Luke refers to a man who came to Jesus, asking how he might inherit eternal life (Luke 18:18). Only Luke mentions that he was a ruler (G758), while Matthew says he was a young man (Matthew 21:20, 22). All three Synoptics tell us he was very rich (Matthew 19:22; Mark 10:22; Luke 18:23), but Mark adds that Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21). So, he is a rich, young ruler, whom Jesus loved.
The Bible mentions several people who were rulers (G758). Jairus, whose daughter Jesus raised from the dead, was a ruler (G758) of a synagogue in Galilee (Luke 8:41), but Nicodemus was also called a ruler of the Jews (John 3:1), probably meaning a member of the Sanhedrin (cf. John 7:50).[1] Nicodemus was one who helped bury Jesus. The other person was Joseph of Arimathaea (John 19:38-40). Joseph was a rich man (Matthew 27:57) and a member of the Sanhedrin, i.e. a ruler of the Jews. Both Mark and Luke tell us that Joseph was a member of the Council, the high court that ruled over Jewish matters (Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50). Luke adds that he did not consent with the Council that condemned Jesus to die, showing that he was, indeed, a member of the Sanhedrin.
Joseph of Arimathaea was a rich ruler of the Jews, but do we have any proof that he might be the rich young ruler who came to Jesus in Luke 18:18, and the person Mark tells us Jesus loved (Mark 10:21)? None of these matters can be set in stone, but, if all the pertinent Scriptures are taken together, we are able to come up with possibilities, even probabilities. The fact that Joseph is a rich ruler makes it ‘possible’ for him to be the same rich ruler who came to Jesus in Luke 18:18. In other words he is a candidate, just as Lazarus is a candidate, and that could make them the same person. What might turn these possibilities into a probabilities?
In a previous study[2] I had shown that Barnabas of the book of Acts was actually Joseph, whom the Apostles named Barnabas, because of his generosity and encouragement (cf. Acts 4:36). Barnabas / Joseph is also the brother of Mary, the mother of Mark (Colossians 4:10; cf. Acts 12:12), but who is this Mary? Luke refers to her in Acts as though we should know her. Peter immediately went to her home in Jerusalem, knowing he would find brethren there upon whom he could rely to tell James, the Lord’s brother, of his whereabouts (cf. Acts 12:12, 16-17). Again, if we use only the scriptures for her identification, this Mary can be no one other than Mary Magdalene, who is also Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus.[3] If this is true, the Lazarus of the Gospel of John is the Joseph or Barnabas of Acts! Mary Magdalene = Mary, Lazarus’ sister = Mary, Barnabas’ sister. Since Barnabas’ real name is Joseph (Acts 4:36), the name, Lazarus, must be a code name used in the Gospel of John to hide Joseph’s / Barnabas’ identity from those who sought his life (cf. John 12:10-11).
We know that Joseph / Barnabas was rich (Acts 4:36). We also know that he had to have been a man of influence, because of those who mourned his death (i.e. Lazarus’s death – John 11:19). Note that the phrase “many of the Jews” who came to comfort the family were actually ‘many of the Jewish authorities’ at Jerusalem, which implies Lazarus / Barnabas (Joseph) may have been a member of the Sanhedrin. This logic creates the possibility that Barnabas / Joseph (Acts 4:36) is actually the ruler, Joseph of Arimathaea, and in making this connection, we create the possibility that Barnabas was also the rich young ruler of Luke 18:18, whom Jesus loved (Mark 10:21).
Luke 18:27 implies that the rich young ruler not only ‘could’ be saved, but ‘would’ be saved, because why would Jesus even mention this in connection with this man, unless he intended to do something about the incident? It is one thing to say all things are possible with God, and it is quite another to show that the thing pointed out, which was so difficult (Luke 18:24), was, indeed, possible with God. The fact that Mark points out that Jesus loved the rich young ruler indicates that Jesus intended to love this man into the Kingdom of God, showing how God both begins and brings to pass his work of salvation in one individual (cf. Philippians 1:6).
