ZOOLOGY & BIOLOGY THOUGHTS AT THE READING OF THE WILL

THE COVETOUS MAN-AND HIS BROTHER

Luke 12:13-21

        Our article consists of an account in the Gospel according to Luke which begins abruptly. It is the account of an interruption in the teaching of Jesus, which at the time He was giving specially to His own disciples and that under remarkable circumstances. In order for a correct apprehension of the value of it we need to take a little time with some verses which do not at first arrest our attention, but which have a very distinct bearing on the whole matter.

        If we glance back, we find that the chapter 12 opens with these words, "In the mean time." It is important that we understand what that phrase really suggests. It is the translation of the Greek words en ois, which means quite simply, in which; so that we may render, "In which the many thousands of the multitude were gathered together." We see immediately that some explanation of the phrase is needed, and our translators have adopted our phrase, "In the meantime." I think that we may get nearer to the intention of it if we render, "During which things." That necessarily raises the question as to what things were referred to; and going back into the previous chapter we find in vs 53 the words: "When He was come out from thence."

        Once more, that reference raises a question, from whence? And we are introduced to the account of how He had been talking not to His own disciples, but to the rulers and the lawyers, and that in terms of the severest denunciation. It was then that "The scribes and the Pharisees began to press upon Him vehemently." That statement is a very forceful one, and it has been truthfully said that it presents a scene of violence probably unique in the whole record of the life of Jesus. They jostled Him, they pressed upon Him. It was a physical contact of a hostile nature. As they did so, they attempted: "To provoke Him to speak of many things; laying wait for Him, to catch something out of His mouth. During which things when the many thousands of the multitude were gathered together, insomuch that they trod one upon another, He began to say unto His disciples."

        And then followed the teaching given to the disciples, to which we have made reference.

        These then were the circumstances, the rulers so angry that they were literally shoving Him and badgering Him with questions, the vast multitude of people around, and He speaking, in the midst of the tumult, to His own.

        The first thing He did was to warn them against the leaven of these Pharisees which He defined as being "hypocrisy." The main burden of His teaching was that of charging His disciples to trust in God in the midst of all opposition, even unto death. It was in this connection that He said to them: "Be not afraid of them which kill the body and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you Whom ye shall fear, Fear Him, which after He hath killed hath power to cast into Gehenna."

        He then interpreted the nature of fear as being that of an absolute trust in that God Who numbered the hairs of their head. At that point, one of the multitude said: "Master, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me."

        Thus the account is seen to be an interruption on the course of His teaching of His disciples, which He resumed immediately afterwards as we find in the twenty-second verse: "And He said unto His disciples, Therefore, I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on."

        The interruption consisted, then, of a request preferred to our Lord by a nameless man. As we listen to it we at once see that two men are to be recognized. We know the names of neither, and we see one of them through what he said. He was unquestionably observable in the crowd, and was vocal. The other man is not seen. Possibly he was not present. Probably, however, he was. The request which was preferred was one employing the very speech of the Jewish law, and it has an interesting aspect in the place where it is found. The Jewish law of inheritance had to do with a man having a plurality of wives. It provided that if a man had two wives, one whom he loved and the other whom he did not, when he died, the law did not permit him to leave the whole of his inheritance to the son of the woman he loved, while the other son remained unprovided for. He must "divide the inheritance." It may be that behind this request of the man to Jesus lay an account of this kind. Be that as it may, this man became vocal, and treating Jesus as one of the scribes, remitted to Him the case, and asked for a decision, which would compel his brother to divide the inheritance.

        Now as we look at these two men we see quite enough for our purpose. In the case of the man who spoke we hear a cry for justice, and possibly there was justification for his appeal. If his brother who is out of sight and non-vocal were violating the law of inheritance, then there was justification for what this man asked. Even if this were not so, we still see the silent, hidden brother, grasping something which the man appealing felt an action or injustice. It is a saving with which we are very familiar today that possession is nine points of the law. As a matter of fact such a statement is subversive of justice. However, here was the case of a man in possession, and of a man desiring to share the possession.

        As we look at these brothers again, then, though we may grant the probable justification of the plea for justice, we notice that in both cases the utmost subject was the inheritance. One held it. The other wanted to share it. One held it because he wanted it. The other wanted it because he did not hold it. Whether we think of the case of the one or the other, we see that both were concerned with this matter of inheritance. Thus here are two men, both desiring, that is, coveting possession of things on the earthly level.

        As we think of these two men thus revealed, we certainly are inclined to say that their desire does not seem to be a very dreadful one. It is common. The fact, however, that it is common does not redeem it from its ugliness, and that becomes evident when we turn to consider our Lord's dealing with the matter.

        The first response of Jesus was that He sharply refused to do what the man requested and that in a completely repressive manner. It is impossible to read this, either in our English translations, and even more so in the language in which it was written, without hearing a note of definite sternness; something sharply forbidding in our Lord's abrupt dismissal of the request; "Man, who made Me a Judge or a Divider over you?"

