Jesus was warning against covetousness

JESUS WAS WARNING AGAINST COVETOUSNESS
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Luke 12:13-21 13Someonein the crowd said to him,
"Teacher, tell my brother to dividethe inheritance
with me." 14Jesus replied, "Man, who appointedme a
judge or an arbiter between you?" 15Then he said to
them, "Watchout! Be on your guard againstall kinds
of greed; life does not consistin an abundanceof
possessions."16And he told them this parable:"The
ground of a certainrich man yielded an abundant
harvest. 17He thought to himself, 'Whatshall I do? I
have no place to store my crops.' 18"Thenhe said,
'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and
build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus
grain. 19And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of
grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink
and be merry."' 20"ButGod said to him, 'You fool!
This very night your life will be demanded from you.
Then who will get what you have prepared for
yourself?' 21"Thisis how it will be with whoever
stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward
God."

BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
A Warning Against Covetousness
Luke 12:13-21
R.M. Edgar
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 wantedour Lord to play the part of a
small attorney and get conveyedto 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 aspectof the subject has been well
handled by Robertsonof Brighton, and, following him, by Bersierof Paris.
But our Lord does far better for the poor brother than if he had become
arbitrator for him. He warns him againstcovetousness,and indicates that "a
man's life consistethnot in the abundance of the things which he possesseth."
To back up the lesson, he relates a parable about a certainrich man whose
whole concernwas to multiply his possessions, but who is surprised by death
while doing so. He leaves his wealthbehind him, and enters the other world
utterly poor. If by this timely warning our Lord succeedsin leading the
claimant to the possessionofbetter riches, then all will be well. And here we
notice -
I. A MAN CAN FEVER BE SATISFIED WITH THINGS. (Ver. 15.)This is
the greatmistake men are making. They imagine that things can satisfytheir
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 satisfactionwith no less a Being than God himself. All the effort,
consequently, to be satisfiedwith things, with gifts, when the Giver is left out,

proves vain. No abundance cansatisfy the craving of the heart. And the
feverish desire for more and more wealthon the part of worldly men
demonstrates simply that they are on the wrong track altogether, and that
satisfactioncannever 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. Itoutgrows his calculations. His barns are too small;
they must be pulled down to allow of biggerbarns being built, so that years of
anxious labor are provided out of his inordinate success. He gets steepedto
the lips in care. His life becomes a ceaselessworry. 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 neglectof better things. How wellour greatdramatist 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 altogetherlost."

III. IN THE CAREER OF SUCCESS THERE IS ONLY A VAIN DESIRE
FOR REST. (Ver. 19.)The soliloquy betrays the utter wearinessofthe man.
After his biggerbarns are built, awaydown 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 passedbefore rest can come. His
idea is to win rest by wealth; to buy it up by a certainmeasure of success. And
the experience ofall men is that restis never goton 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 competencyat a loss how to kill time, and as
wearyand 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 amassedremain to be divided
among the heirs, while the ownergoes out into another world absolutely
penniless. The state to which death reduces him is pitiful indeed. Having
forgottenGod the Giver through occupationwith 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 soulreceives dismissalfrom the gracious Godwhose
bounty was ignoredand whose Being was despised.
V. HOW ALL-IMPORTANT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCESTO ACCEPT
OF CONTENTMENTAND REST AS THE SAVIOUR'S OFFEREDGIFT. If
the young man had acceptedofcontentment in place of cherishing
covetousness,he would have been at ease atonce. Restof 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 andgifts, we may hope to pass into the
Divine presence andenjoy the Divine societyand escape being castaways. -
R.M.E.
Who made Me a Judge era divider over you?
Luke 12:13, 14
Christ not a civil judge, but a Redeemer
E. Bersier, D. D.
At first sight, Christ's refusal to interfere betweenthese 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 saidthat
Jesus Christ only seeksthe eternal salvationof the soul, and does not concern
Himself about other human interests. This explanation is specious, and is
eagerlyacceptedby infidelity. But we cannot leave such a weaponin the
hands of unbelief. Our Lord assigns the highestimportance to the soul's
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, andthus settles
all moral and political questions. The secondseeks,before every. thing else, to
renovate the heart and the will. Jesus Christchose the latter plan. He
remained steadfastto it, and this alone evinces the divinity of His mission and
the permanent value of His work. Observe here one or two results. Christ's
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 canhelp 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 socialproblems. Christ's work consists in uniting in common respect
and affectionthose who are divided by their interests. This missionshould be
ours. Let us oppose selfishpride 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
E. J. Hardy, M. A.
There is no doubt that the greatestquestionof the day in Europe and even in
America is Socialism. Socialismought to be carefully distinguished from
Communism; but the two words are often indiscriminately used, and this
confusionrenders Socialismodious 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 pocketyour 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 necessityofself-
help, the Church proves herselfto be the chief friend of the poor. Not so
Communism. By destroying the right of personalownership in the means of
production, and by fostering dependence on State-help, it undermines the
energy and self-help of all classes, andis 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 sortof confiscation. "While it remained, was it not thine
own?" were the words addressedto Ananias; "and after it was sold, was it not
in thine own power?" It was a voluntary actof love rather than a duty. Still
less was it a right which the majority might assertagainstindividuals. The
estimate of comparative needs recognizedwhen these JerusalemChristians
parted their possessions to all men, as every man had need, shows clearlythat
property was not alienatedbeyond control. This, then, was very different
from the Communism taught at the present day, which demands an equality
enforcedby a centralauthority, 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 Christ's teaching. That the principle did not hold its
ground is ascribedby them to the ambition and worldliness of the Church as
she increasedin power, especiallyafter her official recognitionas the State
religion of the RomanEmpire. On the other hand the defenders of the
principle of individual property as opposedto Communism (which in their
opinion is a "mutiny againstsociety")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 Jerusalemgrowing out of the society
of the apostles, who were accustomedalreadyto the common purse system, hit
upon the daring plan of establishing a community of goods. And this was
fosteredby the first outburst of enthusiastic brotherly love, being all the more
readily acceptedin consequence ofthe prevailing expectationamong the
disciples of the approaching subversion of all things. Nowhere out of
Jerusalemdo we find any other early Christian community of goods. The
arrangementat Jerusalemwas not intended to be permanent, and perhaps
those political economists are not far wrong who assertthat it did more harm
than good, and produced the chronic state of poverty that existed among "the
poor saints at Jerusalem." The MasterHimself had left no definite
instructions as to the future socialorganizationofHis "little flock." It had
been His plan all along to lay down generalprinciples, leaving them to be
workedout in the course of time, rather than to prescribe definite lines of
conduct under given circumstances.The ideal of a perfect societywas 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 restoredby means
of violent socialchanges, but by moral influences working upon rich and poor
alike. Christ's sympathy was with all classes, andHe applied remedies to
individuals in preference to propounding revolutionary theories for the
constructionof society. Happily the rich are beginning to recognize this truth.
There is obviously an immense outgrowthin 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 shallI 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 factis, riches must now be consideredby all goodmen as a
distinct profession, with responsibilities no less onerous than those of other
professions. And this very difficult professionof wealth ought to be learned by
studying socialscienceand otherwise with as much care as the professions of
divinity, law, and medicine are learned. When in this way the rich acceptand

prepare themselves for the duties of their high calling, it will cease to be a
cause ofcomplaint 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 Socialismis being more and more understood in the
present day." The great communistic principle, "All for eachand eachfor
all," is practicallygaining ground.
(E. J. Hardy, M. A.)
Worldliness vitiating spiritual teaching
Christian Age.
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 sermonof
Jesus. What would people think of a man who should, from his pew, cry out to
the preacherin the midst of a mighty discourse, "Whatis 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 Master's intervention in the matter of a contested
inheritance. How humiliating a thing it is that a man's mind could be so filled
and saturatedwith business that the most solemnand awful words of even
Jesus were heard as an idle, meaningless voice — heard and not feared. Mark
our Lord's answer. He dismissed the man with one sharp word: "Man, who
made Me a judge or a divider over you?" But the lessonmust not be lost. This
wickednessofutter worldliness is instructive. Turning to His disciples, Jesus
"saidunto them, Take heedand beware of covetousness." Seewhat

