Bible Study series: Luke 18:18-30. The fuller teaching of the New Testament, even the Gospel of Luke, says you can have wealth, but do not let wealth have you.
Friendly greetings and a warm welcome to this Bible study! I write to learn, so let’s learn together.
I also translate to learn. The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click here:
In the next link to the original chapter, I comment more and offer the Greek text. At the bottom you will find a “Summary and Conclusion” section geared toward discipleship. Check it out!
In this post, links are provided for further study.
Let’s begin.
Scripture: Luke 18:18-30
18 Then a certain ruler questioned him, saying: “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 But Jesus said, “Why do you call me good?” No one is good except one—God. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother’” [Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16]. 21 He said: “I have kept all these things since my youth.” 22 On hearing this, Jesus said to him, “One thing still lacks in you. Sell everything you have and distribute them to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 23 When he heard this, he became sad, for he was very rich.
24 When he saw him becoming sad, he said, “How difficult it is that those having possessions enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a sewing needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God!” 26 Those listening said, “Who then can be saved?” 27 And he said, “The impossible for people is possible for God.” 28 Then Peter said, “Look at us! We have left what we had and we have followed you!” 29 He said to them, “I tell you the truth: There is no one who has left household or wives or brothers or parents or children because of the kingdom 30 who shall not receive in return many times as much in this age and eternal life in the age to come.” (Luke 18:18-30)
Comments:
Have you ever met a missionary or seen his story online or in church who has given up everything to follow Jesus and spread the good news (v. 29)? This pericope (pronounced puh-RIH-koh-pea) or unit or section of Scripture is about him. If you choose to stay at home and maintain your wealth, in order to be salt and light in affluent society, to be missionaries of a different kind, then please be generous in your support of the work of the gospel abroad—in the work of someone who has given up all his human comforts for Jesus.
18:
The rich ruler was probably a lay-leader in society, a rich landowner. He was probably not a chief priest or a son of a chief priest (Bock. p. 1476).
In the parallel accounts (Matt. 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31), he is identified as a young man (Matt. 19:20, 22), and he ran up to Jesus (Mark 10:17). Mark, who followed Peter’s preaching, describes him more vividly. Mark’s Gospel is known for being fast-paced.
Mark and Luke say, “Good teacher.” And Jesus tells the man that only God is good. This cannot be the logic: Only God is good. Jesus is not God. Therefore, Jesus is not good. In Matt. 19:16-22, Matthew clarifies what is meant: “Teacher, what good thing shall I do to inherit eternal life.” The man is asking what is good, and how does he use it to enter the kingdom of heaven. So in Matthew’s version the good thing that the man is asking for is human activity, and this can only be applied, in an absolute sense, to God. Jesus is rebuking the man for careless theological language; he is reminding him that the best efforts of human activity are inadequate for God’s salvation (= entering or inheriting eternal life). I prefer Matthew’s version, but if this does not satisfy the reader, then go to v. 19, below, for a Lucan-oriented explanation.
see Matthew 19:16-30.
“inherit”: our lives down here in this age is a partial payment for our future inheritance in the age to come (v. 30).
“good teacher”: see v. 19 for more comments.
“eternal life”: An equally valid translation is “next-age life.” In other words, the ruler was concerned about entering into the next age that God would usher in. He may have even believed that Jesus was in the process of ushering it in. Surely he had heard about John the Baptist; everyone else did. This (young) ruler may have even been eager to be baptized by John, as seen by his eagerly running up to Jesus (Mark 10:17), though that Is speculation. He was aware of new religious movements, or else he would never have approached Jesus. The point is that he wanted to be ready for the next age.
The noun is aiōn (pronounced aye-own, and we get our word aeon from it and is used 122 or 123 times in the NT). See this link for a fuller definition:
What Do Words ‘Eternity,’ ‘Eternal’ Fully Mean in the Bible?
Now let’s look at the noun life more closely. It is very versatile. Our new life now will continue into the next age, which God fully and finally ushers in when Christ returns. We will never experience mere existence or death, but we will be fully and eternally alive in God.
I believe the young man really means in his context “life in the age to come” (v. 28), which in God will last forever—only in God, not by virtue of our having a soul.
