The word ‘parable’ comes from the Greek word ‘parabole’, which literally means a placing beside, a comparison, equivalent to or to compare. Some say that a parable is ‘an earthly story with a heavenly meaning’ but really a parable is more than that. The dictionary defines a parable as ‘a short figurative story, designed to convey some truth or moral lesson.’ Or ‘a brief story using events or facts of everyday life to illustrate a moral or spiritual truth.’
Here in Luke, we find Jesus teaching in parable form that He wants us to speak to the Father in prayer, especially in times of need, Luke 18:1. The Father longs to hear from us, He longs for us to talk to Him, sadly when times get tough a lot of Christians simply switch off, they go everywhere else to find someone to talk to, instead of speaking to the Father who longs to help His children, Luke 11:5-10 / Ephesians 6:18 / 1 Thessalonians 5:17.
It’s so easy to give up when difficult times come our way, it’s so easy to fall into the trap of thinking that God doesn’t hear our prayers or God won’t answer our prayers or as in the case of this parable, it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that God just doesn’t care about the injustices in our lives, but Jesus reminds us not to give up, why?
It’s quite clear that Jesus is teaching us that anyone who doesn’t fear God in the first place, Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, anyone who doesn’t respect His ways and commandments will usually have no respect for anyone else, Luke 18:1. There’s no doubt that the kind of judge Jesus is describing here is the kind of judge who would only listen to those who were willing to ‘pay’ him for his time. In other words, he would only listen and act on behalf of someone else, if it was for his own benefit if he was going to gain something out of it.
It’s also clear that someone at some point in time, he had done something wrong against this widow and so, she was perfectly within her right to plead for justice, Luke 13:3. I don’t believe her plea for justice was in terms of spiteful revenge, but simply in terms of her enemy wronging her in some way and she simply wanted justice. God has always had a special place in His heart for widows, Luke 13:3, and He always wanted them protected and cared for, Deuteronomy 10:18 / Psalm 68:5 / Isaiah 1:17 / James 1:27.
The judge doesn’t seem to care about his duties as a judge, he doesn’t seem to care about the widow and her plea, he seems to be more interested in getting rid of this ‘nagging’ widow, Luke 18:4. Notice that the judge admitted within himself at least, that he didn’t fear God and he didn’t care what people thought about him, Luke 18:4. This is what was really going on inside of him and this reveals just how evil he was, he was full of himself, he was arrogant and cared for no-one else except himself.
We’re not told how long she kept pleading with the judge, but the good news is that the widow didn’t give up, her persistence paid off as the judge finally listened and acted in dealing with the one who unjustly treated her, Luke 18:5. But please note, he did this, not because he genuinely cared about the widow, he did this because he simply wanted to get rid of the widow, he was tired of her.
The NIV tells us that he gave in to her pleas, ‘so that she won’t eventually come and attack me’, Luke 18:5, which can be misleading. We’re not to think that somehow this widow was eventually going to get the judge and beat him up if he doesn’t help her. The original text literally says, ‘lest she gives me a black eye’, which unlike today’s understanding of someone giving you a ‘black eye’ in terms of being physically assaulted, the judge is thinking in terms of his reputation as a judge, in his opinion he is a ‘good’ judge, with a good reputation which he wants to maintain, Matthew 6:1.
Like so many today, he possibly believed that doing this righteous deed for this widow would be accepted as a righteous act, but the truth is, Jesus is telling us that if our motives are wrong, God won’t accept them as righteous acts, Proverbs 16:2 / 1 Corinthians 4:5.
Jesus quickly gets to the point of the parable which is simply this, if a judge who doesn’t fear God and doesn’t care about others, if this judge who cares about no one except himself will act upon the requests of this persistent widow, how much more will God hear and act upon the pleas of His children who are seeking justice because of the persecution their facing, Luke 18:6-7 / Hebrews 10:37 / 2 Peter 3:8-9 / Revelation 6:10.
Hence why the answer to the first question is ‘yes’. God will bring justice to those who are pleading for justice because they are being persecuted, and the answer to the second question is ‘no’. He will not keep putting them off because He cares for and loves His children so much, He won’t ignore their pleas but will act justly against the persecutors.
The whole crutch of the parable is found in Jesus’ third and final question. Not only are Christians encouraged to pray when they’re facing trials, but they’re also encouraged to keep the faith whilst going through those trials, James 1:2-8. We get the idea that this persecution will be so intense that many will fall away because of it.
What kind of faith is this? Luke 18:8. To keep the answer to this question in its proper context, it must be the kind of faith that endures, the kind of faith that knows that God hears our cries during times of persecution and the kind of faith that acknowledges that God will help us in our time of need and will act justly. In other words, don’t stop praying for justice, don’t give up when we’re being persecuted.
It’s clear that Jesus has in mind that the persecution of His children will be ongoing persecution until He returns to judge the world, we read about this persecution happening within the early church, Acts 7 / Revelation, and throughout history, even to our present day, hence why we need to keep praying about it and trusting that God will deal with it.
Imagine going through trial after trial and being persecuted time and time again because you’re a Christian, it’s so easy to stop praying and give up because we’ve convinced ourselves that God isn’t listening, or He doesn’t care. God wants us to have an enduring faith that never quits, which never stops believing that God will deal with our persecutors, 2 Peter 3:1-13 / Matthew 24:12-13.
Over the years I’ve heard many a sermon and sat in many a Bible study where we were taught that, just like the widow, we should keep ‘nagging’ God in prayer until He finally gives in and answers our prayers. That’s not the point of the parable, in fact, it’s the complete opposite, God is the complete opposite of this unjust judge because He really does care about His children.
The context isn’t about ‘general prayer’, it’s all about justice and being mistreated, we don’t have to keep ‘nagging’ God in prayer because we’re promised He hears our prayers and we’re promised that He will take action and unlike the unjust just, quickly at that. In this context, Jesus is encouraging His followers to pray for deliverance in times of persecution because God promises to act and bring judgment upon anyone who persecutes His children.
