See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262105190

A Contextual Study of the Attitude of Jesus towards Wealth Acquisition and

Management in Luke 12:13-21

Article · October 2009

CITATION READS

1 1,938

1 author:

Sampson M Nwaomah
Adventist University of Africa
47 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sampson M Nwaomah on 07 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Contextual Study of the Attitude of Jesus
towards Wealth Acquisition and Management
in Luke 12:13-21

Sampson M. Nwaomah

ABSTRACT—During His ministry on earth Christ used various

teaching methods, such as parables. Through these methods He
wanted to modify human attitude towards even mundane things like
money and inheritance. One such parable is recorded in Luke
12:13-21. It was told in response to the invitation of a younger
brother for Christ to intervene in a family dispute over their
inheritance. The particular dispute of these two brothers about the
acquisition and management of wealth were of little concern to
Christ in terms of his mission for humanity. Yet Christ through this
parable provided principles that are very applicable to our
contemporary society where the inordinate urge for wealth often
leads people to engage in corrupt practices. This paper discusses
the parable and draws contextual implications for Nigerian society.
Keywords: wealth acquisition, wealth management, Nigeria, money,
corruption, parable, contextual implication

I. Introduction.

One of the most significant warnings about the dangers of wealth

in the teachings of Jesus is contained in a parable that was told in
response to a man’s complaint about his brother’s handling of the
family inheritance. It is often referred to as the parable of the rich

Manuscript received June 10, 2009; revised Aug. 27, 2009; accepted Sep. 15,
2009.
Sampson M. Nwaomah (Ph.D., Associate Professor, smnwaomah@yahoo.com)
is with Religious Studies Department, Babcock University, Ogun State, Nigeria.

AAMM, Vol. 1, 151

fool and is recorded in Luke 12:13-21. Christ’s teaching on the
attitude towards wealth in this passage was revolutionary. He set an
agenda for an altogether new attitude towards wealth. His teaching
is that wealth, instead of being worshipped, should be subservient to
man. It is appropriate to consider these warnings for contemporary
Nigeria. The drive to possess everything, as demonstrated in this
passage, is very noticeable in the materialism which dominates
Nigerian society. This phenomenon is heightened by the assumption
by many, both Christians and non-Christian, that economic wealth is
the answer to poverty and low self-esteem. For others, wealth is
power and security. Therefore, the lust for wealth has led some to
engage in many unwholesome practices and even the
commercialization of religion and other corrupt practices.
Thus this paper seeks to investigate the attitude of Jesus towards
wealth and it seeks to understand Luke 12:13-21 in the context of
wealth accumulation and greed in Nigeria. This paper provides an
exegesis of this biblical passage which includes the following: (1) a
definition of the literary unit under consideration, (2) a translation of
the passage, (3) an outline of the genre and structure of the passage,
and (4) an interpretation taking into account the significant
historical, lexico-grammatical, and syntactical issues that are
contained within the passage. Following this, the paper surveys the
behavior of some Nigerians in acquiring and managing wealth in
Nigeria and its effects on the people. Furthermore, the paper
concludes by identifying relevant implications for the context of
study.

II. Definition of the Literary Unit

The parable in this pericope of Luke 12:13-21 is peculiar to the

Lucan gospel. It belongs to the so-called travel narratives, (Luke
9:51-19:27), a literary feature peculiar to the Third Gospel. Luke
here records a great deal of material which is absent in Matthew and
Mark. It is in this section that Luke demonstrates vividly Jesus’
extensive use of parables to teach very important lessons relating to
ethics and the kingdom motif. The parables peculiar to Luke in this
section include those of the good Samaritan, the rich fool, the lost
sheep, the lost coin, the prodigal son, the unjust steward, and the
rich man and Lazarus.
Kümmel (1973, p. 133) maintains that this central section of the
Lucan gospel was not an original tradition. Rather it was a
composition of Luke who brought together materials of different