19:
On the ruler calling Jesus good and Jesus questioning the man’s use of the adjective good, there are three possible explanations: (1) Jesus was merely deflecting flattery. Perhaps Jesus perceived in him too much eagerness and wanted to bring him back down to earth. The man did not know what he was talking about, so why receive a compliment from him? (2) Alternatively, Jesus may have been pointing him towards God and the ruler’s need to totally rely on God. (3) He may have been calling on the ruler to recognize that God alone is good—the one standing before him!
Whatever the case, we shouldn’t draw the conclusion that Jesus is not good, nor did he intend to say this! Note that Jesus called an obedient servant “good servant” (Luke 19:17). So he is not opposed to acknowledging goodness in people. In this special case, however, he had to make sure this ruler knew what he was talking about. He was rebuking any flattery and theological fuzziness. Good human activity is not enough for God’s salvation.
Liefeld and Pao, after reviewing the options: “What is clear is that Jesus’ purpose in this question is to establish a standard of goodness infinitely higher than the ruler supposes it to be. In other words, he brings us close to the principle in Matthew 5:20, 48” (comment on v. 19). Those two verses in Matthew say to be perfect.
Garland:
Jesus deflects the idle flattery with the statement, “No one is good except one.” The ruler may have expected Jesus to reciprocate by also calling him “good” … but Jesus makes it clear that one may not use the word ‘good’ casually. His first remark alludes to the first commandment to have no others gods before the one God, which directs the rich ruler to the source of what he seeks. By pointing beyond any form or moral goodness to God himself. Jesus reprises the point of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector: entrance into the reign of God only via the miracle of God’s grace. It cannot be earned; it can only be accepted with humility and faith (Garland, comment on 18:19).
Bock:
Jesus’ statement that God alone is good is designed to describe God’s unique holiness and righteousness. Such declarations are common in the OT, and Jesus is here asserting God’s absolute goodness in the face of requests to earn eternal life. Taken together, the remarks serve to say, if you really want to follow the ‘good one,’ follow God and show your respect for his teacher by obeying his instruction because before God no one is inherently good. (p. 1478)
Marshall:
There is no reason to regard Jesus’ statement as a confession of sinfulness, since this would be at variance with the rest of the Synoptic tradition (Taylor, 426). The Christian reader may go to the other extreme and see here a tacit identification of Jesus with God, but this lies beyond what the passage actually says. It is a criticism of the view which sees Jesus as a teacher, even a ‘good’ teacher, and nothing more. The man’s ultimate refusal to obey the ‘good teacher’ shows that he did not really take his goodness seriously, and therefore he could be criticised for using the word in an empty fashion. (comment on v. 19)
Morris accepts the implied deity in Jesus’s reply: “Rather, he was inviting the ruler to reflect on the meaning of his own words. What he has just said had implications for the Person of Jesus. If he was good and if only God was good, as all rabbinic teaching agreed …, then the ruler was saying something important about him. So far from repudiating the deity of Jesus as some hold, the question seems to invite the young man to reflect on it” (comment on v. 19).
See v. 18, above, for a link to how Matthew handles this issue.
You can choose whichever option you want.
20-21:
Jesus quotes the second table of the Ten Commandments, which deal with a person’s relations with another person. The five Jesus quotes are more objective and can be used as a checklist (so to speak) for the man’s behavior. In fact, the young man uses them in v. 21. Those commandments accurately summarize the conventional Jewish definition of good behavior. And sure enough, it is not so hard to keep them, if you think about it. How many of us have stolen articles (let’s not mention time at work!)? It’s possible not to steal objects, particularly if you’re rich. Very few have murdered. Very few have borne false witness in a law court. Some people—though not everyone—get along really well with their parents, so it is easy to honor them. Paul said that in his old religion of Judaism he was blameless under the law (Phil. 3:4-6). The rich man said the same. It is likely a truthful self-assessment.
Later on, Jesus, after he ascended, will direct his church to draw a sharp distinction between righteousness that comes by law keeping—practical principles—and righteousness that come by faith in him—a living person. How did Paul in his old life know he was keeping faith in God? By his law keeping. How does he know this after his conversion to Jesus? By his faith in the Messiah, Jesus himself. The difference is huge. One is guided by the law, while the other is guided by a living person.
One Decisive Difference Between Sinai Covenant and New Covenant
“I have kept all these things since my youth.” Paul before King Agrippa: “And so all the Jews know my way of life from youth which I had from the beginning among my people and in Jerusalem” (Acts 26:4).