We must trust that God will deal with them at the appropriate time, Romans 12:19. As Christians, we need to believe that in times of trouble, God is always longing to hear from us in order to answer our prayers and help us. Anyone who says, ‘become a Christian and your life will be a bed of roses’ has lied because the Bible promises the exact opposite, 2 Timothy 3:12.
As Christians we will go through many trials and tribulations in this life and there may be times when we’re facing real persecution, but Jesus promised that if we endure the persecution we will be blessed, Matthew 5:10-11, but let’s not forget that Jesus’ question here still applies to us all today, will we have the enduring faith that lasts until He returns?
Self-righteousness is a problem that many people struggle with in one way or another, sadly this also applies to some Christians, who start measuring their righteousness against others, they start measuring how many times they attend meetings comparing themselves with others, how much money they put in the offering, how well they know the Scriptures etc.
In the context here in Luke’s account, it was all about those who had become legalistic and measured their religion by the things they were doing, law-keeping, fasting public praying etc, Luke 18:9 / Matthew 6:1-18 / Luke 10:29 / Luke 16:16.
The mindset in Jesus’ day with the Scribes and Pharisees was very much like measuring their religion against others and if you didn’t match up to theirs, then you were condemned, Proverbs 30:12 / Colossians 2:20-23. This is what the whole point of this parable is about, it’s about those who are self-righteous and trust in their good works to be right before God and those who are humble enough to rely on God and His righteousness because they understand that they can never be right before God no matter how many good deeds they do, Isaiah 64:6.
The word Pharisee, Luke 18:10, is derived from an Aramaic word meaning, ‘separated.’ Over the years, they believed in the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and punishment in the future life. They believed that punishment was based upon how a person behaves in this life.
They believed that the souls of the wicked would be in prison forever under the earth but those who were righteous would live again. If you remember this was the opposite of the Sadducees, who taught that there was no resurrection, no angels, no spirit but the Pharisees believed in all of these things, Acts 23:8.
When we read through the Gospel we can clearly see that the Pharisees practised righteousness externally, and it appears they were more concerned with the outward appearance than the inward feeling, Matthew 23. It was the Pharisees who introduced traditions to the Jewish religion, Matthew 15:2-6. There’s no doubt when it came to persecuting Jesus and His followers the Pharisees were leading the way.
Most people know that a tax collector, Luke 18:10, wasn’t highly esteemed in Biblical times, in fact, most were hated because they were considered either a traitor or a thief. This is because Israel was occupied by Rome and all the taxes collected went to Rome. The Romans demanded a certain amount of tax, but the tax collector could add more to bump up his wages, Luke 3:13.
The tax collectors were called ‘publicans’, which is the equivalent of what we would call the Inland Revenue. Their job was to collect not only Roman taxes but the temple tax which was paid yearly, about a month before Passover, in order to support those who worked with the religious services of the temple, Exodus 30:13-14.
Remember the Pharisees were an elect group of Jews, who were of the ruling class of people, he truly believed that what he practised was right before God. Notice that he ‘stood’, Luke 18:11, this suggests that he struck the pose, the idea of doing this so that others could see him doing it, it’s like he is saying, ‘look at me, look how wonderful I am’, Matthew 6:5.
Notice that he wasn’t all that bad either, he wasn’t a robber, he wasn’t an evildoer and he wasn’t an adulterer, Luke 18:11, those are positive things. His devotion to keeping God’s commands was ‘good’ in his eyes, as he practised and did more than what God required, Luke 18:12. Those are the ‘positives’, but when we read the words of the Pharisees it’s clear that all that matters to him is his own self-righteousness, he went through his religious checklist, I’m not a robber, check, I’m not an evildoer, check, I’m not an adulterer, check, I fast twice a week, check, I give a tenth of my income, check, Luke 18:11-12.
Just as a side note to show you just how self-righteous the Pharisees had become, he mentioned that he fasted twice a week, Luke 18:12. Well according to the law of Moses they were commanded to fast only one day a year and that was on the Day of atonement, Leviticus 23:26-28. The Pharisee says that he gives a tenth of all he gets, Luke 18:12, but again the law of Moses only asked for tithes from the production of the field and cattle, not from all grains, not everything, Leviticus 27:30-33.
Despite acknowledging God in his prayer, the Pharisee’s prayer is interesting because he doesn’t ask for his needs to be met, he doesn’t ask God for a blessing, he doesn’t admit he’s a sinner, he doesn’t ask for mercy. We really get the idea that this is all just lip service with no heartfelt meaning behind them. We could say that even though he had two eyes, both of which should have been on God, one eye was on himself and the other eye was on the tax collector, whom he insults.
In other words, he was measuring himself by his deeds and comparing himself to others and thought that he wasn’t as bad as some other people, Luke 18:11-12 / Luke 7:41-42, and thus came to the conclusion that all his law-keeping would satisfy God and God would have no choice but to accept him because he was so good, Romans 3:20 / Galatians 2:16.
Remember that the tax collectors were social outcasts, and no doubt he felt ashamed of the part he was playing in the oppression and humiliation of his own nation by the Romans. No doubt he was well aware that he was nothing like the Pharisee in terms of law-keeping and good deeds. He couldn’t keep up with the Pharisees’ righteousness and he may have looked at him as the example of righteousness and he was failing miserably.
Whilst the Pharisee proudly stood publicly to be seen and heard, the tax collector ‘stood at a distance’, Luke 13:13, why? Simply because he was judged as unrighteous by the Pharisees. He may have stood at a distance from the Pharisee, but he certainly stood close to God because he recognised his own spiritual shortfalls, Matthew 5:3-10. He couldn’t even bring himself to look heavenwards, because he recognised his sinfulness, he beat his chest, showing his sorrow and remorse, Luke 18:13 / Luke 23:48.
