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.
And he said to them, Take heed and keep yourselves from all covetousness, for [it is] not because a man is in abundance [that] his life is in his possessions.
A man interrupts Jesus with a family dispute over an inheritance. Instead of settling it, the Lord turns to the whole crowd with a warning about the heart. His answer touches two questions at once: what Christ came to do, and what a human life is made of.
The question behind this warning sounds fair. One brother wants his share of the family inheritance. Commentators note that the Lord does not take sides, because both men were driven by the same thing.
The spirit of covetousness was clearly in the whole affair. Covetousness ruled both sides of the case. One wanted to grab, and the other wanted to keep. What was this but covetousness? "And he said to him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" It was not a question of who was right or wrong about the property. By Christ's pure and heavenly teaching, both were wrong.
The refusal in verse 14 is not indifference to justice. It marks out the errand He was on at that moment.
He was not come to set things right in this world then; though He will do this when He comes again. Had He been accepted as Messiah, He would have done so then; but the counsels of God were otherwise. It was quite right that the man should have his inheritance; but as Messiah He was rejected... He was then come about men's souls; therefore He says to them, "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness."
The word can sound like a crime word — theft, fraud, sharp practice. That is not what Jesus is naming here.
The question is not just about getting something in a wrong way. No, that is not the point. It is this. In the heart of man there is a settled determination to acquire. The urge to acquire is natural to the human heart. That heart busies itself with the things of time — the things of the senses — the things of this life.
That makes it far harder to spot, because the whole culture around us runs on it and calls it ambition.
Covetousness involves no dishonesty. It is not even harsh or sharp dealing. It is no more than the desire for more. It is the very spring of modern effort — the drive to better yourself, praised in everyone from the workman to the millionaire. So the creature becomes the object, and not God. That is why covetousness is called idolatry. It is man looking down, not up in dependence on God.
Because the sin sits in the wanting and not in the having, no income bracket is safe from it.
Always remember this. Riches are a snare to the rich man. But for a poor man to envy a rich man because of his riches is as bad or worse. It just shows that he would have riches too if he could. It is not a question about riches. The Lord wants to get souls into heaven, and riches will not take them there; that can only be by being rich towards God.
Kelly traces the request back to the heart's wish for what it does not have, then names the path faith takes instead.
This anxiety for Christ's help to settle questions comes from the heart's desire for something it does not have here below. Here the Lord judges the effort to hold on to your position. He exposes the eagerness after earthly righteousness — "be on your guard against all covetousness." The rejection of Christ, and the revealing of heavenly things, led into the true path of faith. That path means trusting God for whatever He gives. It means relying on Him, not on man, in every difficulty. It means being content with what we have. God arranges all to faith.
If a life is not measured by holdings, the obvious next question is what does measure it.
Well, you say, what does his life consist in? That is a very serious question. What does your life consist in? Is Christ your life? You know what Paul said, "For me to live is Christ." That was life indeed... but in having Christ as an object and motive. The Lord reads our hearts very simply. He knows the danger of the urge to acquire in the human heart, whether it is the heart of an unconverted man or the heart of one of His own people.
after
- Guard — the Lord answers a property dispute with a warning about the heart. Both brothers were wrong, because the same appetite drove both.
- Grasping — covetousness is not fraud but the plain desire for more. That is why it hides so easily inside honest, respectable ambition.
- Ground level — it belongs to no income class. Envying a rich man proves you would be one if you could.
- Gauge — abundance is no measure of a life; the real measure is Christ Himself as the object of the heart.
- Gain — riches cannot carry a soul to heaven. Only being rich toward God can.
And he spoke a parable to them, saying, The land of a certain rich man brought forth abundantly.
A man in the crowd had just asked Jesus to make his brother divide a family inheritance. Instead of settling the dispute, the Lord warned the crowd about covetousness. The story He tells opens with a good harvest, not a crime. So what is the danger in success?
One writer explains what Jesus refused to do with the appeal, and what He did with it instead.
Someone had just appealed to the Saviour about a property dispute. He declined to interfere, since the matter was outside His mission at that time. He had come from heaven, not to adjust the world's wrongs, but to seek men's souls in love. His hand will make the crooked straight, but in another era. For this He must return from His present place on high. But meanwhile, He never missed a chance to deal with men's consciences about things unseen and eternal. So He used the appeal as an occasion to warn His hearers against being absorbed in this world's affairs.
A good harvest is not evil. But one writer will not call it safe either.
