Down through the centuries interpreters explored many of the images of Jesus. Such exploration ahs been done in diverse ways and varied fashion. Many of these images are based on imaginations. The gospels give many paintings of Jesus, which are basically the faith assertion of communities on the historical Jesus. But there are a lot of images which are relatively under-explored. One of such images is the counter-cultural Jesus.

This portion comes in the large section of 10:17-31 where three stories are incorporated, the rich man, wealth as a hindrance to discipleship and reward for following Jesus, each of this includes a ‘gaze’ from Jesus (vv. 21, 23, 27) and the concluding sentence in v.31. It is argued that 10:17-22 is the basic unit to which the supplements are attached in vv.23-27 and 28-30 and 31.

The narration in the present story in vv.17-22 is connected with a journey. A man was approaching Jesus as he was setting out his journey. Mark apparently does not know anything about him, except that he had many possessions (v.22). Luke calls him ruler (Luke.18:18), and Matthew calls him young man (Matt.19:20), thus the popular title is given as the ‘rich young ruler’. Marcan story implies that, this man was no longer in his first youth (v.20). Mark simply described him as some one who comes to Jesus, like the leper in 1:40, kneeling with a request. The reply of Jesus helps us to delineate certain painting of Jesus being counter-cultural and his call to follow him. It is swimming against the flow. It includes the following things.

1. Turning Attention to God
The man asks Jesus the conditions by which he may enter into the inheritance of eternal life. Mark uses the singular form of the word ‘eternal life’, which functions as the key of this discourse. The address ‘good teacher’ is not customary for either Jew or Greek. Jesus’ reply in v.18 reflects the Jewish view that “God alone is good”, and in the sense God is good, no one else is good. Moreover, in the Old Testament ‘agathos’ is frequently applied to God (1 Chr. 15:34; 2 Chr. 5:13). Thus Jesus switches focus from himself to God. The culture of the day is drawing attention to oneself. But Jesus the prophet of counter culture asks us to turn our attention to God and even draw the attention of people to God, which was exactly what the Old Testament prophets did. The call for us today is to turn to God and not to self.

2. Love for people
Jesus cites from Exod.20:12-16; Deut.5:16-20 (cf.Deut.24:14) in v.19. The order of commandments quoted varies in MSS. The syntax, ‘not’ with aorist subjunctive’ by which all the commandments are introduced here indicates the command not to begin an action. One of the statutes mentioned here “do not defraud” (me apostereses), does not actually appear in the Decalogue, and it is peculiar to Mark. It is argued that this is a replacement of the commandment ‘do not covet’. However, the verb aposterew means to rob, to deprive or to defraud, and thus indicate economic exploitation. In the Greek Bible the verb is used of keeping back wages from one hired and in Classical Greek it is used of refusing to return goods or money deposited with another for safe keeping. It is interesting to note that the Marcan Jesus instructs the man to keep those commandments which concerns treatment of the neighbour.

Mark alone gives the emotion of Jesus. Though the man’s reply looks impulsive, Jesus does not condemn him; rather he gazed up on him and loved him. The contrast is thus made here between Jesus’ love for the man and the man’s love for wealth. Jesus’ love indicates that he wanted this man to be part of the kingdom of God. Consequently, it is an invitation to the wealthier class to become part of the “divine plan” by taking solidarity with the poor. This could also be seen as a Marcan Midrash on the parable of the sower. If so, this embodies those for whom ‘the love of wealth intervenes to strangle the word, rendering it fruitless’ (Mark.4:18). This is further illustrated with the statement Jesus made “you lack one thing”( v.21a) as a reply to this man’s assertion that he kept all the commandments from his youth. Jesus’ love for the people is exemplary. In a culture of accumulation, love for money surpasses everything. Jesus’ call is to become counter-cultural whereby love for people will be surpassed by all other desires of human life.

