us; @ ruler of the synagogue, as St. Luke informs us; an exceedingly rich man, as all three synoptists relate; for St. Luke tells us he was very rich, and St. Matthew and St. Mark that he had great possessions, Besides this, he was an exceedingly interesting person—frank, sincere, amiable; he thus possessed many winning and endearing qualities. Nor was this all; he was outwardly moral, outwardly observant of God’s Law, and so not far from the kingdom of heaven. 2. Hés mode of approach- ing the Saviour, His approach was all that could be desired. It was marked by thorough earnestness and sincerity. Our Lord was going forth into the way, or on his way—starting, it would seem, on his last journey from Perma beyond Jordan to Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha and Lazarus, This young ruler, im breathless haste, lest he should miss his opportunity before the Saviour departed, came running up and fell on his knees before him, The manner. too, in which he put hiv question was highly respectful, and even reverential, as sppears from the words with which he addressed him. By the iitle “‘ Good Master” he acknowledged his authority as a teacher, and his kindness of heart, having just witnessed the graciousness and benevoleuce with which he had received the little children and folded them in his arms, Our Lord appears to reprove him in a gentle way on the ground of this title, and especially to reject the term “good,” thus applied to him; he apparently fuses te accept it as a mere conventional expression, flippantly and thoughtlessly appliea. But, on examining the subject more closely, it will be evident that our Lord wished to elevate the young ruler’s notion about himself as the Messiah, and raise his thoughts to God. He wished to give this young man a hint that he was more than an ordinary teacher in Israel, that he was more than s mere teacher possessing great excellence of character and goodness of heart; that he was a Teacher sent from God, and therefore invested with highest authority, and holding a Divine commission—yea, and himself Divine. To this end he requires the ruler to reflect on what ground he applied the term “good,” reminding him that there was no one absolutely good save God, and implying the inconsistency of his position, and the unwarrantableness of his calling him “ good” when he did not regard him as Divine. Our Lord intimates, obscurely indeed, that, while rejecting the term in the sense in which the ruler meant it, as a mere complimentary one paid to a rabbi of eminence, and regarding it as inapplicable from that standpoint, he can only accept it in conjunction with the One alone who is good, that is, God. But, as the ruler did not apply it in that sense, our Lord takes occasion to lif up his thoughts to the only One absolutely good; as though he said, “ Why askest thou ms soncerning that which is good? One there is who is good ;” and, “ Why callest thoa me good?” and, Why inquirest about the good from any mere human teacher whose goodness of head and heart, however great, is necessarily defective? Why not go at once to the One who is alone truly and absolutely good, and the Fountain-head of ali goodness, and whose will is the rule and standard of what is good; while the revelation of his mind on the subject is made known in the commandments? 3. His motive im ree: With all this young man’s advantages he felt his need of something better; he cravings for something higher. His wealth, with all the facilities it afforded, and all the profits it implied, and all the pleasures it procured, did not satisfy hia desires or supply his spiritual needs, His longings for something better than earth or sense could furnish remained unappeased; there was still a void within which the world could not fill; he felt irrepressible yearnings for immortality. He had heard the promise of a kingdom made to the little children who believed, or rather to all who possessed their childlike spirit. He had himself come recently into the inherivance af much wealth and great possessions, and thus he is prompted to ask the question very natural under the circumstances, “ What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” He was alive to the worth of his soul; he felt the paramount importance of eternal life. His question, therefore, was not prompted by mere curiosity, neither was it a cold or careless inquiry; it was a downright earnest one; it was a matter of life or death ee him.
His ®ELF-SUFFICIENT INQUIRY. 1. Nature of the inquiry. The in is that recorded by St. Matthew, “ What lack I yet?” to which the at Ae of antes is that recorded by St. Mark in the words, “One thing thou lackest.” We must first con- sider the question itself. This was a second question; the first was, “ What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” and coatained the very essence of Pharisaism, which
om. x. 1—52.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 103 CPA ca a eee a ek a a ee