What about Leaving a Big Inheritance? | Joyful Wealth Management: A Bible Study Discussion Guide

1 Timothy 6:7-8

“For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it, either. If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content.”

As Jesus was teaching, a family fight over an inheritance broke out in the crowd. (Luke 12:13-14). Jesus responded by telling the story of a rich man who was blessed with even more wealth. The man planned to use it someday, but he never did. Instead, he just stacked it up and died with it. God called this man a fool. (Luke 12:15-21).

Can a large inheritance lead to more family conflict than if nothing had been left? What have you seen?
This rich man saved all his wealth and died with it. What was God’s opinion of this?

In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the younger son “said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that is coming to me.’” (Luke 15:12a). He then “squandered his estate in wild living.” (Luke 15:13b). The large inheritance left him in a terrible state, without food and shelter. He declared, “I am dying here from hunger!” (Luke 15:17b).

Can leaving a big inheritance still lead to “wild living” today?
Can bingeing or addiction make an heir worse off than if they had received nothing?
Would the end result have changed if the son had received an even larger lump sum?

Taking care of family, including heirs, is an important goal. But it’s not an unlimited goal. 1 Timothy 6:8 says, “If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content.” This Greek word for “content” means enough, sufficient, and satisfied.⁹

According to this verse, how much is enough to have contentment?
Why wouldn’t leaving even more to family members guarantee even more contentment?

It’s important not to leave family members in a needy circumstance. They should not become a financial burden on the church. (1 Timothy 5:16). This is our first financial responsibility. (1 Timothy 5:8).

After providing for needy heirs and dependents (food, clothing, and shelter) would you have any extra left over?
Is this family provision goal better accomplished with one lump sum at death or income spread over time?

It’s important to provide for needy family members. But what about family members who could support themselves but won’t? Scripture says this:

“For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

Leaving an inheritance can be good. And it can be bad. It’s important to stop and ask, “What are we trying to accomplish?” Accomplishing these goals may not fit with leaving a big lump sum at death. It may require leaving instructions with the inheritance.

If our family provision goals matched those of scripture, how would this affect the amount, the timing, and the instructions placed with an inheritance?
Why wouldn’t just leaving a larger lump sum guarantee a better outcome?
How does setting our inheritance goals this way change how much of our wealth is “extra” (an abundance freely available to use and enjoy in reaching other goals)?

A national study of inheritors found that, within about a year, 42% had their net worth fall back to (or below) their pre-inheritance level.¹⁰ Inheritances were spent faster than any other type of financial windfall.

What do you think causes this rapid spending? Because it’s unearned money? Because it’s tied to grief and death?
What does this tell us about the outcome of leaving a lump sum at death?

Solomon built more wealth than anyone else on the planet. He wrote,

“So, I hated all the fruit of my labor for which I had labored under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who will come after me. And who knows whether he will be wise or a fool?” (Ecclesiastes 2:18-19a).

Does receiving a large windfall of unearned “death money” make wise life choices more likely or less likely?
What do you think? What have you seen?

Leaving a big inheritance changes the owner of the wealth. It also changes the meaning of the wealth. Solomon explained,

“When there is a person who has labored with wisdom, knowledge, and skill, and then gives his legacy to one who has not labored for it; this too is futility and a great evil.” (Ecclesiastes 2:21).

Solomon left an enormous estate when he died. Did he think this was a good result?
Inherited wealth is received by “one who has not labored for it.” How does this wealth mean something different than it did to the one who earned it?

In Proverbs, people can inherit many things. They can inherit honor (Proverbs 3:35), foolishness (Proverbs 14:18), good (Proverbs 28:10), or even the wind (Proverbs 11:29).¹¹ In Proverbs 13:22, Solomon wrote,

“A good person leaves an inheritance to his grandchildren.”

This Hebrew word for “leaves” describes a direct transfer to the grandchild.¹² Inheritance laws of the time prohibited this.¹³ So, this inheritance wasn’t about money. The word for “good” person here means a beautifully good, ethically inspirational person.¹⁴

Can grandchildren inherit wisdom, inspiration, or a good family reputation from a beautifully good, ethically inspirational grandparent?
Is leaving this inheritance possible, even without a large financial estate?