Notice the Pharisee used thirty-three words, but the tax collector only used seven words. Again this shows the character difference between them both. It’s so often the case that fewer words speak a lot more, his prayer was informal, it was warm and honest, it was prayed by a man who was burdened with sin. The tax collector first asks God for mercy, Luke 18:13. You see, justice is when we do get what we do deserve, mercy is when we don’t get what we do deserve, and grace is when we do get what we don’t deserve. He then admits his sinfulness before God, Romans 3:23.
Interestingly, the Pharisee received nothing after praying, although we could say he didn’t ask for anything. The point is that his prayers weren’t accepted by God because his prayers were insults to God. The tax collector’s prayer resulted in him being justified before God, Luke 18:14, because his prayer was short, honest and to the point.
Notice Jesus didn’t say the tax collector went home justified before God because of his perfect law-keeping or his good deeds, he went home justified because he recognised he was a sinner who was in need of God’s grace, Luke 18:13 / Romans 1:17 / Galatians 3:11 / Hebrews 10:38. In other words, he recognised his own spiritual unworthiness but trusted in the grace of God for justification which simply means ‘just as if I’ve never sinned’.
Make no mistake about it, Jesus saying that anyone, who practises self-righteousness will be brought back down to planet earth with a thump but those who humble themselves will be raised up by God, James 4:6. I believe it’s always a wise choice to humble ourselves, rather than God having to humble us, Luke 18:14 / John 17:1-17.
I heard many preachers and teachers using this text as an example of the ‘sinner’s prayer’ where they teach that the tax collector’s prayer is an example of a prayer for salvation. Like the Pharisee in the parable, well-intentioned people are simply going beyond what is written, 1 Corinthians 4:6, or in the case of the ‘sinner’s prayer’, not going far enough.
First of all, we need to notice that the tax collector was already a child of God, he was Jewish and after his prayer, he was still a Jew, still under the old law. He didn’t become a Christian because Jesus hadn’t died on the cross yet, Colossians 2:14. There is no example of the ‘sinner’s prayer’ anywhere in Scripture, even after Jesus died on the cross.
The Scriptures clearly teach us what a person must do in order to be saved, we must hear God’s Word, Romans 10:17, we must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, John 3:36, we must confess His name before men, Romans 10:9-10, we must repent of whatever sin that is in our lives, Luke 13:3, and we must be baptised for the forgiveness of our sins, Acts 2:38.
If we’re honest with ourselves, when we look at the Pharisee and the tax collector’s attitude, maybe there are times when we see a touch of both of them in us. What I mean is that we sometimes can just go through the ‘routine’ of worship, we hear the same old sermons being recycled, but we leave and go back to ‘normality’ without being moved in our hearts, we hear the same prayers being led week in and week out.
We sing the same hymns without the words moving us and we partake of the Lord’s Supper without giving any thought whatsoever as to what it really means to us as individuals. To the Pharisees it was, ‘them’ and ‘us’, but as Christians, humility is a virtue that must be practised, otherwise we too can fall into the trap of self-righteousness religion. We must accept that everyone, including ourselves, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s desire for us, Romans 3:10 / Romans 3:23.
When we pray we must remember that the only audience we’re praying to is God Himself. He’s not interested in hearing longwinded prayers about how wonderful we are, and He certainly doesn’t need to be reminded of what His Word says. The prayer of the tax collector was honest, short and to the point and maybe there are times when we’re ‘broken’ and honest with ourselves about our own sinfulness, we just don’t have the words to express ourselves and all we can do is ask for mercy while admitting our own sinfulness.
The disciples never seemed to want Jesus to be bothered, so they were constantly trying to keep certain kinds of people away from Him, Mark 10:46-52. In this case, it was children and notice the disciples actually rebuked those who brought the children to Jesus children, Luke 18:15 / Matthew 19:13 / Mark 10:13.
When the disciples hindered those who brought the children from coming to Jesus, Mark records that Jesus was greatly displeased, Mark 10:14. When Jesus saw that they were hindering the children from approaching Him, He was indignant and rebuked them, Mark 10:14.
He was greatly displeased because the children represented the nature of those who would accept His kingdom’s reign in their hearts, Luke 18:17 / Matthew 19:14 / Mark 10:14-15. He said that the kingdom of God itself belongs to people who become like children, Luke 18:16-17 / Matthew 19:14 / Mark 10:14-15.
When these children were brought to Jesus, He took them into His arms and blessed them, Mark 10:16 / 1 Corinthians 14:20 / 1 Peter 2:2. These children were simply brought to Jesus for blessing and prayer, a practice which was common in Israel, Matthew 19:13. He took the young people into His arms and began to bless them, then left, Matthew 19:15. He always had time for children, Matthew 19:15 / Mark 10:16.
As Christians, we need to have the same submissive attitude toward our heavenly Father if we want to receive eternal life, James 4:6-7 / 1 Peter 5:6-7. The humility of a child should always be the characteristic of the disciple of Jesus, we should always be willing to serve and put others before us, not thinking too highly of ourselves, Luke 9:48 / Matthew 18:4 / Mark 10:35-45.
Jesus wants disciples who are humble like a child, free from prejudice like a child, teachable like a child, lovable as a child, He wants His disciples to have the same simple faith of a child, trust like a child, He doesn’t want His disciples to worry about anything but trust their Father and He wants His disciples to be as innocent as a child.
This event is recorded in Luke 18:18-30 / Matthew 19:16-30 / Mark 10:17-31, but it’s in Mark’s account we find the most detail concerning the event. Jesus and His disciples were leaving the region of Judea and heading towards Jerusalem when a young man ran up to Him and fell before Him, Mark 10:17.
