Someone in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me." But he said to him, "Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?" And he said to them, "Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions." Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, `What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, `I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, `Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, `You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God."
--------------------
In this parable, the reader can become easily confused when trying to figure out why someone shouting from the crowd (like a crying baby who lost its toy to another baby) for Jesus to tell his “brother” to share. That seems to have little to do with a fictitious rich man buying up so much land he cannot store all the crops in the barns he owns; so, he plans to build bigger storage facilities. His plans call for him to end up “eating, drinking, and being merry” with great abundance; but then he is told by Yahweh his time on earth is up. The question (like so many mistranslations connecting parables of Jesus to the initiating factors) becomes, How does one relate with the other? Again, the translations miss how to read divine meaning, choosing to instead making mismatched paraphrases be pointless.
The first word of verse thirteen is “Eipen,” which in the lower-case means, “answer, bid, bring word, command.” (Strong’s) In the capitalized state, the word becomes elevated to a divine level of meaning, relative to Yahweh. This means that “Bringing of Word” is divinely inspired speech. When this then connects to “now a certain one from of this of crowd to his soul,” this says a Jew who had gathered around Jesus was “Commanded” by Yahweh to speak. He then addressed Jesus as “Teacher,” where the capitalization of “Didaskale” makes this Jew recognize Jesus as a “Master” of Mosaic Law and a “Teacher” of the truth contained in that Law.
After a comma mark following that address of Jesus, this Jew then is said to “speak,” where the lower-case Greek word “eipe” is written. This is then the voice of a common man (a Jew) requesting Jesus to “tell to this to brother of my soul to divide among of my soul this inheritance .” This seems to be a stranger asking Jesus to explain the Law governing “inheritance,” so Jesus will speak for Yahweh and say the Law is unfair and should be changed. However, this question should not be read in that way, when the possessive pronouns (me – myself, as “mou” and “emou”) are read so a “self” equates to a “soul” – as “brother of my soul” and “my soul this inheritance.”
This makes the statement not be about material wealth “divided” but about the marriage of a soul to Yahweh, where “this brother of my soul” is the possession “of my soul” by the soul of Adam-Jesus. This is then the man speaking about “this inheritance of my soul” that was his ‘ticket to heaven.’ This is then no different that the certain rich man who asked Jesus to tell him how he could “inherit eternal life.” This Jew was divinely inspired to ask Jesus to tell his possessing soul from Yahweh to split time with the host soul, letting that host soul make a few decisions from time to time; rather than his soul in his flesh always being told what to do, in order to gain eternal life.
In verse fourteen, Luke began with a capitalized “Ho,” which is a divinely elevated article, which should be translated as “This.” When “This” is relative to Yahweh raising a statement from a “certain Jew in the crowd,” “This” becomes relative to that stated. As Yahweh divinely inspired the request to change Law, Yahweh then speaks through His Son, as we read, “now he said to his soul.” The third-person masculine singular says this reply is spiritual communication, more than an audible reply. Jesus then addresses the person’s soul as “Anthrōpe,” a capitalized statement that “This said” is relative to all “Mankind.” This must be seen as a balance to the certain Jew referring to Jesus as “Master” or “Teacher.” This says the soul of Jesus speaks for the Father to “Mankind,” “Teaching” those souls trapped in human flesh the lessons that will free them to eternal life.
What Jesus then questioned all “Mankind” (forever), asking “who my soul set in order (or appointed) a ruler (or judge) or divider (or partitioner) upon your souls ?” This is then not Jesus belittling some stranger in the crowd who asked Jesus to tell his brother to divide the inheritance of his deceased father. Instead, it is Jesus asking all “Mankind” to tell him “who appointed a ruler or divider within all saved souls?” The “divider” is then the Lord over a wife-soul of Yahweh and its body of flesh.
