Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 16:12
And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?
12. that which is another man’s ] The lesson of the verse is that nothing which we possess on earth is our own; it is entrusted to us for temporary use (1Ch 29:14), which shall be rewarded by real and eternal possessions (1Pe 1:4).“Vitaque mancipio nulli datur, omnibus usu,” Lucr. ill. 985.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Another mans – The word mans is not in the original. It is, If ye have been unfaithful managers for another. It refers, doubtless, to God. The wealth of the world is his. It is committed to us as his stewards. It is uncertain and deceitful, and at any moment he can take it away from us. It is still his; and if, while intrusted with this, we are unfaithful, we cannot expect that he will confer on us the rewards of heaven.
That which is your own – The riches of heaven, which, if once given to us, may be considered as ours – that is, it will be permanent and fixed, and will not be taken away as if at the pleasure of another. We may calculate on it, and look forward with the assurance that it will continue to be ours forever, and will not be taken away like the riches of this world, as if they were not ours. The meaning of the whole parable is, therefore, thus expressed: If we do not use the things of this world as we ought – with honesty, truth, wisdom, and integrity, we cannot have evidence of piety, and shall not be received into heaven. If we are true to that which is least, it is an evidence that we are the children of God, and he will commit to our trust that which is of infinite importance, even the eternal riches and glory of heaven.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 12. That which is another man’s] Or rather another’s, . That is, worldly riches, called another’s:
1. Because they belong to God, and he has not designed that they should be any man’s portion.
2. Because they are continually changing their possessors, being in the way of commerce, and in providence going from one to another. This property of worldly goods is often referred to by both sacred and profane writers. See a fine passage in Horace, Sat. l. ii. s. 2. v. 129.
Nam propriae telluris herum natura neque illum,
Nec me, nec quemquam statuit.
Nature will no perpetual heir assign,
Nor make the farm his property, or mine.
FRANCIS.
And the following in one of our own poets: –
“Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands.”
That which is your own?] Grace and glory, which God has particularly designed for you; which are the only proper satisfying portion for the soul, and which no man can enjoy in their plenitude, unless he be faithful to the first small motions and influences of the Divine Spirit.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Let it be questioned whether might not have been translated foreign as well as another mans, for so interpreters expound that phrase: If you have not been faithful in things that are without you, which are little, compared with things that are within us. Yet riches are indeed properly not ours, we are but the stewards of them, and part of them are other mens, and only trusted into our hands, to dispense to them according to our Masters order. Grace is our own, especially justifying and sanctifying grace; because it is given us of God solely for our own use and advantage. We use to say, That those who have been, bad servants seldom prove good masters. In the trust of our riches we are but servants; God will not give out of his special saving grace to those that abuse the trust of his common gifts and grace.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
12. another man’s . . . your ownanimportant turn to the subject. Here all we have is on trust asstewards, who have an account to render. Hereafter, what the faithfulhave will be their own property, being no longer on probation,but in secure, undisturbed, rightful, everlasting possession andenjoyment of all that is graciously bestowed on us. Thus money isneither to be idolized nor despised: we must sit looseto it and use it for God’s glory.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s,…. Which is not a man’s own, but what is committed to him by another; , “with the mammon of others a”, to speak in the language of the Jews; and of mammon, our Lord is speaking, and here of another man’s, of which they were only stewards, as he in the preceding parable was: hence we read b of
, “keepers of mammon”, who were intrusted with another’s substance; and such are here supposed, which, if unfaithful in,
who shall give you that which is your own? that is, should you unjustly detain, or make an ill use of another man’s substance lodged in your hands, how can you expect but that you will be dealt with in like manner by others, who will not pay you yours, they have in their possession, but convert it to their own use? A like distinction of another’s and a man’s own, may be observed among the Jews:
“there are (say they c,) four sorts of men in respect of giving alms; he that would give, but would not have others give, his eye is evil, , “in that which is other men’s” (i.e. as the commentator observes d, lest the goods of others should be increased, and they get a good name); he that would that others should give, but he will not give himself, his eye is evil, , “in that which is his own”; he that gives, and would have others give, he is a “good man”; he that neither gives, nor would have others give, he is an “ungodly man”;”
see Ro 5:7. Interpreters generally understand by “that which is another man’s”, in the first clause, the things of this world, which men are possessed of, because these are not of themselves, but from another, from God; and they are but stewards, rather than proprietors of them; and they are for the good of others, and not for themselves; and are not lasting, but in a little while will pass from them to others: and by “that which is your own”, they understand the good things of grace and glory, which, when once bestowed on man, are his own property, and for his own use, and will never be alienated from him, but will always abide with him: but if he is unfaithful in the former, how should he expect the latter to be given to him?
