19:16–20 A young and prosperous man (vv. 20, 22) approaches Jesus with an earnest question: “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” (v. 16).318 The question is slightly ambiguous in Greek. It may be translated two ways: “What good thing shall I do that I might have eternal life?” or “What is the good I shall do that I might have eternal life?” In Luke 18:18, the aorist participle (ti poiēsas, “having done what?”) shows that he asks what he must do so that when he has done it, he will surely obtain eternal life.

The kernel question is “What shall I do?” In essence, the man invites Jesus to direct or command him to do something so he may gain life. He is either asking Jesus to give him one great thing to do319 or inviting Jesus to define the good for him, that he may better know and perform it. “The good” could lead to commands or to character traits. The question “What shall I do?” could be imperative, “Tell me what to do!” or deliberative, “What ever shall I do?”320

Whatever the man’s precise mindset, the perceptive reader sees that the man is far from the childlike humility Jesus required when he said, “Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom” (Matt. 18:3–4; cf. 19:14). Because of his pride, he stands farther from the kingdom than he thinks, so he needs to be humbled, and this event does so.321 Moreover, he sees his situation incorrectly. He believes he needs to do more to please God. In fact, he needs to see that he cannot please God.

He believes he can perform whatever is required to earn God’s favor. He “apparently thinks there are good things he can do, beyond the demands of the law, by which he can assure his salvation.”322 Or he wants to know what he owes God, so that when he does it, God owes him life. Mark and Luke (unlike Matthew) reveal an additional level of confusion in his opening question: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18). Does he not know that people inherit because of relationships, not deeds? Children inherit from their parents, not their employers. Yet, beyond his pride and confusion, Mark says, there is an attractive enthusiasm to the man. He “ran up” to Jesus “and knelt before him,” and Jesus, “looking at him, loved him” (Mark 10:17, 21).

Jesus answers the question “What good deed must I do?” with another question, “Why do you ask me about what is good?323 There is only one who is good” (Matt. 19:17). Jesus does not deny that he is good or that he has an answer for the man. But Jesus wants to slow him down and redirect him. Does he know whom he calls “Teacher”? The man knows that his tradition will send him to the law to discover what he must do. Does he expect Jesus to say something different? If so, why?

When Jesus insists that “there is only one who is good,” he does not deny that he knows the good or that he is good.324 But he pushes the man—and the reader—to consider what he thinks of Jesus. Next Jesus leads the man to reassess himself. He sounds proud of his deeds and confident of his capacities. He may even consider himself “good.” But his notion of goodness is inadequate, Alan McNeile argues, “since he treated it as quantitative, and attainable by a definite act or series of acts.”325 To win him, therefore, Jesus must subvert his notion of goodness in order to make him doubt that he even knows what “good” means. D. A. Carson writes that the man asks Jesus about good deeds but has an “inadequate understanding of . . . [the] goodness required to gain eternal life,” for only God is good in that sense.326

Thus Jesus operates indirectly for the sake of that man and for all who think as he does. He declares: “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” When the man asks “Which ones?” Jesus mentions the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and fifth (in that order), then adds Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The list merits attention.

We notice that Jesus omits both the Godward laws (the first four commandments) and the inward laws (commandments one and ten). He lists only those that can be kept or violated visibly. Further, the list erases dreams of works of supererogation. It is impossible to do more than God has revealed in the law, for it expresses his character and goodness to the full. He forbids murder because he gives life. He prohibits adultery because he is faithful even when his people are not. He bans theft (and coveting) because he is generous. He outlaws false witness because he always knows and tells the truth. He commands children to honor father and mother because he has made father and mother honorable by making them in his image and giving them roles like his own (Eph. 3:14–15). He requires love of neighbor because God is love and became our neighbor by the incarnation (1 John 4:8, 16; Luke 1:68). Who could dream of doing more?

We see, therefore, that the man’s interest in performing a great deed is vain. Nonetheless, his question is instructive, since so many ask it and undertake great quests, such as pilgrimages, in that spirit.327 If Matthew 19 hints at his error, other Scripture makes the point explicit. No one can do good unless he is good: “nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit” (Matt. 7:18). Paul insists that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8). In his pride, the man sees none of this, nor does Jesus yet say it.