To be asked to allow the host soul to have some leverage that would choose which sins to reject, while deciding which ones to allow, means a Jew claimed to serve Yahweh but was tired of not getting enough self-pleasure. This is then a question that is asked to all “Mankind,” as this question fits the scenario of Jesus saying one cannot serve two masters. This means two souls are present within saved souls, with one the soul of Adam-Jesus and the other the sinner soul that has been Baptized clean of sins by Yahweh’s Spirit. To ask to have some control over one’s flesh is to say, “I hate Yahweh for saving my soul, because I love sin.”
It is imperative to see this as Jesus’ response, because this duality of souls – one divine and the Lord, with the other the saved sinner – for one to begin to understand how the parable relates to an “inheritance” of one’s soul. This direction is then found in the first word Luke wrote that Jesus said next to the crowd. That capitalized word is “Horate,” which has been translated by the NRSV as “Take care!” but the lower-case spelling has this word mean “to see, perceive, attend to,” implying “look upon, experience, discern, and beware.” (Strong’s) The proper use of the word says, “to see with the mind,” (HELPS Word-studies) where the capitalization elevates this to a divine level that is Yahweh saying through Jesus, “Beware” or “See the truth.” As a word stated to their souls, this warns all of “Mankind” that a soul alone in its flesh cannot “See the truth” without divine assistance.
Following that capitalized word, Luke wrote the word “kai,” indicating this next stated by Jesus was important to grasp. He said, “guard your souls away from of whole of covetousness”. This says without Yahweh’s help, Satan will seek to steal “your souls away from” those seeking to maintain some control over their flesh. Instead of a “divided” control over the flesh, one will be possessed “of whole” and be led to serve a demon spirit set on making souls become lost “of covetousness” or “of a desire for more material things.”
Following a semi-colon mark, indicating a separate yet related statement was stated, expanding from this dangerous view that believes ‘equal rights over the flesh’ is a division that works out best for all, Luke told of Jesus saying: “because not within to this excess beyond that necessary to anyone , this life of one’s soul it exists from out of of those of them possessing to itself .” This says the soul born within a body of flesh is “not” capable of controlling oneself from desiring “this excess beyond that necessary.” This is why the Ten Commandments place so much focus on not coveting what someone else has, while one does not have that. The Ten Commandments (and all the rest) cannot be maintained by a soul alone in its flesh. Thus, Jesus warned that the eternal “life of one’s soul” becomes relative to that possessing soul that will marry a soul, “existing from out of” the world of demons. Without Yahweh possessing a soul as His wife, a soul will be taken by Satan, making “of those of them possessing” be going “to himself,” as “his soul” directs one. That direction is to sin; and, those sins will make the “life of one’s soul” be destined to Judgment and punishment.
This becomes the lesson of the “Teacher” to “Mankind.” A soul cannot be married to a controlling spirit and expect to have any control of its own life. In terms of the Laws of inheritance, the symbolism is the eldest boy or firstborn male will receive the wealth of his father, with that inheritance to then be managed so the others of the father do not squander what the father strived to manage. This becomes seen in the parable of the Prodigal Son, where such disaster was shown as inevitable. The Laws passed down by Moses were much less about a group of people (a family under the guidance of a father) becomes wealthy and prosperous, and much more about the inner values passed down by the father to all his children, which were designed to “Teach” each child to marry its soul to Yahweh and let the Spirit lead one to eternal life. To divide all the material spoils evenly would means no one saw those spoils came from righteous living, not greed and quests for more than one needed. All who called themselves Jews but were not true Israelites were evidence that dividing the spoils among the heirs prematurely led to disaster. Jesus spoke to crowds at such a disastrous time. The same disastrous times exist today still.
With this lesson told, Jesus then told the parable, which immediately placed focus on the capitalized word “Anthrōpou,” which is similar to his prior address of the one who posed a request – “Anthrōpe.” While Jesus addressed the request as being relative to all “Mankind,” this parable begins with the Genitive case (possessive), which translated as “Of Mankind.” The statement “Of” shows the soul “Of Mankind” is that ruler all “Mankind” is born with within one’s flesh. To then say this “Man” was “a certain one” means Jesus was speaking “Of Mankind” that was Jewish, therefore born into the family of Yahweh, where his father had taught him the Torah, Psalms and Prophets, as a way to become “rich” both materially and spiritually.
