41
THE RICH YOUNG RULER (1)And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved? And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God (Luke 18:18-27).
The theocentric principle here is the kingdom of God. Man's entry into eternal life takes place in history, Jesus taught. "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). What men do or fail to do in history, Christ implied, determines their final inheritance.
God has established standards for entry into His kingdom. The Ten Commandments are the summary of these standards, Jesus told the enquirer. But there is another barrier to entry: faith in God rather than faith in riches.
The previous section had dealt with the same theme: entry into the kingdom. "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein" (Luke 18:17). Men must become as little children. That is, they must trust God with the same confidence that a child trusts his father. In His answer to the enquirer, Jesus amplified this spiritual principle. Those who trust in money have transgressed one of the standards of entry. They have substituted a rival faith.
Access to Eternal Live The young man was a ruler (v. 18). He understood something of the doctrine of the bodily resurrection. He sought eternal life. Jesus then referred to the kingdom of God. Here was the issue: Can men earn their way into heaven? The young man thought so: he said that he had kept the commandments. Jesus told him that he had more to do: sell his goods and give the money to the poor. He implied that the young man had not done enough by keeping the commandments. But this statement seems to make access to heaven a matter of a person's good works. Taken at face value, this passage teaches works religion: man can earn his salvation. Such a view of salvation is antithetical to biblical religion. Then why didn't Jesus verbally challenge the man to rethink his works religion? Why did He imply that the man could buy his way into heaven? Why did He tell the man to give away his money to the poor? Is this what is always required of those who would follow Jesus?
What was Jesus really telling this man? The parallel passage in Mark makes Jesus' position clearer: "And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!" (Mark 10:24). David had said something similar over a thousand years earlier: "Wherefore should I fear in the days of evil, when the iniquity of my heels shall compass me about? They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him" (Ps. 49:5-7). The ruler trusted in his tangible wealth to provide him with the good things in life. Jesus recognized this.
Jesus returned to this theme repeatedly in His parables and in His dealings with rich men. He echoed the Old Testament. "The rich man's wealth is his strong city, and as an high wall in his own conceit" (Prov. 18:11). The rich man trusts in his power to get wealth. He trusts in the creation. Moses warned against this: "And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth" (Deut. 8:17). It is the sin of autonomy. It is the belief that man is the primary source of wealth.(2) It is also the belief that earthly wealth is the coin of the realm in God's kingdom. It isn't. "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matt. 16:26).
The lure of tangible wealth is a powerful lure. Tangible wealth seems to offer to a man the ability to buy the good things of life. Money is the most marketable commodity. Gold and silver are forms of wealth (Gen. 13:2). This outlook proclaims: "Anything can be bought; every man has his price." Jesus warned that this is a false premise. So did David: "For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever" (Ps. 49:8).
The young man had not understood Jesus' warning about the worship of God rather than mammon: "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Luke 16:13).(3) The young man had not examined his own soul in the light of this. He had not seen clearly regarding his faith. He still trusted in his riches.
What could his wealth buy him that was worth forfeiting access to God's kingdom? Wealth can buy many things: luxury, safety, fame, and deference by others. But all of these are as fleeting as riches. Remove wealth, and everything that wealth had bought disappears. Mammon is a fickle god. It leaves without warning, taking with it all that it had previously purchased, just as a creditor collects his debts by reclaiming the borrower's goods. This leaves the formerly rich man in a weakened condition to the extent that he had relied on his wealth to provide his strength.
Give to the Poor
Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" (Luke 18:22). Jesus called this would-be disciple to a complete rejection of his former way of life. He told him to sell everything he owned. But Jesus did not call the tax collector, Zacchaeus, to such a complete sacrifice. On his own initiative, Zacchaeus promised to give half of his goods to the poor and make four-fold restitution to anyone he had defrauded. This was sufficient. "And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham" (Luke 19:9).(4)
Jesus told the young man to sell all of his wealth and give the money to the poor. To do this, he would have to sell his goods to someone. His wealth was not to be burnt on a pyre; it was to be exchanged for a more liquid asset: money. Money can be handed out in discrete units, a little at a time. The rich young man was to learn how to give his money away. Then he was to follow Jesus -- not before.