The young man who addressed Jesus was rich, Luke 18:23 / Matthew 19:22 / Mark 10:22, he was doing well for himself, he was the kind of man everyone in society would look up to and strive to be like. We must remember that he was a ruler with some position in society, Luke 18:18. He was a young man with responsibilities and status, this is important to understand because these positions were what James and John sought, Matthew 20:20-28 / Mark 10:35-45. This is what this young ruler had but could not give up.
There must have been something about his religion which was lacking something, he knew something wasn’t right with his religion. Later, we see that he had been obedient to the law, Luke 18:21 / Matthew 19:20 / Mark 10:20, and he was a ‘good’ person but still something wasn’t missing from his life.
He was honest with himself and humble enough to call Jesus, a ‘good teacher’, Luke 18:18 / Mark 10:17, which was a sign of respect. We know He was concerned about his own spiritual welfare because he ran up to Jesus requesting information on how to receive eternal life, Luke 18:18 / Matthew 19:16 / Mark 10:19, he was honestly looking for answers.
Marks and Luke’s accounts leave out something very important. In Matthew’s account notice the young man asked Jesus, which commandments? Matthew 19:17-18. This is very important to understand as we shall see in a moment. Before we get into the text, let’s address a question which is often raised.
The young man who addressed Jesus was rich, Luke 18:23 / Matthew 19:16-30 / Mark 10:17-32. However, we must also remember that he was a ruler with some position in society. The positions for which James and John sought in the following case of Mark 10:35-45, is what this young ruler had but could not give up.
The young man wanted to know how to receive eternal life, Luke 18:18 / Matthew 19:16 / Mark 10:17. In other words, he was asking, what must he do to be saved? Which is the question the disciples asked, Luke 18:26 / Matthew 19:25 / Mark 10:26.
He did everything right since he was a young man, including keeping the last six of the ten commandments, Exodus 20:12-17. However, he failed to keep the first and greatest of the commandments to, ‘love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength,’ Matthew 22:37-38.
The one thing he lacked was giving up his wealth, Luke 18:22 / Matthew 19:20-21 / Mark 10:21. He loved money more than God, Colossians 3:5. His wealth had become his security, Luke 18:24-25 / Matthew 19:23-25 / Mark 10:23-25.
Everett, in his commentary, says the following.
‘Jesus wanted this man to understand that no one could achieve salvation through good works, not even a Jewish “teacher.” Thus, Jesus said that there was no one that was good except God, Isaiah 64:6’.
The question, if Jesus was God, then why did He say, that ‘no one is good except God alone’, is often used by people to try and disprove the deity of Christ. There are two possibilities on how to answer this question. Jesus could be saying, don’t call me good because He isn’t good or at least not as good as God the Father, or He means something a lot deeper than we think.
Notice that Jesus never says He is not good, but the rich ruler recognises He is. The rich ruler calls Jesus ‘good teacher’, Luke 18:18 / Mark 10:17. Jesus asks the rich ruler, ‘why do you call me good’, and then He says, ‘No one is good, except God alone’, Luke 18:19 / Matthew 17:19 / Mark 10:18.
Jesus is saying either I am God and good or I am neither God nor good. Or put another way, Jesus was saying if you address me as a ‘good teacher’, then I can’t help you, for no man is good. Only as God can I do anything to help you, Luke 18:27 / Matthew 19:26 / Mark 10:27.
Jesus wanted the young man to acknowledge Him as God. He wanted the rich ruler to see Jesus as God, who is good, not a mere good teacher. Jesus’ question was designed not to deny His deity, but rather to draw the rich ruler to recognize Christ’s divine identity. It’s clear that Jesus was testing the young man when He said, ‘no one is good, except God alone’, Luke 18:19 / Matthew 17:19 / Mark 10:18. Jesus wasn’t denying His deity, He wanted the man to acknowledge His deity.
If he genuinely believed Jesus is God, Hebrews 1:3, instead of walking away sad, he would have followed Him to secure his eternal inheritance, Luke 18:22-23 / Matthew 19:21-22 / Mark 10:21-22.
Smith, in his commentary, says the following.
‘What He is doing is trying to awaken the consciousness of this man to the fact that he has received a divine revelation. He is getting close. “Why did you call me good?” The reason why you called me good, is because you, though you don’t realize it, have recognized something about me.’
How can Jesus be God if no one is good except God alone? Think about it this way. Jesus claims only God is good, but the rich ruler and Jesus also claim that Jesus is good, and so, common sense tells us that Jesus is claiming to be God. If Jesus is good what does that make Him? It makes Him God, 1 Chronicles 16:34 / Psalm 25:8 / Psalm 119:68. Afterall, He is the Word, who became flesh and dwelt among us, John 1:1-3 / John 1:14 / Philippians 2:5-11. He said, ‘I AM the Good Shepherd’, John 10:11.
Notice at this point Jesus doesn’t answer his question regarding eternal life but what He does do is address the man’s comment about Jesus being ‘good’, Luke 18:19 / Matthew 19:17 / Mark 10:18. We see that the real problem which people were facing was simply this, how can sinful people approach an all-good God? John 14:6 / Romans 7:24-25.
Erdman, in his commentary, says the folowing concerning Jesus’ response to the young man.
‘The perfect goodness of God was a universal doctrine of Judaism, and it is evident that the Lord was here building the young man’s thoughts toward the recognition of Jesus as God. It is the equivalent of our Lord’s saying, ‘Look, don’t you know that if I am good, as you say, then I am therefore God?’
Notice that Jesus only quoted the last five of the Ten Commandments, Luke 18:20 / Matthew 19:18-19 / Mark 10:19 / Exodus 20:12-16 / Deuteronomy 5:16-20. Why did He not quote the first five commandments? It’s clear that Jesus was trying to lead this young man into a deeper understanding of the truth, by not quoting, ‘love God with your heart, mind, soul and strength’, Deuteronomy 6:4-7 / Matthew 22:37-40 / Mark 12:30-31 / Luke 10:27, implies that the young man wasn’t obedient to these commandments, but had no real problem keeping the others.
