AS JESUS STARTED on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”
20“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”
27Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
28Peter said to him, “We have left everything to follow you!”
29“I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
Original Meaning
WHILE THE PHARISEES seek to test Jesus, others seek his expert opinion on the most advisable course for inheriting eternal life. A man runs up to him and with ingratiating deference kneels before him and addresses him as “Good teacher.”1 This faithful Jew who believed in the life to come must have been taken aback by Jesus’ initial response.2 One would have expected Jesus to respond according to oriental custom with equally exalted language, “Most honored and good sir.” Instead, he addresses him with no title and deflects his idle flattery with a reproof for his audacity in thinking that anyone other than God is good.3
This brusque response gets to the core issue raised by this encounter. The man’s salutation assumes that one can find goodness in human resources and accomplishments. Probably, he identifies himself as “good” as well and asks his question from one good man to another. He wants to know how to ensure that his goodness will pay off in eternal life. He hopes that Jesus can relieve any lingering doubts about his chances and inform him if there is anything in the fine print he needs to worry about. As the scene develops, God’s demands turn out to be far more costly than he bargained for, and Jesus’ teaching reveals another paradox: Goodness and salvation do not come from our own valiant efforts but only as a gift from God.
After turning aside the greeting, Jesus directs the inquirer to the Ten Commandments, which he already knows. In random order, Jesus reviews those commands that pertain to how humans are to relate to others: murder, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, defrauding, and honoring your father and mother.4 These commands are eternally valid and not part of the stuffy pedantry that Jesus has previously challenged in his clashes with the Pharisees. He does not undermine the commandments that come from a “good” God (see 1 Cor. 7:19).
Either the man is disappointed to learn nothing new from Jesus or pleased that his hunch about his good prospects in the age to come has been confirmed by a religious specialist. His response, “Teacher … all these I have kept since I was a boy,” is then either a defensive reaction or a triumphant exclamation.5 He has been good, and one should no more doubt his sincerity than that of the apostle Paul. Paul claimed that as a zealous Pharisee he was blameless according to the righteousness that comes from obedience to the law (Phil. 3:6).6
With an eye for poignant detail, Mark tells us that Jesus looked at the man and loved him (Mark 10:21).7 Jesus does not sneer at his claims to have obeyed the law. He believes what he says about his obedience; but because he loves him, he directly challenges him. He does not try to spare his feelings or avoid offending him but candidly speaks the truth. The man regards himself as respectably good, but being respectably good is not good enough. He lacks one thing. This statement implies that knowing the commandments and faithfully keeping them do not secure eternal life. Jesus does not tell the man specifically what the one thing is but gives him four directives: “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor.… Then come, follow me.” These commands stress that if one wants eternal life, everything depends on one’s response to Jesus.
The command to sell all sounds quite unreasonable to us, but most in the ancient world would have heard it as radical but sound advice for those who were seriously devout. The Dead Sea Scrolls required adherents to the sect to contribute their possessions to the common treasury. Acts reports that members of the first Christian community in Jerusalem did the same to assist the needs of their fellow believers (see Acts 4:32–37; 5:1–11). Even pagans would have understood the importance, in principle, of renouncing wealth. Seneca wrote, “No one is worthy of God unless he despises wealth …” (Letters 14.18). He also concluded:
Our soul knows, I tell you, that wealth does not lie where it can be heaped together. It is the soul itself that we ought to fill, not our money-chests. It is the soul that we may set above all other things, and put, god-like, in possession of the universe (Letters 92.32–33).
Few followed through on this ideal, and the later rabbis specifically forbade giving away all of one’s resources. They limited the maximum that one could give away to 20 percent so that one would not become penniless and a burden to others.8
Jesus insists, however, that the wisest investments accrue interest in the treasuries of heaven. In this man’s case, it means giving all that he has to support the poor. According to Deuteronomy 32:34, one stores up evil works that God keeps and will one day avenge. James 5:3 contains a warning for the rich who lay up treasure for the last days, which will only bring judgment. Jesus thinks positively of a storehouse of good works that God guards and one day will reward (see Luke 11:33–34). This outlook ran deeply in Jewish piety. Sirach 29:8–13, for example, exhorts people to be generous in this manner:
Nevertheless, be patient with someone in humble circumstances,
and do not keep him waiting for your alms.
Help the poor for the commandment’s sake,
and in their need do not send them away empty-handed.
