Again, I admire Doug Bachelor very much. I have learned a great deal from the insights that God has blessed him with. He's on my top ten list of great modern evangelists and has been a big influence on me.

The fact that I'm pointing out the interpretations I can't fully accept does not make me an adversary, but it really shows I'm familiar with all his interpretations. That means I'm a big fan. There really are only a few things I have trouble with out of all the hundreds of revelations I agree with. If I'm wrong on any of these things, then please set me strait. If you have wisdom, I will submit to your correction.

I don't seek contention. I have tried to show these things to Pastor Doug, but he's not getting any of my emails. I've kept these things to myself for over a year, fearing misunderstanding from my brethren. But now I have to share.

This is about the "Rich Young Ruler" in Matthew 19:16-22.



People ask on Bible Answers why did Jesus say: "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God", but Amazing Facts keeps saying "Jesus is God." The answer Doug gives is pretty lame. He says like Jesus was just trying to hint that He was God, or if He's calling Jesus good, he's acknowledging Him to be God.

Did Jesus not set an example of what He taught His disciples?



So after that Jesus is supposed to allow someone to call him "Good Master"? Jesus was setting the example. He even washes feet to set an example:



Of course His disciples could say "My Lord and my God", (John 20:28), after the resurrection when they realized He was the Christ. But this young ruler had no such revelation. He probably addressed all the Rabbis with such reverence.

Surely Jesus would also let this man know he wouldn't get anywhere with flattery, but He would speak the truth, even as God Himself is no respecter of persons. That probably gave the man confidence in spite of himself.

[size:"3]Part 2[/color]

On the same passage, people sometimes ask why did Jesus only quote 5 of the 10 Commandments. The answer Doug gives is that the man interrupted Jesus before He could finish.

Again, I could never wish to insult Brother Doug. Bless his soul and praise the Lord for the work he's doing for God. He's worthy of much honor. But may he not refuse to be corrected in this matter.

Are we to imagine this was another bout of schizophrenia, like when Paul talks about idolatry and then make one line about Jewish feasts and then changes the subject back to idolatry again? So also was this man showing great respect for this renowned Prophet of God, and then his other personality kicks in and the man shows contempt for Jesus? Was the man a demoniac as well?

In Mark's rendition, the man came running and kneels before Jesus.
That's alot of respect. And he calls Him "Good Master". And he's a rich man. He knows how to conduct himself probably even among great men. How then is he going to make a buffoon of himself in front of all those and cut Jesus off mid sentence?

Either the man is seriously bi-polar, or Jesus was actually finished speaking and the man broke the silence.

Why would Jesus finish with quoting only those commandments? Notice the man's response: "All these things have I kept from my youth up".

Would he have been able to say that if Jesus had quoted all 10 of the Ten Commandments? Doubtful.

It's obvious that his circumstance prevented him from keeping the commandments Jesus didn't list. His money and business where causing him to sin. "... if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off,", (Matt. 5:30). It was a curse to him. It may have been gained through some compromise that defiled his conscience, or maybe the man was a workaholic so that even on the Sabbath he couldn't take his mind off his work:



Then he would have been breaking the Sabbath. That's commandment (#4), one of which Jesus didn't mention.

No doubt he would have then fallen to covetousness, (#10).

And covetousness is idolatry (#2):

Eph. 5:5 ... nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Col. 3:5 ... covetousness, which is idolatry:

In most cases idolatry breaks also the 1st, (#1).

One who is bound by such evil, if he makes a profession of faith, will only be taking the name of the Lord in vain, (#3).

That's one possible scenario. Here's what Ellen White says about this man:



She says he was in transgression of God's law. It's not that the man was keeping God's law, but that wasn't enough. Jesus says it is enough:



Jesus said if you can do that, you shall live. That's a big if. But no one can without help from God, and such help takes a covenant, and to have a covenant, you must obey God's counsel, and this man was counseled to give up his stuff.

Cain was given the same two options. Either take God's counsel and give up his pride, and God helps Cain to resist sin, or Cain refuses God's counsel and is left to resist sin in his own strength, if that where possible:



Option 1: Sacrifice a lamb like Abel
Option 2: Sin lies at the door with a never resting desire to overtake Cain, and Cain shall rule over sin, (resist temptation), by himself, without any help from God.

The sin was murder, not sacrificing fruits. The counsel was offered to give Cain the power to resist and overcome sin.

The only way the young ruler would get the victory over sin was to take the counsel Jesus gave. That was the only counsel God had for him.

There are many situations where if a person wants eternal life and feels he lacks something, they would have to give up everything. The movie star, for instance, would have to quit show-business and serve the Lord and use his talents in ministry. His career would cause him to compromise what he believes in. He would advocate smoking, drinking, adultery, evolution, using the Lord's name in vain, and every evil and vice, before billions of people. Even his money would be a snare to him. It would probably bring him into association with those who would revile his new faith and lead him back into sin.

And when people disregard the poor, is it not iniquity. Men more honorable than these millionaires are starving in 3rd world countries, breaking their backs for a couple dollars a day which is not enough to live on. The slaves in America lived like kings compared to these victims of corporate and political corruption. If you have tons of money, why would you not help them? Is it not covetousness that prevents you? Is it not evil? If that poor man starves to death and you did nothing to feed him, is it not murder?



