i. How rr was axswereD. 1. With the needful correction to the question. It is of the utmost importance that we clearly perceive what real “goodness” is, and to whom alone it can belong, ere we seek it. 2. With a provisional test. The command- ments; perhaps those emphasized which bore most directly upon his position and circumstances. Self-restraint is a first requisite, and that is witnessed to by the Law, But he still stands outside the true conception of “ goodness,” for he answers from the conventional and not from the absolute and spiritual standpoint. “The Law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ,” by showing us our imperfection and need of a Saviour. 3. With a final test. “One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast,” etc. Self-restraint being insufficient, self-denial, and that specially corresponding with his circumstances, is invited. This was the crucial test. It has to be varied according to the difference in individual tastes, ideals, circumstances, etc., of different people. 4. By a look of love. It was spontaneous, full of attraction, and, up to a certain degree, of approval; then of yearning sorrow and concern. Such questions and such disposition can never be received by Christ with indifference.
IIL Im war rr kesuLTep. “ His countenance fell,” etc. There was grief, disap- pointment, perhaps even a little resentment, and also inward shame. Not decision ; rather indecision. Tested by highest test and found wanting. Drawn by tenderest love of the Son of God, yet unwilling to yield. The grieved heart may yet return: its sad disconsolateness is its most hopeful attribute.—M,
Vers. 23—27.—Riches a spiritual drawback. Valuable to the moral as to the scien- tific or artistic teacher to have a real instance—a study from the life. Yet it is not given to many to seize the salient points and analyze the character as Christ did. He did it, too, in a manner the most natural.
L Tae sayine oF Cunist. “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” It is no proverb culled from the pzeges of the past, but evidently his own instinctive, penetrating “moral” from what they had just seen. It was self-evident to him “ how hardly,” #.e. with what difficulty, such a thing could take place. He knew by personal experience the price that was to be paid for the realiza- tion of that kingdom, and what its nature would be when realized; but he alone. As fruit of his own inward experience it was a distinct discovery in morals. The disciples, not #0 conversant with the inner nature of the kingdom, were amazed. It was the exact opposite of their own idea. They thought that it would be absolutely necessary to gain such disciples if the kingdom was ever to be realized. It was impossible for them to conceive of spiritual power apart from material means and influence. They could not get rid, moreover, of the dream that a political shape would sooner or later be assumed by this coming power. Their mistake was deeply rooted in the whole habit of thought of the ancient world. The well-to-do had not only the material advantage of their riches, but a certain reflected honour as enjoying the theocratic
hlessing upou the keeping of the commandments. And in the case of the ruler this &
78 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. [cu. x, 1—52.
moral excellence was not only an ancestral trait but a personal characteristic. The Greek who styled the rich and powerful of bis nation of éya6el, or xadol, and the poor ei xaxol, was representative of his age; cf. the Latin optimates, the Saxon good men (opposed to lewd people, base hinds), the French prudhommes, And the modern mind has not yet got rid of the twist. There is a superficial gentleness of manners, refine- ment, and honour, identified, by long association, with the “ better classes,” that is easily mistaken for a deeper moral principle. Nor can we ignore the “ minor morali- ties,” the conventional proprieties and respectabilities which wealth generally brings in its train. It is only when the emphasis is laid on character that these are estimated at their proper worth. Therefore the necessity for—
II. THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SAYING. It is done in a spirit of tender, condescend- ing sympathy—‘ children.” 1. The general difficulty attending entrance into the kingdom is declared (the clause, “ for them that trust in riches,” being probably not genuine). The reason for this difficulty is not, however, stated. It ought to have been remembered. “Taking up his cross” was the condition imposed upon every would- be “disciple.” 2. A figure of speech és employed in relation to the rich. The tradition identifying the “‘ needle’s “re ” with a certain gate of Jerusalem is hardly well enough supported to be reliable. It was probably but an impromptu hyperbole that flashed from the mind of Christ. But it would recall the teaching of the “strait gate.” Kdyusros, a rope, may, however, be the true reading. Everything that exaggerates and pampers “self” hinders from the better life. The disciples had learnt that lesson in part (ver. 28), but its absolute import and spiritual realization they were not to arrive at until their Master had gone away. Their astonishment 1s not, therefore, lessened, but rather increased, by the repeated statement ; and they said, “ Zhen who can be saved §” A question which seemed to imply, “If the rich cannot be saved without difficulty, the poor will have still less chance.” The temptations of poverty were probably pro- minent in their minds. From the human point of view this would seem to be a just observation ; therefore he qualified his statement, and under certain conditions declared—=-
Ii]. THe sayiIne SUPERSEDED. “ With men it ts tmpossible, but not with God: for all things are possible with God.” There is here a double hint, viz. as to the objective work which he himself was to do for men, and the spiritual aid which would be experienced #n men by the advent of the Holy Ghost. The difficulty is wholly on the human side. Salvation is thus vindicated as a supernatural achievement—a Divine grace, and not a human virtue.—M.