4.13.2013 COST OF DISCIPLESHIP II

chapter 2 THE CALL TO DISCIPLESHIP

and as He passed by He saw levi, the son of alphaeus,
sitting at the place of toll, and He saith unto him,
FOLLOW ME. and he arose and followed Him. mk. 2.14

the call goes forth and is at once followed by the response of obedience.
the response of the disciples is an act of obedience,
not a confession of faith in Jesus.
how could the call immediately evoke obedience?
the story is a stumbling block for the natural reason,
and it is no wonder that frantic attempts
have been made to separate the two events.
by hook or by crook
a bridge must be found between them.
something must have happened in between,
some psychological or historical event.
thus we get the stupid question:
surely the publican must have known Jesus before,
and that previous acquaintance explains his readiness
to hear the master's call.
unfortunately our text is ruthlessly silent on this point,
 and in fact it regards the immediate sequence
of call and response as a matter of crucial importance.
i9t displays not the slightest interest in the psychological reasons
for the man's religious decisions.
and why?
for the simple reason that the cause behind the
immediate
following of call by response is Jesus Christ Himself.
it is Jesus who calls, and because it is Jesus,
levi follows at once.
this encounter is a testimony to the
absolute, direct and unaccountable authority of Jesus.
there is no need of any preliminaries
and no other consequence but obedience to the call.
because Jesus is the Christ,
He has the authority to call
and to demand obedience to His word.
Jesus summons men to follow him
not as a teacher or a pattern of the good life,
but as the Christ, the Son of God.
in this short text Jesus Christ
and His claim are proclaimed to men.
not a word of praise is given
to the disciple for his decision for Christ.
we are not expected to contemplate the disciple,
but only him who calls
and His absolute authority.
according to our text, there is no road to faith of discipleship,
no other road
-only obedience to the call of Jesus.

and what does the text inform us about the content of discipleship?
FOLLOW ME, run along behind me!
that is all. to follow in His steps is something which is void of all content.
it gives us no intelligible programme
for a way of life,
no goal or ideal to strive after.
it is not a cause which human calculation might deem worthy of our devotion,
even the devotion of ourselves.
what happens?
at the call, levi leaves all that he has
-but not because he thinks that he might be doing something worth while,
but simply for the sake of the call.
otherwise he cannot follow in the steps of Jesus.
this act on levi's part has not the slightest value in itself,
it is quite devoid of significance and unworthy of consideration.
the disciple simply buns his boats and goes ahead.
he is called out, and has to forsake his old life
ion order that he may 'exist' in the strictest sense of the word.
the old life is left behind, and
completely surrendered.
the disciple is dragged out of his relative security
into a life of ABSOLUTE INSECURITY
(that is, in truth,
into the absolute security and safety of
the fellowship with Jesus),
from a life which is observable and calculable
(it is, in fact, quite incalculable)
into a life where everything is unobservable and fortuitous
(that is, into one which is necessary and calculable),
out of the realm of finite
(which is in truth the infinite)
into the realm of infinite possiblilities
(which is the one liberating reality).
again it is no universal law.
rather is it the exact opposite of all legality.
it is nothing else than
bondage
to Jesus Christ
alone,
completely breaking through every programme, every ideal, every set of laws.
no other significance is possible,
since Jesus is the only significance.
beside Jesus
nothing has any significance.
He alone matters.

when we are called to follow Christ, we are summoned to an
exclusive attachment to His person.
the grace of His call
bursts all the bonds of legalism.
it is a gracious call, a gracious commandment.
it transcends the difference between the law and the gospel.
Christ calls, the disciple follows:
that is grace and commandment in one.
'i will walk at liberty, for i seek Thy commandments ps. 119.45

discipleship means adherence to Christ
and because Christ is the object of that adherence,
it must take the form of discipleship.
and abstract Christology,
a doctrinal system,
a general religious knowledge on the subject of grace
or on the forgiveness of sins,
render discipleship superfluous,
and in fact they positively exclude any idea of discipleship whatever
and are essentially inimical to the whole conception of following Christ.
with an abstract idea it is possible
to enter into  a relation of formal knowledge,
to become enthusiastic about it,
and perhaps even to put it into practice;
and it can never be followed by personal obedience.
chistianity without the living Christ
is inevitably christianity without discipleship,
and chrisitanity without discipleship
is always christianity without Christ.
it remains an abstract idea,
a myth which has a place for the fatherhood of God,
but omits Christ as the living Son.
and a christianity of that kind is nothing more or less than the end of discipleship.
in such a religion there is trust in God,
but no following of Christ.
because the son of God became man,
because He is the mediator,
for that reason alone
the only true relation we can have with Him is to follow Him.
discipleship is bound to Christ as the mediator, and where it is properly understood,
it necessarily implies faith in the son of God as the mediator.
only the mediator, the God man can call men to follow Him.

