Mark 10:17-31 (NRSV)
This scene stands squarely in the midst of the Markan discussions of what it means to be a disciple in the shadow of the cross. Immediately following this segment, Jesus will articulate for the third time his own passion prediction to the faithful, but yet uncomprehending disciples. Preceding this text, Jesus declares that the proper attitude to "receive the kingdom of God" is to be as a "little child" (10:15). Jesus is primarily instructing his followers about what it means to be his disciple. They must “deny themselves and take up their cross, and follow” him (8:34). However, throughout this section, Mark’s audience sees ways in which the disciples and others haven’t denied themselves or taken up their crosses, even though they have been “following” Jesus (1:18). They do not understand the signs of the coming kingdom (9:9-13); they cannot heal a boy with a dumb spirit (9:14-29); they discuss among themselves who is the greatest, rather than considering Jesus’ teaching of self-denial (9:33-37). Truly, they are part of the “faithless generation” (9:19), which does not understand what it means to receive the kingdom as a child (10:15). Between this demand for a childlike demeanor and the harsh realities of the looming cross now comes this one man's earnest quest for eternal life. This text depicts an intensely personalized, detailed scene in Jesus' ministry. Jesus really gets personal — moving from marriage to money.
Happiness, joy, fulfillment, meaningfulness – I cannot imagine any human being not having a desire for these things. In fact, we spend much of our lives trying to figure out the path we need to take to get there. Many of the choices we make in life either move us closer to or further away from what we consider happiness to be. Of course, that is another puzzle, is it not? In what does true satisfaction consist, not so much for others, but for us as individuals? One of the great ethical and spiritual challenges that face us is when we ask such questions. Maybe going to the right teacher will help. Maybe being a good person will help. Maybe having plenty of stuff will help. Each of these things will undoubtedly contribute to a happy, rewarding, and fulfilling life. Yet…
Like so many things about Christianity, it can ask us tough questions. However, Christianity is our friend in the way that Aristotle noted. He commented that a friend could teach the most important things in life precisely because a friend is willing to hurt you in the right way. What is the right way? A true friend is willing to ask the tough questions. Consequently, do we cling far too tightly to the things of this world? Do we cling to finite things as if they had eternal significance? I hate to say it, but we cling to things because of the enjoyment we temporarily receive from them. These things may well cause our downfall. We may lose the self God intended us to be. We can walk away from what God intended, of course. Many people have done so.
17 As he was setting out on a journey, Mark often showing Jesus is always on a journey somewhere and is always in a rush to get there. A man[1] ran up and knelt before him, a gesture of honor and respect that evoked this expression of humility. Why does the man do this? He at least seems to recognize a divine claim has come upon his life through Jesus. He puts himself with the disciples in acknowledging the force of the claim, and asked him, “Good Teacher (Διδάσκαλε), a title without parallel in Jewish sources, demonstrating this young man's high esteem for Jesus. People recognized Jesus as a rabbi (teacher) and many recognized his goodness. What must I do to inherit eternal life?”[2] His question involves apocalyptic life received at the end of time in the resurrection. The man apparently believes there are conditions over and above what the law requires. He is sure that the fleeting temporal life is problematic in light of what death reveals about it. His goodness in terms of the Law and his possessions notwithstanding, he still has questions regarding whether God will accept in eternity. Today, we would say that he has not yet found happiness. Our world is not asking so much about eternity. We wonder whether we can find genuine happiness and meaning here. In this case, the man admits that money, status, and power do not provide that for which he is looking. However, he seems sure that humanity must do something to attain this eternal life. In coming to Jesus with his question, he acknowledges he did not have the answer. The claim of God upon his life will come through the response of Jesus to his question. 