This would be a two-fold transfer of his wealth: to those who bought it for money and to those who received the money. The rich young ruler was to become a middleman in the transfer of all of his wealth. The more he received from the sale of his wealth, the more he could give away. He was to negotiate a top price from the buyers, and he was then to become a wise giver. He was to become more skilled as an administrator of capital. He was to put it to better use: service to God.
Others were allowed to buy his wealth. Did this mean that Jesus was condemning the buyers to eternal torment? Is wealth illegitimate? No. "A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just" (Prov. 13:22). The question, then, is the context in which the wealth is held: man's ownership or God's. The issue is theonomy vs. autonomy. To whose use is the wealth to be put? Does the owner see himself as a steward of God?
The rich young ruler had a problem. He was at a turning point in his life. So was Old Covenant Israel. His wealth was held by means of a legal framework. He was under the authority of Rome. So was Old Covenant Israel. His wealth was no safer than this hierarchy. A generation later, Rome would crush Israel's political revolt. Most of the wealth owned by Jews would be destroyed by war and the subsequent defeat by Rome. Unless he died young, the young man lived to see this great destruction of wealth. Mammon cannot be trusted.
The young man was beguiled by his possessions. Jesus offered him a pathway to clarity regarding his priorities, but he went away troubled.
Jesus asked him to become poor. Wandering around Judea with a group of unemployed disciples was not a way of life preferred by most rich men. Jesus called the young man into poverty as a way into the kingdom of God. This man's priorities were arranged differently from those required for faithful service in an era of definitive covenantal transition. He did not understand the times.
Hierarchies of Faith "Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (vv. 23-24). This indicates that a rich man is rare in the kingdom of God.
The disciples replied: "Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." Why did they ask this? There are few rich people in any population; the bell-shaped curve assures this. So does Pareto's income distribution curve. Jesus would later say, "many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. 22:14). This was not a startling doctrine for Jews. There were no gentiles in the kingdom at that stage of Jesus' ministry. Why should the disciples ask, "Who then can be saved?" Just because a rich man cannot be saved, why should this raise any question about poor men?
Jews expected Israel's victory in history. They did not believe that they would be under foreign domination forever. They had read Deuteronomy 28: "Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store. Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out. The LORD shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy face: they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways. The LORD shall command the blessing upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways" (Deut. 28:4-9). They expected earthly rewards at some future time. "For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth" (Ps. 37:9). Yet here was Jesus telling them that these economic blessings would constitute a threat to Israel's salvation. How could this be?
Jesus answered that with God, all things are possible. That is, such salvation is abnormal but possible. Jesus' point was clear: tangible wealth is a great temptation. Those who become wealthy risk being snared by the illusion of autonomy. The Old Covenant warned the rich man not to take advantage of the poor or to imagine that he was beyond the circumstances that afflict them.
Jesus' answer indicated that wealth is a snare. Proverbs had said the same thing. "Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain" (Prov. 30:8-9).
The lure of autonomy is strong. Those who possess any special advantage that provides them with a barrier against life's common burdens are tempted to regard themselves as beyond God's negative sanctions. These advantages include wealth, power, beauty, social status, and health. But wealth is the most universally sought after, for it offers the broadest range of immunities from the common burdens of life. Of course, it adds new burdens. With an increase in the number of choices (wealth) comes added responsibility.(5)
The message is clear: we should not expect to see many rich people subordinating themselves to God through the gospel. The rich are not willing to pay the price, namely, a transfer of their trust from riches to Christ. Wealth seems to be under their control; Christ isn't. Wealth extends their power; faith in Christ extends God's dominion. They appear to be at the top of a hierarchy of wealth; not so within the kingdom of God. The rich man prefers to be at the top. He chooses not to subordinate himself to God. That had been Adam's problem, too.