discipleship without Jesus Christ is a way of our own choosing.
it may be the ideal way.
it may even lead to martyrdom,
but it is devoid of all promise.
Jesus will certainly reflect it.

and they went to another village. and as they went in the way, a certain man said unto Him,
i will follow Thee withersoever Thou goest.
and Jesus said unto him,
the foxed have holes and the birds of heaven have nests, but the son of man hath not where to lay His head.
and He said unto another,
follow Me.
but he said,
Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
but He said unto him,
leave the dead to bury their dead, but go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God.
and another said,
i will follow Thee, Lord;
but suffer me first to bid farewell to them that are at my house.
but Jesus said unto him,
no man, having put his hand unto the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. lute 9. 57-62

the first disciple offers to follow Jesus without waiting to be called.
Jesus damps His ardour by warning him that he
does not know what he is doing.
in fact he is quite incapable of knowing.
that is the meaning of Jesus' answer
-He shows the would be disciple what life with Him involves.
we hear the words of one who is on His way to the cross,
whose whole life is summed up in the apostles' creed by the word
'suffered'
no man can choose such a life for himself.
no man can call himself to such a destiny, says Jesus,
and His words stays unanswered.
the gulf between a voluntary offer to follow
and genuine discipleship is clear.

but where Jesus calls, He bridges the widest gulf.
the second would be disciple wants to bury his father before he starts to follow.
he is held bound by the trammels of the law.
he knows what he wants and what he must do.
let him first fulfil the law and then let him follow.
a definite legal ordinance acts as a barrier between Jesus and the man He has called.
but the call of Jesus is stronger than the barrier.
at this critical moment nothing on earth,
however sacred,
must be allowed to come between Jesus and the man He has called
-not even the law itself.
now, if never before, the law must be broken for the sake of Jesus;
it forfeits all its rights if it acts as a barrier to discipleship.
\therefore Jesus emerges at this point as the opponent of the law
and command a man to follow Him.
only the Christ can speak in this fashion.
He alone has the last word.
His would be follower cannot kick against the pricks.
this call, this grace, is irresistible.

the third would be disciple, like the first,
thinks that following Chris means that he must
make the offer on his own initiative,
as if it were a career he had mapped out for himself.
there is, however, a difference between the first would be disciple
and the third, for the third is bold enough to stipulate his own terms.
unfortunately, however, he lands himself in a hopeless inconsistency,
for although he is ready enough to throw in his lot with Jesus,
he succeeds in putting up a barrier between himself and the master.
'suffer me first'.
he wants to follow, but feels obliged to insist on his own terms.
discipleship to him is a possibility which can only be realized
when certain conditions have been fulfilled.
this is to reduce discipleship to the level of the human understanding.
first you must do this and then you must do that.
there is a right time for everything.
the disciple places himself at the master's disposal,
but at the same time retains the right to dictate his won terms.
but then discipleship is no longer discipleship,
but a programme of our own to be arranged to suit ourselves
and to be judged in accordance with the standards of a rational ethic.
the trouble about this third would be disciple is
that at the very moment he expresses his willingness to follow,
he ceases to want to follow at all.
by making his offer on his own terms,
he alters the whole position,
for discipleship can tolerate no conditions which might
come between Jesus and our obedience to Him.
hence the third disciple finds himself at logger heads
not only with Jesus, but also with himself.
his desires conflict not only with what Jesus wants,
but also with what he wants himself.
he judges himself and decides against himself,
and all this by saying, 'suffer me first'.
the answer of Jesus graphically proves to him that
he is at variance with himself
and that excludes discipleship.
'n man having put his hand to the plough
and looking back,
is fit for the kingdom of God'

IF WE WOULD FOLLOW JESUS WE MUST TAKE CERTAIN DEFINITE STEPS.

the first step, which follows the call, cuts the disciple off from his previous existence.
the call to follow at once precludes a new situation.
to stay in the old situation makes discipleship impossible.
levi must leave the receipt of custom
and peter his nets
in order to follow Jesus.
one would have thought that nothing so drastic
was necessary at such an early stage.
could not Jesus have initiated the publican into some new religious experience
and leave them as they were before?
He could have done so, had He not been the incarnate Son of God.
but since He is the Christ,
He must make it clear from the start that His word is not an abstract doctrine,
but the recreation of the whole life of man.
the only right and proper way is quite literally to go with Jesus.
the call to follow implies that
THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY OF BELIEVING ON JESUS CHRIST
AND THAT IS BY LEAVING ALL AND GOING WITH THE INCARNATE SON OF GOD.

