Saved By Works

In the sermon today the pastor expounded upon Matthew 19:16-30, the Parable of the Rich Young Ruler. In the parable, a man comes up to Jesus asking him how to obtain eternal life. Jesus tells him to obey the commandments, then sell all he has and give to the poor. The man walks away despondently because he has great wealth and does not want to part with it. If the pastor had only explained the moral of the story as one condemning wealth it would have been acceptable. Instead, the pastor added some of his own points:

1. That the reaction of the rich man showed he had never kept the 1st commandment.

2. That worldly riches will never lead us to happiness, but will let us down in the end.

3. That ultimately we needed to have faith in Christ for salvation.

What is problematic about this parable and other sections like it in the New Testament, is that it forces pastors who adopt a theologically conservative interpretation of the Bible to make the parable more than what it is.

When I read this passage myself I understand it to mean that giving to those less fortunate is just as important as following the other commandments.

But this is not enough for the pastor. Even though the text makes no commentary itself about Jesus intentionally avoiding the first commandment, which reads, "you shall have no other gods before me," the expositor seems it is necessary to turn wealth into the rich young ruler's "god" and insists that this was really the rich young ruler's sin.

That worldly riches will not fulfill us can be easily documented by religious and secular writers. People of all creeds have been ruined by their accumulation and love of their wealth. But what does this have to do with eternal life? We know that the love we have for our neighbors will influence to some extent God's view of us at judgment day, but what role does it have in our salvation?

Would Jesus have given this answer to the rich young ruler if the parable had been present in the book of John? What would the Apostle Paul have said about it? If the Jesus of the book of John had been asked the question, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life," Jesus would have said something about the necessity of belief in Him as the way to inherit eternal life. Paul preached constantly against the futility of obeying the law of Moses, yet Jesus in this passage seems to be upholding the law and says nothing about belief in Himself, but only the vague advice to follow him.

What Jesus is telling the rich young ruler is that in order to inherit eternal life, he did not have to believe in Jesus as his Lord and Savior, but he had to, instead, provide his earthly riches to those less fortunate.

By the way, how do religious conservatives feel today about giving money away to the poor? It reeks too much of socialism. They are inclined to say, "Why should I give money to someone who has not earned it?" and "Haven't I accumulated my wealth by my own hands and by the careful investments I have made?"

Salvation by faith alone is a theological position which I think would be upheld by John's Jesus, but not necessarily in Matthew's.