Now, is the plentiful bringing forth of the ground evil? No. There is nothing evil in a good harvest. Plenty is a mercy; but I will tell you what is in it — not evil, but danger. And so it proved with the man in the parable. He began to turn it to the account of his earthly mind, instead of to the account of the Lord who owns the soil. If people are in a thriving way of life, it is very right, I say, to use their hands and skill. And it is a mercy if the crop is plentiful. But there is danger in it.
As the parable goes on, the man thinks "within himself." One writer makes that phrase the hinge of the story. It shows where he took his counsel.
"The land of a rich man produced plentifully." What sin is there in being a successful farmer or merchant? If God blesses a man's labour, should he not rejoice? Truly so; but notice the moral progress of a covetous heart. "He thought within himself." He did not think in the presence of God. He did not think under the mighty influences of the eternal world. No — "he thought within himself," within the narrow compass of his selfish heart. Such was his range; and therefore we need not be surprised at his practical conclusion.
His question was where to put the surplus. One writer points to the answer standing at his door.
All his barns were crammed to the roof. His storehouses were filled to bursting. He did not know where to put the incoming goods with which God had so richly blessed him. Were there no poor around him he might help? Was there no Lazarus at his door? Were there no needy ones on every hand? Ah, my friends, these things did not disturb him, for the man lived only for himself. And have you not done the same, friend, until now? The centre and pivot around which he circled was self.
By ordinary standards this man does nothing scandalous. The charge against him lies somewhere else.
Here was systematic selfishness. This was not how faith reckons. Faith shows itself in self-sacrifice under suffering, or in active and generous devotion. There was no eye on any future outside this world. All was in the present life. By human judgment, the rich fool did not make a bad use of what he had. He was not immoral. But his action went no further than gratifying his desire for ever-growing abundance.
If decent, prosperous people are in danger, the remedy cannot be owning less. One writer names what it is.
I am sure of this: the life of faith and hope is the only deliverance from worldliness... A man may be blameless and harmless, and yet he is a worldly man if he is not nourishing the life of faith and hope. Go and get lessons from the ravens and the lilies... If I am not trusting in God and waiting for glory, the Lord exposes me here as having a worldly mind... Put the belt around your waist and the lamp of hope in your hand. Then you will be delivered from worldliness — not waiting for bigger barns, but for the Lord.
- Occasion. A question about an inheritance exposed a covetous heart. Jesus answered the heart, not the lawsuit.
- Gift. A full harvest is God's mercy, not the man's sin. The danger sits inside the blessing.
- Range. He thought within himself — the fault begins the moment God is left out of the planning.
- Reach. Full barns and needy neighbours stood side by side, and he saw only the barns.
- Result. Blameless by human judgment, he still had no eye on any future beyond this world. Only faith and hope, waiting for the Lord, break that grip.
And he reasoned within himself saying, What shall I do? for I have not [a place] where I shall lay up my fruits.
A full harvest leaves the rich man with one practical question: where to put the extra. He takes it to the only adviser he trusts — himself, and the parable turns on what that private conference leaves out.
His problem was not sin — a good crop is a good thing. What decides the story is the room where he does his thinking. The older translation quoted below reads that he thought "within himself."
"The land of a rich man produced plentifully." What sin is there in being a successful farmer or merchant? If God blesses a man's labour, should he not rejoice? Truly so; but notice the moral progress of a covetous heart. "He thought within himself." He did not think in the presence of God; he did not think under the mighty influences of the eternal world. No; "he thought within himself" — within the narrow compass of his selfish heart. Such was his range; and so we need not be surprised at his practical conclusion.
His own question had an obvious solution outside his gate, and it never crossed his mind.
He thought within himself and said, "What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?" All his barns were crammed to the roof. His storehouses were filled to bursting. He did not know where to put the incoming goods, with which God had so richly blessed him. Were there no poor around him to whom he might minister? Was there no Lazarus at his door? Were there no needy ones on every hand? Ah, my friends, these things did not disturb him, for the man lived only for himself.
Nothing in his plan would trouble his neighbours. The fault lies in what his planning left out.
This was systematic selfishness, not the reckoning of faith — not faith's self-sacrifice in suffering, and not its active and generous devotion. There was no eye upon the future outside this world. All was in the present life. By human judgment, the rich fool did not misuse what he had. He was not immoral. But his action went no further than satisfying his desire for more and more abundance.
The deliberation itself is the warning. A man can settle his whole future without ever consulting the One who gave him the harvest.
