N.T. WRIGHT: Jesus and the Victory of God

Jesus tested the rich young ruler, and now the rich young ruler tests us. I have not found one commentary that passes. NT Wright follows the traditional explanation: that the rich young ruler had a problem but we don’t. My reply: fear is a wonderful thing.

The ruins of the citadel in Oradea, Romania. It is mentioned in documents from 1241 AD, but the construction date is not certain. It is a large fortification with stone walls, towers, iron gates, soldier's barracks, stables, a church, and administration buildings.

---

Luke 18.18-23

A certain ruler asked, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “You know the commandments.” He replied, “I have kept all these since my youth.” Jesus said to him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”

When he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich.

In his book, Jesus and the Victory of God, Wright examines the historical Jesus in order to bring Christianity back in touch with its roots, and therefore to bring the seeker to a Jesus who wants to be found for what he truly was. It’s a good read. But there are problems.

A good litmus test for any commentator is Luke 18: the rich young ruler. It is this encounter that will trip up everyone—at least everyone I have read. Wright trips too. Ironic, isn't it? Tripping without walking.

He begins well, saying that some were summoned to abandon all and follow Jesus, with the possibility that some would suffer death. Wright correctly says that the summons was likely not understood in that sense since the disciples didn’t understand that Jesus was to die either, though he plainly told him. Fair enough, but Jesus is not talking about that. Being afraid to die is not nearly as serious as being afraid to live.

The episode of the rich young ruler coming to Christ is a litmus test because people are willing for Jesus to say that we must be more committed to the cause but are unwilling to allow that Jesus actually meant something for us like he demanded of this young man. We have varied ways of explaining away the demand upon us. Wright is surprising in inventing a new one. This is how he explains it:

He came with a question: ‘What must I do to inherit eternal life?’ This was, of course, the question of the kingdom: what must I do to have a share in the age to come, to be among those who are vindicated when YHWH acts decisively and becomes king? (It is not, that is to say, the medieval or modern question: what must I do to go to heaven when I die?)

Agreed. A significant problem with many commentators is that they require the rich young ruler to speak in Baptist. There is no reason to expect the young man was given words that he didn’t understand, such as Caiaphas who inadvertently spoke the truth because he was the high priest. No. When the rich young ruler said what he said, it was from his nature: a Jew, a leader in the nation, an intelligent, confident, prosperous, deeply religious man who believed and lived the same as everyone else. He was not wrong; he was not off course.

The rich young ruler had been attentive to the demands of God his entire life and came to Jesus (admirably so, because to acknowledge Jesus as a teacher was certain to ruffle the feathers of the other rich rulers) to ask what more was required if he were to extend his present position into the coming kingdom. Wright (interestingly) does not mention this, but it is important to see that the disciples don’t argue the point. Even though they competed with one another about who was to have the place of priority, when this young man appears there is no jealousy or argument. Rather, when he is refused they are flabbergasted because he is so clearly more qualified than any of them.

This young man’s question was not haughty or improper or self-effacing to anyone standing there. To everyone, including himself, he had the right to ask what place he would have in the coming kingdom. Wright continues:

This is similar to the call to the original disciples, only this time with the emphasis even more firmly on the cost.

Well, sort of. It is not so important whether the disciples were told in so many words up-front that this was the requirement. They had done it, understood that what Jesus was saying to this man was the same thing, and reminded Jesus they had already paid the price. It’s a bit of a stretch to say this incident was more emphatic. It was more interesting, but possibly that’s because the guy said no.

Wright goes on:

The command to forsake riches and to follow Jesus appears to have been very specific to this young man. We are not told that Jesus said this sort of thing regularly, or even often (though the warnings against riches, and trust in them, is of course frequent).

Right to a point, but wide of the mark nevertheless. It is true that Jesus did not say this thing regularly, but it is also true that he did say it, and once is enough. We can’t be children who claim it’s unfair because they weren’t told enough times for them to realize it was important. We cannot throttle up the importance of Christ’s demand based upon the number of times he said it.

Regardless, Wright sees the red dot on his chest and he goes into self-defense mode. If he wasn’t so concerned about the red dot he would seen seen what Christ was saying, even if it targeted him.

The order of importance to Christ’s words is this: follow, sell, give.

“Give” is the least important because it is only a good way of disposing of wealth. If you give it to someone else there is no chance of getting it back.

“Sell” is of next importance because he was rich and could not be. If he had been poor the command would have been much simpler. Regardless, Christ insisted the man have nothing, and the way to do that was to sell everything. Is this a firm command? No. It would be just as effective to give the wealth directly to the poor, but maybe less practical. Possibly they can’t use silver flatware and silk tapestries.

