Matt 19:16–26 — The Rich Young Moralist

The Rich Young Moralist

So we are dealing today with the story of what is traditionally called the Rich Young Ruler. Just a word about that title. If you’ll notice in many of your English Bibles for the Matthews account, it doesn’t say Rich Young Ruler at the heading. These headings are not inspired, but the editors of the Bible have put these in there. Today’s heading for the ESV says the Rich Young Man. The same with Mark’s account of this same story in Mark chapter 10.

The reason why we traditionally refer to this individual as the rich young ruler is because in Luke, in his account, Luke 18, Luke tells us that he was a ruler, that is, a leader in the Jewish synagogue. But even in our text, in Mark and Matthew’s account, even though it doesn’t specifically say that he was a ruler of the synagogue, we do get the impression that he was a professing member of God’s people.

He wasn’t a Gentile. He wasn’t like the Roman centurion. or some pagan outsider, he was part of God’s people and he had respect for the law of God. We see this because of the way he addresses Jesus respectfully as a teacher, as a rabbi, from whom he expects to receive valuable insights about how to get eternal life. Furthermore, we see it in his claim to have kept the commandments since his youth. And so these all go together to indicate to us that this was a rich young man who was also a professing Israelite, a professing member of God’s people.

This is a unique type of wealthy person. You’re supposed to get out of your head the kind of traditional idea of the ungodly wealthy Gentile who’s just worldly man who indulges in luxury and sin. That’s not the kind of wealthy person that we’re talking about here.

This is a pious Israelite who’s respected in the synagogue. He is a ruler in the synagogue. Maybe a helpful analogy for us today would be to imagine a respected Christian businessman who is extremely wealthy, but he’s on the board of trustees of various respected Christian institutions.

And he’s not just some worldly person out there on his yacht with all kinds of luxury and sin. He is wealthy, but he is also godly. Of course, such a man, talking about the Christian businessman, can be humble and godly and a good Christian. But it’s also possible for this type of man to be proud, self-righteous, and to be a moralist, to think that his wealth is a sign of God’s favor. He doesn’t think of himself as someone who needs God’s forgiveness and grace, but rather he trusts in his wealth and he trusts in his righteousness, not in Christ.

That is the type of person we’re supposed to be imagining here in our text. And so that’s why I’ve given the title, The Rich Young Moralist. to capture this idea. We’re not talking about this pagan gentile who’s out there, you know, sinning away, using his money for luxury and self-indulgence and sin, but rather a pious, godly, moralistic rich man. Not quite what we’re used to thinking about, but that is a possibility, right? That is the case of this individual here.

So the rich young man comes to Jesus in verse 16 and says, Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life? Here, the rich young ruler, the rich young moralist, he assumes Jewish soteriology. That is the Jewish view of how to be saved. That is that one goes to heaven by being a good person, by being a law keeper, by being obedient, and perhaps also by doing good deeds like giving your money to the poor.

However, he also seems to be aware that he still lacks something. He’s not sure what it is. But I think that’s interesting that he comes to Jesus with this question, not 100% confident that he has the answer. He thinks he knows the answer, that there’s some good thing he must do to have eternal life, but yet he’s also not sure.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that moralism is instinctively empty, right? It leaves people a bit unsettled and unsure. They think that moralism is the right answer. We got to be moral and good, and that’s how we go to heaven. But at the same time, it leaves them wondering that there’s got to be something more to it.

He addresses Jesus as teacher. This man is not truly coming to Christ in humble faith, looking to him as the divine savior. He’s coming to him sort of as a respectful moral teacher. He’s acknowledging that Jesus is a godly man and that he has some valuable insights into what it means to go to heaven. And so he’s coming to Jesus as a mere teacher of moral precepts.

The Law in Its First Use

Jesus instinctively recognizes that there’s something off about this man because of the way he responds to him in verse 17. He said to him, why do you ask me about what is good? There’s only one who is good. Jesus senses that this man is not thinking in the right way. He’s thinking on too low of a level, not realizing that only God is perfectly good.

