It seems that Jesus first asked if that young man keeps the 10 commandments, then asked if the young man practices the sabbatical year or the kinsman redemption (Deuteronomy 15, Leviticus 25) by redeeming his fellows in need.
These are the Torah visions of ethics and economy in the promised land, which in turn rehearse the full reality of the redeemed heaven and earth, where its redeemed citizens are actively involved in the enterprise of redeeming others.
I don’t know if I am off-base to comprehend the question of “what must I do to be save“ as less of a pass/fail qualification and more of a practice or training in spiritual/habit formation to become responsible citizens in the new heaven and earth.
Wrestle with me on this, Rex (figuratively speaking!) 8^).
I struggle with this text, because I am not certain that the plain reading is not actually the point.
Peter immediately responds, “But *we* left everything to follow you!” The rich ruler wasn’t an exception to Jesus’ call to give up everything. In fact, in Luke 12:32ff--Jesus gives the same command to all of his followers:
“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
And yet, it seems clear from Acts and the letters of Paul that while the early church did sell properties and goods and give to the poor, there wasn't a real indication that they sold everything and lived *completely* financially dependent on each other.
I’m not in complete disagreement with you, yet I think we actually do miss the power of this point when we quickly go to the default that “money was just *his* challenge.” If it were just that, then it seems that all of the followers of Jesus during his three-year-ministry had the same problem.
You raise an interesting discussion point that we do need to wrestle with. By suggesting that the plain reading misses the point, I am assuming the plain reading is just a blanket/inherent condemnation of wealth as I often heard growing up. I certainly don't want to convey the sense that we don't need to consider whether our own money is what we need to give up in order to keep following Jesus. But at the same time, I want us to consider what else might be the "one thing you lack" besides just money. Does that make sense?
What a great illustration that even the term “plain reading of the text” really depends on the background, experiences, attitude, and personal views of the one reading!
I’ve never viewed Jesus’ statement as a *blanket* condemnation of wealth or money, per se. However, I’ve viewed it as his call to give it all up for others and simply trust him and trust the community of disciples as a witness to a different way of living.
In other words, live in a counter cultural way--not because money is evil, but because the kingdom of God is more important.
Does that make sense?
(And I am *not* saying that I live this way--thus the “struggle” and “wrestling” with the text I mentioned...)
Yes! I completely agree that Jesus's response is a "call to give it all up for others and simply trust him and trust the community of disciples as a witness to a different way of living." That's what I hope we'll wrestle with.
It seems that Jesus first asked if that young man keeps the 10 commandments, then asked if the young man practices the sabbatical year or the kinsman redemption (Deuteronomy 15, Leviticus 25) by redeeming his fellows in need.
These are the Torah visions of ethics and economy in the promised land, which in turn rehearse the full reality of the redeemed heaven and earth, where its redeemed citizens are actively involved in the enterprise of redeeming others.
I don’t know if I am off-base to comprehend the question of “what must I do to be save“ as less of a pass/fail qualification and more of a practice or training in spiritual/habit formation to become responsible citizens in the new heaven and earth.
Wrestle with me on this, Rex (figuratively speaking!) 8^).
I struggle with this text, because I am not certain that the plain reading is not actually the point.
Peter immediately responds, “But *we* left everything to follow you!” The rich ruler wasn’t an exception to Jesus’ call to give up everything. In fact, in Luke 12:32ff--Jesus gives the same command to all of his followers:
“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
And yet, it seems clear from Acts and the letters of Paul that while the early church did sell properties and goods and give to the poor, there wasn't a real indication that they sold everything and lived *completely* financially dependent on each other.
I’m not in complete disagreement with you, yet I think we actually do miss the power of this point when we quickly go to the default that “money was just *his* challenge.” If it were just that, then it seems that all of the followers of Jesus during his three-year-ministry had the same problem.
You raise an interesting discussion point that we do need to wrestle with. By suggesting that the plain reading misses the point, I am assuming the plain reading is just a blanket/inherent condemnation of wealth as I often heard growing up. I certainly don't want to convey the sense that we don't need to consider whether our own money is what we need to give up in order to keep following Jesus. But at the same time, I want us to consider what else might be the "one thing you lack" besides just money. Does that make sense?
Thanks for your comment.
Certainly!
What a great illustration that even the term “plain reading of the text” really depends on the background, experiences, attitude, and personal views of the one reading!
I’ve never viewed Jesus’ statement as a *blanket* condemnation of wealth or money, per se. However, I’ve viewed it as his call to give it all up for others and simply trust him and trust the community of disciples as a witness to a different way of living.
In other words, live in a counter cultural way--not because money is evil, but because the kingdom of God is more important.
Does that make sense?
(And I am *not* saying that I live this way--thus the “struggle” and “wrestling” with the text I mentioned...)
Yes! I completely agree that Jesus's response is a "call to give it all up for others and simply trust him and trust the community of disciples as a witness to a different way of living." That's what I hope we'll wrestle with.
Well, the post certainly was engaging. Thanks for posting it.
I really appreciate you and your ministry!