Whatever Jesus did in Lazarus’ life, other than raise him from the dead, it was well known that he loved him (John 11:5, 36). Moreover, Lazarus is the only male disciple in the Gospel of John who can be specifically singled out as the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 11:5; 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). So, it is implied by loving Lazarus, Jesus was working in his life. In light of this conclusion, how can we simply read the fact that the rich young ruler was loved by Jesus, but at the same time discount any implication that this indicates Jesus worked in his life too? One doesn’t simply love a person and have nothing to do with him. That’s not love. Yet, Lazarus is the only male disciple specifically identified by saying Jesus loved him.
Consider, the fact that the rich young ruler had problems with following Jesus, because of his love for wealth (Luke 18:22-24). Joseph of Arimathaea had problems with following Jesus, because of his position among the rulers of the Jews (John 19:38), so he visited Jesus secretly. If these men are the same man and can be identified as Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead, what change could we expect in Lazarus’ love for Jesus? All of a sudden Joseph goes public and identifies himself with Jesus (Mark 15:43), asking Pilate for Jesus’ body. In Acts we find Barnabas giving away his wealth, the very thing that hindered the rich young ruler in the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus loved Lazarus, put his own life in jeopardy for Lazarus, and the love of Jesus mastered Lazarus’ problem of wealth and honorable position among the Jews, and he came to full repentance to become the one we know as Barnabas in Luke’s book of Acts.
_______________________________________
[1] John 7:50 – “Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,).” The phrase being one of them should not be part of the parenthesis. Nicodemus was one of THEM, i.e. one of the rulers (cf. John 7:48), as also Moffatt, Weymouth, the New English Translation and the Contemporary English Version also testify.
[2] See Barnabas, Whom Jesus Loved
[3] See my previous studies: Mary, the Mother of Mark; Who is the Unnamed Woman of Luke 7 and Mary Magdalene.
Smoodock's Blog 
8 responses to “Identifying the Rich Young Ruler”
Hi Eddie,
Agree with you that the rich young ruler was Lazarus. Would also love to agree with you that the rich young ruler / Lazarus is indeed the one known as Barnabas, but there is one nagging problem that is preventing me from doing so. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.
When Barnabas was “carried away with their dissimulation” when Peter and others withdrew from eating with the Gentiles, this seems to be a fault in Barnabas (Gal. 2:11-14). If Barnabas is Lazarus, (the resurrected saint), he would not possibly have been able to commit any error in his practices. Resurrected people are without fault and are unable to sin in their incorruptible, perfected state. Therefore, if Barnabas was sinning just like Peter was in these Galatians verses by withdrawing from the Gentiles to be “politically correct”, he could not have been Lazarus.
Now, the only way Barnabas could be Lazarus is if Paul’s analysis of Barnabas’ actions and motives was mistaken. This is possible, since Paul could have been mistaken in his other analysis of John Mark’s faithfulness, counter to Barnabas’ position. We know Paul eventually did do a later retraction (II Tim. 4:11 and Col. 4:10) about originally rejecting John Mark for his supposed motives for returning to Jerusalem and not going with them to the work. Or John Mark actually could have been in error, and then reformed his actions later. The blame for John Mark seems to be a debatable matter open to question, so we don’t actually know for certain if Barnabas was correct in His actions on the John Mark matter. This might also bring into question whether Barnabas actually was at fault in the Galatians 2 matter or not. Could Paul have been mistaken that Barnabas was “led away” by the same dissimulation of Peter? Could Barnabas have only *appeared* to withdraw from the Gentiles, but Paul interpreted his actions and/or motives wrongly?
Here are a few reasons other than the ones you have given above that lead me to think Barnabas WAS Lazarus. The given surname of “Barnabas” meaning “The Son of Consolation” I believe is a reference to Lazarus / the beloved disciple John Eleazar being given the task by Christ at His crucifixion of being Mary’s “SON” who was to CONSOLE her after Christ’s death, and who would be responsible for her care thereafter. All the disciples knew that Lazarus / John Eleazar was given this charge by the Savior. “The Son of Consolation” (Barnabas) would seem to be a natural nickname given by the disciples to the man who became Mary’s “son”, in obedience to Jesus’ stated desires from the cross.
Another reason is that Barnabas is called “our BELOVED Barnabas” in Acts 15:25 by the church when they commissioned Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision question. This sounds identical to John the BELOVED disciple, as well as Lazarus the BELOVED, and the BELOVED rich young ruler. And another thing. Why would Barnabas, who in this context was entrusted by the church along with Paul and others to go to Jerusalem’s apostles and elders to settle the circumcision debate question, yet be the same one who Paul said was waffling on the very same point in Galatians? How could such a fervent defender of the Gentiles be the same man who was reputed to be “led away” by Peter’s dissimulation on this Galatians 2 question of eating with Gentiles?