covetousness cando to the heart of man; see whatit does in this man! It has
consumed him!
(Christian Age.)
Missionaries andlitigants
W. H. Baxendale.
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 actas an umpire betweenthem, 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 ofsalvation. Having read and explained the Scriptures, they listened
with attention and delight. The disputants embracedeachother with apparent
cordiality, and avowedthat they would dispute no more about their lands, but
love eachother, and strive to seek and serve God.
(W. H. Baxendale.)
Christ's refusal to interfere
H. W. Beecher.
It may seemstrange 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 Christ's mission to reorganize societyimmediately, nor by a
demonstrative act, but that He undertook to reorganize societyby 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, andwork them out in the order of their proper

successionandgrowth. 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 genialinfluences,
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
establishedprinciples of love and justice, which, if practised, would evolve the
world's harmony. And it is our business, eachin 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
reasonwhy our Saviour did not undertake that which He was askedto do.
2. But, in the case in hand, although there might be a matter of greatinjustice
in the partition of the estate, the elder and strongerand 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 selfishin
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 cases andscenes. Everyday, men that are hard, coarse, selfish,
avaricious, envious, contentious, are striving together, and in full conflict,
eachsometimes wrongedand sometimes wronging;but either way, and
always, actoror recipient, of a worldly spirit, of a corrupt nature, of an
intense selfishness,ofa 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 seemedto suggest.
(H. W. Beecher.)

Christ's judgment respecting inheritance
F. W. Robertson, M. A.
I. THE SAVIOUR'S 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 oppressorand give to the oppressed, much less to encourage the
oppressedto take from the oppresserhimself. It was His part to forbid
oppression. It was a Judge's part to decide what oppressionwas. It was not
His office to determine the boundaries of civil right, nor to lay down the rules
of the descentof 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 assertedprinciples of
love, unselfishness, order, which would decide all questions; but the questions
themselves He would not decide. He would lay down the greatpolitical
principle, "Renderunto Caesarthe things that be Caesar's, and unto Godthe
things which are God's." But He would not determine whether this particular
tax was due to Caesarornot. 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 Christ's kingdom. The apportionment of their property by
another's 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, andthe covetous liberal, were a greatgain. But to
take from one selfishbrother in order to give to another selfishbrother, 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 Christ's servant,
might be, and was, the duty of a judge. But it was not Christ's part, nor any
gain to the cause ofChrist. He does not reward His servants with inheritances,
with lands, houses, gold. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but
righteousness, andpeace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Christ triumphs by
wrongs meeklyborne, evenmore than by wrongs legallyrighted.
3. He refused to be the friend of one, because He was the friend of both. He
never was the champion of a class, becauseHe 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
againsthis brother, just because he was his brother — Christ's servant, and
one of God's family, as well as he. And this was His spirit always. The
Pharisees thoughtto commit Him to a side when they askedwhether it was
lawful to give tribute to Caesarornot. But He would take no side as the
Christ — neither the part of the government againstthe taxpayers, nor the
part of the taxpayers againstthe government,
II. THE SOURCE TO WHICH HE TRACED THIS APPEAL FOR A
DIVISION. He went to the very root of the matter. "Takeheedand beware of
covetousness." It was covetousnesswhichcausedthe unjust brother to
withhold; it was covetousnesswhichmade the defrauded brother indignantly
complain to a stranger. It is covetousnesswhichis at the bottom of all
lawsuits, all socialgrievances, allpolitical factions. The true remedy for this
covetousness He then proceeds to give. "A man's life consistethnot in the
abundance of the things which he possesses." Now observe the distinction

betweenHis view and the world's 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 realand
proper life. He declaredthe presence ofthe soul; He announcedthe dignity of
the spiritual man; He revealedthe being that we are. Notthat 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 gospelon every-day life
The Word of God, my friends, affords men direction in all the circumstances
of life, inasmuch, at least, as it contains generalrules which may be applied to
particular cases.
I. INJUSTICE AND QUARRELS BETWEEN NEAR CONNECTIONS
REGARDING THE PROPERTYOF DECEASED RELATIONSARE VERY
UNSEEMLY AND UNCHRISTIAN. It sometimes happens that the head of a
family, or a very near relation, is no soonerlaid in the grave, than the
survivors, who expectto benefit in their substance by his decease, beginto
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 awayby 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 leastteachthem to keepsuch disputes to themselves (if they do at all
arise), and not to outrage decencyby making them public.
II. We may remark, from this passage, thatthose WHO HAVE ANY
PROPERTYTO 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 man's own reasonable inclinationmight
desire. In most cases, however, there would be room for litigation; and in
many cases,especiallywhere there is much property, something that equity or
mercy requires will be neglectedif 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 generalprinciples of nearness of kindred, which are
usually observed, is a very difficult question. No particular rules canbe laid
down to meet every case. The Christianshould consult conscience, the Word
of God, and, perhaps, also a judicious friend or two.
III. THE GOSPELOF CHRIST DOES NOT INTERFEREWITHCIVIL
RIGHTS OR HUMAN LAWS. NO doubt it is intended and fitted to influence
them indirectly, for everything ought to be managed in a way consistentwith
its holy precepts; but it gives no countenance to its adherents to disregard
existing institutions or to usurp the places assignedto others. Dominion is not
founded on grace. The provinces of civil and ecclesiasticalgovernmentare
quite distinct. Notbut that they may, and should, be so managedas mutually
to assisteachother; but still, their office is distinct, and relates to quite
different things.
IV. Once more here, THIS PASSAGE IS UNFAVOURABLE TO
MINISTERS ENGAGINGIN SECULAR BUSINESS, ANN ESPECIALLY
IN PUBLIC CIVIL OFFICES. (Jas.Foote,M.A.)
A warning againstworldliness and covetousness
D. C. Hughes, M. A.
I. A RUDE INTERRUPTION.

1. This suggestsa sadbut common occurrence. Worldly thoughts obtruding
themselves at unseasonable times.
2. This suggestsa constantly-neededbut oft-neglectedduty. To take heed how
we hear.
II. A FITTING REBUKE.
1. It rebuked the man for his gross view of our Lord's mission.
2. It rebuked the man for the worldliness of his spirit.
III. A MORAL LESSON.
1. The subject — covetousness.
(1)Covetousness is "aninordinate desire for gain";"an avaricious
disposition";"a disposition to have more than others."
(2)Covetousness is foolishness.
(a)Forafter it has attained its objectthere 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 God's goodnessto the wicked(ver. 16).
(b)It shows the inadequacy of worldly prosperity to inspire gratitude (ver. 18).
(c)It shows the degrading influence of worldly thoughts:
(d)It shows the shortsightedness ofworldliness.
(e)It shows that God's 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 andgodliness incompatible (ver. 21).
(2)Anxiety a sin (ver. 22).
(3)The greatduty. To be "rich toward God."
(D. C. Hughes, M. A.)
Covetousness
D. C. Hughes, M. A.
I. COVETOUSNESSIN ITS BEARING UPON THE RECEPTION OF
TRUTH.
1. Considerfor 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 comprehensivenessofGod's care.
(4)The blessedconsequencesofconfessing Christ, and the dreadful
consequencesofdenying Christ.

