Was God’s finished creation perfect?

by Dr Jonathan D Sarfati

People who want to fit millions of years into the Bible have to accept death before Adam’s sin. Some do this by arguing that animal death isn’t inconsistent with a perfect creation, and others argue that the original creation wasn’t perfect. The latter do this by arguing that tov meod (very good) in Genesis 2 means only that creation was very well-suited to the purpose for which God created it, not absolute perfection.

But this doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The Bible clearly teaches that the days of Creation Week were normal length days,¹ the chronogenealogies² of Genesis 5 and 11³ plus other biblical data point to an age of about 6,000 years.⁴ And Jesus taught that God made man and woman “from the beginning of creation” not billions of years afterwards.⁵

The Bible also teaches that humans and animals were created vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30), andIsaiah 11 and 65 allude to this Edenic state of ‘no hurting or destroying’. But the fossil record shows carnivory, a curious blind spot of some old-earth apologists who try to combine their long-age dogma with original vegetarianism.

Also, the rock layers which are said to be evidence of billions of years have fossils in them. Fossils are of course evidence of dead things—both humans and animals.⁶ But the Bible consistently teaches that death is the result of sin (Romans 5:12–21,⁷ 6:23, 8:19–25,⁸ 1 Corinthians 15:21–22⁹).¹⁰ The Bible also teaches that humans and animals were created vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30), and Isaiah 11 and 65 allude to this Edenic state of “no hurting or destroying”.¹¹But the fossil record shows carnivory,¹² a curious blind spot of some old-earth apologists who try to combine their long-age dogma with original vegetarianism.¹³ From all this biblical teaching, the fossils must have been formed after Adam sinned, which means this ‘evidence’ of long ages is fallacious. The biblical explanation is the global Flood of Noah’s time.

The second point is also part of a ‘big picture’. God is perfect, so He created things perfect; anything imperfect is due to sin, not to the way God made it originally. Indeed, God calls His creation “good” (Hebrew טוב tôv) seven times in Genesis 1, and seven is the biblical number of perfection. Furthermore, the seventh time, after God finished His creative work, He declared the finished product “very good” (Genesis 1:31, Hebrew מאד טוב tôv me’od). As will be shown, this is a strong indicator, especially with the explicit teachings above, that the world originally had no death or disease. This is enough to refute ideas of millions of years, because such views put the fossil record in this ‘very good’ world. This would entail that cancer and gout are ‘very good’.

The above biblical teaching is so clear that long agers have only two alternatives:

1. Deny the biblical teaching altogether, such as the theistic evolutionists in BioLogos.¹⁴
2. Claim a high view of Scripture, but try to explain it away, such as the progressive creationists like Hugh Ross. The rest of this article deals with his arguments, and is largely taken from chapter 6 of my bookRefuting Compromise (2004, 2011), a refutation of Ross and long-age teachings.

“The creation was merely very good, not perfect”

Ross and his staff argue that “very good” really means only that it was perfect for what it was intended for, but not that there was no death or disease.¹⁵ Their outline gives some other examples of the phrase, and I’ve added the context of what it was describing in square brackets:

‘God’s very good creation does not mean that it is “perfect”. Most occurrences of this phrase (me’od tov) are translated as “very beautiful” or “very wonderful”—Genesis 24:16 [Rebekah’s beauty], Numbers 14:7 [the promised land], Judges 18:9 [land of Laish/Dan], 2 Samuel 11:2 [Bathsheba’s beauty], 1 Kings 1:6 [Adonijah’s handsomeness], Jeremiah 24:2,3 [figs].’¹⁶

But such a justification shows that he could benefit from elementary training in exegesis, e.g. that given in the book Exegetical Fallacies, by the evangelical New Testament scholar Dr D.A. Carson. Ross commits a classic case of a fallacy that Carson called:

Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field. The fallacy in this instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of the word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with it the word’s entire semantic range.¹⁷

The specific context ofGenesis 1 shows what God meant by me’od tov. The ‘very good’ was the culmination of Creation Week, where God had already pronounced things ‘good’ six times. This is a clear indication of no principle of actual evil in what God had made.

I.e. the fact that the phrase “very good” can have these meanings in some contexts does not mean it can have these meanings in any context. Certainly, the phrase “very good” can be used of people and things in a fallen world.¹⁸ But the specific context of Genesis 1 shows what God meant by me’od tov. The ‘very good’ was the culmination of Creation Week, where God had already pronounced things ‘good’ six times. This is a clear indication of no principle of actual evil in what God had made.