Continuity and Discontinuity In Jesus' Teaching Jesus did not break with the Mosaic Covenant's view of wealth and its inherent risks (Deut. 8:17-20). What made His teaching different was His lack of emphasis on the covenantal basis of corporate wealth. There is nothing explicit in His teaching about the relationship between covenant-keeping and a society's accumulation of wealth. There are only occasional reconfirmations of the Mosaic law's system of corporate sanctions. "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth" (Matt. 5:5). This cites Psalm 37:11: "But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." Jesus placed most of His emphasis on tangible wealth as a snare to the individual rather than as a tool of dominion. There is no doubt that this New Testament emphasis is overwhelmingly on the side of great wealth as a risk to the soul.
There is nothing in the New Testament that indicates that economic growth as a goal of society is always wrong. There is nothing wrong with reducing the burden of poverty by increasing men's productivity. Capital accumulation increases men's productivity. Better tools make men more productive. So does education. Personal thrift increases capital accumulation. Men have discovered no way to increase the supply of capital in society other than to allow investors to reap the fruits of their investments. The goal of greater personal wealth is the lure that increases per capita investment in a society. That which is dangerous to the soul -- the quest for personal wealth -- is what reduces the number of poor and also their degree of poverty. Not charity alone but thrift and wise investing are the secrets of reduced poverty in society. This crucial fact is not taught in the New Testament. It is implied in the Old Testament, however, which teaches the legal and moral right of private ownership and the legitimacy of tangible wealth. The legal framework of the Mosaic Covenant produces a capitalistic social order.(6)
There are those who argue that Jesus did not adopt Old Testament standards. In fact, most Christians affirm this. But they affirm this selectively. At some point, they are forced to admit that sometimes Jesus assumed the continuity of Mosaic standards. For example, political conservatives(7) insist that Jesus was not opposed to the free market, and was even favorable to it. Yet they also insist that He did not affirm a theocratic system of civil government, or any other political system. Political liberals(8) insist that He opposed both the free market and theocratic civil government. Trapped between these two groups are pietistic Christians who say that Jesus was indifferent to social issues; He was concerned only with personal salvation. They can appeal to the obvious fact that He was as silent on the free market social order as He was on theocratic civil government. Why this silence? Because He implicitly accepted both? Because He implicitly opposed both? Because He implicitly accepted one but not the other? Or because He was indifferent to both?
Theonomists assume covenantal continuity in the absence of specific annulments or a change based on the end of Israel's status as the Promised Land of the priestly nation.(9) So, theonomists insist that Jesus accepted both the free market and theocratic civil government, since the Mosaic Covenant mandated both, and there is nothing in the New Covenant that annuls either one. Jesus did not break with Moses on either point. His emphasis on the spiritual danger of wealth also did not break with Moses. He just skipped over the legacy of the Old Covenant that affirmed the legitimacy of great wealth, with Abraham and Job as leading examples. This was a matter of emphasis. The temporal emphases of the two testaments are different. This does not mean that the testaments are in opposition. For instance, the New Testament teaches the doctrine of the bodily resurrection; the Old Covenant mentions it only twice: Daniel 13:1-3, Job 19:25-27. Jesus was far more concerned with the doctrine of eternal life than the doctrine of economic growth.
The recommended economic goal of the Old Testament was middle class wealth (Prov. 30:8-9). There is nothing in the New Testament that would call this goal into question. Paul wrote, citing the account of the manna (Ex. 16:18): "As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack" (II Cor. 8:15). But in a world without manna from heaven, the output sufficient to fill most men's stomachs will make a few men rich. Like the poor, the bell-shaped curve is with us always. Output sufficient to feed all men will make a few men very rich. The question is: What will these rich men do with their wealth? Share it? Accumulate more of it? The rich young ruler had his answer straight from Jesus. He went away troubled.
Conclusion The rich young ruler had a problem with the content of his faith. He trusted in what he thought he could do and had always done: keep all of God's commandments. Jesus showed him that his faith was in himself and therefore defective. His faith was leading him to eternal death. His law-keeping and his wealth had become his high walls. By challenging him to tear down the second of these two walls, Jesus challenged him to reconsider the content of his faith. The young man's problem was not his good works or his wealth; his problem was his belief in the spiritual efficacy of works righteousness. He could not earn eternal life.