(5)The appalling sin — the blasphemy againstthe 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 solemntruths uttered in the sanctuary, or spokenby friends,
often fall as seedupon a hard-beaten road.
II. COVETOUSNESSIN ITS BEARING UPON THE SOUL'S TRUE JOY.
Two things are here stated.
1. That our Lord's mission was not to interfere in secularaffairs.
2. That "a man's life," in the sense oftrue 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 farsightedand 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 calledis the crying sin of our age.
2. This is one of the most subtle and unconscious of all classesofsins to which
we may be exposed.
3. It is a sin the most difficult to be reachedby truth.
4. It is no less heinous and damning, because it is so subtle and unconscious.
(D. C. Hughes, M. A.)
COMMENTARIES

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(13) And one of the company.—Better, one of the multitude. The request
implied a recognitionof our Lord’s characteras 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 appealedto 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 suggestthat 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 (2Kings 2:9), of right belonged to him, and expected
apparently a full moiety.
MacLaren's Expositions
Luke
HOW TO PRAY
THE RICH FOOL
Luke 12:13 - Luke 12:23.
What a gulf betweenthe thoughts of Jesus and those of this unmannerly
interrupter! Our Lord had been speaking solemnlyas to confessing Him
before men, the divine help to be given, and the blessedrewardto follow, and
this hearerhad all the while been thinking only of the share in his father’s
inheritance, out of which he consideredthat his brother had cheatedhim.
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 canbe. Our Lord knew the discouragementof seeing that His words
never came near some of His hearers, and had no powerto turn their thoughts
even for a minute from low objects. ‘What do I care about being confessed
before the angels, orabout the Holy Spirit to teachme? 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 crownhanging above him. How
many of us find the sermon time a goodopportunity for thinking about
investments and business!
Christ’s answeris 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 rootof the part specialto 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 ofwant largely
shapes our conceptionof 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 setsocialconditions 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 deepestwork or their own deepestneed. 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, orthe greedyclutching 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 greatemphasis into the command,
‘Take heed, and keepyourselves,’which implies that without much ‘heed’ and
diligent inspectionof ourselves {for the original word is ‘see’}, there will be no
guarding againstthe subtle entrance and swift growth of the vice. We may be
enslavedby it, and never suspectthat we are. Further, the correctreading is

‘from all covetousness,’forit has many shapes, besides the grossestone of
greedfor money. The reasonfor the exhortation is somewhatobscure in
construction, but plain in its generalmeaning, and sufficiently representedby
the Authorised and RevisedVersions. The RevisedVersion margin gives the
literal translation, ‘Not in a man’s abundance consistethhis life, from the
things which he possesseth,’onwhich we may note that the secondclause is
obviously to be completed from the first, and that the difference betweenthe
two seems to lie mainly in the difference of prepositions, ‘from’ or ‘out of in
the secondclause 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
consistin possessions, howeverabundant, nor does it come out of anything
that simply belongs to us in outward fashion. Notwhat we possess, but what
we are, is the important matter.
But what does ‘life’ mean? The parable shows that we cannotleave out the
notion of physical life. No possessions keepa 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.Neithernobleness nor peace nor satisfaction, noranything 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,
whateverour 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 nearerpeace of heart,
rest, nobleness, or joy than before, and has probably lost much of both in the
process ofmaking it. The mad race after wealth, which is the sin of this
luxurious, greedy, commercial age, is the consequence ofa lie-that life does
consistin 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 professedfollowers,
than this?

The story of the rich foolis not a parable in the narrowermeaning of that
word-that is, a description of some event or thing in the natural sphere,
transferred by analogyto the spiritual-but an imaginary narrative
exemplifying in a concrete instance the characteristicsofthe class ofcovetous
men. The first point noted is that accumulatedwealth breeds anxiety rather
than satisfaction. The man is embarrassedby his abundance. The trouble of
knowing how to keepit is as greatas 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 selfishand arrogantsense ofpossession, as betrayedby
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 recognisesno claim on his
wealth. If he had lookeda little beyond himself, he would have seenmany
places where he could have bestowedhis 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 cannotmake sure of the long time. Again, he blunders
tragicallyin his estimate of the powerof 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 wouldput 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 greatpromise, ‘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 contrastbetweenwhat 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 woodfull of singing birds, and they are all strickensilent.
So little does life consistin possessions thatall the abundance cannot keepthe
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 answerfor it. In
that requirement the selfishly used wealthwill be ‘a swift witness against’
him, and instead of ministering to life or ease, will ‘eathis flesh as fire.’
Molten gold dropping on flesh burns badly. Wealth, trusted in and selfishly
clutched, without recognitionof God the giver or of others’ claims to share it,
will burn still worse.
The ‘parable’ is declaredto 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 expressionis best understood
in this connectionto 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 oneselfand being rich towards God, are in
full antithesis.
BensonCommentary
Luke 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 collectedaboutJesus, requestedthat 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 refusedto meddle in their quarrel.

It is not said which of these brothers was in the wrong; only, because the
disposition which they discoveredafforded a fit opportunity for religious
advice, our Lord embracedit, and cautionedhis hearers in the most solemn
manner againstcovetousness, declaring that neither the length nor the
happiness of a man’s life depends upon the greatnessofhis possessions. He
said, Take heedand beware — Greek, ορατε και φυλασσεσθε απο της
πλεονεξιας, see to it, and be on your guard, againstcovetousness. The phrase
is lively and full of force. Some old versions and goodcopies 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 ofcovetousness.The other form of the vice consists in a high esteemof
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 ofGod. This love of riches is, in Scripture, emphatically termed a
trusting in them, and is a sort of covetousness thatis 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 necessitiesofothers, or to promote God’s glory, but that we may
keepand treasure it up and enjoy it ourselves, is one species ofcovetousness;
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 orsymptom 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 concernof this personfor the dividing of his inheritance, rather than
that our Lord should instruct him in the way of life, it being this which gave
occasionto 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 concernedto hoard up his goods, but not
at all concernedto be rich towardGod; that is, to have his treasure with God

in the heavens, and to esteemit his chief riches to be an heir of the kingdom of
God, Luke 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 celestialriches, which, in St. Paul’s judgment, renders the
covetous personguilty of idolatry. For a man’s life — That is, the comfort and
happiness of it; consistethnot in the abundance that he possesseth— Nor can
the continuance of his life, even for the shortestperiod of time, be securedby
that abundance.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
12:13-21 Christ's kingdom is spiritual, and not of this world. Christianity does
not meddle with politics; it obliges all to do justly, but wordly dominion is not
founded in grace. It does not encourage expectations ofworldly advantages by
religion. The rewards of Christ's disciples are of another nature. Covetousness
is a sin we need constantly to be warned against;for happiness and comfort
do not depend on the wealthof this world. The things of the world will not
satisfy the desires of a soul. Here is a parable, which shows the folly of carnal
worldling while they live, and their misery when they die. The character
drawn is exactlythat of a prudent, worldly man, who has no gratefulregard
to the providence of God, nor any right thought of the uncertainty of human
affairs, the worth of his soul, or the importance of eternity. How many, even
among professedChristians, point out similar characters as models for
imitation, and proper persons to form connexions with! We mistake if we
think that thoughts are hid, and thoughts are free. When he saw a greatcrop
upon his ground, instead of thanking God for it, or rejoicing to be able to do
more good, he afflicts himself. What shall I do now? The poorestbeggarin the
country could not have said a more anxious word. The more men have, the
more perplexity they have with it. It was folly for him to think of making no
other use of his plenty, than to indulge the flesh and gratify the sensual
appetites, without any thought of doing goodto others. Carnal worldlings are
fools;and the day is coming when God will call them by their own name, and
they will callthemselves so. The death of such persons is miserable in itself,

and terrible to them. Thy soul shall be required. He is loth to part with it; but
God shall require it, shall require an accountof it, require it as a guilty soul to
be punished without delay. It is the folly of most men, to mind and pursue that
which is for the body and for time only, more than that for the souland
eternity.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
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 powerover the people - that what he said
must be performed - he endeavoredto 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 securedby 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, Deuteronomy21:17. The remainder was
then equally divided among all the children.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
Lu 12:13-53. Covetousness—Watchfulness—Superiorityto Earthly Ties.
13. Master, &c.—thatis, "GreatPreacherofrighteousness, 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 notof as urgent a nature, and as worthy the attention of
our Lord, as anything else He could deal with.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
Ver. 13,14. This passagecertainlyis not recordedfor nothing; if it teachethus
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 ecclesiasticalmen, as judges,
beganin 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 1 Corinthians 6:1,2, &c.
But that the ministers of the gospelshould be employed, or might be
employed, in them, doth not appearby the apostle;nay, he speaks the
contrary, 1 Corinthians 6:4, Set them to judge who are leastesteemedin 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 gospelcanintermeddle in civil judgments;
whether those who are such commissioners ofChrist may yet as men’s
commissioners act, it stands those in hand who are ambitious of such an
employment, and canfind 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
gospelis work enough.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And one of the company said unto him,.... Notone of the disciples of Christ,
but one of the multitude, or crowd, about him, Luke 12:1
Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me: the
firstborn, according to the law, in Deuteronomy21:17 had a double portion:

but the eider brother here, it seems, was forkeeping 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 greatweight with his brother,
who might be a hearerof 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 greatway with his brother, to
engage him to make a right and proper division, as he ought; and especially, if
he lookedupon him, as the king Messiahthe 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 Jewishwritings, of brethren dividing their substance, leftby 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,
Deuteronomy 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 grownup may take their part, the sanhedrim appoint a guardian for the
little ones, and he choosesa goodpart for them: and when they are grownup,
they cannot make it void, for lo, by the decree ofthe 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.
Geneva Study Bible
{5} And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that
he divide the inheritance with me.