a Jarchi in Pirke Abot, c. 5, sect. 13. b T. Hieros. Succa, fol. 53. 1. c Pirke Abot, c. 5. sect. 13. d Jarchi in ib.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
That which is your own ( ). But Westcott and Hort read (our own) because of B L Origen. The difference is due to itacism in the pronunciation of – and alike (long). But the point in the passage calls for “yours” as correct. Earthly wealth is ours as a loan, a trust, withdrawn at any moment. It belongs to another ( ). If you did not prove faithful in this, who will give you what is really yours forever? Compare “rich toward God” (Lu 12:21).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
That which is another’s. God ‘s. Riches are not ours, but given us in trust.
Your own. Equivalent to the true riches. That which forms part of our eternal being – the redeemed self. Compare the parable of the Rich Fool (ch. 12 20), where the life or soul is distinguished from the possessions. “Thy soul shall be required; whose shall the wealth be?” Compare, also, rich toward God (ch. 12 21). Chrysostom, cited by Trench, says of Abraham and Job, “They did not serve mammon, but possessed and ruled themselves, and were masters, and not servants.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And if ye have not been faithful,” (kai ei pistol ouk egenesthe) “And if you all were not faithful,” or trustworthy in character, in managing and administering the law for God’s honor, rather than your covetous material gain and prestige of position.
2) “In that which is another man’s,” (en to allotrio) “In administering things belonging to another,” to God who owns the universe, Psa 24:1; 1Co 10:26; Who said, “occupy till I come,” Luk 19:13. If you do not manage it with integrity, nobly, for honorable purposes and in an honest way.
3) “Who shall give you that which is your own?” (to hemeteron tis dosei humin) “Who will then give you that which is your own to administer?” any longer? Mat 23:37-39. He who steals from God, or misuses what God entrusts to him, steals from himself, from the development of his own character. For matters of trust are disciplinary trusts, which when faithfully administered, benefit both the owner and administrative steward of the trust.
Money is therefore neither to be idolized nor despised, but used to God’s glory, 1Co 10:31.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
12. And if you have not been faithful in what belongs to another. By the expression, what belongs to another, he means what is not within man; for God does not bestow riches upon us on condition that we shall be attached to them, but makes us stewards of them in such a manner, that they may not bind us with their chains. And, indeed, it is impossible that our minds should be free and disengaged for dwelling in heaven, if we did not look upon every thing that is in the world as belonging to another
Who shall entrust to you what is your own? Spiritual riches, on the other hand, which relate to a future life, are pronounced by him to be our own, because the enjoyment of them is everlasting. But now he employs a different comparison. There is no reason, he tells us, to expect that we shall make a proper and moderate use of our own property, if we have acted improperly or unfaithfully in what belonged to another. Men usually care less about abusing, and allow themselves greater liberty in squandering, their own property, because they are not afraid that any person will find fault with them; but when a thing has been entrusted to them either in charge or in loan, and of which they must afterwards render an account, they are more cautious and more timid.