Lose your silver for the sake of a brother or a friend,
and do not let it rust under a stone and be lost [a reference to burying money].
Lay up your treasure according to the commandments of the Most High,
and it will profit you more than gold.
Store up almsgiving in your treasury,
and it will rescue you from every disaster;
better than a stout shield and a sturdy spear,
Mark does not introduce the man initially as a rich man. He does not identify him in any way. The reader only finds out that he is rich when Mark reports his disappointment at Jesus’ words: “He went away sad, because he had great wealth” (10:22). His unhappy departure reveals that he does not want to enter life under Jesus’ guidance. He goes off, presumably in search of a second, more accommodating, opinion. Jesus will not renegotiate the terms, however. One can imagine the disciples standing with mouths agape as they observe this exchange. Jesus lets a good man slip away whose deep pockets could help advance the kingdom cause—or at least their meager treasury. Jesus astounds them further by observing that the rich will have a hard time entering the kingdom of God.
Judaism reflected some ambivalence toward wealth. Some traditions equated prosperity with divine blessing (see Deut. 28:1–14; Job 1:10; 42:10; Ps. 128; Prov. 10:22). The disciples’ amazement over Jesus’ words presumably stems from this perspective. On the other hand, Jewish writers also warned against wealth. For example, Sirach 31:5–7 states:
One who loves gold will not be justified;
one who pursues money will be led astray by it.
Many have come to ruin because of gold,
and their destruction has met them face to face.
It is a stumbling block to those who are avid for it,
Jesus shared this negative attitude toward wealth and has nothing good to say about money (Mark 4:19; cf. Matt. 6:19–34; Luke 12:13–32; 16:1–15, 19–31; 19:1–10). He regards possessions as an almost insurmountable obstacle that prevent one from giving oneself completely to God. Wealth is not something neutral but is toxic to the soul. The best thing to do with money is to invest it in heavenly futures by feeding the destitute. One finds a similar perspective in Tobit 4:7–11:
To all those who practice righteousness give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from any anyone who is poor, and the face of God will not be turned away from you. If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little that you have. So you will be laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity. For almsgiving delivers from death and keeps you from going into the Darkness. Indeed, almsgiving for all who practice it, is an excellent offering in the presence of the Most High [NRSV; see also Ps. 151:1].
Note, however, the difference. Jesus does not say to give “in proportion,” but to sell all that you have.
The disciples’ reaction to Jesus’ bombshell about the rich matches many people’s reactions: shock and consternation. Even those who know in their heads that money does not buy happiness or heaven still wish in their hearts that they had more. Consequently, Jesus repeats himself to drive home the point. For the first and only time in the Gospel, he addresses the disciples as “children” (10:24), as if to remind them that they must become like children if they are going to enter the kingdom of God (10:15). Children have little concept of the value of money. Adults, however, do because they know how hard money is to come by and all the things that it can acquire. Adults easily fall prey to Mammon and become deceived into thinking that they can find life in wealth and possessions. Many find it hard to give up even a small amount of something so valued, let alone give up all they have, even for the hope of eternal life.
Jesus resorts to colorful hyperbole to reinforce the point that those who are ruled by money cannot be ruled by God. The rich will find entering the kingdom of God (coming under God’s rule) more difficult than trying to squeeze a camel through the eye of a needle. The opening of a needle is the smallest thing imaginable, and the camel was the largest animal in Palestine.11 Shocked by this statement and assuming that the prospects of entering the kingdom of God are hopeless for those who usually get whatever they want in this life, the disciples ask, “Who then can be saved?”
The episode when blind Bartimaeus “is saved [healed]” by his faith (10:52) answers this question more fully. Jesus only affirms here that salvation comes from a divine possibility, not from a human one. He corrects the implicit assumption in the rich man’s initial question. The man asked, “What must I do?” (10:17) and asserted, “All these I have kept since I was a boy” (10:20). He assumed that one could attain eternal life by doing something. Since he wanted something he could do, Jesus obliged him: Sell all that you have and give it to the poor. The disciples are to learn from this encounter that God requires something more than reverence for Jesus as a good teacher and earnest attempts to obey God’s commands (see Rom. 10:2–3). The man has attained conventional respectability with a genteel approach to obedience. But Jesus’ demand exposes the man’s reluctance to give himself and all he has over to God—to deny himself and all his earthly securities, works, and possessions. He falls short of the one thing the reign of God requires. To enter the kingdom of God one must submit to God’s rule so that God reigns over every aspect of life.