(5) For three reasons Christ would not be a judge to divide an inheritance.
First, because he would not support and uphold the fleshly opinion that the
Jews had of Messiah:secondly, because he wanted to distinguish the civil
government from the ecclesiastical:thirdly, to teachus to beware of those
which abuse the show of the gospel, and also the name of ministers, for their
own private well-being.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
Luke 12:13-21. Peculiarto Luke; from his source containing the accountof
the journey.
Luke 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 betterthan is betrayed by this uncongenialrequest. It was a
Jew on whom the endowments and authority of Jesus producedsuch 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, Romans 2:1; Romans 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 decisionon the question of divorce.[155]
[155]This is worthy of considerationalso in respectof the question: whether
matters of marriage belong to the competencyof the spiritual or the temporal
tribunal?

Expositor's Greek Testament
Luke 12:13-21. An interlude leading to a change of theme, in Lk. only.
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
13-21. Egotismrebuked. The Rich Fool.
13. Master, speak to my brother] This was the most foolish and
unwarrantable interpellation evermade to our Lord. The few words at once
revealto us an egotistincapable of caring for anything but his own selfishness.
that he divide the inheritance with me] Deuteronomy21:15-17.
Bengel's Gnomen
Luke 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 teachersink down to that
point, that they wish to convert him into an umpire for the settlement of
domestic and civil matters in dispute.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 13. - 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 Masterwas 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 forwardwith a question. It was purely connectedwith his
own selfishinterests, He seems to have been a younger brother, discontented

with the distribution of the family property, of which, most likely, in
accordancewith the usual Jewishpractice, a double portion had been taken
by the elder brother. This was likely enoughthe 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 onother occasions(see John8:3-11),
firmly refuses to interfere in secularmatters. His work was of another and
higher kind. The word he addressesto 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 stronglyinto 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 specimenof most of the material upon whom the
Lord had to work? Is he an unknown figure in our day and time? Luke 12:13
PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
BRUCE HURT MD
Luke 12:13 Someone in the crowd saidto Him, "Teacher, tellmy brother to
divide the family inheritance with me."
KJV Luke 12:13 And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my
brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.
NET Then someone from the crowdsaid to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to
divide the inheritance with me."

Teacher, tellmy brother to divide the family inheritance Luke 6:45; Ps 17:14;
Ezek 33:31; Acts 8:18,19;1 Ti 6:5
Luke 12 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries
Luke 12:13-21 How To Be Really Rich - StevenCole
Luke 12:13-21 The Rich Fool - John MacArthur
A QUESTION ABOUT THE
FAMILY INHERITANCE
Rod Mattoonsets the context - Jesus has been giving His disciples instructions
and warnings about matters that the disciples will need to deal with in their
lives if they are going to be effective servants of Christ. He has dealt with
three key areas so far:
The Issue of Fraudulent behavior or Hypocrisy
The Issue of Faithfulness in Professing Christ
The Issue of the Fearof people
Next... The Issue of Finances and the Fervorfor MaterialThings
Someone in the crowd saidto Him - The NAS does not translate the Greek de,
which the NET Bible translates as then which helps "indicate the implied
sequence ofevents within the narrative."
Spurgeon- Our Lord kept to his proper business, which was the preaching of
the gospeland the healing of the sick. We find, in these days, that the minister
of the gospelis askedto do almost everything. He must be a politician; he
must be a socialreformer; he must be I know not what. Formy part, I often

feel as if I could answer, “Who made me to do anything of the kind? If I can
preach the gospel, I shall have done well if I do that to the glory of God, and to
the salvationof men. Surely there are enough people to be judges and
dividers, there are quite sufficient politicians to attend to politics, and plenty
of men who feel themselves qualified to direct socialreforms. Some of us may
be spared to attend to spiritual affairs.”
Hendriksen - Jesus has been emphasizing the folly of worry. He has been
saying, "Are not five sparrows soldfor two cents? Yet not one of them is
forgottenin God's sight.... Have no fear; y o u are of more value than any
number of sparrows." One would think that in view of such words of
encouragementthe reactionof everyone would be, "How rich we are!" Upon
one listener, however, the words of Jesus seemto have made no impression
whatever. Someone has said, "When there is an inheritance 99 percent of the
people become wolves."The personwho made this request could think of only
one thing: the inheritance! He was convinced that he was being cheated.
Teacher, tellmy brother to divide the family inheritance with me - The way
this is statedindicates the other brother possesses the inheritance and this
brother wants a portion of the possession. Given that Jesus'"reply" (which
was really a question in Lk 12:14)led to a discourse on greed, it is very likely
that the underlying motive for this somewhatabrupt question was greedor
covetousness.According to the law of the day, the elder brother receivedtwo-
thirds of the inheritance and the younger brother receivedone-third
Leon Morris - His brother was clearly in possessionand he wantedJesus to
persuade him to disgorge. He does not ask Jesus to decide on the merits of two
claims: he asks for a decisionin his own favour. He seems to be acting
unilaterally for nothing indicates that the brother had agreedto have Jesus
try the case. The man is taking Jesus as a typical rabbi, for the rabbis

customarily gave decisions on disputed points of law. Jesus, however, refused
to have anything to do with it. (TNTC-Luke)
Teacher(1320)Seedidaskalos, "a title that shows people view him as a
respectedrabbi. A rabbi would often settle such disputes about inheritance
because the regulations on them appear in the Pentateuchand the rabbi
interpreted Torah(Deut. 21:15–17;Num. 27:1–11;36:7–9)(Bock)
Brother (80) See adelphos
Divide (3307)(merizo from meris = a part) means to divide, part, share,
separate. To make an allotment (distribute, dealout, assign, apportionHe 7:2,
2 Cor 10:13, Ro 12:3)
An interesting (telling) figurative use of merizo is found in Hosea 10:2 "their
heart is faithless (Hebrew = slippery, smooth" - TWOT says "Theirheart is
divided" (Hos 10:2KJV) is better takenas "is false" (RSV) that is, figurative
of the fickle heart."). Here merizo translates the Hebrew word chalaq
(smooth) with merizo, to picture their heart as divide. Contrastthe prayer in
Ps 86:22 "unite my heart" (Give me an undivided heart).
Friberg - divide, separate;(1) as separating into component parts divide (Mt
12.25);(2) as apportioning out something to someone distribute, divide out,
assign( Ro 12.3), opposite sunago (gather);middle share with someone (Lk
12.13)
Gilbrant - The primary meaning of merizō is “to divide.” The suffix, -izō,
involves the idea of causation, i.e., “to cause ormake a division.” A secondary

meaning of merizō is “to share something with someone,”suchas the
distribution of the tithe of produce to the priests or the distribution of
parental property to the children. In the Septuagint merizō describes God’s
command to divide Canaanamong the 12 tribes (Joshua 13:7-27;14:5). It is
also used to describe the distribution of the spoils of battle (1 Sa 30:24)and
how God provided “portions” for the priests (Levites) to live on since they had
no part of the inherited land (Dt 18:8). In spite of all that Godgave, Israel
persistedin her unfaithfulness to Him and was punished for her divided heart
(Hos 10:2). In addition to the Septuagint, the New Testamentuses merizō to
show that division may destroy (see Matthew 12:25,26).Thus, there is a moral
element in the term. As in the Septuagint, the New Testament uses merizō to
describe the spiritual problem of carnal hearts divided by devotion to God
and to the world. However, merizō does not containthe judicial or legalaspect
of separationas krisis does. Merizō is the most inclusive of its four related
terms in the New Testament. It includes a simple separationas well as a
violent tearing apart. Merizō and diaireō (1238)can be interchangedin the
division and distribution of an estate (Luke 15:12). Two other related words
appear to show different ways that division may occur. Aphorizō (866), “to
divide by setting boundaries, to exclude someone or something,” and chōrizō
(5398), “to divide by separation, divorce, or departure,” clearly are limited in
their scope comparedwith merizō. Schizō (4829), from which the English
word schism is derived, consistentlyinvolves a harsh or violent means of
division.
Merizo - 14xin 13v- allotted(1), apportioned(2), assigned(1), divide(1),
divided(9).
Matthew 12:25 And knowing their thoughts Jesus saidto them, "Any
kingdom divided againstitself is laid waste;and any city or house divided
againstitself will not stand.

