Matthew 19 - Jesus Teaches The Young Man

[zerinus]

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?

It is about making it to the celestial kingdom. When the scriptures talk about salvation without qualifying it, it means the celestial kingdom.

How do Jesus' responses to the young man fit LDS doctrine concerning salvation and the three heavenly kingdoms?

See above. The sacramental nature of religion is intended to qualify one for the celestial kingdom.

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?

In the gospel of Jesus Christ (and hence in Mormonism), keeping the commandments always take the center stage. Faith, repentance, baptism etc. all fall under the same category of keeping God’s commandments. The “young ruler” had already demonstrated his faith in Jesus by approaching Him and calling Him “good master,” and seeking His advice on how to be saved. The Lord was teaching him the basics of keeping the commandments, according to the religious tradition he was accustomed to.

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?

Of course.

Edited May 21, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

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).

Agreed. I see no problem with that from an LDS point of view.

(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.

Not at all. I don’t agree. The young man was referencing the scriptural tradition which he shared with Jesus, that there is something that a man must do in order to be saved. This does not lead to the spin you are putting on it, that he could “attain eternal life by his own good works [without the help or grace of God]”. That is your spin. Throughout the Bible (Old and New Testaments), it is stated that man must keep God’s commandments in order to be saved. That is written all over the face of the Bible. This does not carry the spin you are putting on it, as stated above. The repeated biblical injunction that man must keep God’s commandments to be saved does not carry the spin that they can do so under their own steam, without the help (i.e. grace) of God. He just wanted confirmation and clarification from Jesus concerning those oft-repeated injunctions in scripture; and that is what he gets from the Lord.

(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.

Those are all implied in keeping the commandments that Jesus had stated.

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.

Jesus’ aim was not to give the young man a lesson in theology, but to answer his question at its most basic level. It is like a similar answer He gave to others somewhere else: “why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). Why indeed! There is no mention of faith, repentance, baptism, grace vs. works, the Atonement, dying on the cross . . .

(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.

Not at all; see above. He wanted to know more clearly and concisely what were the commandments of God that he should keep to be saved, as taught all over the scriptures.

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. . . .

That is a large quantity of false theology and doctrine. Keeping the commandments is of the very essence of the gospel; and yet the gospel is missing? Without repentance and keeping the commandments, the Atonement is wasted, and no one can be saved. To repent means to keep the commandments.

(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.

“Selling all and giving it to the poor” was a condition of discipleship of Jesus at that time. Everyone who wanted to become a fulltime disciple of Jesus had to follow that rule. Jesus is simply telling him the condition of discipleship. He is telling him that if he wanted to go the extra mile (in addition to keeping the commandments as he said he had done), he should become His fulltime disciple; and those were the conditions of becoming a disciple of Jesus at that time.

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.

I wouldn’t interpret it that way. He didn’t “love his material possessions more than God”. He “trusted in riches” (Mark 10:24), meaning that he relied on his wealth for his survival, rather than having sufficient faith to believe that by giving that up (and becoming the disciple of Jesus), God would provide for his temporal needs, so he wouldn’t be in want.

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.

This is an utterly false caricature of the young man. Only an Evangelical frame of mind could concoct such a false typology.

The rest of your post does not require specific comment.

Edited May 21, 2012 by zerinus

[theplains]

It is about making it to the celestial kingdom. When the scriptures talk about salvation without qualifying it, it means the celestial kingdom.

I saw this mentioned in Teachings of Presidents of the Church – Joseph Smith on page 224. I think it has reference to

the celestial kingdom (at least to those not in the highest division of it):

“God has decreed that all who will not obey His voice shall not escape the damnation of hell. What is the damnation of

hell? To go with that society who have not obeyed His commands ... A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner.

Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone (Revelation 21:8]. The torment of

disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of

man ... Some shall rise to the everlasting burnings of God, for God dwells in everlasting burnings, and some shall rise

to the damnation of their own filthiness, which is as exquisite a torment as the lake of fire and brimstone”.

Those who did not achieve exaltation suffer immense torment in their mind.

“And the righteous shall be gathered on my right hand unto eternal life; and the wicked on my left hand will I be ashamed

to own before the Father. Wherefore I will say unto them – Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for

the devil and his angels” (Doctrines and Covenants 29:27-28).

The wicked (those who don't inherit eternal life, i.e. the gods and goddesses) are cursed with everlasting fire.

“Therefore, I must gather together my people, according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, that the wheat may

be secured in the garners to possess eternal life, and be crowned with celestial glory, when I shall come in the kingdom

of my Father to reward every man according as his work shall be; While the tares shall be bound in bundles, and their

bands made strong, that they may be burned with unquenchable fire” (section 101:65-66).

As goes for the wicked, so for the tares.

Do you view it the same way?

Thanks,

Jim

[zerinus]

I saw this mentioned in Teachings of Presidents of the Church – Joseph Smith on page 224. I think it has reference to

the celestial kingdom (at least to those not in the highest division of it):

“God has decreed that all who will not obey His voice shall not escape the damnation of hell. What is the damnation of

hell? To go with that society who have not obeyed His commands ... A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner.

Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone (Revelation 21:8]. The torment of

disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of

man ... Some shall rise to the everlasting burnings of God, for God dwells in everlasting burnings, and some shall rise

to the damnation of their own filthiness, which is as exquisite a torment as the lake of fire and brimstone”.

Those who did not achieve exaltation suffer immense torment in their mind.

“And the righteous shall be gathered on my right hand unto eternal life; and the wicked on my left hand will I be ashamed

to own before the Father. Wherefore I will say unto them – Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for

the devil and his angels” (Doctrines and Covenants 29:27-28).

The wicked (those who don't inherit eternal life, i.e. the gods and goddesses) are cursed with everlasting fire.

“Therefore, I must gather together my people, according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, that the wheat may

be secured in the garners to possess eternal life, and be crowned with celestial glory, when I shall come in the kingdom

of my Father to reward every man according as his work shall be; While the tares shall be bound in bundles, and their

bands made strong, that they may be burned with unquenchable fire” (section 101:65-66).

As goes for the wicked, so for the tares.

Do you view it the same way?

Thanks,

Jim

I think you are mixing a lot of quotes which are not directly related to each other, and trying to establish a link between them when they are not naturally linked together. Each comes from a different context, where the context of some of them may not even be clear. Judging by your quotes, one might conclude that people who go to the terrestrial kingdom are in eternal torment because they did not make it to the celestial, etc. I doubt if it works that way. Those in various kingdoms of glory are probably as happy with their lot as they wanted to be.

[theplains]

I think you are mixing a lot of quotes which are not directly related to each other, and trying to establish a link between them when they are not naturally linked together. Each comes from a different context, where the context of some of them may not even be clear. Judging by your quotes, one might conclude that people who go to the terrestrial kingdom are in eternal torment because they did not make it to the celestial, etc. I doubt if it works that way. Those in various kingdoms of glory are probably as happy with their lot as they wanted to be.

So when Joseph Smith said "God has decreed that all who will not obey His voice shall not escape the damnation

of hell. What is the damnation of hell? To go with that society who have not obeyed His commands", which society

contains those who did not obey God's voice? Wouldn't it be all those who didn't do everything they needed to do

to achieve exaltation?

Thanks,

Jim

[CASteinman]

(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.

I see a problem with this view. It requires that Jesus was not direct and honest with this young man who came to Him with sufficient sincerity that Jesus "loved him".

That Jesus' reply does not fit the doctrinal framework that you (or even perhaps some Mormons) would prefer should not mitigate that this is the Word of God Incarnate -- and superior to anything laid down by men and their theologies. It is a bit of a stretch to see any prevarication, deception or hidden concepts in Jesus' words -- the only time that He actually was asked and directly answered: What does it take?

Rather than dismiss His words with all kinds of explanations that try to make His words something other than what He plainly said, we should be listening at the Feet of the Master.

[DBMormon]

(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.

This is the keystone to this entire story... It is not a story about rich and their inability to get to heaven but rather Sin and our inability to get to heaven on our merits and yet through Grace "with God, all things are possible"

Edited May 22, 2012 by reelmormon

[CASteinman]

This is the keystone to this entire story... It is not a story about rich and their inability to get to heaven but rather Sin and our inability to get to heaven on our merits and yet through Grace "with God, all things are possible"

I don't know if it would be helpful or interesting to you to know this, but Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets have said said it was about how riches -- or the love of wealth -- can get in the way of exaltation. In particular, the text you are quoting was revised in the JST. Matthew was revised quite a bit, but not as strongly as Mark 10 where revision was very clear and plain spoken on the matter.

This is not intended to be confrontational. But maybe you want to know about the teachings of the Prophets on the matter is all.

[selek1]

I don't know if it would be helpful or interesting to you to know this, but Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets have said said it was about how riches -- or the love of wealth -- can get in the way of exaltation. In particular, the text you are quoting was revised in the JST. Matthew was revised quite a bit, but not as strongly as Mark 10 where revision was very clear and plain spoken on the matter.

