Luke 18:18–23

The young man was a ruler, and he was rich. But ruler though he was, and rich as well, the question of having eternal life was still unsettled in his soul. Clearly he was an earnest young man. He was running: "a man ran up and knelt before him." Clearly he thought about eternal things. The question of how to get eternal life had crossed his mind. He did not have it; he wanted it.

With the ruler, our Lord shows that everything is wrong where a soul has not come to know that no one is good but God. Had he really known how good God is, he would soon have seen God in Jesus. He saw nothing of the sort. He knew neither God nor good. He looked on the Lord as merely good in a human way. If He was only a man there was no goodness in Him; goodness is only in God: God alone is good. If Jesus were not God, He was not good. The young ruler had no right, no just title, to say "Good Teacher", unless that teacher were God. He did not see this. So the Lord tests him and searches the ground of his heart, and shows that after all he valued the world more than God and eternal life.

But Jesus listened to the young man's question, and answered it in His own way. He said, "Why do you call me good?" The term was true. But the question gave the ruler a chance to exercise his faith in the Lord and to confess His name. He was looking at One who was a "man of sorrows", and yet that humble Man was the Man whom God had anointed, God's equal, the Son of God here below. This Man in front of him was God Himself in person — to believe on, if he would.

The Lord had just spoken of receiving the kingdom as a little child. Then the ruler asks, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" His mind swung back to the works of the law. He did not know what Paul tells us in Romans 4:4: "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due." Since the ruler came on this basis, the Lord referred him to the Law, as regards his duty to his neighbour. When he claimed to have kept it from his youth up, the Lord tested him further as to his relation to Himself. "Come, follow Me." Who is this Me? That was the supreme question, on which everything hinged, whether for the ruler or for ourselves.

A little child receives a gift and does nothing for it. This was the very opposite of the ministry of the law. Eternal life is now the gift of God to those who, like a little child, do nothing for it: otherwise it would not be a gift.

"Inherit eternal life." Inherit stands for "take possession of," as in Matthew 25:34. So in Luke 18:18. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke it is regarded as held in reserve; so in Paul's letters too. Luke 18:22 tells us that the young man was to have treasure in heaven.

He brought an uneasy conscience. He saw that the Lord was a good man, as we say. He watched the life of the Lord Jesus and had no doubt that He had the secret of peace. So he came and put his question... "One thing you still lack," said the Lord; "Sell all that you have and come, follow Me." What does that mean? It means that if I will put myself in the track of Christ, I must be like Christ. The Lord gave up everything and came down as an emptied Man to serve others.

There was no lack of moral integrity here, and no failure in reverence to One he sensed to be greater than himself. He was earnest, he honestly respected that righteous man, and he truly wanted to learn a new lesson and take a fresh step in doing good. It was nature doing its best, yet wrong at the root. His question assumed that man was good and could do good — man as he is. His very greeting of honour to Jesus proved that he did not know who Jesus was, and so did not know the truth about God or about man. Had the young ruler believed Him to be the Son of the living God, he would never have addressed Him as "Good Teacher." That title suits a respected and honoured teacher. It was both needless and improper for One who was equal with God and was God.

Guilt destroyed whatever goodness Adam had while innocent. So God's verdict on man is that there is none good, not one. By human standards we speak of "a good man," and Scripture recognises that standard. By God's standard there is none good. When the Lord was on earth, men called Him "Good Teacher," and He replied, "No one is good except God alone." But the man who came to Him did not have the faith to answer as Thomas did, "My Lord and my God!"

Then we have the ruler. Our Lord shows him that everything is wrong where a soul has not come to know that there is none good but God. Had he really known how good God is, he would soon have seen God in Jesus. He saw nothing of the sort. He knew neither God nor good. He looked on the Lord as good only in a human way. If He was only a man there was no goodness in Him; goodness is only in God: God alone is good. If Jesus were not God, He was not good. The young ruler had no right, no just title to say "Good Teacher," unless that Teacher were God.

But Jesus listened to the young man's question, and answered it in His own way: "Why do you call Me good?" The term was true. But the question gave the ruler the chance to exercise his faith in the Lord and to confess His name. He was looking at Him who was a "Man of sorrows," yet that humble Man was the One whom God had anointed, the Man who stands next to God, the Son of God here below. This Man in front of him was God Himself in person, there for him to believe in if he would. Jesus was good because He was God, and if the young ruler had only believed on Him, his words would have been completely true and right.

The emphasis is on "good," not on "Me." … This is no more an admission of imperfection than His question in Luke 20:41-44 is a denial that He is David's son.

