The Rich Young Ruler and Salvation

By Alan P. Stanley

[Alan P. Stanley is Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Mueller College of Ministries, Brisbane, Australia, and Pastor of Buderim Gospel Chapel, Sunshine Coast, Australia.]

In response to the rich young ruler Jesus said, “Sell everything you have and give to the poor” (Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22).[1] This is puzzling, but Jesus’ next words are even more unsettling: “and you will have treasure in heaven.” Not surprisingly then at least one commentator remarks, “No one can take comfort from this story; it is profoundly disturbing.”[2]

So what does this story have to teach believers today? The meeting was an evangelistic opportunity, since the ruler’s first words concern how he might have eternal life (Matt. 19:16; Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18). Does this story have anything to say about evangelism and the gospel? What about the man’s failure to heed Jesus’ call and sell his possessions? Though it has been argued that this failure resulted not in the absence of eternal life but the lack of discipleship,[3] the tenor of the passage does not give this impression.[4] One is clearly left with the sense that this “sad” (λυπούμενος, Matt. 19:22; Mark 10:22)[5] ruler did not receive what he asked for because he did not like Jesus’ answer to his question.[6]

Overview of Jesus’ Encounter with the Rich Young Ruler

The three Synoptic Gospels differ slightly in their record of the encounter between the rich young ruler[7] and Jesus, but the story line is the same. A rich man asked Jesus[8] how he could attain eternal life. Evidently the man was under the impression that he must do (ποιέω) something to guarantee that he would be resurrected with the righteous at the end of the age (cf. Dan. 12:2; Sir. 48:11; Matt. 25:46).[9] This is confirmed by the ruler’s question as to “what good thing” is required (Matt. 19:16). Noting the ruler’s use of “good” and perhaps some underlying motives (cf. John 2:25), Jesus asked, “Why do you ask Me concerning what is good?” (Matt. 19:17).[10] Jesus affirmed that God alone is good (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19).[11]

Having stated that God alone is the true standard of goodness, Jesus then answered the man’s question about eternal life. “If you desire to enter into life[12] keep the commandments” (Matt. 19:17).[13]

Jesus listed the commandments He had in mind, reciting the second table of the Decalogue pertaining to relationships among humans—though He did not include the command about coveting (vv. 18–19; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; cf. Exod. 20:12–16; Deut. 5:16–20).[14]

The wealthy young man emphatically replied, “All these things [πάντα ταῦτα] I have kept” (Matt. 19:20; Mark 10:20; Luke 18:21). Mark and Luke add “from (my) youth,” thus indicating the extent of his obedience. But though this obedience was good, it was not good enough. He still lacked something (Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22; cf. Matt. 19:21).[15] Presumably what the ruler thought he lacked (as in Matthew) and what Jesus knew he lacked (as in Mark and Luke) concerns the one thing needed to receive eternal life.[16] This seems to be what is meant by Jesus’ reply in Matthew 19:21, “If you desire to be perfect” (εἰς θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι).

Jesus spelled out what the ruler lacked. If this wealthy man wanted to have true wealth, that is, “treasure in heaven,”[17] he must sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor. Jesus then called on the man to follow Him (Matt. 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22). However, the ruler found himself unable to do the one thing he still lacked, and so he went away grieving. The explanation (γὰρ) for the man’s grief is evident: he was very rich (Luke 18:23; cf. Matt. 19:22; Mark 10:22).

After the rich man refused to part with his wealth, Jesus told His disciples about the difficulty riches pose to those who want to enter the kingdom (Matt. 19:23; Mark 10:23; Luke 18:24; cf. Matt. 5:20; 7:23; 18:3).[18] He said this is analogous to a camel trying to “pass through” (διελθεῖν)[19] the eye of a needle, except that the camel has a greater chance of success (Mark 10:25).[20] The implication is that it is not only difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom but it is impossible.

The disciples expressed great astonishment at Jesus’ words (Matt. 19:25; Mark 10:26). If the rich are unable to enter the kingdom, then it must be impossible for anyone to do so. They asked, “Who then can be saved [σωθῆναι]?” The answer is that on the one hand no one can be saved, but on the other hand anyone can be saved since all things (πάντα) are possible with God (Matt. 19:26; Mark 10:27; cf. Luke 18:27). God can get the camel through the eye of the needle, so to speak. That is, He can do what people cannot do. He can get a rich person—and in fact any person—into the kingdom (cf. Luke 19:1–10).

In response Peter, on behalf of the Twelve,[21] asserted that they had already left everything to follow Jesus (cf. Matt. 4:20, 22; Mark 1:18–20). Peter asked, “What then will there be for us?” (Matt. 19:27). The question is a natural one, since Peter was more than likely recalling Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler to sell what he had and to follow Him. Perhaps they wondered if Jesus would tell them that they yet lacked one thing. Peter’s statement, rather than reflecting arrogance, actually reflects the disciples’ sense of insecurity at this point over their own salvation.

