Introduction

The quest for the acquisition of wealth and possession constitute some of the very absorbing human activities in contemporary society. This attitude is present in both Christians and non- Christians and seems to be so dominant that little attention is given to its relationship to eschatological dimension. The obsession for wealth is further intensified by the supposition by many; including some Seventh-day Adventists, that economic wealth and prosperity provide the answer to material poverty, low self-esteem, power, security and enhances the quality and perpetuation of life. However, the Gospel of Luke indicates there is relationship between the attitude to acquisition and management of wealth and possessions and eschatology. One of the Lucan passages that hints on this is the narrative in Luke 12:13-21, which narrates Jesus’s answer to a concerned covetous brother and followed by a parable commonly referred to as the parable of the Rich Fool.

The parable recorded in Luke 12:16-21 is unique to the Lucan gospel. It belongs to the travel narratives, (Luke 9:51-19:27), a literary unit that contains a large amount of materials peculiar to the Third Gospel. The parable is one of the four passages in the section dealing with possessions (see 12:22-34; 14:12-33; 16:1-13; 16:19-31). In this section Jesus expansively uses parables to teach very important lessons relating to kingdom ethics and motif. However, Kümmel opines that this central section of the Gospel of Luke was not an original tradition but was a composition of Luke who brought together materials of different origins into the framework of the journey to Jerusalem.¹ Nevertheless, this argument seems absurd because a careful study of this passage does not show any inconsistency with Luke’s elaborate record of the parables of Christ. Nineteen of the thirty-five parables recorded in the entire Gospel accounts are unique to Luke, and the parable of the rich but foolish farmer does no depart from Luke’s characterization of the wealth and the wealthy in the Third Gospel.

The passage in focus, Luke 12:13-21, begins with complaint by an aggrieved brother and Jesus’ response (vv. 13-15), followed by an illustrative parable told by Jesus (Luke 12:16-20) to elaborate his response to the complainant who invites him to adjudicate between him and his elder brother and finally concludes with Jesus’ application of the parable (Luke 12:21). On the wider literary context of Luke 12:13-21, the prominence of the teachings on poverty and wealth is evident from the very first chapter of the Gospel and the progression is also noted. For instance, Luke (i) emphasizes reversal for the rich (Luke 1:51-53; 6:24; 9:23; 16:20-22), (ii) indicates the rich are sent away empty, (Luke 1:51- 53), (iii) states woe is pronounced on the rich at the eschaton (Luke 6:24-25; cf. 16:19-31) and (iv) indicates salvation might be difficult for the rich (18:18).² The parable, one of the “four Lucan parables with negative illustrations” (10:29-37; 16:19-31; 18:9-14) ³ is sandwiched by two other pericope (Luke 12:1-11 and 22-34), although verses 22-34 seem a further elaboration of the ethics of possession.⁴ While the main thrust of the preceding pericope is on warnings against the yeast of the Pharisees and general encouragements to faithfulness (Luke 12:1-11), the succeeding pericope deals with questions of trust in God for material provision and the need for contentment (Luke 12:22-31), and almsgiving and treasure in heaven (Luke 12:32-34).⁵ Hence Gowler observes, “The placement of the Rich Fool parable in the larger Lukan narrative … clearly illuminates Luke's reading of the parable as far as issues of poverty, wealth, and one's relationship to God are concerned.”⁶ Rindge is of the view that certain features such as the dominant motifs of death and possession in the text and its context, the language of parable, the man’s soliloquy, the description of the man as a fool and nature sayings are features of sapiential passage.⁷ This parable has also been described as “an attack on selfishness, individualism, and egocentrism”⁸ and it is argued that the parable has both present and eschatological functions.⁹ Accordingly the setting of this unique passage hints on God’s response to the fear and anxiety that attend humanity’s earthly existence on one hand, and on the other hand, God’s admonition on the calming of these emotions in view of the eternal realities. This could be illustrated as shown in the table below:

Admonition on Greed

Luke 12:13-21 begins with the complaint by the aggrieved brother (Luke 12:13) who interrupts Jesus by seeking arbitration between him and his elder brother over a family inheritance. Jewish legal system makes provision for the distribution of family inheritance. According to this legislation the heir of a family wealth and possessions at the demise of the father is the first son. This guarantees the heir the inheritance of a double portion of his father’s estate, leaving the other son(s) to have/share the remaining one-third of the deceased father’s estate (Num 27:1-11; 36:6-9; cf. Deut 21:17; 1 Chro 5:1, 2). Correspondingly it seems the frequency of inheritance disputes in this culture is “because wealth was far more likely to be inherited than earned.”¹⁰