the first step places the disciple in the situation where filth is possible.
if he refuses to follow and stays behind, he does not lean how to believe.
he who is called must go out of his situation
in which he cannot believe,
into the situation in which, first and foremost,
faith is possible.
but this step is not the first stage of a career.
its sole justification is that it brings the disciple into fellowship with Jesus
which will be victorious.
so long as levi sits at the receipt of custom
and peter at his nets,
they could both pursue their trade honestly and dutifully,
and they might both enjoy religious experiences, old and new.
but if they want to believe in God,
the only way is to follow His incarnate Son.

until that day, everything had been different.
they could remain in obscurity, pursuing their work as the quiet of the land,
observing the law and waiting for the coming of the Messiah.
but now He has come and His call goes forth.
faith can no longer mean sitting still and waiting
-they must rise and follow Him.
the call frees the from all earthly ties,
and binds them to Jesus Christ alone.
they must burn their boats and plunge into absolute insecurity
in order to learn the demand and the gift of Christ.
had levi stayed at his post,
Jesus might have been his present help in trouble,
but not the Lord of his whole life.
in other words levi would never have learnt to believe.
the new situation must be created,
in which it is possible to believe on Jesus as God incarnate;
\that is the impossible situation in which everything is staked
solely on the world of Jesus.
peter had to leave the ship and risk his life on the sea.
in order to learn both his own weakness
and the almighty power of his Lord.
if peter had not taken the risk,
he would never have learnt the meaning of faith.
before he can believe, the utterly impossible
and ethically irresponsible situation on the waves of the ea must be displayed.
the road to faith passes through obedience to the call of Jesus.
unless a definite step is demanded,
the call vanishes into thin air,
and if men imagine that they can follow Jesus without
taking this step,
they are deluding themselves life fanatics.

it is an extremely hazardous procedure to distinguish
between a situation where faith is possible and
one where it is not.
we must first realize that there is nothing in the situation
to tell us to which category it belongs.
it is only the call of Jesus which makes it a situation where faith is possible.
secondly, a situation where faith is possible
can never be demonstrated from the human side.
discipleship is not an offer man makes to Christ.
it is only the call which creates the situation.
thirdly, this situation never possesses any intrinsic worth or merit of its own.
it is only through the call that it receives its justification.
last, but not least, the situation in which faith
is possible is itself only rendered possible through faith.

the idea of a situation in which faith is possible is only a way of stating
the facts of a case in which the following two propositions hold good
and are equally true:
ONLY HE WHO BELIEVES IS OBEDIENT,  and
ONLY HE WHO IS OBEDIENT BELIEVES.

it is quite unbiblical to hold the first proposition
without the second.
we think we understand when we hear that obedience is possible
only where there is faith.
does not obedience follow faith
as good fruit grows on a good tree?
first, faith, then obedience.
if by that we mean that it is faith which justifies
and not the act of obedience,
all well and good,
for that is the essential and unexceptionable
presupposition of all that follows.
if, however, we make a chronological distinction between faith and obedience,
and make obedience subsequent to faith,
we are divorcing the one from the other
-and then we get the practical question,
when must obedience begin?
obedience remains separated from faith.
from the point of view of justification
it is necessary thus to separate them,
but we must never lose sight of their essential unity.
for faith is only real when there is obedience,
never with out it,
and faith only becomes faith in the act of obedience.

since, then, we cannot adequately speak of obedience as
the consequence of faith,
and since we must never forget the indissoluble unity of the two,
we must place the one proposition
that only he who believes is obedient
alongside the other,
that only he who is obedient believes.
in the one case faith is the condition of obedience,
and in the other obedience is the condition of faith.
in exactly the same way in which obedience is called
the consequence of faith,
it must also be called the presupposition of faith.

only the obedient believe.
if we are to believe,
we must obey a concrete command.
without this preliminary step of obedience,
our faith will only be pious humbug,
and lead us to the grace which is not costly.
everything depends on the first step.
it has a unique quality of its own.
the first step of obedience makes peter leave his nets,
and later get out of the ship;
it calls upon the young man to leave his rightes.
only this new existence,
created through obedience,
can make faith possible.