In other words, the young man won’t receive eternal life simply by keeping only part of the law, he couldn’t receive eternal life by law-keeping, and he couldn’t save himself, no matter how obedient to the law he was, James 2:10. What’s the point in keeping any of the law, if you don’t love God with everything you’ve got.
Matthew gives us more information at this point, the young man asked Jesus a very important question. ‘What do I still lack?’ Matthew 19:20. If his question tells us anything, it tells us that he’s honest with himself and sincere regarding his question about eternal life.
Notice the young man ticked all the boxes, ‘yep Jesus, I haven’t broken any of the commandments you’ve quoted to me’, Luke 18:21 / Matthew 19:20 / Mark 10:20. I can imagine Jesus looking at this young man with a smile on His face, He loved him, He loved his honesty, and He loved his sincerity. What a refreshing change from those who were always trying to oppose Him.
Jesus loved the young man enough to tell him the one thing he lacked in his life, Luke 18:22 / Matthew 19:21 / Mark 10:21. He still lacked one thing, Philippians 3:6-7, he was good, but he knew that he still lacked something, Acts 10:1-6 / Galatians 3:21. The problem with the young ruler wasn’t with his outward appearance of religiosity, but with his heart.
In order to come into a right relationship with God, this particular rich person had to relieve himself of that which emotionally kept him from dependence on God. He was self-sufficient in his riches and self-confident in his performance of law from youth. He, therefore, felt that he didn’t need to trust in the grace of God.
If he wanted to receive eternal life, he first needed to be right with God and for him to be able to do that, he had to give up the very things which he treasured most in his heart, his possessions, Luke 18:22 / Matthew 19:21 / Mark 10:21. He had to learn to depend on God rather than being self-sufficient and self-confident to receive eternal life.
Because Jesus tells him to ‘go and sell everything he has and give it to the poor’, Luke 18:22 / Matthew 19:21 / Mark 10:21, this tells us that Jesus saw in this man’s life the very thing which was lacking from this man’s life. It suggests that Jesus saw that this guy was greedy and all he cared about was himself and his wealth, Matthew 6:19-21.
He was to sell all that he owned, give the proceeds to the poor, and start following Him, Luke 12:33 / Acts 2:45 / Acts 4:34-35 / Acts 12:12 / Acts 21:8. He must be willing to sacrifice to follow Jesus, Luke 18:22 / Matthew 19:21 / Mark 10:21, in the same way the other disciples did, Matthew 9:9 / Mark 10:28.
Anyone who wants to be a follower of Christ must submit to God’s will to receive eternal life. For the young man, this would mean not only giving up his possessions but giving up his position as ruler, and as we read next, these sacrifices were just asking too much of him.
Jesus always knew what was in the hearts of people, He knew them better than they knew themselves and for this young man his problem was in his heart. Notice that he didn’t get angry with Jesus, he didn’t get all self-righteous with Jesus, he simply dropped his face and went away sad, Luke 18:23 / Matthew 19:22 / Mark 10:22.
I can imagine this young man coming to Jesus thinking he was right with God, thinking he had been obedient to God all his life, thinking that he only had to make a few small adjustments to his life to receive eternal life, only to come face to face with the reality of the condition of his own heart. The man really wanted eternal life but not at this great price.
Incidentally, this is the only account in the whole of the Gospels where Jesus commands someone to ‘follow Him’ and the command is rejected. Like so many people who come to Jesus for salvation, they long to be saved, but when Jesus points out the costs involved, they too leave sad because they just can’t bring themselves to sacrifice so much in order to follow Him, Luke 18:22 / Matthew 19:21 / Mark 10:21 / Luke 14:25-33.
Notice that Jesus didn’t say ‘it’s impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of God’, He said it’s ‘hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of God,’ Luke 18:24 / Matthew 19:23 / Mark 10:23. The reason it is hard is simply because of what has just happened with the rich young ruler. The rich had a tendency to trust in material possessions and not in God.
They believed that one’s wealth was a sign that God was working in one’s life, they were wrong. The earthly treasures are more important to them, and their wealth and position in society are just too much to sacrifice, Luke 18:24-25 / Matthew 6:20 / Matthew 13:22 / 1 Corinthians 1:26 / 1 Timothy 6:9-10.
Notice also He calls them ‘children’, Mark 10:24, and then gives them an illustration which even a child can understand the impossibility of it, a camel going through the eye of a needle, Luke 18:25 / Matthew 19:24 / Mark 10:25. No one is sure where this figurate phrase originated, but some do believe it may have been taken from a gate in the walls of Jerusalem that were so small that it was difficult for a camel to enter. Whatever the source of the metaphor, the principle is still the same, it’s difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.
The disciples ask Jesus a question, ‘who then can be saved?’ Luke 18:26 / Matthew 19:25 / Mark 10:26. It seems the disciples were in shock, not so much with the rich young ruler’s leaving but with Jesus’ teaching to the rich young ruler. Remember the Jews believed if someone was rich, then that meant that they were highly favoured by God, but they were even more highly favoured by God if they kept the commandments. The disciples must have looked at the rich young ruler and thought, ‘wow, God has richly blessed him, he must be a prime candidate for eternal life!’
They must have thought, as many of the Jews, if this young rich ruler couldn’t be saved, then who on earth can be saved? Now obviously the Jewish thinking was wrong, the disciple’s thinking was wrong because no one can be justified before God by keeping law, because all sin, Galatians 2:16.
It’s a sad fact that many people follow in the rich young ruler’s steps, they desire eternal life, as long as they don’t have to make too many sacrifices. Jesus referred to these people when He remarked about how difficult it is for those who are rich to enter heaven.