There is a Hebrew word תמים (tāmîm) that’s usually translated ‘perfect’ or ‘without blemish’ (it’s in the plural form because the phrase is “perfect in his generations”). Ross makes a lot of the fact that this is not used to describe Creation, and he correctly points out that it is used of Noah. But this actually undercuts Ross, because it demonstrates that even tāmîm is used of fallen people, including one who later got drunk (Genesis 9:21). Rather, John Gill comments on Genesis 6:9:

… and perfect in his generations; not that he was perfectly holy, or free from sin, but was a partaker of the true grace of God; was sincere and upright in heart and life; lived an unblemished life and conversation, untainted with the gross corruptions of that age he lived in, which he escaped through the knowledge, grace, and fear of God; and therefore it is added, that he was holy, upright, and blameless “in his generations”: among the men of the several generations he lived in, as in the generation before the flood, which was very corrupt indeed, and which corruption was the cause of that; and in the generation after the flood: or “in his ages”, in the several stages of his life, in youth and in old age; he was throughout the whole course of his life a holy good man.

The singular form תם (tām) is also used of Job (Job 1:1), who was likewise not sinless. But the words refer to completeness and moral integrity, not sinless perfection, since we likewise know that Job confessed his own sinfulness. The word is actually also used of Jacob inGenesis 25:27. However, most Bible translators don’t seem to want to admit that he is described so favorably, and instead translate tām as ‘plain’ or ‘quiet’ instead of ‘perfect’.

So there is no reason that tamim would have been used instead of me’od tov to describe a sinless creation. Rather, tov me’od, as the culmination of many occurrences of tov, makes more sense when used to describe the goodness of God’s creation and the physical perfection of its completion.

No actual evil in the finished creation

Now it’s obvious that the creation didn’t stay good. But is this a detraction from God’s declaration? No. The point is that when God created moral beings, there was no actual evil. In fact, evil is not a ‘thing’ in itself, even though it is real. Rather, evil is the privation of some good that something ought to have, as Augustine pointed out. Murder is a removal of a good human life. Adultery is a privation of a good marriage. Good is fundamental and can exist in itself; evil cannot exist in itself. It is always a parasite on good. For example, a wound cannot exist without a body, and the very idea of a wound presupposes the concept of a healthy body. Blindness in a human is a physical evil, because humans are supposed to see (but oysters are not, so blindness is not an evil for oysters). Also, evil actions are done to achieve things like wealth, power and sexual gratification, which the evildoer finds ‘good’ (meaning ‘pleasing’). Evil things are not done as ends in themselves, but good things are. Now, since evil is not a thing, God did not create evil [although He does create calamity as He has a right to do, and this is the correct understanding of Isaiah 45:7].

Wikipedia.org

Power of Contrary Choice

But God created both Adam and Eve, as well as the angels, with the power of contrary choice. This means that they had the power to make a choice contrary to their own nature. Even God does not have this power, for He cannot sin and go against His perfectly holy nature (Habakkuk 1:13, 1 John 1:5).

The power of contrary choice was a good, with no actual evil, but it meant that there was thepossibility of evil. But, evidently, God saw that a greater good would come from it, in that the result would be creatures who genuinely love God freely. Actually, real love must be free—if I programmed my computer to flash ‘I love you’ on the screen, it would hardly be genuine love. But Adam’s misuse of this good resulted in actual evil befalling him and the rest of the material creation, over which he had dominion (Genesis 1:28).

Satan’s Fall

Many commentators regard Ezekiel 28:11–19 as referring to the fall of the being we now call Satan (Hebrew for ‘adversary’).¹⁹ Evidently, Satan had also misused his power of contrary choice before Adam’s Fall, because he could control the snake as the instrument of temptation (Revelation 12:9). One possible interpretation of Revelation 12:4 is that a third of the angels joined in the rebellion²⁰—they would have become the demons referred to in Scripture. But the fall of Satan and the demons was clearly not during the ‘very good’ Creation Week. Similarly, God blessed the 7th Day (Genesis 2:3). There was no hint of any sin or curse on this day. Therefore, Satan must have fallen after this. But this was still before the fall of man, the timing of which can be constrained, as will be explained.

