Day 1032 - Thinking the Impossible

A Bible study for the Men's Group at Second Presbyterian Church, Oct. 8, 2015, Chattanooga, TN.

Mark 10: 17-31

In the other synoptic gospels describe the person who approaches Jesus as a young man (Matthew), or  a ruler (Luke). This identification immediately strikes a divisive note to the story by dividing people up into “those who have” and “those who don’t.”  But Mark on refers to the person simply as a man and lets the story inform us about his economic stature (v 21). Mark seems to be taking aim at what is in the heart.

That the man is rich is also underscored by the verb he uses in his question, inherit (v17). Inherit is a verbal cue to wealth. For the rich, wealth is inherited and comes from fulfilling certain obligations and conditions, such as treating your father well, etc. It suggests a state of privileged existence that is strikingly ironic in the context of the earlier teaching about the dependence of children. (Eternal life is synonymous with kingdom of God.)

His question though, hangs on all our lips, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”

This time Jesus gives him an answer, quoting back to the man an (incomplete) summary of the Law. You may find this a little surprising since throughout Mark’s account of the gospel Jesus has been hard on those who hang on the letter of the law. (See Day-994, for example.)

But perhaps there is a clue to why he does this in the response of the man to the answer Jesus gave him. The man said, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.”

The man emphasizes his life-long observance of the commandments. Jesus reacts compassionately at this display of sincerity. Mark says Jesus loved him (v21).

Yet as we know from the prophets, and from Jesus’ own earlier discourses, blind obedience to the law, or its interpretation as an act of conformity is not necessarily a righteous act.

Jeremiah says, circumcise your heart to the Lord (Jer. 4:4). Before they entered the Promise Land Moses instructed Israel that the commandments should reflect the righteousness of one’s life, not be a set of rules for conduct. You obey and follow the law because it is part of your righteousness.  (Deuteronomy 30:6-10).

Jesus hammers this man seeking to inherit salvation with five blows, using the imperative verb form, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”

Now, wait a minute, 1-Go!, 2- Sell;!, 3- Give!, 4- Come!, 5- Follow me! That is five things not one thing.  What one thing is inclusive of these five imperatives? Could it be compassion for your fellow traveler? Is that the kind of righteousness Jeremiah, Moses and Jesus had in mind?

For example, recall Zacchaeus, the tax collector, who gave half his earnings to the poor and said if someone points out where he has wronged one, he will pay them four times as much. Jesus told him “salvation has come to this house.” It does not seem that the issue is about money but motivation.

What was the difference between Zacchaeus and the rich man? Zacchaeus was giving half of his worth to aid the poor. The rich man seems primarily to have a selfish interest in an inheritance of salvation, not in righteous living. Does he follow the Law because he thinks it is a prescription, and he seeks a similar prescription for salvation. Yet to see the Law as a prescription is a stumbling block in itself. Zacchaeus aids the poor because his compassion is written in his heart.

The idea the man does not have righteousness at heart is signified by his reaction. He was shocked and went away because he had many possessions. (By the way, his man recalls and contrasts Job. Job was a wealthy man who was fastidious in his adherence to the Law. It was written on his heart, yet Job was not even a Jew. Even believing in the finality of death, Job remained righteous in his faith in God.)

Then Jesus makes an observation that is often used in stewardship campaigns as a way to guilt congregants into giving, “How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God.”

In Mark’s way, Jesus has used this public event as a teaching moment for his disciples. He describes it as being easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle. They are perplexed at his saying.

Saying the disciples are profoundly perplexed is a translator’s attempt to convey the meaning the emotion the disciples felt. Other ways to say it are the disciples were astonished, appalled, shocked, crestfallen, gloomy, dumbfounded. Jesus has just turned their world upside done.

Go back and read Proverbs, and Psalms, even Job, even the story of Abraham in Genesis. Throughout Jewish teaching, righteousness is always associated with wealth and status. It may be that you are a citizen of the favored nation, or have thousands of sheep, or a large family of sons. Your righteousness is reflected in how the Lord values you.

If you doubt the seriousness of these comments by Jesus, look at what he says next in v 25 and the reaction in v26, “’It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’ They were greatly astounded and said to one another, ‘Then who can be saved?’”

Notice Jesus calls the disciples “children.” Then he refers to the famous camel and eye of the needle. I’m sure some of you may have heard this refers to a narrow, low gate to the Jerusalem temple where a camel, if careful and on it knees, could squeeze into the temple grounds. There is no such gate. A camel was most likely the largest animal a Palestinian would ever see. They also had needles.  This image is intended to be as preposterous as it is. We shall find the message disturbs the disciples because Jesus says the message applies to everyone.
       Perhaps we should go back to the first question and answer of Jesus to the wealthy man, "Why do you call me good?" "No one is good but God..." You can't get into the kingdom of God under your own steam, whether the wealthy man or Zachaeus, the Lord calls you in. Perhaps it is again about faith. Paul will take this idea further with the Corinthians when he points out the powerful reversal of faith to knowledge - those with knowledge see faith as foolishness. Does it take a child-like mind no frozen by the knowledge of experience to believe?

Jesus invokes the image of children and the Kingdom of God to point backwards to his statement “one must receive the kingdom as a child (v15).  Earlier in Mark 10:13-16 Jesus implies it is easy to get into the kingdom - a child can do it. Jesus reminds us of a paradox he has broached before when he talked about entering the Kingdom several chapters earlier (Mark Chapter 4). Getting into the kingdom requires a reversal of what we ordinarily value.

And Peter, says,” Wait a minute, we’ve done all that.” Jesus acknowledges the commitment of the disciples to him, and says they will receive even more, brothers, sisters, mothers and children. Peter, I’m sure is immediately thinking money and status given his arguments about who is the greatest.

Is Jesus using “brothers, sisters, mothers and children” to talk of fellow believers, future congregants?

He does not let Peter off the hook. He adds two difficult things. He says they will inherit “fields of persecutions.” And he comes back to his great reversal, “Many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.”

The real story seems more complex.Is Jesus saying, do not worry about your possessions and ties to family, if you follow me you will have a new family and the most valuable thing possible, salvation? But what does verse 29-30 mean? If you follow Jesus you will get a hundred-fold reward but also fields of persecution…?

Jesus pricks us with that last verse, Perhaps “many who are first will be last, and the last will be first” is a clue to the meaning of the text?

The evolution of this teaching has evolved is a unique way. The earliest congregations (see Acts for example) fully expected the return of Jesus at any moment. Thus wealth and belongs were not of significant value in the anticipated trip believers would be taking in the near future.

 As time passed and that expectation of the immediate return dimmed, and the teaching took on a more ascetic, if not monastic reading.  Many voluntarily take on a life of poverty, or relative poverty, as a special vocation using this passage as justification.

More modern Reformed thinkers choose to generalize the teaching fully into a symbolic form that minimizes the implication of wealth in the context of overall spiritual health. It’s true meaning, the logic goes, is that we should be on guard against every impediment to our spiritual health, lust, pride, greed, selfishness, etc.

When we read this passage, it would seem perhaps we haven’t read it well if we are not astonished, appalled, shocked, crestfallen, gloomy, or we have heard it so often we a re inured to it.
Guilting folks into giving their money to the church does do it. It is as prescriptive as the tradition of the elders. We should ask, "What difference do you see between the acts of Zacchaeus and the rich man?"
 How do we put together an ethical prescription for the use of our wealth? What happens when we think the impossible, that the greatest reward cannot be purchased but only given by grace? Do we find a way to share our grace?
Amen.