Jesus tells them that God and God alone, has the power to let people see the foolishness in trusting in their wealth instead of trusting in God, Luke 18:27 / Matthew 19:26 / Mark 10:16 / Romans 1:16. Even some of the Old Testament heroes who were abundantly rich had to trust God instead of their riches, Luke 13:28.
Peter also asked a question, ‘What then will there be for us?’ Matthew 19:27. Peter and the others indeed left everything to follow Jesus, Luke 18:28 / Mark 10:28 / Matthew 4:20 / Luke 5:11, but here Peter is wondering what he will receive for such a sacrifice as leaving everything behind to follow Jesus.
The shock of Jesus’ teaching really got Peter thinking about his and the disciple’s situation, they obviously didn’t understand what Jesus was teaching and so, Jesus answers him with three promises. They will be blessed with numerous earthly possessions, their families will multiply a hundredfold and they will receive the greatest reward of all, eternal life, Luke 18:29-30 / Matthew 19:28-30 / Mark 10:29-31.
Clarke, in his commentary, says the following concerning, the disciples sitting on thrones and becoming judges of the twelve tribes, Matthew 19:28.
‘From the parallel place, Luke 22:28-30, it is evident that sitting on thrones, and judging the twelve tribes, means simply obtaining eternal salvation, and the distinguishing privileges of the kingdom of glory, by those who continued faithful to Christ in his sufferings and death.’
Jesus says that those who leave these family relationships and possessions in order to follow Jesus will receive a hundredfold in this life, Luke 18:29-30 / Matthew 19:29 / Mark 10:29-30. Jesus says, ‘many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first’, Luke 13:30 / Matthew 20:16 / Matthew 19:30 / Mark 10:31.
This simply means just because you choose to follow Jesus before others, doesn’t mean you’ll stay faithful to Jesus to the end, others who come later may well remain faithful to the Lord. A good example of this is Judas who was one of the first among the apostles and Paul who was the last of the apostles. Judas didn’t remain faithful to the end, but Paul did and so in this example, we see that Judas actually ended up being last and Paul ended up being first.
Clarke, in his commentary, says the following, concerning the first and last, Matthew 19:30 / Mark 10:31.
‘The Jews, who have been the first and most distinguished people of God, will, in general, reject the Gospel of my grace, and be consequently rejected by me. The Gentiles, who have had no name among the living, shall be brought to the knowledge of the truth, and become the first, the chief, and most exalted people of God. That this prediction of our Lord has been literally fulfilled, the present state of the Christian and Jewish Churches sufficiently proves. To illustrate this fully, and to demonstrate that the Jews and Gentiles were now put on an equal footing by the Gospel, our Lord speaks the following parable, which has been unhappily divided from its connection by making it the beginning of a new chapter.’
As Jesus talked to the rich man, He observed that he lacked only one thing, he only needed to get rid of his possessions. It became obvious that Jesus had properly diagnosed the man’s need because the man was unwilling to do so, he indeed was valuing his possessions over the Lord.
To follow Jesus, we must give up anything in our life that is more important to us than He is. Interestingly, this man lacked only one thing. Some people have the idea that one sin is not all that bad, they think that while they may be failing in one area, at least they serve the Lord faithfully in all the others. This story shows clearly that even one thing can keep a person from being accepted by God.
I can only imagine what the rich young ruler must have thought if he had heard Jesus’ three promises to the disciples, maybe he would have thought twice, maybe he would have followed Jesus, sadly it was these three blessings he actually turned away from. He forfeited his soul for wealth and his position of power, Mark 8:36.
Is there one thing in your life that’s stopping you from following Jesus?
For the third time, Jesus warned the disciples about what was going to happen when they got to Jerusalem. On the road to Jerusalem Jesus prepared the disciples for what was about to happen in all their lives, Luke 18:31 / Mark 10:32 / Matthew 10:17.
He tells the disciples that in Jerusalem, He would be delivered over to the chief priests and teachers of the law, and it would be them who would condemn Him to death, Luke 18:32 / Matthew 20:18-19 / Mark 10:33 / Isaiah 53. Jesus knows exactly what is going to happen to Him, Matthew 16:21 / Matthew 17:22-23. He knows that He will be handed over to Sanhedrin, Matthew 26:15, and He knows He would be handed over to the Gentiles, Luke 18:32 / Mark 10:32-33 / Matthew 17:22-23, that is, the Romans to be mocked, spat upon, flogged and crucified, Matthew 27:2 / Acts 2:23 / Acts 3:13-15 / Acts 4:27 / Acts 21:11.
Jesus knows He suffers all the humiliation of a common criminal. Flogging was means of a whip, which was made up of broken bones or sharp stones that were tied at the end of binding of numerous strips of leather. He talked here about His death and resurrection, Luke 18:32 / Matthew 20:18-19 / Mark 10:33-34. The good news is that Jesus also knows that He will rise again on the third day, Mark 10:34 / 1 Corinthians 15:1-5, despite His disciples being saddened by Jesus even speaking about His death, Luke 18:31 / Luke 9:22 / Luke 24:46 / Matthew 16:21-28. In Luke’s account, notice that the disciples didn’t understand what Jesus meant by His word because it was hidden from them, Luke 18:34.
Coffman, in his commentary, says the following.
‘It was not hidden in that Jesus did not want them to understand. It was hidden because of their reluctance to accept it.’
There are some people who suggest that the record of the two blind men in Matthew 9:27-31, is somehow related to the recording of the blind man Bartimaeus in Luke 18:35-43 / Matthew 20:29-34 / Mark 10:46-52. However, there is no evidence of this from the Scriptures and it also wouldn’t make any sense. Just because the blind men essentially say the same thing in both passages doesn’t mean they are the same event.