However, let’s not overlook the fact that Paul wrote that a man who behaves impurely cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10). So the bottom line is that there is no contradiction between Jesus and Paul. Luke knew this because he had followed Paul around and heard him preach. And Jesus constantly talks about entering the kingdom and then living righteously inside it. Paul constantly talks about entering the kingdom by confessing Jesus as Lord for salvation and then living righteously inside it. Paul would definitely agree that the young man should follow Jesus, because to follow Jesus is to proclaim him to be Lord by demonstrating allegiance to him. That’s what Paul did. Never overlook the fact that right behavior is important to God and demonstrates surrender to him and his kingdom.
What Does the New Covenant Retain from the Old?
Do Christians Have to ‘Keep’ the Ten Commandments?
Ten Commandments: God’s Great Compromise with Humanity’s Big Failure
22:
“one thing still lacks in you”: Most translations have “You still lack something” (or a variation of it). But I translated the idiom literally. Alternatives: “Something is still missing in you” or “something is still lacking in you.” Clearly the ruler had a hole in his (spiritual) heart, and it needed to be filled. But what was he missing, and why couldn’t he fill it?
He was possessed by possessions. They crowded out God in his heart. The whole context of this command to him is the life in this age contrasted with life in the age to come. To enter the life in the age to come, he had to sell his possession and distribute them to the poor. This was a radical call to discipleship.
I like Stein here:
Luke heightened Jesus’ teaching here by adding “everything” (cf. Matt 19:21; Mark 10:21). In so doing Luke both picked up the “everything” claim of the young ruler in Luke 18:21 (this is clearer in the RSV than the NIV) and introduced a strong Lukan theme on the stewardship of possessions. … By his clarification of the Commandments in 18:20, Jesus sought to help the ruler understand that he really did not love God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself: “Jesus always requires from one just that earthly security upon which one would lean.” (comment on v. 21).
Matthew and Mark’s versions do not have the word “everything.”
After the resurrection and ascension, Paul acknowledges that rich Christians lived in the churches (1 Tim. 6:17-19). He told Timothy to remind the rich Christian that they should not be haughty nor set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches—it is here today and gone tomorrow. But they must do good, to be rich in good works and be generous and ready to share. In doing that, they will store up a treasure for the future. In that very same chapter he also said the love of money is the root of all evil (v. 10). We should be content with food and clothing.
Further, during Jesus ministry on earth, the women mentioned in Luke 8:3 supported Jesus and his ministry by their resources. He never told them to sell everything they had and give to the poor. They had to remain wealthy or have a steady flow of money, if they were to support him. So Jesus saw that possessions did not possess the women, while possessions did possess the ruler.
23:
So what about the ruler? Something was missing in his heart that he had filled up with money. It needed to go. If he had followed the command personalized for him and his deep need, he would have treasure in heaven. He was unwilling. He left sad. This is the Great Reversal. Recall that in Luke 1:51-53, Mary said that Jesus and his kingdom were about to bring low the powerful and people of high status are brought low, while the humble and those of low status are to be raised up. It also fulfills the reversal in 2:34, where Simeon prophesied that Jesus was appointed for the rising and falling of many. It is the right-side-up kingdom, but upside-down from a worldly perspective. This reversal is confirmed in v. 26, when those listening asked him who could be saved. They were astonished (Matt. 19:25; Mark 10:26). They had not expected that the rich had difficulty entering the kingdom. See v. 16 for more comments about the Reversal. It is the up elevator and down elevator.
Wealth and political power often went hand in glove, in the ancient world. To give up wealth meant to give up power and influence. He would have become a laughingstock to his fellow rulers, if they had come across him traveling with the itinerant preacher named Jesus of Nazareth. Too undignified. The ruler felt this connection and walked away sad. He was hoping for an easier way. “Yes, you kept those commandments, so now go in peace, and keep on allowing possessions to maintain their grip on you, to possess you. You’ll inherit life in the age to come and right now!” That makes no sense, from the kingdom’s perspective.
The man exercised his freedom to reject the call of Jesus himself. It is possible to reject salvation throughout one’s entire life. Grace is indeed resistible. Does this make the man a Pelagian or Arminian? Let’s not impose those anachronistic labels on this biblical text.