We thus ascertain Christ’s meaning to be, that they who are bad stewards of earthly blessings would not be faithful guardians of spiritual gifts. He next introduces a sentence: You cannot serve God and mammon; which I have explained at Mat 6:24. There the reader will find an explanation of the word Mammon (301)
(301) “ Et la aussi on trouvera la signification de ce mot Mammona, lequel est ici mis, et que nous avons traduit Richesses ” — “And there will also be found the meaning of the word Mammon, which is used here, and which we have translated Riches. ”—In an earlier portion of this Commentary, to which our author refers, (Harmony, vol. 1 p. 337,) no direct or formal explanation of the word Mammon is to be found; but a careful reader of the expository remarks on Mat 6:24 will easily perceive that Calvin understands riches to be one of the two masters spoken of in that passage. An indirect definition of the term is afforded by his French version of the text, both in Mat 6:24, and in Luk 16:13, “ Vous ne pouvez servir a Dieu et aux richesses;” — “ you cannot serve God and riches.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(12) If ye have not been faithful in that which is another mans . . .The ruling idea of the verse is clearly that which the parable had enforced, that in relation to all external possessions and advantages we are stewards and not possessors. The Roman poet had seen that to boast of such things was the emptiest of all vanities
At genus, et proavos, et qu non fecimus ipsi,
Vix ea nostra voco.
[ Lineage and name, and all that our own powers
Have not wrought for us, these I scarce call ours.]
That which is your own?This is obviously identical with the true riches of the preceding verse. Wisdom, holiness, peace, these the world has not given, and cannot take away; and even looking to God as the great Giver of these as of other good and perfect gifts, it may be said that they are bestowed by Him as a possession in fee, the reward of the faithful stewardship of all lower gifts and opportunities, so that, though His gift, they become, in very deed, our own.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
12. That which is another man’s This other man, in the parable, is the landlord. With probationary man, it is God. Nothing earthly is our own if we are stewards. Nothing is ours, because everything is but in our momentary possession. Everything is like the snowflake upon our warm palm; it vanishes as the snowflake to the air, back to the God who gave it.
That which is your own The permanent and the eternal, which is not lent for a time, but given for endless ages, is our own. According then as we have faithfully dealt with what God has temporarily lent, so will he bestow on us eternal possessions.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Luk 16:12. That which is another man’s, Here, as in many of our Lord’s discourses, the expression is so simple, and the sense so profound, that we need not wonder at its being overlooked. Our translation has supplied the word man without reason; for it is not man, but God, who is intended; to whom the riches and other advantages in our possession do properly belong; who has committed them to us only as stewards, to be laid out for the good of his family, and who may every moment call us to give an account of our management. The words that which is your own, do not signify that which is already our own, but that which is to be so: that, which, when it is conferred upon us, shall be wholly in our power, and perpetually in our possession; shall be so fully our own, that weshall never be called to account for the management of it. Our Lord’s meaning therefore is, “If you have dared to be unfaithful in that which was only a trust committed to you by God for a short time, and of which you knew you were to give him an account; it is evident, that you are not fit to be entrusted by him with the riches of heaven,these being treasures, which, ifhe bestowed them on you, would be so fully your own, that you would have them perpetually in your possession, and never be called to an account for your management of them.” This verse is well expressed, though not exactly rendered in the version of 1729; If you have embezzled what another gave you in trust, how can he give you an estate in perpetuity? Probably our Lord may allude to a custom of rewarding faithful stewards, by giving them some part of the estates which they had managed.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?
Ver. 12. In that which is another man’s ] Riches are not properly ours, but God’s, who hath intrusted us, and who doth usually assign them to the wicked, those men of his hand, for their portion,Psa 17:14Psa 17:14 , for all the heaven that they are ever to look for. Better things abide the saints, who are here but foreigners, and must do as they may.
Who shall give you that which is your own? ] Quod nec eripi nec surripi potest. Aristotle relateth a law like this made by Theodectes, that he that used not another man’s horse well should forfeit his own.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Luke
TWO KINDS OF RICHES
THE GAINS OF THE FAITHFUL STEWARD
Luk 16:12
In a recent sermon on this context I dealt mainly with the threefold comparison which our Lord runs between the higher and the lower kind of riches. The one is stigmatised as ‘that which is least,’ the unrighteous mammon,’ ‘that which is another’s’; whilst the higher is magnified as being ‘that which is most,’ ‘the true riches,’ ‘your own.’ What are these two classes? On the one hand stand all possessions which, in and after possession, remain outside of a man, which may survive whilst he perishes, or perish while he survives. On the other hand are the riches which pass into him, and become inseparable from him. Noble aims, high aspirations, pure thoughts, treasures of wisdom, treasures of goodness-these are the real wealth corresponding to man’s nature, destined for his enrichment, and to last with him for ever. But we may gather the whole contrast into two words: the small, the ‘unrighteous,’ the wealth which being mine is not mine but remains another’s, and foreign to me, is the world. The great riches, the ‘true riches,’ the good destined for me, and for which I am destined, is God. In these two words you have the antithesis, the real antithesis, God versus the world.