152 Sampson M. Nwaomah

origins, and fitted them into the framework of the journey to
Jerusalem. He further contends that the Evangelist may have
expanded on the situation presented in Mark 10:1; 11:1 by re-
arranging disparate material. In our view this argument seems
absurd because there is nothing to suggest that it is inconsistent with
Luke’s elaborate record of the parables of Christ, since nineteen of
the thirty-five parables recorded in the entire Gospel account are
unique to Luke. This may be attributed to literary sources peculiar to
Luke.
The passage in focus, Luke 12:13-21, contains a parable told by
Jesus in response to a man’s complaint against his brother whom he
accuses of greed. The man invites Jesus to arbitrate between them.
Jesus is being treated as a Rabbi here, in being asked to become an
arbitrator between the brothers in this dispute over the family
inheritance. (Ellis cited in Bock, 1996, p.343).
The parable is sandwiched by two other pericopes (Luke 12:1-11
and 22-34), the later being Luke’s version of an aspect of the
Sermon on the Mount. Content wise, Luke 12:13-21 focuses on the
attitude towards obtaining and managing wealth. While the main
thrust of the preceding pericope is on warnings against the ‘yeast’ of
the Pharisees and on general encouragement to faithfulness, the
succeeding pericope deals with questions of trust in God for
material provision and the need for contentment.

III. Translation

Translation of the passage as presented below is that of the author.

There are no significant textual variations on this passage, thus this
aspect will not be discussed. Nineteen of the thirty-five parables
recorded in the entire Gospel are unique to Luke. They may be
attributed to literary sources peculiar to Luke.

(13) Then someone from the crowd said to him, “Teacher,

command my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”
(14) Jesus replied to him, “Man, who appointed me a judge
or arbiter over you?” (15) Then he said to them, “Watch
out! Be on your guard from all kinds of greed; a man’s life
does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” (16)
So he told them a parable thus: “The ground of a certain
rich man produced a good crop. (17) He reasoned within
himself saying, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store
my grains.’ (18) “Then he said, ‘This is what I will do. I

AAMM, Vol. 1, 153

 will pull down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I
will store all my grain and my goods. (19) And I will say to
myself, “Soul, you have plenty good things stored up for
many years. Take life easy; eat, drink, and be merry.”’ (20)
But God said to him, “Fool, this very night your life will
be demanded from you. Then who will inherit what you
have prepared?’ (21) “This is the fate of the one who stores
up treasures for himself but is not rich towards God.”

IV. Genre and Structure

This pericope is an ethical teaching by Jesus on the right attitude

towards wealth. It can be structured as follows:

A. The Complaint by the Aggrieved Brother [Luke 12:13]

B. Jesus’ Answer to the Aggrieved Brother [12:14]
C. Jesus’ Exhortation to the Crowd [15-21]
1. The Dangers of Greed [15]
2. The Parable of the Rich Fool [16-21]

V. Interpretation of the Passage

A faithful attempt to exegete this pericope should take into

consideration the various elements and issues raised in the structure
above. The result of such effort should be in harmony with biblical
teachings on the issues in question. The structure outlined above
shows that the central feature of the pericope deals with the
uncertainty of human life and the transient nature of wealth. This
being said, our approach is to investigate the passage following the
structure set out above.

A. The Complaint by the Aggrieved Brother (Luke 12:13)

The ancient Jewish legal system left no doubt concerning the

dividing of family inheritance. It provided for the first son to
succeed the father as the head of the home and guaranteed him the
inheritance of a double portion of his father’s estate, leaving the
remaining son(s) to share the final one-third (Deut 21:17; 1 Chro 5:1,
2) (Horn, 1979, p.153). Where there is no male family member, the

154 Sampson M. Nwaomah

family’s wealth passes on to the daughters on the condition that they
marry within their tribe (Num 27:1-11; 36:6-9).
The cause of the younger brother’s contention over family
inheritance in the passage in question is not obvious. Some
suggestions have been made in the quest to understand this situation.
First, the elder brother might have taken beyond what the legal
system authorizes. Second, the complainant might be challenging
the law because he felt unprotected. Lastly, it is suggested that the
elder brother might have desired a partnership in the management of
the inheritance; an option unacceptable to the complainant (Henry,
1991). While the last option might have been unwelcome by the
plaintiff, in the ancient world families could jointly hold their
property and share its resources for business purposes (Bock, 1994,
p. 224). This, however, would still be at the supervision of the elder
brother. Thus, the complaint 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.