Matthew 12:26 "If Satancasts out Satan, he is divided againsthimself; how
then will his kingdom stand?
Mark 3:24 "If a kingdom is divided againstitself, that kingdom cannot stand.
Mark 3:25 "If a house is divided againstitself, that house will not be able to
stand.
Mark 3:26 "If Satan has risen up againsthimself and is divided, he cannot
stand, but he is finished!
Mark 6:41 And He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up
toward heaven, He blessedthe food and broke the loaves and He kept giving
them to the disciples to set before them; and He divided up the two fish among
them all.
Luke 12:13 Someone in the crowd saidto Him, "Teacher, tellmy brother to
divide the family inheritance with me."
Romans 12:3 Forthrough the grace givento me I say to everyone among you
not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as
to have sound judgment, as God has allottedto eacha measure of faith.
1 Corinthians 1:13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you,
was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 7:17 Only, as the Lord has assignedto eachone, as God has
calledeach, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.
1 Corinthians 7:34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is
unmarried, and the virgin, is concernedabout the things of the Lord, that she
may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned
about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
2 Corinthians 10:13 But we will not boastbeyond our measure, but within the
measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach
even as far as you.
Hebrews 7:2 to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the
spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness,
and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace.
Merizo - 25xin 24vin the Septuagint -
Ex 15:9 = " I will divide the spoil"; Nu 26:53 = "he land shall be divided for
an inheritance" Nu 26:55 = "the land shall be divided by lot"; Nu 26:56 =
"their inheritance shall be divided betweenthe larger and the smaller"; Dt.
18:8; Dt. 33:21; Jos. 13:7 "apportion this land for an inheritance"; Jos. 14:5 =
"they divided the land"; Jos. 18:6; 1 Sa 23:28;1 Sa 30:24;1 Ki. 16:21 = "he
people of Israelwere divided into two parts" 1 Ki. 18:6 = "they divided the
land betweenthem to survey it"; Neh. 13:13; Job31:2; Job 39:17; Prov. 8:21;
Prov. 14:18;Prov. 19:14;Prov. 29:24; Isa. 53:12;Jer. 12:14; Jer. 51:34; Dan.
11:4; Hos. 10:2;

MacArthur - This man was indifferent to the profound spiritual truths which
the Lord was communicating and eageronly to fulfill his own selfish desires.
Driven by his crass materialismand growing tired of waiting impatiently for
Jesus to finish, he interrupted Him. His request, although inappropriate
under the circumstances, wasnot unusual. By calling Jesus teacher
(didaskale)the man acknowledgedHim to be a rabbi, and rabbis routinely
arbitrated such civil and family disputes. His request that the Lord tell his
brother to divide the family inheritance with him suggests thathis brother
was also present. No details are given about the man’s motives or the
legitimacy of his claim under the Old Testamentlaws of inheritance (cf. Num.
27:1–11;Deut. 21:15–17). In any case, he was not asking Jesus to weigh his
claim on its merits, but rather to arbitrarily rule in his favor.
NET Note on Tell my brother - In 1stcentury Jewishculture, a figure like a
rabbi was often askedto mediate disputes, except that here mediation was not
requested, but representation.
Keathley - The law of primogeniture says (Num 27:1-11 Deut 21:15)that the
first born gets a double portion. If you had two brothers, you divided the
estate three ways and the oldestgot two parts. So guess whichson this is. He is
the youngestson.
If he is asking this, what does that tell us about his father? His dad has just
died. That will set us up for a very significant part of the parable.
This shows that he is greedy. From here on we will refer to him as the greedy
brother.

The greedybrother is not following the ideal of living in harmony with his
brother. Ps 133:1says,“How goodand pleasantit is when brothers live
togetherin unity!” I would assume this man knew the Scriptures but did not
care. The greedy brother treasuredriches more than his relationship with his
brother. He did not love people. (Parable of the Rich Fool)
Steven Cole - If I had been Jesus, I probably would have thought, “Where was
this guy during my sermon?” The man was consumedwith his problem and
he had come to try to get Jesus to solve his problem. He wasn’t there to have
Jesus change his heart. He wanted his problem fixed without confronting
some deeper issues ofsin in his life. In his mind, his problem was his greedy
brother who wasn’tgiving him his fair share of the inheritance. Surely, Jesus
would see the injustice of this situation and right the wrong! But instead, the
man got something he hadn’t bargained for! Jesus saw that his words
revealedhis heart. The man’s heart problem was not his brother’s greed, but
his owngreed. Yes, the brother may have also been greedy, and Jesus’
parable was not just directed to the man, but to “them,” which probably
included the brother along with the whole crowd. But this man had his focus
on getting what he wanted in this world. Jesus shows him that his true need
was to be ready for the next world. So the Lord refused to take the role of
judge betweenthe man and his brother. Instead, He showedthe man how to
be really rich, namely, how to be rich toward God. (How To Be Really Rich)
ILLUSTRATION - A story that my college Englishprofessorrelatedto the
freshman English class soundedlike it had been scripted by Tennessee
Williams, but it was her own real-life drama. She and her five sisters had
grown up in a small Midwestern town during the Depressionwhere her
father, despite the difficulties of the time, rose to become a successfulbanker.
She had gone off to a university, but her sisters stayedclose to home, married,
and settleddown. She likewise married and taught on the WestCoast. When
her aging father died, she and her husband hurried home for the funeral. As
they comfortedher poor mother, they noticed in mute amazement that

everything in the house had been taggedby the other sisters with their
names—Judy’s, Margaret’s, Annie’s. She and her husband were appalled but
said nothing. The table was set, and dinner was servedamidst mounting
tension and awkwardconversation. There were long periods of acrimonious
silence. Thenher husband stood, stepped behind their mother’s chair, and
said, “Everyone’s taggedwhatthey want. We’re placing our tag on what we
want.” And he placed his hands on their poor mother’s shoulders. Greedis
always ugly. Covetousnesscanturn a family’s mutual mourning into an orgy
of hatred. (Preaching the Word-Luke)
Luke 12:14 But He said to him, "Man, who appointed Me a judge or
arbitrator overyou?"
KJV Luke 12:14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a
divider over you?
Man Luke 5:20; 22:58;Ro 2:1,3; 9:20
who appointed Me Ex 2:14; Jn 6:15; 8:11; 18:35,36
JESUS REFUSES TO
ARBITRATE A FAMILY SQUABBLE
But He said to him - Jesus as He so often did, respondedto the question with
another question. But clearly, He used this question as a point to launch into a
discourse warning againstthe dangers of greed. Jesus knew that the real

problem was not the inheritance but the hearts of the two brothers, and so He
uses this providential interruption to speak on the deadly danger of greedand
covetousness.
As Wiersbe says this man who interrupted "wantedJesus to solve his
problems but not save him from his covetousness!Had Jesus made a just
division of the property, this would not have solved the problem, for “the
heart of every problem is the problem in the heart.” (Wiersbe’s Expository
Outlines on the New Testament)
Man is not exactlya cordial response. MacArthur in fact says it is "an
unsympathetic response;the term, like the English word “mister,” was used to
address strangers"
Bock - The vocative anthrōpe, man, can be harsh (Luke 22:58, 60; Ro 2:1, 3;
9:20; James 2:20) or gentle (Lk 5:20; 1 Ti 6:11) depending on the context.
Here it is a rebuke. (Ibid)
Appointed (put in charge)(2525)See kathistemi
NET Note on man - This term of address canbe harsh or gentle depending on
the context. Here it is a rebuke.
As Morris reminds us "He came to bring people to God, not to bring property
to people. In this situation he was concernedwith the attitudes of those
involved, not with who got what." (Ibid)