Jesus then says, if you would enter life, keep the commandments. And here he quotes the sixth commandment. you shall not murder. The seventh commandment, you shall not commit adultery. The eighth commandment, you shall not steal. The ninth commandment, you shall not bear false witness. The fifth commandment, honor your father and mother.

And then he adds in Leviticus 19 verse 18, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, which we know elsewhere in the teaching of Jesus is a useful summary. of the second half of the Ten Commandments dealing with our duty toward man. Jesus here quotes five of the Ten Commandments plus Leviticus 19 verse 18 as a summary of the entire moral law. He is saying that the law, if it could be kept perfectly, would give eternal life.

This is what we call in theology the first use of the law, to show us what God requires. It’s very important to understand that in giving this answer to the man, Jesus is not preaching the gospel. It may seem that way at first because of the face value question and the face value answer. What must I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus says, keep the commandments. But it’s clear that Jesus here is not preaching the gospel. Rather, he is preaching the law in all of its rigor in order to show the man his sinfulness and his need of Christ. Calvin comments on this passage, he says, that this text was erroneously interpreted by some of the ancients, whom the papists have followed, as if Christ taught that by keeping the law, we may merit eternal life.

On the contrary, Christ did not take into consideration what men can do, but replied to the question, what is the righteousness of works? Or what does the law require? We have no right to deny that the keeping of the law is righteousness, by which any man who kept the law perfectly, if there were such a man, would obtain life for himself. But as we are all destitute of the glory of God, nothing but cursing will be found in the law, and nothing remains for us but to betake ourselves to the undeserved gift of righteousness. Hence we infer that this reply of Christ is legal, because it was proper that the young man who inquired about the righteousness of works should first be taught that no one is accounted righteous before God unless he fulfills the law, which is impossible.

So Calvin says, this is not the gospel. This is a legal reply to the man’s question. Now, the young man should not have responded as he did, all these I have kept. He should have responded, I have not kept these commandments. And so what do I do then if I have broken God’s commandments? And that would have given the opportunity for Jesus to preach the gospel to him. But he did not. He deceived himself and said, in response to hearing the law of God preached in all of his rigor and depth, he responded with a self-deceived statement in verse 20, all these I have kept. What do I still lack? And you could see how he might think that he could say those words.

Perhaps he had never actually murdered anyone. Perhaps he had never actually committed adultery, but he did not understand the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Had he truly kept the Sixth Commandment as Jesus taught it, that not only does the Sixth Commandment forbid murder, but also anger? Had he truly kept the Seventh Commandment as Jesus taught it, that the Seventh Commandment not only prohibits committing adultery, but also lust?

And so Jesus is clearly dealing with a man here who has hardened his heart in a self-deceived attitude of thinking that he is righteous before God. all these things I’ve kept, he says, what do I still lack? And so Jesus responds to that question, what do I still lack?

Not by preaching the gospel, but by saying, all right, well, if that’s what you want, if you’re committed to this moralistic view, and you think that you have kept God’s law, then 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.

Now, some interpret that statement in verse 21 as a test. For example, John MacArthur in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus, says that Jesus was giving this man the ultimate test He says that Jesus’s request of this man was simply meant to establish whether he was willing to submit to the sovereignty of Jesus over his life. He’s testing him. Will you completely surrender to me and submit to my lordship?

MacArthur recognizes that the call to sell all your possessions and give to the poor is not a universal command required of all disciples. In fact, this is the only place where it’s found anywhere in the Gospels. But he says that MacArthur is saying that Jesus picks this particular command to go and sell all that you possess and give to the poor as a test to see if this man is willing to submit to the Lordship of Christ.

The problem is is that this mistakenly interprets verse 21 as if it is the call of the gospel, as if it is the call to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and to be saved by trusting in the work of Christ. But it is not. Jesus is clearly not preaching the gospel but is simply answering the rich young ruler’s claim. End question. His claim is, I’ve kept all these commandments, what do I still lack? And so Jesus, rather than preaching the gospel to him, says, well, if that’s your commitment, if you are absolutely convinced that you have kept the commandments of God, then you don’t need the gospel.