Disciples must be prepared to give up everything. Peter quickly reminds Jesus that they have done exactly that. Jesus promises that their sacrifice will not be for naught. Those who have left earthly attachments for the sake of the gospel will receive hundredfold rewards—but “with … persecutions” (10:30). In this age, those who become homeless will have a home among those who receive them (see 6:10).12 Those who surrender families will become part of a greater family not based on biological kinship (3:33–35).13 Those who leave fields will be given greater fields of mission opportunity (see Matt. 9:37–38).
At this point many walk away from Jesus, which lays bare the decision of the Twelve and other followers to stick by his side. These others fall away because they are not yet ready to accept the hundredfold persecution that comes with following Christ and with bearing a cross. The first will become last in the end and the last will become first. The disciples need to learn how to make themselves last.
Bridging Contexts
JESUS’ RADICAL DEMANDS in this passage can only jar a culture as materialistic as ours. Many will find its radical message difficult to communicate to those who come from the upper socioeconomic strata and to any who share our culture’s materialistic values. Most congregants do not want to hear sermons that make them uncomfortable about having material possessions. Pastors also may want to avoid passages that bring up the subject because their congregations might expect them to set the example. The natural temptation is to try to find some cue that Jesus does not make the same demand of us to sell all that we have. Consequently, we must guard against two pitfalls in applying this passage: the desire to whittle away the radical demand to make it more reasonable, and the inclination to make it apply to someone other than us.
Diversionary tactics. Various attempts have been made to dodge the bullet the text aims our way, and some have become well known. Some try to soothe consciences by assuming that what Jesus says applies only to those who are rich. The rich are then assumed to be those who earn more or have more than we do. We always manage to fall below an imaginary “riches danger line,” so that we can comfort ourselves that Jesus intended this lesson for someone else. The bid to soften Jesus’ demands began quite early, with a textual variant to 10:24 that reads, “How hard it is for those who trust in riches.” How easily we convince ourselves that we do not trust in riches and then consider ourselves safe from this danger.
This passage has also been subjected to clever exegetical doctoring that attempts either to reduce the size of the camel or to enlarge the needle’s eye. Many people who know hardly anything else about Scripture do know a tradition that the “Needle’s Eye” was supposedly the name of a low gate in Jerusalem. Shakespeare reflects knowledge of this view in Richard III, referring to the “postern of a needle’s eye.” Jesus’ radical metaphor then becomes an anemic commonplace. A camel can get through the needle’s eye if it throws off its burden and gets down on its knees. The lesson becomes practical: Rich persons need not worry if they just are humble. This tradition has no historical basis and looks like the invention of a wealthy church searching for loopholes.14 A more erudite interpretation claims that “camel” is a mistranslation of a similar Aramaic word for “rope” or a “ship’s cable.” Why this makes it any easier to thread the needle is hard to see.
One should always be suspicious of exegesis that softens Jesus’ radical demands. If one can say after encountering the teaching of Jesus, “all these things I have kept since I was a boy,” it probably means that we have met only a watered down version of it. C. S. Lewis vividly captures Jesus’ extreme metaphor in a poem:
All things (e.g. a camel’s journey through
a needle’s eye) are possible, it’s true;
But picture how the camel feels, squeezed out
In one long bloody thread from tail to snout.15
One can express Jesus’ hyperbole similarly in modern imagery: It is easier for a Mercedes (note how one usually picks a car more expensive than one’s own) to slip through the night deposit slot at the local bank.16
In bridging the contexts, we must be honest in our interpretation even when our conclusions become a stumbling block to us and may offend those whom we do not like to offend—the wealthy who faithfully support the church program. As Mark Twain said: “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” We do better if we confess that we are too weak to follow Jesus on his terms than if we try to find loopholes that allow us to continue in our complacency. We also do better to confront congregations with the truth that living a praiseworthy life and always coloring inside the lines do not earn one eternal life, as if salvation were some kind of payoff.
Jesus’ confrontation of the rich man expresses true love. Many need to hear his disturbing demand because he casts a spotlight on our everyday values from eternity’s angle of vision. From that perspective, our covetousness looks rather silly. Those who invest only in themselves, in their security, and in their own comfort and pleasure need to know that they are making a bad investment. No amount of law observance will turn hearts set on the desire for material things to God. If Jesus advised radical surgery on hands, feet, and eyes so that one can enter life, even if maimed (9:43–48), how much more should we get rid of possessions that anchor the soul to this world and will only fuel the flames of judgment?
How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom. Many dismiss Jesus’ command to sell all and to give it away as totally unreasonable and out of the question. Their instinct is right; Jesus does not reject having possessions. Many of his first followers did have possessions. Somebody owned the houses in which he retreated with his disciples. The central issue has to do with one’s ultimate loyalty. The point of this story is not to drive home the need for all of Jesus’ followers to sell their possessions. Jesus did not insist that Zacchaeus sell all his goods and give them to the poor before he would deign to eat with him. Zacchaeus voluntarily offers to give up half of his possessions and to restore fourfold whatever he may have gained by fraud (see Ex. 22:1; Lev. 5:16; Num. 5:7). This willingness to make things right evokes Jesus’ response, “Today salvation has come to this house” (Luke 19:8–9). Jesus’ encounter with this rich man in Mark serves to illustrate how difficult it is for the rich (or any one, for that matter) to do this. Few are willing to risk divesting themselves of whatever provides them security in this life to enter a new quality of life under God’s rule.
The text thus raises the question: Is God or Mammon to rule over one’s life? Are material possessions to be served or are they to serve?17 Paul advises the Corinthians to “use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31). Jesus is calling this man to follow him. He is inviting him to join a community of believers who will take care of one another’s material needs. He will not be left destitute and forced to fend for himself.
Jesus’ confrontation with the rich man, however, warns our materialistic age that possessions beget hazards even when we are not engrossed in them. Wherever money is at stake, there is danger to life because it is not a neutral or harmless commodity. Wealth possesses high voltage and explosive energy since so many crave it and it strikes such reverence in the heart. No Christian is immune from the danger of Mammon. Covetousness is like a virus that takes residence in the soul and begins slowly to work its destruction. The love of acquisition and an appetite for self-gratification will deaden the instinct for self-sacrifice.
Moreover, the abundance of possessions can easily deceive one into thinking that they offer security and abundant life (see Luke 12:15). Having money beguiles one into believing that everything can be had for a price—even salvation. The rich fool (12:16–21) and the rich man dressed in his fine linen and dining sumptuously while Lazarus lay starving at his gate (16:19–31) serve as two examples of characters in Jesus’ parables duped by Mammon. Preachers need to sound the alarm about the danger that a commitment to possessions presents. Those who will save their lives are those who those who are willing to lose their lives for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (Mark 8:35).
A loving confrontation. How are we to communicate this message without watering down Jesus’ demands? The mention of Jesus’ love for the rich man is a detail that should govern the interpretation of this passage. We may look at those who are rich and envy them for their wealth, hate them for their privileges, or look down on them for their smugness. We may berate them because, unlike us, they are unwilling to give up all that they have to follow Jesus. By contrast, Jesus, who comes from the ranks of the poor and oppressed, loves this man whose wealth gives him opportunities denied others. The rich man turned his back on Jesus, but Jesus did not turn his back on the rich. He loved them enough to help them see the truth.
It is easy to forget that Jesus loved the righteous as much as the sinner, the up and out as much as the down and out. He does not love this man for the advantage his wealth might bring to him and his movement. He loves him for who he is and therefore tells him exactly what he needs to hear, even if it is not what he wants to hear. Love challenges others for their own good. A good physician prescribes what will bring health to the patient, even when it is unpleasant medicine or radical surgery. This man needs radical surgery to save his life, and to follow Jesus will cost him everything. Our mushier love for someone like this would have demanded far less—only 10 percent perhaps. We would have offered him correct things to do: Write Congress, boycott this, join that organization, contribute to this cause. In the end our approach would have left him with a fatal disease, but we would have felt more comfortable about it and called it love.
Obedience to the law and salvation. This encounter also has implications for understanding the law’s role in salvation. God’s will demands more than rote obedience to rules, as Jesus’ teaching on divorce in the previous section reveals. One must follow Jesus and Jesus’ interpretation of the commandments. Via comments, “Laws and rules reveal the kind of concrete issues the will of God is concerned about and in a provisional way show one how one ought to address oneself to these issues.”18 The rich man believed that his obedience was complete and wanted confirmation from a respected teacher, renowned for his preaching about the kingdom of God, to make sure. The disciples learn that salvation is beyond human power to achieve.