Hendriksen - The Masterknew very wellthat the petitioner's preoccupation
with strictly mundane affairs had its root in cupidity. Therefore he now issues
a warning, addressednot only to this man but to the entire multitude. (Ibid)
NET Note on over you - The pronoun humas is plural, referring to both the
man and his brother; thus the translation "you two."
Wiersbe comments "As long as both men were greedy, no settlement would be
satisfactory. Theirgreatestneedwas to have their hearts changed. Like too
many people today, they wantedJesus to serve them but not to save them."
(Bible Exposition Commentary)
Judge (2923)(krites from krino = to judge) is one who has the right to render a
decisionin legalmatters or make a decisionbasedon examination and
evaluation ( Mt 5:25; Lk 12:14, 58;18:2, 6, 15 Acts 24:10). Of God as Judge
(Heb 12:23, James 4:12, 2 Ti 4:8, Acts 10:42, cf James 5:9. See uses below in
Pslams). Krites also refers to "one who rules in a specialsense in the accounts
of Israel’s theocratic period" (BDAG) such as uses in Lxx = Jdg 2:16, 18, 19,
Ru 1:1, Acts 13:20). Judge can refer in a generalsense to anyone who passes
judgment or appoints to himself judgment on anything (James 4:11; James
2:4)
Liddell-Scott - krites was used"at Athens, of the judges in the poetic
contests."A krites - "an interpreter of dreams." (Aeschylus)
Gilbrant - In classicalGreekthis noun generallymeans “judge, umpire,”
frequently in a competitive context (i.e., “the judges in the poetic contests,”cf.
Liddell-Scott). In the Septuagint kritēs is also used in a specialsense referring
to the leaders Godraised up in the period betweenJoshua and King Saul, the
time of the “judges.” Whenoutlining the history of the Jews, Paulpreached,
“And after that he gave unto them judges” (Acts 13:20). These leaders did act
as judges over lawsuits, so “judge” is not an inappropriate title for them, but

this was only one of their functions. In later Greek kritēs was more frequently
used to designate a “judge” in a court of law. Both the Septuagint and New
Testamentuse kritēs in this sense referring to both men and God. Jesus
taught, “Agree with thine adversary quickly . . . lest at any time the adversary
deliver thee to the judge” (Matthew 5:25). And in the parable about a
woman’s persistent prayer, Jesus began, “There was in a city a judge” (Luke
18:2). It is also used of God in many places. An example is in Hebrews where
it says “to Godthe Judge of all” (Hebrews 12:23).
Krites - 19x in 17v - judge(15), judges(4).
Matthew 12:27 "If I by Beelzebulcastout demons, by whom do your sons
castthem out? For this reasonthey will be your judges.
Luke 11:19 "And if I by Beelzebulcastout demons, by whom do your sons
castthem out? So they will be your judges.
Luke 12:14 But He said to him, "Man, who appointed Me a judge or
arbitrator overyou?"
Luke 12:58 "Forwhile you are going with your opponent to appearbefore
the magistrate, onyour way there make an effort to settle with him, so that he
may not drag you before the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer,
and the officer throw you into prison.
Luke 18:2 saying, "In a certaincity there was a judge who did not fear God
and did not respectman.

Luke 18:6 And the Lord said, "Hearwhat the unrighteous judge said;
Acts 10:42 "And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to
testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the
living and the dead.
Acts 13:20 "After these things He gave them judges until Samuel the prophet.
Acts 18:15 but if there are questions about words and names and your own
law, look after it yourselves;I am unwilling to be a judge of these matters."
Acts 24:10 When the governorhad nodded for him to speak, Paulresponded:
"Knowing that for many years you have been a judge to this nation, I
cheerfully make my defense,
2 Timothy 4:8 in the future there is laid up for me the crownof righteousness,
which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will awardto me on that day; and not
only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.
Hebrews 12:23 to the generalassemblyand church of the firstborn who are
enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the
righteous made perfect,
James 2:4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become
judges with evil motives?

James 4:11 Do not speak againstone another, brethren. He who speaks
againsta brother or judges his brother, speaksagainstthe law and judges the
law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doerof the law but a judge of it.
James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to
save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?
James 5:9 Do not complain, brethren, againstone another, so that you
yourselves may
not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.
Krites - 19/17 51xin 49v in the Septuagint
Deut. 1:15 = "officers (Heb = shoter = official; Lxx = krites) for your tribes";
Deut. 1:16; Deut. 16:18;Deut. 17:9; Deut. 17:12;Deut. 19:17;Deut. 19:18;
Deut. 21:2; Deut. 25:2; Deut. 29:10; Deut. 31:28;Jdg. 2:16-19 ("Then the
LORD raisedup judges "); Ruth 1:1; 1 Sam. 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11; 2 Sam. 15:4;
2 Ki. 23:22; 1 Chr. 17:10;1 Chr. 23:4; 1 Chr. 28:1; 2 Chr. 1:2; 2 Chr. 19:5; 2
Chr. 19:6; 2 Chr. 26:11; 2 Chr. 34:13; Ezr. 7:25; Ezr. 10:14; Job 9:24; Job
12:17;Job 13:8; Ps. 7:11; Ps. 50:6; Ps. 68:5; Ps. 75:7; Ps. 141:6;Ps. 148:11;
Isa. 1:26; Isa. 30:18;Isa. 33:21; Isa. 63:7; Dan. 9:12; Hos. 7:7; Amos 2:3; Mic.
7:3; Hab. 1:3; Zeph. 3:3
Ps 7:11 God is a righteous Judge, And a God who has indignation every day.

Ps 50:6 And the heavens declare His righteousness,ForGod Himself is Judge.
Selah.
Ps 68:5 A father of the fatherless and a Judge for the widows, Is God in His
holy habitation.
Ps 75:7 But God is the Judge; He puts down one and exalts another.
Arbitrator (3312)(meristes)one who decides a dispute over inheritance. It is
related to the more common word merismos which denotes “a division” or
“partition” (from meros = “a part”).
TDNT on mesites - A first use of mesítēs is for the trustworthy neutral, e.g.,
the umpire (The "neutral" whom both sides can trust. He may be an umpire)
or guarantor. Thus we find the word for a. the legalarbiter, b. the witness, c.
the sequester, d. the pawnbroker, e. the guarantor, and f. a warehouse official.
More generalsenses are 2. “intermediary,” and 3. “negotiator.”mesiteúō
means 1. “to actas umpire,” 2. “to occupya middle place,” and 3. “to
establisha relation betweentwo hitherto unrelated entities.” . The OT.
mesiteúō does not occurin the LXX and mesítēs only in Job9:33. Hebrew has
no single term for “mediator” but we find words meaning “interpreter” and
“negotiator.”2.Rabbinic Judaism. The business world brings the idea of the
negotiatoror broker into rabbinic thought, in which it takes ona figurative
sense.3.Hellenistic Judaism. Josephus uses the terms only in a secularsense.
Philo starts with this but gives added depth to the idea of the “mediator,”
using both noun and verb mostly in a religious sense.
Luke 12:15 Then He said to them, "Beware, andbe on your guard against
every form of greed;for not even when one has an abundance does his life
consistof his possessions."