Nevertheless, the reason for the younger brother’s contention over family inheritance in the passage in question is uncertain. However, several reasons may have occasioned this. This could have been (i) a protest against an elder brother’s quest for more beyond what the legal system authorizes, (ii) an objection to the elder’s brother’s desire to have a partnership in the management of the inheritance¹¹ since in that culture families could jointly hold their property and share its resources for business purposes.¹² It could have also been (iii) an objection to the elder brother’s concern to keep the family wealth in intact.¹³ Thus, the complain of the youngest in this setting could have arisen from his protest against the elder brother’s legitimate share or his [the complainant] disapproval of the established legal rights governing the management of inheritance which may have left him with less than what he desired; thus exposing his covetousness.

In seeking Jesus’s intervention, the aggrieved brother calls Jesus “rabbi,” a title commonly used to refer to religious teachers who were supposed to have authority to teach and arbitrate on ethical matters such as the one in question. This title is applied to Christ in the Gospels (Matt 26:25; Mk 14:45; Jn 1:38, 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8). The title was used for scholars and teachers of the law. The aggrieved brother may have approached Jesus because in this culture it was supposed that the learning and knowledge of the rabbis of the torah and their interpretations of the religious duties prescribed in it are infallible and thus incontrovertibly placed them in the authority to adjudicate on such matters. But the expectation of the aggrieved brother is ruined with Christ’s refusal to be drawn into this family feud. Jesus’ refusal indicates that the request of the complainant conflicts with the primary purpose of his ministry since such dispute could be settled within existing Jewish inheritance legislation.¹⁴ The refusal could also be to probe and disprove the motive of the complainant¹⁵ or Jesus desire not to middle in affairs outside his jurisdiction.¹⁶ Bock implies that the complainant recognizes certain authority in Jesus, which could enable him issue such a command. With this understanding, the request may not have been to arbitrate but to advocate for the petitioner against his brother.¹⁷

However, it is suggested that Jesus’ response was dictated by the fact that “the possession of property is irrelevant to life of the Age to come”.¹⁸ And thus rather than responding to egoistic cry for justice, Jesus addressed the character of the selfishness behind the cry.¹⁹ Similarly, Spencer elucidates thus:

In fact, as Son of Humankind, Jesus does have divine juridical authority over human affairs. The proper answer to Jesus’ question is that God has made him judge. But as the ensuing statement and parable make plain, it is precisely God’s perspective that this brother has lost sight of in his anxious preoccupation with his own security and portfolio.²⁰

Similarly, Ellen White notes:

Jesus could have told this man just what was right. He knew the right in the case; but the brothers were in a quarrel because both were covetous. Christ virtually said, it is not My work to settle controversies of this kind. He came for another purpose, to preach the gospel, and thus to arouse men to a sense of eternal realities.²¹

Consequently, Jesus’ response was to distance himself from trivialities inconsistent with his divine mission to save humanity from the very wantonness plaguing the complainant and this attitude is also evident in rich fool in the consequent parable.

Therefore, rather than consenting to the request of the petitioner, Jesus takes advantage of the opportunity to warn on the dangers of greed. Speaking to the crowd which was gathered around him, he admonishes, “Take heed and beware of covetousness” (Luke 12:15a). Jesus employs the Greek term pleonexia, which can be translated as “greediness”, “avarice”, and “covetousness.” In a non- biblical sense, pleonexia could be positive as in Epictetus 2, 10:9. In this context it could denote a desire for more knowledge or holiness. Greed may also denote lust for “advanced social standing and insatiable desire for wealth,”²² and was commonly considered as a form of depravity in Jewish literature and in the larger Greco-Roman world.²³ Expounding on the possessive nature of greed, Plutarch had observed: “pleonexia never rests acquiring to pleon (more).²⁴” In other words, greed drives its captives to an insatiable state where everything that matters is possession, irrespective of how it is acquired.