But he came with this thought, you see, that he must "do" something. We have all thought the same. When we think of possessing eternal life, the first thought is always, "What shall I do?" The Lord replies at once, "Why do you call Me good?" He does not answer the question directly. He puts another question to him: "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." That ought to have struck his conscience at once with the sense: if God alone is good, then I am not good, and so I cannot do any "good thing."

His mind swung back to the works of the law, not knowing what Paul tells us in Romans 4:4, "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due." Since he came on this basis, the Lord pointed him to the law about his duty to his neighbour. The man claimed he had kept it since he was young. So the Lord tested him further about his relation to Himself. "Come, follow Me." Who is this Me? That was the supreme question, on which everything hinged, whether for the ruler or for ourselves.

The law does not assume that a sinner is ruined, and it does not offer salvation. It can only speak to man's ability, if he has any. It speaks to people who assume that man can do what God asks. So on God's side it is a command for what is owed to Him. He can only ask that much if they take such a ground with Him. The law is the measure of duty God sets before a man who thinks he is able to keep it.

Here we have, of course, a summary of the ethical code as it deals with man, and that alone.

The Lord pointed him to the sacred Word, a sign that on such a vital matter God had not left His people in ignorance. "You know the commandments," He said, for the questioner was a ruler. He then referred to five of them, though not in their regular order. In Matthew and Luke these are the fifth to the ninth. Mark alone adds a reference in substance to the tenth.

There are two tables of the law. The first comes down to this: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind." The other table is, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." Had he loved his neighbour as himself? He had not committed adultery. He had not murdered, stolen, given false evidence, or cheated anyone. He had honoured his father and his mother. He was a most admirable man. But did he love his neighbour as himself? Certainly not. Why? Because he was wealthy. If he had loved his neighbour as himself, he could not have been wealthy.

Here was the young man's mistake. He had come to Jesus to know what he must do to inherit eternal life. By the law righteousness could never come, nor life either. There was no person ever able to keep the commandments. In his own estimation the young man had kept them. But he forgot that the question was not what he himself thought and saw. The important question was what God saw, and God saw that he had failed.

The Lord brings in the commandments of the second table, but they left his conscience untouched: "All these I have kept from my youth." The ruler was satisfied with himself and yet unsatisfied. He knew he did not have eternal life, and he had no solid security for the future. To him Jesus said, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." The conscience which had resisted the test of law fell at the first touch of Jesus.

The young man, this ruler, this likeable and admirable man, turns out to have a heart as far from heaven and God as the heart of the worst and most corrupt sinner on earth.

We must notice that the law never tested this young man's heart at all. As far as anyone could see, and in front of others, he had kept it. No doubt it was only an outward obedience. But he had still given that outward obedience. As a creature of God it was beautiful, and the Lord Jesus Christ valued it as such. He had obeyed the law in an outward way, and this gave him the credit of having walked in its rules. The Lord does not say he failed to do it. He looked at him and loved him. There was something there that God could love.

When the rich young ruler came to the Lord with his question about eternal life, Jesus tested him with five of the ten commandments. He did not quote the first four, which deal with what is due to God, and He did not mention the tenth. The young man could say he had kept the five the Lord mentioned. No doubt he had, if only the forbidden acts were in question. Had he been tested by the tenth, he would have been hopelessly condemned.

He knew the letter of these commands, and he had obeyed them to the letter. But the spirit of them — their real, living, moral meaning — reached much further. Carried through to the end, they affected more than outward conduct. They touched the springs of the heart. They said, "You shall not steal" — but they meant, "You shall love."

The Lord brings in the commandments of the second table, but his conscience was untouched: "All these I have kept from my youth." Then Jesus said to this self-satisfied yet dissatisfied ruler, "One thing is lacking to you yet." The man knew he did not have eternal life. He had no solid security for the future. The conscience that had survived the test of law collapsed at the first touch of Jesus.

Here was the young man's mistake. He had come to Jesus to know what he must do to inherit eternal life. Righteousness could never come by the law, and neither could life. No one was ever able to keep the commandments. The young man, by his own estimate, had kept them, but he forgot that the question was not what he himself thought and saw. The important question was what God saw, and God saw that he had failed.

Even the law required that God be loved with all the heart. Did the ruler love God like that? Did he recognise God in the lowly Jesus? Sadly, he did not. He might claim to have kept commandments about his neighbour. He broke down completely when it came to the first of all the commandments. In his eyes his riches were worth more than Jesus.

He himself, aware that something was missing, puts the question, "What do I still lack?" I will tell you what he lacked. He lacked the real knowledge of Christ; and, my friend, if you do not have Christ, no matter how beautiful and moral your life may be, you lack everything.