At first, Jesus’ method seems baffling. He tells a man who trusts his strength and obedience to be strong and obey the law. He lists the commandments that the man might think he can keep and omits the first and tenth, which might spur self-examination. Indeed, when Jesus finishes his commandments, the young man’s confidence remains. He tells Jesus, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” (Matt. 19:20). If “I have kept” sounds proud, “What do I still lack?” sounds pathetic. In juxtaposition, they portray both moral smugness and spiritual despair.

19:21–22 We know from Jesus’ comments in 5:21–48 that he does not believe the man’s claim. No human keeps the law as Jesus elucidates it. Everyone is guilty of sundry parts and of the whole. No human can even control the tongue (James 3:8). Further, anyone who transgresses one part of the law is guilty of the whole (James 2:10–11). Yet Jesus let the rich man’s braggadocio stand. The imagination can almost see Jesus feigning a startled look, saying, “My apologies! I did not realize you had already done all that. But since you insist, perhaps I can think of one more endeavor . . . ‘If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me’” (Matt. 19:21).

In this context, “perfect” (Gk. teleios) probably means wholly turned toward God or fully devoted, as it often does in the LXX. Thus the LXX says Noah (Gen. 6:9–10) and David (1 Kings 11:4) were “perfect” (teleios) and that Solomon, whose heart turned to other gods, was not (1 Kings 8:61; 11:4).328 For Jesus, therefore, giving possessions to the poor is not a deed that makes God his debtor but a sign of complete loyalty to him. The rich man lacks the pure love of God that dethrones lesser loves (1 Cor. 13:1–10). If he sold all, then “he would take unfettered the next step—to follow Jesus” as a disciple.329 The command to sell all could lead the man away from money and to Jesus. The best service he can render to God is to follow Jesus. Once again, we hear Jesus implicitly claiming deity. The man thinks he needs more works; in fact, he needs a relationship with Jesus, based on grace.

The command to sell and give all is unique to this man and occasion. While the command to sell all is not universal, the call to total devotion is. “Keeping the individual commandments is no substitute for . . . self-surrender to the absolute claim of God imposed through the call of the gospel.”330 Formal compliance to the law is worthless without “absolute self-surrender.”331 The Lord tolerates no half measures. No man can follow Jesus and another cause, whether it be Mammon (Matt. 6:24) or a dying father (8:21).

Giving to the poor perfectly fulfills the command to love one’s neighbor. The Law and the Prophets forbid oppression of the poor and command Israelites to care for them (Ex. 22:22; Deut. 14:28–29; 27:19; Jer. 7:6–7). Moreover, the Lord himself cares for the poor (Deut. 10:18; Ps. 82:3; Hos. 14:3). Psalm 68 asserts, “Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation” (Ps. 68:5). If God cares for the poor, then those who know him and walk in his ways should do the same. More importantly, when Jesus says, “Sell . . . give . . . follow,” he shifts to the first two commands. To enter life, one must bow to no other gods nor make any idols. But wealth tempts people to become proud and to forget God (Deut. 8:11–20).

To this point Jesus has indulged the man’s claim of complete obedience. But now the time to challenge him has come. When Jesus tells him to sell all and follow, the man sees his error. If he listens, he will “have eternal life” (Matt. 19:16). He will be perfect (or complete)332 and “have treasure in heaven” (v. 21). To sell his wealth and give it to the poor will be good for the poor and better for him.

Alas, the man refuses: “When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions” (v. 22). He loves his wealth more than God or neighbor (22:34–40). In that day, wealth brought a security that the poor could not know. The rich man chooses not to relinquish that. As he trudges away, he leaves nothing but a hope that his sorrow will later press him to reconsider. Proverbs 18:10–11 says: “The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe. A rich man’s wealth is his strong city, and like a high wall in his imagination.”

19:23–26 The rich man asked Jesus to tell him what to do, and Jesus finally did. He gave the man one task, and it was a big one, as it summoned him to love God with all his being and to love his neighbor as himself. The man departs, and Jesus warns his disciples with rhetorical flourish. He says it is difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom, then describes the impossible: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God” (vv. 23–24). The camel was “the largest well-known animal” and the needle “the smallest common aperture in his world.”333 The disciples, knowing the biblical narratives that link wealth and divine favor for the patriarchs and the faithful kings, are amazed. If it is difficult for the wealthy, who enjoy God’s favor, to be saved, what of the common man?

