10:17 Mark tied this incident into what immediately preceded more closely than the other evangelists did. He wanted his readers to see this young man as expressing exactly the opposite of what Jesus had just taught His disciples. The man was a rich (v. 22) young (Matt. 19:20) ruler (Luke 18:18). His approach to Jesus was unusually earnest and respectful, but he viewed eternal life as something one must earn.
Matthew wrote that he asked what he should do to get or obtain (Gr. scho) eternal life, but Mark and Luke said that he used the term "inherit"(Gr. kleponomeo). The man clearly did not believe that he had eternal life and wanted to learn what he needed to do to get it. Probably Matthew recorded the exact word he used (the ipisissima verba) and Mark and Luke interpreted what he meant (the ipisissima vox). It was important for Matthew to tell his original Jewish readers that the young man was talking about getting something that he did not possess. Mark and Luke wrote for Gentiles for whom "inheriting"clarified what was in the rich young ruler's mind. He was talking about getting something that he as a Jew thought that he had a right to obtain because of his ethnic relationship to Abraham.
"In the rich young ruler's mind entering heaven, inheriting eternal life, and having eternal life were all the same thing, and all meant go to heaven when I die.' Jesus neither affirms or denies this equation here.246He understands that the young man wants to know how to enter life, or enter the kingdom."247
10:18 The man had a superficial understanding of goodness. Jesus' response confronted the man with the implications of trying to do some good work to earn eternal life and calling Jesus "good."Was he ready to respond to Jesus' instructions as to God's Word?
10:19 The Old Testament taught that if a person kept the Mosaic Law he would live (Deut. 30:15-16). This was theoretically possible but practically impossible. Jesus reminded the man of what the law required by citing five commands in the second table of the Decalogue. The commands Jesus mentioned are easily verifiable in conduct. Mark alone recorded the prohibition against defrauding, evidently a particular expression of stealing appropriate to the wealthy.248
10:20 The man's superficial understanding of God's standards became apparent in his claim that he had kept all those commandments from his youth up. He regarded obedience simply as external conformity without internal purity (cf. Phil. 3:6). This was the natural implication and consequence of the Pharisees' teaching. At age 12, a Jewish boy became a "son of the covenant"(Heb. bar miswah, from which comes Bar Mitzvah). From then on he was responsible to live by God's commands. It is probably from this time that the man meant he had observed the law.
10:21 Only Mark recorded that Jesus loved the rich young ruler when he replied as he did. Evidently the man had sincerely tried to earn eternal life by obeying the law. His superficial understanding of what God required was more his teachers' fault than his own.
Jesus put His finger on what kept this man from having eternal life. He expressed it in the terms that the man had been using, namely doing something. He was trusting in his wealth probably as an evidence that his good works made him acceptable to God. The Old Testament taught that God normally blessed the righteous with physical prosperity. He needed to abandon that essentially self-confident faith, and he needed to trust in Jesus. He had also made wealth his god rather than God. His reluctance to part with it revealed his idolatry. By selling all he had, giving it to the poor, and following Jesus he would confess his repudiation of confidence in self and affirm his trust in Jesus. Then he would have treasure in heaven, something that would last forever.
10:22 Abandoning his physical security and trusting in Jesus was too great a risk to take. The rich young ruler's wealth brought him sorrow instead of joy. This is the only time in the Gospels when someone called to follow Jesus did not do so.
