The short, but very substantial, story of the Wealthy Young Ruler.
Now this subject is yet another of those ‘pain in the neck’ subjects that blaspheming Judaisers and satanic gnat strainers, alike, try to spiritually garrote me with, but, I hasten to add, they always fail. So let’s copy and paste here the Holy Scriptures that they then pollute with their perverted reasoning and satanic Judaising nonsense:
Matthew 19:16-17 (KJV) And, behold, one came and said unto Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have Eternal Life? 17 And He said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mark 10:17-18 (KJV) And when He was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to Him, and asked Him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Luke 18:18-19 (KJV) And a certain ruler asked Him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit Eternal Life? 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
Now the first issue that these mongrel dogs will attempt to make mileage out of is the monotheism BS value that they think these verses possess. They think these verses PROVE that God is ONE and that Yashua Messiah was clearly stating that He was was not God, but is this TRUE? NO a thousand times NO!!! But hang on Yashua Messiah said: “none is good, save one, that is, God.” So how do you get around that, I hear you say? Quite easily is the answer to that and it all depends upon your understanding of the word ‘GOD’ in the New Testament.
However, in order to understand the word ‘God’ in the New Testament we have to understand the word ‘God’ in the Old Testament FIRST, for the Godhead never changes. We also have the issue of the Greek language of the New Testament, for it is too vague in its description of God, unlike the Hebrew definition of the Old Testament. Therefore from Strong’s Concordance we get this:
God – H430
אלהים – elohym – el-o-heem – Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God[head]; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: – angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. (Square brackets mine)
god – H433
‘ĕlôahh ‘ĕlôahh – el-o’-ah, el-o’-ah (The second form is rare); probably prolonged (emphatically) from H410; a deity or the deity: – god. See H430.
This ‘eloah’ singular deity would be used when describing Satan, who is the only solitary god (‘eloah’) of this world.
So from this proof we now know for sure that the Godhead is two distinct Spiritual beings, not one, other than their being number one with none above.
Moreover, if we now move onto The New Testament we have a Greek word being used for the word ‘God’ and not a Hebrew word. However, does that mean the nature of the Godhead changes? Do they become a different Godhead just because a new word is in use? No way, so what gives? The word ‘theos’ is what gives instead of ‘eloheem’ or ‘elohim’ but the plural nature of the Godhead remains the same. From Strong’s Concordance once more:
God – G2316
θεός – theos – theh’-os – Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: – X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].
In ancient Greece there were only ‘gods’ ‘plural’ because the Greeks were polytheists and worshipped many gods, not two alone. However, there was no need for a singular Greek word for a god because there was no singular god in polytheistic Greek worship. This means the Greek word ‘theos’ did the job just fine when describing the true Duality Godhead = more than one!!
Matthew 1:23 (KJV) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Emphasis mine)
OK, so here we can plainly see that Yashua Messiah is described as being: “God with us”, that is, in the flesh so, in turn, the Old Testament plural Duality Godhead ‘Elohim’ is also still with us with The Father in heaven and The Son on earth in the flesh and, therefore, still Two God’s.
So this brings us to our little conundrum of: “there is none good but one, that is, God:”
Now what was Yashua Messiah actually saying here? For we know for sure that He wasn’t saying God is one; He certainly wasn’t saying He wasn’t God and He certainly wasn’t saying He wasn’t good either, even though most will mistakenly think He was saying that. So what was He really saying? Well, first of all, He was telling us plainly, and those there present, that He was God in the flesh as part of the Godhead, but without them realising it. This is due to The Truth that the Godhead is a Duality Godhead and always was a Duality Godhead with Him now standing there amongst them as God, so how could He say that He was not good or tell His questioner not to call Him good? What was Yashua Messiah doing by saying that?
The answer to that my friends is very simple. This unsaved and lost wealthy young ruler was trying to win favour with Yashua Messiah by calling Him good. This was plain and simple flattery which got him nowhere with Yashua Messiah who quickly rebuked him with the question: Why callest thou me good? This was nothing to do with Yashua Messiah not being good. Of course He was good, He was God in the flesh so He had to be good – He could be nothing else.
However, just for the benefit of the wealthy young ruler He adds these two riders: “There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, KEEP The Commandments.”
Now, as already shown, Yashua Messiah was God in the flesh so was stating clearly that He was good, but without anyone there realising it and yet at the same time giving Glory to His Father in heaven as being good as the other half of the Godhead.
With the second rider we have Yashua Messiah saying: “But if thou wilt enter into life, KEEP The Commandments.” In J B Phillips’ translation he has it better: “But if you WANT TO enter into [that] Life you must KEEP The Commandments.”
So first things first. Yashua Messiah is saying: “If you WANT TO enter into Life? So does this wealthy young ruler want to or not? Furthermore, where is The Law in this arrangement? It’s nowhere in it at all, so clearly Yashua Messiah is teaching the wealthy young ruler that this is about a FREE CONSCIOUS DECISION on his part and not a commandment issue = no Law. Second, we have this word ‘KEEP’ which everyone, and his dog, mistakenly thinks means OBEY when it mean what it says, that is, to keep – to protect – to hold onto as precious – internalised and have them written on our hearts so NOTHING to do with obedience at all. (Please see my article “When Did The Biblical Word KEEP Become OBEY?” – Link below.)
This is what Yashua Messiah was REALLY saying to the wealthy young man that came forward gushing and fawning all over Yashua Messiah in his initial, over the top, flattering enthusiasm.
Now don’t get me wrong on this, for later on I believe that this young man WAS saved. How do I know this? Easy, because Yashua Messiah loved him, so that means He knew the young man’s heart deep down and knew he was sincere. He also knew The Father was calling him, and KNEW that eventually he would repent and love his neighbour by giving up his wealth and then FOLLOWING Yashua Messiah. The same, in a different way, applied to Nicodemus but I won’t go into that subject now.
Furthermore we then have the issue of the wealthy young ruler’s question: “What good thing shall I DO, that I may have Eternal Life?” OK, I have made my point quite obvious here by emphasising the words ‘I DO’. Moreover, so what could this young man DO in order to inherit Eternal Life? NOTHING! absolutely nothing is the answer to that question. How do we know that? Quite simply because he was asking the question within the backdrop of the Ten Commandments of which he boasted in being a fautless observer. This means he was asking Yashua Messiah what other Commandment he should be observing or doing that he may have missed. His mission in questioning Yashua Messiah was solely Law based and understandably so because The Law was still in force at that time, even for the faithful.
However, The Lord then stuns him with His reply which immediately introduces the SPIRITUAL DIMENSION or SPIRITUAL THRUST of The Commandments = LOVE!! Not the feeble letter of The Law of The Commandments = legalistic Pharisaism and its close companion hypocrisy.
So the wealthy young ruler is challenged with Yashua Messiah’s charge to go sell all his possessions and give the proceeds to those in need and THEN to follow Him. Now mark this point and mark it well for the gifting of his wealth will not save him, but the act of gifting his wealth will prove that he is being called by The Father to Yashua Messiah and also prove that he is saved. Salvation is ALWAYS an undeserved free gift and our good works will follow as a result or as evidence that we are saved, not because we are trying to be saved or trying to earn our salvation.
Finally,Yashua Messiah in saying these tough things to the wealthy young ruler was in turn challenging his commitment to Him. Was he prepared to give up his Law/Commandment based life and comfortable wealthy lifestyle and put his sole trust and faith in Him? These are the points and questions that Yashua Messiah was getting across to the wealthy young ruler.
“Why do you call me good? there is none good but one, that is, God”. Mark 10”18 Jesus here is simply asking him this to see if he believes he is God. Because if the rich young ruler had known Jesus was God, he would have responded by saying, “But I call you good because you are God!”
But, we see by how the young man responded to Jesus’ call to follow him, that he did not really believe he was God. Otherwise, he would have known it was safe to trust him (Jesus). As when his other followers responding to Jesus’ question; “Will you also leave? They answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life.” John 6:68.