this first step must be regarded to start with as an external work,
which effects the change from one existence to another.
it is a step within everybody's capacity,
for it lies within the limits of human freedom.
it is an act within the sphere of the natural law (justitia civilis)
and in that sphere man is free.
although peter cannot achieve his own conversion,
he can leave his nets.
in the gospels the very first step a man
must take is an act which radically affects
his whole existence.
the roman catholic church
demanded this step as an extraordinary possibility
which only monks could achieve,
while the rest of the faithful must content themselves
with an unconditional submission to the church and its ordinances.
the lutheran confessions also significantly recognize the first step.
having dealt effectively with the danger of pelagianism,
(denies original sin and asserts man's freedom of will, ie to be saved)
they find it both possible and necessary to leave room for
the first external act which is the essential preliminary to faith.
this step then takes the form of an invitation to come to the church
where the word of salvation is proclaimed.
to take this step it is not necessary to surrender one's freedom.
come to church!
you can do that of your own free will.
you can leave your home on a sunday morning
and come and hear the sermon.
if you will not, you are of your own free will
excluding yourself from the place where faith is a possibility.
thus the lutheran confessions show their awareness of a situation
where faith is a possibility, and of a situation where it is not.
admittedly they tend to soft pedal it as though they were
almost ashamed of it.
but there it is,
and it shows that they are just as aware as the gospels
of the importance of the first external step.

once we are sure of this point,
we must add at once that this step is ,
and can never be more than, a purely external act and a dead work of the law,
which can never of itself bring a man to Christ.
as an external act the new existence is no better than the old.
even at the highest estimate it can only achieve a new law of life,
a new way of living
which is poles apart from the new life with Christ.
if a drunkard signs the pledge,
or a rich man gives all his money away,
they are both of them freeing themselves from
their slavery to alcohol or riches,
but not from their bondage to themselves.
they are still moving in their own little orbit,
perhaps even more than they were before.
they are still subject to the commandment of works,
still as submerged in the death of the old life as they were before.
of course, the work has to be done,
but of itself it can never deliver them from
death, disobedience and ungodliness.
if we think our first step is the pre condition for faith and grace,
we are already judged by our work,
and entirely excluded from grace.
hence the term 'external work' includes
everything we are accustomed to call
'disposition' or 'good intention'...
if we take the first step with the deliberate intention of
placing ourselves in the situation where faith is possible,
even this possibility of faith will be nothing but a work.
the new life it opens to us is still a life
within the limits of our old existence,
and therefore a complete misapprehension
of the true nature of the new life.
we are still in unbelief.

nevertheless the external work must be done,
for we still have to find our way into the situation
where faith is possible.
we must take a definite step.
what does this mean?
if means that we can only take this step aright
if we fix our eyes not on the work we do,
but on the word with which Jesus calls us to do it.
peter knows he dare not climb out of the ship in his own strength
--his very first step would be his undoing.
and so he cries, 'Lord, bid me come to Thee upon the waters'
and Jesus answers: 'come'.
Christ must first call him,
for the step can only be taken at His world.
this call is his grace,
which calls him out of death into the new life of obedience.
but when once Christ has called him,
peter has no alternative
-he must leave the ship and come to Him.
in the end, the first step of obedience proves
to be an act of faith in the word of Christ.
but we should completely misunderstand the nature of grace
id we were to suppose that there was no need to take the first step,
because faith was already there.
against that we must boldly assert that the step of obedience
bust  be taken before faith can be possible.
unless he obeys, a man cannot believe.

are you worried because you find it so hard to believe?
no one should be surprised at the difficulty of faith,
if there is some part of his life where he is consciously
resisting or disobeying the commandment of Jesus.
is there some part of your life which you are refusing to surrender at His behest,
some sinful passion, maybe,
or some animosity,
some hope,
perhaps your ambition
or your reason?
if so, you must not be surprised that you have not
received the Holy Spirit,
that prayer is difficult,
or that your request for faith remains unanswered.
GO rather and BE RECONCILED  with your brother,
RENOUNCE the sin which holds you fast
-and then you will recover your faith!
if you dismiss the word of God's command,
you will not receive His word of grace.
how can you hope to enter into communion with Him
when at some point in your life you are running away from Him?
the man who disobeys cannot believe,
for only he who obeys can believe.

the gracious call of Jesus now becomes a stern command:
DO THIS!
GIVE UP THAT!
leave the ship and come to Me!
when a man says he cannot obey the call of Jesus
because he believes,
or because he does not believe,
Jesus says:
'FIRST OBEY,
PERFORM THE EXTERNAL WORK,
RENOUNCE YOUR ATTACHMENTS,
GIVE UP THE OBSTACLES WHICH SEPARATE YOU FROM THE WILL OF GOD
DO NOT SAY YOU HAVE NOT GOT FAITH.
you will not have it so long as you persist in disobedience
and refuse to take the first step.
neither must you say that you have faith,
and therefore there is no need for you to take the first step.
you have not got faith
so long as
and because you will not
take the first step but
become hardened in your unbelief under the guise of humble faith.
it is a malicious subterfuge to argue like this,
as a sure sign of  lack of faith,
which leads in its turn to a lack of obedience.
this is the disobedience of the 'believers'"
when they are asked to obey, they simply confess their unbelief
and leave it at that mark 9.24
you are trifling with the subject.
IF YOU BELIEVE
TAKE THE FIRST STEP,
IT LEADS TO JESUS CHRIST.
if you don't believe take the first step all the same,
for you are bidden to take it.
no one wants to know about your faith or unbelief,
your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot.
then you will find yourself in the situation
where faith becomes possible
and where faith exists in the true sense of the word.