B. Jesus’ Answer to the Aggrieved Brother (Luke 12:14)

The aggrieved brother calls Jesus “rabbi,” a term used to refer to

religious teachers who are supposed to have authority to teach and
abdicate on ethical matters such as the one in question. This title is
generously 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. It is assumed that their learning and
knowledge of the torah and their interpretation of the religious
duties prescribed in it are infallible and thus unquestionable (Horn,
1979, p. 923). During the time of Christ it was not unusual for these
honored teachers to travel from one place to another, dispensing
answers to social and ethical concerns. Therefore, it was with this
notion that the aggrieved brother approached Christ with the request
to intervene in his affairs. But the expectation of the aggrieved
brother is dashed with Christ’s refusal to be drawn into this family
affair.
Two principal reasons have been adduced for Jesus’ refusal to
accede to this request. First, Barnes (1976, p. 80) suggests that
Christ’s refusal was because the primary purpose of His ministry
was not to settle civil affairs which the laws of the land could
resolve. The second reason raised is the question of motivation of
the younger brother who had asked Jesus to intervene in this family

AAMM, Vol. 1, 155

dispute (Leifeld, 1980, 8:961). The mood of the expression--the
imperative, which in this context could be seen as a command, may
point to this. The phrase communicating his request in verse
13 could read, “Teacher, command my brother to divide the
inheritance with me.” Bock (1996, p. 343) implies that this position
from the perspective of the complainant, recognizes certain
authority in Jesus which could enable Him to issue such a command.
With this understanding, the request may not have been to arbitrate,
but to advocate for the petitioner against his brother. Consequently,
Jesus’ response was to distance Himself from trivialities inconsistent
with His divine mission to save humanity from the very wantonness
plaguing the complainant.

C. Jesus’ Exhortation to the Crowd (Luke 12: 15-21)

1. Warning on the Dangers of Greed and Wealth (verse 15)

Rather than consenting to the request of the petitioner, Jesus
takes advantage of the opportunity to warn of the dangers of greed
or covetousness (KJV). But this time He speaks to the crowd
(autous, “them”) who is His first audience. In warning about greed,
Jesus employs the Greek term pleonexia, a word which can be
translated as “greediness”, “avarice”, “covetousness.” In a non-
biblical sense, pleonexia could be used positively as in Epictetus 2,
10:9. In this context it could denote a desire for more knowledge or
holiness. But it is suggested that its scriptural usage is always
negative (Perry, 1975, p. 825). 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 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 Pt 2:3 14). Speaking of the possessive nature of greed,
Plutarch (cited in Johnson, 1991, p. 198) observed that “greed never
rests from the acquiring of more.” It drives its captives to an
insatiable state where everything that matters is wealth, no matter
how it comes.
Next, Christ admonishes that life is not measured by possessions
(Luke 12:15b). Certain difficulties attend the clear intention of Jesus
in this part. Perhaps, it is because of this line that some have
suggested Luke 12:13-15 is the work of an editor. But in our view
this line is entirely appropriate, and there is no reason that it should
be labeled secondary. The warning against covetousness provides

156 Sampson M. Nwaomah

the perfect backdrop for the parable. Without the framework, the
parable is left entirely in the air.
In exploring the meaning of the thought of verse 15b, it is
necessary to investigate, though briefly, the meaning of the word
translated “life.” The Greek word zoē, translated “life” in this
passage, could be symbolic and may thus mean “happiness,” or
“quality of living.” It could also be taken literally as the “physical
life.” If understood from the first two meanings (happiness and
quality of life), Christ could here be saying: “Happiness in life is not
determined by the amount of wealth one has at his possession, even
if the quality of life might be enhanced by items of luxury and
comfort.” On the other hand, if the “life” here is physical, he could
be saying: “wealth does not guarantee the length of life; it cannot
prolong it.” Earlier in His teachings on the Mount, Christ had stated
that no person could lengthen his life by worries for wealth and the
cares of life. In this vein therefore, the latter meaning of life as
physical in Luke 12:15, seems more consistent with the passage as
is illustrated by the parable of the rich but foolish farmer who
follows this warning.
Christ’s injunction here is very significant. It elevates the
meaning and value of life above riches and wealth. Security of life
is not in amassing property. This was a radical challenge to the
original hearers and also to contemporary society’s measure of
success. The message is clear; possessions do not guarantee comfort
and security, nor lengthen one’s life. Thus one is not to be obsessed
by it.