KJV Luke 12:15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of
covetousness:for a man's life consistethnot in the abundance of the things
which he possesseth.
Amplified - "And He said to them, Guard yourselves and keepfree from all
covetousness (the immoderate desire for wealth, the greedy longing to have
more); for a man's life does not consistin and is not derived from possessing
overflowing abundance or that which is over and above his needs.
Beware, andbe on your guard againstevery form of greedLuke 8:14; 16:14;
21:34;Joshua 7:21; Job 31:24,25;Ps 10:3; 62:10; 119:36,37;Pr 23:4,5;28:16;
Jer 6:13; 22:17,18;Micah2:2; Hab 2:9; Mark 7:22; 1 Cor 5:10,11;6:10; Eph
5:3-5; Colossians3:5; 1 Ti 6:7-10; 2 Ti 3:2; Heb 13:5; 2 Peter2:3,14
for not even when one has an abundance does his life consistof his possessions
Job 2:4; Ps 37:16;Pr 15:16;16:16; Eccl4:6-8; 5:10-16;Mt 6:25,26;1 Ti 6:6-8
EN GARDE:
ON GUARD!
Then He said to them - Here Jesus is surely speaking notjust to the man who
interrupted Him and not just to His disciples but to the entire crowd, for this
warning is necessaryfor every human being!

MacArthur - Refusing to sit in judgment on a dispute about money, Jesus
instead rendered a far more important judgment on the sin of greed.
Hendriksen - This is a most earnestwarning. Let every listener take it to
heart. Let him begin to take inventory. Let him make it his serious business to
ask himself again and again, "Am I perhaps a greedy individual? Do I
experience joy in giving, in helping along goodcauses?Oram I, perhaps, a
selfishperson? Do I have an inordinate yearning for material possessions?For
honor, prestige? Forpower and position? Briefly, am I greedy?" (Ibid)
Wiersbe - Mark Twain once defined "civilization" as "a limitless
multiplication of unnecessarynecessities,"and he was right. In fact, many
Christians are infected with covetousnessanddo not know it. They think that
Paul's admonition in 1 Timothy 6:5-19 applies only to the "rich and famous."
Measuredby the living standards of the rest of the world, most believers in
America are indeed wealthy people. (Ibid)
Solomon(probably the richest man who ever lived) ironically wrote...
He who loves money will not be satisfiedwith money, nor he who loves
abundance with its income. This too is vanity. (Eccl5:10)
Paul warned
For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it
have wandered awayfrom the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
(1 Ti 6:10)
Beware, andbe on your guard againstevery form of greed - Observe the two
commands which are "synergistic" forbeware means to perceive.

Covetousnessby its very nature is subtle and can slither into a heart if one is
not on continually on the lookout(We ALL understand this pernicious pitfall
don't we, whether its our neighbor's new car, etc). So first you have to "see"
the slithering sin, and secondly, you have to put up a guard around your heart
so that it can't gain easyentrance. Every form is literally "all" but this
translation does rightly suggestthat "greed" or"covetousness" comesin
different "shapes and sizes" but ALL are similarly sinister! Be ware and be
on guard. Jesus'words remind me of the fencing term En garde which of
course is Frenchfor "on guard" and is spokenat outset of the engagementto
warn the participants to take a defensive position (picture).
Against every form of greed - Note the warning is not just againstMONEY,
but "allkinds of greed!" This includes coveting your neighbor's house, car,
wife (husband), clothing, etc! EVERY FORM!
Crawford - This most important statementgets to the very root of the evil of
covetousness,whichis literally a "lust for things"; these things are idols that
displace God in the heart and life (Col 3:5, 6-note) and cause souls to be
damned, as the following accountexplains. The Lord's summary of a life is
most tragic or most blessed. He summed up the life of anotherrich man in one
brief sentence (16:19). All of human history and all our personalexperience
teachus the truth of the Lord's words. When man, with his eternal soul,
attempts to make life out of the possessions he can gain, he comes to
disappointment, emptiness, despair and eternalloss. The presentworld,
devoid of meaning for so many who live for it, gives powerful testimony to the
truth of the Lord's words. Prefacedby "Take heed, and beware", the Lord
makes this warning very personaland pointed. "Beware" means to stand
guard againstthe vicious attack of a deadly foe. A similar warning is given by
Paul againstthose who "will be rich" (1 Tim 6:9). (What the Bible teaches –
Luke)
Beware (presentimperative - command to continually take
heed)(3708)(horao)means to see, observe, recognize, perceive, attendto

(mentally and spiritually), and in this passage means to "see to it, take care,
take heed." Jesus usedthis command severaltimes in Matthew - Matt. 9:30;
Matt. 16:6; Matt. 18:10;Matt. 24:6; and once in Mk. 8:15.
Jesus uses horao in severalwarnings - Mt 8:4, Mt 9:30, Mt 16:6, Mt 18:10, Mt
24:6, Mk 1:44, 8:15, Jesus uses horao in John 6 "But I said to you, that you
have seenMe, and yet do not believe." (Jn 6:36, cf Jn 6:46, 8:38, 9:37, 14:7, 9,
15:24, 20:29 John's witness - John 19:35)
Be on your guard (present imperative - command to continually stand guard)
(5442)(phulasso)means to watch, to carry out the function as a military guard
or sentinel (cp Acts 23:35, 28:16), to keepwatch, to have one's eye upon lest
one escape,to guard a personthat he might remain safe (from violence, from
another person or thing, from being snatchedaway, from being lost). The NT
uses phulasso of guarding truth (eg, 1Ti 5:21, 6:20, 2Ti1:14-note)
J R Miler commenting on Luke 12:15 wrote "Few people think of the danger
of getting rich. Mostthink that they become great—justin proportion as they
gather wealth. Yet there never was a more fatal error! A man is really
measuredby what he IS—not by what he HAS. We may find a shriveled soul
in the midst of a greatfortune; and a noble soulin the barest poverty. A man's
real "life" is what would be left of him—if everything he has were stripped
off. His real 'worth' is his character, as it appears in God's sight. We will
make a greatmistake if our goalin life—is simply to gathermore worldly
trinkets than our neighbor!"
The fact that Jesus warns with two verbs and both are in the present tense
indicates the dangeris everpresent that greedcould come in and corrupt a
disciple's witness.

REMEMBERGOD SAYS
GREED IS IDOLATRY!
Paul states this principle two times
For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure personor
covetous man, who is (Greek - estin in the present tense = continually, as his
habitual practice lives as)an idolater (eidololatres), has an inheritance in the
kingdom of Christ and God (i.e., THEY ARE NOT REGENERATE,BORN
AGAIN!). (Eph 5:5-note) (Ed: No wonder Paul commands us to flee idolatry
in 1 Cor 10:14).
Therefore considerthe members of your earthly body as dead (command) to
immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to
idolatry (eidololatreia). (Col3:5-note)
Greed(covetousness)(4124)(pleonexia from pleíon = more + écho = have)
means literally to have more and describes a strong, insatiable desire to
acquire more possessionsforself, especiallythose things we have no right to
possess. The desire to have more is irrespective of the need and thus the word
always conveys a bad sense. Pleonexia has beendefined as "the spirit which
snatches (rootverb echo = "to have") at that which it is not right to take, the
baneful appetite for that which belongs to others." It is the spirit which
snatches atthings, not to hoard them like a miser, but to spend them in lust
and luxury.
Hendriksen - The Greek wordfor greedis very descriptive. Literally it means:
the thirst for having more, always having more and more and still more. It is
as if a man in order to quench his thirst takes a drink of salt water, which

happens to be the only waterthat is available. This makes him still more
thirsty. So he drinks againand again, until his thirst kills him. In this
connectionthink also of one of the German words for greed:die Habgier; cf.
the Dutch: hebzucht, the uncontrolled yearning to have... have... have...
more... and... more... and still more. (Ibid)
Louw-Nida says pleonexia is "a strong desire to acquire more and more
material possessionsorto possess more things than other people have, all
irrespective of need."
Covetousnesswas regardedby Jews as an extremely heinous sin, a
characteristic ofpagans who were separatedfrom God.
Even a pagan like Plato had the sense to recognize "The desire of man is like a
sieve or a pierced vesselwhich he ever tries to, and cannever fill."
Solomonwisely observed, “He who loves money will not be satisfiedwith
money, nor he who loves abundance with its income” (Eccl. 5:10).
John Trapp - Covetous men by gaping after more lose the pleasure of that
they posses,as a dog at his master’s table swalloweththe whole meat he
castethhim without any pleasure, gaping still for the next morsel.
NET Note - Note the warning covers more than money and gets at the root
attitude - the strong desire to acquire more and more possessions and
experiences.
Contentment is the opposite of covetousness. Attacking covetousness lays the
ax to a rootcause of sin because pleonexia is the root of the other sins listed (in