The heart of man far from God thinks to direct his own steps, and decides what he will do, without thinking of the will of God, or even of God at all. What he plans may not even be evil. It may not wound the conscience or make it uneasy. But God is completely forgotten. The man acts without God, as though God had withdrawn and left the earth to man, and as though His will counted for nothing. As far as religion goes, such a man lives in atheism in the practical things of everyday life.
The danger is not in owning much. It is in what owning much does to the ear and the heart.
Prosperity often deafens the ear against God. "I spoke to you in your prosperity, but you said, I will not listen" (Jeremiah 22:21). Soft pleasures harden the heart. Prosperity has its honey, and also its sting. Anxious care is the evil spirit that haunts the rich man; when his chests are full of money, his heart is full of care. Sunshine is pleasant, but sometimes it scorches. The spreading of a full table may be the spreading of a snare.
There was another place to put the surplus, and it is open to people of every income.
No one can be rich before God without what men short-sightedly call making themselves poor: using what we have for others, not for ourselves. Only such are rich toward God, whether their means are great or small. If their means are small, they are still large enough to think of others in love and to provide for needs greater than their own. If their means are great, their responsibilities are so much the greater. But in every case the gathering up is not for self, but for the service of grace; and this can only be by bringing God into the matter.
- The gift — the crop came from God's hand. Success in business or farming is no sin; the parable turns on what the man does next.
- The conference — he thought "within himself," in the narrow space of his own heart. A decision made in that room can only come out selfish.
- The room — his barns had no space, but his plans had no space either: no room for God, no room for the poor at his door.
- The atheism — to settle your future without asking God's will is practical atheism, even when the plan looks respectable and moral.
- The alternative — gather not for self but for the service of grace. That road is open to small means as well as great.
And he said, This will I do I will take away my granaries and build greater, and there I will lay up all my produce and my good things;
A harvest too big for the barns that hold it forces a decision, and this man makes his. The plan is sensible business — and it has no room in it for God or for anyone else.
Nothing in the building project would have raised an eyebrow among the neighbours. One writer separates the man's business sense from his folly.
To rebuild his barns, so as to keep all the fruits given to him by the bounty of God, was just ordinary prudence. To lay it all up for himself, and to neglect all the divine riches for the soul, was the substance of his folly.
Before he says anything, he works it out alone in his own head. Where a man does his thinking shapes what he decides.
"He thought within himself." He did not think in the presence of God. He did not think under the mighty influences of the eternal world. No; "he thought within himself" — within the narrow compass of his selfish heart. That was his range; and so we need not be surprised at his practical conclusion. "What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?" What! Was there no way of using his resources with a view to God's future? Sadly, no.
Thought, word and deed line up. And the word "all" is the giveaway: everything goes into one place, and that place is a building he puts up himself.
Here we have what he thought, what he said, and what he did — and there is a sad consistency between his thoughts, his words, and his acts. "There," in my self-built storehouse, "will I store all." What a miserable treasure-house to hold the "all" of an immortal soul! God was not an item in the list. God was neither his treasury nor his treasure… A worldly man's provision is only "for many years." Make the best of it: it cannot go beyond that narrow limit.
A surplus is also an opportunity. There is another way to solve a storage problem, and it never crosses his mind.
All his barns were crammed to the roof. His storehouses were filled to bursting. He did not know where to put the incoming goods, with which God had so richly blessed him. What a strange thing, you say. Were there no poor around him to whom he might minister? Was there no Lazarus at his door? Were there no needy people on every hand? None of this disturbed him. The man lived only for himself… Self was the centre and pivot he circled around.
A later parable in Luke puts the opposite choice beside this one.
This conduct stands in sharp contrast with what the Lord brings forward later, in Luke 16. There the master commended the steward, not for his wrongdoing but for his wisdom. He gave up present interests, his master's goods, in order to secure the future. The rich landowner here does the opposite. He keeps pulling down his barns and building greater ones, to better secure all his fruits and increase his goods. His one and only thought was for this present life, which he assumed would go on unchanged. The steward watched for the reversal that was at hand, and acted accordingly. May we feel ourselves stewards of what men would call our own, and act with no less prudence!
The parable ends with the phrase that names what this man lacked. It is not a rule about how much you may own.
You cannot be rich before God without what men short-sightedly call impoverishing yourself. It means using what we have, not for ourselves, but for others. Only such people are rich toward God, whether their means are great or small. If their means are small, they are still large enough to let them think of others in love and meet needs greater than their own. If their means are great, their responsibilities are so much the greater. In every case the gathering up is not for self but for the service of grace, and that can only happen by bringing God into the matter.