Mankind’s Fall

Eve was deceived by the Serpent’s temptation, and in turn gave the forbidden fruit to Adam, who was not deceived, but still ate (1 Timothy 2:13–14). So when did this happen? Not too long, as can be deduced from the revealed history of the first humans. Adam and Eve were commanded to “fill the Earth” (Genesis 1:28), and by definition, before they fell, they must have been obedient. Further, they were created “very good”, which implies physically perfect bodies, which means that they would have been capable of conceiving immediately, at least within the first menstrual cycle. However, their first child (Cain) was conceived after the Fall, and was indisputably sinful.

In the original creation, God knew evil in the same way as an oncologist knows about cancer—not by personal experience but by knowledge about it (in God’s case, by foreknowledge). But after Adam and Eve sinned, they knew evil in the same way as a cancer sufferer knows cancer—by sad personal experience.

Therefore, their Fall must have occurred a very short time, perhaps three to four weeks at most, after Creation Week. Corollary: we can also restrict the timing of Satan’s fall to the narrow window between the blessed 7th Day and the Fall of mankind.

As a result of his sin, Adam and his descendants acquired a sin nature (Romans 5:12 ff.), and lost the power of contrary choice. But in this case, it now meant that they could no longer go against their sin nature (Psalm 51:5, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 7:15–25). So people today don’t get their sin natures by sinning; they sin because of their sin nature.

The potentiality of evil, but not the actuality, is also illustrated by the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the original creation, God knew evil in the same way as an oncologist knows about cancer—not by personal experience but by knowledge about it (in God’s case, by foreknowledge). But after Adam and Eve sinned, they knew evil in the same way as a cancer sufferer knows cancer—by sad personal experience.²¹

In the Eternal State, redeemed humanity will no longer have the potential for sin. So in this sense, the Eternal State, with the new creation of the new heavens and new earth, will be even better than Eden.

In summary, following Augustine:

Adam and Eve were created with the ability not to sin.

After the Fall, humans had no ability not to sin.

In the Eternal State, humans will have no ability to sin.

Conclusion

The “young” earth is actually a deduction from a number of biblical teachings, not a starting point. In particular, it follows from the biblical big picture that God created a perfect creation that fell because of sin. Without this “bad news”, the good news of the Gospel with theredemption from sin lacks any foundation, and dangles rootlessly in a vacuum.²²

Related Articles

• The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe
• The Genesis 5 and 11 fluidity question
• Cosmic and universal death from Adam’s fall: an exegesis of Romans 8:19–23a
• The carnivorous nature and suffering of animals
• Did God create over billions of years?
• How does the Bible teach 6,000 years?
• Why Bible history matters

References

1. Sarfati, J., The numbering pattern of Genesis, Journal of Creation 17(2):60–61, 2003; creation.com/numbering—after Steinmann, A., אחד as an ordinal number and the meaning of Genesis 1:5, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) 45(4):577–584, 2002. Return to text.
2. Sarfati, J. Biblical chronogenealogies, J. Creation 17(3):14–18, December 2003, creation.com/chronogenealogies. Return to text.
3. Freeman, T., The Genesis 5 and 11 fluidity question, J. Creation 19(2):83–90, 2005, creation.com/fluidity; Return to text.
4. Cosner, L., How does the Bible teach 6,000 years? Creation 35(1):54–55, 2013; creation.com/6000-years. Return to text.
5. Wieland, C., Jesus on the age of the earth: Jesus believed in a young world, but leading theistic evolutionists say He is wrong, Creation 34(2):51–54, 2012; creation.com/jesus-age-earth. Return to text.
6. Sarfati, J., The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe—Hugh Ross’s blunders on plant death in the Bible, J. Creation 19(3):62, 2005; creation.com/plant_death. Return to text.
7. Cosner, L., Romans 5:12–21: Paul’s view of literal Adam, J. Creation 22(2):105–107, 2008; creation.com/romans5. Return to text.
8. Smith, H., Cosmic and universal death from Adam’s Fall: an exegesis of Romans 8:19–23a, J. Creation 21(1):75–85, 2007; creation.com/romans8. Return to text.
9. Cosner, L., Christ as the last Adam: Paul’s use of the Creation narrative in 1 Corinthians 15, J. Creation 23(3):70–75, 2009; creation.com/1-corinthians-15.Return to text.
10. Cosner, L. and Bates, G., Did God create over billions of years? And why is it important? creation.com/billions, 6 October 2011. Return to text.
11. Gurney, R.J.M., The carnivorous nature and suffering of animals, J. Creation 18(3):70–75, 2004; creation.com/carniv. Return to text.
12. Sarfati, J. and Cosner, L., ‘Carnivorous’ dinosaurs had plant diet: And: More challenges to dino-to-bird dogma, creation.com/ veg-dinos, 27 January 2011.Return to text.
13. See the discussion on Norman Geisler’s answer to the apostate Charles Templeton in Sarfati, J., Shame on Charisma! Leading Pentecostal magazine promotes Hugh Ross compromise and denigrates biblical creationists, creation.com/charisma, 29 May 2003. Return to text.
14. Cosner, L., Evolutionary syncretism: a critique of Biologos, creation.com/biologos, 7 September 2010. Return to text.
15. Ross, H., Rana, F., Samples, K., Harman, M. and Bontrager, K., Life and Death in Eden, The Biblical and scientific evidence for animal death before the Fall, audio cassette set, Reasons to Believe, 2001. Return to text.
16. Scriptural outline to Life and Death in Eden (Ref. 18). Return to text.
17. Carson, D.A., Exegetical Fallacies, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 2nd Ed., p. 60, 1996. Return to text.
18. At least Ross isn’t as bad as some anticreationists, who claim, on the ‘authority’ of the ancient anti-Christian Kabbalist Nachmanides, that me’od tov really means ‘mostly good’. As this hasn’t even a smidgen of lexical support, and even Ross doesn’t make such an absurd claim, it need detain us no further. Return to text.
19. MacArthur, J., The Battle for the Beginning, W Publishing Group, pp. 199–204, 2001. Return to text.
20. MacArthur, Ref. 19, p. 203. Return to text.
21. MacArthur, Ref. 19, p. 211. Return to text.
22. Good news, creation.com/goodnews. Return to text.