Ellen White does not indicate that the man interrupted Jesus:


So Jesus must have been finished speaking. He must have spoken only those commandments deliberately. We also say that what Jesus wrote in the sand where the sins of the men who condemned the woman:



Yet this was not plainly revealed in the Bible. Why didn't Jesus bring them to open shame? They would have harden their hearts.



In both cases, Jesus graciously covered a matter. But we see it now. Don't we? Am I the only one?

Thank you and God bless you for any kind of constructive feedback you can give.

Thanks. It could be that Jesus was probing this man's faith. "Why do YOU call Me good?" Has My identity been revealed to you from above like it was to Peter?


regards,

oG

That makes sense. But if he knew He where the Messiah, then wouldn't he have left all to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.(also Luke 18:28)

I don't think it was revealed unto him. He was too worldly. Now if Ellen White had said something, that would settle the issue.

Wait. Here's something.



I should have checked with the prophet first. Still I don't see her saying Jesus was "hinting" that He was the Son of God. That doesn't sound right at all.

The conclusion I came up with on my own was that Jesus was setting an example and letting this man know he was not going to be moved by flattery but would give a faithful witness. She does say that he addressed Jesus like he would any Rabbi.

She says: "Jesus desired to test the ruler's sincerity, and to draw from him the way in which he regarded him as good."

So his address lacked sincerity. It was flattery. It was also a bit of blasphemy. Like how people call the Pope "Holy Father", and how some are called "Reverend".

I must maintain that this still applies:


Concerning the other issue:



That does confirm he was not keeping the Ten Commandments because of his money. It's certainly not correct to say that he was keeping them, yet he still lacked something.

I don't think we can assume that to be true. Many people today claim to know that Jesus is the Messiah, yet they are unwilling to leave all and follow him.

There were evidently many who were convicted that Jesus was the Messiah but they had other things in their lives that kept them from surrendering everything to him, the same as often happens today. Judas was convicted of Christ's true identity, yet he did not give up all for Jesus.

Good point.

So I should have said: "But if he knew He where the Messiah, then Ellen White wouldn't have wrote this:"

This is an easy one IF one understands the "in Christ" motif!

Christ is God. God is agape. Agape is not one of God's attributes, rather God is agape. Agape is who God is.....

Now at the incarnation, Jesus (the 2nd God of the Trinity), was "mysteriously blended" with our humanity that needed redeeming. Christ remained Himself, namely God, while assuming our sinful, fallen life that stands under the curse of the law.

Now when the Rich Young Ruler addressed Christ he was addressing Him as a mere man. He wasn't addressing Him as the Son of God. Christ as God is "good" - He is holy - He is righteous, but as the Son of Man the humanity He assumed was sinful. Don't believe me? Here:

2 Cor 5:21 He (God the Father) made Him (Jesus as God) who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we (sinners) might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Notice Jesus as God, who knew no sin, became sin! Now I am not calling Jesus a sinner. I am calling the humanity that He assumed sin!

You see we are sinners by birth. (See Ps 51:5) And Paul tells us that "God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law...." [Gal 4:4] To be born of a woman implies that Christ's assumed humanity was sinful and therefore it stood under the curse.

Now it is true that Christ never sinned in our fallen, sinful humanity. Yet we know He lived His whole life in the shadow of the cross (the curse of the law). Why? Our humanity - His assumed humanity was/is sinful - it is rotten.

Hence when the rich young ruler addressed Christ he was addressing Him as a mere man. According to Paul "there is none good, no, not even one." [Rom 3:12] So Christ is saying that as a man my assumed humanity is rotten - it's sinful. Call no man good because there is none good.

The more important question is why did Jesus tell him this truth?

Rob

I didn't intend to point out anything there that I disagreed with you about. I was just making the observation that not everyone who knows Jesus is the Messiah gives up everything to follow Him.

Look at the initial context:

16 And, behold, one [the rich young ruler] came and said unto him [Jesus as a mere man], Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

Jesus answers his question in two parts.

Here's part 1: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God

Part 2: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

What was the RYR question? What must I do to get into heaven....He wants heaven by doing something...works, etc.

How does Christ correct his self-righteous, legalistic theology? Before giving him the standard of righteousness (i.e., the law), Christ let's him know the impossibility of keeping the law. He does this by telling him that there's none good, except God of course. If mankind is not good then he can't keep a holy law and therefore it is impossible for him to gain heaven by works. That's Christ point and He proves this in the remaining verses (see 18-30).

If you read closely you will realize that even Christ's disciples gave up everything (not that they really had anything) for self-centered, selfish motives:

Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”

Note the disciples didn't give up their jobs for selfless reasons. They did it to get something in return. Agape or true love...true righteousness, is not self-seeking. It expects nothing in return.

Here's more evidence of their selfishness:

They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

Again, this proves what Christ said: "There is none good but one, that is, God. Why? We are sinners because we are selfish. That's the essence of sin. If you give all your goodies to the poor, but not from agape, all your goodness is as filthy rags - it's useless! (see 1 Cor 13:3)

I agree with the essence of what you are saying about selfishness and true love.

Is it sinful to do what the Holy Spirit leads us to do?

For instance, is there anything wrong or sinful with a person's accepting Jesus Christ because the Holy Spirit has given him a longing for God's forgiveness and salvation?

Is there anything wrong or sinful with wanting to be spiritually healed and to live with God forever?