Matthew 19 - Jesus Teaches The Young Man

[blooit]

Matthew 19 is a great chapter with everything from the little children being brought to Jesus to the "controversy" about marriage. In the last half of the chapter, Jesus is asked by a young man what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? Jesus then lists the commandments. The young man says he has done this, and Jesus then asks him to give up all he has and follow Him, which he of course refuses.

To me this is a huge rosetta stone in the works vs. grace debate. I don't think anyone is completely clear on the exact role each plays. Even Pastor Chuck from Calvary Chapel admits he isn't entirely clear on the balance between the two. On the other hand, the fact that Jesus Christ teaches works here, even when he was asked specifically about "what good thing(s) shall I do..." He answers, "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

I've heard this explained by my evangelical friends a couple ways, but the biggest one is that Christ was illustrating to the man and those listening that the young man couldn't earn his way into heaven. This particular explanation bothers me. It suggests to me that Jesus would lie to the man to make a point, or mislead him at least? I have a hard time biting this one off.

What other saved-by-grace explanations have you heard or do you subscribe to? Paul is very grace heavy, but Christ seems very works heavy throughout the gospels. Why is that? Should we emphasize the teachings of Paul over those of Jesus himself?

[Log]

Maybe this paper will help?

[DWhitmer]

Matthew 19 is a great chapter with everything from the little children being brought to Jesus...On the other hand, the fact that Jesus Christ teaches works here, even when he was asked specifically about "what good thing(s) shall I do..." He answers, "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."..Paul is very grace heavy, but Christ seems very works heavy throughout the gospels.

I believe this was one of those war of wits and nothing more. This sancto/self-righteous thought he was secure and dared Jesus to comment otherwise. Jesus, knowing his intentions, playing along before throwing down a hammer. Jesus could have rebutted the man by any of a number of responses so I would not be as that man and compartmentalize your salvation.

Our works amount to something, and though grace has always been offered in one way or another, even under the Mosaic law Jews were commanded to love their neighbor, which this man lacked. To love another, like you love yourself would have caused this man to sell all and help those in need, meeting the law to love your neighbor as yourself.

On a second point, in that same chapter was his teaching on children. Note, these were children old enough to choose Jesus and yet Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven was like them. That innocence and what year it becomes lost is not a date that can be mandated and J.Smith will be in hell for mandating an age that all children must be baptized - for sin; contrary to both the Bible and BoM.

[selek1]

I believe this was one of those war of wits and nothing more. This sancto/self-righteous thought he was secure and dared Jesus to comment otherwise. Jesus, knowing his intentions, playing along before throwing down a hammer. Jesus could have rebutted the man by any of a number of responses so I would not be as that man and compartmentalize your salvation.

To paraphrase the great philosopher Inigo Montoya "I do not think those verses mean what you think they mean!"

16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

There is simply no evidence in these verses to support your contention that this was a trap or a battle-of-wits (unarmed or otherwise). You yourself inserted that implication into the verse, and thus altered its meaning to suit your preconceptions.

Read simply and for content, we have a proud and wealthy supplicant asking what more he should do that he might have eternal life. Unlike earlier instances with the Pharisees and Saducees, we have no reason- implicit or explicit- to assume that this man is anything less than forthcoming and sincere.

The gratuitous (and vain) assertion that you are better than he is also telling. Our interactions have been brief, but it is quite evident that you are every bit as eager to "compartmentalize your salvation"- your ongoing attacks against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are prima facia evidence of this.

The only difference between you and "the wealthy man" is where you have chosen to draw the line.

Our works amount to something, and though grace has always been offered in one way or another, even under the Mosaic law Jews were commanded to love their neighbor, which this man lacked. To love another, like you love yourself would have caused this man to sell all and help those in need, meeting the law to love your neighbor as yourself.

I agree with the first part, but violently disagree with the second.

You have no proof that the man lacked compassion or charity- only that he loved his riches more.

Despite the modernist (and proto-socialist) cant with which you attempt to impregnate the Scripture, you are arguing from a false dichotomy.