The scriptural reference to greed or covetousness is always negative.²⁵ Thus in the context of usage, pleonexia, could refer to the gross selfishness and inordinate desire to have more by denying others what is legitimately theirs. While Luke does not elucidate on this theme of greed—mentioning it only in Luke 8:14 and 16:14, its dangers are frequently mentioned in other passages of the New Testament (Rom 1:29; 2 Cor 9:5; Col 3:5; Eph 4:19; 5:3; 2 Peter 2:3 14) and is viewed as idolatry (Col 3:5).²⁶ This orientation exposes the peril of the pursuit of possessions. It can cause one to be insensitive to people and even lead to wrong perception about what constitutes the ultimate purpose of life²⁷

Therefore, Christ admonishes that life is not reckoned by possessions (Luke 12:15b).²⁸ It is appropriate to understand the Greek word zōē, translated “life” in verse 15b, as referring to the abundant life as given by God (cf. John 10:10). I reason that zōē in verse 15 is more than existence which is implied by the Greek words bios (se Luke 8:14)) and psuche (Matt 16:25). That zōē, does not consist of the abundance of one’s possession hints on living now with eschatological perspective and the eternal life Christ offers at his coming. This life is not measured now nor shall it be attained by the abundance of earthly possessions. Thus, the admonition of Jesus on the failure of possession to secure this life elevates the value, meaning and purpose of human existence above the pursuit and accumulation of wealth and possessions. The real life that matters cannot be secured by cupidity.²⁹

The Parable

Having admonished on the perils of greed and covetousness and the emptiness of life based on the lust for possessions, Jesus resorts to a parable to deepen the message. The parable begins by stating, “the ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest” (vs.16). Not much is revealed about the identity of this man. But the man in question could be a wealthy Jewish farmer, who, beyond his meticulous planning and forecast, had surplus harvest in this particular harvest year. The magnitude of the field of the man that produced the abundant harvest seems to be stressed by the word (chöra) rather than (agros) for "land" (cf. John 4:35). The rich man owns a large field that produced abundant harvest. In that culture, “to be labelled "rich" was a social and moral statement as much as an economic one. It meant the power or capacity to take from someone weaker what was rightfully not yours. Being rich was synonymous with being greedy.”³⁰ But this parable does not suggest that the rich farmer had acquired the wealth illegally or by cheating or defrauding the poor. Jesus seems to have no query on the process of acquiring the abundance, since there was no indication in the parable that the rich man was a stern farmer such as indicted in James 5:4. Yet as the soliloquy of this man would disclose, there is a fixation and sightlessness with lust for wealth and possession, whether acquired genuinely or through questionable circumstances.

Thus, in handling his surplus proceeds and abundance, the rich farmer’s human wisdom was displayed in his decision to expand his barns to accommodate the bounty harvest. His reaction to his possession is expressed by his internal monologue or soliloquy (vvs. 17-19).³¹ Philip Selew notes the rich man viewed his situation “as a practical rather than a moral dilemma,”³² and so he decides to pull down his existing barn and plans to construct a bigger one to store his bountiful harvest. His action discloses he was self-centered,³³ and his deliberation indicates a personality whose "wealth [is] guarded avariciously."³⁴ His fascination was “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.”

However, immediately following the man’s soliloquy Luke introduces God as the second character in the parable,³⁵ whose sudden appearance is unanticipated. He interrupts the farmer by first calling him a fool (aphrōn). This Greek word could be translated “unwise, inconsiderate, simple, foolish” (Luke 11:40; 12:20; 1 Cor. 15:36), or ignorant, religiously unenlightened (Rom. 2:20; Eph. 5:17; 1 Pet. 2:15). The context implies that man was stupid rather than being unenlightened. Lack of knowledge does not seem to be the problem but his attitude reveled in the soliloquy. As Geldenhuys observes, the rich man “considered that he had the full command over his life and over all his possessions and thus spoke about ‘my barns, my fruits, my goods, and my soul’ (verses 18,19). He did not regard the possessions as things lent to him by God’s grace and to be used for his own pleasure and enjoyments.³⁶

In pursuit of the meaning of aphrōn in context, Oliphant and Babie provide summary of the reasons the rich man may be called a “fool”: (i) the identification of life's security with the quantity of possessions stored away; (ii) a lack of piety towards God, expressed in the failure to consider the well- being of others; (iii) a failure to see that life itself is a gift from God; (iv) using 12:33 as the framework to interpret 12:13-21, the failure to give alms to those in need, which would transform possessions into an unfailing heavenly treasure; and (v) in letting possessions control life, one will come to find out that life, like possessions, will perish.³⁷

