# Mark 10:17-31?



## kevin.carroll (Mar 28, 2005)

Hi, all.

I was doing some study on this passage last week and I was intrigued by what Jesus says to the rich young man.

In putting His finger on the man's sin (specifically his worship of money--1st commandment), he lists the last six commandments as something the man should "do."

Interestingly, Christ lists the commandments in this order: 6, 7, 8, 9. Then He throws in "do not defraud" and concludes with the 5th commandment.

This led me to wonder what the defraud remark was about and why the 5th was listed last. "Do not defraud" appears to be from the Apocrypha...but I'm not sure.

The whole thing led me to wonder if Christ wasn't listing the commandments in descending order of their applicability to this young man. If we see "do not defraud" as an application of the 10th commandment followed by the 5th, could it imply that the man, perhaps, had somehow defrauded his parents? Was his money, in fact, coerced out of his parents?

Calvin has nothing on this passage. Just thot I would see what you might think.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 28, 2005)

Kevin,

This is an interesting question and I don't have any immediate thoughts, but I will be interested to see what others say. Meanwhile, though, it might be good to have this thread moved from the OT to the NT forum.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Kevin,
> 
> This is an interesting question and I don't have any immediate thoughts, but I will be interested to see what others say. Meanwhile, though, it might be good to have this thread moved from the OT to the NT forum.



Hmmmm...i obviously blundered. I'd move it, if I knew how...


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 28, 2005)

Done, compadre!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 28, 2005)

J.A. Alexander in his Mark commentary says that "Defraud not" is a summary of the 10th commandment, and that the 5th commandment was probably put last, both because it is a positive commandment and also because this may have been where the rich man was deficient. 

Hendrickson offer the suggestion that Jesus is deriving the command from Lev. 19:13, Duet. 24:14-15 and like Alexander suggests it to summarize the 10th commandment. But then he also offers the suggestion, in comparing the account to the Matthew parallel where Matthew substitutes "Love your neighbor as yourself", and combining the thought with the rest of the commandments listed, suggests that this rich man was probably withholding (i.e. defrauding) the love due to his neighbor which the law requires.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> J.A. Alexander in his Mark commentary says that "Defraud not" is a summary of the 10th commandment, and that the 5th commandment was probably put last, both because it is a positive commandment and also because this may have been where the rich man was deficient.
> 
> Hendrickson offer the suggestion that Jesus is deriving the command from Lev. 19:13, Duet. 24:14-15 and like Alexander suggests it to summarize the 10th commandment. But then he also offers the suggestion, in comparing the account to the Matthew parallel where Matthew substitutes "Love your neighbor as yourself", and combining the thought with the rest of the commandments listed, suggests that this rich man was probably withholding (i.e. defrauding) the love due to his neighbor which the law requires.



I sort of arrived at the same conclusion, however I don't know I agree with the references Hendrickson cites. The LXX uses avpadike,w whereas Jesus uses avpostere,w. The exact quotation (if it is indeed such) is from Sir. 4:1.


----------



## Herald (Aug 27, 2005)

Kevin, one thing we do know about Jesus is that He knew the thoughts of all men. Mark 2:8 And immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? It is very possible that Jesus knew the rich young rulers heart and responded accordingly.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 27, 2005)

I posted a thread about this recently, and never got much response. I believe Bahnsen says Jesus was quoting from a LXX rendering of a canonical OT Law, but not from the moral Law.


----------