There is no either/or between wealth and true charity implied in this Scripture- only an assertion that this man's personal "scale" was tipped in the wrong direction.

It is a logical fallacy to say that all who have wealth automagically lack charity- and you weild that fallacy with far too broad a brush.

It is- simply put- the politics of envy masked as Christian dogma: the idea that he that has "too much" is somehow wrong.

And yet we, as Christians, are taught not to covet our neighbor's goods, or property, or family, or servants, or land.

The Scriptures are specific: to be perfect, this particular supplicant must sell all that he has, give to the poor, and follow Christ. That is his particular cross, because his heart is on his wealth.

There is no evidence that this burden applies to all men.

There is no evidence that all must sell "that thou hast".

There is no evidence that this is an injunction against wealth in general.

It is, instead, an indictment of a single person, as an example of letting anything (including sectarian rivalries) stand between us and salvation.

On a second point, in that same chapter was his teaching on children. Note, these were children old enough to choose Jesus and yet Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven was like them. That innocence and what year it becomes lost is not a date that can be mandated and J.Smith will be in hell for mandating an age that all children must be baptized - for sin; contrary to both the Bible and BoM.

You were doing so well....and then just had to jump the shark.

Note that the Scriptures do not say what you imply:

13 ¶ Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

The children were brought before him (presumably by their parents) for blessings. Were they there entirely of their own volition (as you claim), the Scripture would have read "came unto him"- just as it did with the Pharisees and the wealthy man.

There is no evidence of the age of the children inherent in this verse. Without that, your scurrilous charge fails to qualify even as a non sequitor.

It is merely hateful and loathsome bile, passed off as though it were a reasoned argument.

Edited May 19, 2012 by selek1

[Calm]

Our works amount to something, and though grace has always been offered in one way or another, even under the Mosaic law Jews were commanded to love their neighbor, which this man lacked. To love another, like you love yourself would have caused this man to sell all and help those in need, meeting the law to love your neighbor as yourself..

Do you believe we are still commanded to love one another? If so, have you sold all to help those in need? If not, why not?

[CASteinman]

Do you believe we are still commanded to love one another? If so, have you sold all to help those in need? If not, why not?

Yes.

No.

Not commanded to do that.

[The Nehor]

I suspect that the young rich man was generally good. I don't think Jesus would toy with him like that.

I don't think all are required to sell all they have and give to the poor. I expect in this individual case the love of mammon was so strong that only radical surgery could solve it. The rich man left sorrowing but I can't read it without hoping that after a trial of faith he did as he was asked and came back to follow Jesus.

That being said if we are not personally ready to make that sacrifice we are pretty much as damned as he was. God have mercy on us all. I'm not sure I could walk away from everything I own.

As for the Evangelical reading I have no sympathy for it. I agree that grace is the primary saving principle but to work on us we must allow it to which means getting out of the Lord's way as he remakes us. This means crippling sacrifices and watching the darker and much-loved portions of us burn and seemingly leaving us mutilated (cut off the hand, pluck out the eye). If it was primarily a profession of belief Jesus wanted in order to save then he was either a terrible preacher as he never taught it that way or the Gospel writers and the early Christians completely missed the point of what he was saying only to have it rediscovered over a millenium later as some modern people finally got what Jesus was saying while those who lived and suffered with him missed it entirely.

[selek1]

I suspect that the young rich man was generally good. I don't think Jesus would toy with him like that.

I don't think all are required to sell all they have and give to the poor. I expect in this individual case the love of mammon was so strong that only radical surgery could solve it. The rich man left sorrowing but I can't read it without hoping that after a trial of faith he did as he was asked and came back to follow Jesus.

That being said if we are not personally ready to make that sacrifice we are pretty much as damned as he was. God have mercy on us all. I'm not sure I could walk away from everything I own.