To show to him how wrong he was, Jesus went to the heart of his faith: his wealth. He was a disciple of mammon. What he had to do in order to gain eternal life was beyond his ability. What all men have to do to gain eternal life is beyond their ability. It is the task of the evangelist to identify whatever it is that an anxious enquirer cannot do or will not do for the sake of the prize: the good work that is just too much for him, the wall that he cannot climb over. The evangelist must then confront the enquirer with the existence of this wall, which is a barrier in between him and the eternal prize. Then the enquirer may be ready to hear the correct answer: "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Matt. 16:24). How does a man deny himself? By affirming his faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul and Silas told the Philippian jailer: "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:31).
Jesus placed the attainment of riches very low on any man's list of priorities -- far lower than generosity to the poor. He also did not place national per capita economic growth high on the list. He never even mentioned this topic. The second point followed from the first, for without rich men's willingness to save money and invest it in their quest for greater personal wealth. Without thrift by the wealthy, who own most of a nation's wealth, there can be no widespread reduction in poverty. There will be insufficient per capita investment in capital goods. But note carefully: Jesus also did not place the elimination of poverty high on His list of goals. The third point follows from the first two. He emphasized personal charity, which ameliorates individual cases of poverty but does not solve the problem of widespread poverty. Only economic growth does this, but economic growth is the product of systematic investing by the richest twenty percent of the population. Many religions emphasize charity, but only in the West, where Christianity and especially Calvinist theology laid its economic foundations, has a two centuries-long period of compound economic growth appeared.(10)
Compared to eternal life, economic growth is a pale sanction indeed, but this does not deny the moral legitimacy of economic growth. Economic growth need not be a negative sanction. John Wesley's refrain is valid: "Gain all you can. Save all you can. Give all you can."(11) It was this outlook that moved Methodists in England and the United States out of grinding poverty into middle-class respectability in a little over a century, 1740 to 1860. But by 1900, Methodist bishops had moved into theological liberalism. The history of the twentieth-century mainline denominations is evidence of the truth of Christ's warning to the rich young ruler. Better to be a Methodist layman in a wretched hut in 1740 than a Methodist theologian in a wretched seminary today.
The New Testament does not mention any corporate economic goal. The economic goal of the Old Testament was middle-class comfort for the covenanted nation. Middle-class comfort for the masses takes generations of compound economic growth. This was not achieved in any society until the twentieth century, during which Western Christianity went into spiritual decline.
The New Testament is hostile to the quest for tangible riches. But to attain middle-class comfort for the masses, a few people will get rich. Like the poor, the rich we shall always have with us. But if the way to riches is by serving consumers, as it is under free market capitalism, then the greater the wealth of the rich minority, the less grinding will be the poverty of the poor.(12) The problem is, when the poor have become less poor because wealth-seeking entrepreneurs have been allowed to get exceedingly rich, both the rich and the poor can fall into the trap: "And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth."
The modern pietistic Protestant hymn is correct: "I'd rather have Jesus than silver and gold." But the theonomists' goal is better: "I'd rather have Jesus and silver and gold." So far, no society has achieved this. Without widespread conversions and widespread obedience to biblical law, no society can.
Footnotes:
1. This is adapted from Chapter 38 of Gary North, Priorities and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Matthew, electronic edition (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 2000).
2. Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981).
3. Chapter 38, above.
4. Chapter 43, below.
5. Chapter 27, above.
6. I wrote seven volumes on the economics of the Pentateuch to prove this point. It is the responsibility of critics of my thesis to produce something comparable that proves otherwise.
7. Those in the Scottish Enlightenment tradition by way of Edmund Burke.
8. Those in the French Revolutionary tradition.
9. Annulled are the seed laws, land laws, and priestly laws. See Gary North, Leviticus: An Economic Commentary (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994), pp. 639-43.
10. Whether it can continue in the face of widespread apostasy, increasing debauchery, and legalized abortion remains to be seen.
11. Sermon 50 (1743): "The Uses of Money."
12. Chapter 15, above.
If you are interested in receiving Dr. North's FREE monthly e-mail newsletter send an e-mail to:
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out.