The Difficulty
A wealthy young man asks Jesus, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus lists the commandments; the man says he has kept them all. Then Jesus says: “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor… and come, follow me.” The man goes away sorrowful because he had great possessions. Jesus then tells his disciples, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Is this a universal command? Must every Christian sell everything? Does wealth automatically exclude someone from the kingdom? How do we preach this in an affluent context without either softening the radical demand or crushing congregants with impossible burdens?
Responses
Universal Radical Call
Summary: Jesus’ command is for all disciples — total divestment of possessions is the cost of discipleship.
This reading has a strong tradition: Anthony of Egypt heard this text read and gave away his fortune to become the father of monasticism. Francis of Assisi did the same. Jim Elliot’s “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose” draws from this well. More recently, Ronald Sider (Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger), Shane Claiborne, and the New Monastics argue that Jesus really did mean it, and American Christianity has spent two thousand years explaining why he didn’t. The early church in Acts 2 and 4 practiced common possessions. The radical call isn’t for “spiritual elites” but for all who want to follow Jesus. Our resistance to this text reveals how captive we are to mammon.
Strengths
Takes Jesus’ words at face value. Has produced genuine saints and movements. Pastorally bracing in cultures saturated by consumerism. Avoids domesticating a text that was meant to disturb.
Weaknesses
The rest of the NT doesn’t require this of all believers (Zacchaeus gives half, not all; Lydia retains her business; the centurion Cornelius is commended without any divestment). Wholesale application creates practical problems — who feeds the children, pays the rent? Can become a new form of works-righteousness.
Further Reading
- Athanasius, Life of Anthony (c. 360 AD) — the classic monastic text
- Ronald Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Word, 6th ed., 2015)
- Shane Claiborne, The Irresistible Revolution (Zondervan, 2006)
- Jacques Ellul, Money and Power (IVP, 1984)
Specific to This Man
Summary: Jesus diagnosed this particular man’s specific idol; the command addressed his unique bondage, not a universal requirement.
The traditional Protestant reading (Augustine, Calvin, Wesley, most evangelicals) holds that Jesus saw that this man’s possessions were the specific barrier between him and God. Jesus commanded what this man needed to do — not what every disciple must do. The universal principle is that disciples must be willing to give up anything that comes between them and Christ, but the particular application varies. Zacchaeus gives half and is saved (Luke 19). The wealthy women who funded Jesus’ ministry (Luke 8:1–3) kept their resources and used them for the kingdom. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus kept their wealth but used it to bury Jesus. The text teaches the lordship of Christ over all possessions, not universal divestment.
Strengths
Consistent with other NT passages about wealth. Explains why other NT figures aren’t required to sell all. Allows for the stewardship model Wesley taught (gain, save, give — all you can). Pastorally realistic.
Weaknesses
Can easily slide into “Jesus didn’t really mean it for us” — which is exactly the criticism the radical reading makes. Places interpretive weight on distinctions the text doesn’t make explicit. Convenient for wealthy Christians.
Further Reading
- Wesley, Sermon 50: “The Use of Money” — the classic Methodist stewardship framework
- John Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today (Zondervan, 4th ed., 2006)
- Craig Blomberg, Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Material Possessions (IVP Academic, 1999) — balanced evangelical treatment
Diagnostic of Idolatry
Summary: The command is a diagnostic — it reveals what the man actually worships. The point is not the command itself but what his response to it exposes.
Dallas Willard, Tim Keller, and many preachers read the passage as diagnostic rather than prescriptive. Jesus’ command functions like a stress test: what does your reaction reveal? The man’s grief at the command exposes that his possessions are his functional god. If he had been able to walk away from them, he would have proved that he didn’t actually need to. The command itself may not be universal, but the diagnostic function is: every person has something Jesus would ask them to release to reveal whether he is truly Lord. For some, it’s wealth. For others, reputation, family, career, comfort, control. The passage asks every reader: what would Jesus have to say to me that would send me away sorrowful?
Strengths
Makes the text universally applicable without wooden literalism. Pastorally searching — forces self-examination. Explains why the text remains powerful even for those who aren’t wealthy. Preaches well.
Weaknesses
Can spiritualize away a text that addresses actual money. Risks making Jesus’ concrete command about wealth into a vague “whatever’s your idol” principle that never specifically challenges economic behavior. Needs balancing with real teaching about possessions.
Further Reading
- Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy (HarperSanFrancisco, 1998)
- Tim Keller, Counterfeit Gods (Dutton, 2009)
- Richard Foster, Freedom of Simplicity (HarperSanFrancisco, rev. ed., 2005)
- Eugene Peterson, A Long Obedience in the Same Direction (IVP, 2000)
Eschatological / “Kingdom Economics”
Summary: The call reflects a new economic order inaugurated by Jesus — the kingdom of God restructures property and wealth for all who enter it.
Liberation theologians and scholars like Ched Myers (Binding the Strong Man) argue that the command is neither universal literalism nor individual diagnosis but a glimpse of the kingdom economics Jesus embodied. The kingdom doesn’t abolish all private property, but it does reorient wealth: from accumulation to circulation, from self-security to neighbor-security, from storing up to giving away. Acts 4:32–35 shows the early church practicing this — not wholesale abolition, but such thorough sharing that “there was not a needy person among them.” The rich young ruler turns away because he cannot imagine an economic life not built on accumulation. Jesus invites him into a different economic imagination — and he refuses.
Strengths
Takes seriously the social/economic dimension of Jesus’ teaching. Connects the passage to Acts 2 and 4. Offers a constructive alternative to both literalism and spiritualization.
Weaknesses
Less common in traditional Christian preaching. Can be politically charged in ways that divide congregations. Acts 4:34–35 is descriptive more than prescriptive for all times.
Further Reading
- Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man (Orbis, 2008)
- Ched Myers, The Biblical Vision of Sabbath Economics (Tell the Word, 2001)
- Justo González, Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin, Significance, and Use of Money (Harper & Row, 1990)
- Christopher Hays, Luke’s Wealth Ethics (Mohr Siebeck, 2010)