I agree with you. You are obviously one smart fella

As for the Evangelical reading I have no sympathy for it. I agree that grace is the primary saving principle but to work on us we must allow it to which means getting out of the Lord's way as he remakes us. This means crippling sacrifices and watching the darker and much-loved portions of us burn and seemingly leaving us mutilated (cut off the hand, pluck out the eye). If it was primarily a profession of belief Jesus wanted in order to save then he was either a terrible preacher as he never taught it that way or the Gospel writers and the early Christians completely missed the point of what he was saying only to have it rediscovered over a millenium later as some modern people finally got what Jesus was saying while those who lived and suffered with him missed it entirely.

Well- I have to say I find some of the language here a little dark and lurid, if not downright disturbing.

But the greater point is, I believe quite accurate.

It is (ultimately) grace that will make us fit for exaltation and the Kingdom of Heaven.

That does not, however, excuse us from doing all we can to rework ourlselves in Christ's image.

[The Nehor]

I agree with you. You are obviously one smart fella

Well- I have to say I find some of the language here a little dark and lurid, if not downright disturbing.

So do I but I still think it is accurate.

It is (ultimately) grace that will make us fit for exaltation and the Kingdom of Heaven.

That does not, however, excuse us from doing all we can to rework ourlselves in Christ's image.

I don't really like splitting the two up and I wish we could undo the division. Only God could possibly unravel what we did and what Christ did and I wonder if there is truly a difference at all in the end. C.S. Lewis gave his opinion that the whole 'faith vs. works' thing came down to arguing which side of the scissors does the cutting.

If faith is a gift from God and works are the fruits of the Spirit of God I'd say God does most of both ends. I think the Law serves as the schoolmaster to Christ still. I find that the gospel didn't truly start to make sense and appeal to me until I made every effort to obey the Law and failed again and again and again. Until I did I always held the belief that if I just tried hard enough I could live a life pleasing to God. I just hadn't tried yet. Once I did I realized that part of the atonement is laying that weakness at Jesus's feet and telling Him that I can't do this part. You'll have to do it. And he does. I still find it hard to find enough faith to believe that he can take me and turn me into one like him but he has promised he can and will and I'm starting to develop a real hope that he is doing it now.

[blooit]

I've always read this a very different way. It is just the way if feels to me (sorry EV friends ), but I always felt this young man really wanted to know, or he wouldn't have gone away sorrowing. Jesus then teaches him basically the lesser law - the ten commandments. He answers that he has done this. Although he probably overstated his righteousness, I think it is the sign of a young, naive man - not a self-righteous man. I've always felt that as he persisted, Jesus offered him a sincere, honest answer - which amounted to a higher law - the Law of Consecration - which this man was unwilling to live. I just don't see Jesus playing games here; he really loves the young man as he does us all.

I have a hard time understanding those who see spite in Christ's actions. I think it is an unfortunate interpretation about a man who wouldn't even revile those who beat him, whipped him, and crucified him.

[treehugger]

I've always read this a very different way. It is just the way if feels to me (sorry EV friends ), but I always felt this young man really wanted to know, or he wouldn't have gone away sorrowing. Jesus then teaches him basically the lesser law - the ten commandments. He answers that he has done this. Although he probably overstated his righteousness, I think it is the sign of a young, naive man - not a self-righteous man. I've always felt that as he persisted, Jesus offered him a sincere, honest answer - which amounted to a higher law - the Law of Consecration - which this man was unwilling to live. I just don't see Jesus playing games here; he really loves the young man as he does us all.

I like your assessment, A naive man who has "performed" what he was taught i.e. he kept the commandments. It is either Paul or Peter, who writes that the Law is not what saves us, which seems to indicate that the Sons of Jacob thought simply checking off each day of having kept the commandments as written was all that was required. Christ also makes the comment "I would have mercy and not sacrifice"; I see Christ statement as an indictment that the Israelites misunderstood the Law they were given.

[CASteinman]

I have a hard time understanding those who see spite in Christ's actions. I think it is an unfortunate interpretation about a man who wouldn't even revile those who beat him, whipped him, and crucified him.

Jesus loved him.

[selek1]

I don't really like splitting the two up and I wish we could undo the division. Only God could possibly unravel what we did and what Christ did and I wonder if there is truly a difference at all in the end. C.S. Lewis gave his opinion that the whole 'faith vs. works' thing came down to arguing which side of the scissors does the cutting.