24-25:
“kingdom of God”: see v. 16 for more comments.
In these verses, Jesus was speaking at the beginning of the fuller revelation of God’s kingdom. He was ushering it in. He equated entering the kingdom with following him. This clearly teaches that Jesus oversaw the kingdom in his earthly ministry. He was the king, but very few, if any, could see it while he was ministering. Their eyes and minds were veiled. Or if some caught a glimpse of it, they assumed he would become the militant Messiah who would destroy the yoke of the occupying Romans and smash all other rival kingdoms.
This is a general statement, which as we already saw in v. 22, allows for exceptions. We should not interpret the statement as an iron law without even one exception. The statement warns us that we have to be vigilant about wealth cause us to lose our own soul (Matt. 16:26; Mark 8:36-37).
“eye of a sewing needle”: no one has ever confirmed the idea that the eye of a needle was the opening to a tent or a small opening into a city (Jerusalem). The eye of the needle is a sewing needle, not a gate into Jerusalem, a legend that emerged in the Middle Ages. This gate did not exist at the time when Jesus spoke those words. A loaded down camel could not fit into the eye of a sewing needle. It is a hyperbole (a deliberate, rhetorical exaggeration to impact the listener). It is a silly image to hit the listeners right between the eyes. It is another startling image that Jesus often used (e.g. gouging out an eye, chopping off a hand or taking a beam out of one’s own eye).
In v. 25, entering the kingdom is the same as salvation in Paul’s writing. Jesus used the phrase several times (13:24 [narrow door]; 18:17, 24-25); Both Paul and Jesus preached repentance, surrender, and the Lordship of Jesus—yes, Jesus told people to follow himself as Lord. Jesus and Paul used different words, but the reality is the same. The resurrected and ascended Jesus was guiding his church to shift the focus, as the apostles, particularly Paul, went out to the Greco-Roman provinces, beyond Israel, not that Paul neglected this important doctrine of the kingdom (Acts 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23-31; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; 6:9-10; 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Col. 1:12-13; 4:11; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:1; 4:18). In all of those passages, he proclaimed it.
In Luke 19:1-10, Zacchaeus is one rich man who gets through the eye of the needle (Bock, p. 1514).
26-27:
This question expresses the Reversal laid out as the main theme in this Gospel in Luke 1:51-53 and 2:34. They were surprised, so they asked the question.
“saved”: The verb sōzō (pronounced soh-zoh) means “save, rescue, heal” in a variety of contexts, but mostly it is used of saving the soul. BDAG says that the verb means, depending on the context: (1) “to preserve or rescue from natural dangers and afflictions, save, keep from harm, preserve,” and the sub-definitions under no. 1 are as follows: save from death; bring out safely; save from disease; keep, preserve in good condition; thrive, prosper, get on well; (2) “to save or preserve from transcendent danger or destruction, save or preserve from ‘eternal’ death … “bring Messianic salvation, bring to salvation,” and in the passive it means “be saved, attain salvation”; (3) some passages in the NT say we fit under the first and second definition at the same time (Mark 8:5; Luke 9:24; Rom. 9:27; 1 Cor. 3:15).
Here in this context being saved means to inherit the next-age life (v. 30). When we surrender to Jesus and his call to enter his kingdom—to receive or welcome him—we are rescued from the dark, unredeemed worldly kingdoms and transferred over to the kingdom of the Son whom God loves (Col. 1:13).
What Is the Work of Salvation?
How Do We Respond to God’s Salvation?
“The impossible with people are possible with God”: This a great line, which I translated more or less literally. The subjects are plural, so it could read: “The things impossible for people are possible for God.” It is impossible, from a human perspective and ability, for the rich to enter the kingdom, but God is able to make the entry possible by wooing and calling by his Spirit and the gospel itself.
28-30:
Peter points out that he and the others left everything to follow Jesus. Peter and his brother Andrew were fishermen and had a business in Capernaum (Luke 5:1-11). James and John, two brothers, were their partners. They left behind their humble business, by which they earned their way in society. Matthew was a tax collector. Peter had a wife to support, and so did the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers, and they brought their wives with them on the missionary endeavors (1 Cor. 9:5). So the missionaries did not abandon their wives, but they did abandon their old way of living. They had truly crossed the boundary line between the old kingdom and the new kingdom, the old life and the new life. Their wives went with them, and I assume that if they had children, they went with their parents.