2. The Parable of the Rich Fool (verses 16-21)

These introductory warnings concerning the dangers of greed
prepare the stage for the parable of the rich but idiotic man told in
verses 16-21. This parable is the fitting illustration of the statement
of Christ in verse 15b about the uncertainty of human life and the
transient nature of wealth. The parable does not suggest that the man
had acquired the wealth illegally or coveted it. Yet it plainly shows
that obsession with wealth, whether acquired genuinely or through
dubious means, is a vain pursuit.
The man in question could have been a wealthy Jewish farmer
who, beyond his careful planning and forecast, had excess returns in
his harvest for the year in question. In such a situation he could be
spared the worries of life (verse 19). In handling this abundance, his
human wisdom was displayed in his decision to expand his barns to
accommodate the bounty harvest. Being a farmer, the barns
certainly would be for the storage of the grains, possibly wheat and

AAMM, Vol. 1, 157

barley, two very important grains in Palestine. This type of barn was
“commonly made by the ancients, underground, where grain could
be kept a long time more safe (sic) from thieves and from vermin”
(Barnes, 1976, p. 81). In fact, no wise farmer or investor could think
and do less that the man in this parable sought to do. Jesus had no
query on the manner of the abundance, since there was no indication
of Him being a stern farmer such as indicated in James 5:4.
What then was the basis of His rebuke as aphrōn—foolish or
senseless (verse 20), a person “who rejects the knowledge and
precepts of God as the basis for life” (Liefeld, 1980, p. 961).
Barclay (1975) offers a further insight thus:

There is no (other) parable which is so full of the words, I,

me, my and mine….The rich fool was aggressively self-
centered….When this man had superfluity of goods, the
one thing that never entered his mind was to give any away.
His whole attitude was the very reverse of Christianity.
Instead of denying himself, he aggressively affirmed
himself; Instead of finding his happiness in giving, he tried
to conserve it by Keeping (p. 166, emphasis mine).

Commenting further on the attitude of the rich fool Geldenhuys

(1951, p. 355) also observes:

He 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.

In the light of the disposition of the rich fool, God addresses the
man 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 possessions. (Leifeld, 1980, p. 961). Thus he
has to leave it all, possibly to an incompetent heir or to no one in
particular (see Eccl 2:18-19). Conclusively, therefore Luke 12:13-21
leaves one with the following insights:

1) Selfishness involves the urge to have more at the expense of

what legitimately belongs to others and it brings
dissatisfaction with what one has.

158 Sampson M. Nwaomah

 2) Greed is possessive and leads to destruction.
3) Obsession with wealth, whether acquired legitimately or
otherwise is contrary to the God’s will for humankind.
4) Happiness in life is not measured by the amount of a person’s
earthly possessions nor can an extension to a person’s life be
guaranteed by one’s wealth.
5) Life has to be lived in the light of eschatological realities,
since whatever a person has on earth would be ultimately left
following death.

VI. Luke 12:13-21 in the Nigerian Context

In the attempt to show the relevance of Luke 12:13-21 to the

Nigerian society, this paper will briefly discuss the inordinate quest
for wealth and its improper management within the nation. This is
brought to view by the many cases of corruption that have become
public knowledge.
Corruption in Nigeria is manifested in all its shades. It has
touched every aspect of public life. This is attested to by the many
investigative panels that have been instituted in the last decade.
Notable among these are the investigations probing the Nigerian
Airways Ltd., the former National Electric Power Authority (NEPA),
now Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN), the Nigerian
Custom Service, and the Nigerian Telecommunications Plc.
(NITEL), the Nigerian Ports Authority Plc. (NPA), the Central Bank
of Nigeria (CBN), the Nigerian Airports Authority, the Nigeria
Police Force, and the Nigerian judiciary among others. At one time
or another, the executive, the legislative and the judicial arms of
government have been shown to be corrupt (National Conscience
Party, 2004). The most controversial of these probes was that of the
CBN. The panel headed by Pius Okigbo, a renowned economist, in
1995 found that $12billion dollars from the Gulf War windfall could
not be accounted for (Maier, 2000).
Nigerian newspapers have been crammed with news of
corruption in all its forms. Barely a year after the infamous “bribe
for budget” scandal, allegations of corruption in the legislature have
been rife. Members of the Joint Committee on Constitution Review
of the Nigerian National Assembly (JRCC) headed by the Deputy
Senate Leader, Ibrahim Mantu, were accused of receiving
$37,000.00 dollars each (Akpe, 2006; Kola, 2006). Further,
Ribadu’s report on the review of contracts awarded by the NPA