Now let us turn rather to the principle which our Lord here lays down, in reference to these two classes of good, or of possessions. He tells us that the faithful use of the world helps us to the possession of God; or, to put it into other words, that how we handle money and what money can buy, has a great deal to do with our religious enjoyment and our religious life, and that that is true, both in regard to our partial possession of God here and now, and to our perfect possession of Him in the world to come.
Now I wish to say one or two very plain things about this matter, and I hope that you will not turn away from them because they are familiar and trite. Considering how much of your lives, especially as regards men of business, is taken up with money, its acquisition, its retention, its distribution, there are few things that have more to do with the vigour or feebleness of your Christian life than the way in which you handle these perishable things.
I wish to say a word or two, first, about I. What our Lord means by this faithfulness to which He attaches such tremendous issues.
Now, you will remember, that the starting point of my text is that parable of the unjust steward, whose conduct, knavish as it was, is in some sense presented by our Lord to His disciples, and to us, as a pattern. But my text, and the other two verses which are parallel with it, seem to have amongst their other purposes this: to put in a caveat against supposing that it is the unfaithfulness of the steward which is recommended for our imitation. And so the first point that is suggested in regard to this matter of faithfulness about the handling of outward good is that we have to take care that it is rightly acquired, for though the unjust steward was commended for the prudent use that he made of dishonestly acquired gain, it is the prudent use, and not the manner of the acquisition which we are to take as our examples. Initial unfaithfulness in acquisition is not condoned or covered over by any pious and benevolent use hereafter. Mediaeval barons left money for masses. Plenty of Protestants do exactly the same thing. Brewers will build cathedrals, and found picture galleries, and men that have made their money foully will fancy that they atone for that by leaving it for some charitable purpose. The caustic but true wit of a Scottish judge said about a great bequest which was supposed to be-whether rightly or wrongly, I know not-of that sort, that it was ‘the heaviest fire insurance premium that had been paid in the memory of man.’ ‘The money does not stink,’ said the Roman Emperor, about the proceeds of an unsavoury tax. But the money unfaithfully won does stink when it is thrown into God’s treasury. ‘The price of a dog shall not come into the sanctuary of the Lord.’ Do not think that money doubtfully won is consecrated by being piously spent.
But there are more things than that here, for our Lord sums up the whole of a Christian man’s duties in regard to the use of this external world and all its good, in that one word ‘faithful,’ which implies discharge of responsibility, recognition of obligation, the continual consciousness that we are not proprietors but stewards. Unless we carry that consciousness with us into all the phases of our connection with perishable goods they become-as I shall have to show you in a moment,-hindrances instead of helps to our possession of God.
I am not going to talk revolutionary socialism, or anything of that sort, but I am bound to reiterate my own solemn conviction that until, practically as well as theoretically, the Christian Church in all its branches brings into its creed, and brings out in its practice, the great thought of stewardship, especially in regard to material and external good, but also in regard to the durable riches of salvation, the nations will be full of unrest, and thunder-clouds heavily boding storm and destruction will lower on the horizon. What we have, we have that we may impart; what we have in all forms of having, we have because we have received. We are distributing centres, that is all-I was going to say like a nozzle, perforated with many holes, at the end of the spout of a watering-can. That is a Christian man’s relation to his possessions. We are stewards. ‘It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful’ Now let me ask you to notice-
II. The bearing of this faithfulness in regard to the lower wealth on our possession of the higher.
There is another way in which we may look at this matter. I have said that the main use of these perishable and fragmentary good things around us is to develop character, by our administration of them. Another way of putting the same thought is that their main use is to show us God. If we faithfully use the lesser good it will become transparent, and reveal to us the greater. We hear a great deal about deepening the spiritual life by prayers, and conventions, and Bible readings and the like. I have no word to say except in full sympathy with all such. But I do believe that the best means, the most powerful means, by which the great bulk of Christian men could deepen their spiritual lives would be a more honest and thoroughgoing attempt to ‘be faithful in that which is least.’ We have so much to do with it necessarily, that few, if any, things have more power in shaping our whole characters than our manner of administering the wealth, the material good, that comes to our hands.