I quite agree- the dichotomy between faith and works lies largely in the realm of semantics. The two are either inseparable or are meaningless.

If faith is a gift from God and works are the fruits of the Spirit of God I'd say God does most of both ends. I think the Law serves as the schoolmaster to Christ still.

I have to quibble a bit here.

"Grace" is undoubtedly a gift from God- but I do not believe that "faith" also qualifies as such. "Faith" must be cultivated, groomed, and encouraged- it cannot simple be bestowed.

We are told that if we had faith even as a mustard seed we could move mountains- but if faith is a gift, then the burden lies with God, rather than ourselves. It becomes an exercise in fatalism- "If God wanted that mountain moved or that child cured by a blessing, he would have given me the necessary faith."

We know that that's not how it works.

I find that the gospel didn't truly start to make sense and appeal to me until I made every effort to obey the Law and failed again and again and again. Until I did I always held the belief that if I just tried hard enough I could live a life pleasing to God. I just hadn't tried yet. Once I did I realized that part of the atonement is laying that weakness at Jesus's feet and telling Him that I can't do this part. You'll have to do it. And he does. I still find it hard to find enough faith to believe that he can take me and turn me into one like him but he has promised he can and will and I'm starting to develop a real hope that he is doing it now.

I quite agree.

Of course, one of my favorite hymns (from my old Evangelical Protestant days) has the line, "Have thine own way Lord- thou art the potter, I am the clay. Mould me and make me after thy will- while I am waiting, yielded and still."

[theplains]

Jesus offered him a sincere, honest answer - which amounted to a higher law - the Law of Consecration - which this man was unwilling to live.

There is some teaching about this law here. Point a is relevant, but not b.

According to the introductory notes of Doctrine and Covenants 119, "The Lord had previously given to the Church

the law of consecration and stewardship of property, which members (chiefly the leading elders) entered into by a

covenant that was to be everlasting. Because of failure on the part of many to abide by this covenant, the Lord

withdrew it for a time and gave instead the law of tithing to the whole Church".

Many of the early Latter-day Saints were unwilling to live this law too.

Personally I don't believe that God has withdrawn any of his holy commandments just because we have not been

obedient to them [except for the Mosiac ceremonial laws in regard to washing/sacrificing]. In the Old Testament,

there is a reference in Malachi 3:8 where people are said to have robbed God, but this did not cause him to

remove the law of tithing.

Regards,

Jim

Edited May 19, 2012 by theplains

[selek1]

I've always read this a very different way. It is just the way if feels to me (sorry EV friends ), but I always felt this young man really wanted to know, or he wouldn't have gone away sorrowing. Jesus then teaches him basically the lesser law - the ten commandments. He answers that he has done this. Although he probably overstated his righteousness, I think it is the sign of a young, naive man - not a self-righteous man. I've always felt that as he persisted, Jesus offered him a sincere, honest answer - which amounted to a higher law - the Law of Consecration - which this man was unwilling to live. I just don't see Jesus playing games here; he really loves the young man as he does us all.

I have a hard time understanding those who see spite in Christ's actions. I think it is an unfortunate interpretation about a man who wouldn't even revile those who beat him, whipped him, and crucified him.

I agree with nearly everything you wrote here- except for the part about the Law of Consecration.

I just don't see Christ as offering a single individual access to the "higher" Law under these circumstances. It is much more probable- especially given the text- that Christ knew the man's heart and his "fatal" weakness.

I don't for a moment see spite in Christ's words or actions in this instance. The young man asked him a straightforward question, Christ as the teacher, gave him a straightforward answer.

Edited May 19, 2012 by selek1

[Calm]

but if faith is a gift

<a name="4"> 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

Our very lives are gifts from the Lord, but what we do with them is our responsibility. Faith may be a gift from the Lord according to the Scriptures...he gives us the mustard seed, so to speak, but what we do with it is up to us.

Edited May 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[selek1]

Our very lives are gifts from the Lord, but what we do with them is our responsibility. Faith may be a gift from the Lord according to the Scriptures...he gives us the mustard seed, so to speak, but what we do with it is up to us.

