Jude 2

18And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

19And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

20Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

21And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

22Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

23And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

24And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

25For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


Would the young ruler have been "saved" had he gave all that he had?

To me the question wasn't one of money. It was one of faith. Notice the words "thou shalt have treasure in Heaven." Jesus wasn't asking him to give up his riches but to exchange them for eternal riches. If the rich young ruler had truly believed Jesus was offering him an exchange of his earthly riches for ETERNAL life and RICHES IN HEAVEN then it would have been a no brainer to do as Jesus had said and sell it all. The question for the rich ruler was did he believe in Jesus enough to sell it all and follow Him. It wasn't so much a love of money but a lack of faith which led to his decision. Since that is how I believe it, then "yes" he would have been saved but it wouldn't be because he gave up his riches but because he had enough faith in Jesus to give up the riches.

Wherein lies repentance?

I'm not sure I know what you're asking.

If all he had to do was to give away his material goods and then he would have eternal life then I ask why did he not need to repent?

Full Quiver wrote:If all he had to do was to give away his material goods and then he would have eternal life then I ask why did he not need to repent?

He basicly is doing the same as we do. He is placing his trust in the words spoken to him by Christ. If you will, I will.

If you take up your cross and follow me...what ? I will never leave you.
If you believe on me or place your trust in me, you shall be saved.

It really comes down to you and I placing our trust in the words that have been spoken to us by Christ and believing his promise.

Pastorbps wrote:To me the question wasn't one of money. It was one of faith. Notice the words "thou shalt have treasure in Heaven." Jesus wasn't asking him to give up his riches but to exchange them for eternal riches. If the rich young ruler had truly believed Jesus was offering him an exchange of his earthly riches for ETERNAL life and RICHES IN HEAVEN then it would have been a no brainer to do as Jesus had said and sell it all. The question for the rich ruler was did he believe in Jesus enough to sell it all and follow Him. It wasn't so much a love of money but a lack of faith which led to his decision. Since that is how I believe it, then "yes" he would have been saved but it wouldn't be because he gave up his riches but because he had enough faith in Jesus to give up the riches.

Good post

Just an FYI here for how I see this section.

Hey, You asked for our two cents.

When the "ruler" calls Jesus "Good" Jesus took that at first as this guy calling him God's Son...anytime anyone recognized Jesus as the Messiah Jesus instantly rewarded them with anything that they could dream of asking for...eyesight, health, or whatever.

So Jesus asked him further to clarify.

Then came the flippant answer that he hadn't broken any of the commandments...

And Jesus tested him back with the coveting commandment. (Their legalistic society took it a bit farther than we ever could today)
And the man failed the test instantly according to Jewish standards. By our standards today: He would rather have possessions than Jesus.
IF that isn't a "facepalm" moment or a homer simpson "Doh" I don't know what is...What wouldn't many of us give up to have a few years of walking with Jesus...side by side...mano e mano.

But the other thing that it shows is that the man's possessions owned him more so than the ruler owned the possessions. He did have people and livelihoods to watch over...anytime you have that kind of money you have a huge responsibility over the lives of others. Can't walk away so easily can you?

For this man to have experienced such a change as to love Jesus more than his riches would have been a form of repentance.

Full Quiver wrote:Wherein lies repentance?

Repentance can't be codified according to our traditional beliefs. Would the repentance of the forgiven thief be considered traditional?

Luke 23:40-43
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Full Quiver wrote:
Would the young ruler have been "saved" had he gave all that he had?

In his case, theoretically, it is possible, IF giving all he had was true act of repentance and faith towards God.

However, the act of giving itself would NOT have saved the rich young ruler. For if he had not charity -- towards God and his fellow man -- though he gave all he had to feed the poor, it would profit him nothing.

So, if (big if there) his giving was motivated by the loved of God imparted to a believing heart, then yes, it would have been an act and/or evidenced of saving faith.

BUT, if the act of giving was done as a means of attaining self-justification, then no.

In short -- No!
Giving would not have saved him. His unwillingness to do so revealed his true inability to keep the law, which in turn manifested his lack of love for others, and for God.

Repentence - from the greek word 'metanoia'

meta = with
noia = the mind

repentence is to change your mind. Had he sold his goods his mind would have obviously changed from loyalty to his material goods to the master. We use the term repentence in a non-historic way to mean something like feeling guilty about sin.

Furthermore, the call to repentence by Jesus to Israel was basically a message that referred to changing their mind with respect to their ambition to overthrow Rome using military force. Jesus called them to the way of peace. They were to 'repent' - to take the way of peace rather than rebellion against Rome. It wasn't simply an invitation to have a new spiritual experience.