When Jesus then said this “Man’s” “riches” were due to him “bringing forth abundantly the fruits of the ground,” this needs to be seen in both material and spiritual ways. The “Man” was “rich” in both produce “of the ground,” but he was also “rich” in children “produced of the flesh.” Certainly, having many sons would assist him in “bringing forth more fruits of the ground.” The “Man” was the owner of both the ground he possessed and the children who labored that land for him. The ”Man” did not see any need to “divide” his wealth in any way. As long as his soul was possessed by Yahweh, he would not only teach his children how to make the ground productive for them, he was teaching them the values of preparing to sacrifice their souls to Yahweh after his death. Then, they would reap all the benefits of a divine inheritance.
Luke then began verse seventeen with the word “kai,” which denotes importance must be seen in what Jesus said next. Here, Jesus placed focus on the “Man” not focusing on his inner Lord, as he instead began to use his brain and think for himself. When Luke wrote the Greek word “dielogizeto,” which means “he will reason,” where the proper intent of this word’s use implies “go back-and-forth when evaluating, in a way that typically leads to a confused conclusion. The term implies one confused mind interacting with other confused minds, each further reinforcing the original confusion.” (HELPS Word-studies) This says the “Man” began to think for himself, rather than be led by Yahweh in the right direction, without need to think. With Yahweh’s guidance, the “Man” had all the knowledge he needed; but by “reasoning within to his soul,” this “Man” began taking his inheritance prematurely, dividing a share of control from Yahweh.
This use of his brain led the “man” to ask, “What shall I do,” where the first-person singular “I” is a statement of self-ego coming to the forefront of the “Man’s” brain. The capitalization of “Ti,” meaning “Who? What? Why?” is then a statement that the “Man” began to see his soul as a god, rather than being led by Yahweh to act. This means the “Man” did as the “certain man in the crowd” who told Jesus to “tell his brother to divide the inheritance.” The “Man” became “Who” he depended on for higher thought. To begin “reasoning” mean he was no longer led divinely to act (without forethought), causing him to have to figure out what to do by his own soul alone.
He then surmised, “because not I possess the place where I will bring together these fruits of my soul”. This is posed as a question the “Man” had to ponder, where “the fruits of his soul” were both his material wealth and his children’s souls. The “Man” worried that he did “not possess where he will bring together” both material wealth and spiritual development of his children, as their “teacher.” Without Yahweh leading his soul in both matters, the “Man” had taken it upon himself to play god.
In verse eighteen, the “Man” importantly (use of “kai”) said “This I will do,” where the Greek word “Touto” is capitalized, taking “This” to a divine level of meaning. By the first-person singular following, as a statement of self-ego being the future direction, “This” is importantly a statement of the “Man” playing god and deciding what course of action he will take. This says “This” is self-direction, no longer being controlled by Yahweh. “This” is self and “This” is “I,” which answered his prior question of “Who? What? and Why?”
Following a colon mark, acting as a marker of example of what the “Man will do,” Luke wrote of Jesus having him say, “I will destroy of my soul these places for storing kai greater I will build , kai I will bring together there all this grain kai these good ones in nature of my soul .” This says the “Man” planned “to destroy” or “tear down” or “cast down” Yahweh’s possession “of his soul,” where Yahweh’s knowledge was a wealth of stored guidance. Knowing the “Man” would “cast down” that divine resource, it would then be important to the “man” to “build himself to be greater” than Yahweh. Here, the Track 2 Old Testament reading selection from Ecclesiastes, where Solomon thought he could build himself greater than Yahweh, thorough marriage to the demon spirit Wisdom should be seen as part of the “Man’s” plan. This importantly would be where the “man” would be able to “bring together there all this gran,” where “grain” is the source of spiritual food. The failure was in seeing that physical grain cannot make spiritual food; so, the “Man” planned to feed the souls of his children the lesson that material wealth was what bought one’s way to heaven.