this situation is therefore not the consequence of our obedience,
but the gift of Him commands obedience.
unless we are prepared to enter into that situation,
our faith will be unreal
and we shall deceive ourselves.
we cannot avoid that situation,
for our supreme concern is with a right faith in Jesus Christ,
and our objective is,  and always will be faith, and faith along
(from faith to faith, rom. 1.17)
if anyone rushes forward
and challenges this point in an excess of protestant zeal,
let him ask himself whether he is not after all allowing himself
to become an advocate of cheap grace.
the truth is that so long as we hold both sides of the proposition together
they contain nothing inconsistent with right belief,
but as soon as one is divorced form the other,
it is bound to prove a stumblingblock.
'only those who believe obey'
is what we say to that part of a believer's soul which obeys,
and 'only those who obey believe'
is what we say to that part of the soul of the obedience which believes.
if the first half of the proposition stands alone,
the believer is exposed to the danger of cheap grace,
which is another word for damnation.
if the second half stands alone, the believer is exposed to the danger of
salvation through works,
which is also another word for damnation.

at this point we may conveniently throw in
a few observations of a pastoral character.
in dealing with souls, it is essential for the pastor
to bear in mind both sides of the proposition.
when people complain, for instance, that they find it hard to believe,
it is a sign of deliberate or unconscious disobedience.
it is all too easy to put them off by offering the remedy of cheap grace.
that only leaves the disease as bad as it was before,
and makes the word of grace a sort of self administered consolation
or a self imparted absolution.
but when this happens, the poor man can no longer find any comfort
in the words of priestly absolution
-he has become deaf to the word of god.
and even if he absolves himself from his sins a thousand times,
he has lost all capacity of faith in the true forgiveness,
just because he has never really known it.
unbelief thrives on cheap grace,
for it is determined to persist in disobedience.
clergy frequently come across cases like this nowadays.
the outcome is usually that self imparted absolution
confirms the man in his disobedience,
and makes him plead ignorance of the kindness as well as
of the commandment of god.
he complains that God's commandment is uncertain,
and susceptible of different interpretations.
at first he was aware enough of his disobedience,
but with his increasing hardness of heart
that awareness grows ever fainter,
and in the end he becomes so enmeshed
that he loses all capacity for hearing the word,
and faith is quite impossible.
one can imagine him conversing thus with his pastor:
'i have lost the faith i once had'
'you must listen to the word as it is spoken to you in the sermon.
'i do; but i cannot get anything out of it,
'it just falls on deaf ears as far as i'm concerned.
'the trouble is, you don't really want to listen.
 'on the contrary, i do.
and here they generally break off,
because the pastor is at a loss what to say next.
he only remembers the first half of the proposition:
'only those who believe obey.
but this does not help, for faith is just what this particular man finds impossible.
the pastor reels himself confronted with the ultimate riddle of predestination.
God grants faith to some and withholds it from others.
so the pastor throws up the sponge and leaves the poor man to his fate.
and yet this ought to be the turning point of the interview.
it is the complete turning point.
the pastor should give up arguing with him,
and stop taking his difficulties seriously.
that will really be in the man's own interest,
for he is only trying to hide himself behind them.
it is now time to take the bull by the horns, and say:
'only those who obey believe.
thus the flow of the conversation is interrupted and the pastor can continue:
'you are disobedient,
you are trying to keep some part of your life under your own control.
that is what is preventing you from listening to Christ
and believing in His grace.
you cannot hear Christ because you are wilfully disobedient.
somewhere in your heart you are refusing to listen to His call.
your difficulty is your sins.
Christ now enters the lists again and comes to grips with the devil,
who until now has been hiding under the cloak of cheap grace.
it is all important that the pastor should be ready with
both sides of the proposition:
'only those who obey can believe,
and only those who believe can obey.
in the name of Christ he must exhort the man to obedience,
to action,
to take the first step.
he must say:
'tear yourself away from all other attachments, and follow Him.
for at this stage, the first step is what matters most.
the strong point which the refractory sinner had occupied
must be stormed,
for in it Christ cannot be heard.
the truant must be dragged from the hiding place which he has
built for himself
only then can he recover the freedom to see hear and believe.
of course, though it is a work,
the first step entails no merit in the sight of Christ
-it can never be more than a dead work.
even so peter has to get out of the ship before he can believe.