However, I conclude that the foolishness of the rich man is defined by his denial of his mortality as evidenced by his plans for ‘many years’ but reversed by the judgment that God subsequently announce on him, “This very night your life will be demanded from you” (Luke 12: 20a). It is significant to note that the purpose for the tearing down of his old barn and intent to construct a new and bigger one was in anticipation of longevity, serenity and assurance life without regard to eschatology. He had said to himself, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry” (Luke 12:19a). The rich but foolish farmer seems to creating his own eschatology of existence and perpetuity by his personal assurance of living for many years (polus etos). But his eschatological “many years” was founded materialism. His defining confidence about life security and serenity were without any allusion to an end and accountability. These were dependent on the possessions which he was preparing to store up for many years. Nevertheless, with God’s immediate judgment death was inescapable to him that very night. Hence Matthew S. Rindge opines,

such imminence highlights death’s unpredictable timing. The divine announcement of the man’s impending demise is a stark contrast to his previously stated intentions of living for “many years’’ (12:18-19). As has already been made clear in Luke, one is powerless in the snare of death’s sovereignty. Death shatters any pretensions of control, as God’s declaration to the rich man makes clear (12: 20a).³⁸

Similarly, Ellen G. White compares the rich man’s aim to beats. She states “He lived as if there were no God, no heaven, no future life; as if everything he possessed where his own, and he owed nothing to God or man.”³⁹ However, “to live for self is to perish”⁴⁰ Hence his disregard of his mortality and confident planning for the uncertain future hint at the rich farmer’s characterization as a fool. Like the fool of the Psalmist (Psalm 14:1), the rich farmer in this parable does not reckon with the existence of God. This worldview directed his plans and existence, defined him as self-centered and he was unprepared for the divine eschatology.

Further the rich man is interrogated, “Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?” (Luke 12: 20b). This divine enquiry is heightened by the fact that community is entirely absent in the parable. The focus of the rich man had been on himself as his soliloquy reveals. Six times he employs the ‘I” and “my” five times (vv. 17-19). No family is mentioned not even those who live in precincts of society or his workforces are mentioned. The rich man was concerned about securing his life in the present and the immediate future. He reasoned that building larger storehouse where he would store and secure the abundance will guarantee a secured future and he can then live his life with ease (vs.19). In the light of the disposition of the rich fool God addresses him on his own pragmatic terms of not dealing with kingdom matters or life beyond the present realm but on the question of mundane affairs—his possession.⁴¹ But now, as the wise man warns, he has to leave them all, possibly to an incompetent heir or to no one in particular (see Eccl 2:18-19).

Concluding the parable Jesus gives an application, “So is he who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God” (Luke 12:21). In this section I seek to explore the meaning of the phrase “rich toward God” (eis theon ploutōn)? In pursuing this understanding, C. F. Evans submits, “It is not clear what it means.”⁴² However, Joshua Noble provides a summary of the interpretation of this phrase. These could be summed as (i) being rich but with an orientation towards God, (ii) rich in the things that count before God, (iii) gathering wealth with God, and (iv) gathering riches with the purposes of giving it to God.⁴³ Noble concludes in his study that it is appropriate to understand this expression as extolling a transfer of wealth to God as beneficiary through almsgiving.⁴⁴ However, my proposition, in the context of the parable of the rich farmer, being “rich toward God” implies eschatological orientation in the management of wealth and resources and this includes almsgiving. As the succeeding section indicates, Jesus emphasized an eschatological perspective in wealth management with reference to almsgiving. Jesus admonishes his audience to give alms and by so doing provide for themselves treasures in heaven which do not fail and can neither be stolen nor destroyed. This heaven-oriented giving would also reveal an orientation of the hearts of the disciples toward heaven (Luke 12:33-34; cf. Luke 12:21).