However, Jesus alleviated their concern, affirming that no one[22] who has left family and possessions[23] will be disappointed.[24] All such people will receive eternal life in the age to come, and there are gains in this age as well.[25] This is made clear in Mark 10:30 (“in this present age”) and Luke 18:30 (“in this age”), though it is left somewhat ambiguous in Matthew 19:29.[26]

This story ends on the note on which it started—eternal life.[27] Matthew 19:30 and Mark 10:31 include the saying, “The many who are first will be last and the last first.” Though the statement is somewhat vague,[28] Jesus seems to have been summarizing the contrast between the rich young ruler and His disciples.[29] The one who had everything seemed to be first, and the disciples who had left everything seemed to be last. However, the reverse in fact turned out to be true. The last will be first and the first will be last.

The Rich Young Ruler and Contemporary Application

What is the relationship between keeping the commandments and entering life? Why did the rich young ruler have to sell all he had and give to the poor in order to receive eternal life? And how do answers to these questions apply to the gospel message today?

Keeping The Commandments And Entering Into Life

Only in Matthew’s account did Jesus say, “If you desire to enter into life, keep the commandments” (19:17; cf. Luke 10:26–28). “The commandments” (τὰς ἐντολάς) refer to the Mosaic Law (cf., e.g., 22:36).[30] Did Jesus require obedience to the Law as a means of gaining eternal life?[31] Various answers are given to this question.

One suggestion is that Jesus was using a kind of evangelism strategy. In this view Jesus quizzed the ruler on the commandments because this was a good form of evangelism. In other words Jesus’ request of the ruler teaches more about a method of evangelism than the content of the gospel. In this view Jesus was initiating a discussion to draw the ruler out, knowing that obedience to the Law is not in fact a means to eternal life.[32] Jesus’ strategy was then something like this: “If you want to enter life, then keep the commandments. However, once you see that you cannot keep the commandments you will realize your inability to do so and thus your need for Me.” Certainly Jesus did expose the rich man’s lack. However, the rich young ruler did not make such a confession; in fact he replied by saying that he had indeed kept all these commandments (Matt. 19:20; Mark 10:20; Luke 18:21). But because the man did not enter into life, keeping the commandments was not enough after all.

A second and similar view is that Jesus’ mention of the commandments was intended to expose the ruler’s selfishness. Significantly Jesus cited only commandments pertinent to societal relationships in which “the procurement and use of wealth” would have been a central issue.[33] The ruler’s claim to have obeyed all these commandments was “exposed by his considerable wealth.”[34] The ruler’s great wealth would thus imply someone else’s shortfall. His greed may well have meant that his neighbor had to go without. This line of interpretation is found in the apocryphal Gospel of the Nazaraeans §1.

Another rich man said to him, “Master, what good thing shall I do to live?” He said to him, “O man, fulfil the law and the prophets.” He replied, “I have done that.” He said to him, “Go sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and come, follow me.” But the rich man began to scratch his head and it did not please him. And the Lord said to him, “How can you say, ‘I have fulfilled the law and the prophets,’ since it is written in the law: You shall love your neighbor as yourself, and lo! many of your brethren, sons of Abraham, are clothed in filth, dying of hunger, and your house is full of many goods, and nothing at all goes out of it to them.”[35]

A third view is that Jesus wanted to point out to the ruler that his failure to obey the second table of commandments is evidence that he had failed on the first table of commandments. In other words the ruler had failed to love others and thus he had failed to love God (cf. 1 John 4:20). Significant in this regard is Matthew’s addition to the commandments, “love your neighbor as yourself.”

There is merit in these suggestions. God’s demands certainly should cause one humbly to acknowledge dependence on Him (e.g., Matt. 5:3–4; John 15:5). And after all, Jesus did tell His disciples that the only hope anyone has of entering the kingdom is by God’s grace (Matt. 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27). Furthermore the ruler’s failure to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor does seem to suggest that perhaps he was not as obedient as he might have thought he was. However, there are problems with these three views. (1) Jesus did not criticize the young man for his claim to have kept the commandments. In fact the mention of “one thing” still lacking seems to imply that “all other things” have been fulfilled—he had just one more to go! (2) To suggest that Jesus was engaging in an evangelistic strategy has more the ring of modern-day evangelism than first-century evangelism. (3) Apparently Jesus actually expected this man to sell his possessions. Strategy or no strategy, the ruler was to give up all he had to follow Jesus (cf. Matt. 13:44).