18 Jesus said to him, seeing an opening for a probing question, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. Jesus first responds by not answering a direct question. Instead, he focuses upon the reference to goodness. The Bible frequently applies the title “Good” to God. The Jewish view is that God alone is good. Yet, creation is called good, the commandments are good. Jesus refuses the designated title of “good” for himself. Jesus' disclaimer serves to shift the focus of this conversation away from the actions and attitudes of the human players in this scene. The man who kneels at his feet is obviously focused on human abilities ("what must I do") and capabilities (being a "good" teacher). Jesus redirects the focus of the man's quest by declaring the goodness of God and the righteousness of the commandments. We find Jesus refocusing attention upon God, even when a person commends him as “good,” in line with the rest of the teaching of Jesus. The focus of attention is the man’s own surface appreciation for goodness, but Jesus also contrasts God’s absolute goodness with his own, which is goodness subject to growth and trial. Jesus will not succumb to the temptation of receiving idolization from others.[3] In rejecting the title “good teacher,” Jesus distinguishes between himself and his heavenly Father. He stresses the goodness of the Father as an attribute of divine love. We see that at the heart of the message of Jesus stood the Father and the coming rule of God. He did not direct attention to himself. Jesus differentiated himself as a mere man from the Father as the one God. He subjected himself to the claim of the coming divine rule, just as he required of his hearers. He sets himself as a creature below God as he asks his hearers to do in his message of the nearness of the rule of God. In making this distinction, we can see the self-distinction of the Trinity as it relates to the deity and attributes of the persons of the Trinity. We might also see here a basis for saying that in the monarchy of the Father, the Father is the one God.[4] 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud (ἀποστερήσῃς, not part of the 10 commandments, referring to illegally obtaining money by deception)[5]; Honor your father and mother.’ ” The response of Jesus is typical of what any Jew might have said. Jesus directs the man to the law, but the story also shows that one will not receive the full answer there. The commandments Jesus lists are from the Decalogue's so‑called "Second Table" ‑‑ the commandments that focus most closely on interpersonal human relationships. These relational laws suggest that obedience to God's commandments is expressed by the ability to live in harmony and justice with one's neighbor. 20 He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” Thus, at first, the man is delighted and confident with Jesus' words. Further, nothing prohibits Jesus from saying that the man is on the right path. If he continues, the man will have eternal life. Yet, Jesus will take a quite different approach. 21 Jesus, looking at him, loved (ἠγάπησεν) him.[6] Jesus responds with love. This response should not surprise us. The man had virtue, but this does not explain the genuine love Jesus had for the man. The man had offered an external form of obedience to God in obeying certain commandments. Jesus offered to the man love from his heart and soul. The impulsive answer of the man evokes in Jesus admiration. Mark has a pattern for personalizing such stories. He likes to add touches about Jesus seeing, looking, or having an emotional reaction to the situation. Mark is often so sparse in such detail that when he includes it, it jumps off the page. He has a purpose for including it. Out of love, Jesus will reveal what the seeker lacks in his life. Thus, Jesus said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” For some readers, such a command seems to put Jesus on the side of monks, fanatics, and legalists. Granted, God may still issue such a claim upon an individual life. Yet, we need some care here. Any flight into inwardness can look like obedience from the outside by inwardly be disobedience. In this case, the man prefers the yoke he has chosen rather than the freedom to which Jesus called him.[7] Yet, does it sound like love, to ask this man to do the most difficult thing imaginable, namely, to sell all that we have and follow Jesus? The text says looking on him and loving him, Jesus confronts him, demands a major move by him. Jesus is not angry here, expresses no outrage or fierce condemnation against the man. He expresses sadness. Aristotle said that only a friend can teach you really important things in life, for only a friend knows how to hurt you in the right way! It seems the man obeyed the second table of the Ten Commandments, but did not obey the first table. Yet, even his obedience to the second table of the commandments was only external. Obedience from the heart would have led him to freedom with his neighbors and freedom from other masters. While Jesus states that the man lacks one thing, he actually gives him two commands. First, he is to go, sell what he has and give it all to the poor. He is a captive to his possessions. Jesus has disclosed that he man did not have a genuine love for the neighbor in that he was unwilling to share with his neighbors. Jesus responds by reminding him that, even as a Jew, his status with God is not a matter of simple birthright. The shema is articulated after the recitation of the rest of the ten commandments. It may refer to the