13 One of the multitude said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me."
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Bid my brother divide Our Lord, when requested to undertake the office of dividing an inheritance, refuses to do so. Now as this tended to promote brotherly harmony, and as Christ's office was, not only to reconcile men to God, but to bring them into a state of agreement with one another, what hindered him from settling the dispute between the two brothers? [1] There appear to have been chiefly two reasons why he declined the office of a judge. First, as the Jews imagined that the Messiah would have an earthly kingdom, [2] he wished to guard against doing any thing that might countenance this error. If they had seen him divide inheritances, the report of that proceeding would immediately have been circulated. Many would have been led to expect a carnal redemption, which they too ardently desired; and wicked men would have loudly declared, that he was effecting a revolution in the state, and overturning the Roman Empire. Nothing could be more appropriate, therefore, than this reply, by which all would be informed, that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual. Let us learn from this to regulate our conduct by prudence, and to undertake nothing which may admit of an unfavorable construction. Secondly, our Lord intended to draw a distinction between the political kingdoms of this world and the government of his Church; for he had been appointed by the Father to be a Teacher, who should divide asunder, by the sword of the word, the thoughts and feelings, and penetrate into the souls of men, (Hebrews 4:12,) but was not a magistrate to divide inheritances This condemns the robbery of the Pope and his clergy, who, while they give themselves out to be pastors of the Church, have dared to usurp an earthly and secular jurisdiction, which is inconsistent with their office; for what is in itself lawful may be improper in certain persons. There was also in my opinion, a third reason of great weight. Christ saw that this man was neglecting doctrine, and was looking only to his private concerns. This is too common a disease. Many who profess the Gospel do not scruple to make use of it as a false pretense for advancing their private interests, and to plead the authority of Christ as an apology for their gains. From the exhortations [3] which is immediately added, we may readily draw this inference; for if that man had not availed himself of the Gospel as a pretext for his own emolument, Christ would not have taken occasion to give this warning against covetousness The context, therefore, makes it sufficiently evident, that this was a pretended disciple, whose mind was entirely occupied with lands or money. It is highly absurd in the Anabaptists to infer from this reply, that no Christian man has a right to divide inheritances, to take a part in legal decisions, or to discharge any public office. Christ does not argue from the nature of the thing itself, but from his own calling. Having been appointed by the Father for a different purpose, he declares that he is not a judge, because he has received no such command. Let us hold by this rule, that every one keep within the limits of the calling which God has given him.
1 - "On pourroit demander qui a empesche qu'il ne se soit entremis d'oster toute occasion de debat entre deux freres?" -- "It might be asked, what hindered him from undertaking to remove all ground of quarrel between two brothers?"
2 - "Que le Messias regneroit a la facon des princes terriens;" -- "that the Messiah would reign in the manner of earthly princes."
3 - "En considerant la circonstance de l'exhortation qui est ici adioustee, il est aise a iuger que cestuy-ci estoit mene d'une telle affection perverse;" --"by considering the circumstance of the exhortation which is here added, it may easily be inferred that this man was under the influence of such a wicked disposition."
One of the company - One of the multitude. This man had probably had a dispute with his brother, supposing that his brother had refused to do him justice. Conceiving that Jesus had power over the people - that what he said must be performed - he endeavored to secure him on his side of the dispute and gain his point. From the parable which follows, it would appear that he had no "just" claim on the inheritance, but was influenced by covetousness. Besides, if he "had" any just claim, it might have been secured by the laws of the land,
Speak to my brother - Command my brother.
Divide the inheritance - An inheritance is the property which is left by a father to his children. Among the Jews the older brother had two shares, or twice as much as any other child, Deuteronomy 21:17. The remainder was then equally divided among all the children.
Speak to my brother, that he divide - Among the Jews, the children had the inheritance of their fathers divided among them; the eldest had a double portion, but all the rest had equal parts. It is likely the person complained of in the text was the elder brother; and he wished to keep the whole to himself - a case which is far from being uncommon. The spirit of covetousness cancels all bonds and obligations, makes wrong right, and cares nothing for father or brother.
(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 teach us to beware of those which abuse the show of the gospel, and also the name of ministers, for their own private well-being.
And one of the company said unto him,.... Not one 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 Deuteronomy 21:17 had a double portion: but the eider brother here, it seems, was for keeping all, and would not divide any part to his younger brother; wherefore he applies to Christ, to interpose his authority, which he imagined would have great weight with his brother, who might be a hearer of Christ, and favourer of him: or however, such was the fame of Christ, and such credit he obtained by his ministry and miracles, that he concluded a word from him, would go a great way with his brother, to engage him to make a right and proper division, as he ought; and especially, if he looked upon him, as the king Messiah the Jews expected, he might take this to be part of his work and office, to settle such civil affairs as these: we often read in the Jewish writings, of brethren dividing their substance, left by their parents; so it is said (f),
, "brethren that divide", (a field,) give two corners (to the poor); if they return and become partners, they give but one.''
Where there were but two brethren, as here, the one was called "the firstborn"; and the other, "simple"; having no title or character: and concerning dividing inheritances, there are the following rules (g):
"the firstborn takes a double portion of his father's goods, as is said, 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 grown up may take their part, the sanhedrim appoint a guardian for the little ones, and he chooses a good part for them: and when they are grown up, they cannot make it void, for lo, by the decree of the sanhedrim, they divided for them; but if the sanhedrim err in computation, and give them less, they may make it void, and make another division when, they are grown up.''
But it would be tedious to transcribe all the rules, relating to such cases.
(f) Misn. Peah, c. 3. sect. 5. (g) Maimon. Hilchot Nechalot, c. 2. sect. 1. 7. (h) Maimon. Hilchot Nechalot, c. 10. sect. 1, 2, 3, 4.
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 of worldly 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 wealth of 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 exactly that of a prudent, worldly man, who has no grateful regard 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 professed Christians, 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 great crop 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 poorest beggar in 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 good to others. Carnal worldlings are fools; and the day is coming when God will call them by their own name, and they will call themselves 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 account of 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 soul and eternity.
COVETOUSNESS--WATCHFULNESS--SUPERIORITY TO EARTHLY TIES. (Luke 12:13-53)
Master, &c.--that is, "Great Preacher of righteousness, help; there is need of Thee in this rapacious world; here am I the victim of injustice, and that from my own brother, who withholds from me my rightful share of the inheritance that has fallen to us." In this most inopportune intrusion upon the solemnities of our Lord's teaching, there is a mixture of the absurd and the irreverent, the one, however, occasioning the other. The man had not the least idea that his case was not of as urgent a nature, and as worthy the attention of our Lord, as anything else He could deal with.
One of the company said. This question concerning the inheritance, and the parable of the Rich Fool that follows, are only found in Luke.
Speak to my brother. The man wished to enlist Christ's moral power for his pecuniary advantage. Whether his brother had wronged him or not is not stated, but the Lord's business was not to gain acres of land and money for men, and hence he replies: Who made me a judge or a divider over you? It was not his mission to look after temporal gains, but to save the souls of men.
*More commentary available at chapter level.