parable of the Rich Fool (16-21), just as the lawyer’s questions (10:25-30) form the historical introduction to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Comp. 14:15, 15:1-3. We are not told whether the man was making an unjust claim on his brother or not; probably not: but he was certainly making an unjust claim on Jesus, whose work did not include settling disputes about property. The man grasped at any means of obtaining what he desired, invading Christ’s time, and trying to impose upon his brother an extraneous authority. Facile ii; qui doctorem spiritualem admirantur, eo delabuntar, ut velint eo abuti ad domestica componenda (Beng.). Compare Christ’s treatment of the questions respecting the payment of the didrachma, the woman taken in adultery, and payment of tribute to Cæsar.

13. εἰπὲ τῷ ἀδελφῷ μου. He does not ask Jesus to arbitrate between him and his brother, but to give a decision against his brother. There is no evidence that the brother consented to arbitration.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.