AAMM, Vol. 1, 159

between 2001 and 2003 was rejected by the Federal Government
because of its lack of specificity and inability to locate $250m in
NPA’s account (Chidozie, 2006, p. 6). An allegation of corruption
has also rocked the Nigerian oil industry with revelations that the
$4b dollars Liquefied Natural Gas Plant in Finimar, Rivers State,
may have been mired in corrupt practices (Bello, 2006, pp. 1–2). It
appears the oil sector posses the greatest challenge in terms of
corruption in Nigeria (Editorial, Washington Post, 2005, June 1).
Allegations of plundering of state and local government funds by
their accounting officers are also rife in the Nigerian society as
governors and local government administrators are accused of
looting their state treasury (Aiyetan, 2006a, pp. 18–23; 2006b, pp.
18–25; Allegoa, 2006 ).
Aluko (2006) documents extensively the various forms of
corruption in the local governments in Nigeria. These range from
payment for ghost contracts purportedly awarded, maintenance of
peace in imaginary crises, inflation of contract sums and purchases
of equipment, funding of political parties, and various forms of
collusion among officers. The other forms are extortion by
professionals engaged by the councils, stealing and vandalism of
council’s properties and various forms of fiscal recklessness. Both
elected and career council officials perpetuate these corrupt
practices.
The falsehood that security can be found in covetous wealth
accumulation has led some, especially, public servants, to engage in
severe corrupt practices to amass for themselves a greater
percentage of the nations’ collective wealth. For instance the head of
one of the anti-corruption agencies, Nuhu Ribadu, had reported that
the sum of export earnings gained by corrupt means, during the
period from the mid-1980s to 1999, exceeded US $100 billion
(Ribadu, 2006, p.48). This amount is about twenty percent of the
projected US $600 billion post-independence earnings on oil
(Adeleye, 2006, p.3).
The consequence of this is the non-availability of adequate
resources for public spending on essential basic social amenities like
education, health, water and electricity. Poverty, sickness and low
life expectancy result (Nwaomah, 2007, pp.73–81).
While the evidences of corruption in Nigeria are overwhelming,
the sad fact, however, is that most of the perpetrators boldly defend
their action and explain them away. At the same time, basic
amenities such as water, light, good roads, affordable health care
and other social benefits for the masses are conspicuously absent.
The unequal distribution of wealth, covetousness and greed has left

160 Sampson M. Nwaomah

no less than sixty percent of the Nigerian populace living below the
poverty line. Some even put the figure higher and advocate that it is
the opposite of the situation at the dawn of the country’s
independence in the early 1960’s (Nwaomah, 2005, p. 56). It is no
doubt that an acceptance of this unpleasant situation has led
governments at various levels to initiate programs for the
eradication of poverty.
In the circumstances described above, one may ask,: “To what
areas of life in Nigeria can this paper speak?” I suggest two ways.
First, it can speak to the individual wealthy Nigerians whose manner
of wealth acquisitions is questionable and whose security is wealth.
Second, it can speak to the country of Nigeria collectively, which in
the midst of abundant resources has a high level of its populace
living below the poverty line. We shall briefly address these two
areas together.

VII. Implications for the Nigerian Society

In the light of the above scenario on the consequence of

obsessive wealth acquisition and poor management in Nigeria, the
salient lessons from the Bible passage under consideration become
relevant to the Nigerian society.
First, covetousness produces self-inflicted trauma. Those who
indulge in such ungodly acts probably think that they deprive others.
But they often and unexpectedly experience the trauma too. Take as
a case in point, the various embarrassing situations such as trials,
imprisonments and bad publicity. It affects the corrupt individuals as
well as their families. This has been a common experience in the
new Nigeria.
Second, wealth does not guarantee the extension of life. For
instance, the rich fool never imagined his life was coming to an end
that night. At the very moment he concluded plans for himself and
his wealth death came knocking. Similarly, it is absurd for any
person in contemporary Nigeria to think that wealth builds a chasm
between them and death. A realization of this sober reality can
moderate the obsession to wealth acquisition and management.
Lastly, the fact that self preservation and class preservation
govern the quest for wealth and its management by many Nigerians
is quite unassailable. This covetousness blinds people in such a way
that the sole consideration is the immediate solace that might come
their way. But the admonition Jesus provides in this passage (Luke
12:21) is that accountability to God rather than any mundane

AAMM, Vol. 1, 161

contemplation should moderate the quest for and management of
wealth.