You don’t need me to die for your sins and to grant you forgiveness. So let’s go ahead and take the law to the nth degree. Jesus ratchets up the law to the highest possible pitch. And he says, let’s see how that works out for you. Can you really do this?

And of course the man went away sorrowful, verse 22, for he had great possessions. Clearly he still did not get it. He still did not understand his need and his sinfulness. And he was still clinging to his wealth. He has gone away from Christ. He went away sorrowful. He didn’t come to Christ. All throughout the Gospels, when someone is conscious of their sin and their need, they come to Christ for forgiveness and for grace and for healing. This man does not come to Christ. He goes away sorrowful.

The Obstacle of Wealth

Then Jesus said to his disciples in verse 23, truly I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again, I tell you, 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.

The Jews thought that a righteous rich man was the ideal. They thought that if a righteous rich Jew can’t go to heaven, then who could? Right, that’s the very essence of the ideal candidate for heaven. Wealth is a sign of God’s favor, a sign of God’s blessing, a foretaste of eternal life. And even the disciples seem to have bought into that idea. But Jesus here, as we’ve mentioned before in this section of the Gospel of Matthew, is teaching them the counter-cultural values of the kingdom under the shadow of the cross.

Jesus says, again, I tell you, 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. Why is it so hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom? Is it because of their wealth itself? No, it is because of this problem that I mentioned before, that he is a rich young moralist. His riches and his wealth are combined with his moralistic attitude. And that is what makes it impossible for him to enter the kingdom because he has the wrong understanding of the gospel. He doesn’t understand the gospel. He is clinging to his own righteousness.

Now there are some people who have said that this reference here in verse 24 to a camel going through the eye of a needle is a reference to a gate in the city. And the gate was a very small gate called the eye of the needle. And so it was very difficult for camels to pass through and the only way they could do it would be if they took all their load off and maybe they got down on their knees and maybe the camel could squeeze through that small gate. And so it’s kind of a nice little pious allegory for how we need to humble ourselves, get down on our knees, get rid of all of our righteousness in order to enter the small gate.

But that interpretation has been questioned. There is no evidence that such a gate with that name, the Eye of the Needle, actually existed. The earliest reference to that is about a thousand years later, after the New Testament, in, believe it or not, the church father Anselm in the 11th century. He’s the first one that suggested this. But there is no evidence for it from that time, that there was a gate called the Eye of the Needle. The other gospel writers, Mark and Luke, they also refer to this eye of the needle, but they use different Greek words for it, so it’s clearly not like a technical term, the quote, eye of the needle gate.

It’s just a colorful expression for something that’s extremely difficult. And we know this because the Talmud also refers to the same idea of something that’s really difficult, almost to the point of being absurd, but it uses a different metaphor. It says, it speaks of an elephant going through the eye of a needle. So it’s clearly an example, it’s an expression, an idiom for saying that it’s virtually impossible.

The disciples then respond to this Verse 25, when they heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, who there can be saved? But Jesus looked at them and said, with man, this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible. It’s impossible for man to change his heart. It’s impossible for man on his own to come to the realization of his utter sinfulness and need and to humble himself and trust in Christ. But with God, all things are possible.

This of course is a powerful proof text, isn’t it, for the doctrine that faith is a gift of God. Faith is not something that we on our own, by our own free will, choose to exercise. It’s not that we by ourselves come to realize our sin and trust in Christ. It is the work of God. It is a miracle. When someone comes to that sense of humility and need and truly trusts in Christ, that is a miracle. It’s impossible for man, but it is possible with God. God is the only one who can open a person’s heart. So what are the doctrines that we can derive from this text? Well, first of all, the first doctrine of our text is that it is impossible to come to Christ if you aren’t conscious of your spiritual need.

The camel here is not the wealth of the man per se. That’s not what makes it so hard to be saved, the fact that he has wealth in itself. But it’s the fact that he’s utterly blind to his need. It’s the wealth, but it’s combined with this moralistic attitude. The rich young moralist had a number of intertwined spiritual problems.