briefly, the position is this.
our sinner has drugged himself with cheap and easy grace
by accepting the proposition that only those who believe can obey.
he persists in disobedience, and seeks consolation by absolving himself.
this only serves to deaden his ears to the word of god.
we cannot breach the fortress so long as we merely repeat
the proposition which affords him his self defence.
so we must make for the turning point without further ado,
and exhort him to obedience
-'only those who obey can believe.

will that lead him astray and encourage him to us in his own works?
far from it.
he will the more easily realize that his faith is no genuine one at all.
he will be rescued from his entanglement by being compelled
to come to a definite decision.
in this way his ears are opened once more or the call of Jesus
to faith and discipleship.

this brings us to the story of the rich young man.

and behold, one came and said unto Him,
Good Master, what good things shall i do,
that i may have eternal life?
and He said unto him, why callest thou Me good?
there is none good but one, that  is God:
but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him,
which>
Jesus said,
thou shalt do no murder,
thou shalt not commit adultery,
thou shalt not steal,
thou shalt not bear false witness,
honour thy father and thy mother
and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
the young man saith unto him,
all  these things have i kept from my youth up
what lack i yet?
Jesus said unto him,
it thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast,
and give to the poor
and thou shall have treasure in heaven
and come and follow me.
but when the young man heart that say,
he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. matthew 19.16-22

the young man's enquiry about eternal life is an enquiry about salvation,
the only ultimate, serious question in the world.
but it is not easy to formulate in the right terms.
this is shown by the way the young man obviously intends to ask one question,
but actually asks another.
by so doing he succeeds in avoiding the real issue.
for he addresses his question to the 'good master.
he wants o hear the opinion and receive the advice of the goodmaster,
and consult the good teacher on this specific problem.
he thus succeeds in giving himself away on two points.
first, he feels this is such an important question
that Jesus must have something significant to say about it.
secondly, what he expects from the good master and great teacher
is a  weighty pronouncement,
but certainly not a direction from God
which would make an absolute claim on his obedience.
eternal life is for him an academic problem
which is worth discussing with a 'good master'.
but the very first word of Jesus answer is a rude shock to him;
'why callest thou Me good? one there is who is good.
the question has betrayed his real feelings.
he wanted to speak about eternal life to a good rabbi.
he now realized he is talking not to a good master, but to God Himself,
and therefore the only answer he receives from the Son of God is
an unmistakable pointer to the commandment of the One God.
he will not receive the answer of 'good master',
a personal opinion to supplement the revealed will of God.
Jesus points away from Himself to God
who alone is good and at once proves himself thereby
to be the perfect Son of God.
the questioner stands before God Himself
and is shown up as one who is trying o evade the revealed will of God,
while all the time he knows that will already.
the young man knows the commandments.
but such is his situation that he cannot be satisfied with them ,
 but wants to go beyond them.
Jesus sees through his question and knows it to be
he question of a piety shaped by and centered in the self.
why does he pretend that he has for long been ignorant of the answer?
why does he pretend that he has so long been ignorant of he answer?
why does he accuse God of leaving him so long
in ignorance of his fundamental problem of life?
so already the young man is caught and summoned to the judgement seat of God.
he is challenged to drop the academic question,
and called to a simple obedience of the will of God as it has been revealed.

once more the young man tries to evade the issue by posing a second question:
'which?'
the very devil lurks beneath this question.
the young man knew he was caught in a trap, and this was the only way out.
of course, he knows the commandments.
but who can know, out of the abundance of commandments,
which apply to him in his present situation?
the revelation of the commandments is ambiguous, not clear, says the young man.
once again he does not see the commandments except
in relation to himself and his own problems and conflicts.
he neglects the unmistakable command of God for the very interesting,
but purely human concern of his own moral difficulties.
his mistake lies not so much in his awareness of those difficulties as
in his attempt to play them off against the commandments of God.
in fact, the very purpose for which these commandments were given
was to solve these difficulties.
moral difficulties were the first consequence of the fall,
and are themselves the outcome of 'man in revoltt' against god.
the serpent in paradise put them into the mind of the fist man by asking,
'hath God said?
until then the divine command had been clear enough and
man was ready to observe it in childlike obedience.
but that is now past and moral doubts and difficulties have crept in.
the command, suggests the serpent, needs to be explained and interpreted.
'hath God said?
man must decide for himself what is good
by using his conscience and his knowledge of good and evil.
the commandment may be variously interpreted,
and it is god's will that it should be interpreted and explained:
for god has given man a free will to decide what he will do.