This is not intended to be confrontational. But maybe you want to know about the teachings of the Prophets on the matter is all.

Actually, the prophets have counseled that almost anything- and not merely riches- can get in the way of exaltation, if it detracts or distracts from our quest to become more like Christ.

That is why we are counseled not to waste our time in idle or frivilous enterprises and entertainments, but to be good and faithful servants to the Lord.

Edited May 22, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

Actually, the prophets have counseled that almost anything- and not merely riches- can get in the way of exaltation, if it detracts or distracts from our quest to become more like Christ.

That is why we are counseled not to waste our time in idle or frivilous enterprises and entertainments, but to be good and faithful servants to the Lord.

Yeah, but I was responding specifically to the quoted scripture which was not referring to all kinds of things, but just riches.

Edited May 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[selek1]

Yeah, but I was responding specifically to the quoted scripture which was not referring to all kinds of things, but just riches.

Sooo....you're essentially asking "Who has sinned- this man or his parents- that he was born wealthy?"

[CASteinman]

Sooo....you're essentially asking "Who has sinned- this man or his parents- that he was born wealthy?"

I didn't ask a question.

There was a verse of scripture being discussed. The meaning of the scripture was described by a poster. I gave information regarding its meaning according to the Prophet Joseph Smith and others that isn't the same as the poster's views.

Is my response somehow offensive to you?

Edited May 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[Log]

[There is] too much love of the things of the world. There is more danger to be apprehended from this source than all the mobs that could be organized and brought in opposition. Lust after the things of the world had ruined the most powerful nations. . . . Wherever there existed a hunger for ease and wealth in place of a hunger for righteousness, sooner or later the parties thus inclined would lose the Spirit of God, and go into darkness. After the lust for women, this greed for gain was next in order in its corrupting tendencies.

[selek1]

Is my response somehow offensive to you?

As I and others have noted- subtlety is not my strong suit.

If I were offended, I'd have left no doubt in your mind that that were the case.

I simply disagree that the account can or should be limited to "wealth as a stumbling block", for the reasons I mentioned above.

Anything that we covet- food, drink, women, song, video games, fine clothing, baseball cards, Star Trek re-runs, or even pets can be just as much a stumbling block as wealth.

All that is needed is that we set our hearts on those things instead of upon the Kingdom of Heaven.

[CASteinman]

I simply disagree that the account can or should be limited to "wealth as a stumbling block", for the reasons I mentioned above.

1. You actually didn't give any reasons above, with respect to that specific passage of scripture. You made some broad comments about life and its purpose in general. Different topic.

2. Your disagreement on the meaning of that passage of scripture is with the modern Prophets and Apostles, which is not a position I would have expected you to stake out. But everyone is different.

[selek1]

Your disagreement on the meaning of that passage of scripture is with the modern Prophets and Apostles, which is not a position I would have expected you to stake out. But everyone is different.

Do you have an actual citation for that point? I'm not suggesting that you're wrong, but I would prefer to read the actual words of the Prophets for myself, rather than accepting your recollection.

And as Log's quote from Brigham Young shows, modern prophets agree with me (at least in principle).

[CASteinman]

Do you have an actual citation for that point? I'm not suggesting that you're wrong, but I would prefer to read the actual words of the Prophets for myself, rather than accepting your recollection.

Tomorrow.

And as Log's quote from Brigham Young shows, modern prophets agree with me (at least in principle).

Once again (I don't understand why this is lost on you): There is a scripture being discussed. The meaning of that passage is being discussed. Log did not present any quote about the meaning of that passage of scripture.

[Log]

I'm not seeing where any prophets have addressed Matthew 19's account of the rich young man and drawn anything other than the obvious lesson from it. On the other hand, Hugh Nibley essentially wrote an entire book on it: Approaching Zion.

Here's a related scripture for your perusal.

"Having adequate nourishment (diatrophas) and decent covering (skepasmata) we shall with these suffice ourselves (arkesthesometha). But those who want to be rich (ploutein) fall into temptation (peirasmon, a test) and a snare (pagida, a trap, noose, decoy), and into hankering for many things (epithumias, a passionate desire to possess) which are silly (anoetous ; mindless, senseless) and harmful (blaberas), and which drag (buthizousi, plunge) human beings down to ruin (olethron, deadly danger) and utter destruction (apoleian). For the root (rhiza) of all evil doings (panton ton kakon) is the desire for money (philargyria, cash–loving), being driven by which people have gone astray, got lost (apeplanesthesan, Heb. abad, stray from the path) from the faith and become hopelessly involved (peripeiran, spitted, engangled) in agonizing situations (odunais, rapids, pangs). But thou, O man of God, keep away from these things" (1 Timothy 6:8–11)

Riches does seem to be the theme, and not just any old distraction.