So, what is Jesus saying here?
Jesus promised them a whole new family of people in the Christian community (cf. Matt. 19:30; Mark 10:30). Of course a certain teaching, called the Word of Faith, latches on to these verses and Matt. 19:30 and Mark 10:30, which includes receiving “lands” or “fields” in return. “See! This proves that God will give me lots of property if I follow him!” However, none of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers received a hundredfold more physical land than they had before they followed Jesus wholeheartedly. Church history teaches us that they became landless missionaries. Jesus is speaking about the land in the new kingdom—the territories that the missionaries would take from the devil and bring into the kingdom of God. How do we know he was spiritualizing things? He said we would receive many fathers and mothers (Mark 10:30). We normally have one biological mother and one biological father. So receiving many of them speaks of the fathers (plural) and mothers (plural) in the kingdom. If we had to leave behind our biological parents, then God promises us many new parents in the kingdom community. We have a new family, a much bigger family.
Study Luke 12:49-53 in light of these verses.
49 “I have come to start a fire on the earth, and how I wish it had already been ignited! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how I am hard pressed until it is fulfilled! 51 You think that I have appeared to give peace on the earth. No, I tell you, but division instead! 52 For from now on there shall be a dividing of a household, three against two and two against three!
53 Father will be divided against son,
And son against father,
Mother against daughter
And daughter against mother,
Mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law
And daughter-in-law against mother-in-law! [Mic. 7:6]
When families kick out new converts, Jesus will reward them with new (kingdom) families.
“this age”: the noun here is kairos (pronounced kye-ross and is used 85 times), which speaks more of a quality time than quantity. BDAG is considered by many to be the authoritative lexicon of the Greek NT, and it defines the noun as follows: (1) a point of time or period of time, time, period, frequently with the implication of being especially fit for something and without emphasis on precise chronology. (a) Generally a welcome time or difficult time … fruitful times; (b) a moment or period as especially appropriate the right, proper, favorable time … at the right time; (2) a defined period for an event, definite, fixed time (e.g. period of fasting or mourning in accord with the changes in season), in due time (Gal. 6:9); (3) a period characterized by some aspect of special crisis, time; (a) generally the present time (Rom. 13:11; 12:11); (b) One of the chief terms relating to the endtime … the time of crisis, the last times.
All of this stand in a mild contrast—not a sharp contrast—from chronos. Greek has another word for time: chronos (pronounced khro-noss), which measures one day, one week or one month after another.
Here kairos is contrasted with the next age to come. Kairos means this age.
In this verse, the second word for age is the Greek noun aiōn (also see v. 18). Click on this link for a fuller definition:
What Do Words ‘Eternity,’ ‘Eternal’ Fully Mean in the Bible?
From that link, we learn that the noun has a versatile meaning, but it is clear that “eternal” is attached to God; apart from that modification it mostly means “a long time” or “an age.”
Here, in v. 30, this age is contrasted with the age to come. So key phrase in v. 30 could be translated as follows: “in this age and next-age life in the age to come.” No, it’s not talking about the weird idea of the New Age, taught by cults. But the phrase “next-age life” is referring to the fully manifested kingdom of God overseen completely and with absolute, benevolent power and authority by King Jesus. But the translation “eternal life” instead of “next-age life,” is smoother.
Either way, we can inherit eternal or next-age life beginning right now, in part. Jesus is ushering in the kingdom, and we can enter his kingdom right now. It will be fully manifested at his Second Coming, and so will our eternal or next-age life.
Beware of super-rich preachers who claim these verses, particularly about landed property or book sales pumped up by their TV platforms and large church purchases of those books, for themselves.
GrowApp for Luke 18:18-30
1. Read John 3:3. How does one enter the kingdom of God?
2. As you entered the kingdom, did you have to leave behind your old life—even your family and friends, if necessary—to follow him? Have you received a new kingdom family and new friends in return?
RELATED
11. Eyewitness Testimony in Luke’s Gospel
3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel
14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels
1. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Introduction to Series
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND MORE
To see the bibliography, please click on this link and scroll down to the bottom. You will also find a “Summary and Conclusion” for discipleship.
Dr. Jim's Essential Bible Teaching 