In Matthew 20:29-34, the healing of Bartimaeus takes place as Jesus the King is beginning to make His way to Jerusalem, Matthew 20:17. The Matthew 9:27-31, event took place as Jesus left the home of Jairus after raising the little girl and returned to the place He was staying, Matthew 9:18-26.
If it were the same event, this would imply that Jesus failed to heal these two men and somehow, He would have to heal them again later. Also, it would make no sense for Matthew to record the same blind healing event twice. I believe that these are two different blind men in two different places.
According to Matthew 20:29-34, and Mark 10:46-52, the miracle took place when they were ‘leaving’ Jericho. According to Luke 18:35-43, it appears the miracle took place as the Lord was ‘approaching’ Jericho.
At that time, there were two cities named Jericho, the city destroyed by Joshua, Joshua 6:24-26, which was rebuilt and destroyed several times, and one subsequently built a little further west by Herod the Great. The ruins of these are still evident. The curing of the blind men could have taken place after the Lord had passed through the toll of old Jericho and before he entered Herod’s Jericho.
Bible critics point out that the accounts of the healing of the blind men at Jericho as recorded by Matthew and Mark on the one hand, and Luke on the other, reveal ‘an apparent discrepancy’. The verses we should read are, Luke 18:35 / Matthew 20:29, and Mark 10:46. This appears to be a very clear contradiction. Is it possible to reconcile the two accounts? Well, I suggest that if we spend a short time looking at Jericho’s history and geography, we shall find it easier to resolve the problem.
Although this event is one of only two references to Jericho found in the Gospels, we must remember that it was a city that, by that time, had already existed for many centuries. This is a fact firmly established by archaeological research.
The first excavation of the Jericho site was carried out by a team of German archaeologists in the years 1907 to 1909, and their work was followed by an expedition by the British School of Archaeology led by Professor John Garstang, which lasted from 1929 to 1936, and which was followed in 1952 by that of the American archaeologist, Kathleen Kenyon. The latest and I believe the last work on what is known as ‘The Garstang Trench’ was done in 1957, after which the political climate in Palestine virtually ended the archaeological work of foreign nationals.
However, the most important result to emerge from this work was the discovery of the earliest stratified levels revealing human occupation, ever found at any archaeological site anywhere in the world. The mound at Ancient Jericho has revealed periods of human occupation down to a level of forty-five feet, and scholars now believe that the top, most evidence of human occupation of the site occurred about 1700 B.C., whilst the lowest remains, found on the bedrock of the trench, are thought to date from 7000 B.C.
Remember, that the current site of ancient Jericho is actually a mound that ‘grew’ through thousands of years. It ‘grew’ simply because when the original settlement built on the bedrock, was abandoned, those who later resettled the site did not clear it but merely built upon it.
In this way, the level of the occupied site was raised, strata upon strata, until it became the mound it is today. The various levels can be clearly seen on the sides of the forty-five-feet deep trench. This means that Jericho was an ancient Canaanite city long before it was destroyed by Joshua, Joshua 4:24, and there is evidence that, after its destruction by the Israelite army, in the course of its long history, the city was destroyed several times. After the city had been conquered, it was given to the tribe of Benjamin, Joshua 18:21.
Later, during the time of the Judges, it was occupied by the Moabites, led by their King Eglon, at which time it was known as ‘The City of the Palms’, Judges 1:16 / Judges 3:13. Later still, we read in 1 Kings 16:34, that it was ‘rebuilt’ by Hiel of Bethel, in the time of King Ahab. And it was yet again destroyed at the time of the Babylonian Captivity, and later rebuilt once more.
It was during the Inter-Testamental Period that Jericho came under Roman control and was governed by a ‘Captain’, ‘Strategos’, in Latin, and during its time under the Romans, the city was given to Cleopatra, by Mark Anthony, and she ‘leased’ it to Herod the Great for two hundred talents.
King Herod then built a new city south of the old one, complete with a castle, an amphitheatre, a hippodrome, and beautiful gardens with various water features, and Jericho became his winter residence. In fact, this is where he died in 4 B.C. This city, known as ‘Herodian Jericho’, later suffered the fate of earlier cities. It was destroyed by the Emperor Vespasian, in 68 A.D. But the important fact is that this city, virtually adjoining the old site, was the city that Jesus knew.
We could continue to follow Jericho’s turbulent history through succeeding centuries, turbulent because it was destroyed and rebuilt several times. Muslims destroyed it in 638 A.D. Egyptian soldiers destroyed it in 1840. In 1871, it was destroyed by fire. And after each destruction, it was rebuilt.
Although it would be interesting to study this later history, what concerns us at the moment is the fact that the miraculous healing occurred when Jesus was making his way to Jerusalem for the last time, after leaving Galilee in the north, Matthew 19:1. Jericho was the last halt for pilgrims when they travelled to The City of David from Galilee and Perea. They came by way of Jericho, to avoid passing through Samaria, and Jesus, descending from the north, would first enter and pass through what archaeologists call ‘Canaanite Jericho’ that is our ‘old Jericho’, where the ‘Garstang Trench’ has been excavated, and he would then enter ‘Herodian Jericho’.
In other words, there was a point at which he left the ruins of the ancient city and passed into the modern city built by Herod. When we take into consideration the geographical proximity of the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ cities, it is not difficult to reconcile the statements made by the Gospel writers, He was ‘leaving’ Canaanite Jericho and ‘entering’ Herodian Jericho. The Gospel records, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, contain no contradictions when we take into consideration such matters as their geographical and historical setting.
Matthew mentions that there were two blind men, Matthew 20:30. In Mark’s account of this healing, he mentions only the outspoken blind man of the two who approached Jesus, that is, Bartimaeus, Mark 10:46. Luke records that there was one blind man, Luke 18:35.