VIII. Conclusion

This study shows that God does not loath wealth. But he abhors
the covetousness and greed which compels one to secure wealth at
all cost. He also disdains wealth management that does not factor in
the needs of the poor in society. We also observe that the lust for
wealth in contemporary Nigerian has led to corrupt practices by
some public officers at the expense of the welfare of the majority of
the people. Thus Luke 12:13-21 holds significant implications for
the Nigerian society where the lust for wealth and its poor
management have impoverished many and the wealthy live without
regard for their divine accountability. And, since wealth is no
substitute for goodness or character and is not a guarantee of the real
essence of life, accountability towards God rather than the desire to
satisfy ephemeral needs, should govern its pursuit and management.

References

Adeyeye, J. (2006, May 25). Nigeria’s Post-Independence Oil

Earnings Hit $600 Billion Mark. The Punch, 3.
Aiyetan, D. (2006a, February 27). The Looting of Taraba. Tell
Magazine.
Aiyetan, D. (2006b, May 15). The Rape of Abia. Tell Magazine.
Akpe, S. (2006, April 11). Mantu’s Trial: Fairness versus Group
Interest. The Punch, 38–39.
Allegoa (2006, May 6). Local Government Administration and
Accountability. Tide Online.
Aluko, Jones O. (2006). Corruption in the Local Government
System of Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: Book Builders.
Barclay, William. (1975). Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of Luke.
(Rev. ed.). Edinburgh, UK: The Saint Andrew.
Barnes, Albert. (1976). Notes on the New Testament: Vol. 2. Grand
Rapids: Baker Books.
Bock, Darrel L. (1994). Luke. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1994.

162 Sampson M. Nwaomah

Bock, Darrel L. (1996). Luke: The NIV Application Commentary.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Chidozie, I. (2006, May 4). NPA Probe: FG Rejects White paper.
The Punch.
Geldenhuys, Norval. (1951). Commentary on the Gospel of Luke.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Henry, Matthew. (1991). Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the
Whole Bible: Luke. New Modern, Electronic Database.
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.
Horn, Siegfried. H. (Ed.). (1979). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible
Dictionary (SBD). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald.
Johnson, L. T. (1991). Luke. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier.
Kümmel, W. G. (1973). Introduction to the New Testament (17th ed.,
Howard C. Kee, Trans.). Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Leifeld, William. L. (1980). Luke. F. Gaebelein (Ed.), The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Vol. 8). Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.
Maier, K. (2000). This house has fallen: Nigeria in Crisis. London:
Penguin Group
National Conscience Party, (2004). Probing Corruption in Nigeria.
Retrieved from http://www.nigeriancp.net/ tribune.html.
Nestle, Erwin, Aland, Barbara and Kurt (Eds.) (1999). Novum
Testamentum Graece et Latine (27th ed.). Stuttgartm, German:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Nwaomah, Sampson. M. (2005). Modelling the Ministry of Christ in
Luke 4:16-19 in Contemporary Adventist Mission in Nigeria.
Insight: Journal of Religious Studies, 2(1 &2), 50–59.
Nwaomah, Sampson. M. (2007). The Role of the Church in
Combating Corruption in Nigeria. In Ayandiji D. Aina (Ed.),
The Task of Nation Building (pp. 73–81). Somolu, Nigeria:
Emaphine Reprographics.
Perry, R.E. (1975). Greed. In The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia
of the Bible (Vol. 2). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Ribadu, Nuhu. (2006, May 9). Money Laundering: Promoting
Compliance Among African Financial Institutions. Nigerian
Tribune, 48. There is countless media reportage of financial
corruption perpetuated by several public servants at the three
levels of government. See Tell Magazines, Feb. 20; Feb. 27;
May 22.
Corruption in Nigeria. (2005, June 1, Editorial). Washington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.africanews.com/opinion
/corruption_in_nigeria.htm.

AAMM, Vol. 1, 163

View publication stats