Another reason is the account of Paul and Barnabas going to Lystra, where they heal a cripple, and are idolized for it. This earned them persecution by the offended Jews who came from Antioch and Iconium who then stoned Paul. Why didn’t they also stone Barnabas who was with Paul? He had to have been there, because the very next day, Barnabas and Paul both left the city together to go to Derbe instead (Acts 14:20). Could it be perhaps because those Jews knew it was an impossibility to stone a resurrected man to death? (Lazarus / Barnabas)
Just trying to balance everything out here. If what you are proposing is correct, Eddie, then the rich young ruler had a number of aliases. This would have been understandable, given that Lazarus would have tried to keep a low profile so as to protect those Christians who associated with him from being targeted by the hostile Jews who would have liked to kill him again if they could. Since that was an impossibility, they would have loved to kill anybody associated with Lazarus, maybe even Jesus’ mother Mary, who he was charged to protect. All his known aliases would be listed as…
#1) the rich young ruler, beloved by Jesus
#2) Joseph of Arimathea, ruler of the Jews
#3) Joses, or Barnabas, a Levite from Cyprus, “The Son of Consolation”
#4) Lazarus the resurrected, beloved disciple
#5) John the beloved disciple, who became Mary’s “son”, the only one who “believed” when he saw the empty tomb, and the writer of John’s gospel, the epistles, and the Revelation
#6) John Eleazar, with which the Lazarus name is connected
Greetings Patricia, and thank you for reading and for your interesting comment. It is evident that you thought about this for some time.
To begin with, I believe Lazarus / Barnabas was resurrected to natural life (John 21:22-23), not eternal life. He couldn’t pass through locked doors etc. like the Lord could; nor could he disappear from sight at will. He was a human being in every sense that you and I are, subject to the same temptations and weaknesses that any other normal man would be. Aside from Jesus’ resurrection, there was no resurrection to eternal life until cir. 70 AD. So, we continue to differ about this understanding, and we can hardly expect to agree on Paul’s analysis of events, as long as we continue to disagree about when the resurrection to eternal life began to occur. Also, Jesus is called the FIRSTBORN from the dead (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5). That could hardly be true, if Jesus resurrected Lazarus / Barnabas to **eternal** life weeks, perhaps a month, before Jesus’ own death and resurrection. Therefore, in as much as I am able to understand, Barnabas was not a perfect /sinless saint.
Concerning John Mark, much is not disclosed about this event due to the fact that Luke put copies of both his Gospel and Acts into the hands of Theophilus, high priest and son of Annas, the man particularly responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. Accusations against the Jewish authorities and names of the saints had to be kept at a minimum, so the Gospel could be preached in Jerusalem in **relative** peace, because Jewish pilgrims from all over the empire came there annually. No other place was quite like Jerusalem for reaching folks with the Gospel. This is the reason behind Peter’s and Barnabas’ error in Antioch. The **men from James** were very powerful Jews, probably spies, as Paul suggested, and neither Peter nor Barnabas wanted to jeopardize the work of the Gospel at Jerusalem.
Mark’s own actions had led to James’ (John’s brother) death and Peter’s imprisonment and the persecution that followed (Acts 12). Peter had to flee to Antioch, because of Mark’s misunderstanding of Paul’s activity on Cyprus. Paul wanted Mark to prove himself before accepting him back into the work, but Barnabas, his uncle, probably knew (or believed he knew) Mark’s heart. The fact that Barnabas was correct and Paul later received Mark as a brother valuable to the work, should in no way be interpreted as a lack of wisdom on Paul’s part over this situation.
Concerning John Eleazar, in my opinion, the Gospel of John is misnamed. It is not the Gospel of John the Apostle (one of the Twelve); it is the Gospel of Barnabas / Lazarus (Joseph of Arimathaea), an entirely different person. Also, this man is not the John of Revelation 1:1. When Jesus revealed that his betrayer was one of the Twelve, it is ludicrous to assume Peter would ask **one of the Twelve** to ask Jesus who the betrayer was. If that were the case, Peter could have been asking the betrayer to ask Jesus who the betrayer was. It simply doesn’t make sense. The Beloved Disciple was someone other than one the Twelve.
