"You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother." (Mark 10:19)
Scholars have long puzzled over the reasons for Jesus's adumbrated list of the ten commandments necessary for "eternal life / salvation / entering the kingdom" (he only cites the 'ethical' / 'behaviour'-focused ones and omits the cultic / religious ones, such as the command not to worship any other gods but Yahweh; make a graven image; take God's name in vain or keep the Sabbath. None of them appear!).
But even more striking than what he omits from the Decalogue is what he adds to it: an entire, new commandment against economically taking advantage of others ("defrauding") that cannot be found in the Torah's list of Ten Words. In his study The Damned Rich (Mark 10:17–31), Professor James G. Crossley writes:
Mark 10:17–31 is an important passage which stresses the importance of the commandments and their relationship to a concern for social justice [...] What is particularly noticeable is the prohibition of defrauding (me¯ apostere¯ se¯ s) among the commandments (10:19). This is famously not in the Decalogue and replaces do not covet (Exod 20:17/Deut 5:21).
The verb apostereo¯ occurs in the LXX for ‘šq in the context of not depriving workers of their wages in a passage which echoes the Decalogue, Malachi 3.5 (‘those who oppress [MT: wb‘šqy/LXX: tous aposterountas] the hired workers in their wages’), and in Deuteronomy 24:14–15 (‘you shall not withhold [MT: l’ t‘šq/LXX ‘A’: ouk apostere¯ seis] the wages of the poor and needy labourers . . .’).
The change made to the Decalogue in Mark 10:19 is important for understanding the passage as a whole: it must, after all, have been added for a reason. Given the background just outlined, even if we cannot be precise, the reason is no doubt that the rich man had not even done what many rich people were deemed all too able to do: oppress and/or take advantage of and/or deny wages.
Given that this rich man had observed the commandments surely he was being rewarded through his ‘many (landed) possessions’ (kte¯ mata polla – 10:22). But this view of reward is rejected by Jesus. Jesus tells the rich man to sell his properties and give all to the poor. The rich man cannot do this of course (10:22). And so we get a powerful rejection of wealth (ta chre¯ mata) as reward in Mark 10:23–25, a reversal of fortunes which causes amazement among the disciples (Mark 10:26): who then can be saved? [...]
But precisely why is the rich man to be excluded from the kingdom of God, even if he has observed those commandments, including the additional commandment, do not defraud?
The verb apostereo¯ occurs in the LXX for ‘šq in the context of not depriving workers of their wages in a passage which echoes the Decalogue, Malachi 3.5 (‘those who oppress [MT: wb‘šqy/LXX: tous aposterountas] the hired workers in their wages’), and in Deuteronomy 24:14–15 (‘you shall not withhold [MT: l’ t‘šq/LXX ‘A’: ouk apostere¯ seis] the wages of the poor and needy labourers . . .’).
The change made to the Decalogue in Mark 10:19 is important for understanding the passage as a whole: it must, after all, have been added for a reason. Given the background just outlined, even if we cannot be precise, the reason is no doubt that the rich man had not even done what many rich people were deemed all too able to do: oppress and/or take advantage of and/or deny wages.
Given that this rich man had observed the commandments surely he was being rewarded through his ‘many (landed) possessions’ (kte¯ mata polla – 10:22). But this view of reward is rejected by Jesus. Jesus tells the rich man to sell his properties and give all to the poor. The rich man cannot do this of course (10:22). And so we get a powerful rejection of wealth (ta chre¯ mata) as reward in Mark 10:23–25, a reversal of fortunes which causes amazement among the disciples (Mark 10:26): who then can be saved? [...]
But precisely why is the rich man to be excluded from the kingdom of God, even if he has observed those commandments, including the additional commandment, do not defraud?
Now, its perfectly true that Jews understand the Ten Words as a kind of summation of the entirety of the 613 mitsvot or laws of the Torah but I still doubt that they'd been keen on someone addlibing an entire 'command' that wasn't in the original text of the Decalogue. Yet, as well as excluding the cultic commandments, this is exactly what Jesus does.
Here are the views of two scholars on it, Professors Justin Meggit and James G. Crossley (in a different article):
"...There is a pervasive theme of hostility to wealth in the Jesus tradition (see, for example, Matthew 6.24, Luke 16.13; Luke 12.13-21; Matthew 6.29, Luke 12.27; Matthew 19.24, Mark 10.25, Luke 18.25; Matthew 24.17, Mark 13.15; Luke 17.31; cf. Luke 16:14-15).
Real treasure is said to be located in heaven (Matthew 6.20; Luke 12.33; Matthew 19.21, Mark 10.21, Luke 18.22; Matthew 6.2, Luke 16.13; Luke 12.13-14, cf. Thomas 72). The recurrent attacks on the rich show that this hostility to wealth is not motivated by asceticism but on an assumed relationship between poverty and wealth (see Luke 19.1-9; Matthew 19.21, Mark 10.21, Luke 18.22).
An indication of such thinking might be visible in Mark 10.19 where the command not to defraud is added to a series of commandments otherwise taken from the Ten Commandments cf. Luke 19.8; James 5.4; Deuteronomy 5.6-11, Exodus 20.1-17."