first two commandments as listed in Deuteronomy 5. It may be that since v. 19 recites a short-form litany of those commandments, Mark intends his reader to make this confessional connection. Furthermore, in Exodus, God warns the Israelites not to make any idols. Certainly, the young man shows that his wealth has become his idol for he cannot imagine life without it. With its injunction to sell everything, the saying is in line with other things Jesus says about wealth. Jesus does not just add one more commandment, but declares that following in his case would be renouncing riches and giving to the poor. That Jesus chose a life of poverty shows a difference between himself and Jewish teaching of riches being a sign of divine favor. Out of genuine compassion, Jesus swiftly identifies the one obstacle blocking this man's relationship with God, an overweening attachment to what can only be called "stuff." Jesus' command not only shocks the questioner; it stuns the normative standards of first‑century Judaism. While there was no scriptural prohibition to keep the pious from giving away all personal belongings, scribal legislation restricted almsgiving to one‑fifth of one's personal property (Kethubim 50a). This insured that the pious giver would not be reduced to poverty ‑‑ thus becoming another candidate for charity himself. Jesus' suggestion that the man impoverish himself also flies in the face of the common understanding that possessing wealth was a sign of divine favor. Jesus' command made clear that nothing less than a complete commitment to God and God alone would enable a believer to lay up "treasure in heaven." Second, he is to come and follow Jesus — a path that will lead him to the eternal life he seeks. Indeed, we must not be, like the questioner himself, so amazed at Jesus' demand that we miss the second (and most crucial) part of Jesus' command: "then come, follow me." We find our search for eternal life, for meaningful and joyful life, when we follow Jesus. Clearly, kneeling before Jesus was not enough! He had come close to Jesus, but not close enough. He needed to follow. He needed to belong to Jesus. Jesus invites the man to be free for God and free for his neighbor. 22 When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions. As Mark catalogs the man's response, he reveals for the first time the economic status of this individual: He has "many possessions." This man is no longer enthusiastic but shocked. This man is no longer eager; he is sorrowful or grieving, for he had many possessions. His withdrawal does not lessen the force of the claim of God upon his life. In fact, his sorrow testifies to the power of the claim God has placed upon his life. The way that Jesus walks is narrow, so narrow that there will be many who like this man, go away in sorrow. Jesus’ love, however, includes a challenge that the man cannot bring himself to fathom, let alone fulfill. Jesus' command unerringly zeroed in on this man's exclusive source of well‑being. His most important sense of self came from the status, power and security vast affluence afforded him. The man's failure to follow through on Jesus' final demand reveals that his confessed observance of the Law was governed more by possessions and position than by a thirst for righteousness. He judges the cost of eternal life too high and sadly leaves. The invitation to follow Jesus for the first time rejected. However, others will reject the invitation to follow due to perceived responsibilities and duties (Luke 9:57-62 and Matthew 19:18-22). We learn that in reality, he has not obeyed the commandments. He has an idol in his wealth. He has disobeyed the first two commandments.
The dearest idol I have known
Whate’er that idol be,
Help me to tear it from thy throne,
And worship only thee.[8]
Even in coming to Jesus, he passes by Jesus. The claim of God upon his life is that be become a covenant partner with God by belonging to Jesus. The man is not willing to say yes to this claim. What God required of him was too much. He proves himself to be unworthy, impotent, and lost. Jesus bound himself to his Father, and therefore was for others and free from other lords and masters. His freedom allowed him to stand with the poor. In the presence of Jesus, the rich man became poor. He has so much, and yet lacks the fullness that following Jesus would have given. This lack condemns him. This lack excludes him from eternal life. He is disobedient. Yet, we must not say that God abandoned him. We do not know what happened to him. Even in his disobedience to the claim of God testifies that the rule of God has embraced him. His disobedience now means that he might obey in another time. Jesus let this wealthy man walk away. He did not badger him, as many zealous persons might have done. Jesus allowed him to leave because the time was not right. Jesus probably trusted that the day would come when the advice he had received would make sense. We cannot force people to believe something they choose not to believe. Nor can we force anyone to love other people. It must come from within.
In one sense, everything we encounter in the world makes a claim upon us that demands our attention. The same is true of the ultimate claim upon our lives. We experience the voice of many lords. The difference is that the claim of God comes to us in freedom or permission, the positive response to which grants life and grace. Granted, the claim does have a corresponding obligation. Here, the command has the aim of the fulfillment of the one will of God. In the figure of the rich man we have one not equal to the demand. In contrast, Jesus and the disciples are examples of those who are obedient to the divine claim. Both the obedient and disobedient are subject of the living command of God. [9]
Mark 10:23-27 is a series of sayings on the danger of riches. Some scholars think this complex of sayings reflected an attempt to define the social borders of the Christian community, which in its early days was essentially a movement of poor peasants. It clearly reflects the struggle over who was to be admitted to that community. On the other hand, Jesus congratulates the poor in the beatitudes, and that probably means he did not think the kingdom belonged to the rich.
23 Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! The rich man not following Jesus is the general rule rather than an unfortunate exception.[10] It is not typical of Judaism to believe wealth is a barrier to entry into the kingdom. For Jesus, riches pose a problem to spiritual welfare. The difficulty lies in the choice between caring for the things of God and caring for wealth. That wealth and entry into this kingdom might be negatively related is an astonishing idea, especially since riches were generally assumed to be a sign of God’s favor. The notion of “entering” has a future sense, referring to participation in the future fellowship of salvation. Along the lines of the message of Jesus, the salvation that he mediates consists of fellowship with God and the related life, which also embraces a renewal of fellowship with others. To find access to the rule of God is of the very essence of salvation.[11] 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”[12] The saying has the exaggeration typical of parables and aphorisms of Jesus, containing as it does a humorous hyperbole. Jesus further dramatizes the difficulty posed by wealth by offering the mind-sticking image of the camel passing through the eye of a needle. Jesus thinks of the kingdom as a present reality. As hyperbole, it expresses what is humanly impossible, such as log and splinter, gnat and camel. 26 They were greatly astounded and said to one another, “Then who can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.” The succinct point is that it is impossible for men and women to save themselves, whatever their financial state. The disciples have done what the rich man would not do, but they still wonder who can receive salvation. Thus, the passage hinges on this verse. The saving of anyone is something that is not in the power of human to give. No one can receive salvation in virtue of anything he or she does. Everyone can receive salvation in virtue of what God can do.[13]
We need to re-evaluate our attitude toward wealth. Jack Benny had a famous radio skit. A voice says, "Your money or your life." There is a long silence. "Well?" Benny says, "I'm thinking, I'm thinking."
The question Jesus raises is whether wealth has its proper role in our lives.
An Amish man stopped his farming to watch a new neighbor move in. Among the many items that came out of the delivery van were a deluxe refrigerator with a built-in ice cube maker, a state of the art stereo system with a VCR, and a whirlpool hot tub. The next day the Amish man and his wife, who brought a gift of homemade muffins and jam, welcomed the new resident. After the usual greeting and conversation, the Amish man said, "If anything should go wrong with your appliances or equipment, don't hesitate to call me." That is very generous of you, the new comer said. "No problem. I'll just tell you how to live without them."