But Jesus has previously pointed out the dangers of riches. “The deceitfulness of riches” can “choke the word” (13:22). Similarly, Paul observes that not many of the called are wise or powerful “according to worldly standards” (1 Cor. 1:26). The disciples regard wealth as a sign of God’s blessing, but Jesus calls it a “hindrance to spiritual progress.”334

The astonished disciples ask, “Who then can be saved?” (Matt. 19:25).335 Jesus replies, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (v. 26). Nothing is too hard for the Lord (Gen. 18:14; Jer. 32:17, 27; Luke 1:37). If the rich, powerful, and proud repent, they too can “enter the kingdom.” In Luke 19:1–10, Zacchaeus (who is not required to sell all) does just that. He hears God’s summons, repents, and sacrifices his wealth, and salvation comes to his house. In Luke, Zacchaeus serves as a counterpoint to this rich man. Matthew has Joseph of Arimathea as a model of the godly rich (Matt. 27:57). And in his parables, Jesus describes two men who gladly sold all they have for one thing of surpassing value: the kingdom (13:44–46). So the rich can be saved.

19:27–30 The departure of the rich man, along with Jesus’ comments, sparks a thought in Peter. The rich man refused to part with his wealth but, Peter points out, “We have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” (v. 27). Peter sees the contrast: the disciples have done what the rich man would not. Do they not deserve God’s favor?

Peter’s observation is both avaricious and insightful. Our glimpses of the socioeconomic status of the disciples point to a measure of prosperity: Matthew was a tax collector and James and John had enough capital to own their boats when Jesus called them (9:9; 4:21–22; Luke 5:1–11). “What then will we have?” sounds mercenary, but Jesus does not chide the disciples. They have sacrificed. Besides, the topic is eternal, not temporal, rewards, and Jesus’ reply operates at that level. “Truly, I say to you” announces the importance of his promise. In the new world, Jesus’ followers will “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” And everyone who sacrifices for Jesus “will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life” (Matt. 19:28–29). Jesus often stresses the cost of discipleship: “Whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me” (10:38; cf. 5:10–12). But here he notes that he will reward every sacrifice, many times over.

Jesus promises to renew all things. At that time, his disciples will have the privilege of ruling with him. Further, they will enjoy a wealth of relationships (19:29). Together, these promises assure Peter that his recompense will be more than fair.

“New world” (v. 28) translates palingenesia, meaning regeneration or restoration. When the Son of Man sits on his throne, he will renew and restore creation. He will liberate it from the curse, banishing sin and sorrow, tears, disease, and death (Revelation 21). The redeemed will shine like the sun (Matt. 13:43). The disciples will then rule with Christ, “judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (19:28). This could mean that the apostles (Luke 22:30) or perhaps all disciples (1 Cor. 6:2) will have a role in the final judgment. No passage specifies what this entails. Will believers judge national Israel? The church? The world? Scripture typically calls judgment the work of God (Rom. 12:19) or of Jesus (Matt. 25:31–46). He will judge the nations, sheep and goats alike. Perhaps the apostles will concur as the Lord judges.

Interpretive conclusions are difficult since information is scant. But to judge (krinō) often in Scripture means to govern or to lead well (LXX Judges 6–8; 11; Ps. 9:4, 8). The same concept appears in the section of the intertestamental Psalms of Solomon that so influenced Jewish expectations in Jesus’ era. There the royal son of David shatters and judges Israel’s foes first (Pss. Sol. 17:21–25), before “judging” a people the Lord has made holy (Pss. Sol. 17:26). Whatever the disciples do, they will be neither final judge nor ruler, nor shall they be sidelined. In any event, the last line, with the passage as a whole, stresses the gift of eternal life, not particular rewards.

Yet, Jesus warns, “many who are first will be last, and the last first” (Matt. 19:29–30). The statement is cryptic, but it says, clearly enough, that there will be some reversal of expectations. The parable Jesus tells in 20:1–16 depicts the nature and reason for that reversal.