A fourth view is that Jesus was saying that one must obey the Law in order to gain eternal life. In this view Jesus was giving the traditional Jewish response to a Jewish man wanting to enter into eternal life.[36] Certainly some Jews believed that keeping the commandments was a prerequisite for eternal life (cf. Rom 7:10).[37]

In His Sermon on the Mount Jesus had said that only those who had done (ποιῶν) the will of His Father would enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 7:21). The Father’s will in Matthew is expressed in 5:20[38] as “surpassing righteousness,” which itself is defined and described in verses 21–48 as not getting angry[39] with a brother, not looking lustfully at a woman, loving one’s enemy, and so forth.[40] In other words Jesus demanded obedience[41] in order to enter into the kingdom (see esp. 25:34–46). In a strikingly similar fashion Paul warned that flagrant disobedience to God will prohibit anyone from entering the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10; Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 5:5). And John wrote, “This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do [ποιῶν] what is righteousness [δικαιοσύνην] is not from God and anyone who does not love his brother” (1 John 3:10).

At first this may sound like salvation by works, but that is not the case for two reasons. First, Jesus did not expect anyone to obey the commandments to enter into a relationship with Himself, for He did “not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matt. 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32). However, He did say that the righteous will enter the kingdom (e.g., Matt. 5:20; 13:43, 49; 25:34–46). Second, Jesus told His disciples that it is impossible for anyone to enter the kingdom. This means that any righteousness that admits anyone into eternity is due completely to the work of God and His grace (cf. esp. Gal. 5:22–23; 6:8). This is true throughout the New Testament. Whether it be stated as “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3), “God caused it to grow” (1 Cor. 3:6), “God is the One who works in us to will and to act according to His good purpose” (Phil. 2:13), or “good behavior in Christ” (1 Pet. 3:16), it all amounts to the same truth—“apart from Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).[42] The works of the unsaved, like those of the rich young ruler, are dead (Heb. 6:1). This led Augustine to say that at the judgment God will merely “crown not so much thy merits, as His own gifts.”[43] Similarly John Calvin said that eternal life “is bestowed by the gratuitous gifts of God.”[44]

What then of Jesus’ mention of the Law? To answer this, one must first understand Jesus’ own relationship to the Law. Jesus presented Himself as the fulfillment of the Law (Matt. 5:17–20), and because He has exclusive authority He is capable of superseding the Law (Mark 2:27; 7:19; 12:33). Hence the issue is not one’s relationship to the Law but one’s relationship to Jesus.

This is similar to what Paul referred to as the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2; cf. 1 Cor. 9:21; James 1:25; 2:8, 12). Admittedly Jesus was referring to the Mosaic Law when He spoke with the rich young ruler, but the key is that Jesus took the ruler beyond the Law—and thus “surpassed” it—to Himself. Jesus’ own demand, not that of the Law, determined the ruler’s eternal destiny.[45] Jesus declared that the Law was still valid but only inasmuch as it is “caught up in, and re-applied”[46] by Him (Matt. 5:17–20).[47] Furthermore, if entering into life was dependent on keeping the commandments, the rich young ruler would not have been excluded, since Jesus gave no indication that He was dissatisfied with the young man’s claim that “all these things I have kept” (19:20).

The “one thing” the rich ruler lacked was taken up by Jesus Himself, worded elsewhere as “love your neighbor as yourself” (cf. Luke 10:27). It is no surprise to find that this command essentially defines the “law of Christ” in Paul (Gal. 6:2) and the “kingly [βασιλικὸν] law” in James 2:8. “Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:10). In the final analysis, then, what barred the ruler from entering the kingdom was not the demands of the Mosaic Law, but his reluctance to part with his wealth—and thus to love the poor—and follow Jesus (cf. Matt. 6:24).[48] In demanding that the young man follow Him Jesus was placing Himself beyond the commandments and thus above the Law. This then is another example (in addition to 5:21–48) of surpassing righteousness. In asking the young man to sell all he had, Jesus “surpassed” the commandments of the Mosaic Law and directed the ruler’s attention toward Himself (cf. v. 48).[49]

Selling All To Have Eternal Life

The young man’s failure to sell all he had meant he could not enter the kingdom. Yet this raises the question, Was Jesus saying the gospel is, “Sell all you have and you will be saved?” Apparently the rich young ruler did not think so. His view was, “Accumulate as much wealth as you can and you will be saved.” This is indicated by two facts. First, all three Gospel writers give the reason (γὰρ) for the young man’s disappointment: he had many possessions (Matt. 19:22; Mark 10:22), and “he was extremely rich [πλούσιος σφόδρα]” (Luke 18:23). However, second, and even more telling than the explanation of the man’s wealth, is the disciples’ reaction. Evidently they too had been infected by the same prosperity theology.[50] In response to Jesus’ assertion that it is impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom[51] the disciples exclaimed, “Who then can be saved?” (Matt. 19:25; Mark 10:26; Luke 18:26).

