In the Gospels of Mark and Luke, Jesus emphasizes that only God is good when asked by a rich man about inheriting eternal life. In contrast, Matthew shifts focus to the goodness of the Law and its commandments, emphasizing adherence for eternal life. Jesus advises the rich man to follow commandments related to social justice and love, but to be “perfect,” he must give up his wealth and follow Jesus. Matthew also highlights the eschatological reward for those who sacrifice for Jesus, clarifying Jesus’ role as the Son of Man, not as divine, but as a figure to be followed in Israel’s restoration.
One of the supposed “riddles” discussed in the previous post was Jesus’ saying “No one is good except God alone.” In a comment, Gerard Jay makes the point that Matthew shifts the emphasis from the questionable goodness of Jesus to the unquestionable goodness of the Law—from the person to the action.
In Mark and Luke, the rich man asks, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit the life of the age,” and Jesus replies, problematically, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God” (Mk. 10:17*; Lk. 18:18).
In Matthew, the rich man asks, “Teacher, what good thing might I do in order that I might have life of the age?” Jesus replies, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is one who is good”—God, who has given the commandments (Matt. 19:16-17*).
If the rich man is to enter the life of Israel’s new age, he must keep the commandments. The man asks, “Of what kind?,” and Jesus recites those commandments from the decalogue which have to do with family relations and social justice and the summary of such laws: “you shall love your neighbour as yourself” (19:18-19).
The man ticks all these boxes, but if he is to be “complete” or “perfect” (teleios), he must also sell his possessions, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow Jesus.
I have a few thoughts about Matthew’s version of the story, beginning with the word teleios.
1. Only Matthew uses the word teleios, here and in the sermon on the mount, where it also occurs in connection with the command to love your neighbour:
You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy,” but I say to you, “Love your enemies and pray for those persecuting you, so that you might be sons of your Father in heaven…. Then you will be perfect (teleioi) as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:43-45, 48)
This is a “perfection,” therefore, that characterises an eschatological community in Israel, defined by the beatitudes and the sermon on the mount—those Jews who will gain the kingdom of God, inherit the land, be called sons of God, etc., who will find the narrow path leading to life, whose “house” will survive the storm of the coming judgment.
2. Both the neighbours and the enemies are fellow Jews. There are references to a correct hatred of evildoers and those who hate YHWH in the Old Testament—in both cases, Israelites (e.g., Ps. 26:5; 130:21-22). But Jesus is saying nothing new. Even in the Law, the command to love the neighbour as oneself is accompanied by the command not to hate the Jewish brother:
You shall not hate in your mind your kin; in reproof you shall reprove your neighbour, and you shall not assume guilt because of him. And your own hand shall not take vengeance, and you shall not be angry against the sons of your people, and you shall love your neighbour as yourself; it is I who am the Lord. (Lev 19:17-18 LXX)
In this case, it appears that the demand is to fulfil the Law, not to exceed it.
3. The eschatological significance of the exchange between Jesus and the young man is brought out in the next paragraph (Matt. 19:23-30). Jesus tells his disciples that it will be difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Peter says that the disciples have left everything and followed Jesus and wonders what their reward will be. Jesus says to them:
Amen, I say to you that in the regeneration (palingenesiai), when the Son of Man might sit on his throne of glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for the sake of my name, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit life of the age. And many who are first will be last and last first. (Matt. 19:28-30*)
The rich young man must follow Jesus if he wants to have a share in the regeneration of Israel. Josephus uses the term palingenesia for the restoration of the nation after the exile. The people
gave thanks also to God that he restored the land of their forefathers to them again. So they betook themselves to drinking and eating, and for seven days they continued feasting, and kept a festival, for the rebuilding and restoration (palingenesian) of their country. (Ant. 11:66)
So Matthew has removed the offence of the apparent denial that Jesus is good, but clearly, as Gerard says, he did not see in the incident any reason to affirm the divinity of Jesus. It is the eschatological Son of Man story that is in control throughout this section. Jesus is not the God who might save the rich, he is the Son of Man who must be followed at great personal cost. He will be given a throne of glory after he has suffered.
It is hard to see what Mark and Luke are doing with the denial of Jesus’ goodness—there is no objection to it, nor explanation of it, no further mention of it. My guess is that it is a sharp—perhaps riddling—rhetorical move to direct the man to Torah. Matthew has sidestepped the problem but by doing so has only clarified the eschatological orientation of the narrative.
Thanks Dr. Perriman for taking the time to write a whole post to address my point. Much appreciated :)
With regards to the question surrounding the odd exchange (or rather Jesus’ odd response), I think you summarize it very well by saying it was a “…rhetorical move to direct the man to Torah”, and also to make the next move towards the eschatologically oriented goal of following “the son of man”. I think you’d agree that by splitting hairs here to make it a riddle about Jesus’ divinity, is to miss the forest for the trees.
It is quite clear that Matthew does have the Danielic “son of man” motif running through as his redactions tend to include more clarifications of some Markan obscurities (but not really), e.g. Matthew 9:8.
But I also do think that some of these are ad hoc redactions aimed at “correcting” the source, or at least trying to exonerate Jesus from what they perceived to be “less than” for the Messiah, rather than solely contributing to the larger narrative.
Recent comments