While Jesus was teaching his own disciples in the presence of an innumerable multitude (Luke 12:1), he was interrupted by a bystander (Luke 12:13). The man asked Jesus to arbitrate between him and his brother concerning an inheritance. Contextually, their father had died. The problem is, is the man’s question legitimate or has he been put up to it by one of the rabbis? The man’s question could be legitimate, because this thing was often done among the ancient Jews, hoping a rabbi could bring about a judicious settlement between quarreling members of a family. On the other hand, it is probably more likely that the man was a disciple of one of the rabbis, and the rabbi sought to discredit Jesus.
Assuming the question is legitimate, the man could have been a half brother, whose mother had fallen into disfavor of a man having two wives or the man may have divorced her so he could marry the woman who became the mother of the brother who inherited his estate (cf. Deuteronomy 21:15-17). The Law says the firstborn of the woman who had fallen into the disfavor of her husband should be acknowledged and inherit. In the case set before Jesus, the man who had interrupted his teaching could have been the son of the hated wife.
On the other hand, if the man was told to ask Jesus this question, what might be its intention? In such a case where a trap was set for Jesus, the man could have been a disciple of one of the rabbis and told to interrupt Jesus’ teaching. Arbitration between quarreling brothers was done for a fee, and at times the rabbi could become the executer of the estate, thus empowering him even more.[1] This was one of the things to which Jesus pointed that had corrupted the judgment of the Pharisees and rabbis (cf. Matthew 23:14). So, if Jesus could have been convinced to be an arbiter between this man and his brother (even if Jesus charged no fee), Jesus could have been called a hypocrite for condemning the Pharisees and rabbis for doing what he was willing to do himself, if asked.
Nevertheless, Jesus immediately replied in a manner that suggests that, if indeed a plot was in the making, he knew what was going on. In Exodus 2:13 Moses tried to arbitrate between two quarreling Israelites. When he did, however, one of them asked what right he had to judge or rule over them (Exodus 2:14). In the beginning of his attempts to help his people, Moses was rejected by his countrymen, just as Jesus was, and Jesus’ reply in Luke 12:14 suggests he knew the man had been put up to interrupting him with his question (cf. Luke 11:53-54).
Consider that the man had come to the Messiah, either in ignorance of Jesus’ claim or understanding Jesus’ claim to that office. Jesus’ decision would be final. In this context, there would be no higher court to which this man might appeal, if he didn’t like what he heard. However, instead of judging between the two, Jesus offered the man advise (Luke 12:15): “Beware of greed!” Life does not equate to the stuff we are able to accumulate. It doesn’t follow that being rich or having an abundance of things guarantees an abundant and full life.
The question we need to ask ourselves is this: if Jesus is teaching the disciples about the Kingdom of God, does he set that teaching aside to run on a tangent about greed, or does this particular form of greed have something to do with life in the Kingdom of God? We need to keep in mind that the context of all that occurs here is done in the hearing and presence of Jesus’ enemies (cf. Luke 11:53-54; see also 11:37-52). Luke doesn’t say, but certainly it can be deduced, that the man who interrupted Jesus’ teaching was a disciple of one of Jesus’ enemies.
We also need to remember, that, although Luke doesn’t mention it, Jesus is in Jerusalem, when this debate occurred. In fact, when Jesus was in Jerusalem, he always taught in the Temple (John 18:20), and the innumerable multitude (Luke 12:1) suggests Jesus was in Jerusalem and teaching at the Temple in the midst of many pilgrims.[2] If this perspective is true, then Jesus wasn’t simply speaking of the use of wealth, although lessons concerning the proper use of this world’s goods can be drawn from Jesus’ words. Rather, Jesus was commenting on how the religious authorities currently used what they had been given as they, at least in name, served God. His point would be, are we so concerned over what might be our fair share of this world’s wealth (or even of the blessings that come from God) that our service to God amounts to one interruption after another, concerning the things we think we need.
______________________________________
[1] See my earlier study: Three Woes Against the Pharisees (Luke 11:42-44), which shows how these men enriched themselves by controlling the estates of rich widows. The same might be done in a case where quarreling brothers couldn’t agree, but were willing to let the rabbi determine the outcome.
[2] In addition to this, the context of the parable itself puts the time of Jesus’ teaching during one of the harvest seasons, which would place him in Jerusalem with the innumerable multitudes either during the spring or the fall harvest seasons. This is also supported in the fact that, although Jesus intended to spend time in Jerusalem (Luke 9:51), the Samaritans refused to offer him their hospitality (Luke 9:52-53), showing that they were jealous of the fact Jesus intended to celebrate one of the annual holy days (Leviticus 23) in Jerusalem rather than their holy place. Since the Samaritans viewed only the Torah as Scriptures, only those holy days mentioned in Leviticus 23 would they also celebrate. They would have had no reason to be jealous, if Jesus intended to go to Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts of Hanukkah or Purim.
Smoodock's Blog 