Col 3:5). When contentment replaces covetousness, the latter cannotgive rise
to the process thatculminates in an actof sin.
Hughes - The book of Proverbs views greed as the dividing line between
righteous and evil people: “All day long he craves for more, but the righteous
give without sparing” (Pr 21:26). The apostle Paul repeatedly condemned
greed:“But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or
of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s
holy people” (Ephesians 5:3). To the Ephesian elders he proclaimed, “I have
not covetedanyone’s silver or gold or clothing” (Acts 20:33). (Ibid)
A LIFE GIVING
PRINCIPLE
Hughes observes the principle that "The greedyperson lives as if the most
important things of life are assuredwhen they have amassedthe superfluous.
But Jesus said, “A man’s life does not consistin the abundance of his
possessions.”Materialexcesswillnever make one alive or happy or fulfilled.
It is perhaps understandable to be fooled when you are fifteen. But at fifty, or
seventy-five? How utterly foolish!"
Darrell Bock adds that "The danger of the pursuit of possessions is that it can
make one insensitive to people. Greedcan create a distortion about what life
is, because the definition of life is not found in objects, but relationships,
especiallyto God and his will. To define life in terms of things is the ultimate
reversalof the creature serving the creationand ignoring the Creator(Ro
1:18–32)....Jesus willtell a parable to illustrate just how foolishthis position is.
Reallife, he argues, possessesa far different focus. Reallife is tied to God, his
offer of forgiveness ofsins, his values, and his reward" (Ibid)

For not even when one has an abundance does his life consistof his
possessions- NLT paraphrases this "Life is not measuredby how much you
own." Phillips paraphrases it "Fora man's reallife in no way depends upon
the number of his possessions." Amplified translations says "for a man's life
does not consistin and is not derived from possessing overflowing abundance
or that which is over and above his needs.
Has abundance (4052)(perisseuofrom perissos = abundant, exceeding some
number, measure, rank or need, over and above) means to cause to
superabound, to be superfluous, to overflow, to be in affluence, to excelor to
be in abundance with the implication of being considerably more than what
would be expected.
Mattoonamplifies on greedor covetousness - The covetous personis piggish
in priorities. Self is number one in his considerations andchoices. He is like
the horse-leechcrying "Give! Give!" His focus is on things. His futility is the
fact he is never satisfiedand always wanting more. The foundation of his
problems is the fact he is selfish, lacks contentment and satisfaction. The
funnel of his problems is the lust of the flesh, eyes, and pride of life. His
frustration is the fact that his possessions do not satisfyhim. He feels left out
or is missing out on life. He also feels he is not treated fairly because youhave
something that he does not have, and he has just gotto have it, too.
Covetousnessis the acid of avarice, a cancerof corruption and carnality that
eats awayat the health of societyturning people into beasts. It causesto
people to demand what they have not earned and have a spirit that says, "You
owe me! What you have is mine!" Covetousnesscauses people to:burn in
their hearts for the possessions ofothers, learn to deceive their neighbor,
looking upon him as a competitor, spurn the rebukes and warnings of
Scripture and the conscience,turn from honesty and hard work to dishonest
means, yearn for more after you getwhat you want. The Bible says, "The
blessings ofthe Lord maketh rich and he addeth no sorrow with it." On the

other hand, the bounty of covetousnessleaves one deceived, distracted,
discouraged, and depressedfrom the need for more, from selfishness, from a
lack of satisfactionofpossessions,and from the guilt which comes from the
unlawful means by which things were attained. Like the sharp fangs of a
rattlesnake that injects its venom into its victim, covetousnesswillpoison your
heart, infecting it with a spirit of greedthat will cause you to deceive, make
dangerous decisions, ordisregardthe needs of others. This is amply illustrated
all throughout the Bible in the lives of people with catastrophic
consequences....Covetousnessis a mother sin that spawns other sins. It is
interesting to note that the Ten Commandments have their roots in the tenth
commandment which says, "Thou shalt not covetthy neighbor's house, thou
shalt not covetthy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant,
nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's (Exodus 20:13)."
Hampton Keathley IV - vs. 15. gives us a big clue as to what the point of the
parable is. Jesus condemns greedand warns that even if the man gets a larger
share of the inheritance, it will not bring life.
People don’t believe this. They think that if they can only getenough material
things these things will produce the abundant life.
Do riches bring the abundant life? Listen to what Andrew Carnegie had to
say:
"Millionaires who laugh," said Andrew Carnegie, "are rare. “Youmay have
all the money in the world, and yet be a lonely, sorrowing man.”
Sir EarnestCasselsaid, “The light has gone out of my life. I live in this
beautiful house, which I have furnished with all the luxury and wonder of art;

but, believe me, I no longer value my millions. I sit here for hours every night
longing for my beloved daughter."
And Christina Onassis said, "Happiness is not basedon money and the
greatestproofof that is our family." (Readher sadstory)
(Ed comment: Who knows how money warped Onassis? In the 1991
biography All the Pain That MoneyCan Buy, author William Wright details
how Onassis spent$30,000 a pop to send a private jet to America to keepher
stockedin Diet Coke, and once senta helicopter from Austria to Switzerland
to retrieve a David Bowie cassette she'dleft there. When friends said they
were too busy to spend time with her, Onassis would give them cash –– as
much as $30,000a month –– to cleartheir schedules.)
Do you believe these stories? Ordo you think it would be different for you if
you had lots of money? (Ibid)
GREED - ILLUSTRATIONS - In the days following her flight from the
Philippines with her deposedhusband, revelations about Imelda Marcos made
her name a synonym for greed. What can a womando with thousands of pairs
of shoes? But the Imelda Marcos syndrome operates throughout the economic
scale. The term “greed” means simply “a consuming desire to have more”; it
has the nuance of a grasping for more, a lust to acquire. It is the very opposite
of the contentment that accompanies true godliness (1 Timothy 6:6).
Someone once askedJohnD. Rockefellerhow much money was enough. “One
dollar more,” he replied. The beastof greed is never full. It is insatiable.

We miss the point, however, if we see covetousnessas an issue of amount not
attitude. The poorestcan be greedy; the richestcan avoid greed. But the
danger of possessionsis that they often arouse the desire for more.
Ivan Boesky, who wentto prison and paid a fine of $100 million for insider
trading was, a few years earlier, the darling of Wall Street. During that time
he declaredat a graduation ceremonyat a major university, “Greedis all
right. I want you to know I think greedis healthy. You can be greedy and still
feel goodabout yourself.” As Newsweeklatercommented, “The strangest
thing when we look back will not be just that Ivan Boeskycouldsay that at a
business schoolgraduation, but that it was greetedwith laughter and
applause” (December1, 1986).
In the 1950s,wrestling was almostas popular as it is at present (and just as
authentic!). The European champion was Yussif the Turk, who came to
America to fight Strangler Lewis for the “world championship” and $5,000.
Yussif won and insisted that the $5,000 be paid in gold, which he stuffed into
his championship belt. The money mattered so much that he refused to
remove the belt until he had reachedhome safely. Boarding the first available
ship to Europe, he headed home. But halfway across the Atlantic, the ship
foundered in a storm and beganto sink. In a panic, Yussif jumped for a
lifeboat, missed, and went straight to the bottom. His golden belt had become
a golden anchor, a vivid illustration of the Lord’s words. (From Gary Inrig -
The Parables)
Quotes on Greed and Covetousness
Big mouthfuls often choke. Anon.
No gain satisfies a greedy mind. Anon.

Jesus was warning against covetousness

Jesus was warning against covetousness

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was warning against covetousness

Similar to Jesus was warning against covetousness (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (18)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (16)

Jesus was warning against covetousness