Creation Ministries International  Dear  Augustine: You are welcome to post CMI articles on the mentioned website, as long as you agree not to change any of the content and reference creation.com and the relevant authors, as you have indicated.

The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues. It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Matthew Chapter 19

1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

1. Isn’t this a loaded question? for any and every reason?

  The Pharisees came to tempt or to test Him. They were after Him, trying to put Him in opposition to the Mosaic system. They brought a problem which is just as difficult today as it was then. The question of the Pharisees was anything but sincere; they were asking it to test him. Jesus was now in the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas (i.e., Judea and beyond the Jordan) and it is likely that the Pharisees were hoping he might answer the question of divorce in a way similar to John the Baptist and so suffer the same fate as John, i.e., death at the hands of Herod (cf. 14:1-12). The Machaerus fortress where Herod Antipas had imprisoned and beheaded John was nearby, east of the north part of the Dead Sea. Undoubtedly the Pharisees hoped Jesus would say something that they could use against Him. CN

There was a significant debate between Pharisaical parties on the correct interpretation of Moses’ divorce regulations (Deut. 24:1), as noted in this excerpt from the Mishnah, Gittin 9.10: “The school of Shammai says: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her. … And the school of Hillel says: [He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him. …ESV

The Mosaic Law had permitted divorce on a broad basis: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house”(Deut. 24:1).

Uncleanness: Heb “nakedness of a thing.” The Hebrew phrase עֶרְוַת דָּבָר (’ervat davar) refers here to some gross sexual impropriety. Though the term usually has to do only with indecent exposure of the genitals, it can also include such behavior as adultery 

The Jewish doctors of Jewish theology gave great license in the matter of divorce. Among them, a man might divorce his wife if she displeased him even in the dressing of his victuals! (Burnt Toast) Rabbi Akiba said, “If any man saw a woman handsomer than his own wife, he might put his wife away; because it is said in the law, If she find not favor in his eyes.”

Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, in his Life, tells us, with the utmost coolness and indifference, “About this time I put away my wife, who had borne me three children, not being pleased with her manners.”

A writing of divorcement—The following is the common form of such a writing.

“On the day of the week A. in the month B. in the year C. from the beginning of the world, according to the common computation in the province of D., I, N. the son of N. by whatever name I am called, of the city E. with entire consent of mind, and without any compulsion, have divorced, dismissed, and expelled thee—thee, I say, M. the daughter of M. by whatever name thou art called, of the city E. who wast heretofore my wife: but now I have dismissed thee—thee, I say, M. the daughter of M. by whatever name thou art called, of the city E. so as to be free, and at thine own disposal, to marry

whomsoever thou pleasest, without hindrance from any one, from this day for ever. Thou art therefore free for any man. Let this be thy bill of divorce from me, a writing of separation and expulsion, according to the law of Moses and Israel.