First, he had a limited understanding of what God’s law requires.

He’s clueless as to the true demand of the law, to love God perfectly and to love your neighbor as yourself. He’s only thinking in terms of, I haven’t committed any overt, outward sins, breaking the sixth and seventh and eighth commandments. He’s missing the sins of omission as well, to love God with all your heart, to love your neighbor as yourself. He’s completely unaware of the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus takes the law and he heightens it, he sharpens it and takes it to the depth of our hearts. and shows us that what God’s law truly requires is something that is absolutely impossible for man. His second problem is that not only does he have a limited understanding of what the law requires, he also has a fundamental self-deception, thinking that he had actually kept God’s law. It’s astounding what he says, all these I have kept. He was totally blind to his sin and to his need. And then thirdly, these are all intertwined spiritual maladies, right?

First, not understanding what the law requires.

Second, deceiving himself and thinking that he’s a good person when he’s not. But then thirdly, the intertwining of these things is that his heart is totally choked by his wealth.

Remember in the parable of the sower and the seed in Matthew 13, Jesus talks about the seeds that are thrown out there, right? Some fall in the rocky soil, some fall among the thorns, and he says, the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word. I think that’s such an interesting way of speaking, the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word. There’s so much packed into that phrase, right?

First, the deceitfulness of riches. Riches are deceitful because it makes you think that, well, I’m pretty good. I don’t really have any problems. I’m doing great. I have all this money and wealth.

And even just like on a human level, apart from thinking about spiritual issues, people who are rich just tend to be a little bit overconfident and thinking that they deserve it and they don’t have a care in the world, right? You see that same thing spiritually here with this rich young man, that his riches were deceitful, making him think that he was okay, making him think that he was righteous, that God was blessing him as a sign of his favor for his moral living. And so the deceitfulness of riches choked the gospel, it choked the word, it made it impossible for him to believe, made it impossible for him to come in true faith to Christ. And of course, it’s also tied in, isn’t it, don’t you think, with the whole social dimension of wealth. He’s not only a rich man, but people around him know it, and he’s got this high position in the synagogue as a ruler of the synagogue. He has high social standing in the Jewish community. Everyone looks up to him and thinks that he’s awesome. that he’s this pious, wealthy man.

And so all of this has choked his heart. He has a limited understanding of what God’s law requires. He’s self-deceived, thinking he’s actually kept God’s law. And then all of that is sealed and hardened by his wealth into this attitude of thinking that he is fine. I’m doing great. I’ve kept the law perfectly.

And you see the contrast, don’t you, between this man and so many other individuals throughout the gospel narrative who come to Jesus with a completely different attitude, right? Just think about, you know, the two blind men that we’re gonna come across in the next chapter, in Matthew chapter 20, the last paragraph of Matthew 20. The two blind men as Jesus with the crowd is about to go to Jerusalem to die. These two blind men are standing beside the side of the road and they’re crying out to Jesus, Lord, have mercy on us, son of David.

And the crowd says, oh, don’t bother him. He’s got some important things to do. And they just keep crying out even more in their desperation and in their love for Christ. They acknowledge that he is the son of David. They’re not proud, but humble. They’re not confident that they’re righteous. but begging for Jesus’ grace and forgiveness. And the healing, of course, would be a sign of that forgiving grace.

Or consider the parents in the previous paragraph, just before the story of the rich young ruler, the parents who came to Jesus with their children seeking a blessing. and the children themselves who have this childlike faith, who don’t think of themselves as anything great. They’re not wealthy. They don’t have some awesome big position in society. They can’t claim that they’ve kept all the commandments. They haven’t even lived yet, but yet just in their humility, they come to Jesus to be blessed by him.