...Mumble...mumble...grumble...thinks she's right just by quoting the Scriptures..grumble..spackle, snarl, snort....

[Rob Bowman]

I'm having difficulty seeing how the comments expressed here by Mormons correlate the passage in question (Matt. 19:16-30) with LDS soteriology. Is the conversation about general/universal salvation or individual salvation? Is it about making it into the celestial kingdom? How do Jesus' responses to the young man fit LDS doctrine concerning salvation and the three heavenly kingdoms? How do those responses fit LDS views on the importance of repentance, faith in Christ, acceptance of the atonement, getting baptized, etc., none of which Jesus mentions at all in that passage?

It's all very well to dismiss the evangelical view (without really addressing evangelical arguments for it), but do you have a view that fits the text any better than the evangelical understanding?

[blooit]

I'm having difficulty seeing how the comments expressed here by Mormons correlate the passage in question (Matt. 19:16-30) with LDS soteriology. Is the conversation about general/universal salvation or individual salvation? Is it about making it into the celestial kingdom? How do Jesus' responses to the young man fit LDS doctrine concerning salvation and the three heavenly kingdoms? How do those responses fit LDS views on the importance of repentance, faith in Christ, acceptance of the atonement, getting baptized, etc., none of which Jesus mentions at all in that passage?

It's all very well to dismiss the evangelical view (without really addressing evangelical arguments for it), but do you have a view that fits the text any better than the evangelical understanding?

I'm not looking to put anyone down. In fact, I honestly would like to understand the evangelical view better. The one or two I have been given don't seem like reasonable explanations. That being said, I am not entirely closed to alternatives to how I see the conversation. Please share.

[Rob Bowman]

blooit,

You wrote:

I'm not looking to put anyone down. In fact, I honestly would like to understand the evangelical view better. The one or two I have been given don't seem like reasonable explanations. That being said, I am not entirely closed to alternatives to how I see the conversation. Please share.

Okay, here is an overview of how I as an evangelical view the passage.

(1) Evangelicals make no distinction between being saved, entering into life, entering the kingdom of God (heaven), or receiving eternal life. They are all the same thing. In the passage in question, all four ways of speaking are used, and they appear in context to be synonymous (Matt. 19:16, 17, 23-24, 25, 29).

(2) The young man established the parameters of the conversation by posing the question as he did: "what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" (v. 16). The question presupposed that the young man could attain eternal life by his own good work or works. He assumed that he was good enough and simply needed to prove it. This is the context for Jesus' response to him.

(3) It is striking, as I pointed out, that Jesus said nothing about repenting of sin, believing in him as Savior, or accepting the atonement he was soon to secure by his sacrificial death on the cross. Surely, if Jesus' response was meant to provide the young man with the Christian way of salvation, these things would have been at least obliquely mentioned. In the very next chapter Matthew records Jesus' statement that he was going to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28). Yet nothing is said about this by Jesus to the young man in chapter 19. We are apparently reading the text incorrectly if we are reading it as though Jesus were laying before the young man in a direct way the plan of salvation.

(4) What Jesus does instead is to remind the young man of the commandments he already knows (vv. 17-19). Remember, the young man wanted to know what good thing he needed to do to get eternal life. He was asking how to save himself by his good works. Jesus responds to this question directly by saying that of course if you want to be saved by doing good works then you have to obey the commandments. It is completely mistaken to read this as meaning that to be saved one must have faith plus good works. Jesus doesn't mention faith at all here. He doesn't mention repentance, faith in the atonement he would soon provide, or anything else that is explicitly or even implicitly Christian. The "gospel" is totally missing. It is also worth noting that Jesus' list of the commandments is limited to the "horizontal" commandments concerning how one treats other people. He says nothing about the commandments pertaining to one's relationship to God (the first four) or one's internal spiritual and thought life (the tenth). This is why the young man can say, probably with all sincerity, that he had kept all of the commandments Jesus listed.

