BTW, that passage is lifting material from the Psalms.
At root, yes; it’s the essence of the Mosaic Covenant, from the perspective of the blessings and cursings 'way back at the start, where the lesson is that it’s all about showing loyalty to YHWH_Elohim – the Law was never about salvation in the New Testament sense, at least in terms of earning anything, it was about showing that one was loyal to God (and thus that covenant also rested on faith).
Trusting in wealth is a subset of trusting in man because wealth is a concept humans invented; it is in essence trusting in a human economic structure that – especially in modern times – rests on the fact that humans value some things more than others.
In this particular case, Jesus saw through to the man’s heart and so struck at the key to the man’s actual problem.
In one class we once pondered the question, What if the rich young ruler had replied, “Um, okay, but it will take my steward some time to handle that”?
It’s about obedience to God, which the Law was part and parcel of. I just find it interesting that for the other Jews listening, they would have heard him say it is good that you obey the Law, now you must give up your great wealth - if you do this, you will have treasure in heaven. He says that before adding, then follow me. Most evangelicals would rather he had put ‘come follow me’ before ‘treasure in heaven’ but he didnt.
It is at this point that you are reading beyond the basic text. You assume a precision that is not certain when dealing with information that is, at best, second hand.
It is unlikely that these are the exact words spoken by Jesus, let alone the correct order of them.
You could argue that the rich man didn’t have faith in Jesus. If he had faith in (= loyal to) Jesus, the man would have obeyed him.
“By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.”
that seems a cop-out. Im not reading ‘beyond the basic text’, Im reading the text as given. It seems rather convenient to argue, well we dont know if Jesus actually said that so dont bother wondering what he meant, and what his hearers would have understood.
You are trying to put significance where there might not be any. That is not what we are about. Scripture is complicated enough as it is without trying to read more into it than is there.
Richard regularly sets himself above the text. He refuses to acknowledge that what the text says is authoritative because it is what the Holy Spirit has given us.
Scripture is not word perfect. It doesn’t have to be to do its job. By trying to manufacture teaching from specific verses you are diminishing, not helping Scripture. It is you who should treat Scripture with more respect, not me.
The expression Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven seems to have a broader meaning than where you go when you die, so I don’t think it necessarily implies that sacrificial giving is required for salvation per se. Entering the kingdom of God means living under God’s reign, which includes being willing to give away your wealth to those in need. It is interesting, though understandable, that a lot of discussions of this passage start with an explanation for why most of us don’t need to give away our wealth. The fact that we are so reluctant to part with our wealth, as pointed out by others, probably reveals that many of us are in a spiritual state similar to the rich young ruler. To me, another way to respond to this might be to think about what is implied about the kind of world that Jesus wants by his command to the rich young ruler. It is a world where wealth is something that we use as stewards to serve God and others. In the world Jesus is ushering into being, it could be said that wealth is a tool to bless others and not a means to personal gain. The Kingdom of God might look more like Star Trek than our Sunday school classes suggest.
It is interesting that everything Jesus mentions is from the 10 commandments, except “you shall not defraud”:
19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’ ” 20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.” 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor
So could the “one thing you lack” refer to the commands of v. 19, specifically “you shall not defraud”? In the first century, you almost only could become rich by defrauding others.
This article I found influenced the above:
"the rich man is probably not forthright when he claims perfect obedience (v. 20). Jesus discerns his guilt with prophetic insight evinced by his stare (v. 21), and demonstrates love by offering a means to make amends for his “one failure” in the law, but still the rich man cannot stand in the Lord’s sight, which again clearly implies guilt vis-a-vis Malachi 3.
“As a reflection of God’s covenantal love in Malachi, however, Jesus offers the rich man an opportunity to repent by paying back those whom he defrauds (v. 21). Verse 21 is ultimately a more direct answer to the rich man’s question about eternal life (v. 17) than Jesus’ summary of the Decalogue in v. 19. For Mark and Malachi a right relationship with the Lord is second to none (cf. Mai 3:7; Mark 3:34-35), and this comes only by repentance.”
Sorry, I think that is still missing the point, in the same way that the rich young ruler was missing it. That’s understandable. Legalism is like gravity, it is the default human mindset.
The rich young ruler refused to acknowledge his own sinfulness and insisted on the belief that he could merit eternal life.
Salvation comes “by grace alone, through faith alone.” There is no other pathway, for only Jesus could attain perfect obedience.
Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
I humbly suggest that the fact that Zacchaeus (voluntarily) gave “only” half of his possessions to the poor, and yet Christ affirmed his salvation, would conclusively demonstrate that the command to the rich young ruler was indeed a test for that specific individual.
That said, I would hasten to add that it still in a manner applies to any of us, insofar as following Christ must entail a willingness to so give all we have, if it were requested of us by our Lord. If any of us had the same heart of that ruler, that would reject Christ’s command if he were to ask us to give up all we had… if our attitude was the same as that of that young man, that loved the world more than Christ, then we have no business claiming that Jesus is our “Lord”.
This discussion also made me realise that this passage is important for understanding Lukan soteriology.
This would be on one end of the spectrum of views:
And this on the other end:
I don’t know where I stand yet, but I still think (naively?) that a sort of synthesis between the two views is possible. Just like there is no actual discrepency between James and Paul.
I will have to do some more reading on soteriology in the gospels.
Position #1, above, is Pelagianism and has been rejected by every major Christian tradition since the Council of Carthage in 419 AD
The “in-between” position is semi-Pelagianism, which also was repudiated.
Despite this, semi-pelagianism is the default belief of most American Evangelicals, according to Arminian theologian Roger Olson.
Position #2 has been the teaching of every mainstream Christian tradition for 2000 years, but less than half of professing Christians accept it because they’ve either been poorly taught or don’t accept the teaching of their church.
There is no tension with James. The lesson of James is how to determine if a person’s profession, or conversion, is genuine.
Not saying you have to believe it; just filling you in on the history here. Our pride has difficulty accepting that we are in need of salvation, and incapable of earning eternal life on our own merits.
I go into great depth on this in my book. There’s a whole chapter on the connection between salvation and humility.