“Follow” is the point of all this. Christ had nothing. The Disciples had nothing. There was no chance Jesus was going to allow a rich man to join his group. Adding a man with so much weight to your entourage would have brought his work to a standstill. That wasn’t going to happen.

Wright is correct in saying this is similar to the call of the original disciples but he is off course when he says the emphasis is more firmly on the cost. There was no emphasis on the cost with them because they weren’t rich. “Follow me” was all that was needed.

The significant thing is that Jesus told the young man to follow him. That is really the only thing we need to see. We focus on the “rich” and “sell” part because we’re rich and don’t want to sell. We gloss over the “follow” part because we already do that, right?

Wrong.

The young man was someone Jesus wanted in his group. The reason Luke 18 is so important is because, except for the disciples, there is no other time in Scripture that Jesus looks at someone and says “follow me”. As Wright says, there are occasions where Jesus says it generally, or to nameless faceless individuals, but this is the only time he stops to talk to someone to personally invite him onto his path.

Jesus chose his followers carefully. Or rather, the Father chose Jesus’ followers closely. It was a deadly serious thing.

Actually, there was one more time. Jesus did confront a rich young man on the road to Damascus. This time he said yes. Maybe it was this rich young man that Jesus was talking about when he said “with God all things are possible.”

Back to the point: Jesus was informing the young man that if he wanted a place in the kingdom he couldn’t expect to live better than the King. Jesus lived a certain way, and it wasn’t for show. It was how it had to be.

We forge on:

Since Jesus quoted seven out of the ten commandments, it is fair to assume that the challenges he put to the young man took the place of two that he did not quote (the one still missing is the command about the sabbath, for reasons that will become apparent later). The young man must sell all his possessions: that is, get rid of the idols which were holding him bound to mammon instead of to YHWH. And he must follow Jesus: that is, give total allegiance to the way of life which, like the first commandment, was YHWH’s immediate and urgent summons to Israel. Once again, Torah had been relativized by its real intention being fulfilled. Instead of being under Torah itself, the summons was now to be under Jesus. The young man was being summoned to join an Israel that was no longer defined by Torah (nor would it be vindicated on the basis of its fidelity to Torah), but by allegiance to Jesus — an allegiance that would involve giving up all idols.

This is why you should think carefully before going to seminary. This is what happens to you.

It is difficult to imagine a more useless explanation of Scripture than this. It’s a high school student, who, not knowing the answer to the question on the exam, fills it with bramble, hoping the teacher will give him a few points for creativity.

We turn the rich man into a straw man when we imply he easily agreed to the parts the Law he did observe and was relieved that Jesus didn’t mention the ones he broke. The insinuation is that he didn’t understand the Law and was so hopelessly mired in his law-keeping that it was time for some tough love. It’s the typical approach to this young man. We put things in his mind and attach motives to his words so when he walks away we have no choice but to sigh, “well, that’s what happens when people follow the law and don’t understand grace.”

Nonsense.

God gave them the law. His law. He insisted they keep it. What is our preference? That the young man had replied “I care nothing about all that. I depend solely upon God's grace.” There was nothing disgusting to God for a Jew to keep the law. Yes, it was wrong was for them to continue Temple worship when the Sacrifice had already been made, but Jesus also went to the Temple. Yes, it was wrong for them to insist that Gentile Christians be circumcised and follow a kosher diet, but there was nothing wrong with a Jew observing the Sabbath, circumcising baby boys, or refusing to eat unclean food. None of this was wrong! It was, in fact, still a crime to not do it.

The rich young man was a Jewish man, living according to the Jewish law that God had told them to obey under penalty of death. There is no reason to say this man was mired in legalism.

If Jesus intended to confront the man about idol worship he undoubtedly would have done it in a way that the rich young man could have understood. Was he hopeless? Is that what Wright is saying? That the young man was so dense he was beyond reaching?

The young man went away sad because he was rich. The problem with being rich is that you are rich, not that you have idols. Wright dismisses the wealth and says the true problem is idolatry because... wait for it: then he is off the hook. He can keep his wealth.

The disciples did not say, “Look, we have left our idols and followed you,” and Jesus did not say, “There is no one who has left idols for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not get back very much more.” Wright’s explanation is nonsense.

The problem, both for the young man and for Wright, is not idolatry: it’s wealth. Pure, obvious, adulterated wealth. Jesus would have said idolatry if that was the problem. He was not one to shy away from a difficult truth. Wright, unfortunately, is.