(5) When the young man claims to have kept the commandments (v. 20), Jesus tells him that he needs to sell all his possessions, give the proceeds entirely to the poor, and follow Jesus (v. 21). Again, neither evangelicals nor Mormons think Jesus intends here to lay out a normative plan of salvation for all people. This is not a "higher law" that people must follow to gain the highest heavenly kingdom. Again, note that Jesus has still said nothing about faith in his atonement, or about repentance of sin, let alone anything about baptism or other ordinances that Mormons consider essential to attaining the celestial kingdom. So what is Jesus doing? As most evangelicals see it, Jesus is exposing the man's real problem: he loves his material possessions more than God. The young man is a sinner after all. He does not love God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. He cannot attain eternal life by his good deeds. He serves Mammon rather than God (cf. Matt. 6:24). Money is his idol. He violates the first table of the Ten Commandments and so cannot attain eternal life by his good works. Jesus takes the approach he does in the conversation because he must show the man that he is lost before he can realize his need to be saved. He answers the man's question directly -- if he wants to get eternal life by doing good then here is the standard -- so that he will realize that he falls hopelessly short.

(6) The follow-up discussion with the disciples confirms the above interpretation. They are shocked by what Jesus says and ask, "Then who can be saved?" (v. 25). Jesus' answer is that with men it is impossible but with God all things are possible (v. 26). Man cannot save himself; it is impossible. However, God can do what man cannot do; God can save human beings despite their sinfulness. God can thread the needle with the camel (see v. 24) and save the sinner. This is grace. Grace is not God making up the difference in our best efforts; it is God doing what for us is impossible, bringing pardon, forgiveness, and righteousness to sinful people.

(7) The last exchange in the chapter, between Peter and Christ, contains an interesting twist. Peter asks Christ what he and the other disciples, who did what Christ asked of the young man, will get for their sacrifice (v. 27). Jesus tells Peter they will receive incredible blessings and will inherit eternal life (vv. 28-29). If one stops there it is easy to take this to mean that indeed the way to eternal life is the way of works. But then Jesus makes the following comment: "But many who are first will be last, and the last first" (v. 30). What does he mean by this? Here the medieval chapter divisions get in the way. Jesus goes on immediately in what we call chapter 20 to explain what he means, using a story -- the parable of the laborers in the vineyard -- to illustrate what he means. Some laborers work in the vineyard all day, some only part of the day, and some only in the last hour, but they all get paid the same. When the laborers who had worked all day complained, the owner explained that he had the right to be generous and that no one could claim to have been cheated (Matt. 20:1-15). Jesus then concludes, "So the last will be first, and the first last" (20:16). The parable illustrates grace: God gives eternal life to all those to whom he chooses to be generous, not just to those who work the hardest or longest. So those who like Peter and the other disciples gave up literally everything to follow Jesus were not to think that they had earned eternal life by their works. Salvation is God's generous gift, given to those most of us would be tempted to view as less deserving than we.

As the disciples would eventually understand, that gift is really based on what Christ was soon to do, dying in order to redeem his people (Matt. 20:28). But Jesus prepared them for this truth gradually, through conversations and miracles and parables. Once Christ had actually died and risen from the dead, the gospel could be understood fully and preached and taught in a more direct fashion. That's why we typically find the gospel laid out more directly and clearly in Acts and the Epistles than we do in the Gospels: the Gospels show Jesus preparing people for the gospel events, whereas the other books explain the significance of those gospel events and how we are to respond to them.

[Calm]

...Mumble...mumble...grumble...thinks she's right just by quoting the Scriptures..grumble..spackle, snarl, snort....

[Calm]

. The "gospel" is totally missing......

(5) When the young man claims to have kept the commandments (v. 20), Jesus tells him that he needs to sell all his possessions, give the proceeds entirely to the poor, and follow Jesus (v. 21)... This is not a "higher law" that people must follow to gain the highest heavenly kingdom.

Would not following Jesus not cover or at least anticipate further instructions in the gospel? Is not the higher law essentially following Jesus? Could not the instruction to sell all he had be simply the first step...rather than the final one....to receiving eternal life?