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

2. How does Jesus clarify this issue?

Jesus answered the question not on the basis of rabbinic custom and the debate over Deut 24:1, but rather from the account of creation and God’s original design. The Jewish term for marriage was Kiddushin. Kiddushin meant sanctification or consecration. It was used to describe something which was dedicated to God as his exclusive and peculiar possession. Anything totally surrendered to God was kiddushin. This meant that in marriage the husband was consecrated to the wife, and the wife to the husband. The one became the exclusive possession of the other, as much as an offering became the exclusive possession of God. That is what Jesus meant when he said that for the sake of marriage a man would leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife; and that is what he meant when he said that man and wife became so totally one that they could be called one flesh. That was God’s ideal of marriage as the old Genesis story saw it (Gen 2:24), and that is the ideal which Jesus restated. Clearly that idea has certain consequences. BDSN

3. Then why did the Mosaic Law permit divorce?

Their citing Moses (Deut 24:1) and the bill of divorcement in opposition to Jesus showed their misunderstanding of that regulation. For the provision was a protection of wives from men’s caprice, not an authorization for husbands to divorce at will. —WBC

Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts—It is dangerous to tolerate the least evil, though prudence itself may require it: because toleration, in this case, raises itself insensibly into permission, and permission soon sets up for command. Moses perceived that if divorce were not permitted, in many cases, the women would be exposed to great hardships through the cruelty of their husbands: for so the word σκληροκαρδια (sklerokardia (sklay-rok-ar-dee’-ah) n.

1. hard-heartedness2. (specially), destitution of (spiritual) perception), is understood in this place by some learned men.The phrase underscores the truth that divorce is only a last-resort response to hard-hearted sexual immorality (v. 9).  The stress is certainly on the word “permitted.” Thus Jesus clearly sides with the Shammai school of interpretation

From the beginning it was not so—The Jews named the books of the law from the first word in each. Genesis they always term Bereshith, ‏בראשית‎, which is the first word in it, and signifies, In the beginning. It is probable that our Lord speaks in this way here, In Bereshith it was not so, intimating that the account given in Genesis is widely different. There was no divorce between Eve and Adam; nor did he or his family practice polygamy. But our Lord, by the beginning, may mean the original intention or design.—A CC

In our society the word fundamental has a negative connotation. We have a tendency to reinterpret some of the basic doctrines of God and spin them for our own evil purposes. Jesus had a tendency to always go back to the basic foundational principles and bring the critic back to the original intent. This is the issue with regard to our US Constitution. Should law be interpreted in light of the original intent of the founders or should law be interpreted in light of our changing society. Jesus would be viewed as a strict constructionist.

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

4. Maybe we should all remain single and celibate?

For various reason some people can and should remain single and celibate, but Jesus makes it clear that if God gifts us that way then we should pursue that lifestyle, but if gifted with the desire and ability to marry we should do that.

The disciples’ conclusion in v. 10: “it is better not to marry.” This teaching is not meant for everyone. Jesus then gives three examples of persons for whom it is meant in v. 12.  born that way. Impotent. made that way. By castration. have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.Those who have voluntarily adopted a celibate lifestyle in order to give themselves more completely to God’s work. Under certain circumstances celibacy is recommended in Scripture (cf. 1Co 7:25–38), but it is never presented as superior to marriage. NIVSN

The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs.4 The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife.5 Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.6 1 Now regarding the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. 2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husbandI say this as a concession, not as a command.7 But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. But God gives to some the gift of marriage, and to others the gift of singleness. 8 So I say to those who aren’t married and to widows—it’s better to stay unmarried, just as I am.9 But if they can’t control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust. 1 Cor 7:1-9(NLT)

The Little Children and Jesus

13 Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

5. How can little children who know nothing of theology or the bible possess heaven?

They so easily believe and are not weighed down with false doctrine, skepticism and the care of the world. Children, who are so dependent, instinctively know there is a supreme provider.

“Because God has made us for Himself, our hearts are restless until they rest in Him.” — St. Augustine of Hippo

Adults are busy trying to satisfy this restlessness with all the things of the world.

The Rich Young Man

16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” 17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” 18 “Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” 20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” 28 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

6. Who is this man asking about eternal life?

A man described as rich by all three synoptics, as young by Matthew, and as a ruler by

Luke (18:18), asks Jesus what he must do to inherit “eternal life.” Mark (10:17) also

states that the man “ran up to him” and “fell on his knees before him.”

