And a person said to him out of the crowd, Teacher, speak to my brother to divide the inheritance with me.
A man in the crowd breaks into the Lord's teaching with a family quarrel over property. He wants Jesus to make his brother share the estate, and the calm refusal that follows says a great deal about what Jesus came to do.
One writer sets the interruption against what the Lord was giving at that moment.
Then the Lord goes on to unveil blessings and heavenly principles of the deepest importance to the souls of His followers. But in the middle of His teaching, one of the company interrupts Him... The Lord wanted their hearts and affections. But, dear friends, man's heart — your heart and mine — is always occupied with earth, unless grace reaches it.
Inheritance law was part of what God had given Israel, so the man was not asking for something forbidden. The problem lay elsewhere.
The idea of inheritance was anchored in the law (Num. 27:11; 36; Deut. 21:17). Was there anything wrong with receiving an inheritance, or with dividing an inheritance righteously? Surely not. But getting involved would have given the wrong impression. The Lord had come to "seek and to save the lost", not to make people materially richer... The man had mistaken His mission.
Another writer notes the law behind the case: "According to the law, the firstborn had the right to a double portion, but that was all (Deut. 21:15-17). The special circumstances of this case have not been revealed."
If men had received Him, settling such matters would have fitted His work. Their rejection of Him changed what He was doing among them.
If men had received Him, He would certainly have divided inheritances here below. But as things were, He was no judge or divider over men or their affairs here below. Luke, as is his way, presents the Lord looking at once at the moral side of the matter. Indeed, the rejection of Christ does lead into the deepest understanding of the heart.
The Lord never says which brother owned what. His answer reaches past the property to the two men fighting over it.
He surely had not come from the Father's side to settle lawsuits about property, or to act as judge between two covetous men... It was not a question of which was right or which was wrong, as to the property. According to Christ's pure and heavenly teaching, they were both wrong... The spirit of covetousness was clearly in the whole affair. Both defendant and plaintiff were governed by covetousness. One wanted to grasp, and the other wanted to keep; what was this but covetousness?
The Lord had an inheritance claim of His own, and He never took it to court.
He did not go to law about the inheritance. He was "Heir of all things." The land of Israel, the throne of David, and all creation belonged to Him, but man would not own Him, or give Him possession... By submitting to death He crushed the enemy's power, and brought "many sons to glory."
The refusal is about timing, not about God's indifference to justice. The One who declines the case is the One appointed to settle all cases.
There was much He passed by, such as the evening out of wealth. "Who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?" was His answer. Though appointed Judge for eternity, He would not settle the things of time in a scene stamped with death. He had come to put things right, but not in this way. So things are settled in the light of eternity. Men are met by what reaches the conscience, and the selfishness of the heart is laid bare.
One writer draws the line out to us: "On the one occasion when He was asked to step in over social and financial inequality, He refused to have anything to do with it... Neither are we left here to be social reformers." Another writer points to what the Lord gave instead of a ruling.
He would not arbitrate. Yet He taught truth that would do away with the need for arbitration altogether. If the principles of the kingdom of God ruled, there would be no need for courts of law. People would not be robbed of their rights, so they would have no wrongs to put right... The Christian belongs to the kingdom, and must be governed by the principles of the kingdom.
- Interruption. Heavenly teaching was in full flow when a question about property broke in. It pictures a heart that stays fixed on earth unless grace reaches it.
- Mission. The request was lawful in itself; the man had mistaken what Jesus came for. He came to seek and save the lost, not to make people richer.
- Rejection. Had men received Him, He would have divided inheritances. The true Heir was refused His own, and He never went to law for it.
- Exposure. Neither brother is declared right. One wanted to grasp, the other to keep — the same covetousness in both.
- Postponement. He refuses the case now, but He is the appointed Judge for eternity. Justice is not dropped; it is moved into the light of eternity.
But he said to him, Man, who established me [as] a judge or a divider over you?
A man in the crowd interrupts Jesus and asks Him to make his brother split the family inheritance. Why would the One who cares about wrongs refuse to right this one?
The request was not immoral. Inheritance law was part of Israel's own Scriptures, and a fair division would have been just. The problem lay in what the man assumed about the person he was asking.
Inheritance was governed by the law (Num. 27:11; 36; Deut. 21:17). Was there anything wrong with receiving an inheritance? Was there anything wrong with dividing one fairly? Surely not. But getting involved would have given the wrong impression. The Lord had come to "seek and to save the lost", not to make people richer in possessions. He makes this point with a question. He had not come as a judge in the affairs of this life, or as a divider of inheritances. The man had mistaken His mission.
A second reason lay in His rejection as Israel's king.
He had not come to set things right in this world at that time, though He will do it when He comes again. If He had been accepted as Messiah, He would have done it then. But God's plans ran another way. It was quite right that the man should have his inheritance. Yet as Messiah He was rejected, so He could not then set justice and judgment on the earth. At that time He had come about men's souls.
The Lord does not ask which brother had the law on his side. He looks beneath the dispute, finds one motive in both men, then shows the opposite in Himself.
He had certainly not come from the Father's side to settle lawsuits about property, or to arbitrate between two covetous men. Covetousness ruled both the defendant and the plaintiff. One wanted to grab, and the other wanted to keep; what was this but covetousness?... It was not a question of which of them was right about the property. By Christ's pure and heavenly teaching, they were both wrong... He did not go to law about the inheritance. He was "Heir of all things." The land of Israel, the throne of David, and all creation belonged to Him. But man would not own Him, or give Him possession.
Declining the case was not indifference to a broken society. It was a refusal to fix the old arrangement instead of replacing it.
The more we look at this, the more we see His amazing perfection. Society was very far from what God intended it to be. Yet He will not take Caesar's place and put it right. He had not come to patch up the old garment. He had come to go to the cross and die, so that in resurrection He might set up an entirely new order of society. In that new order every moral and social question would be settled according to God's own thoughts.
The verse's two roles — judge and arbitrator, or divider — are roles He will one day fill. His refusal is about timing, not ability.
He had not come to be a judge. He had come as the revelation of God in perfect goodness. One day He is coming as both a judge and a Divider. But that was not His character in that day.
If the Lord would not arbitrate, His people keep out of running the world. Their business is witness, not government.
Those who belong to Christ have nothing directly to do with governing the world. They are plainly not of the world, just as He was not (John 17:14, 16). He even refused to arbitrate when a man asked Him to step in unofficially. He would be no judge or divider of an inheritance (Luke 12:13-14)... He came into the world to bear witness to the truth, and that is the mission of the Christian.
This also shapes daily life under conditions believers know are wrong — even slavery.
Slavery is foreign to Christianity. Yet putting earthly wrongs right was not the Lord's aim in His first coming (see Luke 12:14). It will only be done when He comes again. So the will of God for His people now is this: accept the conditions that mark their own times, and in them make His teaching attractive and honour His name.
- Mistaken — The man's request was fair in law. But he had misread who stood in front of him. The Lord came to seek and save the lost, not to make people richer.
- Motive — Jesus never asks who owned the land. One brother wanted to grab, the other to keep, and covetousness drove them both. The true Heir of all things never went to law for His own.
- Method — He would not take Caesar's seat and patch up the old order. He went to the cross, to raise a whole new order in resurrection.
- Moment — Judge and divider are roles He will fill. He was simply not filling them that day. He will when He comes again.
- Mission — What He declined is His people's pattern. They do not run the world's affairs. They bear witness to the truth and honour His name where they are.