(Meggitt, J. Anachronism, anarchism and the historical Jesus, p.20)
"We have other types of ‘radical’ statements of dramatic role reversal related to eschatology in the Gospel tradition, including economic reversal (e.g. Luke 6.20; but cf. Matt. 5.3). One of the most explicit passages in this respect, and with direct reference to the kingdom of God, is Mark 10.17–31, a passage I have discussed in more detail elsewhere.12
Here, the rich man has observed those commandments listed (Mark 10.17–22) but is told to give to the poor the proceeds from selling his possessions or properties and follow Jesus. The addition to the commandments (10.19) is a prohibition of defrauding (μὴ ἀποστερήσης), a phrase not in the Decalogue (cf. Exod. 20.17/Deut. 5.21).
Other uses of the phrase would further suggest that this involves withholding workers’ wages or engaging with economic exploitation (e.g. Deut. 24.14–15; Mal. 3.5; Sir. 4.1; 1QapGen 20.11; Tg. Onq. Lev. 5.21; Tg. Ps.-J. Lev. 5.23; Tg. Neof. and Ps-J. Deut. 24.14; Tg. Mal. 3.5; Lev. R. 12.1; Pesh. Mk 10.19; Pesh. Deut. 24.14–15; Pesh. Mal. 3.5). No doubt this additional commandment is given to suit the specific case of the rich man who might be expected to exploit poorer people"
(Crossley, J.G. Jesus and the Chaos of History: Redirecting the Life of the Historical Jesus p.68)
So why do you think that (a) Jesus confined his recital of the Ten Commandments only to the ethical ones? (b) he added a commandment against economic "defrauding" that is not in the original Decalogue and (c) given that the Rich Man had apparently even adhered to this additional stipulation set uniquely by Jesus, that not even part of the original commandments, and still fell short, how should we interpret Jesus's overall meaning here about wealth and eternal life? As Crossley notes, it appears to be the case that:Real treasure is said to be located in heaven (Matthew 6.20; Luke 12.33; Matthew 19.21, Mark 10.21, Luke 18.22; Matthew 6.2, Luke 16.13; Luke 12.13-14, cf. Thomas 72). The recurrent attacks on the rich show that this hostility to wealth is not motivated by asceticism but on an assumed relationship between poverty and wealth (see Luke 19.1-9; Matthew 19.21, Mark 10.21, Luke 18.22).
An indication of such thinking might be visible in Mark 10.19 where the command not to defraud is added to a series of commandments otherwise taken from the Ten Commandments cf. Luke 19.8; James 5.4; Deuteronomy 5.6-11, Exodus 20.1-17."
(Meggitt, J. Anachronism, anarchism and the historical Jesus, p.20)
"We have other types of ‘radical’ statements of dramatic role reversal related to eschatology in the Gospel tradition, including economic reversal (e.g. Luke 6.20; but cf. Matt. 5.3). One of the most explicit passages in this respect, and with direct reference to the kingdom of God, is Mark 10.17–31, a passage I have discussed in more detail elsewhere.12
Here, the rich man has observed those commandments listed (Mark 10.17–22) but is told to give to the poor the proceeds from selling his possessions or properties and follow Jesus. The addition to the commandments (10.19) is a prohibition of defrauding (μὴ ἀποστερήσης), a phrase not in the Decalogue (cf. Exod. 20.17/Deut. 5.21).
Other uses of the phrase would further suggest that this involves withholding workers’ wages or engaging with economic exploitation (e.g. Deut. 24.14–15; Mal. 3.5; Sir. 4.1; 1QapGen 20.11; Tg. Onq. Lev. 5.21; Tg. Ps.-J. Lev. 5.23; Tg. Neof. and Ps-J. Deut. 24.14; Tg. Mal. 3.5; Lev. R. 12.1; Pesh. Mk 10.19; Pesh. Deut. 24.14–15; Pesh. Mal. 3.5). No doubt this additional commandment is given to suit the specific case of the rich man who might be expected to exploit poorer people"
(Crossley, J.G. Jesus and the Chaos of History: Redirecting the Life of the Historical Jesus p.68)
"...the eye of the needle saying (Mark 10:25) should be taken as strongly as possible: it is impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom. It is hardly surprising that such a passage has proven to be one of the more difficult for the more comfortable Christian to swallow [...] the passage has the rich man as someone who observed all the listed commandments at least and so it is clearly the case that his disproportionate riches are the problem.
If he renounces wealth, gives the money to the poor and follows Jesus he will have considerably more chance of entering the kingdom. This much is absolutely explicit. Thus the point of the camel and the needle, as in the passage as a whole, must be to show that it is impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom. The obvious must not be avoided: in a world of extreme social and economic inequality Jesus damned the rich.
Major issues which come out of Mark 10:17–31 are the virtual equation of wealth/land owning with economic oppression, the reversal of rich and poor in the life to come, the extension of reward theology to include the life to come, and the interpretation of the Torah from the perspective of the economically poor."
If he renounces wealth, gives the money to the poor and follows Jesus he will have considerably more chance of entering the kingdom. This much is absolutely explicit. Thus the point of the camel and the needle, as in the passage as a whole, must be to show that it is impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom. The obvious must not be avoided: in a world of extreme social and economic inequality Jesus damned the rich.
Major issues which come out of Mark 10:17–31 are the virtual equation of wealth/land owning with economic oppression, the reversal of rich and poor in the life to come, the extension of reward theology to include the life to come, and the interpretation of the Torah from the perspective of the economically poor."
Last edited: