a lawless blog

Gospel: Mark 10:17-30 or 10:17-27

The long form of this reading represents a combination of three units of material: (1) the rich young man (this is the usual name of the pericope, though only Matthew calls him a young man) in verses 17-22; (2) the comparison of entry into the kingdom of God to a camel going through the eye of a needle in verses 23-27; (3) the saying on the rewards of discipleship in verses 28-31. The shorter form is obtained by omitting the third unit.

These somewhat disparate pieces of tradition have been combined to form a sort of catechesis on the Christian attitude toward wealth. Of these items, the first is clearly the most important, and we will concentrate upon it. To begin with, we must dispose of a preliminary problem.

It has long been a difficulty for piety and orthodoxy that Jesus should have rejected the address “Good Teacher” with the reply that “no one is good but God alone.” Was not Jesus good and was he not God? Matthew already felt something of this difficulty, for he substitutes “Why do you ask me concerning that which is good?”

Once more, however, we have to remind ourselves that we run into difficulties if we approach the Jesus of history with the presuppositions of Christian piety or later dogmatics.

We have to approach him first as a real human being, reacting as a real human being—especially as a devout Jew would—to flattery or insincerity, and as a prophet confronting men and women with the goodness of God alone. Later on, piety and dogmatics will discover the sinlessness of Jesus and his deity in that true humanity.

In seeking to understand this episode, it is important that we divest ourselves of unconscious memories of Matthew’s version. There Jesus presents the renunciation of wealth and personal discipleship as counsels of perfection: “If you would be perfect . . .” (Mt 19:21).

In other words, it is not necessary to salvation to renounce all wealth and to follow Jesus in that particular way. Here, however, it is a challenge to radical decision in face of the coming of God’s kingdom. This absolute challenge is far more in accord with Jesus’ eschatological preaching.

Note, however, that the renunciation of wealth is not an end in itself but only a precondition for following Jesus. This particular man has to renounce what was an impediment for him in order to obey the command “Follow me.”

It is the life of discipleship, not the renunciation of wealth per se, that leads to eternal life. It is not enough to obey the Mosaic law in order to enter eternal life; beyond all that, it is necessary to accept Jesus’ eschatological message and to follow him in the way of discipleship.

This is one of the Gospel episodes that show the high degree of continuity between Jesus’ proclamation of God’s kingdom and Paul’s preaching of justification.

Reginald H. Fuller

(4) "He went away sad for he had many possessions". This bit is surprising. The gospel writer interprets - judges - the young man, as to his personal reason for turning away. I wonder how Mark knew this. Is he saying that others who were not nearly that wealthy had followed Jesus joyfully? Did Mark want to say that the super-rich have problems of their own?

And how do we interpret that sadness: was he sad because he was too attached to his possessions? Or was he sad because he could not see his way clear to dispersing that accumulated wealth? He might have been envious of those who had less, and could simply walk away from their little farms or fishing boats and nobody would suffer. But for a major business to fold means people are put out of work and a lot of things have to be adjusted.

I am reminded of our family's foundation story. Settled on 80 acres of good dairy country as a Returned Soldier after the first World War, my father started off milking a few cows and sending the cream off to the butter factory and feeding the skim milk to the pigs. His first payment  was famously 3/6d - i.e., three shillings and six pence, for a week or a month (I don't know which; probably a week). A cow would have cost maybe four or five pounds and a horse much more, and everything depended on building up numbers for the farm to pay off the loans. Within 50 years, worked by two of his sons that little farm had expanded to become a million dollar business and still growing.  I have often wondered whether the sons felt more free than the father had felt as he started with nothing but his capacity for work, with a strong wife beside him and the productivity of the land itself.  I do remember that he was filled with gratitude and awe that he had won the battle of survival, as he saw it 20 years later - me as a 10-yr-old listening as dad told of his good fortune to the occasional visitors from the city.

Sue, thank you for this wide-ranging investigation of some of the endless possibilities of interpretation of the gospel teaching about riches and possessions. I have been looking for a "key" (as I always do) but with no success. The central message is a slippery little sucker.
Is that because the matter of possessions and wealth is utterly central to the human condition, yet so complex?

Then, just now, I found the post of PatB below referring us to a statement of US theologians titled "On our shoulders", and I feel it makes a very good commentary for today's gospel. http://www.onourshoulders.org./

I would re-phrase vs. 23 “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” as: When it comes to the matter of wealth and possessions, the issues are very complex and there are no easy formulas, no simple path to virtue. It is never easy to find the correct balance between one's obligations in managing a business and being serious about the spiritual life; between just rewards for enterprise and labour and the obligation to care for those less well endowed; between government's role in fostering industry and in providing for those who cannot make a living by themselves.

The disciples despairing response: Who then can be saved? rings the bells around the world as we sit atop the time-bomb of globalisation, over-population, and the shift of growth from west to east. Never has a word of comfort been more urgently needed:

“For human beings it is impossible, but not for God. All things are possible for God.”