Hence, almsgiving and financial stewardship with divine eschatological orientation in wealth management could be a pathway to storing up possession in heaven in contrast to construction of huge earthly barns to store possessions for selfish consumption. In this vein, rather than being self-centered, generosity towards the poor, is commended in the Wisdom literature: “Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward them for what they have done” (Prov 19:17), is richness toward God. This attitude may constitute an appropriate use of one’s possessions instead of storing in earthly barns for an uncertain future like the futile plans of the rich farmer. Conversely, thoughtful consciousness of community and almsgiving could restrain greed and futile plan of self-preservation.

But the rich farmer isolated himself from others because of his wealth. Thus, his poverty towards God could not prepare him for divine judgment (Luke 12:20a). By his actions, Gowler observes “the cultural realities of peasant society in the first century make it clear that this rich man and those like him are ignoring Jesus' demand that life in the kingdom of God involves not only treasure in heaven but also vertical generalized reciprocity in our lives on earth.”⁴⁵ Accordingly the rich man’s poverty toward God manifests in the accumulation of possessions for himself and the exclusion and neglect of community. His possession and existence exclude others. He is immersed in himself and possession (vv. 17-19) as he considers his crops, his barns, his goods and his life that would be lived in pleasure. He is “indeed defined exclusively by his wealth.”⁴⁶ But all these he lost at the end of the parable because of the judgment on him (v. 20).

Further, the calculations and plans of the rich man about his possession and his existence discounted the inescapable eschatological consequences of his present orientation and actions. The life and possessions he thought he owned were loaned to him. As Spencer elucidates,

by failing to acknowledge the source of life, the rich man also has no proper sense of the end of life, either life’s goal (teleology) or duration (temporality). The goal is inextricably linked with the divine source: birthed and blessed by God, human beings are called (demanded) to a life of “richness toward God (είς θεόν)” (12:21). And the length of earthly life, including enjoyment of earthly possessions, is wholly determined by God’s schedule, which we cannot know with precision.⁴⁷

Hence, disregard for human mortality and eschatology engenders greed and distorts not only the manner of the management of wealth and possessions but also its acquisition.

Reflections and Conclusion

Luke in the Third Gospel (Luke 12:12-21) provides for us some insight to the relationship between wealth and its management in relation to eschatology. This section gives synopsis of some implications. First, it is significant to note that Luke in this passage does not suggest that wealth and possession of themselves are evil. Rather the query is on the covetousness and obsession for possessions, and its management. Since possessions and wealth do not define the ultimate purpose of life now and even at the eschaton, Jesus admonishes that a person with eschatological orientation would moderate his quest for wealth and consider such bestowals as the beginning of responsibilities⁴⁸ because even honest wealth requires faithful stewardship which includes being rich towards God and impacts on one’s view of eternal realities. A realization of this sober reality can moderate the obsession to wealth acquisition and management. It could engender generosity rather than self-centeredness, the challenge that the rich fool could not overcome.

Second, wealth does not guarantee the extension of life nor does its possession secure eternal life. For instance, the rich fool never imagined his life was coming to an end suddenly. Consequently, death to him was not imminent. But at the very moment of abundance when he concluded plans on how to satiate himself with his wealth, death came knocking. Thus, to “define life in terms of things is the ultimate reversal of the creature serving the creation and ignoring the Creator.”⁴⁹ While needs should be met and satisfied but it is necessary to always note that any possession and wealth more than human need is superfluous.⁵⁰

Further, eschatological realities and human orientation towards it could influence the perceptions and management of wealth since such orientation understands that the essence of life is to prepare for eschatology. Such orientation moderates the attitude towards the acquisition and management of wealth and possessions. It seeks the benefit of the forgiveness of God and anchors on the kingdom values and the rewards that God bestows. Since the ultimate hope of Christians is the coming of Christ and life in an earth made new, life here on earth should be lived with an eschatological orientation.

Luke 12:13-21 shows that God does not principally loath wealth. But he abhors covetousness and greed, which compels one to secure wealth at all cost. He also disdains wealth management that neglects the needy and other appropriate use of wealth and possession in society. Thus, since wealth is no substitute for goodness and character and is not a guarantee for the real essence of life accountability towards God rather than the desire to satisfy ephemeral needs should govern the pursuit of and management of wealth and possession. Conclusively, the divine pronouncement on the rich but foolish farmer, constitute an invitation to the readers of Luke to evaluate their attitude towards possession and management in view of eschatology. The conclusion of this illustrative parable counsels that life has to be lived in the light of eschatological orientation.