Concerning Barnabas and Paul at Lystra, you assume Paul and Barnabas were together. This doesn’t have to be true. It probably wasn’t true, since Barnabas wasn’t stoned as well (cf. John 12:9-11). Probably, Barnabas was with and encouraging the recent converts at Lystra, while Paul went out to the mission work, where he was found by his enemies.
If I missed anything you would like me to have addressed, simply say so, and I’ll do my best to reply accordingly. Lord bless you, Patricia.
Hi Eddie,
I appreciate your giving such a thorough response to my thoughts above.
As to John Eleazar’s identity, you are definitely correct that he was NOT one of the original 12 apostles. This is fairly simple to prove that the beloved disciple John during Jesus’ ministry was not the same as John, the son of Zebedee, by comparing the names of the disciples that were fishing together when they encountered the risen Christ at the Sea of Galilee in John 21:2, 7. Here, the two sons of Zebedee (James and John) are mentioned separately from the two “OTHER” disciples, one of whom is the nameless “BELOVED” disciple who wrote the book of John (John 21:24).
Another proof that John the beloved disciple was separate from the other 12 disciples was the fact that when John came to the empty tomb with Peter, John 20:8 says that “…he BELIEVED”. Later on that evening of that same day, Mark 16:14 says that Christ appeared to the 11 disciples (minus Judas) and upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because THEY BELIEVED *NOT* those who told them they had seen the risen Christ. Therefore, this proves that John the beloved was not considered one of the original 12 disciples.
You are correct also that John, the beloved disciple, was NOT counted as one of the original 12 apostles when he was at the Last Supper. Peter did indeed ask someone outside of the group of 12 disciples to request Jesus to name the betrayer. Since this beloved John was the same as Lazarus, the beloved, resurrected one, as a perfected saint was above suspicion of being the betrayer of Christ, and could be counted on to truthfully pass on Jesus’ words without any deception.
You have asserted that Lazarus was only raised to a “natural life” – not an “eternal life”. If that is true, then why do we have the double assurance that John the Beloved disciple / Lazarus could be presumed to never deceive anyone? (John 21:24, “…we KNOW that his (John’s) witness is true.” And III John v. 12, “…ye KNOW that our record is true.”) The appeal to John’s / Lazarus’ truthfulness could only be used for assurance if we are looking at John / Lazarus in the state of resurrected perfection of eternal life.
You have also asserted that John Eleazar / Lazarus is “not the John of Revelation 1:1”. If that is true, then why do we have the record by Tertullian and Jerome that John (aka Lazarus, Barnabas, John Eleazar, etc.) was unsuccessfully boiled in oil by Nero’s order to the proconsul of Ephesus, just before John went to the isle of Patmos off the coast of Ephesus? If we are to believe Tertullian’s record of this failed attempt to martyr John (aka Lazarus, etc.), does that not indicate that Lazarus / John was raised – not to a “natural life” – but to a perfected, incorruptible, indestructible, eternal state? In that case, Barnabas / Lazarus would NOT have been able to sin, any more than it was possible for him to die again.
I understand your objection to this, based on your firm belief that Christ MUST retain His title of being the “First-born” or the “First-begotten”. I agree that this IS absolutely necessary for Christ to be the “First-begotten” from among the dead above all others. But please check your definition by scripture of what this “First-begotten” status actually entails, according to God’s terms. The conditions that satisfy this “First-begotten” status involve ONE THING MORE than a saint simply being raised above ground in an incorruptible, “eternal life” condition. The last, most important step of our glorification is to actually STAND IN GOD’S PRESENCE BEFORE HIS FACE in that eternal, glorified, resurrected form. Only then, when we are face-to-face with our Creator in a perfected, bodily-resurrected form can all the terms of our “salvation package” be finally and completely fulfilled. (This is the critical difference in the “BETTER resurrection” , and the “BETTER thing” of Heb. 11:35 and 40.)
This was Moses’ most earnest desire when speaking with God in the tabernacle; “Show me thy glory”, he begged. God relented to the point of allowing Moses to see His back parts, but not His face, or Moses would have died from the experience. (This may have actually been how Moses died on Mount Nebo, where God buried him. If that really was what happened – what a way for Moses to die, with his last view while on this earth being a vision of the glory of God’s face.)
