if you want to experience what he meant
saying- 72; not a divider.
[A man said] to him,
Tell my brothers to divide my father's possessions with me.
He said to him,
O man, who has made me a divider?
He turned to his disciples and said to them,
I am not a divider, am I?
Jesus refuses here to act as judge in a family dispute, because he is not a divider.
It may sound contradictory to the sayings in which he seems not to care much about
family ties when these shatter over the content of his teachings. However, the saying
may indicate that Jesus refused to pretend as if he had any mastery over people, while he
also refused to act in a conflict on a societal level. Quispel (2004) notes that in Aramaic the
word for divider also means someone who brings disharmony.
One of the key issues in his teaching was that people better got rid of property, or at least
not cling to it, whereas now they ask him to regard it of such importance that he should
even act as judge over it! Of course he couldn’t but refuse.
He would have become a divider in the sense that had he granted the request, he had shown
an obvious division between what he taught and what he actually did, seduced by
a kind of socially abided self-importance of the moment.
That Jesus turns to his disciples could easily be taken to suggest that he searched confirmation
for his position, but he rather posed a rhetorical question to probe his followers on a more
fundamental truth: Jesus is not just not a divider, but one who unifies instead. Reality is not
divided, but one. I think of what Kitaro Nishida (1921) wrote: The most powerful reality is the
one that most thoroughly harmonizes and unifies various contradictions. The idea that the unifier
and the unified are two separate things derives from abstract thinking – in concrete reality the
two cannot be separated.
From the perspective of non-duality, quite a few of the sayings seem to fit this
fundamental view of reality (Wolfe, 2010).