It should also be noted, that what Jesus says here is to a particular individual under a particular set of circumstances. Therefore, some of Jesus’ statements are not globally applicable to everyone.

7. This man was obviously a Jew, why would he ask such a question?

It is possible that the young man overheard Jesus comment about the little children “for kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” which prompted this question about eternal life.

what good thing.—The man evidently thought that there was some one thing of merit so exalted that by doing it he would secure eternal life. The question presupposes a dissatisfaction and uncertainty in regard to what other teachers have said. The teachers of the Mosaic Law were teaching that entry into Heaven was through personal effort and perfection with regard to the Mosaic Law, which was not what the law was for.

Romans 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Lawcomes the knowledge of sin.

He is far from the humble faith that characterizes all who belong to the kingdom (vv. 13-15) as evidenced by the faith of a little child. In addition, he appears to believe that one great deed will earn God’s favor and gain him eternal life. Apparently, this was a common.

8. Why does Jesus answer his question with a question?

In Mark 10:18 we are told that the young man addressed Jesus as “Good Teacher”. Jesus is probing the young man’s understanding of the concept of “goodness”. Since only God is good, does the young man understand that Jesus is God in the flesh? Does he understand the complete and utter perfection of God and how it compares to the sinful nature of humans?

9. Which of the commandments had the rich young ruler neglected?

Jesus listed all the commandments which referred to our relationships with other people, to which the man replied he has kept. Jesus then goes to the heart of the young man’s problem.

Exodus 20:3 (NASB) “You shall have no other gods before Me.

He had disobeyed the first and most important of the commandments. His priorities were out of order. He had put his relationship with God behind his relationship to possessions.

10. Why did the man go away sad?

He was convicted by the words of Jesus. When faced with the choice as to what was most important in his life the young man knew he was not ready to put God first over his wealth. That he went away sorrowful rather than angry, speaks well for the young man. A man of extreme avarice, or of little

concern for eternal life, or of little faith in Jesus, would have been offended at the extravagance of the demand. His sorrow shows that he had respect for the authority of Jesus, that he really desired to seek eternal life under his guidance, and that it required a struggle to give up his purpose even for the sake of his great possessions. This is an example not of the worst class of rich men, but of that class whose love of their possessions barely preponderates over their desire to serve God with unswerving devotion.

11. Why did the disciples ask “who then can be saved”?

Again they were under the impression that people of wealth were favored of God and naturally would be the most worthy to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The poor were viewed as less favored and less worthy in God’s eyes and now Jesus is telling them that the rich must repudiate their wealth in order to be saved. It didn’t make sense in their culture and worldview.

12. What’s all this about camels and needles and gates?

Jesus is painting a word picture here, illustrating the great difficulty those who have wealth are faced with when it comes to focusing on wealth as opposed to the things of God.

“Greed is good” “you must love money to get money” these are present day expression which most would not see a problem with in today’s society.

shall hardly enter.—Shall with difficulty(δυσκόλως)(duoskawlos) enter; that is, it will be difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

(The gate in Jerusalem known as “The Needle’s Eye” was built during the middle ages and was not in existence in Jesus’ day.) Jesus was saying rhetorically that it is impossible for a rich person to enter God’s kingdom, unless God (v. 26) intervenes. God must, through the power of the Holy Spirit break through the deception that the wealthy are living under. Like many things in life, wealth, fame, ambition, status, romantic love, education etc. only an intervention from God can turn an impossible situation into one where we see our error and are able to correct it.

13. “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” Well, what about it?

Far from being destitute, we have not lost anything which will not be restored multiple time more than it’s worth.

Matthew 10:42 (NET) And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple, I tell you the truth, he will not lose his reward.

 

1 Corinthians 6:3 (NKJV) Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?

1 Peter 2:9 (NKJV) But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

·    .   

 ESV………….ESV Study Bible Notes

·        MSN…….MacArthur NASB Study Notes

·        NIVSN…..NIV Study Notes.

·        JVM ….J Vernon McGee,

·        ACC …. Adam Clarke’s Commentary

·        BN …..Barnes Notes

·        WBC……   Wycliffe Bible Commentary

·        CN …… Constables Notes

·        IC……….Ironside Commentary

·        NET………Net Bible Study Notes.

·        JFB…………..Jamieson  Fausset  Brown Commentary

·        VWS……………..Vincent Word Studies

·        CMM………….Commentary on Matthew and Mark

·        BDSN…………..Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

·         “Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.