Discipleship and following Jesus have economic implications in our lives. We must not succumb to the temptation of evasive rationalization in this matter.[14] Sharing possessions are an eschatological sign, demonstrating the transforming power of the rule of God in our lives individually and in our communal life. The rule of God impinges upon the present in such a way that we are free to act with generosity that comes an image of the good future contained in the hope for the rule of God. The question is how we can order our economic practices in the church and in our discipleship so that they become such a sign. Asking this question seriously and in a sustained way will require imaginative reflection and costly change. I do not hold out the hope for a new Reformation in this, but maybe a modest nudge in the right direction.[15]
Mark 10:28-31 is a collection of sayings on the prospect of reward for those who follow Jesus.
28 Peter began to say to him, “Look, we have left everything and followed you.” 29 Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. While the issue of riches is central to this passage, the reader is misled to focus, as the disciples do, on riches alone. Truly, in the gospels Jesus professes God’s priority for the poor. Nevertheless, this story really is not about the issue of wealth — it is about trust in God’s ability to save. Like other more traditional parables, the disciples become perplexed, unable to fathom the truth of what God’s kingdom is really like. Here is a specific direction to specific people at specific times and followed in specific ways. The call to discipleship cuts across the self-evident attachment to that which we possess.[16] Jesus leaves his disciples and the modern reader unsettled, for the “reward” of leaving all for the “sake of the good news” is persecution in the present. Even if there is a hope for an eternal life in the age to come, one needs to be careful in identifying the “age to come” with life after death. If it is true that many of the early Christians expected Jesus to return before their own deaths, then the “age to come” identifies a time on earth that the first disciples were expecting to see. We find a distinction between the reward received here and now and the rewards in the age to come. The saying promises abundance to those who have abandoned property and family in response to Jesus’ summons. The promise of reward to those who sacrificed so much was enticing. The riches of social and religious communion would compensate suffering and real loss.
31 But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.” Jesus offers a hint of warning at the conclusion. The warning is that if you have left everything to follow Jesus, do not be self-righteous in their renunciation.
[1] While Luke identifies the young man as a ruler, which would fit in well with Luke’s particular editorial interest and Matthew calls him “someone.”
[2] Some would say that despite the man's respectful attitude toward Jesus and the respected pedigree of his inquiry, the scene betrays the perverse notions of this seeker from its very beginning. Thus, the young man’s address to Jesus is common.
[3] As a contrary view to what I have offered, some view this as an acknowledgment of some imperfection in Jesus. Another alternative to what I have offered is that Jesus is leading to the acknowledgment of his own divinity.
[4] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 263, 309, 321, 326, 432, Volume 2, 372.
[5] This is not in Matthew or Luke or in the Ten Commandments! While not one of the Ten Commandments, the author of Deuteronomy prohibits deceptive and predatory economic practices in another location (24:14). Jesus does not quote the well-known commandment concerning love of neighbor. Furthermore, there is no mention of the prohibition against coveting. However, Jesus may offer a fairly unique interpretation of the tenth commandment prohibiting covetousness. For a man of many possessions or much land (the more usual translation of ktemata pollan which is here "great wealth"), to defraud was more tempting than to covet. Perhaps Jesus’ addition of this prohibition against fraud and his omission of the commandments specifically directed to relationships with neighbors suggests that the young man’s wealth was ill-gotten at the expense of his neighbors. This is a possible explanation but not certain, for there seems to be no guilt or recognition that he has been judged by Jesus. In fact, the story Mark presents is sympathetic to the young man.
[6] Not with anger or ridicule and not out of some decision to squelch an ego or make an example
[7] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [66.3] 542.
[8] William Cowper, 1731-1800.
[9] Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2 [37.3] 613-23.
[10] Barth Church Dogmatics IV.2 [66.4] 556.
[11] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 328, referring to Johannes Weiss, and p. 398.
[12] Some have tried to soften its impact by changing camel to rope or by making the needle’s eye a gate.
[13] Barth Church Dogmatics II.2 [37.3] 623-27.
[14] (Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996], p. 464.)
[15]Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996, pp. 466-468
[16] Barth Church Dogmatics IV.2 [66.3] 548.
No comments:
Post a Comment