Here's a related link for Matthew 19 and associated scriptures / teachings (I haven't gone through the whole thing).

Edited May 22, 2012 by Log

[Buzzard]

I'm surprised that no one has noted these five words in Christ's response: "If thou wilt be perfect". That part of the passage tells me a lot. It says that the young man was telling the truth, he was following the commandments. The story as related in Mark also says that Christ looked on him and loved him, since he knew that he WAS truly a righteous man, who kept the law to the best of his ability. Then he says "One thing thou lackest". I don't know about you, but I lack more than one thing in my life to be the kind of person I should be.

So from my reading of it, Christ really was inviting this good man to attain perfection-that is, after all what he said. That the man could not let go of the one thing he lacked-the ability to cast aside his earthly posessions-tells us just how hard it is for even the righteous to let go of those final things that keep us short of the glory of God.

So it does not surprise me that the disciples wondered if anyone could be saved, since this righteous man could not take the final step. I'm glad that we will have time in the next life to take off some of the rough edges we will still have, and I am grateful every day for Christ bridging the gap for me.

[selek1]

On the contrary, Buzzard- those five words are central to my arguments above (and the reason why I reject the more narrow "all wealth is sin" rationale).

[CASteinman]

I'm surprised that no one has noted these five words in Christ's response: "If thou wilt be perfect". That part of the passage tells me a lot. It says that the young man was telling the truth, he was following the commandments. The story as related in Mark also says that Christ looked on him and loved him, since he knew that he WAS truly a righteous man, who kept the law to the best of his ability. Then he says "One thing thou lackest". I don't know about you, but I lack more than one thing in my life to be the kind of person I should be.

So from my reading of it, Christ really was inviting this good man to attain perfection-that is, after all what he said. That the man could not let go of the one thing he lacked-the ability to cast aside his earthly posessions-tells us just how hard it is for even the righteous to let go of those final things that keep us short of the glory of God.

So it does not surprise me that the disciples wondered if anyone could be saved, since this righteous man could not take the final step. I'm glad that we will have time in the next life to take off some of the rough edges we will still have, and I am grateful every day for Christ bridging the gap for me.

This is a really great analysis. Maybe the best I ever read. Thanks!

[The Nehor]

Sooo....you're essentially asking "Who has sinned- this man or his parents- that he was born wealthy?"

Change wealthy to 'greedy' or 'unwilling to part with wealth' and you might have something.

Wealth is a stumbling block on the way to God, a trial. Much good can be doe with it but it has also led to the destruction of many. Brigham Young suggested it was the most difficult trial and that when it came it would sift the saints and it is.

[CASteinman]

Do you have an actual citation for that point? I'm not suggesting that you're wrong, but I would prefer to read the actual words of the Prophets for myself, rather than accepting your recollection.

I promised to get back to you today on this.

I have many quotes and references but I'm not sure that it would be appreciated to put so much in a post. So, let me first ask if one referenced quote will work for you, or if you need more.

The one I will use is Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

If you need more references than that, I would prefer to JUST give the citation and not quote the whole item because that would be a pretty big long post -- maybe unappreciated here.

So, for starters, here is the JST:

JST Mark 10:26 … With men that trust in riches, it is impossible; but not impossible with men who trust in God and leave all for my sake, for with such all these things are possible.

Mark 10 is the same story as Matt 19 and the JST version there is more clear about the fact that this was about riches.

There are also many talks or quotes from Prophets and Apostles explaining that it is about temporal, monetary matters. As I said I did not put them here for brevity, but if you really want them, I will put them here, ether as cites or with full quotes.

Let me know.

[volgadon]

Mark 10 is the same story as Matt 19 and the JST version there is more clear about the fact that this was about riches.

I agree with you that the focus of this particular story is riches. But, and this is a big but, riches is not the themeword here. Trust is. Trust in ____ as opposed to trust in God.

[CASteinman]

I agree with you that the focus of this particular story is riches. But, and this is a big but, riches is not the themeword here. Trust is. Trust in ____ as opposed to trust in God.

You are incorrect in leaving the blank -- blank. It should be filled in with "wealth" or "riches".