In verse nineteen we see this plan called for a “greater” spirit to align with, where the “Man” said, “I will speak of this soul of my soul,” where his then naming that “soul of my soul” as a capitalized “Psychē,” which is a divinely elevated “Soul.” Whereas Yahweh’s Spirit (the place where His Son’s “Soul” was resurrected after Baptism) had been this “Soul of the Man’s soul,” the replacement (which allowed the ”Man” to think “I” was allowed to him (the curse of Solomon and his worship of Wisdom) would let the “Man speak” and call the shots.
Here, the “Man” said to this possessing “Soul,” “you possess many good ones set into years many,” which said the “Man” knew demonic spirit possession had taken over the souls of “man good ones.” He knew this practice had not begun with his soul, but it had been going on a long time – “set into years many.” This was the state of misery that Jesus was sent to confront. This “Man” was not a singular problem, but a microcosm of the greater whole, where all of the Jewish religion had divorced Yahweh and married Mammon (or some other god of material gain).
The ”Man” then thought he could play like God, after the Creation was complete. He thought all he had to do was command his demon spirit ”Soul” to “take your rest.” The inheritance of a demon spirit would then allow the “Man” to divide time making decisions that concerned the soul and its flesh. Then, the “Man” figured out, with the demon spirit taking the ‘backseat,’ while the “Man” ran his life, his life would a series of events that would amount to “eat, drink, and be merry.” That was to ‘eat” upon all his fruits of the ground. He would “drink” of his flowing self-importance; and, he would “be merry” as a god that could do no wrong.
This is where the moral of the parable story come slapping the “man” in the face. For as much as his soul can reject Yahweh and for as much as a “Man’s” soul can become possessed by a lesser god – a demon of Satan’s worldly realm – the soul is always possessed by Yahweh. When death comes and the soul is released for Judgment, Jesus said the “Man” was called by “God” a “Fool.” When both “Theos” and “Aphrōn” are capitalized to a divine level of meaning, it is easy to see how “God” is a statement about Yahweh. The word “Aphrōn” is then a divinely elevated statement about how “without reason, foolish, senseless, and inconsiderate” the “Man” had been by playing god. He was not a god. Instead, he was a “Fool” that had lost all ability to “Reason” divinely; and, his soul was “Inconsiderate” not only of his soul, but of the souls of his children.
Jesus then told in the parable how Yahweh told the “Man,” “to this of this night,” which says it was “Foolishness” that rejected the light of truth (from Yahweh’s Spirit and His Son’s direction), choosing instead to be in the darkness of “night.” The symbolism of “night” is death, where a soul without oil in its lamp will be left behind when the time comes to be married to eternal life (the only true value). Yahweh then continued, saying “this soul of yourself it is asked back away from of your soul”. That says Yahweh always knows when the day of reckoning will come.
Yahweh then asked the soul of the “Man,” “who now made you ready – to whom it will exist ?” This says all souls come from Yahweh at birth, with each placed in a prison of flesh, where the only release from that prison will be Yahweh as their guide. The jailer (Satan) will try to mislead all souls towards trying to escape the pains of life, through selling their souls to him. The question the asked is akin to this: “Who did you serve? Any answer other tha “Yahweh” will result in a failed judgment placed upon that soul.
The final verse is then Jesus saying to the crowd, “In this manner this saving to his own soul , not in God abounding .” The capitalized “Houtōs,” which means “in this way, thus, so, in this manner,” becomes divinely elevated to be the moral of the story being stated. It says “In this way” of the rich “Man” trying to play god and divide spiritual inheritance – the guarantee of eternal life with Yahweh – as one sees just and fit is “In this manner” how one is deemed to be a “Fool.” Trying to “save one’s own soul” or “treasuring up for himself” is impossible. The only way to redeem one’s soul is importantly to “not” do as the “Man” asked Jesus or as the parable “Man” tried to “bring together for his soul.” Salvation only comes when one’s soul is “rich from God’s presence within.”
Comments