And the vineyard parable, certainly you are correct that their wages were not tied to the amount of work they did, but it does seem to be tied to the desire to work (the later labourers seemed to have been waiting for the chance to work all day) as well as working when they got the chance as the lord of the vineyard did not gives wages to those who just asked them of him or anyone besides the workers in his vineyard who were doing exactly as he asked as soon as they had the chance to do so and weren't just standing around saying how grateful they were to be hired by the Lord

Edited May 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

I have to quibble a bit here.

"Grace" is undoubtedly a gift from God- but I do not believe that "faith" also qualifies as such. "Faith" must be cultivated, groomed, and encouraged- it cannot simple be bestowed.

We are told that if we had faith even as a mustard seed we could move mountains- but if faith is a gift, then the burden lies with God, rather than ourselves. It becomes an exercise in fatalism- "If God wanted that mountain moved or that child cured by a blessing, he would have given me the necessary faith."

We know that that's not how it works.

I have to disagree somewhat here. While faith can be cultivated God giveth the increase.

[The Nehor]

(1) Evangelicals make no distinction between being saved, entering into life, entering the kingdom of God (heaven), or receiving eternal life. They are all the same thing. In the passage in question, all four ways of speaking are used, and they appear in context to be synonymous (Matt. 19:16, 17, 23-24, 25, 29).

I don't separate them either.

(2) The young man established the parameters of the conversation by posing the question as he did: "what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" (v. 16). The question presupposed that the young man could attain eternal life by his own good work or works. He assumed that he was good enough and simply needed to prove it. This is the context for Jesus' response to him.

Then the kind thing to do would have been to correct him. Why didn't he? I don't see Jesus as being this coy with someone who seems to honestly want an answer. I've certainly never lacked for Evangelicals telling me outright that I was sinning or at least mistaken for wanting to earn my salvation (even though I wasn't).

(3) It is striking, as I pointed out, that Jesus said nothing about repenting of sin, believing in him as Savior, or accepting the atonement he was soon to secure by his sacrificial death on the cross. Surely, if Jesus' response was meant to provide the young man with the Christian way of salvation, these things would have been at least obliquely mentioned. In the very next chapter Matthew records Jesus' statement that he was going to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28). Yet nothing is said about this by Jesus to the young man in chapter 19. We are apparently reading the text incorrectly if we are reading it as though Jesus were laying before the young man in a direct way the plan of salvation.

This is making all kinds of a priori assumptions.

(4) What Jesus does instead is to remind the young man of the commandments he already knows (vv. 17-19). Remember, the young man wanted to know what good thing he needed to do to get eternal life. He was asking how to save himself by his good works. Jesus responds to this question directly by saying that of course if you want to be saved by doing good works then you have to obey the commandments. It is completely mistaken to read this as meaning that to be saved one must have faith plus good works. Jesus doesn't mention faith at all here. He doesn't mention repentance, faith in the atonement he would soon provide, or anything else that is explicitly or even implicitly Christian. The "gospel" is totally missing. It is also worth noting that Jesus' list of the commandments is limited to the "horizontal" commandments concerning how one treats other people. He says nothing about the commandments pertaining to one's relationship to God (the first four) or one's internal spiritual and thought life (the tenth). This is why the young man can say, probably with all sincerity, that he had kept all of the commandments Jesus listed.

Again, you make Jesus incredibly coy. I think the young man's question regarding what he still lacks shows the young man sincerely knew he lacked something. Why not provide it?

(5) When the young man claims to have kept the commandments (v. 20), Jesus tells him that he needs to sell all his possessions, give the proceeds entirely to the poor, and follow Jesus (v. 21). Again, neither evangelicals nor Mormons think Jesus intends here to lay out a normative plan of salvation for all people. This is not a "higher law" that people must follow to gain the highest heavenly kingdom. Again, note that Jesus has still said nothing about faith in his atonement, or about repentance of sin, let alone anything about baptism or other ordinances that Mormons consider essential to attaining the celestial kingdom. So what is Jesus doing? As most evangelicals see it, Jesus is exposing the man's real problem: he loves his material possessions more than God. The young man is a sinner after all. He does not love God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. He cannot attain eternal life by his good deeds. He serves Mammon rather than God (cf. Matt. 6:24). Money is his idol. He violates the first table of the Ten Commandments and so cannot attain eternal life by his good works. Jesus takes the approach he does in the conversation because he must show the man that he is lost before he can realize his need to be saved. He answers the man's question directly -- if he wants to get eternal life by doing good then here is the standard -- so that he will realize that he falls hopelessly short.