This scene thus prepares the reader for Jesus’ announcement to his disciples that he will give his life as a ransom for many (10:45). What Jesus offers does not depend on what individuals do for themselves but on what is done for them. This encounter also helps explain the disciples’ persistent failure in the story. No one enters the kingdom by dint of his or her own strength.19 Who can deny himself completely? Who can sell all that she has? Giving oneself completely over to God seems impossible, but Jesus did not need to die on a cross for something that everyone finds easy. Following Jesus, which leads to salvation, does not depend on human ability. It comes from the one who makes all things possible. The impossible becomes possible when divine power infuses a disciple’s life through faith (see 11:22–24).
Those with possessions may find coming under God’s rule so hard because they think that they have so much to lose. But God requires the same of everybody—rich and poor, fishermen and toll collectors, prosperous landholders and destitute day laborers holding up their signs, “Will work for food.” All must give up whatever “stands in the way of total commitment to following Jesus and love for the community.”20 The preacher must not shy away from naming these things that stand in our way one by one because people’s lives are at stake. A reward beyond our imagining awaits those who do give up all that is dear to them to follow Jesus, but Mark honestly presents our prospects in this fallen world. The reward will come “with … persecutions.” Are disciples ready to give up even their lives to obey Jesus’ call?
Contemporary Significance
IN OUR AFFLUENT culture, we tend to be more interested in economic success than in excelling religiously. Most Christians do not believe that one should sell all that one has in order to be a disciple; few even tithe to their churches. Many believe that lacking just one thing should be close enough, particularly if God grades on a curve.
Today, people would be more likely to ask Jesus how to get the highest return on their money rather than how they can serve God. Such an attitude sabotages serious commitment and leads many Christians to a dangerous complacency about their faith. More than one minister has turned a blind eye to Jesus’ teaching on possessions, and some even use religion to make greedy appeals to fatten their own bank accounts. Advertisements herald newly discovered biblical formulas that show how by giving you can receive a hundredfold more—and ask for hefty contributions to get the secret. They believe that God only requires them to be decent law-abiding citizens. Luccock points out that an edition of Webster’s dictionary gave the following as one definition of the word “Christian”: “a decent, civilized, or presentable person.”21 The Random House Dictionary comes closer to a definition the New Testament would support: “exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ, as in having a loving regard for other persons.”
The values of our materialistic culture seep in and can undermine that spirit proper to a follower of Jesus. The Roman satirist Juvenal (A.D. 60–140) made a sardonic observation that still holds true today: “Majestic mighty wealth is the holiest of our gods.” Many ask, “Why should I give up for others what I worked so hard to get?” They feel deep down, although they may never say it aloud, that the rich man did the sensible thing in walking away. Religious commitment should cost something but not that much.
We need to confront the materialism of our culture that has infiltrated the church. James Stewart wrote that people will
always find ways and means of eluding a religion’s stern demands while still calling themselves its followers and signing its creeds and continuing to bear its name; they will always be able to convince themselves that, even on the basis of compromise, they have a right to bear its name, and will grow indignant with anyone who challenges that right; they will always regard the half-allegiance they are prepared to give with a wonderful complacency and satisfaction feeling that anyone—even God Himself—might be gratified by the interest they show and the patronage they offer; not realising that attitude, which seems so reasonable and respectable, is dealing religion a blow and doing it damage compared with which all the direct, frontal attacks of its open enemies are a mere nothing.22
Jesus said that the rich man in this story lacked one thing, though he did not specify what it was. In applying this passage to our contemporary situation we can imagine that he lacked the very things that we ourselves may lack. First, this man lacked for nothing. He had too much to give up. Money brings people many things (honor, respect, admiration, power, beauty, sex), which is why it is so alluring. Wealth cannot make one holy or purchase eternal life, and it does not offer any deep happiness, even when people get more than their fair share.