Some Jews believed that wealth signified God’s blessing. The Pentateuch taught that wealth came from God (Deut. 8:18). People such as Abraham and Jacob confirmed such a belief. Psalm 112:3, describing one who keeps God’s commandments, states, “Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever.” According to Proverbs 13:18, “he who ignores discipline comes to poverty and shame, but whoever heeds correction is honored.”[52]

Passages like these (cf. also Deut. 28:1–14) spurred the belief that wealth and blessing accompanied each other and that poverty was a sign of sin and disobedience (vv. 47–48). Although not all of Judaism followed this line of thinking (cf. e.g., Sir. 31:3–10),[53] some did, including the Sadducees.[54] Since this rich ruler was young, he was not a synagogue ruler or religious leader. But no doubt he was a well-respected, pious member of society.[55]

No wonder the disciples were astonished and asked, in essence, “If the rich cannot enter the kingdom—and we know that wealth is a sign of God’s blessing on the pious and so that leaves out the poor—what [τίς] sort of person can be saved?”[56] Understandably they were bewildered.[57]

This piety-prosperity link is crucial for explaining Jesus’ request to the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and give it all to the poor. In effect Jesus was asking the ruler to give up the wealth in which he was placing his confidence for salvation. This is not salvation by “works”; it is salvation by trusting completely in Jesus alone. The young ruler was to give up his confidence in riches and to place his confidence in Jesus. “The way to eternal life was in turning from trust in self-attainments and earthly securities to trust in Jesus.”[58]

Implications for Understanding and Preaching the Gospel

How do these things—commandments and selling one’s possessions—apply to today? Do they speak to non-Christians, Christians, or both?

Obedience and Eternal Life

As already noted, Jesus did not expect the rich young ruler to obey the Law in order to enter life; but He did expect him to obey Jesus. Furthermore “entrance” does not here mean justification or conversion. Instead Jesus had in mind the eschatological age to come. In short, Jesus expected that anyone who will enter into life at the end of the age will have demonstrated a practical outworking of righteousness. In Matthew this is called “surpassing” righteousness or being “perfect” as the heavenly Father is perfect (cf. Eph. 5:1–2), and this is ultimately fulfilled in loving one’s neighbor as oneself (cf. Gal. 5:6; 1 John 4:7). Of course any practical outworking of righteousness is made possible only by God’s work through the Holy Spirit. Surpassing righteousness (i.e., sanctification) is therefore just as much a gift to believers as is their imputed righteousness (i.e., justification).

Selling One’s Possessions or Unwavering Faith

Jesus’ words about the ruler’s possessions need to be understood against the background of views on piety and prosperity in some parts of Judaism. Thus the first lesson for today is that only those who place their undivided confidence in Jesus receive salvation. In fact “undivided confidence in Jesus” is another way of saying justifying faith, according to the apostle Paul.

In Romans 3:21–4:25 Paul gave what is probably the clearest articulation of justifying faith in the New Testament. He expounded on Genesis 15:6 (“Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness”). This righteousness was credited by God apart from works. However, near the end of the chapter Paul described what kind of belief (ἐπίστευσεν) Abraham exercised—and thus what kind of belief justifies (Rom. 4:18). First, it was not weak (μὴ ἀσθενήσας, v. 19). Second, he did not doubt (οὐ διεκρίθη) God’s promise (v. 20). Third, his faith was strengthened (ἐνεδυναμώθη, v. 20). Fourth, he was absolutely sure (πληροφορηθεὶς) that God had the power (δυνατός) to do what He had promised (v. 21). This is the kind of faith that brings glory to God (v. 20) and trusts without wavering in God’s promise about His Son. What made Abraham’s faith strong was the character of the One in whom he trusted. Interestingly the promise is mentioned three times (vv. 18, 20–21). The rich young ruler’s failure to sell his possessions reflected his lack of confidence in Jesus’ promise about treasure in heaven.

This is supported by the context in which the rich young ruler appears. Prior to all three accounts Jesus declared that the kingdom belongs to those who are like children (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16). Since “kingdom” is the link word between the two scenes, the attitude of the rich young ruler may well be a negative illustration of “such as these” (τοιούτων) entering the kingdom.[59] What the young man “lacked” was the ability to place his security singlemindedly in Jesus.

The context of Luke 18 is even more definitive, in which a single theme can be traced through the chapter. Those who beg for mercy (ἱλάσθητί μοι, v. 13) will also find themselves justified (δεδικαιωμένος, v. 14), for those who exalt themselves will be humbled and those who humble (ταπεινῶν) themselves will be exalted (v. 14). Thus in order to enter the kingdom one must become like a child (vv. 15–17). Following the account of the rich young ruler Jesus met a blind man who begged for mercy (ἐλέησόν με, v. 38) and was healed because of his faith (ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε, v. 42). Thus the chapter deals with the question, What must one do to be saved? That is, what must one do to be justified (vv. 1–8), to receive God’s mercy (vv. 9–14), to enter the kingdom (vv. 15–17), to attain eternal life (vv. 18–30), to be healed (vv. 31–34)? The answer is that one must trust in Jesus.