I have no difficulty accepting that there were as Matthew states, two blind men healed, Matthew 20:30. This is stated so plainly that there can be no argument. The reason why Mark specifically names just one of them, Bartimaeus, is that he was apparently well-known in the Jericho region. This is suggested by the fact that the Greek text of Mark 10:46, translates quite literally as ‘the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus the blind beggar’.
The naming of the father in this way probably indicates that he was a man of some standing in Jericho. Notice, also, the use of the definite article, ‘the blind beggar’, not ‘a blind beggar’. There would be little point in naming the father and son in this way if they were unknown in the community. This also suggests that the healing of Bartimaeus was given more prominence than that of his blind, anonymous companion because he was a familiar figure in Jericho.
It was quite common for beggars, whether blind or otherwise disabled, to become familiar figures in the towns and cities in which they lived. We have examples of this in John 9:1-41, which records the healing of another blind man, and also in the account of the curing of the lame man, mentioned in Acts 4:22-24, both were clearly very familiar figures. Again, it may even be that Bartimaeus was the more vociferous, more vocal, of the two blind men in clamouring for the attention of Jesus. This seems to be suggested in Mark’s account.
We know that blindness is a horrible disability today but in Bible times it must have been so much worse. There was no way you could work and no benefit system to help you, which meant you had no way to sustain yourself. There was no Braille available.
A blind man in Bible times wasn’t permitted to approach the altar or give offerings to the Lord, which meant they could never become priests, Leviticus 21:18-23. God however, instituted some measures so that the needs of a blind person could be met and ensured that no one would mistreat them or take advantage of them, Deuteronomy 27:18. It’s probable that these two blind men were beggars who looked for help from anyone who passed by.
Coffman, in his commentary, says the following, concerning being blind.
‘From various Old Testament passages, it is clear that blindness is a type of sin, Deuteronomy 28:29 / Isaiah 59:10 / Job 12:25 / Zephaniah 1:17 / Isaiah 29:8 / Ephesians 5:8 / Matthew 15:14. Several examples of Jesus’ restoring sight to the blind are recorded and were prophetically included as a positive mark of the Messiah’s power when he should be revealed. Isaiah said of the Messiah and his times, ‘then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,’ Isaiah 35:5.’
As Jesus and His disciples passed through Jericho, two blind men were begging by the side of the road, Mark specifically names one of them. A blind man named Bartimaeus, whose names means ‘son of Timaeus’, was sitting by the roadside begging, Luke 18:35 / Matthew 20:29-30 / Mark 10:46.
When they heard it was Jesus of Nazareth, as opposed to any other Jesus, he begun to shout out, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’ Luke 18:36-38 / Matthew 20:30 / Mark 10:47. The crowds tried to silence him, Luke 18:39 / Matthew 20:31 / Mark 10:48, thinking that the Lord should not be bothered with such unimportant people, but he shouted all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ Luke 18:39 / Matthew 20:31 / Mark 10:48.
‘Son of David’ was a common Jewish term that was used in reference to the Messiah, Luke 1:31-32. He cried out his belief that Jesus was the Messiah. His outcry would be the work of all disciples after the events of Acts 2. Since Jesus fulfilled all prophecies concerning the Messiah, then He is the Messiah.
Their plea would be that Israel accepts Him as the Messiah. On His way to the cross, Jesus received this proclamation of who He was. He was the Prophet, the Seed of the woman who was the fulfilment of all messianic prophecies, Genesis 3:15 / Luke 24:44.
It’s interesting to note that these blind men recognised who Jesus was, but the theologians of Jerusalem who claimed to know the Scriptures couldn’t understand what they clearly saw. They recognised that Jesus was the Son of David, the Messiah, Isaiah 9:7 / Matthew 6:7 / Matthew 6:11 / Matthew 6:20 / Matthew 6:28 / Matthew 6:24 / Revelation 22:16.
Clarke, in his commentary, says the following concerning the words, ‘Son of David.’
‘Son of David was the same as if they had called him Messiah. Two things here are worthy of remark: 1. That it was a generally received opinion at this time in Judea, that the Messiah should be son of David, John 7:42. 2. That Jesus Christ was generally and incontestably acknowledged as coming from this stock, Matthew 12:23.’
Jesus stopped and called for the blind men to come to Him, Luke 18:40 / Matthew 20:32, understandably Bartimaeus was really excited about this as he throws his cloak to the side and runs to Jesus, Mark 10:49-50. Jesus asks them what they want, and their request was simple, they wanted to be able to see again, Luke 18:41 / Matthew 20:32-33 / Mark 10:51.
Jesus has compassion on them and tells them to go, their faith has healed them, and immediately they received their sight, Luke 18:42-43 / Matthew 20:34 / Mark 10:52. Notice also that they began to follow Him, Luke 18:43 / Matthew 20:34 / Mark 10:52. Few rich men followed the Lord, Mark 10:17-22, but many of the poor and downtrodden did. Its not surprising that the many people who witnessed the miracle praised God, Luke 18:43.
Imagine being transformed from a life of darkness to a life of light, Luke 4:18. Assuming they were blind from birth, imagine these blind men going home and seeing their families or children for the first time. Imagine seeing colour for the first time. Imagine them being eligible to become priests, approaching the altar and giving their offerings to the Lord, Leviticus 21:18-23.
I have a good friend who is physically blind and when I spoke to him about his disability, he said, ‘don’t feel sorry for me because I’m physically blind, feel sorry for those who are spiritually blind’. His words are very true, Jesus often spoke to the religious leaders of His day and called them blind, Matthew 15:14 / John 9:39.
We may not be able to miraculously heal people of blindness today, but we should continue to preach the Gospel to all people whose minds have been blinded by the evil one, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4. Jesus doesn’t want to just heal us of our sin, He wants to transform our lives, Romans 12:2 / 2 Corinthians 3:18 / 2 Corinthians 5:17.