David G. Myers points to the statistic that between 1957 and 1990, the per capita income of Americans doubled in real money. Yet the number of Americans who reported being “very happy” remained unchanged at one-third.23 The explanation? People in our culture have plenty to live on but little to live for. Doubling one’s income and having more things does not make for happiness. Many people, both in our congregations and in our world, sense that something vital is missing in their lives. Material success allows them to live in comfort but fails to meet their basic spiritual needs. Their spiritual emptiness becomes a gnawing hunger when they have to confront the reality of death and bereavement, the anxieties and stress of personal relationships, or the tenacious down drag of evil in their own souls. They wonder if there is something more to life and something beyond this life. When confronted by Jesus’ invitation to sell all and follow him, however, the world usually counts possessions dearer than the hope of eternal life and a meaningful earthly life. They lack for nothing and, as a result, lack everything.
The second thing this man lacked was trust. God requires something more than simply reverence for Jesus and zealous attempts at obedience. God requires radical trust. Like so many today, this rich man wanted to serve God on his own terms. He obeyed all the commandments that suited him but resisted giving his whole life over to God. He was “afraid to expose himself to the uncertainties and insecurities of the future” or to make himself vulnerable as a child.24 He accumulated possessions to secure his life in this world, and he accumulated obedience to the commandments to secure his life in the world to come.25 In a culture that has grown wary of commitment and risk, few want to bet their whole lives on Jesus. They also want to keep a material safety net and refuse to disentangle themselves from something that brings status, influence, and privilege. Few are willing to trust that there will be other brothers and sisters in the faith who will watch over them and care for them, partly because we do not watch out for them. To have life, one must trust God and give up the quest to create one’s own security.
Third, this man lacked compassion for others. Origen cites an excerpt from “The Gospel According to the Hebrews”:
But the rich man began to scratch his head, for it did not please him. And the Lord said to him, “How can you say, I have fulfilled the law and the prophets, when it is written in the law: You shall love your neighbor as yourself; and lo, many of your brothers, sons of Abraham, are clothed in filth, dying of hunger, and your house is full of many good things, none of which goes out to them?”26
This apocryphal account hits home. Wealth can blind our moral judgment, harden the arteries of compassion, and lead to spiritual bankruptcy. The man was unable to give what he had for the benefit of others because he cared only about himself and nobody else (“What must I do to inherit eternal life?”). He was imprisoned in a dungeon of concern only for his own welfare. This attitude contrasts starkly the Son of Man’s self-giving love: Jesus had compassion on the crowds and fed them and will eventually give his life for the many (10:45). How can someone like the rich man live in luxury and be complacent about the needs of others, while professing discipleship to one who gave his life for others?
Possessions set humans against other humans and against God. A recent survey has revealed that a low but significant percentage of Americans would still buy clothing even if they knew it had been produced by slave labor in a sweatshop. The cheaper cost would override any compassion or justice. Jane Goodall’s study of chimpanzees reveals a surprising trait about their communal life, a trait that humans share. The chimps, who were normally placid and cooperative, changed their behavior when she began to give them bananas; they immediately became contentious. The new surplus of food caused the dominant ones to try keep it all for themselves and to chase the others off. The less dominant ones had to come begging. In our own lives we see evidence that the more we have the more we want and the more jealous we become of those who have a little bit more. Jesus tries to free us from these desires to accumulate, which ultimately destroy fellowship and a sense of brotherhood.
Sider argues that we need to distinguish between necessities and luxuries, and we must reject both our desire for the latter and our inclination to blur the distinction. Expenditures for status, pride, staying in fashion, and “keeping up with the Joneses” are wrong.27 From God’s perspective they are foolish.
Annie Dillard tells of the ill-fated Franklin expedition to the Arctic in 1845. That odyssey was a turning point in Arctic exploration because of its well-publicized failure. The preparations made were more suitable for the Royal Navy officer’s club in England than for the frigid Arctic. The explorers made room on their ships for a large library, a hand organ, china place settings, cut-glass wine goblets, and sterling silver flatware instead of additional coal for their steam engines. The ornate silver flatware was engraved with the individual officer’s initials and family crests. Search parties found clumps of bodies of men who had set off to walk for help when their supplies ran out. One skeleton wore his fine blue cloth uniform edged with silk braid, hardly a match for the bitter arctic cold. Another apparently chose to carry with him the place setting of sterling silver flatware. What must he have been thinking to take sterling silver tableware in a search for help and food?28 One cannot imagine that any of these sailor adventurers would have said, as they neared death on the frozen landscape, “I wish I had brought more silver place settings.” Our hanging on to things that are ultimately useless will look no less foolish. Many cannot envision life without things they cherish. They are in danger of losing the only life that counts.