This young man believed a person could do some good thing. He saw in Christ everything excellent, all the good there could be in a creature — for he did not go beyond what he saw in Him outwardly. He did not see that He was the Christ of God... So the Lord takes him on his own ground, and says, "One thing you still lack." But to lack that one thing was to lack everything — it was to lack all that anyone could imagine.

"One thing you still lack." And what was lacking? Attachment to Himself. You have not attached yourself to Me, and there are certain things in the road which hinder you from doing so... Riches are clearly obstacles in the road of blessing.

People ask, how could the Lord make that the condition of eternal life for him? But the law had already required the very thing that would have made this easy — that he should love his neighbour as himself. And he had declared that he did. Why not, then, sell what he had and give to the poor? If he loved his neighbour as himself, would giving to that neighbour cost him more than giving it back to himself?

Clearly the Lord is only searching out a heart that badly needed it. He does not make it a condition of eternal life; for that is a gift which He Himself had come to get for us. He speaks to the young man according to the character he claimed for himself. And He adds a tender assurance of a heart open to him — a heart ready to give him a place among His followers and close friends. "Jesus, looking at him, loved him," says Mark in connection with these very words.

So the Lord put this man's profession to the test with those words. He put the test, as it were, this way: What do you think of Me? I have come down from heaven; I was rich, but for your sake I became poor... will you follow Me? Will you be on My side? You will have much to put up with. Do you think I am worth following? Do you think I am worth giving up everything you have in this world? Do you consider Me greater riches than all your possessions?

The Lord offered him treasure in heaven for the present, and also a path of reproach in following Him. It was a present treasure, but in heaven, where it could not be lost. The riches that held his heart and separated him from the Lord would soon be gone forever. In Luke 19 we see another rich man, Zacchaeus, who gained treasure in heaven. About his present possessions he could say, "the half of my goods I give to the poor."

The Lord did not get into an argument with him about his past claimed obedience. He tested him another way — as to his devotedness to Himself. What was Christ to him?... Coming to the Lord with the apparent desire to get eternal life, he left Him sorrowful... There was something he loved better than God, or than Christ. In this way it came out into the open. He had an idol, which perhaps he had not been conscious of before.

He tested him in another way — as to his devotedness to Himself. What was Christ to him? Was the man's heart right with God? Could he give up everything he had in the world for Christ's sake? A searching, testing question! For that the young ruler was not prepared. "He became," as we should translate it, "exceedingly sorrowful, for he was very rich." He came to the Lord seeming to want eternal life. He left Him sorrowful, as both Matthew and Mark record. There was something that he loved better than God, or than Christ. This is how it came out into the open. He had an idol, and he may never have been aware of it before.

"One thing you still lack," said Jesus to the ruler. The man was pleased with himself and still not satisfied. He knew he did not have eternal life, and he had no solid security for the future. "Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." The conscience that had resisted the test of law fell at the first touch of Jesus.

To the ruler it was overwhelming, impossible — the wiping out of everything he valued. For now it was clear that he loved his riches, his money, his wealth. He had never suspected this in himself before, but it had been there all along. It came to light in the presence of the One who uncovered it — the One who, though He was rich, yet for our sakes became poor, so that we through His poverty might become rich (2 Cor. 8:9). The ruler valued his position and his property, and could not bear to have nothing and be nothing.

Herod was a man of extreme but shallow feeling… We also read that he was sorry, "exceedingly sorry," when he saw what a cruel act he had bound himself to. The rich young ruler was sorry too when he refused the call of Jesus. But in neither man did the sorrow produce repentance (Luke 18:23; 2 Cor. 7:8, 10).

If he really loved his neighbour as himself he would have to do that. If he had £5,000 he would have to give someone else £2,500. Then he would give half of what was left to someone else, and so on until it was all gone. You say he would very soon have nothing left. Just so, but there is the principle. And the Lord tells him to make short work of it: "And come, follow Me." What happened? "But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich" (Luke 18:18, 20-23). He loved his money more than eternal life or his neighbour. Everybody gets tested in that way.

Of all the different people who came into contact with our Lord during His time on earth, none, perhaps, has a sadder ending than this rich young ruler. There was so much at the start of his story that promised a bright future as a disciple of Christ. Yet in the end we read that he "went away grieved." As far as Scripture records, he is never found again in the company of Christ and His own. So even if he was a believer at heart, he missed the blessing of Christ's company among His people, and he failed as a witness for Christ in the world.

The Lord knew his riches were a hindrance, and that is why He spoke as He did. Whether or not the ruler later turned to the Lord we do not know. But he had been given enough to make him search his own heart seriously.