Furthermore, the call to repentence by Jesus to Israel was basically a message that referred to changing their mind with respect to their ambition to overthrow Rome using military force. Jesus called them to the way of peace. They were to 'repent' - to take the way of peace rather than rebellion against Rome. It wasn't simply an invitation to have a new spiritual experience.

Nah, I don't think so.

Russell, I am pretty much with you on much of your views on the kingdom now, the rule of Jesus, etc. But, I've got to call for an instant replay review (yes, football is near) on this idea that Jesus' message of repentance was chiefly, or even substantially, a call to follow peace vs. rebellion against Rome.

Isaiah 1, Joel 2 both are examples in the OT of "repentance" or turning from sin and toward obedience to God. There was never any expression of record by Jesus to indicate that He favored Rome regarding the occupation of the provinces of Israel. There is record, though, that He recognized that Rome was large and in charge there: His remarks about 'whose image and superscription" at the instance of the coin in the mouth of the fish, and His silence before Pilate. We can't possibly take these and synthesize a biblical theology of NT repentance that projects the need for repentance as a need to quit opposing Roman oppression. The best and most we can conclude from Jesus' words and actions is that Roman governmental activity was quite beside the point for Him, and that it ought to be beside the point for Israel, and by extension, that government activity is quite beside the point for us.

Jesus did not come to reform government. He came to BE the government. After his advent, and until His physical, here-on-earth return, He commissioned His governors -- His only governors -- to demonstrate another and wholly different way of living and being, and that is, in a word, our faith. The church of Jesus Christ is the only legitimate government functioning on earth today. It is not functioning as it is empowered because the church has chosen to cooperate with spirit of the age: power-struggles, divisiveness, selfishness, jealousy, greed, malice, murder, etc. We speak in terms of our message to the world, but what is God's message to us?!? To put away all these things. To live like Jesus did, to do what He did, to do what He said to do. We have little of use to give to the world without also abandoning what the world offers to us that makes us everything antithetical to the way of Jesus.

What I mean by that is not so much "holying-up" ourselves with rules and following them, but ordering our whole lives (and I mean whole lives) around just that: doing what He did and said to do, what the NT church did. We'd be light years ahead if we were to simply stop segregating our lives into "spiritual life" and "everything else". There is no "else" -- there's just life and living it wholly around the principles of and with the people of Jesus. With that is an abandonment of "church" as a place or event but as the one community of which we are and consider ourselves a part; a repentance of its own kind.

Repentance was then and remains a change of mind, of heart. It is not aimed to make a better, more Christianized Roman (or better American or Brit or Chinese) citizen. It is aimed at eradicating each of us as we are and transforming each of us into little Christs, in a manner of speaking, and collectively into a community of followers of Jesus doing "greater works" than even He did (not in terms of greater miracles but in terms of changing people around us - "all the world" - with His Gospel).

Dolfan,

Jesus came announcing the way of peace. Unlike the peace offered by the Roman Empire at the edge of the sword (think Pax Romana) Jesus came to establish his kingdom through peace. In Matthew 5, Jesus informs Israel what it means to be truly human - what it means to be truly Israel (Note that Jesus fulfilled this program to a t). He was Israel in the flesh.

Time and again, Jesus warned what would happen should they continue to reject his message. Their bodies would be thrown into Gehenna, the garbage dump outside Jerusalem (this word is often mistranslated as hell. Jesus was basically telling them that resistance to Rome was of no use. Should they continue to rebel, they would suffer to full force of Rome's military might. Read this passage.

Luk 19:41 Now when Jesus approached and saw the city, he wept over it,
Luk 19:42 saying, "If you had only known on this day, even you, the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and surround you and close in on you from every side.
Luk 19:44 They will demolish you — you and your children within your walls — and they will not leave within you one stone on top of another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God."
Luk 19:45 Then Jesus entered the temple courts and began to drive out those who were selling things there,
Luk 19:46 saying to them, "It is written, 'My house will be a house of prayer,' but you have turned it into a den of robbers !"

The Greek word translated as 'robbers' is lestes. It should be more accurately translated as 'brigands'. Barabbas was actually a revolutionary. The Roman government was intent on stomping out any challenge to their rule. As you can see in this passage, Jesus is warning Jerusalem what will happen should they continue to rebel. He is saying that Jerusalem will basically become an extension of the garbage dump...and it did in 70 AD.

This is what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. He predicted that the temple would be torn down within a generation...but that is another story.

You see, God had given Israel the task of being a light to the nations. Far from that, Israel had become as bad if not worse than the pagans. So God came to do the job himself - in the person of Jesus. Jesus was the light to the nations that would result in Gentiles streaming into the kingdom.