Jesus Challenging Presuppositions

The passage of Jesus’ encounter with the Rich Young Ruler in Mark 10:17–22 (cf. Luke 18:18–30 & Matthew 19:16–22) is frequently cited as a linchpin of the theological system of Lordship Salvation. John MacArthur used the passage to show Jesus testing us with a choice of surrender leading to eternal life.¹ Instead of calling the rich man into a life-long commitment, Jesus presented a hypothetical position to challenge the absurdity of the man’s false assumptions.

In context, Jesus had just finished asserting that everyone must receive the Kingdom with child-like faith (10:15). The gospel writers arranged this prior episode as a stark contrast to the rich man. Children understand the simple faith-alone message, but a grown man entangled in religious tradition relies on keeping the Law.

The rich man begins with the wrong question to Jesus: “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” The correct answer is nothing. Christ later plainly states the impossibility of man to save himself (10:27).

Jesus does not ignore the man’s presupposition or give him false hope. Christ corrected the young ruler by answering, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God…” (10:18). If only God is good, then obviously the rich man should have admitted he fell far short and could never measure up to the Law. Yet, the man insisted he had indeed kept the Law since his youth. He should have remembered Ecclesiastes 7:20 as evidence of humanity’s inadequacy to meet God’s holy standard. Interestingly, Jesus cites the latter half of the Decalogue. Those commands of obedience concern relations among humans, surely a more visible witness against the rich young ruler.

Rather than repeating Himself, Jesus entertains the false hypothesis. If anyone truly has goodness as God does by keeping the Law perfectly, they will need to give away everything to the poor. Jesus did not expect strict asceticism as a realistic answer to the man’s original question. The theoretical possibility of man’s perfect goodness when taken literally proves an actual impossibility. However, if such a reality were possible, he would have the reward of eternal life.

Jesus’ tactic of presupposing falsehoods and taking them to the extreme to refute them is not uncommon in Scripture. Technically, in logic we call this form of argumentation reductio ad absurdum. Essentially, Paul gives the same thesis in Romans 2:5–8. If anyone should pursue goodness continually, God would give them eternal life. Yet, we all will fall infinitely short of that goal. Alternatively, God offers eternal life as a gift.

Other Examples in Hypothetical Arguments

In the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) Jesus gave another impossible situation to prove the lawyer cannot justify himself. No one would perfectly tend to every destitute person, let alone their enemy! The purpose of the Law is to reveal sin, not to prescribe the way to salvation (Romans 3:20).

The Old Testament records similar hypothetical statements. For example, in Psalm 130:3–4 the writer theorizes if God truly counted all our trespasses against us, everyone would stand condemned. Instead, people are positionally righteous by faith without relation to their deeds.

Next, in John 5:25–29 Jesus states those who are now spiritually dead that hear and believe the Son of Man will live forever (contra-Calvinism). And yet, the hour is coming when all will be raised physically. Chronologically, believers secure now in Christ are promised entrance in the Kingdom with glorified bodies. 1,000 years later the Great White Throne judgment occurs for the Devil, his fallen angels, and all unbelievers (Revelation 20:11–15). The lost are condemned because their names are not found in the Book of Life. Thus, Jesus speaks hypothetically in John 5:29. There will be no good person raised after the Millennium to merit eternal life.

Perhaps the most striking parallel to Jesus’ hypothetical argumentation comes from John 8:2–11, where the Jews try to trap Jesus with the woman caught in adultery. Our Lord exposed the Pharisees’ hypocrisy by presuming the extreme reality of their presupposition. If they had no involvement in the affair and were witnesses to it (Deuteronomy 17:7), then they would have the right to carry out the judgment. Their conscience convicted them and they left one by one, as if casting a silent vote to render it a mistrial. On the other hand, the Synoptics never record the rich young ruler realizing any error in his theology. Each passage implies Jesus as the only good and worthy Judge.

Some accuse free grace of downplaying sin. The fact Jesus removed sin for all people as a barrier in judgment does not resolve the confusion people have regarding it. Every culture has deep-rooted misconceptions about God. People cannot be expected to believe when they are deceived about the very nature of a gift.

Someone’s confidence in themselves may blind them to the truth. Jesus loved the rich young ruler enough to help him see his spiritual ignorance. We can use the same strategy in our pre-evangelism and apologetics to clear the path for anyone to believe in Jesus for eternal life. They might believe they can outweigh their sin with good deeds, later lose salvation, or that behavioral change gives assurance. Whatever the case, we need to exercise patience to lovingly correct errors in unbelievers so that they can see the truth.