No, Jesus was secure in his identity, but was trying to bring it out of this “Rich Young Ruler”by using this approach.
Welcome to my blog.
With respect, the wealthy young ruler in his gushing flattery and fawing had already called Yashua Messiah GOOD Master which could be classified as a back handed way of him admitting that He was God OR at least admitting that He was a teacher from God, which is how Nicodemus approached Yashua Messiah as recorded in John 3.
Both the wealthy young ruler and Nicodemus KNEW deep down who Yashua Messiah was and His presence there amongst them was an active part of or instrumental in their calling.
I am presuming here that you understand we are called by The Father to His Son Yashua Messiah and cannot make a decision of our own volition to follow Him:
John 6:44 (KJV) NO MAN CAN COME TO ME, EXCEPT THE FATHER WHICH HATH SENT ME DRAW (DRAG) HIM: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:65 And He said, Therefore said I unto you, THAT NO MAN CAN COME UNTO ME, EXCEPT IT WERE GIVEN UNTO HIM OF MY FATHER.
This means that the wealthy young ruler was being DRAWN or better being DRAGGED by the The Father to His Son Yashua Messiah and this dragging obviously involved him having to give up all his worldly possessions that had such a hold over him.
In the case of the Learners (disciples) they had already answered The Father’s call and were already followers of Yashua Messiah whereas the wealthy young ruler was only making his first step in answer to The Father’s call.
Thank you for your contribution.
Thanks Charles, Perhaps the times wasn’t right, he avoided telling most that he was the Messiah because the time wasn’t right. So to claim oneself as God would put the plan of salvation in jeopardy as they didn’t take someone who claims to be God lightly, as we know from the scriptures. Just my humble opinion.
Possible, but I’m of the mind He always told people what they needed to hear at that point in time. Hence with Nicodemus it was: “You MUST be born again.” Even though Nicodemus couldn’t get his head around than concept.
He then told His enemies the Pharisees: “Before Abraham was, I AM!” Which provoked and angered them no end and they then tried to stone Him.
With the wealthy young ruler he was definitely trying to make an impact with The Lord by calling Him: “Good Master” which as we know The Lord rebutted with His question: “Why callest thou me good?” That is, you will make no headway with me via flattery.
However I agree He didn’t go around blowing any trumpets regarding His identity but then He didn’t need to, for He knew that those The Father was calling to Him would recognise Him anyway and I believe that was the case with the wealthy young ruler who deep down already knew.
Thanks for your comment and always good to hear from you.
Hello Brother Charles Chris and Thomas, really enjoyed reading this and the comments too. Amazing how people can try to twist those Scriptures to be Jesus was not God. I’ve also been told Nicodemus never became born again he did not want to give up fully his lifestyle, so reading this has given me a new look at this story too. Bless you all
Good to hear from you. And yes I am sure Nicodemus was saved. His presence at Yashua Messiah’s crucifixion with Joseph of Arimathea speaks volumes.
Hello Brother Charles, just another look at the story of Nicodemus, it was him and another Pharisee and a few of the women that tended to Jesus’ body. What about the disciples? I think while their faith had turned to fear, the two Pharisees Joseph and Nicodemus had their fear turned into faith. They would have been known as respectable and successful men yet through Jesus they would have been delivered from their own bondage- that of ‘religion’.
If looking at Jesus He caste out demons, restored sight to blind people, yet people often overlook how Jesus set those free who were ‘captive’ to religion. Jesus had called the Pharisees hypocrites and vipers. By the grace of God Joseph and Nicodemus came to see the truth of Jesus Christ and maybe so had become tired of their oppressive and impossible expectations that were imposed upon them as Pharisees and/or members of the Sanhedrin. That is sort of how I see it, that they knew their religious system could not give them eternal life, or following all their religious laws, and that I think is one aspect of the story I find important.
Just curious what others think too.
Yes that just about sums it up Peggy. Joseph of Arimathea planted the first churches outside Jerusalem in Britain in 35 AD. Nicodemus may have been with him with his small band of saints.