And so, dear brethren, I beseech you remember that the laws of perspective are such as that a minute thing near at hand shuts out the vision of a mighty thing far off, and a hillock by my side will hide the Himalayas at a distance, and a sovereign may block out God; and ‘that which is least’ has the diabolical power of seeming greater to us than, and of obscuring our vision of, ‘that which is most.’
May I remind you that all these thoughts about the bearing of faithfulness in administering the lower of our possessions, on the attainment of higher, apply to us whatever be the amount of these outward goods that we have? I suppose there were not twelve poorer men in all Palestine that day than the twelve to whom my text was originally addressed. Three of them had left their nets and their fishing-boats, one of them we know had left his counting-house, as a publican, and all his receipts and taxes behind him. What they had we know not, but at all events they were the poor of this world. Do not any of you that happen to be modestly or poorly off think that my sermon is a sermon for rich men. It is not what we have, but how we handle it, that is in question. ‘The cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches,’ were bracketed together by Jesus Christ as the things that ‘choke the word,’ and make it unfruitful. The poor man who wants, and the rich man who uses unfaithfully, are alike hit by the words of my text.
Now, further, let me ask you to look at III. The bearing of faithfulness in this life on the fuller possession of our true riches in the life hereafter.
There lies under this whole context a striking conception of life here in its relation to the life hereafter, A father sets his son, or a master sets his apprentice, to some small task, an experiment made upon a comparatively worthless body, supplies him with material which it does not much matter whether he spoils or not, and then if by practice the hand becomes deft, he is set to better work. God sets us to try our ‘prentice hands here in the world, and if we administer that rightly, not necessarily perfectly, but so as to show that there are the makings of a good workman in us by His gracious help, then the next life comes, with its ampler margin, with its wider possibilities, with its nobler powers, and there we are set to use in loftier fashion the powers which we made our own being here. ‘Thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things.’
I have said that the great use of the world and all its wealth is to make character. I have said that that character determines our capacity for the possession of God. I have said that our administration of worldly wealth is one chief factor in determining our character. Now I say that that character persists. There are great changes, changes the significance and the scope and the consequences of which we can never know here. But the man remains, in the main direction of his being, in the character which he has made for himself by his use of God’s world and of Christ’s Spirit. And so the way in which we handle the trivialities and temporalities here has eternal consequences. We sit in a low room with the telegraph instrument in front of us, and we click off our messages, and they are recorded away yonder, and we shall have to read them one day. Transient causes produce permanent effects. The seas which laid down the great sandstone deposits that make so large a portion of the framework of this world have long since evaporated. But the footprints of the seabird that stalked across the moist sand, and the little pits made by the raindrops that fell countless millenniums ago on the red ooze, are there yet, and you may see them in our museums. And so our faithfulness, or our unfaithfulness, here has made the character which is eternal, and on which will depend whether we shall, in the joys of that future life, possess God in fullness, or whether we shall lose Him, as our portion and our Friend.