- Given — The harvest came from God's bounty; the man's barns were full of goods God was giving him. The gift is never in question. What he does with it is.
- Guarded — His answer to abundance is a bigger container. Rebuilding was ordinary prudence; storing it all for himself was the folly.
- Grasped — "All my fruits and my goods" go into a self-built storehouse. God is not an item in the list — neither his treasury nor his treasure.
- Gone — His provision reaches "many years" and no further. The steward of Luke 16 traded present interests for the future; this man does the reverse.
- Given away — To be rich toward God is to use what you have for others, whether your means are great or small. Small means still leave room to meet needs greater than your own.
and I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much good things laid by for many years; repose thyself, eat, drink, be merry.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
But God said to him, Fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee; and whose shall be what thou hast prepared?
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Thus is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.
The Lord ends the story of the rich farmer with a verdict on a whole way of living, and He aims it at anyone, not just the wealthy. Two phrases carry the weight: laying up treasure "for himself," and being "rich toward God."
The verdict points back to covetousness. That word covers far more ground than most people assume, and one writer traces how respectable it looks:
Covetousness involves no dishonesty. It is not even hard or sharp dealing. It is no more than the desire for more. That desire is the very spring of modern effort. It is the motive of bettering yourself that is held up to everyone, from the mechanic to the millionaire. So the creature becomes the object, not God, and that is why covetousness is called idolatry. It is man looking down, not up in dependence on God.
The same trap catches those who have nothing, which is why the warning is not only for the rich:
Remember this: riches are a snare to the rich man. But to be jealous of a rich man because of his riches is as bad or worse in the poor man. It just shows that he would have them too if he could. It is not a question about riches. The Lord wants to get souls into heaven, and riches will not take them there. That can only happen by being rich toward God.
The two halves of the verse are opposites, and the hinge is the word "himself." Darby locates the root of the failure there:
The whole question is about Christ. If Christ has His place in our hearts, the things of this world stop being temptations to us. The man who is rich toward God has no desire for other riches. But the man who lays up treasure for himself is not rich toward God, because self is at the bottom.
One writer separates the man's prudence from his folly: "Rebuilding his barns to keep all the fruit God's goodness had given him was just ordinary prudence. To lay it all up for himself, and to neglect all the divine riches for the soul, was the substance of his folly" (F. B. Hole).
The man built barns for a soul. That is the mismatch the parable exposes:
He said he would store it all in his own self-built storehouse. What a miserable treasure-house to hold the "all" of an immortal soul! God was not an item in the catalogue. God was neither his treasury nor his treasure.
And so the account settles the wrong way: "Suddenly his life was required of him, and the wealthy man of earth entered the other world to be poor for eternity" (C E Stuart).
The phrase is not vague piety. It has a shape, and it costs something that looks like loss:
You cannot be rich before God without what men short-sightedly count as making yourself poor. It means using what we have for others, not for ourselves. Only such are rich toward God, whether their means are great or small. If their means are small, they are still large enough to let them think of others in love and provide for needs greater than their own. If their means are great, their responsibilities are so much the greater.
Yet the Lord does not measure by the size of the gift, and having nothing to give does not shut you out:
It is not a question of the amount. The Lord never measures by what I have given, but by what I have left after I have given. On the other hand, you might have nothing to give and yet be rich toward God. You cling to Him, you live for Him, and in relation to Him. That is really what it is.
One writer maps the whole passage as three cures: "Fear, covetousness, and care are three terrible foxes that spoil the grapes of God's harvest. Each one has its answer: the fear of man, by the fear of God; covetousness, by being rich toward God; and care, by the care of God" (W. T. P. Wolston).
Given away, the treasure is not lost. It moves to heaven, and the heart follows it there:
You meet a child of God who is weary and thirsty; you give him simply a cup of cold water in Christ's name. That act becomes a treasure in heaven... The only way to have your minds set on things above is simply to have your treasure in heaven. We may agree with that and say Christ is our treasure. If Christ is my treasure, my thoughts will be with Him.
- Root — Covetousness is the desire for more. It needs no dishonesty, and jealousy of the rich is the same sin in a poorer form.
- Self — "For himself" is the fatal word; when self is at the bottom, God drops out of the catalogue.
- Size — A barn is a miserable storehouse for an immortal soul, and the man who fills one enters eternity poor.
- Shape — Being rich toward God means using what you have for others, whether your means are large or small. The Lord measures what you keep back, not what you give.
- Cure — Being rich toward God cures covetousness, and the heart follows the treasure wherever it goes.