Continuing the theme of salvation Luke 19:1–9 answers the disciples’ question, “Who then can be saved?” The two men being compared were the same in status: one was a ruler (ἄρχων, 18:18) who was rich (πλούσιος, v. 23), and the other, Zacchaeus, was a tax collector who also was rich (πλούσιος, 19:2). But there the similarity ends.[60] The tax collector responded to Jesus’ command with joy (χαίρων, v. 6), while the rich ruler responded with grief (περίλυπος, 18:23). The rich ruler refused to give his wealth to the poor (v. 22), whereas the tax collector promised to give half of his possessions to the poor, the other half presumably going to pay back four times what he may have defrauded people (19:8). Jesus offered “treasure in heaven” to the ruler (18:22) and the tax collector received “salvation” (σωτηρία) that very day (19:9). Thus the tax collector did what the rich young ruler did not do, and so the rich tax collector received what the young ruler did not receive. The answer to the disciples’ question, “Who then can be saved?” is that God is able to save anyone, even a wealthy tax collector. By God’s grace the camel is able to pass through the eye of a needle.

But why did the ruler have to sell all his possessions?[61] Could he not have simply said, “I trust you”? The answer is that faith is not merely uttering some words; it is to be seen. Jesus of course could recognize faith.[62] When four men brought their paralytic friend to Jesus for healing, He saw (ἰδὼν) their faith (πίστιν) (Mark 2:5). As James wrote, “I will demonstrate [δείξω] from [ἐκ][63] my works my faith [πίστιν]” (James 2:18; cf. 3:13). Works are the inevitable outflow of faith.

A second lesson concerns the danger of wealth.[64] The Synoptic Gospels take a dim view of wealth, not because it is evil, but because it can become a hindrance to having a personal relationship with God. Jesus said that the kingdom belongs to those who are poor (Luke 6:20) in contrast to the rich (v. 24).[65] Wealth causes unfruitfulness (Mark 4:18–19; Luke 8:14). Those who are secure in their wealth will receive their due in the life hereafter (12:16–21). Some may have comfort in this life, but eternal separation from God awaits them in the next (16:19–31). It is impossible to serve both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24).[66]

A third lesson to be learned from Jesus’ request of the ruler pertains to Jesus’ statement on the impossibility of entering the kingdom. Does this mean that Jesus asked of this young man something that was impossible in order to expose his need for the Savior? It is not uncommon for the New Testament writers to demand of their readers things that the readers are unable to do. For instance Paul asked the impossible of his readers at Philippi when he wrote, “Work out your salvation” (Phil. 2:12). However, he then explained that God enables one to do the impossible: “for [γάρ] God is the one who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose” (v. 13). Similarly Jesus expected His hearers (and readers) to put into practice His words in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:24, 26), but He also expected them to admit that they could not do so by themselves (5:3). In other words the requirements—indeed any of the biblical commands—are genuine but are impossible apart from divine enablement (John 15:5).

Conclusion

Jesus’ words to the wealthy young leader suggest two relevant points for today. First, Jesus expects obedience from His followers. However, God is always the One who enables this obedience (or surpassing righteousness), and it is inevitable for anyone who knows Him. To think anything less is to deny the life-giving power of the Spirit over the flesh (Rom. 8:11; Eph. 1:19–20). Second, the gospel is that one must place his or her confidence in Jesus Christ and Him alone.

The idea of giving up something may seem troublesome.[67] But that is not the issue; the question is, “What is the object of my faith?” Faith can be in only one of two places, in Jesus or in something else. Faith in Jesus cannot exist where there is trust in something else (cf. Matt. 6:20–24). This was the basic problem for the rich young ruler. He could not trust in Jesus and money at the same time (v. 24; cf. 8:21–22). A choice must be made if eternal life is to be received. Of course to choose one is in effect to reject or give up the other. However, since Jesus and His kingdom are more precious and glorious than material treasure (13:44), to give up everything for His sake is not to lose treasure but to gain the infinite treasure of Christ Himself. One’s eyes, heart, and mind must therefore be focused on the true treasure rather than on what one must give up. All other things are loss and rubbish “compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:8). Only God can make a camel pass through the eye of a needle.