That contrast between all these other people in the gospel story who come to Jesus in need and desperation and looking to him as a savior, not just a teacher of moral precepts, that contrast stands out and we see how this young man is very different from them. He goes away from Jesus. That’s the most sad part of this whole thing is verse 22, when the young man heard this, He went away. He turned away from Jesus, sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Jesus has no moral objection to wealth per se. The New Testament itself teaches that there’s nothing inherently sinful about having wealth. Paul even gives direction to wealthy Christians in 1 Timothy 6. Although he encourages them not to be careful, not to trust in their wealth, but rather to use their money as a way of serving the church and ministering to others. The issue is not that Jesus is making a principled moral objection to wealth per se, as if Jesus was a socialist and saying that it’s wrong for people to be rich.

Rather, he’s saying it’s impossible for someone to enter the kingdom if they have this attitude of their heart. that is so mixed with self-deception, lack of understanding of sin, and then all sealed by this love of wealth, which makes the person think that they are favored by God. The problem with wealth is that it is so often tied to that deeper spiritual pride. especially if they are respected leaders in the visible community of God’s people. Wealth often goes to their head and hardens them in their sense of self-sufficiency and makes them unable to come to Christ in childlike dependence and trust.

Spiritual Need and the Gift of Faith

So that’s the first major doctrine from our text is that It is impossible to come to Christ if you aren’t conscious of your spiritual need. But that then raises the question, how can we be conscious of our spiritual needs? So that’s the second major doctrine of our text.

We see how Jesus is fully aware of the fact that this man is not conscious of his need. And so Jesus uses the law in its first use in order to expose his heart. Jesus never ever in this passage, in his conversation with the rich and ruler, gets to the gospel. He never once talks about, I am the Messiah. I am the one who come to seek and to save the lost. Come to me all you who labor and are heavy laden, I will give you rest. He never once does that. He just sticks with the law. He sticks with the law. He keeps showing this man that he is a sinner. He uses the law in its first use, quoting the 10 commandments. And when that doesn’t have any effect on the man, he ratchets it up to the highest degree and says, sell all your possessions and follow me like my disciples do, who are itinerant preachers, totally dependent on the hospitality of the people.

Remember back in Matthew 10? In Matthew 10, Jesus sent the disciples out to go and preach to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And he told them, don’t bring any money. on your journey. And the reason for that was not because somehow being poor in itself is a good thing, it’s because by being poor, not having any resources, the disciples would then be able to test and see how the people responded.

And if the towns that they went to, and if the people in those towns welcomed them into their homes to provide hospitality, that would be a sign that they are receiving the message of Jesus and the disciples about the gospel of the kingdom. So this young man here, the rich young ruler, is being given this call, which is not the call of the gospel. This is the call to do something that would be a work of righteousness, selling all of his possessions and becoming a follower of Jesus like the disciples were, that is totally dependent upon the hospitality of the people.

If he could do that good work, then maybe he would see that it is not possible to be saved by his own righteousness. When you’re dealing with hardened moralists then, who have no sense of sin, sometimes you don’t have the opportunity to preach the gospel to them. Jesus says, don’t cast your pearls before swine. Sometimes all you can do is preach the law in all of its rigor. Jesus here is clearly using the law as a covenant of works to show what God’s law requires and what we lack. The man is so clueless and blinded by his morality and wealth that Jesus never had a chance to get to the good news of the gospel.

But it’s interesting, isn’t it? How Jesus deals with people individually and differently. I think also of another parallel passage. Well, it’s not really a parallel, but it’s another example of Jesus dealing with an individual according to their own particular needs and situation.

And that would be the Samaritan woman in John chapter four. And he deals with her heart and deals with her own specific issues that she has. She’d been married five times. She’s seeking the water of life in all the wrong places. And Jesus talks to her and leads her. Now, of course, in her case, it’s different. She does recognize her needs. She does come to Christ in true faith. But Jesus is an amazing pastor who comes to each person in their own particular situation.

With this particular man, with his unique status and his unique self-deception and sin issues, he tailors the first use of the law to pointedly expose this man’s spiritual malady. We can imagine, though, what Jesus would have said If the man had responded differently, instead of saying in verse 20, all these I have kept, what do I still lack? What if the man had said, you’re right, I see that I have not kept God’s law perfectly. What must I do to be saved?

