The Rich Young Ruler

There is a Christian story about a rich young man who came to Jesus and asked what he can do to get eternal life, and then went away very sad because the answer he got sounded too hard for him to do - to sell everything he had and give the proceeds to the poor. This story is told three times throughout the New Testament - Matthew 19:16-30, Mark 10:17-31, and Luke 18:18-30. Many Evangelical Protestants, including the fundamental Baptists among whom I was raised, interpret this story to accord with their almost antinomian Free Grace soteriology. "What Jesus means here," they say, "is that no one is or can ever be good enough to go to heaven by their own works. Jesus is actually saying that no one can or should even try do anything to get to heaven, besides asking God for salvation and trusting Him."

Granted, there are many parts of the Bible that are flat out ambigous, and that need to be given a nuanced interprettation. Besides those ambiguous passages, other parts of the Bible need to be given a meaning that isn't the obvious one, if they are to accord with other parts of the Bible (or with the overall agenda that's attributed to them). And I think the story of the Rich Young Ruler is an example of the latter one of these.

The standard Evangelical interpretation of this story simply doesn't work. Or at least, it doesn't work nearly as well as a salvation-through-works reading. When a man approaches the Son of God and asks what he can do to get eternal life, you'd think that - if the Son of God is all he's cracked up to be - the words that then come from Jesus' mouth would shed some light on how someone can get eternal life. And the words that Jesus says next are "You know the commandments - don't commit adultery, don't murder, don't steal, don't perjure, and honor your parents." The most obvious meaning here is that the answer to this man's question about what he should do to get eternal life is that he should keep the Ten Commandments. If Jesus had meant something other than that, then maybe he would have said something other than that.

When the man says that he already does keep the commandments, Jesus tells him that there's one thing that he lacks - he has to sell everything he has and give all the proceeds to the poor, and follow him. It doesn't look like Jesus is adding these on as things you have to do as well as keeping the commandments. It looks like he's saying that these things are part and parcel of keeping the commandments. In the context of an imperialist government where being rich implies being well connected to someone who makes their living aggressing against others, it's understandable that someone would associate wealthiness with theft. This condition isn't entirely absent from our own society, since many people today make their living through government largesse.

But even if we don't read "sell all you have and give to the poor" as part of the Ten Commandments, it very clearly looks like it is part of what Jesus describes as a means to salvation. I don't think this is mere hyperbole. True, Jesus does concede that with men this is impossible - but then he says "but with God all things are possible." What thing is he talking about that is impossible with men but possible with God? Maybe the tasks he just prescribed for a rich man to get eternal life - selling everything and giving all to the poor.

If Jesus were speaking merely in hyperbole, as the Evangelicals wish he were, then why pick on the rich people? Why does the rich man go to hell and poor Lazarus go to heaven? Why does Jesus say that it's harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle? If Jesus were merely talking about all of mankind's total depravity, then maybe he would have said "any man". But he refers specifically to *rich* men, and probably because he is specifically pointing out attachment to wealth as an impediment to salvation.

All Evangelicals (and Christians, for that matter) believe that God's intervention is a necessary ingredient to salvation. Jesus' paying the penalty for all of everyone's sins so that a free ride to heaven can be given to anyone who asks for it, is one predominant way for Evangelicals to view it. Another is that God handpicked everyone who He decided to fit into the category of "Not Going to Hell." This passage about the rich young man clearly does give God a role in salvation, but it's very different from the role given to Him by the above two views.

The most straightforward reading of this passage shows that God helps people get saved, but not by dying for them and giving them a free ride. There is a means to salvation, which is very clearly given as keeping the commandments, giving everything to the poor, and following Jesus. This means is recognized as being very hard, next to impossible, or flat-out impossible for humans to do; but it is also recognized as possible with God's help.

Those Evangelicals who give the Bible a fairer reading than what the Free Gracers do, believe in something called "Lordship Salvation". They believe that good works necessarily result from getting saved, and that anyone who is truly saved will start doing good works as a result of it. But this view doesn't accord with these passages about the rich young man, where Jesus describes works as a means to salvation, not as a mere result of it.

Though I was raised a Baptist, my beliefs have changed to the point that there is no practical use to even calling myself a Christian. So I can't describe anything I wrote here as being what I actually believe. I might believe this if I still were a Christian. If I were to take this reading of these passages seriously, I would have to downplay or radically reinterpret other passages of the Bible. And that's okay. I don't think every bit of a text is necessarily compatible with every other bit of it - especially of a piece as composite as the Christian Bible.