        He addressed the one who had preferred his request by the title that reduced him to the plane of common humanity, and by so doing lifted him to the level of the greatness of that humanity, as He called him "Man." In this very method of address our Lord revealed His recognition of the nature of the one preferring the request. He was not an angel. He was not a fiend. He was a man, with all that ever meant when Jesus used the word, and all that it ever ought to mean when we use it. All the possibilities and the dignities and the glories of human nature were thus compressed into a word. One almost feels as though in the very employment of this method of address, He was calling this man away from the low level upon which he was living and thinking and desiring; and compelling him to a recognition of all the truth concerning his personality. That becomes very self-evident as we proceed with the account.

        In this question of Jesus, moreover, there was a recognition of His own authoritative appointment. He said: "Who made Me a Judge or a Divider over you?"

        The implication is that He was made or appointed to some office and work. By His question He eliminated an activity to which He was not appointed. This man was appealing to Him on a certain level, as One having authority in such a matter of law as he raised. Our Lord declared explicitly that He was not sent to interfere directly in such matters. It was as though He had said; I am not a scribe, balancing between paltry things. I repeat, there was a recognition underlying the question of His appointment to some definite mission work, but it was not for this.

        Then, continuing He uttered the words of solemn and searching warning: "Take heed, and keep yourselves from all covetousness."

        It is noticeable that He employed the plural, and thus included both the brothers, and His disciples, and the listening crowd. The ugliness of the position was that this man and his brother evidently were mastered by this very form of evil, both of them were coveting. He knew them both as John has taught us that He knew all men.

        Then came the statement: "A man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth"; and covetousness in the realm of such things is destructive of all the highest elements in human life.

        It remains even until this time that men have an inadequate sense of the destructive nature of covetousness. Nevertheless the Old Testament has warning after warning of the danger of it. We see there how this very sin cursed and blasted men.

        Balaam's sin was the sin of covetousness. Achan's sin was the sin of covetousness. Gehazi's sin was the sin of covetousness.

        Necessarily we are not pausing to tell these accounts. We are familiar with them, but they all reveal the same fact. If we turn into the New Testament, we find that the sin of Judas was the sin of covetousness. The sin behind all the opposition of the Pharisees and the rulers was that at covetousness. On a later occasion when our Lord was dealing with the subject of Mammon, it is said that they were covetous, or as the Revised Version has it, "lovers of money." The sin of Ananias in the Acts of the Apostles was the sin of covetousness.

        We go over these facts in order that we may be reminded of the true nature of this sin. We are in the habit of labeling sins as great or little. We speak of terrible sins and little sins, which we attempt to dignify by the term peccadillos. Well, if we are inclined so to do, it is important that we remember covetousness is no peccadillo. It is one of the most blasting and damnable sins of which the soul of man is capable. When Paul in his letter to the Romans was speaking of his own spiritual experience, he made what is really a most arresting, and even amazing, declaration. It is that when in the presence of law he came to the commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," he became convinced of sin. In another of his letters he declares that touching the righteousness that is in the law, he was found blameless, that is, that he had been obedient to all the enactment of the Decalogue, and the general laws of Moses. Nevertheless as the Roman letter shows, there came a day when he found one sin of which he was not guiltless, and that was the sin of coveting. All this lends emphasis to this tremendous word of Jesus: "Take heed, and keep yourselves from all covetousness."

        This He then interpreted and emphasized by His great declaration: "A man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth."

        That translation of what our Lord said is excellent for purposes of interpretation. It is, however, an interesting fact to observe that our Lord did not Himself use the word "man" in that connection. He did use it when asking the question, "Man, who made Me a Judge or a Divider over you?" But in this statement the word is not present. It is perfectly true that its equivalent is found here, but actually it is a pronoun, and a peculiar pronoun that marks personality, a pronoun which is adversative and diffusive, which is to say it applies to any individual; so that we may render: "For one's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth."

        It is, therefore, as we have said a pronoun laying emphasis upon individuality, personality. It harmonizes perfectly with the word man, but it singles the individual out as a person. Whereas this is not translation, we might with perfect accuracy for the sake of interpretation, render the declaration, "Personality consists not in the abundance of the things possessed."

        Still pausing to attend to these words a little critically, we ask, what is meant by the word "consists?" Whereas we cannot say that the word "consists" is incorrect, we do say that it is capable of being misunderstood. The intention of the word here is not that of holding together. There is such a word, and there is such a thought, but the real intention of this may be rendered thus, One's life exists not in the abundance of the things possessed. That is to say, the secret of personality, the essence of it, the main truth concerning it, is created not by the abundance of things possessed.

        Covetousness, then, is the desire to possess something or things. Against that Jesus solemnly warned those who heard Him. The question may be asked, Have we not the right to possess? That question is dismissed by our Lord's declaration that He was not made a Judge or Divider. His mission was not to deal with these accidental things of possession, but rather with the mystery and the majesty of personality. That does not exist in possessions.