We can imagine what Jesus would have said because we have the whole context of the Gospel of Matthew. If you just read this passage by itself in isolation, it just seems kind of this negative, preaching the law, and you’re kind of left wondering, well, what’s the gospel? But don’t forget that in the whole context of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus has been preaching the gospel. We have the first major section of the gospel where Jesus is in Galilee, and he is going around and healing the sick, casting out demons, and he preaches the gospel. He says, come unto me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. He says to the paralyzed man, your sins are forgiven. He preaches the gospel to all of these people and he uses the healing ministry as the outward sign that confirms the reality of the spiritual truth of the forgiveness of sins through him.

But we’re now in the second half of the gospel where the ministry of Jesus in Galilee is over. And Jesus is now on his journey to Jerusalem for his date with destiny. And at this, in this stage of the gospel, the second half, kind of the, we’ve reached the peak where Peter has confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and now we’re on the way down to the cross. In the second half of the gospel, Jesus repeatedly, over and over again, says that he is going to Jerusalem. He is going there to be delivered over to the chief priests and to the scribes. And they will condemn him to death. And they will deliver him over to the Gentiles. to be mocked and crucified and he’ll be raised on the third day. And in Matthew chapter 20 in verse 28, he says that the son of man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Isn’t that the gospel that he would have preached? He would have said, follow me, not in this first use of the lost sense of trying to be saved by doing some amazing work of righteousness, but follow me as the suffering Savior who is going to the cross to give his life as a ransom for many.

Interestingly, that term ransom, it is a, monetary metaphor, isn’t it? The ransom price, if you imagine what the metaphor is, you have some people that have been taken captive, and someone else comes along and pays the ransom price, and paying the price does what? It sets the captive free, so they’re no longer captive. Jesus here uses monetary language to describe what he is going to do when he goes to the cross. His whole life is a life of serving, of seeking and saving the lost, of obeying God even to the point of death, so that he can pay the price to satisfy the law of God, to satisfy God’s justice. Even in the Lord’s Prayer back in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapter 6, Jesus talks about sin using a monetary metaphor, right?

He says, we should pray, Lord forgive us our debts. Right? Our sins incur a debt before God. And how can that debt be paid? It can’t be paid by you trying to keep the law in your own strength, or even if you’re a wealthy person giving up all your money to pay off the debt of your sin, that won’t do it. The only thing that pays the debt is Christ, is Christ’s work. He is the one who is going to give himself as a ransom for many to pay their debt.

In theology, we often refer to the work of Christ as the atonement. This is a common phrase that we often use. We talk about the atonement of Christ, the atoning death of Christ. But that term atonement is really lacking because it’s an ambiguous term. What does that mean, atonement? Does that just mean paying the debt that we owe? Does that just mean having our sins forgiven? What about the satisfaction of God’s justice?

Not only does God require that the debt be paid, He requires that we owe Him a positive righteousness. We have to keep God’s law. Right? He demands perfect satisfaction. So in theology, sometimes we use another term, and this is sort of an older term that you read in the older theologians. Instead of speaking of the atonement of Christ, they will speak of the satisfaction of Christ. Christ’s satisfaction means that Christ fully satisfies the demands of God’s law. in our place, not only suffering the penalty that we deserved for our sins, but also positively obeying God in our place. He satisfies the demands of God’s justice, the demands of the law that the rich young ruler heard and thought that he had fulfilled.

And yet we all know that none of us can. This is absolutely impossible for us to fulfill that. Especially the part where it says, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Who of us can say that we’ve done that? Even if you were to give a bunch of money to poor people, are you really loving them as yourself in doing that? Aren’t you simply just trying to satisfy your obligation without having true love for them?

And so Jesus is the ransom. He is the satisfaction of God’s justice. If the rich young ruler had responded positively to Jesus’s message here, that is what he would have proclaimed. He would have said, look, see, I am on the road to Jerusalem. I’m going to Jerusalem to pay that ransom price in order to satisfy the law of God on your behalf. but only those who are convicted of their sin and of their need are able to see their need of Christ and to trust in him.