3. Sharing wealth to the poor
Jesus asks him to sell all that he has and become a disciple (v.21b). In Jesus’ invitation to discipleship, the meaning of ‘self denial’ (cf.8:34) is further made specific in economic terms. Mark uses four distinct imperatives in articulating Jesus’ call to discipleship: (i) Depart (hupage), which is usually used by Mark in healing stories (1:44; 2:11; 5:19, 34; 7:29), perhaps an invitation to the wealthier class to be healed from the disease of accumulation. (ii) Sell what you have (echeis poleson), which means to sell or offer for sale what you have, a note in contrast to the culture of accumulation. (iii) Give to the poor (dos tois ptwchos), which indicates that the cause of the poor is defended. (iv) Follow (akolouthei) which echoes the first call extended to the affluent class. Jesus demands from him concrete acts of justice.

Mark ends the narration with a note that the man was shocked, and went away grieving, because he had many possessions (v.22). The climax of the story thus gives a contrast in the narrative: his enthusiastic arrival and dismal exit. The word ‘ktemata’ could mean a possession, a piece of landed property, a farm or a field (cf.Acts.5:1) and in the plural lands or estates. Taking into consideration the vocabulary Mark employed in the story, the man’s wealth is gained by defrauding the poor and therefore he must make restitution. This is the only story where the call of Jesus is refused. The reason for the reluctance to give up is material possession. The rich man finds it difficult to part with his social status and economic security. But such a radical break is essential for following Jesus. Thus the story of the rich man is also an illustration of the kind of ‘anti-greed’ attitude every follower of Jesus must have. Freedom from attachment to things, trust in the unique goodness of God and effective concern for the poor are the constituent elements in the ‘anti-greed’ attitude, which is implicit in Jesus’ invitation of this young man. Besides defining the option for the poor and the needy, this story also tells the economy of God’s rule. As it is given in the feeding narrative (Mark.6:35-44), the economy of God’s rule replaces the consumer economy of market (send them away so that they may buy and eat) to anti-greed economy of sharing (you give them something to eat). In context where wealth is interpreted as God’s blessing and poverty as a curse from God, Jesus is being counter-cultural in promoting his campaign against the culture of accumulation.

4. Interpreting scripture with a deliberate option for the poor.
The passage in Mark.10:17-22 and the following discussions attached to it directly treats with wealth and this has been subject to hermeneutic violence. For instance, the metaphor of the needle’s eye (Mark.10:23) has been interpre-ted as the small gate in Ancient Jerusalem, through which camels can enter only on kneels. This interpretation robs the strong criticism against wealth, which seems so harsh in this pericope. Jesus categorically mentions that the cause of the poor must be defended, by citing the scriptural reference. Jesus’ interpretation is in line with the prophetic criticism of the rich and affluent in the Old Testament. Jer.5:26-28, “…They take over the goods of others…therefore they have become great and rich…and they do not defend the rights of the needy”. Ezekiel also says “…the people of the land practiced extortion and practiced robbery; they have oppressed the poor and the needy…”. (cf. Mic. 6:9-12). Thus Mark explains that failing to defend the cause of the poor and the needy make one disqualified to be a follower of Jesus. This is because the disciple missionary possesses only basic items of clothing (6:9). The call extended by Marcan Jesus to the rich to join as a disciple indicates that the preferential option for the poor does not neglect the wealthier class as such; rather the wealthier class is invited to share their resources with the poor. Jesus calls for a radical dispossession of goods (Mark.1:16-20; 10:17-23). For Jesus, as it is recorded in Mark, the Law is kept only through the concrete acts of justice, not the façade of piety. Therefore Jesus’ interpretation of the commandments according to Mark deliberately takes side with the poor in defending their cause. In a context that is overridden by extreme poverty, any mission and interpretation of the scripture must take into consideration this perennial peril that the Asian continent is struggling to grapple with. The pertinent question at this juncture is Interpretation for whom? For the affluent or for the poor and the needy. Jesus takes side with the poor in interpreting the scripture. It is not merely a preferential option but rather a deliberate option that he made.

The above discussion gives us a picture of Jesus who promotes alternative ways of thinking. Turning attention to God, love for people, sharing our resources and interpreting the scripture with a special concern for the poor and the marginalized are some of the ways that mark an alternative culture. To become prophets such a culture and its promotion is the call that is vested on all of us. In fact, it is emulating Jesus, the prophet of counter-culture.