        And yet once more, we pause with the word "life," as it occurs in this declaration. In doing so we find that it was a common Greek word for life, zoe; not psuche, not pneuma. Now this word was the simplest word for life in itself, essential life, the life of a butterfly, the life of an arch-angel, or the very life of God. In the Greek language they had another word for life, bios, and in their use, bios was supposed to describe something higher in the scale of being. We have adopted both words into our language in certain applications, as for instance in our employment of the terms zoology and biology. We have; however, made use of the former in application to the beasts; and the latter, biology, for all life. In doing this we have reversed the Greek idea. Now the arresting fact is that uniformly in the New Testament, when life is spoken of on its highest level, as eternal life, the term used is not bios, but zoe. Zoe, therefore, is essential life, life in itself, with all its mystery and its marvel, its possibility, and its power. So here our Lord employed that word, and declared that a man's life, his essential life, does not exist in things possessed.

        Here once more we pause to say that the word "things" is not found in the original text, but it is quite necessary to insert it for our understanding. We say, therefore, that in this very ward "things" there is something of severity, and even of disdain, in such a connection as this. In the course of our articles we have often made reference to the varied accents and tones in the voice of Jesus. It may be heard throbbing with the depths of infinite tenderness, thundering with the wrath of infinite anger, and sometimes filled with the tones of sarcasm. There can be little doubt that there was sarcasm in this reference. Life does not consist in things, whatever their abundance may be. As our Lord said this, both brothers were involved. The thought of each was moving in the realm of things. It was this attitude which created the almost severe terms of His first question: "Man, who made Me a Judge or a Divider over you?" As though He had said, why put Me down as a Trifler? My purpose is that of dealing with life, and men never enter into life through things.

        It was in this connection that our Lord uttered that matchless parable with which we need not deal at any length now, except to glance over it, and catch the force of its application.

        It presents the picture of a man who would have passed contemporary at the time, and even today, as a straight, upright, honest, far-seeing, hard-working man. On the earth level there would appear to be nothing wrong with him. He possessed land, and his possession had proved a good investment. It "brought forth plentifully." Then he reasoned within himself. That seems to be a rational thing to do, and yet, as the account shows, he was prostituting his own personality by confining his reasoning to that personality. We listen to him, "My fruits," ''my barns," "my corn," "my goods," "my soul." We at once ask the question as to where through all this reasoning process, God is found? He is not referred to. For all practical purposes He is not counted upon. God is ignored. I do not say that He was denied. There is no proof that this man denied God. There is no suggestion that he definitely and openly rebelled against God. He was successful, and he was thoughtful. He was a good business man, but in his outlook and his calculation there was no place for God.

        Therefore he was entirely self-centered, and being self-centered, he was utterly mistaken concerning himself. We hear him say: "I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry."

        When we thus pause and think, we are driven to the conclusion it is almost impossible to find a more appalling conception of life than that. The idea that the soul can be fed with goods is disastrous. Moreover, the whole outlook was limited by the phrase, "for many years." For how many? That was not considered, for, of course, it was not known. The outlook, however, was that however long or short the period, it was to be a period for eating and drinking and being merry.

        Then across the account the words come with a crash, "But God!" God is introduced after a conjunction. That is the tragedy of all tragedies.

        "God said unto him, Thou foolish one, this night is thy soul required of thee."

        The "many years" contemplated are cancelled. The end is "this night." Therefore, the "much goods" trusted in are dealt with by the satire of the question, "Whose shall they be?"

        I sometimes am inclined to think that there is nothing much more tragic in human life than the reading of a will. Gone is the man or the woman who possessed. The border-line has been crossed. The summons that brooks no refusal has been obeyed, and now those left are gathered together to consider whose shall these things be?

        Thus, these two men are seen both living on the earth level, concerned about "things." One has them. He is determined to hold them. The other wants them, and is appealing for them. In all the majesty of eternity, with the weights and balances of the ages in His hand, Jesus shows these men life, and how that it is independent of things. By the use of the parable He does that, ending everything with the words: "So is he that layeth up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God."

        The sequel of the account is not on record. What happened to these men we are not told. The revelation of the account, however, abides in all force. We see in it men concerned with things, with possessing, while God is ignored. But God is present throughout. He was in the land that produced the fruit. It was by His government and activity that the barns were filled with corn. The man living in forgetfulness of God, and occupied with his grain, was guilty of the degradation of his own personality. Such an outlook puts life on the level of the beasts. As we listen to our Lord, we learn that the secret of the glory of personality is that of being rich toward God. God recognized, God seen in all the processes of nature, God taken into account in the calculation at the years, and the dealing with possessions means the cancellation of the merely animal desire to eat, drink, and be merry. It is God alone Who lifts the soul into the place of the everlasting riches.