Proverbs 13:22 continues, “And the wealth of a sinner is stored up for the righteous.”

Is inherited wealth sometimes used in ways that oppose the deceased person’s values? What have you seen?

Notes and references

1 Timothy 5:8 uses arkesthēsometha, future indicative passive of arkeō. Arkeō is translated in various places in the NASB as “content,” “enough,” “sufficient,” or “satisfied” and in Strong’s concordance as “be content,” “be enough,” “suffice.”
↩
Thompson, C., & James, R. N., III. (2026). Dissipation of inheritance windfalls and the case for time-phased
transfers: An empirical assessment from HRS data. Financial Services Review, 34(1), 24-42.
Zagorsky, J. L. (2013). Do people save or spend their inheritances? Understanding what happens to inherited wealth. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34(1), 64-76.
↩
This same Hebrew word referencing an inheritance in Proverbs 13:22 also appears in Proverbs 14:18, “The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge.”; Proverbs 3:35, “The wise will inherit honor, But fools increase dishonor.”; Proverbs 11:29a, “One who troubles his own house will inherit wind”; Proverbs 28:10, “But the blameless will inherit good”.
↩
With the Hiphal stem, as here, יַנְחִ֥יל or yan·ḥîl has the two meanings of “to give as a possession” or “to cause to inherit, give as an inheritance.” [Strong, J. (1890). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible. Abingdon Press. Hebrew-5157]. In the Geneva Bible, “The good man shall give inheritance unto his children’s children,” and in the Peshitta Holy Bible Translated, “A good man gives an inheritance to his grandchildren.” Professor John Peter Lange, commenting on Proverbs 13:22, writes, “For this absolute use of Hiph., ‘causeth to inherit, transmitteth his estate’ compare Deuteronomy 32:8.” [Lange, J. P. (1874). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Vol. X of the Old Testament containing Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon (Trans: P. Schaff). Scribner, Armstrong & Co. p. 136.] This references Deuteronomy 32:8a, “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance”.
↩
Israel’s legal system did not have testamentary freedom. Boecker explains, “Here again, such laws as there are deal with particular cases, but they enable us to discern the fundamental principles of OT thinking on inheritance. Briefly summarized, they are:
(1) that only sons could inherit, normally speaking, and
(2) that the eldest son received a double share.
Unlike the [Code of Hammurabi], therefore, the principle of primogeniture was observed.” [Boecker, H. J. (1980). Law and the administration of justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East. Augsburg Publishing House. p. 118.]
As an example of this lack of testamentary freedom, changing distribution rights among sons was not allowed. “When the man divides his inheritance, he may not give the larger inheritance to his younger son, the son of the wife he loves, as if he were the firstborn son.” (Deuteronomy 21:16 NLT). Moses outlined the rules when there was no son: “Further, you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. And if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. If he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his nearest relative in his own family, and he shall take possession of it; and it shall be a statutory ordinance to the sons of Israel, just as the LORD has commanded Moses.’” (Numbers 27:8-11).
↩
Compare “A good person [ṭō·wḇ,]” in Proverbs 13:22 with the same Hebrew word elsewhere such as, for example, Genesis 1:10,
12, 18, 21, 25,“and God saw that it was good [ṭō·wḇ].”; Genesis 6:2, “that the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful [ṭō·ḇōṯ]; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose”; Genesis 24:16, “The girl was very beautiful [ṭō·ḇaṯ], a virgin, and no man had had relations with her”; Genesis 26:7, “When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, ‘She is my sister,’ for he was afraid to say, ‘my wife,’ thinking, ‘the men of the place might kill me on account of Rebekah, since she is beautiful [ṭō·w·ḇaṯ].’”
The word generally means pleasant and agreeable to the senses: to the sight, taste, and smell (definition 1 a, b, & c) but here specifically references the ethical person (definition 10.a. referencing Proverbs 13:22) [Brown, F., Driver, S. R., Briggs, C. A., Gesenius, W., & Robinson, E. (1996). The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English lexicon. Hendrickson Publishers. טוֹב or ṭō·wḇ, Strong’s 2896.]
↩