Now, dear brethren, do not forget that all this that I have been saying is the second page in Christ’s teaching; and the first page is an entirely different one. I have been saying that we make character, and that character determines our possession of God and His grace. But there is another thing to be said. The central thought of Christ’s gospel is that God, in His sweetness, in His pardoning mercy, in His cleansing Spirit, is given to the very men whose characters do not deserve it. And the same Lord who said, ‘If ye have not been faithful in that which is least, who shall give you that which is greatest?’ says also from the heavens,’ I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich.’ My text, and the principle that is involved in it, do not contradict the great truth that we are saved by simple faith, however unworthy we are. That is the message to begin with. And unless you have received it you are not standing in the place where the message that I have been insisting upon has a personal bearing on you. But if you have taken Christ for your salvation, remember, Christian brother and sister, that it is not the same thing in regard either to your Christian life on earth, or to your heavenly glory, whether you have been living faithfully as stewards in your handling of earth’s perishable good, or whether you have clung to it as your real portion, have used it selfishly, and by it have hidden God from your hearts. To Christian men is addressed the charge that we trust not in the uncertainty of riches, but in the living God, and that we be ‘rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, that we lay up in store for ourselves a good foundation against the time to come’; and so ‘lay hold on the life that is life indeed.’
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
another man’s = a foreigner’s. Compare Act 7:6 and Heb 11:9 (“strange “), and Mat 17:25, Mat 17:26 (“stranger “). Greek. allotrios (App-124.)
your own. Greek. humeteros. But, though all themodern critical texts (except WH and Rm) read it thus, yet the primitive text must have read hemeteros = ours, or our own; for it is the reading of “B “(the Vatican MS.) and, before this or any other Greek MS. extant, Origen (186-253), Tertullian (second cent.), read hemon–ours; while Theophylact (1077), and Euthymius (twelfth cent.), with B (the Vatican MS.) read hemeteros = our own, in contrast with “foreigners “in preceding clause. See note on 1Jn 2:2. This makes true sense; otherwise it is unintelligible.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Luk 16:12. , that which is anothers) In the case of the external goods of the world, in the food needed for the belly. See 1Co 6:13; 1Ti 6:7. In a different point of view it is carnal things, not spiritual, which are called our own, 1Co 9:11 [If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?]. Nay, indeed, all the good things of God are alien to a man, before that he becomes a believer, even those which are inferior and prior to the rest: but when a man has become a believer, all things become his own, even the greatest and the highest goods.- , that which is your own) that which belongs to the sons and heirs of God: ch. Luk 6:20 [Yours is the Kingdom of God] 1Co 3:22 [All things are yours, etc.]. It virtually and in fact refers to the same thing as , the true good, Luk 16:11.-, unto you) This implies that he who fails to obtain salvation, might nevertheless have obtained it.-, will give) The verb , will commit, corresponds to the noun , Luk 16:11, and refers solely to this life, during which is the time of probation; the verb , will give, corresponds to the pronoun , that which is your own, and refers especially to the future life, in which there is no risk of faithlessness. Wherefore inasmuch as in the case of the one world faithlessness has place, but has not in the other, the cause why the true goods are not to be committed to those who have not evinced fidelity in the case of the unjust mammon, is the truth and exalted worth of the things which must not be exposed to any risk; and the cause why the goods which are their own, are not to be given to those who have not evinced faithfulness in the case of the goods which belong to another, is the unworthiness of those who had been intended to receive them as their own,-that unworthiness incapacitating them for so great an inheritance. No man can with the one and the same earnestness administer both things that are unrighteous and things that are true: or enjoy with one and the same soul both the things that belong to another, and the things that are his own.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
in: Luk 19:13-26, 1Ch 29:14-16, Job 1:21, Eze 16:16-21, Hos 2:8, Mat 25:14-29
that which is your: Luk 10:42, Col 3:3, Col 3:4, 1Pe 1:4, 1Pe 1:5
Reciprocal: Pro 8:18 – durable Luk 16:6 – Take Luk 16:10 – faithful in 2Co 6:10 – and
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
If a man is careless in handling the goods of another, he would be still more unappreciative of his own, and would feel free to do as he pleased with them.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?
[If ye have not been faithful in that which was another man’s, etc.] to apply another man’s to that wealth which is given us by God, is something harsh and obscure; but to apply it to the riches of other men, makes the sense a little more easy: “If ye have been unjust in purloining the goods of other men, and will still as unjustly keep them back, what reason have you to think that others will not deal as unjustly with you, and keep back even what is yours?”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
16:12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is {f} another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?
(f) In worldly goods, which are called other men’s because they are not ours, but rather entrusted to our care.