but this means disobedience from the start.
doubt and reflection take the place of spontaneous obedience.
the grown up man with his freedom of conscience vaunts his
superiority over the child of obedience.
but he has acquired the freedom to enjoy
moral difficulties only at the cost of renouncing obedience.
in short, it is a retreat from the reality of God
to the speculations of men, from faith to doubt.
the young man's question shows him up in his true colours.
he is-man under sin.
the answer of Jesus completes his exposure.
Jesus simply quotes the commandments of god as they are
revealed in scripture, and thus reaffirms them as the commandments of God.
the young man is trapped once more.
he had hoped to avoid committing himself to any definite moral obligations
by forcing Jesus to discuss his spiritual problems.
he had hoped Jesus would offer him a solution of his moral difficulties.
but instead he finds Jesus attacking not his question but himself.
the only answer to his difficulties is the very commandment of God,
which challenges him to have done with academic discussion and
to get on with the task of obedience.
only the devil has an answer for our difficulties,
and he says:
keep on posing problems, and you will escape the necessity of obedience.
but Jesus is not interested in the young man's problems;
He is interested in the young man himself.
he reuses to take those difficulties as seriously as the young man does.
there is one thing only which Jesus takes seriously, and that is,
that it is high time the young man began to hear the commandment
and obey it.
there moral difficulties are taken so seriously,
where they torment and enslave man,
because they do not leave him open to the freeing activity of obedience,
it is there that his total godlessness is revealed.
all his difficulties are shown to be ungodly, frivolous and the proof of
sheer disobedience.
the one thing that maters is practical obedience.
that will solve his difficulties and make him (and all of us)
free to become the child of god.
such is God's diagnosis of man's moral difficulties.

the young man has now been twice brought
face to face with the truth off the word of God.
and there is no further chance of evading His commandment.
it is clear there is no alternative but to obey it.
but he is still not satisfied.
'all these things have i observed from my youth up:
what lack i yet?
doubtless he was just as convinced of his sincerity this time
as he was before.
but it is just here that his defiance of Jesus reaches its climax.
he knows the commandment and has kept it,
but now, he thinks, that cannot be all god wants of him,
there must be something more, some extraordinary and unique demand,
and this is what he wants to do.
the revealed commandment of God is incomplete, he says,
as he makes the last attempt to preserve his independence and
decide for himself what is good and evil.
he affirms the commandment with one hand and
subjects it to frontal attack on the other.
'all these thins have i observed from my youth up.
st. mark adds at this point:
and Jesus looking upon him loved him (10.21).
Jesus sees how hopelessly the young man
has closed his mind to the living word of God,
how serious he is about it,
and how heartily he rages against the living commandment and
the spontaneous obedience it demands.
Jesus wants to help the young man because He loves him.
so now comes his last word:
'if thou wouldest be perfect, go sell all thou hast and give to the poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:
and come, follow Me.
there are three points to notice here.
first it is Jesus Himself who now gives the commandment.
the same Jesus who earlier had pointed the young man
away from the good master to the God who alone is good,
now takes up His claim to divine authority
and pronounces the last word.
the young man must realize that it is the very Son of God
who stands before him.
as the Son of God, though the young man knew it not,
Jesus had pointed him away from the Son of the Father,
with whom He was in perfect union.
and now once more as the Son
He utters the commandment of God Himself.
Jesus must make that commandment unmistakably clear at the moment
when he calls the young man to follow him.
here is the sum of the commandments
-to live in fellowship with Christ.
this Chris now confronts the young man with His call.
he can no longer escape into the unreal world of his moral difficulties.
the commandment is plain and straightforward:
'follow Me.
the second point to be noticed is that even this command
might be misunderstood and therefore it has to be explained.
for the young man might still fall back into his original mistake,
and take the commandment as an opportunity for moral adventure,
and thrilling way of life,
but one which might easily be abandoned or another
if occasion arose.
it would be just as wrong if the young man were to regard discipleship
as the logical conclusion of his search for truth
in which he had hitherto been engaged,
as an addition, a clarification or a completion of his old life.
and so to avoid all misunderstandings,
Jesus has to create a situation in which there can be no retreat,
an irrevocable situation.
at the same time it must be made clear to him that this is in no sense a
fulfillment of his past life.
so He bids him embrace voluntary poverty.
this is the 'existential', pastoral side of the question,
and its aim is to enable the young man to reach
a final understanding of the true way of obedience.
it springs from Jesus' love for the young man, and
it represents the only link between the old life and the new.
but it must be noted that the link is not identical with the new life itself;
it is not even the first step in the right direction,
though as an act of obedience it is the essential preliminary.
first the young man must go and sell all that he has and give to the poor.
and THEN come and follow.
discipleship is the end, voluntary poverty the means.
the third point to be noticed is this .
when the young man asks,
'what lack i yet?
Jesus rejoins:
'if thou wouldest be perfect...
a first sigh it would seem that Jesus is thinking in terms
of an addition to the young man's previous life.
but it is an addition which requires the abandonment
of every previous attachment.
until now perfection had always eluded his grasp.
both his understanding and his practice of the commandment
had been at fault.
only now, by following Christ,
can he understand and practise it aright,
and only now because it is Jesus Christ who calls him.
in the moment he takes up the young man's question,
Jesus wrenches it from him.
he had asked the way to eternal life:
Jesus answers: I call thee and that is all.