Christ accomplished this one, final step to become the “First-begotten” when He ascended to God His Father that morning after His resurrection (John 20:17). That is why God prophetically tells us in Psalms 2:7-8 about His Son, the risen Christ, that “THIS DAY have I *BEGOTTEN* thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.”
You have mentioned on another one of your posts, Eddie, (and I agree) that this conversation between God and His “First-begotten” Son took place in Daniel 7:13-14 when the Son of Man was BROUGHT NEAR BEFORE THE FACE of the Ancient of Days, and was given a kingdom as our high priest “king” in heaven. There were plenty of individuals in both OT and NT who were raised to an “ETERNAL life” while on the earth, but not one of them were “begotten” in the fullest, completed sense of our salvation experience until the 1,335th day in AD 70. Even Revelation 15:8 tells us when the temple was first opened in heaven for the bodily-resurrected saints to enter it. The time for this was at the end of the age when the last, 7th vial was poured out. Until that moment in AD 70, as Christ said in John 3:13, “…And NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven…”
This scriptural definition of what was involved for Christ to be called the “First-begotten” (by His ascension to see God’s face in His glorified, resurrected body form) allows us to have individuals such as Lazarus and any others in scripture like him to be raised in perfected, “eternal life” body forms without Christ losing His status of being the “First-begotten”. In other words, there is a difference between the set of “First-fruits” (which involved many, including the 144,000 and Christ the First-fruits) and the single “First-begotten” one (which always and forever applies solely and exclusively to Christ alone out of all the resurrected saints).
All this leads me back to considering that Barnabas’ / Lazarus’ decision in Galatians 2:11-14 HAD to be a decision based on righteous reasons and motives, even though Paul apparently didn’t understand this. You have said that both Peter and Barnabas did not want to jeopardize the work of the gospel at Jerusalem. We cannot be sure of Peter’s motives for withdrawing from the Gentiles. Perhaps Paul was right about Peter deserving blame for this. Perhaps not. But as I have suggested earlier, I believe it’s likely that Barnabas / Lazarus removed himself from the company of the Gentiles when the Jews came from James only to PROTECT those Gentiles from being targeted for persecution from the Jews by his presence among them. He was, after all, a well-known, easily-identified enemy of all the leaders of the Jews who considered him a traitor to the Sanhedrin, and hated the very sight of him. The apostle Paul, not being in a state of glorified, eternal perfection yet, (as Barnabas / Lazarus was) might have simply misunderstood Barnabas’ protective reasons for separating himself from the Gentile Christians on that occasion.
You may still not agree with this position, Eddie, but I at least wanted to let you know how I break these things down, scripturally speaking.
Blessings on your blog.
Greetings Patricia and thank you for your latest submission. Lord bless you for your untiring efforts to digest his word. I wasn’t certain whether or not you wished a reply. Your “I at least wanted to let you know how I break these things down, scripturally speaking” left me with the impression that you didn’t want a reply. I have prepared one, but I hesitate to submit it, because I don’t wish to inundate you with negative submissions. I’d rather be more friendly and positive. :-)
If you wish a reply, please don’t hesitate to say so. Lord bless you, Patricia.
Hi Eddie,
Certainly, I would be honored to read whatever response you have time to submit. I didn’t want to give the impression of “hogging your blog” by appearing to demand an answer from you – especially since you post so faithfully on different subjects. Good writing takes time, and I don’t want to presume on yours.
You know the verse in Prov. 27:7, “…to the hungry soul, every bitter thing is sweet.” That would be me. There is no Preterist fellowship in my family or immediate community, and in order to avoid presenting a divided front to the congregation on these matters, 3 years ago I had to leave a 16-year-church membership where my (historicist position) husband still serves as an elder. Any interaction online with a fellow-Preterist of whatever mindset is a treasured experience – whether we can agree totally or not. And there is much on your site I do find agreement with, or I wouldn’t be checking in here regularly to read your contributions.
If you are concerned about coming across as negative instead of positive – don’t be. Nothing in this world, even down to the atomic level, can function properly without positive polarity working in conjunction with negative. That’s the beauty of magnets. So…looking forward to your magnetic response…