Notes

1. Matthew 19:21 has “possessions,” whereas Mark and Luke wrote “everything.” Unless noted otherwise, all Scripture quotations are the author’s translations.
2. Paul Barnett, The Servant King: Reading Mark Today (Sydney: AIO, 1991), 206.
3. Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free!: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 186–88. See also Robert Govett, Entrance into the Kingdom: Or Reward according to Works (reprint, Miami, FL: Conley & Schoettle, 1978), 130.
4. See George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 196, 205, 207.
5. Luke 18:23 describes the ruler as περίλυπος, a word that was used to describe Jesus’ overwhelming sorrow to the point of death in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:38; cf. Mark 6:26).
6. The demand Jesus imposed on this young man raises the question of whether eternal life or discipleship is in view. There are four reasons for seeing the ruler’s failure to heed Jesus’ advice as a failure to receive eternal life. First, all three accounts begin and end with discussion about “eternal life” (Matt. 19:16, 29; Mark 10:17, 30; Luke 18:18, 30). Second, the assurance of eternal life for the disciples is based on their “leaving” all for Jesus’ sake (Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:29–30; Luke 18:29–30). Third, the disciples’ question as to “who then can be saved” (Matt. 19:25; Mark 10:26; Luke 18:26)—following Jesus’ statement about the difficulty the wealthy have in entering the kingdom—shows that they understood that Jesus was talking about salvation. Fourth, in Luke 19:8—a context not far removed from that of the rich young ruler—Zacchaeus promised Jesus that he would give half of his possessions to the poor and pay back four times the amount in cases of fraud, and he is said to have received salvation (v. 9). Was Zacchaeus’s situation different from the ruler’s? After all, Zacchaeus’s promise to recompense four times the amount may have amounted to a complete renouncement of his possessions (cf. 14:33) had he ever needed to follow through on his commitment.
7. Only Matthew 19:20 indicates that the man was young (νεανίσκος), while only Luke 18:18 says that he was a ruler (ἄρχων). All three Gospels state that the man was wealthy; Matthew 19:22 and Mark 10:22 have κτήματα πολλά and Luke 18:23 has πλούσιος σφόδρα.
8. The rich young man addressed Jesus as “Good Teacher” (Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18) and Matthew 19:16 has “Teacher.”
9. B. Berakot 28b speaks of “life of the future world,” while b. Sota 7b speaks of inheriting “the world to come”; see also m.⊃Abot 2.7: “life eternal”; and 4.16 and 5.19: “the world to come” (Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000], 425.
10. Since the ruler in Mark and Luke addressed Jesus as good, Jesus asked the young man why he addressed Him this way (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19).
11. Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19 both have οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός. Matthew 19:17 has εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός.
12. For this use of “life” in Matthew see 7:14 and 18:8–9.
13. Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20 are less direct: “You know the commandments.”
14. There are differences in the order of the commandments between each of the Evangelists as well as between the Evangelists and the Old Testament. Matthew’s order is murder, adultery, steal, false witness, father and mother; he added the love command (six commandments). Mark listed the same order as Matthew but added, “do not defraud” between false witness and father and mother (six commandments). Luke listed adultery, murder, steal, false witness, and father and mother (five commandments). All three Gospels depart from the order in Exodus and Deuteronomy, both of which begin the second table with father and mother, murder, adultery, steal, false witness, and covet. Matthew and Mark have added the love command and “do not defraud.”
15. In Matthew 19:20 the ruler asked, “What do I still lack?” (τί ἔτι ὑστερῶ), whereas in Mark and Luke Jesus affirmed that the ruler still lacked something (Mark 10:21, ἕν σε ὑστερεῖ; Luke 18:22, ἔτι ἕν σοι λείπει).
16. Walter W. Wessel, “Mark,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 715. See also Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 389; and D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 8:423.
17. Some take “treasure in heaven” as something other than eternal life (e.g., Govett suggests it refers to rewards in heaven [Entrance into the Kingdom, 131]). However, there are good reasons to understand the phrase as synonymous with “eternal life” (Robert H. Stein, Luke, New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman, 1992], 458; and Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman, 1992], 298). Jesus’ teaching elsewhere on this phrase points to continuity between life now and the life to come. Treasure in heaven results from deeds of love now (Luke 12:33; cf. Matt. 6:19–21). The point is that there are imperishable blessings associated with eternal life (cf. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996], 1167, 1481). This is why Jesus compared the kingdom of heaven to a “treasure hidden in a field,” which when found is worth more than all of one’s possessions (Matt. 13:44). This suggests that the kingdom of heaven is of inestimable value. Therefore, when Jesus promised the man “treasure in heaven,” He was emphasizing the quality of eternal life. In the parable the man who recognized the worth of the kingdom went and sold all he owned.
18. When the disciples expressed amazement, Jesus repeated His assertion but without mentioning riches: “How hard it is to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:24).
19. Matthew 19:24 and Luke 18:25 have “enter” (εἰσελθεῖν).
20. The camel was Israel’s largest animal (cf. Matt. 23:24) (Otto Michel, “κάμηλος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 3 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965], 593), and the eye of the needle represented the smallest opening imaginable (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 506). The two images therefore emphasize the impossibility of the wealthy entering the kingdom. The Talmud (dated later than the New Testament) brings out the impossibility of such a scenario: “A man is never shown in a dream a date palm of gold, or an elephant going through the eye of a needle” (b. Berakot 55b). Thus not even in a dream, where the impossible is generally possible, could an elephant go through the eye of a needle.
21. The plural verbs ἀφήκαμεν (Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28), ἀφέντες (Luke 18:28), and ἠκολουθήσαμεν indicate that Peter was speaking for the Twelve.
22. Matthew 19:29 states the promise positively, “everyone who has left,” whereas Mark 10:29 and Luke 18:29 state it negatively, “there is no one who has left.”
23. The list is comprehensive (Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:29; Luke 18:29). In Matthew and Mark Jesus included brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, children, and fields, and in Luke He mentioned houses, wives, brothers, parents, and children.
24. The reason (ἕνεκεν) for the leaving is for Jesus’ name (Matt. 19:29), for Jesus and the gospel (Mark 10:29), and for the kingdom of God (Luke 18:29).
25. Most agree that the reward in this age refers to the family of believers who more than make up for ties the disciples left (Carson, “Matthew,” 426; Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 393; Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, 1490; and Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 566).
26. Only Matthew 19:28 refers to the Son of Man sitting on His glorious throne “in the new age” (ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ) along with the Twelve on their thrones judging the tribes of Israel.
27. The fact that “eternal life” occurs at the beginning and end of the passage is significant. Jesus used many terms to describe eternal life and its facets—“life,” “treasure in heaven,” “follow,” “kingdom of heaven,” “kingdom of God,” “saved.”
28. See Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 393.
29. This views δὲ as conjunctive. For options and issues see W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1997), 3:60–61.
30. D. J. Moo, “Law,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 451.
31. In view of Matthew’s use of “enter” and “life” elsewhere it is clear that here Jesus referred to entering into eternal life. Jesus said enter (εἰσέλθατε) through the narrow gate (7:13), which in verse 14 is “life”—as opposed to (eternal) destruction (ἀπώλειαν, v. 13; see John 17:12). And Jesus said that it is better to enter (εἰσελθεῖν) life maimed rather than be thrown into “the eternal fire” (Matt. 18:8) and “the fiery hell” (lit., “the Gehenna of the fire,” v. 9).
32. Moo suggests this as a possibility (“Law,” 454). R. C. H. Lenski says that perhaps Jesus strategically used the Law to lead this young man to the gospel (The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961], 914–15).
33. Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 388.
34. Ibid.
35. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, ed. J. K. Elliott (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 10–11. See Isaiah 5:8–10; 10:1–3; Ezekiel 22:6–31; 27; and Amos 2:6–7; 5:10–12; 8:4–8. For additional references see Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 388. Cf. also G. Schrenk, “ἐντολή,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 2 (1964), 548; and W. Mundle, “Command,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 1:335.
36. “The ‘Jewish’ character of this episode has been distorted by assuming that the conversation [between the rich man and Jesus] concerns Christians (whereas for Matthew it concerns Jews)” (D. J. Harrington, “The Rich Young Man in Matthew 19:16–22: Another Way to God for Jews?” in The Four Gospels, ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al. [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992], 2:1429).
37. Contra E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM, 1977); but Davies and Allison list Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 30:11–20; Proverbs 6:23; Malachi 2:4–5; Baruch 3:9; Psalms of Solomon 14.2; Romans 7:10; 4 Ezra 14:30; and m.⊃Abot 2.7 (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3:43 n. 30).
38. Righteousness and the Father’s will are parallel, since Matthew 5:20 and 7:21 both state what is required to “enter the kingdom of heaven.” In 5:20 “surpassing righteousness” is required, and in 7:21 it is doing “the will of My Father who is in heaven.”
39. Given the well-known and documented connections between James and the Sermon on the Mount, it is interesting that James described anger as surpassing wickedness (περισσείαν κακίας, James 1:21).
40. At first this may seem quite impossible, for “who has not felt anger in his heart at some time and is thus, on the authority of Jesus, a murderer (Mt. 5.21–22)?” (Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man [Miami, FL: Schoettle, 1992], 175). However, this line of interpretation views anger, for example, as a momentary event that if taken literally will disqualify everyone from the kingdom. But there are at least three reasons why Jesus’ words should not be understood this way. First, the entire tenor of the Sermon on the Mount is to get away from legalistic righteousness (6:1–18). Second, the present tense verbs (e.g., “is angry” in 5:22; “looks at” in v. 28; “makes you stumble” in v. 30; “love” in v. 44; and “be” in v. 48) suggest a pattern of life rather than momentary lapses. In this case Jesus would be saying something like, “anyone who is constantly or habitually angry [the idea is certainly also without repentance] with his brother will be liable to judgment” (cf. 1 John 3:15). This seems to be the intent of John’s words in 1 John 2:6: “Whoever claims to live in him must walk [περιπατεῖν, as a pattern of life] as Jesus did” (cf. 1:6). Third, Jesus made it clear in Matthew 5:27–30 that failure to deal with one’s sin means one will end up in hell.
41. “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and does [ποιεῖ] them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain came down. .. and fell on that house, and yet it did not fall, for it was established on the rock” (Matt. 7:24; cf. James 1:22–25).
42. See also Acts 1:8; Ephesians 2:10; Hebrews 13:21; James 1:5; and Jude 16–19.
43. Augustine, “On the Same Words of the Apostle, Phil 3. . .”, in Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and the West (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1844), 2:10 (italics his).
44. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 3.18.4 (italics added).
45. Moo, “Law,” 454.
46. Ibid., 459.
47. This is similar to Paul’s mention of the Mosaic commandments in Romans 13:9. The commands are still valid but only in that they are caught up and reapplied in the one rule (λόγος), “love your neighbor as yourself.”
48. “In practice, the salvation of the [rich] young man is not endangered by his failure to keep the commandments but by his improper understanding of the person of Jesus as well as his unwillingness to join the band of Jesus’ followers” (Petri Luomanen, Entering the Kingdom of Heaven: A Study on the Structure of Matthew’s View of Salvation, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Nuen Testament [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1998], 155).
49. Perfection, referred to in Matthew 5:48, may be equated with “surpassing righteousness.” However, Jesus was not talking about “sinless” perfection but rather perfection in the context of love (vv. 41–47). This makes sense in light of the fact that love is the fulfillment of the Law. This is similar to Paul’s declaration in Galatians 5:6 that the only thing that counts is “faith working itself out through love,” his command in Ephesians 5:1–2 to “be imitators of God. .. and walk in love,” or John’s words in 1 John 4:7, “Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.” And so Jesus said to the ruler, “If you want to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give to the poor” (Matt. 5:21), that is, love your neighbor as yourself.
50. Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew, 3:53; and Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 391.
51. Mark omitted any remark about the difficulty of the rich entering the kingdom, but 10:25 makes clear that the rich were in view: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than the rich to enter into the kingdom of God.” The disciples were responding to these words of Jesus.
52. Compare Genesis 26:12–15; Psalm 1:1–3; Proverbs 10:15–16; and 15:6. See also Friedrich Hauck and Wilhelm Kasch, “πλοῦτος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6 (1968), 318–32. P. H. Davids writes that “because of OT stories of Abraham, Solomon and Job, there was a tendency to connect wealth with the blessing of God (the piety-prosperity equation)” (“Rich and Poor,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 703).
53. The rabbis for example viewed wealth as a curse (see C. Boerma, The Rich, the Poor—and the Bible [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978], 25). Ahiqar 137 states, “[Do not amass] wealth lest you pervert your heart”; and 207, “Let not the rich man say, ‘In my riches I am glorious.’ ” And Psalms of Solomon 5.16–17 says, “Happy is (the person) whom God remembers with a moderate sufficiency; for if one is excessively rich, he sins. Moderate (wealth) is adequate—with righteousness; for with this comes the Lord’s blessing.” See Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “The Old Testament Promise of Material Blessings and the Contemporary Believer,” Trinity Journal 9 (1988): 151–69.
54. See F. Hauck and W. Kasch, “πλοῦτος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6 (1968), 318–32.
55. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, 1476.
56. Cf. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 1007.
57. The adverbs used to describe the disciples’ amazement (ἐξεπλήσσοντο) are striking:σφόδρα (Matt. 19:25) andπερισσῶς (Mark 10:26).
58. John D. Grassmick, “Mark,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983; reprint, Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 1996), 151.
59. See also Stephen Fowl, “Receiving the Kingdom of God as a Child: Children and Riches in Luke 18ff, ” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 153–58. Fowl views the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18–30), the disciples’ response (vv. 24–30), the blind man near Jericho (vv. 35–43), and Zacchaeus (19:10) as positive and negative examples of receiving the kingdom like a child. “The childlike nature. .. inheres in each character’s sudden, single-minded attraction to a particular object or person. Further, such attraction leads these characters to abandon or circumvent anything which threatens to keep them from the focus of their affections” (ibid., 158).
60. Also the ruler was young (Matt. 19:20), and the tax collector was “small in stature” (Luke 19:3).
61. This giving up must either take place in one’s attitude (cf. e.g., Matt. 6:25–34) or in actual physical abandonment as in the case of the rich young ruler (Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 191).
62. See ibid., 166–68, for the various images used in the Gospels to depict faith. See also R. T. France, “Faith,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 223–26.
63. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1995), 270; and Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 297.
64. The lesson from the rich young ruler is not only applicable to those who have wealth. For in moving the discussion from the ruler to the disciples Jesus moved the discussion beyond wealth to family relationships. In doing so Jesus’ challenge becomes relevant to everyone, since not all may be wealthy, but all do have families (Ernest Best, Disciples and Discipleship: Studies in the Gospel according to Mark [Endinburgh: Clark, 1986], 18).
65. Luke 6:20 (“blessed are the poor”) includes financial poverty, since “woe to you who are rich” in verse 24 hardly means spiritually rich.
66. See Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew, 3:705; cf. Kaiser, “The Old Testament Promise,” 161. See also Gerald D. Kisner, “Jesus’ Encounter with the Rich Young Ruler and Its Implications for Theology and Development,” Journal of Religious Thought 49 (1992–93): 81–86; Luke T. Johnson, Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981); and McKnight, A New Vision for Israel, 187–93.
67. “This particular form of self-denial—to sell all—was appropriate for this [man] but is not a requirement for all prospective” believers (Grassmick, “Mark,” 151 [italics his]).