I disagree. God gives the higher law tailored to his specific circumstances. Anyone who could not give up his riches could not find God. Yes, he does fall short but he didn't have to. If he gave his life to God and strived to obey this seemingly impossible commandment God could have changed him to make it possible to obey.

(6) The follow-up discussion with the disciples confirms the above interpretation. They are shocked by what Jesus says and ask, "Then who can be saved?" (v. 25). Jesus' answer is that with men it is impossible but with God all things are possible (v. 26). Man cannot save himself; it is impossible. However, God can do what man cannot do; God can save human beings despite their sinfulness. God can thread the needle with the camel (see v. 24) and save the sinner. This is grace. Grace is not God making up the difference in our best efforts; it is God doing what for us is impossible, bringing pardon, forgiveness, and righteousness to sinful people.

I think where LDS and Evangelicals disagree is in the nature of what that salvation is. Evangelicals seem to see it as forgiveness. LDS see it as that and then being made perfect through Christ which is a hard and painful process that we can speed, slow, or halt as we will.

(7) The last exchange in the chapter, between Peter and Christ, contains an interesting twist. Peter asks Christ what he and the other disciples, who did what Christ asked of the young man, will get for their sacrifice (v. 27). Jesus tells Peter they will receive incredible blessings and will inherit eternal life (vv. 28-29). If one stops there it is easy to take this to mean that indeed the way to eternal life is the way of works. But then Jesus makes the following comment: "But many who are first will be last, and the last first" (v. 30). What does he mean by this? Here the medieval chapter divisions get in the way. Jesus goes on immediately in what we call chapter 20 to explain what he means, using a story -- the parable of the laborers in the vineyard -- to illustrate what he means. Some laborers work in the vineyard all day, some only part of the day, and some only in the last hour, but they all get paid the same. When the laborers who had worked all day complained, the owner explained that he had the right to be generous and that no one could claim to have been cheated (Matt. 20:1-15). Jesus then concludes, "So the last will be first, and the first last" (20:16). The parable illustrates grace: God gives eternal life to all those to whom he chooses to be generous, not just to those who work the hardest or longest. So those who like Peter and the other disciples gave up literally everything to follow Jesus were not to think that they had earned eternal life by their works. Salvation is God's generous gift, given to those most of us would be tempted to view as less deserving than we.

But note that all those who were paid did work in fact 'work' in the vineyard no matter how long or short the duration.

As the disciples would eventually understand, that gift is really based on what Christ was soon to do, dying in order to redeem his people (Matt. 20:28). But Jesus prepared them for this truth gradually, through conversations and miracles and parables. Once Christ had actually died and risen from the dead, the gospel could be understood fully and preached and taught in a more direct fashion. That's why we typically find the gospel laid out more directly and clearly in Acts and the Epistles than we do in the Gospels: the Gospels show Jesus preparing people for the gospel events, whereas the other books explain the significance of those gospel events and how we are to respond to them.

I disagree that Jesus had to work that slowly. I think the more obvious reasoning for the lack of plain theology in the gospels is due to their audience. The gospels were written not to convert but as a tool and blessing and inspiration to the already converted. The writers of the gospels assume a basic familiarity with the gospel is already possessed.

[blooit]

blooit,

You wrote:

Okay, here is an overview of how I as an evangelical view the passage...

Thank you Rob. I'm sure that took some time to layout, but it gives me a better understanding of where evangelicals may be coming from. There are still a couple points I disagree with, and many that I feel are reasonable, but no more or less than other explanations, but as you lay it out, it seems much less absurd than the way I have had it explained to me.

Again - thanks.