the answer to the young man's problem is
-Jesus Christ.
he had hoped to hear the word of the good master,
but he now perceives that this word is the Man to whom he had addressed his question.
he stands face to face with Jesus, the Son of God"
it is the ultimate encounter.
it is now only a question of yes of no,
of obedience or disobedience.
the answer is no.
he went away sorrowful, disappointed and
deceived of his hopes,
unable o wench himself from his past.
he had great possessions.
the call to oleo means here what it had meant before
-adherence to the person of Jesus Christ and fellowship with Him.
the life of discipleship is not the hero worship we would pay
to a good master, but obedience to the Son of God.

the story of the rich young man is closely paralleled by
the introduction to the parable of the Good Samaritan.

'and behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tempted Him, saying,
Master, what shall i do to inherit eternal life?
and He said unto him, what is written in the law? how readest thou?
and he answering said,
thou shalt love the Lord thy god with all thy strength and with all thy
mind: and thy neighbour as thyself.
and He said unto him,
thou hast answered right:
this do and thou shalt live.
but he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus,
'and who is my neighbour? luke 10.25-9

the lawyer's question is the same as the young man's,
the only difference being that we are told explicitly
that he meant to tempt Jesus.
he has already made up his mind about solution to his problem
-he intends to land Jesus
in the impasse of moral doubts and difficulties.
Jesus answers him in much the same terms as He
answered the rich young man.
the questioner in his heart knows the answer to his question.
bit in the moment he asks it,
although he knows the answer,
he wishes to evade the obligation to obey the commandment of God.
the only answer he receives is:
'you already know your duty:
do it and you will live.

the first round is already lost, so the lawyer must try again.
like the rich young man,
he tries to escape by raising his moral difficulties.
'and who is my neighbour?
how often has this question been asked since,
in good faith and genuine ignorance!
it is plausible enough
and any earnest seeker of the truth could reasonably ask it.
but this is not the way the lawyer meant it.
Jesus parries the question as a temptation of the devil
and that in fact is the whole point
of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
it is the sort of question you can keep on asking
without ever getting an answer.
its source lies in the 'qrangling of men,
corrupted in mind and bereft of truth';
of  men 'doting about questionings and disputes of words'.
from it 'cometh envy, strife, railings, even surmisings; I tim. 6.4f
it is the question of men who are puffed up,
men who are 'ever learning,
and never able to come to knowledge of the truth'
of men 'holding a form of godliness,
but having denied the power thereof II tim. 3.5f
they cannot believe, and they keep on asking this same question
because they are 'branded in their own conscience
as with a hot iron I tim. 4.2,
because they refuse to obey the word of God.
who is my neighbour?
does this question admit of any answer?
is it my kinsman, my compatriot, my brother christian,
or my enemy?
there is an element of truth and falsehood in each of these answers.
the whole question lands us into doubt and disobedience,
and it is a veritable act of rebellion
against the commandment of God.
of course, i say, i want to do His will,
but He does not tell me how to set about it.
the commandment does not give me any clear directions,
and does nothing to solve my problems.
the question, 'what shall i do?
was the lawyer's first attempt to throw dust in his own eyes.
the answer was:
'you know the commandments, do you not?
well then, put them into practice.
you must not ask questions-
get on with the job!
and the final question 'who is my neighbour?
is the parting shot of despair (or else of self confidence";
the lawyer is trying to justify his disobedience.
the answer is:
'you are the neighbour.
go along and try to be obedient by loving others.
neighbourliness is not a quality in other people,
it is simply their claim on ourselves.
every moment and every situation
challenges us to action and to obedience.
we have literally o time to sit down and ask ourselves
whether so and so is our neighbour or not.
WE MUST GET INTO ACTION AND OBEY
-we must behave like a neighbour to him.
but perhaps this shocks you.
perhaps you still think you ought to think out beforehand
and know what you ought to do.
to that there is only one answer.
you can only learn what obedience is by obeying.
it is no use asking questions;
for it is only through obedience that you come to learn the truth.

with our consciences distracted by sin,
we are confronted by the call of Jesus
to spontaneous obedience.
but whereas the rich young man was called to the grace of discipleship,
the lawyer, who sought to tempt him,
was only sent back to the commandment.