Thursday, October 11, 2012

28TH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (B)


How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!
Mk 10:17-27


v. 17. As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

The first phrase, by setting the incident in the context of a journey, provides a formal link with the surrounding material.

Good:
Such an address was quite contrary to the Jewish convention. As Lohmeyer says, it would almost have been tantamount to 'holy' or 'divine', and like the accompanying gestures would have seemed altogether too much for one whom the man thought of, after all, as no more than a Teacher (i.e. rabbi).

Life:
The kingdom of God to come'

Inherit:
Or 'gain entrance to' were current usage among the rabbis.

v. 18. Jesus answered him, “Why do you call me good?* No one is good but God alone.

Undeniably a very puzzling verse which has never been wholly satisfactorily explained; it has caused difficulty to Christian readers at least since the time of St Matthew, who felt obliged to alter it radically (Matt. 19:17).
The suggestion has often been made - e.g. by the Jewish scholar Montefiore - that the words testify to a sense of sin, or at any rate sinfulness, on the part of Jesus, but even if that were true, it would not explain how, or in what sense, the words came to be included by St Mark; for certainly he, and those from whom he got the tradition, believed in the sinlessness of Jesus.

How did they understand the words? One popular line of approach has been to stress that Jesus was looking at the matter from the questioner's point of view, and saying, in effect: '(Though I am good) you have no right to call me good, for, as far as you know, I am simply a man.' Though that puts the point too crudely, there is probably some truth in it, and, bearing in mind what was said about the word good in the last note, we shall 'perhaps get nearest the truth if we suppose that what alarmed and offended Jesus was the indiscriminate bandying about of divine or quasi-divine titles.

 Any serious religious quest must be based on the recognition that the one God is the sole norm and source of all goodness, even of the goodness of Jesus in the days of his flesh. It sorts well with this that Jesus immediately goes on to point the man to the Law as the expression of God's righteous will.

v. 19. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’”

As shown in the exposition, Jesus did not suppose that the Law could supply the full answer to the man's question. His words are a challenge.

The commandments cited are a rough summary of the so-called 'Second Table' of the Ten Commandments, the Fifth Commandment being placed last, and the Tenth summarized in the words Do not defraud, perhaps because fraudulence is a special temptation of the rich. No doubt these commandments were meant to typify the Law of God as a whole, but it is perhaps characteristic of Jesus' emphasis that those actually quoted deal with man's duty to his neighbor.

v. 21. Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, “You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to [the] poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”

Loved him:
That is the normal meaning of the Greek word (agapao), but here we should perhaps think rather of some definite outward gesture of affection - 'caressed him' or 'put his arms round him'.

Will have treasure in heaven:
The phrase is rabbinic, and so, in one sense, is the whole saying which precedes it. According to the rabbis, God would reward righteousness with treasure in heaven,
and in later Judaism almsgiving, for those who could afford it, come to be regarded as a - if not indeed the - principal ingredient of righteousness.

On the other hand, it is one thing to give regular alms out of one's income (no doubt the man did that already) and quite another to be asked to give up the sources of the income itself. And, as we have seen, even the latter demand does not stand by itself; it is the prelude to the further demand: come, follow me.

v. 24. The disciples were amazed at his words. So Jesus again said to them in reply, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

Some MSS. (the 'western text') have v. 25 before this verse, and this s probably the original order. The disciples' growing astonishment  (cf. vv. 24 with 26) then corresponds to the way Jesus' insistence on the difficulty of salvation grows and widens its scope. In the R.S.V. order, v. 25, referring only to the rich, is something of an anti-climax after e general statement of v. 24. If  R.S.V. order is right, the words for “a rich man” in v. 25 may be an interpolation, but there is no MS. authority for such a suggestion.

In v. 24 the western text includes the words relegated by R.S.V. to the margin. As the exposition has shown, they are a perfectly sound comment on the difficulties of the rich. If they are genuine, the passage as originally concerned exclusively with riches as a barrier to salvation, but a number of extremely important MSS., followed by the majority commentators, omit them, and R.S.V. is no doubt right in doing so.

v. 25. It is easier for a camel to pass through [the] eye of [a] needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Sayings of other Jewish teachers have survived which speak of the possibility of some vast object (e.g. an elephant) getting through the eye of a needle, so the comparison was clearly proverbial, and there is no substance in the suggestion that camel (camelos) is a mistake for amilos (' cable'), or for the medieval fancy that there was a gate in Jerusalem, known as the needle, through which a camel might just squeeze. The fact that such minimizing interpretations have been brought up is itself an eloquent comment on the passage! The expression is of course a hyperbole meant to be memorable by reason of its very grotesqueness, but it would be a mistake on that account to ignore the utterly serious truth it expresses.                ,

No comments: